From The Cipher Brief an interview with Michael German:
TCB: What are some of the critical elements to understanding radicalization in the white supremacist, far right context?
German: I have concerns with the use of this term radicalization, or the concept of radicalization. If you actually look at studies of terrorists, people who commit violent acts, there is no discernible process that they follow. There’s this concept, and the government promotes this concept, that people get bad ideas and those ideas then lead them on a pathway to an ultimate destination of terrorist violence. But in reality, that’s not how it works. And that’s not how it works from my perspective as an undercover agent.
There were certainly people in the groups who were ideological, but most of the people who were ideological and who thought that understanding the philosophy or theology that supported their political position were the type of people who thought that writing, and speaking, and political organizing was the way you move forward with that agenda. People who thought violence was necessary were people who liked violence. And they weren’t people who were necessarily there because they were drawn to the ideology, but rather were drawn by acceptance in a group that accepted their interest in using violence or trafficking weapons or manufacturing explosives, and weren’t particularly ideological at all. And if the group had turned around and said, “Oh, our agenda is now the opposite of what it was yesterday,” they would say, “Fine.” These people who are involved in the violence tend to see themselves as soldiers rather than as ideologues.
TCB: Are you then looking for any key indicators to try to discern where white supremacist and far right organizations will go or try to achieve beyond Charlottesville?
German: There are two parts of these movements — there’s the ideological side and the violent fringe. I’ve been troubled over the course of the last year and a half, two years, as the Donald Trump campaign has taken what has in the past been a right-wing populist dog whistle sort of messaging to racist groups that has been part of our political discourse since the Nixon “Southern strategy” — but change the dog whistle into a bullhorn.
Trump made very clear he had extreme bias against Muslims, against Latinos, against other communities of color, and that he was intending to implement policies that would express that bias and therefore sending a message to these groups not just that “I’m going to push your agenda,” but that “I’m welcoming you to participate in the policy discussion.” And then this tacit sanctioning of violence from the fringe seems to have brought those two sections that used to keep an arms length distance apart from each other together, to where you now have the advocates of cheering at a rally and the violent fringe coming there to protect and defend them, and to mete out punishment against people who would oppose them. That is extraordinarily dangerous.
If you look at the ways authoritarian governments obtain police powers, this is exactly how they do it. They sort of turn a blind eye to street thuggery and allow people to commit political violence against opponents of the government. That street violence becomes unbearable for the public, who demand that the government do something about it so the government can justify stopping protests altogether. And, of course, what the government is really interested in is stopping protests against government policies. We’re seeing that kind of thing, where there are a number of bills in state legislatures that would remove civil liability from people who run over protesters in the street. That’s taken on a very disturbing aspect with the latest murder in Charlottesville.
Comments