One More For Afghanistan

Who remembers why our troops are in Afghanistan? Anyone not in a military capacity? For most of us, all it means is that we get to turn on the news at night in trepidation -- that we might hear of the newest casualty, and that it might be one of our loved ones.

The general atmosphere of war-weariness then, is reasonable, given nearly a decade of conflict. And while I won’t dip into Bush-era rhetoric about “losing our resolve,” we have been committed to a final year and a half in Afghanistan, and with that in mind, we must persevere. Our mission objectives have evolved since we first touched down; they’re currently laid out as follows:

“Canada is focused on a targeted set of objectives in keeping with proven Canadian strengths and consistent with Afghan objectives and the efforts of the international community. The first four priorities focus primarily on Kandahar. Canada is helping the Government of Afghanistan to:
· maintain a more secure environment and establish law and order by building the capacity of the Afghan National Army and Police, and support complementary efforts in the areas of justice and corrections.
· provide jobs, education, and essential services, like water.
· provide humanitarian assistance to people in need, including refugees.
· enhance the management and security of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
Nationally, Canada is helping to:
· build Afghan institutions that are central to our Kandahar priorities and support democratic processes such as elections.
· contribute to Afghan-led political reconciliation efforts aimed at weakening the insurgency and fostering a sustainable peace.

As Canada transforms its engagement in Afghanistan, our Kandahar-focused programming will comprise up to 50 percent of our total effort, and more and more funding will be directed toward efforts to benefit the people of that province.”(1)

No matter who you ask, on paper, that seems pretty decent. These objectives are why men and women join the Canadian Forces -- to assist. To help. If these Winter Olympics have taught us anything about our own culture, its that we are a passionate, diverse and empathetic nation. There’s nothing hawk-ish about our intervention in Afghanistan, despite claims from the extreme left. Nor is there anything neo-colonial about our endeavours there. At least there shouldn’t be. Military intervention isn’t necessarily synonymous with empire. For example, a sincere, coordinated effort in Rwanda could have made a difference in nearly 800,000 lives.

But we’re right to be suspicious. It’s a difficult balancing act -- invading a country to assist it -- which is why international observers should be given full disclosure as to what, precisely, is happening at ground level. To quote Robert Fisk, war represents “a total failure of the human spirit.”(2) But its easy to judge from an armchair how ineffective we’ve been, or how international diplomacy has failed before it was even given a chance. In hindsight, there are a million-and-one different scenarios which could have taken place instead of military intervention. None of which are helpful to us now. Afghanistan and countries like it represent a humanitarian catastrophe for which we are at fault. We are paying for the sins of our fathers, and while we may be far removed from any direct responsibility, our complicity and ignorance is criminal.

It’s irresponsible to continue raising our children in a world of limitless prosperity next to a world of such desperate squalor. In certain cases, military intervention is a viable option. And we can debate the positives and negatives about the operation in Afghanistan when all is said and done, but while we’re still there, we have an opportunity to do some good. Victory in Afghanistan will not be measured by the body count of Taliban “insurgents,” but in the decades that follow, whether a secure state was created, with sustainable growth. It will be measured in the growth or decline of literacy and infant mortality rates, to say nothing of their dismal position on the international corruption index(3). Neither should an Afghanistan failure be measured in the body count of Canadian and ISAF soldiers. In that sense, a failure in Afghanistan only represents a failure on our part. Our fallen soldiers, indeed, even our soldiers who have merely been in theatre, have fought and sacrificed for nothing only if we refuse to get involved in our government.

We have a year and a half left, another three troop deployments and approximately 2900 soldiers willing to assist. Afghanistan still has the potential to be a beacon of success in the under-developed world. With stability, educational and health services, better policy and governance (there and here), additional international aid and support after the pullout (including infrastructural engineering and building repair), agricultural development and trade protection, perhaps the closing years of the latest Afghan war will be seen as an example of how to do things right, in a decade with plenty of examples on how to do things wrong.

--
References:
1. http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/priorities-priorites/index.aspx?menu_id=15&menu=L
2. http://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400075173/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268256871&sr=8-1
3. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table

The Fair And Balanced Truth

“I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.”(1)

This was the unfortunate conclusion to Joe Stack’s alleged suicide note, before he carried out his attack on the IRS building in Austin, Texas last Thursday.(2,3) Without condoning or condemning, I understand his desperation. There’s hardly a person on the planet who can’t relate to the hopelessness of failed ambitions; some more than others. The appropriate response to these situations is subjective, but it’s typically a good idea to err on the side of sunny optimism, even if it’s a touch naïve.

More concerning than the crime itself, is the sensationalism the story is receiving in world news in all but the most important areas. The facts have so far been well documented: Stack reportedly flew a small, single-engine plane into the seven story building where the IRS office was located, in Austin, Texas, killing himself and another man, Vernon Hunter. Still to be reported is any investigation into the amount of truth in Stack’s allegations about his trouble with the Internal Revenue Service.

According to the Fox News website, no less than 100 people have been killed in the past decade due to mass shootings, shootouts and rampages.(4) This is an extremely conservative estimate. Is it possible that these are all solely the result of psychologically unbalanced individuals who have a history of anti-social behaviour accompanied by various anxiety disorders and a discourse towards depression? No doubt, the perpetrators in these instances suffer from a great many issues, but that doesn’t mean their grievances should be discarded as sheer lunacy.

Instead of shrugging them off as unrelated violent crimes, why don’t more news agencies explore the chronology that led to these events? Moreover, why aren’t we being spurred towards the perpetrators desired outcome: general scrutiny or even mere concern for their plight? Granted, the murder of innocents is a good way to quickly polarize opinions against you, but again, this is a reflection of their desperation and still merits consideration. At the very least we should be asking how they arrived at that point.

The sum total of the lack of journalistic investigation into what led to these events seems to be extreme indifference among the civilian population. One possible explanation for the absence of freethinking, tenacious journalists is the continuation of “business-as-usual.” Although there are probably a number of other explanations which amount to the gag effect on professional insight, it’s apparent that the majority of world news leaders have no interest in upsetting the status quo.

Traditionally, the purpose of journalism is to act as a conduit in service to the population. As such, there should be no inherent bias - although this is unavoidable - or particular agenda on the part of the journalist. Personal political beliefs shouldn’t influence the balance of truth and facts. Unfortunately what we’ve arrived at is the era of corporate-sponsored news media. If you think this is conspiracy-theorist, consider the extensive list of holdings the Time Warner Company has in broadcasting and print - not least of which is CNN, HBO, Warner Bros., TBS, TNT, and Time magazine(5). Similarly, other corporate conglomerates (such as General Electric(6), CBS(7) and Viacom, Inc.(8)) have a vested interest in the output of news from their subsidiaries.

From time to time, substantial work is produced by these agencies, but it’s more often than not incidentally, as in the case of the National Enquirer’s nomination for a Pulitzer prize last week(9). The American tabloid magazine was nominated for its work on exposing former presidential candidate John Edwards’ lies and infidelities; more surprisingly, they were right. Nevertheless, what we see dominating the headlines in North America anymore is no longer journalistic bravery challenging established thought, but sensational stories about violence, scandal and gossip, always towing the corporate line - which usually happens to be the bottom line.

But it is what it is because it sells. We’ve allowed ourselves to be enamoured and entertained by the news, instead of provoked and intrigued by it. We’ve become lethargic in our reactions to scandals in government, or violent crimes, specifically those motivated by legitimate social issues. At what point do normal people dissent anymore?

Whether it was the desired outcome or not, we’ve become numb to spectacular stories of scandal, deceit and mass murder. That’s why I’m proposing that we reform the daily news. Reports on all the juiciest stories should be concise and void of speculation. We should spend more time on creative stories, constructive stories, such as community development or public debate forums. And if the days news amounts to no more than 10 minutes of reporting, we return to the regular schedule - which is another topic altogether. Maybe this can revive the spirit of public dissent when something important does happen. Or maybe these are merely the ramblings of a psychologically disturbed individual, destined to be discredited and doomed to obscurity.


--
References:
1. http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2010/02/18/internet_note_posted_by_man_li.html?cxntcid=breaking_news
2. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/22/texas.plane.crash/index.html
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/feb/18/austin-irs-joseph-stack
4. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512480,00.html
5. http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=timewarner
6. http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=ge
7. http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=cbs
8. http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=viacom
9. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/23/national-enquirer-oliver-burkeman

On Obama, 9/11 Truth & Corporate America

Immortal Technique gives an interview on Obama, the situation in Afghanistan, 9/11 truths, corporate America and capitalism.



Part two of the interview.

The Middle East Exports More Than Terrorism

As a follow-up to my previous blog Nicaragua Exports More Than Coffee, I've been doing research in international opinion polling regarding the US-led "war on terror," specifically the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

While the 4th Branch of the US government (the media) would have us believe that the majority of the West - indeed, the world - supports their war on terror, the polls say otherwise. If we are citizens of democratic societies, why are our opinions largely (read: entirely) ignored? There seems to be overwhelming international opposition for the wars - both prior to and presently. Listed within are Gallup, World Public Opinion and Harris Interactive polls, expressing different opinions concerning the wars, but these are by no means the only resources available.

The Holocaust We Will Not See

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 11th January 2010

Avatar, James Cameron’s blockbusting 3-D film, is both profoundly silly and profound. It’s profound because, like most films about aliens, it is a metaphor for contact between different human cultures. But in this case the metaphor is conscious and precise: this is the story of European engagement with the native peoples of the Americas. It’s profoundly silly because engineering a happy ending demands a plot so stupid and predictable that it rips the heart out of the film. The fate of the native Americans is much closer to the story told in another new film, The Road, in which a remnant population flees in terror as it is hunted to extinction.

A Different Kind Of Learning

If you're one of those people who learns more by listening, here's 3 minutes of provocative thought for you. It's proof that hip hop is still a medium for political dissidence and rappers can still have something valid to say.



As far as I'm aware Immortal Technique didn't go to Palestine, but he did go to Afghanistan in 2009, read about his trip here.

Nicaragua Exports More Than Coffee

On April 27th, 1983, Ronald Reagan professed to a nationwide audience that “violence has been Nicaragua's most important export to the world,”(1) in an attempt to bolster public support for what was effectively the first chapter in the American “war on terror.”(2)

During his inaugural address as president, Reagan had obliquely foreshadowed the war to come, by declaring that “those who practice terrorism,” - that is, what we define as terrorism - “and prey upon their neighbours” will soon be on the receiving end of American Justice. He was referring to the recent overthrow of the (US-backed) Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua by the Sandinista Liberation Front (FSLN), and their support of the left in the ongoing civil-war in El Salvador between the right-wing military leadership (also backed by the US) and the left-wing Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN).

Before continuing, it’s important to define terrorism. The US Department of Defense defines it as follows:

“The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”(3)

By any standards, we should be able to agree upon this definition or a variation of it, so long as it adheres to international law. Unfortunately, the masters of the world don’t apply this definition to themselves. Instead, we call it “counter-terrorism,” or “counter-insurgency.” The definitions are essentially the same, the difference is a matter of perspective. The typical position in the West (particularly the US) is defensive, even when they’re the occupying force, as in the cases of the Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, and so in this manipulation the West can never be wrong. To admit that we promote terrorism would be absurd.

Returning to Reagan’s denunciation of the Nicaraguan plight, the president explains that they “like to pretend that they are today being attacked by forces based in Honduras,” (this was later proven to be true) and asserts that “there is no thought of sending American combat troops to Central America. They are not needed.” (Though they did send CIA specialists to train what remained of Somoza’s supporters.)

Reagan concluded his speech by appealing to our “moral duty” and “solemn responsibility … to ourselves, our friends, and our posterity.” By the time the task was complete, the death toll in Nicaragua “in per capita terms was significantly higher than the number of US persons killed in the US Civil War and all the wars of the twentieth century combined,” and Nicaragua had gained “the unenviable status of being the poorest country in the Western hemisphere.”(4)

After enduring several years of conflict with the US-sponsored Honduran contras, economic sabotage, aerial bombardment and trade embargos, a case was presented to the International Court of Justice involving Nicaragua vs. The United States of America.(5) Of the numerous charges, the Nicaraguan government specifically cited that: US support for the contras was in violation of the UN Charter as well as the Charter of the Organization of American States, and that the US had violated Nicaraguan sovereignty. The court found that the US had breached international law on both counts. “Humanitarian aid” was also clearly defined in the proceedings, and the court found that aid to the contras was strictly military.

The US responded by refusing to participate, with claims that the ICJ had no jurisdiction to hear the case and eventually blocked enforcement by the UN Security Council, so Nicaraguan efforts for compliance remained unfulfilled. American terrorist operations in Nicaragua continued.

The United States was also requested to pay damages for their violations:

“… without prejudice to the foregoing request, the Court is requested to award to the Republic of Nicaragua the sum of 370,200,000 United States dollars, which sum constitutes the minimum valuation of the direct dollars, which sum constitutes the minimum valuation of the direct damages. With the exception of damages for killing nationals of Nicaragua …”

This request was effectively rejected in 1991 after “democratic” elections saw that the seemingly guaranteed victors (Sandinistas) were ousted. Subsequently a law was repealed by Nicaraguan National Congress which required that they seek indemnities. The suit was then withdrawn from the International Court.(6)

Interestingly, to date, Iraq has paid approximately $28 billion in war reparations to Kuwait, following the end of the first Gulf War,(7) coupling that with numerous economic sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council(8) and you begin to wonder how much of a “threat to world peace” Iraq actually posed, prior to the 2003 invasion.

The case of state-sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua is exceptional, but by no means is it entirely unique. It stands out because it is an uncontroversial example of the US flouting international law, as if it doesn’t apply to them. Similar cases that are all but buried include the state-sponsored terrorist activities in Cuba (codenamed Operation Mongoose); a program designed to undermine the Communist leadership through intensive propaganda, sabotage and psychological warfare. Operation Just Cause in Panama saw the “surgical operation” by American troops create a civilian death toll “that was at least four-and-a-half times higher than military causalities in the enemy, and twelve or thirteen times higher than the casualties suffered by U.S. troops”(9) according the Human Rights Watch. Of course it's out of the question that we in the West should abide by the same standard observation of human rights and international law which we expect of others.

The reverberations of these and other actions are still felt today, at this very moment. Aggressive foreign policy and the tendency towards abstaining from any sincere commitment to international law creates “a huge recruiting device” for would-be terrorists, to quote former US Deputy Secretary of Defense and current World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. It seems that an excellent way to prevent global terrorism would be to stop participating in it.

--
References:

1. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/42783d.htm
2. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/12081a.htm
3. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/
4. Thomas Walker, Nicaragua
5. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/70/9619.pdf?PHPSESSID=1e1b228ef598fc0bc5698ecb471ab725
6. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,,NIC,467fca491e,0.html
7. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31616&Cr=iraq&Cr1=kuwait
8. http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/previous-issues-and-debate-on-iraq/sanctions-against-iraq.html
9. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1991/panama/

Sorry For Being White

Several months ago, through a heated discussion with a friend, I had what I would consider to be a psychological breakthrough. I acknowledged my considerable (albeit subliminal) shame and guilt for being lucky enough to have been born with white skin. And chances are, if you look like me, you probably suffer from a similar pathology.

The mere fact that I have white skin is enough to warrant an apology. Not for anything I’ve personally done, or for what my parents or grandparents may have done, but for the seemingly innate belief that this is a white man’s world. An apology, however, is unambiguous. What I now recognize is my own subconscious arrogance; my ignorance towards other cultures and races.

The opinion that dominates Western foreign - and for that matter, domestic - policy is that our way of life is the best possible. While this is not exclusively the opinion of a white majority, it is the dominant theme among our political and social elite - most of whom happen to be white.

We export our values by combining economic and military clout with the not so subtle manipulation of the media. As a collective, we pretentiously believe that we hold a monopoly on modernity, ethical values and the key to the future. This is wrong. The inherent privilege bequeathed to white, Western (North American, European, etc) children upon birth is too seldom acknowledged or seriously discussed. A mandatory, standardized cultural sensitivity curriculum would probably rub against the established grain. Humility is bad for business.

Consider the history of imperialism and economic competition - it’s necessary for us to believe we are superior. Without this well entrenched belief, the occupation, colonization and subjugation of inferior backwater nations - the very same we depend on for our tennis shoes, computer components, automobile parts and any number of agricultural imports - would become morally repugnant.

We have nothing to lose from a broader “live and let live” model of domestic and foreign policy, and in fact have much to gain in the way of cultural and diplomatic relations. We’re led to believe that without them, our way of life would not be possible. While this is true to a certain extent, it would require no significant sacrifice by the average Western citizen in order for a smaller nation to regain its sovereignty and national dignity.

Our way of life is superior, but our hedonism and the freedoms we enjoy - yet seldom exercise - would not be possible, were it not for our position as the capstone on top of this economic human pyramid. Virtually every major conflict in our recent - and not-so-recent - history is attributable to the necessary maintenance of our position. How many lives could have been spared, had we been raised without such nationalistic egoism?

This is not to say that attacks within our borders should be ignored or rashly forgiven, on the contrary. The attacks on 9-11, for example, were reprehensible and merited an appropriate response. However, the proper avenue would have been an international response of economic sanctions and limited military intervention. Likewise, at home, it would have been supremely useful for meaningful debates to have taken place as to the psychological origin and motivations of the attacks. Our differences are merely ideological - as merely the differences in ideology between slave and master.

So why is it important for us to be humble? Why am I sorry for being white? Because we are born privileged; because we are in a position of boundless freedoms and incomparable influence. We have choices and the opportunity to affect change. This position bestows upon us a certain amount of responsibility. We owe it to the nations we employ to become more involved in our country’s politics, and we owe it to our future generations to begin a regimen of tolerance and understanding, as opposed to the xenophobia inherent in our current system. It’s important to understand that the choices we make - vis-a-vis our lifestyles, the brands we buy, the clothes we wear, the vehicles we drive, etc - these are conscious choices, and they have potentially serious consequences, no matter how far removed we are.

We’re at the mercy of those below us in the pyramid, so it’s in our best interest to look towards flattening it out. After all, if it collapses, whoever’s on top has the farthest to fall.

What You May Not Know

Is Communism dead? Short answer yes, long answer no, both have exceptions.

The word itself conjures up immediate revulsion to most, as a result of our indoctrination to capitalism. But you’re probably more Communist than you might think. That’s not to say you would necessarily adhere to violent revolution, repression of political dissidents or support a dictatorship of the proletariat (or the working class as they may now be called.) But if you consider yourself any kind of a decent person, you’re probably in favor of equality, social justice, government accountability and true democracy where everyone has the ability to vote, without hindrance.

If you’re the cynical type you might be saying to yourself that’s never happened, under any Communist leadership, so you’ve convinced yourself that this blundering experiment the world called “Communism” was a colossal failure. In this sense, yes, the religion of Communism is dead. It cannot be invoked - in much the same way any party calling themselves National Socialists would be rejected ad nauseam - because it simply reminds too many people of the atrocities committed by the world Communist leaders (ie: Mao Tse-tung in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia and Joseph Stalin in the USSR.)

That being said, the spirit of communism is very much alive. Unfortunately, it experiences much of the same static orthodoxy as many of the worlds religious faiths. There’s been a lot of infighting and interpretation over what Karl Marx was actually saying. Truth is, it doesn’t matter what he meant to say, because Marx was as prone to error as the rest of us. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels envisioned a better world - a more equitable world, where classisms don’t exist. This was not a utopian view, because they didn’t imagine this would ever come about without great personal sacrifice. But the point again is not specifically the how, because anyone can hypothesize as to how this might all be achieved - the point is the underlying desire for a more equitable society. What Marx and Engels gave us was the skeletal structure of a society which demands more of its citizens; more in the way of sacrifice for the greater good and less focus on the individual.

Their conceptions took place through the scientific analysis of historical events. They took a somewhat mathematical approach to the events, assuming that if such and such occur, the outcome could be reasonably predicted. But these predictions took place over 100 years ago, and through the evolution of world politics, their rigid philosophies may no longer be applicable. That’s not to say their theory should be cast aside as well. It needs only to be adapted to our current situations. So, there you’ve got an incredibly concise answer to the original questions. Now to address something else.

What is the difference between Socialism and Communism? We’ve already established that formal Communism is dead, and if you disagree, then it should be killed, because that seems to be the most pragmatic thing to do at this stage. Henceforth, we shall refer to it as a common noun, or simply communism. Socialism is a phase of communism. After a revolution, it’s not enough to go from capitalism to communism overnight, this is utopian. There is a gradual phasing out of the individualism bred through capitalism and this stage is known as socialism. Cuba, for example, is a socialist society. Canada, is a social democracy. We are moving in the direction of communism, but before you revile, remember what that means: equality, accountability and democracy. That does not necessarily, nor should it have to, mean government repression.

Socialist Cuba is beset on all sides by capitalist nations, so before you go judging the island too harshly, consider its predicament. In an information age, we have enormous amounts of pressure to be ambition driven slaves of materialism - to ignore our brothers and sisters and to look out for number one. Progress is hampered in every socialist state because the richest countries in the world are capitalist.

In his book, State and Revolution, Vladimir Lenin outlines the process by which a nation proceeds through feudalism to capitalism, from capitalism on to socialism, and from socialism to communism. Ignore the dogma, keep an open mind and consider the following. You may discover that your true color is red.

A Good Idea

What do the Bible, the Quran and the Communist Manifesto all have in common? They all have great ideas about how to live your life. Likewise, they’ve all been used to justify prejudice, intolerance, barbarity, subjugation and murder.

This transformation occurs when we turn a good idea into an absolute. Nietzsche describes this process beautifully in his book, The Gay Science:

I caught this insight on the way and quickly seized the rather poor words that were closest to hand to pin it down lest it fly away again. And now it has died of these arid words and shakes and flaps in them -- and I hardly know anymore when I look at it how I could ever have felt so happy when I caught this bird.

He’s comparing the process of thought with the process of expressing that thought. Once spoken or written, through chosen language, a thought adopts a particular point of view and becomes rigid. The wings of the bird are clipped and it’s held awkwardly in place, thus destroying the beauty of its fluid movement.

In the 20th century over 100 million people lost their lives in China and the Soviet Union, all in the name of Communism. Purists may argue that neither of these were an expression of true Communism, that these are examples of ego-maniacal individuals using Marxist theory for personal ends. The problem isn’t in Communism they’ll argue, the problem was the interpretation. And they’re correct, but knowing the wrong answer doesn’t imply that yours is right. This argument can be heard elsewhere in regards to the trouble with Islam, Christianity or in any situation where one claims to have found the truth.

Once an idea has been pinned down, it immediately espouses certain prejudices in the individual who absorbs it. For example, a viciously ambitious person might use Communism to justify his/her elimination of political rivals by proclaiming them to be counter-revolutionary. An alienated immigrant youth might use an interpretation of the Quran to feel socially and spiritually superior to those they decide are unbelievers. Conservative Catholic parents may pass down their religious beliefs, which in turn may engender irrational homophobic tendencies, misogyny or shame in a child. The individuals establish a kinship between their - possibly subconscious - desires (for power, for acceptance, for obedience) and what they interpret as truth to themselves. Their strict interpretations espouse prejudice in the way of: anyone who speaks freely about free market economy is a capitalist pig, and therefore counter-revolutionary, or anyone who doesn’t believe what I believe is unworthy of salvation, or anyone who has sex outside marriage will swim in a lake of fire for all eternity. The result is having taken a good idea and turned it into something counter-productive.

Why are we such purists? Wouldn’t we all be better off being ruthlessly critical to any and all sources claiming to know the “truth”? When it comes to the Earth and its billions of species, there are no equals to human ingenuity, but we are also the most infamous for getting things dead wrong.

If we’re going to progress as a species, it’s important to remember the spirit in which most of these “gospels” were formed - as a result of our adaptability, our fluid consciousness. We’re not confined to the structures of primal instincts that limit our animal counterparts, nor should we be confined to simple human absolutisms.

There are many great moral lessons within the pages of the Quran, the Bible and the Torah, and there are just as many great thoughts on political theory to be found in the annals of Communist and capitalist lore. They’re great in theory, because we read them in relation to the times and interpret them objectively -- keep them that way.