Why Equalitarianism is Melanosupremacy
I started out by talking about the existence of what I call a culture of White shaming. But how did that get here? While it is never possible to fully explain an irrational hatred like melanosupremacy, what we can do is probe further into the foundational concepts that prop it up. And when we do that, we will discover that there is an undeniable connection between melanosupremacy and equalitarianism. This is the reason believing in equality and hatred of White people are so inseparable.
Put simply, the situations is this: equalitarians are people who want to believe that everyone is equal. Probing the reasons for this irrational desire would be an interesting post all to itself, but I won’t bother further with it here. Suffice to say, that an equalitarian believes in equality. And not just any equality. They believe in universal social equality, which essentially means that not only is everyone actually equal, but that everyone must be treated equally in society. After all, they reason, if everyone is equal, everyone should be treated equally. Fair enough—but the problem is, everyone is not equal. Equality is a lie. It’s just not true that everyone is equal. In fact, different groups are very unequal. The races and sexes are different, and thus unequal, and the same logic which tells us that equal things should be treated equally, tells us that unequal things should be treated unequally. And this is really a beautiful thing. But it is precisely this very reasonable understanding—that is, that equal things should be treated equally, and unequal things unequally—that is the problem, because, as it turns out, the world is full of inequality.
To argue that everyone is equal, equalitarians must argue that the undeniable inequalities that surround us—from visual and social preferences, body forms, behavior, and a host of others—do not flow naturally from Natural differences (i.e. inequalities). Since everywhere one turns in society, one sees inequalities of race (and to a much lesser extent, sex), the most logical assumption would be to conclude that these groups are Naturally unequal in some way, which has produced the inequalities we see. Since equalitarians are unwilling to accept this logical conclusion (as it would destroy their whole premise that everyone actually is equal), they must find some way to explain why the world is not equal. After all, if everyone really were born equal, than there would be no mechanism by which social and other inequalities could have arisen in the first place. Yet, there is not a culture or society on earth, nor has history ever found one in the past, which is not rife with physical and social inequality. Without an explanation from equalitarians, this fact alone would kill the notion of equality and render absurd any claim that society should strive for equal treatment.
Thus, equalitarians are trapped by the very social inequality they wish to point out and destroy: the very fact of its existence makes no sense unless everyone is actually NOT equal—or, unless equalitarians can find some other explanation. There is only one other way to explain the pervasive presence of inequality in social settings ever since recorded history: if it does not exist because it is rooted in Natural and real inequalities, than it must exist by the creation of somebody; it must be artificially constructed. That is to say, that everyone was born equal, but that some people deliberately denied others the equal treatment they were due, and constructed societies which ignored Natural equality thus inventing inequality. Of course, since equality is awesome, these people must be scum.
So, in order to argue that all are equal, you must argue that the inequality in the world was not brought about by Nature but rather was created by scum. Those scum, are scum not just because in this narrative, we love equality, but also because they have to be given a motive to explain why they went to all this trouble to construct an unnatural society based on an inequality that didn’t exist in fact. There can hardly be a good motive assigned to this, so the most logical motives are selfishness, greed, and worse still, raw wickedness. So, scum.
Thus we can now add something else to the definition of equalitarianism: a person who (a) believes in universal equality, (b) believes that all should be treated equally (i.e. social equality), and (c) believes that current inequalities in the world—particularly social inequalities—arose through the direct agency and deliberate invention of selfish people, rather than being produced by Natural inequalities (which they deny exist).
Here comes the big reveal—the point where equalitarianism meets melanosupremacy. In order to have a coherent theory of how all this came about, they can’t just say that somewhere, sometime in the past, there were some sort of selfish people who dreamed up the ideal of inequality. They can’t leave that “scum” sized place in their belief system to just a vaguely defined “some people, somewhere, sometime.” They have to name the bad guys, and that means they have to pick somebody to be the bad guys. Somebody has to take the blame for ruining the world for everyone by creating inequality in society. Somebody has to be the fall guy, the scapegoat. Once they have the “scum” identified, they can attack them and (in their minds) destroy the “evil” of inequality, but first, they have to find their victim. That victim, that scapegoat, was White people. We were made the fall guy for the lie that equality is Natural and exists in fact.
The result of being picked to be the scapegoat—the “scum” who constructed inequality in the world—is melanosupremacy. A society which sees Whiteness as “scum”: morally inferior, worthless, evil, and worthy of hatred, contempt, maltreatment, abuse, shame, guilt, and ultimately genocide.
Why did they choose White people? I suspect it had something to do with a combination of pre-existing racial hatred, probably due to jealously or natural competition, and the historical fact that at the time equalitarianism really started to arise as an ideology, Whites were (for the first time in world history) the most powerful race on the planet. Although a different group could have been picked just as well (after all, history and reality certainly don’t support any contention that White people are to blame for the existence of inequality) a different group was NOT picked. White people were picked. And the irony of this is, that in choosing to scapegoat Whiteness—to pathologize Whiteness—equalitarians are doing exactly what their own ideology claims is does not accept: providing different treatment based on race.
In the end, this fact goes to show how truly false the belief in factual equality is. Even the best belief system its proponents have devised (and I use the term “best” here to refer to its ability to lay claim to some sort of remotely rational thought process, rather than to its moral quality) cannot keep to its own rules, or produce—even in its own proponents—the “equality” they claim to seek. The bottom line is this: there is no such thing as equality. Equality is a lie, and social equality is a dangerous, unjust, unnatural, and thus wrong concept, which should not be pursued in society. It is a lie that produces hatred and injustice, and no healthy society is built on a lie—or injustice.
Seeing the Beauty of Inequality—And Using That Vision to Make Society More Just:
Some of what I have just written above, may find resistance even among some who have the best interests of White people in mind. They may be reluctant to give up a belief in the “goodness” of equality. That’s unfortunate, and I think it needs to be addressed. I have always appreciated the existence of inequality (both actual and social). But While I learned from Nature to love it, be attentive to it, and live by its truth, others were being taught by an unnatural society that it was a “bad” thing.
But all you need to do is look at what it has done to society—the very unjust and hateful doctrine of melanosupremacy—to see that seeking equality is not a good thing. It leads to loss, hatred, injustice, and pain. It is not the right way. In order to get rid of melanosupremacy—and indeed all the other negative consequences of trying to artificially install equality in society—we will have to abandon the entire worldview that teaches that equality is a good thing to be sought after.
For those who have always been told it was the only way however, this idea may seem scary. I think it is important that in dismantling the belief in social and factual equality we know what exactly a Naturally unequal society looks like, and also what inequality does NOT say about us or others in the world around us. So, I want to touch briefly on a few things that we should understand about this. All of these things will likely be explored much more later (and there is much more to this whole discussion), this is just a quick sampling:
Inequality is a Positive Thing:
I’ll just mention a few of the positive aspects of inequality:
- It is built into, and satisfies, our innate psychology in many ways
- It can deepen relationships, through creating a cooperative relationship, and can save all sides from costly or dangerous clashes by clearly marking competitors from cooperators
- It makes our identities possible by designating and creating them, and thereby fosters our ability to racially belong
- It helps to provide order, and value to those within that order
- It is a necessary pre-condition for diversity. That’s right. Equalitarians continually use the terminology of diversity, but they don’t really like it. To make people equal is to make them the same, and once they are the same, there is no diversity. Someone who truly loves diversity will want to maintain the differences (i.e. inequalities) between living creatures on earth.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. It is just a sampling, intended to offer up the—dare I say radical—proposition: inequality is a good thing.
Inequality is not Injustice:
Unfortunately, inequality has been sold to society today as an injustice. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. As a way of providing order in society by structuring it, due to all the other benefits it has to offer, and due, even if nothing else, soley on the fact that it is called for by Nature, it is not unjust (when set up Naturally, of course. Unnatural inequalities are not much if any better than artificial equality). In fact, it is justice. You simply don’t have a right to equality or equal treatment. Therefore, not getting it cannot be an injustice. Injustice is when you are actually denied a Natural right.
Natural rights such as your right to life, and freedom, and all other truly Natural rights are not done away with by doing away with a requirement for equality. In fact, focusing more on one-on-one relationships, rather than the unbalanced considerations called for by any equality based analysis, would enhance our individual and group rights. It would mean that we could focus on what exactly A can’t do to B under any circumstances, rather than what A can’t do to B, merely if A doesn’t also do it to C. That means more protection for actual rights, not less.
Understand that “different” is not a value judgment:
Too many people hold onto their ideas of equality because they have been sold a false bill of goods: they have been told that if you are not equal you are worthless. The way equalitarians talk about inequality, it is as if differences themselves can never be anything but judgments on worth. To the equalitarian all differences = a value judgment: if there is a difference, someone is “superior” and someone “inferior.”
This is just not true. “Different” does not mean better or worse by default. “Different” just means different. Different groups of organisms have different strengths and weakness on account of their differences. This means they are not equal, but it does not mean that any of them (if they are Natural groups) are superior to others in a holistic and objective sense, or that any are worthless, or that they should be “ranked” in importance. Of course, having different strengths and weaknesses means that each group will be better and worse at some things, but holistically (as a whole) and objectively (that is, not considered in terms of relational preferences and duties) their value is not effected: all have infinite value. The existence of differences does not create a dominance structure between different groups (the sexes do have a dominance structure between them, but that is not strictly speaking due to the existence of differences between them). To believe in inequality is not to be a supremacist.
In fact, these inequalities actually enhance value, since they offer a unique “niche” or place in the wider order that can best be filled by one group or another. This designation of place gives a group an important function, and thus enhances their value.
So, different means different, and unequal does not mean worthless. And, believing in inequality does not make you any sort of supremacist. On the other hand, as we just discovered, believing in equality DOES make you a supremacist.
You can’t blame one Race for ruining the world—that is wrong:
Look people, you just can’t scapegoat a whole race of people, blame them, shame them, and disempowered and abuse them in society, by claiming they are responsible for ruining the world. Not only is that absolutely false on its face (for heaven’s sake, is it really logical to claim that all the problems can be blamed on one group?) and in history, but it is simply wrong. To blame someone for something so obviously false, and then hurt them for it is a crime against “humanity” and all of Nature. What is being done to the White community world-wide is the worst thing that has ever been done to any race. It needs to be changed, and the only way to do that, is to come to grips with—and I will say, come to appreciate—the reality and beauty of inequality. A belief in equality forces you to become a supremacist – as it stands now, a melanosupremacist.
The truth of inequality will keep on coming out, and you just can’t keep railroading an innocent race and people, and abusing them, to avoid having to face that reality. Blaming White people to uphold the myth of equality has got to stop. The White community has rights, White people have rights, and you can’t mistreat and abuse us just to convince yourself that equality is real. That’s WRONG.