Poor, Poor Pitiful US(A)

Demagogues have been the subjects of contempt since ancient times.  But as worthy as they are of disdain, and as able as they may be in persuading those who follow them, we shouldn't neglect to note that those that do are themselves pitiful creatures at best, and despicable at their worst.

Consider the reaction of the myrmidons and lackeys of the most prominent demagogue of our times to his recent conviction after a long jury trial.  His own reaction is predictably self-pitying, whiny and hyperbolic, so dully repetitive in its wild and baseless claims that it can't even qualify as outrageous, and is more rightly considered monotonous.  Their reaction, though is staggeringly craven, imbecilic, malicious and irresponsible.

Base self-interest may motivate the miserable politicians and media personalities who "assume the position" whenever he's near them and repeat his claims slavishly.  They're shameless in their pandering, even to the point of dressing as he does as we've seen--blue suits, white shirts, red ties (and of course brown noses).  They resemble the small duplicates Snow Miser and Heat Miser from The Year Without a Santa Claus. One would think that if they had any responsibility and intelligence they'd recognize their condemnation of the entire justice system can undermine our system of government, or even if they're entirely self-interested they'd at least know that in other circumstances such a view could endanger themselves.  Those whose worship of him isn't founded on self-interest and greed combined with cowardice, though, are more disturbing and alarming.

It's difficult to understand their fascination with someone who is so completely a fraud and lacking in charisma (unless a caricature of a used car salesman can be said to be charismatic).  How is it that they believe whatever he says, regardless of the fact that he never provides evidence in support of his claims?  How can they have become so invested in someone who is so self-absorbed, who considers only his own interests to the exclusion of others, as to call those who oppose him traitors?  Are they so gullible...so stupid...as to associate him with the good of the country?

It's been noted already by many that his followers resemble cult members.  I'm unfamiliar with the psychology of such people.  I would think they must be fearful, ignorant, needy, angry, irrational, easily led and dread the need to think, but beyond that I can't guess what manner of phobias or neuroses plague them.  But like the followers of such as the Reverend Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson and the fellow who was the leader of the Heaven's Gate cult (I can't remember his name) they present a danger to themselves and others.  

I don't know whether a cult in that sense exists in this case, but unthinking adherence to a sociopathic individual is perilous.  

We get the president we deserve, I think.  We get the government we deserve.  If we now think an autocracy of sorts is desirable, we're going to get it.  It would be a sad end to a remarkable nation created by remarkable men and women, though; a truly experimental effort to create a government that would secure most civil liberties and yet function in a manner as to dominate the world in many respects for many years.  Now it appears that most of us want to be dominated by someone else.  Not another nation, of course, but to be dominated by someone we're eager to worship.

Occult and a Cult

"Occult" when used as an adjective means closed, concealed, shut off from view.  As such it may refer to something mysterious, and so we see alchemy, for example, referred to as an occult art or science.  Above are pictured a set of symbols used by alchemists.  "The occult" is used to refer to something supernatural or unnatural.

A "cult" is used to refer to a group of people having certain beliefs and engaging in certain practices considered strange and generally sinister.  A cult is sometimes religious.  At times, "cult" may refer merely to a group which seems unusually, or even irrationally, attached to someone or something; a devotion which is extreme in context, as when devotion is to an individual not properly subject to worship in a religious sense.

One can see a similarity in the two words when something in the nature of religious devotion, beliefs or practices are involved, as religions may involve hidden things, i.e. things known only to initiates.  Although it may seem odd, occult may be used, legitimately I think, when used to refer to the secret practices or rituals of associations such as the Freemasons, although they are nominally not religious.  They are closed to people who aren't members.  Calling such associations "a cult" seems not entirely appropriate, though I've no doubt some consider them such.  But in these secular times, it seems to me that for all their ceremony and, it seems, exotic vestments, these associations are devoted primarily to benefiting their members in one way or another that promotes power, wealth and status and, presumably, fellowship.  I'm sure that in some cases they may even benefit non-members, and assorted "worthy causes."

A particular variety of cult is called a "cult of personality."  That's described by Merriam-Webster Online as "a situation in which a public figure (such as a political leader) is deliberately presented to the people of a country as a great person who should be admired or loved." It's unclear to me how a cult can be a situation.  It seems to me to be more proper to identify those who accept what's presented in such a situation as members of a cult, or "cultists" and the situation to be "cultish" if there is such a word.  But I think most of us know what's intended by the phrase.

Cults of personality have seemed to become more and more common as the means by

which a person may be presented as great, or worthy of devotion or love, became more sophisticated and the message and intent more easily and generally communicated.  There's no doubt that propaganda has been used for centuries to generate support for people, ideas and causes, but in a cult of personality it seems a prerequisite that a person be what is presented as an object of devotion (as opposed to an idea or doctrine, for example).  It also seems not to be a prerequisite that the person be great in fact, or worthy of devotion at all because of his/her talents, abilities or qualities as an individual.  That person may be altogether average, or the scum of the earth, or a psychotic or sociopath.

That cults of personality may be created or fostered regarding such people is a testimony to the efficiency of methods by which they may be presented as worthy of devotion, and those methods have become mighty indeed given the technology available to those making the presentation.  Unfortunately, it's also a testimony to the stupidity and gullibility of those who are members of such a cult.

Or is there something else involved?  Why were the majority of the people of Germany willing to follow Hitler to the terrible end has been a subject of speculation since the end of the Second World War.  So has the question why Mussolini was successful in Italy, a nation not known to harbor martial ambitions and not particularly nationalistic, being, some would say, fragment into regions having their own cultures and dialects.

I'm inclined to think that cults of personality, particularly in politics, derive from the serious and sometimes overwhelming fears and frustrations of a group of people, and the desire that those fears and frustrations disappear, but quickly, easily and simply, and through the efforts of others, without concern or thought regarding how they're removed and who they're removed by.  Members of a cult of personality act viscerally, not rationally.  They believe they're right and that those who don't believe like them are wrong and must be dealt with, by most any means.

When you think of it, there actually is something hidden in such cults, and they may be called occult as a result.  What's hidden, though, isn't something which is disclosed or known to initiates, or even thought about, and results from a deliberate blindness--the faults of the person that is the subject of the cult, and the reasonableness and humanity of those who oppose that person.  Ultimately, members of such a cult simply don't care about such things.  Nor, probably, do they think about them, as especially when it comes to serious and complicated issues which make us anxious, we prefer not to think at all.