Talk:Personality cult
The examples are too much of a stretch.[edit]
Putting every modern U.S. politician who has had some success seems way overboard to me. I might pare down the list at some point if someone doesn't beat me to it, but I'd like more in-depth examples and a better understanding of what defines a personality cult. It's an important topic for this wiki. The Moose (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I really think that some of the ones that Fuzzy Cat Potato should probably go back in. Specifically Jerry Falwell, Alex Jones, Fidel Castro, and Rush Limbaugh. These people HAVE deliberately cultivated what are pretty much cults of personality, especially Limbaugh and Castro.68.200.26.93 (talk)
- Certainly atleast both Alex Jones and Castro should go back in (and that's just because I don't know the other two closely enough). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
why theres no kekkonen[edit]
Fact that elon musk gets honour of being in personality list but theres no where to find kekkonen is Hurting the feelings of the finnish people. Urho Kalevi Kekkonen is createst leader to ever come from savonia and the fact that you have not him listed is proof of anti finno ugric conspiracy
- 1. Elon Musk is probably better known than Kekkonen around the world these days. Maybe even in Finland. 2. His second name was "Kaleva" not "Kalevi". Some Finn you are not knowing that. 3. Isn't not including him being kind to Finnish people, by indicating that there isn't a personality cult around him. There is of course, you seem to be a prime example of such a cultist, but the term "personality cult" is derisive in its nature and being an apparent member doesn't speak highly of you. 4. I'm a Finn and I'm not insulted by his exclusion. By all means his semi dictatorial existence should be forgotten. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez personality cult[edit]
I don't know if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's viral internet popularity would count as a personality cult. I mean, if it does, she'd be the first example of one built via social media. --2601:199:4181:E00:6529:7FA0:AEAF:B6B7 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Being popular isn't the same thing as forming a personality cult. Actively promoting one's image in order to consolidate power within an organization is a much stronger indicator. Organizationally, she doesn't have much power. Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Considering the amount of terminally online people going "AOC is liberal/neolib/right-wing actually" on Twitter, I'd say no. Gangster Computer God (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I admit that if AOC's viral popularity was a bit more cult-like, she'd be fit for "Other political figures". But we might need to dig further and draw conclusions. --2601:199:4181:E00:6529:7FA0:AEAF:B6B7 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Considering the amount of terminally online people going "AOC is liberal/neolib/right-wing actually" on Twitter, I'd say no. Gangster Computer God (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we should nuke the list[edit]
For the same reasons we've been nuking a few other lists I think this one should go, only a handful of exemples are enough. That being said, even if we don't I don't think AOC qualifies. At least not yet. GeeJayK (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The Founding Fathers do have a sort of personality cult[edit]
To the point that even mild criticism of them is viewed as practical blasphemy. Leedlecreeper's right about this. Vee (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. The very fact that they are entitled "the Founded Fathers" in of itself is cultic. Their cult of personality is to the point where it has developed theistic elements, this is known as American Civil Religion
. Wisconcom 17:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you guys haven't read the entire article, but the Founding Fathers were already mentioned (see note 3). Though I can't hardly blame you for that. Just delete this whole "what I don't like" listicle. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well it depends on how you want to define your terms. Our primary definition: A personality cult or cult of personality is a system in which the political legitimacy of an organization is the function of the leader. No such thing is true of any founding father, or even Abraham Lincoln. The political legitamacy is enshrined in the constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. These guys may be venerated for what they did but that would be hero worship. No one knows what they were like personally, though one could read letters and such to make a guess. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah this list needs to be illustrative but not utterly comprehensive, if we were to use a list. Be choosy. --It's-a me,
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- So you are, in short, saying that because they are Western, it is not a personality cult? The so-called "founding fathers" still have their persons effectively deified, are referenced by modern American governmental figures when attempting to attain legitmacy, and so on. Saying that the "founding fathers" lack a cult of personality, while claiming the opposite of every Socialist leader, is nothing sort of American chauvinism. Wisconcom 22:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- The founding fathers are already on the list. Christopher (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I know Chris, I saw Gee's remark. According to our definition, they don't belong on the list. Which is the point of my comment. Anyone who thinks "Donald Trump and George Washington, yeah they represent the same things," is a fuzzy thinker. We do have a lot of them around these days.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Like who? "Well I mean it ackshually is hero worship" just reeks of pedantic nonsense. Yeah, you could argue by way of technicality that the American civic religion isn't a personality cult, but that would be academic hair-splitting, something you have railed against in your Bar posts before. Why the difference here? Also, to say that the Founding Fathers had no influence in the legitimacy of American political institutions is absurd. The whole two term limit is a thing because of Washington, for just one example. Who's really the fuzzy thinker here? Vee (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- All right Vee, you get your answer. People worship Donald Trump because he can do no wrong for his cult. People respect and admire figures of American history. There is a very clear difference. Today there are a lot of people who practically worship the US constitution. The same is not true of the Founders. They are respected, despite any number of flaws for what they did. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Wisconcom. No. Not even close. Where did you get that idea? Are you a Russian native? Many Russians today think very highly of Stalin, believe it or not and wish someone like him were in control over there in Moscow. Washington is the foremost of the founding Americans. Nobody today knows anything about Washington as President. People venerate his war record as General Washington. Is that clear enough? Maybe you are looking for a list of military heros. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Like who? "Well I mean it ackshually is hero worship" just reeks of pedantic nonsense. Yeah, you could argue by way of technicality that the American civic religion isn't a personality cult, but that would be academic hair-splitting, something you have railed against in your Bar posts before. Why the difference here? Also, to say that the Founding Fathers had no influence in the legitimacy of American political institutions is absurd. The whole two term limit is a thing because of Washington, for just one example. Who's really the fuzzy thinker here? Vee (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I know Chris, I saw Gee's remark. According to our definition, they don't belong on the list. Which is the point of my comment. Anyone who thinks "Donald Trump and George Washington, yeah they represent the same things," is a fuzzy thinker. We do have a lot of them around these days.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- The founding fathers are already on the list. Christopher (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- So you are, in short, saying that because they are Western, it is not a personality cult? The so-called "founding fathers" still have their persons effectively deified, are referenced by modern American governmental figures when attempting to attain legitmacy, and so on. Saying that the "founding fathers" lack a cult of personality, while claiming the opposite of every Socialist leader, is nothing sort of American chauvinism. Wisconcom 22:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah this list needs to be illustrative but not utterly comprehensive, if we were to use a list. Be choosy. --It's-a me,
- Well it depends on how you want to define your terms. Our primary definition: A personality cult or cult of personality is a system in which the political legitimacy of an organization is the function of the leader. No such thing is true of any founding father, or even Abraham Lincoln. The political legitamacy is enshrined in the constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. These guys may be venerated for what they did but that would be hero worship. No one knows what they were like personally, though one could read letters and such to make a guess. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you guys haven't read the entire article, but the Founding Fathers were already mentioned (see note 3). Though I can't hardly blame you for that. Just delete this whole "what I don't like" listicle. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I must have misinterpreted you, my apologizes. Wisconcom 23:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
An early example[edit]
Would Qin Shi Huang count - Terracotta Army and all.
Also Jesus and 'the Cult of the Virgin Mary' (though the cults were imposed upon them). Anna Livia (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Does it count as a cult of personality if there's a religious element involved? Vee (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think so.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Isn't Christianity one of these too?[edit]
The title says it all, as it seems that ol' Jesus has a bunch of blind followers who think he is infallible to this very day. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC) And this could be added as in the See Also category concerning this topic. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Might be a necropost, but Christianity as a whole is not a cult of personality like Buddhism is not a cult of personality. There may be some who obsess over Jesus himself, but the stated goal of most mainstream denominations is following the teachings of Jesus. PLMMJ (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are certainly cults within Christianity, and Christian leaders who have formed what look like personality cults. But "personality cult" is usually used to refer to a political movement where the leader is almost defied and furthermore is usually living or at least recently deceased. So I think that calling Christianity itself a "personality cult" stretches the meaning a bit too far.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe catholicism is more like one. They explicitly have saints. Kadashova (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure - but those dead guys are not forming political parties and trying to run governments.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- But these Christian nationalists are usually cath, right? Kadashova (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cath?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait! Catholic! In that case I'm not sure of the point you are making. It's also the first time we have mentioned "these Christian nationalists" so I am a bit confused.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Kadashova is probably thinking about so-called tradcaths, who do tend to be Christian nationalists. However, Christian nationalism itself is a transdenominational phenomenon. Carthage (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK. But in any event it seems substantially off-topic.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Kadashova is probably thinking about so-called tradcaths, who do tend to be Christian nationalists. However, Christian nationalism itself is a transdenominational phenomenon. Carthage (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wait! Catholic! In that case I'm not sure of the point you are making. It's also the first time we have mentioned "these Christian nationalists" so I am a bit confused.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cath?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- But these Christian nationalists are usually cath, right? Kadashova (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure - but those dead guys are not forming political parties and trying to run governments.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe catholicism is more like one. They explicitly have saints. Kadashova (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are certainly cults within Christianity, and Christian leaders who have formed what look like personality cults. But "personality cult" is usually used to refer to a political movement where the leader is almost defied and furthermore is usually living or at least recently deceased. So I think that calling Christianity itself a "personality cult" stretches the meaning a bit too far.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)