Taxi Driver and
the lone wolf: What makes them tick?
Self-Loathing
and the Boston Bombers (Izvestia, Russia)
"Before embarking on an indiscriminate killing spree, the
hero of Scorcese'sTaxi Driver stands in front of a mirror and threatens his own
reflection with a gun. ... the act of violence in the case of a lone terrorist
is aimed not only at those around him, but at himself. That which the terrorist
says can be roughly translated: 'The world is disgusting and unfair,
there is no truth in it, no beauty, no love.' ... But more than that: I as a
part of this world, am to the same degree disgusting, and therefore, must also
die. ... He wants to be the lastpiece of
dirt to be swept out of the room, after which the room will be clean.”
Members of the Narodnaya Volya, a 19th century left-wing Russian terrorist organization. Do its motivations offer some clues as to the motives of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the two men charged with bombing the Boston Marathon?
We
know how capital has no nationality. But what about terrorism? Answering that
question may not be as easy as it sounds. In answering it, one must keep in
mind not only 9-11, but Narodnaya Volya and the "Red Brigades." And
in any case, such a conversation cannot be conducted in an emotional way.
[Editor's Note: Narodnaya Volya was a 19th century left-wing Russian terrorist organization, members of which assassinated Tsar Alexander III in 1894. The Red Brigades terrorized Italy in the 1970s and 80s].
A hasty
apology on behalf of the whole of Russia for the Tsarnaev
brothers may seem somewhat of a side issue - on a par with the Czech Foreign Ministry
request for the pair not to be referred to as "Czechs." [The brothers
are ethnic Chechens - but were born in the former USSR in 1986 and 1993, in
what is now the nation of Kyrgyzstan]. But for some reason, generally speaking,
the discussion about the Boston terrorists revolves around where they came and what
nationality they can or cannot be considered. In the mean time, another
question seems far more intriguing. It is the question of motive: two
young men, living in America for nine years, did what they did. Why all of a
sudden did this happen?
We
know how terrorist attacks can be when conducted by organized groups - with
leadership, infrastructure, etc. In this case, that does not appear to be the
case. This appears more like the act of a loner. The fact that there are two
loners here is not of great significance.
The
portraits of the brothers are dissimilar. The oldest - introverted, no friends,
a mechanic. The younger - socially outgoing, charming, and a beach lifeguard.
But the incongruence is deceptive here: in fact, anyone can be either social or
introverted during different periods in their life. Well yes, it is hard to
imagine that the younger brother drew the older into such a venture. Which
means, most likely, it must have been the other way around. But again, what of it?
The older brother was religious, didn't drink or smoke - so what? What is of
key significance is that they weren't professional bombers educated in some
sort of kamikaze training camp.
Someone like
… Anders
Breivik comes to mind. And there is something to
this. Especially if one pays attention to the similarity in their choice of
victims - not people in high office or a tight crowd in the subway, but a gathering
of activists - a youth forum, and marathon runners. Groups that by their very appearance
say: "We're fine, and are getting even better. The end of history has arrived,
and all that remains is to promote a healthy lifestyle and discuss ecological
issues.
In this
case, the terrorist act is definitely not nationalistic or religious - it is
political. Here, it seems, one must defend against the imbecile: the purpose of
this discussion is in no way to excuse this heinous crime, but, by abstracting
oneself from emotion, to try and address the question of what the meaning of it
was.
Before
embarking on an indiscriminate killing spree, the hero in Scorcese'sTaxi Driver stands in front of a
mirror and threatens his own reflection with a gun. In the film's finale, after
attempting to shoot himself but being out of ammunition, he puts his fingers
together indicating a gun pointing to his own temple, and pulls the trigger.
And I reiterate the point first expressed by Zizek in
Violence, and now again in the new Pervert's Guide to Cinema: the act of violence in the case of a lone terrorist
is aimed not only at those around him, but at himself. That which the terrorist
says can be roughly translated: "the world is disgusting and unfair, there
is no truth in it, no beauty, no love" (remember the “manifesto” of DmitriyVinogradov?) But more
than that: "I as a part of this world, am to the same degree disgusting, and
therefore, must also die."
"He wants to be" - Zizek
is quoting Brecht here - "the lastpiece of dirt to be swept out of the room, after which
the room will be clean.”
Apparently,
this Taxi Driver - since he appears
here and there, now in the movies, then in reality, now in Stockholm and then
in Moscow or Boston - is not just insane. The Tsernaev
brothers, to the same extent as Breivik and Vinogradov, represent society's subconscious, which will whisper to us until the faraway end of history.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
Terrorist attacks may seem like just an unfortunate bug in
the software of global prosperity (everything is great - let's just deal with
the latest terrorists, and then we'll begin to live!). But in reality it is just
the opposite: capitalism is unimaginable without terrorism, the latter being systematically
woven into the former, like a kind of “Easter egg” in a video game. We are
doomed to stumble upon these “eggs” here and there - until something on a global level fundamentally changes.
