A Cult Called Christianity

People in cults allow themselves to believe farfetched stories. Why?  Because it gives them hope – it gives them a means to survive. This is understandable. We all have our own way of coping with the complexity of life and that which we do not understand.  The question is whether we lack understanding due to ignorance, delusion, or denial. The truth is: believing in something you would question as a child implies a far deeper ignorance than most are willing to admit.

Whether you relinquish logic, truth, or sobriety, the only true freedom is from the mind. These are all delusions we allow in order to make peace with our existence. Anything else is too real. We pad our lives with activities so that we can live in denial. Months pass. And then years. Only, some delusions are original and others are taught.  Some are called insanity, and others help to instill value. Some are fleeting while others ever-present. Some are alienating where others create a cult following.

It’s a trick. One becomes religious because they cannot control for change. When you’re behind something else, you do not need to control change. You let a set of values govern your fate because you do not have to direct change. Your life becomes a series of events that you live, and you just pray when you need change. You gather strength from your prayer and wake tomorrow and enact change. YOU enact change, and you then give credit to your religion. I am here to tell you: Religion is simply a state of conscientious behavior; religions are cults that use the need for this behavior, the need for a destiny. If positive things happen consistently in your life, it is a product of your behavior – not someone else’s.

Consistent behavior is addictive; straying from such seems aimless and wayward. So, people feel the need to know that there is a target destination. A destiny. Religions can provide that for people. Cults can provide that. Excluding those with malevolent/misguided intentions, what exactly is the difference between a religion and a cult? It is the size of the following, which is a product of its persuasion. For thousands of years, great fables written by incredible storytellers have changed people’s lives. While some are rooted in truth, the stories of the Bible now affect the lives of approximately 1/3 of the world’s population. Christianity is the biggest cult in the world. It is the most persuasive religion.

Do you remember the stories that you were told when you were a child? We all get told stories about the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.  These things were fun to believe in. Eventually, we all realized that they did not exist. We realized that they were embellished stories and provided means to ends. Mythology and folklore both fall into the same category. The television show Paranormal Activity, after several seasons, still had nothing but faint whispers to show for its work. The Salem Witch Trials even had a scientific explanation.There is little out there that we accept without question. Christianity is a gaping exception to this rule.

So, the spread of the Christian belief system and the persuasion of the Bible is a social phenomenon. The Bible has stories that are just as embellished as the story of Santa Claus. Have you ever played the game telephone as a child? This is the game where you sit in a circle and, starting with a phrase, you whisper it in the next person’s ear. 15 people later, the phrase has changed drastically. That is only with 15 people. Extrapolate that over thousands of years. Add generations to the equation.  You cannot tell me that stories in the Bible were not subjected to the same errors in communication.

Still, arguing against century-old stories in the Bible would be taboo. Since I have my own morality, I’ve got nothing to lose…

…Stay Tuned for my version of the story of Jesus Christ

The Hipster Movement

So, I consider myself to be quasi-hippie. No, that doesn’t mean I’m a tree hugger. It’s so much more than that. I think that being a hippie is a mentality; it is sort of a way to live life. It’s about…. being about something different than what everyone else is about and letting that something define you. And yes, it sometimes coincides with dreadlocks and a bit more freedom from the recommended number of weekly showers… but those two things are OPTIONAL.

But what’s the real difference between a hippie and hipster? Well, I think hipster is supposed to be the “new cool”. But did you know: the word hippie actually came from hipster? Yeah… that’s right. You hipsters don’t even know it, but you’re part hippie. Similar to a hipster, one of the main things about being a hippie is not conforming to society, to be a free thinker, to challenge things. On the other hand, I think that being a hipster means that you are currently fashionable, to set a trend, but to still have your own style. Sound like a contradiction to anyone? They’re telling you to be trendy… but just be different about it. So, being a hipster is a trend. It’s what “in” right now…. But what are you gonna do? Really, how do you dress differently unless you are knitting your own clothes? We all shop at the same stores….  I’ve thought about this and I believe I have it figured out. I’ll tell you how it is done. You ready? Wear things that don’t go together. Wear as many mismatched things as you can. The more holes the better. Basically, you have to just to try and dress as awful as you possibly can. So, that’s what’s going on: The new trend is to dress very badly. Denim, daisy duke cutoffs will be in fashion next season. For those of you who don’t know: Daisy Dukes are really short shorts. That’s straight out of the urban dictionary. Wearing Daisy duke cutoffs and shredded t-shirts is the next step of the process.

What people don’t realize is that trends aren’t always coming out of nowhere. Sometimes, it’s a process.. In our case, people have been dressing worse and worse since the 1920s, where people were actually dressing very well. In the 30s, people were poor from the depression, so they wore the dingy clothes they bought in the 20s. That means they looked good still, but it was just slightly worse. In the 40s and 50s, people were too busy conceiving the baby boomer population to worry about clothes. In the 60s, people decided not to wear clothes for a different reason entirely. In the 70s, Black men were the only people in America who had style. This is a well-known fact. Don’t even bother looking it up. And to wrap up the history lesson, I’ll tell you this: As a country, I think that we basically hit rock bottom after the stock market crash of 2008 when people had to start wearing hand-me-downs again. Shopping for clothes at Goodwill became cool because you were being thrifty and different.  Basically, the last three decades have been a social experiment where people were just trying their hardest to look different. That sure as hell explains the 80s.  That explains Madonna. That explains Lady GaGa. So, I’m going to save you all a bit of headache and tell you how to overcome the challenge of looking different. It is a very big secret that the hipsters helped me to figure out. Here it is: STOP CARING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK. Start thinking for yourself! If you can do this, you will realize that you don’t have to conform, and you will just be different.

But… trends pop up all the time. That’s what they do. They procreate. They fester, and they eventually pop. Sometimes, I think to myself: this looks absolutely ridiculous - I cannot believe people are actually wearing this.  I’ll give you an example. Right now, it’s the kids with the relay for life sunglasses. You know what I’m talking about. It’s the hot-pink or hot-blue sunglasses that look like they came out of a cereal box. I don’t get it. So I’m sitting back and watching this from the outside and am in complete awe of this trend. I’m just watching…. thinking… all of these people are practicing self expression and, yet, still look the same as everyone else. But I guess that’s the cool thing about trends: they allow you to wear things that you wouldn’t be caught dead wearing 5 years ago. Well, I’m here to tell ya: It looked stupid then, and it still looks stupid now.

On the other hand, some things will just always look good. Zoot suits are still pimp. Dick Tracy will never go out of style. No one has ever looked at a man in a pimp suit and said “he should hang that up”.  You want to know why this never goes out of style? Because it looks good! Things that look good transcend style and fashion. 

Cultural Effects, Harmonization, and Global Standardization

The effects of globalization on culture can impact the individual more than the society. As is the case with French farmer José Bové, many would cite the McDonaldization of other countries in an effort to promote anti-globalist sentiment. Undoubtedly, the American-owned franchise has made a dent in the demand for more traditional, “French cuisine”, directly affecting the worth of a farmer’s crop or livestock. Moreover, the increased implantation of McDonald’s franchises across the globe, a business which seems to be a symbol for Americanization, has lead it to cater more to the indigenous population it serves.  For example, in Thailand, McDonalds serves the Samurai Pork Burger.  While the branding of McDonald’s may influence the culture itself, the argument can be made that their culture is just as susceptible to marketing practices as any other.  The United States is not immune to foreign entrepreneurship; Chinese or Japanese take-out restaurants are present in almost every shopping mall, providing an option to the consumer which parallels what McDonald’s franchises do abroad. That being said, there are different theories as to the effect globalization has on culture.

In Culture and Globalization: Polarization, Homogenization, Hybridization, the aforementioned theories are discussed. The stance taken by supporters of the polarization theory would be that of anti-globalism. The polarization theory suggests that countries, which are disinterested in being overcome by a western-style economy, will eventually clash with the West.  Such countries attempt “modernization without westernization” and may well be going against the grain, although there are always the implications of terrorist regimes (Jihad vs. McWorld).  This theory is worth considering, but “western” countries have a political, albeit governing, stake in the grounds of anti-“western” countries through “arms flows and military technologies trading” (pg 1).  Military alliance could be a driving force for the theory of homogenization, which presents the notion of increased uniformity between cultures. A relevant critique of this theory focuses not only on the presence of the multinational firm but also its nature.  This critique brings to light the adaptive nature of multinational firms where, in fact, these firms become localized, making the hybridization theory one of popular opinion. That is, hybridization focuses on the “intercultural exchange and the incorporation of cultural elements from a variety of sources within particular cultural practices” (page 3).

While culture is affected through globalism, the multinational firm is promoted in the form of efficacy, perhaps respondent to market demand, where resources are to be used for growth and expansion. In international trade, the margin for error increases dramatically in the absence of standards.  Standards are used in the in the promotion, production, and pre-fabricating processes of everything you see before you; it transcends industry, borders, and the environment in an attempt to make optimal use of resources. In “Harmonization, Trade and the Environment”, Candice Stevens poses questions on the logistics of harmonization.  Inherent in harmonization, which seems to be an environmentally friendly term for standardization, the assumption is that a “best” option must be chosen for everyone involved.  In harmonizing environmental issues, for example, the participating countries must enforce a “ceiling or a floor”.  As harmonization seems to promote optimization, the very need for standards across countries suggests that the potential for negative effects are not quantifiable.  Hence, standards (i.e. harmony) must sometimes develop in the absence of concrete information, and in the presence of speculation, while overlooking health, safety or environmental protection. For example, the idea of equivalency assumes that one action may affect two parties in an equivalent manner despite quantitatively different regulations (page 2). Stevens writes that harmonization bends more in the interest of reducing trade conflicts than to achieve an environmental end as is the case with all business; tomorrow’s environment will always take a backseat to today’s business. Hence, trade harmonization leads to the “convergence of ambient and process standards, economics instruments, and life-cycle management” (page 3). Life-cycle management comes in the form of eco-labeling. The introduction of the biodegradable bag of chips by SunChips, which was subsequently taken off of the shelf because the bag was “too loud”, is an example of where marketing efforts meet the environmentally friendly side of business.  In harmonizing environmental issues, the “lowest common denominator” effect is present which maximizes the potential for environmental degradation for countries with previously unpolluted and unimpeded terrain.  The increased standardization for process standards (i.e. production methods) is discussed in greater detail in William Ward’s “Standardization and Triumph of Market over Hierarchy”.

In production, standardization would seem to require quality assurance or quality control. As is the case with just-in-time inventory management, firms must rely on one another for uniform inputs.  Without industry standards, this business model would not work.  While the standardization of products and services introduces economies of scale, it can reduce the variety we see across products, especially when they cross borders.   Standardization, while originally a tool for vertically-owned companies, is now used in a more a deconcentrated, cooperative manner.  Ward makes the distinction between internal and external standardization, where internal standardization is exercised by the discovering firm in order to protect their proprietary establishments.  It seems important to note that the increased interdependence of products would seem to require a higher degree of cooperation, or external standardization.  As is the case with computer technology, a processor is useless without a motherboard, and a motherboard requires either firmware or software running from virtual or physical memory to load the user-friendly interfaces we call operating systems.  There are two leading manufacturers for processors, AMD and Intel, both of which work with a variety of motherboard manufacturers and whose quality control is theoretically perfect [I have repaired hundreds of computers and never replaced a processor for any reason other than lightning or power surge].  Nevertheless, a motherboard is either designed for an Intel or an AMD processor. No individual company controls the market for anything, at least this is the assumption made based on the regulations of the Federal Trade Commission.  This heterogeneity in a growingly homogeneous marketplace can make standardization a difficult task to undertake.

In “Product Standards and International Trade: Harmonization through Private Coalitions?”, Alessandra Casella suggests that harmonization occurs more naturally through private, transborder firms because governing bodies outsource to voluntary firms. Casella states that a “standard is the concept of joint consumption by a group”, citing two very important functions of standards as providing compatibility and information (page 4). Such standards can promote anonymity amongst firms leading to a “simple formalization of the trade-off between economies of scale and variety”.  The points being made here by Casella are valid because they display the costs of harmonization as did Stevens where “the cost of standardization is the decline in variety”, hence “it is [not obviously] the case that the optimal number of standards is one” (page 3).

Inner-national

In present-day society, human conflict has spawned a proverbial epidemic, diverting our attention by uncovering daughter epidemics.  In order to stop its spread, we must seek to understand and accept the differences within it.  The human psyche is intriguing but impressionable; its perception is vulnerable long before it is inquisitive.  As youth compete for an important position in society, they begin to rely more on themselves.  Such personal development is indeed positive, but it often reaches a point at which its creator is a prisoner to himself.  An individual can spend a lifetime explaining his thoughts.  Leave the burden of explanation to society; it is the cause and can better explain the effect. 

Now acknowledge that bias is born through conflict and attachment.  However, the degree by which one is biased depends on his/her interdependence.  Accept this and the seeds of progress may be planted.  If oneself, family, society, and nation work independently, their abstract equilibrium will never be reached.  Dysfunction will erupt, diversity will battle conformity, and disease will paralyze both mentally and physically.  Future generations will inherit more problems than solutions.  Regardless, the people will attempt to understand a world that is growing fast beyond its years.  The clock ticks as the world exhausts. The people stare, the wheels of technology spin, and the people remain needy.  The people allow misfortune and pity over integrity and self-activation, and their behavior creates a very potent, new-age phenomenon: a natural diversity within societal order.  However paradoxical the concept may seem, it is undeniable that diversity is widening the gap between the understanding and embracing of human nature.  Classifying and redistributing its own members, our culture stands for little to nothing.   

Independence is becoming an endangered species; the very foundation of our country is in recession.  Complete individuality goes against everything society dictates.  Current generations stumble over each other creating disorder.  The same generations explain disorder by creating more disorder.  Our fate is in the hands of a socio-epidemic.      

Funny Money

Constructive Cynicism: The American Dream is really a bad nightmare.

Breaking News: The Environmental Protection Agency just put American currency on the endangered species list. A spending freeze will be instituted at the opening of tomorrow's stock market, Eastern Standard Time. 

Where did the cold, hard cash go?  It's funny, rich people are still rich, poor people still poor, the population is growing older, living longer, and the money is growing thin. As if no other solution exists, the debt ceiling continues rising to somewhat of an arbitrary level.  I know that I will not be the first or the last to debate on this topic, but do the ends justify the means? 

Can we not learn from the hardships of every average American who took on more credit card debt than they should've so as not to 'default on their obligations'? Strangely, despite living in The Great Recession, people continue to search for ways to spend money.  While I agree that many of us have shifted to more meager lifestyles, there is a noteworthy faction that still clings on to the hope that the economy "bounces back".  Call me a cynic (hence the thread title), but isn't the problem that we continue to let the economy blow bubbles? Using "derivative financial models", and other such instruments, the market effectively delays risk rather than absorbing it. This allows the people doing the investing to make their quick money and get out.  This money isn't real - it was created by genius mathematicians with marketing skills who knew how to create a dynamic investing environment in which people could rally.  In the long-run, it is coming out of the pockets of the people. Bubbles burst - that is what they do.  People: What goes up must come down! 

Hey, I am an advocate for financial leverage.  I get it.... leverage promotes growth, you have to spend money to make money... blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that we have reached a dangerous level. America was the cookie-cutter for capitalism yet, somehow, we have transformed money into something that we no longer have but need to borrow excessively. Does anyone else see the tragic irony here? We are on a path to destruction just like every civilization in the history of humanity!  The only difference is the type of resources that we are depleting: natural, physical, and fiscal. As academic Jared Diamond once noted, "We are the first society to be living amongst ruins of our own construction". 

That idea alone speaks volumes: American industry has transformed itself so quickly that entire industries have collapsed, leaving many towns with shopping-mall wastelands and rows of dilapidated houses.  If an integral industry can collapse, then it stands to reason that the nation leaning on such industries could do the same. I am worried that, rather than collapse, we may implode. Enveloping itself, our culture needs a hard reset, our mentalities need to be adjusted, and our spending needs to be curbed. 

Call to Action: Live the American Dream... but within your means. 

Thought-enabling vs. Thought-abrasion

I have a tendency to only surround myself with those people who take opinions similar to my own. I do not think I am alone, and I believe this is a dangerous habit. This habit is seclusive, subjective, even ignorant.  Strong personality types often wear thin on each other, simply because they rely strongly on thought.  Due to this reliance, it can be burdensome to have an idea that is not appreciated.

I believe this can create a cycle in which both listeners become consensus enablers, detrimental to true insight and, further, diluting the identity that makes them the very thinker that they are.  This must be stopped.

While my intention is not to appear overly argumentative, it is to speak freely rather than to be silent.  Those moments in which my mind trails off during the discussion are those in which I should become fully engaged.   These are the moments in which my opinion could be most valuable; these are the moments in which my identity comes to life in discussion.

.... these are the moments to be embraced, even relished. There is, however, one caveat: an opinion accomplishes little if given in a condescending manner.  Sharing knowledge and information in an affable way can sometimes be difficult, leading to the careful phrasing of thoughts. Taking such care is acceptable up until the point that it loses personal meaning or is passive aggressive. It is possible to actively question one without downplaying his/her thoughts. Such thought-abrasions might best come in the form of a question as to why one might think this way, considering alternatives. Ultimately, it is imperative that I be careful in my rhetoric but unleashing in my thought.