Cult

This article is about various cults, what are they, what do they do, and what does it mean?

This article is about various cults, what are they, what do they do, and what does it mean? Well the word comes from cultus, latin for worship. The definition is usually pejoratively used to refer to a group or sect bound together by veneration (worship) of the same person, object, beliefs, or goal.

ℹ️ Info

~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2019-04-18

Facts[edit | edit source]

The word comes from cultus, latin for worship. The definition is usually pejoratively used to refer to a group or sect bound together by veneration (worship) of the same person, object, beliefs, or goal. Cult is also used for anything that veers from popular or correct norms -- so usually they have a false idol, believe in a false prophet/leader, or have quirky beliefs and practices.|They will stick to beliefs despite any evidence that contradicts them. So there are things you can look for that differentiate a sect or clique, from something that's gone full cult.

Signs of a Cult[edit source]

Main article: Signs of a Cult

(1) Tribalism: If there's differences in rules or treatment for insiders versus outsiders, that's a hint away from healthy group psyche.

(2) Hypocrisy: If the movement refuses to be introspective and admit it's own flaws or it's leaders don't live by their own rules, another hint.

(3) Ignorance: If the majority of the followers are low-information, prefer to argue feelings over facts, or fall back to talking points or fallacies like appeal to celebrity, authority, popularity? That's a hint.

(4) Intolerance: How do they respond to divergence of thought, identity or behavior, is one of the stronger indicators of whether it's a cult. Cults demand conformity.

(5) Transparency: How open is an organization, their finances or their leadership? Public versus private rituals or beliefs? A secret society and lack of transparency is cultish.

(6) Paranoia: Being paranoid and into conspiracies * (especially doomsday ones), especially without some valid reasons, is a strong sign. So Jews or Mormons being a little paranoid has some valid history and justification, thus deserve a bit more leeway. Democrats in Academia or the Media? That deserves finger-ear orbits: the American Sign Language gesture for cult.

(7) Ability to leave: If adherents can leave, and not be ostracized or attacked? That's a good sign for a group. If they will be ostracized, maligned or attacked? It is not.

(8) Abuse: Demands for conformity, litmus tests for being devout enough, punishments for non-compliance with micro-managing norms? Cult, cult, cult.

(9) Insecurity: If adherents constantly try * (and fail) to measure up to their exalted leader or absurd standards? Guilt, doubts, unworthiness are not signs of a healthy organization/individual psyche.

(10) Eccentricities: A little is fine, a lot is not. Cults start differentiating themselves with alternate language/terminology, dress, mannerisms, or history. Those divergences from norms * (and reality), aren't good signals.

(11) Prophets: If the leader is revered and infallible, and becoming more than a flawed human, then that's another strong hint of losing touch with reality.

(12) Extremism: a lot is about degrees and balances, which is what makes the lines a bit fuzzy. You can disagree, but how much? I once had a coworker shriek "No" in pain, like I'd physically struck her, because I'd mentioned some of the mis-assumptions people make on organic farming. Not a healthy reaction. But someone just politely saying, "I disagree and here's why" is completely reasonable. It's the old, "I'll know it when I see it".

Science and Religion[edit source]

Main article: Science and Religion

When science stops being about doubt and skepticism and is about conformity and crushing anyone questioning the consensus, that's not science any more. So science through the lens of an agenda, becomes that agenda.

There's very few scientific facts, and most of the past ones we were 100% sure were right, turned out to be wrong later. There are LOTS of scientific theories, that the layperson thinks is fact, like anthropogenic global warming, that oil is dinosaur juice (Fossil Fuels) versus abiotic oil. There's a whole lot that's new or relatively new: like the whole concept of tectonic plates and how the earth moves was popularized in my lifetime (1960's). There's a whole lot of unknowns that we just can't explain at all: read Unexplained Phenomena. Then there's things we can only hypothesize about, but have no way to prove/disprove, thus it's a scientific religion: dark matter, dark energy, how many dimensions in super-string theory, and so on. These people are unaware of the 4 Stages of Scientific Discovery.

4 Stages of Scientific Discovery[edit source]

Main article: 4 Stages of Scientific Discovery

The 4 stages of scientific discovery are: Denial in its existence Denial in its significance Misattribution to who did the work Refutation

The democrats are often screaming about how, "Science" validates their view, but only by ignoring all contradictions, skeptics and doubters. Then they want to legislate and force others into acceptance, based on "Science".... when science is the people still questioning the claims, not those that are bleating like sheeple and following it.

If you want to see how sincere they are in their beliefs, just jujitsu them and agree. Fine, let's punish those that don't agree with science like those that use billions of wasted dollars on embryonic stem cell research that was less effective than the alternatives, outlawing organic food or GMO's since it's not as efficient per acre of land, Nuclear Power Plants would spring up like dandelions and we could stop with less efficient Solar/Wind farm, vegan or raw-foodies would be put up for child abuse, PETA and Greenpeace would be outlawed for the damages they did to science (and as terrorist organizations). Is that REALLY the world you want to live in? It seems to be what democrats advocate, unless you start trying to apply their rules fairly (e.g. back at them).

Religion isn't as extreme as leftism.

There's the real debate about religion, and tolerance for each others views (more or less).
While coastal liberals are bashing the religious views of the right, they fail to grok that roughly 3/4ths of democrats and 4/5ths of independents believe in the Bible too
Or missing how separated belief in science and religion can be: Darwin, Einstein believed in God, while Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were atheists. And Hitler, would public praise religion while privately deriding it.

That isn't to play guilt by association, but just to point out that we can cherry pick examples to prove what we want.

Religion is just one small aspect of someone's lives, and humans can compartmentalize, and religion and science are not mutually things on the same dimension, nor is bad behavior coupled with religion, or science coupled to being objective, as some will try to sell you.

It's fine if you think you know (or don't know) something. The problem is when you can no longer leave enough room in the universe for others to disagree with you.

Cargo Cult[edit source]

Main article: Cargo Cult

During WWII, Americans used small islands as airbases to launch various attacks against the Japanese (and vise versa). When they war ended, they left. Later, someone went back, and found that on one of the islands the landing strips hadn't grown over. And when they got there, they found that decades later the natives had built a whole religion around the airbase. They had made mock-up planes out of straw and bamboo, had kept the strips clean, and had various relics and artifacts that they used in their rituals. When the westerners talked to the natives they learned that the natives were trying to lure back the planes; because the planes held mana from the Gods, called "Cargo". Cargo was all sorts of magical things that the islanders didn't have or understand, but they wanted. They didn't know who the men were that tended to the planes or who were the priests of this Cargo, but they knew that if they mimicked them, that maybe they could lure the planes and Cargo back. The Cargo-cult, as they were named, built a religion around things that they didn't understand and on the fables of the people that had been there but couldn't accurately describe what they had seen. (I don't know enough about other attributes about the Melanesians to know how to score them on all the other aspects -- but as they were the opposite of hateful of outsiders, I don't think they would actually score very high at all). I've always felt the Cargo Cult, and other religions were the exact same thing; Mans need to describe things that are beyond his comprehension.

Peoples Temple Cult[edit source]

Main article: Jim Jones/Peoples Temple Cult

112/120 People's Temple	Tribalism	Hypocrisy	Ignorance	Intolerance	Transparency	Paranoia	Leavability	Abuse	Insecurity	Eccentricity	Prophets	Extremism
Level	🔟	9️⃣	9️⃣	8️⃣	🔟	🔟	🔟	🔟	9️⃣	8️⃣	9️⃣	🔟
Total	93%

They were completely Tribal, ignored hypocrisy, deferred thinking to the DNC and Jim, intolerant to outsiders, opaque, paranoid, wouldn't let people leave, abusive to critics, insecure, eccentric, thought Jim was a prophet (cult of personality), and extreme enough to drink cyanide laced FlavoAid rather than surrender. The perfect Democrat tools/followers, that believed to their dying day in the vision of post-racial leftism.

Obamabot Cult[edit source]

Main article: Obamabot Cult

91/120 Obamabots	Tribalism	Hypocrisy	Ignorance	Intolerance	Transparency	Paranoia	Leavability	Abuse	Insecurity	Eccentricity	Prophets	Extremism
Level	9️⃣	🔟	8️⃣	7️⃣	5️⃣	5️⃣	7️⃣	6️⃣	9️⃣	8️⃣	🔟	7️⃣
Total	76%

Were Obama supporters a cult? The average Obama voter was not, they were just lazy/sloppy and uninformed voters (mostly) that put him in because of racial identity, youth, charm, or he promised more free stuff than the other guy. So I'm not talking about them, and that's probably 50% or more of the voters. But the most vocal supporters, the media fanboi's, the activists? Those that got tingles up their legs when he spoke, and refused to admit things he did to hurt the national interests, undermine the constitution, or revise the historical record? Those are the Obamabots (now called NPC's) that were definitely in a cult of personality. You can tell within 5 minutes of talking to them when they start rewriting history as the hagiography of Saint Obama and his angelic wife. This might not be the majority of the Democratic Party, but they were the majority of the vocal ones during his election and the first few years especially... but some die hards will still talk about him in hushed revered tones. Of course there are at least a few Republicans that are as bad with Trump... but they are just outnumbered 50:1 by Obamabots. While I've seen a few "Trump can do no wrong" types online, I knew hundreds of Obamabots. Most Trump supporters/voters I've know will readily admit his many flaws, but he's better than Hillary (or the alternative). While Obamabots will get red faced at the mention of any of Obama's many, many bad actions, and still can't admit much of what he did wrong. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS abuses, spying on Trump, just mention any of those, and they'll go apoplectic that you would question the word of "The One".

DNC Cult[edit source]

Main article: DNC Cult

84/120 Democrats	Tribalism	Hypocrisy	Ignorance	Intolerance	Transparency	Paranoia	Leavability	Abuse	Insecurity	Eccentricity	Prophets	Extremism
Level	6️⃣	8️⃣	9️⃣	6️⃣	5️⃣	5️⃣	7️⃣	8️⃣	7️⃣	8️⃣	9️⃣	6️⃣
Total	70%

Is the DNC (Democrats) a cult? Of course that matters how you define a cult. And it's a spectrum with no pure black or white. Are you talking about the leadership, the vocal personalities, or the voters? I'm talking about personalities and leaders -- the voters tend to be a little more moderate (at least in the middle of the country), but moderate Democrat is becoming an oxymoron. There were moderate factions like the fiscal conservative Democrats (called Blue Dogs), or the socially conservative Democrats. But the social conservatives have been retiring and dying out over generations: I can't think of one left. Pelosi/Reid got the Blue Dogs either whipped into shape as far lefties in all but name, and that got most of the faction driven out: <10% of house or senate calls themselves Blue Dogs, but even that's in name only. In the meantime the radical Democratic Socialists are gaining power and driving narratives. So the center mass of the party is far, far to the left of where it was a generation or two ago. And with the 47 Presidential Candidates all trying to win the primary by being more to the left of the next one, they are just one a few balcony speeches away from invading Poland.

Global Warming Cult[edit source]

Main article: Global Warming Cult

77/120 Global Warmists	Tribalism	Hypocrisy	Ignorance	Intolerance	Transparency	Paranoia	Leavability	Abuse	Insecurity	Eccentricity	Prophets	Extremism
Level	🔟	🔟	8️⃣	🔟	8️⃣	3️⃣	4️⃣	9️⃣	2️⃣	1️⃣	7️⃣	5️⃣
Total	64%

Is Global Warming (Climate Change) a cult? Overall, it's a very big and diverse tent. The majority of proponents are tribal, ignorant, intolerant, hypocrites, and they do some idol worshiping of the prophet of the moment. They are paranoid about the environment which is a conspiracy theory of sorts, but not that much else. They will try to ruin, silence, or attack those that leave. But they aren't that insecure, abusive to their own, or even extreme (a few exceptions) or eccentric (more gullible). And that's the worst faction: the mindless follower advocates regurgitating what their press tells them that their priests are telling them (and a fanatical mouthpieces/politicians). But they do have the lazy followers that aren't nearly that fanatical. I hear they have some informed followers, I just haven't met one (despite trying). They have people that want to lead the cult, but they come and go -- and there are a lot of real scientists just publishing papers that often get exaggerated or taken out of context by the Press. So there's certainly cult-like behaviors by some factions. But there's so many divergent groups and agendas and behaviors, that it's too loose and diverse a grouping to be a real cult, even if there is a cult hiding inside there.

Google Cult[edit source]

Main article: Google Cult

74/120 Googlers	Tribalism	Hypocrisy	Ignorance	Intolerance	Transparency	Paranoia	Leavability	Abuse	Insecurity	Eccentricity	Prophets	Extremism
Level	9️⃣	8️⃣	3️⃣	7️⃣	5️⃣	5️⃣	5️⃣	5️⃣	8️⃣	5️⃣	8️⃣	6️⃣
Total	62%

Give academic college snowflakes more money than some governments, and tell them that they were the smartest kids in the room (like their mommies did), and they might believe you. And their obscene success means they skip a lot of life's harder lessons, and the wisdom that usually imparts. They get to invent a culture based on a College Kids idealism and naiveté, with unexpected (for them) results.

Sloganeering and their own "in" lingo, hiring and work practices that they thought skimmed the very best, was actually a filter against intellectual diversity, and seems more in home in Jonestown, Guyana than in Silicon Valley. Even their unofficial motto, "Don't be Evil", begs the question, "what is Evil?" -- and to them "good" was a college marxists view of the world, and to hate everything they were going to become. So in order to be a good employee you had to put your corporations evolving ethics above your own, or you left (or were driven out). And the stock growth was enough to keep most people in place, becoming more evil, while seeing everyone that disagreed with them as outsiders (and thus Evil). They became their parents.

MAGA Cult[edit source]

Main article: MAGA Cult

60/120 MAGA	Tribalism	Hypocrisy	Ignorance	Intolerance	Transparency	Paranoia	Leavability	Abuse	Insecurity	Eccentricity	Prophets	Extremism
Level	🔟	2️⃣	5️⃣	4️⃣	5️⃣	8️⃣	2️⃣	5️⃣	4️⃣	5️⃣	5️⃣	5️⃣
Total	50%

Trump supporters felt attacked, because they were. But they were realistic about who Trump was. (Many of his followers complained about his mean tweets). But they would go with facts, let there be diversity of views (to a point), but they did go for conspiracies and paranoia (because the Press was out to get them). You could leave readily. They weren't as abrasive as the other side. And they weren't that eccentric, believe Trump completely (despite what the left claimed), or that extreme. He delivered, and they valued that.

RNC Cult[edit source]

Main article: RNC Cult

47/120 Republicans	Tribalism	Hypocrisy	Ignorance	Intolerance	Transparency	Paranoia	Leavability	Abuse	Insecurity	Eccentricity	Prophets	Extremism
Level	3️⃣	3️⃣	6️⃣	5️⃣	4️⃣	5️⃣	4️⃣	5️⃣	2️⃣	1️⃣	6️⃣	3️⃣
Total	39%

Is the RNC (Republicans) a cult? Of course that matters how you define a cult. And it's a spectrum with no pure black or white. Are you talking about the leadership, the vocal personalities, or the voters? I'm talking about personalities and leaders -- the voters tend to be even more moderate than the party leadership. But being that there's more diversity in the RNC than the DNC, it automatically makes a wider spectrum that includes the middle. You have the little-L libertarians, that are fiscally very conservative but socially very liberal. You have the blue collar and poor conservatives that are socially conservative, but fiscally very liberal (towards Social Programs) (Trump appeals to this group the most). You have the Tea-Party (which is almost a non-player) which is socially and fiscally very conservative. You have a few Neo-Cons (misnamed), which may be willing to force democracy through war -- and you have the isolationists. It's a big tent party, and their diversity means a lack of homogeny that is required to be a cult. But being under attack by the left (which controls the media and education and minds of the weak/young) means they do have some cult-like paranoia, clustering, attitudes towards outsiders, and some fanatics in the fringes that make them less than open-minded.

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

If someone says that the RNC is a bit of a cult, is there some truth? Sure. But it's less than the DNC by the measures that I care about.
Do I think the Obamabots take fanboi'ism to levels of a cult? Certainly more of them do, and take it further than the average MAGA crowd follower. But that hardly makes the MAGA crowd completely saintly and without some flocking behaviors of their own.
Google, Facebook, Netflix, and a few other valley companies tried to create corporate cultures through hiring practices and company cheerleading that made them look a bit fanatical to outsiders. (Drinking the kool-aid was a common phrase by outsiders for those interviewing there). But are they really that cultish? Of course it depends on which person you talk to. More than people punching a clock in a factory? For sure... but that doesn't mean they wouldn't quit in a heartbeat if a better opportunity came along, and other than some soft ridicule as a traitor, they're not exactly going to completely ostracized by their ex-co-workers for a complaint or another.

How much you filter also matters, the wider the group the less likely you can keep common interest or the same degrees of fanaticism -- but that doesn't mean there isn't a core group, or even the leadership that are fanatical. If 5% are fanatical and they're not in leadership or spokesperson/celebrities in the movement? Who care? But if they're 25% and make-up the top echelon? I care.

I could go on, and on -- labelling how much I think something is a cult or not. Every special interest starts to put that their groups or individuals above others, and camaraderie can start tripping more and more points in this hyper-clique'ish and even cultish way. But the point to any project is getting people to agree on terminology and goals. What are the requirements? What do you measure (and incentivize)? So this was an example of one way to do that. Define at least metrics that people can agree on. Then use those metrics to score something fairly objectively. And while there's some slop and disagreement on the exact numbers, both side can at least agree loosely on the process, and admit that their side isn't exactly saintly on the same scales. Or if they can't, then we know their minds have been taken over by their cult.