January 15, 2021 • 32 mins
On this Back Story Dana Lewis interviews Soufan Centre Naureen Chowdhury Fink.
Naureen served as the Senior Policy Adviser on Counterterrorism and Sanctions at the United Kingdom’s Mission to the United Nations.
There were dozens of white supremacists involved in the riot on The Capitol. They have international links. They are well armed and well organized but under the radar of American law enforcement unless they are declared terrorist groups.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
My fellow Americans.
(00:02):
I want to speak to you tonightabout the troubling events of
the past week.
As I have said, the incursion ofthe U S Capitol struck at the
very heart of our Republic, itangered and appalled millions of
Americans across the politicalspectrum.
I want to be very clear.
(00:23):
I unequivocally condemn theviolence
Speaker 2 (00:32):
That was president Trump impeached for a second
time this week saying he doesn'tsupport violence.
And do you believe that afterall his calls to fight saying
the election result was falseand to this moment, refusing to
admit he lost his lawyer,Rudolph Giuliani called for
trial by combat.
Hi everyone.
(00:52):
I'm Dana Lewis and welcome tothis edition of backstory on
white terrorism in America.
And it shouldn't be calledanything, but that I've spent a
lifetime as a journalistcovering terrorism around the
globe.
And it all looks a lot likewhat's developing in America
from the middle East to Russia,to Afghanistan and on and on bus
(01:13):
bombs to hostage, takings,fanatics old who justified their
bloody rampage because theircause they think is just
president.
Trump's absolutely false claimsof a stolen election have been
rejected by every court, butit's ignited people who believe
their president was a victim.
(01:35):
This guy beat a policemen on theground with an American flag.
And before his arrest, he said,yeah,
Speaker 1 (01:41):
She's the only remedy for what's in that building.
Well, everybody in there is atree
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Trader and here's policemen, Michael[inaudible]
who was dragged down the stepsof the Capitol and was going to
be shot with his own gun
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Fight as best I could.
Uh, I remember like guys werestripping me and my gear, these
riders, uh, pulling my badge offmy chest.
Um, they ripped my radio also of, uh, of my vest started pulling
, uh, like ammunition magazinesfrom their holder on my belt.
(02:18):
And then some guys startedgetting ahold of my gun and, uh,
they were screaming out, um, youknow, kill him with his own gun.
Um, at that point, you know, itwas just like self preservation.
Um, you know, how do I survivethis situation?
And I thought about, you know,using deadly force, I thought
(02:40):
about shooting people.
Um, and then I just came to theconclusion that, you know, if I
was to do that, I might get afew, but I'm not going to take
everybody.
And they'll probably take my gunaway from me.
And that would definitely givethem the justification that they
were looking for to kill me.
Uh, if they already didn't havemade that up in their minds.
(03:01):
So the other option I thought ofwas you knew trying to appeal to
somebody as humanity.
Um, and I, I just rememberyelling out that I have kids and
, uh, it seemed to work.
Um, some people in the crowdstarted to in circle me and try
to offer me some level ofprotection.
A lot of people have asked me,you know, my faults on, uh, the
(03:25):
individuals in the crowd that,um, you know, that helped me, uh
, or try to offer someassistance.
Uh, and I think kind of theconclusion I've come to is like,
you know, thank you, but you forbeing there.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Okay, there are lots of pictures and evidence that
there were dozens of whitesupremacists at the Capitol
rally fighting police huntinginside with zip ties to
handcuff, and God knows, do whatwith lawmakers, extremist
groups, including the pro-Trumpfar right antigovernment oath
(04:02):
keepers, and the threepercenters, a loose
antigovernment network.
That's part of the militiamovement.
The hateful imagery included anantisemitic camp Auschwitz
sweatshirt created years ago bywhite supremacists who sold them
on the now defunct website.
Arion were also among therioters were members of the
(04:25):
griper army, a loose network ofwhite nationalists, the white
supremacist, New Jersey Europeanheritage association, and the
far right extremist proud boysto name a few.
The growth of white supremacistsis international, frightening
and hard to control.
And that brings us to ourinterview on white supremacy in
(04:47):
America and beyond.
All right, joining me now fromNew York is Norine child dream
think, uh, the executivedirector of the Soufan center,
which is pretty much a securityfocused think tank or that's how
I would describe it, uh, basedin Washington and in New York.
(05:07):
Hi, Dorian, how are you?
Speaker 4 (05:08):
Hi, Dana.
Good morning from where I'msitting in New York.
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
It's an incredible time in America.
And what would you say is thebiggest security threat right
now?
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Um, you use the word incredible because I think none
of us could have imagined theyear we're looking at, you know,
not just COVID.
Um, but everything else we'resaying, you asked about the
biggest security threat.
And I think that in the midst ofa pandemic, we are seeing white
supremacist and conspiracytheorists, and anti-government
groups willing to use terrorismin the name of political change
(05:43):
in, in the United States.
And to me, that is the most.
Um, and, and not just to me,certainly by, by many
intelligence assessments andaccounts, the greatest terrorist
threats to the United Statesright now.
And it's me,
Speaker 2 (05:54):
This was a long way in a very short time from the
days of
Speaker 5 (05:58):
Nine 11 and Al-Qaeda, and, and, uh, you know, Islamic
groups, uh, excellent Islamicextremist groups, uh,
representing a threat to theUnited States.
How suddenly has this mushroomso quickly?
If I can say it's quick?
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Sure.
Well, I think, I mean, first ofall, it's been, we're looking at
the 20th year anniversary comingup of nine 11.
So it has been two decades andan eventful one at that.
So we've seen things evolve andchange.
I think we've seen the whitesupremacist groups, you know, it
, there's a long history thereand certainly you and I just
very briefly mentioned theheadline.
(06:34):
Exactly.
So we are building on, uh, youknow, we are building on a
movement that has been there forquite some time, certainly in
this country, but we know that alot of dynamics, sometimes I
hate to use the word acceleratein this context, but you know,
you have catalysts and certainlywith the infusion of the
internet disinformation queueand on, um, sort of this
(06:56):
deteriorating trust ingovernment, um, I'm going to use
a really long word and mess itup here.
Anti-establishment, Marianismkind of take, you know, take,
hold in the United States andelsewhere.
I think we've seen a kind ofperfect storm and no pun
intended with the capital.
Speaker 5 (07:15):
All right.
As we talked to Noreen, I shouldmention that she was the senior
policy advisor oncounter-terrorism and sanctions
at the UK mission to the Unitednations.
I mean, Naureen, you're not newto this.
You've been doing this for along time.
Speaker 4 (07:27):
That's right.
More than I care to more yearsthan I care to admit in public,
but I've been looking at this,you know, for about 15, 16 years
now.
And one of the things I thinkhas been remarkable as much as
we talk about nine 11, certainlybeing the linchpin of
counter-terrorism discussionsfor many years, this has also
been a global phenomenon.
(07:47):
And I think you, you know, when,when we talk about the security
risk in the United States, weneed to remember there are
others abroad watching, planningto emulate, and these dynamics,
you know, build on each other,right.
We saw white supremacist groupsreally take heart in under his
brave acts attack in Norway.
I mean, the fact that he wasable to kill like 70 kids and,
(08:09):
and, you know, the greatestterrorist attack, um, in Norway
and in much of Europe and itreally served as fodder for, for
groups abroad.
And so what happens in theUnited States, certainly the
greatest security threat we'reseeing here may well have also
international repercussions.
We've already seen the attacksand Christ church attacks in
Norway, and we will see more,unfortunately.
(08:31):
So it's in the United States andbeyond Trump,
Speaker 5 (08:34):
It was regularly downplayed the threat of white
supremacist violence during hispresidency.
He said there were some veryfine people among the extremists
who sparked violence inCharlottesville in 2017.
He called black lives matter, asymbol of hate, and he's
regularly, regularly pushednarratives on Twitter that
emphasize violence against whiteAmericans.
(08:55):
He seeks to Curry support in thesuburbs.
What would you say about DonaldTrump's role in the growth of
extremism within the UnitedStates and specifically white
supremacy?
Speaker 4 (09:08):
You know, um, when I was growing up parents and
family, friends used to say,you're known by the company you
keep and that's how you'll bejudged.
And I think it says a lot aboutthe fact that we had a president
of the United States that waswilling to serve just one
community and one set ofinterests rather than the
country as a whole.
He has, we have seen provided acritical figurehead.
(09:32):
Um, he has broken the seal onwhat is permissible in public,
what you say, what you do andhow you even conceptualize this
country.
And I think we, you know, it, itwill be really hard to put that
genie back in the bottle,whether he stays, whether he
goes, he has provided that kindof ideological centerpiece for
(09:53):
divisiveness in this country.
And he has made it acceptable touse terrorist tactics to achieve
the goals he talks about.
So, um, I I'm afraid that, youknow, whether he stays or
whether he goes, and of course,whether he goes and what kind of
accountability there is for theacts that he has incited, um,
(10:15):
and committed, uh, will have alot to do with the outcome.
But the fact that he did it atall for the last four years and
the fact that we have seen fouryears of growth and development
in this narrative, the Q1 onmovement, um, and the fact of
polarization, I think there'sgrave damage done already
Speaker 5 (10:34):
Is mega make America great.
Again, that movement is that aterror threat, James Clooney,
the former head of the FBI saysit is or aspects of it to quote
him directly.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
I think that's a very important nuance aspects of it.
We certainly live in a countrywhere people are free to have
different ideas of whatconstitutes greatness and
government.
And certainly, um, you know, I,I like to think America was
great before, but if they feel,you know, if there's aspects of
the maca movement that thinkthere should be improvements in
(11:09):
government, I would very, I'd bevery hesitant and to live in a
country where they couldn't havetheir say.
What I think is extraordinary iswhen it tips into the use of
violence, as we saw in theCapitol, you know, what happened
on the Capitol, doesn't just,um, it will not obviously just
affect Democrats once that isdone.
(11:29):
The use of violence for thatkind of politics, um, should
have been a seal that we neverbreak.
And so I don't, I don't reallywant to talk about the, the Maga
movement as a whole, because asin any political movements, we
will see nuances and layers of,you know, some people just have
different political ideas and wecan disagree, but debate them.
(11:50):
Um, and some people who arewilling to use violence, I think
it's that latter group.
We need to be careful,
Speaker 5 (11:56):
Bigger role.
Do you think white nationalismplayed in the attack on the
Capitol
Speaker 4 (12:01):
A huge role?
I mean, if we just look at theimages, just imagine that was a
group of Muslims.
I mean, we talked about nine 11,we talked about the last 20
years of the global war onterror.
If that was a group from theMuslim community in the United
States storming the Capitol, wewould not be debating the
nuances of terminology likeinsurrection or terrorism or,
(12:23):
you know, rebellion.
We, we would, we would certainlybe here at called out as
terrorism.
Um, and so I think there wasundoubtedly a sense of
entitlement, a sense ofprivilege, a sense of impunity
tied to white supremacist andwhite nationalist ideas.
You know, we sitting here inBrooklyn and New York, we, we
(12:44):
saw last year what the blacklives matter protests were
treated like.
Um, we can imagine, as I said,if these were communities, not
just Muslim communities, anycommunities of color that tried
to, to, um, perpetrate thoseacts we saw last week, um, the,
you know, there would be nodebate about a law enforcement
response.
A lot of this has to do with thecommunity feeling so entitled
(13:07):
and so privileged and able to dothis.
So,
Speaker 5 (13:11):
So in a way we see shockingly off-duty policemen
that were in that crowd,flashing badges, assaulting
other policemen, or using theirbadges to gain an access fireman
, um, you know, uh, electedmembers of office, uh, soccer
moms.
But I mean, there were officialpeople there from, and a lot of
(13:32):
these policemen have gone backto their States now and they
have been suspended and willprobably be prosecuted
Speaker 4 (13:39):
The, in the coming days and weeks, we will see
what, what appears to be a verystrong, our response to those
who have dishonored their badges, um, and participated in this.
But, you know, we are seeingreports of infiltration across
the world in different lawenforcement, military police,
um, armed services, uh, by whitesupremacist far, right.
(13:59):
Extremist groups, you know, andwe have to remember, these are
individuals as well.
There is no, um, uniform, uh,sort of, uh, code, you know,
sorry, there's a uniform code.
I mean, there's no universalkind of person, right?
So we will see individuals ofdifferent political and
ideological color.
I think it's gravely, gravelyconcerning.
(14:22):
And I think very much a sort ofwhite supremacist, um,
entitlement means that manysigns of this may have gone
under, um, under noticed underreported.
And, you know, we at the Soufancenter and, and others have been
calling out the whitesupremacist threat as something
that needs to be taken far moreseriously needs, far more
(14:43):
resources, um, a lot of to it.
And we hadn't seen thathappening.
I mean, in Germany.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
In fact, in fact, I read that Ali Soufan was
formerly with the FBI and dealtwith international terrorism.
In fact, he has been threatenedfor his calls to name some of
these groups, terrorist groupsand have, and have them
outlawed.
I mean, if, if I can use thatterm
Speaker 4 (15:07):
Well, absolutely.
And I think, um, the, the, theSoufan center was out front last
year, calling this out as thenext greatest domestic, uh,
threat from domestic terrorism,but we still did not see the
kind of preventive action, thekind of resources, allot
allotted to investigate andunderstand and preempt this
(15:28):
threat as we saw with, with G
Speaker 5 (15:31):
Well, why is that?
Is it because they underestimatethem or because they accept
them?
Speaker 4 (15:37):
Well, I think it is easier to talk about the threat
outside where you don't havepolitical financial, familial
community relationships.
Right.
We can talk about internationalterrorist groups says we can
talk about monitoringindividuals abroad or from
abroad because the, not us, it'snot in our community.
(15:59):
And so from a political socialeconomic point of view, and in
many ways it's easier to monitorforeign threats.
Legally speaking, of course, wedon't have a domestic terrorism
law, and so we can takedifferent kinds of action when
the threat is from abroad.
Um,
Speaker 5 (16:17):
So just explain that to me because a lot of people
don't understand that.
I mean, if you classify some ofthese groups, like for instance,
proud boys or gags and flags,or, I mean, whatever, the,
whatever the group is, if youclassify them as a terrorist
organization, then that allowsthe FBI a lot more leeway in
(16:42):
terms of investigating them interms of surveillance, in terms
of monitoring, uh, electronicsurveillance and also physical
surveillance and all of that.
And, and it allows people tolook into their financing,
doesn't it?
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Absolutely.
And I think that latter clauseis especially important also
because it means you can look atmaterial support to these
groups.
And we know that, you know, suchgroups don't just recruit
fighters and finance here'sright there, there are now
advertising for doctors andmedics and logisticians and
whatnot.
So they are looking at, uh,they're looking for a wide array
(17:16):
of material support andclassifying.
Yes.
In fact, there are echoing verymuch, you know, what ISIS had
done ISIS had said, you don'thave to be a fighter to come to
the caliphate.
You can come be a doctor, anurse, a teacher, you know, come
be who you want to be in thecaliphate.
And we are seeing a lot of, um,a lot of that now where groups
are putting out ads saying, forexample, you know, you don't
(17:38):
have to be a fighter if you wantto be like a medic and come help
us.
And we're seeing ads andpictures like that.
Um, so I think they definitelyspeak to each other.
Um, more broadly we've seenwhite supremacist groups really
echo some of the learning fromjihadist groups from all of,
from ISIS, you know, how to makebombs, how to radicalize, how to
organize, how to mobilize.
(17:59):
They're definitely learning fromeach other.
So yes, to your question, um,uh, domestic terror, uh,
terrorism law would enable a lotof the actions, which you
outlined.
However, there's also a veryvalid concern about the
potential for overreach, right?
And if we, and how do we makesure that there's very strong
criteria for designating a groupas terrorists?
(18:22):
You know, I would be very waryof others who would want to
suddenly, um, you know,designate black lives matter
protests as terrorist action.
Um, I would be wary of using theterrorism label all the time,
without really thinking throughthe repercussions on
civilization.
Speaker 5 (18:37):
It was pretty simple to me, you know, and, and I, and
I don't say it in a naive waybecause I've been in other
countries where they have triedto deal with some of these
groups.
And if you say, if you designatesomebody, a terror group, you
were saying that they are goingto take some kind of armed
action to terrorize the publicor represent a, a armed threat
(19:01):
to the state.
So it's not that, you know, youdon't like a posting on the, on
the internet.
Then you say that, you know,he's a terrorist.
It, it would have to be somekind of planned conspiracy to
develop a physical threat andattack in America is, is why is
it so complicated?
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Well, I think because many of the actions that we
would consider preparatory orleading up to it are protected
in the United States.
So you have free speech, whichallows you to say whatever, you
know, certainly there's hatespeech, but you know, a lot of
the preparatory speech andnarrative, and, you know, what
we would, you know, even in, inthe UK and other places, maybe
(19:43):
look at online harms andincitement, um, in the United
States, it's protected.
Of course you can carry weaponshere, so you can save many of
these things and you can carryyour weapon and you can happen
to be walking past, you know,somewhere that you think is a
good target.
And until the moment you dosomething, all of those actions
are protected.
Um, I think so in the UnitedStates for good and for bad,
(20:06):
many of these actions areprotected.
And so it is a more difficultconversation where you draw the
line between protectconstitutionally protected
actions and speech.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
I think that lawmakers are prepared to draw
that line.
Now, though, more than they'veever been given what's happened.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
I think there will be increasing calls to look into
it.
And I'm, and I'm choosing mywords carefully.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
That sounds a bit weak, not on your part, but you
don't feel that it's reachedthis tipping point after the,
the assault on the Capitol thatlawmakers now will say, okay,
that's it.
I mean, groups like proud boys,Nazi and white supremacists, um,
(20:50):
th that are engaging inrecruiting, uh, and calling for
violence.
Then we have to act on thatbefore it happens.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
I mean, there's an argument to be made and others
will.
I'm sorry, I've been doing a lotof, you know, I've been doing
academic research and diplomacyfor a while, so I will have to
look at both sides, but I thinkthere are others who will say,
you can prosecute this without,you know, you can prosecute acts
of murder.
You can prosecute prepper,preparatory, acts towards
violence, and you can prosecuteincitement to violence.
(21:22):
Um, I think that there are caseswhere, of course the, the
terrorism label, um, and thehaving a domestic terror
terrorism statute is important.
I, I think they will be lookinginto it.
I think it is one of the mostfundamentally difficult
questions to address when it'sconstitutional protections.
We're talking about,
Speaker 5 (21:42):
Maybe it's better to talk about this in terms of
smaller steps than at the veryleast these groups are now more
than ever on the FBI's andHomeland security's radar.
You think now they are going tostart assigning more people to
it, understanding that itrepresents a grave threat to the
nation.
Speaker 4 (21:59):
Absolutely.
I think we're going to see moreresources allocated.
I think very importantly, youknow, we talked about a sense of
entitlement and impunity.
You'll also see more seniorleaders speaking out against it.
You will see more lawenforcement attention to it,
which means as you say, youknow, resources.
And like I said, these groupsdon't exist in an American
vacuum.
(22:20):
They have partners, funders, um,supporters abroad in similar
groups.
And so the more there is actionat a senior level in the United
States with the FBI and lawenforcement agencies and
politicians, it also means inother countries that we can
partner up with them and makesure we address the
transnational dimension of theseissues.
Speaker 5 (22:41):
Where else, if you were just to name off the top
five or two or three, w whereelse do you see them really
proliferating, uh, in aworrisome level internationally?
Speaker 4 (22:50):
Sure.
Well, we've seen in Germanyreports that some of the most
elite law enforcement and policeand military teams have been
infiltrated by far right groups.
We've also seen the Germangovernment take very early and
decisive action to allocateresources and, and address this
head on, you know, I think itwas, uh, I want to say$80
(23:11):
million was maybe euros.
I'm sorry about that.
I don't have the exact figure,but a large amount of money in
the 80 million, um, uh, sort ofestimate has been allocated now
to look into it.
The government is on notice andvery public in, uh, you know, in
addressing this as a threat,calling it unacceptable,
unacceptable, and launchinginvestigations.
(23:31):
Certainly Norway we saw afterthe brave Vic attacks went very,
very quickly into, um, you know,investing a lot more in
prevention and addressingviolent extremism, writ large,
and certainly New Zealand.
And in the aftermath of theattacks in Christ church, we
have seen, they launched theChrist church call and are
(23:52):
working very closely to look atthe online dimension of this.
And this is what the UK alsosupported.
Um, prime minister, BorisJohnson had committed resources
to looking at what is happeningonline to these groups so that
we can work on, um, addressingtheir online presence.
Speaker 5 (24:09):
Do you think it is in America because probably a lot
of people had the impressionthat, you know, there's some
guys living up in the mountainsin Tennessee or something, and,
uh, you know, that it's veryfringe, it seems like it's
evolved to become far moremainstream.
When I take a look at some ofthose videos, uh, from around
(24:32):
the Capitol, I was shocked atthat and, and, and read about
the different groups that wereparticipating.
I mean, proud boys, Q Anon, um,which is a right-wing wingy
cult, Nazi and whitesupremacists, including, you
know, wearing this shirt shirt,Candace.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Yeah.
And the six M w E.
Okay.
Speaker 5 (24:54):
Uh, noose was posted around the Capitol, which is
apparently a fantasy day of, ofthe rope that traders will be
hanged in the street gags, thenflags yellow, American flags
that dates back to 1778, uh, youknow, w w with the rattlesnake
and the words don't tread on mefrom the revolutionary war, the
3% are flag, which, um, Ithought it's quite ominous in
(25:17):
its own way, because it said ittook only 3% of American people
to revolt against the British.
And in this context, it's asignal that a small number of
so-called Patriots, all you,that's all you need for a
successful revolution.
I mean, there, there's a wideberth of very bizarre groups
there that any of them stand outto you or do all of them.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
Yeah.
I think it's exactly what you'vejust said.
You've kind of hit it on thenail.
It's the fact that it's many,many different groups kind of
coalescing into a similarworldview.
Right.
Um, I think it is much morewidespread.
Like you, I think one of themost, like you just said, one of
the most horrifying images forme was that news outside the
Capitol, you know, we're, we'reso transfixed on the kind of
(26:01):
dramatic Q Anon shaman and hishorns that we forget that the
new, some of the zip ties isreally the image, um, that we
should, I think be very, veryconcerned about because so many
different groups coalescedaround these ideas, the ideas
that the governments aretraders, the ideas that the
democratic process itself needsto be appended.
(26:22):
So I D this is not certainly afringe movement.
Uh, we've heard a lot offamilies say that, you know,
this is a concern in mycommunity.
I can no longer talk to familymembers because they're on some
spectrum of these ideologies.
Um, you know, I think we, we dohave to remember, like we've
seen with all Qaeda with ISIS,you know, there are some people
who, because they're anonymousonline, they get, they can say
(26:46):
what they want.
There's no real consequence.
It requires no real courage oraction or commitment to say
things online.
Um, what I think the problem of,you know, one of the many
problems with the Capitol attackis that it mobilized people to
move from an online world wherethings are just fantasies and
maybe don't require commitment.
(27:08):
And when you have an example ofpeople that did follow through
with action, it creates a kindof, um, you know, a Mo a very
mobilizing narrative for thosewho may have been maybe on the,
um, on the fence about whetherto move from the online, into
the real world.
Um, at the same time, we knowthat just having a few activists
(27:28):
, um, often they can besuccessful when there are layers
of support behind them.
You know, the ideologues, thenarrators, the small financeers,
the small businesses thatsupport them, the communities
that back them up, you know, themoms that defend them, the dads
that egg them on, you know, um,all of these, um, you know, so I
(27:48):
think when we look at not justthose who are willing to take
action, but the wide group ofpeople that are willing to
support them, I mean, justlooking at the support for
presence
Speaker 5 (27:57):
And how do you, how do you fight that?
I mean, yeah, looking at thesupport for president Trump, and
he's got a lot of it, but, youknow, maybe he will fade, but,
and maybe he won't, but how doyou deal with that scope of so
many people that have been toldby him that the election wasn't
free?
It wasn't fair.
It was a fraud, it was stolenfrom you, stop the steal we have
(28:19):
to fight.
And that, that message, uh, youknow, is, is pretty dangerous
because I, you know, I, uh, acouple of the interviews with
people who went to that re thatriot, um, a few months ago, uh,
were not that radicalized on theinternet.
And so a lot of it has beencompressed, uh, as, as we've, as
(28:42):
we've heard this constant echoof president Trump saying it's
been stolen from us.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Well, part of that compression day now will also be
the impact of COVID-19.
There are more people at home,the more people that are scared,
uncertain, spending time online,and, you know, we've seen UN
reports, we've heard widespread,um, reporting there, more young
people spending all day online.
They, there are people with, youknow, who've lost their jobs,
(29:09):
lost their homes.
And so I have to say, it's, it'sreally not surprising that this
has all accelerated andcompressed against the backdrop
of a lockdown, an unprecedentedglobal shutdown of, you know,
other valves for engagement.
Um, and so I think that this isnot something we have seen
necessarily on this scale,because we haven't had this
(29:30):
background.
Uh, we talked a bit againearlier about the 20 years since
nine 11, we have worked on somany different iterations of
counter narratives campaigns,counter campaigns, some are
spectacular failures, some haveshown some success, right?
The ones that have shown successseem to be ones that are really
(29:50):
tailored to local environments,really, based on a sound
understanding of why people findsome of this messaging messaging
appealing.
And that means we need to dobetter to understand where some
of these groups are coming from,because it's, it looks like one
big global message of kind of,um, militant does illusionism,
(30:11):
but it is actually differentgroups with different kinds of,
um, trajectories to get there.
So I think we will have to startlooking into our lessons learned
over the last 20 years oncounter messaging, counter
narratives, and do better tounderstand the, the knowledge
base of each of the groups thathas come up, um, and how that
operates online.
(30:32):
But I really think we can'tignore the fact that this is
happening against the backdropof COVID and more people online,
less interaction.
Um, you know, on a whole morepeople are just interacting with
themselves, with their families,with their very, very close
friends, right?
They don't even have access topeople outdoors and in the long
run, I, you know, we we'll seewhat that does to people,
(30:54):
whether in a, in a very normalsense in the workforce and in
day-to-day communities, but inthese kinds of spaces, the
potential effects are alarming.
Speaker 5 (31:04):
Norine child rethink from the Sioux fan center.
You know, I think we're going tohave another talk soon because
there's just so much here.
Um, and you know, it's not goingto go away quickly.
And a lot of it will depend onhow the Republican party
delivers its message in thefuture about this election.
Uh, and, and whether they startsaying that it was fair and they
(31:27):
poke a hole in, in this, youknow, ridiculous cloud that
Trump has put over the electoralprocess and democracy, which
right now they're not steppingup a lot.
Some are, but some are not.
Naureen really pleasure to talkto you.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (31:43):
Thank you for having me, Dana, look forward to
speaking again,
Speaker 2 (31:45):
And that's backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis, please subscribeto our podcast and sheriff my
advice spend less time on socialmedia, especially right now,
spend more time watchingmainstream press and TV news.
And if Trump and his Q Anonfollowers call it fake news,
that usually means it's notthanks for listening.
(32:07):
And I'll talk to you again soon.
My fellow Americans.
(00:02):
I want to speak to you tonightabout the troubling events of
the past week.
As I have said, the incursion ofthe U S Capitol struck at the
very heart of our Republic, itangered and appalled millions of
Americans across the politicalspectrum.
I want to be very clear.
(00:23):
I unequivocally condemn theviolence
Speaker 2 (00:32):
That was president Trump impeached for a second
time this week saying he doesn'tsupport violence.
And do you believe that afterall his calls to fight saying
the election result was falseand to this moment, refusing to
admit he lost his lawyer,Rudolph Giuliani called for
trial by combat.
Hi everyone.
(00:52):
I'm Dana Lewis and welcome tothis edition of backstory on
white terrorism in America.
And it shouldn't be calledanything, but that I've spent a
lifetime as a journalistcovering terrorism around the
globe.
And it all looks a lot likewhat's developing in America
from the middle East to Russia,to Afghanistan and on and on bus
(01:13):
bombs to hostage, takings,fanatics old who justified their
bloody rampage because theircause they think is just
president.
Trump's absolutely false claimsof a stolen election have been
rejected by every court, butit's ignited people who believe
their president was a victim.
(01:35):
This guy beat a policemen on theground with an American flag.
And before his arrest, he said,yeah,
Speaker 1 (01:41):
She's the only remedy for what's in that building.
Well, everybody in there is atree
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Trader and here's policemen, Michael[inaudible]
who was dragged down the stepsof the Capitol and was going to
be shot with his own gun
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Fight as best I could.
Uh, I remember like guys werestripping me and my gear, these
riders, uh, pulling my badge offmy chest.
Um, they ripped my radio also of, uh, of my vest started pulling
, uh, like ammunition magazinesfrom their holder on my belt.
(02:18):
And then some guys startedgetting ahold of my gun and, uh,
they were screaming out, um, youknow, kill him with his own gun.
Um, at that point, you know, itwas just like self preservation.
Um, you know, how do I survivethis situation?
And I thought about, you know,using deadly force, I thought
(02:40):
about shooting people.
Um, and then I just came to theconclusion that, you know, if I
was to do that, I might get afew, but I'm not going to take
everybody.
And they'll probably take my gunaway from me.
And that would definitely givethem the justification that they
were looking for to kill me.
Uh, if they already didn't havemade that up in their minds.
(03:01):
So the other option I thought ofwas you knew trying to appeal to
somebody as humanity.
Um, and I, I just rememberyelling out that I have kids and
, uh, it seemed to work.
Um, some people in the crowdstarted to in circle me and try
to offer me some level ofprotection.
A lot of people have asked me,you know, my faults on, uh, the
(03:25):
individuals in the crowd that,um, you know, that helped me, uh
, or try to offer someassistance.
Uh, and I think kind of theconclusion I've come to is like,
you know, thank you, but you forbeing there.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Okay, there are lots of pictures and evidence that
there were dozens of whitesupremacists at the Capitol
rally fighting police huntinginside with zip ties to
handcuff, and God knows, do whatwith lawmakers, extremist
groups, including the pro-Trumpfar right antigovernment oath
(04:02):
keepers, and the threepercenters, a loose
antigovernment network.
That's part of the militiamovement.
The hateful imagery included anantisemitic camp Auschwitz
sweatshirt created years ago bywhite supremacists who sold them
on the now defunct website.
Arion were also among therioters were members of the
(04:25):
griper army, a loose network ofwhite nationalists, the white
supremacist, New Jersey Europeanheritage association, and the
far right extremist proud boysto name a few.
The growth of white supremacistsis international, frightening
and hard to control.
And that brings us to ourinterview on white supremacy in
(04:47):
America and beyond.
All right, joining me now fromNew York is Norine child dream
think, uh, the executivedirector of the Soufan center,
which is pretty much a securityfocused think tank or that's how
I would describe it, uh, basedin Washington and in New York.
(05:07):
Hi, Dorian, how are you?
Speaker 4 (05:08):
Hi, Dana.
Good morning from where I'msitting in New York.
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
It's an incredible time in America.
And what would you say is thebiggest security threat right
now?
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Um, you use the word incredible because I think none
of us could have imagined theyear we're looking at, you know,
not just COVID.
Um, but everything else we'resaying, you asked about the
biggest security threat.
And I think that in the midst ofa pandemic, we are seeing white
supremacist and conspiracytheorists, and anti-government
groups willing to use terrorismin the name of political change
(05:43):
in, in the United States.
And to me, that is the most.
Um, and, and not just to me,certainly by, by many
intelligence assessments andaccounts, the greatest terrorist
threats to the United Statesright now.
And it's me,
Speaker 2 (05:54):
This was a long way in a very short time from the
days of
Speaker 5 (05:58):
Nine 11 and Al-Qaeda, and, and, uh, you know, Islamic
groups, uh, excellent Islamicextremist groups, uh,
representing a threat to theUnited States.
How suddenly has this mushroomso quickly?
If I can say it's quick?
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Sure.
Well, I think, I mean, first ofall, it's been, we're looking at
the 20th year anniversary comingup of nine 11.
So it has been two decades andan eventful one at that.
So we've seen things evolve andchange.
I think we've seen the whitesupremacist groups, you know, it
, there's a long history thereand certainly you and I just
very briefly mentioned theheadline.
(06:34):
Exactly.
So we are building on, uh, youknow, we are building on a
movement that has been there forquite some time, certainly in
this country, but we know that alot of dynamics, sometimes I
hate to use the word acceleratein this context, but you know,
you have catalysts and certainlywith the infusion of the
internet disinformation queueand on, um, sort of this
(06:56):
deteriorating trust ingovernment, um, I'm going to use
a really long word and mess itup here.
Anti-establishment, Marianismkind of take, you know, take,
hold in the United States andelsewhere.
I think we've seen a kind ofperfect storm and no pun
intended with the capital.
Speaker 5 (07:15):
All right.
As we talked to Noreen, I shouldmention that she was the senior
policy advisor oncounter-terrorism and sanctions
at the UK mission to the Unitednations.
I mean, Naureen, you're not newto this.
You've been doing this for along time.
Speaker 4 (07:27):
That's right.
More than I care to more yearsthan I care to admit in public,
but I've been looking at this,you know, for about 15, 16 years
now.
And one of the things I thinkhas been remarkable as much as
we talk about nine 11, certainlybeing the linchpin of
counter-terrorism discussionsfor many years, this has also
been a global phenomenon.
(07:47):
And I think you, you know, when,when we talk about the security
risk in the United States, weneed to remember there are
others abroad watching, planningto emulate, and these dynamics,
you know, build on each other,right.
We saw white supremacist groupsreally take heart in under his
brave acts attack in Norway.
I mean, the fact that he wasable to kill like 70 kids and,
(08:09):
and, you know, the greatestterrorist attack, um, in Norway
and in much of Europe and itreally served as fodder for, for
groups abroad.
And so what happens in theUnited States, certainly the
greatest security threat we'reseeing here may well have also
international repercussions.
We've already seen the attacksand Christ church attacks in
Norway, and we will see more,unfortunately.
(08:31):
So it's in the United States andbeyond Trump,
Speaker 5 (08:34):
It was regularly downplayed the threat of white
supremacist violence during hispresidency.
He said there were some veryfine people among the extremists
who sparked violence inCharlottesville in 2017.
He called black lives matter, asymbol of hate, and he's
regularly, regularly pushednarratives on Twitter that
emphasize violence against whiteAmericans.
(08:55):
He seeks to Curry support in thesuburbs.
What would you say about DonaldTrump's role in the growth of
extremism within the UnitedStates and specifically white
supremacy?
Speaker 4 (09:08):
You know, um, when I was growing up parents and
family, friends used to say,you're known by the company you
keep and that's how you'll bejudged.
And I think it says a lot aboutthe fact that we had a president
of the United States that waswilling to serve just one
community and one set ofinterests rather than the
country as a whole.
He has, we have seen provided acritical figurehead.
(09:32):
Um, he has broken the seal onwhat is permissible in public,
what you say, what you do andhow you even conceptualize this
country.
And I think we, you know, it, itwill be really hard to put that
genie back in the bottle,whether he stays, whether he
goes, he has provided that kindof ideological centerpiece for
(09:53):
divisiveness in this country.
And he has made it acceptable touse terrorist tactics to achieve
the goals he talks about.
So, um, I I'm afraid that, youknow, whether he stays or
whether he goes, and of course,whether he goes and what kind of
accountability there is for theacts that he has incited, um,
(10:15):
and committed, uh, will have alot to do with the outcome.
But the fact that he did it atall for the last four years and
the fact that we have seen fouryears of growth and development
in this narrative, the Q1 onmovement, um, and the fact of
polarization, I think there'sgrave damage done already
Speaker 5 (10:34):
Is mega make America great.
Again, that movement is that aterror threat, James Clooney,
the former head of the FBI saysit is or aspects of it to quote
him directly.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
I think that's a very important nuance aspects of it.
We certainly live in a countrywhere people are free to have
different ideas of whatconstitutes greatness and
government.
And certainly, um, you know, I,I like to think America was
great before, but if they feel,you know, if there's aspects of
the maca movement that thinkthere should be improvements in
(11:09):
government, I would very, I'd bevery hesitant and to live in a
country where they couldn't havetheir say.
What I think is extraordinary iswhen it tips into the use of
violence, as we saw in theCapitol, you know, what happened
on the Capitol, doesn't just,um, it will not obviously just
affect Democrats once that isdone.
(11:29):
The use of violence for thatkind of politics, um, should
have been a seal that we neverbreak.
And so I don't, I don't reallywant to talk about the, the Maga
movement as a whole, because asin any political movements, we
will see nuances and layers of,you know, some people just have
different political ideas and wecan disagree, but debate them.
(11:50):
Um, and some people who arewilling to use violence, I think
it's that latter group.
We need to be careful,
Speaker 5 (11:56):
Bigger role.
Do you think white nationalismplayed in the attack on the
Capitol
Speaker 4 (12:01):
A huge role?
I mean, if we just look at theimages, just imagine that was a
group of Muslims.
I mean, we talked about nine 11,we talked about the last 20
years of the global war onterror.
If that was a group from theMuslim community in the United
States storming the Capitol, wewould not be debating the
nuances of terminology likeinsurrection or terrorism or,
(12:23):
you know, rebellion.
We, we would, we would certainlybe here at called out as
terrorism.
Um, and so I think there wasundoubtedly a sense of
entitlement, a sense ofprivilege, a sense of impunity
tied to white supremacist andwhite nationalist ideas.
You know, we sitting here inBrooklyn and New York, we, we
(12:44):
saw last year what the blacklives matter protests were
treated like.
Um, we can imagine, as I said,if these were communities, not
just Muslim communities, anycommunities of color that tried
to, to, um, perpetrate thoseacts we saw last week, um, the,
you know, there would be nodebate about a law enforcement
response.
A lot of this has to do with thecommunity feeling so entitled
(13:07):
and so privileged and able to dothis.
So,
Speaker 5 (13:11):
So in a way we see shockingly off-duty policemen
that were in that crowd,flashing badges, assaulting
other policemen, or using theirbadges to gain an access fireman
, um, you know, uh, electedmembers of office, uh, soccer
moms.
But I mean, there were officialpeople there from, and a lot of
(13:32):
these policemen have gone backto their States now and they
have been suspended and willprobably be prosecuted
Speaker 4 (13:39):
The, in the coming days and weeks, we will see
what, what appears to be a verystrong, our response to those
who have dishonored their badges, um, and participated in this.
But, you know, we are seeingreports of infiltration across
the world in different lawenforcement, military police,
um, armed services, uh, by whitesupremacist far, right.
(13:59):
Extremist groups, you know, andwe have to remember, these are
individuals as well.
There is no, um, uniform, uh,sort of, uh, code, you know,
sorry, there's a uniform code.
I mean, there's no universalkind of person, right?
So we will see individuals ofdifferent political and
ideological color.
I think it's gravely, gravelyconcerning.
(14:22):
And I think very much a sort ofwhite supremacist, um,
entitlement means that manysigns of this may have gone
under, um, under noticed underreported.
And, you know, we at the Soufancenter and, and others have been
calling out the whitesupremacist threat as something
that needs to be taken far moreseriously needs, far more
(14:43):
resources, um, a lot of to it.
And we hadn't seen thathappening.
I mean, in Germany.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
In fact, in fact, I read that Ali Soufan was
formerly with the FBI and dealtwith international terrorism.
In fact, he has been threatenedfor his calls to name some of
these groups, terrorist groupsand have, and have them
outlawed.
I mean, if, if I can use thatterm
Speaker 4 (15:07):
Well, absolutely.
And I think, um, the, the, theSoufan center was out front last
year, calling this out as thenext greatest domestic, uh,
threat from domestic terrorism,but we still did not see the
kind of preventive action, thekind of resources, allot
allotted to investigate andunderstand and preempt this
(15:28):
threat as we saw with, with G
Speaker 5 (15:31):
Well, why is that?
Is it because they underestimatethem or because they accept
them?
Speaker 4 (15:37):
Well, I think it is easier to talk about the threat
outside where you don't havepolitical financial, familial
community relationships.
Right.
We can talk about internationalterrorist groups says we can
talk about monitoringindividuals abroad or from
abroad because the, not us, it'snot in our community.
(15:59):
And so from a political socialeconomic point of view, and in
many ways it's easier to monitorforeign threats.
Legally speaking, of course, wedon't have a domestic terrorism
law, and so we can takedifferent kinds of action when
the threat is from abroad.
Um,
Speaker 5 (16:17):
So just explain that to me because a lot of people
don't understand that.
I mean, if you classify some ofthese groups, like for instance,
proud boys or gags and flags,or, I mean, whatever, the,
whatever the group is, if youclassify them as a terrorist
organization, then that allowsthe FBI a lot more leeway in
(16:42):
terms of investigating them interms of surveillance, in terms
of monitoring, uh, electronicsurveillance and also physical
surveillance and all of that.
And, and it allows people tolook into their financing,
doesn't it?
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Absolutely.
And I think that latter clauseis especially important also
because it means you can look atmaterial support to these
groups.
And we know that, you know, suchgroups don't just recruit
fighters and finance here'sright there, there are now
advertising for doctors andmedics and logisticians and
whatnot.
So they are looking at, uh,they're looking for a wide array
(17:16):
of material support andclassifying.
Yes.
In fact, there are echoing verymuch, you know, what ISIS had
done ISIS had said, you don'thave to be a fighter to come to
the caliphate.
You can come be a doctor, anurse, a teacher, you know, come
be who you want to be in thecaliphate.
And we are seeing a lot of, um,a lot of that now where groups
are putting out ads saying, forexample, you know, you don't
(17:38):
have to be a fighter if you wantto be like a medic and come help
us.
And we're seeing ads andpictures like that.
Um, so I think they definitelyspeak to each other.
Um, more broadly we've seenwhite supremacist groups really
echo some of the learning fromjihadist groups from all of,
from ISIS, you know, how to makebombs, how to radicalize, how to
organize, how to mobilize.
(17:59):
They're definitely learning fromeach other.
So yes, to your question, um,uh, domestic terror, uh,
terrorism law would enable a lotof the actions, which you
outlined.
However, there's also a veryvalid concern about the
potential for overreach, right?
And if we, and how do we makesure that there's very strong
criteria for designating a groupas terrorists?
(18:22):
You know, I would be very waryof others who would want to
suddenly, um, you know,designate black lives matter
protests as terrorist action.
Um, I would be wary of using theterrorism label all the time,
without really thinking throughthe repercussions on
civilization.
Speaker 5 (18:37):
It was pretty simple to me, you know, and, and I, and
I don't say it in a naive waybecause I've been in other
countries where they have triedto deal with some of these
groups.
And if you say, if you designatesomebody, a terror group, you
were saying that they are goingto take some kind of armed
action to terrorize the publicor represent a, a armed threat
(19:01):
to the state.
So it's not that, you know, youdon't like a posting on the, on
the internet.
Then you say that, you know,he's a terrorist.
It, it would have to be somekind of planned conspiracy to
develop a physical threat andattack in America is, is why is
it so complicated?
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Well, I think because many of the actions that we
would consider preparatory orleading up to it are protected
in the United States.
So you have free speech, whichallows you to say whatever, you
know, certainly there's hatespeech, but you know, a lot of
the preparatory speech andnarrative, and, you know, what
we would, you know, even in, inthe UK and other places, maybe
(19:43):
look at online harms andincitement, um, in the United
States, it's protected.
Of course you can carry weaponshere, so you can save many of
these things and you can carryyour weapon and you can happen
to be walking past, you know,somewhere that you think is a
good target.
And until the moment you dosomething, all of those actions
are protected.
Um, I think so in the UnitedStates for good and for bad,
(20:06):
many of these actions areprotected.
And so it is a more difficultconversation where you draw the
line between protectconstitutionally protected
actions and speech.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
I think that lawmakers are prepared to draw
that line.
Now, though, more than they'veever been given what's happened.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
I think there will be increasing calls to look into
it.
And I'm, and I'm choosing mywords carefully.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
That sounds a bit weak, not on your part, but you
don't feel that it's reachedthis tipping point after the,
the assault on the Capitol thatlawmakers now will say, okay,
that's it.
I mean, groups like proud boys,Nazi and white supremacists, um,
(20:50):
th that are engaging inrecruiting, uh, and calling for
violence.
Then we have to act on thatbefore it happens.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
I mean, there's an argument to be made and others
will.
I'm sorry, I've been doing a lotof, you know, I've been doing
academic research and diplomacyfor a while, so I will have to
look at both sides, but I thinkthere are others who will say,
you can prosecute this without,you know, you can prosecute acts
of murder.
You can prosecute prepper,preparatory, acts towards
violence, and you can prosecuteincitement to violence.
(21:22):
Um, I think that there are caseswhere, of course the, the
terrorism label, um, and thehaving a domestic terror
terrorism statute is important.
I, I think they will be lookinginto it.
I think it is one of the mostfundamentally difficult
questions to address when it'sconstitutional protections.
We're talking about,
Speaker 5 (21:42):
Maybe it's better to talk about this in terms of
smaller steps than at the veryleast these groups are now more
than ever on the FBI's andHomeland security's radar.
You think now they are going tostart assigning more people to
it, understanding that itrepresents a grave threat to the
nation.
Speaker 4 (21:59):
Absolutely.
I think we're going to see moreresources allocated.
I think very importantly, youknow, we talked about a sense of
entitlement and impunity.
You'll also see more seniorleaders speaking out against it.
You will see more lawenforcement attention to it,
which means as you say, youknow, resources.
And like I said, these groupsdon't exist in an American
vacuum.
(22:20):
They have partners, funders, um,supporters abroad in similar
groups.
And so the more there is actionat a senior level in the United
States with the FBI and lawenforcement agencies and
politicians, it also means inother countries that we can
partner up with them and makesure we address the
transnational dimension of theseissues.
Speaker 5 (22:41):
Where else, if you were just to name off the top
five or two or three, w whereelse do you see them really
proliferating, uh, in aworrisome level internationally?
Speaker 4 (22:50):
Sure.
Well, we've seen in Germanyreports that some of the most
elite law enforcement and policeand military teams have been
infiltrated by far right groups.
We've also seen the Germangovernment take very early and
decisive action to allocateresources and, and address this
head on, you know, I think itwas, uh, I want to say$80
(23:11):
million was maybe euros.
I'm sorry about that.
I don't have the exact figure,but a large amount of money in
the 80 million, um, uh, sort ofestimate has been allocated now
to look into it.
The government is on notice andvery public in, uh, you know, in
addressing this as a threat,calling it unacceptable,
unacceptable, and launchinginvestigations.
(23:31):
Certainly Norway we saw afterthe brave Vic attacks went very,
very quickly into, um, you know,investing a lot more in
prevention and addressingviolent extremism, writ large,
and certainly New Zealand.
And in the aftermath of theattacks in Christ church, we
have seen, they launched theChrist church call and are
(23:52):
working very closely to look atthe online dimension of this.
And this is what the UK alsosupported.
Um, prime minister, BorisJohnson had committed resources
to looking at what is happeningonline to these groups so that
we can work on, um, addressingtheir online presence.
Speaker 5 (24:09):
Do you think it is in America because probably a lot
of people had the impressionthat, you know, there's some
guys living up in the mountainsin Tennessee or something, and,
uh, you know, that it's veryfringe, it seems like it's
evolved to become far moremainstream.
When I take a look at some ofthose videos, uh, from around
(24:32):
the Capitol, I was shocked atthat and, and, and read about
the different groups that wereparticipating.
I mean, proud boys, Q Anon, um,which is a right-wing wingy
cult, Nazi and whitesupremacists, including, you
know, wearing this shirt shirt,Candace.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Yeah.
And the six M w E.
Okay.
Speaker 5 (24:54):
Uh, noose was posted around the Capitol, which is
apparently a fantasy day of, ofthe rope that traders will be
hanged in the street gags, thenflags yellow, American flags
that dates back to 1778, uh, youknow, w w with the rattlesnake
and the words don't tread on mefrom the revolutionary war, the
3% are flag, which, um, Ithought it's quite ominous in
(25:17):
its own way, because it said ittook only 3% of American people
to revolt against the British.
And in this context, it's asignal that a small number of
so-called Patriots, all you,that's all you need for a
successful revolution.
I mean, there, there's a wideberth of very bizarre groups
there that any of them stand outto you or do all of them.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
Yeah.
I think it's exactly what you'vejust said.
You've kind of hit it on thenail.
It's the fact that it's many,many different groups kind of
coalescing into a similarworldview.
Right.
Um, I think it is much morewidespread.
Like you, I think one of themost, like you just said, one of
the most horrifying images forme was that news outside the
Capitol, you know, we're, we'reso transfixed on the kind of
(26:01):
dramatic Q Anon shaman and hishorns that we forget that the
new, some of the zip ties isreally the image, um, that we
should, I think be very, veryconcerned about because so many
different groups coalescedaround these ideas, the ideas
that the governments aretraders, the ideas that the
democratic process itself needsto be appended.
(26:22):
So I D this is not certainly afringe movement.
Uh, we've heard a lot offamilies say that, you know,
this is a concern in mycommunity.
I can no longer talk to familymembers because they're on some
spectrum of these ideologies.
Um, you know, I think we, we dohave to remember, like we've
seen with all Qaeda with ISIS,you know, there are some people
who, because they're anonymousonline, they get, they can say
(26:46):
what they want.
There's no real consequence.
It requires no real courage oraction or commitment to say
things online.
Um, what I think the problem of,you know, one of the many
problems with the Capitol attackis that it mobilized people to
move from an online world wherethings are just fantasies and
maybe don't require commitment.
(27:08):
And when you have an example ofpeople that did follow through
with action, it creates a kindof, um, you know, a Mo a very
mobilizing narrative for thosewho may have been maybe on the,
um, on the fence about whetherto move from the online, into
the real world.
Um, at the same time, we knowthat just having a few activists
(27:28):
, um, often they can besuccessful when there are layers
of support behind them.
You know, the ideologues, thenarrators, the small financeers,
the small businesses thatsupport them, the communities
that back them up, you know, themoms that defend them, the dads
that egg them on, you know, um,all of these, um, you know, so I
(27:48):
think when we look at not justthose who are willing to take
action, but the wide group ofpeople that are willing to
support them, I mean, justlooking at the support for
presence
Speaker 5 (27:57):
And how do you, how do you fight that?
I mean, yeah, looking at thesupport for president Trump, and
he's got a lot of it, but, youknow, maybe he will fade, but,
and maybe he won't, but how doyou deal with that scope of so
many people that have been toldby him that the election wasn't
free?
It wasn't fair.
It was a fraud, it was stolenfrom you, stop the steal we have
(28:19):
to fight.
And that, that message, uh, youknow, is, is pretty dangerous
because I, you know, I, uh, acouple of the interviews with
people who went to that re thatriot, um, a few months ago, uh,
were not that radicalized on theinternet.
And so a lot of it has beencompressed, uh, as, as we've, as
(28:42):
we've heard this constant echoof president Trump saying it's
been stolen from us.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Well, part of that compression day now will also be
the impact of COVID-19.
There are more people at home,the more people that are scared,
uncertain, spending time online,and, you know, we've seen UN
reports, we've heard widespread,um, reporting there, more young
people spending all day online.
They, there are people with, youknow, who've lost their jobs,
(29:09):
lost their homes.
And so I have to say, it's, it'sreally not surprising that this
has all accelerated andcompressed against the backdrop
of a lockdown, an unprecedentedglobal shutdown of, you know,
other valves for engagement.
Um, and so I think that this isnot something we have seen
necessarily on this scale,because we haven't had this
(29:30):
background.
Uh, we talked a bit againearlier about the 20 years since
nine 11, we have worked on somany different iterations of
counter narratives campaigns,counter campaigns, some are
spectacular failures, some haveshown some success, right?
The ones that have shown successseem to be ones that are really
(29:50):
tailored to local environments,really, based on a sound
understanding of why people findsome of this messaging messaging
appealing.
And that means we need to dobetter to understand where some
of these groups are coming from,because it's, it looks like one
big global message of kind of,um, militant does illusionism,
(30:11):
but it is actually differentgroups with different kinds of,
um, trajectories to get there.
So I think we will have to startlooking into our lessons learned
over the last 20 years oncounter messaging, counter
narratives, and do better tounderstand the, the knowledge
base of each of the groups thathas come up, um, and how that
operates online.
(30:32):
But I really think we can'tignore the fact that this is
happening against the backdropof COVID and more people online,
less interaction.
Um, you know, on a whole morepeople are just interacting with
themselves, with their families,with their very, very close
friends, right?
They don't even have access topeople outdoors and in the long
run, I, you know, we we'll seewhat that does to people,
(30:54):
whether in a, in a very normalsense in the workforce and in
day-to-day communities, but inthese kinds of spaces, the
potential effects are alarming.
Speaker 5 (31:04):
Norine child rethink from the Sioux fan center.
You know, I think we're going tohave another talk soon because
there's just so much here.
Um, and you know, it's not goingto go away quickly.
And a lot of it will depend onhow the Republican party
delivers its message in thefuture about this election.
Uh, and, and whether they startsaying that it was fair and they
(31:27):
poke a hole in, in this, youknow, ridiculous cloud that
Trump has put over the electoralprocess and democracy, which
right now they're not steppingup a lot.
Some are, but some are not.
Naureen really pleasure to talkto you.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (31:43):
Thank you for having me, Dana, look forward to
speaking again,
Speaker 2 (31:45):
And that's backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis, please subscribeto our podcast and sheriff my
advice spend less time on socialmedia, especially right now,
spend more time watchingmainstream press and TV news.
And if Trump and his Q Anonfollowers call it fake news,
that usually means it's notthanks for listening.
(32:07):
And I'll talk to you again soon.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.