Good criticism. A few things.
—“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabble rouser – he’s barely coherent for most of us let alone capable of inspiring a mob.”–
Totally agree. Although my behavior as CEO, and as an intellectual consist of very, very different techniques. And I don’t particularly like myself as a CEO, even if I am good at it.
—“He does, however, have training in people management or is naturally good at it. He knows how to bring men into a fold, how to flatter them and make them feel special or important.”—
Um. I use the “king of the hill game” method of teaching.
I would be the worst possible cult leader. I’ve said all along that ‘leadership will emerge’ (and it does). Because I do not see myself, or want to see myself, as other than a mad scientist of political revolution.
If I was a cult leader type I would try to hold all the power myself rather than try to build a cadre of talented people, and train them to go out and be the equivalent of the jesuits and inquisition against the left.
It is very hard to see my constitutional reform as anything other than an extremely practical and thorough reformation of the 20th century postwar order and the redistribution of capital to the middle class from the parasitic classes.
This occurs in every civilization with relative frequency. We must continually incrementally suppress parasitism – because man continually incrementally invents means of parasitism.
Now Picketey would say that this is a natural feature of current capitalism. Pareto would say it is a necessary feature of the production of wealth. Evolution would say that it is merely class rotation. And I would say it is merely a failure to maintain the competition of via negativa law and via positiva markets to continuously incrementally suppress new inventions of parasitism whenever new means of rents are invented.
My view, like the georgists, would be that land rents go to the monarchy, and taxation go to the commons.
—-“It’s not a cult. My use of that word was flippant. A better description would be that the primary motivation, at the initial stage for newcomers is to win favour with the big chief (Curt) and less so commit fully to the ideas. You do however delegate to a considerable degree and, as you say, are more than happy to bring others up than hold onto the power base.”—
—“You’re also genuinely motivated by good ideas and not ego which is quite rare. My point really was that it’s extremely difficult to eliminate the negative aspects of ‘Alpha-worship’. Corruption of the initial framework, regardless of how well it began, then becomes inevitable as members less capable of handling the ideas defend the position, or territory, more aggressively in order to maintain their position and remain useful. I notice that followers who seem to actually understand the material are less supplicatory, less aggressive to criticisms by outsiders and are generally less sycophantic.”—
I agree. On the other hand i am very grateful that these devotees prevent GSRRM, defend the brand, and save me the time and effort of self defense. This discourages idiots from wasting my time so that we get better criticisms.
The one thing I get from the best people is to not waste time with those who are a waste of time.