On Radicalism with Bethan Johnson

Bethan Johnson is a postdoctoral scholar with the Initiative to Study Hate at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and an editor at the fully open-access, peer-reviewed Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies. She earned her doctorate in history at the University of Cambridge, where her dissertation, Militant Separatism in Western Europe and North America, 1965-1975, examined violent ethno-nationalist separatist movements during the Cold War era.

Johnson (website, X) has a master’s in modern British history and a bachelor’s in history, English, and Jewish studies. Her current areas of research explore how identity politics fuel violent radicalization, with a focus on far-right extremism in the West. Her current projects include accelerationism and new media, the spread of neo-Nazism among Western youth, and modern Buddhist esoteric neo-Nazism.

---

An introductory note from Dr. Johnson:

I would like to highlight that while an expert on extremism and terrorism, my focus is on the far-right. I am also a historian by academic training. I cannot speak to all of the intricacies of left-wing extremism with the same level of detail as to that of the far-right, so please understand that this will have an impact on my analysis.

Moreover, I think that it is important to set some context and parameters around my statements. In your questions, you ask about far-right vs. terrorist vs. left-wing extremism vs. right-wing violence. It is important to say that all of these terms are highly contested both within and without the scholarly literature on these topics. There is no universal definition of terrorism—whether legal, scholarly, or colloquial—which means that where extremism or political violence ends and where terrorism begins varies based on several factors (country context, criminal statutes, casual conversation, etc.) Similarly, there is immense debate about what constitutes the far-right or radical right and the same thing goes for the other side of a linear political spectrum.

For instance, in some countries, impassioned anti-abortion or anti-LGBTQ+ activism might receive a classification of far-right or radical right, whereas in others it may not. While there are certain groups that are widely viewed as part of the radical right—think neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, white supremacists—there are many others that are classified with more difficulty/reticence. For the purposes of clarity, my responses when it comes to these questions will be to look—unless otherwise stated—at the methods of the more widely accepted iterations of the radical right, wherein the movements included are those that seek to fundamentally overthrow or overhaul basic principles of society such as liberal democracies, multiculturalism, and egalitarianism.

I will also discuss the far-left after applying a similar litmus test, thereby talking about those that seek the fundamental reorientation of society’s basic ideas/institutions or to harm others on the sole basis of their identity, i.e. those using violence in the name of anarchism, anti-capitalism, animal rights, environmentalism, ANTIFA (on this last one, I would like to strongly emphasise that being anti-fascist is opposing fascism which is not, in my opinion, an extreme position; that said, there is a difference between being anti-fascist, ANTIFA, and a violent person associated with ANTIFA). Also, while some may argue that their ideologies could warrant their classification within the far-right camp, I am not going to be speaking about religion-driven terrorism, i.e. Salafi jihadism, violent Hindutva, or ultra-Zionism.

---

Given your work studying the radicalization methods employed by terrorists, do you see any of the same methods being deployed by the far-right in the United States? How about the far-left?

Radicalisation is an extremely complicated issue when it comes to methodology and end-result, to be honest, and this stands to get even more complicated as official group membership (e.g. being a member of the KKK or the American Nazi Party) continues to trend down and lone wolf, self-driven activism rises. The best way I can explain it in any kind of brevity is to talk about two concepts.

First, current trends within radicalization methods rely on essentially flooding the virtual world with a diverse array of easy-to-consume content (videos, memes, pieces of art, songs, short missives, some longer pieces too). Instead of forcing a potential recruit to read a long book or travel to attend an in-person meeting, now radicalisation is much more like a DIY activity; that said, unlike a real DIY project wherein you intentionally set out to do something, here, it would be as if someone delivered DIY kits to your front door regularly and nudged you to at least try one. The more hands-off method to radicalization has the advantage of being far less costly and time consuming for the recruiter (they have to produce the work once and then it can be accessed by any number of people in relative perpetuity).

Second, in the realm of radicalization, there is the concept of the Overton window, which can be applied on the macro scale of societal views but also on the micro scale to an individual. By this, I mean that an individual holding one view in common with a recruiter can slowly have their opinion changed on an issue by prolonged exposure to an idea to the point where the idea goes from being viewed as fringe and rejected, to normalised and being indifferent to, to outright embraced. These are tactics used by those seeking to convince individuals to believe in any number of ideas, not the exclusive of any side of a political spectrum. That said, as an expert on radical right recruitment, I can say that the radical right has shown an immense capacity and adaptability in finding/fostering receptive audiences, particularly because they target vulnerable groups (teens and young adults, the incarcerated, those experiencing loneliness/isolation).

Do identity politics only play into ethnonationalist sentiment on the American right or are there also examples of this on the left?

Identity politics is far from the exclusive territory of the American right-wing ethno-nationalists. In fact, my doctoral research examined violent/terroristic ethno-nationalists who would have identified with more far-left policies whilst also drawing heavily upon the talking points of identity politics. To provide some context, the popular rise of the term identity politics within political parlance can be traced back to the 1977 manifesto of the Combahee River Collective, a Black feminist collective operating in the United States. The concept described therein and by contemporaries of the time sought to highlight the value in understanding the role that various aspects of a person’s identity played on their politics, specifically how membership in various oppressed groups informed their political agenda. So, there is nothing that inherently tethers identity politics to the right-wing.

Over the years, the concept of identity politics grew to include instances in which the identity being operationalized was a privileged one (i.e. white identity politics), meaning that the term now has very broad applicability. I would also note that there is, to my perception, a negative connotation to identity politics for many today, in large part as the term grows more linked to exclusionary movements (white supremacy, male supremacy, heteronormativity). That said, it could be argued that this is not necessarily inherently warranted. Examples of identity politics being a driving force behind what many left-leaning people would articulate to be positive social change and equity include Black Lives Matter and anti-racist criminal justice reform, marriage equality and LGBTQ inclusivity, better representation, and provisions for people living with disabilities.

Multiple studies have indicated right-wing violence is far more significant in the United States. Does this suggest left-wing extremism is less prevalent, or do left-wing extremists simply use different methods, such as targeted online harassment or doxxing etc?

As far as violence is concerned, it is true that right-wing extremist violence is a serious problem both within and without the United States. In addition to instances of large-scale violence (attacks in El Paso, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Charleston, to name a few), it is also important to highlight an element of this that can get overlooked in talks about violence: hate crimes. While issues of under-reporting, mis-classification, and false reporting can make hate crime statistics far from perfect when attempting to capture the exact nature of things, they can help us understand just how hate manifests itself in the real world. The available data on hate crimes is also worrisome when it comes to right-wing extremists, again in the U.S. and abroad.

There is also the issue of what happened on January 6. While those on either side of the extremist spectrum may be aiming to fundamentally alter the status quo (often through radical action), the radical right has most recently come the closest to succeeding in this endeavor as it relates to the events of January 6. The storming of the U.S. Capitol with the aim of altering the course of the election would have essentially overthrown the peaceful transfer of power, an essential element of democracy. While there have been efforts by those on the extreme left to alter society, in my view, none have come so close to success and none have made such an effort in such a violent fashion in recent years.

As you noted in the question, these metrics do not capture the full breadth of harm that can be done since there are also the aspects of doxxing, swatting, virtual death threats, and general online hate. At the moment, to my knowledge, there has been no robust comparison between U.S. left-wing extremist and right-wing extremist online content as it relates to harassment and harm. My knee-jerk response would be that the vastness of the internet makes such a broadly defined study a complicated, if not impossible, task. As such, I cannot offer a definitive answer comparing the two, beyond pointing to the notable disparity in real-world acts of fatal violence and serious bodily harm between left-wing and right-wing extremism. That said, again, none of this is to discredit that individuals holding any number of views across the political spectrum can and have engaged in serious virtual or real world harm in pursuit of their goal, or that what has transpired to date will continue to be the case in the coming years.

What particular issues or trends do you see with regard to white supremacism that you feel the public isn’t fully aware of or that my readers should know?

More than anything, I wish people recognized the extent to which they or their loved ones are vulnerable to radicalization, be that in respect to white supremacy, the manosphere, or anti-government conspiracy theories. All too often, people seem to believe that they would never “fall for something like that” or that they were “smart enough to know better.” From my own close study of individuals who have joined extremist movements, I see all the time how easily people go from embracing mainstream political ideas to endorsing/espousing extremism. I also know that there is no one “type” of person who becomes an extremist—single to married, young to old, uneducated to highly educated, male or female, the list goes on.

To my mind, people need to: be vigilant about checking in to make sure they consume accurate content and/or that they are aware of any biases or subtle messaging in their sources, be that in person or online; check in with themselves to make sure that their political beliefs reflect their values as well as data; continue to challenge their prejudices; and be willing to disengage with or even call out people that are attempting to instil prejudice or disinformation into the conversation.

Unfortunately, it is very easy to get swept up in the radicalizing content that is all around us and thus it requires that we work hard to fight against it, not only on a societal level, but also on a personal level. Also, I want to highlight for those serving as guardians or caregivers to vulnerable people (young people, the incarcerated, those in fragile mental states) that, because there is this trend away from group activism and towards self-driven radicalisation, the warning signs are perhaps slightly different than they once were. It is no longer only about noticing if someone is spending in-person time with people that display signs of being radical (i.e. hate tattoos or apparel), but also looking at their activities online. Moreover, ask them about their ideas on various political opinions and then really listen to them to hear if they are starting to say things that indicate they are moving along a more extreme path (i.e. sweeping, unfounded statements about whole groups of people, conspiracy theories, misinformation). As hard as it is, it is far easier to intervene before a person fully integrates into an extreme circle and lead them back to the straight and narrow, than it is to de-radicalize someone.

I would also want to encourage people to start having conversations about how we, as a society but also as individuals, handle people who join and then want to leave white supremacist groups. There is some research being done into the challenges people face once they leave white supremacist organizations, and it indicates that this can be an incredibly dangerous time for these people. There is also the potential for an individual to remain in a white supremacist group because they feel that leaving is no longer a viable option for them because mainstream society would reject them. To me, this is a particularly interesting topic in light of the talk about cancel culture. But as we find evidence that young people are being targeted for recruitment and that not everyone who participates in these more extreme circles in their youth remains radicalised, it is important that we have a bit of a philosophical reckoning with what to do about people who once promoted hate but want to leave that life behind.

What can people do to confront these issues? Is there any evidence to suggest which methods of addressing such extremism are most effective?

I think that much of my answer to the last question answers the question of what people can do. That said, I also want to note that people who find themselves witnessing someone radicalize should realize a few things. One, make sure that you feel safe before you make any efforts at addressing these issues with the radicalizing individual. Two, do not feel that you need to face this problem on your own. If you feel as though you are seeing worrying trends, talk to teachers, guidance counselors, mental health professionals, and/or law enforcement officers. If you create a network of people, both you and your loved one can receive support in this challenging time. Three, if you find evidence that your loved one is a real threat to themself or others, you need to involve law enforcement.

Overall, I think that policies related to extremism that reflect/build off robust data are best, as are those that reflect the reality that the people who join radical movements are still people. Although they may do, say, or think what we view as monstrous or psychotic things, they are still people (and the data shows they are overwhelmingly not psychopaths or devoid of human emotion). I say this because it is only once we realize that extremists become extremists and often do so because they think that it was the “right” thing to do, can we begin to find ways to convince them otherwise and, perhaps even more importantly, stop others from ever becoming extremists in the first place. Combating extremism is a challenging issue in many ways, a security issue on many levels, and it requires coordination and creativity.

Final question — I saw “modern Buddhist esoteric neo-Nazism” in your bio. What can you tell me about modern Buddhist esoteric neo-Nazism?

Yeah, so basically I am doing a sort of slow-moving steady analysis of how neo-Nazis and neo-fascists have had this longstanding interest in Buddhism and framing their political views using a Buddhist perspective. For instance, one of the most influential and highly cited writers in current neo-fascist/neo-Nazi thought wrote extensively about Buddhist thought and beliefs, even on a granular level (though, I would note, not reaching the same conclusions of mainstream Buddhist theologians). Meanwhile, I noticed on various platforms that people would have usernames like “militantBuddhist” or the like, specifically linking Buddhism to their politics. So I am fascinated by and have some theories about why this engagement with so-called Buddhist beliefs has come to be and what uses it has for neo-Nazis/neo-fascists.