9:05 p.m., a look at world war i and the environment with tim keller, coeditor of environmental histories of world war i. he will discuss the diverse ecological impacts world war i had across the globe and how it went beyond physical changes to european battlefields, shifts in agricultural production, and the displacement of wildlife and humans. on sunday, at 3:00 p.m. eastern, here about yale's first female students after the university opened its doors to women in 1969 for the first time in its 268 year history with and gardner perkins, author of yale needs women. then at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts, the newly completed dwight d. eisenhower memorial located to u.s. capitol and set for dedication on september 17. at seven :00 p.m., watch the 1960 presidential debate between john f. kennedy and richard nixon.

watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. host: we are back and we will spend this next segment talking about right wing extremism in the united states. with us is author and university of massachusetts lowell professor arie perliger, who is the author of american zealot, inside right wing domestic terrorism. good morning. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. host: let's frame this conversation how do you define first. extremism? what exactly is it? guest: we are talking about a group or sometime individuals whose political views are on the margins, the extremities of the political spectrum. not just that. they are also militant in the way they promote their views. that means that they are engaging in illegal activities as well as, in many cases, utilizing violence or violent practices to promote their goal.

host: now, we are going to talk about right wing extremism with you. later on we will talk about left-wing extremism. can you tell me the difference or is there a difference between right wing extremism and left-wing extremism? guest: yes. the difference is in the ideological ideas that they are trying to promote. when we are talking about the far right, we are talking about groups that want to promote the privileges of specific groups. when you are talking about groups that want to restore or maintain the privileges of white people. these are groups that oppose the diversification of american society. these are groups that oppose the central government or want to undermine the powers of the central government. but in general, we are talking about groups that really believe that they need to basically advance and maintain the privileges of a specific segment

of their population, whether it is white people, we have far-right groups that promote .ale supremacy we are talking about the exclusiveness. host: can you give me examples of current right wing extremism in the united states? guest: there is many. one of the things that is important to remember is the landscape of far-right extremism in the u.s. is very diverse and fragmented. we have the traditional white supremacy groups that we are familiar with supremacy groups such as the kkk. we also have skinheads who are active in various parts of the country. we also have a set of groups that are mainly focusing on

antigovernment or anti-federal ideology. these are groups that believe the federal government is extremely intrusive and is interested in increasing its power and violating their constitutional rights. they also promote various conspiracy theory about the future intentions of the federal government. most of us know these groups as the militia or movements. some of the more contemporary groups are the 3%ers. i will be able to elaborate later on if people have questions. we have groups that are using religious transcripts and religious rhetoric in order to advance white supremacy and far-right ideas. i am talking mainly about the christian identity movement texts tos religious provide sentiments and ideas of white supremacy etc. host: let me remind our viewers that they can take part in the conversation. we will open up regional lines again.

that means that if you're in the eastern or central time zones, you can call (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. remember you can always text , (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading on social media. arie, what is america's history with right wing terrorism? is this something that has been going on since the american revolution or before or is this more of a recent 20th century thing? guest: no, it is definitely part of the history of the american political system and political landscape. the first anti-immigration, exclusive movements, it was the know nothing party. that was a party that was very successful in the mid-19th century and promoted anti-immigration policies and anti-catholic ideas and so on. they used very toxic and racist

language in order to promote their ideas. after world war -- sorry after , the civil war, we saw the emergence of the kkk. there were multiple waves of kkk activities shortly after the civil war. also in the early 20th century. after world war ii, we saw the emergence of various neo-nazi organizations. in the 1980's, we saw the skinheads joining them, also becoming a very significant power within the american white power movement. actually the skinheads were the , most organized movement within the far-right in the last decade of the 20th century. in between, you see the militiae of the movements. it is important to note that while i am talking about different groups, they are different in terms of ideology and membership.

many individuals eventually joined multiple groups and most of them did not prevent them from being active in multiple platforms. it is a very fluid landscape. nonetheless as i mentioned , before, throughout history there were many splits and mergers. it is challenging to monitor and identify the different active groups. always we have new groups and new movements that are relying, partially at least, on previous ones. host: we talked about the past . let's talk about what is going on right now. dhs has a draft of the department of homeland security, state of the homeland threat assessment. here is a little bit of what it says. law defenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social, ideological and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the united states.

among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists who increasingly are networking with like-minded persons abroad, will pose the most persistent and lethal threats. do you agree with that assessment that this is the most persistent and lethal threat for terrorism in the united states? guest: i agree with the assessment. most importantly, the data shows that they are correct. i think they would not have made that statement without actually having the data to back it up. if you are looking at the data, since 2008, the most prevalent type of political violence in the united states is violence from the far-right. we see a dramatic rise in the level of violence after the elections in 2008. since then, we are experiencing high levels of violence. fluctuation,ere is but overall, if we are talking about domestic ideological

violence, the far-right is the the u.s.inent one in host: let's let some of our viewers join in with the conversation. let's start with mike who is calling from massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. this is going to go off of what you just said. i am glad you mentioned the homeland security report. i am going to talk i am going to -- make a comment and then ask a question. i am sitting here and i am very socially liberal. but i am trying to figure out is , it just my bias or is it really true that the right wing extremism is worse than the left wing extremism in terms of the threat it poses to the country? i really think the right wing extremism is a lot more dangerous at this point for a couple of reasons. one being because folks that

support that kind of thing are really functioning on a core level of hatred and violence and -- an urge to maintain exclusive power at the expense of others. but also that they are empowered by the gop and trump. it feels like it has gotten a law worse in the last four years in terms of the divisiveness. during the obama years. on the left side, you have people functioning on the core value of compensating for some kind of -- just -- some kind of -- what am i trying to say? they are functioning on some kind of need to bring people

together and support others and to heal the community. what does your guest think about that? am i just being biased or is it really true that one side is more dangerous than the other? host: go ahead and respond. guest: first of all the data , shows that we have more thennce from the far-right --than the far-left. i think all experts agree about the data. also, it is important to mention that the far-right is more organized, more effective, it seems like in terms of mobilizing support and in coordinating its efforts. there is a high number of groups that are active on the far-right. if you are looking at some of the more noticeable and visible recent attacks such as the synagogue in pittsburgh,

california, it seems like the far-right is much more effective in inspiring individuals in perpetrating actual attacks. i would also mention the fact that, in general, we see that the political polarization and the delegitimization of political rivals, eventually enhancing and empowering groups to engage in violence. if you are pretraining the other side as a threat, eventually you will get to the point in which some people feel empowered and have theeel that they legitimacy and support to used violence against their opponents. host: let's talk to brian in salt lake, utah. good morning. caller: i feel like a lot of the stuff he is saying his propaganda because right conservatives are not racist.

burn people's houses down. it is antifa. in portland, oregon, all of these places, chicago, they don't ever say black on black killings. that is what it is. but my question to you is antifa, they are the damn racist people. america is not a racist country. i'm sorry. but they are the ones burning stuff down. it is not we, the conservatives. the democratic party is the party of the ku klux klan. so, when you are saying the right wing, that all started with the democrats. woodrow wilson, it all goes down. even lyndon baines johnson was a racist. martin luther king made him give

rights so that they could drink water. all of these white water -- that is all bull crap. it is not what america is about. host: go ahead and respond. guest: again as a scientist, i , care less about the partisan issues. am really looking at the data. while antifa, when you are talking about antifa, you're talking about a recent movement. recent studies are talking about something between 10 to 20 and 30 people in each area for each town. we are talking about a fairly small group that is not really coordinated effectively. so far, while they may be involved in some of the protests we see, it is difficult to argue that they are engaging in any kind of violent campaign. they are definitely not operating on the same level that we see on the far-right. when you are talking about the

3%ers or the old keepers, which actually have an organization people deploying their in areas where there are clashes read it is much more organized. you are correct. in the early 20th century, many politicians from the democratic party were members of the kkk. they were affiliated with the organization. again, this is the political reality that existed more than 100 years ago. today, i am not arguing the any -- arguing that any of the parties are endorsing violence. as someone who is reading the publication of the far-right for quite some time, the ideas and conspiracy theories that i read in their writings 10 years ago

are now appearing in much more mainstream platforms. that is my main concern. the transition of some of the more concerning an appalling conspiracy theories that are gradually moving to the mainstream and gaining legitimacy. this is something that concerns me, personally, as someone who is trying to study these threats and to evaluate its development. host: here is an argument that is made by the center for strategic and international studies in their study on terrorism in the united states. from -- this comes from july. this is what they say. first, far-right terrorism has outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators including those inspired by al qaeda. the total number of right-wing attacks have grown significantly in the past six years. do you agree with that analysis? guest: i definitely agree.

the level of violence i think is much higher. in my book, i provide a more robust data. because we have to understand that most of the data that is being captured by law enforcement and some of the recent studies are attacks that lead to casualties or gain some substantial visibility. however, if you are looking at the less visible incidents, such as spontaneous attacks against people of color and minorities, attacks against lgbtq, acts of vandalism, against religious facilities and so on, the numbers are much higher and the trends are even more and more clear. if we were talking about the numbers, i do not think anyone can doubt the numbers. currently, the most prevalent form of political violence in this country is coming from the far-right.

i would also say that there are other types of violence. if i need to frame the conversation, here we are talking about violence motivated by political objectives or political goals or to promote political policies. if you are looking at that type of violence, again, the data shows that it is much more prevalent and it exists on the far-right of the political spectrum. host: let's go to tim who is calling from georgia. good morning. caller: i appreciate you coming on and expressing your opinion. i think it is bad. you look at the media and news nowadays, i think the cover up people out these here. they are making the statement for what? who are these people? we are talking thousands, thousands of people.

my point is why are you coming on trying to create division? that is what needs to stop in this country. host: go ahead and respond. guest: first of all, i agree divisions are not good. however, the political polarization and the delegitimizing of political rivals is intensifying in the last decade or so in a very visible way. again i think that we need to be , conscious about the fact that we have a problem. just ignoring the problem or arguing that there is no such problem, especially as someone who is trying to study these phenomena from a scientific perspective, the only thing i can rely on is data. i am not making these kinds of opinions or formulating these

opinions based on what i read in the news. we are actually looking at the data and trying to ensure the data is as accurate as possible. when you are talking about groups from the left, we have not seen yet any kind of coordinated campaign of violence. definitely not on the same levels that you see from the far-right. i will just add when you are , talking about left-wing violence, mostly, that violence is actually coming from environmental organizations. animal rights organizations. some of the more active organizations on the left were not the conventional left that we are familiar with. these are more groups like the earth liberation front and the animal liberation front and so on. host: you have talked several times about your database. you have a database of violent incidents in the united states. tell us a little bit about that database. how do you track violent incidents? what have you found? guest: we are talking about more than 5000 incidents since the 1990's, until the last few years.

the data shows some really interesting trends. for example, we see that the violence is much more prominent refer to as people blue states, diverse states such as california and massachusetts and illinois and florida. these are the states experiencing the highest level of violence. there are multiple reasons for that. the perception that the violence is mainly existing in the southern states is actually not accurate. actually, what we see is that the backlash against diversity is actually happening more in the blue states. we can see from the data for example that election times are very, very volatile. we see that again and again in the primary years and during the presidential election years.

there is a significant spike in the level of violence. the environment is more contentious. people feel more empowered and more legitimacy through engaging militant activism. also, i think it is the result of a little bit of frustration. i think the far-right feels they have limited influence on the political process and its members feel more empowered or feel the urge to engage in more acts of violence in order to manifest their views and promote their views. we see also, if we are talking about popular targets, we see a dramatic increasing of attacks against religious facilities. which we are still trying to explain why this is the case. but, it is also related to the fact that on the far-right, we see a growing usage of religious

rhetoric and a historical rhetoric, something that may encourage more individuals to act against religious facilities. increasing seeing attacks against the lgbtq community. the last thing i will say is a lot of the acts of violence advance.lanned in we see that a lot of the incidents that are being driven by racism and white supremacy are actually very spontaneous. they are being triggered without any advanced plan. and that means that if we need to devise policies to counter this violence we need to think , about these conditions that facilitate this kind of spontaneous violence. host: one of our commenters on social media wants to know about right-wing extremism in the military and law enforcement. can you talk about that?

caller: i think one of the major concerns that many experts have is the significant portion of veterans and, in some cases, also active duty in some of the militia groups. just this morning, there was estimations that were published in the new york times saying some of of members of the more prominent militia groups are veterans or active-duty soldiers. also former law enforcement. these are concerns for two reasons. first of all because if they , decide to engage in violence, expertise, the training. but secondly, because the american people have a lot of appreciation, respect and trust in the military and people with

military military background. , and it is easier for these groups to utilize and respect their legitimacy for their own cause. to portray themselves as a legitimate organization or an organization that represents the american public. this may be a source of concern. it is important to note that the numbers are not completely clear. what is definitely clear is that the organizations are making a significant effort to recruit veterans and active-duty soldiers. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to jeffrey who is calling from summerville, south carolina. jeffrey good morning. , caller: good morning. i am not sure where to start. right on the cover is a picture of a kkk member. kkk was the disenfranchised democratic party. it seems like additionally common knowledge that if you are

a republican party a fascist, if , you are the opposite, you are an anti-fascist. again, democrats wearing masks or hoods. says -- hehand she says the data shows coordinated effort. then again he says -- coordinated efforts by right-wing extremists. if he is challenged on a point, he hides behind the term scientist. i just go where the science leads me. from my years in the military, i saw nothing of what he was talking about as far as the racism or extremism. i saw none of it. and i think i would just close with a quote from abraham lincoln. and he said soon we will all be either abolitionists or

democrats. host: go ahead and respond. , i think, first of all, i don't feel the need to apologize for using scientific methods to study the issue. that is what i do. i am relying on data. now, if you are talking about -- i think he had one point which i would like to clarify. the fact that there are a lot of spontaneous attacks does not mean that there are no moreinated efforts by the organized organizations. these two characteristics are not necessarily mutually exclusive, especially as we are documenting sometimes hundreds of attacks or hundreds of incidents every year. yes, and also we have to remember that many of these spontaneous incidents are

actually results of an ongoing propaganda and ongoing mobilization effort by these organizations. yes in many cases, these , individuals may act independently alone. but after they were basically exposed to significant propaganda campaigns on social forms, and some far-right web forums are successful. most are familiar with storm front. there are others. when we are talking about these individuals or, some people like to call them lone wolves. we have to remember they are not lone wolves. they are part of virtual communities. it -- these two elements are not really mutually exclusive. for me, it is not a partisan issue.

i think that all of us regardless of our political affiliation should be worried if there are groups of people who are breaking the law and are using violence to promote their political views. i think it is important to distinguish between being a radical, which is, you know, it is fine as long as you are not using violence, not breaking the law in order to promote your radical views. we have constitutional protections. we have the rights to hold our views. the problem starts and these -- starts when these other groups i am focusing on, the problem starts when people start using violent methods to promote their goals or engaging in illegal activities. this is what we need to start worrying about. these people do not get protections. eventually the activities of groups using violence to promote their political objective erodes the trust that people have in

the competency of the government. it erodes the social fabric of our society. and the fact that -- and it makes almost every electoral competition into some kind of zero-sum gain which leads to escalation in the social and political environment. and more legitimacy more toxic , rhetoric and language and eventually to more violence. and we should be worried about the increasing political violence in this country, regardless of our political affiliation or political views. host: one of our social media followers points out that you have been talking about a lot of data during this conversation and they want to know can you recommend where viewers can find this data that you are talking about? guest: yes. i do not want to do such blunt pr. but in my book, i provide a , fairly high number of charts and figures that illustrates how the data was collected and how the data was analyzed and so on.

i actually provide a mythological appendix in the book. lookare more welcome to into the data. i am always happy to answer questions about the data. by the way, i am not the only one who argues that the level of violence on the far right is increasing, although many other centerstions, research think tanks have similar data , and have arrived to a similar conclusion. in many ways, it is a consensual position. i am not an outlier in that sense. host: earlier this week, chad wolf delivered the 2020 state of the homeland and discussed dhs efforts against extremists in the united states. let's listen to what he said. [video clip] >> president theodore roosevelt

said it is not the critic who counts. credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena. every day, dhs professionals are in that arena while others sit on the sidelines and criticize. they have that right and dhs law enforcement probably ensures they can exercise that right safely. but make no mistake, there is more to be done we see groups . right here at home seeking to tear down our government institutions and our way of life. i am proud to say that dhs has taken unprecedented action to address all forms of violent extremism. two specifically include threats posed by loan offenders and small cells of individuals. last year, the department released a comprehensive strategy that lays out the dhs commission in preventing such violence. we secured with the help of congress additional funding for

those initiatives. the president requested a 300% increase in funding for dhs wide his budget. just this week, we are releasing an implementation plan that outlines dozens of separate actions across the dhs enterprise. let me be clear. dhs stands in absolute opposition to any form of violent extremism. whether by white supremacist or anarchist extremists. we will continue our daily efforts to combat all forms of domestic terrorism. host: how do you think the dhs is doing in combating violent extremism in the united states? eventually i think we are moving to the right direction. i think that if you talk with people from the government from 20 or 30 years ago, for most federal agencies, terrorism was

a foreign policy problem. it was not a domestic problem. when people talked about terrorism 20 or 30 years ago, for the most part they talked about a phenomenon that is happening in other countries. when it happens here it is more hate crime than ideological violence. in the past 15 years we have , seen a growing acknowledgment within our government that this is a significant threat. it is a significant policy problem and we should address it. we should examine it and we should try to develop some effective counter policies. especially as we are talking extremism,ight definitely in the last few years, there is a growing attention to the threat as well as the streamlining of more resources to study the threat and in order to respond to it. overall, i think that we see a real transition. there is also more and more voices that are emphasizing the

need to develop new legal mechanisms, new legislation. -- i am not sure all of these measures will be effective. nonetheless, we see that within the legislative and executive branch. there are more and more voices that understand that we need to equip our law enforcement with more legal and operational tools to deal with this threat. host: let's go to ryan who is calling from palm springs, california. ryan, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am still waiting for a site from the data. you said your book but that is not where you got the data from or a site. another point is jim crow was a democrat.

trying to tie violent crimes to a certain political party and stuff is just like -- i don't know how you correlate the two completely. and how many anti--- how many pro trump supporters do you see at a biden rally protesting biden? or stuff like that. you only see democrats at trump rallies, protesting trump. like, the silent majority is not out instigating during anti-protests or nothing like that. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i will say a few things. throughout this program, i have not mentioned -- i have not argued that the violence is directly the responsibility of a specific political party. i did say however some of our

political leaders are using rhetoric that may legitimize extremism or support conspiracy theories. i am not necessarily saying we should associate it with a specific political apparatus. it is not a partisan issue. it is not who is worse, the democrats or republicans? it is about the fact that we should be concerned about this. growing trend of individuals and small groups who are using violence and they are empowered to use violence to attack their political rivals and promote political views. it is not a new thing but it has definitely intensified in the last few years. regardless of what is your political view, this is a concerning development. i appreciate the audience's calls. i don't see that as a partisan issue. i don't see that as a

necessarily political issue. it is a threat that is -- it can lead to the erosion of our society. it can lead to the erosion of the trust that we have in our government. eventually, it leads to very troubling consequences. and we need to deal with that. and it is related to the growing political polarization. if every political conflict becomes zero-sum gain in which you cannot afford to lose, people are willing to go very far to not lose. accept you cant other political views but you do not need to take a gun or build a bomb to prevent others from exposing their political views, this is where the problem is. that was true all the time. you can have your opinion. for example, the pro-life and pro-choice debate, the problem is with individuals who want to

bomb clinics. that is the problem. when people are resorting to violence and illegal activities when they want to promote. omote. no one tells the what kind of -- tells you what kind of political views to support. you can protest. it is part of the ways in which the public expresses its views and priorities. the problem again is when we start to see more organized violence. this is when all of us need to be concerned. that can really lead to a very undesirable consequence in the long-term. host: some of our viewers are asking for data. here is the political story about the department of homeland security. a brief on extremism in the unite states. all three documents note that 2019 was the most deadly year for domestic violence extremists

since the oklahoma city bombing in 1995. among mastic -- domestic violence extremists actions, white supremacy leaders conducted half of all of the attacks, resulting in the majority of deaths, 39 out of 48. people are wondering about the data. what i want to ask you before we lose you for tom, how has the internet -- time, how has the internet changed extremism on the right wing side, or has it? guest: it definitely changed that. first of all, i think that a lot of individuals can now become part of these communities. these virtual communities that really are promoting and fostering these kinds of views. what it also created is actually it democratized many of these movements. the leaders of the far-right and the kkk chapters and neo-nazi

organizations actually now are in much more political communications with their followers. that goes both ways. the followers influence the leaders and the leaders have more power to shape their followers. thatore important thing is recruitment, propaganda became very cheap and easy. to use theneed conventional media in order to promote your views to publicize your events. a much more decentralized , encouraging people to take action and so on. by the way,also, that they are more visible. lawh makes the work of enforcement easier because everything is out there. if there is one thing i think we should remember, it is that people that held these radical views in the past felt isolated.

as a result, they felt less legitimacy to act on their views. today, when you have these virtual communities that are proliferating and very active, it is much easier for the leaders of these groups to empower their followers to take action. these are tools that were much more limited in the past when most of the communication was through vhs videos or pum less effective publication. host: we would like to thank arie perliger who is the author of american zealot. and a security studies director. -- every day we are taking your calls on news of the day.

morning, the results of the recent poll on how americans plan to vote this november. then we talked campaign 2020 and president reelection strategy. then we talk about campaign 2020 and battleground states. an author and strategist will talk about his new book. watch "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern sunday morning. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, test -- text messages and tweets. you're watching c-span, your

unfiltered view of government. created by america's cable television companies as a public service and brought to you by your television provider. security homeland secretaries michael chertoff, janet napolitano, and jeh johnson spoke with the atlantic council on immigration policy, election security at the politicization. this is just under two hours. >> welcome everyone. i am the director of the scowcroft center. i want