Censoring far-right extremists makes martyrs of them. It's time for a different approach. | thearticle

Last week, a 46-year-old man named Robert Bowers stormed the Tree of Life Pittsburgh Synagogue screaming “all Jews must die” and murdered 11 people during a child naming ceremony. Five

minutes before the attack, he posted on Gab, a social media platform popular with the far Right: “Screw your optics, I’m going in.” To many, this atrocity was particularly shocking.

Terrorist attacks on Jews are hardly new, but in recent times they have mostly been committed by Islamists. Bowers, from the little information we have, seems to have been on the American

extreme right. But to me, it came as no surprise. In an attempt to get to grips with what’s happening in the shadows of far-right online culture, I’ve spent some time over the past few

months listening to far-right podcasts, speaking to fascists, and even setting up an anonymous Gab account. My foray opened my eyes to an alarming truth: extremist groups – once numerous and

disparate – are starting to coalesce around a mutual hatred of Jews. With the help of the dark web, anger and division on all sides of the political spectrum has metastasised, and now

anti-semitism is everywhere. So, what can we do about it? The most common response is to try to protect the public from these sorts of views by expanding hate speech laws and putting more

money into policing the internet. Interestingly, the immediate response by much of the media to the Pittsburgh atrocity was not to commission the usual stream of op-eds advocating gun

control, but to campaign for the deplatforming of Gab. As someone who has closely observed the far Right, I believe that this response, and the overarching strategy behind it, is woefully

inadequate – and I worry that it could have tragic consequences. In the world of the dark web, alternative social media, and encrypted messages, censorship simply doesn’t work. Silencing is

no longer an option, which means to fight an ideology, you must now understand it. Western governments are now beginning to understand Islamic fundamentalism and are realising that the only

way to turn the tide on Islamic radicalisation is to engage with those at risk and attempt to change their minds. In Britain, the Prevent programme is asking Muslim critics of Islamism speak

to young people at risk of radicalisation and explain to them why their ideas are misinterpreting the Koran. It’s still unclear whether this strategy is working, but the theory behind it –

that true reform must come from the inside – is a good one.In some parts of the world, modern fascism is now nearly as much of a problem as Islamic extremism, and yet rather than attempting

to fight it from the inside, governments everywhere continue to crusade for more censorship. The problem with this approach is that most people are now so heavily protected from right wing

ideology in everyday life that the first time they encounter it will often be on the dark web – in a conversation with somebody who believes it. This interaction generally goes two ways, the

“normie” (a term on the dark web for the average person) either quickly leaves the conversation or begins walking down a dark road to radicalisation. Debating a modern fascist is impossible

for the average person because our own intellectual institutions have failed to equip us with the necessary information. The far right believes that the modern world is controlled by a

series of media and financial monopolies, which themselves are dominated by Jews. They believe that Jews are not merely defined by their religion, but by their biological heritage, and they

believe these Jews are enacting a population replacement campaign against native European populations. These arguments, though twisted and wrong, contain some half-truths which an angry

young man looking to find an explanation for his own perceived misfortunes is likely to seize upon.It is half-true, for example, that white European populations have a low birthrate, though

of course, it is not an orchestrated plan. It is also half-true that media and financial institutions have a lot of power, though the notion of Jewish control is a fantasy. By censoring the

people who espouse and extrapolate these arguments, we simply confirm their beliefs and give them martyr status. Like many other extremist movements, the far right is fuelled by victimhood,

and using force to crush these people will push them into ever darker echo chambers. Far-right ideas, then, though repugnant, must be taken seriously. Instead of censoring poisonous

ideologies, we must empower people who understand the far-right to debate and debunk them. By arrogantly believing we can control opinion through force, we will fall into the same trap as

every pre-revolution government in history. If we are serious about preventing more atrocities like Pittsburgh, it’s time to start reforming from the inside. Prevent already fulfils this

role in the UK, but it is mostly focused on Islamophobia and the state lacks a way to address root concerns. We must find a way to solve the issue of European identity in our rapidly

changing nations and fill the spiritual gap left by organised religion. If we have nothing to offer outside of hollow materialism, extremist ideology will continue to win hearts and minds.