RECOGNIZING THE DYNAMICS OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE

The widely reported cultural divide between the Progressive left and Populist right obfuscates some important narrow internal demarcations within each group. The right hand side of the political divide has its share of extreme groups, with the most prominent being the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. The FBI has classified both organizations as political extremist organizations and both have been involved in demonstrations that turned violent. While some of the goals and political rhetoric may sound similar, members of the conservative majority have quite deliberately draw a line between themselves and the extreme positions advocated by these two groups.

On the left side of the political divide, support for extremism is a lot more complicated. In the past, violent left extremism was represented by groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Weather Underground, and the Black Liberation Army. Here too, the liberal majority emphatically condemned the rhetoric of these groups as not being representative of overall liberal goals. In the current environment, Antifa, which is a decentralized network of hard left progressives advocating confrontational tactics and property damage, holds a somewhat more ambiguous position. In the “Trump resistance”, they function as shock troops who are available on demand for the progressive protest “de jour”. When they show up with professionally printed slogan signs they are exercising their right to free speech. When they show up masked, helmeted and with various body armor protection, then they’re onsite to instigate a violent confrontation. The legacy media immediately blames the violence on the presences of the police or federal agents. This is intended to play to the progressive “Trump as fascist dictator” narrative.

A recent YouGov poll in September, following the murder of Charlie Kirk, asked if political violence to achieve political goals is never justified, sometimes justified, or don’t know / refused to answer. The disturbing results indicate that those who find violence justified are concentrated in the younger cohorts of both the left and right. This corresponds to the demographic data that shows the typical age of both Antifa and the Proud Boys to be concentrated in the 20-30 age groups.

The other key observation to note is that 42% of the combined liberal and very liberal ideologies, believe violence is sometimes justified to achieve political ends. While just 10% of the conservative or very conservative ideologies hold that view.

Breakdown of Views on Political Violence by Ideology

The typical media narrative is encapsulated by the following quote broadcast by PBS last month: “We can confidently say that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.” Historically that is correct because violent acts by far- right extremists groups have resulted in more fatalities. However, It is also a selective omission of facts and the use of deceptive time framing, allowing PBS to push a false narrative. The leftist George Floyd riots were not counted as violence but the MAGA Jan 6 Capitol demonstration was. The numerous incidents of recent Antifa-style violence including street beatings, torching cars, smashing windows etc. are often not counted because Antifa’s is considered loosely organized. Instead they are tabulated as crimes but not political violence unless there is hard evidence of advance planning. Assigning blame on data collected about politically inspired violence is rife with bias.

The last three violent incidents with shootings or fatalities were all left wing inspired: Charlie Kirk’s murder, the Dallas ICE facility shooting, and the Alvarado, TX ICE facility shooting. If PBS had reported on the increasing progressive left wing violence, including Antifa rioting since Trump’s inauguration in January, then it would have presented a very different narrative. That shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with legacy media’s misinformation. The table listing the YouGov poll statistics for the acceptability for violence to achieve political means is a statistical rebuttal of that media narrative.

Foundational Development.

Having documented an increase in the acceptability of violence among the liberal or very liberal, then the next logical question should be why. In previous essays I’ve written about several probable explanations which included criminally or maliciously inclined individuals. However, the majority of perpetrators are true believers suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance, and their condition has been amplified by the legacy media’s incessant and deliberate mischaracterization of the facts. These individuals attempt to resolve that unresolvable contradictory evidence, through rationalization, re-framing, or attacking the credibility of the source. That partially explains some of the “#resistance”, but what triggers an individual to cross the line from protest to violence?

I believe the answer to that question was provided by Mattias Desmet, a Professor of Clinical Psychology at Ghent University in Belgium. He was interested in cultural anxiety, crowd dynamics and how fear and uncertainty affect populations. He applied those concepts to what he observed during the Pandemic and described the process as a “mass formation”. His 2022 book “The Psychology of Totalitarianism”, formally explains his theory. I’ve included a link to an interview with Mattias in the addendum. The same destructive behaviors which were prevalent during the Pandemic are being repeated on a smaller scale by the progressive hard left with their penchant for violent political confrontation.

Preconditions for Mass Formation.

Think of mass formation as a type of hypnosis which requires four preconditions within a section of society before it becomes viable. The section of society which I believe has been altered by a mass formation correlates with the cohort that believes violence is sometimes acceptable to achieve political goals. The 42 % of liberal to very liberal in the 20 to 30 year old demographic meets the preliminary requirements for mass formation. This is also true of the fringe elements of conservatives who find violence acceptable.

1. The first requirement is a sense of isolation, or a feeling of loneliness within the affected group. These young people live on social media and may have hundreds of Facebook friends, but relatively few physical ones. A measure of their isolation is demonstrated by a plausible Chat GPT estimate that 25% of 20-to-30 year olds use AI for dating advice, as a life coach, or more disturbingly, as an intimate AI avatar romantic companion.

2. This grouping of young adults finds their life’s experiences devoid of purpose and meaning. The dismal employment statistics of young people with college degrees lends credence to this assertion. Only 30% of recent grads have found full time work in their chosen field, and 59% are struggling to find full time or entry level jobs. Overtime those numbers improve, but there still exists considerable frustration in the over educated “Barista” class.

3. Also required is a significant anxiety level and an overall sense of unease that things are spinning out of control. A youth with a liberal viewpoint is arguably stressed by the constant bombardment of news on legacy or social media that is always presented as an existential threat: climate warming denial – Trump threat to Democracy – ICE snatching people off the street – Russia destroying Ukraine – etc.

4. If these conditions are prevalent they can result in significant levels of frustration bordering on aggression but stymied by no clear direction to vent those emotions.

The Catalyst.

Those young people represent fertile ground for a mass formation. If they are presented a narrative that pinpoints a clear cause of their anxiety, be that a “covid19 virus” or a political enemy such as MAGA, then the solution will crystalize. They will seize and focus on any strategy that resolves their anxiety such as the “#resistance”. Some will become obsessed or cognitively hypnotized by the solution. It gives them a sense of connection with like-minded individuals, provides purpose and meaning, and provides a target at which to direct their aggression. This “group-think” can be amplified by the talking heads in the media who themselves may be part of the same mass formation.

Those affected by this condition suffer from severe cognitive dissonance, becoming less rational and more willing to ignore contradictions that are apparent to others. More importantly, a feeling of group solidarity is manifested by fanatical and obsequious devotion to the chosen narrative. The newly developed social bonds are directed at the group not to individuals. This loyalty requires that any who oppose the narrative and threaten group cohesion are stigmatized and denounced. Mass formation always requires an external enemy which in this instance is easily provided by declaring those who are non-converts as Fascists and Nazis. Some in the grip of this mass formation are willing to sacrifice anything for the cause and can easily rationalize perpetrating violence towards perceived enemies. I’m postulating that the more militant edge of the Trump Resistance bears similarities to mass formation. There is also a shared culpability with governments that have established “sanctuary “ environments which appears to give tacit approval for errant violent behavior, and with the biased media that sometimes reports left-aligned violence contextualized as mostly peaceful protests.

Conclusion.

Once incorporated into an individual’s viewpoint, mass formation exerts an extremely strong psychological imperative that, sadly, is nearly impossible to counter. Exhibit A are the people, post pandemic, who still drive around in their cars alone, with the windows rolled up, and a cloth mask over their face. Mattais Desmet’s theory of mass formation offers a very plausible explanation for the mindset and behavior of the zealous progressive’s inhabiting social media with their performance theater diatribes against all things MAGA, but more to the point it is a convincing explanation for those who transform their political beliefs into acts of violence.

While Desmet believes the truly hypnotized hard-core cannot be reached, he also believes that we as individuals can, by opening dialogue with other individuals and speaking truth, have a disruptive effect on mass formation. It begins by you no longer being quiet and enabling that mass formation behavior, but by having the courage to speak out. This has a contagious resonating effect that gives courage to others and eventually builds to counteract the more violent aspects of mass formation. The ball is in your court.

Addendum.

While this link leads to a conversation that was recorded during the height of the pandemic, it still provides an excellent introduction to the theory of Mass Formation.

Mass Formation: The Psychology of Totalitarianism. A Special Interview with Professor Mattias Desmet conducted by Dr. Joseph Mercola.

https://media.mercola.com/PDF/ExpertInterviewTranscripts/DrMercola-MattiasDesmet-MassFormationThePsychologyO

Cognitive Rigidity.

How do you explain the attitude of people who have been fed 20 years of Legacy Media lies, but continue to believe that same media. A plethora of Charlie Browns believing against all evidence that Lucy won’t snatch the football away this time. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological conflict when a person is presented with concepts, values, or attitudes that contradict their established belief system. A rational approach would be to decide which of the two choices is correct, and go with that. However, we all possess an inherent Ego defense mechanism that works to inhibit the acknowledgement of errors. The result is a cognitive rigidity that kicks into gear with the following attributes:

- Denial: refusing to accept evidence that contradicts one’s beliefs.

- Rationalization: explaining away mistakes to protect self-esteem.

- Projection: attributing one’s own errors or faults to others.

Those characteristics should sound familiar to most of us, either in our own behavior or through the observation of relatives or friends.