Everyone, whether they realise it or not, desires cult prestige. Cult prestige occurs when members of society desire to join your ideological affiliation, or cult. The more people want what your cult has, the more cult prestige you have. Cult power derives in part from secret knowledge. Whether that is inside jokes, dank memes or something more, when you are having fun in your cult, it is only natural that others will seek to join, whether by emulation or subscription. There’s simply no way to get around the cult social order.
The truth of this revelation doesn’t imply that everyone will accept it. Some people are very dedicated to their atheist identity and aren’t likely to concede that their belief structure is computationally equivalent to that of a cult.
The absence of a state cult combined with the propagation of the idea that it is possible to have secular government in the first place has created a power vacuum that various “secular” state ideologies are now attempting to move into. While ideological slum lords like anarchists foolishly believe it is possible to have no state cult, most demagogues are statists: they agree that a state must exist in some form. They only differ on what form precisely the state should take.
Marxists for example believe there must exist conflict between the ruling and working classes. In the Natural Law, all social classes work together and therefore no matter what seemingly good ideas may emanate from marxist dogma, it is fundamentally an ideology which pits society against itself, and thus contradicts Natural Law.
It is thus fairly easy to understand the fallacy of marxism. It is less clear why ideologies like libertarianism, propertarianism and anarcho-capitalism/syndicalism are doomed to fail. Let’s examine them together, since they all have essentially the same flaw. Libertarianism/ancap holds the “free market” up as a sacred cow while “propertarianism” bolsters “property” in the same manner.
Libertarianism/ancap promotes the idea of the ‘free market’ as a sacred cow that solves all problems. This is mercantilism gone wild. Mercantilism shifts society towards r-selected behaviour. Advertisements give the impression that materialism leads to happiness and this motivates people to exchange their labour value (money) for material goods and the associated short term gratification. Consumption of material for its own sake is the very definition of r-selected behaviour. In the long run, this leads to desertification, despair and civilisational collapse. It’s pretty clear that most people do not have sufficient agency to make good (consumer) decisions about the long term survival of civilisation and will more frequently tend towards behaviour that gives short term rewards. This ideology accelerates civilisational decline by endorsing (i.e.: by failing to oppose) mindless consumerism.
Statecraft must take the tendencies of low-agency people into consideration if it is to be successful at upholding civilisation.
The main argument against libertarianism/ancap is that not all industries can be permitted to function via the profit motive (i.e. the “free market”). Introducing the profit motive into psychology/psychiatry has led to doctors prescribing gigantic amounts of dangerous psychotropics in exchange for free vacations to Maui. If the profit motive is operand in warcraft, then war becomes a giant meat grinder from which resources are extracted. If the profit motive acts in theocracy/religion, fundamental religious teachings take a backseat to the acquisition of money.
This type of system simply does not place enough value on people’s spiritual fulfilment. People are not happy under a mercantilist system, they are only happy under a spiritualist system (if at all). The only cure to existential gloom is a clear path towards enlightenment (the liberation from the cycle of rebirth). Mercantilism does not give this.
Is an r-selected monopolistic mercantilist system the kind of government you want to live under?
Didn’t think so.
Propertarianism (promoted by Curt Doolittle) has a similar flaw as libertarianism/ancap. Setting aside the fact that it’s promoted by a stodgy, condescending wannabe shitposter, the ideology itself has a fundamental flaw.
This flaw comes from the definition. Basically propertarianism involves using a particular definition of property (that which can be defended) as a means of creating the contracts that modulate the flow of society. Consider this: whose property is the truth? Who determines it? I am sure Curt would say that it is he who determines the truth, but what does he really know about Natural Law? Natural Law has had the same definition since antiquity, it is Snatana Dharma. Curt knows nothing of Snatana Dharma and so it follows that he knows nothing of Natural Law.
Natural Law edicts emanate from live debates performed by a theocratic dictatorship representing the religion of truth. Curt refuses to debate live, because “reasons”, and will only make written arguments. This indicates weakness and a lack of self-confidence. If you cannot defend your position in a live debate, your position is simply not that strong – this is why live debates are integral to the Natural Law tradition. Curt also refuses to accept that NL emanates from theocracy, instead wishing to institute a “scholar class” who will determine the course of society. My question with that is: how is that any different from what we have now? The purveyors of critical theory, marxism and atheism were/are all intellectual elites, were/are they not? One can hardly defend the position that their influence has been positive.
Another red flag with Curt Doolittle is that he didn’t accept me as an authority on truth and natural law (instead he blocked me when I said Jordan Peterson was a shill and then angryposted about it). Given my vast body of work, which includes a unified field model, counterproofs of several science hoaxes, and a theory of mind that makes all predictions, my authority on such matters ought to be self-evident to anyone with an IQ over room temperature. Curt basically wants everyone to bend the knee to his way of viewing things and is not open to persuasion towards other viewpoints.
This is a catastrophic weakness.
This Curt Cult reminds me of Helena Blavatsky: a fraud who set the spiritual development of the West back by at least 100 years. Although Swami Dayananda spoke against her, his warnings were largely unheeded and her flawed teachings became enshrined as the “truth religion” in the minds of many westerners. The implementation of this system has not led to any demonstrably positive results. Since Curt claims to represent both truth and natural law, he is making essentially the same error Blavatsky did: they both refuse to bow to the authority of people with a demonstrably greater understanding of the ideas they claim to represent.
Whose property is people’s free will, mind, soul? Given the rates of NPC-ism, the answer is far from self-evident. Whose property is truth? How can you meaningfully enshrine truth into a contractual obligation? You cannot, until you are willing to go wherever the truth leads, even if that leads to you losing your self-appointed position of prestige. If Curt cared about truth, he’d care what I was saying. If Helena cared about truth, she’d have cared what Swami was saying. But they did not care, because they do not represent the truth. Remember, many ideological systems claim to represent ‘truth’. Jesus the Christ claimed to represent truth, Claire Khaw claims to represent truth, but neither does. Beliefs are only true when they meet a scientific standard, namely that they make all predictions. My quantum mind model predicts dreams, mental disturbances and a vast range of psychic phenomena. My unified field model predicts all observable scientific phenomena, including nuclear reactivity. Where are the rival unified field models? Where are the rival mind models? These people don’t have any such thing! They have only ill-defined words, semantic traps and mazes of circular logic designed to artificially bolster their cult prestige.
There is nothing more important than defending truth. But the process of discovering truth is long and arduous. When you get to the fundamental aspects of causality, it becomes exponentially more difficult to know with certainty what is truth – this is why no one figured out a correct unified field model before me. This is why the quantum nature of the mind is still hotly debated instead of tacitly accepted. We are living in an intellectual dark age. People like Curt and Helena simply don’t have the skills to uplift people out of that state. Their minds are as lame as their bodies and they are stuck in a maze of circular reasoning which places their likeness at the top of the authority hierarchy. As was recently stated in a Blundertry livestream, this strategy can be argued to be no different from what I’m doing.
Doovid (the person who said I have fallen into an egotistical trap) is actually falling into a trap that I carefully laid using my public persona. When someone approaches me with arrogance, I simply reflect that arrogance back towards them to demonstrate how distasteful it is. Though all practitioners of mental training/perfectionment have large egos (ego is the vehicle you use to transcend causality and move beyond egotistical constraints, so you must have this!), I am not an arrogant person. As you can see in my recent interview on the No Apologies Youtube channel, I am quite personable so long as I am respected. Once someone steps out of line however, I am duty bound to dis-incentivise that sort of behaviour by any means necessary. If I failed to do that, I’d be failing in my duty to myself, society, truth and God.
I have a general disdain for hostile egomaniacs. My real personality is not like that, my public persona is simply designed to elicit precisely these types of criticisms, for the following teaching moment: If I do not merit arrogance, who does? If my opinions are not authoritative, whose are? Critics have no answer for that of course. They only have unsubstantiated opinions. And those are like assholes: everyone has one and most of them stink.