Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|
Back to Blog
OPAL POLYNICE
Possibly one of the most bizarre events to emerge from Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Justice hearings was the hexing of Kavanaugh, organized by Catland’s Books in Brooklyn, New York. The event, which was also streamed online, was attended by dozens. While they withheld from publicizing the contents of the spell they used to hex Justice Kavanaugh, organizer and co-founder Dakota Braccielle told the BBC that the hex was “aimed at exposing Brett Kavanaugh for what he truly is, to cause him harm and see him undone.” This was not the bookstore’s first time hosting an event of this kind. The previous year, they organized three hexing rituals designed to target President Trump, under similar intentions, with tickets reportedly selling out at each event according to owners. Many found this strange, and even amusing, as pictures of witches hexing Kavanaugh quickly circulated around social media. But it is only affirmation that occultic practices have regained salience in pop-culture. Why is it that, despite a declining religious population, religion never seems to die? In fact, data suggests that the dying Christian population is only being replaced by pagan practicing religions. The occult seems to be a trend that always dies and re-emerges every generation or so. Perhaps it is our natural human curiosity that inclines us to explore spiritual practices, leading it to be always rediscovered, rebranded, and returned for another generation to utilize. In order to explain this phenomenon, some theologians have offered an explanation of natural law, which I think some readers might find useful. Natural law is a philosophy that has been formulated to explain the rule of conduct intuitive in all human beings. There is no specific date of progression for this philosophical thought, though we know it was the subject of much consideration for the Greek philosopher Aristotle, and later popularized by the Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas. The essence of the natural law is that there are manifested moral truths which direct the reason of rational creatures and which every rational creature is capable of accessing, permitted they have the full use of their intellectual faculties. We know, for example, that lying, cheating, stealing, killing, and other similar acts are fundamentally wrong. We know them to be wrong because our reason can distinguish that these are harmful acts which cause injury to other persons. Because we are sentimental beings— meaning we are capable of registering and reflecting on emotional experiences in complex and multifaceted ways— we are capable of comprehending the pain of other creatures and ourselves, and coming to the conclusion that pain is a disordered state we are not comfortable existing in. Discourse on natural law gets incredibly convoluted and complicated, and so for the sake of clarity, I will limit our definition to what we have described above. The concept of natural law may help to explain why human beings are inclined to conceive or internalize a belief system; we are literally wired to. If you are skeptical of such a characteristic existing preternaturally in all rational beings, I also took the liberty of defending this concept scientifically. In his article “Do Humans Have A ‘Religious Instinct?”, Brandon Ambrosino explores the rationale behind the conception and proliferation of religion in an attempt to understand the basic primal necessity humans have for a system that organizes and simplifies complex ideas in more accessible ways. In it, he observes what leading neuroscientist Andrew Newberg says about the human brain. Newberg says that “If you contemplate God long enough, something surprising happens in the brain. Neural functioning begins to change. Different circuits become activated, while others become deactivated. New dendrites are formed, new synaptic connections are made, and the brain becomes more sensitive to subtle realms of experience. Perceptions alter, beliefs begin to change, and if God has meaning for you, then God becomes neurologically real.” (qtd. How God Changes Your Brain). Further, the neurologist says that “[religious experiences] satisfy two basic functions of the brain: self-maintenance (“How do we survive as individuals and as a species?”) and self-transcendence (“How do we continue to evolve and change ourselves as people?”).” In other words, there is a biological necessity for religion, or at least similarly organized institutions. Not only normative truths indicate inherent religiosity, but empirical evidence suggests a similar conclusion: we are wired to be spiritual beings. So, why is this important? Is this an op-ed trying to get you to go to church? Not necessarily. This is important because, despite a decline in populations that identify as Christian, religious practices themselves have not declined in the same way. In the absence of Christianity, other spiritual practices have occupied the vacuum left by organized religion. Take, for example, the Satanic Panic. In the 60s and 70s, an explosion of occultic practices resurfaced and made their way into mainstream media to be consumed by a rebellious younger generation and become the face of the ‘counterculture’. A proliferation of rock bands and music revived occultic obsession, with bands such as the Rolling Stones, AC DC, Led Zeppelin, Floyd Pink, and others famously intertwining their arts with occult symbolism and ritualism. Even the Beatles made uncanny references to occult figures such as magician and occultist Aleister Crowley, infamously called “The Wickedest Man in the World.” Movies such as “Rosemary’s Baby”, “The Exorcist”, and “The Amityville Horror” became massively popular, and around the same time we witnessed a rise in the popularity of Eastern meditative practices such as yoga, mindfulness, reiki, new thought, as well as western esotericism. Average millennials have a hard time connecting with Christian doctrines, many of which they feel uphold patriarchal and heteronormative tenets and harmful constructions of gender roles. In turn, many have turned to New Age practices, which Burton describes in her article “The Rise of Progressive Occultism” as “a variety of anti-authoritarian spiritual practices that stressed the primacy of the self, the power of intuition, the untrustworthiness of orthodox institutions, and the spiritual potential of the ‘forgotten’—often women.” These types of practices are more accessible for a generation looking to include the intersectionality of race, gender, and sex in a more inclusive framework that at once allows them to express their identity and feel empowered by inclusive belief systems. It is no surprise, then, that as Western-normative religions decrease in popularity, and as generational changes in behavior accommodate a more liberal philosophy, we see likewise a shift in religious practices that affirm one’s identity and reinforce one’s moral convictions. As observed by many, fascination with eccentric spiritual devotions was a direct result of the rejection of Christianity. The rejection of institutionalized religion did not mean humans evolved past the need for religious experience. The rise of Satanism, Wicca, witchcraft, and other similar categorically defined ‘others’ has grown exponentially, especially since the early 2000s. The Satanic Temple, founded in 2012 by Lucien Greaves and Malcolm Jarry, has increased its membership from a few dozen to tens of thousands, with the organization having chapters nationwide. In her documentary Hail Satan?, director Penny Lane interviews temple directors and coordinators who explain that the Temple is not an organization dedicated to the worship of Satan, unlike the Church of Satan founded by Anton Levay; it is a self-described non-theistic religion that contains all the conditions of a ‘religion’ while distancing itself from any particular practice. Lane herself attributes the popularity of the Temple to the fact that “Religion provides a way of healing, meaning, and organization and narrative, coherent and community and ethical kind of standards or ways we consider difficult problems of how to live your life, that’s heavy stuff. So when you lose religion, you get a whole lot of people like myself who find themselves casting about for that kind of organizing principle.” Wiccanism similarly has grown in membership from 8,000 in 1998 to 340,000 in 2008, and again to 1.4 million in 2014. It is important to note that these figures, gathered by the Pew Research Religious Landscape study, only documented those who identified as Wiccan or pagan, and not necessarily all who ascribe to non-Christian, non-theistic, or polytheistic religions. The numbers may be even higher than reflected here. In fact, studies would suggest that those who dabble in the occult don’t always formally identify themselves as witches. There is increasing interest among millennials who dabble frequently in a mix of eastern and indigineous practices while not ascribing to any particular group. From yoga, to tarot card readings, to reiki, to crystals; interest in practices with mystical properties is trending with young adults. In September of 2018, Sephora attempted to sell a $42 ‘witch starter-kit’ to capitalize off the growing market, though backlash from actual witches forced them to pull their product before even leaving shelves. And then there are plenty of witches who sell their services, such as Juliet Diaz who lives in New Jersey. In an interview with The Atlantic, Diaz describes the work she does as a witch, which includes but is not limited to, doing magic on behalf of others who seek wealth and power but do not know how to perform the rituals themselves. Her most popular service is a $45 ritual for ‘manifesting intentions.’ She reportedly performs up to 100 candle services each month and sells out within a day of promoting her service. She can help manifest things such as job promotions, business startups, wedding proposals, and court wins. As young people grow more frustrated with institutional religion and become more distrustful of doctrinal teaching, they turn to more flexible spiritual practices that they can mix-and-match according to their needs, and prefer quick-fixes rather than relying on a God-like figure to solve their problems. Occult practices have also come to be a form of resistance for many who feel it is an effective way to fight against an ‘oppressive system’, a movement that has been termed ‘progressive occultism’. Burton mentions in her article that “The scholars Joshua Landry and Michael Saler call this [quintessential] phenomenon ‘re-enchantment.’ In their 2009 book “The Re-Enchantment of the World: Secular Magic in a Rational Age,” they argue that we are seeing a resurgence in seemingly atheistic spaces of ‘a variety of secular and conscious strategies for re-enchantment, held together by their common aim of filling a God-shaped void.’ The contemporary millennial Left, increasingly alienated from a Christianity it sees as repressive, outmoded, and downright abusive, has used the language, the imagery, and the rituals of modern occultism to re-enchant its seeming secularism.” And that’s the point: at the root of it all, we are spiritual creatures searching for ways to rationalize the world around us. With Christianity on the decline, it has not made us any less spiritual, our attention has merely shifted to other mystical phenomena to satisfy our compulsion for ritual behavior. We are finite beings made with a capacity for the infinite; we look for a higher being to satisfy our natural desire for peace and stability, and to direct our conscience. This was, in earlier times, fulfilled by Christianity, but with an influx of alternative devotions, is steadily being replaced by the occult.
Back to Blog
OPAL POLYNICE
The recent Gamestop controversy has revealed something we have all known for a long time: corporations are primarily concerned with enriching themselves. It also revealed their sense of entitlement; only ‘insiders’ are allowed to manipulate and profit off of the stock market. As soon as others do it, institutional investors disable trading platforms to disallow members from buying more stock, forcing the stock to decrease in value and crash because they would rather let the money burn than let anyone else enjoy it. But that’s not what this article is about. The whole scenario got me thinking, and I realized how little I know about the stock market. And precisely because of my ignorance, and that of millions of other Americans, institutional investors and CEO’s got away with off of market manipulation for decades. So I set out on a journey to learn more about how the stock market works and came along some interesting information, namely that the stock market indirectly affects our wages. I am going to learn you a thing I just learned myself five hours ago, so sit back and enjoy this article on why companies are purposely keeping your wages low and how it is not a figment of your imagination. According to a study by Congress, wages for workers in the 50th percentile increased about 8.8% overall from 1979 to 2019. This figure does not reflect changes in wages for minority groups, whose numbers show significantly more depressing figures, with black workers earning 1.2% more and Hispanics earning 2.2% less. Wages in the 50th percentile (the number of Americans who earn a higher salary, on average, than 50% of the adult population) went from $21.14/hr to $23.00/hr over the last 40 years. Wages in the 10th percentile increased overall by 6.5%, going from $11.27/hr to $12.00/hr. What does this mean? For millions of Americans, wages have either undergone unremarkable change or have even depreciated. What about the top 1% of earners, or those who make at least $737,697? Over the same period of time, they saw their wages increase an astounding 160%, and 0.1% earners saw their income increase 345.2%. If we further specify the category of earners and focus on CEOs, then the wages from 1979 to 2018* have increased 1,008%. Now, of course, the problem isn’t Chief-Executive-Officers (CEOs) earning more money over time. The problem is wealth distribution, and that the figures are not being reflected in worker’s wages. The S&P 500, or the 500 largest earning companies in the U.S., spent 55% of their revenue on buybacks between 2006 & 2016, and another 39% on dividends, leaving only 6% to be used for other expenditures, such as research and development. Unsurprisingly, this small margin also leaves little room for companies to raise wages for workers. Before I go any further, let me quickly go over some terms you need to know. A stock buyback is when a company repurchases its shares from the marketplace. Why might a company be interested in buying back its shares? For a few reasons; one, it may believe that the market is depreciating the value of their shares, which in turn depreciates the value of the company. The share may depreciate or appreciate for many reasons, including company earnings, popularity, or scandalization of a company’s reputation, among other things. However, the most common reason companies do buybacks is to increase the value of their share. As investopedia explains, companies want to maximize return for shareholders. This increase in value leads to an increase in dividends for shareholders. Since a company’s value is somewhat tied to the value of their stock, companies want to make sure their stock is not losing any value. CEOs also consider that investors may be less willing to buy shares in a company they don’t have confidence in, because that would mean losing their money if the company loses revenue. A dividend is the distribution of a company’s earnings amongst a class of its shareholders. It can be paid in the form of cash or additional stock, though cash is more common. The idea of paying dividends is to reward shareholders for the trust/investment in the company. Before distributing any payments, a board of directors must approve the amount being issued. Shareholders must also approve the amount. It should be noted that companies are not required to pay dividends. It is merely the company rewarding shareholders for being… shareholders. Returning to my point, most S&P 500 companies spend 94% of their revenue on dividends and buybacks. This means they are not investing their money in employees or innovation—rather, they are rewarding shareholders and investing money to artificially manipulate the value of their stock. While this may enrich those who enjoy owning large shares in the company, it is of little profit to anyone else. What essentially happens is that companies are acting in short-term interests by investing in their own earnings. They are not long-term investments that increase company productivity and longevity. And the people hit hardest by this are laborers and consumers. When company revenue decreases because of mismanagement and bad investment, it is the laborers who lose their jobs and the consumers who have to pay more for products to keep the company afloat. Netflix usually generates a lot of garbage, but there is an interesting series called ‘Explained’ in which Netflix attempts introductory explanations into contemporary events and phenomena. They have an episode about the stock market, and surprisingly, it makes some valid points. Lynn Stout, an American corporate law scholar and guest on the episode, explains how in the 1980s, the pay of a CEO became tied with the performance of the company’s share price. According to her, as much as 80% of the CEO’s pay is based on what the share price is going to be. This, of course, means companies have a HUGE incentive to raise share prices, which they do as I explained above. When companies seek short term gains, they offset long term benefits like company expansion and sustainability. Such incompetent management will eventually result in companies not being able to cost efficiently produce at maximum capacity, which will in turn lead them to begin cutting costs. The example of this in Netflix’s episode was Wausau paper company. According to former Wausau CEO, in 2012, Wausau began to transition from producing printing paper to producing tissue paper. But when a New York hedge fund bought up a large amount of shares, they began to vote on policies such as cutting production costs and redirecting that money to dividends, effectively stunting the company’s intention to invest in something that would actually benefit it long-term. This decision cost 450 people their jobs. If you are interested, you can watch the episode here. What this teaches us is that, though laying off workers and keeping wages low wreaks havoc for the economy long-term, it benefits shareholders, so companies are willing to do it. Economist William Lazonick, whose research and publishings were also cited in Netflix’s docuseries, was so disturbed by this trend that he published articles calling for a complete banning of stock buy-backs. According to Lazonick, “It is the underlying problem of the corporate obsession with stock-price performance that makes U.S. households more vulnerable to the boom-and-bust economy” and “stock buybacks... undermine the quest for equitable and stable economic growth.” Lazonick has been a longtime critic of buybacks. He asserts that they intensify income inequality and leave companies vulnerable to losses. In reference to the 2008 market crash, Lazonick said in an NYT op-piece, “Having wasted billions on buybacks, many [companies] incurred huge losses and required mass layoffs to avoid bankruptcy.” To remedy this, Lazonick has recommended the rescinding of Rule 10b-18, a rule established by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which allows companies to buy up to 25% of their stock’s average daily trading volume over the previous four weeks. The incentive for companies to do buybacks before was not as lucrative, since companies thought that through buybacks, the SEC would accuse them of manipulating the stock market. However, with this bill, companies essentially got the green light to do so, provided it remained within certain limits. This company behavior is why so many millennials are seeking socialist policies. Though many on the right, including myself, may not agree with this solution, we can understand the frustration at such an utter lack of transparency. It feels like they interpret working class people as idiots. It’s discouraging to see corporation’s revenue increasing while simultaneously underpaying workers. And though socialist policies such as higher tax rates may not be the answer, we cannot fault young men and women for trying to actively seek ways to remedy income inequality. Corporations created this problem, and they have a responsibility to fix it, as does congress. |