As London recovers from another terror attack, it’s worth asking ourselves what those who are directing these attacks are trying to accomplish[1]. While these stabs at the vulnerable citizenry have little direct effect, the real question regards the veiled goals of the directors.
In other words, what do these extremist fear the most from the West, and are therefore trying to change?
Religious extremists, seems to me, always have as their putative goal a societal adherence to the most extreme version of their religious tenets, whether or not they can actually be found in their sacred tomes.
And the Western countries, such as Britain? To lesser and greater extents, they have left such societal rules behind. While I could spend all day enumerating such instances as gay marriage, I’d prefer to abstract it to a rational approach to justice. At one time we used the Biblical rules to run our societies and called them just, but that led to chaos and death; now we try to use reason to define our justice, and if that leads to results that dismay some of our citizens, I must say that most adjust admirably. One example is that of gay marriage, and watching much of society adjust to the idea that our gay members should have the option of marrying those they love has been an inspiration and a pleasure.
But for those who believe in a very strong version of God, the extremists, this is repugnant. Thus, they wish the rule of God, as decreed by the clerics; the West is transforming from the rule of God to the rule of Law[2]. In our particular case, the extremists see their favored ordering of society endangered by the West.
Not through direct attack, necessarily, but through the very existence of those principles of the West.
Why? Because they are attractive. Because they promise peace. They, perhaps even more importantly, demonstrate prosperity.
The Magna Carta, an early attempt at Constitutional Law.
Source: BritRoyals
Speaking abstractly, any principle is a good principle in that it leads, eventually, to a positive outcome for the individual and/or the society in which the individual is embedded; a negative outcome decreases survival and reproductive opportunities, if not directly, then by degrading that society. Sufficient degradation of society by an individual can easily lead to a Pitchforks and Torches ending for the individual pursuing a negative principle (say, I will enrich myself without treating my fellow societal members justly), as his fellows find a way to remove his riches and/or his life.
A set of principles can and should be judged on several metrics. One often ignored is that of robustness, which is to say that as external stressors change, do the principles continue to deliver positive outcomes?
So that was a fairly laborious approach to the question posed earlier in this post, that being (yeah, I almost forgot, too) the goal of those directing these terrorists. I believe they are trying, as with any war, to modify the behaviors of their opponents; in this case, they are trying to subtly modify our very principles. They are repugnant to those directing the fight, and so they make the most logical target of the extremists.
Therefore, while we properly worry about our physical security, we must devote even more concern to our future, as it is formulated, in a sense, by our principles. While I worry about the Brits, as their various Party leaders seem to currently be wanting, that’s their problem. We in the United States have our hands full with an Administration run by an individual from the private sector who has never, and cannot be, troubled to think beyond the private sector. His basic incuriosity, which is much like former President Bush’s, is leading him down the same mistaken path which took Bush (II) into the infamy of authorizing torture. Filling his White House with pretty faces and empty heads, and putting someone reputed to be a white supremacist as well as a follower of Leninist principles – both in opposition to our commonly held set of principles as Americans – the current President has attempted to fulfill campaign promises which contravene American principles.
While I believe his latest attempt to push his Muslim ban order, as the Times of India reports –
US President Donald Trump on Sunday slammed London’s Pakistani-origin mayor Sadiq Khan saying it was not the time to be “politically correct”, and touted his controversial travel ban in view of the London Bridge terror attacks that killed seven people and wounded several others.
“We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don’t get smart it will only get worse,” Trump said.
is in earnest, the problem for Mr. Trump is that this has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the principles which have brought us peace and prosperity. I don’t think he, or nearly any member of his Administration, has the capacity to even consider these objections to their proposed set of actions, or why those proposals are ultimately against the law – and anti-American.
The real war is these attacks on our principles, from both religious extremists and the leaders of Russia. They are both in an existential war – because their competing sets of principles, of religious extremism and strong-man rule, respectively, have been doing poorly. It’s our job to show that our principles work better, and in all conditions.
And to better educate ourselves concerning those principles. After all, it is Trump in the White House.
1Assuming, of course, that these aren’t just religiously motivated individuals acting without direction.
2The rule of Man came before either, and consisted of the strong-man ordering of society; changes at the top came through blood-shed, and could be devastating.
