Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,301
Oooooooh the invisible far right boogie men. Yes we should all be deeply worried indeed. I think there's one behind my shed as the garden light occasionally comes on.
Far right terror is the "fastest growing" threat to the UK
- Thread starter VincentHanna
- Start date
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
That's what happens with "Care in the community".
Poor deluded lamb, you should seek professional help IMMEDIATELY.
Oh no! That's right, "There is no such thing as Society", you should help yourself.
On the other hand...
The most terrifying words in the English language are:"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Soldato
Oh, I knew none of that. I'm filing that little lot away for future use, to be sure!
they are most definetlyleft leaning.
Soldato
I'd say they're globalist. Which corresponds with The Left currently.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,903
If by "for future use" you are going to say: "The IRA were left-wing terrorists" then that isn't honestly representing their intentions.
Nearly all of the multinational corporations (particularly media/social media) are globalist. Which side of the political spectrum does this quote fit the best?
Mussolini's ghost writer said:
Is it not fair to say that corporate America has been at war with the US government ever since their corporate darling lost the 2016 election? what about Brexit? which side of the Brexit debate are the majority of BIG businesses on?
People think that nationalist=fascist and therefore it's only on the right and if you're on the side of globalism then you can't possibly be a fascist but if you look at your average remainer standing outside parliament waving their EU flags and all of the remainer MP's trying to subvert the Democratic process to keep us in it they're basically raging EU nationalists. They've fought for 2.5 years to undo the 2016 referendum and MP's even voted to cut "no deal" government funding to cause chaos in the event of a no deal Brexit.
So called "populism" is the total opposite, populists are against corporate power at every turn it's the "progressive" left cheering on corporate censorship, banning people from services, financial attacks through payment services being removed. Corporations (particularly monopolistic internet ones) are doing everything that Russia is being accused of and more.
Man of Honour
Wow the comments on that video are... interesting. After looking up the guy i'm not surprised at the kind of people he seems to appeal to.
This thread is another prime example showing that the terms “left” and “right” so readily thrown around on this forum are not fit for purpose. But people still insist on using them, while tying themselves in knots (on both sides I’ll add).
Just because someone has some left wing views does not mean an attack they perpetrate based on far right views is not far right in itself. Far right views are generally considered to include ultra nationalism, xenophobia and racism. If someone attacks a group of immigrants because they’re immigrants it doesn’t matter if they also have socialist views, it’s considered far right extremism (their socialist views are likely to have nothing to do with the attack itself).*
As an example, here’s one definition of what constitutes right wing extremism.
https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf
The main problem with the far right is how you define a far right attack. Islamic terrorism is relatively easy - the vast majority will be openly religions and make it clear why they are attacking (shouting Allah Akbar etc). Defining far right attacks are much harder, especially differentiating between a simple racist/xenophobic attack and something with political inference.
While the anti terrorism laws that hooked Lauren Southern are draconian IMO (how many people didn’t think that when they were only catching islamists?) they are there for a reason. She may not be a terrorist, but her viewpoints and the vocal nature of them certainly empower right wing extremists to commit acts of violence or terror. They’re little different to the muslims that do the same for Islamic extremists. Many people just don’t see that because she espouses views that they agree with (even though they don’t necessarily agree with the extremists thenselves).
The reality is right wing extremism is dangerous and it is becoming more of an issue. It has been increasing over the last few years and currently around a quarter of people on the governments terror watchlist are right wing extremists, and its growing. The positive at the moment is that those extremists are generally fairly isolated, meaning the attacks they perpetrate are either poorly thought out or small in scale. What happens when they start organizing? Should governments wait until they perpetrate something on the scale of some of the larger Islamic extremist attacks before they do anything?
Some bedtime reading:
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/03/uk-far-right-terrorism-national-action/
It’s quite enlightening when reading both that link and the one above. Look at the words and phrases used, then look at some of the posts by posters on this very forum. That’s not to say the people on this forum are terrorists (or far right), but that the phrases and arguments they use can be used by some to justify and condone their violent actions. Perhaps also remember that next time a mod shuts down a thread, or deletes a post.
*As an example, is socialism anything to do with the attacks by the IRA, or ETA - or is it nationalism that the issue? They have both “right” and “left” wing viewpoints. Similarly with Islamic extremism - at its core it’s got a lot of overlap with far right extremism and nationalism (I.e. ISIS and it’s islamic state).
Just because someone has some left wing views does not mean an attack they perpetrate based on far right views is not far right in itself. Far right views are generally considered to include ultra nationalism, xenophobia and racism. If someone attacks a group of immigrants because they’re immigrants it doesn’t matter if they also have socialist views, it’s considered far right extremism (their socialist views are likely to have nothing to do with the attack itself).*
As an example, here’s one definition of what constitutes right wing extremism.
https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf
The main problem with the far right is how you define a far right attack. Islamic terrorism is relatively easy - the vast majority will be openly religions and make it clear why they are attacking (shouting Allah Akbar etc). Defining far right attacks are much harder, especially differentiating between a simple racist/xenophobic attack and something with political inference.
While the anti terrorism laws that hooked Lauren Southern are draconian IMO (how many people didn’t think that when they were only catching islamists?) they are there for a reason. She may not be a terrorist, but her viewpoints and the vocal nature of them certainly empower right wing extremists to commit acts of violence or terror. They’re little different to the muslims that do the same for Islamic extremists. Many people just don’t see that because she espouses views that they agree with (even though they don’t necessarily agree with the extremists thenselves).
The reality is right wing extremism is dangerous and it is becoming more of an issue. It has been increasing over the last few years and currently around a quarter of people on the governments terror watchlist are right wing extremists, and its growing. The positive at the moment is that those extremists are generally fairly isolated, meaning the attacks they perpetrate are either poorly thought out or small in scale. What happens when they start organizing? Should governments wait until they perpetrate something on the scale of some of the larger Islamic extremist attacks before they do anything?
Some bedtime reading:
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/03/uk-far-right-terrorism-national-action/
It’s quite enlightening when reading both that link and the one above. Look at the words and phrases used, then look at some of the posts by posters on this very forum. That’s not to say the people on this forum are terrorists (or far right), but that the phrases and arguments they use can be used by some to justify and condone their violent actions. Perhaps also remember that next time a mod shuts down a thread, or deletes a post.
*As an example, is socialism anything to do with the attacks by the IRA, or ETA - or is it nationalism that the issue? They have both “right” and “left” wing viewpoints. Similarly with Islamic extremism - at its core it’s got a lot of overlap with far right extremism and nationalism (I.e. ISIS and it’s islamic state).
It’s an interesting one. There’s no arguing that more pits were closed (with slightly more job losses) under Wilson’s tenure than Thatcher’s, and that the industry had been in decline well before Wilson.
I think the biggest reason Thatcher is held in such poor regard by ex-mining communities compared to Wilson is that she effectively ended coal mining in the UK, and it was seen (by them) as an ideological decision.
Despite more mines closing under Wilson, the total number of job losses ‘only’ accounted for about 40% of the total, whereas the losses under Thatcher were around 80% of what was left of the industry.
So she may have been unlucky in terms of timing, simply being at the helm when it was time for the curtain to fall. However, as I say, many people saw the closures as being ideological, despite the economic writing on the wall.
As far as mining closures under different political parties goes, if you look at the lifetime of the NCB, the biggest number of closures/job losses came under the consecutive Conservative governments between 1951 and 1964. Combine these with the closures under Thatcher, and the Conservatives presided over almost twice the number of pit closures, and more than double the number of mining jobs lost, compared to Labour.
Two members of The new IRA apparently.
Would be unsurprising considering the poor work, then again there's very very little stomach for violence even in "real" IRA circles, they've lost enough sons and brothers for that to ever come around.
It'll just be a bunch of yob *****.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
I wasn't there and know no miners. However, I believe that Thatcher had decided to teach the miners (and Union members in general) a lesson following the embarrassment suffered by the Tories over the three day week, her appointment of Ian MacGregor to head the NCB was significant - Arthur Scargill was a Godsend for the Grantham Gorgon.
Right wing nationalism bad. .. Left wing socialism good
Four legs bad two legs good ...
Its all so predictable....
The IRA didn't commit crimes *because* they were socialists but they were/ are still left leaning.
The only people who aren't nationalists of some sort are privelleged people who haven't yet realised that they are. The concepts of no borders international socialism are fantasy eutopian nonsence.
Trully poor people who have to scrape an existence of the land know the value of protecting what possessions, including land, they have from outsiders.
Four legs bad two legs good ...
Its all so predictable....
The IRA didn't commit crimes *because* they were socialists but they were/ are still left leaning.
The only people who aren't nationalists of some sort are privelleged people who haven't yet realised that they are. The concepts of no borders international socialism are fantasy eutopian nonsence.
Trully poor people who have to scrape an existence of the land know the value of protecting what possessions, including land, they have from outsiders.
Last edited:
While it may or may not be a good thing nationalism itself isn’t the issue. Most people are nationalistic to go some extent, but that doesn’t mean all nationalism is the same. Like everything else the extremes are the problem, hence the use of ultranationalistic.
Preferentially choosing a similar UK made product over a US made product for example - that’s nationalism at work, but it’s not exactly a problem. Claiming all non natives are sub humans/monsters/violent is also nationalism at work, but it is a problem.
Conflating the two extremes is also a problem...
Who’s saying that?
“Right” wing nationalism (attacking foreigners) bad? “Left” wing socialism (the NHS) good?
“Right” wing nationalism (preferential purchasing of a product built in your country) bad? “Left” wing socialism (Fidel Castro) good?
It’s nice to pigeon hole but it doesn’t help anyone, hence the first paragraph in the previous post.
Left/right, socialism/capitalism aren’t inherently good or bad, it’s the extremes that are usually inherently bad. You’re no better than the ones you rail against in this regard IMO.
You’re not far right because you’re slightly nationalistic. You’re far right because you’re pushing significantly negative gross generalization about nationalities and foreigners/advocating violence against them. There’s a big difference between them.
Regarding the IRA, they’re a nationalistic/separatist terrorist group. Whether they are fiscally left or right leaning has nothing to do with it. Nationalism however is generally considered a right wing trait. Whether that means they’re a far right group is another debate however.
Even though i support the SNP for the goal's that I wish to achieve (at which point i will drop them like a stone), i don't care for the "nationalist" part as it's inherently toxic and grossly irrelevant as we move forward, nationalism can easily kill a country if there's no other enemy state (as we've seen multiple times as Britain the "state" is pretty much rotten to the core at this point because of it).
That’s a little different again though. It’s nationalism that’s being used as a political tool, basically a weapon, not that dissimilar to Sinn Fein and the IRA. I’d agree, that is basically toxic, but that doesn’t mean all nationalistic tendencies are toxic, any more than they are extreme.
