I don’t mind if the majority of you consider not “politically correct” what I am going to say. I don’t really mind. First of all because I don’t believe in all that is a “collective thinking”, a “collective believing” and a “collective feeling”.
I am a thorough follower of the “Individualism” as unique way to escape from collectivism intended as an ideology. The only way to free ourselves from the dominant elites (which they think that all is not politically correct is an evil) is to recover an individual point of view on the reality and life in general.
I am not interested if you try to demonstrate that this kind of philosophical thought is son of previous thinkers of past ages. Nietzsche? Spinoza? Leibniz? Adam Smith? Kierkegaard? Schopenhauer? Or who else you like.
Individualism is my way, which I suggest you, to look at the reality. Stop please to be like a sheep, a mere follower of the dominant elites thinking. Try to do the effort to think with your brain, not we the brain of the dominant elites.
The actual dominant elites are: capitalists like shareholders of the biggest world banks, insurance, telecommunication, transportation, media communication, pharmaceutical, chemical, tobacco, food & beverage and wine & spirit companies. All of them are supported by investment funds, of course. Other elites are: homosexual and feminist lobbies. Racially speaking other elites are: Black and Arab people. Politically speaking others elites are: all the parties and movements with a "Marxist root". These elites considered all together create the “main stream” of the elite’s dominant thinking.
Absolutely any under circumstance I am saying they are forming a unique main stream. I understand, for instance, that there are a lot of conflicts of interests between most of them. By the way these conflicts are not the reason to think there isn't a main stream of thoughts in our age. They have in common much more we can think at a first superficial analysis. However it is not here the place where talking about differences and/or common points of view. This is the place where to analyse how a main stream of thinking has driven us to a big disaster.
For this last reason, this is nothing if you compare all of them with the worst of the dominant elite’s thinking. This worst is the collective idea that a God exists and his followers are united under the flag of a religion. I am not here to discuss if it is right or wrong to believe in God. Anybody, in the name of an individualist thought, can trust what he/she prefers. What I want to discuss here is if we really still need religion as support to the idea of God.
Since the past ages any population of the world in any land of this Earth has developed the idea of God. Initially people were induced to think about more than one God could exist. But now is almost accepted the idea that only one God exist. In some parts of the world still resist the idea of a multi divinity. But basically monotheism is the main stream idea, for all the most important religions in the world. As I told there is nothing wrong if anybody of us believes or not that God exists. What is absolutely unacceptable nowadays it is the over structure relying on this idea of God. The over structure is commonly known as religion.
So the most followed religions like Christian, Islam, Hebrew, Scintoism, Buddhism and Hinduism are all over structure. With the word over structure we can intend a structure created by men. This means we are talking of a cultural structure which is exactly the opposite to a natural structure. It is a natural process to believe or not in God’s existence, but it is only a cultural process the religion that men have built all around the idea of God, naming him in the way they could prefer.
What I am suggesting here is to imagine religion like a castle or fortress built to defend all the people living inside. There is nothing wrong to build a castle or a fortress with the aim to preserving lives inside and the values that these lives represent. But the question is: are we sure that is somebody living inside the castle or the fortress? Because the risk is: if inside there is only one person or possibly nobody, what are we really defending then?
If what we are defending is just the walls of the castle or the fortress, I find reasonable to suggest of revising our scale of values. Does it make sense for you to defend a place which is void?
Religion it is like this castle or fortress. Religion, I mean any religion, today it is just a place surrounded by high walls. But inside of the perimeter of the walls there is nothing, just an empty space. The followers of the religion, especially the most convinced, are sentinels of nothing. They remind us those Japanese soldiers that have been fighting despite the WWII has terminated.
Does it makes sense all this for you? Don't you see the absurd of this situation as I see? Why to consider religion something fundamental in our times if all that is able to do is producing fanatic people whose actions are to disseminate deaths, pain and suffering?
I hope you now understand because I believe that any religious fanaticism is the real evil of our times. If not, please ask to the parents, relatives and friends of the 76 Norwegian youth people assassinated by a religious fundamentalist. What did you expect they are going to answer?