The British extreme right, reciprocal radicalisation and the language of self-defence

    Research output: Contribution to conference typesPaperResearch

    Abstract

    A wide range of British (and international) extreme right discourses use a language of defence against attack from an other perceived as radicalised (left, Jewish, Muslim, migrant, political mainstream, etc.) This language of defence can be used to legitimise an ideological positions promoting non-violent and violent radicalised positions Do older British neo-Nazi and fascist messages have a ‘family relationship’ with newer anti-Muslim, ‘counter-Jihad’ discourses? Are the latter more focused on one perceived threat, e.g. Robinson? To what extent are these discourses ‘opportunistic’, as Griffin suggests? Are they tactical or reflections of deeper political views? Should we generalise about how the extreme right engages in ‘reciprocal radicalisation’?

    Workshop

    WorkshopWorkshop
    Period25/01/16 → …
    Internet address

    Fingerprint

    radicalization
    self-defense
    discourse
    Muslim
    language
    migrant
    threat

    Keywords

    • Reciprocal radicalisation
    • fascism
    • extreme right

    Cite this

    @conference{9aff31b642f44b4786d279d603fe81d9,
    title = "The British extreme right, reciprocal radicalisation and the language of self-defence",
    abstract = "A wide range of British (and international) extreme right discourses use a language of defence against attack from an other perceived as radicalised (left, Jewish, Muslim, migrant, political mainstream, etc.) This language of defence can be used to legitimise an ideological positions promoting non-violent and violent radicalised positions Do older British neo-Nazi and fascist messages have a ‘family relationship’ with newer anti-Muslim, ‘counter-Jihad’ discourses? Are the latter more focused on one perceived threat, e.g. Robinson? To what extent are these discourses ‘opportunistic’, as Griffin suggests? Are they tactical or reflections of deeper political views? Should we generalise about how the extreme right engages in ‘reciprocal radicalisation’?",
    keywords = "Reciprocal radicalisation, fascism, extreme right",
    author = "Paul Jackson",
    year = "2018",
    month = "5",
    day = "22",
    language = "English",
    note = "Workshop ; Conference date: 25-01-2016",
    url = "http://www.ciltuk.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Events/LRN/LRN2016ProgrammeFV.pdf, https://www.ciltuk.org.uk/AboutUs/ProfessionalSectorsForums/Forums/LogisticsResearchNetwork/LRN2016.aspx, http://www.hist.uu.se/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lvonVas7Urg{\%}3D&tabid=4018&mid=15908&language=sv-SE, http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/events/detail/2013/20-June-qualitative-psychology-Teesside, https://ciltuk.org.uk/AboutUs/ProfessionalSectorsForums/Forums/LogisticsResearchNetwork/LRN2015.aspx, https://www.ciltuk.org.uk/AboutUs/ProfessionalSectorsForums/Forums/LogisticsResearchNetwork.aspx, https://sites.google.com/site/avocs15/home, https://spark.adobe.com/page/hLOW4JNxQ4TIA/, http://emergingtechnet.org/IOTNAT2018/index.php",

    }

    The British extreme right, reciprocal radicalisation and the language of self-defence. / Jackson, Paul.

    2018. Paper presented at Workshop, .

    Research output: Contribution to conference typesPaperResearch

    TY - CONF

    T1 - The British extreme right, reciprocal radicalisation and the language of self-defence

    AU - Jackson, Paul

    PY - 2018/5/22

    Y1 - 2018/5/22

    N2 - A wide range of British (and international) extreme right discourses use a language of defence against attack from an other perceived as radicalised (left, Jewish, Muslim, migrant, political mainstream, etc.) This language of defence can be used to legitimise an ideological positions promoting non-violent and violent radicalised positions Do older British neo-Nazi and fascist messages have a ‘family relationship’ with newer anti-Muslim, ‘counter-Jihad’ discourses? Are the latter more focused on one perceived threat, e.g. Robinson? To what extent are these discourses ‘opportunistic’, as Griffin suggests? Are they tactical or reflections of deeper political views? Should we generalise about how the extreme right engages in ‘reciprocal radicalisation’?

    AB - A wide range of British (and international) extreme right discourses use a language of defence against attack from an other perceived as radicalised (left, Jewish, Muslim, migrant, political mainstream, etc.) This language of defence can be used to legitimise an ideological positions promoting non-violent and violent radicalised positions Do older British neo-Nazi and fascist messages have a ‘family relationship’ with newer anti-Muslim, ‘counter-Jihad’ discourses? Are the latter more focused on one perceived threat, e.g. Robinson? To what extent are these discourses ‘opportunistic’, as Griffin suggests? Are they tactical or reflections of deeper political views? Should we generalise about how the extreme right engages in ‘reciprocal radicalisation’?

    KW - Reciprocal radicalisation

    KW - fascism

    KW - extreme right

    M3 - Paper

    ER -