web analytics
Axiology Conservatism Democracy Egalitarianism Enlightenment Evil Individualism Liberalism Universalism

Egalitarianism is evil


Equality, the immovable object that stands in our way

Now that I am following Tom Sunic in that an egalitarian mindset is behind the empowerment of the Jews, the article “Moral Barriers to White Survival” by Alex Kurtagic published in American Renaissance (reproduced below) makes much sense, in spite of the fact that Kurtagic has been very reluctant to blame Christian axiology directly. He rightfully blames Enlightenment values though, but does not go as far as the European New Right which seems to perceive the root of our woes in our parents’ religion.


Many race realists are frustrated by liberal resistance to empirical truths. They would like to think that any rational person will study the facts, reflect upon them, and modify his beliefs accordingly—not immediately, of course, nor without a healthy measure of skepticism, but surely over time. Yet, as I have often said, in discussions of race and race relations “the facts” are not as important as we would like to think, because when choosing sides on this topic people are motivated primarily by non-factual considerations. In this essay I will explore the reasons why liberalism, though rooted in the scientific revolution and coming from the rationalist and empiricist intellectual traditions, has proven so impervious to the science of race.

Any facts or arguments that are brought into a discussion about race and race relations are nearly always subordinated to social considerations. Some of these are the need to be liked by family and friends; the desire to be liked by those one likes and admires and by whom one wants to be liked and admired; the need for social status; and ethnic identification. These considerations, because they are important sources of essential human needs, may cause the same set of data to be interpreted by people in radically different ways, including ways that fly in the face of evidence and make no objective sense.

We have an obvious example in the liberal/Left’s assertion that race has no biological basis, when the senses tell us otherwise and there is even race-specific medicine. A liberal/Leftist is committed to a moral system that deems equality an absolute moral good, and in a Western society, his status, particularly among whites, depends on his being considered morally righteous. Therefore, he will readily accept convenient data but dismiss inconvenient data or make it conform to his requirements. Those who accept this convenient data are embraced by whites in Western societies as morally sound, while those who accept inconvenient data are marginalized as moral defectives.

Such bias is not exclusive to liberalism or the Left; it is everywhere. What changes according to ethnic identification and cultural context is the value assigned to a morality based on universal abstract principles: For whites in the West this is very important, for other groups, in the West and elsewhere, it is less so, as their moral systems tend to be particularist and ethnocentric rather than universalist—the good is what is good for them.

In Western societies, whites who hold unconventional views, even views that fall outside liberal morality, are not exempt from such bias either.

Critique of pure empiricism

Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy. They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality. In this sense they are the diametrical opposite of their opponents, for whom what ought to be determines what is.

Put in more simple terms, race realists forget that knowledge does not come into being in a moral vacuum. On the contrary, knowledge is sought and acquired by individuals committed, a priori, to a given moral code, and this knowledge is interpreted, disseminated, and then used in accordance with a moral code.

Liberal morality

The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.

In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.

When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.

The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.

Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.

The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.

Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.

Critiques of liberalism and its effects

During the 19th and 20th centuries, liberalism was subjected to critiques, from both the Left (Marxism) and the Right (Fascism/National Socialism). Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism/National Socialism are the three primary ideologies of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were defeated by Marxism and liberalism in 1945, and Marxism was defeated by liberalism in 1989. Of the three ideologies of modernity, only liberalism survives.

Fascism and National Socialism fell into discredit after the war and, due to their being inegalitarian ideologies, became shorthand for evil. Marxism was partially absorbed by modern liberalism because of its egalitarian morality, thus tipping modern liberalism even more heavily toward egalitarianism. As a result, modern liberalism is distinct from classical liberalism.

The triumph of liberalism has, in turn, made it invisible. Russian theorist Alexander Dugin claims that it has long since ceased to be political, and has gone on to become a taken-for-granted practice. We have certainly seen liberals branding critiques of liberalism as “ideological” without any sense that their own worldview is ideological.

Opposition of liberty and equality within liberalism

The triumph of liberalism, and the triumph of equality within liberalism, has meant that now, even liberty is subordinated to the requirements of equality. As communism and the multicultural experiment have demonstrated, liberty and equality are incompatible, so the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty. A commitment to radical equality results in the proliferation of laws, state surveillance, police enforcement, prosecutions, incarcerations—and bureaucracies to administrate all of the above, and higher taxes to pay for all of it.

This is nowadays always justified with the argument that unlimited freedom leaves the field open to “fascism” (i.e., inequality), and that liberty must be curtailed in order to protect, guarantee, and maximize equality. We end up with a circular argument, then, whereby equality is good because it increases equality.

Immovable object?

Therefore, the single biggest impediment to the cause of Western man in the West is not lack of knowledge about race, but lack of a moral justification for valuing whiteness and everything it entails. Obviously, to value whiteness gives it a special status, which means inequality. In liberal morality, it is not acceptable to recognize whiteness, because it is a category that exists above the individual, and the individual is supposed to be the measure of all things, a tabula rasa, equivalent and interchangeable with any other individual.

In addition, modern liberalism incorporates a Marxist historiography in which whites are an oppressor class and people of color an oppressed class. This is explicitly the historiography of the postcolonial theory that is taught in Western universities, which privileges the voices of the colored “oppressed.” These voices subject whiteness and the West to radical deconstruction and criticism. Whiteness is, in fact, allowed recognition only when it is linked to oppression; in any other context, a black person has the specificity of his blackness, but a white person has the unspecificity of being simply a human, who is no different from or more special than anyone else.

Thus, belief in the moral goodness of equality is the seemingly immovable object that stands in the way. If politics is the art of the possible, then any campaign predicated on values outside the perimeter of what is morally acceptable—i.e. outside liberal morality—will not be politically possible.

The cause for Western man requires a fundamental shift in consciousness that would begin with a thorough discrediting of the notion that equality is a moral good. Until this has been achieved, ethnic politics privileging whiteness in the West will go nowhere, and it will remain easy for the liberals to shut down debate with the simple expression of outrage and name-calling.

Time horizons

Critics of this view may object that while it may be true that a change of politics will require a change of moral system, the time necessary to achieve this is too long and no longer available to us.

This objection assumes that challenging liberal morality is an entirely new project that must begin from zero. In fact, liberal morality, like all ideological moral systems, is merely a transient phenomenon, whose present dominance conceals the long tradition it once successfully challenged. Since ancient times and until the more recent part of the modern era, Westerners have considered quality more important than equality. Consequently, there is a vast philosophical canon to draw from, recover, reinterpret, and adapt to the modern world. Indeed, this has been the project of the European New Right, and The Fourth Political Theory, by Dugin, is an important contribution to this effort that outlines possibilities for a way forward, though any fourth political theory towards a post-liberal West would necessarily need to be home-grown and have a uniquely Western formulation.

The objection also partakes, inadvertently, in liberal cosmology, which conceives historical processes as linear progressions. In fact, as communism demonstrated, when power changes hands, the transition is not incremental but abrupt, with dissent gestating almost invisibly at first, under the surface, before growing exponentially, achieving critical mass, and producing a sudden change in state. This is also the way transformations occur in nature and the universe.

Liberal morality will eventually collapse. The question in the West is whether it will give way to another, autochthonous morality or to the morality of our conquerors. If the former, historians of the future will probably not see us as a rupture, but as yet another reinvention of European man within his wider metacultural tradition; they are likely to see liberalism as a political-moral-philosophical paradigm that came and went, the way others had come and gone before. Historians of the future may mark the periods of history differently from us, and by tracing the origins of our ideas, may decide that this reinvention was the culmination of a process that had begun centuries before.

Conservative commentators, such as Pat Buchanan, blame the multicultural society in the West on the Frankfurt School of Social Research and other such Freudo-Marxist subversion, and place the watershed moment of social transformation in the 1960s. Mr. Buchanan is, however, a liberal, albeit of a more classical or archaic sort than his critics, who are also liberals. We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment, of which the United States (but not the colonies out of which it was organised) is an expression. European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation available to all.

The question in the West is how much territory we will lose before we can successfully discredit liberal morality. Curtailing those losses will require the artificial precipitation within liberalism of a moral and intellectual crisis that puts current morality on the defensive, generates doubt and loss of confidence in its principles, and leads eventually to panic, overreaction, and loss of credibility. The speed at which this can be achieved depends on complex factors, not to mention a measure of good fortune, but modern technology enables us to communicate and disseminate ideas more rapidly, more widely, and more cheaply than ever before.

Theory into practice

In any movement there are five planes of operation: the intellectual, the strategic, the organisational, the activist, and the man in the street. The first four are the movement proper and the latter is its target, which can be divided into three categories: the committed, who cannot be persuaded either for or against; the persuadable, who are the primary target for recruitment; and the conformist, who is apolitical and will follow whomever looks like a winner.

The activist will be useless, even counter-productive, unless his message and his arguments are informed by a sound, appropriate, and articulable moral theory; unless he is organised to operate credibly and effectively; and unless his organisation has strategies that can translate abstract theory into a pragmatic, results-oriented program of action.

The discrediting of liberal morality will need to be a process that begins with theoretical tracts and ends with protests, sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, and a pattern of establishment compromises and capitulation. The general theory will need to find its way into an endless barrage of narrowly defined, single-issue, winnable campaigns. It will be up to each individual to decide his preferred tactic and field of operation, based on his own strengths, weaknesses, experience, and areas of expertise. In this sense the opportunities are endless.

In the battle for the West the main obstacle in the Anglo-American world has been its aversion to theory. Anglo-Saxon man is pragmatic by nature, not given to philosophical speculation. He prefers to deal in the concrete and the factual. This problem is compounded by the fact that the United States—the world’s dominant power—is an Enlightenment project, whose founding documents were formulated by classical liberals in accordance with their philosophy. United States institutions may have fallen into the hands of hostile elites, but the liberal values of liberty, equality, democracy, and progress remain strong, and are, in fact, exploited by these elites to advance their interests. Theory is important. A way around this is to focus on morality, because Anglo-Saxon man is deeply preoccupied with morality.

The breakthrough will have been achieved when homo equalis is filled with deep feelings of shame when he is confronted with his own beliefs.


The destruction of liberal morality will cause the collapse of liberalism. However, the collapse of liberalism will not necessarily mean that the individual values that comprise it will henceforth all be beyond the pale. It may be that not all of liberalism is bad and some of its constituent parts can be repurposed within a different set of value relations. If so, they will not be recognized as part of liberalism.

Also, while theory is important, this does not mean that everyone reading this should become a theoretician. For the Marxist, his theory is everything, but the anti-racist thugs who disrupt conferences and other events, while a product of Marxism, are unlikely to have ever read Marx, for they can hardly read their own names.

Final words

Ultimately, the problem of race realism is reducible to a single idea: that it is not the facts, but how people feel about the facts. The barriers that have limited or prevented the communicability of our proposition will only start to fall away when the value of whiteness can be expressed in righteous tones.


See also The liberal axiom,”
which could be used as a corollary to Kurtagic’s piece.

14 replies on “Egalitarianism is evil”

Kurtagic wrote: “Fascism and National Socialism fell into discredit after the war and, due to their being inegalitarian ideologies, became shorthand for evil.” And also: “The breakthrough will have been achieved when homo equalis is filled with deep feelings of shame when he is confronted with his own beliefs.”

Deep feelings of shame. I insist that a Nietzschean transvaluation of egalitarian values back to pre-Christian inegalitarianism can be started by means of a Jedi trick performed on hyper-moralist Anglo-Saxons: a very angry, though eloquent, spoken word; specifically, through the Hellstorm message that places the burden of guilt on the Allied forces, not on the Germans.

Remember also the entry that I have already linked many times, which contains these words:

With the dollar collapse and the complete breakdown of our economical (and then political) world order, mass starvation will spread like a wildfire across the southern hemisphere. This since their population numbers are not supported by themselves, but entirely backed by us. It will all fall apart.

So the concrete effect of Christian ethics here is to make the number of people that will die in starvation and suffering as high as possible once it hits (we are speaking of billions thanks to Christian ethics). Only the devil himself could think out such a brutally cruel scheme, and Christian ethics of course, in which case it’s according to the idiom “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Hope that this will produce deep feelings of shame among millions of liberals, or at least their offspring…

Whites also need to feel deep feelings of shame for having exalted an evil racial-religious cult of murderous liars as “God’s chosen people”, or “moral leaders” for so long.

Of course egalitarianism is evil, it’s a lie, which like all lies, results in eventual chaos and degeneracy. Not that that seems to phase this world of lies and decay.

Yes, everything is rooted in morality.

Here is part of a comment I’ve just posted on C-C:

They think of themselves as kind and generous, when in fact they are stupid and egoistic.

More than stupid and egoistic, they are evil, in the true, un-Christian, sense of the word. This assertion needs to be repeated until it loses its new and bizarre status and becomes an accepted fact. They are evil. They cause evil. Their adversaries wouldn’t cause as much evil as they do. We hold the higher moral ground.

The negation of human nature is the root of all evil and sad things on Earth. When you dig deep enough into crime stories, suicide stories, animal mistreatment stories, and complex sociological, psychological or environmental problems, you will find that these problems could have been prevented from appearing, or at least reduced, by an understanding of HBD/sociobiology and appropriate culture/policies.

As Alex Kurtagic brilliantly and concisely summarized in this TOO article, liberalism has ensured its cultural hegemony through appeals to morality, hence why every attempt to destroy it intellectually hitherto failed. Any attempt at creating a living and active pro-HBD/pro-white culture must therefore be sanctioned by the idea of higher moral ground. Be inspired by what has been successful.

I insist on the last idea: we must root our fight in a higher moral ground. Everyone is sensible to moral arguments, except psychopaths.

As part Slav Kurtagic, a believer in race realism, must support the idea of Neuordnung Europas, “the creation of a pan-German racial state structured according to National Socialist ideology to ensure the supremacy of an Aryan-Nordic master race, massive territorial expansion into Eastern Europe through its colonization with German settlers, … and the extermination, expulsion, and enslavement of most of the Slavic peoples and others regarded as “racially inferior”.

American liberalism and progressivism, (Woodrow Wilson) supported segregation. How does Kurtagic explain the existence of the 2nd Klan if liberalism denied race realism. The reason race realism does not receive acceptance today is because white ethnic groups will not buy into the notion that they may be racially inferior and thus join with Jewish interests to pervert liberalism from its initial purpose of protecting the individuals right to discriminate, as opposed to protecting groups from discrimination.

Why, then, promote it? The basic position of classical liberalism is that free institutions cannot exist in a heterogeneous environment. It matters not whether the variant collective is equal or unequal. It matters only that they cannot co-exist in the same polity and maintain the right to freedom of association.

When I first read this I penned my reaction to Kurtagic’s article:

Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy. They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality.

In fact, there are good reasons for conjoining what is to what ought, and the divorce between the two, a modern consequence of positivism, is one reason that we are in the mess we are. The foundations of morals presumes a natural order, otherwise all is arbitrary. Morality must be consistent with this natural order- the natural moral law known through reason in conjunction with empirical study. Natural law is grounded in the idea of essentialism, that is, the understanding that things/processes have an intrinsic nature or essence, and that this nature is discoverable. And because they have a nature, they have a natural end. Hence, an objective morality would take that into account, and act in accordance with these essences with a view to their natural end. Tradition has always understood this, and made the necessary practical arrangements, however liberalism abandons tradition by denying real essence, or more correctly, positing a false essence for things, and as such violates nature and the natural order.

We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment… European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation available to all.

Here are two notions that must be parsed. First, notions about liberty and equality are certainly recognizable Enlightenment schemes, however within Western thought its principal exponent came before, and can be found in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, arguably the first liberal. What Hobbes understood, but what people today are just beginning to understand, is that liberty and equality are contradictory notions, and one cannot have both within civil society. For Hobbes, all men in nature were equal in liberty, and as a result possessed equal right (the “Right of Nature”). However, Hobbes correctly understood that this condition was incompatible with civil order, and that for civil society to manifest, both had to be abandoned through the creation of the sovereign, via the “artificial” covenant. Today, liberals (both modern leftists and classical libertarian) do not quite understand this intrinsic incompatibility between liberty and equality, and because of it are hopelessly confused.

Mr. Kutagic’s second notion, Christian metaphysics, is really simplified by the author (perhaps because of space, and the limitations of his audience), and because of it becomes too trite, and perhaps misleading. First, the notion of all men being created in God’s image is not, strictly speaking, a Christian notion, but one borrowed from the Jewish tradition. Also, the idea of men being formed in God’s image can be seen in pagan society, one example being Aristophanes’ myth in Plato’s Symposium, where the comic poet discusses the original form of man being in the form of the cosmic (not Olympian) gods.

Be that as it may, the metaphysical ground for Christianity’s universalism is not the idea that all can be “saved”. The notion of salvation is itself secondary, and requires a prior, more fundamental ground. This prior ground stems from a scholastic modification of Classical Greek thought-specifically the Aristotelian hylomorphic composition of substance, where a man’s form is now taken to be the immortal soul, and since everyone has this soul (since everything material is a composition), everyone is “in essence” the same. Here, it is never asked whether all men actually possess a same or similar form? Really, the question is begged, and it is just presumed.

The way out of all this is not something new, but rather a recovery. It requires us to realize and accept that types of men are intrinsically different, and it requires basing morality and civil order on this very real difference. It requires a return to previously well understood Classical notions of justice, and abandoning wrongheaded ideas of individual right and metaphysical equality. Classical notions of justice are most eloquently detailed in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers who today are not paid much attention, but whose thinking must be recovered if there is to be any chance for an objective, rational order.

Finally, the ethnostate, championed by the late Wilmot Roberston and I believe some ENR thinkers, is perhaps the most practical political solution. Certainly, in our modern United States such a thing is impossible.

what people today are just beginning to understand, is that liberty and equality are contradictory notions

It took Will Durant more than three decades to write the monumental The Story of Civilization. After finishing the ten volumes of the Story, it followed the essay The Lessons of History where he explained his broadest conclusions about history:

So the first biological lesson of history is that life is competition. The second biological lesson of history is that life is selection. We are all born unfree and unequal. Nature loves difference. Inequality is not only natural and inborn, it grows with the complexity of civilization.

Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies. Leave man free, and their natural inequalities will multiply almost geometrically, as in England and America in the nineteen-century under laissez-faire.

Utopias of equality are biologically doomed.

Im what you would call the common man. 25 years old veteran, work at an ammunition plant. I’ve noticed an increased awareness that equality and egalitarianism is evil, even tho the masses do not know that they feel this way. I was witness to a young white woman telling a mixed race male pursuing her that she was white and only liked white men because there were already plenty of blacks and that the white race didn’t need to be corrupted by interracial dating. This woman was not of above average intelligence, if the simple are beginning to understand the dilemma of Europeans in the 21st century there may be hope yet!

The Golden Rule can lead to two different normative systems: Conservative Morality, in which the greatest sin is the killing of one’s own offspring, requiring large families, and Liberal Ethics, in which the greatest sin is the killing of one’s neighbours, requiring small families. The quintessential yardsticks are abortion and the holocaust. By driving a wedge between them, you destroy Golden Rule-ism.
N.M. Valdez pointed out on VNN and Stormfront that social darwinism can be used just as easily against Whites, as well as that social darwinism would make it impossible to punish crime as commonly understood. Abagond made the same point that if Whites aren’t punished, one can’t punish a common burglar either.
It is not just Christianity that is f.cked up, it is the very core of human morality that is questionable. Nevertheless, Black people treat Black-on-Black crime totally differtent from the interests of the Black race. Jews follow the same ingroup-outgroup morality. A double standard, like in Judaism and Islam, causes its own problems, as can be seen in the triangle war between Israel, Saudi-Arabia and Iran. There is no easy way out.

Comments are closed.