Radicalization -

Politicians and media's current use of the word radicalization show how out of touch they are with the real world . The audience too are confused. Maybe we all need some help to sort this out
Radicalisation is not the problem .

The ideas you radicalize are the problem  .  ( These maybe examples but its the words in their books that you can criticize - not their radicalism )

 If you have

1. radical peace activists you have nice love ins with no violence expected 
2. radical secularists you have government keeping us in order - someone has to ?. 
3. radical materialists you will have constant reminders that only money matters in life 
4. radical secular materialists think that everyone will be happy if they have enough money and cushions supplied by government . 
5. radical pragmatists think we should not allow any idealism to enter our heads , we should all do what we like 
6. radical progressives trust the future to be better whatever the past .
7. radical anti Christian  says that morality is bunk self justification ; (very closely aligned with reactionary postmodernism which because it reacts to everything that is , doesn't know what is or is not - To be or not to be is not a question - one be's )
    Its says that all this stuff around us is just mind games and therefore we shouldn't think at all - just act on our natural feelings. Its a very quiet life  because as soon as you say something you could be accused , under your own idealism,  of word and value constructing to justify yourself .  
8. radical optimists usually have a good bank balance 
9. radical christians support much more grace ,love forgiveness and freedom  for everyone , 
10. radical greens think nature should rule and we should live in caves and eat berries 
11. radical racists solve all environmental problems by getting rid of the neighbours.
12. radical non idealists fit in wherever they like at the time ( read Susan Neiman) They make the false claim that you can still be human even if you do not have ideals.  Not sure I have met anyone who really lives that way - simple and appealing idea when you don't want to think ? . . 

Maybe you can add your own?
So where does all that leave most of us?. Its well known that many of us start radical and end up less so - is that a good thing ?
Would the world be a better place if we  abandoned idealism - If we saw ourselves as pure pragmatists . Would it say something about intellectual confusion ?  If we we were all just nice people , maudlin soft and pliable , forever elastic, if not resilient from home base.
I don't think so .

Let's be really clear about one thing ( the above list is indicative not complete )  . Its not just young people's problem, Older Australians Europeans  and Americans have a problem too in particular  - they may not be radical enough to resist the ideas they don't like  .
Kids just simply do not respect the wishy washy talk that can summarize those who talk radicalization without talking to the substance in each case .

The great threats to free speech

Victorians are rightly concerned that newspapers entrusted with a independant and reporting profile are under threat. Despite its great history , The Age has been failing to properly represent a number of groups for quite some time . Pressure of space doesn't help but who is prepared to pay for 2 sides esp on environment where progressives think its all on the new age side ?
The Age still comes up with some good reports but not in the area i am interested in and often only tokenistically . The Australian  is less predictable and therefore  worth a listen and  subscription .Where is the "Andrew Bolt "amongst the Age's reporters?
 The real problem then is a growing lack of diversity in newspaper content .
what Internet lacks in quality it makes up in diversity, feedback and undermining the pedantry and predjudice that were always limits in newspaper reporting.