Terrorism is not a terribly useful term to describe what the media often calls ‘terrorist attacks.’
What they are is some combination of hostage-taking, raiding, and sabotage, usually for religious and political purposes. When an actual Muslim cleric holds up a Lindt cafe in Sydney, it requires some impressive contortions to deny that the attacks had a religious motivation, that it was not a self-styled martyrdom cloaked in the symbols of the religion.
The West has come to have a lot of trouble acknowledging the religious impulse as a source of deep motivation for people. Part of this may be due to the materialist view of history taken by intellectuals influenced by Marx. The tendency is to ascribe religious motivations as actually having occult materialistic motivations.
But it’s difficult to describe a suicide bomber as motivated by materialism. There is no material reward to being a suicide bomber, unless you count the bounties paid out to surviving family members. The individuals who conduct these attacks, usually called martyrdom operations, do it for the martyrdom, and obviously not for pay. If they expect to be paid, it’s in the afterlife, rather than in this world.
Even the materialists tend to be motivated by non-material goods. The materialists who say that people are only motivated by materialism tend to decry materialism and greed in the same breath. This shouldn’t be too shocking, because Marxism has never been terribly concerned about employing self-imploding logical reasoning, has never considered contradictions to be something worth being concerned about.
The dominant strain of thought in Western government tends to not about the effects of diversity per se (it’s simply stated as dogma that diversity yields benefits, without ever providing corroborating data), but about the idea that people are empty vessels that can be reshaped at will. To acknowledge that religious belief actually does motivate behavior is to acknowledge a competitor to high modernism. It isn’t just that people respond to incentives, but that people respond to all kinds of incentives, including those that involve their beliefs in intangible things.
The state is itself one of those intangible abstractions, a thing that exists on paper, and to acknowledge that for many, God might be more real than the spreadsheets of the state, and a higher source of authority, is to risk the keystone of modernism.
To acknowledge that Muslim raiders are just doing their duty to their god and their prophet, indeed emulating the prophet, is to acknowledge that the state has failed to achieve its stated aim of domesticating Muslims to high modernist standards. And we have seen this failure throughout the Middle East: the last real modernist in the Middle East is Syria’s Assad, and bizarrely, Americans ally themselves with Muslim zealots rather than the modernist most similar to themselves in terms of ruling philosophy.
Just as God was the keystone of government before the emergence of the nation-state, the idea of the godlike order created by human reason is the keystone of the new system. To acknowledge the real diversity — that people have indelible natures that can’t be altered easily by human design — is to abolish the possibility of realizing the sham-dream of diversity that involves people of all hues and ways giving up their traditions and worshiping Mount Rushmore instead.
Is there any evidence that anyone actually believes in diversity? Seems more like a mantra, equivalent to saying “om” to empty the mind of thought. The dirty truth about “terrorism” is that government benefits from it, it allows more and more money to be stripped through taxes and debt; citizens lives don’t matter to it, nor does the long-term existence of the country.
We have a lot of evidence that the belief is frequently professed, which is evidence that it’s believed.
It really is hard to live in Overworld and grasp how Underworlders really think Underworld is it. They really do believe it. They’ll preach it, push it, start wars for it, die for it, and memorialize those who die for it. Nothing stops them. Those who die aren’t “lessons to be learned” but “martyrs for the cause.”
It’s difficult to tell what you mean by this. Almost all ‘upper level’ people would be hard pressed to deny that they would rather be surrounded by elites of all races. It is however not the mixing of upper level people that is the issue. Most people from the bay area which is pretty much the heart of what you describe are extremely uncomfortable of even considering any alternative.
If you go to a holy war, you’d better bring a religion. “Diversity” is more an anti-Religion. Note that “Diversity” == “Coexist”. The “Coexist” bumper sticker means “Please, no one take his religion seriously. That’s the way to get along.”
There is a world of difference between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance means that a line is drawn, acceptance means bend over.
You’re using the exoteric meaning of tolerance, which normal people use. The esoteric meaning the left uses is “acceptance.”
The hostage taker was not an actual imam, as he was excommunicated from the local shia community, and is expelled from Iran, for his heretical beliefs. Given that he was likely to spend the rest of his life in prison for killing his wife, along with accusations of fraud and sexual abuse, it is likely this incident was a suicide by cop. His claim to be a cleric is absurd, just as his claim to be a ISIS member, despite being shia himself.
As for the contention that somehow he was following the Prophet of Islam, that is absurd, simply because The Prophet only killed people in war, or when he executed criminals and political opponents. As I assume you are all statist authoritarians, I find it difficult you would find anything objectionable about a head of state killing people for reasons of state.
I’m probably 95% less statist than most of the other columnists here.
>As for the contention that somehow he was following the Prophet of Islam, that is absurd, simply because The Prophet only killed people in war, or when he executed criminals and political opponents.
Surely, Australia is in a state of war, poorly declared and delineated, with many Islamic sects. I never claimed that he was a member of ISIS.
>Given that he was likely to spend the rest of his life in prison for killing his wife, along with accusations of fraud and sexual abuse, it is likely this incident was a suicide by cop.
An unintentional good argument for the death penalty.
>the idea of the godlike order created by human reason is the keystone of the new system.
More intriguing is what this actually means in context of its results. It is a demonic-esque (although I am hesitant to maintain it is an ‘esque’) order that was sold as the pinnacle of human reason and it is the cornerstone of this system. You notice glimpses of it in contradiction and paradox:
>and bizarrely, Americans ally themselves with Muslim zealots rather than the modernist most similar to themselves in terms of ruling philosophy.
Demons dont get along very well. Certain Americans ally themselves with the chimps because that is their physical representation of chaos. The blood demon for whom they sacrifice all to.
The greatest thing I notice is that the lack of holistic ownership and power is not discussed but it is also not apparent to those not in the running for a piece of the pie. All of these combative factions and psychopaths competing for who can destroy the most in the most ineffective manners possible. The question of ‘Whose fault is this mess’ is hidden in paperwork and bureaucracy. Mix in a legislative law system whose last concern is the question of Justice and lo and behold you have all sorts of institutions plying their trade and fighting. The university/media complex obviously uses its power to manufacture consent and generate the framework for the rating of individuals in context of filling positions of power as well as actually CREATING the battlefields in which to fight. Thats something more powerful than just ‘picking your fight.’ However playing with belief structures is by necessity a less than concrete activity. If the other demon houses have the desire to destroy the university and/or the media they would be able to with little trouble. Especially the banking clans.
The student loan bubble beckons and the other demonic spawn lick their lips. The islamic demon faction is most definitely not coming to save the day for the left. If they could those sand demons would inflict the most horrible of torture on their brethren.
If diversity was as good as they say, they wouldn’t have to say it quite so much.