Spirituality And Door To Religion

Spirituality of any kind opens the door to religion. If astrology or numerology or anything of similar sort is true, then so is God. With such things working, you do not get away with a materialist fundamentalist worldview. Instead you have to look for logical applications of what you have seen; and this means divine origins.

I had a girlfriend who was an astrologer. Now many people think that astrology is for idiots, but this woman was brilliant. She also had experience in a cult of a Hindu swami, and she had many valuable things to say. Of course the materialist fundamentalist types attacked her a lot; but what she had to say was far wiser than what they had to say. And even any number of people who thought that astrology was a pseudoscience commended her on the precision of her observations.

Then the astrologers – at least on the Internet – were attacked by people who called themselves skeptics, and these people were very nasty. They decided that astrology was for lunatics, and they personally attacked the people who were into it. On my part I have had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations were religious, and of course many people saw me as a kook. However for me to deny what I have experienced would not be logical; it would be dishonest. And dishonesty does not a rational person make.

Then I started having experiences of God and of Jesus Christ. For me this has been a constant battle, as I am sure it has been for many others. Nobody wants to go to hell. Many people do not want to submit their lives to a power. Being a brat that I am, I find it very difficult to submit to Christ. However it is better to submit to Christ, who is wise and benevolent, than it would be to submit to people who think that they know what they are talking about but really do not.

Christ, in my case, has proven His reality to me again and again. Often I do not want this to be the case. Often I want my life to be my own. Often I want to go back to the atheistic worldview. However I do not have the option to do so honestly.

As for the people who consider such things illogical, my answer is that logic is a method and not a worldview. If something does not fit into a worldview, the logical solution is not to deny the experience but to modify the worldview. In my case, this is not a matter of faith or belief. In my case this is a matter of fact. And if even I, having had the kinds of experiences that I have had, am open to doubting or wanting to deny them, then who else is not vulnerable.

Is Jesus real? You bet He is. And I say this as someone who for a long time have been a militant atheist. If you have not had these kinds of experiences, then you can be seen to be honestly in error. However I, among others, do not have that luxury. I could do such a thing; but to do so would be a very profound sin.

Whether you have the materialistic worldview or if you are into spirituality, I implore you to look further into the Bible. Ask Christ into your life. His wisdom is greater than that of the world, and He can teach you what you need to know. He does not only save souls. He also saves lives.

Real God And False Gods

The false gods are going to turn against you. The Communists and some others deified the state, and the state became monstrous. The New Agers deified the self, and the people became jerks. The consciousness movement people deified the mind, and the minds went insane. As for my own group – the romantics – we used to deify women, only to see women acting in vicious and nasty ways.

When something is given powers that it does not deserve, it will use these powers for wrong things. Not the state, not the economy, not the academia, not the family, have a right to be given godlike powers. Most of these things have a legitimate roles, and it is rightful that they be given power appropriate to these roles. However none of such things begin to deserve ultimate power.

I do not recommend that we go without – the state, the economy, the academia, the family, and so forth. I recommend that we see these things as accessories to a purpose and not as a purpose in itself. Economy is not “reality” or “the real world”; it is a system composed of disparate and competing entities whose common goal is to make money. Academia is not reality either, but a place where people do research and learn. As for the state, it is simply one of the many things that exist. It, just like the rest of the civilization, is composed of people; and I see no reason at all to see the people in the state – as did Hobbes – to be better than others, or – as do the libertarians – to be worse than others. Some people in the state will be better than others. Likewise outside the state. In some cases the state is the organ of wrongdoing against people; in some cases it isn't. I have known a number of people who suffered badly under Soviet Communism; but I have also known many people who suffered in America from their families or the mafia or Jehovah's Witnesses or doctors or lawyers or their men.

So who actually does deserve ultimate power? Only one being in the Universe. And while I have been attempting to follow this power, even in my case I keep getting doubts or attempting to forget what I have been experiencing. It is not easy at all to see that your life belongs not to you but to God, or that wrongdoing could lead to hellfire. It means that you have to do what God tells you to do. However I would much rather take that from God than from a military sargeant or a Soviet commissar, even though even in this case I would not promise consistent compliance.

Paul said that the woman exists for the man, the man for the church and the church for God. He was envisioning a political order that is lead by God through the church involving all men and women. I would very much like to see what an order like that would look like. Some thought that they were doing it in the Middle Ages, but they did it wrong. The people with conscience went into monasteries, and the kings and the nobles ruled the place without conscience. Then there was the idea of the divine right of kings, which is completely wrong. Once again, they were deifying a monarch, creating a false god who would turn against them.

When faced with a deified monarch, some decided instead to deify “the people.” That too is wrong. Whichever people they may be talking about are just as fallible as the monarchs. Some people will be better than others. Once again, I see no reason to see people outside the state as being better than people in the state, any more than the other way around. We will have good governments and bad governments, and we will have good people and bad people.

Similar with business, with the academia, and with just about anything else.

Now I cannot promise that I will always worship God or do what He tells me to do. I can however explain to people that He is much more worthy of such powers than earthly false gods. And while the priestry is not always the best form of governance, maybe there should be more power left to religion than to the business, the academia or the state.

False Gods

From the perspective of the New Ager, one's thoughts create reality. Therefore, "I am God."

From the perspective of some in the academia, people agreeing upon an issue construes reality. Therefore, Academia is God.

From the perspective of some others, the socio-economic infrastructure is reality. Therefore, social infrastructure is God.

Now many do not believe in a god; however the ability to create reality with one's thoughts or anything along the same lines could not happen in a materialistic construct. It points strongly instead toward there actually being a god.

And that is a much more worthy source than any of these false gods.

"The Higher You Rise, The Harder You Fall"

There is a saying, “The higher you rise, the harder you fall.” When you have achieved a state of grace through loving and caring attention on the part of God and rigorous effort on your part, a single unrighteous thought or act can send you crashing down. At which point you have to pick yourself up and do the hard work of rising again.

There is a saying that power corrupts. When possessing of power, there are many challenges and temptations. These can result in even the more well-intentioned people acting badly. To deal with such things it is necessary to have a platinum temperament as well as an unshakeable sense of right and wrong. Not everyone who behaves badly while in power starts out being a bad person. They do not know what they are dealing with, and often they do wrong things. We see this with people like Clinton and Nixon, both of whom had some good qualities but whose character was imperfect, resulting in major errors while in power.

Sometimes people are born with bad inclinations, and sometimes they simply don’t know what they are doing. In many cases people are not prepared for what comes their way. There are many people in the inner city who do not have correct guidance from their parents, and when they hit their teens they do not know how to deal with what they are faced with. So even many of the people with better inclinations become gangsters, drug dealers or sex industry workers. That is because, once again, they do not know what they are faced with and do not know how to deal with it rightfully. The claim that many have about these people is that they are bad people, and some think that they are bad because they are black. They are not. Once again, they are simply not well enough prepared for what they will face.

I have known a number of people with talent, intellect and even fantastic personal qualities slip into bad situations. Once again, the reason is that they do not have the correct guidance for what they will have to face. Sometimes people are naive and fall for the line of one or another kind of deceiver. Sometimes they have desires or ambitions that they do not know how to handle rightfully. Sometimes they disagree with their upbringing and go to other situations, for which once again they are not properly prepared. Not all of these people are bad human beings, and having known a number of them I do not see them as being worse than the average person. They simply do not know what they will face.

If you have had education in upper classes, there is a lot further to fall than if you have not. Such people will find the fall a lot more hard to handle than would people who come from lower places. They will have a lot further to fall, and they will fall harder. And they will make much juicier prey for people who live in the bottom and feed on what goes there.

The higher you rise the harder you fall works in many different situations. Sometimes you fall from a high place that you – by yourself or with higher guidance - have raised yourself up to, and sometimes you fall from a place where you were born. In all cases the fall is hard, and the process of rising again is a difficult one.

Certainly someone who has fallen from a high place is likely to be bloodied in the process, and that may make such a person more obviously beaten up than someone who has fallen from a lower place. Such a person would both make better prey and be more vulnerable to attack. Whoever is feeding on such a person would be very attached to her, seeing in her many fine qualities, and would also feel himself justified in being highly abusive and moralizing to go with his predatory behaviour. And should the prey leave or attempt to leave, there is no hearing the end of it.

Why do such people become attractive to predators? One of course is status. He is feeding on someone who has come from – or been in – a high place. Another is refinement and education, both of which are attractive qualities. And then of course there is the beauty and the intelligence. All of these are attractive; and when they go along with the status of someone as a rebel or a “slut” or anything of the sort, they allow the person the opportunity to feed on the person’s fine qualities while regarding her as a bad human being. This then empowers the predator to get whatever he wants from the person -which is in most cases far more than he could conceivably get anywhere else - while treating her like dirt.

And once again, if the person attempts to leave there is no hearing the end of it.

Anyway, back to the original subject. The higher you rise, indeed the harder you fall. So it becomes a matter of handling a great balancing act on the beams of a skyscraper and hoping not to fall on the street below. And in some situations a single wrong move means instant death.

Faith And Courage

Some people go on about “shameless proselytizing.” Why should professing one's faith be something shameful? People profess all sorts of things. I see no reason at all why people should be doing less to profess their Christian faith than they would their faith in political correctness. That something is religious rather than ideological does not make it any less valid.

Then there is the idea that spiritual feelings are something that should be kept private. Once again, I see no reason for that at all. Spiritual feelings can give birth to all sorts of valid endeavors. There have been many people whose faith lead them to do valuable things. If they kept it private, they would not have made the contributions that they did.

I have also heard it said that religion is something that only a coward would bring up. I see no reason for that at all. If you believe in God, then you should bring it up. There is nothing at all cowardly about it. Many people of God are very brave, and they are much more brave than many who are involved in political correctness.

Is faith something that one should keep private? I do not believe that it is. Once again, faith has lead many people to make meaningful contributions. If you believe in God, then it is rightful that you should credit God publicly. And there is nothing shameful or cowardly about it.

The Crust And The Rest Of The Earth

There are people who say such things as that they are “Earth people” and that “we must live on Earth.” They have an inadequate understanding of what the Earth means. The Earth is not just the crust. It is also such things as the oceans and the atmosphere. And equating the Earth with the crust, these people do ignorant and destructive things, such as poisoning the atmosphere and throwing garbage into the ocean.

The same people see their mentality as “reality.” It is nothing of the sort. It is a mentality. Now certainly the technology and business is real enough, but to claim that it is reality and that nothing else is is ridiculous. There is also the reality of the Sun. There is also the reality of the rest of the planet. There is also the reality of other societies. To equate a mentality with reality proper is completely wrong.

The same people say such things as that spirituality or philosophy is something that people do when they can't deal with reality. This, again, is ridiculous. Their own system is based on a philosophy and it owes vastly to many people with religious and spiritual beliefs. Most people believe in something spiritual or another. Many of them have very good reasons for believing what they believe. To them – and in my own experience – such forces are completely real. And it is complete ignorance and foolishness to claim that these people are fools and lunatics for believing what they believe. Once again, they have very good reasons for believing such things. And many of them are actually far brighter – as well as far better people – than the ignorant and abusive bullies who like to attack them.

Do we deny the crust? Not at all. We also remember the sun, the atmosphere and the oceans. More importantly we pay attention to such things and calculate their benefit in our computations. We care about such things and look after them wisely. And we arrange our activities one earth in such a way as to make possible the most beautiful blossoming of life.

The crust is real enough, but it is no way the whole of reality. When one looks at the sky or the ocean, one sees a lot more. It is vitally important that such things be computed and seen rightfully as part of reality. And it is only then that people's concept of what is reality will be informed by actual reality, and what they see to be sanity will be based on what actually exists.

Michael Jackson, Racism And Misogyny

In his best-selling album, Michael Jackson articulated two problems that have since then been a blight of the African-American community. In “Billie Jean,” he talked about men saddling their women with children for whom they did not want to provide. And in “Beat It,” he talked about senseless, stupid, directionless violence. Both of these have been the blight of the African-American community to this date.

I do not blame Michael Jackson for either problem. Like many creative types, he was only articulating what was going on all around him. The real problems are much deeper.

I have been close to a number of African-American women. And when I care about a woman, I adopt her concerns as my own. What some of these women told me made me want to punch the men who did those things to them in the face. And I am hardly a violent person.

So there have been people portraying me as a racist or a misogynist. This is completely irresponsible behavior. This is crying wolf. And crying wolf makes you – and others – not credible when a real wolf appears. And of these there are plenty. The real misogynists have called me such things as a pussywhipped idiot and a male feminist. The real racists attack me for being a Jew. So we are seeing many real racists and real misogynists on the march right now. And this should give these people a sense of perspective that they sorely lack.

So we see women in American feminist movement claiming any white man who does anything that they do not like as a misogynist or an abuser. Then they excuse vicious abuses by people who are African-American, or Muslim, or Mexican. This makes these people worse than hypocrites. It makes them traitors and fools. Now maybe calling people fools is not Christian behavior. However they have been saying much worse things, especially about people who otherwise would be their allies.

I once knew a young black woman who was studying to become a police officer. I told her that she was exactly what the punks deserved. If a white man busted them, then they could say that he was a white man. If a black man busted them, them they could say that he was an Oreo. But if a black woman – of the kind that they believed themselves justified to subject to hideous violence – then they were getting exactly what they deserved.

There was a band in 1990s that said, “You do not call me black, you call me African-American.” I will call you African-American if you'd like, but if you are an asshole then I would call you an asshole whatever your race happens to be. I come from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did a lot to fight racism. I do not qualify as a “western imperialist” or anything of the sort. I qualify as a man who cares about how people are treated.

So we see many women involved in feminism claiming that they are strong people. I got the news for them. They are nowhere close to owning strength. My grandmother was a Jewish woman who lived through the Second World War while living under Stalin. She was a very strong person. However she did not have a bad attitude. She behaved in a humble and reserved manner while actually doing genuinely courageous things.

To the people who think that me or anyone like me is a racist or a misogynist or anything of the sort: You are completely irresponsible. You do not know what a racist or a misogynist is. A real racist or a real misogynist will beat you to pulp or do anything in his power to destroy you. And if you are alienating your potential allies by calling them things of the sort, then you are making yourselves and your people vulnerable to people who are actually misogynist or actually racist.

Unlike many of these people, I have hands-on experience in working with people who have been victims of things such as racism and misogyny. And unlike these people, I have understanding of what racism and misogyny is and what it is not. These people have been spending most of their energy attacking white men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are the least misogynistic and racist men out there while having neither the guts nor the power to confront real racists and real misogynists. This makes them hypocrites, and this makes them cowards.

I have had it with these kinds of attacks. I know what racism and misogyny is, and I know what it is not. If you are really the strong people that you fancy yourselves to be, then go and fight real racists and real misogynists. I have done both; and I refuse to be subjected to such attacks.

"Ideology Of Mass Consumption"

A former friend of mine in California, who was a Marxist, told me that people in capitalism were involved in the “ideology of mass consumption.” My question is, Is this really an ideology?

Many people want wealth without it being ideological. Let's face it, wealth is attractive. It is even attractive to people who have not had ideological indoctrination into capitalism or anything of the sort. It was attractive for example to Soviet residents living under Communism. So is this really ideological, or are we dealing with something that people simply want?

Certainly there are times when it is done in a coercive manner. People are taught that they need to have lots of wealth or they are losers. When I wanted money it was not for the sake of money itself but for the sake of credibility. I was under the impression that nobody would take my views seriously unless I had lots of wealth. I have since found out that there are a number of ways to credibility, money being only one of them, and others including such things as wisdom and strength.

Is there an ideology of mass consumption going on? I think that there are a number of things going on. One, once again, is that wealth is simply attractive and will continue to attract people who want it whatever their ideology. Another is that when we have coercion toward wealth, we have negative results. Everyone wants to become wealthy. Nobody wants to do tasks that do not generate much wealth for themselves but have vast benefit. Scientists, teachers, military, police and any number of others do not make very much money, but their contributions are vast.

Are these people losers because they don't make very much money? No, they are not. Without the scientist the businessman would have very little to sell. Without the teacher the businessman would not have the knowledge that he needs to do his job, and most workers would be unemployable. Without the military and the police there would be no protection for property rights. Some see such people as losers or even irresponsible. They are neither. They need them.

If you have been lead to believe that you are a loser unless you have millions of dollars, think again. Many of the most significant contributors did not make very much money. Nikolai Tesla died in poverty. Thomas Jefferson died deeply in debt. Karl Marx was poor, yet for a long time two thirds of the world followed his ideas. Some people who make significant contributions are rewarded monetarily in their lifetimes, others are not. Once again, some would see such people as losers. Yet they have made bigger contributions than have the people who believe such a thing.

Most things that are good can be used for wrong. It does not damn the value; it damns its misuse. With money, what we see is a good thing that can be used for wrong. We see the same thing with such things as beauty and intelligence. It is important to separate the value from the misuses of the value.

So that while it may very well be undesirable for people to be under coercion to make lots of money, it is however not an ideology. One again, wealth is attractive. I expect that it will continue to be attractive. Some people may very well make an ideology of it and use it for wrongdoing. But I anticipate that many people will want to be wealthy whatever their ideology.

Feeling People And Thinking People

There are many people who think that feelings are for the stupid and for the weak. This justifies these people in severe emotional and often physical and interpersonal violence. For such people, their worst nightmare is a feeling-oriented person with a brain. Such a person is dangerous to them for two main reasons. One is that he cannot be credibly labeled as stupid. And the other is that he has the intelligence to be of help to other feeling-oriented people, whom they want to trample down and treat like dirt.

A common claim about such people is that they are manipulative. That term is manipulative in and of itself. A combination that is actually positive is being portrayed as something destructive.The actual outcome is competence at understanding feelings. This can be used for wrong, but it also can very well be used for right. 

Now a man who has such an inclination is deemed in some cases a potential Hitler. I consider it completely wrong to compare someone who does not want to kill anyone to someone who started a world war. Hitler may have had such inclinations; but so have many much better people, including Clinton, Dostoyevsky, Einstein, Tesla, Lennon and Blake. By that standard any gray “bureaucrat” is a potential Eichmann; but I do not see people working for USDA being labeled that way.

Both feelings and thinking can be paths to both wisdom and stupidity. When the two work together in one head, one of the many things that happen is that they challenge one another and correct one another's errors. A purely thinking person will be prone to the error of coldness and cruelty, and a purely feeling person will be prone to the error of mindlessness and self-absorption. Two modalities can challenge, check-and-balance and also feed into one another. One thing that happens in someone who has use of both modalities, once again, is that they check one another's capacity for error. And another thing that happens is that they inform one another with what one another lacks in itself thus come up frequently with greater wisdom than either acting alone.

So that someone who has competence in both feeling and thinking is likely to come up with quite valuable observations. This, once again, is because he has competence in two modalities rather than one. Ayn Rand was both very passionate and excelled at reasoning, and she came up with brilliant writing. We see the same, once again, in Dostoyevsky and Blake. They were brilliant people who were also passionate people. And this combination creates insight that cannot be as easily found in people who are either merely brilliant or merely passionate.

It should therefore be encouraged for people to be good both at thinking and at feeling. This will create people who have a use of two modalities rather than one. And that will allow them to both check each side's potential for error and work with one another to achieve fuller insight. The result will be wiser people and better decisions made all across the board.

Misconceptions About Christianity

I started out as a militant atheist, but I have since then come to Jesus. I am now addressing the most common wrongful claims about Christianity.

One claim is that Christianity is fanaticism. Any ideology can be fanatical, whether or not it is religious. There are fanatical Communists. There are fanatical feminists. There are fanatical anti-Semites. There are fanatical “skeptics” and personality psychologists. Fanaticism can happen under just about any belief structure, whether or not it is religious.

Another claim is that Christians are bigots. Now there are certainly some people who are Christians because they were raised Christian; but once again we see the same thing with any belief structure. They understand the transmission mechanism; they do not understand the reasons why the thing started. The early Christians were in no way bigots. They were radicals who were fighting a very powerful empire and outlasted it. The Romans were not ignorant. They had knowledge of many things such as engineering and medicine. Yet Christianity outlasted the Roman Empire, which means that there is something else going on besides the transmission mechanism. With contemporary Christians, many have come from other paths, and they have a very good reason to believe what they believe.

Another claim is that Christianity is illogical. What these people do not understand is that logic is a method and not a worldview. When faced with an experience that challenges the worldview, the correct solution is not to deny the experience but to change the worldview. To do the opposite is not logical; it is dishonest. In my case I have had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations are of the religious nature, and I, being myself quite effective at reasoning and having started out as an atheist, do not have the luxury of such beliefs.

We also see the claim that Christianity is misogynistic. The worst misogyny that I have seen has been of secular nature. The Freudians who think that women are an incomplete gender possessing a penis envy. The “rationalists” who think that anything with feelings is an inferior form of life. The skinheads who think that real men knock women around. Some of the happiest women that I have known were wives of Christian priests. These men were in no way misogynistic. They did what the Bible tells them to do – love their wives as their own flesh.

What else. That Christianity is stupid. I used to think the same thing; then I had the experiences of Christ in my life. What I experienced was not stupid at all. What I experienced was the wisest presence that I have ever dealt with. Christ has been working on my character, and I have gone from someone whom most people I knew saw as a bad person to someone whom most people I know see as a good one.

Then there is the Marxist claim that Christianity is something that “propertied classes” spread to control the “masses.” The first Christians were not part of the “propertied classes.” They came from “the masses.” Christianity was adopted by both the “propertied classes” and “working classes” alike, as well as by people in places such as America where there were no rigid class lines and people could rise or fall as far as their efforts would take them. When Marx saw an order based on “exploitation,” he saw the religion that was claimed by the “exploiters” and the “exploited” alike as being a part of the problem. He was wrong.

A related claim is that of equating Christianity with sheepish conformity. Once again, that can happen under any belief structure. Some people will be more likely to be leaders, and other people will be more likely to be lead. There is more rigid conformity in North Korea than there is in Texas.

And then of course there is a claim that it is a con. No, it is not a con. God is real. Jesus was real. We will find dishonest people under any ideology. That Pat Robertson has made false statements does not damn Christianity; it damns him.

Now I am the last person in the world whom one would expect to accept Jesus. This means that, if this can happen to me, then it can happen to anyone. I hope that people who have these kinds of beliefs experience the kinds of things that I have experienced. And I hope that they do so for their own sake as well as for that of others.

Bullying, Immigration And Race

When faced with a bullying situation, different places will approach it in different ways. A conservative will attack the person who is being bullied, stating that they are responsible for what happens to them and that they are weak, disturbed or dangerous to society. A liberal will confront the bully, in some cases claiming that he is a narcissist or a sociopath. A Christian will look at how to guide both to a better place.

Sometimes the situation is quite clear-cut. At other times it isn't. We see some in liberalism seeing the Western man as the universal source of evil, but there have been severe wrongs done by people who were not a part of the Western civilization. Sometimes the little guy is the good guy and sometimes he isn't. The correct solution is not to take the side of either one against the other, but to guide both toward better thinking and better behavior.

Can, for example, white people and black people get along? They do all the time. However whenever people mix someone is likely to wrong someone else. We see this done both ways. Sometimes the aggressor comes from a more “elite” position and sometimes he doesn't. There are many men who either get together with women from lower socioeconomic positions and treat them badly or have sex with them and saddle them with children for whom they fail to provide. However I also knew of a man descended from a bad background who married a woman descended from English royalty and treated her terribly. I do not see a correlation between power and goodness. Both the big guy and the little guy can be good or bad.

So of course when someone mistreats one of their own, they may want to do something bad in return to their group. If a black man is violent to a white woman, other white people would use that to claim that black people are bad and that they should be attacked. If an international marriage goes bad, that can start off social conflict. So now we have many Russian women married to American men, and if the American men choose to be idiots and treat them badly then Russian men would likely have something to say on the matter, even though of course many of them are much worse.

With the black people in America, there are some who are descended from slaves and others who are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Generally the immigrants are well-to-do and patriotic, whereas many of those who are descended from slaves are neither. That is because the first group has chosen to be in America and the other hasn't. If you have come on your own will to a country, then you have made that choice, and you will do what you can to both defend that choice and to make it a success. Whereas if you have not chosen to be in a country, then you feel like a victim and often bear ill will toward the place. When families immigrate, the adults are generally likely to be patriotic. The kids however may or may not be, as their opinion has not been consulted on the matter. Both for the children of immigrants – and for the people descended from slaves – the correct solution is to give them the choice that they believe they have been denied. Say, You are free to go elsewhere; if you choose to stay then be a good citizen.

Now back on the original subject of bullying, the correct solution is to have interest in the well-being of both parties as well as their improvement. It is to guide both toward better conduct and better character. The same should of course be the case with everyone else, whether or not they have been involved in a bullying situation. The correct solution is to have interest in the well-being and the improvement of everyone. Make a better world for the people and better people for the world.