Enemy 2.0
First Enemy 1.0
Enemy 1.0 was simply defined. It had a leadership, an army and territory. Countless real time strategy games and old fashioned games like Risk are based on this concept. The enemy was defeated when you overthrew the leadership and this meant or bigger armies or better technology. Who sat in the palace was king of all people around it. These were the wars until the end of the 20th century.
Enemy 2.0
At the beginning of the 21st century everything changed. A suppressed people came to revolt. People that were taken advantage of by setting puppet dictators and stolen of their resources or thrown out of their country where they lived for centuries. They never had a real government they believed in. They had only one belief to set there hopes on and set them apart from their enemies: their own Religion. To come out of their dire situation they created small factions that had a higher ideal: destroy the people that destroyed their lands, resources and believes. They had some figureheads but those were more inspirators than leaders. The people organized themselves helped by modern technologies like mobile/satellite phones and internet to spread their believes and motives.
Groups like Al Qaeda were the ultimate society 2.0 community. It is spread by passion, by a common interest. It proved to be the ultimate answer as enemy of society 1.0. Politics 1.0 and army 1.0 tried to attack it, but how do you attack something without central government and territory? They are still left clueless. Enemy 2.0 attacked were society 1.0 was the most vulnerable: it’s freedom. They terrorized and spread fear among the people. Politics 1.0 attacked the territories they believed enemy 2.0 resided but only created more passionate enemies full with hate and rage…
An answer against enemy 1.0 is not found in a 1.0 society. We need to change… We need to look at a different perspective at all this.
Related:
CK Said,
February 22, 2007 @ 11:35
Don’t mean to be a pedant in the slightest as I too am subject to similar mistakes, but:
“They had only one BELIEF to set there hopes on and set them apart from their enemies: their own Religion.”
“To come out of their dire situation they created small FACTIONS that had a higher ideal” (Faction groups would also be incorrect given that a faction is a group itself).
On the whole it’s a very interesting piece. It could be taken further with the Web 2.0 reference in observing increasing trends in the use of modern communication technologies by terrorist groups and networks as a means of proliferating their message(s).
Jurriaan Mous Said,
February 22, 2007 @ 18:40
Thanks for the corrections
English is still my second language which I am still learning to write flawlessly. Well it is learning by doing. (At least the spellchecker gets most of the errors 
)
Indeed, well their uses could be interesting in normal community, fluidic organization building. Their disruptive workings on the current society says something about us and how we can be influenced on a large scale by modern tech.
Martin Said,
February 22, 2007 @ 22:11
Interesting thougts. I think you could make up an Everything 2.0 these days
Even though I hate buzzwords like 2.0, it communicates a new concept in a efficient way. And it allows you to quickly make and communicate new concepts, by just combining anything with 2.0
Jurriaan Mous Said,
February 23, 2007 @ 0:37
Well you just predicted my next few posts Martin
JurMo.us » Politics 2.0 Said,
February 26, 2007 @ 15:47
[...] we move to a more social society the old politics will not work anymore. There is a new enemy 2.0 and the people 2.0 will choose differently. Hierarchies will be a thing of the past. But leadership [...]
Harry Said,
February 26, 2007 @ 23:47
interesting perspective
JurMo.us » Work 2.0 - The empty cubicle Said,
March 4, 2007 @ 16:04
[...] Enemy 2.0 [...]
Rachel Said,
January 4, 2008 @ 22:09
This makes much more sense than any other explanation of why war doesn’t work.
JurMo.us » Leadership 2.0 Said,
September 16, 2008 @ 10:06
[...] Enemy 2.0 [...]