The laws legislating hate and domestic extremism are often based in post hoc behaviors but are often partially blind to series of events that lead to violence (Another reason to study those caught engaging in hate through counseling and coding. Its better for them and for the victims.) Studying just the physical characteristics/aftermath of hate is a post hoc strategy of initial event (s). While they are helpful one would truly want to study pre hoc behaviors that lead to prevention/intervention in a way that limits future violence (Remember from prior writings that hate is a series of dysfunctional thinking that ends in the "justification" of removing, harming, or killing the targets to maintain a lower order assumption about the world and self worth. See Allegory of Cave).
There are acts of intimidation, spreading rumors and converting others into scapegoating and extremism that are moral crimes that are not reflected well within our current legal system. The laws are poor carbon copies of societal values and must continuously adjust to be more reflective. The law and its application is limited by its capacity of understanding actual behavior and putting that within a workable framework (Why studying hate behavior is important and that comes through mental health. The Importance of Judges.)
While we know these behaviors are immoral and often criminal we fail to act on them in a ways that help thwart escalation (Sometimes we reward certain extremist groups by not holding them to a level of accountability, or turning a blind eye, based at times in perceived societal worth/values. We thus reconfirm the dysfunction as appropriate and reward socially and financially certain behaviors.). How do you muzzle those intent on harming others? How do you convert a large group of hate supporters (even those in law enforcement) from a mob to a free thinking people empowered to think beyond the confines of their particular social network, religious group, ethnic affiliation, or distorted view of what an "American" looks like? How do we ensure domestic extremism doesn't turn into domestic terrorism? (Trust me...I'm not going to be able to answer it here. I can sort of frame out an idea.)
The answers aren't clearly defined but the method of understanding is more apparent. These are the things I have learned from being a target of a coordinated hate group (of which one if not more were in law enforcement.). Some of them may not be practical for enforcement but can create contextual differences in understanding. Many of them can be further added to and broken down into measurable behaviors.
1. The National Red Line: There should never be justification for targeting specific populations. As a whole nation we must come down on such groups to let them know that while such behaviors may be acceptable in their distorted world it is not acceptable to the rest of society (Supporting the Constitution and its rights to its citizens.). We are a nation of many different backgrounds that support certain principles. We must act together from these various backgrounds to ensure democracy, rule of law, and our philosophical ideals are maintained through shared understanding and pressure. (Whole Nation Affair). That requires us to agree collectively that we will ensure that our institutions are aligned to the national philosophy and constitutional approach that acts as our social contract least we lower the value of national institutions and in turn social stability (This nation is for all of us. Truth and Integrity)
2. Words Have Meaning: When words increasingly become aggressive, seek to enrage, thwart responsibility, and enflame followers (especially when they have no reason to be involved) they also become tools for escalation. It is precisely those words that lead to violence. There are changes within language and tone that precede violence.
3. Personality Disorders: Whether we are discussing Hitler or our local hate group there are personality disorders in play that push some to consistently dominant behaviors. The inability of those who encourage hate to self-regulate is extremely difficult and that in turn drives them down a particular path without brakes. Fighting to create boundaries against those supported by a group can be difficult and dangerous.
4. Histories: Behavior is often patterned and in turn where current behaviors seem more obvious there was likely less obvious behaviors within their histories. Mocking others, group disdain, strict social rules, bullying of others in the community, manipulation, trying to be in the "right" crowd, etc... Few behaviors in flat personalities are spontaneously new because such individuals lack self awareness.
5. Lower Order Values: When groups brag about low order values that should raise some red flags. People who talk about "getting" people, use racial/religious slurs, "better" than, damaging someone, etc... we find social encouragement to be their "worse" selves. Social restraint begins to decline as the language makes acceptable behavior that in most circumstances would be unacceptable. The lower order values are raised as ideal.
6. Unable to Take Responsibility: Those who engage in these behaviors have a hard time taking responsibility for their behaviors. If they did we wouldn't be where we are now. Because they are already engaged in the scapegoating process, any level of accountability means it was not the fault of "those" people/target, versus actually being an effect of their behavior. (Blind Eye Risks)
7. Seeks to Maximize Recruitment: Groups like this (i.e. radicalized groups of any background) often seek to spread their ideologies and in turn twist stories and information to gain followers through false justifications. They do so off of conjured "horrendous" moral violations that may have never actually occurred (i.e. trying to increase victimization). The more people encouraged to engage in the crime the more "legitimate" the behaviors are viewed (Aristotle Morality-Justice).
8. Morphs and Displays in Different Forms: Hate will come out in other forms and behaviors. While these haven't been fully defined they are related to black and white thinking and the pushing of one's beliefs on others (i.e. likely why there has been multiple community complaints against some of the members.). Often there is a history of conflict of some of the members who lead bread crumbs to their desire to be more important than warranted based on societal contribution.
9. Supported by Blind Followership: Bad things can't happen on a group level unless the wider society has come to accept some of these behaviors as appropriate. People act and in turn receive reflection by others (Society has come to accept aggression on others on some level and there are circles/networks that seem to support those behaviors within certain contexts.). When groups are dysfunctional and signal back inappropriate expectations we run the risk of future group aggression. (Dysfunctional Groups, Update on Hate 02-16-22, Update on Hate 03-22-22, Update on Hate 04/18/22)
10. Indifferent, Inadequate, or Legal "holes": People who understand the law, are seasoned in legal manipulation, and/or have friends in the law know how to circumvent the legislated rules for self gain. Studying these behaviors leads to closing the loops so laws can be applied when it is necessary to step in when behaviors are out of control. Laws should focus on truth and not supporting a particular race, color, religion, or view point. When laws are based in finding the deepest truth it can and the best justice it can offer then it is on the right path. Passing laws that are adequate and enforcing them with wisdom is important (If you don't have wisdom you won't have trust because it bio-psycho driven in our species. See Who is Wise?).
11. Hyper Politics: Hyper politics gives cover for bad behavior (Antifa, Proud Boys, etc...) as they tie themselves to a particular political cause. That also allows politicians, judges, and law enforcement officials to give cover for behavior that is highly inappropriate and aggressive at its root. Both sides should focus on what is most important in our democracy. (Look overseas at large scale ethnic/religious crimes and you will find an underlining current of bigotry, weak rule of law, broken shared social contracts, and an inability to deal with such issues prior to a national schism. That is direct result of leadership pitting demographics against each other for personal gain while ignoring the bigger principles that keep a nation together. Law and Economy)
12. Low Boundary Relationships: Those who are most likely to sick "the dogs" on someone do so when they have control over the feelings, values, beliefs, and social relationships of others and are certain their won't be social push back. There is a need to have increasing control and thus they draw in those who don't have the self-confidence to reinforce their boundaries or ability stand up for higher principles. As low boundary people align to a stronger personality they also become increasingly easy to manipulate. They lose their sense of judgement and perspective which increases their inability to manage and deal with differences. It becomes easier to go along with one's social network.
13. Flat Thinking and Self-Selection: All bias is rooted in the inability to think dynamically about issues. Most (some) of the information is weeded out to reconfirm existing bias. Thus the type of media one watches, groups they engage in, friends they hang out with, etc... become increasingly homogeneous leaving little outside anchors for critical thinking. As they move into their dysfunctional world the outside world seems more distant and foreign. The normal values and beliefs of the wider society become sifted and distorted in these groups (Gossip and Rumors).
14. Entitlement: Its hard to force your will on others if you don't feel entitled to be "right" all the time. Within such groups dissention is rare and only their beliefs, values, lifestyles, and world view are acceptable. All others are seen as dangerous or foreign. One must take over excessive pride in one particular group or background that entitles them to behavior and act in ways that are self seeking. Those who oppose being pushed to the back are often attacked verbally, socially, or physically. There is a sense of being more important, more American, or worthy of additional benefits when compared to others. (Standing up to Hate)
15. Ostracization: People who have a distorted sense of self also can't stand people they disagree with being in the same room. Their very presence drives their emotional state and often leads to quick escalation. There are elements of social punishment for disagreeing (Even if they were 100% in the right) and there are elements of group aggression that make situations dangerous (i.e. two different racial, religious, political groups, etc... protesting in the same location.). Group members support ostracization when they are afraid to be ostracized themselves (Extremism reduces freedom even for its supporters.).
16. Core Identity: There is a core identity around something that ties the members together. Sometimes this might be a particular village, ideology, school connection, religion, ethnicity, sports clubs/teams, color, etc... Members define themselves by sharing those backgrounds and identities. Such identities define the inner group as different for others and in turn creates a cultish type identity. This is one reason why it can be hard for undercover agents to get into certain groups when they don't have particular in-network core identities (It is also likely why whistleblowing and freedom of speech become important.)
17. Misuse of Authority: The lines between legitimate and illegitimate authority have become somewhat blurred each time poor behaviors are not held to account (There are significant differences between legitimate authority and street militia authority. It is one reason why we must ensure the integrity of the badge beyond the needs of individual officers). This is also a factor in why we must change culture and ensure that our policing units (including all other public service positions) have greater representation of different types of people so as not to become derailed from their essential purpose (There appears to be an attempt by some officer(s) from the initial group to limit engagement in public service unless they approve it on an unofficial-unlegislated level. Using unofficial channels built through official position, i.e. misuse of badge, to create borders of who is and who isn't allowed to serve their community. There are multiple community complaints from different sectors of people against at least one/some member(s) of this group making "serving the community" highly suspect. It appears as though they are serving their social group before the duties of their position. That can further separate society and the responsibility of all communities to serve its best interest. ). We also don't want to inadvertently prompt society that "these" people can be public servants and "those" people can't leading to the reduction in value of institutions. We also don't want to turn the "blind eye" so as to prompt society that authority is used for one class, group, power, etc... at the detriment of others. (I'm a supporter of police and their sacrifices while still recognizing the need to remove "bad apples". There is a fairly long history of supporting my country-community in different venues so I completely understand the benefits that police can bring to supporting our democracy and capitalist way of life. I also recognize the need for internal integrity in all services Blind Eye Extremism Model, and Police Laws).
18. Nepotism, Cultural, and Racial Hiring: In third world nations where economies have bottomed out and high levels of social conflict exist is an underbelly of inappropriate hiring based on one's social, racial, cultural, tribal or religious understanding (not exhaustive). While there may be official laws in place on the inappropriateness of discriminatory hiring nevertheless behaviors continue as designed to put "their own" in worthwhile positions while pushing others to lower valued positions. For example, a public institution financed with tax payer dollars (i.e. public college) making hiring decisions based on subjective hiring criteria that is not applied equally across candidates. While this may seem like a small issue some of these institutions impact a lot of people and in turn the quality life for everyone else (Using public money for personal, private, and inappropriate uses.). There seems to be the official stance of some of these organizations and the realized actual beliefs/behaviors which are sometimes radically different. The damage of tainted institutional hiring and values can make or break long term belief in the value of institutions (See What I'm Thinking, Challenging Hate for Public Unity in Higher Education, and Organization Cultural Factors).
19 .This of course is not an exhaustive list. These may or may not be helpful but do sort of make some sense and I believe would be experienced in one form or another in most situations. It is possible with some work to create factors, markers, and elements that would highlight when something amiss is occurring. It may also help in finding ways to tackle these issues when they first appear versus when they have completed their path. Without challenge hate doesn't have an end it just continues to change and shift seeking new scapegoats for society's problems (Hate Group Member Remorse).
Thinking to resolution is important (I will add more when it comes available.)
1.) Leadership and Integrity Improve Institutional Resilience: Important for creating resilience of institutions from extremism type views. (Integrity and Leadership on Org Perform.)
We have choices in this country to work around shared principles, universalizing our values/institutions, and standing up for higher principles through accountability. We also can do the opposite. One will improve our economic and social prospects while the other will lead us down the path of mayhem and dissolution (Kind of makes you wonder how you define a Patriot 🤔). If you ask our politicians what they believe is the right path, we are likely to find people all over the spectrum in their personal beliefs (Some public and some private. Coordinated National Vision/Values). Our politicians, judges, and institutions must keep the bigger goals of the nation and the philosophy of democracy and capitalism in mind. When they don't bigger risks for the entire nation loom as non competitiveness and inappropriateness of realized values begin to deteriorate the foundations of democracy. For me, I will continue to positively engage and be present in all aspects of local life until either there is victory in values or someone "removes" the "problem". 🤷 (I guess there is a third option to sort of say, "If we believed in these values already we wouldn't be in this place in history today". That would require a recognition that the values are not important, the situation isn't serious, and certain groups can run towns outside of our agreed upon democratic processes. Then I turn on the tv and watch the news to see which way the nation is heading). As with all things, time answers all questions. ⏳
Remarks Toward Conclusion and Resolution
No comments:
Post a Comment