Curt Doolittle updated his status.

(FB 1551021897 Timestamp)

CULT (Religion) VERSUS CULT-LIKE (devotion)

Curt Doolittle:
Well. I mean, you’re saying I’m a cult leader and the work is religious. I am saying I would like to see if it is possible to produce the equivalent of a cult – but of the law. To some degree the law already is a secular priesthood.

So in essence I am agreeing with you – by analogy.

Heather Joi:
So what youâ??re saying is…..
… that you acknowledge that you are: (in your own words)
â??searching for a religion of the lawâ?
â??produce the equivalent of a cult – but of the law.â?
�a secular priesthood.�

Curt Doolittle:
Well, I’ll just say that you forced me to look at the question from your perspective, and from your perspective, I agreed.

What I’d assumed you’d meant was that the law was nonsense, and that I am positioning myself as some sort of leader rather than a teacher of leaders who will be the antithesis of the frankfurt school’s defeat of our people.

(So if you call the frankfurt school a cult then we are talking the same language. if not then we are not.)

But you are right, I am trying to to build a law, and if possible develop a secular occupation of ‘cult like devotion’, wherein the law is sacred (inviolable regardless of self interest.)

I think I am pretty clear that I”m trying to separately find a way to convert our set of religions back to something european rather than semitic, and that’s the ‘cult’ (religion) I am looking to produce.

So if you think I’m being dishonest, I’m just looking for the truth and your general argument helped me do so. And as I have defined it I don’t disagree.

Cult (reform our religion) vs Cult-like (Sacredness of the law). ANd I agree with both. I just don’t CONFLATE THEM in order to lie.

So in this sense yes I want to produce a cult (religion without priests) and cult like occupation (secular priesthood of the law).

(And yes I do understand that you tried to engage in CONFLATION(AMBIGUATION) and that I (as usual) engaged in DEFLATION(DISAMBIGUATION).)

In other words, you were lying. But within that lie was enough truth that I agree with the truth content.

One is not guilty by word-association. Sorry.

Leave a Reply