I still can't imagine or comprehend what kind of mental illness, evil coercion, or both, is needed for a mother to murder her own 1 year old child.
Not being an American, I first learned about Jonestown pretty recently, but I keep returning to sources about it and I simply can't comprehend it. What causes people do this? Why did Jones do this? How can someone like that enjoy political support? Does anything like this still happen? Why? Where?
The author of this article takes care to point out that it was mass murder, not mass suicide. I "understand" mass murder for personal gain, or because of blind racism, or out of desperation (eg access to food), or as defense against (perceived) threats. But what would cause one to murder their own community and then themselves? What's in it for, well, anyone? I mean, American high school shootings, 9-11, or Anders Breivik's terror attack make a lot more "sense" to me than the Jonestown story.
Does anyone here, maybe someone older than me, understand this? What was the world like in that time, that something could come to this?
One worthwhile vantage point from which to understand the foul and self-serving element of the 1960s in California is Joan Didion’s essay collection The White Album, published 1979. And in particular the title essay, which deals partly with the Manson cult.
It is a fascinating book, and she is such a singular writer, with a different and unique viewpoint of the 60s (being older than the hippies and not temperamentally suited to an optimistic worldview anyway), that it is completely worth your time.
Another reference point, come to think of it, is T.C. Boyle’s novel Drop City, which also features an idealistic commune that starts out in California and relocates (kids and all) to a remote place once the Man catches up to them. It also does not end well.
(Edited to add: not knocking the 60s as a whole, or optimism, or hippies, each of which has/have their place in my heart.)
I remember an essay about how, every generation in the modern era, it seems like there's a new crop of avant-gard writers who think they should shake things up and abandon the rules of narrative, or some such. These movements turn out to produce "new and forward thinking" writing that eerily resembles the attempt of the previous generation.
We know from history and even archaeological records, that there have been people trying to start society anew with some idealistic insight or inspiration for literally thousands of years. Most of those attempts resemble each other. Most of them fail within a few generations, and most well inside one. That's not to say that there isn't some kind of progress. However, even the examples of progress can be characterized with common attributes.
Often, in the case of successes, there is often an economic revolution based on technology. There is often some kind of communalism involved, which fails to scale, resulting in some form of hierarchy and bureaucracy. There is almost always some kind of ideology involved as well.
They do and they don't. Once, the only way to deal with the out group was to kill them. Slavery was developed as an alternative to killing. Now, we regard slavery as an abomination. Many countries are abolishing the death penalty. There is some progress, at least for a little while.
Last Podcast on the Left has a multi-part episode on Jonestown - it shows how his ego goes unchecked even from the beginning of his life and how he slowly prepares the people in his cult to take their own lives one day. Definitely worth a listen if you find this interesting.
I'd note that it's very intense, but worth the six hours. It really tries to get at the underlying thinking behind those involved in this kind of thing.
One thing jones promised was an idealistic prejudice free vision of society. Keep in mind many of his victims were poor black elderly people who had likely seen the harshest era of jim crow racism. They were old in the 1970s meaning that some had likely experienced racial terrorism & seen lynchings & kkk rallies. A white man preaching equality and justice to such an oppressed people would seem messianic.
I am old enough to remember it. I guess I would have been 13. It was a very big deal at the time. Not like 911, but like the Oklahoma city bombing. I think the comparison at the time was really to like Manson. Same kind of crazy person, but able to convince more people. There was a huge story about it in time magazine I remember reading. My general sense is nowadays while it's possible, it's harder to isolate people like that (i.e. cell phones, email), but there are still crazy things like the NXIVM thing. Of course its hard to tell if what's change is not world, because I'm 53 now and not 13. So my sense is now that it's probably easier for someone to get word out that they want out and are afraid. Really the part of article that was interesting to me was the part about the congressman, and the things he did before. That's the kind of thing I can't imagine happening now. I had completely forgotten that there was a congressman that had died.
I think the best thing to do is listen to Jones' own words, and look at their ideology, rather than ascribing it to more abstract psychology notions.
Jones believed, or at least said he believed, that because of the shooting of the Congressman (which he claimed he had no control over), they were all doomed. The US government was going to kill them.
I apologize for the source (though I can verify it is accurate, having listened to the recording), but here's the transcript of the tape of Jones telling them they needed to die:
> So my opinion is that you be kind to children and be kind to seniors and take the potion like they used to take in ancient Greece and step over quietly because we are not committing suicide. It's a revolutionary act. We can't go back; they won't leave us alone. They're now going back to tell more lies, which means more congressmen. And there's no way, no way we can survive.
> JONES: Don't be afraid to die. You'll see, there'll be a few people land out here. They'll torture some of our children here. They'll torture our people. They'll torture our seniors. We cannot have this. Are you going to separate yourself from whoever shot the congressman? I don't know who shot him.
Essentially, Jones believed their (in his mind) communist, multiracial utopia was doomed to fiery death the moment his people shot Leo Ryan. The mass suicide (or murder, if you prefer) was in his mind, and in the minds of many of his followers, a protest against the racist capitalists.
Just so you know... creepypasta is fiction and they've even had to come out and say so multiple times. So whatever recording you listened to is probably also fiction...
Following references on Wikipedia (which would have been a better way for me to find a reference in the first place), here's a site on SDSU with the tape and several transcripts, one by the FBI:
Never underestimate the power of charisma and persuasiveness. Just look at Osho and other cult leaders. They find people that have nothing to lose, a void, and fill it with charismatic lies. That’s what makes these individuals truly sick and twisted.
Another take is that if you speak in general enough terms, people will fill in the blanks with what they want to hear. You see this in politics a lot too.
Indeed. I listened to some of the tape recordings of him and has what I call a hypnotic voice. He is spewing crazy gibberish but I can see how it sounds appealing and pleasant at the same time.
Understanding that question "How could this happen?" is something that will help you understand more about the world, and may change your opinion of people whom you think are crazy.
The key is that humans act on their beliefs. Which is to say if you believe X, then the action required for situation Y is Q. Rather than be abstract about it though lets put wrap some reality around it.
If you believe your house will be destroyed in the event of a hurricane, then the action required when it is threatened is to evacuate.
Conversely, if you believe your house will survive a hurricane, then the action required when it is threatened is the shelter in place.
Two people, each holding an opposite belief about the threat to the house, will come to two very different conclusions.
Now if you layer in a belief about evacuation, where one believes that people are killed when they try to evacuate with everyone else, and one who believes that people who evacuate survive these disasters. You can set up a perfect conflict between these two people.
Person A, thinks both their their home will survive and that evacuation will kill you.
Person B, thinks that the house will be destroyed and that evacuation will save you.
Here is the kicker, if you can put the right sets of beliefs into a person you can make them do anything you want, even when it is against their own self interest. We call it things like brain washing or propaganda or "fake news" but it is all the same stuff.
It is possible to define a set of beliefs for you where you think that killing yourself and your children is the correct (or even only) choice available to you.
What is worse, deprogramming people is super hard. They have these beliefs, they have been reinforced by some mechanism, and part of that reinforcement are a layer of beliefs that prevent alternate ideas from seeping in.
Immigration is a canonical example. Characterize immigrants as murderers, thieves, and rapists, show an imminent threat of "invaders", and convince people that the other side wants to just let these people waltz into the country without restriction.
The beliefs are all carefully constructed to interlock such that people who have adopted those beliefs will take action to insure the current ruling party is kept in power in order to keep them safe.
The Nazis used this, Stalin did too, the Chinese, and now the Republican Party have all adopted this technique of constructing a belief system around immigration and "the other" that incentivizes people to act against their self interest (or perhaps more accurately to convince them their self interest is served by acting in the way the party wants them to act.)
Jim Jones did this by convincing people that he was a prophet and in touch with God. That he had a clearer view of what was happening in the spiritual world, and could advise people how to act in order to maximize their success in the afterlife. They believed that so strongly that when he told them they needed to die to move on, they considered that a reasonable next step.
Edit: One of the more interesting aspects of Jim Jones' ministry for me was how people responded when faced with the reality that they were in a cult. There is an interview of some members from one of the documentaries where the members get angry at the interviewer who is pointing out inconsistencies and risks. Rather than challenge the beliefs with the source, they lashed out at some poor reporter who was pointing things out to them. No one thought to ask these folks if they would rather feel foolish at having believed something that wasn't true, or be dead. Of course at the time they didn't realize their beliefs would get them killed exactly. In my mind that is a real tragedy, one warped leader leading all of these people to a place where their energy, and contribution served only a twisted need for loyalty and power.
> Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest—forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries.
-- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
A war of aggression going hand in hand with "Total Information Awareness" (anyone remember that?), going along with that is crazy and suicidal.
I guess people at Jonestown also talked a lot about the crazy things going on in the world, just not about the crazy they were part of.
So, that's how that works. Just like the instant downvoting without reply works. It's like asking "what is cancer?" and when the reply is "it can come in various forms, for example that lump you have there, that's also cancer", then suddenly we don't really want to know what cancer is anymore, and are no longer accountable for basically shutting people up. As long as the status quo agrees, no justifications are required.
The future will be nothing like the past. Why? Because human behavior is not scale invariant, and both the raw number of humans and their mobility is vastly higher than it's ever been.
So what do we know? Well for one we know that unsustainable processes end. Modern persuasion and propaganda techniques appear sustainable at present. Of course they only work at all because they exploit biological reality. It's farcical, but only homo sapiens is evolved to be susceptible to modern propaganda.
War is of course sustainable. We know this because it's been going on as long as we have records and shows no sign of stopping.
But war and conquest take many forms. One group doesn't necessarily have to roll in tanks and rape and massacre to conquer another's territory. It can also be done in a more evolutionary way, by taking their ecological niche or destroying their habitat. I don't mean to "dehumanize" by observing that we are animals, because we really are animals and we really are subject to the same scientific laws as every other animal, including the ecological ones.
One group doesn't necessarily have to roll in tanks and rape and massacre to conquer another's territory.
Throughout history, it is the real world network of interpersonal relationships between people which has been the source of power for the oppressed fighting oppressors. By hijacking this, social media has almost become the perfect tool for the subjugation of the general populace. At present, it's still possible for dissent to spread virally, and in that lies hope, even when such media contains the truly vile. It's the same now as in the 60's. Hope lies in the alternatives, even though there was some vile nonsense mixed up in it. So long as there is speech and dissent, people will eventually sort out the truth. Unfortunately, I think that the near complete squashing of dissent is also within reach of the current technological and political powers that be.
I thought it was a pretty clear statement. What don't you understand? I'm happy to clarify, but I don't have enough information to address your concern
I think the internet is forking the consensus machine. It's now very easy to find a large number of people who share a belief system. People who, in the past, would have felt that they had unique beliefs and society would probably shun them, can now find kindred spirits and join a "movement".
See alt right, MRA, incels, and many other net-savvy extremist groups that only manage to reach critical mass due to the internet.
> The otaku & hikikomori recognizes this dilemma and he chooses - to reject normal life! He rejects life in the larger culture for his subculture5. It’s a simple matter of comparative advantage; it’s easier to be a big fish in a small pond than in a large one.6
[...]
> As ever more opt out, the larger culture is damaged.7 The culture begins to fragment back into pieces. The disconnect can be profound; an American anime geek has more in common with a Japanese anime geek (who is of a different ethnicity, a different culture, a different religion, a different language…) than he does with an American involved in the evangelical Christian subculture. There is essentially no common ground - our 2 countrymen probably can’t even agree on objective matters like governance or evolution!
> With enough of these gaps, where is "American" or "French" culture? Such cultural identities take centuries to coalesce - France did not speak French until the 1900s (as The Discovery of France recounts), and Han China is still digesting & assimilating its many minorities & outlying regions. America, of course, had it easy in starting with a small founder population which could just exterminate the natives.
> I don't mean to "dehumanize" by observing that we are animals, because we really are animals and we really are subject to the same scientific laws as every other animal, including the ecological ones.
Where do decisions and responsibility come in? Is there anything but "war and conquest" that takes many forms? I mean, we evolved from sharing and cooperation as much as any competition. And sociopathy is also as old as history. What makes one thing that's very old more scientific than another that's also very old, why this narrow focus?
As for war being sustainable, that's like saying "I always ate junk food and always will, so nothing bad can happen". Nothing is sustainable, not even peace, but that's not the point. Slavery is also sustainable, does that make it right? Anyone who would say so is free to offer themselves as slave to others, but they could not justify excusing the slavery someone else endures with that.
Just looking at wars of aggressions and the people who push(ed) for them, it's pretty obvious to me that the people involved don't seek power and money because they're so strong, but because they're so weak, as the actual invidual human beings they are. They need more power because to stand still might mean to lose power, and that would mean looking into the mirror and at others, and that would make them implode.
I see naked emperors. Maybe there would still be war or whatever without them, but I see them, and I see what they do. So saying that it's all just human/animal nature that is "subject" to scientific laws that somehow make all of this inevitable, cherry picking "written history" which itself is cherry picked by definition, kinda sounds like "oh yeah, it's a common occurence that sometimes air perturbations make the emperor seem naked to some". They would say that. Maybe you're right, but I won't believe you until we removed the naked emperors from the equation. Fair enough?
The whole notion of "just wars" and the opposing "wars of aggression" is pure propaganda by warmongers. The victors write the histories and always claim to be just. The other side is always the aggressor. There will be war. There will always be war so long as there are human beings. Like it or not. Downvote me or not, it's an observable reality. And we here deal in observable reality, do we not?
For what its worth, while emotionally charged, I have found this conversation to be pretty helpful, both in organizing my thoughts on the topics and understanding how people hear those thoughts.
I find it astonishing that you'd lump the Republicans
... Especially given that Jones peoples Temple was most strongly supported by the Democrat leadership in San Francisco, especially George Moscone, Harvey Milk, and Willie Brown.
That is a good point, the commonality I was going for was authoritarian leadership. Between Hitler and Mussolini who were fascists, and Mao and Stalin were communists you do cover the political spectrum from one end to the other.
I think it's more that _every_ group tends to make some other group "the other" or the out-group. The current US progressive/leftist's out-group are conservatives/Republicans.
I completely agree with your statement. Every group layers its members in a self sustaining belief system that calls on it to reject other groups and be loyal to the 'home' group. Whether it is democrats vilifying republicans, republicans vilifying democrats, white supremacists vilifying non-whites, poor vilifying the rich, the christians vilifying the muslems, Etc. It goes on and on and on.
I hope (clearly over optimistically :-) that once people can understand the mechanism by which they are manipulated they can become a bit more critical about what they choose to believe and how they come to that belief. Every time I've found myself in what seems like an irreconcilable difference of opinion, when we've been able to break that down into what we believe and why, we can see exactly why we disagree.
I find it helps me to be more empathic to different points of view. Some people find it destabilizing and threatening clearly.
That is an oversimplification to the point of absurdity. People generally think in terms of us, bystanders, or enemy. Democrats and Republicans both view Canada as a mostly neutral party.
Further, groups can shift between those states based on context. What’s going on when propaganda vilifies a group is context is being assumed.
Consider the case of Edgar Welch, father of two[1]. On one fateful day in 2016, Edgar drove to Washington DC to save children who were being exploited at the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. Who wouldn't try to save innocent children from an abusive situation when authorities refuse to act? Anyone who is a parent with a sense of duty, that is who. And yet for Edgar, his actions which made perfect sense, given what he believed to be true, turned out to be not only unwarranted but dangerous to patrons at the restaurant.
The only difference about Edgar, who up until then was just an average community member in an average community, was that he believed something that wasn't actually true. Even Edgar realized that his beliefs were misplaced, once it was clear there was no way the restaurant could have been participating in the activity he believed was going on there.
Your comment talks about groups, but I was talking about individuals. And the original comment was how could individuals at Jonestown kill their own children?
My assertion, and Edgar is but one example, all of Jim Jones' congregation is another, is that if you can make an individual believe something, you can cause them to act against their own self interest, even to the point of murder. This is true even when that person is otherwise free of mental illness or emotional disorders.
I don't see the over simplification aspect. Manipulating people through there beliefs is something hypnotists do every day, whether it is to quit smoking or to cluck like a chicken at a Las Vegas show it is a well understood part of human nature.
Because it’s really not about people it’s about aspects of people.
Let’s say Sam is a Packers fan. Now Bob is a member of the Packers football team so on Sunday their part of the same in group.
But, on Election Day Sam is a Dem and Bob a Republican so the must fight.
But their both Americans who are part of the army reserve, so they are brothers in arms willing to risk their lives for each other.
But, they are part of different faiths, and ...
So, this vilification is about context. The football team you need to beat today, may need to beat some other team next week to get you into the playoffs etc etc.
In your example with Sam and Bob, I see two people who are in different groups and can have identical (or highly coherent) belief systems.
If you want to split Sam and Bob up so that they won't be friends any more and they will hate each other, you do that by twisting their beliefs.
First one might suggest that members of Sam's faith, while in the military, were kept from the riskest parts of combat because the military. Then you convince Bob that anyone who plays football is just asking for CTE and that any friend you have is going to turn into a raging monster one of these days, and then you convince Sam, that Bob and others in his religous sect are perverting American politics to keep people like Sam from achieving similar level of success. And you convince Bob that it is Sam "and people like him" who are responsible for the cost of getting a new car or the reason jobs have left the area.
The next thing you know, Sam and Bob hate each other.
My point is that this can be done by carefully setting up what Sam and Bob believe, regardless of what groups they belong to. There are examples all around us today of families that have gone from groups of like minded people to separate camps, lifelong friends that one can no longer talk to.
This is Propaganda, this is Brain Washing, this is the corruption of a group through alternative belief systems.
I don't think this is true. There are many groups that are open an affirming to all. The out group isn't "the other" it's just "more of us who haven't joined yet".
What you are describing is common to groups but not universal.
I think the story is always about a charismatic leader whose followers get so dependent that they can't even imagine living without that person. Then when the leader's ambitions don't work out the leader decides it's better not to live and the followers will kill themselves. Some of Hitler's followers killed themselves (and their children like Goebbels), people in Waco didn't try to escape. It's a weird psychology but I think it has happened many times in history.
The Soviet followers didn't want to be exterminated by the Nazis, and the rhetoric that the Nazis were waging a war of extermination happened to be true in that instance.
I firmly believe in the absolute truth of mathematics, but I do not propose to deal with mathematical errors with cruelty, unless suggesting a correction be deemed cruel. The pythagorean response to the demonstration of irrational numbers was both reprehensible and not mathematical. If your proof is wrong, the most cruel response I propose is to ignore it.
My point is that there are some firm beliefs and some absolute truths that do not lead to atrocity.
> My point is that there are some firm beliefs and some absolute truths that do not lead to atrocity.
I agree, but I have some concerns. First of all I would claim that the cruelty of your response to my wrong proof will depend on how much your life is affected by it. If your life depends on it you would pick any kind of cruelty in an act of self-defense. Then again, any such situation would be outside of the realm of mathematics, because for your life to be affected by mathematics it has to be applied to the real world. Mathematics doesn't tell you whether or not you can safely apply it to the real world. It just tells you: given a set of assumptions what you necessarily must conclude. In that sense I'm a bit hesitant to call what mathematics tells you 'absolute truths', because its statements are only true, given that the assumptions are true.
Another truth I'm convinced of for example is that Snape killed Dumbledore and I'm also sure that believing in this truth won't lead to any atrocities, because it is clear that it doesn't relate to the real world. So, maybe I only have to update my statement to: Firm beliefs in absolute truths about the real world, lead to atrocities. Or would you have another counter example? I mean the examples for absolute truths about the real world which justify atrocities are practically endless (basically all religions, science, communism, capitalism ...). Still, of course there are versions of each one of these which wouldn't allow for atrocities, but they are mostly the less dogmatic ones.
I feel like the least I can do to respect the memories of those murdered is to, as Speier suggests, banish "drink the koolaid" from my lexicon. Used far too much in tech culture and simply isn't necessary.
Jonestown was just a cultural reference by the time I was born. I knew it involved the mass death of a cult but I had no idea of the violence involved — that a Congressman was gunned down, or that today’s Rep. Spier was present during the trip. Didn’t realize the Jones cult was tied to the Bar Area either.
I'd always assumed it came from kool aid being some terrible cheap drink mix that needed you to hold your nose to tolerate. Only heard of Jonestown and it being the origin quite recently.
More than one way to skin a cat has more jokey roots, that it's a shame haven't survived, becoming just the bland intro we now use without the punchline.
I've always assumed that "drinking the kool-aid" was a reference to Ken Kesey, rather than Jonestown, and I'm surprised to learn otherwise. It's certainly in lousy taste.
Nah. Becoming part of the cultural lexicon is flattering enough. It's a great phrase largely because of the morbid origin.
I also think the term has taken on a bigger meaning since then, retroactively incorporating the merry pranksters lore. You really don't know what's in the kool aid, and whether it will be good or bad. That's what makes the phrase so versatile.
The phrase is probably not necessary in a lot of circumstances but I think it has value as a cautionary tale warning against accepting as fact the statements by people in positions of power. I am surprised that many people are not aware of the origins and therefore actual meaning of the phrase.
At Aol, the ceo talked about drinking the koolaid as a positive thing and it was really off putting, but that was one of the less offensive things he said when I worked there.
I was surprised to learn that Harvey Milk was one of Jones' strongest supporters. The article touches on this but doesn't go into it. I ran across it in a different article, which is a bit strident, but it's still interesting to read a different side of the story:
For people wondering why people in cults do appearingly 'abnormal' things, there's science to this madness.
One is escalation of deviant behavior. Which means over long periods of time behavior slowly becomes deviant after past behaviors become normalized.
So no, people dont just join a cult on day 1 and on day 2 they kill themselves. It's a slow ramp up. It might start with singing and songs, or lectures about the after life. It might then escalate to giving everything up to the leader. Like money, possessions, etc. It then might lead to abnormal norms like dressing up and or acting out sexual fantasies that at first seemed a little strange but over time normalizes. By the end of a 3 year run you can have all kinds of horrific acts that appear completely normal to people on the inside but horrible to outsiders because we didnt come along for the ride.
I can dig up my college notes and books if anyone is interested.
I understood his point to be, to reject the notion that it was really a mass suicide, but instead he argues it was a mass murder with only a minority willingly committing suicide. Its obviously an understandable viewpoint, the idea that of course you can't possibly make hundreds of people kill themselves willingly, that this would be impossible, but to me it seems more like a denial of human nature that is actually unhelpful in preventing those types of atrocities in the future. Its much more beneficial to try to understand how far the human mind can be twisted by blind faith, for even good people to do incredibly horrific things.
(Of course its proven that there was murder involved, but I still think we should recognize it as the mass suicide it was).
The problem with calling it a mass suicide - besides the fact that hundreds of people slaughtered were children (who had no idea what was happening), the elderly (threatened into submission) and people forcibly held down and injected with poison - is that it leaves room to think that the majority of these 900 people CHOSE to die, and Speier's account shows that they overwhelmingly absolutely did not, regardless of their previous allegiance to the church.
Subsequently, we can joke about people's stupidity instead of having a conversation about how to recognize demagogues like Jones and prevent their rise to power.
I believe Speier's implication is that calling it mass suicide assigns culpability to the victims and away from a murderer.
It isn't wishful thinking from Speier; there are a number of survivors who can attest that this is what happened. And how would many of them actually know that they were drinking poison, when there were several rehearsals beforehand that jones explained as tests of faith?
There's an audio recording of the incident from nearly start to finish[1]. If you listen to it, it's pretty clear people were aware of what was happening and only a minority were against it.
> When people refer to the Jonestown massacre as a “mass suicide,” I am enraged. It was nothing of the kind. Although some of Jones’s most zealous followers may have consumed the poison voluntarily, the vast majority were murdered outright and against their will.
Jonestown and the like are such tragic events. I feel like it’s oddly appropriate to honor them in the same way I choose to honor the collective memory of veterans. Remebering them as a group of individuals with their own convictions rational or irrational, weak or strong, citizen or foreign. Without attempting to prescribe morals onto any of them in hubris. I honor the value of their lives spent, by blindly stumbling in a slightly less costly trajectory towards a maxima. Knowing the tools I use to give me hope in this journey—liberty and justice—were won with a terrifying cost.
The true-crime podcast Casefile recently released a three-part story on Jonestown.
I've watched a few documentaries and read a few articles about Jonestown, but the Casefile story was by far the best I've come across, because it's the first that properly conveys that the event was really not a mass suicide, but rather a mass murder for the vast majority of victims.
Just heard a very relevant Podcast called Cultish that digs into the thinking, teaching, strategies, and consequences behind a lot of these cults. The latest episode explores Jim Jones and Jamestown.
Not being an American, I first learned about Jonestown pretty recently, but I keep returning to sources about it and I simply can't comprehend it. What causes people do this? Why did Jones do this? How can someone like that enjoy political support? Does anything like this still happen? Why? Where?
The author of this article takes care to point out that it was mass murder, not mass suicide. I "understand" mass murder for personal gain, or because of blind racism, or out of desperation (eg access to food), or as defense against (perceived) threats. But what would cause one to murder their own community and then themselves? What's in it for, well, anyone? I mean, American high school shootings, 9-11, or Anders Breivik's terror attack make a lot more "sense" to me than the Jonestown story.
Does anyone here, maybe someone older than me, understand this? What was the world like in that time, that something could come to this?