XIV. THE REALITY:
XV. DELAYED GRATIFICATION OR WASTED TIME - MY EXPERIENCE:
A GRAIN OF SAND
XVI. CONFORMING AND BELONGING:
XVII. CULT BEHAVIOR VS 'HUMAN NATURE':
XVIII. RECOGNIZING AND DEALING WITH CULTS:
END
XIX. WHAT MAKES IT WORTH IT?:
RESOURCES:
XX. LINKS TO OTHER PAGES:
XXII. ARTICLES:
I. USING THIS PAGE:
I started writing long ago to get my head straight and make some sense out of things. From the beginning I had no intentions of promoting any specific agenda or philosophy. I had no plan or outline.
Even though each one of us percieves reality in a different way, everyone can shed some light on universal issues. People see eye to eye on a lot more than we think when we make the effort. Our agendas, fears, assumptions, egos, and naked self-interest often get in the way of getting through misconceptions and seeing things closely, clearly, and for what they are.
Formal belief systems and allegiences can blind us from reality even when it is squarely in front of us, staring us in the face. Its comfortable to see things in black and white even when the world is much more a chaotic and ever changing spectrum of grey shades. Its not so much that things are 'complicated' or that everything is relative, as it is that people and situations are not always what they appear. Deception, both intentional and unintentional is everywhere, and there is often more than meets the eye.
Chance also plays as much of a role in everything as human intentions. It's really a cop out to say everything happens for the best, for a good reason, or even any reason at all. History has no final destination. The human race has no singular purpose, and yet human problems, conflict, and oppression all stem from the same things, making all of our problems connected in an indirect way.
I also try to be a realist. Changing people's opinions does not guarantee real change. Ideas don't drive history, they are meerly symbols and representations of movements and social forces that do. The same principles of self-interest, power, and manipulation have always driven collective human behavior. The players and circumstances change but the game essentially remains the same. Sometimes however, its enough to just have an impact on a few people's lives even if one can't change material conditions or power relations. I hope to provide an alternative point of view connecting various interests and perspectives. At the same time I do not want to oversimplify or reduce things to some meaningless formula, plan, or rhetoric and in the process, 'dumb this page down' to reach a wider audience. I do however want this page to be as user friendly as possible, so that anyone can take from it whatever they think is relevant to themselves. Opinions and suggestions are always welcome.
back to top
II. WHY WRITE THIS NOW?
I started writing with no intention of pushing an agenda or promoting a cause. I wasn't looking to just vent; I wanted to organize my thoughts and understand myself better. I didn't think of putting anything on the internet. It still doesn't matter how many people read what I write or agree with me as much as it matters that I can provoke a few independant minds into really questioning the world around them.
Least of all do I justify or excuse my own failings to myself. The point of understanding the past is to avoid repeating the same mistakes. I accept my personal failures, past and present, and when I honestly look back at myself I admit how lost I really was. To an extent I was complicit in my own situation. To what extent it was due to either some inherant lack of character or niavite I don't know. It really doesn't matter. As much as I write for myself, I would also like to think that even if only a few people can take some positive value from a story and as long as there is some usefull point to be made, its still worth making.
It took me many years to accept how little influence and control I have over most people. No amount of enlightened and well articulated reasoning or flowery language in the world will override people's agendas, passions, compulsions, drives and instincts. It is pointless to get people to think and act with fairness, reason, respect, or consideration of other people if they have a selfish character and self-interested intentions. Such people will do whatever is in their interests and power to do regardless of the consequences to other people or even themselves. Some people are driven by irrational compulsions that they can not understand, and will act on them even if it is not in their self-interest. Such people are too limited to really learn and change. Reason has no affect on them. Some people are unethical and just want their way; they are the least likely to change. They certainly will not change because someone told them to. Either way, no amount of intelligence, character, effort, persistance or even appeals to higher authority or ideals will make any difference. Those people are going to do what they are going to do.
However, I have learned don't have to allow anyone to dominate my life or waste my time and energy either, even if I have to put up with someone's presence and I can't change their behavior. The amount of control anyone has over their environment varies, and nobody can completely get inside someone else's mind, but everyone has the power to call bullshit when they see it. Pointing out the fallacies and inconsistencies in someone's thinking(or lack thereof) most likely doesn't change their thinking and it certainly won't change them as people, but it does let them know that they can not control me so easily, and that I will not be their hand puppet. That power to say 2 + 2 = 4, is a power all people have. Sometimes it is the only power we have. When things get so bad that that power is challenged, we begin to lose our understanding of ourselves, our dignity, our humanity, and eventually our sanity. The freedom to speak freely and state the obvious is the most fundamental of freedoms. All other freedoms derive from it. Without it we have neither freedom nor security.
For this reason "T H E T R U T H", whatever it may be, has always had value regardless of its entertainment value or popularity, how uncomfortable it makes people feel, how it is defined, or even how ruthlessly it is driven out of the open. You can not jail, evict, or murder a single idea let alone something as all encompassing and omnipresent as the truth. The truth can never be repressed for long or permentantly crushed because everything in this world is connected in some way. Truth is everywhere and in everything. A lie is nothing more than a temporary and local distortion and distraction from the bigger picture. Eventually a lie is forced to confront and is engulfed by a reality from all directions, which then exposes the lie for what it is. The truth will always eventually rear its head. However, as immutable and uncompromising as truth may be, no one, not even the smartest or those with the purest of intentions has a monopoly of it. While we all can identify a lie as individuals, the all encompassing truth is discovered collectively through the sharing of experiences and ideas of ordinary people, but no one individual fully understands it on their own.
The idea of people being free to express themselves doesn't come from some concept of humans being infallible, incorruptable, or perfectable; it comes from the direct opposite. The idea is not that everyone is entitled to their '15 minutes of fame', but rather that everyone is entitled to expose lies, nepotism, and corruption upon which tyranny rests. Free speach also affords people the opportunity to get meaningfull feedback from others and have a fuller more complete understanding of themselves and reality, and a more productive and fruitfull existance. Without free expression our understanding of the truth and ourselves is hampered and we lose our sense of direction. Even if a middle ground can not be reached between people, at least with open dialogue they can have a better understanding their own views and the reasoning or lack thereof of others.
Real freedom means we can speak freely, and free speach means all ideas are protected. Dissent from the majority or status quo has some value no matter how novel, isolated, strange, misguided, ore even ill intentioned it may be. Meaningful discourse is impossible without allowing all ideas to compete, even if some ideas offend, unsettle, or are radical. Even if certain ideas gain more airtime than others while others remain on the fringe, meaningfull discourse requires that ALL IDEAS have the right to be expressed, irrespective of how 'deviant' or untraditional they are, and that no one has the right to impose their idea of the 'truth' on anyone else. The popularity or longevity of any idea can not 'prove' any ideas validity. The only way to test an idea is to try and falsify as rigorously and as repeatedly as possible.
Even if dissenting opinions threaten to bring about radical change or to abolish established order, there is no value or justification in preventing their expression. Nothing as abstract as an idea can be permanently destroyed. The best way to contain 'bad' ideas is to either test or publicly expose them and let them winnow away. Through such a process of open, unfettered, uninhibited, and involved discourse, incorrect or incomplete ideas get replaced by more accurate and truthful ones. Such a process enables people learn individually and collectively from past experiences and history. Without such a process we become cut off from each other, our personal and collective histories, and ourselves. Collectively, society stagnates. There is no end so noble that would justify limiting the thing that makes us most human and most free.
As liberating as the truth ultimately is, there will always be people who feel threatened, offended, or disgusted by something simply because it is different, new, or it threatens the status quo. Everything imaginable offends someone somewhere in the world without such people being able to articulate with any substantial reasoning why. Even without attacking, threatening, or purposefully offending, there will be people that react negatively and irrationally. If you can't please everyone, there really is point point in pleasing anyone. Tact and diplomacy will only go so far and reality can only be slanted and spoon feed so much. Some people don't want to look deeper and understand, nor broaden their horizons and see eye to eye with others. Some people just want to be right and have their way. The 'truth' is ultimately the only thing that can really resolve disputes and conflicts, and the only way to discover that is through uninhibited free speach.
I do not claim a monopoly on the 'truth', and I do not seek to push my version of the truth on other people. I speak for nobody but myself and from my own experience. At the same time, I have wasted too much of my life censoring myself, maintaining appearances, and hiding behind a facade to get on with and get by with people and their 'majority'. I not only did it to avoid the condemnation and wrath of people that held real power, I even did it with those power only lied in ability to hide behind the majority, the status quo, a cause, or some abstraction. The majority of them were self-serving manipulative shitbags and smug self-entitled asshats who had neither lofty let alone substantial intentions, nor my nor anyone elses's interests at heart.
In spite of what they had people believe, one on one such people actually were too pathetic to have any significant power over me. It was only in numbers that they were intimidating, destructive, and dangerous. Such people on an individual level can only offer or deny their approval as part of a game to get their way, and will always make it sound like they have way more people behind them then they actually do. Its one thing to prostrate yourself because you fear serious and imminent harm, but reducing yourself simply because you feel like an outsider is to go down a path that leads nowhere. Ultimately, those people really have nothing to offer, hardly anything to deny, and not much to take away. In accomodating the nebulous and ever shifting 'majority', the soul slowly attrophies and then eventually shrivels altogether until one becomes an empty numb shell without meaningfull thoughts, opinions, ambitions, or will of your own. If one can never submit a well thought out opinion backed with facts, or express sincere feelings without it being used against you, then life has nothing to offer.
Destructive cults are total institutions and toxic environments that corrupt and corrode the independant human thought and spirit by appealling to the most irrational and primitive of emotions while attacking and controlling the very idea of 'truth' itself. Thought and ideas become passive and shallow. Doubt is taken as weakness; questioning as treason. Blind faith is elavated to wisdom and insight. Information, ideas, and emotions are manipulated and subordinated to the capricious whims of the organization whos true ends are hidden behind a shroud of dogma and secrecy. Fact, opinion, and fabrication become indistinguishable. Means become subordinated to ends until ideology loses all tangible connection to reality and a universal morality that is binding on all individual becomes crushed under the desires of the totalitarian machine. Contradictions cover up contradicitons, which cover up even further contradicitons until reality becomes blurred through an entangled web of lies. In a world of absolute conformity and institutionalized lies, the idea of truth itself ceases to have any public relevance at all. Values in such organizations and societies degenerate from being a a general guide for human interaction based on experience into an ideological blueprint imposing its aims of life on all society to transform society itself.
Living in such a society is being forced to live with and propogate a lie and be complicit in one's own oppression against one's will day in and day out. Its not just a traumatic experience, but a traumatic existance brought on by a traumatising environment. Its a mind rape that corrodes the soul to the core. To a greater or lesser extent all total institutions operate in the same way in their attempt to impose their aims of life on their members. No matter how much the individual sees through the charades and smokes and mirrors of the power structure, it becomes difficult to be sure of what one really knows and what the truth is. The lie is so omnipresent that it becomes really hard not to end up doubting reality and ultimately one's own thoughts, senses, and even character and intentions. The only hope of finding refuge in others in such a society is difficult. It is hard enough trying to see bullshit for what it is; trying to get others to do the same is that much harder, and potentially dangerous.
Anyone can be decieved and misled. Just because people should live with their mistakes doesn't mean they shouldn't discuss and learn from them and help others to do the same. To some, "complaining" makes you weak. The mob mentality is if you can't 'beat em', then 'join em'. Otherwise if you "can't play the game" then the only alternative is to "take it like a man". Truthfully, doing whatever it takes to adapt to the status quo and bend to the will of others requires destroying one's conscience. Suffering in silence or living in denial doesn't prove anything either. On the contrary, it makes you worse than somebody's bitch. It makes you an unperson, as if you never existed in the first place. Even slaves have some qualatative value to someone, and have the suffering of their existance acknowledged.
Life sucks. There are times when one must be tough and adaptive. Sometimes you just have to suck it up so that you can get through hard times and move on. But putting ups with mistreatment and obeying for someone else's benefit just because they unilaterally dictate so proves nothing and serves no higher purpose. Such exploitation and oppression can't be justified by some moral platidue or ideological 'high ground'. Its entirely self-defeating to live going against one's every natural inclinations to the point of self-negation and complete self-denial. No dignified, meaningfull, or productive life is possible when oppression and exploition is so great that refuge can not be found in one's personal life, and one is forced to live a lie. Freedom isn't the ablitiy to do whatever we want whenever we choose. That is power. Freedom involves responsibility to ourselves as well as each other. However, we don't have to put on a facade or play an assigned role as part of someone else's game, nor do we have to accept the ends any game without our concent. We can still be productive and helpfull members of society while being critical of it and maintaining our personal sovereignty.
I really don't care any more what people think of me. Their opinions are no more relevant than mine. Ego is an unneccessary attachment to a predetermined concept that acts as dead weight and gets in the way of productive change and living life. I accept my failings and limitations. I want to be answerable to myself first and foremost and be able to focus on myself and have the best life possible. I want to be as real and direct as I can with other people so that I can focus on myself, regardless of how it may make some people feel. I am not going to put my life on hold or play games so that others can benefit or feel compfortable. I am not going to surrender my dignity and autonomy any more just to please people and feed people's bullshit, ego, and bank accounts. I am not interested in what they claim to offer or threaten to deny; I refuse to live a lie and suffer in silence at the hands of someone else.
I also write because sharing my experiences with people face to face has not been easy. Most people I trusted enough to explain my situation to didn't understand. Its difficult to describe such an all consuming experience when there aren't many similar frames of reference. There are parellels between everyones lives. Everyone has dealt with bullying, controlling, and difficult people and situations at all the stages of their life. Self-dealing exploitative behavior and the pointless conflict it creates exist everywhere. Childhood in particular can be difficult because you are inexperienced, naive, and vulnerable, and you are still trying to figure out who you are. It only makes bad situations far worse. The totality of my experiences were in many ways somehow qualitatively as well and quantitatively different. It wasn't so much that my individual experiences were more unique, alien, distant, and absurd, as much as all the same evils I had to deal with were organized under one umbrella. I can't separate all the distinct tangable experiences I had and reenact some sort of linear storyline with a resolution. The point is their was never any resolution nor a storyline with a direction; my experience was an all consuming unyeilding process.
The only conclusion I have been able to come to is that part of humanity at its root lacks a critical thinking capability, and is predisposed towards group think. Education, intelligence, social class, or culture will not overide this aspect of human nature. In fact, what we call culture and religion is a direct product of groupthink. Right and wrong really has nothing to do with it; good and bad people can be at their core are followers and irrational even as individuals. People may be well intentioned, but they are just as suseptable to rationalizing, projection, externalizing evil, and self-deception that has led to conflict and exploitation. Good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things. History shows 'normal' people are quite capable of extreme brutality and callousness when a charismatic and intelligent leader is in place and the right buttons are pushed. People who engage in sheepish be behavior are not all evil; all people are followers at certain points.
Considering the amount of effort, sacrifice, and even risk it can take at times, it doesn't surprise me so many people choose to go with the crowd and through the motions in order to live in their own little bubble. Being a true individual requires not just strength, constant practice and persistence, but a willingness to go against the grain and be a damper on people's feel good mantra and self-righteous aura. Most of all it requires unwavering skepticism and even self-doubt. For these reasons groupthink tends to be far more the rule than the exception, even if it requires a high level of self-deception. 'Normal' people not associated with any fringe groups or behavior routinely engage in self-deception and rationalization every day to benefit themselves at the expense of others, including those quite close to them. People often go to great lengths just to conform and go through motions just because it may be momentarily appear to be a bit easier. Deception and rationalization are far more to be a rule than an exception in much of human interaction. Although this may be a strong point of contention with some people, it deserves attention because cults or any form of antisocial behavior can't be understood without understanding this basic aspect of human behavior.
back to top
III. THE ANATOMY OF A CULT:
It is misguided to believe that cults simply 'brainwash' people by replacing their personalities with entirely new ones, completely taking away control of their own behavior, or by casting some magic spell on them. A large part of our mental processing occurs at a subconscious level and the majority of what humans do is driven by our temperament, habit, and instinct. No person has that much control and insight into themselves, let alone the mental and emotional process of another's mind. People and institutions can however, exert great influence over what we think about and how we relate to other people. They can manipulate our emotions and instincts and place restraints on our behavior.
It is even more misguided to believe that only a few emotionally weak and intellectually limited people outside of 'normal range' can be manipulated and controlled. The concept of 'thought control' and its manifestations in propaganda and dogma is subtle, insidious, and ubiquitous, and has much more to do with indirect and subtle emotional manipulation than conscious rational influence. It is not so much about changing people as manipulating them emotionally by surreptitiously attacking and appealling to their ego and basic survival instincts at the same time, while turning the critical thinking part of their brain off. Thought control also works through distraction, controlling information, subtle suggestion, social pressure, and placing constraints on the environment. It doesn't matter how rational one may be, given the right environmental constraints and pressure, ANYONE can be manipulated. Thought control is found everywhere, from advertizing and politics to pop culture and religion.
Traditionally, ideology and dogma have served as methods of thought control which coupled with the use of force in non-democratic societies, has kept people subservient. People don't need to intellectually comprehend dogma in order for it to work as an agent of thought control because in the aggregate the dogma itself is not what is directly controlling people. Precisely the opposite happens when one strutinizes dogma; all the contradictions become apparent. This is why dogma doesn't have to be sophisticated or involved at all, and it doesn't have to appeal to the majority or even a large number of people. It just needs to justify and provide a framework for the structure and rituals of an organization and society while hiding basic power relations between those who run such organizations and those who are governed by them.
Almost any philosophy can be stripped of all of its content and substance and reduced to a formulaic shell of rituals and rhetoric. Although the slogans sound different, communist dogma works just as well as fascist dogma. Both includes rituals, myths, heroes, and enemies. Both rely on black and white thinking, absolute devotion to a cause and leader, and scapegoating and suspicion. Dogma and ideology do not appeal to people's reason; they are anti-intellectual in nature. Dogma and ideology operate as a mask, not a lense.
In open and free societies numerous ideas and ideologies are allowed to openly compete in all areas of life. The less free and more closed a system, organization, or society is, the less variety of ideologies are allowed and the more speech is restricted, the more black and white the ideological thinking becomes, the more loyalty is demanded, and the greater the power of the state. In completely closed systems where there is only one ideology, such 'ideas' pervade all aspects of life; social, political, economical, and personal. In such a society, dogma only has to serve as a litmus test to separate and isolate those who are too reflective and critical, or who's goals do not coincide or lie outside of the goals of the group or the leaders. Any lack of enthusiasm or doubt is seen as disloyalty or even treason. Such people who fail to swallow without questioning the shallow wordsmithing and pontification of appointed ideologues as well as the directed frenzy of the mob stick out. People in power are easily able to identify which people are too independant minded or have other loyalties to people and ideas impeding their unquestioning followship.
In totalitarian societies, the only loyalties that are allowed are those to the leader and organization. Mere contact with suspected 'traitors' and 'enemies of the people' are enough to condemn oneself. People are expected to denounce family members and friends should merely their loyalties become suspect. During the "Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution" in China and Stalin's Soviet Union, children and spouses who failed join in the persecution of their 'counterrevolutionary' family members were deemed themselves 'counterrevolutionary' and worthy of persecution. Distancing oneself from 'counterrevolutionaries' was not enough to protect oneself. Nobody was viewed as neutral, anyone could be suspect, and everybody had to participate. Totalitarian societies regularly persecute large groups of people because they are seen as being a POTENTIAL base of oppossion. Such societies require a scapegoat to blame for past and present failures of their society. Leaders easily attack individuals in such groups as having hidden ulterior motives and working against the group "from within", setting an example to others who fail to march in unison and conformity.
But many organizations are guided by a single ideology or purpose. Where does one draw the line inseparating those that are cults from those that are not? What about all the relious organizations that exist? How can a cult control people if it does not have a coersive state apparatus with the ability to use physical force? How are cults formed and how big can they get? Can a country be a cult?
There has been widespread acceptance of the cult phenomenon for years, but there has never been one definition of a cult. There are many models used to describe and identify cults. My favorite model is the BITE Model. BITE stands for Behavioral Control, Information Control, Thought Control, and Mind Control. The general consensus about cults seems to be that cults engage in various forms of mind and physical control. Every group is different in the methods and degrees of control as well as the fundamental beliefs and what it claims to offer its members, nonetheless control seems to be the underlying drive of every cult or totalitarian ideology.
There is a lack of consensus and understanding as well as the controversial nature of cults, and many people strongly disagree as to which organizations can be labeled cults. The term "cults" was originally applied to religious groups and movements early in the 20th century, but has become a term applied to a wide variety of organizations. Cults can be organized in a wide variety of ways, and can utilize a wide array of ideologies. There are religious, political, artistic, self-help, sports, and even educational cults. Cults can range from a small and informal group or even a relationship between two people, to a well organized, well funded, well connected, and multigenerational international organization(like Scientology).
Most models acknowledge and most people would rightfully assume that cults control their members. So do many instititions in society and entire societies themselves to various degrees. How are cults different? All organizations have rules neccessary to exist. This concept could be taken further and the assertion could be made that cults control their members to their member's detriment. Certainly the prison system does this, and yet their is no ideological unity amoungst the inmates or staff. People enter the system from the outset against their will. The military exerts extreme control over its members and has high ideological unity. It is even easy to see how such control can work to the detriment of people choosing between enemy fire and the firing squad, and yet at the end of the day most people would not think of the military as a cult. Both the military and prison system exert enough control on the environment to the point where they can break people's individuality and identity down and temporarily emotionally repress aspects of their personality. This process doesn't completely change people, but it does impede their ability to think rationally and act independantly. Whatever you think of the military and the prison system however, both serve some sort of function to society, whether one judges it good or evil.
What differentiates cults is not just the level and kind of control that they desire, but the purported and actual functions that they serve. Cults are parasitic organizations that exist apart, are disconnected from, and serve no purpose to society. Cults don't just place negative limits on behavior in order to seek cooperation amoungst its members and the collective functioning of the organization, but seek positive contol of behavior and thoughts in every aspect of their member's lives. Cults strive to control the hearts and minds of their members so as to limit their ability to function independantly and thus foster dependance. Such domination is neccessary in order to exploit the members, as there is no real value of purpose to the existance of the organization, except for the leaders.
Organizations such as the military also indocrinate their members and try to win their hearts and minds, but the military does not exist separate from society nor do its commanding generals personally and directly benefit from any manipulation of exploitation of its ranks. Regardless of whether one believes the purpose the military serves is good or bad, it still has an outside master that it must serve. The same logic applies to any unscrupulous corporations one can think of. Regardless of how greasy MacDonald's Big Macs are and how shitty Walmart may treat its workers, MacDonald's still manages to make their slop availible to the public 24/7 and Walmart still manages to provide discounts on everything. What is unique about cults is that they almost universally don't even CLAIM to provide or contribute anything to society outside or the status quo except as a means of overthrowing it entirely, as they view outside society as corrupt, decadent, and/or ruled by evil forces.
The only reason cults exist in spite in spite of their parasitic nature is because they are able to cycle through enough people to survive as an organization. Of course there must be some pretext of providing some form of service or higher purpose or else cults would have no way of initially bringing people "into the fold". Often times people will defend a cult because they identify with the belief system and ideals of the organization, no matter how corrupt and self-dealing the organization and leadership may be or have become. Over time individuals become disillusioned and leave, but as long as they leave as individuals or small groups over periods of time the organization remains intact. Those that remain climb the hierarchy but are forced to become even more invested in the fate of the organizations. Yet inevitably and regardless of intentions, in practice cults operate for the benefit of the leaders. When groups are able to create the "Cult of Personality", it often becomes difficult for members to separate the goals of the ideology from the will of the leader and organization. Such 'leaders' become the sole arbiters of truth.
Even if some service or benefit is provided to the members, the cult will do what it can to dominate its members for the organization's benefit. Inevitably the relationship usually ends up becoming far from reciprocal. Every cult uses different methods, engages in varying degrees of dominance, and has varying levels of success in dominating its 'members'. At the greatest extreme a government that degenerates into a cult rules in a totalitarian way, and has armed bodies of men organized under the state. When that is not availible, typically most cults will use manipulation and the threat of expulsions to make sure that it has a monopoly on the lives of the people that it dominates and that it determines the 'moral standards' of all individual(completely of their own free will-of course). The most commonly used emotions are guilt, shame, and a sense of debt/obligation. Most cults have a set of standards members must live by that are deliberately set high enough that most if not all members persistently fall short in some way. In both a god believing theism and an athiestic Stalinism, sacrifices are demanded in order to reach a brighter future.
Falling short of such standards by followers is usually 'attoned for' by repeated displays of self-flaggelation and loyalty to the group and leader. Examples of this are confessionals and penances in Christianity and group 'self-critisism' in Maoism. Often times members are forced to confess to things either things they could not possibly commit, or things anyone could commit at anytime. In eastern bloc countries and Mao's china people were tortured into confessing to crimes and conspiracies no one could have committed. Only the leader(s) never fails to meet such standards. Often the leader is raised to the level of an all knowing all loving demi-god, and absolute obeidience is expected of his/her will. In such a manner all total societies attempt to make sure that the organization in question is the center and at the very least the most dominating if not the only force in the persons life.
How cults are born is a matter more of chance and evolution rather than intent and premeditated design. I don't think any conspiracies are hatched by evil people; more likely I think organizations gradually degenerate. Human beings are corruptable and capable of self-deception, expecially when no check is placed on their power. Additionally, every idea and organization serves or deals with self-interest and power, and consequently is cooptable and corruptible in some way. Long after forming or taking over a group or an organization, leaders may still have good or at least normal and healthy intentions. Even if they engage in less than ethical behavior to benefit themselves at the expense of others, at the end of the day they will rationalize and see themselves as doing greater good than evil. Every ideology and movement, no matter how lofty it's original intentions, from Christianity to Marxism to Buddism, eventually gets used by really bad people to justify their exploitation of others.
Cults typically start off as organizations living up to its stated goals and principles. Slowly things can begin to change. When individuals and groups become that dedicated to their cause and ideas, their sense of perspective can become warped. Such people will surrender their freedom and dedicate their lives to the group. In their eyes their goals become worthy enough to be obtained by any means neccessary or without regards to a universal sense of ethics rooted outside their ideology. Their ideology becomes their morality and the fiber of their being. Their ideal, their goals, and the group become one.
When such a mentality takes over a group it will drive many people away. Such a group gradually becomes more and more isolated from society. As this continues over time, there becomes less and less outside perspectives within the group or monitoring of the group behavior. Of course while such ways may draw critisism by outsiders, cults have their members cut off contact with formers friends, family members, and people outside the cult, so that the manipulation, indoctrination, and intimidation process go unchecked. Such a dynamic feeds on itself, as the followers become conviced they are right and the leader becomes more and more addicted to the power they have over their followers. Once this is successfully done, a rigid uniformity of though and behavior and acceptance of some hierarchy is enforced.
Such an organization can continue down this path until to the point that fear and contempt of the outside world or influences dominate the mentality of the group. At that point, the leaders can use people's fear to control them, and consolidate power for themselves. Such leaders will become more and more focused on maintaining their power until the organization no longer lives up to it's original goals, but meerly persits for the benefit of the leaders.
All movements and ideologies go through this same cycle. Christianity originally started as a movement against the corruption of an organized religion that had become a dogma and had diverted from its roots. Eventually it itself underwent the same process. Christianity turned from a grassroots movement into a powerfull and organized institution that justified its exploitation through nonesensical esoteric dogma, shallow rituals, and meaningless platitudes. When brave and free thinking individuals came along to bring it back to its roots, they were once again denounced as heretics and unbelievers going against the one and only tRu3 fAiTH. Marxism, a 'material' philosophy, went through the same cycle as well, repeatedly.
Even organized crime has gone through the same cycle. Organized crime provides a great example because no one can argue that criminals who band together deliberately to exploit and harm others can be anything other than a parasitic organization. Crime syndicates such as the Chinese Tongs and the Italian Mafia were originally revolutionary organizations with a political purpose, or organizations that served the community in areas dominated by outside forces. In the case of the Tongs, their original purpose was to overthrown the Qing dynasty in China. Due to changing circumstances, in this example the collapse of the Qing dynasty, the organizations quickly degenerate into parasitic organization that exist for the beneifit of its leaders.
So if we can have some understanding of how cults operate, how do we determine if an organization is a cult? There is no template or litmus test to determine whether an organization is a cult. Cults tend to have similar superficial attributes that can be identified and measured, but one has to interpret a constellation of traits and attributes. Every cult is going to be organized a different way, exersize a different degree of power, and be destructive to a different degree. Like with all human behavior, cult behavior exists on a spectrum. Certain organizations tend to be more cult like than others. Some organizations will have cult like traits without being cults. Others may have few cult traits while being extremely destructive nonetheless. The extremes are easy to identify; its in the middle where it is not so clear.
The bottom line is that there is no purely scientific or mathmatical way to identify a cult. One has to look at the way an organization operates and examine how it is run and how it treats its members. Looking at actions in isolation is not enough. It is the underlying process beneath the oberservable behavior that ultimately determines the nature of an organization. Most importantly, NO GROUP will EVER identify itself as a cult or ever admit that it uses any of the techniques cults use for control. Cults are masters of denial and rationalization. As good as they are of convincing their members that they are a source of salvation, they are even better at convincing the outside world of their good intentions and innocuous of not benevolent nature. Ultimately its the way a system functions in practice that determines its nature, not its professed goals or values or 'theories' of its leaders.
back to top
IV. COULD A BOARDING SCHOOL BE A CULT?:
Cults, demagogues, and even powerful tyrants can't reengineer human nature; they can only manipulate and channel human desires and fears. It can be as insipid and innocuous as feeding people what they want to hear by providing a spurious sense of belonging, meaning, importance, and security, or it can involve scapegoating and evoking fears of enemies both internal and external, both real and imagined. Most cults initially bring people in by claiming to provide a practical or straightforward purpose, whether it is a political agenda, self-improvement, or a relationship with God. Once fully immersed and invested in a group, guilt, fear of ostracism, fear of expulsion, and a fear or contempt of the world outside are used to control and discourage members from leaving.
With a handfull of small exceptions, I also don't think that anyone ever decides to form a cult out of the blue soley for their own personal benefit, or with the intention of hurting people. The exception would be the great L. Ron Hubard, founder of infamous Scientology, who truely was a fucking asshole from the onset. Most sociopaths are too mercenary, practical, short sighted and/or lazy to go through such hoops. Such people realize that there are far easier avenues for gain than creating an organization from scratch. They are more likely to opportunistically exploit a pre-existing situation than create a new one. It is much more common for such people to rise to the top and take such organizations or movements in 'new directions'. Most people who start groups initially have some legitimate goal in mind.
I also don't think followers themselvess are bad people, or even that they are particularly defective in some way. Many of the followers in cults are well meaning, but misguided and prone to extreme rationalizing. I don't think many people would join any group or climb the ranks with the deliberate intention of exploiting others. Conspiracy theories are usually way too complicated and yet try to make things as black and white as possible. They assign sinister motives to people while overlooking really obvious counterpoints, and most importantly conspiracy theories can't be disproven.
The simpler less satisfying explaination is usually correct, which is that human beings have an nack for survival involving opportunistically feeding of off each other while rationalizing. Charismatic but unscrupulous people in particular have a way of fanning people's fears, prejudices, and hatres while feeding them what they want to hear and thus leading them by the nose. People often deliberatly overlook the "banality of evil" as Hannah Arendt called it, because it is too uncomfortable to see the evil as something that haphazard, irrational, and ultimately silly that anyone could be an accomplice to it.
Its even a greater misconception that cults are all violent, abusive, and engage in fringe behavior. Although fear and conditioning can and are used as controls, the basic methods of control are far less coercive and sinister. The media stereotype of the cult being some group of lunatics that holds captives against their will in an isolated, walled, and armed compound is just a sensationalized extreme of a phenomenon that is widespread and common. Most cults exersize enough discretion and common sense and are innocuous and common place enough as to go undetected. Jehovah Witness, the Mormons, Nation of Islam, and Alcoholics Anonymous are just a few of the common and well known groups that people acknowledge as cults. Add to that thousands of other lesser known political and religious groups. Aside from being known as a source of annoyance and/or comedic entertainment, none of them have appeared in the press for engaging in violence confrontations with the police, engaging in mass suicide rituals, or holding people against their will.
Cults do not have to be all powerful entities with a massive coercive apparatus at hand in order to achieve their domination. Most cults don't have a 'state' to enforce their will. Ideology and an extremely controlled and contained environment are enough to manipulate the will of a critical mass of their members. Often, expulsion from the group is enough to keep the majority of people in line. Many, if not most people, are quite free in some way to leave to leave a cult, especially in the early stages, and often do so. The turnover amongst many cults can be high. It is for this reason that cults work so hard to remove all past influences of a person's life while creating a new identity for the individual. It's usually only the large and most powerful cult organizations like Scientology(which is really powerfull and evil), with large legal and press teams that kidnap and torture people, that get the most publicity.
For this reason there is a strong positive corrolation between the shallowness and absurdity of an organization/society's ideology and the control of the organization. The less substance and the more formulaic and rigid a belief system is, and the more people are encouraged to obeidiantly go through the motions and be subserviant to authority. I can't believe anyone who participated in the Cambodian genocides 'believed' that they were starting history again from year zero or getting rid of real 'enemies' of the people. Such people were pawns in a perverted power play that were only trying to ensure their own survival. In a twisted way its relieving to know that most people participated because they feared being persecuted themselves. How can such rediculous beliefs hold any value to anyone with any intelligence and sanity?
Although Scientologists are more free to leave 'the Church' than peasants were free to leave Cambodia ro China, enough control exists so that homogeny can at least be maintaining within the organization. Do any Scientologists take the idea of Thetans and Zenu seriously for long once they get to that level of scientology? I would wager not, but by then so many years have been invested in the organization that it becomes hard to leave for numerous reasons. By that point members have invested enough time and effort into the organization that their life revolves around it. To leave the organization would mean having to start their life over from scratch. Nonetheless people do leave. Scientology doesn't have a secret police, military, and a border patrol the way the Soviet Union, China, or Cambodia did, but they have enough controls to maintain hemogeny within their organization.
The point I am trying to make is that it is not just freaks, ideologues, or weak minded people that end up in cults or participate in mob behavior. Ordinary people get hoodwinked and taken advantage of more than they would like to admit, and any belief system or organizations can be corrupted over time. We are all are prone to sheepish behavior at times, and there is always something to lose. There are an infinite variety of groups that exist and that operate beneath the radar of the media. Most do. The idea that a cult could take the form of a boarding school in the case I am about to mention is not a bizarre or radical notion. In fact, a boarding school is a really good if not perfect model for a cult. Schools by their very nature are suppossed to be institutions of authority, conditioning, and indoctrination. At a boarding school nonetheless, all parental authority is invested in the school, which is given extra power by the parents to 'protect' and in essense raise their children. Whatever one thinks of a particular boarding school, or boarding schools in general, one must realize how controlling the environment can be. The potential for corruption and degeneration is ennourmous.
The school was privately run 'international' school, and exempt from any government regulations or even cultural norms. Most of the students and teachers came from outside the country but resided in the school in question. The dominant group of students had parents worked for the school, literally grew up in the school, or both. The rest were transient short stayers whose parents moved them around the world from one boarding school to another like unwanted stepchildren. The school was completely separated and isolated from the surrounding society culturally, financially, and politically. The school determined when people ate and slept, what was acceptable behavior, and who they associated with 24 hours a day. A boarding school has immense power to control the thoughts and emotional process of its students; the institution that has the responsibility of 'educating' minors when their world view and personality is not fully formed. Such an institution has enormous power to indoctrinate and manipulate its members. The power differential between the students and teachers was great enough to ensure a virtual domination the lives of the students completely.
back to top
V. KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE:
I don't want to live in the past or keep picking at the same wound. I also refurse to relive it in any way, shape, or form for as long as I live. The past becomes prologue when people choose to not to face it. In the same way that history repeats itself when people choose not to remember and critically study it, people repeat the same patterns in their lives when they fail to confront themselves and their past. For too long I repeated the same mistakes over and over again because I was unable to be honest with myself. The principles that drive group behavior never change, but people have been able to take their destiny into their own hands throughout history for the better. Individuals can and do even occasionally have a broader impact on their societies around them. The things that have changed for the better in this world have changed because people refused to accept the assumptions of the status quo, and stood out doing so. Even when it becomes difficult or impossible to change the environmnet through collective action, there is still the option of determining one's destiny, even if it means retreating from the reach of the status quo. However, building a brighter future requires studying the past.
Experience is the best guide to life. Things we have witnessed and experienced directly time and time again we can be the most sure of. I hope I can learn from my experiences. Yes life is hard and not everthing can be spelled out in some sort of formula, but people should also be able to learn from the mistakes and failures of others so that they don't repeat them. If humanity never learned from the trials of other, we would all still be living in the stone ages. There is no experience not worth gleaning knowledge from.
For this reason I can't ignore the world's contradictions, absurdities, hypocracies, and generally creepy bullshit without first trying to genuinely understand them, even if it creeps me out in the process and even if I can't change anything. I don't think there is a simple explaination for everything, but there is more to be understood than generalizations, glib cliches, and conventional 'wisdom'. 'That's just the way it is' just doesn't cut it for me. Maybe if hadn't been emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually eviscerated at the hands of such organized self-dealing, rationalized exploitation and mass delusion, I would never have considered writing about such things. Maybe the things that bother me now wouldn't bother me at all, but I know that really bad things can happen to anyone for no real reason at all.
Blind luck plays a role in everything and that I can't control, but I still refuse to relinquish my control to abstractions, cliches, cheap rhetorical phrases, or 'faith' in some higher power or ideology. Things do not automatically work out for the best, there is not always a happy ending, and good does not automatically prevail over evil. Even if God exists, we are infinitely better of trying to help ourselves. Things may happen for a reason, but it is often as likely to be a shitty and stupid one as a good one.
I am going to do whatever I can to understand WHY things happen so that at the very least I can minimize how much bad shit happens to me, even if I can't get a definitive answer or even if don't like it. Unless I understand why something happened, I know that it may very well happen again, and I am not going to accept that. I don't need to understand and control a lot. I don't need closure on everything. I don't need to have my future set out in stone, but I need to be able to live my life with some direction, understanding, meaning, and principals. I can't live my life like an animal or a circus chimpanzee mindlessly jumping through arbitrary hoops and pretending everything is going to be ok. Most importantly, I won't accept things anymore just because someone tells me that it is the way it ought to be or always has been, or that things will magically get better.
Maybe if I had been able to radically change myself I wouldn't have had the same experience. I was conspicuously never good at being a 'team player' or 'fitting in' even when I desperately tried, and I have never been good at group interaction. 'Belonging' always required I play some calculated role and project an image and all the while pretending that 'I don't give a fuck'. I could never quite say what I really wanted to or when I did it just wasn't glib and polished enough. Even though I tried, I never became good at having to self-monitor, micromanage myself, and constantly be evaluated by other people. I would much rather genuinely interact with someone than follow some script. I also hate social climbing and navigating a pecking order, and I don't like being sized up or sizing people up. I have a hard time hiding my feelings and sometimes I trust people too much. Even as an adult I never fit in to any distinct social social scene or general 'type'. Honestly I hate having to hide my true feelings, thoughts, and personality, and part of the reason is that I just have always been so bad at it and I never end up 'fitting in' anyway. It just takes me so much effort and it ends up being so self-defeating.
I am not saying I have a necessarily have a problem with people who play such games as long as they respect other people's boundaries, I just can't understand why such people have a hard time respecting something because its different. It seems like those most likely to dismiss, condemn, and attack do so to that which they do not understand, often without taking any effort to understand it. Reasoning with such people is useless. They will judge in accordance with their self-interest and based off their limited life experience without questioning their own assumptions and prejudices. The same people often assume others to have a narrow and self-serving hidden agenda. Anything that challenges their concept of the world being a fundamentally just place creates cognitive dissonance and anxiety, which they attack or ignore as best as possible.
I don't understand why anyone should change just to accomodate someone else's preconceived notions and make them happy. What bothers me the most about the herd mentality its its desire to assimilate everything to it, expel all that can't be assimilated, and destroy all that can not be expelled. Everything is judged by its standards and occurrs on its terms. The herd mentality will always be around. It is just more pronouned in certain places. Human nature can't be reprogrammed, but particular social systems and arragnements amplify and modulate various aspects of human nature. Cults in particular feed off the herd mentality to ensure their own preservation.
While perfect harmony between people is neither possible nor neccessary, when people can't respect the dignity, autonomy, and privacy of their fellow human beings shit really rolls downhill fast. Suffering and traumatic experiences in of themselves will not make anyone stronger or more honorable, moral, or principled. If suffering were really that positive and life-affirming of a force, the world would consist by now entirely of high functioning and saintly supermen. Africa wouldn't exist as it does at all. To the contrary, powerlessness can be just as much if not more corrupting than power. The more one has to spend energy on survival, the less energy one can devote to personal growth and reflection. Depending on what exactly happens and the duration, certain experiences over time cripple or destroy you. Going completely against your basic nature will eventually eat you alive. Suffering doesn't even make people more appreciative of what they have, more understanding of other people, or more aware of their own failings. People can change, but for it to be positive and lasting it needs to be voluntary and for the right reasons.
Any free society operates on the premise that everyone has some basic boundaries that are self-evident and non-negotiable. Everyone has these same basic rights regardless of personal abilities, social status ,or influence. Even law-breakers retain their rights as they are entitled to due process, and rights can only ever be taken away by due process. To preserve this the legal system and government are transparent, operate publicly, and are subject to public scrutiny, and the government has checks placed on it on how it can enforce the laws. Free speech is protected to foster dialogue in the legislative process and public life. Conflicting and competing values, ideas, and political parties must both compete for influence and cooperate in the government, and government policy changes according to the shifting desires and needs of the people. Dissent occurs openly and takes place within the government. There is no collective plan nor a monolihic set of values. No one person or entity has a monopoly on ideas or 'the truth' and no one is above the law. A free society is means not ends oriented; any authority exists to serve society by making sure everyone follows the same rules, not push ends. Authority exists to make sure individuals are free to determine their own destiny.
Because there is no collective plan, competition is part of the political and economic life in a free society. Genuine competition and diversity are neccessary to drive creativity, innovation, and progress. However, an elite that gets to change the rules of the game for their own benefit or make exceptions at a whim is a parasitic ruling caste that feeds off the productive labor of society. Genuine competition and a real 'free market' can not exist without some sort of rules, structure,and due process binding to all, and most importantly, democracy. Even if they can be tools of it, authority, hierarchy, conventions, and traditions do not neccessarily equate with oppression.
When 'authority' ceases to be neutral and it uses its power to serve particular interests(including its own) and exploit people, it becomes oppression. When authority ceases to be accountable to the people it serves and when thre are entirely different sets of rules for different people, it is oppression. Being accontable to a 'higher cause' or some other worldly divinity changes nothing. Even when people and institutions try to justify their deception, control, exploitation, and abuse of people with 'good intentions' and 'knowing better', its still oppression. No amount of spurious abstract nonesensical pseudopious gobbledigook religiosity or clever but glib wordsmithing changes anything. Whether the malice and deception is deliberate or merely a product of vanity, hubris, and misguided beliefs is immaterial. Whether people in charge know consciously that they benefit their own bullshit or merely tools themselves is immaterial. Their is no goal so noble as to justify oppression.
Despotism is despotism and exploitation is exploitation, no matter how enlightened and benevolent it claims to be and regardless of the intentinos behind it. People in charge may genuinely have other people's interests or the greater good in mind. Through unceasing rationalization demagogues, ideologues, and pseudointellectuals may also genuinely believe the jetstream of diareah erupting from their mouth regardless of their actual behavior. I may genuinely believe I talk to Jesus Christ through an antenna, or that I live on the north pole of Mars. It doesn't matter; either way the results of despotism are never enlightening, empowering, or beneficial. Only the despots themselves benefit. Usually such people have selfish intentions, even if they can't admit it to themselves and no malice is involved. No matter how you cut it, when idealistic and universal concepts like "Our Community/Our Country/The Common Good/The Common Man/The Workers/The Children".....bla bla bla are used to blindside people and push an alterior and ususally self-serving agenda, it is shameless exploitation. Even if not economic or surplus value is extracted from people or their labor, it is exploitation. When people have decisions unilaterally forced on them, it is despotism regardless of the goals and intention.
I am not interested in the opinions, intentions, or character of such self-appointed 'experts', 'leaders', and authority figures whose claim to power is unilateral and unchecked. They might have a lot of good ideas and be smart people, but nobody is so trustworthy, enlightened, and uncorruptable as to be able to run the personal lives and think for other people. Nobody is infallible, all knowing, or 'better' regardless of their background, lineage, or credentials. ALL human beings are fallible and corruptable. Nobody is justified in forcing others to live in fear of arbritrary power. I don't care who claims to understand God's true message, or be the true inheritor of the ONE AND ONLY TRUE filosofy of as;dklfjaasd;lkjzzzzzzzzzzzz. It doesn't matter how many babies they have kisses, who they have saved, what they have endured, or what they have accomplished. Even less do I care if they make more money/have a higher GPA/have more seniority/can run faster or can place an inflated piece of rubber through a metal ring better than I can. No person, group, or institution has any right to oppress and exploit someone else knowingfully or not, REGARDLESS OF THEIR INTENTIONS OR STATUS, lofty, otherworldly or otherwise.
I also reject the notion that certain people deserve to be oppressed or taken advantage of because there are inferior or because they are a threat. Not only is this blatant rationalization and blaming the victim in the extreme, but on its face value it is absurd. If someone or a group of people is genuinely inferior, there is no need to oppress them. Such people will be unable to compete and will hold themselves down. People may rationalize further and argue that if such people are not held down they will 'take over' and destroy society. If people have a stake in their own society they will not try to tear it down or sabotage it. Unless a person or a group of people is an immenent violent threat to others or themselves, there is no justification in depriving them of freedom. Going further and justifying their exploitation is even more absurd. You can't argue for the exploitation and abuse of people because they are 'inferior' or incapable of protecting themselves, and at the same time argue for any sort of system of law. Such 'law' becomes nothing more than a system of organizaed brutality and exploitation rather than a means of protection and making sure everyone plays by the same rules. Genuine ompetition doesn't mean a darwinian free for all/all or nothing proposition where the 'winners' do whatever it takes to 'win' including using fraud and violent and then take all while the 'losers' get reorganized into dirt. Competition also doesn't mean that people must compete to survive but are institutionally blocked from rising the social economic hierarchy. The bottom line is the exploitation of innocent people can not be veiled in lofty principles nor the gutter of social darwinism.
On the flip side, people can have status and power and still be giant douchebags and parasitic assholes. The ability to get one's way does not correlate with character, integrity, or even a surplus of talent. It is not uncommon for people survive and get ahead by being ruthless and shameless opportunistic self-interest seekers. Esssentially, the idea that there is any connection between someone's status and their character or some inate quality is absurd. Even if someone is somehow 'gifted', no body can be so enlightened as to be able to appoint themselves in charge of someone else's life, or so 'special' as to squash someone's face with their bootheal. Nobody 'deserves' or earns the right to oppress and take advantage of other people. The idea is ridiculous on its face value.
This is why oppression is often shrouded in lofty and broader intentions. Ideology and dogma hide the true nature of power relations as well as justify them, while bringing followers onto their side. Nothing is more evil than people and institutions manipulating the good in other against themselves for their own selfish ends. Totalitarian societies and cults elevate their ideas to a higher almost magical plane of reality. Rather than being a dynamic representation and vehicle to understand reality, the ideas become an ossified reality in themselves. They will even teach that the ideas, feelings, and self-interest of the members or anything outside of the governing ideology are not just less important but irrelevant or don't exist. Only the goals and ideology of the group is important, and anything that doesn't assist with those goals is looked at with suspicion. In such a society where outlets are limited, the only way to survive let alone get ahead is to identify with the group and get one's needs met through 'socially exceptable' channels. What I find so vomit inducing about exploitive institutions in general and cults in particular is that they resort to unethical means to deprive people of their sovereignty all under the guise of empowerment, morality, or some broader idealistic goal, only so that they can bend them over for their own carnal, materialitic, worldly, and completely self-serving ends.
The only thing worse than prolonged powerlessness and systematic humiliation is isolation. Everyone gets lonely, but its a mild discomfort compared to the constant feeling of being on the verge of falling of a cliff. The worst feeling in the world is to feel like you are suffering alone while no one can bother to pay attention let alone care. It is like silently having the weight of the world on your shoulders. You cease to exist in any meaningfull way. Over a prolonged period of time both powerlessness and isolation erode one's self-esteem, understanding of oneself and other people, will, and basic mental health.
I can't fault people who go through the motions and parrot the convention when their back is to a wall. Everyone conforms at times for survivals sake. Thats life. I can't even blame a lot of the teachers. In many ways they were just as much victims of the situation even if they were enforcers of it. In the process a lot of decent people end up drinking the cool aid or just going along with the flow because they couldn't see any alternative and they were just trying to make the best of a bad situation. What I found so disappointing was that none of the motions I went through and the effort I put forth translated into anything of any value short or long term. To a certain extent I participated like everyone else. I kept on clinging to the hope that somehow things would just get better and that I just had to tough it out, but like a black hole, absolutely no rays of light escaped from that vortex of darkness and bullshit that made up that time of my life.
What to this day I find truely disgusting were the people who took advantage of the situation to exploite those beneath them all the while vomiting 'convention' and hiding behind meaningless platitudes and self-serving cliches. Such people are the core of the any amoral and destructive system. These kinds of people exist everywhere, and while institutions can't program people like robots, they can sort where people end up in the social hierarchy and use the right kind of people to their own ends. In the process institutions end up shaping everyone's drives, ambitions, and instincts. Such a process of manipulation turns people into pieces on a chess board by pitting their self-interest and survival against others. Those without moral scruples or personal attachements rise to the top. Such a toxic environment makes it very difficult not to play the game of suvival and competition at any cost.
From day one there was always the feeling of stuffy standoffishness, cold suspicion, and contempt in the air. I couldn't put my finger on it because it was everywhere. Everyone was constantly angling to prove that they were better and that they didn't give a fuck, even if it meant refusing to acknowledge the presence and existance of people 'lower' in the social hierarchy. Everything, anything, and nothing at all would draw critisism from teachers and students alike, and become fodder for gossip. In group situations, I tried very hard not to rock the boat to the point of making myself invisible. Just to be tolerated and get some positive attention from people I thought could be my friends, I would try to be as accomodating and non-adversarial as possible while micromanaging my personality. There was so much bullshit and drama everywhere I rarely challenged or questioned any individual on their bullshit, let alone the bullshit of the entire situation. I would go out of my way to sell myself to peers and teachers alike who really gave a shit less about me let alone anything else just so I could fit in and get the chance to have some sort of life. I hid my feelings out of fear of showing vulnerability and standing out and being isolated, alone, and abused even more. I hid my feelings to the point of being numb and totally disconnected from myself. I allowed people to behave as though they were better because they were better at playing the game and had more status than myself, and to an extent I bought into all their bullshit. The only reason I associated with anybody was to avoid being a pariah, and in the end that do me much good anyway. I couldn't even begin to think about figuring myself out, finding my own niche, and working on myself. My life consisted of basic survival day by day.
The experience reduced me to hollow shell for some time. I took me years to develop into a mature, independant, and self-aware individual with a healthy identity and perspective on the world. I associated with anyone because I was used to being an outsider and not having any valid or meaningfull connection with people. I did it because I didn't have the confidence in myself have standards, draw boundaries, make neccessary judgement calls, think for myself, and make my own way. After years of isolation in an isolated environment, I had a hard time exploring and understanding the world on my own terms. Many times I felt like I had to rebuild my personality from scratch, but I didn't know where to begin. I tried discovering and reinventing myself over and over again. I involved myself in various idealistic and yet shortsighted causes, and I ended up in the same trap every time.
It took time to step back, understand my emotions, and reeveluate meyself, and realize how my experience impacted me. It took me much longer before I was able to organize my thoughts and write anything down. Eventually I began to trust my own experiences, ideas, and feelings and realize that they have as much merit as anyone else's and that I can develop my own standards and values even if they are different from everyone else's. NOBODY has a right to violate my very basic boundaries, exploit and control me, or dictate my identity and destiny, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE. At the very least I have the right to demand something from interacting with other people and I owe obeidience and loyalty to no one. I have a much right to assert my self-interests, get my way, and be as selfish as other people as they are with me as well as treat them the same way they treat me.
If I had to do it again I would have done things totally differently. I realize nothing I would have done would have ever made me happy in such a place, but I would have been able to handle things with much more grace and dignity while keeping my core intact. Although it makes sense that I was trying to avoid isolation, I am still amazed, disgusted, and sadened by the pathetic lows I went. I over reacted when I could have just said to hell with it all. The few things I could have done I didn't do. I am disguested by how hard I tried to be like everyone else. I can't understand how I became so wraped up in trying to fit in and "belong". If people are that self-centered, what good is their respect for?
But therein lies the problem. I was young, inexperienced, and niave. I was kid and I was in an institution that completely dominated my life and mind. I didn't have the life experience, cognitive development, or social support to place any sort of distance and perspective on my environment. Even worse, elternate points of view and outlets were stamped out. If there was one thing I wish I had had, it was for someone to provide me with some outside perspective, which is exactly the last thing a cult will allow. If I can have a positive impact on just one person it would be worthwhile. I hope that someone somewhere else can learn from my experiences the same way that I have learned from others.
VI. MY PROBLEM:
back to top
VI. BAD RELIGION - THE FiLoSoFY OF MY SCHOOL:
Everything this school claimed about itself and the world was a manipulation and deception designed to bring students in and make them compliant to the agenda and domination of the school. The ideology and propaganda acted as a carrot and stick. The carrot was that the school was not just an elite but an unique school that served as a gateway to success and enlightenment. As an international school it suppossedly inoculated a worldly sophistication that empowered the students in the classroom and that extended beyond, so much that acceptance and success to any school around the world was assured if one 'cooperated' with the system. The school claimed that it prepared its students for college by having a more rigorous course load, providing better faculty, building 'character' and teaching you the correct "values" to succeed in life. In fact, the school claimed its reputation was so great that applicants to college would have a leg up in the application process. Apparently the school was one of the best high schools one could go to in the world. The stick wss that the leadership of the school was benevolent, enlightened, and infallible and if you couldn't succeed there or be happy then there was something wrong with you.
The core school philosophy was enlightened social darwinism. The cosmopolitan, cultivated, and virtuous "renaissance man" that could do it all and knew everything was the hero. A "true" education involved a study in the humanities and of the classics, not learning anything of any practical value. The unique angle of ASIS was that it claimed to provide the best classical well rounded 'humanities' education by having an 'international' ie more sophisticated/worldly bent that distinguished its students and made them stand out from the competition. There weren't any cooking or wordshop classes because we as students "were better than that". The school was even littered with renaissance paitings and wallpaper everywhere(including the cafeteria). Students were constantly reminded that history was driven by great thinkers and leaders. In addition to ExElLenCE, TRadItioN was held in the highest regard. At its core, people who identified with the school really did see themselves as 'better'.
Beneath the pretense of cosmopolitan diversity and enlightenment, the reality was far from the professed image. At best it was pretentious and stuffy. The school called itself and American school even though it was virulently anti-American. America was the heartland of permissiveness, decadence, and unsophistication. The United States was nothing more than a dump of hicks, crime, and drugs. The philosophy of the school was that the permissive and "politically correct" US public school system 'spoon feeds' students so that they don't actually work.The core of the school was made up of virtual American exile families whose parents taught at the school and/or Essentially the individual deserved nothing in life.
A competition was made out of everything no matter how trivial. There were competitions within sports teams. There were knowledge bowl competitions. There were competitions to raise money. Everyone had to take after school activities. There were endless meetings pushing discussing the competitions and endless meetings building personality cults of the school owner, her minions, and the most senior teachers. At that time it seemed the only purpose to human existance wss to conform, obey, perform, and compete to gain respect and to place yourself into some academic and social hierarchy. The individual is merely a competing unit in a group. Any exploration or reflection was treated as idle folly. High school along with everything else was treated as "make it or break it", and everything one did in high school supposedly sealed one's fate for the rest of you life and your worth. There are only winners and losers to be segregated and sorted. The path to success required accepting your conditioning at ASIS. Supposedly if you don't go to an elite college following an elite high school, you can expect to spend the rest of your life as a pauper sweeping floors with immigrants from the third world.
There were an endless amount of brainwashing meetings in addition to the weekly Wednesday propaganda meetings to promote 'school spirit' and the ideology of the school. At these meeting the score and details of every single game of every sport were publicly announced by the team captains and heads. At these meetings awards would be given to 'outstanding' students and faculty. The school would also propagandize through numerous meetings that it was better than any other American or international school anywhere, and that America was an ignorant and backward place.
There were an infiniate number of formal and informal rules along with corresponding layers of authority to enforece them. There were privledges granted for loyalty and performance, not rights. Everything, including dignity, freedom, and even basic respect had to be fought for tooth and nail and granted by some 'higher power' or 'superior'. Even then character and integrity of the individual meant nothing let alone uniqueness, inquiring spirit, and effort. The only way to judge a human being was by results and production, and even then it was purely on the groups terms. Ultimately, the search for knowledge and the realization of one's potential was completely subordinated to competing for points doing menial tasks. 'Learning' consisted of memorizing information, wordsmithing, and performing tasks to please teachers and authority figures. A good 'student' was someone who could easily be conditioned, productive, processed a lot of information, and never thought for themself.
As with all total institutions, the ideology was a means to an end, and ultimately meaningless. Even though in the end the school failed to even live up to its own rediculous and half-baked rhetoric, one must study it to understand how power was distributed and control was maintained.
back to top
VII. FRAUD #1: ASIS WILL MAKE YOU 'SOPHISTICATED/COSMOPOLITAN/WELL ROUNDED/UNIQUE', AND A BETTER PERSON AND STUDENT:
Plenty if not most jobs and schools offer room for personal and professional growth for obvious marketing reasons. My school, however, took a feasible, productive, and valuable idea to the most pretentious and ludicrous of heights. Its one thing to argue that studying abroad at a private school is academically beneficial. Its entirely another to propagandize that one school in particular can make students more unique, sophisticated, well-rounded, somehow globally and qualitatively 'better'. Such an idea is absurd on its own merit; it's like watching midgets fist fight with brass knuckles over who is more humble. The school was always eulogizing how is provided not just the great opportunity for students to florish 'academicslly', but even the opportunity to enlighten people and make them better with stronger characters. All that was required was obedience, a lot of hard work, a 'positive' attitude, and the ability to 'give back' to the 'community'.
It was the major if not the principle tenet in the overall ideology of the school which also convinced parents and students alike that having such 'superior' personality traits would afford a competitive edge to students applying for university. Although I do believe that this was a deliberate and calculated marketing tactic to recruit and retain students, to be fair the school it also claimed that it was that way also because of the 'type' of people it allowed in. Most likely the school wasn't making extraordinary claims of radically changing people so much as the people who made it up and identified with it were just genuinely that full of themselves(as well as shit, amoungst other things). The truth was probably somewhere in the middle. Either way, ASIS was always compulsively trying to 'distinguish' and separate itself to an extreme degree from other international schools, other school systems, and the US, all while hailing itself as a tight nit community representative of the entire world.
It was more than just a reoccuring theme or widely held belief amoungs teachers and students alike how special and enlightened ASIS was, especially in contrast to the evil, corrupt, and culturally backwards the United States. It was official ideology that came from the leader of the school. We were always told that our experience at ASIS would made us 'different', and how the "friends and people you once know" would seem very different when and if we went back to our home countries. This applied to all students but in particular students from the US. We were taught that unlike the US where people just went along with the crowd, we would be able to find our own way, discover ourselves, and have a deeper appreciation and understanding of the world. We had meetings every week raising awareness and highlighting the contributions of all the cultures in the world, from Islam to Latin America. All the world that is except for the United states. I even remember having a school presentation on Detroit and how it represented everything that was wrong with the United States. We were shown pictures of abandoned lots, strip malls, polluted skies, and traffic packed boulevards. The talker who was also a teacher mentioned that for people such as us from an international background who were graduating and going to the US for college but that had never been there before, they would be experiencing something 'that you have not experienced before.' Every enemy has to have its arch enemy that opposses everything it stands for. For ASIS the US represented materialism, individualism, hedonism, political correctness, pop-culture, cultural backwardness, zenaphobia, and ignorance; everything that was suppossedly the opposite of ASIS. ASIS was a bastion of virtue, morality, tradition, culture, internationalism, collectivism, and enlightenment.
As rediculous as the arguement sounds, its still worth addressing only because it is common for people to join groups for direction, guidance, belonging, personal fullfillment, enlightenment, self-improvement, and empowerment. Unfortuneately people are even more prone to denial and rationalization as groups and such people who think themselves to be the most enlightened are the least. Cults and organized religions alike love to offer enlightenment, purpose, inclusion, tolerance, love, and a more meaningfull exisistance only to provide exclusion, intolerance, and ignorance all the while denying life in the here and now. As with all ideologies, the ideologies of cults seek to hide or justify power relations. However, because cults lack a strong enforcement mechanism like a state, they must also use ideology as a marketing ploy to bring and keep recruits in. It all boils down to control and one group of people believing they are 'better' and therefore justified in doing whatever they want to outsiders, non-conformers, and dissenters.
First of all, the arguement was elitist to its core in that it assumed that people with particular backgrounds and experiences are more moral, more functional, more enlightened, and overall 'better' people. Although concepts such as 'well rounded', 'worldly', 'cultured', 'educated', and 'sophisticated' do overlap, they are by no means the same thing. There are as many different types and levels of such 'culture', 'character', and 'sophistication' as there are gradations between arrogance ignorance and idealistic niavite. Its entirely posssible to be sophisticated but shallow. Its entirely possible to be a cultured but arrogant piece of shit. There is a difference between knowing of cultures and meaningfully appreciating them or at the very least meaningfully understanding and respecting them. Nazis considered themselves the pinacle of 'western civilization' and collected artifacts from non-aryan cultures as curiosity items and put them on display.
'Class' could be the one word that best sums up all of these traits mentioned, however someone could possess all these traits and still be a low life piece of shit(not be a better person) or even a disfunctionally tacky and socially awkward degenerate piece of shit. No amount of money, success, or power will make someone classy, and plenty of people with nothing develop class. True class and sophistication is as much a product of character as intelligence or upbringing. There are as many calculating, classy, and 'sophisticated' serial killers that prey on other people like Ted Bundy as well as smucks born into wealth who have no abilities or social graces. How 'worldly sophistication' manifests itself depends on the intentions of a person and the character that lies beneath.
This leads to my second point. Even if the basic assumptions of the ASIS ideology were true, their claims of even just being a 'postive' influence in such a way were way off. No institution, no matter how powerfull and controlling, can change one's character in that much of a qualitatively positive way. They can recruit people of particular characters and temperaments and condition reflexes. Certain traits can be imitated for a period of time so as to create a particular image or impression. However, positive, qualitative, meaningfull, and longlasting change comes from within as a result of some sort of reflection and genuine desire to change.
Unlike computers that can be reprogrammed, human beings have a large amount of free will and a variety of complex and simple needs. We don't just process information and respond to stimulus, we also perceive the mental process in our mind and the minds of others. We are self-aware and aware of gaps in our knowledge. We don't just reflexivly respond to our needs but are highly aware of them. This awareness enables us to prioritize our needs, plan for our needs, and anticipate unknown future needs. Although we have more reasoning power than animals, like animals it is our needs and instincts that drive us. Our powers of reasoning are merely guide our needs and act as a tool to get those needs met. Greater reasoning power or intelligence doesn't mean that someone will be any less driven by their passions, instincts, and temperament that make up their character. Consequently high intelligence does not neccessarily correleate with a more developed and multilayered personality or a stronger character.
If someone is primitive, one dimensional, and has only basic needs, no exposure to anything, let alone basic operant conditioning, will change their character or outlook. At the core of anyone's character encompasses their needs which may be repressed or altered in the way they are expressed, but not radically and permenantly changed. Needs are fundamentally instinctual and to a greater extent irrational, and while they may be repressed they can't be permenantly changed through any process of reasoning or conditioning. While our needs are hardwired, our character is more fluid and dynamic. However for people to change their character they have to want to change, and they have to want to change for some long term advantage and not just some short term benefit. Changing behavior for some immediate reward is unlikely to result in a long term change of behavior. The bottom line is there is only so much someone's character can be changed regardless of intelligence and conditioning, and that can only happen as a consequence if the person seriously desires it.
Even total institutions that do have immense power to condition and direct how character expresses itself, can not fully penetrate the human soul. Institutions and people can violently inflict a break down on someone's character and mental functioning to make them more dependant and subservient. Fear will change someone's behavior and stop them from asserting themselves. Fear will modify the outer layer of someones personality by augmenting, mitigating, or even repressing aspects of their personality. However as soon as the coercive environment that induces fear is removed, people revert to their natural inclinations and abilities to get their needs met and allow their core temperament to show itself. Nothing short of brain damage can permanently affect someone's character, and that does not neatly 'reprogram' someone's core character or change their potential.
The human brain is far more plastic when it is young, but even then the ability for change is limited by genetics. Schools do have a great impact on the behavior of their students, especially since they are still developing cognitively and emotionally. This is even more so the case because learning is such a complex and multilayered process. In addition to having different personalities and intelligences, all people have different and unique learning styles. However, teachers can not change the content of a student's core or make them care, but their attitude and ability and the institutional opportunites and constraints greatly impacts the student's motiviation and expression of talents and abilities. Because there is no one good way of teaching anything, the most important quality in any teacher is to get students to engage the material and think critically for themselves. This requires a genuine interest in the students and the material, as well as a certain level of respect for the student's autonomy. Certain things need to be availible to make an education work, but ulitmately it can only go so far.
It is absurd to believe any institution can genuinely make someone more sophisticated, well rounded, worldly or unique on any meaningfull level. Exposure, experience, and training can improve someone's functionality, but it will not change the way a person relates to people and the world, and it certainly will not change their basic physicological needs. Furthermore, its just as absurd to believe that just because someone lived abroad, recieved a private education, or even associated with people who did that they would be more meaningfully change as people.
In truth when the school used phrases like "well-rounded" what they really meant was being able to compete in multiple areas, not having multiple interests or being a person of substance or character. ASIS didn't want its students to have interests outside of school. They wanted their students constantly immersed only in the life of the school, competing with each other, and serving the school. Well-rounded meant being able to compete athletically and academically, not having a wide variety of interests and views, and it certainly didn't mean being a unique individual with a private life. Being a unique individual with an agenda and life separate from school was something that was crushed out of students.
This was done because while totalitarian institutions can't reengineer people, they can attempt to control as much human behavior as possible. Violence or punishment is used to make subjects outwardly compliant, obeidiant, or at the least, passive while propaganda is used to captivate as much of the human soul as possible. It is no surprise that totalitarian ideologies not only view people as a blank slate, but view them even lacking their own agency and importance. Individuals are meerly vessels and units of broader struggle beyond any particular humans control. Often people are determined to be good or bad not so much as a result of their individual action but because of their backgrounds and associations to broader groups. Inevitably such totalitarian ideologies view anyone who thinks for themselves or outside institution needs as 'intellectual', 'heretical', 'counter-revolutionary', and 'treasonous'. Such people pose the greatest to any totalitarian system precisely because they don't play any role in the totalitarian ideology and thus challenge the belief system as a whole. Heresy was the greatest sin the in medieval catholic church. Trotsky was more reviled in the Soviet Union than any western leader. Even though Stalin spent his youth in a strict seminary only to become and aethistic genocidal dictator, he still believed that poets were "engineers of the human soul". It is the outspoken critical thinking individual with their own indepedant values, goals, and life that poses the greatest threat to the totalitarian machine and who is the most ruthlessly crushed.
back to top
VIII. FRAUD #2: UNIVERSITIES CARE ABOUT YOUR CUSTOMIZED, UNIQUE AND WELL ROUNDED 'ASIS 'PeRSoNaLiTY' ' :
Not only did ASIS argue that studying abroad at a private school such as itself will make you more unique, sophisticated, and well-rounded, but that by having attended such an elite school colleges will be beating down the door to accept you. ASIS was suppossed to lead to Ivy League schools. Supposedly, all universities buy into the same ideology as ASIS and just assume without examining an individual that living abroad makes you more academically inclined, worldly, sophisticated, and an astute thinker. ASIS loved to harp on the virtues that a well rounded character would bring to the table to the point where such things were as important as SAT and GPA.
Firstly, although academia (especially in the Ivy League schools) may share the same lofty pretentions, in practice college administrations are marginally interested in such gimmicks in the most narrow sense and only to achieve very limited ends. Yes there is plenty of propaganda in academia about diversity and a commitment to diversity, values, the community, the future, bla bla bla. Yes we are all precious little snowflakes that all have something to offer the community through our uniqueness(ie racial/national demographic). Such lip service only serves to appeal ideologues in academia and grant doning government beauracrats. Universities are just as much in the buisiness of making money as corporations. Aside from a handfull of highly visible but token placements of 'diverse' students who either are on or close to some academic threshold or who really have some unique talent to offer(sports teams), such 'diversity' will not propel anyone to the stars who isn't already in the ballpark. Really what university selection boards care about is rankings, which they achieve by being more "selective" in the admissions process. This means standardized test scores, followed by GPA.
Having a diverse or eclectic background has no bearing on the originality of one's thoughts or character, and living abroad does not change the emotional content of your brain and it doesn't alter the intellectual capacity to perform academic work. Nothing will. Its an obvious fact like mud or death. It just is. In spite of all their rhetoric admissions boards know this. Genuine intellectual ability is even harder to measure than intelligence. The easiest way to sort people on some sort of cognitive spectrum is to compare people's ability to solve analytical problems quickly. Such linear and one dimensional problems tend to have only one solution, making assessments a relativley straightforward proposition. They want to know you have the capacity and potential to perform academically; thats why standardized tests such as the SATs exist.
Admissions boards have thousands of applications to go through. They don't even remotely have enough time to go through each application in its entirety. If an applicant's SAT is way out of range, they will not even consider your GPA, and vice versa. In my experience, the 'higher ranked' the school, the more involved the application process is with more essays. But such higher ranked schools are more competitive to begin with, so if you don't have the scores or the grades, you're not only not in the ballpark, you're not in the stadium. The personal essay, extracurricular activities, and letters recommendations are used for people on the borderline. Even if all three are stellar they will not make up for SAT scores and GPA and propel you into the next tier. If it really comes down to the point where you are on the borderline, colleges in the US will value diversity', but what that will boil down to the most part is race more than where you applying from.
Secondly, college administrators will not buy into the idea that studying in a foreign country makes you 'diverse'. There is no emperical way to measure diversity or uniqueness in an individual. 'Diverse' is an empty platitude that is completely determined by context. A black south african is diverse in a classroom in Norway; not so much in a classroom in Botswana. Admission boards are just as likely to discriminate against people coming from a private school. The better the college, the more likely that student from private school will be applying, and the less unique you will appear. If you have to write an essay for your college application, the content of what you write will speak volumes more than some international badge that states "better" or the fact that you went to ASIS.
There is anything inherantly wrong with studying in a foreign country. There is nothing wrong with going to private school. But neither in of itself automatically helps one's college prospects. The problem comes in when ASIS screws your GPA in order to take total control of your life and then justifies it with their "international" and "preparing you for college" pep talk. As with all ideologies, its nothing more than clever marketing hiding behind lofty intentions designed to bring people in and to get them to accept their roles.
back to top
IX. FRAUD #3: THE REPUTATION OF ASIS WILL GET YOU INTO A BETTER UNIVERSITY:
What helps students the most next to standardized test scores is grades, and while standardized test scores can only be improved within a range, grades can be greatly improved. Unlike standardized test which test a very narrow set of cognitive abilities, grades can take into accound a wide range of abilities. Everyone has different learning styles and work habits.
ASIS made no effort to hide the fact that grades were deflated. In an orwellian fashion it actually pointed to it as evidence that it was teaching to a 'higher level.' According to ASIS, teachers in the US 'spoonfeed' and give all students good grades and consequently the grades are meaningless and nothing is really learned. ASIS on the other hand was proud of giving more work and having students graded on a curve. Teachers at ASIS 'actually take their jobs seriously' and 'provide honest feedback' that prepares students for what lies ahead in college. Apparently, most US public school students are completely shocked and overwhelmed by college. So the logic goes that by deflating grades, ASIS prepares students for college. Unfortunately ASIS not only completely screws grades by making learning a uniform process but also by deliberately deflating grades. Unless the reputation of a school is that well established, no college board will have any frame of reference to determine how well you 'stack up against the competition'. Colleges actually expect better grades from students who went to private schools. In reality the workload was Auschwitz-like, sleep depriving, and bone numbing to the core. I had to work more hours in ASIS than I did as a professional adult only to learn next to nothing in the process.
The grades at ASIS were so deflated for two reasons: teachers had to grade students on a low curve and the school could be more selective about its students. Its not until you get into graduate school that you are graded on a curve. It seemed like there had to be a quota of Cs and Ds for every class. While the school had the ablility to be more selective of the students it took, this only worked to the detriment of everyone who wasn't significantly above average by the schools standards. Inevitably most people's grades dropped.
Because the grades at ASIS were so deflated, many students were forced to take AP classes so that they can get standard AP grades. However, because of the size of the school, the AP classes available are limited. Most importantly, being forced to take AP classes on top of all the other 'college level' classes only increased the work load exponentially, and even the AP classes the grades are ridiculously deflated. The school said it made its AP classes extra hard so that the students do well on the final AP exams. I don�t see the point in screwing the grades of students solely for the purpose of doing well on AP exams. A college is not going to look at a student with a 'D' who gets a 5 on an AP exam any better than a student who gets a B for the class and a 4 on the AP exam.
If your grades are screwed, then you will be completely out of range for the colleges you wish to apply for. Unless a college administration is intimately familiar with the school, they have no way to know for a fact that the courses you took in high school were at 'the college level' as ASIS claims. How can one high school out of millions around the world be known by even a handful of universities? In the United States alone, there are about 2,500 universities. There are thousands more throughout the rest of the world. How can any significant number of those schools be familiar with one small high school in particular? Is there any high school, let alone private high school that will not be playing the same game of selling its students to colleges? It makes no sense. In any university around the world there are plenty of students that apply from foreign countries. Applying from abroad didn't make students unique to colleges as ASIS as the school had them believe. This was just another fraud that made up the ideology of the school. It was nothing more then clever marketing designed to bring people in and to get them to accept their roles.
back to top
X. FRAUD #4: ASIS PREPARES YOU FOR COLLEGE, WHICH PREPARES YOU FOR LIFE:
The philosophy of ASIS was that by 'teaching' students how to handle the greatest workload possible while maintaining a positive attitude, students would be capable of handlingis college, work life, and life in general. Being able to memorize facts, blindly follow rules and authority figures, working fast, and staying busy made you a good student and a good person. Being a good student in turn means you will do well in college, and doing well in college means you will succeed in the professional world.
The first problem with this arguement was that the nature of work in college was radically different from the nature of work at ASIS. At ASIS such an insipid process of learning not only reduced the intellectual task of learning to the mental version cleaning toilets, it also reduced my freedom to prioritize, schedule, or sequence anything. I just had a ton of petty scutwork to be due everyday that I was ultimately unable to do. Ultimately it was because I had to prove to teachers that I was staying busy that I never got to intellectually engage the material. The bottom line was my 'learning' consisted of putting ink on paper and having to memorize something new every night.
The most important way to prepare yourself for college is to develop your critical independent thinking. This will help you obtain a deeper and broader understanding of any material, the ability to recognize patterns and construct concepts to explain them, conduct independent research, think outside of rigid paradigms, develop your own learning style, and the ability to apply knowledge. None of these things were taught at ASIS, and in fact they were even discouraged. All the work was so devoid of meaning and context that it amounted to heightened mental activity much more than substantive learning. Information went as quickly out one ear as it had gone in the other, and nothing built upon anything else. Not even a basic tangable skill, other than the ability to generically process information faster was obtained.
There is very little rote memorization or menial mental tasks in college; as long as you grasp the basic concept behind the reading and pay attention in class you are fine. Most of the grading focuses around term papers which are long term projects loosely supervized by professors. Most of the thinking in college is either theory, critical thinking, and the ability to make an argument and back it up, or the ability to repeat some sort of process in different contexts or using different data.
Yes there is a lot of reading in college, but you have much more freedom to choose when and how you will read and how you will study. There is much less grading, the semesters are longer, AND YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE CLASS EVERY DAY. Typically most students are in class 15 hours PER WEEK. This is because much of the learning you do in college revolves around research that you do on your own time. The classroom is the time for students to share their perspectives or results with other students and discuss them. The bottom line is that there is much less scutwork and almost no daily scutwork, and the teachers want students to intellectually engage the material on their own terms.
Even my most ideologically biased professors graded based on the ability to think creatively and make a good argument, even if it conflicted with the teacher�s world view. The professors I disagreed with vehemently would give me lower grades for certain papers I wrote where I disagreed, but they gave me enough credit for class participation and my knowledge of the material to give me a final grade that I felt was fair.
College is a completely different ballgame from most high schools(and not just ASIS) and universities know that. 'Lower tier' universities knowingly accept a greater proportion of 'lower tier' students knowing full well that as a consequence a greater proportion of their students will drop out. I know plenty of people that did well in high school and failed miserably in college, and even more that sucked in high school that did well in college. Getting through college requires a lot more emotional maturity, involvement in the material, and long term self-management of your time.
I managed to do fine in college skimming through half the material and most students do. Most of my introductory courses were multiple choice tests. In the higher level courses in your major, most of the grading is based off of two exams and one research paper. The quizzes that do exist are there to make sure that you are not completely blowing off the reading. Typically, you are expected to have a firm grasp of the material and the concepts which are tested by two exams. Then you find an area of the syllabus that interests you and write a paper.
Secondly, in this day and age, high school is worthless in the work force. Even college degrees are becoming less and less valued as more and more education is being demanded and more and more people go on to higher education. High school in of itself does not prepare anyone for the work force. The only thing high school can prepare you for is collegs.
Granted that employers care about the most is being able to multitask, being organized, and processing information quickly, now so more than ever that the world is entering the service information economy. If the course load at ASIS didn't involve studying 18th century literature and medieval Europe, but rather Microsoft Excel and accounting, then I might say that ASIS with its strenous course load might be preparing you for the 'real world'. It wouldn't be preparing you for college but it certainly would be offering the most grueling boot camp to condition you for any crappy job that awaits you.
There are a lot of crap jobs out there, even one's that require college and even graduate degrees. But all jobs, no matter how intellectually stultifying require self-management. The ironic thing is that despite the grueling course load at ASIS, as a student I was so micromanaged that I really didn't learn how to manage my time at all. I didn't beome better organized, self-driven, or entrepreneurial, I just lost my life. In particular I never learned the long term self-management which is required in BOTH college and the professional world. Not only is memorizing details under pressure a very small component of learning, its even neccessary to becoming productive in the workforce. Using your intellect to become more efficient is just as important as being fast in order to be productive.
One could argue that most public high schools don't prepare students for the type of work involved in college, but then again PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS DON'T CHARGE MONEY, PRETEND TO BE BETTER, GIVE YOU AN UNMANAGEABLE COURSE LOAD, ELIMINATE ANY REAL PERSONAL LIFE, DESTROY YOUR PERSONALITY, OR CLAIM TO BE EXCEPTIONAL AT PREPARING YOU FOR COLLEGE. MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL, MOST HIGH SCHOOLS DO NOT DESTROY YOUR GPA AND THEN CLAIM THAT BY DOING SO THEY ARE PREPARING YOU FOR COLLEGE.
back to top
XI. FRAUD #5: ASIS IS THE BEST HIGH SCHOOL YOU CAN GO TO:
One could only believe this if one believed in all the other tenants of the ideology. Examining the ideology wholistically from the outside one can see the entire system is a castle in the sky without any foundation in reality. I think its a myth that private schools are inherantly better than public schools, and I think its a myth that 'elite' Ivy League schools provide a superior education. The same applies even for colleges and graduate schools. Ivy League schools are ranked as better because of their notoriety, the people they accept, and the money they can raise. Yes this does mean that more of their students graduate and that more of their graduates students are successfull in their careers. However this has nothing to do with the fact that the faculty or the way the school is run is better. No matter how good a teacher is, a student will only progress as far as he or she is willing to go.
The Ivy League community is a small but very powerfull and well connected network that helps its students get into valuable possitions. People that go there tend to have money, connections, and/or intelligence to begin with. The school serves as a good networking tool, but nothing about the school makes it in of itself any better. In fact, many of the best colleges are known for the research they produce, not how well they teach their students.
The idea that a high school can provide that much better of a teaching environment is absurb. ASIS propagated that all of its students went on to college. That doesn't say anything about the school. All the students that went there planned to go to college.
There are only three ways a school can be better; its teachers, its students, and its available resources. The teachers at ASIS well no better than the teachers in most US public school systems, and were nothing compared to college professors. Private school teachers are certainly not paid any better than teachers at public schools in the US. I really didn�t feel like any of the teachers at ASIS enjoyed or cared about their jobs. Most of them seemed miserable, resentfull, and bitter. I certainly didn�t get the impression that they liked or cared about their students by the way they treated them, let alone their jobs.
I know there are plenty of students in every school system who don't care. But it seemed like the teachers favored the students who were most popular, who spent the longest amount of time at the school, or whose parents taught at the school (all usually ran together). It�s not like teachers in public school systems are bad. Even in bad inner city schools in the US (or wherever in the world) you are going to run into idealistic teachers who are there to make a difference in the lives of children.
There was nothing better about the teachers and as I have stated before I really feel like they could have cared less. Instead of actually teaching material and engaging class participation, teachers were overseers, supervisors, and prefects overseeing students self-teaching. Next to none of the teachers at ASIS inspired or even encouraged me in any way. Most didn't even respect me. At best I felt like I was just another task for them. At worst I felt like they were going out of their way to belittle me and let me know how much of a burden I was to them. I even felt that they made students feel pathetic and showed how little they mattered in order to motivate the students to 'earn' the respect of their teachers, which of course involved performing utterly meaningless scutwork. Many of them had an attitude about being seen after class or during office hours no matter how hard you tried. Many of them treated me like I was stupid and lazy and not worth their time.
Many would accuse students of being lazy, which I found ridiculous considering the amount of work they gave out. I think that they felt like a student in trouble on meant more work for them. I understand that the teachers were probably not paid well, but they didn�t have to be such pieces of shit. In fact, the teachers who had taught there the longest were usually the worst and also the nastiest, but received the most 'acclaim' from the student body and faculty at propaganda meetings solely because they had spent the most time connected to the institution. Honestly the relationship I had with the best and more involved teacher there pailed in comparison to any of the average teachers I had in college.
The one thing I am most grateful for about my professors in the colleges I attended was their passion and their ability to inspire me, get me interested in the material, and to get me to think about the world. I didn�t have any professors in college who didn�t have enough time to talk with me after class as well as during office hours. Not only did they help me to decide what I wanted to do with my career, but they helped me to come to an understanding of myself and the world. This might not mean a lot to many if not most people, but it meant a lot to me. Even if you think of education as strictly a vehicle for economic advancement and training, it helps to know what your interests and strengths are so you know what field you are going to excel in. It's when your young that you have the most time and ability to really discover your talents and work on the.
The second claim that the school makes is that it is exclusive because it is selective of its students. The only thing that the school can claim makes it 'exclusive' is that the institution can choose which students to accept. But when you look at the students you realize that even this is grossly exaggerated. The school might have been selective but its student body was by no means 'elite'. A lot of parents send their kids to boarding schools for disciplinary reasons and because they don�t want to deal with them. The school is a dumping ground for kids whose parents don't want to take care of them. The school appeals perfectly to such parents as it allows parents to feel that they are proactively taking care of their children by giving them a good education, when in fact they don�t care. The fact that the school becomes the parent of the student only amplifies the cultish nature of the entire 'community'.
Yes, there are plenty of dolts in the US public school system, as with any other public school system in the world. Most people are not going to college. Then again, from my experience, there were plenty of dolts at ASIS who had be passed from boarding school to boarding school because their parents didn't want to deal with them. In any public high school in the US you have regular, honors, and AP classes. If you care about school and are smart you won�t be taking classes with people who don't care or are not looking to go to college. One thing my experience has taught me is that you can get a good education out of public or private, expensive or inexpensive colleges or high schools provided that you apply yourself. The idea that your chances of going to college are hurt because you go to public school in the US is nonsensical; millions of students end up leaving public schools in the US to graduate from college and even go to Ivy Leagues.
The third way any school can be better is with regards to the resources it provides to its students. At ASIS, the courses available were limited, and the general requirements were numerous. The counseling I got was absolutely crap. I could have gotten better advice talking to a wall. There wasn't even a writing center. The only good thing about the school was the relatively small class sizes, which was completely negated by the teaching style and philosophy of the entire school.
back to top
XII. FRAUD #6: IF YOU FAIL AT ASIS, YOU FAIL AT LIFE:
For so many reasons this mantra still bothers me the most. Had there been a way to know better, all anxiety, depression, and self-doubt caused by this "make it or break it" myth would have evaporated. I invested in lies and internalized my own missery to avoid spending the rest of my life somehow living through something supposedly worse. Instead I just lost my youth. No minimum wage job came ever close to reducing me to the same level of survitude, desperation, isoloation, and numbness. At a minimum wage job you are at least given the dignity of not having to pretend you entire future is on the line. "Were're giving you so much opportunity, why is it that we are just not reaching you? Don't you realize how lucky you are?" How charitable and reasonable is the love of an enlightened despot.
Eventually it became obvious to me that high school carries no weight whatsoever beyond a certain point. Within one to two years of college, high school records becomes minimal. If one transfers colleges like most people do, high school performance is not granted much weight. Graduating college virtually erases a high school record. Even if you never graduate college or even go, it really doesn't matter. Employers do not look at high school academic records for jobs that only require a high school education, not so much because the people in these jobs are all stupid, but because an academic track record is irrelevant. Employers do not care how you did in Calculus if they are paying you $8.00 to lift boxes. They will not give is shit if you never so much as cracked open the Great Gatsby. The half of humanity that is below average and in jobs requiring no academic ability make a weekly paycheck and raise families without having accomplished anything academically.
With regards to "better" jobs, even those that only require an associates or technical degree, high school counts for a fat turd. There is nothing in your high school record that will indicate any ability to perform any of the jobs that are worthwhile. The work environment(and reality in general) has a completely different dynamic from academia. Succeeding in one environment does not equate to doing so in another. In the isolated ivory tower of academia, playing by the rules, operating within paradigms, making plausible arguements, and studing enough for the test makes a difference. 'Intelligence' and hard work roughly corrolate with success. Reality outside of academia it is not as rational, orderly, or fair. The world is ever changing and chaotic, and operates on ammoral irrational priciples driven by self-interest. Even large organizations are not driven by the most rational of principles. Competition for limited resources and a constant struggle for power means that in order for one person to succeed, someone else has to fail. Many people will do everything in their power including using force or fraud to get their way, and a lot of time the worst people rise to the top. Academic or even intellectual aptitude doesn't translate into practical ability, and particular talents, character, and the ability to market to as well as exploit people('people skills') trumps any academic 'aptitude' curve. Climbing social hierarchys, networking, and marketing are skills not taught or as applicable in academia, but are very importance.
College level GPA is only used to determine the dedication, discipline, and organizational skills of a person. Most professional work, from blue to white collar require a constant resharpening and retooling of a given skill set. Most of what one needs to know for a career is learned on the job, typically within the first 6 month to 1 year. From then on its a process of keeping up with changes in the industry. Employers was to see you can create, implement, and modify small ideas, not just analyze big ones from a distance. You are not learning brand new subjects every day, nor are you constantly tested on your ability to regurgiate new material. For this reason employers are always more impressed by experience than credentials, even if those credentials include graduate degrees. They are not really too concerned with the details of the academic work in a major and they certainly don't give a rats ass about any academic work done in high school. No boss ever cared that I understood the subtle difference between the early and later transendental works of New England literature, or any of the bullshit I was forced to digest and vomit. For this very reason even a college academic record becomes irrelevant after a number of years in the work force.
High school only prepares a student for higher education. ASIS couldn't even get that right. It did not make me a better student; it actually made me a worse student and hampered my ability to think for myself. The idea that a school can make a student better is rediculous on its own merit. The education one gets is only as good as the effort one puts in, and the willingness and ability to explore oneself and develop one's mind and personality. A school is there to offer guidance, support, and structure in the exploration process. Even the differences between Ivy League colleges and 'lesser' schools is greatly exagerated. Most professors possess a high degree of intelligence and talent. The high bar to entry to attend Ivy League schools is the only thing that makes those schools qualitativey different. Such schools arn't even more challenging to graduate from; Ivey League schools are known for having the highest degree of grade inflation compared to other private schools and state schools. The real advantage of Ivey League schools is the notoriety of the name and the chance to be with students who are smart and/or come from money and have connections. Going to an Ivy League school doesn't change anyone in any way or give them them skills that makes them more successfull. Getting into such a 'good' school just means you already have a greater chance of success in the first place.
I am not saying that there shouldn't be places for particularly talented and gifted people, or that achievement shouldn't be rewarded. People should be able to fullfill their potential. However, there are many different types of ability, talent, and intelligence, and the 'value' assigned to a person depends on 'values' of a society and the way it is organized. No human being can be globally and intrinsically 'better' or have more value than any other. 'Achievement' and 'excellence' unguided by values and devoid of any human benefit is meaningless. The most organized drug lord, prolific serial killer, or well spoken dictator is still a piece of shit. Society can be pluralistic in its values, but when competition is placed that much on a pedestal, all other values lose meaning. I understand why achievers will always be eulogized, but where I was it was taken too far. Life became a competition for survival without pause or respite. Our overseers loved parading their over-achieving stoolies and 'champions' as leaders and progeny of the future whom eveyone else should revere in awe and defer to at all times. Such greats would kindly tower over us lessers to kindly shield us from the illuminance of our superior's enlightenment, glory, and self-satisfaction. Us losers were expected to dutifully suffer in silence, lest we rock the boat and interfere with the momentum of inevitable collective progress of the school. Everyone was given the opportunity to shine provided that they participated in the life of the school, so why should anyone complain? Everyone knew the school was great. All we had to do is have the right attitude and 'apply' ourselves more. Anyone who disagreed was a disgruntled loser that couldn't hack it. Now I would have found a way to emigrate internally, but at that time in my life I found the ever constantly imposed self-doubt impossible to resist. It was unreal watching so many people acquiesce to their own mistreatment and exploitation.
Some people will argue that like any other 'elite' school ASIS was just preparing you for the 'world ahead' with their cutthroat competition and pseudo-religiosity. Yes the world is an ammoral place. It is true most employers don't really care about their employee's opinions and that the bottom line boils down to efficiency and organizing and processing data as fast as possible. Yes ASIS did give me more work to do than I could handle, but this never really taught me how to manage my time. Even if it did operate the way it did in order to teach students to live by the most distilled of 'real world' principles, the benefits were far outweighed by the costs. You can understand the principles by which this world operates without internalizing, eulogizing, or suffering under them. Sometimes its good to aspire to a little something more, especially if you are an institution of LEARNING. Throwing yourself into a tank of sharks might not always prepare you for being thrown into a tank of sharks. You may just get eaten by sharks, especially when you are that young. Although life may always be constrained by the principles of the world, there is no need to religiously worship such principles or judge yourself by the principles by them, and no one should surrender their freedom and have their life run by someone 'better'.
No individual, group, or entity has any moral justification in unilateraly and unconditionally dictating the distiny, identity, or role of the individual, not even if its a large group of people, the majority of people, or 'Society' itself. 'Society' is an abstraction nothing more than a collection of individuals created and run by individuals, not a monolithic living entity that can only exists if individuals serve and obey blindly like cells in a body. Human beings have always join groups for their own survival and self-interest. Its only over time that smaller groups have merged into larger groups. People are capable of intelligently negotiating their associations, roles, agreements, and exchanges they make with each other as long as overt force or deception is not being applied. While some people have more to offer than others and thus have more bargaining people, everyone always has something to offer someone else at some point. Even the anti-social and mentally challenged can perform tasks that benefit other people and only the most extreme of such people need their lives run by others. In such extreme cases it must be done conditionally and with due process; every human being has certain rights and boundaries that can not be crossed. No matter how smart, enlightened, or benevolent and individual or group is, when they unilaterally take away someone's ability to run their own lives they are acting as oppressors, When they unilaterally dictate someone's future, they are oppressors. Even if they are acting as a majority, they are oppressors. Real democracy and an enduring freedmom require going beyond the majority imposing its will on the minority. We are all capabable of contributing to other people in our own way. We can also change and create the world we live in provided we have the right opportunities and tools. Even if one may never change the world or even their own life, it is possible to stay true to one's principles and keep an intact personal life. No one should ever have to accept oppression or exploitation forced on them, no matter how ubiquitous it is or what 'society' says.
No one should never be told that their destiny will or ought to be determined by anything, let alone high school. Whether one has or has not discovered their strengths and talents makes no difference. It is extremely difficult to understand oneself and have an idea of the future at a young age. No one has enough life experience to know themselves as a person and their true strengths and weaknesses. High school is not the end of academic life, its not even close to the beginning of professional life, and it doesn't prepare anyone for much of anything. It may prepare some students bound college, but that is it. Nothing really fully prepares anyone for life; a lot of it is luck and the rest is how you play the cards that were dealt you. Next to finding opportunity and working well with people, it helps immensely to create a niche for oneself, which requires the ability to think for and understand oneself, as well as a lot of time and work. It wasn't clear to me at the time how many students do poorly in high school, go to community colleges, and transfer to really good universities. Most students I have known transferred schools within college for financial reason or because they got into a better school or one they liked more. Ultimately, their high school record counted for nothing. My 'failure' at ASIS had very little bearing on my life afterward. Any high school that has such lofty pretentions beyond getting students into college is full of shit.
back to top
XVIII. EDUCATION RACKETS AND WORK LIFE :
Understanding the 'quality' of any education requires first defining the meaning and function of education and who's interests are being served. The hardest part is then emperically measuring whether those goals are being reached and whether they are being reached because of attributes of the education system itself. There is disagreement on what 'education' is and is supposed to do. It's methods and goals have evolved over centuries depending on the demands and structure of society. From the outset it was elitist. Only a very small minority with the time and money needed and could afford one. Only the wealthiest who were involved in buisiness, government, and positions of power required any sort of esoteric knowledge of the world or even basic literacy. Education for such elites was not meant to be practical or job related as such positions of power did not require as much technical knowledge as talent and experience. Such positions were so limited in number and political in nature that the competition for them was also limited and did not occur in an open free market. Jobs that did involve technical skills all involved a system of very long term apprenticeship and were either hereditary or required strong connections. People didn't compete for such jobs either based on skill sets in an open labor market because such jobs were small in number, and because guilds and associations placed high barriers to entry.
The goals of education changed only when publicly provided universal education spread and society industrialized. For the elites of society in private institutions and universities, education remained a process of preparing people to become planners, organizers, managers, policy makers, and 'leaders'. Higher education in particular remained a place to distinguish and identify those top of society and to help them network amoungst themselves. For the masses public education became a process of socializing, conditioning, and sorting people for the demands of a regimented and specialized industrial labor force. As more and more different types of jobs emerged demanding a wider range of abilities, technical skills and intelligence, the need to sort people and place them into a hierarchy increased. As society become more complex and technical and as the middle class grew, testing, separating and tracking people to different academic paths became paramount.
The demand for education to involve practical job training also increased. However 'job training' for the most part has only involved 'blue collar' work, is still considered 'unacademic' in nature, and has not become a part of higher education. Higher education has not kept up with changes in society and still plays the same role it did many years ago, even though most people who graduate from higher education do not end up on the highest rungs of society. Most university programs even at the graduate level focus on research and theory as oppossed to practical job training, and higher education in general is just as concerned with prestige and pedigree as it ever has been before. Even today higher education does not even try to prepare you well for the work force(even if supposedly it does prepare you better than high school). Instead of teaching you specific practical skills, a degree often does nothing more than demonstrate that one has a certain level of discipline and organizational skills. This model of general purpose higher education may have worked years ago when fewer people possessed college degrees and when fewer technical skills were required in the workforce, but it doesn't work quite as well anymore.
Compounding this, more people now than ever before go on to higher education so that they can attain a 'middle-class' lifestyle. Ironically, the more higher education has become accessible and sought after, the more the obession with prestige and pedegree has grown. As more and more people go to college, a college degree has become more and more expected as requirement for jobs. Even at the graduate level so much emphasis is placed on pedigree, prestige, and weeding people out as opposed to practical training. As more people people go to college, a degree becomes less valuable, further driving institutions to subdivide rank colleges into more and more hierarchies in turn makeing the value of a higher education degree in general worth less(and in some cases worthless). With the majority of people applying to higher education, it isn't enough anymore to go to college. More and more one must go to the 'right college' while college itself has become the new high school. This obsession with prestige and status has created a self-perpetuating cycle.
While sorting and separating people of different abilities is neccessary, it becomes a problem when it is the primary focus of the education system and when preparing people for the final stage. Not everyone should be or needs to go on on higher education. What people do need is the skills neccessary to thrive in an increasingly technical and bureacratically complex world. It has gotten to the point where higher education itself has become a weeding out process to separate those who will get 'good jobs' from those who do not. Although empowering people, imparting knowledge, and teaching practical skills is more important now than ever before, the basic functioning of education of sorting and categorizing people has not changed much.
Going to any 'good' high school or university doesn't in of itself do anything. People who go to the best universities tend to be successfull because they have some combination of intelligence, talent, money, and connections to begin with. Ivy League schools are not in of themselves better at imparting information or teaching 'critical thinking skills' than other schools. The professors at most schools are roughly at the same caliber and one uses and perfects critical thinking skills every day. Such 'elite' universities are elite because many of their graduates go on to make a lot of money and give back to their schools. Such elite schools also get the most government money and produce the most research of all the universities out their. More money circulates through the school and more research is produced, but the quality and quality of learning isn't any different. Without money or connections, the only way to get into such schools is to possess a high processing speed and anlyticsl ability that can not be taught.
However, that is not what the education industry would have you believe. The education industry has grown so much that it has become another self-serving big buisiness industry. The amount of money made not just off of private universities and prep schools, but all the standardized testing prep courses and testbooks is comparible to any of the multi-million dollar industries in the world. People fork over more and more money so that they get a better shot at a 'higher ranked school'. Standardised test are suppossedly scientifically designed to measure without bias, a person's academic potential and yet prep courses claim to be able to improve one's score. This is just another ruse to separate fools from their money. More and more I can't help but feel that 'academic ability' is nothing more than the innate ability to process and organize information quickly. Ultimately, the 'best' universitites care about this more than hard work, dedication, character, original thinking, or intellect. That unless of course one has lots of money and connections.
ASIS used the higher education myth to serve its own ends. In the process it took the worst aspects of education to a new level; its obsession with competition, regimentation, and prestige, and its complete lack of practical value. Parents sent their kids their thinking that somehow they were giving their children a leg up when in fact such 'esteemed' institutions only feed the race to the bottom that is this quest for prestige. The place where I was encapsulated, epitomized, and ran a marathon with all the worst aspects of this world: arrogance, self-entitlement, elitism, pretentiousness, deception, hypocrisy, and group-think.
XIV. THE REALITY:
ASIS claimed to provide a rigorous and meaningfully education. The quality of education I received was at best mediocre. Truthfully the place felt more like a boot camp and a dumping ground for errant children whose parents couldn't or wouldn't put up with them anymore. Superficially the school was modeled on the 19th century British boarding school system. In the 19th century such boarding schools promoted ideas of service to the crown and Empire, and prepared its pupils to become members of the elite. Such schools focus on the classics, training in social mannerisms, and tough conditioning so that their pupils would someday be able to run an empire. All learning was role with the student being the empty cup to be filled by the teacher. Often times when such boarding schools were located throughout 'the empire', locals would send their children their in the hopes that their children could enter the governing british 'elites' or at least become part of the ruling bureacracy.
Academically, the school wanted students to be a mindless data processors and vomit bags for information that would not and could not be used in any meaningfull way. Critical thinking about the material and applying it was not important. All learning was done in a stricly binary and linear fashion. Teachers taught out of the book. 'Understanding' the material meant memorizing it and being able to reproduce it fast. Teachers called on students in class they just want to make sure they had read and sufficiently memorized the material. There was no worthwhile discussion of any material to indicate that the students had digested any of the material. The perspectives of the students or even the way in which the material relates to the world was completely irrelevant. There was only one right answer or methodolgy to everything; the teacher dictated, and I took notes. I remember often times teachers would not answer questions, get angry, or they would even refuse to take questions after class. Teachers confiscated any cliff notes they come across because the teachers may have well have been teaching out of them. At college, cliff notes are sold in university bookstores. I even remember teachers who graded in as arbitrary a way as possible so as to keep grades down and to cover up mistakes made on their own tests that they created. In essense, students 'learned' the material on their own.
Quantity and speed trumped quality and all academic work took place within a narrow framework. Grading was based soley on the ability to regurgitate the opinion of the teacher and memorize useless facts that the teacher thought were important. The material studied in itself has no value or purpose; the only point of it is to serve as a medium for assessing and ranking the productivity of students. All of the grading seemed to be strictly on a material covered basis; even in English classes material that was at best tangential had to be memorized. Being a good student means that you are a fast information mill that can take on a large workload, not being able to think independently and critically, apply information independently and usefully for yourself, or even care about the material. Thoroughness only counted towards quantity, not understanding something from many different angles.
Most of the testing was done in a way so as to make sure that students aren't 'cutting corners' and skimming material. Being able to talk about one aspect of a work of literature or the importance of a particular historical event was not important. I even remember that a lot of the teachers would not tell you exactly what they wanted you to regurgitate because as far as they were concerned you had to know the text book/work of literature through and through. You were not learning the principles behind something or how to do something. You were not even learning facts for the long run. You were just expected to store and process information for the time period in which it was deemed necessary. You were basically expected to memorize as much of the material as possible. At the same time, there was no room for differences of opinion or approaching things in a unique way. All ASIS does is turn you into a number crunching, regurgitating, soulless automaton that spent all their time on school work.
And because most of the classes were graded on a curve, a very low curve, the only way to do well was to kiss ass and prove to the teacher that you 'understand' the material better than your classmates. Content of thought, meaningful application, or depth of character is irrelevant. Questioning, let alone disagreeing with teachers, is not a good idea because it means less material for the class to get through and review for memorization. Even current affairs in British politics was never related to the material we studied. If you tried to get extra help because you were struggling in a class, the teachers would treat you like shit because it meant extra work for them. The teachers picked which students they did and did not like early on and nothing really changed. Those that they didn�t like they would belittle and mistreat. Even concepts like the fulfillment of one�s potential paled in comparison to 'school spirit', "being a team player", and class rank.
Socializing and conditioning everyone to fit the same mold took took precedence over any real education. Emotionally, the school tried to turn its students into single minded unquestioning mindless sheep and functionaries with a narrow outlook on life and a shallow understanding of the world, who kowtowed to 'superiors', the group, convention, subordinated all individuality to the herd under the guise of "excellence", "school spirit", and "discipline", and believed that going through the motions as efficiently and obediently as possible in order to compete, performing for the group, and be rewarded is the only purpose of life. 'Winners' dominated. Anyone that couldn't assimilate was ground up and reengineered as unquestioning type A 'winners' or put in their place. Self-improvement and self-empowerment were so narrowly defined as to be meaningless.
My life became a never ending stream of meetings,announcements, and ceremonies during which consent, or at least the appearance of it was manufactured. Everyone had to enthusiastically but passively play their role. Any gaps were filled in with admonishments, threats, and deadline reminders. The outward display of collective enthusiasm became a self-referencial ritual. p>The top of the hierarchy consisted of the students who spent the longest amount of time and whose parents taught there. The turnover within the school of teachers and students was extremely high. It was not uncommon for students and teachers to remain for only a year. This was juxtaposed with the families that litterally grew up in the institution. The 'winners' also included those who excelled in teams sports and got medals for the school. Within the hierarchy students also formed clicks based on ethnic/national/language backgrouns, border/day student status, and team sports status. Most of the people that transfered into the school came from other boarding schools, and knew instantly how find a click and 'fit in'. One of the things that always struck me the most was the extent to which people stuck to their own groups. What this meant was that unless you belonged to a group or excelled in team sports, you literally became invisible. Most people simply refused to talk to people out side of their own group, 'Friendships' were constantly being broken off as well. The drama, social climging, gossip, and rumor never ceased to end. It was like being imprisoned in an echo chamber of self-referencial bullshit. Inevitably, the people I associated with were far from anything one could really call a friend, even a fair-weather one. They were just the people that tolerated my presence.
This hierarchy was everwhere and permeated every aspect of life.Upperclassmen were given privileges and positions of power in the form of student prefects, held positions on 'disciplinary committees', and had their own recreational areas. Upperclassmen would also routinely harass lowerclassmen. There were thousands of pointless rules that serve no purpose other than to crush all individuality and to give authority figures and excuse to harass you. I remember not being allowed to take my jacket off on hot days before 12:00 PM and getting in trouble for taking my jacket off after I spilled a drink on it. Students were regularly sent back to their rooms to shave if their 5 o'clock shadow grew too dark. The workload along with all of the 'extracurricular requirements' were kept at a level so that I never had any real free time.
The problem was that the competitiveness of the school, its isolated atmosphere, and the fact that everyone knew everyone elses buisiness worked with the social situation to make a really toxic environment. Another problem was that the cliques revolved around lifers who were students who have spent most time in the school and who have family connections to the school. If you do not find a clique, then you are absolutely nothing. The school taught 'being a team player'. Being different is looked down upon. If you are different in any way or unconventional, you will stick out like a sore thumb and you will be ostracized and shat on. The school isn�t big enough and it certainly isn't supportive enough to be able to make a niche of your own if you are different. The isolated, hierarchical, and cult-like group mentality of the institution only enhances this. Because of the amount of time spent around school activities such as homework, required after school activities, required 'community service', and required school meetings, having a personal life that doesn't revolve around the school is impossible. The social situation was just another way that ASIS dominated my life and reduced me to an invisible number in a hierarchy.
The way the school structured the life of students made holding onto a strong individual identity extremely difficult. Even if a student didn't buy into the dogma, the game still had to be played. There simply wasn't enough time, space, or privacy to reflect let alone develop one's own personal life outside of the gaze of everyone else. Everyone was in constant motion and student's lives were mapped out. Going in any way against the flow was like moving against a tsunami. Ultimately the only way one could survive let alone get ahead was to be a servile sicophant to those above, a sheep with one's peers, and a bully to those beneath you. Being an individual and pursuing your own agenda outside and separate of school life was nearly impossible. I didn't even have the ability to figure out what I wanted because I was constantly being told what to do. Even when I called out bullshit when I saw it it didn't really matter because nobody listened to me or cared anyway. The ideology of the school constisted of nothing more spurious sales pitches awkwardly strewn together. Even when people didn't wholeheartedly believe in it they knew what was required in order to get their needs me. The only thing people in charge were interested in was fostering loyalty and obeidance to the school, dominating students, and reducing students to interchangeable production units that wouldn't question the agenda or operation of the school.
I could never understand how a place that prides itself on being so cosmopolitan and sophisticated would resort to the sort of ignorant bashing that it would ascribe to another society. Why would any institution that promotes being well-rounded, sophisticated, and cosmopolitan push any one single ideology whatsoever? What I could never wrap my head around either was how everyone could so enthusiastically think the same way. Even though I could not intellectually understand it at the time, I knew that it just didn't make sense. What was even stranger was the fact that the school did little to integrate itself into the neighboring school systems and society. To be quite blunt, in spite of being 'international', the school was as inward looking, insular, ignorant, arrogant, and as cut off from the rest of the world as any cult you could imagine.
back to top
XV. DELAYED GRATIFICATION OR WASTED TIME - MY EXPERIENCE:
Ups and downs are part of life. Conflict and problems are unavoidable. At some point eveyone oversteps their boundaries or overestimates their abilities and makes an ass of themself. At some point everyone gets humiliated or disappointed. Ideally the mistakes made are small enough that it is possible to learn from them, move on, and grow as a peron. Sometimes the negatives outweigh the positives, but as long as there is some positive in life that distracts, inspires, and drives, one can keep their head above water. It is the positive things in life that gives us perspective, find meaning, and shape our values. It is the positive things that afford us dignity.
When one's entire life loses all positives, everything changes. Even if one can hold on to hope of a better future, when the mind becomes preoccupied with survial, paricular emotions start to dwindle. Fear, anger, anxiety, fatigue, and pain are primitive, powerfull, and all consuming emotions. Quite quickly they inhibit and crowd out other emotions. Over periods of time such emotions will reduce and human being to the worst of animals, and can be toxically lethal to both them and the people around them. When one loses access any meaningfull justice and security, the mind and soul starts to atrophy.
Experience becomes reactive and hollow and the time spent trying to stay alive feels dead. The success of 'getting throught' is pyrrhic. That particular period in my life was an everstretching barren void of unaccounted time. Even the memories feel like they are in black and white; there is little personal contex, attachments, or meaning, just images and sounds. The emotions attached to the memories are powerful but hollow. The emotional context from one memory feels no different from any another. Everything felt the same.
I don't know why I did the things I did. I didn't have the time or the ability to understand anything. Every moment of my existance was preoccupied with some goal or going through some motion. I always felt the same; I was just doing the best I could reacting from moment to moment and living on autopilot. I didn't even own my own thoughts. Even the memories which should have been good memories felt like relief from misery more that happiness. I was too numb and overwhelmed with anxiety to really enjoy anything, and such moments were too brief to ever really feel meaningfull. Something bad was around the corner.
As extremely unhappy as I was with with my life during those years, I could never quite articulate in any precise fashion how I felt because I could never escape the emotion or the environment causing it. I knew I hated where I was, but I could never really fully understand why or have a whole lot to compare it to. The same feelings enshrouded my life at every moment. I was drowing in a great big looming dissipated grey haze of toxic gas. I wanted to leave, but I didn't have the strength to defy my parents or insight to understand myself and my situation. At first I genuinely believed that as awkward and challenged as I felt, things would somehow get better and that in the long run I would figure it out and benefit. I thought that I would 'adapt' and grow into a better person.
Things never changed. Everyday continued like my 'first day'. More and more I felt like there was something deeply wrong with me for not being able to get by let alone 'adapt'. I couldn't make sense of the people around me. No matter how much I tried to be with them, I never felt of them nor was I ever included, even amoungst my so called 'friends'. The more alienated and isolated I felt, the more I desperatetely reached out to people. The more I reached out to people and put myelf out on a limb, the more exploited and marginalized I became. Gradually, my sense of self was so shattered I didn't even have the strength to run away, even as things got worse. I just felt inept, scared, ashamed, and deeply alone all the time.
My status within the hierarchy had been determined within weeks if not days, based on some arbitrary and irrational formula. Everyone had already made up their mind about each other and the respective roles we were to play in life of the school based on the ability to compete, conform, project a persona, and play a role. The slots within the hierarchy had already been established. All that was left was to fill them. My life lost its personal story and subjective meaning. The die had been cast. The show had to go on and I had to play my role on the stage. I was just an actor who had to read his script so that the play could proceed uninterupted and the audience could be satisfied. At best I was a tool to fulfilling someone else's agenda. At worse I was an obstacle or social pariah. My agenda, my life, and my future only counted for anything provided they fit perfectly like a piece in a jigsaw puzzle made up of everyone else's agenda's. Collectively everyone's agendas were cast by the life and program of the school. Even my efforts to play the game and good intentions counted for naught. On a good day I was a wandering apparition and invisible. On a bad day I became an outlet for everyone else's pent up frustrations and a scapegoat of all that was wrong in what was supposed to be their otherwise perfect little worlds.
Breaking the mould and asking broader questions about life beyond the walls of the school or engaging in meaningful dialogue was the LAST thing anyone wanted or could do. People were too caught up in denial, hysteria, and the rat race of survival to really think about life outside the walls of the school. Outwardly, everything seemed harmonious and tranquil. The reality underneath was an awkward and capricious feeding frenzy contained within a echo chamber. In a desperate final sprint, people fed of each other like maggots feasting on a rotting corpse, squashing any deviance so they could get ahead or avoid being a pariahs themselves. Drama never ended. 'Friendships' disappeared as quickly as they appeared. Everyone was a stepping stone to someone else, and gossip took on a life and a purpose of its own. Showing vulnerablity was avoided at any cost. Expressing oneself honestly or showing any individually immediately identified someone who couldn't play the game; it only made one deviant or worse weak. Going along with the crowd was the only positive way of getting attention and competing and vying for social dominance was the only socially acceptable way of displaying individuality. Competing on behalf of the school was the ultimate way to rehumanize oneself while showing devotion to the 'community'. Even the faculty didn't give a shit. At opportune moments they put on the mantra of a role model, injecting their worldly wisdom and spewing their all purpose glib aphorisms and lofty platitudes. Truthfully their students were a chore. What mattered is the students made the school look good. Everyone was competing and fighting against each other tooth and nail, and yet obnoxiously projecting themselves cheerfully marching in the same direction at the same time.
I did eventually figure out that the whole thing was bullshit. I became angry, but even at that point I had become so engrossed in it that all I could sense was my own expendability, invisibility, transience, powerlessness, and isolation. I still couldn't understand why or how. I couldn't even express my feelings. Everyone around me was engaged in a constant struggle of denial and self-serving rationalization. All my interactions felt so proscribed and scripted. Many times I knew that there were people around me who felt in similar ways and were aware of certain things, but they couldn't articulate it, they would only admit so much and only in private, or they didn't care at all. All I knew was I was of no genuine value to anyone and that my self-interest and autonomy carried no weight whatsoever. The concept of a 'right' didn't exist, only obligation. Even just fighting for some positive attention was an uphill battle. As much as I caught on to how things worked, it was many years later that I figured out on a lucid intellectual level exactly how much of a pathetic game and a con the whole thing was.
As in any totalitarian system, everyone was forced to be complicit in the system. The fact that the school controlled every aspect of life fundamentally changed the nature of relationships between people. In such systems, it is very hard to isolate yourself from such a system without completely isolating yourself from everyone else. The system was hooked into everything. Even the few allies I had accepted the premise of the game. They even had the same particular complaints that I had but would never reject the system as a whole. One must either accept or reject such a total system; there is very little room for genuine permanent reform. Looking at totalitarian societies around the world(eastern Europe in particular), one notices that all movements for reform are short lived and are either brutally crushed or result in the complete dismantling of the system. It is the nature of such institutions demand total control. Such systems reform and relinquich some control only when they have absolutely no choice, not even for expedience sake and never as a matter of habitual long term policy.
For a long time I tried playing the same game and I didn't even realize it at the time. Youthfull niavite, instinct, and fear drove me to assimilate, and yet I never could. Just being 'different' in the most subtle of ways hurt me, and nothing I did helped me to fit in. When I tried desparately to fit in I just came off like a 'poser' and an imposter and I felt like some circus animal performing tricks. People couldn't even accept that 'a loser' such as myself could somehow have a worthwhile life. Whatever I choose to do, no aspect of my life failed to revolve around servitude, obeidiance, competition, and self-denial. After a while I didn't know how to do anything else and I forgot who I was. I forgot how to be a human being. Everyone was taught that the rules somehow existed to instill 'discipline', preserve 'order', and instill 'virtue', and that being able to 'suck it up' made you more of a man. There was no place or time I could openly and comfortably be myself and cultivate my own distinct personal life, and yet I wasn't even able to play the game well enough to save my own skin. Its one thing to watch a volatile mob erupt into an orgy of primal and carnal desires, its another thing all together to witness people day in and day out march in unison with such subdued cheer and banal obedience, only to ever break step to crush those beneath them. Nothing was more disappointing than watching people so enthusiastically participate and enforce their own oppression. Even people who were extremely smart towed the party line like dutiful lemmings; they refused to do anything but accept the system as a given at very best.
There are people who say everything happens for a reason. I wish I could say that about the world, but deep down people know that is not the way it is. I believe any avoidable suffering is absurd and pointless. I am not sure if my experience made me a better person. I was too emotionally and spiritually spent to realize how empty I was. It took many years before I realized the full extent that I had been taken for a ride. Being at an 'international' school didn't have the same credentials with universities as I was led to believe, and it helped me with nothing else in the long run. It had been beaten into my head from day one that the path to 'success' and 'happiness' is patience, hard work, strong character, and the ability to delay gratification. The only problem is that if you are playing in a rigged game personality traits and a concept of honor will not help. I can understand the concept of sacrifice for long term gain or for a genuinely greater purpose. Individuals and groups make sacrifices to progress all the time. But there was no gain, long term or short. None of the 'hard work', living up to other people�s expectations and values, following 'the rules', or failed attempts at fitting in paid off. I tried prostituting myself and my life to teachers and students alike to get my needs met and failed in the short and long term. The entire stretch of time was nothing more than a big zero.
Some people might say that I was too sensitive and that it was just a part of life that is difficult for everyone. If I had just sucked it up and 'taken it like a man' like all the other lemmings, it wouldn't have been so bad. I just needed to suffer in silence more and dish out more shit to the people 'beneath' me. Maybe my problem has always been that I think too much and that I am not 'practical' enough. Maybe if like Winston in 1984, had learned to love big brother, I would have been happier. Competition is a natural part of every aspect of life in this world. It is what drives the world and it what makes human beings strive for greatness. When however, competing to survive becomes the only purpose of life and nothing is given, everything becomes a commodity towards the end of survival and life itself loses all purpose and value. When exploitation and oppression occur under its guise, it is the WORST aspects of human nature that rise to the top, not the best. It is much easier to ignore the ignorance of other people and the injustices of your life when your present and future is not at their mercy and when they are not stopping your from getting your basic needs met. A dull, joyless, loveless, and barren life will still feel the same not matter how tough you are.
I can't believe I allowed myself to get so caught up in the propaganda of the school. At that point in my life, I simply didn't have enough experience or maturity to even begin to comprehend the situation on my own. As a teenager your inexperience, your heightened need to fit in and seek approval, and get your social and even sexual needs met can make you vulnerable to being taken advantage of. I wasn't even mature enough to find some productive and functional way of going against the grain or even doing my own thing. At any point in life, loneliness and isolation can warp your personality. As a niave youth, the consequences are even worse. I realize there was no way to emotionally distance myself from any of the things I was being told or the things happening around me, and yet I am still just as disappointed in myself as in other people for not responding differently. It took me a very long time before I became even close to having a good understanding of myself or the world around me.
If there is anything positive I have learned it is that if you really want to be loved, you need the strength to accept be hated. I would rather be hated for what I am that loved for something I am not. There will always be people who need to look down on, hate, and demean others in order to assert their status and identity and get their way. They NEED to be above someone else just to feel secure, and may target you no matter what you do. Fuck 'em. Such people are untrustworthy and potentially dangerous. Whatever they offer you in the present can easily be rescinded at any point in the future without a second thought. Other people may have no intentions of oppressing or hurting others, but nonetheless think that their way is the only way, and insist that you accomodate to them. Either way, both such types of people are not worthwhile on any level, and expending any effort to change their opinion or the way they treat you is a waste of time. The best responce is to ignore them, tell them to FUCK OFF, and refuse to decend to their level. One needs to pick and choose one's battles wisely but realize that there may be times when one just has no other option but to fight. Hiding who you really are or making yourself invisible just to avoid conflict with such people will not get you appreciation, acceptance, or toleration. It WILL NOT EVEN MAKE YOU INVISIBLE. AT BEST IT JUST MAKES YOU INVISIBLE TO POTENTIAL ALLIES AND TRUELY WORTHWHILE PEOPLE. AT WORST IT MAKES YOU MORE OF A TARGET BECAUSE YOU ARE INVISIBLE TO POTENTIAL ALLIES AND WORTHWHILE PEOPLE, AND BECAUSE YOUR POTENTIAL OPPRESSORS WITH THINK YOU HAVE INTERNALIZED YOUR UNPERSON STATUS. SAVE YOUR ENERGY FOR YOUR TRUELY IMPORTANT BATTLES.
WHAT SEPARATES US FROM ANIMALS IS OUR ABILITY TO THINK FOR OURSELVES, MITIGATE OUR INSTINCTS, AND DRAW A LINE. WHEN THAT IS TAKEN FROM US WE LOOSE OUR HUMANITY. JUST BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THINK A CERTAIN WAY DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. OUR STANDARDS DON'T HAVE TO BE IMPOSSED BY THE AVERAGE, MEDIAN, OR MODE OF THE MAJORITY. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE MY OWN VALUES, PRIORITIES, AND BOUNDARIES. I ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MY SELF-INTEREST AS MUCH A PRIORITY AS EVERYONE ELSE AND I DON'T HAVE TO LIKE OR ACCEPT OR PUT UP WITH ANYTHING WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION JUST BECAUSE ONE PERSON UNILATERALLY DICTATES SO. I DO NOT HAVE TO PUT ANYONE ON A PEDASTAL OR WORSHIP ANYONE OR THING, AND MAKING PEOPLE HAPPY AND FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY. I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE MYSELF TO ANYONE OR 'PAY MY DUES' IN ORDER TO EARN THE RIGHT TO NOT BE ABUSED AND EXPLOITED, AND I DO NOT EXIST SOLEY TO SERVE A FUNCTION TO SOCIETY OR SOME 'HIGER PURPOSE', NO MATTER HOW NOBLE. EVERY HUMAN BEING IS AN END TO THEMESELVES, NOT A MEANS TO OTHER PEOPLE. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPLOIT ANYONE OR TO TREAT THEM LIKE A PUPPET, REGARDLESS OF THEIR INTENTIONS OR FEELINGS.
back to top
XVI. CONFORMING AND BELONGING:
Like animals, people to band together to join groups and form organizations for their own individual survival. People join groups for employment, networking, social, and political reasons. Like animals, humans form hierarchies and create codes of conduct so that the group functions effectively; only our hierarchies and rules are far more expansive and complex. Modern society is a complex network and amalgam of many groups interacting with each other that wouldn't exist at all without rules, hierarchies, and norms. For whatever specific reason people join a group, they hope to protect and serve their self-interest in some way.
It is both rational and instinctual to join or stay in a group for practical, short term, and selfish reasons. Part of the exchange requires surrendering something and donating time and effort, but everyone expects to get something out of it. We do it when we get a job. Most people may not like their jobs and they chose among the options they have available for a paycheck; a selfish but necessary end. At the same time people don't have to allow themselves to be defined by their job, nor do they have to be particularly committed to their particular job and employer. Even if they dedicate themselves to their profession, there doesn't have to be specific allegiance to a particular employer.
Even jobs that demand a lot and offer little compensate with something transparent and concrete and will not demand conformity in every aspect of one’s life. The jobs where people work 80 hours a week tend to compensate well. Although they may dominate a person’s life on some level and demand a level of conformity at work, the exchange is still for the most part is transparent. To varying degrees the exchange is shallow but transparent. The façade of there being anything more than an economic exchange is very limited and both parties understand that their relationship is conditional an contingent upon each party getting something out of it. Almost never is there any evangelical aspect or concept that their job is connected to a broader social movement. Even if some deception is involved an one party has more leverage or bargaining power, the transaction for the most part is transparent insofar as both parties acknowledge that they seek nothing more than to benefit.
It is entirely another when one party sacrifices its self-interest and freedom for intangible and unquantifiable goals, whether it be 'belonging', 'acceptance', 'appreciation', enlightenment, or God. It is not rational to give up one’s freedom to benefit someone else, a group of people, or some cause. No cause can served by disempowering the very people intended to pursue it. People only surrender their freedom unwittingly because of deception, or because they are forced to. Usually the deception involves both offering something of value to the individual as well as the claim that some cause is being served.
Groups may be very cult like in nature and some groups are more cult like than others. There are no cut off points; there is only a spectrum of behavior. While many groups and organizations may be disorganized, dysfunctional, exploitive, destructive, and even violent, a cult is different in not just how much they demand but WHAT they demand and the fact that they operate in secrecy or the very least a lack of transparency. A gang is destructive and violent, but its goals are quite transparently self-serving. There is no pretense of serving society or a cause. Cults demand total loyalty and obeidience and complete conformity and uniformity of thought in order to attain some broad abstract goal. Cults represent the most controlling and dysfunctional of groups and organizations because the lack of transparency hides the fact that nothing is provided to their members nor any cause. The most cult like groups are those that are completely secretive and parasitic in nature.
Conformity is so important to cults because groups that are more cohesive function collectively more efficiently. The degree of conformity is to the extent that everyone is required to have the same goals and values. A high degree of conformity also ensures that independant minded or truely principled people who may pose a threat to the running of the organization are easily singled out. The very extreme tends towards collectivism, where no one really owns the fruits of their own labor and the welfare of the group is placed above the welfare of individuals.
Examples of collectivist societies include communism, fascism, and to a lesser extend feudalism. In a collectivist society the goals of the group are placed above the goals of the individual. There is little choice for individual expression or choice of values and people must play their role so that ‘society’ can achieve its goals. The danger with collectivist societies is that it is very easy for the people at the top to manipulate those beneath them, and maintaining group functionality requires constant direction and forceful prodding from above. Not only are collectivist societies are anti democratic in nature, they are often extremely so. Collectivist societies only exist by force, never consensus or even tacit consent.
Unfortunately, as we are pack animals, conforming comes second nature to human beings. On a certain level, everyone conforms to people around them, or at the very least censors themselves to avoid unnecessary conflict. Telling everyone what you are genuinely thinking and feeling all the time is not practical. Conforming can offer benefits, depending on the sitation, but the returns are diminishing. Not sticking out like a light bulb or being private are not the same as ‘fitting in’. Conforming and ’Fitting in’ goes beyond not straying to far from an average or receiving unwanted attention; it requires an outward display of following a code or culture. Such a mentality makes group and social interaction more efficient and ‘smoother’, but it isn’t necessary nor is it beneficial in most modern situations. It helps in organizations that must deal with chaos, such as the police and military, but it doesn't help foster creativity or entreprenurship.
Conforming never helps to meaningfully resolve conflict and foster growth, and it certainly doens't help make for real friendships. There is a huge difference between not revealing what you think in order to protect yourself, and mollifying and placating people and pretending to approve and be happy with them to fit in. You can meet individuals by joining a group, but you cannot have a relationship with a group. Relationships occur on a one on one basis and require honest exchanges and trust to last. When the intentions are transparent from the outset, people can join groups without conforming their soul and surrendering their sovereignty; ‘the group’ serves a purpose to the individual members without being placed above the needs and values of the people that make it up. Inside the group people can get to know each other and decide whether they want to pursue friendships on an individual basis.
On an individual level, conforming comes at a price. The individual can never be true to themselves and a group, and no compromise will satisfy either party. The more one conforms the more one becomes invisible. It is impossible to please everybody. The only way to win the approval of more people is to hide oneself from the world, which in the end only erodes one’s confidence and will. If conforming is taken far enough it can end up eroding one’s conscience and personality. At best, the more one conforms the more one ends up living up to a mediocre average.
This doesn’t mean that society can exist without rules and agreements. Everyone has obligations. At the very least we need to be responsible for and to take care of ourselves and put one foot in front of the other without imposing on the rights and boundaries or others. However, any obligations we have with other people come about as a result of a mutual agreement or understanding. Even our ‘Values’ and morality don’t just come from nowhere or from some abstraction. Every human being has their own personal values that they develop from experience interacting with other human beings. At some point, some people agreed on a set of collective values, culture, and a code of conduct because it served some function to someone. Sometimes the process was democratic. Most of the time it was not. Not everyone had to agree to such norms; as long as a critical mass did the functional results were achieved. Rules and 'values' have always served some functional purpose and have always changed as the world changed. Ultimately societies values are nothing more than an agreement between people.
So while we are obligated to respect the boundaries of others, no one has a moral right to unilaterally impose obligations or beliefs on anyone else. No one is ever obligated to ever accept any one else’s values or world view and no one ‘owes’ it to society to think certain things, appear a certain way, or be a certain type of person. Radically different people can and do cooperate all the time and heterogeneous societies can and do function quite well. As long as the vast majority of people can agree on some basic principles and live by the rule of law, they can coexist and even thrive. Ultimately the only obligation we have to ‘society’ is to contribute to the protection of boundaries so that it can function on a basic level, and to refrain from harming others or putting others at risk. Beyond that, nobody ‘owes’ anything to anyone else they don’t have a personal relationship with. People can and should do good or help others because they want to, even if ultimately they have selfish motivations, but it should be voluntary and undirected by anyone else.
What this requires is that they agreements be transparent. Manipulation and a lack of transparency is the cornerstone of an abusive and controlling relationship. When people demand that others approve of their beliefs or personality, demand that they adhere to rigid norms, tell others what to do or who impose their goals, values, or needs are on others, they always have a selfish agenda. Often they are trying to take advantage of other people. Unscrupulous, amoral, and self-serving people are comfortable resorting to controlling behavior to exploit other people, even their own "friends" and family members. The most common ruse is to accuse others of selfishness. Bad people will accuse others of selfishness when they don't have full control over them, or when they can't get what they want out of them. Such people will always be placing a demand on others, and nothing will ever be quite good enough. I do not trust ANYONE who tells me that I need to subordinate my self-interest and goals to some other person, group, institution, or abstract idea. No individual, group, or institution deserves to dictate value self-esteem based on what you provide for them, and no one should dictate your conscience. At the very least such people just aren’t interested in the welfare or even rights of others. What ever their logic may be, you can never help other people or 'the group' unless you can help yourself first.
I had other experiences brushing shoulders with cults, as I hopped from one cause and purpose to another, however I never stayed in them long as none of them had any real domination over my life or my future. I turned to these groups to fill a void and make sense of my life, only I realized how self-dealing these turd bowls were with their far out and ridiculous ideologies. What separated ASIS from other cults was that it really had a lot of coercive power and that I really hadn't chosen to go there. Even if I hadn't fallen for any of the school's manipulation or the peer pressure, the cult still dominated my life against my will like no other organization I had experienced.
I look back at how I hid so much of my personality so that I could get attention without showing any vulnerability. It’s only after years of experience that I realized how counterproductive that was. Today, I wouldn't even dream of trying to associate or even be around the people I once did. The only reason I even held them in any regard back then was because they were getting their needs met and I wasn't, and because they had a certain level of power over me.
There are always people who are able to play the game, conform, and compete in any social environment they are placed in. Such people are camelions. There are plenty of people who are happy if not at least functional being institutionalized or living in their own small isolated reality. Most of the people I know in Jehovah’s Witness are EXTREMELY HAPPY, but it is still not for ME. Jehovah’s Witness is not necessary or even good for everyone. Even prisons are full of people that can function better on the inside than on the outside. Everyone is different. All human experience is subjective. As in any society, in the end it boils down to where you are in the social hierarchy, whether you are getting your needs met, and whether you are exploited or are exploiting.
Outside of structured institutions, things like 'popularity', ‘respectability’, and ‘reputation’ do not lead or even correlate with social dominance. Conforming and playing roles are necessary, but one doesn’t have to micro manage their in order to be socially dominant and get by. Social dominance is far too primitive to have anything to do with being 'liked'. The most socially dominant figures in history all had many enemies, even if they had more followers. They survived because they were ruthless and they had a small groups of people they could trust under any circumstances. Social dominance and power gets 'respect', instills fear, and offers benefits, but there is no way to buy or seize trust. Trust is the most valuable thing on earth, and it can only be earned.
Trust is the cornerstone of a genuine friendship. A true friend is worth more than 10 allies. Such real friends are found; they are not made by exchanging favors or engaging in routine rituals and gestures. No matter how much time and energy is invested, any relationship based on quid pro quo exchanges where people are just feeding off of each other will evaporate as soon as circumstances change and one party fails to live up to its end of the bargain. A genuine and lasting relationship is a long-term partnership based on mutual empowerment, understanding, and growth. A true friend will challenge you, question you, tell you what they really think, help you understand things, and allow you to do the same. They can be trusted with the truth because they are not interested in leverage or control and they will not take advantage of your weaknesses. They will not always tell you what you want to hear, but they will tell you what you need to know. True friends accept and understand each other on a fundamental level because they can think and feel in a similar way while appreciating each other’s differences. A true friend will help you out even if it's not in their own best interest because they know the relationship they have with you is unique and irreplaceable.
Conforming, mollifying, and accommodating people to avoid lonelyness or judgement is entirely self defeating. There will always be people that judge harshly and unfairly no matter what. No one, not even the most ‘typical’ of people can please everyone anyway. All people have their own values and prejudices that are based off of their own unique life experiences and needs. Inevitably, people will judge others based on what serves their self-interest. Reason will not change their opinion.
Personally, I know no matter how hard I try, I will never 'fit in'. I am too different from too many people and I am not good enough at shallow perfunctory glib exchanges and interacting with people in groups. I would much rather live with people's judgments of me than limit and potentially destroy myself as a person. People that are quick to judge based off of superficial and arbitrary criteria are not interested in trying to understand something that exists outside the bubble of their tiny world. The gossiping, backstabbing, and drama that comes with cliques and social climbing takes up too much of my time and energy away from focusing on myself. In addition to being untruthworthy, unethical, and unworthwhile, I generally find the people that enjoy such behavior to be repulsive. Also when it comes to things like keeping up with fashion trends and gossip, I am as awkward as a polar bear playing ice hockey. Sheepish people have always been good at sniffing me out anyway. Being a sheep requires never thinking about things in any depth, abstaining from meaningful dialogue, and foremost not believing or giving a shit about anything.
No group or amount of people can ever exert full control over another human being. As much as our minds are suseptible to outside forces, we can always control SOME of our thinking. No matter how great and omnipresent oppression is, it can never fully penetrate the soul if one choses to act and think for themselves and keep their spiritual automomy intact. Even when we are forced to outwardly conform and parrot 'conventional' thinking, one never has to fully internalize any ideology against their will, or to allow another to determine their self-worth. Happiness and self-worth is a mental state that results from the emergent properties of many different variables. It doesn't have to correlate with status, power, wealth, or rank in the social pecking order. Such things don't even guarantee happiness. GPA, job titles, elite memberships, salary, and awards have meaning and define us only the extent that we confer on them meaning and value. No matter how alone we think we are we always have the power to reject the majority or the status quo. When a system becomes so ossified that it is resistant to any change or critisism, it undermines the very principle it is suppossed to serve. When a system and its ends become more important than life itself, such a system devoirs even its own most loyal adherants.
Not everyone can be on the top of the food chain. For every winner there is a loser. There is nothing honorable or dignified about being able to adapt to a sick society. Inevitably most people compete to survive, not to prove a point or because they believe in the system. People do judge others based on their status, superficial criteria, and the ability to play a game, but their opinions ultimately only matter to the extent that have a direct control over the lives of others. Such people have an impact on how happy you are only to the extent that you accept their assumptions and allow them to govern your personal life. If you reject their game, they can't get inside your head. One's best sense of identity and source of strength is knowing oneself and thinking for yourself. For that reason cults attack that first.
back to top
XVII. CULT BEHAVIOR VS 'HUMAN NATURE':
Before we can know how to deal with cults collectively as a society as well as individuals, we must face the question whether cults are anomolies designed by deviant and malicious individuals, or whether they organically, inevitably, and unavoidably arise from 'typical' human interaction. No one can pin down and explain 'human nature' as some sort of monolithic entity; it is as elastic and shaped by the environment as it is diverse. We can observe human behavior, but everyone's interpretation of that behavior is shaped by their bias. There are an infinite number of variations of an infinite number of patterns of general behavior driven by an infinite number of motivations. Everyone has different temperaments, cognitive abilities, needs, and methods of obtaining those needs, all of which are circumscribed by our environment. At this point, science still has much to learn about the human brain, let alone how human consciousness is formed. Even our consciouness is limited and shaped by our environment, making even understanding our own motivations and needs difficult.
Just as with pack animals, human beings needs other human beings to fullfill needs and survive. These needs can be for things such as food and protection which are essential to our immediate survival, but can also include sex, attention, love, purpose, and a commitment to values, which are vital for our procreation and continued survival as a species. Our most very basic needs essential to survival itself demand that we form groups and be dependant on other people. Nobody who lives in civilization is independent and it is very difficult for a human being to survive in the wild alone for any extended period of time. Most pack animals have a hard time surviving on their own, but the fact that humans are comparatively weak and ill equipped with physical weapons like claws and teeth makes us even more vulnerable on our own.
Our main weapon are our brains which enable us to to communicate with each other, organize, and plan ahead. Our survivability is tied in with our ability to function as a group, which makes us even more inter-dependent than most pack animals. In groups humans can accomplish things that no other species or individual human being can accomplish on their own. The same ability to communicate and plan ahead helps us to build bridges as well as kill woolly mammoths many times our size. There is control, safety, and ultimately power in numbers and organization that goes beyond the sums of any constituent parts. Our desire to form groups for our surival makes sense even if it is not completely conscious or understood by ourselves.
What fundamentally separates us from animals is that we have a conscious will that enables us to have needs that transcend basic survival. Unlike animals we have an imagination; we are conscious of our future, the welfare of others, and our own death. We have the ability to conceptualize our own self-interest and that of others. We can go beyond avoiding pain and survival and deliberately seek out pleasure. Conversely our heightened consciouness enables, if not compels some of us to transend an existence dedicated alone to individual survival, and to have a conscience and a moral drive to our behavior while simulteanously being able to seek some form of fulfillment or meaning in life. The very fact that we can control our environment means we can seek out a connection to it. Thus being a conscious human being without needs at all is impossible.
Even if we choose not to prioritize our own individual survival, we all fundamentally have some needs, whether spiritual, social, or material. All humans beings seek some form of pleasure, fulfillment, connection, or purpose. If one were to turn away from 'wordly temptation' in order to attain 'enlightenment' as a monk does, one would be trying to attain some need, no matter how intangible and abstract it is. No man is an island onto themselves. Even our highest order needs require some form of social interaction. It is hard to feel love, or even appreciate let alone create an idea, unless you have someone who inspires you and with whom you can share that feeling or idea. Even monks that seek to transend this world still need to band with other monks to create monastaries. They may reject 'worldly temptation' but they still need each other to survive and organize so that they can pursue their 'higher goals'.
Such 'needs' such as the desire to create, understand, or pursue knowledge may not be critical to our individual survival or procreation, but they have been important for group survival and procreation and absolutely essential for the advancement of the human race. Our ability to transcend individual survival in the pursuit of more permanent ideals and structures has helped the human race to develop technology, art, and science as well as create new ways of political and social organization. While not all human being have the same needs and abilities, we all inevitably consciously pursue goals of some sort at some point, whether for immediate individual survival or not. And no matter how independant we may be, at some point we need other people, which makes us all social beings regardless of our individual sophistication.
You would think our interdependantness and social nature would make our behavior more rational, and on the surface it may seem that way. Our behavior is certainly more sophisticated and organized. Unlike animals, we create the world we live in; we create complex organizations, plan ahead, communicate complex ideas, and develop sophisticated technology to control the environment. Nonetheless our fundamental drives and instincts are no so different from the one's that drive animals. Underneath all this deliberate calculation and our veneer of sophistication and advanced consciousness, human behavior is no than different from animal behavior. Just like pack animals, human beings join groups, compete within the group as well as with other groups, and form hierarchies for their short term self-interest and survival.
In spite of the simplicity of our drives, our added layer of consciousness and intelligence makes human behavior makes us more unpredictable, irrational, and disfunctional, not less so. The very fact that our behavior is so influenced and limited by our social organizations and environments makes our behavior even more unpredicable and irrational. The human world may be a sophisticated and organized place, but at its core more irrational, unpredictable, and often disfunctional than the animal world. If one can talk of 'Human nature' or 'human behavior', one can only speak of an amalgam of irrational idiosyncratic context driven behavior. We may create the social world we live in, but the social world we live in also creates us.
Cults are an example of extremely disfunctional and irrational group behavior. They serve as a great example of what happens when our primal instincts that normally have a survivial value are manipulated and hijacked so as to turn us against not just our survival as individuals but even our survival as a group. When trying to understand cults or any bevior, assumptions about 'normal' human behavior need to be challenged. Because of our sophistication it is very difficult to determine what is 'normal' behavior. What is 'normal' behavior is an ever shifting average determind by the political and social organization of the group. Cults may not be fringe entities composed of atypical people engaged in atypical behavior.
People in general may have a hard time coming to terms with how animal like we are, and how much we are shaped by our environment. We would like to believe that we are special and that there is a wide gulf between us and animals. It would be nice to believe that people are fundamentally altruistic and rational, and with a will completely free and of their own. Its hard for us to imagine ourselves engaging in the kind of acts we see on the news or that occur in far away lands. Its easy to see that only 'crazy' people or people from alien ways of life are capable of atrocities or what we see as moral transgressions.
To varying degrees I think most people see the world as an imperfect place where there are good guys and bad guys. Things may get better or worse over time, but things happens because of deliberate conscious choices of people. Slowly but surely, good will conquer evil. People cling to these assumptions contrary to all the historical experience and evidence from the experimentation. History does not move in a linear fashion. Things do not automatically get better. Humans engage in the same sort of brutality and barbarity committed thousands of years ago. The 20th century has seen cult like political parties take over entire nations, transforming them into totalitarian societies that have wreaked death and destruction over hundreds of millions. People worshiped political leaders like Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler as though they were infallible benevolent gods, even when as with Hitler, they were on the verge of distruction. Even with the collapse of Nazism and the Soviet Union, regimes like North Korea and Iran remind us that things don't neccesarily get better.
For this reason research and activism into cults is so important, valuable, and relevant to everything we do and who we are. Until we look at ourselves really critically as a species, I can't help but feel that real progress will have yet to arive.
back to top
XVIII. RECOGNIZING AND DEALING WITH CULTS:
Cult behavior is just as diverse as human behavior and can be organized in an infinite number of ways under an infinite number of banners. For every human need, temperament, and desire, there is someone or some group willing to exploit that need for their own benefit. Some cults promise earthly empowerment while others promise a closeness to God. Some promise their sincerity in fighting for justice and social and political change, and others just offer a job. While the intentions of those on the bottom and those on the top within each organization may vary, the dynamic of remains the same. Consciously or not, all cults control and exploit their members.
Cults are also very good at masking their control and exploitation in order to survive outside scrutiny. Their most visible and observable behavior will not appear to be deviant at all but rather innocuous if not benevolent. Human behavior occurs on a spectrum centered around constantly shifting norms; just as there is no template for 'normal' human behavior, there is no template for 'typical' cult behavior. The recruiting methods can be as varied and insidious as offering you information, inviting you out to a social gathering, or providing some free service. Cults will resort to the same sort of slick marketing techniques used by corporations, only when you watch a MacDonald's ad you know someone wants something from you. There is no easy way to identify a cult unless you get involved with a group and find out how they really work and what they really want. For this reason foremost, cults are dangerous; you can't always realize what you are up against until it is too late.
Either way you look at it, cults seduce people by claiming to offer something unique and valuable, but intangible and ultimately unquantifiable. It can be 'insider knowledge', 'enlightenment', 'fulfillment', 'belonging', 'special powers', 'God's Love', or even an alternate way of living to people who feel that they are missing something in their lives. Even when thy do offer something immediate and tangible it is usually small and inconsequential compared to the 'knowledge', 'opportunities', and 'experiences' provided.
However, not even the best philosophy will produce results on their own. Knowledge is power and certain people and ideas can be guides, but results come from the ability to apply knowledge, which comes from INDEPENDANT practice and INDEPENDANT life experience. The same solution will not work in the same way for everyone. There usually isn't a perfect solution. Occasionally there is no solution at all. NEVER is there one succinct answer to all of lifes problems. No group or institution has all the answers. Self-knowledge, which includes he ability to apply knowledge to very personal situation as well as the ability to understand how one learns bsst is one if the highest forms of knowledge. No person or institution can teach self-knowledge. It can only be discovered on one's own.
What cults really offer is a sense of purpose, belonging, and direction without actually offering the real thing. The security and simplicity that comes with believing in an ideology, having structure, and prostheletizing and suffering with others is highly appealing to those that feel lost or those who can't think for themselves. Such people are looking for reassurance of their ego and validation of what they already feel. A real sense of purpoe, belonging, and direction ccome from DISCOVERING knowledge together with other people and genuinely seeing eye to eye. A real sense of purpose, belonging, and direction comes from a partner ship based on mutual respect and trust, not just being members on the 'same team'. No sense of purpose and belonging is ever worth or will ever come with a loss of one's freedom and dignity.
I am wary of any group or ganization that constantly drives a hard sell, claims to be unique or offer a unique opportunity, or claims special knowledge and easy answers. I am doubly suspicious of any group or organization that places that much of a demand and restriction on my life, especially when such groups use emotional manipulation and personal attacks to get people to do as they please. No institution, group, or person on earth is so unique or worthwhile that anyone should subordinate their life or be miserable to remain. The only thing that can be unique and worthwhile are people. People do not exist to serve ideas or organizations, ideas and organization exist to serve people.
There are no magic bullets when it comes to dealing with cults just as there are no perfect solutions to avoiding scams and exploitation or even dealing with people. Everyone gets exploited, with or without their knowledge. Everyone is capable of being hoodwinked. I believe in nothing and I question everything, including myself. I cultivate my doubts to understand. I don't want to believe. I don't trust doctors, lawyers, or 'experts'. I realize they know more than me but I also realize they have an agenda and that they are fallible. I always get a second opinion and think for myself. 'Experts' make mistakes and deliberately mislead people ALL THE TIME. I don't care how someone dresses, talks, or how 'respectable' they appear, they can still be a bad person and they can still make mistakes. 'Experts' believed in witchcraft and that the world was flat for thousands of years, and the masses blindly followed them. I am even more skeptical of people who attack my critical and inquiring nature, and that demand that I look at everything at face value without looking at what lies behind it.
Even people with the best of intentions are capable of making errors of judgement and rationalizing. Everyone is biased and everyone has an agenda. Everyone might have snipets of truth but everyone also has an axe to grind. It is up to the individual to piece everything together. At the end of the day even if there are people who love you, the only person who can really look out for your self-interest is yourself.
The hallmark of a good person is that they have the ability respect someone or something that they don't understand. Any person or group that refuses to respect real differences between people or their thoughts and feelings is at best dubious and suspect. I hate cults because they insist on seeing everything in black and white terms and marginalize people who don't see things exactly their way. They shun meaningfull dialogue, and they place their agenda before and above everyone else. Even though some people can thrive in cult enviroments, cults in their very nature are oppressive and opposed to individual freedom.
back to top
XIX. WHAT MAKES IT WORTH IT?:
Everyone wants the best for themselves. On some basic level we are all unique. We all have different temperaments and needs and must follow different paths. What works for some will not work for others. No one can claim to have all the answers and there are no secret solutions. We are all so biased by our life experiences I don't even think there is s path or 'method' to the truth; often we just blindly stumble upon it. However, common sense and being honest with yourself can tell you when you are wasting your time and energy. Any rough 'solutions' we can come up with are usually not direct or immediate. Only the conditions that bring happiness and success can be worked towards. While certain elements may be necessary, they may also not be sufficient to get you what you want. After that all we can do is be patient, maintain our composure, and wait for our opportunity to strike.
Whatever approach seems more appopriate to life, one thing has become apparent to me. Unless one is willing to completely separate themselves from civilization, everyone has to deal with other people and whatever irrationalities they may have. You can try to keep your eye on the big picture, stay positive, and focus on yourself, but as some point you will have to deal with someone's bullshit. Also as much as I may not like it, there will always be people that are not going to change or be swayed by reason, especially when they are part of a group. A mob is always irrational and always wants its way. With regards to that, there are two paths. The first is to surrender, to allow the crowd to lead you around by the nose and to see the world through tinted lenses and emotionally fueled rhetoric and vituperative. Although things might seem to make more sense or at least feel more comfortable, eventually one's experiences become ever more shallow and thinking driven by passions, heuristics, and appologetics.The illusion of power one has by going along with the mob gradually goes away.
Clearly directly challanging a mob is dangerous and even going against the grain is more than challenging. One doesn't however, have to join the crowd to get one's needs fullfilled or feel safe and empowered. There is an alternative. It is possible to step back, pare down, and cultivate self-sufficiency and autonomy without being confrontational and without becoming invisible. One can trust their own instincts and ideas with enough practice. Develop them and nuture your ablilities, whatever they may be. As much as I have never liked crowds, I have learned to thrive in them if I can understand them, navigate my way through them, and am not dependant on them.
Navigating through the mob requires being able to think for oneself and on ones toes as well as interacting with people as an honest individual. Of course it can take a long time to feel that comfortable and confident living in one's skin. Living up to your full potential and finding people that think like you and truely accept you for who you are is a long, lonely, and arduous process of self-exploration that can take years and requires a lot of patience. A lot of people get by using shticks, gimmicks, and angles, but such methods don't work as well in the long run. Even people who are naturally talented spend years of hard work getting to the zenith of their careers. Some people never even understand themselves completely let alone discover their full potential.
However as much as one can choose to be in a mob without becoming one OF it, one can not avoid competition; it is an unavoidable and even neccessary aspect of life. Survival entails competition, and competition can drives people to innovate, excel, and push boundaries. However, competition doesn't have to be the most dominating force in life. When it does consume every aspect of our being, it can just as likely become a destructive force. When it does monopolize life, we can lose sight of our own talents, interests, happiness, and even moral compass. The trick is to accept competition as a means to an end and nothing more. It is meerly a vehicle for stimulating human creativity and growth.
The ablity to compete and survive doesn't have to go hand in glove with being a follower. Being competitive requires having a real good sense of oneself anyways; your strengths, limitations, and interests. Such self-knowledge separates self-confidence from arrogance and hubris. The most successfull of people are more than competitive; they are hard nosed, self-driven, independant and entrepreneurial. People like Donald Trump and Bill Gates are willing to take big risks and go into uncharted territory, and even go completely against the grain when they must. They find a small niche that they are uniquely suited to and in which they can dominate. As driven as they may be they don't have to find a way to be better at something everyone else can do. They make their own path and enter a new area where their pool of competion is so much smaller. Rather than breaking to the will and fitting the mold of the group to survive, such individuals march to the beat of their own drummer and thrive. They leave the mob altogether, and when they can't leave it, they lead it.
The only way to even begin such a process is to develop a foundation in some sort of safe space that at the very least provides some level of privacy and autonomy, where one does not have to worry about basic survival and safety. Even the most talented of individuals need support and guidance to achieve their goals. It is much easier to excel in things because you intrinsicly derive some pleasure, benifit from it, or believe in it on some deeper level. Doing things to satisfy the fickle desires in others never leads to long term satisfaction. If you feel the group or institution you are in does not respect your differences or autonomy, let alone dignity as an individual, I can't see how you will get anything out of it.
I regret that I over invested in other people and their interests, ideas, and agendas, and underinvested in myself. I didn't take enough time to really explore and develop my talents, abilities, and values. I am still coming to a better understanding of myself every day. Nobody can be completely independant, but the best investment in life is in yourself; you are the only person you can depend on and no matter what happens, you will have to spend the rest of your life with yourself. Even your best corner man can't be by your side all the time. With all the support in the world, when you enter the ring you still enter it alone. If you are going to overinvest and overcommit to something, do it with yourself.
People often think those that do not play the sicophantish game of social climbing, role playing, and wearing a mask are impractical, 'weird', and arrogant. They especially hate people who get their way by NOT being like everyone else and flaunt it. They get angry that THEY had to 'pay their dues' and put so much effort into being a sheep while someone who gets their way doesn't. However I also think that respect is overrated. If people judge and condemn without taking the effort to engage in meaningfull dialoge or even conduct basic research, then they are a waste of time. Their checklist, credentials, and status don't mean anything. Furthermore, if they openly disrespect others simply because they are different, think differently, or have different goals, then they are scum bags, end of discussion. Such people will always be around, and as long as they keep out of my face or waste my time, I really don't care. They can think whatever they want. Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one. Unless people are willing to engage in a meaningfull exchange of ideas or at least provide some reasoning, their social status and judgments are irrelevant. I am not going to set aside valuable real estate in my brain to analyzing people's bullshit perceptions of me and the world simply because they must have a captive audience and they want their way.
I will also not allow people to mold me into the image they see fit. I am not going to step outside of my comfort zone just so that others can be in their element and remain in their bubble. Not being a docile sheep doesn't make me strange or defective. Anyone who shames or uses any form of emotional blackmail is full of shit and disrespects the intelligence and dignity of other people. Unless I have a gun to my face, I am not going to change who I am because the group claims it has more purpose or worth than myself. I will allow myself to bend in the wind and evolve, but not to be uprooted. I will not allow myself to be tossed and turned about like some leaf in the wind without any questioning or thinking. I won't always be able to stand against a mob but I will always refuse to go along with it. If I am unable to refuse to go along with it or leave it, I will do everything in my power to subvert it from within.
No one needs to approve of me, value me, or accept my values. All I ask is to be left alone to pursue my own happiness and I will gladly return the favor. I would rather just strike out on my own and completely fail and fall flat on my ass. Is it worth trying to get ahead by doing what everyone else does and keep on failing even worse if in the process you become miserable? Is it worth getting used to a less than desireable situation when you fail to grow on any level? At least when you fail on your own terms you can actually learn something and evolve.
And even if you fail, at least you will be somewhat happier and content knowing you gave yourself a chance. Even though they might not act it, most people would agree than anyone who respects others and tries to fullfill their potential has value. The world operates on self-interest. I am not going to put the self-interest of anyone else or some cause before my own. And I am not going to appologize if I need time to make up my mind or I haven't made up my mind at all. I don't trust people who force others to take a position or side and demand loyalty. I especially hate those that try to map out my life, force me to live up to their expectations and values, or agree with them.
I am also not going to allow other people to waste my time or effort and abuse my trust anymore. I am not going to put the same level of effort into people, unless they demonstrate to me that they are worthwhile trustworthy people and that they are willing to return the favor. It is not self-entitled to ask that people sell themselves and invest in me as much as I do in them. I don't even want to prove that I am trustworthy, that I have character and integrity unless they can return the favor. I owe them nothing. I don't care how lonely, weak, desperate or needy I get, unless I am held over a barrel I will not surrender my autonomy or dignity. Nobody is so special that they are entitled to mistreat or exploit anyone else.
I realize that everyone has to conform and censor themselves to an extent and in particular situations; society would fall apart if we didn't. However, I am not going to try to change or micromanage my personality or molify other's feelings and ideas simply to please other people, make them like me, or 'fit in'. There is no functional value to living your entire life according to someone else's expectations or just to please other people and serve their self-interest. No single persons values and opinions are so infallible that they have the right to force the world to revolve around them or to make other people feel like shit because they don't live up to them. No one deserves happiness anymore than anyone else.
I am not advocating rebelling or standing out for its own sake, or being an anti social asshole, I am just not interested in being a sheep or a pawn anymore. People don't have to have the same goals and values to cooperate and enjoy each others company let alone respect each other and coexist. If they can't do so, fuck 'em. It is good enough just being happy doing your own thing. Unfortunately, you may find that you feel more lonely and at times even scared, and you may wish deeply to be 'included' into the group. However, as Fredrick Nietzsche stated, 'The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.' The companionship, comfort, safety, and sense of importance of being a part of the group is an illusion that exists only provided that you play a role and serve 'its' needs first. Good people and true friends will get to know you, listen to you, and eventually care about you for who you are and not just what you do for them. Good people and true friends will respect and care for you regardless of whether you share the same path, because they realize that regardless you may eventually reach the same destination.
back to top
XX. LINKS TO OTHER PAGES:
I would be more than happy exchange links to other people's pages. I have no set ideology or agenda, and I am eager to cross reference with a wide range of interests. Please feel free to e-mail me with any questions. Below are a copy of links I think are usefull.Cult Awareness and Information Library
Religion News Blog - Today's Cults: You Might Not Recognize Them
Watchman Fellowship�s 2001 Index of Cults and Religions
ApologeticsIndex
CultFAQ.org
The Rick Ross Institute
F.A.C.T.net
Ex-Cult Resourse Center
Aesthetic Realism is a Cult
Steven Alan Hassan's Freedom of Mind Center
What Is a Cult?
reFOCUS: Recovering Former Cultist's Support Network
Personal Growth from SelfGrowth.com-- SelfGrowth.com is the most complete guide to information about Personal Growth on the Internet.
back to top
XXII. ARTICLES
Self Help Cults
Chung Moo Doe Martial Arts Cult Info at Rick Ross
Chung Moo Doe Martial Arts Cult Info at The Freedom of Mind Center
Alcoholics Anonymous Info at Freedom of Mind Center
Alcoholics Anonymous by Paul Roasberry
Alcoholics Anonymous by Jack Trimpey
Siddh Yoga
Re-Evaluation Co-Counseling
Life Spring
Religious School Cults
Greenville Christian 'School'
Christian School Tells Student to Skip Prom
Political Cults
*Disclaimer: This account is an account of my personal experience of my distant past. At this point I can not make first hand assertions to the current state of affairs of any mentioned institutions. All opinions expressed are soley my opinion and perspective. I make no claims about the intentions, characters, or reputation of any individuals in particular.
View My Guestbook
Sign My Guestbook
Self Help Cults
Chung Moo Doe Martial Arts Cult Info at Rick Ross
Chung Moo Doe Martial Arts Cult Info at The Freedom of Mind Center
Alcoholics Anonymous Info at Freedom of Mind Center
Alcoholics Anonymous by Paul Roasberry
Alcoholics Anonymous by Jack Trimpey
Siddh Yoga
Re-Evaluation Co-Counseling
Life Spring
Religious School Cults
Greenville Christian 'School'
Christian School Tells Student to Skip Prom
Political Cults
*Disclaimer: This account is an account of my personal experience of my distant past. At this point I can not make first hand assertions to the current state of affairs of any mentioned institutions. All opinions expressed are soley my opinion and perspective. I make no claims about the intentions, characters, or reputation of any individuals in particular.
View My Guestbook
Sign My Guestbook
Chung Moo Doe Martial Arts Cult Info at The Freedom of Mind Center
Alcoholics Anonymous Info at Freedom of Mind Center
Alcoholics Anonymous by Paul Roasberry
Alcoholics Anonymous by Jack Trimpey
Siddh Yoga
Re-Evaluation Co-Counseling
Life Spring
Religious School Cults
Greenville Christian 'School'
Christian School Tells Student to Skip Prom
Political Cults
*Disclaimer: This account is an account of my personal experience of my distant past. At this point I can not make first hand assertions to the current state of affairs of any mentioned institutions. All opinions expressed are soley my opinion and perspective. I make no claims about the intentions, characters, or reputation of any individuals in particular.
View My Guestbook
Sign My Guestbook
Christian School Tells Student to Skip Prom
Political Cults
*Disclaimer: This account is an account of my personal experience of my distant past. At this point I can not make first hand assertions to the current state of affairs of any mentioned institutions. All opinions expressed are soley my opinion and perspective. I make no claims about the intentions, characters, or reputation of any individuals in particular.
View My Guestbook
Sign My Guestbook
*Disclaimer: This account is an account of my personal experience of my distant past. At this point I can not make first hand assertions to the current state of affairs of any mentioned institutions. All opinions expressed are soley my opinion and perspective. I make no claims about the intentions, characters, or reputation of any individuals in particular.
View My Guestbook
Sign My Guestbook