the absolute arrogance to think "be ready for your car to try to kill you" is a normal statement, without even mentioning that in doing so, it will very likely kill other drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians... what a perfect metaphor for capital externalizing its risks and costs.
My dad used to have a job teaching rich people how to drive again. They technically knew how to drive and had their licence or whatever, but they’d been paying someone else to drive them around for donkey’s years. Then they ended up behind the wheel of a car and realised they’d forgotten how steering wheels work. From the outside, the level of wealth that allows these people to outsource their activities of daily living looks like a non-invasive lobotomy.
Not if, but when Apartheid Clyde stans ultimately realize that Tesla will never be able to deliver on its FSD utopia, they won't admit they have been duped. The stock will tank, 'cause Tesla is just another car producer, not a tech company. The stans will just re-focus their attention on the next vaporware product he has launched. Starship! Roadster 2! Cybertruck! Teslabot! Neuralink! The list goes on.......
great piece. my gf is listening to a podcast called "sounds like a cult" and boy oh boy i'm seeing cults everywhere now. one minor edit: "In books about Apple, a term you’ll here again and again" i think the "here" should be "hear" but there are no geniuses so i'm probably off base.
Thanks for the article. Although there are a lot of interesting points made, you fail, at least as far as I can tell, to deliver a good argument for the statement in the title of the article. And with that I don't mean that it is a false statement. In fact I'm convinced it is either true or at least close enough to true.
That is why when I reached the end of the text I thought for a bit, that it was a well argued piece, but upon reflecting on it, I realized that I mostly felt that way, because you argue for something I already believe to be true. Saying ,,all swans are white because, I know about three white Swans" is an equally flawed argument as ,,all swans are black, because I know about three black swans", even though the first conclusion is mostly true while the second isn't. I think one could probably write about something totally wrong like ,,All people in favor of strict gun laws are left-extremists" and give a similar level of evidence: a couple people who are in favor of gun laws are left-extremists, one of which wrote something about gun laws being good and some assumption about how being a left extremist pushes your brain towards wanting gun laws. When you make a general statement you have to back it up by referring to something like a study that uses a sample of relevant size and quality, 3 billionaires that are also all in a very similar demographic (white, American, male, which I realize is a lot of them) and that a lot of people already perceive as cult-leader-like, doesn't really cut it. Which is why when you imply something like ,,all billionaires eventually fall for their own bullshit" you are not standing on very secure ground, because it is very possible that Jobs wouldn't have had that operation anyway even if he wasn't a billionaire or that being a billionaire only made him be totally detached from reality and wouldn't do that to everyone else in the same situation. That is why you choose a relevant sample size to show that it is not just one weird outlier or instead put a lot more effort into proving that money and power really always damages your brain ( as a side note that doesn't seem more evident to me than the idea that it is the other way around and only people with a sort of brain damage believe it to be necessary to strive for this level of wealth and power). I think one possible counter argument that would also be interesting to address is that some billionaires would probably look like cult leaders no matter how they act, for example the Harry Potter fandom might act like a cult even if J.K. Rowling was a nice humble down to earth writer and not a self obsessed prick acting like a cult leader.
I should note that I stumbled across this article (and I guess was in the mood to write a review) and am not a regular reader. So If presenting a near watertight argument for a central thesis is very much not what your writing is about you can mostly dismiss the above criticism. Also I want to stress again: It is true that billionaires suck and they shouldn't exist.
What are you talking about? There's nothing cult-like about this.
"a group of cryptocurrency entrepreneurs had no plans to leave until Elon Musk, the man they named their currency after, accepted a 12,000-pound sculpture of a Mr. Musk-headed goat riding a rocket."
This why Scott Snyder's Batman is the most believable Batman. He cloned himself everey 27 years to keep himself viable which would make all these weird ass tech billionaires cream their pants if they got to try it
Interesting article about the connections between wealth, genius and cult crafting. I like how you’ve outlined their breakdowns too.
It brings to mind Carlo Cipolla’s 5 Basic Laws of Stupidity. Apparently it applies as well to billionaires, geniuses, cult leaders and their followers as anyone else.
“Declining societies have the same percentage of stupid people as successful ones. But they also have high percentages of helpless people and, Cipolla writes, “an alarming proliferation of the bandits with overtones of stupidity.”
“Such change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the [stupid] fraction and makes decline a certainty,” Cipolla concludes. “And the country goes to Hell.”
The existence of genius in relatively legible fields, such as physics, mathematics, chess, tennis, and basketball is hard to dispute. A normal person simply cannot be LeBron James or Magnus Carlsen.
Even in less legible fields, like politics or warfare it's just...obvious. Napoleon and Caesar were just ridiculously better than his peers and winning battles, JFK and Reagan are very clearly leagues above the dozens of knockoffs we've seen since their time *as politicians*, regardless of whether you like their policies.
the absolute arrogance to think "be ready for your car to try to kill you" is a normal statement, without even mentioning that in doing so, it will very likely kill other drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians... what a perfect metaphor for capital externalizing its risks and costs.
I think billionaires were a bad idea
My dad used to have a job teaching rich people how to drive again. They technically knew how to drive and had their licence or whatever, but they’d been paying someone else to drive them around for donkey’s years. Then they ended up behind the wheel of a car and realised they’d forgotten how steering wheels work. From the outside, the level of wealth that allows these people to outsource their activities of daily living looks like a non-invasive lobotomy.
It’s almost as if billionaires are somehow siloed off from dealing with the unpleasant realities of a brick’n when they pull their nefarious shit.
Not if, but when Apartheid Clyde stans ultimately realize that Tesla will never be able to deliver on its FSD utopia, they won't admit they have been duped. The stock will tank, 'cause Tesla is just another car producer, not a tech company. The stans will just re-focus their attention on the next vaporware product he has launched. Starship! Roadster 2! Cybertruck! Teslabot! Neuralink! The list goes on.......
Cult indeed.
Really want to own a car that acts like Kato from The Pink Panther. That sounds like a blast.
great piece. my gf is listening to a podcast called "sounds like a cult" and boy oh boy i'm seeing cults everywhere now. one minor edit: "In books about Apple, a term you’ll here again and again" i think the "here" should be "hear" but there are no geniuses so i'm probably off base.
Thanks for the article. Although there are a lot of interesting points made, you fail, at least as far as I can tell, to deliver a good argument for the statement in the title of the article. And with that I don't mean that it is a false statement. In fact I'm convinced it is either true or at least close enough to true.
That is why when I reached the end of the text I thought for a bit, that it was a well argued piece, but upon reflecting on it, I realized that I mostly felt that way, because you argue for something I already believe to be true. Saying ,,all swans are white because, I know about three white Swans" is an equally flawed argument as ,,all swans are black, because I know about three black swans", even though the first conclusion is mostly true while the second isn't. I think one could probably write about something totally wrong like ,,All people in favor of strict gun laws are left-extremists" and give a similar level of evidence: a couple people who are in favor of gun laws are left-extremists, one of which wrote something about gun laws being good and some assumption about how being a left extremist pushes your brain towards wanting gun laws. When you make a general statement you have to back it up by referring to something like a study that uses a sample of relevant size and quality, 3 billionaires that are also all in a very similar demographic (white, American, male, which I realize is a lot of them) and that a lot of people already perceive as cult-leader-like, doesn't really cut it. Which is why when you imply something like ,,all billionaires eventually fall for their own bullshit" you are not standing on very secure ground, because it is very possible that Jobs wouldn't have had that operation anyway even if he wasn't a billionaire or that being a billionaire only made him be totally detached from reality and wouldn't do that to everyone else in the same situation. That is why you choose a relevant sample size to show that it is not just one weird outlier or instead put a lot more effort into proving that money and power really always damages your brain ( as a side note that doesn't seem more evident to me than the idea that it is the other way around and only people with a sort of brain damage believe it to be necessary to strive for this level of wealth and power). I think one possible counter argument that would also be interesting to address is that some billionaires would probably look like cult leaders no matter how they act, for example the Harry Potter fandom might act like a cult even if J.K. Rowling was a nice humble down to earth writer and not a self obsessed prick acting like a cult leader.
I should note that I stumbled across this article (and I guess was in the mood to write a review) and am not a regular reader. So If presenting a near watertight argument for a central thesis is very much not what your writing is about you can mostly dismiss the above criticism. Also I want to stress again: It is true that billionaires suck and they shouldn't exist.
...I thought the Whole Mars tweet was a joke. Whoo boy.
What are you talking about? There's nothing cult-like about this.
"a group of cryptocurrency entrepreneurs had no plans to leave until Elon Musk, the man they named their currency after, accepted a 12,000-pound sculpture of a Mr. Musk-headed goat riding a rocket."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/crypto-entrepreneurs-seek-elon-musks-attention-with-600-000-goat-statue-11669433689
Someone remind Elon that he's not the Omnissiah. Even if he were, it's still heresy.
Speaking of cults—is Behind the Bastards going to dig into Ingrid Newkirk or is PETA too litigious? She gives me uncomfortable Savitri Devi vibes
This why Scott Snyder's Batman is the most believable Batman. He cloned himself everey 27 years to keep himself viable which would make all these weird ass tech billionaires cream their pants if they got to try it
Interesting article about the connections between wealth, genius and cult crafting. I like how you’ve outlined their breakdowns too.
It brings to mind Carlo Cipolla’s 5 Basic Laws of Stupidity. Apparently it applies as well to billionaires, geniuses, cult leaders and their followers as anyone else.
“Declining societies have the same percentage of stupid people as successful ones. But they also have high percentages of helpless people and, Cipolla writes, “an alarming proliferation of the bandits with overtones of stupidity.”
“Such change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the [stupid] fraction and makes decline a certainty,” Cipolla concludes. “And the country goes to Hell.”
The existence of genius in relatively legible fields, such as physics, mathematics, chess, tennis, and basketball is hard to dispute. A normal person simply cannot be LeBron James or Magnus Carlsen.
Even in less legible fields, like politics or warfare it's just...obvious. Napoleon and Caesar were just ridiculously better than his peers and winning battles, JFK and Reagan are very clearly leagues above the dozens of knockoffs we've seen since their time *as politicians*, regardless of whether you like their policies.
Good writing, as always