The Insanity in Belief and Unbelief

A friend asked that I contribute to a conversation about Bill Gates semi-religious comments. The billionaire (by USD standards) effused about attending Catholic masses with the rest of the family but stopped short of strong involvements in religious commitments saying science had explained most of the appeal to religious doctrines away. He however conceded that there still were some deep realities that suggest the supernatural.

In the piece stating Gates' views was an explanation about how it takes a level of sanity to completely appreciate both the physical and beyond (metaphysical or supernatural). In doing that the author concluded that anyone who doesn't allow for that duality (physical and beyond physical) exhibits a qualified insanity. I say 'qualified' to discountenance our normal view of "roaming-the-street-mad" that the concept of insanity conjures in the mind. The sense implied here is insanity of taking only one part of a dual-existence as the whole.

By the time I was invited, said friend had already engaged a couple of his own friends who were atheists, I believe. I'd leave the direction in which the discourse was going to your imagination. But below, you can (if you choose to) read my reply. Pardon the length.

Here:

I admire you and your tireless efforts at bridging the lacuna between belief and unbelief. I used to be that way for a while, back in the days. Fired with the proofs drawn from logic and rationed scientific disputations of the School of Aquinas, I engaged those whose foundational principles negated God's existence burying it under the rubbles of other fantastical man-made theories and beliefs. I confronted all sorts, from the religiously agnostic to the downright atheist.

And I saw that process drag. I felt it drain all parties and impinge on the warmth of friendships. And it became clear. I was estranging them the harder I tried. I wasn't succeeding in changing their perspectives. Rather, I was expanding that lacuna. They were never going to budge irrespective of the strength of my arguments. I wasn't going to concede an inch despite the historical exactitude of their positions. I didn't see their facts, they didn't see my proofs. There existed no common grounds from whence to begin to reach a convergence.

Nothing gave.

I remembered an old legal maxim I'd committed to memory. "You cannot argue with someone who denies the first principles." It applied as much to me as it did to them.

Theretofore, I abruptly stopped. Every once in a while I engage in friendly banter about faith and religion but those heavy disputations are behind me now. My belief and faith are at an all-time high. It's matured concretely and still going strong. I have some shared values with some atheists than I have with some of the 21st century Christians. And I'm at peace with that. Not everyone who cries, "Lord, Lord..."

I'd end by rephrasing words from an ad that used to run back then about an alcoholic brand. "My friend Udeme is an 'insane' man. But there's a piece of 'insanity' in all of us." As there's a light of wisdom in us too. I don't know what you call it. It is the spark of divinity. For me.

Laughing Jackass and Abacha's Loot

We cannot but crack jokes about the seemingly bottomless nature of Abacha's thievery that's annually returned in tranches to the nation's coffers. For if we are to seriously consider the monumental consequences of that monolithic raping of our collective patrimony, it'll stretch the limits of our sanely existence. So, for our sanity, we appeal to humour.

And in our humorous inebriation, the loot is relooted. On the brighter side, it only implies, we'd have more to, not spend, but laugh at tomorrow, laughing jackasses that we are.

*insert false laughter here*

Trumpism?

What can one say about the veracity of Trumpism here displayed? Studies show that but for interferences from Europe and America, directly or by proxy, African development could've been a lot farther afield than where it is today. However, as the supplier of raw materials to the Global North, the latter cannot afford to allow this Black Continent be anything but backwards aided by many of our own. So, it goes beyond the cunningly crafted words of this billionaire to the historical relevance of Africa's relations with the rest of the world.

But that is one side of the coin. On the other side is the man, Donald Trump.

You can award him marks for not bothering about "political correctness" (where you have to say things not to offend the others' sensibilities even if you may or may not hold such things as truth yourself). He has that. The question is why?

The answer isn't farfetched. That's ALL he has (if his wealth is subtracted, that is).

Everything else that may be necessary for leading a country, nay not just a country, the primus inter pares of countries, the United States of America, is desperately lacking in the persona of Trump. That his surname rhymes with dump doesn't help his cause either, ooh but I digress.

Back to my point now. Where is the charisma? Where is the sense and purpose of leadership? Where's the inspirational presence? Where's the aura that makes you feel the grandeur of respect when you see him even before he speaks? And when he opens his mouth, nothing commanding respect issues forth. Nothing. His gestures, gesticulations, choice of words, body language. Zilch. Nada. No quotable words can be traced to this man's mind.

What you remember of him are things that uninspire. The Apprentice Show. Achievements in business with more and more investments outside America recently. His failed marriages. His demeaning opinion about the less privileged, the disabled, the immigrant American population. His unpretentious racism. His uncanny ignorance of history. His disbelieving connection to Nazi-styled governance. His inability to remember previous lies. His dexterity at twisting obvious facts and his apparent lack of understanding that he's being taken for a fool.

His megalomanic wealth may sway those who pursue peripheral materialistic satisfaction. No doubts there. But what should be a clear pointer at how he'd be considered in international relations and politics comes from Putin's endorsement of his candidacy.

I'd clarify that immediately. Putin is the most nationalistic leader this side of history (and nothing wrong about that. National interests are acceptably key in engaging with other nations. Putin just carries his own on his head and wears it on his sleeve). Putin's interests in world politics are simple. He only needs to ask himself one question: How does this not only affect my country, but also my government and then, me personally? As soon as he can answer that question positively for himself, you get his endorsement. Otherwise, no game.

So, for this same Putin to publicly endorse Trump and for this Toupee-wearing American billionaire to bask euphorically in that unfortunate endorsement, calling Putin his kind of guy is the most unAmerican thing I thought I was never going to witness in my short time here.

I'd finish by saying, nothing but the most mundane and negative and smelly gets the media attention these days. And whatever seizes media focus sells. Trump is a frontline businessman, at home with selling. It is his forte. He knows this so well. He's thus bringing that selling acumen to politics and cashing in on it. The trajectory of his campaign reveals this to pinpoint accuracy. Each time any of his Republican contenders begins to catch up on the polls, Trump knows it's time to make sure all news outlets from Fox to CNN from Al Jazeera to BBC are talking about the next outrageously self-serving, ignorant buffoonery he's said.

It immediately dampens the focus on his competition and gives him another spike in the ratings. Everyone then forgets about how they should be debating their own manifestos and what they promise to bring to the elections. They aim all guns and focus on criticising Trump. Thereby, giving his campaign extra media time for FREE. They forget this, wise as they are. Even the Democrats have disappointingly fallen victims. Can you help it, when the media is focused on it? Not really.

Meanwhile in Trumpiverse, they're cooking up the next storm, waiting for the present one to go completely spent, waiting for others to begin to gain traction, feeling for the opportune time to upset the charts, for Trump to strike again and say another gutter-rubbish.

These are people with Trump who are well versed in capitalist opportunism, who swim with venture sharks and who know when to go for the kill. But the most important weapon they possess is the "how" weapon. Yes, we want to create an upset so bad that we'd look like the saviours when the time comes but how do we go about it? (If that reminds you of businesses today, it's because these are the maestros of that formula) The how? Use sentiments that people already harbour but can't openly express. Bring it up and capitalise on it. ("capitalist", "capitalise" AWESOME) Bingo!!!!! Game over!!!!!

Do Trump's companies not employ Blacks? And Mexicans? At the moment, some huge chunk of his investments are in the Arabic world. So, where did his hatred for the others (Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims) originate? Exactly, politics. This serves his purpose, to clinch the Republican ticket. For that, he'd milk the hate-narrative from here to Gehenna if that is what it'll take to get that ticket. If (he succeeds, not much of a big if) and becomes the frontrunner, good for him. Then, tomorrow should he believe another strategy will aid him beat the Democrat candidate, he'd dump (trump) this hate-tirade and pick that novel one up without blinking nor giving any justification for it, or even fashion out a suitable lie that'll suit the occasion.

Because as I noted at the very start, what else can he run this campaign on? He even dodged serving his nation in military service, something that Americans value and which could have counted in his favour. He has little else to run on but to evoke sentiments and believe that it'll be suffice for a presidential race.

I hope he's proved fatalistically wrong.

Those poll numbers represent mostly Republican sentiments. The numbers are indicators as to how the primaries may go and who may clinch flagbearer. That's all they are: indicators. It's not always the case that they represent actual results and there lies the possibilities for exceptions. Secondly, it is neither representative of how Americans will vote nor are the numbers indicative of the entire voting public in America. So, it's early to call and not possible, at this point, to believe he's outrunning everyone else on his flippant campaign. He's getting famous for his lack of decorum and the media attention is giving him a political high. Truth be told.

But...high horses tend to leave broken men when they discard their riders.