Thursday, September 21, 2006

Stand by for radicalization

I’ve got some serious issues with a word that is being bandied around a lot right now. Everyone in the media seems to be using it. Not many people seem to be defining or explaining it…


There’s the obvious issue that using a word like that, in the context it is being used, is the hallmark of an intellectually lazy, dumb fuckhead who finds it easier to recycle trite, meaningless, fantasy-gobshite cliches rather than discuss an issue in the manner of someone who approximates to some form of sentient being.

That sort of behaviour is to be expected.

After all, we have a long and noble tradition of writing-off anyone who is pissed off with the way our leaders behave as being an ideologically fanatical robot. It’s virtually a prerequisite for a successful war.

That kind of thinking makes it much easier to kill people (well, it’s not like they’re normal is it?) and also takes the pressure off having to worry about any minor inconsistencies in your own world view.

Anyway, I’m sure that abuse of the word ‘radicalise’ is being done to death in blogs all over the place.

I would, however, like to know more about the actual mechanics of this radicalisation of British Muslims that’s apparently going on all over the place. For some reason I’ve got this mental image of laser beams shooting out of some bearded cleric’s eyes. Or maybe they have a special headset that does it. The news coverage seems to be hinting at some irresistible, industrial-scale process but, tantalisingly, there’s no detail.

It’s a bit of a tease really.

But my biggest question about the radicalization process is

If so many British Muslims have been radicalized how come it's always the same couple of wallies who appear on tele and the papers every time radical Muslims are mentioned, time and time again?

People like Trevor

and his mate, that other wally

In fact, the British mainstream media, especially the BBC, seem to be suffering from a serious case of Stingray Syndrome.

I mean the 1960’s TV puppet series not the fish

Unlike the fish, the 1960's TV puppet series promised a lot more than it delivered and didn’t pack much of a punch. The opening music was pretty damned exciting, a demented voice would scream out lines like ‘Stand by for Action!!!’ and ‘Anything can happen in the next half hour!!!’ whilst it was playing, and there were lots of short clips of things exploding and then, once the show started properly …

not very much happened at all

Even though I stood by for the specified 30 minutes I was, more often than not, cruelly disappointed.

The problem was that Stingray’s budget could only stretch to half a dozen puppets. So, the total cast for each episode consisted of the four regular characters plus two puppet extras who played the bad guys every week.

Hence lines like ‘We are a scouting party for the mighty Aquaphibian empire. Just behind us there are thousands of Aquaphibians coming to destroy you but right now you have to get by with just the two of us

Sometimes they would wear different helmets

Even as a five year old I soon cottoned onto what was going on, got bored and started watching Star Trek and its vastly superior production values instead.

Whether or not the two bad guy puppets from Stingray, as opposed to Newsnight, were subject to any form of Islamic radicalization before turning up on set was never made clear


The Antagonist said...

The cast of characters is now expanding to include real-life, actual, Asian-looking folk. Enter stage right the Sufi Muslim Council.

In the meantime, here's a bit of background on what Abu Izzadeen might have meant when he caused outrage last year by saying that the London bombings were 'mujahideen activity'.

Even George Galloway is getting in on the act.

For some fly on the wall 'radical' documentary-style footage from Finsbury Park, I heartily recommend the wealth of footage on Socialist Wanker.

Sophia said...

That's a great post, Wolfie mentioned it to me. I laughed all the way. Thanks