The integrisme lives here

by A. Autino


When terrible events occur, as the one of September 11th 2001, after the horror, a lot of reflections arise. The most obvious, in this case, concern the ill-omened effects of the Islamic integrisme. But we had maybe to reflect more deepen, without attending the death of so many innocents, and to also look at the integrisme of our religious philosophy, that are not few, and not less ill-omened. Also the Catholic world has its Imams, spreading even their messages through the radio and TV.

In such discourses we often feel exhortations like "to abdicate Satan", or "to abdicate Mammona" (god of money and terrestrial possession).

Let's consider the first expression: "to abdicate Satan." See how many concepts are understood in such expression. The Catholic integrisme (as all the other integrisme) clearly sees the world split in two parts: who does not stay with God stays with devil. Either a person is with Good - monopoly of the Catholic religion - or is an abject supporter of Evil. For extension, whoever doesn't belong to the Catholic religion would be a follower of the demon, and whoever has a secular idea of ethics secretly indulges in black masses! Whoever has matured his/her own spirituality (even adopting good humanist concepts from different philosophies) should abdicate it, and fully to stick to the Catholic one. Otherwise he/she will be considered incapable of any good action and a follower of the devil.

As it regards the attitude towards money, the Catholic integrisme doesn't make any difference among the success gotten working and honestly applying the human talent - and the wealth gotten stealing and exploiting the neighbours. The simple possession of money is condemned without possibility of appeal. Whoever owns money, and in last analysis the same concept of private property, appears therefore morally execrable. What to say then about the ones who daily work with money? Any reference to the World Trade Centre is not casual: it would be hard, for a Catholic extremist, to publicly approve the crime of September 11th, but the moral judgment about the capitalistic economy is as negative as the one pronounced by the Islamic Imam, daily thundering, from their bell tower, against the western culture, according to them sold to Satan and Mammona. The behaviours resulting from such ideology can only be sectarian, close and contempt towards whole ethnic groups, people, countries, social classes, that adore different gods.

More, the Catholic integrisme fed, inside our society, a blind and sterile rebellious tendency, that produced monsters several times, during the past century. The integrisme, mixed to critical fringes towards the exploitation during the industrial age (fringes detached from the workers movement, that was born to defend the subordinate classes from the exploitation), produced terrorism, a brood of monsters, that devoured any abilities of critical thought, deviating the society with their delirious dualism, destroyer of any constructive dialectics. Daughters and nephews of various integrisme, the radical ecologist currents, in a delirious run after supposed rights of the weakest, and finding no more interesting the defence of the rights of the poor people, have elected the nature as their idol, landing to an ideology not dissimilar from the Nazis one. Also the Hitlerian thought, in fact, put together items of oriental naturist philosophies, mythical cosmologies of the past, privileging the nature against humanity (or some ethnic groups, considered particularly inferior).

My position, for clarity, is not diametrically opposed to the one of the different integrisme that infested and infest the planet. My position does not and doesn't want to exist in the same philosophical space lived by such people, and my thought develops not in relationship to their deliriums, but rather despite their intimidations and violence's. By the way it is properly the integriste thought, that proceeds dividing the world in black and white, according to the well know theist and dualist paradigm, at all the latitudes and in all the ideological and/or religious climates.

I never thought that capitalism is a perfect social system, and that money was an excellent mean, to regulate the collaboration among people and the human relationships. Woe if we gave up, stopping to criticize our social system, and therefore to try improving it. We have however to consider that capitalism and money are, nowadays - failed the socialist experiment - the only forms of social organization allowing the cultural and civil progress. Obviously we cannot sat that the capitalism favours the progress in a programmatic and project way, but at least it doesn't set insurmountable obstacles, as they do instead, generally, the dictatorships and the religious integrisme, however noble were, at their origin, their aims. The capitalism allows, for instance, the practice of the justice: to pursue the crime, to punish the cheats and to return to the legitimate owners what it had been stolen to them. All of this is certainly very problematic, because who has a lot of money and power can pay the best lawyers, and therefore well hardly the law is equal for everybody. And in periods as the current one in Italy, we risk even to return back, to an unequal justice, also institutionally ratified. But, where the dictatorship, the religious power or the feudal organization are in force, the situation is very much worse: in those situations justice is not only difficult, but it really doesn't exist. In such countries, the ones who doesn't simply sustain the dictatorship has neither rights nor liberty, as it was in the past, before the affirmation of the form of government of democracy, though defective and criticizable.

Democracy allows - it is true - the corruption, but the dictatorship and the integrisme programmatically favour the corruption. Whoever says that democracy should be improved or got over finds me agree. But I strongly disagree with whoever thinks that, in order to get such very sharable goal, it is enough to sweep away the existing social organization, and that an enlightened and advanced, more ethic, social organization, it will easily emerge from the chaos! Such a person is in bad faith or is an incurable deluded: in every case he/she is working to open the way to some, old or new, integrisme.

The limit to be overcome, the challenge, for us living this troubled beginning of millennium, could be really the following one: to succeed in introducing, in our society, a mechanisms able to favour the cultural, technological, and therefore civil, progress of our civilization.

Of course, in concrete, it is a complex matter, as our society of more than six billion people is complex. It is a matter of education and of scientific search. And, still before, it is a matter of re-thinking our whole philosophy, making a full cleaning up of all the integrisme, freeing the spiritual search of everyone from any type of ideological chain, and bringing the same concept of religion to a very much more original meaningful: spontaneous union, among free individuals, that freely decide, without any moral or material coercion, to share something, be their own spiritualities and/or their substances, for a deserving and freely shared purpose.

 


[003.AA. TDF.1/2002. 12.01.2002]