Turkish-born writer, Moris Farhi, examines "the profession of death".
ATAVISTIC DELIRIUM
You will have heard many concrete facts – and more are to come during this session – on the prodigious work achieved by organizations defending the human rights of people who are persecuted, discriminated or forced to emigrate. Work conducted despite the indifference and, more often than not, the wilful obstructions, by many governments. Consequently, I decided that instead of going over that ground again, I would present what I believe is the nature of the mentality that propagates such repression. I’ve chosen to call this mentality “atavistic delirium”. It is a very subjective, pessimistic and generalized view of the world. Even so, I hazard to guess it is one which many of you already share with me in varying degrees. A news-shot, dating back to 2003, sums up what I mean by “atavistic delirium”. It shows the current US President, George Walker Bush, arriving by air onto the aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln, wearing a fighter pilot’s suit. Having posed for many photos, the President then goes on to give his now infamous speech about the war in Iraq where he brashly declares: “Mission Accomplished”. This fancy dress charade, this self-investiture of the persona of a paladin from someone who had a dubious career in the National Guards, who never engaged in conflict and who, in many circles, is still regarded as “well short of meeting his military obligation”, not only showed his tartuffery, but also symbolized the illusory “rightness” with which unbridled power seeks to camouflage its belligerence. Since, in the consciousness of the US – and also of much of the world - the fighter pilot has come to represent the archetype of the hero, the photographs of the President in that attire have become icons for warmongers, including those in Europe. Almost a simulacrum of the 1960 “guerrillero heroico” photograph of Che Guevara as the saviour revolutionary, this image seeks to affirm to the world’s nations that soldiering is both a romantic occupation and a patriotic duty. To my mind, this impulsion for warfare, this almost religious adoration of martial prowess – the ethos of many unprincipled leaders - does not indicate, as some politicians claim, the gullibility of the masses. It attests, I believe, that there is a conditioning transfused into all of us, over millennia, by political as well as religious institutions, that strife, conquest and “the profession of death” are requisites for human existence and that they offer glory not only in this life but in the hereafter. “The profession of death” is not a phrase that comes from my pen, but from a statement given, in 1933, by Sami Shawkat, the then Director-General of the Iraqi Ministry of Education. A statement that remains to this day a mantra not only for Arab nationalist or Islamic fundamentalists but also for all ultra-nationalists and for religious extremists everywhere. I quote Shawkat’s statement: "There is something more important than money and learning for preserving the honour of a nation and for keeping humiliation at bay. That is strength. Strength, as I use the word here, means to excel in the Profession of Death." I am sure the contention of this statement is repellent to those of us here and to many in the family of humankind. Yet it’s a statement that has been paraphrased by countless tyrants of the modern era, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot to Saddam Hussein. And it is still a great favourite with leaders, like Mugabe, who are determined to maintain absolute power. Many of these paraphrases have not only gleefully accepted Shawkat’s concept, “honour”, but also have given it additional ballast, as expediency demanded, with equally emotively fabricated concepts such as “imperial exigency”, “national interest”, “governmental sagacity”, “political necessity”, “military objectives”, “economic survival”, and, not least, with new ersatz concepts like “moral duty”, “defence of democracy”, “fight against terror” etc. Concepts that are either inherently vacuous or so ambiguous as to be quite meaningless. But leaders and tyrants whose main pursuit, in atavistic delirium, is either self-interest or self-aggrandisement, invest these nebulous verbal concatenations with sanctity by glorifying Death - an inescapable and, to most of us, a fearful reality. Thus “the profession of death” is consecrated as the greatest profession that humankind can espouse. Let us compare Bush’s bellicosity and Shawkat’s statement with the Declaration of Independence of the United States, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and annotated by Benjamin Franklin. The key passage declares: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (The words Creator, Rights, Life, Liberty and Happiness are specifically emphasized by having their first letters written in capitals.) I don’t know – nor can I imagine – a declaration that sums up so succinctly humankind’s yearnings for a clement and meaningful existence. I am particularly awed by the phrase, “the pursuit of Happiness” – the antithet of “the profession of Death” - because it is a vision that incorporates both life and liberty; a vision that should be the primary pursuit of all leaders and governments. It demands that the equality of all humankind – as a self-evident truth – should stand as a commandment that supersedes all other commandments. Yet, tragically, it is the one commandment that most leaders and governments persistently transgress. Indeed, many leaders and governments regard “the pursuit of happiness” as a sentiment that advocates “liberalism” and, therefore, threatens their policies of power and dominion. And, of course, leaders like those of Myanmar, consider the pursuit of happiness as so dangerous an idea that they are determined to suppress it, if need be, brutally. What chance can people have to engage in the pursuit of happiness when lies, sanctimonious dissimulation, the exhortations for the preservation of “honour” impose “the profession of death” as the only righteous pursuit? I have taken the liberty of creating an imaginary unprincipled leader who, in the privacy of his room, abandons lies, pretences and incoherence, and says honestly what many of our leaders, be they men or women, really think. I have chosen to have this character extol “honour” as he addresses a flag or a sacred book or a regimental badge or anything that symbolizes for him his atavistic delirium. I have chosen Shawkat’s concept of “honour” because of its vacuity; but, of course, my unprincipled leader is one who will march to the tune of any ideological nonsense that he thinks will keep him in power. This is what he says: ‘We’re equal in only one aspect. We’re all born with weak blood, bad blood, blood contaminated by torpor, blood that slithers through life at evil’s pace. But we are men destined to be gods. We are here to cleanse the contamination. We are here to save our blood. To strengthen it. To immerse it in the only purifier there is: honour! We can do so only by spilling the bad blood! That’s what religions instruct us! That’s what history teaches us! History knows about blood! History is blood! We must never waver! We must obey and submit to our leaders! We must spurn distractions like love – be it for wives or partners or lovers or children or parents or humankind! We must affirm that there’s nothing more important in life than honour! Nothing else that keeps humiliation at bay! That’s the source of our strength! And strength, first and foremost, means the profession of death! It means excelling in inflicting death at any time! It means the readiness to sacrifice our own lives at any time! That’s how we became gods! That’s how we will make the earth fruitful! That’s how we will ensure survival! That’s how we will cleanse our souls! Viva la Muerte! Long live Death!’ Is this an exaggeration? I don’t think so. Goaded by this belief, my answer to the question that governs this session, “does Europe Live Up to its Human Rhetoric”, is, alas, an emphatic no. I think it is reasonable to claim that if Europe had really lived up to its rhetoric, we would not have needed to have this conference. We would not have needed to create the many organizations desperately trying to protect our human rights and, particularly, trying to protect the rights of those for whom we speak because their voices – and, indeed, existence – have been stolen from them. If Europe had lived up to its rhetoric, we would all be obsolete, we would all be happily making love – in every sense of that word – with our fellow men and women. We would all be celebrating the miracle of Life. That said I will not disparage Europe categorically. Although much of the time this continent is still engaged in hiding actual objectives behind her rhetoric – often a brazen smokescreen - I have to acknowledge that, generally speaking, some of her countries are trying to abandon their ingrained martial policies in favour of economic growth so that their peoples can enjoy material wellbeing and social stability. These countries have made considerable efforts, albeit often reluctantly, to contain their atavistic delirium. The fact that in many parts of Europe human rights organizations - some of which are represented here – are allowed to exist and to campaign is an indication of this other historic continuity. This is no small achievement considering Europe’s history, drenched in blood for millennia. No small achievement given that the wounds of the last century’s horrendous world wars are still suppurating. No small achievement when, despite the sense of unity created by the European Union, many of her nations still nurture fantasies of supremacy, still worship past glories, still yearn to reclaim their golden age of colonial domination. No small achievement when, the social, religious and economic divisions of her many peoples foment virulent ultra-nationalistic movements, when many of her heads of state are still disinclined to accept that humankind is one family and that every member of that family has as his or her birthright, the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Yes, indeed, there is a movement in Europe towards the pursuit of Happiness, but it is a fragile one. Because the old divisions, the notions of limpieza de sangre – purity of blood – racial and religious prejudices and rivalries for the accumulation of wealth and the colonial mentality that sends them to exploit and denude the world’s resources, often to the destitution of already poor countries, are still there, just beneath the skin of many of its nations. An unprincipled leader need only scratch that skin to unleash his nation’s atavistic delirium, as Slobodan Miloševic did in former Yugoslavia. That danger stalks Europe all the more now as the EU expands, as more and more consumerism is seen as the path to Happiness, as immigration and requests for asylum of displaced and desperate people from many strife-torn countries radically increase, and as terrorism brings primitive fears to Europe’s peoples. However, despite the fact that terrorism in Europe does not always come from fundamentalist Islamic groups or such rogue states as Iran and Syria, the fear that Europe and her so-called “Christian way of life” might be facing a cataclysm has been almost entirely directed at Islam. Thus we have Islamophobia, a free-floating paranoia which, as the years go by, expands to subsume all foreigners, strangers, Others, the Xenos. It is basically this paranoia that is pushing France and Germany to obstruct Turkey’s entry into the EU. Admittedly, Turkey has been deplorably guilty of human rights abuses and still suffers internal conflicts, but she is a young and vibrant country that vehemently aspires to be European. She can contribute enormously to Europe’s prosperity. She can, in the process, with Europe’s encouragement, resolve her internal conflicts and abandon her human rights abuses. She is, after all, a country whose predominantly Muslim population desires, as most of humankind, the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I gave Turkey as an example of Islamophobia and of the growing distrust and fear of the stranger. There are other peoples in Europe, like the Roma, and many immigrants, like Africans and Asians, who find themselves ostracized as Strangers - as Others. In effect, the notion that the peoples of Europe – historically fair-skinned – are superior in intelligence, in morality, in their way of life and, indeed, in their purity of blood, is still dominant in this old continent. Consequently, most European countries, if not all of them, disregarding the devastations of a long history of conflict and suffering, disregarding their endless struggles for democratic rule, for liberty, equality and fraternity, disregarding their magnificent cultural and scientific achievements, still falter dangerously over the issue of the human rights of the Others. Let me offer another truthful speech from my imaginary unprincipled leader. ‘Strangers. I hate them. They are not like us. They are the untouchable others. Barbarians at our gate. Aliens. And like all things other, they are dangerous. They bring their own ways. And there is always something new in their ways. So they always hatch changes. Changes are perilous. They are unstable. Moreover, strangers who get to know our ways, who feed on the spirit of our land, are instruments of disaster. Whether they intend to or not, they will precipitate change. And before we know it, strangers of every hue and creed will be living with us cheek by jowl. Imagine the chaos. Women giving birth to babies with outlandish complexion. Future generations tarnished by the muddy blood discoloured strangers will be spurting into our pure blood. Ancestral homes, destabilized by heathen footsteps, crumbling down. Lands tilled by alien hands producing outlandish food. And places of worship of every creed and denomination despoiling our skylines. That’s not what our people are hankering for: they want a new order that is the same as the old order. And that’s what we must give them.’ So what to do? How to make not only Europe but also the rest of the world determinedly strive for the unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? How to arrest the delusion of glorious death, the worship of “the profession of death” which, already running amok in the US and fundamentalist Islam, is also making headway in Europe? How to stop the atavistic delirium that lies just beneath Europe’s skin, from erupting again? In effect, how to celebrate Creation and embrace Life for ourselves as well as for others? Well, quite simply - and I’ve advocated this all my life – by welcoming the stranger in our midst! That would be the basis for the pursuit of happiness. And that, in essence, means challenging the political and religious establishments who claim that they possess the certainties that will provide, forever, the right solutions for the future. We have to distrust these certainties – because, invariably, they equate with “the profession of death”. When these bodies declare that there are irrefutable justifications for existence under their policies, that segregation of communities is a necessity, that the Others – particularly immigrants and asylum seekers – must be penned in because, at best, they are economic migrants, at worst, barbarians who, be they terrorist or not, will one day rule us with their impure blood, we must protest vociferously. For again, what they seek with these claims is licence for the stultification of Life, licence for “the profession of death”. It is this spectre of The Other – reviled as infinitely dangerous, and, during the times of uncertain economic conditions or national despair, as downright evil - which unprincipled politicians exploit to label immigrants as the alleged enemy and so prompt their people to gather under one ethnicity or a banner or an ideology or a religion. The result is either conflict – internal or external – or the repression, the brutalization, the deprivation of whole peoples’ birthright to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most politicians cannot see – or pretend that they do not see – that without the Other there would be no movement towards internationalism, no vision of a united family of humankind in our bounteous but fragile planet. It is the immigrants, the outsiders, seeking admission into a host nation, who have, by their courage, invoked the concept of such a union. Possessed with a greater awareness of their own struggle, often of desolation of every kind - and indeed with greater awareness of the desolation within themselves - it is the immigrants who try to make sense of an otherwise torturous existence by conceiving a pluralist world where all kinds of prejudice will have been eradicated. Most politicians will not admit, even though they know it to be true, that those whom they disparagingly call “economic migrants” – once a favourite denigration by British ministers – contribute vastly both to a country’s prosperity and to its culture. Without the Other’s contribution, every European country would be severely impoverished and their cultures would soon stagnate. I know, even as I speak, that I am addressing colleagues who, in the main, share my views. Perhaps what I’m trying to say is that we must never be complacent. Complacency, unconsciously, affects our outlook on life, often reduces even the most far-sighted humanitarians to a paralyzing despair. So we have to heal ourselves of our despair. We have to stand up as our brothers’ keepers. We must ask over and over again: what is there in the human nature that keeps denying the hunger for love, that very hunger that craves to celebrate Life? What is there in the human spirit that dresses soldiers like peacocks, that endorses the divisions of class, race and creed, that kowtows to the privileged and the powerful whilst shunning workers, artists, writers, philosophers and the men and women of science and medicine who refuse to serve military projects? What is there in the human spirit that suppresses its doubts and fears, that sacrifices its longing for justice, equality and happiness in thraldom to the profession of Death? A thraldom that threatens to kill all humankind as well as the Earth. These are eternal questions to which neither religion nor art nor philosophy nor psychology has found a conclusive answer. And yet there must be an answer. And, I imagine, the answer is in our own souls, at present shackled by that force that seeks destruction. Or, in all likelihood, there are many answers. That, by definition, would mean that those who claim to have the right answers will not engage with these eternal questions lest their answers be proven wrong. That’s their despair. It must not be ours. We need to challenge those who claim that theirs is the absolute truth. Those claims hide iniquity. Those claims seek to convince people of the rhetorician’s absolute probity without offering them the means to think, analyze, verify or deconstruct his or her underlying motives. If there is one lesson to be learned from history, it is that the present and the future should be different from the past, that instead of the re-enactment of bygone glories and grievances, instead of excluding peoples, we should embrace them as our own, instead of worshipping “the profession of Death”, we should revere Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Moris Farhi is a Turkish-born writer living in London and a Vice President of International PEN. Atavistic Delirium was adressed to the first European Hospitality Tribunal, held in Stavanger in May 2008.
