Previous posts in this discussion:
PostCult of Personality in USA; Why Are There Wars? (Alain de Benoist, France, 02/25/12 4:45 am)
I think Cameron Sawyer is quite right when he writes (24 February) that the
cult of personality "is not specific to any particular ideology (and that it
is in "direct contradiction of the Communist ideal of 'scientific objectivity'
being the basis of the exercise of power").
However, I also think that Cameron is wrong when he defines the cult of
personality just as a "basic instrument of subordination and control employed
by the sovereign against the people." This is somewhat reductionist. The cult
of personality has certainly been used throughout history by sovereign (or not
-so-sovereign) powers, but such an instrumental use does not explain by itself
the emergence of the cult of personality, which finds more probably its roots
in a desire or will to admire which is commonly present in most people.
All kinds of personalities have become the object of a "cult." Very frequently,
such a cult has had nothing to do with power or subordination. What about the
"cult of personality" of people as different as Martin Luther King, Mother
Theresa, the Queen of England, Michael Jackson, Steve Jobs and... Jesus?
I also disagree with Cameron's great post when he writes that "war itself, as
an institution, has its origins in sovereigns fighting over the right to
exploit each others' populations, to extract tax revenue, etc." This
describes just one kind of war among others. Hundreds of books have been written
about what is the cause of wars. The best explanation is also the most simple:
there are wars because the natural diversity of human beings engenders a
diversity of desires, needs and aspirations which can always evolve into
conflicts. Some of these conflicts cannot be solved through negotiation,
bargaining or compromises. When the conflicts become armed conflicts, they are
called wars. The final answer to the question: why are there wars? is that that
people want to wage them.