The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 239. ANTIFA: The Rise of the Violent Left | Andy Ngo

Episode Date: March 29, 2022

This episode was recorded on November 8th, 2021Andy Ngo is an independent journalist and photographer who lives under constant threats for his reporting and expertise on American Antifa and the militant far-left. He has testified before the U.S. Congress, appeared on countless TV shows, radio programs, and podcasts, and has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Newsweek, Fox News, National Review, and more. Andy is currently the editor-at-large at the Post Millennial.In this episode, I discuss Andy’s experiences with Antifa, race riots, autonomous zones, and the ‘summer of love’ in Seattle. We also exchanged thoughts on the psychology of mob violence, journalistic integrity, dealing with criticism, using people for political ends, attempts to destabilize the police, and lots more.Check out Ngo’s new bookhttps://www.amazon.com/Unmasked-Antifas-Radical-Destroy-Democracy/dp/154605958X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1643921778&sr=1-2Take the ‘Understand Myself’ personality questionnairehttps://understandmyself.com___________Chapters___________[00:00] Jordan introduces Andy Ngo[01:10] When Jordan & Andy first met and Jordan's imaginary enemies[02:08] Race riots and the existence of Antifa[04:19] Andy Ngo's experience with Antifa[07:58] The problem with conceptualizing Antifa[14:29] What motivates legacy media to minimize Antifa?[16:08] Was there a time Andy ever thought the stakes were high enough he violated his journalistic integrity?[19:44] How does Andy know he's not exaggerating the threat?[20:53] "They believe that no act they commit can go too far." AN[21:05] "Imagine that you are so virtuous in your pursuits that you are entitled to do anything to anyone whenever you want." JBP[22:19] "It's this moral license that goes along with this claim of virtue that really scares the hell out of, and it's also the fact that you can instantly demonize your enemies because if you're so virtuous that everything is justified, then anyone who opposes you is virtually Satan themselves." JBP[22:43] Story of a Minnesota mob kicking someone's teeth in[25:55] The Psychology of mob violence[27:17] How does he know he's not an exaggerating threat[31:18] Destabilizing the police[31:49] Is it helpful to categorize radicals either left or right?[36:41] The "summer of love" in Seattle[41:07] The gang members who came out at night[41:25] Stories of the autonomous zones[47:04] Instrumentality and using people to achieve a goal[48:04] "We've got to get rid of this idea that we can use people for an end; I don't care what the damn end is."[48:32] How destabilized have these cities become because of this?[51:19] The Minnesota Freedom Fund[52:58] Criticisms of Andy Ngo[54:34] How he knows the Minnesota Freedom Fund wants to abolish the criminal justice system, what are they doing wrong by bailing these people out, and how he knows it linked to an ideology.[56:57] "The system gets sloppy and self-congratulatory as we move toward statements like, the system is broken."[58:21] What do we do about the large incrimination of Americans, including a disproportionate number of them African Americans?[01:03:05] Wading through the accusations of the freedom fund being far left and Andy being far-right[01:04:33] James O'Keefe and Project Veritas[01:06:32] Andy's connection to Portland's militant right-wing and far-right-wing groups.[01:12:38] How many times he's been beaten up and why he kept going on.[01:18:52] Minnesota Freedom Fund cont. Who are they getting out on bail, and why do they think it's a good idea?[01:24:08] Jordan refers to a part of Andy's book that addresses a comment made by Kamala Harris

Welcome to episode 239 of the JBP podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson. In this episode dad spoke with Andy No, an independent journalist and photographer and lovely individual who lives under constant threat due to his reporting on Antifa. Andy's a very controversial figure for really no reason. He's testified before the U.S. Congress appeared on countless TV shows and podcasts and has been featured in publications like The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and National Review. He's also currently the editor at large at the post-millennial. Dad asked him about his experience with Antifa, race riots, autonomous zones, the summer

of love in Seattle, but they also had a really interesting discussion about psychology like the psychology of mob violence Journalistic integrity in high-stakes situations using people for political ends and destabilizing the police Dad also asked him about some of the criticism he's received as a journalist If you're interested in supporting this podcast and getting the ad-free version, please visit JordanBPeterson.supercast.com. Signing up gets you premium show notes, access to pre-sale events, and the ability to participate in exclusive monthly Q&A's with Dad. I hope you enjoy this conversation. Hello, everyone.

I'm pleased today to have with me someone I've wanted to talk to for a long time, Mr. Andy Noe. Andy is a journalist best known for reporting on American and Tifa. He's an editor at large at the post-millennial, which has recently been under attack by left-wing radicals, I would say, who have sought to have the advertisers drop the post-millennial as a and depriving them of their source of revenue and consequence. He's written reports for the New York Post Newsweek and other media, major media outlets. He drew national attention when he was beaten and hurt very badly by

Antifa Thugs on the streets of Portland in the summer of 2019. His February 2021 book, Unmasked Inside Antifa's radical plan to destroy democracy was a New York Times bestseller and quite a gripping read I might add. Andy had to leave the US because of concerns for his safety and is currently residing in the UK. Hey, Andy, so nice to see you. We haven't met before. I don't think having have we my memories a bit spotty, and but I don't think we've ever met. Is that true? That's true. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no from my podcast very, very briefly.

Sorry, I'm sorry, I've, that hasn't managed to lodge itself in my memory, unfortunately. Although I do remember that there were protests in Portland, that was pretty much it for protests, you know, on that whole tour. So, but of course, you know, they would be in Portland. And they weren't against me, either they were against who people wished I was so that they could protest me really. So, all right. So I've been going for you. And the distinction. Yes, it is an important distinction because, you know, a lot, a lot of our, our is reserved for our imaginary enemies. And so that's certainly something that we could delve into a little bit with regards to

Antifa. So let's go there right away. So I was talking to a number of influential Democrats this week about Antifa and about January 6th. And so imagine that an outside observer like a Canadian might look at the United States and think, well, you know, the radical left has Portland and Minneapolis, and that's pretty damn ugly. And then the radical right has January 6th,

and that's pretty ugly. And maybe you could draw some kind of equivalency between the two, and maybe not. But I think you could at least make a reasonable initial case for something like that. January 6th had a lot of symbolic weight if nothing else, and certainly did frighten people very badly. But when I was talking to these Democrats about Antifa and the riots, you know, their attitude

is sort of, well, there's always been riots and race riots in the United States throughout its entire history. So in some sense, it's really nothing out of the ordinary. And besides, Antifa doesn't really exist. And so I'd like you to address, if you would, both of those points. And I should point out, too, these were reasonable people making these points. These aren't radical leftists. These are people who are trying hard to pull the Democratic Party

towards a moderate center. And who are very suspicious of the radical leftists, especially the grip they have on the education system. So they're good faith players and still, and oh, the other thing they said to me was that they believed it was intellectually dishonest to draw a parallel between Portland and Minneapolis and January 6th, making the case that what happened on January 6th was much, much worse, like in a category of its own. And they justified that by referring to the fact that it was direct assault on the Capitol building, you know, and that there was presidential ambivalence about bringing that to a halt. So that's a rat's nest. So, you know, you want to weigh it in?

Yes, Professor. So I think, let's say for a good faith engagement from the left, I completely understand why there would be day in and day out, certainly since Trump was elected. It's an entirely different story, though, when you are on the ground as I have been for years, and you see that no-one can see face to face. And when you see it, the organization or aspect of it is undeniable, That's what initially sparked my curiosity because in Portland where I'm from, when the election results in 2016, November, were announced, tons of thousands of people took to the streets. And within that, there was an organized element

of people dressed in the same uniform. So at that time, it was unusual to cover your face and they had weapons in a very strategic way. Snation move on, snatching move on, cause businesses, building, start fires, run. So it was from there that spots my interest in wanting to learn more about what looks like an organized militia or paramilitary. So with that out of the way though, I think the press, because of its compromised nature and generally being biased to the left, they have turned to blind eye to the evidence that shows that there's, depending on where you are, there's an organizational structure to Antifa.

And the statement that Biden's identity is there at one of the debates last year, Antifa is an idea, that statement in itself is true. But it's not the complete statement. You have, I think one way to explain it that people can understand perhaps more easily is it's analogous to the worldwide jihadist phenomenon in that you can have people who are actual members of organizations like Boko Haram or IS or Al-Qaeda or any of these other jihadist groups

but you have people as well who are sympathetic to the ideology and act on it. And in that regard, I think you can think of the contemporary manifestations of antifone in the United States, Canada, and Western countries along the same lines. You can have people who had self-identify in and simply all they do is go to these protests

or riots based on flyers, CC online. Then you have actual cells that operate such as row city antifa, which is an organized group. You can go on their website and look at the Q&A and they actually have one of the questions is how do I join? And they say that currently membership is closed. So there's that. And in my book, I published some of the primary documents of the curriculum from Rose City Antifa,

which is actually one of the cells that's part of a network called the Torch Antifa Network and they have cells in other cities. So from, you know, it's kind of all of the above this ideology. It's horizontally organized, it's disorganized, it's also highly organized in some cases. So it's because of that lack of centralized hierarchy of authority that makes it easy

for those who want to office, stay and confuse the public about it because they can point and say, well, you know, there's no single leader who's a leadership, show me the leadership, and because there's no single person who's having everything, then the responses world that's evident what they don't exist. You know, to count about that. Yeah, okay, so this is a real problem conceptually, right? I mean, and let's think about it to begin with as a problem that we all face instead of a political problem emanating either from the left or the right. Okay, because I think there's a deeper problem here

that isn't exactly partisan. And we'll get into the partisan element of it later. So imagine, first of all, okay, so I assume that the description you gave would be the one that you gave is that, okay, so I assume that the description you gave would be the one that you gave is that, okay, so what we have here is we have some actual organizations, let's focus on Rose City Antifa. But it's a radically distributed organization, and we don't even know how radically distributed. And it's almost impossible to identify its core members or even to define what core membership might be. Now, you

you you did point to rose city and Tifa. But if I said, for example, how many other Antifa groups are there that have an identifiable organizational strategy that's akin to rose city and Tifa? How many do you do you have any sense of that? Just a few dozen. There aren't very many, but the thing is, they close and then they spring up as new ad hoc groups under different names, but it's really the same. So, relatively, same people involved. Okay, a few dozen, so that's real interesting. So that's like, let's say 24.

Just, let's make this concrete because I think it'll be interesting to do so. So, in that 24, how many people do you think are core involved in each group? Do you think it's like five, is it three, is it 10? Like real hardcore people who are devoting their time to this, you know, like maybe they're unemployed, that would be a real shock.

And it's their full-time job, something like that. How many people? Across the entirety of the United States, most of them, let's say, were averaging around the same size as the rose city Antifa, then I was saying total, we're looking at below 1,000 people across the entire United States. So hundreds, which, you know, in the scheme of things and for the scale, that's

a very small number. Yeah, well, it's, look, it's so small that you could say that it's, and I'm not saying this, but it's so small that you could say that it's non-existent, right? Because it's one in 300,000 if it's the US. It's such a tiny minority of people that they barely exist. But what that points to is something actually, that minimizing it in that manner actually points to something far more sinister. Because what it means is that under a thousand committed people can radically destabilize whole cities and pose degeneration of the political scheme that comes along with that. And so that's a real danger for all of us, particularly if it's the case that groups

like that can multiply their power by pulling other semi-attached and maybe not so violent or even extremist people in on the basis of their empathy. Exactly. Concentrate circles probably is a good way to explain it. What you asked me, the concrete number of how many people actually core in terms of and involved in organizing the planning, attending meetings or trainings. Like as you said, almost non-existent given the population size of the US. However, the larger concentric circles is of their sympathizers.

And I think the role of the press, since particularly, I would say, since the election of Trump helps really to mainstream the so-called anti-fi ideology. It put, um, gain and day out for the entire world that disbelief that America had elected a fascist president under Trump that we were experiencing a regime change, that there would be genocide. And on the faith, I mean, these ideas, these accusations are so outrageous. And I would say laughable.

But people genuinely believe they, you know, go back five years, remember like this. I believe I know they believe it. That was so horrible. Yeah, well, they're feeling the same way about Trump running again, you know, that fear is definitely there. And I think it's probably even higher than it was at least. It's higher than it was in some ways among the same people.

And so because they think, well, he didn't manage to establish an authoritarian state this time, but, you know, just wait. We'll see what happens if he gets power a second time. It might be the last election the United States ever has. But think about what this means. So because I also, I talk to people on the left a lot. Most of them are moderate. The extreme left types they generally won't talk to me,

but although I would talk to them, if I have found someone who is credible and interesting to talk to and who is willing to, what that means is think about the conceptual problem that we're faced with now. So the people on the left can point to the right and say, well, what about your extremists? And the people on the right can say,

well, there's hardly any of them. There's like they basically don't exist. And in some sense, that's genuinely true. And on the left, it's the same thing. It's like it's hardly anybody at all. It's under 1,000 people committed to this. But they can cause a tremendous amount of trouble. And so then the left can point to the people on the right

who are extreme and say, well, look at your extremists and what they do. And then the right can point to the people on the left to say, look at your extremists and what they do. And then the right can point to the people on the left to say, look at your extremists and what they do. And we don't know how dangerous they are. And what happens if they get out of control and get the upper hand? And how much protection do we have to, you know,

wall ourselves in with in order to make sure that doesn't happen? And then the fact of those extremists mean that each side can demonize the other by pointing to the worst. And then everybody gets out of control. And so, and it's not obvious at all how to deal with that lying, certainly lying about it certainly complicates the situation tremendously, right? If there's any deceit in the press coverage and so forth. And so, but okay, so, so that's a problem, a conceptual problem. And then, why do you think that legacy media, so to speak, is so light-handed in its treatment of Antifa

given the tremendous damage and loss of life and violence for that matter, that the riots that Antifa, in some sense, are central to has caused. If you had to play devil's advocate, what's motivating them to minimize this? Establishment journalists were entirely uniform and committed to the goal and opposing Trump. And many of them felt that it was their duty and obligation to violate some ethical standards because we were living in such unprecedented times with Trump in the executive office, that he needed to be resisted by any means necessary. Isn't that always the justification for ethical violations?

Isn't that always the rationalization? It's like, well, this isn't, I wouldn't normally do this, but this is an exceptional case. And so not only is it justified for me to violate my ethical standards, it's actually demanded of me. And so that seems to me to be an argument. I can understand the argument, you know, because, well, hey, maybe we're faced with an emergency. We're going to see a hell of a lot of that, by the way,

with climate change, like a lot. So it's common in a big way. And so, well, if the emergency is large enough, don't we get to violate our own principles? And well, you're a juror, unless, let me ask you a question, do you, can you recall a time, and this is a real serious question, man, can you recall a time where you thought the stakes were high enough so that you violated your journalistic integrity? That's, I appreciate the question. So I've covered dozens of violent protests and riots where I witnessed people being assaulted. I've always, I don't intervene in those instances. I try to record a photograph, but when you see, for example, a mob of people

beating somebody, and it doesn't matter for me, the particular variation of who that mob is, not for me the political curation and who that mob is, I feel sort of as a human as a citizen, I should at least just intervene in some way. That's something that I struggled with a lot. Okay, so you said that you don't intervene. Now in your book, the account of your severe beating, I looked up some press coverage of that, and I believe this was in your book as well, that while you were being assaulted so badly, there were press there, and they did nothing to intervene. They were just recording and taking snapshots and video and so forth. And you know, in the book, that sounds like they're derelict in their duties.

And maybe in particular, because you were also a journalist, and maybe there's a special category there. And then also, as a journalist, if you are recording, it's like you're putting the whole above the part in some sense, right? Because you think you're journalistic. It's demanded of you because of your journalistic integrity to record and not to intervene. But you said you feel the pull on your conscience about that.

So how do you, how is it that you've learned to live without and what makes you think that you made the right decision doing what you've done? And maybe you don't know, maybe, you know. I'm not entirely sure if I made the right decision. Fortunately, I haven't been like right next to somebody who is on the nearly getting killed. I think for that type of business,

it's very clear that there's a demand for an obligation for an intervention so that somebody's not murdered. Well, you're, I mean, you're also not a police officer for an intervention so that somebody's not murdered. For me, it is. Well, you're, I mean, you're also not a police officer and you're not armed and I don't imagine you're trained in street fighting or that sort of thing. So in some sense, you know, fools jump in where angels fear to tread and two people beat to death

isn't really an improvement over one. And so I'm not saying that like Leonard Cohen, the Canadian, so on writer said, there's no decent place to stand in a massacre. You know, sometimes you're in a situation where anything you do is bad because the situation is so terrible. So, okay, so you've had moral qualms about how apart from the action you should be under those situations. What about like you're obviously not very happy with what's happening about Antifa. And you're on the ground also, as opposed, I would say to these journalists who are minimizing what Antifa is doing, they're much more up in the air in some sense, right?

So you're down in the trenches to the point where you're getting beat up for it. And then I would say the people who aren't doing that and reporting on it, they've got one form of blinders on because they're not seeing what's actually happening. But in some sense, the risk for you and your integrity is that you have the opposite problem. You're so damn involved, you're watching buildings burn, you're watching cars melt, you're watching people be assaulted and being assaulted yourself. That how do you protect yourself against the

possibility that you're exaggerating the threat because you know your sample is up biased, you're in the middle of the dam riot, so all the time. Yeah, I think that's a fair question and if criticism. I, though the emphasis of ultraviolence that I've seen in a origin about a recorded video for those are, and it goes that important, but they're not the full story. And in my, the purpose of writing unmasked my book was to shed light really on the ideology that I think is, is ultimately much, much more dangerous than these instances of violence that lead to people getting seriously injured or killed.

In that, I think it's a theme and a subject that you've discussed before in your speeches and your writings for a professor. It's about this belief that for pursuing this justice, racial justice, anti-racism, whatever mean they want to get, they believe that no act that they can make can ever go too far. And that's sort of the thing that I'm gonna leave you with. Isn't that a lovely thing?

Wouldn't that be a lovely thing to have on your side? So imagine that you're so virtuous in your pursuits that you are now entitled to do absolutely anything to anyone whenever you want. I mean, if you have that kind of cognitive structure, I mean, first of all, you're not very self-reflective. It's like, do I really think that I'm so ethical that I can give myself a free hand to do anything?

And so I'm increasingly skeptical about large-scale, ethical claims of that sort. Well, this is so important that. Well, that what exactly? Well, it depends on how important it is. Well, we could climate change a good example of that. Well, if it's the ultimate environmental catastrophe everywhere and it's going to happen within 20 years,

then well, we should do everything. Well, okay, let's get detailed about this. Does that mean we get to beat up Andy? No, if he's not that happy about climate change, well, he's just one guy, you know, and it's a planet we're talking about here. You know, and that's independent in some sense of whether there are warranted concerns on the environmental front. I know there are. Like the oceans are overfished, for example. That's not a good thing. It's stupid. We should stop doing it. But it's

this moral license that goes along with this claim to virtue that really scares the hell out of me. And it's also the fact that you can instantly demonize your enemies, because if you're so virtuous that everything is justified, then anyone who opposes you is virtually Satan themselves. Yes, I've seen this with my own eyes. It's demonization, dehumanization. One of the really shocking things I witnessed last year at the beginning of the riot. So I was undercover. So again, I couldn couldn't I couldn't intervene because if I did it would potentially blow my cover and I could get seriously injured or killed.

But the system it ended May days after George Floyd had died and the writing had not at that point spread outside of Minneapolis, there was a man that was targeted by the mob. He was accused of being bright wing. I whatever accusations true or false, I don't know, but he was beaten up. They got him on the ground. And then one of them with glee, rush that his head and kicked us keeping and you could actually see the teeth on the ground. And what do you mean by with what do you mean by with Glee? Why that phrase? The crowd around him celebrated that act was calling this person a fascist and was happy but he was crying.

And how could you tell they how could you tell they were happy? What exactly were they doing? They had smiles on the faces since they were looking at the pleading person on the ground. Yeah, well, it's hard to see, it's hard to see exactly what would just, it's hard to see exactly what moral claim would justify that smile. So what do you think's really going on there?

Just out of curiosity, you watched it right up close. So what are those people celebrating? Like what is it in them that's responding to that? Well, you said with glee, you know, that that's a very specific word. So what is it that they're celebrating as far as you can tell? They think a fascist or a racist got the violence against him that he deserved. Yeah, but I don't believe that, you know, I don't believe that's what they're celebrating because I don't think I don't think they're that good. I think they're celebrating watching some poor son of a bitch get hurt and

that that satisfies something unbelievably dark in their souls like the desire to burn, the desire to burn down buildings, the desire to melt cars, the desire for the whole goddamn thing to go up in flames because they're resentful and bitter. Because we can't take these things at face value, right? It's like, no, no, you don't understand. You're smiling and laughing while someone just got his teeth kicked in. No trial, no jury, no defense. He's on the ground. He's mobbed by, by overwhelming force. And you're celebrating that. And you're telling me that's because of your virtues? It's like, I don't think so. And this is the danger of facing, right with this on all these activist groups. I've had people like that at my common protest against me.

I can kind of spot them because I have some clinical training. I can tell the guys, it's almost always men. And they're almost always there to pray on unsuspecting women by being their ideological affiliates. And those damn guys, man, the worst it goes, the happier they are. I wanted to ask you about the based on your knowledge, your background, your clinical experience. What is the psychology of this mob violence? When I see it, it, it, like I don't even recognize some of these, it seemed, they seem

animalistic is what I mean. Um, in other words, the animals, they're worse than animals because animals, they just kill to eat, you know, human beings, they have a twist in them that makes them far worse than animals when they really get going. Well, I think it's, I think you really want to know what I think. I think it's revenge against God for the crime of being. That's really what I think. It's cane and cane and able. It's like, oh, able's your, able's your guy, a God. How about if I take him out in the field and beat him to death? How do you feel about that? All my sacrifices went beat him to death. How do you feel about that? All my sacrifices went un-rewarded. Yeah, it's like,

yeah, that's what it is at the bottom of the hell of things. And so, you know, these people, they can like the whole world on fire. And that's partly what you're, so I didn't get your answer to one question. Sorry, about the potential warping of your viewpoint, because you're so much in the action. Like, how do you, you know what I mean? If you're in that all the time, that becomes your world in some sense. And then how do you know that you're not exaggerating the threat because you're in it all the time.

Because I described step by step, what is happening, and let's say this particular anecdote of Portland in the summer of 2020, but then I also follow that up with certain dabhars. The consequences, the political consequences, say in Portland last year, the City Council did vote to defund a law enforcement based on the demands of the radical left activists, those who carried out violence. They defunded police.

They also abolished the gun violence reduction team. And a part of my reporting is a crime reporting, particularly in the cities and areas I know best, so it's most less the United States. And we've seen that we have that data, the number of violent crimes that has shot up ever since the death of George Floyd last year, in Portland and other major American cities.

Portland this year, 2021 has now surpassed its record, all-time record for homicides. And this is a direct consequence of the political decisions that were made by local politicians in response to their constituents, as well outside of going in, carrying out acts of political violence and carrying having such a demands over it. Okay, so that's what you point to concretely.

So, okay, so let's take that apart a little bit. So, you have an ideology at the core of this. I wanna go through this really programmatically. One of the things that, so I'm gonna kind of mangle a bunch of questions here together. So these core people, it's not so obvious to me that they're simply left wing.

You know, because, well, some of them are anarchists. Okay, like what the hell is an anarchist exactly? Is he left wing or right wing? And it's like in some sense it doesn't matter. I know ideas matter, that is what I'm It's like in some sense it doesn't matter. I know ideas matter, that's what I'm saying. But in some sense it doesn't matter because that person who's decided to be violent is working to burn the whole damn thing down

for whatever reason. And you also describe them as paramilitary and organized militia. And there's a right-wing flavor to that, right? The uniform's, because uniform is more an element of the right than the left. All things considered. And I know that things get hard conceptually

when the opposites touch, right? And people debate about whether the national socialists were left wing or right wing. And the answer was, well, they were a complex mixture of both, and the worst of both, in some sense, although maybe not worse than Stalin or Mao. So that also means that people on the left can point to in Tifa, even the violent types to say, well, what makes you so sure

they're left wing? And why should we bear the mark of their disquiet as a stain on our political beliefs. So then, okay, now, so there's ambiguity about the real radicals. And it's certainly to the degree that they're radical, the degree to which they can so confusion about their political ideologies all to their benefit, right? So if both the right-wing moderates and the left-wing moderates, point to them and say, well, you're left-wing or you're right-wing depending on what they're trying to justify, and that screws the system up

if their hardcore anarchists, great, you know, that's all the better. They just play into their hands. Okay, and then you, you pat, you, you laid out a pathway from that violent interchange to policy decisions like defund the police, for example, and the pulling back of law enforcement. And then you said, well, that's destabilizing cities. That's actually what's happening. That's that's data. And so, but it's not that easy to trace. It's not so easy to trace that back to the radicals themselves, except in so far as they want to destabilize, right? The ideological trail isn't so clear.

So now is there a question in there? Well, I guess one of the questions is, is it reasonable to characterize the radical extremists as either left or right? Do you think that's actually helpful? I characterize them as far left and I can understand that they're maybe confusing about the ideology. Certainly I was very frequently in Comercose People on the right who would describe Antifa as radical Democrats, radical liberals, and that's incorrect. I think what makes me give a partisan label

to the Antifa ideologies because by their own emissions and their tax and the philosophers that they look to, it's this fusion of both anarchism as well as communism. So they, what makes them different from the traditional revolutionary communists of previous decades is that they're not looking for creating a tyrannical top to bottom state communist regime. In fact, they feel that communism failed in part because it was implemented in that way in China, the Soviet Union. They believe in their abolishment and the state, and this is where the anarchist side of ideology comes out. So that society could be organized into communist communes. And so they tried some of these experiments

at many times, last year in the middle of the height of the riots that happened in Seattle. There was the Capitol Hill, a ton of other wise known as chas, when I went up there. And that was this experiment that these anarchists communist antifa actually put into practice. They were able to force police to evacuate from a police department and then promptly took

over six blocks of an neighborhood, not that far from downtown and they established a hard border. And in it, they actually took attempts time to that state building in terms of, this is where you go to get your food, this is where you go to get your water, we don't, you don't have to pay for it, this is mutual aid, we're gonna do our gardening in the park, we have to try to grow fruits and vegetables.

The very good thing is- That's actually pretty funny, that's actually quite funny, the garden in the park thing, because really, that's your solution. You dimwits, that's really what you're doing. Now, okay, so let me hammer you on that a bit. So, let's say, because when I was reading your book,

I thought, okay, well, one of the solutions is arrest people who break windows, enough of this. Like, when they break the law, arrest them. It doesn't matter what their political background is. And then you think, well, you know, well, do you really want to, I remember in Toronto, when the G7 came to downtown Toronto, they basically turned the whole damn city into an armed camp.

And I walked down there by the barbed wire in the cement borders. And I thought, God damn it, you're turning the city into a prison. And if you don't think you're going to have prison riots because you did that, you're a fool. And so, like, I'm not a big fan of authoritarian states. And so then I might say, well, is it okay in the US if the state is loose enough in some sense to allow these foolish experiments to take place? Because maybe by doing so, by being that loose, I mean, I know it.

You have the riots, that's not good. But by being that loose, it gives a chance for these ideas to manifest themselves in a small scale, prove their total lack of validity and their incoherence and then just sort of disappear. Now the alternative would be to crack down in some sense, more police, to stop the violence in the riots and to arrest people who are clearly breaking the law and we can talk about why that isn't happening too. But so what do you think about that? Like is it a sign of a functioning democracy that it's loose enough to allow such things to happen? I think allowing this stuff to go on under normal circumstances, if the protesters or the people who were somehow discontent

had the self-awareness to recognize when to give it up, but the thing with these extremists is that they never admit when they're wrong. They can only, they always interpret history and contemporary actions as when it fails, it's because we didn't try hard enough. So the Democrat mayor of Seattle, Jenny Durkin, she took a hands-off approach to the autonomous and she thought, okay, it would look optically really bad to send in the National Guard to get all the long-forcemen across Seattle and keep sound. Yeah, I know. I know. The police are trying to shut it down. Let's give them that space and she, she went on CNN and this

infamous clip and she was asked about it. She said, Hey, could you summer of love? In some ways, on that outside, we know what happened. Hey, we know bloody well, what happened after the summer of love. That was the Rolling Stones concert and the Hell's Angels and so forth. It's like the summer of love deteriorated into anarchy hell pretty much instantly. So that's a fairly foolish metaphor, let's say. Okay, so she let it go.

We'll start interruption. What happened? It's fine. So during the day, it did look like a street party. And that was when the journalists were there. That's when you would see the videos and the photos, giving out people, giving out free food, people supporting one another, providing everything that you would need with free of costs, and families could go in and out free, but at night is where the true side of

that autonomous home came out, which is that when you have no rule of law through Anarchy, then how do you bring order to place when there are people who are violent, extreme, and willing to kill or rape. And so the course of what happened over three weeks is in these tents where some of these women were, one woman was nearly raped, people started fires in the streets. And this was a really dense, this is a really dense, packed neighborhood, high, high rise buildings. So people live there, the buildings for south-on-fire and shootings occurred almost every night and there were six shootings. So why do you think that's really, okay, so that's real, let's let's take that apart too. Okay, so look, we understand pretty well as Look, we understand pretty well as actual social scientists.

What happens when it's a summer of love? Okay, so imagine you put a group together of people who are only agreeable, so they're just compassionate. And so, and temperamentally so, and maybe let's say, let's make them like ethically so as well. So not only are they compassionate temperamentally, but they've built an ethic around that. So all they do is cooperate like mad. Well you let one psychopath in there and all hell breaks loose because there's no defenses against the psychopaths and that's the free rider problem.

Now I talk to Robert Trivers who's one of the world's great evolutionary biologists about a week and a half ago about the free rider problem, the cheating detection problem. So, and that's the problem I just outlined. It's like if everyone's cooperating and then there's no enforcement, the stage is set for the absolute exploitation of that cooperating group by anyone who doesn't share that ethic. And so here's imagine this. So women are more agreeable than men. It's more empathic. And so that's kind of rough on women because the men are less empathic. They're they're harsher and rougher and tougher and meaner and more blunt. And so women put up

with a lot because of that because a really disagreeable man can be quite brutal. Now that can be hamed, hemmed in by other traits like conscientiousness, etc. But we'll just keep it simple for now. So then why do women want less agreeable men? That's beauty in the beast, by the way. That's the conundrum there, right? Well because you need someone who's not that agreeable to keep That's beauty in the beast, by the way. That's the conundrum there, right? Well, because you need someone who's not that agreeable to keep you safe from someone who's

really not that agreeable. And so men exist, and this is part of sexual selection, men exist on this weird line, where they have to be dissordered agreeable enough to keep the real criminal psychopaths at bay. Those are the guys who come out at night, right? But they have to be agreeable enough to be empathic enough to be generous and share. And it's a really tight line and it's one that women are negotiating all the time. Trivers said that, no, I talked to David Bus, too. Bus said that young women are really attracted to dark triad guys. They're Machiavellian and manipulative,

but they're confident. And so they kind of look successful and they're the risk takers. They kind of have the persona of daring success, but they're dark, they're border on psychopathic. But as the women get more mature, they're less likely to be taken in by that. So anyway, so this summer of love, the summer of love problem is what happens at night. Okay, so why do you think it happens at night and not during the day?

Just out of curiosity, you've been there like what are you watching? Who's coming out at night exactly? There were gang members who were there and they were armed. I think they took advantage of the literal anarchy and that they could go to a place where there was no police because there was a hard border. There were hard borders that were surrounded this zone. So in law enforcement kept away. And so that was just a perfect opportunity for criminals to go in. And what, and what did they want to do? What is it that it gave them free reign to do? Shootings. Okay, so that's kind of odd. So who were they shooting? I mean, look, if it's gang warfare,

you know why they're shooting each other. It's usually guys who are looking for status, who've been challenged in some way, who are out to prove themselves. Like there's a good sociology of that kind of shooting. It's like, well, why are these guys going into this free zone, some are love thing and shooting?

Who are they shooting and why? I don't know another name, but they were untrained and they ended up murdering a 16 year old. As far as I know, nobody, no suspect has ever been identified in that case. And how was that handled by the mainstream media, that particular event? Because that's quite the event.

Yeah, that was then the second murder that happened up to Talibis Zones. So then by then, the press started to be a bit more critical because that was nearing three weeks at that point. A lot of the residents were feeling a bit more involved and to speak out anonymously, not anonymously, but unnamed to the press about what they're witnessing, what they're hearing at night.

I was there, one at night, so I was there, a burglar broke until a car repair business and allegedly tried to start a fire inside. But the owner was there and he had security, so he detained this individual. The news went out and they had a speaker system set up in autonomous zone with a microphone. Somebody went up to the stage and they had a speaker system set up in the autonomous zone with the microphone. Somebody went up to the stage and said that a black person was being held by some racist whites and then tired and all sprinted to this business. Broke down the barrier at the business, got in and got their guy out. The business owner said he told press later on

that he had called police about a dozen times and he just went and respond. What did they do with him? The person that got away? Oh, he got away, I see, I see. Yeah, it's amazing they didn't lynch him. Oh, so yeah, you're talking about the business owner. Yeah, yeah, sorry.

It could have been come deadly at that point. Again, this is one of those things like I'm watching. And I feel so helpless in a way that I'm observing. And if they start to kill this business owner, that there was nothing I could do, police weren't responding. They had already received many, many phone calls about that incident and they didn't respond. But I bring up the case of the chasers, just sort of like just one example, but like a real life manifestation of this anti-fide ideology is there's certain parts that are you could argue on nice like this aspect of community building that I witnessed during the day was, it seemed like a religious community and that they recognized.

But let's take that apart a bit here too. Okay, so first of all, let's not forget that this daytime utopia existed in the middle of the richest country and the world's ever produced. It's like, so we're giving things away for free. They have no cost. It's like, no, no, someone else bore the cost. That food didn't magically appear out of nowhere. Nothing that satiates hunger comes without a cost.

Nothing that provides shelter comes without a cost. Nothing that provides shelter comes without a cost. And so this is an artificial utopia set up by clueless juveniles who have no sense whatsoever of how privileged they are. They're so privileged they think food is free. And you know, the reason they're that privileged is because food is damn near free. But the reason they're that privileged is because food is damn near free. And the reason for that is that we live in a miraculous society that's made food free. And it isn't because it has no cost. Man, you think of all the blood that's been spilled over the centuries to pay for the terrible struggle that it took us all to figure out how to do that.

That's not free. You know, and it's an appalling indictment of our education system that anybody can come out of it thinking that way. So even during the day, so you have, and it's the same with the San Francisco summer of love in some sense, you know, that could have never come about at all, even to the degree that it did, without there being this unbelievable, large-ess and plenitude that characterizes modern Western societies. So I mean, when we see people on the street even, and I'm not saying that being on the street is not a terrible thing, but it's a complicated thing, we don't see people who are skeletal. We see people who have enough to eat.

And so it's just rubbish right from top to bottom. And to think of, to have a politician say, well, you know, maybe it could be a summer of love, it's like, what the hell does that mean exactly? Our system is so broke that violent, clueless, radical juveniles can arbitrarily occupy a part of a city and in two weeks make something better. Really? Like, what the hell? I don't get it.

Now, you talked about optics. So I've been talking to these Democrats, for example, about how to conduct yourself ethically in the political domain. And I've been talking to Republicans as well. And one of the things we sort of zeroed in on is this idea of instrumentality. If you're doing something for a particular goal,

maybe almost regardless of what that goal is, then you tend to use people for your end. And you might say, well, we have to stop Trump. So it's okay to use this person for that end. But I don't buy that at all. I think there's something deeply wrong about it. You know, and so when I do these podcasts, for example, what I'm really trying to do is just to find out some things I don't know. I don't really have a plan. Like, did I have a plan to talk to you? I'll tell you what my plan was. It was like, well, I'm going to read as much of Andy's book as I can manage in the time

I have to do it. I'm going to do my background research to the degree that I can. Then I'm going to ask a bunch of questions about things I don't understand. That's the whole damn plan. And this instrumentality, we've got to get rid of this idea that we can use people for an end. I don't care what the damn end is. And if you and I are doing this right,

we're having an honest conversation. That's all we're doing. And that's a hard thing to do. So, okay, so back to, okay, your answer to whether or not you're exaggerating this was to point to the consequences like the defund the police, that sort of consequence and the destabilization of cities like Minneapolis and Portland. And how destabilized do you think they have become because of this? But they destabilize in the sense that the people who are dying are mostly black and brown people.

So the elite liberal class of the cities don't really, they don't experience that loss of life if you know what I mean. They may hear the gunshots more frequently in the streets. They may see businesses shuttered or damaged because of bullet wounds, but it's not it's not people in their families and their friends so close to a dying. So in some ways, they're kind of always protected from the consequences of their political decision-making or political demands. I think one other thing about... Yeah, so if you look at hierarchies,

if you look at the way hierarchies work, in the animal kingdom, for example. So even, let's say, birds that really don't live in flocks, they still have a hierarchy. And the hierarchy is, some birds have better nesting sites. And so they're closer to food, they don't get exposed to wind and rain so much. And they're birds that are generally

in better physical health. They're like sort of... They're birds that are in better physical health. Let's leave it at that. They sing louder songs, the males. They attract higher quality, healthier female mates. They have the good nests. Okay, now a flu comes through that area, an avian flu. The birds die from the bottom of the

hierarchy up. And so that's very much in keeping with what you're describing, right? Is that as we move up our hierarchies, whether they're based on competence or power, we shield ourselves from stress. That's partly why we actually want to move up the damn hierarchies. And so then when things get destabilized, people die from the bottom up. That's what's the old saying when the upper class catches a cold, the lower class dies of pneumonia. And so that's the luxury belief problem, too, isn't it? Is we can have these adalpated utopian schemes that we use to

pattern ourselves on the back for our ethical superiority. We can fund their implementation because you talk about that interestingly in your book, right? These left-wing organizations funneling money into these more violent, extremist groups. We can pattern ourselves on the back for standing up for the oppressed. And when things go sideways, well, it's just the oppressed that die. So I can't figure out what the left stands for this, you know, that's the thing I can't

get is that I thought you guys were further working class. I think how this is demonstrated in one way, way very clearly was last year in Minneapolis, when some of the worst rioting broke out, there was the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which was set up to provide jail support, illegal support for those who were arrested and charges crimes related to the riots. The public raised $35 million in US dollars for that bill fund. So everybody was bailed out, and there was millions more to spare. Kamala Harris.

Now you called them far left. You specifically called Minnesota, that Minnesota freedom, sorry, it was MFF, Minnesota freedom fund. Fund, you MFF, Minnesota Freedom Fund. You called that, I went and looked up the board members there to see who they were. And you know, they're professional types, most of them, community activists, some of them lawyers, et cetera. I mean, it looks like a perfectly legitimate site.

So why did you call them far left? And why do you think they're not legitimate? Because that's a pretty, that's a pretty deadly epithet coming from your tongue, given what you've seen and heard. So was that justifiable? That epithet? And if so, why? I think so because the belief system that's undergroding that that whole project of the freedom fund is that the criminal justice system should be abolished.

That is not- Okay, that's a strong claim. Okay, so I wanna push you on that because I like to talk about specifics and I notice that you called them far left. And so now you just made a pretty radical claim. So I'm gonna read a criticism about you that I found on Wikipedia if you don't mind

because this is a good time to introduce it. Yes, what is it? Knows coverage of Antifa and Muslims has been controversial. Okay, that's true. And the accuracy and credibility of his reporting have been disputed by other journalists. Yeah, well, so what, right? Of course, he has been frequently accused of sharing misleading or selective material. That's a little more pointed at criticism, described as a provocateur, and accused of sharing misleading or selective material. That's a little more pointed, a criticism,

described as a provocateur, and accused of having links with militant right wing and far right groups in Portland. Okay, so now you talk about the Minnesota Freedom Fund, you say far left, and someone skeptical watching this is gonna think, yeah, well, of course, that's what Andy no thinks, because he's linked with militant right wing and far right groups groups in Portland and is a provocateur.

And then you're also a disciple of James O'Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, which is labeled in Wikipedia as a right-wing activist group. Okay, so given all that, why should we believe your characterization of the Minnesota Freedom Fund? And you know this isn't that me attempting to hook you. But I want to know, because this is the concentric circle problem, right? We identified the activists. They just want everything to burn.

And so there are no buddies, friends, if they're sensible. But now we're talking about a circle outside that. That's the Minnesota Freedom Fund. And from there, you move into, let's say, the Democratic, the left wing of the Democratic Party as a whole. So this is a crucial issue. So you said they want to abolish the criminal justice system.

How do you know that? Why do you think that's a reasonable claim? Well, you can look, those who are involved in running that freedom, that bail fund, is part of this, what was the fringe belief on the last that America? So from its founding to today, so racism is built into every single institution

that it's not, simply you cannot reform it. That what needs to be done is to, they say burn it down. A ball is just abolish that completely. Get rid of it all because it's irregulable and unfixable. And. I think that that radical type of belief that drives bail funds like the Minnesota Freedom

Fund, like the PDX. How does that belief drive their bail fund? And what are they doing wrong by bailing these people out? And how do you know that's linked to an ideology, like the one you just described? Because they believe that the criminal justice system targets leftists, black and brown people. And so anybody who charges the crime, that's not legitimate with an assistant becauseists and whether or not the individuals involved in it actually are racist. It doesn't match it to them.

They say the system is racist and therefore needs to be abolished. Yeah, you know, so one of the markers for this might be that real proclivity to use low resolution characterizations. You know, like I've been watching the COP26 debacle, let's say. And one of the things that really struck me was target zero.

And I'm thinking target zero, a zero. Zero is an interesting number. Zero means none. No pollution. Well, that means you don't get to go to the bathroom anymore. Zero. You know, like everything has a mess. And how about some incremental improvement

in a positive direction? You know, it seems to me that thinking gets sloppy and self-congratulatory as we move towards statements like the system is broken. It's like, well, the system has a lot of parts, a lot, and they're not all broken. You can tell that because you can plug your toaster in the morning and, hey, you put some bread in, which you can also get, by the way, and then you have toast. That's not broken. And so it's this injudicious critique, and that speaks of carelessness, failure to be on the ground and moral self-congratulation. And it's extreme, and then also interestingly

enough. It also speaks to that leftist preoccupation in some sense with unerent privilege, right? Because the only time that you can get away with thinking that sloppy is if you're so protected from the consequences of your own failure to grasp the essentials of life, that having that mistake doesn't actually cost you anything. The people on CNN who are viewing the Portland riots from afar, they're not having their house burned down, they're not getting beat up in the street. So it doesn't really matter that they have this low resolution view of it. And so let, okay, so let's go into the criminal justice system for a minute. Because the Americans do lock up a lot of people, right?

For a Western democracy, they've got quite the damn prison system going. Now, along with a rapid acceleration in that prison system, there was quite a rapid decline in violent crime from, say, especially from the 80s till a couple of years ago. And I don't know what the cause of links are there. And I'm not, I'm not making a case for a link between the prison system and the decline in criminality, because it's complicated. But they do lock up a lot of people. You guys lock up a lot of people, you Yankees, and a disproportionate number of them are black. And so that's, that's a problem. That's a big problem. It's like the incarceration rates a big problem, and the racial disparities a big problem. And it does beg the question, well, to what degree

is the system corrupt, it begs the question of to what degree the corrupt system serves the people in power who are, let's say, disproportionately less likely to be blocked, particularly. And so, and then you can see how that guilt about that, which is felt really broadly, especially among empathic liberal types, increases the probability that they're going to turn a blind eye to any manifestation of what seems to be associated in even a vague way against

that. And I don't exactly know what we should do about it. You know, it's really a cause, so sorry. I'd like to have your thoughts on those matters. So I think the vagaries of things that they oppose, such as using terms as like the system, burn it down, abolish, systemic racism. These things are not defined really

because I think by intention, they never want their goals to be reached. They need, they exist almost they being the radical fallout, the revolution, the fallout, whatever, as they need to exist in all positions to something. So over and over, like I said last year, all these mayor, all these city councils were giving in to essentially all the demands. You want to defund the police fines? We'll slash from the budget.

You want to abolish this gun violence reduction team fine. We'll do that. budget, you want to abolish this gun violence reduction team fine, we'll do that. You want police to evacuate from this police department, we'll give you that. And it was never, never, ever not. In fact, in every time that these, let's say in Portland, the Portland mayor or the mayor in Seattle, every time that they capitulated what happened was demand for more extreme actions was stronger from these extremists. And when they didn't get that, important, for example, deriders went to the home of the Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and actually set the building on fire and he ended up having to move out of his condo. He apologized to his neighbors and he's essentially hiding in a way.

He apologized to his neighbors and he's essentially hiding in a way. We don't know where he lives now. In Seattle, they, the radical. So did that not, did that, did that not change his viewpoint in some important manner? Or did he feel that the protesters were so justified that it's no bloody wonder they tried to burn down his house? What's the psychology there as far as you can tell? I think after that experience and after the mayor of Seattle's experience something similar in terms of people showing up at her door. They gave fewer concessions after that. You know, we're in the language moving forward that I've seen in some of the decision making pulled back on sort of the the radicalism that they had embraced in the early months of the writing.

They didn't pull back completely, but pulled back enough that, you know, there were subtle things, for example, like the, the mayor, much more being willing to speak critically, violent riots that were happening in his city, whereas before it was all- So it had some effect? Yes, there was always, there was criticism before, but then there was always, you know, this is taking place in the context of historic research, justice, protests, and we can make something great out of it. He went, he didn't, he didn't always qualify his statements moving forward, which I think were, were meaningful, important in that regard. And before I forget, I wanted to go back on one thing, you know, you wrote the Wikipedia

articles. Yes, yes, I wanted to go back and one thing you know you wrote the Wikipedia articles. Yes, I want to. And the freedom fund. I know we were still hanging because you called them far left and now I just called you far right so who the hell can trust you. So like how do we wade through this? So the I've been one of the ways that I've been one of the ways that antifa and their sympathizers and some So they try now for years to throw any type of accusation at me and hoping, knowing that it's false, but hoping that even if it doesn't stick completely, that I'm never left in the same state as before, that it's always, I'm always dirtied in a way. And they've been assigned to the world.

Yeah, that works. I mean, I was nervous about talking to you. It works, man. It works. And then believe me, I've experienced the same thing. And it doesn't take much to stay in someone's reputation, right? Especially because, look, there's seven billion people in the world. There's no way I'm going to talk to all of them. And so, you don't kind of need hardly any excuse at all not to talk to someone. So, you know, a little stain will do the trick. And so this James O'Keefe thing, you're described by your critics as a disciple of James O'Keefe, okay?

The founder of Project Veritas, a right-wing activist group. So what's the story with that exactly? Well, a disciple would, that was to imply that like, I've been mentor for a long time by Project Veritas and James O'Keefe, which I haven't. But for the record, I am very supportive of the work that they do. I think they do rate, they invest the resources, money, and time, getting people to be undercover journalists,

to record things like otherwise you would never get on record. I understand there's a lot of criticisms against... Are they reasonably conceptualized as a right wing activist group? What exactly does that phrase mean in this context, do you think? Well, that's not to be disparaging. I think it's probably fair to describe them as conservative and the journalists are conservative.

But the what they do is important. For example, they, I think them in my book because they provided to me some of the primary documents of when one of their journalists went up an undercover into row city that today nobody else in anywhere in the United States has been able to do to actually get somebody who is completely unknown, located to Portland, build a whole new identity in persona, and get this person infiltrate the group in terms of the membership versus as much as possible. That type of work deserves praise, not condemnation. And I guess the fact that I've been on record supportive of what your Veritas people are trying to use out just near me, I think the more serious accusations

I've been labeled against the experienced ones are accusing me of being like in debt with violent extremists on the fall. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Millett and Wright Wing and far-right groups in Portland. violence, extremists on the fall of. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Millett and right wing and far right groups in Portland. Okay, so what's the story there? Why?

And you know, cause Carl Jung said every projection has to have a hook. You know, like there's gonna be ways you're gonna be smeared that will work. And there are gonna be ways that you're gonna be smeared that won't work. And the ones that work, there's a hook, right? There's something about you that makes that stick a little better, right?

And so we all have to examine our consciences when we get smeared because you think, well, you know, do I have a weak spot that I'm unaware of that makes me much more susceptible to that particular accusation? And so, you know, you said, well, you're a critic of antifa, and that's enough for you to be labeled as right wing and fair enough, but anything else lurking around there that makes you an easy target of that sort of accusation. I'm glad you asked.

So this really started. So after I was beaten by Antifa in the summer of 2019, that was when my profile rose a lot. Before that, I was just a regional, small figures, occasionally interviewed on Fox News, but otherwise really unknown. I think what I noticed after that was, so what happened was a few months after that,

a local left-wing alternative publication in Portland, called the Portland Mercury, did what they said was it's this closest story to expose me. They had to interview the person given this individual a pseudonym. Today, I still don't know who this individual is, like the real identity, but they accused and provided no evidence. It's not that I was in the presence of when a right wing right was being planned against Antifa and that I had an agreement against the right wing brawlers for mutual

protection that was the word, this individual, the pseudonymous person said. I was never reached for comment for the story and then it was printed on a local blog and then picked up by journalists on the left who sought to discredit me such I think there was the UEB's sleigh, the same places that have gone after you professor. And so they repeated this claim and I had my legal council signed a cease and disresist letter to the publication and then they they just ignored it And I had my legal counsel, Sandra Ciesen, this is letter to the publication, and then they just ignored it. And the thing in the US is,

you know, to actually win defamation when you're a public figure, particularly against the newspapers, it's so, it's near impossible. So I felt really helpless and to this day, I'm so really furious about it that this person who just levied a serious accusation against me. I have no idea who it is and I have no wage even counter like to confront my case. Well, you do have one way. The one way is to just tell

the truth. Yes, right. I mean, that does counter your accuser. And every time that something like that's been happened to me, at least so far, ultimately at backfire. Now, I mean, I'm knocking on wood, you know, and I know that, you know, maybe my days are numbered in all sorts of different ways. But so far, it hasn't worked. Sometimes it's taken a long time for the tight to turn, but it's always turned. And so I would say if you're still feeling rage about that,

one thing you can take solace in is that to the degree that you're capable of representing the truth, that is the best protection you have against anything. And I don't think there is any better protection against anything than that. Like the courts, anything like that's like, no, that's when you're playing a deep game, the only real defense you have is truth. And like truth is reality itself, man, you have that on your side. It's it's walking softly, walking carefully, speaking softly, sorry, and carrying a big stick. So, you know, and that it's interesting too that you're still angry about that because that's a hell of a thing to carry along and around with you, you know,

it curodes you over time, that kind of anger. And so, you're doing pretty good, given all things, all the things that have been stacked up against you. So I feel angry because I've always, I've gone to my life like I have no, I don't have a criminal record and I've been arrested. I always, I do things right. You know, I follow the rules. I don't support any political violence and then this persona identity that others have made

this made up person of who Andy know is and has gotten many to believe it, you know, they presented this person who somebody who, you know, it's a made up person, too, eh, because they're pseudonymous. You know, that's so interesting. They had to fabricate a person to fabricate you. So it just, you know, it know feels I've been wronged in that regard and the evidence I was put out to try to support it. They said there was under a couple of video. The video they provided was me documenting the violent brawl that happened in everything before and they said that because I was in presence in the presence and in proximity to people And they said that because I was in presence in the presence and in proximity to people on the right that I was with them or part of them,

which was completely untrue. And that type of standard would never be applied to other journalists. It's a backhand, it's complement, you know. Is that how so? Well, they obviously think you're a threat. Right, well, that's what we're thinking about, right? I mean, that's what we're thinking about because it means you're successful enough so that people are willing to generate lies to take you out. And so, I know that's small solace.

Yeah, yeah, we were talking at the beginning. There's how many times have you been beat up doing what you're doing and why the hell do you keep doing it? I've been assaulted or attacked in total four times. Two of which were really serious. So the June 2019, most people I've seen those pictures where I'm covered in all the, the milkshakes But I had a brainhumberidge from that beating so

How that attacks thought is they punched me really hard in the back of the head from behind Okay, so that's worth that's worth thinking about okay. Let's just think about that for a minute Okay, so now you also said these guys were wearing fiberglass, reinforced gloves. Okay, so here's the kind of courageous person who went after you, is they wrapped their fists in the solid material. And instead of confronting you face to face like someone who's vaguely civilized might, in a brawl situation, let's say,

they punched you in the back of the head. Yeah, well, that's the kind of person we're talking about right now. And then we're talking about someone else. Even more than that is that they've managed to concoct for themselves a story about their moral virtue that's so blinding that they think that doing that was justified. They've told them a story to justify that particular action. It's like anybody who thinks someone like that is their friend, better start thinking about what they mean by friend. So, and so what's the consequence for you?

Like, you're still doing this. How come? After that assault, I was rushed to the hospital by ambulance and I had a swelling immediately that happened on my face in my eyes. I was bleeding all over, bleeding from the ear. A CT scan was done on me and the doctor let me know hours later that I had a subarachnoid brain hemorrhage, which is bleeding in the brain, very serious. And I had about a year of cognitive speech therapy, physical therapy, to address some of the deficiencies I had immediately after the salt. It's been two and a half years now,

and I'm still dealing with the cognitive issues. This is what makes me so angry because nobody's ever been arrested for it, and these anonymous assailants, some of them, took something away from me forever. I have memory issues, and my mind is not the same as before. That's what I deal with. What was it like for you going back to your next riot after you recovered from this or partially recovered from it? What was that day like?

You decided you'd go cover something else violent. Tell me what that was like. I wasn't able to do it for many, many months afterward. And when I did, it was, I had PTSD like this, overwhelming fear, which wasn't irrational in my sense. I was, if these people knew who they were, they would beat me again and possibly kill me. I mean, they have been threatening to kill me dozens and dozens of times on social media or through emails

or phone calls or they would actually graffiti it across the city, kill ending or murder. Yeah, I've seen those pictures, man. So this assignment of violence was real. And I went back out, you know, I've gotten a lot of criticisms of it, but because I put myself on at risk and earlier this year in May, I was beaten again when I was exposed. What sort of criticisms? That you're being too courageous, is that the problem? Has Andy known as being too courageous, man? No, no, it's the right way to interpret it. You know, I'm asking about full hardiness, right? Because like you got hurt bad.

And so I'm asking, you know, how do you know it's not time to hang up the shingle and do something that won't get you killed? I'm not saying you should. That is not what I'm saying, but it is worth asking yourself that question. And so you did go back into the fray. So, and you got criticized for it, of course,

by people who wouldn't do that, that's for sure. And they're sensible, you know, whatever that means. But so why did you do it? And how did you overcome that fear, man? Because of course you had something approximating PTSD. And this isn't some abstract fear. Like you could be killed. You were damn near killed. So you can do a hell of a lot of journalism from the comfort of a computer anywhere in the world. However, the further that you are physically removed from whatever subject you're reporting on, you introduce, it's much much easier

to introduce my errors. So for example, the journalists who are desk in bureaus in DC or New York who are reporting about ANSI file on the West Coast, the comfort of their desk in their offices introduce a lot of the error. Eras, for example, like describing it as simply a movement against fascism. And I needed to be on the ground.

Yeah, as if that's simple. It's like, oh, they're fighting fascism. Are they exactly how are they doing that? And who are the fascists? And how do you define fascism? And we tried to fight that before and it turned out to be pretty complicated. And so how is it that they're simply fighting fascism? And who are these people that think that they're fighting fascism? And why do they think they're right? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? So, yeah, simply, that's that low-resolution thinking that really is. It's part of a self-congregulatory, privileged blindness, that's for sure. Okay, so you need to be in the phrase, as far as you're concerned to get the facts right. And we already kind of walk through

why you think that you're not exaggerating the threat, right? You look at what's happened in these cities and the broader political landscape. Well, if you don't mind, let's go back to that Minnesota Freedom Fund again because that was really a crucial issue as far as I was concerned because it has to do with these concentric circle,

this concentric circle issue. So they're helping people get out on bail as rapidly as possible. Who are the people that they're getting out on bail? And why do they think that's a good idea? They were completely indiscriminate. So the bail bailed out people who were accused of things such as attempted murder and rape, one, at least one individual who was bailed out

based on these funds, has went on to allegedly murder another individual. Okay, so that adds credence to your claim that the ideology driving this is a low resolution critique of the entire justice system, right? Because you would be indiscriminate in your deliverance of bail if you didn't believe the whole damn system was so corrupt that everyone arrested by it is best, what would you call?

It's just there they were just arrested for arbitrary and unreasonable reasons. So. Exactly. In Portland last year we have, this is all right, a person last year who's accused by the state as well as the federal government of using fire bombs to attack police during a riot in Portland, an individual who, referring to Suswek Muhammad Malik, he went from a different state to Portland. And allegedly, he had training in St. Louis, was recorded allegedly on CCTV, various stores buying things such as bats and components to make the fire bombs.

He was held on a 2.2 million state bail in the state of Oregon when he was arrested after the investigation that involved FBI and ATF. I made, yeah. That individual was that that's the highest bail set out of the thousand people who arrested and the riots, important and Oregon last year. The bail fund in Portland raised the money to cover 10% of today's bail, which is $220,000 cash they put to get this individual out. they put to get this individual out. And again, it's from this belief that there's no absolutely no legitimacy to the American criminal justice system. So any act of sabotage, such as getting out violent, allegedly violent people, people who accuse of attempted murder, people even accuse of stabbing people

and trying to kill others, all of that, they support in helping because they just view it as one more way of disrupting the system in a way to cause it to break apart. And so that's what justifies your accusations, let's say, of far left sympathies on the part of this particular fund, and it's the indiscriminate use of the money.

Okay, so let's go into the bail issue a bit. So we could make a counter-argument. We could say, well, look, these people are innocent before they're tried, right? Presume innocence. And that's why bail exists, at least to some degree, because people can get on with their lives when they're getting mangled up by a justice system

that certainly can be arbitrary and harsh, and rather infrequently can deliver true justice, because that's a heavenly ideal, isn't it? So they could just say, well, look, bail was sat. What the hell is so wrong with us putting bail up? And we're just helping people who don't have the means of fighting for themselves. And yeah, maybe they got carried away at a demonstration, but people get to demonstrate, and that doesn't mean they shouldn't, well, that we shouldn't help them out with bail.

And now you made a specific point about this particular guy, 2.2 million bail, right? So if there is any legitimacy in the justice system, that would be an indication that maybe he went beyond the pale by any reasonable standards. And so, so how would you respond to, because I can imagine someone from that fund sitting here listening to you thinking, no, we're doing this for good reasons. And so what do you think about that kind of argument? I would be willing to proceed out to them if they weren't willing to bail out people who have been arrested. Let's say, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times, or then a course of two weeks.

When you see that it's used essentially to get people out and then they're allegedly going to write within the same 25th period is arrested again. They have them out again. That looks more like it's the indiscriminate aspect there. Yeah, okay, okay, okay, fine, that's good. I want to read something from your book, okay? I'd like to talk to you about like a day, but we're not going to be able to do it. Okay, so let me make sure I've got the whole story here.

Yeah, this is from a section in your book where you're talking about really about what led to the ideas of defunding the police and so forth. And about the fact that if there's any interference in a criminal matter between the police and someone who's black in this particular case, that the police are likely to be in terrible trouble for it. And you talk a little bit about the difficulties that presents for law enforcement officers who are at least sometimes trying to protect black people as well from violent subgroups.

So here's some, you're talking about this guy. He was arrested and shot by police after fighting with cops in a residential area. He had shrugged off being hit with a tazer round and reached inside his vehicle where there was a knife. This was all caught on camera. Blake, who is black, had a warrant issued for his arrest by the Wisconsin Circuit Court for a felony sex crime and other charges related to domestic abuse. The criminal complaint for that May 2020 incident accuses Blake of raping a woman with his hand in front of her

child. According to a police scanner audio on August 23rd, officers responded to the same woman's residence after she called 911 and said Blake was at her home. Again, his criminal history included assaulting police, resisting arrest, carrying a firearm on toxicated and use of a dangerous weapon. Even though he survived the shooting, the response was again mass carnage and looting in the streets of Kenosha.

Now this is the interesting part. Not that all that wasn't interesting. Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris later visited Blake and said she was proud of him. Okay, so I'm gonna hammer you about that first because I want to get to the bottom of this. Did you take her words out of context proud of him? Do you think? Like, are you? Because this is a pretty serious accusation, right? This guy does not sound good. In fact, he sounds pretty right? This guy does not sound good.

In fact, he sounds pretty much like the antithesis of good. And if a vice presidential candidate then visited him and said she was proud of him, and that's a contextually accurate quote, then, well, then what the hell, which is really the point you're making there. So, are you being fair to Kamala Harris? I think so.

So I think at that time, she, and much of the public just went away that this was the crimes that he's been accused of or is convicted of, that's his history. But what we see over and over is the context of who these individuals are who are involved with sometimes deadly encounters with police. It's almost like their whole history is irrelevant and only thing that matters is that they're black. I think that Kamala and other Democrat politicians viewed him as a George Floyd 2. That type of stuff was irrelevant to the narrative at hand because the Kenosha riots were a part of riots that occurred

in many other cities within this whole movement for racial justice and police reform, which the Democrats, in my view, very cynically used as a campaigning point and as a way to bout her, the Trump Pence campaign. Why cynically, you say, because you know, part of what I've kind of come to understand is that some of the stuff is worse because it's not cynical. You know what I mean is there's a cynical element and because people act instrumentally they want to win an election for example and they think that they need to win at all costs because you know look what we're preventing and I get them a levelance in the cynicism but it's more scary when you see that it's

actually good people or people as good as you are as good as I am that are caught up in this sort of mess you know because it points to how complex and sticky and horrible it really is. So, I mean, you know, we talked about the incarceration rates and the disproportionality of incarcerated people in the black community, and that really is a problem, you know, and it might be a severe enough problem to bring the whole mess down, right? We don't know. It's a real problem. And it isn't going way easily. And we can't even talk about it, not, not, not deeply. And so then we, we fall into these low resolution categories, the kind

that you just said, it's like, well, that justice system is biased against black people. And so whenever a black person is treated badly by law enforcement, there's this reflex of move just to note the systemic and equality and to be on the side of the person who is a member of a group that is incarcerated at a much higher rate than other groups. And so it points to some to a real problem. Now, God only knows what the problem is. It isn't a problem, right? First of all, it's like 10,000 problems. And each of those problems is really hard

and you have to get a high resolution map of them. But, and, you know, we, I know why you went after Kamala Harris is because, well, this isn't a guy to be proud of. Could have she known? Or did she just not know? And then, you know, that's an important, it's a crucial question, because lots of times you could know something if you want to, but you decide not to. I don't think she had to know, because, I mean, she's a former prosecutor herself.

She has the resources to be able to pull up some of these criminal records. Like I'm not just talking about things that. Okay, so that's a good point. So she didn't homework. And she could have done it. Cause I would say, okay, look, she's busy. Like such people are busy, right?

They're scheduled to the second like 20, like 18 hours a day. So they're busy and things can get by them. So you say, well, yeah, but she was a prosecutor. And so she knows this sort of thing. She could have done her homework right then. And to go into that situation and say specifically that she was proud of this guy, it was like, no, that's not excusable because you had the expertise to know. And you could have taken the time to investigate who you were going to congratulate. And did you, you know, did you let the camera opportunity get in the way? So to speak, that's the question you're raising. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, this is, I'm going

to talk about that particular story with these Democrats that I'm talking to because, you know, one of the things I like about your book, I'm afraid we're going to have to close on this. There's a whole bunch of other things. We should talk again, I guess. That's really the issue. You know, the devil's in the details. And your idea that you have to be there to know what's going on.

Well, there's real truth in that. And, you know, there is the danger that because you're there, you're going to exaggerate the threat. That's the danger of being on the ground. And, you know, hopefully you can protect yourself against that. And you know, there is the danger that because you're there, you're going to exaggerate the threat. That's the danger of being on the ground. And, you know, hopefully you can protect yourself against that. But I liked your book a lot. And I, and it made me think a lot about how these groups are structured and about how this goes out of control sideways. And so you're doing real journalism as far as I can tell it. That's not that common anymore. It's no wonder you're getting beat up. You know, because real journalism puts

you in a war zone and people get killed in wars. So I'm glad you're okay. Thank you, Professor. I'm glad that I'm glad you're back. I've been a fan of yours for years now. And the world missed you a lot. We're gone. I'm glad you're well enough that you blessed the public, but you're into that. I appreciate that.

I'm thankful that you took time to read my book and to give me an opportunity to speak with you. I haven't read it all yet, but I'm going to. I'm going to try to get some of these Democrats that I'm talking to to read the damn thing too, because at very least, you know, what you did that I think was so useful is, so imagine that they're pretty concerned about far right radicals. It's like, okay, fair enough. And it's not easy to tell the far right radicals from the far left radicals anyways.

But by unpacking how these groups work, you perform a real service in aid of stopping the, well, the psychopathic radical types who really are always a threat to everything that everyone sensible holds dear. You shed some light on the complexity of it, the detailed complexity of it. And that's extremely useful. It's extremely useful to people who want to know what's going on. And so that is what journalists should do. It's the purpose of a free press. And you know, what would you say? I wouldn't say, what would I say? Because I can't say congratulations. It's like it's quite something that you put yourself in the line of fire for that. It's not just words,

it's not just words. And to have it had to be brain damage from it, that's And to have it had to be brain damage from it, that's, you know, there are things worse than death and you got away intact, more or less, but you could have been consigned to something that would be a living hell. And then to walk back into the fray despite that, it's like you put your money where your mouth is, man. Good to talk to you. Thank you, Professor. Hope to see you in the UK. you