Nice characterization! That said, leadership for major change does have to come from somewhere and impetus for change is difficult to achieve. The thing about

Nice characterization! That said, leadership for major change does have to come from somewhere and impetus for change is difficult to achieve. The thing about cults is that everything social is a social construct requiring shared belief to exist, I think John Searle calls it assent or something like that. While a healthy society must critique institutions for their failures and problems, I'm not sure if it's defensible to say that Greenpeace has nothing to do with saving the planet and as much as it pains me to admit, Focus on Family may even help families too. Does Greenpeace hurt more than help, or Focus on Family? And if so, what realistic ways to achieve the intended affects. After all, the environment is in danger, and social conservatism isn't going away. The organizations of social conservatives will be conservative whether we like it or not, we just need to keep teaching them not to fcku with everyone who is not. In effect your hyperbole here is similar to theirs, yours has the characteristics of a mass generalization which simply won't have any affect except on the already despairing, the true believers any of a number of causes which you aren't necessarily thinking of, and of course the trolls or whatever we want to describe non-constructive criticizers as. I'm trying to break out of that particular cult, it's a long road, but similar to what you're getting at I think this type of cynicism is a destructive force, thus my rant ;)