Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category

Almost immediately after the attacks in Paris the reactions that followed in many cases became problematic. The smoke had hardly even cleared before emotions were swept up and away in a flood of feel-goodisms: hashtag mottos, viral peace signs, symbols, cliches and slogans. There was also the setting up a piano in front of the Bataclan theater where the majority of victims were slaughtered and playing John Lennon’s Imagine, which, by the way, is the unofficial sound track of the imagined godless global totalitarian society liberals imagine to force upon all the earth. It was as though in the aftermath, the significance of everything became lost in a heartfelt wave of emotional seduction. Around the world via social media a great company was moved to join in a mass movement to deal with the emotional fallout, rather than face the realization of what it all means and where this is all headed.

But not all were sucked in by the outpourings of reflexive emotionalism. Mark Steyn got it right in his article, “The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates“, in which, he correctly points out that the acts of solidarity are useless unless they are accompanied by the actions and the resolve necessary to destroy the evil. Steyn concludes with a statement that is certain to shock and greatly offend many when he says, “So screw the candlelight vigil”. An outrageous statement indeed, or is it? In context, however, Steyn makes the case. Sympathy alone does nothing. The sympathy, the solidarity, all the goodisms are meaningless if there is no response that includes the will to use the force necessary to stop the evil. What is the meaning of expressions of grief and solidarity, if they become no more than an emotional movement of feel-goodisms, and all the while, evil is allowed to continue until it destroys the whole world? What is there at all good or righteous in that? And wherein is the righteous indignation? Indeed, Steyn reiterates that very point again in a follow-up article:

Cool Civilizational Death Wish Goes Viral!

It is becoming more obvious with each act of terror, leftist ideology is not going to change. With each new attack many to the left will simply veer further left, feeling somehow Western civilization has brought this evil upon the world by not being PC enough, not loving enough, not sharing or caring enough. In their minds it is our fault the world suffers and the perpetrators of heinous deeds feel and act out their feelings in the horrific way they do. Some even goes as far as implying terrorists are, at least to a point, justified. This leftist mindset is encapsulated in a statement made by Madonna during a recent concert in Stockholm. Interesting, it is in Stockholm of all places that she say this, as I will point out; but Madonna stated:

“Only love will change the world. But it’s very hard to love unconditionally, and it’s very hard to love that which we do not understand, or that which is different than we are. But we have to or this will go on and on forever.”

In simpler terms, we must seek to understand those who are evil and we must love evil away; this, rather than judging evil to be evil and working to destroy it.

Where does this liberal mindset eventually take us? To a place of world peace? Not in the least. I believe civilization will become more polarized by this passive ideology. Liberals will increase their attacks on conservatives, and will also decide Israel needs to be offered up as a sacrifice on the alter of Islam to appease the Islamic god of blood. The response from the left is similar to, if not directly related to Stockholm Syndrome, aka capture-bonding, a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors.

Almost always when hostages are take they are held in a building in some undisclosed location. On the other hand, in instances where the captors do not intend on surviving the ordeal, disclosure of the location may be irrelevant. In our case, however, the location is our planet, and by using terror, Islam is seeking to hold the whole world hostage. Has it ever been so done before? — where the whole world was held for ransom? But that is essentially what Islam is doing! They are attempting to hold all of humanity hostage in a captivity of fear. Using acts of terror, they will kill their hostages at will, anywhere in the world at anytime. Terrorism is the means they will use to establish the bondage of fear and bring the world into compliance of Islamic demands. You think it is bad now? What happens if ‘rogues without borders’ get nuclear weapons and terrorism goes radioactive? As attacks continue, the popular and a political movement against Israel and others who embrace Judaeo-Christian values will increase. This movement will continue grow, and rather than see Israel as a fellow victim of the evil, will declare Israel a cause of the evil. Indeed, we have already seen that, but it will snowball. After the 9/11 terror attacks people pulled together for the moment. It did not, however, last very long and shortly afterward politics separated the people into two divisive groups. Ever since, the polarization between right and left has never greater. And it appears that the left, empowered by elitist politicians and media have won the battle for a great many hearts, minds, and souls. Indeed, what we are witnessing now is not an awakening of civilization, but a comatose civilization drifting deeper into a coma and further off into a dream — with symbols floating around, and slogans, and voices singing in the background, “Imagine there’s no borders. . . “.

Read Full Post »

By RA Sprinkle

Globalization: A Catalyst for Terrorism and Global Destabilization?

The object here is not to blame globalization for hostilities between cultures, nor to excuse hostile or malevolent reactions between cultures which are being exacerbated by the convergence of civilizations. The correlation between global conflict and convergence is, however, worthy of consideration, not only to understand the source of tension and global instability today, but also to consider globalization as a catalyst setting off certain forces into an aggressive-defensive mode. It is for this purpose I propose the questions: First, is an increase in terrorism and the radicalization of Islam over the past few decades a reaction to globalization? Furthermore, are many other tensions between nations today related to the transition of nations from self dependent sovereign states, to a world of interdependent nations converging into a multipolar global society? For the current demand is for international consensus by a majority of nations before action, and nations acting unilaterally in their own defense or best interests are increasingly viewed as pariahs.

While globalization is not the source of Islamic violence – for an inherent nature in certain tenets of Islam has supported violence and suppression from inception – globalization has served as a catalyst by bringing together heterogeneous cultural elements which when mingled are exceedingly volatile. This is in part evidenced by the upsurge in terrorism and increased radicalization of Islam over the past few decades, which corresponds with the global trend towards world socialization.

The fear factor

As nations immerse themselves in modern technologies, global communications, and international commerce, the world transcends further into a global society. With this change all cultures face conflict within as well as without. Societies fear change, not only for the upheaval it may cause, but cultures tend to fear different cultures that are spreading. This discord is particularly evident between tightly controlled collectivist societies vis a vis free democratic societies since in some instances ideologies diametrically oppose each other creating suspicions and conflicts.

The current system of nation-states based upon the preservation of national sovereignty, distinct cultures, ideologies and beliefs, has in the past to an extent served to diffuse some conflicts between civilizations by allowing each his own. As global synthesis takes place, however, cultures and ideologies clash resulting in two basic reactions:

The first reaction common in western democracies is to accept diversity, even embrace and promote it. This has resulted in the concept of muliticulturalism where different ideologies, cultures, orientations, and nationalities are all to melt together as one, but yet keep their own group identity. All are granted status as “equals,” even if it is felt that special favor and additional advantages need be given to minority groups to make them “equal.” At the same time, majorities are often socially demoted in preference to minority or special advocacy groups and actions are taken to sacrifice anything that might inconvenience or offend minority groups, including laws, culture, principles and values.

The other common reaction to globalization is typical of totalitarian societies where freedoms are suppressed. These societies now feel threatened with a loss of power. For while international commerce increases wealth and prosperity, at the same time, dictators, oligarchies, totalitarian regimes, and theo-politicians fear open societies and free markets to the extent it may effect their control by breaking their monopolies of power and the dependency of their people upon them.

There arises therefore, a love-hate relationship with globalization in these totalitarian regimes. For instance, the Saudis embrace and are economically dependent upon the global trade of oil; at the same time they spend vast amounts of their profits to promote Wahabbism which threatens globalization and the oil trade. This seems paradoxical.

The contradiction arises as the result of a clash between interests and ideology, of which, they will surrender neither. They find themselves therefore fighting to retain both. Their ideology is embedded, but on the other hand, it is profitable as well as it is necessary to participate in an evolving world system which they cannot stop, and which also empowers them economically.

For if globalization is inevitable, totalitarians have no intention of melting into one multicultural global society as western elitists imagine to do, but rather, they seek to establish themselves as dominate forces in world affairs in order to preserve their cultures and expand power. The crux of their reaction is, “conquer or be conquered.” For while Islamic teachings have always expressed ambitions of global domination, the spread of modern cultural influences and western ideas has created a formidable competitor which they feel threatens their traditions and culture, thus, provoking a violently aggressive-defensive response.

But Islam is not alone in the global struggle for domination; all nations perceive the trend to internationalization and even those anticipating it to varying degrees feel threatened by it. Most do not, however, desire to stop globalization, or if they do, they feel powerless to stop it. It is therefore, that they seek to be the controlling force behind change in an attempt to mold the shape of things to come. Furthermore, the aspiration to mold the world which is driving Islamic nations is also driving other powers including the US, UK, EU, Russia, China, and everyone else who has any global influence. For all are concerned with the final outcome of globalization and wrestle for the greatest degree of power they can obtain in any coming international system.

It was this desire to dominate and compete globally that spawned the creation of the European Union, the modern US-UK alliance, as well as formations of other alliances in the East and Middle-East which now reach even unto South America. These alliances are brought about by fear and uncertainty, as well, the opportunities created by globalization, and they are motivating forces underlying world tensions today. For even as nations come together, they are fiercely competing one with another and for power.

Multipolarity and stability

In a 1983 essay on “multipolarity and stability” nuclear strategist Herman Kahn hypothesized that there would arise seven economic giants — the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Germany, France and Brazil — and that these would eventually work out rules for a world system of order. Although Kahn recognized an inherent stability in the current system of unilateral nation-states where the consequences of nuclear war were so great discipline was the only sane option, he also believed a multipolar system could also be stable, if you could ever get there safely.

The problem was the transition. The moment of maximum danger, Kahn theorized, would occur during the movement of nations from unilateralism to a multipolar world. We are now in that transition, and as Kahn predicted, there are growing tensions and volatilities. For while East and West have both expressed interest in a world order, they are divided by ideological differences, the West, insisting on a universal set of values and human rights as a prerequisite for the foundation of a global society, but the Russians and others holding that common global interests form a sufficient basis upon which to establish a system of international order.

The transition

On the other hand, you do have parties who desire no part at all in a world order unless it is based upon absolute submission to their ideology — Enter Islamic extremists.

Globalization threatens the destruction of Islamic culture and beliefs through modernization. Westernization being viewed as a direct attack upon their civilization has created panic and served as an incendiary to ignite many adherents of Islam into action, not only to defend their cultures and beliefs, but to become the supreme power of any coming world order.

As high-minded as this may seem, Islam is but one contender for world supremacy; there is also still the danger of an even greater clash of civilizations between those whose ideologies have Marxist underpinnings and those who hold inalienable rights and freedoms of individuals higher than an arbitrary ruling authority.

For as the cultural conflict between the West and Islam intensifies, there is another struggle taking place for the control of resources and the global economy. It was for this purpose the European Union was created to be a competitor. Now however, “former” communist countries have joined the fray having been empowered by the US dollar, open global markets, and a growing share of control of energy supplies.

The opportunity to gain wealth and power has enticed Russia, China, Venezuela, and others to participate in global markets and profits, but, at the same time, they are recoiling internally in an attempt to balance free trade with controlled societies in an effort to achieve both. I would argue that you cannot have both but for the short term, for in the long term the two are incompatible. The only reason closed societies prosper is that they were built by and thrive off of the enterprise of free open societies, but this is temporal; they cannot sustain themselves. However, as these totalitarian societies are empowered economically, they will struggle with and eventually unite to supersede the free nations from which they have derived their wealth and power.

On the other hand, the nation which has empowered totalitarian governments the most in an effort to establish a new world order has been the United States. No nation has done more to bring it into being, nor has it been done without design or manipulation of politicians and financial powers, for it has been contemplated, planned, and worked towards for decades. Unfortunately, the ideology driving the establishment of free trade with totalitarian nations was built upon the misconception that globalization and free trade by themselves would eventually break down barriers and bring about a global democracy. The fallacy of this concept was discussed in the previous article A World off Axis where it is argued the reverse is more likely and the eventual product is the spread of socialism, a loss of freedoms, and eventual global tyranny.

A Global hive of “killer bees”

For decades elitists drones have realized the power and wealth that could be created through globalization and have set about to establish international controls to make it feasible. In so doing they have discounted the importance of individual freedoms and moral principles essential to the foundation and stability of any free system — for although you can have stability in a system absent a foundation comprised of these, it requires totalitarianism. When the overriding goal of government is to achieve peace, stability and the unity of nations at any price, at the end of the road is either war against, or surrender to a tyranny.

Because the United States opened the door to prosperity for other nations whose values are contrary, these nations, many of them totalitarian, are now becoming powerful enough, if not alone then confederate one with another, to challenge the US on many fronts. Thus, by empowering these totalitarian states, the US became a global prostitute who agreed to “put out” now for payment later and is now in jeopardy having already put out.

If the US should reject many aspects of a global system proposed by the totalitarian parties it has empowered, US dependency for oil and goods is so great it faces isolation and the possibility of future military conflict. If, however, the US capitulates and agrees to a system that is based upon common interests rather than values, as these nations gain enough leverage they will be able to manipulate the US diplomatically, or collapse the US economically — This is already occurring to a degree as is evident in the capitulation of US foreign policy internationally. It is unwise to focus upon the threat of radical Islam while ignoring the such emerging powers as Russia and China which pose a greater threat. Islamic nations would have little wherewithal without any support from more modernized powers.

If America, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is the “best hope last hope of mankind” it will only be so by the underlying principles which made America. Forsaking or compromising those principles in order to create a multicultural global society for the “common good” will produce a corrupt global hive indeed. For the eventual result of a world order built on shared interests alone will be the loss of liberty, global conflict, and eventually, total breakdown and chaos — For interests and loyalties shift, sound principles do not.

Now consider a parable: In 1956 Brazilian scientists were attempting to create a new hybrid bee in the hopes of creating improved honey production when African bees were accidentally introduced into the wild in the Americas. The new hybrid, known as the “Africanized” or “killer bee,” took many years to establish colonies, as it did, it began to radicalize, taking over and corrupting the hives of domestic bees. This Africanized bee is extremely aggressive-defensive, easily agitated by anything deemed foreign, and it produces little honey. Thus, the result is that it is unprofitable for the Keeper and a threat to all others.

Read Full Post »

A case of strange bedfellows

Fascism quite simply put is a form of collectivism comprised of two principles, one rules as a supreme totalitarian and the other is its mass of subordinates which serve. Together they form one body united in a common cause. Relative to the entity’s perceived power, the tendency is to either assimilate, subjugate, or destroy all which are deemed foreign.

Fascism presents itself in various types of movements and today two predominant forms of fascism can be found working within the extreme factions of both Islam and modern liberalism. It seems strange that although they appear diametrically opposed to each other, and in heart hate each other, they are often found holding common views and fighting on the same side of an issue; although, it is for their own cause.

When comparing movements of Islamic fascists vis-à-vis to western ideo-fascists of a leftist persuasion, one might think it amazing that there would be any similarities. However, an examination shows that not only do they share certain views and rhetoric, but their lists of enemies have the same names at the top. It should also be noted that even though their cultures, visions, and concepts of morality are polls apart, thus obscuring similarities; when carefully analyzed it is obvious that both seek to form a collective body under submission to universal rule at the international level. It therefore should not seem strange that they relate on certain levels seeing they struggle against some of the same opponents and face some of the same obstacles between them and power.

Islamic law, though far from the concepts of Christianity and conservatism, is still even much further from the concepts of the amoral liberal agenda; nevertheless, Islamic and liberal radicals furiously attack all those who fall anywhere between them. One reason for this hostile unity between radical Islam and modern liberalism on geopolitical and some civil rights issues is that even though they do not have the same God, they do share common devils.

And while the Islamic fascist imagines to resurrect a glorious past, the radical leftist envisions a new future; it is interesting therefore that what keeps them from colliding head on is the present. At present both are focused on the existing establishments; for it is necessary that the present establishments be removed in order to expand and build their empires.

There is a great irony in this for liberalism; for although liberals envision themselves as revolutionaries, in all actuality, they have over time become a major component in the make-up of the present establishment. By undermining the foundations and traditions of Western societies, they unwittingly undermine their own house.

If reason was to fail and liberals should gain complete control, the focus of Islam and of the liberal leadership will by default shift to each other. They must both already realize this, but each sees the other as a bridge to cross in the future. Both also are confident in the outcome of that confrontation and therefore see the other as a lesser foe than their present common enemies. Besides, they both currently have a use for the other against their enemies. It is likely that if Western nations were to again come under the policies of the left, they would seek a futile policy of appeasement which would inevitably fail, thus resulting in chaos for all nations.

R.A. Sprinkle

2006

Read Full Post »


“The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.” – George W. Bush

That statement made after the September 11th attacks resonated with America. It was clear and concise and readily understandable. There were not many at that time however who realized the great complexity of this statement in terms of application – It seemed a very simple yet effective strategy. First, there were the terrorist – Second, there were “those who knowingly harbor” them – Third, (and this is where it became complicated) there were those who “provide aid to them. “

We already knew who the terrorist organizations and who their states were. However, as we tracked terrorist cells and uncovered more information on their financial transactions and supply chains; it became evident that they were sustained not only by a few rogue nations, but by great nations and organizations who were providing arms, materials, and financial support that would either go directly or indirectly to terrorist organizations. Furthermore, terrorist states have found diplomatic support at the international level, and many of their providers are involved in the decision making process as to how they will be dealt with.

In the al Qaeda strongholds of Afghanistan we found large caches of Chinese weaponry. In Iraq we have uncovered many connections which existed between Saddam and Russia in violation of international agreements. So involved and substantial are they, that complete disclosure could start another Cold War.

Even so, today both Russia and China continue to support and arm terrorist states.

According to John Batchelor in July, 28th edition of the New York Sun:

“Iran will not turn off the flow. And the rearming of Lebanon through Syria also includes the very latest, best Russian and Chinese origin equipment, including the SA-18 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile, Sagger and Kornet antitank missiles, at least one battery of Silkworm anti-ship missiles, and multiple combinations of Zelzal-2 missiles and Fajr-3,5 rockets that can easily reach Tel Aviv and, with smaller warheads, much farther, to Jerusalem. A decision to strike Jerusalem has not been announced. Nonetheless, high-explosive warheads are poised to strike civilian populations: at least one Scud-type missile has already been found underwater in Haifa harbor”

Fire is a very dangerous but useful tool. Russia and China have both been burned by terrorism. It would appear however, judging by their actions, that a decision has been made to support rogue nations and confront the West by proxy to achieve their goals – And not only are they providing rogue nations logistically with all that they need, they continue to intervene on their behalf at the United Nations to either obstruct or dilute any actions proposed against them.

In the Far East, mainly China works through North Korea, while both China and Russia are heavily involved with Arab states in the Middle East. Turning westward Putin and Chavez have now embraced and formed a multibillion dollar pact that will arm Venezuela and provide “military and technical cooperation.” Outside the Kremlin Chavez made some of the following comments:

“The biggest threat that exists in the world is the empire of the United States,” he said at the unveiling of a bust of Bolivar, a Venezuelan national liberation hero, at Moscow’s Library of Foreign Literature.He also called the United States “a mindless, blind and stupid giant that does not understand the world, does not understand human rights, does not understand anything in humanism, culture and consciousness.”

Ivan Safranchuk, head of the Moscow bureau of the Center for Defense Information, a U.S. think tank, said such outbursts by Chavez fitted well with growing anti-American sentiments among Kremlin officials.

“Venezuela will serve Russia well by slamming the United States in the United Nations Security Council, using words Moscow will like but would not want to utter itself,” Safranchuk said. – The Moscow Times

It is clear – Russia will be using Venezuela by proxy. The Russians have produced a number of brilliant chess players and they seemed to have learned from the Cold War that they cannot win confronting America directly. By forcing America to focus not on one adversary, but many throughout the world, they can weaken their opponent in a number of ways. No longer are US resources concentrated on one type of threat from only a few sources. No longer is funding for defense and security focused. We have become spread out in many ways.

Another interesting side note on the Hugo Chavez trip to Moscow is where he went when he departed. He chose to spend his birthday in Iran where Ahmadinejad will present him with a medal and some oil investment deals.

If we put all these things together in context we have a very ominous picture.

R.A. Sprinkle
2006

Read Full Post »