Hitler & Bin Laden: Death to the Non-Believers
 
Richard A. Koenigsberg

Dear Colleagues,

I'm presenting today--through a series of LSS Newsletters--another one of Koenigsberg's masterpieces on the dynamics of political violence. What Hitler and Bin Laden have in common is that they devoted their lives to a sacred object: "Germany" in the case of Hitler; "Allah" in the case of Bin Laden.

In their hearts the dream was the same. Each worshipped an entity or object conceived as omnipotent. Each man was guided by the philosophy: "Death to the non-believers:" kill those who do not worship the god that we worship.

This is the first part of Richard's paper.

Best regards,

Mary Helen

PS: Unlike what evolutionary psychology avers, human violence has nothing to do with our "animal nature." Precisely the opposite. We kill and die in the name of validating or protecting or defending abstract ideas or ideals that constitute the ground of our being.

Contents

  1. Political Violence as Terrorism
  2. Nazism as Religion
  3. Punishing Those Who Doubt the Sacred Object
  4. Violence as Squelching Doubt
  5. Ambivalence: “You are nothing, the sacred object is everything”
  6. Compelling Submission
  7. Conclusion

Click here to read the original paper.

1. Political Violence as Terrorism

In “Evil as Love and Liberation” and “Fundamentalism, Father and Son and Vertical Desire” Ruth Stein hypothesizes that the acts of Mohammed Atta and the suicide bombers on September 11, 2001, were undertaken in a spirit of devotion—based on profound attachment to Allah. Acts of terroristic violence, Stein says, were performed in the name of love.

The term “martyr” derives from the Arabic word “shahid,” meaning “witness.” The martyr bears witness to his love for Allah by killing infidels. As he submits to the will of God by sacrificing his own life, so does the terrorist compel others to submit to the will of God—and to sacrifice their lives.

When the airplane plunged into the ground in Pennsylvania on September 11, the suicide bombers’ last words were, “God is great.” The terrorists gave witness to their belief that God is great—by virtue of their willingness to die and kill for him. The suicide bombers sacrificed their lives for Allah, and took Americans along with them.

“Allah” is a name given to an object or entity that some human beings worship. Other groups of people worship other objects or entities. People may worship a god, an ideology or their own nation. In each instance, people “look up” to the object, conceive of it as all-powerful, and are willing to perform “sacrifices” in the name of this idealized object.

Why do individuals and groups bind their identities to objects conceived as omnipotent? What is the relationship between attachment to an omnipotently conceived object—a god, ideology or nation—and the proclivity toward violence? Why do people commit radical and massive acts of violence in the name of objects that they idealize and worship?

During a meeting of a study group on religious fundamentalism, Donald Moss introduced the term “fungible”--to refer to the interchangeability of objects in the psychic lives of groups and individuals. When people attach to an omnipotently conceived object and perform violent acts in its name, a common psychological mechanism may be operative—regardless of the nature of the object worshipped.

People may worship Allah, or America. The Nazis worshipped Hitler and Germany. The Japanese during the Second World War worshipped their Emperor. For many nations in the twentieth century, the ideology of communism became an object of worship. In each case, collective acts of violence were performed by groups in the name of defending or propagating a sacred ideal.

The phrase “Death to the non-believers” conveys the central meaning of collective forms of violence. Members of one group seek to dominate or kill members of another group that do not bow down to the sacred object worshipped by one’s own group. Terroristic violence is intended to compel belief: force members of another group to submit to the same sacred object to which members of one’s own group have submitted.