Philosophy Inequality is GOOD.

Certified_Heterosexual

The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
Today, my friends, I will preach to you about inequality. I am going to explain why inequality is not just a fact of life but a virtue, and why we should cultivate, embrace, and strive for inequality.

When we look around us and we meet our fellow men and women, what drama do we see played out again and again but the tragedy of aimlessness and nihilism? The other day a friend said to me, "I feel like I'm basically a nihilist. I smoke weed, play videogames, drink, and fuck. I have nothing to live for." This is what it's like to be ruled by liberal ideas. Liberal ideas say a man and a woman are interchangeable, that people from different cultures are interchangeable, that any person is as good as any other person for any purpose—and we wonder why we feel so useless?

The appeal of inequality, the thing that you must understand is that a world of equality is a world devoid of meaning. The appeal of inequality and hierarchy is that everyone has a place, and they know it, and in that knowing is security. When you force people to imagine they're equal, you are destroying them with flattery. When you pretend you're as good as anyone else, that's when you stop trying to cultivate and improve yourself. And the moment you stop growing, you start dying. Hence, the inevitable nihilism of equality.

“But this is just a straw man of equality," you say. "We need some forms of equality.” Wrong. All doctrines of partial equality are unstable isotopes of total equality. They will decay in time.

Personal responsibility is only and ever a right-wing impulse, because only when we acknowledge and cherish inequality can we use our betters as models for improvement. If you have ever wanted to excel at something, if you have ever felt a desire to be a greater version of yourself, you have felt a right-wing impulse.

The Left imagines a world of perfect emancipation, an escape from hierarchy. It’s the idea that no one is better than you. That it’s morally wrong to be above someone else. If no one is above anyone else, then no one is above you specifically. There is some appeal to this, a certain gratification of pride. Emancipation, in leftist morality, is identical to equality. A commitment to a world without hierarchy is a commitment to equality.

Most people don't really think critically about what equality is, or what it must give up to achieve this miracle of “no one standing above me." But it comes with a terrible price. The claim "everyone is equal" does not stand up to even a moment of scrutiny. Some people are rich, and some are poor. Some people are smart, and some are stupid. Some people are strong, and some are weak. Some people are moral and some are evil, etc. Equality is not descriptive, therefore it must be prescriptive. And if equality is a moral prescription, then anything that increases inequality must be morally wrong.

The following may seem like a ridiculous strawman, but it isn't. If equality is to be a value, it must be a terminal value. If it is not a terminal value, then it will fail entirely, for hierarchy will creep in, and if you give it an inch it will take a mile. In order for something to be a good terminal value, it must survive being taken to its logical extreme. The logical extreme of equality is total equality. No one of high status. No one of good moral standing. No one who is a great artist or poet must be allowed.

To equality all difference must be nauseating, a great festering wound. All diversity must be sacrificed to equality. Any difference is a foothold for superiority, which is a foothold for hierarchy. To equality, there can be no beauty. For the existence of beauty demands the existence of ugliness, and no quality can exist except in the face of a contrast. Under equality, it is wrong to get stronger. It is wrong to save money, wrong to read challenging books, wrong to become famous, especially for a clever or brave deed. To do so is to oppress someone else with your superiority. From this we can see why equality must glorify the weak, lest strength become a virtue. It must adore the ugly, hence modern art and poetry. It must trust all betrayers, because trust requires judgement, and judgement creates inequality. Emancipation from the hierarchies of man is not possible because nature is red in tooth and claw, and the only emancipation worth a damn is ultimate emancipation—freedom from all material need, from all existential risk.

Smart leftists ask this question: in order to become perfectly free and equal we must put an end to material scarcity, perhaps through some kind of automated communism... perhaps by accelerating the techno-capital singularity.

But then what? Why, then no one will have to work! We will all be free to do whatever we want. But what will we want? Well, what do YOU want? Careful: if you do something creative or clever, you will subvert equality once again. Can't have that.


The only option to preserve equality is unadulterated hedonism and all entertainment produced by machine, so no human can take credit. Even most smart leftists have not realized that machines taking over from man is also inequality. Or perhaps equality is to be achieved, and then instantly transcended? It is once again okay to be unequal, now that we have tasted it? Or shall we refashion humanity to be transcendently equal through future magic?

All self-improvement and human achievement is fundamentally right-wing. The heart of Rightist thought is the desire to soar. The Leftist thinks he rises, but his goal is inexorably a type of fall. There can be no redemption or rehabilitation of the idea of equality—it is an anchor around our necks, a nemesis to flight.

Equality robs us of the faculty of self-improvement because it destroys all possibility of self-improvement. Equality teaches that you are already perfect in every way that matters, and the ways you are deficient are no fault of your own. My friend the nihilist is not happy in his nihilism. The momentary hedonic rush that he feels from moment to moment is only in the end a grim reminder of the ultimate pointlessness of his life, because he has been robbed of all context in the universe. I believe that human beings are hard-wired for belief. In the past hundred years we have seen the collapse of religion, and inevitably therefore we have seen the collapse of structure and meaning and identity. Hierarchy is a structure which gives us identity, and identity gives us meaning.

Strength (which is a virtue) comes from belief in things that are philosophically grounded and which appear real to you. The tyranny of liberal ideas, which claim to want to dissolve all tyranny, is that they render all beliefs unreal, and in so doing render strength impossible. Why do you think leftists are constantly going on about how weak they are, how broken they are, how much pain they feel, how tired they are, ad nauseum? It's because their beliefs have transmuted strength from a virtue to a vice, and they rightly see strength as illiberal. We all want someone to look up to, whether it is a superior man or a God, but liberalism has defamed and criminalized this deep yearning of the soul.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." I could never understand this Bible passage as a child, because liberalism renders it unintelligible.

If strength is criminal, then authority is criminal, which is why the Left is engaged in a permanent revolution to tear down all authority everywhere. Indeed, the authorities that rule over us have let us down—not because they possess authority but because they have done nothing to deserve their authority. We are ruled at present not by a military elite or a political elite, but a commercial elite. The crazy thing is that even liberals can see that greed and profit are not the proper objectives of morality. But in their morality, which is perverted, they think the problem is an excess of strength. Strength is not the same thing as authority, but strength conveys authority. Our elites invert all decency, because they call cowardice by the name of courage and call submission by the name of strength. In so doing they debase their authority and abdicate responsibility.

You can't have authority without morality, and you can't have strength without belief, and you can't believe in anything strongly so long as you believe in liberal ideas, because if everything is equal then nothing is better than anything else and all beliefs are meaningless. In order to escape from this hell—which is primarily psychological—we must find a way to believe in something. But in order to do that we must above all destroy the false idol of equality, for it saps us of our vitality and turns us into pointless wastrels.

Self improvement is only possible on the right. The Leftists, meanwhile, dispute the very concept of wellness as smacking of oppression. We want to create hierarchy because it tells us which way is up, a thing that the leftist is forbidden to know and everywhere obligated to conceal.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Wonderful essay!

To add a bit of Nietzchean lite-in ancient days strength was virtuous, and weakness vice. The left wants to make everything as weak and pathetic as itself.

We live now in a cult of victimhood and the glorification of inferiors. Which is the heart of intersectionality-the worship of the most undeserving, wretched, and those who deserve to be at the bottom of the hierarchy. In short, we live in a madhouse where we are supposed to submit to and praise our inferiors! Nothing could be further from God's will or nature.

Envy is also a motivator here-the left is envious to the core. Envy eats one away inside, so making everyone equal will make envy go away.

I am absolutely in favor of restoring natural hierarchies.

However...great care must be taken to ensure the wretched, stupid, and degenerate do not rise above their station. This isn't possible in liberal "democracy".

The left hates ability, and merit-even when it is demonstrably proven and not merely money or title. Because it shows there own bankruptcy, and fills them with hate.

I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of an aristocracy who comprise the best of us, that will rule until the last day.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
To equality, there can be no beauty. For the existence of beauty demands the existence of ugliness, and no quality can exist except in the face of a contrast.
This could perhaps be said to be the root of the deconstructionist attack on language. A lot of human thoughts can be placed in either pairs or spectrums, either of which could be used to express hierarchy.

“But this is just a straw man of equality," you say. "We need some forms of equality.” Wrong. All doctrines of partial equality are unstable isotopes of total equality. They will decay in time.
I think this point should be expanded on. It's not exactly clear from this if the legalistic equality found in the constitution would necessarily lead to this point. The bulk of the essay is focused on philosophies which attack merit by prescribing a break-down of the very definition of merit. Perhaps electoral and legal equality always leads to that, but the line is not clearly drawn.

EDIT - An extension of this question is, is this an argument in favor of monarchism or meritocracy, or what? You are mainly arguing against a philosophy, but that same philosophy has deep roots in modern western thought and society, so by changing one the other would need to change as well.
 
Last edited:

Certified_Heterosexual

The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
I think this point should be expanded on. It's not exactly clear from this if the legalistic equality found in the constitution would necessarily lead to this point. The bulk of the essay is focused on philosophies which attack merit by prescribing a break-down of the very definition of merit. Perhaps electoral and legal equality always leads to that, but the line is not clearly drawn.

Sure, I can expand on this notion. but it may take a while for me to get to my point here, so bear with me:

To start with, I want to very quickly point out that separation of church and state isn't really possible. It just creates a selection pressure for innovative new religions to shed the names "church" and "god." And this is precisely what we see today—America has a state religion of liberalism, a religion that has no church and no god. In America we tried to create an explicitly agnostic state, but our Founding Fathers did not understand that religions are living organisms, memes that adapt and fit themselves to new selection pressures.

So here in America, since the Revolution we have had two main religious traditions, since the beginning. The exoteric tradition is Protestantism (Catholicism slipped in later), and the esoteric one is liberal humanism, the latter of which is the provenance of "freedom," "rights," "equality," and all those other nice words we like so much. The humanist state was originally supposed to be a platform for all different denominations of Christianity (and quiet, respectful nonbelief) to coexist peacefully, a trick it pulls off by intertwining the Christian faith with select bailey conceptions of Enlightenment humanism. This "USA Civics Patch," as you might call it, allows multiple Christianities to run peacefully in one polity, but it introduces some critical security vulnerabilities and ultimately destroys that which it was meant to preserve. It was only a matter of time before a someone developed a mutation of Enlightenment philosophy that could cross the church-state barrier. We call that mutation “progress,” and with a few tweaks to the phenotype, it was able to capture the entire state.

Progress is built on the core protocols of the "USA Civics Patch." It can’t pay homage to God, because God is explicitly excluded from the patch's political formula. Instead it deifies abstract concepts, venerating "liberty," "equality," and “rights." Progress replaces the church service with the protest rally, the return of Christ with the moral arc of history, total depravity with implicit bias, and the crucifixion with the Holocaust and slavery. One way we can tell progressive politics is essentially religious is to note this curious formula: the personal is political. Progress is not content with the non-overlapping magisteria of church and state. It demands that all facets of life be subjected to its moral calculations, as 2020 has made perfectly clear.

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act marked the total victory of the new progressive church over the government of the USA, ending the separation of church and state. Civil rights became America's new foundational mythology, propagating through the base layer of US ideology, insinuating itself and becoming the foundation for all other beliefs. We now teach children the hagiography of the civil rights era in social studies classes, and in the moral thrusts of their cartoons. Then in the early 2010s, a virulent emancipatory discourse centered on homosexuality was deployed into mainstream conversation, becoming the next great iteration of Progress. but that's a little off-topic.

The point is, we live in a world where both the Right and the Left are significantly to the left of the Civil Rights Act, and that means they are both very, very far to the left. Your Republican leaders have never rolled back one jot or title of Progress, for this exact reason. As long as you believe in the moral validity of “human rights," as long as you think individual liberty is an end in itself, the most you can do is plead “too fast, too fast!”

Of course, the LGBTQAPs will never be free as long as people are allowed the freedom to criticize or exclude them, but freedom of speech is for losers. And I mean that literally; powerful people can already say whatever they want, only weaklings ever ask for permission to do so. White women are the most ardent apostles of Progress, and there’s nothing women like more than correcting the speech of petulant children. If “what about the freedom to say mean things?” is your principled argument against the Left, you’re doomed to fail. Not even God believes in freedom of speech.

In Stalinist Russia, there was only one way to criticize the state that didn’t get you sent to the gulag. It became known as the Fifty Stalins Criticism: “yes of course Stalin is good, but he doesn’t go far enough! If only we had fifty Stalins!” Arguments that the Left is overreaching are just haggling over the number of Stalins you'll personally tolerate.

All states are theocratic, and theocracies do not tolerate heretics. With the merging of church and state, freedom of religion is a shambling corpse. The only options left are to either abandon patriarchy and heteronormativity, resist Progress in all its iterations, or be destroyed. But if you're still a humanist or a classical liberal, you have no reason to complain. You have no grounds from which to say THIS is one progression too far, or THIS emancipation is too much. As we are realizing, humanism means that giving puberty blockers to toddlers was in the Constitution all along, only the hermeneutics took a while to work out.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
Alright, that makes things quite a bit clearer. "Progress" is a term which implies that change is an innate good, and that implies that mankind is on some kind of socio-developmental track which is deterministic. Which is of course total bunk as cultures rise and fall, and in their courses they do not paint the same arcs.

You could argue that, while historically there was a form of separation of church and state, it was in the legal sense of separating the direct power and influence of the church upon the operations of the state. Whereas, the state was wedded to the various denominations of Christianity and their ethics. I have noted before that the weakness of Christians to the Left is the appeal to morality ("a nice person would care about the plight of these people"), which seems to stem from the ideas that were pushed in order to make non-denominational Protestant ethics a thing that the state could interact with in lieu of a structured religious administrative apparatus. This may also be why Protestantism in the US is so fractured while in many other countries they tend more towards being "organized" religions in the sense that splinter sects are tolerated less.

So then, what does a society without these qualities look like in the modern day?
 

OliverCromwell

Permanently Banned
Permanently Banned
In Stalinist Russia, there was only one way to criticize the state that didn’t get you sent to the gulag. It became known as the Fifty Stalins Criticism: “yes of course Stalin is good, but he doesn’t go far enough! If only we had fifty Stalins!” Arguments that the Left is overreaching are just haggling over the number of Stalins you'll personally tolerate.
I have to say that there's an impressive level of chutzpah in pulling, word for word, an example from the Anti-Reactionary FAQ while ignoring the other 20 billion words in it about how this entire worldview is stupid and wrong.
 

Certified_Heterosexual

The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
I have to say that there's an impressive level of chutzpah in pulling, word for word, an example from the Anti-Reactionary FAQ while ignoring the other 20 billion words in it about how this entire worldview is stupid and wrong.

I never read any Anti-Reactionary FAQ; not being a reactionary, refutations of it never interested me. If I were to define myself as anything, it would be a populist Christian.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
I have to say that there's an impressive level of chutzpah in pulling, word for word, an example from the Anti-Reactionary FAQ while ignoring the other 20 billion words in it about how this entire worldview is stupid and wrong.
Can you prove him wrong?

Explain to us why the glorious god of modernity , "equality" actually is not a load of absolute dogshit.

I'm superior to a 55 IQ mentally challenged retard, and I'm inferior in physical strength to Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson.

Equality is a lie, there are superiors and inferiors. Those who are superior in intelligence, moral character, and virtues should rule, not the worthless mass of two legged gutter trash that make up most of humanity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think when the chips are down. People just want to be away the people they hate and with the people they like. there are two kinds of people in this world, the "Self" and "the other: AKA Everybody else." We can argue philosophy till the cows come home, but it's all fun and games till an "Other" has you by the throat. Everyone loves a king...till we ourselves are sent to the dungeon. Everyone loves democracy....until someone or something is voted in that we don't like Capitalism, socialism, it's all the same. we like what we like and we hate what we hate. We promote stuff that promotes that which tickles our fancy and despise that hich promotes what disgust us. There is always going to be conflict so long as thier is individual thought, call it free will, call it sapience, call it whatever.
 
Can you prove him wrong?

Explain to us why the glorious god of modernity , "equality" actually is not a load of absolute dogshit.

I'm superior to a 55 IQ mentally challenged retard, and I'm inferior in physical strength to Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson.

Equality is a lie, there are superiors and inferiors. Those who are superior in intelligence, moral character, and virtues should rule, not the worthless mass of two legged gutter trash that make up most of humanity.


as the pharse goes, there is always a bigger fish buddy. Are you going to commit suicide to make room for your betters? I'd seriously hope not, because if so please stay away from me and block me. Because I want nothing to do with people like you. Every people that killed and were killed knew themselves to be better than "The the worthless mass of two legged gutter trash that make up most of humanity."
[/QUOTE]
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Blame Continental Philosophy for glorifying the "Other" and demonizing the most innate activity of man, "othering"-which is a near universal expression on the left and those opposed to "bigotry" and shit.
as the pharse goes, there is always a bigger fish buddy. Are you going to commit suicide to make room for your betters? I'd seriously hope not, because if so please stay away from me and block me. Because I want nothing to do with people like you. Every people that killed and were killed knew themselves to be better than "The the worthless mass of two legged gutter trash that make up most of humanity."
Committing suicide even in submission is generally indicative of moral emptiness. What I said was harsh, but true. People are eternally unequal.

Some are better, others worse. Some have the blessing of God and nature to rule, others to serve.

I'm not the best at everything, put me in a football game and I'll break my neck in twenty minutes. This is a fact of nature, not a condemnation of those who are inferior at one thing or another.
 
Blame Continental Philosophy for glorifying the "Other" and demonizing the most innate activity of man, "othering"-which is a near universal expression on the left and those opposed to "bigotry" and shit.


let me ask you this aside from disgusting you, what has the left done to YOU personally?
 
Blame Continental Philosophy for glorifying the "Other" and demonizing the most innate activity of man, "othering"-which is a near universal expression on the left and those opposed to "bigotry" and shit.

Committing suicide even in submission is generally indicative of moral emptiness. What I said was harsh, but true. People are eternally unequal.

Some are better, others worse. Some have the blessing of God and nature to rule, others to serve.

I'm not the best at everything, put me in a football game and I'll break my neck in twenty minutes. This is a fact of nature, not a condemnation of those who are inferior at one thing or another.


except your philosophy when applied to politics is what has justified every war, genocide and conflict known to man. Pride not money is the root of all evil....and make no mistake the left is very prideful. They say they are all for lifting up the oppressed? Spoiler alert, they are lying.


Feel free to have that philsophy put on yourself "Know your place." Good fine excelent even. But the moment you put yourself above others, you play a VERY dangerous game
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
I exaggerate the edginess for theatrical purposes.

But recent events have convinced me more and more than some percentage of the population of the hairless apes known as man need an iron spiked boot on their neck permanently to keep them from tearing civilization down to the level of barbarism and gibbering madness.

Ideally the character of the people would matter, they would be roughly equivalent in intelligence and virtue. Then you can have republics. Ours is a degenerated wretched ugly mixture of oligarchy and ochlocracy.

@Hastur of Carcosa both I believe.
 
I exaggerate the edginess for theatrical purposes.

But recent events have convinced me more and more than some percentage of the population of the hairless apes known as man need an iron spiked boot on their neck permanently to keep them from tearing civilization down to the level of barbarism.

Ideally the character of the people would matter, they would be roughly equivalent in intelligence and virtue. Then you can have republics.


politics is not somthing to be edgy or theatrical about dude. That kind of mentality is what has caused wars and genocide. Really had we simply ignored them or simply shut them down at the start, we wouldin't be entertaining these edgelord philosophies are mistake was expecting society to kick them down a notch. It's like what I said about cultural appropriation. Us geeks should have said "Cut that crap out need I remind you of this thing called Anime." But we didn't. and instead of doing the right thing now and not adding fuel to the fire. We are giving them attention. There is always going to be barbarism on some level. the question is are YOU going to let it define your world. My advice, don't bleed for a cause you'll never see the benefit of. You can't choose the blood your born in when it comes to politics, but you can choose whether or not you'll play the game. IMO as hard is it is not to play, that's the better course of action.

Let me direct you to this video. It's kept me from swallowing the blackpill and/or blowing my brains out.

 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
politics is not somthing to be edgy or theatrical about dude.
Literally history disagrees.

That kind of mentality is what has caused wars and genocide.
Sources please.

We are giving them attention.
Will fear define us?

There is always going to be barbarism on some level. the question is are YOU going to let it define your world. My advice, don't bleed for a cause you'll never see the benefit of. You can't choose the blood your born in when it comes to politics, but you can choose whether or not you'll play the game. IMO as hard is it is not to play, that's the better course of action.
Unfortunately the dance goes on and we must dance the dance. We live in a world with bad people, and bad ideas. Thus it is incumbent on us to at the bare minimum refuse to submit to these people and ideas. That is the heart of what "good" politics is.

I'd prefer to live in a world without politics. Or at least a world where the only political ideas considered were ones of merit. But we don't live in that world.

I'm pessimistic in this world, I have hope for a world to come. But this world is on a downward spiral.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Literally history disagrees.

but the dead would agree

Sources please.

the Russian revolution, the french revolution, the inquisition the crusades, communism nazism, nearly every single conflict known to man stems from "I'm superior to X in some manner." If you don't think conflict is a bad thing. then you have no moral right to cry when you lose OR are losing....and based on your words your losing

Will fear define us?

Your the one acting like your on the edge of a cliff. you tell me.

Unfortunately the dance goes on and we must dance the dance. We live in a world with bad people, and bad ideas. Thus it is incumbent on us to at the bare minimum refuse to submit to these people and ideas. That is the heart of what "good" politics is.

I'd prefer to live in a world without politics. Or at least a world where the only political ideas considered where ones of merit. But we don't live in that world


There is a difference between rejecting bad ideas and saying the following and I quote.

But recent events have convinced me more and more than some percentage of the population of the hairless apes known as man need an iron spiked boot on their neck permanently to keep them from tearing civilization down to the level of barbarism and gibbering madness.

I'm pessimistic in this world, I have hope for a world to come. But this world is on a downward spiral.
based on your profile, past and present and you attitude. your pessimism is clear. Look I understand it's somthing I got to fight myself. Like I said a few weeks ago I was close to blowing my brains out because I ODed on the blackpills. But you can't let pessimism I personally believe in a captail T truth, but I don't think it can be found in empires and politics. Your world and your reality is at least partial defined by what you allow into it. The question is, are you going to think on that which is good and pure as the Good Book says, or are you going to let the poison of others drag you down? not saying it's easy, and ultimatly we will talk about politics to some extent, but that doesn't mean we have to let it define us.

Marx said Religion was the opiate of the masses. Personally I think Politically activism is the
Phencyclidine of the masses. It makes you feel 10 feet tall and bulletproof and is incredibly addicting, but when you crash you crash hard. There is somthing to be said about doing your alms in secret and letting your character speak for itself.



 
Last edited:

Yinko

Well-known member
nearly every single conflict known to man stems from "I'm superior to X in some manner." If you don't think conflict is a bad thing. then you have no moral right to cry when you lose OR are losing....and based on your words your losing
In order for primates to sort out their social structure the males tend to end up in hierarchies. Primitively this ends up with a single individual at the top, but as groups developed to be too large for this to be effective by itself it resulted in more of a class structure. Egalitarianism, in the pure sense, cannot work because it contradicts human instincts for social development. Ideas like respect, loyalty and fear would have no place in a purely egalitarian society but are innate parts of a functioning human society. Why do you do as your father says as a child? Respect? Fear? Loyalty?

Currently, the issue is to do with race being wielded as a caste. This is nothing new and goes back to the ancient world. Whenever immigrant groups grow too large they are treated as either an under-class or caste. An individual outsider may rise through the ranks but a large group of outsiders are instinctual threats that the group opposes. This is largely the source of the assertion of Jefferson and others that different ethnic groups could not live alongside one another, and what led to the forced segregation following the Greek-Turkish conflict as well as following the Great War.

The attack of the Left is actually a twist on this. It says "social structures are about power, power is bad, ergo anyone on top is bad". The equation of power with evil is why they use the term "oppression", which is a natural marriage of the two concepts. There are two main flaws in the assumptions here: social structures are about instincts and power is merely an expression of those, and power is not inherently bad.

My point in all this is; yes, every conflict has involved the idea that one group is superior to another because that is how groups work. Every state of non-conflict has also involved the same idea. Stating that a constant is a cause confuses correlation with causation.
 
In order for primates to sort out their social structure the males tend to end up in hierarchies. Primitively this ends up with a single individual at the top, but as groups developed to be too large for this to be effective by itself it resulted in more of a class structure. Egalitarianism, in the pure sense, cannot work because it contradicts human instincts for social development. Ideas like respect, loyalty and fear would have no place in a purely egalitarian society but are innate parts of a functioning human society. Why do you do as your father says as a child? Respect? Fear? Loyalty?

Currently, the issue is to do with race being wielded as a caste. This is nothing new and goes back to the ancient world. Whenever immigrant groups grow too large they are treated as either an under-class or caste. An individual outsider may rise through the ranks but a large group of outsiders are instinctual threats that the group opposes. This is largely the source of the assertion of Jefferson and others that different ethnic groups could not live alongside one another, and what led to the forced segregation following the Greek-Turkish conflict as well as following the Great War.

The attack of the Left is actually a twist on this. It says "social structures are about power, power is bad, ergo anyone on top is bad". The equation of power with evil is why they use the term "oppression", which is a natural marriage of the two concepts. There are two main flaws in the assumptions here: social structures are about instincts and power is merely an expression of those, and power is not inherently bad.

My point in all this is; yes, every conflict has involved the idea that one group is superior to another because that is how groups work. Every state of non-conflict has also involved the same idea. Stating that a constant is a cause confuses correlation with causation.

I guess Ultimately I don't disagree with the left in terms of "structures are about power, power is bad, ergo anyone on top is bad". The equation of power with evil is why they use the term "oppression" .....I just view them and those that give them resources as oppressors. it's part of the reason why I laugh my butt off anytime they talk about "Fighting the system." they are the system. they are propped up by the system, they are useful idiots being used by the system. I mean as far as instincts go it's "Natural" for people and animals to fight and kill. That's got nothing to do with the fact of if there is a divine and moral right to scream into the night or take your destroyers down with you which is essentially what politics is trying to answer. If we are going by instincts and nature alone then the answer is you either win or lose....no one going but those who like you are going to cheer for you when you win or cry for you when you lose. You don't need an empire to tell you that.

the fact is chances are if you attack me and I'm going to try to drag you into the abyss with me unless you can physically stop. I don't need a physically or political reason for it I just I'm just going to do it because I have nothing left to lose. at that point. Honestly that's one of the reasons why I think religion is needed. Politics is just window dressing for justification and does nothing to actually control or eliminate natural instinct.

but dude your talking to a man who's ancestry had little to nothing to gain from ingroups and who were up until recently in a constant state of oppression....REAL oppression and if any major political activist group had a say like the progressives or the alt-right had a say, probably would be again. Nobody has really given my kind any mercy or empathy. So when I here about political troubles or a fear of being in danger, ostracized or oppressed, my reaction is "Welcome to my kind's world we've been dealing with this crap sense the beginning of man. Sucks doesn't it?"

Everything I have in my life I have in spite of the system not because of it. I have no breathern by skin or group. I gained my friends through having the same interest with them. So no I really have no mercy for natural instinct, for it has shown me none.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top