Idols of Convention

A heretic is one who refuses to genuflect before the idols of convention. Though heresy is usually perceived as occurring in religious contexts, that toward which we hold religious zeal does not have to be religion at all. In fact, profanities can only be lodged toward that which we hold as true and dear, and in our post-modern age truth increasingly has little to do with religion.

Of course, we've come up with truths to replace the church and there have been heretics to make trouble. Consider, for instance, the blasphemous nature of Robert Anton Wilson's statement below:

" Democracy has been less than a total success--and the intellectuals' half-shamed cynicism about democracy is justified--to the extent that traditional society did not need, could not use, and in many ways discouraged the development of high verbal ('rational') skill in the majority of the population. That is, concretely, most people are not encouraged to be very smart, and are rather heavily programmed to be comparatively stupid. Such programming is what is needed to fit them into most traditional jobs. Their bio-survival circuitry works as well as that of most animals, their emotional-territorial circuitry is typically primate and they have little third-circuit 'mind' to verbalize (rationalize) with. Naturally, they usually vote for the charlatan who can activate primitive bio-survival fears and territorial ('patriotic') pugnacity. The intellectual looks at the dismal results and continues to believe in "democracy" only by an act of Blind Faith similar to the way beliefs in Catholicism or Communism or snake-worship are maintained.

Stevenson, McGovern and other darlings of the intelligentsia were speaking to the third circuit, which is not very highly developed in most domesticated primates yet. Eisenhower in his Father way, and Nixon in his bullying Big Brother way, knew how to push the right Second-Circuit emotional-territorial buttons to get a lot of primates to follow them."

Unfortunately, it's rare that democracy gets likened to snake worship. Say something to most people about the dubious merits of electoral politics as a vehicle for significant change and you might as well say Lake Wobegone is fictional or that apple pie isn't American.

When such heresies rattle the cage of religiosity, invocation of the saints and their self-affirming statements is usually the first resort. "Well as Saint Churchill says, 'Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best we have,' " becomes the incantation of the democracy devotee. The correctness of the quotation is hardly the point here, rather it is the belief, so spurned by the religion skeptic, that performs an identical faith-like function. Belief in "democracy" has the same selective basis in reality as the pork-eating fundamentalist who proclaims homosexuality "an abomination".

No one is without beliefs. Since the rise of the bourgeoisie (around the time of Martin Luther 1483-15346 and Descartes 1596-1650), intellectuals have pertinaciously sought to shuck off of anything that smacks of the church, in the errant belief that it is only the church that is the domain of belief-oriented sentiments that should be greeted with skepticism. Consequently, popular atheistic social intellectuals marshal evidence to show that religion is a particularly pernicious form of fanaticism, for which national democracy is the panacea (except in cases where national democrats oppose the colonial superstructure, see H. Chavez, Iran, and Indonesia ).

Well everyone has their sacred cow. No? Depending on whom you ask, no doubt, you're going to hear how some cows are more sacred than others. The Christian defenders will trumpet the "Call of God" to murder and maim, while the Shintoist murders and pillages in the name of "the eternal tradition." The Capitalist will torture with preemptive altruism, while the Colonialist will take up his burden by slaughtering the hopelessly benighted. Of course, the Animist will kill because of the "evil eye" or other such "forces."

Religion apologists observe that nationalism has killed far more people than religion ever has. This seems a somewhat disingenuous argument, because there have been many more people living in the nationalist era than in the religious era. If you're wondering when the religious era existed, we're essentially talking about the time before people had sugar in their apple pie, before Columbus.

As Woody Allen reminds us, one is never at the top of one's game when on the defensive. The religion apologists appear to be in a similar predicament, otherwise they would parry their detractors with a more systematic critique of some of the logical shortcomings of nihlo-materialism and its idols, particularly consumerism and "efficiency".

It doesn't matter. We all have idols. Understanding the psychological aspects of idolatry gives us some way to understand how religion or nationalism function as only nominally different emanations of the same brain phenomenon. The elegance of Wilson's Eight Circuit Model of Consciousness is that we can avoid engaging in the deadend debates about which is better: nationalism or theocracy; racism or linguisticism; materialism or spiritualism. Whenever such comparisons occur, the territorial needs of the second circuit, that part of the brain that is identical in other primates, is being served.

The defense of territory, whether conceptual or physical, is a non-rational phenomenon, meaning behaviors motivated from the second circuit do not involve thought; it is only performing the function of establishing dominance or submission. It is the realm of posture and as Wilson essentially states fear and safety seeking.

This is why American cultural prohibitions against speaking politics and religion are so uncannily profound: no amount of talking can change feelings that run much deeper than the rational mind. Of course, religion adherents make no claims about the rationality of their beliefs, but the democrat believes that his system is born of reason. Nothing could be further from the truth, otherwise one would be able to speak upon his political positions, particularly in the company of those who disagree, without fear of ostracism, disdain, emotive display or other reactions reflective of animals that run in packs.

This does not mean that one's political decisions by matter of course are sub-rational. It only indicates a strong tendency toward irrationality that savvy superstructures exploit to their benefit. These very same entities understand that the greatest tool at their disposal is the individual fear of being outside the pack, i.e., unconventional. As such, whether the papacy or the contemporary voting charade, superstructures are careful to construct idols, much as Aaron's golden calf, that affirm convention.