Radicalization

Speak of the Devil Episode List, Third Side Perspectives / / Radicalization, Reverend Campbell, Speak of the Devil presents, Third Side Perspectives, Witch Cimminnee Holt, Witch Doctor Troj

Speak of the Devil presents Third Side Perspectives. Reverend Campbell is joined by Witch Cimminnee Holt and Witch Doctor Troj to discuss Radicalization. They will cover all aspects of radicalization: What it means to be radicalized, pathways to radicalization, how to determine if you have been radicalized and steps one can take to come back from it.

Opening Monologue

Welcome to another Speak of the Devil presents Third Side Perspectives! I have to tell you, I haven’t been this concerned about politics since the 2004 election between George W Bush and John Kerry. You see at that time we had just been lied into a war that we’re still fighting today by George W Bush which justified terrorism for the next century against the US. We gave up our individual freedoms with his patriot act because we were scared. Fear. Fear makes us do some crazy things. Fear gave Trump his first term in office, and it very well may give him a second term. That is, if you believe this election and your votes actually matter, because the Trump administration is actively seeking ways to overturn a negative election where he loses on a number of different fronts. 

First he tries to convince the public the election is rigged before it starts. Then the voter ballots are fake. They reduce sorting machined in the postal service. Then they close polling locations. They restrict who can actually vote. They make voting difficult by requiring more documentation. They plan to throw out the votes and use state representatives in battleground states that are on team Trump to decide the election. They contest it to the supreme court that Trump has stacked in his first term. And even if all that fails, he has stated over and over again, he will simply not accept it, and he will not leave office.

Every Trump cult member who claims they love freedom and democracy is obviously not listening to their dear leader, or watching what he is actually doing. He removes environmental protections, renege on nuclear deals, praises dictators, strips away your already limited healthcare protections, he lied about COVID-19 leading to the over 200k american deaths, he uses the presidency to enrich himself, gives tax breaks to those who don’t need it while leaving everyone else, primarily his base, to fend for themselves. He is an admitted sexual predator, he demonizes american citizens and immigrants of different skin colors, his border policy locked up and killed children, he has created a more divided America than ever in my lifetime. There are continuous protests in the streets he meets with violence, he believes in extra judicial killing, he has destroyed our reputation in the world, repaired by the last administration from George W Bush’s ‘reign of terror’, caused a recession with his failed economic policies and now is telling everyone that he doesn’t care about the constitution, democracy or justice and that he will try to become the first american dictator…. From his own actual lips!

I am fucking tired of winning!

But, I won’t spend any time trying to convince a cult member of their insanity. How they are actively destroying the very thing they claim to love and cutting off their own nose to spite their face. They are already radicalized. I will not spend any time arguing with those who see all things as equal, and don’t recognize the urgency of now. You see radical ideas are only bad when they restrict progress. Radical policies are only negative when they hold a population down. But radicals don’t see reality, they only see the propaganda carefully laid out before them. And truth, well, truth becomes fake news in their twisted minds.

So let’s talk about this. Let’s talk about radicalization and extremism. It seems to be more prevalent now than ever before and as Satanists we are no more protected from it than anyone. But we should be willing to examine our own thoughts and motivations. We may even discover that we have become radicalized in thought if not in action. 

Our first guest is currently a PHD candidate in Religion. Her areas of research are: western esotericism, ritual, new religions, and religion & popular culture. She has received multiple scholarships and awards of excellence, and is published in peer-reviewed academic journals and books. She is a frequent guest and friend of the show. Allow me to introduce Witch Cimminnee Holt.

Our next guest has a PHD in Clinical Psychology. Her clinical practice focuses primarily on autistic adolescents and adults, LGBTQ clients, clients with disabilities, and clinical issues like anxiety, depression, grief & bereavement, and life transitions. Her research focuses on health outcomes for people with disabilities, and she also assists the Furscience/IARP research team in studying fandoms and the use of fantasy in positive coping. It’s my pleasure to introduce a friend of the show, Witch Doctor Troj.

Show Notes

Radicalism vs. Extremism vs. similar concepts/terms

  • Definition of Radicalism: the action or process of causing someone to adopt radical positions on political or social issues.
  • The ADL’s definition of Extremism: “A concept used to describe religious, social or political belief systems that exist substantially outside of belief systems more broadly accepted in society (i.e., “mainstream” beliefs). Extreme ideologies often seek radical changes in the nature of government, religion or society. Extremism can also be used to refer to the radical wings of broader movements, such as the anti-abortion movement or the environmental movement. Not every extremist movement is “bad”—the abolitionist movement is one example of an extreme movement that had admirable goals—but most extremist movements exist outside of the mainstream because many of their views or tactics are objectionable.”
  • From Addressing Extremismhttps://www.tc.columbia.edu/i/a/document/9386_WhitePaper_2_Extremism_030809.pdf: “Extremism is a complex phenomenon, although its complexity is often hard to see. Most simply, it can be defined as activities (beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a character far removed from the ordinary. In conflict settings it manifests as a severe form of conflict engagement. However, the labeling of activities, people, and groups as “extremist”, and the defining of what is “ordinary” in any setting is always a subjective and political matter. Thus, we suggest that any discussion of extremism be mindful of the following:”
    • Typically, the same extremist act will be viewed by some as just and moral (such as pro-social “freedom fighting”), and by others as unjust and immoral (antisocial “terrorism”) depending on the observer’s values, politics, moral scope, and the nature of their relationship with the actor.
    • In addition, one’s sense of the moral or immoral nature of a given act of extremism (such as Nelson Mandela’s use of guerilla war tactics against the South African Government) may change as conditions (leadership, world opinion, crises, historical accounts, etc.) change. Thus, the current and historical context of extremist acts shapes our view of them. 
    • Power differences also matter when defining extremism. When in conflict, the activities of members of low power groups tend to be viewed as more extreme than similar activities committed by members of groups advocating the status quo. In addition, extreme acts are more likely to be employed by marginalized people and groups who view more normative forms of conflict engagement as blocked for them or biased. However, dominant groups also commonly employ extreme activities (such as governmental sanctioning of violent paramilitary groups or the attack in Waco by the FBI in the U.S.). 
    • Extremist acts often employ violent means, although extremist groups will differ in their preference for violent vs. non-violent tactics, in the level of violence they employ, and in the preferred targets of their violence (from infrastructure to military personnel to civilians to children). Again, low power groups are more likely to employ direct, episodic forms of violence (such as suicide bombings), whereas dominant groups tend to be associated with more structural or institutionalized forms (like the covert use of torture or the informal sanctioning of police brutality).
    • Although extremist individuals and groups (such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad) are often viewed as cohesive and consistently evil, it is important to recognize that they may be conflicted or ambivalent psychologically as individuals, and/or contain a great deal of difference and conflict within their groups. For instance, individual members of Hamas may differ considerably in their willingness to negotiate their differences with the Palestinian Authority and, ultimately, with certain factions in Israel. 
    • Ultimately, the core problem that extremism presents in situations of protracted conflict is less the severity of the activities (although violence, trauma, and escalation are obvious concerns) but more so the closed, fixed, and intolerant nature of extremist attitudes, and their subsequent imperviousness to change.”

Radical ideas that challenged commonly held beliefs

  • Individual rights
  • Universal human rights
  • Empiricism
  • Heliocentrism
  • Atheism/Humanism
  • Democracy
  • Opposition to slavery
  • Evolution
  • Racial equality
  • Equal rights for women
  • LGBT rights
    • Gay marriage
    • Trans rights
      • Deconstruction of gender roles, categories, and expectations
  • Disability rights
    • The neurodiversity movement
  • Satanism
  • Healthcare for All (in the United States, at least—considered common sense in the rest of the developed world)
  • Outside The Overton Window: Ideas Beyond the Pale
  • Novel Ideas vs. Old/Rejected Ideas Made New

What does it mean to be/become Radicalized, and/or to be an “Extremist?”

  • What Does It Mean to Be Radical?

https://medium.com/s/story/what-does-it-mean-to-be-radical-5b97200a1d78

  • Associated with extreme views and the desire for rapid social change
    • E.g. the idea of overhauling the health care system to replace private insurance with a public plan is often perceived as radical
    • Radicals attempt to understand the root of the social problem — to cultivate an approach that goes beyond what can be easily observed on the surface.
      • I.E. It’s not always a negative thing
    • Radical movements can originate from a broad social consensus against progressive changes in society or from a broad desire for change in society.
    • Radicalization can result in both violent and nonviolent action – most academic literature focuses on radicalization into violent extremism (RVE)
    • By compromising a group’s ability to blend in with non-radical society and to participate in a modern, national or international economy, radicalization serves as a kind of sociological trap that gives individuals no other place to go to satisfy their material and spiritual needs.
    • From the Wikipedia article on Extremism: “Seymour Martin Lipset argued that besides the extremism of the left and right there is also an extremism of the center, and that it actually formed the base of fascism.[5]”
      • Empty-Headed Centrism and How It Gets Weaponized https://youtu.be/KDIY4yvYbPM 
      • “First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a ‘more convenient season.’”Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”—MLK Jr. 
      • Centrists Are the Most Hostile to Democracy, Not Extremists https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
        • “I examined the data from the most recent World Values Survey (2010 to 2014) and European Values Survey (2008), two of the most comprehensive studies of public opinion carried out in over 100 countries. The survey asks respondents to place themselves on a spectrum from far left to center to far right. I then plotted the proportion of each group’s support for key democratic institutions. (A copy of my working paper, with a more detailed analysis of the survey data, can be found here.)”
        • “Respondents who put themselves at the center of the political spectrum are the least supportive of democracy, according to several survey measures. These include views of democracy as the “best political system,” and a more general rating of democratic politics. In both, those in the center have the most critical views of democracy.”

Qualities of Extremists:

  • The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxylK6fR81rckQxWi1hVFFRUDg/view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

  • Economist Ronald Wintrobe noted that even different extremist movements often share a common set of characteristics. He compared Hamas and Jewish fundamentalists thusly:
    • Both are against any compromise with the other side.
    • Both are entirely sure of their position.
    • Both advocate and sometimes use violence to achieve their ends.
    • Both are nationalistic.
    • Both are intolerant of dissent within their group.
    • Both demonize the other side
  • People with extreme political views ‘cannot tell when they are wrong’, study finds. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/radical-politics-extreme-left-right-wing-neuroscience-university-college-london-study-a8687186.html
    • ““We found that people who hold radical political beliefs have worse metacognition than those with more moderate views,” said lead author and neuroscientist Dr Steve Fleming. “They often have a misplaced certainty when they’re actually wrong about something, and are resistant to changing their beliefs in the face of evidence that proves them wrong.”
    • “In their study, the scientists asked two groups of around 400 people to complete surveys measuring their political beliefs and attitudes towards alternative world views. From these surveys they identified those at the extreme right and left ends of the spectrum. These individuals were characterised by radical views concerning authoritarianism and intolerance towards others. Participants were then asked to complete a simple task in which they looked at two pictures and judged which one had the most dots on it.”
    • “To test how participants reacted to being proved wrong, they were shown a bonus set of dots that should have nudged them towards the correct decision.
    • For moderates who had made the wrong decision the first time, being shown this bonus information made them less confident in their choice. Radicals, on the other hand, held onto their initial decision even after seeing evidence suggesting it was incorrect.”
  • Coleman and Bartoli, Addressing Extremism: “Extremism is an emotional outlet for severe feelings. Persistent experiences of oppression, insecurity, humiliation, resentment, loss, and rage lead individuals and groups to adopt conflict engagement strategies which ‘fit’ or feel consistent with these experiences. Thus, extremists will use violent, destructive strategies, not because they are instrumental to attaining other goals, but because they feel righteous, vengeful, and good.”
  • Laird Wilcox’s 21 traits of extremism:

https://www.democraticunderground.net/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×8745839

  1. Character assassination.
  2. Name-calling and labeling.
  3.  Irresponsible sweeping generalizations.
  4. Inadequate proof for assertions.  
  5. Advocacy of double standards.  
  6. Tendency to view their opponents and critics as essentially evil.
  7. Manichaean worldview.
  8.  Advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of their opponents and/or critics.
  9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: whom they hate and who hates them.
  10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation.
  11. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping cliches.
  12. Assumption of moral or other superiority over others.
  13. Doomsday thinking.
  14. Belief that it’s okay to do bad things in the service of a “good” cause.  
  15. Emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis.
  16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance.
  17. Use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions.
  18. Problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty.
  19. Inclination toward “groupthink.”   
  20. Tendency to personalize hostility.
  21. Extremists often feel that the system is no good unless they win.

How Is Arguing With Trump Supporters Working For you? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/17/how-is-arguing-with-trump-voters-working-out-for-you

Pathways to Radicalization: How Does One Become Radicalized?

  • Islam
    • It was reported that Raffia Hayat of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association warned that jailed extremists attempt to recruit violent criminals into radical groups so they carry out attacks on the public once released.
    • There have been concerns that converts to Islam are more susceptible to violent radicalization than individuals born into the faith.
    • Jihadis have a “tried and tested model” of contact with different vulnerable, and extremist individuals through online messaging services or social media platforms, and then rapidly manipulating them towards participating in violent action in their name.
    • Muslim youth in Britain: Acculturation, radicalization, and implications for social work practice/training https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15426432.2017.1311244?journalCode=wrsp20
      • “Muslims comprise a significant and growing percentage of the population in the United Kingdom. Muslim youth in this country face a unique set of challenges related to cultural identity and acculturation. Because of perceived discrimination and frequent identity issues, they are often considered at risk for radicalization. This article presents theoretical frameworks for cultural identity, acculturation, and radicalization and outlines implications these concepts have for social work practice with Muslim youth in the United Kingdom. The article provides suggestions and recommendations concerning practice and training for social workers and other professions working with Muslim youth, including religious leaders and teachers.”
  • Anti-Vaxxerism and Other Medical Conspiracies
    • Anti-Vax
      • The Anti-Vax Movement’s Shift from Granola to Far-Right
The Anti-Vax Movement’s Radical Shift From Crunchy Granola Purists to Far-Right Crusaders
  • “In the past, Beall, a strong believer in vaccines, would often respectfully challenge any inaccurate information the other members shared. In pre-pandemic days, her friends had thanked her for her perspective and moved on. This was how things went for homeschool moms: Even when they disagreed, they were still a tribe. But this time, the comments took a different turn. Instead of the friendly back-and-forth, Beall’s remarks were met with vitriol. It was “this flood of beliefs around public health measures being an assault on freedom and liberty, and slavery and Holocaust analogies, and conspiracy theories, and 5G and Bill Gates,” she recalls. ‘It just went on and on with an endless flood of anger toward public health in general and me personally for not going along with this narrative in the video.’”
  • “The biggest shock came when an old friend of Beall’s weighed in, a woman who, like almost all of the other moms in her circle, was ‘appalled when Donald Trump was elected president,’ Beall remembers, saying ‘she cried tears over it.’ Beall didn’t expect her to be so defensive of the video, and when she tried to explain that it was ‘being used by people on the very far right to promote a narrative that’s going to kill people,’ she says the friend laid it all out in pretty harsh terms: ‘I would rather align myself,” she told Beall, ‘with those people who care about freedom, instead of someone like you, who wants to have us controlled and dominated by our government.’”
  • “Beall is still reeling from the encounter—and she can’t shake the feeling that something frightening has happened to her old friends. She’s almost certainly not alone; what she has experienced is actually representative of a broader trend.”
  • “Back when I started covering the anti-vaccination movement more than a decade ago, the loudest voices came from politically liberal, mostly white, and affluent enclaves—think famously hippie places like Marin County, California, or Boulder, Colorado—where parents worried about the side effects of what they perceive as toxins in vaccines. Anti-vaxxers in these places tended to pride themselves on the purity of their lifestyles—they bought organic groceries, railed against genetically modified food, and were suspicious of the electromagnetic waves emitted by cellphones.”
  • “But over the last few years, Limaye has observed a subtle rightward shift: Online anti-vax communities, most of which are on Facebook, have taken on a very different tone. Instead of fretting over unwholesome additives in vaccines, members now rant about government overreach. They describe schools’ immunization rules as an assault on their freedom, and they swap theories about how Bill Gates is working with the government to control citizens with microchips, says Limaye. They’re ‘railing against the government and pharma companies controlling the population.’”
  • “Most of us think of political culture in America as a spectrum—on one side is the far left, and way on the other is the far right. But occasionally, the spectrum is more of a circle, with the two extremes joining up in a strange middle point around back. Jennifer Reich, a University of Colorado Denver sociologist who studies the spread of misinformation about health, noticed this dynamic in vaccine hesitancy when she was first starting out in the field, back in 2007. “This was one of those places where right meets left, and that’s been true for a long time,” she said.  In a 2017 study published in the journal Nature Human Behavior, Saad Omer, a Yale University epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist, studied this phenomenon, asking parents about their values, political affiliation, and beliefs about vaccines. His team found that people who were skeptical of vaccines tended to list ‘purity’ and ‘liberty’ as important values. ‘Purity overlaps substantially with the “crunchy granola” crowd,’ Omer explained. But ‘liberty’ is where things get interesting: ‘The left interpretation of liberty is human rights, and the right is libertarianism.’”
  • “Yet some experts believe that voices from the far right are beginning to drown out those of the crunchy granola crowd. Reich says that she started noticing the shift during the Obama presidency, right after the Affordable Care Act passed. Reich was working on a study about small business owners’ attitudes toward paying for employee health insurance. ‘When I suggested that Obamacare might help, they started talking about “womb to tomb” government tracking,’ she said. ‘I was definitely not expecting that.’ Soon after, she started noticing comments about government overreach in anti-vax groups.”
  • “‘In calling herself a ‘vaccine researcher,’ a term usually referring to immunologists or microbiologists who spend decades in laboratories after years of postgraduate training, she challenges the very meaning of expertise and considers her qualification as a vigilant parent to be equivalent,’ Reich wrote.”
  • “The Trump administration has actively encouraged this kind of science denial: Doctors and scientists are intellectuals to be regarded with suspicion.”
  • “In 2018, researchers from Drexel University in Pennsylvania reviewed 175 proposed pieces of legislation about states’ vaccine exemption laws. They found that bills that sought to make it easier to opt out of vaccines were more likely to come from Republican lawmakers. Of the 13 bills that ultimately passed, 12 weakened existing laws around vaccine requirements.”
  • Everything I Learned While Getting Kicked Out of America’s Biggest Anti-Vaccine Conference https://jezebel.com/everything-i-learned-while-getting-kicked-out-of-americ-1834992879
    • “…AutismOne—and the anti-vaccine world as a whole—works remarkably well as an engine for radicalization. Parents are brought in with a genuine concern for their children’s health, and a desperation to find answers, and are met with a variety of new and increasingly wild claims about the medical establishment, the government, and, ultimately, the secret rulers of the world.”
    • “What this looks like, in the end, is a process of radicalization. Parents come to AutismOne seeking an answer to a frustrating disorder that left their kids in distress and their families in crisis, and are met with something else: a broader and more amorphous kind of suspicion, fear and distrust, a sense that it’s not just their doctors who are against them, but the pharmaceutical industry, the medical industry, journalists, the world.”
  • How anti-vaccine movements threaten global health https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48585036 
  • The anti-vaccine movement in 2020

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/anti-vaccine-movement-2020

  • “‘The first antivaxxers I ever met were left-leaning unschoolers when I was an unschooled teenager. They were very much a part of the early efforts to ‘stop the Food and Drug Administration’ from regulating alternative medicine. What has happened in recent years is that this demographic of homeschooling is being now recruited by the radical right on social media, and some are turning right. And this is very concerning.’”
  • “Beyond political affiliation, researchers can shed some additional light on who an antivaxxer tends to be and how they think. Interviews with Australian parents who reject vaccines revealed they see themselves as virtuous but oppressed, and vaccinators are perceived as an ‘Unhealthy Other.’ Those who reject vaccines may have a skewed perception of the risks posed by them and the diseases they prevent, with some evidence showing that Internet searches may increase the perception that childhood vaccines are risky. And a large investigation into the anti-vaccination phenomenon, conducted in 24 countries by a team at the University of Queensland, revealed a strong pattern: people who reported more conspiratorial beliefs tended to be more anti-vaccine. This association was particularly strong in Western nations, like Canada and the U.S. Next in line was the link between anti-vaccination attitudes and the resistance to having their freedom taken away from them. The authors report that “more conservative participants also had stronger antivaccination attitudes.” What was not linked to antivaxx beliefs was education.”
  • “Even though social media giants have said they would crack down on vaccine misinformation, anti-vaccine communities quickly adapt to the new rules, like a guided virus mutating with a purpose. For example, the word ‘vaccine’ disappears in the name of their group, replaced by ‘medical freedom.’”
  • COVID denialism
    • Denial and Distraction: How the Populist Radical Right Responds to COVID-19; Comment on “A Scoping Review of PRR Parties’ Influence on Welfare Policy and its Implication for Population Health in Europe” https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3880.html
      • “Whether in government or in opposition, PRR politicians opted for distraction and denial. Their effects ranged from making the pandemic worse.”
    • COVID and Conservatism

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/opinion/covid-conservatism.html

  • “Both the crude and sophisticated efforts tended to agree, though, that the supposed conservative mind is more attuned to external threat and internal contamination, more inclined to support authority and hierarchy, and fear subversion and dissent. And so the political responses to the pandemic have put these psychological theories to a very interesting test.”
  • “From the Wuhan outbreak through somewhere in mid-February, the responses to the coronavirus did seem to correspond — very roughly — to theories of conservative and liberal psychology. Along with infectious-disease specialists, the people who seemed most alarmed by the virus included the inhabitants of Weird Right-Wing Twitter (a collection of mordant, mostly anonymous accounts interested in civilizational decline), various Silicon Valley eccentrics, plus original-MAGA figures like Mike Cernovich and Steve Bannon. (The radio host Michael Savage, often considered the most extreme of the right’s talkers, was also an early alarmist.) Meanwhile, liberal officialdom and its media appendages were more likely to play down the threat, out of fear of giving aid and comfort to sinophobia or populism. This period was the high-water mark of ‘it’s just the flu’ reassurances in liberal outlets, of pious critiques of Donald Trump’s travel restrictions, of deceptive public-health propaganda about how masks don’t work, of lectures from the head of the World Health Organization about how ‘the greatest enemy we face is not the virus itself; it’s the stigma that turns us against each other.’”
  • “But then, somewhere in February, the dynamic shifted. As the disease spread and the debate went mainstream, liberal opinion mostly abandoned its anti-quarantine posture and swung toward a reasonable panic, while conservative opinion divided, with a large portion of the right following the lead of Trump himself, who spent crucial weeks trying to wish the crisis away. Where figures like Bannon and Cernovich manifested a conservatism attuned to external perils, figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity manifested a conservatism of tribal denial, owning the libs by minimizing the coronavirus threat.”
  • “…the behavior of what you might call “normie” Republicans — not Very Online right-wingers or MAGA populists but longtime Fox News and talk-radio consumers — suggests that any such conservative mind-set is easily confounded by other factors, partisanship chief among them. The fact that the virus seemed poised to help Democrats and hurt the Trump administration, the fact that it was being hyped by CNN and played down by Hannity, the fact that Trump himself declined to take it seriously — all of this mattered more to many Republicans than the fear of foreign contamination that the virus theoretically should have activated or the ways in which its progress seemed to confirm certain right-wing priors.”
  • “So one might say that the pandemic illustrates the power of partisan mood affiliation over any kind of deeper ideological mind-set. Or relatedly, it illustrates the ways in which under the right circumstances, people can easily swing between different moral intuitions. (This holds for liberals as well as conservatives: A good liberal will be as deferential to authority as any conservative when the authority has the right academic degrees, and as zealous about purity and contamination when it’s their own neighborhood that’s threatened.)”
  • Conservative Christians Intentionally Undermining COVID response
Authoritarian Christians are deliberately undermining the public health response to coronavirus
  • “Anti-intellectualism and pseudo-intellectualism are hallmarks of authoritarianism, and in the United States in particular, opposition to much modern science has come to define the mostly white, mostly Christian Republican Party. The problem, however, is global.”
  • Conspiracy Theories, Denial, and the Coronavirus, https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/conspiracy-theories-denial-and-the-coronavirus 
  • Covid denial overlaps with global warming denial

https://www.desmogblog.com/covideniers-anti-science-covid-19-denial-overlaps-climate-denial

  • “Many of these groups, including Koch network-funded entities such as Americans for Prosperity and State Policy Network members have also attacked stay-at-home orders and orchestrated ‘Liberate’ movement protests nationwide, as Steve Horn wrote in COVID-19 ‘Liberate’ Groups Are the Same Ones Pushing Climate Denial. And as DeSmog UK’s Zak Derler reported in Climate Science Deniers Use Coronavirus to Downplay Environmental Threats, notorious climate deniers around the world are even claiming that the novel coronavirus pandemic is a hoax, or that it’s an evil plot by ‘globalist elites’ like Bill Gates and George Soros to alternately force vaccines or a ‘world population cull.’”
  • Decades of Science Denial Related to Climate Change Has Led to Denial of the Coronavirus Pandemic

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042020/science-denial-coronavirus-covid-climate-change

  • Right Wing
    • White Nationalists, Neo-Nazis, Patriots, and Militia Groups
    • Qanon
      • Grannies Are Spreading Qanon Conspiracies on Facebook. https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/25/grannies-are-spreading-qanon-conspiracy-theory-memes-on-facebook/
        • “For the past five years, my research has looked at how strangers talk with each other about politics on Facebook. I’ve focused on four English constituencies – Stoke-on-Trent Central, Burton and Uttoxeter, Bristol West and Brighton Pavilion – tracking conversations through public pages, posts and public information on people’s timelines and profiles.”
        • “Through the 2015, 2017 and 2019 UK general elections, I saw the increased polarisation of those Facebook conversations and with it increased incivility, partisanship and sectarianism. I was struck by the rising use of memes and how a handful of core themes made their way from meme to belief. During the 2019 election, I noticed how memes from far right US Facebook pages were being posted and spread via people in the UK constituencies I was studying.”
        • “I’d found links during the last election between the active seeding of anti-migrant, anti-immigration memes by UK users and US far-right organisations and individuals, and so I expected to find similar links through that meme. But what I hadn’t expected to see was for the meme to lead me to UK mums and grandmothers engaging with QAnon conspiracy theories from the US.”
        • “Facebook encourages pools of the like-minded, whether through architecture that encourages what the activist Eli Pariser’s termed ‘filter bubbles’, or what the psychologist Daniel Kahneman called ‘cognitive ease’ – our willingness to believe ideas that are familiar, comfortable – easy – to believe, and to avoid ideas that would take effort to accept. It’s also possible to game Facebook’s algorithms to manipulate public opinion, as the investigative work of journalists such as Carole Cadwalladr and Craig Silverman has shown.”
        • “A slightly racist granny can quickly become groomed towards adopting more radical views.”
      • Qanon’s growth mirrors spike in right-wing extremist violence. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/qanons-growth-mirrors-sharp-spike-extremist-violence-us/story?id=73079916
        • “‘What’s weird about today is that if they are anti-government like QAnon, it’s about a “deep state,” “this second government,” [Brian Friedberg] said. “Typically, on the far right, they’re wildly opposed to a strong federal government. But this doesn’t look like that. This is, in fact, a defense of what they see as their government.’”
        • “‘The closest thing I could compare it to is [that] this is the way anti-Communism spread,’ [Friedberg] said. ‘Certainly, many people wouldn’t call that extremism, but that brand developed its own extremism, whether it be the John Birch Society or the tactics of McCarthyism in the U.S. Senate. But that… all-or-nothing anti-Communism in the context of the Cold War really is the closest thing to compare this to.’”
        • “‘I jokingly call this authoritarian libertarianism — where there’s a libertarian streak of personal freedom and individuality that runs through these communities… exemplified by anonymous postings [and] the whole freedom of speech without consequences,’ he said. ‘But they’re pining for this authoritarian figure who can do no wrong.’”
      • Qanon linked to armed stand-offs.

https://www.insider.com/qanon-violence-crime-conspiracy-theory-us-allegation-arrest-killing-gun-2020-8

  • “’If you believe in QAnon, you almost have to fundamentally believe that violence is inevitable to ‘save the world,’ Carusone told Insider in an email. ‘As we get closer to Election Day and in the days after, you will see increased urgency for action within the QAnon community, increasingly inflammatory language, and increased calls for acts of violence.’”
  • The Week Qanon Became Everyone’s Problem

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/08/week-qanon-became-everyones-problem/168124/

  • “It’s an online movement whose members collectively fantasize about violence. A few have committed real-world violence, including two murders and arson. In May 2019, an FBI report warned that “conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists” posed a domestic terrorism threat, naming QAnon. A July report from West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center drew comparisons to conspiracy theory-driven terrorism outside of the United States. QAnon researchers, such as Travis View and Kevin Roose, have been warning about the potential for violence.”
  • “As Peter W. Singer pointed out in early 2018, the deadliest terrorist threat to Americans in 2008–17 was not jihadists, who accounted for 26 percent of extremist killings, but far-right ideologies, such white nationalists, who were responsible for 71 percent (left-wing extremists made up the last 3 percent). Since then, the U.S. has faced sizable white nationalist terrorist attacks, including the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (October 2018, killed 11) and the El Paso Walmart shooting (August 2019, killed 22).”
  • “Jihadists and white nationalists use the internet in similar ways: organizing, recruiting, spreading information, and encouraging self-starters. Here there’s some overlap with QAnon. Like white nationalists, QAnon is a diffuse, leaderless movement. The real identity of Q isn’t known, it’s possible multiple people have posted as Q, and while Q could encourage violence, there’s no indication that the person(s) behind the account has the interest or ability to orchestrate a terrorist campaign like bin Laden or al Baghdadi. The primary danger comes from self-starters. And if QAnon followers behave like internet-based jihadists or white nationalists, they — or at least a subset — will venerate co-believers who take it upon themselves to advance the cause with violence.”
  • “But unlike jihadists and white supremacists, many followers of QAnon aren’t ideologues or interested in violence. As game designer Adrian Hon argues, much of their participation resembles play in an alternate reality game, with a large cast of characters and clues to decipher with your friends. A common type of QAnon believer is a 60-something white, church-going woman who’s retired, or a full-time mom whose kids are grown. In QAnon Facebook group chats, many participants come across as lonely, not fanatical.”
  • “The number of QAnon believers is hard to measure, but it’s safe to say it’s in the millions. Believers include current police officers and retired military. A study by The Guardian found QAnon Facebook and Instagram groups with, in total, more than 4.5 million members.”
  • “Now, assume those million users constitute the entirety of QAnon. And assume 99 percent are harmless. They don’t really believe, or they do but they envision the Storm as a series of orderly arrests by law enforcement, or they think average people need to rise up but they’d be too scared or squeamish or lazy to follow through themselves. Assuming 99 percent are harmless still leaves 10,000 potential terrorists. And if the QAnon community is larger than a million — which it likely is — or if the group who really believe and might act violently is closer to 3 percent than 1, that’s tens of thousands.”
  • Incels
    • Incels are radicalized and dangerous. Are they terrorists?
Incels Are Radicalized and Dangerous. But Are They Terrorists?

https://www.thestranger.com/books/2017/01/10/24792575/sarah-schulmans-conflict-is-not-abuse-is-a-guide-to-keeping-the-peace

  • Convoluted Politics of the Cancellation of Contrapoints

https://medium.com/swlh/contrapoints-pronouns-canceled-twitter-youtube-3f405f8d47ac

  • Contrapoints: Canceling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjMPJVmXxV8u0026vl=en

  • Is left-wing violence rising? https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising
    • “In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders,” Pitcavage says.
  • Right- and left-wing violence cannot be equated, says expert https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/interview/right-and-left-wing-violence-canno-be-equated-says-expert/
    • “On the left, we see mostly confrontational violence directed towards the right-wing scene and police officers. It is often about eliminating the basic democratic order of the state. For example, by attacking right-wing politicians or attacking the police at demonstrations.”
    • “The extremist groups from the left are very divided in terms of ideologies and programmes. These are not rooted in tradition as is the case with right-wing extremism, which leans towards nationalist thinking.Left-wing groups sometimes have nothing to do with each other. There are communist parties such as the Communist Party (KPD), which is Marxist and Leninist, and on the other hand, there are anarchist groups, some of which have very liberal ideas of society and want to break down the state itself.”
  • Antifa
    • Are Antifa and the Alt-Right equally violent? https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ 
    • The Rise of The Violent Left https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/ 
    • “Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office.”
    • “Antifa’s perceived legitimacy is inversely correlated with the government’s. Which is why, in the Trump era, the movement is growing like never before. As the president derides and subverts liberal-democratic norms, progressives face a choice. They can recommit to the rules of fair play, and try to limit the president’s corrosive effect, though they will often fail. Or they can, in revulsion or fear or righteous rage, try to deny racists and Trump supporters their political rights. From Middlebury to Berkeley to Portland, the latter approach is on the rise, especially among young people.”
    • Anti-fascists linked to zero murders in the US in 25 years https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa
  • Clark McCauley and Sofia Mosalenko’s 2009 book Friction: How Radicalization Happens to Them and Us
    • Individual-level factors, Personal grievance, Group grievance, Slippery slope, Love, Risk and status, Unfreezing, Group-level factors, Polarization, Isolation, and Competition
  • From Addressing Extremism: “There are a variety of schools of thought on the sources of extremism, which are given unequal weight in the literature. Here is a summary of the main perspectives:
    • Extremism is grown. That adverse conditions (poverty, inadequate access to healthcare, nutrition, education, and employment), a denial of basic human needs (for security, dignity, group identity, and political participation), unending experiences of humiliation, and a ever-widening gap between what people believe they deserve and what they can attain leads to extreme acts. This is particularly so because normative channels for getting needs met are experienced as blocked.
    • Extremism is constructed. This takes two forms. One, political leaders, capitalizing on adverse conditions, incentivize extremism (such as offering monetary awards to families or emphasizing benefits to “martyrs” in the afterlife) and legitimize militantism in order to draw attention to their cause and gain power. Two, dominant groups, in an attempt to maintain power and resist demands for change, characterize the actions of marginalized groups as “extremist” and create a self-fulfilling prophesy which elicits increasingly extreme actions from these groups.
    • Extremism is an emotional outlet for severe feelings. Persistent experiences of oppression, insecurity, humiliation, resentment, loss, and rage lead individuals and groups to adopt conflict engagement strategies which “fit” or feel consistent with these experiences. Thus, extremists will use violent, destructive strategies, not because they are instrumental to attaining other goals, but because they feel righteous, vengeful, and good. In fact, when extremism is morally sanctioned 4by ones ingroup as an appropriate response to such feelings, members become more invested in extremist acts because they are empowering and feel “right”.
    • Extremism is a rational strategy in a game over power. That extremist actions are an effective strategy for gaining and maintaining power in an hierarchical environment where resources are scarce and competition for power is paramount for meetings one’s needs. In other words, extremism works. It can call attention to one’s cause, damage one’s opponent, and unite one’s ingroup against a common enemy. This is a very common and popular perspective on the prevalence of extremism.
    • Extremism emerges from apocalyptic, eschatological ideologies. Extremist activities are often committed and valued because they are consistent with broader myths or systems of meaning. Some of these ideologies are focused on the cataclysmic demise of evil ruling powers (the outgroup) and the elevation and glorification of the righteous (ingroup), and thus emphasize the destruction of the other. Such belief systems include: good vs. evil framing; an other worldly orientation; a need for self-purification; divine sanctioning of horrendous violence; and the depiction of martyrdom as an act of self-purification and justice. Youth are often socialized to buy into these ideologies by families, peers, communities, educational systems (such as madrassah), media, and politicians.” 
    • “Extremism is a pathological illness. This perspective views extremism as a disease and a way of life where people look to violence to provide a feeling of aliveness. Greun (2003) writes, “The lack of identity associated with extremists is the result of self-destructive self-hatred that leads to feelings of revenge toward life itself, and a compulsion to kill one’s own humanness.” Thus extremism is seen as not a tactic, nor an ideology, but as a pathological illness which feeds on the destruction of life.”

How do you know if you have been radicalized?

  • Hard to recognize it when you’re in it.
  • Questions for self-exploration/self-analysis:
    • Have you abandoned previously-enjoyed hobbies or interests? Why?
    • Have you abandoned or drifted away from previously-enjoyed relationships and social interactions? Have other people drifted away from you?
    • Do you condone or justify actions or policies today that you wouldn’t have a year ago? Five years ago? Ten years ago? Why or why not?
    • How have your values, beliefs, and principles shifted over the past year? The past five years? The past decade? What precipitated that shift? How do you feel about that shift?
    • Mood-wise, how do you feel relative to a year ago? Five years ago? Ten years ago? 
    • What kinds of feedback, praise, and criticism do you generally receive from friends? Colleagues? Acquaintances? Family members? Strangers? Rivals? Enemies?

What can you do to prevent radicalization?

  • Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kathleen-taylor-religious-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896

  • Research opposing views
    • The litmus test: Can you explain/describe opposing views on their own terms, without exaggeration or distortion?
  • Step outside of your echo chambers; have productive conversations with people with diverse and dissenting views.
  • Critically analyze your own views.
  • Be open to feedback and criticism from trusted loved ones, friends, and colleagues
  • Identify your core values and principles, and ask if you are still generally acting in alignment with them.
  • Identify your greatest aspirations and goals, and ask if your actions are helping you to realize them.
  • Ask yourself: What world do you want to live in? Are your beliefs, words, and deeds bringing that world closer to reality, or not? 
  • Ask yourself: How would you feel if your enemies/opponents said or did things you have done, are doing, or intend to do? How would you feel if your enemies/opponents said or did things “your side” has done, is doing, or intends to do? 
  • Seek therapy for your personal issues, traumas, griefs, and sufferings. Using activism, terrorism, and/or proselytizing purely as a form of personal therapy can compromise your effectiveness in your chosen movement, as well as potentially lead to serious danger and harm.

Can you come back from being radicalized?

  • Reducing fear may play a role https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-turn-conservatives-liberal-john-bargh-psychology-2017-10
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Picciolini 
  • https://www.france24.com/en/20190720-ex-jihadist-tania-joya-now-fights-reprogram-extremists 
  • https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-makingand-unmakingof-a-jihadist-1525472372 
  • From Addressing Extremism: “Some of the strategies aimed at addressing extremism include:
    • Elimination. Simply the use of information, the law, and force to identify, locate, and apprehend (or destroy) extremists or key leaders of extremist groups. Sometimes this entails using legal maneuvers to tie up economic resources, thereby crippling the ability of such groups to organize and function. These tactics have been used by the Southern Poverty Law Center to undermine the operations of white supremacist groups in the United States.
      • Downside: Although elimination may work to remove key individuals and groups, it fails to address the underlying causes of extremism. These strategies are also often viewed as unjust by some, and can generate increased incidents of resistance and extremism from sympathizers. Also, there is a tendency to want to sacrifice certain civil liberties and human rights when working to directly eliminate extremism. 
    • Divide and conquer. When one group is able to infiltrate the opposing side’s extremist groups, or establish relationships with ambivalent members of those groups, they can begin to create a wedge between members. Such schisms can fester and be the undoing of groups, particularly when conformity and cohesion is prized and betrayal is punished by extreme measures.
      • Downside: Such strategies can backfire and lead to increased group unity, and can be “flipped”; used by the extremist groups to gain information and resources from their opponents. As above, a somewhat superficial or temporary approach to addressing extremism. 
    • Isolation. This strategy is often used by more moderate members of a community who disagree with the tactics of their more extreme members or who resent the “high-jacking” of their conflict processes by such members. It entails everything from a public distancing of the main group from extreme members and a condemnation of their actions to a more private withdrawal of support and backing from moderates.
      • Downside: Such strategies can intensify the intragroup conflict (between moderates and extremists) and destabilize the group. Such a state of vulnerability might also be seen as an opportunity to be seized by hardliners in the intergroup conflict, thus further weakening the moderate’s situation. 
    • Intergroup cooperation against extremism. This is a variation on the above strategy, but entails cooperation between the parties involved in the intergroup conflict. Essentially, both groups agree to frame extremism and terrorism as a mutual problem to be solved jointly by the parties. This can be particularly effective on the heels of a peace agreement between the parties, where they attempt to anticipate and publicly label extremist responses to the agreement, thereby heading off the “spoiler” effects of destructive reactions.
      • Downside: Such strategies are built on the trust and assurances made of each of the opposing parties to isolate their own extremist groups, trust which tends to be fragile at such an early stage of peace processes. If it fails it can jeopardize the entire peace agreement. 
    • Expanding the middle. In situations of protracted conflict, you often find moderates (pro-negotiation camp), hardliners (anti-negotiation camp), and extremists (anti-other camp) on each side. This strategy is an active attempt to establish the conditions which grow the more moderate (and even hard-line) segments, thus attracting the more moderate members of extremist groups toward a position of tolerance and away from a commitment to the destruction of the other.
      • Downside: The creation of “fake” interlocutors, almost puppet representatives with no political legitimacy beyond their cozy relationship with the external interveners. In certain conditions this strategy can also provoke the formation of “moderate” as profession. Supported by ideologically close donors, these actors may lack the political capital to actually influence the process, raising expectations (especially among less well-read, well-connected actors). Another downside is to provoke an over-reaction by the extremists within the organization group, thus complicating the establishment of effective channels of communication and negotiation. 
    • Covert negotiation chains. Often, it is politically damaging for the leaders of one group to have any formal contact with members of extremist groups on either side. Such contact can alienate the opposing leadership as well as one’s own constituents. Therefore, unofficial “chains” of communication are sometimes established where the leadership of one group has contact with extreme members of her/his own group, who in turn contact sympathizers in the opposing group, etcetera, until a communication chain is formed with key members of extreme groups. Thus, some progress may be made in covert negotiations, while leaders maintain some degree of political cover and deniability.
      • Downside: A politically risky strategy which is dependent on the trustworthiness of several individuals from different segments of the conflict. Chains are also subject to unintended (and frequently well intentioned) mistakes. Due to the highly sensitive nature of the issues at stake, members of chains may intentionally or unintentionally hide, modify, or censor relevant information. Chains are also not easy to maintain and sustain over time. 
    • Contradictory strategies. These are combined strategies which use many of the other approaches either simultaneously or at different times or stages of a peace process in an attempt to eliminate more serious threats to security while expanding the middle and addressing the conditions which perpetuate extremism.
      • Downside: Often, the use of elimination strategies, even when accompanied by more conciliatory strategies, poisons the relationship and increases suspicion and escalation. 
    • Intragroup work within polarized groups in intergroup conflicts. Rarely utilized, this approach would encourage and facilitate intragroup dialogue and problem-solving in an attempt to actively address the concerns of more extreme members and reduce the incidence of splinter-groups. An “organic” example of this strategy could be found in any highly organized structure such as the Italian Communist Party fighting the Fascist regime. Distinctions between “hawks” and “doves” are a permanent feature even in extremist groups.Downside: It is extremely difficult to establish the internal relations of open communication and trust that make this strategy viable. It should be supported –if worthwhile- from the outside. Also, participation of such a degree of “intimacy” would transform the intervener to an active political actor. Many professionals resist that orientation mightily. 
    • Direct, overt engagement. The active and direct attempt to include key members of extremist groups in formal peace processes, especially through intelligence contacts. Extremist groups are in fact –in many areas of the world- heavily infiltrated and at time direct, confidential contacts can be established.
      • Downside: Significant security concerns. Also, you run the likely risk of spoiler (from all sides)acts which can shut down the entire process. 
    • Peacebuilding. This approach, which is aimed at addressing the underlying conditions which foster extremism, requires activities at two levels. At the macrosocial-level it requires work toward: a reduction of inequity and oppression; protection of human rights; weakening of extremist ideologies; a reduction of militarism, racism, and sexism; systems that promote political empowerment, intergroup tolerance, cooperation, and non-violent conflict resolution; democratization and participatory governance; and strengthening of civil society. At the microsocial-level it requires: a reduction of stereotypes and enemy images; the promotion of empathy, caring, and intercultural understanding; and the provision of economic and social support for young people.
      • Downside: An ambitious, but daunting agenda, frequently rejected by the extremists as too long-term, too optimistic and not realistic. The slow pace of peacebuilding processes may also alienate sectors of communities that while not extremist per se advocate a more adversarial pro-active approach.”

Common avenues of radicalization

  • Social media
  • Religion
  • Socio-political groups
  • Personal traumas, losses, fears, shames, and disappointments
X
Scroll to Top