US policy attains its end by the following means: a) violence in the form of the use of armed force, and b) monetary assistance in the form of mass bribery or large-scale subsidies, as in the form of Trump’s subsidies to Argentina prior to the general election. One can see these policies as adjunct to neo-conservativism, which interprets social and human motivation as basically carrot and stick. In their view, the primary carrot is financial rewards or incentives, and the primary stick is violence.
If, however, this is looked at from the local political activist position, there is a different effect. There is a fundamental requirement for security in any political movement. Members who are Western-influenced will believe that money is a central value. This makes them susceptible to bribery. In such political movements, one traitor can create great devastation to the organisation. In any case, when it comes to money, none of these organisations could compete with Western organisations. What these organisations discover is that religious zeal is one of the few motivations that can survive a neo-con assault. For example, a devout religious leader resisted extensive waterboarding by the US. What we have is an evolutionary dynamic: those organisations that are primarily secular are easily destroyed by a neo-conservative intelligence organisation. Those organisations whose members are motivated by religious belief and zeal are more likely to survive a neo-con assault by Western intelligence organisations. In this way, one can identify how Western intelligence organisations create the environment that promotes the success of religious fundamentalist organisations
US policy makers seek to present the US as a ‘democratic’ bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism and extremism. But let me show how it is that US policy creates Islamic fundamentalism as a necessary response.
US policy attains its end by the following means: a) violence in the form of the use of armed force, and b) monetary assistance in the form of mass bribery or large-scale subsidies, as in the form of Trump’s subsidies to Argentina prior to the general election. One can see these policies as adjunct to neo-conservativism, which interprets social and human motivation as basically carrot and stick. In their view, the primary carrot is financial rewards or incentives, and the primary stick is violence.
If, however, this is looked at from the local political activist position, there is a different effect. There is a fundamental requirement for security in any political movement. Members who are Western-influenced will believe that money is a central value. This makes them susceptible to bribery. In such political movements, one traitor can create great devastation to the organisation. In any case, when it comes to money, none of these organisations could compete with Western organisations. What these organisations discover is that religious zeal is one of the few motivations that can survive a neo-con assault. For example, a devout religious leader resisted extensive waterboarding by the US. What we have is an evolutionary dynamic: those organisations that are primarily secular are easily destroyed by a neo-conservative intelligence organisation. Those organisations whose members are motivated by religious belief and zeal are more likely to survive a neo-con assault by Western intelligence organisations. In this way, one can identify how Western intelligence organisations create the environment that promotes the success of religious fundamentalist organisations