I wish we could have separation of information and state, but that is impractical, short of the abolition of the state altogether, short of anarchy or anarcho capitalism. Official truth is too useful to the state, and the state too useful for ideologies seeking to be official. This is apt to result in a positive feedback loop, power manufacturing belief, and belief manufacturing power, each ever more extreme.
After they executed the King in the English civil war, they theoretically disestablished the official church, but it was of course immediately obvious that they instituted an officially unofficial church that was vastly more intrusive and oppressive. When, with the restoration, officially official theocracy was reintroduced, people celebrated it with pagan festivals such as Maypole dancing, recognizing the introduction of official theocracy as ending the oppressive theocracy of ostensible lack of theocracy.
And today, the successors of those that executed the king have officially unofficial theocracy. To go to the best universities, to run for political office, to be employed in the government service, you have to submit essays and evidence of your commitment to one thousand and one points of progressive doctrine, much as in restoration England, you had to swear allegiance to the thirty nine articles and the second book of homilies.
Today’s Anglosphere Christianity has been wholly absorbed into progressivism. It supports egalitarianism, matriarchy, fatherlessness, and race replacement, so as a commenter asks:
should we try to fix Christianity or should we finish it off and move on without it?
Societies need myths, but we are not a society, we are just a bunch of social critics. It’s best for us to discard all myths and push forward with a commitment to absolute scientific truth. Perhaps a new mythology will arise once we’ve destroyed the Cathedral or accomplished something else that is worthy of being immortalized in legend.
A monogamous patriarchal society remembers its fathers, and slowly accretes tall tales and true connecting it to ancient blood and soil. We have lost that, and I think hopes to quickly synthesize a substitute are unlikely to succeed.
So here is what I propose for a sane official belief system, one less likely to be very repressive, or to go into positive feedback loops.
The incarnation of evil, the defining example of collective evil
Instead of Nazism-discrimination being the incarnation of evil communism-covetousness should be the incarnation of evil.
Communism and Nazism should get coverage in proportion to the number of people murdered, which means Nazism should get very little coverage – the average student will entirely forget that Nazism was ever mentioned at all.
To the extent that Nazism is mentioned at all, we should emphasize their complaint that the Jews were disproportionately successful and influential, so that it fits into the pattern covetousness-murder rather than discrimination-murder
The various communist democides should be described in the context of wanting to have what is someone else’s (envy and covetousness).
The propensity of Marxist minions to loyally go to their own deaths should be remembered, so that every time someone sees a depiction of an evil overlord, when the evil overlord capriciously executes one of his minions for some frivolous reason, usually with horrible torture, the audience should think “based on communist minions and communist evil overlords”, for example Aristide personally gouging out the eyes of one of his minions.
All the various envy based ideologies, such as feminism or anti racism should be tarred as neomarxist, much as today anyone who disagrees with any tenet of envy based ideologies is a fascist or a neonazi. Feminism shall be dismissed as penis envy, and illustrated by various efforts to give women equal, but unearned, honors in fields where males have a natural advantage. The Spartans gave a woman who died in childbirth the honor of a fallen warrior, but they did not pretend to put them in the front lines.
We cannot resume scientific progress until every child is taught to laugh at Marie Curie getting two Nobel prizes for being on a team that made a discovery that would have been unlikely to get one Nobel had the team been all male, nor can we resume the conquest of space till every child is taught to laugh cruelly at Amelia Earhart.
Charles Lindbergh flew solo across the Atlantic and became famous for so doing, so feminists proceeded to manufacture an equivalent female poster girl. Amelia Earhart received a ticker tape parade and a presidential reception for flying across the atlantic, in pretended imitation of Charles Lindbergh but she did not fly, rather she was flown. As a passenger. By a man.
And when she subsequently attempted to herself fly long distance, to actually do the thing she had already become a famous poster girl for supposedly doing, promptly crashed her plane and killed herself. Everyone should laugh at her death as deserving the Darwin award.
When they gave two Noble prizes to Marie Curie for being female, that did not hurt anyone except more deserving potential Noble prize winners. But handing out phony Nobles on the basis of sex, race, and nationality necessitated handing out phony degrees on the basis of race and sex, and handing out phony degrees on the basis of race and sex necessarily led to a crisis where these phony degrees were being ignored by employers, so employers necessarily had to be forced to give out well paid jobs on the basis of race and sex. But being given well paid jobs on the basis of race and sex failed to result in recipients living a middle class lifestyle, so lenders had to be forced to give out a middle class lifestyle on the basis of race and sex. Which led to our present financial crisis.
It all began with Marie Curie, and to undo it, we must start by laughing at Marie Curie and laughing cruelly at Amelia Earhart. Every child needs laugh cruelly, so that envy based political movements die of shame, as Amelia Earhart died of vanity.
What made official religion, the unity of Church and State, compatible with freedom in Britain in the period from the restoration to the Victorian era, was latitudinarianism, that you could piously claim to believe in the official religion while believing in anything other than the major tenets of competing theocratic religions hungry for power.
At present, to get into an elite university like Harvard, you have to plausibly claim to believe in every single one of ten thousand points of left wing doctrine,and if you deviate on a single point of a ten thousand points, you are XXXist.
Instead, it should be sufficient to disbelieve in the key tenets of the major competing theocratic religions. Thus applicants for any establishment position, leadership qualification, or establishment accreditation should merely be required to reject the key tenets of the two major competing theocracies: Progressivism and Islam. You must not believe that Mohammed is the final prophet of God, and you must not believe in equality nor oppose profiling. You must believe that all men were not created equal, and that therefore different rules should apply to different types of men.
For example, if someone reasonably believes that females are on average less honest than males, and that homosexuals are on average less honest than heterosexuals, and that it is hard to get good information on individual honesty, then you are required to believe that he has a duty to exclude all females and homosexuals from a security job where honesty is important, even though sex and perversion are not very reliable indicators of honesty
And if he can get better individual honesty information on fellow members of his congregation than on outsiders, then he should hire from within his congregation for the job for which honesty is important.
Anything else, you should be allowed to believe or disbelieve, except for stuff that is empirically stupid or wrong.
Should new theocratic belief systems appear, seeking power, their tenets should be added to the forbidden list. We should have a Grand Inquisitor to manage the forbidden list, and to detect disguised versions of forbidden beliefs. The Grand Inquisitor purges the public service, the universities, and so on and so forth, but does not attempt to purge all of society. People should be allowed to believe what they please, just not allowed near the levers of power if they have dangerous beliefs. In particular, and especially, not allowed near anything that gives them the opportunity to apply state power in support of forbidden beliefs. That is how England went off the rails. In Victorian England Anglicanism ceased to be an instrument of the King and the aristocracy, and became a weaponized belief system used to attack the aristocracy.
We should not be too latitudinarian. Victorian England should have executed William Wilberforce, and it is probable we will need pogroms to persuade Muslims that their religion does not require forceful imposition of Shariah on the rest of us.
Restoration Anglicanism avoided being stifling. But, sending its enemies off to colonize America instead of sending them off to cut sugar in the West Indies turned out to be a very bad idea.
Trouble is, if you repress Galileo, you don’t get the scientific and industrial revolutions, but if you fail to repress William Wilberforce, you get replaced by holier than thou fanatics, by people who claim that:
I am holier than thou, therefore I should command thee
It was correct to honor Lyell, who noticed that the rocks of the earth were immensely ancient, even though this was, strictly speaking, heresy punishable by death. It was suicidally self destructive to honor William Wilberforce, who discovered that morality required a radical redistribution of power and prestige away from colonials towards people strikingly resembling himself. William Wilberforce should have been executed for heresy on the question of slavery. The difference was that that Lyell was not seeking political power for his belief system, therefore not a threat to the enforcers of the heresy laws, while William Wilberforce was seeking political power for his belief system, therefore was a threat to the enforcers of the heresy laws.
Lyell was correct, so the Anglican Church was right to tolerate him. William Wilberforce was a pharisee, so they should not have tolerated him. The fact that he was correct meant that they should have been twice as intolerant, and the fact that he really was holier than they were meant that they should have been four times as intolerant. They should have shipped him off to the West Indies to cut sugar cane for rum.
By a pharisee, I mean people who claim that they know more than others, therefore should be obeyed, that they are more virtuous than others, therefore should be obeyed, are holier than thou. William Wilberforce opposed slavery, and proposed that virtuous people like himself should suppress with fire and steel the slavery tolerated by wicked people unlike himself, thus people like himself should have charge of fire and steel, and people unlike himself, should not.
I suggest therefore, that the official clerisy of the official truth focus on repressing competing pharisees. If someone not officially endorsed as speaking the official truth claims authority on the basis of his superior knowledge of the truth, rather than merely publishing the evidence that inclines him to his understanding of the truth, he should be repressed. If someone not officially endorsed as officially virtuous claims authority on the basis of his superior virtue, he should be repressed. If he really is more virtuous than those who are officially virtuous, he should be executed. After executing him, ironically check his body in three days. If he has not risen, was not sufficiently more virtuous than the official promoters of official virtue.
Cleanliness, they say is next to Godliness. An official religion needs Godliness, but God is dead, so cleanliness will have to do. People need rituals.
The Scientific Method.
No, the scientific method is not consensus, and even less is it peer review. Rather it is skepticism about third hand facts, disbelief in the authority of experts. Trust but verify, which in the context of science means trust but replicate, which of course really means, don’t trust. Consensus is the madness of crowds. We are prone to believe stuff because everyone else believes it, which is at best a vicious cycle leading to madness, and at worst prone to being unduly influenced by the insane, and manipulated by the evil. The insane don’t shift, because insane, and the evil don’t shift, because they are lying about what they believe, so the evil and the insane tend to dominate the consensus.
Textbook: Economics in one lesson
That property rights should, and generally do, capture all the costs and benefits of a decision, therefore, an economic decision should be left to those that own the items at issue.
That price control and wage control will fail, and will disrupt the lives of the supposed beneficiaries.
That true monopoly is rare, except in the common case of regulatory capture, because the mere presence of potential competition makes it no longer a monopoly. Actual competition is not required. The threat that monopolistic behavior would end or undermine market dominance is sufficient to make market dominance harmless.
The Chamley-Judd Redistribution Impossibility Theorem: Redistribution from capitalists to workers is impossible, and trying to do so merely buggers the economy.
Public Choice theory
That where there are large externalities, such that a sufficiently wise and good regulator could in theory produce a better result, by intervening against property rights that are imperfectly aligned with costs and benefits, wise and good regulators are seldom to be found, that regulators tend to create externalities by protecting the regulated from the consequences of their own bad decisions.
Leads to evolutionary psychology and human biodiversity.
Teach the kids all those horrible unspeakable unthinkable statements by Darwin as the logical and necessary implication of Darwinian evolution, while commenting that many people find this horrifying, and doubt that it is God’s plan for man and mankind, that this is reason to doubt evolution, or to emotionally reject its implications, or suspect that God allows evil, but expects mankind to do better than Darwinism might lead us to expect, Darwinism being taught as disturbing and unpleasant fact, and God’s alleged plan as what some people think about this disturbing fact.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Human Bio Diversity.
Tell them that both evolution and the bible implies that groups are not the same and are not equal, without, however, explaining in excessive detail in what ways particular identifiable groups are unequal.
It is hard to get into trouble by not knowing the mechanics of sex, for nature leads us to discover them, we intuitively and instinctively know them, but not knowing the psychology of sex is apt to lead to big problems. Therefore, sex education needs to teach the different nature of men and women.
Darwinism tells us that men are naturally inclined to polygamy, women to hypergamy, and that this leads to conflict between men and women. For example this difference and conflict is the reason why women can be sluts, and men can never be sluts, even if a married man sleeps with a woman married to someone else.
Which does not of course mean it is OK for a married man to sleep with another man’s wife, but does mean that people are apt despise the adulterous wife as a slut, while admiring the adultering man. Double standard because it is easy for a woman hard for a man. Because of the natural and unavoidable differences between men and women. Women are expected to keep their legs closed, while men are admired for getting those legs open .
Girls should be taught that like it or not, rightly or wrongly, they will be judged by the double standard.
School should teach the double standard as biblical commandment and the natural result of evolutionary psychology.
Teach men and women how their fertility and sexual market value proceeds over time. Most women these days find it hard to believe men are naturally polygamous, projecting their own behavior and inclinations onto men, and are astonished to discover how soon and how rapidly their fertility and sexual attractiveness diminishes. They are apt to believe they have a relationship with a man when it is perfectly obvious she is just one more hole to relieve himself in.
A proposed sex education video:
Contrast preselection scene in romance movies, with man with options scene in porn movies: Title the first part of the movie Romance Story for Women, the next part of the movie Porn Story for Men. In Romance Story, one man is treated with respect by four unattractive males, five woman are after the one man, but he has eyes only for one of them, the prettiest one, and swears his undying love, totally failing to notice the other four. He bends his knee to her, begs her to be with him forever. The loving couple ride slowly off into the sunset on his white horse, together. She is looking very, very happy, he is looking kind of stern. The other four males are never seen in the story other than initially establishing that the romantic lead is respected by his fellow males.
In Porn Story, the same five woman are after the same one man. He romances the same one woman as in the first movie, same scenes cut to be considerably swifter, but instead of riding off into the sunset on his white horse, it is implied he immediately bangs her off screen on the nearest horizontal surface. We see her glowing.
Then he bangs the next, and we see the next one glowing and the first one glowering.
And the next, and the next, in order of boob size, the one with the biggest boobs first, smallest boobs last, each one starts glowing after being banged, and then stops glowing and starts glowering when the next female appears, glowing. He then gallops off on his white horse into the sunset, unaccompanied and looking very happy indeed, way happier than in the first story. Last girl (one with the smallest boobs) wails and attempts to chase after him, but he is riding one hell of a lot faster than in Romance Story, and when girl number five starts chasing, he lays his spurs into his white horse. We see the four sad and bitter males (all of them furtive and guilty looking) timidly watching the five sad and bitter females from a distance. The females, however, treat them as completely invisible.
Needless to say, a sex education video like this is never going to be shown in schools until the current theocracy is purged, and a new more realistic theocracy replaces them.