After listening to the Lets talk show extremism-terrorism. Which i found interesting i was going to add my comments. Then i came across some comments on a site i frequent regularly which sums things up better then i could. So i have attached a link, plus pasted some of it comments, not all, just a flavour.
I was not sure were to post it but I have attached a link to the article. Called “THE SATURDAY ESSAY: The Five Fatal Falsehoods of Homo sapiens”
If the world seems like a strangely threatening place at the moment, then it probably has something to do with the quite extraordinary spectrum of strange groups who seem unable to get beyond threatening people. They’ve existed throughout my life and for most of recorded history, but I doubt if there have been many times when their presence has been as powerful, varied and numerous as it is today.
At the same time, however, the core nature of these ‘tribes’ is remarkably consistent. That is to say, they all have a fixed ideology, they’re all monopolist by instinct, they’re all utterly intolerant of opposing views in any shape or form, none of them are liberal democratic, all of them use violent bullying in its many forms, all of them are retrogressive, and all of them are out of touch with anthropological reality.
The list could run to a dozen or so examples, but I think most commentators could agree that the top five are US energy obsession, radical Islam, globalist neoliberal fiscal economics, illiberal politics, and egotistical supranationalism.
They’re not presented in any particular hierarchy of danger, and they are far from being mutually exclusive: US foreign policy has been in part a catalyst for Jihadism, neoliberal lunacies lead to illiberal politics, superstates are the preferred illiberal political formats of globalists, monopolist energy interests drive geopolitics and so forth.
I have noted before that the irony of every ideology is that it hates the generation of new ideas. One could argue that the collective term is inappropriate, and should really be called mythology – or better still, shibbolethargy: a belief system where the starting point is flawed, and empirical change over time is ignored, denied, and then eventually the subject of lethal politico-legal responses from the élite. The desire for protection of sanctity is ever present; sometimes – in the case of oil for example – the protectionism is commercial: it involves suppression, manipulation and deliberate scientific stagnation. In the Islamist context, the response is beheading, terror tactics and a permanent desire for cultural domination. Where the whole process gets seriously dangerous for the Earth is when oil monopolism and religious extremism collide.
So two priorities immediately present themselves. First, the removal of all monied lobbying from the system. And connected to that, a vast investment in making the oil age history as soon as possible. Taking this action alone would, in and of itself, reduce the need for offensive cyber weapons, and lead very swiftly towards a root-and-branch reform of the banking system…returning it to it rightful place as a risk-taking investor in entrepreneurial and communal capitalism – rather than propping up (or being propped up by) an idiotic global economy construct.
Its most significant immediate effect, however, would be to reduce the obsessive focus on Middle Eastern affairs, put Islamic fundamentalism on the back foot, and curb Israel’s inordinate influence on American foreign policy. Faced with the reduced relevance of occupying oilfields – and a dramatically downscaled US presence in the region – Jihadist extremists would find it harder to recruit.
Here too, there are proactive things the Resistance could do. One very real problem that pc-driven policy refuses to face is the vast and insidious ‘fellow-travelling’ of Islamic money and approval that fundamentalists get: rather than fruitlessly bombing this year’s new flavour of religious radicals, a key component of any attack upon perverted versions of Islam would be to make life very awkward and inconvenient indeed for those who bankroll it. Oil-fuelled geopolitics demand that no such moves are made against the Saudis; in a post-oil world, that amoral foreign policy dictate would no longer apply. Equally, there is a real need to treat Islamics differently to travellers of other faiths who do not have such a track-record of brainless violence. Targeted searching during security procedures is the natural and sensible retaliation to terror tactics…however abhorrent Human Rights activists might find that, it is common sense to combat destructive disruption by using one’s primary senses.
Senior government ministers who talk airily about “those who detest our society but are careful to stay just within the law” forget that this definition could be applied to great figures whom they would probably classify as even worse: Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandele, Abe Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Aneurin Bevan, Emily Pankhurst, John Wilkes, and in fact pretty much every passionate social reformer in modern history. Sometimes, societies are detestable
I have copied three comments above that you might find interesting, but I believe it would be well worth the time to read the full article, plus some of the responses to it.
The above link is also well worth a read. A good description of what is and what is not a revolution. Plus some of its pitfalls.