Monday, 5 June 2017


The Khmer Rouge brought bone-deep equality to the citizens of Cambodia.

by Andy Nowicki

“Equality” is one of the hoariest cliches and most pernicious slogans of modern times. Said to derive from a supposedly common-sense notion of fairness, the mad clamor underway to equalize the human race in fact has no basis whatsoever in justice or reality, human or otherwise. 

Indeed, the idea of equality is almost inevitably deeply debasing to a culture; pushing for greater “equality” does nothing to make the dumb smart, the ugly beautiful, or the poor rich; instead, it only makes nearly everything—be it fashion, the arts, language, commerce, or general human interaction— duller, less pleasant, less orderly, less desirable, and infinitely more tacky, tawdry, and loathsome. 

More crucially, the ramming of equality down our collective gullet requires the construction of a hateful bureaucracy to monitor, control, and altogether enslave the very people it supposedly wishes to uplift and empower. The imposition of equality, that is, requires the self-appointment of a vanguard elite who arrogate to themselves the task of being the equalizers. Thus the attempt to construct a society of “equals” invariably leads to perpetual exercise of tyranny.

But how did we get to the point where this obviously insane concept came to be enshrined as an ideal? And why, after the untold carnage, horror, and heartbreak it has caused, do we still view equality as a thing worth pursuing, worth sacrificing for, a patriotic duty even?

The term “equality,” of course, isn’t exactly new; it first sprung up as a vogue among the Western intellectual elite over two centuries ago. It in large part inspired two major political upheavals, one in America and the other in France. Upon deciding to be unencumbered states, representatives of the thirteen former English colonies in the New World signed the Declaration of Independence, which holds it to be “self-evident” that “all men are created equal”; meanwhile, those guillotine-happy men of Gaul made “egalite” one of their watchwords of revolution.
"All men are created equal?...Say WHAT, TJ?"

Far be it from me to mock and deride America’s founding fathers—they were in many ways an impressive lot. Still, their collective signing on to the concept of mankind’s equality was an astoundingly stupid gesture, which has ushered in all kinds of ideological mischief. Whatever Thomas Jefferson’s reason for including the phrase in the Declaration of Independence, this ill-defined assertion of men’s equality is vexingly vague. “All men are equal,” how exactly? Equal under the law? Equal in the eyes of God? Equal, as in “deserving the same level of income as everyone else”? TJ doesn’t say. And the matter is complicated, since—as has often been pointed out in our selectively iconoclastic age—this supposed believer in the self-evidence of human equality was also an owner of slaves.

The French revolutionaries, for their part, weren’t content merely to cozy up to abstractions. Their tireless quest was to make society much more equal by bringing the mighty low: specifically, to cut the “one percent” of their time down to size by rendering them a whole head shorter. Thousands perished in this orchestrated reign of terror, whose main aim was to promote and promulgate equality.
Meanwhile, in France...

Once the Bolsheviks seized power in 20th-century Russia, joined later by the Maoist regime in China and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the stakes were magnified. Now millions, and tens of millions, would be put to death for the singular crime of not being properly “equal” with their fellow men. Across the world, the quest for equality has led to carnage unequaled by any previous era in history. 

One would have thought, by now, that demagogic demands to “level the playing field,” as the sinister euphemism goes, would be utterly rejected as gauche and tasteless, given the moldering mound of corpses whose pitiful and poignant stink reminds us that equalitarian rhetoric seems inextricably tied with state-sanctioned mass murder. We live in a time, after all, when any criticism of Jews is treated, in respectable circles, with extreme reflexive suspicion, if not outright hostility. Because of the bloody Shoah of recent history, one who calls Jews to task for anything in any manner or context is punished with banishment from polite society and the imputation of being complicit in genocide; such a one might as well wear a scarlet swastika sewn across his chest, like a post-modern day Hester Prynne.

But of course, not all of history’s victims are held to be equal in stature; as George Orwell famously observed, some are indeed much “more equal” than others. Thus it seems to make no difference how many tens of millions have been beheaded by the guillotine, executed in the killing fields, or sent to Siberia to starve, all for the offense of seeming to be more prosperous or of a higher social strata than the average citizen, and thus rousing the ire of a murderous revolutionary regime demanding that the high be brought low (or, as the Hutus in Rwanda broadcast their genocidal designs prior to indulging in a luridly nightmarish three weeks of unfathomably promiscuous slaughter, that the “tall trees” be cut down)… No, it seems clear that no matter how many have been ground into dust under the tyranny of enforced “equalization,” demands to make things more “equal” will continue to be not only tolerated, but approved. Those who agitate for equality are still viewed as righteous crusaders for justice, rather than properly judged as shrieking nuisances spitefully waging a campaign of terror against tradition, logic, and reality.
Rwandan equality

It was, I suppose, only a matter of time before the relentless clamoring for “gay marriage”—that is, the demand that a millennia-old institution to be suddenly redefined based on a decade-old whim of the ruling class—got reframed as a matter of “equality.” The fact that a man and a woman can get married but not two men or two women, means that things aren’t “equal” on the marriage front (so it is asserted); therefore the law must be changed to accommodate those who feel left out (or at least those among the “left out” whose cause is favored by the hive-mind of the Zeitgeist-upholders; polygamists, having as they do the flavor and complexion of ultra-conservative patriarchy, are TSOL in the new dispensation, while incestuous couples are just seen as icky and are reflexively dismissed, though in truth no legitimate reason exists to reject either innovation under the new rules, given that everyone involved is a consenting adult).
Again, one would have thought, given the equality-brigade’s altogether crummy human-rights track record throughout recent history, that those stridently demanding what is now called “marriage equality” would be looked at askance for employing such rhetoric. Indeed, if the merest whiff of sanity prevailed among the fetid fumes of our brain-dead Zeitgeist and its uncritical adherents who man our opinion-shaping institutions, then the invocation of “equality” would set off the same warning bells that “hate” now does among the highly-placed and powerful and their eager lapdogs and water-carriers. In such a world, an outfit called “equality-watch” would be keeping a wary eye on equality-agitators. 
An emblem of murder, hate, and horror

As it stands, the SPLC’s “hate watch” has conniptions whenever any skinhead with an iron cross tattoo on his neck appears to sneer threateningly at an illegal immigrant, and it completely flips its lid anytime a small group of clean-cut, suit-and-tied white activists want to hold a weekend seminar in a medium-sized hotel ballroom somewhere in the United States. But far-greater malefactions are excused, or even defended, if left-leaning equalitarians commit them. (A semi-famous Hollywood actress can even wish catastrophic death upon a group of convention-goers who don’t meet her definition of “enlightened,” and nobody important seems to care, since even if her words were imprudent at least she’s on the side of the angels.

Again, as we see, the legacy of genocide, terror, and tyranny that the push for equality has engendered makes absolutely no difference; equality will remain perversely sacrosanct among our cultural betters; it will continue to be trumpeted as a good in itself, an end unquestionably worthy of fulfillment, and its conspicuous historical dark side will be downplayed, if not completely ignored. In Europe and North America, the wish to impose “equality” now carries a more and more pronounced anti-white subtext; its advocates tend to be deracinated white liberals (or SWPLs, as they are now called) who have imbibed poisonous cultural Marxism like mother’s milk, and who flatter themselves as being the vanguard of the ongoing societal revolution, ridiculously romanticizing the cultures of urban blacks, barrio Latinos, and other ethnic minorities, while viewing their conservative Middle American racial brethren with an unhinged, embittered hostility worthy of an Ellen Barkin Twitter hissy-fit.

But the truth is a mighty ally, and those of us who know better than to believe what we’re told should never hesitate to point out that our would-be vanguard are naught but a bunch of smug, self-serving, and generally ignorant brainwashed clowns. And it is a grim irony not untinged with Shadenfreude that, should a real, brutal, balls-to-the-wall, no-bullshit revolution ever actually gain momentum, these useful idiots will no doubt be the first to face the firing squad.

(originally published September 20, 2012 at the "old" Alt Right)

Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Alternative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the NihilThe Columbine PilgrimConsidering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. Visit his Soundcloud page, and his author page Alt-Right Novelist


  1. Khmer Rouge kind of equality has long been out of favor. No one wants it, no one believes in it.

    The problem with Equality today is that the least equal -- the privileged elites -- have perfected the art of owning 'equality' without practicing it. In the past, the elites tended to be reactionary or hierarchical, guarding their power and privilege on basis of blood, divine right of kings, sheer force(militarism), or superiority(social darwinism), or meritocracy(classical liberalism). That provided the Left with good reasons to oppose and challenge the Powerful.

    Today, the elites who hog just about everything own the rhetoric of 'equality' by associating it with stuff like homomania. This is GREAT to the elites since homos are vain & narcissistic and love to cater to the rich, powerful, and/or famous.
    Also, elites have sabotaged mass politics with Diversity. By associating equality with Diversity and Immigration, the masses are more divided than ever. So, they cannot unite to challenge the elites. The elites, with Jews being most powerful, can play divide-and-rule among white progs, white cons, browns, blacks, yellows, Muslims, Hindus, Arabs, etc. And by associating feminism with 'equality', we have a division of men and women among the masses, especially among whites. And by associating 'equality' with youth culture and immaturity, we have a whole bunch of generational gaps among boomers, x-ers, millennials, z-ers, etc.

    This leads to much frustration among progressives. Naturally, they should be targeting their ire at the richest and most powerful. But, the elites have perfected a way to be associated with 'equality' and 'progressivism' by waving the homo flag. So, progressives must find other targets.. and end up dumping on 'white working class trash' as the only acceptable target. But white working class got no power, esp in age of globalism.

    At any rate, equality doesn't work in reality even when accepted as ideology. Suppose there's a group of people with shared ideology of equality. But some individuals are tall, handsome, attractive, smart, sociable, and/or creative while others are fat, ugly, gross, dumb, socially inept, unattractive, and/or unappealing. Even if they all profess the same ideology, some will have far more success socially, academically, athletically, economically, sexually, professionally, creatively, and etc. So, even if they think 'equal', everything they do is unequal.

    I think SEPARATE PEACE by John Knowles gives us a glimpse into the mindset of current resentments. And we can get an honest look at the psychology in play because the novel isn't political. it's about social psychology. There is one kid who just has qualities that makes him likable and popular. It's not his ideology or view of life. He has a way about him that can disarm anyone, even teachers. He's a natural charmer. This leads to envy in his best friend who shakes the branch to make him fall from a tree.

    I think same kind of envy and resentment fires up many progressives. The fact is ideology will not determine their future. If there a bunch of progressives with the same ideology, the fact remains that the good-looking ones and smart ones(in majors like computers and technology and business) will be far more successful than other progressives who are ugly, un-creative, and/or into worthless majors like women's studies. So, the unsuccessful progs will resent the successful progs. But because of ideology, the socio-economic failures cannot be honest about their resentment. And since shared ideology makes it difficult for loser progs to attack winner progs(in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, Wall Street, Ivy League, etc), the loser progs direct all their ire at other losers like 'deplorables'. The problem is the deplorables got no power or privilege.

  2. "the privileged elites -- have perfected the art of owning 'equality' without practicing it"

    Excellent comment.
    Eqality has been commoditizd.

  3. Because equality is impossible, the ruling class of a society that embraces the ideology of equality must of necessity be hypocritical, which was the case in Communist countries and is now the case in the "free" West. There is no other way to maintain an illusion than in the form of a Lie.

    1. In the "classless" Soviet Union, Communist officials were allowed to shop in special stores stocked with foreign goods. Those stores were not open to the average Soviet worker.

  4. While the notion of human equality admittedly contains many snares, only someone who has no grasp of human nature would dispense with it. Since birth, all people want to be treated fairly and the bedrock of fairness is to be treated as the equal of one's peers and not to be singled out for punishment when others are doing the same thing.

    No, we aren't all equal. But that doesn't mean that a healthy society can be built on a foundation that denies the worth of all its citizens.

    1. There is a difference between "equality for the law" and equality of talent or character. A just society grants all its citizens equality for the law, but it cannot make all its citizens equally intelligent or equally hard working. Hence there will always be differences in wealth, power and prestige. Even in communist countries this was the case.

  5. Inherited political privilege was an insane system. Forced equality of outcomes was an overreaction. Just get rid of the inherited privilege.

    If everyone was equal you wouldn't need force to make them equal.

    1. If everyone were equal there would be no geniuses or morons or mediocres.

  6. Only people who consider themselves inferior demand equality.

  7. The Declaration of Independence was a propaganda document written when America was in a war for survival and desperate for support from European intellectuals. The Constitution America created after they had won the war contained no hint of "all men are created equal."

  8. "I love liberty; I hate equality."

    - John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia



by Colin Liddell AUDIO VERSION AVAILABLE HERE In recent days, the news cycle has been dominated by so-called "racism" ...