New Policy Exchange report on PREVENT

But imagine if, in order to bring this campaign of white neo-Nazi violence to an end, the state decided to co-opt an element of the white nationalist movement, precisely because its ‘grievance’ narratives were widely believed amongst the white population. Broad swathes of Whitehall, not least the Security Service and police, would argue that ‘alienated’ and ‘excluded’ white youth must be persuaded that they, too, can enjoy a stake in the political system. Imagine further that in order to rebut Combat 18’s narrative – that participation in the political process is pointless because mass immigration and multiculturalism will continue whichever major political party is in office – the state turned to nonviolent ‘political’ fascists for help, including the most prominent of these, the British National Party and its leader, Nick Griffin. Officials might be impressed by Griffin’s growing ‘maturity’. He does not advocate violence on these shores, instead encouraging his angry young white supporters to participate in the political process in order to stop mass immigration. Precisely because of his previous racist pronouncements, officials might reckon that he possesses the ‘street cred’ needed to appeal to those drawn to terrorism.

But what price might Griffin demand in order to charm angry young recruits away from Combat 18? What ‘narrative’ would the British state encourage him to peddle in order to achieve success? Would the Department for Communities and Local Government begin funding Griffin and assorted white ‘community’ groups to bolster their nonviolent message? Would they start ‘capacity building’ initiatives in white neighbourhoods? Griffin might demand substantial policy changes such as more ‘white history’ being taught at schools and universities by ‘suitably qualified’ white teachers. He would obviously insist on dramatic reductions in immigration and an end to multiculturalism, the ‘root causes’ of white ‘alienation’. Griffin could also stipulate that the government must not show ‘double standards’ in its foreign policy by overthrowing regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while ignoring the plight of white farmers in Zimbabwe. Perhaps at Griffin’s behest, the Foreign Office could start a series of ‘roadshows’ led by foreign ‘scholars’ such as David Duke. This might be supported by a new inter-departmental government body, the Research,Information and Communications Unit (RICU), which addresses grievances and rebuts Combat 18’s conspiracy theories, but often in white nationalist terms.

Ridiculous? Yes, but this far-fetched scenario parallels much of the government’s existing policy for tackling Islamist violence. If the word ‘Muslim’ is substituted for ‘white’ then the above scenario serves as a fairly close summary of the government’s current strategy. The enemy is defined quite narrowly as al-Qaeda without fully appreciating the divisive ideology that inspires the group’s actions. The British government, in its desperation to prevent violence, has ended up legitimizing the very ideas that fuel it.