Cult Of Personality 2.0
If this article didn't strike a chord before the cult tyranny, try releasing it again near the end of it and see how it goes. This is a tribute to the late Richard Prosser, forever a Freedom Fighter.
I want to acknowledge Richard Prosser's article — The Unpalatable Truth regarding Jacinda Ardern and the Con-vid 19 Plandemic. Richard's original long-form pieces and the emergence of more long-form content on YouTube prompted me to get into writing again. Richard delivers articles straightforwardly and with a great deal of certainty. Something I have decided to avoid in the interest of traversing close to the line of uncertainty.
Richard and I agree on a few things; for example — we share the same belief around our current governance direction and the role this insanely over-hyped "virus" has played in ushering in "kind" totalitarianism. However, those are our beliefs, they require proof to become any more than just that. It's also important to investigate what defines dishonesty. In Dr Jordan B Peterson's 12 Rules for Life, An Antidote To Chaos — he talks about levels of dishonesty, where there are bald-faced lies, lying by omission, or bureaucratic misappropriations of the word fact. A quote from a section of Rule 8 — "Taking the easy way out or telling the truth? Those are not merely two different choices; they're different pathways through life; they're utterly different ways of existing.
Manipulate The World. "You could use words to manipulate the world into delivering what you want. This is what it means to act politically; this is spin. It is the speciality of unscrupulous marketers, salesman, advertisers, pick-up artists, slogan-possessed utopians, and psychopaths. It is the speech people engage in when they attempt to influence and manipulate others. It is what university students do when they write an essay to please the professor, instead of articulating and clarifying their own ideas. It's what everyone does when they want something and decide to falsify themselves to please and flatter. It's scheming and sloganeering and propaganda. To conduct life like this is to become possessed by some ill-informed desire and then to craft speech and action in a manner that appears likely or rational to bring about that end. Typically, calculated ends might include — to impose my ideological beliefs, to prove that I am or was right, to appear competent, to ratchet myself up the dominance hierarchy, to avoid responsibility. Or, it's twin, to garner credit for others ideas or actions. To be promoted, to attract the lion's share of attention, to ensure that everyone likes me, to garner the benefits of martyrdom, to minimise immediate conflict, to justify my cynicism, to rationalise my anti-social outlook. To maintain my naivety, to capitalise on my vulnerability, to always appear as the sainted one…" (this one is particularly relevant)
"These are all examples of Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler's theory — called 'life lies'. Someone living a life lie is attempting to manipulate reality with perception, thought, and action so that some narrowly-desired and predefined outcome is allowed to exist.
The way those responsible for governance communicate toward the populace is through subversion and lying. This is no surprise to those who think carefully about what a populism-based voting process might produce. It is also no surprise that this sort of communication emanating from a captivating individual cultivates a Cult of Personality around said individual. I have no hesitation calling political science what it is; it primarily encompasses the study of repetitive manipulative narratives that promote a predictable and desirable response from those listening. These narratives are manifestations of complete fiction to hide the truth because those using it genuinely fear the inconvenient truth. "You can't handle the truth," — Jack Nicholson says in A Few Good Men. However, you don't get to decide whether we can handle the truth or not. Jacinda Ardern has done this and continues to do this; campaigning on transparency while engaging in this type of politics is entirely disingenuous.
"Let's Do This" implies that she intends for us to work together through competent democracy (an abundance of difficult conversations). Yet, that is not happening; instead, the erosion of democracy has occurred far more during this term than it did in past manipulative political manifestations. "Stay Home, Save Lives" is a lie! No matter how you look at the lockdown and the resulting economic damage, there will never be enough data to prove that statement because there’s no home-based placebo model to compare the response with. The ramifications of the "COVID-19 response" will decide whether we gain more economic sovereignty and a better pathway forward for our country. So far, her directions have been as close to a catastrophe as they can get. The buyback gave no evidence that it would reduce gun homicides; in fact, gun homicides increased in the aftermath of the new laws. The idea of licenced, law-abiding gun owners having open season declared on them by the government has prompted those who disregard the law to take advantage of an opportunity. We don't know for sure, whether that is what's happening, but asking the populace to do good things genuinely falls on the deaf ears of those already breaking the law. Doing little that works to fix a degenerating societal culture, failing to keep guns out of the hands of apparent psychopaths, and making law-abiding citizens unreasonably vulnerable is the opposite of solving the problem and does not help prevent murderous psychopathy from manifesting. Enhances it really…
Jacinda states -that she wants to bring kindness back to the government, which sounds nice but is contradictory. One might ask — What does government mean? The answer? To govern the mind. So, can we consider it compassionate to control the minds of men and women instead of guiding them to make the best decisions themselves? That would be governance; something Jacinda is incapable of manifesting. So then, hypothetical kindness it is! An atrociously dishonest version of empathy — one that seeks to create an image of compassion so you may roll-out agendas contradictory to kindness openly and successfully. We might object to Agendas if we knew the whole truth of the agenda, but that’s why they have the Noble Lie.
Jacinda has failed to recognise any worldview that is not her own. She ignores the values of licenced gun owners, those who value the unborn's rights; she ignores the world view of Conservatives, Libertarians, and democracy itself. Will she infringe on the right to refuse medical interventions that don't address the hazard? You cannot ascribe the word empathy to any part of how Jacinda has conducted herself in government. Sadly, thanks to her effectiveness in presenting an image of kindness, those who value it (the left) fall into this cult of personality trap.
It is fundamentalism. Many might ascribe fundamentalism to religious groups alone, but it is rife in everything we ascribe to as the single source of truth. It has infected much of science; it is all through the universities and politics; it is even what gives celebrities, who know no more than you, a more believable perspective on an issue. I'm not fond of stars who use cult of personality to elevate their opinions, specifically if it has a lack of content behind it. Why would someone who doesn't need sufficient material to back up their argument put in the amount of passion and effort required to reinforce their perspective? When a few million people are going to believe them anyway without checking for themselves.
I admire people like Michael Jordan; it is not relevant whether you agree or disagree with his refusal to engage with the issue of racism and politics. Michael Jordan avoided doing what so many people like Lebron James continue to do today; he did not use his cult of personality to broadcast his flawed opinion on politics. That is the right thing to do. Can you make the argument that he put profit before morals? Sure, you could also point out his positive effect on those who strived to be the best they could be in their chosen craft. I object to his promotion of unthinking consumerism during his career, so I do not subscribe to the "Be Like Mike" cult of personality. I see that the damage of unthinking consumerism wasn't as evident to many in the '80s and '90s as it is today. Michael Jordan isn't someone who analyses the environmental impact of what he promotes; he's a Basketball player and a business owner. He should employ someone who does that, so what he endorses and invests in brings far more holistic benefit than holistic degradation.
If you think fundamentalism is a problem, you should check whether you suffer from it. I think fundamentalism is one of the biggest problems humanity faces. It's a dangerous mental illness that you will only solve through personal growth, a questioning attitude, and constant self-reflection. We have many issues; fundamentalism prompts us to subscribe to flawed solutions made 'popular' by those who profit off them. It encourages investment in solutions that create more problems than solutions because we aren't putting it through the wringer. Every idea is a bad idea until you prove that it's not.
Hopping from one form of fundamentalism to another has been the story of humanity for thousands of years, and it is getting to the point of no return. The technology we are developing can unlock the lid of pandora's box; once we open AI, there is no turning it off. If we do not shake free of cult of personality and question, or even forcibly object to decisions that cannot or will not be justified through robust debate. Then we will step into a chaos that is likely to be something we can no longer order ethically and mindfully.Â
It is a shame that all of the above was encompassed in one musical sentence back in 1988 and very few of us realised the deeper meaning behind it. "Neon lights, Nobel Prize, when a leader speaks, their reflection lies. You don't have to follow me; only you can set you free" — Living Colour Cult of Personality.