The Government’s latest-commissioned report on race and ethnic disparities concluded that the UK is not systemically racist, and although detonating a significant depth charge across the hull of the Left’s egalitarian assault, is only a minor set back amongst their grand surge because their moral foundation of equality defines the zeitgeist of our age. It is a web that the Left has cast over our political establishment, threaded through education and bound around public discourse so tight that even our expression for self-determination is being criminalized as it is exclusionary by necessity – but that is the point: egalitarianism is essentially totalitarian; and as it is not actually attainable, the pursuit of it provides an eternal justification for the Left’s revealed purpose: the acquisition of power, whether its advocates are cognizant of this or not.
Russian political prisoner and later human rights activist Vladimir Bukovsky wrote that
“This dream of absolute, universal equality is amazing, terrifying, and inhuman. And the moment it captures people’s minds, the result is mountains of corpses and rivers of blood.”
However, despite that mountain comprising of something up to approximating 148 million corpses during the 20th Century, to be for the pursuit of universal equality does not tarnish its advocates with the horrors of communism but demarcates them as morally virtuous whereas to label someone or something as fascist, regardless of whether it is actually untrue, as with Hope not Hate’s defamation of Patriotic Alternative, or moreover just to insinuate that someone has fascist tendencies, as with Donald Trump is enough to advocate for violence to be acted out against them.
Jordan Peterson, a man who may be derided within our circles – after all it is difficult not to see him as some Kafkaesque gatekeeper for the establishment whilst the YouTube’s algorithm, conspicuously, frequently suggests his videos to rein-in any normie who may have stumbled upon nationalist content – did at least go some way to destabilized the moral surety equality provided his detractors in any of those mainstream interviews he gave that went viral. Whenever the precept emerged, which it invariably did because it was the underpinning moral standard he was being measured against, he would subvert its hold by drawing a distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Peterson was providing liberals with a conceptual distinction to resist being consumed by the Left, although it was still within the context that equality is the founding moral principle. In fact, he was even conceding ground: there is no such thing as equality of opportunity. If a job becomes available in London but you live in Leeds do you have the same opportunity to take that job as someone who lives in London? This egalitarian ideal really belongs to Equality under the law, which is a liberal principle. But, yet again, even Equality of Law, which I agree with in certain domains, does not exist, otherwise, they would not need to take age into account when a crime is committed.
Distinctions such as equality of outcome may be valid but are still largely redundant except in intellectual debates where even if the opponent concedes that it is not attainable in an absolute sense, they can still retreat to the motte and state that they just want things to be more equal. Moreover, although Peterson’s inquisitors either had not contemplated this distinction or just did not have a counter proposition in regards to it, it did not matter because he was still caught in the egalitarian web, which at best he was only able to stretch.
The late, great Jonathan Bowden demonstrated a way out by rejecting the legitimacy of equality and identifying in opposition to it but is his stand viable for your average nationalist let alone your everyday normie. You see, you can’t dismiss equality in its entirety. For instance, if you were to ask a parent whether they treated their children equally they would probably be offended because this should be understood as a given. And even though, I could point out examples where they say let an older child stay up later the greater point would be that in the aggregate their children would receive an equivalence of care.
A New Foundational Dawn
What is required is an alternative concept one that is not esoteric and can be easily understood, even by a child, where the aspects of equality desired can be incorporated; and to this aim I simply propose ‘fairness’. This concept has the malleability to supplant equality from its primacy without being antagonistic towards it. Therefore, inequality can not be invoked ipso facto as injustice. To illustrate, in the country where I reside in the Far East, as an immigrant, I can not buy a house. Is this inequality? – of course – but is it fair? I would answer categorically yes! The point being that if we frame our position in fairness there is at least a discussion to be had whereas in the current framing our desire for ethnic sovereignty has already been negated on the grounds that it is inequality.
Additionally, the Left would be at a loss to attack fairness as a concept head-on. There academic conveyor belt of newspeak would have to perform mental contortions to try to invert a concept so ingrained in the collective psyche that young children have a strong grasp of it. In fact, they already have claimed ownership using it often as a mental buttress when they speak of the righteousness of equality.
In future discussions, I will introduce the term in replacement for equality as my governing principle.
“What aren’t you for equality, Duncast?” they may say.
“Well, I’m for what is fair – and in many cases that is not equality.” I would respond.
I’m sure for many on the Left, some on an intellectual level and others just instinctively, would reject out of hand any attempt to question the primacy of their egalitarian foundation; not so much because it necessarily has a disorientating effect but more like as a politically instinctive reaction to any concept that would concede ground to an alternative world view that could contest their cultural hegemony.
Liberals, on the other hand, should not object to discussions based upon what is fair as opposed to just debating the authoritarian Left on what kind of equality, like Peterson. All further discussion, whether it be about the historical record on colonialism or race realism is irrelevant if you enter into a conversation based on equality as the governing principle, like a Mayfly caught in a web your argument will be bereft of flight.