deadboy
|
|
Say You Love Satan
| 
Apr 24 20:05 UTC 2002 |
I lost one of my best friends on Monday. It was a very disturbing
experience. I will not come back to check this item as I am sure it
will generate nothing but flames (mostly from lk, everyone’s favourite
bigot on Grex).
I am an American male. Agnostic. My friend was a Saudi female. Muslim.
I made friends with her about 10 months ago. I like meeting people from
other cultures and learning about them, their customs and so forth. I
had no friends from the Middle Eastern areas, so I thought this would
be a nice opportunity. All of this was entirely electronic, of
course . . . I do not make friends very well in meatspace. We hit it
off right away. Our personalities went together quite well. There are
some people that I just feel more relaxed or “at home” with . . . this
was the situation. It was easy to talk to this person. We both began to
feel quite “close” to each other in a quite short period of time. Not
that either of us ever intended for anything other than a platonic
relationship. I rarely take my electronic friends into my physical
world. I find other people discomforting in general and I prefer to be
alone, even away from people I care for a great deal. Schizoid, I think
they used to call people like me. Not sure if that term is still in
active use. We went along quite well for some time . . . the only
contentions that we ever had were usually about religion. I think I am
what some people term a “humanist”. I do not believe in any sort of
god. I am not militant about this belief, I just have, in my life, seen
very little to justify such a belief. As for what I do believe
in . . . well . . . very little actually. I am not an idealistic
humanist in that I do not think that humanity is noble, or good.
Basically humans are just apes that got above themselves. So, in
reality I am more of a nihilist, not believing in anything at all,
acting and thinking like an atheist, but not believing even in atheism
or rationality strong enough to believe in it much. But somewhere
inside of me there is a part that really is something of an idealist. I
think, that, however illogically, human beings should be more than just
animals. I don’t mean that in a religious sense at all, but that there
should be certain basic human values that should be respected. It
upsets me to see these principles violated. I know quite well that we
are all trash, an accident of the universe, or maybe the poop of god. I
know that we as human beings are rotten to the core, and anyone who
talks about morality is talking shit. Morals are mainly traditions.
Other than that, people with no morals make them up for people who
believe in them so that they can control others. Kind of like that old
Bob Dylan song, “Only A Pawn In The Game”. The people “up there” at the
top of the pecking order make the rules and the rest of us merely
follow and become slaves by believing in their bullshit. I don’t like
this. I wish it was different. But I also know that wishing something
to be other than the way it is is a fool’s game. I might wish I was
rich and handsome, but that ain’t changing a thing. My genes is my
genes. Some things you just gotta deal with. So I don’t make a big deal
of trying to deny reality. But I still feel somewhere inside of me,
that this ain’t quite it. Not the whole story. I mean, regardless of
how nihilistic I am, how “believing in nothing” I say I am, something
still tells me that at the very least I must keep those human values.
Just the most basic ones. Like, “if someone hasn’t hurt you, then don’t
hurt them”. That kind of thing. Don’t rape people. Ever. Don’t
intentionally humiliate people. Never devalue someone’s humanity by
making them feel less than human. Don’t judge someone by the length of
their hair or their colour or religion. Just basic decency. Like the
stuff you get taught in Sunday-School or day care or whatever. It’s all
lies, but some part if me believes the lie. Some part of me believes
that the lie is the truth. That whatever the hell we humans are, we
deserve at the very least to be treated like humans. That fairness is a
valid principle. Kant, anyone? Kick me. Kant’s position on ethics comes
damned close to mine. I’m a nihilist who somehow has the categorical
imperative burned into my brain. I cannot practically say that pacifism
at all costs is OK. I mean, let’s face it, if someone is trying to
whack you over the head with a stick, at least do something to stop
them. If a guy is beating a kid, then get in the way, OK? But that’s as
far as I can go. NEVER, under any circumstances whatsoever, can I
approve of violence as a solution to anything other than self-defence.
Yeah, I know . . . blasphemy, I hear the crowds roar, all political
parties and religions, all races and colours united for once. Murder is
in our genes. You can’t erase a million years of evolution with a
few “moral principles”. The principles were made up by someone trying
to keep you in line . . . by someone who doesn’t actually believe in
them. People know that murder and savagery comes as natural to the
human animal as breathing does. They don’t usually say it because they
feel it is politically incorrect. But they KNOW it. They might not even
know that they know it, but know it they do. But I still can’t say it
is OK to behave that way.
Mt brother was murdered in 1994. He was working at a convenience store,
Circle-K. A man with a gun came in and shot him in the throat and took
68 dollars from the register and fled. My brother died about 2 A.M. on
27 July. He was 20 years old. He had done nothing to deserve this. He
was certainly a lot more friendly and personable than I was. Rarely had
a negative word to say about things. He was no saint. My parents had a
harder time I think because they were faithful Christians. They, I
reckon, assumed the typical moral claptrap that they were fed. Be nice
Christians, don’t hurt people, pray, mind your own business, and all
will be well. Reality intruded on their little make-believe world. I
cried in my own room. I never asked “why” like them. I KNEW why. We are
animals, and the most savage of all the animals. Enough said.
The first argument I had with my Saudi friend was about religion. Any
time people discuss serious subjects, things like this are bound to
crop up from time to time. And a guy like me talking to a devout
Muslim, is always going to bring up some fireworks. I tried not to
insult her god or her religion, but it was impossible. So, like always,
I tried to avoid the subject. I am not confrontational. Let me be more
explicit. I am chicken-shit. If I think something will cause trouble, I
don’t do it. But sometimes even regular comments that I would make
would enrage her. Comments that half the time were not directly aimed
at her, religion or anything, except as a means of expressing what I
thought about the human condition. I made a special point to try to
avoid this, but it was hard. She accused me of “disrespect”. This was
true, but I was not trying to disrespect her. To illustrate more fully,
I think I once said something like “any religion that says it’s OK to
kill people is bogus”. I doubt if those were the exact words, but they
were pretty close. She countered that “fighting for one’s religion was
the noblest thing that anyone could do”. I always had this silly
association in my head. This notion that religion, god, etc. Supposedly
the “highest” and loftiest of human thoughts, notions or whatever,
should be even mentioned in the same word as “murder”. Of course, she
didn’t call it that. Murder is only murder when you don’t like
it . . . as soon as there is an acceptable excuse, it is something
closer to “justifiable homicide”. (I can just hear the generals and
prime ministers of the world howling with glee!) All we need is an
excuse . . . then we are not guilty of murder. Let’s call this
excuse “our religion” and muddy up what is supposedly the highest and
best of humanity with the worst. What could be more justifiable than
fighting for god? Before all the atheists out there start getting too
smug, let’s not forget Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot . . . the reason need
not be a religion, but that is one of the more popular ones. Remember
the Illiad? That war was fought over “Helen” right? Nothing as silly as
a piece of land, right? As long as the cause is made to be “noble”
somehow, then anything becomes justifiable. This was obvious to me. She
still believed the lie. Eventually, I tired to squirm away and not talk
about it, but it was hard to not touch it at all.
Islam. It means “peace” right? Or is it “pieces”? I have never had a
favourable impression of Islam. Not that I ever had a favourable
impression of any religion, but Islam especially I disliked.
Christianity I loathed, having had it forced down my throat as a child,
but most of what I saw of Christianity was more ridiculous than
anything else. TBN anyone? It was more an annoyance than a danger. It
had ceased to be of relevance long ago. Nietzsche mentioned this . . .
god had died some time ago as a force. People . . . even “religious”
people nowadays will give lip service to it, and they may THINK that
they believe it, but they don’t. They just aren’t self-aware enough to
know that they don’t believe it. As an ideal, as a notion, god is dead
in western society. I am not lamenting this fact . . . when god
was “alive” things seemed no better. It’s just a fact. But Islam has
always seemed a threat. One of the first things that I learned about it
was the infamous fatwa on Rushdie. Terrorism was synonymous with Islam.
Not to say that America, Canada, Spain, France, [insert random country
name here] has not engaged in terrorism itself. Terrorism is part of
the games that nations play . . . no terrorism, no nation. Unlike Noam
Chomsky who assures us that the U.S. is the primo terrorist nation of
them all, I have not seen any indication of any other nation that would
do any differently if given the opportunity. This is not an approval,
but a fact of life. I have always considered terrorism as the harming
of innocent civilians, anywhere, anytime, anyhow, anyrace, anycolour,
anyreason. It is the targeting of people because they are “there”, with
no regard as to what they have actually done. I would not regard the
execution of Charles Manson or Henry Lee Lucas as terrorism. They
killed many people and in any reasonable society (whatever that is),
they cannot be allowed to continue damaging people at their whim. This
is vengeance, it is true, but at the very least it is vengeance
targeted at the ones who did the deeds worth avenging. The bombing of
Kentuckians because that was where Manson was from would be terrorism,
because it does not attack the person guilty of the crimes that he
committed, but merely because of an artificial grouping (Them damned
Kentuckians . . . they’re all a bunch of lowdown killers!)
Although the adherents of Islam are always talking about “peace” and
how non-violent and good Islam is, I have always tended to think that
actions speak louder than words. Particularly after the 11 September
attacks, Dubya and crew went to an especial effort to make sure that it
was known that “Islam was a religion of peace” (i.e., don’t kill the
Muslim who lives down the street). But Islam is not, and never was
(and never will be) a religion of peace. Of all the religions on earth,
they always seem to strike me as being the most bigoted, the most
hateful, the most unfair. Stereotypes? Maybe. But most of my
stereotypes came not from believing what “I was told” by the media or
by books, but by talking to Muslims. It quite rapidly became apparent
that our un-elected president was talking shit again. I had
conversations, usually online, with many Muslims. Many would start off
by saying that the images projected of them by the western media were
not true. I had little trouble believing this. But I always dared to
ask certain questions which showed me the true colour of the person I
was talking to. I mentioned the Rushdie affair to an Iranian, whom I
had befriended. This person, in the same sentence in which he said
that Islam was “peace”, confirmed that the fatwa was a just one. I
admired his honesty if nothing else. Most seemed to agree but would
usually not say outright that they approved of the fatwa. I reckon that
they thought it would make them seem thuggish (it would) and confirm
some of the prejudices common in the western media (it would). Most
tended to issue a “standard disclaimer” . . . Well, you see, there was
only ONE group that issued the fatwa and most Muslims like me do not
support it, as someone as low and scummy as Rushdie was not worth
attention, but he DID insult Islam, and he really sort of made his own
bed and is now having to lie in it . . .
In other words, they approved of it, but didn’t want to say it because
it was unPC. It would make them sound as low as they were. You can
often tell what a person is thinking by the way they answer your
questions. If someone were to tell me, “A young woman was raped outside
Bogie’s Bar last night at about 2 A.M.”, I could reply in any of
several ways. I could say something like “That’s horrible, they really
need to find the guy who did it so he won’t hurt anyone else”. I could
also say “What was she doing at a bar at 2 A.M.?” the implication being
that decent young ladies don’t frequent bars and she was thus “asking
for it”. If it turned out that she had been wearing a mini-skirt, and I
decided that that merited an eyebrow-raise and replied “Well, what did
she expect? Some woman goes to a bar late at night alone and dressed
like a hussy and she thinks she will be safe? If she wasn’t after sex,
then she wouldn’t have been dressed like that. She was probably
flirting with the guys as well, and only cried rape later”. The someone
at the other end could reply and say “Are you suggesting that it is OK
that this lady was raped?!?” Me: “No, no, not at all, I have nothing
but distaste for men who force their sexual prowess on women . . .
but she WAS wearing a revealing outfit . . . and was in a place where
people of questionable morals tend to hang out . . .” I think the point
of view would be quite clear. My opinion would have been that
she “deserved it” or was “asking for it” somehow. (I would not actually
have responded in such a neandertalic manner, but am just making an
illustration). The disgusting position that I would have taken should
be too apparent to require further condemnation. This seems to be very
like the positions that most of the Muslims take when I asked about
Rushdie. This was not propaganda . . . this was from the mouths of the
faithful. So to justify the killing of someone, all you have to do is
find a cleric who doesn’t like what he says! The Q’uran in one area
condemns this sort of thing, but in another justifies it, so we need
these clerics to clarify these things for us apparently.
I did not speak with my Saudi friend about this as I knew it would
start an argument and probably hurt her feelings. But I could not
possibly respect that position. A few days ago I sent off an email with
some random ramblings, (something like this, only more philosophical).
I think I compared Malcolm X’s philosophy with that of Martin Luther
King, Jrs. Personally I thought that Malcolm X’s ideas made more sense.
It is ridiculous to think that you can deal non-violently with someone
who is attacking you. I was using Nietzsche’s aphorism “One who fights
monsters should take care that in the process he does not become a
monster”. I thought that this was at the basis of their differing
views. Dr. King would not give his enemy the satisfaction of allowing
them to bring him down to their level. Malcolm X’s strategy was more
practical, but riskier, since when you get down and dirty with a pig,
as the saying goes, you get all dirty and the pig enjoys it. Hurting
another person can bring forth a number of responses in a person. I
argued that it disfigured the spirit, and gave the other person the
power over your mind, as opposed to being allowed to choose your own
course by ignoring those who oppose you.
By reacting in kind to an attacker, do you beat them or do they beat
you? Even if you kill them, have you achieved victory? Or have they
defeated you by making you one of them, full of hate? One can learn to
feel pure animal joy in the act of killing. I think it may be
addictive. When America attacks civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan
to “ward off terrorism”, are they really winning? Or are they losing
the battle? This is not a genuine question as nations are never
concerned with such things, but I use it as an analogy to how an
individual reacts and how he or she can choose their fate, the contents
of their mind by their choices. I fought a battle with the vi editor
once. It was my first time at a UNIX machine, and I had to learn this
horrid thing. After an introductory lecture on how to use it, we were
let loose on the mini. I hated it. But I was determined to learn it. I
won. Or did I? I use vi everyday, and have for the last ten years or
so. Who won? Me? Or vi? In the same way, I felt that reacting as a
terrorist made one a terrorist.
I gave a few examples. I mentioned the way that Thich Nhat Hanh and the
Dalai Llama’s courses took them and the different paths taken by others
who decided to fight “fire with fire”. On the whole, those who chose
their own destiny by not giving into the hatred or callousness of those
who hurt them seemed to be healthier. They were also stronger people. I
made the mistake of mentioning at some point the Palestinians and
Israelis. It was something that I used as an illustration, just one
among many. Before I go any farther, I had better make my point of view
on this topic clear. (lk, get your rifle out.) I have always thought
that the creation of Israel was a mistake. It displaced thousands of
people who were living on the land already. It was really no different
in essence from what happened to the Native American Indians in the
U.S. except that the settlers did not pretend to think that they
were “coming home at last”. The native population was not a factor.
This is a crime. Foreigners came. More came. The natives of Palestine’s
majority were turned into a minority. They became out-populated in
their own lands. Lies and excuses were made up to continue robbing them
of their land. Even now, I am 100% in favour of Saddam’s plan to use
oil as a weapon to stop the invasions (not that I feel much kinship
with Saddam Hussein, a butcher, if there ever was one). No oil, no
tanks. I see no sensible reason why America will give three billion
dollars in aid to a rich country like Israel, but totally ignore much
poorer ones. The invasion is partly due to the prevalence of suicide
bombers, but that makes a good justification. Sharon probably would
have come up with another excuse to finish the job that he started in
the 80’s. now that Israel does exist, I think it does have the “right
to exist”. Killing all of the Jews there now or expelling them would be
tantamount to another Holocaust. Yet what the Israelis have been doing
to the Palestinians for the last 54 years is not much better than what
Hitler attempted to do to them not so long ago. The Jews do deserve a
home. Anti-Semitism is still rife in the world. But the way to do it is
not by oppressing the Palestinian people. A larger and larger portion
of the Israeli population have begun to feel the same way until the
latest round of attacks. When people get scared, they will stop at
nothing to feel safe again. In this sense, the suicide bombers have
only harmed the cause for the Palestinian state by making people afraid
and going over to Sharon’s side when they would not otherwise have
done. You hear about AIPAC a lot, but there are other Israeli Lobbies,
such as Tikkun, that Rabbi Michael Learner founded (www.tikkun.org).
Unfortunately, he is now losing converts to the other side because the
more attacks on Israel occur, the more frightened the populace will
become and then the more extreme.
My Saudi friend knew the way I felt. But when I made the point of
criticizing the Palestinian suicide bombers who attacked innocent
civilians in Israel, she grew enraged. Apparently, she thought that
there was no such thing as an “innocent Israeli”. I did make the remark
that attacking Sharon himself or military establishments would be more
acceptable. But this sweet, rational person had suddenly lost her mind
with rage. I became a “typical American” for having sympathies for the
Jews but not the Palestinians. (This is very nearly the opposite of
what I actually felt.) The only point that I tried to make with her was
that the killing of innocent people is wrong under ANY circumstances.
Killing people at a Bat-Mitzvah is not a valid form of social protest.
Bombing grocery stores is not likely to further any case at all, but
only to kill innocent people. People who may well have been supporters
of Palestinian independence, of removing settlements from the
Palestinian’s lands. It could have been someone who just wanted peace,
or to be left alone. But no, she was having none of that. They were
Israelis and that was that. “The only good Israeli is a dead Israeli”
seemed to be her motto. I don’t think that he actually knew any
Palestinians or Israelis. I don’t think any of her family or friends
were killed by violence.
If I reacted to my brother’s murder by saying “Man, I need to go kill
me some niggers!”, what would you say? Yes, the man who killed my
brother was black. But he was not a representative specimen. The only
meat friend that I have is a black man. It was the actions of ONE
twisted individual. ONE. Sure, he was a member of a culture that
glorified killing, drugs and violence . . . that is part of gang
culture. But I did not, and I would not, say that it is “OK” to kill a
black man because of what this callous fellow did. Yes, I felt rage,
hate, and so on. And when one feels such, it is always tempting to look
for someone – or some group, if the individual is not accessible – to
put the blame on. But it was not black people as a group who did it! It
was one particular person. It is HE, and HE ALONE who should receive
any sort of retribution or pay the penalty for HIS actions. If my
father had lost his marbles and went out and shot half a dozen blacks
walking down the street because of what happened to his son, I would
have had to make like that old Woody Guthrie song and said “So long,
pop, it was good to know ya”. I would not accept such behaviour even
from my father. That would not be an appropriate response to your hurt
and rage.
I just could not understand. I am 100% opposed to the destruction of
life in all cases but those of direct self-defence. By “direct self-
defence” I mean if someone . . . some actual individual person were to
attack you, that you could defend yourself, perhaps with lethal force
if necessary, to preserve your life. It does not mean killing someone
at a later date because they happened to be a member of your attacker’s
family, his “race”, his friends or anything. Any other case would not
be self-defence, it would be MURDER. I oppose this. The Q’uran does
also. It says that to kill one innocent person is the same as to kill
all innocent people. But this young Muslim apparently was not into the
surahs of the Q’uran that did not support her hate.
I will never understand the human race.
P.S. Any Muslims reading this remember . . . YOU are the ones that are
spreading whatever people believe about your religion. Not the media.
Stop blaming ignorance or the media for what you do yourselves. You are
the ones by which your religion will be judged in the eyes of others.
P.P.S. Any non-Muslims reading this . . . remember that your religion
or non-religion is probably just as bloody as Islam’s.
P.P.P.S. If anyone is still reading this, then you really need to get a
life.
P.P.P.P.S. I really wish that I was a dog sometimes.
|