



I am not a religious man, which is why I don’t identify as a modern liberal. Neither do I believe in the objective existence of good and evil, which is why most human beings would likely never identify with me. And I am not an ideologue, which is why I am a heretic to everyone who treats their beliefs as an inviolable matter of faith.

I considered myself a liberal back when it seemed to have something to do with open-mindedness and skepticism, but that choo-choo train roared out of the station long ago. As the doctrine has gained steam over the years, it has morphed into a psycho-totalitarian power machine that brooks no dissent and ruthlessly scapegoats all nonbelievers. I abandoned egalitarianism not only when it became evident that it was a goofy, fraudulent, and ultimately destructive premise”I wiped it off my shoe when its adherents began acting more and more like religious fanatics. My main problem with modern liberalism isn’t that it veers too far astray from traditional religious thinking; it’s that it emulates it too much.

Humanity will likely always be far more religious than scientific in its thinking and behavior. Most humans”i.e., the dumb ones”are far more easily manipulated by guilt and social shaming than they are persuaded by logic. “Positive” and “negative” are subjective ideas, but “good” and “evil” are religious ones, because they presume a universal moral standard. And racial equality”not equal treatment, but innate equality”can no longer be questioned, at least not by white people, without severe social consequences. Over the past generation, I’ve heard “racists” called “evil” far more than I’ve heard that word applied to anyone who exhibits lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, or pride. In fact, except for greed and certain types of wrath, most of what were known as the seven deadly sins have now been turned into virtues. The dehumanizing language hurled at racists”they are “scum” and “subhuman pieces of shit” that either need to suffer, repent, or even “burn in hell””is precisely the sort of invective that was once flung at sinners.

“I”ve heard “racists” called “evil” far more than I”ve heard that word applied to anyone who exhibits lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, or pride.”

Hence, the nonstop public crucifixion and shunning of purported bigots such as Donald Sterling, Cliven Bundy, Paula Deen, Michael Richards, “Dog” the Bounty Hunter, ad nauseam. It’s also why you have the elevation of shady characters such as Nelson Mandela, MLK, and Abraham Lincoln into irreproachable sainthood.

The spiritual urge seems as ineradicable as the tribal instinct, and the two often overlap. Religion in a social context is commonly used as an unforgiving truncheon of control, one that promises to reward all believers and either convert or kill all infidels. This perpetually intolerant angels-and-devils game does not require a deity to behave like a religion. (See “communism.”) Ironically, the most natural and effortless expression of a herd instinct”to favor those who are genetically similar to you”is being treated as the worst sin possible, mainly because it impedes a very deliberate and inorganic project to corral the world’s inhabitants into one global enclosure, whether they get along or not. In fact, it’s probably better if the sheep are always squabbling, because it makes them lose sight of the shepherd. It’s better for business if they’re fighting one another on the same farm than if they’re peacefully ignoring each other while grazing on different meadows.

Although egalitarianism poses as logical and scientific, its preachers and followers behave like cult members rather than free thinkers. When someone dares suggest any racial differences exist except “whites are more evil,” no one ever bothers to disprove that the alleged differences don’t exist”instead, the speaker will have rocks thrown at them. There is a zero-tolerance policy regarding ideological disagreement”as with material wealth, egalitarians treat beliefs as if they were not private property. This will probably continue and worsen until we live under Soviet/Maoist conditions where people whose thoughts stray from the norm are terrified, beaten, or murdered into eternal silence.

For the time being at least, secular global egalitarianism postures as tolerant of all religious beliefs, despite its tendency to specifically degrade Christianity, which is likely because Christianity remains its biggest rival. But just as Islam tends to be somewhat “tolerant” so long as its adherents remain a minority in any given area, I suspect that the more that the Holy Church of Global Human Equality gains power, the less tolerant it will become of any belief system that deviates in the slightest niggling way from the sacred tenets of the Iron Rainbow.