Why the Fanatic Actually Wants to be Hated

This is closely linked to my post "Aggressive Proselytizing", but it will go into more depth about the mindset that seeks hatred.  To the Fanatic, being hated gives him energy.  In truth, success for his cause seems to be more damaging to him than failure.  This seems a type of paradox, until we understand that a Fanatic wants to fight.  If victory was really achieved, he would have to either become a fanatic to a new cause, or become a rebel to the very cause he put into place.  It is not a historical rarity that former Fanatics are among the first to swing from the gallows mere days after the success of their cause.
 

The Fanatic would rather be rejected by those outside his group than accepted.  He is not a stickler to principle, yet it is for this "principle" that he fights so hard, at least-that's what he wants to believe.  His actions are more to convince himself than anyone else, for he is not really a genuine believer.  It is then, primarily his own pride that is the source of his boundless arrogance and viciousness.
 

Unless he throws himself into some great fight in which he loses himself to the moment, he can't help but feel useless.  It is the fight that gives his life meaning, and he cannot perhaps help but feel disdain for the actual believers who are content to live life according to their principles-the very ones that the Fanatic fights so hard to uphold in his own mind.  To him, the content and happy believer is not pulling his weight and should step aside for those who do.  The irony of course is that it is the Fanatic who undermines the very principles he claims to uphold.  It was Fanatics, not genuine believers that launched the Inquisition which causes so much misery and pain.  Likewise, it was Fanatics who yelled, "Deus Vult" when they slaughtered countless Jews and Muslims when Jerusalem fell to their forces. 
 

But this is not unique to any religion, as terrorism in our day and age is the work of Fanatics, which is widely known.  By now, word of Osama Bin Laden's massive pornography stash (forbidden in Islam) has spread far and wide, and even the 9/11 hijackers themselves visited strip clubs (again, also forbidden in Islam).  In reality the Fanatic does not really believe what he spews-and it is to convince himself, not you or I-that is at the heart of his hateful rhetoric.  I will cover this aspect of the Fanatic at a later time, but suffice to say, this hypocritical element to the Fanatic is a key part of their mentality.

The fact that you will oppose what he says only re-affirms in his mind that he's right.  After all, he would be told that you would hate him, fear him and oppose him every step of the way.  So he seeks your hatred, for it is the only thing that can keep him feeling validated in this-the struggle which gives meaning to his life, for outside of the cause, all is "vile, wicked and worthy of destruction".  Certainly by being attacked, one has only reaffirmed to the Fanatic that those outside his cause are "vile, wicked and worthy of destruction."

Finnaly, I will leave off with a quote by Eric Hoffer-

"We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves."

Strategic Principle I "Flexibility"

*Strategic Principles are those principles that underlay nearly all strategy, no matter what that strategy pertains to.  By understanding these principles, one has a skeleton key to the art of Strategy, and whatever field it is applied to is irrelevant-all fields become manifestations of the same base.
 
It is not what we cannot do, but what we will not do that is the source of our weakness.  Flexibility, then-is the first Strategic Principle.  Even a small and weak group can overcome by being flexible.

"A Tree that is unbending yet powerful is snapped by the wind.  It is the sapling that is weak yet flexible can move to and fro that survives the storm."
-Lao Tzu "The Tao Te Ching"

So how far does this go, and what does it mean?  Buddha was not just speaking of happiness and lowering stress when he spoke of being unattached.  Being unattached-and therefore, flexible-was the key to power over oneself just as much as it is power over an army, nation or life as a whole.

"Leading an army is like leading one person, it is a matter of division."
-Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

It is more about unwillingness and rigidness then about incompetence or weakness.  Japanese Jujitsu can be performed by people of nearly any strength or size.  Like water-the most adaptable thing on this Earth, Jujitsu teaches to flow with the attack and turn it back on the enemy. 

Queen Elizabeth I knew well of what she was saying when she stated-

"I would rather be a beggar and single than a queen and married."

For a queen, this seems very odd of her to say, but the context of her reign shows her wisdom in this regard.  Queen Elizabeth went down in history as "The Virgin Queen".  She ruled in her own right, and never committed to any bachelor-she never became attached or held down.  The power she gained and the stability she brought to England were legendary.  Others competed for her favor and hand in marriage, but she never relented.  Men all over England and indeed most of Europe saw her as a type of Mecca for marriage.  Who was this Queen who would not marry-who would not settle down and become attached?  The answer?  She was the most powerful Queen and arguably Monarch England would ever have.

Some attachments are a part of life.  Marriage is a type of attachment, and I am not out to give marriage advice.  Children demand a level of attachment as well.  But one should never be more attached then is necessary.  Never become so attached that you squander your ability to live life as you wish, and never become so dependent on a system of way of doing things that you cease to grow.

After all, it is growth that is life, and without flexibility-without room-one cannot grow.

The Roles of Contradictions, Absurdities and Trivial Nonsense in Faith

A question often asked by non-believers is “Why do you believe a book with so many contradictions, absurdities and trivial nonsense?“  However, this question is assuming that one cannot believe such things-when in truth, these things actually foster faith, not diminish it.

I will address each in turn, and what role in particular they partake in fostering faith.

I. Contradictions

Ask any believer and he will say that contradictions are one of the following-

a. non existent
b. taken out of context
c. due to translation errors
d. the result of us “not understanding God’s will/our inability to comprehend a being such as God.”

This particular posts deals with a. and d., the outright denial of contradictions and the belief that the human mind cannot understand a being such as God.

The former (d.) is of course, owing solely to outright denial of obvious facts.  The great holy books are literally peppered with contradictions-from the trivial to the truly earth shattering.  Only the willingly blind could deny they exist, as evident by the fact that non-believers can easily spot them with minimal effort.  In order to deny such a critical issue requires a great deal of faith-using your emotions rather than your logic.  As a result, even the most logical and well developed argument against these contradictions toward even the most intelligent believer will accomplish nothing when he denies their very existence.  Faith is in many ways less about what you can’t see and more about what you won’t see.

The latter is a more powerful and first responder more or less to the issue of dealing with contradictions.  Denial is not even necessary when one refuses to think about it because he believes that God is far wiser than himself and hence, always right.  Denial at least requires some thought, whereas assuming that thought isn’t even possible on this issue nips the problem in the bud.  There is no reason to think or worry about the contradictions-God knows all and he makes them consistent.  There is no way you could ever understand a being like God, so don’t even bother trying-just have faith that he knows all and wants the best for you.

II. Absurdities

This is not a universal attribute to the fostering of faith.  The stories of creation for instance, if taken literally are obviously absurd.  More astute believers see these as analogies.  However, as children and even some adults go, absurdity is a powerful energizer of faith, and it is these two groups who are my focus.  While many analogies are absurdities, not all absurdities are analogies in regards to religion.  It is the latter group of absurdities-those not attached to any analogy-that are my focus, as even a non-believer can draw wisdom and inspiration from some of the analogies and parables contained within a holy book.

Absurdity is loosely connected to the issue raised above (I, d.), wherein the logical mind cannot explain how such a thing is done.  When there is no logical reason why such a thing is a certain way, the mind begins to shut off and stop thinking about it-but rather, simply believe it is the cause of a higher power.  It is assumed that the creator of all laws can break them at a whim but beyond that no thought as to how such a thing can happen occurs or is even possible.  Faith begins to step in where logic is impossible.

III. Trivial Nonsense

I once said that if you want to hide the truth, bury it in triviality and boring rambling.  Sadly, it is still a habit of many intellectuals to hyper-articulate what they write, and spend five paragraphs explaining what a single sentence could have managed easily.  Credulity is based not only on wanting a thing to be so, but also in not wanting to pursue it further.  Trivial nonsense and passages that don’t teach anything but yet persist not only adds to an already long holy book, it also builds onto the image of holiness for the holy book that has all the answers must be long.  It has been my experience that the greatest philosophers-the most brilliant men of any age have been able to express themselves in few words, whereas hiding something in plain sight is easy when it is intermixed with an array of pointless and hyper-articulate passages.

Put another way, Jargon is perhaps a sufficient example of this.  Your doctor explains something to you in such a way that leaves you thoroughly confused and intimidated, so you just nod your head and agree.  In another example, a person with a specialized interest rambles on (I hope I’m not seen as such a person!) and others agree with him without much thought-either because they assume he knows more than they do. 

People want an answer-they don’t necessarily want to understand it.  I argue a bit deeper however, and say that we can only believe what we do not truly understand, and by making a holy book impossible to truly understand, belief is the only resort.  “I don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re probably right.”

When we sufficiently understand something, we often move on to something else.  So long as we do not understand something but are rather rewarded for trusting it anyway, we tend to hold on all the more.