The Hidden Ideological Warning Of Far Cry 5

Far Cry 5 has been announced to a lot of controversy, some from Christian groups objecting to its portrayal of Christian cult leader Joseph Seed as the antagonist and his attacks on the surrounding populations in the fictional area of Hope County, Montana.  Realistically, Far Cry 5’s setting is an analogue and criticism of the dangers of Islam* rather than Christianity. 

The setting of the game puts the antagonist, Seed, in control of a large para-military force that has control of Hope Country.  His control of the area allows him to force the religious practices and rules of his cult onto the local population.  OK, so far so good.   However, there are no Christian terrorist groups that can claim control over swaths of land where they force religious subjugation.  However, there is the current example of ISIS that claim large parts of the middle east under their cult’s banner (Islam).  They operate a para-military force, follow a cult and they force strict adherence to the traditional Islamic values, persecuting non-believers and other religious sects.  Nice match to Seed’s vision.

What else?  Let us look at the setting synopsis of Far Cry 5 as described by Wikipedia; “…Seed is a radical preacher and Eden's Gate is a militaristic doomsday cult. Under his rule, Eden's Gate has used both coercion and violence to forcibly convert the residents of Hope County…”  Does that sound familiar?  It should do, it’s in line with a cogent interpretation of the Koran which ISIS follow.  It instructs on the conquest of non-believers and their forcible conversion to the values of Islam. 

Examples from the Koran to substantiate this comparison and assertion include;

4:89 “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

3:56 “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony…”

9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah [..] nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam) …”

8:39 “And fight with them until there is no more fitna [unbelievers] and religion is all for Allah…”

47:3 “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood […] so when you meet those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond (enslave them) …”

You get the idea…

We must remember that we live in a post Charlie Hebdo world - with significant Islam apologists on the political left.  Far Cry 5 is a depiction of the explicit militant tenets of Islam, dressed in Christian clothing so to be palatable to a politically correct, western-civilization hating media and population.  

-----
Edit:  Now that Far Cry 5 is out, it appears to be a cracking good game.  As I expected, everyone is focusing any political discussion on its controversial take on "Trump's America" or "Christian middle-America".  This is still missing the point, as I explained in the post above, and shows just how mentally damaged we are in the west.  People miss that this is not a depiction, even hyper-realized, of Christianity but of Islam.  Or, as Douglas Murray would say, "we have internalized the Fatwa". 

-----

* Note on the terminology of Islam and Islamic groups

I will not use the term “modern Islam” in this article because it is a misnomer.  Islam is inherently an ancient cult, since it has not had a period of modern reformation and readjustment to modern / secular values (for example, in the way Christianity has).  Islam in its current state consists of only 3 groups (as viewed by those employing violence in the name of Islam itself):

1 “Extremists” who follow or tacitly condone the violence instructed in the Koran explicitly, who despite the label are surprisingly numerous world-wide.  

2 “Apostates” – these people call themselves Muslims, but would be viewed as non-believers by the extremists as they are not of the right sect and don’t follow the Koran’s teachings “properly”.  Ironically to outsiders, this group makes up the majority of victims of Islamic violence. 

3 “Non-believers” – essentially all other religions or secular people. Extremists don’t differentiate between groups 2 & 3 in how they apply violence to them.  

Decline of (the West) Christianity

The decline of religion in the West has come at the expense of community values, certainty over personal morals and a reduction in the harmony our shared ideology.  Worse, this vacuum has allowed a diverse but irrational and unproductive list of values to take hold in society.  This is causing down-stream political problems and confusing in-group / out-group behaviors. 

Religion has always been a tool, used both to accomplish good and bad outcomes.  Built into religion are essentially a pre-formed set of morals and values.  These are inferior to ones derived from intentional derivation from philosophical arguments.   This is most easily shown by their inability, in most religions to be re-assessed over time.  Side note -  this is not to underplay the renaissance and modernization of Western Christianity over the last few hundred years to give this exact, sorely needed evolution of its values.  

The study and product of philosophy (in the academic and Greco-Roman period sense) is precisely to produce morals and values that are logically deduced and able to be adapted to fit the world around you, including changing them over time as required. 

The idea presented by anti-theist philosophers like Nietzsche was to replace religion with intentional, logical philosophy discovery, not to simply discard it.  What has actually happened to most of the atheist community in the West is a reduction in the introspection and intentional creation of moral codes and values.  Instead, narcissism, ego, vapid pop-culture emulation and nihilism stemming from the post-modern school of thought has coalesced to produce new generations that are unable to think critically about philosophy or appreciate the history that has produced the Western world.  

The promotion of philosophy and logic are foremost in the fight back to re-energise and re-empower the collective consciousness of the West.  This can take place in academia, where social studies should not take primacy over formal, classical philosophy; and in everyday life, by people taking more time to critically evaluate their morals and values and pick up a philosophy book once in a while.  

In the meantime, we must remember that while often outdated, the values that underpin Christianity are indeed what has guided the Western world (which is the best society we have ever created, by the way, despite its flaws).  We should consider these values' relevance today, even if we personally are agnostic / atheist - and realize that we are more philosophically alike our Christian fellows, than not. 

Starship Trooper's Style and Approach

People analyse this film very 1-dimensionally.  ST plays both the action scifi blockbuster trope straight and embraces the satire.  It does a similar thing with its theme, both accepting and indeed romanticizing the virtues of a regimented, individually accountable society (fascist is an overused term these days) while being fully critical of the destructive aspects of that ideology, and lamenting that you have to trade some virtues for expediency - a character of humanity and reality itself that we struggle with every day.  

Paul V could have made the film a gritty sci fi and less people would have watched it, or made it an on-the-nose philosophical diatribe (or far more subtle a satire) and more people would have been put off or missed the point respectively.  As it turns out, he did the best that he could do with the situation.  It is indicative of his other work and how he approaches themes in his films.  He finds a way to keep his films relevant.  He does this by avoiding making them a one sided, polemic or blunt statement of his views while retaining forceful punch.  They are multilayered - or if you prefer, they have an almost ambivalent quality, showing the internal struggle a person has in figuring out what is right and wrong.  This struggle is indicative of difficult and broad-reaching concepts that don't fit neatly into black and white, right and wrong categories. 

Its funny because ST follows the exact same tune as his other masterpiece Robocop, and that film is in most cases exulted.  Robocop is a grittier film but not completely so, with some campy moments, and it has an underlying serious message on top of its subversive satire.  Its also has a schizophrenic attitude to its subject matter and themes just as ST has.  Robocop is both the hero of the film, and a product of the antagonist (OCP rather than any one individual).  He is also portrayed as being more capable than his fellow officers, yet at the cost of his individualism (hint hint, just like the population & gov't in ST).  And Robocop both cleans up the streets of crime yet is the product of corporate corruption (ie crime) and OCP engineered a situation where officers like Murphy are likely to get killed for the experiment to be possible.  It can be inferred in the story that one reason for the crime and decay in Detroit, is because of the actions of corporations like OCP.  This is in line with the film's anti-capitalist/consumerist message, while at the same time the protagonist is the zenith of the technological output of that world!

ST is very much a case of both admiring the strengths of a group and group behavior and lamenting its shortcomings.  Its not a black and white satirical message.  We see the virtues of individualism, while being shown that some potency is lost in that exchange.  Indeed the arch (pun) enemy of the humans is precisely a society that is even more hive-mind that the portrayed human gov't.  This is not a coincidence.  And Sky Marshall Tehat Maru states "we must understand the bug." - this is an enemy that must be respected, even if simply on the grounds of their great capacity to wage war.  This, of course, goes back to the classroom scene where Michael Ironside tells us of the capability of violence to "end" a debate on whom is more virtuous.  

The school teacher/scientist in the first act even says this herself - she gleefully carves up the bugs while at the same time respecting them as enemies and their accomplishments.  This is very much a feeling borne out of the military ethos - the more that you have to fight a difficult enemy the more you hate AND respect them.  This works both ways - for the bug's civilization and the human gov't.  Feel free to "blah, blah" about how bad fascism/collectivism is at this point, while missing the point that both societies are made stronger in their will to fight and survive due to their structure/ideology.  (And that the gov't portrayed in ST is in fact, a democracy!)  Michael Ironside stated that violence, while disgusting (he should know, he is missing a damn arm), is an absolute arbitrator.  Like the people in Nagasaki, the dead in a war are unequivocally the losers.  They are not the ones left standing afterwards, with the luxury of being able to ponder whether or not their actions were morally "correct".  

So; is ST (or Robocop) supporting or satirizing fascism / collectivism and warfare?  Neither.  Just like the uniforms of the human military, the film's morals and story is an intriguing yet opaque grey canvass.  

Speech vs Force

Speech is the way that humans exchange thoughts.  This is fundamental to the western worlds stability and peaceful (mostly) democratic process.  In the arena of discourse, force is the opposite of speech.  Force is deployed for one purpose in this arena, to silence, and the ultimate version of this is to take someone's life.  Once a person is dead, they are no longer able to form or share thoughts.  Force is the opposite of speech. 

In the west we enjoy the right to free speech.  We do not have the right to free application of force - you are welcome to read the libertarian philosopher John Stuart Mill to explain why this is.  The recent outpouring of violence by the "tolerant left" in the US, and subgroups within it, are disgusting.  There can be no excuse for this violent behavior.  In some circumstances it can be defined as terrorism.  Those who engage in it need to be brought to justice. 

Trump, TPP and Freedom

There is one thing that everyone can agree on about Trump, whether you like him or not; he is one of the few Presidents in history to actively and decisively enact his manifesto.  What most people are reacting to with shock about Trump deploying his programs and orders with rapidity, is nothing more than a habit, a conditioned response to expect government to be lethargic, obfuscating and to renege on its promises immediately on entering power.

Two weeks out from Trump's inauguration, he has already hit milestones.  It doesn't matter if you like or hate them, the fact is he is getting things done.  He didn't lie, he didn't back off, he didn't prevaricate; he delivered - and we should hope that he continues to do so.  He is listening and reacting to the feedback of the public and his colleagues, as can be seen in his change of his views on the use of torture techniques, in particular stemming from the comments from General Mattis.  

Trump has already killed off the TPP, a wealth concentration and sovereignty erosion mechanism intended to bolster NAFTA.  The mother-lode of these mechanisms are the publicly owned "central" banks that are at the heart of the economic and social destabilization of the world.  Using fiat currency, debt-backed money and fractional reserve banking, the Federal Reserve is the biggest and most dangerous of these corrupt private entities masquerading as public services.  Who knows, with some more support and backing from the population - the population he wants to help - Trump may even be able to take on a redesign of the Fed.  

This would make him the most courageous president since JFK - and we all know how that ended.  If anyone is wondering what the reference to Kennedy is, and how that is relevant, Kennedy was aiming at destroying these mechanisms that operate in the background to control all societies, including the US.  

Skepticism is healthy, so listen to Kennedy's own words, in his chilling, prescient and foreshadowing speech he made about these secret powers - just 10 days before he was assassinated. 

We must not be afraid of being free; we only need to oppose those that would lie to control us. 

Equality

Equality of outcome isn't equality at all. 

You would think that seeing the decline of the Soviet Union would be enough to make people realize this.  Clearly the lessons of history are being forgotten to the detriment of the west.  Forced equality by use of quotas, biased selection and excessive wealth redistribution only creates inefficiency.  It demotivates people and creates hatred for the government.  People need to beware such policies and be prepared to push back against social justice and its authoritarian methods. 

The test is simple.  If you let class, race, gender or any other arbitrary characteristic that doesn't influence someone's capability influence your decision, be it hiring or some other decision, you are doing it wrong.  The only factor that should influence your decision is merit.  How capable is the person and are they the right fit to be able to complete the task or job successfully.  Meritocracy (free from class bias or crony capitalism) is the most desirable state for our society to have. 

NASA should steal the Pentagon's budget

The $600 billion per year budget of the US military could be better spent by NASA.  They could use it to both create new space hardware (which would incidentally still require significant aerospace manufacturing, so not detracting too much from the industrial part of the military-industrial complex) and fund new R&D projects that would eventually give rise to new technology and economic opportunities.  Look at how many of the modern technologies that we take for granted come from science related spending; that NASA is so comparatively underfunded is terrible. 

The military is itself a good source of new R&D and it has its own use in defence of the nation.  It would not be necessary to cut out the military budget – that would be equally stupid – but gradually phase it into balance with NASA’s.  For comparison NASA’s budget is around $20 billion per year.  A program could start that aims to make the budgets balance to $310 billion per year for each – still plenty for the military!  NASA would then have a budget of over 15x the amount it currently has.

 Think of all the advancements and achievements that NASA has had a part to play in: the moon landing, satellite construction, the International Space Station and exploring the solar system.   Now imagine that with 15x the funding they could complete projects 15 x faster, or at least complete 15x as many projects at once (a little optimistic but logical).  NASA was created in 1958.  Think about squeezing all of their scientific progress over the last just under 60 years, and doing it all in just 4.