Ten Indicators of a Genocide Permissive Environment;
A Critical Analysis of the US Sociopolitical Situation.
Recently, a list that purports to be the ten stages of genocide got a lot of attention on social media. People have started debating which stage the US is in, or if it is in any stage on the path to genocide at all. Many people are saying the US is at stage six or seven of ten, but is that accurate? Is the US really heading down the path to genocide?
First the listed ‘stages’ do not seem to be discrete or exclusive, so can happen concurrently and at varying degrees across different localities of a large nation like the US. It is perhaps more appropriate to view the list of stages instead as a list of indicators that the environment for genocide exists, rather then like step-by-step instructions to build a genocide like one would Ikea furniture; prior steps do not need to be completed to advance to the next, and many continue to develop and escalate as others begin, and they do not need to happen uniformly across all regions at once.
Also, keep in mind that stages do not need to be accomplished exactly as they were in the past as long as the function of each stage is achieved. Just as with warfare, the methodology changes as technology and knowledge change, but the goal remains the same; whether the army is equipped with blades or with firearms, their objectives remains the same, and victory is similarly defined. So lets look at it that way.
1) Classification; Dividing individuals into 'us' and 'them' (in-groups and out-groups): Yes.
This is on-going and is a continuous process throughout, as there are always dissidents and additional groups of 'undesirables' to eliminate even after control is achieved and genocide is underway. Political rhetoric has been reclassifying their in-groups as the virtuous and their out-groups as the non-virtuous for years, on both sides; I.E. the members of the other party are hateful/racists/white supremacists/baby-killers/etc. and members of the in-group are tolerant/non-racist/liberal/etc. The use of inflammatory and dehumanizing rhetoric to trigger emotional support for policy or specific candidates has been a staple of American politics for decades, and it has been pushed to the extreme recently to further divide people into opposing moral camps of virtuous and non-virtuous people.
It has advanced to vaxxed and unvaxxed; which are also being construed as virtuous and non-virtuous (not vaxing is killing grandma and endangering society, the unvaxxed are selfish and lack moral virtue; they are as bad as white-supremacists/racists). These classifications reinforce and support other stages; especially dehumanization.
2) Symbolization; Forcing individuals to self-identify as part of the in-group or out-group: Yes.
Explicit force is no longer required in the information age and the advent of mass surveillance to begin the symbolization process, however, it will be eventually. Extreme political rhetoric and proposals of extremist policies by candidates and officials influence individuals to either show public support for or against the in-group (yard-signs, hats, twitter posts, etc.), which begins the process of self-identification along political lines.
The push for vax-passports and restricting access to businesses or public locations is a continuation of the symbolization process that moves the target from political ideologies to 'willingness to comply' with government demands, regardless of political ideology (though they are deeply correlated). Many will self-identify to virtue-signal as members of the virtuous in-group, as that classification process is already in play.
Private businesses are being both influenced and ordered by government actors to force the public to self-identify; such as threatening to close them or impose lockdowns if 'safety measures' are not followed, which also puts social pressure on the owners who do not want to be blamed for the return of lockdowns (mass punishment to induce social enforcement); or required different procedures/practices for vaxxed and unvaxxed (mask or not, vax cards, and now wearing stickers in California).
3) Systemic Discrimination; Restriction of individual rights based on group membership: Yes.
The rights of free association and trade are being restricted based on vax status, which has been made into a classification. The right to freely practice religion have been systemically restricted, only those willing to modify how they practice their religious activities to comply with government mandates are allowed to worship. The right of free speech has been systematically restricted to only allow those willing to comply with government defined narratives to speak without reprisal (enforced by businesses and social pressure). To say nothing of the increasing systemic censorship by Big Tech of the out-group for years, which has now been shown to be collusion with government; and likely was from the start, but can now be made explicit as it is now in the name of 'public health'.
4) Dehumanization; Individuals in the out-group portrayed as being less than human: Yes.
This is being accomplished in the classification of the out-groups as non-virtuous, immoral, and existential threats to society; assertions that white-supremacists and unvaxxed are closely overlapping groups, and are going to kill us all and collapse civilization with their hatred and selfishness. Speaking of them not individuals, but as a group that pose an existential threat; they do not have any moral virtue and are completely selfish, like raging animals that carry deadly diseases, rather then individuals with complex thought and emotions.
This is also reinforced by ensuring that members of different groups are not able to meet in person (are siloed), either out of fear of each other, or by restricting access to public spaces where meetings can occur. It can also be achieved by preventing individuals from being able to identify specific individuals within groups; such as by forcing them to wear masks to hide their faces when in public.
5) Organization; Formation of government sanctioned groups to enact targeted suppression and violence on the out-group: Yes.
The non-prosecution of Antifa and BLM that are clearly conducting terroristic activities against the classified out-group are akin to in-kind donation; they are government sanctioned organizations by fact of non-enforcement of law against them. In-group politicians have repeatedly made statements in defense and support of violent action by these organizations against the classified out-group. In-group politicians have come to the legal defense of these organizations, and provided cover for their activities by downplaying the violence they enact and defending their reasons for violence as valid and 'progressive' tactics to overcome discrimination.
Capital Police are being expanded specifically to target classified out-groups that have been vilified and dehumanized by inflammatory political rhetoric. In-group politicians have used existing law enforcement organizations under their control to harshly prosecute out-group members and either ignore the crimes of, or even support the violent actions of, the in-group.
6) Polarization; Propaganda used vilify out-groups and gain popular support for their suppression, and eventual prosecution and 'extermination': Yes.
America is hyper-polarized. This has been a topic of discussion for years. Inflammatory rhetoric, targeted disinformation, and character attacks against the out-group have increased dramatically over the past two years. The out-group is portrayed in media as evil, murderous, and irresponsible; as a danger to the in-group specifically, and to society in general. An 'us' vs 'them' mentality has been cultivated in the population at large through political rhetoric and coordinated media campaigns that extol the virtues of the in-group and vilify the out-group.
7) Preparation; Government action to remove or relocate the out-group from majority in-group controlled areas: Yes.
This past year has seen the largest population migrations of out-group members from in-group controlled regions in modern history. This has been achieved by using government sanction and government supported organizations to cause the out-group to leave out of both fear of prosecution and unwillingness to comply with targeted restrictions of rights and freedoms.
This serves to consolidate the out-group away from the in-group and ensure they both remain siloed, while also ensuring total control over in-group territory. One does not need to force people into cattle cars to relocate them. Allowing mobs to commit violence against them and restricting their most fundamentally held freedoms is sufficient to induce migration if there exists places to 'escape' to that are still within the government's control; even if those areas are ostensibly areas where the out-group in the majority. The goal is still achieved even if the methods are changed.
8) Persecution; Sanctioned murders, theft/destruction of property, trial massacres: Yes.
We have not seen trial runs for future massacres, but we have seen sanctioned organizations such as Antifa and BLM commit murder as well as mass property theft and destruction against the out-group with little or no repercussions or retribution from the in-group controlled legal system. Businesses, who's owners may resist future policies concerning economics, had their properties looted and destroyed. Any out-group member that attempted to prevent this destruction was either killed by the mob, or later prosecuted by government for defending themselves if it became known they did so.
Anyone who shows a willingness to stand against the destruction and death perpetrated by in-group members is labelled as either a member or sympathizer of the out-group, and prosecuted by government. Recall that the McCloskeys, Kyle Rittenhouse, and Jake Gardner were all prosecuted by the government for resisting the violence of the in-group's sanctioned mob, despite being clear cases of self-defense and not being the aggressors.
The in-group ‘mob’ was able to besiege the nation’s capitol and injure 60 members of the President’s security and set fires around the city without experiencing almost any legal repercussion or media backlash because the sitting administration was classified as members of the out-group. Yet, when the out-group ‘mob’ came to the capitol and breached it, but did not injure nearly any security officers or start fires, they are harshly prosecuted and the in-group politicians in power label it an insurrection, form an official committee to investigate, and use the full power of federal law enforcement institutions to identify, apprehend, and jail as many out-group members as possible; many in solitary confinement, and purportedly beaten by their in-group captors. These prosecutions are political signals of approval from the government for in-group members to begin persecuting out-group members.
9) Extermination; Wholesale killing of large numbers of out-group members: No.
We have not arrived at this point. Even with the mass violence by government sanctioned organizations (Antifa/BLM), there has not been any extermination efforts as such. However, it is worth noting that this is nearly impossible to conduct against a well-armed out-group; as that is civil war, not extermination. The push from government to disarm the population, with a specific focus on legal gun-owners of the out-group, is very concerning. As is the prosecution of out-group members who attempt to defended themselves or their property from in-group violence; as this causes even an armed out-group to be hesitant to use the weapons they still have access to (chilling effect).
10) Denial; Government denies committing crimes in support of the extermination, or future extermination, of the out-group: Yes.
The government denies not only supporting in-group organizations like Antifa and BLM that commit violence against the out-group, but denies they even exist as such. The government denies that these organizations are committing targeted violence against the out-group, that they are meaningfully organized, or that their actions are supported by the government; while in-group politicians are free to rally for the causes of the organizations to raise money and public support, fund their legal defenses, and refuse to prosecute them under the law.
The government denies that that in-group officials unfairly prosecute out-group members under the law and actively seek to suppress their rights and freedoms; all while actively and openly doing so and supporting the efforts. The government denies any and all involvement in vilifying the out-group and encouraging in-group members to commit acts of violence against the out-group; while actively using inflammatory rhetoric to incite anger among the in-group against the out-group.
Genocide Permissive Environment Score: 9/10
So, in conclusion, my analysis show the US is experiencing 9 out of 10 indicators that the environment required for a genocide exists. An out-group with limited institutional power seems to be the target of coordinated dehumanization, suppression, and violent aggression by an in-group with extensive institutional power; and the one indicator not being experienced is the difference between an environment for genocide or for civil war (a well-armed out-group).
There are many other pieces of evidence that are not mentioned above, as they do not neatly fall into this list of ten indicators, but that do often accompany the rise of totalitarianism that results in genocide; such as the indoctrination of children to the ideology that supports it, the destruction of religious institutions and freedoms that challenge the ultimate authority of state, and collusion between government, national level industries, the media establishment, and powerful but informal civilian in-group organizations that enact local-level violence to achieve the goal of total control and authority of all aspect of life by the government.
In my opinion, though 9 of 10 indicators for an environment conducive to genocide seem to be present, a genocide will not happen. It is the one missing indicator, and more importantly, the main defense against it, that brings me to that conclusion. There are no mass killings, and no ‘extermination’ efforts. The major hurdle that stands in direct opposition to anyone’s ability to kill others is that other being armed and able to defend themselves, and that is currently the situation in America.
The out-group is still well-armed, and thus able to defend against extermination by the in-group. It is also the case the that out-group is well-aware of the importance of retaining their arms, as both recent history and on-going events in other counties make the need to do so somewhat self-evident; so they are very unlikely to surrender them willingly. Given this situation, it is more likely that a civil war would result from the continuation and escalation of the indicators that are present, rather then a genocide.
That too is a bleak prospect, but it does offer a spark of hope. As long as the in-group is not willing to engage in a shooting-war with what is a sizable and well-armed out-group, it will limit their actions to political, legal, and cultural domains; which is preferable to war in the streets. It also offers the out-group a path forward. Vigorously engage the in-group in those domains and try to equalize the institutional power distribution before the in-group either becomes willing to engage in a shooting-war to achieve extermination, or tries legislates away the out-group’s ability to defend themselves; and thus likely trigger a civil war over that right.