| "Radicalisation" |
(enemy image, Orwellian language, polarising perspective, plastic phrase)
|Interest of||• Active Change Foundation|
• Yusuf Desai
• Mark Huband
• International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence
• Daniel Lafayeedney
• Fatima Lahnait
• Shiraz Maher
• Jahan Mahmood
• Muslim Contact Unit
• Project Rich Picture
• Hanif Qadir
• Magnus Ranstorp
• Alex Schmid
|Together with "extremism" this word is one of many which deep states are seeking to use to demonize dissent by equating truth telling and earnest inquiry with violence, as a tool to facilitate internet censorship.|
"Radicalisation" (US: "radicalization") is a plastic phrase used pejoratively to described a supposed transformation which occurs to susceptible people when they are exposed to "extremist" information, typically over the internet. The phrase is used in the context of "Muslim terrorism" in connection with efforts to carry out much broader internet censorship. Unlike "fake news", which implies falsehood, any unwanted information can be declared as "radicalising" and therefore worthy of censorship.
The word is derived from the Latin radix, meaning root. Radical solutions to problems are those which attempt to get at their root causes. This etymology would seem positive to anyone seeking a fundamental understanding of or solution to problems, and is never remarked upon by commercially-controlled media.
"Radicalisation" is "one of the most widely used concepts in the field of terrorism studies". The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) defines it as “A process by which a person to an increasing extent accepts the use of undemocratic or violent means, including terrorism, in an attempt to reach a specific political/ideological objective.” This insinuation with direct linking of violence is typical, allowing emotional support from a gullible populace of laws that can be written to include non-violent behaviour, such as reading and writing. The phrase is used, for example, as an explanation of the behaviour of "lone nuts" and when framing internet censorship laws.
An initial concern is the gap between the literal meaning of the word (i.e. getting to the roots) and the new meaning which has been grafted on (i.e. a predilection for violence and irrationality). The phrase polarizes the world into "us" (the normal) and "them" (the "radicalised"); evidence that such a process exists is uncertain at best.
Many national governments and their intelligence agencies are populated by people who - according to the PET definition above - have long since been radicalised. Consider, for example, Lyman Lemnitzer, who as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed Operation Northwoods, Sir Stewart Menzies, who carried out Operation Embarrass, or the Operation Gladio operatives who killed hundreds of Italians in the 1970s and 1980s. None of the leaders of these groups are known to have been subject to legal action, and the top echelons of governments and intelligence agencies appear to be typified by a similarly "radical" approach.
These are the same people are now promoting the concept of "radicalisation", in an apparent effort to promote fear and so ensure public acquiescence to widespread internet censorship. If, as this website suggests, 9-11 and a lot of other modern outrages alleged to have been organised by "Muslim terrorists" were in fact organised by Western deep politicians, the claim that more internet censorship could reduce "terrorism" is the complete reversal of the truth; in fact, such censorship would serve to protect the identities of the perpetrators of false flags.
The word "radicalisation" was little searched upon until 2014. Global interest in the term increase by a factor of approximately 10 over the 4 years up to October 2017. The main countries in which it is used are UK, France, and former British/French colonies (most notably Kenya) - the trends data with the US spelling are not so clear cut, reflecting a US usage that goes back at least as far back as 2004.
In UK, the word "radicalisation" is being widely employed in connection with "terrorism", especially "Islamic terror". Children as young as 9 years old have been surveyed in British schools to check for signs of "radicalisation".
In June 2016, Dean Haydon, head of Counter Terrorism Command of Scotland Yard remarked about Muhiddin Mire "And what we found following his arrest is, certainly from his mobile phone and other digital media, that he had downloaded a vast amount of extremist material which we think certainly inspired him to conduct an attack here."
In July 2016, commercially-controlled media claimed that Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel went to Tunisia, where "was he was radicalized within months" and quotes his estranged wife that he "only started visiting a mosque in April", just 3 months before he is supposed to have committed a religiously inspired act of "terrorism".
In 2017, Zahid Hussain was jailed for at least 15 years by UK judge Nigel Sweeney who stated that the "principal driver" of his (unsuccessful) efforts to create a bomb had been his "voluntary bedroom radicalisation", implicitly suggesting that "radicalisation" could be involuntary.
|"Extremism"||“Should these extremist views be allow [sic.] in society with the risk they could incite some to violence?”||Admin||9 April 2011|
|Yusuf Desai||“I would very strongly recommend review of current Green Paper plans and strategies to address social cohesion in order to combat UK and global radicalization issues and threats to state security. There is little precedent for the scale of action needed over the next decade. The dangers are clear and immediate to those who are involved in safeguarding life and limb and wellbeing of British society.”||Yusuf Desai||2018|
|Internet/Censorship||“Terrorist propaganda online has a direct impact on the radicalisation of individuals and we work closely with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted in the UK or overseas.”||James Brokenshire||2014|
|Fatima Lahnait||“Spain remains a target for Islamist extremists. Moreover, like other European countries, it is now facing an increasing radicalisation phenomenon that may lead to violent extremism and home-grown Islamist terrorism.”||Fatima Lahnait||2018|
|Religion||“Some years ago, a leaked MI5 behavioural study of pathways to terrorism concluded that there was no single profile or pathway to violent radicalisation. It also found, contrary to conventional assumptions, that religious conservatism tended to act as a bulwark against extremism.”||Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed||13 February 2015|
|Joanna Shields||“Where there is more propaganda directing people to kill, we must act to remove it quickly. Where there are new networks promoting radicalisation, we must disrupt them. We need to work with industry to improve solutions that automate the identification and removal of dangerous extremist content at scale and tools that better tackle automated bots and other techniques that support these propaganda machines. This must be done as quickly as possible before people, particularly sympathisers and the vulnerable, get the chance to see it. And we must work with civil society to offer a brighter and more compelling path to young people who feel they have no hope of changing their circumstances. There is no panacea, no single piece of technology, intervention or public policy that will solve this. But we can make it harder for terrorist and extremists to use the Internet to recruit, inspire and incite.”||Joanna Shields||1 August 2016|
|Strategy of tension||“In order to tackle the root causes of radicalization ("Radicalization" refers to a value shift towards fovouring a more equal distribution of wealth) in particular of young people, the EU should consider strengthening targeted actions designed to raise awareness and promote the respect of fundamental rights and values".”||European Ministers of the Interior||2015|
|Document:Radicalisation - UK.gov gets itself in cluster-muddle over 'terrorism'||article||25 August 2016||Alexander J Martin|
|Document:The Astonishingly Crap Science of 'Counter-Extremism'||webpage||17 March 2016||Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed||An expose of the crass lack of any valid scientific basis of government strategies to fight radicalisation. Nafeez Ahmed agrues that the "most academically accurate concept to capture this absurd level of crappiness is ‘bullshit’".|
- PET, “Radikalisering og terror” Center for Terroranalyse (Denmark) October 2009. Available at http://www.pet.dk/upload/radikalisering og terror.pdf”