Why did it fail to gain traction over the past fifty years?

>>17860107 (OP)
Because it is just another variant of an organised naturalistic philosophy that isn't really a religion (or what people in practice want from a religion - which is a spiritual connection, assurance of the afterlife, etc). Coupled with concepts that most aren't interested in (racism, white supremacy, etc) it led nowhere. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_(religion)#Beliefs_and_membership)

I don't doubt that, as with extremist groups, there was a tonne of infighting and autism that stunted it as well.

>>17860107 (OP)
People like old things; it gives an aura of authority, making a new religion out of "common sense" and "natural laws(?)" Isn't going to stick with large groups of people

>>17860107 (OP)
The weird raw vegan diet.

>>17860107 (OP)
>From wikipedia
Creativity, historically known as the (World) Church of the Creator, is an atheistic[2] (nontheistic) white supremacist new religious movement espousing white separatism, antitheism, antisemitism, anti-Christianity, scientific racism, homophobia,

Can't build a benevolent organization based on hate, it was doomed to fail from the beginning

Because it was a materialistic atheist "religion", which to many is a straight up oxymoron. If followers maintain the primacy of reason then there is no real contradiction, but things like >>17860161 and collectivism prove he was not committed to this principle in the slightest and without strong core beliefs a religion eventually unravels.

>>17860107 (OP)
We've been trying these since 1789. None of them ever caught on.

>>17860188
Why not? Most white people are lazy normies who mindlessly support leftism, but when you compare even the poorest white trailer park to a "diverse" neighborhood you realize how exceptional white folks are. Hate leads to love and appreciation, like a flower growing out of a heap of shit.