I grew up a Jehovah’s Witness. They called their belief system The Truth: capital T, definite article, no qualifier. Not “a truth” or “our truth” but The Truth. When you grow up in that framework, you learn early what it looks like when people organize their entire reality around the conviction that they’ve found the one thing that explains everything.
I left and studied physics, looking for truth that didn’t require faith. But I kept hitting the same wall: physics answered “how” but not “why.” The equations worked, the predictions held, but the framework explicitly refused the questions that mattered most to me – and even physics had its own sacred cows
Then I joined the Navy because I needed money for college. The experience didn’t make me conservative, but it did something more unsettling: it revealed that many of my foundational assumptions about human nature, authority, and coordination were simply wrong. Not misguided or naive, but wrong in the sense that they predicted things that didn’t happen and failed to predict things that did.
Later, I worked closely with anarcho-capitalists in the cryptocurrency space. I watched them build functioning economic systems on principles I’d been taught were either fantasy or cover for exploitation. They weren’t lying about incentives mattering. Markets really did route around institutional failure in ways I hadn’t predicted.
I’ve moved between Christian denominations. I’ve studied Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, not as a spiritual tourist, but trying to understand what each tradition saw that the others missed. Each time I thought I’d found a framework that explained everything, I’d encounter some phenomenon it couldn’t account for, some pattern that didn’t fit.
This isn’t a story about finding the truth that transcends all others. It’s about discovering that each framework I encountered was protecting something real, and that this reality is precisely what made it dangerous.
The word “cult” triggers defensive reactions, so let me be precise about what I mean. I’m not talking about irrationality, stupidity, or bad faith. Cult behavior, as I’m using the term, has four specific characteristics:
Identity-protective truth: The core insight becomes fused with personal identity rather than treated as a discovered fact about reality. Questioning the insight feels like questioning the person’s fundamental worth or moral standing.
Immunity to countervailing facts: New information that should update the model gets reinterpreted through the framework rather than testing it. The theory becomes unfalsifiable not because it’s well-tested, but because it’s become load-bearing for psychological stability.
Moralization of disagreement: Skepticism about the core truth gets treated as moral failure rather than intellectual disagreement. Those who don’t accept the framework aren’t wrong; they’re compromised, corrupt, or complicit.
Refusal to pay costs for assumptions: Every framework makes tradeoffs. Cultic behavior involves pretending your chosen tradeoffs aren’t costs, or that paying them is costless virtue while others’ tradeoffs are moral failures.
Here’s what matters: cultic behavior almost always emerges after a real insight is found. People don’t typically build a cult around obvious nonsense. They build them around a truth so important that protecting it seems to justify increasingly aggressive boundary maintenance.
This is what makes ideological capture so dangerous. It doesn’t feel like capture. It feels like finally seeing clearly.
I’ve watched myself do this too, protecting an insight past the point where it deserved protection.
Let me extract what several major ideological frameworks actually protect, stripped of slogans and tribal signaling:
Communism (in its serious forms, not strawmen) protects this truth: power concentrates, and when it does, it can dominate every aspect of human life. Economic power especially can become totalizing, reducing human relationships to market transactions and human worth to productive capacity. This is not a theoretical concern. It’s a pattern visible across history and actively operating today.
Anarcho-capitalism protects this truth: incentives matter profoundly, and coercion corrupts. When you introduce the ability to force compliance, you eliminate crucial information flows and create perverse incentive structures that reward the wrong behaviors. Voluntary exchange really does encode information that central planning can’t capture. This isn’t ideology; it’s information theory.
Liberalism (in the philosophical sense) protects this truth: individual humans possess moral standing independent of collective approval. There are things you may not do to a person even if the majority votes for it. Rights aren’t gifts from the state or emergent properties of social contracts; they’re constraints on what collectives may legitimately do to individuals.
Conservatism protects this truth: traditions encode hard-won information about what actually works across generations. Institutions that survived aren’t just arbitrary habits; they’re solutions to real coordination problems, often problems that aren’t visible until the solution is removed. Chesterton’s fence isn’t about blind respect for the past; it’s about epistemic humility regarding which information you’re discarding.
Progressivism protects this truth: systems can embed injustice so thoroughly it becomes invisible to those it doesn’t harm. What looks like neutral procedure can be systemically biased. What looks like merit can be path-dependent advantages. Naming and correcting these patterns isn’t paranoia; it’s pattern recognition.
I could continue: libertarianism’s insight about emergent order, social democracy’s insight about positive liberty, nationalism’s insight about coordination at scale, cosmopolitanism’s insight about arbitrary moral boundaries. Each framework formed around something true.
None of these are wrong. That’s not the problem.
Here’s where it gets uncomfortable.
Watch what happens when any of these truths stops being treated as a constraint and starts being treated as an override:
When communism’s insight about power concentration becomes total, you get: “All hierarchy is oppression, all difference is exploitation, all individual success is theft from the collective.” Suddenly you can’t acknowledge that some hierarchies emerge from competence, that some inequalities reflect genuine differences in skill or effort, that markets sometimes coordinate better than committees. The truth doesn’t just describe one important dynamic; it claims to explain everything.
When anarcho-capitalism’s insight about incentives becomes total, you get: “All collective action is coercion, all regulation is tyranny, all non-market coordination is either charity or violence.” You lose the ability to acknowledge that some problems really do require coordination that markets won’t spontaneously provide, that some rights need protection even when unprofitable, that pure voluntarism sometimes produces systematic failures no one chose.
When liberalism’s insight about individual rights becomes total, you get: “All obligations are oppression, all duties are violations, all appeals to collective good are totalitarian.” You can’t acknowledge that humans are fundamentally social, that rights exist in communities that must be maintained, that sometimes individual autonomy conflicts with genuine human flourishing in ways that matter.
When conservatism’s insight about embedded knowledge becomes total, you get: “All change is decay, all innovation is hubris, all reform is destruction of hard-won wisdom.” You lose the ability to distinguish between traditions that encode valuable information and traditions that encode historical injustices, between humility about what you don’t know and paralysis in the face of obvious problems.
When progressivism’s insight about invisible injustice becomes total, you get: “All disparities are discrimination, all tradition is oppression, all disagreement is violence.” You can’t acknowledge that some differences might not be injustices, that some systems work well, that complexity exists beyond the single axis of power and marginalization.
Notice the pattern: The truth doesn’t become false. It becomes sufficient. One constraint on reality claims to be the only constraint that matters. One lens for seeing claims to be the only lens needed.
This is the cult move. Not replacing truth with lies, but replacing tension with totality.
Here’s what I can’t figure out, and what I suspect can’t be figured out within any single framework:
What would it look like to hold all of these truths simultaneously?
Holding multiple truths is not compromise. It is constraint satisfaction.
Not as a mushy both-sides compromise, but as genuine constraints that all bind? Where power concentration is real AND incentives matter AND individual rights exist AND traditions encode wisdom AND systems can embed invisible injustice?
What kind of thinking allows you to say: “Yes, markets coordinate efficiently AND some goods shouldn’t be marketized. Yes, individual rights are foundational AND humans are irreducibly social. Yes, traditions contain wisdom AND some traditions are simply wrong. Yes, systems can be invisibly unjust AND not all disparities trace to injustice.”
Every ideology I’ve encountered offers the same escape hatch: “You can hold all these truths, you just have to understand that mine is fundamental and the others are derivative.” Mine is fundamental, the rest are downstream. The communist says power is fundamental, everything else is superstructure. The anarcho-capitalist says voluntary exchange is fundamental, everything else is preference. The progressive says power dynamics are fundamental, everything else is rationalization.
But what if they’re all fundamental? What if reality is actually constrained by multiple irreducible truths that genuinely conflict?
What breaks when you try to simplify the world down to one moral axis?
I’ll tell you what breaks: your ability to predict what happens when policies meet reality. Show me someone who claims their ideology has no downsides, and I’ll show you someone who has stopped watching for evidence that would require them to pay costs.
The truths don’t go away when you ignore them. They just extract their costs in ways you’ve trained yourself not to see.
So here’s what “The Cult of All Truth” means:
It’s not a new ideology. It’s not a synthesis or a transcendence or a view from nowhere.
It’s a refusal to let any single truth escape constraint by other truths.
It’s the discipline of holding tensions that don’t resolve, acknowledging tradeoffs that don’t go away, paying costs that can’t be eliminated through clever reframing.
This doesn’t mean “everything is relative” or “all views are equally valid.” Some frameworks are built on genuine insights and others on wishful thinking. Some traditions encode real wisdom and others encode historical accidents or power grabs.
But the frameworks built on real insights have a particular kind of danger: they work well enough to make you think they work perfectly. They explain enough to make you stop looking for what they don’t explain. They’re right about something important enough that you stop noticing where they’re wrong.
The cult of all truth is harder than ideological commitment. Ideological commitment gives you allies, enemies, and a clear story about who’s right. All truth gives you only constraints: multiple, simultaneous, often conflicting constraints that you can’t dissolve through better theory.
It demands you stay uncomfortable. Not in the performative way of claiming to be “between” positions for status, but in the real way of acknowledging that problems don’t go away just because your framework can’t solve them.
It means accepting that power concentrates AND markets coordinate AND individuals have rights AND traditions encode wisdom AND systems embed invisible injustice, and that sometimes these truths genuinely conflict, and the conflict itself is information about reality’s structure.
This is not a call to abandon conviction. Strong beliefs about what’s true and what matters are not the problem.
The problem is pretending that one truth can carry the full weight of reality without being constrained by other truths.
The problem is treating disagreement as moral failure instead of as evidence that reality is more complex than your model.
The problem is refusing to pay the costs your framework generates while moralizing the costs other frameworks create.
If you’ve felt unease with ideological rigidity (your own or others’), it might not be because you’re weak or confused or insufficiently committed. It might be because you’re seeing something real: the edges where one truth encounters another and neither can simply override the other.
That discomfort is information. The question is whether you’ll use it to refine your thinking or whether you’ll recruit it into making your ideology feel even more righteous.
One of those paths leads toward understanding reality. The other leads toward increasingly aggressive boundary maintenance around a truth that was real but never sufficient.
The difference matters.
Read and subscribe on Substack