So, How about Religion/Philosophy?

My feedback on the questions raised in last weekend's discussion.

In memoriam of the last piece of ideology in the United States.

---

As you know, I’m not a preacher and I don’t expect anyone to agree with me. That, however, doesn’t prevent me from analyzing the subject without using academic terms and baloney.

Every community needs a unifying ideology

Without one, it falls apart. It always unnerves me, when “authors” are using “we,” a concept that doesn’t exist, except in dreams and in rhetorical devices with some of them being used without care and others used as tools for manipulation. After all, if it is “we” who are talking, you’d better shut up and join, right?

What I’m calling an “ideology” is the idea that enables people to live together in peace and, occasionally, relative prosperity in a homogeneous culture. “The poor will always be with you,” and no matter how I look at it, “civilizations” have always had the same five castes:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/apocalypse-now

An ideology is supposed to maintain law and order, which boils down to protecting the privileged by making the disenchanted believe that they deserve their fate, while giving enough chance to meritocracy to make sure another civilization doesn’t out-develop it and take over. As the Mongol invasion of China demonstrated, the most efficient ideology is the one with the most efficient military power. That, however, doesn’t sound good these days, because the technocrats outgun everyone else by a million to one…

The “American Dream” was the last (secular) ideology in the US, but as already noted by George Carlin, is called a dream only because you have to be asleep to believe it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-54c0IdxZWc&t=153s

Why religion?

Philosophy provides a sense of control or, as some call it, “cognitive security,” but it doesn’t necessarily supply an ideology. People need to “know” that they know what they are doing and why, which doesn’t exactly mean they really “know.” Philosophy can become a unifying ideology, but only rarely, and the last “erudite” attempt was “Marxism(-Leninism).” Some people bought into it, but only as leaders, while the rest were forced into acceptance. It was pivoting around the idea that “your children will have it better, if you are willing to suffer a bit more to that end,” so it didn’t exactly work for the person.

Religion is different. In religion, you have a wider scope that encompasses the present as well as the future without inevitably assigning you to be the sacrifice.

Why is religion a danger to the New World Order?

You may have noticed increasing efforts to eliminate religion from people’s consciousness or, at least trying to make them feel ashamed that they are still falling for something as “obsolete” as that. People, however, sink to the lowest level of existence, if they are ascribed to mere survival like a rat or a cockroach. People who have nothing greater than their survival inevitably default to that path. Religion, irrespective of its truth value, is liberating, and it seems to be the only tool to be a unifying force that creates and maintains a culture, one that gives people hope for something more than survival, a community, and even a civilization that can compete with the technocratic assumption that everything that doesn’t fill a function must be eliminated.

It’s a fight for your life.

The globalists want a “one-world” religion

They understand what the “communists” did not. Religion (or some of its Ersatz-Religions) is essential for people’s psychological health.

The difference is “control.”

The problem with “organized religions”

Many people oppose organized religions, because they have noticed how they became corrupted in history, while being turned into civilizational ideologies. Henry VIII, for one, wanted to preserve peace in his country, but without a male heir, he thought it was impossible, although Elizabeth I, Anne Boleyn’s daughter, became the sovereign of Britain later on, after a little bit of hiccups back to Roman Catholicism during Queen Mary’s reign between 1554 and 1558. Henry came out with the old-fashioned solution of theocracy, so if you are an Anglican/Episcopalian, your spiritual authority is the presiding King/Queen of England, as opposed to the Pope in Roman Catholicism. Well, once Anglicans started ordaining women even if they were practicing lesbians in the early 1990s, about a third of their flock turned to Catholicism, only to see a Roman Catholic Pope to wash Muslim invaders’ feet and even trying to equate Islam with Christianity, which is absolute nonsense.

Christianity was used as the central ideology in Europe from 325 until about 1789, but is didn’t go quite flawlessly. Apart from Henry’s new religion, Calvinists had more “autodafé”s (burning Catholics at the stake) in what is Switzerland today than the Inquisition has ever documented. Luther’s followers realized that it was more lucrative not to pay taxes to the Pope. Iran is the prominent representative of a theocracy today. In a theocracy, the religious ruler dominates, which is not necessarily bad, and certainly better than other options with “democracy” taking the lead, but the current versions of oligarchic system that it generates are its direct results.

So, in organized religions, someone is taking over and tells you what’s right and what’s wrong.

The problem with being unguided

People’s “conscience” is formed before their sense of identity is ready. It’s called “primary socialization,” and if you are brought up among crooks up to the age of five or thereabouts, your sense of right and wrong will follow theirs.

So, in a way, “spiritual authority” is not all that bad, but only as long as those who exercise it are not serving a secular or a popular power and seem to know what they are doing. Theoretically, dissent must also be allowed, but never to the extent that it would break up cultural unity. That part has never been working out very nicely in history.

What makes ideologies attractive?

First and foremost, about 70 percent of people are unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their decisions, so they are happy to be “followers.”

The second reason combines the good with the bad. The good part is that humans are pack animals and as such, they need to belong together. A clan, a group, or even a gang can serve that purpose. Even “academics” flock together in “conferences,” where they celebrate and praise each other, and make further connections.

Thirdly, ideologies secure social stability. Yes, the rich always win out, but at least there is relative peace and quiet, perhaps accompanied by a certain level of prosperity even for the underprivileged. Of course, technocracy cancels this option for the “useless eaters.”

A homogeneous culture allows for clear communication and a value system that the technocrats are now breaking up. Remember the combination of muzzling and antisocial distancing?

So, what am I to do?

As you cannot fight the NWO alone, you’d better find a community with a unifying ideology that works in your area and manages to get along with others.

It looks like only a religion can meet the requirement that you need something greater than your survival in order not to live in fear.

Choosing a religion

No matter how inconvenient it feels, only a religions can counter the technocrats. You must choose your own, because nobody can do that for you.

During my 23 years of “academic” teaching, I have developed some familiarity with world religions and with less prominent spiritual practices.

Those, who live in fear can never even get close.

After that, it makes sense to examine what made “world religions” successful.

In Islam, it’s like the KGB; once you are in, you can never get out. It is in the Quran that if your brother leaves the “true faith,” you must warn him in person, and if he persists, warn him in the circle of his family. After that, you must warn him in front of the congregation, and if he still persists, “kill him.” Islam allows Jews and Christians to subsist, but I’m not sure how appealing you would find that option:

https://thestoryofmohammed.blogspot.com/p/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html

In Afghanistan, it’s culturally okay to have 12-year-old boys to be chained to the table, if the “leader” wants a little bit of “satisfaction.” In Islam (and in North-American Indian cultures), it’s okay to sell girls to be married and never to be seen again.

At this point, I still haven’t even mentioned female circumcision. Is it okay to hurt young girls in the name of religion? That sort of thing exists in many “religions.”

Scientology doesn’t even believe in God, but it surely works as a Ponzi-scheme, collecting the unguided and those with little self-respect. It’s not an accident its headquarters are on an ocean-going ship. After you lose everything by paying for more and more “teachings,” you can still redeem yourself by collecting new victims. Somehow, that reminds me of the victims of the proselytes of Freemasonry or even Jehovah’s witnesses, either. Satanism is a popular Romantic concept; at its inception in the second half of the 19th century, it was already an elitist movement, trying to lock out the morons from possessing power, and never expecting its followers to believe in “Satan.”

By looking at alternatives in Christianity, it’s your choice. Would you like a practicing homosexual or a lesbian to exercise spiritual power over you? It’s your choice. Would you prefer to support a “priest” who has seven kids or a celibate one who has given up everything? Yes, 1.5% of them abuse children, just like 2% of the average population does. Many of them become priests before giving themselves a chance to make a realistic choice, but most of them just go fat; after all, eating is the second greatest source of pleasure after you-know-what.

Buddhism and Hinduism are taking their time. Historically, they both ride on the tide of the common person believing that it’s never too late, because they are going to be born again, anyway.

Also, assuming you and I are not living in a giant computer game, it becomes a question if the power creating it means well how?

It doesn’t matter if you, or even I, “believe” in it, the only elegant answer to human suffering in this world is the concept that G*d is creating this world, because (S)He wanted to become a human being (aka. Thomas Merton) and while apologizing for the suffering caused by the creation, indicated that more is coming.

Of course, as I have said it before, the Creator is great enough to give everything what they want; some might even think they are even Heaven after arriving in Hell. As I put it in a poem, when I was 19:

Everyone will get what they expect.

Wild geese are crying out.

Mongrel dogs are crossing the railroad tracks.

Conclusion

Everyone needs a community that is based on a prevalent ideology that is probably a religion, because those who don’t want to live in fear, might as well live for something more than survival.

Can peace between religions materialize?

Only between those that don’t claim exclusivity to the point that you must kill everyone, unless they join.

The “Little Inner Old Man”

In Lao Tzu, there is noting respectable about a person who by the age of 40 or 50 hasn’t heard the “voice of the Tao.” The “Little Inner Old Man” from Nordic mythology is about the same inner voice, and I’m not talking about “hearing voices.” It seems to exist in all forms of religions, including animism.

If G*d gifts you with His/Her (it’s awkward, G*d cannot be sexed), it’s a personal relationship, the kind of the one I’ve experienced from a young age. My story is personal, and it remains incomplete without yours:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/no-i-am-not-a-religious-nut