Is Western Politics A Secular Cult?

8 min readSep 7, 2017

(Part 2 in our Secular Cult Series — Part 1 Here)

What Defines A Cult?

The purpose of this series is to examine secular organisations and practices that don’t undergo the same scrutiny a budding religion would and explore whether these seemingly innocuous groups employ and promote the same behaviours that make cults so dangerous.

Before we can do that though, we need to know how to identify a cult. Dictionary.com’s definition for the word is ‘a particular system of religious worship.’ However, this is an inadequate definition that doesn’t convey what a cult really is and fails to explain the reason why no new religion wants the connotation that comes with the term. Nor does the definition make an effort to differentiate cults from socially accepted religions or address the harm cults cause. If you were to omit the theology from any harmful cult — Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, Scientology — they would still be a dangerous organisation employing manipulative tactics.

So then, how can one diagnose a cult if not for its blatantly false religious beliefs? There is no universal cult practice, but there is a range of common symptoms:

Submission: Unquestioned trust in leadership that is rewarded in a manner that makes the member feel important.

Persecution Mentality: A black & white, Us Vs Them, mentality. When corrected or contradicted, members interpret it as validation (think of the way members of the Westboro Baptist Church interpret insults).

Control: Controlling the way members act, think and communicate.

Love Bombing: Love of the group by the group that builds dependence upon the group.

Elitist View: Members are always right. They are the only ones who know the truth and this makes them feel superior to outsiders.

Salvation: Only the cult knows the route to salvation. Therefore, any means justify the ends. Salvation can only be reached by maintaining association with the group.

Cognitive Dissonance: Avoiding critical thinking and logic. Denying facts that contradict the group.

Loaded Language & Jargon: Creates camaraderie and promotes elitism. Dictates how members act, think and communicate. Becomes second nature and isolates members from outsiders while also inviting outsiders to join and learn for inclusion.

Groupthink: Coherence maintained by blindingly following doctrine, leaders and policies while discouraging disagreement.

Disconnection Policy: Isolating members from those who don’t share the group’s views. This can be family, friends or society at large and reinforces dependence on the group.

Internal Enforcement: Obedience of the group’s scripture is maintained by an internal enforcement agency.

Deception: Employing deceptive and manipulative acts to sign members up and keep them in the group.

Charismatic Leader: This one is obvious, right? Provides members with someone to worship and idolise.

Repetition: Repeating any or all of the above to brainwash members.

Using this information it should be easy to answer the question…

Is Western Politics A Cult?

This is a more straight forward comparison than the previous ‘Is Social Media A Secular Cult?’ Most people have probably heard the term ‘Cult of Personality‘ that is frequently attributed to despots and politicians. Mao, Mussolini, Kim Jong-un. But this article isn’t examining those extremes but rather mundane and everyday western politics.

Let’s start by outlining the way politicians behave similarly to cult leaders.

Once you realise that the vast majority of politicians are self-serving, career minded individuals whose every publicly spoken word is calculated, the true nature of the political institution becomes transparent.

Just like cult leaders, politicians live in an insulated world, mainly mingling with other politicians, donators and business leaders and only interact with the voting public under controlled circumstances and when it suits them. On such occasions, politician’s speeches are loaded with catch phrases and keywords designed to evoke a certain reaction, appeal to a specific situation or please a particular demographic, all the while crowds of adoring supporters cheer them on.

Politicians submit to party doctrine in order to benefit themselves. How frequent is it to see a politician back-flipping on an issue? Whether it is an opinion from before stepping into the public eye or a key point of an election campaign, most back-flips are the result of dissent within the party rather than new information on the subject.

Before he was elected, Tony Abbot asserted that “What you’ll get under us are tax cuts without new taxes,” that there would be “no cuts to education, no cuts to health.” Yet his first budget saw almost $100 million cut from schools and hospitals. Before him Julia Gillard promised “no carbon tax under the government I lead,” but betrayed this statement and submitted to political pressure. Even Midnight Oil’s Peter Garret who wrote… how many anti mining songs? Was prone to approving uranium mines through his tenureship as federal Environment Minister, selling out on the very issue that he used to build his platform to be more in line with the party.

Politicians subscribe to party doctrine even when that doctrine contradicts logic or fact, like Pauline Hanson’s refusal of climate change: “We can’t have these lies put across by people with their own agenda” or the state of the ever-eroding Great Barrier Reef: “The reefs there are in pristine condition.”

Politicians propagate an Us vs Them narrative with rival parties, while claiming to be the only ones who can bring the public salvation. You’ll never hear a politician claiming that a rival party could do as good a job as they can. It’s always their way or tragedy. These sentiments are repeated over and over, again and again, until the audience is hopefully indoctrinated into believing them.

Political campaigns employ TV ads, radio spots, billboards, phone calls, junk mail and personal endorsements all in an attempt to love bomb the public into believing that they need a particular candidate or party elected.

Are politicians wrong to employ such tactics?

Of course not, for politicians are rarely wrong. When persecuted by the opposition (them), politicians play the victim and claim the attack only validates their point. They are our saviours and any means justifies the ends.

And even on those rare occasions when politicians are caught in the wrong, they are rarely held accountable for their actions. Unless, of course, there is some sort of political gain to be made from doing so. It is almost as if there is one set of laws for citizens and another for politicians. The same goes for the enforcement agencies. If Malcolm Turnball was caught shoplifting, do you really think constables from the local precinct would go arrest him?

When Turnball was named in the Panama leaks last year, the biggest leak of all time that has exposed financial corruption throughout the world, there was no investigation, no uproar. Turnball merely said he was innocent and the case was closed before it was ever open in an act strikingly similar to David Miscavige, Scientology’s Chairman of the Board, telling the Los Angeles Police that his wife (who hasn’t been seen in over ten years) is one hundred percent safe and there is no need for an investigation into that matter. Furthermore, over seven years later, Kevin Rudd still hasn’t being held accountable for his failed $2.8 billion insulation scheme that resulted in the deaths of four Australians, one of whom was only sixteen.

Being the only people in the country who can enact new laws and bills, politicians literally control the population. But their reach extends further than this hyperbole. To back room deals and deceptive loyalties. Ties between Telstra (who have a long history of breaking the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s laws) and Liberal politicians are largely responsible for the abolishment of the FTTH NBN plan and the replacement ADSL and HFC upgrade, keeping Australia’s Internet capabilities far behind the rest of the developed world’s, all to save Telstra’s monopoly.

Earlier this year, the Australian Liberal Party (who claim they are loyal to the Australian people) gave Foxtel (a private company jointly owned by Telstra and Fox) a $30 million handout in exchange for… Well, absolutely nothing.

How do politicians justify acts like these, that benefit private companies while harming the public? Simple. Politicians have the same elitist view that most cult leaders do, allowing them to do things that stray from socially accepted morals. Lets face it. Most politicians are snobs. Private school kids who have spent their life being groomed to rule. They know more and, frankly, deserve more. That’s why political salaries and benefits are never questioned but welfare amounts for the those lazy and sick dole bludgers is always under scrutiny. Why pensions, school budgets and humanitarian donations are cut in favour of handouts to companies. Why technological improvement is hampered to prolong private monopolies.

The biggest difference between Australian politicians and cult leaders is the lack of a charismatic leader. Turnball, Abbot, Gillard, Rudd, Howard, different shaped cardboard cutouts, each as boring and lifeless as the last. Remember when Rudd got smashed in New York and caught in a strip club? He insisted that he remembered absolutely nothing and said sorry: “If my behaviour caused any offence to anybody whatsoever that evening I, of course, wholeheartedly apologise.” Relatable right? Just a typical bloke, like all those politicians who wear hard hats at press conferences.

But these unrelatable caricatures serve the same purpose as charismatic leaders. While cult members adore their leader, they know they could never be them. The same goes for the average Australian who could never be so devoid of personality as their leaders.

But perhaps this unrelatable misrepresentation is a deliberate choice by politicians. Instead of being who they really are, they project the image of who they believe the public really wants elected. This act of deception goes beyond individual politicians to the parties they submit to. For instance, The Liberal Party is a centre-right group, not a liberal group. There is also the ‘recreational’ parties that appear to be single minded but actually have a dictated stance on much more than they advertise. The Fishing Party, Sex Party, Shooting Party, Equality Party, Cyclist Party, Smoker’s Rights Party, Motorist Party, Sports Party and so on. One could even point to the Labor Party which claims to be Australian but fails to even use the Australian spelling for the word labour.

How about those who support politicians? Do they behave like cult members?

The political landscape changed forever when it collided with the Internet. People divided and were able to participate in echo chambers whilst being present in the real world, creating an environment that was rife for groupthink. Hanson’s resurgence, a $120 million postal vote, political riots every other week over in the US. There is a bigger political divide than ever before and, as a result, political supporters no longer judge issues on an individual basis but pledge allegiance to whatever their chosen sect dictates.

They follow candidates around to hear them speak and cheer them on and disassociate with followers of rival parties. While no formal disconnection policy exists, there are staunch and mild supports (just as there are staunch and mild Scientologists) who take it upon themselves to ignore supporters of rival factions. This promotes an elitist view that allows followers to incite violence against rivals: Based Stick Man, Antifa, White Supremacists, militant Black Lives Matters supporters. All are as zealously guilty of cognitive dissonance as each other.

We leave you with the above information to come to your own answer to the question: Is Western Politics A Cult?

You can also find a summary table at the following link: