Monday, September 24, 2012

Pastistios and other transgressions



How do we know what we know?
It seems to me, we live in an era of doubt. An era when what we say – I stand corrected, what we think – can and might very well be used against us. Was it always like that? It seems like, for the most boring intervals of history, it has indeed been like that, to the eternal detriment of human race. But when it has been otherwise, wonders did occur.
There was a time when Copernicus asserted that we were not in fact the center of the universe and when he did all hell broke loose. Well, perhaps Copernicus was not really the first to suggest that the math did not really work out in favor of those who preferred a more “traditional” image of the cosmos in which we live in [Aristarchus of Samos was the first to kind of notice that we are not in fact the center of this vast and generally inhospitable universe]. He was also lucky enough to escape the dire consequences of his observations, as he died before all aforementioned hell broke loose. Others were sadly not as lucky. Galileo was forced to renounce his heretic views before the Inquisition and Giordano Bruno perished at the stake for embracing the glaringly obvious, yet deeply heretic conclusion that the sun is but a star, one of millions shining through a vast universe and that other civilizations on world beyond were a possibility. 
The notion that some opinions are best kept under wraps is not a novel one. In fact, censorship has dogged progress like a malignant shadow since the dawn of critical thought. Since the “population” has been defined as a mass, forgiving no deviance and allowing no diversion, efforts have been made to control it, as a whole. Shielding the masses from dangerous information has been deemed a legitimate cause for as long as man has been able to register such instances, even possibly before that. There is no other weapon considered as potent as information. It made sense.
Perhaps one of the earlier attempts to smother views which tended to depart from commonly accepted, perfectly harmless consensus, was the celebrated execution of Greek philosopher and self proclaimed gadfly Socrates. Whether or not Socrates was an actual historical figure is beside the point. For his persona has a lot more to teach even to today’s advanced societies than any other persona in the course of history. Even if one was to place his invaluable teachings – as relayed to us by his student and biographer Plato – aside, his glorified, yet fully unjustified death (perhaps precisely because of the complete lack of necessity of it) contains a lesson humanity simply can not afford to miss out on: the truth is more important than life itself.
Socrates crime was none other than unacceptable things going on inside a brilliant mind. Unstoppable things. Things that simply needed to get out and spill into the world, enriching it, whether one decided to accept their veracity or not. That was well and truly beside the point. The job of the gadfly was – according to his own words as they were relayed to us by Plato – not to dictate what we are supposed to think, but rather to entice us to think. The conclusion was up for grabs, even if in most of the dialogues documented – or even invented, I could not care less – it followed effortlessly, falling like a baby through the birth canal, obvious like the sunrise for any person free enough in the mind to see.
Yet these views were deemed dangerous, unfit for consumption, grave enough to lead a man to the annihilation of his very essence. Another great civilization with the means to not only produce great ideas but also to immortalize them for future use and scrutiny via scripture, the Chinese, introduced “honorable” censorship law as early as 300 AD, and it all boils down to one little concept which is so very hard to pin down: morality.
It seemed, and it seems, everything could be justified when it came to protecting that mindless bulk that constituted the “people”. Especially after the schism between the powerful Churches made sure that the coveted power was adequately distributed. At the time, it seemed, way too many documents had been in circulation, jeopardizing unity and homogeny among the freshly divided kingdoms. The Nicene Creed did all it could to guarantee no trouble would arise, but, at the time, divinely inspired documents were in abundance and thus threatening the entire thread. Once again, those hungry for power had found the way to ensure this power stayed with them. It was called heresy and it stayed with us for a very long time. In fact, the cunning devise to keep power where it supposedly belonged may still be with us to this day, as way too many otherwise modern states still have absurd pieces of legislation embodied within their legal system in a  day and age when science has finally managed to supersede superstition – or so it seems.
Surely, in a modern society, one should never be legally punished merely for the contents of one’s brains, right? Apparently, not so. We are of course always quick – and quite rightfully so, may I add – to condemn totalitarian states which do just that [heaven forbid one has a nasty thing to say about Dear Leader in North Korea] but if we claim to be free of the chains of censorship we are sadly mistaken.
Protecting people. What a noble cause! But is it really?
When I was still a starry eyed idiot, hoping that I could one day be lucky enough to join forces with other starry eyed idiots and actually do something to make this planet of wrath and blood a better place for the children I may or may not have, I had the honor of running into Salman Rushdie. Of course, at the time I had no clue as to who Salman Rushdie was, but I was not thick and the hordes of police officers and out of the ordinary security measures did not go unnoticed. At the time I had not read the “Satanic Verses”. In fact, it would be years before I did, and I freely admit to the fact that I read the Quran way before I got to the novel which started it all. But even during those days of tequila and boys and not much else I managed to get it straight: An actual human being’s life was in mortal danger for the sole crime of writing a book. Was it offensive to some? At the time I did not know. I still do not care. In my life – of being a shameless book-eating nerd – I have read a lot of things that I found offensive. Skin crawling, refusal to remain on this spinning planet type of offensive. The difference is, that people like me do not generally demand other people’s heads severed. Period. No matter what.
In fact, some of the most skin curling, vomit inducing passages I have ever had the displeasure to read were the exact same ones cited each time a group of people I do not know attempt to make sure I never read or hear something they arbitrarily baptize as detrimental to my morality and attempt to make sure it never gets to me.
I consider myself a fairly moral person, yet the thought of executing my neighbor for working on a given day (Sabbath anyone?) has seriously never occurred to me. I find the notion of “putting” homosexuals “to death” as an “abomination”, abominable (ironically) and I fail to this day to comprehend the notion of any kind of loving between human beings as anything less than beautiful. I have no offspring, but if I had, I can assure anyone that I would kick anyone’s behind should they even suggest that there is a force which may demand their sacrifice as a playful token. And yet, the texts that are blatantly – and may I add, quite unapologetically –  advocating for slavery, sexism, homophobia, genocide and self loathing are precisely the ones I am not at liberty to criticize, the ones who impose morals where they are clearly in no position to do so.
But this goes way beyond criticism. One must never be fooled as to assume the authenticity of a mildness that is forced by the unstoppable progress of society. One must always seek the truth in history, during the times when the authority now seeking to withhold information and quench opinions “for our shake” had the upper hand. For censorship goes way past the usual “heretic view” or “offence” to an established belief shielded from healthy criticism by its arbitrary claims of “divinity” alone. Claims which have never been, nor will they ever be substantiated or scrutinized the way all other bold claims have been.
I could of course invoke countless of instances where the self proclaimed “holy” has claimed and received innocent human blood. From the Crusades to the witch burning aspirations, that which can not be criticized has done a lot more than to verbally challenge its opponents. It has done its best to eliminate them.
So, are we free yet? The answer is sadly and unequivocally no. as long as legislation still exists in Europe and worldwide, making it a crime to admit having thoughts inside your brain which may contradict the established opinions of those who would have you stoning your gay neighbors and murdering your own child, should that child disobey you if they could, we are certainly not free. Norway, Britain, Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, Poland, all have laws making it dangerous for a person like me, an intelligent human being, fairly educated and with access to all the information which is available nowadays at the time of the Higgs boson and other marvelous discoveries – where all excuses for ignorance can be discarded – to have an opinion about the cosmos and what may or may not lay behind its existence, which contradicts that of an uneducated, illiterate desert monger in the region of Israel back in the time when the earth was the center of the universe, bats were considered birds and germs were unheard of.
Consider the source.
Are all opinions valid and worthy? Clearly not. There is enough bat shit crazy stuff floating around as it is. Stuff which does not strictly fall under the untouchable holy mantle. But who is to say what should be heard and what should be suppressed? Who is to say there is only one version of the truth out there? It is precisely those opinions we consider abhorrent which should be given the greatest level of protection. It is precisely those who can be most dangerous if suppressed, and it is those which can be shot down before being allowed to claim the position of an unlikely martyr for an unworthy cause. Freedom of speech means freedom of all opinions. Not just the pretty ones.
In this day and age of the internet and the constant flow of information surrounding us like cascades of water we are running out of excuses. Are we really willing to hand over responsibility to someone other than ourselves when it comes to evaluating what comes our way? And if so who would be an appropriate “authority” to do so? How do we really know what we know if there is only one version of the “truth” available? Are we really that shallow that we can not tell black from white unless assisted?  Would we not know baloney if it stared at us in the face? Perhaps some of us would not. But is that really a problem in a modern society where arguments can be shot down on merit?
Consider the source.
If you are in doubt as to who is oppressing you just take a moment to realize who it is you are not allowed to criticize, said Voltaire. Pastitsio is one of my favorite pasta recipes. It is also becoming a living example of the absurdity that surrounds us, of the freedom we have handed over without so much as a single complaint. A satirical age pointing out the obvious. The elephant in the room if you may. In a country ravaged by scandal and incompetence it took a day after a question had been posed in the Greek Parliament by the openly racist party of Golden Dawn (as if there were not enough actually serious issues to occupy our limited resources in) for the young man administering a satirical page to get arrested in the land which gave birth to satire and which prides itself of giving birth to all those ideals it no longer respects.
Did the page pose a danger to delicate minds? You can be the judge of that assuming of course you may be allowed to. Did the page pose a threat to national security? Did it incite hatred? I can honestly say it didn’t. I have been a fan of the page since the beginning (would you like to arrest me too?) and the only pure, unadulterated hatred I have seen was coming from those who claimed to speak for the “Christian love” front.  On the contrary, the monk the page was spoofing was not as subtle. Direct in his hatred of Turkish people, unapologetic in his stance, he advocated war and spoke to lizards. But he is not on the witness stand, now, is he?

Bottom lime is, do we really want someone else deciding what is available for us, to read, to examine, to demolish if we must? Who is to decide what is harmful and what is not? Do you want someone else deciding for you what you may become aware of or not? Does a doctrine which spills so much hatred for so many different groups of our fellow human beings have a moral standing to demand selective silencing? Should I be expecting the police? Oh well, at least I have an awesome lawyer…