Fair point, although I’d consider islamic extremism to be pretty far right. It’s just a different branch of far right to the BNP/EDL-style nationalism.
I think bundling the two together obscures more than it illuminates. I don’t think it’s any less serious (in fact in some regards it’s more dangerous), just that it doesn’t fit with normal far-right characteristics. To take one important difference, the far-right are ultra-nationalists, while Islamic fundamentalists are strictly anti-nationalist – they don’t recognise the legitimacy of nation-states to exist at all. They also tend to be pretty unconcerned with race or ethnicity in themselves, whereas that’s obviously a major thing for Neo-Nazis and other Fascists. And it makes it harder to identify and address the problem, because the sources and drivers of far-right extremism are separate and often unrelated to the sources of Islamic fundamentalism and radicalisation.
That’s true. When I see “far right terrorism” it certainly conjures images in my mind of nationalist terrorism, despite islamic terrorism literally, by definition, being right wing.
It’s probably indeed better to say “islamic terrorism” if you want to avoid ambiguity. Personally I think we should apply the same treatment to nationalist terrorism, but I think the boat has sailed on that one.
despite islamic terrorism literally, by definition, being right wing.
It’s neither right-wing nor left-wing. This sort of claim always strikes me as fairly cheap politics by people on the left. ‘When people do bad things it’s right-wing, when they do good things it’s left-wing.’ etc
They’re conservative religious views. Of course it’s right wing. Same as conservative Christians in the US or Uganda, or the Hindu nationalism we see in India.
This sort of claim always strikes me as fairly cheap politics by people on the left.
I disagree. It’s just calling a spade a spade.
From the Wikipedia summary on far-right politics, which I found to be a fair description:
“Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies.”
“Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.”
“Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions.”
Seems to me that islamism lines up with that very well.
'When people do bad things it’s right-wing, when they do good things it’s left-wing.’ etc
Respectfully, that’s not true.
You find very, very few people who call Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc right wing. Far less than you see far-right people trundle out the tired “Nazis were left wing because National Socialists” nonsense.
One of them was a far-right lunatic, but the man who assassinated David Amess was a London-born radicalised Muslim affiliated with ISIL
Fair point, although I’d consider islamic extremism to be pretty far right. It’s just a different branch of far right to the BNP/EDL-style nationalism.
I think bundling the two together obscures more than it illuminates. I don’t think it’s any less serious (in fact in some regards it’s more dangerous), just that it doesn’t fit with normal far-right characteristics. To take one important difference, the far-right are ultra-nationalists, while Islamic fundamentalists are strictly anti-nationalist – they don’t recognise the legitimacy of nation-states to exist at all. They also tend to be pretty unconcerned with race or ethnicity in themselves, whereas that’s obviously a major thing for Neo-Nazis and other Fascists. And it makes it harder to identify and address the problem, because the sources and drivers of far-right extremism are separate and often unrelated to the sources of Islamic fundamentalism and radicalisation.
That’s true. When I see “far right terrorism” it certainly conjures images in my mind of nationalist terrorism, despite islamic terrorism literally, by definition, being right wing.
It’s probably indeed better to say “islamic terrorism” if you want to avoid ambiguity. Personally I think we should apply the same treatment to nationalist terrorism, but I think the boat has sailed on that one.
It’s neither right-wing nor left-wing. This sort of claim always strikes me as fairly cheap politics by people on the left. ‘When people do bad things it’s right-wing, when they do good things it’s left-wing.’ etc
Nope. You’ve lost me there.
They’re conservative religious views. Of course it’s right wing. Same as conservative Christians in the US or Uganda, or the Hindu nationalism we see in India.
I disagree. It’s just calling a spade a spade.
From the Wikipedia summary on far-right politics, which I found to be a fair description:
Seems to me that islamism lines up with that very well.
Respectfully, that’s not true.
You find very, very few people who call Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc right wing. Far less than you see far-right people trundle out the tired “Nazis were left wing because National Socialists” nonsense.
It’s a fair point, thanks for the correction.
Not sure how I got the wrong impression, probably heard he’d been killed for being too woke or something.