More by this Author

Whenever terrorism becomes the chief weapon through which you are committed to achieving your social wishes, you inevitably raise one question: What can society really gain by being continually negatively excited? I ask because what a world-famous revolutionary called “excitative terror” appears to be the chief weapon of modern terrorist groups the whole world over.

For, indeed, one thing appears certain. Negative excitement is the only thing that happens every time anyone unleashes terror upon any unsuspecting society of human beings. For, through terror, your aim is to intimidate the people and their authorities into doing certain things that, you believe, will promote your narrow set against society.

The question, in other words, should be this: How beneficial to society are those ideals of yours? What if, quite objectively, your own social beliefs turn out to be merely negative and potentially ruinous illusions? What if your social theory turns out to be hopelessly subjective and potentially injurious to the real interests of your whole community?

That every social theory is potentially destructive is a logical fact known to every objective student of social history. Every social theorist with whom I am familiar is keenly aware of it. That exactly is why every theory of human history must be subjected to the most careful, most widespread and longest lasting examination before it can be safely and beneficially adopted as the official policy.

The central problem of every terrorist organisation appears to be its tendency to announce a high sounding revolutionary theory but, in implementation, to rush it such that the theory soon proves both terribly useless and completely ruinous. Yet the belief is made widespread that terror is what can force the authorities into doing certain subjectively desired things.

Indeed, terrorist groups claiming left-wing orientation have forced certain governments the whole world over into certain policy directions – although usually only with ultimately disastrous consequences to the societies involved. That is why, as members of a movement, you must never allow yourselves to be thoughtlessly impressed whenever the leaders of your movement adopt the adjective “revolutionary” as part of the movement‘s name.


The aim of many an allegedly revolutionary movement is merely to remove by force the governmental system now in power. Indeed the intervening movement will frequently have invoked even the word “socialism”, frequently in an attempt to impress the national youth into rallying behind the movement. In Africa’s Euro-colonially imposed habit of a mere receiver of ideas, the continent has the colonially imposed habit of listening subjectively to social theories invoked by individuals and economically more advanced societies which, however, have nothing but sinister purposes in Africa. That is what has happened to us ever since our “independence” from European colonialists a few decades ago.

The point, then, is that to rush society into implementing a certain high-sounding theoretical ideal is not necessarily to be revolutionary. To be truly revolutionary is to receive with a pinch of salt all offered theories by thoroughly studying them in order to adopt merely one for implementation. To be able to do so is by no means the same thing as seeking to rush your society into an ideology. The government of an independent Third World country must adopt, as its official national instrument, a policy to enable the society to move speedily, but carefully, methodically, in an orderly manner and with fully scientific knowledge from one social stage to a higher and socio-materially more rewarding one.

For the Third World’s societies in general, especially those of Africa and Asia, one problem is that, after leading the fight for national independence, all the intellectual classes have deliberately sought to defame the idea of revolution so as to shield the new economic privileges of the Third World’s ruling classes themselves, especially in the former European colonies.