Behind the British New Far-Right’s veil: Do individuals adopt strategic liberalism to appear more moderate or are they semi-liberal?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The New Far-Right is often equated with fascism within mainstream political discourse. Although there are fascistic elements of the far-right generally, the New Far-Right is typified by its adoption of liberal values and support of democracy. Some argue that this adoption of liberal values is a strategy to distance themselves from fascism, while others argue that their pro-liberal position is semi-liberal. This article aims to understand whether individuals within the British New Far-Right are strategically liberal or semi-liberal. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with three British New Far-Right groups. Using reflexive thematic analysis, three grievance-based themes were developed: Islam, COVID-19, and liberal values. While some narratives were nationalistic using liberal values to oppose Islam, others discussed liberal rights topics that were not related to nationalism. Supporting previous research, previously left-wing individuals were more likely to hold semi-liberal arguments, whereas previously right-wing individuals were more likely to be strategically liberal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".