TPG 23.26 · 1,739 words · 8 min read · Appendix

Relation to Government

Earlier in this book, we introduced the idea of dominating cultivars. Let’s dig deeper on that concept. Some cultures feel they have a mandate to ensure members’ government(s) align with their culture. To understand if a culture fits into this category, ask: “If this culture made up over 70% of the voters in a democracy, would the laws of said democracy be out of line with a conservative iteration of that culture’s own rules?”

Some more conservative factions of Islam present a “classic” example of this. In extreme cases, some feel so strongly about this mandate that they break away to create states more in line with their cultural values (while ISIS is one example of this, history is littered with others). For an excellent, scholarly account of why conservative Muslim cultivars are often more politically engaged than other conservative cultural strains, check out Ancient Religions, Modern Politics: The Islamic Case in Comparative Perspective by Michel Cook.[[32]](#_ftn32)

Islam to an extent was “designed” to work this way, as at its inception it was a religion, a culture, and an expansionist government. What is more interesting is how much Christianity has moved in this direction despite being explicitly “designed” to not act this way.

For those not familiar with Christian theology, there is the “Render unto Caesar” scene repeated across the Gospels in which Jesus is asked some iteration of, “Is it good to give money in taxes to a government that does not align with our values?” and he responds with some iteration of “show me the coin—that coin has Caesar’s face on it, so give it to Caesar—why would you even ask me such a silly question?” This is not the only place in the Bible where Jesus encourages followers to submit to their governments, but in this particular story, we can see how Jesus sees even asking if a person thinks they may use religion as an excuse to not submit to their government as a trick (“But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, ‘Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?’”).

If Christianity at its inception was explicitly built to be compatible with non-Christian governments, why do so many Christian sects today insist that their governments align with their values? The answer here is not philosophical but fairly straightforward. During an early period of Christianity, Jesus’ death as a product of resistance to the local government enabled church members to gain enormous respect within their communities through martyrdom by faith-based persecution. This led many of the most devout Christians to do their best to piss off the local governments in order to be publicly executed and become a martyr.

This happened early enough in the Christian tradition that all extant branches of Christianity had to pass through this moment. Actually, it was a major problem for early Christianity when it finally did take control of the Roman government because they could not get themselves martyred any more. It was at this time that the ascetic monasticism movement started to gain traction as a form of “living martyrdom.”

Constantine played a large role in Christianity’s transition from a religion largely distrusted in governance into an explicit part of the Roman empire’s state infrastructure, but this transformation was much less complete than a lay person might imagine. The Pagan system Christianity replaced was not terribly sophisticated or loyal to the state when contrasted with other pro-state cultivars like Islam. While the form of Christianity that resulted from this was involved directly in state infrastructure, it did not feel a mandate to control the state as it had never “fought” for this position and was rather assigned it.

The Christian drive to gain explicit control of government did not begin fully in earnest until after the Reformation, when it started to matter whether a state’s government was Catholic or Protestant.

The only cultural traditions that don’t seem to have at least some level of inbuilt drive to take over their local governments are those which “grew up” without significant mutually exclusive competition and that were always in control of their local government structures until very recently.Contrast Buddhism that evolved alongside not-mutually-exclusive traditions, like Shintoism, as is the case with Buddhism in Japan, and Buddhism that evolved alongside mutually exclusive traditions like Islam in places like Myanmar and Sri Lanka. The latter forms of Buddhism exhibit far greater interest in governmental control when exported.

Cultures’ and religions’ attitudes toward government are more a product of the cultural competitiveness of their foundational landscapes than any inherent cultural imperative. That said, let’s look at a few more specific ways religious communities react to their governments.

One odd quirk of Protestant traditions is that when they don’t have the chance to “take over” governments, their first intuition is usually to leave and found a new colony or otherwise isolate themselves from governmental control. Many colonies in the U.S. were motivated by this, as was the early Mormons’ move to Utah.

Less obviously, we can see this in the Amish, who have been shockingly effective at creating stable sub-governing units within active states, not being subject to the draft or even paying social security. The Amish have achieved all this by … not voting, and not attempting to hijack the local government. As such, they have achieved their desired end with only minimal pushback. Contrast this with Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews, who often run concerted voting campaigns in local municipalities, making them threatening to entrenched interests.

Note: Disengagement from politics is only a viable as a strategy until a parasitic pop culture (one that needs to convert kids from higher-birth-rate cultures in order to survive) takes over local government. Such cultures will aggressively use the local government to convert children from high-birth-rate cultures and can only be countered through voting or relocation.

Our general takeaway is that the Index or any House within it should never attempt to seize control of a democracy through voting. If you want “your own” space either colonize another planet or make land that was previously uninhabitable your own (e.g., land in the Far North). This will dramatically reduce conflict and increase the chance of our survival. Be ready to defend this new colony while also ensuring it is on land that no one else wants but never try to take over existing political structures or land, even if you can do it—it will make your brothers and sisters in other countries more of a target because now ruling bodies will see them as an eventual threat.

The Pragmatist’s Guide to Life

A Guide to Creating Your Own Answers to Life’s Biggest Questions

By Simone & Malcolm Collins

Read this Book with a Friend

The manner in which our brains process the information we read is different from the manner in which they process information during a social interaction. Discussing each chapter with someone you trust will allow you to more thoughtfully consider life’s big questions and build yourself into the type of person you ultimately decide you want to be.

At your request, we will provide your desired reading companion with a free digital copy of this book: http://pragmatist.guide/bookbuddy/

Get a Free Audiobook

Should you prefer listening to books over reading them, visit: http://pragmatist.guide/audiobook/

to request an audiobook and we’ll send one to you for free. (We offer free audiobooks for all the books we write.)

Table of Contents

About This Guide. 1

V2 of The Pragmatist’s Guide to Life 3

Why Bother? 6

The Framework. 9

A Brief Introduction to Step 1: Determine Your Objective Function 9

A Brief Introduction to Step 2: Determine Your Ideological Tree 12

A Brief Introduction to Step 3: Determine Your Personal Identity 14