Antisemitism – a theory of its cause

Antisemitism – a theory of its cause

by Richard Conricus

The expression antisemitism appeared for the first time in 1882 in Europe. It was probably invented to be used instead of the blatant expression anti-Jewness, which in itself is based on a religious conviction that Jews were wrong and that Christians, and later Muslims – who six hundred years later presented their version of Monotheism –  were right. Anti-Judaism has however a longer history, dating back to pre-Christian Greece and Rome, and was primarily of ethnic nature. Later expressions of racial, political, social and economic antisemitism are well known and I will only briefly deal with this phenomenon.

During three centuries (300–600 C.E.), a new pattern of institutionalized discrimination against Jews became present: Jews were forbidden to marry Christians (399 C.E.), were prohibited from holding positions in government (439 C.E.) and were prevented from appearing as witnesses against Christians in court (531 C.E.). As Jews were officially being ostracized, certain bizarre fantasies about Jews arose in Northern Europe that foreshadowed the antisemitism of the 20thcentury. It was alleged that Jews had horns and tails and engaged in ritual murder of Christians.

In 1095, Pope Urban II made a general appeal to the Christians of Europe to take up the cross and sword and liberate the Holy Land from the Muslims, beginning what was to be known as the Crusades. The religious fervor that drove men, and later even children, on the Crusades was to have direct consequences for Jews. The Crusader army, which more closely resembled a mob, swept through Jewish communities, looting, raping and massacring Jews as they went along. Thus the pogrom—the organized massacre of a targeted group of people—was born.

The continuing expressions of anti-Judaism are well known, and I will instead concentrate on – in my opinion – the fundamental reason for antisemitism, namely the idea of chosenness. This idea emerged very late in the history of mankind, at around 1000 B.C.E., and was written down in its canonized form as late as around 700 B.C.E.

I would like to state that proclaiming chosenness is in conflict with the human brain’s evolutionary constitution.

In the emerging civilizations 6000 years ago between Eufrates and Tigris, peaceful nomadism with equality within the group was replaced with martial settled life, which made people behave differently. Man partly inherited morality, weighted lightly among those who achieved better hierarchical positions whether it was due to material wealth, social position or successful war.

Gone was the hitherto 100.000 years of loosely-knit groups of 20-25 people to a maximum of 200 headed villagers respectully worshiping nature, and with the elaborate and well-functioning law of Jante. The term Jante refers to a mentality that de-emphasizes individual effort and places all emphasis on the collective, while discouraging those who stand out as achievers. In a Jante community people socialized under constant talking, dancing, singing, and devoted only about three hours a day for work. In contrast, the new community turned into a hierarchical management, where the accumulation of wealth became the fashion and inequality between citizens was cemented.

Thus, successful men became the role model –  we have now entered an era where women were subdued and even demonized. Which did not prevent opposition, even from a local king: King Urukagina in the capital Girshu of the city-state Lagash around 2350 B.C.E. (Mesopotamia in present Iraq) who averred in the world´s oldest reform text that he would protect society´s poor, widows and orphans. He reacted to the power advantage of the strong, and he wanted to create a fairer society that defended the weaker citizens.

The pantheon of those days city-states were very diversified, and each city had its own god and high priest(ess). No one was superior to the other, which however did not prevent competition between the followers in marketing his/her god as the best one, as told in the story of goddess Inana and how she received the primal creative universal energy, “Me”, from the wisdom god Enki. The high priestess Enheduana of the Nanna moon temple, who lived during the dawn of patriarchy, therefore considered Inana to be the supreme god.

However, an atmosphere of compromises was the rule as laid out in the following ancient Sumerian text about the position of different gods:

“My father is just as good as your father: Inana, let us talk it over! My mother is just as good as your mother: Ninegala, let us discuss it together!

In such an environment it was probably impossible to try to implement the idea that an individual god or inhabitants of a certain city would have been chosen among others.

We do not know how successful king Urukagina was during his lifetime to implement his protection plan for the poor, widows and orphans, but around 100 years later a new phenomenon emerged on the stage of civilisation, when raw physical power was idealized and even attributed god-like power. This happened when the semite Naram-Sin, around 2200 B.C.E.,  proclaimed himself being a god. He thus initiated the biggest paradigm shift in human relations: god on earth. One potent ruler, who paved the way of the idea of one omnipotent ruler in heaven.

Unlike his grandfather Sargon the Great, who submitted to the will of the gods, Naram-Sin broke of almost all that had hitherto been considered sacred. From being the recipient of the will of gods, Naram-Sin instead proclaimed himself to be divine, and from him divine decrees were spoken. In one move, people’s perception of the pantheon and its relation to man was changed! This is perhaps not so surprising given that the “Me” hierarchically positioned priests(esses) higher than the gods. What it definitely meant was that man then could declare ideas as if they were of divine origin and therefore should be obeyed by the congregation: a marketing ploy that ever since conquered most of Homo sapiens’ domains around the world.

Monotheism, based on the idea of one God and one ethnic chosen group to spread the divine decrees, was to be born a millennium later.

Monotheism was obviously in the beginning considered to be a good idea, based on the fact that it took hold among the pagan worshippers, but the idea should later on be proven disastrous, as the human brain’s evolutionary constitution is destined to object the idea that only one perception is the right one. Thus, anti-Judaism and later antisemitism surfaced from the depth of envy, urge, superstition and misunderstandings.

Finally a note on brainwashing, which I think explains another dimension of antisemitism: A first step is to isolate a person or group of people and control what information they receive. Their former beliefs need to be challenged by creating uncertainty. New messages need to be repeated endlessly. And the whole thing needs to be done in a pressured, emotional environment. Thus individuals, ethnic groups and whole nations can be controlled and turned into puppets of rulers or religious establishments, and make ordinary people believe in almost anything.

Appeal to the terrorist organisation Daesh (IS) is based on a twist in the brain

Appeal to the terrorist organisation Daesh (IS) is based on a twist in the brain

slaktare

The picture shows how Daesh (IS) executioners in the name of Allah kills tied Syrians. How can the concept of Allah drive people to such barbaric atrocities?

Gothenburg (second largest city in Sweden) is pointed out as one of Daesh’s (IS) primary recruiting bases in Europe. “A pantry full of cannon meat to the IS” says Ulf Boström of the Integration Police in Gothenburg. SÄPO (Swedish Security Police) has documented 130 cases from Gothenburg, but argues that the real number is higher.

But what is the mechanism that motivates Muslims raised in Sweden to join Daesh?

Jihadists are not much different from other well-justified (peaceable) Swedes. One difference, however, lies in the cultural codes that Islamists brought to Sweden: Authoritarian upbringing in theocratic societies has brought a different outlook on life. If intolerance of dissent is nourished by frequent alienation from the Swedish democratic system and humanistic ethics codes in favor of Islamism’s divine dictatorship, then individual young Muslim are predestined to apply to movements like Daesh. A process evolution has been brought about and is in conflict with the (older) brain’s rational constitution. The process is controlled by the brain’s emotional center, the limbic system, which stands for emotional experiences, and the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for rational thinking. Yossi Chalamish, a brain scientists at the Weizmann Institute in Israel, claims that at a young age, and especially between the years 13-25, the limbic system in relation to the prefrontal cortex is vastly active.. Emotions run high like tsunami waves in young bodies. Only in maturity, balance is achieved and prefrontal cortex thoughtfulness balances the emotional surge. Chalamish makes a comparison between knife attacks by individual Muslims in Israel against Jews and Daesh barbarism in Syria in Iraq: Both are the result of elimination of the prefrontal cortex. “Emotions have taken over rational thinking”, Chalamish claims.

Rulers, leaders, dictatorships, democracies, anarchists and so on utilise the above mentioned evolutionary development to enthuse companionship and spread ideas. Problems arise when leaders, for religious or psychotic reasons, inhibit the prefrontal cortex directive and instead allow the limbic system to take over. That is when the normative behaviour is replaced by blind obedience of a ruler’s will and/or religious decree.

A successful recipe to counter such evil manifestations is to eliminate the breeding ground for the most barbarous expressions of killing from reaching the youthful ‘wild brains’. Eliminate all the exhortations in the Bible and in the Koran about killing in the name of Yahweh / God / Allah (i.e., Leviticus 32:27, Matthew 10:34 and Qur’an, 2: 191)! Also, install a strong curriculum to include mandatory teaching of democracy in order to inform every foreign-born citizen the meaning of living in a majority-deciding open democratic society with rights as well as obligations. In my opinion, we ask too much of some immigrants to quickly, and without proper guidance, understand and embrace the Swedish model.

Religious freedom does not mean that we must accept a deity’s dictatorship unconditionally (be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam). It is inconsistent with democratic values that the supporters of religious dictatorships can run wild and that Monotheism cannot be criticized, or at least be questioned, because of political correctness. To objectively criticize the deity dictatorship is to protect democracy and democratic decisions, and has nothing to do with either anti-Semitism or Islamophobia. Halacha (the Jewish legislative system) and Sharia (Islam’s legislative system) is incompatible with democracy. Full stop! Divine decree must be questioned. They are, after all, created by humans to control the masses and correct the ‘mistakes’ evolution have spawned.

Daesh (IS) attraktionskraft bygger på twist i hjärnan

English version

Daesh (IS) attraktionskraft bygger på twist i hjärnan

slaktare

Bilden visar hur Daesh (IS) bödlar i Allahs namn mördar bakbundna syrier. Hur kan gudsbegreppet driva människor till dylika barbariska illdåd?

Göteborg utpekas som en av Daesh (IS) främsta rekryteringsbaser i Europa. – Ett skafferi fullt av kanonmat till IS, säger Ulf Boström, integrationspolis i Göteborg. SÄPO har dokumenterat 130 fall från Göteborg, men hävdar att mörkertalet är minst lika stort.

Men, vad är det för mekanism som motiverar muslimer fostrade i Sverige att ansluta sig till Daesh?

Jihadister är inte annorlunda andra välmotiverade (fredligt sinnade) svenskar. Skillnaden ligger i de kulturkoder islamister fört med sig till Sverige. Auktoritär uppfostran i teokratiska samhällen göder en annorlunda livssyn. Om intolerans mot oliktänkande närs av återkommande alienering inför det svenska demokratiska samhällssystemet och humanismens etiska koder, till förmån för islamismens gudomliga diktaturdekret, blir den enskilde unge muslimen predestinerad att söka sig till rörelser typ Daesh. En process som evolutionen lagt grund för och som resulterar i ungdomlig öppenhet men i konflikt med (äldre) hjärnors rationella konstitution. Processen styrs av hjärnans känslocenter, limbiska systemet, som står för känsloupplevelser och prefrontala cortex, som står för rationellt tänkande. I unga år och speciellt mellan åren 13-25 är det limbiska systemet i förhållande till prefrontala cortex vida överaktivt, hävdar Yossi Chalamish, hjärnforskare vid Weizmann Institutet i Israel. Känslor svallar som tsunamivågor genom ungdomars kroppar. Först i mogen ålder uppnås balans och prefrontala cortex´ eftertänksamhet balanserar känslosvallet. Chalamish gör jämförelse mellan knivattacker av enskilda muslimer i Israel mot judar och Daesh barbari i Syrien i Irak. – Båda är resultat av att prefrontala cortex har satts ur spel. Känslor har tagit över rationellt tänkande, hävdar Chalamish.

Härskare, ledare, diktaturer, demokratier, anarkister och så vidare utnyttjar denna evolutionära kompetens för att entusiasmera följeslagare och sprida idéer. Problem uppstår då ledargarnityr av religiösa eller psykotiska orsaker inihiberar prefrontala cortex direktiv om besinning och istället tillåter det limbiska systemet att ta över. Det vill säga då normativt uppförande ersätts av blind lydnad inför en härskares vilja och/eller religiösa dekret.

Ett framgångsrikt recept att motverka dylika yttringar är att dra undan grogrunden för de mest barbariska uttrycken om att döda, från att nå ungdomliga “vildhjärnor”. Eliminera alla uppmaningar i bibeln och i koranen om att döda i Yahweh/Gud/Allahs namn (exempelvis 2 mosebok 32:27, Matteus 10:34 och koranen 2:191)! Stärk även läroplanen med att omfatta obligatorisk undervisning i demokratilära och informera varje utlandsfödd medborgare om vad det innebär att leva i ett majoritetsbeslutande öppet demokratiskt samhälle med rättigheter såväl som skyldigheter. Vi ställer enligt min uppfattning för stora krav på en del invandrare att de alltför snabbt ska kunna förstå och anamma den svenska modellen.

Religionsfrihet innebär inte att vi förutsättningslöst måste acceptera gudomens diktatur. Oavsett om den kallas judendom, kristendom eller islam. Det är oförenligt med demokratiska värderingar att religiösa diktaturanhängare får härja fritt och att monoteismen i den politiska korrekthetens namn inte får kritiseras och allra minst ifrågasättas. Att sakligt kritisera gudomens diktatur är att värna demokrati och demokratiska beslutsprocesser och har inget med vare sig antisemitism eller islamofobi att göra. Halacha (judendomens lagsystem) och sharia (islams lagsystem) är oförenliga med demokrati. Punkt! Gudomliga dekret måste få ifrågasättas. De är ju trots allt skapade av människor för att kontrollera massorna och rätta till de ”misstag” evolutionen gett upphov till.