Islamic violence is not committed by psychopaths or deviants from our social norms—Islamic violence is committed by exemplars of our social norms …. Islamic violence is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake—it embodies violence as culture defines it.
Islamic Acts of Terror are unquestionably crimes against the individual. They are also crimes against others. All others.
There are broad ideological dynamics and social consequences. Violent Faith crimes harm not only individual victims. They are perpetrated against all others collectively Not all at once and not all in the same place.
Understanding how faith violence harms others as a group requires analysing it not only as an individual act but also as an institution—that is, a structured social practice with distinct rules that define who may (or must) do what under what circumstances.
The institution of faith violence reinforces the group-based subordination of all others to Islam. By making others fearful, and by enforcing Islamic dictates about proper behaviorand Islamic entitlement to rule.
Islamic acts of terror, the acts and the practice—subjugate the entire class of all other individuals. All others are wronged by it.
Islamic violence is not anomalous but pragmatic and paradigmatic— it enacts and reinforces, rather than contradicts, widely shared cultural views about Islam and violence
Islamic violence is not committed by psychopaths or deviants from our social norms—Islamic violence is committed by exemplars of our social norms …. Islamic violence is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake—it embodies violence as culture defines it.
A core dynamic of Islamic Violence, is the normalizing of Islamic control and dominance over others.
This dynamic finds expression in a number of beliefs about what is natural, acceptable, and even desirable in Islamic interaction with others: that the Islamist will be persistent and aggressive, the others reluctant and passive; that the Islamist is invulnerable , powerful, hard, and commanding, and that others are vulnerable, soft and lack the power to resist.
Islamists propensity to violence is significantly related to their acceptance of their violence myths and their traditional ideas of violence and their belief that Islamic aggression is normal, acceptable, even required, and is the given right response to “offence”
Such beliefs play a role not only in their likelihood of committing violent terrorist acts but also in others tendency to define “offence” to Islam more restrictively, and to attribute responsibility and blame to victims for provoking violence towards themselves..
The influence of “offence” myths on definitions of what is “offensive” explains why Islamists do not define their own behaviour as offensive. This “violence culture’ describes the pervasiveness and acceptability of violent Islamic response to “offensive acts” and the supportive messages in media and popular discourse. Specially by other faiths.
Victims of bloody murder and violence are now blamed even by non-islamists in a defacto, but denied, acceptance of the cultural paradigm of a murderous response now being the normal and therefore acceptable Islamic response to mere offence.
The role of Islamic violence in controlling other’s behaviour through fear means that, due to the threat of violence all others live in constant jeopardy, in a virtual state of siege. a form of terrorizing, group-based social control.
Terrorism advances its political purpose, the subordination of others , by terrorizing two targets: the direct victims, who are seen as expendable, and the broader population to whom a message is sent, and who can then be manipulated by fear into complying with demands they would otherwise reject.
Even those who, because of their conformity to these rules, do not feel afraid of being personal victims have nonetheless been terrorized into compliance.
The threat of violence with its false promise that by being “good” they can avoid disaster, plays an important role in training others in the requirements of Islamists. It brings hesitancy, relative weakness, and restraint, even more vulnerability to violence and others are taught to view their own culture as dangerously provocative and offensive.
Others are given a sense of duty to control, conceal, and monitor their own behaviour, so as not to bring disaster upon themselves.
Other cultures become guilty pre-victims …. he said something he should not have said, was somewhere she should not have been, moving her body in ways she should not have, carrying on in a manner so free and easy as to convey an utter abandonment of her responsibilities of self-protection and self-surveillance.
As the institution of Islamist violence systematically disadvantages others it benefits its own self by underwriting beliefs about the naturalness of Islamist dominance, defining others in certain circumstances as “fair game,” rendering others dependent on and thus beholden to them for protection by relief from attack, and giving itself a competitive advantage by restricting others freedom of action, thought and expression.
The responsibility for violence should not distribute from Islamists to Muslims as a group. They who do not bear collective responsibility for Islamic Violence.
There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the World. The best estimates are that 10 to 25%, or 180 to 300 million are radical Islamists.
The Lindt hostages did die. The French Satirists were shot dead. Naider did stab Australian Police. Holdsworthy Army Barracks were to be attacked. The Anzac day Massacre was planned. The Paramatta Murder happened
It is time to forget about offending people. It is time to fight in our own democratic way.
We must ensure that the benefit’s brought by violence to Islamists does not distribute throughout the whole Islamic population . Nor to other politics or sacred or cows.
Just as the responsibility for violence should not distribute, nor should the protective benefits they seek..
Neither Islam, nor other faiths in the supernatural, nor politically trendy holy cows should receive statutory protection from subjective offence brought about by or due to “...the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, artistic, academic or scientific matter...”.
Bring back the amendments to Section 18c. Get rid of subjective offensiveness being the test of what we can say.
John Bolton : See you at the Canberra Rally on Saturday 10th October 2015 - I will be a speaker.