Skip to main content

Extremism vs Terrorism: How Language Is Used to Cultivate Conformity

If you watch CNN, or pay attention to nearly any news outlet, you may notice how often the words "extremism" and "terrorism" are used interchangeably. But they not the same thing.

Using the two interchangeably, however, creates the impression that anyone who is the former must therefore be the latter, and vice versa. Keeping in mind the difference is important to understanding how the deliberate use of these two words as being synonymous is used to cultivate conformity.

Terrorism, after all, is the willingness to engage in violence and bloodshed in order to scare people into accepting an idea or to engage in some action. 9/11, for example, was an act of "terrorism" perpetrated on the US by Muslims who, depending on who you believe, either wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia or for America to accept Islam. (If you believe the alternate interpretation, it was a "false flag" perpetrated by the US on itself, for the purpose of blaming Obama Bin Laden, so as to expand National surveillance by the shadow gov't in the US and to justify military action in the Middle east to control more oil.)

Either interpretation of "terrorism" confirms that "violence" is being used to advance an agenda, regardless of who is it engaging in that violence, and however it is engaged in.

Terrorism can obviously be considered "extremism," in some ways, but "extremism" itself is simply any ideas that may seem "extreme" to the what is considered "normal" to a majority. If ISIS wants everyone to wear a burqa or the NRA wants everyone to own a gun, for example, such ideas would be "extreme" compared to the majority.

If the NRA or ISIS engage in violence to try and advance their "extremist" agendas, that would be "terrorism." So even if you hate the NRA, and consider them to be "extremists" in some ways, that does not mean the NRA are a bunch of terrorists. (As far as I know, the NRA has never engaged in any actions that could ever be considered "terrorist" activities. But I have never done any research on that. So lets just assume they never have, and never will, for the sake of this comparison.)

ISIS, however, is an "extremist" group of thinkers who HAVE engaged in "terrorist" activities, on the other hand.

But to use the terms interchangeably is to eventually conflate the two in the minds of a passive audience, who watches the tube in an almost hypnotic state. The danger then, is that anyone who wishes to express an idea that is NOT within the 'norm' of society, can come to be seen as an extremist, and by extension a terrorist.

And when just expressing ideas that challenge or fall afoul of the general consensus becomes synonymous with an act of terrorism, you know you are living in a time and place that is really only interested in cultivating conformity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Are Republicans Pro Life?

Most people don't realize that the Supreme Court has been in the hands of the Republican party since at least 1970! In fact, even in the landmark case of Roe v Wade that legalized abortion, SCOTUS was inhabited by 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and the vote was 7 to 2. One of the reasons is that the Republican Party has absolutely ZERO desire to win on the abortion issue. And that's because abortion gives the GOP a clear focal point with potentially unlimited organizing power. And it's an even simpler message to sell than religion, since we are "pro-life." (if that was true, however, they wouldn't be actively trying to repeal healthcare for up to 30 million Americans, nor would they be so pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro welfare cuts, pro- social security cuts, pro- drone strikes, etc). The Republican party officially became "pro-life" in 1976, thanks to Jesse Helms (R-NC). The only reason no serious challenge was brought within the pa...
  The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter even by a millimeter the way people look at reality, then you can change it.” James Baldwin   

The Clash of Religious Beliefs with Reality: Over Simplicity in a Hyper Complex World

God is the anthropomorphism of  our hope that life has a "happily ever after" ending, where there is no such thing as death and suffering, which we anthropomorphize in the form of the devil. In a sense, we are taking ideas and turning them into phantom figures of our selves, with angles and demons being projections of our own souls and our penchant for good and evil.  We see this when we anthropomorphize the act of gift giving into Santa Clause and think in terms of "old man winter" and "father time." We even reverse this process by describing ourselves as living in the springtime of our youth or the autumn of our years.  Religion takes this habit to another level, however, and teaches people to "believe" that the personifications we rely on to describe our hopes and fears are actual "beings;" beings from whom all of the characteristics we tend to associate with ideas of life and death, good and evil, necessarily emanate. Thi...