Maybe we should give the “far right” and islamic terrorists the same amount of focus once the far right in the UK create their own ethnoreligious super state funded by alphabet agencies trying to destabilise certain countries and start beheading/executing/crucifying thousands of people a year, who then decide to send their agents to Europe in the guise of refugees in order to carry out terror attacks. That would probably be a good reason to take them both equally seriously. Until then, we know islamism is much more dangerous right now – both imported *and* homegrown.
Does this include the ones we are arming in Ukraine?
Um well Islamists have killed a lot of people so I’m happy for you to kinda also focus on them too?
That we seem to have moved from *hunting people who plan violent acts* to *hunting people with different [beliefs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology)* is troubling.
Define “far right”
‘Islamism’ is apparently not ‘far right’, then. But ‘Incelism’ is, perhaps – or is it ‘mixed’ – and if so, a mix of *what*? No, wait: it’s ‘amorphous’! Wonderful. Our big-brained boffins have firmly classified it as unclassifiable; there’s no arguing with that.
If this preposterous tripe is not enough to convince people to stop using the nonsensical cup and ball game terms ‘left’ and ‘right’, in favour of precise communication no longer crafted to deceive, I wonder if anything will be.
If someone were to say that, for example, terror attacks are likely to be expected from people who want to increase the power of the monarch, or to restore the gold standard, or to restrict immigration, this would at least convey information, whether correct or not.
To try and triangulate those three things in hope of reaching some sublime revelation about human thought (or some enlightened discovery concerning ‘political science’) is about as foolish as to spend your energies in whipping up a philosopher’s stone. To slap the meaningless term ‘right’ on your obscure triangulation is really going beyond the pale.
Indeed, we have someone who has “who has led Home Office studies into the far right” telling us that, on trying to say what ‘far-right ideologies’ are, it “can be so broad that it often evades definition” – yet they *still* can’t let go of the term in search of a definition (always a dreadful sign) that they know to be worse than useless. It keeps them in work, among other things.
The monarchists and libertarians really need to stop blowing themselves up, hey.
That is what all the terrorists say
You need to focus on banning all religious activity in this country. They are the real terrorists. Make it a safe haven for intelligence over a sect that brings only war and death.
10 comments
Are they meeting an eye on the ERG?
Maybe we should give the “far right” and islamic terrorists the same amount of focus once the far right in the UK create their own ethnoreligious super state funded by alphabet agencies trying to destabilise certain countries and start beheading/executing/crucifying thousands of people a year, who then decide to send their agents to Europe in the guise of refugees in order to carry out terror attacks. That would probably be a good reason to take them both equally seriously. Until then, we know islamism is much more dangerous right now – both imported *and* homegrown.
Does this include the ones we are arming in Ukraine?
Um well Islamists have killed a lot of people so I’m happy for you to kinda also focus on them too?
That we seem to have moved from *hunting people who plan violent acts* to *hunting people with different [beliefs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology)* is troubling.
Define “far right”
‘Islamism’ is apparently not ‘far right’, then. But ‘Incelism’ is, perhaps – or is it ‘mixed’ – and if so, a mix of *what*? No, wait: it’s ‘amorphous’! Wonderful. Our big-brained boffins have firmly classified it as unclassifiable; there’s no arguing with that.
If this preposterous tripe is not enough to convince people to stop using the nonsensical cup and ball game terms ‘left’ and ‘right’, in favour of precise communication no longer crafted to deceive, I wonder if anything will be.
If someone were to say that, for example, terror attacks are likely to be expected from people who want to increase the power of the monarch, or to restore the gold standard, or to restrict immigration, this would at least convey information, whether correct or not.
To try and triangulate those three things in hope of reaching some sublime revelation about human thought (or some enlightened discovery concerning ‘political science’) is about as foolish as to spend your energies in whipping up a philosopher’s stone. To slap the meaningless term ‘right’ on your obscure triangulation is really going beyond the pale.
Indeed, we have someone who has “who has led Home Office studies into the far right” telling us that, on trying to say what ‘far-right ideologies’ are, it “can be so broad that it often evades definition” – yet they *still* can’t let go of the term in search of a definition (always a dreadful sign) that they know to be worse than useless. It keeps them in work, among other things.
The monarchists and libertarians really need to stop blowing themselves up, hey.
That is what all the terrorists say
You need to focus on banning all religious activity in this country. They are the real terrorists. Make it a safe haven for intelligence over a sect that brings only war and death.