To think that only about 20 people might be responsible for insurgency is a remarkable claim, but it doesn't take many bad apples to create a real problem, it would seem. In the USA, the ongoing unmasking and cleanup of Atomwaffen [0] has revealed around 80 people participating, and that's already enough people to create an ongoing domestic terrorism situation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomwaffen_Division

If, as many have expressed, the political ground has shifted* beneath people's feet over time, such that yesterday's "progressive" is today's "centrist" or "neoliberal" (if not "cryptofascist" depending on who one asks)... doesn't it follow that the meaning of "far right" would similarly be in flux as well, such that the label will, over time, come to encompass views that were not long ago considered respectable? (and, implicitly: ought to still be)

*re the political ground shifting -- it's a facile assumption that such shifts are merely emergent phenomena. As wealth and power concentrates over time (as one would expect under global capitalism), the scope for agentive explanations grows.

Shouldn’t this be part of the standard evaluation for applicants into any military or paramilitary service, or is it considered a plus?

We know now that the police in the USA is contaminated with neonazis, trump’s right hand is a white supremacist (interesting choice for an Eastern European “Jew”) and what the brits and Americans did in abu gharib was was not “a few bad apples”.

This level of disregard to human lives was brought back home, as the BLM protestors can see when playing violin in a parc warrants calling in the stormtroopers (literarily, most likely).