Augusta DellÕOmo: Welcome to Right Rising, a podcast from the Center for Analysis of the Radical Right. I'm your host, Augusta DellÕOmo. Today I'm joined by Dr. Matthew Feldman, who is CARRÕs director and he's here with us today to kick off season two of Right Rising and tell us a little bit about what CARR has been up to over these past summer months. Matthew, thank you so much for being here.

Matthew Feldman: It's genuinely my pleasure, Augusta, thanks for having me. 

AD: Well, Matthew, I want to just actually start out as CARRÕs director, as one of the founders, if you could talk a little bit about CARRÕs development as an organization. I think for a lot of our listeners, who became really invested in understanding the radical right over the past year, there's been just inundation with new information, new research, new ways of thinking about the far right, but CARR has been a little bit ahead of the game in this respect. So could you talk a little bit about what need you saw the organization filling in its early development? 

MF: Yeah, I don't often get asked about the origin story. So I'm really glad to be able to talk about it a little bit here on this podcast, our podcast. And when CARR was set up, back in February 2018, there were several of us, I think, that had a view that there was a great deal of expertise in this area. And that expertise wasn't just, let's say, on far right parties, or radical right extremism, or even kind of the history of fascism, it covered that and much, much more. It's a subject that's really, really well covered. But I think that there is a tendency among specialists to sort of tease out quite minor points, perhaps to talk to each other. And, again, I don't have a criticism of that, in an academic sense, that is how knowledge is built. But I think that we would all agree that this is something that is very much in the public mind, and impinges upon society and in a number of deleterious ways. And so there was a real sense amongst us, when we founded CARR in February of 2018, that what was needed wasn't more talking to each other, but talking to the public, and talking to journalists and talking to other perhaps policymakers and to do that in an accessible way, and to make our knowledge accessible. 

So we started out, I think, with three principles. One, of course, was making specialist knowledge accessible, but was doing it away from some of the focus that was Europe and North America. So to have a global focus, and to look at both past and present. And to do that, really through one dedicated website, that would be the sort of what we imagined, even from the start the sort of one stop shop where you could get resources and research materials, you could get, let's say, daily op eds. And of course, amplifying our voice early on was a number of media partners that were able to use some of that material on their own platforms. One of the things perhaps over the last, you know, three and a half years now, that has been a really welcome surprise, I think has been the appetite of the general public and policymakers and journalists and others, to listen to what specialists have to say, but also the way in which CARR has grown and dare I say, grown organically. And you're a great example of that, Augusta, you had all of this experience with podcasting, my little brain didn't even see it as a possibility until you and I, of course, started talking, he said, but what if we can get thousands and thousands of people listening, as well as reading? 

And it was, I think that the idea that it was an open door for scholars of all persuasions, to really bring their specialist skills and knowledge and to disseminate that freely and publicly and accessibly, via a website that was intended for a general audience. 

AD: That's one of my favorite ways that you have described CARR to me in our meetings, and you say this all the time: that CARR is a broad church, right? You're all about - from the beginning CARR has been about bringing in people who are doing really excellent work on the radical right. That's how I found CARR in the first place back when I believe I joined in 2019, I started seeing all these scholars sharing their think pieces, and I was like, Oh, look, there's more people like me out here in this space. And it's been really great way to connect with people in this field. IÕd like you to talk a little bit, you know, CARR has now been in existence for you said just over three and a half years. How have you seen the mission of CARR really evolving over the past year just with this acceleration of right wing organizing? Are there particular areas of emphasis that you think CARR is going to be focusing on over the next year and that interested observers should be keeping an eye on for what's coming next from CARR? 

MF: Yeah, I think there is and again, a lot of that I'd like to stress was bottom up rather than top down. And I think one of the things that we've been really careful through the steering group and directors to do was not be too bureaucratic and not be too top down. So we weren't going to say this is how CARR is going to develop. But we welcome all ideas and we don't want to staunch those. And when I say ideas, I also mean political views. Because broad church, in some senses not is not just epistemological broad church in terms of what people are focusing on, whether it's India and Brazil, or it's Nazi Germany, you know, 75 years ago, but it's also people's politics. 

And I think that this is a really important point and something I'm very proud of, we have everybody from left to about center- right in terms of their own personal views, people can have quite diametrically opposed views on some really hot topic, hot, you know, button issues today. And the point is, we don't care, we're really not going to ask those questions. All we ask is that people leave those debates at the door, and give their all to understanding and trying to counter right wing extremism. And from that, I think that we've been able to really harness the different types of skill sets and knowledge and indeed enthusiasm of now more than four score scholars who have joined as fellows. Initially, it was doctoral fellows and senior fellows. And we very quickly realized that there was a space for policy and practitioner fellows policy, probably pretty obvious what it sounds like. But practitioners are those kind of people at the coalface who might be in some cases, counter-terrorist or prevent type police in the UK, they might be part of a think tank. Again, we really don't want to define it, because practitioner has a lot of different meanings to people. 

But the other thing that I feel like really did come from the bottom up was an appetite from some of our academic fellows to have research units. And we now have fully ten of those research units, which are pretty rigorous academic type exercises that will have a unit lead, and will have, let's say things like academic mini conferences, and, and research oriented outputs. But that and I should also add, one of the things that came out of that were longer research insight pieces that are a lot like journal articles and have a an editorial board. And it might be two more academic audiences kind of familiar is your sort of 10,000 word articles. 

But that is tempered by a number of different things that we have done, I think, that really are gesturing towards the public. Some of that has been undertaking work on counter narratives and counter speech. And that's led by Dr. William Alcorn, our associate director, and involved a range of country studies, but also trying to tease out what counter narratives are effective, but also what types of messengers, what types of context, might be effective in trying to break down right wing extremism, because one of the things that I feel very strongly and this is perhaps part of my personal background, is that there has to be a way back for people that leave radical right organizations, there has to be, if you will, some form of redemption, or bringing back to society. Because if we're casting these people out, and remember, some of them are teenagers, some of them are very young indeed. And if we are casting them out of society forever, I don't think that that is necessarily helping, I don't think it necessarily solves a problem. And I think demonizing these people may actually make the problem worse. 

So the way in which CARR is evolving, and I think one thing that is relatively new is that we've established ourselves as a nonprofit, so that we can support individual scholars and practitioners who may want to use CARRÕs name to put in for grants. So I think that what we're trying to do, again, to come back to the the term that you use is be a broad church, for our fellows, first and foremost, to give them the kinds of opportunities to publish in the media, or to be able to submit for grants or different types of partnerships, to find their way in their own areas of research interest, but to never really lose the sight that what we're doing is actually for the general public, it is for policy, widely understood for policymakers, for journalists, and we're always here to answer questions and and dare I say we do it for free, because we really are passionate and care about this. So this is not a money making organization. It's not one that is, you know, patting ourselves on the back. It's one that plans on being here right through the 21st century, because sadly, radical right extremism is going to be as well. 

AD: I'd like to go back to something that you mentioned at the beginning of the episode, which we you actually just touched on right now this idea of influencing and informing public discourse about the radical right. And now that CARRÕs really been at this for for three years, and I've started to see on my end, a real shift in how media is talking about the radical right in the kinds of lenses and narratives and analysis that they're using to explain to everyday people what is going on, on the sort of far right ecosystem. But I'd like to ask you as someone who's really been watching this over the past few years: What are some things that you think our mainstream discourse is finally starting to get right about understanding the far right, and where do you think we still have a ways to go? 

MF: So I think that the one of the things that CARR does from its, again, specialist perspective, for the general public is terminology, we get a lot of questions, especially from journalists about terminology. And one of the reasons we chose radical right, rather than a number of other terms that are very legitimate and have a whole breadth of scholarship for, like, far right, or, you know, right wing extremism, I think we're keen to point out that this isn't just at the fringes of everyday conservatism, that this isn't the far bit of the right, but that we're talking about a different ideological genus, one that we could probably best described as post-fascist. And that is not to say that fascism is synonymous with Nazism, Nazism is a form of fascism, but also, the radical right is a kind of post-fascist development, rather than something that is growing out of the mainstream, so that it's coming from outside of the mainstream and trying to find its way in, rather than as it were coming from within the the mainstream and radicalizing it and I do think that that's something that a lot of our scholars are, are advancing. 

Again, we don't take a line on it ourselves. But it's important that we're kind of talking about something that's being mainstreamed, rather than out of the mainstream. That feels to me like one thing. Another, I believe, that is starting to become a bit more appreciated is just how integral online platforms are to the dissemination of radical right extremism. Now, again, this isn't something that we were the first ones to discern, of course, but at the same time, I think that that through a number of transnational partnerships like the Global Internet Forum for Countering Terrorism of which CARR is represented, we've been very keen to say that online platforms and this feels, to me a really key point, give these bad actors three things that they didn't really have, especially in the long shadow of, of World War II, and the Holocaust and genocide and the sort of stigma to being a right radical or a fascist, that really persisted through what one of our fellows I think, very brilliantly called the anti-fascist consensus during the Cold War, the idea that on both sides of the Cold War, or as it were, the iron curtain, the two different sides didn't agree on much other than the fact that right wing extremism was unacceptable. 

Now, of course, on one side, you might get thrown into a gulag, and another, you know, you might get hand bagged in the street. But these things were so stigmatized. And the radical right was able, I think, to reinvent itself to some degree. And I would urge people who are interested in that sort of view, to go back to Umberto EcoÕs Ur Fascism, it was written at a very specific point that people oftentimes forget, in the middle of the 1990s, just as Jšrg Haider was emerging and the FP… got 27% of the vote in that country. And the so called, Movimento Sociale Italiano. I know you're Italian, so I've got to be careful here with my, with my pronunciation changed into the so called post-fascist Alleanza Nazionale. And in that first Berlusconi cabinet, fully thirty-three members of government were from radical right parties. Okay, so that was what motivated Umberto Eco to say this. And at the same time, they didn't have in the mid-1990s, although the radical right was a very early adopter of technology. And that's, in a sense, another story, they didn't have three things that would make them in a sense, legitimate actors in the mainstream, especially at the more fringe insightful of political violence. 

What they didn't have was a kind of an anonymity. And they needed that anonymity to be able to post things to be able to, you know, to get their lols. And I think that the internet has provided that through avatars and through different technological forms, for example, encryption. The other thing they didn't have is they tended to be with those two exceptions, going back to the mid 1990s, relatively small actors in their own countries. And this is of course, there are exceptions. But this allowed the internet and other digital technologies allowed them to connect around the world, that kind of idea of, we're never gonna see eye to eye but together, we're stronger. I think that was really important. The other thing that didn't happen right through the Cold War and into the 1990s was, if you had a, let's say, a Holocaust denial magazine that may be at risk of being closed down. And the way in which you would communicate that well, you know, really was in like a nondescript brown paper envelopes. What they didn't have, I guess, was a permanency where you could always go to a certain site, you could always get a certain material, and the internet delivered those things. And I think, of course, it's an obvious point to say, The internet has changed the way perhaps you and I shop, you know, it's it's revolutionized so much but it was really did provide the things that right wing extremists lacked. And I think that that has been an absolute signature that we see both for terrorist attacks, through manifesto distribution and other aspects, but also just everyday communication. And I think that's one of the things that we have been really keen to help people understand there's still, of course, a long way to go. And a lot of interventions of various types can still be mired in the 20th century. But appreciating that these guys are very clearly operating in the 21st century, is something that we've been keen to work with different partners and to disseminate. And I think that that's something we can really be proud of.

AD: You've mentioned a few different partnerships that CARR has, whether it's GIFCT, whether it's the work that Will has done on counter narratives, and I often think about how narrow academics can think about the contributions that we make outside of the university. Really it seems that the emphasis is on public writing, or sort of nebulous idea of influencing public policy, but your involvement, not just in CARR outside of it has spanned into areas like the legal system. So I'd love for you to talk a little bit about what role do you think that academics can play and thinking about policy? What role can an organization like CARR play, whether it's, as you've mentioned, this sort of bottom-up approach of fellows organically finding these kinds of products, or projects? Or how organizations as a whole can really influence the public landscape of how we're thinking about some of these kinds of issues? 

MF: And that's a great question. And it's not a simple one to answer. It's deceptively hard to answer. And I think one of the reasons for that is that CARR isn't one thing. So we do get some fellows who are quite happy just to kind of stay on the academic side, and others who are really keen to do public outreach and impactful kind of things. For myself, and again, we don't take a line on this per se, of sort of corporate line. But for myself, I will never, I hope hold another view, the knowledge itself is a beautiful thing, and an important thing and a valuable thing. There's no buts there, there's no howevers. Knowledge matters. And so long as human beings are learning about themselves, that is a good thing. 
What in my view, redoubles sometimes, the utility and value of knowledge is when you can put it in the service of others, or put it in the service of the community of which youÕre a part. And I believe that that's one of the things that CARR does, that's been one of the values as an academic I came up with, and is certainly not something I'll ever apologize for. And my I suppose, as you alluded to there, some of the work that I do, either as an expert witness, or working with different political groups or consulting is precisely that the knowledge itself is there. 

But there are some times that that knowledge can prove a great utility. And I'll give you an example of some work that we've done with a large organization that that is one of the sort of big platforms, they were concerned about the proliferation of radical right symbols and text and slurs and so forth on their platform. I'll just give one example that many listeners will know. Ten years ago, literally only ten years and five years ago, the okay sign the okay sign only ever meant one thing, which is this is cool. This is great. Obviously, that was to some extent hijacked. And there are huge caveats. You know, I'm not comfortable saying he is a right wing extremist symbol. But it can absolutely be used that. The reason I say that is, in most cases, I think people are still using it quite innocently, in in the way in which it has come to be known. But that's precisely one of these mainstreaming elements that right wing extremists will try to use. Now, again, if we can help people, let's say, in this case, an internet platform to understand and recognize those symbols, that is knowledge being put in the service of the community of which we're a part. And I think that again, that message that comes from CARR is, yes, we are, we are helping to disseminate knowledge, but where that knowledge has practical utility, and where that knowledge can actually help people. Let's not hide our light under a bushel, we really are the leading specialists in the world on this.  And some of our knowledge has great utility. And it feels to me very short sighted, to not share that with as many people as possible, not attach a whole bunch of conditions or charge people or tell journalists this is, you know, this is how you have to write your story. No, it's knowledge for people who want to better understand and better under better counter the resurgence of the radical right. And that's something I really do believe that we're going to be in the space doing that for as long as it is needed. 

AD: Thanks for that, Matthew. I mean, it's one of those things that I feel most of the people at CARR that I've met, I haven't obviously met everyone, particularly with the pandemic. We're all really committed to that vision of using what we know, to inform the way that people think about the radical right in whatever way makes the most sense for us, whether it's in policy, whether it's in our public facing writing. And so I know I speak for all of us at CARR, we say, we really appreciate that message coming from you and that being a primary point of emphasis for the organization as a whole. I do want to go back with the time that you we have left to your experiences as an expert witness. We're entering a period both in the US and in Europe have very high profile arrests and some potential incarcerations of figures on the radical right, in the far right. So could you talk to our listeners a little bit about the historical evolution of these kinds of prosecutions, particularly in the UK context that you work? I know, for many of us, this feels a bit like uncharted territory. So have there been difficulties getting these kinds of convictions of radical right, violent actors in the past? And so what can we expect from perhaps these kinds of cases moving into the next year?

MF: I think as a general point, we can say that there is a greater attention to an appreciation of the danger, that right radicals pose to society, and in particular members of that society. So once sometimes, I described the radical right as one of their beliefs is in homogeneity, people should look the same and sound the same and, and difference is one of those things to be condemned or worse. And if we take that view, then that means that the really the people that can be aided by practical knowledge, are oftentimes again, not always, but oftentimes the most, most vulnerable members of our society, they may, again, through no fault of their own look, or believe or act different. And so it's that which feels, to me or at least motivates me to kind of do some of this work. 

I'll give you an example of the kinds of work that that I and other people do. And maybe just to date stamp this, I don't know, if you Augusta were watching some of the tv today. But it was the opening of the inquiry on the sixth of January, the insurrection or attempted coup. And there was some very heart rending testimony there from, in this case, some of the police officers who felt that they had lost their lives, or were going to lose their lives. But I'll give you a kind of example, if if if some of those people who had breached the capital, let's say are on charges, it might be that some of those people who were being charged and going through the courts wore particular types of symbols, or communicated certain types of ways online. And let's say the person who if that person has ever caught was laying pipe bombs around the scene of the Capitol, and that person once, let's say, hopefully caught, you look at that person's computer. And you say that this person was trafficking in, you know, various different terrorist manuals, or that person rejected, believe it or not certain constructions of the quote unquote, Aryan race and biological superiority, but embraced other forms of, of right extremism. 

That might be the kinds of places where a specialist even at dare I say, a nerd can bring that knowledge to bear and say, well, actually, that's a sign for the Three Percenters. And here were their movements on the day. And here's a little evolution to explain how they're different, for example, from the Proud Boys and how both of those groups might be different than Adolf Hitler's NSDAP, a hundred years ago. So I do think that that some of the places where knowledge can really be brought to bear, is to look at if we're talking about hate crimes, political violence, or even terrorism, the kinds of questions that might be asked in that framework.

Now, again, completely different frameworks might be policy and might be saying, can you prescribe this group, when in fact, unlike, let's say, fifty years ago, this group doesn't have a membership list. This group has only been around for five minutes, because a whole bunch of people on a fringe messaging app have decided to set up this group. So it might be that saying, well, this is, you know, how it's different than we saw groups between the wars. So those are the types of things It feels like where knowledge can be put into a useful public service. And again, I stress, we don't have a corporate line on this, some people, some fellows at CARR might be directly opposed to doing that and saying this is simply just a question about knowledge and if those lawmakers or policymakers or police want to use it fine. My personal view is that we can't set ourselves aside from that. Academia is a part of it, whether it likes it or not, and knowledge is part of the world that can never be hived off. So that's something I'm proud to do. As you probably know, I sometimes get a lot of stick for it. Not just friendly fire, but obviously more more often from from angry people. But that is frankly, galvanizing for me and reminds me why doing this is important. So, so long as I am of help in those kinds of endeavors, I will continue to do it. And whether that doing is helping others to do it themselves, or put myself at the service of something that in a sense is a problem that needs to be addressed or even solved. I'll never apologize for it. And I'll never apologize for the fact that CARR has, again, its practical bent, it's not going to be defined by that by policy, by GIFCT, by any of the partnerships that we have, whether it's with formals, whether it's with tech companies, that's part of being a broad church. And purists aren't always going to like it, and their appearance of all sorts, but the world is impure.  And sometimes it needs people who are willing to, you know, again, kind of get down there and get their hands dirty.

And if I could is a final point, when I say that, I mean that in the real world. One of the things that I've stressed and I'm not a moralist, but I feel this very strongly. Of course, our politics are better than that of extremists that should go without saying, but I also think are important, are the way we treat ourselves and others needs to be better from those people who dehumanize others who are using racial slurs, as one of the things that I feel is really important about CARR as well as the way in which we interact with each other and the world. It needs to be, you know, again, I'm not a big one for like professionalism, either. I just swear on here. But you know, you've heard some salty language from me, I think, well, I guess what I mean by that is that what we need to do isn't to be moral purists about things. But that we need to treat each other with kind, kindness and care, and to recognize that even in this massive broad church of liberal democracy, and it's kind of adjacencies, we actually have more in common with each other, between types of left and types of right, than we do with people who come from a different ideological tradition, in this case, fascism and post-fascism. But even there, what we can't do, I think it's vital, I feel it very strongly is get right down in the mud with them. And, you know, act because they deserve it, act in the same way that they treat others, I really feel that very strongly. 

And if that does make me slightly a moralist, no, I think that we it's not just that our ideas are better, and our politics are better. But I think our behavior has to be better. Because at some point, that's how people are going to judge us as well. And if you're, I don't know, acting the same way as a fascist does, but with the caveat that my ideas are better, the time may be coming, where we're going to be judged on that behavior. And I feel very strongly that that's something that, you know, if I was to leave any kind of legacy, or get run over by a car tomorrow or something like that, it's that, yes, our ideas and our politics are obviously better, look at history, you can pretty much anything that you want. But I think we have to actually be better as well. Or at least be mindful about the importance of being better. And if that's something that CARR also is trying to do for each other, and for the society of which we're a part, canÕt apologize for that either. 
AD: Matthew, I think that is an incredible note to end on. So I wanted to ask before we wrapped up the episode, if you could share where our listeners could find more from you. I always love reading the pieces that you do. Are you on social media? Where can our listeners get more of these thoughts?

MF: Well, I'm almost feel sorry about answering that question. But yes, I am on social media, I've got a Twitter profile, I've got a LinkedIn and I run a small business to sort of pay the mortgage called Academic Consulting Services, people could look at that it's academicconsulting.co.uk. But really, the vast majority of my efforts are directed at CARR. And so I'm very happy to not have a lot of those profiles. Because one of the things I've I've always felt very strongly is that CARR shouldn't be associated too much with its director or its steering group. But that CARR should be understood really is the sum of its parts. And I'm just one part like you are, like everybody is. So yeah, if people really want to go and have a look, I mean, I wouldn't necessarily recommend my writing unless you do it right before you go to sleep. But I, you know, I'm sure that you could Google around and find my name, you could find various pay-ons to Albert Camus on my Twitter page, kind of an intellectual hero of mine. But more importantly, you can find I think, what I'm putting my shoulder to the wheel and what we're all pushing in the same direction is radicalrightanalysi.com. And I think maybe that's the best way to end this interview is to say, it's actually that's, that's where I'd like to be seen. 

AD: Thank you so much, Matthew, for joining us today. 

MF: It's really my pleasure, thanks, Augusta. 

AD: This has been another episode of Right Rising. We'll see you next time.