Broadcasting to and from the Other Side of Reality
About Philosophy Esoteric Science Livestreams

An Unapologetically Biased Critique of the Concept of Equality (with special focus on Communism, Egalitarianism, and Beautiful Women)

October 8, 2020

by Wolf of Woden

While National Socialism emphasises both a naturalistic and metaphysical ascension of human evolution through the lens of a racially homogenised ideal of strength and virtue, Fascism, on the other hand, goes a step further by explicitly prioritising in transcending both materialistic capitalism and egalitarian socialism by following the natural order of life; thereby working alongside man's primordial needs and instincts with an optimal level of synchronicity. However, the differences between Fascism and National Socialism are arguably negligible. They are both collectivist ideologies predicated upon a Hegelian-Bradleian-Gentillian conception of the nation-state comprised of its people: a hierarchical form of socialism not bent on economic equality but equality of responsibility, both from nation-state officials and citizens alike.

Communism, however, is such a profoundly low-level and, frankly, narrow-minded system that it ultimately renders itself dangerously exposed to a subversion at the hands of the very corporate capitalists its adherents intend to overthrow. It should, therefore, go without saying that this fundamentally inoperable system was doomed to fail from its inception of implementation, subsequently eating itself. And upon the twilight years of the 20th century, it did just that. Quite the contrast, then, to National Socialism, which was quickly and aggressively deracinated by nation-states led by ruthless vulture capitalists. But let's focus on the dynamics of Communism for now.

Simply put, Communism is little more than a slave morality conceived upon a fundamentally erroneous perception of human nature. The main issue I have with Karl Marx and co., despite his theoretically humanitarian principles, is his grossly inverted conception(s) of the nature of material reality. Thus, communism is essentially founded upon the notion that material (economic) conditions are what shape man, when in fact I would argue that material conditions are the result of man. Life is fundamentally hierarchical in both its biological and economic structure - whether we like it or not. So striving to make every individual to attain a status of equal worth and economic value is, to borrow a Faragian metaphor, the equivalent to attempting to fit a square peg inside a round hole. Not only is this futile, but I believe it to be completely antithetical to man's primordial instincts and ambitions. Hence, Marx (perhaps deliberately) misconstrued the true essence of Hegel's historical method of dialectics. And it is worth noting that Hegel, not merely a proponent of his Absolute Idealist approach, was also a committed conservative nationalist. However, Marx and Engels were second to none at critiquing corporate/crony capitalism, for which they deserve due credit.

But in no uncertain terms, Communism is nevertheless a thoroughly limiting system, both materialistically and metaphysically. It essentially serves as a mere reaction to liberal economics, so I do not see how it can possibly go further beyond the very system to which it is ostensibly opposed. Thus, Communism and liberalism are two sides of the same coin: both are fundamentally materialistic systems and philosophies primarily concerned with economic outcome and seemingly little else. And in the grand scheme of things, I just do not believe economics is of such great importance.

When I talk of inequality, I speak of the inherent hierarchical nature of life, whether we are discussing biology - in terms of physical and/or mental abilities - or simply just individual human outcome. Our innate perceptions are also fundamentally discriminatory in the sense that we view certain things (and yes, certain people) as better than others. How does this any in way suggest that we can live in a truly 'equal' society? E.g., if I am to describe a woman as beautiful, am I not therefore implying that other women I perceive are not as beautiful? 'This woman is beautiful' is tantamount to suggesting that I value her superior aesthetic over what I perceive as the norm. This in itself is indicative of the natural inequality of life, and the so-called 'bigotry' embedded within which (semantics).

Thus, the notion of everybody and everything being of equal value and importance is not only ludicrous, but utterly dystopian in my view. Frankly, I do not wish to live in a society in which every single aspect of life is to be considered as being of equal importance, worth, and value, as it would ultimately fail to incentivise me to become a better person and aspire to greater things. What would be the point?

Direct URL: