Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics

Scott Douglas Jacobsen
In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)

Received: January 20, 2025
Accepted: N/A
Published: February 15, 2025

Abstract

Prof. Arie Perliger, Ph.D., a leading authority in security studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell’s School of Criminology and Justice Studies, discusses his extensive research on political violence, extremism, and security policy. With over 20 years of experience, his work spans far-right politics, political socialization, and Middle Eastern politics, and integrates social network analysis to address contemporary challenges. Internationally recognized for his contributions, Prof. Perliger also trains counterterrorism practitioners and briefs military and government officials on critical security issues.

Keywords: Antisemitism, Counterterrorism, Extremism, Middle Eastern Politics, Political Socialization, Political Violence, Security Policy, Social Network Analysis

Introduction

In this interview, Prof. Arie Perliger, Ph.D., a distinguished professor of security studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, shares his insights drawn from over two decades of research on political violence and extremism. His work, which encompasses far-right politics, political socialization, and Middle Eastern dynamics, has been widely recognized both in academia and on the international stage. Prof. Perliger not only contributes to scholarly debates through his extensive publications and research grants but also actively trains practitioners in counterterrorism and security policy, briefing top military and government officials. This conversation delves into his perspectives on contemporary security challenges, the evolution of political extremism, and the implications of shifting political landscapes in North America and beyond.

Main Text (Interview)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Interviewee: Prof. Arie Perliger

Section 1: Overview of Research Insights

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are you saying your accent could be a giveaway?

Prof. Arie Perliger: Luckily, my appearance does not raise suspicion. I can blend in without attracting too much attention if I remain silent.

By the way, Canada was the first country to indict someone on terrorism charges based on misogyny-driven violence. If you recall, Alek Minassian was charged in Toronto.

Jacobsen: Yes, I do remember that.

Perliger: After that case, I was contacted by several Canadian media outlets.

Section 2: Shifts in Political Extremism

Jacobsen: That was after the École Polytechnique massacre, right? Or was that the 2018 van attack?

Perliger: Yes, it was the 2018 attack—he rented a van and drove through a busy street in Toronto. His trial concluded about a year ago, and the indictment explicitly classified the attack as an act of terrorism driven by extremist misogynistic ideology.

Even your national TV network—what is it called, CBC?—interviewed me about it.

Jacobsen: Have you ever worked with The Fifth Estate? They do investigative journalism.

Perliger: I am not sure. I have conducted many interviews with Canadian media and regularly receive interview requests from news outlets in Russia and other countries.

Jacobsen: Interesting.

Perliger: You guys in Canada might get your version of Trump soon. The political landscape is shifting, and given how the polls are split right now, Pierre Poilievre is gaining traction. Because I do not think the Liberals acted too late. 

Jacobsen: The five main concerns I have seen in Canadian surveys are immigration, taxes, inflation, mortgage, and rental costs.

At least from my impression, Pierre Poilievre is much smarter, more sophisticated, more well-spoken, and far more knowledgeable than our conservative politicians here in the U.S. He is preferable in that sense. I interviewed another politician. He was a minister, Maxime Bernier.

Perliger: Yes.

Jacobsen: I am doing an educational series with political leaders across the spectrum. I have spoken with representatives from the Christian Heritage Party, the Libertarian Party, the People’s Party of Canada, etc.

I read a lot about these topics, but in an educational context, you depersonalize the questions. Instead of saying, “What do you think?” you phrase it as, “Some people say this—what is your stance?” You also keep the questions open-ended rather than closed. These two principles make political interviews much easier to navigate.

When politicians speak more freely, you start noticing which positions are reasonable and which are not. You also get a more objective view. You are right that Poilievre is certainly more articulate than Donald Trump. However, Trump was never trained in the language of The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal.

Perliger: It is a little different.

Jacobsen: Yes, it is different.

Section 3: The Impact of Antisemitism

Perliger: Nonetheless, I do see a dramatic shift among some communities. For example, many Canadian Jews perceive the government’s lack of interest, attention, or willingness to address the sharp rise in antisemitism in Canada as deeply concerning.

Jewish schools and community centers in Montreal are being attacked on a near-weekly basis. The crimes are well-documented. Hate crimes are underreported, but the reality is clear—there has been a significant spike in antisemitic incidents.

Yet Canadian leaders seem extremely reluctant to respond strongly and decisively. This inaction is pushing many traditional Liberal Party voters—especially within historically progressive-leaning minority communities—to reconsider their political loyalties.

We could see a shift where Reform, Orthodox, and Conservative Jewish communities began voting for the Conservative Party of Canada. Not necessarily because they align with its broader political or social ideology but because they feel harassed simply for being Jewish.

They were part of the Liberal Party’s traditional base, but now they feel abandoned. I discuss this frequently in conversations and speaking engagements. I always explain: You cannot blame an entire minority group for the actions of a foreign government located 5,000 miles away.

Jewish Canadians in Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, or anywhere else in Canada have absolutely zero impact on Israeli policies. They do not control Israel’s government. Yet, they are being targeted because of it.

Section 4: Electoral Consequences

Jacobsen: Most of the people in the cities you mentioned are probably doing mushrooms or smoking a hookah.

Perliger: Yes. But blaming and targeting Jewish Canadians for Israel’s policies does not make sense. The real issue is that when antisemitism is met with silence—particularly from groups of Jewish Canadians once considered allies—it creates a profound sense of betrayal. This will have electoral consequences. Again, the Jewish population in Canada is not huge, but in close elections, even a small shift matters.

There was a right-wing leader somewhere—I cannot recall who—who was not hugely popular. However, an 11% shift in voter support completely changed the outcome. That happens all the time. In close elections, small demographic shifts can be decisive.

Jacobsen: I just returned from Ukraine, where I was doing war journalism. A colleague of mine, Anya, is Ukrainian-Jewish, and she connected me with a woman in Israel who works within the intelligence community. It is one of those groups with a friendly-sounding name. Still, in reality, they are linked to serious intelligence networks.

Every year—typically late in the year or at the start of the next—there is a noticeable surge of antisemitic tropes on Meta and other social media platforms. These range from obscure conspiracy theories to newly coined antisemitic slurs I had never encountered before.

One of their ongoing projects is analyzing the sources behind these posts. They have found that 75% of this content originates from bots. The key question is: Who is behind these bots?

One major Jewish organization leader told me his assumption is simple: Russia, Russia, Russia. That may be true, especially given the Ukraine conflict. However, we must identify the sources and understand how to combat them effectively.

Maybe this kind of thing happens in Canada, too. But yes, you are right. It shows up in the hate crime statistics. There have been clear spikes. It is not unreasonable to expect political leaders to take a firm stance against hate.

Perliger: Yes, that should not be too much to ask.

Jacobsen: It also depends on political alliances and the ideological leanings of different parties. Whether a country is Arab-majority, Jewish-majority, or European-majority, political parties tend to align themselves with certain foreign policies and alliances.

Publicly, they all say, “We stand against hate.” Still, their willingness to make strong, explicit statements depends on their broader ideological positions. Generally, conservative parties are more aligned with Israel than liberal parties—at least in the short term.

For some voters, that alignment will be a deciding factor. In early January, I met with my former boss. I was covering a mining conference—and, oddly enough, I was the only media presence there. The event was massive, and the speakers discussed how diamonds and quantum physics could enhance LIDAR and radar technology.

He was frustrated with the slow response to antisemitism. His concern was that these situations can escalate rapidly—like an L.A. wildfire. Once it spreads, it impacts real people, real lives.

Perliger: Yes, that is a valid concern.

Jacobsen: I have heard a lot of interesting stories about this issue. 

Perliger: I have family in Vancouver, in one of the suburbs. 

Jacobsen: Burnaby, Surrey, Richmond, Delta, Vancouver, North Vancouver, Langley, Abbotsford, White Rock…

I am running out of places.

Stanley Park? Willoughby? South Langley? South Surrey?

Perliger: No.

It is an Indian name.

Jacobsen: Surrey. It has to be Surrey. 

Perliger: No, near Surrey. Somewhere between Surrey and Burnaby. That is where Simon Fraser University (SFU) is. 

Section 5: Critique of Academic Practices

Perliger: Coquitlam! Yes, it is Coquitlam.

There was an interesting story about a clash between local activists and a politician’s policies. Some activists were protesting against his policies, and there was controversy over using public resources for political purposes. There was an internal conflict within the town, and I am sure this happens in many different towns across Canada regarding similar issues.

Most of the Jewish population in Canada is concentrated in urban areas. Generally speaking, most of my Jewish colleagues live in Los Angeles, Vancouver, Toronto, or New York. We are talking about major cities that tend to be more liberal. By the way, I don’t know if you know this. Still, the American Political Science Association (APSA) Annual Meeting will be in Vancouver this year. 

There was a protest regarding the choice of location. Some argued that Vancouver is extremely expensive and that the conference is inequitable for attendees, particularly junior scholars. Many scholars—especially early-career academics from the East Coast—find attending more difficult because of the high costs.

Jacobsen: Oh, because they are on political science salaries. That explains it.

Perliger: Exactly. Also, it is an international conference, so there will be thousands of foreign academics. Unless there is a large contingent from Japan or other regions, it will be financially challenging for many attendees. But overall, it should be a great conference.

This is a great opportunity to interview many people. Many seminars, events, and panels will also cover various topics. I don’t know how many, but we discuss hundreds of sessions.

The relevant contact information should be on the APSA website. I am not sure exactly how it works for journalists, but there are usually many journalists covering the event—not a huge number, but enough.

Jacobsen: Organizing a conference of this scale must be an enormous job.

Perliger: Yes, it is a full-time job.

Jacobsen: Do the organizers at least get paid for this? Or is it just for prestige?

Perliger: I assume they get compensated in some way. But yes, it is also a prestigious role. There is an exhibition at the conference. I usually wait until the last day of the conference when the presses and publishers do not want to deal with the cost of shipping their books back in boxes. At that point, they start selling books at deep discounts. Sometimes, you can get four, five, or six books for $5 each. It is a great deal.

Jacobsen: I like the jokes about Academia. What do you expect from it? Inflated language for straightforward concepts, followed by conclusions in every research paper that say, “This warrants further study.”

Perliger: I am not a big fan of academia in any way, shape, or form. Believe me, I have many issues with academia. But at the end of the day, it is the best system we have. Could you imagine an alternative? A university-free model of research and education? Would you support that?

I do not complain too much, but I do. The idea that academia is some perfect system is nonsense. It is full of rituals, performances, and completely irrational practices that I can barely tolerate anymore.

There is so much excess in academia, so much bureaucratic bloat. I support science and research, but we need to cut the fat.

Section 6: The Role of Academia in Political Discourse

Jacobsen: The real issue is over-administration. Universities have too many administrators, and their presence inflates costs and complicates everything.

Perliger: At the same time, academic disciplines are no longer about science or research. They are political activism under the guise of scholarship. If someone wants to be a political activist, they should go into politics—not pretend they are doing scientific research.

And I can tell you from experience: The least productive academics are always the most politically engaged ones. They do nothing but complain that they are not valued enough. There is a strong correlation there.

Jacobsen: Who do most physicists and mathematicians consider the greatest living physicist today?

Perliger: Probably Roger Penrose.

Jacobsen: I have heard that some say it is Edward Witten.

Perliger: Ah, yes. Penrose is highly respected, but Witten is considered one of the greatest minds.

Jacobsen: He is the only physicist to have ever won the Fields Medal—the top prize in mathematics.

Perliger: Yes, Edward Witten is an amazing scholar. However, I would argue that Edward Witten is one of the main figures responsible for the stagnation in modern physics—potentially. 

Jacobsen: But I only bring up his name to make a broader point. Penrose could also serve as a placeholder in this context—it just means “top-tier intellectual,” someone working on concepts few people truly understand. You rarely hear from him, which is indicative of that status.

Perliger: I was privileged and responsible for serving on my university’s promotion and tenure committees at different levels. I decided with other committee members whether someone deserved promotion, tenure, etc. There is not just one committee—there are multiple levels, including the departmental committee, college committee, university committee, and the dean’s office. Each stage provides input, and someone has to decide yes or no at every point.

One thing I learned from this experience is that there are many people I would have fired yesterday because they contribute nothing—neither as researchers nor as effective teachers. Yet, they remain in the system because they know how to work it. There is also an entire contingent of academics who exploit academia to engage in political activism rather than scholarship.

They damage academia and science by creating the false impression that universities are nothing more than ideological enclaves filled with people who care more about their politics than their research. This further erodes trust in academia.

If professors treat their classes as opportunities to indoctrinate rather than teach critical thinking, analytical skills, and objective reasoning, they abuse academia.

Section 7: Concluding Reflections

Jacobsen: Yes. And while they have the right as U.S. citizens to protest and speak out on political issues, using their academic title to legitimize political activism is problematic.

Perliger: Exactly. I can have personal views on the conflict between China and Taiwan or on South Asian politics, but I am not an expert in those fields. My opinions hold no more weight than any random person on the street.

Yet many academics—whose careers are based on simplistic, superficial analyses of complex issues—believe they are qualified to speak authoritatively on everything, even when they lack expertise or deep understanding. That level of intellectual arrogance is astonishing.

I have had many fights with my provost, chancellor, and dean when I called out these people. I am not afraid to confront my colleagues when they misuse academia.

Jacobsen: Well, you are a tenured full professor.

Perliger: Exactly. I am one of the most protected individuals outside of the Supreme Court. So, if people like me do not speak up, who will?

Jacobsen: That is the right attitude. The First Amendment is great. 

Perliger: I will use it fully.

Jacobsen: So is Kanye West right now—he is running social experiments.

Perliger: No, he is pushing the Overton Window. And another crybaby was the guy who got fired from Harvard.

Discussion

This interview with Prof. Arie Perliger offers an incisive look into the complex interplay of political violence, extremism, and security policy. Drawing on over two decades of research, Prof. Perliger illuminates how shifts in political socialization and the rise of far-right ideologies are reshaping security landscapes, particularly in North America. His observations on the increasing incidence of antisemitism in Canada and the corresponding electoral shifts among minority communities underscore the profound societal impacts of inaction by political leaders.

Prof. Perliger also critiques the evolving nature of academia, highlighting how political activism is increasingly conflated with scholarly research. He notes that while academia has long been a forum for intellectual debate, the misuse of academic credentials to promote ideologically driven agendas undermines critical thinking and erodes public trust. His reflections reveal a deep concern for how these trends not only compromise academic integrity but also influence broader political and security policies.

Overall, the discussion emphasizes the need for clear, objective responses to contemporary security challenges. Prof. Perliger advocates for a balanced approach that upholds rigorous academic inquiry while addressing pressing societal issues, such as hate crimes and political polarization. His insights provide valuable context for understanding the intersection of political extremism, social dynamics, and security policy, and call for more decisive actions by political and academic leaders to foster an environment of transparency and accountability.

Methods

The interview was scheduled and recorded—with explicit consent—for transcription, review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.

References

(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)

Journal & Article Details

• Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
• Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
• Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
• Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
• Journal: In-Sight: Interviews
• Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
• Frequency: Four Times Per Year
• Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
• Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
• Fees: None (Free)
• Volume Numbering: 13
• Issue Numbering: 2
• Section: A
• Theme Type: Idea
• Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”
• Theme Part: 33
• Formal Sub-Theme: None
• Individual Publication Date: February 15, 2025
• Issue Publication Date: April 1, 2025
• Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
• Word Count: 2,463
• Image Credits: Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash
• ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges Prof. Arie Perliger for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.

Author Contributions

S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.

Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.

Supplementary Information

Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics.

1. American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
   Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics. February 2025;13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger
2. American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
   Jacobsen, S. (2025, February 15). Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics. In-Sight Publishing. 13(2).
3. Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
   JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 2, 2025.
4. Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
   Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger.
5. Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
   Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 2 (February 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger.
6. Harvard
   Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger.
7. Harvard (Australian)
   Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger.
8. Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
   Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 2, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger.
9. Vancouver/ICMJE
   Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prof. Arie Perliger on Assorted Topics [Internet]. 2025 Feb;13(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/perliger

Note on Formatting

This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.