China remains strangely absent from the middle east stage and this is no accident. They have their terrorists, but those terrorists are largely defined by the label "patriotic terrorists". They are not (yet) the target of a group that seeks to eliminate everyone who doesn't think the same way.
The muslim religion is a "c-religion" in that it seeks converts. The Radical muslim element can be referred to as an RC-religion; in that it seeks converts who submit or have to eliminated from the general population in some way. The followers of Mohammad are not alone in the C-religion category, most religions have that. Most religions have at one time or another been RC-religions.
Another element of the M religion is that its origins are result based. It doesn't seek to explain the unexplained but instead seeks to control a group of people utilizing a belief set. Again, the M religion is not alone in this, perhaps this is primary difference between "religion" and "scientific theory". Both provide explanations, but one ties it to a system of actions and the other merely tells you what the results of your actions will be. EHT (slightly more than NLT) is a type of bridge between the two, but it doesn't really have a set of rules as it talks about the results of taking one path or another in a hologram environment where everything is predestined anyway.
Getting back to the point of control, RC-M is an extreme example, but Mormonism is a fairly extreme example of a C type religion, its belief set being built entirely around getting a specific result rather than rational observation or historical practice. Christianity and Judiaism are historical practice examples and the Muslim religion and Mormonism have steadily acquired a herstorical perspective, the primary difference between the 4 today being that there were better records kept for the more recent two religions which means we are better able to understand the "crowd control" intentions of the original prophets of each.
As the RC-M group has become fairly well entrenched and established its own country and government (note this happened before on a smaller scale in Afganistan to the same end result) we can be fairly certain that increased efforts to seek converts and to eliminate non-believers, the infidels, (even over the current ideas of confiscation, increased taxation and execution we witness today) and that as long as the "so called" "West" determines that it doesn't want to buy into a designer religion (one designed to incorporate a certain set of beliefs different from the sets the West already has at least); there will be terrorist attacks.
When one country attacks another, however, it is an act of war and not terrorism even if the weapons used are weapons of terror (V-2/V-1 rockets being examples that followed dirigibles).
We know what happens when we give knee jerk (emphasis on "jerk" in my opinion) responses. That is when we fail to use the three types of intelligence (immediate, medium term, long term) and the related historical perspective. Instead of solving the problem, we destabilize things and make them worse. The same thing happened in World War I and a slightly better job was done in WWII, at least from our perspective. Whatever Bush II's strengths and weaknesses, the invasion of Iraq will be viewed historically as the father of all cluster fucks. I'm not saying that I didn't want to go out and kick someone in the shins responsible for the trade towers attacks (or much, much worse); merely that doing that without thinking it out was idiotic an killing a stable government off in the most unstable regions of the world so that the angry ants could take over has turned out to be a really bad idea. Someone (Bush gets all the blame, but Cheny was probably up to his neck in the process) failed to understand the historical and psychological mindset of the people in the region and probably had little understanding of the C-M or RC-M religious aspects.
Soon, we can expect a well funded "country" or "group of countries" with the agenda of eliminating competition (religious competition and in this case religion includes philosophical practices) to launch increasingly organized and effective attacks against the West generally and the United States in particular. This will, of necessity, expedite the transition of world economic dominance to China, but that is another question and that issue is covered already in China's weaponized economy, and this is more focused on those attack and not the entire geo-political outcome.
This issue was recently highlighted when Obama more or less admitted that he didn't have a clue as to what we were doing which is a bit of a disingenuous interpretation of his remarks. After all, this problem is largely the result of Bush policies that he was handed and however much he is bankrupting the country and fumbling the football that is the middle east he was handed a plate of lemons and whether he can turn them into lemonade or not remains to be seen. Reagan and Clinton both were able to make lemonade in such a situation, Reagan doing so perhaps more elegantly, but it isn't a political thing, its a leadership question.
However, I'm not going to discuss leadership styles, merely the fact that we know we are facing an increasingly well organized "enemy" of western type religions (if we all convert to the Muslim faith today, we eliminate the need for terrorism, but we have to buy into a control based religion and might as well lock ourselves in prison cells like so many "Otis Cambells" (you younger people will have to look that one up). This doesn't mean that the M religion has always been like that or that it is entirely like that today (only the RC-M elements fall into that category) and during the Christian error of RC-C the muslims were the protectors of science and history; but we're talking today and we're talking about what RC-M will do.
The West is Judeo-Christian based and aspires to tolerance while the RC-M is an offshoot (like mormonism) and is an intolerant branch (there are plenty of intolerant groups in the west, of course, most notably the Nazis, although they are far from alone in this regard).
The west has to come up with some answers to Obama. One idea is to follow the Bush-Cheney/WWI method, let them attack us and then get so angry we lash out indiscriminately and hope for a good result. It is, of course, theorized that in WWII we let the Axis powers attack first, but the response was possibly better designed.
No, the better course is to recognize that war takes many forms. We are at war with China, perhaps, and we are at war with a hostile universe (most assuredly it will win at some point in time) and we are at war with our different religions. It is unfair to say we are at war with just the RC-M group although they will certainly be the ones to launch the next attack. Indeed, it is hard to write this fast enough to get ahead of that event, but the war is somewhat different. We have a mixed bag of beliefs in the west with fading dominance of the J-C type and a fact based ascendant agnosticism. What is a country that doesn't want to suffer mind control and intellectual paralysis to do?
That will be the subject of the next entry on this, which will, sadly, perhaps follow and not lead the coming terrorist attacks.
No comments:
Post a Comment