Chapter 3 perfectly encapsulates the absolute delusion that is Christian fundamentalism. It’s shaped by a harmful theology that makes the very idea of historical progress difficult to trust. So instead of embracing a perfect world, they run from it.

Apoplectic belief, especially premillennial dispensationalism, teaches people how to falsely interpret the world around them. If history is understood as moving toward corruption and divine judgment, then social progress can look misleading. Even genuine attempts to improve society can be considered as distractions from the “real” story, which is that the world is falling apart exactly as prophecy said it would.

So then it creates a different relationship to history. A progressive view of history assumes that, however imperfectly, people can work to improve social conditions. But an apocalyptic view assumes that history is unraveling toward divine intervention. So then decline is evidence that events are unfolding as they should. As Jennings says, fundamentalists begin to look at catastrophic news and see proof of the impending apocalypse in everything they read. It literally just solidifies their erroneous beliefs. And they don’t want to change any of it, because then it would negate their worldview.

The political and emotional consequences of this are insane. If the world is seen as terminal rather than improvable, then the central task of the believer is not to embrace positive change but to remain spiritually separate from a corrupt society. It affects how people live, what they fear, and how they interpret reality.

Every new emergency becomes further proof that the prophetic reading of history was correct. That’s such dangerous thinking, I’m terrified that these people vote

i LOVE this indictment of the "vote blue no matter who" crowd and how liberal politicians position themselves as some sort of "savior" from the more outwardly oppressive Republican party. this is why they say scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds!

what really irks me about this messaging is how liberal ideologues have STILL tried to push it. even as Kamala Harris lost due to her refusal to acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians, a refusal to even pretend that she would stand between Israel and Palestine as president of the most powerful country on the planet

a woman who was running on the campaign of being the first Black/South Asian woman president, of being "Momala", of being "Gen Z's brat president", and yet she couldn't meet her voters where they were at. i still vividly remember the image of Palestinian activists at her campaign rally, calling for the right to speak, and Kamala saying "i'm speaking" and shutting them down

to me there is no better representation of liberal privilege than that (and mirrors the image El Akkad uses of protestors chanting Palestinian deaths at Biden's rally being drowned out by "four more years")

the failure of Kamala represents the failure of liberalism: wanting to benefit from the support of the voterbase just by basis of identity and messaging, but not wanting to actually make any material change to the lives of those most affected. and yet the "vote blue no matter who" crowd is just as loud as ever

TikToks calling for the return to Starbucks and McDonalds and making jokes about Trump leveling Gaza and turning it into a resort in order to "pay back" the Palestinians for "costing them the election"

making fun of activists, calling them "single issue voters" to minimize the fact that the "single issue" is the most abhorrent moral issue known to humankind (genocide). minimizing the fact that normalizing violence abroad, normalizing genocide, serves to normalize violence at home, to justify policing and deportation and mass incarceration

the same liberals chanting "fuck ICE" are the same liberals chanting "vote blue no matter who"; the exact same contradiction that El Akkad points out when he talks about liberalism wanting to exist in the hypocrisy of benefiting from empire while pretending to empathize with those most oppressed and harmed. liberals can oppose ICE while supporting the political party with the highest rate of deportations. liberals can oppose police violence while voting for people who arm genocides

the cognitive dissonance is held together by the belief that intentions matter more than outcomes, that the feelings are what count, that being on the "right side" in your heart absolves you of the consequences of your vote. but intentions don't stop bombs. being "less bad" than the other option doesn't matter when both options are taking part in the same system of violence. the ability to care about violence that stays comfortably far away. the proximity determines the politics

this topic makes me so extremely angry and El Akkad captured that very well

as the title says, i'm looking for books with polyamory! any mix of genders is fine but bonus points if there's at least one nonbinary person!