An innocent dad whose daughter was killed by a speeding boat on the lagoon tried his best to bring the sailor to justice and closed the issue. But the rich boat owner had his every liability covered in his defence.
If you had a daughter and loved one, you'd probably blame yourself for taking her to the sea. And all the escalating helpless emotions follow but no one seems to understand. Not only could the bureaucrats realise the speeding boat was in the public swimming area where everyone could see but also after exhaustive documentation.
The love of the father for is daughter drove him on and had him believed that the system favours the rich. He had nothing left except antagonism against the state. He joins a group of radicals who share the same experience. It is the hard done experience of love for a daughter and hope for justice that is binding this radical group.
In the state of Nothingness or when there is nothing left, the traveller arrives at a fork on the road. The destination is weighed by conscience development.
While this group have a score to settle, nothing left or helplessness associates with ideas of retaliation. And depending on the conscience development, the scale could be tipped over by a straw. This is where social media could play a defining role in the propaganda of hate speech and violence.
The propaganda of extreme violence is using hate speech whether to make up for lack of intelligence or to cover up some public embarrassing moments by redirecting attention to someone else, it's all highlighted in public viewing.
The upper echelons certainly seemed to have the gift of the gap when condemning this poor radical position with filth and crime.
However, while most reasonable dads would not resort to extreme violence to settle the score, how many disgruntled individuals have come back with weapons to confront their employers, their teachers, and their lovers on a spur of the moment.
The media seems to accept and proliferate hate speech by the rich when boasting about their speed boats, but condemned the same language when used by innocent fathers among You-tubers.
There is a fine line between Radicalisation and extreme violence. Radicalisation refers to political belief or ideology. Social issues, legal and human rights are not ideologies.
Unlike the rich, when folks in the radical position of hope and justice react whether its hate speech or violence, they are associated by the media with Terrorism. And Terrorism begins with the mind, it is verbal and emotional.
But in here, it is the act that accounts for Terrorism not Radicalisation. Terrorism therefore seems to be defined after the fact. And accordingly, all acts of violence are acts of Terrorism.
Let me put this straight. Radicalism is the experience of hard-done by ideologies. The hard done experience and hope for justice.
Ideological radicalisation is a psyche motivated by ideology. It is not a social issue or real experience of injustice. Radicalism is the position where usually innocent folks have lost their jobs, families and culture to the rich or to an autocratic state.
Radicals is represented by the left of the political spectrum to voice the issues of their struggle such as social issues of injustice. Homelessness is a social issue of human rights, but homeless folks are helpless under the lack of state intervention against the rich. Radicalism is the position where homeless folks come to whaikorero and talanoa their common struggle. They come together because the state is not representing their issues.
Radicalisation in the most modern form is driven by the ideology of white supremacy, promoted by the demonization of non-white people. I have pointed out that this ideology is favoured by the state and promoted by the media by allowing the rich white population to publicise their hate speech while the poor expression of injustice is censored.
So, deciding which direction upon the fork on the road depends upon the stronger mode of thinking. On one direction is the way of instincts where the scale could be tipped by hate speech to heightened instincts offsetting the rule of the beast; on the other direction is intuition, where objective thinking stabilises the individual on reasonable action.
The former direction is where an ideological fanatic is ruled by emotions and heightened instincts is susceptible to acts of terror; the latter direction is where in the case of innocent fathers would not resort to acts of terror for love of their daughters. Homeless people may engage in acts of disobedience to draw the attention to the issue, and not extreme violence as noted at the far right political radicalisation.
It must be said therefore that love is not sanctioned by acts of violence and I'm sure fathers would not resort to violence for love of their daughters.