The Far Right Is Moving to the Mainstream

[MsAmerica]

Excerpt from the New York Times assessment, if anyone is interested.

In Britain, the Far Right Is Moving to the Mainstream
By William Davies

As the far right becomes a fixture of British politics, prominent voices are willing to abstain from condemning the violence, excuse it or even appear to encourage it.
The anti-immigrant, nationalist Reform Party, led by Nigel Farage, has been steadily moving from the fringes to the mainstream. With eight lawmakers in Parliament, it consistently tops polls and is increasingly talked about as capable of winning the next general election. Mr. Farage described the reaction of “our leaders” to Mr. Nowak’s death as proof of “a two-tier culture in this country, where the rights and privileges of white people matter less than those of ethnic minorities,” and urged Britons to respond with “pure, cold rage.”

A more explicitly far-right party, Restore Britain — formed by the lawmaker Rupert Lowe, a breakaway from Reform, and endorsed by Mr. Musk — responded to Mr. Nowak’s murder in a long post on X that said, “Enough is enough,” and that keeping alive the “savage” who killed him served nobody.

As Britain’s traditional two-party democracy disintegrates, and voters splinter in five or six directions (Reform may lead the polls, but gets only around 25 percent support), the boundaries that once distinguished the center-right from the far right have collapsed. As the writer Daniel Trilling writes in his book “If We Tolerate This,” flagrantly racist ideas and claims that would have been utterly beyond the pale just over a decade ago now circulate among conservative newspapers and politicians as they struggle to keep up with the rage bait of far-right influencers. Last year, for example, an up-and-coming Conservative lawmaker named Katie Lam told The Times of London that legal residents needed to “go home,” leaving Britain more “culturally coherent.”

There is a troubling sense in Britain that only the right seems to possess the momentum and theatricality that succeeds in this new quick-fire videographic era of politics. Be it in Westminster or on the street, the right — including the far right — takes the initiative and sets the agenda, leaving those in the liberal mainstream to denounce sporadic outbursts of violence without confronting the wider political and ideological climate that encourages and condones it.

www.nytimes.com/2026/06/18/opinion/britain-far-right-reform-restore-uk.html

It is all yes. They have right wing views, but not far right wing. It's the labelling of reform as "far right" I'm concerned about.

For a short time I worked with disadvantaged youths that were at risk of the entering the prison system. Several of them were actual "far right" and were quite happy spouting their beliefs wherever they went in public.

Such beliefs included, going into the channel and rounding all the "boat people" up and putting them in forced labour camps (they wanted to recreate the slavery system in America pre civil rights movement). Rounding up all minority women and girls and making them sex slaves for white men's pleasure. Forcing all illegal immigrants in detention centres to be part of non consensual drug trials and medical experiments. All immigrant men given citizenship to be chemically castrated as part of their visa entry to the country. All disabled people should be killed or used in drug trails as that's their only use. Gays/ lesbians/ trans would also be included in the labour camps/ chemical castration/ medical experiment/ forced sexual slavery plans. They also had some pretty appalling views about women and women who worked.

The problem with the migration debate is that it is often skewed by only treating migrants as purely economic worker bee units. The massive elephant in the room that is rarely discussed in good faith is that not all migration is of equal merit and that certain people from certain parts of world carry with them cultural baggage that sets them at odds with the host nations societal norms or at the very least places them at a huge economic/social disadvantage. Many migrants from across the globe have successfully settled in the UK/Europe/USA/Canada and within a generation or less improved their lot immeasurably as they have managed to achieve that sweet spot of prospering economically and retaining their cultural identity while not siloing themselves into insular inward looking communities. There is a lot more nuance to the migration debate that needs to be discussed (and yes that means some uncomfortable truths) beyond the politically aligned 'all inward migration is good/bad' that we currently have. Also, noting that the UK's population has increased by nearly 9 million people since 2000 and in recent years at rates that are unprecedented by historical standards (post war numbers were was typically below 50,000 and often close to zero) is not 'far right'.

You described Farage as a leftie on the US scale.

He is not. He is far right, no matter what scale.

Support for the death penalty is not hardcore right at all. A poll in the US in 2024 which has the death penalty demonstrated 53% of Americans were in favour. Republicans consistently score higher and increasing over time whereas it falls for democrats but there are still a significant number of democrats who support it.

Several countries with the death penalty have communist leaders- China, Vietnam, Cuba for example.

The UK doesn't do gallop polls on the death penalty but social attitude surveys show the general population is split on the death penalty roughly 45% on both sides. The rest undecided. Student surveys of undergraduates showed 47% in favour of the death penalty for murder.

"And most “far right” views are those which were held by most of the population 20 or 30 years ago."

Are you sure about this? I certainly don't remember the anti-immigration and anti-foreigner rhetoric that we hear today being mainstream 20-30 years ago - it was firmly the province of the BNP who were reviled by both the left and the mainstream right.

I don't remember the ethno-nationalism and christian nationalism espoused by the likes of Tommy Robinson and Nick Tenconi being mainstream.

I don't remember the calls to deport non-white legal immigrants, the banning of head coverings, the banning of kosher slaughter as proposed by Reform UK to be mainstream.

I don't remember when political thought leaders with millions of followers cosying up to Russian dictators at the very same time that Russian-backed saboteurs are on trial for operations across the UK was mainstream.

Perhaps I'm looking at the past through rose-tinted spectacles?

We’re not the US @CoolGreenBee. It’s logical that support for a policy would be higher in a country where it’s already in force.

Lol. "Far- right" = not communist

100% disagree. These views were not held by most people 20 or 30 years ago.

So, Nazis basically. How depressing.

I concur

Convenient smug little thought isn’t it : oh how stupid those people are!

Comfy for you to be on the ‘intelligent’ side.

We all believe that it’s ‘ stupidity’ to hold political opinions that disagree with the left. Because that’s democracy, isn’t it.

it’s democracy.. to call people we disagree with, stupid, isn’t it.

is it?

Do we respect democracy and the right to differing views? Or is it ‘ stupid to disagree with me’ … ie Fascist?

I think you ignored my paragraphs about social attitudes surveys in the UK which demonstrated similar % of support for the death penalty in the UK.

Yes you are.

There was widespread concern about immigration and asylum seekers in the 90s.

Leading to the Asylum and Immigrations appeals act in 1993 which was restrictive and designed to create new fast-track procedures for asylum applications so deportation was quicker for failures, allowed detention for asylum seekers while their claim was being processed and reducing asylum seeker benefits entitlements.

The 1996 Immigration and Asylum act was similar but with new measures to reduce asylum claims including further benefits restrictions.

The Christian nationalism shit is new though.

The old traditional ideology of the far right - which would not be shared by most people - is represented as a ‘normal’ view of concerned citizens by reform/restore. Hence new supporters are concerned citizens whilst traditional supporters and activists are old fashioned sexist and racist - including some of their candidates!

For example, by discussing immigration as a numbers and infrastructure crisis (pressure on jobs, homes, the NHS etc) rather than an ethnic preservation issue (biological purity) policies that would have historically been viewed as extreme become normalised. The notion is then pushed one step further with the mooted policy of deporting legal migrants/expecting ‘them’ to jump through hoops not expected of other citizens by removing existing rights etc.

This is where it starts, not where it ends. It is a deliberate policy of radicalisation carried out by the rich and powerful during times of rising poverty and inequality (from which they materially benefit) to encourage the disadvantaged majority to blame ‘others’ - usually the unemployed, poor, nonwhite, disabled, women etc (I can remember the campaign against single mothers getting council flats) for their misfortune and gain support to reduce the benefits/rights of those groups.

Nothing new to see here. Just wearing a shiny new suit and the new spiel taking in more people. sorry on a personal level if that’s you - no one likes to be played.

What is new is the social media echo chamber and the lack of real life experiences and ideas to counter these narratives. Poor, white, straight, powerless men see themselves as victims and ally themselves with rich, white, straight powerful men who have never been victims.

You may not think that explicit policies effect you right now because you are not unemployed, or disabled or an immigrant but think of the slow creep (even if you don’t become unemployed or disabled) of the impact of no maternity leave or a privatised NHS. If not now…

I’d have had no issue if you’d just quoted those. Public opinion in the US is irrelevant. A link would be helpful too.

Yes, there were concerns about asylum seekers (on lorries at the time, before ferry and channel tunnel security was tightened up) and about the impact of immigration on the jobs and housing market.

But rhetoric about ethnic purity, civilisational erasure and 'replacement theory' were very much on the fringe, and usually associated with white supremacists and neo-Nazis (Combat 18, BNF, White Defence League etc). They are now absolutely a mainstream talking point of the right.