#radicalization

[the-catboy-minyan]

it's "don't let yourself be radicalized" until you tell them to not support terrorist organisation or wish death onto people they see as evil.

if you think death threats are good when the person "deserves it", you're radicalized.

if you think supporting an organisation that have committed multiple crimes and is known for being terrorists, you're radicalized.

if you dehumanize the other side and believe they're evil/bloodthirsty/animals/brainwashed, you're radicalized.

if you think blind violence against regular people and small businesses is good when it's for the "right" cause, you're radicalized.

if you think children and minors are monsters for being born into a world that taught them to support the opposite side, you're radicalized.

even the most vile person on the planet is still human, if a movement tells you some people are less human because of their race, religion, gender, sexuality, or political beliefs:

YOU ARE BEING RADICALIZED.

[creature-wizard]

What is the New Age to Alt Right Pipeline, and how do you stay out of it?

The term "New Age to Alt Right pipeline" refers to the way alternative spirituality and healthcare often serves as an entry point to far right radicalization. While many people are dismissive that such a thing could even exist, plenty of people in occult and witchcraft communities can confirm that it is very much a real thing. Having studied far right conspiracies myself for awhile now, I can personally confirm that a number of people involved in alternative spirituality, including ones who consider themselves progressive, are spouting off the very same conspiracy theories used to justify persecution of the Jews throughout the Middle Ages to the Nazi regime.

Even if you don't reckon yourself a New Ager, you are still likely to come across this stuff because there's no hard and fast place where New Age ends and witchcraft, neopaganism, or whatever begins. While the core and arguably most defining belief of New Age is that the Earth is on the cusp of entering a new cosmic cycle, there's a significant amount of overlap between things New Agers are into, and things that other people are into.

For example, someone interested in Wicca might start researching the Goddess, and from there very quickly encounter conspiracy theories claiming that everyone was monotheistic for the Great Goddess back before The Patriarchy Tee Em invented a male god for people to be monotheist for. From there, it's just a short matter of time before they start coming across materials claiming that the Jews are responsible for the creation of this god, and also responsible for the Catholic Church, and so on. (Pro tip, the Roman government was responsible for the Catholic Church.)

The best way to keep yourself safe from this isn't to simply avoid all material that might potentially contain far right ideas and conspiracy theories. Rather, it's to learn what they look like. Here's a few things to watch out for:

The grand conspiracy narrative: The exact details you'll hear will vary depending on who you're listening to - every conspiracy theorist tailors and re-tailors the grand conspiracy narrative to suit their own agendas and beliefs. The key details to watch out for are claims that there's this secret group that's been pulling the strings behind the scenes for a long while now, and that their agents are working everywhere to make sure the people stay deceived.

To be blunt about it, literally every conspiracy theory about a New World Order, a shadow government, generational satanists, satanic bloodlines, reptilian bloodlines, and so on is a riff on the material found within The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a czarist hoax used to justify violence against Russian Jews, and later on, the Holocaust. There are no exceptions.

During the Satanic Panic, many people claimed to have been part of such a conspiracy. Investigations failed to turn up any real evidence, and those pushing these claims always turned out to have a history of dishonest behavior, or had been subjected to hypnosis by someone with a history of dishonest behavior and/or a gross disregard for medical ethics.

If you see someone claiming to have been part of something like this today, your best assumption is that they are lying to you, or are extremely confused. End of story.

Great Goddess conspiracy theories: Back in the mid-19th century, Eduard Gerhard proposed that people all used to worship the Great Goddess, until patriarchy came along and replaced her with a god. There's literally no evidence for this whatsoever, but a lot of people who believe that patriarchy is part of a grand conspiracy still believe this one. You'll often see it in conjunction with stuff about the "divine feminine" and womb magic among those who believe that patriarchy is part of the grand conspiracy.

Claims of mass ritual abuse and murder: An allegation that goes back to blood libel and the witch trials, far right conspiracy theorists often claim that there is an underground network of cults practicing ritual abuse and human sacrifice. This was the kind of thing that people were put under hypnosis to try and remember during the Satanic Panic, based on incorrect beliefs about how memory worked. (In reality, going under hypnosis to try and recover lost memories mainly results in fabricating completely new ones, because hypnotic visions basically work just like dreams.)

Claims of mass mind control: Not many people realize this, but this one goes all the way back to the witch hunts, when alleged witches were accused of ensnaring people's minds with their diabolical spells. (Yes, the witch trials were fueled by conspiracy theories!) Today's conspiracy theorists claim that the conspiracy uses things like music, movies, implants, subliminal messages, drugs, medications, 5G, extreme tortures, and more to put people under total mind control. The whole Project Monarch conspiracy theory is part of this; and a number of people were also put under hypnosis to "remember" being part of Project Monarch during the Satanic Panic.

Anti-pharma/anti-vax conspiracy theories: During World War II, Nazis demonized pharmaceutical drugs as "Jewish science" so they could push cheaper herbal remedies, which were largely ineffective. If you see somebody claiming that pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines are created by the conspiracy to keep people sick or make them easier to control, know that it's a redux of this old bullshit. Today's anti-pharma and anti-vax conspiracy theories often go in conjunction with claims that stuff like crystals, energy healing, and quantum healing technology can replace conventional medical care.

Claims to know the real cause of your medical or psychological symptoms: During the early modern witch hunts, strange symptoms were often blamed on the curses of satanic witches. The Satanic Panic picked this one up and modernized it through a psychological lens, claiming that seemingly inexplicable symptoms were evidence of suppressed memories of ritual abuse. Meanwhile, believers in alien abductions claimed it was evidence of suppressed memories of alien-related trauma, and neopagans and New Agers claimed it was evidence of past life trauma. All of these people have used hypnosis to help people "remember" these supposedly lost memories, and due to the nature of hypnosis (again, hypnotic visions work like dreams), all of them found "evidence" to corroborate literally anything they wanted to find.

Other modernizations of this old witch hunters' canard include claims that your strange symptoms are caused by things like 5G, chemtrails, chemicals in the water, food additives, sound frequencies, or such. Now this isn't to say that there's never been toxic food additives, or that certain sound frequencies can never cause harm; the key element is when these people claim that this stuff is done as part of a grand conspiracy.

Meanwhile, New Agers claim that your strange symptoms might actually be "ascension symptoms." For the record, numerous dates that ascension was supposed to happen on have gone and went, and we're all still here in 3D. So I'd recommend not holding your breath for this one, either.

Claiming the conspiracy is responsible for everything bad or wrong in the world: Conspiracy theorists will blame the grand conspiracy for literally anything they find unpleasant or objectionable to the conspiracy. This can include claiming that movies they found confusing, emotionally difficult, or ideologically challenging were deliberately designed to harm people or put them under mind control. They might claim that things like long wait lines are intentionally engineered to frustrate and exhaust people in order to make them easier to control. They might claim that horrible accidents or disasters are actually "programming" to make people accept the lie.

This isn't to say that governments never do genuinely malicious shit, or that brainwashing doesn't exist. The thing here is that conspiracy theorists frequently attribute nearly everything they find strange, confusing, or unpleasant to the schemes of a grand conspiracy. They often act like if it wasn't for the grand conspiracy, we would be living in utopia.

Dehumanization of the Other: Conspiracy theorists often talk as if the masses aren't quite human, calling them "NPCs" or "sheeple." Sometimes they literally believe that other people aren't truly human. You'll find various conspiracy theories claiming that certain people are actually animal hybrids, AI-controlled clones, malicious aliens pretending to be humans, holographic projections, or something similar. The key thing to keep in mind here is that dehumanization is a crucial step toward genocide, and the far right wants to do genocide on anyone who doesn't do what they say, or doesn't fit their idea of what humanity ought to be like.

Individualist outlooks on life, metaphysics, etc: Today's far right is all about that Western individualism; they tend to be capitalists and libertarians, and think communism is an invention of the conspiracy. Their metaphysical views tend to reflect this, and they often subscribe to some form of worldview in which everything that happens to you is your fault, and expecting anyone else to take any kind of responsibility is just victim mentality.

With Christians, this presents as the belief that bad things happen to you because you're not right with God; if you got right with God, he would bless you with health and abundance.

With New Age and New Age-adjacent types, this often presents as stuff like the Law of Attraction and the Law of Assumption, where everything that happens to you is a consequence of the way you think. It can also present in the belief that if anything bad happens to you, it's your karma.

Stuff like the Law of Assumption is pitched as this super empowering way to get everything you want, but in reality it functions to make people feel responsible for the suffering they experience under capitalism and silence criticism of systemic issues.

So yeah, keep your eyes open for all this stuff, and if you see somebody out there pushing it - be wary!

Links for more info:

"How can I be a witch/pagan without falling for conspiracy theories/New Age cult stuff?" starter kit (I put a bunch of links to other posts and resources here earlier; no need to copy/paste them all here.)

Incomplete list of far right conspiracy theorists and con artists claiming to be occult experts and/or cult survivors

Hypnosis is unreliable for memory recovery, and this is one way we know.

False past life memories among the starseed movement

Hitler's Contribution to "Alternative Medicine"

[monsterblogging]

So, it finally clicked that while the average person does in fact broadly comprehend that people are neither good nor evil - they're good and bad, and have free will - they also can't understand why some people would fully commit themselves to completely awful causes or to being a terrible person throughout their entire lives. They can't really picture how this works, because they can't imagine themselves choosing to die on a hill of Being A Terrible Person.

This void in their comprehension is where the myth of the Ontologically Evil Person is very likely to come and settle in sooner or later, because it seems to finally provide an answer that makes sense of otherwise senseless cruelty and violence. Agonizing questions like "Why would my boyfriend spend so much energy on making me feel like shit and breaking me down?" "Why would this historical figure decided to kill all of these people?" and "Why would this guy go start a cult and murder everyone?" are finally given an answer, and the formerly-bewildered person finally has some peace of mind.

Because of this, the myth of the Ontologically Evil Person is incredibly hard to get out of people's minds once it takes root. For one thing, bad ideas are like bad habits; it doesn't really work to tell people to Just Stop With Them, because without something else to take its place? They're going to fall back on it.

And if somebody's been traumatized from abuse? The last thing they want to hear is that they're basically dehumanizing their abuser and that's not cool, because it feels to them like the other person is taking their abuser's side and telling them to get fucked. Even if this not what's happening, the survivor's brain is currently operating on fight/flight/fawn/freeze mode, and a brain operating fight/flight/freeze/fawn mode is keyed to making snap decisions to try and remove you from the danger as soon as possible, which means categorizing everything into black and white. This person couldn't care less about the history of eugenics right now; literally all they care about is being safe.

"Okay, so if the Ontologically Evil Person doesn't exist, how the hell do you explain those fuckers over there?" some of you are probably asking.

Here's the deal. Literally every human being alive can and will do terrible things if they're sufficiently scared and desperate. They're in no position to appreciate that nearly all asshole behavior can be explained by a lack of critical social and self-management skills, or by a lack of access to self-improvement (including being too traumatized to trust means of self-improvement).

People who are scared, insecure, and under high levels of stress will often cling to anything that makes them feel better, because they want to feel safe and secure and not in psychological and/or physical agony. (Stress does an absolute number on your body, too.)

Being reliant on a shitty behavior, belief system, or product for some measure of feeling secure and safe is how you get people saying things like "If I didn't act mean, everyone would just walk all over me!" or "I was really depressed before I found this, so if I gave it up I'm going to get depressed again, and I might hurt myself." (And there might be some truth to this one! This might indeed happen if they give it up cold turkey, and without finding an alternative!) It's how you get people conducting """scientific""" studies to """prove""" that their bigotry is totally justified and not at all irrational. ("Well of course these people are genetically inferior, they wouldn't be poor and disease-ridden if they weren't... what do you mean, systemic inequality and uneven healthcare access? No that's obviously fake and made up by More Bad People.")

People also act in unhealthy ways to deal with personal insecurities implanted by parents or society. You have people out there whose parents drummed it into their heads that second place was for worthless losers, or that no one would love them if they didn't look or act a certain way. You have people who absorbed the idea that acknowledging the basic humanity of shitty people means that they have to forgive them and personally help them get better and just suffer through the abuse in the meantime.

This is how people choose to die on the hill of Being A Terrible Person. They weren't ontologically evil. They were scared, and they thought they saw a fortress on the top of that hill that would keep them (and perhaps also their loved ones) safe.

[queerism1969]

[lilithism1848]

[luckybyler]

1. So I’m trying to write a counter reply to a reply I got, but the question is, how do you argue with someone when you realize that said someone and you are living in completely separate, different realities? How do you explain things to someone who may just not have the capacity to comprehend them?

2. I made a couple of posts that got many many replies, Some very nice to me, some not so much, some were straight-up vulgar. Lots of arguing back and forth in the replies.

What worried me tho, is that I saw at least one person that strikes me as being radicalized, or in the process of radicalization. Just so we’re clear: RADICALIZATION IS A BAD THING. And it’s not because they disagree with me (many people did), or even that they were rude (many people were), it’s the specific way this specific person answered. I’ve been on Tumblr longer than some people here have been alive, and while it has always had its problems, this is the first time I’m seeing its use as a radicalization avenue in action. And the worst thing is that there’s no avenue to sound an early alarm and prevent something worse as far as I know. It gives me the heebie-jeebies.

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

“I was particularly interested in the part of the book where you dive into the phenomenon of “conspirituality,” the combination of conspiracy theory and spirituality. You cite an article in which two social historians make the case that people are drawn to such thinking because they want to be part of a secret that “distinguishes them and makes them feel superior to the unenlightened public.””

[screamingfromuz]

I think a lot of people on the left know about the 'edgy right wing humor -> fascism' pipeline (i.e. how pewdiepie and the like leads to radicalization of especially younger people), but I haven't heard many people talking about the 'edgy left wing humor -> fascism' pipeline (i.e. how people like tumblr funnyman br*ndanicus, heritagep*sts and tankies like them use humorous posts and joking about 'eat the rich' etc. to normalize their extreme, fascist politics such as holocaust and holodomor denial and so much antisemitism it would make even propaganda minister Goebbels blush).

No matter your political beliefs:

YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO PROPAGANDA AND RADICALIZATION.

ALWAYS CONSUME MEDIA (ALSO SOCIAL MEDIA) CRITICALLY.

HUMOR IS WEAPONIZED BY FASCISTS TO RECRUIT THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE BEING RADICALIZED.

IF A TUMBLR USER YOU FOLLOW FOR FANDOM CONTENT/ART OR WHATEVER SPREADS MISINFORMATION, PROMOTES GENOCIDE AND/OR HATRED, CONFRONT THEM AND LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT OKAY - ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE YOUR MUTUALS OR LONG-TIME FRIEND, THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO LISTEN TO YOU; END THEIR TRIP DOWN THE PIPELINE BEFORE YOU LOSE THEM.

.

[thekimspoblog]

The new meme template just dropped. Go nuts with it!

[creature-wizard]

Before telling people to "just search on DuckDuckGo," ask yourself what's to prevent them from clicking the wrong link, falling down a misinformation rabbithole, and ending up radicalized by far right conspiracy theories.

Remember, the average person does not know the dog whistles and red flags.

This is why I generally avoid telling people to "just search for it," and instead keep a list of people, books, podcasts, and other resources I trust on hand to recommend.

Never forget that "do your own research" is literally what the far right conspiracy theorists tell curious and questioning people, because they know full well that it's an effective way to send them down the pipeline.

[trans-girl-nausicaa]

Radicalization and Deradicalization

Prelude:

The New York Times, Sunday, December 21, 1924:

BERLIN, Dec. 20 — Adolph Hitler, once the demi-god of the reactionary extremists, was released on parole from imprisonment at Fortress Landsberg, Bavaria, today and immediately left in an auto for Munich. He looked a much sadder and wiser man today than last Spring when he, with Ludendorff and other radical extremists, appeared before a Munich court charged with conspiracy to overthrow the Government. 

His behavior during imprisonment convinced the authorities that, like his political organization, known as the Völkischer, was no longer to be feared. It is believed he will retire to private life, and return to Austria, the country of his birth.

The United States of America is a cannibalistic nation. 

Its businesses consume their workers, its extractive industries consume its natural resources, its prisons consume their prisoners, its “law” enforcement agencies consume their jurisdictions, its military-industrial complex consumes the available budget of its nation, its borders consume prospective refugees & immigrants, its occupying forces consume their protectorates. Its economic policies are eating up civil society’s ability to reproduce itself. Food, housing, education, medical care, bodily autonomy: The share of the US population who can access these basic necessities is shrinking.

As an empire it is running out of frontiers. Its ability to wield power on the world-stage to consume other countries’ economies through economic-imperialism seems to be rapidly coming to an end.

When the current political-economic order loses legitimacy in the eyes of civil society, or rather, loses its material ability to reproduce civil society, alternate forms of power rush to mind, and counter-establishment groups rush to grab power. When a dynasty loses the Mandate of Heaven, peasants revolt and warlords rise up.

In the USA, the prospective warlords already have established subcultures and power structures and many of them are eagerly awaiting “their day.” They have many names for it, including The Day of the Rope, when Shit Hits The Fan (SHTF), Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo, Racial Holy War (RAHOWA). But even before “their day,” and even if “their day” never comes, and even outside of formal groups, some people become “radicalized” and adopt a white supremacist “extremist” ideology that results in violence against innocent people. 

Definitions within this text:

Legal: According to the de jure, or by the letter, laws of the United States of America, even where they contradict international laws.

Terrorism: The use of violence or the threat of violence against a population to instill fear, especially for ideological or political purposes.

Extremism: Any ideology where extralegal violence or terrorism against one’s political enemies is acceptable. This includes cases where one wishes to legalize violence or terrorism against certain people. 

Radicalization: The process by which someone adopts an extremist ideology.

Deradicalization: The process by which someone rejects an extremist ideology.

Desistance: The process by which a person ceases extremist activities, regardless of whether they have an extremist ideology or not.

Former: A former member of an extremist group.

Left-wing extremism will not be addressed by this essay. The author is a Communist and opposes all false equivalences drawn between right-wing violence and left-wing violence. Violence can be used to terrorize and oppress, but it can also be used to defend and liberate.

Fundamentalist Islamic extremism (Salafism et al.) will largely not be addressed as it is beyond the scope of this essay. In the US, post-2001 it has been associated in far fewer acts of violence than white supremacists, hence it is considered to be less of a threat domestically.

Further uses of the word “extremism” and “radicalization” should be assumed to apply to white supremacist groups and ideologies unless otherwise specified.

Part 1: Radicalization

When Americans commit acts of extralegal terrorism, it is not because of a particular mental illness. There is no mental illness described in the DSM-V where becoming a Nazi and murdering people is a symptom. Certain mental illnesses can be one of many possible risk factors for radicalization, but it is radicalization itself that is required for acts of terrorism.

Radicalization is a process based on material circumstances. 

Some of these circumstances can be understood through studies on former members of extremist organizations.

Brown, Ryan Andrew, Todd C. Helmus, Rajeev Ramchand, Alina I. Palimaru, Sarah Weilant, Ashley L. Rhoades, and Liisa Hiatt, What Do Former Extremists and Their Families Say About Radicalization and Deradicalization in America? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2021:

Who Is at Risk of Joining Violent Extremist Organizations?

The interviews suggest that there is ultimately a wide range of factors, such as family dynamics and social backgrounds, that put some people at risk of radicalization. Three factors were mentioned most frequently.

Financial instability (noted in 22 of the 32 cases) Seven individuals noted that financial challenges pushed them into extremist beliefs. Interviewees also mentioned that they faced financial challenges when they participated in extremist organizations, which prompted some to work in jobs tied to the organization itself. This involvement led to delays in leaving the organization. Mental health (noted in 17 of the 32 cases) Mental health challenges were cited as obstacles that individuals had to cope with throughout their lives. Some interviewees identified overwhelming anger and other symptoms as drivers of joining an extremist organization. Trauma or posttraumatic stress disorder, substance use, and physical health issues were also mentioned, but less frequently. Victimization, stigmatization, marginalization (noted in 16 of the 32 cases) Many interviewees described how they felt one or more of these when growing up and that those experiences contributed to their radicalization. Most often, individuals mentioned feeling isolated and lonely in institutions (e.g., schools) or communities in which they were the minority race. Former white supremacists cited this factor, as did one former Islamic extremist. Only a few interviewees noted that their families held radical beliefs.

Pauline G. M. Aarten, Eva Mulder & Antony Pemberton (2018) The Narrative of Victimization and Deradicalization: An Expert View, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 41:7,557-572, DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2017.1311111:

…experiences, perceptions, and narratives of victimization frequently inspire perpetrators’ behavior. Retaliation for past victimization often underlies violence, where a sense of entitlement caused by victimization can provide adequate justification for one’s own acts. This seems particularly true of group-based violence, such as in political violence and terrorism: narratives of victimization ranging back through the years can still provide motive and cover for violence and bloodshed in the present. As Volkan shows in his book Bloodlines, these so-called chosen traumas form a moral nucleus for politically motivated action, including violence. The experience of being righteously aggrieved is a particular strong motivation for morally motivated violence, particularly if this sense of historical victimization can be connected to a present-day threat. The link between victimization experiences and radicalization can be direct, with victimization experiences serving as a causal factor in the development and extremity of religious and political views that may motivate political violence and terrorism. For example, McCauley and Moskalenko describe how personal victimization is one of the pathways, and one of main explanations given by suicide terrorists, to individual radicalization.

These risk factors must combine with another ingredient to radicalize people: Ideology.

From The Narrative of Victimization and Deradicalization: An Expert View:

Ideology as Meaning-Making Ideology is a way of making meaning: it is a way of explaining the causes of the event, the consequences on him or herself and the further development of their story. In other words, ideology is the narrative attention that is needed in certain events—such as victimization—to help construct the radical’s life story. Indeed, the way that a person responds to these key personal event memories is important to the way the person subsequently defines his or herself. An ideology becomes part of someone’s identity, but is also a means to incorporate victimization experiences in a manner that does not denote passivity and helplessness. In other words, victimization as such is often rejected as being part of the radical’s narrative identity. Instead, the victimization experience itself is transformed through embracing ideology as a way to give meaning to and deal with such negative events.

Ideology is introduced to potential extremists through various means. In some cases, they are radicalized before joining an extremist group, and in other cases they directly recruited and are radicalized via their membership in such a group.

From What Do Former Extremists and Their Families Say About Radicalization and Deradicalization in America?:

How Are Individuals Recruited into Extremist Groups? Research shows that online propaganda and recruitment are key pathways to joining extremist groups. Interviewees participating in this project cited these and other paths that led them in. "Reorienting" event (noted in 17 of the 32 cases) Most interviewees described a dramatic or traumatic event that prompted them into reconsidering previously held views and considering alternative perspectives. These included a gun possession charge, rejection by the military, a friend's suicide, and an extended period of unemployment. Some white supremacists discussed events involving black individuals. Direct and indirect recruitment (noted in 25 of the 32 cases) The cases of four white supremacists and three Islamic extremists involved top-down recruitment—that is, recruiters from extremist organizations formally and proactively recruited them. The cases of 15 white supremacists and three Islamic extremists involved bottom-up entry, in which the individuals radicalized on their own and then sought membership in an extremist group. Propaganda (noted in 22 of the 32 cases) Individuals described consuming online materials, as well as music and books, during the time of their radicalization. Social bonds (noted in 14 of the 32 cases) Interviewees described how they were motivated to join a group by the social bonds they experienced with the group. Most noted feelings of family and friendship among group members, and some discussed how they felt a new sense of power as a member of a group. Some noted how they felt rewarded for contributions to the cause and group. Several cases were identified in which individuals "graduated" from one organization to a more extreme organization.

There is no mystery of where people are being directed in their path of radicalization. 

A list of some of these groups has been collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Part 2: The Failure of The Conventional Response

In a liberal democracy a governed population expects the State to maintain “order” as the State necessarily maintains a monopoly on the use of force and violence. 

The history of US foreign policy yields many cases of support for extremism abroad. One can refer, for example, to Operation Gladio, Iran-Contra, Operation Condor, Operation Cyclone, the 1953 coup in Iran, and US support for General Suharto. 

The U.S. government continues to grapple with this issue today.

James Carden, The Nation, January 14, 2016:

Congressmen John Conyers of Michigan and Ted Yoho of Florida drew up an amendment to the House Defense Appropriations bill (HR 2685) that “limits arms, training, and other assistance to the neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia, the Azov Battalion.” It passed by a unanimous vote in the House.

And yet by the time November came around and the conference debate over the year-end appropriations bill was underway, the Conyers-Yoho measure appeared to be in jeopardy. And indeed it was. An official familiar with the debate told The Nation that the House Defense Appropriations Committee came under pressure from the Pentagon to remove the Conyers-Yoho amendment from the text of the bill.

Fortunately, Congress was able to ban sending arms to the Azov Battalion in 2018. 

However, the fact that the Pentagon was opposed to such a restriction raises serious questions. Why was the Pentagon opposed to such a restriction? Did the US military provide arms or training to the Azov Battalion before 2018? Given the fact that the US has sent billions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine, has the Azov Battalion acquired any American weapons? What will the consequences of a well-armed Azov Movement be for postwar Ukraine?

Only time will tell. 

The U.S. government itself has apparently done an abysmal job of preventing extremist ideology among its own personnel as well.

Meghann Myers and Leo Shane III, The military knows it has a problem with domestic extremists, white supremacists, Jan 14, 2021

…a Military Times poll found that about one-third of all active-duty respondents said they saw signs of white supremacist or racist ideology in the ranks.

This tendency applies not only to ideology, but also to acts of terrorism.

Olivia Rubin, Number of Capitol riot arrests of military, law enforcement and government personnel rises to 52, April 23, 2021

At least 52 active or retired military, law enforcement, or government service employees are among the over 400 suspects arrested for their alleged actions at the Capitol, according to an ABC News investigation based on military records, court records, interviews, and publicly available news reports. The arrests include over half a dozen ex-police officers and multiple former elected officials -- and represent some of the most significant and violent charges brought in connection with the deadly insurrection.

Former military and law enforcement are valuable recruits for extremist groups, as they can provide combat training to the rest of the group. 

From White Supremacists Speak:

As was also shown in the Capitol Hill riots, some white supremacist groups recruit from both active duty and retired members of the military and police hoping to benefit from their weaponry knowledge and skills which can be imparted to the group, possible access to weapons and for their already developed sense of discipline. 

Similarly, both active duty and retired military and police recruits serve to lend an air of prestige and legitimacy to such groups, reinforce the idea that the groups are patriotic in nature and these members are also good recruiters as a result.

The police and military are dismal at preventing extremism, and the FBI is also dismal at investigating extremism. 

The FBI has a trend of engaging in entrapment, particularly against vulnerable individuals.

The practice can be seen in this especially egregious case:

Murtaza Hussain, THE FBI GROOMED A 16-YEAR-OLD WITH “BRAIN DEVELOPMENT ISSUES” TO BECOME A TERRORIST, June 15, 2023

…according to the government’s own criminal complaint, Ventura had never actually funded any terrorist group. The only “terrorist” he is accused of ever being in contact with was an undercover FBI agent who befriended him online as a 16-year-old, solicited small cash donations in the form of gift cards, and directed him not to tell anyone else about their intimate online relationship, including his family.

The arrest has shaken his family, who denied allegations that their son was a terrorist and said that he had been manipulated by the FBI. Ventura’s father, Paul Ventura, told The Intercept that Mateo suffered from childhood developmental issues and had been forced to leave his school due to bullying from other students.

“He was born prematurely, he had brain development issues. I had the school do a neurosurgery evaluation on him and they said his brain was underdeveloped,” [Paul] Ventura said. “He was suffering endless bullying at school with other kids taking food off his plate, tripping him in the hallway, humiliating him, laughing at him.”

Other than baiting innocent people into terrorism, the FBI also engages in domestic spying programs so incompetently that their own informant was reported for being suspicious.

Nina Totenberg, Supreme Court to hear arguments on FBI's surveillance of mosques, November 8 2021

It all started in 2006, in Orange Country, Calif. A home-grown terrorist on the FBI's most-wanted list had come out of a mosque there, and relations between the faithful and the FBI had become so fraught that the head of the Los Angeles FBI office, Stephen Tidwell, decided he should do a town hall at one of the Orange County mosques.

He picked the Islamic Center of Irvine, and repeatedly sought at the meeting to assure the audience that the FBI was not monitoring them. If the bureau is going to come to the mosque, he told them, "We will tell you we're coming for the very reason we don't want you to think you're being monitored."

But even as he was saying that, the FBI was recruiting an undercover informant to infiltrate the mosque and catch anyone who might be recruiting and training terrorists. The informant was named Craig Monteilh, a trainer at a local gym who had a checkered past. He posed as a Muslim convert at the Irvine mosque, one of the largest in southern California.

As Sam Black reported for This American Life, "The FBI later confirmed in court that Craig was an undercover informant. A district attorney also stated in court that Craig did work with Agent Kevin Armstrong and that Craig had given the FBI 'very very valuable information.'"

The bureau also has confirmed that Monteilh secretly recorded tons of audio and video of the people he was making friends with at the mosque.

'You're doing the right thing'

Soon he started pummeling his new friends with questions about jihad, Black reported, to the point that some people from the mosque started to hear complaints about it.

Monteilh would subsequently confirm that he eventually did much more than ask questions about jihad.

"I said we should carry out a terrorist attack in this country," he told This American Life. "We should bomb something."

Monteilh said that to two of the men he'd been hanging out with, and they freaked out. They wanted to report what they had heard, but they didn't know how to go about it. So they contacted Hassam Ayloush, director of the Council on American Islamic Relations in Southern California.

"I told them, 'Calm down...you're doing the right thing. You're calling authorities. So even if the guy is planning on anything, you have nothing to worry about. You're not accomplice,'" Ayloush recalled.

Now, Ayloush was the person who had arranged that earlier town hall with Los Angeles FBI chief Tidwell, so he called Tidwell to report Monteilh's threats. But oddly, Tidwell, after thanking him for the tip, didn't even ask for the alleged terrorist's name.

In case you didn’t catch that, Tidwell didn’t ask for the alleged terrorist’s name because he already knew that it was his own informant who was being reported. 

It is obvious that white supremacist extremists should not receive leniency in investigation or sentencing for acts of violence and terrorism, but suffering state violence can also serve as re-radicalizing experiences for them.

Incarceration of those at risk of recruitment by white supremacist extremists feeds into another huge problem: white supremacist prison gangs.

Anti-Defamation League, White Supremacist Prison Gangs: 2022 Assessment, October 24 2022:

There are currently more than 75 different white supremacist prison gangs in at least 38 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as well as in major county jails. They range from relatively small local gangs all the way to multi-state gangs with a thousand or more members.

Today, white supremacist prison gangs are one of the most active and violent segments of the white supremacist movement in the United States. Most states have at least one organized white supremacist prison gang; many have more. Such prison gangs are typically larger than other types of white supremacist groups, with memberships that often are in the hundreds, with a few, like the Aryan Circle and Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, reaching 1,500 or more members. Moreover, most prison gangs have substantial numbers of associates (including women) and hangers-on in addition to formally admitted members.

White supremacists are responsible for the majority of extremist-related murders in the United States almost every year—and members of white supremacist prison gangs commit a substantial number of them.  In the last decade alone, as noted in the COE report Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2021, white supremacist prison gang members were responsible for nearly a third (76) of white supremacist-related killings. Moreover, because murders behind prison walls are not always well reported, the true number is likely higher still.

Over the years, prison officials have tried breaking gang members up across different prisons—or even different prison systems—only to see such tactics result in gang spread. Other officials have tried to segregate gang members in a particular facility or to put documented gang members in administrative segregation—i.e., solitary. These tactics have had some success but are less feasible now due to lawsuits and administrative decisions limiting solitary confinement. More progressively, some prison systems have instituted gang exit programs, but though they may benefit individuals, they do little to hinder the overall operations of such gangs. 

The original Aryan Brotherhood, based primarily in the California and federal penal systems, has illustrated the extreme resiliency of such groups, surviving despite every tactic used against it, from racketeering indictments to solitary confinements. Members still found ways to communicate and, using proxy gangs, to continue their operations. Authorities have not yet figured out the best ways to combat white supremacist prison gangs.

From White Supremacists Speak:

Gang and prison-based white extremist groups were the most violent and, in some cases, follow a “blood in, blood out” recruitment strategy meaning one can expect to only exit the group by dying.

The US Government’s efforts at reducing white supremacist (and Islamic fundamentalist) extremism have been inadequate at best and counterproductive at worst.

Part 3: The Endgame

There are various methods by which extremist groups maintain their hold on their members. 

Anne Speckhard & Molly Ellenberg, White Supremacists Speak: Recruitment, Radicalization & Experiences of Engaging and Disengaging from Hate Groups, May 17, 2021

Tattooing permanent markers of white supremacy on one’s body is common and makes it more difficult to re-enter society as these marks of hatred are feared and reviled by others.  Hence tattoo removal may be an integral part of rehabilitation and reentry.

Of those white supremacists who turned to psychotherapy for help exiting and rehabilitating from white supremacy groups, some found their therapists afraid of them and lacking relevant knowledge. Others deeply benefitted from addressing both the adverse traumatic experiences that had led them to being vulnerable to join in the first place as well as those they encountered in the group.

Reciprocal radicalization plays an important role in further radicalizing white supremacists and keeping them involved in their groups. Many referenced violent interactions with Antifa as further radicalizing events that influenced them.

Doxxing has a serious effect on white supremacists causing some to leave their groups for fear of losing jobs, being arrested, etc. Likewise, the effect of significant others threatening to or actually leaving their white supremacists partners caused some to reevaluate the worth of staying with their group.

White supremacist extremists have to maintain psychological investment in the group, a sense of belonging, a sense of unity against perceived persecution. Getting in fights with antifa reinforces their ingroup-outgroup dynamic and allows them to bond through shared trauma. 

Clearly, getting beaten, however badly, does not cure someone of their extremism. The “Fourth Degree” rank for members of the Proud Boys is earned by “get[ting] arrested or get[ting] in a serious violent fight for the cause.” 

From White Supremacists Speak:

Lukas Bals, a former member of the German group Die Rechte, similarly articulates,

The reason why I stayed so long in [the] far right after it, they give me a reason, an identity. I know where I belong. If you have an enemy, you know who are your friends. My comrades are my friends, we have the same enemy. From one day to another, you have so many friends, I like it […] Being told I have worth, Lukas, you are worthy, you are worthy by birth. I didn’t have to do something first, I’m just German.

Killing a member of an extremist group could potentially make the rest of the group tighter-knit through shared trauma. Furthermore, it is natural for an escalation of violence to be reciprocated. 

However, I am not advocating for pacifism. Certain people, such as members of certain religious orders, are strict pacifists, but these people should be considered especially vulnerable and in need of protection from extremists. 

Rather, certain social dynamics are inevitable. Just as a white person with a certain background, with childhood trauma, with substance abuse issues, or other risk factors may be more likely to join a white supremacist group if recruited, being a white supremacist is a risk factor for getting attacked. Engaging in a white supremacist gathering is a direct provocation to violence. It’s the principle of “talk shit, get hit.” 

White supremacist marches and gatherings are preludes to violence in and of themselves. Certain extremists, and groups of extremists, attack peaceful counter-protesters and innocent bystanders, particularly persons who are part of marginalized demographics. Therefore it is advantageous for extremist gatherings to be prevented, such as through doxxing and information leaks, or dispersed as quickly as possible, such as through overwhelming force. 

Acts of violence and subterfuge against white supremacist extremists are only one aspect of a necessary socio-political struggle that must be undertaken against them.

Beyond the fact that apparatuses such as law enforcement agencies, the prison-industrial complex, and US border security are functionally white supremacist, a growing number of government officials explicitly espouse white supremacist extremist ideologies.

Part 4: Desistance and Deradicalization

The ideal outcome in any case of an individual white supremacist is that they can be deradicalized, that is, that their mind is changed and they reject white supremacist ideals. Failing that, the minimum positive outcome is desistance, that is, that they cease all white supremacist activities and separate themselves from any white supremacist groups they are a part of.

But how is this accomplished?

From What Do Former Extremists and Their Families Say About Radicalization and Deradicalization in America?

Why and How Do People Deradicalize and Leave Extremist Organizations?

To date, there is no standard model of how people turn away from or reject previously held extremist views or why they leave extremist groups. Interviewees cited many reasons and ways they turned away, but two in particular stood out in the study.

Disillusionment and burnout (noted in 14 of the 32 cases) These feelings were noted in cases concerning 13 white supremacists and one Islamic extremist. All interviewees expressed that former members felt disappointment. Hypocrisy or other negative behaviors were cited as reasons for these feelings and, ultimately, for leaving. Individual or group intervention (noted in 22 of the 32 cases) Interventions were typically conducted intentionally in the study sample. Individuals who helped people exit extremist groups were acquaintances, life partners, other former radicals, friends, journalists, children, other family members, religious authorities, current radicals, therapists, and school officials. The interventions consisted of diverse cultural and demographic exposures, emotional support, and financial or domestic stability. Some cases highlighted noxious or negative impact from radical individuals, which could be described as an inadvertent intervention. In 11 cases, the intervention was orchestrated and conducted by an institution, such as religious groups, law enforcement, and secular nonprofits. Twenty-two of the 32 cases also described processes of self-driven exiting from extremism. Deradicalization processes (noted in 20 of the 32 cases) Interviewees discussed how they or their family members or friends had undergone psychological or social processes of deradicalization. Twelve of these 20 cases were activists, currently engaged in helping others deradicalize. Six cases concerned individuals who had formally exited a radical organization but were still undergoing cognitive and emotional deradicalization. Failed interventions (noted in 19 of the 32 cases) When interviewees indicated that some interventions had failed, these cases most often involved family members who tried to intervene. Punitive interventions by law enforcement also often led to increased extremism. Upon leaving extremist organizations, six cases described feeling drawn back to organizations or ideologies. These interviewees discussed how they or their family members and friends missed the thrill and feelings of belonging, as well as other psychological benefits experienced by being part of an extremist group.

There are many activists, especially former white supremacists, who are engaged in deradicalization efforts, focusing on one individual at a time. However noble, these efforts are dwarfed in scale by the problem they are facing. I do not know of any existing program focusing on desistance or deradicalization that could be scaled up to meet the challenge. Even if they had infinite funding, there are a comparatively small number of formers and other activists who are able and willing to engage in such efforts. We must keep in mind that these processes can be long and painful, and each white supremacist who has the potential to be deradicalized is different, with their own unique history and needs. On that note, what percent of white supremacists even have the potential to be deradicalized? That number is unknown, and may be impossible to determine. 

Christian Picciolini, a former neo-Nazi and cofounder of the deradicalization organization Life After Hate, offers a different view.

The process of deradicalizing youth needs an overhaul. A former white supremacist explains how, Callum Borchers and Allison Hagan, December 6, 2021:

After 20 years of working one on one with hundreds of people trying to leave hate movements, Picciolini is calling for a shift in focus.

“If we don't switch focus to focus on prevention, the process of radicalization is quickly overcoming us,” he says. “And we're seeing too many people line up at our door for help disengaging when we really should be focusing much more heavily on prevention so future generations aren't moved toward that movement.”

Young people are most at risk for radicalization because they’re searching for “a sense of identity, community and purpose” — but older generations need help too, he says.

People in the U.S. need to get to the source of what’s pushing people toward extremism and shut off what he calls the “bigot spigot,” he says.

“Until we fix that,” he says, “there's no amount of de-radicalization or disengagement work that can put a dent in the number of people that are becoming radicalized.”

Trauma — which Picciolini refers to as life’s “potholes” during speaking engagements — leads people to find toxic identities and communities, he says.

Social media campaigns won’t fix this deeply ingrained cycle, he says: People need resources like access to mental health care, education and job security to fill these voids instead of finding harmful alternatives.

When people deeply immersed in hate groups approach Picciolini for help, he connects with professionals in the communities such as therapists, counselors, life coaches, teachers or even parents, he says.

“We have to learn to utilize the professionals that already exist in our communities,” he says.

Since announcing the end of the Free Radicals Project, Picciolini says he’s received support because people understand the need for a shift toward prevention to cut off the pipeline to radicalization.

“But also, people recognize that doing this work is traumatic,” he says. “Sitting in front of people to discuss their traumas, the things that happen to them in life, can also be a traumatizing effect on the people who listen.”

Poverty, mental health treatment, child welfare, social alienation, substance abuse issues, mass incarceration, far-right propaganda in mass media & social media, underlying structural white supremacy, environments saturated with casual racism and bigotry… All of these issues and more not only raise the risk of far-right radicalization in certain individuals, but they are also general social ills that harm all of us. 

It is possible that one of the most effective things we could do to combat radicalization would be good for all of us: Focusing on reducing these risk factors.

But reducing these risk factors relies on broad social, political, economic, and even religious change.

Do you believe that the prevalence of these risk factors is going to decrease or increase in the near future?

If they increase, then the general rate of far-right radicalization should be expected to increase as well. 

I'm not going to take the liberal stance and merely state policy recommendations that will never be adopted by the aged capitalists in our government while the culture war threatens to transition into a civil war.

If a civil war is imminent, then we should become ready to defend ourselves from white supremacist extremists with lethal force.

Even if you don't think a civil war is imminent, then you should at least have a plan for what you're going to do in the case that you're present at the scene of a hate crime or an act of stochastic terrorism from a white supremacist extremist.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Michael Deacon

Published: Apr 3, 2024

For young people today, finding a partner of the opposite sex must be dreadfully hard. But this isn’t because of the pressure to look like an Instagram gym buff, or the horrors of dating apps, or the fact that no one under the age of 30 seems to drink alcohol any more.

It’s because these days, young men and women have got absolutely nothing in common.

Seriously. All of a sudden, they appear to have developed completely different values. It’s unprecedented. In the past, the two sexes tended to hold roughly similar views on politics. But research compiled over the past five years shows that in Britain – and indeed other Western countries – young women have become more progressive, while young men have become more conservative. And the resulting ideological gap is now staggeringly vast. 

Alice Evans, an academic at King’s College London, is writing a book on this phenomenon, entitled The Great Gender Divergence. She says it’s been caused by a variety of factors, including “social media bubbles” and “economic resentment”. Whatever the reasons for it, though, I think there is a vital point we’re in danger of missing. Which is that only one of the two sexes is strictly responsible.

Recently, the Financial Times published some charts illustrating how the gulf between young men and women has grown in each Western country. And in every chart, there is an unmistakable pattern. The political views of young men haven’t actually altered all that much. Their drift to the Right has been really quite gentle.

The political views of young women, however, have changed dramatically. Their move to the Left has been abrupt and profound. In truth, then, this cavernous ideological divide is almost entirely attributable to them.

Which is curious. Because, whenever the divide is discussed by politicians and commentators, they make it sound as if the problem is young men. They fret endlessly about how young men today are being “radicalised” by nasty Right-wing YouTubers such as Andrew Tate, or horrid Right-wing politicians such as Donald Trump. 

Yet they never apply this word “radicalised” to young women. Why not? I suspect it’s because these politicians and commentators tend to be progressive themselves. Therefore, they see no problem with young women becoming drastically more progressive. In their view, the more progressive someone is, the better. So the fault lies entirely with young men, for failing to emulate young women’s lurch to the Left.

Personally, though, I think this lurch Leftwards should alarm us all. The future of Western civilisation is already threatened by our collapsing birth rates. And this sudden ideological chasm between the sexes is only going to make the crisis worse. No one’s going to be forming couples at all any more, if, on every first date, the woman asks, “What do you think of Gramsci?”, and the man replies, “He’s the type of striker Man Utd are crying out for.”

It’s a chilling thought. So clearly something must be done. Politicians must spend less time obsessing over the radicalisation of young men, and start paying attention to the radicalisation of young women, instead.

As it happens, the Labour Party has announced that, when it’s in power, it will help to combat the influence that Andrew Tate has on boys. Surely it would make more sense to help combat the influence The Guardian has on girls. 

Otherwise, the only way young men are going to get a girlfriend is by frantically boning up on George Monbiot and Owen Jones. And if that’s what the future has to hold, perhaps Western civilisation isn’t worth saving, after all. 

[ Via: https://archive.md/WlLXk ]

==

Apparently, it's not "radicalization" when you're calling for the extermination of the Jews; so sexist and racist that you call everyone else "oppressors"; teaching kids about the objectively true mythology of metaphysical "gender" thetans; advocating for the compulsory elimination of all privately-owned property and its forcible redistribution; and/or chanting for the dismantling of society itself.

No, that's not radicalization. It's just the self-evident values of all right-thinking people.

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️

[lilithism1848]

[luckybyler]

Reply to @girlfictions:

1. I didn’t skirt it, that why the definition of Zionism was the very first thing in my post. Now, if you choose to reject that definition and want the word to mean whatever you want it to mean that’s on you. If you think the mere existence of Israel as a country is evil and a bad thing to support, then there’s no productive conversation to be had with you anyway.

2.

Hamas leader's son who became a spy explains what Hamas really wants

What is Gaza’s Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war’s death toll?

Amnesty International Report, 2015

Tunnel shaft inside Shifa

Article from 2014

Hamas’ rules for social media activists, from 2014

Wounded man at Gaza hospital criticizes Hamas for hiding among civilians

Bodies of two hostages found near Al Shifa Hospital

Body of a third hostage, a Tanzanian agricultural intern, found, although not mentioned where

The second Israel declared independence, 5 Arab countries declared war against them and they won.

List of expulsions and exoduses of Jews

Iraq expelled Jews to Israel

Why there are so many Palestinian refugees

The point here is not "Israel is a saint country that never does wrong". The point is that Israel is not better or worse than any other country or territory. If a Palestinian or someone with connections to Palestine is allowed to love it in spite of what Hamas and other terrorist groups have done and are currently doing without being demonized, cancelled or called evil; then it's only natural to concede that someone from Israel or with connections to Israel is allowed to love it in spite of what its government has done or does currently without being demonized, cancelled or called evil. Especially after Israel suffered a terrorist attack and is receiving antisemitism all over the world.

PBS article from 2007 summarizing Hamas and/vs Fatah, including Hamas’ objectives

Hamas and PIJ use of suicide bombings

Hamas spokesperson says tunnels are to protect the fighters and civilians are the responsibility of the UN and Israel

UNRWA Education: Textbooks and Terror

Review of 2022 UNRWA-Produced Study Materials in the Palestinian Territories

Hamas Original Charter. Excerpt:

Student speaker at a UPenn rally, the university Noah attends

Pro-Palestine Rally in Sydney, Australia ("Death to Israel", "Intifada", "Gas the Jews")

Rash of international antisemitism carries chilling historical hallmarks

Antisemitic mob storms through Russian airport as flight from Tel Aviv lands

Suspect arrested in death of Jewish protester in Southern California

Pro-Palestine group gives out NYC map calling for 'direct action' on landmarks as city blasts 'hateful rhetoric' and alerts the NYPD

Are you implying that I'm a nonce? Because shipping two fictional characters is not being a nonce. You know what is noncey?

Threatening someone to release CP of them.

Reply right before yours:

made by someone whose first post was said reply, and only has posts reblogging other people's takes re: Noah, Israel, Palestine

They blasted me for saying we live in different realities, then proceeds to praise radicalism and call me a white supremacist.

Exploring hate: How antisemitism fuels white nationalism

The response that worried me (I don't know or care about the ethnicity or religion of this person).

Glorification of terrorism, dehumanization of the other, refusal to listen to other points of view, inappropriate anger. All of these are signs of radicalization.

Said person reblogged this:

A letter from Osama Bin Laden went viral on TikTok, with many users of every ethnicity and religion praising it. The letter contains several antisemitic tropes, condems homosexuality and of course, idealizes Sharia Law.

Rolling Stone article on it

[transvarmint]

Actually, terfs exploit transmascs' transmisogyny and bioessentalism to radicalize them into terfism, rather than isolation etc.

Debated on answering this, but we will anyway because this is not something we want to let slide.

I'm not going to deny that the learned transmisogynystic biases of transmasculine people plays a factor in T/RF radicalization. It would be difficult to create bigotry in someone where none existed previously, and biases can absolutely be utilized to manipulate people.

But if you're going to look me in the face and tell me that isolation and vulnerability don't play a factor in radicalization at all? That's its ONLY bigotry that allows people to be radicalized? Then you are blatantly ignoring reality to suit an incredibly harmful narrative.

If you read into the process of radicalization into any kind of extremist group, you will find similar factors noted over and over, ad nauseum: Isolation, lack of a support network, economic struggles, trauma, emotional / mental vulnerability, and often that the individual themselves has some sort of minority status that they suffer bigotry from.

Every single study posits that the key characteristics and foundation of radicalization is not pre-existing biases, but is rooted in unmet fundamental human needs, such as connection and community.

The enduring appeal of extremist groups seems to lie in attending to fundamental human needs

Source 1

Different factors such as personal failures, interpersonal rejection, individual or collective grievances, or social alienation can induce a loss of personal significance through the loss of a compelling life narrative and the corresponding sense of purpose... Therefore, through joining such groups, individuals can address the basic need to be respected by others, they can establish a new narrative that gives their life meaning, and they also can experience the social benefits of being part of a network of people.

Source 2

It is no coincidence that you will often hear T/RFs describing horrendous accounts of sexual trauma and misogynistic abuse. Their trauma makes them more vulnerable to being manipulated by people who wish to use them as a tool in a bigoted campaign.

And this is not to say, "Boo hoo,, won't someone think of the poor T/RFs?" I'm not saying any of this in an attempt to downplay their violence or cast them in a more sympathetic light.

The reason why this is important is because understanding the root cause of radicalization is key to preventing it, and to deradicalize people who have already fallen down the rabbit hole.

When we recognize that isolation, trauma, and instability are what lay the foundation for radicalization, we can prevent it by helping our community and attending to the needs of those who are most vulnerable.

When you pretend that the cause of radicalization is just bigotry, you fall into the trap of casting radicalized people as just being inhuman bigoted monsters. Not only you are dehumanizing them, but you fool yourself and others into thinking, "Oh well I'm not a bigot, so I could never fall for their manipulation!"

That is a dangerous mindset, because it makes you perfectly ripe for believing propaganda. After all, you're not an evil bigot, so you couldn't possibly be indoctrinated, right?

Nobody is immune to being manipulated. Anyone, in the right circumstances, can be groomed into harmful ideologies. People in extremist groups are still human beings at the end of the day. They are people just like you.

When you dehumanize them, you only push them even further down that path. And you make yourself vulnerable by not acknowledging your capacity to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.