On cults and soft totalitarianism
A short post this
Cults: I am sure anthropologists and the guys who do comparative religion studies have some rigorous definition for cults which no one outside the fields can understand. With the disclaimer let me offer my alternative (?) definition.Cult is any group adhering to a set of belief, who for all practical purposes, refuse to validate or falsify the said beliefs. Even as they insist their beliefs conform to reality or (nowadays) science, they steadfastly resist intrusion of reality. If somehow reality does successfully make a breach, the response is to burrow themselves even more under the certitude of dogma.
Soft totalitarianism: Instead of redefining totalitarianism I will like to shift the focus, totalitarianism refers to a polity where state controls every socio-politico-cultural institution, thus controlling every aspect of social and individual life. While there have been totalitarian regime in the past (Stalin, Mao, Hitler) and exist in the present (North Korea, Saudi Arabia), text book totalitarian regimes are the exception and not the rule. Instead we have a more subtle and hence also more invidious (because it gets ignored) soft totalitarianism. I define soft totalitarianism as the political situation where while in theory both individuals and social institution have freedom as well as rights, and where state doesn't control all aspects of life, there does exist a intellectual monopoly over key social institutions including academia and public discourse such that dissent beyond a certain point is ruthlessly delegitimized and the person who dare to cross the boundary of shibboleth is hounded mercilessly, career destroyed, his right to civil discourse revoked, humiliated, and finally excommunicated.
Cults: I am sure anthropologists and the guys who do comparative religion studies have some rigorous definition for cults which no one outside the fields can understand. With the disclaimer let me offer my alternative (?) definition.Cult is any group adhering to a set of belief, who for all practical purposes, refuse to validate or falsify the said beliefs. Even as they insist their beliefs conform to reality or (nowadays) science, they steadfastly resist intrusion of reality. If somehow reality does successfully make a breach, the response is to burrow themselves even more under the certitude of dogma.
Soft totalitarianism: Instead of redefining totalitarianism I will like to shift the focus, totalitarianism refers to a polity where state controls every socio-politico-cultural institution, thus controlling every aspect of social and individual life. While there have been totalitarian regime in the past (Stalin, Mao, Hitler) and exist in the present (North Korea, Saudi Arabia), text book totalitarian regimes are the exception and not the rule. Instead we have a more subtle and hence also more invidious (because it gets ignored) soft totalitarianism. I define soft totalitarianism as the political situation where while in theory both individuals and social institution have freedom as well as rights, and where state doesn't control all aspects of life, there does exist a intellectual monopoly over key social institutions including academia and public discourse such that dissent beyond a certain point is ruthlessly delegitimized and the person who dare to cross the boundary of shibboleth is hounded mercilessly, career destroyed, his right to civil discourse revoked, humiliated, and finally excommunicated.
