Why Fundamentalism Reflects The Unevolved Mind

f

In March 2008, the outspoken Dutch politician Geert Wilders released his short film, entitled “Fitna” onto the Internet. The piece is a savage critique of fundamentalist Islam, and purports that the religion as a whole has an intrinsically bellicose nature.

Wilders supports this suggestion with a selection of warlike quotes from the Koran, such as:

“They but wish that ye should reject faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them, and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

In order to indicate a link between these modern-day atrocities and the age-old texts, he shows us images of 9/11, the Madrid and London bombings and footage of the beheading of hostage Eugene Armstrong. We see clips of various extremist Islamic preachers, proclaiming in no uncertain terms that it is the Muslim’s duty to terminate any non-believers with extreme prejudice; “Annihilate the infidels and the polytheists”, “Allah is happy when non-Muslims get killed”, etc.

Wilders’ film ends with a written postscript:

“It is not up to me, but up to Moslems themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Koran. Muslims want you to make way for Islam, but Islam does not make way for you. The government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you. Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our Western civilization. In 1945, Nazism was defeated in Europe. In 1989, Communism was defeated in Europe. Now, the Islamic ideology has to be defeated.”

The International community was acutely aware of the film’s prospective impact, even before it was released. When a video alleged to be a trailer for the short film was put on YouTube, Pakistan blocked the site from being accessed across the entire country. This actually resulted in the site going offline around the world for two hours.

When the film became available on the Internet, tensions grew. Political condemnation was worldwide and virtually unanimous. Public protests took place in Dam Square, Amsterdam. On the 7th of April, Indonesia blocked and continues to block YouTube because of its refusal to remove Fitna from its servers. Muslim nations have invariably threatened, at the very least, a review of their diplomatic relations with the Netherlands.

And a Fatwa has been put out on the life of Wilders himself. This is no empty threat; another Dutch filmmaker, Theo Vah Gogh (a descendant of Vincent’s family) was murdered after he made a film entitled “Submission”, about the physical and mental abuse that women often suffer in Islamic societies. The film was well received by some, but caused an uproar in Muslim communities.

As a result, on November 2nd 2004, a Muslim extremist named Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in Amsterdam as he cycled to work. Bouyeri shot Van Gogh eight times, slashed his throat (almost to the point of decapitation) and stabbed him in the chest. He also left a note pinned to the body, threatening jihad against Jews and Western governments. That was the climate in which Wilders made his own, arguably more controversial film.

Considering the circumstances, it seems very difficult for any non-religious person to side with Wilders’ film. Certainly, yes, it only presents one side of the story, but regardless of the film, the evidence seems highly stacked in favour of his argument. Fitna‘s featured preachers unequivocally desire conflict against the kuffars (non-believers) and believe that Islam can and should be the world’s sole religion.

The problem is that religious intolerance is considered such an awful taboo, such anathema to the mores of Western civilization, that it allows hate speech, indoctrination and mob mentality to exist untouched as long as it poses as the free expression of religious tenets. This allows aspects of fundamentalism to insinuate themselves into mainstream culture.

Islam is just one example of this phenomenon; Christian fundamentalism is rife in the USA; children are sent to camps to learn total submission to antiquated Catholic values. They speak in glossolalia and shed tears of joy, believing themselves to be conduits of the good Lord’s will. Of course, this all has practical uses, it creates an army of non-questioning youths who disdain abortion, divorce, sex before marriage etc; and who support totally the actions of a Christian president who wants to spread democracy overseas.

(Indeed, there’s been a lot of controversy recently about Barack Obama’s preacher, Jeremiah Wright, mainly because he has stated that 9/11 was a direct result of US’ interference with Middle Eastern nations. The very idea that America may have actually been partially responsible for the attacks that day is abhorrent to good American Christians, so they call the man a “traitor”.)

I don’t think that any religion is immune to this phenomenon (except possibly Buddhism, which embraces the questioning of even its most sacred beliefs), and Islam tends to enforce its rules with particular brutality. And it does so at the expense of countries that allow it to flourish. Indeed, the tremendous hypocrisy is that it abuses the open laws of countries that allow people of varying religions to settle there. They are allowed to practice their religions unmolested, and then preach hatred against the openness of the very cultures that allow them the freedoms of speech to do so in the first place.

I’m aware that it’s quite difficult to make this argument without getting into countrified “Not In My Back Yard” moralities. But there is a line. For example, the Latvian government recently jailed an Englishman for urinating on the Freedom Monument in Riga. The Freedom Monument is a tribute to those who fought and died in the Latvian War of Independence, and some drunken guy taking a piss on it was a terrible insult to the Latvian people. The Latvian foreign minister called the English “pigs” and threw the man in jail. And there was no international condemnation of the action.

On the other hand, when an English teacher in the Sudan allowed a class to name a teddy bear “Mohammad”, she was convicted of “insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs” by Islamic authorities. She was sentenced to 15 days in jail and was deported upon release. Not only that, but

“…approximately 400 protesters took to the streets, some of them waving swords and machetes, demanding Gibbons’s execution after imams denounced her during Friday prayers. During the march, chants of “Shame, shame on the UK”, “No tolerance – execution” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad” were heard. Witnesses reported that government employees were involved in inciting the protests.” Wikipedia

Wanting to end someone’s life because of the name they gave a teddy bear suggests something more to me than simple religious offence. I think that many people, and certainly those who subscribe to the fundamentalist aspects of any religion, are assuming a personality type; the kind that tends towards the total abdication of individual responsibility.

True responsibility is an imposing prospect. It involves a lot of work. It involves searching the Gods, quite literally, for the meaning of life. It involves the realization that everyone else’s actions make just as much sense to them as yours do to you. It involves the admission that you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions; if you insult your friend, beat your wife, kill someone, it’s because you chose to do it, not because some ancient text gave you permission. It’s liberating, but it also deletes a huge portion of one’s ego and cuts you adrift from the woolly cotton braids of what at least purports to be “tradition”.

In that sense, it’s interesting that the word Islam actually means “submission”. Because that’s what fundamentalism demands. And it’s attractive. It entices so many because it offers the promise of an easier life. It offers a psychological return to the womb, where some all-powerful entity will provide you with all you need to survive; you don’t need to make any decisions for yourself, because everything has been already decided for you.

The problem with that, though, is that when these people see others taking responsibility for their lives, exploring the wonders and limits of existence, it drives them hog-wild. It wounds them so deeply because in their heart of hearts, they know that they are missing out. If there is any spark of human curiosity left in them, it flares up and reminds them that they have cravenly abandoned their duties. It’s like ol’ Fred Nietszche says; “Fear is the mother of morality”.

It seems similar, to me at least, to the actions of the classic sociopath. This person indulges in anti-social behaviour, but, when confronted with the the truth (or any criticism whatsoever) of their actions, reacts with furious disdain. It’s similar to a child who has been caught lying, but who continues lying to maintain their innocence. They know they’re in the wrong, and the only way they can react is with anger, tears and even violence.

Fortunately for religious zealots, this anger, these tears and violence can be channeled through the untouchable medium of religious outrage. Claiming insult of one’s theistic persuasion is thus used as the basis to lash out at others for any and all of man’s frailties; sexual frustration, mortality, depression, fear. All of this encourages a regression to tribalism – mob mentalities that rail against centuries of progress in racial integration. The non-believers are less worthy than believers, and that’s non-negotiable.

To reiterate, this is certainly not confined to Islam. And like other religions, Islam has an introspective, mystic tradition that encourages reflection, non-violence and self-discovery (Sufism). Christianity had a similar tradition, known as Gnosticism. In fact, it could be argued that religion regularly seems to reflect different personalities, or at least, personalities at different levels of maturity. People are drawn to whatever aspects of  their religion that tend to echo their own beliefs and experiences. If you desire peace and love, both Christianity and Islam can be argued to justify that. If you want violence and bloodshed, both can be argued to justify that, too.

(I wonder if so many of these old religious texts, written in such vague aphorisms, are actually meant to be gauges of man’s maturity as a civilization. Since they seem to be textual Rorschach tests, people tend to draw from them what they will; love, hatred, peace, violence, whatever.)

But what if the believers in violence and bloodshed start to encroach on the progress of peace? Well, that’s the heart of the problem; the cultures that have embraced racial and religious integration are slow to do anything for fear of violating their own democratic ideals. In doing so, they may allow hate speech to flow and the warlike traits of the collective psyche to grow.

I recently came across a proverb that went something like this:

“The problem with the world is that wise people are open-minded and unsure, but the foolish are absolutely certain.”

I think that sums it up. The heads of our democracies must be wary of and penalize those who would preach racism, insularity and violence. Doing so does not violate the tenets of democracy, it encourages them.

As I have argued, religion tends to reflect aspects of the individual personality. In the same way that the most peaceful person may sometimes feel a jolt of fury or jealousy, they must dispel these feelings instead of letting them fester and grow. But that involves a personal decision and personal action.

And it’s action that must be taken; otherwise, the fears and tribalisms can take hold from within and undo so much of the progress of personal and social evolution. Although a world of total peace and integration would be wonderful, we haven’t reached it yet. And if the road to it is left unpoliced, we never will.

f

f

Further Viewing:

Geert Wilders’ “Fitna”

Channel 4 Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Documentary featuring undercover investigation into the influence of religious extremism throughout the UK.

Scientology Vs Psychiatry

fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff 

The other night I watched an interesting documentary on the history of psychiatry.

This field, the documentary proposed, is historically rife with dangerous quackery and blatant disregard for human life (i.e., old-style asylums, Nazi eugenics programs etc). Why should the industry today be any different? Some fascinating and valid points were made.

As it went on, though, the arguments became progressively more flimsy and abstract. Any pro-psychiatry clips were obviously edited for negative effect. Things got very strange, however, when the documentary implied that psychiatry was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks (!).

This weirdness was all explained in the final ten minutes, when the documentary revealed itself to be a production of the Church of Scientology, and based on a Scientology-funded museum called “Psychiatry: The Industry of Death” in Los Angeles, California.

With this knowledge, it was fascinating to re-think what I had just watched. Even though parts of it were absolutely convincing, the unabashed demonization of the psychiatric industry was completely overboard. For example, I doubt that anyone could seriously argue that the bloody history of psycho-surgery in the twentieth century was anything but catastrophic for the patients involved.

Lobotomies, in which people had their pre-frontal lobes physically “scrambled”,  turned thousands in veritable zombies. It was considered a miracle cure, the quick fix for all serious mental maladies. The infamous Dr. Walter Freeman, with his icepick lobotomy roadshow, would today not seem out of place in a particularly gory Stephen King novel. 

Also, the pharmaceutical industry’s myriad financial ties to the field of psychiatry cannot be denied. Big pharma targets psychiatrists (and GPs) directly with gifts, outings and test samples; basically everything but outright bribery.

One thing I am deeply thankful for here in Ireland is the fact that the advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals to the general public is outlawed. The industry in America (where no such prohibition exists) depends massively on, simply, convincing people that they actually have the ailments for which the medication has been developed. All of the wiles of powerful advertising become focused on making people that they are sick. They prey on the romanticism of victimhood, and the promise of future happiness. 

And of course, there’s the medication of children and young students who are not “attentive” enough. If they can’t focus long enough on badly-taught minutae when they should be learning proper life-skills, they are fed pills until they bloody well can. As Bart Simpson said; “When I can’t stop fiddlin’, I just take my Ritalin – I’m popping and sailing, man!”

And yet, and yet…. in spite of all this criticism, one cannot simply demonize the entire industry. The fact is that medication has helped millions of people worldwide to get better from a variety of mental afflictions. In fact, I’m one of those people. I have been on two separate courses of anti-depressants in my life, primarily to deal with panic attacks and obsessive thinking. Of course, there is the danger of addiction. But most should be viewed as “window of opportunity”, a platform from which to make the mental effort to get better for yourself – and then discontinue the meds.

Stating that all psychiatry is “evil” is basically a form of religious fundamentalism, on a par with the fundamentalisms that inspire terrorists to murder “infidels”. It is the type of antiquated Manichean concept that drives useless conceptual wedges between people and cultures. It generates one-sided thought processes, impervious to and often aggressive towards conflicting viewpoints.

f 

It reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson’s assertion that no matter how many intelligent, reasonable people you have in a room, all you have to do is introduce one aggressive loudmouth to bring everyone down to that level.  This is illustrated very well in a BBC Panorama programme, in which the reporter investigates the Church of Scientology. He is harassed and harangued at every step by an aggressive spokesman of the Church. It all comes to a head when they meet, coincidentally enough, in the “Psychiatry: An Industry of Death” museum. The BBC reporter loses his head and actually screams at the spokesman. Let’s watch…

f

f 

f

I think that all of this demonstrates the dangers of one-sided thinking, and of belief systems (which Robert Anton Wilson abbreviated as “B.S.”) in general . It is of the utmost importance to constantly remember that no matter how strange the actions of another might seem, those actions make just as much sense to that person as yours do to you. Forgetting or ignoring this fact is the basis of all conflict, from arguments to wars. Organizations/cults such as the Church of Scientology tend to foster the abdication of individual responsibility in the face of “unquestionable” dogmas and the power of group mentality.

It’s not always easy to distinguish the propaganda of such organizations from any sort of objective reality; often the two are mixed for greater effect. But if someone tells you something along the lines of, say, “9/11 was caused by psychiatrists”, then don’t feel bad about using your common sense… and laughing in their face.

f

Further viewing: Documentary –  “Psychiatry: The Industry of Death” :

Why Hiroshima Is Now More Important Than Ever

Over the last few days I have been watching a number of documentaries about the US bombing of the Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in 1945. I would recommend watching these to anyone with even a passing interest in history, warfare, or indeed, America’s current foreign policies.

These were absolutely extraordinary events that are without parallel in any other conflict in history. The bombs were intended to deal a massive blow to Japan, thereby ending the conflict with the US in one fell swoop. And that they did; Japan surrendered just six days after the bombings (though many would argue that the brutality of the attack was at least in partial response for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour four years earlier). The US argument was that many more lives were saved by ending the war so quickly than would have been if it had played out in standard theatres of conflict. However, the fact remains that the bomb was for all intents and purposes an utterly indiscriminate attack, and one that targeted innocent civilians: men, women and children.

The Hiroshima bomb exploded over the center of the city. The Nagasaki bomb, over a Catholic area in the suburbs. In both cases, the devastation was unthinkable. At Ground Zero, the heat generated was ten times hotter than that of the Sun. Air was forced away from the explosion, creating winds of 620 mph. Anyone remotely close to the explosion was vaporized instantly. Many who witnessed from farther away had their eyes burned out of their sockets (and many of those people survived). People’s skin was “shredded and hanging off their bodies”, according to witnesses.

This is a re-enactment of the impact of the Hiroshima bomb, from the BBC documentary, “Hiroshima”.

“People with no arms, no legs, their intestines spilling out. Brains spilling out of their crushed skulls…black, carbonized bodies. People in unimaginable states.” Corpses, skeletons and limbs littered the streets. Particularly awful for the survivors was simply the physical pain of the burns from the blast; any exposed skin was scorched horribly, often leaving mortal wounds or lifelong scars.

There was virtually nothing left of these two huge cities. They had been razed to the ground by the atom, decimating their populations.

140,000 were murdered at Hiroshima. 70,000 at Nagasaki.

160,000 more people later died from radiation poisoning, the effects of which were not well known to doctors at the time (many physicians considered it a “mystery fever”, and had no idea how to treat patients succumbing to the horrendous results of exposure to high levels of radiation).

Aside from the human destruction wreaked by the bomb, there were far more terrible possibilities associated with the Manhattan Project (the military project which developed the weapon). There was, for example, a slim chances that the fission reaction would initiate a fusion reaction in nitrogen present in the air, causing a chain reaction that would “ignite the atmosphere” of Earth and destroy the planet. Not only that, but there was also a chance that the bomb could actually cause a crack the crust of the Earth, with unknown consequences.

With all this in mind, it’s interesting to consider how modern culture looks back on these events – which changed the world, and might even have ended it . It seems to me, at least, that their significance is downplayed. For example, people are a lot more generally aware of Auschwitz, Pearl Harbour and 9/11 than they are of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I understand that the geographical and chronological distance plays a big part, but I don’t think that’s the whole story, either.

American foreign policy has reached a point where they feel totally justified in stepping into any country they consider a threat, deposing the problematic ruler and imposing their democratic mores upon the population. This policy must be supported by popular opinion; otherwise the resulting low morale can seep into the military itself. Vietnam was a great example of this effect; protesters across America and the world constantly demanded that the US pull their troops out.

Celebrities like Jane Fonda even went to Vietnam, putting on shows in which they would deride the stupidity of American militarism. Anti-war papers and pamphlets were left in barracks and dropped on cities. And it worked. Direct disobedience, court-marshals and AWOLs became the order of the day. Many GIs became so disillusioned with their seemingly pointless war that towards the end of the conflict, American soldiers were refusing to leave their bunkers altogether. The US army tried to save face by carpet-bombing the region instead.

However, the relatively free media which fed the public at the time is now part of a vastly different informational landscape. War is now portrayed by television channels as a form of entertainment, like sports or drama. Hi-octane, flashy graphics bookend the reports. The information itself is sanitized; we almost never see actual deaths or horrible injuries. We are presented with weapons of war (and all their “stats”) as if they were anything but killing machines. Even the vernacular of conflict is changed; snipers are now “sharpshooters”. Bombings are now “surgical strikes”. Innocent people killed and maimed are now “collateral damage”. All of this is to minimize the viewer’s association between war and actual human suffering. If people actually thought one begat the other, we may even question the usually flimsy premises of war altogether..

.

Here is a clip from the film “Militainment Inc”, a film which examines the link between the military and the media. 

.

… all of which brings me back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think that it is essential that people not simply associate these names with “the events that ended the war”. The fact is that the level of human suffering inflicted upon these people was unimaginable. The military took the most elemental, devastating force known to man and dropped it on two cities filled with innocent people. Not only that, but they had planned to drop even more:

“The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.^” (Wikipedia)

As terrible as 9/11 was, it was nowhere near the utter humanitarian catastrophe that began when America bombed Japan, and that lasted not for one day but for decades, generations. I have a feeling that it will always be remembered with more solemnity and respect than the dropping of the Atomic bombs ever were, at least in Western media. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (in which 370,000 were killed) are still seen as little more than a necessary means to an end, whereas the destruction of the Twin Towers (in which less than 3,000 were killed) was an “unprovoked” terrorist attack that demanded a brutal response – one that began years ago in Afghanistan and continues to this day in Iraq.

In his address to the nation on September 11th 2001, Bush said: “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.” It harks back to what Roosevelt said after Pearl Harbour: “A date which will live in infamy…. (but) The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.”

.

The question is, where do you draw the line between terrorism and “righteous might”?

.

.

.

Further Viewing:

Documentary – Days That Shook The World: Hiroshima

The Vietnam anti-war movement is detailed in a great documentary, “Sir No Sir”, available to watch here: