The Cult of Barak Obama

[MaGZ]

A person of no substance has developed a mass following.

http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-interest-to-white-people/the-cult-of-barack-obama_2960.html

 

[Darat]

Well it is stretching the common use of the word "cult" but this seems to happen to many politicians that gain prominence. In the UK the same could be said of Thatcher and going further back of Churchill, in the USA Kennedy and Reagan come to mind.

 

[Lothian]

A person of no substance has started a thread, unless of course you have something to add.

 

[CFLarsen]

Shermer has a pretty good definition of how a cult may be characterized as:

• Veneration of the Leader: Excessive glorification to the point of virtual sainthood or divinity.
• Inerrancy of the Leader: Belief that he or she cannot be wrong.
• Omniscience of the Leader: Acceptance of beliefs and pronouncements on virtually all subjects, from the philosophical to the trivial.
• Persuasive Techniques: Methods used to recruit new followers and reinforce current beliefs.
• Hidden Agendas: Potential recruits and the public are not given a full disclosure of the true nature of the group's beliefs and plans.
• Deceit: Recruits and followers are not told everything about the leader and the group's inner circle, particularly flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances.
• Financial and/or Sexual Exploitation: Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest in the group, and the leader may develop sexual relations with one or more of the followers.
• Absolute Truth: Belief that the leader and/or group has a method of discovering final knowledge on any number of subjects.
• Absolute Morality: Belief that the leader and/or the group have developed a system of right and wrong thought and action applicable to members and nonmembers alike. Those who strictly follow the moral code may become and remain members, those who do not are dismissed or punished.

Which of these conditions does Obama fulfill?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

With MaGZ declaring his distaste for Obama, the Illinois senator declares an early victory.

 

[MaGZ]

Well it is stretching the common use of the word "cult" but this seems to happen to many politicians that gain prominence. In the UK the same could be said of Thatcher and going further back of Churchill, in the USA Kennedy and Reagan come to mind.

A "cult of personality" can not be used for Thatcher, Churchill, Kennedy or Reagan. It can be used for people like Stalin, Mao and Kim Il-sung.

The Obama cult is in its infancy.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Are you perhaps concerned about his skin colour?

 

[MaGZ]

Shermer has a pretty good definition of how a cult may be characterized as:

• Veneration of the Leader: Excessive glorification to the point of virtual sainthood or divinity.
• Inerrancy of the Leader: Belief that he or she cannot be wrong.
• Omniscience of the Leader: Acceptance of beliefs and pronouncements on virtually all subjects, from the philosophical to the trivial.
• Persuasive Techniques: Methods used to recruit new followers and reinforce current beliefs.
• Hidden Agendas: Potential recruits and the public are not given a full disclosure of the true nature of the group's beliefs and plans.
• Deceit: Recruits and followers are not told everything about the leader and the group's inner circle, particularly flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances.
• Financial and/or Sexual Exploitation: Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest in the group, and the leader may develop sexual relations with one or more of the followers.
• Absolute Truth: Belief that the leader and/or group has a method of discovering final knowledge on any number of subjects.
• Absolute Morality: Belief that the leader and/or the group have developed a system of right and wrong thought and action applicable to members and nonmembers alike. Those who strictly follow the moral code may become and remain members, those who do not are dismissed or punished.

Which of these conditions does Obama fulfill?

An Obama cult follower can answer that.

 

[CFLarsen]

A "cult of personality" can not be used for Thatcher, Churchill, Kennedy or Reagan. It can be used for people like Stalin, Mao and Kim Il-sung.

The Obama cult is in its infancy.

Why do you call it a "cult"?

 

[Darat]

A "cult of personality" can not be used for Thatcher, Churchill, Kennedy or Reagan.

...snip...

Why not?

 

[Earthborn]

A person of no substance has developed a mass following.

Wouldn't be the first time that has happened. I would actually say that in order for a leader to get a mass following, it probably doesn't help to have much "substance". Without it, more people can project their own ideals onto him.

I saw something like that happen in the run up to the 2002 election in the Netherlands. Pim Fortuyn got his mass following before he had a written party programme, with his books full of vagueries about what was wrong in the Netherlands having barely left the publisher's. He even hadn't made many of his famously controversial statements yet. Nobody could have had any clear idea of his political views, but lots of people were apperently lured by the concept of "New Politics".

When it comes to Obama it may not be such a bad thing for him to lack "substance". He is running for head of state of a superpower, and I think it might help the US tremendously to have a head of state who appear intelligent, soft-spoken, diplomatic and does not appear have ideals that he wants to force onto the world at whatever cost.

 

[NeoRicen]

No Substance?

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Took me literally 30 seconds to find.

If all you do is watch victory/concession speeches to judge a candidate, first you're an idiot, second... What the HELL do you expect? What kind of person uses their speech opportunity to lay out detailed plans? Speeches are used to inspire your base and broadly define your policies.

I don't like Ron Paul, but me saying he doesn't have any substance is just stupid. Same goes for any other candidate I oppose.

 

[Nogbad]

A person of no substance has developed a mass following.

http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-interest-to-white-people/the-cult-of-barack-obama_2960.html

Thought that was a pre-requisite these days.

What substance does GW have or indeed Clinton or McCain? It seems to me that a youngish, energetic politician is campaigning on a "its time for something new" ticket. This appears to have struck a note. The fact that the "something new" may not be that different from mainstream Democratic policies is just being picky.

 

[Cain]

A person of no substance has developed a mass following.

http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-interest-to-white-people/the-cult-of-barack-obama_2960.html

If my vague recollection of your posts is at all right, then you are something of an authority on "no substance."

 

[LawnOven]

This thread is stupid.

 

[Tricky]

Let's see if I follow this logic.

Premise 1: Lots of people like Obama
Premise 2: I don't
Conclusion: Those who like him are a cult.

It's all so simple!Yes, "simple" is exactly the right word

 

[kosai]

I volunteer for the Obama Campa... Cult sorry. So maybe I can answer these...


* Veneration of the Leader: Excessive glorification to the point of virtual sainthood or divinity.

Hmm... no, he seems to be a smart guy but he's definately no saint.

* Inerrancy of the Leader: Belief that he or she cannot be wrong.

He's done "wrong" in the past such as his drug use (I say this is wrong as in not healthy, I don't claim drug use as a moral crime.) Many of us have similar experiences in adolescence.

* Omniscience of the Leader: Acceptance of beliefs and pronouncements on virtually all subjects, from the philosophical to the trivial.

Uhh... No. I do think his intelligence will allow him to surround himself by intelligent people who will assist him in making good choices. I disagree on some of his policy however I disagree with SOME of every candidate's policy.

* Persuasive Techniques: Methods used to recruit new followers and reinforce current beliefs.

Won't you join us??

* Hidden Agendas: Potential recruits and the public are not given a full disclosure of the true nature of the group's beliefs and plans.

Our "group" belief is Barrack Obama should be the next President of the United States, the rest is available in the PDF on the website.

* Deceit: Recruits and followers are not told everything about the leader and the group's inner circle, particularly flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances.

Two books have been written about THE LEADER'S past. If there is hidden flaws I guess they are still hidden.

* Financial and/or Sexual Exploitation: Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest in the group, and the leader may develop sexual relations with one or more of the followers.

I have given money. As far as the other thing, I've recieved multiple emails from the Obama campaign none of them offering much more than a speech, unfortunately.

* Absolute Truth: Belief that the leader and/or group has a method of discovering final knowledge on any number of subjects.

No such claim has been made.

* Absolute Morality: Belief that the leader and/or the group have developed a system of right and wrong thought and action applicable to members and nonmembers alike. Those who strictly follow the moral code may become and remain members, those who do not are dismissed or punished.

Nope. When we elect Obama as the next president you are still welcome to live here even if you never support him.


So the 'cult' claim is pretty much fail, but nice try anyway.
Obama '08

 

[CFLarsen]

An Obama cult follower can answer that.

No. You called it a cult. You answer the question:

Which of these conditions does Obama fulfill?

 

[Upchurch]

http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-interest-to-white-people/the-cult-of-barack-obama_2960.html

So, I just read the article and it has a number of problems that speaks to the (lack of) credibility of the author.

First, Mosley asserts that "millions of Americans" believe that the "Obama phenomenon" is a cult. He doesn't actually say where he came up with "millions of Americans". In situations like this, I've found that it is usually the person making the claim who holds the opinion and they just assume that other people think the way they do.

Then, there is this from the article:

I’ve heard Obama speak, and half-white or not, he simply doesn’t have the intelligence to put together a sophisticated operation like this. That coffee-colored head with the big white smile has virtually nothing in it. So who is running this operation?

Note the emphasis on Obama's race, especially the "half-white or not" part. The implication is that Obama's only hope for being intelligent is his being half white and even that is not enough to save his "coffee-colored head" from being empty.

Later, we get this:

while this particular woman candidate has all the warmth and charm of Lizzie Borden. (Just ask Vince Foster.)

Here, Mosley loses even more credibility by pulling up a debunked conspiracy theory.

Finally, in the last paragraph, we learn where Mosley stands:

The introduction of Barack Obama comes at an especially bad time for the Republican Party, which has just been badly split by the rise of pro-Amnesty closet liberal John McCain. Apparently it’s not just ignorant liberals ruling the day; ignorant conservatives have rallied behind an Open Borders lunatic, who seems almost tailor-made to lose to Barack Obama. The Republican Party (except for Ron Paul and his followers) failed to learn anything from the disaster of 2006 when the Iraq War cost them control of Congress. The 2008 election is already shaping up to be a disaster with an illegal alien amnesty almost inevitable and the cult of Obama threatens to take over the whole nation.

This is a political hit piece written by a Ron Paul supporter. Ironically, it appears that "The Cult of Barak Obama" was written by someone from "The Cult of Ron Paul"*. Do you suppose it takes one to know one?

This article is preaching to the choir and not in anyway objective.



* I'm being hyperbolic. I don't think Paul supporters are in a cult any more than I think Obama supporters are in a cult.

 

[Puppycow]

This is the new line of attack against Obama.

Washington Post Columnist Robert J Samuelson's latest OP-ED is called The Obama Delusion

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the press corps -- preoccupied with the political "horse race" -- has treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.

But my question is: How is this different from Ronald Reagan, who is generally considered to have been a good president? When is the last time the American electorate voted for someone who said we have to eat our spinich and broccoli and cut back on pizza and ice cream? At least Samuelson admits that he's holding Obama to a higher standard than McCain or Clinton:

Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscurity. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.