The Political Epistemology of Terrorism is Not Correctly Known

Terrorism is not, repeat, it is not primarily about the particular terrorist act or incident, contrary to the predominantly popular or public perception about the exact nature of what terrorism is supposed to be all about; even those people or commentators who are often assumed to reasonably know what they are talking about concerning terrorism, such as, e. g., Michael Medved, are still just completely wrong regarding the integral political epistemology pertaining to the subject's most vital rationale.

The main or, rather, most pivotal effort of terrorism is the key attempt at the successful emotional and psychological manipulation of one's enemies; this, it needs to be properly noted, is ideologically and empirically done by forcing them to ironically pervert and destroy the very things that they claim to be vigorously defending, meaning predominantly through their chosen countermeasures.

As an excellent case-in-point, Medved's recent and extensive comments on the Northwest Airlines terrorist incident, involving the Christmas "condom bomber" who wanted to explode the aircraft over Detroit, MI, can be easily used here to well illustrate the unfortunately and tremendously popular ignorance, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and misconceptions generally involved. What is meant, however, by such a statement?

Terroristic Impacts versus Systemic Failure

The extremely elaborate security measures and systems (supposedly) carefully and systematically put into place had all failed miserably and completely, which was, later, basically even admitted by Obama; this is so much so such that brave passengers had, in fact, to prevent what might have then resulted in the explosion wanted, meaning that was going to be, thus, caused the terrorist.

Idiotically, Medved, therefore, insists that yet more and more such [questionable] measures, procedures, and systems must inevitably be put into place because they have indicated, as to their evident failure, that they are not yet enough. But, this kind of (highly incorrect) conclusion is, nonetheless, just clearly asinine in nature.

In this specific regard, Janet Napolitano, at first, ignorantly insisted that the security "system worked" but later added various exculpatory qualifications, which, she asserted, were meant to properly clarify what she really had meant to then supposedly say; and, that, however, just caused further unneeded confusion, not actual clarification, of course. Her absurdly belated and vilely unctuous responses were, in the appropriate old saying, just mealy-mouthed nonsense.

The significantly critical point is lost, as can be here noted, on uninformed minds (e. g., Medved's) that the [security-focused] attempt to treat all passengers (or potential passengers at airports) as if they are all suspects [blaming the victims] is a reversed and, thus, perverted kind of "logic" that makes everything appear both inside out and upside down, as to the assumed reality then confronted, meaning the overt or ongoing threat of international terrorism or, as one may say, jihadism.

Napolitano, in particular, still seems not to have any genuine clue concerning, thus, what she is supposed to do now or, perhaps, to have correctly done, meaning well previous to this Northwest Airlines incident, which suggests so strongly why she really ought to resign (if she claims to have any sense of real honor).

A kind of perverse inversion of thinking about terrorism has insanely taken place in the manner of mimicking a type of idolatry in making the worship (security) greater than the god (the needed defeat of terrorism). Medved and those who incorrectly think the way he does are to be seen as, thus, being irresponsible and ridiculous idolaters, not truly competent commentators or sage fellows making rational judgments in a substantive and responsible manner. Why is this boldly asseverated?

Analysis and Review

The political epistemology of terrorism is the overall intent to massively create an atmosphere or environment of sensational terror in the minds of those people who are the chosen subject(s) of the terrorism(s) practiced; the more the frightening thought of terrorism so effectively permeates and is thoroughly ingrained in the brains of the subject population(s), the more overall success and attendant victory is then logically achieved; this is done, of course, by these ideologically overt intentions and, importantly, not simply or just the particular acts, whether successful or not, of the terrorists.

The projected radicalized climate, the psychological environment, intentionally created effectuates those terroristic qualities inherent in the, thus, desired characteristics then manifested by that which is, by definition, terrorism (so understood as such), which directly relates to its political epistemology.

The same was essentially true, for instance, in the 19^th and early 20^th century, to give an instructive and parallel instance, when such activity was referred to as anarchistic acts based, thus, upon what was then denounced as being justified by and through anarchism; it had, zealously, included both of what were called the "propaganda of the word" and the "propaganda of the deed." The many intriguing parallels between anarchism and terrorism are, consequently, important to keep sharply in mind; both do, e. g., rather boldly and vividly demonstrate the tenaciously satanic power of a peculiarly nihilistic utopianism.

Today, and at least since the 1960s, the now preferred term is to politically ascribe these deliberately violent and vicious acts as being the known acts of terrorists done explicitly (or, at least, implicitly) in the name of terrorism, though mostly, of course, in specific set terms of Islamic or Jihadist-Moslem radicalism qua terrorism.

Medved, as stated previously, supports yet further security measures that have had the effect wanted by the terrorists in terms of creating and intensifying police-state tactics used at airports and any places that could be made subject to potential acts of terrorism; all people seeking civilian air transportation, to an excessive degree, indiscriminately end up being treated as if they are, in effect, criminal-terrorist suspects, meaning regarding the various surveillance and search procedures and methods applied in a general manner.

Instead of intelligently rejecting PC attitudes that avoid the usage of requisite terrorist profiling for logically helping to more and more narrow down the reasonable and needful parameters for catching these nefarious types of brutal killers, more PC-directed efforts will go into future and further police state-oriented efforts; liberty is further and further put into real jeopardy and peril by instituting efforts, aimed at securing absurd degrees of safety, directed primarily against those innocent people who are themselves the intended victims of the terror, which is, existentially and logically, simply insane.

If such activities were instituted by a Fascist state, liberals and leftists, not just conservatives, would be among those people to rightly and properly object to such obviously excessive methods, procedures, attitudes, etc. However, when supposedly done in the name of national security, only a fringe element of civil libertarians and those on the traditionalist right, it seems, are among those who routinely object to more and more of these impositions that do not necessarily make people any more safe. How so, it might be correctly asked?

Remember: Three of the four groups of 9/11 airline passengers had, in fact, exactly followed all of the then present/past instructions and formulas for dealing with terrorist-hijackers; only the fourth group had provided enough resistance to finally thwart the terrible plans of the 9/11 terrorists by fighting back against their efforts. All these facts are now, one supposes, just conveniently and so wrongly forgotten; equally, the screening done of the hijackers did not at all prevent them from taking their razor blades on board with them, which they had used, in their terroristic activities, to gain control of the jet airplanes.

Where Does Safety from Terrorism Reside?

Now comes the (fortunately incompetent) Christmas condom bomber who incredibly succeeds, meaning just prior to a failed explosion and regardless of all the many additional precautions taken, which comes long after the previous shoe bomber attempt, years ago, that had provoked the taking off of one's shoes before boarding, meaning during the inspection time at the airport.

And yet, Medved cannot rationally understand that the terrorists have successfully and viciously succeeded in a massive kind of behavior modification only "suitable" for training the oppressed and repressed subjects of a totalitarian regime, not a free, constitutional republican government's citizens.

As was made known, e. g., by the thinking of the IRA terrorists, all they needed to have was just any luck on any single day, the British establishment had, in effect, to be lucky every day to, supposedly, prevent an act of terrorism from successfully occurring. What is logically needed is to create those conditions necessary for making, as absolutely certain as possible, that terrorists would not easily succeed and, furthermore, the immediately cognate penalties, inclusive of, e. g., potentially being shot to death on the spot, ought to make them feel completely unsafe anywhere they go.

Technological abilities, the ways and means, exist by which potential terrorists can be, thus, correctly monitored, intensively tracked, thoroughly hunted down, eventually captured, and executed as needed or, perhaps, held for useful trial, if it might help to locate and identify other followers. If, in any event, terrorists were routinely terrorized, there would be, of course, fewer and fewer of them; and, moreover, as a fairly pleasant consequence, the people, in Western countries, would feel safer and safer.

Instead, innocent people, the passengers, have to be made to feel extremely harassed at airports and, thence, "terrorized" in the sense that totalitarian measures must crescively be oddly taken, apparently, to aid in providing a tenuous form of security that may not, in fact, really exist. What had recently happened, the ludicrous fiasco, at Newark's airport, of course, easily further supports the contentions in this article.

And yet, all this does not at all seem to greatly shock Medved who, quite absurdly, just so supinely demands more of the same garbage for, one guesses, protecting people; he supposedly prefers, one assumes, the perfectionist theorization of security set in the abstract realm of what the governmental authorities are assumed to be logically capable of doing when needed to then prevent acts of terrorism, not the ugly reality of failure that, in fact, dramatically occurs.

After all, it literally took, one ought to always so properly remember, the quite timely action of some both brave and alert passengers, NOT, therefore, the entire elaborate and manifold panoply of many extreme measures, convoluted procedures, hyper-systems/subsystems, amassed legions of presumably dedicated and well-trained security personnel, etc. and etc., to actually, in fact, stop a terrorist. Reality, thus, made a monkey out of theory.

The overall system in place for supposedly stopping enraged jihadists had, therefore, just totally failed when it was, quite obviously, needed the most, which ought to be highly instructive to all acute minds researching, investigating, commenting on, etc. the both important and urgent topics of contemporary terrorism and cognate jihadist fanaticism.

But, unfortunately, as has been well noted, Medved and others of his ilk are, nonetheless, absolutely impervious to the obvious implications and so greatly manifest ramifications, certainly involved with this both shocking and most revealing empirical reality, concerning the true nature of modern terrorism.

What the terrorists finally want is what has, in fact, occurred, meaning the progressive development of a kind of progressive psychosis; this is by which they have been able to successfully manipulate their intended victims by forcing them to play the game of the terrorists and, moreover, by their rules as well; this is certainly why all PC counterterrorist regulations and measures are, as indicated, very good allies of the dedicated jihadists.

Because Medved's modernist mind is dominated so substantially by nominalism, he reasons mostly from secondary, tertiary, or lesser principles of thought; thus, the normally retrograde security regulations and measures usually adopted, which are, in fact, also those notably favored and supported by Medved, do end up ridiculously blaming the victims for the deliberate actions of the terrorists; and, therefore, this rather always perverse mode of reasoning needs to be, critically and evidently, recognized as such and, thus, ought always to be intelligently opposed for its vastly inherent irrationality.

It is prescriptively insane, furthermore, to adopt the practices of a police state in combating those who would wish to create a police state for their enemies, meaning the people in the Western world. In principle (and one must see the fallacy articulated and demonstrated best by observing the principle involved), this crazy logic would then, for instance, equally suggest the "positive" view of preemptively cutting one's own throat to, thus, prevent a murderer from murdering oneself.

In effect, as long as the clearly incorrect views of Medved and such others do then ignorantly prevail, the people made subject, therefore, to the many variously ill-conceived "security" measures, methods, and procedures are held as prisoners and hostages in the bizarre service, in effect, of any would-be terrorists or jihadists, which then doesn't really make any sense whatsoever.

But, of course, more than all these above considerations are intimately involved because of something absolutely and definitively peculiar about Islam itself, which is often ignorantly or just propagandistically alleged to be a true religion of peace; no other major religion has devotees who, when so many of them become extremely, profoundly, devout and intense in their own deepest religious beliefs, turn into very dedicated terrorists so horrifically intent upon murdering many or, if possible, hundreds or thousands of their fellow human beings; and, that is a both sadly true and, moreover, so highly revealing part of the always integral and permanent evil of Islam that is not ever PC to talk about anywhere on earth, as, for instance, Robert Spencer and many others would so fully agree.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that, e. g., Islamic Fundamentalism is a million miles apart, in absolute differences, with Biblical fundamentalism to which it is often falsely compared by Western liberals and leftists who seek to, thus, wrongly exculpate, rationalistically excuse, the evils always set inherently within all radical-Moslem fanaticism. The morally deformed theological system of Islam must, therefore, be rightly placed at the front and center of any non-PC, meaning honest, discussion and examination of jihadist terrorism and its religious supports coming, directly and indirectly, from Moslem beliefs.

Conclusion

It is then fundamentally important, as a heuristic consequence, to valiantly speak the honest truth about jihadist terrorism and its logical relationship to Islam. Therefore, by pertinent extension pertaining to the misguided and misdirected security measures seemingly constantly undertaken, one correctly see that the sagacious words of Benjamin Franklin still rightly relate today and forever: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."

Bibliography

Peter Hammond,Slavery, Terrorism and Islam.

Chuck Morse, The Nazi Connection toIslamic Terrorism, Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini

Robert Spencer, The Truth About Muhammad;The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades); The Truth About Muhammad;Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith; Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West; also, his Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't;Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs; and The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran; he, also, is coauthor, with Daniel Ali, of Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics.