Skip to main content
Hurry! Get 10% off on all products until June 11th. Visit our shop now!

Richard Storey argues that liberalism inevitably gives rise to egoism, commonly called ‘wokeism’ today. Mainstream conservatives unthinkingly call this a religion. For once, they are right.

Almost every professed right-wing outfit has done it. Intuitively and, perhaps unthinkingly, they have thrown the blanket accusation – wokeism is a religion. ‘The academics are the new priesthood’, for example. Yet, the fact that these ‘right-liberal’ types are jumping on the bandwagon doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong. In contrast, prominent figures on the dissident right are so used to distancing themselves from mainstream co-opted ‘conservatism’ that they dismiss the suggestion out of hand. ‘Wokeism isn’t an organised religion; it’s just liberal individualism, leading to selfish, entitled and hypocritical opinions and behaviours.’

However, I do think that liberalism and the inevitable egoism which it has manifested in our time is a religion – demonstrably so by any predominant definition of the word. I will hereafter refer to wokeism as egoism because that’s exactly what it is.

There are three main approaches to defining religion, in sociology:

  • social constructionist – whilst it is difficult to define religions, at least those groups which identify and behave as religions are religions;
  • functional – religion is a belief which encourages social cohesion; or
  • substantive – religion is a trusting faith in a supernatural power.

I think that whichever of the three we go with, liberal egoism is a religion. Just as in Hinduism there are as many varieties of Hinduism as there are Hindus, so too with liberal egoism. Each one has their belief and they call this ‘their truth’. Just because they don’t define themselves with a collective, organised religion, doesn’t mean it’s not a religion according to the social constructionist view.

But, is liberal egoism functionally a religion? Does it have the common characteristics of a religion?

  • Does it have leadership and rules? Of course. Its leaders occupy positions of power in every institution and social medium. Its creed is that there are no public creeds; this in itself becomes a public creed and leads to liberalism’s preference and privileging of minority groups and the disadvantaging and subverting of majority groups. It’s called intersectionality and it is fundamental to Western ethics today.
  • Does it have rituals, practices, events and celebrations? It has whole months of celebrations and commemorations which occupy lesson plans in schools and all cultural platforms; even sporting events have ceremonies with required genuflection and singing in support of its tenets.
  • Does it have signs and symbols? They even have a flag.
  • Does it have sacred writings or a mythos? If Harry Potter and the Marvel movies weren’t enough, postmodernist and sexual revolutionary literature form the law and prophets of their scriptures.

Well then, what about supernatural beliefs? Liberal egoism can’t substantively be a religion because it doesn’t have a belief in a supernatural power. After all, aren’t most liberal folks in the West today materialists?

Aside from the fact that, legally speaking, religions can even be systems of unbelief, the liberal egoist isn’t without a belief in a god, even a supernatural one. Well could Nicolás Gómez Dávila observe, ‘Modern history is the dialogue between two men: one who believes in God, another who believes he is a god.’ Today’s egoism sees man proclaim himself sovereign in the metaphysical, ethical, political and legal fields. Indeed, the sovereign ego believes itself transcendent of any and all natural constraints, even its own biology. Its teleology has faith in the power of technology to liberate the soul from the body, finally realising its destiny as master over nature.

In short, if liberal egoism isn’t a religion, I don’t know what is.

Dear loyal supporters,

as we are in the midst of the crucial start-up phase, we need your help to keep Arktos going. Maintaining a sophisticated website like ours is costly and to continue posting new, free content regularly, we need funds urgently. We kindly ask that you consider becoming an Arktos Member or making a one-time donation. By doing so, you will not only support our work but also gain valuable knowledge and information in return.

We aim to reach at least 250 subscribers and $4,000 in donations by the end of June. As of now, we have 138 subscribers and $2495 in donations. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you for being part of the Arktos community.

Subscriber goal (138 / 250)


Donation goal ($2495 / $4000)

Richard Storey

Richard Storey LL.M is an author and legal theorist with a particular interest in the medieval period. His writing spans law, history, theology, cultural criticism and even children’s books. He has conducted numerous interviews with prominent academics for his Youtube channel, Sacrum Imperium Romanum. He lives in England with his wife and four children.

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
14 days ago

It is the worst of the religions, which is really saying something.

Richard Storey
Richard Storey
14 days ago
Reply to  RWBB

I’m inclined to agree. This sort of hyper-individualism does no one any good. It disadvantages man and society.

11 days ago
Reply to  Richard Storey

I have no problem with the “rugged individualism” of Jack London, but this is a completely different, monstrous society killer.

12 days ago

Excellent description and ‘liberal egoism’ is a perfect name. Regarding their supernatural beliefs, they have plenty of tenets that contradict object reality; people can change their internal essence through external reconfiguration, inanimate objects cause violence, they can determine a “fair share” of your production that is theirs, and on

11 days ago
Reply to  r2rv

“Equality” is certainly not based on reality, even slightly!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x