When confronting the cult of Equality we should simply assert the truths in which we already believe: that the meaningful equality of all human beings is an impossible absurdity, and that the dominance of a ruling elite is a fact of life – whether in a traditional hierarchy or a modern “egalitarian society”.
by Solinger X
We on the broad spectrum of the “True Right” consider ourselves opposed to several facets of the present world order: atomised individualism, social massification, feminism, universalism and “human rights”, demographic replacement and multiculturalism, cultural Marxism, and so on.
But if there is a single ideological thread that runs through all of these and bestows legitimacy upon them, it would undoubtedly be egalitarianism. It is the secular god of Equality which insists on subverting all Tradition and dissolving all distinctions between men; which further seeks to abolish not only the differences between men and women but also the very concept of gender; which mandates the subversion and invasion of foreign countries under the banner of equal human rights; and which calls for the destruction of European nations through an endless flow of immigrants, whose right to these nations must be considered equal to that of the natives.
Given that Equality hovers like a spectre over almost every case of injustice that we encounter in the present day, any of our number who wish to go beyond mere day-to-day politics (e.g. shallow “conservative” polemics) are forced to craft a credible response to this ideal. One such response is to defiantly attack Equality as the dehumanising ideal of the borstal, and to argue instead for elitism, “rule of the best” (aristocracy) and traditional hierarchy.
While these arguments have the virtue of being consistent with our ideals, the problem with framing them in this way (a problem recognised by probably all of us) is that it amounts to political suicide in the modern world. If the last true representatives of Europe’s now utterly decayed aristocracy could not defend elitism against egalitarianism from their positions as elites, we have a miserable chance of doing so today. Movements existing in a position of weakness do not argue for an elitism that they do not possess, but instead tap into the politics of grievance among those who fear and distrust the elite.
Moreover, to constantly invoke Equality – even as an object of attack – in such arguments is to cede ground at the very outset. To use the enemy’s terms uncritically is to surrender to his thought: it is like trying to refute an advocate of Hobbesian anarchy by declaring yourself to be against “liberty”. The term “equality” (like “liberal" 
has a positive ring that in certain contexts might even have sounded sweet to our aristocratic Indo-European ancestors (1), and we cannot expect some cultural tectonic shift to turn it into a curse word. Also, to aim one’s fire at the spectral figure of Equality is to imply that there is some actual substance to this figure, i.e. that it is an ideal that holds some possibility of being realised (however much we may insist that this is undesirable).
Thus, a different approach is needed. Firstly, when confronting the cult of Equality we should simply assert the truths in which we already believe: that the meaningful equality of all human beings is an impossible absurdity, and that the dominance of a ruling elite is a fact of life – whether in a traditional hierarchy or a modern “egalitarian society”.
With the reality of elitism thus taken for granted, our positions on aristocracy and Tradition can then be framed in clearer terms: not as defences of elitism over equality, but moral arguments for the rule of a worthy elite as opposed to modern-day kakistocracy (2) – literally the “rule of the worst” – which is, in truth, both the aim and the result of universal egalitarianism.
To justify this approach, we must defend three arguments:
That Equality (in the modern, universal, ideological sense) is a hollow fiction;
That modern “egalitarian societies” are in fact dominated by a ruling class;
That the nature of this ruling class is such as to justify referring to it as a kakistocracy, i.e. the rule of the worst elements in a population.
THE TOXIC FICTION OF EQUALITY
As Steven Pinker writes in The Blank Slate, the egalitarian ‘tabula rasa’ vision of human nature – long dominant in the social sciences – is slowly and painfully crumbling under the tide of reality. Humans are not born equal, nor are they malleable enough to ever be made so: they display a certain number of innate traits which are different and therefore unequal, and the groups to which they belong display average inequalities as well. Some of these inequalities, such as intelligence, have been discovered to be not only innate but also partly heritable. Others, such as the biological differences between men and women, have always been obvious to anyone who has not read himself stupid on egalitarian dogma.
Mere facts such as these, of course, cannot hope to even dent the Equality machine – which over ten years after Pinker’s book is still loudly conducting inquisitions into “unearned privilege”. For this reason I will not bore the reader by citing in detail the voluminous data on innate human inequality. However, reflecting on the immutable fact of that inequality can give us a clearer idea of what the religion of Equality can and cannot accomplish – which might in turn furnish us with some clues as to its true intentions.
What egalitarianism cannot do is to abolish the innate human disparities in talent, intelligence, strength, beauty etc., which so often develop into disparities of wealth, power and happiness in the wider world. Nor can it change the essentially pyramidal structure of civilised society, which inevitably restricts true power and influence to a few. What egalitarianism can (and does) do effectively is to dissolve traditional social structures and distinctions, and eliminate traditional ruling elites.
First we will deal with the dissolution of structures and distinctions, because this is the kind of egalitarianism most recognisable to us in the modern West: the obsessive-compulsive disorder that constantly demands the abolition not only of class but also of sex, race, culture, “stereotypes” etc, all in the name of “oppressed victims”.
It should first of all be noted that the expansion of this kind of egalitarianism in recent decades to include ever wider groups of “victims” has not prevented basic social inequality in most Western countries from rising at the same time (3) – especially in America and Britain, which can both be described as drifting towards oligarchy. In addition, the cult of Equality has introduced into these societies a further violation of the older (and saner) egalitarian principle of equal treatment under the law, by bestowing arbitrary privileges on those who can make often dubious claims to “victimhood”. Egalitarianism in all its forms routinely tramples on many rights – among them the right to liberty of various kinds, the right of females to be women and males to be men, the right to fair distribution of reward for effort, the right of national sovereignty, and the right of a people to its homeland – but what it bestows in return is far less meaningful than is generally supposed.
Moreover: in cases where egalitarianism appears to have achieved some measure of “redress” or “justice” for a disadvantaged group, in later years it often undermines or reverses these achievements in the pursuit of its own logic, i.e. more egalitarianism. Harping on the “historical achievements” of the egalitarian religion is myopic stupidity: for no sooner has one “oppressed group” been mobilised by the cult of Equality to break down one set of hierarchies, than another even more wretched group is found and more often than not set against the last, with the only consistent effect of all this being the destruction of more and more social bonds.
An example of this would be the support of radical egalitarians for the interests of the native working classes of Europe, in an era when this group was expected to bring those radicals to power through violent revolution. Today, modern egalitarianism has not only abandoned this group; it has subjected it to the brunt of demographic replacement and wage competition from Third World immigration, and stigmatised it in public discourse as a bulwark of “racism” and “bigotry”. The same pattern constantly repeats itself in the present day: for example, two gynocentric feminists in Britain were recently silenced like rowdy housewives by the subset of mutilated men known as “trans women” (4), who indeed represent an assault on the very idea of womanhood.
Egalitarianism, then, is far better at mobilising “oppressed groups” to destroy social distinctions than it is at fulfilling its promises to “uplift” these groups once those distinctions are destroyed. And as we see around us in the modern West, it is certainly in the dissolving of traditional social structures that egalitarianism has “succeeded”. However, those who praise this as a victory of “justice” should consider its full implications for individuals.
When traditional social structures are more or less intact, the ambitions of a single individual are confined within a particular social stratum, and there is no shame in belonging to a group other than the most powerful or wealthy one in society. Under egalitarianism, however, an “everyman” individual has often been educated at massive expense (paid for by either public tax or private debt) in subjects only of use to a minority of academic elites, and propagandised by the self-help industry into expecting that he can rise to the top of society with a fortuitous start-up, an abundance of hard work, or the recitation of the right koans. He is then subjected to the full brutal reality of the inequalities of money, talent, and influence (and now “victim status" , as well as the immutable fact that positions of wealth, power and importance in any society can only go to a few. Condemned more often than not to the life of a slave performing what Evola (in Revolt Against the Modern World) calls “shallow, impersonal, automatic jobs”, he nevertheless alienates himself from thid reality; and, encouraged by testimonies of people “just like him” who “made it” (when there are countless others who did not), continues to buy into the egalitarian myth like a fool buying lottery tickets. Gone is the collective consciousness and bargaining power that comes with membership of a particular class of society; gone also is the moderation of ambition, which creates psychological agony if not fulfilled, within reasonable expecations. The burden of disappointment falls squarely on the shoulders of the individual “loser”, who must suffer the dissonance between the reality of his ordinary existence and the egoistic ambition that has been so artificially inflated within him. (It is no wonder that this society does such a good trade in opportunities to masturbate this excess hubris away through the fantasy world of videogames.)
This, of course, is not the full picture. For in addition to merely dissolving social distinctions, egalitarianism has at several times in its history attempted a full or partial eradication of all inequalities in society: in most cases directed primarily at those inequalities mandated by tradition, but theoretically including those of wealth, talent, intelligence and so on.
This is carried out by eliminating existing elites altogether, or else crippling dominant groups so as to break their influence decisively. While this is primarily associated with communist projects such as the Bolshevik revolution and anti-kulak campaigns in Russia, it can also be seen in the modern-day progressivist campaigns against “white privilege” across much of the West.
However, “humbling the mighty for the benefit of all” is another egalitarian promise that always seems to go unfulfilled in reality. Rather than universal prosperity, the most common result of such egalitarianism is an “equality in poverty”, which is hardly mitigated by the visible rise of a few members of the previously disadvantaged group to elite positions in the new society. Thus, the well-known result of Soviet egalitarianism was a “workers’ paradise” in which wages were some four times lower than in the more unequal societies of the West. (5) In America, half a century of attacks on white dominance since the Civil Rights Act has done precious little to advance the dignity and position of blacks (6), who in many areas seem to be experiencing a societal breakdown. The full admittance of the Third World into the developed West would have a similar result: rather than bringing the advantages of Western society to the members of the Third World, it would only bring the disadvantages of Third World society to plague the West. And so on.
Thus, apart from the transient spoils of organised theft and the equally transient gratification of seeing the mighty fall, it is often difficult to see what the majority of egalitarianism’s “intended beneficiaries” really get out of it. However, unlike the conservatives who have harped on this fact for decades to no effect, we will not be so blind as to leave so-called “misguided good intentions” unquestioned. For the benefits of eliminating a traditional elite, and thus decapitating a society,are far more obvious from the perspective of the kakistocracy which intends to supplant it.
THE “PROGRESSIVE” RULING CLASS
In discussing the impossibility of Equality, we confined our argument for the reality of elitism to obvious factors such as the presence of ineradicable human inequalities in talent and intelligence, as well as the inevitable need of society for more followers than leaders.
This is not, of course, the full story – for there is a far more fundamental drive toward elitism within the egalitarian religion itself. It is simply that Equality needs first of all to be argued, planned and agitated for; and once the resistance obstructing it has fallen, Equality must be administered, monitored, and regulated by a class of professional bureaucrats, who must of necessity exert a high level of surveillance and control over the “equalised” society.
In the modern West, the ranks of those whose primary role in society is the furtherment of Equality include: agitators and radicals, academics, journalists and writers, teachers, politicians and political organisers, “diversity officers”, managers, and other bureaucrats. (In a more egalitarian society, of course, these ranks would also include commissars, party members and secret police.) Given that these people are entrusted with the task of upholding and implementing Equality, it is extremely important that they be politically “progressive” (this is far more important than, say, that the manager of a large trading company be a free-market conservative).
Progressivism (i.e. the current vanguard of egalitarian ideology) is thus the essential qualification that this entire class holds in common, just as everyone involved in the running of a church must adhere to that church’s religion. The comparison with a church is an illuminating one, because the priests and bishops of a state-supported church form a social elite in their own right.
Many of us have noticed the elitism (and hypocrisy) of wealthy and privileged progressivists who, for example, argue for mass Third World immigration from lily-white suburbs. However, any clear examination of a class must start with the basic mechanism by which it defines itself and differentiates itself from the masses – whether this be conspicuous wealth, special clothing, or refined manners. For the progressive-egalitarian class, this self-differentiation is primarily done through the special language of political correctness.
Although political correctness is viewed by its proponents as a mark of moral virtue, familiarity with its complex and ever-changing minutiae of “acceptable” language reflects two things above all: 1) the “right” progressive education, probably in an economically useless subject; and 2) a dogmatic belief in the currently fashionable form of egalitarianism in a wide range of contexts. Political correctness thus provides an “ingroup/outgroup” differentiation against those who do not have these things; it also provides a sort of inner hierarchy, in that even “well-intentioned” believers cannot take on public duties in the media, bureaucracy etc. if they are prone to lapse into “offensive” speech or thought in unfamiliar contexts. Most importantly, of course, political correctness provides a justification for excluding the majority of the population (especially lower-class whites) from respectable public discourse, dismissing their language and thoughts out of court with a telling epithet: “ignorant”.
It is in this context that so many of the “microaggressions” (public infringements of political correctness) currently being compiled all over the internet by progressivist college students can be reinterpreted. To quote a particularly telling example in full:
“I was walking through an underground tunnel which leads to a railway station. A truly dreadful busker was using his guitar to colonise the public space with sound, as men so often do. I must have been grimacing at the awful noise as I approached – he stopped mid-song to tell me that I should smile, otherwise I will never be able to compete with Asian ladies." 
7)
Rendered into an older and more honest language of snobbery, this might read as follows: “I encountered a dreadful busker playing music for money on the streets, who affronted me with an ungentlemanly remark betraying his lack of education and manners”. But once couched in the language of political correctness, the member of the bottom demographic of society is transformed into an oppressor (note the loaded word “colonise" , while the unsympathetic female bystander becomes a victim. Political correctness provides a conceptual prism through which a form of moral supremacy can be asserted over poorer, less educated and less privileged people (primarily, of course, those who are white).
It follows from this that any analysis of the Equality cult’s political crusades must identify the high priests of that cult as an elite in their own right, and factor their self-interested will-to-power into the equation. In this light, campaigns for “inclusion” and “equality” on behalf of some “marginalised group” – for instance, the gay marriage campaign – appear in uglier terms, as deliberate attempts to subvert traditions dear to the majority by rendering them meaningless (8). The “selflessness” of white “anti-racist” activists in opening their countries to mass immigration can also be swiftly deconstructed, simply by drawing a line between these activists and the majority of poorer whites who are condemned to suffer most of the negative effects (9).
While its arrogance and self-regard are fairly banal, the curious feature of the progressive-egalitarian class – which is best compared to a religious cult containing a priestly elite – is that it goes to great lengths to deny its own exercise of power in society. Progressivists almost always present themselves as embattled, marginalised, and outside the ranks of society’s “ruling elites”, whom they constantly accuse of seeking to obstruct or reverse the progress of Equality.
The progressive-egalitarian class (moral elite) directs these accusations sometimes at the democratic-governmental class (political elite), which is feared to be capable of either stirring up or giving into the reactionary tendencies of the mob; and more often at the business-capitalist class (economic elite) – which, being associated with political conservatism and economic inequality, is seen as representing the very antithesis of egalitarianism. The bogeyman of “fascism” is seen as having the potential to rise to power through either of these two elites.
However, we shall see that the cult of Equality has far more common ground with these two “rival” elites than it would ever dare to admit in public.
(to be continued)
Solniger X maintains a blog at www.solniger.net
Original with links, citations….