Sunday, August 14, 2016

Racism: An Overused Word

       I hear the word "racist" way too often these days. And I mean really, really way too often. It is an overused word for those short on vocabulary. I think that most of the time, cultures between people are simply not compatible and it just so happens that there is usually a race attached to a certain cultural heritage. I really do not think that people are being "racist". I really do think that people's cultures are often incompatible.
      Sure, there are true cases of actual racism. However, not even near as many cases to justify the almost constant use of the word "racist". Different people forming different races usually come from a set cultural background and it is those backgrounds that are often incompatible with other cultural backgrounds.
       Why are cultures often incompatible with one another? That's simple. Each culture has its own way of interpreting values that all human beings hold as very central to our existence. When there are values that we all hold as very central to the interpretation of our existence and we see those very same values being interpreted in a completely different way than how we know and believe to be integral to existing as a moral human being; there are bound to be conflicts! Some of our cultures are highly incompatible and quite often very opposite!
       The good news is that we really are under no obligation to curate our cultures in our own homes in order to appease those who visit our homes. And if they want to stay, they need to adapt our own cultures. It is the same story when we go to visit the homes of others. The only universal rule of all cultures, which all cultures must subjugate themselves to regardless of who goes where, is the rule of not hurting another person.
       How can we avoid hurting another person when something that is not hurtful to us in our own culture might be very hurtful to them in theirs? First and foremost, do not physically harm any other human being unless they have physically harmed you and you are defending yourself. Secondly, do not take advantage of others. Taking advantage of other people is hurtful in any culture, to any family, to any group of people. Do not use others to your advantage without sincere intentions towards them. This is universally hurtful. All other points may be ironed out, but not this one.
       Meanwhile, many people actually believe that to merely see the anthropological differences amongst races is enough to be called a "racist". In reality, the anthropological differences between the races is simply a scientific fact. It is not a belief in the head, it is a scientific fact. Some are generally shorter, others generally taller. Some are generally bigger-boned while others are smaller-boned in general. It is not the differences themselves that are problematic; rather, it is the meaning that people attach to those differences that become problematic. People wanting to be tall when they cannot be tall, people wanting to be short then they cannot be short. People wanting to be bigger when they are smaller and people wanting to be smaller when they are bigger. People wanting to play basketball when they are better physically suited for soccer and people who are better physically suited for basketball wanting to play soccer. Herein lies the problem: that people expect others to be like them, or expect themselves to be just like others! Instead of finding the strengths in what is their own; they find the strengths in what is not their own which they wish they had! Is that true equality? Should it be called "equality" when I strive to be you and do what you do best, instead of striving to be me and doing what I can do best? Is this your meaning of "equality"? Because if so, how feeble a word it is on your tongues! Why do we always feel the need to prove to others that we can do anything that they can do? There are many things we can do better that they can't; so what is the problem? Accept the differences, focus on your own strengths.
       We also carry within us our own culture. Our cultures dictate how we interact with others and how we carry ourselves on a daily basis. We must live to the highest standards of our culture, so long as we believe that it elevates us unto the best possible version of ourselves and so long as it does not demand that we physically hurt another or that we take advantage of another. We should only change our own culture, if there is evidence that it is inferior to another. If our culture is inferior to another, we may expand our open mindedness and develop better ways. Are some cultures inferior? Of course! Almost every day, I have improved upon the culture I carry within my mind, for when I find something inferior about the culture within my mind, I change it, I open my mind to adapt what is superior so that the following day I will have improved myself! Now, on a macrocosmic scale, we may judge the inferiority of our cultures depending on where our cultures have gotten us in society as a whole, in how we interact with other people, in how we work with others, etc.
       So, as you can see, while I believe that there are some who truly suffer from actual racism, I am of the persuasion that there are too many people who do not realise how incompatible some of our cultures are and how these backgrounds entail that we simply can never get along with some, on this basis. Face the reality: there are types of people that you will never be able to get along with and it has nothing to do with the colour of their skin; it has everything to do with what is inside their minds.

Monday, July 11, 2016

An Anti-Hero The Likes of Batman

       I was looking at an old photo yesterday. It was a photo of my then 4-year-old son and I at the grand opening party of a Hilton Hotel Resort and Spa. The photo made me really think, and those thoughts ran very deep. So many reflections!
       If you had asked me back then, if I wanted to inspire people one day, become a thought leader one day, be there for the people of the world by means of my writings, my thoughts, I would have said, "Eeww." That's what I would have said. Back then, I was a totally different person. My family and I were invited to many of the upscale parties like the grand opening of Shangri-La, grand openings of various condominium residences, so on and so forth. It wasn't because we were celebrities; it was because we are who we are: a well-established family. 
       I was comfortable with being me! In fact, I am trying to pin-point when exactly I began to change. I think that it was when I started thinking about the world that my son would grow up in; it made me want to gift him with a better world. That's about it. It's like somebody turned on a switch and then the journey began!
       I know that many people take pride in being able to inspire others and be there for others. This is in fact an extreme source of pride for many, they indicate it on all of their social media and it actually becomes like some kind of weird competition about who the "better helper" is, or about who the "better person" is. I respect that. But it's just not me. It has been said about me, that I am "Batman"... and I have to admit, that right there was the pinnacle of my career thus far, for me! To be called Batman? Are you kidding me? Yes, please! Now I can retire!
       Batman is an accurate description. Batman is actually classified as an "Anti-Hero". An anti-hero is a hero who does not possess the expected attributes of a hero. They're not really following a deep heart's desire to help people; but then they really just can't seem to stop doing it. They'll tell you that they don't love this world; but then they'll try and save it. They don't see the virtue in being called a hero, in being a "saviour" or in being an inspiration; but no matter what they do, they can't seem to run from being exactly that. I'm not a hero; I'm an anti-hero. 
       During the course of my career as C. JoyBell C., I have told plenty of people, "If I don't inspire you, why should I care about that?" because plenty of people have commented on things that I have written, saying, "This doesn't inspire me, you're not an inspiration", or, "You used to inspire me every day and make me feel good every day, until I read this!" and my true, deep, and genuine reaction is really, "Why should I care?" That is my genuine reaction, because, I really, truly, as a matter of fact, do not care. Harsh but true. Joan Walsh Anglund once said, A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer; it sings because it has a song. I am not writing because I want to produce an answer for YOU in particular; but I am writing because I have something to write! If it doesn't inspire you, well, who's trying to inspire you? 
       On the other hand, I have such a relentless love for people that their feedback means so much to me, their encouragement means so much to me, and I really will answer distress calls from fans (over email) at wee hours in the morning! I mean, I will put myself as second. And everybody knows that I am my fans' biggest fan! I have such an admiration for many of the people who admire me. 
       I don't take my sense of self identity from what I do as a writer or as a public figure. I would like to always take my sense of self identity from the nature of the things that I choose to surround myself with, that I choose to take pictures of; the voices of certain people that I wait to hear! These are the things/objects/people that I would like to take my self identity from. I would like to identify myself by the use of the stuff that makes me laugh. 
       Honestly, I have been writing stuff and saying stuff, since I was a child. Anyone who would read what I wrote felt that they were reading otherworldly guidance/insight. But I believe that I am not made or structured in order to give to other people or to fix the world. I know that people like to think that some people are born to save the world; but I don't want to think that. I would like to think that I am who I am, because it is who I am. And if I do have a hand in saving the world in the process, then why not? 
       Some people have emailed me over the years, about how my books have been "smuggled" into prison cells and rehab centers. I just don't think that's normal. I wouldn't think it is normal if it were someone else's books and I don't think it's normal when it's my books and my writings doing it. It's all around not normal. The first thing drug addicts on withdrawal look for are my books? That's just not the way things normally are. I just want to say, that I am thankful for this. And I work hard to publish my books and to construct them. My books go leaps and bounds beyond what I imagined any book could do! I am grateful, I am thankful. There are Divine Powers that be, that's all I can say. And They have stood by me, like I am their Kin. 
       One of the hardest things to do, is to compose a book and to publish a book. I can't even explain why it's so hard, but any serious author will tell you that. Just check out what George Orwell said: Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand. I totally agree with him! And then there's this one by Flannery O'Connor, which I can relate to, as I did experience some hairs on my head going grey after the publication of a number of my books: Writing a novel is a terrible experience, during which the hair often falls out and the teeth decay. I'm always irritated by people who imply that writing fiction is an escape from reality. It is a plunge into reality and it's very shocking to the system. I don't even think that people should want to be writers! Why would anyone want this? We are born this way and, like Orwell said, it is like being driven by a demon!
       When I was a child and as I was growing up, my classmates would come to me with their problems, open up to me and cry, then they would leave and return to their little posse and continue on with their fake happiness. It's as if I was a statue— a statue of an Angel— and people would come along and cry and pour out their hearts and then walk away! Who wants that? Who wants to be like that? I don't! The most irritating thing that I experience as C. JoyBell C., is when people try to "test my goodness" because they have their doubts about my being a good person through and through. The only thing that I can think is, "I would rather not be good like this!" Really, "testing my goodness" is probably going to result in me telling you to burn in hell! And that's not even an exaggeration. I mean, you get to cry at a statue and then try to test if the statue is real? Go cry over at the river and drown in it for all I care!
       My thoughts turn to the photograph from a long time ago, at that amazing party where I danced barefoot on the vanilla sands along with fire dancers! I'm not going to share the picture publicly, because I want to keep that moment sacred. It was pure magic! I often wonder what they mean when they say that nothing feels better than helping other people... because really, a lot of things feel better than helping other people! Like dancing on vanilla sands along with fire dancers! Hahahaha! Let me be real here! This is my blog and I'll be real if I need to be real! I don't even know how my writings began to help other people! It wasn't my intention! I just wrote stuff and people started healing all over the place!
       At the end of the day, I genuinely admire the people who admire me, who read the things that I write, and I am honestly amazed that people read the things that I write. People could read anyone and anything; but they read me. For that, I am so thankful. I care about you even when I don't want to care about you. Thank you so much for reading the things that I write.

An Anti-Hero the Likes of Batman

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Interview with U.S. Presidential Candidate, Zoltan Istvan

Today I would like to introduce you to someone you may already know, US Presidential Candidate, Zoltan Istvan. I am of course very glad to be able to interview a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States and I have found him to be a simple person with an understated way of explaining and describing himself and his platform. Simplicity is refreshing in this day and age, and I think a quality of good value.

Zoltan Istvan was born in 1973 and is the author of The Transhumanist Wager. He is a futurist, a philosopher and a transhumanist. He is also a conservationist, journalist and a writer. As a reporter for National Geographic, he covered the crisis in Kashmir, which was later made into a documentary. Zoltan also writes articles for Psychology Today, Huffington Post and other publications.

He is husband to Dr. Lisa Istvan, with whom he has two beautiful daughters.

Zoltan is well-known as an atheist, which is not the totality of his person, nevertheless, is often a remarkable distinguishing element that people quickly take notice of. Those who know me, will probably immediately say, “Then why would you support an atheist candidate when you are anything but atheist?” Notwithstanding, I am actually in favour of the idea of having a President who does not represent any one form of spirituality. I don’t need to see my own spiritual beliefs reflected by my President.

The Transhumanist Party slogan is, Putting Science, Health and Technology at the Forefront of American Politics. I think that anyone who is familiar with my work, would question my endorsement of such a slogan and wonder, “Why would an esoteric writer want to put science and technology at the forefront of her choice of politics?” Nevertheless, I am one of those few people who truly see no conflict between science and spirituality. The majority of people always see conflict between the two, while I happen to be of the minority that sees coherence and harmony between science and spirituality. In my eyes, there is such a flow and there is no fight. You could say that I am equally supportive of science, as I am of the mystical. The corporeal is equally important to the incorporeal.

Below is the interview in its entirety, please enjoy it and learn more about a man who would like to lead a nation:

Before anything else, I would just like to thank you for having this interview with me; it is an honor to interview a US Presidential Candidate who is also the individual at the forefront of transhumanism in the United States. I am very glad and I welcome you to my reader base, as well as to my friends and colleagues. We will all be glad to hear from you and to learn more about you.

I would like to begin this interview quoting your own words. I actually have these words up in my personal FB account’s description of my political ideology. I just think that it speaks so much and so clearly, not only of the situation that we are all in, in the world today; but also of how our priorities are so obvious and yet for some reason, so difficult to address. You said, and I quote, “Government funds some medical and science research, but currently, that funding (in the US) is about 10 times ‘smaller’ than funding for defense, wars, and bomb making. This is a tragedy that we fight wars against human beings—and not against cancer, or heart disease, or Alzheimer’s, or even aging. This is a primary reason transhumanists must organize into a movement, so that we can battle the powers that be, and demand much more government funding go directly into science and medical research.” This is something that I wholeheartedly agree with. But then it’s something that every human being should easily be able to wholeheartedly agree with. In this light, why do you think that transhumanism as a political ideology lacks the attention that the more popular political parties seem to take as a given?

I don’t want to criticize religion too much, but we live in a Judeo-Christian culture that for centuries has taught us it’s okay to die, since there’s an afterlife. This of course also applies to war and a culture’s feelings about going to war. I don’t believe in God. When people die, they return to dirt. So until we have a more secular culture that realizes that death is a final thing, we won’t be too worried about it. We’ll feel like the military is more important than medicine.

For those who are hearing about transhumanism for the very first time, could you please explain transhumanism as a political ideology and also as a philosophy? How do the politics and the philosophy itself differ, if they do differ at all?

Transhumanism is a social movement of a few million people around the world who want to use science to radically modify the human being and the human experience.

As a political movement, we aim to get governments to approach problems with scientific and technological solutions. Most governments approach problems from a social, religious, or historical point of view.

Many people— when they think about American politics— immediately think about just two political parties— liberal and conservative; Democrat and Republican— I think that many are actually unaware of the fact that other parties, like the Transhumanist Party, do exist! Why do you think that this is the case? And what do you think can be done in order to show people that there is in fact a divergent path? Because that’s what I think transhumanism is. I think it’s divergent.

I think the Republicans and Democrats have done a superb job of monopolizing the political field. Unfortunately, that’s also been a large disservice to America and what America stands for.

This election cycle in 2016 is unique as 3rd parties are getting more attention. The key is dissatisfaction with politics as usual, and that’s when something like the Transhumanist Party can break out. And we are. We’re growing like wildfire in impact this year.

Are we all headed to a transhumanist future, anyway? Let’s put it like this, whether I like it or not, am I headed towards a future where artificial intelligence will look just like any other human being, and where robots will be taking over the economy?

Yes, I think we’re all headed to a transhumanist world. Of course some won’t want to join, but it’s sort of like the internet. If you don’t use the internet, then you are missing out on a major piece of the new world. Transhumanism will be like that. Without upgrading your bodies, you’ll be totally left behind, both intellectually and physically. Can you imagine if you’re the only one in 50 years who doesn’t have a bionic eye that can stream media info into your brain, see 100 miles clearly, and also see 90% of the light spectrum (gases, microbes, etc)? The normal human eye sees just 1% of the universe.

Who are transhumanists? I know that you are an atheist, but I am also aware of the fact that transhumanists can be theists, spiritual, or even religious! To what extent would you say, are all people welcome to become a transhumanist?

I think all people will eventually be transhuman. And I think all people will give up their fundamental religious beliefs to be more reason-based. However, spirituality will continue, and perhaps grow with technology. Beliefs will change from a divine man looking over the Earth, to super AI intelligence or science. The change will be slow, though. People are afraid to give up their core beliefs.

I am personally not an atheist. Quite the opposite, actually! You could say that I feel God in everything. I believe in myths and legends, which are to me, my history! And yet, I do not see the problem in having an atheist President. In fact, I see the opposite of a problem; I see a solution! A President should not be (in my opinion), someone who belongs only to a certain group of people in a certain religion. A President must be a President to all of his or her citizens. The easiest way for that to happen, I believe, is to have an atheist President! However, many would not agree to this. What would your message be to those who would not agree with me on this? Why is it okay (or even better) for a President of the United States to be an atheist?

Well, I don’t think anyone is really “atheist.” No rational person could ever say they do or don’t believe in God. They simply could not know that in any provable sense. I’m an atheist in the battle sense—I see formal religion as oppressive and I choose to battle against it. But I certainly believe in many super intelligences out there in the trillion galaxies that exist in the universe. And I’m sure some of them are smart enough to be as deities to us. But until I meet them, I don’t care about them. In fact, they’re competition to what humans are doing on planet Earth, until they prove otherwise.

And regarding politics, it’s very simple. A good President serves his people, not his beliefs, whether they’re atheist or religious.

What is it actually like, to wake up every day as an atheist? Would you say that you enjoy less of the beauty that the world has to offer? Does it make you less thankful for what you have? Does it make you appreciate your wife any less than, let’s say, a very spiritual person would?

For me, atheism is essentially a guide on how to use reason. I don’t make up things in my mind. I base everything on the scientific method. My appreciation is science and reason based.

Tell me about your wife. And tell me about your two daughters. I think everyone would want to hear what you sound like as a husband and as a father.

I love my wife a lot, and we have two beautiful kids. Thankfully, I have a great family life. A lot of my work is from a computer from home, so I see my kids a lot more than other people.

Immigration is obviously a top issue in American politics today, given the present refugee crisis. In fact, your opinion on the matter was what first attracted me to transhumanism. Your stand on the matter was that all refugees should be implanted with microchip tracking devices. In true transhumanist style, you turned your attention to science and technology for the answers to the issue. The issue was the disparity in opinion of what to do about it all; whether to let everyone in all of a sudden, or to let nobody in at all! It was a very emotional issue. I was impressed with your take on it, which at the time came like a cold glass of water on a very humid day. There was no drama, only scientific logic applied. I thought, “Hey, I really like this, this is what we need” and from then on, I have been calling myself a transhumanist. However, some would argue that placing microchips into people would be akin to treating people like animals. I don’t see that angle at all, as science is science and has nothing to do with any of our emotional identifications of objects and how we designate them as good or evil. But I would like to know, what is your message to those who liken microchipping refugees to the treatment of animals? Why is it not the same as microchipping a cow or a goat?

To understand my microchipping position, you have to understand that it was not my preferred choice on how to treat refugees. It was a compromise since both Democrats and Republicans don’t want them here, and at some point, humans have to be kind to other humans, especially when there’s women and kids involved. So this was my idea on how to deal with the issue. Of course, it’s not my policy, but an idea I’d want to explore with other people. But, yes, I do think I could support that.

Also, we’re “all” going to have microchips, or various tracking devices on us in the next 10-20 years. I mean, we already have phones that track everything. So it’s not such a stretch to have chips. Bear in mind the chip implants can go in, in 30 seconds, and pulled out with a slight incision in 1 minute. It’s not a big deal. One can do it all themselves. And there’s other ways too, like tattoo chips, etc.

My real goal with the refugees was to get them to a safe place—and I say this as a National Geographic reporter who has seen war zones. Get the kids, women, elderly, and disabled people out! Do what must be done to save lives of those who absolutely are being terrorized.

Your name is Zoltan Istvan Gyurko; that name says something about your heritage. Can you please tell us more about your heritage? I’ve heard you are of Hungarian descent.

Yes, I was born in Los Angeles and raised there, but my household was very Hungarian. Everyone else in my family, including my sister, was born there. In fact, I also now have Hungarian citizenship.

Why on Earth would you want to live forever? And why on Earth should anyone want to transcend physical death?

Some people just don’t want to die. They love life and see death as unacceptable. I’m one of them.

I am an American citizen living abroad. How important is it to you, to reach your overseas American voters?

At this moment, not high on the list, since I’m already understaffed as it is. However, of course I care about them.

Lastly, I think we would all like to know, what made you run for President of the United States? It’s one thing to be a transhumanist; it’s another thing to actually say, “I want to be President of a Transhumanist United States of America.” Tell us about your mental journey to the candidacy.

I wrote a novel called The Transhumanist Wager. It’s very political and quite quickly became an important book in the futurist world. The protagonist becomes President at some point in the book, and I suppose I’ve always thought I could help America with my leadership skills. Running to be President is also a good way to bring attention to a cause—like transhumanism.

I know I said that would be the last question, but, here’s the very last question: what is your favourite colour? Everyone has one! What is the favourite colour of a Transhumanist Atheist Presidential Candidate?


Green! Thank you very much for this interview, I can’t wait to share it with everyone and hopefully people will get to connect with you on a new, more comprehensible and relatable level.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

How To Navigate Through The World With Equanimity And Balance

Copyright © Michael Tackett
       I express in three different ways. One for me, one for analysis, and one for others. Allow me to explain:
       I have my own personal preferences and feelings about anything, just like everybody else. But since I acknowledge that what I want and what I feel is not the center of the universe, I do not reflect this section of my expression onto everything and everyone. I keep it to myself, or to situations that immediately concern me.
       Then I have my section for analysis, where I analyse what might be really going on behind the scenes, which is something totally unattached to both myself and others. In this section, all people are merely collateral damage. This is the "masterplan" section. This area is for analysis of the masterplan.
       And there is the section for others, where I see things through their eyes, removing my benefits, wants and opinions entirely from the scenario and seeing it 100% through their eyes. This area is applied to all scenarios wherein I am not the immediate recipient of any effects (for example, things far removed from my life that I see on the news). And, also applied to any scenario for a brief time during which I need to understand another person/other people.
       So when I write, my writings might not even be how I personally feel about an event or a scenario. I can be writing from the "masterplan section" or from the "their perspective" section.
       I advise everyone to approach life this way. Apply these sections to your life, if you can. Do not attach your feelings and emotions to everything. There is a time and place for that. Not everything is YOU.
       The problem when you buy into the new age teaching of "I am the universe, we are all one, everything is me", is that this belief produces chaos. It eliminates your ability to see anything apart from your own convictions, feelings, and thoughts. And that produces stupidity and utter chaos.

Here is an example, to make things easier for everyone:

Let us examine Brexit.

1. How I personally feel: I am personally saddened to see Britain leave. While I am a culturalist, I am also a Europhile. The EU was founded upon the value that the nations ought to unite, but they also ought to remain sovereign. That is the same thing as saying, "We may all be friends and help one another, but that doesn't mean that we need to wear the same clothes, read the same books, and like the same food." And that's just right. It is a reflection of a good and well-balanced value from a daily, more personal level of our friendships with others. I am therefore saddened to see Britain go, because I could benefit from the amazing EU laws and ways.

2. What I think the masterplan is: I think the masterplan could be either of the two: 1. To destabilise the EU in order to formulate the third world war, or 2. To create a United States of Europe. If it is the former, then the masterplan has succeeded. If it is the latter, then Britain just broke the masterplan.

3. What I believe is going on with the people immediately concerned with this situation: I believe that through the years, the founding value of the EU has faded and they have less and less respect for sovereignty. I think Britain sees a "United States of Europe" on the way and wants out of it. The younger UK generation doesn't see this, because they were born in the era of the EU and now they feel like the world is over. The older generation sees this, because they are naturally older, wiser, and were living even before the EU was formed.

       And this here is a very good example of how I think and how I express. As you can see, I did not make room in any of my previous writings, to say that I like the EU and I want it back in Britain, because of the fact that it does not immediately concern me and I believe that those whom it concerns should be given more thought. The rest of the world falls into the category of the masterplan, in which, we are all collateral damage, anyway.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

A Call to Unity and How to Do It

Copyright © Grace Adams
      The world is like the human body. When you look at the human body, you see a single biological system covered in one giant field of skin. You can tell me that there are no borders on my body; but inside my body, there is a skeletal system, a muscular system, a nervous system; there are tissues, cells... there are plenty of little communities working together as a whole, in order for my body to function. They are all different, but they are connected. My heart is not my lung and my eyes are not my ears. Each part needs to be different in order for me to be a fully functional human being. What would happen if my eyes decided to be just like my ears? What would happen if my fingers wanted to be just like my toes? Then I would be a deformed and dysfunctional human being.
       You cannot tell me that in this world we need to all be the same, because to tell me that would be telling me that you want the world to be dysfunctional and deformed. Yes, when the Earth is looked upon from a spacecraft, you are not going to see where a country ends and where it begins. But that is just like looking at my body from the outside. You need to go in to see what's inside.
       In order for a body to function, all parts must be in harmony and undivided. If you were to divide my heart in half, I would cease to live. In this same exact light, if you are to divide a nation in half, expect not the world to unite. The only way for the world to unite, is for the nations to unite first within themselves. The only way for a community to unite is for the families to unite first within themselves. Do not tell me about the inexistence of nations in a plea to unite the whole world. The whole world will never unite, until you as a nation first heals yourself.

In Defense of Fear

Copyright © Gregory Colbert; Ashes and Snow
       I never thought it would come to this, but, I find it necessary to say that, fear is a human right just as much as love is a human right. People have the right to love whom they love. But people also have the right to fear what/whom they fear.
       Civilisation is always out of balance, swinging from one end of the pendulum to the other. It is necessary to reinstate that balance every now and then.
       We fight for the right of a person to love whom they wish to love, but we shame anyone who is afraid of anything or anyone else. And shame is not the method of soothing fear.
       If you had a fear of clowns, spiders, heights... or any other phobia... do you think that the way for this fear to be removed is by people shaming you for your fear? I don't think so. Why do people then shame other people the moment they are afraid of something or someone?
       It is not right to fear people due to their race, their disability, sexual orientation, because these are natural states of the homo sapien. We should not fear natural states of our species. However, any person has the legal right to fear a person's religion. A religion is not a natural state of any person on Earth. A religion is not a race, a disability, or a gender. A religion is an institution.
       If I were afraid of your sorority or your fraternity due to that organisation's practices (like violent hazing for example), that is my right to fear your organisation and to distance myself from it. Would it be a good idea for me to educate myself about your frat or sorority, in the hopes that my fear would be alleviated? Sure, maybe! You can tell me how the hazing process has only killed a few people in a few years, and maybe that would make me feel better. But then maybe it wouldn't. That's up to me! You have the right to be a member of that fraternity or that sorority, but you don't have the right to make everyone else around you accept you for your choices. You have the freedom to be in that organisation, but I have the freedom to fear you as a result of it, or, to distance myself from you as a result of it.
       A religion is not a natural part of the homo sapien. A religion is an institution, an organisation. It is a choice. Do not ever tell me that you cannot choose, because if you cannot choose, then that religion is trampling your human right to choose and in that case, it should be illegal. You may choose your spiritual beliefs and nobody can stop you from it.
       Meanwhile, nobody can stop anybody else from fearing you because of your choices. I can fear any institution or organisation that I feel threatens me in any way. I am not taking sides. But I am injecting some balance here. Some equanimity.
       We are not born entitled to other people's acceptance of our choices and affiliations. In fact, we are not even born entitled to other people's acceptance of our character traits, hair color, gender, or anything about us! But we are thankful that our natural rights are protected by the people who love us and by those who are in charge of us and who draft laws. But to expect all others to accept our choices and our affiliations is an enactment upon a privilege that does not exist. Because when you do something or when you choose something, you may do it freely, but others do not need to condone or to accept you freely if your choices and affiliations threaten their comfort in any way.
       Let's say you are a member of the Illuminati. Many people fear this organisation. Sure, they can educate themselves about it and find out that it is not what they have been told it is like. But then they don't have to. They really don't have to. They don't need to tell you to leave the Illuminati, but they also don't need to like you. Not everybody needs to like you for choices that you make.
       Would it be a good idea if everyone were further educated on everything in order to lose their fears? Sure. If I learned more about clowns, maybe I wouldn't fear clowns. But I don't have to learn more about clowns. And I don't have to like them. Were people born as clowns? No. People choose this as an occupation.
       You can choose as you wish. But others may also like or not like you; or fear or not fear you, accordingly.
       The Church of Satan is an officially recognized religion in the United States. I think it's safe to say that not a bunch of people are going to want to invite you over for brunch if you go to the Church of Satan. Do these people need to sit down and listen to a long lecture about how Lucifer is actually the angel of light and how it is perfectly okay to worship him? No. They don't have to listen to that. They can just not like you if they don't like you.
       The reality is that we are not entitled to people liking us. And we are not entitled to people not fearing us. We are also not entitled to friendship from others.
       Getting mad at people because of their fears is an abuse of a human right. You have a choice to be and do as you wish, but, others have the equal choice to not be friends with you because of it. I never thought I would defend fear, but, it is now appropriate to do so.
       Any person has the right to fear any religion in this world, because a religion is an organisation. It is not your race, your gender, and it is not a disability.
       The best way to ease the fears of others, if you want to be friends with them, is through kindness. Not through anger. And through your kindness, minds will be opened. Or maybe not. If not, then that is really not anything to take personally.