Introduction: A manifesto written in blood
I stand as one citizen out of many, who now raises a banner to the powers that be.
Who will dare raise this banner with me—a banner that represents the world in unity.
Who will renounce their national zeal and take up with me a greater international appeal?
A new declaration is being drafted, one that represents the people of each nation.
A new chant is being echoed loudly across the lands and it is being heard by all citizens.
It is the echo of more than a thousand voices calling out for their emancipation.
It is the echo of the young, old, weak and strong—those who have thrown off their chains.
Chains that bind the body do not bind the soul; the chains of slavery are broken now.
The echo has been heard by all citizens, but it has been ignored by the state governments.
The chains of nation state rulership have no longer the power to dictate the citizen’s terms.
The citizens of the globe demand their voices be heard and read by the powers that be.
The global citizens demand a manifesto, one that represents their ideals.
It is for this reason that a manifesto be devised—written with the blood of the global citizen.
This is the citizen’s manifesto—The Global Declaration of Independence from nation state rulership.
All people born on the Earth are born to one species and one species only—Homo sapiens. All people are evolved from a common ancestor, thus sharing a common heritage. Notions of race, ethnicity and nationhood are thus mere divisions that need not exist. They are the chains that shackle humanity from unity with itself. From birth there is no inherent divide; all are born in unity and all are born free. All people lay claim to the Earth, as all people are born citizens of it. The global citizen is a child of the Earth and not a child of fictional boundaries. We do not believe in the power of nationalism nor do we believe in the power of patriotism. Nationalism and Patriotism are all forms of tribalism. Tribalism is an archaic system of thought that permeates all nations’ claims to sovereignty, for tribalism is but the left over remnants from the primal infancy of humanity. We view both these forms of worship, as the most destructive aspects of humanity as a species. All power is illusory; the only power that is real is the power of humanity in unity. It is for this reason that we wish to burn the banners of nationhood and establish from their ashes new global banners. From the ashes will arise a phoenix, one that represents all nations and all people.
The boundaries that divide nation states are entirely illusory and are maintained in deception. The powers that be do not want their citizens to know their own freedom. The powers that be wish to maintain order by lying to their own people! By lying to the people about the state of the world and the state of nations they only seek to further foster divisions within humanity. Can they not see the damage that they are creating? Can they not hear the cries of the citizens? All citizens have been denied their humanity by nation state rulership, which is now one of the last totalitarian systems that need to be removed. The face of humanity is being stomped upon, the longer the rulership continues. The global citizen must emancipate themselves from the dictatorial rule of the nation state! The global citizen demands their emancipation from the totality of rule; for the citizen of the globe is free from birth and is only bound by thought. It is this thought that needs to change post-haste. When the rulers of nation states realise that they are citizens as well, and when they realise that there brothers and sisters are dying each day because of the illusory divisions they maintain, then the world will be one. The kings of the world are to renounce their crowns willingly or have them removed forcefully.
Every war that has ever been waged has been waged between fellow global citizens—amongst one species trying to divide itself. All wars are the products of divisions, all of them being illusory in nature. A banner is not meant to divide, it is meant to unite. All nations have hitherto sought to divide their populaces through the worship of banner—national banner. We believe that only one banner is legitimate for worship—the international banner. All other banners are illegitimate in our eyes, as they foster the self-conceit of nationhood. We do not believe in national anthems nor do we recognise a nation’s right to glorify itself. We see all efforts of national glorification as a means for further division and discrimination amongst citizens. We believe in only one glorification and one glorification only—global glorification. When the citizens of each nation renounce their national citizenship and embrace their global citizenship, they will become a part of a global community. The larger a community of people is the more likely the feeling of connectivity and the want for prosperity in that community. The citizens have spoken most loudly on this issue—they want to be united with their brothers and sisters. Who is to deny them their natural right? Who is to deny the beating drum? Who is to deny the global declaration of Independence? No power can deny it.
Love has no boundaries except for the ones that are made in the mind: love is boundless. Love cannot be caged by the doctrines of the municipalities nor can its supporters cage it. The municipalities, under the guise of nation state rulership, have hitherto sought to discriminate against global citizens. They have in past times discriminated against individuals based on race, based on sex, on the basis of class and now more recently on the basis of sexual orientation—and the list only continues when the people become apathetic to the rulership of the state. How long have national citizens been deluded by their governments? How long have they watched their fellow citizens being beaten for whom they love and for whom they care for? How long have they sat idly by and let the marching boots of totalitarianism stomp upon the ideal of love? Why have they become apathetic? When a couple of lovers embrace with one another, does it matter what gender they are? Does it matter what race they are? Does it matter what class they are? Is not the fact that they are human enough? The global citizen takes heed to the cries of their brothers and sisters, and opposes all forms of physical and mental control. They declare to their oppressors, “We shall fight for our brothers and sisters, and we shall oppose your national state rulership as long as we draw breath! You have no power over us nor do you claim ownership of our natural rights. We declare ourselves independent from nation state rulership. This is our Global declaration!” Thus it should be echoed loudly, being repeated across all lands and heard by all those who wish to acknowledge their global citizenship. Let it also resonate in the ears of the rulers of the world and let it haunt them until their dying days.
The consolidation of power is done no better than with religious blessing, for only priests and imams can spread the propaganda of nationhood so effectively to their constituencies, as to render them blind, deaf and dumb to rebuke. All religions are false—this is fact. We do not believe in the power of religion nor do we believe in the gods. To us the gods do not exist, and it is by time this fact be recognised across all nations. We believe in the power of human solidarity—we believe in a global humanism. Religion has only helped shackle the minds of humanity and has kept humanity in the dark for over two millennia. It is time for those shackles to be broken—it is time for the mind to be free once more! The nation state rulership uses religion to consolidate its power; by fusing government with divine mandate, they make their rulership total. The global citizen renounces all claims to the totality of control. If totalitarianism is indeed characterised by the totality of thought, then it follows that the global citizen is an anti-totalitarian. Hence the global citizen opposes all forms, whether they are physical or mental in nature, of control. The global citizen is a citizen, not just of a united humanity, but also of a globe reformed in reason. The plague of nationalism was birthed from the illogical foundations of tribalism, and it is for this reason that for it to be abolished forever there has to be an embrace of Reason. For the mental erosion of national state rulership to be reversed, there needs to be a reform in thought—there needs to be a renouncement of religion!
Those who intend to break down barriers must start with their own, for it is only then that change is possible. The reformation that the citizen demands is the one that they shall have to first undergo themselves. The global citizen must renounce their superiority complex and take up from this renouncement a new and improved idea of reality. This idea will not be centred around the notion of the ‘self’, but rather on the notion of ‘us’. All people are global citizens by birth right, as they are born to one planet—Earth. All boundaries are extrapolations of the notion of ‘self’, and as a result they must be culled. When the culling of the self can commence, then only will the people begin their anthem— the global anthem. A global anthem dedicated to the desire of love and unity—two of the things that make humanity unique. Each person possesses in themselves two desires: The desire for love and the desire for dominance. History has proven that the latter is fostered more than the former. Nation state rulership has been built upon the desire for dominance, as the desire for dominance is a temptation too hard to resist. It is for this reason that humanity’s natural state is to be denied, as it only leads to ruin. Humanity is to forge itself a new state, one that acknowledges the desire for love. The state of love is a necessity for the unity of people: chains can be broken. The chains that hitherto bind the citizens are chains made of silk, and easily cut by weary citizen. The citizen of the globe now only needs to wake up!
Now let us finally declare our beliefs to the Nation state rulerships, and let us finally have our global independence! We believe in the natural right of equality, for people to live in unity with one another without fear of prosecution or discrimination. We believe in the natural right of liberty, for people to be able to freely express themselves in public amongst their constituency. We believe in the natural right of education, for people to live in a society where they do not fear the oppression of the state. We believe in the natural right of freethought, for people to be able to live without the pernicious policing of thought. We believe in the natural right of travel, for individuals to visit their brothers and sisters across boundaries and oceans. We believe in the natural right of peace, for nation state rulerships to cease their senseless warring. We believe in the natural right of people to say, “us” and not “me”. We believe the global anthem and its ability to change the fabric of political society, and to give the natural rights of the people squarely in their hands! We believe in all of these things, and we will fight for them! This is our global declaration— this is the declaration of the people! Who will take up these natural rights? Who will acknowledge their right to be? Who will acknowledge their freedom?
Conclusion: Will you help declare Global independence?
As it has been written so it will be aired, across all lips and across all nations. The declaration is being made at this very moment, by all people who declare and acknowledge their global citizenship. It can be heard in major cities, towns and streets. It can be heard in major temples, synagogues, mosques and churches. It can be heard in major councils, municipalities and governments. It can be heard in major science, education and academic establishments. It can be heard on the radio, seen on the television and discussed in the media. It can be heard and it can be seen everywhere! The global citizens are re-finding their identities; they are amassing in numbers across the globe. They are beating their drums and rising up in arms to the nation state rulerships. Their voices are as clear as day, but will the authorities heed the global citizens’ anthem? Will they stand down and allow the citizens their rights? Where are they now? Are they scared of the rising banner—the global banner? They cannot stop the wave of people who are taking up their citizenship, and they cannot stop the inevitable re-seizure of power. It is for this reason that they are cracking down on the citizens and they are denying them their right to be.
We must OPPOSE them! We must FIGHT them! We must WIN against them! WE MUST DECLARE OUR GLOBAL INDEPENDCE.
[Note: The above-mentioned piece was written as an experiment in rhetoric, hyperbole and manifesto writing. As a result, some aspects of the piece are intentionally exaggerated for effect. In addition to this, the contents of the work are to be taken in light of the aforementioned experimentation. Inspiration for this piece come from Karl Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto’, Anselme Bellegarrigue’s ‘Anarchist Manifesto’ and Victor Stenger’s ‘The New Atheism: Taking a stand for science and reason’.]
Artwork By: Rainer Jacob
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
Good night dear.
A deep sigh releases me,
out of body and into breeze.
A deep sigh releases me;
to another world,
I must be.
Sun must set and moon must rise,
such is the passage of time.
Time moves on and so must I;
no stop for me tonight.
My ship is ready, thy sails are steady;
but you are not ready.
My dear, what is wrong?
Have I not stayed for too long?
Or is it that you have succumb to the Siren’s song?
Here, here, do not try to stop me.
Here, here, do not cry next to me.
You will see me again soon,
Weep not for me, my dear.
Gentle tears are enough once.
Weep not for me, my dear;
Celebrate thy life with cheer.
Celebrate thy life with beer!
Just celebrate it all with love.
Do not be sad…please do not.
Now, let me go into that bright light.
Please dear…let me go.
Weep not for me dear friends, weep not.
Remember the good times.
It is like Lightman said in ‘Einstein’s dreams’:
“For it is only habit and memory that dulls the physical passion. Without memory, each night is the first night, each morning is the first morning, each kiss and touch are the first.”
Dear, I will see you again.
Note: This poem was written for my Grandmother after Grandfather’s passing in November and was received just before his funeral in early December. It was sent on the 4th of December, but has only been made publicly available on the 24th.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
The word ‘Daesh’ is an Arab acronym for ‘al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham’ (داعش), which translates to the ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ in English. The acronym ‘Daesh’ is the Arab equivalent to using the English acronym ‘ISIL’. They literally both are different ways of using the same label for the same Islamist organization—The Islamic State.
This need to be politically correct and not outright label the Islamic state for what they call themselves, namely ‘The Islamic State’, is just a tedious exercise in doing nothing to stop them. Politicians need to stop pussyfooting around and start naming the organization, labelling the ideology of Islamism and start acting out against it. They are, after all, on the front line in talks over this important issue—’the political fighters’, if you will.
In addition to the above, it also has to be said that people need to stop being so afraid of offending others by saying that, “Islam has something to do with ISIS”. There is a great tendency for liberal minded individuals to not want to bring offence to those Muslims they might know, as not to damage relationships with them by mentioning Islam and The Islamic State in the same breath. We have to stop being fearful, as we are doing what exactly the Islamists want us to do—remain silent. If one does not speak out against totalitarianism, then one will eventually become another oppressed victim of it. In other words, it is best to point out the serpent in the weeds before it bites you than to become a victim of its venomous fangs.
These jihadists are doing what they do because of their interpretation of Islamic scriptures—their ‘wahhabist’ interpretation. What ISIS militants want, after all, is to establish a global Islamic caliphate where Sharia Law is the law of the land. Where infidels, homosexuals and apostates are killed and people are subjugated. All in the hopes that they can one day bring an end to open society and bring about an “apocalypse”. This is not a ‘neo-conservative’ statement to make; this is a statement coming from a classical liberal. I am simply speaking from my observations of ISIS; my readings and study of Islamic scripture; my understanding of Middle Eastern history and Islamic history, as well as what is going on in Politics currently. I am also speaking from a non-religious perspective—an atheist perspective; an ‘infidel’ I am.
Time after time, these jihadists have told news outlets worldwide their motivations and have provided most atrocities they do with Hadith and Qur’anic scriptural justification. When the Paris attacks happened, for example, The Islamic State not only took pride in admitting it but they also sent out a statement that denounced the ‘crusader nations’ and their “Crusader campaign”; further promising to continue attacks on these “crusader nations”. It should be clear by now that what they are doing is a part of their Islamist ideological campaign. To deny this is to deny reality.
It is time that people realize what they are up against. These jihadists are not simply rogue individuals that can be labelled as such and thrown to the corner. These jihadists are organized ideological fighters who wish to kill for their religious ideology. Make no mistake; the events that have happened since early last year are all a part of these jihadists trying to bring about a greater ideological goal. It is time that we—people of open society—recognize that and act accordingly. Islamism needs to be crushed as an ideology and all those who follow it must be denounced for supporting it. We have to denounce both the political Islamists and the jihadists—both of which desire the same goal: A global Islamic caliphate.
Islamism is a serpent that needs to be killed, as it is biting and poisoning the conversation and stifling action. In order for us— those of us who value the continuation of open society—to stop this, we need to face the threat head on. We need to cut the head off the serpent… But How? There is no clear-cut solution, but a good start would be to fight the ideology. In order to kill the serpent, one needs to start highlighting the threat of Islamism, its relation to Islam and start fighting the ideology through education and force. Education in the form of promoting free thought, liberalism, secular humanism, reform in Islam and so on; force in the form of crushing ISIS.
This is only the start, but I hope it will help give rise to more discussion on this topic. For it is through the discussion of ideas in open society that change can come about. It is with this said that I close with the following words: Name the threat and kill the serpent.
Artwork by: ‘Thor in Hymir’s boat battling the Midgard Serpent’ by Henry Fuseli (1788)
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
-Islamism: The political imposition of Islamic fundamentalism upon society, as manifested by organisations such as ‘The Islamic State’, ‘Hamas’, ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir’, ‘The Muslim Brotherhood’ and ‘Boko Haram’ to name a few. Individuals who support the political overthrow of a government, through either military coup or democratic elections, can be considered ‘political Islamists’. Those who wish to fight violently for their goal and those who genuinely believe it to be true; can be considered ‘jihadists’.
-Islamic Caliphate: An Islamic government based upon the doctrines from the Qur’an and Hadith.
-Wahhabism: A sub-set of Sunni Islam that interprets the Qur’an in a literalist lens.
I left my apartment that evening; filled with the utmost dread and sadness—all too familiar to me by now. Collecting my thoughts and my pen, I made my way down stairs. Before I could, however, a flurry gripped my mind; it gave rise to deeper more prudent thoughts that had been lurking in my mind from days before. The rush and tingle of such thoughts—ones of which espoused such vehement hatred towards my mother—gave me a brief dose of adrenaline; the kind I needed in that moment. Intending to take the car, I instead decided to walk from my apartment to her place, just to tell her how I felt.
Walking past that all too familiar spot near my apartment entranceway, I found myself confused as to which road to go on. In my mind was a conflict of interests. On the one side lay the thought of how to communicate my grievances; on the other side lay the consequences of such communication. Heartbeat increasing in intensity with each step, I found myself grabbing at air trying to resolve such dispute of mind. It was in that instance—in such terrifying a moment—that a voice came from me; out from me came a voice of the deepest of furiosity. It was as if I was possessed, which I then began to muddle to myself, saying:
‘How can someone be so cruel, so obnoxious and so arrogant? Have I not been there for them in their anger and dispensation? Have I not aided them in their request for love and dedication? Well…to them I can only respond with the bitterest of tongue, but will I say what my mind demands but my heart does not? I love my mother, but can I really feed her most bitterest of demands all the time? Am I not human like she is—who has a heart like she is supposed to have? Where is my love and respect?’
It was then that a force pushed me forward.
I rushed up to her apartment—I just could not take the anguish of my mind any longer. I grabbed at the door handle, fidgeting with it—trying to get it open as fast as I could. Before I could go any further, before I could open the door and let my thoughts reap, there she was in her khaki dress. I hesitated and looked down; closing my eyes for a brief moment to regain composure. It was in that moment that I curled my tongue and told her how I felt, but before I could go any further she pulled that line from her lips—that line that she always uses. She responded by saying:
“Have I not provided you with food, love and generosity? Have I not raised you well enough, so that you know that such polemic predisposition is unacceptable in my presence? How dare you try to scold me? How dare…”
Before she went on, I stopped her and grabbed her by the arms. With a steady voice, I told her, “Are you blind? Do you not see what I mean by my words? Do you not listen to yourself?” She stopped, as if possessed by force, and it was over. She asked me to leave the apartment; she asked me to take my things and never see her again—I was heartbroken.
It was midnight and I feared the worst. How could I have approached her with such furiosity? How could I have come to her first and bared it all to her, do I have no shame? But before I could think any longer, there she stood right in front of me with eyes that were set a blasé. It was at that moment —at that punitive stage—did I realise that my words were justified. She came at me with fire underneath her tongue, her eyes as red as the sun. We went on at each other for forty minutes, and it was in those minutes that many emotions were expressed—as the fighting slowly devolved into tears. My voice became weaker and my heart oozed with sorrow. It was then that I extended my arms, and with slow angelic movement, I gave her a passionate hug; a desperate acknowledgement of surrender. It was a hug of love to show her that despite her hatred I still loved her as a mother.
However, despite my heartfelt surrender, she pushed me from her; she did not wish to acknowledge my surrender. I could not speak any longer—I ended the conversation at that instant and left her to her own devices in her own ‘egotism’.
It was at that moment, I decided to make my way back to my apartment with tearful eye and heavy heart. ‘How could I do such a thing? How could I have been so foolish as to give love to a person who obviously did not deserve it?’ My mind began to swirl in schizophrenic wiz, as I was again torn in two. One side still loved her as a mother and still wished to show affection; the other side hated her with a passion and wanted to dispense with her for the dog that she was. “I am in the deepest of dilemmas”, words that regurgitated outwards, well I gripped my heart and cried to the moon:
“How can I resolve the anguish that has gripped me? How can I make amend the broken relationship – sawed at with greatest of hatreds? Can anyone answer me? Please, somebody just answer me!”
My back slid down against the wall opposite of my apartment door, I began to cry with such heart ache, ‘the mind cannot help but give into emotion’ I remarked in my mind, as tears dribbled down. I cried for an hour at best; nothing could stop the pain in my mind, as it continued to increase with each minute. ‘Why can’t mother just love me? Why can’t she love her daughter, who has provided her with so much?’ I continued in my anguish…the pain was too much to hold. As I collected my thoughts, I began to write out my plan. Whether she liked it or not, I was going to make her pay for the pain, she had exhausted upon me, all those years ago.
I collected my gear and began to make my way to the apartment complex where I had only been just a couple of hours ago. Armed with nothing but my trusty writing instrument, I began to climb those stairs to her door. Pushing my way through the door into her apartment, rage over came me and I found her…lying in her bed. I rushed at her, my heart palpating at the sight of her body—forward and forward I went, with pen in hand and heart in throat. I grabbed the white sheet that lay over the mass—lifting it with the greatest of fury. What I found struck… There on that bed, lay not my mother…but something else.
I tried to contain my horror—darting my eyes back to the door leading to the main entrance— I quickly thought about an exit strategy. Before my thought could turn into action, there it rose: the disembodied mass of deteriorating memories that had been long forgotten. I cannot describe it, but what I can say is that it was like my mother…but not. It was like her in look and feel, but what it did not have was a soul that she use to have—it had something more distant; something from the past that pushed me into fright. I took my gear and ran from the apartment; I just could not stop myself I needed to get as far away as humanly possible. I ran back to my apartment – locking and bolting the door. It was in the remaining silence that I hid in my room, underneath the white linen sheets that I had slept with hours before. It was there, cold and alone, that I began to cry for her once more; remembering the thoughts that had dwelled from the days before:
‘Where is she?’
‘Where has my mother gone?’
‘Where have you taken her?’
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
Artwork: Hannah Hoch’s ‘Cut with the Kitchen Knife Through the Beer Belly of the Weimar Republic’ (1919)
Dustin Arand is an American lawyer and a Philosopher with an apt for rigorous philosophical enquiry and formulation. This is no more evident than in the book ‘Truth Evolves’- a book like no other in its field.
Dustin’s book delves into epistemology, ethics and the nature of ‘truth’ with startling detail and insight. ‘Truth Evolves’ takes the reader on an intellectual journey through the various philosophies of knowledge, mind, biology and ethics in the attempt of engaging with the reader on an intellectual landscape. (Dustin opens each chapter with a brilliant quote.) In ‘Truth Evolves’, Dustin applies evolutionary theory to epistemology and accounts for the constant adaptation of truth, and the helpfulness of this adaptation to humanity’s development. This helpfulness is reiterated in the concept of ‘corrigibility’; “corrigibility refers to a property of any institution, be it political, academic, professional, or otherwise, and to the language (or languages) prevailing within and between such institutions, such that they are capable of adapting themselves to the changing demands of the environmental conditions that constitute their raison d’être [a property’s purpose]”. This concept weaves itself throughout the book and is an important element in the understanding of the author’s thesis. Furthermore, the author emphasises the need for individuals to adjust their mentality towards a deeper understanding of reality, and expresses the consequences of intellects that depart from this deeper understanding.The means by which Dustin expresses this is through modern day examples such as the civil rights debate.
Now, the book does have to be read more than once – once for feeling and the second for analysis – and it can be hard to read at certain places. However, like Immanuel Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ the book is not meant to be read in one’s leisure, it is instead meant to be analysed and thoroughly assessed. Overall, the book is a good read for anyone interested in epistemology, ethics, morality, truth or evolution.
Read From: May 26th-June 15th, 2015
Rating: 4.5/5—I definitely recommend it for those interested in Evolution and its relationship to epistemology.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
Link to Goodreads Review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1320419632?book_show_action=false
Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz’s ‘Islam and the future of Tolerance: A Dialogue’ is an informative and hopeful dialogue on a number of pressing issues of today, ranging from islamism to Islamic reform. With wit, intelligence and scrutiny all rolled into a short and succinct book, Sam and Maajid effectively take head on these issues and come up with effective strategies to answer them. Easily read in an afternoon, this book is meant to be read in conjunction to the growing political, philosophical and cultural issues occurring in the world today—such as the culture war over Islam, the conflicts against ISIS in the Middle East, the growing rise of neo-Nazism in Europe and the intellectual debates centred around reform in Islam. In addition to this, the book provides a list of helpful sources easily verifiable, as well as provides a further reading information list for all those interested in the topics discussed. (It may not be very helpful to me, since I have read most of the books listed, but I am sure it will be helpful for new individuals entering the discussion.) There is very few things to criticise, as the book is very well written and its contents are discussed in a manner that provides little room for arguing.
It is a dialogue that needed to happen, as both individuals have been engaged in trying to provide discourse on Islam. However, both have been labelled as ‘bigots’, ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘Racists’ by those of the left (regressive leftists) for criticising Islam. Sam Harris himself has been for the last year and a half trying to combat these baseless accusations; hence is why I am glad that he addressed them in this book, as well as pushed past them in informing individuals about what really needs to be discussed. Maajid Nawaz was brilliant in this book, as his writing was more on point and his counter-points to Sam did provide room for further discussion and thought. In addition to this, Maajid has improved on his writing, as his last book ‘Radical’ was rather a disappointment in terms of writing.
As for the ideas being discussed, Islamism and regressivism are by far the most pressing concerns of today. Islamism is the political imposition of Islamic fundamentalism upon society, as manifested by groups such as the Islamic State. Maajid’s informative identifying of sub-branches within Islamism, such as jihadism and political islamism, was by far the most informative aspect of his part of the dialogue on this topic. Sam Harris’ critiques of Islamism, and by highlighting the fact that beliefs do matter, were also enlightening but I do feel that both could have done a more in-depth explanation of Islamism than they ended up doing. (Maajid’s distinction between traditional and conservative Muslims does appear to be misleading, but I trust that he is onto something when he distinguishes between them.)
Regressivism (Coined by Maajid Nawaz) is the political philosophy that has emerged from progressive politics and post-modern ‘Identity politics’, as of late. It is identified by individuals defying classical liberal principles, such as free-speech, freethought and individual autonomy and responsibility, all in the ideal of equality. This has resulted in ‘regressives’ (to use a term from Sam Harris) protecting Islam from criticism and has also resulted in the silencing of critics by regressives. This is truly evident in the west, because regressivism—especially in reference to Islam—is a by-product of Islamist apologetics and Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz and many others have been victims of this regressivism. This is further expressed in the book.
Maajid Nawaz makes reference to Dr. Hasan, who is a Islamic scholar and Quilliam, throughout the book. However, I do think that he needs to not fall prey to the false belief in trusting an authority figure too much, because even they can be wrong. This leads into another thought as well, and this is in regards to Maajid’s ‘relativist’ interpretation of the Quran and hadiths. If there is no ultimate interpretation of a text, then there is no right or wrong interpretation of a text. This is problematic for obvious reasons, as it creates stagnation and creates misinformation where there need not be any.
The above-mentioned paragraphs are just some of my thoughts on the ideas discussed in the book, as there are plenty more ideas that were discussed in the book, but I will allow individuals to explore those ideas for themselves.
Read from: October 19th-November 7th, 2015
Rating: 5/5 stars—This is definitely my book of the year so far.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
Link to Goodreads Review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1387295946?book_show_action=false
We need to wake up against the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, as expressed by ISIS and other Islamist organisations. By not naming the threat of islamism, we are allowing more and more chaos to come on our door step. The reason why so many neo-nazi groups are rising again in Europe is because of the lack of action by governments to stop islamism.
I do not support neo-nazi groups of any distinction, as I find them just as toxic as the Islamic state is. However, if we want to not bring on another neo-nazi regime and not bring on more bloodshed by islamists, then we need to wake up and start actively naming the threat, addressing religious ideology and radicalism, and begin fighting jihadists – both physically and ideologically.
For all those who need reminding: Islamism is the political imposition of Islamic fundamentalism upon society, as manifested by the Islamic State, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim brotherhood, to name a few. Political islamists are those who wish to achieve a caliphate through politics and military coup, well jihadists are those who wish to achieve a caliphate through violence. Islamism is the greatest threat of our time, because it is influential in every western nation.
However, until we wake up to the threat of islamism, we will continue to see more deaths like we did in France in January and now again in France today. I just hope action is taken against the ideology of the jihadists who killed many in France, but until that happens I shall show my support with the people of France. If I could say one thing to those French readers, it would have to be this:
Vive la liberté: Je suis Français
“La liberté d’expression est le fondement de la démocratie.”-Alison Locke
Je témoigne ma solidarité à mes frères et soeurs sur tout l’océan. Je suis avec eux et aujourd’hui je suis francais. Aujourd’hui, je suis avec eux, épaule contre épaule, afin de respecter les innocents qui ont perdu leur vie. Aujourd’hui, je suis avec eux contre le barbarisme et les conflits, contre la terreur. Pour les francais, y compris tous les citoyens qui sont pour une société libre et ouverte, ne s’inclineront pas devant ceux qui leur ont fait du mal. Vive la France et Vive la liberté.
[English: Praise Liberty: Today I am French
“Free speech is the bed rock of democracy.”-Alison Locke
I stand in solidarity with my brothers and sisters across the ocean. I stand with them, for today I am french. Today I stand with them, shoulder to shoulder, to pay my respects to the dead. Today I stand with them against barbarism and strife; against terror. For the French people, including all citizens of open society, will not bow to those who have done them wrong. Glory to France and glory to all those who honour liberty!]
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
You found yourself looking in
to see what you could find within.
You cloaked yourself in the light
never to see your own vile sight.
You met the mirror with a stare
but could not find a self to repair,
for horrid sight left you bare.
In a daze you fell right through
abolishing all trace of that veil of light you once knew;
a veil of light that made you who?
In spite of the vile sight you denied at night,
despite the shadows mirroring your every sight,
you fell back into darkness again and cast out the light;
denying what was known to be right.
Through the keyhole of Life’s despair,
you found only emptiness, heartache and disrepair;
slowly loosing self in tainted air.
Reaching for a worn out razor blade
and stumbling to the mirror exhausted and dismayed,
you caught a sight of yourself in the shade;
weeping angels were even afraid.
Despair’s joyless light began to flicker
in the face of an emerging and joyous snicker.
In the presence of your own sight
you found what you hoped was right,
staring at your sight in the dark and deadened night;
Reaching out towards mirror’s edge
where reality becomes broken by a wedge.
Through the looking glass,
nothing is what it seems.
Life can be insightful, delightful and bliss
but so can illusions and dreams.
Nothing is what it seems,
trapped behind the mirror of twisted dreams;
the self is lost in the Adriatic Sea.
Through the keyhole, I see.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
Artwork Name: “The False Mirror” (1928)
Artwork by: René Magritte
If I were to set out the principles of freethought, principles that represented the ideals of the freethinker, would others who called themselves such agree with me? It would appear that freethought by its very essence cannot be represented by any one collection of principles, or ‘doctrines’ for that matter. Freethought is by its nature free. However, to take freethought to literally mean, “To be free from all external influences” is to misunderstand the concept entirely. Freethought does not advocate for the literal separation from all external factors, but rather it casts a sceptical eye on all external factors that wish to lay claim to truth, or which wish to advocate authority and tradition over individual inquiry. It is not the mere advocacy for an anarchist mindset; rather it is the advocacy for a mindset that uses logical analysis, reasoned argumentation and critical thought when assessing reality. Freethought may not adhere to doctrines, but it can be said that freethought is represented by certain principles. It is these basic principles that underline the philosophy behind freethought, and establish what it means to be a freethinker. It is because of the existence of this philosophy that the principles of freethought can be laid out. It is for this reason that I now attempt to do just that: to lay out the principles by which most, if not all, freethinkers align themselves to.
The following six principles create the foundation for freethought. They are listed below in numerical order; after each of these principles has been listed, they will then be expressed separately in the subsequent paragraphs that follow. Without further ado, here are the principles:
1. Question anything that relies upon authority, novelty or tradition for its foundation; for humanity is a fallible species.
2. Base all conclusions upon logic, reason and evidence; all conclusions that depart from this process, depart from reality.
3. Never fall prey to self-conceit or assumptive reasoning, for both lead to confirmation bias; one must assess thought constantly.
4. Seek out knowledge for its own sake; learning is an ongoing process, act accordingly.
5. Reject all forms of totalitarianism; for totalitarianism is thought control.
6. Beliefs motivate actions; unjustified beliefs lead to negative actions.
In regards to the first Principle:
Positions that rely upon their mere longevity, power or novelty have at their basis a superficial foundation that is easily replaced when the razor of doubt is applied to them. Authorities of any sort acquire their authority through public grant; for without support of any kind there would be no acknowledgement of their positions, hence no acknowledgement of their power. Public opinion is susceptible, most times, to error; for consensus is no guarantee of validity. Humanity is a fallible species that is capable of making mistakes in its own judgement – which it rarely admits to before damage can be done. There have been many instances in history where these mistakes in judgement have kept humanity ignorant, but one example will suffice for this piece. This example is of course the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism:
The public consensus in western civilisations for nearly two millennia held that the Earth was the centre of the universe. This belief is known as ‘Geocentrism’: the belief that the celestial bodies orbit the Earth. Though the ancient Greeks originally held this belief, it was only given its status by the works of the Egyptian scientist Ptolemy. Ptolemy’s model had, for centuries prior to the Copernican model, dominated western thought about the place of humanity in the universe. For centuries, establishments centred education, ideologies and other systems of thought on the notion that Earth is a privileged planet amongst the stars, hence humanity is somehow privileged because of this. It was not until this system, for its length of time, was finally challenged by individuals such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei that the reformation of thought could finally take place. The synthesis of Copernicus’ model of ‘Heliocentrism’ and Kepler’s ‘laws of planetary motion’, gave rise to a new understanding of the universe. Galileo’s additions to the synthesis, and his support for the theorem, gave rise to a flurry of dissenters who wished to hold onto Ptolemy’s model. The Roman Catholic Church denied the Copernican model of the universe on religious grounds, but it was only until the trial of Galileo by the inquisition that this changed. This trial represented a turning point in humanity, as it would only be decades after this trial that humanity would realise its mistake in judgement.
The message that can be taken from this example should be obvious and is as follows:
What is considered valid today can be considered invalid tomorrow and as a precaution it is always imperative that the acknowledgement of this fact be recognised; for it is only when the recognition of fallibility is understood that real honest investigation can begin. In the debate over facts, no amount of individual acknowledgement ensures the validity of a proposition; only the evidence in support of that proposition ensures its validity. And though change comes gradually with the chipping away of past ideas, it is only with the persistence of new ideas and the alignment of those ideas with reality, that reformation is possible. Reformation is fuelled by questioning, which is at the heart of scepticism. For the foundation of freethought rests upon scepticism and the only way to exercise this scepticism is through constant questioning; questioning that is interested in truth.
In regards to the second Principle:
A house that is built upon mud will not withstand the mightiest of storms; for the rains that come will wash the foundations away, leaving nothing but the remains of a house that attempted to flee its own destruction. A house, however, that is built upon concrete foundations and is supported by strong materials, is able to resist any storm that is thrown at it; for its foundations will pass nature’s tests. The analogy of the two houses should be evident in meaning: the first house represents an unjustified conclusion; well the second house represents a justified conclusion. In addition to this, the storms represent reality and the challenge it poses to conclusions. If a conclusion is unable to meet with reality and treat reality as its master, then that conclusion is ultimately debased. A conclusion, for it to be considered one, needs to have its components justified. Justification for a proposition must come in the form of evidence, which is simply a means of recording the connection a proposition has with the world around it; the state of the world a proposition claims, must align with the actual state of the world. If a proposition is not justified (in other words is ‘unjustified’), then that means the proposition is unable to find a means of linking its main components with reality, thus making it false.
The role of reason, logic and evidence are the means by which the rational mind makes sense of reality. The process of understanding the world can only come through its analysis, and it is only through the analysis of reality that humanity knows itself. Logic is a means of mapping out the functions of objects, propositions, ideas and so forth within reality; it is the blueprint that allows humanity to make sense of reality and the processes and functions that occur within it. Reason is a thought process that is applied to the relationships of functions within reality, hence is the means of demonstrating how these relationships and functions work. When one is able to demonstrate these relationships and functions with logical principles, then they are reasoning their way through reality. Both logic and reason are means of understanding and analysing reality; and with their aid has come the development of societies.
The rational mind uses reason to dictate what conclusions it draws, as reason is the foundation that gives rise to the alignment of one’s thoughts with the world around them. Reason is a means by which humanity makes sense of the world and the recognition of it as a guiding force in one’s life is something that cannot be ignored; for when one engages in a discussion, they are unwittingly surrendering their faculties to the presumption that reason is useful. Reason is a huge step forward in the cognitive evolution of Homo sapiens, as it distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom. It gives humanity the cognitive ability to think and act in a manner that is beneficial, as opposed to a manner that leads to the negation of survival. The adoption of reason has led to the development of society and it continues to remain an important element in the evolution of humanity. Without the ability to reason, there would be no humanity. Freethought owes its existence to logic, reason and the process of justification for beliefs, as these tools have forged the identity of what it means to be a freethinker.
In regards to the third Principle:
Confidence is not a bad attribute to have, especially in circumstances that require it, but overconfidence can be detrimental to intellectual integrity. When one is overconfident of their ability to think, they are likely to overlook their own faults in their assessment of others. This overconfidence leads to self-conceit, which elevates the individual to a status that is non-existent to their peers. The intellectual landscape positions everyone as equals, all have to play by the same rules of logic and reason; the only way an individual proves himself or herself on this landscape is through their own merit and thought. Self-conceit is a handicap to the individual on this landscape, as it makes the individual feel superior to these rules. When individuals feel cocksure of themselves, they will find their method of thought superior to others, hence will favour all lines of thought that confirm to their own. In this respect, self-conceit leads to confirmation bias: where the individual seeks out information that is preferable to their preconceptions, rather than assessing multiple sources of information that may be counter to their preconceptions.
For one to be wise they need to have intellectual humility and integrity, both are quintessential elements of a healthy intellectual mind. In order to have these elements one must be constantly vigilant of their own thought processes and constantly assess their thoughts through reflection. The acknowledgement of one’s own failings and the regard to judge oneself by the standards they put on others, is the characteristic of a freethinker; and if these characteristics are not evident in one who labels himself or herself as a ‘freethinker’, then what are they but pretenders? Be critical of every position, whether the majority or the minority supports that position, because – and you will realise this in time – the mere fact that one person raises their hand and vouches for a position, does not in any way strengthen the validity of that position. Yes, the position may have more support, but even that support can be misplaced. In all circumstances, take the position on its own merit and see if that position agrees with reason, the facts and so forth. Whether there be a crowd of a thousand or just one overbearing individual, never be intimidated by numbers. If the forces of the entire world stand against the truth and link hands to raise flags in error, then it would be one’s obligation – regardless of the opposition – to see that the truth is upheld.
In regards to the fourth Principle:
The acquisition of knowledge brings humanity closer to itself, as every instance of newfound knowledge allows humanity to see itself in the mirror of life. There is never a moment when one is done learning something new; everyone is constantly learning something different every day. Learning is a never-ending process, with rewards that are as varied as the very things being learned. To deny this fact is to deny what it is to be a human with the capability of thought: an individual who values knowledge for its own sake. Being able to know how to think as opposed to what to think, is the deciding factor that separates an autonomous mind from an enslaved one. An autonomous mind that knows how to think will not require the need for an ‘arbiter of knowledge’, as it will be instead independent on its own ability to identify problems and solve them, whereas an enslaved mind will be constantly dependent on an arbiter for its knowledge.
Freethought is the epitome of an autonomous mind – it is what education seeks to deliver. The result of education, in the sense of learning how to think, is to grant the individual freethought. A freethinker owe their position to the education they received, either taught to them or learned independently. Freethinkers agree unanimously on the value of education and the role that the acquisition of knowledge has in the emancipation of the mind. It is for this reason that it is included as a principle.
In regards to the fifth Principle:
The enemy of freethought is and has always been totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is the boot that wishes to stamp the white dove of liberty. Totalitarianism is characterised by the need of an entity, or an individual, to pursue absolute control of the mental state of an individual, and/or a group. (Thought control is what characterises totalitarianism; it is the desire of each totalitarian.) A totalitarian is the polar opposite of a freethinker in every single intellectual respect. What a totalitarian desires is in direct conflict to what a freethinker desires; well the latter pursues the autonomy of mind, it is the former that pursues the control of it. Every single totalitarian state that has ever existed has attempted to achieve control of the mental faculties of the population it governs. However, every time the attempt has been made to fully align the populace’s beliefs with the totalitarian’s beliefs, it has always been met with resistance. This resistance comes as a result of independent minds grouping together to resist forces that are against their own interests; every independent mind wishes to keep their own banner of mental autonomy. These independent minds reap the benefits of freethought and will likely fight tooth and nail to ensure its survival.
If a democratic society wishes to keep its democracy and ensure the prosperity of its future generations, then the population of that democracy needs to speak out against tyranny when it pokes out its ugly head. Freethought needs a democratic environment to flourish, because the liberties ensured by a democracy allow for the free expression of ideas between thinking individuals. Freethought depends upon this steady flow of ideas – it is the ‘part and parcel’ of freethought. Therefore, all freethinkers – in order to protect this steady flow of ideas – have to be enemies of totalitarianism (they have to be enemies of the totalitarian).
In regards to the final Principle:
Beliefs are what motivate actions; no action is made without a belief guiding it. With this said, beliefs that do not align with the way the world is (i.e. that is to say that are ‘unjustified in nature’), are likely to lead to negative effects on the subject holding the belief and to others around them as well. Take a simple example: If Alison believes in the proposition ‘Humans can fly’ and attempts to act upon this belief by jumping off a skyscraper, then Alison will have to suffer the repercussions of her actions – this can come in the form of severe injuries or even death. In this example (though cliché), Alison was motivated by her belief in the proposition, however the belief was not justified which meant that the belief led to a negative action. If humans could indeed fly, then her belief would be justified and there would be no negative actions acting upon the belief alone. What is important to realise is that beliefs dictate the actions of the individual; what one believes will determine the life they lead. At first glance, this may not appear to be an important principle to note, however one could argue that this principle is the most important of all. If beliefs do indeed motivate actions and certain beliefs lead to negative actions, then it would follow that one should be cautious of what beliefs one holds to. To emphasise this, well at the same time using a more modern example of the negative effects of unjustified beliefs, let us take the most recent threat that has managed to emerge out of the Middle East: The Islamic State Of Iraq and Syria (aka ‘ISIS’).
Islamic state leaders announced in June of 2014, the desire for a global Islamic state (caliphate). The running of this caliphate will be done through sharia law – where the fusion of Wahhabi Islam and government is maintained. The purpose of this caliphate, as it is believed to be by those who wish to establish it, is to bring about judgement day, where the Monotheistic God of Islam will finally judge the people of the Earth. This belief is held by many Wahhabi Islamists, and has been one of the main driving forces behind the recruitment of ISIS fighters. These fighters will do anything to achieve that belief and anything to adhere to the edicts of their ideology, such as killing innocent civilians for the purpose of fear and the flexing of muscle. However, this belief supposes a number of assumptions, primarily being the assumption that a ‘Righteous God exists’. This belief has not been justified, because of the fact that it is a belief that relies on faith. Faith is one of the most dangerous components to a bad idea, as faith allows a belief to align with an idealistic reality as opposed to actual reality. The results of this poison cocktail have been overwhelming. The most recent of the horrors of ISIS has been the brutal shootings at a Tunisian beach and the beheading of a French factory worker. These are just some examples of the many atrocities that have happened in the wake of ISIS.
Freethought depends upon the healthy flow of ideas and the constant reassessment of beliefs to match with reality. It is for this very reason that freethinkers, those who wish to call themselves such, are unanimous on this very principle; for beliefs do motivate actions and it is what beliefs one has that will determine their course. Having a world of individuals who base their beliefs on reality and who help individuals align their beliefs, is a world that benefits all people. It is a principle that is the only thing separating a freethinker from a blind zealot, as a zealot dies for unjustified beliefs.
With all this said, these principles form the basic ‘definers’ of freethought. They may be broad and general in their scope, but they allow truly inquisitive minds to hone in their critical thinking skills. One may not have an authority on such principles, but one does have a mind that is capable of exercising thought. The only thing that remains for me to reiterate, is the question that I originally began with: If I were to set out the principles of freethought, principles that represented the ideals of the freethinker, would others who called themselves such agree with me? Only the freethinker can decide.
Knowledge is power.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
Eyes begin to wonder, as mind’s eye begins to fade.
Sleep now, please reason do;
Sleep now, and let unreason pass through.
Open thy gates, and lower thy defences.
Stop thy blockade, and let in thy monsters.
The veil of night comes yonder, as mind is slowly left in shade.
Sleep now, please reason do;
Sleep now, and let unreason pass through.
Helpless to fate’s accursed prophecy;
Stuck now condemned of apostasy.
With no reason for cover, the darkness can begin to persuade.
Sleep now, please reason do;
Sleep now, and let unreason corrupt you.
Trapped in a sombre spell;
Striking forth all that is not well.
Now the reign of reason is over, as mind is fully dismayed.
Sleep now, reason will do;
Sleep now, as unreason reigns true.
Now the reign of unreason is here;
Scared is the world for it will surely disappear.
What lesson can be learned here?
What wisdom can be gained?
The lesson to be learned here,
The lesson to be gained…
Is the haunting reminder of Goya’s words, which ring true:
The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.
Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson
Artwork: Francisco Goya’s
The Sleep of Reason produces Monsters, 1799.