Julia Ebner, a journalist and Research Fellow at a counter-extremism think tank, went undercover for her latest book, "Going Dark: The Secret Social Lives of Extremists" (Bloomsbury). Adopting five different identities, she joined a dozen extremist groups from across the ideological spectrum. The book takes us on a journey into the darkest recesses of extremist thinking and behaviour, while offering suggestions on how best to fight back.
What prompted your decision to go undercover?
During my day job at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, I monitor extremist groups and conduct research with our digital analysis tools that enable us to gain insights into the online ecosystems of extremist networks. We can, for example, trace back a piece of disinformation to its origins or analyse how a radicalisation campaign spreads across different platforms. And yet, one part that I was missing was to fully understand the inner workings and social dynamics within extremist groups. I felt like there were always layers in the motivations of members that I couldn't quite grasp and channels that I couldn't penetrate using my real identity. The goal of my time undercover was therefore to learn more about the human dimensions within these networks and to expose the tactics they use to recruit, radicalise, network and communicate.
Why is the social dimension so important?
Indoctrination happens through socialisation. The social dynamics are unique in every group but they also have a lot of shared patterns. The creation of exclusive sub-cultures that have their own vocabulary, insider jokes and references is something they all share. Many newcomers are not motivated by the political or ideological aspects but rather by the offer the groups make on a social level. To some they even become family or friendship replacements. Some individuals' identities fuse completely with the group identity and they are willing to commit acts of violence on behalf of the group, especially when they perceive the group as being under attack. The far-right terrorist attackers of last year – from Christchurch to Halle – all seemed to communicate with their own in-group in the letters and videos they left behind to gain recognition and applause.
You note that very different groups operate in strikingly similar ways once you're on the inside. What basic behaviours are shared across groups?
They have all developed sophisticated online-offline tactics to exploit the vulnerabilities in our society, targeting new audiences with tailor-made propaganda that addresses their grievances, fears and frustrations and offers an easy solution. All of the extremist groups combine a form of ideological nostalgia with technological futurism, using hyper-modern means of communication to spread anti-modern ideas. In their propaganda, they all paint an apocalyptic future and an existential threat from an out-group that can only be prevented by joining the group and engaging in a defensive war against the enemy – be that in the form of a defensive jihad or white nationalist "accelerationism". They also have a shared goal: accelerating the supposedly imminent war of cultures, races or religions. In return for loyalty, they reward members with recognition, a strong sense of brotherhood and a higher purpose. Across the ideological spectrum, this was what motivated newcomers to stay with the groups.
Was the lethal Charlottesville rally, when members from across neo-Nazi and far-right groups marched with weapons in 2017, a turning point for the United States?
Yes, I'd say it was a turning point for a few reasons. It was the first big real-world mobilisation of the alt-right. It was also a new form of coalition building within the rather fragmented international far-right: anti-Semitic neo-Nazis walking next to pro-Zionist counter-jihadist protesters, ultraliberal far-right activists rubbing shoulders with paleo-conservatives.
On a global awareness level it was also a turning point. The escalation to violence resulting in the death of civil rights activist Heather Heyer was a wake-up call for policy-makers and security services who had long underestimated the threat from the far-right. Even though Trump's comment that there were "good people on both sides" did not signal any change in attitude towards far-right extremism on his part, the intelligence and security forces started to allocate more resources to the threat. The same is true for US private sector firms, as Charlottesville led to Airbnb, Patreon, PayPal and other companies cancelling their services for white supremacists.
You've said that you found the Trad Wives particularly disturbing. What is this group and why?
I had never come across anything similar before: networks of women wanting to go back to ultra-conservative gender roles to the point of endorsing anti-female abuse and violence. The jihadi bride groups might be the closest thing I could compare it to. Radicalisation also took a different shape in the Trad Wives community. Rather than developing a hatred of a demonised out-group, its members would radicalise towards a form of self-loathing. It was terrifying to see women join with fears and frustrations that I could relate to – from the double burden that women face in today's world to the negative consequences of the so-called hook-up culture and the fast-paced online dating world.
What did you learn that surprised you?
It was surprising to see how often new recruits of extremist movements were not motivated by ideological beliefs. Some of the youngest and teenage members were not even interested in politics or knew very little about the ideological leanings of the group. A much more important incentive was the sense of a new collective identity. It was like these groups provided them with an antidote to loneliness. Gamification was a strong incentive too, in particular for young audiences with a passion for gaming who were looking for an escape from boredom.
Another eye-opening moment was when the Christchurch shooting happened in March 2019, with the far-right attacker killing 51 Muslims in two mosques in New Zealand. When reading the so-called manifesto and looking at the reactions within the international far-right online networks, it was shocking to see the extent to which the lines had blurred between what is a game and what is real, what is trolling and what is terrorism. Many far-right online sympathisers couldn't grasp that the attack had actually happened and still thought this was all a game.
What are some of the more controversial initiatives that could fight extremism going forward?
Controversial – as in possibly highly effective in the short run but maybe also massively counter-productive in the medium-term – are some of the counter-trolling, counter-doxing and counter-hacking initiatives that have appeared in response to extremism. It might feed more into grievances, create a tit-for-tat spiral and eventually drive more individuals towards extremism and violence. I'd say that more moderate versions of counter-mobilisation, like the Baltic Elves that work to counter disinformation campaigns of Russian trolls, could however be promising in the fight against radicalisation. Other innovative civil society initiatives include #Iamhere which helps to reconquer online discourses from hateful and extreme commenters on news pages on Facebook.
How might this book help people to protect themselves and others from radicalisation?
Tackling the threat on a civil society level will require at least two things: 1.) better knowledge about the manipulative techniques extremists use and 2) higher levels of civil courage among netizens in online spaces. The book tries to encourage both.
Going Dark is an attempt to raise awareness about the tactics extremist networks use to radicalise sympathisers, manipulate the "mainstream" and intimidate opponents. My hope was that by giving insights into the inner workings and discussions of these groups, I can help people brace themselves against their campaigns. But the book, in its closing chapters, also features courageous civil society initiatives that combat hate speech, radicalisation and disinformation. Its aim is to inspire more such projects and increase the overall willingness to demonstrate civil courage in online environments. We step in when we see someone being racially attacked, insulted or harassed on the tube, but on social media many users who witness hate, grooming or intimidation still remain bystanders and refrain from intervening. To counter the power that extreme fringe groups hold in the virtual world, I think that this needs to change.
