User loginNavigationAnarchist Events
Action!Donation |
Pathology and Ideology: Major Nidal Malik Hasan and the Case of Leon Czolgosz
Czolgosz was greatly influenced by what he read in Free Society and other anarchist publications, in particular their unabashed support for Gaetano Bresci’s assassination of King Umberto of Italy in July 1900. He vocally identified with the goals and aspirations of the anarchist revolutionaries advocating attentats, or, “propaganda of the deed,” the assassinations of heads of state, industry and religion. After receiving numerous letters from Czolgosz inquiring how to get in contact with anarchist secret societies that advocated violence, the editors of Free Society went so far as to claim he was an agent provocateur. Historians remain unable to directly connect Czolgosz with any of the anarchist groups operating at the time. The prosecution and many mainstream newspapers were convinced Czolgosz was part of a larger anarchist plot. Yet even if Czolgosz was not a member of any anarchist organization, anarchists were viewed as providing motivation and justification for the assassination. The Buffalo Evening News opined: Emma Goldman bears a share of the crime; so do the publishers of anarchist papers and documents. The men who lecture in favor of anarchism share the crime of Czolgosz. The New York conclaves, the Chicago societies, the Cleveland clubs, the anarchists in Boston, Philadelphia and other places—they all bear a share in the great crime. They aided and stimulated the weak-minded Czolgosz. While Thomas Sebastian Byrne writing for the New York Times claimed, “. . . men who profess or proclaim doctrines of which such unspeakable crimes are the issue should be made to understand and to feel that they cannot teach them in this country, nor can they themselves enjoy this country’s hospitality.” There was a strong element of nativism in the case with some periodicals attempting to link anarchist violence to a recent increase in immigrants arriving from eastern and southern Europe. The Ohio Farmer (September 12, 1901) noted: Organized anarchy in this free country must be declared a capital crime. There is no occasion for its existence here. Immigration laws must be made more strict and be more rigidly enforced, and keep out the murderous, fanatical dregs of Europe, who seek our shores only because there is greater opportunity to carry out their dark and bloody designs. Radical support for the assassination was mixed with a majority of anarchists distancing themselves from the action and a small minority, including Goldman, defending Czolgosz. The police and prosecutor unsuccessfully attempted to link Goldman to Czolgosz, arguing she planned the attack. Czolgosz claimed one of Goldman’s speeches inspired his criminal behavior but denied she had any direct role in the assassination. Five years after the trial Max Baginsky penned a supportive article in Goldman’s Mother Earth (October, 1906). After insinuating that Czolgosz was psychologically disturbed, Baginsky wrote: Goldman wrote a short essay in Czolgosz’ defense in 1911 which compared him to Jesus and proclaimed he died for the sins of the American people: He suffered for them, endured humiliation for them, gave his life for them. His tragedy consisted in his great and intense love for the people, but unlike many of his brother slaves he could neither submit nor bow his neck. Thus he had to die. Whether Czolgosz was a member of an anarchist cell dedicated to assassination and terrorism is not in dispute. He was not. However, he was a self-identified anarchist who held a personal identification with the goals of anarchist ideology and a willingness to act based on those ideological assumptions. So was Czolgosz a terrorist? Most historians today agree that he was. This brings me to Hasan. The intelligence community, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, informs the public there is no evidence that Hasan was assisted in his act nor that he was operating as part of a larger terrorist plot. However, in similarity to Czolgosz, he exhibited an affinity—if no direct affiliation—with a radical ideology that supports the murder of its opponents. Like Czolgosz, he committed a terrorist act promoted by pathology and ideology. What do we know about Hasan’s contact and connections with radical Islamist organizations like al-Queda? According to media reports, Hasan became more devout after the death of his parents. The Department of Defense was aware Hasan corresponded with radical imam Anwar al-Aulaqi and used to attend his mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. Al-Aulaqi supports a holy war against the United States and knew three of the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center who also attended his Falls Church mosque. National Public Radio reported psychiatrists at Walter Reed and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences were concerned that Hasan may be psychotic. There was the power-point presentation Hasan gave at Walter Reed where he expressed that suicide bombings against American military personnel are justified. Titled, “The Koranic World View As It Relates To Muslims In The Military,” the presentation stated “Fighting to establish an Islamic state to please God, even by force, is condoned by the [sic.] Islam,” and recommended all Muslims in the American military be given the right to be released from combat duty as conscientious objectors. And there is the eyewitness testimony of victims who heard Hasan shout “Allahu Akbar” (or something similar) as he opened fire on them. Despite increasing evidence that Hasan had mental issues and identified with the goals and aspirations of radical Islam, officials and colleagues were evidently loathe to act in fear they would be identified as “Islamophobic” and possibly damage their career opportunities. In a marked difference from newspaper accounts of the Czolgosz affair, most of the mainstream media today has avoided linking Hasan’s actions with his apparent belief in a radical ideology. The notable exceptions are conservative outlets like Fox News, talk radio and blogs. Some of these sources suggest linkages with al-Queda and a broader conspiracy that is likely inaccurate. Paralleling the past, there is also an element of nativism in some conservative accounts, including calls for halting immigration from Muslim countries. But I am puzzled why so many liberal periodicals are going to such great lengths to argue that ideology played no role in the murders. As with Czolgosz, some radicals have mobilized to support Hasan. A Facebook group has been established to rally to his defense and writers for extremist Islamist and left-wing websites have tied themselves in knots trying to justify the attacks as understandable given reports that Hasan suffered from discrimination. They claim the prospect of deployment drove him to act in this despicable manner, or that he suffers from “Secondary Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” or he is a man who simply cared too much. Others are more forthright about their beliefs. In the case of al-Aulaqi, Hasan’s act was justified against a tyrannical regime that paid for his medical education and promoted him to the rank of major. Al-Aulaqi went so far as to commend the attack on his website imploring other Muslims to “follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal.” Mr. Daniel is PhD Candidate in the Departments of History and Political Science at the New School for Social Research and was a Researcher at the Emma Goldman Papers Project at the University of California, Berkeley. |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the Anarchist News newsletter. |
Disgusting. This piece was
Disgusting. This piece was absolutely atrocious and I can't believe it was actually printed on an anarchist news site. Equating anarchism with fundamentalist Islamic terrorism is about the most stupid and ridiculous thing ever to be published by this site. This article is little more than a smear attempting to tie repressive religious authoritarianism with the few freedom fighters which may still exist in this world. It's utter bullshit.
Fuck Hasan, fuck al Queda, and fuck Evan Matthew Daniel. No real anarchist would support Hasan any more than they would support the murderous right-wing McVeigh. I'm not saying all anarchists are opposed to all violence, but we are certainly not in favor of random murder sprees carried out by religious right-wing hatemongers in promotion of their holy wars. And while fragging is one thing, fragging for Allah is quite another. Anyone with half a brain can figure that out.
I'd also like to point out the academic folly of any claim that Czolgosz was not part of a secret cell. It wouldn't have been very secret if everyone knew about it, would it?! Not everything gets written down or documented for historical posterity. PhD candidate my ass -- makes me recognize what that's worth. Don't believe everything you do or don't read. In any case... this article was just a fanciful academic hit job on modern anarchism and it is absolutely disgusting. The parallel drawn shows a high degree of intellectual dishonesty. Anarchists oppose repressive, right-wing, religious fundamentalists -- and everyone should know that or be made aware.
I agree. I think this
I agree. I think this article should NOT be reprinted here. What a half-assed attempt at analysis - pop psychology and red baiting.
Why do people always
Why do people always complain about the articles posted on this site? Pretty much the only requirement is that the article is about anarchists in some way. That doesn't mean that worker or the site ENDORSES these articles, just that they are of some interest to us because we are anarchists. I'd rather know that smear articles like this exist out there than just ignore them. Get a brain! morans! Fuck USA
Word. there should be some
Word. there should be some big flashing thing that says that somewhere. fucking morans.
"most of the mainstream
"most of the mainstream media today has avoided linking Hasan’s actions with his apparent belief in a radical ideology."
are you fucking kidding me? this is all i have heard/read/seen on mainstream news: (anchor in breathless, mock concern) "was hasan linked to al quaeda extremist imam?" mr ph d candidate didn't bother to quote hasan's cousin who, in an interview, claimed that hasan had repeatedly been distraught over the stories of carnage and personal pain that vets from afghanistan and iraq were bringing to him. his cousin also said that hasan had secured an attorney's assistance to get him out of the military.
hasan's action and anarchists are linked inasmuch as anarchists also recognize the heinous brutality and nihilistic immorality of a socioeconomic system that sees humanity, earth, and animals through a single lens: profit. mr phd researcher should go back to his goldman archives and re-read (assuming he ever read it once) goldmann's "the psychology of political violence." he would learn that anarchists attack enemies of humanity out of their desperation at seeing how capitalism so utterly deforms, distorts, and destroys the best of human beings; they do so in the name of authentic equality and liberation not some fanatical vision of an afterlife for a god-selected few. this article needs to be burned, and mr phd man needs to go back to an anarchist run, free elementary school for some basic education in reading, writing, and research.
the most extreme ideology is the shit peddled by capitalist institutions from schools to media to state institutions. it hides its own imperialist violence behind masks of elections, rights, and shopping malls. ph daniel only reinforces this shit with the the very badly and baldly constructed nonsense he is peddling here. what a fucking embarrassment for the new school. tell me this is a farce!
everyone who has brown skin
everyone who has brown skin and an arabic-sounding name is a right-wing muslim, according to the blithering racist idiots on @news.
wtf, an action isn't
wtf, an action isn't "terrorist" unless its intended purpose is to spread fear through a civilian population. The assassination of the president wasn't terrorist because its purpose was to assassinate the president, not to spread fear through any civilian population. Hasan's not a terrorist because his act had apparently no purpose whatsoever. awful article, should be removed, those responsible should be slapped.
wtf, an action isn't
wtf, an action isn't "terrorist" unless its intended purpose is to spread fear through a civilian population. The assassination of the president wasn't terrorist because its purpose was to assassinate the president, not to spread fear through any civilian population. Hasan's not a terrorist because his act had apparently no purpose whatsoever. awful article, should be removed, those responsible should be slapped.
UC Berkeley's got some of
UC Berkeley's got some of Emma's papers? And this is what their researchers are doing with em? Lets get that shit back!
Let's never forget this:
Let's never forget this: McKinley was racist, a mass-murderer and earned his bullet. Leon was a hero.
Hey y'all, here's a page
Hey y'all, here's a page with the author's contact info on it:
http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/subpage.aspx?id=37414
Maybe if you don't like this article you could send him an email and politely ask if he'll address your issues with it here. He seems ok to me, but I think his comparison in this piece is kinda skewed.
Man, really, y'all haters
Man, really, y'all haters need to shut the fuck up right now. This is a (mostly) neutral, balanced take comparing and contrasting two instances of highly-politicized violence taken out of desperation by two people who were faced with the monstrosity of the american empire. One was labeled an anarchist, and one was labeled a muslim, and beyond that their true motivations are beyond our grasp. Guess what? Muslims can be cool too, shitheads. If you consider a soldier killing his higher-ups to be rad, what the fuck does it matter if he's a muslim?
The ignorance expressed in these comments is precisely why no one bothers writing serious comments on anarchist news. Your banal, reactionary, and fucking racist responses are as worthless as the media's attempt to deny the politicized nature of Hasan's killings, painting him solely as a crazy A-rab killing for Allah because he hates Americans. Anarchism is not a system of morality; rather, it is a grouping of tactics which we may put to our use in order to move forward in this war. Any comments talking about what we should or should not endorse based on our shared identity as anarchists are fucking dumb. Just because you're a liberal douchebag does not make me a fucking retard, simply because we both use the term anarchism in relation to our political nature.
Terrorism is a term coined to slander revolutionary violence from the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, to Berkman's attempt on Henry Clay Frick, to riots and banner drops or liberation front actions. Generally speaking, it means "violence done in relation to politics." Terrorism is fucking tight.
Berkeley's Emma Goldman Papers are pretty legit. Barry Pateman, of the Kate Sharpley Libary, works on them, among other people. Learn what something fucking is before you make stupid comments about it.
where in the original
where in the original article is there any indication that hasan's act was linked to "the monstrosity of american empire?" you can read that into it if you want, but it's not there. that is exactly the point: the so-called neutrality makes this seem like another hit piece on "anarchist terrorism." "anarchism is not a system of morality"--really? anarchism makes no moral claims? what good would tactics in a war be if not in pursuit of some good? anarchists do not claim capitalism is "bad" and mutual aid is "good?" anarchism does not claim that individual self-government in individual matters and consensus in social matters is preferable to sham democracy? who is being ignorant here?
and your logic is a bit faulty, mate. because daniel works in the archive and i criticize him, therefore i am criticizing anybody who works in the archives? right--so i guess if you are an "american" therefore you're as bad as george bush? who is being ignorant here? barry pateman makes evan daniel look like a pipsqueak.
finally, "terrorism is fucking tight"... ok--let's all give it up for terrorism!?? that equivocation about legitimate and illegitimate uses of political violence is one thing that you and the author have in common. maybe you think that that is either ethical or strategic; i think its neither; i think its shit, just like the article.
We must read beyond the
We must read beyond the words written to even attempt to understand the context of any situation. Tactics are for winning. Morality is for sitting in a room feeling guilty. Anarchism is about winning.
I wasn't making the logical leap you saw. Not everything I wrote was in response to you.
Violent outbursts like this are incredibly politicized. These ruptures are dripping with context to be analyzed. To disregard this event as islamist, fundamentalist, or any other derogatory slur based on Hasan's ethnic or religious background, without first considering it, without studying it, is to doom one's self. If you cannot come up with any sort of analysis, any sort of commentary when something like this happens, you will be forever irrelevant. If all you can say is "this is stupid, islam is gay, and we should disregard this because a muslim did it," then you will never move forward.
I make no claims to judge the actions of Hasan. I do wish to understand where he was coming from. I do wish to understand what drove him to this. And I do wish to spread the idea that rather than jerking our knees, we should actually consider this rupture.
Stop acting like you're defending anarchism. It doesn't need you to.
This article isn't about
This article isn't about trying to link terrorism and anarchist ideology, although it is mentioned slightly. Mainly it's about comparing the minds of radical activists. Showing the influences and support that made them make their decisions.
This kind of analysis of
This kind of analysis of motives is suspect on both empirical and, certainly, on political grounds. I don't have any definite idea why Czolgosz or Hasan acted. The article proves nothing in that regard. But linking them together in terms of ideology + desperation = terrorist actor (especially linking anarchist and possible "jihadist") sounds like an equation that only a state could love.
Sometimes I wish their was a
Sometimes I wish their was a simple logic question that people needed to answer before leaving a comment. For example...
You are in a well-lit empty room with nothing in it except for yourself and an elephant immediately to you left. If you look to the left... what direction are you looking and what do you see?
This article clearly juxtaposed one of the most controversial anarchist actions in American history with the most current sensationalist mass killings of a militant Islamic nutjob. How do you miss that?! I'm not saying this Hasan guy who spilled his marbles for Allah and killed for Islam shouldn't be examined, but the comparison with Czolgosz is (as another comment put it) "an equation that only a state could love." The comparison to Hasan should be made with other military personnel of a religious bent who ended up killing random people -- like Timothy McVeigh or the D.C. sniper (John Muhammad).
And, by the way, this problem is only going to get worse. This latest incident is only the first from the latest waves of war -- but it should be remembered that McVeigh and Muhammed were also veterans of the state's military (and the conflicts they were involved with were of a smaller scale). In all likelihood... America will continue to experience domestic blowback from within it's own military infrastructure. More surveillance and oppression will be a likely result of these incidents but I really don't see such a response effectively curbing mass and spree killings of this systemic nature.
The problem will be exacerbated when the general public also fails to see the difference between military-trained religious fanatics and those who resist such people by any means necessary. Many liberal peaceniks can't even differentiate morally or ethically between a would-be rapist and the would-be victim who shoots them dead.
No gods, no countries! No Hasan's or McVeighs! Fight war, not wars!
Doesn't the usage of the
Doesn't the usage of the word "radical" as pejorative represent an equivocation of the term? Following the etymology, wouldn't radical mean someone attempting to get to the root or core of a problem? What's the author referring to as "radical Islam"? Does he mean one who wants global caliphate or something?
If that's a "radical," you could call Hitler or other dictators "radicals." I tend to think it's a term of endearment. For example, Ralph Nader is not a radical; he's a liberal reformist. But Uri Gordon, someone who believes that domination and oppression per se, ie, nationalism, patriarchy, homophobia, capitalism, environmental destruction, etc., is a radical.
There's nothing radical about Hasan's actions, nor do they fit the definition of "terrorism." This is much closer to other cases of extreme alienation like Colombine and other workplace/ school shootings. Really the question we should be asking is whether Hasan, and individuals like him, suffer from mental illness, or they are the most alienated products of a sick society. I tend to think the latter is true.
-Alex/comradshaw
While you are correct in the
While you are correct in the etymology from ancient Greece, what matters is that in the modern west, radical is a term used by those proposing moderate-or-no change to decry those proposing (sometimes) less-moderate change.
Yeah, I agree with you that
Yeah, I agree with you that it depends upon the messenger. Some people may refer to the term "radical" when describing a white nationalist or a nazi, or something. Yet some may use it as a term of endearment like, "She goes beyond the scope of social democrats; she is a radical."
I was surprised, assuming he's an anarchist or at least sympathetic towards anarchism, that the author used the word as such.
-Alex/comradshaw
radical: from the
radical: from the greek...radic: root, al: pertaining to, i am pretty sure. being radical: to get to the root of something, whatever it is and deal with it there. hope that clears things up.
I think many of the
I think many of the commenters are completely misreading the article/post. There are strong parallels between the two moments, as well as significant differences, and the author does not deny the differences. On one hand, the mainstream of the anarchist movement, especially in continental Europe, embraced "terrorist" violence, and especially assassinations of figures associated with tyranny - as you all know, this was known as propaganda of the deed. As anarchist communism and anarcho-syndicalism developed in the early twentieth century, the mainstream of anarchism turned away from this sort of violence and condemned it (Kropotkin and Rocker, for example, were very much against this sort of thing). Czolgosz was influenced by this ideology, but not directly connected to the movement.
On the other hand, the acts of violence were framed in the mainstream media of the time by an anti-anarchist panic. There were international meetings of governments on how best to deal with the anarchist threat. The British domestic intelligence system largely arose as a result of this, as did British anti-immigration legislation. The panic was tied into nativism, as Daniel makes clear, specifically into anti-immigrant and anti-Jewish racism.
In both of these, there are clear parallels with both the grim reality and paranoid fantasy of Islamist violence today. Of course there are clear differences too. If you click on the link to the original article at HNN, you will see Daniel discussing some of the differences in the comment thread there.
(Incidentally, I also very much dislike the way the author uses the word "radical".)
Bob
http://brockley.blogspot.com