"Fanaticism denotes a behavior that is radically uncompromising, radically irreconcilable and unjust."
(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
When you consider how actors in the newly established Islamic State (IS) decapitate people, or burn them in cages and reproduce these executions on video, is probably the first word to fall into, fanaticism. Extreme faith – and thus fanaticism. In time we have learned that many of these actors are not necessarily just Muslims, as many should have us believe, but also often confused souls who, in their sense or direction in the nihilistic West, need something to fight for, something to believe. on. Whatever it is, it is only about the caliphate, and you are dark and tough enough to be the obedient warrior of the Caliphate. A man or woman from Norway, Denmark or the United Kingdom can enlist as a foreign warrior and then see himself shooting down the ground bound on the ground by foot. Or stand with a dripping knife and a severed head hanging from it hand - almost like «Indians» once triumphed with the scalp of a gringo. The Indians were never filmed, but this we remember from the fiction films. IS, on the other hand, has videotaped reality, real killings, lightened, dramatized, with short narratives added soundtracks with singing male voices. Propaganda videos with "victory lords" that will provoke and enlist more people to fight for Islamic rule. The caliphate now extends beyond an area the size of the United Kingdom.
The word fanatic originates from «fanum» which means «temple». It has the same root as "profanation," which means «desecration». This is exactly what IS was doing recently, as IS soldiers tore down and destroyed irreplaceable ancient artifacts and sculptures.
But where do these warriors come from, ideologically? According to the article "Jihadism Roots »in Le Monde diplomatique this month, some Muslims radicalized themselves under the brutal repression of the Nasser regime. Under this regime, the Islamic ideologue Sayyid Qutb (1906–66) changed course, which had enormous consequences for posterity. Qutb believed he was living in an apostate world, and urged Muslims to distance themselves from the godless society and establish – via total jihad – a new state, governed by Islamic laws. Today's jihadism is interspersed with Wahhabism and European ideologies such as fascism and communism, with results such as Al-Qaeda and IS.
The latest issue of the magazine Vagant, which is published this week, has fanaticism as a theme. Vagant's theme of fanaticism defines the term in conversation with the philosopher Alberto Toscano (ed Fanaticism – On the Uses of an Idea in 2010): "Fanaticism refers to a conduct that is radically uncompromising, radically irreconcilable and unruly. The fanatic is by definition one you can not negotiate with, and thus referring to people as fanatics is an effective first step when you want a pretext to get rid of them. "
Then we can fool. To get rid of them? Just. A number of Western political actors, especially since September 2001, have defined their opponents and enemies in this way, calling them fanatics, radicals or rather "terrorists". These Secondly,. But are they real «the others», Muslims, are they really completely different from us – and an enemy we must protect ourselves from?
With Anders Behring Breivik in mind, we know that fanaticism is in our midst. In IS, moreover, a large proportion of the fighters come from our part of the world. After a couple of years at the front line in Aleppo, journalist Francesca Borri told me that very many of the IS fighters were foreign fighters. Before she recently went to IS to write from inside their battlefield, she personally asked me to keep in mind that if she had her head cut off, it would probably be a Mexican or Western behind the mask – rather than a local Muslim.
Fanaticism has its origins in the Roman Empire and was described there as a religious water cult among visitors. The opposite is tolerance. But are we as tolerant as we claim? The West, which adorns itself with its «tolerance» is currently building up a huge apparatus of a security industry, aimed at this so-called enormous danger that fanaticism and terrorism would pose. This gigantic theater performance, which both international and Norwegian media cynically nurture, is just as much characterized by good imagination, the idea that we ourselves are so fantastic, and fantasies (brain spin) about monsters around the next turn.
After 11/9, we got the "war on terror", our new media conflict industry. Criminal individuals are constantly playing up to these fantastic notions this fear industry has created .. Now we are right there, in the middle of a fanatical notion of the enemy – the monster out there.
Well done, I would say, based on a few incidents and few people, to make the world believe that Islamic terror is the greatest danger of the times we live in. Statistically speaking, if you look at what the people of the world are dying of in our time – conflicts, health, poverty and environmental damage – the fantasy images of being hit by arbitrary violence are really some fantasies without much hold in reality.
It's just such a shame that we with the definitions of terror, and imaginative labeling of those who shop and look different from us, end up sticking sticks in the wheels on themm who are really trying to build peace in the world (see case on page 5).
Building peace in a time where those in power have defined our time as a permanent state of war is extra challenging. This makes it difficult to engage in criticism.
Dear reader, do not be surprised if in the future you hear that Ny Tid supports a terrorist organization: We print columnists who like to have radical opinions and insights. A fee to a writing, critical person can quickly lead to the arrest of the undersigned in a hysterical time like this.
truls lie
