What are the forces behind the present conflict in the Middle East? Who is controlling the conflict?
In the past the West has been in conflict with the ideologies of National Socialists and Communists. In both of these conflicts the enemy was besieged, trade was limited or banned and people were closely vetted before they could enter the West. The new conflict in the Middle East is also a battle of ideologies but what is new is that the West is treating it as if it is a conflict within its own empire: "We" in the West have not ensured the appropriate government and education of these people in Syria and Iraq.
The main issue for journalists is the threat posed by Jihadis returning to the UK. The narrative that they have created to embrace this threat is that free speech should be curtailed by making any extremist comment illegal and that "We" should invade the Middle East to beat the extremists into submission and acceptance of our narrative. They say that the West must ensure uniformity within its fiefdom to stop extremism.
The West has a narrative of Internationalism that regards the whole world as headed towards a single global order and government. We are so heady with power after victory in the Cold War that it appears to the journalists and other entertainers who write our narrative that it is only a matter of time before we are all part of a global super state. All that is needed to achieve this dystopia is to wipe out or re-educate any opponents.
The Jihadis have faith. Postmodern journalists and politicians do not understand faith. It will be interesting to see which group wins. The West can hurl drones from afar and feel self satisfied at the videos showing clouds of dust where women and children are mangled by high explosive. The Jihadis throw their own bodies as bombs. Every drone is a dishonourable act by cowards, every suicide bomber is an act of sacrifice: who will recruit the most followers?
We have already seen in the Middle East that the postmodern population give up their narratives when threatened by those driven by faith. Who will win in the long run? If the Jihadis threaten the lives of Western journalists will they stand? Or will they fold? What "narrative" do these journalists believe with such intensity that they would die for it? They cannot die for their nation because the narrative condemns nationalism, they cannot die for their God because everyone has their own God, they cannot die for the right to write because the narrative condemns free speech, they cannot die for reason because everyone has their own truth. They have nothing to defend so they must, logically fold.
The West could easily deal with IS / ISIS in the same way as it has dealt with National Socialism and Communism. It could cordon them off, allow them to play out their own domestic nightmare and deport fifth columnists. But then it would be admitting that the world should be allowed to be diverse. It would mean giving up the dream of global dominion and a perfectly safe world where all difference is punished.
The only hope for the West is that its mercenary armies who fight for no country and its remote controlled machines will crush its opponents.
In the past the West has been in conflict with the ideologies of National Socialists and Communists. In both of these conflicts the enemy was besieged, trade was limited or banned and people were closely vetted before they could enter the West. The new conflict in the Middle East is also a battle of ideologies but what is new is that the West is treating it as if it is a conflict within its own empire: "We" in the West have not ensured the appropriate government and education of these people in Syria and Iraq.
The main issue for journalists is the threat posed by Jihadis returning to the UK. The narrative that they have created to embrace this threat is that free speech should be curtailed by making any extremist comment illegal and that "We" should invade the Middle East to beat the extremists into submission and acceptance of our narrative. They say that the West must ensure uniformity within its fiefdom to stop extremism.
The Jihadis have faith. Postmodern journalists and politicians do not understand faith. It will be interesting to see which group wins. The West can hurl drones from afar and feel self satisfied at the videos showing clouds of dust where women and children are mangled by high explosive. The Jihadis throw their own bodies as bombs. Every drone is a dishonourable act by cowards, every suicide bomber is an act of sacrifice: who will recruit the most followers?
We have already seen in the Middle East that the postmodern population give up their narratives when threatened by those driven by faith. Who will win in the long run? If the Jihadis threaten the lives of Western journalists will they stand? Or will they fold? What "narrative" do these journalists believe with such intensity that they would die for it? They cannot die for their nation because the narrative condemns nationalism, they cannot die for their God because everyone has their own God, they cannot die for the right to write because the narrative condemns free speech, they cannot die for reason because everyone has their own truth. They have nothing to defend so they must, logically fold.
The West could easily deal with IS / ISIS in the same way as it has dealt with National Socialism and Communism. It could cordon them off, allow them to play out their own domestic nightmare and deport fifth columnists. But then it would be admitting that the world should be allowed to be diverse. It would mean giving up the dream of global dominion and a perfectly safe world where all difference is punished.
The only hope for the West is that its mercenary armies who fight for no country and its remote controlled machines will crush its opponents.
Comments