-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
What is the cause of extremism?
- Thread starter Yuelia
- Start date
It's just anger.
I mean, if you feel you are being treated unjustly and you have no recourse. I dont find it hard to imagine at all.
It's like that idea when you are so frustrated you just want to smash stuff, the whole "and then you'll be sorry" thing. And then some dude is there saying "it is the righteous thing to do.. and virgins". So even if you're thinking "hey this is just a shit idea" you also are thinking "wait no it isnt.. ahh fuck it, I'll just do what I feel like".
And the fact is, they have no recourse.
Have a nice day.
I mean, if you feel you are being treated unjustly and you have no recourse. I dont find it hard to imagine at all.
It's like that idea when you are so frustrated you just want to smash stuff, the whole "and then you'll be sorry" thing. And then some dude is there saying "it is the righteous thing to do.. and virgins". So even if you're thinking "hey this is just a shit idea" you also are thinking "wait no it isnt.. ahh fuck it, I'll just do what I feel like".
And the fact is, they have no recourse.
Have a nice day.
Generally it's a combination of the following elements:
1. The Strongman:
Every extremist movement needs a leader, be they a physical leader (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Robert Mugabe, David Duke, Saddam Hussein, Mao Zedong, Osama bin Laden, etc.) or a spiritual/idealistic one (Mohammed) whose teachings are widespread and suitable enough to justify The Strongman's control over an activist constituency. The Strongman need not have any particularly outstanding physical or mental qualities, generally they just need high levels of ambition, a suitable political mechanism, ability to control information nationally, and fervent, inspiring rhetoric.
Women can be "Strongmen," it's just most of the successful extremist movements rely on heavily masculine-associated emphases like a warrior culture, aggression towards the stated enemy, and a constant need for war against an external foe. Needless to say, history is in endless supply of men who fit this model, while women of this sort are confined to less successful cultural/political movements like radical feminism.
2. Utopian Vision:
A vision for the future (generally of a nation, with empire implied as manifest) which requires The Strongman to be in power for an indeterminate amount of time (read: Dictator For Life). This can be anything from race purification to worldwide theocratic control to class-free society to an anti-religious secular state. It doesn't really matter what the vision is, it just has to require The Strongman (or his interpreters/followers) to lead it, his advisers to enforce it, and the media to endorse it. "The Greater Good" spawned from the Utopian Vision almost always serves the purpose of the individual strongman, and such is his ability to exert control he need not abide by the rules he sets for others.
Once you have these two things, you have an extremist movement to latch onto. There are basically two kinds of extremists, the leaders who fit into The Strongman model above and the followers who latch on for either a lack of belonging, susceptibility to propaganda, or physical dependence to the state the strongman has created. The "leaders" will try to jockey for position within the movement, with some trying to unseat The Strongman (usually unsuccessfully) and take over their mantle. The followers are just that: they are lead around by The Strongman's rhetoric because they either hold the same general biases toward the Utopian Vision outlined above, are physically dependent on the social state created by The Strongman, or in the absence of either, fear The Strongman based on his actions and provide an echo to save their own hide.
It is possible to have an extremism without an established strongman, like in Anarchist extremism, but generally these movements are ineffective, or the entire point to them is to make the advocate The Strongman. The Utopian Vision element still remains (in the anarchist's vision, a world without laws to hold them back).
1. The Strongman:
Every extremist movement needs a leader, be they a physical leader (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Robert Mugabe, David Duke, Saddam Hussein, Mao Zedong, Osama bin Laden, etc.) or a spiritual/idealistic one (Mohammed) whose teachings are widespread and suitable enough to justify The Strongman's control over an activist constituency. The Strongman need not have any particularly outstanding physical or mental qualities, generally they just need high levels of ambition, a suitable political mechanism, ability to control information nationally, and fervent, inspiring rhetoric.
Women can be "Strongmen," it's just most of the successful extremist movements rely on heavily masculine-associated emphases like a warrior culture, aggression towards the stated enemy, and a constant need for war against an external foe. Needless to say, history is in endless supply of men who fit this model, while women of this sort are confined to less successful cultural/political movements like radical feminism.
2. Utopian Vision:
A vision for the future (generally of a nation, with empire implied as manifest) which requires The Strongman to be in power for an indeterminate amount of time (read: Dictator For Life). This can be anything from race purification to worldwide theocratic control to class-free society to an anti-religious secular state. It doesn't really matter what the vision is, it just has to require The Strongman (or his interpreters/followers) to lead it, his advisers to enforce it, and the media to endorse it. "The Greater Good" spawned from the Utopian Vision almost always serves the purpose of the individual strongman, and such is his ability to exert control he need not abide by the rules he sets for others.
Once you have these two things, you have an extremist movement to latch onto. There are basically two kinds of extremists, the leaders who fit into The Strongman model above and the followers who latch on for either a lack of belonging, susceptibility to propaganda, or physical dependence to the state the strongman has created. The "leaders" will try to jockey for position within the movement, with some trying to unseat The Strongman (usually unsuccessfully) and take over their mantle. The followers are just that: they are lead around by The Strongman's rhetoric because they either hold the same general biases toward the Utopian Vision outlined above, are physically dependent on the social state created by The Strongman, or in the absence of either, fear The Strongman based on his actions and provide an echo to save their own hide.
It is possible to have an extremism without an established strongman, like in Anarchist extremism, but generally these movements are ineffective, or the entire point to them is to make the advocate The Strongman. The Utopian Vision element still remains (in the anarchist's vision, a world without laws to hold them back).
Why do you consider Muhammed (I assume you mean the founder of Islam) an extremist?
Because he's Muslim.
But if we're considering Muhammed an extremist, what about Jesus? More people have been killed in that name than Muhammed's. Not only that, but God (supposedly) killed a fuckton of people in the Bible.
Did Jesus fight wars? (I am in no way agreeing with the extremist view by the way)
It is I believe the case that Muhammed fought, or at least endorsed and led, war and conquest. Something Jesus is not credited with doing.
The point is that calling Muhammed (or Jesus, or Buddha, or Moses, or any other figure important to a religion) 'extremist' is a highly abrasive thing to say. As such, it should be justified. It is understandable Deck Knight did not do so in his post, since it was a tangential mention and not part of his main point. But I hope he provides such justification in a future post.
The point is that calling Muhammed (or Jesus, or Buddha, or Moses, or any other figure important to a religion) 'extremist' is a highly abrasive thing to say. As such, it should be justified. It is understandable Deck Knight did not do so in his post, since it was a tangential mention and not part of his main point. But I hope he provides such justification in a future post.
Saying that Muhammad is an extremist for fighting wars makes the same amount of sense as calling any of the Sikh Gurus (#6-10) extremists for fighting against the Mughals.
Blaming religion for extremism ignores people like Timothy McVeigh.
Blaming religion for extremism ignores people like Timothy McVeigh.
I believe what Deck Knight meant, and we all misinterpreted due to his past history, is that Muhammed's teachings are misinterpreted and people rally being those misinterpretations. It's like those who take the bible literally. I am sure Deck Knight would agree that Jesus is a "strongman" like Mohammed. Extremists follow misinterpretations of Jesus' teachings and commit terrible acts in the name of Christianity like the Olympic Bombing in Atlanta or the Crusades.
Actually, given Deck Knight's stated definition of Strongman, he probably does not consider Jesus to be one.
I'd like to hear DKs justification for mentioning Muhammed, but I don't think it's entirely relevant.
Oh yeah:
Extremism is completely relative to what is considered moderate. Thus there is no objective definition of what constitutes an extremist, only subjective.
I'd like to hear DKs justification for mentioning Muhammed, but I don't think it's entirely relevant.
Oh yeah:
Extremism is completely relative to what is considered moderate. Thus there is no objective definition of what constitutes an extremist, only subjective.
Hmm, at the top of the hat I can think of a list.
1.Fear of the unknown and "what's different"
2.Desperation
3.Living in conditions that are extreme on the other side of the scale
4.Indoctrination/Brainwashing
5.Wanting to make a difference
6.Boredom
I guess theres plenty more and they all can be interwoven somehow. Now ask yourself this: Are people who spend several hours a day with PC games/Pokemon/forums etc extremists?
1.Fear of the unknown and "what's different"
2.Desperation
3.Living in conditions that are extreme on the other side of the scale
4.Indoctrination/Brainwashing
5.Wanting to make a difference
6.Boredom
I guess theres plenty more and they all can be interwoven somehow. Now ask yourself this: Are people who spend several hours a day with PC games/Pokemon/forums etc extremists?
There are several reasons I mentioned Mohammad but not say Jesus or Moses.
The first is that of the three, Mohammed is the only actual warrior. He literally fought and killed people on a field of battle and led an army. Unlike Jesus who was primarily a religious and spiritual leader, Mohammed was also a political leader. Mohammed's other quality is that he is a prophet for Allah, rather than Allah himself (Jesus claims to be God, not a prophet of God). Mohammed is a figure you can rally around as a proxy for your cause, suggesting that it has the blessing of Allah based on the way Mohammed interpreted Allah's teachings. To oppose their interpretation of Mohammed's purported interpretation is twisted to be an attack on Allah, casting the offender as an infidel.
btw. Oddish on Fire... you do realize the crusades were fought between Christians and Muslims. And the Muslims got all the way into Spain (Google the word "Moors"). What's more correct is that the various corrupt Popes at the time would fit The Strongman mold, and Jesus was relegated the same way as Allah is in Islam, as a figure that requires a specific interpretation [inexorably towards the relevant strongman's will] before their will can be carried out.
Extremism has little to do with intelligence or hatred. For their time, the Founding Father's Utopian Vision was radically different from the monarchist empires that most of the world was governed by at the time. For a more modern example, the plotters of the London subway bombings were licensed physicians and Osama bin Laden was, if I recall correctly, an entrepreneurial tycoon and financier from a family of tycoons, lawyers, and doctors. The Germany of the 1930's may have been devastated in the wake of World War I, but the German people didn't suddenly lose their accumulated intelligence or culture just because Hitler rose to power. The same with Stalin; Russia is the nation than invented chess, the idea the communists were particularly unintelligent is laughable.
Extremist movements do always have an enemy of some sort that is the target standing in the way of their Utopian Vision, but it doesn't always manifest as the things people ordinarily think of when they say "hatred." As far as I'm aware the communists hate capitalism and capitalists, and want to see the capitalist system subverted and destroyed, but they aren't motivated by any personal characteristic like skin color or gender or religion.
The first is that of the three, Mohammed is the only actual warrior. He literally fought and killed people on a field of battle and led an army. Unlike Jesus who was primarily a religious and spiritual leader, Mohammed was also a political leader. Mohammed's other quality is that he is a prophet for Allah, rather than Allah himself (Jesus claims to be God, not a prophet of God). Mohammed is a figure you can rally around as a proxy for your cause, suggesting that it has the blessing of Allah based on the way Mohammed interpreted Allah's teachings. To oppose their interpretation of Mohammed's purported interpretation is twisted to be an attack on Allah, casting the offender as an infidel.
btw. Oddish on Fire... you do realize the crusades were fought between Christians and Muslims. And the Muslims got all the way into Spain (Google the word "Moors"). What's more correct is that the various corrupt Popes at the time would fit The Strongman mold, and Jesus was relegated the same way as Allah is in Islam, as a figure that requires a specific interpretation [inexorably towards the relevant strongman's will] before their will can be carried out.
Extremism has little to do with intelligence or hatred. For their time, the Founding Father's Utopian Vision was radically different from the monarchist empires that most of the world was governed by at the time. For a more modern example, the plotters of the London subway bombings were licensed physicians and Osama bin Laden was, if I recall correctly, an entrepreneurial tycoon and financier from a family of tycoons, lawyers, and doctors. The Germany of the 1930's may have been devastated in the wake of World War I, but the German people didn't suddenly lose their accumulated intelligence or culture just because Hitler rose to power. The same with Stalin; Russia is the nation than invented chess, the idea the communists were particularly unintelligent is laughable.
Extremist movements do always have an enemy of some sort that is the target standing in the way of their Utopian Vision, but it doesn't always manifest as the things people ordinarily think of when they say "hatred." As far as I'm aware the communists hate capitalism and capitalists, and want to see the capitalist system subverted and destroyed, but they aren't motivated by any personal characteristic like skin color or gender or religion.
Sorry dude, but can you quote me on talking about The Crusades? Because I keep reading what I said, and your retort still makes absolutely no sense.
Bolded part.
Imo, extremism comes from any combination of three aspects:
1. Society: I remember reading in my Psychology class once something along the lines of 'people will tend to follow the popular society.' Basically, its the old "well everyone else is doing it" sorta thing, but for the most part this is true. We pick up accents based on our friends and/or those we spend alot of time with, we follow fads because other people do, we do things like drink, smoke, etc because other people do. Its natural for mankind to want to belong somewhere or belong to something (if you say its not you're blowing smoke up your ass). Therefore, in certain regions like the Middle East, for example, Muslim Extremism is not necissarily [I know I spelled that wrong but idc and I'm tired and you can tell what I'm trying to say] the most popular but it has enough of a following to be noticed. Similar to how radical Christians were back in the day with the Crusades, the Inquisition, Witch Trials and whatnot. It just happens. Eventually someone says, "hey this is dumb" but it happens from time to time.
2. Religion: Yes, like it or not, all religion is fundamentally extremist. Religions (most) expect you to take a diety(s) and treat them as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Therefore it is natural that when someone questions said views that one would "prove" why they are wrong. Different people talk about things differently, some do it with words, others do it with weapons. See crusades above. I'm not saying all religion is bad, but for the most part, it does contribute to extremist views.
3. Insanity: Of course, not every extremist is such because of religious reasons or because society shapes them to be such. Some people are just plain crazy. They usually take advantage of one of the two reasons above and trick/con/dupe people into believing that what they say is the truth and all who do not follow will perish in some way, shape or form (examples: 1, 2).
people have an unrelenting need to be a part of something
they also have an even stronger need to focus on something. (this is independent of 'fitting in' which is what my first point boils down to i guess) we all feel, at times, that we're wasting our potential, that there's nothing we're interested in, and that we have nothing that we can point at and say 'look, that is me'. extremism appeal to this undeniably universal fear.
they also have an even stronger need to focus on something. (this is independent of 'fitting in' which is what my first point boils down to i guess) we all feel, at times, that we're wasting our potential, that there's nothing we're interested in, and that we have nothing that we can point at and say 'look, that is me'. extremism appeal to this undeniably universal fear.
That's alright, you were probably stoned when I posted it (given you've admitted Posting Under the Influence before). In any event your attacks against Christianity are so inane and boring I decided to make a polite attempt to expand your education, since most people point to The Crusades as their primary scapegoat for hordes of people killing in the name of Jesus.
As far as scapegoating religion generally: No. Stalin and Mao were just as much extremists as any other historical ideologue, and they had higher body counts than most to boot. Religion is simply one of the pretenses The Strongman might use. The hatred of all religion and Christianity especially has become more popular in recent centuries as an appealing rhetorical device, though. "If we just eradicated Religion we wouldn't have any of these problems," so the Utopian Vision goes. It happens to play directly into the arrogance and conceit of anti-theists marvelously, many of whom seem to mistakenly identify their lack of faith for rationality in general. In fact I would argue the anti-theist is the greatest of possible suckers for any given Utopian Vision because they have nothing concrete to counterbalance The Strongman's point of view. Provided he plays into their considerably inflated self-image and innate distrust for believers, he can string them along for quite a while.
Note I say anti-theists, meaning people with an axe to grind against religious believers and religion generally. Atheists who simply profess no faith and go about their business and Agnostics who are undecided are more difficult to hoodwink because they have fewer concrete biases for The Strongman to exploit. They are more likely to get a warning flag when someone says something to the effect of "forcibly eradicating religion from the public square."
Aesop covered this long ago: A tyrant will find any pretext for his tyranny. Be it religion or its eradication, the tyrant will find a pretext to string up his followers and lead their own biases towards his more extreme ends.
Deck Knight, although I agree with most of what you said, you make two specific claims that I disagree with, the difference between Muhammad and other religious figures, and the claim that atheist extremism is worse then theist extremism.
On the first, as Christianity can be looked at as a Jewish Sect that got involved with the Roman empire, Islam can be looked at as a Christian sect that ended up breaking away in to a new religion. In a number of ways, Islam is similar to Sikhism, a religion that had it's roots in Islam and Hinduism. They both were founded by a single charismatic leader, who passed his leadership to others at the time of death, and were suppressed by local government that caused the religion to take a more militaristic bent. Interestingly, the majority of the original converts to Islam were Christians who didn't believe in the trinity and were oppressed by the Catholic church.
On the second, regardless of if you are claiming that God is enforcing your decisions, or if you are claiming that some natural order justifies your decisions, I would say that the end results are the same. After all, the majority of violent extremists are religious, but I would say that that isn't a fault of religion, simply a result of the majority of people being religious, so there is less of a pool for the atheist extremists to come from.
And then you have Scientology...
On the first, as Christianity can be looked at as a Jewish Sect that got involved with the Roman empire, Islam can be looked at as a Christian sect that ended up breaking away in to a new religion. In a number of ways, Islam is similar to Sikhism, a religion that had it's roots in Islam and Hinduism. They both were founded by a single charismatic leader, who passed his leadership to others at the time of death, and were suppressed by local government that caused the religion to take a more militaristic bent. Interestingly, the majority of the original converts to Islam were Christians who didn't believe in the trinity and were oppressed by the Catholic church.
On the second, regardless of if you are claiming that God is enforcing your decisions, or if you are claiming that some natural order justifies your decisions, I would say that the end results are the same. After all, the majority of violent extremists are religious, but I would say that that isn't a fault of religion, simply a result of the majority of people being religious, so there is less of a pool for the atheist extremists to come from.
And then you have Scientology...
The cause of extremism is social instability. Simple.
If you are trying to suggest that the Crusades were defensive, as you have done before, then you are frankly wrong. The first Crusade began in 1095, some 460 years after the Arabs had taken Jerusalem (638) and 380 years after the Moors had conquered Spain (711). I'm wondering if you also think Mexico has a right to defensively invade the United States to reclaim lands that were taken from it just 200 years ago. This vignette about the Crusades, of course, ignores the fact that Christian holy wars did not actually begin with the Crusades, although they feature most prominently in contemporary discourses on religious violence. I am not trying to say that religion is fundamentally evil and that we need to move into a Brave New Secular World where all our problems are solved, but it is naive and foolish to pretend that religious beliefs do not often lead to extremism and that justification for violence can be found in most holy texts; religion provides a very firm foundation for several of the causes of extremist violence: firm and unwavering self-righteousness. Stalin and Mao were responsible for millions of deaths, but so was Hong Xiuquan (to whom Mao looked for inspiration).
And not all forms of extremism are necessarily bad; it is possible to be an extremist for a good cause, and a nonviolent extremist. Gandhi would be considered by some an extremist, certainly for his time. The problem comes with the accompanying dogmatism; self-righteous Manicheanism (I am wholly good and the other wholly evil); totalizing paranoia (our problems are all the fault of religion, or the capitalists, or the Soviets, or the Jews); and the enamor of domination and power, usually wedded to violence and destruction seen as some sort of cleansing or renewing force. This is how legitimate grievances (and let us not forget that many mass movements root their appeal in real and justified grievances followers have) are channeled into ressentiment and fanaticism. "My hand grasps the killing power in Heaven and Earth; to behead the evil ones, spare the just; and ease the people's sorrow" as one of the aforementioned Hong Xiuquan's poems reads.
To the OP, I recommend reading Eric Hoffer's The True Believer (some excerpts in a video here) and Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism.
And not all forms of extremism are necessarily bad; it is possible to be an extremist for a good cause, and a nonviolent extremist. Gandhi would be considered by some an extremist, certainly for his time. The problem comes with the accompanying dogmatism; self-righteous Manicheanism (I am wholly good and the other wholly evil); totalizing paranoia (our problems are all the fault of religion, or the capitalists, or the Soviets, or the Jews); and the enamor of domination and power, usually wedded to violence and destruction seen as some sort of cleansing or renewing force. This is how legitimate grievances (and let us not forget that many mass movements root their appeal in real and justified grievances followers have) are channeled into ressentiment and fanaticism. "My hand grasps the killing power in Heaven and Earth; to behead the evil ones, spare the just; and ease the people's sorrow" as one of the aforementioned Hong Xiuquan's poems reads.
To the OP, I recommend reading Eric Hoffer's The True Believer (some excerpts in a video here) and Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism.
Raj
CAP Playtesting Expert
You sir, just made my day :]
