The True Believer - Discussion

[Doctor_Wu]

Time to begin thinking about Hoffer and the True Believer

Here's hoping people are getting into the book by now. But if not, no pressure.... as you may be aware... this thread will be around awhile. Plus... this book is pretty easy reading with short chapters and approachable language... once you get into it, things should go pretty fast.

Feel free to contribute favorite excerpts and points of contention to this thread to promote discussion.



To start things in a very inadequate way...

From the Preface page xiii, I liked this portion...

"It is necessary for most of us these days to have some insight into the motives and responses of the true believer. For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere and on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities."

[dalokgawd]

I just finished the book I was reading today so I am starting True Believer tonight. :nod:

[ASG]

I think I'm going to have this in the back of my head while reading this:


According to Hoffer, the true believer is "the man of fanatical faith who is ready to sacrifice his life for a holy cause." - Preface pg xii

I'm not sure I agree with this definition yet. It seems to imply that those who may think it is more effective to change the world from within is more of a true believer than the fanatic who feels he must do something dramatic to prove his point. Or may be I am taking the expression "sacrifice his life" too literally.

[dalokgawd]

Alot of what I have been arguing in the "hatred towards athiests" thread is supported by this little excerpt from Part 10 of Chapter 2 (page 14):

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

It's even more interesting when you consider this in light of what Hoffer said in part 7 of the same chapter (page 12):

"Their innermost craving is for a new life - a rebirth - or, failing this, a chance to acquire some new elements of pride, confidence, hope, a sense of purpose and worth by an identification with a holy cause. An active mass movement offers them both."

So here you have someone who identifies themself and derives all of their pride, confidence, and self worth through their membership in the mass movement. Add to that a desire to "mind other people's business" and you create an individual with a much lower opinion of those who are not members of his mass movement and at the same time has a desire to meddle in their affairs. Havoc ensues.

[Neo Tocqueville]

I think I'm going to have this in the back of my head while reading this:


According to Hoffer, the true believer is "the man of fanatical faith who is ready to sacrifice his life for a holy cause." - Preface pg xii

I'm not sure I agree with this definition yet. It seems to imply that those who may think it is more effective to change the world from within is more of a true believer than the fanatic who feels he must do something dramatic to prove his point. Or may be I am taking the expression "sacrifice his life" too literally. I too had some issues with the model of a true believer in the preface but I figured I'll let the author take me on a ride based on his perception of "life", "holy" and "faith" (e.g., in my mind faith and actions are not seperable). Perhaps it was because of this disconnect that I didn't really enjoy the first chapter much either. It seemed, for lack of a better word, a bit superficial or lacking in a deep insight. In any event, I'm trusting that the wise men of the Podium have indeed picked a gem for us to read & enjoy.

As for the very definition, I agree with you ASG and only will add that the author needs to clarify the difference between "faith" and "hope" to me (or, may be I need to do that for myself! :)).

I have a few more questions ... but for now there's one that has captured my imagination. Here it is, if anyone cares: If there is something as "the" truth, is there a difference between the "true believer" who believes in that truth and one who believes otherwise? I won't go into the details too much but, in discussing a believer I am a bit hesitant to entirely disregard the contents of what he believes in. Must the belief not have any impact on the believer ? I hope the question is addressed somewhere in the book (because it appears quite fundamental to me).

[ASG]

Another issue I'm not quite getting as I read on (may be this is due to the point at which he believes the movement is at its height):

Why are those who are wishing to keep the status quo not true believers or in a mass movement?

[Doctor_Wu]

Why are those who are wishing to keep the status quo not true believers or in a mass movement?

Is a mass movement required to maintain the status quo... or can the status quo maintain itself?

How about this.... It may take a mass movement may establish what will become the status quo. But I'm not sure the mass is actually moved in the maintenance of it. It might be premature to be discussing these questions at this point.

[ASG]

Is a mass movement required to maintain the status quo... or can the status quo maintain itself?

How about this.... It may take a mass movement may establish what will become the status quo. But I'm not sure the mass is actually moved in the maintenance of it. It might be premature to be discussing these questions at this point.
I'll wait to go in further but I would think it would take a mass movement to maintain the status quo once another mass movement is attempting to change it.

Also, will see if I still agree as I get to more than chapter 3 but it appears at least for now that the author thinks both sides are in it for selfish reasons. That is, that one side wants to keep the status quo because they are benefitting from it (or at least think they are) and the other side wants to change it because they think life his hopeless with things the way they are. Judging from what I've seen of some recent mass movements (or even certain people), it appears there many who are benefitting quite a lot from the status quo yet are still on the "revolution" side of the mass movement.

[burninator]

I haven't gotten too far, but I will say that on page 7, Hoffer seems to hint, briefly, that the issue of the status quo and the position of those who favor it will be addressed in the book.


The outside world seems to them a precariously balanced mechanism, and so long as it ticks in their favor they are afraid to tinker with it. Thus the resistance to change and the ardent desire for it spring from the same conviction, and the one can be as vehement as the other.

[dalokgawd]

I am about 60 pages into the book and am noticing that one of the big themes that Hoffer seems to be driving at is the delusional nature of the followers of the mass movements. In many different ways, Hoffer explains how the people in charge of mass movements brainwash their followers. He describes so many ways in which their perspectives, their emotions, and indeed their entire perception of reality are altered and toyed with by those at the head of a mass movement.

It is really sad that people can be duped into giving up their free will and even their lives in the service of a bunch of brain washers. He has repeatedly talked about "frustration" as the source of this willingness, but if that is all that is required for someone to make such a sacrifice, than we are sad and pitiful creatures indeed.

Edit: An additional point, something that just occurred to me. Hoffer points out that one of the draws of joining the mass movement is the giving up of responsibility. If someone is just doing what they are told, than they can't be held responsible for the consequences of those actions. Living life consequence free may be a huge draw for alot of people I think. Perhaps that helps explain the allure of mass movements and giving up free will.

[SueM]

Basically, he is stating that followers to any mass movement are looking for a sense of belonging and hope for improvement outside of themselves, right? because he states on page 13, that once people become concern with their status (themselves) the movement ceases.

[dalokgawd]

I know I am way ahead, but I am going to have to put the book aside for a while since I am starting the literature review for my dissertation right now and have an absolutely MASSIVE amount of reading to do.

But I want to point out one more thing, and please come back to my post when the general discussion reaches this point in the book. It ties in very closely with the hierarchy of thought in my siggy. This section of part 56 (page 79), represents in my mind the biggest single problem with mass movements and their followers:

"All active mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a factproof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth nor certitude outside it. The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation, but on holy writ... To rely on the evidence of the senses is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible."

I see the proof of this idea in many mass movements of our time. I see it in the religious fanatics who hold to whatever their church tells them is true, no matter how silly the church's proclamation may be when considered logically and dispassionately or how it flies in the face of all the facts before that person's very eyes. I see it in the fanatically political who toe the party line and devotedly work to further the party agenda, even when that agenda may be obviously wrong or incompatible with the person's own preferences. I see it in the actions of true believers such as racists, bigots, homophobes, etc who hold firm to beliefs that make no logical sense to anyone with a rational mind.

What scares me the most, however, is the fact that I see our politicians (all of them, regardless of party or political orientation) racing to take advantage of the natural tendency of people to fall prey to this. They pay consultants vast sums of money to advise them on the best manner in which to brainwash the largest number of people possible. I remember a time when politicians used to win campaigns by telling people what they stood for and what their vision was. People would weigh the positions and merit of each candidate and vote for the person who they felt would do the best job. Now, politicians run campaigns by convincing the largest number of people that the other guy is unfit. They never bother to say what THEY stand for or what THEY will do to make things better... they just do their utmost to convince you that the other candidate will be worse. Sometimes these smear campaigns are loosely based on truth. Sometimes they are complete and total bullshit. What's scary is that it doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if their allegations are logical or not. The only thing that matters is how many people they can get to buy into it. Because by polarizing the population so completely and turning people into true believers of their particular party, people will believe whatever the party's politicians say no matter what. The politicians have erected their "factproof screen" and people just buy into everything wholesale without even bothering to think about it. The politicians don't even have to present evidence anymore... their words are taken as Gospel truth beyond question. I could come up with examples from both sides of the aisle to illustrate this point, but I don't think I need to. I think if anyone thinks for about 3.2 seconds they could think of many examples of this.

It frightens and saddens me to think that this is what we have become. A nation of sheep looking for someone to lead us around and tell us what to think, what to believe... even what the truth is. We don't bother to look with our own eyes... think with our own minds... because there is someone else to do our looking and our thinking for us. Have we really fallen so low? Is this what we are reduced to? And if so... how long before we go the way of the Romans and watch our empire crumble into stagnation before our very eyes?

[ASG]

Some of his statements are in direct conflict with each other. He goes from saying that the members are in it because they feel powerless about how much stuff sucks at one point (page 6) to saying they join them because they think they are spoiled later (page 15). I think I will enjoy Part 2 much better since I find myself nodding along with Chapter 5 more than I have the previous ones.

[SueM]

He goes from saying that the members are in it because they feel powerless about how much stuff sucks at one point (page 6) to saying they join them because they think they are spoiled later (page 15). .

My book is different than yours-could you quote that second statement?

[ASG]

My book is different than yours-could you quote that second statement?
Number 12:

"Yet to the frustrated the present is irremediably spoiled. Comforts and pleasures cannot make it whole. No real content or comfort can ever arise in their minds but from hope."

Page 12, Number 7:

"People who see their lives as irremediably spoiled cannot find a worth-while purpose in self-advancement. The prospect of an individual career cannot stir them to a mighty effort, nor can it evoke in them faith and a single-minded dedication. They look on self-interest as on something tainted and evil: something unclean and unlucky."

[SueM]

Section 6, Chapter one states the requirements:
discontent but not poor
power
hope of a much brighter future
doesn't realize the difficulties of obtaining goal

(I'm reading this book with Hamas (& other groups) in mind to try and understand their actions)
The goal: their own country & no Israel (this might be the brighter future and the hope for power)
Economic status: While poor, because of contributions, etc , not a struggle to live day to day (This is in jepardy because of the withdrawel of international aid funds since the election of Hamas)
Dificulties of goals: This is a stickler as surely by now (40 years later) they realize the difficulties. (But they still get followers to act as suicide bombers...but maybe because their deaths help the economic situation of their family units???)

Would this situation be defined as a mass movement? Is there a timeline?? Would this situation be passed the initial stages of a mass movement, since there are defined leaders? Can a mass movement be stalled at a certain stage for many years, then be picked up again? Is there a way to make this "movement" benign? Can a reason for the initial start of the movement be eliminated? (Thinking of the demise of Israel...could that be put aside for the gain of a country??) Would the followers accept it???


(These are just musings! Not necessarily of any merit:-))

[SueM]

Number 12:

"Yet to the frustrated the present is irremediably spoiled. Comforts and pleasures cannot make it whole. No real content or comfort can ever arise in their minds but from hope."

Page 12, Number 7:

"People who see their lives as irremediably spoiled cannot find a worth-while purpose in self-advancement. The prospect of an individual career cannot stir them to a mighty effort, nor can it evoke in them faith and a single-minded dedication. They look on self-interest as on something tainted and evil: something unclean and unlucky."

I read this as "My life sucks so much. Everything I try to do turns into a mess. Why even try...I will just fail. If I go to school to get more schooling, I will fail or the job will be sent overseas." Another is Sometimes in the Christian faith, success is looked down on "it is hard to have a rich man in heaven as it is to get a camel thru an eye of the needle" That might be the intent behind that quote.

[ASG]

I read this as "My life sucks so much. Everything I try to do turns into a mess. Why even try...I will just fail. If I go to school to get more schooling, I will fail or the job will be sent overseas." Another is Sometimes in the Christian faith, success is looked down on "it is hard to have a rich man in heaven as it is to get a camel thru an eye of the needle" That might be the intent behind that quote.
Interesting.

BTW, as seen, I'm reading this in more of a "how illogical are mass movements?" way. I always read things seeming to find what I might disagree with rather that what I nod my head to. May be its because I already agree with these things that I don't find them as interesting. Anyway...

Page 26, number 22:

"The intensity of discontent seems to be inverse proportion to the distance from the object feverently desired."

Page 31, number 26:

"Freedom aggravates at least as much as it alleviates frustration. Freedom of choice places the whole blame of failure on the shoulders of the individual."

Although I somewhat agree, I think certain points are left out. Part of the reason for quote #1 IMO is because the closer a group gets to their desires, the more the group on the outside declares the problem already solved. Once even a small minority of a group achieves success, the ones not struggling can then declare "see it can be done!" and say that the reason why the others are not succeeding is because of the failings of the individuals in that group while ignoring the playing field. This then allows the group in power to say that the problem is solved and not neccessarily wish to make the final step for those frustrated to reach their goal.

[dalokgawd]

"Freedom aggravates at least as much as it alleviates frustration. Freedom of choice places the whole blame of failure on the shoulders of the individual."
This kind of goes back to my point about people wanting to join mass movements because it relieves them of the responsibility for their failures and the consequences of their actions. Hoffer talked about the Nazis and the fact that they felt they were blameless for their actions because they were just following orders. It must be an appealing idea for some to not have to face the consequences of their actions because they are just part of a whole and are only following orders.

It seems like a much easier life, if you can even call it that.

[mohater]

Alot of what I have been arguing in the "hatred towards athiests" thread is supported by this little excerpt from Part 10 of Chapter 2 (page 14):

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

It's even more interesting when you consider this in light of what Hoffer said in part 7 of the same chapter (page 12):

"Their innermost craving is for a new life - a rebirth - or, failing this, a chance to acquire some new elements of pride, confidence, hope, a sense of purpose and worth by an identification with a holy cause. An active mass movement offers them both."

So here you have someone who identifies themself and derives all of their pride, confidence, and self worth through their membership in the mass movement. Add to that a desire to "mind other people's business" and you create an individual with a much lower opinion of those who are not members of his mass movement and at the same time has a desire to meddle in their affairs. Havoc ensues.

This is not specific to Atheists. People enjoy drama in everything. You can have people within the same religion who love to get involved with other people's lives simply because their lives are boring and empty (to them). It's why people watch reality tv, American Idol, etc..

Once you get to the extreme spectrum of calling people to religion you find the people who simply have nothing positive to say about others. That's where that issue lies.

Preface xiii

The book passes no judgment, and expresses no preferences. It merely tries to explain; and the explanation - all of them theories - are in the natures of suggestions and arguments even when they are stated in a categorical tone. I can do no better than quote Montaigne: "All I saw is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice, I should speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed"

The above to me seems to be something forgotten in general. Everyone seems to be at conclusions before even having an inch of depth into the issues of today and are eager to explain and pass judgment.

Slow down peoples - let's try to have this book last a couple months with regards to discussion.

[ASG]

That's why I was waiting before putting up more quotes.

[Doctor_Wu]

We should note that in Chapter 1 Hoffer says that the communists were more successful in China than the Nationalists b/c Chiang Kai-shek was unable to set in motion a genuine mass movement.

Hoffer says the Comunists were ..."masters of the art of religiofication - the art of turning practical purposes into holy causes." -page 6

I think it's important to remember that we can turn mundane prusuits into holy causes.

---

Page 6 -

"There is in us a tendency to locate the shaping forces of our existence outside ourselves. Success and failure are unavoidably related in our minds with the state of things around us. Hence it is that people with a sense of fulfillment think it is a good world and would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change."

And that sense of fulfillment isn't limited to material wellbeing.

Hoffer says that 'those who fail' will blame the world for it.

But the successful also believe they are not fully responsible for their success...

"The self confidence of even the consistently successful is never absolute. They are never sure they know all the ingredients which go into the making of their success. The outside world seems to them a precariously balanced mechanism, and so long as it ticks in their favor they are afraid to tinker with it."

So if you are either successful or fulfilled... or otherwise at peace with the world, according to Hoffer you are less inclined towards change. The world is adequate to your needs... and change might threaten what we have.


In Section 3 he talks about how discontent does not automatically create the desire for change.

His point in support of this is that power can counteract discontent...

"Those who are awed by their surroundings do not think of change, no matter how miserable their condition."

That seems to be straight out of Machiavelli. He spoke about a power that could 'dazzle the eyes' as one that would not really be challenged.

Page 8 -

"The men who rush into undertakings of vast change usually feel they are in possession of some irresistible power."


In both instances power still causes awe. In the former case... the power seems to be that thing that can't be moved... in the latter case power is that thing that will conquer all.

So the masters of an ideology feel its power... and see it as irresistible. And the people who cannot resist are drawn into their orbit. Hoffer has more to say about who is drawn into mass movements later...

[mohater]

and here lies the question Wu - What is your state? Or the State of the people (of the nation, tribe, continent, world, etc.)

A major issue with the people who are pushing for high level change is that they are in a certain state and wish to have others, regardless of their socio-economic status or affiliations, tie into their state.

[mohater]

Page 9

If the Communists win Europe and a large part of the world, it will not be because they know how to stir up discontent or how to infect people with hatred, but because they know how to preach hope.

How is this any difference then today? Or 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago? People make the claim that "we" are different from those in the developing world, or the third world, but are we? The whole idea that the doctrine of that time pushed to the people as something "reasonable" no matter how asinine it was, and depending how it was displayed determined if it was adopted or not.

Page 10

Hence men of outstanding achievement and those who live full, happy lives usually set their faces against drastic innovation. They are on the lookout for signs of decay, and feel that any change is more likely to be worse than the better. The abject poor are also without faith in the future. The future seems to them a booby trap buried on the road ahead

I bolded the word full - because here it contains the full meaning. All the people who have "full" lives, whether rich, poor, employed or not, hungry or not, are content with their state and their existence. Everyone else is looking for someone to treat their current state either because they feel empty or they need to make up for previous actions.

[Doctor_Wu]

Chapter 2

Page 15


In modern society people can live without hope only when kept dazed and out of breath by incessany hustling.

So... the modern world for all intents and pruposes is w/o hope of redemption. People still go to chruch of course, but by and large our culture is not one that dwells long on the promise of eternity, or redemption. And certainly not in the way people did when the church ran everything.

Some people see this as the case b/c the modern world is secular, but it's also b/c we're very positivist. And I think you see that reflected in our culture in a theme you hear often that we might call the 'one life to live' mentality. Much of our advertising and media focus on this idea. You often hear, 'you only live once' or 'you can't take it with you', 'live for today'. There's a very real sense that you have but one opportunity to get it right. And the result of that idea permeating the culture is to disconnect us from a feeling of connectedness with eternity... and therefore to get rid of hope.

The despair brought about by unemployment comes not only from the threat of destitution, but from the sudden view of a vast nothingness ahead.

So when we have massive unemployment... lots of people out of work and with no prospects for work... modern people are in trouble. When you get into situations like that... materialism cannot distract you as it once did. And you can no longer ignore the vacuum that exists in your soul. Now this doesn't mean you head for a church, of course not. But you'll be looking for 'salvation'... earthly salvation. And that requires a savior. So... that's where the mass movement can come in and sweep up so many into its grasp.

I think it's no accident that during the Great Depression FDR used the government to put people to work... lest some other force capture their hearts.

Tocqueville (who Hoffer quotes often) said that once a people's religion is destroyed their soul is enervated and they are prepared for bondage...

"Then not only will they let their freedom be taken from them, but often they will actually hand it over themselves."

"When there is no authority in religion or in politics, men are soon frightened by the limitless independence with which they are faced. They are worried and worn out by the constant restlessness of everything. With everthing on the move in the realm of the mind, they want the material order at least to be firm and stable, and as they cannot accept their ancient beliefs again, they hand themselves over to a master.""

If you don't have a heavenly Caeser, you'll get an earthly one.

For now we are mollified by a comfortable materialism.

[mohater]

Chapter 2

Page 16

A substitute embraced in moderation cannot supplant and efface the self we want to forget. We cannot be sure that we have something worth living for unless we are ready to die for it.

It's an all or nothing kind of deal. Complete abhorrence and detachment, or complete fanatical attachment. While the notion of "middle ground" is something people often vouch for (the "best" for everyone), oddly enough it doesn't ever seem to satisfy either side, and never seems to leave a lasting solution.

Chapter 3

Page 16

When people are ripe for a mass movement, they are usually ripe for any effective movement, and not solely for one with a particular doctrine or program.

This is one issue Hoffer comes to time and time again in the book. The people who jump into mass movements will generally take anything that caters to their needs (namely: having something to believe in, and someone preaching it to them). It's interesting to note this because often times within a certain group, there were two active movements, and when one failed (which usually happened), suddenly everyone picked up the ideals of the other one like nothing happened.

[Doctor_Wu]

Page 20

"Every mass movement is in a sense a migration - a movement toward a promised land; and, when feasible and expedient, an actual migration takes place."

I like that. The mass movement is a migration. And the way Hoffer talks about it up to this point as involving the escape from ourselves... he concludes the section with this messanic theme of the promised land that exists for some in their hearts and in the world as well.

A mass movement that actually moves... that's got to help with the cohesion of the group. You get to the new land and you're on your own... that has the beneficial effect of limiting distractions... survival is paramount... and the group can turn its focus inward on itself and its own needs.

So in that sense a mass movement that happens within society needs to isolate itself via experience. You look at Jehovah's Witnesses, knocking on doors to spread the word. To many people that's intrusive. And it often garners a hostile response. But that hostility was predicted to them by the bible and by their fellow members... that common experience reminds them that they are indeed 'on their own' in this world. The experience reinforces the truth of the doctrine to which they subscribe.

[mohater]

^

That caught my eye as well, mainly because the end product is unattainable. No matter how unreal the "promised land" is, people will work, and die for it (hence the Jehovah witness example - working to get everyone working to something they won't find in this life).

Page 24 Chap IV section 18

The reason that the inferior elements of a nation can exert a marked influence on its course is that they are wholly without reverence toward the present. They see their lives and the present as spoiled beyond remedy and they are ready to waste and wreck both: hence their recklessness and their will to chaos and anarchy.

The next section I really like because it digs into why mass movements are not sustainable given the conditions of certain nations (namely countries with well established institutions and economies). Outside of the people who make up the bulk of the mass movement, even in absence of the bulk, you still have the individuals who fit the above mold. They recognize the entire present as flawed and without the ability to be remedied.

Order should always be preferred to Chaos and Anarchy - even under oppressed states. At least under the oppressed state there exists some consistency and relative calmness (note: assuming oppressed states like N. Korea, Iran, etc.). The consistency can be accommodated for, while nothing can be done to deal with anarchy and chaos.

[kellymich]

I hate to bring up Nietszche again … but he essentially says that young people have no rest until they find a philosophy or religion which wants to dominate the world – and cannot help but doing so.

In the west, the state has often replaced religion for atheists and agnostics – often with not very good results. And even many of our protestant religions have become absurdly political instead of fulfilling the primary function they once did – namely, the care of the soul . Our republicans and our democrats may offer some programmes for outer social questions but they do not offer psychological insights or provide much in the way helping people navigate inner trials or pass the inner thresholds that an individual needs to pass in order to become a functioning mature adult. Liberalism and Conservatism has become a not very satisfying religion to millions of people.

The catholic church is still one of the few functioning religious bodies that still does a somewhat adequate job although they are in many ways archaic and backwards … nevertheless catholics have a tendency to have far fewer psychological problems than protestants and atheists. Their world is still bounded by the father, the son, the holy ghost and a myriad of saints. If you follow the path you are assured that “all will turn out well” – this is no small comfort in our day and age. The difference between the catholics and the protestants is that the catholics still do things that actually matter psychologically to the individual whereas Protestantism has had a tendency to spin off into psychological irrelevancy and gross superstition. .

This gentleman is correct when he says that people will find a path to become a true believer … whether he becomes a catholic, or a democrat, or joins a street gang, or the military, or becomes a sports fanatic. Even our broad minded liberal humanists are often very fanatical and narrow when it comes down to it-- true believers in every sense of the word -- never doubting for an instant their right to impose their world view on everyone else.

The job, the task, is to give people vital options towards things which are constructive– something which is barely occurring in our day and age. If we don’t give our people appropriately creative options … they will become destructive. We see people destructing, self destructing, and blacking out all the time in our society. Whether it is a slow death, or a fast death -- many people have been driven to the wall by the life their birth promised vs. the life they have been forced to lead.

I see no broad movements in the western world today that could bridge the gap for many people ... there have been real beginings of new movements by some of our best poets, sages and seers ( the real prophets of the last 200 years in the western world)... but as yet, the new Gods are not firmly entrenched in the culture. The next 50 to 100 years will probably prove to be a rootless and terrifying time for many people. If the appropriate broad movements can arise en masse much could be averted. But so far, nothing of any real significance has occurred on a broad scale....and a lot of dissolution is occurring at a very rapid pace -- dissolution is begining to tighten, speed up, and move faster. The movements "for change" in the 1960's were merely a somewhat bungled reconnaissance mission. They didn't offer people anything as solid and real as even catholicism. They were seeking which is a good thing, but they often got lost in a lot of cul de sacs and dead ends.

In any event, this is the latitude and longtitude of where we are today, as far as I can determine... human psychology is a force which has to be reckoned with -- many people are trying to subdue it, pretend it is not what it is, or make it tame... which is a mistake that will only ultimately produce more violence, destruction and fanaticism. The trick is to find things which will satisify human psychology and produce healthy mature individuals. Man is the sick animal - he doesn;t know what to do with himself. The role of our artists and psychologists is paramount -- they fullfill the priestly function in our secular age ... if they don't do their job properly, which many are not, millions will be lost. Our artists and psychologists (the real ones) need to begin to understand the importance of their role. If they begin to black out or behave irresponsibly, as so many have been doing recently, society will soon decend into a veritable tohu bohu of chaos and destruction with nothing to keep the flood gates closed.

[Doctor_Wu]

Page 24 Chap IV section 18

The reason that the inferior elements of a nation can exert a marked influence on its course is that they are wholly without reverence toward the present. They see their lives and the present as spoiled beyond remedy and they are ready to waste and wreck both: hence their recklessness and their will to chaos and anarchy.

They also crave to dissolve their spoiled, meaningless selves in some soul-stirring spectacular communal undertaking - hence their proclivity for united action.


I had this marked as well.

I've been thinking lately that unhappiness represents a rejection of the present. Conversely, in order to be happy you have to be at least somewhat accepting of the present.

Chapter V - The Poor

Section 20

"It is usually those whose poverty is relatively recent, the "new poor," who throb with the ferment of frustration. The membery of better things is as a fire in their veins."

"So long as those who did the world's work lived on a level of bare subsistence, they were looked upon and felt themselves to be the traditionally poor. They felt poor in good times and bad. Depressions, however severe, were not seen as aberrations and enormities. But with wide diffusion of a high standard of living, depressions and the unemployment they bring assumed a new aspect. The present day working man in the Western world feels unempolyment as a degradation. He sees himself disinherited and injured by an unjust order of things, and is willing to listen to those who call for a new deal."

"The poor on the borderline of starvation live purposeful lives. To be engaged in a desperate struggle for food and shelter is to be wholly free from a sense of futility."

This last portion was one of the biggest revelations I gained from this book. We so frequently hear about poverty as the source of many ills in the world, from crime to terrorism. And you'd think that the poorer the person the more desperate and miserable his life. But it's strangely the opposite. The meaning derived from the struggle for existence is so great that the meal, as Hoffer goes on to state, is a triumph.

Section 22


"Misery does not automatically generage discontent, nor is the intensity of discontent directly proportionate to the degree of misery"

"A greviance is most poignant when almost redressed."

"The intensity of discontent seems to be in inverse proportion to the distance from the object fervently desired."


This was another of the 'bombs' in this book for me...

And it's straight out of Tocqueville, as Hoffer says. I think in contemporary terms we see the truth of this in the question of gay marriage. We're closer than ever to having gay marriage everywhere, and the intensity of feeling related to the issue is also stronger than ever. You didn't see this kind of passion over this subject 10 years ago. It wasn't even on the radar. Now it's the subject of many political conversations and people feel it as an extreme kind of repression and injustice. But when this repressive regime known as "conventional marriage" was far stronger, say 20 years ago... this felt injustice was not as felt... the intense passion didn't exist.

So as we move closer to what we want, as things improve... the feeling that things are worse than ever also seems to grow. Hoffer says Tocqueville saw this...

"in no one of those periods following the Revolution of 1789 has the national prosperity of France augmented more rapidly than it did in the twenty years preceding that event. He is forced to conclude that "the French found their position to be more intolerable the better it became."

Section 23

"Our frustration is greater when we have much and want more than when we have nothing and want some. We are less dissatisfied when we lack many things than when we seem to lack but one thing."

I've seen this as true in my personal life with people I know. I think that's why people have to be constantly reminded to count their blessings. But I also see it as something that plays into our national politics as well.

--

There's something to be said for the fact that in liberating the masses from abject poverty and subsistance living we have also liberated an intense vice of mankind. We've loosed upon the world man's propensity for feeling intense indignation over (compartively) minor affronts to his station, vs the original condition of man as a total slave to the earth, or Nature.

Most regulars here know I'm fond of Tocqueville's quote that "...the human heart also nourishes a debased taste for equality, which leads the weak to want to drag the strong down to their level and which induces men to prefer equality in servitude to inequality in freedom."

Some people see liberty in slavery... and that is in part what Hoffer's book is about.

[kellymich]

Page 24 Chap IV section 1


"in no one of those periods following the Revolution of 1789 has the national prosperity of France augmented more rapidly than it did in the twenty years preceding that event. He is forced to conclude that "the French found their position to be more intolerable the better it became."

There's something to be said for the fact that in liberating the masses from abject poverty and subsistance living we have also liberated an intense vice of mankind. We've loosed upon the world man's propensity for feeling intense indignation over (compartively) minor affronts to his station, vs the original condition of man.


Shopenhauer argues that if material need were satisfied for all people man would most likely out of boredom still find causes for wars, conflicts and even might destroy the apparatus that is supplying the material needs for all men.

Tennesee Williams argued that we have a need for the white heat of struggle and conflict and even some privation for the most creative aspects in man to be unleashed … Williams says that the vanities and the laxities which come from luxury and fame poses the greatest spiritual danger for us.

Why does the middle class kid become a murderer or the millionaire's son run off to tibet ?
The answer is not found in the usual western humanistic way of looking at things.

In any event, the struggle against spiritual boredom seems foremost among man’s occupations, almost as much as the struggle against material poverty. When a people accustomed to hard conditions of survival and very little else begins to find material conditions improve and a certain degree of safety and self confidence achieved ... watch out ... the danger is far from past -- this is the time that man has enough Leisure and safety to become ambitious but is still confused what it is he needs to be ambitious about. Usually his ambition doesn’t go much further than to covet his neighbors bigger house, nicer car,and more beautiful wife.-- anotherwords he becomes very unhappy on account of that which he believes ought to be his. What generally follows is an attempt to pull down the neighbor and lift up himself...

[Anonymouse]

Section 22


"Misery does not automatically generage discontent, nor is the intensity of discontent directly proportionate to the degree of misery"

"A greviance is most poignant when almost redressed."

"The intensity of discontent seems to be in inverse proportion to the distance from the object fervently desired."


This was another of the 'bombs' in this book for me...

And it's straight out of Tocqueville, as Hoffer says. I think in contemporary terms we see the truth of this in the question of gay marriage. We're closer than ever to having gay marriage everywhere, and the intensity of feeling related to the issue is also stronger than ever. You didn't see this kind of passion over this subject 10 years ago. It wasn't even on the radar. Now it's the subject of many political conversations and people feel it as an extreme kind of repression and injustice. But when this repressive regime known as "conventional marriage" was far stronger, say 20 years ago... this felt injustice was not as felt... the intense passion didn't exist.

So as we move closer to what we want, as things improve... the feeling that things are worse than ever also seems to grow. Hoffer says Tocqueville saw this...

"in no one of those periods following the Revolution of 1789 has the national prosperity of France augmented more rapidly than it did in the twenty years preceding that event. He is forced to conclude that "the French found their position to be more intolerable the better it became."

Section 23

"Our frustration is greater when we have much and want more than when we have nothing and want some. We are less dissatisfied when we lack many things than when we seem to lack but one thing."It shouldn't surprise the astute observer of human nature that such is the case - that distance is a natural moderator.
When something is so far away as to be practically unobtainable, the human psyche imposes a rationalization on the desire for it in order to keep the self sane and not tied up in frustration which clouds thinking and interferes with accomplishment of more achievable goals.
It is only when it becomes tantalizingly close enough that it IS possible to perhaps grasp it, that the desire becomes unrestrained and the mind begins to drop the mental blockage and concentrate on actually achieving it.

20 years ago the idea of legally sanctioned gay marriage was completely unthinkable - relegated to the realm of science fictional utopians such as the Star Trek universe represented. (And may actually have had something to do with the change in people's attitudes about gay marriage, incidentally.)

Once the idea perculated for a time, and the acceptance of it became more widespread, or rather the depth of revulsion to it diminished, the idea became palatable enough to begin leaving a taste of the possibility in the mouths of those who formerly only had dreams of it on lonely nights in their solitary beds. When that taste began to reinforce the dreams to the point it remained available during the waking hours, the idea of making it a reality also began to gain ground with those who wished it to become reality.
When the daydreams become a part of life, the actions to realize those daydreams follow as surely as a dog will pee on a hydrant other dogs have visited.

By the time the movement to realize such a goal have gained steam, the resistance to it, (which had also been subsumed as unthinkable therefore needing no reinforcement), is awakened in individuals and groups who begin to see it as a threat. Their opposition only serves to motivate those who have now had a taste of the dream in their waking time - making their desire the stronger.

No, it should not surprise you at all, that such is the case.

[Doctor_Wu]

It is testimony to our collective unreason that even after things improve we feel as though our oppression is worse than ever.

[Anonymouse]

It is testimony to our collective unreason that even after things improve we feel as though our oppression is worse than ever.
I would submit that, psychologically, the oppression IS worse when things begin to get better.
It is a well known fact that things which are unobtainable are not missed, nor is their lack felt as an incompleteness - due to rationalization.
Oppression is a consciousness stream, not an absolute measure. Expectations of future rewards are upset and a loss suffered ONLY when that expected reward is challenged or made unobtainable when it appeared it WAS obtainable.

I propose a thought exercise.
Suppose someone said it would be nice to be a billionaire and that someday you could be one if you just managed to work hard at your current job.
Unlikely you would swallow that expectation as remotely likely to occur, though it is not outside the realm of possibility.

Now, change the external conditions of your job.

All persons currently in your field are killed off by a mysterious plague affecting only those with your experience and knowledge. There are 4 survivors and you are the most senior of the 4, and the most edumacated and experienced of them as well.
The need for your discipline becomes paramont ot the survival of the human race and a salary/prize of $1 Billion is offered to the person who will impart the knowledge to save humanity.
You offer your services but are rejected because the least senior of the 4, and the least experienced as well, is chosen as a result of being married to the sister of the offerer of the salary/prize.
You receive a lesser reward of double your old salary as a result of having a scarce commodity, your knowledge and experience.
Suddenly the idea of becoming a billionaire because you stayed at your job and worked hard has been within your grasp and taken away from it all at the same time.

Q: Do you feel MORE or LESS oppressed at that moment?

[Doctor_Wu]

I would submit that, psychologically, the oppression IS worse when things begin to get better.
It is a well known fact that things which are unobtainable are not missed, nor is their lack felt as an incompleteness - due to rationalization.
Oppression is a consciousness stream, not an absolute measure. Expectations of future rewards are upset and a loss suffered ONLY when that expected reward is challenged or made unobtainable when it appeared it WAS obtainable.


So oppression is not an action? It is only a feeling?

[ImaginaryFriend]

So oppression is not an action? It is only a feeling?
Are you implying feelings are irrelevant? Or that actions are immutable?

Is it not that perception is as important as intent or result when it comes to any action?

[Anonymouse]

Let us examine the MW definition of "Oppression".
op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'pre-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : DEPRESSION

Parsed:
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power

"unjust", "cruel", EXERCISE of power.
When the society has a need for a certain behavior, and any deviation from that behavior is deemed detrimental to it, then the practitioners of that particular behavior will FEEL that their actions are being targeted unfairly. They will FEEL that society is "oppressing" them, even though that "oppression" may be nothing more than general public disapproval and ostracization. The key here is, of course, the POWER to enforce that "oppression". By definition one cannot be oppressed if one is a part of the majority holding the power.
Example:
It is detrimental to a tropical hunter-gatherer society to remain in one particular spot too long. The jungle soils are weak and cannot support sustained agriculture for any lengthy period of time. The society moves periodically to give the land time to become fertile again and for game and wild edibles to replenish themselves.

A couple decides they wish to remain rooted and continue to practice living in the same spot for an extended period of time. Since the territory the tribe traditionally has ownership of is limited, it is easy to see this behavior is something that cannot be sustained on any large scale of population growth and development. If that couple is allowed to do so, then what is to stop other couples from practising the same behavior?
The tribal elders force the couple to pack up and move. Is this "oppression" or is the couples's VIEW of the action what dictates the condition of "oppression"?

The remainder of the tribe does not see being moved every so often as a form of "oppression" - they simply accept it as a necessity and would no more feel "oppressed" than they would if it rained on them.
The couple being forced to move can ONLY feel oppressed if they could imagine and feel that the idea of permanent settlement was obtainable and within their grasp, as it was for a time.
They come to view the action of being forced to move as "unjust" or "cruel" because it denies their dream of an established and permanent place to live - an action unimaginable and unobtainable for the majority of the tribe.

Who is doing the "oppressing" here?
Is it the tribal elders or Mother Nature herself who cannot support, and does not allow for, permanent settlement - by providing fertile land for agriculture and an abundance of game to harvest in perpetuity to feed all who wish to remain in that place?
Can Nature even be said to be an "oppressor"?

Clearly it is not the action which is oppressive, it is the perception that an alternative action exists and the couple cannot achieve it, even though they can imagine it, that generates the "oppression".


b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
Again, the definition discusses perception, a FEELING that there is an "oppressive" power wielded against them. There is no "oppressive" intent on the part of Nature or the tribal elders, simply a certainty, borne of experience, that this is the way it must be. The couple bears the responsibility for any feelings of "oppression".

Why?
Because they rejected the status quo and imagined an alternative existance, and for a time, lived that existance and understood the concept of permanence.
They saw the plentiful crops and plethera of game and dreamed of an easy life where they could accumulate more and more resources and raise a larger and larger family successfully.
What they discounted were the facts of Nature itself, that the soil would not last indefinately, that the game would run out, and they would starve if they stayed rooted in place.
Again, clearly the idea of "oppression" is born in the minds of the couple after having their dreams taken away from them when they enjoyed a time of plenty and had not yet had to give it up and move on to a new place where they would start from scratch and burn off a new area to plant and begin finding the new hiding places for game.
There was never an "unjust" or "excessive" exercise of power, simply the facts of Nature dictating what must happen.

2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : DEPRESSION
NOW....we come to the crux of the matter. The couple is not HAPPY about giving up their dream, just when it seemed it was within their grasp. They feel DEPRESSED, and from that depression is born the feeling that some force was applied to take away their dreams of a permanent place to live. That some MOTIVE was at work in depriving them of a good life, which they saw evident with their own eyes while they lived in the last place and had all they needed and wanted - except permanence.
It is this dispair at almost having gotten their wishes fulfilled that generate the resentment and engender the feeling of "oppression" in order to hide the fact their dreams were not realistic, that they were living an aberant thought that could not exist at all, and that they were mentally unstable in desiring it.

Does it really matter if tanks and armed troops use torture and imprisonment to take away the dreams of the multitudes in China, or the forces of cruel Mother Nature conspire to keep the tribal couple from achieving their heart's desire?
Is there really any difference - other than the perception that humans COULD be kinder and therefore less "oppressive' than Nature - between those tanks preventing freedom and democracy in China and the jungle preventing permanent settlement where a couple may choose to settle down?

A perceptive difference perhaps, but no real diffference in the outcome of the lives of the persons FEELING "oppressed".
Here we have the example of someone FEELING more "oppressed" as they came closer to their goal, while the living of a life before the IDEA of that goal came into being was a time of indifference and no "oppression" was experienced.

As it relates to Section 23, this example demonstrates it is a near necessity for one to approach a goal before one can become dissatisfied with the conditions of existance. Not until one becomes AWARE of a lack, can one begin to realize a dissatisfaction with it's unattainablity. In order to become aware of that condition, one MUST approach it first, and view it as something both desirable and achievable. In other words, the better you have it, the more angry you become about NOT having it all.

As an aside - I do not know who ImaginaryFriend is, but their comment was spot on with regard to your previous question and IMHO, there is no reason - other than personal disagreement with it's premise as relevent IN YOUR OPINION - to hide that question. It is, and should remain, as a visible part of this discussion - not hidden, for whatever reason.

[Doctor_Wu]

I would submit that, psychologically, the oppression IS worse when things begin to get better.

I believe that most humans who live in circumstances that are not spartan and enjoy some degree of comfort in their lives are never quite satisfied with the present. This is part of the reason it's hard to happy... b/c happiness in a way requires an acceptance of the present.

Oppression may very well be felt to be worse after things have gotten better. But this is related to man's avarice... as opposed to a reasoned consideration of the situation at hand.

[Anonymouse]

I believe that most humans who live in circumstances that are not spartan and enjoy some degree of comfort in their lives are never quite satisfied with the present. This is part of the reason it's hard to happy... b/c happiness in a way requires an acceptance of the present.

Oppression may very well be felt to be worse after things have gotten better. But this is related to man's avarice... as opposed to a reasoned consideration of the situation at hand.Avarice may play apart in material desires that have not been realized, but for the whole of discontent, (which is the condition Hoffer is addressing as a cause for the drift to any given mass movement), I doubt avarice is either the larger motive or the basic motive at all.
Rationalization is hardly a "reasoned" process. I would submit that it is the exact opposite - a process whereby man(kind) finds a comfort level with that which is intolerable by creating reasons to make it seem ok that man(kind) does not possess that which it desires and cannot have - due to circumstances which are immutable.

It, more often than not, requires the creation of a set of false conditions, and the acceptance of that dichotmy. On the one hand, the self KNOWS those reasons are false, but the unease created by that falsehood, (and living with a known lie), is undesirable - therefore one must create a set of conditions whereby the existance of those inconsistances are explainable through a convoluted set of relationships that give the APPEARANCE of holding a logical truth. I refer to this process as the "Why fire engines are always painted red" fallacy.

Why are fire engines always painted red?
Fire engines have 8 wheels and 4 men.
4 + 8 = 12
12 inches = 1 foot
A foot is a ruler
The ruler of England is Queen Elizabeth
Queen Mary was the ruler of Scotland
The Scots fought the Finnish
The Fins fought the Russians
Russians are called Reds
Fire engines are always rushin', therefore they are always red

None of that is remotely true, but it gives the APPEARANCE of a distinct chain of logic that can explain why fire engines are painted red. It does not matter that the individual points are nearly non-sequiters, the individual waypoints in the chain have the ring of truth to them. If they are not examined too closely, it can leave the listener with a feeling that it has been explained. All one need do is pointedly avoid looking straight ahead at the individual transitions and seeing they are in no way a SOUND and unassailable chain of consecutive proofs. A lie by ommission rather than a lie of untruthfulness - to oneself.

Coincidentally, I think this could also be named the FAUX NEWZ fallacy, but that would impart a political and partisan spin to the discussion based on my own perceptions. (Not that other news agencies don't use skewed chains of logic at times, just that FOX appears to spend an inordinate amount of effort to engage in it systematically across all of their programming, for political reasons, based on the beliefs of it's owner.)

[mohater]

Section 26 - The Free Poor

Unless a man has talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join mass movements to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, "to be free from freedom"

This has a nice ring to it. People who generally "suck at life" don't enjoy any of the benefits of "freedom". They don't like intellectual capacity, entrepreneurship, etc - consistency is key here. The connects with sections 22 and 23 when people, instead of wanting to get ahead, would prefer everyone stagnates and no one is "different".

Same Section (26) End of it

...Nor perhaps would there have been a Bolshevik revolution if the Russian peasant had not been free for a generation or more and had a taste of the private ownership of land.

I like this one because it's a practical what if. Most other "what ifs" depend on people dying or someone else NOT dying. This goes to a lower denominator - the public. Given what they knew, they supported what was going on, regardless of who the leaders were. Had they been aware of some of the alternatives... But again, it goes back to sections 22/23 - being content with the present, and how close the "issues" of today hit home.

[Doctor_Wu]

Chapter V
Section 32

"The attitude of rising mass movements toward the family is of considerable interest. Almost all of our contemporary movements showed in their early stages a hostile attitude toward the family, and did all they could to discredit and disrupt it. They did it by undermining the authority of the parents; by facilitating divorce; by taking over the responsibility for feeding, educating, and entertaining the children; and by encouraging illegitimacy."

So the disruption of the traditional family prepares the soil for the new 'family' ... provided by the mass movement.

"As one would expect, a disruption of the family, whatever its causes, fosters automatically a collective spirit and creates a responsiveness to the appeal of mass movements."

As the "little polity" of the family has weakened, the potentcy of collective movements has increased. In the 20th century we saw a great deal of individual empowerment and the promotion of idea of the individual as a self-creating entity. There is a libertarian ideal where we become so independent as individuals that all human relations are founded on contract... much to the chagrin of libertarians we have seen that as we have liberated the individuals from their families and historic customs, we have seen them desire collective economic programs. And some of these programs may even serve to further diminish family ties, ie social security. With the government paying us in retirement, suddenly there's less need for the family to serve as the social safety net. So there may be a self reinforcing side effect of collective policies.

If we continue to isolate the individual from the family we will probably continue to see the "collective spirit" remain strong. Perhaps the libertarian should really be a social conservative first... as his ideal of economic liberty is constantly going to be challenged by the sentiments promoted by the decline of the family.


Section 33

"The ideal of self advancement which the civilizing West offers to the backward populations brings with it the plague of indivdual frustration. All the advantages brought by the West are ineffectual substitues for th esheltering and soothing anonymity of a communal existence. Even when the Westernized native attains personal success - becomes rich, or masters a respected profession - he is not happy. He feels naked and orphaned. The nationalist movements in the colonial countries are partly a striving after group existence and an escape from Western individualism."

Even those who do achieve are not happy? It seems we are not all constructed so that we can enjoy material well being that is devoid of meaning. Group identity still matters.

[mohater]

Section 34

"It is futile to judge the viability of a new movement by the truth of its doctrine and the feasibility of its process. What has to be judged is its corporate organization for quick and total absorption of the frustrated."

Ding, ding ding. Not happy with your present? Try us, we're "different" and will cater to a "change." What the viability actually is never matters, it's just the idea that what we do will be "better", even if we have to use chaos over stability to achieve this...

Section 35

"The destruction of the Temple caused, if anything, a tightening of the communal bonds... Later, when the Christian Church had the power to segregate the Jews in the ghettos, it gave their communal compactness an additional reinforcement."

Hoffer comes back to the Jews and how they survived many times. Reiterating that most attempts to crush them, or make them miserable only gave them either: 1) The ability for common goals (rebuilding the Temple) or 2) making them outcasts allowed to to remain together and maintain their tradition. The strong footing made it difficult for Christianity to "break in", and the attempts to crush their spirits were all counter-productive, because the Jews were allowed to remain close.

[Doctor_Wu]

Chapter VIII

Section 39

It's interesting that we could have problems facing unlimited opportunities. It seems reasonable that the newly impoverished present one kind of threat to stability... but it's insane that abundance does the same thing to us.


Chapter X

The Bored

"When people are bored, it is primarily with their own selves that they are bored. The consciousness of a barren meaningless existence is the main fountainhead of boredom. People who are not conscious of their individiual separateness, as is the case with those who are members of a compact tribe, church, party, etcetera, are not accessible to boredom."

"Pleasure chasing and dissipation are ineffective palliatives"


This was one of the most interesting portions of all for me. And really the first time I considered how powerful boredom can be. Kierkegaard concieved of boredom as a manifestation of despair, brought on by the knowledge that the things of the world are no longer enough to keep you entertained. He thought of this as a longing for death. Though he did see the bored person as higher in nobility than the person who's appetites are so strong that they never become bored with the things of the world. His salve for boredom of course was faith.

In a recent lecture I found online I was interested to hear the speaker talk about Russell Kirk's account of boredom...

"Boredom is essentially a metaphysical disease.

Boredom is the final and most enervating human disease. It can produce ideological madness, which can be expressed in efforts to remake the world, to deify humans as the authors of their own reality. Or it can result in an intense privatism, an indifference to all things public. To all beings outside of one's own pinched world."

So he speaks here of the possibility of boredom laying the foundation for mass movements, in terms of it producing "ideological madness" and the deification of humans as the authors of reality. Certainly we have seen "efforts to remake the world" and the belief that humans are authors of their own reality in the large ideological mass movements of the 20th century, Nazism and Communism.

More from the Kirk lecture...

"A romantic is never bored, for he occupies a world full of mystery and surprise. A reality understood in complex forms, in traditions, in liturgeries in myths, even in complex social fabrics that bind humans together into community, and that bind communities together across time. To inhabit such a reality is to see in all simple things, the wonder of the universe. To see patterns, to see connections, to relish in the particular. B/c in the particular one spies, but does not possess, the universal.

Where does boredom come from?

The lust for power or control disconnected reason from imagination. And made reason a servant of human desire to control. Such an abstracted reason focused on instrumental knowledge, on the power to alter the natural world, and in due course to alter the nature of humans... in order for abstract reason to produce a new earth, a new civilization focused around human desires.

[mohater]

Minorities
Section 40:
A minority which preserves its identity is inevitably a compact whole which shelters the individual, gives him a sense of belonging and immunizes him from frustration.

HELLO? This was EONS before PC and quotas to measure "diversity" metrics. He comes back to this topic again and again when he goes through various groups and their "struggles". What's ironic is often the struggle is counter productive because of certain opportunists who are able to direct the ambitions of the group...

Couple sentances later:

... The segregated Negro in the South is less frustrated then the nonsegregated Negro in the North.

There are actually books on that very topic. It's an interesting concept, how segregation (note: this was specific to certain forms of interaction, not including water fountains, restaurants, but the social interactions and the norms of the area) created a set of norms that allowed people to interact and communicate.

[kellymich]

It is testimony to our collective unreason that even after things improve we feel as though our oppression is worse than ever.

As Nietzsche says… the poor are now huddled in the rain and devising some small entertainment and satisfaction at expense of his neighbor standing next to him—this and only this is the poverty of the poor.

The cheap vicarious delight of the middle class as they watch people like britney spears being torn to pieces. The "poverty" of the jerry springer show and its artificial drama and racheted up human conflicts. Material well being is not always synonomous with well being.

People are oppressed though that much is true-- mostly with the wretched parlor smoke of their insignificant lives. Naturally, the anger and discontent, the hate and the fear, eventually finds a voice-- usually in an accusation of the neighbor and the happy healthy and content.-- "they are capable of something that I want... and they have deprived me of my rightful place in the universe"-- so goes the deranged reasoning of our times. Modern man writhes and squirms with envy and hate... and the poison is nearly universal these days. The chinese man, the american man, the russian man-- the so called civilized man.

Americans have achieved one of the highest levels of technical well being and prosperity on the planet… and in American poverty most people eat. But whether a man has talent or wealth he creates envy and dissatisfaction in those who have not, and thus a polarity is established which keeps men at perpetual loggerheads. The thing in our day and age I despise the most are not the genuinely oppressed who are trying to better their situation but the bitter and the envious who have attempted to moralize envy and call it justice.-- what their "justice" becomes is revenge and not even toward those who have wronged them in a personal way-- but an impersonal revenge.

[Anonymouse]

.......But whether a man has talent or wealth he creates envy and dissatisfaction in those who have not, and thus a polarity is established which keeps men at perpetual loggerheads. The thing in our day and age I despise the most are not the genuinely oppressed who are trying to better their situation but the bitter and the envious who have attempted to moralize envy and call it justice.-- what their "justice" becomes is revenge and not even toward those who have wronged them in a personal way-- but an impersonal revenge.Or he could genuinely be striving to improve the conditions of his fellow man and thereby enrich his own community and his sense of both well-being and belonging.

Pull the lever, one explanation is as valid as the next, and until a man reveals himself through his deeds over time, (not even that long of a time - since people can and do change their natures, in pendulum fashion, quite frequently - some more so than others).

Without an impartial yardstick, who is to say which measure is the true measure?
Today I screw someone out of something, but I do it to preserve my own sustenance or that of those I love.
Tomorrow I give up something I may want, or even need, to someone who's need is greater and I ask for no recognition or accolades for doing so.

Which "me" is the better man?
Which me was oppressed - the one who felt a need to steal for his own use or the one who's desire to give was frustrated until he found an outlet that satified that inner longing/lack of belonging?

I ask non-rhetorically, because I do not have an answer, but I also raise the question to remind us all that the POV is a big factor in determining what the judgement of a particular action might be and how it may be wrong sometimes, or right in the exact same conditions - depending on the observer's POV.

Unfortunately, passing any judgement at all imparts a value imposed on the judged and may affect subsequent behavior - which may turn for the worse or for the better. There are times we must choose but I think part of the warning the Longshorman Prophet was trying to impart was the very act of judging may be a root cause that allows a movement to flourish or die when the outcome might have been the opposite were it not for the public pronouncements made, and the image created, by those who judged.
It would be a lucky guess to know if judging was the correct thing to do ahead of time.

[Doctor_Wu]

Chapter 13

Section 44

"The fully assimilated individual does not see himself and others as human beings. When asked who he is, his automatic response is that he is a German, a Russian, a Japanese, a Christian, a Muslim, a member of a certain tribe or family. He has no purpose, worth and destiny apart from his collective body; and as long as that body lives he cannot really die."

"To be cast out from the group should be equivalent to being cut off from life"

"This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes. Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining things when the anti-individualist bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as a throwback to the primitive."

So mass movements are tribal. And primitive. And i see some elements of this with group identity politics... there is a tendency for our politics to flee from individualism back to this group mentality ... even though it's groups within society. The Declaration and Constitution may be the crowning achievements of individualism as a philosophical movement... but the high water mark of individualism as a practical way of living is in our distant past i suspect.

Section 45

"The unavoidable conclusion seems to be that when the individual faces torture or annihilation, he cannot rely on the resources of his own individuality. His only source of strength is in not being himself but part of something mighty, glorious and indestructible. Faith here is primarily a process of identification; the process by which the individual ceases to be himself and becomes part of something eternal. Faith in humanity, in posterity, in destiny of one's religion, nation, race, party or family - what is it but the visualization of that eternal something to which we attach the self that is about to be annihilated?"


Here's one of the reasons why the soviets and Chinese communists outlawed religions... b/c they are a source of individual strength (and loyalty) that runs counter to the communist mass movement. In the US our fidelity towards religion has grown weaker over the years and in that same time we witness the rise of group identity politics. Our fidelity towards the aims and ideals of western civilization have also waned.... we reject our own past as racist, imperialist, bigoted, sexist, et al... and in that same period we saw the rise of group identity politics. As much as we claim to want the melting pot, we are now struck with the notion that our pot is wicked, and we should instead become rather like a tossed salad, where all the component parts remain whole, and undiluted. I wonder if people are drawn into that kind of thing in order to seek refuge from the 'wickedness' of western civ...

In a way the melting pot threatens the individual with annihilation... the American culture might just be too big. Perhaps mass media makes our culture seem like an overwhelming force. Just at the moment when the individual was threatened with being annihilated into the melting pot of mass American culture... the tribe is resurrected.

[mohater]

Factors Promoting Self Sacrifice

Section 47
Dying and killing seem easy when they are part of a ritual, ceremonial, dramatic performance or game. There is need for some kind of make believe in order to face death unflinchingly. To our real, naked selves there is not a thing on earth or in heaven worth dying for. It is when we see ourselves as actors in a staged (and therefore unreal) performance that death loses its frightfulness and finality and becomes an act of make believe and a theatrical gesture.

This part struck me because this book was written in 1966, before the major shifts that created the norms we have today. If this were to be written in a book today that would achieve bestseller status, I think there would be quite a bit of uproar over the above.

In any case, the walk away was this (based on my reading):


Religion is the primary source to help people deal with death. Simply assuming "that's it" provides no solace in the short or long run
Something considered a "part" of life is more easily accepted than anything unknown. We are growing away from any mention of death. Modernity offers an environment that is almost devoid of death (as a concept), and when it does take place, everything is done as if the person is still living (obituary, memorial service, naming something after them, etc


Taking into account most people readily accept the way a secular society deals with death (the second bullet point), this seems to paint a rather accurate picture of today.

.

[ASG]

Not to dumb this down but might I suggest doing a film (either documentary or not, just something that has an interesting jumping off point) for our next discussion?

BTW, I had a few things I wanted to quite and argue with but I think I lost my book.

[ASG]

Why are you discussing books on the podium?
Why shouldn't we be? You don't often see ideas and actual real thought in or even discussing news articles. I'd more be wondering why we are discussing people in the podium.

[mohater]

Not to dumb this down but might I suggest doing a film (either documentary or not, just something that has an interesting jumping off point) for our next discussion?

BTW, I had a few things I wanted to quite and argue with but I think I lost my book.

I still have my notes from the book.

If you find yours, feel free to revive this thread (it was just Wu and I)

[ASG]

Basically, without having quotes, at some point I felt the book was just stretching what he thinks "true believers" actually think because it appeared quite clear he's never been one about anything so he was just projecting. He just made it sound like it was all rebellion of the "have nots."

[mohater]

Basically, without having quotes, at some point I felt the book was just stretching what he thinks "true believers" actually think because it appeared quite clear he's never been one about anything so he was just projecting. He just made it sound like it was all rebellion of the "have nots."

If you go back to earlier posts (or you find your book) you will see Hoffer differentiates the have nots into subgroups. There are plenty of have nots who are perfectly happy in his/her state. There are plenty of haves who are in a complete state of disarray, and constantly seek revolution to bring about radical change in his/her empty life (and demand to project this revolution upon others).

He doesn't make the argument that simple.

[ASG]

If you go back to earlier posts (or you find your book) you will see Hoffer differentiates the have nots into subgroups. There are plenty of have nots who are perfectly happy in his/her state. There are plenty of haves who are in a complete state of disarray, and constantly seek revolution to bring about radical change in his/her empty life (and demand to project this revolution upon others).

He doesn't make the argument that simple.
That's what I'm saying. The haves are only seeking revolution to bring meaning to their lives. Its like there's no such thing as empathy or an ethical sense that things should be better.

[mohater]

That's what I'm saying. The haves are only seeking revolution to bring meaning to their lives. Its like there's no such thing as empathy or an ethical sense that things should be better.

He covers that group too.

Hoffer talks about the people who want to bring about change, but value the consistency of daily life over the risk of anarchy. Those people recognize the need for certain things to change, but accept that order > chaos at all times. A revolution can occur, but there must leaders, who are acceptable leaders, willing to lead the revolution and maintain order after the revolution is achieved (i.e. why the French revolution was so bloody and chaotic compared to the US revolution).

You really should dig up the book.

[ASG]

He covers that group too.

Hoffer talks about the people who want to bring about change, but value the consistency of daily life over the risk of anarchy. Those people recognize the need for certain things to change, but accept that order > chaos at all times. A revolution can occur, but there must leaders, who are acceptable leaders, willing to lead the revolution and maintain order after the revolution is achieved (i.e. why the French revolution was so bloody and chaotic compared to the US revolution).

You really should dig up the book.
I really should. I have pages bookmarked and everything if I could just find the damn thing. I just remember there being a point where it appeared to me to be anti-socialist in a way that people are progressive thinkers are just messed up in the head.

[mohater]

w/o a doubt the guy is pretty conservative.

That being said, he uses history to describe various mass movements and describe the various groups who are there. His claims are not baseless.

[ASG]

w/o a doubt the guy is pretty conservative.

That being said, he uses history to describe various mass movements and describe the various groups who are there. His claims are not baseless.
I'll admit that I never got through the whole book but did he ever use the American Revolution when talk about "those crazy believers" (paraphrasing)? Beause IIRC, I mostly saw the "bad" kind of revolutions mentioned. Even the religious revolutions were not thought of in high regard by him.

[mohater]

I'll admit that I never got through the whole book but did he ever use the American Revolution when talk about "those crazy believers" (paraphrasing)? Beause IIRC, I mostly saw the "bad" kind of revolutions mentioned. Even the religious revolutions were not thought of in high regard by him.

During offline discussions with Wu, I voiced my complaints about Hoffer.

That being said, he's mostly spot on with his assessments of mass movements.

When he talks about the US Revolution, it's usually comparing it to other revolutions (often the French Revolution).

Main points:

US Revolution had key leadership in place ready to assume power. French Revolution did not.
US Revolution had a strong foundation in faith, but did not use it to enforce the revolution. French Revolution was trying to rescind the class system, and also add aspects of egalitarianism.

etc..

[Doctor_Wu]

Basically, without having quotes, at some point I felt the book was just stretching what he thinks "true believers" actually think because it appeared quite clear he's never been one about anything so he was just projecting. He just made it sound like it was all rebellion of the "have nots."

I feel like you're trying to out think the book, instead of just absorbing the argument as it's placed before you. (Possibly a result of having not finished it) But still ... that does provide something for us to discuss.

I think you've got to consider the context of the time when this book was written, 1951 was a time when the world had seen mass movements turn into very dangerous things. It was also the time of the domino theory of communist revolution... the need to understand mass movements was pronounced. So I think Hoffer provided some concise insight there.

It's not just a rebellion of the "have nots", as Mohater pointed out. The truly poor are too preoccupied with the struggle for day to day existence to be caught up in a mass movement. And that was an insight. We might be drawn to casually assume that it's just "the poor"... and it's not... one of the chief elements is the new poor, and the near poor... those who have tasted the good life. But also there are the 'frustrated'... Hitler was a frustrated artist after all. Also, the ambitious facing unlimited opportunities... they can become frustrated. The bored, the misfit... these are all characters that are present, among others mentioned.

I'll admit that I never got through the whole book but did he ever use the American Revolution when talk about "those crazy believers" (paraphrasing)? Beause IIRC, I mostly saw the "bad" kind of revolutions mentioned. Even the religious revolutions were not thought of in high regard by him.

It's not all negative... the last chapter of the book is called "Good and Bad mass movements"

That's what I'm saying. The haves are only seeking revolution to bring meaning to their lives. Its like there's no such thing as empathy or an ethical sense that things should be better.

I really should. I have pages bookmarked and everything if I could just find the damn thing. I just remember there being a point where it appeared to me to be anti-socialist in a way that people are progressive thinkers are just messed up in the head.

To these two quotes combined...

I think there's a distinction to be made between wanting things to be better, and the more intense version which is, the idea that mass action can cure the ills of man. And that is a thoroughly modern sentiment.

I think we can also distinguish between 'wanting things to be better' and hatred of the present. Along with that comes the denigration of the founding, or the past... b/c that gave birth to the present. So, yes... some of progressive thinking does embrace these kinds of mass movement elements. There's the hoped for promised land, sortof perspective that is present in progressive ideologies. That's one of the challenges for the true conservative... he has no promised land to promise... so how does he extol the virtues of the wondrous present? That's not really inspiring to people.

So, to return to the first of these two... meaning cannot be discounted. Progress is meaningful. Social justice is meaningful. It's based in ethics... but so is not telling lies... and people don't go on crusades for that. Social justice very meaningful, and meaningful things are powerful in people's lives. The idea of the promised land kept the Jews together in the desert for 40 years.

There's a question you imply here that I'm not sure Hoffer answers fully. And for the answer I would turn to Jacuqes Barzun... who spoke about the danger of intellectualizing politics. Ethics exist. Doing the right thing, exists. But so does meaning, and so do perceptions about 'the promised land', be that social justice, or just some better future for everone... as vague a notion as you like... hope, even. Hoffer writes about mass movements and their features. Yes, progressivism does have these hallmarks... and it's demotic, it's of the people.

But the question that we presume to answer in the negative is 'Are progressives too progressive?'. Most certainly are not. If they are too progressive, then they will value their end more than social peace and good order. These are what we would think of as radicals. Barzun says that the danger in intellectualizing politics is that one comes to value their policy programs and ideas more than social peace. So there is a limit to how progressive we can be and still be responsible citizens of a republic.

This is the place where the Strauss quote in my signature is appropriate "Classical political philosophy is free from all fanaticism because it knows that evil cannot be eradicated and therefore that one's expectations from politics must be moderate."

Not to dumb this down but might I suggest doing a film (either documentary or not, just something that has an interesting jumping off point) for our next discussion?

BTW, I had a few things I wanted to quote and argue with but I think I lost my book.

Film discussion is not a bad idea. I chose a short book b/c of the hope that more people could tackle it. I don't like film discussion as much b/c of the potential presence of the 'non-serious' participants. A book requires a certain amount of time commitment and discussing it in a web forum is also time consuming. This is a weed out... to such an extreme degree that the thread couldn't sustain itself. But mainly... I think a book discussion brings more to the table in general. A book can express more ideas than a film and can go into much greater depth, with ideas spanning many pages or even chapters. Also you have it in front of you as you revisit it. This refreshes the notation's importance in a way that notes from a film may not... as the original is hard to revisit in a particular moment... when you revisit a text new insights are often gleaned.

A good book brings a lot with it. And deserves to be read and discussed little by little... slowly. Film threads, I think, would be discussed in terms of much broader ideas that span the entire movie. As we are not film students, I don't think we'd be discussing how the plot twist at 39 minutes was a classic film noir device. I think we'd lay out our opinions on the whole thing real quick and it'd be over in a couple of pages at most. I say this b/c the beginning of this thread saw people trying to discuss the book as a whole, from the very start. The desire to summarize the book and its points was so strong that the slow discussion was not seen as fruitful, perhaps. And I'm not saying that I've figured this out totally. There may be an innovation that needs to be realized in order to make this work well. Part of the problem with this thread may have been that the book was not challenging enough to beget a really insightful discussion... but again, my instinct says that most people are intimidated by non-fiction that is too long. So there's balance to be struck between a book that people could conceivably finish and one that offers enough meat for discussion.

If books are to be entertained here (elections seem to get in the way for sure)... I think my main function here was and still is, to bring new and more challenging perspectives to people who were educated in a manner similar to myself. I've found books to be very rewarding, and there are some who have a taste for such things, and may or may not know it.

Though I've not really read them, (just read a lot about them) I have a gnawing sense that reading a Platonic dialogue would be the best thing for this format. It would either be a big hit or a total bust... but there's so much to talk about in each turn of phrase and event ... there's so much hidden from plain sight, yet it lies in plain sight... all that means we could really explore some depth that you don't get in school, or even most colleges. The problem is they are naked and very dry... the teachings are delivered in dialogue form, as a conversation that develops over many pages. For most people today they are hard to read, but they do provide much to discuss... more than almost anything else would.

[ASG]

Good thoughts, Wu. And thanks for clarifying things a bit as well, mohater.