I am a firm believer in the notion of culture existing as the practical realization of religion. Religion, in this context, may extend to other practical realizations of societal order such as the tribe-like settlements of the early day, empires, and modern political systems. Culture plays a vital role in religious indoctrination of its clan, and without it some pragmatic religions would become obsolete. Inbreeding and collectivism therefore emerged out of tribe-like settlements of early humans that went on to safeguard and transcend cultural doctrines and operatives through the generations. Some cultures moved past those conventions while others didn’t – this post will be dedicated to understanding the evolution of present-day cultures adapting to the ever-changing needs of man and the need for such culture. Continue reading “Culture: Earliest Organization Of The Human Forms”
[This post will use anecdotes with reference to US politics. It’s fine if you’re not familiar with it, they’re only supplementary. This post contains embedded content that I’ve seen to not load in the WordPress Reader.]
When I first got to college, I proudly identified as a progressive, a liberal. Little then did I know about the political foundations of this movement – What it was built on? What were they trying to accomplish? What were they basing their rhetoric on? Liberalism intrinsically appeals to the younger, politically active generation – that is in the present-day, Millennials – by using attractive rhetorics and popular opinion to give shape to their arguments. I’ll elaborate more on this statement later in the post but for now, let’s try and figure out how they manage to coerce so many people into joining their movement, let alone sustain themselves.
liberals cover their lack of information and/or intellect under the protective blanket of popular opinion
Humans like it simple. Any professor of communications will tell you how rhetorics single-handedly get more attention to marketing messages and political agendas. They are powerful and tell people that something ought to be innately true and no amount of evidence discrediting it can ever balance out. From the teachings of table manners in kindergarten classroom to your average liberal college campus where students get a hand on safe sex, rhetorics are extensively used in perpetrating these key messages. Popular opinion and rhetorics go hand-in-hand by complementing one another. Home appliance manufacturer Whirlpool uses the supposed possession of a 6th sense by their machines as a marketing message. Why 6th sense? It is believed to be a notion representing extraordinary diligence, a thing intrinsic to intelligent life – finding a central place in many sci-fi works. The basis for popular opinions may not be understood by everyone, but the opinions are and that is what matters.
What the majority of people deem correct is also what rhetorics should learn to coincide with to resonate with their audience, and to get their message across with the strongest effect. If the majority of people in a political system deem homosexuality as appropriate – any rhetoric that wants to be successful at appealing to the most people must follow behind this popular consensus. Sometimes, they might help reinforce what’s already there or help incorporate a new idea into this existing base. Rhetorics are able to do this because people don’t readily question the rationality of it when they have or are already believing a higher opinion to be true, almost like they’re mathematical proofs.
Love trumps hate. The people united, will never be divided. No ban, no wall, immigrants are welcome here. This is what democracy looks like.
Change. Believe. Hope.
Does any of these ring familiar? I bet it does, you Antifa commies! Continue reading “Liberals: Their Motives And How They Sustain”
[Also included in this section is a lengthy introduction that will be foundational to upcoming sections. I might seem to use culture and society interchangeably, but society should refer to a people’s culture, accounting for their demography while culture is an ideologically constituent part of a demography. Cultural ideology on a whole encompasses the theological and philosophical realms.]
An innate desire to creatively and artistically express oneself is among the fundamental of human wills. I’ve often emphasized my theory of cognition and religion and culture being as one closely woven net, almost like an inseparable fabric. As a result of my insistence of the mentioned, I’ve managed to offend many people. Culture encompasses the various demographic intricacies operating in one’s immediacy – these include popular theological and philosophical ideas, geography and race and complex environmental feedback mechanisms. Religion refers to the majority religion among a demography that influences their theological ideology as mentioned above. Cognition, in this context, is defined as an individual’s ability to perform tasks of reading and writing, comprehending and reproducing information effectively and efficiently with respect to some statistical benchmark. Like gravity, IQ and other metrics of cognitive ability are all relative – and it wouldn’t do justice to compare the IQ of a chimpanzee with a gorilla. Just like the animals, I believe every civilization, over time, with the aforementioned factors of complexity, developed a standard cognition among their people that we call today as average – like the international average IQ of 100. Inductively reasoning from present-day IQs of many civilizations might be key to understanding their culture and religions.
Metrics such as the popular IQ measure an individual’s ability to perform specialized tasks by narrowing down with the specifics at hand. It is iterative and systematic. You could train your brain with IQ tests for a couple weeks leading up to your counsellor’s appointment and pull off a few 10 or more points on your existing IQ. Such cognitive metrics measure how well your brain has specialized – from the time of birth, that is. I believe as one gets older and leaves childhood, IQ is no longer a complete and holistic measure of one’s cognition. Therefore, a fair measure of brain function would be accomplished through divergent reasoning. Divergent tests measure the collocially-called creativity metric – also a statistical measure of how well an individual’s brain is divisive. As one progresses in age with experience, this divergent and rather chaotic type of cognition manifests into convergent cognition. Everything from the simple essay prompts to analytical problem solving can be employed in the task of measuring this lesser-known type of cognition.
This likely will be my last time discussing religion. Unlike the last two times where I directly spoke out against certain religions and how they manage to work in contemporary times, today’s installment will be more on understanding why they work – a question that will require a philosophical analysis of this concept. Our discussion will be focused on exploring why religion might have been necessary and maybe still is. Later, we will get to understanding some shared ideologies among religions.
Where do we start? A new World Order? Sure, let’s start here – despite your forced consent that would’ve otherwise made no difference if you’d answered. The fundamentalists of religion saw the state of political chaos – the anarchy – invading our civilization as the people grew. With more people came more demands to meet their individual and collective needs. People would then give in to their animalistic instincts – their innate desires and ambition – and that would soon overcome any order of the people. Imagine a world without law and order, a world where ethics and moral were foreign ideas – this is exactly the kind of place religious fundamentalists realized and saw. In fear, they envisioned a word of order. A world where man’s innate desires were suppressed for the greater benefit of his fellows – and indirectly himself. The fundamentalist knew order cannot result from the reign of another man – because man’s ambition of a control of his territory would destroy his obedience – and conflict would soon prevail. The solution was to device something of an outside entity – a supreme and perfect being in all regards of man. An entity that lives and grows in apparent truth with the belief of man and other men.
Resources come at a premium – and anyone from a third-world can perfectly relate to this. Nothing is free. In a world survived by man’s innate desires, it would have been hard to ensure fair distribution of vital resources such as food. Also, as anyone who watches the National Geographic can describe – these desires are often lawless in modern hindsight. Animals aggressively secure their territory, their food and their potential mate at any costs. They fight among themselves and among others and form clans – where they venture together into unknown territories to conquer or mark as their own. The fundamentalist knew man was no different from his ancestor and such instincts would soon creep in as they outgrew in numbers eventually leading them to their own destruction. A need for a system of order was in dire necessity. A system to channel man’s own emotions – that he has been naturally predisposed with – against his unknowing will for the benefit of other men and himself. A concept of religion was therefore required.
I must confess at this time to losing count of posts I’ve written on Islam. The religion of peace just keeps giving me never ending subject matter to talk about. Over the past days, I’ve unapologetically destroyed Islam (verbally). I discussed how Islam spreads and conquers foreign lands, keeping out external and internal political opposition in the process. This time, we will look at its fundamental ideology and try to make sense of what makes this epidemic movement keep sustaining itself and growing in their own demographic and among others – without bringing up dogma or scholarly beliefs but instead by realizing what it has morphed to in reality. Comparing dogmatic beliefs between Islam and other religions side-by-side have been a staple among conservative and atheistic debates and I don’t see a need to go through it again. The Quran allows unconsentual sex and the Bible calls for women to be sold to their rapists – but not everyone gets to do that (in Western countries). The dogma of Islam, or any religion for that matter, would come in irrelevant when discussing present-day cultural ideology.
if you want to go fast, go alone. if you want to go far, go together. -African Proverb
Let’s start off talking about Islam in foreign lands as I realize that’s a hard topic now – with many sides to it. There is this saying (quoted above) from an untraceable author on the power of unity. When people come together with a common cause, they constructively add up to become an indestructible political and cultural force that will stand the test of time. The kind of unity you see among Muslim communities where everybody has strongly shared beliefs is different from the local communities where people of Christian and other faiths or no faiths at all coexist with individualistic attitudes. In individualistic societies, people unite under the common cause of progressing their society as one, setting aside their personal indifferences because their paradigm calls for all individuals of society to be freely entitled to their own beliefs and opinions under the room of law – secularly practicing whatever they wish to practice. In collectivistic societies however, everybody is everybody else. An individual of such society is made to stay in agreement with what others of their society see fit toward the greater interests of their society – in simpler terms, they don’t have a fucking mind of their own. This leads to a clash of cultures when collectivistic cultures try to be part of individualistic countries. But it doesn’t end there, as with Islam, you bring a clash of civilizations.
The feminist movement used to have good meaning and respect back in circa 1960 through early 2000s and some forms of it still does – but a third wave of it has manifested in some Western nations – almost a kind of social cancer as it can be best described, where emotionally unstable women go out and protest against an unjust society they think they live in to bring matters into resolution. An essay by Malcolm Gladwell in his book What The Dog Saw discussed the role of second-wave feminism in ridding the corporate world from a culture of male chauvinism – challenging the corporal agendas on feminine products such as hair colouring. Today, feminist women often feel that the manly world is treating them unfairly and feel like they’re still the victims to a bigger patriarchy. It has come to nothing short of emotionally charged passive-aggressiveness directed at perfectly innocent and law-abiding men and sometimes even women – women who don’t share their views. Only so much talk about being a progressive!
Misinterpretation is the most deadly of human sins -Lester del Rey
The feminist rhetoric of the modern day – circa 2000 and beyond – has been calling for a cultural appropriation of obese/physically unattractive women, change of male psychology so we start seeing all women as equally attractive, a change in everyday language by modifying fundamental linguistic constructs involving genders, inclusion of women in STEM fields, equal pay, and to do away with patriarchy, rape culture, and male violence in society. Now hoping that I’ve adequately covered their prime objectives, let’s get down to business, trying to demystify – one after the other – what is true and what is some made-up conspiracy and get into knowing this miserable society that we live in everyday as described by feminists. My usage of feminist(s) and the occasional feminazi here and after should refer exclusively to third-wave feminists.
Someone, somewhere is bound to experience this very human form of isolation at some time in their life. It’s natural and nothing to be ashamed of – be you a man or a woman. As I was scrolling through my Facebook today, I saw this post about how loneliness is killing people in rich countries. For a moment there I was lost, pondering why the first-world citizen would simply die younger that their third-world counterpart – one who’d probably endured more hardships detrimental to his health and eventual longevity. The whole notion would seem counter-intuitive to most people and I get it – because we aren’t taught to see it that way. Loneliness however, has deeper roots than what the surface will readily show us.
socializing compromises productivity of the individual while promoting a very human necessity toward good health
Having experienced severe bouts of loneliness by myself, I just wanted to jump to the easy conclusion that people get lonely because they are lonely. They lack human interaction due to their poor stance in society (like being that weirdo) – that throws their neurotransmitters out of whack leading to depression and a host of mental illnesses. Loneliness, I feel, is really just a very vague descriptor for it can have more or less sinister causes. But if you spare some thought for it, you’d see loneliness is connected to other elements in one’s immediacy.
There have been many bad connotations to narcissism and I wish to give new meaning to it – as a way of life, a way of functioning in society without legal consequences. I define narcissism as the trait that makes one care for oneself and put the priorities of theirs or whatever they chose to associate with first regardless of the moral dictates of society. It so much easier to function this way as I will explain later and with this you are insured against heartbreak, betrayal and other emotional trauma of such. Narcissism is a fundamental trait of LaVey Satanists – practitioners of Satanism as made popular by LaVey – where you indulge in what you see required for your emotional and physical gratification with no regard for others or society inside the confines of law.
Don’t carry the load that will eventually destroy you!
The interaction between the anthropological construct that we call society – which actually manifests as physical entities – and human is one that is purely reciprocal that relies on a give-and-take policy. It is the result of what you do and what others do to you in return that gives rise to a balance. But the sad thing about this metaphorical balance is its tendency to be uncertain and sometimes downright cruel – in other words, it does not work fairly and just to the liking of yours despite your good intentions. You often don’t realize but the truth of the matter is that you do good in return for good, that’s simply the way it is and no one can be innately good without being subjected to good – because it is in the fundamental nature of humans and animals to not be good, animals are jerks to each other – that’s simply how they get their way in their unstructured world.
When I began writing on Chronic Overthinking (then Chronic Overthoughts), I would have never seen myself taking up such a topic for discussion. After thinking a little too much coupled with a questionable amount of free time for someone my age, I decided to share my views on this 21st Century atrocity. Before I jump into the content, I must tell you I’ve personally experienced the effects of said society – which can either be a warning to the readers to expect some personal bias or back up the anecdotal value of this post. But it’s really your call.
Patriarchy inculcates unjustifiable ideas of what a society should be like into youthful minds Continue reading “Patriarchal Society: Its Effects on People”
I can’t speak for all people so I’ll only go on to present my opinions based on personal experiences here. It’s really hard to define ‘smart’. There’s a fixed threshold in the IQ spectrum to be called a ‘genius’ but that alone does not guarantee you are ‘smart’. Smart is a convolution between a high IQ, a distinctive personality and other traits that put that person above the average crowd. Someone genetically predisposed with a high IQ would need suitable traits to make the most of their brain power.
It would be unfair to expect everyone to be smart, but victimizing smart people due to a difference of opinion is certainly unacceptable.