Agressive Proselytizing-a Defense Mechanism

How many people do you think get brought into a Religion as adults with the words "Do it or you'll burn in hell!"  I would wager few, if any are lured in by this type of ranting.

So why do it?  Who are they convincing?  Aren't they just wasting their time? 

The truth is, they don't want you to accept it.  They may call you a fool, hell-bound or even lash out at you, but in reality-though they often do not realize that their methods are designed as such-they push people away.

People like Fred Phelps do not want acceptance, they want rejection.  It is no secret that it is easier to make someone hate you, than it is to make them love you.  Consider also how such individuals take pride in being one of the few who will make it to the promised land, or escape the wrath of God.  If theirs was a much more pleasant message, they'd gain a much larger following-even with their beliefs.

Yet gaining many converts only diminishes the reason they do this in the first place.  By your rejection, you're "proving" to them that their beliefs were right.  After all, their doctrine or leader said there would be "mockers and blasphemers".  When you attack them, you only reaffirm their beliefs-you do nothing but strengthen their conviction.

Though Adolf Hitler gained a massive following, his statement about this mindset reveals a lot about the nature of fanaticism-

"Any man who is not attacked in the Jewish newspapers, not slandered and vilified, is no decent German and no true National Socialist. The best yardstick for the value of his attitude, for the sincerity of his conviction, and the force of his will is the hostility he receives from the mortal enemy of our people." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

To Hitler, like Phelps or any other such leader, hostility cannot derail them, and in fact adds fuel to the fires of their hatred.  In Hitler's case, even the defeat of the Third Reich has done little to end the appeal of Nazism.  To it's adherents, the fact that it is attacked is only evidence that their enemies fear them, and are in a conspiracy-a global one-to destroy them and rule as they see fit.

Whenever Phelps is publicly attacked or ridiculed, he is overjoyed-because this only reaffirms to his followers that he was right-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e647x8xFKTs

So Aggressive Proselytizing is essentially this-

=A defense mechanism designed to illicit rejection and hostility to reaffirm in the minds of the proselytizer that he was right, as backed up by his beliefs in advance.

Why Style and Planned Obsolescence are Essential to our Economy

When you want something because you don't have it, how can you appreciate it when you do?

Outside of essential needs like food, water and shelter, we often have a whole slew of other "needs" to attend to.  We "need" that brand name shirt, we "need" that new SUV or we "need" the latest iPhone.

We want them simply, because we don't have them, and don't want to be caught without them.  Two nearly identical products can have two different brand names, yet one is "in" and the other is "out".  Even more bizarre, one may be vastly inferior but its brand makes it a "must have" item.

But these things lose their value, don't they?  While still usable, we quickly upgrade to keep up.  The socially conscious individual must keep up or be ridiculed for having the old version of the product.  Why is this?

Perhaps it's the sacrifice we make to help keep the economy going.  For a moment, let's delve into a hypothetical situation-

You work in a factory that makes an item-any non-food item such as clothes, electronic devices, etc.  You are a moderately productive employee, and each day you produce 2000 of this item.  The item changes frequently though, and adapts to the demands of style.  Suddenly, the consumer decides that he or she doesn't want the latest version.  He'll use the one he has until it wears out or breaks.  Perhaps he won't even buy it at all.

A few here or there won't affect your job that much.  Sales may go down, but you'll probably be okay.  But what if this becomes a trend-frugality?  Suddenly, the people begin to question the need of upgrading every few months to the new item.  Suddenly, you're making from 2000 to 500.  From 500 to 100.  Eventually, your factory closes down-everyone has your product!

But before this happens, the CEO has an idea-if the people will only use something as long as they can-why not make it's lifespan much shorter?  Why not make it with inferior methods, parts or software?  Now it wears out quickly, and they have to buy it more frequently?

This is known as Planned Obsolescence, and it may be annoyingly essential to our economy, especially as people out of necessity are getting more and more aware of how the fashion and style industry work.

But why do we think we need these things at all?

Enter Edward Bernays (November 22, 1891 – March 9, 1995) , nephew of the famous Sigmund Freud.  Believe it or not, at one time companies were worried about making too many products and not being able to keep up with demand.  Yet people at that time  were buying things based on quality, necessity and practicality.  Henry Ford even famously quipped "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black".

The idea of using products to express themselves wasn't yet a concern for the consumer.  However, using his uncle Sigmund Freud's work on Psycho Analysis, Bernays blended his own expertise in Marketing and helped create the Style Industry as we know it today.  Products were no longer just about how good they were or how practical they were-now products could be used to express ourselves.  The Public, hungry as they always have been and will be for showing their place in society, gobbled this up and asked for seconds.

So while frugality is an excellent attribute for the individual, it actually harms the economy, because every item you don't buy is an item that isn't sold which is made by another person like you who depends on being able to produce and sell.

So while many decry it, style and fashion is unfortunately an intricate part of our economy-the natural result of too many people having all essentials covered yet still needing jobs.

Once essentials are met, the trivial becomes essential as well for the economy to work.  So that is why we've been convinced that we "need" this or that item, and the way we've been convinced wasn't with logic, it was with our need to belong and fit in.