On a small scale, yet significant enough patterns to see a very bad rational ...is the reasoning of an organization that surprisingly has gained teaching positions in colleges and universities within our nation. I will use one example here, though there are many. Organizational heads and active participants in the Weather Underground admitted to stealing and the destruction of property.

They also felt they should do more ...as they themselves admitted to the fact that they were not doing enough.

What does doing more entail??

How long can a person convince themselves that destroying property will never lead to anything more than just that ...when admittedly they said they felt they needed to do more??    

And how can a person justify destroying property of a group of people ...as a reaction to displeasure of how others have handled themselves, and the decisions surrounding their present times??

How does a person seek to punish a group for what independent individuals do??

To answer that question, it seems that two other questions must be asked:

• Does the individual support the actions of the group ...and if not, why would the person continue on in the group??
• Does the group support the actions of all individuals in the group ...and if not, why would they allow those individuals to remain in the group?? 

Or perhaps we should ask whether the group is more important than the individuals ...and if the needs of the individual is claimed to be a high priority, is that actually true.  Or is it merely to establish a deception to warrant support for the group's ulterior motives??