BS: The radical loser

Subject: BS: The radical loser
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 May 06 - 03:52 PM

The radical loser

This is a translation of an essay by German writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger. I found it interesting reading though I do not agree with several bits: It is too psychoanalytic for my taste, it generalises too much and (in its last part) it gives no real insight into the roots of Islamism.

Hans Magnus Enzensberger looks at the kind of ideological trigger required to ignite the radical loser - whether amok killer, murderer or terrorist - and make him explode...

...at the moment of his explosion, the loser for once experiences a feeling of true power. His act allows him to triumph over others by annihilating them. ...

As an additional bonus, from the moment he resorts to armed force, the outside world, which has never wanted to know anything about him, takes notice of him. The media make sure he is granted an enormous degree of publicity – even if it is for just 24 hours.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The radical loser
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 06 - 07:40 PM

As you say, Wolfgang, "I do not agree with several bits." Nevertheless, I found it a very thought-provoking essay.

Parts of it reminded me of a book I read many years ago, entitled The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer. Hoffer's thesis was that the "true believer," avid at the very least, and often reaching the point of extreme fanaticism, initially suffers from a very low sense of self-esteem and a feeling of impotence. Their way of alleviating this feeling of worthlessness is to ally themselves with some (in their minds) Great Cause. Allying themselves to something that they consider greater than themselves gives meaning to their lives.

Hoffer goes on to say that, interestingly enough, one can sometimes convert the "true believer" from one Cause to another, for example, turn a fanatical communist into a fanatical Christian, or vice versa. But no matter what the Cause, the person will remain a fanatic. It would appear that Hoffer's "true believer" and Enzensberger's "radial loser" are at least twins, more probably, the same person.

It occurred to me that perhaps some parallels exist. During the Dark Ages, the period in which Europe was dominated by the Church and much creative thought was repressed (hence "the Dark Ages"), that in the Arab world, creative thought was thriving. It was the Middle Eastern civilizations that preserved much of the philosophical and scientific thought of the ancient Greeks and indeed added a great deal to them. Mathematics, astronomy, and other sciences move on apace while much of Europe, under the religious oppression of an all-powerful Church, stagnated in fear and ignorance. Then came the Renaissance, quite probably ignited by the rediscovery of Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and scientific knowledge brought back from the Middle East by returning crusaders and pilgrims. During the Renaissance, the Church lost much of its grip and, once again, freedom of thought was allowed to proceed.

Perhaps the current state of the Middle East and it's dependence on the West for things creative, scientific, and industrial (even for the weapons terrorists use) comes as a result of the domination of their society by powerful and oppressive religious regimes such as the Taliban. Could it be that the Muslim world is currently suffering from its own Dark Ages brought on by the same general cause: the stifling of creative thought by religious fundamentalism?

On another, but related, subject, Enzensberger says, "No conspiracy theories are required to understand that there are people who welcome these consequences of terror. There is nothing better than an external enemy with which to justify surveillance and repression. Where this leads is shown by the example of Russian domestic policy." Not just the Russian domestic policy. I believe the Bush administration is trying to take fullest advantage of the current situation to consolidate its own power, and I find this disquieting.

There is a warning here also for those who see no danger in the attempt of American religious fundamentalism to sieze secular power. Eras such as the Dark Ages can recur, given the same circumstances.
Again from Enzensberger:   "History offers no example of a regressive society that stifled its own productive potential being capable of survival in the long term."

As I said, a thought provoking article. Thanks, Wolfgang, for posting that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The radical loser
From: CarolC
Date: 17 May 06 - 08:16 PM

I would shift your parallel a bit, Don. I think that increasing religious fundamentalism in the Islamic parts of the world is the product of the chaos and the total lack of stability in many of those countries that has resulted from Cold War era proxy wars (instigated by the US and the USSR while jockying for supremacy), and other meddling by Western governments in those countries related to oil resources. Although no doubt the religious fundamentalism, where it exists, tends to produce a "Dark Ages" type of intellectual and creative repression.

Subject: RE: BS: The radical loser
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:14 PM

Definitely a major factor. But proceeded by constant interference of Europeans in the affairs of the Middle East. After World War I, the British and the French carved up the Middle East to suit themselves, arbitrarily creating "countries" such as Iraq and forcing separate and sometimes hostile groups to live under one government. Pretty hard to make it work unless the government is very strong, i.e., at least verging on tyrannical. I think T. E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") tried to warn the British that they were messing with something they didn't understand, but they just blew him off.

Our leaders still don't seem to understand the dynamics at work in the Middle East—or don't really care. All too often, those who actually live there have little or no say in the governing of their own political entities. Added to that, the profits from their oil resources go, for the most part, to Western oil companies and a few selected (cooperative) Middle Eastern fat cats. That sort of thing tends, quite understandably, to breed fanatics—and terrorists.

There's the old adage about reaping what one sows.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The radical loser
From: CarolC
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:51 PM

Good points, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: The radical loser
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 May 06 - 01:37 PM

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

The stifling of creative thought by religious fundamentalism (of whichever kind) is a very big factor. To allow and even encourage dissent (in science, religion, philosophy,...) is what makes a society stronger. A totalitarian world view cannot live with dissent. In Hitler's Germany even telling a joke was a potentially deadly deed.

I often wonder what happened in the 15th century. Two old cultures (Europe, Near East; or if you want: Christian, Muslim) which both had the benefit of a good and healthy environment (other than for instance Africa) changed places in that century. At the beginning of the century the Turks nearly conquered Vienna, in the middle Muslims conquered Constantinople, and in the end Europe discovered (conquered) America.

The Islam as the younger religion was for a couple of centuries the spearhead of development. It was them who held up the hellenic (conveniently located at the border of the two cultures) legacy and for about 4 centuries most scientific (exception, but not well known: China) new ideas came from the Muslim world.

It all changed in the 15th century (plus minus one century), much earlier than oil etc. I'd like to know why. Why did "the West" then rediscover the hellenic legacy and did then (300 years after the first editions in Arabic) translate (for instance) Ibn Al Haitham's Opticae thesaurus into Latin, the leading work on optics since about 1200.

One answer to my question: A German Islam scientist, Raddatz, sees the reason for that in religious developments: (1) Since about 1200, the canon of Muslim writings (and traditions, hadith) had been finished and alternative ideas have once and for all been forbidden, the 'wrong' books have been burnt and the clerics have decided that everything that was to know has been known to Mohammed. Since then, for all new problems, the old collection of hadith and the Koran were reread, and everything new was oppressed. (2) Since about 1400, in Christianity, new thought and ideas came up with new interpretations (which of course the one dominant church had suppressed as good as it could) and with the reformation (which showed the believers that there were more than one road to truth) the new thinking won, science as a new way to knowledge was accepted (with a lot of clerical hesitation) and the two cultures about one century later changed places. That are his ideas in a nutshell, but I cannot repeat how he argues for these ideas, for that is so far outside of my area of knowledge that I don't recollect the details.

As I said that's just one answer and there is no way for me to evaluate how good it is.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The radical loser
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 May 06 - 01:54 PM

very interesting discussion..

Another way of seeing is that the person who sees themselves as a victim gives themselves a sense of power through at first becoming a 'Rescuer' (by taking on a cause which purports to assist the downtrodden) and then, when faced with their own ineffectiveness to bring about change, moves into the more radical role of persecutor.

Just as governments once supported and practised the theory of deprogramming, now they are studying the radicalisation process - to understand and recognise the steps that takes a person from a stable background into radicalism.


freda

Subject: RE: BS: The radical loser
From: Bobert
Date: 21 May 06 - 05:33 PM

Well, the entire concept of "radical losers" is a byproduct of broken cultural systems... I mean, even the idea of "loser" at all is completely dependent on "winners"...

And the point the author makes about with the push for human rights we see more episodes of "radical losers"... Well, sure we do... In makin' human rights a value by identifying them then those who are on the wrong end of the human rights, i.e. the victims of ***human wrongs***, so to speak, now see themselves as "losers"...

Might of fact, the entire legal system is created to make "losers" out of folks... "Sign, sign, everywhere a sign..."...

Is there a way out of this labryinth? Well, sure but we're, as fellow Eartlings, are going to have to get past massive tribal violence first and assert that life had value... We don't seem ready yet to really make that step... I'm not speaking stricly of the US and the UK, though in MO, they are the two who have been responsible for the most violence since the Hirosama but if they would act more civilly the tribal culture would certainly be less bent on using violence to try to solve problems...

But there will come a time, I hope, when mankind figures out that massive vilence isn't going to end "radical losers"...

Just one other think about the subject, alot of what goes on in "radical losers" minds involves the ***black and white" mindsets that involve winners and losers in the first place... We will need to go back to renaissance thinking that man himself is valuable... This is done best thru the arts where there isn't a right or wrong... Oh sure, one might argue that if yer in a band and not in tune then you are doing it wrong... No, no, no... You just might be in the wrong band for you... That's the flaxibility that the arts offer mankind as a vehilcle to tune around a poisoned anti-human culture that created winners as well as losers...

And lastly, if indeed we are bogged down in a tribal culture that promotes radical losing, it also creates radical winners who can, though more predictable, be collectively more dangerous...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The radical loser
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 21 May 06 - 07:02 PM

Winston Churchill, "the greatest man of the 19th century and the greatest Englishman of all time," put it thus: "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50, London: Longmans, Green Co., 1899).

Subject: RE: BS: The radical loser
From: GUEST,mack/misophist
Date: 22 May 06 - 10:53 AM

One small cavil re the Renaissance. In history class, the onset of the Renaissance was always reckoned as 1399 CE. The official spark was said to be the printing press of Aldo Manutius, the first man to release those 'lost' Greek and Roman classics in a European language, mostly Latin IIRC.

One might also note that, once Wahhabism came into power, they not only outlawed original new thought, they tended to kill the thinkers. Very discouraging, that.

Subject: RE: BS: The radical loser
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 06 - 02:54 PM

Churchill may have been a great man in some respects, but he certainly wasn't a very careful thinker about some subjects, and his perspective on this subject comes across as extremely ethno-centric (and possibly jingoistic)

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

In the US, the reality has been quite the opposite. Muhammed Ali is a very good case in point. He embraced Islam as an adult and he credits it with making profoundly positive changes in his life. One can't dispute the man's success, and his personal life is a fine example of conscientious living.

and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome

In the US, those Christians who hold the most power are taking this country and the practice of science in precisely the opposite direction from the one Churchill attributes to Christianity. The issue is fundamentalism, not Christianity vs. Islam. When fundamentalists of any religion are the ones who hold the reins of power, we see a diminishment in the value placed on science by the society in question.