Michael Young im Daily Star zu Nasrallah’s Rede

Seine Analyse enthaelt einen Hinweis darauf, warum diese Rede von den westlichen Medien fast totgeschwiegen wurde.


Why is the topic important? Because over the years academics, analysts, journalists, and others, particularly the Westerners among them, who write about militant Islamist groups, have tended to project their own liberal attitudes and desires onto such groups, misinterpreting their intentions and largely ignoring what these groups say about themselves. Inasmuch as most such observers cannot really fathom the totalitarian strain in the aims and language of armed Islamists, totalitarian in the sense of pursuing a total idea, total in its purity, they cannot accept that the total idea can also be apocalyptic. Where Nasrallah and the leaders of Hamas will repeat that Israel’s elimination is a quasi-religious duty, the sympathetic Westernized observer, for whom the concept of elimination is intolerable, will think much more benignly in terms of well-intentioned „bargaining.“ Hamas and Hizbullah are pragmatic, they will argue, so that their statements and deeds are only leverage to achieve specific political ends that, once attained, will allow a return to harmonious equilibrium.

This argument, so tirelessly made, is tiresomely irrelevant. No one has seriously suggested that Hizbullah or Hamas are not pragmatic. But one can be pragmatic in the means and not in the ends. If anything, pragmatism is obligatory in the pursuit of an absolute idea.

Wo es nicht mehr ohne weiteres moeglich ist, das totalitaere, apkalyptische Element der Hisbollah zu verharmlosen, da wird die ganze Rede verdraengt, vgl. Psychiatry 101- Defense Mechanisms

And what characterizes those pursuing the absolute idea? In his essay „Terror and Liberalism“, Paul Berman provides a partial answer, writing how French author Albert Camus noticed that out of the French Revolution and the 19th century had grown a modern impulse to rebel. That impulse, Berman wrote, „mutated into a cult of death. And the ideal was always the same. It was not skepticism and doubt. It was the ideal of submission … it was the ideal of the one, instead of the many. The ideal of something godlike. The total state, the total doctrine, the total movement.“ (…)

so geht der Text weiter. Und auch das passt sehr gut zu Dr. Sanity’s Narzissmusdarstellung:

(3) When the Idealized or Omnipotent Object is dominant, the individual exhibits:
• Rigid adherence to a belief system/ Ideal
• Willingness to sacrifice people for the Ideal („their own good“)
• Others are seen as omnipotent and all-powerful or all-good
• Intolerance of mistakes
• Unforgiving of transgressions—especially those against the IDEAL
• Tendency not to acknowledge flaws in the IDEAL

(aus dem 3. Teil zitiert)

Shrinkwrapped hat eine Serie geschrieben, in der er die Entwicklung der arabischen Denkweise aus der Behandlung des Kleinkindes ableitet. Was mich betrifft, hat er eine plausible Erklaerung geliefert, warum vor allem arabische Maenner nicht unbedingt ganauso ticken wie westliche Menschen und warum die Projektion der eigenen psychischen Mechanismen nicht notwendig zu sinnvollen Erkenntnissen fuehrt.

Eine Praemisse des heute weithin geltenden Menschenbilds (oft mit “links-progessiv” identifiziert) ist, dass Menschen in ihrer psychischen Grundstruktur so gut wie identisch sind. Diese Praemisse habe ich auch bei Grossman und Oz identifiziert. Wenn nun Menschen mehr oder weniger identisch ticken, dann muss moeglich sein, von sich auf andere zu schliessen, sich in jemand hineinzuversetzen und auf diese Weise seine Motive zu verstehen.

Im weiteren stellt Young die Verbindung zum Islam her, der bereits eine Loesung fuer Narzissmus (wie er durch die arabische Erziehung von Soehnen hervorgebracht werden kann) enthaelt:

Hizbullah and Hamas are themselves products of rebellion – rebellion against what they took and still take to be a foul, unjust political order in Lebanon or Palestine or the Middle East in general. That drive has, naturally, even necessarily, pushed them to advocate the absolute negation of everything embodying that allegedly unjust order. Their motivating force is submission to the pursuit of the just idea, and this goes to the very heart of Islam itself, indeed denotes its very meaning, which is based on the embrace of total submission to God. Nasrallah may rarely employ religious terminology, but everything about the way he structures his thoughts, contentions, or vows reflects a deeply religious mindset.

Unterwerfung (das ist die Bedeutung von Islam und nicht Friede!) und totale Hingabe als Einswerden mit dem Idealisierten Objekt und damit als Heilung des Ichs.

crossposted bei Freunden der Offenen Gesellschaft

%d Bloggern gefällt das: