Saturday, August 14, 2021

Musings on Religion, Lies, Agreeability

"for the Marxist, religion can only be seen as a tool to exploit and delude the masses and this contention is supported by the notion that there is only matter, the Marxist philosophical method is dialectical materialism."

More precisely, Marxism is a religion.
The more religious a religion is, the weaker it is, and Marxism is very, very religious, and thus very, very weak. It must ferociously attack anything with the tiniest whiff of competition, lest that thing accidentally crush Marxism by rolling over during an afternoon nap.

This feature of religions isn't inherent to religion, but rather inherent to humans. Homo hypocritus vastly prefers false religions, and thus the more a human likes a religion, the more false you can be assured it is. Gnon, the true god, rather dislikes falsehood and punishes these religions with pain and failure. Homo hypocritus takes this as an opportunity to show they really, really believe. Look how much damage they're willing to take on behalf of the religion! Very loyal. (As if loyalty was not a sin.) 


In homo hypocritus, agreeability means not disputing lies. The agreeable person essentially agrees to be exploited by anyone even vaguely psychopathic. 

We can see the State strongly selects against disagreeability, resulting in "civilized" populations which are fundamentally gullible. 

"In a sense, they are correct: why torpedo your own career and social prospects to become a social pariah? Are you mad? Few people think there is a Heaven or eternal reward if you do so; and so to spite the system seems like self-harm—only a stupid person would do it. "

At least, fundamentally committed to acting gullible, so much so that you can extract wealth from them by holding their career hostage. 

Indeed they become so agreeable that the State finds itself unable to fend off its own psychopathic elements. The lies it feeds to its host population are used against it, progressively more intensely, until the State fails. The system tried to hold midwit's careers hostage, and is in turn held hostage to its system of hostage-taking.

The correct thing to do is always to sacrifice the hostage and kill the hostage-taker, but an agreeable person can and will never do this, which is exactly why the State frantically suppresses anyone disagreeable. 

Sadly, I can only say the disagreeable deserve this fate. They, too, are human. They consistently believe God will save them as a result of mouthing pious platitudes - in other words, they don't need to organize or figure out how to get along with other disagreeable people. Set aside their differences due to a common threat? Nonsense, Providence will provide.

"I believe in hierarchy!"
The disagreeable isn't capable of disputing orthodoxy, they are obligated to dispute orthodoxy, exactly the way the agreeable person is obligated to uphold orthodoxy.
"I believe in hierachy - as long as I don't have to join one, of course!" This is why democracy is even vaguely stable. It recruits its own enemies to its cause. The agreeable: "I'm an individual, I think for myself!" they chant, repeatedly, in unison. The disagreeable man cannot, fundamentally, oppose this idea. They think for themselves even, or perhaps especially, when they shouldn't. Naturally, telling the truth would piss off even someone who wasn't shackled to the agreeable-disagreeable axis. "Having thought for myself, I have determined you shouldn't think for yourself." Not exactly rhetorical brilliance here. 

Indeed, perhaps a fortiori. The disagreeable prefer living under a full liar/tyrant regime, because if the State says anything true, the disagreeable will perforce say a falsehood. Much more comfortable, on balance, if they never have to lie because the State never tells the truth.
Naturally the agreeable are likewise pleased with full liar/tyrant regimes, because they get to demonstrate their cuckold bona-fides so intensely. "You wanna slave? I'm the most supine slave to ever prostrate!" Cool, yeah that's exactly what I wanted...


Anonymous said...

Your idea of disagreeability/agreeability seems to assume that disagreeable people dislike lying (since you say it would be a reward for them to get to tell the truth).

What about people who just don't like falsehoods, and don't want to be compelled to spread them. Since we're at high lie saturation levels in the modern west how would these people be distinguished from those who are just disagreeable?

Alrenous said...

Sounds like a unicorn to me. Beneficial mutations are even rarer than harmful ones, which are in turn rarer than neutral ones.

Even if substantial numbers of purely anti-lying folk exist, they make no substantial effort to know the truth and still end up spreading falsehoods. Since the Royal Society used to exist, it can't even be chalked up to ignorance; it's always negligence.