By Gavin James
“Religion is the opiate of the masses” is probably one of Karl Marx’s most oft-quoted and misunderstood quotes. In its correct context we see a recognition of the need for people to turn to religion to ease their soul and to create comfort where none can be found. It is the way in which people find order in a chaotic world and console themselves in a belief that existence itself has considered them and catered for them. It is the cocoon against a nihilistic universe and a faith in an external awareness outside of humanity. It is a belief system which utilises people’s strongest emotional faculties and as such, has been the most effective means of binding people to those that would exploit this for their own gains and power.
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. – Karl Marx
In the western world, at the beginning of the 21st century we can look back and see the decline of theocratic control in western societies. Societies which have slowly and painfully, and not without much martyrdom, discarded the imposed crutches of faith based belief systems. The western world has decided to stand up on its own two feet and confront the vast emptiness and meaningless of existence and understand it for what it is, for how it is, not as we wish it to be. However, with the decline in the power of the church, we have not necessarily seen the end of religion. New religions have emerged to fill the void. New-Ageism, various conspiratorial cults and sects, other Eastern religions and mysticism and perhaps the most prominent of all, Political Correctness. Political Correctness is a moral system which is used to shape language, thought, policies and social standards so as to minimise offence to selected minorities and support liberal/left wing ideals. Political Correctness has not emerged as the result of scientific study, nor is it based on hypothesis proved correct by rigorous testing, but rather a system formulated to fulfil a political need. It is a system of belief, based on faith. In many respects there are parallels with Political Correctness and religion. It behaves in many ways like a religion, fulfilling needs that religion feels and requiring the same mode of acceptance that religion requires. To say that Political Correctness is like a religion would be incorrect. Political Correctness IS a religion. It is quite simply a modern “secular” religion without a supernatural deity. It is the modern, decentralised Church. It is the religion which anyone can become a reverend or clergyman and therefore gain power over people. It is the school of thought which one can demand that people accept without providing evidence. It is the modern ideology which one can excommunicate people from not only the religion, but society for not making the same baseless assumptions.
To adopt the moral system which Political Correctness prescribes is to make moral decisions based on articles of faith, not fact. It is to accept the morality of the “high priests” of Political Correctness as gospel without question, or criticism. Political Correctness has its own doctrine, its own high priests, its own original sin, inquisitors and heretics. It’s faith based because it works on underlying assumptions which are made without any evidence to back them up. It defines what ideals are progressive and which are regressive and just assumes this to be true, relying on adherents having faith that this being so. It is yet another attempt to find order where none exists and create a safe cocoon where humanity has a definite destiny, where nature is accommodating and respectful rather than indifferent. Political Correctness, like many other religions, prescribes a world view where the universe and life on Earth itself, including the Human species, was tailored to accommodate wishful thinking. It gives one the impression that humanity would be in its naturally designed state of harmony and peace, if one would only follow its doctrines.
Original Sin
Genesis begins with Adam and Eve, God’s two creations in the garden of Eden. The serpent persuaded Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent did this with little difficulty, and so according to the scriptures, man fell due to disobedience to God.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. - Romans 5:12-19
The sin committed by Adam condemned future generations for all eternity to death, despite their behaviour, despite any effort they may make to remain sinless. There are no propitiations one can make to break the chain, to remove the stain of original sin. Guilt is automatic and inherited at conception, almost as if there was a gene for Original Sin. Humans are destined to go to hell and only certain actions can save one from this fiery demise. It is not enough to remain sinless. It is not enough to be just, compassionate and generous. It is not enough to have a golden heart. Only that which is prescribed by the religious doctrine can provide salvation.
The concept here is a powerful one. Firstly, widespread propagation and inculcation of these religious beliefs onto people creates masses of people who have accepted, or been forced to accept a belief that they are going to face an unimaginable outcome upon death. There will be masses of people will wish to avoid this fate. Secondly, you and only you can offer the way out.
A person cannot extricate from this situation, as they are stained from birth. They have no choice in the matter, no means by which to avoid carrying original sin. This is the moral equivalent of creating indentured servants who inherit a moral debt from birth. A debt of infinite quantity which can never be paid off. The church acts as the intermediary between the debtor and creditor and thus enjoys the position of power. While the Christian doctrine of Original Sin refers to man sinning against God and not to other men, many have taken upon themselves to act as debt collectors on behalf of God. The moral debt at birth enslaves individuals to another who can utilise this belief system for their own benefit.
The benefit of spreading such a belief is too obvious to require restating. Financial debts can be paid off, freeing the debtor from the creditor when the debt is settled. Their descendants are also free from this debt as it no longer exists. Original Sin provides no such escape. There is no way to escape the creditor, as the debt created from Adam’s sin cannot be repaid. The terms of repayment are permanent and will be inherited by every generation. Generation after generation therefore believes they are born with this sin, an article of faith. The theocracy can then claim to offer the only means of salvation. The question of whether it is moral for someone to inherit the ’sin’ of their ancestors cannot be questioned, as that would be heresy.
White Guilt
The term “Original Sin” refers to the very first transgression of humans against God’s will. While the term refers quite specifically to the first sin, and to a tendency for man to commit sin due to the fall, the power in this concept lies in its perpetual nature. Original Sin is a stain in the bloodline. Original Sin doesn’t have to actually exist to hold power over people, nor does it need to be pre-dated by a period of absolute innocence. The very fact that one believes the stain of sin from the ancestors in sufficient.
White guilt quite simply is the guilt felt by Westerners of Anglo Saxon and European heritage of mistreatment of other ethnic groups by Whites (though rarely mistreatment of one White ethnic group of another White ethnic group). People either feel this guilt voluntarily, from learning about past events they believe are unjust and feeling a sense of compassion and empathy towards the victims, or have White guilt thrust upon them, by being indoctrinated into accepting that ‘Whites’ (generally) have oppressed non-whites or other minorities. For the former example, those who come to this conclusion of their own volition, many seek atonement and desire for White people, as a whole, to make any reconciliatory measures necessary. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that like all the Christians who took on the guilt of Adam and Eve for their transgression against God, no one who feels White guilt actually personally committed any transgression. Exceptions are rare. The relationship between ‘White guilt’ and Political Correctness is strikingly similar to the relationship between ‘Original Sin’ and the theocracies of old. Political Correctness has exploited this for similar nefarious purposes. It promotes this idea as a means of creating further indentured servants. White people who have adopted the “debt” of their ancestors sins, are willing to make any repayments necessary to those who were wronged with the Politically Correct “priests” as the debt collectors. The debt is repaid through servitude, and adopting the morality that Liberalism requires you to adopt.
For an ideology which exposes the idea of treating people according to their individual deeds and character, rather than the race they were born into, ‘White guilt’ is a striking exception to this rule that provides the religion of Political Correctness much power. Like Original Sin, where one cannot choose not to be human born into a fallen state, one cannot choose not to be born of a particular ethnicity. For the average White Australian, who had no choice as to what ethnicity they were born, they are automatically burdened with the “dreadful” sin of colonisation and apparent subjugation of the Aboriginal people. Despite the fact that they have committed no crime themselves, they become indentured servants to Political Correctness. This involves a leap of fair. However, one must first accept the moral position that one can even be responsible for wrongs committed in the past. To question this, just like questioning the doctrine of original sin, is heresy. What’s more, Political Correctness doesn’t focus on the individual acting benevolently and compassionately towards Aboriginal people, but rather demands that the individual follow Political Correctness and accept wholeheartedly and blindly any Politically Correct doctrine. The Politically Correct theocracy, the intellectuals, politicians and other self styled leaders who claim to represent this religion of justice, tolerance and harmony demand first and foremost, obedience to their own doctrine and their own edicts.
People who resist the call to feel guilty and subjugate themselves to the wishes of Liberalism and left wing Political Correctness incorrectly focus on the nature of the so-called crimes. Much effort is made to try and diminish the severity of the nature of the historical events in question, or to justify it. Some may even argue that Aboriginals are better off post colonisation or that Africans who were brought as slaves into the New World are also better off, live better lives now than they would have, had their ancestors not have been brought over. Others try to play down the Jewish Holocaust, revise other events or generally defuse left wing or anti-Nationalist accusations by trying to prove them untrue, or at the very least, exaggerated. These attempts are nothing more than attempts to destroy the “Original Sin” of white guilt by challenging the sin itself. The so – called ‘racist crimes’ which supposedly only White people should be guilty of, have in reality been committed all over the world by all manner of races and creeds throughout all history. One can argue as to whether certain events were wrong or not, and perhaps in some cases doubt can really be cast on whether a true crime against others had taken place, but again, this is beside the point. Such atrocities are a hallmark of human behaviour rather than one particular group, but this point is irrelevant anyway. What many fail to realise, is that it is not the crimes (committed universally) which matter, but whether it is moral to suggest that someone who never engaged in such activity, should carry any guilt in the first place. What the opponents of Political Correctness fail to realise, is that we are not dealing with a moral system objectively derived from evidence and historical precendent, but a moral system based on faith. One must accept without reason that one can be guilty of “the crimes of the father” in the first place. While the basis for Original Sin can be found in the New Testament, the Old Testament says something to the contrary.
“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.—Ezekiel. 18:19-20
This statement is the more moral one and lies closer to the heart of Western ideals. There is no basis in which to make descendants guilty of the crimes of their ancestors, or supposed crimes. The arguments over the nature of what occurred and who transgressed who, and by what quantity is irrelevant. Consider the events which led to the so-called Aboriginal ’stolen generation just or unjust, necessary or unnecessary, but whatever the conclusion the burden or lack thereof of moral indebtedness does not lie with those whose only connection with the people involved is bloodline. The real issue is whether it is moral to even suggest that one should feel guilty simple because they are Westerners, or White or Anglo-Saxon. To accept that people, simply because of their ethnicity, inherit non-hereditary and non-transferable aspects of previous generations, is in a way racist in itself! The call for Westerners to obey and subscribe to certain ideologies because of the ‘guilt’ or moral indebtedness they carry, is simply a call for faithful obedience. It simply empowers certain people by stupefying others. Ironically, it is obedience to a religion which seeks to destroy the very people who become its adherents. Quite simply, Political Correctness is a religion which demands that people, because of the identity they inherited, destroy their own identity.
The way to break these shackles is to simply recognise the Politically Correct racket for what it really is; a racket. A means of creating ‘moral debt’ by immorally demanding and tricking people into believing they share some guilt. It is tried and true huckster-ism, and because there is no ‘God’ figure, it is not recognised as a crooked religion which was designed to give the few power over the many.
