The abuse of the word ‘far’

‘Far’. When the narrative’s framed by propagandists, e.g. by Common Purpose and all the other arms of the current hegemony, ‘far’ almost always comes into it, flung like dung at whoever disagrees with the ‘Narrative’, applied to those who are actively pursuing an agenda, e.g. Agenda 21, Codex Alimentarius etc.

It’s constant propaganda in schools, within govt., in entertainment, at university – it’s everywhere, pushed by the brainwashed legions.  It’s always been, it was just that the agenda and narratives were different immediately post-war, we were aligned with them, now we are the enemy in the eyes of this Antifa guff further down the page.

In order to address the question of ‘far’ and where I am on the scale, included is an excerpt from my own ‘about’ section which, incidentally, needs updating:


Again, how does one define ‘far’?

To me, ‘far’ is applied to fanatics who will use any means, including violence, to actively push a narrative very few want … people such as this Australian version of Marr on TV and of all the things I could dismiss him on, the most egregious to me is how he disrespected his host who’d allowed him into his home and no doubt supplied drinks and nibbles.  The entire way through, this ‘Marr character’ constantly framed what Martin was saying, translated it into left-speak, instead of once trying to understand that there was nothing ‘far’ whatever in Selner’s tactics.

They draped a statue in Sharia dress – they did not attack the statue, did not pull it down, did not deface it, did not beat up anyone who protested – they did none of that.

Martin mentioned to the journo about info wars, which is precisely what we are all engaged in right now, even in this post and the interviewer just had to reframe it for his  audience back home – a bit like C4’s Newman interpreting what Jordan Peterson said in that infamous interview.

It matters not that Peterson’s star has now fallen, point is that in that interview, she was well out of order in terms of the rules of debate.  Strawmen abounded.

Just a few of the comments below the youtube:

#  What exactly makes him far right? Patriotism? What exactly makes him a hipster? Because he wears glasses?

#  Notice how the narrating journalist is saying things that are different from what the people he interviews are saying. This is called ‘framing’.

#  “Why are anti-immigrant views spreading through Europe?” Because people don’t like seeing their countries, heritages, histories and people destroyed.

I’d wager that most people are perfectly happy to welcome guests from afar, expecting respect and decent behaviour from the guest, not to be murdered as that woman recently was who’d taken a ‘refugee’ into her home. It’s all about the behaviour.  That is, in no way, shape or form, ‘far’.

#  I love the comments. Good to see this hit piece fall flat. Thanks SBS for providing the free publicity!

#  I’m fed up of the right being demonised by the media, I completely agree with this identitarian movement and see nothing shocking in it, loving your culture and nation is just normal and healthy.

But enough of justifying ourselves – why the hell should we have to justify what we have grown up as?  Instead, we have every right to be angry, furious with these dishonest people who are goading, goading, goading.

And why are they?  Let’s move onto this parroting of the narrative below – it explains much:

All right, I’m not even going to comment on the content above.  Those are the people being used by the real enemy and what good little monsters they are, at no time seeing themselves as pitiless, inhuman monsters.  Not once.