The Lie of Equality

Reader KFG dropped this insight in last week’s post and I thought it was very relevant to something I’ve been contemplating for a while now:

As a general principle genetic fitness is always relative to the environment. A spread of genetic traits makes a species more robust, because it will have individuals better suited for survival in a greater range of environments.

There’s more than one breed of working dog because no one is “better.” Each has its specific strengths, paid for with corresponding weaknesses. A terrier is to small to hunt wolves, but you’re not going to stuff a wolfhound down a badger hole.

This was a great analogy. It’s also one of the primary reasons I believe the egalitarian equalist narrative is a deliberate lie with the hoped-for purpose of empowering people who cannot compete, or believe they have some plenary exclusion from competing in various aspects of life. One of the primary selling points of egalitarian equalism for men is the idea that they can be excluded from the Burden of Performance.

There is no such thing as ‘equality’ because life doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

The tests that a chaotic world throws at human beings is never equal or balanced in measure to our strengths to pass them. Equality, in the terms that egalitarian equalists are comfortable in defining it, implies that that every individual is equally matched in both value and utility within a totality of random challenges. Aside from this being patently false, it also demerits both strengths and weaknesses when that individual succeeds or fails at a particular challenge as a result of their individual character.

This is ironic in the sense that it provides easy, repeatable, excuses for a person’s successes or failures. If someone wins, well, we’re all equal so that person’s strengths which led to the success can be passed off as a result of assumed or circumstantial ‘privileges’ that made them better suited to their challenges – rarely is their hard work recognized, and even then, it’s colored by the overcoming of a presumed-unequal adversity that grants them ‘privilege’. If they fail, again, we’re all equal, so the failure is proof of a deficit, or a handicap, or a presumed repression of an equal person in a state of baseline equal challenge.

Individual Exceptionalism

One of the longest perpetuated cop outs (I should say paradoxes) that equalists cling to is the notion that People are People; that everyone is a unique individual (snowflake) and as such there is really no universally predictable method of testing character or knowing how a particular sex will respond to various challenges. It’s all random chance according to the individual’s socially constructed character and their capacity to be a ‘more evolved’, higher-thinking being.

On the surface this all-are-individuals notion may seem the antithesis of the ‘equality’ narrative that equalists cling to, but it is part of a cognitive dissonance all equalists struggle with. This approach is a means to standardizing individuality, so no scientific evidence that might find patterns of an evolved ‘nature’ of a person – or in our Red Pill case, a sex – can be predicted. It’s the hopeful cancellation of reams of empirical evidence that show how influential our biologies and inborn predispositions are. This ‘higher order’ individualism is always touted so the equailist mindset can claim that the exception to the rule disqualifies the overwhelmingly obvious general rule itself.

“We’re all exceptions to the rule.” – Carl Jung

“…and when we’re all special, no one will be.” – Syndrome

This fallacy is where we get the NA*ALT (not all ____ are like that) absolution of the most unflattering parts of human nature. Not All Women Are Like That is standard feminine-primary boilerplate for women and sympathizing men (White Knights) who’d rather we all ignore the aspects of female nature that shine a bad light on what are easily observable truths about their behavior and the motives behind them. The social convention relies on the idea that if there is even one individual contradiction to the generalization (always deemed an ‘overgeneralization’) then the whole idea must be wrong.

Of course, this individual exceptionality rule only applies to the concepts in which equalists have invested their egos in. When a generality proves an equalist’s ego-investment, that’s when it becomes an ‘endemic’ universal truth to their mindset. A binary over-exaggeration of this effect is the reflexive response for concepts that challenge their ego-investments. Thus, we see any and all of the (perceptually) negative aspects of masculinity (actually the totality of masculinity) painted as evidence of the endemic of ‘toxic’ masculinity as a whole. The individualist exceptionality in this instance is always ridiculed as ‘insecurity’ on the part of men even considering it.

The exceptionalism of the individual is always paired with some high-order consciousness, and/or the idea that anything that proves their ego-investment is “more evolved” – despite any evidence that proves the contrary – is proof of that this individual is a being who represents some evolutionary step forward. If you agree and support feminine-primacy it is ‘proof‘ that you are more ‘evolved’ than other men. Thus, the ‘more evolved’ status becomes a form of reward to the individual who aligns with the ideology. Conversely, the avoidance of being perceived as ‘unevolved’ serves as a form of negative reinforcement.

This is kind of ironic when you consider that the same equalist mindset that relies on the individualist exception is the same mindset that insists that everyone is the same; equal value, equal potential, equal purpose and equal ability. Again, the irony is that everything that would be used to establish the ‘unique snowflake’ ideology (so long as it contradicts innate strengths and weaknesses of an opposing ideology) is conveniently ignored in favor of blank-slate egalitarianism. There is a degree of wanting to avoid determinism (particularly biological determinism) for the individual in this blank-slate concept, but it also provides the equalist with a degree of feel-good affirmation that the individual is a product of social constructivism. So, we get the idea that gender is a social construct and, furthermore, that blank-slate individual is ‘more evolved’ to the point of redefining gender for themselves altogether. Even when that ‘individual’ is only 4 years old and hasn’t the capacity for abstract thought enough to make a determination.

To be an egalitarian equalist is to accept the cognitive dissonance that the individual trumps the general truth and yet simultaneously accept that the individual is just the blank-slate template of anyone else, thus negating the idea of the individual. It takes great stretches of belief to adhere to egalitarian if-then logic.

I apologize for getting into some heady stuff right out the gate here, but I think it’s vitally important that Red Pill aware men realize the self-conflicting flaw in the ideologies of post-modern equalism. Our feminine-primary social order is rife with it. They will disqualify the generalities of Red Pill awareness with individualist exceptionalism and in the next breath disqualify that premise with their investments in blank-slate egalitarianism.

This is easiest to see in Blue Pill conditioned men and women still plugged in to the Matrix, but I also see the same self-conflicting rationales among Red Pill aware men using the same process to justify personal ideology or their inability to de-pedestalize women on whole. There’s a common thread amongst well-meaning Red Pill men to want to defend the individual natures of women who align with the Blue Pill ego-investments they still cling to. All women are like that so long as those women are granola-eating, furry-armpit feminists – ‘Red Pill Women’ then become the individual (snowflake) exceptions to the otherwise general rule because they fit a different, idealized, profile.

The Inequality of Equality

I’ve stated this in many prior threads, but, I do not believe in “equality”.

I don’t believe in equality because I can objectively see that reality, our respective environments, our personal circumstances, etc. are all inherently unequal. Everyday we encounter circumstances in life which we are eminently unequalled for in our ability to address them. Likewise, there are circumstances we can easily overcome without so much as an afterthought. Whether these challenges demand or test our physical, mental, material or even spiritual capacities, the condition is the same – reality is inherently chaotic, unfair and challenging by order of degree. To presume that all individuals have equal value in light of the nature of reality is, itself, an unequal presumption. To expect sameness in the degree of competency or incompetency to meet any given challenge reality throws at us is a form of inequality. And it’s just this inequality that equalists ironically exploit.

As KFG was stating, “each dog has it’s strengths for a given task”. One dog is not as valuable as another depending on what determines a positive outcome. What equalism attempts do to – what it has the ludicrous audacity to presume – is to alter reality to fit the needs of the individual in order to make all individuals equally valuable agents. This is the ‘participation trophy’ mentality, but it is also a glaring disregard for existential reality. Which, again, contradicts the idea of individual exceptionalism; reality must be made to be equal to accommodate the existence of the equally valuable individual.

To say you don’t believe in equality is only outrageous because it offends the predominant social narrative of today. It seemingly denies the inherent value of the individual, but what is conveniently never addressed is how an environment, condition and state defines what is functionally valued for any given instance. Like the dog bred to hunt ferrets out of their warrens is not the functional equal of a dog bred to run down prey at 45 MPH. The value of the individual is only relevant to the function demanded of it.

The default misunderstanding (actually deliberate) most equalists believe is that functional worth is personal worth. I addressed this in Separating Values:

When you attempt to quantify any aspect of human ‘value’ you can expect to have your interpretations of  it to be offensive to various people on the up or down side of that estimate. There is simply no escaping personal bias and the offense that comes from having one’s self-worth attacked, or even confirmed for them.

The first criticism I’ve come to expect is usually some variation about how evaluating a person’s SMV is “dehumanizing”, people are people, and have intrinsic worth beyond just the sexual. To which I’ll emphatically agree, however, this dismissal only conveniently sidesteps the realities of the sexual marketplace.

Again, sexual market value is not personal value. Personal value, your value as a human being however one subjectively defines that, is a definite component to sexual market value, but separating the two requires an often uncomfortable amount of self-analysis. And, as in Ms. Korth’s experience here, this often results in denial of very real circumstances, as well as a necessary, ego-preserving, cognitive dissonance from that reality.

Denial of sexual market valuation is a psychological insurance against women losing their controlling, sexual agency in their hypergamous choices.

This is where the appeal to emotion begins for the equalist mindset. It seems dehumanizing to even consider an individuals functional value. Human’s capacity to learn and train and practice to become proficient or excel in various functions is truly a marvel of our evolution. Brain plasticity being what it is, makes our potential for learning and overcoming our environments what separates us from other animals. We all have the potential to be more than we are in functional value, and this is the root of the emotional appeal of equalists. It’s seems so negative to presume we aren’t functional equals because we have the capacity and potential to become more functionally valuable. The appeal is one of optimism.

What this appeal ignores is the functional value of an individual in the now; the two dogs bred for different purposes. What this appeal also ignores is the ever-changing nature of reality and the challenges it presents to an individual in the now and how this defines value. What equalism cannot do is separate functional value from potential value.

Adopting a mindset that accepts complementarity between the sexes and between individuals, one that celebrates and utilizes innate strengths and talents, yet also embraces the weaknesses and compensates for them is a far healthier one that presuming baseline equivalency. Understanding the efficacy of applying strengths to weaknesses cooperatively while acknowledging we all aren’t the same damn dog will be a key to dissolving the fantasy of egalitarian equalism and create a more balanced and healthier relations between the sexes. Embracing the fact that condition, environment, reality and the challenges they pose defines our usefulness is far better than to assume any single individual could ever be a self-contained, self-sufficient island unto themselves – that is what equalism would have us believe.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“As All values are subjective. Values are philosophical presuppositions.” OK. “However, if you can do those things better that doesn’t necessarily mean you are more valuable.” That is a philosophical supposition, one that has its roots in religious concepts of universal value of the soul. Empirically if you can’t pull your weight in producing food, the rest of us in the group have to pull it for you if you are to live. Basically your argument is a demand for a free ride at other’s expense, because . . . reasons. So, the central committee has decided that you are… Read more »

Albert
Guest
Albert
Offline

@Arch Hades Even if personal values may appear subjective, there is a performative dimension to enacting values that are constraint by the environment (wishing you can fly will not make it so), the tribe (try groping all the ladies and see how far you come) or you own body (try living of air). In analogy, each individual football player may have their personal wishes and desires; however we can only talk of the ‘game’ of football if ALL players behave according to the rules of the game (i.e. common value structure). The referee’s role is to enforce discipline (i.e. the… Read more »

rugby11
Guest
rugby11
Offline
Albert
Guest
Albert
Offline

@rugby11

It’s the same old worship of the ‘golden vagina’ and religious zeal it has always been. Only difference today is we do this reinforced by social media in out little rat utopia

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/769184752358924298

Arch Hades
Guest
Arch Hades
Offline

“That is a philosophical supposition, one that has its roots in religious concepts of universal value of the soul.” My supposition is that all values are subjective or cosmically trivial. I didn’t necessarily say that all humans are of universal value. Personally i’m a misanthrope that finds little value in most people. But anyway There is no truth to the statement that they are or aren’t! Neither person is ‘right’. “Empirically if you can’t pull your weight in producing food, the rest of us in the group have to pull it for you if you are to live. Basically your… Read more »

bur40win
Guest
bur40win
Offline

Claim: feminists are “more evolved”.

Let’s examine what actually happens in “evolution”:

Evolution consists of a multitude of random mutations from the norm. Most mutations are harmful for survival, typically leading to disease and cancer. Extremely rarely, a mutation leads to a survival benefit.

Most cultural changes are simply mutations. A cultural change doesn’t become an evolution until it proves its survival fitness over a number of generations. Any mutation that significantly decreases the survival fitness is by definition a disease. The most basic survival fitness is rate of reproduction (feminists and their offspring are way below replacement).

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“The most basic survival fitness is rate of reproduction (feminists and their offspring are way below replacement).”

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that ideologies reproduce biologically as a dominant trait.

Albert
Guest
Albert
Offline

@bur40win “Most cultural changes are simply mutations. A cultural change doesn’t become an evolution until it proves its survival fitness over a number of generations. Any mutation that significantly decreases the survival fitness is by definition a disease. The most basic survival fitness is rate of reproduction (feminists and their offspring are way below replacement).” It’s a great heuristic to apply a memetic understanding to the evolution of cultures, however if you fail to outline what the mechanisms of the knowledge transfer is all you are doing is sophistry, transposing your own value judgment into the cultural realm. I happen… Read more »

bur40win
Guest
bur40win
Offline

@Albert The mechanism of knowledge transfer isn’t important when determining whether the ideology reduces the raw fitness of a group that the ideology affects. We don’t need to know how AIDS spreads to know that AIDS will kill you. It helps to understand why, though. Just knowing that it will kill you (or reduce your fertility) is enough to determine that it is likely detrimental to your biological evolutionary fitness. We often get prideful thinking we don’t follow the exact same evolutionary pressures as all other biological organisms – reproduce at least as much as we die. But a “culture”… Read more »

Albert
Guest
Albert
Offline

@bur40win “Just knowing that it will kill you (or reduce your fertility) is enough to determine that it is likely detrimental to your biological evolutionary fitness.” Yes, however my point still stands. Without understanding the mechanisms of how knowlegde accumulates you cannot make these judgments. In analogy, complete removal from pategoense will lower your fitness as well. As such knowing that one pategoen is deadly, does tell you little on how the organism interacts with the environment. However, making sweaping statements that all pategoens are bad is a simplification. ht tps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis Similarly, I am sure you know how vaccines work.… Read more »

EhIntellect
Guest
EhIntellect
Offline

“One dog is not as valuable as another depending on what determines a positive outcome.”

WRT capabilty, excluding childbirth, men are better, more creative, productive in the whole, be it in the kitchen, as tailors, health care workers, food gatherers…generally female endeavors.

Albert
Guest
Albert
Offline

I promised to write a summary of this blog post exchange so here it is. The entire text is referenced and these can be found here: https://www.minds.com/rb00300/blog/the-fall-of-enlightenment-values-785595952109985794 The Fall of Enlightenment Values Whilst waiting for feedback for my PhD thesis on scientific knowledge production I engaged in a discussion on the rationale male blogpost ‘the lie of equality’. The below outline, can be seen as a summary of my argument that I tried to articulate over 400+ comments. Anyway, here it goes: Here is me trying to sketch the biological, psychological and historical causality of why I think the Enlightenment… Read more »

Albert
Guest
Albert
Offline

PAYING THE PRICE FOR QUESTIONING THE INEFFABLE The problem that arises with pointing out these dynamics professionally is that you will potentially destroy your career. Here is a short list of individuals that we know about, the thousands of others that are ‘simply’ let go, due to HR departments choices we will never know. Questioning gender dynamics is highly politicised. Furthermore, this phenomena is slowly spreading to other academic disciplines as the male/female ration is increased productivity and intellectual freedom are the first victims. It seems quite clear to me that there is a price to pay for questioning the… Read more »

Albert
Guest
Albert
Offline

THE COLLECTIVE DELUSION OF OUR TIME The reason for this pessimism is that I see the above mentioned patterns of criticising the ineffable value assumptions of our time. In that “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” and now this borderline religious zealotry is institutionally reinforced within academia, within politics, within the public sector and even the churches. When I mentioned this aspect during the interviews for my PhD thesis all the academics started to get very uncomfortable, it’s like we all know that the emperor has no cloth but no one dares to speak… Read more »

Albert
Guest
Albert
Offline

THE RECOURSE TO VIOLENCE AS THE VICTIM NARRATIVE IS FALLING APART I am basing my conclusions on the holistic experience I have had growing up as man in Europe, living in three different countries and having travelled extensively. I have by now literally, talked to hundreds and hundreds of men and women about sexual dynamics (tinder is a wonderful tool, if you use it to gather information and 1000+ matches does give you a few insights, as well talking to the men that match with the women you date). Today’s religious sentiments are no longer tolerated on campus, however we… Read more »

Albert
Guest
Albert
Offline

Post script This was included in my PhD thesis review which became 116 pages long (for my thesis which is 210). Furthermore, I outlined all my references. All which I had personally read, merely used as point of references or know enough about them to adequately quote them. In total, it became 16 pages of references. Here is a scary thought, sociologically it doesn’t really matter if the majority of attractive alpha men self segregate or become very selective in their dating habits (MGTOW/PUA) or if they are dead. In both cases the result is that they are off the… Read more »

Albert
Guest
Albert
Offline

I ll post the finished article that is analyzing the moral economy of this thread, that was outlined by me here as well. However, I have a few things on my plate at the moment so I get it done once I have a little less to do.

In case people want to have a reminder, here is the data material

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1diCzjO8BATLC3Nw2IhZ_UiS991GKd452-3s2VUcA8Eo/edit?usp=sharing

My analysis and subsequent categorization

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R-pSQq0Lxc6E0KwYExsqxVIs_4ZerRgwSmBFcqnxHWY/edit?usp=sharing

As well as my first sketches for the article outline

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O4qXq5BF0tN5BOEIVDzSG9_RbshUdGMjpAAsrkVPyII/edit?usp=sharing

I ll keep my word

Chad
Guest
Chad
Offline

It is pretty clear that you think of equality as ‘adequacy’. Or somehow ‘equal-to-the-task’. This is easy to see in statements like : ====================== I don’t believe in equality [[[ Universally equal adequacy ]]] because I can objectively see that reality, our respective environments, our personal circumstances, etc. are all inherently unequal [[[situations either find each of us ADEQUATE to the task or they don’t ]]] . Everyday we encounter circumstances in life which we are eminently unequalled [[[ Found inadequate ]]] for in our ability to address them. Likewise, there are circumstances we can easily overcome without so much… Read more »

trackback

[…] natures is always the path of the moralist and the intellectual. Shouldn’t we strive for Equality? Would an equal state between the sexes not be a good thing? If we were good enough, and exercising […]

trackback

[…] Pill philosopher Rollo Tomassi, speaking of how some men try to use egalitarian approach to male-female relationships, calls equality “a deliberate lie with the hoped-for purpose of empowering people who cannot […]

1 5 6 7
%d bloggers like this: