As the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting government lockdowns brought a rupture to public
life and social interactions, new communities and networks formed online where people
connected and exchanged ideas driven by the unprecedented global crisis. Alternate realities
grew stronger and found expression under the umbrella of a broadly conceived ‘Freedom Movement’.
This resulted in a wave of ideological activism loosely united around the idea that
Covid-19 was a secret, government-controlled conspiracy against ‘the people’. Especially in Germany, this developed from a diverse ecosystem of existing ideological forces: from ethnonationalist populists and Identitarians, Sovereign Citizen-style Reichsbuerger, white supremacists and neo-Nazis to various stripes of anarchists and militant anti-capitalist. As the increasing trans-nationalization of the far-right became further interwoven with the expansion of QAnon, from a fringe phenomenon to a movement boasting hundreds of thousands of adherents worldwide, notable international connections emerged, including to Australia and New Zealand. The momentum spread through online and offline environments as they rallied around certain ideological flashpoints under the common denominator of
opposing the powers that be, by violent and non-violent means.
Overall, the threat of terrorist violence is reported to be on the decline across liberal democracies, evident for example in the downgrading of the official terrorism threat level in Australia. But this should not invite complacency. Recent assessments by domestic security agencies in Australia, Germany and New Zealand have all highlighted a more diffuse and complex extremism landscape as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, including the rising danger of conspiracy narratives. We cannot dismiss that so-called single-issue movements like anti-mandate or eco-defence groups, are increasingly driven by anti-system ideas, not only in rebellion against the political status-quo but in rejection of the democratic order per se, accompanied by a greater willingness of ‘ordinary citizens’ to use violence.
Examining the dynamics behind the growing acceptance of such ideas and actions is crucial. This is the objective of the NEW WAVE series. Earlier PERISCOPE papers and briefs under this theme already addressed some of these issues.
But there is a need for a more focused deep- dive that grapples with more fundamental questions: about the evolving nature of extremism and terrorism, what their current manifestations look like across liberal societies, and societal enablers.
Asking such questions is more than an academic endeavour. The lens of a ‘A NEW WAVE?’ is
intended to explore conceptual questions as a springboard into policy-related
considerations. To this end, it is important not to shy away from conflicting
perspectives and schools of thought that might be regarded as controversial – it is
necessary to include a breadth of arguments in order to facilitate the type of
dialogue that can also lead to realistic solutions. Because what is at stake is the quality of our pluralist societies, any lasting changes can only come about through examining

the widest possible mosaic of opinions and perceptions. Here, it is fun- damental to keep in mind that threats to democratic societies do not come from extremists, but also an overall decline in the societal climate permitting the normalization of intolerant, anti-pluralist and misanthropic ideas. If a thriving pluralist order is the goal, it must also be the means to get there. Having guardrails for our democracy means learning to recognize when we are
in danger of crossing red lines. These are not always easy to recognize since “society does not necessarily change with seismic jolts but rather can be shaped slowly and in tiny increments.¹
As Nauel Semaan and Steven Bickel highlight in an earlier KAS article on the linkages
between extremism and democracy, we cannot shy away from difficult discussions by using the label of extremism as a means to shut down unpalatable positions.²
The varied contributions by authors from Australia, Germany, New Zealand and the USA
include analyses into the nature of terrorism and types of extremism, case-studies as well
as examinations of responses and potential prevention methods. We hope that the outcome
will be a series that contributes to a more differentiated assessment, to assist experts and
policy-makers in developing responses and strategies for resilience that reflect and address the complexity of issues underlying extremism in democratic societies.