Entry 2142, on 2021-07-28 at 19:54:33 (Rating 3, Politics)
They say that the only difference between a cult and a religion is time, and especially enough time so that the founder of a religion is dead, and the its true origins are lost in the depths of time; while the cult's founders and origins are still visible in all their irrationality and corruption.
This idea is rather trite, but I do think it has some merit. Another factor relating to the time since the founding of a movement (I will use that as a general and neutral term) is that over time, many of them gain a lot of followers, and the more followers which exist, the more relevant the movement appears to be.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily make sense, because however many people follow a religion, it still doesn't affect its generally questionable origins. For example, Christianity only became the world's greatest religion through a series of accidents and fortuitous historical events. Any objective analysis of its true evolution soon reveals the insubstantial nature of its accepted origin story.
I'm not just picking on Christianity here, because Islam is equally bad in this regard. In fact it might be worse, since its spread might be traced to violent and forced conversion (an approach condoned by the Koran and Hadith) even more than Christianity. And I'm sure other religions (which I might not be as familiar with) have similar highly suspicious origin stories.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary: a cult is "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object; a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing".
That definition seems to encompass religions just as well as cults, except for the inclusion of the phrase "a relatively small group", or "beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange", or possibly "excessive control". All of these could be the result of greater time since the movement's founding, which supports my argument above.
But not all cults are religious. There are also political cults. According to Wikipedia: "A political cult is a cult with a primary interest in political action and ideology."
So, if we saw a group which was a minority, and had excessive veneration to a person or object, and had practices the majority might see as strange, and had excessive control, we might be justified in labelling it a cult.
After all of this introduction, here is my main point for this post: that the modern "woke" community is a cult (or a religion). First, let me define what I mean by woke in this context. Woke people are excessively interested in dismantling current power structures, they tend to see disadvantaged groups as being victims of the "system", they often reject objective knowledge sources, such as science (except when it suits their cause), and they often base their beliefs on philosophies such as Marxism and postmodernism.
So when I see mindless crowds venerating George Floyd, while demanding the defunding of the police, for primarily irrational reasons, I see a cult or maybe a religion (there's really not a lot of difference between the two, except in the extent to which they have infiltrated mainstream society, and I will use both descriptions in this post).
And when I see people being absolutely certain of the correctness of their beliefs, such as in systemic racism, white privilege, or the evils of capitalism, I see mindless fools who have completely accepted the tenets of a religion while ignoring the objective facts. And this becomes even clearer when they call out their opponents as evil apostates. Yeah, that's a religion - or a cult - for sure, even though they might not realise it.
So what's my point? Well, look back in history and you will see that great civilisations are often destroyed by religion. The Dark Ages held back the Western World for centuries until the power of the church was broken. And during that time the Arab world maintained a lot of the forbidden knowledge until it, in turn, gave religion too much power.
Any irrational belief system which protects itself by punishing apostates and infidels is a bad thing. If a movement cannot stand criticism from the outside, or even better, self-examination, then it is doomed to become inward looking and corrupt. Religions aren't the only form these movements take, but they are the most effective. So any group which mimics religion should be resisted as much as possible, before it gets past the cult phase and becomes a real religion.
It does appear that Wokeism is just another cult, but a very dangerous one, unfortunately. And maybe it has even progressed to being a religion. Either way, it isn't rational, and it won't respond to rational arguments. Religions can only be defeated by constant resistance, by ridicule, and by presenting something else which is better.
And that last point is critical, because is there anything better? The leadership of the US exhibits many of the truly stupid aspects of Wokeism, but the alternative is the Republicans, possibly lead by a figure as divisive as Trump. Is that a viable alternative? personally, I would prefer Trump to Biden, but I can understand why many wouldn't.
And the same applies in New Zealand. Our current PM, Jacinda Ardern, is a truly awful, cultish leader: divisive, incompetent, and dishonest, but does the National opposition represent a truly viable alternative? I'm not sure it really does, which is why I currently support Act rather than either of our major parties.
Maybe the more common sense side of society needs to create its own cult, or better still, a rational, flexible, fact-based movement which all reasonable people can support. Will that ever happen? Probably not. Maybe we are doomed to be ruled by cults.
Comment 1 (6815) by Ken Spall on 2021-08-01 at 16:33:55:
My grandfather, who grew up in Germany during the rise of Hitler often said to me "beware of the extremists, in whatever field of human influence or endeavour".
Comment 2 (6816) by OJB on 2021-08-02 at 09:07:07:
Most people would agree with this; the only problem is who are the extremists. Talk to an extremist and they will generally see their actions as reasonable and necessary, and the moderates are failing to do what is necessary. Remember one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. That's the problem.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE