Is Obama the Head of a Secret Cult? A 15-Point Test. Connected as I am to an organization that earns its soup by producing research for over 200,000 subscribers, I’m constantly engaged in reading on a wide range of topics, many with investment themes and many not. This provides me constant exposure to a lot of ideas. Some of these ideas are simply ridiculous and can be dismissed out of hand. For example, that a government can produce unlimited amounts of currency units without consequence. Or that “rich” countries should compensate “poor” countries for all storm damage purportedly caused by global warming. Others, such as the idea of a completely virtual currency based on complicated algorithms—e.g., Bitcoins—I find intriguing, while concurrently admitting difficulty understanding why anyone would actually buy them in favor of something more tangible. Then again, history is replete with stories of masses of people becoming gripped with a speculative fervor around the idea that simply because something is going up in price, it is certain to rise indefinitely. But what really amazes me are those ideas that even a little reflection and study reveal as ridiculous, but that nonetheless gain a large and devoted following. For instance, that big government—in truth, little more than a motley collection of meddlesome bureaucrats advised by rent-seeking, ivory-tower academics—are in possession of the solutions to all of society’s ills. All of which got me to thinking about this odd trait of humans to form associations around bad ideas, and that, in turn, led me to think about the nature of cults. After all, can there be a more ridiculous idea than becoming a trained lapdog to some modern-day messiah? Yet, how does one go from being a go-along-to-get-along kind of person one day to lining up for a fatal dose of poison, thoughtfully flavored with grape Kool-Aid, the next? Or signing up to become a gunman willing to kill or be killed in a foreign adventure in support of a half-baked idea that’s cast as somehow being in the “national interest,” when even a cursory examination would tell you it’s not? Both of those examples are in diametric opposition to self-preservation, the most fundamental of all human instincts. Less dramatically but yet still with serious consequences, how is it that otherwise rational people come to accept the idea that widespread economic success can flow from the loins of a bureaucracy that produces nothing but regulatory chains on the aspirations of individuals looking to better their lives and those of their families? And when that success fails to materialize, readily accept the idea that the Fed can pump money out by the trillions with no negative effect? In any event, I started poking around the literature of various organizations specializing in the study of mind control and found what I think are some interesting lessons for us all in the studies of cults. After all, if psychological buttons can be pushed in a combination that leads to drinking poisoned Kool-Aid, you can sure as hell bet they can be pushed to get you to vote for a string of sociopathic poseurs… or to dedicate a large chunk of your life and charitable giving to causes that have little connection to reality. Or to decide to create a Facebook page titled, “I love it when I wake up in the morning and Barack Obama is President.” In fact, based on the guidelines provided by the International Cult Studies Association (ICSA), you or someone you know may already be in a cult and not even be aware of it. Worse, the president himself might be the head of a cult! There are 15 separate traits the ICSA identifies as common among cults. Ticking through them should prove informative. 1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as “the Truth.” The liberal Democrats were supposed to be the party of peace and against government intrusions into privacy and so forth. Yet when you consider the positively Bushian policies of the Obama regime—from domestic spying and a complete lack of transparency to the presidential killer-drone campaign—the fact that there are still millions of sycophants worshipping at Obama’s well-polished shoes suggests we may be witnessing a cult mentality at work. Then there’s the famous “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it” quote from Nancy Pelosi in regard to Obamacare, the ultimate in unquestioning commitment. 2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. There’s a litany of examples one could point to suggesting that the current administration and its friends are actively quashing dissent. For instance, the government’s $5 billion fraud suit recently slapped on Standard & Poor’s for its 2011 downgrade of US government debt. Then there’s the unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers by the Obama administration, a fundamental contradiction to the Obama political platform to provide protections to those who dare to speak up about corruption and inefficiencies. Here’s a long quote from an article on the topic that appeared on the New American website (all links in original). “Sunlight Foundation reports that over the last month, the Change.gov website created by the Obama presidential transition team in 2008 has ‘effectively disappeared.’ Specifically, in its analysis, Sunlight noticed: While the front splash page for Change.gov has linked to the main White House website for years, until recently, you could still continue on to see the materials and agenda laid out by the administration. This was a particularly helpful resource for those looking to compare Obama’s performance in office against his vision for reform, laid out in detail on Change.gov. That all changed on June 8. What might have motivated the minions to erase part of Change.gov and shove some of that five-year-old data down the memory hole? Sunlight suggests that this artifact from the website might hold the key: Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. That part about whistleblowing being ‘acts of courage and patriotism’ probably doesn’t sit well with the president who has single-handedly prosecuted (and persecuted) more whistleblowers than any of his predecessors. With the formal filing of the charges against NSA leaker Edward Snowden, the Obama administration has now charged eight whistleblowers under the Espionage Act. Another former government employee, James Hitselberger, was working as a linguist for the U.S. Navy when he became the seventh to be charged under the nearly-century-old law. President Obama has targeted each of these men — including Edward Snowden — for their efforts to expose government corruption. In fact, the others charged with espionage are targets of an apparent vendetta against whistleblowers in direct contradiction of the president’s promise to protect them. President Obama’s zeal in pursuing, prosecuting, and punishing those he once described as courageous and patriotic is remarkable for its relentlessness. Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ government secrecy project, is quoted in a story published by Reason magazine online, explaining, ‘The administration’s aggressive pursuit of leaks represents a challenge to the practice of national security reporting, which depends on the availability of unauthorized sources if it is to produce something more than “authorized” news.’” Add to this the often threatening rhetoric aimed at anyone who challenges the government’s idiotic environmental policies. Pronouncing “the global warming debate is over,” there has been talk about requiring global warming skeptics to “undergo treatment,” or to have their houses burned down, or tried for crimes against humanity in a Nuremberg-style climate court. 3) Mind-altering practices are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). As a parent of (former) students in the public education system, I can attest the curriculum is infused with “government as savior” and environmental alarmism propaganda. When the kids were in a traditional school, hardly a week went by without them bringing home some assignment revolving around a socialist or environmental theme. From history to English to social studies—even mathematics (calculate the carbon footprint)—the messages were consistent and constant. In fact, many US high schools now make “X” numbers of hours of community service a requirement for graduation. The end result of infusing curricula—as well as the media—with nonsense and propaganda is a wholesale inculcation of the population to support a growing role for government in society and, by extension, a growing role for the head of the cult. Of course, as the positive views of big government grow, doubts that its growth may not be such a good thing are tamped down. 4) The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel. While often subtle, there’s almost no corner of social action not currently dictated—or at least seriously influenced—by governments these days, especially when it comes to the children, who present the ripest influence targets. A recent “favorite” was the Canadian woman who packed her children a lunch consisting of roast beef, potatoes, carrots, oranges, and milk, but who was nonetheless fined $10 by the school and her children made to eat Ritz crackers because the lunch lacked grains. Here’s the story. For further evidence, try paying attention to the sheer quantity and nanny-state messaging of the signs that are now endemic in every public space, including highways and byways. Do this, don’t do that… or else. Hell, there are even signs telling you to obey all signs. 5) The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members. Where to start? Here’s a picture that pretty much says it all. Tangentially, I would mention a friend of mine whose very smart son was told by the admissions officer at a top-level university that white children from economically secure families were wasting their time applying. They no longer belong to the right group. 6) The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. Is there any question that, through its rhetoric, the current administration has polarized the US population? As much as I don’t respect the former president, entirely because of his bumbling and dangerous policies, I can’t recall a single instance where he publicly postured against the Democrats based on some trumped-up, purported flaw in character. By contrast, the Obamites seem to delight in categorizing any opposition to their programs as being motivated by hard-heartedness, greed, or worse. 7) The leader is not accountable to any authorities. This reality is not unique to Obama, but rather is the result of a trend in motion for many decades now that has allowed the Executive to assume unto itself imperial powers. Even so, Super O and his henchmen have certainly taken things to a new level. 8) The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. Drone killings, the continued operation of Guantanamo, domestic spying, quantitative easing forever… it’s all for the greater good. Deal with it. 9) The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion. Whether it’s sending our children home with messages admonishing us to keep our carbon footprints teeny tiny, or speeches extolling the virtues of minorities and the downtrodden while simultaneously chastising the white middle-class male for his privilege has led in the United States to something approaching a religious level of guilt, even among those opposed to the current administration. As for those who support it, the result of this guilt can be seen in their cult-like willingness to risk life and limb by driving itty-bitty cars… the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good. 10) Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group. If your family or friends include those who don’t fall in line with the current groupthink, then over the side they go. As for your goals and activities, I think the level of indoctrination in the schools—at least in the United States—has reached the point where relatively few students graduate from high school equipped with the skills needed to become an entrepreneur, or with any real desire to become one. Not so long ago, I met a young woman who told me that she and all of her classmates graduated from school with no other career in mind than working for either the government or an NGO. 11) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. I would contend that Obamacare is just the latest attempt to create a large pool of voters who can be counted on to vote for the ruling party in the next election, and every election going forward. It reminds me of Lyndon Johnson’s response to being complimented on his Great Society programs (ostensibly designed to reduce poverty and eliminate racial injustice): “I‘ll have them niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” 12) The group is preoccupied with making money. Becoming president in particular is a ticket to endless wealth. But that same is true of senior senators and congressmen. Then there are the loyal supporters—people like Al Gore—who become very wealthy by directing public policy to their material advantage. 13) Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. Whether it’s knocking on doors come election time or volunteering for “Save the environment” groups and fundraisers, if you’re a devotee, you’re expected to participate or face social pressure. 14) Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. This may be moot, as society has become so polarized that the days of polite political discussions are largely a historical anecdote at this point in time. An Obama supporter would no more bring a Republican to a dinner party than he would a leper with weeping sores. (And to be fair, the reverse is true as well.) 15) The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group. This is certainly relevant to the extreme environmentalism and knock-on socialism discussed in last week’s article. The beliefs and attitudes held by many people about things like the environment, capitalism, the value of government, and so forth are so strong as to be impenetrable by any facts, reason, or logic. Thus the notion that they might alter those beliefs is almost never explored, and when it is, the fear that they will be ostracized by their social circles is acute and accurate. When living back in the States, I used to be invited to “A list” dinner parties in the very liberal town in which we have our house, until the word got around that I wasn’t a fan of big government and that I thought the whole environmental nonsense a scam. After that, the invites were far and few between. Some conclusions So is Obama really the leader of a cult? Based on the above checklist, I’d have to say he is—and it’s a pretty big cult, at that. If you agree, it behooves us to define the overarching beliefs of the cult over which he presides. In my view, those beliefs were accurately summed up by Thomas Sowell in his classic, A Conflict of Visions, as revolving around the idea that we humans can and should be made ever-more perfect by government policy. With that idea at the core of the cult’s belief, almost no action, no matter how extreme, is off the table when it comes to government action. Deception, artifice, bullying, war-making, spying, money-printing, regulation, forcing Ritz crackers on children, taking over large swaths of the economy, or propping up companies in favored industries are all justifiable parts and parcels of the whole. Unfortunately, because the cult offers financial handouts to join, the ranks of this particular cult have swelled in recent decades. So much so that it has reached the point where, like an uninfected human in a world full of zombies, those who don’t belong increasingly have to maintain a low profile or risk having their faces eaten (or, perhaps less dramatically, being subjected to a forensic audit by the IRS). This is equally true, and maybe more so, with private corporations, which keep their mouths shut as the healthcare burden of non-workers is transferred to their balance sheets, or which trumpet the fact that they’re “green” in order to avoid being targeted by cult members. Even mega-billionaire Warren Buffett wised up to the power of the cult and announced that he was all for higher taxes on the rich—in one shrewd move casting himself as “one of them” and taking the target off his back. As far as El Presidente himself goes, from where I sit, it seems he has become so imbued and enamored with his imperial power that he has lost all touch with any reality other than that which he and his followers contrive to be “The Truth.” And next comes Hillary. How to Spot a Pathological Liar In researching the nature of cults, I took a side street to investigate the mental condition called “pseudologia fantastica,” or in lay terms, a mental condition where individuals become pathological liars. I did so because I wondered how politicians can spew forth their untruths with straight faces. To my certain knowledge, I have come across four pathological liars in my life. Or, to use the psychological definition, individuals who regularly engage in “falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime.” While the pathological liar will sometimes be aware they are lying, they’re equally likely to make up a lie and then come to completely believe it as true. In the case of the pathological liars I’ve met, instances would occur where you knew for a fact that the person was lying and had irrefutable proof to that effect, and they still would defend the lie, often by spinning off another lie or series of lies to explain the disconnect. Or, as was the case with one of the individuals I know, caught out in a lie, he would become extremely angry and aggressive, vowing to “get” the person who revealed him. All in all, a fairly troubling and destructive mental condition, especially given that the true pathological liar is really, really good at lying—if for no other reason than that they may actually believe their own lie—so spotting them as a liar in the first place can be hard to do.
Posted on: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 04:31:02 +0000