The New Age Religion

Pride Night

Tuesday evening, the Philadelphia Flyers, at the direction of the NHL and their diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative held a pride night for the game. For it, the team wore Pride Night warmup jerseys with rainbow tape on the sticks. Flyers defensemen Ivan Provorov refused to take part in the activities citing his Russian orthodox faith, to quote Provorov, “I respect everyone. I respect everyone’s choices. My choice is to stay true to myself and my religion.”

Unsurprisingly, this decision was met with much backlash from the media, the NHL, and broader society. In a statement to ESPN from the NHL, “Hockey is for Everyone is the umbrella initiative under which the league encourages clubs to celebrate the diversity that exists in their respective markets, and to work to achieve more welcoming and inclusive environments.” Following the incident, the NHL’s social activism partner, “You Can Play” came to the Flyers building and instituted mandatory re-education seminars.

From the American and Canadian media came sentiments such as that from NHL Network’s Sr. Reporter E.J. Hradek who said on-air that if can’t assimilate into the group, he should perhaps leave the country, return to Russia, and fight in the war. The implication being that he could simply go die. Canadian television host Sid Seixeiro said, “There’s not a lot of repercussions that I’m seeing from any league, it could change with the NHL. I think you fine the Flyers a million dollars for this, I’m not kidding. Figure this out and stop offending on nights where it’s not about that, it’s supposed to be about inclusivity.”

In all of the backlash that he received, it was this same term that kept popping up, “Inclusivity.”

DoubleSpeak

Although the idea existed long before his conception of it, the term stemming from George Orwell refers to words, terms, and expressions that are intentionally ambiguous and misleading, a distortion of language for political purposes. These words are vague, misdirecting, jargonistic, and euphemistic, omitting information related to the meaning and works to obfuscate. More recently, this notion was expressed by the leftward intellectual Noam Chomsky in his book entitled, “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.”

Examples of doublespeak would include the “Patriot Act,” implying it is unpatriotic to not forgo your rights to privacy and allowing yourself to be spied on. “War on Terror” was made to sound like an act of heroism and not what it really was, the needless bombing and terrorizing of civilians in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. In the ’80s there was an intercontinental ballistic missile named, “Peacekeeper.” In Venezuela, Cuba, Angola, and other countries, the communist revolutionary movements that went on to enslave citizens were called, “Liberation Armies.” More recently, the “Inflation Reduction Act,” a bill that actually continues in the devaluation of the dollar via money printing, effectively worsening inflation. “Equity” which doesn’t mean equality but instead forced outcomes, the abdication of the right to individual voluntary choice. “Social Justice” which is not actual justice, but a social justice system that is rid of due process, everyone is guilty in the court of public opinion. “Diversity,” the demand for the conformity of thought, if you think differently than that of your minority status then you’re not only not “Authentic,” but a white supremacist and an enemy. “Compassion,” often exhibited online, is a narcissistic form of “compassion” that entails bullying those that disagree. “Pride” means to shame those that don’t adopt the ideology and all of its tenets wholesale. And finally, “Inclusion,” the exclusion and ex-communication of anyone that does not share your beliefs.

The words and expressions of doublespeak are intentionally misleading and meant to be indefensible, only meant to be accepted at the surface level so that if you’re in opposition to what they really mean, well then you’re either an idiot or worse, a heartless idiot. If one did not take the BLM organization wholesale including the claims on their website calling for the abolishment of the nuclear family and private property and the implementation of cultural and economic marxism, it spurned the response, “You believe black lives DON’T matter?! Racist! If you opposed the “War on Terror” on the grounds of it being a farce, “You don’t support our troops?!” These words are intentionally designed so that a person is socially pressured to adopt them wholesale and to not dare object otherwise, if they do, “You’re a bad person!” Ask yourself, how is it “Inclusive” of Provorov’s personal beliefs to demand fines and suspension for his decision to stand by them? A fair response would be, “How is it tolerant of Provorov to refuse to respect the the group of people associated with “Pride?” The proper retort to that would simply be, Provorov was not demanding the conformity to his beliefs. Doublespeak is the native tongue of social justice.

Skokie

Society, including and especially that of my generation and younger, does not have an appreciation for the value of free speech because we have only ever known prosperity, not the endless cycle of tyranny that exists in the outside world and throughout all of human history. It is becoming increasingly difficult to defend the speech, thoughts, and beliefs of those that we do not agree with, and with it, an insistence to conform to the group’s speech, thoughts, and beliefs to that of their own. When this happens socially, eventually it leads to being enforced by law, and with that, an unchecked power in the hands of the powerful to control our tongues and our minds. At that point, power is so incredibly concentrated that it leads to inevitable misuse of power and then tyranny. The evidence of this is only all of human existence including in the world today amongst two of the world’s superpowers, China and Russia.

The ACLU, the civil liberties organization which has now been socially corrupted, once stood on its principles of authentic liberalism and taught this country an invaluable lesson. In 1977, a group of Neo-Nazis wanted to hold a march that went through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, a community with a heavy concentration of Jewish people. State and local authorities prevented it from taking place, leading to a case in court. The ACLU organization, comprised of a heavy concentration of Jewish lawyers, defended the Nazis in court on the grounds of the government’s violation of the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Ira Glasser, a Jewish man, was the lead counsel on the case and went on to win despite over 30,000 ACLU members resigning for their decision to represent the reprehensible Nazi group. Glasser and the ACLU represented the detestable group of detestable ideas despite being against everything they believed because the organization knew that if you can restrict the right to speech for one group of people then you can restrict the right to speech of any group, the same method used against the Jewish population of Germany during the Hitler regime. 

Ira Glasser in an interview with Reason magazine reflects on that time, “As I said when I came to the ACLU, my major passion was social justice, particularly racial justice. But my experience was that free speech wasn’t an antagonist. It was an ally. It was a critical ally. I said this to the audience, and I was astonished to learn that most of them were astonished to hear it–I mean, these were very educated, bright young people, and they didn’t seem to know this history– I told them that there is no social justice movement in America that has ever not needed the first amendment to initiate its movement for justice, to sustain it’s movement for justice, to help its movement survive. Martin Luther King Jr. knew it. Margaret Sanger knew it. Joe Hill knew it. I can think of no better explication of it than the late, sainted John Lewis, who said that without free speech and the right to dissent, the civil rights movement would have been a bird without wings. And that’s historically and politically true without exception. For people who today claim to be passionate about social justice, to establish free speech as an enemy is suicidal.”

Intolerant Ping-Pong

In decades passed that were occupied by cultural conservatism, there was the tendency for those with an authoritative instinct to want to deny equality of opportunity and equal rights to those of minority status, whether it was on the basis of race, sex, or sexual preference. Through the authentic social activism of the past using the rights expressed in the constitution, including that of gay rights beginning with the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion, the institutional stranglehold on equality of rights was defeated. While a loud far-right minority of people who maintain these intolerant beliefs still exist, they no longer hold institutional power and are in a dwindling minority.

Now, the tide has turned and it is the illiberal far left, no longer the illiberal far right, that holds the institutional power. First in academics, then the media, and now in government. Amplified with the advent of social media, those with the tyrannical instinct are in greater numbers on the left where they dominate the conversation and public perception.

This was no more evident than during the peak covid-era we went through within the last couple of years. The dark corners of the illiberal, petty tyrant left, stepped out from the shadows where they were demanding the legislative and judicial branches (led by the executive branch,) to break the Nuremberg Code, a set of global principles established following the actions of the Nazis that allows consent for any medical intervention, outlawing forced medical intervention. Not only was the illiberal movement wanting to mandate a vaccine that does not stop or even inhibit the acquisition or transmission of the Covid-19 virus, but through OSHA the government tried to make it so that an unvaccinated person cannot enter or work within public or private places including that of a grocery store to purchase food. A government is not able to enforce this type of a humanitarian code-breaking rule without the approval, and even the demanding of it from the public. Considering the vaccine does absolutely nothing in regards to stopping or preventing transmission, this never had anything to do with “Kindness for your community” and only ever had to do with petty tyrants having power over another group of people while signaling their self-perceived sense of moral virtue.

When NBA player Johnathan Isaac refused to kneel and pay homage to the Black Lives Matter organization for not taking their ideology wholesale, he was attacked and ostracized, rid of his identity as a black man and his “Diversity” status. In 2022 when NBA Kyrie Irving retweeted a film that expressed views aligned with the Nation of Islam and sects of the Christian Church, believing black people are the biblical Israelites, he was publicly lynched, suspended from his job, fined millions of dollars, and received forced “Re-education.” Whether one agrees or disagrees with his claim is irrelevant and I am not arguing for or disputing the validity of his claim, I am however absolutely arguing for his right to hold personal religious beliefs and have the freedom to speak. Although I believe Collin Kaepernick was inauthentically motivated by riding the lucrative social justice wave to earn more money as an activist than he did as an actual player, effectively benefiting and not sacrificing anything, Kaepernick had every right to kneel during the anthem as he did during his career. The authoritative demand of someone to pledge to a country, group, or ideology is the behavior of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and so on.

Illiberal, petty-tyrant behavior demanding conformity is not specific to any group or political party, that’d be foolish to believe. It’s specific to the human condition. Everyone is in favor of freedom of speech and belief until something is said that they themselves don’t like or agree with.

Liberalism

I can easily understand and am not unsympathetic to the moderate-grounded sentiment toward Ivan Provorov of, “Just wear the jersey, whether you approve or disapprove of homosexuality is your decision even if its somewhat bigoted, just put it on to keep the peace.” However, I believe it is immoral and demoralizing to demand someone betray, as Povorov puts it, “myself and my religion.”

As a classical liberal, I believe in equal rights for everyone and that no one, including and especially myself, is superior to anyone else regardless of race, sex, sexual preference, or any other characteristic. The basis of authentic liberalism rests on the belief in two principles. True Laissez-faire economics, not the corporate socialism we refer to as “Capitalism” in this country, but one designed to produce the most widespread prosperity. And second, on the social front, equal individual rights for all, including freedom of speech, politics, and religion. The authentically liberal belief of equality of opportunity was labeled communist in the 60s and is now considered “alt-right” which indicates that it might be the correct political framework to have because it runs counter to the group-think sentiment during any given period. The forced adoption of the Pride logo is not just simply “I believe sexual minorities are equal and should have the same rights as anyone else,” (which I believe to be the correct process of thought,) it is instead the adoption and promotion of a political ideology wholesale. Social Justice ideology is the opposite of classical liberalism in that all of the “Identity” organizations such as that of “Pride” or the modern-day “Feminist” movement are in fervent opposition to free markets as the economic system is deemed, “Structurally oppressive” despite the obvious short sight that economic inequality is actually far greater within socialist economies and free markets are the best economic system known to man in creating the most widespread economic prosperity for all. And socially, the ideology is of the mindset of forced conformity to their thoughts and ideals, to have an idea or belief outside of their ideology is to be considered an enemy. Social justice collectivist ideology is the insistence that group identity is paramount and comes before that of the individual. Although seemingly harmless, and even enticing in its utopian allure of equally distributed prosperity for all, the application of collectivism has disastrous real-world application because it operates under the belief that everything is a result of social construction, it denies and does not accommodate the existence of innate human nature shaped by millions of years of evolutionary sexual selection and instead believes we enter this world as blank slates that can be molded to perfectibility and with that, the perfect society with equal outcomes and prosperity for all. The idea of Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and that led to well over a hundred million deaths from starvation and political persecution during the 20th century. Collectivist ideology and its partner, Postmodernism, present themselves today in the elevation of the subjective above the objective. Expressions such as, “My Truth” instead of just simply “The truth.” The anti-scientific claim that males and females have zero differences, both psychologically and physically, on average, and with that, the creation and insistence of the pseudo-scientific gender ideology. That income inequality and inequality of outcomes is a product of capitalism and not that it’s a product of every single system known to man, a universal law referred to as “Power’s Law.” This is absolutely not to say that those who espouse or observe social justice, collectivism, or postmodern ideology are evil people, absolutely not. Nearly all that do are coming from a place of compassion, it is just simply that unless someone delves into the literature and studies the social justice ideology on an academic level, they do not see past the sleight of hand that works to concentrate power through the removal of individual rights, such as that of religion and speech.

Religion

Gustav Le Bon the social scientist who wrote the premier book on group psychology stated, “All political, divine, and social creeds, only take root among the masses on the condition of always assuming the religious shape, a shape which obviates discussion.”

Social Justice is the new religion of our time and it is one that is particularly intolerant of other forms of beliefs. In Ivan Provorov’s refusal, we see a brief glimpse into what is at the heart of this ideology, a religious-like zealotry. Within religious structures there are certain universal tenets that the group uses to hold the belief in place including the inability to discuss the dogmas, there is to be no questioning of the established beliefs. The desire to spread the ideals. Blind submission to its commands. A complete intolerance and social coercion acted out by the “Believers” onto the “Non-believing blasphemers” who do not accept the ideals or beliefs wholesale, considering them enemies.

If classical liberalism is the belief in equality under the law, Social Justice is the fundamentalist, radical sect of the belief system. A contradiction in this “New Faith” that I cannot figure out is that despite its intolerant rhetoric toward Christianity, it aligns itself with the Muslim faith, never caring to speak out and condemn the slavery of women and homosexuals in the middle-east acted out by the extremist sect of the faith. For a religious group that is primarily made up of women who dedicate themselves to deconstructing the most progressively egalitarian society (along with Scandinavia) that has ever existed, where a woman and a gay person are equal to that of a heterosexual man (Or “Cis” in the native tongue of the New Religion) under law, one would think they would condemn the tortuous murders and beheadings taking place in the middle-east for a woman not covering her face and a man being attracted to men. Like that of a radical Islamist sect of the Muslim faith (Or all young religions for that matter), Social Justice is in need of a reformation that removes the greater excesses of the belief structure because what social justice warriors and radical Islamists share is the tyrannical instinct and behavioral patterns that seek to silence dissidence. The obvious difference between this new religion and any previous one is that its primary setting is not a building of worship, instead, it is in the faux-reality that is media and social media.

Fetch

One of Le Bon’s conclusions in his studies is that within religious-like group structures, there is a loss of reason where the entire group conforms to the intelligence of the lowest strata within the group. The “Town Square” where the “Sermons” take place within the Social Justice religion is of course in the faux-reality of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and institutional media. Regarding the emotional aspect within a group formation, the group takes on a higher level of emotion than what is exhibited on an individual level, hence why a gathered crowd is always on the verge of a riot. From psychology, evolutionary psychology, and evolutionary biology, it is scientifically accepted on the 5-trait personality scale that on average, women are higher in negative emotion. The reason for this is associated with the evolutionary innate nurturing instinct. Women are disadvantaged against men and opponents physically, being smaller on average in size and aggression than men, therefore, the trait for higher negative emotion is a defense mechanism to protect themselves and their offspring. This instinct serves a beneficial purpose for our species, it is not a bad thing and it of course is not universally applied, only in reference to the mean, it is simply the nature of our species. Man’s instinct is to solve conflict with physical aggression and violence, because, by nature, men are more aggressive, a product of higher levels of testosterone and the innate part of men that exists to protect their family, their village, and themselves. Women on the other hand, on average, tend to attack through reputation destruction, innuendo, and gossip. Because of this, social media, a female-dominated space, has led to the ushering in of the “Mean Girl” society that we are all living in now.

Social media is where the “New Religion” can both preach and punish, coercing the media, government, and all of society to conform to their ideals. It only takes 20% of a group population to re-normalize the remaining 80%, so while “Social Justice Warriors” are in the great minority, they are the loud minority, like that of the alt-right, however, unlike that of the alt-right, this 20% dominates social media. Social media is unprecedented to our species. Our evolution has not caught up to it, therefore, what we see on social media gets overrepresented and it subconsciously fools us into thinking that it is reality when it is absolutely not. While this fervent new religion is smaller in scale than say that of the general population, it subconsciously tricks us into thinking they are greater in numbers and with that, the media, corporations, and politicians are fear-mongered into carrying out the wishes of the loud minority. As a by-product, we have institutions such as academia, media, and government being reshaped in the image of the new religion. On an individual level, we are all too fearful to stand out in a crowd, to be dissident to the group of bullies, because after all, we have jobs, bills, and families to provide for, is it worth sticking your neck out at the risk of being labeled something you’re not and losing your job? We see this all of the time when a social figure says or does something that is “Problematic” and “Hurts” people. They are coerced by their employers via the SJW mob, to publicly apologize and then forced to go away, effectively “Cancelled.” I cannot be convinced that in real life, there are actual people that are “Hurt” when a picture of a celebrity dressed up as Pocahontas from 2002 resurfaces. It is not out of “Compassion” and “Empathy for others” that drives this sentiment, it is just simply the desire to have power over someone, it is the desire of a bully and of a petty tyrant that is driven by their subconscious desire for power and with that, to be dominated.

Titanic

My reasoning for writing this is quite simply out of fear from two fronts. For one, the result of the social justice movement will cause an unbalanced concentration of power in the hands of the federal government which can then use that power to crush dissidence. The history of unchecked concentrated power is crystal clear and it’s not good.  And second, the reactionary movement that will inevitably follow, the formation of a group dynamic primarily comprised of men who carry more innate aggression than women. Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. The effect of people conforming to groups leads to only viewing one another as part of their group or of an enemy group, and not as individual persons with which they agree or disagree. Once we’re segmented into groups, it inflames and incites tribalism, an incredibly destructive position for a society to be in.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, one of the most influential literary figures of the 20th century, made the observation during the communist revolution of the Soviet Union that tyranny was only able to be made possible when the population was socially pressured by the small Bolshevik minority to stay silent and then began purveying things that they in their hearts knew to be untrue. Being forced to accept and speak lies that people knew to be untrue demoralized the population, at the point in which a population is demoralized, they can be tyrannized over. At the point people began to speak up, their institutions were already compromised with too much corrupt and concentrated power and it was far too late. The result was inevitable mass suffering. On a societal scale, it feels as if we’re being forced to believe and purvey thoughts and beliefs that we know not to be true. From Dostoevsky’s, “The Brothers Karamazov” comes the quote, “The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.” The loss of truth leaves a void that becomes filled with lies and with that, a loss of respect and love for ourselves and for others. The loss of truth inevitably leads to hate.

As stated, and as I believe in my heart, the overwhelming majority of purveyors of the new religion are good people and well-intentioned, they are not enemies. It is instead the iceberg that are the ideas that they espouse that I am in conflict with. An iceberg has only an eighth of its mass visible, the portion that sits above the water, seven-eighths of the iceberg sits underwater, not visible to the eye. The iceberg that is Social Justice shows only “Kindness” and “Compassion” for minority groups and those lower on the socioeconomic hierarchy, well who the hell would be in opposition to that? Equal rights for everyone are imperative. It’s important to recognize and acknowledge the tip of the iceberg that is visible to the eye is great in sentiment. However, it is what lies underneath the water’s surface that I am in opposition to. The result of social justice extends far beyond silly back and forths on Facebook and Twitter or “Cancel culture,” this is superficial and often overstated. What is not superficial are the effects of what it is social justice advocates unwittingly (or wittingly) advocate for which is equity or cultural and economic marxism, a position openly advocated for within all of the literature of the movement. A belief that will inevitably result in the concentration of power in the hands of a corrupt few, ridding everyone of individual rights such as that of speech and belief. In this superficial and trivial example of Ivan Provorov’s Pride Jersey, we’re already seeing the illiberal and intolerant beliefs behind them, the anti-free-speech and right-to-belief element. The non-existent “Right to not be offended” superseding the right to have personal beliefs. I do not believe we’re right at the cusp of reshaping our laws and society to the vision of the social justice left, an abandonment of individual rights and due process. I do, however,  worry about this happening in a generation’s time when the millennial and Gen Z generations are in positions of power because we do not understand or value the foundational importance of the current system we have in place. The same system utilized by every civil rights organization of the past to achieve and maintain the equality of rights, for all.

I am perfectly accepting of being contrarian, an outsider, or even a “Weirdo” in my thoughts and perceptions, it is complicit silence when I believe something to be self-evidently true that my conscience cannot bare. If we’re going to see our way out of this coerced social conformity to the new religion, we must do what one should say to any bully, “No.”