RADICALS AND RADICALIZATION

RADICAL MEANS TO GET TO THE ROOT

Radix, the Latin word for root, is the origin of the word radical. In contemporary political philosophy, the term describes activists who challenge established views and who operate outside the parameters of social convention to achieve political aims, sometimes employing extreme or violent methods in that pursuit.
The concept of political radicalism evolved out of the language and logic of the scientific revolution when educated intellectuals began to view the world in scientific, secular terms. It gained popularity during the Enlightenment as social theorists employed the new method of critical thinking to challenge traditional religious and political dogma.
 http://science.jrank.org/pages/8021/Radicals-Radicalism.html#ixzz3Gu4BLJxK

TO RADICALIZE IS TO GET TO THE ROOT OF OR THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM, OF ONES OPPRESSION WHEN USED IN A MARXIST SENSE.

“To be radical is to go to the root of the matter. For man, however, the root is man himself.” ― Karl Marx

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ADOLESCENT YOUNG MEN BECOMING INFATUATED WITH VIOLENCE, WITH THE BELIEF THEY CAN CHANGE THE WORLD AND ARE IMMORTAL, LIKE ALEXANDER THE GREAT.

WHETHER IT WAS BOMB CHUCKING ANARCHISTS, THE MILITIAS IN THE US, ADOLESCENT JIHADIS, OR CHILD WARRIORS IN THE CONGO. THE COMMONALITY IS THEY ARE ALL HORMONAL ADOLESCENT MALES WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR CENTURIES, WHICH IS WHY PATRIARCHY INVENTED WAR. AND LATER SPORTS, LIKE THE MAYAN HOOP BALL GAMES.

THE DAY AFTER THE OTTAWA SHOOTING

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is already calling the Ottawa shooting a false flag operation by the police, for Alex everything is a false flag of course It isn't, but neither is it a terrorist act like Harper likes to claim.

Firstly we have no knowledge of why this incident occurred and to jump to conclusions, like how many shooters there were, is speculation that almost always turns out to be untrue.

There was only one shooter, though for most of the days coverage on Canadian cablenews channels,  it was not clear if there was only one person or several. A common problem in reporting during shootings

What we know is that a young man from Quebec shot and killed a Canadian reservist standing on guard at the war memorial in Ottawa; he ran into the parliament buildings where still carrying his shotgun he was shot and killed.

The rest they say is speculation.

What we also know about him, is that he has a criminal record, that he was able to buy a long gun, without a license or registration because the Harper government eliminated the Long Gun Registry, talk about coming back to bite you in theass.

His criminal record tells all we need to know according to Mr. Harper who reminded us that after a young native woman’s body was found in the Red River in Winnipeg, foul play was suspected that there is no deep sociological reason for her death rather it is a simple criminal act. No need to address the root causes of her death.

Yet when it comes to MichaelHall, aka Michael Zehaf-Bibeau , the shooter in Ottawa suddenly he is not a criminal he is a terrorist and everyone is talking about the sociological phenomena of rootscauses of radicalization.

Like the murder in Winnipeg the shooting in Ottawa is a criminal act, it is irrelevant  that we are involved in the Middle Eastin another conflict in Iraq, which Harper approved.

Nor is it related to the car assault on the weekend in Quebec, which saw another Canadian soldier killed, in a hit and run by another supposedly ‘radicalized’ Canadian youth. Of course he can’t tell us his motivation either since he too is dead.

The link between these two events, or between them and the Canadian involvementin the air war in Iraq are dubious at best, simply put there is no connection, except in the mind of the reader.

In fact since both events occurred involving Quebecois you could say something about that particular culture which produced these events and the men involved as well as the men responsible for the shootings at Dawson College and the Ecole Poly Technique massacre.

The connection is as tenuous as claims of the car assault on the weekend or the public murder in Ottawa are acts of terrorism. They are more like publicity stunts in the age of social media. They are I hate to say it the result of the need for ones 15 minutes of fame.

These two acts are not terrorism but cries of ‘Hey Look At Me’, which has less to do with so called radicalization as it does to do with adolescent psychology, alienation and mental illness, what Wilhelm Reich called the emotional plague.

What all these events have in common going back to Marc Lapine
Is that it involves young men, most often guns, and some kind of deep rooted alienation and rage. They are not demons, or monsters,nor are they misunderstood, they are deeply scarred and damaged.  

There is nothing radical about it, they are not interested in changing society for the better, they are simply lashing out at a society that fails to meet their needs whatever they imagine them to be. On the other hand they are not Demons or Monsters that the media will try to make them out to be. They are ordinary dysfunctional Canadians that's far more scary than any terrorist threat.

While Mr. Jones is wrong about this being a False Flag it is similar to the origin of that phrase. Like the Reichstag Fire of 1933, which allowed Hitler to introduce a form of Martial Law into Germany, these two events, the hit and run murder of a soldier in Quebec and the shooting of a Soldier at the War Memorial in Ottawa will be used as an excuse to increase the powers of the Security State. And you can bet the Law & Order Harper Government will milk it for election purposes as well.

That is what is behind all the talk about so called Canadians Radicalized to fight in the Middle East as Jihadists.

Harper has already leaped on this to call for more funding for his war and security efforts.  With it having happened in Parliament with its fetishistic symbolism of peace, order and good governance, that brings a tear to the eye of all MP’s regardless of party, the answer will beunanimous.

The state needs no excuse to increase its security powers, that people give it one is convent cover. And that is how we can judge their actions, not whether they were or were not a terrorist, but can their actions be used to justifyincreasing the states policing powers over its citizens.  The state claims it needs increased powers to defend itself from assault, not us, not Canadians, but the uniform figures that represent state power and authority.

Fascism loves disorder, terror, chaos, so it can impose its own form of order on it.