Do We Create Our Own Terrorists?

 

This is a critical question that cannot be fully answered in a short essay. Therefore, the partial discourse below is only an attempt to approach the subject.

We are confused by the terror-scene in developed societies which, being progressive and equalitarian, deserve better. Their traits make them attractive (a) to benefit of an order that allows for input-related success (b) to immigrate into welfare.

Due to the wealth of these systems, expectations arise that reflect backgrounds of backwardness which makes equality through allocations a luring promise.

Thereby disappointed expectations are likely to rise. One is a result of fashionable collectivism. Backward societies share it with the first world’s Beemer class. In the case of the underdeveloped, that mental-set is a cause and also an expression of missed advances. Successful societies are not collectivistic and achievers are individualists. On the other end of the scale is penthouse socialism. Rich, elites can buy “feel good” by sponsoring and maintaining their enemy. Their illusion is that wealth can keep them remote from the lot of the deplorable; they can afford immunity in gated communities from the experience they advocate for others.

Second, even if all of us live in an economy, economics is cloaked in ignorance and false truths. The cause of poverty and wealth floats in a myth-enclosed vacuum. Where misery that recalls the Dark Ages prevail, it is easy to misjudge why others are “rich”. Opulence is attributed to the right birth place and it ignores that the market’s allocation reflects a measurable input. The reward does not express an automatic right to wealth by “membership”. Much rather, it mirrors the individuals’ skills and values. However, pre-modern societies see in the global “soaps” only how money is spent and they are kept from perceiving that what is consumed is created by work.

Not comprehending the self-evident creates illusions. It is that sneaking into a country that enjoys opulence will result in the good life. The result will be a let-down to those who prove to be integration resistant because of their high expectations, low qualifications, misplaced values, and hurt self-esteem.

Chimerical expectations confirmed by PC slogans – Merkel’s “refugees welcome”- validate the hope of being handed a share of the host’s wealth. The post-arrival full plate and good clothing, all verify the impression of the land of milk and honey. Luring mails home confirm that money will flow to the family: The anarchy surrounding admission, the immunity from local law, all amplify deceptive signals.

The resulting disorientation of those that are programmed to be easily confused has consequences. It begins with the pursuit of the old life under improved terms, instead of beginning a new one. It is completed by the impact of that on the hosting people’s willingness to harbor newcomers that are soon widely seen as criminal riff-raff.

Daydreamed expectations – “Merkel gives us a house”- has a component that explains the propinquity to criminality followed by radicalization.

Let us take up the experience of settlers that stumble from a pre-modern life into a post-industrial system. Disappointment, followed by bitterness, which then mutes into hostility, is the likely outcome.

Genetics have little to do with misguided responses to a new milieu’s demands and opportunities. Decisive is that the “new citizens” of German PC, are ill-qualified to “make it” in Europe.

We detect “culture” as the key to integration. Failing at it creates alienation and triggers actions to “punish” the allegedly “excluding” host community.

Certain religions and an ethnic factor can connect, and frequently it becomes fortified by nationality. Group’s values will reflect these. Failure is programmed if the chosen host’s values are rejected. The turbulence of the region from which migrants enter advanced countries that have the means to support “guests”, tells that their homeland has failed to develop good governance and its economics. This missed development is not accidental; it reflects cultural choices. The factors behind it will be imported into the new “homeland” by individual entrants where they will self- ghettoize.

Integration pre-supposes a personal new beginning and that implies individual assimilation. The adherents of religions that regulate all aspects of life, and who are also members of ethno-cultural groups, will be inclined to congregate in like-minded communities where they impose their own rules. In these, living by imported ways and the rejection of outsider influence determine belonging. A consequence is the refusal to partake in a learning process which is the sine qua non of participation in the chosen national community. The upshot of the retention of birth identity is that, those doing so, will be unable to share the life of the country that harbors them.

Living in dynamic surroundings by sub-group norms set eons ago, assures failure. Further factors bolster the tendency to fall short. One is that imported qualifications might be insufficient. Beyond a five-year gap in the content of schooling, the literate have often learned the wrong thing. Knowing a holy text by heart might signal virtue. However, it will not qualify for original thinking and for a profession. Merkel sold unlimited immigration by claiming that it brings needed “specialists” to benefit “those that have settled here earlier”. Growth made redundant the menial jobs for which migrants qualify. Even low killed natives face the idleness of the unemployable, so that, unless “refugee” is declared to be a profession, the slogan is untrue.

True, standing apart of the majority, and insisting that it must adapt to the migrant and not the other way around, can bring success. Permanent welfare might be one. Indeed, even after years, most extra-culture migrants remain jobless. Concessions wrung from the majority –such as no displays at Christmas- are a shallow success.

Life in surroundings from which migrants exclude themselves brings bitterness. Unable to participate in the affluence of the majority causes frustration. Rather than reacting to failure by revised strategies, to preserve a shaken self-esteem, there is a flight into the feel-good shelter of an extreme idea

The person that is shut out of a system he rejects will not return his homeland. Much rather, being bypassed, will raise the desire to make the “insensitive” host’s system fail. As long as it is able to function in ways snubbed as “immoral”, the inadequacy is confirmed. So a principle is needed that assures of moral supremacy, one that transforms failure into bold resistance, and that into an act of virtue. Thereby lost lives find a purpose in combating the “evil” of the surrounding successful people. Radicalization is facilitated because its ideology is culturally compatible in content and in form. The upshot is a collective “struggle”, while on the individual level criminality becomes an act of “redistribution”.

To kill, radical ideologies divide mankind into insiders and outsiders. The former are “virtue”, predestined by a higher force to prevail -race for Nazis, religion in Islamism, “science” in Marx. The outsider exemplifies a vice to be eliminated; if necessary by inhuman methods, to save a cleansed-to-purity mankind. Such dogmas assure that no absolute evil by the virtuous in the pursuit of their vision of decency is possible.

By normal standards, some people have crashed lives. Following a normal impulse, these cursed seek to recover by subscribing to an alternative value system that gives comfort, purpose, and the promise of final victory. Embracing such a secular or religious ideology does more than to convert inadequacy into achievement and fiascos into portents of “final victory”. The “movement” so created is hived above men, its truth over the facts, and its cause over morality. Thereby it functions as an avalanche: it destroys everything that stands in its way.

Such value systems have also the use to sever all ties to a limiting humanistic obligation to outsiders. The resulting behavior permits infinite wickedness because it converts crime into the practiced ethics of the principled. Reduced to the core, the luring message to the True Believer is: “You may do anything for it serves the absolution-bestowing cause of goodness”. It is this unconditional forgiveness that explains why so many of the alienated terrorists, on their way to their chosen private paradise, begin their final atrocity by living the life of common criminals.

 

Comments are closed.