Since I’m going to be publishing a lot of stuff on the way other people think, it’s probably important to write this down; I most defiantly do not agree with a majority of what I’m writing about. While ideologies and paradigms are typically rooted in some form of reasoning, and respectfully, each person can speculate about whatever they want, there are obviously more negative and detrimental ideas out there that potentially exclude and harm others. Despite the possible hypocrisy of excluding the people I’m writing about from what I consider “reasonable,” I think there is a lot of ground for lunacy out there as well.

Honestly, “what I think” is a very selfish sort of phrase. It suggests that somehow, your personal feelings and ideas are original and unique to you, the singular, when in truth we are all affected by the forces, influences, and arguments beyond us. Philosophies and beliefs trickle through various reinterpretations of subconscious sentiments to where they have crystallized into a single idea, which is weighed against and countered by other ideas, crystallized from their own heritage of thought. “What I think” is the personal accumulation of all the  conflicting ideas in my head one has been exposed to through their society (and one’s own personal explorations outside of that society, if you’re into reading weird stuff or music from other countries or watching foreign film and that sort of thing).

So, when I write about people who believe in America as the divine protector of the defenseless, hopefully you’ll recognize the sarcasm and it won’t be lost amidst the verbiage.  I have a bad habit of argumentum verbosium, which is a fancy way of saying I may pretend to sound smart to legitimize my arguments, but really, I’m just typing whatever comes to mind. I’m not a particularly pretentious sort of person, because pretentiousness implies insincerity and exaggeration. I just have a lot going on upstairs (mostly confusion), and limited means to explain myself.

I’ve had a very religious start to my life, and as I contrast the ethical, biblical example of a pacifistic, altruistic, compassionate divine example with the bloodthirsty and spiteful backstabbery of humans outside and in the chuch (any church really, it doesn’t matter) I’ve grown extremely hostile towards the efforts of some to dissolve a separation of church and state, or to use Christian themes and justification for unjust and amoral behavior. It’s mere manipulation of others personal beliefs for ones personal gain. I’m more fond of Tolstoy’s idea of Christian anarchism, where spiritual disciples who meditate on this positive, compassionate example are like the pure men Disraeli imagined when he said “Where men are pure, laws are useless. Where they are corrupt, laws are broken.” As for secular government, nobody can force their personal beliefs on others if their not based on shared values.

Of course, I don’t believe I can define myself by a specific set of values; existentially it would be dishonest, “bad faith.” For now I’m working towards a greater understanding within the framework of my own personal experience, as I think we all are. But it’s important to also not get “tunnel vision” on this journey; ethnocentric or cultural bias against alternative ways of thinking is a highbrow means of bigotry. Arguments must be substantial and meaningful, and you can’t dismiss ideas because of superficial reasons (like the use of entheogens, for example). I’m a big fan of Jungian thought, and Campbell’s work on mythology, so I think we all have similar psychological roots in prehistory, and the evolution of human thought echoes subconscious themes we all share. Unfortunately most of the diversity of thought in the world has been destroyed in favor of Western thinking, Daniel Quinn’s Taker society, capitalism and irreligious Christianity.

I probably sound crazy. I’ll stop now.