WHAT’S THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM? IT”S NOT COMPLICATED. IT”S JUST ANOTHER POST

WHAT’S THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM? IT”S NOT COMPLICATED. IT”S JUST ANOTHER POSTMODERN LIE

WHY IS TERRORISM USEFUL?

1 – It’s inexpensive.

2 – It only requires a small number of people.

3 – It doesn’t require coordination of activity.

4 – It gets a LOT of attention for very little effort.

5 – It both influences policy and modifies public perception.

6 – It encourages sympathizers and imitators by granting them a vehicle for self image, status, perception of power, and identity.

7 – It illustrates the inherent weakness of the state and state actors (it dispels the illusion of control)

8 – It creates intolerable political, public, and economic stress even if it causes little real damage to property.

“TERRORISM IS THE BEST ADVERTISING STRATEGY, EVER.”

Worse: And it’s fun. You have to grasp that it’s empowering. It’s exhilarating. Or you can’t understand the motivation for participating in it. Most of us walk through life feeling powerless. Radicals don’t.

Two guys, one car, and random shooting almost did almost as much damage to the economy as the spring 2008 rise in oil prices. Terrorism is effectively employed by revolutionaries and reactionaries internally, and terrorists and state sponsored terrorists.

PURVEYORS OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE

– State Actors (War/Warriors/Soldiers)

– State Sponsored Private Actors (state sponsored terrorists)

– External (out-group) private actors (terrorists)

– Internal (in-group) private actors (radicals, revolutionaries)

THE USE OF POSTMODERN VERBAL OBSCURANTISM TO JUSTIFY THE CORPORATE STATE

1) It’s an abuse of the terms “terrorist” or “terrorism” to apply them to internal actors, because it grants the assumption of legitimacy to the state, and the pejorative illegitimacy of the actor.

I no case is an external (out group) actor a revolutionary. In no case is an in-group member a terrorist.

2) the problem of stating in-group and out-group members only emerges under state corporatism and it’s advocacy of multiculturalism as a means of importing low cost labor to support aging social systems. Or in the USA where racial divisions have been a source of conflict since the founding of the government.

The use of ‘terrorism’ for internal actors is another “postmodernism”: a linguistic contrivance to obscure the causal properties of a conflict, as the natural problems that arise when we attempt to launder causal properties from terms in order to … lie.

Postmodern obscurantism – the effort to justify the multi-cultural state and the socialist program – is the reason for this false dilemma. There is no difficulty in defining terrorism, as we can see above. Instead, there is an obvious falsehood in the definition of a corporate democratic state: it is impossible for groups with different reproductive strategies, the associated signals and mythos, the associated allocations of property rights, and the different capabilities those groups possess in organizing and conducting production, to cooperate in political systems under majority rule, since by definition such a system imposes a monopoly set of definitions of property rights and obligations – when property rights allocations must reflect the reproductive strategies of the groups.

As such, without the false assumption of the legitimacy of state corporatism, then the original definitions stand.