WESTERN NEO-COLONIAL AMBITIONS: LIBYA & BEYOND

Originally posted on 2 March 2011 --

From the 1911 until 1947 when Harry Truman promulgated the Truman Doctrine that defined the Cold War, Libya was an Italian colony. In 1969, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi overthrew the Libyan monarchy that served as a puppet of the West, and established a strong national sovereignty with a non-aligned orientation. Over the course of four decades, Colonel Gadhafi's regime had aspects to its domestic and foreign policy that were progressive and benevolent, but the fact that he stayed in power for life, did not permit active political opposition, became increasingly tyrannical and used the national wealth for private gain is indicative of the Libyan people's right to force him from power.
 

It is estimated that at least 1000 people have been killed in the recent Libyan uprising, and it may actually become much worse. If the US makes good on its implied threat to intervene, as many Republicans and varieties of right-wingers in the US and EU wish, the issue of a post-Gadhafi regime's legitimacy will come into question. Not that regimes replacing those where uprisings have taken place and are and will be taking place in Islamic nations will be any more benevolent or any less externally dependent than the previous ones.

The history of Libya with the West is a tragic one for the people of the small North African nation, complicated by the current social uprising in which tribal loyalties are divided between pro-Gadhafi forces and the disparate opposition seeking societal change under a new regime, presumably more benevolent, humane and socially just. Although the US was rhetorically 'on the side of the people' in all North African and Middle East countries, in essence it was rather circumspect on the uprisings in every country except Libya and Iran during that nation's sporadic anti-government protests.

In fact, the US and EU were rather tentative in their approach to the upheaval in the Arab countries. According to some analysts, EU was more of a distant observer. This is partly because instability in the energy-rich Arab countries has negative global economic consequences and there is no guarantee that the regimes to follow will be friendly toward the West. In the case of Libya, however, the West has been decisive and forceful, something that Gadhafi is exploiting to his advantage in the current revolt turned civil war as each side controls roughly half of the country (east for rebels v. west for Gadhafi) and the battle if for control of the oil fields and air strips along the Mediterranean coast.

On 2 March 2011, Gadhafi, who has invested billions of dollars in the West, threatened to replace all western companies with Chinese, Russian, and Brazilian. He warned that there will be a bloodbath if US and/or NATO forces intervene in the manner Italians colonized Libya. I suspect that the old colonel wants US intervention so that he can portray the uprising as a civil war with pro-US forces on one sides and Libyan patriots on the other.

It is virtually impossible for any country today to reduce Libya into a colony,and I seriously doubt even the most fanatic Tea Party Republican militarist would want to, but the aggressive rhetoric from US and EU regarding Libya in comparison with the diplomatic language the West used to deal with Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, etc., is not only indicative of a deep-seated desire to rid Libya of Gadhafi, partly owing to Israeli pressure, but also of an assumed neo-colonial agenda under which Western companies, especially US, would do much better with a post-Gadhafi regime. 

The danger in the appearance of foreign intervention is that it can only help Gadhafi's followers, even if the regime goes as it will eventually one way or the other. A post-Gadhafi regime coming to power with Western assistance will be so tainted that it will not survive a Libyan culture swimming in deep-seated mistrust of US and Europe as neo-colonial masters serving an Israeli geopolitical agenda. Moving its naval and air forces near Libyan shores, the US is sending the signal that Washington and not the people of Libya are overthrowing Gadhafi.

Russia is already suspicious of the US trying to determine the North African balance of power through force and after the UN sanctions vote it has tried to distance itself from US policy. China is deeply apprehensive about the Arab uprisings having a spill-over impact on Chinese dissidents, so its approach to Libya is very different than that of the US that has a forty-year-old antagonistic relationship with Gadhafi. China has more than 32,000 of its nationals working in Libya and wants a quick end to the uprising, while first securing the safety of its people.

China has engineering, railway, oil and other multi-billion dollar investments in Libya now in jeopardy owing to the uprising. Moreover, China has been one of the largest foreign investors in Africa in the recent years, thus it fears the recent Arab uprisings may change investment opportunities. Therefore, China is just as suspicious of US naval and air operations near Libyan waters as Russia.

Aware that China and Russia  oppose foreign intervention, Gadhafi is using the threat of US military intervention and China's and Russia's reservations as leverage to rally support around his regime as defender of national interest versus the rebels now backed by Western imperialists. The worse case scenario in the case of US/NATO intervention is indeed the fatalities of many thousands, with a regime to follow lacking legitimacy because it would be perceived as a US/Western puppet.
 
The best case scenario for the Libyan people and for the rest of the world is to allow the grass roots movement take its course. The rebels have pleaded for foreign intervention, given that food and medical supplies are running short, but rebels have also called for military intervention because they see a long struggle ahead. Republicans in congress and right-winger lobbyists and activists are urging the Obama administration to adopt an aggressive and interventionist policy toward Libya, while they do  not adopt the same policy toward Bahrain, Yemen or any other conservative Arab state.

The EU's immediate concern is the flood of refugees from North Africa pouring into Europe. Longer term, the EU has the same economic and geopolitical concerns as the other great powers that just a few weeks ago were making all kinds of multi-billion dollar deals in everything from weapons sales to consumer products with the same tyrants they are now denouncing. While many have rushed to judgment that the US and EU are the clear losers from the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, that field is not at all clear and how the EU and US behave during the uprisings and in the transition process toward new regime consolidation will determine Arab-Western relations.

LIBYA AND OBAMA: PART II

In the presidential campaign, Obama will be foolish not to take credit for 'capturing Bin Laden, and helping bring 'democracy' (free market Western-style capitalism) to Islamic countries. This is what I would advise him to do if I were on his staff, and I think he needs no advice because he is a political animal with instincts that lead him in that direction.

However, the reality of what the US did in the Islamic countries under Obama, and presidential campaign politics are two different things. The chaotic situation in Libya, which I am not so sure that it will not wind up like Yemen where factions are fighting it out and will continue to do for some time, is a US-NATO creation, and largely a distraction from the multiple problems surrounding the economy.  I was recently reported that voters are so angry with their representatives that most House members will not be holding 'town hall' sessions during summer recess, and many of those that do hold them, will be charging at a fee at the door. That is one way to make sure the faithful enter and cheer their representatives, while the disgruntled stay out. 

In politics, perception by the voters is the only thing that matters, and in that respect Reagan taught his successors well. Obama, who is a smooth and slick politician, mostly image with minimal substance, and he is well aware that image is all that matters if you want people to vote for you, will have to claim foreign policy as a domain of success, especially since the Clintons have been instrumental in this area; and the Clintons continue to enjoy wide support among Democrat insiders and a segment of Democrat voters. Therefore, let us distinguish between the reality of chaos in Islamic countries that the West has helped to create, on the one hand, and the political perception within the US and to a lesser extent UK and France that the seeds of 'democracy' have been sown.

As far as the degree to which the possibility of a Libyan civil war impacting Western interests, I must assume that the US and its allies have taken that into account and they probably figure as long as the new pro-West regime controls the major cities and oil, that will work just fine, because the new regime will be borrowing from its patrons to buy weapons and mortgaging future oil sales. So you see, the CIA has very capable people after all. That they work for neo-imperialist policies is the business of elected officials. This teaches us that 'democracy' in the advanced countries like US, UK, and France, imperialism is an integral part supported if not tolerated by a wide spectrum of voters who perceive their interests linked to it. Such a phenomenon existed during the Age of Imperialism (1870-1914), as well as the age of new imperialism 1945-present, operating under the ideological/political cover first of the Cold War (US-Soviet confrontation) and then under the 'war on terror'.

---

CASHING-IN ON ANTI-TERRORISM

The US anti-terrorism campaign as institutionalized during the George Bush administration (2001-2009) with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was in many respects not just a reflection of the assault on civil rights and human rights, but an attempt to strengthen international finance capitalism that was finding resistance by national laws protecting the environment and workers rights within which are immigrants and under-represented groups. This was the case not just in the US, but across Europe, Australia, and other countries using 'anti-terrorism' as a pretext to diminish social and environmental laws and strengthen corporate capitalism.

As a result of the anti-terrorism campaign, there have been individuals and segments of society that have benefited while others seriously damaged despite having not even a remote connection with 'terrorism'. And because it is simply impossible to oppose anti-terrorism in any country for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, opportunists and profiteers from the public and private sectors line up behind this campaign to make careers and cash in. From the US and UK to Australia and Russia, money intended for the 'anti-terror' campaign was used to reward political allies in politics and business. Funds are spent on purposes other than strengthening security; not that there is such a thing as ensuring security from terrorism, experts agree, given Israel's six-decade-long experience with anti-terrorism against the Palestinians and England's protracted struggle against Northern Ireland.

A number of countries with poor human rights records, including Sri Lanka to Turkey, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia and Peru have been using the US-led global anti-terrorism campaign to crack down on opposition groups, to weaken legal and judicial rights to their citizens, and to raise defense and police budgets. Even democratic Australia has used anti-terrorism laws against Kurdish, Sri Lankan Tamil, and in general Muslim groups. The EU has also conformed to the US-led anti-terrorism campaign as has Latin America that is one of the most least likely areas in the world to have a terrorism attack that matches the profile that the US Homeland Security projects to the world. Of course, each country tailor-makes its own 'terrorist' enemies, thus serving national political goals. For Israel, Palestinians are 'terrorist', for China it is Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese in the far-western region of Xinjiang; and so it goes with each country profiling its terrorists.

Besides the constrictions that 'anti-terrorism' places on democracy, labor and minorities are among the social groups in all countries seriously hurt by the global anti-terrorism campaign. A number of governments used the anti-terrorism campaign in the last ten years as a pretext to curtail civil liberties and human rights, but also to attack organized labor and environmental justice, while promoting corporate welfare. Not just the nascent anti-terrorism businesses that were created, but all corporations lined up behind the anti-terrorism campaign because they saw the benefits to their interests whether they were in the communications business, banking or in the defense contractor sector.

As governments transitioned from the Cold War to the 'anti-terrorism' war in the last decade, they burdened the general taxpayers whose money into the hundreds of billions around the world has been wasted on a phantom enemy the state has blown out of proportion, but which benefits the political and business establishments in each country distracting public focus from domestic social and economic problems to the terrorist enemy. Fewer than 400 people annually lost their lives as a result of 'terrorism' acts in the last decade, as compared with more than 30,000 on US highways annually. Despite these statistics, the entire world used terrorism has used terrorism as a pretext to raise defense spending to levels that contributed to the global civilian economy's weakening and deteriorating living standards for workers and the middle class.

In April 2008, homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff waved the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, a host of other environmental protection legislation, religious graves and freedoms for Native Americans, in order to construct the infamous 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Chertoff served as anti-terrorism czar from 2005 to 2009 and then decided to cash in by opening his own consulting firm on 'security' issues that has become the fastest growth industry since the introduction of the global anti-terrorism campaign. Cashing in on anti-terrorism is  not only patriotic, it makes good business sense because government guarantees contracts. But is the world any safer, or any better off socially, politically, economically, or in any sense at all?

Following the military response in Afghanistan and Iraq, securing Muslim states to cooperate with Washington, and paying lip service to pro-West Muslims and to Islam as a religion of peace, anti-terrorism policies have only increased Muslim militancy and created greater fear and instability inside the US and around the world. Because the corporate sector, the corporate-owned media, and nostalgic Cold Warriors who will always need an enemy to fight, and will follow the expensive and dangerous route to prevent non-state-sponsored violence, only citizens at the grass roots level can bring pressure on their representatives to end the ant-democratic and bogus campaign on terrorism which is a pretext to diminish human right, labor rights, and weaken environmental laws while strengthening corporate welfare.

LIBYA AND OBAMA

On 20 March 2011, I wrote a piece entitled "Libya: the Day After", arguing that innocent people will die while there will be no structural political, social or economic change that would improve society for the majority of citizens. On the contrary, Libya of the future will be more of a Western semi-colony than it was in the last four decades. Libya with the lowest GDP-to-debt ratio in the world will become a debtor nation so that Western corporations can enjoy a long-term stronghold on oil, cheap labor, and open market access.

Nevertheless, Obama comes out as a clear winner, as do Sarkozy and Cameron to a certain extent. They insisted on regime change and Libya's closer integration into the West and they will have their way. Obama can use Libya as a foreign policy victory, and he can in fact widened the scope and argue that under his presidency democracy spread in Islamic countries. Very good news indeed for the incumbent president looking for some good news in foreign policy given that there is not much of that in labor and economic arenas.

Obama has already claimed Libya as a victory for his administration's 'multilateral foreign policy', although the Republicans are already claiming that Obama must be judged on the basis of what type of regime will be forged in Tripoli after Muamar Gaddhafi - that is, the degree to which that a future regime will be subservient to the West and surrender sovereignty to the US and its allies. Obama is paying lip service to the sovereignty issue, but cautions that Libya will be judged by the degree to which it comes together or remains divided as is the case in Yemen. The only thing that matters is that US-NATO intervention in Libya, with the collaboration of al-Qaeda, has helped Obama in his re-election bid, and it has strengthened both Cameron and Sarkozy who are in trouble with their own voters owing to economic and social disasters in their ow3n countries. Thank God that foreign policy can still serve as a distraction when things go terribly wrong at home.

LIBYA: THE DAY AFTER

On 20  March 2011, I had written a brief piece entitled "LIBYA: THE DAY AFTER". Now that the pro-NATO rebels are in Tripoli and it seems that they will prevail, it is important to reflect on exactly what this means for the country and its people. I am re-submitting the posting because I would like the readers to reflect not just on the day after for Libya, but for Tunisia and Egypt where uprisings have resulted in new governments, but where there has been no structural political, social, or economic change. Moreover, in the case of Libya, it seems inevitable that the victory of the US, UK and France is a resounding setback for the sovereignty of Libya and a huge setback for the socioeconomic status of its people as they will soon discover under a new regime.

I can only imagine the tragedy of the Libyan rebels, and I can understand the desire to remove the corrupt and tyrannical Gaddafi clan from power. There is a story that when Brazilian doctors performed plastic surgery on Gaddafi's face, he would only accept local anesthetic and only in the presence of his armed guards. He did not trust the doctors to administer total anesthesia for fear he would not wake up. This is the sort of leader who brings to mind paranoid dictators from the past, including Joseph Stalin.Who would not wish to see an end to hostilities in Libya, installation of a regime that represents all the tribes and tries to govern by pursuing policies intended to promote the welfare of all people who are deeply divided during the civil war of 2011.

However, trying to legitimize use of force against an Islamic country by using the UN and the Arab League as 'legal fronts' is a hollow strategy that will not serve western interests and it will further open the chasm between Muslims and the Crusading West. This is why Russia and China have permitted the US and its NATO allies to proceed, while only Germany has covered itself from the US-UK-French policy, with France appearing to be in the forefront of military operations that started in the afternoon of 19 March 2011 against Libyan targets. It is no coincidence that US, UK, and France that are leading the war against Libya all have a oil interests - corporations want to renegotiate contracts on more favorable terms with the post-Gaddafi regime.

That Gaddafi offered a technical cease fire on 18 March 2011, while pushing ahead with ground combat in Benghazi could be seen as a temporary success for the US; and/or Gaddafi intentionally provoking NATO. He could decide to leave early on, given that US military sources give two weeks for these operations to have an impact sufficient enough to cripple the regime in Tripoli. If Gaddafi leaves quickly and few lives are lost, it would be a major political victory for the rebels who would be obliged to cooperate with NATO countries. If he stays and fights it out until he is injured or killed, who knows what will unfold if Pentagon estimates about a two-weeks operation does not hold true. After a day of operations, official sources in Tripoli report 48 dead and several hundred wounded, while Gaddafi has called on his supporters to be armed to defend against 'Crusaders'.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon applauded Security Council decision on 17 March 2011 to use “all necessary measures” in defense of Libya's people from the violence by the Gaddafi regime, as the international community demands. Along with India, Brazil and Germany, China and Russia, which have veto power, abstained. While the UN was voting on Libya, there was a massacre in Yemen where the uprising is on its third month, and major unrest in Bahrain. The question that arises is whether the UN Security Council should take action on the uprisings of those countries. It is a certainty that the US will do nothing in either Yemen, Bahrain or any of the Persian Gulf states because they are pro-West. This is well known throughout the Islamic world, and the hypocrisy of US-NATO policy will be exposed if and when the bombing starts against Libya.

It is true that the US, which needed the cover of Arabs to bomb yet another Islamic country, received it from the politically ineffective and irrelevant, and morally bankrupt and unpopular Arab League - in essence Saudi Arabia, although Egypt also wants a new regime in Tripoli. Let us assume that Arab League members also become militarily involved, and not just engage in boycott and interceptions of supplies to Gaddafi's forces. How will this reflect with the general population when a Muslim is helping in a Crusade against a fellow Muslim country? As French fighter planes were flying over Benghazi, Moscow repeated its reservations about NATO raids as flights were taking place over Libyan air space.

The problem that the US-NATO forces have is that Muslims know them very well by their actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and of course in Palestine. Already Iraqis protesting Saudi interference in Bahrain have strongly condemned the US-NATO double standard and denounced the Saudi king as a tool of the US and Israel. That the otherwise pro-West Turkish Premier Erdogan criticized any military intervention in Libya is indicative that he recognizes the wave of Muslim opposition to such a move. Syria has also distanced itself from NATO's military solution, and has even been accused of backing Gaddafi, simply because Damascus has called for a cease fire and political solution. Nor is it a secret that the US, Israel and some EU members would love to destabilize Syria and spread the Islamic revolts to that country so a new regime can replace the Ba'ath one-party state.

The situation is more complicated because Gaddafi keeps insisting that al-Qaeda is behind the opposition. While his claim may appear absurd, there are the conspiratorial minded who believe that Gaddafi is telling the truth and the US is indeed helping the same side as al Qaeda. It is true that al-Qaeda has been against Libya for some time and commander Sheikh Abu Yahiahas has called for the fall of Gaddafi, as he had for the fall of regimes in Tunisia and Egypt. The issue of where Libyan rebels are getting their supplies also complicates the picture. Qatar is one of the sources, and the US has urged Saudi Arabia to help the rebels. Given the rebels' supply sources, is Gaddafi wrong to imply that the US-EU and al-Qaeda are on the same side?

A political solution to the Libyan civil war could have worked out assuming there was a political will on the part of the US, and it is still possible to drive Gaddafi out during military operations through back-channel diplomacy. A political solution would have required a credible NATO military threat behind it in order to force Gaddafi from power, if he resists. However, published sources indicate that the hardliners within the Obama administration - Clinton and Rice influenced by right wing and pro-Israel views - ruled out a political settlement and went right for the military solution reminiscent of the reckless foreign policy Bush followed and Obama criticized. At the same time, Sarkozy has really pushed for military solution, largely because he is in trouble at home owing to the rise of the far right led by Marine Le Pen. But what now? What is Gaddafi uses scud missiles
that can reach a number of EU targets; what if he uses mustard gas or other weapons in his arsenal; what if this 'little war' gets out of hand; what if...?

The question is whether rebels believe that their interests really converge with those of US and Europe once Gaddafi is out and a new regime is in place? And do the US and EU believe that the post-Gaddafi regime would be loyal to the West to the degree they hope, especially given Libya's historical tradition of anti-West sentiment? Cooperation out of necessity with strong undercurrents of antagonism is the only future between the post-Gaddafi regime and the West. 

And that would be a best case scenario. Meanwhile, we have to wait and see how many innocent people will die and sustain war injuries as a result of the US-UK-French campaign to deliver democracy to Libyans and oil contracts on better terms for their corporations - oh yes, defense contractors also stand to make a handsome profit, while the world economy will take another hit as oil price rises and makes all products and services more expensive amid a recession. 

DESTROYING TO REBUILD: THE PARADOXICAL LOGIC OF WAR

There is a video game called Destroy All Humans! 2: Make War Not Love that has been around for five years - from what I know at least, considering my ignorance of these things. While young people play this game to fill the void with pent-up energy that the video game allows to release, the logic of the game is based on the reality of what takes place in the real world today. War has its own logic rooted in ideology, value system, politics, economics, and culture that includes religion. That paradoxical logic may not make any sense to pacifists worshiping Mahatma Gandhi, but it is the aggressor who shall not inherit the earth, while the pacifist has a clear conscience!

Countries with the means to do so, as the US in the last fifty years, launch regional wars and then they have corporations rebuild the countries destroyed, thus generating economic activity and capital concentration. This is now unfolding before the world watching Libya on TV and web, just as it has in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three Islamic countries targeted for destruction by the US (NATO) war machine behind which there is the military-industrial complex; three Islamic countries where vital economic and strategic interests have been identified as 'vital interests'. After the war is over, comes rebuilding by western corporations that have a 'hold' on the assets of those countries (oil in the case of Iraq and Libya) destroyed and rebuilt hostage.

After two days of the military offensive against Libya we have a situation in which there is massive destruction of the basic infrastructure that US, and EU multinational corporations will step in to rebuild after the civil war ends and a new regime replaces Gaddafi. But so far, Gaddafi's defiance seems to pose the question of whether air operations are sufficient without ground troops to force him from power. But that was not what the UN Security Council voted on, and it was certainly not something the US, UK, or France (the crusading trio) advertised before commencing military operations.

Turkey continues to object to military intervention, but at the same time tries to show that it respects UN Security Council decision to impose a no-fly zone, and it permits its military installations to be used in operations against Libya. Greece, a long-time ally of Libya and right next door, expresses support for UN Security Council decision, and permits its naval bases in Crete to be used for resupply and launch operations against Libya. The cost to bankrupt Greece under IMF-EU austerity measures is an estimated one million euros per day!

Germany abstained from the UN Security Council vote, but it has endured the wrath of the 'crusading trio'; a military alliance Germany views with deep suspicion. Nevertheless, it has allowed its military installations to be used for operations. Meanwhile, NATO cannot carry out any actions unless there is unanimous vote - having Turkey and Germany on the same side as China and Russia poses a problem, despite what countries are doing behind the scenes to support anti-Gaddafi operations.

The biggest problem for the 'crusading trio' is that the Arab League has now changed its position on military operations. Shocked at the fact that at least 110 tomahawk missiles were launched against pro-Gaddafi installations indiscriminately to destroy the infrastructure along with any human being standing in the way, the divided and politically bankrupt Arab League is now saying that it never meant for innocent human life to be lost and for such wholesale destruction to be visited on Libya. The 'crusading trio' is not releasing any information on civilians casualties; a policy the US adopted in the Iraq war.

The Arab League went as far as indicating that it was manipulated and used by the 'crusading trio', though it seems to support the UN Security Council's vote. On 21 March 2011, US Defense secretary Robert Gates visiting St. Petersburg, urged Russia to be more energetically involved in global affairs, meaning to actively support the 'crusading trio' efforts against Gaddafi. Putin stated that the military operations constitute a Medieval crusade; language that Gaddafi uses as well in order to win world public opinion. President Dmitry Medvedev differs to a small degree.

The situation is becoming worse than Putin describes it. The UK and France differ about how to proceed just two days after military operations. Both are concerned that Germany's position is undermining their united front at a time that France has decided on a major international gamble by assuming the lead role in Libya - perhaps duped by the US. Concerned that the situation is getting out of control with wider ramifications that will backfire, Obama and Robert Gates have stated that within a couple of days they want either NATO and/or EU to be in charge of the Libyan military operations, while US will be supportive from behind the scenes. 

War has its own logic and it is not based on anything rational. War is based on the adventure and romance of raw power and tangible political and economic interests accruing to the victors. Will Libyans be better off after the uprising interrupted by crusading Western intervention? According to some estimates, Libya has the highest per capita income in Africa. Will this be the case after the 'crusading trio' is finished with Libya? After the Gaddafi regime, the need for reconstruction owing to the massive destruction of the country by the crusading trio will mean billions for western corporations in contracts, for which Libya will have to devote oil revenues and lower living standards.

It is true that Gaddafi favored the Warfala tribe from which he comes at the expense of other tribes. Many from his own tribe have defected, as have many from the Zawiya, Zentan, the Bani Walid, and Obeidat tribes.Most of these tribes believe they will be better off under a post-Gaddafi regime, but living standards will decrease as oil contracts will most likely be signed on less favorable terms than exist currently, and enormous amounts would have to be spent on reconstruction. Given that we have a global recession in which the multinational corporations are trying to squeeze every dollar or euro they can from any place in the world, Libya presents a great opportunity to make money. It is all in the name of freedom and democracy and above all for the people!

SEX AND FOOD IN PAGAN CULTURE

 From ancient pagan (pantheist) cultures that reflected the multidimensional nature of humans living in nature to more modern monotheistic religious cultures that are dogmatically dichotomous relegating people to good or evil categories, food and sex and inexorably linked. In pantheistic or monotheistic culture, food and sex reflect society and human nature that in some religions, especially paganism, are deemed divine, while in others, especially in Christianity, Judaism and Islam that link celibacy to spirituality, deemed sinful except under conditions for procreation purposes.

In ancient Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Barbarian mythology where paganism is a catalyst to culture it is evident that the individual against the background of a pantheistic universe is a reflection of God that is in essence impersonal. The inherent relativism in pantheism and the symbolism in mythology as a transcendent factor in capturing the essence of complex and contradictory aspects of human nature capture the meaning for food and sex both as rituals as well as aspects of survival. Therefore, the most basic instinct of survival requiring food and sex had transcendent significance for pagans.

In "Mythic Relfections", Joseph Campbell argues that food and sex, otherwise a part of daily routine, become sacraments through intent as the individual realizes that something that is taken for granted has universal and higher significance than the physical act itself, as it is the catalyst to life.

"When you're eating something, this is something quite special to do. But you don't know what you're doing unless you think about it. That's what a ritual does. It gives you an occasion to realize what you're doing so that you're participating in the inevitable energy of life in its exchanges. That's what rituals are for; you do things with intention, and not just in the animal way, ravenously, without knowing what you're doing. This is true also of sex. People who just engage in sex as a fun game, as something exciting like that, don't realize what they're doing. Then you don't have the sacramentalization. And the whole reason marriage is a sacrament is that it lets you know what the hell is correct and what isn't, and what's going on here. A male and female coming together with the possibility of another life coming out of it - that's a big act."

Of all species, only humans attribute higher meaning to food and sex as ritual celebrating life or sinful act manifesting the materialistic/hedonistic aspect of human nature. Where then does the difference rest between the pagan and monotheistic cultures in their treatment of sex and food as rituals that invariably influence peoples' daily routines as well? Lifestyles under pagan religions were largely shaped by the view of the multi-dimensional self, thus food and sex reflected not necessarily human nature, but peoples' collective view of human nature and the complex and multi-dimensional universe.

The concept of character flaws, or imperfections in human nature deemed as natural instead of 'sin' in paganism entails a different sense of self for pagans than for the three monotheistic religions that emerged from the Middle East - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That sense of self is directly related to how food and sex are viewed by society and thus the individual.

Given that the pagans did not duel on the dichotomy of good and evil as the monotheistic religions, and given that they believed the universe to be complex and multidimensional, their view of the self was a reflection of the universe of which they were a part and not something from which they needed to separate themselves and relegated to the category of sin or of good and evil. To some extent, Hinduism is closer to paganism on the issue of food and sex, although it is true that regional and sectarian differences play a role. Annam (food) is part of Brahman, thus food is divine. Pleasure/desire are also part of the divinity if not mystical aspect of humans. Restraint in the Buddhist tradition is closer to the monotheistic tradition that comes out of the Middle East, although the word sin (violating God's rules) is not associated with permissive behavior.

Sin is associated with food and sex as sin, original sin in the Judeo-Christian tradition, equating pleasure with loss of one's spiritual connection to God. This is just the opposite of many pagan traditions - to some degree also Indian - that celebrated with food and sex as spiritual experiences to get closer to the gods. St. Augustine and the Church fathers promoted marriage as a mechanism to foster family and procreate, not an institution in which the couple would find bliss in carnal pleasures; on the contrary, marriage was the way to avoid temptation, or unrestrained desires. What the pagans perceived as 'natural', the Christians condemned as sinful and enslavement of the soul for the sake of pleasing the body to which free will was surrendered.

If we set aside the instinct for survival and need for procreation to perpetuate the human species, both cases requiring food and sex, what then accounts for nuances in these basic human needs between cultures other than the evolution of the community shaped by everything from geography/topography and climate, namely nature, to human relationships en masse such as wars and internal conflicts that divide and/or unite people into social groups.

Worship of the fertility deities, of the mother goddess directly linked to both food and sex culture, is a reflection of a value system that shaped the mindset toward sexual mores, marriage and sex rituals inexorably linked with food and wine as part of the intoxicating experience in human pleasures of the flesh that assumed spiritual significance.

Taken from the festivals of Lupricalia where music, dance, food, and love were celebrated, Valentine's Day remains a tribute to the pagan tradition of sensual pleasures of the flesh that have transcending spiritual meaning. In the same manner so does May Day with its celebration of fertility, of the mother earth and phallic symbols - similar religious symbols are found in many pagan religions around the world as well as Hinduism. Although Christianity strictly forbade May Day celebrations, as May was sexual freedom month where marriage vows did not pertain, May Day has remained a vague celebration of nature to this day.  

Ancient Egyptians as well as Greeks celebrated spring with rites involving food, wine and sex. As far as claims of divinity associated with parthenogenesis or 'virgin birth', this was much more prevalent than people believe when they insist that the Virgin Mary was a unique case. In religious mythology of ancient Greece and Rome, as well as India, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, we encounter 'miracle birth' or parthenogenesis, indicative of how the gods were created. The Christians used parthenogenesis to distance their faith and practices from the pagan concept of sexual relationships as well as marriage. 

Is the difference between pagans and monotheists that a food-and-sex-accepting religion entails chaos because humans lose control and manifest their anarchistic proclivities? Is it a case of the political and social elites that use ascetic-oriented doctrines and decry pleasure as an integral part of religion in order to impose discipline and control over the masses? Is it the case the patriarchal monotheistic societies fear the female invariably associated with the cult of food and sex that can be tools of female dominance?

Has monotheistic culture benefited by reverting to some aspects of pagan culture mores regarding food and sex, or is it the case that such trend developing since the Renaissance represents the decline of Western civilization? Does food and sex unleash creative potential by stimulating the brain's pleasure center - releasing the chemicals (dopamine) in the brain that account for euphoria?  If there are foods and drinks that boost sex drive, and if sex drive is a salient factor in the creative intellect, should the pagan culture mores be condemned as 'unnatural'?