Today is evidently the Buddha’s birthday as recognized by several Buddhist schools of thought and Buddhist traditions. I thought I’d add this post as a celebration. The art is by Sherman Nepali and can be found here. For a quick rundown, on the celebration of the Buddha’s birthday, click here. More information can be found here.
Before and After Images of The Taliban’s violent destruction of the massive 1700 year-old Bamiyan Cliff Statues in Afghanistan via dynamite due to their faith in Islam.
Islam has destroyed so much beauty and wonder, yet still can claim victimhood despite all its horrific actions. Meanwhile, actual peaceful teachings and cultures suffer being referred to as bigoted even after losing so much to such a violent and atrocious ideology as Islam.
Buddhism has such an inner sense of clarity, reflection, and sense of peace towards the world; building beautiful monuments, paintings, and civilizations. Yet, when it is forcibly taken away by a demented and psychotic belief system like Islam, Buddhists are depicted to be the aggressors. I ask you, who gives more value to a civilization? Which culture offers more beauty, wonder, and interest to our collective human experience?
I oppose anti-Muslim bigotry, Muslims should never endure violence because of terrorist organizations like the Taliban or stupid people like in Maldives, but don’t pretend Muslim culture isn’t complete shit.
While I may not agree with many doctrines, it should go without saying that Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Christianity all have beautiful depictions of art, music, and culture. We mustn’t ever allow them to be erased.
Do you remember when intelligent interviews and discussions were the norm? When you got to learn something of incredible value from an interview and it wasn’t a pissing contest with an interviewee leaving the stage because they couldn’t take a few basic questions that journalists asked so they could clarify any confusion for audiences? Or when people could just be part of a panel and not have someone storm off for hashtags and tweets and then be rewarded by the worthless rabble for refusing to even be part of a discussion?
Free Speech seems to already be dead and it is dead because so-called advocates of it don’t even follow its core tenants. The people who behave like the recent so-called “public intellectuals” have killed it and continue to defecate on its corpse while claiming to be its paragons.
I recently happened upon this disinformation article by IndiaToday claiming to be factual. It is full of misdirection, omissions, and lies and I want to prove it to you all.
Sharia law courts must NEVER be allowed in India. Do not allow this horrible, disgusting system infect India because of “religious tolerance” — it is not worth it.
The Sharia is essentially Divine Command Theory put into practice; Sharia scholars can only act based on the Quran, the Quran interpreting other parts of the Quran, what the pedophilic Islamic Prophet Mohammad did in his life because he’s seen as the perfect human being in Islam, and then “verified” Hadiths are used to support following certain practices so long as the Quran allows it; after that, Sharia scholars can give an “independent opinion” so long as it follows the Quran, Mohammad’s behavior, the Hadiths, or the First Followers of the Quran. Making new and updated practices for the modern era is strictly forbidden under the rule called “bidah” (invention) in a religion. One thing should be make explicitly clear here: The Sharia Court System is Fundamentally Opposed To All Outside Logic and Reason. No non-Muslim opinion is considered valid. When a Sharia scholar gives a ruling, Muslims are divinely mandated to follow it as unquestioned fact of Islam that they aren’t allowed to dispute. Keep in mind all of the following below has to be accepted by Muslims as unquestioned fact under Divine Command Theory of Sharia.
Don’t believe me? A link to the Tafsir explanation by a noteworthy and respected Islamic Cleric. I’ve added full links next to the one-clicks, if you don’t believe me: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/205290/tafseer-on-the-basis-of-narrated-texts-and-tafseer-on-the-basis-of-individual-understanding
The Sharia means “Divine Law” and in Civil Sharia Proceedings, a woman has half the say of a man even in cases of rape. Meaning two women must be there to verify the statements of a single man in cases of rape.
Violence against other religious groups, even different Islamic groups, is mandated thanks to Chapter 9 of the Quran; here’s just a small snippet: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=29
Look at what happened with Sharia Courts in Great Britain
Let’s step back a bit and think over the logistics of tackling the wave of crimes that’ll occur and that the Indian police will be ill-equipped to deal with since – to the best of my knowledge – the ratio of the police force in India is 1 for every 400 people and not 1 for every 100 people.
This causes systematic abuse of women and still remains a problem ever since Britain accepted Sharia courts. Large subsets of Muslim men and women willfully choose to ignore secular laws when Sharia Courts are implemented despite even when they have no legal power and act only as ceremonial decrees from the perspective of British law. Despite this, they’re treated as the de facto law of the land by a large swathe of British Muslims of Pakistani descent because they’re viewed as divine law — which is what Sharia means. Muslims must see Sharia Courts as divinely mandated by their God and thus superseding Secular Laws despite the actual codified law of the land. Islam’s Sharia Courts are Divine Command Theory put into practice.
Examine the borders close to India and see what Sharia legal systems have wrought
Raping minority Christian, Atheist, and Hindu women on the streets is normalized in Bangladesh due to support for Sharia. Massacres, arguably genocide of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, are the norm in Islamic majority countries. Bangladesh has had persecution and violence against Hindus both in recent years and going back in the recent past that still continues on nowadays. Christian groups have attempted to document abuses to defend Hindu human rights, but also suffer persecution and possibly risk death along with Hindus by doing so.
28 April marks the 19th anniversary of the mujahideen’s victory over the Red Army forces in Afghanistan. The original mujahideen of the 1980s and today’s Taliban may use the same language of holy war, but their understanding ofjihadis worlds apart. The key difference between the original mujahideen and the Taliban is that the former waged a traditional type of jihad. In a traditional jihad, if waged locally, a contest over control of resources takes place between rival strongmen who each run their own private armies. In this scenario, the ultimate legitimacy to rule draws upon military strength, but the contest itself is called jihad simply because Islam is the sole language of political legitimacy. Crucially, in a traditional jihad, the victorious party has an unspoken right to pillage, rape and loot the conquered population. This is because militia fighters are not paid soldiers in a regular army and hence looting is the material reward they receive for fighting. The original mujahideen followed this traditional pattern of jihad upon coming to power in 1992. Since competition over resources rather than ideology is key to traditional jihad, the mujahideen’s war focused on Kabul where the nation’s wealth and the foreign embassies, another potential source of funding, were to be found. Judging by a historical account from the 1920s, back then the women and girls of the conquered populations also belonged to the pillage package offered to militia jihadis. Hence, in the diaries of court chroniclerKatib Hazaraon the siege of Kabul in 1929, we read that the victorious mujahideen of the time had demanded to see the list of girls registered at a Kabul school so as to allocate female students to militia fighters. Katib’s account might be exaggerated, but the story still reveals that there was an unspoken rule that women and girls were part of the conquest package. As such, the mujahideen’s struggle over Kabul was a continuation of traditional jihad complete with internal rivalries, pillage and looting. The mujahideen were part of the realm of traditional politics in which a conquered region is a turf that can be exploited by strongmen, who call themselves mujahideen so as to appear respectable.
Three years ago, the remaining few Sikhs and Hindus threatened to leave the country if they were not given a seat, but still the majority in the Afghan parliamentturned downthe Hamid Karzai government’s much touteddecreegranting reservation. Those against the reservationarguedthat the Afghan constitution prohibits any discrimination among its citizens.
Therein lies the irony. It is endemic discrimination against Hindu and Sikh minorities, who are usually clubbed together, which has driven out almost all members of these once thriving communities from their homeland to foreign countries such as India and Germany. Hindus and Sikhs have lived on this land for hundreds of years, but in a span of three decades, they are on the verge of becoming confined to the pages of Afghan history.
Until the Taliban overran Afghanistan, Hindus and Sikhs were a small but influential part of Afghan society. They were at the forefront of business and trade, engaged in money-lending and shop-keeping, selling everything from charms to herbs. Some had also joined thearmy and policein the last century and in the 19th century before that. President Mohammad Najibullah, who was hanged from a lamppost in Kabul by the Taliban, had alsotried to involvethem politically.
An investigation byTOLO News, a leading news channel in Afghanistan, revealed that 99 percent of Hindus and Sikhs have left Afghanistan in the last three decades. The report, published in June, said that there were 220,000 Sikhs and Hindus in the 1980s, but their population came down to 15,000 after the Taliban took over in the 1990s. Now, only 1,350 Hindus and Sikhs remain. Discrimination and government neglect are responsible for the exodus.
During the Taliban regime, Hindus wore yellow badges and non-Muslims were not allowed to hold government jobs. It was because of those horrifying yellow badges that much of the world first came to know about these religious minorities living in Afghanistan. Fifteen years after the fall of the Taliban, those Hindus and Sikhs who remain are contending with growing insecurity, loss of land and property to warlords, hostile neighbours who object to their practice of burning their dead, bullying in schools, and dwindling economic prospects. More than any other time in their history, they feel like outsiders now.
After partition from India in 1947, and the creation of Pakistan as a separate state for Muslims, marriages of the Hindu minority were not officially recognized, leaving Hindu women without protection under the law.
Hindus in Pakistan are now estimated to number around 3 million out of a population estimated at nearly 190 million. Discrimination and violence against religious minorities is common.
“Our married daughters and sisters have been kidnapped by local non-Hindu influentials and forced to convert to Islam,” said lawyer Arjun Das, chairman of Pakistan Council of Meghwar, a Hindu community, who campaigned for the marriage law.
“Then they have been gotten forcibly re-married off to their influential kidnappers … without their victims’ consent.”
KIDNAPPED
Sixteen-year-old Anjali Kumari was kidnapped three years ago from her home in Dharaki in broad daylight – and was forcibly converted to Islam within a day.
“We had to take refuge in Karachi as we faced murder threats by the kidnappers with connections to a local political group when we raised our voices and took to the streets calling for release of our daughter,” Kumari’s father, Kundan Mal Meghwar, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
“She was forcibly converted and married off … against her free will,” Mal Meghwar said.
A court in the port city of Karachi ruled in 2014 that Anjali should stay in a shelter in the city where her parents could visit her.
“But we were never allowed to meet our daughter, giving her the impression that we were no longer interested in saving her … from her kidnapper,” he said. “She succumbed to the pressure and eventually went away with him.”
Hindu girls as young as 6 continue to be targeted to be raped by Muslim men in Pakistan:
Finally, here’s a look at the Hadiths of the Pedophile and illiterate Prophet’s moral conduct; Muslims accept the Islamic Prophet Mohammad as the perfect human being so any conduct that he does is considered morally good.
From the Hadiths:
Bukhari (80:753) – “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'”
Bukhari (52:255) – The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.
Bukhari (41.598) – Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but rather used to pay off the debt.
Bukhari (62:137) – An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad’s men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad’s approval.
Bukhari (34:432) – Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.
Bukhari (47:765) – A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).
Bukhari (34:351) – Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.
Bukhari (72:734) – Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.
Muslim 4112 – A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.
Bukhari (47:743) – Muhammad’s own pulpit – from which he preached Islam – was built with slave labor on his command.
Evidently, whatever doesn’t fit the “poor, oppressed Muslims” narrative is ignored. It’s not about defending human rights; it’s the typical Oppressor vs Oppressed narrative with no acceptance of nuance or reality. This hasn’t been the only news organization that did this. The lives of Hindu and Buddhist civilians slaughtered by Rohingya Muslim Militias don’t seem to matter to the Western Mainstream Media at all. Have the massacres ever once been mentioned in the extensive coverage of the situation in Myanmar? Have they been given as extensive a coverage considering the well-documented evidence by Amnesty International? A brief article mentioning this systemic mass slaughter of Hindus and Buddhists are mentioned briefly in passing, but the coverage of the Rohingya gain global infamy.
If you think I’m full of shit, then go ahead and share that news stories linked above on Reuters on their comments sections about the Rohingya on their Facebook page, watch what happens to your message. Sign off your account and check; they literally filter it out. They don’t give a damn about Non-Muslim human rights. Go ask why they’re blocking it. I doubt you’ll get a response, but I seriously welcome being wrong here.
I really hope that I am wrong, but it seems more and more like anytime you bring up accredited news stories of Rohingya Militias, chiefly the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) committing genocide in the Rakhine area, then you’ll be filtered out, ignored, and blocked.
Update: I seem to be able to post again, finally. But only to a limited extent. Comments still being filtered out.
It has come to my attention that Sony has confirmed that it has a content censorship guideline that disproportionately impacts the Japanese game industry. Evidently, Sony has seen fit to ignore the fact that ESRB ratings exist in the US to help parents distinguish which games might be suitable for their children and has elected to censor content for any game on their system regardless of the rating systems of other countries. This comes at a high cost for developers to rework scenes so that they can get approval to be sold on Sony’s PlayStation 4 platform. They erroneously use the #MeToo movement as an excuse to impose sexist and racist standards exclusively upon Japanese developed games; recent examples include games such as Devil May Cry 5, the Dead or Alive Series, and the Sengan Kagura Series. The latter of which caused the series producer of Sengan Kagura to resign over Sony’s insistence on censorship. There have been talks by Sony about massively censoring Atlus’s Persona 5: The Royal which is expected to release around 2020.
These policies are racist because they exclusively target Japanese developers and aren’t imposed upon Western game developers; the age-old racism of the West is clear to see since anything sexual Japan does is seen as deviant and weird while sexual content by Western developers is seen as a breakthrough and progressive. It is also little more than patriarchal conservatism imposing sexist double-standards upon artistic depictions of female sexuality and has an undercurrent of misogyny as a policy while disgustingly using #MeToo as an excuse to conduct these sexist double-standards. Furthermore, it is against the principles of Free Speech and Free Expression and must be stopped now before it does further damage than it already has on video games that consumers and customers of Sony Entertainment enjoy.
Fully completed revising and citing all of Part I, finished revising and citing the sections on Original Sin and Judaism, and currently in the process of revising and citing the section about Christianity for Part II. I spent too much time on revising the section on Islam for the third time, but admittedly I did think it was necessary because it helped for me to write further clarifications on the problems of Islam. I haven’t spent as much time on the section of Buddhism and I didn’t even begin Hinduism, but I do have the outline set and after researching further, I haven’t found any reasons why the outline would need revision before I begin writing the chapters down for the section on Hinduism.
It feels surreal that this four year journey of writing, revising, and trying to improve will finally be coming to an end soon. I had felt bad about it taking so long until I read that most authors take 4-10 years to finish a book, read up on the book Getting Things Done and realized writing a book wasn’t easy, and recalled the difficulty of the entire endeavor from Hank Green’s explanation on distinguishing tasks from projects. A book is a long-term project. People who believe it is easy probably don’t think about the numerous steps required for writing an exceptionally good book. It requires knowing your audience for the book, selecting a fitting genre that hopefully won’t drown out your book from the tens of thousands of others, it requires knowledge of copyright so you don’t get scammed out of your money both in your own country and overseas, possibly hiring an editor to fix your grammar mistakes (I won’t be doing this and instead rely upon my essay writing abilities from years of college — potentially to my detriment), paying someone to make a good cover that’ll attract readers (I used fiverr.com), and purchasing a ISBN from your home country. All of that is before marketing your book, which I’m not sure I have a good plan for. The most daunting prospect throughout all of this is that you can spend so much of your time and effort and you may not even make a single sale. The three books I’ve written, the political ones I could have admittedly done a better job in, didn’t really sell much beyond $60 combined throughout all the years they were available up to the present moment and I spent over $50 on advertising. Alternatively, when I released my first ever book for free, it was downloaded just above 100 times, but the moment it was on sale, there was maybe 5 or 6 sales at best over several years. And only one review which didn’t go into any details on any criticisms they had about the book and gave it a 3/5. The dystopian-comedy fantasy novel I wrote to mock Neo-Nazis and their ilk did marginally better since it made 4 sales within the first year and got 2 positive reviews. To be clear though, I don’t really mind since I didn’t put in my best effort, but rather just wanted to prove to myself that I could write about such topics. I think it was probably a detriment overall and I wonder whether I should just pull all the books I’ve written thus far off of Amazon permanently and have only this specific book I’m writing to be the only one available for sale. The only reason I don’t is because if a reader ever gets curious as to how much I’ve changed in my thought process over political issues, they can read about my previous beliefs and compare them to my contemporary ones.
I’m not sure how many of you who are unfamiliar with the habits of writing will believe this, but I honestly feel that writing a book is harder than most mundane physical labor jobs and even the job I had at the Veteran’s home as a Health Unit Coordinator for patients with dementia. I’ve been an unloader, taking palettes off of trucks, and I think that writing a book is several orders of magnitude harder. As an unloader, I had to physically pull things, flee whenever a badly formed palette off a truck began to fall near me, and move it to specific locations in a store. It’s quite a thoughtless job. By contrast, writing a book requires making an outline, researching several topics at great lengths to give an informed opinion, and possibly making additions or changes. For fantasy or Sci-fi writers, its several orders of magnitude more difficult since you have to make a culture that feels authentic or possibly multiple cultures that feel authentic to readers, focus on other aspects of the setting, make interesting subplot points, foreshadowing specific twists in stories, making realistic characters, pinpoint an entire journey and the overarching theme of the journey, write everyone’s dialogue, and provide an engaging motivation to hook readers. Moreover, regardless of if its non-fiction or fiction, you’re competing with every other book in your genre. And even after all that, you may not make a single penny for all of your effort. George R.R. Martin is right to say that writing a book is a gamble. In fact, according to fictional writers who report on their experiences, the average fictional novel may take anywhere from 4 – 10 years to complete. People really underestimate the difficulty. For example, if you’re working two jobs and one of your free days from one job overlap with a day you’re off of work in your other job, then you’ll probably find it practically impossible to work on a book. Laundry, possibly taking care of kids, groceries, and so forth will all take time. And you need time to unwind especially if just one of your jobs is physically or mentally taxing and demands a high level of work performance. It may not seem important, but writing a books table of contents, chapters, and even taking free time to think over the book (especially if you’re writing a fantasy or Sci-fi novel) is important. You can’t concentrate and think over such aspects when doing rudimentary chores or when doing tasks at your job. Even free time at lunch isn’t enough to think over concrete stories or methods of researching new information. At best, you’ll be jotting down a couple of notes that you could never get to or potentially could forget. Writing takes concentration and habit; it is a job all on its own and its one that you may never get paid for and possibly never even finish. You really do run the risk of wasting so much of your time and effort on something that yielded nothing valuable as a return of investment.
Despite all that, I really do feel what I’m working on warrants the risk and is vitally important to write. At best, it’ll hopefully inspire others. I’m sure every author who has ever written a book wishes to become famous and I’m not going to pretend I’m an exception as that would be dishonest. I do hope it is financially successful too, but I doubt it judging from my own track record and some of the responses I get for some arguments I share online. I hope religious believers at least give the book a shot and that it gets decent reviews at least. I want it to be the sum-total of all my arguments against religion and a critique of different religions methods and assumptions about the world. I suspect that all I’ll be seen as is arrogant though, but I hope not. I’m still focused on trying to finish this and hopefully it’ll be done by either this month or early next month.
Patriarchy, rape culture, and violence against women. It’s long past the point where we should acknowledge religious teachings are culpable. The plethora of abuses should at least give people pause by now.
Sudanese Ex-Muslim Humanist fled to Egypt from his family who wanted to kill him, his family followed him there and UNHCR Egypt refuses to do anything to help him get Asylum. He was apprehended by the Muslim Brotherhood and tortured. He recently informed Twitter that he’ll likely be killed tomorrow.
He explained his family arrived in Egypt to hunt him down:
If anyone is willing and able to spend a few minutes, I honestly don’t know how much help this can be, but if you think it is worth a shot: Contact your Congresspeople / Parliament, contact any human rights agency you know of that you think can be of help, contact whomever you think can be of help. I hope some organization can just get him somewhere safe from harm. Doesn’t have to be any specific country if immigration is a no-no for some people, just safe from being killed. If you think it’ll even slightly help, then please try. I’ve been emailing every international human rights organization that I know of and my Congresspeople.
Update:
Well, his case just got murkier. The French Embassy is looking into his case and will act accordingly should they find his asylum case legitimate. Zineb El Rhazoui, the woman who translated his tweets and has been in contact with him, including sending him money to hide in an undisclosed location in Cairo until his family stops hunting him down, has withdrawn support because the French Embassy claim that the emails he shared with Zineb were faked and deny having ever communicated with him. Other Ex-Muslims found that he had tweets of himself liking Islamic content and opened up questions on why.
So, it is possible that he is lying, but it is also possible that he is being entirely sincere and was just desperate to prevent his family from killing him a few years back. He may have tried to show he was a sincere Muslim to prevent them from killing him. Situations like this are sudden and the need to respond to protect Ex-Muslims is urgent, but evidently some people do try to fake it for asylum so it is a question of which possibility is the truth and with limited time to determine it. The wait and see approach can lead to people being killed and that puts even more pressure on the entire situation. Despite that, I do believe – given the limited time – that asking international amnesty organizations and Congress/Parliamentary people to check into it is the right course of action given the consequences of what could happen. Zineb says if its determined to be fake, then it needs to be vigorously denounced because it makes sincere cases all the harder to gain asylum. The French Embassy is on standby and if they determine his case is sincere then they’ll help, but they’ve maintained a standby approach for now until more evidence accumulates. If he is a sincere case, then he should be safe in the previously mentioned undisclosed location that Zineb helped him get.
I’m not sure if this update will engender ire towards me in particular, but I would like to thank you all who shared an email or calls to your respective government and international organizations for responding in a timely manner and for helping. I will accept any condemnation since I did choose to make this post. I do still believe it is important to share and respond quickly when situations like this arise so that people who can help can verify the claims. We can only proceed with best of information that we have available, but I am trying to maintain as much accuracy and accountability to you all as possible for this post with this update. After listening to Ex-Muslims and reading more in-depth on Islam, I just feel disgusted by how much the most vulnerable people are being marginalized when talking about their own human rights, even being thrown out of social media when trying to talk about their human rights. I suppose I also felt it was a case similar to Sherif Gaber. In any case, he should be safe and the French Embassy is looking into his case and is ready to help him, if it’s found to be sincere. Thank you all again.
I am cutting out time from the internet to focus strictly upon writing my book and hopefully finishing it by this month. I want it done, but every time I learn something new, I feel compelled to incorporate it. It doesn’t help that I am always deeply involved in political topics due to my focus of study and interests. There’s always so much going on and changing or something new I’m learning that I fear discredits a specific point I wrote down in my book and so I must check, re-check, and re-write so that my points and criticisms are salient. The book will be utilizing logical fallacies, Cognitive and Social psychology, and Nietzschean philosophy for my critique of religion. I want this book to be the sum-total of all my criticisms of religion. It doesn’t help that I deep dive into rabbit holes of knowledge over and over to thoroughly learn something specific and new. I fear it may weaken my critiques unintentionally at this pace, but also feel like covering as much ground as possible is incredibly important. These incidents have been the entire journey of writing this book so far; I originally intended a book of general critiques for all religions and then expanded when I realized it wouldn’t hit the crux of the matter. I divided the book into Parts with Part I being the general criticisms and Part II being the criticisms related to specific religious theology. Even in the context of Part II, I need to make some generalizations because being completely specific to certain branches of a religion is impossible to cover accurately in arguably even one lifetime and so I focus on core teachings. I think the approach of focusing on the core teachings of each major religion is the best middle-ground for Part II. I often have to utilize different approaches to different beliefs. However, as I was writing Part II, I began to realize the excuse that “religion does good for some people” could be used to exonerate bad beliefs and so I made yet another expansion. I have yet to write Part III at all so far as I’m currently finalizing Part I and amending Part II, but I will hopefully have Part III written down and have at least the draft form completed by this month.
For that matter, when going through the process of writing and critiquing each particular religion, I was forced to make different amounts of chapters depending upon the religion. Buddhism doesn’t have as much convoluted sophistry as the Abrahamic faiths. Thus, I could finish the entirety of my critique in one chapter in the draft I have so far and it includes both the Theravada and Mahayana branches of Buddhism. By contrast, due to their respective forms of convoluted sophistry, Christianity and Islam are both taking 6 chapters for their Part II critiques. A friend has suggested I’m taking too much time and that I should just make it into separate books, but the Part I critiques are to introduce guiding principles in order to go forth critiquing Part II and I think Part III will be very relevant to that entire ensemble for the book. I want it all there and I think its best that it’s all placed together in one whole book to cover all of my criticisms.
Honestly though, throughout the process and years spent writing this book, half the time I’m spent wondering that it’ll all be for nothing. That it’ll all be a complete waste of my time. That despite all my time and effort, it will have meant that I just wasted 4 whole years of my life. The other half of the time, I get enticed by the prospect of making a best-seller… but let’s be serious, every author who has ever written a book has probably dreamed of their book being a best seller and making a lot of sales at some stage in the process. I do hope this book does well, but I have very good reasons to doubt all the effort I’ve put into it. It truly worries me that I’ve just been wasting my time. But, I have to finish it and once I do, I’ll either be promoting it or moving onto another book and learning from failure.
Note: Ignore the hate, this film is a solid entry into the MCU. This review is Spoiler-Free.
I haven’t paid attention to the hate, but from what a friend has told me there’s this general consensus from some people that the film tries to push a political agenda. Going into the film with two other friends, this was his expectation and after watching the film, both of us were confused. The origin story was a fairly solid story arc that was not really different from other story arcs. There was no plot holes or confusing portions either. The Captain Marvel film is a great addition to the MCU and definitely worth watching.
The entire cast does an amazing performance throughout the film. There is no portion that seems exaggerated or unbelievable. And unlike usual Marvel film trends, this film does humor in a balanced and hilarious way with intense action scenes. When scenes are emotional and seem to be threatening the safety of the cast, there’s no forced humor or gaffes that ruin the intense moment. Brie Larson makes a solid performance throughout the film and she does great with what the writing staff gave her. The only really negative portion for me was that we didn’t really get more of Captain Marvel’s personality as either her superhero self or as Carol Denvers. This is not Brie Larson’s fault, but rather the lack of material given to express herself. In fact, all of the side characters felt great and seem to radiate emotion from each scene, but Carol Denvers, despite being the main character, doesn’t seem to get this as much. There’s just this vague “she’s strong” motif but nothing else. This is not to say she is a poor character or that she has no motives or emotions. It just seems like the writing staff didn’t express a definitive personality for her character and Brie Larson was picking up their slack by being as evocative, witty, and emotionally impactful as possible with the vague character that she was given.
Some argue she’s overpowered, but Marvel has had this issue with Thor and even Ironman too. I suspect we’ll see Captain Marvel’s weakness when she faces Thanos in Avengers: Engdame.
Overall, the film gets a 8.5/10 from me. Definitely check it out, if you haven’t already.
Red Line gives the full experience of a rush with its intense racing moments and puts you at the edge of your seat throughout it all. The Yellow Line race and Red Line race completely take the cake with the amazing experience of this film because they keep you invested for both races. This film succeeds in delivery, characterization, worldbuilding, and the fantasy Sci-fi elements of the story. It really did blow me away. In particular, I really like the character build-up for the two main characters, JP and Sonoshee from their conversations, to their background motivations, and to their goals. The story keeps it engaging enough that I felt I was rooting for both characters during the Red Line race and felt mixed feelings about either one of them losing the Red Line race as the set-up was being shown to the viewer.
The worldbuilding for why the upcoming Red Line will be particularly dangerous compared to its previous races and the government responses felt surprisingly well-written and believable. The film stunned me with its brilliant use of using what felt like realistic politics to then offer some of the most hilarious and fast-paced action sequences from the use of such politics. It had explosive twists in the literal sense of the term within the context of the story and I felt it was done surprisingly well. Each of the background characters have their own goals and motivations so none of the actions feel contrived at all. Most importantly, there’s no stereotypical bad guy in the race so nothing within the race is meant to fit a boring narrative of fighting evil. Nothing is taken away from the utter rush of the Red Line race. I had expected some forced plot point to ruin the flow of the film, but it never happened. Instead, there was a really good and often subtle worldbuilding that offered a massive punch within the framework of the main plot. It was absolutely worth it! The film uses these serious backgrounds and build-ups for some of the most stunning and hilarious Sci-fi conflicts in an intergalactic race. This film is simply Sci-fi speed racing done completely right. The enjoyment of watching the racers go into death-defying speeds of madness are equally as pleasurable to watch alongside government military interventions sending massive armies, insane weapons, and crazy secret weapons at them and unexpectedly opening up dangerous areas that result in increasingly insane stunts and actions within the races. The danger feels real throughout it all as you do see many of the racers pummeled and some even die in shocking ways during the Red Line as you watch each racer relish in the rush of their death-defying madness with the full support of the audience.
The entire film builds up to a berserk race where it’ll be impossible to keep track of everything going on with all the racers, but that’s part of the pleasure of watching the film. The insane maneuvers to overcome each other, heart pumping extreme speeds to outdo each other through extra throttling power, attacks against each other to be in the top spot for the finish line, facing down an government’s entire military to complete the race, and the constant back and forth of car smashes and banter to create a riveting intensity as they all risk everything to win. I honestly loved the entire experience from beginning to end. And, from a simple plot with all its worldbuilding and arguably a cliche ending, I couldn’t help but love it. The build-up and payoff were done so well for the end of the film that I was stunned and happy by the ending because of how the sci-fi elements, the character development, the worldbuilding, and the heart thumping race itself intertwined so smoothly for such a satisfying ending.
“He who said ‘God is a Spirit’—made the greatest stride and slide hitherto made on earth towards unbelief: such a dictum is not easily amended again on earth!” – Thus Spake; Zarathustra,Chapter LXXVIII: The Ass-Festival. Thomas Common translation.
Nietzsche’s philosophical novel was an amazing read. At the time I began to read it, I hadn’t really been captivated by a novel since the Harry Potter series (which I love) and I found most fantasy stories to be really boring. I had first become familiar with it after reading a philosophical analysis of one of my favorite video games, Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne. I knew Nocturne was conveying some philosophy, but I didn’t know what at the time. I discovered Nocturne is a spiritual re-telling of certain portions of the novel.
I didn’t expect much at the time, it was mostly curiosity in relation to the game. I suspected that I’d find it boring. To my surprise, it was initially quite a laughable read. Zarathustra is humiliated in front of a crowd whom he tries to speak with as equals. The crowds throughout the novel are always seen as hateful and resentful of anything outside of their small town or village community, they resent and fear any change to better themselves, and spend their days not having a clear opinion on what they want from life or any direction on how they seek to motivate their own improvement, but rather live in indolence seeking only self-gratification and nothing else. This is one of the recurring themes of the novel when Zarathustra travels. Zarathustra seeks to be honest with himself and philosophizes his views, but doing so means he’s ridiculed, ostracized, and labeled dangerous for criticizing core beliefs that are held as sacrosanct. People just don’t want to listen to him and instead make spurious personal attacks based upon the most haphazard of claims.
Nevertheless, the beginning portion goes from particularly inspiring with his evocative words about teaching people of the Ubermensch in the beginning of the novel to a bizarre sort of tragicomedy immediately after. Zarathustra speaks to a crowd that doesn’t wish to understand him and instead ask him about the Last Man which he warns about; the Last Man being the aforementioned indolent dweller who doesn’t care about anything but self-gratification. The tightrope walker falls off from their circus act and severely injures himself which scares the crowd into fleeing. Nobody from the crowd helps the dying tightrope walker except Zarathustra who listens to his dying request to be buried. Zarathustra takes his body, which people in other parts of the village use as shortsighted “evidence” to accuse Zarathustra of grave-robbing, and leaves it up a tree to avoid wolves eating the dead man’s flesh. He sits down and gets absorbed into his own thoughts for awhile before leaving the dead body in the tree. I had laughed at this at first because Zarathustra clearly misunderstood the man’s request and didn’t really follow through with it despite convincing himself that he had. It was really peculiar and apart from being comical, I don’t see much on what that specific scenario was meant to convey. By contrast, the chapter immediately after about making good habits was immediately clear and brought back the interest.
Throughout his journey, Zarathustra extols some very interesting perspectives, but it’s always with the pernicious culture of vitriol and hatred for his teachings by various small town or small village communities who refuse to engage and don’t care to change their habits. Zarathustra points out that people prefer simplistic narratives of good and evil based on their culture or community instead of evaluating right and wrong for themselves. This is particularly evident in religious cultures. They claim to be about their own justice and goodness, but put their brains to sleep when faced with corruption or just blame humanity in general instead of fighting back against such corrupt individuals and corrupt institutions. He guides the reader into asking, if these religious teachings of your community are truly so moral and wonderful, if their values are universally correct as your religion might claim them to be, then why doesn’t it stop abusive behavior from happening? And on the charge of blaming humanity in general when they fail, Nietzsche’s Zarathustra argues that this is responding to genuine criticisms with pure hatred. Theologians and the herd who argue that humans will always be violent or abusive by nature in this circular reasoning argument that “humans are humans” are actually expressing pure hatred for humanity. It doesn’t challenge or confront people who harm you or who harm those you love, it’s just a way of throwing away an argument by refusing to listen and instead opting for a nihilistic hatred for all of humanity as a sort of divine answer.
His criticisms of religion, which are his most salient and paradoxically his most ignored contentions, seem to have gone completely unchallenged. I’ve looked for critiques online and nobody mentions his criticisms on religion. In fact, when I join Nietzsche groups online (which usually have 2000+ members) and begin discussing his criticisms of religion, I am immediately banned from such groups. So-called Nietzsche fans like saying that he contradicted himself or didn’t really say anything, but no one ever seems to be aware or brings up his criticisms of religion. So-called readers of Nietzsche never once speak of it. The closest I’ve seen to an honest critique is Alain de Bottom and a lecture video by Jordan Peterson in one of his classes. By contrast, Christian theologians are notoriously dishonest; repeatedly claiming Nietzsche said things that he never did. I even read an online book in which the author cited Nietzsche by cutting out half the words in a aphorism to claim Nietzsche said something that he never advocated for. I’ve seen Nietzsche quotes pages on facebook full of quotes that Nietzsche never once wrote. Most other scholars of Nietzsche, even on Quora, seem to have read critiques of Nietzsche but never Nietzsche’s actual works. They don’t read to form their opinions on Nietzsche, they read criticisms of Nietzsche and believe those criticisms to be absolute fact and never bother to actually read Nietzsche. Some might argue its due to the confusion over Elizabeth Forster-Nietzsche appropriating his works for her Nazi ideologies, Heidegger’s own appropriation in which he created a Strawman, or perhaps the strawman delusions of Bertrand Russell; but in all honesty, these sorts of strawman depictions exist for every famous person. Even the US Founding Fathers are constantly misinterpreted. I think what underlies all this confusion is the human capacity of heuristics. People believe they can judge and know everything about a single human being from a few short excerpts and judge their entire life based on a few short sentences they read. This does have evolutionary benefits like spotting really dangerous people like Adolf Hitler, but it can be misused and people can be manipulated into seeing hatred, dishonesty, or evil from people who want to criticize bad beliefs. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi seem more like exceptions than the rule, where the character assassinations against them eventually backfired. But for people criticizing ideas without civil disobedience or in a context where civil disobedience isn’t a factor, it becomes much harder to be listened to from others.
Okay so… if there is sufficient evidence proving any of these allegations then I’ll be totally willing to change my mind, but I’ve just been brought two pieces of information from a friend that show its more a Witch hunt than honest accusations of wrongdoing.
This woman used CreepHeart/Gemma Black’s video to accuse Vic of inappropriate behavior when she wasn’t actually a minor, the girl didn’t find it creepy within the context of her request, and she stands with Vic and is angry people are using her video to smear him.
This other piece is from a woman who explicitly told ANN news media that she didn’t approve of them using her photo, she was old enough and was with her family in a completely consensual encounter with Vic in which they hugged for a photo, and at no point was she bothered nor did she feel uncomfortable.
I’m still on the fence and will await any credible accusations to change my opinions accordingly, but it seems like this has already turned into a witch hunt since people’s photos and videos are being misused by others to claim to be victims when the actual people who took those photos and videos are claiming otherwise.
And, to be clear, this not to disparage anyone who has been victimized by abusers or to diminish any future accusations given to others. But the aforementioned are two specific cases of false allegations by people either impersonating someone else or using footage to slander Vic Mignogna by taking the footage out of context without the consent of the people who are the owners of the footage.
So, awhile back I attempted to share Ex-Muslims of North America content on Nerdfighteria Discords in an effort to join their communities while sharing information on an important human rights topic. When doing this, I was immediately accused of bigotry, when talking about human rights I was accused of making a strawman (even though no opposing argument was given nor any discernible information regarding any opposing argument), and I was told that I was posting on “incorrect channels” — the channels I selected were related to Politics and stated it was for divisive and controversial topics. Evidently, human rights wasn’t included in that package as I was muted by one Nerdfighteria community and the other refused to respond to my question of whether they valued the human rights of Ex-Muslims.
A part of me just didn’t want to believe that Nerdfighteria, a community that seemed so calm, compassionate, and open to polite communication of ideas could be so intolerant towards the human rights of some of the most vulnerable people in the world today who live in fear within their own societies for the crime of having their own opinions. So, I made and used an alternative account to check and see if I could open discussions about the human rights of Ex-Muslims who essentially have to live in fear for their very lives and the human rights abuses that women in Islamic majority communities suffer. I primarily did this because as far as cost-benefits analysis, the human rights of people should outweigh the woeful ideal of religious tolerance. If that seems like an excuse for “trolling” then I would honestly respond by pointing out that the human rights of these people and the ability to give their human rights issues a platform should be paramount to the public discourse. Just as we discuss Yazidi and Christian women being abused as sex slaves by ISIS, Ex-Muslims being hunted down and killed for the crime of freedom of thought is just as relevant of a human rights issue. Also, I find it astonishing and sickening that fellow Liberals can dismiss the human rights of these people so callously without any regard for what they’re condemning these people too. I suspect it’s because people don’t want to open the discussion on the hot topic of religion in order to protect their own religious traditions. As such, I suspect that their own religion is more important than people’s human rights. Furthermore, trolling seems to just be a meaningless personal attack for shutting down discussion whenever a topic that is personally uncomfortable comes up. It’s a meaningless term that ignores critical examination of the content in order to swipe away all nuanced discussion due to personal comfort levels. I personally feel a sense of frustration and disbelief that this crucial human rights issue hasn’t found a stronger acceptance in Left-leaning public discourse.
For this new attempt, I used another username and shared videos of human rights crimes.
I had come to the realization in 10th grade that Christianity and Hinduism couldn’t both be true due to irreconcilable differences. Growing up in the USA, you get a lot of Christian symbolism in television, movies, and sometimes in music. Even the use of the term “God” during the pledge of allegiance made me feel different because as a Hindu, I had been led to believe in a polytheistic view when growing up. I seriously began to wonder if Hinduism was really true around middle school. When I visited India as a kid (at age 12 for my cousin’s wedding), I realized that people really did believe in Hinduism and that Christianity was as vacant in the parts of India I visited just like Hinduism is vacant in the U.S., because there was no frickin’ way people danced around a fire pot for 8 hours to gain blessings for a wedding from various deities. That takes dedication . . . and I was on a rooftop with a bunch of other people sitting in the cold as some Hindu priest rambled on in some nonsensical ceremony while the bride and groom occasionally had to circle around the fire pot with him.
It was later on that I realized people just used their personal surroundings as a sort of “proof” that their religion was real because so many around them believe it. Moreover, I had to come to terms with the fact that if Hinduism is true then the majority of the 300 million people living in the U.S. and millions living in Europe were fooling themselves. By contrast, if Christianity was true, then 1.2 billion Hindus were fooling themselves. Worse than that, I had believed if Hinduism is true then believers of the Abrahamic faiths were condemned to live in misery in the world unless they recognized Hinduism – or in some cases end-up in some Hindu version of hell or reincarnation. To clarify, my belief on that was misguided as the Bhagavad Gita which I read years later clarified that all you have to be is a good moral person and that it doesn’t matter your religion (Hindu or not) to obtain Moksha (Self-liberation to either become one with Brahman or to beyond depending on the interpretation of whichever Hindu school of thought is believed in). Conversely, if the Abrahamic faiths were true then my entire extended family was being sent to hell since before I was born. So, I decided not to lie to myself about the negatives of religion.
By age 14, I became agnostic and began to question the meaning of life. Although, it was more accurate to say agnostic-theist; that is, I didn’t know whether there was a God or gods or not, but still believed. By age 15, I became an atheist-agnostic. And to be honest, I felt the shift from agnostic – that is, the feeling of being unsure of whether a God existed or not – to an atheist-agnostic was more profound and impactful to me personally. It was with the understanding that I couldn’t know whether a God existed or not, but that I didn’t believe in it on a personal level due to the comparisons I kept making. I was confused how anyone else could have confidence. If you were a Christian, then you must believe all non-Christians are going to hell. Muslim? Same thing. Jewish? It wouldn’t matter how many Christians or Muslims there were in the world and the appeal to conversion would stop mattering if Judaism was the truth. Hinduism, same thing.
Very few people seem to be aware of Nietzsche’s influence on contemporary Asian culture which dates back to books being translated to Japan shortly after his death, his profound critique and reverence for Buddhist thought, and his influence on US popular culture. In an effort to bridge this gap and show that the surprising amount of influences that his work has made, I’ve made a short list in orders of magnitude from sloppy critiques to the critiques that are based upon his philosophical ideals and arguments. However, it should be noted that the majority of these depictions center around Friedrich Nietzsche’s Ubermensch philosophical concept from the philosophical fantasy novel, Thus Spake; Zarathustra.
Fair Warning: There’ll be massive spoilers for each of the links for their respective games, anime, and so forth.
This book is an excellent introductory for theists, agnostics, and atheists unsure of their atheism on the basic arguments that atheists have against the belief in a God or Gods. Armin Navabi, an ex-Muslim who grew up in Iran and became Canadian after leaving the faith, gives a thorough examination of the most common criticisms of religion that atheists give to theists. If you’re one of the aforementioned people that is genuinely curious about why atheists don’t believe in a God or Gods, then I highly recommend this book. It offers the most thorough explanations about the most common arguments that atheists have against the existence of a God.
Unfortunately, even in today’s time, many theists often pretend to know what atheists think and believe about faith in a God or Gods. There is this erroneous belief that atheists hate or fear a God because of something that happened in their personal life or because that’s what holy books like the Bible give as reasons for why someone would be an atheist instead of simply talking to atheists and asking them why. The belief that atheists fear or hate God or love to wallow in sin is the wrong assessment about most atheists. Many atheists point to scientific evidence and criticisms of theology for their reasons on why they don’t believe in any sort of higher power anymore. Armin thoroughly explains these lines of reasoning. He goes on to dismiss the most common theistic comebacks that have been debunked for decades now such as Pascal’s Wager, arguments from ignorance of how little humans know as a reason to believe in a God, and using smart or famous people as reasons to believe in a God or Gods.
If you’re looking for sincere reasons why atheists don’t believe in a God or why people of your faith are leaving your religion, this book is for you. If you want to sincerely understand the basic reasons, then this book will be incredibly useful in understanding the atheist mindset. If you’re a theist or an agnostic who thinks atheists want to live in sin, or are fearful, or hate God; then I honestly recommend this book so that your misconceptions will be cleared away and you can focus on the real reasons that people are leaving religion and think about them. If you’re so concerned about the increase in atheism and view it as a negative occurrence, why not take a leap of faith and read this book to understand the real motivations and reasons on why people leave? If you don’t understand the real reasons, how will you ever hope to change the mind of an atheist? The reasons why people leave religion and become atheist won’t be found in the Bible or the Quran. They’ll only be found by actually listening to atheists. Perhaps, start with this book?
Islam is an innately violent, hateful, racist, sexist, and bigoted religion. It is the most barbaric of the Major religions.
Islam is a hateful and dangerous death cult. The Sharia (Islamic Divine Law of the Abrahamic God) must be accepted as unquestioned fact that nobody can argue against to be a Muslim. The only people allowed to interpret the Hadiths are so-called “Islamic Scholars” which are composed of people who know Arabic and are an Islamic theologian (Imam or some other priestly equivalent) so a “scholar” is a theologian who accepts the Quran as unquestioned fact that can’t be challenged. Obviously, there is no room for critical thinking there.
The average Muslim will then seek the Islamic “scholar’s” advice on how to live and the Theologian’s duty is to categorically assess what parts of the outside world are allowed or not allowed for a Muslim to follow. Two more rules further solidify Muslims largely being incapable of critical thinking or even thinking in general. Fitna, i.e. you can’t distress a Muslim for believing in Islam or make them question it. And finally, Bidah which is referred to as “invention” i.e. you can’t change any aspect of Islam with a new teaching or idea because the Quran is suppose to be the perfect book on how to live life for all-time for Muslims.
In effect, this religion categorically goes to war with all outside logic and reasoning so that Muslims learn only to value other Muslims. It’s a cult in every sense of the word. The highest authority is considered the Quran and Muslims must seek Imams or equivalent “Islamic scholars” for their opinions. Oh, and Muhammad is regarded as the perfect human being to model after.
Therefore, Muslims can’t possibly be critical thinkers, they’re largely incapable of thinking itself, and they threaten to harass, insult, and kill any and all who leave the faith of Islam and who make Muslims question it.
This book was a really good read and I highly recommend it. Annie Duke goes into the principles of Truthseeking; suggesting to view your confidence in your beliefs as separate from your identity and viewing them instead as percentages that you place your confidence in. For example, my belief in a certain show I was watching being a good show was at 50 percent. After watching the latest season, it has dropped down to 35 percent and I will no longer watch the show. Using percentages removes the idea of all-or-nothing thinking where the belief is either 100 percent or zero percent with no in-between, potentially causing you to stick to a bad belief when it could be harmful to you.
She encourages readers to Think in Bets for the sake of Truthseeking in order to more efficiently reach our goals in life. She generally uses poker metaphors, but the lessons are indeed useful and fascinating. Think of your decision-making on future possibilities as bets for your future with the different choices that you make as alternative bets for alternative futures. The key to making the best bets is to be as objective, impartial, and honest with ourselves regardless of how painful it’ll be for us. Moreover, it’s best to avoid outcome-focus / Hindsight bias. A psychological bias in all humans where we perceive an event as inevitable after it has happened. It’s a way of making a personal narrative in our minds of our own story and it is a powerful psychological bias that can often cause us to make costly mistakes or confuse our luck with our skill.
One of the most interesting and surprising bits of information was learning that study after study shows that motivated reasoning and confirmation bias effect intelligent people more than average people. In fact, the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be afflicted with a biased outlook because you can process information and reasons for your conclusions from a greater array of fallacious reasoning. This might sound puzzling, but essentially, when a person is emotional and wants to believe something to be true, they’ll find better excuses for it. Intelligent people’s excuses happen to be better so this is particularly impactful the smarter an individual is. They could find more reasons that sound plausible, but they wouldn’t necessarily be objective and impartial. If the focus isn’t on objectivity, then it can become self-damaging.
Mrs. Duke recommends forming a team among your friends who are also interested in Truthseeking. The key is not to complain or to speak about bad luck, but rather to focus on what you can do to learn from your decision-making. Which bets on your future are good? Which are bad? Be honest about your shortcomings and your strengths; do not bias your story to make yourself look better when analyzing your decision-making with friends. When they point out your shortcomings, don’t get angry. The point is learning from our mistakes in order to improve. Friends who are brutally honest will have less rose-tinted glasses than we ourselves do about our own decision-making and vice-versa.
Believe it or not, this is all just the tip of the iceberg. I highly recommend this book. It’s very good; I couldn’t give it a perfect score because the latter-half tends to drag on with different anecdotes. However, some of the most interesting concepts are also developed and expanded in the latter-half too.
Score: 8/10
Definitely check this book out, if you’re even slightly interested.
I looked at an amusing song from Family Guy, only to find people consistently crediting White people only for breakthroughs and inventions in the comments sections. So, I did a quick google search and compiled a short list of Black Inventors and activists who pioneered scientific and social changes through hard work. This is mostly a list of Black Americans who helped make scientific innovations.
Seriously people, are we still not beyond saying hip-hop and rap music are the only things that Black people and particularly Black Americans have contributed to apart from civil rights? This is the information age, you live in a democratic society, and you have google at your fingertips. Just google it and you’ll see how wrong such assumptions are.
I really try to point out the nonsense of such claims by saying people who claim that “white people invented x” are really trying to take credit for what other people did based on their own accident of birth of being born the same skin tone. But if you’re going to play that game, and since culture continues to in the US, then I suppose I’ll have to point out why this narrative is utterly stupid.
Below is the list of just a few Black inventors in history:
This book is useful in clearing away misconceptions about intelligence research that have been popularized in Social Media and Liberal-leaning media outlets. One of the most shocking facts presented in this book is Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences has no basis in scientific research; at best, Musical Intelligence may be different from General Intelligence (G-Factor) but there are mixed results even there from the scientific studies. Studies on the so-called Multiple Intelligences has found no evidence that they’re separate as Gardner claims them to be. The G-Factor generally shows that if you’re good in one area, then you’re good in others and you can improve your skills faster as a result. For instance, emotional intelligence falls into the category of IQ too and doesn’t contradict the current psychological model of the five personalities. The only possible area where Gardner’s theory might have merit is Musical Intelligence and the results for that are mixed from scientific research, so Gardner’s claims there are also unlikely to have merit.
Ritchie explains in his book that there is a strong correlation between our genes and our IQ according to repeated scientific studies, there are two more important and crucial factors that should be mentioned; the most productive way to increase your IQ is to focus on living a healthy life because focusing on one’s health helps improve our physical development especially before the age of 25, similar to research that shows malnutrition diminishes our brain development as children. Equally noteworthy is that our personal motivation plays a stronger factor in increasing and determining IQ than our genes which corroborates Angela Duckworth’s book, Grit, where she explains how effort counts twice. Our genes play a factor, but they’re not the sole or the most important factor. The scientific consensus shows that IQ can increase depending on our social environment and strikingly enough – absent any form of psychological, physical, or sexual abuse – parenting doesn’t play a significant factor in influencing a child’s IQ. Ritchie repeatedly clarifies that despite the genetic influence, studies show a stronger link with motivation and good health in determining our IQ. One sad fact from the scientific studies is that there is rabid cognitive decline for all human beings in our ability to learn and process new information quickly after the age of 25, so childhood development and motivation is especially important to increasing a person’s IQ over a lifetime.
Ritchie goes on to dismiss the popularized book The Bell Curve by Charles Murray as there is a total lack of scientific research on the question of Race and IQ. Ritchie cautions making spurious generalizations due to the history of the eugenics movement; one such example of a genocide that I know of is the forcible sterilization of Native American women by several State governments within the US. All we can say at the moment is that we don’t know enough about Race and IQ. Similarly, the IQ differences of men and women have no real scientific research to back them; at best, one country’s analysis from the 1940s and it’s impossible to determine what social factors could influence the results from back then. The research itself showed that men and women of a certain country were totally equal in intelligence with men having more spatial intelligence and women with more verbal intelligence as kids during the first study and as adults several years later. That isn’t enough to make a determination or rule out social factors. The only factor unambiguously determined is that atheists generally have a much higher IQ than religious people.
I began reading this book out of curiosity on what insights Dr. Esther Perel, a psychotherapist whose work and counseling focuses on sexual relationships, could offer in the subject matter of married sex lives. I had found her speaking events to be quite educational and useful for understanding people’s sexual inhibitions and preferences. Seeing her tackle issues of social norms of marriage and how the US may be going about it the wrong way in the age of openness was refreshing.
I think this book is most definitely worth reading for anyone. Regardless of if your interests are marriage or the single life, there’s definitely useful information to be gleaned in this book.
Perel details that one of the reasons married couples have less sex, outside of the context of raising a young child before their kindergarten years, is because they stress togetherness too much and holding nothing back from each other. Instead of seeing their spouses in terms of husband and wife, with a secure and quick reference, we should strive to maintain their otherness and acknowledge their separateness as individuals who exist for themselves so as not to generalize who they are in connection to you.
Perel notes how certain married couples lost the erotic drive because they think of their spouse in terms of mother and father of their children and feel it’s somehow unnatural or even out of the bounds of what’s socially acceptable to eroticize their spouse. This revelation genuinely perplexed me. Evidently, spouses who cheat have this issue and speaking with a married co-worker when I explained this revelation from Perel’s research into the thoughts and feelings of those who cheat also came as a surprise to them. After all, why should society dictate one’s relationship to one’s spouse? That seems altogether ridiculous, but evidently many married couples humble themselves to the norms of a society that largely doesn’t care what they do in the bedroom.
Long story short, the best way is to work towards making a romantic setting (even romance requires effort and doesn’t come easy) and to remember to emphasize separateness / Otherness. The reason you should focus on Otherness is to emphasize your spouse or sexual partner as their own individual apart from you. The passion and eroticism is unlikely to return unless that is emphasized. You don’t need to share everything and it ruins the passion in a romance when people take that path due to the lack of mystery and surprise. In effect, Otherness in marriage and recognizing your partner as their own entity separate from you can go a long way in bringing the passion back into the relationship.
There is more subject matter to be gleaned as this summary is just an overview. For instance, BDSM culture isn’t unhealthy when you have two consenting partners and Dr. Perel lists an anecdote where a breast cancer survivor used such for foreplay and eroticism to get her husband back into feeling passionate for her in the bedroom.
If you’re interested in clearer explanations of all this material, I recommend reading the entire book as this is simply a summary of what Dr. Perel details in her book.
A concise and clear film on the challenges that Reformist Muslims and their allies face in order to modernize Islam. Sam Harris notes that Maajid Nawaz’s reformist movement is likely the toughest job of them all. The ultimate message of the film is that we, the public, can help with criticizing bad ideas such as in internet forums, twitter, facebook, and other places. This film is recommended for those who want to help reformist and Ex-Muslims into changing the conversation and getting liberals and centrist conservatives to help regain the narrative on the problems of Islam. Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz go into the concentric circles and differences between Jihadism (violence in the name of Islam for a political goal of imposing an Islamist order), Islamism (a movement trying to impose an Islamist order, but not all do so by violent methods), Conservative Muslims (Muslims who don’t want Sharia as the law of the land, but want to maintain their own Islamic conditions in their families; potentially including hatred for Jews, hatred for Gays, and honor killing), and then the smallest group would be the Reformist Muslims that Maajid Nawaz is a part of.
The majority of the film centers around Maajid’s early life, how he was mistreated in British schools by his classmates at a very early age, and how his isolation became more pronounced when Neo-Nazi groups had a resurgence in Great Britain. The immediate consequence of which resulted in numerous beatings, racial epithets hurled at him daily, and witnessing his friends severely injured by Neo-Nazis using knives to stab his friends in the neck or other areas throughout his early life. His safety was constantly threatened and he witnessed the bloodied bodies of his friends far too often. His parents were actually quite normal and did their best, but the political climate of the youth during his time resulted in him withdrawing from others. He spent his time listening to rap music and that’s when radical Islamic recruitment organizations were able to exploit him.
I have to say that this explanation made way more sense than the tripe he had said in the Bill Maher interview. I had been interested in his viewpoints, but I had thought he was lying when he mentioned how rap music got him into an Islamist group. That explanation made absolutely no sense to me and I had assumed that Sam Harris had been duped by a man who was clearly a dishonest actor. It wasn’t until much later – after listening to the Ex-Muslims of North America panel – that I decided to give him a second chance. While Ex-MNA seemed like legitimate actors, I was still unwilling to believe that Maajid Nawaz was until they had mentioned his work in one of their panels because his explanation about rap music was the silliest thing I had ever heard as an excuse to join an Islamist group. His more detailed and honest explanation here seems far more believable and reasonable. To my own chagrin, Maajid Nawaz clearly has difficulty speaking openly about his early life because it was so painful for him. Considering the conditions he lived in and what he witnessed due to the Neo-Nazis of Britain, it’s not surprising or unreasonable to expect that he was easy pickings for an Islamist group at the time.
These next few portions are tidbits from the film and I’m going through them in a messy manner. The film organizes itself coherently and all these details make complete sense within the film, but it’s too much for me to go through in a few paragraphs. He went to college and used the idea of cultural tolerance to his advantage for the Islamist group’s purposes with the administration too flimsy to challenge him because they didn’t want to look like racists. It should be noted that it was not the professors who neglected this, but specifically the college administration that Maajid Nawaz highlights in his explanation. After a brutal murder caused by one of his fellow organizers who killed a black youth at the campus, he and his buddies were all expelled from the college. As an adult, he speaks of his regrets and how the college should have challenged them on a sexist picture they distributed around the campus, but the college administration never did due to fear of being referred to as racist. He mentions how, if they had, that murder may never have happened since they were given free access to do as they pleased in their student organization using the charge of racism as a shield. He speaks of the horrifying experiences in an Egyptian torture prison and how it was Amnesty International’s kindness and activism for his human rights that led to the first cracks in his belief in a Sharia-enforced society. Later on, in an interview on the BBC, when he was challenged on the sexist views of the Islamist group he was a part of where his views on the organization truly started to slip. Eventually, he became a former Islamist and founded Quilliam and joined with Sam Harris for both the book and the film after they had a scathing first encounter.
Sam Harris details the troubles he’s gained for differentiating religions by doctrines and how singling out Islam’s has caused wave after wave of criticism within the atheist community and the Left with clips of his debates with Hedges, Aslan, and the infamous incident with Ben Affleck. Harris explains the issues he’s had and how difficult Maajid Nawaz’s position is in reforming Islam. In fact, Ex-Muslims seem to gain higher yields in getting people to outright leave Islam than Maajid’s own activism and I’m firmly in favor of their cause. However, Harris and Nawaz are still allies in trying to change this dynamic as reforming 1.6 billion people is going to be decades of hard work. Even in the more atheist tolerant countries like the US, atheists are still discriminated against, the Christian Right continues to try to destroy women’s rights, and the Christian Right doesn’t acknowledge the targeted murders of transgender people.
Overall, this film is a 5 out of 5. It’s highly recommended if you want to learn more about the problems of Islam and how to help Ex-Muslims or Reformist Muslims.
This game has to be one of the worst disappointments I’ve ever had the displeasure of playing. I suppose I fell for the hype train for this game’s release, but only found an unmemorable and awful failure of a story and convoluted gameplay. Tales of Vesperia’s cast is among the most forgettable of them all. Nobody but Karol has any real character development and there’s only one really good twist in the entire story and it’s wasted with no impact. I tried forcing myself to complete this game, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This game is absolutely horrible and it’s positive qualities don’t make-up for its colossal failure in one very important aspect.
Music: The music is great and a pleasure to listen to. It fits the mood and setting spectacularly for the most part.
Gameplay: The gameplay feels like a more convoluted version of Tales of the Abyss’s gameplay, but I think that’s simply my own personal preference. The gameplay is fun, fast, and exciting. There are no drops in quality or any technical issues from my experience, and you do have to think over how to beat challenging enemies like optional bosses on the field or the secret mission system that offers bonuses for preventing bosses from regaining a particular advantage against you throughout boss battles. Overall, the gameplay is a very enjoyable experience and I personally really liked using Yuri Lowell’s gameplay style.
Characters: The characters are all realistic, believable, and really fun to listen to for the most part. Seeing them engage with each other is fun, but as the story slowly falls apart, it’s clear that these otherwise great cast of characters is absolutely wasted on this terrible story. I liked everyone but Rita, who felt more like a one-dimensional character compared to the more complex, upbeat, and compelling characters who have more interesting reasons for what they’re doing. However, apart from Karol, none of them are really developed and the game itself even points out the main character, Yuri Lowell, hasn’t changed at all throughout the journey. Yuri does come close to being a gary stu, but only because of how the entire plot falls in the party’s lap out of an ongoing convenience of there always being danger that needs Yuri’s assistance to beat. The characters motivations and decisions aren’t adequately developed or challenged apart from Karol. It’s a really interesting and likable cast that’s essentially wasted on a terrible plot.
One annoyance though, the new voice actor for Yuri Lowell is totally noticeable and sounds like some idiotic stereotype of a surfer throughout the game, which ruins the enjoyment of listening to him in the English version. People complaining about the voice actor sadly weren’t exaggerating as I had initially believed. It’s awful, but you do get the Japanese audio option. It’s still disappointing though and does detract from the overall game.
Plot: Fans of Vesperia admit the plot is “generic” — but that’s only putting it in the nicest of terms. The fact is this game’s plot doesn’t really exist. It’s a set of events that have no coherence when you try to fit all the pieces together. Around 20 hours of this 50 hour plot is honestly just searching for an answer to Estelle’s question, having the party separate in a town, talking to the party members, Yuri asks Estelle what she wants to do, and then the party setting off for the next dungeon with something totally fucking stupid preventing some character from answering Estelle’s question. That’s 20 hours of the game as the only motivation and it’s a completely stupid one. Ostensibly, Yuri and Karol are forming a guild and doing a job for Estelle, and despite Judith’s suggestion its really following Estelle’s whims…. that’s what the entire game essentially becomes anyway. The plot is non-existent trash. Estelle’s questions could have been answered in one sentence. 20 hours for a one sentence explanation that you can figure out through basic critical thinking skills.
After this godawful clusterfuck of an adventure, some random NPC becomes the villain and Yuri randomly concludes that he’s “behind everything!” — whatever that means. The main villain doesn’t even state his goal, Yuri randomly comes up with an epiphany about what it is. This is honestly the dumbest and most poorly written storytelling I’ve seen since Chrono Cross.
This game’s plot is among the worst writing I’ve ever seen in a Tales game and that is saying something as I thought Tales of Graces F was the worst. Vesperia is only a better by a miniscule amount. If anyone would like to argue it is a ten-year old game as a flippant excuse, that just makes it worse. Its predecessors Tales of the Abyss and Tales of Symphonia were phenomenally written stories with some of the best plots ever written in all of video gaming. But of course, the writer of those stories wasn’t doing Vesperia’s plot and instead Vesperia seems to have four writers who clearly wanted different things, so this plot is a muddled fuck-up of an excuse compared to those stories.
Apologies in advance, but the flaws outstrip the positives:
Please Donate or Help Out Ex-Muslims struggling to save fellow Ex-Muslim Christians and Atheists who are being abandoned by the West; Christian organizations tend to help Ex-Muslim Christians, but generally abandon Ex-Muslim Atheists:
Political Goals: https://atheist-refugees.com/en/political-demands/
If you’d like to Participate your time: https://atheist-refugees.com/en/participate/
within this hashtag: “#DumbassPelosi is lying. #NewGreenDeal @NancyPelosi is too #incompetent. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kathy-castor-climate_us_5c1c0843e4b08aaf7a869cfd?ec_carp=8030654605380700268”
I repeatedly posted it in various forms but was suspended. Evidently, criticizing politicians like Pelosi for incompetent actions gets auto-suspensions whilst criticizing Trump for being an idiot led to no suspension or any detrimental action whatsoever. Climate Change is a serious issue, so I posted this towards her Constituents who believed her new Climate Change commission had any real pull in the political process when that was sadly not the case. It led to an immediate suspension. Evidently, Twitter likes protecting the feelings of Nancy Pelosi and deceiving her supporters over the future lives of US children.
I’m not sure what I can add to what has already been said about this film. I had watched an Angry Joe review before I was even aware of this film and I have to admit that it is everything I had wanted the Toby McGuire Spider-man to be, I had never bothered with the second Andrew Garfield film after seeing the first film’s painful amount of plot holes, idiot balls, and the terrible extent they made Garfield’s version of Peter Parker into a Gary-Stu character. I hadn’t been a fan of Garfield’s acting, but the script and character they gave him was awful and I don’t blame him for the failures of those films. I didn’t bother to watch Homecoming, partly because of the sheer saturation of Marvel films, and partly because I just couldn’t find it in me to view the character of Peter Parker as interesting anymore.
I loved the 90s Spider-man cartoons. Among US cartoons, it and Batman had been my two favorites, but the McGuire films were chalk full of stupid writing compared to the brilliant, analytical, and empathetic cartoon version of Spider-Man. It wasn’t always perfect, of course. However, the writing, plots, scenarios, and characterizations were so far above everything that either the Toby McGuire films and Garfield films always failed to capture. Peter Parker wasn’t just some stupid kid going through puberty; he was a brilliant, analytical, and compassionate individual who thought through serious issues, grappled with life-death circumstances on a weekly basis, and showed compassion throughout. Perhaps my love for the 90s cartoons skewed my views, because evidently that wasn’t Comic-book Spider-Man. I knew I would never see that brilliant version of Peter Parker again, but to repeatedly see from new cartoon series to films . . . this stale, average, and frankly stupid Spider-Man really killed any love I had for the character and series. Over time, I grew to detest the character of Peter Parker too and got sick of the franchise as a whole. I suppose I became a jaded Spider-Man hater, because the writing of all these stories had been so damn terrible compared to the 90s cartoon.
This film has absolutely changed that for me. Miles Morales feels like a fresh start to a new Spider-Man. The comedy is top-notch, the characters have real depth that is shockingly on par with the 90s cartoons, and everything I missed about Spider-Man has been reshaped and re-imagined with this new Spider-Man and the phenomenal writing of this film. I highly recommend Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. It captures everything I missed about the 90s Spider-Man, adds genuinely hilarious humor unlike most Hollywood films, it has great music that is executed with wonderfully, it does absolutely stunning work with visuals far above and beyond anything previously done with the Spider-Man franchise and that isn’t a hyperbole, and I loved all the characters and their individual stories.
If you’re even slightly considering watching Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse, I highly recommend it. I really feel this film outshines everything before it. Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane are both actually interesting for once, the characters are all exceptionally developed, the origin feels far more fresh than the overused Peter Parker storyline, and Miles is more interesting and brilliant as a lead character than any of the previous Peter Parkers since the 90s Spider-Man cartoon.
Note: This’ll contain massive spoilers for the story of Dragon Quest XI: Echoes of An Elusive Age. This’ll also be much shorter than other analyses as its fairly innocuous and based on circumstantial evidence. Purely fun guesswork instead of concrete clues within the game.
Note: This entire post will contain spoilers for the Worst Game Ever, Chrono Cross and it’s prequel game, Chrono Trigger.
The plot contradicts both itself and Chrono Trigger because:
– The red stone materials were never part of Lavos. This is explicitly shown in Chrono Trigger.
– Serge shouldn’t have been able to cross worlds in Lynx’s body.
– You never meet the Lynx of your world. It’s assumed that he was frozen in the Dead Sea…. too bad that he’s not there with the rest of them. I know, I checked.
– The necklace that Kid uses is the same as Marle’s. If Schala gave it to Kid and Kid was zapped into the future then how could Marle have ever gotten it? Furthermore, how could the events of Chrono Trigger have ever happened in Chrono Cross if Kid has that necklace?
– Schala has blond hair and wears a white dress. This is an absolutely stupid contradiction that just shows ignorance and laziness.
The suspension of disbelief required is absolutely ridiculous in this game:
– Serge never reacts to any given scenario even when characters ask him too. It’s hard to believe that he always reacts in the same shocked way over and over. The Silent Protagonist is a failure in this game because Serge is asked to give his feelings and can only ever reply with “…” as if that’s a satisfactory response.
– Kid pulls a knife on the Dragoons who come to take Serge into custody since he’s a mysterious intruder. They act as if Kid is in the right when she literally pulls a weapon on the equivalent of police officers.
– Kid uses Viper’s daughter as a hostage and yet is somehow said to have ‘saved’ her. Viper’s daughter wouldn’t even be in danger if not for Kid literally placing a knife to her throat and using her as a hostage.
– Kid magically forgets the switching of bodies. When next you see her, she’s helping Lynx (in Serge’s body) to cause a war that’s killing innocents by the thousands and comes to literally bomb your small group of escaped refugees with their war ships. Some of the refugees are sick and injured. Somehow Kid is unable to see the difference between a Serge who is amassing a massive army and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to the Serge that she was camping and sharing stories with in the early parts of the game. All Kid is focused on is murdering Lynx (You in Lynx’s body) and doesn’t give a damn about the innocent refugees.
– You save a group of Faeries from fire-breathing mechanical Dwarves. You literally stop a genocide. Somehow, the Faeries blame the humans for everything with no explanation on how humanity had anything to do with Dwarves slaughtering Faeries in droves. This is like a sick joke on the very real problems of mass genocide that has unfortunately become more of a problem in recent years.
– Why would Schala save Serge but not a suffering and crying Magus in 600 AD? She saved Serge because she was reminded of Magus… instead of saving the actual Magus. Also, romancing the person who reminds you of your brother is… rather creepy.
The letter Lucca gave Kid makes absolutely no sense. The first part is about how imperative it is that Lucca essentially writes her last will in testament in hopes that Kid understands the dangers. The latter half consists of a good luck and that she’ll share important information with Kid later… despite the fact that this is suppose to be her last letter before her imminent death.
The destruction of Guardia and deaths of the CT cast do not even make sense. Some warlord from some other timeline came to help the goofey idiot from the Antiquity era. Some warlord is more powerful than Lavos? Really? That doesn’t even make sense. It isn’t even elaborated upon further. Just something we’re expected to believe. Furthermore, the darkness beyond time concept makes no sense. Why would people in the erased future want to come back when in CT they clearly expressed wanting to just die? Masato Kato obviously never had any real part of the story. I even doubt his claims of making the 600 AD era. I think he just robbed from Yuji Horii. It’s no surprise that Chrono Cross came up with a concept that was ripped straight from Dragon Quest 6.
The dialogue of the game is stale and uninspired. It becomes a bit pretentious at times since characters like Lynx never get to the point of what they’re trying to say. Even worse, when he takes the body, instead of focusing on his so-called goal to succeed in his objectives… he decides to go around doing stupid crap because he suddenly likes having “feelings”. Instead of being a serious villain, as he’s presented, he just goes on and on about feelings when he could have won. Fate does this while knowing that the Dragons are looking to usurp power to destroy him.
Note: These are my favorite games from among my favorite game series. Major Spoilers for all series mentioned.
Phenomenal indicates it is among my favorite games of all-time in no particular order. This title is for games I absolutely loved.
Great Games indicates that the game would have been among my favorites, but was just missing one small thing that prevented it from being one of my favorites of all-time. I adore them and highly recommend them, but there was just this one small aspect that prevented me from making it an all-time favorite.
Average is self-explanatory. They aren’t bad games by any stretch, but I didn’t really find them charming and they definitely never came close to the games ranked above them.
Below Average is for games that I found severely underwhelming and was totally disappointed by. They’re still good games, but I don’t find anything positive about them or what little I find positive is overwhelmed by all the negatives. They’re either boring or terrible to me.
Garbage is for games that I absolutely hated. Either due to its poor technical aspects that ruined any enjoyment, or because the story was complete trash, or an amalgamation of both. That being said, game developers sometimes have to take risks to prevent their series from becoming stale. Sometimes, they want to try a radical new idea that they think will work great, but doesn’t have they impact they desired. Or perhaps, they missed the mark because they wanted to reinvent their game with a new concept for a new iteration.
I’ll add commentaries for each series and explain my reasoning in brief. This’ll likely be a self-updating blog post over however many years it takes for a new game to grapple my heart and bewitch me. I don’t expect anyone to really be interested in this one as it is obviously just my personal tastes being shared about subjective content.
Dragon Quest Series:
Phenomenal:
Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride (DS)
Dragon Quest XI: Echoes of an Elusive Age (PC)
|
Great Games:
Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (PS2), Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen (DS), Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Sky (DS).
|
Average Game:
Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Revelations (DS)
|
Garbage:
Dragon Quest VII: Fragments of the Forgotten Past (PS1), Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime (DS), Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker (DS)
Of the Dragon Quest games that I’ve played, I’ve found the series to be largely phenomenal. I use to be concerned by arguments from people that Dragon Quest was somehow the same story in every game with no real changes in gameplay and plot, and I honestly have to wonder what the hell people were talking about. I had presumed these people had played the games, but over time I realized most didn’t even bother to look beyond the artwork by wrongfully accusing Akira Toriyama of plagiarizing himself. Also, I no longer understand how people can say the plots are all the same or generic. Dragon Quest V’s plot and events are far, far different from any other Dragon Quest. However, I do think that apart from Dragon Quest IV and Dragon Quest IX, the main villains don’t really have character development and motivations outside of some selfish desires or simply the desire to bring darkness to the world. Despite how much the player hates the leading antagonist of Ladja from Dragon Quest V, his motivations are simply serving his dark God, Nimzo.
Dragon Quest XI was a surprisingly good step away from that with the villainous motivations. Each of them fit the theme of the game, where the Light was used to signify working on improving from your personal failings to grow to be a better person, whilst darkness was allowing your personal insecurities to override your better judgment and to seek vengeance upon others due to an inability to deal with that pain. I found both Dragon Quest V and XI show that a silent protagonist can be depicted rather wonderfully in terms of motivations. Dragon Quest V more so, since DQXI falls back on the “But Thou Must!” trope to subtly hint at a particular plot point in its story.
As for the games listed as Garbage, I tried to get into Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker, but it was a horrible game that is completely obsolete compared to both Pokemon and Shin Megami Tensei. Rocket Slime, at least the first one that I played, is just a bad game and not very fun. As for Dragon Quest VII, I’m basing my ranking on the PS1 version that I played. I beat the main game in 123 hours and I just couldn’t bother forcing myself to do anymore. I really tried liking the game, but the plot makes no sense and completely falls apart by the end because of Melvin (the Hero) having random psychic and fire powers just to keep the story going after a major plot twist in the late period of the game. Unlike other casts of characters, none of Dragon Quest VII’s characters were interesting. Which is a huge surprise to me. For example, even without the party chat, Dragon Quest IV’s cast had a charm to them. Dragon Quest V’s cast is phenomenal. Dragon Quest 8’s was very good and endearing, while at least 4 of the cast members of Dragon Quest XI had great development throughout the story. But Dragon Quest VII seemed to gimp the development in favor of exploration and the exploration honestly felt like a giant chore in which I had to redo the same area twice; first the past, and then the present just for shard collections to get to the next point of the game.
However, I understand that Dragon Quest VII was an attempt to do something radically new, both with the upgraded job system of Dragon Quest VI and the massive story that expands throughout every single continent in a somewhat more episodic fashion. Dragon Quest IX attempted to be radically different too, but with more success. Both 7 and 9 seem to be the hit – or – miss games for fans. I can absolute appreciate that the developers wanted to try something truly new and unique for the series. I don’t recall puzzles and shard collections being utilized either before or after Dragon Quest VII. Despite it’s 2D pixels and old-school as fuck gameplay, Dragon Quest VII still stands out rather uniquely compared to Dragon Quest VIII which seems to have had its amazing graphics and gameplay wholly outdone by Dragon Quest XI. The gameplay isn’t entirely the same, but Dragon Quest XI certainly feels like a more upgraded advancement of Dragon Quest VIII’s system to me. To be fair, the overarching plot of Dragon Quest VIII still feels more unique and interesting as it’s premise and events. It felt as if you beat one game and started another during the major plot twist in the middle of DQ8’s plot. However, Dragon Quest XI’s characters and the presentation of its cookie-cutter plot is still done better and feels like a more complete journey. For me, the gameplay in Dragon Quest XI was the most fun of any Dragon Quest as the special attacks felt like they meant something significant and the double and triple tech attacks were amazing.
Why the Serge is Janus theory clears away plot contradictions, nicely intersects with the plotlines, and how both Chrono Trigger DS and the main game of Chrono Cross clearly validate the likelihood of Serge being Janus. I present to you Revisiting the Serge is Janus Theory, a.k.a. The Most Disturbing Chrono Cross Theory Ever.
About Me and my disposition towards Chrono Cross:
If you’re familiar with my previous work, you’ve probably heard of how stupid awful Chrono Cross is by my many attempts at bashing the plot. Some of you may be thinking “Why the hell does this idiot spend so much time hating on a video game? Why can’t you get a life, loser!” and to that I say . . . you just can’t argue against my genuine criticisms because they’re the harsh truth. You use ad hominen to bash me because you can’t stand the fact that I’m right. In fact, every single time I engage with this fanbase it’s either they resort to bashing on Chrono Trigger because of their own laughable insecurities and pretending Chrono Trigger’s fame is somehow to blame for the legitimate hatred of Chrono Cross or the fanbase quite blatantly doesn’t even address the criticisms and claims I’m somehow a “troll” or being rude for taking the time and effort to post 10 to 20 minute videos to highlight my legitimate criticisms. Chrono Cross fans just can’t stand the fact that I’m right about the Worst Game Ever, Chrono Cross! They can’t stand the fact that Masato Kato is a shit writer. That’s why they highlight age-old reviews that video game companies pay or give incentives to get high ratings on even back then in the early 2000s, that’s why a good chunk bash Chrono Trigger, that’s why they use nonsensical fanon that has nothing to do with the content on the Chrono Cross discs like the Chrono Compendium, and that’s why they refuse to engage with my criticisms. After all:
I stick to the main plot of Chrono Cross in my criticisms and judge solely on its own merits. The only time I point out inconsistencies with Chrono Trigger is when the plot of Chrono Cross specifically relates to a plot point in Chrono Trigger.
That’s why these people can’t defend this completely awful dumpster fire of a video game that is Chrono Cross. They cover their eyes and ears and whine about “trolling” whenever legitimate criticisms are brought to them as a way of safeguarding the unsalvageable mess of trash.
Over the years, it’s become clearer and clearer that Masato Kato is a shit writer who was never serious about storytelling. Evidently, he’ll whine and shit on Yuji Horii for how Horii made time travel in Chrono Trigger and try to steal the man’s work and claim it all as his own when all he did was write the script of Chrono Trigger (i.e. the dialogue, for those of you who ignorantly don’t know what a script is) and he’ll steal the hard work of Soraya Saga to claim that he wrote her parts of Xenogears, and then maybe he’ll shit all over Ninja Gaiden’s plot by writing Ninja Gaiden 3, but he sure as shit won’t ever be a great story writer. He’s no Yuji Horii. Yuji Horii has gone on to create masterpiece after masterpiece and proves his talent with his hard work. His time travel stories, while a bit nonsensical in some parts, are still far above the shit writing of Masato Kato. In fact, every parallel universe story from other series are way better than Masato Kato’s shit writing and I’ll be making a blog post highlighting games that delve into alternate universe storylines in the future.
My contempt for Chrono Cross burns metaphorically as hot as the surface of the sun. I have nothing but loathing for the Worst Game Ever. However, after my initial stint on Gfaqs, I have never once taken the bait and acted destructively as Chrono Cross fans. Evidently, many of these people claim Chrono Cross is about empathy, compassion, and love for those of us who are different and yet they fail to embody all these lessons when anybody criticizes their precious little pile of bad writing. Do you feel angry at me for speaking honestly and truthfully about my opinion? I’ve received so many “F U” comments in various forms and been insulted for “trolling” for simply specifying point-by-point facts in which the game fails as a narrative. Indeed, this so-called “compassion” that this game purports to give its fans is proven wrong throughout social media websites: Gamefaqs, Reddit, JRPG Facebook Groups, and so forth. Ahem, you can see my youthful antics in full galore, I feel kind of bad about it now, but it doesn’t excuse the personal insults that were thrown my way back then. Anyway. over and over, it’s insulting personal attacks, arguments of being too superior to me to challenge my views, or criticism of Chrono Trigger as if that somehow makes Chrono Cross’s failings better — Hint: It doesn’t! My experience has increased my confidence that Chrono Cross fans simply defend the indefensible and they know it. They don’t argue to challenge my views, because I am right. Chrono Cross is the Worst Game Ever created in all of Human History!
However, I’ve deigned a boon for these insufferable fans who clearly have no valid argument to defend the Worst Game Ever, and decided to absolve them of their agony in loving such a stupid, pathetic, and piece of crap game by sharing a fan theory that was originally told to me by a close friend who finished the game and informed me that Serge was Janus and how Lucca’s Letter was the ultimate proof. Taking this theory to heart, I had inquired about it on gfaqs forums as an early teen only to find myself rebuked by frankly illogical arguments made from dumbass Chrono Cross fans who are so stupid that they use Chrono Compendium instead of the game’s content itself. After finishing Dragon Quest XI (y’know, a superior game from a more accomplished developer and story writer like Yuji Horii) and thinking of how much better Final Fantasy IX is to the shitpile that is Chrono Cross (y’know, since Hironobu Sakaguchi is also a more accomplished and superior story writer and developer than that fucking idiot Masato Kato) I couldn’t help but think over how — as much as I hated to admit it and as much as I had wanted to deny it — well . . . The Serge is Janus theory fixes all plot holes, makes the plot more sensible and uniform, changes utterly ridiculous events that Chrono Trigger fans especially hate into events that seem perfectly plausible and legitimate, and the content Masato Kato added in the Chrono Trigger DS helped make it possible in a . . . subtle way.
To be clear, the Serge is Janus theory predates both myself and the friend who mentioned it to me. In fact, many diehard Chrono Cross fans or fans who had freshly completed the game had taken away that Serge was somehow Janus due to time and dimension shenanigans, but were never able to curtail the arguments of naysayers. Well, CTDS has provided a possible theory, and to be honest, it seems to have been staring fans and haters in the face for awhile now.
Onto theSerge is Janus Theory By Jarin Jove:
You may be wondering, why would I do this? Why would I make the time and effort to go into an in-depth analysis to prove myself wrong about Chrono Cross’s plot after rudely bashing its fans, creator, and the content of the game itself and making it quite clear that I absolutely hate the game? Because I don’t want to be a destructive asshole who ridicules with personal attacks like the aforementioned Chrono Cross fans, I want to constructively destroy and combat The Worst Game Ever and prove, once and for all, why it deserves to be called the Worst Game Ever!
Noteworthy Timeline events to keep in mind:
1004 AD – Lucca finds Kid and makes the orphanage.
1005 AD – Guardia Falls. Overlord from another timeline helps Dalton to destroy Guardia with the help of an Overlord / Emperor who time traveled.
1006 AD – 4-year Old Serge is Attacked by the Panther.
1010 AD – Kid saves Serge from drowning in Home World while the other Serge dies in Another World.
1015 AD – Kid orphanage burned down and Serge saves her as Lynx burned it down.
For this theory, I make five key assumptions about the plot and Masato Kato’s own story at face value:
FATE is a supercomputer capable of predicting the future, acting on those future predictions, and all its subsequent actions are based on this logic and have a singular purpose that is being fulfilled as Balthasar intended.
Janus was willing to do absolutely everything to save Schala, no matter what the cost. This is a completely reasonable and almost wholly obvious assumption. Kato himself claims to have written the Zeal Arc and much of Chrono Cross is based on Zeal with the endgame apparitions in Chrono Cross saying it all began in Zeal.
Serge loves Kid. And since Kato said this was really a boy meets a girl story, this is a fairly innocuous assumption that is repeatedly defended within the content of Chrono Cross itself through Serge’s actions in the game’s story and by many Chrono Cross fans themselves who claim as much about the story and how great the ending is when depicting the love between Serge and Kid.
The Time Bastard Theory — in brief, the theory that two alternate selves can’t exist in the same universe after going back in time to change the future and that each universe creates only one person per universe as these universes diverge — has been debunked by Masato Kato himself in Chrono Trigger DS. The shocked expression of Magus in your party and his recognition of Schala being trapped provide ample evidence of this in the added secret ending of Chrono Trigger DS, which will be shown below.
Lucca’s letter was left by the developers on purpose and wasn’t an accident. The context of her intimate knowledge and familiarity with Janus gives significant in-game evidence that Janus did join the party in the Chrono Cross timeline. The letter strongly implies that he grew so acquainted with Lucca and likely the others that they even casually talk to him using his real name. Lucca is so confident within the letter that she makes it clear that Janus will definitely always protect Kid. She uses his real name out of endearment and familiarity.
Now, after thinking over how to begin the topic, I feel it is best to just dive right into the theory itself. Please be sure to keep those five assumptions in mind as the basis for the conjecture and implications within the parameters of this theory. Onward to poisoning everything you love about your precious piece of shit through constructive feedback and theorizing! >:D
First, let’s start with Masato Kato’s added content in Chrono Trigger DS, which shows us a Magus from another universe discussing how he’s from a timeline where they’ve already beaten Lavos and he’s unsure if the dark presence ahead will be your future timeline or not. The Magus in your party does react to him and is shown to be genuinely dumbfounded by the existence of another version of himself.
Quora is seriously beginning to suck, given that they’re deleting factual responses to questions now. It’s a fact that Nietzsche used the example I wrote down in his books; evidently, basing answers off facts that hurt Christian moral sensibilities is no longer allowed.
My answer was as follows, and I’ve added the attributions at the bottom. I’ve decided to place it here if anybody is curious about what Nietzsche actually meant by slave morality, the example he used, and why:
Note: For this review, I’ll begin with a spoiler-free portion and then go into spoilers after a warning.
Dragon Quest 11 is an absolutely amazing experience. I’m surprised how much I enjoyed it. It’s a fairly cookie-cutter good versus evil story, but the manner in which they utilize the cliches feels surprisingly organic and original. I’m quite pleased with everything and I have no complaints about the interface or gameplay at all. I sank 123 hours into this game and I’m quite pleased to say that it never got boring, there’s so much content to have fun with, and I cannot recommend this game enough! Definitely get Dragon Quest 11, if you’re interested in purchasing it or are choosing between it and other games. From what my brother and a close friend tell me, it’s far better and feels more complete than Final Fantasy 15; they both played and beat both games recently and unfortunately, Final Fantasy 15 doesn’t really have much in the ways of coherent structure and half the game you basically have to watch or buy other content for. Dragon Quest 11 is a complete game with so many side-stories and sidequests that give a wealth of content. No stupid paywalls and no DLC scams like other games. I’m so happy that this game was released overseas. It’s a phenomenal experience. If you want a complete game without any nonsensical DLC scams or wish to support games that go against such scams, then please consider supporting games like Dragon Quest XI: Echoes of an Elusive Age.
Notwithstanding, this game is fantastic on its own merits. Here are some reasons why, from its weakest components to its strengths:
Music: 8/10. Quite possibly the sore spot for some people. The music is unfortunately the MIDI version which just doesn’t sound as good as the Symphonic Suite. If you played Dragon Quest 11 on Steam like I did, then there are mods to replace the MIDI files with Symphonic music which makes the game sound far better. I played the game on MIDI since I didn’t mind too much, but definitely consider using the mod if you really can’t stand the MIDI format of music.
Gameplay: 11/10. Hyperbole’s aside; It’s Dragon Quest 8’s gameplay on steroids. There are so many fun skills and combined attacks from pep-up (the Dragon Quest 11 name for the tension system that first began in Dragon Quest 8) that it never gets boring. The gameplay feels fast-paced as it isn’t slow by any stretch for turn-based games and you can even have characters move around the grid; even if it does nothing and is only cosmetic. The skill tree section seems a bit reminiscent to Final Fantasy X, but I would say it’s more similar to Digital Devil Saga 1-2, except it’s done way better than any of those three games. Unlocking new skills allows for all sorts of amazing benefits and actually feels like meaningful milestones within the combat itself unlike in Dragon Quest 8 where the moves barely did anything and didn’t even kill weak monsters.
You collect skill points as you level-up and you’re able to change them if you feel you’ve made a mistake by speaking to a cleric at a Church. The skills themselves look amazing on screen and there aren’t any slowdowns or unpolished attacks from what I played. Some Team Supermoves have a few short cut scenes but they go by quick and offer to further the exhilarating atmosphere.
Story and Plot: 9.7/10. The plot and story are done amazingly well; this is particularly surprising for a game with a cookie-cutter good versus evil theme. This game really shows that it isn’t always the specific style of story that disinterests people, but rather the manner in which it is shown to us. Everyone in the game had believable character motives, plotlines intersected in shockingly engaging and interesting ways, and – while the beginning is a tad slow – it really picks-up and is a blast from beginning to end once the third party member joins. Some plot elements which I had assumed was oversights in the very beginning were later either clarified exceptionally well or specific characters were heavily alluded to having different character motives for their actions than what I had thought was the truth behind their motives. And please don’t be confused on this point, the perspective of these characters is at first shown to be one-sided, but then more story info and a clearer explanation from the characters themselves help to explain why actions that seemed like oversights were actually very well-developed and understandable actions from their points of view. I love when games do this. Dragon Quest 11 does this incredibly well. I still have some gripes related to the early portions of the game, like the Dragon Quest 11 Hero being so forgiving of certain actions taken by Heliodor, but that’ll be explained in the spoiler-section of this review.
Characters: 9/10. Four of the party members; Sylvando, Erik, Rab, and Serena get an amazing wealth of character development during major sections of the game’s story. Some of which isn’t until deep into the plot, but its handled beautifully and well worth the payoff. I was a bit taken aback by how much I could empathize and love this cast of characters and I couldn’t help but compare it to previous games. What really surprised me though was even side-character villains like Jasper have some of the best character motivations and development; I was honestly stunned. He seemed like a typical henchman and then they give you an inner look into his life and an explanation on why he became what he was. Veronica, Jade, the main villain, the Superboss (yes, the Superboss of all people), Hendrik, and the King of Heliodor get really good background character motivations. They all feel as enriching as Dragon Quest 8’s cast. So, they’re either really good or adequate, but they don’t really feel like they grow as characters like the aforementioned four others. Please don’t mistake my words, they’re not bad characters. They’re really good static characters, but they don’t feel like they develop beyond their background histories. They’re still very fun and enjoyable; they definitely enrich the story, but it seems primary focus was oriented more towards Sylvando, Rab, Erik, and Serena.
As is usual for Dragon Quest, if you spend time talking to NPCs, like I do out of fun, background characters like Veronica and Serena’s parents, Erik’s fellow thief Derk and other background characters later revealed, and Rab and his background history are fairly well-developed characters in their own right. It really surprised me and it really enhanced my enjoyment of this game. I had initially felt it was lame to be playing yet another Good Versus Evil / Light Vs Darkness story so typical in JRPGs and even more so in WRPGs, but to my chagrin I changed my mind after awhile. The characters were so developed and their trials so engaging within the scope of a really interesting plot that all I had left was a really enjoyable and fun experience.
I can’t help but compare this experience with Dragon Quest 8. This game’s cast far outshines Dragon Quest 8’s cast of characters. I was genuinely surprised, since this cast is much larger. With respect to comparisons, I would say that while Dragon Quest 8 had really fleshed out backgrounds and really fun party chat which helped flesh out the characters even further in their stories, it didn’t translate to the cut scene stories of the game which felt like a lot of their characters centered around their pasts or – with one particular character – a single conversation in their past being a defining moment for them which didn’t really make sense to me. Dragon Quest 11’s cast is just done far better than that to me. I would say this cast is second only to Dragon Quest V’s cast, but Dragon Quest V still remains my favorite and I’m obviously heavily biased in that regard. Heh. Erik, Rab, Serena, and Sylvando — like the Dragon Quest V cast and the Dragon Quest 9 side-stories — provide the best of both games along with an enhanced version of Dragon Quest 8’s gameplay that improves in every way.
Extra Content: Hands down, this game has some of the best extra content ever. Three extra dungeons (albeit rehashed designs), a litany of extra side-story quests for Post-game, an extra ending for beating the Superboss of the game, and 20+ extra story after you beat the Final Boss.
This is the quintessential Dragon Quest game and offers the best that the series delivers on. It definitely deserves Game of The Year, if nominated. I hope it gets such an award, because it absolutely deserves to. If you’re considering purchasing this game, I highly recommend it! It doesn’t have any dlc scams, it’s a complete game which you can spend 120+ hours on, and it has a really challenging and fun Superboss fight. Definitely consider purchasing Dragon Quest 11: Echoes of an Elusive Age.
Overall, phenomenal game and I definitely loved it. The beginning was a bit slow up until the third party member showed up where it really got the ball rolling, the extra content is great, and the plot is written incredibly well and always manages to remain engaging and interesting. Thus, I’d rate it a 9.7/10.
Overall Score: 9.7/10.
MAJOR SPOILERS FOR DRAGON QUEST 11: ECHOES OF AN ELUSIVE AGE AND OTHER DRAGON QUEST GAMES BEYOND THIS POINT.
We protest and ridicule this hateful religion for the human rights of minorities in Islamic Majority countries such as Ex-Muslims, Muslims of minority branching faiths, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Yazidis, and others because they cannot! Stand with those who live in fear and danger of being killed for offending this so-called religion of peace! Fuck Islam! It is a religion of violence, hatred, and death! #HumanRightsForAll! #FreeSpeechForAll! #IslamWillFall!
Quran 4:24
Sahih International: And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.
Pickthall: And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.
Yusuf Ali: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
Shakir: And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah’s ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
Muhammad Sarwar: You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls. This is the decree of God. Besides these, it is lawful for you to marry other women if you pay their dower, maintain chastity and do not commit indecency. If you marry them for the appointed time you must pay their dowries. There is no harm if you reach an understanding among yourselves about the dowry, God is All-knowing and All-wise.
Mohsin Khan: Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever AllKnowing, AllWise.
Arberry: and wedded women, save what your right hands own. So God prescribes for you. Lawful for you, beyond all that, is that you may seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in licence. Such wives as you enjoy thereby, give them their wages apportionate; it is no fault in you in your agreeing together, after the due apportionate. God is All-knowing, All-wise.
I have no idea to what extent this view will be controversial or seem misinformed, but after looking into the political situation of India and its surrounding borders, I’ve come to the conclusion that this woman is either willfully ignorant, a charlatan, deeply hateful of her country and her fellow people, or some combination of each of those contentions.
First, I’d like to
dissuade any readers that might jeer at me for being some BJP street thug as
I’m often accused of online when making any opinion on Indian politics –
particularly on websites like Quora. I’m a US-born and raised Indian and I’m
only looking at this from a political science lens. I had initially been swept
up by the anti-BJP rhetoric that seems to be permeating throughout the
mainstream US media as of now, but after looking into matters further, I’ve
concluded that the US government and media are too dumb to adequately
understand the dangers of this anti-BJP narrative and the Christian
missionaries who are pushing for forced conversions are only going to cause an
utter bloodbath between Muslims and Christians thanks to the age-old Abrahamic
cultural hate that’s existed since Islam emerged in world history.
I’ve since changed my
mind after researching the political climate of India and its neighbors. But
I’d like to add that the BJP and so-called Right-wing of India’s political
culture is overly sensitive to criticism and incredibly stupid in its
responses. Thankfully, Modi and his administration are quite competent in
deftly handling situations otherwise the corruption and anti-nationalist politics
would continue dominating India. Instead of defending rapists, his government
has pushed for reforms to punish child rapists, he’s pushed for job growth
through environmental initiatives, he’s pushed for policies for child safety
measures from abusive households, he’s pushed for women’s rights and celebrated
International Women’s Day , and pushed for anti-corruption. The problem seems
to be this overly paternalistic and frankly idiotic narrative towards college
kids who want to protest for the rights of a convicted terrorist, a terrorist
who clearly wants to kill the civilian public, and the college kids protest for
that guy’s rights… for whatever reason. Nevertheless, admonishing them for
drinking habits and sex is completely stupid. In a democracy, they should have
the freedom to do as they please with their life choices. The BJP should have
put more effort into the convicted terrorist’s criminal activity instead of
personally insulting college youth.
I’m of the opinion
that Arundhati Roy genuinely doesn’t give a shit about her fellow Indians based
on her actions. The level of loathing and vindictiveness that this woman seems
to have for India as a whole leaves me speechless at times. I don’t think any
other democracy would have made her look like some activist fighting for human
rights or presuming she has credentials where she really doesn’t since all she
has offer is having written a best-selling novel once. I only speak harshly
because it seems increasingly obvious to me that this woman, through her actions,
deliberately tries to increase tensions and spur loathing and contempt among
India’s civilian population. Under veneers of reconciliation and human rights,
all she really offers is writing content that exploits scheduled castes, Muslim
minorities, and so forth into hating their government and the majority
population. I would actually contrast her with Amartya Sen, who I find gets
just as much backlash from the BJP supporters but for far less justifiable
reasons. Amartya Sen is ridiculed and lumped with Marxists like Pankaj Mishra,
but having read his book The Argumentative Indian, I have not found this
to be true. He’s further been criticized for wanting to “break India” by many
BJP bloggers and Twitter handlers, but this is again untrue. Amartya Sen took
extensive pains to celebrate the unity of India by pointing out the Heterodox
tradition that foreign travelers independently detailed during ancient times.
India is a heterodox culture which he feels proud to be a part of; from what I
recall, he explicitly says this and suggests reading about great intellectual
icons of India. I had assumed the BJP supporters had similar misapprehensions
about Roy, but after looking at the evidence, I can only conclude that their
criticisms about her are justified.
The reason being is
that only someone willfully ignorant would ignore the devastating realities
happening in each Muslim majority country around India’s borders and the
selective narrative of the Rohingya refugee crisis that genuinely horrified me
when I read more into it. I’d first like to begin with Afghanistan and detail
what happened there when Islamic fascists consisting of the Mujahideen took
over:
28 April marks the 19th anniversary of the mujahideen’s victory over the Red Army forces in Afghanistan. The original mujahideen of the 1980s and today’s Taliban may use the same language of holy war, but their understanding of jihad is worlds apart. The key difference between the original mujahideen and the Taliban is that the former waged a traditional type of jihad. In a traditional jihad, if waged locally, a contest over control of resources takes place between rival strongmen who each run their own private armies. In this scenario, the ultimate legitimacy to rule draws upon military strength, but the contest itself is called jihad simply because Islam is the sole language of political legitimacy.
Crucially, in a traditional jihad, the victorious party has an unspoken right to pillage, rape and loot the conquered population. This is because militia fighters are not paid soldiers in a regular army and hence looting is the material reward they receive for fighting. The original mujahideen followed this traditional pattern of jihad upon coming to power in 1992. Since competition over resources rather than ideology is key to traditional jihad, the mujahideen’s war focused on Kabul where the nation’s wealth and the foreign embassies, another potential source of funding, were to be found.
Judging by a historical account from the 1920s, back then the women and girls of the conquered populations also belonged to the pillage package offered to militia jihadis. Hence, in the diaries of court chronicler Katib Hazara on the siege of Kabul in 1929, we read that the victorious mujahideen of the time had demanded to see the list of girls registered at a Kabul school so as to allocate female students to militia fighters.
Katib’s account might be exaggerated, but the story still reveals that there was an unspoken rule that women and girls were part of the conquest package. As such, the mujahideen’s struggle over Kabul was a continuation of traditional jihad complete with internal rivalries, pillage and looting. The mujahideen were part of the realm of traditional politics in which a conquered region is a turf that can be exploited by strongmen, who call themselves mujahideen so as to appear respectable.
Now, a Hard-Leftist may credibly argue that US foreign policy helped shape that situation. However, it doesn’t explain the utter catastrophe that is Pakistan, which a Pakistani government official has bravely spoken up about and extensively detailed in a book under threat to her own life. Pakistani Farahnaz Ispahani’s book, Purifying the Land of the Pure, goes into the extensive history and effects of the Islamic Republic upon Pakistani minorities who have been ruthlessly slaughtered by the Muslim majority country. The situation of Asia Bibi is only the tip of the iceberg for how destructive, violent, and outright murderous Pakistan is for Sikhs, Christians, and Hindus living as minority groups under Muslim rule. The vast majority of these groups have all fled due to a variety of reasons. From having hands chopped off for blasphemy offenses, to women in these religious minority groups being raped and then being forced to marry their Muslim rapists, to being murdered over a cup of water, being randomly attacked, and now that they’re a fringe minority, the majority Sunni Muslims have turned their sights on Shia Muslims and began murdering them en masse to continue these historic genocidal abuses.
The interview with Farahnaz Ispahani:
From 23% in 1947, Pakistan’s minorities today constitute a mere 3-4% of the population, says Farahnaz Ispahani, media advisor to the president of Pakistan from 2008 to 2012 in her book Purifying the Land of the Pure: Pakistan’s Religious Minorities.
She blames the successive Pakistan presidents and prime ministers for launching a slow genocide against minorities in the country to shore up their political base. She specifically blames Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the Pak army general who was the country’s 6th president, for creating a militant group to target Shias, Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians. Edited excerpts from an interview:
Could you tell us something about the title of your book Purifying the Land of the Pure: Pakistan’s Religious Minorities?
Pakistan itself means pure land. The reason I chose it is because I have traced in my book, using historical archives, how Pakistan which set out to be a secular albeit Muslims majority state, ended up becoming what it is today. When Pakistan was being formed in 1947, Pakistan’s population of non-Muslims was 23%, today we are somewhere between 3%-4%. So there has been a purification of minorities.
So my big question was where have they gone? What I have uncovered is quite devastating because it has not been one government or one man who has been culpable. It’s not only (former president) General Zia ul Haq. It has been from the time of Mr (Mohammed Ali) Jinnah, the Qaid-e-Azam of Pakistan, as he lay dying, already the political and bureaucratic wheels were moving towards a more Muslim state.
I am saying that for all religious minorities—Muslim and non-Muslim—there has been a purification. This is what I call drip drip genocide. Normally when people talk about genocide, they talk about Nazi Germany or they talk about Yugoslavia. In the case of Pakistan, this is slow genocide, this drip, drip, drip over 76 years.
You refer to the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) founder and ideologue Maulana Abul Ala Maududi in your book. Was this purification the handiwork of politicians only or did religious leaders and scholars also have a role?
Maulana Maududi did not support the formation of Pakistan; he did not think it would be Muslim enough. Mr. Jinnah, as he was dying, talked at length about Pakistan’s minorities and said no matter what someone’s faith was would not matter in Pakistan. But after he died what happened was, most of the people who were in leadership positions in Pakistan, in the Muslim League like our first prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan, were not from Pakistan. So they did not have natural constituencies as politicians.
You have a man like Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan who himself was very secular in most ways. He becomes the man who brings about the resolution which went into every single constitution we ever had, which was very clear in that it said that Pakistan was a Muslim state. And that the Quran and Shariat and Sunnah (verbally transmitted teachings of the Prophet) are to be part and parcel of the state. It was the ugliest form of realpolitik.
What people like Liaquat and Chaudhury Mohammed Ali (fourth prime minister of Pakistan), etc., did was that they revived “Islam is in danger” as the glue to keep them in their positions. Mr. Maududi and his fellow clergymen therefore became of great value to the political leadership of Pakistan to justify their decisions, to keep them in power.
And as you go on, when you have the first proper martial law in Pakistan when General Ayub (Khan) takes over, you see the nexus of the military with the mullahs and politicians who were acceptable to the military.
You have talked of the links between politics, religion and the military. How did militancy come to be linked with this?
The first well-known and well-organised terrorist militia that we know about that dealt with religious minorities was created by Zia-ul-Haq. It was called the Sipah-e-Sahaba and its sole job was to harass Shias. So, that is the first group that we see that is armed and trained and reasonably openly by the (Pakistani) government of that time.
Some of these groups—not all—in some seasons cross borders and in some seasons there are at home purifying the land of the pure, whether it is blowing up Ahmadi places of worship or Christian worshippers at mass or Shia imambargahs.
So the state’s policy that goes back to the very beginning of mixing religion with politics and then religion, politics and the military together has resulted in a terrible situation not just from the point of view of Pakistan’s neighbours but for us Pakistanis as well. Over 60,000 Pakistanis have died due to attacks internally by terrorists.
Of all the politicians who have done their bit for the decimation of minorities, would you say that it was president Zia-ul-Haq who did the most damage?
Yes. Two things, he legalised Islamisation—whether it was bringing in the Hudood (ordinance in 1979 under which Sharia laws applied in cases of extramarital sex, theft and prohibition). From very little things like introducing prayer times in government buildings to very, very, very harsh laws of blasphemy. The other thing would be the birth of these jihadi groups in a very, very big way.
He attempted to alter our culture—Pakistani diplomats’s wives could no longer wear saris—they were considered Hindu and un-Islamic. You could no longer say Khuda Hafiz; you had to say Allah Hafiz.
These small things have now percolated down and they have shaped an entire culture. So that’s what he did, the small things changing the way people thought, the laws which were then impossible to get around and then the Jihadi groups.
How can this state of affairs be changed?
It has to be through political leadership, even though we saw in (Punjab governor) Salman (Taseer)’s case that in spite of everything when (his security guard) Mumtaz Qadri pumped his body full (in 2011) of bullets the other people stood there and watched. Later Qadri was garlanded and the judge who found him (Qadri) guilty, we had to send the judge and his entire family out of Pakistan. I was in government then. He’s never come back.
This book is like a death sentence for me. Civil society at that time had no leadership. And the reaction was don’t even talk about it. Don’t even mention Asiya Bibi (Pakistani Christian found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death. Taseer opposed her punishment). Look at Salman, he was so foolish. There was no one willing to bury him. I had to find somebody, beg someone to read his last rites. And then, I had to get that person and their family out of Lahore.
So is this the worst for Pakistan and therefore can one say that change can only make things better?
I could never say something like that because its impossible to be so categorical. Pakistan is a functional state still and there is a lot of room for change. I hope things turn around. But I think a big part of it is that jihadi groups have to be dealt with. They can no longer be good jihadi groups and bad jihadi groups. There should be no jihadi groups. Countries can have militaries and countries can have diplomacy. Unless we move past this kind of a situation, the world is losing patience.
Any point when this could be changed?
From the very start. Mr. Jinnah was still alive and they have the temerity to block his speech from the radio. That entire speech was about how important Pakistan’s religious minorities were and how absolutely vital it was for pluralism and to have a successful state for all citizens to have a place. Once you end up introducing a religious law it is almost impossible to amend it or to change it because they are seen as protecting Islam and feelings of Muslims.
In the book, I break this down into four stages – and I call stage one Muslimisation. This comes about between 1945 and 1951. There is a massive decline in Hindu and Sikh populations and therefore Pakistan became more Muslim demographically.
Stage two is Islamic identity. This is where you see from 1958 onwards state-sponsored text books reject pluralism, paint religious minorities very negative, highlight and glorify Islamic history with no South Asian basis. So an attempt was made to forge a Pakistani identity purely on the basis of Islam.
The third stage is Islamisation. This is where legislation in an attempt to make the country’s laws more Islamic resulted in creating a legal framework against the minorities. It started in 1974 and continues up to 1988. This was all done in General Zia’s time.
Stage four is militant hostility towards the minorities, which is the stage at which we are and we have terrorism and organised violence.
Note: I no longer have any faith in the US Republic. I bet a bunch of Trump supporters will say go back to your own country, well news flash: I was born and raised in the US, but hey, keep espousing the same hateful comments that Neo-Nazis do right before they murder Sikhs, rape Native Americans, murder Jews, beat helplessly upon Muslims or kill them, and kill people of my descent. All I’m saying is, I wholeheartedly cannot bring myself to say or do anything but give up on the US Republic and the US Constitution. I’ve participated in donating to political causes I care about, I’ve participated in knocking on doors for democracy up to and during Get Out The Vote events, done cold calling for candidates I support, and I’ve tried my best protesting and reading political news. I’ve sent emails to the US Congress, even the current President, and spoken out against corruption. Trump is still in power, he recently added to his fountain pen corruption with even more taxpayer money waste on decorations up to 200,000 dollars in taxpayer monies, and none of the politicians I try to contact ever try to address my concerns. Half the time, calling goes directly to a dead phone line. None of it means anything. I give up. I’ve grown up here in the US for all my life and apart from some social issues that look like they’ll be reversed anyway, everything has gotten worse from the economy to the debt (Trump added another trillion and nobody is doing anything to stop his idiocy), and it’s clear none of these politicians have any coherent or realistic plan to fix anything from the infrastructure to the debt or to ending the war in Afghanistan. They’re all Trump-lite, utterly incompetent and in power being utterly incompetent for far too long but you in the US public keep voting for them because you’re dumber than they are. In short, the economy’s going to collapse, the US Republic is de-legitimizing and headed for collapse, Climate Change will kill the entire human species in an estimated 80 years, and I’m probably going to be murdered and forgotten about as just another minority victim on the news killed by Neo-Nazis. I’m sharing this to let you all know, this is why young people typically don’t even bother, from a millennial who tried to give a shit and gave up because you all are too dumb to keep the US Republic from turning into a genocidal dictatorship. If Trump keeps his full 4 year term, it means the US really is dumb enough to allow a dictator with murderous intentions in power, who could willingly commit a genocide with the support of you right-wing Trump supporters. Go ahead and laugh as you say “fu liberals” while you and your children’s future die a slow death along with the rest of humanity at this pace.
The following is an email I sent to my US Congressional representatives and I’m sharing it here to explain why I feel the way I do and what my thoughts on the US Republic are now. I know, deep down, it just doesn’t fucking matter what I think and I can no longer rationally expect to ever achieve any of my personal dream goals when this threat of violence keeps escalating. Call me a crazy idiot, whatever. I’m sure most of you won’t even read, just like the US Congress people I constantly tried contacting. I didn’t care to change any mistakes in sentence structure, because I don’t believe they’ll even read it and I forced myself to email it as-is against this overwhelming feeling of existential dread at the future of humanity.
This email was titled: “I No Longer Have Faith in the US Republic”
Spoiler Warning: This discussion contains spoilers for the mainline Shin Megami Tensei series and other MegaTen related series such as: Majin Tensei I and II, Digital Devil Saga Duology, the Persona series, Devil Survivor series, and well . . . potentially everything MegaTen / Shin Megami Tensei related, but those are the main video game series that get spoiled.
Content Warning: In general dialogue with others online, I tend to use expletives. Not in a way to insult in this context, but as a general habit of discourse. I don’t mean any insults towards Beadman, and apologize if any such comment was inferred or directly made by me. I do admit to purposefully using expletives to properly articulate by annoyance with Eirikjrs in this discussion at one instance. More importantly, Beadman and I have an outspoken and frank discussion on Abrahamic religious theology, its plausibility, and its history based on the evidence given by modern Western academics. I hold very negative views and am frank in my crass humor when talking about religion in general. Although, if you’ve checked my blog, then you probably knew that already.
Below is a backstory if you’re curious to learn more about who Beadman and I are, why I decided to have this lengthy discussion and asked Beadman if it was okay to share it with you all, and why I believe such discussions have value. If you would like to skip it due to lack of interest, please just scroll down below to the slideshow.
For those who may be curious or hold interest in learning about either of us more personally, I am a self-described Hindu Atheist and Beadman is a Transtheist and Surrelativist (an identifying name for the position of Emerging Theism). We had a separate discussion about how he defines his personal beliefs, but I felt it was wrong to add that to the discussion as I don’t want this to be construed as an attempt to shame or insult his beliefs as that is not my intention.
Having thought over the SMT discussion, I couldn’t help but ruminate on the many, many changes on both my beliefs and my interactions with Beadman over such a short span of time. I first met Beadman in 2013 and we had thoroughly diametrically opposed views on the Neutral ending of Shin Megami Tensei IV on the MegaTen Reddit website. He couldn’t believe that the people of the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado could be herded through Naraku in a mass exodus without casualties and criticized them all fitting into Cafe Florida at the end of Neutral. I felt he was focused on the wrong details, making a mountain out of a molehill, and quite liked the ending. I stopped following Shin Megami Tensei for awhile, because I was under the false impression that there wouldn’t be another game for another 9-10 years due to the trackrecord of mainline games usually being that far apart on initial releases. To my pleasant surprise, I was wrong, and I got to enjoy a duology from the mainline series. And… a bunch of extremely personal stuff involving my near-death from a car crash happened, and I was not in the best of emotional states because my family basically told me that it didn’t matter that I almost died, didn’t believe I was in severe pain, didn’t believe I’m suffering from lifelong neck pain no matter how many times I tell them clearly and calmly, and well…. I took it out on Beadman at one point. I repeatedly apologized to him since then, but to my surprise, he didn’t remember the incident and he generally gives me the impression that he’s aloof from such things. I think it was because he was practicing Stoicism at the time, but I don’t think that he does anymore and I think he’s better off from it. He seemed to have his own bottled up annoyances, and I don’t believe that it was due to me, per se. I didn’t inquire though, but if there is anything of substance, I sincerely wish him the best in dealing with it.
I came to terms with my own personal issues upon recognizing my family, specifically my parents, are completely awful at articulating that they care in explicit terms. They’re the unique kind of… special that can’t verbally articulate or explicitly show they care, but instead do so with actions… and ignoring social problems deliberately because they’re awful at dealing with stress; but still support me through and through. It’s a very bizarre relationship; I’m living it and I don’t know how to fully describe it. I don’t go into too much detail because they have this fear and paranoia of being judged by the public that I never quite understood so on the off-chance they ever read this and know its from me, I’ve made sure to keep terms vague, because I just don’t want to deal with any potential future melodrama from them. I’m of the personal opinion that it largely doesn’t matter, anything you say about your life to the public will be absorbed for like five minutes of conversation, maybe an insulting text or a slew of insulting texts for a little while, and then promptly forgotten about because nobody truly cares about such gossip or melodrama beyond feeling better than some stranger online for however long the emotional superiority feels good to an individual.
As you can well imagine, I had to work on my own existential dread for awhile and my ire with politics, which I think affected me more deeply than most people since I am a political scientist albeit a low-level one, Beadman has publicly mentioned on Reddit that he minored in Philosophy while majoring in a STEM related field. For my part, I’ve read every major book of Friedrich Nietzsche’s and criticized his depiction of Nietzschean philosophy as it seemed to be based on Bertrand Russell’s godawful strawman depiction rather than genuine Nietzschean philosophy. At the same time, I’ve had to modify my views on Consequentialism and Utilitarianism, because that was his main focus and he clearly knows far more about it than I do. Due to Beadman’s influence, I read and finished John Stuart Mill’s Three Essays on Religion and I find it to be a fairly good critique of the failings of religion connected to State politics, but I also discovered that Mill was a racist moron. Beadman had once criticized Atlus for the “unclean” but I pointed out that if he’s right and I’m wrong about contentions I had against Law being Utilitarianism, then Atlus was completely justified in depicting Angels borderline racists against Japanese people. Mill repeatedly, and I do mean nauseatingly so, goes on and on about how Asians are untrustworthy thieves and diseased. Even if one were to argue that Atlus should focus on the philosophy and not the person, you have to keep in mind that if they did read Mill, it would be earnestly taking the time to read this man’s philosophy while he goes on paragraph upon paragraph about how diseased their culture is, how they aren’t worth trusting and should be looked upon with suspicion, and how their culture and society is a garbage heap. Atlus depicting Angels saying Japanese are “Unclean Ones” or “the Filth” is . . . incredibly benevolent and mild compared to the asinine comments that John Stuart Mill wrote repeatedly about Asian culture. Please believe me when I say that I’m not overstating this. It’s the equivalent of I, as a US-born and raised person, reading a book which falsely claims that the US is a disease-ridden group of morons with no moral values or positives repeatedly strewn across various paragraphs while a foreign person is passionately discussing their moral philosophy. It might credibly be the case that Atlus is trying their best to depict Utilitarianism in a neutral context from the standpoint of what Mill actually said about Asian societies as a culture and people in his own very homogenized context. Please keep in mind that I actually liked what I read about John Stuart Mill’s philosophy when he kept focus on the philosophy itself, but when he went into foreign cultures . . . it got very stupid, very fast. This judgment of mine is also based upon one small book of his, I have no idea how Mill addresses Asians within the context of his larger philosophical works. Nevertheless, I now realize I misunderstood what Beadman meant since I thought he was saying Law was focused on John Stuart Mill’s Pleasure-Pain principle, but in fact, he places more emphasis on Bentham before John Stuart Mill. To the best of my knowledge and based on what I read from Mill about his own personal teacher, Bentham’s views are more vague and less focused on pleasures in his Consequentialist ideology. Mill is the one who fleshed out the philosophy to be more coherent and it seems Beadman was emphasizing the more vague version of Consequentialist ethics when critiquing Law.
Anyhow, before I began the discussion presented below, I had given him my explanation for why Nietzsche has a very big emphasis with Atlus’s work. I’m fairly sure my essay had an impact as I showed the various forms of symbolism and allegories to Nietzschean philosophy throughout the Shin Megami Tensei IV-IVA duology. I had always wanted this sort of discussion with him because I feel such a discussion, and publicly sharing such a discussion, has far more to offer than the nonsensical travesty that has become Eirikrjs blog. To emphasize this further, and to give more credence to my argument about the Anarchy route foreshadowing from a year ago, consider the fact that Dagda’s Theme is a remix of The White’s Theme.
For the purposes of this post, I’d like to declare a challenge to anyone who follows the Abrahamic faiths, or any religious faith in general, but mainly those who follow the Abrahamic faith traditions.
I have three things I’d like to say, consider each of the following seriously:
First: Assume any religion is true. Just any. Every other religion is thereby false.
For example, in the book I am currently writing, I argue the following: if Judaism is true, then it doesn’t matter however many Christians or Muslims there are in the world or how many Christians or Muslims died for their religious faith. None of it would matter; the history, the sacrifices, the population size, or the culture. It wouldn’t mean anything because Judaism is proven true.
Second: What’s the evidence any of these so-called miracles ever even happened? Nothing. Literally nothing.
Welcome to my worldview when I was just 14 years old. I’m now well into adulthood. I still can’t believe people don’t grow out of that rubbish when they’re adults. I can’t believe there are adults who literally believe in these so-called holy books. It took me awhile to process this, because I was thinking about it in terms of my IQ level compared to theirs.
For awhile, I thought I was the ignorant one and that surely there was some grounding, some small worm of usefulness of some sort, that led people to convince themselves to believe in these poorly written fantasy novels. Instead, I discovered that unlike Hinduism or Buddhism, you’re not allowed to question in Islam or Christianity.
It took me some time to understand how vacuous those beliefs that people had were. The New Atheists were pointing out common sense and the religious couldn’t handle it; so they came up with insults like “angtheists”, “edgelords”, or “Islamaphobia” in order to ignore the actual criticisms.
I don’t understand how others can still live like they do; living with unquestioned obedience to a book they don’t even read based on a personal relationship with a man they don’t know from a time period before they were even born. I don’t understand how people can honestly believe that any of it is associated with “love” while telling you to hate your body, the physical world, and seeing “sin” in your own children. I don’t understand any of you, and I don’t think I ever want to.
If you believe anything I said was bigoted, well then . . .
Third, Here is a proposal for you all:
If you truly believe I’m wrong, then I challenge you to read your holy book from beginning to end. No scholars, no community advice, and no sparknotes. You are choosing this book to live by and define your entire life; you should consider spending at least an hour a day reading the holy book from beginning to end, finishing it, and having your own thoughts on it. Not for me, not for your immediate community, but just for yourself. Seriously consider this proposal, don’t just live under a system because your family, community, or even country say it is the literal word of a God. Decide on your own terms whether you believe in it and believe it is good for you to live by it after reading through all of it. If you’re willing to place such strong faith and argue in favor of it, you should be willing to read the entirety of your holy book. What would you have to lose besides becoming more informed, if I am so wrong about my beliefs about your book?
On Twitter, I’m currently locked out for a week for posting this news article to what seems to have inadvertently been some official in the Saudi government who commented on the Foreign Policy article like I did. Before that, I had notified Twitter of these tweets:
Here was Twitter’s final verdict:
Now, I would be completely okay with this, if not for the fact I got banned for a week for posting this article:
I posted that news article to someone from Saudi Arabia and got banned for it for a week. I’m unsure who it was, but it did seem as if wealthy Saudis or those within the Saudi government were mocking and insulting the tweeted opinion piece by the news organization ForeignPolicy.com. Here’s what Twitter said I was banned for:
Twitter’s policies in action, folks. Can’t link legitimate news articles to despots or their cohorts to criticize them on a Twitter feed they choose to dive into in order to criticize Foreign Policy analysts of the United States, but if you make offensive stereotypes to any Muslim women in a Western country, then that’s apparently fine with Twitter. Go figure that one out.
Evidently, it’s just a drop in the ocean of a long list of Twitter’s failings to curb abuse based on their own rules.
Fair Warning: This post contains Massive Spoilers for Shin Megami Tensei IV, Shin Megami Tensei IV: Apocalypse, Devil Survivor 2, and links to spoilers for Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. Read at your own peril.
Over the course of my researching the major religious faiths that I am critiquing in the book that I am currently writing, I’ve grown to see more similarities and references in Shin Megami Tensei that I’ve come to appreciate. I’ve often been called foolish for such interest because of this prevailing idea that video games can’t be critiqued, but one of the main failures of these arguments is that Atlus itself encourages these deep insights to learn more about various religious mythos and stories. If they didn’t care, they would be more like the Final Fantasy series, placing names for characters with no reference to the original source material. Atlus goes so far as to provide a codex in every game to learn more about these myths and specific deities. Yet, it seems to me that a certain subset of fans just no longer have interest. It’s a shame. This is actually a relatively new phenomena. In fact, eight years ago, my interest in critically examining Atlus video games was spurred by the old Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne community that I had happily taken part in for several years. I had actually known about Nocturne since 2006, but got in incredibly late around 2009 after the utter fail that was Persona 4 on the PS2. I remember being able to share this experience with two close friends that I met online at the time, both of whom I’ve lost touch with. It seems as if, like always, life just withers away from you before you realize it and all you’re left with is the fond memories. It seems like some old fans are only interested in hating on Atlus based off wildly speculative conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. Any attempt at disputing anything, point by point, through critical examination is simply labeled being an “asshole” as it seems most of these so-called fans aren’t interested in reading anything positive like the other older fans were. If they are, they certainly aren’t vocal or perhaps they’ve moved to Youtube, but it seems peculiar that Persona 5 gets deserved praise for themes, but Shin Megami Tensei, which places far more emphasis on themes in general, garners almost no interest at all. Oh well, perhaps in another 8 years, or perhaps there is a silent majority. On the more positive side for me, there is hardly a day where the second Thematic Essay on Shin Megami Tensei IV: Apocalypse doesn’t get clicks; but regardless, I’ve only ever actually posted material to share my love for video game themes. It’s just a shame that the community that was so open and happy with spontaneously finding new references and themes no longer seems so, unless it’s to throw contempt towards Atlus for make-believe reasons. It got so bad, even Polygon joined in to shovel contempt. I think, in all honesty, it shows the stupidity of Western culture, especially US culture, more than it did anything else. It’s like every time anybody has anything positive to say, people just want to kill it or mock it due to their Christian ethics.
So, after looking into more of the contents of Islam and listening to almost all of the lengthy panels by Ex-Muslims of North America, I’ve come upon striking similarities of Islam’s theology and the depictions of Law in Shin Megami Tensei IV and IV Apocalypse. Previously, I was under the impression that there were only tertiary connections such as the Islamic angel of death, Azrael, being a main story mission in Apocalypse and an extra boss fight when going back to Blasted Tokyo in Shin Megami Tensei IV. Back in 2013, I admittedly didn’t see anything particularly different about Law that stood out, but I noticed some odd behavior that didn’t fit with Law’s depiction from previous games. An acquaintance of mine on reddit, by the user name bunkerman or “Beadman” as he likes to be called, continually argued that it was Atlus’s contempt for Utilitarian ethics and that this was proven by pointing out Isabeau being killed for manga in the Law alignment of Shin Megami Tensei IV. I didn’t have an argument against it, but when asking for confirmation of how he was so sure that Law was depicting Utilitarian ethics, he pointed to Devil Survivor 2’s late-game conversation. Now, while I think there is merit in spotting Utilitarian ethics in Devil Survivor 2, considering the two main antagonists offer straightforward themes of Meritocracy against Socialism, I doubted that it fit Shin Megami Tensei IV’s narrative. There was also two severe problems with it, which nobody seemed keen on addressing and instead repeatedly insulted me with ad hominem on the reddit forum of MegaTen. Chiefly, in the Three Essays on Religion, John Stuart Mill quotes his co-founder in Utilitarianism stating that Utilitarianism can’t be used with any religion. Mill, a noted feminist, would have also been against disadvantaging people’s personal liberty. While Utilitarianism fit with Devil Survivor 2, it seemed like an odd choice for Shin Megami Tensei IV’s Law to be Utilitarian ethics. Many people in the MegaTen Reddit community seemed to throw contempt upon Atlus for “depicting Utilitarian ethics poorly” but, why didn’t this simply lower their confidence that Law in Shin Megami Tensei IV had anything to do with Utilitarian ethics? The assumption was theirs and the arguments about Atlus “depicting it poorly” could more readily be attributed to Atlus depicting something else entirely. Rationally speaking, especially if there is so many gaps, you should be less willing to place confidence in a belief.
Of course, Eirikrjs, a person I use to have respect for back when he was actually a fan of the Shin Megami Tensei series and provided rather fascinating translations and pointing out cultural themes, went off the deep end with a ridiculous theory that he tries to claim makes Atlus anti-Semitic. Yes, really. When I point out, point-by-point, the massive flaws in his assertions, I’m simply labeled a bigot and an idiot by his fans and the MegaTen Reddit community, who then go on and on proclaiming how stupid I am and when I retort with any sort of comment, I am labeled either overly sensitive or stupid. Admittedly, it isn’t all bad though, since attempts at pushing Eirikrjs’s specious ideas has led to comical results in which other people who, like myself, have a fascination for mythos can point out the thoroughgoing flaws. And then of course, follows a torrent of racist expletives thrown my way by the MegaTen Reddit community, followed by insinuations that any complaints by me are “proof” that I’m overly sensitive. Evidently, I’m suppose to just quietly take their racist abuse like a model minority and have no right to call them out on it, even when the process goes on for several months and the so-called “trolling” starts being hurled at my Reddit message box. To be honest, I expected this sort of stupidity from the Final Fantasy crowd from ye olde Gamefaqs, but it seems like the “newer generation of fans” from 4Chan have become even worse than 4Chan. This is after an incident where a former pen pal of mine called the police because someone from this Law-aligned community decided the willful sharing of child porn was acceptable within their community. In case the forum is deleted, here is what I am referring to. When I tried to civilly address this, they shouted me down with the typical insults and treated me with scorn. Unfortunately, I deleted the topic awhile back. If you need any more proof that this community has severe problems, look no further than the comments I received regarding a mousepad that I mentioned my sister got me. Does that strike you as a community of decent human beings? I was even accused of not having a sister because I’m a retard or something. Yes, you read that sentence right. Yes, I’m just as confused as you are by what that could even mean. I can only infer that these people either lacked or never developed any decent social skills among even their families and don’t have any idea what having a sibling who is female is like and attribute it to the garbage tropes currently running in the Anime industry. However, even that is bizarre, as it means that these people don’t understand social etiquette at all. The only funny part about them is that they actively try to use the internet as an excuse for their stupidity and abusive behavior. The internet is a tool, it doesn’t give anyone the right to hurl torrents of abuse. You may have the Free Speech to do so, but likewise, people have the Free Speech to call you out on your behavior.
Notwithstanding, Eirikjrs and Beadman’s claims don’t seem to have any meaningful support when you judge by the evidence in the games. Eirikjrs is premised on the idea of Judeo-Christian lore being strictly followed and no real basis for any JJCAT connection apart from taking interview statements out of context and ignoring portions like YHVH speaking the Sermon on the Mount, to argue there is anti-Semitism even when the evidence has glaring flaws that contradict him. I made an effort to counter each of his points and he never once attempts to answer me. He’s now decided to simply delete my comments, so oh well. Beadman uses Devil Survivor 2 and Shin Megami Tensei 1-2 as go-to references, but there is no evidence Utilitarianism was ever used in Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne apart from the True Demon Ending, even grant this it’s still a tenuous connection at best, and the TDE isn’t Law alignment. There simply isn’t any evidence in Shin Megami Tensei IV or Apocalypse that Utilitarian theory was ever referenced as a theme. Essentially, both are making suppositions and when the evidence contradicts their preconceived suppositions, they argue the games are portraying it wrong instead of checking where the evidence leads. Nietzschean philosophy has been used by Atlus since 2006 with Nocturne Maniax. In fact, it was Sam Hatting’s blog post that inspired me to write since I had previously believed that doing such was silly before then. Hatting based his assertions on the evidence and the Nietzschean concepts are there. Of course, they’re more glaring in Shin Megami Tensei IV: Final /Apocalypse as I mentioned in Part II of my analysis on Shin Megami Tensei: Apocalypse. However, I didn’t pay much attention to Law, having assumed that it really was one of the biggest mess-ups when compared to the previous iterations due to the negativity pervading the MegaTen Reddit community, but I’ve come across evidence to doubt that.
I don’t want to overstate this case; the evidence being presented seems circumstantial at worst and valid to an extent at best. Nevertheless, it’s better than specious reasoning by Eirikjrs and misapplied critiques of Devil Survivor imposed upon the IV-A Duology by Beadman. I must emphasize that I will completely admit to being wrong, if the evidence contradicts me. Every person is a fallible human being. I don’t have as much confidence with this one, but I would love the constructive feedback. I doubt I’ll get any meaningful responses though, since most people elect to simply call me crazy from the present MegaTen community.
When researching various theologies for a book I am working on, I re-checked the material on Islam and looked more into Islamic Eschatology. I had previously entertained the notion of Nanashi from Shin Megami Tensei IV: Apocalypse perhaps having been influenced by Islamic theology, but I felt that any connections were tenuous at best. However, upon reading Islam’s version of Judgment Day, looking up precisely which Angel was a Messenger for the Islamic Prophet Mohammad, and looking up its description of Heaven; I realized there were far more connections than could be considered coincidental. In fact, the ridicule over Isabeau being killed for manga began to make far more sense once you realize Atlus wasn’t critiquing Judeo-Christian lore at all. It was Islam, modern Islam and ancient Islam, that Atlus was focused on in their critique. The assumption by Eirikjrs and Beadman about it being Judeo-Christian lore is what the problem was. Islam is also an Abrahamic faith and Atlus had already criticized Judeo-Christian lore in Shin Megami Tensei I and Shin Megami Tensei II. The new Angel designs, Mikado’s monarchy, and the desire to go back to an ancient time period were seen as Atlus bashing Western culture. However, the assumption was the fault of the well-known members of the fanbase, and not Atlus. People might be quick to point out the use of the English language is mystical, the Medieval designs of Mikado, and so forth. But, that fails to account for two crucial problems. First, Atlus would have put their own lives at risk and potentially the lives of people working for Atlus overseas for criticizing Islam directly in the real world. Second, the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado seems like a blending of several different cultures and criticizing what seems to be the Imperialistic past of all of them. Europe from the dress style and language, Japan itself since the warriors are the Blessed Samurai, and Islam from its Monarchy and the Monastery. Nevertheless, there’s more emphasis on Islam than the others, based upon the evidence of themes in both Shin Megami Tensei IV and Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse / Final.
I’m currently writing it, and I will try to provide Beadman’s objections, because they’re very powerful objections to this argument and I find that they’re incredibly valid in their reasoning. Beadman’s thesis is essentially that Atlus was utilizing Greek and Dead Sea Scroll stories of Gnostic lore; some of which was an explicit representation of those ancient stories to blend with Judeo-Christian lore. Beadman believes these were literalist depictions to show the honest consequences of such depictions as far as Judeo-Christian utilitarianism (even if, such an idea is explicitly against Utilitarian theory according to both its founders). Nevertheless, I think Islam was a more dominant theme than he’s willing to admit. To what extent, I don’t know, but it became more pronounced and much of Law is shockingly explicit in depicting Islam. Not Utilitarianism or Judeo-Christian lore, per se. Instead, it was purely Islam that Atlus was censuring with perhaps some Judeo-Christian overlap for areas in which Islam is found wanting in explanations. The Eastern Kingdom of Mikado is a very literalist depiction of an Islamic society and its failings. YHVH’s Universe is – to my genuine shock – an explicit depiction of Sufism’s theological views on Islamic heaven (Jannah). That can’t be understated; it’s a literalist view of Islamic heaven under Sufism from the angels swarming every inch of the dungeon, to Walter and Jonathan’s ghosts and their subsequent transformation upon gaining their wishes, the teleportation doorways throughout the dungeons, and the three doors that block you from a boundary in which YHVH inhabits. Even the stars, galaxies, and the radiant light from beyond the boundary of YHVH’s throne are all an allegory for Sufi heaven. Atlus’s attention to detail is quite impressive. The only thing lacking is the 72 wives, it seems Atlus made it less stupid than the actual theology of Islam. To be blunt, a lot of Islam’s theology is utterly ridiculous, which is why, even when I suspected there was some value to this critique, I doubted it because of how stupid much of Islamic theology actually is.
One thing I’d like to stress, when I made the two other critiques and referenced Nietzschean philosophy, I was more confident in them because much of the allusions, the endings themselves, and the themes all fit and were consistent. They were consistent to the extent that I expected certain events to happen . . . and they did based on the foreshadowing that I had picked-up on. A lot of it was incredibly consistent with my expectations. What I didn’t get was why Akira was so important in the first place when he was a regular human or why Atlus had said that he was always meant to form the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado in some variation as his karmic destiny. And now, thanks to my research for my book, I think I know why . . . and to give you further credence as to where my research into this has led me:
The name Asahi is an anagram for Aisha.
For those who don’t know, Aisha is the beloved 9-year old wife of the pedophile Prophet Mohammad. Although it has some variation, Aisha is the most popularized form. It seems Atlus made a more open-ended reference to Asahi being a sister because the actual theology supports pedophilia and Atlus actually has morals unlike Islam’s pedophile Prophet. As you can tell from the featured image, Akira is most likely Shin Megami Tensei IV and Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse‘s depiction of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed.
While I don’t believe in any Gods or any sort of supernatural being myself; that doesn’t mean that Hindu Atheists can’t support or celebrate the art, culture, or history of Hinduism or celebrate its holidays / ceremonial rituals freely and openly.
Here’s to both a celebration of Hinduism and Feminism! Hopefully, the patriarchal aspects of majority Hindu countries will be able to change instead of being ashamed of Warrior Goddesses and their artful depictions 😉
So, after posting videos and arguing against Saudi Arabia’s record on the sexual slavery of women, the pedophile Prophet Muhammad’s rape of 9-year old Aisha, and getting into twitter feuds with several Saudi people over this Foreign Policy article on Twitter:
I have to say, researching for a book that I write has really grown my knowledge and changed my personal perspective on a multitude of subjects. It really makes you grow as a person when you feel accountable for conveying accurate and legitimate information. I’ve grown bolder in my harsh critique, I had thought I would be less so during the course of researching and writing, but I’m pleasantly surprised how my approach has been harsher instead of . . . well, . . . lacking in substance for a respectful tone to all.
Some of the opinions that I’ve radically shifted on, which I brought up before, is the entire academic department of Indology in the West. It’s just so striking to me. I use to believe Indology was just another legitimate academic discipline until I researched it. However, in the course of my research, and subsequently why so many of my views have changed . . . I thought certain religions possibly had more… sane answers than what they actually do believe in. I very nearly scrapped this entire project and left it ignored for months until listening to the panels by Ex-Muslims of North America because I was afraid any censure would create more discrimination in the era of Trump. Thanks to the brave Ex-Muslim panelists, I now know better.
During the Obama years, I realized that I overshot the intelligence of both the elites of the US, the US mainstream media, and the general public of the US. There can be no finding common ground with the Right-Wing or arguing that Progressive Politics is in their best interests when their reactions are always reflexive emotional outbursts of hate as a result of their own anecdotes and intuition. It would be better off if Progressives instead found a “middle-ground” of providing only those Progressive policies for the Left-wing and let the Right-wing pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They’ve spoken to us several times; they don’t give a shit about making a better world. They see the destruction of the environment and the first thing in their minds is a mass world genocide so their Zombie, Jesus Christ, can come back. It’s the entire foundation and basis of the Christian faith. I’m tired of the false-equivalences perpetuated by people who complain that Black activists should shut up while saying Neo-Nazis have a right to speak. The Right-wing Christian literalists of the US are just crazy.
With respect to my research on Islam, I keep thinking to myself, I cannot be any more disgusted by Islam than I am now, but the more I research, the more the gift keeps on giving. My contempt for this religion has reached even greater peaks of revulsion.
The Sharia is an abomination to humanity and the religion is nothing more than a warring desert tribe:
For more evidence, consider the Mujahideen of Afghanistan and what they did to the majority Muslim women there. Just read this excerpt from “The 1980s mujahideen, the Taliban and the shifting idea of jihad” by Afghan culture critic and journalist, Nushin Arbabzadah:
“Crucially, in a traditional jihad, the victorious party has an unspoken right to pillage, rape and loot the conquered population. This is because militia fighters are not paid soldiers in a regular army and hence looting is the material reward they receive for fighting. The original mujahideen followed this traditional pattern of jihad upon coming to power in 1992. Since competition over resources rather than ideology is key to traditional jihad, the mujahideen’s war focused on Kabul where the nation’s wealth and the foreign embassies, another potential source of funding, were to be found.
Judging by a historical account from the 1920s, back then the women and girls of the conquered populations also belonged to the pillage package offered to militia jihadis. Hence, in the diaries of court chronicler Katib Hazara on the siege of Kabul in 1929, we read that the victorious mujahideen of the time had demanded to see the list of girls registered at a Kabul school so as to allocate female students to militia fighters.
Katib’s account might be exaggerated, but the story still reveals that there was an unspoken rule that women and girls were part of the conquest package. As such, the mujahideen’s struggle over Kabul was a continuation of traditional jihad complete with internal rivalries, pillage and looting. The mujahideen were part of the realm of traditional politics in which a conquered region is a turf that can be exploited by strongmen, who call themselves mujahideen so as to appear respectable.”
That is absolutely disgusting and obviously indefensible. As is the Islamic-fascist garbage spewed in a patronizing manner by popular televised imams in the Arab Spring. A “Thank You” shout out to Ex-Muslims of North America for sharing this on Twitter:
Looking at the godawful Abrahamic faiths; I am so damn happy I was born a Hindu and remain a Hindu. At this point, I feel like being born from an Eastern Faith is itself a horrible discriminatory privilege over others because the Abrahamic faiths are utterly psychotic.
The difference between Eastern and Western faiths is that Eastern faiths are genuinely more open and accepting to other people’s beliefs. As crazy stupid as Christian and Islamic theologians try to argue the Eastern religions are, they refuse to acknowledge that theirs is just complete crazy from beginning to end. Even more so since the historicity of the Bible has been debunked. There’s no evidence that either the so-called prophets of Abraham and Moses ever existed. So how could there have been a burning bush and a covenant with Yahweh? And since there’s no proof that either of them even existed; Jesus Christ and Muhammad were both charlatans. The so-called “Transfiguration” (Matthew 17:1-13) could never even have happened nor any fulfillment of a Mosiac prophecy since the prophecy is part of a fictional story that also never happened.
Think of what that means. For just about 1400 years, Islam and Christianity were killing each other and “dying” as proof of their religious convictions . . . and it all meant nothing. They could follow strict devotional ideals or prove their “faith” by dying for it and it meant nothing. If that comes off as depressing or nihilistic, it shouldn’t. If you simply compare and contrast religions, its easy to recognize that this has to be the case if any specific religion is true. If for instance Judaism is found to be the “one true faith” then all the persecution, mass murder, and horrible suffering of Muslims and Christians throughout centuries meant absolutely nothing. This is basic logic for me, I concluded this in the middle of frickin’ high school when I was 14. Yet, people are shocked by using basic logic on the Abrahamic religions.
I think the main reason I picked-up on these flaws early as an outsider is partly because I had my own religious beliefs to contrast it to at the time, but mainly because Hinduism doesn’t technically have any blasphemy laws in terms of thought crimes. The Caste system is oppressive and atrocious, remaining an awful reminder of a bygone era that Hindus of India need to walk away from but that’s it. Hinduism’s religious texts support Transgenders (albeit as a “third gender” category based on divine combinations of Shiva and Parvati as Ardhanarishvara and Vishnu and Lakshmi’s form of Vaikuntha-Kamalaja) and homosexuals. The supposed crazy right-wing the West likes to bash and compare to Islamic fascists so much was found to support same-sex equality by 70% in twitter when prompted by the question. This was a sample size of around 5000 people.
Next time some liberal troll writes an article about Hindu Right being opposed to homosexuality you know they only write imagined stories. Speaks volume about the newspaper or portal hosting such rants as articles! pic.twitter.com/IDzrwXD5pg
Try getting responses like that from Right-wing Christian and Muslim groups outside the West. Good luck finding opinions that aren’t anti-LGBT. If you want further proof, compare the targeted killings of Transgender people in the US to the non-existent targeted killings of Transgenders in India. If not for sexism and the Caste system, Hinduism would be considered far less backwards and problematic than the Abrahamic faiths. Hindus should be protecting minorities, not simply complaining or shouting down grievances that other religions in India have. Otherwise, they’re behaving like the Abrahamics who hate transgenders and homosexuals due to their religious beliefs.
The following is a closer version of the finalized draft of Chapter 6 of my upcoming book. I’ll likely be using Amazon to distribute it and I will try to make Kindle and physical copies available at around the same time period. I wanted to show how this chapter has developed from the previous post. When writing a book, it’s as much of a learning process and a growth / discovery process for me, because I want to be sure that I’m making clear and precise arguments while tackling the key issues that are important to people. I’m also struggling with perfectionist tendencies that do more to hinder than help, since perfection isn’t real and does more to harm than assist in growth and self-betterment. I’ve added the citations for this chapter below in the Notes section and tried to keep the parts in which I’m quoting other books or articles as clearly defined. I want to show how much research I’ve done and how important this is to me. Unfortunately, the format differences from Microsoft Word text to copying and pasting on blog text and visual might make certain portions of the text look out of place or seem deformed. I’ve done a quick scan, and I hope that I edited enough to avoid such issues.
Please let me know in the comments what you thought of this and please enjoy:
Chapter 6: Original Sin, the failure of Abrahamic morality
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
If you believe in morality, then you should honestly consider Original Sin to be the ultimate mockery and subversion of morality. Cloaked under the veneer of religious piety and goodness, this belief allows for all forms of savagery: genocide, organized rape, torture, mass bombing campaigns, and every other horrific atrocity to be viewed as an inevitable part of the human experience. Humans who observe such occurrences from the outset through television, or through the internet, use such anecdotes as a justification that violence is an inescapable part of humanity. People use such events as evidence to believe that our biology is evil. They believe that evil is merely a fact of life because we observe stories of street violence, rapes, wars, and genocide through the constant bombardment of negative news on social media. People may believe that without religious morals that they will go into sprees of murder, rape, and other forms of violence. They might be led to believe that sinfulness and the capacity for absolute evil is just waiting to be acted upon but strictly controlled through the guidance of an absolute good from religious teachings. Original sin teaches people to believe humans are imperfect and so falter into sinfulness. As a consequence, we observe atrocities around the world through the lens of apathy or indifference while believing the victims are in heaven for our own comfort. Yet, on any given day, it is impossible to know why each specific tragedy happened unless we individually fact-check them; it is easier to simply believe that all people have some evil in them since it gives a quick and coherent worldview of such events. Yet, if the perpetrator was raised as a Christian, Muslim, or Jew – or was taught Abrahamic value of sinfulness in religious schools that disseminate such values around the world – then what stops them from believing that their actions were simply inevitable because of their humanity? In fact, why wouldn’t the perpetrator of a crime just perceive their acts as an unavoidable aspect of being human after committing human rights atrocities? The human body would be like a cage where carnal pleasure was misunderstood to be evil intent and acts of rape and murder would be viewed by the perpetrators as simply a product of their humanity. Relying strongly upon the religious precept of sinfulness would mean that you must believe that you are capable of child murder, child rape, the torture of children, and you are likely to believe that these are aspects of humanity that can never be changed because murder, rape, and torture are intrinsically part of human nature. It is unalterable and all humans; you, your spouse, your children, your friends, your caretakers, and every human on the planet is simply born with a deep malice that predisposes them for crimes such as murder, rape, torture, and genocide. God created conditions that allowed everyone to be capable of these horrors. Thus, the belief in original sin provides a convenient excuse to ignore morality because acts of evil are somehow intrinsically part of human nature. The following is an examination and repudiation of this self-harming belief system.
Sin is an Entity Theory
Sin is an entity theory; it is a concept about ourselves that we believe to be intrinsically part of our behavior. That is, if you believe in sin then you believe it is fixed, unalterable, and you may believe that no amount of cultural or social change can create a shift to decrease violent behavior. That is dangerous and it has consequences for how we act towards others. Sin is an unsubstantiated entity theory. It has no scientific and psychological basis to be considered true about our species. The apologists for sin primarily use tragic events or horrible human actions to argue in favor of sin being an objective truth about human existence. However, utilizing tragic events to prove the objectivity of sinfulness anchors too much focus upon events that aren’t the norm of the majority of the human species. Moreover, any terrible deed conducted by people who grew up within Abrahamic cultures or Abrahamic communities could justify their violence through the belief in sinfulness. Sinfulness could become circular reasoning, because the perpetrators believe that an intrinsic part of their humanity, the concept of sinfulness, allows them to conduct horrific crimes and the observers of terrible crimes use those specific events as proof of sinfulness. That is, the perpetrator views their violent actions as part of an innate human norm of sinfulness and the observers who watch the news and read the papers see the perpetrator’s actions as proof of innate sinfulness in humanity.
That may seem silly, but it is psychologically true that what we believe about ourselves and what we believe that we’re capable of has consequences on the actions that we choose to pursue. A mundane example given in research is a person’s attitude towards mathematics. If you believe that you’re just not good at math after struggling with the subject during your schooling, then you will be disinclined to pursue the subject matter and may believe yourself to be incapable of learning the advanced mathematical topics. This is actually a self-delusion and results in a self-fulfilling prophecy, people who believe that they’re “not a math person” or “not good at math” have overemphasized the difficulty and closed off a possible academic future for themselves as a result. These people can improve their math skills by emphasizing efficacy and incremental effort in attaining math skills from their studies but they sincerely believe that they are incapable of achieving mastery in mathematics because of an intrinsic flaw. The belief has a lifelong consequence on their future and they don’t realize it.
Now, consider the concept of sin and what the concept of sin encourages people to intrinsically believe about themselves and the actions that they’re capable of committing. Do you see the problem?
Sinful Thoughts or Intrusive Thoughts?
A principal reason for the belief in sinfulness may derive from the concept of sinful thoughts. Certain personal thoughts and beliefs are categorically labeled evil to even think about and such a distinction leads to constant self-blame and weariness with ourselves for having the “evil” thoughts. The belief that being good means you must have good thoughts isn’t healthy or rational because it’s a misunderstanding of how thoughts actually function. Believing that being good means that you must only have “good” thoughts is mental self-torture because you would constantly need to try to “expunge” the “evil thoughts” from your mind. Under the distinction between good and evil thoughts, violent thoughts aren’t what good people should have. It may not seem normal to you to have thoughts of throwing people down a flight of stairs, jumping out of a moving car, shouting something blasphemous during religious ceremonies, or other deplorable activities. These offensive thoughts would instill people with unease or anxiety because people may worry why such thoughts even entered their mind. We would be looking for some deep “cause” for why these thoughts were circulating in our minds. It may seem reasonable to view these thoughts as sinful and believe that you must constantly fight against such thoughts to maintain purity and moral goodness. These terrible thoughts become a “proof” of sinfulness because people don’t know why they have them and fear that there is something evil or criminal within them that are the cause. Many people begin to avoid situations that trigger violent thoughts and feel too ashamed to speak of them with loved ones.
There is an important element in this subject matter that most people don’t seem to be aware of: violent or blasphemous thoughts aren’t a reflection of you or your inner desires. Unless these thoughts make you feel pleasure or happiness, they aren’t what you would want to do to your loved ones or others. Assuming you have such unsettling thoughts, which you do because every human being has them, your feelings of unease and anxiety are your personal reflections on any violent or blasphemous thoughts that you may have. You are not crazy and it doesn’t mean that you have the capacity of inflicting violence upon others. The thoughts themselves are just ideas that you gain from your environment or your imagination; ironically, monitoring your thoughts to make sure the bad thoughts will go away will only cause them to become more frequent thus increasing the unease and anxiety. Prayer sessions could become a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the frequency of attempts to remove the bad thoughts from your mind could increase the frequency of the thoughts returning. This is because our minds need to check on the unsettling image when we try to monitor our progress of not thinking about the bad thoughts. Psychological studies have shown that trying to ban ourselves from thinking certain thoughts will only increase the frequency of the thoughts occurring in our mind. They were never a reflection of you as a person or what you may think you’re capable of committing upon others. They’re just thoughts that come to your mind. The increased fear and anxiety from the violent ideas or images probably comes from our honest dread of harming our own loved ones because we don’t understand why these thoughts are occurring. The increased frequency and misunderstanding can lead to self-hate, a deep fear of ourselves, self-blame, shame, and depression because of an overemphasis on trying to understand some deeper meaning behind why we have these bad thoughts and fear of what others will think of us. Rest assured, it is entirely normal to have these thoughts. They’re labeled intrusive thoughts by modern psychology, they’re not a sign of mental illness (unless you feel pleasure from the idea of committing them, which is probably the opposite of what you feel), and everyone has them. They’re not a reflection of you and they’re not a desire of what you secretly want to do to others. They’re thoughts that come and go in your mind; similar to thinking about breakfast or thinking about another route to work. Having intrusive thoughts isn’t a reflection of how good or evil you are as a person.
What are more important are your feelings towards these thoughts than the thoughts themselves. It is also possible to obsessively think about such intrusive thoughts but that isn’t a reflection of you, it just means that you have an obsessive compulsive disorder regarding your thoughts. That doesn’t mean you’re crazy; it means that you have an OCD regarding your thoughts and it’s possible that it developed because human behavior is habit forming. What people believe to be “normal” is really just people going through various forms of mild psychological issues every day through the habits that they form. It only truly becomes an issue when habitual behavior becomes excessive or it is a behavior that is objectively self-harming such as smoking or physically harming one’s body. If you have had anxiety because you misunderstood what intrusive thoughts meant, then please learn to relax. Let them come and go, and recognize they’re not a deep personal reflection of you as a human being.
Sin is Nihilism
The belief in sinfulness is the belief in ubiquitous nihilism. I am not referring to nihilism that is defined by lack of belief in a God or Gods. It would be more apt to refer to it as nihilism as defined by the belief that existence is senseless and useless, a belief that destroys all forms of objective morality from the basis that humanity is insufficient to ever create everlasting objective morality, that all forms of human progress are arrogant and useless in the end, and the implicit belief that all human constructions of morality will lead to total failure because humanity isn’t intelligent enough to know God’s will. The argument by the pious in favor of objective moral values implodes under the belief in sinfulness; it’s a complete self-contradiction that Abrahamic believers seem to have cognitive dissonance towards. Human progress itself is seen as futile and self-depreciating despite people having modern conveniences like cars, surgeries, cell phones, the internet, and educational institutions. The nihilism is disguised as morally necessary to make people concede to religious doctrines; all human expression, all human inventions, and all forms of human happiness are to be under constant suspicion because humans are always prone to sinfulness everywhere. If you truly believe in sinfulness then you must always feel regret for the crime of your existence to God, you must always feel regret for failing to curtail your biological desires of reproduction because you find others attractive and God judges that to be sinful, you must feel regret for the mutual act of lovemaking if it isn’t specifically under the terms of marriage that God defined as the only acceptable form, you must feel ashamed of lovemaking because it’s a sinful act regardless of if it’s under marriage because God deemed sex to be sinful, and people who don’t make these concessions are arrogant because they insult God by not believing in Him. There are obvious detriments to this belief that create a harmful standard: you may believe that everyone around you is predisposed to acting evil because they’re born sinful, you may believe that anyone who doesn’t go through these concessions for the one true God is immoral, you may view the failure to uphold the moral code as a form of humility in accepting that you’re an imperfect human being compared to the perfect creator deity, and yet you may not see the circular reasoning in believing that your failure is a humility but that others who fail, who aren’t part of your in-group of Abrahamic religions, are perceived as evil by the precepts of your religious faith. People outside of your religious faith are automatically assumed to be more evil because they don’t seek redemption and forgiveness from God like you and your community. People who commit atrocities but have the same religious faith as you are assumed to have either misinterpreted the faith, used reasoning that is completely different from the tenants of your faith, or are imperfect human beings who are sinful. In the case of non-violent offenses such as adultery, the people of the same religious faith as you are simply assumed to have been an imperfect human being and their failure is seen as an admittance of humility. A non-believer or person of another religious faith is perceived to be conducting similar behavior out of evil or self-delusion in believing a false religion that led them astray because they lack your exact religious faith. Yet, no matter what they do, they’re viewed as repulsive because they refuse to accept the one true God as the irrefutable truth, they don’t seek redemption for their sinfulness as you probably do, and they should be awaiting the end of the world as prescribed in all the Abrahamic holy books. No matter what, your view of them is antagonistic to a certain degree because that is what the belief in sinfulness requires you to believe. You aren’t allowed to perceive outsiders as anything but less significant than your in-group under the belief system of sinfulness.
If the argument seems extreme, you should consider that many religious believers within Judaism, Islam, and Christianity still believe and advocate these positions when acting as missionaries in foreign countries and many Christians and Muslims are conducting forced conversions. Even in a first world country like the United States, there are over 50 million people who believe in this interpretation of their religion and proudly believe in the literal truth of their religious books. However, even if you don’t agree with the extremist version of sinfulness, through open interpretation you may believe in degrees of sinfulness and you may still believe the teaching of sinfulness has worthwhile merits for instilling moral values. Yet, does it truly have moral value? If anything, sin is a belief that promotes the destruction of all morality under a fatalistic concept that morality will be destroyed because of human nature. There is a pernicious presumption that humans will always harm each other because it is human to destroy each other with no regard for the wellbeing of other humans. It allows for a circular reasoning that makes humanity synonymous with rampant destruction, rampant brutality, and rampant cruelty upon our own species and everything else in the world. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that uses sin as a justification for violence: when we justify bombing campaigns that slaughter foreign civilians, when we see people riot in our streets, and when we act out of anger upon others. These acts are justified by sinfulness from both observers and perpetrators through a rash generalization that all humans are capable of horrors because of innate human imperfection. Sinfulness is a self-fulfilling prophecy because it’s also a coping mechanism to understand violence: when we see news of sectarian wars in foreign countries, when we learn of cruel criminal behavior conducted upon children by pedophiles and rapists reported in the news, gang rapes in third world countries, beheadings, genocide, child slavery, and indoctrinated child soldiers. Sinfulness means it is all unalterable because that is the expected outcome of human nature. It is always the expected standard of human interaction within our own communities and outside of it to view wars, bombings, genocide, the torture of children, and less offensive wrongdoings to be common occurrences because of an innate faultiness in humanity. We just expect people to fail in keeping up with the tenants of their faith and the failure of keeping with the tenants is just a form of humility for our group and evil for the outside group. We give violence a total pass because horrific atrocities are an expected norm of sinfulness; violent events in the news serve as anecdotal “proof” of sinfulness.
These attitudes and expectations of sinfulness in humanity are dangerous. It creates apathy towards horrific atrocities, indifference towards our own country bombing civilians in a foreign country, and presumes evil intent from the victims before they have actually done anything against us. There is an insidious and disgusting implication that the innocent victims killed would kill us because it’s the due course of human nature so we need to harm them before they can hurt us – a pathological form of self-delusion and circular reasoning to justify mass murder. Consider this: if sinfulness is true, then humanity is simply expecting failures and catastrophes to be the norm throughout the world because of an unalterable and intrinsic defect within human nature. If all forms of good actions eventually lead to failure, then why should any wealthy person donate to charity? If they sincerely believe everything will eventually fall apart, then why bother doing anything to help other people? They would be predisposed to believe that their charity will fail, they would be inclined to believe that their own success would eventually turn to ruin, and that everything in life is just waiting to fall into ruination because of an intrinsic and unalterable aspect of their humanity. In terms of nation-states, we should just expect a nuclear catastrophe to occur and to wipe out the human race because sinfulness means that we’re predisposed to evil actions and that we will falter in keeping to the tenants of the faith because of our intrinsic defectiveness. For all the so-called goodness of the Abrahamic traditions, each of them believe that the world will end and that the world ending is the expected outcome of human actions; such a belief justifies nuclear catastrophe as the conclusion of our species. Islam and Christianity convert non-believers for the explicit purpose of awaiting the end of the world. Pointing the theological basis for conversion usually causes embarrassment, denial, and attempts to avert the inquiry but it remains the theological underpinnings of the Abrahamic traditions. They can be verified in the holy books and the reason it’s embarrassing to discuss in public is because of how untenable the belief is and how delusional people appear when voicing their beliefs.
Sin is Misanthropy
Sin is sanctified hatred for the human race. Two of western culture’s most noteworthy philosophers, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche, pointed out that if you believe there is an innate defectiveness with humanity that causes evil actions then you are more predisposed to committing evil actions because you may feel it is the unavoidable norm of your humanity. If evil is ingrained within you, if it is an unalterable part of human habit and you perceive your failures with humility, you might be justifying your wrongful acts by using sin as a coping mechanism instead of accepting responsibility. Moreover, you may emphasize events when people hurt your feelings or disappoint you because you expect negative actions to be a natural consequence of your daily interactions with other human beings. You may perceive your own love for your friends and family as a constant struggle because you have implicitly overemphasized the idea that evil actions are natural occurrences within humanity as a result of sinfulness. As such, you may have a biased focus on their negative actions and less focus on their positive qualities. Humans already have a negativity bias ingrained within our psychology to defend from life-threatening danger and the belief in sinfulness may increase the emphasis on negative events in our lives.
Is sinfulness healthy to believe in? Please consider the following: if you have a child, do you truly consider your own child to be born sinful? Do you truly believe that, in some deep level of our humanity, that your child will go murdering, raping, and torturing other people? Do you believe that, within you, there is a sinful part that will cause you to murder, rape, and torture your own family, friends, and strangers? As stated before, having thoughts of such actions doesn’t mean that you want to do them; thoughts just come and go in your mind and that is normal. It should be considered an utterly absurd belief about our loved ones but the ubiquitous concept of sinfulness in all forms of human interaction may cause such negative beliefs about our behavior and the behavior of our loved ones. As a result, you may be predisposed to despise or see evil in your own children’s actions when they act out and may find it easier to discipline them with force. You may see forgiveness and passiveness as a constant struggle while harboring the expectation that everyone else in the world and you yourself will always partake in evil actions during moments of weakness. This is a pernicious view of other human beings; sin has the constant expectation of disappointment, failure, and evil as the only truism of life itself. How can such a belief be either healthy or rational for your mental health?
Sinfulness, in combination with the binary ideology of good and evil, makes it easier to convince us to hate others. The belief that all humans are sinful would fundamentally promote the dehumanization, otherness, and disgust for people perceived as out-groups. When the news media gives you anecdotal examples of violence from the out-group, you’ll more likely to feel disgust, anger, and superiority toward the out-group because you would be inclined to believe that your society has proudly kept their sinful impulses in check compared to the out-group. The repeated exposure to negative events from the specific out-group would make people more inclined to judge the out-group more strictly and harshly than usual through pattern recognition and grouping people by race, religion, social class, or country as the same. From anecdotal events quickly mentioned in the news media, people’s minds would be framing a coherent and negative view of the out-group. This type of thinking is self-centered and delusional because it frames a binary worldview in which we compare doing our menial tasks everyday as a success and proof of our superiority over the perceived out-group. Sinfulness helps ignore the actual conditions that caused horrible events: famine, oppressive governments, mass poverty, certain first world countries selling weapons to governments that sell to terrorist groups (terrorist groups throughout Africa, the Middle East, and South America get weapons manufactured from Western countries), unsafe working conditions, and the political reality that first world countries need third world countries to stay in poverty to keep manufacturing cheap commodities. Crimes such as rape and murder are misconstrued to be the values that foreign cultures or that peoples perceived as out-groups somehow ubiquitously enjoy without thinking deeply about the other societies diverse peoples, crime-ridden areas, and other social conditions.
An example would be the rape crimes in the US. As shocking as it is to accept, Native American women living within reservations had no legal right to sue their rapists until 2012 thanks to federal laws that circumvented their rights and that the violence of rapes upon Native American women were so terrible and ubiquitous by US citizens that mothers had to teach their children what to expect when an American citizen raped them because they had no legal rights to send the child rapists to jail, it is untrue that these conditions are normal for the average US citizen. Although there are cases in poor counties of South Carolina in which the police don’t arrest men who beat and rape their wives, because of the counties strong Christian convictions that men are in charge of the household, and that very little legal action has been undertaken even in situations where men chased after and murdered their ex-spouses or ex-girlfriends; it is untrue that these situations are a reflection of US culture and US citizens. The same should be noted for rape crimes in India, despite being more common, the United Nations has found that in terms of per capita crime rates, the rape crimes in India are actually far lower than what would normally be expected for one of the largest population sizes in the world. Mass poverty, lack of adequate police protection (police exist only to protect the wealthy in India), lack of police training in forensics, communalism, lack of judicial institutions to handle legal proceedings, lack of education, discrimination against women, and extremely sluggish court system create conditions of enmity, despair, hatred, and violence. Wealthy and middle class Indians would probably perceive the violence as happening in poverty zones and would desire to keep such violence out of their communities. It is a widespread issue but it isn’t socially different from views of crime-ridden areas such as Camden, New Jersey in the United States or the apathy towards Native American rape victims in US courts. Awful people, opportunists, and deplorable social conditions create these situations and the mass protest movements that follow to create legal changes show that they are not tolerated in any culture or democratic nation-state. Yet, sinfulness and the availability heuristic give us an automatic and negative generalization of US culture and India’s culture without learning more deeply about each country’s social issues and the contexts in which these crimes occur.
The belief in sinfulness is intrinsically dangerous to us and others. If we accept that sinfulness is ubiquitous part of life, if we accept that we can pick and choose the teachings of the Abrahamic holy books, and that we should view our failure with humility because we’re only human; we create mental conditioning that allows us to kill others who are different from us. That may seem ridiculous, but the belief in sinfulness itself presupposes that we’re capable of murder, rape, and torture deep within ourselves. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that those three beliefs, combined and inculcated for warfare, could create social conditioning that sent people to kill others who are different from them. The belief that they’re more prone to acting evil, our suspicion toward their behavior, and patronizing superiority towards people deemed different from us makes it easier to dehumanize them. The dehumanization campaign of perceiving foreigners within the connotations of evildoers would make it easier for those with simplistic moral sensibilities to kill foreigners. The overlap of sinfulness and good versus evil makes violence easier to conduct for people who believe in these concepts. Sinfulness along with good and evil explicitly ignores and obfuscates attempts at understanding different people. Perhaps more dangerously, it explicitly obstructs us from viewing their opinions and lives as meaningful like we do for people within our in-group of friends, family, and community. Wars occur, not just because of racist and other types of discriminatory caricatures of opposing sides, but also because people ignore and demonize other people’s culture, lives, and human rights. We view their lives as less important than the emotional issues of ourselves and our in-group. Absolute good and absolute evil are concepts that would create a catalyst for egregious human rights crimes. For the foreigners, reciprocity and the desire for justice for the fallen victims soon create conditions of enmity and more warfare because people will seek justice for any civilians wrongfully killed through our bombings or war campaigns. Religious extremism and justice for innocent civilians killed blend together to create prolonged warfare against us because we don’t recognize their lives as meaningful or having equal value to our in-group. Religious extremism and sometimes increased terrorist activity occur as a consequence of war-torn people seeking meaning for the horrible deaths of their loved ones.
Yet, when we observe violence in their communities (usually because of increased religious extremism as a way to cope with the loss of their loved ones and the West’s attempts at creating violence between two groups to distract from the West’s own interests in taking natural resources as per the realist theory of international relations), it makes it easier to have patronizing attitudes in support of our own society under the veneer of humility. We celebrate ourselves as having calmed our sinfulness and view outsiders as being ignorant, crazed, or believe in a radical version of a false faith. We ignore the fact that Western governments sell weapons to many of the terrorist groups including African war lords, al Qaeda, and ISIS. We ignore the fact Western governments place extreme political leaders in power who close off hospitals, schools, political participation, and jobs from a specific subset of their own community in their countries; political realities that the Western nation-states believes to be for their own self-interest only to deal with worsening problems in the future that jeopardize the safety of Western civilians and national interests.
Sin and the World
The belief in sin seems to be the true cause for economic destruction, political folly, and human genocide. It overlays every human act with the idea that we inevitably have an impulse to do evil upon others. Expunging the belief in sin and the theories of political realism in international relations would mean less human violence, a less dangerous world, and less mental self-torture for humanity. Sin can overlap with fatalism, jingoism, racism, xenophobia, Otherness, and any other form of human belief and human interaction. It’s probably why rationality is predicated upon the concept of doing evil upon others because that is what original sin makes people believe about themselves, about other human beings, and about morality itself. Sin preaches physical and mental fatigue against our own humanity as a form of eternal goodness, teaches that every great human creation is utterly meaningless, and that the most important part of life is awaiting the coming of a Messiah, or the coming of Jesus, or the coming of Jesus and Mohammed together to bring about mass world genocide and global annihilation so the true believers move on to the perfect world. Sin has had an enormous impact and history upon politics, philosophy, psychology, human biology, and people’s conceptions of human interaction. It has utterly poisoned and caused misapplications on all of these subject matters such as the denunciation of sex taught throughout the world by Christian missionaries. When combined with different forms of in-group/out-group dynamics, sin promotes the worst human atrocities. Sin is an extremist concept because it makes people believe that they’re only capable of abject evil from their own human desires. Thus, sin is the most egregious form of mental self-torture.
The arguments about how freedom from the idea of sin will only lead to massive violence, mass rapes, and death seems to be a form of self-delusion. The veneration of sin is often patronizing because Abrahamic believers truly think that some sacred warning from God would be destroyed and that acts of savagery would happen without them. An important issue to highlight: it was the belief in original sin itself that taught them to believe that humans are rampantly destructive; historically, the other parts of the world were peaceful under Buddha, Mahavira, Confucius, Lao Tzu, and these teachings didn’t require the stubborn notion that God needed to ordain them. Were there problems within the ancient East? Of course, but such acts weren’t full of savagery, mass death, and tribal wars that the West was thoroughly engaged with itself for a large part of its ancient history and particularly during the Crusades. Original sin teaches deep cynicism towards human desires and that maintaining such resentment, cynicism, and suspicion is morally good. It’s a mischaracterization to state the West became more peaceful during the 1800s to 1900s, because they brought brutal acts of colonial oppression upon the rest of the world and then subjected themselves to World War twice after that. Would all of that have occurred without the deep theological belief in original sin being the driving force of mass conversions and human actions? Would radical Islam be able to justify violence against the West today without the belief in the sinfulness of non-Muslims who aren’t seen as pure specifically due to being non-Muslim?
Sin, Psychology, and International Relations
The belief in sinfulness creates a destructive system of reciprocity that is justified as rational and intelligent in politics. In Political Science, the Realist Theory of International Relations, the prevailing theory of Western politics since ancient Greece, operates under the assumption that strong nation-states must weaken other nation-states for its own self-interest. It assumes self-interest to mean harming other nation-states with the underlying assumption that harming other human civilizations is rational. Bombing campaigns, counterfeit money operations, embargos, sanctions, and human genocide are presumed to be rational and the Realist theory is the only international relations theory that is “neutral” to events such as the Holocaust. This assumption that harming others is rational is unfounded and discredited in modern psychology through the reciprocity principle. The Realist theory of international relations conceptualization that harming other civilizations and human genocide were rational actions came from the Melian dialogue of Thucydides in which he argued the genocide of Melos by Athens was due to human nature. Political scientists and philosophers since then have only expounded upon the Realist theory of international relations because of the belief in original sin and the belief that rational actions are synonymous with evil. Strong nation-states usually harm other nation-states, national leaders lie to their public about the supposedly humane actions – especially in foreign wars – for the sake of keeping a positive image of their country so that the citizens serve as apologists by ignoring the atrocities, and the citizens only care to celebrate the positives of their country. Many citizens choose to ignore the negative actions conducted upon foreigners in another country who have been dehumanized by their news media. This creates circular reasoning that international events will always lead to tragedy and it is all uncontrollable when in truth, it is because politicians genuinely believe that harming foreign nation-states is an intelligent course of action for maximizing their nation’s power.
The reciprocity principle has shown that individuals and groups will react positively to positive actions and negatively towards negative actions; this is because of the belief in equality. We want to repay kind actions for people who do nice things for us, out of our desire for equality. We feel it’s fair to do destructive actions upon people who commit a crime or harm us because of our desire for equality. As a result, the psychological and scientifically verified belief in reciprocity creates a state of perpetual warfare in which entire countries who believe in sinfulness go into endless warfare by minimizing the violent atrocities conducted upon the out-group in our press and venerating the goodness of the in-group to fight the generalized cartoon caricature of evil depicted as the out-group. By ignoring the atrocities that we commit, they ignore the atrocities that they commit upon us, and each group feels that it is justified in creating future harm. Worse than that, prolonged violence makes people and entire countries more extreme, thus sinfulness is used to justify our violence upon others by generalizing the entire out-group as the same instead of understanding different political groups, their racial diversity, socioeconomic differences, and the general plurality of their civilization. War itself creates psychological issues that result in heavy stress, a plethora of mental trauma, and outbursts of violence related to trauma for soldiers and civilians. It is a perpetual state of negative reciprocity and it is morally reprehensible when we’re told that committing to wars that have massive bombing campaigns is somehow “humanitarian” intervention. Wars of humanitarian intervention are very few and often cause deaths of civilians regardless of good intentions.
When the United States was hit by the attacks on the twin towers on September 11th, 2001, one of the most critical arguments was that there was something deeply nefarious about Muslim people and Islamic culture to conduct such violence. Suspicion and psychological pattern recognition between Muslim extremists and Muslim Americans began to be seen by a significant portion of the US public. The paranoia that Muslim Americans were prone to harming US society or potentially hiding terrorists became a popular fear for the US public. The US government never issued the real reasons why terrorism happens and stoked the paranoia by insisting that terrorists hated US freedoms. Various States of the US began to impose anti-Sharia laws under the mistaken belief that Islam was trying to force Westerners into conversion through violence. Violence upon Muslims, Sikhs, and other minorities increased and were ignored by the US media. Incidentally, the US drone strikes upon seven Middle Eastern countries that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths created a surge of Islamic extremism, an increase in terrorist recruitment against the US, and the persecution and mass killings of Christians within their countries under the critical belief that Christians had some deeply nefarious aspect of their culture because the supposed greatest Christian country in the world was relentlessly bombing them and were utterly indifferent to civilian deaths – including children. Bomb droppings upon homes, hospitals, schools, and other areas are even more difficult to discern for uneducated people in third world countries and thus pattern recognition of a Christian nation and the Christian peoples within their own communities occurred. The fanciful ideas that removing the externalized “evil” people will somehow remove the foreign bombing campaigns are simply more violent methods than the West’s laws imposed upon minority groups. It’s just as important to understand that the West conducted the same type of violence within its history upon Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, and racial minorities (such as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and the Irish) under the belief that they were somehow evil and that the good people needed to defend their culture from an evil incursion. The difference in responses seems to be based upon the difference in education level; college education generally helps people understand that there is more so-called “out-groups” than generalizing them through rash codifications but violence against minorities always happen to “cleanse” the in-group community of “evil” from the out-group.
The persecution is an inevitable part of perceiving our in-group in danger of annihilation, seeing every member of a perceived out-group as suspicious and potential perpetrators, and championing the innate goodness to do away with the corrupting evil influence can lead to draconian laws; the belief in sin is used as a coping mechanism whenever draconian laws lead to the deaths of innocents. During wars, when civic institutions functioning as social support mechanisms deteriorate then religious extremism becomes rampant, people begin to have rash judgments, and form scapegoats for why horrible events are happening. Persecutions inevitably follow because of the belief in good and evil in conjunction with sinfulness. A desire for self-preservation of the in-group supersedes rational discourse because the threat seems so imposing and there is no explanation for why it is happening so they find fanciful causes during times of desperation.
In regards to violence in third world countries that the wealthier nations see on the news: it is easy to believe an entire country is responsible for mass violence and gang rapes while more difficult to believe the credible facts of the lack of police power, lack of hospitals, lack of jobs, and overall mass poverty leading people to desperation and extremism as being the true cause. Another deeply important, but ignored, facet is that the majority of jobs in third world countries have no safety regulations such as in first world countries. People of the third world can die of poisoning from inhaling noxious gases, be forced to work well over twelve hours a day for something as miniscule as twenty cents an hour, and can be in danger of factory explosions that kill thousands of workers whenever they occur; such fear and paranoia would obviously frighten people about working and cause chronic stress when on the job. It isn’t simply a matter of laziness and being unwilling to modernize when there are honest questions people in third world countries have to ask themselves about their own welfare before taking a job. Safety at a job is a privilege that first world countries take for granted. Sadly, even if reform is made, corporations just shut down plants to move to other third world countries to rinse and repeat this process; thus mass poverty increases when trying to institute honest reforms and another third world country is savagely abused through corporate indifference for their wellbeing for the sake of keeping product prices low. Religious extremism always follows as a crutch when institutions fail people because religion becomes all that people in poverty can rely upon. Yet, the belief in sinfulness and oversimplified understandings of entire countries make people believe that everyone in the world will always have “evil” because everyone is inherently sinful. It disconnects the real issues with pernicious perceptions that all people in other countries are more evil because they lack a specific religious faith and then we first-world denizens content ourselves with the belief that sinfulness will happen regardless of our help; to ignore the billions who suffer under extreme poverty, who are scorned for being uneducated, and who never had a choice in the matter because they had no social support mechanism like the first world countries. Yet, we always want cheap products and ignore all of the factory explosions in third world countries which occur as a consequence of low product prices. If that statement has struck a negative chord, it shouldn’t. Perhaps it is past the time that we concern ourselves with hurt feelings when our purchasing power determines the lives of human beings who were born less fortunate than us.
Original Sin and the History of Human Nature
Biblical history is filled with accounts of the Abrahamic God ordering people to rape and murder with obedience to him as the sole justification. The belief in the Biblical accounts of history as the sole authority of how all human life was in the past gives a bleak view of human affairs. However, when comparing the history of the Middle East to the histories of the contemporary civilizations of India and China at the time, the picture looks far less bleak. While what we’d consider today to be sexism and human rights violations surely happened, that was not all there was. In India, the development of several schools of thought arguing from inference and testimony would debate each other over matters such as spiritual growth, non-violence, war philosophies, and the relevance of a nation-state. They had codified laws on the duties of citizens and gender disparities, makeshift healthcare facilities, Gurus who took apprentices to teach subjects about deities and spiritual matters, and an array of philosophical debates which included atheism and culture movements like the Bhakti movement. India and China had the very best of medicine and surgical procedures during their golden eras of civilization back when the Middle East was a hovel of war, genocide, torture, and organized rape. Essentially, the third world that our current times sees Asia and other countries to be, was precisely how China, India, and possibly many other countries saw the Middle East during the supposed Old Testament times. Obviously, this sounds ridiculous to you, because of this presumption that everywhere else in the world was exactly like the Middle East of the supposed Biblical time period. Unfortunately, if that were so, then neither the teachings of the Buddha, the non-violent principles that make-up the core of the theology of Jainism, the teachings of the Tao Tie Ching of China which focused on efficacy, or the precepts of Orthodox Hinduism’s basis of inference and knowledge would have ever formed. Teachings of non-violence and positive actions abounded in both India and China, which were the two best countries of culture, resources, and philosophies comparable to the Ancient Greeks.
Unfortunately, Islam saw to the cultural genocide of much of this history with an emphasis on erasure if it was not Islamic. When Europe finally developed after the Middle Ages, and began its conquest of the world . . . much was further destroyed through mass murder, organized rapes via forced marriages, plundering, and forced conversions in the name of Christianity; proving no different in ethics from the Islam that preceded it in violence. Christianity and Islam both had worldwide slave trades, discriminated against Jews, and preached the civilians they conquered that they needed to accept the Abrahamic God or be made a slave or even killed. Cultural erasure and violence was justified by making technology that the indigenous populations were hardly ever allowed to use. The justification of which could justify any level of barbarity and violence. To say violence can be justified because of modernity is to have no real moral beliefs at all. As a hypothetical example to understand the core of what I mean, any Islamic conquest in which young girls were raped and male children were beheaded could then be justified by building a large bridge. There’s no moral difference between that and how Christian Europe justifies genocide, torture, gang rapes, and plunder. It’s how the British justified their four genocides in India; just replace the words “large bridge” with the words “train track” as the only difference. Justifications about benefitting the Dalits of India are empty of meaning and any factual basis in history when both Christian and Muslim conquerors practiced both labor slavery of men and the sexual slavery of women throughout their conquest of India. Moreover, the starvation and disease that ran rampant under European conquests and subsequent British rule effected the lower castes of India the most brutally. In China, there was not only widespread starvation and disease, but the gang rapes of adult women and small female children by every stripe of European Christian and US Christian soldier after the Boxer Rebellion was physically suppressed.
However, all of that being said, there is little evidence to suggest that human barbarism is innate and unchangeable when looking at the full scope of human history. Many laypeople may have the wrongful impression that civilization has contributed to making us less barbaric and that our ancient past was far more violent than the near-past of hundreds of years ago during Europe’s colonization of the world. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
Erich Fromm, a reputed psychoanalyst and sociologist, delved deeply into researching the origins of human violence through archaeological and anthropological studies of the ancient Middle East, ancient America, ancient civilizations in certain island colonies, and ancient Europe from his contemporary colleagues in those fields of study and his own personal study into the human psyche to conclude that ancient humans were actually peaceful. He found that the formation of primitive nation-states, which slowly grew to be more powerful and thus the self-domestication of humans more thorough, is what led to the violence we see in civilized humanity.
In chapter 8 of his seminal work, TheAnatomy of Human Destructiveness, Erich Fromm provides the details of this extensive research and what the overarching evidence shows:
Primitive Warfare
Although defensive aggression, destructiveness, and cruelty are not ordinarily the cause of war, these impulses manifest themselves in warfare. Hence some data on primitive warfare will help to complete the picture of primitive aggression.
Meggitt gives a summation of the nature of warfare among the Walbiri of Australia, which Service states may be accepted as an apt characterization of warfare in hunting-gathering societies generally:
‘Walbiri society did not emphasize militarism—there was no class of permanent or professional warriors; there was no hierarchy of military command; and groups rarely engaged in wars of conquest. Every man was (and is still) a potential warrior, always armed and ready to defend his rights: but he was also an individualist, who preferred to fight independently. In some disputes kinship ties aligned men into opposed camps, and such a group may occasionally have comprised all the men of a community. But there were no military leaders, elected or hereditary, to plan tactics and ensure that others adopted the plans. Although some men were respected as capable and courageous fighters and their advice was valued, other men did not necessarily follow them. Moreover, the range of circumstances in which fights occurred was in effect so limited that men knew and could employ the most effective techniques without hesitation. This is still true today even of young bachelors. There was in any case little reason for all-out warfare between communities. Slavery was unknown: portable goods were few; and the territory seized in a battle was virtually an embarrassment to the victors, whose spiritual ties were with other localities. Small-scale wars of conquest against other tribes occurred occasionally, but I am sure that they differed only in degree from intra-tribal and even intra-community fights. Thus the attack on the Waringari that led to the occupation of the water holes in the Tanami area involved only Waneiga men—a few score at most: and I have no evidence that communities ever entered into a military alliances, either to oppose other Walbiri communities or other tribes.’ (M. J. Meggitt, 1960.)
Technically speaking, this kind of conflict among primitive hunters can be described as war; in this sense one may conclude that “war” has always existed within the human species, and hence, that it is the manifestation of an innate drive to kill. This reasoning, however, ignores the profound differences in the warfare of lower and of higher primitive cultures15 as well as the warfare of civilized cultures. Primitive warfare, particularly that of the lower primitives, was neither centrally organized nor led by permanent chieftains; it was relatively infrequent; it was not war of conquest nor was it bloody war aimed at killing as many of the enemy as possible. Most civilized war, in contrast, is institutionalized, organized by permanent chieftains, and aims at conquest of territory and/or acquisition of slaves and/or booty.
In addition, and perhaps most important of all, is the frequently overlooked fact that there is no important economic stimulus among primitive hunter-gatherers to full-scale war.
‘The birth-death ratio in hunting-gathering societies is such that it would be rare for population pressure to cause some part of the population to fight others for territorial acquisition. Even if such a circumstance occurred it would not lead to much of a battle. The stronger, more numerous, group would simply prevail, probably even without a battle, if hunting rights or rights to some gathering spot were demanded. In the second place there is not much to gain by plunder in hunting-gathering society. All bands are poor in material goods and there are no standard items of exchange that serve as capital or as valuables. Finally, at the hunting-gathering level the acquisition of captives to serve as slaves for economic exploitation—a common cause of warfare in more modern times—would be useless, given the low productivity of the economy. Captives and slaves would have a difficult time producing more than enough food to sustain themselves.’ (E. R. Service, 1966.)
The overall picture of warfare among primitive hunter-gatherers given by Service is supported and supplemented by a number of other investigators, some of whom are quoted in the following paragraphs.16 D. Pilbeam stresses the absence of war, in contrast to occasional feuds, together with the role of example rather than power among the leaders in a hunting society, and the principle of reciprocity and generosity, and the central role of cooperation. (D. Pilbeam, 1970.)
H. Stewart comes to the following conclusion concerning territoriality and warfare:
‘There have been many contentions that primitive bands own territories or resources and fight to protect them. Although I cannot assert that this is never the case, it is probably very uncommon. First, the primary groups that comprise the larger maximum bands intermarry, amalgamate if they are too small or split off if too large. Second, in the cases reported here, there is no more than a tendency for primary groups to utilize special areas. Third, most so-called “warfare” among such societies is no more than revenge for alleged witchcraft or continued interfamily feuds. Fourth, collecting is the main resource in most areas, but I know of no reported defense of seed areas. Primary bands did not fight one another, and it is difficult to see how a maximum band could assemble its manpower to defend its territory against another band or why it should do so. It is true that durian trees, eagle nests, and a few other specific resources were sometimes individually claimed, but how they were defended by a person miles away has not been made clear.’ (U. H. Stewart, 1968.)
H. Turney-High (1971) comes to similar conclusions. He stressed that while the experiences of fear, rage, and frustration are universal, the art of war develops only late in human evolution. Most primitive societies were not capable of war because war requires a sophisticated level of conceptualization. Most primitive societies could not imagine an organization necessary to conquer or defeat a neighbor. Most primitive wars are nothing but armed melees, not wars at all. According to Rapaport, Turney-High’s work did not find a very friendly reception among anthropologists because he stressed that secondary accounts of battles written by professional anthropologists were hopelessly inadequate and sometimes downright misleading; he believed that primary sources were more reliable, even when they were by amateur ethnologists generations ago.17
Quincy Wright’s monumental work (1,637 pages including an extensive Bibliography) presents a thorough analysis of warfare among primitive people based on the statistical comparison of the main data to be found among six hundred and fifty-three primitive peoples. The shortcoming of his analysis lies in the fact that he is more descriptive than analytical in the classification of primitive societies as well as of different kinds of warfare. Nevertheless, his conclusions are of considerable interest because they show a statistical trend that corresponds to the results of many other authors: “The collectors, lower hunters and lower agriculturalists are the least warlike. The higher hunters and higher agriculturalists are more warlike, while the highest agriculturalists and the pastors are the most warlike of all.” (Q. Wright, 1965.) This statement confirms the idea that war-likeness is not a function of man’s natural drives that manifest themselves in the most primitive form of society, but of his development in civilization. Wright’s data show that the more division of labor there is in a society, the more warlike it is, and that societies with class-systems are the most warlike of all peoples. Eventually his data show that the greater the equilibrium among groups and between the group and its physical environment, the less war-likeness one finds, while frequent disturbances of the equilibrium result in an increase in warlikeness.
Wright differentiates among four kinds of war—defensive, social, economic, and political. By defensive war, he refers to the practice of people who have no war in their mores and who fight only if actually attacked, “in which case they make spontaneous use of available tools and hunting weapons to defend themselves, but regard this necessity as a misfortune.” By social war he refers to people with whom war “is usually not very destructive of life.” (This warfare corresponds to Service’s description of war among hunters.) Economic and political wars refer to people who make war in order to acquire women, slaves, raw materials, and land and/or, in addition, for the maintenance of a ruling dynasty or class.
Almost everybody reasons: if civilized man is so warlike, how much more warlike must primitive man have been!18 But Wright’s results confirm the thesis that the most primitive men are the least warlike and that war-likeness grows in proportion to civilization. If destructiveness were innate in man, the trend would have to be the opposite.
A view similar to Wright’s has also been expressed by M. Ginsberg, who writes:
‘It would seem that war in this sense grows with the consolidation of groups and economic development. Among the simplest peoples we ought to speak rather of feuds, and these unquestionably occur on grounds of abduction of women, or resentments of trespass or personal injury. It must be conceded that these societies are peaceful by comparison with the more advanced of the primitive peoples. But violence and fear of violence are there and fighting occurs, though that is obviously and necessarily on a small scale. The facts are not adequately known, and if they do not support the view of a primitive idyllic peace, they are perhaps compatible with the view of those who think that primary or unprovoked aggressiveness is not an inherent element of human nature. (E. Glover and M. Ginsberg,’ 1934.)
Ruth Benedict (1959) makes the distinction between “socially lethal” and “non-lethal” wars. In the latter, the aim is not that of subjugating other tribes to the victor as masters and profiteers; although there was much warfare among North American Indians,
‘The idea of conquest never arose in aboriginal North America, and this made it possible for almost all these Indian tribes to do a very extreme thing: to separate war from the state. The state was personified in the Peace Chief, who was a leader of public opinion in all that concerned the in-group and in his council. The Peace Chief was permanent, and though no autocratic ruler he was often a very important personage. But he had nothing to do with war. He did not even appoint the war chiefs or concern himself with the conduct of war parties. Any man who could attract a following led a war party when and where he would, and in some tribes he was in complete control for the duration of the expedition. But this lasted only till the return of the war party. The state, according to this interpretation of war, had no conceivable interest in these ventures, which were only highly desirable demonstrations of rugged individualism turned against an out-group where such demonstrations did not harm the body politic.’ (R. Benedict, 1959.)
Benedict’s point is important because it touches upon the connection of war, state, and private property. Socially non-lethal war is to a large extent an expression of adventurousness and the wish to have trophies and be admired, but it was not invoked by the impulse to conquer people or territory, to subjugate human beings, or to destroy the basis for their livelihood. Benedict comes to the conclusion that “elimination of war is not so uncommon as one would think from the writings of political theorists of the prehistory of war… It is a complete misunderstanding to lay this havoc [war] to any biological need of man to go to war. The havoc is manmade.” (R. Benedict, 1959.) Another outstanding anthropologist, E. A. Hoebel (1958) characterizes warfare among early North American Indians in these terms: “They come closer to William James’s Moral Equivalents of War. They release aggressions harmlessly: they provide exercise, sport and amusement without destruction; and only mildly is there any imposition of desires by one party on the other.” (E. A. Hoebel, 1958.) He comes to the general conclusion that man’s propensity to war is obviously not an instinct, because it is an elaborate cultural complex. He gives as an interesting example the pacifistic Shoshones and the violent Comanches who in 1600 were still culturally and racially one.
The Neolithic Revolution19
The detailed description of the life of primitive hunters and food gatherers has shown that man—at least since he fully emerged fifty thousand years ago—was most likely not the brutal, destructive, cruel being and hence not the prototype of “man the killer” that we find in more-developed stages of his evolution. However, we cannot stop there. In order to understand the gradual development of man the exploiter and the destroyer, it is necessary to deal with the development of man during the period of early agriculture and, eventually, with his transformation into a builder of cities, a warrior, and a trader.
From the emergence of man, approximately half a million years ago to about 9000 B.C., man did not change in one respect: he lived from what he gathered or hunted, but did not produce anything new. He was completely dependent on nature and did not himself influence or transform it. This relationship to nature changed radically with the invention of agriculture (and animal husbandry) which occurred roughly with the beginning of the Neolithic period, more precisely, the “Protoneolithic” period as archeologists call it today—from 9000 to 7000 B.C.—in an area stretching over one thousand miles from western Iran to Greece, including parts of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Anatolian Plateau in Turkey. (It started later in Central and Northern Europe.) For the first time man made himself, within certain limits, independent of nature by using his inventiveness and skill to produce something beyond that which nature had thus far yielded to him. It was now possible to plant more seed, to till more land, and to breed more animals, as the population increased. Surplus food could be slowly accumulated to support craftsmen who devoted most of their time to the manufacture of tools, pottery, and clothing.
The first great discovery made in this period was the cultivation of wheat and barley, which had been growing wild in this area. It was discovered that by putting seed of these grasses into the earth, new plants would grow; that one could select the best seed for sowing, and eventually the accidental crossing of varieties was observed, which produced grains very much larger than the seeds of the wild grasses. The process of development from wild grasses to high-yielding modern wheat is not yet fully known. It involved gene mutations, hybridization, and chromosome doubling, and it has taken thousands of years to achieve the artificial selection by man on the level of present-day agriculture. For man in the industrial age, accustomed to looking down on non-industrialized agriculture as a primitive and rather obvious form of production, the Neolithic discoveries may not seem comparable to the great technical discoveries of our day, of which he is so proud. Yet the fact that the expectation that seed would grow was proved correct by results gave rise to an entirely new concept: man recognized that he could use his will and intention to make this happen, instead of things just “happening.” It would not be exaggerated to say that the discovery of agriculture was the foundation for all scientific thinking and later technological development.
The second discovery was that of animal breeding which was made in the same period. Sheep were already domesticated in the ninth millennium in northern Iraq, and cattle and pigs around 6000 B.C. Sheep and cattle-raising resulted in additional food supply: milk and a greater abundance of meat. The increased and more stable food supply permitted a sedentary, instead of a nomadic form of life, and led to the construction of permanent villages and towns.20
In the Protoneolithic period tribes of hunters invented and developed a new settled economy based on the domestication of plants and animals. Although the earliest remains of domesticated plants do not yet much antedate 7000 B.C., “the standard of domestication reached and the variety of crops grown presupposes a long prehistory of earlier agriculture which may well go back to the beginning of the Protoneolithic, about 9000 B.C.” (J. Mellaart, 1967.)21
It took about 2000 to 3000 years before a new discovery was made, necessitated by the need to store foodstuff: the art of pottery (baskets were made earlier). With the invention of pottery, the first technical invention had been made, which led to the insight into chemical processes. Indeed, “building a pot was a supreme instance of creation by man.” (V. G. Childe, 1936.)22 Thus one can distinguish within the Neolithic period itself one “aceramic” stage, i.e., a period in which pottery had not been invented, and the ceramic stage. Some older villages in Anatolia, such as the older levels of Hacilar, were aceramic while Çatal Hüyük was a town that had rich pottery.
Çatal Hüyük was one of the most highly developed Neolithic towns in Anatolia. Although only a relatively small part has been excavated since 1961, it has already yielded the most important data for the understanding of Neolithic society in its economic, social, and religious aspects.23
Since the beginning of the excavations, ten levels have been dug out, the oldest dated c. 6500 B.C.
‘After 5600 B.C. the old mound of Çatal Hüyük was abandoned, for what reasons is not known, and a new site was founded across the river, Çatal Hüyük West. This appears to have been occupied for at least another 700 years until it also was deserted, without, however, any obvious signs of violence or deliberate destruction.’ (J. Mellaart, 1967.)
One of the most surprising features of Çatal Hüyük is the degree of its civilization:
‘Çatal Hüyük could afford luxuries such as obsidian mirrors, ceremonial daggers, and trinkets of metal beyond the reach of most of its known contemporaries. Copper and lead were smelted and worked into beads, tubes and possibly small tools, thus taking the beginnings of metallurgy back into the seventh millennium. Its stone industry in local obsidian and imported flint is the most elegant of the period; its wooden vessels are varied and sophisticated, its woolen textile industry fully developed.’ (J. Mellaart, 1967.)
Make-up sets for women and very attractive bracelets for men and women were found in the burial sites. They knew the art of smelting copper and lead. The use of a great variety of rocks and minerals shows, according to Mellaart, that prospecting and trade formed a most important item of the city’s economy.
In spite of this developed civilization, the social structure seems to have lacked certain elements characteristic of much later stages of evolution. Apparently there was little class distinction between rich and poor. While, according to Mellaart, social inequality is suggested by the sizes of buildings, equipment, and burial gifts, “this is never a glaring one.” Indeed, looking at the plans of the excavated section of the city one finds that the difference in size of the buildings is very small, and negligible when compared with the difference in later urban societies. Childe notes that there is no definitive evidence of chieftainship in early Neolithic villages, and Mellaart does not mention any evidence of it from Çatal Hüyük. There were apparently many priestesses (perhaps also priests), but there is no evidence of a hierarchical organization. While in Çatal Hüyük the surplus produced by new methods of agriculture must have been large enough to support the manufacture of luxuries and trade, the earlier and less-developed of the Neolithic villages produced, according to Childe, only a small surplus and hence had an even greater degree of economic equality than that of Çatal Hüyük. He points out that the Neolithic crafts must have been household industries and that craft traditions are not individual but collective. The experience and wisdom of all the community’s members are constantly being pooled; the occupation is public, its rules are the result of communal experience. The pots from a given Neolithic village bear the stamp of a strong collective tradition, rather than of individuality. Besides there was as yet no shortage of land; when the population grew, young men could go off and start a village of their own. Under these economic circumstances the conditions were not given for the differentiation of society into different classes, or for the formation of a permanent leadership whose function it would be to organize the whole economy and who would exact their price for this skill. This could happen only later when many more discoveries and inventions had been made, when the surplus was much greater and could be transformed into “capital” and those owning it could make profits by making others work for them.
Two observations are of special importance from the point of view of aggression: there is no evidence of any sack or massacre during the eight hundred years of the existence of Çatal Hüyük so far explored in the excavations. Furthermore, and even more impressive evidence for the absence of violence, among the many hundreds of skeletons unearthed, not a single one has been found that showed signs of violent death. (J. Mellaart, 1967.)
One of the most characteristic features of Neolithic villages, including Çatal Hüyük, is the central role of the mother in their social structure and their religion.
Following the older division of labor, where men hunted and women gathered roots and fruits, agriculture was most likely the discovery of women, while animal husbandry was that of men. (Considering the fundamental role of agriculture in the development of civilization, it is perhaps no exaggeration to state that modern civilization was founded by women.) The earth’s and woman’s capacity to give birth—a capacity that men lack—quite naturally gave the mother a supreme place in the world of the early agriculturalists. (Only when men could create material things by intellect, i.e., magically and technically—could they claim superiority.) The mother, as Goddess (often identified with mother earth), became the supreme goddess of the religious world, while the earthly mother became the center of family and social life.
The most impressive direct evidence for the central role of mothers in Çatal Hüyük lies in the fact that children were always buried with their mother, and never with their father. The skeletons were buried underneath the mother’s divan (a kind of platform in the main room), which was larger than that of the father and always had the same location in the house. The burial of children exclusively with their mother is a characteristically matriarchal trait: the children’s essential relationship is considered to be to the mother and not to the father, as in the case in patriarchal societies.
Although this burial system is an impressive datum in favor of the assumption of the matriarchal structure of Neolithic society, this thesis finds its full confirmation with the data we have on the religion of Çatal Hüyük and other excavated Neolithic villages in Anatolia.24
These excavations have revolutionized our concepts of early religious development. The most outstanding feature is the fact that this religion was centered around the figure of the mother-goddess. Mellaart concludes: “Çatal Hüyük and Hacilar have established a link … [whereby] a continuity in religion can be demonstrated from Çatal Hüyük to Hacilar and so on till the great ‘Mother-Goddesses’ of archaic and classical times, the shadowy figures known as Cybele, Artemis and Aphrodite.” (J. Mellaart, 1967.)
The central role of mother-goddess can be clearly seen in the figures, wall paintings, and reliefs in the numerous shrines that have been excavated. In contrast to findings in other Neolithic sites, those of Çatal Hüyük do not entirely consist of mother-goddesses, but also show a male deity symbolized by a bull or, more frequently, by a bull’s head or horns. But this fact does not substantially alter the predominance of the “great mother” as the central deity. Among forty-one sculptures excavated, thirty-three were exclusively of goddesses. The eight sculptures in which a male god is symbolized are virtually all to be understood in reference to the goddess, partly as her sons and partly as her consorts. (On one of the older levels figurines of the goddess were found exclusively.) The central role of the mother-goddess is further demonstrated by the fact that she is shown alone, together with a male, pregnant, giving birth, but never subordinate to a male. There are some shrines in which the goddess is giving birth to a bull’s or a ram’s head. (Compare this with the typically patriarchal story of the female being given birth by the male: Eve and Athene.)
The mother-goddess is often found accompanied by a leopard, clothed with a leopard skin, or symbolically represented by leopards, at the time the most ferocious and deadly animal of that region. This would make her the mistress of wild animals, and it also indicates her double role as the goddess of life and of death, like so many other goddesses. “Mother earth,” who gives birth to her many and receives them again after their individual life cycle has ended is not necessarily a destroying mother. Yet she sometimes is (like the Hindu goddess Kali); to find the reasons why this development should have taken place requires a lengthy speculation which I must forgo.
The mother-goddess of the Neolithic religion is not only the mistress of wild animals. She is also the patroness of the hunt, the patroness of agriculture, and the mistress of plant life.
Mellaart makes these summarizing remarks on the role of women in the Neolithic society, including Çatal Hüyük:
‘What is particularly noteworthy in the Neolithic religion of Anatolia, and this applies to Çatal Hüyük as much as to Hacilar, is the complete absence of sex in any of the figurines, statuettes, plastic reliefs or wall-paintings. The reproductive organs are never shown, representations of phallus and vulva are unknown, and this is the more remarkable as they were frequently portrayed both in the Upper Palaeolithic and in the Neolithic and Post-neolithic cultures outside Anatolia.25 It seems that there is a very simple answer to this seemingly puzzling question, for emphasis on sex in art is invariably connected with male impulse and desire. If Neolithic woman was the creator of Neolithic religion, its absence is easily explained and a different symbolism was created in which breast, navel and pregnancy stand for the female principle, horns and horned animal heads for the male. In an early Neolithic society like that the Çatal Hüyük one might biologically expect a greater proportion of women than men and this is indeed reflected in the burials. Moreover, in the new economy a great number of tasks were undertaken by the women, a pattern that has not changed in Anatolian villages to this day, and this probably accounts for her social pre-eminence. As the only source of life she became associated with the processes of agriculture, with the taming and nourishing of domesticated animals, with the ideas of increase, abundance and fertility. Hence a religion which aimed at exactly the same conservation of life in all its forms, its propagation and the mysteries of its rites connected with life and death, birth and resurrection, were evidently part of her sphere rather than that of man. It seems extremely likely that the cult of the goddess was administered mainly by women, even if the presence of male priests is by no means excluded…’ (J. Mellaart, 1967.)26
The data that speak in favor of the view that Neolithic society was relatively egalitarian, without hierarchy, exploitation, or marked aggression, are suggestive. In fact, however, that these Neolithic villages in Anatolia had a matriarchal (matricentric) structure, adds a great deal more evidence to the hypothesis that Neolithic society, at least in Anatolia, was an essentially unaggressive and peaceful society. The reason for this lies in the spirit of affirmation of life and lack of destructiveness which J. J. Bachofen believed was an essential trait of all matriarchal societies.
Indeed, the findings brought to light by the excavation of Neolithic villages in Anatolia offer the most complete material evidence for the existence of matriarchal cultures and religions postulated by J. J. Bachofen in his work Das Mutterrecht, first published in 1861. By the analysis of Greek and Roman myths, rituals, symbols, and dreams he had achieved something that only a genius could do: with his penetrating analytic power he reconstructed a phase of social organization and religion for which hardly any material evidence was available to him. (An American ethnologist, L. H. Morgan, [1870, 1877] arrived independently at very similar conclusions on the basis of his study of North American Indians.) Almost all anthropologists—with a few notable exceptions—declared Bachofen’s findings to be without any scientific merit; in fact, it was not until 1967 that an English translation of a selection of Bachofen’s writings was published. (J. J. Bachofen, 1967.)
There were probably two reasons for the rejection of Bachofen’s theory: first, that it was almost impossible for anthropologists living in a patriarchal society to transcend their social and mental frames of reference and to imagine that male rule was not “natural.” (Freud, for the same reason, arrived at his view of women as castrated men.) Second, the anthropologists were so accustomed to believing only in material evidence like skeletons, tools, weapons, etc., that they found it difficult to believe that myths or drama are not less real than artifacts; this whole attitude resulted also in a lack of appreciation for the potency and subtlety of penetrating, theoretical thinking.
The following paragraphs from Bachofen’s Mutterrecht give an idea of this concept of the matriarchal spirit:
‘The relationship which stands at the origin of all culture, of every virtue, of every nobler aspect of existence, is that between mother and child; it operates in a world of violence as the divine principle of love, of union, of peace. Raising her young, the woman learns earlier than the man to extend her loving care beyond the limits of the ego to another creature, and to direct whatever gift of invention she possesses to the preservation and improvement of the other’s existence. Woman at this stage is the repository of all culture, of all benevolence, of all devotion, of all concern for the living and grief for the dead. Yet the love that arises from motherhood is not only more intense, but also more universal… Whereas the paternal principle is inherently restrictive, the maternal principle is universal; the paternal principle implies limitation to definite groups, but the maternal principle, like the life of nature, knows no barriers. The idea of motherhood produces a sense of universal fraternity among all men, which dies with the development of paternity. The family based on father right is a closed individual organism, whereas the matriarchal family bears the typically universal character that stands at the beginning of all development and distinguishes material life from higher spiritual life. Every woman’s womb, the mortal image of the earth mother Demeter, will give brothers and sisters to the children of ever, other woman; the homeland will know only brothers and sisters until the day when the development of the paternal system dissolves the undifferentiated unity of the mass and introduces a principle of articulation. The matriarchal cultures present many expressions and even juridical formulations of this aspect of the maternal principle. It is the basis of the universal freedom and equality so frequent among matriarchal peoples, of their hospitality, and of their aversion to restriction of all sorts… And in it is rooted the admirable sense of kinship and fellow feeling which knows no barriers or dividing lines and embraces all members of a nation alike. Matriarchal states were particularly famed for their freedom from internecine strife and conflict … The matriarchal peoples—and this is no less characteristic—assigned special culpability to the physical injury of one’s fellow men or even of animals… An air of tender humanity, discernible even in the facial expression of Egyptian statuary, permeates the culture of the matriarchal world.’” (J. J. Bachofen, 1967.)27
Prehistoric Societies and “Human Nature”
This picture of the mode of production and social organization of hunters and Neolithic agriculturalists is quite suggestive in regard to certain psychical traits that are generally supposed to be an intrinsic part of human nature. Prehistoric hunters and agriculturalists had no opportunity to develop a passionate striving for property or envy of the “haves,” because there was no private property to hold on to and no important economic differences to cause envy. On the contrary, their way of life was conducive to the development of cooperation and peaceful living. There was no basis for the formation of the desire to exploit other human beings. The idea of exploiting another person’s physical or psychical energy for one’s own purposes is absurd in a society where economically and socially there is no basis for exploitation.
The impulse to control others also had little chance to develop. The primitive band society and probably prehistoric hunters since about fifty thousand years ago were fundamentally different from civilized society precisely because human relations were not governed by the principles of control and power; their functioning depended on mutuality. An individual endowed with the passion for control would have been a social failure and without influence. Finally, there was little incentive for the development of greed, since production and consumption were stabilized at a certain level.28
Do the data on hunter-gatherers and early agriculturalists suggest that the passion of possessiveness, exploitation, greed, envy did not yet exist and are exclusively products of civilization? It does not seem to me that such a sweeping statement can be made. We do not have enough data to substantiate it, nor is it likely to be correct on theoretical grounds, since individual factors will engender these vices in some individuals even under the most favorable social circumstances. But there is a great difference between cultures which foster and encourage greed, envy, and exploitativeness by their social structure, and cultures which do the opposite. In the former, these vices will form part of the “social character”—i.e., of a syndrome to be found in the majority of people; in the latter, they will be individual aberrations from the norm which have little chance to influence the whole society. This hypothesis gains further strength if we now consider the next historical stage, urban development, which seems to have introduced not only new kinds of civilization but also those passions which are generally attributed to man’s natural endowment.
The Urban Revolution29
A new kind of society developed in the fourth and third millennia, B.C. which can best be characterized in Mumford’s brilliant formulation:
‘Out of the early neolithic complex a different kind of social organization arose: no longer dispersed in small units, but unified in a large one: no longer “democratic,” that is, based on neighborly intimacy, customary usage, and consent, but authoritarian, centrally directed, under the control of a dominant minority: no longer confined to a limited territory, but deliberately “going out of bounds” to seize raw materials and enslave helpless men, to exercise control, to exact tribute. This new culture was dedicated, not just to the enhancement of life, but to the expansion of collective power. By perfecting new instruments of coercion, the rulers of this society had, by the Third Millennium, B.C., organized industrial and military power on a scale that was never to be surpassed until our own time.’ (L. Mumford, 1967.)
How had it happened?
‘Within a short period, historically speaking, man learned to harness the physical energy of oxen and the energy of the winds. He invented the plough, the wheeled cart, the sailing boat, and he discovered the chemical processes involved in the smelting of copper ores (to some extent known earlier), and the physical properties of metals, and he began to work out a solar calendar. As a consequence, the way was prepared for the art of writing and standards and measures. “In no period of history till the days of Galileo,” writes Childe, “was progress in knowledge so rapid or far-reaching discoveries so frequent.’” (V. G. Childe, 1936.)
But social change was not less revolutionary. The small villages of self-sufficient farmers were transformed into populous cities nourished by secondary industries and foreign trade, and these new cities were organized as city states. Man literally created new land. The great cities of Babylonia rose on a sort of platform of reeds, laid crisscross upon the alluvial mud. They dug channels to water the fields and drain the marshes, they built dykes and mounds to protect men and cattle from the waters and raise them above the flood. This creation of tillable land required a great deal of labor and this “’capital in the form of human labor was being sunk in the land.’” (V. G. Childe, 1936.)
Another result of this process was that a specialized labor force had to be used for this kind of work, and for cultivating the land necessary to grow food for those others who were specialized in crafts, public works, and trade. They had to be organized by the community and directed by an elite which did the planning, protecting, and controlling. This means that a much greater accumulation of surplus was needed than in the earlier Neolithic villages, and that this surplus was not just used as food reserve for times of need or growing population, but as capital to be used for an expanding production. Childe has pointed to another factor inherent in these conditions of life in the river valleys—the exceptional power of the society to coerce its members. The community could refuse a recalcitrant member access to water by closing the channels leading it to his field. This possibility of coercion was one of the foundations upon which the power of kings, priests, and the dominant elite rested once they had succeeded in replacing or, ideologically speaking, “representing”—the social will.
With the new forms of production, one of the most decisive changes in the history of man took place. His product was no longer limited to what he could produce by his own work, as had been the case in hunting societies and early agriculture. It is true that with the beginning of Neolithic agriculture man had already been able to produce a small surplus, but this surplus only helped to stabilize his life. When, however, it grew, it could be used for an entirely new purpose; it became possible to feed people who did not directly produce food, but cleared the marshes, built houses and cities and pyramids, or served as soldiers. Of course, such use could only take place when technique and division of labor had reached a degree which made it possible for human labor to be so employed. At this point surplus grew immensely. The more fields were ploughed, the more marshes were drained, the more surplus could be produced. This new possibility led to one of the most fundamental changes in human history. It was discovered that man could be used as an economic instrument, that he could be exploited, that he could be made a slave.
Let us follow this process in more detail in its economic, social, religious, and psychological consequences. The basic economic facts of the new society were, as indicated above, greater specialization of work, the transformation of surplus into capital, and the need for a centralized mode of production. The first consequence of this was the rise of different classes. The privileged classes did the directing and organizing, claiming and obtaining for themselves a disproportionately large part of the product, that is to say, a standard of living which the majority of the population could not obtain. Below them were the lower classes, peasants and artisans. Below those were the slaves, prisoners taken as a result of wars. The privileged classes organized their own hierarchy headed originally by permanent chiefs—eventually by kings, as representatives of the gods—who were the nominal heads of the whole system.
Another consequence of the new mode of production is assumed to have been conquest as an essential requisite to the accumulation of communal capital needed for the accomplishment of the urban revolution. But there was a still more basic reason for the invention of war as an institution: the contradiction between an economic system that needed unification in order to be optimally effective, and political and dynastic separation that conflicted with this economic need. War as an institution was a new invention, like kingdom or bureaucracy, made around 3000 B.C. Then as now, it was not caused by psychological factors, such as human aggression, but, aside from the wishes for power and glory of the kings and their bureaucracy, was the result of objective conditions that made war useful and which, as a consequence, tended to generate and increase human destructiveness and cruelty.30
These social and political changes were accompanied by a profound change in the role of women in society and of the mother figure in religion. No longer was the fertility of the soil the source of all life and creativity, but the intellect which produced new inventions, techniques, abstract thinking, and the state with its laws. No longer the womb, but the mind became the creative power, and simultaneously, not women, but men dominated society.
This change is poetically expressed in the Babylonian hymn of creation, Enuma Elish. This myth tells us of a victorious rebellion of the male gods against Tiamat, the “Great Mother” who ruled the universe. They form an alliance against her and choose Marduk to be their leader. After a bitter war Tiamat is slain, from her body heaven and earth are formed, and Marduk rules as supreme God.
However, before he is chosen to be the leader, Marduk has to pass a test, which may seem insignificant—or puzzling—to modern man, but it is the key to the understanding of the myth:
‘Then they placed a garment in their midst; To Marduk, their first-born, they said:
“Verily, O lord, thy destiny is supreme among the gods,
Command ‘to destroy and to create,’ (and) it shall be!
By the word of thy mouth let the garment be destroyed;
Command again, and let the garment be whole!” He commanded with his mouth, and the
garment was destroyed.
Again he commanded, and the garment was restored.
When the gods, his fathers, beheld the efficiency of his word
They rejoiced (and) did homage, (saying) “Marduk is king!’” —A. Heidel, 1942
The meaning of this test is to show that man has overcome his inability for natural creation—a quality which only the soil and the female had—by a new form of creation, that by the word (thought). Marduk, who can create in this way, has overcome the natural superiority of the mother and hence can replace her. The biblical story begins where the Babylonian myth ends: the male god creates the world by the word. (E. Fromm, 1951a.)
One of the most significant features of the new urban society was that it was based on the principle of patriarchal rule, in which the principle of control is inherent: control of nature, control of slaves, women and children. The new patriarchal man literally “makes” the earth. His technique is not simply modification of the natural processes, but their domination and control by man, resulting in new products which are not found in nature. Men themselves came under the control of those who organized the work of the community, and hence the leaders had to have power over those they controlled.
In order to achieve the aims of this new society, everything, nature and man, had to be controlled and had to either exercise—or fear—power. In order to become controllable, men had to learn to obey and to submit, and in order to submit they had to believe in the superior power—physical and/or magic—of their rulers. While in the Neolithic village, as well as among primitive hunters, leaders guided and counseled the people and did not exploit them, and while their leadership was accepted voluntarily or, to use another term, while prehistoric authority was “rational” authority resting on competence, the authority of the new patriarchal system was one based on force and power; it was exploitative and mediated by the psychical mechanism of fear, “awe,” and submission. It was “irrational authority.”
Lewis Mumford has expressed the new principle governing the life of the city very succinctly: “’To exert power in every form was the essence of civilization; the city found a score of ways of expressing struggle, aggression, domination, conquest—and servitude.” He points out that the new ways of the cities were “rigorous, efficient, often harsh, even sadistic,’” and that the Egyptian monarchs and their Mesopotamian counterparts “’boasted on their monuments and tablets of their personal feats in mutilating, torturing, and killing with their own hands their chief captives.’” (L. Mumford, 1961.)
As a result of my clinical experience in psychoanalytic therapy I had long come to the conviction (E. Fromm, 1941a) that the essence of sadism is the passion for unlimited, godlike control over men and things.31 Mumford’s view of the sadistic character of these societies is an important confirmation of my own.32
In addition to sadism, the passion to destroy life and the attraction to all that is dead (necrophilia) seem to develop in the new urban civilization. Mumford also speaks of the destructive, death-oriented myth to be found in the new social order, and quotes Patrick Geddes as saying that each historic civilization begins with a living, urban core, the polls, and ends in a common graveyard of dust and bones, a Necropolis, or city of the dead: fire-scorched ruins, shattered buildings, empty workshops, heaps of meaningless refuse, the population massacred or driven into slavery. (L Mumford, 1961.)
Whether we read the story of the Hebrews’ conquest of Canaan or the story of the Babylonians’ wars, the same spirit of unlimited and inhuman destructiveness is shown. A good example is Sennacherib’s stone inscription on the total annihilation of Babylon:
‘The city and (its) houses from its foundation to its top, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire. The wall and the outer wall, temples and gods, temple towers of brick and earth, as many as they were, I razed and dumped them into the Arakhtu Canal. Through the midst of that city I dug canals, I flooded its site with water, and the very foundation thereof I destroyed. I made its destruction more complete than that by a flood.’ (Quoted by L. Mumford, 1961.)
The history of civilization, from the destruction of Carthage and Jerusalem to the destruction of Dresden, Hiroshima, and the people, soil, and trees of Vietnam, is a tragic record of sadism and destructiveness.
Several significant facts should be taken from this shocking history of the peaceful existence of primitive humankind: human violence is influenced far more by conditioning than any innate aspect; that is, just because humans can be violent doesn’t mean that we always will become violent in the end. To believe our capacity for violence means violence within our species is inevitable is a slippery slope argument. That is, it forms a extreme hypothetical on human behavior without demonstrating any causal link on why just because violence is possible would necessarily mean that humans will always choose the violent option in their decision-making. Our peaceful history for thousands of years proves that Original Sin is wrong, violence is not fixed within us. We, as a species, can create more peaceful coexistence with each other. Another relevant fact about human violence is that it didn’t begin to spread to such extreme lengths until we domesticated ourselves as a species and added the most divisive concept when we began living in primitive nation-states: social status. Social creeds of differences from race, religion, and especially income distribution began to be cages to corrupt our innate selfless nature. The first social status among them to create such a problems was the formation of the concept of slavery. This social concept eventually shifted to mean allegiance to a particular country. Moreover, unlike humans in hunter-gatherer societies or the Neolithic period, humans in post-Neolithic societies could no longer feel their skills recognized and acknowledged by ignorant rulers who had no knowledge of how useful their talents were; unlike in the earlier societies where the most knowledgeable or most skilled among the tribe dictated what to do for gathering, hunting, or for religious ceremonies like marriages. In concomitant with such a horrible concept as slavery came the emergence of the Father God; selfishness, human exploitation, sexual abuse in domestic quarters, war rape, and mass genocide became the rule under a strict, authoritarian command of unquestioned obedience. In hunter-gatherer and Neolithic periods, men and women were happily monogamous; but in the primitive nation-states under the Father God, men began taking women as multiple concubines or wives as spoils of victory in warfare or through social compulsion by the new group ranks of society. Kings could take as many slave women as they pleased. All of which coincide with their celebrations in the Bible for the desecration and rampant destruction of other tribes. Father Gods facing Father Gods in endless war campaigns, subjugating other tribes and taking women as spoils of war, and destroying the peaceful existences of societies that still held onto the belief in Mother Goddesses which tried to live in peace and harmony with the world. The empathy and rationalism living in harmonious tandem within Mother Goddess societies were destroyed through war rape, genocide, and slavery by those who held the belief in Father Gods which required unquestioned obedience and authoritarian social hierarchy. It was belief in the Father God that brought authoritarian violence such as suppressing rebellions, social status of superiors and inferiors of slaves and rulers, subsequently forcing women into obsequious roles through male-dominated violence and threats, and – in the Abrahamic quarters of the world – spread ignorance, fear of freedom, and fear of humans living in nature. All so that the individual would serve as a tool for the nation-state.
A nation-state is a system that has humans utilizing fellow humans as tools for social cohesion. The ones ruling the top quintile of influence and/or monetary wealth determine the lives of the bottom in some significant ways. Humans brought-up in a nation-state typically judge their self-worth on the basis of societal values and norms. How successful you are in the society of the nation-state by those values and norms determines your social status and you may gain a sense of belonging from that. Equally important is what you’re allowed to accomplish and your sense of fulfillment in a nation-state generally determines your personal happiness. In effect, humans exist to be manipulated and used by their nation-states. As a citizen of a country, your existence is tethered to how useful you are to your nation-state’s interests. You exist to be manipulated and used by your country. The nation-state determines everything about your existence: your religion, your “race”, your income level, your personal safety, and the history they decide to teach you to make you feel connected to your country in your schooling. Our history is based on the nation-state needing citizens to be loyal in order to feel loyalty to the national interest. Whether it is war, dominance over another social group, or the destruction of certain outliers that are seen as a endemic to the norms and values of society. We learn to hate others of a social group for the purposes of war or human exploitation by having repeated exposure in our media to anecdotes of personal testimonies to horrible crimes done by one member of a foreign social group. We homogenize and generalize in this manner by forming instant judgments of entire groups based on a few criminals; we see our history as significant and mostly benign, while the others we know nothing about are barbarous and hateful based on specific periods of history that have nothing to do with modern times. We are given ahistorical anecdotes to justify our violence upon them as self-defense. We may judge other peoples history based on some horrible past of our own history and believe the less developed countries must exist in the same way, despite the fact that we know nothing about them and don’t look for new information on what their history actually is. The higher a person’s social status is in the nation-state, the more useful they are to the nation-state because of the money and skills they contribute. This is often compared to those feeling unremarkable or useless for being below in either personal qualities of skill or social status; the group often marginalized. You may feel maligned because you are treated as unworthy or useless in your nation-state. By wanting success and status, the nation-state teaches us to intrinsically desire power and celebrate being a manipulated tool by those predecessors who held the reins of power until bestowed upon us. We can help change and shape our nation-states, the more we are valued and given the ability to make significant decision-making about our lives within the nation-state.
A key to that is the heart of a nation-state; its economic productivity. However, the concept of Original Sin has disoriented and confused what is innate in human nature to create pernicious problems that are entirely avoidable. Capitalism has been misused and misunderstood. A manager will find far more value in an employee who has an intrinsic interest in serving the needs of the company versus one in which inducements are utilized to curry favor. The innate nature of humans is the desire to be selflessness for their perceived in-groups, to have their sense of significance valued in support by their peers, and to feel like their actions have meaningful consequences in a higher purpose for either the majority of other people or for their loved ones. Capitalism’s idea of animal spirits is a flawed one that is untenable when compared to the evidence of humans living in wild nature or in prehistoric civilizations. Preaching selfishness as the innate nature of humanity is simply untenable theocratic nonsense and it is not based on ancient history or our sense of rationality. Capitalism must acknowledge that humans are far more selfless by nature and only conditioned by the nation-state into degrees of selfishness. Recent research has helped to reorient managers to these new modes of thought on human behavior such as the book Drive by Daniel H. Pink. For that matter, consider the possibility that the concept of evil and original sin may have sprung forth as justifications by civilizations to collectively punish themselves for letting even one innocent life end under horrible circumstances. Perhaps, in some way under the barbarous ignorance of Father God societies, original sin was a self-punishment through hatred for our entire species and collective guilt for the deaths of all innocent lives lost. Nevertheless, all it does now is prevent us from feeling motivated to help the innocent lives that we can still work to save in the present.
Free Will and Original Sin
I’ve struggled with the topic of free will on a personal level. To clarify, it wasn’t in the Abrahamic context, but rather the current neuroscience debate over whether people have free will or not, which I had been observing for several years due to my morbid fascination with the subject matter, that caused me to have pause. Part of the struggle was trying to properly articulate the faultiness of the Abrahamic context of free will compared to the studies in neuroscience. The Abrahamic context is too simplistic and never covered the nuances that modern philosophy and neuroscience have invigorating discourses about. There was no way to broach this subject without becoming pedantic in writing the reasons why and potentially going off-topic from the discussion of original sin’s failings. Furthermore, throughout the process of learning and writing for this book, I genuinely struggled to have a clear view of the topic and having the confidence to pick a side on free will, determinism, or the varieties of compatibilism. I still hold a healthy amount of doubt for my current belief, but as a consequence, I was struggling with forming up the confidence to write it out. I’m no neuroscientist, I don’t want to be misrepresenting their work, and I understand that it’s a controversial topic within the neuroscience and philosophy community. This portion will just be my own layperson opinion on the matter of free will. I cannot in good conscience argue this without mentioning my crippling doubts on the matter. I don’t have any doubts about original sin being a horrible belief system based on the evidence, but I certainly have doubts with respect to the free will debate.
Based on the definition, the facts of cause and effect, and how our assumptions and personal contexts are formed as human beings: I am of the opinion that free will doesn’t exist. I use to move between the ideas of compatibalism and determinism, but I’ve since discarded compatibilism as incoherent when viewing the evidence. Going into full details on why would be beyond the scope of this book since the entire topic of free will is worthy of its own books and spans several different disciplines of college curriculum. As such, I can only give an overview based on brief snippets of information from various neuroscientists and psychologists for the purpose of debunking the archaic original sin model of free will that can no longer be substantiated with our current knowledge of human behavior. I would recommend several books that delve far more deeply into understanding the biases of the human mind and how our subjective experience forms the axioms for our beliefs. These books provide fascinating insights into the human mind and if your interest is piqued, I’ve added a further reading section for the books that much of Part 1 and Part 2 of this book uses as a reference in citations.
Before listing my reasons against free will, I’d like to explain what ultimately convinced me that determinism was true and how I came to that conclusion. This is an anecdote and can be dismissed as such, but for those curious as to my thought process for this may find it useful. This will be a bit lengthy so if you’re not interested then please skip to the reasons listed below. I had first become acquainted with the argument of free will versus determinism in high school when considering different regions of the world and what it would mean to be an accident of birth. As a list of examples, I thought about how in India, the vast majority of people who are born are raised Hindu; while in the United States, the vast majority were born and raised Christian; In China, the vast majority would be atheist, and in most of the Middle East, it would be Islam that they are born and raised in. Their language, religious affiliation, their ethnic background, and their nationality were all an accident of birth that wasn’t of their own choosing; this is something internet atheists who were supportive of the New Atheist movement had pointed out in various internet forums in early 2000 and it stuck with me throughout high school. I had looked-up the Christian justification for this upon seeing staunch Christians trying to defend their position that they would remain Christian regardless of where they were born; most of them just did a poor job asserting all they know is Christianity and that therefore they would only ever be Christian. In effect, Christians on the internet completely ignored the argument and made an appeal to ignorance; from looking at comments and blogs from Christians, this was one of the main consistencies of the argument and showed how woefully inept they were in taking these questions seriously. I had thought that the vast majority of people had this same line of questioning when assessing the world and their place in it, but to my surprise upon growing older, I realized I was wrong and most people simply didn’t think about it. That honestly struck me as odd behavior. Over time I had grown acquainted with the free will debate through Sam Harris’s lengthy video about it and looked up several articles of research, Daniel Dennet’s review of Sam Harris’s book on Free Will, and Friedrich Nietzsche’s pro-deterministic views of it in the book Twilight of the Idols further influenced me to question assumptions about free will. After postgraduate studies, I delved further into reading various books on different aspects of human psychology that fascinated me and of which I’ve placed in the Further Reading list as references and due to my curiosity about free will, I couldn’t help but apply the knowledge written in the books to the question of free will. However, what fully convinced me was not abstractions or the psychological research, which greatly paved the way but didn’t fully change my views on compatibilism. What changed my mind was working in a temporary position as a Health Unit Coordinator for a veterans home. In particular, this veterans home was for veterans who had dementia or other similar afflictions related to memory loss.
Before I continue further, I feel it is best to mention that working at the veterans home was one of the most difficult, but satisfying, experiences and it was a pleasure to provide my own small contribution in assisting in the welfare of veterans of the United States armed forces. People may homogenize military folk as hard-nosed, gritty types whose life revolves around talking about war as per Hollywood stereotypes, but those stereotypes do a complete disservice to the array of personalities and personality quirks that make-up veterans of both World Wars, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war. For the most part, if I was forced to try to make a generalization of my experiences, they were either gentle and compassionate people or some of the wittiest jokesters with all kinds of fun humor. Of course, even that is an oversimplification for each of their personalities. Unfortunately, I can’t specify identifying information as that is against HIPAA laws and their privacy rights. Of the ones I spoke with, none had any interest in discussing war time unless prompted; this is less surprising when one considers that war was just one small component of their lives and doesn’t define who or what they are as individuals. For the most part, they preferred to talk about how their day was going, their families (especially children), what was on the scheduled menu for the day, what they thought of current events, or what they thought of any particular topic in general. I would talk to them when I wasn’t busy with paperwork or getting supplies for the unit. It had occurred to me only after meeting and speaking with several of them that they didn’t seem to hold their time during war as a major part of their lives or a sense of who they were; it was merely an experience that took up a portion of their lives and didn’t define them as human beings. A rather troubling idea formed in my mind and so I asked a few of them, all of whom were happy to be asked, if they thought the war themes or events about war perhaps brought back bad memories that they would otherwise like to forget. In the duration of my work there, I had come to realize that wars neither defined them as people nor would it have been anything that most of them wanted to relive. After all, if it was truly a horrifying time in which their life was always at risk, then why would they want to remember that? Why would any of them want to be defined by that? Mass media taught us to take it as a given, and the celebratory events for them were absolutely about appreciating all of their hard work and sacrifice for our country in times of crisis, but wouldn’t constantly being thanked every year or every military holiday for a harrowing time in one’s life get tiresome and make one relive bad memories? The ones whom I asked, one of whom said it was a good question and that they appreciated it, seemed to give the same general response. The answers seemed to be practically unanimous: the people caring for them were nice and they appreciated them, so they didn’t mind and it didn’t bother them since they liked how well they were being treated. In effect, the everyday hard work and compassion of the staff made them appreciative and they liked the people who were taking care of them. The benign treatment mattered more to them.
It wasn’t difficult to ascertain why they were so appreciative and consequently what made me acknowledge that free will couldn’t possibly exist. Most people who research the free will debate know of the infamous incident of a man who had a tumor in his brain that caused him to have pedophilic tendencies until the tumor was removed and for the pedophilic tendencies to return again when the tumor had grown back. I’ve seen that story circulated in a few books and youtube channels. However, most people wrongly attempt to dismiss that story as an outlier. When working at the veterans home, I was forced to consider: what about more mundane conditions like dementia? Dementia was different depending on the individual, parts of the brain slowly degenerated over time and fully grown adults became the same as helpless children in need of care. Moreover, what about other illnesses that I hadn’t even the reference or that I didn’t have the conscious awareness to consider? It was understandable why dementia would become frustrating to live with as simple tasks like getting oneself a cup of water require help from others. Some people can’t stand the change; to go from a self-made individual to a person in a constant state of helplessness being forced to wait while others are attended to before it’s your turn. The constant state of helplessness can be difficult to adjust to; for some they become demanding, likely because their sense of significance has been reduced due to a lack of autonomy. It is possibly also because of a desire for instant gratification and possibly a comparison for when they could do it on their own time, but for others they become complacent and adapt by accepting a state of learned helplessness likely because they see the struggle as pointless since it’s a fact that they won’t get better. Needing to be pushed via wheelchair to other locations, being forced to adapt to other people’s schedules without being able to simply take actions with one’s own volition, and slowly forgetting yourself and your loved ones can all be painful and people adjust differently depending on their personalities. Sometimes, personalities themselves will radically change. Information becomes more important instead of the opposite from what I’ve observed; people always like to know what is going on and in my time there, I made sure to share as much information as possible because I knew that it was a way of helping them reclaim a sense of control from the state of helplessness. For some people, I would have to introduce myself everyday and answer the same questions, for others it was to repeat what was on their schedule if they had any planned trips outside the facility whenever they forgot, and familiarizing myself with their unique forms of sarcasm. My effort in responding to their questions was appreciated by all of them. My time there made me think of how woefully inept Hollywood was at portraying the US armed forces; it made me question if the superhuman qualities given to actors playing soldiers on screen was its own type of dehumanization. US culture constantly propagated this idea of a self-made individual with superhuman qualities who could overcome everything through sheer willpower. Often, the stereotype involved the brave people in military garments able to overcome all obstacles. They never consider old age; old actors give way to new ones, where the same hubris of god-like feats is constantly churned out for profit. Few think of what it means to become old and fewer still prepare for such a time in their life. Seeing soldiers mutilated on screen for gore porn is one aspect, but how many ever consider the care delivered in treating such grievous wounds, the painful emotions the families endure, and who knows how many other complications as a result of war?
A pernicious issue which bothered me when working there was the concept of original sin and what it would mean for their relationships with their loved ones. I had been told of cases where people with certain degenerative states of dementia became unable to distinguish when something was sexually inappropriate or became more likely to commit sexually inappropriate acts due to their condition through no fault of their own. How much worse would it feel for an honest victim of such tendencies to attribute it to some innate sinfulness as a result of free will when it was something they honestly had no control over? How often did people misattribute the cause of their action to something innate about their psyche, instead of something they truly couldn’t control? How many people believed that these veterans being unable to control their inhibitions would be perceived as their “real” or “inner” self instead of a horrible condition that they couldn’t control? How much more awful would they feel by misunderstanding the cause to be something they were consciously capable of? How much self-hate would they cast upon themselves believing it to be something about willpower that they could have changed, but failed to because they believed they were being sinful? How much more strained would their relationships with their loved ones be, if their loved ones thought it was some imminent truth about them that they hid because the loved one believed in original sin? For instance, how torturous would it feel if something similar to the infamous case of a man with pedophilic tendencies due to a brain tumor was attributed to an individual who genuinely had no control over their actions and could be proven as such by examining their brain? It was perturbing to think of how one horrid concept could possibly destroy the lives of veterans who were suffering. The suffering would maximize to further emotional grief; all because of a hateful, misanthropic concept like original sin. All because people had no other reference point besides the Bible teaching them to hate themselves through a misanthropic concept that did nothing but cause pain and misery. Thankfully, professionalism of the highest order was maintained and any who would believe in such a concept had never shown it. The general idea was always that it was the condition and that was simply stating the truth. It was the condition that they had no control over and not something innate as a result of free will to display of some violent truth about humanity.
The staff of the veterans home were from diverse backgrounds of all kinds in different staff departments. The Nurse Managers, Doctors, Nurses, Certified Nursing Assistants, and Health Unit Coordinators were an assortment of varied ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs. Avidly pious Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs worked in tandem with coworkers who were Agnostic, Atheist, scientifically-minded but not altogether irreligious people, and even a gentleman who professed his own unique multi-spiritual beliefs during a lengthy conversation I had with him in the parking lot. To my knowledge, everyone was open to liberal values such as respect and equality for homosexuals and treating their fellow coworkers with the utmost dignity and respect. As mentioned, the ethnic make-up of the workforce was just as diverse; within both the Nurse Managers, Nurses, and Doctors; there were White, Black, Hispanic, Indian, and potentially other ethnic Asian workers. All of whom diligently followed the rules and held everyone accountable to the demanding standards for the sake of care for the veterans and keeping all veteran’s rights protected in compliance with the law. Many Haitian and Hispanic CNAs and housekeepers were fluently bilingual. It made me think that while the American Dream may be something one must fall asleep to believe in, the American ideal was most certainly expressed well in that care facility.
For my part, I felt honored to have made my own small contribution to helping veterans and I recommend working or volunteering at your local veteran’s homes as the staff assistance is likely to be sorely needed and every little bit of assistance really does add-up; both the veterans and staff are appreciative of all such efforts. Unfortunately, due to the demanding nature of the work environment, very few have the patience and perseverance to handle working at a veteran’s home. As a result, due to the sensitive nature of meeting the needs of veterans, a culture of hard work and correcting mistakes was built around selfless in-group cohesion. The demanding nature of the various jobs; whether Nurse Manager, Certified Nursing Assistant, Doctor, Med Nurse, Charge Nurse, or Health Unit Coordinator called for such a work ethic and it was most certainly built around selflessness for the sake of making veteran’s lives as comfortable and safe as possible. For those who are unaware, groupthink is actually beneficial for the cohesion of an organization, but only so long as groupthink is focused primarily on the goal of an organization and not misused to place higher value on the personal feelings of certain individuals or the entire group because that both distracts from the goal and thereby undercuts the chief aim of the group in attaining the goal. In other words, groupthink works well when people are held accountable for not meeting the expectations of the group. Equally as important is showing proper appreciation when a person conducts proper effort in fulfilling their assigned duties or going beyond those assigned duties when qualified and asked to do such for the organization. In effect, everyone enjoys being appreciated for the effort that they give to an organization that they care about. Within the veteran’s home; the hard work, dedication, and in-group trust that was always patient and willing to give a helping hand for any difficulties formed a culture of high-competence because everyone was both held accountable for their failures and taught how to correct those failures through careful guidance, explanations on what actions to do and not to do, and the reasons why. Questions were valued and answers readily given; early on, I failed to fulfill key monthly goals, but learned from my mistakes and worked to better my modus operandi within the scope of the tasks assigned to me and took lessons from those who were far beyond my skill level. I felt I learned a lot from the people there; in particular, the importance of saying no to others when you were expected to follow guidelines. This came from observing hyper-competent people like the doctor of the unit I worked in, learning the Charge Nurse was the one who was really in charge of the unit, and helping out the CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants) who did their utmost to provide care for the veterans of the unit. I decided to utilize several psychology and work productivity books to put my best effort in fulfilling the needs of the demanding work environment; it was actually surprising to realize most people didn’t prepare for demanding workloads by utilizing such resources beforehand and I had come to the conclusion I had overestimated competence and effort in most other environments I had worked within based on the hyperbolic beliefs of the high school I attended and my own parents. By the time the contract for my work ended, I was given a hefty amount of praise and well wishes; many said I had done a great job and that I had indeed been able to keep up with one of the more demanding units to the satisfaction of organization goals. I was able to keep-up with the Doctor, Charge Nurse, CNAs, and many of the veterans wished me well saying they enjoyed meeting me and thanked me for my work and dedication. As you may imagine, at this current moment in my life, the veterans home stands as the best job I’ve ever had the pleasure of being a part of.
For those who don’t live in the US and have kept an interest in this personal account, I’d like to thank you for your interest and appreciation for the lives of people outside of your own country as I imagine it gets stifling to hear only about the most influential Western countries if you live outside of them. If the aforementioned has made you interested in helping veterans in your own country, I would suggest thinking over ways in which any suffering they endure can be alleviated or working to help correct any potential injustice done to people who’ve served your government; of course, that is assuming the military and potentially specific military personnel in question within your country serves the public good of your nation-state and people.
With all that being stated, here is my explanation for why I don’t believe in free will:
In his book Deviate, neuroscientist Beau Lotto mentions that assumptions are inculcated as a person grows up in their environment. We tend to attribute this to our preferences in taste, but the assumptions run far more deeply than that. The assumptions we inculcate from intuitive life experience determine our religion, our nationality, and our language. It even determines our social perception of “race” since race is merely a social construct according to scientists. Similarly, where and how we grow up determines our self-theories of who and what we are in relation to the world around us. There are all prior causes that most of us may not even be consciously aware of assessing as assumptions that we’ve grown up with. Our assumptions about the world and preferences therein are a statistical distribution; which means we would first generally have to learn why a particular belief is wrong before we accept another one to be right, especially if it is a strong belief of ours. In other words, we can’t jump from a set of beliefs like creationism to a new set of beliefs that are diametrically opposed like evolution without first understanding the basics of evolution, which would require slowly disentangling our assumptions about creationism. Within the scope of evolution itself, organisms are adapting to their environment through a lengthy process of ridding a species of useless traits and attaining more useful traits to keep alive in their habitat. Oftentimes, it’s a mix of positive and negative qualities in a mostly positive set of traits. Beau Lotto tries to argue in his book that free will could still exist because we form new meanings from our past. However, the past is something we can’t change and our shifting interpretation still wouldn’t change the fact a past event remains an axiom that we base meaning itself on and crucially, still forms a starting point for the acceptance of new beliefs.
In the book, Stumble on Happiness, Harvard professor and Social Psychologist, Daniel Gilbert explains how we humans mistakenly feel our personal perspectives and what we imagine about how the world operates are always objective. However, all we really do is fill in what we think living in a particular situation is like with our own imagination and we believe what we imagine about that situation to be representative of the objective reality. This is a natural human tendency and oftentimes occurs unconsciously without us fully recognizing our belief about something is just our personal interpretation and not objective reality itself. As such, our belief that we intuitively see reality for what it is only functions as a detriment to both our understanding of the world and of our own experiences. To better understand why this is, consider the fact that atoms, microbes, single-celled organisms, radio waves, and microwaves are all just as real as you or I, but they can’t be seen by the human eye. Furthermore, consider the fact that so much of our personal feelings and subsequent actions oftentimes depend on how good or bad the weather is, how much we’ve eaten, what we’ve eaten, what microbes are in our bodies, and so forth. What we see, as many of these psychologists have written assert, is just our subjective experience in the world. We don’t see reality for what it is, but we have the illusion of objectivity. The only way for us to become closer to being objective about the world is through scientific experimentation utilizing our scientific instruments to understand the world around us. Yet, even then, some interpretation might be necessary once we understand what the facts are. Finally, near the end of Stumble on Happiness, Gilbert explains that we as humans implicitly overemphasize our uniqueness and the uniqueness of other humans because our everyday experience is trying to find qualities that differentiate people to find the people that we want to spend our lives with; we try to find people who will be the most valuable of friends or whom we should marry or the best people to work with at a job. This biases us towards focusing only on differences and we tend to skim over or simply don’t register the normalcy of our experiences. We also try to rate ourselves as having more qualities that make us unique from the average person in surveys . . . even when we are the representative average. Gilbert provides a compelling argument in his book where he explains you can predict your future happiness before undergoing a particular experience (going to a specific amusement park, a holiday in a particular foreign country, or choosing between two high-quality jobs as a lifelong career path) by looking up the personal testimonies of any random person or set of people who has undergone that experience. Of course, the testimony would have to be an honest account and not simply one manufactured by an organization on its website that makes one to push a narrative. Nevertheless, honest accounts of particular sets of experiences will suffice as an accurate account of information you neglected to consider and will be a useful measure for your feelings about materials you hadn’t considered regarding the experience that you wanted to know more about.
Now, to digress a bit, for those who wish to immediately argue that these two books could apply to the existence of a deity because humans aren’t good at seeing reality in any objective sense, please keep advised of the following: first, there is no central definition of what such a deity even is or what it would comprise itself of, or where it would originate from. It’s been 2000 years and the Abrahamic faiths have found nothing to prove the existence of the Abrahamic God. Second, there is no basis for beliefs in spiritual worlds and afterlives as none of that can be corroborated by any physical evidence and none has ever come forth to lend credence to the existence of any afterlives resembling anything the Abrahamic faiths have argued in support of. Finally, and most tellingly, you’re just trying to use your own ignorance as a basis for making an open-ended assumption that has no evidence; in short, it’s baseless and we have hard evidence that is demonstrable of what we can prove so we have to judge based on the evidence and not our personal feelings with matters of scientific inquiry. Insinuating from the basis of human ignorance would lower the level of credibility to the point where you could make-up anything such as the assertion that an invisible, translucent, spiritual pink polka dotted elephant flies across the universe faster than the speed of light. If you wish to say that there is evidence for the Abrahamic God, then please first try to show that your belief in your God can be separated from the scenario of the imaginary elephant that I made up just now. If your arguments can support both the Abrahamic God existing and the imaginary elephant that I just made-up existing then you’ve failed. This is not an attempt at an insult; I’m pointing out that you have to demonstrate this belief in a deity has to be founded on more than just anything you can make-believe like my ridiculous and fictitious idea of the elephant.
In the book, Thinking Fast and Slow, by legendary psychologist and Princeton professor Daniel Kahneman, details how we form coherent structures of how the world works through associations we make in our minds. This often makes us find causes for different subject matter that are entirely unrelated to each other. As such, we may form patterns to make up a coherent cause for why an event happened. When, in actuality, the cause could be something entirely unrelated or we could even be confusing cause for the effect or a correlation that isn’t specifically the cause. For instance, in the United States, many of the Right-leaning public blamed the violent protests in Baltimore to Black youth listening to rap music; trouble is, rap music is beloved by various ethnic groups across the United States and isn’t solely exclusive to what Black youth listen to and most youth (including Black youth) who listen to such music don’t go out of their way to commit violence. By contrast, the Baltimore police were known to give large payouts in court trials that they lost on a yearly basis with the demand that families and victims couldn’t go to the national media to speak on the violence conducted upon them by the Baltimore police. Thereby, violating their first amendment rights and treating them as second-class citizens. If any family members or the victim of police brutality spoke out to the national media, then the local government could stop paying for the treatment of physical damages their officers caused. That would most certainly be a direct causal link, especially since four years of peaceful protests were ignored. To continue about free will. We also have hindsight bias; that is, we remember placing more confidence that an event was going to happen after it has already occurred despite the actual evidence showing we report very low confidence that a particular event was going to happen before it actually happened. We substitute what we thought of the past based on outcomes of the present that change our perception of what we believed. Many surveys regarding major political events show this; such as the percentage of US citizens who report they had lower confidence in the Iraq War of 2003 than what they actually reported back in 2003 or in the example given in Daniel Kahneman’s book, the confidence that people in the US had of Nixon’s trip to China.
From all I’ve learned through these and other psychology books, it has become clear to me that a lot of our memory and our actions are derived from situational contexts that we’re often unaware of. Original Sin thereby confuses cause and effect by deliberately misattributing everything to an unalterable, intrinsic biological state that is scientifically unfounded. This is a powerful form of fundamental attribution error. Context matters, but the concept of original sin would posit without any credible evidence that everything horrific and violent is inevitable because humans have free will. Original Sin ignores everything relevant in uncovering why certain events happened and by doing so, provides a convenient moral shield for the worst offenders of war crimes like torturing children into becoming child soldiers, war rape, and genocide. How does the concept of original sin do that? It treats those egregious acts of violence as inevitable and thereby ignores any call to form corrective measures to hold perpetrators responsible as juvenile and idealistic. The reason for that is because of the pervasive belief that any human is capable of such behavior as a result of feeling too much freedom which allows them to be selfish and hateful. As mentioned prior, original sin promotes the idea that such devastating atrocities are never going to be able to be corrected, that there is absolutely nothing we can do to help others suffering in those situations, and that we can’t stymie or decrease these acts of egregious violence through any social changes. Just because events of human violence in the past went unchecked shouldn’t mean that we ignore events happening now from continuing that route. Yet, the original sin version of free will would have us believe that there is nothing we can do because humans will spontaneously behave in cruel and horrific ways. Abrahamic religious groups use free will as the objection in an almost synonymous notion with original sin; attributing every free act as an act closer to committing human violence or activities a religious group finds socially unacceptable. Social censure towards transgenders or homosexuals are widely scrutinized, but not the underlying belief that freedom of actions and freedom of thought will cause people to be selfish, cruel, and commit violence. It’s fundamentally an undemocratic belief.
Human violence is not inevitable, it is not unalterable, and much of the statistical evidence proves that humans have gradually become less prone to violence. Consequently, technology has become more thorough in uncovering wanton acts of human violence and state-sponsored violence that goes unchecked. That’s a valuable first step, because it means we’re treating the lives of every innocent that we see perish as significant, but our reaction can’t be this meaningless ascetic notion that human free will makes it unavoidable to change circumstances for the better. Even if we can’t stop a massive war or help everyone who is harmed; we should consider what small contribution can we make to alleviate the suffering, misery, and pain of people currently being harmed. The statistical information on human violence worldwide and the charities which hold themselves accountable show that contributions do help others and that every little bit helps to make a better life for people who are suffering.
Redefined Free Will
In fairness to the detractors within the neuroscience and philosophy departments that argue in favor of free will, there has been research that challenges the idea that humans don’t have free will at this current period of time. However, if we acknowledge this redefined version of free will to be scientifically valid about how the human brain operates, then it renders the Abrahamic concept of original sin as thoroughly untenable and obsolete.
In the article “Neuroscience and Free Will are Rethinking their Divorce” on The Cut by the journalist Christian Jarrett, he explains what new research in Germany has found with respect to free will:
For years, various research teams have tried to pick holes in Libet’s original research. It’s been pointed out, for example, that it’s pretty tricky for people to accurately report the time that they made their conscious decision. But, until recently, the broad implications of the finding have weathered these criticisms, at least in the eyes of many hard-nosed neuroscientists, and over the last decade or so his basic result has been replicated and built upon with ever more advanced methods such as fMRI and the direct recording of neuronal activity using implanted electrodes.
These studies all point in the same, troubling direction: We don’t really have free will. In fact, until recently, many neuroscientists would have said any decision you made was not truly free but actually determined by neural processes outside of your conscious control.
Luckily, for those who find this state of affairs philosophically (or existentially) perplexing, things are starting to look up. Thanks to some new breakthrough studies, including one published last month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers in Germany, there’s now some evidence pointing in the other direction: The neuroscientists are backtracking on past bold claims and painting a rather more appealing account of human autonomy. We may have more control over certain processes than those initial experiments indicated.
The German neuroscientists took a different approach from past work, using a form of brain-computer integration to see whether participants could cancel a movement after the onset of the nonconscious preparatory brain activity identified by Libet. If they could, it would be a sign that humans can consciously intervene and “veto” processes that neuroscience has previously considered automatic and beyond willful control.
The participants’ task started off simply enough: They had to press a foot pedal as quickly as possible whenever they saw a green light and cancel this movement whenever they saw a red light. Things got trickier when the researchers put the red light under the control of a computer that was monitoring the participants’ own brain waves. Whenever the computer detected signs of nonconscious preparatory brain activity, it switched on the red light. If this preparatory activity is truly a signal of actions that are beyond conscious control, the participants should have been incapable of responding to these sudden red lights. In fact, in many cases the participants were able to cancel the nonconscious preparatory brain activity and stop their foot movement before it even began.
Now, there was a point of no return — red lights that appeared too close (less than about one-quarter of a second) to the beginning of a foot movement could not be completely inhibited — there simply wasn’t time for the new cancellation signal to overtake the earlier command to move. But still, the principle stands — these results suggest at least some of the activity identified by Libet can, in fact, be vetoed by conscious will.
“A person’s decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves,” the lead researcher, Dr. John-Dylan Haynes of Charité – Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, said in the study’s press release. “They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement. Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought.”
This new finding comes on the back of research by French neuroscientists published in 2012 in PNAS that also challenged the way Libet’s seminal work is usually interpreted. These researchers believe that the supposedly nonconscious preparatory brain activity identified by Libet is really just part of a fairly random ebb and flow of background neural activity, and that movements occur when this activity crosses a certain threshold. By this account, people’s willful movements should be quicker when they’re made at a time that just happens to coincide with when the background ebb and flow of activity is on a high point.
And that’s exactly what the French team found. They recorded participants’ brain waves as they repeatedly pressed a button with their finger, sometimes spontaneously at times of their own choosing, and other times in response to a randomly occurring click sound. The researchers found that their participants were much quicker to respond to the click sounds when the sounds happened to occur just as this random background brain activity was reaching a peak.
Based on this result from 2012 and a similar finding in a study with rats published in 2014, the lead researcher of the 2012 study, Aaron Schurger at INSERM in Paris, and two colleagues have written in their field’s prestige journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences that it’s time for a new perspective on Libet’s results — they say that their results call “for a reevaluation and reinterpretation of a large body of work” and that for 50 years their field may have been “measuring, mapping and analyzing what may turn out to be a reliable accident: the cortical readiness potential.”
And like their counterparts in Germany, these neuroscientists say the new picture is much more in keeping with our intuitive sense of our free will. When we form a vague intention to move, they explain, this mind-set feeds into the background ebb and flow of neural activity, but the specific decision to act only occurs when the neural activity passes a key threshold — and our all-important subjective feeling of deciding happens at this point or a brief instant afterward. “All this leaves our common sense picture largely intact,” they write.
I’ll leave you to decide whether to believe them or not.
The reason why this redefined concept of free will would thoroughly repudiate original sin is because free will could only occur in circumstances in which we held back from taking an action or stopped ourselves from conducting a potential action that we were planning to do. This is an abject contradiction to the Abrahamic concept of free will. If this redefined concept of free will true, then people who aren’t able to quit smoking, who aren’t able to stop compulsory eating, or from using drugs like heroin aren’t practicing free will. It means the people who are able to stop themselves from those impulsive actions are the ones with free will. If you’ve ever attended a religious service and know of a family member, acquaintance, or friend who is unable to quit drinking, smoking, or can’t stop themselves from engorging on food to an unhealthy extent then you have to acknowledge that they haven’t built up the free will to challenge that habit. If you’ve either never had such habits or have successfully quit a bad habit, then it would be because you successfully exercised your free will to overcome that bad habit. If this sounds ridiculous, then consider what this redefined concept of free will would mean for those struggling with the aforementioned addictions. They continue to smoke cigarettes, drink alcoholic beverages, or inject heroin to fulfill a need for instant gratification against their better judgment; this is not the freedom to choose against a temptation, it’s the struggle to overcome a mode of behavior that has become normalized, made habitual, and is painful for the addict to fight against. The fact they have to fight against such a self-harming temptation contradicts the notion that they can freely choose to behave in a self-destructive manner. They know better, but don’t have the power to choose a new path for themselves because the impulse overwhelms the willpower to change. To have freedom of choice to abstain from such acts would require sturdier willpower to choose differently. As such, the freedom of choice and the will to make that choice could only happen by pushing themselves away from something that has been repeatedly noted by those who’ve successfully quit to control people’s lives in a revolving habit of self-harm. As such, those who abstain and those who have overcome such self-harming habits of addiction are the ones with free will.
If this redefinition of free will is true, then it means that the Abrahamic notion of free will and potentially of original sin is disproven. People are not choosing to behave as addicts and don’t have the ability to stop. They lack the willpower to stop themselves from a self-harming habit that is destroying their lives. If those who stopped themselves from the bad habits are the ones with free will, then the Abrahamic concept of the term no longer has any coherence. The Abrahamic faiths built the notion of original sin on the basis that people were using free will to choose away from the Abrahamic God, but if stopping oneself from conducting an action is free will then people who attend Mosques, Churches, and Synagogues and stop themselves from conducting bad habits of addiction are the people with free will. By preventing yourself from conducting a harmful action, you are the one with free will and by following religious guidelines to abstain from harmful habits, you are practicing that free will. Those who aren’t falling into temptations are the ones with free will and those who are falling into temptation don’t have any free will to stop themselves. The belief that the temptations are a free choice is made completely incoherent under this redefinition of free will. If any of the Abrahamic faiths were to acknowledge this redefinition than 2000 years of history and the very basis of converting people to an Abrahamic religious faith would have to be thrown out, because it would mean that nobody is freely choosing to be away from the Abrahamic God, but instead they don’t have the free will to choose the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic theology becomes untenable and incoherent with modern neuroscience.
The redefinition of free will shatters the ethical justification for converting people to abstain from sin and the lack of free will under determinism disproves the very foundation of the Abrahamic faiths. In either scenario, Abrahamic theology collapses into incoherence and falsehood.
The Misogyny of Sinfulness
To conclude this chapter, I’d like for you to consider this metaphor with respect to how sinfulness is overtly misogynistic. This metaphor is a generalization of women with two definitive forms of belief systems; it is a generalization because it should obviously go without saying that half the human species has far more diversity in their plethora of beliefs. Encompassing each different denomination within just the Abrahamic tradition would be a monumental task that is beyond the scope of this book. As such, I’ve devised this metaphor pertaining to women who had faith in the Abrahamic God in ancient times to women of faith living now to compare with women who lived in equality among ancient hunter-gatherer societies and the Neolithic period of early civilization to the secular-leaning and scientifically minded women of modern times. They’re referred to as the Woman of God and the Woman of Nature to express their respective modus operandi and beliefs. The primary purpose of this is to show the impact the concept of sinfulness has on women.
The Woman of God is obedient and servile throughout her life to her father, her grandfather, sometimes her elder brother (usually if they are learned in the religious tradition), and her husband. She embodies Eve from the story of the Garden of Eden as her servility is in service to God. Her life of subservience to her father and then her husband is through her strong faith in God. She is inculcated to be meek and humble in order to avoid scathing insults of being called promiscuous or labeled a whore for her disobedience to patriarchy. Her family and friends denigrate nude female protestors and nudity by women in pop culture by asking how their fathers feel about such behavior. She learns to accept sex abuse and rape by men as an expectation of society upon her and all women because traditional gender norms teach that men can’t stop themselves from raping women when near them because of the tautology that boys will be boys. She is taught that women should know better than to trust in or befriend men in any platonic relationship because it is simply a given that men would rape women when near them. Rape is considered innate within men and therefore women must cover-up so men won’t rape them. Her father, brothers, and husband who support this traditional role and demand respect from her by ordering her to stay covered. They reinforce this lesson by agreeing with arguments that men can’t stop themselves from committing rape; essentially teaching her that they too would rape women if near any unmarried women that isn’t their family. Neither men or women who practice traditional roles believe that men and women who aren’t family can have any platonic relationship. The patriarchal structure incidentally teach that any rape or sex abuse that she receives is because she didn’t wear clothes that covered herself enough to protect her purity or that her discomfort and confusion over the situation was somehow consent when she simply didn’t know how to handle being violated.
The Woman of God is taught that she has no agency throughout her life. At purity balls, they teach her that God is her Father and her biological father is akin to a boyfriend. Her faith in God commands that she must honor her father by treating her virginity as a prize to be won only by her future husband. Her body is like candy and she must not unwrap her lower garments to avoid spoiling herself. She acts as her father’s personal dog; she is to be kept near the family home and not outside to socialize for fear she’ll be doing something embarrassing or dangerous without supervision, she is to behave like a neutered animal without any explanation or assistance for her sexual development of puberty, she is not to lose her dog collar – her virginity – or she’ll be considered wild and rabid by her conservative society, and she is to smile and behave in a constant state of silliness and happiness for being thoroughly domesticated by strict, unequal standards towards women. She is only to express a constant state of appreciation, affection, and celebrate of her obedience to patriarchy as proof of honoring her family and her society. The social status of her male family members reinforces what God has ordained for her life.
The Woman of God is celebrated for accepting her role as property of her father and later to be transferred as property of her husband. She will rear her husband’s children to be obedient to their father; her life is one of cooking, cleaning, and conditioning herself to always sexually please her husband when he commands it of her; that is, to use her body as he sees fit with her having no opinion on how he uses her. Often beatings and rape cannot be considered a crime because the husband does it. Her religious community and religious leaders all herald her conceding her autonomy and body to her husband as fulfilling the role that God gave her. Euphemisms of “respecting” the husband are used to pressure her into giving up her autonomy. She is to embody the ideal of servility and humbleness with her dutiful submission to her husband and piety towards God. She is to be seen, not heard; she is not to speak out of turn or embarrass the men of her household so that their social status to their community isn’t negatively impacted. She is taught that this has always been the role of women, that this role is innate in all women throughout human history, and that she must avoid sinfulness at all costs. She must remain servile in service to God for all of her life; this celebration of her purity comes from ancient times when God ordered women to be converted through rape as spoils of war for the chosen people. These rape conversions are celebrated as morally benevolent to this day because God commanded it. Thereby, the Woman of God is historically derived from conquered women who suffered war rape at the behest of the Abrahamic God. The more literally that you believe in the Bible or the Quran, the more you should accept that as the unequivocal truth of history.
The Woman of Nature speaks and acts independently from her family with confidence and views herself equally to men. She expresses her sexuality through independent choices of picking her own clothes or forming her own intimate relationships; nobody in her family is to have privilege in deciding who she has sexual relations with upon adulthood. She practices contraceptives and safe sexual behavior to maximize her own pleasure in sex. She sees past the ideals of traditional gender norms that create misogynistic disparities on the treatment of women; she rebukes back that such disparities are systems of oppression formed by rape culture in which women are to act passive to being raped to protect men’s egos. She is viewed as a wild, rabid dog by men and women who hold traditional gender roles because she refuses to submit to patriarchy. Her raw indignation comes from the intrinsic desire to be seen and heard as a person and not as property of men. Instances of men raping women causes her to demand change; after all, why should she have to suffer and be held back by the stupidity of others? Why should she have to wait, and wait, and wait for change to come in some imaginary future instead of having enlightenment now? Why should she and other women have to wait for more rape victims because others refuse to change traditional norms due to their circular reasoning of “boys will be boys” and “women should know better” that she easily sees through with her intellect? If she is labeled a rabid dog that is diseased and unwelcome back into the family and society, then is she simply expected to suffer for the crime of personal autonomy and independent thought? In fact, sometimes the Woman of Nature is even put to death for the crime of independent thought and personal autonomy; whether by angry husbands, angry family, or angry boyfriends because they refuse to see her as a person and kill her for not acting as property of men.
The Woman of Nature embodies Lilith. She seeks sexual satisfaction by trying various sexual positions such as being atop her significant other regardless of if God allows it or not. She is open to different sexual positions, self-pleasure, research into understanding and loving her body instead of feeling wretched for being born a woman, and doesn’t loathe herself for the natural process of having a period. She journeys into the moral abyss to find satisfaction for her cravings in the carnal world of humanity. She rejects the existence of God as a falsehood due to lack of evidence for God and sees the theology as a tool of misogynistic oppression. She gains the pleasures of the carnal world; art, music, books, video games, other electronic devices, political freedoms of free speech and free expression, and reforming systems of man-made government to value her life equally to any male counterpart through a right to protection by the law. The Woman of Nature who pursues skeptical inquiry and scientific studies is utterly condemned as the natural enemy of God for all her life; this is because she finds immense pleasure and satisfaction in studying, researching, and disseminating her lifelong love for the carnal world above the spiritual capitulation to God as commanded by patriarchy.
The Scientific Woman of Nature, even when she wants no part in the discussion of religion versus science because she has no interest, will always be condemned for the crime of independent thought, will find her love for research shut down or reviled by those who act with the sincerest faith in God, and will be the first to be murdered in service to God because she is labeled as God’s truest enemy by extremists when they gain power. Due to ignorance of religious teachings, the Scientific Woman of Nature will be confused by she is being reviled and condemned when she has abstained from criticism and has no desire to be part of any discussion on religion because she sincerely doesn’t care. She doesn’t understand why her love for research and fact-finding studies is faced with a surge of ignorant contempt, she tries to find peaceful measures to stymie the tide of hatred through calls of peace but confuses the intrinsic misogyny of religion for some extremist elements co-opting a religion to push a narrative, she is blamed by some of her colleagues and boss for the crime of pursuing research that doesn’t conform to some arbitrary religious ideal that she has no interest in and is not part of, and genuinely tries appeasement as a last resort and it only causes the destruction of her research, her peace of mind, and leads to bitterness and indignation at the vat of reactionary ignorance that is thrust upon her for no discernible reason. What she fails to understand is that these loud, obnoxious religious zealots don’t view her as a person, but rather as property by men to be chided and owned. They don’t wish to be appeased by meeting in the middle; they wish to destroy her ability to research and question. They wish to destroy her social safety net to prove the appeasement to faith in their God as the ultimate deciding factor in society even when it doesn’t make sense. They wish to destroy her livelihood, her ability to pursue her own interests as an individual capable of independent thought, and to kill her or drive her to suicide; if that fails, then to destroy her career and her children’s future. All they believe is that she must conform to their religious patriarchal structure because of their complete faith in God’s unquestionable morality.
Therefore, the only way to engage on an equal field when being vilified is to attack the assumptions of their religious faith as the falsehood that she knows it to be. To defend and protect the carnal pleasures of enlightenment values of free speech and free expression against the misogynistic tyranny of God. The Woman of Nature must rebuke their hatred with genuine criticism by expressing her independent actions and opinions against the belief that her ability to be an independent person is sinfulness. Most of all, the Woman of Nature should come to understand that there is no intrinsic value in religious teachings that are espoused by revealed wisdom. The ancient Hebrew Bible depicts instance after instance of rape of women after war conquests, the Sermon on the Mount is the origin of the Male Gaze through thought crimes based on how men should view women, and the Quran practiced and spread slavery including the sexual slavery of women. All in the name of purity culture so that women remain faithful to God.
The Woman of Nature should consider what the Woman of God was derived from:
The Abrahamic God ordered his chosen people to conquer other lands through violence, the violence of God’s chosen people was justified through dehumanization campaigns about their culture, and upon winning the chosen people of God were ordered by God to rape women who didn’t believe in him. These women were forced into believing in the Abrahamic God through conquest after being raped by God’s decree; this was forcible conversion through rape by the tens of thousands as written in the Bible and the Quran.
The teachings of purity culture are derived from decrees of rape by the Abrahamic God. A holistic examination of the conservative religious values imposed upon women shows this.
A Woman of God is taught to be servile to her husband: the origin of this is the conquering victors of war ordering the women they raped into being obedient to them, so the male rapist that just took ownership of her will have an easier time controlling her through “marriage” which back then was simply ownership of women.
A Woman of God is taught to not speak out against the husband or father: this comes from male rapists ordering women they raped and married to shut up about their family having been butchered and wiped out by the chosen people of the Abrahamic God. They are to be seen and not heard because no one wants to deal with her emotional anguish at losing her entire family and no one wants her foreign opinions in their in-group of primitive civilization.
A Woman of God is taught to cover-up her body or men will rape her: this comes from a male having raped and married his victim having to then worry that other men might try to rape and marry her or act out with such behavior accidentally upon her when he’s already taken ownership and raped her. To stymie this possibility, he orders her to cover-up to avoid getting raped by his compatriots who are raping other women. Men rape women all the time in their primitive civilizations, unlike in hunter-gatherer and Neolithic societies where she use to be a Woman of Nature.
If a Woman of God expresses her views like a Woman of Nature, then she is denigrated for devil worship and sinfulness, unreliable rumors of her sleeping around are made-up to justify violence upon her person, and she is stoned to death because the Abrahamic God decrees that she is to remain property and not a person in ancient Abrahamic society of primitive civilizations. There is no tolerance for her opinions and if she expresses opinions like an equal, then she will be stoned to death for the crime of wanting equality. This is because she is decreed property, not a person by the Abrahamic God.
Chapter 6
Bazelon, Emily. “We’ve Been Measuring Rape All Wrong.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 19 Nov. 2013,
Berman, Mark, and Samantha Schmidt. “He Yelled ‘Get out of My Country,’ Witnesses Say, and Then Shot 2 Men from India, Killing One.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 Feb. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/24/get-out-of-my-country-kansan-reportedly-yelled-before-shooting-2-men-from-india-killing-one/?utm_term=.87088ce6c874.
Camp, Jim. “Decisions Are Emotional, Not Logical: the Neuroscience behind Decision Making.” Big Think, Big Think, 11 June 2012, bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making.
Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: Science and practice. 4th ed., 21st Century Bks, 2002. Chapter 1: Weapons of Influence (1-16), Chapter 2: Reciprocation (19-50), Chapter 3: Commitment and Consistency (52-95), Chapter 4: Social Proof (98-140), Chapter 6: Authority (178-200).
Davis, Mike. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World. Penguin Random House Publisher Services , 2001.
Dweck, Carol S. Mindset: How You Can Fulfill Your Potential. Random House, 2012.
Feaver, Peter, and Will Inboden. “We Are Witnessing the Elimination of Christian Communities in Iraq and Syria.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 6 Sept. 2017, foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/06/we-are-witnessing-the-elimination-of-christian-communities-in-iraq-and-syria/.
“Fewer in U.S. View Iraq, Afghanistan Wars as Mistakes.” com, Gallup, Inc, 12 June 2015, news.gallup.com/poll/183575/fewer-view-iraq-afghanistan-wars-mistakes.aspx.
Frank, Priscilla. “Welcome To The Bizarre And Beautiful World Of Purity Balls.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Dec. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/purity-ball-photos_n_5255904.html.
Fromm, Erich. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Open Road Media. Kindle Edition. For reference: Chapter 8: Anthropology (153-208).
Gannon, Megan. “Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue.” Scientific American, 5 Feb. 2016, www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/.
Gilbert, Daniel. Stumbling on Happiness. Random House, 2006. For reference: Chapter 4: In the Blind Spot of the Mind’s Eye (75-95) and Chapter 11: Reporting Live For Tomorrow (212-233).
Green, Hank. “Compatibilism: Crash Course Philosophy #25.” YouTube, Crash Course / PBS Digital Studios, 22 Aug. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=KETTtiprINU.
Green, Hank. “Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy #24.” YouTube, Crash Course / PBS Digital Studios, 15 Aug. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCGtkDzELAI.
Haider, Sarah, et al. “Islam, Modesty and Feminism.” YouTube, Ex-Muslims of North America, 12 Oct. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=QToH2x8njJM.
Halvorson, Heidi Grant. Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals. Plume, 2012. For reference: Chapter 2: Do You Know Where Your Goals Come From? (657-952)
“History of Hate: Crimes Against Sikhs Since 9/11.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Aug. 2012, www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/history-of-hate-crimes-against-sikhs-since-911_n_1751841.html.
“India Is Third in Rape Cases, Second in Murder in the World.” The Hindu, The Hindu, 23 July 2014, www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-is-third-in-rape-cases-second-in-murder-in-the-world/article6242011.ece.
Ispas, Alexa. Psychology and politics: a social identity perspective. Psychology Press, 2014.
Jarrett, Christian. “Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce.” The Cut, 3 Feb. 2016, www.thecut.com/2016/02/a-neuroscience-finding-on-free-will.html. For reference:For years, various research teams have tried to pick holes in Libet’s original research. It’s been pointed out, for example, that it’s pretty tricky for people to accurately report the time that they made their conscious decision. But, until recently, the broad implications of the finding have weathered these criticisms, at least in the eyes of many hard-nosed neuroscientists, and over the last decade or so his basic result has been replicated and built upon with ever more advanced methods such as fMRI and the direct recording of neuronal activity using implanted electrodes.These studies all point in the same, troubling direction: We don’t really have free will. In fact, until recently, many neuroscientists would have said any decision you made was not truly free but actually determined by neural processes outside of your conscious control.Luckily, for those who find this state of affairs philosophically (or existentially) perplexing, things are starting to look up. Thanks to some new breakthrough studies, including one published last month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers in Germany, there’s now some evidence pointing in the other direction: The neuroscientists are backtracking on past bold claims and painting a rather more appealing account of human autonomy. We may have more control over certain processes than those initial experiments indicated. The German neuroscientists took a different approach from past work, using a form of brain-computer integration to see whether participants could cancel a movement after the onset of the nonconscious preparatory brain activity identified by Libet. If they could, it would be a sign that humans can consciously intervene and “veto” processes that neuroscience has previously considered automatic and beyond willful control.The participants’ task started off simply enough: They had to press a foot pedal as quickly as possible whenever they saw a green light and cancel this movement whenever they saw a red light. Things got trickier when the researchers put the red light under the control of a computer that was monitoring the participants’ own brain waves. Whenever the computer detected signs of nonconscious preparatory brain activity, it switched on the red light. If this preparatory activity is truly a signal of actions that are beyond conscious control, the participants should have been incapable of responding to these sudden red lights. In fact, in many cases the participants were able to cancel the nonconscious preparatory brain activity and stop their foot movement before it even began.Now, there was a point of no return — red lights that appeared too close (less than about one-quarter of a second) to the beginning of a foot movement could not be completely inhibited — there simply wasn’t time for the new cancellation signal to overtake the earlier command to move. But still, the principle stands — these results suggest at least some of the activity identified by Libet can, in fact, be vetoed by conscious will.“A person’s decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves,” the lead researcher, Dr. John-Dylan Haynes of Charité – Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, said in the study’s press release. “They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement. Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought.”This new finding comes on the back of research by French neuroscientists published in 2012 in PNAS that also challenged the way Libet’s seminal work is usually interpreted. These researchers believe that the supposedly nonconscious preparatory brain activity identified by Libet is really just part of a fairly random ebb and flow of background neural activity, and that movements occur when this activity crosses a certain threshold. By this account, people’s willful movements should be quicker when they’re made at a time that just happens to coincide with when the background ebb and flow of activity is on a high point.And that’s exactly what the French team found. They recorded participants’ brain waves as they repeatedly pressed a button with their finger, sometimes spontaneously at times of their own choosing, and other times in response to a randomly occurring click sound. The researchers found that their participants were much quicker to respond to the click sounds when the sounds happened to occur just as this random background brain activity was reaching a peak.Based on this result from 2012 and a similar finding in a study with rats published in 2014, the lead researcher of the 2012 study, Aaron Schurger at INSERM in Paris, and two colleagues have written in their field’s prestige journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences that it’s time for a new perspective on Libet’s results — they say that their results call “for a reevaluation and reinterpretation of a large body of work” and that for 50 years their field may have been “measuring, mapping and analyzing what may turn out to be a reliable accident: the cortical readiness potential.”And like their counterparts in Germany, these neuroscientists say the new picture is much more in keeping with our intuitive sense of our free will. When we form a vague intention to move, they explain, this mind-set feeds into the background ebb and flow of neural activity, but the specific decision to act only occurs when the neural activity passes a key threshold — and our all-important subjective feeling of deciding happens at this point or a brief instant afterward. “All this leaves our common sense picture largely intact,” they write.I’ll leave you to decide whether to believe them or not.
Jentleson, Bruce W. American foreign policy: the dynamics of choice in the 21st century. 4th ed., Norton, 2010. Chapter 1: The Strategic Context: Foreign Policy Strategy and the Essence of Choice (2-26), Readings for Part 1 Power by Hans J. Morgenthau (198-201)
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015. For reference purposes: The Introduction (1-17), Chapter 4: The Associative Machine (50-58), Chapter 5: Cognitive Ease (59-70), Chapter 6:”Norms, Surprises, and Causes” (71-78), Chapter 7: A Machine for Jumping to Conclusions (79-88), Chapter 8: How Judgments Happen (89-96), Chapter 12: The Science of Availability (129-136), Chapter 13: Availability, Emotion, and Risk (137-145), Chapter 19: The Illusion of Understanding (199-208), Chapter 20: The Illusion of Validity (209-221), Chapter 22: Expert Intuition: When Can We Trust It? (234-244), and Chapter 38: Thinking About Life (398-407).
Kaplan, Sarah. “’Terrorist, Go Back to Your Country,’ Attacker Yelled in Assault of Sikh Man.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 10 Sept. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/10/terrorist-go-back-to-your-country-attacker-yelled-in-alleged-assault-of-sikh-man/?utm_term=.a1a63bf192d7.
Kishi, Katayoun. “Assaults against Muslims in U.S. Surpass 2001 Level.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 15 Nov. 2017, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/15/assaults-against-muslims-in-u-s-surpass-2001-level/.
Lotto, Beau. Deviate: the Science of Seeing Differently. Hachette Books, 2017. For reference: Chapter 5: The Frog Who Dreamed of Being a Prince (1356 – 1670), Chapter 6: The Physiology of Assumptions (1671 – 2121), and Chapter 7: Changing the Future Past (2122 – 2429).
“MAZE OF INJUSTICE .” Amnesty International USA, Amnesty International, www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/mazeofinjustice.pdf.
Moxham, Roy. The Theft of India: the European Conquests of India, 1498-1765. HarperCollins, 2016. Chapter 1:Spices, Christianity and Extreme Violence (1-21), Chapter 2: Conquest, Horticulture, the Church and the Inquisition (22-43), and Chapter Five: Religious Freedom and Peaceful Trade (88-120).
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. On the genealogy of morals: a polemical tract. Translated by Ian Johnston, PDF, Richer Resources Publications, 2014.
Reese, Hannah. “Intrusive Thoughts: Normal or Not?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/am-i-normal/201110/intrusive-thoughts-normal-or-not.
Roser, Max. “Visual History of The Rise of Political Freedom and the Decrease in Violence.” Visual History of The Rise of Political Freedom and the Decrease in Violence. Web. 3 Jan. 2016.
Rosling, Hans. Factfulness. Macmillan, 2018.
Schultze-Kraft, Matthias, et al. “The Point of No Return in Vetoing Self-Initiated Movements.” PNAS, National Academy of Sciences, 26 Jan. 2016, www.pnas.org/content/113/4/1080.
“Study Tackles Neuroscience Claims to Have Disproved ‘Free Will’.” NC State News The Difference Between Baking Soda and Baking Powder Comments, 12 Mar. 2018, news.ncsu.edu/2018/03/free-will-review-2018/.
“Till death do us part: A Post and Courier Special Report.” Post and Courier, 19 Aug. 2014, www.postandcourier.com/app/till-death/partone.html.
Valenti, Jessica. “Purity Balls, Plan B and Bad Sex Policy: inside America’s Virginity Obsession | Jessica Valenti.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 5 May 2014,
Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi. International relations theory: realism, pluralism, globalism. 3rd ed., Macmillan, 1998. For reference, Chapter 2: Realism: The State, Power, and the Balance of Power (55-197)
Woodall, Bernie. “Victim in Virginia Melee Wept for Social Justice, Her Boss Says.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 14 Aug. 2017, www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-victim/victim-in-virginia-melee-wept-for-social-justice-her-boss-says-idUSKCN1AT0QR.
Wootson, Cleve R. “Sikh Community Asks for Hate-Crime Probe after Man Is Told ‘Go Back to Your Own Country’ and Shot.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Mar. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/04/go-back-to-your-own-country-sikh-man-shot-in-his-driveway-in-suspected-hate-crime/?utm_term=.cf9016ea0b1e.
Although I’d like to praise this work, as I largely liked Nicholson’s analyses and enjoyed reading some of them, I’m compelled by my own academic standards to give Unifying Hinduism a negative review. First, let me just say that for the average reader that this book will possibly satisfy interest in examining interesting parts about Hindu philosophy that can be parsed through this text, but its largely with opinion pieces presented with an academic veneer. I read this book in conjunction with Oxford’s handbook of Indian philosophy in the hopes of better understanding the ancient Indian theology and its differences with Modern Hinduism since it was argued by Western academia that modern Hinduism can’t be called anything but a modern invention in reaction to oppressors. Nevertheless, I’ve since concluded these people don’t even bother following the clear references in the text, or understanding the legacy of inclusivity within Hinduism, or look into India’s history for a fuller understanding, or well . . . anything resembling what is typical in academia. Religious Studies is known as the least academic of all disciplines since it doesn’t use actual history, archaeology, or any type of credible research; the Oxford handbook is rife with paranoid conspiracy theories taken as fact, as an example. Religious Studies seems to try to purport some privileged understanding, but they seem to hold no real knowledge of Western analytical philosophy and seem to just be glorified translators with mistaken perceptions on their knowledge.
I was initially discouraged because reading the arguments of Edward Said, and the fact Indology takes them seriously, was very disconcerting. Nicholson prefaces the book by detailing how an entire school of Indology is based on Edward Said’s views on indigenous people. Said seems to be considered a pillar of Indology, and his assertion is that indigenous people were formed into their way of thinking by imperialism and therefore have no right to any opinion regarding their own ancient texts. Said argues none of an indigenous person’s views are credible, because they’ve been brought up as a result of imperialism. Allusions to the idea that indigenous people were merely savages before Western colonization abound as implications for this reasoning. However, Edward Said’s entire argument is a fallacy of Circular Reasoning; he asserts the premise with the conclusion. That is, he argues that indigenous people are products of Western imperialism and therefore can be dismissed because their opinions are products of Western imperialism. This is very flawed reasoning and the fact it’s a respected opinion in Indology seemed asinine to me since I could easily pick apart the flaws using analytical philosophy. In fact, this is even more bizarre than at first glance, since Indology seems to parade analytical philosophy in many of its texts . . . but don’t even have a basic understanding of it. There’s simply no logical or reasonable basis to respect Edward Said’s assertions; he’s homogenizing billions of people based on their ethnic background and literally devaluing the very idea they have any say based on their race. Moreover, the premise is false; it was the literal opposite of what Said espoused. Schools from Ireland to India were shut down or demolished, people were repeatedly starved, and mass genocides in internment camps due to cholera or starvation or both ensued under imperialism. As a direct result, religious fanaticism increased to a fever-pitch in response to such brutality. Pre-modern India, with mathematicians like Aryabhata and Brahmagupta, were more focused on logical reasoning than the sadly illiterate India that followed after British colonial rule. Nevertheless, I thought it couldn’t be comprised of all what Nicholson had to say, so I bought the book and eagerly began reading.
Some arguments are just teeming with arrogance. In one such argument in favor of a unified Hinduism, Nicholson argues in support of a Hindu identity and contends the assertions of his Indologist colleague Paul Hacker who tries to assert some bizarre generalization that a billion Hindus feel inferior and his even more bizarre re-contextualization of Modern Hinduism and pre-modern Hinduism into some neo-terms that have no basis. I held a favorable disposition for Nicholson and an unfavorable one for Hacker, I readily admit this and I found Nicholson provided a better argument . . . but by the end, Nicholson diverges into ad hominem and implies Hacker has no right to an opinion because he’s a Christian. I sort of just stared at that as it took me a moment to process that a Western scholar could be so blatantly bigoted and provide such a ridiculous error in reasoning. Nicholson attempts to argue a middle approach that rejects what he sees as Hacker’s presumable extremism. He doesn’t seem to understand that he’s using the logical fallacy of ad hominem against Hacker. He’s also committing the middle-ground fallacy. He doesn’t seem to understand that he’s given ample cause to dismiss this entire branch of Western academia as worthless; if even his fellow Indologists are considered to have valueless opinions, based on a bigoted notion against their religious beliefs, then how on earth is one suppose to make any progress in this discipline? What does progress even look like? What viewpoints can even be called worthwhile? Also, Indology admits it makes random guesses and will never actually progress with anything meaningful. What even is this? How can an entire department of academia lack so much in its credibility?
Sadly, this isn’t the first time Nicholson has done this. Andrew Nicholson, the translator of Siva Song and author of this book Unifying Hinduism, seems to lack the critical thinking faculties of the much-loved Analytical Philosophy that his colleagues repeatedly harp about when he adamantly defends his thesis advisor. He made a response to Rajiv Malhotra, claiming on twitter that Malhotra had plagiarized him, yet he never took Malhotra to court. In his criticism of Rajiv Malhotra, he actually argues that Malhotra has no right to an opinion because he doesn’t understand Sanskrit; Nicholson proceeds to completely destroy his own argument against Malhotra’s assertions that Western academia is making spurious assertions against Hinduism by attributing his own personal guesses on ancient Hinduism to the influence of his thesis advisor Pollock. Why is this self-refuting? Because it means that both Nicholson and Pollock’s ideas have absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism and are their own personal opinions on the religion. If Pollock’s ideas are original, which I don’t dispute, then he isn’t actually doing research since that means he isn’t trying to uncover an ancient philosophy of a religion analogous to an archaeologist, but rather just making things up without sufficient evidence. Evidently, Malhotra has no right to an opinion because he isn’t a translator and Hacker has no right to an opinion because he is a Christian.
In what could have been an interesting final analysis, Nicholson consistently asserts his confusion about why Islam wasn’t integrated into Hinduism and tries to use the Rama re-tellings of replacing Asuras with terms identifying Muslims as proof of Hindu bigotry. He poorly asserts that arguments about Islam being nihilistic is proof Hindus were ignorant since it was the same assertion against Buddhists. He seems entirely unaware of the genocide of approximately 80 million people that Islam committed in Northwestern India, he seems to fail to understand that the re-tellings are parallels to the religion of Zoroastrianism which also forbids the usage of interest rates and believes in sinfulness, and it’s made abundantly clear that he has absolutely no understanding of Islamic theology at all when trying to figure out why Hinduism never tried to adapt it. He consistently asserts Hindu bigotry, but makes no attempt at actually comparing the religions. How hard would it have been to simply seek advice and information from a fellow colleague within his own Religious Studies department? Failing that, how hard would it have been to google search a local Mosque or Islamic center and go ask about Islam there? How hard would it have been to simply research Islamic theology through google or go on the multitude of Islam learning websites to gain a better understanding in order to compare and contrast the religions? Yet, he doesn’t even bother to put even that much effort into this chapter that supposedly tries to compare the religions. This is just laziness on his part and it really repudiates his credibility. Even a ten minute google search of the basic facets of Islam would have answered this question; Islamic jurisprudence is specifically designed to prevent such attempts since any outsider’s views on the theology is considered worthless unless they follow Sharia, Jihad against non-believers of the Abrahamic God is a religious doctrine among the four forms of Jihad that a Muslim must commit to, and any Hindu that did compare them would have been brutally murdered similar to the massacres that made the Hindu Kush (Hindu Murder/Hindu Slaughter) mountains that the Islamic invaders named in their triumphant massacre of approximately 80 million people. Something these Indologists evidently refuse to even engage within any discussion. Never mind the silent destruction and cultural genocide of Zoroastrianism in Iran, Zoroastrianists and Jews of Iran are still persecuted to this very day in modern-day Iran.
He harps about the Hindu extremism, yet seems to be utterly ignorant of the fact India took in Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir that were being persecuted with kidnappings, mass murder, and organized rape campaigns by Muslims in all three countries and rebellious Indian State. Evidently, Pakistan is happy to protest against extrajudicial killings by their police on Pashtun groups that support Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but don’t concern themselves with the sprees of murder, rape, and torture of Hindu and Sikh minorities that have all but left for India for their own safety. Nor does Nicholson seem to think over Intra-Abrahamic violence that could also pose a substantial problem to his own confusion of why Hinduism never adapted to anything of Islam’s theology, he seems blissfully unaware of the outright genocide of Christian Iraqis by ISIS. Both of these events are contemporary and happened only a couple of years ago as of this writing. This shouldn’t be perceived as an attempt to deflect Hindutva or Indian army human rights crimes. The deaths of journalists throughout India and the Indian army’s rapes and murders should absolutely be held accountable with punishable jail time, but these horrible crimes cannot be the only issues highlighted regarding controversial topics for the sake of intellectual honesty. I don’t support the anti-intellectual stupidity of Hindutva or would ever condone what unsavory people in the Indian army have done to civilians, but the refugee crises that Islamic militia groups caused cannot be ignored. Hundreds of thousands of Hindu and Sikh men, women, and children were being gang raped and/or murdered by Islamist groups in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. This is not limited to just them as victims; reports of Christian minorities being gang raped and mass murdered have also abounded but gain less notoriety in the West for whatever reason; evidently, forced conversions in safer countries like India of Hindus who respect Christians is more important to US Christian missionaries than helping their fellow Christians who suffer in the absolute worst offenses to human rights and human dignity under Sharia (Islamic Divine Law) in three separate countries. Not surprising, since helping their fellow Christians would cause them great personal risk and would actually be an act of compassion; instead of their forced conversions and unvarnished hatred of Hindus who respect their beliefs.
He and fellow Indologists argue about theories on how to unify Hinduism or why it’s impossible to unify Hinduism, but after reading several chapters of this book and the Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy, I no longer believe they have honest intentions. In fact, I suspect this entire academic discipline never had any honest intentions and never focused on explicit texts or social customs. It should come as no surprise considering its imperialistic background. Nicholson admits that various forms of belief were accepted under the inclusiveness of Ancient India, he uses one example of Rama’s belief and how people who believed in Rama were free to practice belief when placed under as a component of Vishnu, but he actually seems to argue that this doesn’t prove any unified form of Hinduism. After that, he goes on the most vapid of arguments saying it doesn’t prove inclusiveness just because Hindus were inclusive by nature… What is even being argued anymore? He tries to argue the word Hindu not being used constitutes there being no unified Hinduism, but that’s an argument of semantics. Sanatana Dharma could easily qualify and we’d know what was being referred to. Overall, the fact they try to ignore the inclusiveness or denigrate Hinduism as not unified when not even looking at any historical accounts, denigrating the inclusivity they themselves find in their Sanskrit translations, and the fact they pick and choose such as when Nicholson ignores the parts of the Bhagavad Gita (in which Krishna says all ways, even those that don’t believe in him are acceptable and can lead to Moksha (self-liberation) so long as someone is selfless and helps others) in order to argue that Samkhya isn’t atheistic when their previous research asserts it had theistic and atheistic followers and that by the time of medieval translations the entirety of India had recognized Samkhya as atheistic school of Vedic theology.
It seems peculiar to me how so many Indologists can translate texts in which deities of various Gitas explain repeatedly that all other Gods and Goddesses are unified with them and that Brahman is an aspect of them; but somehow, even despite Nicholson himself translating the Ishvara Gita which has 2 whole chapters devoted to Shiva explaining how all the other deities and him are unified, they somehow conclude there is no unified Hinduism . . . despite the explicit, blatant, and repeated assertions on this unity in the texts themselves. In Siva Song (Ishvara Gita), Great Goddess Song (Devi Gita), and the Song of God (Bhagavad Gita), they all detail this unity with Brahman and the voluminous amount of other deities. If they had argued denominational differences, that would have been valid based on the evidence, but instead they argue different religions even when religions like Rama grow out of Vishnu. It no longer makes any sense. Hinduism has been based on inclusiveness, the belief in Brahman, and even acceptance of Atheism since ancient times; in fact, myself and even the average Westerner who’ve asked questions or been curious about researching Hinduism come to believe – based on Hindu theology – that it’s just separate interpretations and denominations of a unified belief and that people can take whatever interpretation they like from the Upanishads, Gitas, Vedas, and Mahabharata to form our own interpretation. The philosophical aspects of selfless service or doing good based on intrinsic desire in the Upanishads is just as paramount in understanding Hinduism as a philosophy too. Truth seeking and selflessness are paramount teachings. That’s how my family has seen it, how I’ve seen it, how the average US citizen who takes an interest sees it, and even how historically pre-modern India saw itself – the last one is according to Nicholson himself. The belief that they’re different religions seems largely unfounded and the Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy repeatedly references a paranoid conspiracy theory of an Aryan invasion, doesn’t use actual history or archaeology, and doesn’t present any credible evidence for its assertions beyond guesswork; Nicholson’s book also follows suit in this meaningless and trite guesswork presented as “academic” but lacking any actual substance or evidence-based reasoning. Therefore, this book by Nicholson, and possibly everything Indology does from Pollock’s racist and Nazi-friendly assertions (since the Aryan Race Theory is a debunked Western conspiracy only asserted by Neo-Nazis outside of Indology) to Doinger and Larson’s poorly reasoned and poorly argued books, and essentially this entire attempt by translators to act in the most pretentious manner possible should be rebuked and identified as the poorly reasoned trash that it is.
None of these people display any firm understanding of Analytical Philosophy, Nicholson’s book repeatedly uses several logical fallacies, his reasoning of Hindu bigotry largely lacks any historical or reasoned basis and he clearly never bothered to look into Islam before positing possibilities of why Hinduism never adapted it (in fact, I provided a more valid reasoning in this one review then he did in his entire chapter about the subject in his book), and like with the Oxford handbook, Larson’s books, and the actual texts of Hindu theology; I’m simply given more reasons to believe Hinduism was a unified theology and that Nicholson and his ilk are simply acting in bad faith since they never bring any valid evidence for their assertions. In fact, Nicholson’s very book gives ample evidence to this; from his ridiculous ad hominems, to the fact that he pointed out a medieval Marathi text that proves awareness of Islam was very well known at the time of its conquest in India. However, this example of the Marathi texts only gives me further credence to doubt the veracity and validity of Indology as an academic discipline since an entire department claiming to do religious studies was too lazy or too stupid to look into other language translations of a country with approximately 3000 different languages to verify any of their guesswork on evidence. These Indologists instead chose to make assertions strictly based on their fabricated ideas of Sanskrit teachings with no attempt at evidence-based research at all.
I can only conclude that the assertions of this book, and frankly all of Indology, are a worthless failure. These people are translators and they don’t have any special or privileged knowledge. Their books are nothing more than wild speculation and are of no value to understanding Hinduism / Sanatana Dharma.
Indology is a Worthless Academic Course: Why Hindutva Needn’t Fear Western Academia and How My Research Has Disappointed Me
After having finished writing my chapter on Islam, I proceeded to conduct further research into Buddhist and Hindu history that I had began before even finishing the chapters on Christianity and Islam. To this end, I decided to research more into Indology departments in Western Academia since I was under the assumption they could provide me with the most accurate and well-researched information. Indology is a branch of Religious Studies that focuses on the religions indigenous to India so I had no doubts when beginning to read into the studies. Indology has made bold claims about Hinduism being a modern invention and that Indians have largely deluded themselves into believing a unified Hinduism existed. I was apprehensive, but completely willing to accept historic facts and any theological contradictions brought up should they be present. I resigned myself to such possibilities and I knew of the Hindutva outcry that made me worry about an increasing anti-intellectual streak in India. I had wiki’d the Religious Studies course in order to gain a better basic understanding, but the terms seemed overly broad. Undeterred, since a wiki being unable to provide accurate or useful information was nothing new to me, I decided to look up research by Indologists and skimmed through some passages about one such book by a Indologist named Gerald J. Larson. Unfortunately, what I found was a broad generalization based on nothing more than a portion of the nationalistic song of modern India having portions of a Christian song in national unity with Christians in India. The man used one small call for national unity to paint a broad generalization, but never submitted any other evidence for the claim that Hinduism was a modern theological invention with an unfounded religious history. This was one anecdote of inter-religious unity with Christians and the man took it as proof that Hinduism was some sort of deluded copout of modernity. I checked his other book on a specific Hindu Atheist philosophy, and found that he listed a bunch of people making assertions without any archaeological or historical evidence about how the Hindu atheist system existed in India and then claiming they were wrong based on his own baseless assertions. These weren’t expert opinions with historic facts present in any arguments, although they seem to believe their own views as more credible than the random guesses that they were. All I saw was just a listing of random guesses on how the belief structure worked based on insufficient evidence. I looked up Andrew Nicholson’s sample beginning in Unifying Hinduism before purchasing it as this seemed to be the most interesting and recent book, and he outright admits that pre-modern India had overlap with branching beliefs and that Indologists evidently know this . . . so why aren’t these schools and their overlap seen as denominations by Indologists? Why aren’t the re-contextualized axioms seen as denominational differences within Hinduism similar to other religions? I investigated further . . . .
After reading more translated Hindu texts and comparing them with the opinion pieces, I was thoroughly confused by how these people could argue inclusiveness in Hinduism as proof that they were different religions and not a unified religion. In fact, they ignore the explicit texts of each Gita (Song) favoring unity with Brahman under a specific God or Goddess to argue that it’s not “unified” and even argue that such arguments are proof they’re different religions and not denominational differences. I thought perhaps I didn’t understand something crucial, but in my mind, I was already comparing Hinduism to the history of Christianity that I knew. I decided that I had to look into the veracity of these claims made by the Indologists and so I took the time to purchase the Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy. I eagerly began reading to try to ascertain why my personal views were so diametrically opposed to the texts that these Indologists have read and translated themselves. The first chapter explains that this entire enterprise of Religious Studies of Indian Philosophy has no true understanding of Indian philosophy at all and are simply making guesswork. This is not a strawman or an attempt at some character assassination; this is literally what their explanation is for their so-called theorizing. Evidently, all they do is make a bunch of empty guesses and nothing else. They don’t do archaeology or read into Indian history, despite noting changing trends in Hinduism . . . which they take as proof that Hinduism isn’t a unified religion. I sifted through other chapters relevant for my research and to try to satisfy this confusion I felt. A chapter explaining how they don’t know the history of India and don’t bother researching it. To my surprise, they repeatedly reference a paranoid conspiracy theory about an Aryan Invasion which has been debunked by other departments of Western Academia and is now recognized as a paranoid conspiracy theory celebrated by Nazis and formed from Western racism. I’m sorry to say this pervasive usage of a paranoid conspiracy theory tarnishes the content of their research; the Four Noble Truths are interpreted as racialized categories instead of the philosophical precepts since the term “4 Arya Truths” is repeatedly presumed to be a racialized concept — which they compare to an even more fictitious pre-Aryan civilization (since Aryan and Pre-Aryan are both fictions as there is no such thing as an Aryan race). The Aryan race paranoid conspiracy thereby causes massive failures in historical accuracy and reasoning throughout this book. This is supposed to be teaching eager young minds the basics of Indology and it completely fails. I’m genuinely surprised they were too lazy to check themselves and instead repeatedly reference a paranoid conspiracy theory as their cited evidence.
Even if I were to be generous about this massive failure, there’s even worse failures in historical accuracy. The Oxford Handbook implies that Indian civilization never had contact with the West and never once seems to have any reference to or knowledge of Alexander the Great’s failed conquest and the direct result of that failure: the cultural trade, Greek immigration, and eventual creation of a Greco-Buddhist empire in which the Greco-Romans and indigenous Indians joined together in what is historically seen as one of the most peaceful unifications of culture in all of world history. There’s no mention of this at all. It incorporated such an important component of Northern Indian history and there’s no indication that any of these so-called scholars have ever even researched this important cultural and transnational milestone. In fact, they celebrate keeping Indian and so-called “Western” culture separate and see them as opposed; they largely homogenize and generalize Hinduism as something that supposedly failed to be consistent . . . from 300 BCE to around 1700 AD. I don’t understand how or why anyone could or should believe any culture could remain in some static state for that long or why the changing times would be seen as proof that Hinduism is a modern invention, but it’s clear these Indologists don’t understand how math and history are interrelated. They don’t have any clear concept or theory, it’s just random guesswork. I’m sorry, but their reasoning simply lacks any critical faculties; they repeatedly harp on about Analytical philosophy of the West being so different from Hindu philosophy, but apart from one person using Hobbes as some go-to to understand the diverse literature of philosophy as a basic comparison (and even this is putting it mildly, as the person using Hobbes doesn’t actually appear to understand Hobbes, but rather generalizes his philosophy for a miniscule comparison), there seems to be no deep comparison of philosophy between Hinduism and the Western traditions. They don’t even seem to be aware of the progress in mathematics that India can rightly be proud of like the mathematical formulas of Brahmagupta and Aryabhhata.
To my genuine surprise, this entire so-called discipline seems to be largely incurious of doing any actual research into Indian history. The Oxford book complains about the lack of comparative religious and philosophical studies, but no Indologist seems to genuinely want to attempt such an enterprise. I asked two friends, one who has a degree in History and another in philosophy, and both informed me that Religious Studies really lacks in actual historical research and accuracy. They simply don’t bother doing it before making any assertions about other people’s religions. Out of all of Western academia, Religious Studies lacks in critical examination of actual history, archaeology, and understanding of cultural diversity. I can presume then, that all these people really know how to do is translate texts. If that’s the case, then they don’t have any unique knowledge or special privilege. Their research is bogus and based on bad evidence. From my own research, I can personally attest that they use paranoid conspiracy theories liberally. Even the arguments from some of these so-called scholars don’t make any sense and are teeming with arrogance. Andrew Nicholson, the translator of Siva Song and author of Unifying Hinduism, seems to lack the critical thinking faculties of the much-loved Analytical Philosophy that his colleagues repeatedly harp about and whom he adamantly defends. He made a response to Rajiv Malhotra, claiming on twitter that Malhotra had plagiarized him, yet he never took Malhotra to court. In his criticism of Rajiv Malhotra, he actually argues that Malhotra has no right to an opinion because he doesn’t understand Sanskrit; Nicholson proceeds to completely destroy his own argument against Malhotra’s assertions that Western academia is making spurious assertions against Hinduism by attributing his own personal guesses on ancient Hinduism to the influence of his thesis advisor Pollock. Why is this self-refuting? Because it means that both Nicholson and Pollock’s ideas have absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism and are their own personal opinions on the religion. If Pollock’s ideas are original, which I don’t dispute, then he isn’t actually doing research since that means he isn’t trying to uncover an ancient philosophy of a religion analogous to an archaeologist, but rather just making things up without sufficient evidence. Now, Nicholson does this in his own book, Unifying Hinduism. In one such argument in favor of a unified Hinduism, Nicholson argues in support of a Hindu identity and contends the assertions of his Indologist colleague Paul Hacker who tries to assert some bizarre generalization that a billion Hindus feel inferior and his even more bizarre re-contextualization of Modern Hinduism and pre-modern Hinduism into some neo-terms that have no basis. I held a favorable disposition for Nicholson and an unfavorable one for Hacker, I readily admit this and I found Nicholson provided a better argument . . . but by the end, Nicholson diverges into ad hominen and implies Hacker has no right to an opinion because he’s a Christian. I sort of just stared at that as it took me a moment to process that a Western scholar could be so blatantly bigoted and provide such a ridiculous error in reasoning. Nicholson attempts to argue a middle approach that rejects what he sees as Hacker’s presumable extremism. He doesn’t seem to understand that he’s using the logical fallacy of ad hominen against both Hacker and Malhotra. He’s also committing the middle-ground fallacy. He doesn’t seem to understand that he’s given ample cause to dismiss this entire branch of Western academia as worthless; if even his fellow Indologists are considered to have valueless opinions, based on a bigoted notion against their religious beliefs, then how on earth is one suppose to make any progress in this discipline? What does progress even look like? What viewpoints can even be called worthwhile? Evidently, Malhotra has no right to an opinion because he isn’t a translator and Hacker has no right to an opinion because he is a Christian. Also, Indology admits it makes random guesses and will never actually progress with anything meaningful. What even is this? How can an entire department of academia lack so much in its credibility? Why has this ridiculous department not been shut down yet?
In what could have been an interesting final analysis, Nicholson consistently asserts his confusion about why Islam wasn’t integrated into Hinduism and tries to use the Rama re-tellings of replacing Asuras with terms identifying Muslims as proof of Hindu bigotry. He poorly asserts that arguments about Islam being nihilistic is proof Hindus were ignorant since it was the same assertion against Buddhists. He seems entirely unaware of the genocide of 8 million people that Islam committed in Northwestern India, he seems to fail to understand that the re-tellings are parallels to the religion of Zoroastrianism which also forbids the usage of interest rates and believes in sinfulness, and it’s made abundantly clear that he has absolutely no understanding of Islamic theology at all when trying to figure out why Hinduism never tried to adapt it. He consistently asserts Hindu bigotry, but makes no attempt at actually comparing the religions. How hard would it have been to simply seek advice and information from a fellow colleague within his own Religious Studies department? Failing that, how hard would it have been to google search a local Mosque or Islamic center and go ask about Islam there? How hard would it have been to simply research Islamic theology through google or go on the multitude of Islam learning websites to gain a better understanding in order to compare and contrast the religions? Yet, he doesn’t even bother to put even that much effort into this chapter that supposedly tries to compare the religions. This is just laziness on his part and it really repudiates his credibility. Even a ten minute google search of the basic facets of Islam would have answered this question; Islamic jurisprudence is specifically designed to prevent such attempts since any outsider’s views on the theology is considered worthless unless they follow Sharia, Jihad against non-believers of the Abrahamic God is a religious doctrine among the five forms of Jihad that a Muslim must commit to, and any Hindu that did compare them would have been brutally murdered similar to the massacres that made the Hindu Kush (Hindu Murder/Hindu Slaughter) mountains that the Islamic invaders named in their triumphant massacre of 8 million people. Something these Indologists evidently refuse to even engage within any discussion. He harps about the Hindu extremism, yet seems to be utterly ignorant of the fact India took in Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan and Kashmir that were being persecuted with kidnappings, mass murder, and organized rape campaigns by Muslims in both areas. Evidently, Pakistan is happy to protest against extrajudicial killings by their police on Pashtun groups that support Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but don’t concern themselves with the sprees of murder, rape, and torture of Hindu and Sikh minorities that have all but left for India for their own safety. Nor does Nicholson seem to think over Intra-Abrahamic violence that could also pose a substantial problem to his own confusion of why Hinduism never adapted to anything of Islam’s theology, he seems blissfully unaware of the outright genocide of Christian Iraqis by ISIS. Both of these events are contemporary and happened only a couple of years ago as of this writing. This shouldn’t be perceived as an attempt to deflect Hindutva or Indian army human rights crimes. The deaths of journalists throughout India and the Indian army’s rapes and murders should absolutely be held accountable with punishable jail time, but these horrible crimes cannot be the only issues highlighted regarding controversial topics for the sake of intellectual honesty. I don’t support the anti-intellectual stupidity of Hindutva or would ever condone what unsavory people in the Indian army have done to civilians, but the refugee crises that Islamic militia groups caused cannot be ignored.
As a final note of contention, I have to say that I’ve never been so disappointed in researching an academic discipline to gain a greater understanding. I love academia, I’m a proud product of US academia, but I’m sorry to say that Religious Studies has no value to its claims within Indology and far too often relies of paranoid conspiracy theories and outright ignorance of history. It’s the only discipline I’ve seen that is so thoroughly incurious with researching its own baseless assumptions to see if there’s any veracity to them. I’m sorry, but if you’re an Indologist, then your views aren’t more credible than others and you clearly have nothing but guesswork to offer; you have no right to parade it as somehow more studious or truthful than any random person’s opinion on religions. At no point have I seen any attempt to even look at Hinduism on the basis of doctrinal beliefs or holy texts as signs of unity, and after looking more into the controversy of Pollock, who placed himself into political controversy by signing a demand to break-up India even further by recognizing Kashmir and Jammu as independent without any thought to the ramifications of his decision, I’m forced to conclude that too much narcissism and downright ignorance exists in this discipline for it to be recognized as equal to other academic departments. Based on interviews, Pollock simply comes off as narcissistic and fueled by animosity and revenge towards an entire racial group. Yes, I’m calling Pollock a racist. He tries to present himself as blameless after signing an incendiary petition over a controversial political topic and then makes deliberate threats about waiting until all the Sanskrit texts are destroyed in order to blame an entire nation-state for being too vindictive, racist, and narcissistic to translate them. This man doesn’t deserve a position in academia and Nicholson acting as his lapdog and providing excuses by asserting that Pollock’s opinion pieces are his unique copyright – and thereby refuting that Indology has any credibility whatsoever – leads me to believe there’s no point even trying to meaningfully discuss these issues. This so-called academic discipline doesn’t even correct itself with regards to paranoid conspiracy theories and actively refuses to engage in historic and archaeological research. I’m sorry, but after analyzing and researching, these are my conclusions on these sensitive matters.
Works Cited
Ahmed, Manan. “Why Hindutva Groups Have for Long Had Sheldon Pollock in Their Sights.” Scroll.in, Https://Scroll.in, 3 Jan. 2017, scroll.in/article/804517/why-hindutva-forces-have-for-long-had-sheldon-pollock-in-their-sights.
Sanujit. “Cultural Links between India & the Greco-Roman World.” Ancient History Encyclopedia, Ancient History Encyclopedia, 23 June 2018, www.ancient.eu/article/208/cultural-links-between-india–the-greco-roman-worl/.
Ganeri, Jonardon. The Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Ghosh, Tanushree. “I’m a Target Because I’m an Outsider: Sanskrit Scholar Sheldon Pollock.” The Indian Express, Thursday, May 03, 2018, 4 June 2018, indianexpress.com/article/express-sunday-eye/im-a-target-because-im-an-outsider-sanskrit-scholar-sheldon-pollock-5191995/.
Larson, Gerald James. Indias Agony over Religion. State Univ. of New York Press, 1995.
Larson, Gerald James., and Īśvarakr̥ṣṇa . Classical sāṃkhya: an Interpretation of Its History and Meaning. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2014.
Nicholson, Andrew J. Unifying Hinduism Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. Permanent Black, 2015.
Nicholson, Andrew J. Lord Śivas Song: the Īśvara Gītā. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2016.
Nicholson, Andrew J. “’Upset about Rajiv Malhotra’s Plagiarism, Even More Upset about Distortions of My Work’.” Scroll.in, Https://Scroll.in, 3 Jan. 2017, scroll.in/article/742022/upset-about-rajiv-malhotras-plagiarism-even-more-upset-about-distortions-of-my-work.
chandraiitk. “Rajiv Malhotra’s Hard-Hitting Response to False Charges of Plagiarism.” YouTube, YouTube, 23 July 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGpB0ITyNVQ.
Some Ex-Muslims have formed an organization to challenge the faith of Islam and argue against apostasy, the idea of Islamaphobia, and safe spaces to challenge the narrative and reframe the discourse so that more Ex-Muslims will come out to challenge the religious faith. At the moment, they can only focus on North America; their chief aim is to get more ex-Muslims to come out and to form a social community for them after they’ve (likely) been abandoned by their loved ones. Ex-Muslim panels also help detail facts that need to be made clear: i.e. that most Muslim terrorists converted to Islam. There’s this attempt by Liberal circles to try to downplay the harmful aspects because they don’t want to further promote violence and discrimination against Muslims themselves by the Right-wing; unfortunately, Ex-Muslims argue that this merely hushes up the domestic violence and discrimination within Muslim communities themselves. Perhaps more importantly, Ex-Muslims solely focus on trying to change the minds of liberals; they’ve long since held that Right-wing groups are too hateful and don’t treat any Muslims or Ex-Muslims as if they’re human beings worthy of equal respect.
The following is the first draft of my book’s chapter on Original Sin, which is given a thorough critique. I’ve since changed some elements, but I thought this would be valuable to know what to expect when reading my book. Unfortunately, the line spacing doesn’t come out properly when posting it on a blog, so please try to ignore the messiness. If you have any detailed analysis or criticisms then please share them. My book will be critiquing religion broadly in the first part, then going into specific criticisms pertaining to the major world religions in the second part, and then the third part will be detailing some historic and contemporary consequences as a result of religious faith.
I am criticizing them on the basis of human psychology and philosophy, the potential failings of faith axioms based on logical fallacies, and my own personal perspective on religious faiths themselves. The following is a detailed examination on the failings of Original Sin as a moral compass, please let me know what you think in the comments below.
Chapter 6: Original Sin, the failure of all Abrahamic morality
If you truly believe in morality, then you should honestly consider Original Sin to be the ultimate mockery and subversion of morality. Cloaked under the veneer of religious piety and goodness, this belief allows for all forms of savagery: genocide, war rape, child rape, torture, mass bombing campaigns, and every other horrific atrocity to be viewed as an inevitable part of the human experience. Humans who observe such occurrences from the outset through television or through the internet use such anecdotes as a justification that violence is an inevitable and inescapable part of humanity. Thus, people use such events as “proof” to believe that our biology is evil and that evil is merely a fact of life because we observe stories of street violence, rapes, wars, and genocide on social media. People may believe that without religious morals that they will go into sprees of murder, rape, and other forms of violence. They might be led to believe that sinfulness and the capacity for absolute evil is just waiting to be acted upon but strictly controlled through the guidance of an absolute good from religious teachings. Original sin teaches them to believe humans are imperfect and so falter into sinfulness. As a consequence, we observe atrocities around the world through the lens of apathy or indifference while believing the victims are in heaven for our own comfort. Yet, on any given day, it is impossible to know why each specific tragedy happened unless we individually fact-check them; it is easier to simply believe that all people have some evil in them since it gives a quick and coherent worldview of such events. Yet, if the perpetrator was raised as a Christian, Muslim, or Jew – or was taught Abrahamic value of sinfulness in the Muslim or Christian schools that help to teach children such values around the world – then what stops them from believing that their actions were simply inevitable because of their humanity? In fact, why wouldn’t the perpetrator just perceive their acts as an unavoidable aspect of being human after committing such atrocities? The human body would be like a cage where carnal pleasure was misunderstood to be evil intent and thus acts of rape and murder would be viewed by the perpetrators as simply a product of their humanity. Relying strongly upon the religious precept of sinfulness would mean that you must believe that you are capable of child murder, child rape, the torture of children, and you are likely to believe that these are aspects of humanity that can never be changed because murder, rape, and torture are intrinsically part of human nature. It is unalterable and all humans; you, your spouse, your children, your friends, your caretakers, and every human on the planet is simply born with a deep malice that predisposes them for crimes such as murder, rape, torture, and genocide. God created conditions that allowed everyone to be capable of these horrors. Thus, the belief in original sin provides a convenient excuse to ignore morality because acts of evil are somehow intrinsically part of human nature. The following is an examination and repudiation of this self-harming belief system.
Sin is an Entity Theory
Sin is an entity theory; it is a concept about ourselves that we believe to be intrinsically part of our behavior. That is dangerous and it has consequences for how we act towards others. Sin is an unsubstantiated entity theory. It has no scientific and psychological basis to be considered true about our species. The apologists for sin primarily use tragic events or horrible human actions to argue in favor of sin being an objective truth about human existence. However, utilizing tragic events to prove the objectivity of sinfulness anchors too much focus upon events that aren’t the norm of the majority of the human species. Moreover, any terrible deed conducted by people who grew up within Abrahamic cultures or Abrahamic communities could justify their violence through the belief in sinfulness. Sinfulness could become circular reasoning because the perpetrators believe that an intrinsic part of their humanity, the concept of sinfulness, allows them to conduct horrific crimes and the observers of terrible crimes use those specific events as proof of sinfulness.
That may seem silly, but it is psychologically true that what we believe about ourselves and what we believe that we’re capable of has consequences on the actions that we choose to pursue. A mundane example is a society’s attitude towards mathematics. If you believe that you’re just not good at math after struggling with the subject during your schooling, then you will be disinclined to pursue the subject matter and may believe yourself to be incapable of learning the advanced mathematical topics. This is actually a self-delusion and results in a self-fulfilling prophecy, people who believe that they’re “not a math person” or “not good at math” have overemphasized the difficulty and closed off a possible academic future for themselves as a result. These people can improve their math skills by emphasizing efficacy and incremental effort in attaining math skills from their studies but they sincerely believe that they are incapable of achieving mastery in mathematics because of an intrinsic flaw. The belief has a lifelong consequence on their future and they don’t realize it.
Now, consider the concept of sin and what the concept of sin encourages people to intrinsically believe about themselves and the actions that they’re capable of committing. Do you see the problem?
Sinful Thoughts or Intrusive Thoughts?
A principal reason for the belief in sinfulness may derive from the concept of sinful thoughts. Certain personal thoughts and beliefs are categorically labeled evil to even think about and such a distinction leads to constant self-blame and weariness with ourselves for having the “evil” thoughts. The belief that being good means you must have good thoughts isn’t healthy or rational because it’s a misunderstanding of how thoughts actually function. Believing that being good means that you must only have “good” thoughts is mental self-torture because you would constantly need to try to “expunge” the “evil thoughts” from your mind. Under the distinction between good and evil thoughts, violent thoughts aren’t what good people should have. It may not seem normal to you to have thoughts of throwing people down a flight of stairs, jumping out of a moving car, shouting something blasphemous during religious ceremonies, or other deplorable activities. These offensive thoughts would instill people with unease or anxiety because people may worry why such thoughts even entered their mind. We would be looking for some deep “cause” for why these thoughts were circulating in our minds. It may seem reasonable to view these thoughts as sinful and believe that you must constantly fight against such thoughts to maintain purity and moral goodness. These terrible thoughts become a “proof” of sinfulness because people don’t know why they have them and fear that there is something evil or criminal within them that are the cause. Many people begin to avoid situations that trigger violent thoughts and feel too ashamed to speak of them with loved ones.
There is an important element in this subject matter that most people don’t seem to be aware of: violent or blasphemous thoughts aren’t a reflection of you or your inner desires. Unless these thoughts make you feel pleasure or happiness, they aren’t what you would want to do to your loved ones or others. Assuming you have such unsettling thoughts, which you do because every human being has them, your feelings of unease and anxiety are your personal reflections on any violent or blasphemous thoughts that you may have. You are not crazy and it doesn’t mean that you have the capacity of inflicting violence upon others. The thoughts themselves are just ideas that you gain from your environment or your imagination; ironically, monitoring your thoughts to make sure the bad thoughts will go away will only cause them to become more frequent thus increasing the unease and anxiety. Prayer sessions could become a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the frequency of attempts to remove the bad thoughts from your mind could increase the frequency of the thoughts returning. This is because our minds need to check on the unsettling image when we try to monitor our progress of not thinking about the bad thoughts. Psychological studies have shown that trying to ban ourselves from thinking certain thoughts will only increase the frequency of the thoughts occurring in our mind. They were never a reflection of you as a person or what you may think you’re capable of committing upon others. They’re just thoughts that come to your mind. The increased fear and anxiety from the violent ideas or images probably comes from our honest dread of harming our own loved ones because we don’t understand why these thoughts are occurring. The increased frequency and misunderstanding can lead to self-hate, a deep fear of ourselves, self-blame, shame, and depression because of an overemphasis on trying to understand some deeper meaning behind why we have these bad thoughts and fear of what others will think of us. Rest assured, it is entirely normal to have these thoughts. They’re labeled intrusive thoughts by modern psychology, they’re not a sign of mental illness (unless you feel pleasure from the idea of committing them, which is probably the opposite of what you feel), and everyone has them. They’re not a reflection of you and they’re not a desire of what you secretly want to do to others. They’re thoughts that come and go in your mind; similar to thinking about breakfast or thinking about another route to work. Having intrusive thoughts isn’t a reflection of how good or evil you are as a person.
What are more important are your feelings towards these thoughts than the thoughts themselves. It is also possible to obsessively think about such intrusive thoughts but that isn’t a reflection of you, it just means that you have an obsessive compulsive disorder regarding your thoughts. That doesn’t mean you’re crazy; it means that you have an OCD regarding your thoughts and it’s possible that it developed because human behavior is habit forming. What people believe to be “normal” is really just people going through various forms of mild psychological issues every day through the habits that they form. It only truly becomes an issue when habitual behavior becomes excessive or it is a behavior that is objectively self-harming such as smoking or physically harming one’s body. If you have had anxiety because you misunderstood what intrusive thoughts meant, then please learn to relax. Let them come and go, and recognize they’re not a deep personal reflection of you as a human being.
Sin is Nihilism
The belief in sinfulness is the belief in ubiquitous nihilism. I am not referring to nihilism that is defined by lack of belief in a God or Gods. Nihilism as defined by the belief that existence is senseless and useless, a belief that destroys all forms of objective morality from the basis that humanity is insufficient to ever create everlasting objective morality, that all forms of human progress are arrogant and useless in the end, and the implicit belief that all human constructions of morality will lead to total failure because humanity isn’t intelligent enough to know God’s will. The argument by the pious in favor of objective moral values implodes under the belief in sinfulness; it’s a complete self-contradiction that Abrahamic believers seem to have cognitive dissonance towards. Human progress itself is seen as futile and self-depreciating despite people having modern conveniences like cars, surgeries, cell phones, the internet, and educational institutions. The nihilism is disguised as morally necessary to make people concede to religious doctrines; all human expression, all human inventions, and all forms of human happiness are to be under constant suspicion because humans are always prone to sinfulness everywhere. If you truly believe in sinfulness then you must always feel regret for the crime of your existence to God, you must always feel regret for failing to curtail your biological desires of reproduction because you find others attractive and God judges that to be sinful, you must feel regret for the mutual act of lovemaking if it isn’t specifically under the terms of marriage that God defined as the only acceptable form, you must feel ashamed of lovemaking because it’s a sinful act regardless of if it’s under marriage because God deemed sex to be sinful, and people who don’t make these concessions are arrogant because they insult God by not believing in Him. There are obvious detriments to this belief that create a harmful standard: you may believe that everyone around you is predisposed to acting evil because they’re born sinful, you may believe that anyone who doesn’t go through these concessions for the one true God is immoral, you may view the failure to uphold the moral code as a form of humility in accepting that you’re an imperfect human being compared to the perfect creator deity, and yet you may not see the circular reasoning in believing that your failure is a humility but that others who fail, who aren’t part of your in-group of Abrahamic religions, are perceived as evil by the precepts of your religious faith. People outside of your religious faith are automatically assumed to be more evil because they don’t seek redemption and forgiveness from God like you and your community. People who commit atrocities but have the same religious faith as you are assumed to have either misinterpreted the faith, used reasoning that is completely different from the tenants of your faith, or are imperfect human beings who are sinful. In the case of non-violent offenses such as adultery, the people of the same religious faith as you are simply assumed to have been an imperfect human being and their failure is seen as an admittance of humility. A non-believer or person of another religious faith is perceived to be conducting similar behavior out of evil or self-delusion in believing a false religion that led them astray because they lack your exact religious faith. Yet, no matter what they do, they’re viewed as repulsive because they refuse to accept the one true God as the irrefutable truth, they don’t seek redemption for their sinfulness as you probably do, and they should be awaiting the end of the world as prescribed in all the Abrahamic holy books. No matter what, your view of them is antagonistic to a certain degree because that is what the belief in sinfulness requires you to believe. You aren’t allowed to perceive outsiders as anything but less significant than your in-group under the belief system of sinfulness.
If the argument seems extreme, you should consider that many religious believers within Judaism, Islam, and Christianity still believe and advocate these positions when acting as missionaries in foreign countries and many Christians and Muslims are conducting forced conversions. Even in a first world country like the United States, there are over 50 million people who believe in this interpretation of their religion and proudly believe in the literal truth of their religious books. However, even if you don’t agree with the extremist version of sinfulness, through open interpretation you may believe in degrees of sinfulness and you may still believe the teaching of sinfulness has worthwhile merits for instilling moral values. Yet, does it truly have moral value? If anything, sin is a belief that promotes the destruction of all morality under a fatalistic concept that morality will be destroyed because of human nature. There is a pernicious presumption that humans will always harm each other because it is human to destroy each other with no regard for the wellbeing of other humans. It allows for a circular reasoning that makes humanity synonymous with rampant destruction, rampant brutality, and rampant cruelty upon our own species and everything else in the world. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that uses sin as a justification for violence: when we justify bombing campaigns that slaughter foreign civilians, when we see people riot in our streets, and when we act out of anger upon others. These acts are justified by sinfulness from both observers and perpetrators through a rash generalization that all humans are capable of horrors because of innate human imperfection. Sinfulness is a self-fulfilling prophecy because it’s also a coping mechanism to understand violence: when we see news of sectarian wars in foreign countries, when we learn of cruel criminal behavior conducted upon children by pedophiles and rapists reported in the news, gang rapes in third world countries, beheadings, genocide, child slavery, and indoctrinated child soldiers. Sinfulness means it is all unalterable because that is the expected outcome of human nature. It is always the expected standard of human interaction within our own communities and outside of it to view wars, bombings, genocide, the torture of children, and less offensive wrongdoings to be common occurrences because of an innate faultiness in humanity. We just expect people to fail in keeping up with the tenants of their faith and the failure of keeping with the tenants is just a form of humility for our group and evil for the outside group. We give violence a total pass because horrific atrocities are an expected norm of sinfulness; violent events in the news serve as anecdotal “proof” of sinfulness.
These attitudes and expectations of sinfulness in humanity are dangerous. It creates apathy towards horrific atrocities, indifference towards our own country bombing civilians in a foreign country, and presumes evil intent from the victims before they have actually done anything against us. There is an insidious and disgusting implication that the innocent victims killed would kill us because it’s the due course of human nature so we need to harm them before they can hurt us – a pathological form of self-delusion and circular reasoning to justify mass murder. Consider this: if sinfulness is true, then humanity is simply expecting failures and catastrophes to be the norm throughout the world because of an unalterable and intrinsic defect within human nature. If all forms of good actions eventually lead to failure, then why should any wealthy person donate to charity? If they sincerely believe everything will eventually fall apart, then why bother doing anything to help other people? They would be predisposed to believe that their charity will fail, they would be inclined to believe that their own success would eventually turn to ruin, and that everything in life is just waiting to fall into ruination because of an intrinsic and unalterable aspect of their humanity. In terms of nation-states, we should just expect a nuclear catastrophe to occur and to wipe out the human race because sinfulness means that we’re predisposed to evil actions and that we will falter in keeping to the tenants of the faith because of our intrinsic defectiveness. For all the so-called goodness of the Abrahamic traditions, each of them believe that the world will end and that the world ending is the expected outcome of human actions; such a belief justifies nuclear catastrophe as the conclusion of our species. Islam and Christianity convert non-believers for the explicit purpose of awaiting the end of the world. Pointing the theological basis for conversion usually causes embarrassment, denial, and attempts to avert the inquiry but it remains the theological underpinnings of the Abrahamic traditions. They can be verified in the holy books and the reason it’s embarrassing to discuss in public is because of how untenable the belief is and how delusional people appear when voicing their beliefs.
Sin is Misanthropy
Sin is sanctified hatred for the human race. Two of western culture’s most noteworthy philosophers, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche, pointed out that if you believe there is an innate defectiveness with humanity that causes evil actions then you are more predisposed to committing evil actions because you may feel it is the unavoidable norm of your humanity. If evil is ingrained within you, if it is an unalterable part of human habit and you perceive your failures with humility, you might be justifying your wrongful acts by using sin as a coping mechanism instead of accepting responsibility. Moreover, you may emphasize events when people hurt your feelings or disappoint you because you expect negative actions to be a natural consequence of your daily interactions with other human beings. You may perceive your own love for your friends and family as a constant struggle because you have implicitly overemphasized the idea that evil actions are natural occurrences within humanity as a result of sinfulness. As such, you may have a biased focus on their negative actions and less focus on their positive qualities. Humans already have a negativity bias ingrained within our psychology to defend from life-threatening danger and the belief in sinfulness may increase the emphasis on negative events in our lives.
Is sinfulness healthy to believe in? Please consider the following: if you have a child, do you truly consider your own child to be born sinful? Do you truly believe that, in some deep level of our humanity, that your child will go murdering, raping, and torturing other people? Do you believe that, within you, there is a sinful part that will cause you to murder, rape, and torture your own family, friends, and strangers? As stated before, having thoughts of such actions doesn’t mean that you want to do them; thoughts just come and go in your mind and that is normal. It should be considered an utterly absurd belief about our loved ones but the ubiquitous concept of sinfulness in all forms of human interaction may cause such negative beliefs about our behavior and the behavior of our loved ones. As a result, you may be predisposed to despise or see evil in your own children’s actions when they act out and may find it easier to discipline them with force. You may see forgiveness and passiveness as a constant struggle while harboring the expectation that everyone else in the world and you yourself will always partake in evil actions during moments of weakness. This is a pernicious view of other human beings; sin has the constant expectation of disappointment, failure, and evil as the only truism of life itself. How can such a belief be either healthy or rational for your mental health?
Sinfulness, in combination with the binary ideology of good and evil, makes it easier to convince us to hate others. The belief that all humans are sinful would fundamentally promote the dehumanization, otherness, and disgust for people perceived as out-groups. When the news media gives you anecdotal examples of violence from the out-group, you’ll more likely to feel disgust, anger, and superiority toward the out-group because you would be inclined to believe that your society has proudly kept their sinful impulses in check compared to the out-group. The repeated exposure to negative events from the specific out-group would make people more inclined to judge the out-group more strictly and harshly than usual through pattern recognition and grouping people by race, religion, social class, or country as the same. From anecdotal events quickly mentioned in the news media, people’s minds would be framing a coherent and negative view of the out-group. This type of thinking is self-centered and delusional because it frames a binary worldview in which we compare doing our menial tasks everyday as a success and proof of our superiority over the perceived out-group. Sinfulness helps ignore the actual conditions that caused horrible events: famine, oppressive governments, mass poverty, certain first world countries selling weapons to governments that sell to terrorist groups (terrorist groups throughout Africa, the Middle East, and South America get weapons manufactured from Western countries), unsafe working conditions, and the political reality that first world countries need third world countries to stay in poverty to keep manufacturing cheap commodities. Crimes such as rape and murder are misconstrued to be the values that foreign cultures or that peoples perceived as out-groups somehow ubiquitously enjoy without thinking deeply about the other societies diverse peoples, crime-ridden areas, and other social conditions.
An example would be the rape crimes in the US, while it’s true that Native American women living within reservations had no legal right to sue their rapists until 2012 thanks to federal laws that circumvented their rights and that violent rapes upon Native American women were so terrible that mothers had to teach their children what to expect when an American citizen raped them because they had no legal rights to send the child rapists to jail, it is untrue that these conditions are normal for the average US citizen. Although there are cases in poor counties of South Carolina in which the police don’t arrest men who beat and rape their wives, because of the counties strong Christian convictions that men are in charge of the household, and that very little legal action has been undertaken even in situations where men chased after and murdered their ex-spouses or ex-girlfriends; it is untrue that these situations are a reflection of US culture and US citizens. The same should be noted for rape crimes in India, despite being more common, the United Nations has found that in terms of per capita crime rates, the rape crimes in India are actually far lower than what would normally be expected for one of the largest population sizes in the world. Mass poverty, lack of adequate police protection (police exist only to protect the wealthy in India), lack of police training in forensics, communalism, lack of judicial institutions to handle legal proceedings, lack of education, discrimination against women, and extremely sluggish court system create conditions of enmity, despair, hatred, and violence. Wealthy and middle class Indians would probably perceive the violence as happening in poverty zones and would desire to keep such violence out of their communities. It is a widespread issue but it isn’t socially different from views of crime-ridden areas such as Camden, New Jersey in the United States or the apathy towards Native American rape victims in US courts. Awful people, opportunists, and deplorable social conditions create these situations and the mass protest movements that follow to create legal changes show that they are not tolerated in any culture or democratic nation-state. Yet, sinfulness and the availability heuristic give us an automatic and negative generalization of US culture and India’s culture without learning more deeply about each country’s social issues and the contexts in which these crimes occur.
The belief in sinfulness is intrinsically dangerous to us and others. If we accept that sinfulness is ubiquitous part of life, if we accept that we can pick and choose the teachings of the Abrahamic holy books, and that we should view our failure with humility because we’re only human; we create mental conditioning that allows us to kill others who are different from us. That may seem ridiculous, but the belief in sinfulness itself presupposes that we’re capable of murder, rape, and torture deep within ourselves. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that those three beliefs, combined and inculcated for warfare, could create social conditioning that sent people to kill others who are different from them. The belief that they’re more prone to acting evil, our suspicion toward their behavior, and patronizing superiority towards people deemed different from us makes it easier to dehumanize them. The dehumanization campaign of perceiving foreigners within the connotations of evildoers would make it easier for those with simplistic moral sensibilities to kill foreigners. The overlap of sinfulness and good versus evil makes violence easier to conduct for people who believe in these concepts. Sinfulness along with good and evil explicitly ignores and obfuscates attempts at understanding different people. Perhaps more dangerously, it explicitly obstructs us from viewing their opinions and lives as meaningful like we do for people within our in-group of friends, family, and community. Wars occur, not just because of racist and other types of discriminatory caricatures of opposing sides, but also because people ignore and demonize other people’s culture, lives, and human rights. We view their lives as less important than the emotional issues of ourselves and our in-group. Absolute good and absolute evil are concepts that would create a catalyst for egregious human rights crimes. For the foreigners, reciprocity and the desire for justice for the fallen victims soon create conditions of enmity and more warfare because people will seek justice for any civilians wrongfully killed through our bombings or war campaigns. Religious extremism and justice for innocent civilians killed blend together to create prolonged warfare against us because we don’t recognize their lives as meaningful or having equal value to our in-group. Religious extremism and sometimes increased terrorist activity occur as a consequence of war-torn people seeking meaning for the horrible deaths of their loved ones.
Yet, when we observe violence in their communities (usually because of increased religious extremism as a way to cope with the loss of their loved ones and the West’s attempts at creating violence between two groups to distract from the West’s own interests in taking natural resources as per the realist theory of international relations), it makes it easier to have patronizing attitudes in support of our own society under the veneer of humility. We celebrate ourselves as having calmed our sinfulness and view outsiders as being ignorant, crazed, or believe in a radical version of a false faith. We ignore the fact that Western governments sell weapons to many of the terrorist groups including African war lords, al Qaeda, and ISIS. We ignore the fact Western governments place extreme political leaders in power who close off hospitals, schools, political participation, and jobs from a specific subset of their own community in their countries; political realities that the Western nation-states believes to be for their own self-interest only to deal with worsening problems in the future that jeopardize the safety of Western civilians and national interests.
Sin and the World
Sin can overlap with fatalism, jingoism, racism, xenophobia, Otherness, and any other form of human belief and human interaction. It’s probably why rationality is predicated upon the concept of doing evil upon others because that is what original sin makes people believe about themselves, about other human beings, and about morality itself. Sin preaches physical and mental fatigue against our own humanity as a form of eternal goodness, teaches that every great human creation is utterly meaningless, and that the most important part of life is awaiting the coming of a Messiah, or the coming of Jesus, or the coming of Jesus and Mohammed together to bring about mass world genocide and global annihilation so the true believers move on to the perfect world. Sin has had an enormous impact and history upon politics, philosophy, psychology, human biology, and people’s conceptions of human interaction. It has utterly poisoned and caused misapplications on all of these subject matters such as the denunciation of sex taught throughout the world by Christian missionaries. When combined with different forms of in-group/out-group dynamics, sin promotes the worst human atrocities. Sin is an extremist concept because it makes people believe that they’re only capable of abject evil from their own human desires. Thus, sin is the most egregious form of mental self-torture.
Among the specific contentions to particular religions, I’ve added accounts and numerical figures of the true scope of the genocidal results of the belief in sin intermixed with politics. The belief in sin, above all, seems to be the true cause for economic destruction, political folly, and human genocide. It overlays every human act with the idea that we inevitably have an impulse to do evil upon others. Expunging the belief in sin and the theories of political realism in international relations would mean less human violence, a less dangerous world, and less mental self-torture for humanity.
The arguments about how freedom from the idea of sin will only lead to massive violence, mass rapes, and death seems to be a form of self-delusion. The veneration of sin is often patronizing because Abrahamic believers truly think that some sacred warning from God would be destroyed and that acts of savagery would happen without them. An important issue to highlight: it was the belief in original sin itself that taught them to believe that humans are rampantly destructive; historically, the other parts of the world were peaceful under Buddha, Mahavira, Confucius, Lao Tzu, and these teachings didn’t require the stubborn notion that God needed to ordain them. Were there problems within the ancient East? Of course, but such acts weren’t full of savagery, mass death, and tribal wars that the West was thoroughly engaged with itself for a large part of its ancient history and particularly during the Crusades. Original sin teaches deep cynicism towards human desires and that maintaining such resentment, cynicism, and suspicion is morally good. It’s a mischaracterization to state the West became more peaceful during the 1800s, because they brought brutal acts of colonial oppression upon the rest of the world and then subjected themselves to World War twice. Would all of that have occurred without the deep theological belief in original sin being the driving force of mass conversions and human actions? Would radical Islam be able to justify violence against the West today without the belief in original sin?
Sin, Psychology, and International Relations
The belief in sinfulness creates a destructive system of reciprocity that is justified as rational and intelligent in politics. In Political Science, the Realist Theory of International Relations, the prevailing theory of Western politics since ancient Greece, operates under the assumption that strong nation-states must weaken other nation-states for its own self-interest. It assumes self-interest to mean harming other nation-states with the underlying assumption that harming other human civilizations is rational. Bombing campaigns, counterfeit money operations, embargos, sanctions, and human genocide are presumed to be rational and the Realist theory is the only international relations theory that is “neutral” to events such as the Holocaust. This assumption that harming others is rational is unfounded and discredited in modern psychology through the reciprocity principle. The Realist theory of international relations conceptualization that harming other civilizations and human genocide were rational actions came from the Melian dialogue of Thucydides in which he argued the genocide of Melos by Athens was due to human nature. Political scientists and philosophers since then have only expounded upon the Realist theory of international relations because of the belief in original sin and the belief that rational actions are synonymous with evil. Strong nation-states usually harm other nation-states, national leaders lie to their public about the supposedly humane actions – especially in foreign wars – for the sake of keeping a positive image of their country so that the citizens serve as apologists by ignoring the atrocities, and the citizens only care to celebrate the positives of their country. Many citizens choose to ignore the negative actions conducted upon foreigners in another country who have been dehumanized by their news media. This creates circular reasoning that international events will always lead to tragedy and it is all uncontrollable when in truth, it is because politicians genuinely believe that harming foreign nation-states is an intelligent course of action for maximizing their nation’s power.
The reciprocity principle has shown that individuals and groups will react positively to positive actions and negatively towards negative actions; this is because of the belief in equality. We want to repay kind actions for people who do nice things for us, out of our desire for equality. We feel it’s fair to do destructive actions upon people who commit a crime or harm us because of our desire for equality. As a result, the psychological and scientifically verified belief in reciprocity creates a state of perpetual warfare in which entire countries who believe in sinfulness go into endless warfare by minimizing the violent atrocities conducted upon the out-group in our press and venerating the goodness of the in-group to fight the generalized cartoon caricature of evil depicted as the out-group. By ignoring the atrocities that we commit, they ignore the atrocities that they commit upon us, and each group feels that it is justified in creating future harm. Worse than that, prolonged violence makes people and entire countries more extreme, thus sinfulness is used to justify our violence upon others by generalizing the entire out-group as the same instead of understanding different political groups, their racial diversity, socioeconomic differences, and the general plurality of their civilization. War itself creates psychological issues that result in heavy stress, a plethora of mental trauma, and outbursts of violence related to trauma for soldiers and civilians. It is a perpetual state of negative reciprocity and it is morally reprehensible when we’re told that committing to wars that have massive bombing campaigns is somehow “humanitarian” intervention. Wars of humanitarian intervention are very few and often cause deaths of civilians regardless of good intentions.
When the United States was hit by the attacks on the twin towers on September 11th, 2001, one of the most critical arguments was that there was something deeply nefarious about Muslim people and Islamic culture to conduct such violence. Suspicion and psychological pattern recognition between Muslim extremists and Muslim Americans began to be seen by a significant portion of the US public. The paranoia that Muslim Americans were prone to harming US society or potentially hiding terrorists became a popular fear for the US public. The US government never issued the real reasons why terrorism happens and stoked the paranoia by insisting that terrorists hated US freedoms. Various States of the US began to impose anti-Sharia laws under the mistaken belief that Islam was trying to force Westerners into conversion through violence. Violence upon Muslim minorities and Sikhs increased and was ignored by the US media. Incidentally, the US drone strikes upon seven Middle Eastern countries that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths created a surge of Islamic extremism, an increase in terrorist recruitment against the US, and the persecution and mass killings of Christians within their countries under the critical belief that Christians had some deeply nefarious aspect of their culture because the supposed greatest Christian country in the world was relentlessly bombing them and were utterly indifferent to civilian deaths – including children. Bomb droppings upon homes, hospitals, schools, and other areas are even more difficult to discern for uneducated people in third world countries and thus pattern recognition of a Christian nation and the Christian peoples within their own communities occurred. The fanciful ideas that removing the externalized “evil” people will somehow remove the foreign bombing campaigns are simply more violent methods than the West’s laws imposed upon minority groups. It’s just as important to understand that the West conducted the same type of violence within its history upon Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, and racial minorities (such as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and the Irish) under the belief that they were somehow evil and that the good people needed to defend their culture from an evil incursion. The difference in responses seems to be based upon the difference in education level; college education generally helps people understand that there is more so-called “out-groups” than generalizing them through rash codifications but violence against minorities always happen to “cleanse” the in-group community of “evil” from the out-group.
The persecution is an inevitable part of perceiving our in-group in danger of annihilation, seeing every member of a perceived out-group as suspicious and potential perpetrators, and championing the innate goodness to do away with the corrupting evil influence can lead to draconian laws; the belief in sin is used as a coping mechanism whenever draconian laws lead to the deaths of innocents. During wars, when civic institutions functioning as social support mechanisms deteriorate then religious extremism becomes rampant, people begin to have rash judgments, and form scapegoats for why horrible events are happening. Persecutions inevitably follow because of the belief in good and evil in conjunction with sinfulness. A desire for self-preservation of the in-group supersedes rational discourse because the threat seems so imposing and there is no explanation for why it is happening so they find fanciful causes during times of desperation.
In regards to violence in third world countries that the wealthier nations see on the news: it is easy to believe an entire country is responsible for mass violence and gang rapes while more difficult to believe the credible facts of the lack of police power, lack of hospitals, lack of jobs, and overall mass poverty leading people to desperation and extremism as being the true cause. Another deeply important, but ignored, facet is that the majority of jobs in third world countries have no safety regulations such as in first world countries. People of the third world can die of poisoning from inhaling noxious gases, be forced to work well over twelve hours a day for something as miniscule as twenty cents an hour, and can be in danger of factory explosions that kill thousands of workers whenever they occur; such fear and paranoia would obviously frighten people about working and cause chronic stress when on the job. It isn’t simply a matter of laziness and being unwilling to modernize when there are honest questions people in third world countries have to ask themselves about their own welfare before taking a job. Safety at a job is a privilege that first world countries take for granted. Sadly, even if reform is made, corporations just shut down plants to move to other third world countries to rinse and repeat this process; thus mass poverty increases when trying to institute honest reforms and another third world country is savagely abused through corporate indifference for their wellbeing for the sake of keeping product prices low. Religious extremism always follows as a crutch when institutions fail people because religion becomes all that people in poverty can rely upon. Yet, the belief in sinfulness and oversimplified understandings of entire countries make people believe that everyone in the world will always have “evil” because everyone is inherently sinful. It disconnects the real issues with pernicious perceptions that all people in other countries are more evil because they lack a specific religious faith and then we first-world denizens content ourselves with the belief that sinfulness will happen regardless of our help; to ignore the billions who suffer under extreme poverty, who are scorned for being uneducated, and who never had a choice in the matter because they had no social support mechanism like the first world countries. Yet, we always want cheap products and ignore all of the factory explosions in third world countries which occur as a consequence of low product prices. If that statement has struck a negative chord, it shouldn’t. Perhaps it is past the time that we concern ourselves with hurt feelings when our purchasing power determines the lives of human beings who were born less fortunate than us.
I’m currently in the process of writing my next book, which is an examination of religion and it’s faults. It’s a project I’ve spent about 3-4 years on already. I only just finished Part 1 of 3. I’m hoping to get it out sometime this year. Part of the issue was my own lack of confidence, my analysis paralysis of not knowing what portions to keep and what to stop researching, and overwhelmingly, the question of whether or not any of my efforts would mean anything or make any headway in the religion versus science debate. Ultimately, it’s best to actually have confidence in one’s abilities and my research into what people believe gave me credence that my views would be useful for people either wanting to criticize religion effectively, or for religious people who might be interested in new tools to understand atheism and how to properly counteract arguments for it. Currently writing criticisms of Christianity; here’s a portion I felt was written poorly, repeating prior points, and so I took it out. However, it should serve as useful insight as an example of what to expect:
If Jesus Christ’s truth claims are true, then it’s problematic due to the innate immorality of his teachings. In many ways, the belief in Jesus Christ as lord and savior lacks any logical sense. As mentioned prior on the contentions with sin, you must harbor misanthropy for the human race, the nihilistic fatalism called sinfulness, and see the worship of Jesus Christ as the only solution to the issue. You must seek his forgiveness for the shame of being born human and thus being born a sinner, for the thought crime of natural sexual feelings for the opposite gender, and for having sexual relations to procreate or for pleasure. You must harbor constant distrust and loathing for the physical world for the illusion of everything containing sin; almost everything in the physical world is a delusion meant to test you so that you can die appropriately and be sent to heaven. It’s contended in the Bible that people must seek Jesus Christ’s forgiveness for their sins because the Abrahamic God sacrificed Jesus Christ, who is apparently his only son, for this purpose. This very idea is convoluted because the Abrahamic God, presumably an omnipotent being capable of anything, couldn’t simply forgive humanity of sin without killing his own child as a supposed act of love for humanity. This was all done for the explicit purpose of forcing humanity to atone for its sin of being born human and engaging in human activities such as sexual desires, sexual love, premarital sex, worship of other Gods and Goddesses, and for any appreciation for the carnal world.
You cannot hold any love for this world because it’s a test to delude you away from worshiping Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and any love for this world is enmity towards Jesus Christ*. You’re led to feel guilty for having any pleasure in this world due to Jesus Christ’s death on the cross and so you must seek forgiveness for being steeped in sinfulness, including sinful thoughts. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross would be a crime that occurred before you were even born and that the Romans are solely responsible for, but you must atone despite not having anything to do with the crime since you’re a born sinner despite the fact it was before your birth. Despite the geographic fact of the matter that his apparent death happened in the Middle East, all people from Native Americans to South Asians must learn to feel ashamed of themselves and recognize they’re disgusting, wretched, and selfish human beings steeped in sin and prone to horrible atrocities for the crime of not accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Everything about their unique cultural heritages are delusions of Satan and must be destroyed to force them to embrace the love of Jesus Christ so that they stop sinning to go to heaven.
Despite the fact the Romans committed the crime, centuries of Christians held the anti-semitic belief that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ and referred to as “Christ-killers” despite the Bible verses explicitly stating the Abrahamic God’s apparent goal was to have Jesus Christ sacrificed and therefore it was part of the Abrahamic God’s plan. Also, if any Christian commits murder or rape upon a Native American, or African, or South Asian that isn’t Christian then it’s because humans will be humans and even Jesus Christ’s teachings of supposed peace cannot prevent Christians from committing acts of physical or sexual violence. Or, as with persistently utilizing the No True Scotsman fallacy, any atrocious act by a Christian cannot be criticized except as being non-Christian or false Christian. Meanwhile, any atrocious act by a non-Christian is proof of a depraved culture that needs Jesus Christ’s teachings of peace, despite the fact humans will be humans and they aren’t effective in preventing human violence. They’re all deluded by Satan for not accepting the truth claims of a self-stylized peaceful God who proclaims that you’ll go to hell for not believing in him and that any love for your cultural heritage is deluded idolatry and the selfishness of the carnal world.
Not sure what value this brings and apologies if this sounds like a nonsensical doomsday spiel, but looking through the causes and consequences, I don’t think neoliberalism does anything positive in the long-term for the health, growth, and wellbeing of a nation-state. This is obvious at this point even just looking purely at the US’s contemporary trajectory . . . but taking the past 20 years altogether gives us a far dire picture of what that means when considering the rejection of neoliberalism across the world, particularly South America.
Neoliberalism, applied with such a fundamentalist style upon education, healthcare, and the erosion of social services with a overemphasis on the free market fixing all issues seems to lay the groundwork for both anti-intellectualism as we’ve seen from ignorant masses who look for quick explanations to blame their troubles on people they see instead of policy decisions by the US government and for monopolistic markets to exploit the larger masses with lies about trickle-down and reasons behind war campaigns.
Crucially, and it’s a surprise nobody rebuffs neoliberalism for this, capitalist markets are far too myopic to focus on ongoing environmental and social issues that are needed to safeguard from cataclysmic environmental disasters. Free markets have to compete and their views, time, resources, and energy are motivated both by monetary gain and by effective measurements to surpass the competition and that’s often in a time-sensitive manner. The use of shock events like environmental disaster to spread neoliberalism implies massive disasters are useful and profitable for these myopic markets. That is blatantly dangerous for a plethora of environmental and human rights reasons. Yet, the myopic views of corporate organizations would be too blind to them.
Republican and Democrat tacit or openly willful support of policies that deregulate, shrink, or destabilize the safety net. Policies that leave large vacancies, and remove government assistance for not just the most at risk, but all individuals representing 90% of the public represents not just short-term narcissism by legislatures or myopia towards campaign contributions but a fundamental disregard for what government means for the people and what it does for the people. We see it clearly with gerrymandering and the criticism of the two-party system by the founders having become incredibly apparent . . . but also the lack of foresight in their thinking that legislatures should have a separateness from majority opinion. Such ideas have positives and negatives but we now see the negatives worsening. The Republican party’s deregulation and policies of economic drift is continuing to be motivated by fundamentalist Christians who feel pleasure and truth from assisting in the deregulatory efforts.
The leadership has similarly thoroughly eroded in solutions and options to complex issues. As we saw when the crop of neoliberal contenders for the Republican base failed to stop the sweeping tide of Trump’s blatantly racist rhetoric and liberals rejected Clinton in favor of Bernie due to policy preferences. The reason Trump won was primarily due to this empty belief in hope – immersed with nationalistic fervor and a yearning for a mythic view of yesteryears – and neoliberalist economic enthusiasts capitalized on it to further push a neoliberal agenda of deregulation mixed with a capricious modus operandi on everything else. Trump is not some masterful threat, that notion is laughable and I can’t regard it with any degree of seriousness, but what his presidency does mean is that anyone with somewhat more intelligence and guile could cause a situation not too far removed from Japanese encampment or even something more murderous and violent like the Holocaust. The fact Trump was successful and has no real policy objectives shows us this and shows that voters can easily be duped into thinking a clown is intelligent. We don’t, as a democratic nation-state, have the will, knowledge, or safeguards to prevent future horrific events. Many would even embrace tyranny… and destroy everything we purportedly stand for.
I feel now that, based on the ongoing wars that continue due to incompetence and the complete failures to formulate an effective foreign policy agenda or long-term plan for places we should have won years back, the dismantling of safety nets for common sense legislation like clean air, and the lack of foresight on what should be considered a principal national interest in environmental policies; what we’re experiencing, and have witnessed with the 20 years of self-damage from the debt, reckless Wall Street greed that came as a consequence of deregulation, and the fracturing of the middle class with the wider society now working 2 jobs just to survive; in conjunction with a decreasing faith in the US government and mainstream media . . . is demonstrable evidence that the end result of neoliberal fundamentalism is the enthusiastic self-annihilation of a nation-state. If a government doesn’t do anything for a people then, notwithstanding threats of violence, there leaves little that will be followed or inspired or even maintained in the long-term. Will the future of the US even be recognizable when compared to its past, if we keep seeing neoliberalist fundamentalism pushing everything in one bleak direction? I doubt it now and the track record is evidence that any turn around may be a small pebble in a vast ocean of bad policy design. The wage gaps, the economic divide between the wealthy and the poor, the rising tide of racial aggression, the massive debt, and the endless wars – all and everything, at it’s core, is due to the belief in the economic policy of neoliberalism.
Kindle Countdown Deal Announcement: It will start on October 19th, 2017 and end at October 25th, 2017. Starting at $0.99 cents and raising back to $2.99 at the end of the deal. If you have a Kindle, and are on the fence about making any purchase, it’ll be on kindle unlimited until December.
This will contain Major Spoilers for Shin Megami Tensei II, Shin Megami Tensei IV, Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse, Devil Summoner: Raidou Kuzunoha vs King Abaddon, and Digital Devil Saga 2. Major Spoilers for the films 21 Space Odyssey and Akira.
Table of Contents Please use Ctrl + F to cut to the section you would like to read the most:
Rejecting The New Testament God and the Hobbesian World Stephen What The Divine Powers Represent The subtle foreshadowing of Apocalypse’s Anarchy Choice in IV The Foreshadowing of the Anarchy Path The Tragedy of Flynn and Asahi Two Interpretations of Nietzsche’s Ubermensch Philosophy Homage References to the Anarchy Ending Shin Megami Tensei IV’s Foreshadowing of the Anarchy Ending through Allegory The Fool’s Journey Allegory
Rejecting The New Testament God and the Hobbesian World:
Two questions generally arise from Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse’s depiction of Yahweh;
Why did the Bonds Group not vilify YHVH for genocide?
Why was he different from the SMTII version?
Surprisingly, there are some very solid answers for both;
First and foremost, YHVH was not the only demon to try this. The Divine Powers, Dagda, and even side bosses like Izanami and Cleopatra can be accused of the very same issue. YHVH succeeding is a surprisingly moot point for one crucial reason: Literally none of them had any stake in losing the old world before the mass destruction and were at best a year old or weren’t even born during that time. Even the one year mark is stretching it, since Nozomi is most likely born after the calamity like everyone else. The Eastern Kingdom of Mikado might be peaceful and serene, but it completely lacks in the modernity of Tokyo and the social customs are far more authoritarian and theocratic. It’s also mostly a life of hardworking farmers since the luxurors are a small minority of elite.
For the Bonds group, the mass death toll of the entire world in the past is just a part of ancient history that’s already happened. Is that bizarre? It shouldn’t be. World Wars 1 and 2 were very real and traumatic for those who experienced them, but for people afterwards, they’re just words in a book or stories shared in groups. Yes, they were meaningful; yes, it had an impact. But there is a clear and obvious emotional disconnect because none of them can even form a comparison like we can. Did anyone feel a personal connection to Nikkari’s narrative about the events twenty five years ago? Did even Asahi feel connected to it? No. Because it’s just history to them. The destruction was such a lengthy, wide-ranging change that few of the people have any concept of humans living in cities and not underground in subway stations.
For all intents and purposes, none of them ever realized they lived in a dystopia because none of them knew anything but the dystopia.
As proof, Satan actually makes this point clear:
Satan: You hail from a world shackled by slavery. But in this one blow the winds of freedom. If the soul is at peace, even in the depths of Hell shall one find comfort. As proof, you–slave of God–did not recognize that you were being shackled… Yet you now wish to dethrone the Creator. Then show me the strength of your determination… Your will. Hold nothing back. Failing this test would mean eternal death.
None of them had any comparisons but other forms of dystopia that made their own world look far more positive by comparison. Infernal and Blasted Tokyo are in far worse shape than Neutral Tokyo ever could or would be. Twisted Tokyo is far more abysmal as a comparison.
Because Shin Megami Tensei IV-IV Apocalypse is a critique of the New Testament God and SMTI-II was a critique of the Old Testament God.
I’m scratching my head as to how so few realized the unambiguously obvious. In Anarchy, YHVH quotes the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ as his teachings.
Lucifer being created by God to rebel is consistent with Christian theology and the Christian understanding of the world. Human suffering being part of some plan is also consistent with the worldview espoused by modern Christians.
This belief is influenced by and still defended in real life by the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. The various worlds of IV and IV Apocalypse are the Hobbesian world. Bonds flatly rejects the Hobbesian worldview and Anarchy explicitly tries to show both its failings and it’s logical consequences through Nanashi’s actions.
What IV Apocalypse rejects in Bonds and surpasses in Anarchy is the Hobbesian interpretation of the New Testament God. The entire game is about its utter lack of consistency and the logical consequences of believing in the unsubstantiated Hobbesian worldview.
Nanashi’s journey is about rejecting or surpassing the Hobbesian Worldview of Christianity:
Hobbesian Law of Nature:
To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ distinct, but only that to be every man’s that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it. And thus much for the ill condition which man by mere nature is actually placed in, though with a possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the passions, partly in his reason.
The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them. And reason suggesteth convenient articles of peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement. These articles are they which otherwise are called the Laws of Nature, whereof I shall speak more particularly in the two following chapters.
Manabu and Nikkari’s deaths are depictions of the Hobbesian worldview. As further evidence, Adramalech explicitly quotes Hobbes and reinforces the Hobbesian worldview as his justification for slaughtering them:
Krishna explicitly rejects YHVH’s world and humanity because it’s Hobbesian. Krishna explicitly quotes Hobbes in his rejection of YHVH and says that even death is a freedom compared to the horrific world that YHVH has made. It’s made clear later on that Krishna believes YHVH is evil and that humanity is suffering from a massive delusion. For comparison’s sake, it would be similar to a democratic country analyzing the system of a murderous dictator.
To IV Apocalypse’s version of Krishna, humanity is hopelessly stuck in that violent dictator’s hands as his plaything and so he decides a cosmic revolution and mercy killing is the only way to truly free them from the tyrannical ruler.
Krishna points out the failings of the Hobbesian world:
Bewitching voice: Humans will never know peace in this universe. The life of man is solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.
You suddenly find Krishna waiting next to the crucified Flynn.
Odin and Maitreya stand beside him.
Krishna: Humans are trapped in a cycle of their own misery. They need salvation.
Asahi: Krishna!
Krishna: You made it this far. What did you intend to do here?
Gaston: I am honor-bound to destroy you and the Divine Powers!
Krishna: You bite the hand that feeds. Who else will provide you with salvation?
Nozomi: Yeah, we know what your so-called “salvation” really is. Destroying this universe and everything in it . . . You think we can let you get away with that?
Krishna: So long as your souls are trapped in this universe, you have no hope of true salvation. Your body and all the pain it endures are merely cages for your soul. I offer you freedom so that you may grow and find salvation.
Asahi: I think we have two very different definitions of “freedom” . . .
Krishna: “I believe we have two different definitions of “death”. You think death is the end of your body. And by that definition, yes, all beings in the Creator’s universe should die. But after the death of the body, I shall lead the soul to a new universe. Come the next full moon, a new universe will hatch from the Cosmic Egg.
Hallelujah: Cosmic Egg?
Krishna: In the new universe, you will no longer be the puppets of the Creator. Shesha will break the ties that bind you here and lead you to a new universe. Now, won’t you let yourselves be devoured by Shesha?
The Hobbesian condition of humanity is explicitly the Tokyo way of life and Krishna’s analysis is almost a direct quote of Hobbes most famous line of the Leviathan.
Excerpt from Thomas Hobbes Chapter 13 of Leviathan:
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or war where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death,and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
In essence, only the fear of God Almighty can engender people to form agreements – Hobbes explicitly frames it as covenants – with each other. Covenants under fear of God will allow them to renounce the desire for violence and agree with each other to form communities and only take small portions to be part of a greater system. In his third of three parts on the Natural Law philosophy that he proposed. Hobbes mentions a fool who rejects the natural order of things and lacks the fear of God, the fool questions the existence of God and wonders why fear of God should be the arbitrary defining point of forming a society and why people cannot simply follow the laws of nature circumscribed to brutalize the world and reject God to form a new order. Thus, the fool finds no inconsistency in using the violent world itself to reject both God and God’s covenant and destroy it for their own benefit.
Hobbes makes his point clear by quoting Pslam 4:4 as he explains what the Fool is:
The Biblical quote: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+14%3A1&version=KJV
Hobbes explanation of the Fool who rejects the natural order made by the Abrahamic God:
The fool hath said in his heart there is no such thing as justice, and sometimes also with his tongue, seriously alleging that every man’s conservation and contentment, being committed to his own care, there could be no reason why every man might not to do what he thought conduced thereunto; and therefore also to make or not make, keep or not keep, covenants was not against reason when it conduced to one’s benefit. He does not therein deny that there be covenants, and that they are sometimes broken, sometimes kept, and that such breach of them may be called injustice, and the observance of them justice; but he questioneth whether injustice, taking away the fear of God, for the same fool hath said in his heart there is no God, may not sometimes stand with that reason which dictateth to every man his own good; and particularly then when it conduceth to such a benefit as shall put a man in a condition to neglect not only the dispraise and revilings, but also the power, of other men. The kingdom of God is gotten by violence; but what if it could be gotten by unjust violence? Were it against reason so to get it, when it is impossible to receive hurt by it? And, if it be not against reason, it is not against justice, or else justice is not to be approved for good. From such reasoning as this, successful wickedness hath obtained the name of virtue, and some that in all other things have disallowed the violation of faith, yet have allowed it when it is for the getting of a kingdom.
YHVH created a violent, Hobbesian world and then demands that you worship him as the perfect creator. God tells you to feel ashamed of your sinful, flesh body and recognize that you’re nothing compared to the perfect Creator who loves you despite your constant tendency to sinfulness. The covenant is predicated upon YHVH having given humanity life.
YHVH trapped humans in the illusion of the physical world and then told them to reject carnal, sinful desires and to love and worship God as the perfect creator of the universe to be part of heaven. Humans are expected to receive whatever miniscule blessings, while living in the constant understanding that any wrongdoing is the fault of the sinfulness of humanity and that God allowed them to have freewill to be as they are out of his unceasing love. Also, God created the devil to deceive humans, but it’s still all humanity’s fault for being deceived and God can never be at fault because God can only ever be good while human sinfulness leads people astray and into mass violence. Carnal, sinful desires that humans are trapped are at fault; not God for putting humans in the carnal, sinful world or for bestowing humanity with Original Sin, or for punishing humans that reject Yahweh with hell. Humans shouldn’t feel nihilistic because they only have themselves to blame for their own misery.
Krishna firmly rejects this point by reversing the argument itself. Krishna explicitly points out the contradiction of Lucifer being formed to deceive humans and alludes to the fact that humans are made to be scapegoats. Essentially, all the wrongdoing of the world and of human misery is justified by misanthropy for the human race. Sinfulness itself, and the Hobbesian Worldview in its totality, is just misanthropy for the human race because it tries to argue everything would be worse under the presumption that humans are violent murderers and rapists without a God and that good morals come only from God being the foundation of belief. Anything that doesn’t align with God’s will is evil, that’s why open interpretation became popularized; this is lampshaded by Abbot Hugo in the Kill Mikado DLC quest.
Krishna’s rejection is that humans are simply taught under Abrahamic theology to hate themselves as justification for the wrongdoings of the world so that they don’t fall into nihilism with life itself. Such a framework is proof that Yahweh is explicitly evil in Krishna’s view:
Atlus presents further counterpoints in Anarchy and Bonds with Nietzschean overtones:
In Bonds, the argument of pity is rejected and Bonds itself represents the reversal of the Biblical conceptualization of how the world functions.
The Bonds group become the Natural Enemies of God warned about in the Bible. They live for the pleasures of the flesh and the carnal world above the spiritual pleasures of the soul:
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Asahi states that God judges humans based solely on how much they obey him while he leaves them to suffer. This is in contradiction to being all-loving:
Asahi: You judge people’s worth on how much they believe in you, obey you . . . But is that all we are, to you? Are we really worthless if we don’t have value to you? I mean, just because I’m weak and I have to rely on others doesn’t mean I’m worthless. My friends helped me realize that I alone decide the value of my life.
You cannot allow your own life to be forfeit to others circumstances or a God’s discretion. It’s also a callback to the Ancient of Days DLC story arc of Kiyoharu:
(Please excuse the moronic vlogger who did everything to act stupid and ruin the poignant moment.)
Hallelujah makes it clear that there is literally no reason whatsoever to believe in this God at all because a God who espouses freewill and a violent world makes faith in God irrelevant. God helps no one; Yahweh is a Do-Nothing God:
Hallelujah: All you ever say is to believe in you, but why should they believe when you do nothing? If I see a kid crying, I help them. But all you do is watch, there’s no reason to believe in you. You demand so much without giving anything in return. How is that right?
Navarre’s is the most brutal argument, quite possibly against the entirety of Abrahamic theology itself. If only believers are blessed and God only helps those who believe in him, then it cannot be called love. It’s just an empty and vacuous sentiment. If you really loved someone, you would do all in your power to help them.
Navarre: You claim that whoever has faith in you shall be blessed? That you offer your hand to those who believe in you? That’s not love. It’s empty pity. If you really loved them, you’d motivate them, give them a good swift kick in the rear.
As Nozomi points out: Belief in a One True God that needs to be feared is against freedom of religion.
Nozomi: You refuse to acknowledge other gods, making this world stagnant. Your existence prevents the emergence of new gods. That means humanity can’t progress on their own accord. With you around, reigning over our fate, we’re left with no means to find our own path.
Gaston’s rejection is the most Nietzschean of them. Pity is seen as elitist, selfish, and part of a decadent culture. Purity and impurity, Good and evil, and pity can only ever create inequality based off self-righteous norms:
Gaston: Not long ago, I had complete faith in you. Now that I’ve seen the world, however . . . that’s changed. I see now that you spin lies to fool the weak-minded into believing they’re your “chosen” people. Elitism leads to decadence. Nothing good comes out of pitying each other. Your very existence debases humanity! You’re the Unclean One!
Toki’s is more thought-provoking than people give credit for. Open interpretation can, and often is, used as an excuse to justify never changing and subservience to God used as an excuse to never better oneself or change.
Toki: You must be very understanding if you are so quick to forgive. But your forgiveness is empty. The only thing is accomplishes is to hide your believers’ weaknesses. I learned that one’s weakness should be changed, not hidden. Whoever believes in your weakness only becomes weaker. Who’d want that? Keep your compassion to yourself. Don’t toy with us humans.
In sum, Atlus’s point is that the New Testament God, and the self-righteous justification of the Hobbesian world to create a sense of consistency with that belief, is entirely untenable and forms far too many contradictions and problems. As far as the theological implications; God can never be held accountable for what he does, so people simply learn to hate humanity and blame ourselves for precisely what God forced upon humanity in the first place. Any attempt to point this out is ridiculed as arrogance, because the entire basis of the doctrine of Original Sin is misanthropy for the human race. Hatred for the physical world, disgust with our flesh bodies, and loathing for our community when it doesn’t live in fear of God. This is grounded in explicit New Testament teachings about how to worship the New Testament God and Jesus Christ:
Romans 8: “There istherefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”
The New Testament God interpretation of Yahweh having consistency with the Hobbesian World makes YHVH a complete failure by design. He does nothing and even if he were real, there’s no point in believing in him. If it’s all just a test for heaven, then YHVH is a monster that’s barely distinguishable from the devil and he created the devil in the first place. If the carnal world must be interpreted as violent then it is simply death worship as Nietzsche warned and nothing else.
This is why, of all the gods demonized and bastardized by the Christian faith, they’re all still beneath the demonization and bastardization of the human soul in YHVH’s true form. If the carnal world is meant to be denigrated for spiritual pleasures, then YHVH is simply torturing humanity in a cage and blaming it upon them while arguing any questioning of the system is misplaced arrogance and enmity against him.
The Axiom has been ludicrously touted to be the New Testament God. This interpretation lacks any consistent basis. Since when did the New Testament God bestow humans with karma and have a cycle of reincarnation?
It’s made fairly clear that the Axiom is closer to Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse’s interpretation of Brahman. The Goddess of Tokyo and Stephen refer to it as the binding force of the universe. It’s the ultimate reality. The binding force of the universe, which allows reincarnation based upon one’s karma, can be attributable to the All-Pervading reality of existence that is Brahman. As theosophy plays a key role in a lot of Shin Megami Tensei IV and IV Apocalypse’s interpretations of deities, it’s likely the Theosophic interpretation of Para Brahman.
Incidentally, Brahman already exists and has interacted and utilized mainline characters in a certain other MegaTen game:
Stephen:
The more we know, the less we really knew him.
Stephen’s mysterious nature and intentions are finally unveiled in Apocalypse. He desired to test humanity and – to my shock – he tried to brainwash Nanashi into picking Neutral Bonds for the sake of making his world of infinite human potential.
If you speak with Fujiwara and Skins after the Shesha-Flynn revelation, you’ll realize that he brainwashed Fujiwara and Skins just like Lucifer disguised as Hikari did in IV. It’s made clear when they’ve never heard of Dr. Matsuda and the guard who is by the Shesha Radar door doesn’t remember why he was guarding it. He attempted to brainwash Nanashi and it succeeds in Bonds by making Nanashi wrongfully believe that Fate was behind joining his friends to overthrow YHVH, when it was really Stephen manipulating the situation by force feeding him Akira’s memories. He attempts to kill Nanashi when Nanashi picks Anarchy.
The most tragic aspect of all is how thoroughly manipulative he is. He’s technically giving Tokyo a fighting chance by telling them about you choosing godhood in Anarchy, but he only seeks to observe human potential. It’s an assassination attempt on Nanashi, giving humans one final fighting chance and ray of hope, sending Tokyo’s last resistance to their horrific doom, and observing human potential in one of many worlds as one would study a scientific experiment through a clear lens of objectivity. All of these are valid interpretations of Stephen’s behavior,
Stephen then mocks their deaths by handwaving what he’s done as unimportant. Yes, it doesn’t really matter if Nanashi’s objective is changing the entire universe anyway, but those deaths were completely unnecessary and Stephen further mocks you on that front by asking if there was a problem. It has nothing to do with your goals, so it isn’t. Stephen knew it and took advantage of both parties just to “prove himself right” about human potential before being forced to give-up on it.
Stephen is shown to be extremely selfish in Apocalypse. He brainwashes Fujiwara and Skins with no remorse, he makes several attempts at brainwashing you and equivocates on it by saying that he was only helping you, and then in his DLC, he admits that his reasoning centers around nothing more than wanting to be completely correct about human potential. He’s no different than any of the gods and demons that he lists off at the end of Anarchy, the only difference is that he wants humans to constantly be on the neutral path so he can keep observing how far the infinite potential can go.
He only wanted Nanashi to pick Neutral:
Foreshadowing that he’s been brainwashing Nanashi since before the game started:
Mocking Nanashi by equivocating about the brainwashing:
The most glaring proof of Stephen’s manipulative nature, he stops Nanashi and Asahi from warning Flynn in time before the Divine Powers kidnap him:
Please keep in mind that he late-game he convinces Fujiwara and Skins to try to kill you if you pick Anarchy and that the Hunters forget who Dr.Matsuda is when you speak with them after the Shesha-Flynn twist. If you go down to the Shesha radar room to speak with the guard of the room, he will also question why he’s guarding the room and doesn’t remember Matsuda or the Shesha Radar.
Stephen’s callous disregard for human life once they don’t fit his model of thought of infinite potential:
What The Divine Powers Represent:
Each of the Divine Powers are further representations of Theosophy, similar to the White. They’re not – strictly speaking – representations of their religious source material, although there is some overlap. They’re the theosophic interpretations of the specific gods.
This lengthy passage is quite revealing in just how grounded IV Apocalypse is in Theosophy for both the Axiom and the Divine Powers:
“The original teachings of Theosophy do not very often use the term “God.” They generally speak instead of “Deity” or “The Divine Principle,” sometimes referring to IT under Hindu terms such as Parabrahm or Brahman; sometimes under the Kabbalistic term Ain-Soph – “the endless, boundless No-Thing which is everything”; sometimes as Adi-Buddhi, a term from esoteric Buddhism.
In fact, we find such statements as the following:
“The high Initiates and Adepts … believe in “gods” and know no “God,” but one Universal unrelated and unconditioned Deity.” (HPB, “The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 295)
“Deity is not God.” (HPB, “The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 350)
“Parabrahm is not “God.”” (HPB, “The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 6)
“It is to avoid such anthropomorphic conceptions that the Initiates never use the epithet “God” to designate the One and Secondless Principle in the Universe.” (HPB, “The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 2, p. 555)
“The idea of God and Devil would make any chela of six months smile in pity. Theosophists do not believe either in the one or in the other. They believe in the Great ALL, in Sat, i.e., absolute and infinite existence, unique and with nothing like unto it, which is neither a Being nor an anthropomorphic creature, which is, and can never not be.” (HPB, “Misconceptions”)
“Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H. … Our doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth. Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. … we know there is in our system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute immutable law … we are in a position to maintain there is no God … The idea of God is not an innate but an acquired notion, and we have but one thing in common with theologies – we reveal the infinite.” (Mahatma K.H.)
The point emphasised most importantly in original Theosophy is that the Causeless Cause and Rootless Root is the ONE Absolute, Infinite, Omnipresent, Impersonal, Eternal Divine PRINCIPLE and that there can be nothing finite, conditioned, relative, anthropomorphic, personal, or human-like about the Infinite. It is spoken of with reverence as “IT” and “THAT” rather than “He” or “Him.” It is not a Being but “Be-ness” itself.
It is not only the Sourceless Source of all but also the true Self, the essential nature, the innermost reality, of every living being and of all life. It is both Absolute Divine Spirit and Absolute Divine Substance. It is really Pure Consciousness Itself. We do not and cannot pray to the Absolute and Infinite, for we are That. Instead of praying, we determine to act, work, and live for and as the Self of all creatures.
Cyclic Law, including the cyclic appearance and disappearance of the Universe, is one of the fundamental aspects of the original teachings. The Universe comes into being as a result of the Logos being radiated forth from the Absolute. The Logos – meaning “Word,” “Speech,” or “Voice” in Greek – is the objective expression of the subjective and abstract Absolute. The Logos is not a personal being or a God but is the one all-ensouling light and life of the Universe, a universal spiritual Principle of existence, manifestation, and evolution. It manifests in three distinct stages, sometimes described as the Three Logoi, but it is maintained that in actuality there is only the One Logos.”
The Axiom is indicative of the Theosophic interpretation of Brahman. The Divine Principle seems to be categorically similar to the Divine Powers, it seems to be what primarily influenced Atlus’s interpretation of the Axiom and the Divine Powers or “Polytheistic Alliance” of IV Apocalypse.
The slaughter of flesh-like bodies because they need salvation of the soul is portrayed as insane and crazy, but the majority of religions argue for salvation of the eternal soul over the delusions of the physical world. IV Apocalypse shows an allegory of this concept by reversing theosophy into the Nietzschean view of salvations, eternal life, and heaven simply being euphemisms for death worship in a world where salvation, eternal life, and heaven are real as a result of human conceptions and not simply imaginary concepts.
The reason the Divine Powers are so invested in doing so and aggressive in their actions is because Shin Megami Tense IV-IVApocalypse’s humanity is the Fifth Humanity. YHVH has committed mass genocide 4 times before and the result was the nihilistic ascended spiritual figures of the White. That is why the White called Flynn by the name “Our Fifth Son” as it was both a representation of passover and a reference to the fifth race of humans in IV and IV Apocalypse. As a concept, the Fifth Humans is consistent with theosophic beliefs about awaiting Maitreya for a new world with the sixth humanity.
The most explicit reference to the Fifth Humanity:
Shesha-Flynn speaks of this precise issue of destroying and remaking humanity by endlessly repeating Genesis and Revelations for the sake of creating a completely obedient humanity:
Odin:
Odin is an interesting case of how warrior ideals don’t translate to fairness. Odin was freed thanks to Flynn in IV and then has no qualms with assaulting Flynn to force him to submit to the Divine Powers objectives. Flynn’s positive actions only benefited someone who Flynn clearly didn’t understand and didn’t appreciate the position thereof. Odin orchestrates the three-way war by tricking Nanashi and Asahi into freeing Krishna and then has no qualms with using Asahi as bait to get Flynn to drop his weapon.
Did this act seem like a poor choice? It shouldn’t. Odin was meticulous and Flynn’s renown was known throughout Tokyo and Mikado. One aspect of Flynn that people seem to forget is that he will always defend children, no matter what. I recalled how senseless and pointless the narrative of saving the young child in the Kiccigorgi forest felt when playing IV on my fourth playthrough, wondering when such an element would matter. Of course Flynn, despite his choices, would save a kid. Flynn goes a step further and even tries to save Parvati’s child under the belief that Kartikeya was in danger in infernal Tokyo.
While it seems haphazard and ridiculous, this was something Odin knew would be in his favor. All he had to do was observe Flynn’s heroics when it came to children and Neutral Flynn, who spreads and symbolizes hope, would be affected most of all. What Odin shows us is the real life efficiency of warfare in the early game. What matters is the objectives, not the morals. That is war in and of itself.
Maitreya:
The IV Apocalypse Maitreya is the theosophic interpretation of Maitreya. The theosophic interpretation of Maitreya has some sects of Theosophy that teach Mithra, the Zoroastrian God of Contracts, is an incarnation of Maitreya, the Future Buddha.
What I find most intriguing about this interpretation are that his teachings has a more individualistic, ascetic buddhist slant and within the context of the IV-IV Apocalypse world, his teachings are largely the most useful and active instrument against YHVH.
What Maitreya seeks is to bestow enlightenment upon Nanashi and the rest of humanity. When interacting with him, he is always teaching Nanashi about Atman, detachment from suffering, and to reflect on his beliefs and choices.
What is the most thought-provoking is acknowledging where his teachings will lead: Enlightenment; the same type of enlightenment that Mido, St. Germain, and Stephen have gained. Even more so, the end result would be the Digital Devil Saga 2 ending of accepting one’s place in the universe and freeing oneself from desires to go to other realities and help be guides to humans whose souls are lost, deprived, or trapped in abysmal life circumstances. What Maitreya wanted was for more enlightened individuals who follow the Axiom’s objective and help humanity grow its potential and achieve their answers.
It’s presented in negative connotations because under the Nietzschean ideal, it’s just another form of death worship that renounces life and doesn’t celebrate life. As depicted by those who followed Maitreya willingly being devoured by Shesha to become part of a new world that would foster such growth.
Inanna:
Inanna may quite honestly be a total failing on the part of the story, for no other reason than because we have no context or feeling for her part of the conflict. At best, her character reflects a time period that none of the party have any context for and due to seeing no value in complying with Inanna’s demands, they vanquish her. However, what I did find interesting was that Toki’s in-battle dialogue in the Cosmic Egg hints at the Anarchy path’s theme of never looking back.
Inanna (Toki): . . . Master
Gaston: Toki?
Inanna (Toki): I’m sorry. I was jealous. You were always with Asahi… I really wanted to trade places with her… But I knew it couldn’t be helped. She’s been with you for so long… Of course Asahi would know so much more about you. Spending time with you, always by your side… Laughing, crying… over things I don’t understand… Seeing things different from me… It was only natural. But… Asahi died… There’s room by your side for me now… Right? Then why am I not by your side? Why do you still wait for that girl!? No… I don’t get it… It’s not fair…! Let me be with you! I can make you happy! Don’t look back… The past can’t keep you warm… What’s done is done; leave it behind. We can move on… together.
I love you.
I love you. I love you. I love you. I love you. I love you so much… I promise I’ll save you. So please… Save me too.
Don’t worry, it’s easy. All you have to do is be by my side. Master… Let me free you from your body, so our souls can be together… forever.
> Inanna attacks you.
No…! No, I-I didn’t mean to– No! No no no! NOOOOOOOO!
Also, perhaps entirely accidental, but Inanna’s story is a precursor of the Jesus story. For all intents and purposes, it’s basically been proven without a doubt that the Jesus story was just a copy of Inanna’s story of descending to hell, being crucified by a fish hook, being dead for three days, and ascending back to the Heavenly plane. Oddly enough, this death and restoration/resurrection story fits what happens to Toki in the Cosmic Egg and later Flynn in the Anarchy path. But in this instance, it’s sadly doubtful that it was on purpose.
Krishna:
Sin being negative karma and having no value in positive works. Worship for YHVH takes precedent over doing good. YHVH is narcissistic and explicitly evil as a result. Kalki as destroyer of sin and to become part of the all-pervading reality.
This theosophic version of Krishna overlaps with the Vishnu Puranas — the specific texts that theosophy used to justify their view of Krishna. In the Vishnu Puranas, Krishna is stated to be an avatar of Vishnu and is Vishnu himself in a more human form. What I found particularly fascinating was the subtle way of Atlus shifting the nuances of the Vishnu Puranas and the Holy Bible to create an uncompromising religious difference.
Apocalypse Krishna perceives YHVH as unforgivably evil and the justification for YHVH’s actions as primarily narcissistic. Krishna perceives his salvation, which requires killing all humans in the Creator’s world, as a mercy to save the eternal souls of humanity and thus perceives his own actions as a mercy killing. To Krishna, the Hobbesian world itself is the worst possible misery and Krishna objects to any notion that a loving God would subdue and force humanity to undergo the illusion of the physical world with the only reward being feeling grateful to a God that demands their unwavering obedience because God gave them life.
In contrast to the New Testament interpretation of YHVH, which is a redeemer of Sin; Apocalypse Krishna follows the Vishnu Purana slant of being the Destroyer of Sin and aims to free humanity from sin completely. To further emphasize this point, Krishna’s higher form is the Kalki form of Vishnu, which is meant to further signify the destruction of sin and the creation of a new era that is free of it.
The primary reason why Krishna perceives YHVH as evil is that the chief aim of reincarnation and karma is to help assist the human souls to go beyond the limitations of the physical world, to go beyond the system of reincarnation, to go beyond even the gods of divine planes, and to have human souls become part of the all-pervading reality of existence or, in some interpretations, to go beyond the all-pervading reality of existence. The interpretations of what the all-pervading reality means is left vague and a bit open to interpretation on whether it means beyond Brahman or Brahman itself. However, due to using Theosophy, and judging from Krishna’s own words on a “great singularity” while speaking of surpassing the cycle of reincarnation, what Apocalypse Krishna wanted was for humanity to learn, grow, and go beyond mere godhood to surpass even the enlightened beings of Seraph, Stephen, St.Germaine, and Mido. In short, Apocalypse Krishna wants humanity to surpass all forms of spiritual growth, gain moksha (self-liberation), and have their eternal soul become one with or surpass the all-pervading reality.
The growth and self-betterment that Krishna wishes to bestow a new humanity is in complete antithesis to YHVH, who desires humanity to blindly obey his will and worship him as the perfect creator of the universe that they also must fear, while loathing themselves as solely at fault for their problems. Fundamentally, this is an ideological battle between the belief in Karma and the belief in Original Sin. The reason Krishna views YHVH as unambiguously evil for his design of humanity is because original sin is little more than trapping humanity in negative karma, inculcating self-hate as justification for the negative karma, and seeing inner peace as little more than a fleeting experience that is associated with human arrogance. The peace that YHVH proposes is solely predicated upon believing YHVH is the perfect creator of the universe and that humans are selfish, arrogant, prone to evil, full of hatred, and acting upon violence as part of human nature. All good deeds do not bestow blessings, but rather exist only as a trial to make you worship YHVH and reinforcing the belief in misanthropy for the human race. Helping each other is indeed taught, but only under the veneer of understanding that people are sinners who must constantly praise God for even these are tiny merciful blessings while expecting violence, hate, and egregious forms of selfishness throughout most of humanity.
Instead of believing in the karmic ideal that by doing good, good things will happen to you because you’ve attained good Karma and by doing bad, bad things will happen to you because you’ve obtained bad Karma; Original Sin posits that humanity is extremely selfish, arrogant, violent, and vile and can only be saved by accepting the sin of their existence and acknowledging the one true God as Yahweh. These are irreconcilable differences in IV Apocalypse because the gods and demons are real figures in the story. Thus, no matter what, humans will be stuck in negative Karma regardless of how many good actions they take, how much hope they spread, and how much mercy they show. So long as they don’t believe in YHVH, they will be punished. Yet, even if they do believe in YHVH, they should be expected to fail because they’re imperfect, selfish, arrogant, and prone to violence because that is how YHVH has made “human nature” under Original Sin. That is why Krishna seeks to bring salvation. Apocalypse Krishna wishes to destroy the chains of sin and free humanity to actually follow a coherent ethical code that is based solely upon their own actions of helping others bestowing good karma and harming others cursing them with bad karma. Karma is a system based on one’s own actions judging the eternal soul and thus antithetical to Original Sin’s view of the eternal soul.
The subtle foreshadowing of Apocalypse’s Anarchy Choice in IV:
IV’s foreshadowing of sticking with the present universe or forming a new one. The most important person repeatedly being inferred to be all life in the universe itself:
IV Apocalypse’s choice parallels:
The Foreshadowing of the Anarchy Path:
To be clear, both Shin Megami Tensei IV and Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse only ever foreshadow one specific route with lengthy references.
Bonds, at best, has one throw-away line by Danu about how Dagda is insane and how she may have to stop him.
However, the vast majority of both Shin Megami Tensei IV and Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse have philosophical, thematic, and homage references to explicitly foreshadow Nanashi’s rise to Godhood and the Anarchy Path.
The Tragedy of Flynn and Asahi :
Asahi was always meant to die:
In both Blasted and Infernal Tokyo, Akira is mentioned to have had a sister who died under horrific circumstances. Infernal Tokyo’s version of his sister was killed in the ark along with the many other children. Kenji stopped the archangels by killing them off, but they couldn’t break the cocoon in time and the children died within it. This motivated Demonoid Akira to form a world of equality instead of the savage, gang-torn world they had.
Akira lost his sister when she was taken by the angels in both Blasted and Home Tokyo. In both worlds, he never sees her again. She dies above the ceiling in the normal Tokyo as hundreds of years passed before the digging team breached the upper world that the archangels had made. We’re left to wonder what changes the new humanity has when YHVH sends the sixth humanity down in Blasted Tokyo’s DLC, but the implications are that they’re entirely different from humans with less freewill.
As the Flynn of IV, the player is left wondering why Akira wasn’t reincarnated like Kenji, Kiyoharu, and what indeed happened to his sister. In all worlds, Asahi’s past self was irrevocably taken away from Nanashi’s past self.
Flynn was always foreshadowed to die:
In the only story-required Side mission, David specifically says that Death will come to Flynn again in some form.
In Law world, a certain side mission — presented emphatically in the story — has Ixtab, the Native American Goddess of peaceful death, inform Flynn that he will regret his struggle of living in the land of suffering under God’s shackles and regret rejecting salvation:
Sadly enough, The White themselves explicitly tell Flynn repeatedly that he will suffer despair that is beyond redemption for his choices. He has doomed himself for struggling for life in an endless struggle in YHVH’s created world:
Explaining why Flynn’s struggle causes his own suffering, and a subtle hint at Nanashi’s existence:
The quagmire of Order and Chaos under God’s rule that is causing suffering:
The final portion explaining Flynn’s doom is if you choose “People”, which is what Flynn stands for in Bonds, as White Issachar’s choice, then this dialogue happens:
White Issachar:
“It is our fate to endlessly repeat the same mistakes… Given this, what other salvation can there be than returning everything to naught…?”
“Your choice is wrong… we will prove that to you…”
“Look at my form… it is the image of your friend, Issachar, who was torn asunder in the rift between your people. By your own hand.”
“The most proper course of action regarding this world that killed him… I will demonstrate it to you using this form.”
“Tell me this. What possibilities does this world hold that you feel secure walking the path of neutrality? As the one who embodies those possibilities, what comes to mind?”
> People
“Freedom and order, destruction and sustenance. Man is a pitiful creature who cannot escape that cycle.”
“If you see possibility in such people, then you are truly blind…”
At the end of the Neutral route itself, Flynn is told by the Neutral deity representative, Masakados, that Law and Chaos will continue and that the future is doomed to repeat itself:
Flynn dies in both Law and the nihilist ending of Shin Megami Tensei IV, Isabeau’s speech heavily implies that Flynn’s Chaos kingdom is doomed to die in the Chaos route and that Flynn himself will me murdered eventually when she mentions her favorite manga’s ending.
In Shin Megami Tensei IV: Apocalypse, the reference to Flynn’s death is finalized by both his transformation into the Kalki, the tenth Avatar of Vishnu, signifying the death of the old world and the death of everything Flynn tried to protect, and then his actual death by the hands of Nanashi and Dagda in the ensuing fight:
As a Messiah, Flynn was always a pawn meant to feel like a Chosen One. He is a deconstruction of Raidou’s archetype, Hope, and the Messiah/Chosen One narrative prevalent in video games:
This specific portion will only feel relevant for those who’ve played both IV and gotten the Neutral Route and played IVA for the Anarchy route; comparing them to Raidou 2’s motif of Hope.
In Raidou 2, Shinado/King Abaddon tells you that so long as you hold the title of Raidou, you can be a hope to the people and that you must understand that people will rely on your actions; your actions are hope itself for the desperate and the weak who need protection.
Flynn embodies the same lesson; through good works and perseverance, he becomes the hope of the people as the neutral Messiah. He can be empowered by the spirit of spite, goodwill, or hope to empower himself to go beyond human limits as a Messiah. His “higher” self.
However, if you replay IV and then replay IVA Anarchy route, you realize something incredibly disturbing:
Flynn was always Nanashi/Akira’s tool.
It may not seem like it at first, but if you consider their roles in both games and those other worlds, it makes a disturbing amount of sense. Too much sense, in fact.
The universes of IV/IVA is cyclical. Flynn’s past self, a Neutral Hero, chooses Neutral and his present self also chooses Neutral to keep the world in balance. Sounds simple enough, until you look at what happens when the past self chooses Chaos or Law in the other universes.
Flynn’s prior incarnation chooses a world in Blasted/Infernal Tokyo… and your Flynn, following Akira’s goals, always reverses that decision and makes the reverse of the prior incarnation’s decisions. If you paid attention to the NPCs, they always make note of two things: Akira’s sister is an innocent dead girl and Previous Flynn died a horrible death after making his choice (in both Blasted/Infernal, an NPC says he died from poison after his decision).
Your Flynn sees a damaged world and agrees to help some young leader named Akira both times to save it, ostensibly to get some remote to go back to your home world. Evidently, fighting death and danger to get a remote to go back to your own world of death and danger is shown to be important and you eventually decide the future of your world . . . or so you’re led to believe. Following the IVA route, it would mean that Stephen wanted you as Flynn to get kidnapped so that he could then brainwash Nanashi.
Before you return to your universe, you end-up doing Akira’s missions, you resolve the issue presented, and you get the remote after a nice hooray and congrats from Akira’s pals — you get a nice thanks from Akira as well . . . and Akira ends up ruling those worlds as their King.
Then, The White tell you they’re trapped in YHVH’s control and nothing you did had any value or meaning because they’ll always fall to ruin anyway. Congrats, Hero. Being the Messiah means nothing.
The White prove their point later on;
Human Akira of the Law World uses Flynn to reverse course into a Chaos world. Repudiating Law for a Chaotic world of passion and a powerful human kingdom… only to nearly be wiped out by YHVH’s enforcer, Ancient of Days, and then be forced into a refugee status as the new humanity descends.
Demon Akira of the Chaos world turns it into a world of Equality under a new Law world not designed by God. Gods and Demons attack and you’re shown how tenuous the world’s gov’t will be because Flynn won’t be there to keep it safe.
Demon Akira is likely to get killed by the very next threat.
In both worlds, Akira is using Flynn to eke out an existence for a doomed race and in both, the White state Akira and those worlds are doomed to extinction under God’s rule.
Your own world in IV is doomed too. The happy ending is a falsehood and Masakados outright says it . . . which brings us to IV Apocalypse.
Nanashi, living as the discriminated class with no ability to decide the outcome or curry favor unless others find him useful, sees just how sick it all is. As Flynn, we saw ourselves as making important choices; as Nanashi, we only see the consequences and have no choice due to being “impure” in our blood. Due to racism, we must live as the marginalized class.
To Nanashi, neither the angels or demons show anything but craziness. Nanashi learns exactly why YHVH is such a threat from his interactions with Dagda and the Divine Powers.
“Hope” is good, but without a plan, it can be manipulated. The Divine Powers proved it. Hell, Merkabah proved it by tricking those idiotic Tokyo citizens who were desperate despite knowing about God’s plan 25 years prior.
Nanashi sees firsthand how stupid Hope can be sometimes when it’s blind and clinging to others when Shesha takes their souls and very nearly kills you in a moment of shock.
We just didn’t see it as “Flynn”, but as Nanashi, it’s all made very clear how senseless and uncontrollable the situation is. In one path, Nanashi accepts his humble humanity and decides to forgo a better world for the sake of friendship.
In another, he decides it’s worth the self-contradictions and lamentations of the current universe to build another one . . . . and he uses our Flynn to reverse course and repudiate neutrality with a new neutrality, a new universe without YHVH.
In just the same style that Akira of Law world reversed course using Flynn to become the leader of a Chaos Eastern Kingdom of Mikado and Demon Akira reversed course from the Prior Flynn’s decision to turn a discriminated Demonoid vs Human slave society into a world of true equality; Nanashi has a resurrected Flynn — a born-again Flynn, a Flynn with a second life — reverse course on the Previous Flynn’s decision of neutrality into a world that opposes remaining shackled to flesh bodies and to empower all of humanity with godhood.
Flynn’s enemy was the nihilism of humanity in the three main endings of SMTIV.
Nanashi’s enemy was always YHVH; his past self was an adherent who turned traitor and was unable to live freely, his two other past selves in alternate choices still suffer under YHVH’s rule, Nanashi himself suffers the discrimination of YHVH’s world of endless Law vs Chaos, and Nanashi can choose to take a step into wresting control.
Flynn of the Law world joined the angels and committed mass genocide and then succumbed to death via poison, Flynn of the Chaos world desired strength and succumbed to being killed by poison, Neutral Past!Flynn committed suicide to save Tokyo.
Human Akira in a Chaos world, Demon Akira in a Law world, and God Nanashi in a new Neutral world; in all three, they were part of a dying peoples and used Flynn to reverse previous Flynn’s course to become King of the World — or in Nanashi’s case, God of the Universe.
Flynn always showing up to bring “hope” through the power of Action and being Akira’s useful tool because that was always what Flynn was…. He gets empowered by his faith in Nanashi in the final battle against YHVH — it’s even juxtaposed in the Bonds ending where he says he’ll show YHVH the power of action. Hope and faith manipulated for the actions of another is shown in Anarchy. In Anarchy, Flynn still reaches a “higher” state due to obedience and dedication to Nanashi’s will.
They planned Anarchy out so well, the hints were all there…. Nanashi, the reincarnation of your world’s Akira, destroys YHVH using Flynn as his tool.
Nanashi/Akira was the main character of the IV-IVA duology; Flynn was always the tool, blinded by hope, by his own power as a Messiah, and his faith in humanity because he had no concrete steps for a permanent solution. Flynn is meant to enforce and change the course of the future, Nanashi is meant to rule that future.
Unlike Raidou, who tries to oppose Demifiend; Flynn became the most tragic mainline main character. Eternally opposing his own goals and being Akira’s pawn because hope, while powerful and admirable, is also just a tool that is meant to be used as a means to a goal.
Two Interpretations of Nietzsche’s Ubermensch Philosophy:
Shin Megami Tensei IV: Apocalypse Provides Two Interpretations of Nietzsche’s Ubermensch Philosophy from his magnum opus, Thus Spake;Zarathustra, through allegory:
Bonds represents the Nietzschean ideal of keeping one’s meaning to the Earth and to ignore or denigrate all forms of worship that preach of a higher world that is eternal. Thus, God’s natural enemies. There is no better way to showcase this being the primary narrative of Bonds then deciding to cut ties with your allies at the last moment and join YHVH:
YHVH: You sinners intend to persist in this foolishness? Because I am always with you, I know what has led you to me. Tempted by demons, stirred by your allies — it is only natural that you would inevitably come before me. I offer you one last chance: Sever ties and become my servant, or burn in the depths of hell. The choice is yours.
> Will you become YHVH’s servant or remain against him?
Toki: This is no time for joking! (her voice actress says “Now’s not the time for jokes!”)
> Toki is shocked by your decision.
Dagda: Tch. . . Can’t believe you’d mess things up at this stage. You’re hopeless, kid.
YHVH: Yes, my son. Repent for your sins. Now you may live on as my servant. Close your eyes. Rest. When you next wake, this shall all be over.
> You lose control of your body, and your vision starts to dim.
(Nanashi gets killed)
YHVH: As for the rest of you, my cursed children, my lightning shall send you screaming to hell.
Dagda: (frustrated growl) Damn! Can’t believe you did this… Quick–give me your hand, kid! There’s still time to fix this. Give me your hand!
> Will you heed Dagda’s words?
Give him your hand/Ignore him
> With a struggle, you manage to start breathing again.
> But YHVH freezes you and your friends in place with a glare.
> You and your demons fall Mute. All your stats decrease!
YHVH: You cling to life, trampling on the meaningful death I have offered you? I cannot fathom a greater blasphemy…
Dagda: No such thing as a “meaningful” death. Death is just death. Don’t give up your life so easily. Stick with your ideals, kid. Even a pitiful life is better than death.
Quite possibly the most poignant depiction against Abrahamic death culture.
Anarchy follows a different interpretation of the Nietzschean ideal. The Ubermensch will work satisfied with themselves in fighting nihilism through love for their humanness; through forms of self-expression in art, music, rebuilding new civilizations, and creating a world where one rejects the belief in an eternal paradise for the sake of the pleasures of the earth. The life-eternal is merely death worship. They eventually bring forth a higher form of human civilization and higher culture where the Higher Peoples will become the norm; denigrating and disavowing nihilism and the life-eternal as products of death worship. The Ubermensch are a bridge to a higher humanity, the higher people.
Generally speaking, Nietzsche wanted a bit of open interpretation here and Atlus took this ideal to show precisely both how wrong and how beautiful it can be. Bonds is a metaphor for Nietzsche’s Ubermenschen and Anarchy is an allegory for the Higher Man.
Dagda:
Dagda: Now do you see, kid? Friendship is a joke. Abandoned at the first sign of trouble. Making friends is a pointless exercise, an inevitable disappointment. It’s sickening. Influence is a poison. We should strive to be true individuals, to think freely for ourselves.
Dagda is an interesting presentation and perhaps the most fascinating next to Krishna. The above quote seems to be Dagda advocating for the literal configuration of society into the Social Contract Theory of Rousseau.
Taken together with everything else he’s espoused about his new universe; he doesn’t want institutions imposed upon people who don’t agree with them and to facilitate this, he wishes to cast away humanity’s imperfections to create Ubermenschen with god-like powers and full knowledge of the universe’s secrets. Humans will have god-like powers, they will ascertain all truths, and they won’t be able to physically impose upon others with violence or rule of law so long as the other person doesn’t agree to follow the guidelines of whatever small communities they form. His primary motivation is to cast away the gods who impose their indoctrination on humans and use humans as tools to only further themselves. Dagda wishes to do himself away, gift humanity with transcending powers to remove their imperfections, and make his Godslayer the ruler of the universe with his ideals passed on so that gods and demons will no longer ever be able to prey upon human souls. Any violence will come from outside messiahs that have gods or demons attached with them and thus limit any upheaval because the transhumanists will be better equipped to defend themselves.
It’s Nietzschean ideals, Roussauean in government framework, and transhumanist all in one. It’s arguably a much more nomadic, nature oriented civilizations, but with god-like power and accurate, fact-based beliefs. Perhaps I’m looking too deeply into it on this point, as it could just as well be that Nanashi decides to create whatever society he likes and gives them god-like powers and more intuitive closeness to the universe itself. Dagda himself doesn’t believe himself capable and thinks it would be corruptive should he try to make himself the Creator. He has faith in Nanashi to be able to do it.
The Philosophical Underpinnings of SMTIV Apocalypse’s Dagda:
Dagda represents the Lion of Nietzsche’s story of forming new ethical norms throughout the story and then continues to be so in the Anarchy route. It’s why he has his design with the hair behind the skull mask. He is an allegory to Nietzsche’s lion. Embracing freedom and desiring new values in the wilderness, but needing to have a child who can know and understand the values outside of the norms already implicit in the social context.
I’ll quote the full portion of the Three Metamorphoses and then further clarify, but for those who prefer not reading philosophical novels, then please just read the Bold portion:
“THREE METAMORPHOSES OF the spirit do I designate to you:
how the spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and
the lion at last a child.
Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong
load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength.
What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then
kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well
laden.
What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the loadbearing spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.
Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify
one’s pride? To exhibit one’s folly in order to mock at
one’s wisdom?
Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its
triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?
Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge,
and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?
Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and
make friends of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?
Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water
of truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?
Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one’s
hand to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?
All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness. But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.
Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon. What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God?
“Thou-shalt,” is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, “I will.”
“Thou-shalt,” lieth in its path, sparkling with gold—a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, “Thou shalt!”
The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: “All the values of things—glitter on me. All values have already been created, and all created values—do I represent. Verily, there shall be no ‘I will’ any more. Thus speaketh the dragon
My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit? Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent?
To create new values—that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating—that can the might of the lion do.
To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion. To assume the right to new values—that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.
As its holiest, it once loved “Thou-shalt”: now is it forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture. But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?
Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.
Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: its own will, willeth now the spirit; his own world winneth the world’s outcast. Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion,
and the lion at last a child.”—Thus spake Zarathustra, Commons Version, Pgs 33-35.
This philosophical metamorphosis is what Dagda was trying to do with Nanashi. When Nanashi is constantly vilified, abandoned, faced with death all around him, and forced to be the hero — it’s exhausting and annoying. Even being the leader of his group is utterly annoying for many players. Most people don’t believe me when I say this, even when I show them the developer interview that states the same thing, but the choice was deliberate.
The Bonds group is burdening, annoying, and full of bluster when the game shows that Nanashi is the only real deciding factor. In fact, to make their point, should Nanashi pick to join YHVH at the very end of Bonds, the entire rest of the team and even Flynn’s group is murdered and cast to hell forever.
Nanashi’s journey can be about embracing that burden and carry it like an Ubermensch, or casting it away to fix the glaring problems of the Universe in order to make it so that the Sixth humanity won’t have to suffer it. The suffering Nanashi endures from Tokyo to then being labeled a savior when it’s convenient for them, from his friends until they make up for it, and from seeing the massive violence was all indicative of the Metamorphosis for true freedom.
The purpose of Dagda as the Lion in the narrative is to inundate Nanashi about the pathologies of gods fighting for human worship and saving human souls. His proposal is a radical shift of the norm, in which toxic ideals that cause mass human violence should be eradicated. The sacrifices that he proposes are necessary due to still being bound to YHVH’s norms and standards.
YHVH was the metaphorical Golden glittering dragon who claimed to represent all values in the philosophical novel. The opening lines in the fight are a metaphor for Thus Spake; Zarathustra:
YHVH states “I cannot allow this. You must atone for your sins.”
Dagda responds with: “No, we don’t. From now on, the individual will carry their own weight. I will not settle for less, playing by your rules.”
An individual carrying their own weight is the complete antithesis of original sin. Dagda’s point, which seems to have been totally missed by many who loathe him and outright admit they do, is that you as a human being should only be held accountable for what you have actually done and that original sin is a total anathema to being held responsible for your own actions. If you’re bound to sin, then you aren’t being judged for your actions, you’re being vilified for something beyond your control. That’s why YHVH explicitly goes into accusing them of sinning.
Krishna is even more harsh with his point, and he doesn’t hold back on his loathing especially before the Vishnu-Flynn fight. The main contention is, if a God has you bound to original sin, gives you the Hobbesian world (which, speaking from my major, many political scientists who study international relations do believe is the truth of the world), and demands blind worship while giving nothing in return, then such a God is not worth believing in and should be removed from belief because it has nothing of value to offer humanity.
The Seven Devils of Zarathustra:
The 7 friends of Nanashi are actually thematically the seven devils of the inner psyche that hold people back in Nietzsche’s philosophical novel, Thus Spake; Zarathustra. Each of the serve as an allegory that overcomes their own devil to become an Ubermensch and are then sacrificed to create the Higher Man for the purpose of a New God and a New World.
“Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way to thyself! And past thyself and thy seven devils leadeth thy way!
A heretic wilt thou be to thyself, and a wizard and a sooth-sayer, and a fool, and a doubter, and a reprobate, and a villain. Ready must thou be to burn thyself in thine own flame; how couldst thou become new if thou have not first become ashes!
Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way of the creating one: a God wilt thou create for thyself out of thy seven devils!” – Page 67 of the Commons Version of Thus Spake;Zarathustra.
If you pick Bonds, you’re all Ubermensch. If you pick Anarchy, you become the Higher Man who ascends to a new Higher Humanity. However, in a strange Atlus quirk, should you choose either Toki or Asahi as your goddess, then their journey is essentially redeemed by your choice.
Asahi is Doubt:
This is glaringly self-explanatory throughout the her journey in the game. She is Nanashi’s doubts. She can be his lover, his sister, or a complete nuisance depending upon how the player interprets the relationship between the two adopted siblings. She very clearly loves Nanashi romantically, but she’s also a nuisance that Nanashi has to constantly work with.
She becomes the last ties to Nanashi’s humanity because she’s the only personal stake that Nanashi has after their father’s brutal death. He is freer to walk his own path after his last ties to humanity is eaten and is a metaphor for Nanashi’s own humanity.
If Asahi hadn’t been murdered by Shesha-Flynn, would she have still stood with Nanashi against the Bonds group when Nanashi chose Anarchy?
Surprisingly, it doesn’t take much to uncover that the answer is no. She would have fought against Nanashi along with the others. She leaves Nanashi’s side in both the Law and Chaos path.
Her death wasn’t meant to mean that she wouldn’t disagree with him since we’re shown two specific cases where that doesn’t happen. What she herself represented was his humanity, this is most glaringly depicted in the tragic scene where Asahi discovers that you’re no longer human; she’s horrified, not because of you but rather for you, as one of the people that she deeply loves and cares for has turned into some puppet for a God with dubious intentions. She bursts into tears because she can’t imagine the horror that you’ve been going through while she’s been blissfully unaware and acting like a brat. Asahi completely loses her composure and breaks down into tears because she’d rather herself suffer and die than go through such pain. She proves it much later by knocking you away so that Shesha ends-up killing her, as a way of apologizing to you for being such a burden and – in her mind – causing you to become a Godslayer in the first place. Once Nanashi picks Bonds, Asahi returns because he’s restored his faith the humanity of the people themselves, his friends, and his own humanity.
If he chooses her in Anarchy, then he’s redeemed her suffering in life. She and Toki were the only ones who felt satisfied with their deaths and happy to have made their choices in life to help you. Like the parallel with Izanami and Izanagi, as a goddess would become Nanashi’s Sister-Wife.
Navarre is the Fool:
This is in complete contrast to the Fool Arcana which is about a journey to surpass death and take the universe. This Fool is the Zarathustrian Fool. This Fool wallows in suffering under the judgment of society. The Zarathustrian Fool failed society’s expectations and instead of trying to surpass their failings to form a meaningful existence, they simply wallow in self-pity and do nothing to change themselves. Instead, they just make excuses for themselves.
Hallelujah is the Reprobate
Reprobate is interchangeable with Unholy One in this context. This is almost completely self-explanatory like Asahi. Azreal explicitly calls Hallelujah’s existence heresy and Hallelujah himself questions the meaning of his existence since he doesn’t fit in either world.
Nozomi is the Witch
In the ancient context used, witch or wizard use to use mean wise one who comforts people to help them find their own path away from God, which she does for Asahi and you throughout the game itself. She explicitly tells YHVH that new gods need to emerge so they can find their own path away from him.
Nozomi: You refuse to acknowledge other gods, making this world stagnant. Your existence prevents the emergence of new gods. That means humanity can’t progress on their own accord. With you around, reigning over our fate, we’re left with no means to find our own path.
Isabeau is the Soothsayer
The soothsayer in this context is one who is always looking to the future. Isabeau fits this in surprising ways. She’s always speaking about the future of humanity and how Flynn needs to be saved to protect that future. At the end of Bonds, she and Flynn both speak of humanity’s future potentialities.
Gaston is the Heretic:
Gaston is a Heretic for choosing a different path from Merkabah’s and for the same reasons as Jonathan — for the sake of the people.
Toki is the villain
Her boss fights. Her style of master/servant love also engenders disgust for some players, which is how Nietzsche viewed love itself. Toki’s love is an allegory for the Zarathustrian view of love. It’ll constantly betray you, always making promises before morphing into a monster and constantly putting you in increasingly precarious and compromising situations. Love is but a fickle danger and nothing else and that is what the villain represents.
Toki’s oni mask is further evidence of this. It is a Hannya mask, commonly known in Japanese folklore to represent a jealous woman who transformed into a demon as a result of a Buddhist monk refusing her love. The jealous woman’s soul becomes peaceful after detaching from her love and giving her feelings up.
However, much like Asahi is satisfied with dying for Nanashi, Toki explicitly says that she’s satisfied if Nanashi is the one to kill her for her disobedience and states – even after being cleansed of Inanna’s influence and restoring herself to her human form – that she still loves him and texts you to tell you that she’ll still refer to you as Master in private.
She feels at peace before you slay her:
> Toki collapses to the ground, head hung.
Toki: Master… Is this really what you want? I wanted to be with you… Even if I was just a replacement for Asahi… I wanted to be by your side… I guess it’s too late… But if I am to die here… I might as well die by your hands.
> Do nothing.
Toki: Master… You’re so kind. Let me say one thing before I go… I love you.
> Toki closes her eyes. She is at peace with herself.
> You gently stroke Toki as if to console her, then finish her off.
The fact each symbolizes the demons perfectly leads me to believe it’s done purposefully. It’s strong evidence in support of it.
A “God” in the Nietzschean context is creating one’s own ethical norms; which… is the literal objective of the Anarchy route and the basis to ascend to Godhood. You use the souls of your friends to create the new universe.
I find choosing either Toki or Asahi to be the most moral of choices. Both Toki and Asahi state they wanted to be with Nanashi, Toki explicitly says that she regrets not choosing him. To resurrect any of the others — especially Isabeau, Nozomi, or Gaston — would be to make a mockery of their ideals, disrespect any meaningful relationship that you had with them, and it would further insult their deaths. The only two who explicitly say that they wish to be by your side are Toki and Asahi. They’re the least morally dubious choices because they made it clear that was what they wanted and it would be respecting either of their ideals whether you choose them or you don’t choose them. They’re both at peace with your decision. You choose whose love you will redeem by picking either of them.
Flynn was resurrected and turned into your godslayer for security purposes, but the goddess is a choice.
Before I begin with the Homages, I’d like to point out one of the clearest form of references to the Anarchy Route being foreshadowed that was in the beginning of the game itself:
Nanashi -no name
YHVH – unnamed
Nanashi’s name is a parallel to that the Creator God’s name is unutterable. Nanashi’s name meaning is No Name, YHVH’s name remains unutterable. YHVH is Nanashi’s true enemy.
Homage References to the Anarchy Ending:
The Black Monolith is a reference to 21 Space Odyssey, in which a literal God Child is made.
The Black Monolith:
The forming of the God Child:
It’s noteworthy to point out that 21 Space Odyssey’s most famous music piece is a reference to Thus Spake; Zarathustra and the soundtrack of Catherine references the book’s title.
Akira:
Akira, the name of Nanashi’s past self, is a reference to God Child Akira from the film/manga Akira. In which Tetsuo and Akira, in the film version, is heavily implied to go on to create their own universe and become a God. Although, the film itself ends with Tetsuo purportedly becoming the new God and Akira simply vanishing after saving as many lives as he could from Tetsuo losing control of his godly powers.
Then there’s the explicit foreshadowing in IV itself…
Shin Megami Tensei IV’s Foreshadowing of the Anarchy Ending through Allegory:
Blasted Tokyo/Law World’s Human Akira creates a Chaos version of the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado and rules as King, but the White tell you that because it will go inexorably down a path of self-destruction.
Infernal Tokyo/Chaos World’s Demonoid Akira wants to create a Law society so that there is equality for all, the White tell you that because his world of equality doesn’t align with God’s will, it will be cast into destruction too.
We’re then presented with Apocalypse in which the parallel and foreshadowing comes to fruition…
God Nanashi sacrifices his aging, broken world to create a new humanity with God-like powers. He goes on to kill YHVH in his universe for good and sets forth to create a transhumanist future where humans will literally hold all the powers of gods and govern themselves without interference. Any Messiah that comes attacking will be dealt with by Flynn, the very man that killed The Archangels, Sanat, Ancient of Days, and Shadow Masakados on his own.
The Fool’s Journey Allegory
Nanashi: The Pathless Fool
The narrative is about Nanashi making the choice for a possible future. The protagonist of the Fool’s Journey who surpasses death to conquer the world. The world is interchangeable with the universe in the Arcana.
In the 22 Arcana story, the Fool Arcana goes on a journey to overcome death and take the world. Nanashi’s version is a very “grim” version of this tale. Nanashi does this three times. He took Dagda’s offer which was breaking YHVH’s hold for his intended purpose, He defeated Azazel who remarks that it’s inconceivable that sons of man would surpass death itself, and it’s split for Bonds and Anarchy; in Bonds he survives Dagda’s attempt on his life for breaking contract. In Anarchy, he defeats Vishnu-Flynn on his own instead of trying to get Flynn to awaken from within. He kills Abbot Hugo and all of Mikado to stop YHVH from retaking his hold on the universe. He goes on to experience the utter meaninglessness of death itself, by observing the Fiends having no purpose after bringing death upon a ravaged world that had no messiah to save it. To top it all off, the final boss says it in Anarchy:
“PATHLESS FOOL I cannot forgive you. I asked only that you take the life I granted you and obediently follow my word. The weight of your blasphemy is too great for Death. Eternal suffering is the only suitable punishment.”
And unlike in Persona, which uses it metaphorically, Apocalypse’s depiction is allegorical: Nanashi literally takes the world as his own and rules the universe.
Nanashi surpasses Death where Flynn succumbs to it. Nanashi creates a new world whereas Flynn acts as guardian, champion, and eventually savior of the old world.
Flynn: the Hanged Man
The Hanged Man gives himself up to the World. Allowing himself to be a sacrifice and giving up even conscious thought to surrender all he thinks, knows, and cares about in the pursuit of spiritual pleasures. It’s the feeling of having sacrificed everything and having lost; learning to deal with the pain by giving up and letting go of it.
Flynn becomes Nanashi’s Godslayer by becoming brainwashed and letting go of his past life. The Fishhook, like Akira’s Gauntlet for Nanashi, symbolizing his past and discarding it for the sake of a new world and new future path.
Dagda is the Magician:
Dagda seems to represent both the upright and reverse of the Magician Arcana.
The potential of several futures created by willpower and desire. Dagda outright says it in Anarchy about the difference between Nanashi and Krishna’s Godslayer. A new possibility created by Nanashi’s willpower.
Conversely, he can be deceptive and allude to things without giving you the full context of godhood, or the fact Odin was still alive after the second battle at Tsukiji Konganji.
Overall, the Magician is known for individuality, creative power, and creating a new world or new world ethics.
(Early Draft Artwork of Nozomi in the Shin Megami Tensei IV Final Artbook)
Nozomi is the High Priestess
The opposition to the Magician. High Priestess is veiled, intuitive, and seeks to acknowledge unrealized potential. To face inward, and think over reality itself. Being calm and receptive to the guidance of others. Helping to instruct and guide so people can find their own answers and their own path.
Nozomi shows this each and every time she speaks of people finding their own path, but it’s more gracefully reflected when she consoles Asahi throughout the story:
Danu is the Empress
She insists on the wondrous abundance of the earth as an argument in favor of keeping the universe as it is and that its existence is inherently meaningful because life itself is sacred.
(Early Draft Concept of Gaston in the SMTIVF Artbook)
Gaston is the Emperor
He follows structure and authority; by the end of the Bonds Route, he works to rebuild and form a new structure for the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado without God as it’s leader.
Isabeau is the Justice Arcana. She is always looking to avoid extremes and pursue equality to keep a balanced perspective. She speaks of the hardship of wanting to satisfy everyone’s pursuit of a favorable outcome when speaking to her during the choice between Walter or Jonathan’s decisions in Shin Megami Tensei IV and she tried her best to give fair treatment to all people throughout Shin Megami Tensei IV.
Hallelujah is the Hierophant
While tradition and culture may not seem to fit Hallelujah, part of the Hierophant is gaining acceptance from their group and gaining initiation from performing rites. Hallelujah is the odd case where his usage of demonic strength works as a rite of passage so that he can become the new leader of the Ashura-kai and he did it after gaining acceptance from the Bonds group.
(Toki’s earliest concept design from the SMTIVF Artbook)
Toki is The Lovers
Her love is sudden; recognition of you as her Master is how she justifies and latches onto her choice similar to The Fool’s Journey’s instantaneous love. She wants to be by your side and feels that you’re her destined partner. It’s noteworthy to point out that, similar to Isabeau with Flynn in IV’s Law/Chaos routes, Toki is the only one who will trade items with Nanashi and she will still assert Nanashi as her Master.
(Asahi’s Early Concept Design)
Asahi is the Moon
The Moon Arcana represents deep fears and anxieties; Asahi’s entire journey is dealing with her doubts and utter failures as she compares her poor performance to the rest of the Bonds group. The Moon can also be about finding one’s own path after falling into illusion. In the context of SMTIV Apocalypse, the physical world is the illusion and abandoning it for one’s own truth and one’s path means abandoning Asahi and the material, illusory world to become the new God of the Universe.
The Moon Phases of SMTIV Apocalypse hint at the impending choice . . . and Asahi’s brutal death.
Navarre is the Hermit
He represents reflection of the past and is depicted as someone with the most pathetic life of them all. He illuminates on past events and tries to assuage Asahi of her doubts in Bonds. He does the same for Nanashi, such as with the last text message, consoling Nanashi about both the fact that Nanashi is Dagda’s puppet, and his speech at the end of Bonds.
Merkabah and Lucifer are both the Chariot and The Devil respectively. There probably needs no further clarification here. In each of their endings, the Arcana is represented.
Merkabah represents the Chariot Arcana by promising to cleanse all his enemies and forming a isolationist Eastern Kingdom of Mikado separate from Tokyo.
Lucifer clearly represents The Devil by cajoling Nanashi with a new life that turns Nanashi into a demon, causing Nanashi to no longer have the power of Observation, no longer be a Messiah, and forces him to live shackled in the physical world for a selfish – albeit understandable – wish.
The Death Arcana occurs almost cyclically in SMTIV Apocalypse. From becoming Dagda’s Puppet, to killing Azreal, and so forth. However, Death is represented as major events and not specifically personified by a person. However, it’s very glaringly depicted as the Anarchy decision of SMTIV Apocalypse more than anything else. The reason for that is the Death Arcana itself is about abandoning one’s old world according to the Fool’s Journey.
“Before him he sees, rising with the sun, a skeleton in black armor mounted on a white horse. He recognizes it as Death. As it stops before him, he humbly asks, “Have I died?” And the Skeleton answers, “Yes, in a way. You sacrificed your old world, your old self. Both are gone, dead.”
The Fool cannot keep from weeping. “Forgive me,” he says, embarrassed by his tears.
“There is nothing to forgive,” Death replies. “Mourning is natural and you must deal with your loss before you can accept anything new. Keep in mind, however, that old leaves must wither and fly away from a tree’s branches, leaving them bare, before new green leaves can appear.”
Surpassing Death means surpassing the Old World in favor of a New World. Moreover, this is conflated with Nanashi being the Hobbesian Fool and is lampshaded by the homage to John Lennon’s song Imagine, which is quoted on Nanashi’s first attire. Further meaning is derived from the main plot to the Anarchy narrative with Nanashi letting go of the past, moving forward by deciding to never look back, and to not feel guilty for his choices.
Upon choosing Anarchy, Nozomi asks why he would choose such a course of action when he’s the reincarnation of Akira, and if Asahi would want him to choose that path. Dagda crushes Akia’s gauntlet under his heel to further symbolize Nanashi letting go of the past that has controlled his life circumstances. If Nanashi has the fishing hook and gives it to the newly born-again Flynn, Flynn doesn’t recognize it and Nanashi decides to throw it away to show that the new Flynn has moved on past Issachar because he no longer holds any meaning to Flynn’s life, and – in the most explicit case – the text message from Navarre in Anarchy states that whatever path you chose, to not hold any regrets so that you don’t wallow in it like Navarre did. This is all in support of the Arcana narrative of the journey through life and making one’s own world.
Maitreya is the Strength Arcana. He teaches to look inward and grow oneself for the sake of true strength. It is a very Buddhist stance that surprisingly offers some wonderful insights. Maitreya teaches both Toki and Nanashi about the importance of detachment and choice. Although, he seems primarily focused on Nanashi, but Toki listens as well.
Krishna is Temperance. He denigrates the extremes of Law and Chaos by pointing out that it’s entirely YHVH who is at fault for the extremes. He states Order and Chaos in and of themselves are not volatile, violent, or destructive. But YHVH’s Order and Chaos are specifically the issue causing the extremes. The form of Vishnu-Flynn serves to further emphasize the balancing by having dark and light as interchangeable phases.
(Toki’s Second Draft Concept)
The Star Arcana represents rejuvenation for your choice and looking toward the future possibilities of the decision that you’ve made. It’s about following your star, a metaphor for following your choice to its end and finding solace in the decision.
The Star Arcana is reflected in choosing your Goddess and making Flynn into your Godslayer.
This one is probably the most difficult to recognize, but the Sun Arcana is about clarity from illusion. Recognizing one’s greatness after introspection and doubts set in from the Moon and recognizing one’s own greatness and one’s own truth by casting away the illusions. Destroying ignorance in favor of Higher Energies. The Sun is also about crossing over to a new plane of existence and reality. The illusion of SMTIV Apocalypse is the physical world and the higher energies is the battle for the universe and understanding the relationship between gods and demons. Crossing over is going through the Black Monolith under the Sunlight.
Slaughtering the people of Tokyo and Mikado is the Sun Arcana.
Satan is Judgment and provides Nanashi with one final reckoning on his worthiness to proceed to YHVH. Satan determines whether Nanashi is truly able to make the necessary decisions for the future.
As a whole, this was my favorite depiction of Satan yet. He doesn’t simply judge human souls, he arbitrates equally and his analysis of YHVH is based on the analysis of what God promises and what God does for the world in a New Testament context, thus proving that Yahweh is no different than any other god because humanity can leave his faith of vacuousness and self-hate.
The World is interchangeable in the tarot with The Universe
The final part of the Anarchy route is indicative of the ending of the Fool’s Journey. Nanashi once again finds solace under the stars with his companions, Flynn and his Goddess, and recognizes that leading the new universe will be an arduous but satisfying and worthy goal.
“For the first time, he faces them. They are, he sees, nothing to fear. They were him once-upon-a-time, but not now. Even as he realizes this, he finds himself forgiving those past selves for the wrongs they did that left him feeling bad. He senses, in turn, that they forgive him for ignoring the lessons they had to teach him. As he reaches an understanding with them, they start to rise up and float away, vanishing into the sky. Though they remain as experiences and memories, they no longer have any power over him. He is free of ill-feelings, reborn, and living in the present.”
I wanted to give my final thoughts on the game as a whole.
Foremost, I loved the references to two of the most brilliant and famous films known, one an anime film and the other being the most well regarded sci-fi film. Akira was a reference to the anime manga/film “Akira”, in which “2001: A Space Odyssey” was referenced via the black Monolith that goes into YHVH’s world and The final boss dungeon was magnificent in conveying infinity, emptiness, and sense of loss and curiosity. The reference to the Hubble Space Telescope’s pictures of space via different forms of infrared lighting was so beautiful. The doorway to YHVH’s throne just clinched it. It gave both a sense of grandeur and heresy for what you were about to do.
The plot was the most brilliant of the series. For the first time, nobody went into exaggerated stupid extremes that led to a main party betrayal. There was no need for the bland Law, Neutral, Chaos paths that basically feel like the same ending in each game after awhile. The characters all had realistic goals within the scope of their universe, the lead antagonist was a strange mix of magnificent bastard and savior, we finally witnessed the rest of the gods work to gain revenge for being deposed, this was the best main cast of characters in the entire MegaTen franchise, and both endings were incredibly satisfying. A choice between eternal damnation for a morally right action to protect the universe for a short length of time or ascend to Godhood for a morally reprehensible action that would permanently fix your universe. I loved the Meta-ness of this plot. We finally had a Meta-plot that discussed the problems with the universe and provided a permanent solution.
The themes were so subtle and so wonderful. The game subtly pushed players, without their awareness for the most part, to reject the very premise of all religious theology. Protecting the eternal soul doesn’t matter to you and your friends. The caged bodies that endure suffering are more important than the soul and obeying divine beings who are trying to save your soul via salvation. You are arguing for atheism without realizing it in a world where the eternal soul exists but is inconsequential compared to being alive and healthy as a human being. Even more astonishing is realizing the Gods see cruel sacrifices as a mercy killing to save the eternal soul, but such a cosmic point of view is psychotic to people who want to live. You’re choosing the sinful body over saving your eternal soul; whether it be the Divine Powers or YHVH.
The cast of characters displayed how, despite coming from different backgrounds, they all walked the neutral path and were similar in their hesitancies and needing social support. What I enjoyed most of all was that, by the end of the game, every single one of them fulfilled some aspect of the Ubermensch philosophy by Friedrich Nietzsche. Each finding what made their life meaningful and taking on burdens for their own self-overcoming. This was, by far, my favorite cast of characters in all of MegaTen. Asahi, Toki, and Gaston were the most phenomenal in character development. I loved how they used each of the cliches right in this game. Asahi isn’t some magical girl with superpowers like every other generic rpg game with a childhood friend character. Gaston has a fairly standard but relatable and believable growth period in the game to become a heroic tsundere character. Toki is a cold, emotionless dark action girl who breaks away and seeks to change herself to become a better person due to despising herself for living as a mindless puppet beforehand, but it leads to awkward social situations that she needs to adapt quickly to. I ended-up loving all the other cast members just as much, even Navarre after finishing the Bonds route. All of them casually talking about killing God was one of the best moments of the game. Every single one of them had more than enough reason because they had been living in such a hellish world for all of their lives.
The final boss fight was the best of all games. I never thought they would take it that far, but they did and it was glorious. SMT2 was criticism of the inconsistencies of the Old Testament God. This game provides criticism on the inconsistencies of the New Testament version of YHVH, criticism of religious rituals of the ancient world, and on savior figures and their supposed benefit to society. I loved the contradistinctions of the final boss fight for the Bonds and Anarchy route. Do the right thing and become eternally damned while accomplishing only a small reprieve or become a God and permanently fix the issue.
I honestly don’t understand why people are complaining about the Bonds Route. They will all be eternally damned for their actions. The ending scene was just a lengthier and superior presentation of humanity rebuilding, it’s exactly similar to SMT2’s conclusion but just better in presentation. The Anarchy Route, and thus fighting and killing your friends to create a new universe, is the only permanent solution to fix the universe from the endless cycle of Law and Chaos.
I am completely satisfied with this series. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the final main series game. If it is, it was a great finale. I highly recommend it to everyone who likes JRPGs. Despite the rushed bad endings, left over JPN text with Izanami, and weird silence when music should play in certain sections but thankfully nothing game breaking to report. It has become one of my favorites. It’s strengths are definitely greater than its weaknesses.
Loved it.
Works Cited:
www.mildlyeccentric.com. The Fool’s Journey, www.learntarot.com/journey.htm.
Eirikr. Stealing Knowledge, Aug. 2016, eirikrjs.blogspot.com/2016/08/apocalypse-artbook.html.
Hobbes, Thomas. Chapter XV. Of Other Laws of Nature. Hobbes, Thomas. 1909-14. Of Man, Being the First Part of Leviathan. The Harvard Classics, www.bartleby.com/34/5/15.html.
Hobbes, Thomas. Chapter XIII. Of the Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity and Misery. Hobbes, Thomas. 1909-14. Of Man, Being the First Part of Leviathan. The Harvard Classics, www.bartleby.com/34/5/13.html.
Johnson, Dominique. “The Truth about the Future Maitreya Buddha in Theosophical Writings.” The Academician Theosophical, 24 May 2017, theacademiciantheosophical.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/the-truth-about-the-future-maitreya-buddha-in-theosophical-writings/.
Tarico, Valerie. “Ancient Sumerian Origins of the Easter Story.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10 Apr. 2009, www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/ancient-mythic-origins-of_b_185455.html.
“Tarot Card Meanings.” Tarot Card Meanings at Aeclectic Tarot, www.aeclectic.net/tarot/learn/meanings/.
“The Fool’s Journey | 78 Nights of Tarot Blog.” 78 Nights of Tarot, 20 Jan. 2017, 78nightsoftarot.com/blog/the-fools-journey-aeclectic-tarot/.
“The Wild Symbolism Behind Japanese Hannya Masks.” Tattoodo, 12 Mar. 2017, www.tattoodo.com/a/2017/03/the-wild-symbolism-behind-japanese-hannya-masks/.
Peter C. Rogers (Goodreads, et al. “Universal Truth.” By Peter C. Rogers, Google Books.
I’ve noticed that many ignoramuses in this festering and obnoxious hate group love to dehumanize racial minorities by constantly espousing the violent crimes of Hispanics and Blacks. Here’s why you should ignore them.
There were approximately 8.4 million arrests in the US last year, 9374 were charged with murder.
The percentage of total arrests which were for Murder adds up to:
9374/8,421,484 = 0.00113105 -> Round it up -> 0.0012 -> 0.12 percent.
Of these 9374 arrested for murder in a population of 316 Million people, 4192 of them were “White” and 4935 of them were “Black”
The total murders were 16,459 in total, including offenses were the culprit wasn’t found.
So… right off the bat, not only has the murder rate since the 1960s decreased to the lowest levels ever in the US since it’s inception, but we’re literally dramatizing a statistical non-event through an arbitrary cultural distinction.
Black Americans only make-up 12 percent of the total US population (Between 39-40 Million) whilst White Americans make-up 73 percent of the population (232-233 Million).
Now, just think about this for a moment, the population of the US is approximately 316 million according to a 2015 statistical survey… and the crimes are around 8.4 million and the total amount of murders is 16459 in 2016.
Of the massive 39-40 million Black folks, only 4935 were charged with murder of other people. Of the 232-233 Million White folks, only 4192 were charged with murder of other people.
Those arrested for a crime in 2016 amounted to 8.4 million. 5.8 Million were White and 2.2 Million were Black . . . in a population of 316 million people in the US with 232-233 million Whites and 39-40 million Blacks.
In Math terms:
Whites: 5,858,330/232,943,055 = .0251491937 -> Round it up -> .03 -> 3 Percent
Blacks: 2,263,112/39,908,095 = .0567080939 -> Round it up -> .06 -> 6 Percent
Neither of which reach even 10 percent of either demographic’s population size. We are literally in the safest age all because Millennials don’t commit as much crimes as their parents generation did, no matter the ethnic background. Yeah, when looking at numbers in the millions, it seem bad and hopeless; yet, they’re far lower than anything our parents and grandparents generation did here in the US.
Let’s see what this means in terms of the full population size compared to the total US crime rate of last year:
8,421,484/316,515,021 = .0266069015 -> Round it up -> .03 = 3 Percent.
Three percent of the population is responsible for the total crime rate in the US.
This is all that the Alt-Right/Redpill and the Mainstream media have been whining about. This small, statistically inconsequential nonsense.
And as mentioned previously: You’re more likely to be robbed, raped, and murdered by someone with the same ethnicity as you, you’re much safer around people with a different ethnic background — the only exception to this general statistical fact is Native Americans. They’re more likely to be robbed, raped, and murdered by Non-Natives because those living in Native Reservations had no rights to sue their rapists until the re-amended 2011 Violence against Women’s act.
With all that being said, of course rape and murder crimes are horrific and the victims undeserving, of course all rational and reasonable human beings want a world where they don’t exist, and we shouldn’t diminish the suffering of victims; but the crime rate in the US is simply exaggerated for all ethnic backgrounds.
Please, don’t let them trick you into giving into hysteria and hate-filled nonsense. These people will lie to spread fear and hate for no other reason than to stroke their own ego. If you’re confused about something or unsure, research the facts based on credible sources of data. Don’t let this fake news culture skewer your views.
I originally toyed with the idea of writing it as a satire primarily towards the Neo-Nazi movement and Neo-Nazi ideology. That’s mainly what it is suppose to be as it’s clearly not indicative of how the vast majority of Christians in the US behave or believe in. It’s primarily meant as an insult to race-based grouping and racial supremacist ideology.
Some people seem to believe racial supremacists are actually proud of their racial lineage and that’s what inspires their racial supremacist views. However, that is a severe mistake and a naive outlook to me. At their core, Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and other racial supremacist groups are merely jealous of the people they marginalize. They secretly hold hate for themselves and lash out at scapegoats by vilifying Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, Sikhs, Feminists, Transpeople, and homosexuals as the problem for why they’re such complete failures at life. It’s not their irrational beliefs, it’s not their bigoted views, and it’s not their antipathy towards changing realities.
Evidently, people who value social justice, equality, and human rights are to blame for their total and willful failure to change and improve their lives. We’re to blame for their sorry state of pathetic. They wish to believe they’re poor because of bizarre conspiracies about Jews, because they like vilifying Black Americans as violent animals, because Muslims are all terrorists to their minds and they can’t distinguish between a Muslim and a Sikh, because so-called feminazis are whining too much, and because transpeople and homosexuals don’t belong in what they believe to be the natural order of their limited, narrow world of hate.
I had thought writing this satire would simply be creating more controversy. . . but to be honest, I don’t feel that excuse holds much weight anymore. The Left shouldn’t follow the lead of antifa, which allows their emotional hate to cloud their rationality and become just as violent as the neo-nazis. We should “fight back” as “SJW Cucks” with the same satirical disavowal that they’ve given us. Because, quite frankly, racial supremacist hate groups deserve nothing else. I can’t speak for others, but I knew better at age frickin’ eleven that racism was wrong and unjustifiable because it’s judging people based on a factor that they have no control over and were born with. Lumping together people of different ethnicities to cast a wide net as collective punishment is asinine.
What finally inspired me to write and publish it was my anger towards a former friend who began to empathize and later joined the neo-nazi movement. Evidently, neo-nazis have been recruiting on discord video game servers, and he fell in with them. I have never been so disgusted and disappointed in my life with someone. It worsened even further since many people of the video game community I had been a part of had displayed total apathy towards people holding legitimate neo-nazi views, calling racial minorities inbreds, and making Nazi insults towards Jews. The argument was that my beliefs in social justice were “old” and “boring” and “needed to be thrown away” with mockery at even arguing for equality of races.
I had the idea for the ebook as a humorous take on racist beliefs before, based on a prank video of a Ku Klux Klan community manager explaining they refused the application from a black applicant (who was really an anon troll using voice overs from several movies) because – and this is true – they honestly believe that Black people are part of the cursed sons of Ham in the Bible.
So, with that inspiration, I wrote an ebook where various White Supremacist groups and Evangelicals form a utopian society in the US and close themselves off from the world for the sake of blood purity and their faith in Jesus Christ. It honestly is meant to be satire to poke fun at White supremacist groups and to poke fun at their version of Christianity. I plan to write another ebook where I criticize Christianity and Islam via fictional explorations of their faith sometime in the future.
What finally pushed me forward though was the encouragement of two of my closest friends to mock the Neo-Nazi movement because they were feeling utterly tired of it too and thought it’d be humorous. I can empathize with those who hate having themselves and fellow White Americans generalized and lumped with what is clearly stupidity beyond reproach. The majority of White America, very clearly, does not and would not support tolerating Nazism.
Final thoughts on this contemporary issue of Neo-Nazi/KKK hate groups:
Don’t let the Alt-Right and Redpill hate groups deceive you. Nazism is a belief and a choice that you, I, and everyone else can criticize and repudiate. Free speech means they can hold those views, but they’re sadly under the delusion that their beliefs shouldn’t have any consequences — even as they advocate the genocide of Jews in their crowd chants; violently murder Sikhs, transpeople, Muslims; and vilify Black America and feminists with stereotypes.
Never forget: Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and other racial supremacist groups cling to “racial pride” and advocate death towards others because they’re jealous of them.
As proof? Racial supremacist claim to have ownership over the achievements of other people in history based on the tenuous connection that they were born with the same skin pigmentation as those who achieved great things. The root of that belief is jealousy towards others, because they have no achievements of their own to celebrate. That’s precisely why they find tenuous connections to claim superiority over marginalized groups.
Long story short: They’re pathetic. They’re hatred is unjustified and I don’t find it compelling that we need to appeal to their humanness when it means putting the lives of marginalized groups in danger. Sorry, but no. Their hurt feelings don’t justify advocating for massacring others.
I’m letting my dissent be known through mockery and satire. They’re not worthy of respect.
I know I’ve said some vicious, arguably hateful things about religion, but I want to make it clear that this ebook is about mocking neo-Nazis and bad beliefs in general.
Be that as it may, I obviously would never advocate, wish for, or desire the deaths of people of another religion or racial group, ever. When I criticize theology, I will admit that I despise those theologies for what I perceive to be justifications for human rights violations, but I’d never advocate for the deaths of innocent people or their marginalization. I can’t promise that I won’t make vicious criticisms of religious violence or religious theology itself, but I’d obviously never advocate for mass murder or that people shouldn’t have a right to their religious beliefs. I do think that I have a right to criticize, even harshly criticize, when I see human rights abuses justified by theology, especially in the real world context. But I would never advocate mass death and I’m sure that neither would the majority of the US. The statistics of that are on our side.
If you, like me, wish to mock the Neo-Nazi movement, then please consider reading my ebook.
Introducing my latest, finalized project and first ever published ebook novel. I’m still working on another one that I’ve already spent 3 or so years on. This one is more of a parody of concepts regarding contemporary culture and the current vitriolic rise of hate groups than anything else. So… I wrote an ebook exploring how Christian hate groups and Christian religious extremists would act in their idealized Utopian society. Hope you all enjoy!
Summary:
Due to inspiration from the alternative facts movement; Flat Earthers, the Ku Klux Klan, the majority of Neo-Nazi groups, and White Evangelicals joined together to form a utopian society to separate itself from the sinfulness of the carnal world so that they could live according to the Holy Bible. They established their utopian society known as “The Family Values” to rejoice in the purity of their faith in the Lord and in the purity of their blood.
They follow strict conservative social values for their namesake of protecting Christian family values. As such, they forbid the cursed children of Ham from entering due to lacking their pure skin tone, people follow gender roles with strict obedience as per the Bible’s instructions on what roles men and women must maintain, brothers and sisters in Christ must often marry or be kept servile to continue the divine right of blood purity, and they live modest, quasi-ascetic lives with strict adherence to the Bible as the inerrant Word of the Lord without question or doubt.
Witness as people of faith and blood purity come together to rejoice in worship for the Lord.
This is not going to be a very kind post. It is not intended to dehumanize, but it may offend. I don’t mean for this to be a personal attack against anyone specific and I am not advocating or justifying violence of any kind. I’m just tired of seeing the same shit.
I am thoroughly exhausted and sick of trying to find rational reasons to understand and empathize with the causes behind why human violence continues to persist. I have tried so hard and so long with trying to find the empathetic element to all the violence and death that pervades the world due to the spread of hate, but to be perfectly frank, I can no longer find it in me to avoid putting the blame on religion as a clear, consistent, and continuous self-justification for violence and hate. And, most particularly, the Abrahamic faiths are usually the ones continuously inciting, justifying, and turning a blind eye to equivocate on violence.
The Abrahamic Faiths, the religion of Yahweh, are constantly justifying their own violence by saying the “other side” is more violent. The US public justifies bombings by pointing to Islamic beheadings and vice-versa, Muslims in the Middle East justify beheadings by pointing at US bombings. It’s a never ending cycle of stupidity and death.
At this point, I can’t find any way to reasonably justify and argue that all religions are somehow equally to blame when it’s just a way of lacking any meaningful answer and just espousing the circular logic that humans are humans. It’s just a non-answer and it creates the expectation that you can never change or, at the very least, that we as a society or a world can never decrease incidents of murder, assault, and rape. It’s just a way of being complicit with human violence and shielding any criticism of religion.
How many Christian groups remain silent when the US launches a War and Right-wing groups talk about protecting the Holy land such as when they did to support the Iraq invasion? How many even bother to condemn US bombings like MLK did?
How many times do we have to hear about Islamic extremist violence growing across the world with extremism becoming more unified thanks to the Internet and social media? How many times do we see justification for heads being lobbed off and the rape of women and young girls?
Pro-tip: If you’re constantly giving a pass to violence in your religion, every single year and have a history of violence towards people who believe in the same God that you do, then maybe, just maybe, your religion’s value system being interpreted wrongly isn’t the problem. The problem is your religion is violent, stupid shit.
The Abrahamic religions are constantly blaming each other to justify their own violence and the majority equivocate to the egregious human rights violations of wars. Arguing the religion being interpreted wrongly is asinine. If it happens throughout your religion’s history, then perhaps you should start seeing the religion itself and Yahweh as the central problem.
How can anyone reasonably argue that the religion of Yahweh isn’t to blame when Christians, Muslims, and Jews — including pastors, clergymen, imams, and Rabbis write editorials and op-eds to equivocate on their religion’s violence and justify it by blaming the other religion of Yahweh?
Lastly, how can open interpretation be anything else but moral relativism under the approval of a God? That argument seems asinine to me. In my view, Open interpretation is just moral relativism under the idea that a God agrees with your opinion over the entirety of the religion’s history. It’s fundamentally self-contradictory.
But please, feel free to prove me wrong. I would love to be proven wrong about this. But to be frank, it just seems to be a way to equivocate, rationalize, be complicit, and ignore human violence committed by all three subsets of the Abrahamic faiths.
I no longer believe the religion of Yahweh is tolerant or it’s continued existence worthy of respect or justification. The religion of Yahweh is such that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism don’t even identify as believing in the same God because of the history of violence against each other.
That’s not proof that you’re a different religion, it’s proof your religious theology isn’t peaceful.
Christianity since the inception of the US has justified and still justifies massive rape crimes of Native Americans that is still ongoing and still hiding it’s already disgustingly lengthy history along with a sterilization campaign, “successful” Christian nation-states commit mass bombing campaigns of other religions of Yahweh, and literally acts like every other culture was more violent than it to argue it’s peaceful when that has no historic basis. It’s just a false-consensus effect based on ignorance of other religions and the utter destruction and violence committed by European and US Christians upon the rest of the world under Imperialism.
Islam… you hear it every day. I’d rather not promote further hate.
I’m just tired of trying; stupidity and hate just keep chugging along and I hear the same stupid trite excuses. I’m done. The Abrahamic faiths are a cancer upon intellectualism and empathy. Apart from a few trite anecdotes, there’s nothing good about their moral values at all. Prove me wrong or don’t bother.
This book, by Psychologist Angela Duckworth, was very illuminating. I had heard of this book before thanks to having read Carol Dweck and Heidi Grant Halvorson’s books, but I wish I had read this one before them because I feel that it provides the foundational basis for those other two authors delve into with mindsets. Halvorson and Duckworth’s books together seem to give a more concise and efficient view on how to pursue goals. Dweck details the self-conceptions and lists anecdotal examples.
The most striking matter I’ve found about this book doesn’t really relate to the book per se. I’ve discovered that a lot of the more “official” reviews, such as the New Yorker, are being utterly pretentious and vilifying this book based on arguments that Angela Duckworth never made or even implied. I was shocked to see the radical difference between the contents of the book and the disparaging reviews that were being dishonest in their representation of both her research and her as a person. I was in disbelief until I read her perspective on her TEDTalk in her own book where she mentions, in much nicer words than I’m describing, how the CEO of TED basically asked her to dumb down her information to the public about her findings. The TEDTalk and the arguments against her feel and sound like they’re calling her bluff about nonsense the public has heard before, specifically because she was requested to tone down the information. So, it’s unfair. It’s unfair of us to judge her based on her TEDTalk and those shockingly disingenuous reviews. I wouldn’t honestly be saying this had I not done the same prior to reading her book on a whim.
Long story short: this book isn’t about education policy and never claimed to be. This book is for individuals and parents who want to learn what encourages people to find a passion, how to learn to work at that passion for a long term, and how we internalize a greater purpose for ourselves and others by following through with commitments that we feel strongly about. Grit was never about making kids better with grades. Nevertheless, this can only apply to grades, if kids care about the classes they take, but this book is more oriented towards extracurricular activities and encouraging them in kids early, it was never about trying to force kids to be passionate or persevere in grades on subjects they don’t care about. Duckworth even explains the problems trying to force people to be passionate about subject matter that they don’t care about.
In Duckworth’s book, her interviews and general research have found that people who are very successful in their careers didn’t simply find their passion from one incident. They discovered tidbits or gained encouragement from loved ones multiple time. As Duckworth puts it: Again, and again, and again. People might be happy to know that there isn’t a specific parenting style, you just shouldn’t devalue or tell your child the interest is bad, if you want to encourage their growth. Moreover, even if a child follows with an activity the parent has misgivings about like joining a music band, evidence shows that sticking to it for more than a year (generally 2 years) is likely to encourage them to stick to future goals when they discover a new passion. In the long term, the “grit” mindset of following through with your intrinsic passion can have long-term benefits. Also, much of the passion and perseverance doesn’t come from pushing through adversity, but rather being encouraged to follow your intrinsic motivation. Children need encouraging parents and teachers, we need encouraging friends, and – most of all – we need a sense that what we’re doing is meaningful for both ourselves and a greater society. I began realizing that a lot of the passion in the passion and perseverance rubric could apply to the immediate feedback loop that video games give people. Generally, we can immediately ascertain gains and losses and the techniques for how to improve are either instructed in the game itself or can be found from tips online. Having a community of friends to talk to about games like Dragon Quest or Dragon Age is self-reinforcing.
I’m somewhat hesitant to jot down a list of the crucial parts of her research, because I’m often afraid that I’m simply not giving this book and it’s author due credit by paraphrasing and potentially taking her out of context. I’m particularly hesitant because of how thoroughly people have insulted caricatures of her work instead of the work itself. When people begin counting terminology and the number of times a word was used, I begin to question whether they had ever even read her book at all. I was really disappointed with so many reviews that conflate Carol Dweck and Angela Duckworth’s research with their personality characteristics. This isn’t even isolated to women or even people who exist in the present-day. I just keep spotting this same pattern and when I read someone’s work, it’s largely incredibly different from what accusers espouse that their work contains. I don’t want to contribute to that form of misinformation, even if subconsciously, and I don’t like taking someone’s words out of context as I see so often done.
I’ll just jot down certain specific quotes that I felt were key points in the book and align them with the overarching information that the book was explaining in bold text so people can judge for themselves.
The major overarching theme is underlined and specifics are placed underneath those umbrella concepts:
Developing a Passionate Interest
How Does Passion Start?
When it comes to lining up our occupations with what we enjoy, how come so many of us miss the mark? And does my dad’s success offer a counterexample to the passion argument? What should we make of the fact that, by the time I came along, my father’s work really was his passion? Should we stop telling people to follow your passion and, instead, tell them to follow our orders? I don’t think so. In fact, I see Will Shortz and Jeff Bezos as terrific inspirations for what work can be. While it’s naive to think that any of us could love every minute of what we do, I believe the thousands of data points in those meta-analyses, which confirm the commonsense intuition that interest matters.
Nobody is interested in everything, and everyone is interested in something. So
matching your job to what captures your attention and imagination is a good idea. It may not guarantee happiness and success, but it sure helps the odds. That said, I don’t think most young people need encouragement to follow their passion. Most would do exactly that—in a heartbeat—if only they had a passion in the first place. If I’m ever invited to give a commencement speech, I’ll begin with the advice to foster a passion. And then I’ll spend the rest of my time trying to change young minds about how that actually happens. -Page 98.
Passion takes time, so give it time:
A few months ago, I read a post on Reddit titled “Fleeting Interest in Everything, No Career Direction”: I’m in my early thirties and have no idea what to do with myself, career-wise. All my life I’ve been one of those people who has been told how smart I am/how much potential I have. I’m interested in so much stuff that I’m paralyzed to try anything. It seems like every job requires a specialized certificate or designation that requires long-term time and financial investment—before you can even try the job, which is a bit of a drag. I have a lot of sympathy for the thirty-something who wrote this post. As a college professor, I also have a lot of sympathy for the twentysomethings who come to me for career advice.
My colleague Barry Schwartz has been dispensing counsel to anxious young adults for much longer than I have. He’s been teaching psychology at Swarthmore College for forty-five years. Barry thinks that what prevents a lot of young people from developing a serious career interest is unrealistic expectations. “It’s really the same problem a lot of young people have finding a romantic partner,” he said. “They want somebody who’s really attractive and smart and kind and empathetic and thoughtful and funny. Try telling a twenty-one-year-old that you can’t find a person who is absolutely the best in every way. They don’t listen. They’re holding out for perfection.” “What about your wonderful wife, Myrna?” I asked. “Oh, she is wonderful. More wonderful than I am, certainly. But is she perfect? Is she the only person I could have made a happy life with? Am I the only man in the world with whom she could have made a wonderful marriage? I don’t think so.” A related problem, Barry says, is the mythology that falling in love with a career should be sudden and swift: “There are a lot of things where the subtleties and exhilarations come with sticking with it for a while, getting elbow-deep into something. A lot of things seem uninteresting and superficial until you start doing them and, after a while, you realize that there are so many facets you didn’t know at the start, and you never can fully solve the problem, or fully understand it, or what have you. Well, that requires that you stick with it.” After a pause, Barry said, “Actually, finding a mate is the perfect analogy. Meeting a potential match—not the one-and-only perfect match, but a promising one—is only the very beginning.”
Interest, Discovery, Successive Rediscovery, and Positive Feedback from Loved Ones:
To the thirty-something on Reddit with a “fleeting interest in everything” and “no career direction,” here’s what science has to say: passion for your work is a little bit of discovery, followed by a lot of development, and then a lifetime of deepening. Let me explain. First of all, childhood is generally far too early to know what we want to be when we grow up. Longitudinal studies following thousands of people across time have shown that most people only begin to gravitate toward certain vocational interests, and away from others, around middle school.
This is certainly the pattern I’ve seen in my interview research, and it’s also what journalist Hester Lacey has found in her interviews with the “mega successful.” Keep in mind, however, that a seventh grader—even a future paragon of grit—is unlikely to have a fully articulated passion at that age. A seventh grader is just beginning to figure out her general likes and dislikes.
Second, interests are not discovered through introspection. Instead, interests are triggered by interactions with the outside world. The process of interest discovery can be messy, serendipitous, and inefficient. This is because you can’t really predict with certainty what will capture your attention and what won’t. You can’t simply will yourself to like things, either. As Jeff Bezos has observed, “One of the huge mistakes people make is that they try to force an interest on themselves.” Without experimenting, you can’t figure out which interests will stick, and which won’t. Paradoxically, the initial discovery of an interest often goes unnoticed by the discoverer. In other words, when you just start to get interested in something, you may not even realize that’s what’s happening. The emotion of boredom is always self-conscious—you know it when you feel it—but when your attention is attracted to a new activity or experience, you may have very little reflective appreciation of what’s happening to you. This means that, at the start of a new endeavor, asking yourself nervously every few days whether you’ve found your passion is premature.
Third, what follows the initial discovery of an interest is a much lengthier and increasingly proactive period of interest development. Crucially, the initial triggering of a new interest must be followed by subsequent encounters that retrigger your attention—again and again and again.
For instance, NASA astronaut Mike Hopkins told me that it was watching space shuttle launches on television in high school that initially inspired his lifelong interest in space travel. But it wasn’t just one launch that hooked him. It was several shown in succession over a period of years. Soon enough, he started digging for more information on NASA, and “one piece of information led to another and another.”
For master potter Warren MacKenzie, ceramics class in college—which he only took, initially, because all the painting classes were full—was followed by the discovery of A Potter’s Book by the great Bernard Leach, and then a year-long internship with Leach himself.
Finally, interests thrive when there is a crew of encouraging supporters, including parents, teachers, coaches, and peers. Why are other people so important? For one thing, they provide the ongoing stimulation and information that is essential to actually liking something more and more. Also—more obviously—positive feedback makes us feel happy, competent, and secure. Take Marc Vetri as an example. There are few things I enjoy reading more than his cookbooks and essays about food, but he was a solid-C student throughout school. “I never worked hard at academics,” he told me. “I was always just like, ‘This is kind of boring.’ ” In contrast, Marc spent delightful
Sunday afternoons at his Sicilian grandmother’s house in South Philly. “She’d make meatballs and lasagna and all that stuff, and I always liked to head down early to help her out. By the time I was eleven or so, I started wanting to make that stuff at home, too.” As a teenager, Marc had a part-time job washing dishes in a local restaurant. “And I loved that. I worked hard.” Why? Making money was one motivation, but another was the camaraderie of the kitchen. “Around that time I was sort of a social outcast. I was kind of awkward. I had a stutter. Everyone at school thought I was weird. I was like, ‘Oh, here I can wash dishes, and I can watch the guys on the line [cooking] while I’m washing, and I can eat. Everyone is nice, and they like me.’ ”
If you read Marc’s cookbooks, you’ll be struck by how many friends and mentors he’s made in the world of food. Page through and look for pictures of Marc alone, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find many. And read the acknowledgments of Il Viaggio Di Vetri. It runs to two pages with the names of people who made his journey possible, including this note: “Mom and Dad, you’ve always let me find my own way and helped guide me through it. You’ll never know how much I appreciate it. I’ll always need you.” Is it “a drag” that passions don’t come to us all at once, as epiphanies, without the need to actively develop them? Maybe. But the reality is that our early interests are fragile, vaguely defined, and in need of energetic, years-long cultivation and refinement. – Page 103.
Don’t Rush a Passion:
For now, what I hope to convey is that experts and beginners have different motivational needs. At the start of an endeavor, we need encouragement and freedom to figure out what we enjoy. We need small wins. We need applause. Yes, we can handle a tincture of criticism and corrective feedback. Yes, we need to practice. But not too much and not too soon. Rush a beginner and you’ll bludgeon their budding interest. It’s very, very hard to get that back once you do. – Page 108.
Helpful tips to develop a Passion for Young Adults and Adults:
If you’d like to follow your passion but haven’t yet fostered one, you must begin at the beginning: discovery. Ask yourself a few simple questions: What do I like to think about? Where does my mind wander? What do I really care about? What matters most to me? How do I enjoy spending my time? And, in contrast, what do I find absolutely unbearable? If you find it hard to answer these questions, try recalling your teen years, the stage of life at which vocational interests commonly sprout. As soon as you have even a general direction in mind, you must trigger your nascent interests. Do this by going out into the world and doing something. To young graduates wringing their hands over what to do, I say, Experiment! Try! You’ll certainly learn more than if you don’t!
At this early stage of exploration, here are a few relevant rules of thumb taken from Will Shortz’s essay “How to Solve the New York Times Crossword Puzzle”: Begin with the answers you’re surest of and build from there. However ill-defined your interests, there are some things you know you’d hate doing for a living, and some things that seem more promising than others. That’s a start. Don’t be afraid to guess. Like it or not, there’s a certain amount of trial and error inherent in the process of interest discovery. Unlike the answers to crossword puzzles, there isn’t just one thing you can do that might develop into a passion. There are many. You don’t have to find the “right” one, or even the “best” one—just a direction that feels good. It can also be difficult to know if something will be a good fit until you try it for a while. Don’t be afraid to erase an answer that isn’t working out.
At some point, you may choose to write your top-level goal in indelible ink, but until you know for sure, work in pencil. If, on the other hand, you already have a good sense of what you enjoy spending your time doing, it’s time to develop your interest. After discovery comes development. Remember that interests must be triggered again and again and again. Find ways to make that happen. And have patience. The development of interests takes time. Keep asking questions, and let the answers to those questions lead you to more questions. Continue to dig. Seek out other people who share your interests. Sidle up to an encouraging mentor. Whatever your age, over time your role as a learner will become a more active and informed one. Over a period of years, your knowledge and expertise will grow, and along with it your confidence and curiosity to know more. Finally, if you’ve been doing something you like for a few years and still wouldn’t quite call it a passion, see if you can deepen your interests. Since novelty is what your brain craves, you’ll be tempted to move on to something new, and that could be what makes the most sense. However, if you want to stay engaged for more than a few years in any endeavor, you’ll need to find a way to enjoy the nuances that only a true aficionado can appreciate. “The old in the new is what claims the attention,” said William James. “The old with a slightly new turn.” In sum, the directive to follow your passion is not bad advice. But what may be even more useful is to understand how passions are fostered in the first place. – Page 114.
Gritty Journalist Anecdote; Passion as a Compass:
‘Screw it, this is what I’m going to do.’ I set out a very deliberate path that was possible, because the journalism industry was very hierarchical, and it was clear how to get from A to B to C to D, et cetera.” Step A was writing for Oxford’s student newspaper, Cherwell. Step B was a summer internship at a small paper in Wisconsin. Step C was the St. Petersburg Times in Florida on the Metro beat. Step D was the Los Angeles Times. Step E was the New York Times as a national correspondent in Atlanta. Step F was being sent overseas to cover war stories, and in 2006—just over a decade since he’d set himself the goal—he finally reached step G: becoming the New York Times’ East Africa bureau chief. “It was a really winding road that took me to all kinds of places. And it was difficult, and discouraging, and demoralizing, and scary, and all the rest. But eventually, I got here. I got exactly where I wanted to be.” As for so many other grit paragons, the common metaphor of passion as fireworks doesn’t make sense when you think of what passion means to Jeff Gettleman. Fireworks erupt in a blaze of glory but quickly fizzle, leaving just wisps of smoke and a memory of what was once spectacular. What Jeff’s journey suggests instead is passion as a compass—that thing that takes you some time to build, tinker with, and finally get right, and that then guides you on your long and winding road to where, ultimately, you want to be. Page 60.
Passion as a Compass forming a Life Philosophy:
Pete realized he didn’t have one and needed to: “If I was ever going to get the chance to run an organization again, I would have to be prepared with a philosophy that would drive all my actions.” Pete did a lot of thinking and reflecting: “My life in the next weeks and months was filled with writing notes and filling binders.” At the same time, he was devouring the books of John Wooden, the legendary UCLA basketball coach who won a record-setting ten national championships. Like a lot of coaches, Pete had already read Wooden. But this time, he was reading Wooden and understanding, at a much deeper level, what the coaching icon had to say. And the most important thing Wooden said was that, though a team has to do a million things well, figuring out the overarching vision is of utmost importance. Pete realized in that moment that particular goals—winning a particular game, or even a seasonal championship, or figuring out this element of the offensive lineup, or the way to talk to players—needed coordination, needed purpose: “A clear, well-defined philosophy gives you the guidelines and boundaries that keep you on track,” he said. Page 61.
Having a Life Philosophy
Goal-Oriented Passion:
At the bottom of this hierarchy are our most concrete and specific goals—the tasks we have on our short-term todo list: I want to get out the door today by eight a.m. I want to call my business partner back. I want to finish writing the email I started yesterday. These low-level goals exist merely as means to ends. We want to accomplish them only because they get us something else we want. In contrast, the higher the goal in this hierarchy, the more abstract, general, and important it is. The higher the goal, the more it’s an end in itself, and the less it’s merely a means to an end. In the diagram I’ve sketched out here, there are just three levels. That’s an oversimplification. Between the lowest and the highest level might be several layers of mid-level goals. For instance, getting out the door by eight a.m. is a low-level goal. It only matters because of a mid-level goal: arriving at work on time. Why do you care about that? Because you want to be punctual. Why do you care about that? Because being punctual shows respect for the people with whom you work. Why is that important? Because you strive to be a good leader. If in the course of asking yourself these “Why?” questions your answer is simply “Just because!” then you know you’ve gotten to the top of a goal hierarchy.
The top-level goal is not a means to any other end. It is, instead, an end in itself. Some psychologists like to call this an “ultimate concern.” Myself, I think of this top-level goal as a compass that gives direction and meaning to all the goals below it. – Pg. 62.
Prioritize Your Goals:
What I mean by passion is not just that you have something you care about. What I mean is that you care about that same ultimate goal in an abiding, loyal, steady way. You are not capricious. Each day, you wake up thinking of the questions you fell asleep thinking about. You are, in a sense, pointing in the same direction, ever eager to take even the smallest step forward than to take a step to the side, toward some other destination. At the extreme, one might call your focus obsessive. Most of your actions derive their significance from their allegiance to your ultimate concern, your life philosophy. You have your priorities in order. -Page 64.
Forming Your Goal Hierarchy:
Grit is about holding the same top-level goal for a very long time. Furthermore, this “life philosophy,” as Pete Carroll might put it, is so interesting and important that it organizes a great deal of your waking activity. In very gritty people, most mid-level and low-level goals are, in some way or another, related to that ultimate goal. In contrast, a lack of grit can come from having less coherent goal structures. Here are a few ways a lack of grit can show itself. I’ve met many young people who can articulate a dream—for example, to be a doctor or to play basketball in the NBA—and can vividly imagine how wonderful that would be, but they can’t point to the midlevel and lower-level goals that will get them there. Their goal hierarchy has a top-level goal but no supporting
mid-level or low-level goals: This is what my good friend and fellow psychologist Gabriele Oettingen calls “positive fantasizing.” Gabriele’s research suggests that indulging in visions of a positive future without figuring out how to get there, chiefly by considering what obstacles stand in the way, has short-term payoffs but long-term costs. In the short-term, you feel pretty great about your aspiration to be a doctor. In the long-term, you live with the disappointment of not having achieved your goal. Even more common, I think, is having a bunch of mid-level goals that don’t correspond to any unifying, top-level goal: Or having a few competing goal hierarchies that aren’t in any way connected with each other: To some extent, goal conflict is a necessary feature
of human existence. For instance, I have one goal hierarchy as a professional and another as a mother. Even Tom Seaver admits that the travel and practice schedule of a professional baseball player made it hard to spend as much time with his wife and children as he would have liked. So, though pitching was his professional passion, there were other goal hierarchies that obviously mattered to him. Like Seaver, I have one goal hierarchy for work: Use psychological science to help kids thrive. But I have a separate goal hierarchy that involves being the best mother I can be to my two daughters. As any working parent knows, having two “ultimate concerns” isn’t easy. There seems never to be enough time, energy, or attention to go around. I’ve decided to live with that tension. As a young woman, I considered alternatives—not having my career or not raising a family—and decided that, morally, there was no “right decision,” only a decision that was right for me. So, the idea that every waking moment in our lives should be guided by one top-level goal is an idealized extreme that may not be
desirable even for the grittiest of us. Still, I would argue that it’s possible to pare down long lists of mid-level and low-level work goals according to how they serve a goal of supreme importance. And I think one top-level professional goal, rather than any other number, is ideal. In sum, the more unified, aligned, and coordinated our goal hierarchies, the better.
Assessing Goals:
Indeed, giving up on lower-level goals is not only forgivable, it’s sometimes absolutely necessary. You should give up when one lower-level goal can be swapped for another that is more feasible. It also makes sense to switch your path when a different lower-level goal—a different means to the same end—is just more efficient, or more fun, or for whatever reason makes more sense than your original plan. On any long journey, detours are to be expected. However, the higher-level the goal, the more it makes sense to be stubborn. Personally, I try not to get too hung up on a particular rejected grant application, academic paper, or failed experiment. The pain of those failures is real, but I don’t dwell on them for long before moving on. In contrast, I don’t give up as easily on mid-level goals, and frankly, I can’t imagine anything that would change my ultimate aim, my life philosophy, as Pete might say. My compass, once I found all the parts and put it together, keeps pointing me in the same direction, week after month after year.
Inculcating Grit Habits to Form Grit Culture
Positive Self-Talk:
Carol also explains that the brain is remarkably adaptive. Like a muscle that gets stronger with use, the brain changes itself when you struggle to master a new challenge. In fact, there’s never a time in life when the brain is completely “fixed.” Instead, all our lives, our neurons retain the potential to grow new connections with one another and to strengthen the ones we already have. What’s more, throughout adulthood, we maintain the ability to grow myelin, a sort of insulating sheath that protects neurons and speeds signals traveling between them. My next suggestion is to practice optimistic self-talk. The link between cognitive behavioral therapy and learned helplessness led to the development of “resilience training.” In essence, this interactive curriculum is a preventative dose of cognitive behavioral therapy. In one study, children who completed this training showed lower levels of pessimism and developed fewer symptoms of depression over the next two years. In a similar study, pessimistic college students demonstrated less anxiety over the subsequent two years and less depression over three years. If, reading this chapter, you recognize yourself as an extreme pessimist, my advice is to find a cognitive behavioral therapist. I know how unsatisfying this recommendation might sound. Many years ago, as a teenager, I wrote to Dear Abby about a problem I was having. “Go see a therapist,” she wrote back. I recall tearing up her letter, angry she didn’t propose a neater, faster, more straightforward solution. Nevertheless, suggesting that reading twenty pages about the science of hope is enough to remove an ingrained pessimistic bias would be naive. There’s much more to say about cognitive behavioral therapy and resilience training than I can summarize here. The point is that you can, in fact, modify your self-talk, and you can learn to not let it interfere with you moving toward your goals. With practice and guidance, you can change the way you think, feel, and, most important, act when the going gets rough. As a transition to the final section of this book, “Growing Grit from the Outside In,” let me offer one final suggestion for teaching yourself hope: Ask for a helping hand. A few years ago, I met a retired mathematician named Rhonda Hughes. Nobody in Rhonda’s family had gone to college, but as a girl, she liked math a whole lot more than stenography. Rhonda eventually earned a PhD in mathematics and, after seventy-nine of her eighty applications for a faculty position were rejected, she took a job at the single university that made her an offer. One reason Rhonda got in touch was to tell me that she had an issue with an item on the Grit Scale. “I don’t like that item that says, ‘Setbacks don’t discourage me.’ That makes no sense. I mean, who doesn’t get discouraged by setbacks? I certainly do. I think it should say, ‘Setbacks don’t discourage me for long. I get back on my feet.’ ” Of course, Rhonda was right, and in so many words, I changed the item accordingly. But the most important thing about Rhonda’s story is that she almost never got back up all by herself. Instead, she figured out that asking for help was a good way to hold on to hope.
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (pp. 192-194). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Learned Industriousness:
So, it appears that sometimes what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and sometimes it does the opposite. The urgent question becomes: When? When does struggle lead to hope, and when does struggle lead to hopelessness? A few years ago, Steve Maier and his students designed an experiment nearly identical to the one he and Marty Seligman had conducted forty years earlier: One group of rats received electric shocks, but if they turned a small wheel with their front paws, they could turn off the shock until the next trial. A second group received the exact same dose of electric shocks as the first but had no control over their duration. One crucial difference was that, in the new experiment, the rats were only five weeks old— that’s adolescence in the rat life cycle. A second difference was that the effects of this experience were assessed five weeks later, when the rats were fully mature adults. At that point, both groups of rats were subjected to uncontrollable electric shocks and, the next day, observed in a social exploration test. Here’s what Steve learned. Adolescent rats who experienced stress they could not control grew up to be adult rats who, after being subjected to uncontrollable shocks a second time, behaved timidly. This was not unusual— they learned to be helpless in the same way that any other rat would. In contrast, adolescent rats who experienced stress they could control grew up to be more adventurous and, most astounding, appeared to be inoculated against learned helplessness in adulthood. That’s right— when these “resilient rats” grew up, the usual uncontrollable shock procedures no longer made them helpless. In other words, what didn’t kill the young rats, when by their own efforts they could control what was happening, made them stronger for life.
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (pp. 187-188). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Because his wife was a teacher, Bob had the opportunity to try short-term versions of the same experiments with children. For instance, in one study, he gave pennies to second and third graders for counting objects, memorizing pictures, and matching shapes. For some children, Bob rapidly increased the difficulty of these tasks as the children improved. Other children were repeatedly given easy versions of the same tasks. All the children got pennies and praise. Afterward, the children in both conditions were asked to do a tedious job that was entirely different from the previous tasks: copying a list of words onto a sheet of paper. Bob’s findings were exactly the same as what he’d found with rats: children who’d trained on difficult (rather than easy) tasks worked harder on the copying task. Bob’s conclusion? With practice, industriousness can be learned. In homage to the earlier work of Seligman and Maier on learned helplessness, where the inability to escape punishment led animals to give up on a second challenging task, Bob dubbed this phenomenon learned industriousness. His major conclusion was simply that the association between working hard and reward can be learned. Bob will go further and say that without directly experiencing the connection between effort and reward, animals, whether they’re rats or people, default to laziness. Calorie-burning effort is, after all, something evolution has shaped us to avoid whenever possible.
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (pp. 239-240). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Deliberate Practice and The Hard Thing Rule:
In our family, we live by the Hard Thing Rule. It has three parts. The first is that everyone— including Mom and Dad— has to do a hard thing. A hard thing is something that requires daily deliberate practice. I’ve told my kids that psychological research is my hard thing, but I also practice yoga. Dad tries to get better and better at being a real estate developer; he does the same with running. My oldest daughter, Amanda, has chosen playing the piano as her hard thing. She did ballet for years, but later quit. So did Lucy. This brings me to the second part of the Hard Thing Rule: You can quit. But you can’t quit until the season is over, the tuition payment is up, or some other “natural” stopping point has arrived. You must, at least for the interval to which you’ve committed yourself, finish whatever you begin. In other words, you can’t quit on a day when your teacher yells at you, or you lose a race, or you have to miss a sleepover because of a recital the next morning. You can’t quit on a bad day. And, finally, the Hard Thing Rule states that you get to pick your hard thing. Nobody picks it for you because, after all, it would make no sense to do a hard thing you’re not even vaguely interested in. Even the decision to try ballet came after a discussion of various other classes my daughters could have chosen instead. Lucy, in fact, cycled through a half-dozen hard things. She started each with enthusiasm but eventually discovered that she didn’t want to keep going with ballet, gymnastics, track, handicrafts, or piano. In the end, she landed on viola. She’s been at it for three years, during which time her interest has waxed rather than waned. Last year, she joined the school and all-city orchestras, and when I asked her recently if she wanted to switch her hard thing to something else, she looked at me like I was crazy. Next year, Amanda will be in high school. Her sister will follow the year after. At that point, the Hard Thing Rule will change. A fourth requirement will be added: each girl must commit to at least one activity, either something new or the piano and viola they’ve already started, for at least two years. Tyrannical? I don’t believe it is. And if Lucy’s and Amanda’s recent comments on the topic aren’t disguised apple-polishing, neither do my daughters. They’d like to grow grittier as they get older, and, like any skill, they know grit takes practice. They know they’re fortunate to have the opportunity to do so. For parents who would like to encourage grit without obliterating their children’s capacity to choose their own path, I recommend the Hard Thing Rule.
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (pp. 241-242). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Grit Culture:
How do you know you’re part of a culture that, in a very real sense, has become part of you? When you adopt a culture, you make a categorical allegiance to that in-group. You’re not “sort of” a Seahawk, or “sort of” a West Pointer. You either are or you aren’t. You’re in the group, or out of it. You can use a noun, not just an adjective or a verb, to describe your commitment. So much depends, as it turns out, on which in-group you commit to. The bottom line on culture and grit is: If you want to be grittier, find a gritty culture and join it. If you’re a leader, and you want the people in your organization to be grittier, create a gritty culture.
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (p. 245). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Internalized Grit Culture:
Short-term conformity effects are not what excite me about the power of culture to influence grit. Not exactly. What excites me most is the idea that, in the long run, culture has the power to shape our identity. Over time and under the right circumstances, the norms and values of the group to which we belong become our own. We internalize them. We carry them with us. The way we do things around here and why eventually becomes The way I do things and why. Identity influences every aspect of our character, but it has special relevance to grit. Often, the critical gritty-or-not decisions we make— to get up one more time; to stick it out through this miserable, exhausting summer; to run five miles with our teammates when on our own we might only run three— are a matter of identity more than anything else. Often, our passion and perseverance do not spring from a cold, calculating analysis of the costs and benefits of alternatives. Rather, the source of our strength is the person we know ourselves to be.
James March, an expert on decision making at Stanford University, explains the difference this way: Sometimes, we revert to cost-benefit analyses to make choices. Of course, March doesn’t mean that, in deciding what to order for lunch or when to go to bed, we take out a pad of paper and a calculator. What he means is that, sometimes when making choices, we take into consideration how we might benefit, and what we’ll have to pay, and how likely it is that these benefits and costs will be what we think they’ll be. We can do all of this in our heads, and indeed, when I’m deciding what to order for lunch or when to go to bed, I often think through the pros and the cons before making a decision. It’s very logical. But other times, March says, we don’t think through the consequences of our actions at all. We don’t ask ourselves: What are the benefits? What are the costs? What are the risks? Instead, we ask ourselves: Who am I? What is this situation? What does someone like me do in a situation like this?
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (pp. 247-248). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
How to Begin Grit Oriented Behavior:
First, thinking of yourself as someone who is able to overcome tremendous adversity often leads to behavior that confirms that self-conception. If you’re a Finn with that “sisu spirit,” you get up again no matter what. Likewise, if you’re a Seattle Seahawk, you’re a competitor. You have what it takes to succeed. You don’t let setbacks hold you back. Grit is who you are. Second, even if the idea of an actual inner energy source is preposterous, the metaphor couldn’t be more apt. It sometimes feels like we have nothing left to give, and yet, in those dark and desperate moments, we find that if we just keep putting one foot in front of the other, there is a way to accomplish what all reason seems to argue against.
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (p. 252). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Grit Culture Anecdotes:
“You have to learn to get over bumps in the road and mistakes and setbacks,” he told me when I called to talk about the culture he’s built at JPMorgan Chase. “Failures are going to happen, and how you deal with them may be the most important thing in whether you succeed. You need fierce resolve. You need to take responsibility. You call it grit. I call it fortitude.” Fortitude is to Jamie Dimon what sisu is to Finland. Jamie recalls that getting fired from Citibank at age forty-two, and then taking a full year to ponder what lessons to take from the episode, made him a better leader. And he believes in fortitude enough to make it a core value for the entire JPMorgan Chase bank. “The ultimate thing is that we need to grow over time.”
Is it really possible, I asked, for a leader to influence the culture of such an enormous corporation? True, the culture of JPMorgan Chase has, with some affection, been described as “the cult of Jamie.” But there are literally thousands and thousands of JPMorgan Chase employees Jamie has never met in person. “Absolutely,” Jamie says. “It takes relentless— absolutely relentless— communication. It’s what you say and how you say it.” It may also be how often you say it. By all accounts, Jamie is a tireless evangelist, crossing the country to appear at what he calls town hall meetings with his employees. At one meeting he was asked, “What do you look for in your leadership team?” His answer? “Capability, character, and how they treat people.” Later, he told me that he asks himself two questions about senior management. First: “Would I let them run the business without me?” Second: “Would I let my kids work for them?”
Jamie has a favorite Teddy Roosevelt quote he likes to repeat: It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. And here is how Jamie translates the poetry of Roosevelt into the prose of a JPMorgan Chase manual, titled How We Do Business: “Have a fierce resolve in everything you do.” “Demonstrate determination, resiliency, and tenacity.” “Do not let temporary setbacks become permanent excuses.” And, finally, “Use mistakes and problems as opportunities to get better— not reasons to quit.”
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (pp. 253-254). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Final Thoughts on Grit
This book has been my way of taking you out for a coffee and telling you what I know. I’m almost done. Let me close with a few final thoughts. The first is that you can grow your grit. I see two ways to do so. On your own, you can grow your grit “from the inside out”: You can cultivate your interests. You can develop a habit of daily challenge-exceeding-skill practice. You can connect your work to a purpose beyond yourself. And you can learn to hope when all seems lost. You can also grow your grit “from the outside in.” Parents, coaches, teachers, bosses, mentors, friends— developing your personal grit depends critically on other people.
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (p. 269). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Limitations of Grit:
As a psychologist, I can confirm that grit is far from the only— or even the most important— aspect of a person’s character. In fact, in studies of how people size up others, morality trumps all other aspects of character in importance. Sure, we take notice if our neighbors seem lazy, but we’re especially offended if they seem to lack qualities like honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. So, grit isn’t everything. There are many other things a person needs in order to grow and flourish. Character is plural. One way to think about grit is to understand how it relates to other aspects of character. In assessing grit along with other virtues, I find three reliable clusters. I refer to them as the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and intellectual dimensions of character. You could also call them strengths of will, heart, and mind. Intrapersonal character includes grit. This cluster of virtues also includes self-control, particularly as it relates to resisting temptations like texting and video games. What this means is that gritty people tend to be self-controlled and vice versa. Collectively, virtues that make possible the accomplishment of personally valued goals have also been called “performance character” or “self-management skills.” Social commentator and journalist David Brooks calls these “resume virtues” because they’re the sorts of things that get us hired and keep us employed. Interpersonal character includes gratitude, social intelligence, and self-control over emotions like anger. These virtues help you get along with— and provide assistance to— other people. Sometimes, these virtues are referred to as “moral character.” David Brooks prefers the term “eulogy virtues” because, in the end, they may be more important to how people remember us than anything else. When we speak admiringly of someone being a “deeply good” person, I think it’s this cluster of virtues we’re thinking about. And, finally, intellectual character includes virtues like curiosity and zest. These encourage active and open engagement with the world of ideas. My longitudinal studies show these three virtue clusters predict different outcomes. For academic achievement, including stellar report card grades, the cluster containing grit is the most predictive. But for positive social functioning, including how many friends you have, interpersonal character is more important. And for a positive, independent posture toward learning, intellectual virtue trumps the others. In the end, the plurality of character operates against any one virtue being uniquely important.
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (pp. 273-274). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Effort Counts Twice:
If you define genius as being able to accomplish great things in life without effort, then he was right: I’m no genius, and neither is he. But if, instead, you define genius as working toward excellence, ceaselessly, with every element of your being— then, in fact, my dad is a genius, and so am I, and so is Coates, and, if you’re willing, so are you.
Duckworth, Angela. Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (p. 278). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Overall, I enjoyed her book thoroughly, but I couldn’t personally identify with the parenting chapter and the chapter after it seemed like it was simply filling space with anecdotes. Angela Duckworth seems to write in a journalistic fashion just like Carol Dweck, they both utilize anecdotes to give people a more impressionable affect and it probably helps the average reader to remember more. I prefer Heidi Grant Halvorson’s more personalized writing style where she presents the reader with questionable assumptions about life and then presents the evidence to explain the reasoning behind why the research is valuable and how it can improve lives.
With all that said and shown, I give Angela Duckworth’s book:
This book is definitely worthy of its praise. Harvard Psychologist Daniel Gilbert provides some of the most incredible insights on how we misjudge our own behavior in the future and even go as far as to misinterpret the past. There’s more depth in so many of these psychology books that I read that one simple review honestly doesn’t do them much justice, I highly recommend reading them yourselves. I sometimes wonder if even these concise explanations do them justice, since the books by the actual experts are better able to detail and explain the details far more clearly and effectively than I ever could. I’ve decided to take several critical portions to provide evidence of why this book is such a goldmine of information and should be purchased by any avid reader of human psychology.
This book comes in six parts and for the purposes of this review, I’ll also add my own personal feelings regarding each of the parts.
Gilbert begins the book in Part 1 about the lack of control and misunderstandings that we have on human behavior by explaining details about how we remember surprising events or beholding man-made wonders and how our brain recalls specific instances of a moment but not details between those moments. He goes on to detail the life of Phineas Gage. I had heard the tale before in other psychology books, but Gilbert goes into much greater detail and explains why this was fascinating to doctors and psychologists during it’s time. Phineas Gage was a foreman who had a pipe blow across his skull and through his brain. He survived the incident, but after being hospitalized and treated, he was never the same. His compassionate and cordial personality suddenly changed to fits of irritation, rudeness, and anger. After the accident, he would yell at people and generally treat everyone who knew him poorly. The case is often cited by psychologists because it’s demonstrable proof that we – as human beings – simply aren’t as knowledgeable about our behavior or as independently in control of our own behaviors as we’d like to believe ourselves to be. As a point of comparison, I recall New Atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris, in a debate about Heaven and a rewarding spiritual life, pointing out that people like the idea of seeing their grandma in Heaven for all eternity, but don’t seem to understand or even consider the fact that injuries to the brain can hurt your motor functions and even change your personality, yet people think they’ll be on some spiritual plane where their family is able to have full motor functions, consciousness, and hold the same set of personality traits when their brain is buried along with their physical bodies and has stopped functioning long ago. In the same sense, Phineas Gage’s life, and those like him, is irrevocable proof of the opposite. If your personality can so drastically change from physical damage to the brain – due to an accident of either chance or foul intent, it’s plainly unrealistic to believe you do have as much independence as you believe that you do or that your subconscious processes don’t influence your behavior. On the part of Phineas Gage, the parts of his brain that were damaged did influence calmness and compassion. It genuinely wasn’t his fault that he became what laypeople would chalk up as being an “asshole” to others.
Admittedly, I felt the book was going through several different parts without any coherent reason and felt it was sloppy. I took several months off reading it, because I had heard of Phineas Gage’s story before and I wasn’t sure if I was going to learn much of anything beyond what I had already read. The book did go into details of other studies covered, but upon closer examination after having finished reading, I realized I was being incredibly unfair. One such research material in another book, Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow, was – from what I recall – done by the researcher himself. Using it as reference isn’t a valid reason to put a book down, I had just felt bored by the prospect without just cause. I was happily proven wrong about my presumptions as I read further on and it did provide amazing insights on the subject matter. Looking back, Gilbert’s starting structure makes complete sense because of how the research material and explanations covers psychology, neuroscience, economics, and memory recall. Therefore, while the Part 1 seems a bit ridiculous, it’s actually not sloppy writing, but something that Gilbert had to place in Part 1 so that readers get a more complete understanding of the complex research and can learn from it. It simply wasn’t fair of me to judge the book on Part 1 alone and he had very good reasons for explaining and writing Part 1 in the manner that he did.
Part 2: Subjectivity begins explaining the various forms of happiness and how people routinely try to deceive themselves about what constitutes happiness by trying to find ways to ground the feeling by definition. It’s largely seen as an intuitive gut reaction; a “you-know-what-I-mean” feeling and definitions are problematic. Even if, for instance, people are dieting and we can reasonably refer to such people as unhappy while they’re dieting, it’s largely to increase future yields because people who diet are trying to make their lives more pleasant. Moreover, the worst conceit is virtue happiness which was first promoted by the Greeks and later the twist that Christian theologians had added of happiness not being a product, but a reward to be expected after death – i.e. death worship. Later theologians then asserted that the virtuous and pious life was itself fulfilling and happy, with the premise being that those who don’t walk the path of God were unhappy.
The intermixing usage of virtuous happiness and Christian theologians later defense that living for God made one happy led to some bizarre arguments that were simply indefensible. Philosophers and theologians alike, by muddling cause and consequences as Gilbert states, would argue that a pious believer being eaten alive by cannibals is happy while a Nazi war criminal basking in an Argentinean beach is not really happy. That’s because happiness is a word that is generally used to cite an experience, but not the actions that give rise to happiness. Gilbert goes on to further point out that we should admit when even astonishingly awful events make people happy. He asks the reader if it makes sense to say: “After a day spent killing his parents, Frank was happy”? Absolutely! We hope no such person exists, and we understand this Frank person is a horrible person, but if he says he’s happy and looks happy, is there any reason to doubt him?
Gilbert goes on to write: “Happiness refers to feelings, virtue refers to actions, and those actions can cause those feelings. But not necessarily and not exclusively.” – it’s important to remember the nuance when we form an understanding of what happiness is and isn’t.
Can we distinguish the degree of happiness between people as a basis? Gilbert says we can’t tell and it’s because, even with side-by-side comparisons, we’re not having the same experiences at the same time. He points to research where two groups of people looked at a specific color of yellow paint with one group describing the yellow paint and the other being the “non-describer” group. They were then taken to a swathe of six different colored yellow paint and asked to pick the one they had just seen 30 seconds ago. The first interesting finding was that only 73 percent of those who hadn’t described the color could accurately select the color they had seen. The second, and shocking, finding was that only 33 percent of those who spent time to describe the color paint they had seen just 30 seconds ago were able to accurately identify the same color paint from the six different colors of yellow. Evidently, the describers verbal descriptions “overwrote” their memories. They didn’t remember the event that they had just experienced; they remembered what they said about what they experienced and their explanation wasn’t clear or precise enough to help them identify the same color painting 30 seconds later.
Gilbert points out that people simply don’t notice visual discontinuities due to their eyes jiggling every few seconds. In a study similar to the previous one, volunteers looked at text that LoOked LIKe tHis which alternated every few seconds to one that lOoked likE thIs every time their eyes jiggled away and the volunteers never noticed as they read the passages on the screen. In essence, and I’m paraphrasing now, our memories simply take snapshots of the most emotional parts of our experience with an event (such as going to a new diner), where we’ll remember the bad taste of the wine or the good taste of the food but not the before and after of how we arrived and left when nothing that affected us happened. We take these “snapshots” and reweave our memories of events. We’re not actually recalling; we’re fabricating memories based on the emotional snapshots of the experience that we’ve made. It’s why it’s hard to sometimes remember what year or what we did after a particular special memory like snapping photos at the Grand Canyon with our spouse/parents/children.
Moreover, we don’t seem to be aware when our gut reaction is simply giving us a false-positive. In a study where one set of volunteers were shown quiz-show questions, one group (quiz questions only) felt the questions were quite difficult. The other group (questions-and-answers) believed the questions were quite easy and believed they could have answered them had they never known the answers beforehand. Once the volunteers knew the answers, the questions felt simple (“Of course it was x – everyone knows that!”) and the volunteers (questions-and-answers) were no longer able to judge how difficult the questions actually were for those who didn’t share the knowledge of the answers. Gilbert mentions: “Studies such as these show that once we have an experience, we cannot simply set it aside and see the world as we would have seen it had the experience never happened.” and further says “Our experiences instantly become part of the lens through which we view our entire past, present, and future, and like any lens, they shape and distort what we see. This lens is not like a pair of spectacles that we can set on the nightstand when we find it convenient to do so but like a pair of contacts that are forever affixed to our eyeballs with superglue. Once we learn to read, we can never again see letters as mere inky squiggles. Once we learn about free jazz, we can never again hear Ornette Coleman’s saxophone as a source of noise. Once we learn that van Gogh was a mental patient, or that Ezra Pound was an anti-Semite, we can never again view their art in the same way.” (Stumbling on Happiness, pg. 49).
Gilbert points out that, as a result, we can be happy without knowing or having awareness of an experience that we’re missing in life. That conclusion genuinely shocked me. I had thought and believed the opposite for so long. Gilbert uses the examples of conjoined twins who have claimed to be happy and don’t wish to separate. We as a society may believe that they’re not truly happy because of the lack of independence, but how we gauge relative happiness and how they do is on different standards. They don’t know what it feels like to not have someone else always connected to them in life (even on personal matters like the bathroom), but that’s the point. Even if they were to agree to a separation and say they weren’t really happy before, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that they were right. They genuinely could have been happy as conjoined twins and their new experience simply gave them the opposite feeling when looking back on their lives. They may have genuinely been happier before the separation for reasons explained further on.
Chapter 3: Outside Looking In has Gilbert explaining why, despite the issues, the best indicator of a person’s emotional state is accepting their view. At the end of the day, only they can give us a measure of their personal happiness. Most deficits regarding this method can be cleaned-up by the Law of Large Numbers. Because using them as a basis for analysis is only a problem when we fail to recognize a glaring issue in the research study. Despite individuals having different subjective scales, the least flawed method to find the most accurate information is to understand the average of an experience.
Gilbert summarizes this point on page 70:
“The bottom line is this: The attentive person’s honest, real-time report is an imperfect approximation of her subjective experience, but it is the only game in town. When a fruit salad, a lover, or a jazz trio is just too imperfect for our tastes, we stop eating, kissing, and listening. But the law of large numbers suggests that when a measurement is too imperfect for our tastes, we should not stop measuring. Quite the opposite – we should measure again and again until niggling imperfections yield to the onslaught of data. Those subatomic particles that like to be everywhere at once seem to cancel one another’s behavior so that the large conglomerate of particles that we call cows, cars, and French Canadians stay exactly where we put them. By the same logic, the careful collection of a large number of experiential reports allows the imperfections of one to cancel out the imperfections of another. No individual’s report may be taken as an unimpeachable and perfectly calibrated index of his experience-not yours, not mine-but we can be confident that if we ask enough people the same question, the average answer will be a roughly accurate index of the average experience. The science of happiness requires that we play the odds, and thus the information it provides us is always at some risk of being wrong.” He essentially adds that if we wish to bet against it, then we need more of the same question to be answered by more respondents to prove otherwise. It’s the most credible way to measure happiness. We must know, after all, what religion, art, music, etc are good for. If not our personal happiness, then what would mattering to us even mean?
In the next chapter, In the Blind Spot of the Mind’s Eye, Daniel Gilbert elaborates on how we store and use memory. This is explained in pages 78 – 79: “How do we cram the vast universe of our experience into the relatively small storage compartment between our ears? We do what Harpo did: We cheat. As you learned in the previous chapters, the elaborate tapestry of our experience is not stored in memory-at least not in its entirety. Rather, it is compressed for storage by first being reduced to a few critical threads, such as a summary phrase (“Dinner was disappointing”) or a small set of key features (tough steak, corked wine, snotty waiter). Later, when we want to remember our experience, our brains quickly reweave the tapestry by fabricating-not by actually retrieving-the bulk of the information that we experience as memory. This fabrication happens so quickly and effortlessly that we have the illusion (as a good magician’s audience always does) that the entire thing was in our heads the entire time.” Later on, Daniel writes in pages 79 – 80: “This general finding-that information acquired after an event alters memory of the event-has been replicated so many times in so many different laboratory and field settings that it has left most scientists convinced of two things. First, the act of remembering involved “filling in” details that were not actually stored; and second, we generally cannot tell when we are doing this because filling in happens quickly and unconsciously. Indeed, this phenomenon is so powerful that it happens even when we know someone is trying to trick us.” In essence, the meaning we give our feelings after an experience will be our interpretation of the event.
Later in the chapter, Gilbert details the issue of Realism within the human psyche. In this specific context, he means that we confuse our interpretation of the world for objective reality and that such a bias is instantaneous. In pages 88-89, in his own words, Gilbert elaborates: “According to this line of reasoning, we automatically assume that our subjective experience of a thing is a faithful representation of the thing’s properties. Only later-if we have the time, energy, and ability-do we rapidly repudiate that assumption and consider the possibility that the real world may not actually be as it appears to us. Piaget described realism as “a spontaneous and immediate tendency to confuse the sign and the thing signified,” and research shows that this tendency to equate our subjective sense of things with the objective properties of those things remains spontaneous and immediate throughout our lives. It does not go away forever, and it does not go away on occasion. Rather, it is brief, unarticulated, and rapidly unraveled, but it is always the first step in our perception of the world. We believe what we see, and then unbelieve it when we have to.
All of this suggests that the psychologist George Miller was right when he wrote, “The crowning intellectual accomplishment of the brain is the real world.” The three-and-a-half-pound meat loaf between our ears is not a simple recording device but a remarkably smart computer that gathers information, makes shrewd judgments and even shrewder guesses, and offers us its best interpretation of the way things are. Because those interpretations are usually so good, because they usually bear such a striking resemblance to the world as it is actually constituted, we do not realize that we are seeing an interpretation. Instead, we feel as though we are sitting comfortably inside our heads, looking out through the clear glass windshield of our eyes, watching the world as it truly is. We tend to forget that our brains are talented forgers, weaving a tapestry of memory and perception whose detail is so compelling that its inauthenticity is rarely detected. In a sense, each of us is as counterfeiter who prints phony dollar bills and then happily accepts them for payment, unaware that he is both the perpetrator and victim of a well-orchestrated fraud.”
In a further chapter, The Hound of Silence, Gilbert specifies how we distort our own perceptions of future events by temporal distance. We confuse the vagueness of our thoughts on how an event will play out as realistic representations of that day. In pages 105 – 106, Gilbert explains:
“Seeing in time is like seeing in space. But there is one important difference between spatial and temporal horizons. When we perceive a distant buffalo, our brains are aware of the fact that the buffalo looks smooth, vague, and lacking in detail because it is far away, and they do not mistakenly conclude that the buffalo itself is smooth and vague. But when we remember or imagine a temporally distant event, our brains seem to overlook the fact that details vanish with temporal distance, and they conclude instead that the distant events actually are as smooth and vague as we are imagining and remembering them. For example, have you ever wondered why you often make commitments that you deeply regret when the moment to fulfill them arrives? We all do this, of course. We agree to babysit the nephews and nieces next month, and we look forward to that obligation even as we jot it in our diary. Then, when it actually comes time to buy the Happy Meals, set up the Barbie playset, hide the bong, and ignore the fact that the NBA playoffs are on at one o’clock, we wonder what we were thinking when we said yes. Well, here’s what we were thinking: When we said yes we were thinking about babysitting in terms of why instead of how, in terms of causes and consequences instead of execution, and we failed to consider the fact that the detail-free babysitting we were imagining would not be the detail-laden babysitting we would ultimately experience. Babysitting next month is “an act of love,” whereas babysitting right now is “an act of lunch,” and expressing affection is spiritually rewarding in a way that buying French fries simply isn’t.”
Gilbert explains later on that one simple trick can effectively manage this bias: think of the future event as if it was happening tomorrow instead of in the future. Doing so should aid you in figuring out all the mini-steps and requirements needed to act effectively for the event and provide more consideration for what you’ll be doing.
In further chapters, Gilbert goes onto explain prefeeling. Due to our bias for the present, we have a ubiquitous tendency to confuse our present emotions for how we’ll feel in the future. Prefeeling has some positives, Gilbert details a study in which people who used prefeeling to choose a poster instead of thinking over it for long were more satisfied with their choices than those who cogitated over the cost-benefits of how a particular poster would look with their apartment or house wall’s coloring. However, prefeeling has us “fill-in” the details of future events with our current emotional states and subconsciously bias us into believing that our present feelings of depression, happiness, or even boredom will continue in the future and even during future events that friends recommend to us – such as going to a party or concert or going to a new restaurant. We believe our current emotional state will remain the same regardless of the experience.
In the chapter Time Bombs, pages 145 – 146, Gilbert explains how our frame of reference – such as being a buyer and seller of a car – impact our feelings. He details the full effects of confusing the present moment for how we’ll feel in the future. He explains on page 147 in the Onward: “Because predictions about the future are made in the present, they are inevitably influenced by the present. The way we feel right now (“I’m so hungry”) and the way we think right now (“The big speakers sound better than the little ones”) exert an unusually strong influence on the way we think we’ll feel later. Because time is such a slippery concept, we tend to imagine the future as the present with a twist, thus our imagined tomorrows inevitably look like slightly twisted versions of today. The reality of the moment is so palpable and powerful that it holds imagination in a tight orbit from which it never fully escapes. Presentism occurs because we fail to recognize that our future selves won’t see the world the way we see it now.”
In the following chapter, Paradise Glossed, Gilbert explains how we ascribe meaning to ambiguous experiences and how our minds generally form a preference on what the ambiguous stimuli means to us. We infer these meanings from context, frequency, and recency and often prefer that the ambiguous stimuli mean one thing rather than another due to our desires, wishes, and needs. As such, our brain tends to exploit the ambiguity of a stimuli for such preferable interpretations of the world.
Analogous to our physical immune system, our brains provide a psychological immune system that interpret incredibly negative events in a positive way. Generally speaking, this psychological immune system interprets events in ways that feel preferable to us after an incredibly negative experience so that we may derive meaning from it. This is why incidents of people who have been wrongfully jailed for decades, extramarital affairs, and debilitating injuries like the permanent loss of motor functions is interpreted positively with people feeling happier with their lives – these events reach a critical threshold where our psychological immune systems try to rationalize our experiences in a positive way. That is not to say that these are delusions or that it’s wrongful behavior, Gilbert is simply explaining the psychological process that is going on. Sure, losing an appendage is objectively worse than having avoided such a loss, but that doesn’t make our rationalizations and self-interpretations of those events any less meaningful or valuable. Gilbert mentions we need both a mix of reality and illusion to keep us going everyday and our psychological immune system interprets ambiguous events in a positive way to protect our emotions. Gilbert mentions that we have a general preference to give more thorough examinations and critiques to evidence that we dislike than to evidence that we find favorable. Gilbert mentions that this is essentially subconsciously cooking the facts for our own favored conclusions. However, just as important as that, we must feel as if the evidence is a discovery and not merely a self-delusion. When the information feels like a genuine discovery, we feel that we’re being honest with ourselves. It doesn’t work when we are dishonestly accepting a lie when the evidence that we value overwhelmingly disproves us. We like believing that we’re being honest with ourselves in these new discoveries and not dishonestly lying to ourselves and we do that be interpreting facts for our benefit.
Gilbert further explains the foibles of our psychological immune systems in pages 178 – 180 of the chapter Immune to Reality:
“Ignorance of our psychological immune systems causes us to mispredict the circumstances under which we will blame ourselves. Who can forget the scene at the end of the 1942 film Casablanca in which Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman are standing on the tarmac as she tries to decide whether to stay in Casablanca with the man she loves or board the plane and leave with her husband? Bogey turns to Bergman and says: “Inside we both know you belong with Victor. You’re part of his work, the thing that keeps him going. If that plane leaves the ground and you’re not with him, you’ll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But soon and for the rest of your life.”
This thin slice of melodrama is among the most memorable scenes in the history of cinema-not because it is particularly well acted or particularly well written but because most of us have stood on that same runway from time to time. Our most consequential choices-whether to marry, have children, buy a house, enter a profession, move abroad-are often shaped by how we imagine our future regrets (“Oh no, I forgot to have a baby!”). Regret is an emotion we feel when we blame ourselves for unfortunate outcomes that might have been prevented had we only behaved differently in the past, and because that emotion is decidedly unpleasant, our behavior in the present is often designed to preclude it. Indeed, most of us have elaborate theories about when and why people feel regret, and these theories allow us to avoid the experience. For instance, we expect to feel more regret when we learn about alternatives to our choices than when we don’t, when we accept bad advice than when we r
