Hard and far right definitions.

However it is used as both a term of abuse and as means to dismiss people, is used to excess by some on here and by the Labour government yet no one seems able to tell us what opinions are far right.

You are probably right as although I place myself as righty for want of a better word most of my principles are probably leftish in the true sense broadly from the old Labour party, not this mish mash of intelligentsia, academics and victims.

If we can unpick that for a second. Is it only white people that can be far right or do you mean racial supremacy of any sort?
Nazism is a bit more problematic because how the particular Nationalist policies manifested themselves in 1930s Germany are a far cry from modern Nationalism, the SNP have all the hallmarks of the progressive left and it is difficult to know where Scottish Nationalism would lead. Holocaust denial is very big in the Arab world. The discussion of history freely with all its true capability of being reinterpreted is not the same as wilful revisionism. Casting an historical fact in stone is a truly dangerous route to take although I fully understand that revisionism for political purposes is now widespread but that is the price to pay for open consideration of historical facts. Colston being recast as a villain instead of a philanthropist is that reinterpretation or revisionist, I suspect a bit of both.
All countries tend to be racially/culturally orientated it only seems to be in the West where that is disapproved of and interpreted as far right.

The far left to my memory were virulently anti racist of any sort, although there was always a tendency to support the PLO which I could  never understand, perhaps it was the revolutionary aspect. Cable street seemed to be the very antithesis of anti semitism. How things turn volte face.

The main problem that I see is how easily people, actions and events are branded as far right and dismissed as unworthy or dangerous when they display none of the above attributes but are affixed with them by insidious extrapolation from what they do say and stand for. Populism is another word that borders on denigration yet is the very basis of democracy.

The recent riots were clearly as a result of widespread discontent with aspects of recent, and continued government policy, that had a couple of sparks to set it in motion. and was overtaken by the thug element as most riots are. This appears to be the one riot in the last few decades where there seems to be no intent to set up any sort of investigation as to why they happened as the reasons why they happened have already been laid at the door of far right malcontents by government and MSN repetition.

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that in searching for a political solution to the West's demographic and cultural problems it is more likely to be found in what you characterise as the 'far right' zone of the spectrum than it is in the zone that the mainstream 'milquetoast' parties inhabit today.

To filter all throgh a culinder, the culinder of left and right is misleading, both can be right and wrong.

The real filter is conscience, and as mentioned above, what is right and wrong. The least able to make such judgements are indeed politicians, so who?

I put it to you that making such judgements is simpler than you think, what really effs it up is the political wars, the pursuance of power. Politicians will lie, and do, to achieve such, look at Blair, as power hungry as it comes, wreaking havoc everywhere.

The Nation of Islam is a racialist Islamist movement for black people.  It can only be all rosy and the Left have no choice but to support it.  The far-right is exclusively assigned to white people who just want to stop the mindless destruction of their native countries.  The government and media told us so.