Gathering evidence is crucial: document their organizations, projects, social media, websites, print publications, meetings, and events. Be sure to take good notes and screenshot everything, because you never know what will end up being useful later on.

—Spencer Sunshine, 40 Ways to Fight Fascists

This article was written by Bjørn Ihler, co-founder of the Khalifa Ihler Institute and coordinator of Antifascist Europe. The article was originally published by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. It is also available in German. This text was published to mark the start of the Goodnight Far-Right Conference organized by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and bringing together antifascists from across the world.

Knowledge is power. To counter and undermine a threat, you must first understand its nature, that is, its origin and its trajectory. This is particularly true when it comes to confronting forces in society that seek to impose authoritarian rule, deny fundamental rights, or even promote outright fascism.

Research, monitoring, and observation of far-right groups have always been key elements of antifascist activism. Monitoring has informed effective strategies and efforts to oppose local far-right movements. It has contributed to creative campaigns to undermine the organization of fascist and neo-Nazi events and marches, and fuelled counter-actions bringing communities together in resistance to fascist activism.

To a significant extent, my work to prevent and counter far-right extremism has been rooted in monitoring efforts. This includes our Rosa Luxemburg Foundation-supported effort, Antifascist Europe, and the efforts of the Khalifa Ihler Institute in the Global Hate Map, which is being revived this spring. 

Mappings and investigations of far-right extremist networks conducted through my counter-intelligence firm, Revontulet, have also contributed to significant action on the part of the private sector, law enforcement, and civil society organizations. Our work has contributed to interventions preventing terrorist attacks, limited the spread of fascist, neo-Nazi, and far-right propaganda, and dismantled online groups and networks recruiting new members to far-right groups.

Monitoring takes many forms and serves distinct purposes. Any monitoring strategy will inevitably depend on the desired outcome and the specific details of the targeted group. When conducting such work, it is vital to be mindful of local privacy legislation, the ethical considerations of the organizations you collaborate with such as academic institutions and foundations, and operational security for yourself, your colleagues, and allies.  

Why Monitoring?

I originally started my monitoring work to better understand the international connections of far-right terrorists. Looking at cases from around the world, it became apparent that whether in Europe, North America, and Oceania, these terrorists — white perpetrators with ideologies rooted in classical fascism, neo-Nazism, white supremacy, and Islamophobia — were for the most part not prosecuted for terrorism when apprehended for their crimes. Meanwhile, perpetrators of attacks in Europe with ideological roots in Islamist extremism or family relations  in North Africa or the Middle East (often dating back generations) were routinely described and prosecuted as terrorists. I’m a big believer in equality before the law, and so the fact that some perpetrators were prosecuted as terrorists, while others were not — despite both groups committing horrific acts of ideologically driven mass-casualty violence — struck me as a significant injustice. 

After consulting with legal experts, it became clear that the reason for the inequality in prosecution was that terrorism legislation in many countries did not account for domestic terrorism. To prosecute acts as terrorism, prosecutors thus had to lean on the ability of investigators to substantiate “international connections” and that perpetrators were part of global networks in meaningful ways. This was easy for attacks claimed by the so-called Islamic State or Al-Qaeda, but harder for attacks perpetrated by individuals frequently (and usually incorrectly) described as “lone wolves”. 

I thus began mapping out how these “lone wolves” were, in fact, parts of larger international networks — how they inspired each other’s actions and coordinated their activities. My objective was to both support prosecutions as well as shape the public perception of these perpetrators away from that of the “lone wolf” to the members of the extensive networks they really are. This objective became the root of our efforts behind the Global Hate Map and, in turn, the efforts at Antifascist Europe to understand transnational far-right networks across the continent.

The objective of understanding transnational networks for the purpose of facilitating prosecution informed the design of Antifascist Europe, which adopts a pan-European perspective and seeks to place domestic far-right and fascist actors in the international European landscape. 

Monitoring efforts take many forms, and their objectives vary. Different monitoring efforts take different approaches depending on their objectives. The design of any good monitoring effort is thus dependent on its overall objectives and goals. If the goal is to document the activities of local neo-Nazi rallies to conduct counter-protests, that necessitates a different approach than what we’ve taken in our effort to understand transnational networks.

As we seek to monitor transnational networks, the focus of much of our efforts in Antifascist Europe became on documenting larger events and meetings attracting international supporters. This has allowed us to better understand the intimate relationship between several actors on the European far right, and how they operate as transnational actors despite their nationalist agendas. 

Localized language and cultural competence pose a great challenge for international monitoring efforts. In local monitoring efforts, specialized knowledge of language, culture, and landscape is a great asset. To conduct our transnational monitoring, we therefore depend on a wide network of individuals with localized expertise. The design of our project has thus largely focused on the coordination of monitoring at national and regional levels and the standardization of information gathering to facilitate effective communication of findings, data visualizations, etc. 

Beyond prosecution, our monitoring effort has become a central element in understanding electoral politics, international influence operations, and the intrigues of parliamentary assemblies at both the national and European levels. The objective of our monitoring has thus also evolved since the project began.

In monitoring, it’s thus important to know what your goals and objectives are. The key element to this is understanding what the information you gather will be used for and by whom. That will be important in shaping your approach, focus, and what evidence you focus on. 

It’s also important to be adaptable and to let the information found throughout your effort shape your focus as you unveil more information, the landscape evolves, and new stakeholders may find utility in your documentation.

Thinking Strategically, Acting Judiciously

Strategies for any monitoring effort need to be guided by the objectives, goals, and scope of the monitoring as well as by the resources available to you. For the Hate Map, our focus is on offline events. That requires a different approach than the work conducted through Antifascist Europe, which focuses on documenting transnational networks within Europe, largely through the lens of offline gatherings and events. Our work at Revontulet is largely focused on monitoring online networks and how they relate to online activities and networks. Each of these efforts is attached to different resources, networks, volunteers, investigators, and organizations, leading to different approaches and outcomes. 

Monitoring the activities of a local neo-Nazi group in your city, documenting their activities, vandalism, violence, and attempts at intimidation through demonstrations and manifestations requires physical presence. There are long-standing traditions of antifascists photographing the participants in neo-Nazi rallies, documenting (and removing or painting over) graffiti and stickers, etc. These efforts are vital in holding people accountable for promoting abhorrent views and for demonstrating that fascists and neo-Nazis are unwelcome in our societies.

While long lenses and strategic positioning are helpful in documenting street-level protests and manifestations, documentation of provocation and violence filmed on phones may, in some cases, be more valuable, as the ubiquity of smartphones may contribute to adversaries being less alert to their presence, and as they can be used “closer to the action” to film and record audio, offering valuable context should the collected materials, i.e., be used in media coverage or legal proceedings against Nazi thugs.

In documenting offline events for the Hate Map, we frequently rely on local media coverage or photographic evidence provided by local antifascists and activist communities. In documenting international collaboration, meetings, and networks for Antifascist Europe, our sources of information additionally frequently include the social media profiles of far-right organizations. In recent reporting on the relationship between the British Homeland Party and the Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD), for instance, we based some of our coverage on posts published by the Homeland Party on their official social media profiles. Similarly, recent coverage of the relationship between American conservatives and Russian ideologues was backed up by activity on their own social media channels. 

When relying on statements put out directly by far-right actors, it is important to keep two things in mind. First of all, you want to avoid becoming a megaphone for your adversaries — you don’t want to draw attention to their platforms or inadvertently contribute to the algorithmic promotion of their messaging, i.e., by linking directly to content. Secondly, applying a good dose of scepticism is valuable when dealing with unreliable narrators. Critical thinking and an understanding of the intention and objectives of messaging (which may or may not be truthful) are valuable assets in assessing the value and most strategic framing of materials these actors put out about themselves.

Online monitoring can take many shapes, ranging from our use of public content put out about the activities and meetings of actors used in our reporting from Antifascist Europe to the infiltration of extremist networks on encrypted channels. Learning the principles of Open Source Intelligence, i.e. from Rae Baker’s book Deep Dive, is immensely valuable. It is also valuable to familiarize yourself with the Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations (available in all UN languages), which establishes standards for documenting human rights violations but also may provide useful guidelines for the preservation of digital evidence for antifascist monitoring efforts online.

Taking appropriate measures to protect yourself is vital in all monitoring efforts. In conducting online monitoring, learning about digital operational security and utilizing Virtual Private Networks, Virtual Machines, and other tools as appropriate is essential. Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have put out resources on self-defence against surveillance, which provides useful tips both on protecting yourself from the groups you monitor and from others who may access data and the tools and services used to communicate.

Monitoring is vital to resistance against the far-right and creeping fascism everywhere. Without knowledge, it is impossible to fight back and undermine the activities of those who seek to promote a fascist agenda. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to how to conduct effective monitoring, but understanding your objective and the resources available will inevitably be invaluable in determining your approach.