Religion, tribalism, Extermination

Ce sont des Mots Qui Vont Tres Bien Ensemble

This is a follow-up on the essay I wrote on the debauch of demons in Christo-Islamism. One of the reasons for which I do not like novels much, is that the human psychology therein represented is all too often a caricature, something all too simple. Why so trite? Because a novelist wants to sell books. Those who are successful, that is the most read, are most read precisely because they are familiar, and flattering, to the masses.

The Politically Correct (PC) is not just most followed, it’s what sells (and reciprocally). Nietzsche sold only a few hundred books when he was conscious.

A real philosopher does not caress, but stings the masses. Nietzsche sold books only after several famous intellectuals sang his praises.

I had a most curious upbringing, mostly, but not exclusively, in Africa. Although (it turned out) in “Muslim” lands, I was unaware of Islam. I grew up under the vast umbrella of what is called “Sufi” Islam.

In some ways that “Sufi” Islam was more secular and progressive than secularism in, say, Europe. (“Sufi” is a label which covers many completely different religions; yet they all tend to be less sexist: Kurdish females have been dying as soldiers in combat in Kobani).

Many of the religiously obsessed claim that elaborate religious rituals are innocent, because they represent a long tradition. The Jews, in particular, are prone to make this reasoning. That’s rather incongruous, after centuries of pogroms: any practice which brings lots of death to the practitioners ought to be viewed, clearly, as not innocent!

Others identify religion and civilization. For example they talk of the “Islamic” civilization. Really? As there is more than one hundred types of Shia “Islam”, does that mean there is more than a hundred Islamic civilizations?

How do the simplistic theory: Islam = Civilization… survives the war in Kobani? There, in a few miles, three versions of “Islam” are in an extermination fight: Wahhabis against Kurds against Turks. Clearly both non-Kurdish Turks, and Wahhabis want to exterminate the Kurds.

About 25% of the population of Turkey is Kurdish (but many are in hiding). That the government hates them is nothing special: in a full blown plutocracy, the 1% hate the 99% (aristocracy, in France’s old regime was 2% of the population).

I know Turks who hate Erdogan and his ilk: the ancestors of those “Turks” were Armenian (thus Christian), or Kurds (and some of the Turks I know are mixed Armenian-Kurdish). To save their children, they had to bring them up as the kind of Muslim Turks who are kosher in Ankara. So now they feel that their children are not really their children anymore. That’s the Australian method of genocide (bring up the children of Bushmen without their parents, or their culture).

Kurdistan is about 3,000 years old, and Armenia was the first Christian land. Saladin was a Kurd.

Too much respect for tradition is an error. Tradition to a great extent, is in opposition to “secular” (which means of the age). Hence tradition is a religion.

This meditation is about religion, it can only hurt those who feel it is right, it is their right, to feel very strongly about the metaphysics they believe in. But metaphysics is never innocent. After all, it’s about the foundations of minds one talks about. One can’t get more intimate than that. Or more penetrating and violating, should one get into metaphysics, that is, other people’s minds. Potentially.

Religions tie people together. (Re-ligare.) This is what religious means.

Religion does not have to have a metaphysical element. Some people practice an art or a sport, as if it were a religion. It is a religion. Many young people get tied together again by activities such as being soccer supporters… And only by them. And they seem ready to die for it.

Zen, Taoism, forms of Yoga, nationalism, tribalism, are all religious in character. After all, these bounds are often so strong, people are ready to die for them. The SS had: “Gott Mit Uns!” on their belts buckles (“God With Us”; that inspired the American Congress to follow suit and adopt a variant of that slogan for the entire USA.)

Yes, any nation worth its salt, is, to some extent, a religion.

In other words: Religions generate tribes. That’s what they do. It’s very important, because human beings are nothing, in nearly all ways, if not in a tribe. (Or then they are philosophers.) The religious instinct cannot be distinguished from the tribal instinct.

Nice tribes, or nasty tribes, that is the question. Inclusive tribes, and inclusive religions, are nice. (To conclude the “Social War”, Rome learn to become inclusive, and so are its descendant regimes.)

Religions, nations who exclude are nasty, and bring blood. Exclusivity, alienation, is always (ethologically perceived as) an aggression. That has been observed in chimpanzees.

Tribes are not just about being strong together, they are about group selection. Thus, so are religions. Deadly aggression, even war, was found to be “adaptive” in chimpanzees:

Religion is war according to the most fundamental means. The deepest ways of the minds. Maladaptive religions get exterminated: Rome and its descendant regimes annihilated all human sacrifices religions (starting with Rome’s, Carthage’s and then the Celts’).

It’s not a good sign, when a religion is full of demons (as Christianity and Wahhabi Islam are). Or when it’s so nasty, it needs a god of evil (Hades, Satan, etc.)

Another dichotomy is between rational religions, and irrational ones. That one is roughly equivalent to that between religions which are organized around superstition, and the supernatural, and those which are not.

Nasty has to do not just be about mistreating others directly, but how they lead others to react.

Often tribes get dressed in black, claiming to be somehow elected by god. Example: Catholic “men in black”, those monks of the Fourth Century destroying books and intellectuals. Jesuits followed suite (and suits!), a millennium later, and then, Orthodox Jews, themselves copied in more ways than one, by the Hugo Boss black tailored SS, etc… The alienation was deliberate: it became a hatred multiplier, and hatred was the goal.

Another way to alienate is by advertising wildly irrational beliefs, constituting a religion, defining a tribe. The more irrational, the more flaunted, the more alienating to other groups, the more it leads to hatred in reply, and the more hatred one is submitted to, the tighter the tribe that creates the alienation will be.

It’s this advanced calculus of hatred, fear and alienation which is at the root of all too many religions and their associated tribalizations.

Ever since men have roamed, religions have clashed. And the better ones have won. Time for the best, the most ethologically correct religion, the one ultimately granted by 50 million years of evolution: direct democracy.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , ,

12 Responses to “Religion, tribalism, Extermination”

  1. Hadrian Antiochus Says:

    Tribal feelings have died in Europe.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Hadrian! Well, it depends where! As demonstrated by yesterday’s Serbia-Albania European Cup soccer match. A drone was flown carrying a greater Albania flag, at the 40th minute. It ended up in a fight between the public and the Albanian players.

      Once again, all depends upon the French and the Germans, who have been slowly melding. Increasingly, the Federal Republik feels more and more like the French one (I watch German TV, which makes for a more plodding, but more thorough French TV equivalent).

      With Franco-German unification, the others are forced to follow…

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        “With Franco-German unification, the others are forced to follow…”
        Well, why not? It’s probably just because I do not speak German – after all, from time to time, I have witnessed animosity and resentment from Germans writing in English, so the language barrier might factor in more than what I’d hope – but I don’t have the feeling that Francophobia and anti-French racism is as ingrained and systematic in the German-speaking world, than in the English one.
        Meaning that while I’m aware that French and UK mores supposedly are closer than any other ones in Western Europe, with tourists reciprocally feeling “at home”, etc, etc,… my feeling really is that there’s “something” most unappealing in British culture, and that a great deal of that nasty insularism/suprematism is specifically aimed against French and France, to an extent and an intensity that is simply umatched in france (at least nowadays, perhaps).
        Dominique Deux seems to acknowledge this more readily.

        Of course, I’m basing this solely on long-term observation of the “naked Id” of my own sampling of online interraction, but even this biased approach is kind of worthwhile IMHO, just like random absurd crap like that mechanic who designed that machine to “fart in the direction of French” (as per the Monty Pythons).
        At least, the Germans actually tried to destroy/neuter France twice, so there’s that; the British seem to have been seething since losing the 100 years war. The German genocidal intent was paid in blood, and is (hopefully) spent by now, whereas the UK would be still IMHO quite ready and happy to implement an “Irish solution” to France, if only they could get away with it – for now, they just seem content with cutting down France at the knee and erasing its History through “soft power”.

        The fact I’m writing this in English is thus only more darkly amusing.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The present English hostility to Europe is the result of a manipulation of public opinion by London based plutocrats. In finance, London has about 2,750 money center banks, France around 173, and Germany maybe 250.
          Those people are been played, and that was the root of the very pro-European Scots. Not all what Chris Snuggs is saying is unbalanced, far from it. However, he forgets, or, more probably, does not understand finance (I, by contrast, knows finance quite well, as many a mathematician not deliriously pleased with abject poverty).

          I do watch German TV a lot, and see a nation similar to France. More industrious, more studious, much more humble… And taking, implicitly, all their directions from France.

          Except in the nuclear area; however, even in that area, critiques against France are inexistent: after all, Germany buys French electricity (enjoy while it lasts)

          The French republic won the 1870-1945 war: now Germany is totally a sister republic, and the old empire of the German Franks is being rebuilt, this time as a representative republic.

          English is not English. It’s Anglo-Normand: more than 80% of the words are in common with French. And most of the rest is… Old Frankish!

          My daughter speaks some Chinese, and that’s a really different language. English is just a form of French.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          As I explained in the past, the civil war between Paris and London was a Franco-French affair. The war was started, after all, by Isabelle de France, la Louve de France, and her son, Edouard III, and they were in their right.

          The peace instituted 80 to 90 years later fell to bad luck and the evil schemes of a southern queen. Henri V was extremely popular in France, and his son was a philosopher-king.
          To think otherwise is pretty much embracing Marine Le Pen, I am afraid.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          One thing to understand is that it’s not “the English”, or “the Germans”, who hated, inasmuch as systems of thought brought to life by plutocracies.
          English dislike of France is all for show. The hatred directed to the French by the Americans around 2003 was a very serious, and scary thing, though. A few store calling themselves “French” something (“French laundry”) were even burned down in California (not that the Americans are very apt to remember their folly).

    • Kevin Berger Says:

      “Tribal feelings have died in Europe.”
      Well, as a matter of fact, basing myself on my very narrow experience of a single country, France, I’d even believe it’s quite the reverse. At least if we’re talking about a general trend, anyway, with a noticeable crispation on ‘identity’ that is far from being the sole territory of revamped far-right movements. Maybe a natural response to being taught through all means available that you cannot write France without Rance, after all.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        I tend to agree. Plus, France is not any country, but the core of Western Europe. After all, 1,000 years ago, all of Western Europe was “Francia”, also known as the “RENOVATIO IMPERIUM ROMANUM”. Britain would be recovered 52 years later… ;-)!

        I have a massive essay on austerity, bonds, and other lies, incoming…

  2. EugenR Says:

    Desr Patrice. A wonderful essay. Just few additions: The humans cannnot exist without tribal identity. When finally the religion became out of fashion, new tribal belongings apeared. The most obvious ones are the Nazi and Communist ideologies. Why so? I believe because of longing of too many people to some immortal all capable father, who will supplement the real one. The reason behind it is that probably the real one was not sufficient a father.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: Thanks for the approval and appreciation.
      I do consider, and tried to make very clear, that humanity would not exist without the tribal instinct.
      However, this is an old instinct, like the Will to Power, the Will To Hurt, Kill, and eat one’s enemies. I would argue now that there should be just one tribe, the tribe of reason.

      That may sound utopic… But it’s widely emotionally understood. As the fact that the John Lennon song, “Imagine” is world famous, shows. The time has come to strike a stronger, less compromising stance.

  3. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent To “Eat Your Brains Out; Exploring Science, Exposing Creationism”]

    Obviously, contradicting the facts is contradicting God. Believers ought to meditate this. If they don’t believe in God’s own beloved creation, does not that make them atheists?

    • Paul Braterman Says:

      Paul Braterman | November 15, 2014 at 11:57 pm

      An interesting idea. One 19th century (or older?) theological concept is the two books, of Revelation and of Nature. And if you think they contradict each other, you’ve misinterpreted one OR the other. When I was a believer, I regarded separate creationism and Young Earthism as blasphemous, since they would imply that God had lied in the Book of Nature; very much the same point that you are making.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: