Army looking out for "Extreme Right Wing" (XRW).

Status
Not open for further replies.
#4
I suppose with recruiting levels so low it's an untapped pool of talent...
Design them a snappy uniform and they'll be banging the door down at the recruitment office
 
#6
#7
  1. Describe themselves as "Patriots"
  2. Add 'istan' to British place names
  3. Describe multicultural towns as 'lost'
  4. Have tattoos with overt and covert XRW iconography
  5. Look at opponents as 'Traitors'
  6. Use the term 'Islamofascism'
  7. Discuss the creation of 'white only' communities
  8. Become increasingly angry at perceived injustices or threats to so called 'National Identity'
  9. Refer to individuals ready to challenge their XRW views as being 'indoctrinated'
  10. Make generalisations about Muslims and Jews
  11. Claim that immigration is the root of injustices against vulnerable people (e.g. old age pensioners, veterans)
  12. Involve colleagues in closed social media groups
  13. Refer to Political Correctness as some left wing or communist plot
  14. Make inaccurate generalisations about 'the Left' or Government
  15. Threaten violence when losing an argument, although claiming that XRW groups protest peacefully
  16. Actively seek out impressionable individuals to indoctrinate or recruit
  17. Use blatantly untruthful or incorrect references to immigrants, Judaism or Islam
  18. Talk of an impending racial conflict or 'Race War'
  19. Claim that it is acceptable to abuse Jews or Muslims as Judaism or Islam are not 'races'
  20. Have extreme XRW group stickers or badges on clothing and personal items
I'm guilty of No.12 & 14, but that's about it

No 18 reminds me of this hilarious scene from one of the best black comedies made

 
#10
I think 14 is such a generalisation that it probably applies to everyone.
14 and 17 arent exactly very clear and could (very probably will) be used to close down any dissenting voices.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#11
1. Zero Hedge is an extremely unreliable source.

2. That Army logo is not, in fact, the Army logo. Generally when the Army put out a document with their logo on, they get the correct one.

3. It looks like it was made by a 5 year old. Although that's what I'd expect to see if this was posted by some CSM or BN HQ, it's usually not the level of graphic design of Army-led campaigns, who at least get someone who can **** up Adobe templates rather than Office templates.

Can any of the 3 still serving members confirm whether this is gen, before this becomes another conspiracist fever dream?
 
#12
Last edited:
#13
Nothing seen in orders, although if it was only posted on Friday I'd expect it would take at least a week to appear.
 
#14
1. Zero Hedge is an extremely unreliable source.

2. That Army logo is not, in fact, the Army logo. Generally when the Army put out a document with their logo on, they get the correct one.

3. It looks like it was made by a 5 year old. Although that's what I'd expect to see if this was posted by some CSM or BN HQ, it's usually not the level of graphic design of Army-led campaigns, who at least get someone who can **** up Adobe templates rather than Office templates.

Can any of the 3 still serving members confirm whether this is gen, before this becomes another conspiracist fever dream?
Its on that well respected site, inforwars

“You Might Be A British Right Wing Extremist If…”

&

Britain First

Play XRW (extreme right wing) bingo!

What more proof do you need
 
#15
1. Zero Hedge is an extremely unreliable source.

2. That Army logo is not, in fact, the Army logo. Generally when the Army put out a document with their logo on, they get the correct one.

3. It looks like it was made by a 5 year old. Although that's what I'd expect to see if this was posted by some CSM or BN HQ, it's usually not the level of graphic design of Army-led campaigns, who at least get someone who can **** up Adobe templates rather than Office templates.

Can any of the 3 still serving members confirm whether this is gen, before this becomes another conspiracist fever dream?

Not only is the symbol wrong, it's positioned on the wrong side...

No phone number either, for anonymous too offs, just an email address. Brilliant. If course phoning the guardroom of the 1st loamshires would give the game away.
 
Last edited:
#16
1. Zero Hedge is an extremely unreliable source.

2. That Army logo is not, in fact, the Army logo. Generally when the Army put out a document with their logo on, they get the correct one.

3. It looks like it was made by a 5 year old. Although that's what I'd expect to see if this was posted by some CSM or BN HQ, it's usually not the level of graphic design of Army-led campaigns, who at least get someone who can **** up Adobe templates rather than Office templates.

Can any of the 3 still serving members confirm whether this is gen, before this becomes another conspiracist fever dream?
I doubt most of us here think its genuine, I also doubt any of us here would be that surprised to see something similar and, sadly to be thought a good idea by the MOD...
 
#17
In my day it was called a promotion board. Would it be this zerohedge at all?
Zero Hedge - Media Bias/Fact Check
"A factual search reveals a terrible track record with IFCN fact checkers. There are too many failed checks to list here."

I'd be a bit lairey of accepting anything from Media Bias Fact Check, chap: in Oct 2018, they declared that one of the 'Least Biased News Sources' was China's Xinhua News Agency*, an agency that Reporters Without Borders named as being the "world's biggest propaganda agency".

TBF, MBFC have since revised that assessment as 'left-centre bias', which is still a touch . . . generous?

* Least Biased - Media Bias/Fact Check
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
I'd be a bit lairey of accepting anything from Media Bias Fact Check, chap: in Oct 2018, they declared that one of the 'Least Biased News Sources' was China's Xinhua News Agency*, an agency that Reporters Without Borders named as being the "world's biggest propaganda agency".

TBF, MBFC have since revised that assessment as 'left-centre bias', which is still a touch . . . generous?

* Least Biased - Media Bias/Fact Check
Generous would indeed be a generous estimate
 
#19
I'd be a bit lairey of accepting anything from Media Bias Fact Check, chap: in Oct 2018, they declared that one of the 'Least Biased News Sources' was China's Xinhua News Agency*, and agency that Reporters Without Borders named as being the "world's biggest propaganda agency".

TBF, MBFC have since revised that assessment as 'left-centre bias', which is still a touch . . . generous?

* Least Biased - Media Bias/Fact Check

I have yet to find a fact checking site to be without a slate or bias that does little to make them any betterer than throwing a dart at a chuffchart.

I also dislike the thinking behind them which seems to suggest that if 'a reader, needs to use a fact check site rather than do there own primary research of source' then they are less likely not to fall for propaganda... Muhh pot kettle much.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#20
So...someone gets on Word and invents a series of qualities, some very right wing and some perfectly normal, pretends this is the Army's definitions of XRW, searches for "Army logo" on Google and picks the wrong one, and prints it out, happy in the knowledge this will be picked up by the gullible or keen to believe as evidence of political correctness gone mad.

Various right-leaning or whackadoodle websites are taken in / don't care and print it as troof without bothering with the most basic checks.

Some gullible readers breathlessly repeat it.

And ARRSE, well..shall we just not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top