Ideological disconnect

ARTICLE: The radical loser, By Hans Magnus Enzensberger, signandsight.com, 01/12/2005

Good stuff, very much in my mode of "disconnectedness defines danger." And frankly, this does not contradict either Marc Sageman or Olivier Roy's analysis.

(Thanks: zenpundit)

Comments

[farhad]

it is very obserd to look at this phenomenon as loser or winner terms.how can we explain the rate and the number of suicides amog theUS soliders this way.it goes back to the us -vs- them mentality. I have read many times even you mention that as the economic well- being of this young people get better and they have more hope forthier future,the less they are inclined to particepate in these extremebehavior.of course,with the type of capitalism in these stage and age& time that is a subject of disscusion.a good example is the level of or percentage of people vote in this country.in 1960's it was about60% and since the last 4 0r 5 pervious election it is 50%.who mostlyvote in this country,the people who have wealth,the 20% who ownsstock market(with voteing power of that stock).almost all rich peoplevote.why is this, because 3milion(actually 3000 mainly out of them) own the same amout of wealth that 167 million American have.who's son and daughters go to war the rich's or the other 70-80%.thats where you have to look to find the answer to why so much soliderskill themselves and not because they are loser,as if somehow genetaticly they are born that way,or if these people are rich because they are smarter.no ,you have to look at the way the system is , wether globally or locally.we have to find the truth aboutthis if we are to solve the problems that are facing humans today,likeenviroment,global warming,food shortages,lack of water (big issue) ,wars, democracy and human rights.

[Curtis Gale Weeks]

Interesting, and ties in to my recent post, where I mentioned your 5GW plan as perhaps one type of attempt to limit the development of destructive SEI's (or, "radical losers").

[Bill C.]

There seems to be a common reason for calling groups of people names, such as: "the losers," "the others," "the fascists," (the Gap?), etc.

This name-calling seems to allow those calling these names to (1) try to elevate their own their status and rights -- above these of the "others," (2) to try to denegrate the status and rights of those being called names, and to, thereby, (3) give those calling the names the right to take action (to include lethal action) against these "others."

Thus, this analysis and discussion of the "losers" is much less interesting and much less important than is the analysis and discussion of the characteristics of the "winners" and the phenomenon of their name-calling.

Why: Because on the whim of the "winners" (not the "losers") and who they decide to call names, history is made.

[Anonymous]

Bill C: the more likely reason is:

they really are losers, they really is a Gap, 'sophisticated' analysis notwithstanding.

true: the victors write the histories. there is still objective reality.

[critt jarvis]

Words are pesky little symbols, you know? For me, the context was most profound: disconnectedness from personal responsibilty. And then the question evoked: How is it possible to fire anew an engine of will, thus engendering a capacity for personal responsibility?

[Bill C.]

Sean: For consideration.

Objectively speaking, are the so-called "losers" actually the "losers" just yet, or are we really only in the early fourth quarter of the game, with the presently behind team still retaining its captain(s), many of its key players, millions (or billions) in reserve, a full head of steam and the clear ability to influence the political will and environment of the prematurally-called "winners?" For example: The phrase "disconnectedness defines danger" seems to imply that the fat lady has not sung and that the game continues.

Should we not consider the "name calling" of the team that is ahead -- but which still fears its opponent -- within this context?

This is what I find most interesting.

[Anonymous]

Bill C: thanks for your courtesy (really).

'losers', in the context of the article linked above, are in a fairly permanent condition, espeically given their violent/anti-social ultimate direction.

seems to me, technically, you are talking more about what i was referring to as 'the Gap' above. and, yes, in those cases, it is not a final condition. in fact, it's one we want to diminish!

beyond that, definition of terms can vary and change. defining 'losers' as you do above, yes, it's too final as the game continues.

while i agree with you that 'name calling' (in the context you use it) is interesting and even important, i still think it is less important than the objective reality of the 'losers' as defined in the link in this post and 'the Gap' as Tom defines it.

you said 'more important' in your first comment, and that's what i disagree with.