They're Not Cowards, and They're Not Stupid

© Ian Lawton 2005

I do not condone the current wave of bomb attacks on London for one moment, and my sincerest sympathies go out to all those who have been affected. But any good general will tell you that to defeat a credible enemy – and let us make no mistake that these people are a credible enemy – you have to understand their mind set. So have we really made any concerted effort to get inside the heads of the people who are planning and perpetrating these attacks, and to properly understand what motivates them? And if we do not, and continue with the sort of superficial and outraged reactions that litter the airwaves – they are evil and cowardly, they will not defeat us – what hope do we have of “defeating” them?

One thing stands out amidst the carnage of these atrocities, and that is that we are now facing an entirely different kind of terrorism from anything we have faced in the past. Al-Qaeda has no obvious agenda, unlike most other terrorist groups who are, usually, acting to liberate their homeland from what they perceive as unwanted and oppressive rule. With no specific homeland, it is a worldwide, religiously-based ideology that can sprout organic cells with ease, if energy is constantly provided. So to dismiss the terrorists, as the Prime Minister did again yesterday, as people who merely want to “disrupt and cower” us is superficial nonsense.

To admit the real problem, which is that fundamentalist Muslims the world over have an intense hatred of the West, is not to support or condone their actions but to be brutally honest with ourselves. That being the case, rather than being conciliatory as is so often suggested, surely it is merely realistic to insist that we should attempt to analyse why this should be so – especially if we want to resolve the problem and prevent further carnage. If a genuine rather than superficial analysis suggests that we have done nothing to fuel what is merely an irrational hatred, then our conscience would be clear to do whatever we must do to prevent further attacks by traditional means. But unfortunately this is by no means a foregone conclusion.

Of course there are specific political issues that fan the flames. Frustration at our long-standing failure to assist with the creation of an independent Palestine is so blindingly obvious that it needs no further comment. And then, of course, there is Iraq.

I have never met George Bush or Tony Blair, but let us for the moment give them the benefit of the doubt – although some would say suspend belief – and assume that they are genuinely men of integrity and conviction. Let us further assume that weapons of mass destruction were always a political red-herring, and that they invaded Iraq in order to effect regime change and liberate a horribly oppressed people. Let us also accept for the moment, although this is a point to which I will return, their insistence that the introduction of democracy to Muslim countries is unequivocally a positive step. Let us even assume that their decision to act bilaterally was forced on them by a realistic acceptance that the UN cannot deliver effectively on the military front.

Were all these things to be the case, what would be the most obvious corollary? Bush and Blair would have to ensure that their actions were entirely beyond question by handling the ensuing political issues with total integrity as well. And an absolute prerequisite would be to distance themselves as far as possible from seeming commercial gain. The very last thing they could afford to do was let the US so obviously appropriate the lion’s share of contracts for rebuilding Iraq’s stricken infrastructure, and for the management of its oil supplies.

I realise we are talking realpolitik here, and it is probably naïve to think that Blair could have tried to insist on such distancing even if he had felt so inclined, but herein lies the heart of the problem. How can we expect anyone to believe that, whether we were right or not, we at least invaded Iraq for reasons of integrity? Most of us in the West don’t believe it ourselves, let alone the Muslim populations of the Near East and elsewhere.

But there is, of course, far more to the problem even than this. It derives from our unquestioning belief, indeed continued and arrogant assertion, that western-style democracy is the panacea for all ills. Have we learnt nothing from history?

They may have had commercial interests as well, but I think we can safely assume that many of our colonising forbears genuinely believed that, in introducing a western form of political and legal system, with the inevitable corollary of conversion to western religious systems as well, they were helping to advance the lives and development of our poor, backward cousins.

But how arrogant we now realise this was. Only now are we reawakening to the sophisticated spiritual systems that so many of the indigenous peoples of these supposedly backward colonies possessed, and that in many cases we so brutally suppressed. Only now can we see just how our political colonisation of these countries created an unnatural dependence, leaving gaping holes when independence was regained.

And yet here we are again. Same shit, different century. When we are not secretly cringing in fear, or masking it with bluff and belligerence, we sneer at the Muslim fundamentalists for their extreme religious beliefs. But what do you think they think about us? Do you not think that they regard our arrogant assumption that western, secular democracy is the model that should be followed all over the world as equally laughable, insulting and dangerous?

When they see our culture of total personal rights without responsibility, and where it has led us, do they think to themselves, “Ah, yes, that is the way we should go”? Do they envy a society in which the rampant onslaught of secular materialism has led to marital breakdown, dysfunctional families, and a liberalised education system that makes real learning almost impossible because of a complete breakdown in discipline? Do they want their children to follow our example, growing rapidly towards obesity while stuffing their faces with fast food and playing violent computer games? Or hooked on drugs and alcohol, illiterate and dependent on the benefits system, having been totally let-down by their equally let-down and alienated elders in a spiral of neglect and disillusion? Do they think it would improve their lives if their main topic of conversation was a television show in which exhibitionists with no obvious talent attempt to make themselves the next D-list celebrity with a limited shelf-life?

Of course, the type of society we have created can also be extremely alluring, especially if we do not examine it too closely. So undoubtedly there will be many Iraqis, for example, who are extremely grateful to grab a share of our western lifestyle after years of repression. They do not realise, yet, that it carries with it huge dangers and pitfalls.

I accept that political democracy is the way forward for the entire world, but it must be democracy that is primarily demanded and introduced from within, not imposed from without – especially if the motives of the imposers are suspect. Communism in Russia was ultimately removed from within, and this will undoubtedly be the case in China eventually. This organic process of spreading democracy will take a very long time, and cannot be rushed.

But, more than this, I would argue strongly that the biggest challenge facing humankind is to balance technological progress with a retention, or in many cases reintroduction, of genuine spirituality. In saying this I am not suggesting for one moment that fundamentalism is the answer, in fact quite the opposite. Muslim fundamentalists’ distorted use of the Koran to fuel hatred and a desire for revenge is every bit as insidious, arrogant and misplaced as our own assumption of moral and intellectual superiority. Meanwhile, the widespread growth of Christian fundamentalism in the US is a supremely ironic yet worrying response to the Muslim threat.

Surely, as the human race, we should have come far enough by now to say enough is enough, there must be a better way? Do we really want to replace a world fractured by opposing political ideologies with one fractured by fundamentalist religious hatred? These might sound like strong words, but especially when the most powerful politician in the world makes much of his Christian beliefs, and an increasing number of his people are dusting theirs off in response to the global threat of a rival ideology, is it really such a far-fetched scenario?

For those of you who are by now thoroughly dispirited by this pessimistic analysis, there is an answer. At the start of the twenty-first century, for the first time in human history, we now have a huge mass of evidence to support a spiritual worldview that no longer has to be based on the revealed wisdom of a Jesus or a Mohammed, or of any other prophet or guru, self-styled or otherwise. This worldview has the potential to become universal, and finally to unite rather than divide. It cannot be distorted for political ends, because it is derived from the consistent experiences of thousands of ordinary men and women around the world, from all walks of life and of all religious or atheist persuasions. People with no agenda, and no axe to grind. What they share is that they have all had near-death experiences, or spontaneously recalled a past-life, or undergone regression into past lives and the “interlife” between incarnations.

I should emphasise that the research into all these areas of study has been conducted by a number of pioneering, professional psychologists and psychiatrists, most of whom were atheists themselves until the consistency of the evidence they were uncovering forced them to accept the reality of reincarnation. Furthermore, you will be surprised to learn – as I was until I researched the matter properly – that scientific or materialist attempts to explain or debunk the enormous depth and breadth of evidence in each area are so simplistic and reductionist as to be laughable.

Rational Spirituality – which is the only sensible way to describe the new spiritual framework emerging out of this evidence – uncovers the full extent of the distortions in the revealed wisdom of all the major religions of the world. It offers great hope of salvation for humankind. The evidence is there on the table, available for sensible and rational discussion and analysis. There is no dogma, which is why Rational Spirituality is not a religion in the conventional sense. Only time will tell if we will make proper use of it, instead of once again plunging ourselves into global turmoil.