The New York Times publica un interesante reportaje sobre la experiencia de una mujer que se sumó a un grupo supremacista blanco en los EEUU y acabó abandonándolo. Para mí, quizá una de las partes más interesantes es aquella en la que se reflexiona un poco sobre

The gaps in knowledge mean that journalists and politicians often rely on flawed assumptions — for instance, that white nationalism is the sole province of angry men. Men are the far right’s most recognizable evangelists, and bombings, shootings and rallies are the most obvious manifestations of the movement’s strength. But there is other work keeping the flames of hate alive, and it is often done by women. Women like Corinna Olsen.

(...)

Ms. Olsen had never thought too hard about being white. Like many white Americans, she never had to. She grew up in a largely white school district in Eugene, Ore., and she did not interact meaningfully with people of other races until her late 20s, when she moved to Portland for her embalming career. She had paid such little mind to race as a concept that there was a flatness to her understanding of it, a one-dimensionality susceptible to simplified reasoning.

(...)

The most basic definition of hate is personal animus, but there is a more useful, and frightening, description: Hate is a social bond — a shared currency — and it abhors a vacuum.

Kathleen Blee, a sociologist and expert in “racist activism,” writes that “social camaraderie, a desire for simple answers to complex political problems, or even the opportunity to take action against formidable social forces can coexist with, even substitute for, hatred as the reason for participation in organized racist activities.”

So can a need for validation, visibility and purpose. For someone like Ms. Olsen, hate becomes a cure for loneliness.

People who are drawn to the hate movement have an acute desire to make sense of their place in the world. There’s a gap between who they are and who they think they should be, what they have and what they want. They want to seize or regain what they believe is a rightful status. They want empowerment, with minimal effort. Hate promises them that.

The movement’s appeal goes something like this: America is a white country, built by white people, that is under attack from the enemies of the white race. The time is now or never to forestall racial annihilation. Anyone can do that by embracing white pride, standing up for the well-being of white people and securing America’s future by having white children. Whoever joins the movement will be part of something greater than themselves, a “righteous” cause.

(...)

In her telling, Ms. Olsen decided to leave the hate movement because she realized that she could not tolerate violence. That may have been part of it, but when I spoke to her, it was clear that she also exited because the movement stopped giving her the meaning and camaraderie she wanted.

(...)

People don’t leave the hate movement because a veil lifts and they are suddenly able to see hate for what it is. The truth is more disappointing. They leave because it makes sense to them and for them, because the value hate once gave them has diminished or evaporated. Ms. Olsen seemed to know this, writing once on a blog, “The reality is, people rarely change their personality or ideals during adulthood, and if they do, it needs to be something they do on their own, for themselves.”

De ahí la dificultad de luchar contra sectas religiosas o políticas, pues ambas basan su poder fundamentalmente en lo mismo: el sentimiento de pertenencia a un grupo y, sobre todo, la creación de un sentido de identidad personal anclado en los valores del grupo. El ser humano es, por naturaleza, un ser social, por más que el ultraliberalismo (tan negativo y ponzoñoso como cualquier otra ideología ultra) niegue esta realidad y se esfuerce por vendernos la idea del hiperindividualismo todopoderoso, creativo y liberador. {enlace a esta entrada}