It's an oxymoron, to begin with.
I don't think so. I can certainly see that it's counter-intuitive, hence my putting it in brackets to indicate its provisional nature, but I think it works at least on some levels. Parties like the BNP and PVV participate in the mainstream political discourse, albeit peripherally, and in that sense can be described as participants in, if certainly not representatives of, the political mainstream.
But, either way, I don't really understood why the label expresses a "bias" on my part. Surely, if that was the case, I'd use "mainstream far-right" to describe the Conservative Party, and the BNP as representing something further right still?
That's not a very good analogy.
There are political parties that are truly and undeniably on the extremist right - we have one in this country, they're calling themselves the "Workers' Party" (a clear allusion to NSDAP) and their electorate is mostly made of skinheads and other Nazi sympathizers. Their programme included materials calling for a "final solution of the Roma question". Needless to say, the party was banned by the court for being in violation of the constitution.
Then there are populists like the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, who thrive on votes of protest against the existing situation that leaves many people frustrated and dissatisfied with the current political establishment. They are hardly far-right extremists and lumping them in the same category with the guys I described in the paragraph above makes any reasonable discussion impossible. It's like saying that left-wing populists who promise welfare for everyone and extra taxes for the rich are in principle the same as Red Army Faction. They're not.
Breivik is an extremist even in the true far-right circles. I think most of his buddies would rather go blow up a mosque or a synagogue than shoot white blond blue-eyed teenagers.
I don't really follow your criticism. I didn't suggest that the PVV were in any sense equivalent to the extreme right- in fact, my original comment seems to hinge on the assumption that they are
not- but that they both represent a far-right, anti-immigrant and nationalist politics, and so cannot be understood as representing unrelated bodies of political opinion. That was the purpose of my analogy: the CPI were in neither theory or practice anything like the Red Brigades, and the two actively condemned each other, but they both represented a far-left anti-capitalist and socialist politics, and so the activities of the one had implications for the other, as I'm sure any historian of modern Italy will tell you. Unless you believe that the official CPs of Western Europe were revolutionary firebrands, which isn't a claim which
they would make, I don't really understand why you would find fault in the analogy, or at least not without more technical, historical reasons than you seem to offer here.
There is value in keeping murderers secure and comfortable in your luxury Norwegian "prisons"?
There is value in killing people simply because you don't like them?
