The Prophet Who Failed(harpers.org)
harpers.org
The Prophet Who Failed
https://harpers.org/archive/2024/06/the-prophet-who-wasnt-after-the-apocalypse-that-failed-emily-harnett/
14 comments
That's the teosophic portrait of St. Germain
St Germaine !
This cult and its predecessor, the I AM, are cornerstones of American fascism. It’s a deep dive worth doing. I AM toward its end even perpetuated stories remarkably similar to Qanon, in the 1930s.
A fun fact too: General Nathan Flynn recited a very strange prayer at one of his gatherings. Turns out it’s a prayer from the Church Universal and Triumphant, this woman’s fascist cult. So there may be surviving ideological links today, or Flynn may be in a cult himself, or maybe whoever wrote it for him is.
https://x.com/PiperK/status/1445663165186904065
A lot of this stuff goes even further back to William Dudley Pelley and the Silver Shirts, an American fascist movement. Pelley and Edna Ballard, one of the founders of I AM, were associated.
Wouldn’t be the first time cults tried to use rich or powerful followers to gain money or power for themselves. Look into Scientology.
A fun fact too: General Nathan Flynn recited a very strange prayer at one of his gatherings. Turns out it’s a prayer from the Church Universal and Triumphant, this woman’s fascist cult. So there may be surviving ideological links today, or Flynn may be in a cult himself, or maybe whoever wrote it for him is.
https://x.com/PiperK/status/1445663165186904065
A lot of this stuff goes even further back to William Dudley Pelley and the Silver Shirts, an American fascist movement. Pelley and Edna Ballard, one of the founders of I AM, were associated.
Wouldn’t be the first time cults tried to use rich or powerful followers to gain money or power for themselves. Look into Scientology.
> General Nathan Flynn recited a very strange prayer at one of his gatherings. Turns out it’s a prayer from the Church Universal and Triumphant
This is in the article.
As an aside, your repeated use of the word "cult" and the word "fascist" detracts from your comment. Both words have been diluted past all meaning, and using them together so frequently in just a few paragraphs induces a lot of cringing from anyone who is moderately familiar with either religious studies or political science. They're essentially just expletives at this point and don't add much meaning beyond intense disapproval.
The Silver Shirts were straight-up fascists. The other movements you refer to were right-wing nationalist movements but I see no evidence of most of the characteristics of fascism except that you try to paint them with the same brush by referring to a vague association between founders.
This is in the article.
As an aside, your repeated use of the word "cult" and the word "fascist" detracts from your comment. Both words have been diluted past all meaning, and using them together so frequently in just a few paragraphs induces a lot of cringing from anyone who is moderately familiar with either religious studies or political science. They're essentially just expletives at this point and don't add much meaning beyond intense disapproval.
The Silver Shirts were straight-up fascists. The other movements you refer to were right-wing nationalist movements but I see no evidence of most of the characteristics of fascism except that you try to paint them with the same brush by referring to a vague association between founders.
> the word "cult" ... have been diluted past all meaning
Another interpretation is that Cult has been somewhat disarmed from it's modern, weaponized usage.
Historically, Cult was as a neutralish term.
In discussing religious groups, Cult helped clarify that the group in focus was a subset of a larger group. It was also used as a catchall reference to small religions.
In the latter 20th century, Evangelical authors/lecturers (eg:Walter Martin) strongly associated Cult with evil and used it to help introduce+nurture animosity toward smaller, unliked Christian faiths.
If Cult hadn't been so loaded with sinister vibes, it might not have become the term we use to reference cloistering, manipulative groups.
Another interpretation is that Cult has been somewhat disarmed from it's modern, weaponized usage.
Historically, Cult was as a neutralish term.
In discussing religious groups, Cult helped clarify that the group in focus was a subset of a larger group. It was also used as a catchall reference to small religions.
In the latter 20th century, Evangelical authors/lecturers (eg:Walter Martin) strongly associated Cult with evil and used it to help introduce+nurture animosity toward smaller, unliked Christian faiths.
If Cult hadn't been so loaded with sinister vibes, it might not have become the term we use to reference cloistering, manipulative groups.
Eh, when paired with "fascist" it's pretty clear that OP is using "cult" in much the same way that Evangelical Christians use it. Both words are essentially a label that identifies a movement as something that you should be opposed to if you're not either evil or naive.
> [cult is] essentially a label that identifies a movement as something that you should be opposed to if you're not either evil or naive.
I don't disagree with your assessment here.
I am okay, however, with Cult becoming defanged.
Cult's negative connotations sprung from the worst of intentions - to divide Christians by demonizing other, smaller Christian faiths. Turning a vulnerable group into an (punishable) enemy is a classic fascist tactic.
I argue that the negative associations with 'Cult' were originally a product of fascist methods.
The further we are from all of that, the better I'll feel.
I don't disagree with your assessment here.
I am okay, however, with Cult becoming defanged.
Cult's negative connotations sprung from the worst of intentions - to divide Christians by demonizing other, smaller Christian faiths. Turning a vulnerable group into an (punishable) enemy is a classic fascist tactic.
I argue that the negative associations with 'Cult' were originally a product of fascist methods.
The further we are from all of that, the better I'll feel.
Trying to language police the use of the word fascism to describe right-wing authoritarians is a waste of time and for me raises a bright red flag for the person doing the language policing. Instead of trying to get people to stop using a term of common parlance to describe the emerging and growing spread of right-wing authoritarianism, perhaps you might want to consider doing some constructive instead, or just coping with the fact that with the current rise of right-wing authoritarian extremism that mirrors prior rises of the same, some people are going to use a word you don't like to describe it.
> the use of the word fascism to describe right-wing authoritarians is a waste of time
Sort of adjacent to your point. I think the label 'Fascist' best serves us when we apply it to fascist behaviors.
I'm not saying Fascist isn't a reasonable label for people who embrace fascist behaviors. It is.
But 1) understanding and identifying fascist behaviors - this is how we know when to apply the label and
2) the behaviors are the mechanism for harm; they deserve our greater focus and
3) People are multiple things and things change. Behavior is what it is.
Sort of adjacent to your point. I think the label 'Fascist' best serves us when we apply it to fascist behaviors.
I'm not saying Fascist isn't a reasonable label for people who embrace fascist behaviors. It is.
But 1) understanding and identifying fascist behaviors - this is how we know when to apply the label and
2) the behaviors are the mechanism for harm; they deserve our greater focus and
3) People are multiple things and things change. Behavior is what it is.
What characteristics did you test against?
A few of them [0]:
> a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Our vocabulary in the US around politics (left and right) gives the false impression that politics is a 2D spectrum. It's not, and very few right-wing groups today have many shared beliefs with fascists at all. This includes the nutjobs who think they're Nazi sympathizers.
According to Orwell the word was already a mostly meaningless insult by 1944 [1], and it's still a mostly meaningless insult:
> Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
> ... All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
[1] https://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune...
> a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Our vocabulary in the US around politics (left and right) gives the false impression that politics is a 2D spectrum. It's not, and very few right-wing groups today have many shared beliefs with fascists at all. This includes the nutjobs who think they're Nazi sympathizers.
According to Orwell the word was already a mostly meaningless insult by 1944 [1], and it's still a mostly meaningless insult:
> Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
> ... All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
[1] https://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune...
Elizabeth Prophet didn't dictate her organisation? It wasn't obsessed with nuclear weapons? Their view of initiation doesn't signal a belief in a natural social hierarchy? They didn't sign over their personal assets in service of this ultra-nationalist organisation?
I don't think you've tried to determine their politics at all, you just want to say that the dominant ideology of the US is not allowed to be named.
I don't think you've tried to determine their politics at all, you just want to say that the dominant ideology of the US is not allowed to be named.
They're only diluted if you let them be.
I assume the objection above was to avoid them being diluted, here. I'm also trying to figure out if you're trying to say that if we just react to the words as if they were being properly applied no matter what, that will prevent them from being diluted. Because that's not good.
Pray someone doesn't come along and take all of your magical words away some day.
Michael Flynn?
Yes. My mistake.
I’m surprised people are low key defending these groups, even people on the right. This isn’t conservatism. It’s totalitarianism backed by new age woo.
I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised. Totalitarianism is back in fashion lately. Feels like we want to LARP the early 20th century.
I’m surprised people are low key defending these groups, even people on the right. This isn’t conservatism. It’s totalitarianism backed by new age woo.
I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised. Totalitarianism is back in fashion lately. Feels like we want to LARP the early 20th century.
Historically, I find that what's politically in fashion tends to be aligned with Russia's interests. One giveaway are those "polarizing figures" whose polarity suspiciously changed over time in alignment with Russia's magnetic field: Gingrich, Berlusconi, Dick Morris, just to pick on some whose mention won't start a flamewar. Coincidence is a thing but this ain't it.
Some are contrarians with the opposite polarity, such as Arianna Huffington. Kudos, maybe.
Some are contrarians with the opposite polarity, such as Arianna Huffington. Kudos, maybe.
> even people on the right.
Since I'm assuming that I'm one target of this as the only person to contradict you in this subthread, I just want to be clear: I'm not on the right. As far as the conservatives in my (very red) state are concerned I'm a flaming liberal.
As for how I'd describe myself, I'm basically in the "we desperately need to reverse the trend of everyone assuming that anyone who disagrees with them is evil" camp, which is why I strongly object to casual comparisons to fascism. Using that word or the word "cult" to label someone immediately frees you from any obligation to engage with them as a person, and I'm not okay with that tendency from either wing of modern politics.
Since I'm assuming that I'm one target of this as the only person to contradict you in this subthread, I just want to be clear: I'm not on the right. As far as the conservatives in my (very red) state are concerned I'm a flaming liberal.
As for how I'd describe myself, I'm basically in the "we desperately need to reverse the trend of everyone assuming that anyone who disagrees with them is evil" camp, which is why I strongly object to casual comparisons to fascism. Using that word or the word "cult" to label someone immediately frees you from any obligation to engage with them as a person, and I'm not okay with that tendency from either wing of modern politics.
I agree broadly with the last part but I’m talking about the I AM cult and Qanon here not sane things.
We need to stop handling psychotic totalitarian lunacy the same way we handle people we don’t agree with about the use of pronouns or tax policy.
We need to stop handling psychotic totalitarian lunacy the same way we handle people we don’t agree with about the use of pronouns or tax policy.
Enjoyable article. Reminded me of the experience of keeping the faith in a startup after it's become clear that it's going nowhere - there's the pragmatic need to keep earning, of course, but also an unwillingness to overturn the social framework of your life, and perhaps a stubborn refusal to upset your strong conviction that you were on the bus to destination success.
I met an ex-JW the other day who has become convinced that he is an extra-terrestrial volunteer, sent to earth in order to help stabilize human society, and that he's able to remotely converse with anybody through the aid of his physical paraphenalia. He was interesting to talk with; 100% convinced that his belief system was real; IANAP, but I wouldn't immediately lump him into any major DSM-5 category. I guess certain minds seek non-mainstream belief systems as a way of distinguishing themselves from the norm, or accounting for a deep feeling of being different, or not fitting in. Perhaps this too is somewhat endemic in the startup crowd; why work for a big firm when you have special capabilities, and can blaze your own trail?
I met an ex-JW the other day who has become convinced that he is an extra-terrestrial volunteer, sent to earth in order to help stabilize human society, and that he's able to remotely converse with anybody through the aid of his physical paraphenalia. He was interesting to talk with; 100% convinced that his belief system was real; IANAP, but I wouldn't immediately lump him into any major DSM-5 category. I guess certain minds seek non-mainstream belief systems as a way of distinguishing themselves from the norm, or accounting for a deep feeling of being different, or not fitting in. Perhaps this too is somewhat endemic in the startup crowd; why work for a big firm when you have special capabilities, and can blaze your own trail?
I've known more than a few ex-religious of varying types who in young adulthood have to find an explanation for why:
- they are not at all who the faiths they were raised by said they should be - they know there's not actually anything wrong with themselves (or others like them), despite what their faith taught them
Squaring these two deeply personal realizations is challenging. People take many paths. Your interaction is an outlier, but by no means the most extreme I've encountered.
- they are not at all who the faiths they were raised by said they should be - they know there's not actually anything wrong with themselves (or others like them), despite what their faith taught them
Squaring these two deeply personal realizations is challenging. People take many paths. Your interaction is an outlier, but by no means the most extreme I've encountered.
> Reminded me of the experience of keeping the faith in a startup after it's become clear that it's going nowhere
Ouch. So on-point.
Ouch. So on-point.
Ha! I'll raise you the woman I know who thinks Michael Jackson was the John the Baptist to Donald Trump's Christ!
There's wrong, and then there's so-wrong-it-should-be-a-musical!
There's wrong, and then there's so-wrong-it-should-be-a-musical!
[deleted]
I am always amused by these doomsday cults predicting the end of the world.
As long has there been human writing, people have been saying the end is nigh. Nobody has ever been right!
As long has there been human writing, people have been saying the end is nigh. Nobody has ever been right!
> As long has there been human writing, people have been saying the end is nigh. Nobody has ever been right!
You aren't wrong. I've been a Christian of some stripe, my whole life. Even general Armageddon predictions (soon!) are really dumb and I wish we would stop them.
Besides being wrong, they're either a pointless distraction or they're counterproductive. Counterproductive because fear sucks as a long term motivator.
Faiths have examples and our job as adherents is to strive to embody the example. That's it.
The rest of the guff might be supportive if applied correctly. Mostly, we don't do that.
You aren't wrong. I've been a Christian of some stripe, my whole life. Even general Armageddon predictions (soon!) are really dumb and I wish we would stop them.
Besides being wrong, they're either a pointless distraction or they're counterproductive. Counterproductive because fear sucks as a long term motivator.
Faiths have examples and our job as adherents is to strive to embody the example. That's it.
The rest of the guff might be supportive if applied correctly. Mostly, we don't do that.
It might have happened, and we are all living in a simulation. It would be hard to tell, because virtual device drivers have gotten so good.
Even people who at first blush should be immune, since they, you know, worship reason and rationality, have created something which has all the outward appearances of a doomsday cult (a prophetic leader, who lives on donations from wealthy followers, elaborate prophesies about impending doom, an extensive corpus of religious texts w/ commentaries, polyamory, group living, an elaborate rationale to dissuade followers from being concerned about their finances, etc.).
Like, if you created a dataset with the notable features of various doomsday cults and then compared them with the notable features of Rationalism, then used that dataset to inform your priors in an attempt to answer the question, “Are my concerns about impending doom reasonable or have I succumbed to a doomsday cult?” surely the only reasonable answer is, “I have succumbed to a doomsday cult.”
And yet here we are.
Like, if you created a dataset with the notable features of various doomsday cults and then compared them with the notable features of Rationalism, then used that dataset to inform your priors in an attempt to answer the question, “Are my concerns about impending doom reasonable or have I succumbed to a doomsday cult?” surely the only reasonable answer is, “I have succumbed to a doomsday cult.”
And yet here we are.
What's this doomsday cult with polyamory and charismatic leader for rational people?
Possibly talking about LessWrong, founded by Eliezer Yudkowsky. But imo a pretty uncharitable take.
HackerNews.
Why contribute to an IRA if civilization will have ceased to function? Why make any investment in society at large if it's inevitably doomed?
The world only ends once
Yet
wudangmonk(1)
Given that most prophets failed in one way or the other (in their prophecies, for example), the title is not very indicative of any one person.
"The Sounds of American Doomsday Cults Vol. 14" sounds like a great CIA PsyOp piece.
If that interests you, you might enjoy the weekly radio show Music of Mind Control on WFMU.
Show's archives here: https://www.wfmu.org/playlists/MW
Show's archives here: https://www.wfmu.org/playlists/MW
It's a great record, and the chanting is impressive. The same people also put out a single for Aum Shinrikyo which was terrible (although the "A"[*] documentary and it's sequel are fascinating if you want to know what happened after their prophecy failed.)
You can also hear the Church Universal and Triumphant on Negativland's Escape From Noise as "Michael Jackson," giving a lecture about the evils of pop music (also on Sounds of American Doomsday Cults.)
[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_(1998_Japanese_film)
You can also hear the Church Universal and Triumphant on Negativland's Escape From Noise as "Michael Jackson," giving a lecture about the evils of pop music (also on Sounds of American Doomsday Cults.)
[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_(1998_Japanese_film)
[deleted]
I hope the reason nobody has responded to this yet is that they're giving this wonderful article the attention it deserves. I have a lot of thoughts about it, and this is one of the cases where I wish comment sections here weren't so ephemeral and stayed up long enough to be worth spending more time on it.
All of us are facing a personal apocalypse. We all build an entire universe in our minds based on what our senses take in and that world is going to evaporate when you die, and the rest of the world will continue on just fine without us. For a lot of people, it feels better, for some reason, to think that we are so important that the rest of the universe will also cease to exist when we die.
Aside from dreams of the world ending, another way to sort of assuage that dread that we all carry around with the knowledge of our own mortality is to lean into the intuitive belief that we are somehow non-physical entities that are merely contained in these physical bodies temporarily, and that some day we'll be released and go back into our true form. These two ideas often go together, but don't always. The neo-platonists, for example, believed in eternal non-physical bodies ascending to some kind of divinity after death, but didn't really have an 'end-of-the-world' prophecy.
A lot of people reading an essay about this will think about this as an object lesson in gullibility and people failing to use reason, but there are a lot of so-called "rationalists" on this very website who themselves believe in a version of this -- that the world is soon going to face a technological apocalypse of some kind -- maybe it's a super-powerful AI escaping, or climate doom, or nuclear war, or whatever, and at the same time believing that they themselves will find a way to escape death, from mind-uploading, or life extension or something similar. Transumanism, extropianism, "effective altruism", a lot of those modern techno-utopian philosophies are just millenarian doomsday cults with a "scientific" technological gloss.
I don't think there's anything especially "wrong" about the religion this essay is about. It's no crazier than Christianity was, which was also a religion built around a prophet whose apocalypse didn't arrive and who died unexpectedly. They had to build an (at times beautiful, at times ridiculous) tower of philosophical abstractions to retroactively make any of it make sense to them.
On a completely unrelated tangent: If you read https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/ the subreddit for die hard Gamestop "investors", there's a lot of similarity between the way they talk about the "mother of all short squeezes" and the way the doomsday cults talk about the end of the world. There's a religious fervor to it that's sort of based around the idea that the modern economy is a house of cards and will completely collapse because of people shorting a retail video game store.
All of us are facing a personal apocalypse. We all build an entire universe in our minds based on what our senses take in and that world is going to evaporate when you die, and the rest of the world will continue on just fine without us. For a lot of people, it feels better, for some reason, to think that we are so important that the rest of the universe will also cease to exist when we die.
Aside from dreams of the world ending, another way to sort of assuage that dread that we all carry around with the knowledge of our own mortality is to lean into the intuitive belief that we are somehow non-physical entities that are merely contained in these physical bodies temporarily, and that some day we'll be released and go back into our true form. These two ideas often go together, but don't always. The neo-platonists, for example, believed in eternal non-physical bodies ascending to some kind of divinity after death, but didn't really have an 'end-of-the-world' prophecy.
A lot of people reading an essay about this will think about this as an object lesson in gullibility and people failing to use reason, but there are a lot of so-called "rationalists" on this very website who themselves believe in a version of this -- that the world is soon going to face a technological apocalypse of some kind -- maybe it's a super-powerful AI escaping, or climate doom, or nuclear war, or whatever, and at the same time believing that they themselves will find a way to escape death, from mind-uploading, or life extension or something similar. Transumanism, extropianism, "effective altruism", a lot of those modern techno-utopian philosophies are just millenarian doomsday cults with a "scientific" technological gloss.
I don't think there's anything especially "wrong" about the religion this essay is about. It's no crazier than Christianity was, which was also a religion built around a prophet whose apocalypse didn't arrive and who died unexpectedly. They had to build an (at times beautiful, at times ridiculous) tower of philosophical abstractions to retroactively make any of it make sense to them.
On a completely unrelated tangent: If you read https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/ the subreddit for die hard Gamestop "investors", there's a lot of similarity between the way they talk about the "mother of all short squeezes" and the way the doomsday cults talk about the end of the world. There's a religious fervor to it that's sort of based around the idea that the modern economy is a house of cards and will completely collapse because of people shorting a retail video game store.
Grasshopper doesnt care about some higher meaning or immortality. Its role is to enjoy what life gives and procreate if possible. Just because we became self-aware doesnt make us any more special.
No point trying to see more to it, maybe that could be one goal for folks desperately looking for this.
No point trying to see more to it, maybe that could be one goal for folks desperately looking for this.
> Just because we became self-aware doesnt make us any more special.
Disagree - I'd say we are special in that we have enough self-awareness to develop technology to destroy the ecosystem our existence depends on, but not enough to stop ourselves from doing it.
Disagree - I'd say we are special in that we have enough self-awareness to develop technology to destroy the ecosystem our existence depends on, but not enough to stop ourselves from doing it.
Don't need any self-awareness for that. Might want to look into how we got the oxygen atmosphere for an example.
Self-awareness may play a role in determining the truth of the matter.
Sure it does, but it still doesn't make us anyhow magical beings suddenly transcending cycle of life and death, when all out ancestors and other even quite smart beings don't / didn't for whatever illogical reasons. We just desperately wish for it to be so, because the concept of permanent death is fucking terrifying, for everybody.
We may still be mentally on a level of bacteria compared to maximum intelligence obtainable in this universe, so self-awareness may not be such a huge milestone some here think it is. A bit of humility about ourselves would serve us well.
We may still be mentally on a level of bacteria compared to maximum intelligence obtainable in this universe, so self-awareness may not be such a huge milestone some here think it is. A bit of humility about ourselves would serve us well.
> Sure it does, but it still doesn't make us anyhow magical beings suddenly transcending cycle of life and death...
Agreed, hence I made no such claim. But a lack of it may render one unable to wonder what is true, and that may play some role in whether we can do anything about climate change. Like, I don't expect too much of it from the stereotypical Trump supporter, but I now no longer expect it of anyone.
> ...when all out ancestors and other even quite smart beings don't / didn't for whatever illogical reasons.
It would seem the power of science is required to destroy the Earth's ecosystem (religion is only adequate to kill people within the ecosystem, and then only sometimes), and as it turns out it took a while for it to overcome religion. But boy once it did, it didn't take long to fuck things up...with zero responsibility to boot (credit where credit is due: good artists copy, great artists steal).
> We just desperately wish for it to be so, because the concept of permanent death is fucking terrifying, for everybody.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride! And wishing (story telling, etc) seems to be our main skill when it comes to certain topics.
> We may still be mentally on a level of bacteria compared to maximum intelligence obtainable in this universe, so self-awareness may not be such a huge milestone some here think it is. A bit of humility about ourselves would serve us well.
100% agree with the second sentence, but do the two sentences not directly contradict each other?? I think we must have our wires crossed somehow.
Agreed, hence I made no such claim. But a lack of it may render one unable to wonder what is true, and that may play some role in whether we can do anything about climate change. Like, I don't expect too much of it from the stereotypical Trump supporter, but I now no longer expect it of anyone.
> ...when all out ancestors and other even quite smart beings don't / didn't for whatever illogical reasons.
It would seem the power of science is required to destroy the Earth's ecosystem (religion is only adequate to kill people within the ecosystem, and then only sometimes), and as it turns out it took a while for it to overcome religion. But boy once it did, it didn't take long to fuck things up...with zero responsibility to boot (credit where credit is due: good artists copy, great artists steal).
> We just desperately wish for it to be so, because the concept of permanent death is fucking terrifying, for everybody.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride! And wishing (story telling, etc) seems to be our main skill when it comes to certain topics.
> We may still be mentally on a level of bacteria compared to maximum intelligence obtainable in this universe, so self-awareness may not be such a huge milestone some here think it is. A bit of humility about ourselves would serve us well.
100% agree with the second sentence, but do the two sentences not directly contradict each other?? I think we must have our wires crossed somehow.
What does self-aware mean then? Nothing? Most would disagree.
The first mistake is the belief that we need to mean something rather than just be something.
> For a lot of people, it feels better ... to think that we are so important that the rest of the universe will also cease to exist when we die.
> ...there are a lot of so-called "rationalists" on this very website who themselves believe in a version of this -- that the world is soon going to face a technological apocalypse of some kind ... believing that they themselves will find a way to escape death....
Neither of these points resonate with me. I think the people you describe are a tiny fraction of people — I'm not sure I know anyone like that in any event.
I think the current trajectory of our civilization is unsustainable for a number of reasons and we will no doubt see some bad outcomes. I have absolutlely no expectation of being able to dodge the consequences though.
Maybe it's people like Peter Thiel though that you have in mind.
> ...there are a lot of so-called "rationalists" on this very website who themselves believe in a version of this -- that the world is soon going to face a technological apocalypse of some kind ... believing that they themselves will find a way to escape death....
Neither of these points resonate with me. I think the people you describe are a tiny fraction of people — I'm not sure I know anyone like that in any event.
I think the current trajectory of our civilization is unsustainable for a number of reasons and we will no doubt see some bad outcomes. I have absolutlely no expectation of being able to dodge the consequences though.
Maybe it's people like Peter Thiel though that you have in mind.
How is fearing the risks associated with technology similar to believing in a cult?
Are people who believe that technology can save their life considered lunatics? Because it can already do so now, to a point, but it's not hard to believe that even old age could potentially be cured in the future, although perhaps not our generation. As far as I know there is no law of physics that would prevent us from being immortals (except perhaps the heat death of the universe or something).
Believing in medicine and its incredibly fast paced progress is believing in something irrational with a "scientific" technological gloss?
Are people who believe that technology can save their life considered lunatics? Because it can already do so now, to a point, but it's not hard to believe that even old age could potentially be cured in the future, although perhaps not our generation. As far as I know there is no law of physics that would prevent us from being immortals (except perhaps the heat death of the universe or something).
Believing in medicine and its incredibly fast paced progress is believing in something irrational with a "scientific" technological gloss?
It starts to veer into cult-like behavior when people start building their lives around _near-term_ apocalyptic scenarios. Being involved in anti-nuclear war protests, fighting for climate regulation to slow down climate change, worrying about AI safety, etc similar actions are all completely justifiable responses to reasonable concerns. Once you start building a bunker on a remote pacific island, you're starting to get into "doomsday cult"-like mentality. https://www.cbc.ca/news/billionaire-bunkers-doomsday-1.71301...
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to spend a tiny fraction of your fortune on building a bunker to gain an advantage against highly unlikely events.
Think a civilisation collapse has a 1 in 1000 chance to happen? Spend 0.1% of your fortune building that bunker.
Building your life around _near-term_ apocalyptic scenarios doesn't seem super healthy to me, but it is vastly different from being part of a cult or believing in Santa Claus, as there is indeed some science behind it, although people living that way may imagine those catastrophic events more probable or severe than they really would be.
Building your life around _near-term_ apocalyptic scenarios doesn't seem super healthy to me, but it is vastly different from being part of a cult or believing in Santa Claus, as there is indeed some science behind it, although people living that way may imagine those catastrophic events more probable or severe than they really would be.
> How is fearing the risks associated with technology similar to believing in a cult?
If it is driven by an assumption that tech will always save us because it always has in the past.
I would draw the line at things like global climate change though.
If it is driven by an assumption that tech will always save us because it always has in the past.
I would draw the line at things like global climate change though.
Well I'd say most transhumanists think that technology can save us from ourselves, not that it would necessarily always do.
I don't see how that is similar to believing in the cult in TFA, and how both are unscientific.
[deleted]
tl;dr
"Elizabeth Prophet regarded American society as existing in a state of decay, comparing it to the last days of the Roman Empire." [0]
She's definitely right about that one ^. A very slow decay, most visibly seen by its gradual fall of GDP and world influence. This is also paralleled by increasing social welfare over the years, which the church also rejected:
"Elizabeth preached against socialism in all forms, seeing it as part of the global elite conspiracy's plot to control all facets of society. She instead emphasised a philosophy of individualism. Palmer and Abravanel characterised the Church's viewpoint as a 'conservative Republican stance'."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Universal_and_Triumphan...
She's definitely right about that one ^. A very slow decay, most visibly seen by its gradual fall of GDP and world influence. This is also paralleled by increasing social welfare over the years, which the church also rejected:
"Elizabeth preached against socialism in all forms, seeing it as part of the global elite conspiracy's plot to control all facets of society. She instead emphasised a philosophy of individualism. Palmer and Abravanel characterised the Church's viewpoint as a 'conservative Republican stance'."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Universal_and_Triumphan...
What’s with this obsession with the Roman Empire ?
This the British talk this way in the 18th century ?
This the British talk this way in the 18th century ?
It was a fixation of literature, history, and political science, for… oh, centuries. Not unjustifiably, either. Any entity that becomes that immensely powerful and influential is gonna tend to cast a long shadow. It’s hard to take even a shallow look at a solid millennium of European history after the fall of the Western Empire without running into at least allusions to Rome all over the place. Longer than that, probably. Like you poke at 20th century European history a little (“why was Alsace-Lorraine a point of contention for Germany and France?”) and before you know long you’re talking about Rome.
“But why Rome, of all ancient empires? Why so Eurocentric?”
Well, the short answer is the Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain.
If you mean why right-leaning groups are interested in it: I’d guess it’s the narrative of barbarians threatening from beyond the borders, the cautionary tale of how that and internal corruption brought them down (“well that’s a bit reductive…”—look, I know that), the honor-culture stuff (real or imagined), et c. The more intellectual side of the right in the US (though I think they’ve been rather left behind at this point) may be interested because of connections to the founders, like Washington’s Cincinnatus-like rejection of power after two presidential terms (we named a fairly major city after the dude, even)
“But why Rome, of all ancient empires? Why so Eurocentric?”
Well, the short answer is the Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain.
If you mean why right-leaning groups are interested in it: I’d guess it’s the narrative of barbarians threatening from beyond the borders, the cautionary tale of how that and internal corruption brought them down (“well that’s a bit reductive…”—look, I know that), the honor-culture stuff (real or imagined), et c. The more intellectual side of the right in the US (though I think they’ve been rather left behind at this point) may be interested because of connections to the founders, like Washington’s Cincinnatus-like rejection of power after two presidential terms (we named a fairly major city after the dude, even)
[deleted]
IIRC some strains of alt-rightism consider the Roman Empire to be peak manliness and therefore peak civilization and we should inject modern Western society with more of its values. Naturally everyone who believes this thinks they'll be one of the few privileged patricians.
Rightly or wrongly, lots of people feel that the USA is in decline. The Roman empire is a dramatic historical example of a world power declining, so people draw parallels. It's pretty straightforward, imo.
[deleted]
Now on the other hand Trump has gone insane and is completely misleading the Republican party, but this a completely different matter...
Trump only normalized beliefs already gaining ground within alt-right, neoconservative and fringe Evangelical ideology. His politics were just boilerplate Fox News/AM radio fare.
Blame the Republican party for preferring to embrace and try to weaponize their lunatic fringe, and blame the other side rather than clean their own house.
Blame the Republican party for preferring to embrace and try to weaponize their lunatic fringe, and blame the other side rather than clean their own house.
hatenberg(1)
Are Harpers and The New Yorker in a battle to see who can write the longest article. It was easy to start a bullshit religion in the mid 20th century. No google/yelp, a huge population of credulous people before the post-90s cynicism set in, post-war prosperity and discretionary income, Cold War paranoia and the public's receptiveness to doomsday messaging, a willingness of public to trust authority figures or anyone who claimed to be one.
[deleted]
[deleted]
tasty_freeze(1)
ggddv(3)
Sort of trashy and shallow, but a good writer makes themselves a part of the work, rather than posturing as purely objective. Ok style wise I guess.
Interesingly, avoiding chocolate when pregnant is really good advice given, as has been posted here numerous times iinm, most commercially profuced chocolate contains lead and cadmium at toxic levels. Sometimes false prophets hit upon truth.
Anyway, I suppose all of this is very reassuring to catholics. Not sure the author could see the bigger picture though. Seemed a bit petty and small minded with scattered humble brags like growing out of her little kierkegaard phase. Lol
Interesingly, avoiding chocolate when pregnant is really good advice given, as has been posted here numerous times iinm, most commercially profuced chocolate contains lead and cadmium at toxic levels. Sometimes false prophets hit upon truth.
Anyway, I suppose all of this is very reassuring to catholics. Not sure the author could see the bigger picture though. Seemed a bit petty and small minded with scattered humble brags like growing out of her little kierkegaard phase. Lol
The posters also, incongruously, had this androgynous-looking image prominently displayed:
https://store.summitlighthouse.org/images/thumbs/0000144_pos...
I thought up until very recently that this was supposed to be an image of Elizabeth Clare Prophet (whose name I thought also was surely made-up), and always wondered why this woman had a mustache :)