The Story of the Clan: Hate and Corruption in Conflicting Cultural Systems (Hate and Corruption Thought Experiment)

Hate and corruption often persist in environments where they have been normalized. In our hypothetical, philosophical thought experiment, we observe a scenario where standard laws and societal norms—those most people believe in—fail to function within a closed, clan-based culture. In such systems, the socialized norms of hate and corruption are not merely tolerated; they may be foundational.

In these environments, individuals can manipulate laws and misuse authority to reward or shield corrupt and hateful behavior. History offers many examples of such dysfunction, where key stakeholders convinced themselves that maintaining power justified such conduct. The most serious problems arise when two incompatible cultural systems coexist: one rooted in exploitation and harm, the other striving to uphold liberty and justice for all.

The Segregationist Clan Culture

In a segregationist clan culture, a small but connected group exerts disproportionate influence over public institutions, including the courts. The legal system becomes warped—struggling to best serve the broader public good. These actors may violate rights, endanger children, exploit the vulnerable for profit, and protect wrongdoers. They often act with impunity, especially when their actions target those considered outsiders. The system’s internal checks and balances are either weak or nonexistent. These individuals cannot be trusted to serve the public interest, as their repeated patterns of harm reflect a long-term projection of uncorrected injustices from the past.

Some members of this culture display extreme rudeness, hostility, or even incite violence through rumors and dehumanization. Those who witnessed, whistle blew on corrupted officials, or stood to protect the community were quickly retaliated against. Such distorted souls believe institutions exist to forcibly promote their homogeneous worldview and label dissenters as enemies to be suppressed—socially, economically, and institutionally. In reality, the opposite may be true: a change in perspective reveals a deeper pattern of coordinated misconduct that betrays democratic principles.

Many within this culture are aware of the harm but remain loyal due to social pressure and mutual benefit. Some refer to these environments as “clan courts,” where certain members are shielded by unofficial loyalties to ideology, group identity, and power preservation. This creates a closed system that resists outside scrutiny and reform. It was intentionally built to help perpetuate the needs of the clan.

The Pro-Democracy Standpoint

In contrast, those committed to democratic values swear allegiance to freedom, equality, and community. They believe institutions should serve everyone, not just the shallow few. These systems must function with integrity, transparency, and fairness. Judges, officials, and other decision-makers aligned with this worldview work to uphold universal principles: merit-based law, human dignity, and equal protection under the law.

Higher-order thinking and intelligence are revealed in the ability to apply justice consistently, rather than selectively. Pro-democracy individuals live in an open world—one that embraces variances, accountability, and the rule of law. Because of this, they are often targeted by those who seek to maintain the control and insularity of the clan culture.

Where the Cultures Clash

The real crisis emerges when these two cultures collide. This is the moment where leaders, judges, and public institutions are truly tested. Some may default, revealing their loyalty to lower-order interests. When officials serve the clan instead of the public, they undermine trust, betray democratic ideals, and discredit the many principled individuals working in those fields. The societal impact is profound—people can sense when wrongdoing is being concealed, and they often face suspicious obstacles when trying to confront it.

A picture of a philosopher 
encouraging a higher moral conscious
before hate and corruption are normalized.
Standing in ancient Rome.

However, when officials uphold principles that apply equally to all, they restore faith in the system and earn public trust. Their actions build support for institutions that genuinely serve the public good. They are contributors to building healthy communities and the society in general.

The Stakes

When hate and corruption intersect with power, laws risk becoming tools for shielding misconduct rather than instruments of justice. The choice between serving a closed clan or an open society defines the moral and institutional integrity of a democracy.

Most public officials are good, honest, respectful, and patriotic. They understand the importance of their roles to their communities and society in general. But the few who enable, protect, or encourage hate and corruption currently face few meaningful constraints. Without strong accountability, these actors pose a long-term threat not just to individuals, but to the very ideals upon which democratic institutions are built. 

The following publication helps us think about the possibility that culture of corruption and the acceptance of hate could impact how people make choices and decisions related to hate and corruption. Corruption and Social Norms

*This is a philsophical, theoretical, hypothetical learning thought experiment so take with a grian of salt. Alternative points for discussion are welcome. A positive ending will be written to emphasize learning.