4 ms·

If you want the answer for yourself, you need to demystify "terrorism", since that is the headline narrative from day one and to this day. When you grok what te

by NHQ 3y ago

If you want the answer for yourself, you need to demystify "terrorism", since that is the headline narrative from day one and to this day. When you grok what terrorism really is, the logical conclusion to who did the deed is to answer the question of who benefited, what motives, and look for evidence. Terrorism is a method of rulership over publics, not a tactic of war. Unless you consider the rule of terrorist ideology to be one of "at war with those under rule", but that is different model of thinking. Either way, terrorism comes down to low grade rule by mean and vicious people, the kind you would hope never to elect. Indeed, one might conclude as I have that terrorism is rule by the unelect. Terrorism is not a tactic of warfare, it is violent coercion. Even that much is obvious, for it coerces people to become defensive, scared, etc. Civilians are not the target of military for war. Never have been. Only pawns can be used to enact terrorism, for no individual has anything to gain by the act. No military strategy has ever used nor teaches terrorist methodologies. The response by the USA shows precisely why it is foolish, for it gains nothing to the attacker: no territory gained, only an enemy provoked. The accused actors had nothing to gain unless they were pawns for reward, but then that would mean they did not plan it, nor conceive of it from the base notion of coercion toward a benefit. Nor did the accused actors have a motive. The narrative already becomes convoluted beyond this point, so I pull out my Swiss Occum Razor and shave it back. That is when I realize how deep the ideological methodology of terror-ism must be. Terrorism is not the act of rogues and individuals, but this is what you are wanted to believe. Terrorism is the plan and rule of those found at the conclusion of logical procedure. Who benefited, what motives, following clues...

a123b456c 3y ago
Your theory falls apart if you assume some small percentage of people may act irrationally.
- NHQ 3y ago
  You are sticking to rationalization, so I must argue that. Rationality is the mirror of mystification. With rationalism you can endlessly circle the argument in defense of thy mystical beliefs. Your mystified understanding of terrorism is that psychological profiles are sufficient. This subverts due process. Nothing about rationality guarantees a positive outcome, and is typically a trick that leads to no conclusion. That is the very opposite intent of logical conclusion by way of reasoning. Irrationality is simply circling the other direction, actually nothing and no different, but the word is used to create a false dichotomy so you can call somebody crazy by another name, and keep the argument and process couched in mystification. It is literally in the name: the ratio is tangential to the circle.
  - NHQ 3y ago
    For the philosophers, this is why the pushers of rationalism thrust Kant to the fore, he wrote that reason is insufficient. That may be true for some types of inward thinking like creativity and invention. The truth can never be invented though ergo reasoning is perfectly fine for the due process of uncovering the truth. Kant's philosophy is used to justify judicial review, where you are guilty until proven innocent, which is precisely why we are forced to recite the complete opposite. If "innocent until proven guilty" was true and in force, it would be apparent, and what is known need not be repeated interminably. This is the lie at the root of jurisprudence, and is the conclusion of actually bad reasoning, and is forced via unjustified action we call Justice. Justice must be justified because punishments are crimes in any other context. As a result, we cannot act with justification based on reason, but must follow strictures, aka laws. For instance, you maybe cannot defend yourself against a lunatic because it can be rationalized a million ways that self defense was not justified due to circumstances, literally circular positioning, rationalization. Government is religion based on rational mysticism. It has nothing to do with the power of democracy, freedom, doing what is right, and self determination. It is moderation by another name, and from on high by elitists who control judiciaries.
DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
Where do “eco-terrorists” and similar fit into this paradigm of yours?
- NHQ 3y ago
  Rule by ideology leads to every kind of terrorism, but it doesn't make the trigger man special, only a pawn. It is important to know ideology is not about ideas but deos, the "God Complex". The terrorist actor is always a zealot. The ideologue behind the plot, the agent or collective agency, they influence the actor via their God Complex which lacks the foundational principles. That is why ideologically driven people are fractious, without a functional spirituality that connects them and maintain virtues such as "do not kill people for no reason" or "unelected action undermines the legitimacy of our very own elected representation!" Global warming is the ideology of ecoterrorism, but we don't see multitudes in arms, and we don't see their representatives and generals, we only see the limited agents, a parade of the unelect. We don't see continuous campaigns, we see odd events. We see publicity, never discretion. Violent or not, it is always a performance. And rather than serving their side, terrorist are usually pawns of their own enemy. That is the true art of terrorism. If the ideologue had real power, a military and industry and political strength, they have no reason to influence and orchestrate acts by zealotry. Power works with diplomacy, and bad diplomats are fast replaced with better ones. War is the ultimate in diplomacy. Terrorism is always convoluted schemes that do not achieve real ends such as changing policy or destroying the enemy. That is because the motive is ulterior to the action, and not powerful enough to do great damage; the reaction has to be the source of damage. The zealot has no idea about the real motive; they have only good intentions toward the deos. If the actor discovered the motive was not truly their own cause, that wouldn't serve. If they do not, the reward is rarely enough to perform false work, and they do not preserver long. Such is the case with mass protesting, which is low grade terrorism, intellectually violent if not physically. If the protest was true in force, they would just sweep away the antagonist.

by NHQ 3y ago

a123b456c 3y ago

Your theory falls apart if you assume some small percentage of people may act irrationally.

NHQ 3y ago
You are sticking to rationalization, so I must argue that. Rationality is the mirror of mystification. With rationalism you can endlessly circle the argument in defense of thy mystical beliefs. Your mystified understanding of terrorism is that psychological profiles are sufficient. This subverts due process. Nothing about rationality guarantees a positive outcome, and is typically a trick that leads to no conclusion. That is the very opposite intent of logical conclusion by way of reasoning. Irrationality is simply circling the other direction, actually nothing and no different, but the word is used to create a false dichotomy so you can call somebody crazy by another name, and keep the argument and process couched in mystification. It is literally in the name: the ratio is tangential to the circle.
- NHQ 3y ago
  For the philosophers, this is why the pushers of rationalism thrust Kant to the fore, he wrote that reason is insufficient. That may be true for some types of inward thinking like creativity and invention. The truth can never be invented though ergo reasoning is perfectly fine for the due process of uncovering the truth. Kant's philosophy is used to justify judicial review, where you are guilty until proven innocent, which is precisely why we are forced to recite the complete opposite. If "innocent until proven guilty" was true and in force, it would be apparent, and what is known need not be repeated interminably. This is the lie at the root of jurisprudence, and is the conclusion of actually bad reasoning, and is forced via unjustified action we call Justice. Justice must be justified because punishments are crimes in any other context. As a result, we cannot act with justification based on reason, but must follow strictures, aka laws. For instance, you maybe cannot defend yourself against a lunatic because it can be rationalized a million ways that self defense was not justified due to circumstances, literally circular positioning, rationalization. Government is religion based on rational mysticism. It has nothing to do with the power of democracy, freedom, doing what is right, and self determination. It is moderation by another name, and from on high by elitists who control judiciaries.

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago

Where do “eco-terrorists” and similar fit into this paradigm of yours?

NHQ 3y ago
Rule by ideology leads to every kind of terrorism, but it doesn't make the trigger man special, only a pawn. It is important to know ideology is not about ideas but deos, the "God Complex". The terrorist actor is always a zealot. The ideologue behind the plot, the agent or collective agency, they influence the actor via their God Complex which lacks the foundational principles. That is why ideologically driven people are fractious, without a functional spirituality that connects them and maintain virtues such as "do not kill people for no reason" or "unelected action undermines the legitimacy of our very own elected representation!" Global warming is the ideology of ecoterrorism, but we don't see multitudes in arms, and we don't see their representatives and generals, we only see the limited agents, a parade of the unelect. We don't see continuous campaigns, we see odd events. We see publicity, never discretion. Violent or not, it is always a performance. And rather than serving their side, terrorist are usually pawns of their own enemy. That is the true art of terrorism. If the ideologue had real power, a military and industry and political strength, they have no reason to influence and orchestrate acts by zealotry. Power works with diplomacy, and bad diplomats are fast replaced with better ones. War is the ultimate in diplomacy. Terrorism is always convoluted schemes that do not achieve real ends such as changing policy or destroying the enemy. That is because the motive is ulterior to the action, and not powerful enough to do great damage; the reaction has to be the source of damage. The zealot has no idea about the real motive; they have only good intentions toward the deos. If the actor discovered the motive was not truly their own cause, that wouldn't serve. If they do not, the reward is rarely enough to perform false work, and they do not preserver long. Such is the case with mass protesting, which is low grade terrorism, intellectually violent if not physically. If the protest was true in force, they would just sweep away the antagonist.