Posts
"Radical Chic is only radical in style; in its heart it is part of Society and its traditions."
Tom Wolfe, Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers.
"Pin the convert's badge on them first and sort them out later."
V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution.
****
What are we about? Are we involved at the front of a war against primitivism and reaction, against a neo-feudalist wave of philobarbarist collectivists determined to destroy our Modernity? Our governments seem not to understand what to us is the obvious, and we stand outside the corridors of power, frustrated and demanding and angry. Are we smarter than those elected to represent us as our governors? Are we better informed and more concerned that the average person with whom we share our right to vote? Where is the line between activism and fanatical presumption? Lee Harris picks up part of our concern. There is a great deal more to look at and think about.
****
This is the thing we must remember about fanaticism. If you are living under an orderly government, like the United States, there is a single man in charge, and he is the causal force that sets everything else in motion. The President gives an order, and everyone down the hierarchy of command obeys it without thinking whether he should obey it. It's his job to obey. Furthermore, no one at the lower levels feels at liberty to act on his own initiative -- that is not his job.
Fanatics, on the other hand, do not have jobs; they have missions. Fanatics do not sit and quietly wait for orders to come down to them from on high -- being fanatics, they take matters into their own hands, and carry out their own missions, with or without the stamp of approval of higher ups in the bureaucracy, because, among fanatics, there is no bureaucracy, and there are no higher ups. To have the authority to act, it is enough simply to be a fanatic. What more does a fanatic need to prove himself than to display his willingness to kill and to die for the cause? The fanatic does not need to take standardized tests, or to score high on merit exams. He just needs to be a fanatic.
Finally, because there is nothing more contagious than fanaticism, al-Zarqawi may well feel that he had accomplished his mission already. He did his part to sow the suspicion and distrust among neighbors that is an essential element in the spread of fanaticism. Unless we can come to understand the logic of fanaticism, despite all its alien and repugnant qualities in our eyes, we will continue to see rays of hope in the Middle East where there are none. You can kill the fanatic; but you cannot kill his fanaticism. It has a life of its own, and a will to match. Worse, what is enough to make sober and prudent men change their minds works exactly the opposite on the fanatic -- it gives him renewed conviction.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=060906A
****
When the vanguard of a new understanding comes to the fray and sees the great majority lingering in a fog it is frustrating at least. We see clearly what we know others will see in time, and our impatience makes us more determined than ever to move the mass ahead. Is it fanaticism or a clear assessment of reality? Do we have a right to go beyond shouting "Fire" to the point of shoving people out the door to safety? At what point do our majority of fellows endanger our minoirty lives by posing and posturing? And do we convert those we will and toss off the rest as worthless? How far ahead of our own can we go? At what point do we rightly forego our fellows as ignorant and apathetic while we are in danger? Are we fanatics? Must we go down in defeat due to those of ours who just don't get it? Or are we extremists?
Tom Wolfe, Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers.
"Pin the convert's badge on them first and sort them out later."
V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution.
****
What are we about? Are we involved at the front of a war against primitivism and reaction, against a neo-feudalist wave of philobarbarist collectivists determined to destroy our Modernity? Our governments seem not to understand what to us is the obvious, and we stand outside the corridors of power, frustrated and demanding and angry. Are we smarter than those elected to represent us as our governors? Are we better informed and more concerned that the average person with whom we share our right to vote? Where is the line between activism and fanatical presumption? Lee Harris picks up part of our concern. There is a great deal more to look at and think about.
****
This is the thing we must remember about fanaticism. If you are living under an orderly government, like the United States, there is a single man in charge, and he is the causal force that sets everything else in motion. The President gives an order, and everyone down the hierarchy of command obeys it without thinking whether he should obey it. It's his job to obey. Furthermore, no one at the lower levels feels at liberty to act on his own initiative -- that is not his job.
Fanatics, on the other hand, do not have jobs; they have missions. Fanatics do not sit and quietly wait for orders to come down to them from on high -- being fanatics, they take matters into their own hands, and carry out their own missions, with or without the stamp of approval of higher ups in the bureaucracy, because, among fanatics, there is no bureaucracy, and there are no higher ups. To have the authority to act, it is enough simply to be a fanatic. What more does a fanatic need to prove himself than to display his willingness to kill and to die for the cause? The fanatic does not need to take standardized tests, or to score high on merit exams. He just needs to be a fanatic.
Finally, because there is nothing more contagious than fanaticism, al-Zarqawi may well feel that he had accomplished his mission already. He did his part to sow the suspicion and distrust among neighbors that is an essential element in the spread of fanaticism. Unless we can come to understand the logic of fanaticism, despite all its alien and repugnant qualities in our eyes, we will continue to see rays of hope in the Middle East where there are none. You can kill the fanatic; but you cannot kill his fanaticism. It has a life of its own, and a will to match. Worse, what is enough to make sober and prudent men change their minds works exactly the opposite on the fanatic -- it gives him renewed conviction.
http://www.tcsdaily.com
****
When the vanguard of a new understanding comes to the fray and sees the great majority lingering in a fog it is frustrating at least. We see clearly what we know others will see in time, and our impatience makes us more determined than ever to move the mass ahead. Is it fanaticism or a clear assessment of reality? Do we have a right to go beyond shouting "Fire" to the point of shoving people out the door to safety? At what point do our majority of fellows endanger our minoirty lives by posing and posturing? And do we convert those we will and toss off the rest as worthless? How far ahead of our own can we go? At what point do we rightly forego our fellows as ignorant and apathetic while we are in danger? Are we fanatics? Must we go down in defeat due to those of ours who just don't get it? Or are we extremists?
