Far-right extremism is a "worrying phenomenon" which poses a "real" threat to UK security, Home Office minister James Brokenshire has claimed.

In a speech, Mr Brokenshire said one in 10 cases referred to a government radicalisation reduction scheme now concerned the far right.

He condemned groups such as the English Defence League (EDL) for "inflaming tensions" with ethnic minorities.

Downing Street has added far-right extremism to its anti-terror strategy.

Speaking to experts at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence in London, the minister for security said that, while not as well structured as Islamic terror groups such as Al Qaeda, the terror threat posed was valid.
'Same vulnerabilities'

Mr Brokenshire said: "The far-right threat is not as widespread or systematic... and operationally there are vast differences.

"But... at its core the far-right appeals to people who share many of the same vulnerabilities as those exploited by Al Qaeda-inspired extremism. It feeds off the same sense of alienation and questions around identity.

"It has the same ambition to reshape the world in an impossible way. The threat is real, and our response must be effective."

He added that in 2011, some 17 people were in British prisons for terror offences associated with the far-right movement.
EDL protest in Tower Hamlets in 2011 Mr Brokenshire said Whitehall needed to understand whether EDL marches acted as far-right recruitment grounds

They included Terence Gavan, a former British National Party (BNP) member, who was jailed for 11 years in 2010 after 50 explosive devices and more than 30 guns were found in his concealed room in Batley, West Yorkshire.

The government has added far-right extremism to its Prevent anti-terrorism strategy, including the Channel programme, which uses combined work by local agencies to identify individuals at risk of being drawn into terrorism.

Some 10% of Channel cases now involve individuals motivated by far-right ideologies.
'Respect and tolerance'

In addition, Mr Brokenshire said Britain was hoping to learn from its European partners "many of whom have had even graver difficulties with far-right Extremist groups".

The security minister was scathing of group such as the EDL, saying he "utterly condemns the actions of the so-called defence leagues and their off-shoots".

He went on: "We utterly condemn the offensive, anti-Muslim messages they promote. They are divisive, and run contrary to the values of respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.

"Our response has been based on firm and clear opposition by central and local government, and effective policing of their demonstrations... where necessary, the home secretary has banned marches."

He added that more needed to be understood about whether marches by groups such as the EDL acted as "recruiting grounds" for far-right extremists.

All far right are run by the establishment IMHO.

They tend to be pro monarchy,pro bankers etc.

All far right are run by the establishment IMHO.

They tend to be pro monarchy,pro bankers etc.

All far right are run by the establishment IMHO.

They tend to be pro monarchy,pro bankers etc.

People like Peter Hitchins talk about this, Conservatism is religion, tradition, feudal hierarchy, and he demonstrates conservatism on all points so finds favour in the Right, he also talks about the 60year "liberal Experiment" that's been going on in the UK, which he sees as a failure and a break from British Tradition stretching back to Feudal times.

Liberal Establishment has been dominant over the past few decades, the UN, EU etc are Liberal Enlightenment Utopian goals, that owing to the myriad contradictions in Liberal "Democracy" never seem to work, all the "progress" in Science, Technology, Politics etc that people scare monger about in the CT Genre are Liberal Establishment policies, the majority of Ideological input to Conspiracy theories comes from a Reactionary Conservative direction.

people like Brian Gerrish are Neo Cons imo

Mike wrote:
'Liberal'? Enlightenment? Heheheheheheeee!!

andyh wrote:
I think he makes a good point. What do you perceive as being the issue?

How is Brian Gerrish a neo-conservative?

dogsmilk wrote:
Liberal and enlightenment is the entire opposite of everything happening today.

Liberal would be to reduce govt, to have less laws. None of the UK political parties are interested in doing that...so why call it 'liberal'?
Unless you're a fox news reporter ofc.

andyh wrote:
Much of contemporary political discourse traces its roots to the Enlightenment - Locke, Hume, Mill etc. I'm bemused if you think it doesn't.

And there is a strong emphasis on "liberalism" - market liberalism that sells the myth of meritocracy and social liberalism that promotes individual rights for example. That latter aspect is something I guess we can all agree on, but is a strong point of antipathy in the CT scene, as the numerous expressions of homophobia, the evils of feminism and the dread spectre of multiculturalism on the DIF testify. Generally speaking, British society is immeasurably more liberal than it was a few decades ago. It's only fashionable to discriminate against poor people.
I think Mike is totally correct about the right wing reactionary streak that permeates the CT scene. As I've argued before, this is inevitable given many of its most popular memes derive from American right wing narratives.
Even all this stuff about the Illuminati is quite reactionary at its core, despite people into it not necessarily being so themselves - as far as I can gather the actual Illuminati were liberal progressives.

dogsmilk wrote:
I would agree there are certainly more of the anti immigrant and anti doley type on conspiracy forums, however their economic slant is actually of a govt controlled command (and purely nationalist) economy not of a privatized corporate economy. It is economic slant which defines left/right.
I would also agree that most of it comes from the american wingnut narratives you describe.
However...all of them are authoritarian to a tee and unfortunately that includes much of their opposition who cannot come up with much other than marxism (which btw many a RWA wingnut would call utopian much to my great amusement).

On DIF I did a thread about anarcho-syndicalism and Mondragon (which I'm still not completely happy with but you know ofc) , the wingnuts of both the left and right threaded variety called it 'impossible' 'utopian' and other such stuff.
The funny thing is it actually still exists today, it works well and is doing just fine. The people there have nothing like utopia.
So if its not utopia and its still exists then how can it possibly be impossible; or utopian!?
To this day, I still never got a direct answer to all the crap, nor do I expect one, because quite frankly they're all fucked in the head.

Heres what I don't understand...

Why associate 'liberalism' with purely an economic concept?

The only answer I can come up with is to eradicate all knowledge of anything opposed to authority.
Just as all kids who reject authority are diagnosed as ADHD (see separate thread).


Eg. The americans call the democrats 'liberals' , in the text above liberal is associated with the right wingers and their 'free market' (only ofc its nothing like a free market)

Liberal is the exact opposite of authoritarian. It is NOT the opposite of an economic concept and even then the opposite of the right or left depending on which authoritarian side you just so happen to be in favour with at the time...

I think it's a matter of how the word "liberal" is used. It can be used in a number of contexts.

I'm not sure you can define the right purely on economic terms. I started typing a load of stuff going into this but I'm tired and realisaed I couldn't be bothered now and think I'll have a bath and go to bed LOL. .

dogsmilk wrote:
It can only be used in ONE context, thats the whole point I'm trying to make

If you try and do otherwise it just ends up looking like an overcomplicated pile of bullshit, which is precisely what has happened

andyh wrote:
Given it already is a word with different contextual meanings, who defines the one way in which it may be used - you?

Aren't you being rather authoritarian???

dogsmilk wrote:
lol no, I'm being accurate.

How can anyone describe rampant corporate takeover as being 'liberal'?
How can anyone describe austerity to bail out bankers all over the world as being 'liberal'?

Really really simple stuff.

The thing with Andyh is he thinks he's the first person in history to think his thoughts, he seems reluctant to accept that his opinions are part of a Liberal enlightenment trend including the likes of Thomas More, St Simon, Fourier, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Hume, Locke, Smith as you say, all with similar gripes about the Status Quo, authoritarianism and lack of "Freedom"in their times.

I think there is a tendency to react to "the establishment" as if it's some boogeyman that just jumped out from under the bed, it betrays a lack of historical class analysis, In Britain the Liberal Enlightenment and the Conservative Establishments coexist, with the Monarchy taking a back seat in actual governance for centuries, but it remains intact, unlike in most of the former soviet Union or various places in the world which have lead succesful Revolutions, France doesn't have a monarchy does it?