Sample Criminal Justice Paper on White Supremacy and Anarchist Extremists and Anti-Fascists

INTRODUCTION
Terrorism has become a prevalent problem across the globe. While international terrorism is the most acknowledged form of the vice in the world, it is undeniable that domestic terrorism also poses a big threat to societies. While the United States is still reeling from the devastating effect of 9/11 attacks caused by international terrorists, domestic terrorists are becoming a serious national security issue. The United States typically has different types of domestic terrorist groups that have diverse ideologies. Essentially, these groups are classified as either right-wing or left-wing terrorist groups. Right-wing terrorist groups believe that white people are superior, hence entitled to better treatment and most resources in society. The left-wing terrorist groups usually base their mission on a political ideology. It is suitable to look at White Supremacy Extremists (a right-wing group) and Anarchist Extremists and Anti-Fascists (Antifa) (a left-wing group) to demonstrate the different motives and ideologies of domestic groups. Domestic terrorism is a serious national security issue since the people that engage in this vice are well-versed with a country’s landscape, hence can execute threats that cause more damage than those of international terrorists.
Research Questions
1. What are the philosophies of White Supremacy and Antifa?
2. What are the driving motives of White Supremacy Extremists and Antifa?
3. What is difference between international terrorists and domestic terrorists?
4. Why do domestic terrorist pose a bigger threat than international terrorists?

Background Information
Domestic terrorism is a form of terrorism where individuals target other individuals within the same country. Domestic terrorism is triggered by influences such as racial, political, social, and religious differences. There has been an alarming rate of domestic terrorism in the United States due to these different reasons. Combatting these domestic terrorists has become a national security issue hence necessitating research into how these groups can formulate effective countermeasures.
There has been a wide body of research that has attempted to investigate the underlying factors of terrorism from a social, political, and economic perspective. Domestic terrorism is seen as a multi-faceted issue that needs proactive countermeasures if the threats are to be mitigated due to this broad focus. In the United States, the main reasons for domestic terrorism are democratization, social inequality, respect for human rights, and religion being among the biggest causes.
From these factors, social inequality is seen as one of the most common factors for domestic terrorism in the United States. Due to the lack of jobs and other resources, there has been an increasing number of left frustrated people, and because of this, they release their frustrations through terrorism (Chase, 2013, p. 2). Some examples have been through joining gangs, engage in violent acts; this is an economic driven kind of domestic terrorism. Political rights and civil freedoms have also played a major role in domestic terrorism. Some studies show that terrorism in the United States has been associated with social injustices at the hand of the government with the rights of other individuals being undermined. In contrast, others are favoured (Chase, 2013, p. 4). When the government fails to provide a basis for equal attainment of jobs, medical care, and other amenities, there is always an unease that citizens can instigate acts of terrorism.
DISCUSSION
Description of Domestic Terrorism
The most concise description of domestic terrorism comes from the USA Patriot Act. The act describes a domestic terrorist as an individual who performs an act that endangers citizens and that this action has to meet at least one of three criteria (Chase, 2013, p. 6). First, it is intended to scare the civilian population. Second, the coercion is meant to influence government policy. Third, the goal of terrorist acts is to affect government behavior. Moreover, the acts should happen within the United States or will otherwise be considered international terrorism.
The modern definition of domestic terrorism has been expanded to include the acts of organizations and activist groups. For instance, entities like Vieques Island, Greenpeace, and protestors against WTO have in recent years, performed acts that could cast them as domestic terrorists (Mitchell, 2012, p. 3). The Vieques Island group of protestors recently took part in civil defiance at a military site where the U.S regularly engages in military exercises that the group opposes. The protesters infiltrated the military base and attempted to stop the bombing exercises. Such conduct firmly falls within the description of domestic terrorism since the group unjustly broke the law in the effort to influence government actions through coercion. Moreover, the attempt to stop bombing exercises endangered both their lives and those of military staff.
Any effort to describe the context of terrorism in the U.S needs to also focus on the methods through which terrorist acts and acts of violence have been conducted on American soil. The examination of these violent acts can lead to a more insightful examination of issues associated with terrorism, particularly when it comes to the group ideologies and how such acts affect victims (Mitchell, 2012, p. 4). For instance, research demonstrates that acts of domestic terrorism are at many times, instigated by hate. According to Hamm & Spaaij (2015, p. 20), hatred serves as a prime motive for domestic violence acts. It means that acts of violence can be described as terrorism in situations where personal prejudices about certain groups are applied to motivate violence.
Another feature of domestic terrorist groups is that specific ideologies inspire their violent acts. The role of ideologies in motivating domestic terrorism has long been recognized even before the advent of the modern definition. Irrespective of whether the ideologies are political or religious, they are a vital feature of domestic terrorist organizations and can be used to inspire people to take part in terrorist acts (Hamm & Spaaij, 2015, p. 25). These descriptions provide a basis for analyzing domestic terrorist groups like White Supremacy Extremists and Antifa.
Profile of White Supremacy Extremists
White Supremacy Extremists base their ideology on white supremacy. The group’s notion is that Caucasians are superior to other racial groups, and hence should be the dominant race (Jones, 2018, p. 4). The goal is to maintain and defend a framework of privilege, power, and wealth. White supremacy extremists use the philosophy of white genocide as a rationalization for violence against specific groups as being the only way to salvage the white race.
White extremists have widely embraced rhetoric that is based on violence. Many members of the group openly call for terrorism and violence to instigate a racial war. At the same time, there are image-conscious members, such as the Aim Identity Movement, that attempt to distance themselves from the group’s extreme ideologies (Jones, 2018, p. 5). These are members who focus on breaking down the conservative notions and adjusting the conventional white extremist ideologies (Freilich, Chermak, Belli, Gruenewald, & Parkin, 2014, p. 372). Nevertheless, most group members, and the most influential, like neo-Nazi and neo-Confederate act on racist and extreme ideals that encourage violence.
The white extremist members ascertain that white identity should be the basis of nations in the Western world. They embrace policies geared towards reversing the shifting demographics and the loss of the absolute white majority (Beckett, 2020, para.7). For example, an urgent issue for the group is putting a stop to both legal and illegal immigration of non-white people. Fundamentally, the group wants to end multiculturalism in America while preserving the white race’s racial supremacy. They desire that the U.S returns to what it was before the Immigration and Nationality and the Civil Rights Acts that were passed in the 1960s (Jones, 2018, p. 5). These landmark policies are cast as instigators of white genocide; the notion that whites in the U.S are being destroyed and replaced systematically. The racist ideas are expressed as the urge to create a white ethnostate. White extremists favor this idea since it justifies the inherent violence of their group. The idea also enables the members to state their actions are based on love for members of their race, rather than the hate of other groups. Irrespective of the viewpoint, the vital notion is the supremacy of white people is an entitlement they deserve.
The strategies for creating the white ethnostate fall into the categories of vanguardsim and mainstreaming. The mainstreamers believe that infiltrating and changing the current political order is the only practical method to gain power. They desire to advocate for members of the group to gain positions of power in society and politics as it will enable them to access resources that are being blocked by other racial groups (Stevenson, 2019, p. 339). These resources typically necessitate white nationalists to conceal their politics and make comprises that disguise their extreme ideals. Mainstreaming enables white nationalism supporters to pursue and pass policies that will make their group the top priority. These policies are not refrained to white nationalism, since they also target immigration restriction and the removal of social welfare initiatives.
Vanguardists hold the notion that revolution is the only to develop a white ethnostate. They assert that a reformation of the system is impossible and cannot ease their rhetoric (Stevenson, 2019, p. 240). The goal is to seek a reformation of what they suggest to be an anti-white order by using radical acts. Due to this focus, vanguardists prefer public demonstrations rather than anonymous protest means. The belief is that mass demonstrations can enable them to defy political correctness, instigate their ideology, and polarize politics.
Regardless of the strategy chosen, white nationalists will likely continue to be split over the issue of violence. Although the recent arrests of terrorist members concern for the non-violent members, there is little to imply that extreme acts will cool down shortly. Undeniably, some group members are more openly showing the belief that violence is both inevitable and suitable (Beckett, 2020, para. 9). The belief is likely to gain more traction as political tensions in America continue to increase, as demonstrated by the 2020 election campaigns.
Profile of Antifa
Antifa describes a decentralized group of far-left militants that deny what they suggest are racist, fascist, and right-wing extremists. While a section of scholars regards Antifa as a sub-set of anarchists, the followers typically interweave communist and anarchist ideologies (Koch, 2018, p. 30). The group has become prominent since its members have increasingly become active in rallies and protests in the last few years, particularly those that feature far-right protesters.
Similar to other domestic terror groups in the U.S., Antifa adheres to a decentralized organizational structure. The structure is based on an ideology called leaderless resistance. The concept means all sub-groups and members function independently of each other. There is no single leader or central operation base that issues instructions (Bogel-Burroughs & Garcia, 2020, para. 5). The tactic is useful for a far-left network like Antifa as it makes it hard to track the members.
Most members of the Antifa movement use non-violent means to express their ideas. Scholars assert that the threat of Antifa is relatively low in the United States since it includes many decentralized actors (Fekete, 2014, p. 30). Nevertheless, their readiness to physically protect themselves from the violence of white supremacists and proactively counter the fascist organizations’ efforts differentiates them from the liberal anti-racists. While Antifa is non-hierarchal and pan-leftist, it is unified through its opposition to white supremacy and right-wing extremism (Fekete, 2014, p. 35). The members are also opposed to a centralized state while rejecting conservatism. Essentially, the members prefer direct action instead of electoral politics. Finally, the members oppose the capitalist system of the economy. Although most members of Antifa are largely non-violent, the new influxes of members are increasingly becoming associated with felonies like robberies during protests. Therefore, it is likely that the group will pose a national security threat soon.
Counter Measures
Counterterrorism efforts are vital to fighting domestic terrorist groups in the United States. There needs to be a proactive approach by applying certain countermeasures. First, law enforcement agencies should align their resources to reflect the fight against domestic terrorism (Freilich, Chermak, Belli, Gruenewald & Parkin, 2014, p. 375). For instance, each police unit should have a counterterrorism squad. Agencies like the FBI should have offices that are fully committed to domestic terrorism investigations. Besides, intelligence gathering needs to be a concerted effort to collect necessary information for decision-making (Krutz, and Waskiewicz, 2019, para. 1). The information will also help law enforcement agencies to reason strategically about the threat posed by domestic terrorism.
Another strategy is forming a joint task force that features territorial, local, tribal, state, and federal partners that work together to fight domestic terrorism. There needs to be a joint effort across the nation to identify, examine, and mitigate domestic threats. An interdisciplinary team will facilitate the local insight and invaluable experience to aid investigations (McElreath, Jensen, Wigginton Jr, Doss, Nations, & Van Slyke, 2013, p. 14). Information sharing among the partners is crucial to combating the threats.
Another core strategy is the use of civic education to stop people from joining a domestic terrorism organization. Civic engagement is the foundation of democracy and can be one of the most important strategies in fighting domestic terrorism. Giving individuals or communities the power to take action in matters of concern and help protect people’s rights and interests. Civil engagement is exceptionally significant because it increases public participation, and everyone can address their issues rather than a few selected. For democracy to function correctly, there has to be active participation of citizens. Citizens also have to be well informed in their political process to serve general public needs and not the politically aware needs (Gilsinan, 2019, para. 3). A political society that is lively encourages communication and cooperation all through the public. The last few years have seen a decline in civic engagement as it requires a lot of time and resources. In individual sections of the society, civic engagement can be seen as an example is: those with more resources and time are more likely to be involved in the political organization.
In contrast, those that do not have the resources and available time are less likely to participate as they might see their interests less represented. For civic engagement to take root, civic education has to be taught starting at a young age. It is questionably one of the best methods of encouraging it. Campus compact identifies six significant ways of educating students on civic engagement. They include student voting to increase the amount of student voting on all levels, democracy in principle and practice to increase their understanding of it altogether. Debating for a shared future to increase their capacity to listen respectfully to others ideas and engage them constructively and critically, media fact and fiction aimed at students being able to differentiate between reliable and inconsistent information, student leadership for democracy and teaching for democracy that helps the faculty to develop programs dedicated to civic engagement (Gilsinan, 2019, para. 6). For democracy to succeed, civic engagement has to be stimulated. Citizens have to participate in civic engagement to quell the ideals and urge for domestic terrorism.
CONCLUSION
Domestic terrorism has become a problematic national security issue in the United States. On a wider level, domestic terrorist groups are either categorized as either left-wing or right-wing. This categorization is based on the ideologies of these groups. The examination of White Extremists and Antifa reveals the workings of these groups. White Supremacy Extremists base their ideology on white supremacy. The group’s notion is that Caucasians are superior to other racial groups and hence should be the dominant race. White extremists have widely embraced rhetoric that is based on violence. Antifa describes a decentralized group of far-left militants that deny what they suggest are racist, fascist, and right-wing extremists, and the followers typically interweave communist and anarchist ideologies. The members of Antifa mainly use non-violent forms of protest to express their ideas. As the threat of domestic grows, there need to be active countermeasures like the adaptation of law enforcement agencies, the formation of joint task forces, and the use of civic education. It is about time that the country takes a united stand against acts of domestic terrorism.

References
Beckett, L. (2020, June 24). How the US military has failed to address white supremacy in its ranks. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/24/us-military-white-supremacy-extremist-plot
Bogel-Burroughs, N., & Garcia, S. E. (2020, September 28). What Is Antifa? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-antifa-trump.html
Chase, E. (2013) “Defining Terrorism: A Strategic Imperative.” Small Wars Journal, (2013): 1-6.
Fekete, L. (2014). Anti-fascism or anti-extremism? Race & Class, 55(4), 29-39.
Freilich, J. D., Chermak, S. M., Belli, R., Gruenewald, J., & Parkin, W. S. (2014). Introducing the United States extremis crime database (ECDB). Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(2), 372-384.
Gilsinan, K. (2019, September 20). DHS Unveils New Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/new-strategy-fight-white-supremacist-violence/598501/
Hamm, M., & Spaaij, R. (2015). Lone wolf terrorism in America: Using knowledge of radicalization pathways to forge prevention strategies. U.S. Department of Justice report
Jones, S. G. (2018). Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Koch, A. (2018). Trends in Anti-Fascist and Anarchist Recruitment and Mobilization. Journal for Deradicalization, (14), 1-51.
Krutz, G, and Waskiewicz, S. (2019). “What is Government?.” American Government 2e.
McElreath, D. H., Jensen, C. J., Wigginton Jr, M., Doss, D. A., Nations, R., & Van Slyke, J. (2013). Introduction to homeland security. CRC Press.
Mitchell, A. (2012). “Terrorism Defined”. Beyond Intractability.
Stevenson, J. (2019). Right-wing Extremism and the Terrorist Threat. Survival, 61(1), 233-244.