Good luck, Hungary! (and other nations resisting in Europe!)

The European Union always struck me as a very bad idea. Blatantly Orwellian in nature. And now we watch to see if it will finally unravel under the tensions of its leaders inviting in millions of so-called “refugees” from Africa and elsewhere.

Above is a video discussing what’s happening in Hungary when they refused to allow in droves of illegal aliens (invaders, call them whatever you will). Sanctioned. Threatened with being disallowed a vote while still being taxed by the EU (in other words, straight-up taxation without representation). Vilification. Negative press.

In a January 8th [2018] interview with Germany’s tabloid Bild newspaper, Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban said “we don’t see these people as Muslim refugees. We see them as invaders.

Multi-culturalism, he asserted, is an illusion.

That excerpt was from The Globalist article titled “Hungary’s Viktor Orban: Europe’s Flame Thrower” (Jan. 14, 2018).

If you conduct a search yourself you can read all the articles dating back at least a couple of years discussing how the EU was threatening to take actions against Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic for these nations’ unwillingness to accept a QUOTA of refugees from third-world nations. Primarily Muslim, as we know. It’s beginning to sound like the Eastern European nations ought to start seriously entertaining the idea of exiting the European Union, and I sincerely wish them well if ever they do so.

Consider this. Why would the EU require nations therein to accept refugees who are culturally incompatible?

Wait, stop. Drop all the BS you may have heard about “those poor people needing help.” Suspend beliefs and set aside ideology for a minute and really think about the implications of such a practice. Look around and read and pay attention to how much crime rates have increased in nations like Sweden, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the UK since going along with this program. It’s not racist to simply open your eyes and be willing to accept information for what it is, in the raw, unfiltered by what we might wish were true.

I personally don’t have any particular vendetta against people from Africa or the Middle East. Not necessarily anyway, though I’m admittedly uncomfortable with Islam, as an American woman who appreciates the legal protections and freedom afforded to us in Western nations with zero interest in ever being made to wear a burqa and no tolerance for female genital mutilation or the taking of underage brides. As someone who’s half Arab by blood, still it’s safe to say I wouldn’t last a day under Saudi Arabia’s rule of law. Probably couldn’t make it off the plane without managing to get myself stoned. So, what informs my opinion, aside from those personal biases, mostly has to do with what I’m observing across societies in over the years. Where I live we luckily don’t have a Muslim migrant problem (which is to say a boost in crime and harassment of women or dangerous enclaves where even the police shun entering), though a state to the north of here does and has plenty of news headlines to attest to it.

Mostly I get nervous when I read and hear what all is going on in Europe. Pew Research findings tell about how Europeans’ ideological positions impact how favorable they view the newcomers. Nevermind being displaced in their own countries. (Perhaps that’s not a great concern to many Westerners anymore…) Beyond that, I read a good many crime reports that are particularly chilling due to the nature of the crimes committed. Stabbings, gang rapes, vicious and senseless attacks on the innocent out in public, and even the occasional beheading. It’s enough to make anyone feel unsafe and unsure of why any nation ought to continue importing people (or at least a very rowdy, violent fraction thereof) intent on dissing the laws and citizens of their host country. All while KNOWING our leaders are doing a shit job of vetting the “refugees” they’re admitting (assuming there’s any way to successfully vet people without identification, documentation or searchable background records from war-torn regions).

(Daaaammnnn…that was savage, but not untrue!)

Why are these migrants in a position where they feel the need to leave their homelands? Particularly young males (much less often bringing along with them women and children). Well, I don’t doubt for a minute that my country’s wars launched in those regions have certainly created, or at least contributed to, the crisis. Air strikes, drone attacks, and arming various groups down there on the ground to fight one another. That part is unfortunately our fault, and by our I’m referring to the U.S. government along with me and you and anyone else here who pays taxes that funds this bullshit (plus whatever other foreign allies aid us in these endeavors). And coming to terms with that is how they get to us. This realization guilts us, as it probably should since our military had no business interfering in half the places it has over the last 17 years. So we get to thinking we owe it to those folks to cart them over here and everywhere else, to give them comfortable places to stay in a far more civilized environment in an effort to make up for government-funded exploits we feel powerless to do much else about.

But that’s the wrong answer. Understandable as this sympathetic response seems, it won’t do us or them any real good to continue with the current strategy. Well, maybe them on down the line— assuming it’s possible for the bulk of “refugees” to ever get their shit together so as to assimilate or to return home and rebuild their nations—but so far it’s clear that those folks don’t fit into our societies or appreciate our ways, expressing feeling alienated within advanced, non-Muslim societies. Their ways contradict our laws. Their expectations and treatment of women results in tragic crimes here where underage girls wind up “groomed” and taken advantage of and adult women are randomly accosted out in public. Even our educational curriculum isn’t appealing to them. Instead they retreat into enclaves where they recreate conditions similar to what they had back home, violating our laws and customs in the process while basically incubating hostile factions within our own borders.

Not too smart, folks. This is the wrong way.

Consider this. With the EU, the U.S., Canada and wherever else pumping millions and millions of dollars into supposedly helping “refugees,” don’t you think that money would be better spent aiding these people to construct communities in their own regions of the world where they speak the language and are accustomed to the cultures, food, and religion? Absolutely it would! But that’s not happening. Why not? Why do you figure all these leaders of Western nations are throwing an absolute fit about wanting to bring in millions more “refugees” in a bid that neither suits those they claim to be helping nor the native populations? Do you think it’s a complete oversight on the part of our leaders, like they’re just somehow too stupid, naive, or ideologically possessed to comprehend what damage is being done? Do you really believe the hype that, like with our issue in the U.S. where Democrats want to open up our borders, it’s because they’re simply desperate for more votes? Do you honestly believe that these leaders are motivated by strong concern over our falling birth rates and, for the benefit of our economies, are working overtime to stock more people seeking employment opportunities to replace those aging out of the rat race? That all of this somehow makes practical business sense?

I don’t.

I think that’s just what we’re being told, because shortsighted as those claims may sound, they’re nowhere near as heinous as the real reasons. I’m beginning to think there is an active agenda to replace native peoples. Why? I’m not certain. Won’t claim to know more than I do here. But why would the EU put that much pressure on nations who refuse to comply with immigration quotas? Because Angela Merkel has a super soft spot for Syrians and Somalians? Gimme a break! You know better than that. She doesn’t give a damn about them just like she obviously doesn’t give a damn about the German people who keep electing (/not ousting) her corrupt ass. There’s obviously more at play here.

Why has it suddenly become so incredibly taboo to say anything deemed offensive against Muslims here in America, the land of crude humor and screwing with one another over everything under the sun? Why must these folks specially be defended as off limits to all humor and derisive comments?

Why are feminists, here and abroad, being trained to betray their own interests (and those of ALL OTHER WOMEN IN SOCIETY) to cater to Muslims by defending hijabs/burqas (symbols of female disempowerment), joining in feigning outrage over cartoons and parroting how Islam is a “religion of peace,” all while ignoring sex crimes against underage girls and women? That’s a mind-bender there.

Why is Canada’s Trudeau falling all over himself to defend Muslims? Why is Theresa May? Why was Obama and Clinton and all the rest? Ideology, sure, but there’s something more to all of this. That’s the surface excuse. It’s what’s been used as a vehicle to make this all seem palatable to those with a liberal persuasion, forever wanting to see themselves as “inclusive” and “open-minded” and “against hate” (except when it comes to conservatives or those within their ranks who talk back without sufficient clout according to their “progressive stack”  ).

Naw! This goes beyond mere Leftist ideology, at least as we commonly know it to be. Think about it: our politicians and leaders care more about money and consolidating power than pretty much anything else on earth. That’s what drives them. So where’s the money incentive here? Fresh cheap labor pools to exploit? Sure, that’s appealing to your average neocon, but here in America we have Mexicans for that (mean as that may sound, you know I’m not making it up — they’ll tell you this themselves). What do a bunch of (more often than not) low-skilled Middle Eastern and African “refugees” bring to the table, especially considering how many of them wind up becoming dependent on government aid and social programs once they are here? Looks like more of a net drain on the coffers of society than anything else.

Is Saudi Arabia somehow behind this? Is there some sort of wheelin’ and dealin’ occurring between our nations in which our leaders agreed to bend over backwards to help Islamify the world? Maybe.

If not Saudi Arabia, then who? You’d think Israel would be opposed to this gameplan, but I guess those Zionist leaders don’t give much of a damn about their Jewish constituency either. Which really wouldn’t be surprising. That’s how heads of states roll. Telling us what we want to hear just enough to keep us from revolting so they can keep milking us as the tax slaves we’re willing to be. Besides, the U.S. keeps Israel very well armed. Though, in a strange turn of events, Obama generously gifted Saudi Arabia with more weapons and money than ever before prior to leaving office, hence why Saudi is now able to lay waste to Yemen like a proper first-world nation.

 

I’m not happy about any of this, but laughing keeps the rage at bay.

Where’s the money trail in all of this? Sure, George Soros is likely using his immense riches to not only recruit Antifa to tear up Starbucks and hit people with bike locks but also to finance pro-Muslim “refugee” efforts. But still, he doesn’t work alone in this. Otherwise he’d be resisted by other powers, yet he’s not. There’s a concerted effort being made here, folks. Who all is involved? No clue. But there’s a big money payout somewhere at the end of this rainbow or else these big dogs would’ve changed their tunes by now. There’s an agenda that we’re not privy to. The folks who talk about Agenda 21 don’t seem to have pegged this correctly either since importing a bunch of high-fertility third-worlders to the first world is the last thing you’d want to do if your ultimate goal is to reduce the human population and our consequent carbon footprints.

Maybe it’s no longer about money…  Maybe they’re already so powerful and wealthy and corrupt that they’re on to the next stage in their plan. We know they like to centralize everything and destroy nation-states through getting them to unionize (e.g. EU). There’s a global agenda in terms of forming an economic superstructure. But then what? Ugh…a line of inquiry I have no answers to and might as well quit chomping on for now…

OK, backing up, what are these “refugees” actually doing in Europe? Attacking people and trying to push Islamic acceptance onto those nations. And what are the leaders doing in response? Ignoring it, making excuses, accusing Europeans of being a bunch of nasty racist xenophobes if they voice their concerns about it. Sounds to me like they’re essentially telling their citizens that their interests no longer align with those they pledged to serve. Basically you’re on your own. Begging for your governments to do a damn thing about any of it is losing battle since they’re the ones responsible for unleashing this problem on you. And they won’t stop. Won’t even slow down. Not even a little bit.

OUR LEADERS DO NOT CARE ABOUT US.

Nobody is going to swoop in to save Europe. Our hands are already full and all of our leaders are in cahoots with one another. Europeans have to figure out a way to save themselves. The United Kingdom made a bold move in voting to exit the EU, but look how long that process is taking and how they’re being punished in the process – WITH THEIR OWN ELECTED LEADER WORKING AGAINST THEM. Yep. Sad but true.

And it turns out disarming swaths of the UK police force (and traffic wardens too?) wasn’t such a bright idea since they now are getting their asses handed to them:

Very sad. Hard to watch. The thugs were brutal and acted with no remorse.

Thank goodness they let a few of ’em keep their tasers.

Not that Sweden’s looking any better:

Yeah, hard not to be embarrassed for them with all that nonsense going on.

Anyway, we like to think if we could reach some sort of critical mass, maybe then the folks in the military would cease taking orders from on high and instead turn their efforts to defending the peoples of the nations they swore to serve and protect. But I’m seeing a whole lot of paycheck-chasers out in the crowd, truth be told. Same as among the domestic police force. Where do you turn for help when this appears to be the situation at present? Keep waiting for shit to change and for more eyes to pop open and for people to find a way to peel ourselves away from our screens long enough to maybe, possibly, do something to enact change?

I don’t know. We may be waiting a long time, folks. And so many are dependent on these systems to where if it came down to it, I think they’ll opt to be on that side of the fence, aligned with their power-hungry leaders, working to protect the lifestyle they’ve grown accustomed to that preserves them in relative comfort. They’ll cry about how they have kids to feed, bills to pay — like they always do. As if nearly everyone isn’t in the same boat on that. But that’s the bootlicker’s favorite excuse. Count on hearing a lot of excuses along those lines.

Hopefully the people of Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and now Germany and Italy will prove successful in their ambition to stand up for themselves, their cultures and their values. It’s such a mixed bag over here in America that I’m not sure what sort of effective resistance we’d be capable of constructing anytime soon. A nation utterly divided. Nowhere to run. Preferring to shout at one another on college campuses and online, as if that’ll ever change a thing. Or lose ourselves in video games, television shows and porn. Really useful endeavors such as that occupy our time and energy.

It deserves to be restated that this third-world onslaught isn’t typically my primary focus. Got other concerns on my plate, though I keep an eye on that ordeal since I don’t want it sneaking up on me or my loved ones. We can bet it’s coming here too eventually. Appears to be heading everywhere, worldwide. WHY? Because certain entities out there have decided they want it that way, even if that abandons us to sink or swim. Guess it’s ultimately up to us in the end on how that plays out.

Lastly… “Hungary has cut its illegal migration problem by 99 percent. Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó explains how”:

The sane road home

Dr. Jordan Peterson is absolutely correct on his views about freedom of speech and how we need to remain free to honestly think out loud. Not simply because we may want to, but because psychologically this is how we process life and living. We think, we talk, we interact, we dispute and debate and ponder and have our thoughts challenged externally and then hopefully internally as we continue onward in processing and attempting to make sense out of life and living. This is an integral process that is non-negotiable for our individual and collective well-being.

This is precisely why our forefathers encapsulated freedom of speech (and to assemble and to disseminate information via a free press) in the very first amendment of our U.S. Constitution, clearly establishing their recognition of this as a primary natural (inalienable) right extended to us from God (meaning extended from outside of mere human jurisdiction), essentially stating that no government should be tolerated to trespass against us in a manner that interrupts/disrupts our freedom to SPEAK and exchange ideas and associate with one another. They did not conjure up this notion out of their own baseless wishful thinking — they discovered this to be an incontrovertible Truth (as likely others who came before them had as well).

This is where we run into the concept of Objective Truth — that which (inescapably) constitutes the substratum for Reality. Meaning it is elemental, uncompromising, and thereby independent of any predilections or social constructionism convictions we might like to overlay and toy around with. All that we humans are capable of perceiving and experiencing rests upon a primordial foundation of such Objective Truths (however many there may prove to be); and consequently, all human endeavors rejecting this prerequisite understanding are destined to fall apart and turn wickedly insane (i.e. non-life-affirming for our species).

(Skeptics and naysayers obviously remain free to investigate such claims about renouncing Objective Truth/Reality and to discover the fruit borne as a result, as untold numbers of people already have and assuredly forever will — it being in our natures as human beings to relentlessly test boundaries.)

Whatever else may appear true down here on the ground among us squabbling humans remains more of a mystery and is partially determined through our clashes against one another and within ourselves, also partially uncovered as Life perpetually reveals itself and shows us the way (most often via demonstrations of what won’t/can’t work, what leads into dead-end abysses from which we can’t escape, what generates tremendous pain and misfortune with little or no subsequent benefit to humankind, etc.). Articulation of thoughts and ideas is an indispensable means through which we parse what we consider to be reality, disregarding what the conversation or argument in question at any given moment between us might be.

The reason we in the United States of America historically place so much emphasis on the First and Second Amendments of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is precisely BECAUSE such incontrovertible Truths are necessary to accept if any nation is to remain functional (or, for that matter, if any group of people wish to remain intact anywhere at any point in time). Meaning it’s not a choice for us human beings. Rather, it’s a Fact of Life. We must remain free to speak and assemble and share information BECAUSE this is what it means to be human. Remove that capability and watch horrific chaos ensue. Such leads to finding out about ushering in hell on earth by way of distorting our understanding of Reality, disconnecting us from It as well as from one another, twisting our psychologies against our inborn Free Will and any alignment that may prove possible between ourselves and that which we call God.

One only has to look at fairly recent history to find numerous examples where humans’ ambitions led them to create hell on earth: a primary case being the totalitarian Soviet Union of the 20th century (as Dr. Peterson has brought to many of our attention). Also Mao’s China (heck, to an extent even China of today). These systems weren’t bad simply because they were communistic (as many harp on about); they were dangerous because they required control over people’s speech, thoughts, organizational pursuits and media in order to maintain and expand power. ANY SYSTEM that attempts to do the same, regardless of ideological underpinnings, will suffer a similar fate. Doesn’t matter if it purports to be capitalistic or socialistic or theologically-driven. Same difference.

The importance of our 2nd Amendment was to maintain power in the hands of ordinary PEOPLE so as to check our government if ever it turned tyrannical, specifically in regards to tampering with the 1st Amendment which all else in a civil society depends upon. Some like to pretend to not comprehend this concept or dismiss it as archaic and of little or no modern value, yet these people are fools who willfully abdicate their own power under the mistaken belief that those who do rise in the ranks within our System will sustain dedicated interest in the general well-being of the citizenry and upholding our Constitutionally-protected rights, despite repeated evidence to the contrary.

The willfully blind and ignorant seek to place newly-minted legal restrictions—effectively handicaps—on their fellow humans in an effort to bolster the power of the State that so many have grown thoroughly dependent on. This is by design a trap that we humans orchestrate against one another time and time again, learning only when it’s too late what it is we’ve sacrificed and what such folly truly served in the end. That points back to a character “defect” within us born out of fear of embracing personal responsibility — essentially a “failure to launch” in terms of actively engaging one’s own individuation process while struggling within the context of broadly collectivistic (and evermore complex) social dynamics, further complicated by witnessing (and feeling complicit in albeit rendered unable to effectively resist) modern experiments with empire-building and the emergence of globalized centralization projects.

Today so much is commonly framed in a LEGAL context, as if only that which is made lawful is of any real relevance in modern times. Laws are mere codification of that which is deemed customary and necessary in a functioning society. But where do the content of laws spring from? Some from exercises in dispute resolution and imparting justice, but others are not of our direct making, as discussed above. Higher Truths matter regardless of what any law might say. They exist beyond, and cannot be constrained by, any legal code devised by man. We are wise to take into consideration these Truths and to incorporate them into any system (legal or otherwise) we might wish to preserve as functional. Though, unfortunately, laws have a way of becoming jumbled in the minds of people over time, causing difficulty for us to discern between them in terms of status and inevitability. Over time, one law comes to be viewed as equal to any other law, meaning just as modifiable, overturnable and discardable. This is where we go wrong, and soon enough we’ll be shown why.

Turns into an unavoidable lesson on separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. It appears we humans are destined to contend with these vital lessons again and again and again, immemorially. Then, this goal is further frustrated by never quite figuring out how to impress the significance of these revelations on the minds of successive generations. So each generation winds up fated with facing the challenge of re-learning what was lost before.

Here we are yet again. Confronting this age-old problem once more, this time in the 21st century. Surrounded by dazzling technologies, connected to people from all over the world online, debating and discussing an infinite number of topics with one another, all while centralizing political and economic schemes unfold across the world in the backdrop. It’s a surreal time to be alive. Also troubling due to countless distractions and information overload accompanied by a deluge of sophisticated (and academically aggregated) thought exercises. A sea of theories and ideas swirl around us. Some better than others, but all requiring our mental energy to suss them out and to try to make sense of their potential relevance. So much is being taught to us, both by teachers and popular personalities broadcasted across societies. Is it any wonder that while living within such bustling, busy times we so often lose track of what’s fundamental?

All comes to appear as little more than just another thought experiment. Politics, legality, ideology, religion, culture, individuality, philosophy, science, psychology, sociality, technology. We rank each according to our personal priorities, regarding such assessments as relative. Most are. Yet fundamentals still remain.

At some point, a society is destined to turn on itself and to lose sight of whatever it was intended to be and originally founded upon. We the people grow too distracted, too casual in our valuations, too soft thanks to comfortable living, to where we no longer can properly discern what is truly fundamental, unable to tease it away from the rest of our preferences and wishful thinking. Progress leads us to thinking that whatever we might dream up can (and should) be somehow brought to fruition. If only we press hard enough, if we “educate” others to see things our way, if we pressure laws to be changed to suit our ideological leanings and visions for the future. We begin looking at ourselves and one another as belonging to teams, political or otherwise, and resort to competing over the most banal matters.

Eventually, we get lost.

Tyranny depends on a confused and disoriented populace. Hence why it sows divisions among us. All serves to distract and keep us busy so that we don’t react against the powers-that-be. Those powers shift and change over the Ages, but always they play a similar game. Who are they? Mere humans. What do they strive for? Power, control, wealth, and a God-like stature that enables them to usher in their particular vision for humanity. Why? Because that’s how human nature works when ambition and greed is allowed to run amok for too long unchecked. What do we do about? Very little considering how tasked we are by our day-to-day obligations and triflings, compounded by our various disputes of however much substance that undermine our ability to unite with one another to launch an effective response (as would be needed to go up against the scope and ferocity of powers at play today). Often we talk about what is wrong with the world and what we ought to do about it. Yet, here we are: watching, listening, waiting, wondering. Feeling pressed. Wishing to stave off conflicts that appear more inevitable with each passing year, hoping our luck will hold out, nevermind future generations likely being left to contend with it on their own (despite their utter lack of preparation to do so).

I get bogged down by these considerations on a regular basis. What is one to do with an outlook such as this? How does one defend against a Leviathan that’s been allowed to grow this massive and powerful? How does one form bonds with their fellows when we’re all so divided and seemingly incapable of coming back together anytime soon? What is one’s individual role in response to this then?

Lots of questions arise, begging for answers I do not know. What we do know is that we must remain free to think and speak honestly if ever there will be a chance of sorting any of this out.

The pondering rolls onward…

Personal conception of God

The concept of “God” as I understand this has very little to do with what Abrahamic religions have to say on the matter. Religions are mythologies, historical tales and explanation systems, and I appreciate them for whatever value they can offer as such.

In reply to my video response on atheism being dumb, someone mentioned gnostic atheists and agnostic theists and I had to go look that shit up. Still don’t care much about breaking it down to that level, but apparently it’s worth noting that yes, we humans are able to clearly realize that what’s written in the Bible or Qur’an isn’t to be taken literally, at least not in this day and age when we’re able to know better. To do so requires relying on magical thinking that defies natural law. But acknowledging that doesn’t completely demolish all value religions contain, nor does it imply that because the Christian myth of that which we call “God” is patently false that it logically follows that all possible ways of perceiving “God” must be false as well.

This word “God” has everybody hung up on either trying to defend it or to destroy it, and personally I try to stay outside of all of that these days. “God” is a word intended to point at something beyond human comprehension, so arguing over whose understanding is most accurate seems pretty pointless. For some people, the concept of “God” involves what may be described as a force of nature, not some entity in the sky that determines the direction of our lives or answers prayers or sends people to heaven or hell. I happen to agree that the biblical narrative is a fairy tale notion of “God” that does unfortunately little to advance our understanding of this ‘phenomenon’ (for lack of a better word) for people today.

People ask why folks even need a “God” to believe in, and I think that’s part of the puzzle right there. Why have religions been an important part of human history for as far back as we can study our species? Is this merely a feature of humanity to where we’re searching to infuse our lives with meaning, or is this humanity’s attempt to comprehend and make sense of a larger natural order that we seem able to experience on some invisible level, yet can’t prove or explain its existence?

In a nutshell, for me this is about a natural order of sorts, having something to do with consciousness, but I haven’t the foggiest clue how to explain to others my own exploration beyond that, just as I doubt anyone else is able to. We each make sense of living in our own unique ways, this including any and all conceptions of “God” or any other belief systems (including atheism and agnosticism). It doesn’t appear possible for any two of us to truly and completely share in our understandings, no matter how close our views may seem, because we cannot see into one another’s minds or experience living behind one another’s lenses.

Even when someone refers to themselves as atheist, that doesn’t tell you their whole story necessarily either. Because someone embraces a label doesn’t allow us to see how he or she has evolved in his or her thinking over time, nor how they may continue evolving (or devolve perhaps) in their understanding as time moves on. This is one of those matters that calls out from the center of our individuality, and there will never come a time when an “objective truth” can be said to exist here. The concept of “God” is just too big to be caged like that. Why do we feel the need to cage and label anything and everything anyway?

People’s quests for certainty is a big reason why I tend to keep my ‘spiritual’ ponderings restricted to interactions with close friends and family, because being cornered and then demanded to explain and defend the merits of one’s own rationale for believing as they do frankly gets old and isn’t particularly fruitful in this instance. If some folks want to take parts of the Bible literally, I suppose that’s their prerogative, and the only time it comes to bother me is if they expect me to believe and behave as their beliefs tell them they should. The situation is made all the more complex since some are hell-bent on forcing the rest to bow down and live according to their expressed beliefs, which is bullshit whether they’re religious or anti-religious or something else in outfield.

I would be happy if we could suspend the fighting for a spell and turn our attention to learning about religions of old (starting way back before the Big Abrahamic 3) and delve into what morals and teachings they imparted, taking into consideration the historical and cultural context to the best of our abilities. Then perhaps it will become clearer to some why religious narratives were important and why a new narrative of some kind is still needed today. Religions started off as narratives, but the narratives going forward need not be like any that came before. We can get beyond religions, this I do believe, in reference to the inflexible group-think exerting too much control over people. We can choose to journey beyond untenable limitations and explore for ourselves, and there’s no reason any new narratives that come into creation can’t allow that to be so.

It’s a tricky topic to speak on when so many people have a set way they want to look at life and aren’t too open to how others see things. For me, it all ties together, from the social realm to moral and philosophical questions; from studying the physical realm, space and time to all forms of life (sentient or otherwise); from individualism to the wider collective(s); from mathematics to language and poetry; from power to play; from love to sexual exploration — all factor into my understanding of that which I’ve come to think of as “God,” yet “God” isn’t caged by any of that. “God” is not an it or a thing or anything resembling a person. That’s my take on it, and I doubt that’s cleared up much to state this. Oh well.

There’s a feeling associated with my understanding of “God” and I can sense this in others at times, whether they be religious or spiritual or not. The way I say it is something “speaks to my soul,” and often enough it reaches me through music. Hence the gospel songs I post and share, plus plenty of songs from other genres. Music is like my church, and through listening and letting its messages and melodies move me I am brought to a feeling of connectedness on some level with others, with the wider human experiment in living and its melodrama and our striving to reach beyond where we stand in a given moment.

There’s no way to be clear on this subject, just no way at all. It truly speaks to a subjective experience in terms of how one relates with this concept and how far we decide (or are able) to follow it. I get to feeling like talk of this nature is deemed as pure crazy by some, but that relates back to us not being able to see life through one another’s eyes, leaving us forced to rely on inadequate words to point instead, and lord knows words are always up for individual interpretation. What I mean by “God” will never be what you or she or he means by “God,” at least not in any definite sense capable of being objectively understood and proven.

So around and around we go with our words and claims and arguments and so forth. We humans truly are an odd and interesting bunch.

This is a complex inquiry within each of our own selves, that is if we’re aiming to remain open to it. Then it’s made all the more complex when a bunch of us want to get together and argue over what can or can’t be or what’s idiotic to believe. What does it even mean to “believe”? I understand this to be an inquiry never headed to becoming a rigid set of beliefs cast in stone, deemed complete and no longer changeable. At least for me. Science proved to be a game-changer for humanity because its methodology and findings dramatically altered and enhanced inquiry of this nature, but scientific inquiry hasn’t done away with ‘spiritual’ inquiry, nor has scientific exploration solved (and perhaps it cannot solve) what all is being asked here. Questions remain open, and I guess my experiences with atheists have given me the impression that a number of them jumped off the train at that stage in their journeys and decided that was far enough, as if that’s all they needed or were interested in knowing. That’s fine for them, I guess, until they start dismissing people with differing views as ignorant fools living back in the Stone Age of intellectual discourse. What’s folly to me is assuming one can know everything worth knowing, and that’s it, case closed, turn the page. How is that not dogmatic thinking in its own right?

Isn’t it about striving to become better, to grow? Guess it depends on how one perceives so-called “objective reality.”

__________________________________________

[Update Sept. 29th, 2014: edited for typos and greater clarity.]