The Charlie Hebdo attacks, and the reactions to them, have brought the spotlight on to the place that free speech and religion have in society, and how people arrive at different points of view.
An excellent article by a learned Muslim recently pointed out how science and Islam at one time went hand-in-hand; what has changed is that the faith has been hijacked by - in effect - a multitude of tyrants over the centuries, who decided to use "Islam" as a way to control society, by peddling the temptation of forty virgins, for instance. I mean what educated person, of any faith, could take such things seriously?
While it has always been argued by atheists that religion has been a weapon to control society with, it was also true that, in the early years of Islam, Islamic countries were much more progressive and innovative in their relation to science compared to Christian nations of the time. The Islamic world invented astronomy, for example, at a time when Christian Europe was engulfed in the Dark Ages. What changed was not about the nature of the religion in itself, but in the situation on the ground, and how respective societies were run.
The "renaissance" was a breakthrough for the Christian West, but this happened around the same time that large parts of the Islamic world were overrun by the Mongol Empire. In the case of Baghdad, one of Islam's and the Middle East's key cities of learning, the city was destroyed and its population massacred. While no one event can be blamed, in the same way that the ideas of the "renaissance" occurred gradually over many decades, the same can be said of Islam's turning away from science and free-thinking. The evolution of the West into a free-thinking, democratic society was due to a series of events and factors; the same can be said of how the Islamic world became engulfed in scientific and innovative lethargy, which, sadly, exists to the present day. The question is:why?
If all else fails, rule by fear
To reiterate the point, it was not inevitable that Islamic countries would become more socially and economically backwards: it was the result of historical factors, and the decisions of those in power.
The Middle East, Islam's core heartland, has been fought over for centuries; that said, so has Europe (most recently in the first half of the 20th century). In the excellent book, "Why Nations Fail" (more on that here), one of the key factors the authors explain is responsible for poverty and lack of innovation in a society is the elite's fear of creative destruction. In a traditional tyranny (or a modern-day dictatorship), the elite rules by fear, and uses a system of corruption and amoral use of force to maintain their hold on power.
In short, if a clever innovator has an idea that might improve society, the elite would rather discredit and destroy the inventor than have the risk that the innovation might make life better for others, which could make other people rich, and thus, more powerful. It is a simple, if purely malicious, rationale. There are many examples of this throughout history, as well as today, explained in the book mentioned - including the Middle East.
The reason why the West is rich is because decisions were taken at different points in the past that led to a "virtuous" circle of events, whereby more and more freedom was given to society, which led to more opportunities for innovation and technological and scientific progress.
In this way, what has happened in the Islamic world since those bright, innovative early years is a type of "vicious circle". After the Mongol Empire overrun parts of the Middle East, it appears that science and innovation declined to insignificance, along with the various tyrants that ran the region as their own personal fiefdoms. This led to them being overrun by the Ottomans in the sixteenth century. But science and innovation didn't improve under the Ottomans either; for instance, while the West began printing books on a large scale by the start of the sixteenth century; the Ottomans only allowed this to happen in the nineteenth century. This was not because printing was "against Islam" ; it was because it appeared to be against the ruling elite's interests. It was surely for this reason that while levels of literacy in England in 1800 were at around half the population, in the Ottoman Empire - the most powerful Islamic state in the world - levels of literacy were at most 3 per cent.
Likewise, when the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was established after the First World War, was not pre-ordained or instinctive that the country should be a theocratic, ultra-conservative state: it became like this due to the king seeking the support of the local imams, in order to give the king and his elite a solid support base, and a moral code to control society with. The British also went along with this, for their own, self-interested, reasons. The Arabs of "Saudi Arabia", and the other Arab monarchs, such as the Hashemites of Jordan, relied on tribal support, and prior to the First World War hadn't known anything like a properly-organised Arab polity (let alone innovation and free thinking) for around six hundred years. So the fact that they used their religion as a basis for building support and maintaining power is unsurprising.
"Not In Our Name"?
The resurgence in Islamic extremism historically ties in with this. I wrote previously about how Islamic extremism emerged on to the world stage thirty-five years ago, and how the Charlie Hebdo attacks are another indication of its mutation into a force against "Western decadence". While the number of moderate Muslims far outnumbers the extremists, it does appear that there are more extremists than there were previously, and certainly are far more "active" in displaying their views compared to any other contemporary world religion. It is not surprising that some in the West are content to play to the extremists' game by saying that there is a de facto "clash of civilsations".
The closer truth is that the moderates are losing the "war" against the extremists in their faith. While some say this is the fault of the religion itself, it might be better to say that, quite simply, the moderates are too scared to say anything publicly (though if this amounts to the same thing is another point).
You might think that in a normal situation, moderate Muslims would be so horrified and angered by the extremists' actions said in their name that they would be all on the street in their thousands angrily protesting against them (e.g. like the "Not In My Name" anti-war Iraq protests). There are a few, but they are few and far between. The moderates may well not do this because they are simply too scared of the possible consequences; in contrast, usually the only Muslims you see protesting are the very "extremists" calling for tyrannical actions against non-Muslims.
Likewise, there have been calls by the British government for the Muslim elders to get more involved in preventing the radicalisation of their youth. Unfortunately, for one, there may be a "generational gap" that is dividing younger from older Muslims in the West. Like the classic case of a teenager who complains that their parents "don't understand them", the same many be true of today's radicalised young Muslims. They are getting most of their information, and indoctrination, from the internet. This is how the "elders" are being cut out of the loop. So for all the British government's good intentions, it may well be aiming for the wrong target.
In other words, Islamic extremism is on the rise in the West because, for wont of a better word, it feels "cool" (read some of the lingo of the kids who go to Syria, and you'll get how close to the mark this really appears!) and thus appeals to insecure young people in need of a "cause"; extremism is strong in the Middle East because it is a useful weapon and diversionary tactic to control society (while blaming the West for Arab poverty).
But this use of power is as old as the hills.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Thursday, January 8, 2015
The Charlie Hebdo attack: Al-Qaeda, terrorism and Islam
To paraphrase another author of an article about the Charlie Hebdo attack, the West doesn't have a Muslim problem; Islam has a terrorism problem.
The attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices was carried out by people claiming to work for Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Since the rise of ISIS in the news over the past year, Al-Qaeda has, comparatively-speaking, dropped off the media radar. The motivation for the attack (and the modus operandi; more on that later) was most obviously about making a simple, terrifying point: to punish those who has "offended" the Prophet, and to terrify others in the West into submission.
A "win-win" situation?
But it must also have been about far more than that as well: the more subtle point would have been to create a ideological fissure in Western society. By orchestrating such a high-profile, almost "surgical" attack at a Western media outlet, the terrorists seemed to have weighed-up the most probable social effects of the attack on Western society.
One, Western society can stand together against this kind of terror and continue life as normal (as powerfully-argued by Simon Jenkins here). Doing this (and by, for example re-publishing the "offensive" cartoons in response etc.) will result in further fuel being given to the extremists, by more clearly identifying the "dissolute" moral freedoms of the West ( i.e. a "win" for the extremists, in their eyes).
Two, Western society can be privately cowed into submission by the terror attacks, as many mainstream media outlets have been for the past ten years (they don't want to get killed, and value their life over their freedom of expression). After the initial anger, this subsides into a "self-censorship" setting that has been in place for some time already. This is precisely what the point of this act of terror was - to terrorise people into accepting the will of the terrorists.
Three, Western society could more carefully identify the issue of "home-grown" terrorism, and the fact that most of the extremists today develop due to flaws in the way that Muslim societies deal with the harsher and more intolerant aspects of their religion (more on why the extremists are winning here). As most of the attacks by Muslim extremists in the world are on fellow Muslims, this clearly a problem across the Muslim world in general, not just in the West.
By doing this in the West, it could cause a "culture war" with Muslim society in general (indeed, this may well already be true), pitting Muslims against each other, as is already happening in the Middle East. While this is an issue that Western governments really need to work in tandem with Muslim elders on, there seems to be little appetite for it at the moment. Again, the extremists may well easily spin this strategy back on the Muslim moderates, by calling them not "true Muslims", as they have been doing already for the last ten years. In short, things may well get bloodier before they better, if this strategy is to work long-term.
The problem here is a question of if Western society (and moderate Islam in general) is, frankly, prepared to pay the "blood price" for fighting against the tyranny of extremism. The people are Charlie Hebdo clearly were prepared to pay the price if need be, and, tragically, they did so.
Four: of course, there may well be an anti-Muslim backlash, as there was after the Lee Rigby killing in London. This is also exactly what the terrorists would wish for, too, for their own reasons.
France is one of Europe's most potentially-explosive social structures, due to the lack of integration between the Muslim community in France and "mainstream" French society. Issues of racism are not far under the surface, and with the recent rise of FN, France must appear an "easy" target for the likes of Al-Qaeda. While the UK can hardly afford to be complacent either about its relations to its large Muslim population (more on that problem here), the British police seem to be much more on the ball than there French counterparts, judging from the number of foiled terror plots compared to actual terror attacks.
With intolerance (i.e. anti Muslim sentiment) on the rise across Europe in general, the question is how to strike the right kind of balance between allowing freedom of religious expression, but preventing intolerance preached by extremists and worse. It looks like it may be a long time before we can square that particular circle.
Regardless of whatever the outcome is, if Western society is not prepared to die for their beliefs if need be, then the freedoms that people died for in Second World War were for nothing, and we have simply exchanged the extremism of the Nazis for the extremism of modern-day Islamofascism. In the modern world, the extremists don't need to invade the West to take over; they simply use the internet, and commit random acts of terror to achieve their aims.
Raising their game?
The attack on Charlie Hebdo, for all that it represented, also was a stark demonstration of the resilience and ingenuity of Al-Qaeda. As said earlier, the rise of ISIS has distracted much of the world's attention from Al-Qaeda. Doubtless, that must have hurt a little of their twisted sense of pride. But equally, the nature of this attack shows that they may well have been spending time to "raise the game".
As analysts and witnesses have stated, it bears the hallmarks of being a military-like operation: less a "terror act" than a "pinpoint strike" against a carefully-selected target. It was almost as though they had learned strategies from some of the anti-terror operations they have suffered in recent years from Western covert-ops. They knew exactly where, who and when to strike to achieve maximum effect. The fact that they timed their attack to coincide with a meeting when all the key staff would be there in one place shows a chillingly-efficient manner to their operation.
This attack is a game-changer in showing what the capabilities are of Al-Qaeda affiliates in 2015, and how they are an organisation that learns from its enemies. The question is: how to react? As explained in the scenarios above, none of the options provide an easy answer, and all possible strategies then may well provide some kind of succour to the extremists in one way or another, at least in the short-term.
The ball is in our court.
The attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices was carried out by people claiming to work for Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Since the rise of ISIS in the news over the past year, Al-Qaeda has, comparatively-speaking, dropped off the media radar. The motivation for the attack (and the modus operandi; more on that later) was most obviously about making a simple, terrifying point: to punish those who has "offended" the Prophet, and to terrify others in the West into submission.
A "win-win" situation?
But it must also have been about far more than that as well: the more subtle point would have been to create a ideological fissure in Western society. By orchestrating such a high-profile, almost "surgical" attack at a Western media outlet, the terrorists seemed to have weighed-up the most probable social effects of the attack on Western society.
One, Western society can stand together against this kind of terror and continue life as normal (as powerfully-argued by Simon Jenkins here). Doing this (and by, for example re-publishing the "offensive" cartoons in response etc.) will result in further fuel being given to the extremists, by more clearly identifying the "dissolute" moral freedoms of the West ( i.e. a "win" for the extremists, in their eyes).
Two, Western society can be privately cowed into submission by the terror attacks, as many mainstream media outlets have been for the past ten years (they don't want to get killed, and value their life over their freedom of expression). After the initial anger, this subsides into a "self-censorship" setting that has been in place for some time already. This is precisely what the point of this act of terror was - to terrorise people into accepting the will of the terrorists.
Three, Western society could more carefully identify the issue of "home-grown" terrorism, and the fact that most of the extremists today develop due to flaws in the way that Muslim societies deal with the harsher and more intolerant aspects of their religion (more on why the extremists are winning here). As most of the attacks by Muslim extremists in the world are on fellow Muslims, this clearly a problem across the Muslim world in general, not just in the West.
By doing this in the West, it could cause a "culture war" with Muslim society in general (indeed, this may well already be true), pitting Muslims against each other, as is already happening in the Middle East. While this is an issue that Western governments really need to work in tandem with Muslim elders on, there seems to be little appetite for it at the moment. Again, the extremists may well easily spin this strategy back on the Muslim moderates, by calling them not "true Muslims", as they have been doing already for the last ten years. In short, things may well get bloodier before they better, if this strategy is to work long-term.
The problem here is a question of if Western society (and moderate Islam in general) is, frankly, prepared to pay the "blood price" for fighting against the tyranny of extremism. The people are Charlie Hebdo clearly were prepared to pay the price if need be, and, tragically, they did so.
Four: of course, there may well be an anti-Muslim backlash, as there was after the Lee Rigby killing in London. This is also exactly what the terrorists would wish for, too, for their own reasons.
France is one of Europe's most potentially-explosive social structures, due to the lack of integration between the Muslim community in France and "mainstream" French society. Issues of racism are not far under the surface, and with the recent rise of FN, France must appear an "easy" target for the likes of Al-Qaeda. While the UK can hardly afford to be complacent either about its relations to its large Muslim population (more on that problem here), the British police seem to be much more on the ball than there French counterparts, judging from the number of foiled terror plots compared to actual terror attacks.
With intolerance (i.e. anti Muslim sentiment) on the rise across Europe in general, the question is how to strike the right kind of balance between allowing freedom of religious expression, but preventing intolerance preached by extremists and worse. It looks like it may be a long time before we can square that particular circle.
Regardless of whatever the outcome is, if Western society is not prepared to die for their beliefs if need be, then the freedoms that people died for in Second World War were for nothing, and we have simply exchanged the extremism of the Nazis for the extremism of modern-day Islamofascism. In the modern world, the extremists don't need to invade the West to take over; they simply use the internet, and commit random acts of terror to achieve their aims.
Raising their game?
The attack on Charlie Hebdo, for all that it represented, also was a stark demonstration of the resilience and ingenuity of Al-Qaeda. As said earlier, the rise of ISIS has distracted much of the world's attention from Al-Qaeda. Doubtless, that must have hurt a little of their twisted sense of pride. But equally, the nature of this attack shows that they may well have been spending time to "raise the game".
As analysts and witnesses have stated, it bears the hallmarks of being a military-like operation: less a "terror act" than a "pinpoint strike" against a carefully-selected target. It was almost as though they had learned strategies from some of the anti-terror operations they have suffered in recent years from Western covert-ops. They knew exactly where, who and when to strike to achieve maximum effect. The fact that they timed their attack to coincide with a meeting when all the key staff would be there in one place shows a chillingly-efficient manner to their operation.
This attack is a game-changer in showing what the capabilities are of Al-Qaeda affiliates in 2015, and how they are an organisation that learns from its enemies. The question is: how to react? As explained in the scenarios above, none of the options provide an easy answer, and all possible strategies then may well provide some kind of succour to the extremists in one way or another, at least in the short-term.
The ball is in our court.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Islamofascism and terrorism: Islamic Extremism, Al-Qaeda and the meaning of power
The recent article in The Economist about the spread of Al-Qaeda explains clearly how this terrorist organisation has moved from a marginal irritant on the West at the end of the 20th century, to the West's most psychologically-potent enemy in the early 21st century.
Reading this also reminded me of Christopher Hitchens' analysis of Islamofascism; points which mirror some of my own thoughts on the psychological and ideological links between radical "political" Islam, and the Fascism that plagued Europe up to the Second World War.
Put into perspective, the threat of Islamic terrorism that inspired the (ongoing) "War On Terror" is not an existential one on the West. The biggest existential threat to the world is climate change; after that, the largest geo-political changes (threats) the West has to learn to adapt to are the rise of China (and the East in general), the relative decline of Western powers to the aforementioned rising powers, and the jostling for position over resources across spheres of influence (such as Africa) and zones of contention (such as Central Asia). I've mentioned why "The East" already has some advantages in the jostling for power over "The West" before.
Add into that the fact that, due to Globalisation, multinational companies have as much influence on geo-politics as many countries, and you have a world that more closely represents the "Risk" board game's playing surface, albeit fought mostly with economic weapons rather than real ones. It also sounds a bit like the world divided like the global power system described in Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four".
No, Islamofascism, and the terror threat of the Al-Qaeda "franchise" does not represent an existential threat to the West.
That being said, Islamofascism does represent a different, more subtle, longer-term threat to the West. And in some ways, Islamofascism has already encroached into many aspects of Western society almost unnoticed, in much the same way that earlier Fascism used its enemy's own system (liberal democracy) against itself and for Fascism's own advantage.
The meaning of power
Islam, directly translated, means "submission" (as far as I am aware). Fascism as an ideology was about the submission of the collective will to the political centre; this brings to mind the famous Nazi propaganda movie "The Triumph Of The Will".
Islam may therefore be seen as the submission of the collective will to the religious centre - "Allah", whose "will" is interpreted through mullahs and through the writings of the Prophet and other adherents. Of course, all religions base their ideas on surrendering individual will to a religious idea (this is the definition of "faith"). What marks Islamofascism as unique in the modern, globalised world, is its absolute application of power and will over a rational, pluralistic West, and the ease that it is able to infiltrate into Western society, as well as ideologically defeat more moderates followers of its faith.
I talked about earlier Fascism, implying that it almost seemed to serve as a template for today's Islamofascists to infiltrate Western society and bring down the system from within. While the latter point seems far-fetched, the basic premise (that Islamofascism has infiltrated Western society) stands true; and there has been plenty of evidence to support it.
One of the best examples of this is in British society.
Britain's position as a bastion of liberal democracy and cultural pluralism is one thing that makes it an exemplar to many would-be free, modern societies elsewhere. It is precisely in such a society that Islamofascists have been able to preach their violent, undemocratic and pernicious ideas under the protection of "free speech"; at the same time, they have also been allowed to conduct behaviour that could land any British non-Muslim in prison, while claim the right to religious expression; and most subversive of all, have denounced and threatened anyone who criticises their faith, ideas or behaviour with violence.
In other words, Islamofascism has reached a position of becoming almost a state within a state in the UK, having their own self-contained communities, schools, businesses and so on; more than that, the state has effectively surrendered moral and legal authority to such Islamofascists.
This is what is meant by power. When a section of society has reached a position of becoming legally untouchable due to the weakness of the state in applying its own laws, it is a demonstration of power by that section of society over the state power.
Putting the fear of God into people
Because of this, other sections of society begin to practise "self-censorship" when in public, such as being careful not to carry out behaviour that may earn the wrath of Islamofascists. This is another example of the application of psychological power. In other words, putting almost the literal fear of God into non-believers.
Using this method, over a long-enough time scale, the Islamofascists can win by default; terrifying non-believers into behaving how they want, while using the state's lack of will and appeasement to create a de facto Islamic State within the UK. This method can then be applied across the West, as long as "liberal democracy" is used, like the Fascists before, as a vehicle to destroy liberal democracy.
Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are simply the sharp end of the scale, using actual terror tactics (the random killing of whoever they feel is worthy of death). Terrorism is a well-practised method of creating fear. For Al-Qaeda, it is a simple application of will; a statement of intent and a challenge to the West. These people do not fear death; Islamofascists, like earlier Fascists, embrace it in all its glory.
And this is the other psychological weapon they have over liberal democracies. The West may have large armies, but they lack the moral will to use and lose them. Al-Qaeda's numbers may be small, but their will is strong.
Lastly, these extremists have shown that as they can put the fear of God into non-believers, they can even more easily silence any protests from more moderate Muslims as well. For the extremists, anyone who is not a "real" Muslim, is no better than the infidels. Against this moral certainty, moderates quickly lose the conviction of their beliefs. Indeed, like a "liberal", a "moderate" by definition would struggle to match the conviction of their beliefs with that of an extremist ideologue.
This explains why extremists are gaining ground in places like Pakistan, and are able to take advantage of the instability caused from the Arab Spring. As "The Economist" article shows, Islamic extremists are benefitting from the Middle East and North Africa being led by a clutch of weak governments, mirroring (in a different form) the situation in many of the "liberal democracies" in the West.
Creating Islamic states by default
While the likes of Al-Qaeda state their eventual aim is the establishment of a "caliphate" that spans the Middle East, in practical terms the erosion of central state power in governments across the Islamic world (from Pakistan in the East, to Libya in the West) almost as easily fulfills that same aim. Entire sections of some Middle Eastern countries are effectively in the hands of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates; with state security so weak in places like Pakistan, Iraq ,Libya, Somalia, and Yemen (and non-existent in northern and eastern Syria).
Syria provides the clearest example of what happens when central government disappears, and the vacuum is filled with Islamic extremists: arbitrary justice, be-headings and so on.
Some parts of towns and cities in Britain more closely resemble Peshawar than Pontefract. While multiculturalism is to be applauded, this is not what exists in many parts of Britain. Instead, we have created pockets of monoculturalism - in others words, self-enclosed ghettos where the values (and even law) of Britain do not fully apply. It is this type of exclusive social environment that breeds extremism.
Moderate Muslims must be brave in facing down the extremists; and Western governments must be firm and consistent in the application of their laws and values.
If the West is to preserve its laws and its values, it needs to defend them at home to begin with.
Reading this also reminded me of Christopher Hitchens' analysis of Islamofascism; points which mirror some of my own thoughts on the psychological and ideological links between radical "political" Islam, and the Fascism that plagued Europe up to the Second World War.
Put into perspective, the threat of Islamic terrorism that inspired the (ongoing) "War On Terror" is not an existential one on the West. The biggest existential threat to the world is climate change; after that, the largest geo-political changes (threats) the West has to learn to adapt to are the rise of China (and the East in general), the relative decline of Western powers to the aforementioned rising powers, and the jostling for position over resources across spheres of influence (such as Africa) and zones of contention (such as Central Asia). I've mentioned why "The East" already has some advantages in the jostling for power over "The West" before.
Add into that the fact that, due to Globalisation, multinational companies have as much influence on geo-politics as many countries, and you have a world that more closely represents the "Risk" board game's playing surface, albeit fought mostly with economic weapons rather than real ones. It also sounds a bit like the world divided like the global power system described in Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four".
No, Islamofascism, and the terror threat of the Al-Qaeda "franchise" does not represent an existential threat to the West.
That being said, Islamofascism does represent a different, more subtle, longer-term threat to the West. And in some ways, Islamofascism has already encroached into many aspects of Western society almost unnoticed, in much the same way that earlier Fascism used its enemy's own system (liberal democracy) against itself and for Fascism's own advantage.
The meaning of power
Islam, directly translated, means "submission" (as far as I am aware). Fascism as an ideology was about the submission of the collective will to the political centre; this brings to mind the famous Nazi propaganda movie "The Triumph Of The Will".
Islam may therefore be seen as the submission of the collective will to the religious centre - "Allah", whose "will" is interpreted through mullahs and through the writings of the Prophet and other adherents. Of course, all religions base their ideas on surrendering individual will to a religious idea (this is the definition of "faith"). What marks Islamofascism as unique in the modern, globalised world, is its absolute application of power and will over a rational, pluralistic West, and the ease that it is able to infiltrate into Western society, as well as ideologically defeat more moderates followers of its faith.
I talked about earlier Fascism, implying that it almost seemed to serve as a template for today's Islamofascists to infiltrate Western society and bring down the system from within. While the latter point seems far-fetched, the basic premise (that Islamofascism has infiltrated Western society) stands true; and there has been plenty of evidence to support it.
One of the best examples of this is in British society.
Britain's position as a bastion of liberal democracy and cultural pluralism is one thing that makes it an exemplar to many would-be free, modern societies elsewhere. It is precisely in such a society that Islamofascists have been able to preach their violent, undemocratic and pernicious ideas under the protection of "free speech"; at the same time, they have also been allowed to conduct behaviour that could land any British non-Muslim in prison, while claim the right to religious expression; and most subversive of all, have denounced and threatened anyone who criticises their faith, ideas or behaviour with violence.
In other words, Islamofascism has reached a position of becoming almost a state within a state in the UK, having their own self-contained communities, schools, businesses and so on; more than that, the state has effectively surrendered moral and legal authority to such Islamofascists.
This is what is meant by power. When a section of society has reached a position of becoming legally untouchable due to the weakness of the state in applying its own laws, it is a demonstration of power by that section of society over the state power.
Putting the fear of God into people
Because of this, other sections of society begin to practise "self-censorship" when in public, such as being careful not to carry out behaviour that may earn the wrath of Islamofascists. This is another example of the application of psychological power. In other words, putting almost the literal fear of God into non-believers.
Using this method, over a long-enough time scale, the Islamofascists can win by default; terrifying non-believers into behaving how they want, while using the state's lack of will and appeasement to create a de facto Islamic State within the UK. This method can then be applied across the West, as long as "liberal democracy" is used, like the Fascists before, as a vehicle to destroy liberal democracy.
Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are simply the sharp end of the scale, using actual terror tactics (the random killing of whoever they feel is worthy of death). Terrorism is a well-practised method of creating fear. For Al-Qaeda, it is a simple application of will; a statement of intent and a challenge to the West. These people do not fear death; Islamofascists, like earlier Fascists, embrace it in all its glory.
And this is the other psychological weapon they have over liberal democracies. The West may have large armies, but they lack the moral will to use and lose them. Al-Qaeda's numbers may be small, but their will is strong.
Lastly, these extremists have shown that as they can put the fear of God into non-believers, they can even more easily silence any protests from more moderate Muslims as well. For the extremists, anyone who is not a "real" Muslim, is no better than the infidels. Against this moral certainty, moderates quickly lose the conviction of their beliefs. Indeed, like a "liberal", a "moderate" by definition would struggle to match the conviction of their beliefs with that of an extremist ideologue.
This explains why extremists are gaining ground in places like Pakistan, and are able to take advantage of the instability caused from the Arab Spring. As "The Economist" article shows, Islamic extremists are benefitting from the Middle East and North Africa being led by a clutch of weak governments, mirroring (in a different form) the situation in many of the "liberal democracies" in the West.
Creating Islamic states by default
While the likes of Al-Qaeda state their eventual aim is the establishment of a "caliphate" that spans the Middle East, in practical terms the erosion of central state power in governments across the Islamic world (from Pakistan in the East, to Libya in the West) almost as easily fulfills that same aim. Entire sections of some Middle Eastern countries are effectively in the hands of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates; with state security so weak in places like Pakistan, Iraq ,Libya, Somalia, and Yemen (and non-existent in northern and eastern Syria).
Syria provides the clearest example of what happens when central government disappears, and the vacuum is filled with Islamic extremists: arbitrary justice, be-headings and so on.
Some parts of towns and cities in Britain more closely resemble Peshawar than Pontefract. While multiculturalism is to be applauded, this is not what exists in many parts of Britain. Instead, we have created pockets of monoculturalism - in others words, self-enclosed ghettos where the values (and even law) of Britain do not fully apply. It is this type of exclusive social environment that breeds extremism.
Moderate Muslims must be brave in facing down the extremists; and Western governments must be firm and consistent in the application of their laws and values.
If the West is to preserve its laws and its values, it needs to defend them at home to begin with.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Republicans, "The Dark Side", and Terrorism
"Terrorists have seized control of Congress and are holding the US government hostage. The terrorists demand that the government pay them $2 trillion or they will force the government into financial meltdown using their secret weapon"
Sounds like a storyline from a bad Hollywood thriller, but in effect, the above situation, is happening now in the US Congress. The "terrorists" are called Republicans, and they are holding hostage the fate of the US economy.
As explained here the Republicans simply refuse to do business with the government if they do not agree to their demands. Due to the design of the American political system, it means that the US government can in effect be held hostage by the opposing party if they see fit.
As Michael Tomasky explains in the highlighted article, the US system of checks and balances wasn't designed to used for this purpose. The Founding Fathers developed a unique system to prevent tyranny on one hand and discourage anarchic decision-making on the other. While this had led to frustrations from time to time, it is hard to imagine that the political process could be so cynically subverted by one side in order to create inertia and paralysis in the government. But this is what the Republicans have been doing, and have created, as a result.
The paralysis and inertia is designed by a party that instinctively dislikes government, to make the government look ineffective and pointless.
Like minions of the Sith Lord Palpatine in "Star Wars", the Republicans wish to seek out and destroy all that is positive about government in America. To the Republicans, the Democrats, and Obama in particular (if you'll pardon the comparison!) are like the "Jedi", trying to defend the democratic and positive principles of The Republic against the schemes of "The Dark Side", who wish to destroy The Republic and replace it with something akin to an Empire Of Anarchy.
The "Empire Of Anarchy" that the Republicans support is never described as such: like the Sith Lord, they deviously justify their actions for the sake of saving The Republic. They claim that their actions are fighting for the principles that The Republic was founded upon: freedom and limited government. But whatever they might say, their plans create only freedom for the super-rich elite, and anarchy for everyone else.
Democracy, meanwhile, has been conveniently forgotten by these Republican financial terrorists. The majority of the population do not support their views; for the Republican extremists who have hijacked the party (and have done for at least the last twelve years), this is merely a further sign of the righteousness of their path. They are the chosen few who understand the "wider picture", supporting their superiority over the "unenlightened masses" with the idea that the Founding Fathers, too, were wary of the anarchic potential of "full democracy".
This Republican logic is also that found amongst all extremist ideologies - from the Fascist (and Bolshevik) contempt for the softness of "liberalism" (which contemporary Republicanism closely resembles), to the disregard for democracy and their casual attitude to the rule of law. The Constitution and rule of law that Republicans claim to worship is only adhered to when it is convenient, as we found during the tenure of George W. Bush.
What is all the more ironic is that Republicans' disregard for the concept of government is even supported by their own record in office over the past thirty years. Modern Republicanism's "Founding Father" is Ronald Reagan; prior to that, there was more of an agreement on most issues between the two US parties. Considered as a near-deity by Republicans, Reagan's tenure in office was one of gross financial irresponsibility, continued (for the most part) through the tenures of other Republican Presidents, George Bush senior and junior. Put it another way, Republican distrust for government therefore runs into self-hatred, as it was the Republicans who created the circumstances for the financial crisis in the first place. They hate government not only because the Democrats support it, but because they are so bad at it themselves.
It is the Republican neophytes (AKA "The Tea Party"), who are the most selective, disingenuous, and deceptive with these facts: they choose to deify Ronald Reagan and their philosophical inspiration, Ayn Rand, while simultaneously praising and crucifying them whenever the need arises.
In another sense, "The Tea Party" faction that has effectively hijacked the Republican Party, and held the US government hostage to its demands, is a group of nihilists: they seem to believe in very little, finding it hard to rationally explain their thinking, and resort to tactics of posturing to say only what they oppose. They are against government, against taxes, against abortion, gun control, and so on.
The things the are positive towards are very few: the freedom to make money and owning guns seem to be the main ones, which both naturally advantage those who are already rich and those who are suspicious of government and people in general.
The agenda of today's Republicans then is this: simply, to dismantle and frustrate the normal functioning of government, by any means necessary (within the law).
I wonder how much further Republicans would be prepared to go to reach their aims. They are already holding the government to ransom. And if that fails, what then? Does "the law" then become malleable, as it is for those who feel they are above it?
There does appear to be very little in moral terms, between today's Republicans and some terrorists.
Sounds like a storyline from a bad Hollywood thriller, but in effect, the above situation, is happening now in the US Congress. The "terrorists" are called Republicans, and they are holding hostage the fate of the US economy.
As explained here the Republicans simply refuse to do business with the government if they do not agree to their demands. Due to the design of the American political system, it means that the US government can in effect be held hostage by the opposing party if they see fit.
As Michael Tomasky explains in the highlighted article, the US system of checks and balances wasn't designed to used for this purpose. The Founding Fathers developed a unique system to prevent tyranny on one hand and discourage anarchic decision-making on the other. While this had led to frustrations from time to time, it is hard to imagine that the political process could be so cynically subverted by one side in order to create inertia and paralysis in the government. But this is what the Republicans have been doing, and have created, as a result.
The paralysis and inertia is designed by a party that instinctively dislikes government, to make the government look ineffective and pointless.
Like minions of the Sith Lord Palpatine in "Star Wars", the Republicans wish to seek out and destroy all that is positive about government in America. To the Republicans, the Democrats, and Obama in particular (if you'll pardon the comparison!) are like the "Jedi", trying to defend the democratic and positive principles of The Republic against the schemes of "The Dark Side", who wish to destroy The Republic and replace it with something akin to an Empire Of Anarchy.
The "Empire Of Anarchy" that the Republicans support is never described as such: like the Sith Lord, they deviously justify their actions for the sake of saving The Republic. They claim that their actions are fighting for the principles that The Republic was founded upon: freedom and limited government. But whatever they might say, their plans create only freedom for the super-rich elite, and anarchy for everyone else.
Democracy, meanwhile, has been conveniently forgotten by these Republican financial terrorists. The majority of the population do not support their views; for the Republican extremists who have hijacked the party (and have done for at least the last twelve years), this is merely a further sign of the righteousness of their path. They are the chosen few who understand the "wider picture", supporting their superiority over the "unenlightened masses" with the idea that the Founding Fathers, too, were wary of the anarchic potential of "full democracy".
This Republican logic is also that found amongst all extremist ideologies - from the Fascist (and Bolshevik) contempt for the softness of "liberalism" (which contemporary Republicanism closely resembles), to the disregard for democracy and their casual attitude to the rule of law. The Constitution and rule of law that Republicans claim to worship is only adhered to when it is convenient, as we found during the tenure of George W. Bush.
What is all the more ironic is that Republicans' disregard for the concept of government is even supported by their own record in office over the past thirty years. Modern Republicanism's "Founding Father" is Ronald Reagan; prior to that, there was more of an agreement on most issues between the two US parties. Considered as a near-deity by Republicans, Reagan's tenure in office was one of gross financial irresponsibility, continued (for the most part) through the tenures of other Republican Presidents, George Bush senior and junior. Put it another way, Republican distrust for government therefore runs into self-hatred, as it was the Republicans who created the circumstances for the financial crisis in the first place. They hate government not only because the Democrats support it, but because they are so bad at it themselves.
It is the Republican neophytes (AKA "The Tea Party"), who are the most selective, disingenuous, and deceptive with these facts: they choose to deify Ronald Reagan and their philosophical inspiration, Ayn Rand, while simultaneously praising and crucifying them whenever the need arises.
In another sense, "The Tea Party" faction that has effectively hijacked the Republican Party, and held the US government hostage to its demands, is a group of nihilists: they seem to believe in very little, finding it hard to rationally explain their thinking, and resort to tactics of posturing to say only what they oppose. They are against government, against taxes, against abortion, gun control, and so on.
The things the are positive towards are very few: the freedom to make money and owning guns seem to be the main ones, which both naturally advantage those who are already rich and those who are suspicious of government and people in general.
The agenda of today's Republicans then is this: simply, to dismantle and frustrate the normal functioning of government, by any means necessary (within the law).
I wonder how much further Republicans would be prepared to go to reach their aims. They are already holding the government to ransom. And if that fails, what then? Does "the law" then become malleable, as it is for those who feel they are above it?
There does appear to be very little in moral terms, between today's Republicans and some terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)