Understanding the Egalitarian Religion
In my prior article I made reference to the “…religious nature of the Secular Humanism…” that fuels the emotional fervor of the disparate social elements that one might broadly classify as the Left. This is actually a misuse of the term and I should begin this article by correcting myself and acknowledging that I am referring instead to the pastiche of incongruent ideological, moral, cultural, and political elements that should more rightly be defined as Egalitarianism. I posit—and I am not the first to do so— that Egalitarianism is indeed the regnant religion of this era. It is important to grasp that it is, indeed, a religion in order to best understand it and its followers; to comprehend the danger inherent in it; to possibly identify any weaknesses that may be exploited; and to predict its progression through the organic and finite life of such belief systems. I shall begin by establishing the case that Egalitarianism is, indeed, the state religion for the West.
What is Egalitarianism? There is no use in trying to define it as some cogent and definable set of beliefs. It is rather a tumor in the mind of the collective body of Western man, diffuse at the extremities and interconnected with an infinite number of outlying elements—some of which, ironically enough, are actually shared with various elements of Rightist thought. However, the center of the tumor is thick with notions of the overarching equality of men, the outright rejection of even the possibility of natural differences between human populations, convictions of the inherent evil of Whites and especially of white men, sentiments of the moral superiority of colored races and of women, support for the uses of state power to correct inequality wherever it may be found—as its presence can only be the result of the abuses of appropriately colored or sexually oriented groups by the aforementioned white, heterosexual men, conviction in the unquestionable good of “freedom” and “democracy,” the importance of tolerance and cultural relativism, and lastly, the firm belief in Progress and the perfectibility of the temporal world. The logical incongruities obvious to even the casual reader between most of these notions—e.g. the idea that all races can at once be completely equal, while at the same time, Whites can be more evil than the others—do not hinder the true believer in the least. Indeed, the faith in these principles; regardless of their inability to coexist in a coherent philosophy, is one of the first indicators of the religious nature of this system of beliefs.
To a significant extent these beliefs—most particularly the notions of the unquestionable equality of man and of the original sin (of the White man in this case)—are ironically inherited from the Christian religion that is to no small degree despised by the modern, secular Egalitarian. It could in fairness be said that modern, secular Egalitarianism is in fact the transmogrification of Christianity into a religion that is now true to its theoretical principles to an extreme degree but that is now paradoxically devoid of its deity in the supernatural sense, the male God-figure having been killed off. What has replaced Him within the context of the religion in question is not entirely clear to me. But certainly one can identify Christ-figures such as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and elements of religious taboo.
Regarding the former, note that the dear reverend is the only man for whom a National Holiday exists in the United States. And this at a time when Easter (the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and Christmas (His birth) are themselves becoming completely devoid of acceptable, public religious meaning. With regard to Easter—ostensibly the most important Christian Holiday period—this process is essentially complete. With regard to Christmas, the process has reached such a level of maturity that in many cities of the United States, references to the Tannenbaum as a “Christmas tree” are considered gauche. Anyone who still doubts whether Christianity has been replaced as the State religion of the West need only ask himself one question: Is it more socially acceptable in today’s polite society to be a Satan worshipper or a racist? Marilyn Manson does an entertaining job of pretending to be the former. It would be interesting to see how many albums he would be allowed to sell if he pretended to be the latter.
An excellent example of Egalitarian religious taboo is the use of the word “nigger.” Today, even writing the word in its entirety is largely unacceptable in polite company. To use the word within any context, in written or verbal form, is almost wholly circumscribed for anyone except Blacks. Instead, conventional mores demand that non-Blacks only obliquely refer to it by writing “the n-word”, “n****r”, etc. Even in these cases, it cannot be used in reference to anything but rather, only used as a subject of a sentence (that must universally condemn the use of the n-word). The search for a comparable example in human history of a word that could not be written or spoken produces only two examples that I am aware of: The first being the Hebraic notion that direct reference to God (rather “G-D” or “Y-W-H”) was blasphemous. The second being the bourgeois sensibility to language deemed vulgar, base, and overly sexual (pregnant with late Christian moral repressiveness). The former is only held true by religious Jews today. The latter has completely fallen out of practice, with the possible exception of television programming for infants. Instead we see a complete replacement of the list of “unacceptable” words, which is a prime illustration of the collapse and disempowerment of the White, Protestant bourgeois who dominated the Anglosphere until the 1950s and the subsequent ascendance of the new, morally-empowered overclass, who now see fit to create their own list of vulgar terms, complete with their own pseudo-religious, moral justifications. That terms like “nigger” were used broadly in society up until very recently and overwhelmingly without ill intent or effect is irrelevant to the architects of modern, egalitarian moral constructs.
At this point it is useful to address the nature of Egalitarianism as the State religion of the West. Here one might be ascribing too much power to the State—or rather, suggesting simplistically that the State: the supreme public power of a political entity, is indeed the primary power in the West. It would be more accurate to argue that the State in the various “democracies” of the West is in reality an executive body, carrying out the wishes of the true, private and corporate powers that use the convenient illusions of public consent offered by universal suffrage as a foil. So let us modify the implication here and suggest that Egalitarianism is the religion imposed via the State and other, opinion-forming and population-controlling entities upon the people of the West; as yet another instrument in furthering the dissolution of the “European” West. Regardless, for the true believers in this religion and for the remainder of the populace who live under its moral force, the difference is irrelevant.
This leads to another interesting subject, which illustrates Egalitarianism’s religious nature: the attitude of the new priestly class and the true believers with regard to heretics. For a belief system for which tolerance is a highest virtue, there is remarkably little tolerance for views outside its narrow, but chaotic and unpredictable, purview. One can acknowledge simply that this intolerance is indeed a manifestation of religiosity—specifically the religiosity of Semitic monotheism as embodied in Judaism, Christianity, Islam—and its polar interpretation of the world, divided into black and white, good and evil, and nothing in between. However, it is also of use to examine some specific aspects of the particular intolerance of Egalitarianism, because unlike the aforementioned Semitic religions, which were religions that marked or accompanied the ascendance of civilizations, Egalitarianism is a religion of descent. Not for the architects of the religion—but for its priests and true believers. Of course, they do not believe it to be the late religion of Spenglerian theory. Rather, they believe it to be the final religion at the end of history—leading to the ascent to earthly utopia. The religion that shows the way to the perfected, temporal human condition: the absence of poverty, suffering, and unhappiness for all people on Earth.
The shrill, inchoate hatred that infuses the attitude of the priests and true believers of Egalitarianism toward non-believers is a manifestation of the absolute incompatibility between these beliefs and the state of the world as it is. Egalitarian belief is indeed the belief in inconsistent ideals that not only conflict with one another, but that conflict with all empirical evidence before one’s eyes and all human instinct. Egalitarianism is a fragile, cracked and shifting skin of ice covering a turbulent, madly-rushing river of cold fact beneath it. It is only through passion and frenzied conviction that this cognitive dissonance can be mastered. Anyone who threatens this tender balance is to be hated. It is akin to the teenager who reacts in an overly angry and passionate manner to gentle criticisms of his father. The teenager’s belief system, still in its infancy, is easily threatened by the wisdom of the father. The child therefore prefers to avoid the discussion altogether; lest his unformed ideas come to humiliation in the debate.
The irrational reaction of the Egalitarian can be better understood when one considers what is at stake. The Egalitarian has committed his entire culture and civilization to a gamble. Every previous example in all of human history suggests very clearly how this gamble will pay out. The Egalitarian believes it will be different this time. He feels it will be different this time. It will be different this time because he believes it and feels it, and because he knows that if everyone works together to make it different, it can be. But there are some out there who are doubters. There are some out there who think it won’t be different this time… gun-owners, opponents of immigration, survivalists, etc. There are some out there whose lack of conviction and lack of optimism are in and of themselves the seeds of failure. This is why they must be hated. This is why they must be silenced. This is why—as examples from Egalitarian paradises clearly illustrate—they must often be killed.