The recent DHS report that warned of possible violence from right-wing extremists created an uproar from the right-wing community. They seemed unable to distinguish between their right-wing views and extreme views. Yet recent violence seems to indicate that the report was accurate. Could the report have been worded differently to get the message across more effectively? Author Chip Berlet thinks so.

I heard an interview with him on NPR last night discussing his new report "Toxic to Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, and Scapegoating". He describes the common characteristics of those that commit the violence and the language used to describe them. He also describes how these people are driven to act out in violent ways.

On language, he posits that referring to them as "extremists" is lazy and non-descriptive, and helps to create rifts because it allows for interpretation. We should use words that truly describe the personality of these people: bigot, xenophobe, conspiracy-theorist, religious fundamentalist, paranoid, etc., or some combination thereof. Of course - not all religious fundamentalists go out and shoot doctors, so what else is going on?

He describes a "perfect storm" environment that feeds into the already unbalanced mind, pushing it over the edge. Part of that storm, he avers, is the rhetoric of the right-wing pundits:

During the interview he described "dualism" as an "us -vs- them" positioning and - when combined with scapegoating and demonizing the "them" - leads to viewing the "them" as less than human and doing the devil's work, appeasing the terrorists, or any other sort of threatening activity. Add to that the immediacy of impending doom and you have added a match to gasoline. This pattern can be easily recognized as the sort of daily fodder trotted out by political pundits, as well as by some religious and political leaders.

He also describes how groups and individuals take those "signals", process them, and then act on them. He breaks them down into 3 groups: Cell, Lone Wolf, and Leaderless Cell.

An example of the Lone Wolf would be the man who walked into the Holocaust Museum and opened fire. They are alone and generally paranoid. The main difference between a Cell and a Leaderless Cell is that a cell is attached to a larger group and gets its "orders" and identifies itself with that larger group. The Leaderless Cell may have once belonged to a larger group, but has split from that group and has no real leadership. It gets it's directives from the propaganda it hears, and feeds on its own internal mob mentality.

So what can be done? The first thing would be stop feeding the beast. How can that be done without suppressing 1st amendment rights? Counter-propaganda would be one way. Cells can be infiltrated, although Lone Wolves cannot. While it may be impossible to prosecute pundits for fanning the flames, they can still be blamed and shamed, and outed when they are passing false information to their listeners.

If you would like to listen to the interview, it can be found here. If you would like to read Chip Berlet's report, it can be found here. The report itself goes into historical detail as well, showing how this pattern has been repeated through the ages.

While we individually may not be able to break the pattern, just recognizing it can help us not become a victim of it, nor propagate it ourselves.