Who has the same goal, the government or the fictional organization?

I can see a government creating enemies by pushing disparate groups together under the understanding that these groups are already working together. Mutual protection might not be the organizing factor (although it could be, depending), but instead the state could unwittingly be the “market creator,” or cause the general awareness of an insufficiency or help birthe a common motivation or desire for the nascent groups that would lead to their connection and cooperation — perhaps a motivation that did not exist before.

Here is the question I would like to ask. Curtis Weeks postulates a 5GW movement that is broadly dispersed and moving at an almost cultural level (forgive me if I get that wrong) to accomplish its goals. If a government cracks down on a fictional or even imaginary organization with the same goal as a 5GW movement that hasn’t yet organized, does the government then create their own enemy when these nascent groups begin to connect to each other for mutual protection?

See the second article in the latest Jamestown terrorism analysis (http://app.bronto.com/x/preview.php?id=115015_9961a3f3_16856878_e2703348):

“Egypt’s Islamist militant parties are proving troublesome for al-Qaeda. Last July, the Gama’a Islamiyya and al-Jihad group openly accused al-Qaeda in Iraq of having as its aim the destruction of the Shiite and Kurdish communities in Iraq, rather than removing Western forces from the country.”

Not quite war, but some interesting developments in dissension.

I think that subjective emergence is different than objective emergence , and that a harmony between both is the ideal goal.

On the other hand, Bay’at might be simply a creation of the regime to justify crackdowns against dissident groups.

We won’t know for some time (maybe), but this could be an example of “emergence dissonance.”Â?

After reading the entry on Bay’at, I’m not sure I can piece together what you mean by “emergence dissonance,” because, also, I do not see how the supposed terrorist organization has “begun warring on” another terrorist organization — or is the government of Tajik the other disconnected party?

I like the term “emergence dissonance,” however. Generally speaking, if the phenomenon John Robb uses as the basis of his theory is merely the typical emergence of group behaviors around common themes — like global cell phone usage — then we ought to look at every area of human conduct & identity that could lead to emergence, not just the anti-establishmentarian impulse.

I.e., not only would dissonant anti-establishmentarian groups form (possibly warring on each other) as “global guerrillas,” but issues of security could automatically lead to the emergence of greater security measures which naturally oppose the anti-establishmentarian groups who might emerge. (This could include developments in economics, governance, social groups, technologies, etc.)

So, emergence isn’t unilinear, as implied by Robb’s theory. Rather, various dissonances may compete, greatly limiting certain developments. The “global guerrilla” syndrome might not have a chance.