Yet since September 12th, one is more likely to die to far right terror, followed by radical Islam.
I remain unconvinced about "far right terror", or deaths being the only unit of measurement.
I think that media are all to willing to ascribe attacks to the "far-right" due to ignorance or to push an agenda.
They often lose interest when a tragedy does not match their purpose.
The number of injuries, especially major ones, receive too little interest.
Property destruction and damage are also important, as they destroy local economies and communities. Most of that happens in local neighbourhoods, often poor ones, wherein small businesses cannot recover from even small losses. That not only destroys the income of the business owner(s), but their employees as well, and deprives communities - the residents of which often have no means of shopping elsewhere - of sources of necessary products.
Religion doesn't fall on the political spectrum. So call it what it is, religious based terror, not political based terror.
I'm content with that.
extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, fundamentalist.
I can accept that, although I don't see most of it as a continuation of the right spectrum. Conservatives tend not to prioritize race or country of origin, but personal character. People on the extreme left are also racist, but more subtly so with outward racism while simultaneously blatantly racist inwardly - as in professing hatred towards members of their own race. "Racism" seems to have supplanted the older concept of classism.
That's the straight and narrow of it. A conservative may be of the opinion that immigration control and secure borders are a good thing(those on the left being more open to more immigration)
A far right individual would be of the opinion that new immigrants are invading their country, raping the women, are a nuisance that needs to be eliminated.
in other words, closer to the right wing of the political spectrum, but a extreme and dangerous version of it.
The key difference is the means of immigration.
Legal and controlled immigration is fine.
Illegal and uncontrolled immigration is not.
A sizeable portion of the Hispanic community in the US are very vehemently opposed to illegal immigration for several reasons - resentment against those that cheated while they followed the rules, waited patiently to be admitted, and paid the costs of admission for one, and because they do not appreciate being assumed to have arrived illegally by some. Drugs flooding in with illegal aliens also affect their communities and they do not like that.
In this example of London ON, someone may have the opinion that political Islam is problematic, and that we need to ensure that everyone is integrating into Canadian society and not bringing the troubles of the middle east here.
A far right individual would be of the impression that Muslims are invading Canada, putting in sharia law, he'll bent on oppression and subjugation of the Canadian population, and as such, must be eliminated.
I see the difference, but, again, not a link to "rightism".
I have not, and I don't think anyone here is equating a run of the mill conservative with a far right individual who is of the opinion that one must kill all the Muslims to save Canada from sharia law.
I do not take what you have said that way.