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

FUNDAMENTALISM VERSUS MODERNISM

The United States is unique in history as a brash experiment at separating politics from religion, with freedom as our central doctrine.

The conflict over religious fundamentalism versus freedom is at the heart of what American values are about. The United States was founded at a time of great religious fervor, which posed a critical dilemma for the founders: how were we to pursue religious goals, but at the same time protect life and liberty? How can a country uphold morality yet allow the individual the right to choose to do what he wants with his life, and protect his safety while he does it? This dilemma is precisely what John Locke and the framers of the Constitution, attempted to solve.

The separation of church and state, the heart of the United States Constitution, is based on the premise that religious salvation cannot be achieved through coercion. This was a radical idea in the 1700’s and is still an issue today, 200 years later, with every debate that places morality against civil liberties.

Whether you’re looking at Islamic fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia, Christian fundamentalism in the US (those most likely to be responsible for the anthrax mailings), or Jewish fundamentalism in Israel it is clear just how threatening the modern world must appear. Religious fundamentalists of every stripe must feel under attack by a modern world that appears to have lost all sight of God and morality. New York must surely look like a godless den of iniquities, promising a terrifying future of corruption, sin and eternal damnation.

It would make sense that as the world becomes more modern and free, religious fundamentalists of every faith would feel increasingly more offended, threatened, and moved to react. Because if you believe that abortion is murder and a sin against God, violence to prevent it is justified. If you believe that Jews are the Great Satan and The Infidel, killing them is justified. If you take your beliefs from books written more than 1,000 years ago, and you interpret these books literally, then you believe that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death.

The freedom that the modern world offers erodes the comforts of one clear, understandable explanation of life. Now we have the mind-numbing access to information on the Internet, and it is no surprise that the intensity of this clash of two worlds has been pushed to the brink and imploded at this moment. The world-wide-web with it’s vast open frontiers make ideas and knowledge impervious to censorship or manipulation, and as a result young people in every corner of the globe are embracing philosophies and values utterly different from those of their elders. Paul Hollander writes, “Traditional societies, though poor, used to be capable of providing their members with a stable, religiously grounded worldview. Modernity undermines this worldview, and the sense of certainty and community associated with it.”

In contrast, fundamentalism, with its emphasis on literal translations of texts, leaves no room for confusion or misinterpretation of meanings. It offers a world without doubt, in which the rules are clear, a world without possibility of eternal damnation brought on by a mistaken interpretation of god’s laws. Who would choose to tempt the future promised by the Koran in it’s famous verse, "The faithful shall enter paradise and the unbelievers shall be condemned to eternal hellfire?"

The problem of the collision of fundamentalism with the modern world will not be solved by rooting out bin Laden, destroying the al-Qaeda, or preventing future terrorist attacks.

Anthrax attacks on abortion clinics, suicide bombings of buildings and bridges and other icons of modernity, nuclear and chemical attacks on modern cities - these acts of terrorism will be continued as long as fundamentalists feel threatened by a “godless” modern world.

To win a war against terrorism wrought by fundamentalists we must address the existence of fundamentalism. What turns a person into a fundamentalist? And what would change his or her mind?

A PICTURE OF THE FUTURE

IDEALISM AND REALISM

How do you create a tolerant community if the other guy believes in intolerance? How do you achieve a cooperative relationship if the other guy doesn’t want to cooperate?

These questions will always arise, as long as human nature is what it is. There will always be someone with a thirst to build an empire and rule the world. Is it naïve to wish for world peace, like those earnest Miss America contestants do every year?

What would indeed be naïve would be to ignore human nature, or to pretend that it’s something it’s not. Any plan for a peaceful future must be - and can be – both idealistic in its vision and realistic in its portrayal of human nature.

Theories of universal cooperation, “peace and love” have been sneered at for their block-headed insistence that given the “right” environment people will not want to compete to rise to the top of the pack. Communism is despised both for its theory and its practice, and for good reason: it has been used as a club to support the world’s most corrupt and vicious tyrannies. But the theory itself is ill-conceived in its fundamental assumptions because it believes it can change human behavior. It assumes it can enforce cooperation by removing the rewards and motivations for competition.

The truth is that some people – many people – find it thrilling to live a high-stakes, competitive life, whether on the concert stage or basketball court, whether in international politics, the halls of academia, or on Wall Street. The “killer competitive spirit,” “going for the jugular” “winning against all odds” – these phrases are not the by-products of capitalism, as popular leftist rhetoric would have us believe. They are expressions of a deep desire in humans to excel, beat out the competition, to be the top dog. Any idealistic political theory that does not take this into account is ignoring a basic aspect of what it means to be a member of our species.

Human beings like to compete, and even more to win. The driving motive behind this desire is sex. Why? Because the winner’s reward is sexual dominance: football heroes get prom queens, Hollywood producers get hordes of young blondes. Winners get not only the best women but the most women. Nobody likes this (except the winners) but everybody knows it’s the way things are in real life. Is it fair? No. But trying to impose fairness on human mating behavior by taking away the rewards of competition is like trying to get rid of hunger by taking away food. Outlawing competition will never destroy the urge to compete. It will only give rise to illegal and violent means to achieve the same thing – privileged “mating rights.”

Men will continue to compete, as long as women prefer men that win. If all else is equal a woman will choose a winner over a loser – whether he’s the best in sports or math, leadership or rock and roll, whether he’s the funniest guy in the neighborhood or the baddest biker in the pack. And as long as she keeps choosing competitors we will keep making babies with the genes for competing - in the same way that we’ll keep passing on genes for noses that grow forward instead of bent at a right angle or strong chins instead of weak ones.

We are a species of competitors. So the question is how to conceive of a peaceable future while allowing for the competitive instincts of human nature. How to be both idealistic in envisioning a world without poverty or the ruthless greed that causes it; and realistic in envisioning a world that allows expression of the human need to compete and win.

POWER WITHOUT GREED

There is a misconception that power must be bad – every one of us is too familiar with abuses of power in little and big ways. Power is confused with “power over” – power used to exploit and tyrannize for greed and selfish gain. But power itself is not inherently evil. Power is a tool, like a hammer. It can be used to break a man’s head or build him a house. Power can be a tool for great good in the world.

Given the instinct in the animal world to compete for power, how can we reconfigure society so that power is rewarded, but not greed?

Greed is not inherent in our species, nor is it observed in other animals. The greedy stockpiling of wealth has not been a feature of human societies for very long at all, in fact it was non-existent before the advent of agriculture, only 10,000 years ago. Considering that we’ve been here in our current bodies and minds for at least 100,000 years, by some measures even 2.6 million years, 10,000 years since the advent of agriculture is not even half of one percent of that time. Through all those endless eons prior to agriculture, human societies bestowed power without the accompaniment of wealth.

Even since agriculture there are examples of great towers of human achievement, universally respected giants of human history, accorded the highest status and power, yet without the accompaniment of wealth: Mahatma Gandhi, Siddhartha Buddha, Albert Einstein, Frederic Douglas, Martin Luther, Johannes Gutenberg, Marie Curie, Harry Truman, Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Andre Sakharov, Nelson Mandela, James Madison, Theodore Dostoevsky, J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Louis Pasteur, Galileo, Martin Luther King Jr.

Power and wealth are not synonymous.

BRILLIANT POLITICIANS

Like our primate cousins, we are social animals. As with them a key feature of our social behavior is a marvelous talent for forming alliances, i.e. political skills. We are highly skilled “managers” of other human beings, especially adept at making friends. The degree to which a person rises in power is a direct reflection of how many friends he or she has made and how savvy he or she is as a “politician.”

Ridley, in a discussion about male behavior, says

“Like men, chimps do not rise entirely on brute strength. They use cunning, and above all they form alliances. The tribal warfare between groups of chimps is both a cause and a consequence of the male tendency to build alliances. In Jane Goodall’s studies the males of one chimp group were well aware when they were outnumbered by the males of another group and deliberately sought opportunities to single out individual males from the enemy. The bigger and more cohesive the male alliance, the more effective it was.”

We must create a civilization that will encourage our natural instinct to compete by assigning the highest status and greatest power to those who use their leadership and alliance-building skills to solve huge humanitarian problems – in medicine, education, cooperation in a diverse world community, travel to other planets. We must channel our brilliant political skills to reward power that is used for good and to devalue and discredit power that is used for greed.

The question we must answer is how, without money, do we award those who excel in sports, the arts, and science? What are the incentives that would confer status on accomplishment, but no status on the accumulation of wealth?

THE END OF THE ERA OF GREED

The answers will be found in the underlying motivations for competition and the ultimate prize – sex. Wealth has only been a means to that end. As one of the richest men in the world, Aristotle Onassis, has said,

“All the money in the world would mean nothing if there were no women.”

Women like “top dogs.” Women will continue to choose the “best” men. The best men will continue to win the best and most women.

The greedy amassing of huge fortunes is not necessary to win this grand prize of the “best” and most women. Neither is it necessary for achieving power, status, or respect. We have mistakenly seen wealth as an endpoint, when wealth is only a means to an end. Wealth has won power, respect and status … and status has won reproductive opportunity. We have inserted wealth into the picture when it hasn’t needed to be there – and by so doing we’ve made the greedy accumulation of wealth a requirement for winning. Greed is valued because wealth is valued. But power, respect and status can be achieved without wealth or greed as necessary prerequisites.

Human civilization has wandered off on a strange and misguided tangent, beginning 10,000 years ago. And despite the endless parade of exploitations, oppressions, inhumanities and wasted lives, we have continued to flourish, to remain hopeful and to produce magnificent achievements. We have persisted. We are a remarkable species.

The long and crooked road we have taken has led us here – to this turning-point moment in history - where we are forced by circumstance to face the inextricability of our situation. Sex is the contest, wealth is the problem, power is the answer. Greed and the destruction it causes must be tackled head-on, with courage and the vision of a brilliant and advanced civilization of our future.