SCP 50: Imagining the End of the World - Apocalyptics

Pretty Pictures! Nature Overturning Civilization

hmarvin — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:40:59 -0400

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/spring2007.html

This is an interesting site about Chernobyl, scroll all the way to the bottom for the most interesting bit.

This is about an North Brother Island in the East River, which isn't even on the MTA map, but hey, it's right near by and it's pretty pictures of what happens when nature overturns civilization.

http://www.archpaper.com/features/2008_06_lost_city.htm

Official: Female suicide bomber kills 3 at checkpoint

rbenmoshe — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:12:19 -0400

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/27/iraq.main/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A female suicide car bomber attacked an Iraqi security forces' checkpoint in eastern Baghdad on Sunday, killing three people, military officials said.

A boy walks past a burning vehicle destroyed during Sunday's clashes in Sadr City.

The bombing came as fighting in the capital's Sadr City neighborhood killed at least seven Shiite militants.

The suicide bomber detonated her taxi near Shaab stadium in a mostly Shiite area of eastern Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said.

An Iraqi soldier and a traffic police officer were among the fatalities. Fourteen others were wounded in the blast, the official said.

In western Baghdad, a roadside bomb exploded Sunday morning, killing one Iraqi soldier and wounding six people, including soldiers and bystanders, the official said.

The soldiers were on foot patrol in the predominantly Sunni neighborhood of Mansour at the time of the blast.

In other incidents, eight people were killed and 44 others were wounded Saturday night and Sunday morning in Sadr City, the Interior Ministry official said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military said it killed seven "special group extremists" in Sadr City during that time.

All but one of the alleged extremists were targeted by airstrikes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just had an idea. I think that rather than looking at female suicide bombers as some anomaly in the masculine monopolized art of terrorism, we could use the examples of female suicide bombers to counter the argument by Miller and Kanazawa that the reward of "70 virgins" is a major motivating factor in compelling Islamic men to perform acts of terrorism-suicide, the polygamy being what "makes men violent" (look at Joanna's note on "Why Women Aren't Funny"). This is because I can't imagine why female suicide bombers would ever be interested in virginal males (rumor has it that they aren't very good in the sack).

what is especially interesting about Miller and Kanazawa's argument is that it supports monogomy over polygamy by linking monogomy to democracy and economic development, and seems to imply that western morales are objectively superior to eastern/Muslim ones.

Miller and Kanazawa write:

"By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region."

However, if we just took a little glimpse at the VERY monogamous world of Medieval Chirstianity, we'd see that there was no democracy and a terribly unequal distribution of wealth. Today we like to call it "feudalism." concerning violence, the Ottoman empire may have been famed for their use of crucifixion, by it appears that Medieval Europe readily eclipsed the Islamic world in the art of torture. Don't believe me? look up some articles on the Walachian Vlad III aka "The Impaler." Further, if we were to comparethe economies of any kingdom in the monogamous Christian west to 11th century Islamic Andalusia and Egypt, or 16th century Ottoman empire, we'd find the "polygamous" economies were doing exponentially better than the monogamous ones.

further, there were no suicide bombers. then again, there were no bombs.

Oh wait, there were things that go "kaboom." in the end of the 17th century, the monogamous venetians, during a battle with the polygamous Ottoman Empire, had no problem firing at a gunpowder-filled Parthenon, the 5th century BC temple built for the goddess Athena. could this be viewed as an act of terrorism? maybe not at the time, but so long as we're on the subject of blowing up ancient stuff, lets not forget about the little tiff the western world (and japan too) made about the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas of Bamyam in 2001.

Why Women Aren’t Funny (Hint: It Has to Do with Men Being Hilarious!)

rbenmoshe — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:07:00 -0400

This is an article by my friend that is being published in the Barnard newspaper. I believe that its a very interesting (and pretty funny) response to the male domination which pervades all aspects of our culture and tries to be reassured in every way possible.

comments?

Subtle Sexisms

By Jamie Rubenstein

“But while some easy barriers have come down, that does not mean all the problems are solved. The barriers that remain are more subtle.”

–Deborah L. Spar, incoming president of Barnard

Why Women Aren’t Funny (Hint: It Has to Do with Men Being Hilarious!)

Apparently, it is a fundamental law of biology that women cannot be funny. It is essential to the human mating process, in fact, that only the man is funny. Sorry, just warning you, this article is about the mating patterns of straight people. I don’t know who gets to be funny in gay courtships. To think about it would mess everything up in my perfect little system here:

Go ahead—think of some funny women you know. Women who pay their bills on their ability to tickle the funny bone alone. Ellen DeGeneres? Margaret Cho? Who else? Come on… come on, there are more. Oh, Amy Sedaris! Tina Fey! Amy Poehler! Sarah Silverman! Enough?

Now, what do all of these women have in common (besides being funny)? I’ll tell you: men will go out of their way to think of a million and one reasons why these women are not only unfunny, but unattractive. It’s biology.

Here’s how it works, according to The Definitive Book of Body Language, by husband and wife team Barbara and Allan Pease (anthropologists both): Laughing is a sign of submission (so is smiling). Monkeys do it, and so do we. It is a way of saying, “Hey, I’m completely harmless!” It is an ingratiating instinct of social animals—we do it when we’re nervous or uncomfortable to make ourselves appear less threatening and protect ourselves from harm. The straight-people mating dance, of course, is all about emphasizing sexual differences. It is a tango, where one person dominates and disarms with humor, and the other, in response, laughs (okay, giggles) in submission. Guess which one is the woman. If you said the former, I do not appreciate you being a little wise-acre.

The Pease team (I’m guessing Allan is a rip-roaring barrel of laughs and Barbara just has the cutest little giggle) went on to explain that men compete to be the funniest out of all the men in the room, and that if there is a man who all the women find absolutely hilarious, the other men, by contrast, will see him as obnoxious and conceited. This is, of course, because the Funniest Guy in the Room is stealing their thunder. Men will make a point of not laughing at other men’s jokes—not laughing asserts superiority, especially saying something that makes everyone else laugh and keeping a straight face (women can do this to each other too, to a startlingly cruel effect—think of middle school).

Now, if all the men get cranky when another man is funnier than them (stiff competition), imagine what happens when a woman with a great sense of timing, quirky observations about life, or some classically hilarious self-deprecating one-liners walks into the room. Total chaos! Humor is power, and so women who are funny are naturally a threat to the man’s “biological” desire to feel like he is dominating his partner. It’s just against the rules.

Speaking of rules (elegant segue way), I don’t know how many of you are familiar with this classic and very biological self-help book, The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right (and then you can be Mrs. Right!!!). This time-tested theory is based on indulging the masculine biological desire to conquer his woman. It’s founded in some very hard science. In the introduction, the writers inform us that back when we were cave-people, men hunted down (re: raped) their mates, and still to this day have a hunting/conquering biological instinct. The whole book is really very scientific. One of the rules is, don’t be funny, because men don’t find it attractive. Instead, if you receive the cue to laugh from your hunter-gatherer-conqueror-who-if-you’re-lucky-will-marry-you-and-protect-you-with-his-club, smile slyly, without making eye-contact for too long (it would give everything away!!) and then laugh airily as if you were a little imp. Some other rules are, don’t talk, don’t let him see how interesting you are, don’t confess to having any flaws, don’t accept a date for Saturday after Wednesday, never call him, and lose twenty pounds. Basically, do everything you possibly can to shape yourself into a patriarchal society’s ideal woman—be an object to be won. It’s a real feminist manifesto. Oh, and by the way, one of the co-writers of this milestone in intellectual history is now divorced. I have a theory about this. I bet she thought, “Ha! Now he’s stuck, and I don’t have to follow these asinine rules anymore!” And one day, she either said something funny, let him see her without her make up on, or revealed that she wasn’t perfect, and then he was like, “What the hell is this? A person? This isn’t what I paid for!” See, if you’re gonna get a man with the rules, it requires upkeep. You can’t get too comfortable.

Being funny requires a special kind of intelligence, a knack for timing, a quick and spontaneous mind, and an instinct for what other people will laugh at. In our chauvinistic society, we still have trouble reconciling women wielding this kind of power. Margaret Cho and Sarah Silverman, for example, (I sort of hate to lump them together), take a lot of flak for having “raunchy” humor. It is very unladylike, you know, to say dirty and bad words (hey, by the way, unladylike is not even an error on spellcheck! It’s a real word). They should really leave it to the big boys. Ellen DeGeneres is easy, of course—she has the whole “gay” thing going on. This idea goes way back to I don’t even know when, that many women who accomplish things like men are literally like men, or gay. My personal favorite is something a young man said to me about Tina Fey: “Eh, I get it. You like her because she’s a woman and she writes sort of funny stuff. I just don’t think she’s funny.” How about, 30 Rock is freaking hilarious, and Tina Fey’s farts are funnier than anything you’ve said in the last five years?

Anyway, ladies, if any of this is news to you, you don’t have to laugh at his jokes. If you’re faking your laughs, just think what else you’ll probably be faking. Save it for someone who’s really funny. I know so many women who make me laugh so hard that I have all sorts of bodily functions. It’s time to practice your stand-up in the mirror and crack at patriarchy one punch-line at a time.

Jamie Rubenstein is a Barnard sophomore.

Falwell and Robertson

jastwood — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:41:25 -0400

I know we talked about this a while ago when we discussing Gender and the Apocalypse in Professor Quinby's book, but I thought its important to see it in real time. Here is an excert from the hate speech Jerry Falwell makes concerning September 11th, it is most assuredly Apocalyptic and frankly just plain scary.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I

Round Table Topics

dblondell — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:29:19 -0400

I thought a thread for discussing round table topics might be helpful.

Right now I'm considering a topic I call "The End of the World and You: How Apocalyptic Belief Pervades Everything". I would begin by taking a poll of how many people at the table believe that we live in extraordinary times; that the world now is in a unique state of unrest and turbulence; and that the world is on the brink of huge changes or catastrophes. Finally, I think a good conversation starter might be to mention that Stephen Hawking doubts the ability of the human race to survive beyond 2100, and ask what people think about this estimation.

In addition to conversation like this, I would bring in advertisements, news clippings, or whatever mainstream media I can find that hints to, or explicitly expresses apocalyptic belief.

ecoterrorists!

rbenmoshe — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:16:24 -0500

could this be the revitalization of the eco/peta terrorist era?

www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/03/seattle.fire/index.html

Anyone want to give me a synopsis of last weeks discussion?

shoughteling — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:36:58 -0500

Last week I was sick and didn’t attend class, rather than trek it to Manhattan and cough on you all. Vitamin C and garlic always seem to get the job done though. Would any of you guys mind quickly touching upon the key points you discussed during class so that I can jump right back into it tomorrow?

Just after starting Terror in the Mind of God I noticed how perfectly this second reading complimented our first since it expanded upon many of the major ideas we had recently discussed. Kirsch’s writing, the Book of Revelation, and our talks about apocalyptic history had lead me into deep thought about them and their correlation to religious extremism, (as I wrote in my last blog.) While Revelation itself, as the apocalyptic text of the New Testament, and Kirsch, related to how Revelation had shaped the Christian institutions with great effect on western history, the Juergensmeyer explored extremists from a wide range of religions, and their personal motivations and explanations for reaching the places they have.

I think Juergensmeyer affectively captivates us, the readers, by first discussing “Christian Militancy in the West.” Though we all could probably tell in great detail every step we took on September 11, 2001, and thus are quite familiar with the effects Islamic extremism have had upon our generation and culture, Christian militancy is a reminder that every religion, when perverted, can be cruel and violent. It also hits close to home since we’re talking about numerous acts of violence committed by our citizens, against out citizens, on our soil.

The 1990’s witnessed a number of domestic acts of violence by pro-life and other Christian extremists. Juergensmeyer eerily describes his encounters with Reverend Michael Bray, convicted in 1989 of a number of abortion clinic bombings in the DC metropolitan area. What’s so eerie to me is that the author clearly has trouble believing at first that Bray could be capable of doing what he did, due to his demeanor and general presentation. “I found nothing sinister of intensely fanatical about him. He was a cheerful, charming, handsome man in his early 40’s who liked to be called Mike.” (20) Bray views abortion as murder, so it is morally OK to kill a practicing Dr. who does abortions, though killing a retired abortionist would be retroactive killing and not OK in his view. As the rest of the chapter exposes – Bray is not alone in having violent and religiously extreme views on abortion, the fate of Christianity, and America itself, which is really what interested me. I was less familiar with Christian identity though very cognizant about who Timothy McVeigh is.

In my last blog I touched upon religious extremists in our country by saying: ”it's REALLY SCARY to think that many fellow Americans - namely those literally in charge of our Government… take [The Book of Revelation] as the literal word of God.” The depictions and visuals are so wild, the theme so vengeful and intense, that even though this text is extremely mainstream in Christian thought, it all of sudden seemed quite “extreme” in nature to me. I was rebutted with the idea that as long as our leaders are not pressing their beliefs on us, why shouldn’t they have the same religious freedom which we all do.* Further more, fear of others faith is exactly what prompted the experiences of the Jews and Christians in the 100’s A.D. who were persecuted and tortured by the Romans. To clarify my initial point, and in light of the Juergensmeyer reading, what bothers me is the slippery slope that religious devotion, extremism, and militancy seems to fall on together. As Juergensmeyer depicts, religious militancy is not found in one predominant religion (as Fox news seems to insist) but all. A good leader, no matter if they are religious or secularly, will be a good leader, just as a bad leader will always be a bad one. I am all for religious freedom, it is one of the major pillars of our nation, but I do not condone (as I know none of you do either) violent acts in the name of god. I believe in our civil liberties, and taking “pre-emptive” action against our own citizens to prevent this would be spying and illegal. But having leaders with misguided policies, a quick trigger, and very strong religious convictions is troublesome to a secularly minded college kid growing up in an increasingly unstable unipolar world. (Again… you’re right though. The apocalyptic tradition at its best perhaps?)

*It is interesting to note that this idea comes back up on page 67 in Islam’s “Neglected Duty”. Abouhalima comments on why Muslim activists target the U.S. and simultaneously praises America for it’s religious freedom, saying that it is easier for him to follow his religion here than it would have been back in Egypt.

*** After writing this I also realized how my own knowledge of history perhaps morphs the way I view secular national leaders versus religious ones. Before reading Kirsch, though I had a solid knowledge of Colonial history, I had never really realized how large a role apocalyptic theory played in the vision and fight for our new nation during the War for Independence. These two factors lead me to an interesting question I thought I’d throw out there. Instead of F.D.R. being a wealthy w.a.s.p. from the North, imagine if he was basically the exact same President, still a democrat and the creator of the New Deal, but from the south instead and devoutly religious, the grandson of a slave owner. It took a lot of coaxing, and an attack at Pearl Harbor, for the America people to support the war, which ultimately removed us from the Great Depression. How do you think history would judge Roosevelt if instead of defending freedom and our European allies by defeating evil, he was vocally calling Hitler the antichrist and saying that the U.S. must defeat Nazi Germany to fulfill the teaching of Revelation?

12-21-2012

dblondell — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:17:25 -0500

The most popular date today for the end of the world seems to be December 12, 2012. Here's a troubling little number explaining why 12-21-12 is so significant, with speculations on what the day might bring. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11iCmzGnOI8

Mormonism and Satire

jastwood — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:32:10 -0500

I'm including a link to a South Park episode that is a (rather crude, but humorous) depiction Mormonism and its founding. Its interesting to see how the popularity of a post-millennial sect is lampooned. I can only imagine early Christians facing similar criticism and satire (in addition to the lions). Once again, for any of those who haven't watched an episode of South Park before, the cartoon can be a bit disturbing at times, but surely nothing more shocking than Revelation. Enjoy.

http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/712/All-about-the-Mormons?.html

Jesus the Avenger

anoel — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:58:42 -0500

I was just thinking about the fact that the contrast between the Jesus we all know and love from the rest of the New Testament is vastly different from the bloodthirsty war-mongering one of Revelation.

From what I have learned in my Christian upbringing, one of the main reasons that the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah is because of the humble sorta down-to-earth form in which he arrived. After thousands of years of ritual persecution, they were more hoping for a vengeful fire and brimstone type Saviour and instead they got "turn the other cheek" and "love thine enemy". But finally, in Revelation, Jesus comes as the celestial warrior-king that the Jews always wanted in the first place. A bit too late perhaps?

Which makes me wonder, what are the end of the world stories in Judaism like? Does it involve carnage and virgins like so many of the other stories? Does it involve Jesus? Or more likely Moses...

Apocalypse as Political Propaganda

jkata — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:04:33 -0500

In chapter three of the history of the end book it touches on how revelation can almost be seen as propaganda and that "modern scholars agree that Revelation and the whole apocalyptic tradition are best understood as a way of coping with oppression and persecution by imagining a better world to come." (87) Then the book later goes on to say that John was a "astute propagandist who expertly strokes the hopes and terrors of his readers and hearers." (99)

This same kind of propaganda is still in use today especially in political ads, sometimes it is only subtle (usually because they are the official campaign ads) and other times not, like in this one:

www.youtube.com/watch

Clearly this type of propaganda is playing to the fears that some people may have these days, which are that they are being persecuted for their freedom and that choosing the right leader will deliver them from evil. Oddly enough I'm sure that the "evil" people who are causing this fear also consider themsleves to be persecuted and oppressed because of their beliefs, and that they are only trying to fight what they see as evil as well.

a corporate paradiso

rbenmoshe — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:22:07 -0500

I remember watching an episode of Charmed (for reputation's sake, I honestly do not watch the program regularly, but I was on the treadmill and needed something pain-numbing) in which the three witches had finally achieved their goal (was it their goal?) of defeating the Evil (insert name here) and his/her/its evil minions and ushered in an era of peace on earth, or at least in sunny california. But how ever did they rid the earth of evil and (re?)store peace on earth. well, albeit an initial war had been won by "the charmed ones," and the general "evil" force (perhaps comparable to Pauline ideas of evil) had been eradicated from the earth, there was no mass genocide of pedestrians and yeoman who had commited adultery, or gambled away their children's college tuition, or stolen some petty item, or beaten their wives/husbands/elders/children. I'm pretty sure that even martha stewert, george bush, and osama bin laden were all still "chillen" (though not like a villain). There was no feminist apocalpyse- i didn't see any immediate legislation pass about legalizing abortion is countries funded by US dollars (by the way its called the gag rule, you should look into it). There was no communist apocalypse- the snaky theiving bourgeoisie was not overturned by the proletariat. There was no Roy apocalypse - no universalized healthcare, no free college tuition, no subsidized housing, my parents weren't in therapy. Actually THIS age of peace was quite different.

Instead, everyone was just "nice." and what does "nice" mean on primetime television? well, they had smiles plastered on their faces (after a while, even my face was hurting) and they were all socializing with one another. An emblem of their "nice-ness" was when one person (person A's) vehicle crashed into another person (person B's) vehicle. Person B immediately got out of the car and apologized. However, Person A was not angry with Person B. Instead, Person A asked "Do you have insurance?" to which person B replied "Yes, yes.' Person A: "then its alright." Big smile. END SCENE.

but wait a second? what if person B didn't have insurance? such unanswered questions come with corporate paradiso, in which the general idea is that the world would be in eternal peace if only everyone could "just get along" (or "get a bong" depending on which state you live). That the people of the world could sustain themselves on capitalism, because the market fixes itself (or did that only work before globalism?), if only they were "nice" to one another, as opposed to "mean" to one another.

I didn't buy it, although I had the odd feeling that I was being sold much more.

anyone concur? whats your personal paradiso? and how is the war fought for it?

Anti-Christ

jastwood — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:10:36 -0500

What always struck me is the way in which Satan all the other supposedly "dark" beings are excluded and persecuted by the Bible and God. Who's to say the Anti-Christ and his followers are any less vlaid than Christ and his apostles? Who decides who is a false prophet and who is not and why? The Bible has a strange dualism that seems to say there is only one right way of doing things, God's way. In Revelation, God does not come across as the Chrisitan God you generally hear about. Revelation God seems to be angry, spitelful and generally wanton with his punishments. Perhaps that's how God is usually protrayed in the Bible, I'm not that knowledgeable with the text. I know I'm playing Devil's advocate (pun intended) but maybe Hell is just another point of view just as valid as Heaven. In any case, like I said in class, Hell seems to be a lot more interesting and at the very least, less gaudy than Heaven.

Revelation & Acts

jdrouin — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:48:33 -0500

I really enjoyed the range of topics that was covered in our class discussion tonight. The conversation about commerce and the mark of the beast reminded me of another biblical book that seems opposite to Revelation in many ways: Acts of the Apostles, which tells the hopeful story of the formation and unification of the early Christian community. Wealth and possessions are shared evenly for the good of the community (it's very communistic). At one point, a man named Ananias and his wife Safira withold some profits from the sale of her property and are struck dead by God (4:32-5:12). Their sin was in not being wholly devoted to the community and therefore to God.

I guess in that sense, their killing in Acts can be seen to foreshadow the death in Revelation that awaits those who do commerce with corrupt Rome, which is an act that sunders the purity and unity of the church.

What's more interesting, though, is that Acts is perhaps the only book in the bible in which women who play an active role are considered "good," as opposed to Revelation, where women like Jezebel are "bad" or "deadly." The women of Acts are primary organizers of churches, which were run from homes, and the kinds of domestic and commercial labor they performed was crucial to the success of the community. I just think it's interesting that, as we discussed in class, the ideal or "good" woman in Revelation is the passive virgin type who passively suffers or is redeemed at the hands of male figures (the dragon and then the angels).

Just a point I had wanted to raise before the topic moved on.