The Right Podcast
well, this time you get no subtitles: we speak with Rob of "The Right Podcast"
The Right Podcast “started as an audio only show that focused on US right-wing extremism. The scope has drastically changed to include global reactionary and exclusionary topics”.
I spoke over email with the podcast’s host, Rob, a few days before he shared his latest episode - “Russian Coup: Who is the Wagner Group?”.
You made a three-hour video about “What Westerners Need to Know about Pro-Russian Separatists”. On one hand this is important work and the subject deserves time and patience, on the other it's extremely hard to get people's attention. Why did you choose YouTube videos as your medium? (You make your audio available in podcast form.)
I like the visual medium. That video was filled with screenshots from Russian social media. Those images were essentially receipts that helped to build evidence. My background is a mishmash that spans being a drop out to adjunct faculty. I approach these videos as I would a lecture in the adjunct role. There aren’t many channels that do this type of thing for obvious reasons tied to monetization. My hope is to not only introduce the content but also methods and research to an audience who wouldn’t normally be exposed to them. Conversely, I’ve had success on Tik Tok making very short videos. That’s something I’d like to return to in the future.
What made you expand your frame, from “modern and historical right-wing extremism” to global current affairs? It's pretty difficult to find people willing to cover this much ground while maintaining a level of accuracy. What brought it on for you?
My perception of right-wing extremism has evolved over the past year. A similar topic was discussed at a Far-Right Analysis Network (FRAN) webinar held last week. Barbara Molas of the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism observed the far-right is not something you can view in isolation anymore. A combination of many factors ranging from social media to Covid has created a new paradigm. I began to view things based upon exclusionary practices, impacts on marginalized populations and ultimately desired outcomes as opposed to simple politics. This includes history and global events. The shift started when I began seeing reactionary ideas in traditionally left spaces. It’s been a rabbit hole since.
You've done in-depth work regarding the “red-brown alliance”. Listening to your conversation with researcher Daphne Lawless, I started agreeing with you – in some cases, politically engaged people drift like that because vague ideas meet the realities of audience capture and the desire to be relevant. A few video makers I remember watching in 2019/2020 are fully in there now. (They might still call themselves “socialists”, but maybe they were always flirting with this stuff.) What should online people be mindful of, if only to avoid amplifying – deeply regrettable folks?
I appreciate this question and my answer echoes the previous response. My question is always what’s the desired outcome, who supposedly benefits and who is hurt by it. Social media lends itself to brand creation and audience acquisition. Therefore, people will call themselves certain things to gain access to a built-in audience. If I labeled myself then I’d gain an immediate bump in viewership. If this is something you’d like to do for a living, then it’s an attractive proposition. Folks will find a niche and then market themselves to it. Just because someone is presenting themselves as something doesn’t mean they’re being authentic.
So, how do we know the true intentions of people? Well, we don’t. However, there are clear things to look out for as stated above. If someone is dismissing an oppressed or marginalized group of people, then it really doesn’t matter what it is they are calling themselves. If someone is suggesting an alliance with groups who seek to hurt oppressed or marginalized groups of people, then self-labels are useless as well. If people are equivocating or apologizing for those who target oppressed or marginalized groups of people, then they aren’t being productive. If you see any of these activities, then it might be time to ask the questions mentioned above. What’s the desired outcome, who supposedly benefits and who is hurt by it.
That’s a frustrating element of the “online politics” sphere – ideas evolve BUT STILL there's a compulsion to share and produce media about one's ideas. There was all the weird positive coverage the Gilet Jaunes riots got from non-French influencers applauding the protests as “solidarity”. That's not what was happening on the ground and picking up a couple news articles or even your average TV broadcast would have cleared it up. (Of course I won't ever get the pride in covering current affairs from some “aesthetics first” perspective.) How can a person do better than this?
Content creators first need the will to do better. Some see it as advantageous to cross pollinate right/left audiences for more viewership. These accounts will often present as being populist or anti-establishment and combine right-wing conspiracy/rhetoric with left-wing goals. Viewers need to be as skeptical towards alternative media as they are towards mainstream media. Just because something is contrarian doesn’t mean it’s true or positive. I think some people conflate critique of institutional power structures with a binary world view. Not everything or everyone who condemns “the system” is an ally based on that condemnation. People like Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph or those at Charlottesville believed they were “fighting the system” too.
This gets to a very important point. Why are you doing what it is you are doing? Are you doing what you’re doing because you think it’s right? Are you seeking solidarity with those in the rifle-sites of others? What do you do and what are you doing it for?
A few weeks ago I ended up comparing disinformation notes with Did Nothing Wrong's co-host Griff Sombke, and we got to an evergreen: “a peaceful protest features protestors who start burning stuff” – to me it's the sign the “peaceful protest” had been infiltrated by agitators and bad actors, to Griff, it means whoever's on the ground wants to create a spectacle in order to get more coverage for their actions of the day. Anything to add here ?
Oh, I don’t really have a great answer for this. I think it depends on the protest, who is involved and context. It has the makings of a very long answer with caveats.
Let me get back to a fateful “conference in Moscow” you mention in the Daphne conversation - an event to celebrate the 10th anniversary of RT, a Russian state-controlled international news television network. Several participants seemed to flip fast after that event. Then again, "carefully orchestrated paid trip” may be the easiest way to get people on board with anything you wish to sell them! Historically speaking, many intellectuals and notables have been courted like that - worst case scenario, in marketing terms, you still buy yourself some neutral coverage for the event.
(Quick aside. A long time ago a youngish person I knew took a highly supervised trip to Cuba and came back saying everything worked 120%, the press was free to report on any event... every criticism of Cuba was 'bad intel' on our end. Priors aside, this person didn't even pause to wonder that MAYBE a RESTRICTED trip was not the best way to get a feel for an unfamiliar locale.)
A Communist group courted me as a teenager. They wanted to send me to Vietnam as a representative. I found it humorous more than anything and declined. Again, I think we need to look at people’s words and actions as opposed to arguments surrounding such events. If the event didn’t directly change those involved, then it’s an enormous coincidence. I believe their words and actions over the past year have taken any doubt away from that correlation.
I must atone for this once a month, so bear with me here, but: in early 2020 I was falling for a conspiratorial talking point (something enormous), I started to pull back only because in a day's time the same talking point was everywhere and it was being repeated with very similar phrasing by alleged left-wing influencers. (IIRC my thought process went, “if this is true, it's real-life House of Cards”, followed by “there's just no way that many insiders can be trusted to stay silent about such a large-scale cover-up”.) In short, I started climbing out of a massive disinformation drain because one talking point felt a little too intense, all of a sudden. Is this ... common in your experience? Or did I get a strange lucky break in an otherwise grim season of brain rot, “but from the Left”?
Well, the tactic is common. I’m not sure about recognition but that can be a complicated and personal thing. I have a pdf called “The Red Pill” that was obtained from a white nationalist on 4chan. It basically outlines how to “pill” someone. There’s been a lot of great work on that topic and how to help those stuck in the rabbit hole. I’ll defer to existing resources on that.
The media repetition is another thing. I made a video called “Left, Right Alliance: Marcyism, Campism, Alt-Imperialism and Faux Populism.” I know… even the titles are long. Anyway, I discussed how this happens using keyword analysis mixed with screenshots from various social media platforms. The example used in that exercise was “biolabs in Ukraine.” These folks are finding what’s trending and then boosting each other directly or indirectly. It’s a business strategy and useful way of spreading propaganda for the more nefarious who are involved. These campaigns build off each other. In doing so the content creators are leveraging algorithms. Before you know it, your feed is an echo chamber which leads back to the first paragraph about being pilled.
You're fairly careful about what you share about yourself. We know your name is "Rob", we've seen your face in videos, but you draw sharp lines about anything else. (You even use a blank background.) I like it, but it goes against any old conventional piece of advice - "personalise your presentation to get people engaged". How much of it has been a deliberate choice on your end, considering the subject matter and what you told me about branding ?
It’s a fine line that I’ve stumbled along. If you’re putting you’re face out there then people can identify you. However, I am somewhat of a private person. I try to add things here and there to give insight into what I’m all about. I post pictures on socials of myself after surfing and of my community garden plot for instance. The YouTube channel has a music playlist. Anyone can add to it by contacting me but it’s mostly stuff that I like. The website has a blog. Still, I’m kind of a private person in general.
I think there’s an underlying point suggesting some decisions I’ve made go against best practices for content creators. I’d have to agree with that. I’m not doing this to become popular. I consider it volunteer work and activism. I’m not comfortable having a Patreon because I can’t commit to a steady enough schedule to justify it. At least to justify it to myself. The YouTube channel has the option to be monetized but I turned off the ads for now. My stubbornness comes from a place of good intention but could very well be limiting reach. After all, the goal is to get this information out there. It’s something I’m honestly still figuring out.
I started this project once I fully appreciated my overall frame was (still is) "expectations, reality and the inevitable crash". Looking at what you've accomplished so far with the Right Podcast, is there one moment that stands out to you as a case of "expectations crashing into reality" ? And is there any lesson you learnt in the aftermath ?
Something that I struggle with is balance. I really wore myself down with research in the first few videos that I made. My expectations weren’t aligning with reality. I’ve taken on more than I can chew in the past and it negatively impacted things in my life. I have learned to say no. A mutual aid group that I volunteer with recently asked if anyone might want to become more involved. They needed a commitment to help with things like planning and budget. My instinct was to just say yes. I like the group and very much support what they are doing. I ended up deciding that it wouldn’t be good for me or the group but that I’d pitch in with other projects. That’s something that took me awhile to grasp. There are many great people doing many great things in the world, but you can’t be part of it all. Learning to appreciate and support the work of others is immensely important. Overpromising and wearing out isn’t fair to yourself, those who rely on you or the people you’re supposed to be working with.
Here’s how you can support Rob and The Right Podcast:
Find the show on Audioboom
Watch the show on YouTube
Listen to the show on the main website
Here’s something else you might like:
