Speaker 1: If you want to support the show and get the
episodes early and ad free, head on over to Freemanbeyond
the Wall dot com forward slash Support. I want to
explain something right now. If you support me through substack
or Patreon, you have access to an RSS feed that
you can plug into any podcatcher, including Apple, and you'll
be able to listen to the episodes through there. If
you support me through subscribe, star gum Road, or on
my website directly, I will send you a link where
you can download the file and you can listen to
it any way you wish. I really appreciate the support
everyone gives me. It keeps a show going. It allows
me to basically put out an episode every day now,
and I'm not going to stop. I'm just going to accelerate.
I think sometimes you see that I'm putting out two
even three a day, and yeah, can't do it without you,
So thank you for the support. Head on over to
Freeman Beyond the Wall dot com, forward slash Support and
do it there. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone
back to part three of my reading of The True
Believer by Eric Hoffer. Before I start, I just want
to remind everyone that Thomas and I have been watching
movies and commenting on them. It's over on my website
Freeman Beyond the Wall dot com forward slash movies. Last
one we did for Halloween was in the nineteen seventy
nine horror quote unquote horror sci fi, really pretty versatile
movie called Fantasm, and we're planning out the next one,
so check that out over on my website. All right,
let's get to this. Let's see what mister Hoffer has
in store for us, picking up where we left off.
The milu the milieu most favorable for the rise and
propagation of mass movements is one in which a once
compact corporate structure is, for one reason or another, in
a state of disintegration. The age in which Christianity rose
and spread was one when large numbers of men were uprooted,
the compact city states had been partly merged into one
vast empire, and the old social and political groupings had
been weakened or dissolved. Christianity made its greatest headway in
the large cities where lived thousands of derascinated individuals, some
of them slaves, some freedmen, and some merchants who had
been separated by force or voluntarily from their hereditary miliu
as opposed to those who would seek to deracinate. Seems
like there might be a difference in the countryside where
the communal pattern was least disturbed. The new religion found
the ground less favorable the villagers pagani, and the heath
dwellers heathen clung longest to the ancient cults. A somewhat
similar situation is to be observed in the rise of
nationalists and socialist movements in the second half of the
nineteenth century. The extraordinary mobility and urbanization of population served
to create during those decades an extraordinary number of persons
upradged from ancestral soil a soil and local allegiance, experiencing
grave economic insecurity and psychological maladjustment maladjustment mal adjustment. These
were very susceptible to demagogic propaganda socialist or nationalists or both.
The general rule seems to be that as one pattern
of corporate cohesion weakens, conditions ripen become ripe for the
rise of a mass movement and the eventual establishment of
a new and more vigorous form of compact unity. Or
another way you can say that is is that man
naturally is collective, and when he is derascinated and torn apart,
it is very natural for him to seek to recollectivize.
When a church, which was all embracing relaxes its whole,
new religious movements are likely to crystallize. HG. Wells remarks
that at the power of the Reformation people objected not
to church the church's power, but to its weaknesses. There
are movements against the church within and without. Were movements
not for release from a religious control, but for a
fuller and more abundant religious control. If the religious mood
is undermined by enlightened by enlightenment, the rise of movements
will be socialist, nationalist, or racist. The French Revolution, which
was also a nationalist movement, came as a reaction not
against the vigorous tyranny at the Catholic Church and the
ancient regime, but against their weakness and ineffectuality. When people
revolt in its totalitarian society, they rise not against the
wickedness of the regime, but its weakness. I'm thinking of
this of Spain up to the Spanish Civil War. I
don't know the let's keep reading where the corporate pattern
is strong, it is difficult for a mass movement to
find a footing. The communal compactness of the Jews, both
in Palestine and the diaspora, was probably one of the
reasons that Christianity made so little headway among them. The
destruction of the Temple caused or I don't even we
could do whole episodes in series. We've talked about this before,
Michael Jones saws about this. I mean, there's plenty of
reasons other than because they're a collective. The destruction of
the Temple caused, if anything, a tightening of the communal bonds.
The synagogue and the congregation received now much of the
devotion which formerly flowed toward the Temple in Jerusalem. Later,
when the Christian Church had the power to segregate the
Jews in ghettos, it gave their communal compactness and additional reinforcement,
and thus unintentionally ensured the survival of Judaism intact through
the ages. I'm Jews had power in Spain pretty much
all through the Moorish Conquest, all through the Moorish Empire.
They were given power over Christians. What are we talking
about here? When the Christian Church had the power to
segregate the Jews and ghettos. Are we talking about the
palest settlement? Are we saying that the Czars were doing
this because of their Orthodoxy. I'm trying to understand this here.
Like I said, I don't know if I've said this,
but this book has been recommended to me for years.
You know. It's one of those one of those books
it's supposed to explain what happened during Covid. Okay, well,
I'm not getting where this is going. The coming of
Enlightenment undermined both Orthodoxy and ghetto walls. Suddenly, and perhaps
for the first time since the days of Job and Ecclesiastes,
the Jew found himself an individual, terribly alone in a
hostile world. There was no collective body he could blend
with and lose himself in the synagogue, and the congregation
had become shriveled, lifeless things, while the traditions and prejudices
of two thousand years prevented his complete integration within the
gentile corporate bodies. Thus, the modern Jew became the most
autonomous of individuals, and inevitably two the most frustrated. It
is not surprising, therefore, that the mass movements of modern
times often found in him a ready convert. Okay, so
in my reading of Israel Shahak's Jewish History Jewish Religion,
he mentions that when laws eventually were passed in certain
countries that basically like in Russia, where well you couldn't
be or certainly it doesn't have to be Russia. But
Jews took advantage of not being tied to the synagogue anymore,
and they went out into the world and they because
they had been taught only what the rabbis wanted them
to know, they went out and they took in as
much information as possible. I believe that. And you can
study like the Jews that came to America and went
into like the American South, the German Jews, and they
became Southerners, and people can complain, oh, Judah Benjamin, was
this that you just don't know the history of the war,
you don't know the history of the South. You're working
off of presuppositions. They very much became Southerners. It really
wasn't until you know, the war and reconstruction that they
felt like they had to collective ze. It wasn't. It
was the They were part of a society, and then
that society got torn, so they collectivized because that's what
people do. So I don't just this this argument here.
I don't see it. Yeah, sure, many became the most
autonomous of individual wolves, but frustration, I mean, I don't.
He seems to think that the frustration was what may
have led people to become revolutionary Bolsheviks and Marxist Jews,
specifically in Russia. And so what's the excuse for the
Russian Revolution? What's the excuse for nineteen seventeen? It's they weren't.
This wasn't because they were aous, the most autonomous of
individuals that they decided to become revolutionaries. A major part
of that in Russia was revenge was what and what
you know? Michael Jones calls the revolution the Jewish revolutionary spirit.
So I don't. I don't agree with this, so let
me keep going. The Jew also crowded the roads, leading
to palliatives of frustration, such as hustling and migration. He
also threw himself into a passionate effort to prove his
individual work by material achievements. In creative work. There was,
it is true, one speck of corporateness. He could create
around himself by his own efforts naming the family, and
he made the most of it. But in the case
of the European Jew, Hitler chewed and scorched this only
refuge in concentration camps and gas chambers. Thus, now more
than ever, the Jew, particularly in Europe, is the ideal
potential convert, and it almost seems providential that Zionism should
be on hand in the Jew's darkest hotur to unfold
him in its corporate embrace and cure him of his
individual isolation. Israel is indeed a rare refuge at his
home and family, synagogue and congregation, nation, and revolutionary party
all in one. Jews. There were boatloads of Jews that
were sent to the United States that were sent back.
Why were they sent back? Nobody wants to talk about
the fact that they because of the narrative surrounding the
Holocaust is basically why so many were eager to go
to Israel, and still most didn't. So I'm of the
opinion that international Jewry and international Zionism. Let's say that,
let's say Zionism was more than happy to allow anything
to happen to Jews, and they were willing to sacrifice them,
so that then this narrative of you know, a homeland
would be something that many would want to hear escaping persecution.
So yeah, I mean, let's remember in nineteen thirty three,
you know, I think it's the Daily Mirror, So Judea
declares war on Germany. There was no country at the
time there was. That implies a collective So saying that,
making the argument that there was individual isolation seems to go.
I mean, this just seems to either be intentionally ignoring
the facts of what happened or being completely ignorant, as
most even Americans are even now, most people in the
world are even now. So the argument for collectivization here
because of individual isolation, that doesn't to me, that doesn't
hold up. The recent history of Germany also furnishes an
interesting example of the relation between corporate compactness and a
receptivity to the appeal of mass movements. There was no
likelihood of a genuine revolutionary movement arising in Wilhelmian Germany.
The Germans were satisfied with the centralized, authoritarian Kaiser regime,
and even defeat in the First World War did not
impair their love for it. The revolution in nineteen eighteen
was an artificial thing with little popular backing. The years
of the Weimar Constitution which followed were for most Germans
a time of irritation and frustration. Used as they were
used to I guess he's said, used as they were,
to commands from above and respect for authority. They found
the loose, irreverent democratic order all confusion and chaos. They
were shocked to realize they had they had, that they
had to participate in government, choose a party, and pass
judgment upon political matters. They longed for a new corporate,
more monolithic, all embracing and glorious to behold than even
the Kaiser regime had been, and the Third Reich more
than answered their prayer. Hitler's totalitarian regime, once established, was
never in danger of mass revolt. So long as the
ruling national socialist hierarchy was willing to shoulder all responsibilities
and make all decisions, there was not the least chance
for any popular antagonism to arise. Let me keep reading
this before I comment. A danger point could have been
reached had the national socialist discipline and its totalitarian control
been relaxed. What to Toauville says of a tyrannical government
is true of all totalitarian orders. Their moment of greatest
danger is when they begin to reform, that is to say,
when they begin to show liberal tendencies. He basically just
passes over Weimar as an annoyance because there was liberty
and that the German people weren't used to that and
they didn't want it, not that they were being basically
attacked and socially engineered from the outside. That they were
supposed to become an international type of Paris. That's what
Berlin was supposed to become, with a transgender clinic and
open prostitution, mother daughter prostitution, teams, male prostitution all over
the place, children and pornography just showing up for no reason,
seemingly no reason. And that is according to mister Hoffer,
that's just they couldn't handle this type of liberalism, so
they had to choose to go back into it stalitarianism.
It's this is this is folly, this is like sophomore thinking.
It's either intentionally ignoring what happened or just complete ignorance.
I will say that when a totalitarian regime or what
would be like a one man regime, I mean any
Hafer or anyone like this is going to call any
kind of top down totalitarian does start to show liberal tendencies.
I can see where people would because it's if twenty
twenty taught us anything. People just want to be told
what's doing what to believe. If they're not being told
what's doing what to believe anymore, they're going to look elsewhere.
Another and final illustration of the thesis that effective collective
bodies are immune to the appeal of mass movements, but
that a crumbling collective pattern is the most favorable milieu
for their rise is found in the relation between the
collective body we know as an army and mass movements.
There is hardly an instance of an intact army given
rise to a religious, revolutionary or nationalist movement. On the
other hand, a disintegrating army, whether by the orderly process
of demobilization or by desertion due to demoralization, is fertile
ground for a proselytizing movement. The man just out of
an army is an idea potential convert, and we find
him among the early adherents of all contemporary mass movements.
He feels alone and lost in the free for all
of civilian life, the responsibilities and uncertainties of an autonomous
existence weigh and prey upon him. He longs for certitude, camaraderie,
freedom from individual responsibility, and a vision of something altogether
different from the competitive free society around him. And he
finds all of this in the brotherhood and revivalist atmosphere
of a rising movement. So again, what he appears to
be arguing is that competitive free societies are at the top,
that's what you want, and anything below it is just
an excuse for people who can't compete. Not that it's
in many people's nature not to want that. So if
it's not in their nature to want that, and it's
being forced upon them, if it's being socially engineered into
a collective a society that's always been collective, then of
course that person is going to once he realizes that
everything is being torn apart, they're going to seek to collect,
recollect of us. And you have societies right now where
that individualism has been preached for one hundred years, and
now people are seeking to recollective us. And the people
who have most bought into it and cheerlead it are
scared as I'm sure as as apparent, mister Hoffer is
you know when he considers considering. He wrote this in
fifty one What he just Saw, Part six. Misfits. The
frustration of misfits can vary in intensity. There are first
to temporary misfits, people who have not found their place
in life but still hope to find it. Adolescent youth, unemployed,
college graduates, veterans, new immigrants, and the like of this category.
They are restless, dissatisfied, and haunted by the fear that
their best years will be wasted before they reached their goal.
They are receptive to the preaching of a proselytizing movement,
and yet do not always make staunch converts, for they
are not irregavably strange from the self. They do not
see it as irredeemably spoiled. It is easy for them
to conceive an autonomous existence that is purposeful and hopeful.
The slightest evidence of progress and success reconciles them with
the world and their selves. The role of veterans in
the rise of mass movements has been touched upon in
section thirty five. A prolonged war by national armies is
likely to be followed by a period of social unrest
for the victors and vanquished alike. The reason is neither
the unleashing of passions and the taste of violence during wartime,
nor the loss of faith in a social order that
could not prevent so enormous and meaningless a waste of
life and wealth. It is rather due to the prolonged
breaking the civilian routine of the millions enrolled in the
national armies. The returning soldiers find it difficult to recapture
the rhythm of their pre war lives. The readjustment to
peace and home is slow and painful, and the country
is flooded with temporary misfits. Thus, it seems that the
passage from war to peace is more critical from an
established order than the passage from peace to war. I mean,
the implication he's making here is that people who are
born into a deracinated society, if they go into and
using the example of the military, where they are hyper
collectivized when they get out, he's basically calling them misfits
or temporary misfits. It's yeah, I'll keep going. 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. No achievement, however,
spectacular in other fields can give them a sense of fulfillment.
Whatever they undertake becomes a passionate pursuit, but they never arrive,
never pause. They demonstrate the fact that we can never
have enough of that which we really do not want,
and that we run fastest and farthest when we run
from ourselves. The permanent misfits 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. So basically, he's saying that if you're somebody
who feels compelled to be a part of a collective,
you're considered a permanent misfit, and there's no other thing here.
The most incurably frustrated and therefore the most vehement among
the permanent misfits are those with an unfulfilled craving for
creative work, both those who try to write, paint, compose, etc.
And fail decisively and those who, after tasting the elation
of creativeness, feel a drying up of the creative flow
within and know that never again will they produce aught
aught worthwhile are alike in the grip of a desperate passion.
Neither fame, nor power, nor riches, or even monumental achievements
in other fields can still their hunger. Even the wholehearted
dedication to a holy cause does not always cure them.
Their unappeased hunger persists, and they are likely to become
the most violent extremists in the service of their holy cause.
All right, Part seven. The inordinately selfish. 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 attaches to the services
some holy cause. And though it be a f of
love and humility they adopt, they can be neither loving
nor humble. Basically, what I'm getting out of all this
is that he is properly diagnosing. He's making a picture,
painting a picture of the of what the world looks like,
of what how people act. But I don't how he
says they get there seems to just ignore human nature.
It seems to be the very I hate to bring
this up because I always do libertarian and nature. Everybody
wants to be free, everybody. If I could just teach
everybody about liberty, about individual liberty, they'd want to be free.
Well that's not true. It's just patently false. So he is.
I mean, he's basically calling people who seek to collectivize
and be part of a group. You know, he's talking
about mass movements here, and he seems to be thinking
that the reason people join mass movements is because they're
frustrated in their failures in being individuals in an individual society.
Not what's a more I mean logical and empirical reason
that people want to collective us. People exist in groups,
and they always have, they always will. And any kind
of radical individualism where you're trying to just tear people
apart from one another, is going to be some kind
of movement to get back to where where they believe
they naturally belong in my opinion, Part eight, the ambitious
facing unlimited opportunities. Unlimited opportunities can be as potent a
cause of frustration as a paucity or lack of opportunities.
I assume paucity. I'm not familiar with that word, but
looks like pauper to me, so it would be like
a severe just not having. I think lack of opportunities
explains it better poor. When opportunities are apparently unlimited, there
is an inevitable depression of the present. The attitude is
all that I am doing or possibly can do is
chicken feed compared to what is left undone, such as
the frustration which broods over gold camps and haunts taught
minds in boom times. Hence the remarkable fact that, joined
with the ruthless self seeking which seems to be the
main spring of gold hunters, land grabbers, and other get
rich quick enthusiasts, there is an excessive readiness for self
sacrifice and united action. Patriotism, racial solidarity, and even the
preaching of revolution find a more ready response among people
who see limitless opportunities spread out before them than among
those who move within the fixed limits of a familiar,
orderly and predictable pattern of existence. Someone explained this to
me because I have no clue what he's talking about.
So gold hunters, land grabbers and other get rich quick
enthusiasts are more susceptible to collectivize and patriotism, racial solidarity,
and even the preaching of revolution. I I'm not part
nine minorities. A minority is in a precarious position, however
protected it be by law or force. The frustration engendered
by the unavoidable sense of insecurity is less intense in
a minority intense on preserving its identity than in one
bents upon dissolving in and blending with the majority. A
majority which preserves its identity is inevitably a compact whole,
which shelters the individual, gives them a sense of belonging,
and immunizes him against frustration. On the other hand, and
a minority bents on assimilation, the individual stands alone, pitted
against prejudice and discrimination. He is also burdened with the
sense of guilt, however vague or of a renegade. The
orthodox Jew is less frustrated than the emancipated Jew. The
segregated Negro in the South is less frustrated than the
non segregated Negro in the North, because they're among their people.
They're in their where nature wants them, where God wants them.
Use whateverever rationalization you want. Again. With a minority bents
on assimilation, the least and most successful economically and culturally
are likely to be more frustrated than those in between.
The man who fails sees himself as an outsider, and
in the case of a member of a minority group
who wants to blend with the majority, failure intensifies the
feeling of not belonging. A similar feeling crops up at
the other end of the economic and cultural scale. Those
of a minority who it's fortune and fame often find
it difficult to can entrance into the exclusive circles of
the majority. They are thus made conscious of their foreignness. Furthermore,
having evidence of their individual superiority, they resent the admission
of inferiority implied in the process of assimilation. Thus, it
is to be expected that the least and most successful
of a minority bent on assimilation should be the most
responsive to the appeal of a proselytizing mass movement. Least
and most successful of minority bents on a similiation. The
least and most successful among the Italian Americans were the
most ardent admirers of Mussolini's Revolution. The least and most
successful among the Irish Americans were the most responsive to
the de valorous call. The least and most successful among
the Jews are the most responsive to Zionism. The least
and most successful among the Negroes are the most race conscious.
I'm the least and most successful among the Jews are
the most responsive to Zionism. Rothschild, who was probably in
nineteen seventeen the richest man in the world. Arguments could
be made one of at least controlled banking in many countries.
He's the least responsive Desionism as he's getting the mandate
for Palestine. This doesn't make any sense to me. The
least and most successful among the Negroes are the most
race conscious. Okay, maybe because all of these groups have
been you know, the group have been deracinated, have had
their collectivism attacked, have been propagandized with individualism, and their
main response is to return to the collective. And I
know there's grifters out there in all of these but
there I think as underlying premises are just wrong ten
the board. There's perhaps no more reliable indicator of a
society's ripeness for a mass movement than the prevalence of
unrelieved boredom. In almost all the descriptions of the periods
preceding the rise of mass movements, there is reference to
vast anui. In anui and in their earliest stage, mass
movement are more likely to find sympathizers in support among
the board than the exploited and oppressed. To a deliberate
fomenter of mass upheavals, the report that people are bored
stiff should be at least as encouraging as they are
suffering from intolerable economic and political abuses. People weren't bored
until industrial society. People had to work, people had to
provide for themselves, They worked with their own hands. Industrial
society what some might call capitalism. I think industrial society.
And you know, Thomas said this, and I agree one
hundred percent, and we're just going off of what Ted
Kaczynski wrote. Yeah, this industrial society is probably a better term.
People weren't bored. People weren't sitting around doing nothing until
industrial society and all these riches came along and governments
could give hand. I mean, these are modern problems. This
is the problems of modernity. This isn't the natural state
of things. Is people on their family farms, working their
whole lives until they die. Maybe they buy some more land,
they maybe they do some traveling, but they always come home.
And we've been so propaganda as to believe that that's
backwards or you know, or you know how the Industrial
Revolution just basically created jobs, wage jobs that were city
jobs and jobs and great zip codes where people didn't
have to work on the farm anymore. It didn't have
to work their only didn't have to work with their hands,
or were socially engineered to believe that that was the
way we were supposed to go. There's a bigger problem
here that mister Hoffer is not addressing. 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
fountain head of boredom. People who are not conscious of
their individual separateness, as is the case with those who
are members of a compact tribe, church, party, etc. Are
not accessible to boredom. The difference to all of a sentence,
The differentiated individual is free of boredom only when he
has engaged either in creative work or some absorbing occupation,
or when he is wholly engrossed in the struggle for existence.
I mean this is opposite world Pleasure chasing and dissipation
are ineffective palliatives. Where people live autonomous lives and are
not badly off yet or 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. Again, I'm
just seeing industrial society in its future right here. It's
well what do they do? What do people do? Certain people,
if they have, if they're pre disposed to it, become
over socialized, meaning that they see the government as to
be all in, all of everything, and that has nothing
to do with that that was engineered. And people can say, well,
the government is collective, so being part of the government,
you know, wanting to be on the side of the
government or looking towards the government is you know a way. Yeah,
but that's artificial. It's not something that's natural, especially the
modern government. I could even see monarchies in the past,
or you know, Holy Roman Empire or Spain under the
Catholic Church. Sure no boredom accounts for the almost invariable
presence of spinsters and middle aged women at the birth
of mass movements. Even in the case of Islam and
the National Socialist movement, which found upon feminine activity outside
the home, we find women of a certain type playing
an important role in the early stage of their development.
Marriage has for women many equivalents of joining a mass movement.
It offers them a new purpose in life, a future,
and a new identity, a new name. The boredom of
spinsters and of women who can no longer find joy
and fulfillment and marriage stems from an awareness of a barren,
spoiled life. By embracing a holy cause, in dedicating their
energies and substance to its advancement, they find a new
life full of purpose and meaning. Hitler made full use
of the society ladies thirsting for adventure, sick of their
empty lives, no longer getting a kick out of love affairs.
He was financed by the wives of some of the
great industrialists, long before their husbands had heard of him.
Miriam Beard tells of a similar role played by boared
wives of businessmen before the French Revolution. They were devastated
with boredom and given to fits of the vapors. Restlessly,
they applauded innovators, and I hope he's I hope he's
making the argument here that marriage and they say marriage
has for many women equivalents of joining up mass movement.
I mean, what argument are you trying to make? This
is to argue anything different, and to argue against marriage
is to argue against our history of humanity. Part eleven,
The Sinners. The sardonic remark that patriotism is the last
refuge of scoundrels has also a less derogatory meaning. Fervent patriotism,
as well as religious and revolutionary enthusiasm, often serves as
a refuge from a guilty conscience. It is a strange
thing that both the injurer and the injured, the sinner
and he who is sinned against, should find in the
mass movement and escape from a blemish life. Remorse and
a sense of grievance seems to drive people in the
same direction. It sometimes seems that mass movements are custom
made to fit the needs of the criminal, not only
for the catharsis of his soul, but also for the
exercise of his inclinations and talents. The technique of a
proselytizing mass movement aims to evoke in the faithful the
mood and frame of a mind of a repentant criminal
self surrender, which is, as will be shown in Part three,
the source of a mass movement's unity and vigor is
a sacrifice, an act of atonement, and clearly no atonement
is called for unless there is a poignant sense of
sin is elsewhere. The technique of a mass movement aims
to infect people with a malady and then offer the
movement as a cure. A what if there actually is
a malady? What if there actually is a sickness? And
what if that sickness is liberalism? And I'm not talking
about you know, blue haired, I'm talking about liberalism, classical
put whatever you want on in front of him. What
a task confronts the American clergy, laments in American divine
preaching the good news of a savior to people who,
for the most part, have no real sense of sin.
An effective mass movement cultivates the idea of sin It
depicts the autonomous self not only as barren and helpless,
but also as vile to confess and repents, to slough
off one's individual distinctness and separateness, and salvation is found
by losing oneself. In the holy oneness of the congregation,
there is a tender spot for the criminal and an
ardent wooing of him in all mass movements. Saint Bernard,
the moving spirit of the Second Crusade, thus appealed for recruits,
for what is it but an exquisite and priceless chance
of salvation due to God alone, that the omnipotent should
deign to summon to his service as though they were
innocent murderers, ravishers, adulterers, perjurers, and those guilty of every crime.
Revolutionary Russia too had a tender spot for the common criminal,
though it is ruthless with the heretic the ideological deviationist.
It is perhaps true that the criminal who embraces a
holy cause is more ready to risk his life and
go to extremes in its defense than people who are
awed by the sanctity of life and property. Or if
you know that you have and every society has them,
people who are prones of violence. People who are prone
to murder, Yeah, I might want to throw them into
the military. I'm not saying psychopaths. I'm talking about people.
There are people who are just natural warriors. I mean,
he's talking about criminals here. Well, it's this just doesn't
A lot of what he's talking about doesn't comport with reality. Sure,
if you're going to war, you want people, and you're
looking for volunteers, you want people who not only believe
in the cause, but have the ability to do what
war is meant to do, to kill. I mean Jie
mentions the Russia, the revolutionary Russia. Of course, crime is
to some extent a substitute for a mass movement where opinion,
where opinion and law enforcement are not too stringent, and
poverty not absolute, the underground pressure of malcontents and misfits
often leaks out in crime. It has been observed that
in the exultation, in the exultation of mass movements, whether
pay tratic, religious, or revolutionary, common crime declines. All right,
got up to part three, United Action and self sacrifice,
And I'm gonna stop right there. Ah comments in on
this probably more than any other book I've read for you,
just because I mean I people are told to read
this book all the time. Oh, read this book. You know,
it's great about read this book. It you know, tells
you why people do. Maybe this book explains why thrascinating
people from their culture causes people to want to seek
to get back into collective groups. All right, that's it.
See on part four. Thank you, take care of everyone.