I wish Osama bin Laden was materialistic
Osama bin Laden was a very, very wealthy man. A very wealthy criminal man. These are not uncommon; many people get rich from illegal activity, then they spend their cash chilling out. Osama is different. The bin Laden family amassed their fortune through relatively legitimate construction contracts with the Saudi Government. Doubtless the odd sum changed hands to guarantee winning tenders from the royal family, but nothing to worry too much about. After inheriting this cash, Osama then went to work financing acts of murder.
Wouldn't it have been better if he had done what Colombian drug lords did? Find a nice little island in the Carribean, buy it from a banana republic and turn it into a paradise of cocaine, cock-fighting and hookers.
Just imagine, little bearded man- a one stop shop for drug abuse, gambling and fornication. That's better than living in a cave with a bunch of pungent, illiterate goat herders now isn't it?
The reason why Mr bin Laden elected not to take this path is ideology. His particular brand being a rather repellant variety of religious fundamentalism. This leads me to the belief that ideology in general may be flawed.
Ideology
n 1: an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation [syn: political orientation, political theory] 2: imaginary or visionary theorization
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
This definition taken to its full conclusion implies a belief system that visualises a perfect society.
Lets hold self evident the fact that visions of perfection differ from one person to the next, from one country to the next and so on, thus creating massive and frequently realised potential for blood letting.
Consider instead the affect this has on the way people form opinions and conduct themselves. All people have points of view that are naturally skewed, as a result of education, upbringing, etc. What ideology does is take this naturally skewed point of view and supplements it with a deliberate and artificial dogma. The more idealistic a person is, the more their opinion is skewed, the less they are able to see things as they are.
I was recently discussing abortion with a feminist who believed that the arguments against abortion are driven by misogyny. She believed that the entire "No" position was supported by men who did not want to surrender their control of a woman's body, e.g "I put it there, you're going to keep it there, bitch"
I said that- while I was sure those opinions did exist, I believed that the "No" position was about the preservation of life at any cost. While I disagreed with this position, I did not believe it to have a sinister motivation.
She was about as receptive as a block of concrete.
The worst cases of ideology occur when a young person starts to build inflexible political or religious beliefs. Either philosphical direction comes with a pre packaged set of morals. Neither set is based on personal experience.
"You're a member of the Labor party now. You must be anti war, a member of a union and pro gay marriage!... What did you say? Foreign poilcy has nothing to do with industrial relations, which in turn has nothing to do with sexuality? You are not a true believer! Get out!"
When a person has such an inflexible outlook; to which they are passionately committed, they will try to butcher, bash and bend everything they see for the rest of their lives to fit this narrow pattern.
Poverty in Tanzania? Global capitalism.
Tsunami in the Indian Ocean? Must be climate change, cause by CO2 emisssions spurred along by global capitalism.
Beer warm and flat? That fucking capitalist publican is trying to stiff the proletariat!
There is probably a reason that most (Not all) annoying activists tend to be young. Over the years they will see conflict. Bus drivers will go on strike and this will hurt the poor working man who uses public transport to get to work. They will see that the middle eastern country the US is most friendly with has an untouched tradition of conservative Islam. They will realise that the world is made up of countless opposing forces and cannot be explained by an army of philisophers.
At this point they will abandon their Grand Plan (Whatever that may be), come off their high horse and begin to function as human beings.
Wouldn't it have been better if he had done what Colombian drug lords did? Find a nice little island in the Carribean, buy it from a banana republic and turn it into a paradise of cocaine, cock-fighting and hookers.
Just imagine, little bearded man- a one stop shop for drug abuse, gambling and fornication. That's better than living in a cave with a bunch of pungent, illiterate goat herders now isn't it?
The reason why Mr bin Laden elected not to take this path is ideology. His particular brand being a rather repellant variety of religious fundamentalism. This leads me to the belief that ideology in general may be flawed.
Ideology
n 1: an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation [syn: political orientation, political theory] 2: imaginary or visionary theorization
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
This definition taken to its full conclusion implies a belief system that visualises a perfect society.
Lets hold self evident the fact that visions of perfection differ from one person to the next, from one country to the next and so on, thus creating massive and frequently realised potential for blood letting.
Consider instead the affect this has on the way people form opinions and conduct themselves. All people have points of view that are naturally skewed, as a result of education, upbringing, etc. What ideology does is take this naturally skewed point of view and supplements it with a deliberate and artificial dogma. The more idealistic a person is, the more their opinion is skewed, the less they are able to see things as they are.
I was recently discussing abortion with a feminist who believed that the arguments against abortion are driven by misogyny. She believed that the entire "No" position was supported by men who did not want to surrender their control of a woman's body, e.g "I put it there, you're going to keep it there, bitch"
I said that- while I was sure those opinions did exist, I believed that the "No" position was about the preservation of life at any cost. While I disagreed with this position, I did not believe it to have a sinister motivation.
She was about as receptive as a block of concrete.
The worst cases of ideology occur when a young person starts to build inflexible political or religious beliefs. Either philosphical direction comes with a pre packaged set of morals. Neither set is based on personal experience.
"You're a member of the Labor party now. You must be anti war, a member of a union and pro gay marriage!... What did you say? Foreign poilcy has nothing to do with industrial relations, which in turn has nothing to do with sexuality? You are not a true believer! Get out!"
When a person has such an inflexible outlook; to which they are passionately committed, they will try to butcher, bash and bend everything they see for the rest of their lives to fit this narrow pattern.
Poverty in Tanzania? Global capitalism.
Tsunami in the Indian Ocean? Must be climate change, cause by CO2 emisssions spurred along by global capitalism.
Beer warm and flat? That fucking capitalist publican is trying to stiff the proletariat!
There is probably a reason that most (Not all) annoying activists tend to be young. Over the years they will see conflict. Bus drivers will go on strike and this will hurt the poor working man who uses public transport to get to work. They will see that the middle eastern country the US is most friendly with has an untouched tradition of conservative Islam. They will realise that the world is made up of countless opposing forces and cannot be explained by an army of philisophers.
At this point they will abandon their Grand Plan (Whatever that may be), come off their high horse and begin to function as human beings.
posted by Mr Schrempp @ 8:29 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home