Terror, violence and Civilisation

hjn

chapter 17

The question that plagues humanity now can be said to be the following violence, capital, inequality and
climate/natural disasters/disease .

Of these the most prominent is violence, why so much violence and hate, why genocide and atrocities
despite religion and civil development. why do people that have lived togather for centuries suddenly
turn against each other and murder thousand or millions of people.

Power, psychology, socioeconomic factors and human influence would be the reason,

Before going into this it should be in mind that violence is found both on the right and on the left, the
communist purges of vast number of people, the nazi socialist killings ( note hitler got his ideas from
marx and engles staunch leftist, he only recruited right wing industrialist causing a myth that they are on
the right) are on the left, modern day leftist revolutionary rioting and murder abound. On the right
napoleon, roman emperors are known for their own murder and atrocities, even today the right wing
killing in south american nations is of recent.

The human cost of the act of violence is known to all but no one or group or country seems even able to
tackle the problem, it is still as severe as the beginning of the world when people had to raid the next
village to obtain resources and servants/workers and spouses.

We have to ask ourselves how come that inspite of human intelligence getting stronger every year
violence is still as it was at the beginning only more efficient.

Power

Power is the culprit that comes first, power can be of great good or of great evil, those that seek power
can be motivated to such an extent that they unleash violence the level that is unprecendented,
obviously the innate aggressive spirit is how they manipulate normal individuals into such acts and they
justify it through various means, religion, money, inequality or social factors. the point is that power it
self is not a force for evil, but the humans that get entrusted with power or are trying to acquaire power
do use it for or with violence.

Power has been shown to be intoxicating as much as any drug man has discovered, even more than any
drug humans have discovered, when intoxicated with power prime minsiters, presidents,
chancellors,leaders , religious leaders, justices have all done things which when they became sober
realised it was abnormal they excersied power in such a terrible way and this includes violent actions.

Therefore power usually needs to intoxicate for them to unleash violence, they can get intoxicated even
when at early stages they are still wanting to or seeking to get power, they can also get intoxicated when
in power, this leads us to start asking how can humans prevent this intoxication and thus begin to reduce
violence. violence can beget violence or can be countered by violence but these are only temporary
solutions.

To tackle violence temporary solutions such as countering it have a place only at that phase proper
solutions have to be sought and rigourously put into practice not mere lip service, these categorical
practices i shall come after.

Power should be a force for instituting good things. Inciting, condonning or concealing violent use of
power is a disservice to all except when it is at the phase to stop other instigators of violence, after which
proper solutions should be put in place.

The human tendency to revere those in power sometimes stems from there fear of the fact they these
powerfull person or group can use violence, however mechanisms to prevent this is available but hardly
used, hence it perpetuates itself .

Hence the people in power, leaders of countries or religions must be made example of when they grossly
abuse the power they are entrusted with

The powerless also sometimes use violence to seek power or redress injustice, is this correct? no.it can
only be a temporary means. it is possible to get justice with or without violence. the black panthers
versus the ku klux klan was only temporary solution, anc of south africa versus aparthied was
temporary, the sultans that harassed jerusalem temporary,today the city has the arabs and jews there,
the view shows that this misunderstanding that viollence is of great permanent result is sorely a
mistaken view.

How do they incite violence by word, by actions and by memory, now most people would easily
understand how to incite through word or action infact it is very easy

But the incitement by memory is most complex and in fact the most insidious and lasting ,shall explain
this, the second world war is a result of the memory of the first world war at least from the german side,
the wars between communist expansion and capitalist west and vice versa are wars of memory they are
yet unresolved, showing how insidious it is, I shall detail how this is very important aspect that you
would never get from any where , it is a notion that is both compelling and alluring but quite accurate.

Socioeconomic

Socioeconomic factors including religion have been responsible for many violent upheavals, rebellion
against hardship and austerity, injustice, religious manipulation , widespread drugs usage, race and tribe,
all have a rolein this aspect of violence.
Generally hummans seek what is good for themselves first,then family, then group, then soceity,then
nation. this is a way of selfpreservation but it almost always leads to violence , it is possible to make a
people that have in mind all the above simultaneously.

People like to think of religious terrorism as something separate, but this is hardly true religious
terrorism existed in protestant versus catholic quarrels, as it exist today between islamic extremism and
western countries,or islamic sunni versus islamic shia, it is related to socioeconomic factors and
power,islamic countries with good leaders and above average socioeconomic situationdo not seem to
have religious extemist violence.

Studies inviolence have shown that almost anybody can be induced to violent action in the correct
circumstances, even the most peacefull person if stimulated properly can do acts that are horribly
violent, the issue is that this stimulation is a concious matter.

The studies in prison guard showed how normal people became comfortable using violent action
because an authority person asked them to, this combined with some innate aggressiveness in some
other people including hate results in situation of terror, war or genocide.

Humans are preoocupied on how to discover even more efficient ways of violence, starting from clubs
and stone progressing to nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, the underlying idea is that some day it
would be used to defeat a so called enemy other humans, this stems from innate aggressiveness once
combined with stimulus then the violence thrives.

It is common that people see a form of violence as good and another as bad, eg terror is viewed as bad,
but some wars are called good wars, this is mostly socioeconomic, since people have different beliefs
and cultures even the terrorist would feel that their is a good violence whilst others think it is bad, and
vice versa. the critical matter is that for civilisation it is an abnormal way of resolving issues, yes it is a
way but certainly an abnormal way,

The violent wars that is a result of selfdefence is sometimes justified in civilisations, however other
means are also available, eg cutting of of the leaders without a wholescale war has worked many times,
altering the socioeconomic factor that lead to support of violence also works , recaliberating the nature
of situation has resolved many violent situations, eg assa going to exile would work, when violence stops
due to victory, this is what happens most period.

As terror is a specific part of violence it must be viewed specifically, political terror eg northern ireland,
bosnia or religious terror eg islamic have been difficult to curtail and in the case of various islamic terror
has got bigger, this is glossed over and said tobe merely jihadism but the causes are not only merely
jihadism, if it was only jihadism muslims would not be fighting muslims, if it was merely jihadism saudi
arabia would not invade yemen a mostly peaceful muslim country because they want to put there proxy
in power against international rule of respecting other country self determination. lust for power,
politics, socioeconomy and competition are the mask they use to cause these acts of terrorism, in fact
the data shows thatsaudi arabia comes before iran in terrorism. other terror groups are seeking a certain
way of life interpreting the religion as they wish.

Once the violence starts those that incited perpetuate it, they use many ways and some ways are forced
on them eg rapidly alternating actions that are opposite of each other shall detail these under
psychological factors.

A serious example of unscrupulous attempt to tackle terror is found in libya, the western powerswent
there with bombing to remove there leader, this happened but then instead of staying there to ensure
peace and stable country they disappeared , congratulating themselves, of course libya descended into
violence, since then attacks on the uk and eu have several period been planned from there. it shows
these important findings that if the west decide to intervene they must stay there till peace and good
government ensues and also it is needed to tackle the socieconomic factors and developmental factors,
bombing alone never works.

libya is another example of half implementation of plans, as i am one of the authors of the procedure
used there from 2012, i say that what happened after 2012 could have been better done, the current
situation might not have been so violent if the post surge aspects of reducing terror had been done. this
theydid with knowledge of another way to obtain success, they still owe me money for that work upto
now , I wonder sometimes if they like the war .

It is known that studies that checked human relation found that religious terror when it happened was
either overtly or covertly supported by the most high ranking officials of such religions even whilst
preaching otherwise.

Money and resources come within socioeconomic factor, they need to use violenc to obtain resource
from another instead of purchase is a cause of violence

Influence

How does influence result in violence, influence can be by person or group/country or by environment.
influence can be direct or indirect, it is used by both educated and uneducated and it can be used with
such skill that those affected do not realise its perversity, lenin during the revolution was skilled at
making his people carry out acts against there former rulers that was beyound belief , the tsars were
murdered,any person showing dissent was gaoled or killed even whenthe dissent wasnot
disadvantageous.This level of skilled influence is still alife today by speeches, by actions, by draconian
rules and by indoctrination the influence habituates the people to violence,
The numerous violence between enlightened civilisation and totalitarian regimes eg hitler , fascist are
known to come about by influence

Influence by money, influence by goods, influence by protection , influence by threat,can get others to
carry out violence or refrain from violence,

tutsi hutu genocide is a good example of how influence results in violence, and how it can happen in
almost any place, the killings in the balkans another example, the recurring theme is that they were not
necessary.

Studies have shown that humans during war lose their morality. killings, rape,robbery, deceit, abound.
are the perpetrators all evil, of course not many where normalbefore the influence came about.

The human universal mind has an inbuilt sadistic tendency which is usually dormant, when the skilled
influencer brings this to surface these acts of violence happen

The human universal mind also has great capacity for good,tilting the balance towards the sadistic
element is what the influencer seeking violence does.

Pschological factors and solutions to be detailed in chapter 18

harry Nduka