https://www.quilliaminternational.com/about/staff/julia-ebner/
https://archive.is/g6EZz
Quilliam Global is supposedly "the world’s first counter-extremism organisation" (emphasis added) —
https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Quilliam_(think_tank)
https://www.quilliaminternational.com/about/
https://archive.is/08fhI
Notice that the name 'Quilliam' comes from Abdullah Quilliam, a British convert to Islam, who argued for a global 'Caliphate' —
https://www.google.com/search?q=Abdullah+Quilliam
But notice that a 'Caliphate' is an Islamic theocracy, and is therefore a form of religious extremism, since it requires religious oppression —
https://www.britannica.com/place/Caliphate
https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/caliphate
https://www.google.com/search?q=caliphate
So it is no surprise that a 'Senior Researcher' at an organization named for a follower of Islam, would make no attempt to criticize Islam. For example, notice the absurd moral confusion from Julia Ebner in the quote below, and apply her thinking to WW II, as just one other example of extremist world views (the quote begins at about 5:20 in the video) —
"... they are also consistent with the other extreme's world view. Islamist extremists tell us the West is at war with Islam. While the far-right tells us that Islam is at war with the West. Well, they're perfectly complementary. If we go back to our 'Star Wars' example, whether you are on the 'light' or on the 'dark' side of 'the force' doesn't really change the story. The only thing that does is the perspective. The same is true for far-right and Islamist extremists — they are in the same movie, reinforcing the same story. And thus helping each other as story tellers. ..."
Notice that "the dark side", using Ebner's reference to the 'Star Wars' movies, was synonymous with "the empire" and evil — that is, "the dark side" in Ebner's reference, is completely consistent with statism and tyranny, where an evil regime thought nothing of destroying entire planets as an exercise in coercing rebel leaders (like Princess Leia) —
But that one side was fighting to enforce tyranny and create destruction, while the other was fighting for freedom, did not "really change the story" for Julia Ebner — it is just a story about a fight between two groups of extremists.
And notice that Julia Ebner was using her 'Star Wars' reference as a denigrating example of a cultural phenomena — that is, that people too readily respond to oversimplified world views, that eliminate confusing details, to create simple black and white assessments of world events (the image below appears at 3:30 in Ebner's TEDx video) —
"... In an increasingly complex world, black and white narratives, that eliminate all confusing gray zones can be comforting. We all love binary world views. Just think about the most successful movies in history. 'Star Wars', you have the light and the dark side of the force. It's simple. I even understood the narrative at the age of 6 and thought it was great. ..."
Julia Ebner claims to have understood the "simple" 'Star Wars' narrative at the age of 6, yet she still is not able to keep the dramatic differences between the two sides straight, and that their goals, methods, and practices, completely contradict one another — as opposed to being "complementary". That is the whole point. That is, self-defense is not complementary with aggression — self-defense is a response to aggression to restore freedom, whereas aggression is the initiation of force to end freedom (whether from a petty criminal or a state). The conflict in movies like 'Star Wars' is extreme to make it simple for the audience to take sides. This does not mean the conflict is simple, or that people have a "binary world view" — it means that any sane person can easily tell who the bad guys are — despite that Julia Ebner still seems to be having trouble with this.
Now apply Julia Ebner's thinking to WW II — since the Allies would have told us that they were at war with the Axis powers, while the Axis powers would have told us that they were at war with the Allies, they represent two extremist groups "in the same movie". So according to Julia Ebner's perverse logic regarding "storytelling", the Allied and Axis powers (most especially Nazism under Hitler's Germany), would be "complementary", "reinforcing the same story, and thus helping each other as story tellers." Should this make sense to any sane person?
And Notice that the definition of 'complementary' is:
"combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another."So can any sane person explain how Islamist "extremists" (with their support for religious theocracy under Sharia Law), and Western "extremists" (with their support for secularism, free speech, and free elections), enhance the qualities of one another?
Obviously, this is completely absurd — any religious theocracy (never mind Islam and its violent Sharia Law (e.g. death to apostates)) is completely antithetical to the Western value of freedom (especially religious freedom). There is no reasonable way anyone could argue that the conflicts over such contradictory world views are somehow "complementary", as Julia Ebner has attempted to do. But following Ebner, anyone who points out these obvious conflicts and contradictions, between the West and Islam, or the Allied and Axis powers, or the "light" and "dark" sides of "the force" in 'Star Wars', and takes sides against aggression, is a "far-right extremist". And per Ebner, these "extremists" are all "... reinforcing the same story ... they're perfectly complementary" — the stories do not conflict.
As if all this were not enough, notice that Julia Ebner suggests a moral equivalence between Donald Trump and the militant Sunni terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi —
"... So yes, maybe after all it wouldn't be so absurd to see Trump and al-Baghdadi celebrate their triumphs together. ..."
Does Julia Ebner honestly believe that Donald Trump would like to establish some kind of Christian dictatorship, that is somehow equivalent with the Islamic theocracy that Al-Baghdadi would like to establish? Or is Julia Ebner simply lying?
And does Julia Ebner think that such asinine hyperbole would embolden those like Trump and his supporters, or somehow make them go away? Such irony — in a talk that is supposedly about "extremist" groups feeding off one another, the speaker casually drops extreme statements comparing the head of state of a free country, to a militant terrorist who wishes to establish a religious theocracy. It is no surprise that someone like Julia Ebner would be too blind to see her own role in what she calls "extremism".
So much for being a "Senior Researcher" at an organization which is supposedly aimed at "counter-extremism". Julia Ebner's work is best described by the phrase 'advocacy research' — research attempting to promote a political agenda, rather than the truth —
https://www.google.com/search?q=advocacy+research
