Beware allies who use “religion” as an insult

At Alternative Right:

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.

I’m sorry, but why does he say that self-contradiction is a characteristic feature of a religious belief system?  Of all the religions I can think of–Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, Hellenic or Germanic paganism–I can’t think of any that require the believer to hold mutually-contradictory beliefs.  In such a system, it would be logically impossible for one to be orthodox.  If, as the author also claims, religious believers are such diligent heresy-hunters, it seems hard to believe that the impossibility of defining accepted beliefs wouldn’t cause insuperable problems pretty quickly.

I’m all for insulting egalitarianism, but calling it a “religion” isn’t an insult.  What one should say is that egalitarianism is analogous to religion in that it can serve as a myth–a belief that legitimizes a social order and delegitimizes its opponents.  Myths can be good or bad, true or false.  Every society needs at least one.  It so happens that egalitarianism is a very bad one.

8 Responses

  1. Nice catch. I get the impression he meant to use the word “irrational” there, but his anti-religious mind produced the word “religious” instead, which is a synonym to irrational in his mind, apparently.

    Overall, the analysis is pretty poor, reifying a grand irrational “egalitarianism”, as if such a montrosity existed in the mind of any given person.

    In reality, the enemy forces are a grand coalition, each with its own peculiar axe to grind. Egalitarianism is the motivating force for few if any of them.

    For most, it is good old plain totemic supremacism, i.e., exploiting the defeated enemy, because, well, “they deserve it for what they did to us in the past.”

    I have found that the first clue that someone doesn’t really understand one’s opponent is the attribution to the opponent of “stupidity” or “irrationality”. If the opponent appears to be stupid or irrational, it is usually a sign that you just don’t understand fully his point of view.

  2. Why bother with “Alternative-Right”? Nationalism is a phenomenon born of the French Revolution. In many ways it can be blamed for completely destroying Christendom with liberalism and communism more “aftershocks” compared to the destruction of nationalism. The fact that nationalism as come to be seen as reactionary is tragic.

  3. Given the choice, you would reject all three, Liberalism, Communism, and Nationalism?

  4. Yes

  5. So, given the choice, you would sit out all 20th century politics.

  6. Many of his points are valid, but what he is describing is not a “religious” mindset per se, but rather,a cultist one.

    I don’t fault religion for contradictory beliefs but cults of personality built up around hucksters in religious robes,then and now.

    Religion is simply any system a man uses to unite with what he views as divinity. There is nothing irrational or harmful in one’s personal striving towards that which is transcendent.

    You are correct in your assertion that religions, by the time they evolve to the point where such status can be conferred upon them, have mostly eradicated contradictory beliefs,and are pure of mechanisms which create cognitive dissonance.

    Thus, Jesus says “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” and 2000 years later rich men are exalting charity from the pulpit of a $5 million megachurch.

    That is where the contradictions come in

  7. Rather like voting “present” at a gorgon beauty contest.

  8. “If the opponent appears to be stupid or irrational, it is usually a sign that you just don’t understand fully his point of view.”

    Excellent advice that I try to live by.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: