March 15, 2025 • 39 mins
GUEST: Dr, Arie Perlinger
Director of the graduate program in Security Studies at the School of Criminology and Justice Studies
U. Mass - Lowell
BOOK: American Zealots: Inside Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism
BOOK LINK: https://www.amazon.com/American-Zealots-Right-Wing-Terrorism-Irregular/dp/0231167113
Charles Moscowitz LIVE
Website: https://charlesmoscowitz.com
Moscowitz Author Page:
https://www.amazon.com/stores/Charles-Moscowitz/author/B00BFLX7S0
Buy Me a Coffee, Join me for Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/moscowitz
Director of the graduate program in Security Studies at the School of Criminology and Justice Studies
U. Mass - Lowell
BOOK: American Zealots: Inside Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism
BOOK LINK: https://www.amazon.com/American-Zealots-Right-Wing-Terrorism-Irregular/dp/0231167113
Charles Moscowitz LIVE
Website: https://charlesmoscowitz.com
Moscowitz Author Page:
https://www.amazon.com/stores/Charles-Moscowitz/author/B00BFLX7S0
Buy Me a Coffee, Join me for Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/moscowitz
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Okay, welcome aboard. Charles Moskowitz here, Welcome to the program.
Ari Perlinger is my guest today. He's an author of
various books, including American Zealots, Inside Right Wing Domestic Terrorism.
He is a professor at UMass Lowell. He's a criminologist. Ari,
(00:22):
thanks for joining me this afternoon.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Well, this is a serious subject, of course, we're talking
about a potential increase in domestic terrorism in the United
States and what to watch for, who's involved, what are
their motivations, what is their idiology. So let's go right
to your thesis and talk a bit about what makes
(00:47):
up a terrorist and where are we as a society
today in terms of the level of potential terrorism.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yeah. So, I think when we are talking about domestic
terrorism usually we are referring to acts of violence that
are aimed to promote specific policies, specific political objectives, that
are aiming to a push forward specific social norms, social practices,
(01:22):
and so on. So in general, terrorism is really is
a political action. Is using violence to promote political objectives.
In most cases, terrorism is trying to instill fear, anxiety,
hysteria within a specific community in order to put pressure
on the leaders of that community or the community itself
(01:45):
to concede to the demands of those of those terrorists.
So terrorism is basically a psychological warfare or a kind
of psychological warfare where violence is being utilized in order
to promot both political objectives, and terrorism is not exclusive
to any specific political stream. We've seen throughout American history.
(02:11):
We've seen a domestic chroism coming from the right, from
the left, from single issue groups. So there's there's no
I guess, political domain which didn't experimented with terrorism in
the in the in the American context.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
So it seems like you're you're talking about state sponsored
terrorism at some level or institutionally sponsored as a way
to weaken, to attack, to degrade a society by creating
such horrifying acts that it requires that people react by
(02:52):
wanting to have someone come in like a white knight
to save the day and restore order. It is a
complete that, you know, undoing of social order. In the Bible,
they talk about Amelek as being such a force because
he attacked the rear guard of the Israelite caravan where
(03:12):
women and children and the weak and the elderly were
and it was such an abominable act and such a
cowardly act that they were condemned forever, and that it
seems to me that that's what the terrorist does, whether
it be an individual or whether it be a coordinated,
planned activity by a state, that they want to weaken
(03:34):
a society, they want to create such mayhem in a
society that that society becomes destabilized and in a way
set up for a change that they then try to affect.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Yes, I think, I think. I want to emphasize terrorism
can be a tool that is being used by state actors.
And we are familiar with many many state actors who
are you using terrorism to promote their objectives their policies. Iran,
for example, is known for operating a network of proxies
(04:10):
operating all over the world in order to promote Uranian interests.
Whether it's Hysbella or the whot Is in Yemen or
share groups in Iraq, they are basically are employing these
networks of proxies. They are using terrorist tactics to promote
Iranian objectives. But especially when you're talking about the American
case about domestic terrorism, for the most part, we're talking
(04:32):
about groups that are not state sponsored usually are not
really associated with the States. If you're talking about terrorism
from the right, we can talk about the traditional white
supremacist groups such as the kekk and various neo Nazi
groups and skin heads and so on and so forth.
We can talk from the We can talk about environmental terrorism.
(04:57):
That means a environmental activists who are using violence in
order to promote awareness to their cause, but also in
order to basically put pressure on the government to promote
environmental policies. We can also talk about the left, especially
in the sixties and the seventies, but also in other times,
(05:19):
we've seen various left wing groups operating in the US
in order to promote a Marxist Leninist, various left wing
ideas and using violence. Probably one of the most famous
cares groups that ever operated in the US, the Weathermen,
basically where a classic left wing groups you know, mainly
(05:40):
consisted of students who again believe that they should promote
an actual revolution in the US in order to change
their political system right.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
And the way they did it was they bombed the
US Capitol building.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
They bombed they bombed a you know, a military recruitment officers. Yeah,
they were basically they literally declared war on the US
government because they believe that the US government is corrupt,
is promote a destructive policies, and also because they believe
(06:17):
that there's a need to push to more left wing
socialist I would even say a little bit Marxist policies.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
A little bit, I'd say completely out of the time. Ari,
But your work seems to emphasize what you call right
wing terrorism, and I think that that's obviously there. It's
always been there. You still have the ku Klux Klan,
although back in the nineteenth century they had a lot
of influence that was sort of the terrorist arm of
the Democratic Party, and then under Wilson they made a
(06:47):
sort of a resurgence in the North, but I think
they were largely undone by very good work by various
FBI agents who infiltrated them and kind of under them
in the nineteen sixties in the same way that they
undid the Black Panthers in the nineteen seventies with the
Operation Quintelpro. And I think that, you know, the right
(07:10):
wing terrorists, I mean, they're always going to be there.
They are there, but that's not really the main thrust
of potential terrorism. I don't think in America today. I
think it's on the left, and I would point to
the reaction of the genocidal attack on Israel and October sixth,
the so called Alaxa flood was an emergence of these
(07:33):
left wing groups, and they're kind of there, you know,
not to be derogatory, but their lapdogs on college campuses,
but also some of their leadership who attacked the state
of Israel in response. And I recall Alan Dershowits, I
thought kind of capitalized the situation when he said that
(07:54):
these protests may seem like just you know, innocent expressions
of free speech today on campuses, but they are breeding
grounds for future actions that may reverberate in an unpleasant
way in terms of terrorism and the type of terrorism
that Israel's had to deal with forever, and that is
more common in countries that have been radicalized. Would you
(08:20):
comment on that.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
So, yeah, sure. So, first of all, I think it's
important to emphasize that I'm a scientist, so I look
at the data, and the data is what guides me.
And and I'll talk in a second about October seventh
and the implication of actuber seven. But the data is
still very clear there the highest level of volence is
(08:41):
still coming from the right, not from THETT today is
a marginal a marginal group with very limited followers, most
of them people very elderly. The threat is coming from
a new variations of neo Nazi organizations, of anti governmental
(09:02):
organizations who really promote new variations of by right ideologies
that are focusing on promoting societal collapse. That's seeing the
federal government as their major threat. But more importantly, they
are actually engaging efforts to produce violent attacks. And also
(09:25):
they produce hundreds of violent attacks. So that's one thing. Secondly,
October seven, I think, or what happened after October seventh,
I think, reflect several trends which are very concerning. And
I'm saying that as someone who actually published about the
recent trends of antisemitism in the US. Is what I
(09:49):
want to emphasize is the fact that anti antisemitism today,
especially acts of violence, are coming from from the left
even more than what we see from the right, at
least in the last eighteen months. That's what the data
shows us, and we definitely see this is not a
(10:11):
new think. In twenty twenty one, when there was an
escalation in Gaza, we've seen a dramatic rise in anti
Semitic incidents. So we've seen that almost every time when
there's an escalation in the usually Placed ten conflict, there's
increase in anti Semitic incidents here in the US. Now,
I think there are several things that are really concerned
(10:32):
about what we've seen after October seventh. The first is
that I reject the argument that what we see is
a response to Israel's military intervention in Gaza, for the
very simple fact that the protests, including the targeting of Jews,
began on October eighth, way before Israel started to operate
(10:57):
in Gaza a happening.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
They probably were still attacking.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
I mean, the attack were still and I think, by
the way, that was not just restricted to extremist movement.
It was something that you've seen on university quads, You've
seen that on social media, when people who are considered
themselves my colleagues were openly celebrating, legitimizing, tolerating what happened
(11:24):
on October seven. People academics who were talk very highly
about inclusiveness, about human rights, about all those things were
openly celebrating. I think that was a shock for me
as well as to many other people in academia who
felt that this is something. But so that's just one point.
(11:45):
The second thing I want to emphasize is that the
fact that almost systematically those groups do not target Israeli
is they target Jewish institutions, They target Jewish schools, killel,
Jewish hial organizations, Jewish restaurants, Jewish events, synagogues, and solon.
(12:09):
If it's about Israel policies, how anyone can explain the
fact that the major targets of those protest movements are
actually Jewish targets, not Israel targets.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
And the last thing I'm going to say is the
fact that many of those groups did not just celebrated
what happened on October seven, but continue to basically convey
the messages of violent organization, including hamas a designated terrrist organization.
For all of those reasons. I think those are concerning trends,
(12:44):
and I think that the efforts to legitimize those trends,
to legitimize those kinds of I have no issues with
someone who is criticizing Israel policies.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
That the problem is is that the targets of those
movement were consistently Jewish targets, not Israeli targets.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Right, And I want to just drill down a little
bit on that because I wasn't surprised. I've been observing
this for a long time, and I think that a
lot of my very liberal friends were surprised. But you know,
it's not really I mean, I'd come at it from
a different angle. But I want to just drill down
exactly what's going on there, how that happened. I think
(13:27):
that the groups like the Proxies of Iran and Amas
and all the rest, these are very well healed organizations
that have learned how to play the right propaganda card
for left wingers around the world to bring them into
their camp. And the card that they play is anti
(13:50):
American America. It's unfair, it exploited people. The theory of exploitation,
which is actually a cornerstone of Marxism, that somehow, if
you have something more than your neighbor, it's because you
rip them off, and that therefore you, you know, you
feel entitled to take it from them, that you have
that element that and also there's the Jewish element in
(14:12):
the religious sense. You know Israel is a Jewish state.
I mean they believe in God. I mean they don't
believe in you know, a world of you know of
an ant colony of where everything is fair. It's it's
it's more of a concept of sovereignty, of Americanism, of capitalism,
the startup nation. All of these grievances were exploited I
(14:34):
think by the the the Malahs and by the radical
Islamists to make a kind of an intersectionality with the
international left, and that I think that really became obvious
and manifested after October seventh.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
So I think, I think what we see is basically
intellectual and sorry for you, using academic lingo intellectual reductionism
by a lot of people who are considered themselves as liberals,
as as people who are at the left or the
(15:14):
center left. I think the major problem, I think is
the inability to understand complexities, the inability to understand nuance,
and the fact that large parts of our political left
basically adopted a very simplistic, rigid, binary perspective on political issues,
(15:38):
so they cannot really comprehend that American Jews can be
actual minority group that can be a minority group who
is vulnerable that needs to be protected, and so on
and so forth, because in their all rigid binary perspectives
(16:04):
right where they will these divided strictly to oppressors and oppressed.
There's no place for complexities, there's no place for nuance,
there's no place for understanding that even what we call
modern minorities like American Jews can be under some conditions,
they can also be a very vulnerable minority. Now, what
(16:28):
happened is that, So that's one element. The second element,
of course, is the fact that while there's extreme sensitivity
to the action of the Israeli government, Israeli policies and
so on and so forth, there are their complete unwillingness
to address, to acknowledge, to comprehend with the actions of
(16:51):
those who are considered oppressed. Even the oppressed can engage
in war crimes, in in humane policies and behaviors. But
the idea is that if you're oppressed, you basically get
a car blanche to do everything. Everything is justified, everything
is accepted, everything is tolerated. And the fact is that
(17:16):
the left is not able to understand that even people
who are oppressed can actually can be engaging illegitimate actions.
And so this is why, this is how we get
to the point where their complete unwillingness to acknowledge to
accept the atrocities that were conducted on January's on October seventh,
(17:40):
and on the other end, there's this kind of of
of a insistence to be legitimize any kind of Israel.
Israel's policies, uh nothing, just just chance, just what things.
Is also the idea that those so called the press
(18:01):
have no agency, they are not responsible for their situation,
their situation is completely beyond their control, which is not
the case, Which is not the case, And I will
just urge you to if you're actually looking at what's
going in God, it's very clear that there are substantial
support for Hamas, for Hamas actions, and I think that
(18:22):
on some level the Palestinians also need to take ownership
and responsibility on their own situation.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
I think that that's going to be very difficult for
them because of their leadership, and also that they've embraced
and imbibed some of the same propaganda that they left
on campus has embraced and it has nothing to do
with someone's minority status. I don't think they care about
that I think it's more the fact that the Jewish
people generally are viewed as more successful, more educated, they
(18:53):
have more family values, they believe in a God rather
than believing in the state that they're individualistic. You know,
they're kind of more out there. It's always created resentment, uh,
And I think that as such, the Jews have stood
as obstacles to their idea of perfect equality. Everyone has
(19:13):
to be absolute equal, we have to have a one
world and quality, and that somehow they resent the fact
that the Jews. Obviously we're not talking about individuals here,
you know, we're talking in general that it's seen as
somewhat a little bit outside of this sort of you know,
conformist world. I mean, it's it's a bit different in
(19:33):
somebody who's a little bit more self actualized and more
self identified. And so you have these kinds of resentments
that then are exploited by powerful people and state players
who then are able to marshal people who are otherwise
unwitting and otherwise kind of you know, they want to
be trendy. I mean, I know people like this, including
(19:55):
Jewish friends and even people in my own family putting
on a kafia. You know, they're they're they think it's
like trendy, you know, they think that it's going to
be in getting them invited to the good parties. You know,
they'll have better dates. I don't know you know this,
you I think you get that, and that, you know,
there's a kind of a.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Mess.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
There's a word in sociology for this, like a kind
of an effervescent phenomena where people just sort of go
into something without really understanding it. You know, when they're
out chanting river to the Sea, they don't know what
that even means. They don't even know what river they're
talking about. They don't know they're calling for the annihilation
of the Jewish state, and if they did, they probably
(20:35):
wouldn't support it. But they are into it because it's fashionable,
because they want to be one of the beautiful people,
you know, they want to be part of.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
I'm less forgiving. I think that what especially, I don't
think a lot of students would define themselves as anti
Zionist Jews. Now. I believe that everybody have the rights
to espouse his own views and beliefs and political you know,
(21:07):
political views. That's perfectly fine. I just find it curious
that they believe that the only polity or the only
people who should not have the right for self determination
are the Jewish people. I find that curious, especially their
own Also, I would just imagine the fact that the
(21:29):
state of visuals already exists and for all practicalities, it
doesn't go anywhere. So to hold a position that you
believe that there's one state out of the two hundred
and something states in the world, there's one state that
needs to be dismantled. It's it's just the Jewish state.
I find that especially curious and a unique form of
(21:52):
anti Semitism. To be honest, excluding the states and believing
that there's one group of people who are uniquely do
not deserve self determination, I think I do think it's
a form of anti Semitism. I think that if you
have a general view that nation states are should be dismantled,
(22:17):
that's something else. But if you believe that there's just
one state that should be dismantled, and coincidentally, that state's
exactly the Jewish state, I think that's that's something else.
And I think that the fact that this is something
that is being legitimized, I think it's interesting. I would
(22:38):
also say the fact that despite the fact that many
different countries are perpetrating atrocities, I would even say probably
more atrocities than the State of Israel. The unique focus
and the unique willingness to legitimizeing to demonizing, to undermine
(22:59):
the the right of the right of the State of
Israel to exist and defend itself again, I find it
very curious. I haven't seen anyone going through the street
to demonstrate about one point five million eguars that are
being held in concentration camp in China, or about several
millions of Syrians that were killed in the Syrian Civil War,
(23:22):
or any other of those atrocities. The unique willingness to
demonizing the jewystick I think. I find it very curious
and something which sometime it's difficult to explain unless you
are willing to admit that this is a form of
Jewish hape.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Well, they don't really care about atrocity. It has more
to do with using the atrocity propaganda against one group
and not another. I mean, they never complained about the
Soviet Union or as you say, communists China. That's not
a problem. It has more to do with a situational
rather than a fundamental opposition to atrocity, whereas you and
(24:02):
I and most conventional people, we reject atrocity across the
board because it's evil and because it's wrong. So that
I think is the mentality. And as far as their
opposition to that one state, I actually think that they
are opposed to all sovereign states. They don't like American
sovereignty either. That's why they support things like open borders.
(24:23):
You know, they want to have this kind of turn
all nations into this new kind of provinces of the world.
I don't know whatever it is. They all have different
weird utopian understandings of it. But getting back to your
thesis here American American zealous inside right wing domestic terrorism. Again,
(24:43):
none of these people that we're talking about here are
right wing. They're actually left wing. But your focus is
on right wingers, and I think that you know, yes,
of course they're out there, but it needs a little
updating because I don't want to see, you know, this
uses a bludgeon against for example, President Trump right because
(25:06):
you know, there's like a guilt by association, oh their
right wing. You know they're going to be involved with
violence when they're not. So I just I'm concerned about
that particular aspect of your focus.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Yeah, so my book, by the way, my book was
written was published in twenty twenty, so there is some
kind of delay. I would also say most of the
research was conducted between twenty twelve, twenty thirteen and twenty eighteen,
so there is, as every book, it takes some time
to digest toil. So the situation, of course change over time.
(25:43):
What I would say is is very simple. There are
in every political camp, in every ideological camp, there a
spectrum of political groups, political organizations. My research for the
last twenty something years focusing on violent political organizations, groups
(26:07):
that are using violence to promote their objectives. So when
I'm talking about the far right in my book, I'm
talking about violent neo Nazis, violent skinheads, violent Christian identity groups,
a violent anti abortionists, and so on and so forth.
The book is not focusing. For example, you won't find
in the book even one word about the Tea Party
(26:30):
the movement, because that was that was not a violent movement.
It was a political movement. Regardless of what you think
about its objective. It has So I'm not I do
not think that conservatives or Republicans should see the book
as some kind of efforts to undermine their views. Understanding
(26:54):
the history of those groups and understanding the current trends
and process sees that leads those groups to use violence.
And that's my focus. The same way, by the way
that you know, in two thousand and nine, when I
publish my book about Jewish terrorism in Israel, I focus
on a very specific set of groups. And you know,
(27:17):
naturally I'm I'm myself a Jewish person, So I'm not
arguing that Judaism for some reason is an extremist religion.
I'm arguing that in every religious tradition, in every political camp,
for the most part, you find some groups who are
under extremes on the margins, on the French, who are
willing to use violence. And I'm trying to understand what
(27:38):
leads those groups to use violence.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
No, I mean, and I agree with that. I mean,
you find extreme on the fringe. And my concern isn't that,
you know, Republicans or Tea Party people are going to
take it that way. My concern is that the sort
of the liberal left leading establishment may use it in
that way. I mean, because you've got shelves of books
and theories and professors talking about Donald Trump as Hitler
(28:04):
and that the Maga movement they're all Nazis. I mean
even recently Timothy Snyder over at Yale an article, Oh,
Trump was anti Semitic, because you know, it's almost like
it reminds me of the QAnon craziness. They moved his
finger this way not that way. Therefore he doesn't like Jews,
I mean me, while he's having shoulders with professors at
(28:26):
Yale who are calling for the destruction of Israel, which
by nature, would you know, I would argue lead to
a second Holocaust.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
So that's that's the problem is is that many, many people,
many many academics do not do science anymore. What they
do is political activism. Yes, many many academics basically transitioned
to political activism to complical work, and they don't do
(28:58):
science anymore. And I'm someone who was very open to
my colleagues, to my university leadership in many, many different forums,
I express my concerns about the politications of academia, and
especially the fact that many entire disciplines within the academic
(29:21):
domain were basically transformed from science to a hubs and
clad of political activism. Now, how do I know that,
because they will never hire someone who do not conform
to their very rigid ideological platforms. So you have an
entire department in academia with people which have a very
(29:45):
very you know, uniform set of views and beliefs. And
I think that this is exactly the opposite of what
academia should be. Academia is about challenging, it's about debating,
it's about providing different perspectives first, But first it's about
actually basing your views on actual research and actual data.
(30:10):
And that's what I do. I agree with you that
way too many parts of academia are completely abandoned what
they need to do into political activism. And this is why,
this is why people do not trust academia anymore. This
is why people do not trust the academic institutions anymore,
because you know, what they see as are basically just
(30:33):
political hubs and people like Chimoti, Snyders and others. Yes,
they can say whatever they want.
Speaker 4 (30:39):
But.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
They really just the symptoms of a much deeper problem
which I've witnessed in the last ten fifteen years, where
more and more people are basically exploiting their academic position
just to engage in political works. If you want to
be a politician, go and get elected.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Yeah, But the issue is broader than that, and that
they have taken the high ground of the culture. They've
taken the high ground of the mainstream media. I'll give
you an example. Lester Holt was at an awards ceremony
where he said, objective journalism is a thing of the past,
that's outdated. We have to advocate, and that's what they
(31:23):
do in various levels, and they are very much in
sync with these professors and heads of major institutions, and
it's become very pervasive. That's what I'm suggesting here, and
that that pervasiveness not only has led to a lack
of confidence in the media, and I think that the
election of Trump is just a symptom of it. That
(31:44):
the American people are rejecting it, but it also leads
to potential violence. It basically incites potential terrorism. Is my concern,
and that's the reasons I wanted to talk to you
today because I do think that this kind of general
language that's used, and this general attempt to monopolize the
(32:09):
conversation is a recipe for such violence.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Yeah, I think I agree with you that I think
the political polarization and the tendency to present the political
process as some kind of a zero sum game, I
think push people to more radical views and potentially to
radical actions. And I think that we've seen that throughout
(32:36):
American history. And definitely I agree with you that demonizing
your political rivals, your political adversaries, and presenting them as illegitimate,
as unacceptable, and most importantly as some kind of an
exist existential threat eventually intensify this kind of political polarization
and eventually doesn't really promote any constructive And I think
(33:01):
that you see that, by the way, on both sides
of the political spectrum. But I do think so that
I will argue many of my colleagues tend to see
that just from one side. They believe that the writing
is the one who I actually think that both sides
should should be blamed for demonizing and to really transforming
(33:25):
our political discourse into some kind of zero sum game
where there's no center anymore. And by the way, this
is why centrists are leaving Congruans, right. You see that
all you look at the last five six years, almost
all the senators and coundresses who are retiring are people
from the center who basically understand that there's no way
to actual promote policies anymore because they because both parties
(33:47):
are really running into the into the into the margins.
And I think that I completely do it do And
I think that language and discourse has a huge impact
on the way people think. And definitely we've seen that
in the last few years when we've seen mass violent
protests both on the left and the right right, and
(34:08):
I was one of those who argued that, yes, we
cannot accept violent protests from each side. We should not,
And definitely significant parts of academic circles and the media
circles felt comfortable to you know, violence when it's coming
from the left, which again reflect bases that exist. I
(34:33):
think that, you know, people like me who are really
doing the research, our responsibility is to stick to the facts.
(34:53):
I think I can hear you.
Speaker 4 (34:55):
For some reason, Okay, can you memorry?
Speaker 1 (35:56):
Okay, just a little technical glitch. I just I think
that maybe people are too caught up in confirmation bias
that goes beyond the point where you end up creating
a false agenda, and that you know, you have a
hypothesis that you look to issues that are going to
(36:16):
prove that hypothesis, and therefore you glean the stuff that
supports that agenda and ignore and winnow out stuff that doesn't.
And that's what leads to extremism. And I think that
we see that. Yeah, you're right, it is on both sides.
The problem is that today I think that the left
dominates the field. If it was the right dominating the field,
(36:37):
we would probably do have the same criticism. But so
Ari talk about. My guest is Ari Perlinger. He is
the author of American Zealots. He's a professor here at
UMass Lowell Inside Right Wing Domestic Terrorism, which is available
at Amazon and other venues. What are you working on now, Areri?
Speaker 2 (37:02):
So? I'm working on multiple projects, one of them focusing
on extremism within police organizations and within the military. These
are projects that are actually funded by the government through
grants from DHS and d OD. They trying to understand
how they can protect soldiers police officers from being drawn
into those extremists movements. Another very big project, and that's
(37:30):
actually my next book that I'm hoping will be out
by spring twenty twenty six, focusing on a violent extremist,
misogyny and focusing on a violences sign Yes, violence against
but I'm talking about ideological violence against women. So I'm
talking about groups that operating and promoting misogynist narratives, focusing
(37:58):
on various aspects of misogy in various aspects of violence.
And I'm also focusing on female dominant spaces to promote missogerny.
So it's a very interesting project. We collected a lot
of data and this is something that I think would
be very interesting. I think there's many people underestimate how
(38:19):
popular and how significantly those spaces and groups are growing
in the last few years. And this is the book
that I'm working on right now, and it will be
out very soon.
Speaker 1 (38:32):
Excellent. That's going to be a real hard potato. That's excellent. Ari,
Do you want to mention any websites that you'd like
my listeners to go to and to find out more
about you and your work.
Speaker 2 (38:48):
I'm a boring academic guy, so they are welcome to
go to Amazon author centers and they can find my
books there, and they can also approach me directly if
they want to get more information or to get to
know more about the interesting things we do.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
Okay, excellent, Alri Perler, I want to thank you for
joining me today. Excellent talk. I really appreciate it. Let's
stay in touch, maybe keep me posted on your new
book and we can do more of it.
Speaker 4 (39:15):
So thanks so much, sir, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
Bye bye, all right, take care
Okay, welcome aboard. Charles Moskowitz here, Welcome to the program.
Ari Perlinger is my guest today. He's an author of
various books, including American Zealots, Inside Right Wing Domestic Terrorism.
He is a professor at UMass Lowell. He's a criminologist. Ari,
(00:22):
thanks for joining me this afternoon.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Well, this is a serious subject, of course, we're talking
about a potential increase in domestic terrorism in the United
States and what to watch for, who's involved, what are
their motivations, what is their idiology. So let's go right
to your thesis and talk a bit about what makes
(00:47):
up a terrorist and where are we as a society
today in terms of the level of potential terrorism.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yeah. So, I think when we are talking about domestic
terrorism usually we are referring to acts of violence that
are aimed to promote specific policies, specific political objectives, that
are aiming to a push forward specific social norms, social practices,
(01:22):
and so on. So in general, terrorism is really is
a political action. Is using violence to promote political objectives.
In most cases, terrorism is trying to instill fear, anxiety,
hysteria within a specific community in order to put pressure
on the leaders of that community or the community itself
(01:45):
to concede to the demands of those of those terrorists.
So terrorism is basically a psychological warfare or a kind
of psychological warfare where violence is being utilized in order
to promot both political objectives, and terrorism is not exclusive
to any specific political stream. We've seen throughout American history.
(02:11):
We've seen a domestic chroism coming from the right, from
the left, from single issue groups. So there's there's no
I guess, political domain which didn't experimented with terrorism in
the in the in the American context.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
So it seems like you're you're talking about state sponsored
terrorism at some level or institutionally sponsored as a way
to weaken, to attack, to degrade a society by creating
such horrifying acts that it requires that people react by
(02:52):
wanting to have someone come in like a white knight
to save the day and restore order. It is a
complete that, you know, undoing of social order. In the Bible,
they talk about Amelek as being such a force because
he attacked the rear guard of the Israelite caravan where
(03:12):
women and children and the weak and the elderly were
and it was such an abominable act and such a
cowardly act that they were condemned forever, and that it
seems to me that that's what the terrorist does, whether
it be an individual or whether it be a coordinated,
planned activity by a state, that they want to weaken
(03:34):
a society, they want to create such mayhem in a
society that that society becomes destabilized and in a way
set up for a change that they then try to affect.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Yes, I think, I think. I want to emphasize terrorism
can be a tool that is being used by state actors.
And we are familiar with many many state actors who
are you using terrorism to promote their objectives their policies. Iran,
for example, is known for operating a network of proxies
(04:10):
operating all over the world in order to promote Uranian interests.
Whether it's Hysbella or the whot Is in Yemen or
share groups in Iraq, they are basically are employing these
networks of proxies. They are using terrorist tactics to promote
Iranian objectives. But especially when you're talking about the American
case about domestic terrorism, for the most part, we're talking
(04:32):
about groups that are not state sponsored usually are not
really associated with the States. If you're talking about terrorism
from the right, we can talk about the traditional white
supremacist groups such as the kekk and various neo Nazi
groups and skin heads and so on and so forth.
We can talk from the We can talk about environmental terrorism.
(04:57):
That means a environmental activists who are using violence in
order to promote awareness to their cause, but also in
order to basically put pressure on the government to promote
environmental policies. We can also talk about the left, especially
in the sixties and the seventies, but also in other times,
(05:19):
we've seen various left wing groups operating in the US
in order to promote a Marxist Leninist, various left wing
ideas and using violence. Probably one of the most famous
cares groups that ever operated in the US, the Weathermen,
basically where a classic left wing groups you know, mainly
(05:40):
consisted of students who again believe that they should promote
an actual revolution in the US in order to change
their political system right.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
And the way they did it was they bombed the
US Capitol building.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
They bombed they bombed a you know, a military recruitment officers. Yeah,
they were basically they literally declared war on the US
government because they believe that the US government is corrupt,
is promote a destructive policies, and also because they believe
(06:17):
that there's a need to push to more left wing
socialist I would even say a little bit Marxist policies.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
A little bit, I'd say completely out of the time. Ari,
But your work seems to emphasize what you call right
wing terrorism, and I think that that's obviously there. It's
always been there. You still have the ku Klux Klan,
although back in the nineteenth century they had a lot
of influence that was sort of the terrorist arm of
the Democratic Party, and then under Wilson they made a
(06:47):
sort of a resurgence in the North, but I think
they were largely undone by very good work by various
FBI agents who infiltrated them and kind of under them
in the nineteen sixties in the same way that they
undid the Black Panthers in the nineteen seventies with the
Operation Quintelpro. And I think that, you know, the right
(07:10):
wing terrorists, I mean, they're always going to be there.
They are there, but that's not really the main thrust
of potential terrorism. I don't think in America today. I
think it's on the left, and I would point to
the reaction of the genocidal attack on Israel and October sixth,
the so called Alaxa flood was an emergence of these
(07:33):
left wing groups, and they're kind of there, you know,
not to be derogatory, but their lapdogs on college campuses,
but also some of their leadership who attacked the state
of Israel in response. And I recall Alan Dershowits, I
thought kind of capitalized the situation when he said that
(07:54):
these protests may seem like just you know, innocent expressions
of free speech today on campuses, but they are breeding
grounds for future actions that may reverberate in an unpleasant
way in terms of terrorism and the type of terrorism
that Israel's had to deal with forever, and that is
more common in countries that have been radicalized. Would you
(08:20):
comment on that.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
So, yeah, sure. So, first of all, I think it's
important to emphasize that I'm a scientist, so I look
at the data, and the data is what guides me.
And and I'll talk in a second about October seventh
and the implication of actuber seven. But the data is
still very clear there the highest level of volence is
(08:41):
still coming from the right, not from THETT today is
a marginal a marginal group with very limited followers, most
of them people very elderly. The threat is coming from
a new variations of neo Nazi organizations, of anti governmental
(09:02):
organizations who really promote new variations of by right ideologies
that are focusing on promoting societal collapse. That's seeing the
federal government as their major threat. But more importantly, they
are actually engaging efforts to produce violent attacks. And also
(09:25):
they produce hundreds of violent attacks. So that's one thing. Secondly,
October seven, I think, or what happened after October seventh,
I think, reflect several trends which are very concerning. And
I'm saying that as someone who actually published about the
recent trends of antisemitism in the US. Is what I
(09:49):
want to emphasize is the fact that anti antisemitism today,
especially acts of violence, are coming from from the left
even more than what we see from the right, at
least in the last eighteen months. That's what the data
shows us, and we definitely see this is not a
(10:11):
new think. In twenty twenty one, when there was an
escalation in Gaza, we've seen a dramatic rise in anti
Semitic incidents. So we've seen that almost every time when
there's an escalation in the usually Placed ten conflict, there's
increase in anti Semitic incidents here in the US. Now,
I think there are several things that are really concerned
(10:32):
about what we've seen after October seventh. The first is
that I reject the argument that what we see is
a response to Israel's military intervention in Gaza, for the
very simple fact that the protests, including the targeting of Jews,
began on October eighth, way before Israel started to operate
(10:57):
in Gaza a happening.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
They probably were still attacking.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
I mean, the attack were still and I think, by
the way, that was not just restricted to extremist movement.
It was something that you've seen on university quads, You've
seen that on social media, when people who are considered
themselves my colleagues were openly celebrating, legitimizing, tolerating what happened
(11:24):
on October seven. People academics who were talk very highly
about inclusiveness, about human rights, about all those things were
openly celebrating. I think that was a shock for me
as well as to many other people in academia who
felt that this is something. But so that's just one point.
(11:45):
The second thing I want to emphasize is that the
fact that almost systematically those groups do not target Israeli
is they target Jewish institutions, They target Jewish schools, killel,
Jewish hial organizations, Jewish restaurants, Jewish events, synagogues, and solon.
(12:09):
If it's about Israel policies, how anyone can explain the
fact that the major targets of those protest movements are
actually Jewish targets, not Israel targets.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
And the last thing I'm going to say is the
fact that many of those groups did not just celebrated
what happened on October seven, but continue to basically convey
the messages of violent organization, including hamas a designated terrrist organization.
For all of those reasons. I think those are concerning trends,
(12:44):
and I think that the efforts to legitimize those trends,
to legitimize those kinds of I have no issues with
someone who is criticizing Israel policies.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
That the problem is is that the targets of those
movement were consistently Jewish targets, not Israeli targets.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Right, And I want to just drill down a little
bit on that because I wasn't surprised. I've been observing
this for a long time, and I think that a
lot of my very liberal friends were surprised. But you know,
it's not really I mean, I'd come at it from
a different angle. But I want to just drill down
exactly what's going on there, how that happened. I think
(13:27):
that the groups like the Proxies of Iran and Amas
and all the rest, these are very well healed organizations
that have learned how to play the right propaganda card
for left wingers around the world to bring them into
their camp. And the card that they play is anti
(13:50):
American America. It's unfair, it exploited people. The theory of exploitation,
which is actually a cornerstone of Marxism, that somehow, if
you have something more than your neighbor, it's because you
rip them off, and that therefore you, you know, you
feel entitled to take it from them, that you have
that element that and also there's the Jewish element in
(14:12):
the religious sense. You know Israel is a Jewish state.
I mean they believe in God. I mean they don't
believe in you know, a world of you know of
an ant colony of where everything is fair. It's it's
it's more of a concept of sovereignty, of Americanism, of capitalism,
the startup nation. All of these grievances were exploited I
(14:34):
think by the the the Malahs and by the radical
Islamists to make a kind of an intersectionality with the
international left, and that I think that really became obvious
and manifested after October seventh.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
So I think, I think what we see is basically
intellectual and sorry for you, using academic lingo intellectual reductionism
by a lot of people who are considered themselves as liberals,
as as people who are at the left or the
(15:14):
center left. I think the major problem, I think is
the inability to understand complexities, the inability to understand nuance,
and the fact that large parts of our political left
basically adopted a very simplistic, rigid, binary perspective on political issues,
(15:38):
so they cannot really comprehend that American Jews can be
actual minority group that can be a minority group who
is vulnerable that needs to be protected, and so on
and so forth, because in their all rigid binary perspectives
(16:04):
right where they will these divided strictly to oppressors and oppressed.
There's no place for complexities, there's no place for nuance,
there's no place for understanding that even what we call
modern minorities like American Jews can be under some conditions,
they can also be a very vulnerable minority. Now, what
(16:28):
happened is that, So that's one element. The second element,
of course, is the fact that while there's extreme sensitivity
to the action of the Israeli government, Israeli policies and
so on and so forth, there are their complete unwillingness
to address, to acknowledge, to comprehend with the actions of
(16:51):
those who are considered oppressed. Even the oppressed can engage
in war crimes, in in humane policies and behaviors. But
the idea is that if you're oppressed, you basically get
a car blanche to do everything. Everything is justified, everything
is accepted, everything is tolerated. And the fact is that
(17:16):
the left is not able to understand that even people
who are oppressed can actually can be engaging illegitimate actions.
And so this is why, this is how we get
to the point where their complete unwillingness to acknowledge to
accept the atrocities that were conducted on January's on October seventh,
(17:40):
and on the other end, there's this kind of of
of a insistence to be legitimize any kind of Israel.
Israel's policies, uh nothing, just just chance, just what things.
Is also the idea that those so called the press
(18:01):
have no agency, they are not responsible for their situation,
their situation is completely beyond their control, which is not
the case, Which is not the case, And I will
just urge you to if you're actually looking at what's
going in God, it's very clear that there are substantial
support for Hamas, for Hamas actions, and I think that
(18:22):
on some level the Palestinians also need to take ownership
and responsibility on their own situation.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
I think that that's going to be very difficult for
them because of their leadership, and also that they've embraced
and imbibed some of the same propaganda that they left
on campus has embraced and it has nothing to do
with someone's minority status. I don't think they care about
that I think it's more the fact that the Jewish
people generally are viewed as more successful, more educated, they
(18:53):
have more family values, they believe in a God rather
than believing in the state that they're individualistic. You know,
they're kind of more out there. It's always created resentment, uh,
And I think that as such, the Jews have stood
as obstacles to their idea of perfect equality. Everyone has
(19:13):
to be absolute equal, we have to have a one
world and quality, and that somehow they resent the fact
that the Jews. Obviously we're not talking about individuals here,
you know, we're talking in general that it's seen as
somewhat a little bit outside of this sort of you know,
conformist world. I mean, it's it's a bit different in
(19:33):
somebody who's a little bit more self actualized and more
self identified. And so you have these kinds of resentments
that then are exploited by powerful people and state players
who then are able to marshal people who are otherwise
unwitting and otherwise kind of you know, they want to
be trendy. I mean, I know people like this, including
(19:55):
Jewish friends and even people in my own family putting
on a kafia. You know, they're they're they think it's
like trendy, you know, they think that it's going to
be in getting them invited to the good parties. You know,
they'll have better dates. I don't know you know this,
you I think you get that, and that, you know,
there's a kind of a.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Mess.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
There's a word in sociology for this, like a kind
of an effervescent phenomena where people just sort of go
into something without really understanding it. You know, when they're
out chanting river to the Sea, they don't know what
that even means. They don't even know what river they're
talking about. They don't know they're calling for the annihilation
of the Jewish state, and if they did, they probably
(20:35):
wouldn't support it. But they are into it because it's fashionable,
because they want to be one of the beautiful people,
you know, they want to be part of.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
I'm less forgiving. I think that what especially, I don't
think a lot of students would define themselves as anti
Zionist Jews. Now. I believe that everybody have the rights
to espouse his own views and beliefs and political you know,
(21:07):
political views. That's perfectly fine. I just find it curious
that they believe that the only polity or the only
people who should not have the right for self determination
are the Jewish people. I find that curious, especially their
own Also, I would just imagine the fact that the
(21:29):
state of visuals already exists and for all practicalities, it
doesn't go anywhere. So to hold a position that you
believe that there's one state out of the two hundred
and something states in the world, there's one state that
needs to be dismantled. It's it's just the Jewish state.
I find that especially curious and a unique form of
(21:52):
anti Semitism. To be honest, excluding the states and believing
that there's one group of people who are uniquely do
not deserve self determination, I think I do think it's
a form of anti Semitism. I think that if you
have a general view that nation states are should be dismantled,
(22:17):
that's something else. But if you believe that there's just
one state that should be dismantled, and coincidentally, that state's
exactly the Jewish state, I think that's that's something else.
And I think that the fact that this is something
that is being legitimized, I think it's interesting. I would
(22:38):
also say the fact that despite the fact that many
different countries are perpetrating atrocities, I would even say probably
more atrocities than the State of Israel. The unique focus
and the unique willingness to legitimizeing to demonizing, to undermine
(22:59):
the the right of the right of the State of
Israel to exist and defend itself again, I find it
very curious. I haven't seen anyone going through the street
to demonstrate about one point five million eguars that are
being held in concentration camp in China, or about several
millions of Syrians that were killed in the Syrian Civil War,
(23:22):
or any other of those atrocities. The unique willingness to
demonizing the jewystick I think. I find it very curious
and something which sometime it's difficult to explain unless you
are willing to admit that this is a form of
Jewish hape.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Well, they don't really care about atrocity. It has more
to do with using the atrocity propaganda against one group
and not another. I mean, they never complained about the
Soviet Union or as you say, communists China. That's not
a problem. It has more to do with a situational
rather than a fundamental opposition to atrocity, whereas you and
(24:02):
I and most conventional people, we reject atrocity across the
board because it's evil and because it's wrong. So that
I think is the mentality. And as far as their
opposition to that one state, I actually think that they
are opposed to all sovereign states. They don't like American
sovereignty either. That's why they support things like open borders.
(24:23):
You know, they want to have this kind of turn
all nations into this new kind of provinces of the world.
I don't know whatever it is. They all have different
weird utopian understandings of it. But getting back to your
thesis here American American zealous inside right wing domestic terrorism. Again,
(24:43):
none of these people that we're talking about here are
right wing. They're actually left wing. But your focus is
on right wingers, and I think that you know, yes,
of course they're out there, but it needs a little
updating because I don't want to see, you know, this
uses a bludgeon against for example, President Trump right because
(25:06):
you know, there's like a guilt by association, oh their
right wing. You know they're going to be involved with
violence when they're not. So I just I'm concerned about
that particular aspect of your focus.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Yeah, so my book, by the way, my book was
written was published in twenty twenty, so there is some
kind of delay. I would also say most of the
research was conducted between twenty twelve, twenty thirteen and twenty eighteen,
so there is, as every book, it takes some time
to digest toil. So the situation, of course change over time.
(25:43):
What I would say is is very simple. There are
in every political camp, in every ideological camp, there a
spectrum of political groups, political organizations. My research for the
last twenty something years focusing on violent political organizations, groups
(26:07):
that are using violence to promote their objectives. So when
I'm talking about the far right in my book, I'm
talking about violent neo Nazis, violent skinheads, violent Christian identity groups,
a violent anti abortionists, and so on and so forth.
The book is not focusing. For example, you won't find
in the book even one word about the Tea Party
(26:30):
the movement, because that was that was not a violent movement.
It was a political movement. Regardless of what you think
about its objective. It has So I'm not I do
not think that conservatives or Republicans should see the book
as some kind of efforts to undermine their views. Understanding
(26:54):
the history of those groups and understanding the current trends
and process sees that leads those groups to use violence.
And that's my focus. The same way, by the way
that you know, in two thousand and nine, when I
publish my book about Jewish terrorism in Israel, I focus
on a very specific set of groups. And you know,
(27:17):
naturally I'm I'm myself a Jewish person, So I'm not
arguing that Judaism for some reason is an extremist religion.
I'm arguing that in every religious tradition, in every political camp,
for the most part, you find some groups who are
under extremes on the margins, on the French, who are
willing to use violence. And I'm trying to understand what
(27:38):
leads those groups to use violence.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
No, I mean, and I agree with that. I mean,
you find extreme on the fringe. And my concern isn't that,
you know, Republicans or Tea Party people are going to
take it that way. My concern is that the sort
of the liberal left leading establishment may use it in
that way. I mean, because you've got shelves of books
and theories and professors talking about Donald Trump as Hitler
(28:04):
and that the Maga movement they're all Nazis. I mean
even recently Timothy Snyder over at Yale an article, Oh,
Trump was anti Semitic, because you know, it's almost like
it reminds me of the QAnon craziness. They moved his
finger this way not that way. Therefore he doesn't like Jews,
I mean me, while he's having shoulders with professors at
(28:26):
Yale who are calling for the destruction of Israel, which
by nature, would you know, I would argue lead to
a second Holocaust.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
So that's that's the problem is is that many, many people,
many many academics do not do science anymore. What they
do is political activism. Yes, many many academics basically transitioned
to political activism to complical work, and they don't do
(28:58):
science anymore. And I'm someone who was very open to
my colleagues, to my university leadership in many, many different forums,
I express my concerns about the politications of academia, and
especially the fact that many entire disciplines within the academic
(29:21):
domain were basically transformed from science to a hubs and
clad of political activism. Now, how do I know that,
because they will never hire someone who do not conform
to their very rigid ideological platforms. So you have an
entire department in academia with people which have a very
(29:45):
very you know, uniform set of views and beliefs. And
I think that this is exactly the opposite of what
academia should be. Academia is about challenging, it's about debating,
it's about providing different perspectives first, But first it's about
actually basing your views on actual research and actual data.
(30:10):
And that's what I do. I agree with you that
way too many parts of academia are completely abandoned what
they need to do into political activism. And this is why,
this is why people do not trust academia anymore. This
is why people do not trust the academic institutions anymore,
because you know, what they see as are basically just
(30:33):
political hubs and people like Chimoti, Snyders and others. Yes,
they can say whatever they want.
Speaker 4 (30:39):
But.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
They really just the symptoms of a much deeper problem
which I've witnessed in the last ten fifteen years, where
more and more people are basically exploiting their academic position
just to engage in political works. If you want to
be a politician, go and get elected.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Yeah, But the issue is broader than that, and that
they have taken the high ground of the culture. They've
taken the high ground of the mainstream media. I'll give
you an example. Lester Holt was at an awards ceremony
where he said, objective journalism is a thing of the past,
that's outdated. We have to advocate, and that's what they
(31:23):
do in various levels, and they are very much in
sync with these professors and heads of major institutions, and
it's become very pervasive. That's what I'm suggesting here, and
that that pervasiveness not only has led to a lack
of confidence in the media, and I think that the
election of Trump is just a symptom of it. That
(31:44):
the American people are rejecting it, but it also leads
to potential violence. It basically incites potential terrorism. Is my concern,
and that's the reasons I wanted to talk to you
today because I do think that this kind of general
language that's used, and this general attempt to monopolize the
(32:09):
conversation is a recipe for such violence.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Yeah, I think I agree with you that I think
the political polarization and the tendency to present the political
process as some kind of a zero sum game, I
think push people to more radical views and potentially to
radical actions. And I think that we've seen that throughout
(32:36):
American history. And definitely I agree with you that demonizing
your political rivals, your political adversaries, and presenting them as illegitimate,
as unacceptable, and most importantly as some kind of an
exist existential threat eventually intensify this kind of political polarization
and eventually doesn't really promote any constructive And I think
(33:01):
that you see that, by the way, on both sides
of the political spectrum. But I do think so that
I will argue many of my colleagues tend to see
that just from one side. They believe that the writing
is the one who I actually think that both sides
should should be blamed for demonizing and to really transforming
(33:25):
our political discourse into some kind of zero sum game
where there's no center anymore. And by the way, this
is why centrists are leaving Congruans, right. You see that
all you look at the last five six years, almost
all the senators and coundresses who are retiring are people
from the center who basically understand that there's no way
to actual promote policies anymore because they because both parties
(33:47):
are really running into the into the into the margins.
And I think that I completely do it do And
I think that language and discourse has a huge impact
on the way people think. And definitely we've seen that
in the last few years when we've seen mass violent
protests both on the left and the right right, and
(34:08):
I was one of those who argued that, yes, we
cannot accept violent protests from each side. We should not,
And definitely significant parts of academic circles and the media
circles felt comfortable to you know, violence when it's coming
from the left, which again reflect bases that exist. I
(34:33):
think that, you know, people like me who are really
doing the research, our responsibility is to stick to the facts.
(34:53):
I think I can hear you.
Speaker 4 (34:55):
For some reason, Okay, can you memorry?
Speaker 1 (35:56):
Okay, just a little technical glitch. I just I think
that maybe people are too caught up in confirmation bias
that goes beyond the point where you end up creating
a false agenda, and that you know, you have a
hypothesis that you look to issues that are going to
(36:16):
prove that hypothesis, and therefore you glean the stuff that
supports that agenda and ignore and winnow out stuff that doesn't.
And that's what leads to extremism. And I think that
we see that. Yeah, you're right, it is on both sides.
The problem is that today I think that the left
dominates the field. If it was the right dominating the field,
(36:37):
we would probably do have the same criticism. But so
Ari talk about. My guest is Ari Perlinger. He is
the author of American Zealots. He's a professor here at
UMass Lowell Inside Right Wing Domestic Terrorism, which is available
at Amazon and other venues. What are you working on now, Areri?
Speaker 2 (37:02):
So? I'm working on multiple projects, one of them focusing
on extremism within police organizations and within the military. These
are projects that are actually funded by the government through
grants from DHS and d OD. They trying to understand
how they can protect soldiers police officers from being drawn
into those extremists movements. Another very big project, and that's
(37:30):
actually my next book that I'm hoping will be out
by spring twenty twenty six, focusing on a violent extremist,
misogyny and focusing on a violences sign Yes, violence against
but I'm talking about ideological violence against women. So I'm
talking about groups that operating and promoting misogynist narratives, focusing
(37:58):
on various aspects of misogy in various aspects of violence.
And I'm also focusing on female dominant spaces to promote missogerny.
So it's a very interesting project. We collected a lot
of data and this is something that I think would
be very interesting. I think there's many people underestimate how
(38:19):
popular and how significantly those spaces and groups are growing
in the last few years. And this is the book
that I'm working on right now, and it will be
out very soon.
Speaker 1 (38:32):
Excellent. That's going to be a real hard potato. That's excellent. Ari,
Do you want to mention any websites that you'd like
my listeners to go to and to find out more
about you and your work.
Speaker 2 (38:48):
I'm a boring academic guy, so they are welcome to
go to Amazon author centers and they can find my
books there, and they can also approach me directly if
they want to get more information or to get to
know more about the interesting things we do.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
Okay, excellent, Alri Perler, I want to thank you for
joining me today. Excellent talk. I really appreciate it. Let's
stay in touch, maybe keep me posted on your new
book and we can do more of it.
Speaker 4 (39:15):
So thanks so much, sir, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
Bye bye, all right, take care
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!