The Sacraments and Esoteric Knowledge of Democracy

Democracy.

“Democracy,” like all religions, has its sacraments, priestly caste, and attendant esoteric knowledge.

The sacrament of the “Vote” is the most sacred. Like Confession in Roman Catholicism, everyone has both the right and duty to confess. Likewise, everyone, even the non-citizen who sends his vote through mail, must be given the opportunity to vote. To abstain from voting is to enter into a state of sin, in which one has failed to participate in the holy ritual that maintains the State — much like how the God-Kings of old were maintained by their own devotional gestures. Every time there is an “election,” I am frequently asked in a scolding tone whether I voted, as if this were anyone else’s business.

As democracy has transformed from a political formula to Democracy the religion, its procedural outcomes have gone from mundane to esoteric. No longer are votes merely tabulated by committee and presented in due haste. Now, there is a mystery aspect to elections, and no one may be sure of the nature and duration of the divination that determines the future result. The outcome, though, is never as sacred as the ritual itself.

Although Democracy appoints politicians, those politicians themselves do not become like gods, any more than a Catholic priest is a divine being. The Church, however, remains the unimpeachable representative of God on Earth, and Democracy has its own such institution: Science.

Scientific, rational government is the Scripture by which Democracy is meant to act, much like the Church is expected to act according to the Word of God. Democracy cannot simply make arbitrary decisions; it must act in accordance with its sacred duty. This cannot even be contradicted by [lowercase ‘d’] democracy (i.e., the actual will of the people).

“Scientists,” therefore, occupy a special place within Democracy. It is the Scientist who must interpret scientific scripture through vaunted procedures such as “peer review” and publication in a journal. The mysteries through which these procedures write scientific scripture are arcane to the uninitiated, who readily confess, “Well, I’m not a scientist.” You’ll never hear someone say, “I’m not a teacher,” “I’m not a policeman,” “I’m not a manager,” or “I’m not a politician,” as a reason not to espouse an opinion. You’ll certainly be asked, “Are you a scientist?!” whenever you espouse an unpopular opinion. Your Inquisitor might name-drop a specific type of scientist, like a biologist, or a person in a scientific-esque field, like a doctor of medicine, or an economist; whatever the specificity, the question will rhetorically assert that because you are not an expert trained in the esoteric arts of that particular field, your opinion can be discounted. The “Scientist” or “Expert” is only regarded as credible if trained by “The Cathedral,” (i.e., the University system and its auxiliaries). It doesn’t matter if you were trained in scientific or other knowledge didactically or through some other alternative; your knowledge might still be considered invalid. A person can study Scripture for decades, but if he does not become a Priest ordained by the proper institution, his expertise can be disregarded.

The method that produces the “Expert” is beyond the reproach of non-Experts. That is implicitly understood even among the uninitiated. Even when some Experts fail, it is only a failure of the individuals and not of the institutions. As long as scientific, rational government remains beyond reproach, no election can escape its grasp. As I wrote in a previous article for OGC, President Trump was undermined by scientific, rational government. President Trump is beloved because he bases his politics on what feels right, as opposed to what is scientifically right. But even he was ultimately undermined when he gave way to the irresistible “hard science” of microbiology.

Science, in its pure form, is a process by which humans can obtain certain knowledge about the cosmos. “Scientific government,” on the other hand, is pseudo-scientific and must be rejected in favor of an ethical state that governs based on firm moral principles. Scientific government does not create knowledge; rather, it destroys it. Scientific government is not ethical; it is evil. No elections will alter the destiny of the United States unless those who have been elected denounce the political formula of “Democracy.”