The far right and reciprocal radicalization

They weaved prejudice about Muslims into a broader narrative about ‘inevitable race war’, presenting Islamist attacks as orchestrated by Jewish interests. Violent responses by the far-right were presented as inevitable and to be celebrated.

Consequently, whilst their internal rhetoric was primarily anti-Semitic, they primarily targeted Muslims and immigrants at demonstrations and harassment stunts. They made frequent visits to areas such as Rotherham and Leeds, seeking to create fears of ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ following the Rotherham arrests.

This implies a conscious and deliberate targeting strategy by the leadership. As the group became more active online and on the streets during 2015 and 2016, instances of violence and criminality also increased. These included a small number of serious offences, including a racially-motivated attempted beheading by Zack Davies in 2015, and the glorification of right-wing terrorist Thomas Mair, who murdered the British MP Jo Cox in 2016.

Around a third of these incidents arose within a week or two of Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe or the United States, although there were other significant attacks where no such response followed.

The other notable way in which National Action’s extremism intensified in response to Islamist terrorism was in their stated intention to ‘learn from (their) enemies’. They expressed admiration for Islamist terrorists, and on several occasions sought to motivate their members by commending Islamist terrorists for their ‘commitment’ and ‘organization’.

This was followed by a recruitment campaign centered on ‘white jihad’, as well as training camps using an Islamist terrorist video. This indicates a tactical and instrumental response, often prompting an expressively violent response from members.

The group’s propaganda reflects that these escalations had complex roots, which related not only to perceptions of opposing groups, but also competition within the Far-Right. Their behavior alludes to a long-wave response to Islamist terrorism. Reciprocal radicalization could consequently be viewed as a phenomenon which operates across movements, as well as between groups. The fluidity within the Far-Right creates conditions where more extreme and knowledgeable individuals can move between groups, increasing the risk of a ripple effect in support for violent extremism.

Responding to and preventing instrumental activity from groups can be particularly challenging, due to the way they may obfuscate and delay plans, as well as the unpredictable way in which individual members may respond to disruption.

Responses also need to take account of the way reactions to designated enemies can occur some time after conflict is assumed to have subsided, as well as anticipating potential responses to Islamist attacks, and other significant events which may increase group competition, as reflected by National Action’s increased activity during the EU referendum.

Increased competition within the Far-Right appears to exacerbate these problems. Whilst proscription has restricted National Action’s former members, the way in which they have quickly and repeatedly re-mobilized reflects that threats are likely to remain more diffuse, including from those on the periphery, and lone actors.

With this in mind, a long-term approach aimed at reducing community polarization and hate crime is needed, alongside direct interception. The behavior of National Action also suggests risks may intensify for some time before a group or its members use violence, meaning that a reduction in immediate warning signs may be misleading. As such, approaching reciprocal radicalization as a gradual and longer-term phenomenon may be necessary.

Samantha McGarry is a Doctoral Student at Lancaster University. This article is published courtesy of the Center for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST)