EMPIRE BUILDING

Nowhere has the drive for power and domination been as wildly expressed
as among the emperors and ruling families of history. Since the
beginnings of agriculture, when humans first discovered that food, and
then wealth, could be amassed in great stockpiles, rulers have fought
fierce and bloody wars to take over each other’s empires. If the ruling
aristocracies of history can be said to have a culture and heritage of
their own, it’s most distinctive feature is unquestionably a ferocious
competition to conquer greater territories and acquire greater wealth.

Usamah Bin Mohammad Bin Laden is a child of the ruling class. The Saudi
royal family are his extended family. His father is a
five-billion-dollar construction magnate and he himself is purportedly
worth 500 million. This is a man who studied management and economics
at King Abdul Aziz University in Jedda – not theology or the history of
Islam, but the of applications of money and power.

The ruling class are groomed to lead kingdoms and to build and conquer
empires – whether they be nations, corporations, movements, or
religions. The expectation from childhood on is that you will lead on a
global scale. “World Domination” is not the fantasy of an 8-year-old
Star-Trek groupie, it is what you know your lot to be. For generations
back, your family conquered empires. Conquering empires is what you do.

Bin Laden has so far proven to be a master politician, as he should
considering his background. His videotapes have been chillingly
well-constructed to resonate with deep emotional chords in the Arab
Muslim world – he uses poetry, visual and literary metaphors that show
an understanding of sophisticated politics. Stephen Hunter writes of the
Krinkov gun leaning against the wall in the videos, “For him the gun
isn't just a weapon, it's a symbol. He's making a statement, as with the
curved ceremonial dagger that hangs from his belt when he's all duded-up
in his white finery. He is making a claim: I am of the elite. …A fellow
who favors posing with a Krinkov has delusions of grandeur, and he'll
try to take over no matter the venue.”

His villainy is not mysterious or even interesting, and he shouldn’t be
elevated into some sort of fascinating celebrity demon-hero. He is
nothing more than the latest sociopathically spoiled rich son who
aspires to be bigger and badder than his father, than even the Saudi
royal family (both of whom he has rebelled against), bigger even than
the biggest guy on the block - the United States. His goal is to lead a
global conquest, exploiting the discontent of the Muslim world to rally
a huge population around him. His obsession and determination is
frightening and his ability as a strategist should not be
underestimated – not because he is smarter or more demonic than history’
s procession of power-thirsty psychopaths before him - but because he
has been expertly schooled in the art of empire building.

Dear Mr. Hollander,

I'm writing to thank you for your insightful piece in Sunday’s Washington Post. How great to read such intelligent thinking!

Your comments about modernity, with its freedom and resulting lack of certainty and community I found to be especially important.

I want to offer a few thoughts which I hope you'll find useful.

You remark about the anti-Americanism found on college campuses. I believe that the radicalism and debate traditionally found on college campuses reflects the fact that these are youth cultures, youth at an age at which they are fiercely asserting their ideas in the adult world. Campus radicalism is motivated by “anti-authority” sentiment more than anything else. Big bad America instead of big bad Dad. What’s more, young people have not yet learned yet that life more in the murky gray than in the more easily grasped black and white. When an adult discusses the subtle differences in the definitions of right and wrong this only looks like hypocrisy to a young person who cannot yet see the importance of historical context. And in that simplistic, black-and-white way, there is no distinction between war and terrorism.

You mention the flag. As you know, much could be written about the flag’s different meanings in the many subcultures of American society. The flag - along with the clothes we wear, foods we eat, music we listen to, shops we frequent, car we drive, and every other emblem we use to communicate who we are and what we believe in – serves the purpose of bringing like-minded people together. I believe people jump on the anti-American bandwagon because they see at anti-war protests people who wear the same clothes, listen to the same music, and eat the same food as themselves. They go to meetings because their friends are there. They read the newspapers their friends read, watch the same TV shows, visit the same websites, speak the same language and laugh at the same jokes. I think that anti-Americanism is more than anything else a matter of style, and style is a much more powerful force than words. It would be hard to imagine that the vegetarian chanting hippie poet in dreadlocks, sandals, and hemp robes is a right-wing ultra-conservative hawk.

Thank you for your ideas about a "universal scapegoating impulse." This is interesting to me.

I see this as "victim thinking" - blaming the big guy because you feel powerless to fix your own problems. You and I both know individuals who get stuck in this kind of thinking, sometimes for a lifetime. I know whole families that have this problem. There are even countries that have been conquered and oppressed for so long that the country as a whole is stuck in this rut.

And there are entire cultures – Islam appears to be one – that have a cultural view of themselves as powerless and victimized, and a belief that the only way out is to attack the one perceived to have the power – in this case, us. I use the word perceived because this is a problem of perception and self-image, in the mind of a single individual or in the minds of all the individuals of a culture. It is an issue of faulty perceptions and beliefs about power. I think of teenagers striking out in vandalism, or secretaries attacking the boss via subterfuge. If you see yourself as powerless, your only avenue is to bring the big guy down through sneak attack, not direct confrontation. This interpretation might answer your questions about why the impulse to attack is particularly intense in Islamic societies. I cannot think of another culture that holds the idea of a holy war as a central concept.

Looking at the attack as a hate crime brings it into clear focus. The analogies of domestic and homophobic violence are brilliant. Thank you for your clarity and eloquence.

I am nervous about what is taking shape in a depressingly predictable way: the left is finding its voice as an "anti-something" movement. The WTO protests that were cancelled because of Sept 11th were happily re-scheduled, morphing overnight into WTC protests instead - same people, different excuse for getting together to enjoy some excellent singing, chanting, and yelling. A lot of yelling.

There are other important threads to this coming together of the left, among these a 30-year-itch of unresolved Viet-Nam baggage, confusion about maleness and power, peaceniks without a Cold War; New-Age phobia of anything not "calming," and white middle-class guilt-that plagues the left and is quick to see itself as the bad guy in a conflict with a Third World nation.

There is the affinity of the African American community for an oppressed Muslim people.

And then there is anti-Semitism.

Respectfully,

Liza May