[00:00:00] Announcer: Due to the themes of this podcast, listener discretion is advised. Lock your doors, close the blinds. Change your passwords. This is Secrets and Spies. Secrets and Spies is a podcast that dives into the world of espionage, terrorism, geopolitics and intrigue. This episode is presented by Matt Fulton and produced by Chris Carr. [00:00:38] Matt Fulton: Hello everyone and welcome back to Secrets and Spies. This week I'm joined once again by terrorism researcher Jacob Ware, to unpack two disturbing trends in the evolving threat landscape here in the US: The rise of nihilistic violent extremism, and a string of recent attacks targeting Jewish communities. We talk about why the FBI has created a new classification for violence driven by pure destruction rather than ideology. What it tells us about radicalization in the digital age and why social media is increasingly the mortar between the bricks in today's terror networks stick around. It's a heavy but vital conversation. Thanks for listening. Thanks for watching. Take care. [00:01:17] Announcer: The opinions expressed by guests on secrets and spies do not necessarily represent those of the producers and sponsors of this podcast. [00:01:40] Matt: Jacob Ware, welcome back to Secrets and Spies. It's good to have you on, haven't haven't talked to you in a while. [00:01:44] Jacob Ware: Oh, thank you for having me. It's always, it's always great to see you. [00:01:47] Matt: Like I said, you haven't been on in a while. Uh, so for, for any, um, listeners, uh, who are are new or, uh, missed those episodes, um, if you could just, uh, briefly tell us a bit about, uh, yourself and the work that you do. [00:01:59] Jacob: Well, I'm a research fellow at a think tank and foreign policy organization called the Council on Foreign Relations. Um, I study, uh, terrorism and counter-terrorism both here at home and also abroad. Uh, typically Matt, that has meant, uh, I've been studying largely the far right white supremacist, neo-Nazi and anti-government extremism. Um, and that work was compiled in a book called God Guns Sedition. I know we did a podcast episode about that back in the day, [00:02:30] Matt: sitting right there. [00:02:31] Jacob: There you go. Recently, you know, there's been a lot of developments in the terrorism space. I think it's a, it's an interesting time, a concerning time, a confusing time in many ways. And so, um, different movements have come up and different trends have come up that we're trying to get our, uh, get our thoughts around. Um, and uh, I think that brings me here. [00:02:52] Matt: Yes. Yeah, exactly. Well, thank you for that. Yeah. So I, uh, I, I asked you to come back on with us today, um, to talk about, uh. Two emerging trends in the, in the counter-terrorism space, at least here in the US for sure. So starting us off here, uh, you had an article out late last month in just security. It's, it's interesting. So the definition of terrorism has always been, you know, hotly debated, um, academically very kind of politically charged and, and hard to pin down depending on who you ask. But it's one of those things like. Most people know it when you see it. You know, like that sort of, that sort of feels like terrorism. And, um, the past few years there's been a rise in an ideology and, uh, a string of unrelated attacks that certainly I. Feel like terrorism in their intent and their motivation, but don't fit neatly into the sort of accepted definitions of terrorism and the kind of subset of terrorist ideologies that we, you know, often talk about in this, in this space. I. The article you had was on, um, NVE or Nihilistic violent, um, extremism. So to get us started here, um, I was wondering if you could, uh, just sort of starting with basics, uh, could you tell us what exactly is nihilistic violent extremism and, um, why did the FBI see the need to create a new classification for it? [00:04:22] Jacob: Very good question, and I will. A difficult question, and I'll do my very best to, um, to approach it. Uh, nihilistic violent extremism, um, is an addition to the FBI's or the US government's kind of, uh, stable of, of extremism. Categories. Most of my work is focused on a, on a group called Revy that is racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism. Here in the York, United States, we've also faced a persistent threat from what they call Avy, that is anti-government and anti-authority. I believe violent extremism. Now we've seen this edition of, of a, of a new category, nihilistic violent extremism. Uh, very simply, uh, these are individuals who appear to lack, uh, a broader kind of political ideological end goal. In fact, sometimes the, the intention there is. Pure destruction. And that's what we've seen in a lot of the cases. The FBI has described vees as individuals who engage in criminal conduct within the United States and abroad in furtherance of political, social, or religious goals that derive primarily from a hatred of society at large, and a desire to bring about its collapse by sowing, indiscriminate chaos, destruction and social, um, instability. And so, um, I. I have found in a lot of the cases that, um, you often see different ideologies, um, whether somebody's got some, some far right extremism or some far left extremism involved. Um, but they're already united by this nihilistic, for a lack of a better word, desire to, to destroy society and to, uh, to commit acts of violence that. That approach, that end. [00:06:16] Matt: So this term, NVE, the, the ideology behind it, if you can describe it as an ideology, it's sort of scattered all over the place and means different things to, to whoever's sort of, um. Believing in it, I guess you could say. But so it, it's only shown up in a couple of cases so far, but is this something new or something that's been lurking under the radar for years and only now being formally acknowledged? [00:06:42] Jacob: Bit of both. I think a lot of the elements at play here have been developing for several years and they've kind of come together in this, uh, in this tornado of, um. Of poor timing and really the ultimate kind of result of, of several trends. I'll point to at least four developments that I think are, uh, have played a role here and, and I have discussed all of them in various settings, but this article might be the first time I, I, I managed to put them all together in, in, in kind of this one analysis. Obviously the first is social media. Um, social media is the frontline of extremism and radicalization today, and I think that is, that is a key element. Number two is. What various scholars have called ideological convergence or composite violent extremism. The FBI calls this the salad bar, where basically ideology is becoming a lot less coherent, and in fact, people seem to be, um, a. Combining elements of, of different ideologies and uh, and creating new justifications for violence. That relates intimately to the third point, which is the rise in personal grievances. Terrorism traditionally has been conceptualized to something very political, very ideological. We're increasingly seeing individuals who are pointing to. Uh, a list of vulnerabilities or susceptibilities or grievances that drove their process of radicalization, whether it's mental illness or whether it's substance abuse, romantic frustrations, history of loneliness. Each of those are playing very prominent cases, uh, prominent, uh, roles in these cases. The fourth, and in my view, arguably the most frightening development is, uh, youth radicalization. Uh, when I first started studying that phenomenon, or at least noticing it, we were concerned largely about teenagers. Um, now we're increasingly seeing people in these cases who are pre-teens, 11, 12 years old, radicalizing into extremism and attempting acts of terrorism. Each of those four things have come together, I think, to create these online groups that are driven by, um, individuals who are. Uh, placing an ideological veneer upon their own personal propensity for violence. [00:09:00] Matt: Yeah. Um, [00:09:00] Jacob: you're seeing that story emerge in a lot of the cases, the kind of the flagship network here. Um, the one that I think is really defining the emergence of this, of this phenomenon and the one that is causing a lot of governments an awful lot of concern, is a movement called 7 6 4, which is basically, uh, as, as, as far as I can understand it, it's basically a satanic kind of neo-Nazi online cult that really specializes in, uh, the exploitation of. Children, uh, primarily young women for, uh, black male and sexual crimes. Um, and so they are kind of conducting, uh, sexual blackmail and encouraging self harm up to and including suicide among young people for, for entertainment or, um, uh, or to kind of. For ideological purposes or to, to just develop and crystallize their in-group bonds. And we are starting to see quite a few arrests both here in the United States and abroad of individuals involved in this, in this movement. [00:10:13] Matt: I think what's so, sort of hooked me about your article when I, when I read it, the sort of philosophical underpinnings of this movement. For me, at least not new. I've dabbled with it in fiction for years. It was not, it wouldn't have been considered terrorism. I mean, there's been a lot of, um, uh, antinatalists writings by, um, authors such as like, uh, David Benent Tar who write, uh, his books called, um. Trouble with being, trouble with being alive. I think off the top of my head, it's right on the shelf over there. Um, but, uh, uh, Thomas Lati is a, is a sort of niche horror writer who's sort of written a lot in this space. I dunno if you or or listeners are familiar with the first season of, of, of true detective, but, uh, Matthew McConaughey's character, um, kind of espouses a very moderate form of this. Um. Of this philosophy, but the heart of it is essentially that sentient life on earth. And, uh, for listeners, yeah, this is gonna sound really kind of dark and cartoonish and just like, whoa, what, um, sentient life on earth is an inherent evil and should stop. Is essentially kind of the, the crux of it. Um, I, I, I, I think, and as you said, it's a lot of these, you know, disaffected young men, disturbed people, isolated that kind of, uh, take this philosophy to apply kind of meaning to their kind of, uh, internal suffering. What is so unique. Um, about this. I, I, I think as, I think if you can expand on this a bit, um, is the role of social media in this kind of terrorist ideology, which is kind of new to me in how critical of a foundational role it plays, could you describe, would it, would it be safe to, to, would, would it would be fair to describe social media as like the mortar between the bricks here of NDE? Yes. [00:12:15] Jacob: Very simply. Um, I'll point to another article that I wrote a couple of years ago that, um, that honestly, Matt, I'm trying to, to think through at the moment. Um, I wrote a piece for, for George Washington University's program on extremism called. I think it was called the third generation in online radicalization. Mm-hmm. Where I argued that we often talk about online radicalization or social media radicalization as a monolith, as one big phenomenon. Um, but in fact it, it, it's developed. I think I just, I think I compared it to coronavirus. Right. It has developed in multiple strains. Yeah. Um, that have their own challenges, their own cultures. Um, and, and has led us to, to this place where a few years ago when I wrote it, you know, we were facing a certain kind of terrorism threat. I'm trying to think. Obviously one of the key questions at that time was, what does the fourth generation look like? Um, what does it look like when, um, ideologies are fully entrenched on kind of encrypted chat rooms where, um, you are no longer looking for broad publicity. You're looking for something that's narrow, where you're looking. For private conversations, um, social media has lowered the barriers to entry to extremism. That's the best way I can summarize that article. That's the end. Uh, the kind of final underline in my research. Social media lowers barriers to entry, and that happens both ideologically speaking and tactically speaking ideologically, um, individuals. Are no longer reading complex, uh, screeds of ideology. Uh, I don't even know if they're reading, you know, the old fascist works or certainly the nihilist fictions that you are talking about. Um, they are kind of having ideology brought to them in their mm-hmm. Uh, bedrooms in their living rooms that are speaking to their own personal grievances. And then the tactical barriers to entry are lowering because you're getting younger people who have less kind of, um, cohesive ideologies. So they are not organ organized, they're not, uh, conducting extensive attack planning. They're creating, they're committing very chaotic and unorganized attacks against chaotic, unorganized targets. Um, and that's a. Fundamentally a very complex challenge to, to face, and I think we're still kind of, um, waking up to that. Um, you mentioned a couple of, you know, popular culture works. I'll mention another one. Um, adolescence, which is a show on Netflix right now. There's kind of been a phenomenon. I've done a lot of work on incel. So, um, you know, I, I wanted to watch it from a professional standpoint. Um, I have issues with the series, but the one thing that I think was, was very, uh, well portrayed was the radicalization mechanism of this person in his bedroom being reached by people who, um. We're speaking to him about his personal grievances, the personal challenges he was facing, and creating an enemy and outgroup from that ideal, from those personal grievances. That is absolutely what's happening. Um, that is absolutely the mechanisms that are happening with a lot of the young men who are getting radicalized into envy e extremism. Um, and that happens on social media. [00:15:47] Matt: Yeah. Just, just to be clear, for, for listeners, you know, writers like David Bennet and Thomas Lati, you know, kind of. Writing about this philosophy in the realm of like weird love, crafty, and niche horror fiction is not remotely the same degree of ideology that's being espoused and, and and operationalized in, in sub-segments. Here. We're gonna take a quick break and we'll be right back with more. Let's talk about two of these groups and please correct me if there's a better way to describe them, um, that keep coming up in these cases. And that's, um, the order of the nine angles. And as you said, uh, a minute ago, um, 7, 6 4, what do we know about them and how, how, how, how could we describe them, you know, and how, how central are they to the spread of NVE type ideologies? [00:16:51] Jacob: They are central as, as nodes I. I don't tend to use words like groups or organizations. I tend to use terms like networks. Yeah. Movements, clusters, even, um, uh, crowds of people. Um, these groups are both, in my understanding, kind of exclusively online, um, networks of, uh. Satanic, often neo-Nazi, primarily young men, um, who kind of glorify cult-like ideology. Um, and, um, use that to organize and engage in criminal activity at the very, um. Kind of far, uh, end of the spectrum, we have seen violent plotting from both of these organizations, both of these networks. Um, I can think of, I'm thinking especially, especially a case from a few years ago where a US Army private who was a member of the order of the nine angles, or a recruit of that. Of that movement, um, had entered the US Army and tried to launch an Al-Qaeda attack on his own unit in Europe. Uh, that's when this movement, I think really, uh, came onto the radar for a lot of us. 7, 6 4. Uh, there have been violent plots with that as well, but uh, it seems to me that. There's more activity with regards to child sexual abuse material with that group. And a lot of the arrests so far have been along those lines effectively. They will, um, um, they will lure in young women to, um. To send them sexual material. Um, and they will then blackmail them with that material to do things like branding themselves with their victimizers name, uh, commit other acts of self-harm again, up to and including suicide, largely for the entertainment of, uh, of the members of the, of the. Of the network, um, obviously that causes tremendous amounts of damage and trauma within the victims. Um, and it also seems to be something that, um, that. Strengthens the group, strengthens the in bond in bonds and, uh, um, allows them to keep people coming back. Often victims of abuse, especially when they are young men, have also been recruited into that network as well. So they are perpetuating a cycle of abuse, a cycle of trauma, and uh, a lot of governments are, are reacting now with real alarm to this movement. I think, uh, from what I've seen, especially in Canada, they are tremendously concerned about. About the way that this movement, 7, 6 4 is, is speaking to and reaching, um, their, their young men. [00:19:48] Matt: Yeah. [00:19:48] Jacob: And, and boys. [00:19:49] Matt: So you, you, you, you explain in your article that some past. Mass shootings or other attacks might retroactively qualify under that NVE banner. So the 2022, um, Highland Park, uh, shooting, uh, uh, the 4th of July parade, um, outside Chicago, um, the Southport Stabbings, um, in the uk. The assassination, uh, attempting its President Trump in Butler, PA last summer, um, and even the Palm Springs fertility bombing last terrorism. Is usually distilled to something like the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. Um, these attacks are entirely apolitical in motive most of the time. Um, violence for violence's sake. Uh, how, how does that development change our understanding of what terrorism is and how it should be countered? [00:20:44] Jacob: I mean, that's kind of an existential question that I'm trying to think through right now. Uh, one of the things I wrote in that, in that article is, um, it feels like. The barriers that used to be drawn between non-ideological killers and terrorists are blurring. And actually, Matt, I would say that that's been happening for a few years now. Um, mm-hmm. I mentioned the incel movement as one where, um, as one that I've studied before, incel also were very nihilistic. Um, incel have this, this phenomenon. Um. This kind of ideological tenet where they say that they have taken a black pill. A black pill is basically, uh, is basically a step beyond the online culture surrounding the red pill. The red pill is, is the pill you take when, uh, you've decided that you want to be, uh, alerted. You want to see all of the world's challenges, and you want to, uh, you want to accept them for what they are. The black pill is a nihilistic. Um, variant that says, not only in this case in the incel case, is society rigged against young men. Uh, not only is there a sexual marketplace that oppresses them, but in fact there is nothing that they can do, um, to combat it. So actually the only, the only relevant outcome is suicide. That is the only possible way to leave. Um, in seldom. And when we saw acts of incel violence, they basically all. Were acts of suicide. We've also seen this in the um. School shooting phenomenon. These are also often, uh, for lack of a better word, nihilistic young men who are driven by personal grievances such as isolation, loneliness, bullying, often mental health challenges, and they are driven to acts of suicide, uh, determining that they are going to, um, kill as many of their classmates, as many as their, of their quote unquote torment as they can. So those phenomena. Phenomenon is not necessarily brand new as we mentioned earlier. Um, the challenge is, um, it's becoming so normalized now in social media spaces. I think, um, uh, that, and it's blurring so much with, with political ideology here and there that it has become, I think, an extremism and terrorism threat, and we are having to. Rethink. I, I believe, um, how hard we can draw those boundaries. I don't think you can any, any longer say, oh, here's a simple racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist, and we're gonna challenge it just on the ideological side. Um, that's no longer relevant. That's no longer possible because that individual almost certainly has. Personal grievances has some suicidality, nihilism to him. And you have to be able to think of that in a more holistic threat, uh, in, in a more holistic, holistic way. And that from a counter-terrorism standpoint is also, um, I. Manifesting in, in strange targeting. Um, we had a case over in Britain last summer that you just mentioned of a 17-year-old again, to go back and mention the, the youth element. A 17-year-old who attacked a, uh, a dance class, a Taylor Swift themed dance class in a place called Southport. Um. In Northern England killing three young girls. I think all three of those girls were stabbed over 200 times each. Yeah, so clearly an an incredibly blood thirsty individual. Um. Who has been radicalized in online spaces and, and clearly, um, adheres to some of these nihilistic tendencies, but is attacking a target that seemingly doesn't have any predictability to it, no real ideolog ideological justification for it. In fact, I, in the aftermath of that, um, of that attack, the Prime Minister of Britain, Kier has. I think, uh, significant statement of. Being more open to this kind of of change. Uh, right. He stood up in, in parliament and he said, the blunt truth here is that this case is assigned Britain now faces a new threat, terrorism has, has changed. And he went on to talk about how these are loners, they're misfits, radicalizing in their bedroom. Um. Some of that, as I mentioned, was encapsulated in the adolescence show. Uh, but it's a fundamentally new challenge, I think. Uh, and we've reached an end point where, uh, so much radicalization has happened so quickly that we are really behind the eight ball, uh, at this point. And we should expect, I think, to see more violence from these kind of actors. [00:25:39] Matt: Do you think it would be correct to say that there were. Shades of this ideology present in ISIS during its zen and yeah, during its zenith in, in Syria, about a decade ago, and it's, I'm not sure what you would call it exactly, but their, their management of savagery, you know, putting out this call online to young men to come to Syria, fight the Jihad and, and their twisted interpretation of it kind of live out. You know, your wildest video game fantasies, [00:26:07] Jacob: several of those factors were at play. Yes. Um, to go back to, to the four developments I spoke about earlier, obviously social media radicalization was a big factor. Used the radicalization was a big factor in the travelers, not necessarily in the violent actions. So ISIS was adept at radicalizing teenagers. Um. Even young girls to travel to Syria to join the movement. Mm-hmm. And I also think the personal grievances element was, was very powerful too. Primarily among second generation immigrants who, uh, who felt torn between worlds [00:26:45] Matt: in Marlin Deek. [00:26:46] Jacob: Yes, exactly. In, in Molenbeek and Brussels. When you look at a, uh, when you look at a lot of the cases of violent outcome. Uh, among ISIS recruits, people who committed attacks in Europe, for example, you did not often see a whole lot of, um, ideological devotion. Mm-hmm. In my view. You saw people who were drug addicts, alcoholics, uh, the Abdus Lamb brothers who were involved in the Paris and Brussels attacks, radicalized, I believe in Molen. They were, they were bar owners. Um, that is not. Something that signifies strict adherence to Islam. Yeah. Um, and so yes, I think that's a, it's a great, um, a great example to draw of people who, uh, have been radicalized in the past based on, based on personal I. Personal factors like, like a more nihilistic worldview. [00:27:43] Matt: You cite, uh, Simon Perdue, director of the domestic, uh, terrorism threat monitor, who warned that ideological nihilism erode the last barrier to violence or the, uh, the, the, the instinct for self preservation. Um, can you unpack that idea, uh, uh, a little bit more? Why is this so dangerous, particularly when mixed with used social alienation and access to weapons, at least here in the us? [00:28:07] Jacob: I would point to the suicidality I mentioned a few minutes ago. Um, again, we saw this very prominent in the incel cases. These are individuals who have basically given up on life. I think that is why there's such a challenge with trying to counter it in an ideological lens. Um, at the end of the day, okay, they will make the argument in the statements that they leave behind, um, that they're trying to destroy, uh, destroy society for some kind of end goal. Um. At the end of the day, these are often very, very troubled, uh, young people who have suffered for a long time. Um, and, um, they are suicidal and the attacks come from seemingly a determination to punish those who, um, who have wronged them Once did a study where I looked at the, um. The final kind of video testimonies that were left by, um. The Virginia Tech shooter. Mm-hmm. Yeah. In 2007, somebody who we consider to be a pure school shooter and, and, and Elliot Roger, the kind of first recognized incel terrorist in 2014 who attacked the University of California Santa Barbara, um, who's recognized as kind of a pure ideological extremist and incel, and the language that they use in justifying their attacks is. Almost identical, right? You backed me into a corner, you gave me no choice, you isolated me. I will punish you for it. Um, that is a very dangerous combination when somebody with that kind of worldview and with that kind of, um, determination to take their own life, um, has access to weapons. Last thing I'll say on that is often those kind of incidents can also be especially deadly because, um. To about a terrorist attack is how to get away. Hell on death. Much like, uh, ISIS, attackers seeking martyrdom, uh, they will stay on scene longer. Um, they can proceed further into a target and, uh, and claim more lives. That has been the case with jihadist attacks. We've seen, and it's been the case with school shootings that we've seen, and it will be the case I think with, with these nihilistic attacks as well because they are murder suicides. [00:30:34] Matt: One critique of this new label is that it might distract from the more persistent threat posed by white supremacist and anti-government, um, violence, at least on the, you know, domestic terrorism concern. Although, as you said, there is some overlap between the two sometimes. Um, is there a risk of the term NVE being abused or, or, or politicized? And how would that, how would that look do you think? [00:30:55] Jacob: Um, my article opens with a case of an individual who, um. Again, had a very chaotic, very bizarre ideology. Um, he had murdered his two parents, I think, lived with their bodies for several weeks. Um, in order to steal money to start a revolution, um, he was going to kill President Trump as part of that revolution. But it was in pursuit of white supremacists and goals. Um, we know all this from online, online chatter that he left behind. Um, he's still alive. Um, I think he, um, he was charged or he's being investigated as a, as a nihilistic violent extremist, not as a racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist. So that is an example of the government looking at. Uh, a range of evidence looking at, uh, a collection of online statements, looking at a plot in action, disrupting it and, and ignoring certain elements of it in favor of, of other elements of it. So a lot of the charging documents seem to completely ignore the online language, saying this was intended to save the white race, which I think was the exact language that he used. Um. That I think is, is how it would be abused or be used to mislead people, uh, cover up one part of the ideology because seemingly it, um, you know, it makes the president's policies look bad. Now, you could also counter and say, you know, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter that much. Uh, 'cause this is only an investigative tool as opposed to. A charge that he's gonna be facing in courts, right? He's still gonna be facing the same charges regardless of whether he's coded as an NVE or a a REM V, um, in the FBI's internal, uh, classification system. So that's, I think, an example of. How it can be misleading and why we have to continue to just read the, uh, you know, see the evidence, um, and make our own judgements off it. [00:33:06] Matt: Yeah. As oppressively dark as this philosophy is, if you wanna call it a philosophy, but I get yeah, there, there are philosophical underpinnings to it, but as, as oppressively. I think there's something uniquely insidious about this, that that stands out from other kinds of terrorism. At least that's just how, what, how it kind of rings to me. But, um, now recall, uh. Talking with Chris on this podcast about the, um, Southport, uh, attack and, and we mentioned Kiir, Starr's statement in Parliament as, as you mentioned, that, you know, this represents a new kind of terrorism. And we sort of thought, you know, yeah. Terrorism is, is, is one of those things that, you know, you, you kind of know it when, when you see it. That attack was done for no other purpose, but to terrorize and to inflict harm. That was the purpose in and of itself. That's nothing, if not terrorism to me. But it didn't, it, there were no, it didn't fall into any of the conventional academic boxes that we used to sort of talk about and, and, and understand terrorism. But what's so interesting to me about this case with NVE and this new kind of terminology that that's, that's coming up now, it kind of, it, it, it explains stuff like that. But as you said, you know, other, previous past attacks going back to, I don't know, you could arguably even go hook, um. Yeah, you, you, you, you look back at, at, at all these other incidents and it, it all kind of fits under this same description and it, it's, I don't know, I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something about this that just kind of changes what terrorism is and, and what it could be. As, as we close up on, on this part, I was wondering if there's anything more that you wanted to say about that. [00:34:54] Jacob: You starting to see a few terms. Um. I think capture what you're saying in ways that are a bit more broad, uh, and perhaps in ways that I think are better than the NVE term. Uh, a team of Australian scholars is working on a phenomenon that they're calling grievance fueled violence. Mm-hmm. Um, that can include terrorism, which is a grievance, uh, you know, which is happens because of political grievance, but it also includes personal grievance. Um. You can include, um, incidents like the Ruda Pana stabbing, for example in Southport. Um, the US government at times has used the term called targeted violence, uh, which I think tries to capture the same kind of idea. It's a bit broader. Um, I don't know if I, if I would agree with you, Matt, that. You know, the, the Southport stabbings are such a clear cut case, and maybe that's, maybe I'm too close to the academia on the terrorism side, but in terrorism studies, um, the, the first two elements of any definition of terrorism are always political or ideological. And violence, of course it's violence, but I think people would counter by saying, well, he's not trying to. Drive any ideological end goal is there's no politics to it. Right. But this is somebody who was clearly radicalized by previous people who did have very clear ideological grievances. And he is almost driven by the violence in itself. Mm-hmm. And if you are gonna just dismiss that as say, well that doesn't count as terrorism because we're not hitting that, that very clear bucket of politics, then you're probably not. You know, you might have a narrower understanding of what counter-terrorism is, but you're still gonna have violence in your communities. You're still gonna have these kind of incidents. You are just gonna pretend that they don't matter because they don't fit your neat understanding of this phenomenon. Um. So I'd almost go a step beyond you, uh, Matt, and say, look, it doesn't even matter if it's terrorism or not. Um, those families were, uh, victimized. They lost everything. Yeah. Um, Britain faced enormous far right. Riots in the aftermath because this individual was claimed to be a, a migrant. He was not. He was, uh, a Muslim migrant. He was not. He was, he was British. Um, and a Christian, um, of Randan origin, I believe. Um, whether or not. You call that terrorism in aca in a, in an academic sense, whether you're not, call it, you call it terrorism from a government sense or a law enforcement or intelligence sense, that doesn't change any of the material conditions on the ground of what happened at that location of what happened to those families. And so it's okay for us to think a bit broader and, and drop those labels every once in a while and say it doesn't, it's, it's not that relevant in my view. [00:37:46] Matt: Yeah, it's a, it's, it's, it's, it's undefined. It's a, it's a fluid. Part of our understanding of the, of the phenomenon of terrorism at least. Absolutely. We're gonna take a quick break and we'll be right back with more. I also wanted to turn here to the really disturbing series of recent attacks on the American Jewish community, um, last month as, uh, pretty much all listeners I'm sure surely know, um, two Israeli embassy staffers, Yaron Lashinsky, and Sarah Milgram were gunned down outside an American Jewish, uh, committee event in dc. By a man who according to witnesses, uh, shouted free Palestine, and I did it for Gaza. Um, those two were also, uh, Israeli embassy staffers. I should, I should say, um, last night. So as we're recording this on Monday, June 2nd, um, last night, uh, in Boulder, Colorado, uh, protest calling for the return of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, um, was attacked by a man with mossoff cocktails or some sort of homemade. Flame thrower. I'm a little, um, unclear on exactly what the, what the weapon was. Um, injuring eight people. Um, I believe, of course, by the time this episode airs, there'll be a lot more out on it, I'm sure. Um, the DOJ is investigating, um, and charging both, I believe, as a hate, crime and potential act of terrorism. Um, there aren't, uh. Mass casualty attacks. The, the, these aren't, um, mass casualty attacks or, or overseas incidents. They're, um, targeted violence against Jewish communities on, um, American soil, allegedly by two men over Israel's conduct in Gaza since October 7th. Um, we talk a lot about far right threats, appropriately so. Um, but what are you seeing in terms of far left extremist ideology and their potential to inspire terrorism, particularly in response to the war in Gaza? [00:39:53] Jacob: Seems to be rising. Um, to give some context to the listeners, um, I was recently reviewing some Anti-Defamation league data. Obviously that's the primary Jewish, uh, kind of watchdog here in the, here in the us. Um, in the past three years. 20 22, 20 23, 20 24. Every extremism related fatality, um, in the United States has been perpetrated by an individual on the far right. Um, they call 'em right wing extremists. That's not a term I use, but these are largely white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and anti-government extremists. Every fatality in the last three years was perpetrated by somebody on the right wing that stopped being true for. 20, 25 after just a couple of hours, as we know with a horrific incident in New Orleans. And now we've had these two attacks that seemingly, um, are inspired by the far left or at least some kind of horseshoe with the far left. And, um, jihadism, I want to. Make sure we, we keep that in mind as well here that we're talking about individuals who are clearly espousing. Um, they might consider themselves far left. They might, they might not. I, I'm not sure, but they clearly are, um, adhering to ideologies that are shared by jihadist terrorist organizations. Um. That's what I meant, Matt, when I started off the conversation by saying it's a very interesting and confusing moment in, um, in terrorism studies because if that data continues over the remainder of 2025, we are going to see like a crazy sea change, um, in, in who is committing acts of fatal terrorism in this country. Um. Like a 180 and maybe that is the Trump effect. You see far, you see less violence from the far right when they feel that they have a, um, a supporter in the White House. Um, these two incidents, um, in Washington, DC and in Boulder are, uh, tremendously, tremendously concerning and upsetting. Um, and, uh. Hopefully not indicative of a, of a broader threat of, of something that's gonna be longer lasting. But, um, it's a troubling development. It's been very, uh, a very troubling 10 days or so in the terrorism studies field and, and, um, looks like it will continue to be that for, for some time. [00:42:32] Matt: Yeah, I'm sure. Well-meaning people can, can debate this and, and, and, and disagree. Um, I, I think there's often a lot of hesitancy, especially among people on the center left to talk about the antisemitism on the left. For fear, it might be, I. Weaponized to shut down, I think, justified criticism of Netanyahu's government and its conduct in Gaza since October 7th. Um, but how, how, how do you think we should be clear-eyed about the fact that terrorist ideologies don't just emerge from one side of the spectrum? What, what signs should, should, should we be paying attention to? [00:43:09] Jacob: Uh, I think justification for killing. Is a, is a major concern. I had this conversation with my students after October 7th when I was pretty profoundly troubled, um, by some of the things that I saw in my own circles. [00:43:24] Matt: Yeah. [00:43:24] Jacob: About excusing that level of violence, even celebrating that level of violence, dehumanization of the other. Leading to violence is a developing phenomenon in our society. When you look at data about whether or not the American people would, uh, condone an act of violence against their political enemies, those numbers are stunning. Uh, we cite some in our book. I don't have them off the top of my head, but. You know, over 30%, for example, of Republicans in our country, something like 25% of Democrats have said in polling that they would support an act of violence. Um, it's hard for me to say whether that's a change, um, but I think anytime that you see people, um, on your social media feeds in your, in your. Family and friend groups who are, uh, supporting or advocating for or celebrating an act of violence, um, or claiming that such an act of violence is a false flag. Uh, we should be really concerned about the direction that we're heading in, uh, as a country. And also, um, the direction that we're heading in, I think as, as individuals, um, it is seems, it seems to be that the. The narrative that members of both sides of this Israeli Palestinian divide, um. Our opting for is that because the other side is suffering, uh, because my side is suffering, I can impart suffering on the other side, and that is not any way to solve this kind of conflict, and it never has solved any conflict. And so, um, it is a, it is a troubling moment. One other factor, I I I, I, I would like to mention with regards to these two incidents is over the course of the past, I would say 25 years. Terrorism has, has shifted in its targeting away from what we call hard targets, military installations, government buildings towards more soft targets, places of worship, busy streets, um, uh, supermarkets, et cetera. These two attacks of targeted individual people, uh, people protesting, people walking in the street, terrorist attacks at Target. The softest of targets, um, people living their lives. I think that is a tremendously concerning development as well, because that is going to reinforce for people that they are never safe. Um, already five or six years ago, we had a string of far right terrorist attacks, targeted places of worship. The mission there was to said, say to people, you are not safe in your place of worship. You're not safe if you go to your mosque, your synagogue, um. Now the message being sent is you are not safe existing. You are not safe going to a local networking event. You'll be targeted there. And, um. That kind of development becoming more pervasive, I think is, is something we should be really, really, uh, afraid of. And so I hope that all the authorities are doing everything they can to make sure that, that we can stop this particular form of violence before it, uh, before it escalates any further. [00:46:41] Matt: Yeah. It sort of struck me as you were saying, how you, um, describe how you were disturbed by some of the reactions that you saw to, to to October 7th. I, I saw a lot of the. Exact same stuff in my own, um, circles. Not tons of it, but it was, it was definitely present, um, just immediate, like on October 7th, just almost immediate knee jerk. Not so much false flag stuff, but just like the butt, butt, butt, butt butt or the sort of shrugging it off or trying to sort of shift back into those more kind of comfortable narratives. And I think a lot of it that I saw, I, I saw it. Coming, I think from a permission structure that was given by spaces on social media that people were in or that. You know, whether they sort of meant to fall into it or not. Um, we, we talked earlier about how, um, online spaces are fueling nihilistic extremism. Um, in, in this case too, it seems like radical narratives tied to the war in Gaza or October 7th where it began, are reaching isolated, angry, unstable individuals. Even people that those words don't really apply to them, but they're not, they're not quite fully plugged in to the, to the full extent. I know that's not kinda the best way to describe it. I can't find the right word right now. And, and activating to them towards violence, or at least pushing them to be numb to it is, is. This a different flavor of the same kind of phenomenon, a kind of hybrid threat stream where ideology, outrage, and internet, echo chambers all kind of converge. [00:48:18] Jacob: Yes. I think the social media element is, is crucial. Social media in my view, one of the great. Uh, the great benefits of it. And also one of the great dangers is, uh, people never have to engage in dialogue. Uh, they never have to debate the issue because if you are on your Twitter feed or you're on Instagram and, and you notice that somebody is saying something that makes you uncomfortable or you disagree with, you don't even have to respond to that. You can just remove them from the conversation by unfollowing them. Um, and so and so, people are not having their views tested. They're not having their, uh. Their ideology's challenged and they are able to kind of proceed down a relatively linear radicalization path, get more and more angry, uh, justify violence more and more, and eventually end up in these kind of locations. Uh, I do think it's really important here to mention when you look at social media and you look at, uh, the culture that's been built, you cannot point to. The far left and say you've, you've, you've read this radicalization. Um, I hope that a lot of your followers, uh, don't know, um, that Kanye West recently released his latest, uh, song. Yeah. Um, it was so offensive that it actually only, uh, was uploaded, I think on x, um, where Elon Musk, you know. Trump's first buddy has obviously dropped the content moderation standards. That song was called, um, heel Hitler and Kanye West has more followers on X than there are Jews in the entire world. That's the headwind that we face with having an individual like Elon Musk wield such power, both in the tech space and in the government space, that that kind of narrative can be, uh. Viewed as protected free speech, um, that kind of frankly genocidal rhetoric, um, can be allowed to, um, exist and also be, be shared with that volume of people on a social media platform. So the challenges that we face in the social media space are enormous, and part of the reason for that is we have actors who have accrued a lot of power, um, and. Whose interests are not having productive, safe, uh, uniting conversations on social media, but in fact is the opposite. Um, it's driving people apart, uh, because that's how money is made. Um, and so. Uh, I and a lot of other people who work in, in my field really view social media, I think as, as, as arguably the main culprit for a lot of the things that we see and, and the main area where reform is urgently needed, if we want to make progress on any of these, of these challenges from NVE to antisemitism and, and, uh, and beyond. [00:51:23] Matt: Yeah. So as we started this sort of conversation with NVE Nihilistic violent Extremism. Hallmark is young men radicalized into ideological violence without clear political aims. And on the other you have individuals on the left or the far left, uh, in, in, in some cases, leaning into jihadist violence themselves, or at least minimizing it. Or kind of ignoring it when faced with the reality of it. Um, in some cases, as we said, you know, targeting American Jewish communities over the war in Gaza, using what, what I would argue for a lot of people rightful outrage as cover for hate. Um, both seems to reflect a shift toward more fractured. Personalized and digitally, um, incubated forms of terrorism. I was wondering if, if, uh, what do you think these overlapping trends tell us about the threat landscape we're heading into and, um, how can we adapt our counter-terrorism strategies to match? I mean, you, you just mentioned the situation with, with, with x and those headwinds. I mean, it's not, it's not impossible for, you know, the first buddy to shut that down on X, but it's just not, it's. How you strategize around that. [00:52:46] Jacob: That's the reason why there's a lot of pessimism and a lot of cynicism, uh, I think in, in my field. Um, these challenges are enormous and, and we're not getting the support, I think from, from government, um, that we need to stay in my lane. You know, I, I, I'll, I'll tell you unequivocally and I, I. Really, I'm really keen to kind of, to drive this home to your listeners. Um, something is wrong with our young men. Yeah. There's a problem with young men in our country and in others, and it's not necessarily a, a single racial phenomenon. It's not necessarily, um. One ideology. Um, there are massive numbers of, um, young men and boys who are radicalizing, um, into ideological extremist groups of, of all flavors. I. Right, left. Neither Jihadi. Um, it is an enormous problem. It's not just the terrorism problem as well. Obviously the 7, 6 4 group is, uh, that's a child sexual abuse material problem. Um, this is going to require a, uh, a deep patient whole of society approach, including government, including social media companies, but also including, um, you know. Regular citizens, regular civilians, trying to, to build more resilience in their own, in their own homes. Um, it is a, a generational challenge. I, I believe, and it is one that to broaden out a little bit. Is is one's gonna cause an enormous, uh, challenge to the US government's plans to compete in strategic competition with, with China? [00:54:44] Matt: Yes. [00:54:44] Jacob: If you have this level of division, this level of violence, um, a country where two sets of. A fact and truth exists and they don't speak to each other. Um, and a society where young people are turning towards nihilism and violence rather than unity and patriotism and trust and faith and goodwill, that is not gonna be a situation that you emerge victorious from in strategic competition. It's not gonna be a situation where other countries want to come and fight alongside you. Um, and so these are generational. Almost existential challenges that we're facing. And, um, the government right now seems intent on being part of a, the problem, not part of the solution. Um, hopefully, you know, hopefully that changes. [00:55:37] Matt: Yeah. Um, anything else you'd like to, uh. Mention or, or, or touch on before we wrap up today that we haven't gotten to? [00:55:43] Jacob: No. Matt, just thank you for having me on your terrific podcast. It's always a pleasure. [00:55:47] Matt: Thank you. Thank you. Um, now, always, always good to have you on to help us unpack this, uh, help us unpack this stuff. Where can listeners find more about you and your work? [00:55:56] Jacob: Oh, I post all my work on, on Twitter and increasingly on on Blue Sky as well. Um, and I always say if you're interested in, um. In my work. If you're interested in anything that I'm writing about, uh, I think the best place to start is the book. Okay. And you should always feel free to reach out with, with feedback, with questions. Um, it's always an honor to hear from, uh, from people who are engaging with, with what we're trying to do. So thank you. [00:56:20] Matt: Yeah. Well, we'll have a. Links to all that. Um, in the show notes, water's, water's great over, over on Blue Sky. I encourage you to hang out more and none of that, none of that Kanye problem over there. Um, and, uh, yes, we'll have, um, links to your book as well. Uh, God, guns and Sedition, um, co-authored with Bruce Hoffman, that godfather of, uh. Terrorism research in um, academia. So definitely, definitely not one to miss there. Jacob, my friend, thank you so much for coming back on. [00:56:46] Jacob: Of course. Thank you. [00:57:18] Announcer: Thanks for listening. This is Secrets and Spies.