Terrorists are media sponsored criminals. There's no greater endorsement for an ideology than its accompanied violence and to what degree its violence can be exploited. Ideological war sells far better than a war of states or polities. There's nothing better than an ideological war to intice people to elimenate that perennial turmoil: the common enemy. War on an emotion can only be waged as far as the self-determination of a people can be chased to the furthest horizon. Banish the militias, the weapons and people will soon become addicted to the narcotic which replaced their loss of power: their protection from the outside. And what doesn't this outside claim with its reach? They let demons into the holy house for a brief enough Dionysian dance to scare the delicate little nymphs and wood sprites, hiding behind rocks. If these great feasts of violence are at all isolated, they are as isolated as the holy sites of great sacrifices and sacrificial blunders. Think not of Cains and Abels, but rather, unhesitant Arahams and Gods not quick enough to cancel their called bluffs. The first act which belongs exclusively to the category 'terrorist,' but which cannot be committed by the type 'criminal' is the act committed by the type 'statesman.' The act which would cancel the crimes of the statesman and the terrorist alike is called criminal. Here we have the three locked together in an interdependent relationship which it would not behoove the media to expose. The terrorist cannot be made a mere criminal for the sake of the statesman's power and the statesman cannot be made a mere terrorist if the type is to be a sustained designation at all. Does it harm the statesman more to minimize the type 'terrorist' or to exalt it for the sake of the statesman's approximation to what the act of terror is perceived to be? It would perhaps be an unfair, or at least, histrionic blow to level the charge that our statesman are the real terrorists (though do we not find histrionics vulgar for their theatricality of truth?). Nevertheless, we are not dealing with degrees but shades, and shades are darkest, not in a particular valley beyond the horizon, but in those vacancies closest to the deepest parts of the earth. Where they are not lit, we fall into them.
I'm tickled less today by the perfect hypocrisy of our major news sources and their designations of 'fake news,' and more by their pretensions to be designators of feeling. Every time something may be 'terror related,' we can rest easy that soon we will know whether or not we might be afraid. If it wasn't for war on terror, no one would, perhaps, be able to distinguish between terror and crime. We can sleep at night knowing that soon, these feelings will be given proper contour and definition, that they will trace for us the perimeters of ideology and the symbiotic relationship with its hosts. Like the spirit banished from the body, seeking a dry place, so ideology goes in search of a new host and, with the help of lawful designation, ever finds them anew. To name specific groups, their links to U.S. foreign policy and their affiliation with one another are all a far too cumbersome business for the minds of the American conglomerate. It is well that we designate them by that very feeling they take such pains to invoke. Why not call them 'fearists' or 'fear of godists?' Allow us to shift our set of requirements and refer to them, rather, as something which speaks more to the epistemology of their designation and its final conclusions. Why not call them the 'forever enemy?'
Perhaps it is hard for the state to find its proper support when it simply eliminates individuals. The state must wage war with rival gods, as these are better avatars for the ideologies which most threaten, not the state itself, but the values behind which it hides. And why does it hide behind them? Because it is not locked into a symbiotic relationship with its own values as the terrorist is with the media.
If a man in Florida commits a crime which, stylistically, calls to mind what would cause us the 'terror' we associate with 'terrorism,' and if it is probable that he has acted alone, the media doesn't much know what to do with him. As far as they're concerned, he has discarded himself, if not immediately from the public eye, then certainly from the realm of consideration. He misses out on a chance to terrorize to such a degree that his act might become a monument, as is the case now for the truck used in the Berlin attack.
What does one need to qualify for this kind of spectacle, which in more humble times might have been granted, at the very best, to a Van Gogh or a Rodin? Loyalty to a radical, Islamic organization is one feature though historically it has hardly been the only one. Loyalty to a vision of Irish unity has been another. All manners of emancipation are deemed false gods, and perhaps, rightly so. In the great mythological scheme of history, that god with a lust for blood first kills the one which most resembles itself. Tell the people what to fear and who has the best weapons and they will be forever indebted to you with their lives. How long will we continue to ask if the state is the best remedy for terrorism? Did Christ not ask already if Satan is capable of casting out Satan?