Biafra Nigeria World Weblogs


BNW: Biafra Nigeria World Magazine



BNW: Insight, Features, and Analysis

BNW Writer's Block 

BNW News and Archives

 BNW News Archive

BNW: Biafra Nigeria World


BNW Forums and Message Board


Biafra Net

 Igbo Net: The Igbo Network

BNW Africa and AfricaWorld 

BNW: Icon

BNW: Icon


Flag of Biafra Nigeria

BNW News Archives

BNW News Archive 2002-January 2005

BNW News Archive 2005

BNW News Archive 2005 and Later

« Obasanjo's War on Corruption: Casualties Galore! | Main | The Role of Fear in the Genesis and Nature of Government: An Essay on Political Philosophy (Part 2) »

December 06, 2005

The Role of Fear in the Genesis and Nature of Government: An Essay on Political Philosophy (Part 1)

by Ozodi Thomas Osuji, Ph.D. (Seatle, Washington) --- Political science seems non-theoretical. The discipline describes people’s political behaviors without striving to understand why they behave as they do. Apparently, there is a belief that speculation regarding why people do what they do leads to nowhere and, anyhow, is best left to psychologists to worry about?

Let psychologists engage in their favorite pastime of reductionism: reducing complex human behavior to unproven causal hypotheses. Psychology has had a field day reducing people’s behavior to this or that reasons, most of which turns out conjectural.

Psychoanalysis had its id origin of behavior, Behaviorism had its every behavior is learned, and Neuroscience has its every behavior is a product of biochemical balance or lack of it in people’s central nervous system. All these are conjectures that, in time, are given up as evidence indicates that we really do not know why we do what we do.

Political scientists describe what people do in the political arena and leave it at that. Apparently, it is believed that leaving the field to mere description of political phenomenon makes it a science?

What is science? Are science mere description of phenomena and or Karl Popper’s (1) definition of the scientific method, only? Shouldn’t science try to explain what it describes?

In so far that political science has a causal theory of political behavior, it includes Thomas Hobbes’ speculations on the reasons why people formed government?
Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal book, Leviathan, (2) attempted to explain the origin of government. Obviously, governments had existed before the seventeenth century when Hobbes wrote his book but, apparently, he felt a need to provide justification for the existence of government. As it were, he wanted to provide people with a rationale for accepting government as a necessary part of the social world.
In a nutshell, Hobbes pointed out that in what he called State of Nature, a pre-government society, people were in competition for access to the scarce resources provided by the environment. As he saw it, the powerful got more than the weak. Since it takes labor to wrest sustenance from nature, in his view, some of the powerful prevailed on the weak to work for them. Thus, everywhere, the strongest used the weak to work the land and lived in pleasure, while the weak lived in penury. The weak, in turn, often banded together and fought with the powerful. The result was that everywhere there was war. In this perpetual state of war, life became “nasty brutish and short”. The strong enslaved the weak today and the weak killed the strong tomorrow. All people, therefore, lived in perpetual insecurity; people were not sure whether they would live to see another day.
In order to reduce their insecurity, the people banded together and elected rulers from among them to rule them. They invented the Leviathan, government, to make laws that all of them were to obey or else be punished.
Obedience of laws made by the monarch led to peace and personal security in society. People began to respect each others rights (personal and property) or else they were arrested, judged and punished. Those who disobeyed the laws of the land were sent to jail or even killed, as in capital punishment.
As Hobbes sees it, it is the presence of the Leviathan, kings and governments that led to the existence of personal security in society. Without government and the hangman threatening to arrest, try, jailing and or killing law breakers, human beings would not respect each other’s rights. Slavery and other forms of social injustices would exist. Without government, all would be chaos, anarchy and insecurity. In his view, therefore, we need government.
It appears that Hobbes favored autocratic monarchs? Other political observers, such as John Locke (3), Jean Jacque Rousseau (4) Montesquieu (5), Madison, Hamilton and Jay (6), John Stuart Mill (7) have shown how to have a government that is not authoritarian. For our present purposes, the salient point is that Hobbes saw the origin of government in human beings’ desire for personal and social security; in other words, that he had a causal speculation, a rarity in political science, on why people do what they do.
Clearly, human beings need government if there is to be any kind of civilization. Given what we know about human nature (on aggression and territoriality, see Freud, 8, Lorenz 9), without government and laws, it is doubtful that people can have security. And without social security, people’s energies and time would be so devoted to seeking ways to survive that they probably would have less time devoted to economically productive work. As Abraham Maslow (10) indicated, it is doubtful that people can engage in actualizing their potentials in scientific and technological endeavors unless they first have security for their lives. If in doubt, look at situations where law and order has broken down and see what happened? In Somalia (11), for example, there has not been a functioning government for a period of twenty years and just about all economically productive activity has ceased. People devote most of their time and energy figuring out ways to physically survive the attack of
their next door neighbors. As a result, poverty reins in Somalia and similar anarchic situations.
Without a government passing laws that protected people in a polity, the people would probably devolve into anarchy and pillage each other’s properties. Bands of people would war with each other and total chaos would rein. The people would kill themselves like people swap flies. Life span would be less than a few decades. Clearly, we need laws, and government to implement them, if we are to have any kind of social harmony, peace, security, and material civilization. Hobbes, one thinks, had a useful causal hypothesis regarding the origin of governments. In the final analysis, we may not yet understand why there is government, but in so far that reason is our guide, Hobbes’ speculation seems relevant.


One does not think that Hobbes went far enough in explicating the possible genesis of government. While accepting his thesis, in this paper, I will argue that the deeper explanation of why we need governments is human tendency to fear.
Fear (see Isaac Marks, 12) is not an end, but a means to an end. The end is survival of the animal organism. Fear is a means to surviving the impersonal exigencies of planet earth. Fear alerts people to actual and or anticipated danger to their physical and or psychological integrity. Fear compels people to take measures to defend and protect themselves from threats to their biological existence.
Fear is a biological and involuntary mechanism built into human beings to compel them to run from danger and obtain security, or, if their past experiences tell them that they can stay and fight back, to fight whatever threatens their existence. In fear, animals, human beings included, undergo biochemical reactions in their bodies: adrenalin and other excitatory neurochemicals are poured out and these stimulate most of the organs of the body to work faster. The lung works fast dragging in more oxygen into the body. The heart pounds rapidly, carrying blood, oxygen and nutrition to all parts of the body. The body releases stored sugar and blood carries it to all parts of the body, giving them energy to flee or fight whatever is threatening their lives. The nervous system works very fast carrying messages from all parts of the body to the central nervous system (spine, brain), where they are interpreted and feedback sent to other parts of the body, instructing them on how to
respond to the perceived danger to the individual’s existence.
If the individual’s past experience, stored in his brain cells (neurons), tells him that he does not stand a chance in defeating the current threat to his existence, he is told to run from the perceived danger; conversely, if his past experience tells him that he is able to overcome the present danger, he is instructed to stay and fight back. These decisions and reactions are made in a split second; in fact, they seem made involuntarily, for the individual does not first pause to think about what he has to do but just does certain things, when his life is threatened. A gunman points a gun at you and you run away or, if you cannot do so, stay and beg for him not to kill you and perhaps do whatever he asks you to do; a car comes close to you and you jump away.
The purpose of fear is animal survival; people do whatever they do out of fear to survive physically and psychological as separated, biological organisms.
Fear mobilizes the individual’s whole physical and psychological energies and compels him to do what he must do to defend his existence when that existence is threatened. Without fear signaling to people that there is danger to their lives and compelling people to do certain things, involuntarily, since those activities are biologically mediated, it is doubtful that animals, human beings included, would survive in their present environment.
The environment is full of threats to animals’ existence and animals must have a ready (best inbuilt) mechanism for alerting them to danger and compelling them to take survival measures, if they are to survive in their environment. Fear is a crucial means for human and all animals’ survival on planet earth.
Assuming the absence of fear, it is doubtful that animals would live long. In fact, some human children are born without a tendency to feeling pain (see CIPA, Congenital Insensitivity to Pain with Anhidrosis, 13), hence fear, for fear is a response to pain, and generally do not live long. They do not learn from experience that certain things could harm them; they, therefore, do not anticipate what could harm them and do not take appropriate measures to protect themselves and generally die from injuries. They seldom live to be twenty years old.
Those who are ashamed that human beings have a proclivity to fear, and want to eliminate fear, ought to think about this reality. Without fear, human beings probably would not survive as biological organisms. If so, the desire for fearlessness amounts to nihilistic desire to end biological forms of life! If other forms of existence, say, spirit, exist, perhaps, it is useful to end biological life forms? But if no other forms of life exist, apart from biological forms, perhaps it is not wise to give up fear and hence die out? One must be careful for what one wishes; those who wish for fearless existence may not like what follows, if their wishes are gratified: their personal physical and psychological demise.

Speculations on fearlessness aside, extant human beings, as we know them to be, are fearful animals. It is because they are fearful that they feel insecure. It is because of their fearfulness and consequent insecurity that they need government.
The thesis of this paper is that if human beings were not prone to fear, they would not need governments; they feel insecure because they are fearful and, therefore, need governments to reduce the threats that arouse fear and insecurity in their lives.


Why do human beings feel fear? They feel fear because they have an awareness of having a separated and individuated self housed in vulnerable bodies. Body is very vulnerable and prone to been hurt and eventually to been destroyed. Human beings do feel pained when their bodies are hurt. Ultimately, they will die. Give or take, a hundred and twenty years and a human being dies.
As utilitarian philosophers (Mill, Bentham, 14) tell us, and our own experiences verify, human beings do not like pain and do not seem to like to die. Human beings fear pain and death. (See Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death, 15.)
Perhaps, the greatest fear people have is the fear of the demise of their separated ego selves. People fear oblivion and finitude. Atheistic thinkers tell us that it is in their efforts to avert future finitude that human beings conjectured after death existences. As it were, the various religions of mankind came up with illusions of post death lives as a way of enabling men to tolerate their inevitable physical death. (See Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion 16) In this sense, religion and its concepts of after death world are like drugs, opium; Karl Marx (17) called it, that temporarily enable people to forget the terrible end that waits all of them in time. Freud, In the Future of an Illusion, having told the reader the functions of religion, all neurotic, that is, false, urges people to grow up and embrace the reality of death. People should give up their hankering for non-existent after death lives and, like courageous persons, accept their tragic nature.
Do all you can do to make your life as pleasant as is possible, for tomorrow you will die? Seize the day, Carpe Diem, Horace (18) said. Also see Zeno, Seneca, Cicero, and Marcus Aurelius on the philosophy of stoicism and epicure (19). Don’t cry over spilled milk, for there is nothing you can do about it. Life is a tragic and comic thing, yet is worth living, stoicism teaches.
Clearly, human beings have fear of the demise of their individuated ego selves. They seem to fear return to undifferentiated state. Vaguely, human beings sense that their individuated lives emanated from an undifferentiated state. In that undifferentiated state, they fear loss of their individuation. (See the writings of Carl G. Jung, 20) Apparently, human beings want to have individuated, separated selves and fear their loss.
As long as people have separated selves and wish for those selves to live and fear their end, they would experience fear; and as long as human beings live in bodies that can be hurt they will feel fear of hurt.

Human beings are aware that each of them could inflict pain and death on other human beings. If you choose to do so, you can kill any human being close to you. In turn, other human beings, if they choose to do so, can kill you.
The fact that human beings could harm and or kill each other; the fact that human beings want to live at all costs; the fact that human beings fear death led to a situation where the sadistic elements undertake to oppress the masochistic element in society.
The slave master, for example, knows that the slave, like himself, wants to live, at all costs. Thus, he uses terror to intimidate the slave into accepting his wishes and work for him, for free. The slave master was the original terrorist. (For a useful definition of terrorism, see Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God, 21.) He knew that human beings are prone to pain and fear and that if you do not hesitate in using coercion to get people to do as you want, and that if you do not mind killing people to get what you want, that people would do what you asked them to do.
White slave masters in America were essentially terrorists. Americans celebrate their slave owning leaders, but actually celebrate terrorists. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison etc used force and intimidation to get African slaves to do their wishes or else the slaves were tortured and or killed. They manipulated the slave’s human tendency to pain and fear of pain and used it to enslave some human beings. These people intimidated folks into doing what they did not want to do, be slaves for other people. They were no different from today’s terrorists who use fear and intimidation to achieve political objectives.
White American slave masters were aware that black folks, like white folks, and human beings everywhere, fear pain and death, and used terror to intimidate them into becoming slaves for them or else they were beaten up, inflicted pain on (which they did not want to experience) and, ultimately, killed (they did not want to die).
Unfortunate as their fate was, slaves contributed to it. They feared pain and death and wanted to live as separated selves in vulnerable bodies. Their desire for separated existence led slaves to tolerate other human beings oppression and abuse of them. If the slave did not fear pain and death and stood up and fought for his personal liberty, nobody would have enslaved him. It is fear of harm and death that led the slave to accept his masochistic relationship with the sadistic slave master. (See Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, 22, and Eric Fromm, Escape from Freedom, Man for Himself, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. 27.)
The slave master himself is very much afraid of pain and death. In fact, it is his acute awareness of pain and death and desire to live in bodies that led him to seek ways to use other people to make his life tolerable.
(On September 11, 2001, Arab Moslem terrorists attacked the world trade center at New York. One beheld folks scampering for their lives. The super rich, the whites who oppress the working classes, ran like rats looking for burrows to hide their oppressive lives in. Their behavior showed that they are as fearful as those minority persons they oppress. The events of September 11, 2001 ought to help the woefully fearful African Americans to realize that their masters are as fearful as themselves. This realization ought to enable them to do unto their masters as their masters did to them. With sufficient exercise of unsentimental brutality against their present oppressors, African Americans would liberate themselves from their current pathetic second class situation.)

For our present purposes, the relevant point is that both the sadist, the slave master, and the masochist, the slave, are afraid of harm and death. Both are operating under the same human tendency to fear harm and death. If the slave did not have fear of pain and death, the slave master, sadist, would not have been able to enslave him.
Everywhere in the world, people are able to oppress and abuse people because of human tendency to fear of pain and death.

Aware of the vulnerability of their lives, human beings formed governments to protect them. Clearly, given our fears, we will always need governments.
Governments, specifically, leaders, aware of the reasons behind the need for governments, human fear of harm and death, are tempted to oppress and abuse the people. As it were, governments say: you need me because you are a bloody coward who is afraid of pain and death; you gave me weapons to kill those who are out to kill you because you are afraid of harm and death; you made me your killer for you; you made me a murderer so that you may live secure life, I will, therefore, oppress and abuse you, for transforming me into a murderer for your safety. As it were, leaders, governments, are angry at those they govern, for transforming them into murderers who kill criminals so that they obtain their phantom security.
Thus, everywhere in the world, governments, political leaders oppress and abuse the people they are hired and paid to protect. (A minor aspect of this phenomenon is our ambivalent relationships with policemen. We hired them to protect our lives and properties. We like the fact that they defend us. We authorized them to kill criminals on our behalf. But because they can kill other human beings, we have contempt for them. All over the world, adolescents, teenagers, even the most law abiding ones, have total contempt for cops. This is probably because they vaguely know that cops are hired killers. Hired killers are not exactly any one ones ideal human being. Cops, in turn, have contempt for those who hired them to kill on their behalf. They resent being made over into murderers for peoples safety. Cops are the world’s greatest liars. They are ready to say or do anything, including planting evidence on people, to justify arresting and or killing them; many of them are, in
fact, outright sociopaths. Psychological, that is, personality, testing, suggests that anti social personality types tend to make better policemen. It figures: it takes a thief to catch a thief.)

If the people did not have fear of harm and death, they would not have governments; they would not delegate the power and authority to protect them to rulers, to those they made murderers for them. (Political leaders, the military, police, judges, and prison officials are given the power to become murderers for society. As it were, society empowers them to sentence criminals to death and carry this onerous chore out for the protection of the people.
There is no getting around the truth: the people made some of the people legal murderers, they authorized some persons to murder those who threaten their lives. For their safety, human beings transformed some of their people into killers of other human beings. This is weird, to say the least. Weird or not, such is our social reality.)

We have governments because we are prone to fear. Governments know this fact and are tempted to oppress and abuse us. As long as people are prone to fear of harm and death, their governments may oppress them. Consider Americans. They run around the world calling themselves free men. They claim that their country is the land of the free and brave. But a few months in America and you learn that white Americans live in total fear of harm and death. These people live in fear and elected their governments to protect them. Their governments, aware of the basis of their legitimacy, the people’s fearfulness, subject Americans to abuse. The white American is actually a slave, but he may not know it. He does not even have the minimal freedom enjoyed by those he considers primitive persons.
The relative freedom that this observer enjoys in his native Alaigbo is no where to be found in North America. He concluded that Americans, white and black, are glorified slaves. They are not the liberators of mankind, they pretend to be; they are to be liberated by those of us who know what true liberty (within the context of human society, love and laws) means.


Americans, indeed, Westerners in general, seem to operate with the assumption that human beings are motivated by fear of pain and death. They seem to assume that human beings are a cowardly bunch who, when threatened, would grovel for their life. They seem to assume that with sufficient coercion and willingness to mercilessly employ it, that they could control human beings and get them to do whatever they want them to do.
White men, as this African observer sees them, seem to have total contempt for human beings, including for themselves. (If you are a Freudian psychoanalyst, this self contempt may be unconscious. Unconscious or not, this lack of respect for humanity probably accounts for the horrendous things these people do to their fellow human beings. Loving persons would not, for example, enslave other human beings. The slave master probably hates himself and projects his self hatred to other people, those he enslaves. I cannot see how an intelligent and loving person can enslave other human beings. Pure reason leads intelligent persons to appreciate the human condition as one of suffering and disposes them to help alleviate that suffering, as my hero, Buddha did, rather than exploit it, as psychopathic slave masters did.)
Furthermore, white men know that their history is a history of terrorism, of using force to intimidate the people into doing as told. What were Europeans kings, princes, dukes, earls, counts, marquis but gangsters who used killing to intimidate their people into obeying them? The so-called divinely appointed rulers of Europe were collectively as intelligent as today’s morons. What they had in super abundance was sadistic ability to kill whoever opposed them. The European power base was intimidation of the masses.

The Arab Moslem terrorist has changed the equation for Westerners. The Moslem terrorist is willing to wrap bombs on his body and go blow himself up, along with the death of other people. His goal, of course, is the familiar terrorist goal: to kill randomly and thereby generate fear of harm and death in the people, with the hope that this would intimidate them to do as he wants them to do, in this case, get America and the West to change their policies towards the Middle East.
We are not interested in the good or bad of the Moslem terrorist’s goals. Good or bad, at any rate, is a moral, not a scientific discourse. Science looks at facts, as they are, and leaves judgment to decision makers.
The relevant proposition one is addressing is the fact that the Arab has shown that he can defy fear of pain and death and blow himself up, for a political objective. As long as he is willing to kill himself and kill other people along with him, he has brought into being what Americans did not expect from people.
Americans assume that people are cowards and want to live so much so that they would be begging for every opportunity to live. They assume that all human beings are like themselves, folks who so want to live that they are afraid of pain and death and willingly allow their government to oppress them. Americans permit their governments to oppress them so as give them an opportunity to live, to be oppressed some more. The American’s life is weird: he begs his government to help him live and knows fully well that the government oppresses him so, in effect, he is begging to be oppressed by his weird government. If one must live, one ought to live freely, but not abused by governments.
Further, American rulers assume that all human beings are like their African slaves, who were so afraid of pain and death and so desirous of living that they permitted themselves to be enslaved and abused. African Americans were oppressed in every manner is humanly possible and accepted it, rather than fight back and, if necessary, die fighting rather than live as intimidated slaves.
Americans now have to contend with Arab Moslem terrorists, those who are not afraid of death. This is an equation their narcissistic and sadistic mentality did not prepare them to cope with.
The entrance of the Moslem terrorist into America has spelled the death of America, as is currently organized. The America that will survive Arab terrorism will be a different America, a more Godly America.
In the meantime, it is only a matter of time before Arab terrorists begin immolating themselves in American cities, dragging Americans along with them to death. Given Americans fear of pain and death, they would panic and, like chicken with its head cut off, run to safety. Alas, there is no safe place for sadistic persons.
Seeing Americans run on September 11, 2001, finally exposed their fearfulness. Why not stay and deal with danger and, like men, die rather than flee? That did it for me and for those Africans who were tempted to fear American power. The people are clay footed cowards. They are terrorists who use military weapons to intimidate people, those who can be intimidated, those who fear harm and death. (I do not believe that American rulers have fully appreciated the psychological import of September 11; it shattered their supposed superiority and invincibility. They are now seen as chicken, as cowards who run when bullets fly. Their nuclear weapons do not impress any one. Human beings do not respect those who run from danger, as folks did in New York. I am yet to recover the contempt I felt for the Americans I saw fleeing like a whole bunch of rats. Stay and fight, superman. It is cowardly to stay in safe bunkers and from their lunch missiles at innocent Arab children in Bagdad.
Courageous soldiers fight amano-amano, hand to hand, and die on their feet, they do not indiscriminately and cowardly kill their enemies from afar, as American high tech weapons do.)
Just as they can intimidate other people, other people can intimidate them. The trick of their game is exposed, the game is up, and they are about to be checkmated.


As Arab terrorists, and before them, Japanese kamikaze pilots, have shown, a human being can transcend fear of pain and death. Arab terrorists believe that they are going to a better world when they leave this one. It is not relevant to know whether the proposed paradise the terrorists are going to is real or not. What is germane is that they believe in its reality. Human beings generally behave on the basis of their beliefs.
The lesson is that it seems necessary to have belief in an alternative life before one gives up living in the present form of life.

To transcend fear of harm and death, it helps if the individual decides that his separated self, the ego, is an illusion, a chimera, a dream self that does not, in fact, exist, or seems to exist only in a dream setting.
He must relinquish his wish for a separated self housed in a body. He must desist from seeing himself as a body.
If he truly does not identify with his body, what hurts his body and or destroys his body would not concern him, much.
He must give up all efforts to defend and protect his body (food, clothes, and houses, everything we do on earth are done in defense of body and the separated self concept it houses). The ego/body must be given up and not defended, if the individual is to overcome his fear of pain and death.
When the separated self and the body that houses it are given up, the individual experiences himself as part of an undifferentiated, unified self.
Only spirit can be everywhere and be many and still be unified. Matter, space and time separate things. Spirit is unified. To be unified, all things must be the same and equal. Unified spirit must be the same and equal everywhere.
That which is everywhere must be eternal and immortal. Unified spirit is eternal and immortal. Spirit is changeless and permanent.
That which is the same everywhere must know it as such; spirit knows itself as the same; there is nothing that is not already part of itself for it to know.
Spirit is one and simultaneously infinite in numbers.

As long as the individual identifies with his separated self housed in body, he must be prone to fear and must defend himself; but the moment he gives up his identification with the ego and its body and identifies with a unified spirit self, he is no longer amenable to fear. Of course, he would still feel pain but if he focuses his mind on eternal spirit, real or not, he will overcome the tendency to do things out of fear. In this new state, no human being can terrorize him.
If people overcome their fear of harm and death, no one can oppress and abuse them, no government can tell them what to do.
Governments currently tell people what to do because they are bloody cowards who are afraid of harm and death. As long as human beings are prone to fear of harm and death they must have oppressive governments.
If people truly desire a less oppressive government, they must become less fearful and more willing to die for their liberty. (See David Hume, 23, George Berkeley, 24, John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 7.)


Human beings undertake two types of movements: moving away from wholeness, aka God. This movement is also called separating movement. The other type of movement is moving back towards holism, back to union, back to what religionists call God.
America and other human civilizations are moving towards separation, to illusion, to deep sleep and, as such, are fascinated by space, time and matter (material monism) and not interested by idealistic monism/solipsism.


With the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991, it appeared like the ideological struggle between capitalism and socialism, liberal democracy and autocratic totalitarianism, had come to an abrupt end. It appeared that the West, read America, had won and their opponents, the socialist world, were defeated. The world now seemed America’s oyster; the delusion of Pax Americana began in earnest.
That delusion prevailed during the early 1990s and was shattered with the events of September 11.
Samuel Huntington’s little book, the Clash of Civilizations (25), brought to an end the illusion that the only competing ideologies in the world were capitalism and socialism. There are religious world views, which, in fact, anteceded political and economic ideologies and are probably more portent than political ideologies. People tend to define themselves by their religions more than they do by their politics.
Poor Mr. Fukayama (26) and his pandering to the emergent so-called sole superpower, the world Hegemon who tells every body what to do. Didn’t Mr. Fakuyama study the crusades, the Christian struggle to retake the Holy land from the Moslems? Since he was a product of America’s non educative schooling, could it be that Mr. Fukayama was not exposed to the religious struggles between Moslems and Christians?

The more portent struggle going on in our world is the struggle by the fearful and the less fearful, masochists and sadists. (See Eric Fromm, Art of Love. 27)
Clearly, as long as people are subject to fear and fear pain and death, governments will intimidate them into obedience. But those who have overcome fear of harm and death are not amenable to control by the terrorists in governments.
Fearless Arab terrorists are about to confront fearful Westerners. That is the war that is about to ensue in the world. The sadistic goon squad armies of the West are about to confront the armies of religious zealots.
This is the Armageddon the Bible talked about. The fearless, who, ip so factor, must be rooted in God, are bound to win this struggle.
When the fearless wins, a new type of civilization downs, a civilization that, for lack of a better name, we might call Christ based civilization. This new civilization is not based on fear and intimidation but on love and charity.
This type of civilization is not known to Western thinking. Christians call it the dawn of New Jerusalem or New Israel; others call it by different name. Helen Schucman (28) intimated this new world. It is a world where finally the will of God is done; a world where the children of God stopped doing their own wishes and did their father’s will. They and their father are one and their father’s will is their real will. In obeying their father’s will, they are really obeying their own real will. Their father’s will is that their nature is love. Love is union. To obey God’s will is to love all creation and to unify with all creation. When people love one another, they are doing the will of their father, which is their own real will, for in reality, they are unified with all people.
The kingdom of God, love, union, will come to earth and replace the kingdom of man, separation and hate. Love and union will replace hate and division. In a loving and unifying world, peace and happiness reins. (For a more philosophical rendition of philosophical idealism see Arthur Schopenhauer, World as Will and idea, 29; George Berkeley’s Dialogues, 24, provided a definition of solipsistic philosophy.)


The two trends, moving away from holism and moving towards holism, to ego and to Christ, to earth and to heaven, cannot be used to judge one another. Each has its own standards, they are mutually exclusionary.
Spirit is different from matter; you cannot use spirit to judge matter or matter to judge spirit. Spirit actually does not understand what matter does and matter does not understand spirit.
Therefore, one cannot judge man from the perspective of spirit. One can only have compassion for those enchanted by matter and moving towards it. A person moving towards spirit is not judgmental; he has made one judgment, the judgment that the world is nothing and does not pursue it; actually, he just overlooks the world of space, time and matter, to experience the unified world of spirit.
This does not mean that he has escaped from this world. In fact, he does not negate the world; he merely places the world in proper perspective. He still studies science and technology and uses its findings to improve life on earth for those who live on earth, those who believe that they are separated selves living in bodies. He uses his own ego and body to communicate love with other people, those, who like him, believe that they live in bodies.
Everything in the material world can be used to love people. Whatever is used to love the children of God is made Holy, actually not quite holy, for holiness exists only in spirit; earthly things can only be made to approximate holiness. Holiness is always there, for we remain whole, unified, as God created us, while dreaming that we are separated.
We remain unified spirit, while dreaming that we are separated selves housed in bodies. We live in the presence of love while dreaming that we are hated by each other and by God.
Remove the blocks to love and know that you always live in the presence of love, for love is all there is in the universe. Remove the veil masking love and know that all is love in the world.
Overlook people’s hatreds and know that all people are loving people; even their attacks on you are calls for love, when they feel unloved by you. Their attacks are calls for you to help them learn the meaning of love, and in so doing, learn the meaning of love yourself. When you forgive their attacks and love them, you affirm your union with them, in spirit, in Christ.
The payoff of forgiveness is that you feel peaceful and joyous. Return to love, to union via forgiveness and experience salvation. To be in sin is to be separated from other people; to be saved is to be unified with other people. Union, that is, love is salvation, and healing.

(A replacement of the current ego based western world order.)

I have presented a thesis that the presence of fear in human nature necessitates government. If you can refute this thesis, you do so. However, I do not think that you can succeed. At best, you can say that it is reductionistic, that human beings are too complex for their behavior to be reduced to one single motive. You are probably right in saying so.
I have also said that fear is a means and not an end. The end is the preservation of a separated and individuated self. Fear alerts the individual to threats to his individuated self and compels him to take measures to protect himself. Fear, therefore, is a mechanism for defending the separated self. The separated self is the end, the goal, and fear is the means to it. If you can, refute this thesis, you do so. I do not think that you can succeed. But go ahead and try, anyway. What you can do is tell us that the alternative to separated self, unified self, is not self evident. I used to be of that frame of mind.
In the past, I simply told religionists that they merely conceptualized an opposite of our world and claimed that it existed, when, in fact, they did not have evidence that it exists. One can perceive separation and conceptualize its opposite, union; see differences and conceptualize its opposite, sameness; see human inequality and conceptualize its opposite, equality; see space and time and can conceptualize its opposite, eternal present; in other words, one can perceive what exists in our temporal universe and conceptualize their opposite and take that putatively imaginary opposite as real.
We live in a world of change and imagine an alternative to it that is changeless and permanent; we live in a world of matter and can conceptualize its opposite, the world of spirit. We see an imperfect world and can imagine its perfect opposite. In other words, one can say that heaven is a delusion and a hallucination.
This was my cavalier approach to religionists and their seeming imaginary claims that a spiritual world exists. In fact, I went further; I believed that believing in God is synonymous with being psychotic (psychosis is characterized by the presence of delusions and hallucinations in any of the five senses: auditory, visual, tactile, olfactory and feeling). I simply had no use for religious persons.
William James (see Varieties of Religious Experience, 39, also see Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism, 40) talked about a certain type of experience that ego based reasoning cannot explain. When you experience it, you no longer would ask for evidence for God’s existence.
There is another world, a world of unified spirit. That world is not our known material world. However, we are in this present world, a world of space, time and matter, a world of separated selves. I am here and you are over there; there is space between us. We live in bodies, and for all intents and purposes are different. (Background reading of the following observers may be useful in understanding my thesis: Hegel, 30, Nietzsche, 31, Pascal, 32, Spinoza, 33, Leibnitz 34, Voltaire, 35, Dante, 36, Ramakrishna, 37, Adam Smith, 38, Bergson, 47, Kant, 49, Plato, 53, Aristotle, 54, Edmund Burke, 55, William James, 56, Von Clausewitz, 57, Machiavelli, 58 and Hitler, 51, the Christian Bible, 48.)


We live in a world of opposites, a world where everything opposes everything else. The world began by the wish for separation; separation opposes union; given its origin in opposition, everything in the world opposes everything else. There is life and death, light and darkness, good and bad. It is a world of pairs of opposites.
As the world sees these things, some persons are black and others are white, some are tall and others short, some are beautiful and others ugly. These differences do not exist in the world of spirit; there, all are the same, equal and are one. But we are not aware of the world of unified spirit; we are aware of the world of separated selves housed in different bodies.
The real question facing us, as long as we think that we are on earth, is how we are going to make our world a bit more like the unified world of God? How do we get our separated world to resemble the unified world of God?
Obviously, only the non-material, the spiritual, can unify. That which is in body, space and time can only separate, for space, time and matter were designed to separate with and exist to maintain separation. In body, we cannot unify, literally. In body, we are literally separated, so how can we figuratively unify? This is the real question facing us.
We can transform our world to what Helen Schucman, in her metaphysical poem, A Course in Miracles, called a borderland between heaven and earth, Dante’s purgatory.( See Dante, Divine Comedy, Inferno, 36). Schucman is chucking full of metaphors: she also called that world happy dream, gate of heaven, real world etc.
Call it what you like, what is important is what we are trying to accomplish. We are trying to bring about a world where human thinking and behavior approximates the thinking and behavior of those in spirit. Clearly, while in bodies we cannot think and behave like spirit (spirit is limitless; body is a limit).
Our separated world can remain separated but we can think and behave differently. The nineteenth century Indian saint, Ramakrishna (see the Gospel of Ramakrishna. 37) talked about using our egos to love other egos. In the same light, Helen Schucman talked about using what we made to separate with to unify with, what we made to hate with to love with. We made the ego and the body that houses it to separate with and she talked about redirecting their purpose, from being means of separation to being means of union. To her, what matters is the purpose to which something is put to. If your purpose is to love other people, that is, to unify with them, she said that your behavior is now redirected towards God.
Whatever is used to love with is purified and made holy, made whole. If one seeks only self interests and ignores common interests, one lives for the ego, hence is unholy, but if one works for public interests, one now lives for unified self, which in its individuated form can be called the Christ self, one is now holy.
Separation, like fear, is a means to an end and not an end in itself. We separate for a reason. Helen Schucman observes that the goal of separation is a special self. The special self is the self that desires to create its creator, create itself and create its siblings. In her thinking, the son of God desired to kill his father and usurp his creatorship throne. His goal is to become the creator of reality; he did not want to be created but to be the creator. God created him and he resented that fact and wanted to create himself. Of course, the son cannot be the father of his father, nor can he father himself. We cannot create God and ourselves. Still, the wish for self creation was so strong that we fantasized doing so.
Our world, Schucman thinks, came into being to enable us to seem to have separated from God and now created ourselves. As it were, our world is a dream where the created children of God now seem to have created themselves, created their father and created everything. We are now the author of reality. Of course, in reality, we are not the author of reality. God is still the author of reality; we merely dream that we are the author of reality.
The world is a dream, an illusion, a hallucination and delusion where what is not real is taken as real. The children of God, as it were, are temporarily insane. (Wouldn’t you say that this world is an insane place?)

Posted by Administrator at December 6, 2005 10:32 AM


BNW Writers A-M

BNW Writers N-Z



BiafraNigeria Banner

BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer


BiafraNigeria Spacer

BiafraNigeria Spacer


BNW Forums


The Voice of a New Generation