 |
Our democracy thrives
when we believe and share commitment
to fundamental values.
Word and Deed |
It is important to uphold our values consistently—even when doing so is unpopular or inconvenient. In our theoretical discussion on hate and corruption, we examined how these forces can distort closed systems. Increasingly referred to as “closed clan systems,” these environments often lack ethical standards, social contracts, and moral conscience. Their primary goal, much like clans throughout history, is to preserve internal advantages and dominate perceived outsiders.
Imagine a scenario where members of such a clan exploit their positions, personal networks, and even the judicial system—leveraging backchannel conversations to harm others and enrich themselves. In these settings, group hatred and aggression are often encouraged but rarely questioned due to social collusion. Judges aligned with the clan may consistently rule in favor of those closest to themselves, regardless of clear conflicts of interest. Constitutional principles and societal values become secondary—weak and largely absent from their decision-making framework.
To be clear, the vast majority of individuals in official positions strive to act with integrity. They are the ones we honor and should promote upward. However, there are also those with conscious and at times unconscious biases—based on social, racial, religious, or cultural familiarity—that can shape decisions, particularly in environments where dissent leads to ostracism or reputational harm. These pressures help ensure that core democratic principles are not fully implemented. The same tactics are used to silence victims and punish whistleblowers, all in service of protecting the clan's internal interests. In such environments, the law becomes a tool of mistreatment rather than a shield of justice.
Over time, unwritten rules evolve from repeated misbehaviors, forming a collective identity rooted in a narrow, cult-like misperception of society. In these systems, people are placed into hierarchical boxes of perceived worth, often unrelated to their actual contributions or character. Pleasing the in-group takes precedence over upholding the law or serving the public good. Institutions are then manipulated to benefit a select few at the expense of many. Survey after survey confirms that such environments erode public trust, national pride, and civic engagement. Decision-makers cannot plead ignorance—in this philosophical example, they knowingly choose to defend and reward the very behaviors the system was designed to prevent. Yet, more constructive paths remain available.
When wrongdoing is known and ignored, bystanders become complicit. They bear responsibility not just for past victims, but for those who will be harmed in the future. Like the ghosts of Christmas (past, present and future), these failures will reemerge under future scrutiny and reflection. What is dismissed in the moment—those subtle cues and overlooked signs—often reveal the presence of heuristic-driven bias or deeply ingrained corruption (In some ways if you recorded, mapped, and analyzed behaviors you would find the intentionality and well used paths of such behaviors).
When leaders, courts, or administrators bow to injustice to appease insiders, and when victims are left without recourse, it becomes clear that safeguards have failed. There is no genuine commitment to the values once sworn to uphold. Some of the damage may be reversible; some will never be undone. That knowledge often fuels the clan's swift and shameless retaliation—to protect what cannot be defended if exposed. A clearn and open thwarting of our shared sacred values. A lot rides on our ability to support lofty principles and ensure we have the mechanisms to enforce those lofty principles for the greater good.
 |
Don't steal my book idea!
It would probably make a good
Steven King type movie.
Teach people about hate and corruption.
Maybe how to avoid it. A tale of moral conscious!💁 |
This is why it's critical to elevate the most capable and ethical individuals in our institutions—not merely those who are friends, allies, or who share a particular race, religion, or political affiliation. The shared values that hold our democracy together must be treated as sacred. They are far more important than any clan’s internal belief about how institutions should serve their interests. The guiding light of democracy must always shine brighter than the shadows cast by hate and corruption. When it doesn’t, we have failed. And where failure is intentional, we must reckon with the long-term consequences of abandoning institutional purpose and the people those institutions exist to serve.
Despite this, men and women across the nation continue to believe in and act on behalf of our shared democratic values—even in the face of mistreatment and dehumanization. Just as there is a process of dehumanization, thought experiments like this can help explore what rehumanization might look like—should we choose to restore the true purpose of justice. That is, if we still believe in it. Not all decisions seem to reflect that belief. Humanization and Dehumanization Process
Learning examples like this reveal what happens when commitment to democratic principles is low and institutional checks and balances are weak. Clan-driven systems must be confronted and reoriented toward a moral and ethical framework. Keep in mind: many of these harmful behaviors are not accidental—they are willful choices. Outcomes are reflections of inner dialogue and values. They present short-, mid-, and long-term risks to victims and society at large if correction is ignored or deemed too inconvenient.
Your role is to remain positive, polite, and persistent—encouraging leadership to live up to the values they proclaim. That is the best way to resist and diminish the influence of "The Clan." Hopefully that movie doesn't get replayed in a theater near you (Side note: It sounds like it would be a good book or movie. Something like the "The Clan: A Hypothetical Thought Experiment on Hate and Corruption". 🤔 I should have started that 5 years ago when this story sort of was formed as a learning tool.)
As Thomas Jefferson wisely stated:
“Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both.”
*This is a hypothetical, philosophical, theoretical thought experiment discussion for learning purposes so take with a grain of salt. Feel free to have a varying opinion.
