Rise of the Radical Right

Anders Behring Breivik is not alone. In fact, Europe has many more dangerous extremists than anyone thinks.

For the past five years, in the bastions of civilized Europe, the far right has been resurgent. Extreme right-wing political parties have scored unprecedented electoral success in a number of countries, including Austria, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Far-right street movements of disgruntled young men, barely seen for a generation, are appearing in greater numbers in busy Strassen, plazas, and boulevards. Until Friday, July 22, governments and the security services viewed this as a worrying trend, but one that could be contained. With the stunning, tragic attacks in Norway, that has now changed. Intelligence agencies, concerned more with al Qaeda for a decade, are suddenly alert to a new and deadly threat.

The relationship between ascendant far-right extremism and political violence is suddenly a top political and security concern. Right-wing groups will come under great scrutiny, and governments are likely to re-examine the case for proscribing some of them. But should they? For the past six months, we have been examining this question through a large-scale survey of extreme right-wing political activists and sympathizers across Europe. The answer is far from simple.

Over the last decade, the extreme right in Europe has become more palatable. The overt racism and chest-beating nationalism of previous years have been discarded. What characterizes the new far-right is a defiant, aggressive defense of national culture and history in the face of a changing world, of secularism, and even of democracy and liberty. While each has its idiosyncrasies, far-right parties are responding to genuine concerns of many voters: that modern globalization hasn't benefited them, that mass immigration -- especially from Muslim-majority countries -- is threatening local and national identity.

Perhaps most importantly, these new far-right parties like Geert Wilders's Freedom Party in the Netherlands or Marine Le Pen's Front National in France expertly portray mainstream politicians as spineless, soft-boiled, venal, self-serving slaves to political correctness and orthodoxy. Recent events -- such as banking bailouts, the eurozone crisis, and the News International hacking scandal -- certainly lend some credibility to the view that politicians are indeed out of touch with ordinary people.

This potent mix of populism and far-right ideas -- often utilizing powerful historical and cultural reference points, such as Enlightenment philosophers and national flags -- has meant the forming of new alliances and a blurring of obvious left and right lines. Thilo Sarrazin, for example, author of the book Germany Does Away With Itself, which argues that the country is sleepwalking into a multicultural abyss, is a prominent member of the left-wing Social Democratic Party. One leader of a Danish far-right organization described himself to us as an atheist Marxist.

A significant chunk of European voters is clearly impressed. Le Pen is currently third in the polling for the 2012 French presidential election. Wilders's Freedom Party is also the third-largest in the Netherlands. In Scandinavia, the True Finns, the Danish People's Party, and the Sweden Democrats all secured their best-ever electoral results over the past 18 months. Germany's and Austria's far-right parties are resurgent, sparking atavistic European fears. Further east, the Jobbik party is now the third-largest political party in Hungary, having doubled its seats during the last election.

Possibly more significant, the growing power of these parties exerts a gravitational pull on the political center. David Cameron and Angela Merkel both recently announced the death of multiculturalism, and Nicolas Sarkozy's burqa ban has been a vote-winner in France.

Below the political fracas, a new breed of far-right and nationalist street-based groups is also getting a more confident swagger. In Britain, the English Defence League (EDL) has employed a similar blend of far-right and populist ideas, springing up in 2006 to protest against what it sees as creeping Islamism in British society. With smart use of social media sites, the EDL has been able to mobilize between 2,000 to 3,000 people for demonstrations and claims to have a Facebook membership of 90,000. Britain has not seen anything like it since the 1970s. (Anders Behring Breivik, the Oslo bomber and Utoya gunman, is believed to have been in contact with members of this group -- possibly even attending a march in 2010 -- and openly admired their tactics; he wanted to set up a Norwegian Defence League.) In France, Le Bloc Identitaire is a street-based movement that has arranged pork and wine parties outside mosques, as a statement of defense of the French secular constitution.

In our research, we have found that these groups are often torn between sometimes conflicting goals of seeking respectability among their peers and recruiting new members. In Denmark, where we were conducting fieldwork last week, the extreme far right is fragmented over positions on anti-Semitism, homosexuality, and race. Many are now talking about themselves as "modern nationalists" focused on the growth of Islam, while trying to dissociate themselves from Nazi connotations to gain legitimacy. Interestingly, comments on a forum of one of the newest far-right groups -- the Danskernes Parti (Danes' Party) -- led by an up-and-coming 21-year-old named Daniel Carlsen, claim that Breivik is a "madman," not a nationalist, and is "pro-Jewish" as a member of the Freemasons.

It is in this febrile environment that the creaking networks of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Christian fundamentalists are finding new life and new recruits. The truly radical right in Europe is still only minuscule, but even before the Oslo attacks, signs of a coming revival were evident.

Of course, each far-right group has its own idiosyncrasies. Indeed, the first rule of extreme right-wing movements is to not offend national sentiments. Some radical right-wing groups, such as the British neo-Nazi terrorist group Combat 18, are obsessed with anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Others believe in racial supremacy and the importance of Aryan purity. In Scandinavia, Nordic mythology often features. Some share overlap with violent football hooligan groups like White Pride in Aarhus. It is these groups that intelligence and security agencies have long followed, as violence is a central part of their worldview -- an important point that distinguishes them from more mainstream groups.

Of course, the political right actively distances itself from the more extreme fringes. But there is certainly some ideological overlap between them. They share an affinity for inflammatory rhetoric premised on an existential crisis. Western civilization is under threat, attacked by multiculturalists, Jews, and Muslims bent on destroying Christendom and national identity. Breivik's "manifesto" -- a 1,500-page enunciation of his thinking posted online just hours before his killing spree -- illustrates these themes precisely. He explains how cultural Marxism has destroyed European identity, with multiculturalists willingly complicit. Islam, he says, is now the biggest threat to Norway (and Europe) through "demographic warfare." We found this sentiment rife among a variety of far-right groups in Denmark.

No one really knows the exact relationship between extreme right-wing movements and political violence. Indeed, academics are still arguing, without resolution, about whether peaceful but extreme Islamist organizations are "gateways" into Islamist terrorism.

Yet all terrorists believe they are defending a wider constituency, fighting for ideas that others agree with but are too ignorant or afraid to take action on. Breivik made one, eerie tweet from his account, paraphrasing the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests." Like al Qaeda, far-right terrorists often see themselves as vanguards -- striking a blow that will awaken the masses.

There's no question that someone like Anders Behring Breivik is more likely to find that environment in Europe now than a decade ago. And though he may have acted alone, there are certainly more like him who share his concerns, his ideology, and his belief that without immediate and drastic action Western civilization will be lost. The world can no longer afford to ignore this growing threat.

AFP/Getty Images


Norway's Oklahoma City?

The real question is: Why are big terrorist attacks so rare?

As the horrors of the bombing and shooting spree in Norway become clearer, Americans are both expressing their sympathy and asking whether it could happen here. As of writing, it's still unclear whether these gruesome attacks are the act of a lone domestic gunman, an international terrorist network, or some odd, imagined combination of both. This may yet turn out to be Norway's 9/11 or its Oklahoma City. But the scene of destruction in downtown Oslo does beg the question: why haven't there been more large-scale terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland?

Yes, the United States remains vulnerable to violence, whether terrorist or not. School shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech and the deaths that surrounded the attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords are painful reminders of how easy it is for angry or deluded individuals to pick up a gun and kill large numbers of people. Indeed, with this reminder, the relative safety of the U.S. homeland from terrorists since 9/11 becomes all the more remarkable.

Let's remember, of course, that there have been some "successful" attacks and a few near-misses. Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan, who allegedly shot 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, appears to have been inspired by a jihadist agenda. Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the shoebomber and underwear bomber respectively, both came terrifyingly close to downing airplanes and killing hundreds of Americans. Also in 2009, Najibullah Zazi was arrested for planning suicide bombings of the New York subway system after being trained by al Qaeda in Pakistan. So without a little bad luck by terrorists, the courage of passengers on two airplanes, and the vigilance of U.S. security officials, the body count in the United States could be far worse.

Yet it is more than this mix of serendipity and skill that has, so far, spared us from the horrors that engulfed Oslo.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the FBI, and local police are far more vigilant in going after terrorism than was the U.S. government in the pre-9/11 era. Of course, there was no DHS before 9/11 -- its very creation underlines how terrorism became an important policy priority. These agencies, especially DHS, have a long ways to go, but simply by paying attention to suspect individuals coming into the country and trying to operate on U.S. soil they have been able to pick up many would-be terrorists who might have otherwise gone undetected. FBI surveillance and sting operations against suspects have also prevented plots from coming close to fruition. In fact, terrorists often now think the FBI and DHS are more capable than they are, making them more cautious about targeting America. Hence all the talk today of Norway being a "soft target" by comparison.

Immigration and assimilation is also a factor. In contrast to many European countries, the United States does not have large numbers of angry and alienated Muslim citizens. American Muslims, on average, are well-educated and comfortably middle class. Many of the tips the FBI and police have received on suspected terrorists have come from within this community.

Perhaps most important, the al Qaeda core has been hit, and hit hard. The death of Osama bin Laden is the most dramatic blow, but the unceasing drone campaign in tribal parts of Pakistan and a global campaign of arrests has made it far harder for the central organization to coordinate operations, conduct wide-scale training, and otherwise orchestrate sophisticated attacks. So doing a 9/11-like operation, which took years to plan and required infiltrating America with 19 operatives, is far harder. Inserting sleeper agents is even harder, as al Qaeda must worry that a key planner or recruiter would be captured, jeopardizing the entire operation.

The scary news is that there are bad trends as well as good ones. Before Zazi, there were few indications that terrorists in the United States had been trained and directed by the al Qaeda core: they were mostly seen as unskilled losers with dreams of martyrdom. Now there is a well-founded fear that al Qaeda has planted operatives elsewhere in the United States.

In addition, parts of the Somali-American community have radicalized, with some members going to Somalia to join al Shabaab, which has growing links to the al Qaeda core. Somali-Americans are often poor and alienated, more akin to a frustrated European Muslims than their fellow, more prosperous, coreligionists from other backgrounds. Some of these members who have traveled to Somalia have fought there and even become suicide bombers. They have not, however, come back to strike the United States. But as citizens who know this country well, they could be lethal if they chose such a path. So the United States cannot claim that it has completely escaped the problems Europe has with its disaffected Muslim communities, though the problem is still far from that of countries like France and the United Kingdom.

As Norway digs out from the wreckage, Americans should offer what assistance we can, be thankful for our own good luck, and appreciative of the hard work of government officials in keeping them safe. At the same time, however, we must recognize that another terrorist attack on the United States could occur at any time. And in so doing, we must recognize a vital national strength: resilience. The United States survived the 9/11 attacks, and Americans even came together after the violence. We can survive other terrorist strikes too, and U.S. leaders must recognize this strength even as they try to learn lessons from the Oslo attacks to better guard our country.