The Blame Game

July 29th, 2011 by Dave Rich

After 9/11, the idea spread amongst many different people, in different parts of the world, that Israel and/or the Jews were ultimately responsible for the terrorist attack.

In one way of thinking, more common in Arab or Muslim majority countries, this was because (so the argument went) Israel actually carried out the attack, and forewarned large numbers of American Jews to stay away from work that day.

In another way of thinking, more common in Western societies, this was because Israel’s policies had provoked the attack, and America supports Israel because of the political pressure put on the American government by American Jews.

The substantial difference between the two arguments reflects different types of political discourse that tend to be more common in different parts of the world: conspiracy theory in the former, and material cause-and-effect in the latter. But in both cases, the conclusion is the same: Israel and/or the Jews were to blame, directly or indirectly, for 9/11. And while the conspiracy theories are more obviously antisemitic, the cause-and-effect argument has a similar effect, but through a more subtle and therefore insidious path: the conclusion that Israel and/or Jews are responsible for war, and terrorism, and all the related problems in the world.

While these ideas often begin with extremists – Hezbollah invented the 9/11 conspiracy theory about Jews not going to work at the Twin Towers that day – they rarely stay there, partly because of the ease with which ideas are spread by modern communications, and partly because believing in conspiracy theories about Israel and Jews is no barrier to involvement in anti-Israel campaigning in Britain today.

As today’s Jewish Chronicle reports (with analysis by my colleague Mike Whine), a similar pattern is starting to develop after the terrorist attack in Oslo last week. This allegation is based on two ideas: either that Breivik was so pro-Zionist that he actually carried out the attack under orders from Israel; or that his desire to kill so many of his compatriots was a result of absorbing Zionist values. In both cases, the fact that the people at the Labour Party youth camp where he committed mass murder had been discussing Israel/Palestine a couple of days before the attack is presented as prima facie evidence.

The first way of thinking  – that Israel actually carried out the attack – is represented by Ellie Merton, chair of Waltham Forest Palestine Solidarity Campaign:

Just re-watched Hillary Clinton’s statement about the Norwegian terror atrocity, and she looks 300 per cent shifty, implying she knows exactly who did it and why, and she’s embarrassed about it was ‘her’ guys – an Israel government-sponsored operation.

[...]

As far as I can see, globally, Christian far-right white supremacists work hand in hand with Zionist fascists, since their aims are mutually inclusive.

Here, Merton is suggesting that Breivik carried out the attack with direct assistance from the Israeli government. PSC told the Jewish Chronicle that her comments “do not represent our views”, but there is no indication that Merton has been disciplined in any way by the organisation, or at the very least reprimanded for her comments. PSC, it should be said, enjoy the patronage and support of several Trades Unions and regularly feature Members of Parliament on their platforms.

She is joined in that theory by Gilad Atzmon, the ex-Israeli saxophonist who now describes himself as a “proud self-hating Jew“:

And indeed it is after all, pretty clear that a car bomb of such magnitude, and an operation of such sophistication is not exactly something a layman can put together with such apparent ease: it would surely take some specialist knowledge, and the question here is, who could provide such knowledge, and such a vast amount of lethal explosives?

I am not in a position at present to firmly point a finger at Israel, its agents, or its sayanim — but assembling the information together, and considering all possibilities may suggest that Anders Behring Breivik might indeed, have been a Sabbath Goy.

Within its Judaic mundane-societal context, the Sabbath Goy is simply there to accomplish some minor tasks the Jews cannot undertake during the Sabbath. But within the Zion-ised reality we tragically enough live in, the Sabbath Goy kills for the Jewish state. He may even do it voluntarily.

Being an admirer of Israel, Behring Breivik does appear to have treated his fellow countrymen in the same way that the IDF treats Palestinians.

The second way of thinking does not allege direct Israeli involvement, but rather claims that Breivik was inspired by his acceptance of Zionist values and culture. For example, this statement by Hezbollah:

Hezbollah released on Monday a statement condemning the recent attack in Norway committed by a right-wing extremist who supports the Zionists that left at least 70 people dead as a proof of the racism of Zionist culture.

“This terrible terrorist crime is an additional proof that the culture stemming from the Zionist enemy, or ideas that support it, is deeply tied to the racism of its leadership,” a statement released by the party said.

Or this, from Alan Hart:

There are two things we know for sure.

One is that Breivik is fanatically anti-Islam and pro-Zionism.

The other is that Zionism’s propaganda machine has been set to work at full speed, day and night, eight days and nights a week, to demonize, discredit and destroy all who are calling and campaigning for Israel to be boycotted.

From the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust to the present, Zionism’s success in selling its propaganda lies as truth is the reason why the search for peace based on an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians has been, and remains, a mission impossible.

I describe the Israel-Palestine conflict as the cancer at the heart of international affairs which threatens to consume us all. It’s bad enough that Zionist propaganda has prevented a cure for it, but if now that same propaganda is inspiring Europeans in Europe to slaughter their own, the future is very, very frightening.

Alan Hart was a guest speaker for the LSE Islamic Society in March this year.

There are other examples. Two outlets you can always rely on to blame ‘Zionism’ for anything bad in the world are MPACUK and Press TV.

MPACUK published an article about the terrorist attack in Norway (headlined “Christian-Zionist Terrorism Reaches Norway“), three quarters of which consisted of a list of alleged Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

Press TV published two conspiracy pieces, both of which argued that Breivik could not have carried out the attack on his own and that whoever did it, was motivated by support for Zionism or opposition to the Palestinians. George Galloway remains a presenter on Press TV.

Then there are others who hedge their bets, endorsing one idea one minute and the other possibility the next. For example, BNP leader and MEP Nick Griffin, on his twitter feed. First of all, on the day after the attack, he tweeted:

The Oslo mass murderer is not a nationalist but a free market liberal, anti-Muslim Zionist.

Then the following day, he suggested (over the course of four tweets) that actually the attack may have been a conspiracy by “our Masters”:

Oslo killer was influenced by neo-con Clash of Civilisations civic nationalism, not by our ideology. It looks and feels like a mirror image of al qaida, a mentality which rails against its own more than the supposed enemy. As likely to be part of Strategy of Tension by our Masters than genuine reaction to Islamic threat. All his Temple of Solomon nonsense and Zionist ramblings show he’s not from our ranks at all.

As an aside, Nick Griffin’s supposed newly-found support for Israel (much welcomed by some of Israel’s opponents on the anti-Zionist left) does not seem to have lasted very long.

Griffin’s reference to a “Strategy of Tension” revives an idea not heard very often nowadays, but common in parts of the conspiracy-minded far right in the 1980s and 1990s: that governments would encourage far right and far left to attack each other, to justify an extension of their authoritarian powers throughout society. It was heard mostly in relation to extremist terrorism in Italy, the site of Europe’s worst case of far right terrorism since WW2, when a fascist terrorist group called the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei (NAR) bombed Bologna railway station in 1980, killing 85 people. One member of NAR, Roberto Fiore, fled to Britain after the bombing, and remained here while an Italian court convicted him in absentia for membership of NAR (although not for involvement in Bologna) and sentenced him to ten years in prison. Fiore returned to Italy in 1999, after his conviction was ‘timed out’ under a statute of limitations, and continued his political career.

It is remarkable, then, that Griffin chose to address Europe’s latest case of far right terrorism by publishing on the BNP website an article by Fiore, which develops Griffin’s conspiracy theory even further. Fiore writes:

Who profits? Who gains from this?

Who benefits from the anti-Western proclamations of Al Qaeda, which occur regularly every time the American and Zionist regimes are in crisis? Certainly, the Zionist neo-Conservatives that wish for a Civilization clash in which while two dispute, a third enjoys.

Bin Laden was a CIA man, and surely it will be discovered that the man who carried out the attack in Oslo was not acting alone.

Somebody, finally, will ask: why Norway?

In order to answer the question, we keep in mind the words of Michael Ledeen, a man of the CIA and of Mossad with strong links to the events of Bologna, a short time before the attack of March 11th against the railway station in Madrid: “There cannot be an oasis of tranquillity in Europe, the Europeans would not be able to avoid a war, because in their case war will inevitably come.”

Antisemitic Incidents in the UK, January – June 2011

July 28th, 2011 by CST

CST today releases its half-yearly report of antisemitic incidents in the UK for the period from January to June 2011. The figures show a fall of 13 per cent in the first six months of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010.

CST recorded 283 antisemitic incidents across the country in the first half of 2011, compared to 325 in the first six months of 2010. The first half of 2009 saw a record high of 628 antisemitic incidents, more than is recorded in many full years, largely because of antisemitic reactions to the conflict in Gaza.

The total of 283 incidents includes 41 violent antisemitic assaults, down from 45 in the first half of 2010; 35 incidents of antisemitic damage to Jewish property, compared to 47 in the first half of 2010; 186 incidents in the category of Abusive Behaviour, which includes verbal abuse, hate-mail and antisemitic graffiti on non-Jewish property, compared to 211 in the first half of 2010; 16 direct antisemitic threats, compared to 34 in the first half of 2010; and five cases of mass-produced or mass-mailed antisemitic literature, two more than in the first six months of 2010. In addition, a further 216 reports of potential incidents were received by CST, but were not deemed to be antisemitic and are not included in this total.

Greater Manchester saw an increase of 27% in the number of incidents reported to CST, from 95 in the first six months of 2010 to 121 in the first six months of 2011. This increase occurred mainly in Salford, due to local community awareness campaigns and enhanced exchange of information between CST and Greater Manchester Police. There were 98 antisemitic incidents recorded in Greater London, down from 127 in the first half of 2010 – the first time that CST has recorded more incidents in Manchester than in London – and 64 in the rest of the UK, compared to 103 in the first half of 2010.

A full copy of the report can be downloaded from the CST website here (pdf).

CST_Incidents_Report_first six months 2011-1

The development of far right terrorism in Europe

July 27th, 2011 by CST

The report published by CST today, Terrorist Incidents Against Jewish Communities and Israeli Citizens Abroad, 1968–2010, includes several successful and foiled terrorist attacks against Jews by neo-Nazis and others on the far right. In the light of the horrific terrorist attack in Norway last week, and the ongoing debate about far right terrorism, we reproduce below the section of the report which gives an overview of the history and development of far right terrorism in Europe.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the antisemitic ideologies of the far right naturally drew on the example of Nazi Germany, but were modified to accommodate the political realities of the age. Among those who advocated violence against Jews, Francis Parker Yockey was important for defining and promoting a transatlantic and trans-European alliance. His failure to persuade several disparate elements to work together within the European Liberation Front, which he founded in 1949 after breaking away from British far right leader Sir Oswald Mosley, led to his relocation to Egypt, where he worked with former Nazi Major General Otto Ernst Remer, former SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny and Haj Amin Al Husseini, all then living there in exile.

A generation later in the early 1960s, the former Belgian Nazi collaborator, Jean Francois Thiriart, established the Jeune Europe movement with the realisation that the trappings of Nazism had to be abandoned if young people were to be attracted. He also advocated a wider European collaboration, from the Atlantic to the Urals, excluding America. Like Yockey, he urged the militarisation of the white struggle against communism and non-European migration into Europe. As with Povl Riss Kudsen, the contemporary leader of the World Union of National Socialists, he adopted elements of leftist thinking into his evolving ideology, and supported the Palestinian cause against Israel.

During the 1970s, a violent far-right vanguard emerged from the German National Democratic Party (Nationale Democratische Partei), and spawned the Action Front of National Activists (Aktionsfront Nationaler Aktivisten) and later the New Front Group (Gruppe die Neue Front). Their terrorist actions, including an armed assault on a NATO establishment in 1978, led to the imprisonment of leader Michael Kuhnen in 1979, and the suppression of the groups.

Between 1968 and 2004, far-right violence resulted in over 30 terrorist attacks against Jews worldwide. These ranged from Molotov cocktail attacks to the substantial September 2003 plot by the German neo-Nazi Kameradenshaft – Süd group. The latter plot involved bombing the opening ceremony of the rebuilt Munich Synagogue, which, had it come to fruition, would have led to the deaths of Jewish community leaders and of the German Federal President Johannes Rau.

Far-right terrorism does not appear on the surface to be planned or coordinated at either a national or international level. Rather, it is often the consequence of a small minority acting out their extreme ideology. However, a 2007 analysis by Europol noted that:

“Although violent acts perpetuated by right-wing extremists and terrorists may appear sporadic and situational, right-wing extremist activities are organised and transnational.”

The inspiration for many is almost certainly the philosophy of ‘leaderless resistance’, as popularised by the American neo-Nazi Louis Beam, and the messages contained in the American novels of National Alliance founder William Pierce, The Turner Diaries and Hunter. The former depicts a violent revolution in the USA that leads to the overthrow of the federal government and the extermination of all Jews and non-whites; the latter describes a campaign of targeted assassinations of couples in inter racial marriages and civil rights activists carried out by a Vietnam War veteran who gets drawn into a white nationalist group planning insurrection.

The Turner Diaries was a formative influence on David Copeland, the London Nail Bomber, a former member of both the British National Party and the more extreme National Socialist Movement, who was imprisoned for life after a bombing campaign in London in 1999, which killed three and injured over 200. The Police investigation into his three bombings, which targeted minority communities in the capital, showed that he also considered bombing a Jewish target.

One trans-European group is the Racial Volunteer Force (RVF), which emerged out of the British Combat 18, with branches in the UK, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. It describes itself as an “international militant Pro White Organisation”, hints at violence and warns potential members to think hard before joining. The Dutch security service identified the Force’s members as “strongly ideologically developed and capable of playing an important role in furthering and cementing contacts.”

Preparing for terrorism is an element in the strategies of all these groups, although it does not necessarily indicate a readiness to act. During April and July 2005, the German authorities confiscated large caches of arms and explosives in raids on neo-Nazis’ homes, although the security service commented that the intention appeared to have been to possess the arms rather than use them immediately. A 2008 Europol report noted an increasing number of far-right terror plots in the United Kingdom by individuals classified as “lone wolves”, who share “an ideological or philosophical identification with an extremist group, but do not communicate with the group they identify with.”

These concerns have since been borne out by a succession of terrorism convictions of British neo-Nazis. These include Ian and Nicky Davison, the founders of the Aryan Strike Force, who manufactured ricin poison and pipe bombs, and were described in court as “Nazi zealots who believed in white supremacy and revered Adolf Hitler. They hated minority ethnic groups, be they Black, Asian, Muslim or Jewish…It is clear that they wanted to take violent, direct action”; Trevor Hannington and Michael Heaton, also Aryan Strike Force members, who were found guilty on terrorism charges and whose website threatened to ”kill Jews and burn down a synagogue today”; and Martin Gilleard, a member of several neo-Nazi groups, who was found guilty of preparing an act of terror, and described in court as “actively planning to commit terrorist acts against people and communities he hated”, including Jews.

Within Europe at least, the primary targets for far-right terror in recent years have been Muslims rather than Jews. This correlates to a wider change in the agenda of the European far-right, both violent and non-violent, from antisemitism to Islamophobia, although openly neo-Nazi groups still express and promote antisemitism. Muslims are now the primary victims of political agitation by racist groups in Europe. This is partly because they are more easily identifiable targets, and partly because Muslim migration and integration are the focus of mounting public debate across Europe.

Terrorist Incidents Against Jewish Communities and Israeli Citizens Abroad, 1968–2010

July 27th, 2011 by CST

17 years ago today, a car bomb exploded in the early hours of the morning outside Balfour House, in north London, which housed the offices of the Joint Israel Appeal and other Jewish and Israeli charities. A day earlier, another car bomb had detonated outside the Israeli Embassy in central London. The two bombs injured 20 people and caused extensive damage to the buildings. Two years later, two Palestinian former student activists linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh, were sentenced to 20 years in prison for the two bombings.

This was the last successful terrorist attack against a Jewish or Israeli target in the United Kingdom, but it was certainly not the last time that terrorists of one type or another would attempt such an attack in Britain; and there have been several deadly terrorist attacks against Jews in other countries since then.

A new report from CST, Terrorist Incidents Against Jewish Communities and Israeli Citizens Abroad, 1968–2010 (pdf), lists 427 successful terrorist attacks and foiled or aborted terrorist plots, directed against Jewish or Israeli targets in 57 countries outside Israel, since 1968. The first edition of this book, which was published in 2003 by CST and the Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, Israel, was the first time that this history of post-1967 anti-Jewish terrorism had been comprehensively collated. This edition, published solely by CST, includes an updated chronology of attacks, an expanded analysis and new statistical tables. It provides an invaluable aid to Jewish security professionals and volunteers, law enforcement agencies, governments, academics and others interested in the study of terrorism, antisemitism, political and religious extremism and the terrorist threat to Jewish Diaspora communities.

Terrorism against Jewish communities and Israeli targets abroad represents the most violent aspect of contemporary antisemitism, and the greatest physical danger to Diaspora Jewish communities. Antisemitic conspiracy theory, extremist ideology and irrational hatred combine with the rational calculations of political violence to threaten the lives of ordinary Jews and others all over the world. This ongoing terrorist threat to Jews demonstrates in the starkest terms why Jewish communities require security at their synagogues, schools and community buildings, and that an attack on a Diaspora Jewish community is also an attack on the state and its capacity to protect its citizens.

As the tragic events in Norway last week remind us, terrorism comes from many different sources. This report includes attacks and plots by neo-Nazis, Marxist-Leninists, anarchists, Palestinian and other Arab nationalists, revolutionary Iran and its surrogates and radical Sunni Islamists. The organisations responsible for the largest numbers of attacks, both successful and foiled, during the period covered by the report are the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and its various affiliates, with 35 attacks; the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), with 31 attacks; Abu Nidal’s Fatah Revolutionary Council (FRC, 24 attacks); Al-Qaeda and its affiliates (19 attacks); and Hizbollah (14 attacks).

The early 1980s saw the highest number of attacks, which coincided with the largest number of terrorist attacks against all other targets, in Europe and Latin America. This was the era of revolutionary Marxist-Leninist terror groups that evolved out of the post-1968 New Left movement, which received help from Soviet Bloc states and which forged ideological and tactical alliances with Palestinian terror groups. The collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the signing of the Oslo Accords led to a dramatic reduction in terrorism against Jewish and Israeli targets outside Israel in the second half of the 1990s. However, the first decade of the twenty-first century saw the growth of global jihadi and neo-Nazi terrorism, replacing old sources of terrorism with new ones.

The report demonstrates that many terrorists do not make a clear distinction between Jewish and Israeli targets outside Israel, either in their ideology, their propaganda or – most importantly – in their targeting. For this reason, both types of target are included in the Chronology of Terrorist Attacks and Plots, which forms the main body of this publication.

You can download a copy of the report here; or hard copies are available on request at enquiries@thecst.org.uk

CST Terrorist Incidents 1968 - 2010-front cover

Anders Behring Breivik’s political platform

July 26th, 2011 by Dave Rich

When Anders Behring Breivik set out to commit mass murder last Friday, he left behind a huge amount of material explaining his motivations, intentions and preparations: mainly in the form of a 1,516-page written manifesto and a 12 minute video, both of which can be found here. There is something very unpleasant about poring over Breivik’s political testimony, knowing that this is precisely what he wants everybody to be doing; but nonetheless, it contains important pointers to his motivations and the new kind of far right politics he represents.

The manifesto covers a huge amount of ground. Titled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, it is designed as a handbook for what Breivik believes will be a European civil war between the “cultural Marxists” who currently control Europe, and the “cultural conservatives” like himself who will overthrow them. This war, he believes, began in 1999 and will end in 2083. The manifesto is written in English, under an English-pseudonym (Andrew Berwick of London), and has a particular focus on the United Kingdom and France as key countries for his struggle.

front cover

The front cover of Breivik’s manifesto, bearing a Knights Templar cross (all images in this post are taken from the manifesto)

The manifesto contains lots of detail about Breivik’s life, upbringing and political development, including a 60-page interview with himself; advice on weapons training; body armour; tactical planning; logistics; explosives testing; building a paramilitary organisation; all in phenomenal detail. It includes written statements to be used in court after a successful terrorist attack (this may be one reason why the proceedings have not be televised so far). Disturbingly, there are long lists of the categories of people in European society who, he believes, need to be killed. Bizarrely, Breivik has even designed a system of medals and ribbons to be awarded to fighters in the coming civil war, and tombstone designs for those who are killed. There are other, more chilling, details: he advises would-be terrorists to wear a police uniform in order to sow confusion, and to carry out a feint attack in one place, before launching the real attack elsewhere. Furthermore:

Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike.

Breivik claims that he acted on behalf of an organisation called the Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici (PCCTS – the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon), or the Knights Templar (KT), formed in London in 2002 and which has other members (“Justiciar Knights“) across Europe who are ready to strike. However, the manifesto and video seem to be more directed at encouraging copycat attacks from others who are inspired by his example, but who have not yet made any preparations of their own.

Rather than writing in more detail about the practical and logistical details of Breivik’s terrorism, I intend to focus in this post on some of his political beliefs, and the changes they reflect on parts of the European contemporary far right.

Culture, not Race

The first half of the manifesto is a compilation of hundreds of blogposts and newspaper articles (written by others) which Breivik uses to construct the argument that all the areas of power and influence in Europe – politics, journalism, academia, media, education and so on – are controlled by what he calls “cultural Marxists“, but what most would call the liberal left: people who support multiculturalism, diversity, immigration and feminism. In contrast, he argues, “cultural conservatives” who hold views similar to his own are demonised as fascists, racists and Nazis, and excluded from positions of influence. The “cultural Marxists”, he argues, are encouraging mass Muslim immigration and the Islamisation of Europe in order to destroy European civilisation and culture and create an “EUSSR“.

Marxist hunter badge

A “Marxist Hunter” badge for England, apparently created by Breivik; he wears a similar badge for Norway in the picture at the end of this post

Breivik brackets multiculturalism with Communism, Islam and National Socialism as “hate ideologies“.

Justiciar Knight badge

The badge of the “Justiciar Knights”: a Crusader cross killing Islam, Communism and Nazism, ideologies which all bring death

Breivik’s basic narrative, therefore, is one of grievance, resistance to political oppression, conspiracy theory and self-defence of vital interests; and the desperation of the moment demands violence. This is a very common theme in justifications for all forms of terrorism. Moreover, the idea that immigration is a tool used by elites to destroy the white race has been common on the European far right for decades. What is different, and important, in Breivik’s politics is one word: culture.

Breivik explicitly rejects racism in his manifesto:

Know that we, the PCCTS, Knights Templar, are not a racist organisation. Individuals of all races, providing that they are Christian, can join and fight for the Knights Templar as Justiciar Knights.

And:

The candidate [for membership] must not be a Nazi-sympathiser or support white supremacy ideologies as those are considered hate ideologies.

This is partly tactical. Breivik argues at some length that politics based on race, ethnicity and nationalism is so stigmatised in post WW2 Europe that those words must be avoided at all costs. While he admits that “ethnicity and race still is relevant“, he argues:

The fear of Islamisation is the most pressing concern for most Europeans and Islam is NOT a race. So avoid talking about race. It is a cultural war, not a race war!

While Breivik uses Christian, and particularly Crusader, iconography and language, this is in a cultural or civilisational way rather than religious. Descriptions of him as a “Christian fundamentalist” do not really capture this distinction. He describes his politics as “cultural conservatism” or “Crusader nationalism”; while the former is clearly too euphemistic to describe a violent revolutionary, the latter label feels appropriate.

Breivik is not opposed to all immigration: while he calls for the deportation of all Muslims from Europe, he does not endorse similar policies for non-Muslim immigrants, “as long as they are fully assimilated…Any future immigration needs to be strictly controlled and exclusively non-Muslim.”

The manifesto reflects a fundamental shift that has taken place across much of the European far right: from the language of race and nation to that of identity and culture. The argument he makes about the relative impact of the two discourses has been made many times by the BNP’s Nick Griffin, for example. Like many on the far right, Breivik draws on and distorts mainstream, popular concerns about immigration, multiculturalism and Islamist extremism, often using mainstream media sources as well as more extreme, single-issue blogs, to claim that Europe faces imminent destruction from within.

The Vienna School of Thought

Breivik’s rejection of neo-Nazism and overt racism is not shared by everyone on the European far right: several of the people convicted of terrorism offences in the UK, for example, still adhere to the old-style racial nationalism which Breivik rejects. He even states that he was expelled from the Stormfront website for arguing this point too vociferously. However, his manifesto crystallises far right themes that have become commonplace in recent years. As such, it will probably become an historic document in capturing this discourse at a key point in its development: the moment when it first motivated large-scale terrorist violence. Breivik has christened this moment “The Vienna School of Thought” (named after the Battle of Vienna in 1683).

Breivik describes the Vienna School as “a hybrid between several sub-ideologies“, as follows:

  • Pro-Nationalism
  • Pro-pan-nationalism (pro-Europeanism)
  • Pro-national or pan-European crusaderism
  • Pro-Christian identity
  • Pro-cultural conservatism
  • Pro-monoculturalism (pro cultural unity)
  • Pro-patriarchy
  • Pro-Israel
  • Anti-Marxism
  • Anti-globalism/internationalism
  • Anti-multiculturalism
  • Anti-Jihadism
  • Anti-Islam(isation)
  • Anti-imperialistic
  • Anti-feminism
  • Anti-pacifism
  • Anti-EU(SSR)
  • Anti-matriarchy
  • Anti-racist
  • Anti-fascist
  • Anti-Nazi
  • Anti-totalitarian

He then adds a list of “controversial principles“, which includes:

  • Revolutionary, supports the overthrow of all Western European multiculturalist governments through armed struggle to prevent the gradual demographical extermination of Europeans through Islamic demographic warfare
  • Against excessive US cultural influence
  • Against US military bases/US military personnel on European soil
  • Restriction of media rights. Media should not dictate the policies of the nation or the lifestyles of Europeans
  • Supports the deportation of all Muslims from Europe

Crusaders united

Hatred of multiculturalism and adulation of Crusaders

While acknowledging that violent revolution will not be supported by all “cultural conservatives“, nonetheless Breivik tries to construct a more broad political programme to unite all such organisations across Europe, based on some of the above positions. In Britain, unsurprisingly, he identifies the BNP, the National Front and various English nationalist organisations and websites as potential members of such a “non-military” alliance. After the revolution, Breivik writes, mass-participation democracy will be replaced with “a model more resembling the Russian system of administered democracy”.

Attitude towards Jews and Israel

Some commentators have latched onto Breivik’s expressed support for Israel, for example in the above doctrine. Again, this reflects a wider shift on parts (but certainly not all) of the European far right, from antisemitism as an unshakeable, core belief, to a more favourable view of Israel based on the idea of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’.

Breivik in fact is very critical of neo-Nazis who “obsess so much over the Jews“. He claims to hate Adolf Hitler, because Hitler’s obsessive hatred of Jews, and the subsequent Holocaust (which he does not deny), is what gave birth to the multiculturalism that he believes will eventually destroy Europe. As there are only 950 Jews in Norway, Breivik argues, it is ridiculous to claim that they control the government and are responsible for multiculturalism. However, his attitude towards Jews is not positive. He believes that wherever Jews live in large numbers, they create a problem for that country:

There is no Jewish problem in Western Europe (with the exception of the UK and France) as we only have 1 million in Western Europe, whereas 800 000 out of these 1 million live in France and the UK. The US on the other hand, with more than 6 million Jews (600% more than Europe) actually has a considerable Jewish problem.

Breivik believes that Jews should be treated like every other European: those who are multiculturalist traitors are enemies, while those who are culturally conservative are potential allies. But what are the proportions of Jews who fall into these two categories?

So, are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multiculturalist (nation-wrecking) Jews ARE while the conservative Jews ARE NOT. Aprox. 75% of European/US Jews support multiculturalism while aprox. 50% of Israeli Jews does the same. This shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP…Never target a Jew because he is a Jew, but rather because he is a category A or B traitor. And don’t forget that the bulk of the category A and B traitors are Christian Europeans. 90% of the category A and B traitors in my own country, Norway, are Nordic, Christian category A and B traitors.

It is striking that, even as someone who describes himself as “pro-Israel”, Breivik believes that half of all Israeli Jews are enemies who, presumably, must be killed, imprisoned or punished in some other way; as are three-quarters of European and American Jews. Classical antisemitism constructs an image of a typical Jew which bears no relation to reality, but is simply a cipher for all that the antisemite hates and fears. Breivik’s categorisation of the different types of Jews (and Israel) fits this way of thinking perfectly.

Breivik & the English Defence League

There has been much discussion about Breivik’s contacts with the English Defence League. Breivik advocates using Facebook to win supporters and spread political beliefs (he complains at one point that Facebook only allows him to befriend 50 people each day), and he appears to have been in contact with large numbers of EDL members in this way:

I used to have more than 600 EDL members as Facebook friends and have spoken with tens of EDL members and leaders. In fact; I was one of the individuals who supplied them with processed ideological material (including rhetorical strategies) in the very beginning.

He also commends them on their approach:

The British EDL seems to be the first youth organisation that has finally understood this. Sure, in the beginning it was the occasional egg heads who shouted racist slogans and did Nazi salutes but these individuals were kicked out. An organisation such as the EDL has the moral high ground and can easily justify their political standpoints as they publicly oppose racism and authoritarianism.

[...]

When they “bait” the UAF, and Jihadi youth (in the thousands) in to rioting, they ensure that the riots are covered by national and international press. During the Harrod (sic) protest there were only 16 or so from SIOE and EDL, while there were 3000+ Marxist extremists and Jihadi youth. While it is perhaps morally questionable to bait like this they enticed an overreaction which again lead to “favourable” coverage (a significantly unfavourable coverage of Marxist extremists and Jihadi youth). Favourable in the sense that Brits gets an indication of the true potency and potential threat of the Jihadi mob, which again results in more Europeans waking up from their self induced coma.

However, by February of this year Breivik appears to have given up on the EDL:

The EDL, although having noble intentions are in fact dangerously naïve. EDL and KT principles can never be reconciled as we are miles apart ideologically AND organizationally. The EDL even rejects taking a stand against multiculturalism which proves that they are even more naïve than Sarkozy, Merkel  and Cameron who have all admitted that multiculturalism has been a failure and a disaster for Europe…KT was formed back in 2002 as a revolutionary conservative movement because we had lost hope that the democratic framework can solve Europe’s current problems. The EDL, on the other hand, IS a democratic movement. They STILL believe that the democratic system can solve Britain’s problems… This is why the EDL harshly condemns any and all revolutionary conservative movements that employ terror as a tool, such as the KT. And this is why, we, the KT view the EDL as naïve fools, wasting all their energy monkey-screaming to deaf ears while they should instead have focused on means and methods that are meaningful in regards to achieving true political change, in regards to tearing down the multiculturalist regime known as Britain. Unfortunately, the only meaningful resistance at this point in time is to use military force.

This may reflect the development in Breivik’s political thinking towards terrorism, as much as any changes in the EDL. However, Breivik is not the only convicted far right terrorist to have had contact with the EDL. It may be best to view the EDL as a gateway organisation: one which does not carry out or explicitly support terrorism itself, but creates and promotes the political discourse and identity-based grievance narrative, from which a small number of individuals move on to terrorism. As such, it demands the appropriate level of intelligence monitoring and police scrutiny, as is applied to similar gateway organisations in the Islamist world.

wetsuit

Trans-European Trends in Right Wing Extremism

July 24th, 2011 by CST

Trans-European Trends in Right Wing Extremism, a new paper by CST’s Director of Government and International Affairs Michael Whine, is now available to download in full here.

The paper will appear as a chapter in a forthcoming book, a forthcoming book, Mapping the Extreme Right in Contemporary Europe (Berghahn Books) due to be published later this year.

Recognising the threat of far right terrorism

July 24th, 2011 by Dave Rich

The appalling and tragic events in Norway on Friday have served as an horrific reminder that Europe’s far right is capable of producing terrorists, who are just as willing to kill in large numbers as any jihadi terrorist group.

Previously, most attempts by neo-Nazis or other adherents of far right ideologies to perpetrate terrorist attacks have failed for logistical reasons, but there are enough examples that succeeded – for example, David Copeland here in the UK, or the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in the United States – to dispel any complacency. The growing list of prosecutions and convictions in Britain of would-be terrorists from the far right in recent years shows that this is a real and growing problem.

CST’s Michael Whine has authored a chapter on the trans-European links of far right extremists for a forthcoming book, Mapping the Extreme Right in Contemporary Europe (Berghahn Books, forthcoming). The section of this chapter which addresses far right terrorism is worth repeating here, in particular noting the escalation from street violence to terrorism, and the focus on the Muslims and the state as preferred targets for violence:

Street violence has always been part of the neo-Nazi scene: it provides a focus for hatred and thereby draws in new adherents, but the emerging trend involves a move beyond the anti-foreigner street violence of the 1990s towards a more focused violence, which includes terrorism, and which is spurred by different reasons (Merkl 1997: 17).
Tore Bjorgo noted in 1995 that the increasing support for xenophobic and radical-right parties enabled the growth of militant neo-Nazi organizations and networks which targeted asylum seekers and visible minorities within Europe. He further observed that groups perceived as ‘right wing’ or ‘racist’ often turned out to have no connections with extreme political organizations, and only a rudimentary idea of any ideology. He suggested that defining the essence of right-wing extremism in terms of one single issue, value or philosophical idea would prove to be a frustrating exercise. Rather, he suggested, that theirs ‘is an anger against perceived outsiders, or the state, which could take a violent path’ (Bjorgo 1995: 2).
At the same time, the late Ehud Sprinzak suggested that violent, extreme right-wing groups are organized around the belief that the object of their intense opposition is a priori illegitimate, that they do not belong to the same humanity as themselves, and should therefore be kept in an inferior legal state, expelled or even eliminated. He further observed that their violence may be directed towards the ‘inferior’ group, or it may be directed against the political authority which has allowed such a situation to develop (Bjorgo 1995: 4).
Evidence in recent criminal trials and security services’ reports suggests that elements within the extreme right are preparing and training for what they perceive to be a coming war for ‘white survival’. Few criminal justice agencies publish data on this specifically, or differentiate it from other forms of violent crime, but the exceptions are the Swedish and German security services (BfV various years; SAPO various years; for background, see Bjorgo 1995). Their reports note that within established extreme-right bodies there are now individuals, or small groups, who are planning and preparing for acts of terrorism using firearms and improvized explosive devices that are more sophisticated than petrol bombs or other forms of missile previously associated with extreme-right violence. This new trend stands in stark contrast to earlier perceptions when several European security services reported an ambivalence towards the use of violence.
The move to terrorism is not perceived to be a substantive challenge to the state, but rather an attack on symbols of the state and a reaction to the influx of migrants, particularly Muslims. In Sweden, for example, four neo-Nazis were charged in early 2005 in connection with a terrorist plot to attack the parliament building and schools, but for evidentiary reasons were convicted only of causing criminal damage (SAPO 2005: 5). The Swedish security police therefore noted in 2006 that
[ext]Both the White Power scene and the autonomous scene contain actors who have shown that they are prepared to use threat, violence or force to attain their political objectives. In some cases their actions are directed against authorities or political parties represented in parliament (SAPO 2006: 23).
This new trend is neither widespread nor does it involve large numbers, but is the consequence of a small minority acting out their extreme ideology. It is, however, planned and coordinated at a national and an international level, and it is the Internet that enables and strengthens the processes. A Europol report noted in 2006 that
[ext]Although violent acts perpetrated by right-wing extremists and terrorists may appear sporadic and situational, right-wing extremist activities are organised and transnational (Europol 2007, p.4).
The inspiration for many is the ‘leaderless resistance’ model of small cells or single individuals (‘lone wolves’) using terror tactics to resist central government suggested by U.S. extreme-right theoretician Louis Beam, and the messages contained in The Turner Diaries and Hunter, two novels written by William Pierce, under the pseudonym of Andrew Macdonald. The former depicts a violent revolution to overthrow the U.S. federal government and to exterminate Jews and non-whites; the latter describes a targeted assassination campaign of couples in inter-racial marriages and civil rights activists carried out by a Vietnam War veteran who is drawn into a white nationalist group planning insurrection (Beam 1992; Macdonald (1978, 1989).
The murder of Theo van Gogh, and the 7 July London bombings galvanized neo-Nazi groups around Europe although the immediate reaction did not lead to the extreme violence that security agencies predicted. There was, however, an increase in low-level violence, and anti-Muslim demonstrations in many countries, especially in the Netherlands and the U.K. The Dutch security service and the annual Dutch Racism and Extremism Monitor both reported a discernible move by activists to ‘tougher, violence-prone neo-Nazi groups’ which are ‘just a fraction removed from terrorism’ (AIVD 2005, 2006, 2007; van Donselaar and Rodrigues 2006). The acquisition of arms, bomb-making materials and military manuals has been noted in several states, although the degree to which they will use them is another matter, and their possession may be more apparent than their willingness and capability to deploy them. During April and July 2005, the German authorities confiscated large caches of arms and explosives in raids on the homes of neo-Nazis, but commented afterwards that the intention appeared to have been to stockpile arms rather than use them immediately. They also noted that some right-wing extremists reject terrorist activity which could lead to increased surveillance by the state (BfV 2005: 50). In the U.K., the police also foiled a succession of terrorist plots initiated by extreme-right activists.  Nevertheless, the German authorities report that extreme-right activists are increasingly prepared to resort to violence, to obtain weapons and to engage in paramilitary exercises, as training for terrorism (BfV 2004: 39–41; BfV 2005: 49–50).
The willingness to employ extreme violence in defence of European ‘values’ is apparent in the ideology of several groups, among them the British Patriots of the White European Resistance (POWER), which emerged in 2006, and which claims supporters in Croatia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Slovenia and Sweden. The British police have reported
[ext]There is no intelligence to suggest that POWER is instrumental in influencing known or alleged ‘Lone Wolf’ operatives. However POWER is a relatively new group who are difficult to regionalise and who have links to continental Europe (Association of Chief Police Officers 2008).
The POWER website states that
[ext]We began in Great Britain but are a pro European movement with members in all European countries … We were formed as a last chance movement to preserve our individual nations and to unify Europe and build the great nations and Europe we once had … We are not a Political party, and would consider ourselves freedom fighters, not the left wing version of the term freedom fighters. Which are called Terrorists, we are defenders of the European culture. However we urge people to support National Socialism … We are firm believers in the policies of Oswald Mosley and strongly support all of his theories on the state of Europe (http://www.14power88.com/vonherman/vwar/page.php?id=6).
POWER identification of the enemy is shared with like-minded groups:
[ext]The western world we feel is under threat from not only Jewish corruption but also from mass immigration, drug imports, religious divide, gun crime, Islamic hatred and multiculturalism in general, we firmly support all of Europe but refuse to accept that we owe any African anything … We stand alongside every European nation that wishes to remove non whites from their land (http://www.14power88.com/vonherman/vwar/page.php?id=6).
The Racial Volunteer Force (RVF) is a second trans-European group which emerged from the UK-based Combat 18, with branches in the UK, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, and which declares itself to be an international ‘militant Pro White Organisation’, with its own European council. It hints that it will resort to violence and warns its members that they must think long and hard before joining (http://wwwrvfonline.com/house.htm). The Dutch security service identified its members as ‘strongly ideologically developed’ capable of playing an important role in furthering and cementing contacts (AIVD 2006: 52). The terrorist threat is not perceived to be a substantive challenge to the state, but rather an attack on the symbols of the state and a reaction to the influx of migrants, particularly Muslims. It is not a widespread trend, nor is it coordinated and planned at any central point. Rather, it is the consequence of small groups acting out their extreme ideology.
The 2008 Europol report on terrorist threats within the European Union identified an increasing number of extreme-right terrorist plots in the U.K. during the past ten years by individuals classified as ‘lone wolves’ who share ‘an ideological or philosophical identification with an extremist group, but do not communicate with the group they identify with’ (Europol 2008: 39). They follow the models proposed by Beam and Pierce.

Street violence has always been part of the neo-Nazi scene: it provides a focus for hatred and thereby draws in new adherents, but the emerging trend involves a move beyond the anti-foreigner street violence of the 1990s towards a more focused violence, which includes terrorism, and which is spurred by different reasons.

Tore Bjorgo noted in 1995 that the increasing support for xenophobic and radical-right parties enabled the growth of militant neo-Nazi organizations and networks which targeted asylum seekers and visible minorities within Europe. He further observed that groups perceived as ‘right wing’ or ‘racist’ often turned out to have no connections with extreme political organizations, and only a rudimentary idea of any ideology. He suggested that defining the essence of right-wing extremism in terms of one single issue, value or philosophical idea would prove to be a frustrating exercise. Rather, he suggested, that theirs ‘is an anger against perceived outsiders, or the state, which could take a violent path’.

At the same time, the late Ehud Sprinzak suggested that violent, extreme right-wing groups are organized around the belief that the object of their intense opposition is a priori illegitimate, that they do not belong to the same humanity as themselves, and should therefore be kept in an inferior legal state, expelled or even eliminated. He further observed that their violence may be directed towards the ‘inferior’ group, or it may be directed against the political authority which has allowed such a situation to develop.

Evidence in recent criminal trials and security services’ reports suggests that elements within the extreme right are preparing and training for what they perceive to be a coming war for ‘white survival’. Few criminal justice agencies publish data on this specifically, or differentiate it from other forms of violent crime, but the exceptions are the Swedish and German security services (BfV various years; SAPO various years; for background, see Bjorgo 1995). Their reports note that within established extreme-right bodies there are now individuals, or small groups, who are planning and preparing for acts of terrorism using firearms and improvized explosive devices that are more sophisticated than petrol bombs or other forms of missile previously associated with extreme-right violence. This new trend stands in stark contrast to earlier perceptions when several European security services reported an ambivalence towards the use of violence.

The move to terrorism is not perceived to be a substantive challenge to the state, but rather an attack on symbols of the state and a reaction to the influx of migrants, particularly Muslims. In Sweden, for example, four neo-Nazis were charged in early 2005 in connection with a terrorist plot to attack the parliament building and schools, but for evidentiary reasons were convicted only of causing criminal damage (SAPO 2005: 5). The Swedish security police therefore noted in 2006 that

Both the White Power scene and the autonomous scene contain actors who have shown that they are prepared to use threat, violence or force to attain their political objectives. In some cases their actions are directed against authorities or political parties represented in parliament (SAPO 2006: 23).

This new trend is neither widespread nor does it involve large numbers, but is the consequence of a small minority acting out their extreme ideology. It is, however, planned and coordinated at a national and an international level, and it is the Internet that enables and strengthens the processes. A Europol report noted in 2006 that

[ext]Although violent acts perpetrated by right-wing extremists and terrorists may appear sporadic and situational, right-wing extremist activities are organised and transnational (Europol 2007, p.4).

The inspiration for many is the ‘leaderless resistance’ model of small cells or single individuals (‘lone wolves’) using terror tactics to resist central government suggested by U.S. extreme-right theoretician Louis Beam, and the messages contained in The Turner Diaries and Hunter, two novels written by William Pierce, under the pseudonym of Andrew Macdonald. The former depicts a violent revolution to overthrow the U.S. federal government and to exterminate Jews and non-whites; the latter describes a targeted assassination campaign of couples in inter-racial marriages and civil rights activists carried out by a Vietnam War veteran who is drawn into a white nationalist group planning insurrection.

The murder of Theo van Gogh, and the 7 July London bombings galvanized neo-Nazi groups around Europe although the immediate reaction did not lead to the extreme violence that security agencies predicted. There was, however, an increase in low-level violence, and anti-Muslim demonstrations in many countries, especially in the Netherlands and the U.K. The Dutch security service and the annual Dutch Racism and Extremism Monitor both reported a discernible move by activists to ‘tougher, violence-prone neo-Nazi groups’ which are ‘just a fraction removed from terrorism’ (AIVD 2005, 2006, 2007; van Donselaar and Rodrigues 2006). The acquisition of arms, bomb-making materials and military manuals has been noted in several states, although the degree to which they will use them is another matter, and their possession may be more apparent than their willingness and capability to deploy them. During April and July 2005, the German authorities confiscated large caches of arms and explosives in raids on the homes of neo-Nazis, but commented afterwards that the intention appeared to have been to stockpile arms rather than use them immediately. They also noted that some right-wing extremists reject terrorist activity which could lead to increased surveillance by the state (BfV 2005: 50). In the U.K., the police also foiled a succession of terrorist plots initiated by extreme-right activists.  Nevertheless, the German authorities report that extreme-right activists are increasingly prepared to resort to violence, to obtain weapons and to engage in paramilitary exercises, as training for terrorism (BfV 2004: 39–41; BfV 2005: 49–50).

The willingness to employ extreme violence in defence of European ‘values’ is apparent in the ideology of several groups, among them the British Patriots of the White European Resistance (POWER), which emerged in 2006, and which claims supporters in Croatia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Slovenia and Sweden.

[...]

The 2008 Europol report on terrorist threats within the European Union identified an increasing number of extreme-right terrorist plots in the U.K. during the past ten years by individuals classified as ‘lone wolves’ who share ‘an ideological or philosophical identification with an extremist group, but do not communicate with the group they identify with’ (Europol 2008: 39). They follow the models proposed by Beam and Pierce.

These trends have been apparent for some years. In 2001, just prior to the 9/11 attacks, Michael Whine wrote another paper about two new types of terrorism: far right terrorism and religious terrorism. Both types of terrorism tend towards seeking large numbers of casualties as an end in itself; and both increasingly involve actors who are not part of organised extremist movements, and are therefore much harder for law enforcement to identify and interdict. The shift in the rhetoric of the European far right towards a discourse of protecting their culture, rather than their race, does not change their underlying politics.

How to address the problem of lone actors who are prepared to kill in such large numbers, and who draw encouragement from a wider extremist narrative of grievance and self-defence through violence, is both a political and a policing problem and is not limited to any one kind of terrorism. Matthew Goodwin has some interesting observations here; Raffaello Pantucci’s typology (pdf) of lone terrorist actors is essential reading; Hope Not Hate addresses the wider political milieu from which far right terrorism emerges. There are no simple answers; but as events in Norway have shown, this is not a problem that can be ignored.

« Previous Entries