Cults can never be organized in any kind of democratic way because there is always some anointed class (often consisting of just one person) that monopolizes access to a critical body of revealed truths. And in this aspect, intersectionality is well-suited to a cult paradigm because its adherents presume that the “lived experience” that typifies every sub-group is fundamentally unknowable except to members of that sub-group. The conceit of secret knowledge confers an aura of mysticism on followers, especially in regard to the issue of gender identity, which is cast as an internally experienced secular rapture.
His main idea is that cults are distinguished by language that sounds meaningful but cannot be effectively translated into other idioms, because it is actually gibberish. But note that if the social justice movement is a cult, it is more decentralized than other cults. An emergent cult?
My way of distinguishing a cult is that people within it are unable to laugh at themselves–and in fact may lose the ability to laugh altogether. Jeffrey Frankel and I noticed that about the cult that surrounded Lyndon LaRouche while Jeff and I were students at Swarthmore in the early 1970s. Then, LaRouche was the head of a Marxist group called the National Caucus of Labor Committees. He subsequently adopted a more right-wing ideology.
But the high-sounding gibberish element was very much there as well.
When I first encountered Amway, my impression was that it was cult, and that impression never really left. That probably won’t help me get a high-level position with the Department of Education these days (not that I would seek one if there were a different education Secretary).
The language of ‘cult’ is impoverished because it is a contraction. ‘Cult of personality’ is the idea of closely knit followers around a single leader. Otherwise, ‘cult’ simply means a tradition of worship, if you will – the cult of Zeus, Asherim, etc – although traditionally applied to non-monotheistic contexts. Many of these were very distributed; by trade routes, by intermarriage of ethnicities, etc.
And I should add, this particular rendition being given is ‘gnostic’ in its treatment of knowledge. Of course, most groups have something that is restricted/rival – either access to space, or people, or knowledge, etc. Knowledge as the thing that is restricted ends up being particularly tricky because cheaters are those who abscond with the succession and hand it out more liberally than their peers – Christians dealt with this through apostolic succession so it became authority rather than knowledge. But gnostic things always become a pyramid scheme, where the guy who give out the secrets the most wins… and everyone loses.
Jonathan Kay’s article reframes the pathology of Social Justice Activism into yet another DUPLICATE bug report. The following insight by Kling hints at a FIX:
Levity rather than fear and loathing might be one useful tactic and the story of Superman vs. the KKK can serve as an inspiration and possible guide.
Superman vs. the KKK.
In the late 70’s I studied nuclear fusion in graduate school. I read LaRouche’s magazine now and then. It was an interesting combination. They would have articles about a fusion experiment or some type of reactor that were very well written and technically accurate. These articles would be interspersed with articles that were completely bizarre. For example an article about how the Queen of England was a drug dealer (today, not during the 1800s). LaRouche and crew may not have been able to laugh at themselves, but I laughed at them a lot.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
– Lewis Carrol
“My way of distinguishing a cult is that people within it are unable to laugh at themselves…”
Trump’s personality cultists fit this description.
If laughing at oneself is the distinguishing feature of a cult, then distinguishes religions from cults? Or are all religions inherently cults? Or do many religious people laugh at themselves and their beliefs?
Jewish comics seem to have a long history of poking fun at their own religion.
” We are God’s chosen people, but why did he have to choose us?”
I know a number of Catholics who poke fun about “Catholic guilt” being a driving force in their life. Likewise, “Jesus is a bit bland; some bree would really improve the Communion.” (He has a very perverse sense of humor, so I have no idea if the rest of his congregation would enjoy that joke.)
Any way, it does seem like some religious folks can recognize some of the funnier aspects of their religion and life therein.
I’m thinking I may have to create my own cult, just in the interest of self-defense.
I think I’ll call it the …
“I Don’t Give a Rat’s Fanny About YOUR Cult” cult. (catchy title)
“IDGRFACC” (catchy acronym)
“So There!” (catchy motto)
“Sneak out on dark nights wearing dark hoods and masks and staple actual Rat’s Fannies to the doors of the other cults.” (catchy activities for the Faithful)
“FEAR the Rat’s Fanny Upon Your Door You Cultists and Dogma-Mongers! For the Rat’s Fanny is the Mark of Our Merciless and Unrelenting Disinterest!” (catchy slogan)
“Cry Havoc! And Let Slip the Rat’s Fannies of War!” (another catchy slogan)
“Cult Victims of the World, UNITE!” (yet another catchy slogan)
“Cult Victims of the World, UNTIE!” (catchy slogan specially design for dyslexics)
NOTE to the Faithful: All catchy slogans are to be immediately followed by the catchy motto listed above. (catchy requirement)
I also have catchy oaths of allegiance, catchy emojis, catchy handouts and flyers, and even more catchy slogans – all available on request.
SO THERE!
[I am, however, having a spot of bother getting the laughing thing Arnold mentioned completely worked out. Suggestions welcomed.]
Let’s face it, Kay is just stretching things too far with this one.
The great and powerful Oz was not, spoiler alert, a real wizard. What we find out at the end is that there was a man behind the curtain operating the levers, pressing buttons, keeping control of the smoke machine. Nothing magical about it.
Maureen Dowd tried the same thing: “The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.” The woman she chose to elevate and make sacred, and to use as her mascot, was named Cindy Sheehan.
So Dowd was going to stand behind the curtain, and Sheehan was going to be the face projected on the screen. Sheehan was the image and Dowd the true power. Sheehan’s suffering was to be raised up as an icon.
But obviously there were a lot of other parents in the same position as Sheehan and those parents express opinions of their own, different from Maureen Dowd’s. That’s still a problem for all the ventriloquists today who want to speak through Latinx puppets or “Puppets of Color” and can’t stand any “black and brown people” who don’t see themselves as part of some undifferentiated mass of “black and brown people.” People who think of themselves as people.
The lived experience of Clarence Thomas, for one, doesn’t count. The ventriloquists are actually pretty selective about whose lived experience is sacred and whose lived experience is blasphemy.
Maureen Dowd controlled Cindy Sheehan like a puppet? Please tell us more.
What Dowd tried to do is easier without a specific living person around stepping on the messaging. Better to keep it general. Speak on behalf of some portion of suffering humanity, and not just one person who can speak for herself.
Because Sheehan’s anti-Semitism was inconvenient for Dowd. It was not part of the script that Dowd was writing. Dowd invests a specific person with absolute moral authority in order to speak through her in the New York Times. You don’t want your symbol to surprise you and start speaking for herself.
Likewise if Allah shows up and takes issue with his prophet, then that’s bad news for his prophet. It’s bad news for the Ayatollah if Allah himself corrects him. If Jesus shows up to say that Joseph Smith didn’t have any special insight after all, and Jim Jones didn’t know what he was talking about, and St Paul wasn’t entirely accurate either. Absolute moral authority is easier with an abstraction or a holy icon of the person you’re making use of and exploiting.
If my metaphor of the ventriloquist is misleading, then go back to the Wizard of Oz. Maybe focus on the substance of the argument and forget the metaphors entirely. Resist the easy put-down and come up with an intelligent argument. Or not. The whole Moo cow brand is pretty solid at this point.
You certainly deserve a high-level position with the Department of Null Hypothesis.
They Jonathan Kay quote could be adapted thus:
Cults can never be organized in any kind of democratic way because there is always some anointed class (often consisting of just one person) that monopolizes access to a critical body of revealed truths. And in this aspect, climate change is well-suited to a cult paradigm because its adherents presume that atmospherics is fundamentally unknowable except to members of that cabal. The conceit of secret knowledge confers an aura of mysticism on followers, especially in regard to the issue of climate apocalypse, which is cast as an rapturous Judgement Day when all climate sceptics will be cast into everlasting fire.