Abstract
Abstract While much academic effort has been devoted to exploring various aspects of right-wing extremist lone-actor terrorism, little attention has been devoted to establishing how the terrorists create meaning by locating themselves within a larger narration of history. This article tries to fill this gap, by analysing the conceptions of history and the historical narratives evoked in the manifestos that the right-wing extremist perpetrators uploaded online in relation to the terrorist attacks in Norway on July 22, 2011 and in Christchurch, New Zealand March 15, 2019. Employing a combination of discourse and narrative analysis, the article argues that a shared fascist ‘regime of historicity’ may be identified in the manifestos. Furthermore, it places the narratives found in the manifestos in relation to different right-wing extremist virtual communities.
Highlights
In recent years, we have witnessed a recurring formula in relation to terrorist attacks committed by right-wing extremists lone-actor terrorists.[1]
This article tries to fill this gap, by analysing the conceptions of history and the historical narratives evoked in the manifestos that the right-wing extremist perpetrators uploaded online in relation to the terrorist attacks in Norway on July 22, 2011 and in Christchurch, New Zealand March 15, 2019
While much academic effort has been devoted to exploring the behavioral underpinnings of such acts of loneactor terrorism, far less attention has been devoted to establishing how the terrorists locate these elements within a larger historical narrative
Summary
As mentioned in the introduction, much academic effort has been devoted to explore various aspects related to lone-actor terrorism: Paul Gill has for instance analyzed the behavioral underpinnings of lone-actor terrorism and the life trajectories of the individual terrorists.[10]. As mentioned in the introduction, Graham Macklin has provided important insights into the ideological narratives and online ecosystems that has shaped lone-actor terrorists like Tarrant, Crusius, Earnest and Manshaus. What this current article offers in relation to the analyses of Bjørgo, Macklin, Sandberg, and Beutel, is that it probes even deeper into an often-overlooked question: the way the construction of enemies and the use of conspiracy theories, tropes and narratives in these manifestos is linked to a sense of ‘historicity’. Beutel and Bjørgo touch upon these issues, while both Mattias Gardell and Cynthia Miller-Idriss have placed a central emphasis on them The former has for instance argued along similar lines as this current article. A paradoxical relation to time—it is utopian and future-oriented, yet anchors its futural utopia in myths of the past—Griffin argues that fascism is best described as ‘a revolutionary form of [ultra] nationalism’.24 While fascism in its classic form celebrated violence and war as means of purifying and regenerating the nation, recent studies of comparative fascism, for instance provided by Paul Jackson, underline the way contemporary fascism has jettisoned its interwar manifestations, yet continues to pursue the vision of total national/racial rebirth through innovative forms of organisation, communication, ideology, and tactics—including lone-actor terrorism.[25]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
