Hey /his/, I'm really interested in learning about cults and how they form. Is there a prime example of one? It can be any kind of cult, a religious cult, a cult of personality.
Scientology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
Cargo cults are quite interesting.
>Cargo cults often develop during a combination of crises. Under conditions of social stress, such a movement may form under the leadership of a charismatic figure. This leader may have a "vision" (or "myth-dream") of the future, often linked to an ancestral efficacy ("mana") thought to be recoverable by a return to traditional morality.[1][3] This leader may characterize the present state regimes as a dismantling of the old social order, meaning that social hierarchy and ego boundaries have been broken down.
>>857358
>social stress
>charismatic figure
> a "vision" of the future
Trump
Make America great again
Is he just another iteration of the cargo cult?
>>857431
No, it's you being autistic. Populist charismatic figures are not necessarily cults. They just tell people what they want to hear, regardless of it being actually plausible.
>>857477
A personality cult or cult of personality is a system in which a leader is able to control a group of people through the sheer force of his or her personality
Trump doesn't fit this criteria? see /pol/ for evidence.
>>857485
Could Trump really control the /pol/?
>>857487
Without a shadow of a doubt
>>857352
You are in many cults and will always be, hence you will never truly understand it fully.
>>857487
Seems like it, they're a bunch of cucks.
>>857492
>>857498
feels guy and pepe version when
>>857352
HEAVENS GATE
Very well documented, 2h of their testimony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHz9it70TdI
They castrated themselves, wore fitting sneakers and off'ed themselves to get on a UFO that was hiding behind some asteroid.
If you want to see what cultists are like, watch those tapes.
They're not rambling lunatics, and not insane.
>>857352
The book and that "going clear" is based on goes into detail on who Hubbard was and how he made up a whole religion.
The barrier to joining a cult is a lot thinner than people usually think it is. They expect rabidly insane fanatics, and find seemingly rational and serene people telling them nice things. Then group dynamics take over.
>>857779
>telling them nice things
Here's the give-away.
>>857790
Actually insane people are, yeah. But most cultists aren't even pathological, just regular people. My point was you can do that to basicly any human being, bring them tobelieve batshit nonsense through gradual indoctrination and social manipulation.
People think "that could never happen to me, i'm a rational person", and rely on being able to immideately see a cult as insane. But thats not how cults work, and even rational people can get sucked in because they don't expect the cultists to look and talk like sane human beings.
>>857352
The SJW cult is a good case study.
1) it shows how even a good cause like anti-racism or feminism can be taken advantage of and how they constantly resort to using these ideals to justify their behavior, in this case falsely accusing opponents of racism or sexism, the sense your group is under attack and going to paranoid extremes is a typical trait also seen among racists and islamic extremists
2) because it is publicly acceptable, they are trying to break into the mainstream and are exposed to criticism they end up concocting some pretty elaborate logical fallacies, different from insular extremists like survivalists
3) you could probably go talk to one on reddit or tumblr right now, there might even be few here as we speak
>>857358
Okay so obviously Hitler fits that criteria. But doesn't Churchill fit it as well? Martin Luther King and his promised land? I mean just listen to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I%27ve_Been_To_The_Mountaintop.ogg
Now listen to https://youtu.be/ccHvZhosuaQ?t=57s
Or
https://youtu.be/ccHvZhosuaQ?t=1m48s
Can we stop pretending that cults aren't all around us? That they're not the most basic way people have fought under one vision and idea since forever?
Isn't >>857492 basically correct?
The word cult didn't mean what it does until the 19th century. From then on it was used in referring to excessive religious worship. How would you even define a "religious cult"? A worship of someone/something in the context of an abrahamic religion? Then what about new age cults or those that don't fit under any current religions yet still have religious connotations? Now you'd have to define a "religious cult" in the general meaning without tying it to any existing religious beliefs.
How would you go about that? Any belief of the superstition and nonphysical? Then how do you make the difference between belief in human rights (as they're defined now) and the belief in Jesus' resurrection? You can't. People always believe in the metaphysical. You cannot differentiate between a religious cult and a political cult.
Now we got to my point: can we differentiate between alleged cults with negative connotations such as Jonestown, Koreshians, Heaven's Gate and between cults spawned around any other social movements such as the human rights movements under MLK?
Keep in mind if the only difference between them is their purported righteousness or lack of it then we're headed into a lot of subjectivity and relativity.
>>857879
Oh fuck the [embed] on the YT links. Just copy and paste them because you don't need to listen all of it to get my point. Just the 57 second part and 1m 48s part.
>>857879
A resurrection and human rights are not anywhere near the same. The word metaphysical here does not mean what you try to make it. One is belief in magic by doctrine, the other a definition thats agreed upon as useful. Geometry is not metaphysics, even if nature has no perfect circles. Its clearly different from a belief in actually existing fairies or reincarnating souls. .
>only difference is their purported righteousness or lack of it then we're headed into a lot of subjectivity and relativity
This is just exemplified confusion on the same point.
The word cult has many specific meanings, depending on context, but that doesn't mean its meaningless.
In a broad sense, its obsessive devotion mixed with tribal thinking, authoritarianism and borderline agressive resistance to critique.
Human rights movement doesn't fit here in general (except of course for some individuals who would try to silence you if you slander MLK for example, that would be cultish). Among other things, they're not tribal (again, in principle, even if some of the supporters might be).
SJWs are certainly cultish though, very tribal, obsessive, agressively defensive, doctrinal, impervious to reasoning on principle.
So no, not everyone is in a cult. Except if you define cult as just "part of some group, however loose the membership". Like, cult of mathematics, or cult of coffee in the morning. But thats just redefining cult.
>>858004
>In a broad sense, its obsessive devotion mixed with tribal thinking, authoritarianism and borderline agressive resistance to critique.
The AGW is a good example of a new age cult. It has all the ingredients. New age priests - climate scientists - and a central authoritarian church, the UN IPCC, prophecies of doom, end of days unless everyone converts etc. And of course an Inquisition and hunt for deniers who are attacked viscously. Their temples are the UN, NOAA, NASA supercomputers that pump out reams of doom graphs - propaganda - propagation of church dogma. Finally there is the carbon tax, really just a tithe.
It has so many converts today I am sure some are lurking ITT ready to spew their dogma, rhetoric and start posting meme graphs supplied by their handlers and high priests of the climate. Like other new age cults, Scientology or Masonry, the AGW is global in scope, designed to be from the get go.
>>858031
I'm fully aware this is bait :D
But I think it would make for a good example on what is a cult and what isn't:
-no obsessive devotion (open to counter-evidence, noone being threatened with violence, just a bunch of eggheads)
-no doctrine (only based on factual finding which, again, open to being disproven)
-no church (same as local police headquarters are not a police church, its not for reaffirming any sort of faith)
-no priests (noone preaches, people investigate and research and show their findings, which, again, open to be disproven)
-no temples (see church)
-no propaganda (those are again the findings, based on research, open to be disproven by other research)
-its not designed for the purpouse of convertion or spreading, neither is say, chemistry or something like beat-boxing (hubbard did design his stuff though, and told his friends about it, explicitely for profits and spread)
-no doomsday praching (bad consequences based on simulations is not saying the earth will open up and the dead will walk again explicitely for the emotional effect, the diffference being one causes an natural emotional response to factual statements about the universe, the other abuses emotional responses to subvert rationality and make joining a cult easier)
Something along those lines.
>>857879
>muh no black and white
>muh spectrum
There are common factors that can cause it to shift from one side of the spectrum to another. For example the negative feedback loop that arises when someone is convinced to ignore criticism or rapidly dismiss it without thought.
>>858004
>A resurrection and human rights are not anywhere near the same.
That was an extreme example to illustrate the point.
If you want something more realistic then lets go for christian values versus non-christian values. How do they differ? It's literally one group of people that believes on one kind of metaphysical values versus another. Neither is more grounded in reality. If someone is pro life then they believe in the universality of the importance of every life. If someone is pro choice then they believe in the universality of the importance of being free in your decisions over your body. Neither ones argument is grounded in reality any more than the beliefs and values held by the supporters of each.
>the other a definition thats agreed upon as useful
Lets see you apply this criteria to try and differentiate between religious and non-religious values. Both sides have been agreed upon as useful. See? Your criteria just lost its purpose.
>Its clearly different from a belief in actually existing fairies or reincarnating souls.
I don't see how this difference is clear. Explain to me as to how they are different?
Is it their usefulness (as judged by you)? Are you going to apply that criteria of yours again? Well what if I tell you that the belief in Jesus' reincarnation is what convinced many people to endorse christian values and thusly refrain from committing crime? Is that any less useful than the possibilities offered by geometry? Is social cohesion not useful?
The belief in such abstract concepts as God versus Devil is in no way different from the belief in moral and immoral in their subjectivity. Neither exist in reality and both are what society endorses or has endorsed to have everyone act in the ways that have been regarded as having the most positive effect on that society.
>>858091
>In a broad sense, its obsessive devotion mixed with tribal thinking, authoritarianism and borderline agressive resistance to critique.
Define tribal thinking.
>some individuals who would try to silence you if you slander MLK for example, that would be cultish
So how many of the individuals must be 'tribal' for the entire movement to be considered cultish? An arbitrary percentage? All of them?
Does that also mean that if we found some people from the Jonestown who wouldn't become argumentative and defensive when you're criticizing their movement, then the whole movement can be considered as not cultish? In fact, are you aware that >>857779 was right in that
>They expect rabidly insane fanatics, and find seemingly rational and serene people telling them nice things
in that the cultists would probably try and engage you in an open minded fashion?
So if this 'tribalism' isn't the criteria, what is?
>The word cult has many specific meanings, depending on context, but that doesn't mean its meaningless.
I never said the word is meaningless. I'm merely pointing out the different interpretations of the word and how it can be problematic in leading people into making false assumptions as to what cults actually are and their prevalence and role in human society as a whole.
>>858085
>For example the negative feedback loop that arises when someone is convinced to ignore criticism or rapidly dismiss it without thought.
So by your own criteria most of society is immersed in various cults and almost everyone has been part of one?
See this is what was my intention - to point out that it is actually very hard finding objective criteria that would definitely differentiate between cults and various other types of social movements without changing the widely accepted definition of 'cult'.
>>858070
Not bait.
>eggheads
This is the most insidious part of it, consensus "science", paid to bend the facts, doom prophecies proven wrong yet insistent with the dogmatic line man is warming earth. Ignores geological history and alternative theories, like we are just coming out of an ice age in geological time - only 20k years ago. Climate change happened before the oil age, ignores mass emission sources such as volcanic activity. Selective analysis, focus on melting arctic ice every spring whilst ignoring the largest ice sheet on earth the antarctic which is growing...etc.
The world is growing increasingly more cultish as real problems mount, overpopulation, resource depletion and pollution. The AGW cult conveniently ignores these and focuses on taxation of fossil fuels as a solution which in theory will work, but based on lie, will end badly.
Like all cults it must convert children to ensure its future. Since the global cooling, global warming, climate change propaganda bombardment kicked off in the 1970's, we see the effects 40 years later as these children who lacked critical thinking skills are now full grown adults incapable of reversing their take on it. This is called sunk cost bias, they have spent too much time convincing themselves it is real they can't backout, or rationalize AGW and the measures being enacted as it can't hurt. Little do they know they are in essence, enabling the unplugging of their own futures, enabling a new age dark age.
To me, the smoking guns are everywhere and if studying the occult, the best place to start. The largest, most powerful and most obvious example today.
>>858070
You're just going by your gut feeling but that is prone to errors and it'll strike you when you least expect.
Your understanding of what constitutes a cult is very superficial.
>>857494
Problem with /pol/ and 4chan in general is that everyone likes being a contrarian. So you get a lot of hitler threads because some autists get pissed off because of it. Same with Trump.
>>858189
You could say the same reasoning and ask if they like being contrarians so much, why do they support Trump? Why don't they go all out liberal on /pol/ seeing as it pisses so many autists off?
Like it or not /pol/ views aren't just to be contrarian but rather a reflection of what has been happening in the West and the counter reactions it has produced.
>>858134
NO U
>>858091
I'm gonna reply to one, cause the rest of this is just the same relativism garbage.
>christian values versus non-christian values
One is based entirely on a book and authoritarian dictatorship basicly. "This book says whats right, you can't disagree, if you do you deserve to burn forever" -> tribal, our book only book; agressive/threatening: you deserve to burn if you disagree; authoritarian: its right by definition, no arguments allowed
The other is I assume humanism here, that says there are no blanket-statement rules or authoritarian pronouncements, any specific action has to be evaluated on how it affects people, this can be talked about and discussed and is open to whatever new information becomes available. AND, if you disagree you don't deserve to burn for eternity, you're just mistaken unless you can demonstrate why you're right, and then your conclusions will supercede the previous ones.
>>858123
Talked to a muslim once who laughed at me for believing that dinosaurs existed. He said its obviously a fake by governments to con people into paying entrance money for museums. The fact that most museums are actually free did not change his midn whatsoever. You two have a lot in common.
Noone can force you to admit that the sky is blue, at a certain point its just about being intellectually honest.
Literally the same people who said "Doubt is our product" and defended the tabacco industry are doing it now with climate change denial. And you believe them over the vast overwhelming concensus of any professional in the field. Good luck with that, and have a nice life.
>>858189
Yea well that was the case and still is for a lot of 4chan but /pol/ is basically reddit 2.0. This is shown when people post screenshots and links to reddit without anyone calling them out on it. You don't even allow that shit on /b/ or /v/. It's illegal cyber-mexians bitching about illegal mexicans.
I'm not saying that Trump or his followers could be considered a cult, by any measure you'd have to say people following Bernie is part of a cult, but saying that /pol/ is on 4chan doesn't really say much considering how multi-cultural the place is.
>>858218
>I'm gonna reply to one, cause the rest of this is just the same relativism garbage.
Goddamn you're stupid.
>One is based entirely on a book
[Citation needed]
That book is based in turn on the societal values of its time. It was not the book that became the moral basis of the western civilization. It was the western civilization that became the basis of the book which mirrored and reinforced the societal values.
Similarly the human right laws of our current society did not serve as the basis for our values. The other way around, our values served as the basis of these laws which were written to further reinforce them.
>and authoritarian dictatorship basicly
??
You mean as authoritarian as laws?
>"This book says whats right, you can't disagree, if you do you deserve to burn forever"
"This law says what's right. You can't disagree. If you do you deserve to be put to jail."
You're really myopic you know that?
>tribal, our book only book
"Our laws only laws" in reference to the different cultures and values: see opinions on Islam and Sharia in ME for example.
>agressive/threatening: you deserve to burn if you disagree
You're repeating yourself but okay; "you deserve to be put to jail if you disagree"
>authoritarian: its right by definition, no arguments allowed
Do you know what PC is? How it forbids discussion on subjects that are deemed 'incorrect'?
>inb4 a shitton of dark age myths of how duh religion was totalitarian and hated logic reasoning and science and burned everyone who disagreed and how there never was any discussion on or progression of the core principles of christianity
Just stop posting. I've seen better arguments being raised in Youtube comments. You're horribly lacking in a deep understanding of the subject you're discussing. The mere fact that you're afraid to delve into nuance and are seriously triggered about someone not keeping the discussion as simple as you'd like serve as proof you don't belong ITT or indeed on this board.
>>858104
>>858124
Cult members and con artists use similar methods and you can define cults by how ensnared its followers are.
For example getting people to confuse criticism with insults. If someone views criticism of selling vemma sodas as criticism of their dreams of success then you cut them off from concerned friends and family, they are ready for deeper indoctrination. This is how some people get to the point of throwing their life savings away.
>>859025
You're not making much sense.
Hello, I am normal
>Is there a prime example of one?
Christianity and Islam are the two most popular cults in the world. There's also Mormonism and Scientology.
>random dude claims he has some kind of diving background or insight
>some idiots listen to his insane stories and believe them
>guys gains some degree of fame and influence as a result
Tons of cults follow this formula. The only difference is their degree of success.
>>857831
They're an extremist political group, hardly a cult. There's nobody on that side of the political spectrum with the same cult of personality as someone like Putin or Erdogan, at least not in America.
>>860247
divine* background
>>860247
>Christianity and Islam are the two most popular cults in the world
>random dude claims he has some kind of diving background or insight
>some idiots listen to his insane stories and believe them
>guys gains some degree of fame and influence as a result
>this is how religion came to be and worked
>>860300
It's true though. This is how a lot of things form. Many political movements start off as cults of personality revolving around a charismatic central figure.
>>860323
So how do you define a stereotypical cult? More specifically - how do you differentiate it from any other social movement?
