By Kelly O'Connell —— Bio and Archives July 11, 2010
Comments | Print This | Subscribe | Email Us
It is a truism that many who join a rising revolutionary movement are attracted by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in their conditions of life. A revolutionary movement is a conspicuous instrument of change.But why is change so attractive? Hoffer claims empty, dissatisfied yet ambitious people are prime candidates for such zealotry. He believed most at risk are word-smiths longing for some great artistic achievement, but stymied by mediocrity -- like professors, journalists, writers and scholars. Of such destructive "Men of Words," Hoffer wrote:
Mass movements do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited...the deliberate work of men of words with a grievance...It is easy to see how the faultfinding man of words by persistent ridicule and denunciation, shakes prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and familiarizes the masses with the idea of change. What is not so obvious is the process by which the discrediting of existing beliefs and institutions makes possible the rise of a new fanatical faith.Hoffer claims if zealots believe they have power to provoke revolution, it makes all the difference. He cites Marxism in the Russian Revolution as such doctrine acting as dynamite. For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they...must have the feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power. They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking. Experience is a handicap." One notes Obama demanding positive change. Yet he's clueless on how such happens. The biggest reason for Barack's failures: He's an absolute amateur. In general, fanatical groups have certain qualities, says Hoffer:
All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance.B. Religion The nature of fanatical movements is religious. Zealots invariably consider themselves holy. A universal spiritual impulse drives them towards a higher cause, to sacrifice themselves to it, and also find a selfless group identity. Overall, while liberals might be atheist, agnostic, or non-heterodox believers, they still have religious impulses. Of religious instincts, Hoffer writes:
When our individual interests and prospects do not seem worth living for, we are in desperate need of something apart from us to live for...Hence the embracing of a substitute will necessarily be passionate and extreme...the faith we have in our nation, religion, race, or holy cause has to be extravagant and uncompromising...We cannot be sure that we have something worth living for unless we are ready to die for it...Every mass movement is in a sense a migration -- a movement toward a promised land.People can support revolution when seeking meaning for their lives. Here a person becoming "liberalized" away from religious beliefs still needs a raison d'etre. Hoffer claims mass movements offer similar elements as traditional religions. C. Hope Hoffer says fanatic groups always appeal to "Hope," writing:
One of the most potent attractions of a mass movement is its offering of a substitute for individual hope...Those who would transform a nation or the world...must know how to kindle and fan an extravagant hope.C. Flight From Freedom Hoffer claims a driving force in fanatical psychology is escapism from the ponderous burden freedom mandates. Ultimately, fanatical movements like neo-liberalism avoiding the fear and pain associated with responsibility. He writes,
Unless a man has the 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 a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, "to be free from freedom." It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility?Obama claims people shouldn't be put under the fearsome burden of failure, even from their own bad choices. Writes Hoffer, "Freedom of choice places the whole blame of failure on the shoulders of the individual. And as freedom encourages a multiplicity of attempts, it unavoidably multiplies failure and frustration."
The permanent misfits are those who because of a lack of talent or some irreparable defect in body or mind cannot do the one thing for which their whole being craves...and can find salvation only in a complete separation from the self; and they usually find it by losing themselves in the compact collectivity of a mass movement. By renouncing individual will, judgment and ambition, and dedicating all their powers to the service of an eternal cause, they are at last lifted off the endless treadmill which can never lead them to fulfillment.Of the inordinately selfish, Hoffer paints a somber picture, writing,
The inordinately selfish are particularly susceptible to frustration. The more selfish a person, the more poignant his disappointments. It is the inordinately selfish, therefore, who are likely to be the most persuasive champions of selflessness. The fiercest fanatics are often selfish people who were forced, by innate shortcomings or external circumstances, to lose faith in their own selves. They separate the excellent instrument of their selfishness from their ineffectual selves and attach it to the service of some holy cause. And though it be a faith of love and humility they adopt, they can be neither loving nor humble.Consider the extraordinary self-absorption and selfishness of typical liberal politicians. Of Clinton's decision to use Monica Lewinsky as a plaything, or Hillary's decision to sacrifice everything human upon the alter of power. Consider Al Gore's selfish decision to defy the 2000 election. But is Obama most selfish of all? Consider -- he visited his own half-brother in Kenya, living off a dollar a month in a plywood shanty-town. And the millionaire senator, while boasting in speeches of "being my brother's keeper," apparently offered not a cent! Hoffer claims the bored are the largest group feeding members to fanaticism.
There is perhaps no more reliable indicator of a society's ripeness for a mass movement than the prevalence of unrelieved boredom...The consciousness of a barren, meaningless existence is the main fountainhead of boredom...Pleasure-chasing and dissipation are ineffective palliatives. Where people live autonomous lives and are not badly off, yet are without abilities or opportunities for creative work or useful action, there is no telling to what desperate and fantastic shifts they might resort in order to give meaning and purpose to their lives.America now specializes in bored, disaffected youth. If these receive any moral instruction in public school, it's probably Marxist (from the humanistic doctrines of Marxist John Dewey). The collapse of the church as a public institution make the surrender complete. And such indolent rubes make perfect cannon fodder for the Political Correctness wars.
Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both. Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents...Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil.
The vigor of a mass movement stems from the propensity of its followers for united action and self-sacrifice. When we ascribe the success of a movement to its faith, doctrine, propaganda, leadership, ruthlessness and so on, we are but referring to instruments of unification and to means used to inculcate a readiness for self-sacrifice.Hoffer claims such an orientation towards deep self-sacrifice means followers are left in the dark about reality. He writes,
The readiness for self-sacrifice is contingent on an imperviousness to the realities of life. He who is free to draw conclusions from his individual experience and observation is not usually hospitable to the idea of martyrdom... All active mass movements strive to interpose a fact-proof 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...It is the true believer's ability to "shut his eyes and stop his ears" to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy.
What ails the frustrated? It is the consciousness of an irremediably blemished self. Their chief desire is to escape that self--and it is this desire which manifests itself in a propensity for united action and self-sacrifice...Such diverse phenomena as a deprecation of the present, a facility for make-believe, a proneness to hate, a readiness to imitate, credulity, a readiness to attempt the impossible, and many others which crowd the minds of the intensely frustrated are, as we shall see, unifying agents and prompters of recklessness.Hoffer seems to have an Obama in mind when discussing what drives certain aggrieved men to fanaticism: However much the protesting man of words sees himself as the champion of the downtrodden and injured, the grievance which animates him is, with very few exceptions, private and personal. His pity is usually hatched out of his hatred for the powers that be. All of America is now paying for the anger Barack felt years ago, imagined or not. Our question: Can we survive 2.5 more years until the True Believer Marxist fanatic is driven from the White House? Until then, we are all in the gravest danger imaginable.
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.