The delicate balance between political, religious and ideological extremes has never been more apparent than now. One group justifies its actions based off another – rebounding and using one another to escalate their ideology, propaganda, general appeal and eventually ideological violence.
Here is an example using violent Islamism:
Islamists: cause terror based on ideology, strict religious interpretation and a detest of Western society and Western influence. Their propaganda seeking to create strife and civil tension between groups of people (i.e. believers vs non-believers, Muslims vs non-Muslims). Sometimes they justify it using religion, other times they justify it due to foreign intervention.
Far-right: see Islamist threat as an existential threat to Western society that must be fought against. Some far-right Christians see this as the ‘new Crusade.’ Some of the far-right see this as an impending ‘civil war.’ They target moderate Muslims or even people who ‘look’ Muslim — Sikhs and Hindus from India. This escalates social tensions.
Far-left: the far-left may feed Islamists, some even go so far as supporting Islamism. Others may support Islamists in a revolutionary way to pave way for their own socialist revolution amongst the confusion and anarchy created. They target anyone leaning right as ‘fascists’ in this debate. They look to defend ‘minorities’ from the ‘racist’ far-right.
How do you stop such extremes from feeding off each other and escalating tensions? How do you balance conflicting visions of the world and society within it?
Here are a few real-life examples: