For a number of years in the previous decade, I was a practicing Christian. Having come from a Jewish atheist background, I am often asked why did I go to Christianity at all. One reason was that people whom I respected were urging me to go to Christianity or were telling me that I'd never be able to understand Christianity unless I myself were to become a Christian. But the other reason was what Christianity was not.
It was not the belief that spiritual experience is insanity, that people are driven by "adequacy" and that everything else is "compensation", that the world consists of "winners" and "losers," that anyone who has different ideas from time and place has a personality disorder, or that the social-economic adaptation is reality and that nothing else is.
It was not the idea that people make their reality, that nobody can help or hurt another person, that everything that happens to anyone at any age or stage in life is their doing, and that anyone to whom anything bad happened has caused it and would be bad for anybody else.
It was not the belief that romance and heterosexual sex are rape, that love is a patriarchial institution designed to entrap women, or that beauty is a myth designed to rob women of self-esteem.
It was not Freud; it was not Adler; it was not Andrea Dworkin; it was not the belief that the purpose of life is to strive to achieve self-esteem according to some manipulated set of falsehoods.
I was involved in Christianity for a number of years, only to find out that Christianity contains problems that are in many respects greater than are had by the preceding mentalities. These include, but are not limited, to: Aggressive denial of fact and reality, contempt for physicality and nature, disrespect for intelligence, aggressive misogyny, social oppressiveness, apocalyptic ideation, and a totalitarian attitude that claims that good only comes from Jesus and that everything that does not come from Jesus comes from Satan and leads to hell.
The purely materialistic worldview is a luxury of those who have never had spiritual experiences. As someone who has had many spiritual experiences, I do not have the luxury of such a worldview, and neither does a far greater proportion of the population than anyone dares to admit.
The Adlerian "adequacy" nonsense is not only false, but completely destructive. No human being is an adequate match for a tiger; he uses better technology to outsmart the tiger and in so doing advances the lot of humankind. The "adequacy" people are monkeys who would deny people everything that made possible the world that people have - everything that ever produced improvement and innovation - out of a claim that such things are pathological. An ideology of this sort has no place in a a civilization that is based on people doing much other things than "striving" for "adequacy."
Political correctness can be judged by its fruits. There are many valid female ideals in addition to the "traditional" mother-and-wife role, and they include - a professional woman, a working woman, an artistic woman, a political woman, a teacher, a medical worker, a nun, and further on down the line; but one ideal that was never valid is an insufferable harpy who spends all her time abusing beautiful women and men who love beautiful women; and that is what we see from the politically correct. Political correctness has created the worst women in the history of human species, who have made it their business to destroy the lives of women who aren't part of their racket while monopolizing men who are sympathetic toward women and turning them into their enablers while treating them like trash. To deny the attention of men who are sympathetic toward women to women who actually merit their affection and leave those women with nobody to go to except overtly patriarchial, usually severely violent, men whoare not sympathetic to women in any way. Political correctness has disfigured women who followed it and severely injured women who didn't; at the same time it has usurped the attentions of men who are sympathetic toward women and used this attention for spread of a malicious ideology that attacks and abuses everything beautiful, warm and loving in women while teaching women to act like the worst of men. Claiming to speak for all women, without other women having given them the authority to do so, the politically correct created a de facto dictatorship against other women effectively robbing them of their self-definition and their rights. Meanwhile it has done nothing for women who actually are at the receiving end of real violence. Instead it has blamed these women for what they are experiencing and taught men who are sympathetic toward women to avoid them, leaving them further under control of the men who practice real domestic violence.
The "empowerment" ideologies - ones that claim that everyone makes happen everything that happens to them - are in most cases nothing more than an excuse for lack of compassion and ethics; an excuse to injure others as much as one wants to out of the idea that it's them doing it rather than oneself. They are also totally untrue. By the logic of these ideologies, the people who get killed in genocides and inquisitions are responsible for their deaths, and their murderers aren't. The Holocaust produced two great literary minds: Elie Wiesel and Victor Frankl. Frankl preached this "empowerment" ideology; Wiesel did not. Out of the two, it was Elie Wiesel that came up with a much more profound understanding of things as well as a much greater and more honestly earned power.
The idea that the social-economic adaptation is reality, and that only it is reality, ignores completely the reality of the world in which the social-economic adaptation exists. This leads to aggressive inattention to the rest of reality - such as for example the reality of the planet in which the social-economic adaptation exists and without which it would not have existence; to the state of its climate and its oceans and its ecosystems; to the disastrous events, resulting in vast loss not only of natural but of human life (and yes, property), that are brought on by this aggressive inattention. Reality is in fact a complex mix of all sorts of influences, some of them human, some of them not human; and to see only one aspect of reality while denying the rest of reality is blindness - blindness that is inexcusable and that only can - and does - result in ignorant action that creates all sorts of problems that it becomes up to the people coming after oneself to solve.
Personality disorders have become nothing more than an excuse for a modern-day holocaust. Using disorders whose definitions are very similar to the Nazi definition of "Jew," the believers in these disorders have decided that some people are evil and can only be evil, whatever they do, however hard they work, whatever they give the world or however much work they do on themselves. This is of course a severe violation of reason. If people are responsible for what they are, then they can choose to do the right thing whatever their personal psychology happens to be; and if they cannot do that then they are not responsible for what they are and cannot be judged for the outcome. Instead these people have been, and continue to be, painted as evil regardless of their conduct or their self-directed endeavor; and this results in lifelong persecution of people accused of personality disorders, regardless of what they do.
With self-esteem, the question to be asked at all times is, According to what code? Who is the code's author, and what is its intent? Is it rightful to let people interpose such things into one's mind, thus enslaving it and its striving, or is that just another way to own people - in this case by appropriating their minds?
The "winners" and "losers" idea has been taken completely out of context. The original author of the concept was a psychologist named Eric Berne, who claimed that some people - whose parents liked them - were given by them "winner scripts" in which they are instinctively driven to win; and that other people - whose parents did not like them - were given by them "loser scripts" in which they are instinctively driven to lose. But now we are seeing children of ages as early as seven having it drilled into their heads that they are "losers" by adults who have a grudge against their mothers. We are seeing vicious and ignorant teenage school cultures presume to define people for life based on what pecking order gets ascribed to them at age 14. We are seeing ugliness instilled in this manner used against people by unscrupulous individuals decades down the road regardless of whatever one may have accomplished or what one may have done for their fellow human beings. Of all psychological fictions it is this one that has done the most harm to the Western world over the last few decades. People are separated into "winners" and "losers" and turned against one another until they all lose.
So what then is demanded of a worldview that merits being had? One is that it has to accord with scientific reality; the other is that it has to accord with reality of spiritual experiences that people have had throughout history of humanity and that they continue to have. A worldview that denies either one or the other is unacceptable. Another is that it withstand the scrutiny of inquiry rather than crumble apart under it as do, say, the "empowerment" ideologies. Finally it cannot be a manipulation, a racket or a delusion, such as political correctness or the psychological ideas of which I have written above.
It appears that it falls to people presently living to create such a worldview.