At present this document contains the following medium long and long notes in chronological order, starting with the one most recently added:

• How to win the Nobel Peace Prize
• The aggrandizemental argumentum ad hominem
• "Keep exclusivist alphabets out"
• 'Western' religions of 'the Middle East'

HOW TO WIN THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Choose a religious ideology that by carrying all the exclusivist seeds of discord and discrimination in it divides the people of your region into two opposing, warring parties.

Next, make sure that the global community gets totally fed-up with the atrocious and endless conflicts between you and your enemy.

Then, make peace with him in the name of the same god or ideology that has hitherto so hopelessly and religiously divided you. Nobel's faithful followers will now be extremely impressed by your sudden, sensationally peaceful conduct and will offer you a formidable prize of international allure!

Vincent van Mechelen, 56.NEY

THE AGGRANDIZEMENTAL ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

An argumentum ad hominem appeals to the hearer's or reader's subjective feelings and prejudices rather than to 'er intellect or rather than to objective reason. It is often an attack on an opponent's character or appearance instead of on 'er (sound or fallacious) reasoning. But such an abnegational argumentum ad hominem has an aggrandizemental counterpart.

In a context where there is disagreement and no common ideology it is just as much an argumentum ad hominem to claim that something is right or wrong because a famous ancient or well-known contemporary thinker said so as to claim that something is not right or not wrong because a less famous, perhaps infamous, or lesser-known person says that it is right or that it is wrong. Something is not right, good or just only because someone else, however well-known, said it, wrote it down or had it written down, whether in a natural or in a supposedly supernatural way, and whether recently or in the distant past. An appeal to a famous character or --in religion-- sacred book as an argument in itself merely serves present-day or all-time subjective feelings and prejudices to the detriment of reason.

The speaker or writer who defends 'imself with 'er own ideological trust and belief in a revered person or personified being or sacred book flouts reason and the hearer's or reader's intellect by using an aggrandizemental type of argumentum ad hominem.

Vinsent Nandi, 56.NEY

'WESTERN' RELIGIONS OF 'THE MIDDLE EAST'

Certain silly, if not arrogant, so-called 'Western' monotheists continue to claim that the mainstream denominational ideologies originating in the so-called 'Middle East' are 'modern religions of the West', and that they are 'universalist' in that they seek or accept converts from all over the world, regardless of race. But the religions in question are neither Western nor universalist. They are the ancient Abraham religions of the Eastern Hemisphere, which hold that the supreme being would have, or have had, an exclusive relationship with the human beings, or even one 'chosen people', of one region of the world in particular. The region in question has traditionally be named "the Middle East" from a North-Atlantic perspective, as part of the triplet Near East, Middle East and Far East, but this is a misnomer both from a local and from a universal perspective. It is in this area where a 'holy land' and 'holy cities' are purported to be found, unlike elsewhere.

To present the Abraham religions with their 'Middle-East'-centered ideas, ideals and idols as world-views for everyone on Earth is, if not racist, ethnically and territorially exclusivist, something that is not less objectionable. Too many persons are still made to believe that these archaic ideologies that began their spread in the Southwest Asian region bordering on the Mediterranean and the Red Sea would be universalist. Yet, one day they or their descendants are bound to find out that ethnic and territorial exclusivism in the denominational field, even when appearing to be solely aggrandizemental and/or merely symbolic, will never lead to a society in which no-one discriminates anymore on the basis of nationality, on the basis of race, or on the basis of whatever other factor. The terrors and other evils of exclusivism and exclusionism will also hurt and will, then, also keep on hurting the inhabitants of the countries in this region.

Just as the North is not better than the South, so the West is not better than the East, nor the East better than the West. Instead of associating themselves with such an abominable belief people anywhere and everywhere should join the adherents of a new doctrine not of the West, not of some 'Middle East' between 'Near East' and 'Far East', not of the East, but of the World; that is, a new doctrine which is a world-view in a relevant sense, and universalist in a true sense. Only such a modern denomination of the whole world can eventually bring peace and justice in the Western Hemisphere and in the Eastern Hemisphere, Southwest Asia included.

Vincent van Mechelen, 42.SEL-58.NEY