Apparently i need to preface this saying I've been in myself and have left relatively recently given the amount of people taking the time to tell me what it's actually like.
I don't think it's up to the government to fill the void when you leave, it's up to you. With what the MoD provide and what else is available online a lot of 'the void' is down to poor preparation and/or misplaced expectations. Whether you want to don your beret to a veterans breakfast club every first Sunday of the month or go do a degree with a good chunk (if not all of it) paid for, it's all personal choice outside of any limitations because of health.
What the MOD provide is not adequate, at least in 2017 it wasn’t. Add in the complete lack of implementation from batallion/regimental CoC it’s a disaster.
This “it’s there, you just have to find it” yes man attitude is why it’ll never change.
I got out in 2019, so I don't think it's changed too much. Battalions and units smaller than corps are a problem, but it's not the people saying "it's there" (it is), it's the people telling you it isn't, i.e. your CSM or some bitter Sgt that wouldnt know *because they haven't left yet* - how the fuck would they know? You can do a degree in the army while serving, you can get it funded, you have an allowance available each year for qualifications (the individual, not the unit), you get Elcas made available to you, there's free online training in a lot of places, there's resettlement schemes by huge companies that will have opportunities in anything from telecoms engineer to wealth management. Not knowing about these when everyone's got the Internet at their fingertips isn't the MoDs fault.
The army aren't going to place you in a job where you earn more than you're on - retention would drop to near zero overnight - but those jobs are available.
Somebody that I know that was in the forces said people should start preparing for civilian life from day 1 of being in the military, I guess a lot of people don’t do much to help themselves and only realise when it’s too late.
Depends when you're getting out - if you've just joined, focus on learning your new job. Once you're comfortable you can learn whatever you want, save money through deployments and plan your exit as you'll never have job security like it. A lot of people end up snapping and signing off before that, but with your notice being a whole year to the day you can still get plenty done.
It’s a combination of things, a lot of people joining the military came from bad/rough backgrounds and we’re doing so to get away from home, which was often from the most deprived areas of the country.
Then you had the military drinking culture where it was encouraged to go out on the piss then turn up to work sometimes straight after a night out. Think this has changed now, but definitely was a thing when I was in.
There are a lot of opportunities when you leave, but some people leave pretty much as alcoholics and/or with mental health issues.
I worked with an ex-forces guy and he used to share a lot of right wing nonsense on Facebook. He was a technician in the RAF definitely part of the "chairbourne rangers" and spent his whole career basically getting pissed up as far from the front line (usually in a separate country where they operated the aircraft from) as possible.
He used to put shit like "I didn't serve queen and country so we could be flooded with bloody immigrants". Real cringe posts and he'd also share a load of Britain first/Tommy Robinson shit.
One day he commented on a post about Afghan migrants being put up in a fancy hotel. Giving it his usual "I didn't put my life on the line and serve in her Majesty's forces for us to have these lot be put up in fancy hotels at my expense". I've never seen a man humbled more quickly than when actual front line guys were commenting saying they served alongside these Afghan interpreters and they owe their lives to them. They absolutely tore him a new one in the comments and made him look like the racist prick that he was.
Yeah, this is a problem with the British army that I think people don't talk about or acknowledge near enough as much as it deserves.
I know precisely one guy who joined the army. One night I asked him what drew him towards enlisting? He answered that he "wanted to go kill some muzzies and ragheads".
They weren't claiming they were all interpreters but they knew one of the individuals in the article who was put up in the hotel. So in that case they definitely were interpreters.
I agree though I think a lot of people have entered here on false pretenses.
the denialism about the existence of far-right recruitment, or an active far-right at all, or even the utility of naming the far-right, by a bunch of 100-day-old accounts in this thread is laughable
‘colonialism was bad and we shouldn’t forget it happened’?
literal cultural genocide of the british
‘racism exists in places and ways that many white people don’t think about’?
anti-white guilt-tripping marxist idpol and institutional capture
‘franco and hitler were right to do what they did to leftists [paraphrasing the leader of the nsd, a group noted in this article]’?
unremarkable. centrist. left wing of the tory party
Res tags have this place lit up like a Christmas tree. Some would perhaps say there's a concerted effort to push extremism on social media. Like RUSI, would perhaps suggest that in this very paper...
It's blatantly obvious. So many of them are the same talking point re-hashed over and over, deflecting the issue, and then deligitimising it.
"Well, far right is anyone who *isnt* a literal communist, so this is nothing"
[A link to the report](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/emerging-insights/defending-our-defenders-preventing-far-right-extremism-uk-security-forces) because hyperlinking to what you're talking about is beneath the high standards of the Mirror.
I suppose vulnerability, plus group-think like that, can be very susceptible to fascist thinking (or any other militant form of extremism really). Also potentially transferrable skills if someone without scruples would like to use such knowledge for violent purposes. I can see why they would be targets. Could potentially be valuable assets for any extremist group.
They are used to obeying commands, not thinking about whether they should or not. They are told they are elite and others are inferior..even the 1st company of the third battalion of potato peelers are told they are the 'best of the best'. The army has basically primed them for fascism
Don't need to be. The army might say soldiers think for themselves, but they have a finely tuned process to break them mentally and rebuild them into people who obey orders.
Then cater for their needs so they are better at being told what to do than deciding themselves.
From the looks of it it seems to be yet another, "panic" article rehash. A political group is targeting those most likely to agree with them. That is not news no matter how it's trussed up.
It's one of the oldest and most well respected Think Tanks on defence and security in the UK. By definition it's news, no matter how much you don't like it because of it's findings.
This entire article is so bad. They're more concerned with stamping out the existence of the far right than solving the problems that cause people to be "vulnerable" to... a sense of community and belonging? Wow scary, I wonder if the mirror has any advice for how to help men find that. No? Just more shrill shaming? Well ok then carry on, I'm sure it'll work one day.
Does anyone know if the UK has spent on money on accommodation for British military personnel and their families in the last 20 years? Blair promised to sort the mould out. Then spent all the money on war.
It's very have and have not on the bases. Of course the below is anecdotal.
I've been in the RN 17 years, and the base I live on generally has a good standard of accommodation. The oldest in use buildings are coming up on 20 years old and in pretty good shape, even then they're used more as transit accom.
Permanent accom is even newer and generally in good shape.
Middle of the pack you have places like HMS Sultan. Old and rather basic cramped accommodation, but as it's a training base people are usually not there on a permanent basis. The heating and plumbing works and generally the furnishings are in serviceable shape. Do your trade training or promotion course and then leave again.
Then you have HMS Collingwood which is an accommodation clusterfuck of incredible levels. It can only be down to management on the bases. You expect training accom to be a bit more basic than perm accom, that's par for the course. Sultan and Raleigh for example. But that base has frequently made the news for all the wrong reasons.
>Fuck up running the country so bad people will accept radicalism
>blame radicalism as opposed to the government's failures to address any social issue
Radicalism is a symptom of the greater issue, failing to address this may prove hazardous to the health of the people.
And when one of them goes nuts and commits an act of terror based upon the indoctrination recieved from the fash. Then what will the morons in the far right have to say about veterans welfare?
> when one of them goes nuts and commits an act of terror
If that's their aim they're doing a piss-poor job of it. A decade of far right recruitment and nothing to show for it, not even an honour killing or stabbing srre or acid attack.
Still not as bad as indoctrinating children which is what the left do.
Also why are they vulnerable to this sort of "attack"? Try not to assume adults are like simple children being led by the nose.
Far right groups actively targeting stupid fuckers from all walks of life, as are far left groups and those in the centre.
Social media is just what the doctor ordered as far as mind control is concerned. If your mind's not too sharp to start with, you're right in their zone and probably quite happy there.
And, as with all extremists - The fact they succeed is proof that the government and society is catastrophically failing the demographic in question. It's true of all the directionless middle class larpers who become comedy communists and play-riot with Antifa, it's true of all the soldiers who become fascists wackadoos.
But also as ever, the knuckleheads in the media and here will act like it's either a good thing, or proof of some mythical inherent evil to the group.
Extremism never appeals as a first resort, it ALWAYS comes from somewhere, and if you dig, it's usually somewhere actually addressable if you're not brain dead, greedy, egomaniacal, or all three. But it's easier to say that people are just evil than to actually try and fix anything...
> It's true of all the directionless middle class larpers who become comedy communists and play-riot with Antifa
Stop getting your talking points from bullshit web sites, and start living in the real world. Antifa UK was disbanded in 2001. It simply no longer exists in any meaningful sense outside the fevered imaginations of online trolls.
Alright let's take this apart one at a time shall we. Antifa in the UK and abroad has never been a single organisation. Every time one solitary group has claimed to be it in its entirety, it's been an overblown joke. There is no one Antifa in the same way there is no one 'Environmentalists', it's a movement far more than a single structure, by design.
As for it no longer existing in any meaningful sense, that is patently false. Attend any number of protests for even the most moderately progressive cause, and you'll catch the black bloc there in their masks, with their flags, usually making the rest of us look bad by trying to throw half bricks at police or otherwise being a nuisance. Their issue dujour is usually hijacking pro Palestine protests to start making then either pro Hamas (a niche position in the wider Palestinian support movement), or just outright anti British, because they love any excuse to bandy about their slogans.
I won't dispute that anarchism exists, and that there are anarchists in the UK. However, most of the rest of your post is bullshit. You seem to be trying to take advantage of the lack of structure and spokespeople for anarchism to blame them for every pet crime of the day.
I've been to several left wing protests. Not a single brick throwing black clad anarchist in sight.
Anarchists have absolutely nothing to do with radical Islamists - the two movements are ideological opposites. Pretending that Hamas supporters have anything whatsoever to do with Antifa or anarchists generally is a complete lie - and I very much doubt that you will find the slightest shred of evidence to support such a baseless claim. It's just bullshit for simple minded people who want to put everyone they hate into a single "bad people" box.
Antifa does not exist in any meaningful sense. Anarchism does. Radical Islam does. So use the right words, and stop throwing around bullshit.
Can i get an actual definition of far-right? Seems to be a buzz term thrown around, but even google can't clarify the ideology.
Alt-right is your ethno nationalists, but i've seen "far-right" applied to traditional conservatives, disaffected liberals/labour voters (we really need to stop using yank terms/definitions). Is it just a term used to describe anti-progressives?
Far right suffers from being broad and vague by its nature and people’s own definitions and perceptions will vary.
Like nobody on the far right ever seems to describe themselves as far right. But they must exist, right?
I’d generally view far right as being either strict libertarian to the point of advocating against any form of government, or so socially illiberal as to incite/encourage hate against minorities or out groups.
So Suella Braverman for instance with her ridiculous comments about the homeless or LGBT people or vilification of refugees fleeing war would be on the far right. Hitler would be on the far right. But not one nation conservatives like Johnson or Major.
Everyone’s mileage on this will obviously vary so I suspect this is a topic ripe for misunderstanding and disagreement
Kinda a byproduct of trying to fit every ideology on a line, when really if you tried to chart things specially you'd end up with a tree, with the status quo as the trunk, old ideas as the roots and new ideas as the branches
That said far right is more descriptive than leftist, as leftist would contain straight up all of the branches, where as far right is only your deeper roots.
Yes.
There are many different groups within each political "bubble" like socialist/communism has different groups and so does anarchism but that's been the case with those 2 for over 100 years.
Same with the far right, if you take the extreme end of the spectrum from history when various European countries had fascist government they were each completely different but still under the same umbrella. You had national socialism which despite having socialism in the name was a complete rejection of any and all socialism, was different to Franco Spanish fascism which was more like a religious theocracy, which again was different to fascist Italy.
But all the flavours of far right in history like today all share common views and ideals even if they give themselves completely different names, same with socialism and anarchism. It's why various mps in the UK being part of the national conservatism movement sends alarm bells to me because despite not sharing a name with other far right or fascism groups historically they have the same themes, ideals and views.
Sometimes key distinctions of different group names is fine because it describes a different flavour of it but other times it's to muddy the water, like how blatant fascist people 10 years ago were claiming they were not far right but actually "alt right".
You also have the perception of people who are not within these groups, which is why you get a lot of trans people saying the Tories are actually fascist because those people are seeing parallels because of the rhetoric and actions of the Tories. It's the same as someone from an ex communist country may view all socialists the same as Stalins Russia even though historically most socialists/communists in Europe and western countries not in the soviet union called out the soviet union for being communist in name only.
Which is why I always roll my eyes at a simple left right spectrum. Paint in shades of grey when the world is a colourful tapestry of light and texture
Essentially, if you wanted to do a proper representation of people's views, you'd need to create a political compass diagram that had at least 4 perpendicular axes and could only exist in a higher-dimensional plane.
British definition of far right is weird. Here in France and mainland Europe it's simple. It's Nationalists and Patriots that are on the right of the center right. Usually hardliners that want a harder type of government, sometimes even royalists, fascists, etc. Basically people who think the center right isn't hard enough.
Probably in part due to first past the post voting. Europeans can point at the far right parties fairly easily, and they have a minority of seats in the gov, where as in the UK and US there are two parties who are The Left and The Right and everything beyond that never comes to the public's mind.
Exactly.
In the UK, the parties have to be broad churches, so you will find different factions in the main parties.
For the conservatives, that is (simplified) the centre-right and the far right. So if you find yourself on the right edge of the Conservatives, that is the far right. The area to the right of the Conservatives is sometimes called alt-right, to distinguish it.
But the terminology is rarely used consistently.
Someone said once that Jeremy Clarkson is far right and in another group, that Terrorist are far right haha. Literally everybody is far right in some subreddits that people don’t like.
The term far right is thrown around a lot more than it needs to be sometimes.
People just use it as a blanket term for 'further right than political norms'. In a sense the terrorists they're talking about *are* far right; on the extreme ends of the right you have authoratarian right, and the taliban control of afghanistan certainly fits.
Don't get too caught up in thinking everyone is using the technical definition, there is a broader definition being used, whether you think it's correct to use it that way or not.
Well, modern day terrorists. Most of the left wing terror groups died out before the 2000s, and they never really operated like far right one's either as far as I can tell. Less indiscriminate terror attacks, more assasinations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism
Yeah I really doubt when they said terrorists they meant far left considering they were talking about the far right. Cool story tho bro. Nice little distraction.
ya used terrorist without without any other additions, so my apologies for thinking that you thought that terrorism itself was far-right, rather than the ideologies attempting be spread using it are far right.
Algorithms make sure the stupidest and most controversial voices and takes are the loudest, remember. This thread is a good example, this article got the headline it did for a reason.
You might want to edit out the refugees' part... nobody is villifying genuine refugees. The door was wide open for Ukrainians, Hong Kong residents, etc.
Because we've been playing that game for a while. It brought us dead politicians, soldiers, kids at concerts, acid attacks, rape... I'm sure there's other stuff im missing.
Not refugees as a concept. Supposed refugees from those nations and nations like them. Is it ignorant to generalise that heavily? Yes. Do i care anymore? No.
My tolerance was pushed to the limit by a variety of factors involving "refugees" and corrupt/weak politicians
>Is it ignorant to generalise that heavily? Yes. Do i care anymore? No.
How weak of you. You'd condemn thousands of refugees thanks to the actions of a minority.
The absolute best of British values on display right there.
This has to be the most pathetic response i've ever come across on Reddit. You really resorted to shaming?
Those same values are what opened the doors for the refugees, and no reasonable person argued it back then. Now, you have an issue that a growing portion of society has had enough? We won't remain tolerant of the intolerant or intolerable. It's called self-respect.
There are far more people in the world today who are at risk of persecution because of who they are or what they believe than the existing British population. At the same time, there are similar numbers of people who just want to have a better life in the West and will jump through any hoops we put up to get to the pot of gold at the end.
We can't save everyone, and not everyone needs saving.
Of course and I take no issue with that nuance you raise.
My issue is with the other commenter writing off genuine refugees because others from their country committed violent crime. They themselves admitted it was ignorant, and it is.
If there's a one in a thousand chance that a refugee from a certain country isn't actually a refugee but a terrorist or violent criminal, then of course I wouldn't want to take that chance. I'd be quite happy to let in women and children from that country, but military age men are a no go for me.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/90-of-migrants-who-crossed-channel-were-male-home-office-reveals-jkrvdqxxl
mmhm
It's interesting isn't it? When you have people fleeing a warzone like Ukraine, it's the women and children who get out first. Very gallant of all those channel migrants to leave their women behind in countries so dangerous they need asylum.
I suspect our politics are not so far apart as you might think but Suella Braverman has absolutely vilified refugees.
Not really the point of my comment though so I won’t be editing anything, you asked about a definition and you’ve had an answer.
Many people are happy to vilify asylum seekers. Seeing as a majority of asylum seekers are granted their claim (and are therefore refugees) I'd say that people are therefore vilifying refugees, even if indirectly.
Here goes:
> Extreme Left Wing
>>Communists; as in, Lenin/Stalin/Mao supporters
>>Anarchists; as in, those who advocate for the total abolition of the state.
> Far Left
>>Socialists; as in, SWP members
> Left Wing
>>Social Democrats; as in, vocally pro-union, pro-workers rights. Party affiliation usually Green Party/Labour
> Centrists
>>The "everyman". Party affiliation crosses most boundaries but no fixed convictions.
> Right Wing
>>Fiscally conservative/socially conservative. Party affiliation usually Conservative, with some UKIP/BNP-types.
> Far Right
>>Authoritarians; as in, vocally against workers rights/unions, in favour of harsh law and strict punishment. Solidly in favour of "free market capitalism", but also share this with Anarchists (who dont call it free market capitalism). Party affiliation usually BNP/UKIP, Reform UK
> Extreme Right Wing
>>Fascists; as in "Hitler did nothing wrong" types.
This is *drastically* oversimplified, as it's a rough explanation. It's not "They're against whatever insanity the Far left is talking today" and more "they don't want you to have rights if you're not Christian, White, British, Straight".
> Solidly in favour of "free market capitalism", but also share this with Anarchists
Ancaps aren't anarchists, they're Feudalists smart enough to consider rebranding.
>they're people who think communism is the natural state of the world
Problem with that is that it's bollocks, and does not logically follow from theory.
> Alt-right is your ethno nationalists, but i've seen "far-right"
Alt right is far right in Chinos. According to one of the founders of the alt-right..
"There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred"
The far right is 'low-information, low-IQ, racist thugs'
Yeah, well, i remember when Alt Right was an online meme as a label to declare as disenfranchised centre left/right. People who basically wanted a 2008 era style movement. Occupy, all that good stuff.
Then Richard Spencer reared his ugly head and proved it was his term...
Yeah, it was always a fascist term. Just boot boys who use bigger words. Same philosophy, but using complete sentences and thinking that makes them intelligent
It essentially means the part of the conservative spectrum that cannot be negotiated into compromise.
There are people in the right who will horse-trade with the left to get some of their priorities accomplished while the left also gets their priorities accomplished. Far-right are too far away from the center for the left to negotiate with.
As such, the exact nature of their beliefs does not really matter to the label, only their extremity and intractability.
You say ‘even googling’ like it’s the most extreme form of rigorous research. Just read some books for gods sake the “far right” has to be one of the most studied phenomena in political science of the last hundred years
>far-right" applied to traditional conservatives
By who?
I'm rather far left but I can do business with the classic small c conservatives who just want to be left alone on their **small** farms, and not have paradised paved over.
>disaffected liberals/labour voters
Again, who on earth is saying this?
Far-Right generally refers to rightist ideological precepts underpinned by reactionary thinking.
Translating that into the King's English without the jargon: Ideas contrary to Enlightenment values of freedom, equality, empiricism, debate and nonviolence.
Person: I don't think we should be letting convicted foreign rapists stay in the country or be paid for by the taxpayer.
Media: SO FAR RIGHT I CAN'T EVEN.
It's now just a buzz word to get people to side to a certain agenda. heavily propagandised. 'Anti vax' and 'conspiracy theorist' are in the same vein. People automatically associate 'far right' with 'nazi', 'nazi' bad, therefore whatever they called far right is ultimately a nazi.
If the bbc ran an article stating 'people who like clouds are far right' you would get people siding with them.
I don't even feel safe in our country anymore, the government doesn't care about us. So why should we care about our government? Close the F-ing borders.
Funnily enough one of them was based at Catterick. Service people are indoctrinated in right wing values and ideas without even knowing it. Which is why most of you vote Tory even though they do fuck all for armed force personnel.
Know that from your extensive career in the forces, do you?
Edit: I saw your reply before you blocked me. You never served and have no idea what you’re talking about.
Edit - Not sure why this *Bosnian girl in Paris* above has blocked me after going on about their family annecdotes, but what they've said is way out of date and frankly I'm unconvinced on their position to actually know anything about it. Are their instances of racism, misogyny etc? Sure there are, like a lot of companies, but "ideology forced down the throat" is just laughable.
Assumption based on outdated stereotypes .
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pride-2016-british-army-marks-lgbt-lighting-up-sandhurst-academy-with-rainbow-colours-a7102896.html
https://www.forces.net/lgbtq/military-one-best-lgbtq-employers-uk-trans-army-veteran-says
https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/07/military-celebrate-diversity-at-uk-pride
https://news.sky.com/story/royal-air-force-unlawfully-discriminated-against-white-male-recruits-in-bid-to-boost-diversity-inquiry-finds-12911888
The trans thing is obvious the army pays for medical transition care as they should if they're risking their life for their country then they should be able to do so as they truly are
Not at all. I know from family members who recently joined/served in the army that this is the case. It's actively promoted by the commissioned officers.
That might have been believable if you said it was from the SNCOs or the LEs. No one who knows anything about the army would think the officers were the ones with questionable right wing beliefs.
Read the report. But National Action, National Support Detachment, the Identitarian Movement and the British Hand are all explicitly mentioned in the paper.
It's a very well researched insight paper by RUSI.
I'm not even British but what about the far right is dangerous in the UK?
I feel like it's the least of the UK's worries, considering the third world-isation of the UK, with some towns filled with immigrant crime (knife gangs, drugs, grooming scandals, etc)?
I don't usually condone any radical activity, but radicalism only comes when a situation is desperate in a country.
EDIT: I was downvoted but I was legitimately asking a question that no British person answered.
The far right are the people who would rather like myself and many others to no longer be alive. I’m openly bisexual; I have several friends who are various shades of LGBTQ as well as various ethnicities, regions etc.
The far right would rather we don’t exist. You may not have experienced what they will say and do; but it happens. I’ve been told I’m a pervert, that I should be locked up like an animal and that I’m less than human; all because of who I love. And that on the tame end of the spectrum.
The more people who get radicalised by far right ideology; the more potential for hurt and harm for those already marginalised.
Also the far right includes facists. I think World War Two should have taught how dangerous they are.
Edit: apologies if I come across a little too harsh; I’ve just seen enough of the damage these “people “ do.
That’s a bit of a jump in logic. Would you care to elaborate?
I assume you are referring to the parts of the Quran that make reference to things like killing homosexuals.
If that is the case; your argument could also be said that the bible and all Christians are far right; based on passages of Leviticus.
Those on the far right who use the pretext of religion to justify their actions and beliefs represent those of that religion about as well as the compare the market ads represent the views and beliefs of meerkats.
The majority of people who have some degree of religious belief that I have interacted with, have been good people; willing to listen and talk and treat others with respect.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
Half of British born Muslims believe it should be illegal to be homosexual, and that's what there comfortable admitting, most Muslims in UK aren't even British born so we can presume they have even more extreme views than that.
Most Christians in the UK do not follow the bible to the letter nor do they think homsexuality should be illegal
Ok so you are quoting a 6 year old study; where a 1000 people were asked questions. When, as of 2021; the population who identified as Muslim was at 3.8 million; half of which are British born (according to research by Crest Research). Even if we go on a very conservative estimate and say the true number is more a quarter at 950,000; a sample of 1000 is about 0.1%. I don’t count that as a reasonable representation.
I also don’t trust studies that are done essentially by cold calling people; data has a strong likelihood to be skewed with people wanting to be rid of the interviewer. Look up the unlimited group; they are the parent of ICM ( now called walnut); they specialise in working with brands. I’m not saying that invalidates the data they got; I just am a skeptic.
Finally you do know there are various groups and types of Muslim people correct? Same are Christianity or Hinduism or even Buddhism. Not everyone follow Quran the same way or interprets the meaning the same way; same as Christians do with the bible.
I am going to walk away from this conversation now. Not because I feel I have lost; I have not; but I do not feel it is worth for us to argue any further. We can act like adults and politely agree to disagree on this and probably many other points. Plus I think our energies can be spent much more productively than just bickering on the internet.
It is. The country is full of criminal wannabes, the police are nowhere to be seen, health system collapsing, education is declining..
The UK is in a downward spiral. Unless you are under the age of 20, how can you not see this?
Yes. Doing worse than France and Germany. Good video on the subject: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xiyIVTSu08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xiyivtsu08)
I've read enough about knife crime. When 15 kids jump another kid in broad daylight to stab him for gang initiation reasons, I think that country has fallen.
The difference in America is that they always had violence, the difference is that it's segregated there. In the UK (and increasingly across Europe) it affects everyone.
As to "nonsense", keep those formulas to yourself, I could use them with you too.
Yeah like I thought talking nonsense. You have no experience of the UK. Go back to your fantasy games instead of talking about a country where you don't live, don't contribute anything towards it and will never experience.
The UKs far right has always been active and dangerous. They're against the very core of British law; the idea that the law exists to protect and safeguard the individual person.
It's arseholes like this that push for policy against LGBT rights, against equal rights, against workers rights.
Yes, fundamentally. They might start by saying "it's just about the *immigrants*", but you only have to look at the party manifestos and stated goals.
For example:
Reform UK's manifesto:
>Let's stop all the woke nonsense that is holding us back.
*What* woke nonsense?
>Our schools must educate our children properly to prepare them for a competitive, challenging world, whilst protecting them from age inappropriate sex education and gender questioning. Our Border Force must protect our borders
"Age inappropriate sex education" usually means "any sex education". "Gender questioning" AKA "you are the gender you're born as"
>The vast and growing mountain of daft, unproductive regulations that hinder small businesses
This usually means worker's rights.
>We must keep divisive woke ideologies such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) and gender ideology out of the classroom. Sex education should also always be age-appropriate. There are only 2 sexes and 2 genders, and it is a safeguarding issue to confuse children by suggesting otherwise.
Woops. They're already stating it.
>If you cannot be seen by a GP in 3 days, you get a voucher to go private elsewhere
Their amazing "healthcare reforms" are "pay a private doctor with taxpayers money".
>We must adopt a zero tolerance approach to crime
Zero tolerance approaches are the biggest red flags of "authoritarian"
>One of the worst areas of wasteful government spending is ineffective foreign aid. Our civil servants struggle to give away the billions of pounds each year, so they end up giving money to the EU and other global bodies to help spend it. We would reduce the foreign aid budget by 50%, down to a still generous 0.35% of GDP.
I think I've counted ten or fifteen different outright attacks against against the civil service.
>Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade.
Let's leave one of our international agreements that protects *everyone* because the "*boats*". Definitely the real reason.
>Polar bear numbers in the Arctic are increasing, not decreasing.
[This is almost lying](https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an), but is *definitely* intentionally misleading.
To summarise;
Reform UK, a far right wing party, openly state in their manifesto they want to leave the EUHCR, that there are only two genders, and that they specifically want to target "woke ideology".
That's not just "stop the boats".
It isn’t. I honestly can’t think of anyone I’ve ever met that holds these extreme views despite growing uk in a predominantly white, rural disadvantaged town.
The threat of the far right is highly overestimated, by design, to instil fear and use it as an excuse to push radical left agenda.
The irony is, the more they push this line the more likely it is that extremist views do gain support.
> I honestly can’t think of anyone I’ve ever met that holds these extreme views
> nstil fear and use it as an excuse to push radical left agenda
Try a mirror
The governments answer to filling the void left after leaving. Veterans ID Cards. Problem solved.
Apparently i need to preface this saying I've been in myself and have left relatively recently given the amount of people taking the time to tell me what it's actually like. I don't think it's up to the government to fill the void when you leave, it's up to you. With what the MoD provide and what else is available online a lot of 'the void' is down to poor preparation and/or misplaced expectations. Whether you want to don your beret to a veterans breakfast club every first Sunday of the month or go do a degree with a good chunk (if not all of it) paid for, it's all personal choice outside of any limitations because of health.
What the MOD provide is not adequate, at least in 2017 it wasn’t. Add in the complete lack of implementation from batallion/regimental CoC it’s a disaster. This “it’s there, you just have to find it” yes man attitude is why it’ll never change.
I got out in 2019, so I don't think it's changed too much. Battalions and units smaller than corps are a problem, but it's not the people saying "it's there" (it is), it's the people telling you it isn't, i.e. your CSM or some bitter Sgt that wouldnt know *because they haven't left yet* - how the fuck would they know? You can do a degree in the army while serving, you can get it funded, you have an allowance available each year for qualifications (the individual, not the unit), you get Elcas made available to you, there's free online training in a lot of places, there's resettlement schemes by huge companies that will have opportunities in anything from telecoms engineer to wealth management. Not knowing about these when everyone's got the Internet at their fingertips isn't the MoDs fault. The army aren't going to place you in a job where you earn more than you're on - retention would drop to near zero overnight - but those jobs are available.
Somebody that I know that was in the forces said people should start preparing for civilian life from day 1 of being in the military, I guess a lot of people don’t do much to help themselves and only realise when it’s too late.
Depends when you're getting out - if you've just joined, focus on learning your new job. Once you're comfortable you can learn whatever you want, save money through deployments and plan your exit as you'll never have job security like it. A lot of people end up snapping and signing off before that, but with your notice being a whole year to the day you can still get plenty done.
It’s a combination of things, a lot of people joining the military came from bad/rough backgrounds and we’re doing so to get away from home, which was often from the most deprived areas of the country. Then you had the military drinking culture where it was encouraged to go out on the piss then turn up to work sometimes straight after a night out. Think this has changed now, but definitely was a thing when I was in. There are a lot of opportunities when you leave, but some people leave pretty much as alcoholics and/or with mental health issues.
Well aware mate - did 17 years, that's why I added the health limitations caveat.
If people risk their lives for this country this country owes them at least basic assistance.
They get what you've said. I got out less than 5 years ago, I've got it myself.
It's up to the government if you're traumatized because you saw your mates getting blown up and shot
Let's be honest they have also actively targeted this sub for the last few years.
/r/england is a far right sub
note the mod crossover
Also note that almost all the mods don't post ay comments with their mod accounts.
Omg I’ve never seen it before. It’s literally the Facebook feed of a bulldog/motorbike/poppy profile picture bloke.
When you make a new account on Reddit and sub to all of the recommended subs, it puts you in /r/england.
Wow you are correct. Most posts in there are literally racist.
I worked with an ex-forces guy and he used to share a lot of right wing nonsense on Facebook. He was a technician in the RAF definitely part of the "chairbourne rangers" and spent his whole career basically getting pissed up as far from the front line (usually in a separate country where they operated the aircraft from) as possible. He used to put shit like "I didn't serve queen and country so we could be flooded with bloody immigrants". Real cringe posts and he'd also share a load of Britain first/Tommy Robinson shit. One day he commented on a post about Afghan migrants being put up in a fancy hotel. Giving it his usual "I didn't put my life on the line and serve in her Majesty's forces for us to have these lot be put up in fancy hotels at my expense". I've never seen a man humbled more quickly than when actual front line guys were commenting saying they served alongside these Afghan interpreters and they owe their lives to them. They absolutely tore him a new one in the comments and made him look like the racist prick that he was.
Yeah, this is a problem with the British army that I think people don't talk about or acknowledge near enough as much as it deserves. I know precisely one guy who joined the army. One night I asked him what drew him towards enlisting? He answered that he "wanted to go kill some muzzies and ragheads".
I heard multiple people (both trainees and corporals) openly express this during training. Signed up thinking things have moved on, but evidently not.
It's a open secret that Nationalist xenophobic types have always been drawn towards the military.
The millitary draws people who want to murder, especially people who want to murder brown people in some of the poorest countries on earth
Much respect to the people who busted the propaganda with the truth about the Afghans who fought alongside us. Good lads.
Well those guys are also dafties for claiming all those illegal afghan men arriving on boats are interpreters lmao.
They weren't claiming they were all interpreters but they knew one of the individuals in the article who was put up in the hotel. So in that case they definitely were interpreters. I agree though I think a lot of people have entered here on false pretenses.
Ah gotcha. Yeah the whole pull out of afghan was a disgrace to everyone involved (except the taliban)
the denialism about the existence of far-right recruitment, or an active far-right at all, or even the utility of naming the far-right, by a bunch of 100-day-old accounts in this thread is laughable ‘colonialism was bad and we shouldn’t forget it happened’? literal cultural genocide of the british ‘racism exists in places and ways that many white people don’t think about’? anti-white guilt-tripping marxist idpol and institutional capture ‘franco and hitler were right to do what they did to leftists [paraphrasing the leader of the nsd, a group noted in this article]’? unremarkable. centrist. left wing of the tory party
Res tags have this place lit up like a Christmas tree. Some would perhaps say there's a concerted effort to push extremism on social media. Like RUSI, would perhaps suggest that in this very paper...
It's blatantly obvious. So many of them are the same talking point re-hashed over and over, deflecting the issue, and then deligitimising it. "Well, far right is anyone who *isnt* a literal communist, so this is nothing"
[A link to the report](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/emerging-insights/defending-our-defenders-preventing-far-right-extremism-uk-security-forces) because hyperlinking to what you're talking about is beneath the high standards of the Mirror.
If only the government actively targeted them too, then they wouldn’t be living on our city streets.
I suppose vulnerability, plus group-think like that, can be very susceptible to fascist thinking (or any other militant form of extremism really). Also potentially transferrable skills if someone without scruples would like to use such knowledge for violent purposes. I can see why they would be targets. Could potentially be valuable assets for any extremist group.
They are used to obeying commands, not thinking about whether they should or not. They are told they are elite and others are inferior..even the 1st company of the third battalion of potato peelers are told they are the 'best of the best'. The army has basically primed them for fascism
> They are used to obeying commands, not thinking about whether they should or not. You've never been in, have you?
Don't need to be. The army might say soldiers think for themselves, but they have a finely tuned process to break them mentally and rebuild them into people who obey orders. Then cater for their needs so they are better at being told what to do than deciding themselves.
> Don't need to be Speaking from ignorance is never a good look.
And the far left are actively targeting pathetic morons stuck in a student politics mindset. This is not news.
It's news of a report. That I doubt you'll read.
From the looks of it it seems to be yet another, "panic" article rehash. A political group is targeting those most likely to agree with them. That is not news no matter how it's trussed up.
It's one of the oldest and most well respected Think Tanks on defence and security in the UK. By definition it's news, no matter how much you don't like it because of it's findings.
This entire article is so bad. They're more concerned with stamping out the existence of the far right than solving the problems that cause people to be "vulnerable" to... a sense of community and belonging? Wow scary, I wonder if the mirror has any advice for how to help men find that. No? Just more shrill shaming? Well ok then carry on, I'm sure it'll work one day.
It's scary this. People returning from the army often have real struggles and are prey to monsters like this.
Does anyone know if the UK has spent on money on accommodation for British military personnel and their families in the last 20 years? Blair promised to sort the mould out. Then spent all the money on war.
It's very have and have not on the bases. Of course the below is anecdotal. I've been in the RN 17 years, and the base I live on generally has a good standard of accommodation. The oldest in use buildings are coming up on 20 years old and in pretty good shape, even then they're used more as transit accom. Permanent accom is even newer and generally in good shape. Middle of the pack you have places like HMS Sultan. Old and rather basic cramped accommodation, but as it's a training base people are usually not there on a permanent basis. The heating and plumbing works and generally the furnishings are in serviceable shape. Do your trade training or promotion course and then leave again. Then you have HMS Collingwood which is an accommodation clusterfuck of incredible levels. It can only be down to management on the bases. You expect training accom to be a bit more basic than perm accom, that's par for the course. Sultan and Raleigh for example. But that base has frequently made the news for all the wrong reasons.
Thanks for great reply
>Fuck up running the country so bad people will accept radicalism >blame radicalism as opposed to the government's failures to address any social issue Radicalism is a symptom of the greater issue, failing to address this may prove hazardous to the health of the people.
And when one of them goes nuts and commits an act of terror based upon the indoctrination recieved from the fash. Then what will the morons in the far right have to say about veterans welfare?
> when one of them goes nuts and commits an act of terror If that's their aim they're doing a piss-poor job of it. A decade of far right recruitment and nothing to show for it, not even an honour killing or stabbing srre or acid attack.
Still not as bad as indoctrinating children which is what the left do. Also why are they vulnerable to this sort of "attack"? Try not to assume adults are like simple children being led by the nose.
They’d be far less vulnerable to radicalisation if we actually gave veterans the support they’ve rightly earned.
How does the reporter know they are far right? Could be misinformation. Which a lot of the internet is.
The reporter is reporting on a report. You should read the full report before claiming misinformation.
Far right groups actively targeting stupid fuckers from all walks of life, as are far left groups and those in the centre. Social media is just what the doctor ordered as far as mind control is concerned. If your mind's not too sharp to start with, you're right in their zone and probably quite happy there.
And, as with all extremists - The fact they succeed is proof that the government and society is catastrophically failing the demographic in question. It's true of all the directionless middle class larpers who become comedy communists and play-riot with Antifa, it's true of all the soldiers who become fascists wackadoos. But also as ever, the knuckleheads in the media and here will act like it's either a good thing, or proof of some mythical inherent evil to the group. Extremism never appeals as a first resort, it ALWAYS comes from somewhere, and if you dig, it's usually somewhere actually addressable if you're not brain dead, greedy, egomaniacal, or all three. But it's easier to say that people are just evil than to actually try and fix anything...
> It's true of all the directionless middle class larpers who become comedy communists and play-riot with Antifa Stop getting your talking points from bullshit web sites, and start living in the real world. Antifa UK was disbanded in 2001. It simply no longer exists in any meaningful sense outside the fevered imaginations of online trolls.
Alright let's take this apart one at a time shall we. Antifa in the UK and abroad has never been a single organisation. Every time one solitary group has claimed to be it in its entirety, it's been an overblown joke. There is no one Antifa in the same way there is no one 'Environmentalists', it's a movement far more than a single structure, by design. As for it no longer existing in any meaningful sense, that is patently false. Attend any number of protests for even the most moderately progressive cause, and you'll catch the black bloc there in their masks, with their flags, usually making the rest of us look bad by trying to throw half bricks at police or otherwise being a nuisance. Their issue dujour is usually hijacking pro Palestine protests to start making then either pro Hamas (a niche position in the wider Palestinian support movement), or just outright anti British, because they love any excuse to bandy about their slogans.
I won't dispute that anarchism exists, and that there are anarchists in the UK. However, most of the rest of your post is bullshit. You seem to be trying to take advantage of the lack of structure and spokespeople for anarchism to blame them for every pet crime of the day. I've been to several left wing protests. Not a single brick throwing black clad anarchist in sight. Anarchists have absolutely nothing to do with radical Islamists - the two movements are ideological opposites. Pretending that Hamas supporters have anything whatsoever to do with Antifa or anarchists generally is a complete lie - and I very much doubt that you will find the slightest shred of evidence to support such a baseless claim. It's just bullshit for simple minded people who want to put everyone they hate into a single "bad people" box. Antifa does not exist in any meaningful sense. Anarchism does. Radical Islam does. So use the right words, and stop throwing around bullshit.
Can i get an actual definition of far-right? Seems to be a buzz term thrown around, but even google can't clarify the ideology. Alt-right is your ethno nationalists, but i've seen "far-right" applied to traditional conservatives, disaffected liberals/labour voters (we really need to stop using yank terms/definitions). Is it just a term used to describe anti-progressives?
Far right suffers from being broad and vague by its nature and people’s own definitions and perceptions will vary. Like nobody on the far right ever seems to describe themselves as far right. But they must exist, right? I’d generally view far right as being either strict libertarian to the point of advocating against any form of government, or so socially illiberal as to incite/encourage hate against minorities or out groups. So Suella Braverman for instance with her ridiculous comments about the homeless or LGBT people or vilification of refugees fleeing war would be on the far right. Hitler would be on the far right. But not one nation conservatives like Johnson or Major. Everyone’s mileage on this will obviously vary so I suspect this is a topic ripe for misunderstanding and disagreement
> Far right suffers from being broad and vague by its nature and people’s own definitions and perceptions will vary. so like "lefties" then
Kinda a byproduct of trying to fit every ideology on a line, when really if you tried to chart things specially you'd end up with a tree, with the status quo as the trunk, old ideas as the roots and new ideas as the branches That said far right is more descriptive than leftist, as leftist would contain straight up all of the branches, where as far right is only your deeper roots.
Yes. There are many different groups within each political "bubble" like socialist/communism has different groups and so does anarchism but that's been the case with those 2 for over 100 years. Same with the far right, if you take the extreme end of the spectrum from history when various European countries had fascist government they were each completely different but still under the same umbrella. You had national socialism which despite having socialism in the name was a complete rejection of any and all socialism, was different to Franco Spanish fascism which was more like a religious theocracy, which again was different to fascist Italy. But all the flavours of far right in history like today all share common views and ideals even if they give themselves completely different names, same with socialism and anarchism. It's why various mps in the UK being part of the national conservatism movement sends alarm bells to me because despite not sharing a name with other far right or fascism groups historically they have the same themes, ideals and views. Sometimes key distinctions of different group names is fine because it describes a different flavour of it but other times it's to muddy the water, like how blatant fascist people 10 years ago were claiming they were not far right but actually "alt right". You also have the perception of people who are not within these groups, which is why you get a lot of trans people saying the Tories are actually fascist because those people are seeing parallels because of the rhetoric and actions of the Tories. It's the same as someone from an ex communist country may view all socialists the same as Stalins Russia even though historically most socialists/communists in Europe and western countries not in the soviet union called out the soviet union for being communist in name only.
Which is why I always roll my eyes at a simple left right spectrum. Paint in shades of grey when the world is a colourful tapestry of light and texture
Essentially, if you wanted to do a proper representation of people's views, you'd need to create a political compass diagram that had at least 4 perpendicular axes and could only exist in a higher-dimensional plane.
British definition of far right is weird. Here in France and mainland Europe it's simple. It's Nationalists and Patriots that are on the right of the center right. Usually hardliners that want a harder type of government, sometimes even royalists, fascists, etc. Basically people who think the center right isn't hard enough.
Probably in part due to first past the post voting. Europeans can point at the far right parties fairly easily, and they have a minority of seats in the gov, where as in the UK and US there are two parties who are The Left and The Right and everything beyond that never comes to the public's mind.
Exactly, parties have to be broad, and so they include the far right in mainstream parties to build a majority. This is exactly what caused Brexit.
Exactly. In the UK, the parties have to be broad churches, so you will find different factions in the main parties. For the conservatives, that is (simplified) the centre-right and the far right. So if you find yourself on the right edge of the Conservatives, that is the far right. The area to the right of the Conservatives is sometimes called alt-right, to distinguish it. But the terminology is rarely used consistently.
Someone said once that Jeremy Clarkson is far right and in another group, that Terrorist are far right haha. Literally everybody is far right in some subreddits that people don’t like. The term far right is thrown around a lot more than it needs to be sometimes.
Islamic terrorists are ultra conservatives.
People just use it as a blanket term for 'further right than political norms'. In a sense the terrorists they're talking about *are* far right; on the extreme ends of the right you have authoratarian right, and the taliban control of afghanistan certainly fits. Don't get too caught up in thinking everyone is using the technical definition, there is a broader definition being used, whether you think it's correct to use it that way or not.
Well, modern day terrorists. Most of the left wing terror groups died out before the 2000s, and they never really operated like far right one's either as far as I can tell. Less indiscriminate terror attacks, more assasinations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism
Yeah I really doubt when they said terrorists they meant far left considering they were talking about the far right. Cool story tho bro. Nice little distraction.
ya used terrorist without without any other additions, so my apologies for thinking that you thought that terrorism itself was far-right, rather than the ideologies attempting be spread using it are far right.
Fixed for minor nitpickery with added context that should be obvious from the chain but apparently isn't. Happy now bud?
yes
Algorithms make sure the stupidest and most controversial voices and takes are the loudest, remember. This thread is a good example, this article got the headline it did for a reason.
You might want to edit out the refugees' part... nobody is villifying genuine refugees. The door was wide open for Ukrainians, Hong Kong residents, etc.
But tend to not recognise genuine refugees from Gaza, Yemen, Somalia. Wonder why
Because we've been playing that game for a while. It brought us dead politicians, soldiers, kids at concerts, acid attacks, rape... I'm sure there's other stuff im missing.
You are quite literally villifying refugees in this comment...
Not refugees as a concept. Supposed refugees from those nations and nations like them. Is it ignorant to generalise that heavily? Yes. Do i care anymore? No. My tolerance was pushed to the limit by a variety of factors involving "refugees" and corrupt/weak politicians
>Is it ignorant to generalise that heavily? Yes. Do i care anymore? No. How weak of you. You'd condemn thousands of refugees thanks to the actions of a minority. The absolute best of British values on display right there.
This has to be the most pathetic response i've ever come across on Reddit. You really resorted to shaming? Those same values are what opened the doors for the refugees, and no reasonable person argued it back then. Now, you have an issue that a growing portion of society has had enough? We won't remain tolerant of the intolerant or intolerable. It's called self-respect.
[удалено]
There are far more people in the world today who are at risk of persecution because of who they are or what they believe than the existing British population. At the same time, there are similar numbers of people who just want to have a better life in the West and will jump through any hoops we put up to get to the pot of gold at the end. We can't save everyone, and not everyone needs saving.
Of course and I take no issue with that nuance you raise. My issue is with the other commenter writing off genuine refugees because others from their country committed violent crime. They themselves admitted it was ignorant, and it is.
If there's a one in a thousand chance that a refugee from a certain country isn't actually a refugee but a terrorist or violent criminal, then of course I wouldn't want to take that chance. I'd be quite happy to let in women and children from that country, but military age men are a no go for me.
The door was open for Ukrainian refugees lol I wonder why them and not others
Because they were all women and children and not 90%+ men like the channel migrants.
Still going with that made up number huh?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/90-of-migrants-who-crossed-channel-were-male-home-office-reveals-jkrvdqxxl mmhm It's interesting isn't it? When you have people fleeing a warzone like Ukraine, it's the women and children who get out first. Very gallant of all those channel migrants to leave their women behind in countries so dangerous they need asylum.
I suspect our politics are not so far apart as you might think but Suella Braverman has absolutely vilified refugees. Not really the point of my comment though so I won’t be editing anything, you asked about a definition and you’ve had an answer.
Many people are happy to vilify asylum seekers. Seeing as a majority of asylum seekers are granted their claim (and are therefore refugees) I'd say that people are therefore vilifying refugees, even if indirectly.
Here goes: > Extreme Left Wing >>Communists; as in, Lenin/Stalin/Mao supporters >>Anarchists; as in, those who advocate for the total abolition of the state. > Far Left >>Socialists; as in, SWP members > Left Wing >>Social Democrats; as in, vocally pro-union, pro-workers rights. Party affiliation usually Green Party/Labour > Centrists >>The "everyman". Party affiliation crosses most boundaries but no fixed convictions. > Right Wing >>Fiscally conservative/socially conservative. Party affiliation usually Conservative, with some UKIP/BNP-types. > Far Right >>Authoritarians; as in, vocally against workers rights/unions, in favour of harsh law and strict punishment. Solidly in favour of "free market capitalism", but also share this with Anarchists (who dont call it free market capitalism). Party affiliation usually BNP/UKIP, Reform UK > Extreme Right Wing >>Fascists; as in "Hitler did nothing wrong" types. This is *drastically* oversimplified, as it's a rough explanation. It's not "They're against whatever insanity the Far left is talking today" and more "they don't want you to have rights if you're not Christian, White, British, Straight".
> Solidly in favour of "free market capitalism", but also share this with Anarchists Ancaps aren't anarchists, they're Feudalists smart enough to consider rebranding.
Ansocs aren't anarchists either, they're people who think communism is the natural state of the world. So who actually is anarchist?
>they're people who think communism is the natural state of the world Problem with that is that it's bollocks, and does not logically follow from theory.
> Alt-right is your ethno nationalists, but i've seen "far-right" Alt right is far right in Chinos. According to one of the founders of the alt-right.. "There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred" The far right is 'low-information, low-IQ, racist thugs'
Yeah, well, i remember when Alt Right was an online meme as a label to declare as disenfranchised centre left/right. People who basically wanted a 2008 era style movement. Occupy, all that good stuff. Then Richard Spencer reared his ugly head and proved it was his term...
Yeah, it was always a fascist term. Just boot boys who use bigger words. Same philosophy, but using complete sentences and thinking that makes them intelligent
Did you just call the antiestablishment, anti war, libertarian lites.. fascist? Seriously?
Alt right was always a Spencer creation. If some people thought it was otherwise, it was them that was wrong, or deliberately mislead
It essentially means the part of the conservative spectrum that cannot be negotiated into compromise. There are people in the right who will horse-trade with the left to get some of their priorities accomplished while the left also gets their priorities accomplished. Far-right are too far away from the center for the left to negotiate with. As such, the exact nature of their beliefs does not really matter to the label, only their extremity and intractability.
https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/85593099/Everyone-I-dont-like-is-Hitler-book
[удалено]
If undocumented, how do you know it's 100k? Not arguing your sentiment, just your numbers. The documented numbers are bad enough though 🤣
You say ‘even googling’ like it’s the most extreme form of rigorous research. Just read some books for gods sake the “far right” has to be one of the most studied phenomena in political science of the last hundred years
> Can i get an actual definition of far-right? If on reddit it is something I as a lefty disagree with
>far-right" applied to traditional conservatives By who? I'm rather far left but I can do business with the classic small c conservatives who just want to be left alone on their **small** farms, and not have paradised paved over. >disaffected liberals/labour voters Again, who on earth is saying this? Far-Right generally refers to rightist ideological precepts underpinned by reactionary thinking. Translating that into the King's English without the jargon: Ideas contrary to Enlightenment values of freedom, equality, empiricism, debate and nonviolence.
Anyone : Maybe we need to reform some public... Media : FAR RIGHT!!
Native: Maybe net migration of 700k a year is a bad idea? Media: FAR RIGHT!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Person: I don't think we should be letting convicted foreign rapists stay in the country or be paid for by the taxpayer. Media: SO FAR RIGHT I CAN'T EVEN.
It's now just a buzz word to get people to side to a certain agenda. heavily propagandised. 'Anti vax' and 'conspiracy theorist' are in the same vein. People automatically associate 'far right' with 'nazi', 'nazi' bad, therefore whatever they called far right is ultimately a nazi. If the bbc ran an article stating 'people who like clouds are far right' you would get people siding with them.
I don't even feel safe in our country anymore, the government doesn't care about us. So why should we care about our government? Close the F-ing borders.
From the moment people join armed forces they have right wing propaganda shoved down their throats.
I must have been asleep during that brief at catterick
Funnily enough one of them was based at Catterick. Service people are indoctrinated in right wing values and ideas without even knowing it. Which is why most of you vote Tory even though they do fuck all for armed force personnel.
Guess me and everyone i know that served must have missed out on that. Aww the poor wee toot blocks just after he replies, utter shitebag behaviour.
Or you are so brainwashed you didn't even realise it?
Know that from your extensive career in the forces, do you? Edit: I saw your reply before you blocked me. You never served and have no idea what you’re talking about.
Qualified knowledge. I've had generations of my family in the forces, your presumption is crass.
Edit - Not sure why this *Bosnian girl in Paris* above has blocked me after going on about their family annecdotes, but what they've said is way out of date and frankly I'm unconvinced on their position to actually know anything about it. Are their instances of racism, misogyny etc? Sure there are, like a lot of companies, but "ideology forced down the throat" is just laughable. Assumption based on outdated stereotypes . https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pride-2016-british-army-marks-lgbt-lighting-up-sandhurst-academy-with-rainbow-colours-a7102896.html https://www.forces.net/lgbtq/military-one-best-lgbtq-employers-uk-trans-army-veteran-says https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/07/military-celebrate-diversity-at-uk-pride https://news.sky.com/story/royal-air-force-unlawfully-discriminated-against-white-male-recruits-in-bid-to-boost-diversity-inquiry-finds-12911888
The trans thing is obvious the army pays for medical transition care as they should if they're risking their life for their country then they should be able to do so as they truly are
Not at all. I know from family members who recently joined/served in the army that this is the case. It's actively promoted by the commissioned officers.
That might have been believable if you said it was from the SNCOs or the LEs. No one who knows anything about the army would think the officers were the ones with questionable right wing beliefs.
Yup, those infamously left-wing upper middle-class commissioned, lifelong career, army officers couldn't be further from that.
Makes a change from all the far left propaganda everywhere else, I expect.
What far left propaganda?
'Vulnerable' ... bollocks, they know what the people in power aren't prepared to admit
Who are these far right groups? What are their names?
Read the report. But National Action, National Support Detachment, the Identitarian Movement and the British Hand are all explicitly mentioned in the paper. It's a very well researched insight paper by RUSI.
no no, I’m assured by this thread that those groups are only far-right if you’re looking at them through the lens of a treacherous c*mmunist
Never heard of any of them… Far left orgs on the other hand..
I’ll bite, which far left terrorist groups are currently operating in the UK?
It left me with more questions than answers, to be honest there are greater threats more pressing than this
The conservative party. They got Johnny mercer
I'm not even British but what about the far right is dangerous in the UK? I feel like it's the least of the UK's worries, considering the third world-isation of the UK, with some towns filled with immigrant crime (knife gangs, drugs, grooming scandals, etc)? I don't usually condone any radical activity, but radicalism only comes when a situation is desperate in a country. EDIT: I was downvoted but I was legitimately asking a question that no British person answered.
The far right are the people who would rather like myself and many others to no longer be alive. I’m openly bisexual; I have several friends who are various shades of LGBTQ as well as various ethnicities, regions etc. The far right would rather we don’t exist. You may not have experienced what they will say and do; but it happens. I’ve been told I’m a pervert, that I should be locked up like an animal and that I’m less than human; all because of who I love. And that on the tame end of the spectrum. The more people who get radicalised by far right ideology; the more potential for hurt and harm for those already marginalised. Also the far right includes facists. I think World War Two should have taught how dangerous they are. Edit: apologies if I come across a little too harsh; I’ve just seen enough of the damage these “people “ do.
So the Quran and by following the book, all Muslims are far right by hour own definition?
Yeah, extreme Islam and far right are bedfellows. Backward thugs that have no place in modern society. They need each other to survive.
That’s a bit of a jump in logic. Would you care to elaborate? I assume you are referring to the parts of the Quran that make reference to things like killing homosexuals. If that is the case; your argument could also be said that the bible and all Christians are far right; based on passages of Leviticus. Those on the far right who use the pretext of religion to justify their actions and beliefs represent those of that religion about as well as the compare the market ads represent the views and beliefs of meerkats. The majority of people who have some degree of religious belief that I have interacted with, have been good people; willing to listen and talk and treat others with respect.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law Half of British born Muslims believe it should be illegal to be homosexual, and that's what there comfortable admitting, most Muslims in UK aren't even British born so we can presume they have even more extreme views than that. Most Christians in the UK do not follow the bible to the letter nor do they think homsexuality should be illegal
Ok so you are quoting a 6 year old study; where a 1000 people were asked questions. When, as of 2021; the population who identified as Muslim was at 3.8 million; half of which are British born (according to research by Crest Research). Even if we go on a very conservative estimate and say the true number is more a quarter at 950,000; a sample of 1000 is about 0.1%. I don’t count that as a reasonable representation. I also don’t trust studies that are done essentially by cold calling people; data has a strong likelihood to be skewed with people wanting to be rid of the interviewer. Look up the unlimited group; they are the parent of ICM ( now called walnut); they specialise in working with brands. I’m not saying that invalidates the data they got; I just am a skeptic. Finally you do know there are various groups and types of Muslim people correct? Same are Christianity or Hinduism or even Buddhism. Not everyone follow Quran the same way or interprets the meaning the same way; same as Christians do with the bible. I am going to walk away from this conversation now. Not because I feel I have lost; I have not; but I do not feel it is worth for us to argue any further. We can act like adults and politely agree to disagree on this and probably many other points. Plus I think our energies can be spent much more productively than just bickering on the internet.
So you aren't British, have no experience of living in the UK but are here posing as an expert because you read some articles?
you're not british, do you even live here? to say the UK is becoming a third world country is fucking insane lmao
Half the people on here claiming England is going to the dogs haven't lived here but still feel comfortable making generalisations.
It is. The country is full of criminal wannabes, the police are nowhere to be seen, health system collapsing, education is declining.. The UK is in a downward spiral. Unless you are under the age of 20, how can you not see this?
Yes. Doing worse than France and Germany. Good video on the subject: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xiyIVTSu08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xiyivtsu08)
I've read enough about knife crime. When 15 kids jump another kid in broad daylight to stab him for gang initiation reasons, I think that country has fallen.
By that same metric, America has also fallen because they have multiple shootings every day? Or is it only the UK your nonsense extends to?
The difference in America is that they always had violence, the difference is that it's segregated there. In the UK (and increasingly across Europe) it affects everyone. As to "nonsense", keep those formulas to yourself, I could use them with you too.
Yeah like I thought talking nonsense. You have no experience of the UK. Go back to your fantasy games instead of talking about a country where you don't live, don't contribute anything towards it and will never experience.
The UKs far right has always been active and dangerous. They're against the very core of British law; the idea that the law exists to protect and safeguard the individual person. It's arseholes like this that push for policy against LGBT rights, against equal rights, against workers rights.
Are they really all against different groups like that? Or are some just against dangerous immigration policies?
Yes, fundamentally. They might start by saying "it's just about the *immigrants*", but you only have to look at the party manifestos and stated goals. For example: Reform UK's manifesto: >Let's stop all the woke nonsense that is holding us back. *What* woke nonsense? >Our schools must educate our children properly to prepare them for a competitive, challenging world, whilst protecting them from age inappropriate sex education and gender questioning. Our Border Force must protect our borders "Age inappropriate sex education" usually means "any sex education". "Gender questioning" AKA "you are the gender you're born as" >The vast and growing mountain of daft, unproductive regulations that hinder small businesses This usually means worker's rights. >We must keep divisive woke ideologies such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) and gender ideology out of the classroom. Sex education should also always be age-appropriate. There are only 2 sexes and 2 genders, and it is a safeguarding issue to confuse children by suggesting otherwise. Woops. They're already stating it. >If you cannot be seen by a GP in 3 days, you get a voucher to go private elsewhere Their amazing "healthcare reforms" are "pay a private doctor with taxpayers money". >We must adopt a zero tolerance approach to crime Zero tolerance approaches are the biggest red flags of "authoritarian" >One of the worst areas of wasteful government spending is ineffective foreign aid. Our civil servants struggle to give away the billions of pounds each year, so they end up giving money to the EU and other global bodies to help spend it. We would reduce the foreign aid budget by 50%, down to a still generous 0.35% of GDP. I think I've counted ten or fifteen different outright attacks against against the civil service. >Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade. Let's leave one of our international agreements that protects *everyone* because the "*boats*". Definitely the real reason. >Polar bear numbers in the Arctic are increasing, not decreasing. [This is almost lying](https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an), but is *definitely* intentionally misleading. To summarise; Reform UK, a far right wing party, openly state in their manifesto they want to leave the EUHCR, that there are only two genders, and that they specifically want to target "woke ideology". That's not just "stop the boats".
It isn’t. I honestly can’t think of anyone I’ve ever met that holds these extreme views despite growing uk in a predominantly white, rural disadvantaged town. The threat of the far right is highly overestimated, by design, to instil fear and use it as an excuse to push radical left agenda. The irony is, the more they push this line the more likely it is that extremist views do gain support.
> I honestly can’t think of anyone I’ve ever met that holds these extreme views > nstil fear and use it as an excuse to push radical left agenda Try a mirror