Few People Really Believe In Equality

Here at Return of Kings we realize that we have a lot of female readers. On rare occasions, we offer them our world-class advice, considering that the masculine and the feminine are innately linked together. You cannot raise or lower one without doing the same to the other. Therefore, it is in our best interest for you ladies to be the best you that you can be.

Many women complain about how hard it is to get men to notice them in online dating. Having been on these sites myself, I find that women usually vomit their thoughts onto paper and hope a guy “just loves me for who I am,” as though the stars will bring them one by virtue of wanting one. But in the grown-up world, no one cares about you as an individual. All relationships are innately transactional, and you’ve got to bring something to the table beyond your charming personality (or lack thereof).

I’ve found that internet dating is like a thrift store: lots of junk that needs to be discarded, but once in a while you’ll find something you love. Ladies, you do not get to decide what men find attractive in women any more than men get to decide what women find attractive in them. Men like two things in women: 1) pretty girls 2) who are pleasant to be around. You will need to present yourself as both.

Pretty Girls

All the make-up and hair-styling will not do you any good if you are overweight. Men are not interested in “big beautiful women” who are “curvy,” even if they only have “a few extra pounds.” If you only post a headshot, we can still tell. Don’t insult us.

If this describes you, make sure you write that you exercise five times a week. Lie if you need to, because at least then you won’t look lazy and gluttonous. But really, you can find thirty minutes a day in your lonely single life to hit the treadmill. If you are not overweight, write about exercising anyway and post a full body picture. Your full body picture should vary based on what you desire: if you want a cheap hook-up, then wear a bikini or the shortest shorts money can buy from Wal-Mart.

If you want a long term relationship, however, then wear a dress. It should be something conservative and slightly formal (i.e. don’t dress like a hippie). However, one mistake I often find with these girls is that they often don’t post a clear picture of their face. I can still tell they are probably attractive, but their inattention to detail has not been lost on me, and I make a mental note to condition it out later.

Grow your hair long, and don’t wear sweatpants in any of your photos. Use makeup, but don’t use so much that it is the only thing he will notice. The way you present yourself to the world says a lot about you as a person.

Who Are Pleasant To Be Around

I realize you were told to be what you want in someone else, but they were referring to virtues like honesty and selflessness, not personality traits. “im funny sarcastic and always have a great wit” is code for “obnoxious.” Very few women are actually funny, and men don’t expect that from them anyway. This is a classic example of women thinking men want what they themselves want. Even if a woman really can make a man laugh, it doesn’t help her much. Ladies, cut learning this trait out of your life, and certainly don’t fake it. On the off chance that you naturally have it, use it sparingly. No man wants to bang the class clown.

Mention that you like cooking. Again, feel free to lie. Take a night in your lonely single life and learn to make one dish really well. After two or three times, take a picture of yourself with it. Post it on your profile but not as your main picture, since the extra pictures are supposed to be the day-to-day real you. Now not only do you have something to contribute to parties and family reunions, but you have something to impress him with on the second date. Yes, it’s sexist and patriarchal, but you have a choice: You can either be an independent, liberated woman and queen of the cats, or you can attract men on internet dating.

Above all, do not be weird. When OKCupid says “6 Things I Could Never Live Without,” do not take that literally. You would be amazed at all the girls who write “chapstick.” This absolutely baffles me. Does chapstick have some special use off the label? Does it cure the common cold? Why are your lips constantly chapped? Are you just that neurotic and obsessive compulsive? It’s like all the women in the country got together in the bathroom and decided to pull a prank on the men.

Do not mention animals in your profile. There are a variety of theories for why this is, but it is a red flag to men when a woman loves animals. If you have four diabetic cats all named after the Beatles, save that for after you’ve been on a few dates. Even if your dog is the most important thing in your life, he won’t be offended if you betray him by pretending he doesn’t exist for a few weeks.

If you are a feminist, into women’s lib, or a women’s studies major, do not mention that until the fifth date after you’ve already cooked for him and generally shown you are not crazy. There’s a strong stigma attached with those labels, and claiming them will make a man go running for more patriarchal girls. Even saying “I believe in equality for both sexes” usually translates into “men are pigs.” Unfair maybe, but such is the world of marketing.

As a final note about writing your profile, people will judge you by your grammar. You will look stupid and lazy if you don’t even capitalize the first word of a sentence. People will overlook not using “whom,” but you cannot claim that you should be valued for your personality when you’re not smarter than a fifth grader. Also, put a lot of detail in your profile. Don’t write a dissertation, but don’t merely write “if u want to know anything just ask :).”


So you’ve placed your strategic advertisement and cast out lines. Now what? The woman in that article only picked ten men at a time. How entitled! You are on internet dating because you have failed in real life. You do not get to be picky. Cast out a line to every guy who might conceivably be what you are looking for. It does not hurt you to message back and forth with someone. For all you know, he might be as bad at crafting a profile as you were. And if you are divorced, an unwed mother, or past your 20s, then you need to greatly expand your upper age limit.

The days of courting are over. A guy will not spend a lot of money on the first date because he doesn’t know if the investment will pay off. When he takes you out to Captain D’s, dress nice anyway. Not prom nice or even church nice, but certainly better than you dress for school. Let your hair hang down and consider a dress. Basically, look like something he’d want to make love to, whether in the near future or not until after the wedding. It’s concerning how women dress like men and then complain when men aren’t attracted to them. Feminine females get masculine men.

Don’t brag about your education or work accomplishments, because we aren’t turned on by them. Seriously, we aren’t, even if we ask you about them. Your leadership skills are irrelevant unless they involve small children. Even if a man says, “I want a confident career woman,” he’s only parroting that because he was told to. Remember, you do not get to choose what men find attractive in women. There’s a golden moderation between being strong and being clingy, and it’s skewed a bit closer to the clingy side.

Finally, do not play hard to get. Again, this is women thinking men like what women like. If you like a guy, be very easy to get. This does not mean be easy to bang but just to non-verbally communicate you want to be with him. If a guy thinks you are not interested, he will likely move on to the next girl. The world is full of pretty young girls, and he will take the path of least resistance.


Follow this advice, and you’ll have actual success on internet dating. My goal in this article is not to convince you to give up your soft-feminist values but merely to consider how you market yourself. Presentation is key in any advertising, and the sexual economy works much the same as the financial economy. If you put effort into your physical appearance and try to have the persona a man would want to be around, then men will notice your femininity, even if unconsciously. A man does not go onto those sites to look for a dude to hang with. You will never be his bro. Be what men want, and you will finally feel wanted.

Read More: American Girls Have No Game

122 thoughts on “Few People Really Believe In Equality”

    1. American women going through the entire day trying to imitate everything men do and say… becoming the opposite of feminine…

      1. That’s how much self-hate they have for feminine traits and virtues, they despise themselves and desperately want to be men. It’s pathetic, no wonder women aren’t happy.

      2. “American women going through the entire day trying to imitate everything men do and say… ”
        …hence the popularity of strapon porn?

  1. In my experience, at least in the United States, most people that state that they believe in equality do so for the sake of their feel-good “moral” superiority.

    1. I believe in equality of race under law, not the Jim Crow laws. Laws that people of color aren’t allowed to read, for example, are pretty ridiculous according to me. but what do I know.

      1. In my opinion they absolutely are ridiculous. Jim Crow is not any more desirable than blaming whitey because a guy slipped and fell somewhere in Africa.
        A lot of these guys on here are ” Alphas,” that I don’t begrudge. But I’m always going to be a “Sigma.” Having my own foot on someone else’s neck is rotten, too.
        I think a lot of guys go to far with the racial talk in the ‘sphere. It’s a reaction to being told that everything is your fault, despite them not having the power to fix anything.
        I can’t muster enough anger to truly hate- I imagine it’s the same for a lot of guys here. It gets really old being blamed for everything under the sun. I’m sure that’s true for men of other races too.

    1. Feminism is the visual manifest of women’s inherent inferiority complex. Women want to erode every and all things objectively superior to them(read: male influence and values) because they can never match these things. In my quiet moments I pity them – really.
      They seek “equality” but they don’t really know what it means nor what it would look like.
      Its a technique of the lower classes to use all forms of subterfuge to attempt t bring anything above it down to its level to feel better about itself. Kid yourself not: women and feminists aren’t happy people.

      1. It does seem that women are rarely happy for any extended period. And their happiness seems to be a constantly moving target.

        1. Because happiness can’t be bought or passed on. it ain’t something that is achieved through flattery or expensive stuff. To be truly happy, one has to be virtuous, and to be virtuous one has to learn to find comfort where those that are weak find pain and suffering. Where a weak man covers in fear, a virtuous man stands boldly.
          The thing is, in this day and age, society has made it so that women simply aren’t expected to posses any sign of virtue, while we are taught almost from day one that nobody ain’t going to give a shit if we don’t demonstrate some form of excellence, be that in our character or skill.
          Example: one of my dear friends, failed his senior year in high school. To teach him a lesson, his father made him work in his construction firm for the summer. It was a lesson my friend would never forget, he came back to school after summer a changed person. Ended up becoming a straight A student. He is currently on his second year in college and judging by his

        2. …I think its because they’re only happy when they’re “getting”, but supremely unhappy when they’re “having”.

        3. True. Seems like when they get what they want, they either don’t want it anymore or make additional demands. It never seems to end-there’s no contentment.

        4. This is the kind of white knighting we’re up against. A boy can be brutalised, but a girl has to be kid-gloved. This is why men will step on each other’s faces to get ahead, and may soon end up pitted against each other in war, defending the ‘honour’ of their princesses who’ve been whores to other men. Meanwhile the princesses are literally like royalty, enjoying the spectacle (drama) their court jesters and warriors are putting on for them. Even a tough guy construction boss, who’s spent his life leading other men and contending for contracts, can’t break with the sugar and spice narrative. And like you so eloquently said, it results in society having absolutely no expectation of the ‘fairer sex’.

        5. Great response Captain Nemo…virtue is what really distinguishes personal worth…in our day it will go largely unrecognized & unrewarded. A virtuous life is it’s own reward.

        6. I’ve noticed this ‘acquisition mania’, as I like to call it, too. This is why there’s good money in providing storage. My last wife & her Father (inherited wealth) were examples…laser like focus/obsession with what they wanted to ‘get’, but after the thing (or person) was acquired, near total neglect…on to obsessing over the next thing to ‘get’.

        7. A Virtuous life truly is it’s own reward. I laugh at people who attempt to mock my habits, they don’t understand that I don’t seek their approval or validation. The only Validation I seek is self-validation, and I achieve it by going everyday one step beyond the person I was yesterday.

        8. Those “things” are unable to make anyone truly happy in the long term. Nothing external is going to make you content and calm. Women depend on men, clothes, sex, jewelry, marriage and whatever else is in style to make them happy and its impossible.

      2. championing equality is a technique the ruling class uses to quieten the masses, so they can live in full luxury……

        1. The nice thing about a hottie who has been brainwashed is that you can fuck the feminism right out of her soul. After she’s cum on your cock a few times and become addicted, start demanding that she submit to the patriarchy while you’re bringing her to another climax. She’ll throw her feminism out the door faster than you can say “boo”.

        2. One thing I do, once it becomes apparent that a young lady is going to drop her panties for me, is ask her what her Deepest, Darkest, Greasiest Secret Fantasy is. There are two constants: “I wanna do another girl” and “Tie me up.”
          “Why certainly, I’d be delighted to.” *evil grin*
          And that’s why, childrens, I think, as I have posted elsewhere, that feminism is really a mis-guided slave rebellion. Of course, I’m also a bruiser, so I tend to attract submissive women. One supposes that girls who are not submissive–if they exist–go find some little, Timmy-half-a-fag type. *shrugs*
          À bientôt,

        3. Could be. Can’t say I’ve run into that very much other than in an “Every woman has a story”, sort of way.
          À bientôt,

        4. Not in my experience. The ones that most want to be dominated are the most secure. It’s the ones with the wounds that are strident about protecting themselves.
          Being dominated, being taken is at the heart of female sexuality. It’s not the whole story, for sure, but at its base level female sexuality is about being vulnerable.

        5. Exactly and that’s what feminism is, a way to try and protect themselves, a defense mechanism. Its a facade though, fuck/love her right and she will submit.

    2. An especially corrupt trade union(!) run by a brutish mob of dyke and haggard academics and journos and ugly, nerdy bloggers and headcases, usually female.

    3. If it is a union at all, it is a union that creates a new market. Pure capitalists!

    4. Low-SMV females perhaps are its adherents/henchmen.
      Feminationalsocialism is merely a cutting-edge of the eugenics/globalism movement.

    5. “Who was it that said feminism is a trade union for women with low sexual market value?”
      Every honest observer.

  2. no one actually believes in equality. it’s just the left’s idiot whistle to summon their frothing legions to chip away at the foundations of traditional, functional society

    1. Agreed. When the left shrieks on about equality, what they’re calling for is the destruction of the better at the behest of the lesser. They never, ever stress equality of responsibilities and duties to the lessers.

      1. That’s because they are governed by irrationality. Anyone who knows the value and truth to tradition knows the left is all about erosion of higher values in favor of the lower and disguising it as progress. “Equality” in the today sense is all about bringing us to little more than the lower animals

        1. They are governed by their religion. Progressives are progressing towards something. In their mind, they are progressing towards utopia. Utopia is a religious concept. They use social engineering as a kind of eugenics program; they want to artificially select humans to help guide our evolution. Once they have evolved humanity they will have their utopia. That is what they believe. This is their religion.

      2. It’s really boils down to politics. If you want to leverage the power of the working class how would you do that? You say, “you’re a victim, you need to elect me into office to represent you and fix this broken system.” Leftists use this strategy relentlessly on women, the poor, minorities, etc. Pretty much everyone except white men, who are demonized as the root of all evil. That’s the gist. This guy sums it up pretty well.

      3. Not always better but almost always white male, which is often enough better.
        And as it becomes harder to blame everything on “stupid white men” they will blame everything on white men even more.
        The decline of white America and the quality of life here will make us appreciate our ancestors and the Western world’s achievements.

    2. Total balance and equality, is a nice idea that “possibly” exists in the 2% of people. The others use the equality excuses to benefit their superiority views. It is a pipe dream…it can be applied but only in the minority charismatic people.

      1. Even amongst the 2%, equality as the leftist ideal does not exist. Many equality type movements in the U.S. went on during the 1800’s, many set up their own utopian societies. Not a damned one of them are standing today. Oneida belly flopped and eventually turned into a capitalist enterprise hawking silver, which is deliciously ironic in my view.

    3. The fear of inequality ultimately stems from a conflation of fairness, kindness, and all sorts of other virtues with equality, without which everybody hates each other and everything in the world is wrong.
      The left does not believe that people can be friendly, generous, polite, or sport a functional society unless we all thought each other equal. Ergo, their natural solution to people fighting over differences is something a child might conceive – to lie and tell everyone that there are no differences.

      1. Brilliant. Don’t think anyone could have said it better. It is a childish notion that is rammed down our throats at every turn for the modern man, everybody is equal and the middle class male is the enemy, the reason for all the ills of the world.

      2. “The left does not believe that people can be friendly, generous, polite, or sport a functional society unless we all thought each other equal”
        Exactly! This is the reason I want to spit in the face of every person that advocates the idea that school children should wear uniforms. What are they really trying to do? Teach the kids that we are “equals” or lie to them that we are. Seems a lot like the later. And that is why the weird kid will always end up eating a knuckle sandwich, because in a world of “equals”, those that are different are the perceived as enemy.

        1. I think uniforms are to limit rampant unbridled fashion competition/status whoring. The poor kids who have little to wear aren’t shown up. Helps identify them as being part of this or that school too. I’m not saying that they’re bad or good (I don’t know), but there may be some practical merits

  3. Great article man. You’re amazingly true about this. I think its only in an idealistic sense people want equality but it means something different for everyone.
    There is no true equality, however, as everything is constantly in flux and forever changing. Everything is evolving. Herd mentality tends to be very dangerous and is sycophantic indeed. Going with crowd consensus is throwing away your your spiritual and animal right to self-ownership – and all humans are not equal

    1. “Herd mentality tends to be very dangerous and is sycophantic indeed. Going with crowd consensus is throwing away your your spiritual and animal right to self-ownership…”
      Exactly, friend.
      And that’s the point of all “equality” movements.
      Please note, “equality” means “equal”, ie, “the same” or “identical”.
      No two people even look exactly the same (not even “identical” twins), not to mention speak in the same voice, think the same, etc.
      There’s a huge difference between preventing arbitrary discrimination [positive, allows anyone of any race, gender, creed to advance based upon demonstrable individual ability] and promoting unachievable, empty, and ultimately meaningless “equality”, which always leads to, as we see, arbitrary discrimination, as well as stymies individual motivation and effort to achieve, because, well, why get off the couch if we’re all equal already?

  4. Equality is a complete fallacy. No 2 humans are ever equal. We each have our own skills, talents, advantages, disadvantages, the list goes on. It’s all feel good bullshit from the liberal mindset. Men make a bit more per hour than women but it’s because we carry the bulk of the financial responsibilities through life. Not to mention we take on more risks. Men were the ones who died in wars(and women were never eligible for the draft), died doing dangerous work, etc… so we can all enjoy the world they built. So yea, we get to make a bit more-just deal with it ladies.

  5. I don’t think there has to be a contradiction in nature and the reality of our desires. The trick is to keep our desires for social interactions consistent with reality. And oh, what a hard trick that is for most people.
    There is only one equality that I entertain as valid, and readily admit has not yet been achieved, and that is equality before the law. The rich man should get the same traffic ticket that the poor man would get when caught traveling 100mph in a 35mph zone. No exceptions if the circumstances are the same.
    All other notions of equality are easily seen as false, and this article clearly points out the reasons why. A wise man can and should contemplate that he is superior to some people in some regards, while simultaneously being inferior to them (possibly) in other regards. Come to peace with that, accept it, internalize it. The petty jealousies, the narcissism, and the need to worship others rather disappears with this knowledge.
    As always, well written C.Contrary

    1. I’m not sure about the rich man and the poor man being fined the same amount of money, for driving over the speed limit with the same velocity/circumstances.
      Both men facing the same length of inability to drive again in result of a transgression is fair. Since the main purposes of traffic fines is to act as a deterrent as well as to raise revenues for the State, it would make sense that the poor man and the rich man, caught speeding in identical conditions, are fined to the same proportion of their present income.
      Would a $50 fine be an effective deterrent to someone who makes over, say, $50k a month?

      1. I do not subscribe to any version or variant of social justice. Same crime, same punishment, no exceptions. Anything less is trying to play the social fairness role, which leads, always, to disaster.

        1. I think what he’s getting at is this: Would you subscribe to a ban on fines and straight jail time for violations?
          I would point out that since time is money, in this alternative scheme, the rich man is being fined much more than the poor man.
          It turns out there is no equality before the law because there is no equality. Period.
          (Except in Christ’s salvation.)

        2. Equality before the law is not equality of outcomes or means. It does not mean that you are XYZ and will be affected ABC, where person B will affected QRS. It means break a law, have the same standards used for judgment and the same punishment levied, regardless of any factors such as status, gender, race, etc.
          I understand what you and he are saying, but you’re both arguing the outcomes of equality before the law, not the application of equality before the law. The outcomes are irrelevant, two men, same crime, same punishment. The deterrence may be weighted more towards one or the other, so each should weigh that in their mental equation before breaking the law.

        3. I agree with your point, whereas I think I should have been clearer with mine.
          The law system works best in my opinion if there is a somewhat fair incentive for those who comply, to encourage positive behaviour, and punishment strong enough to deter recurrence for those who offend.
          The focus I want to make is not really about ‘levelling’ the field, or making the rich person pay more to make the poor pay less. Simply, the punishment should be measured.
          Put this another way – you have two children. Both infringe your rules in a somewhat serious way, however one of the kids-of-Jefferson is 6, and the other is 15. Exact same punishment for both, all else being equal?

        4. Assuming that either Christ or salvation actually exist, and even if one or both do exist, that they are actually attainable.

    2. ”There is only one equality that I entertain as valid, and
      readily admit has not yet been achieved, and that is equality before the
      law. The rich man should get the same traffic ticket that the poor man
      would get when caught traveling 100mph in a 35mph zone. No exceptions
      if the circumstances are the same.”
      Can’t that be better termed as impartiality with justice as no respecter of persons?

  6. The cry for “equality” is nothing more than an appeal to the lowest common denominator.

    1. And generic feelings of ‘niceness’
      That’s why they get so defensive when equalist dogma is questioned, because equality is an emotional dedication to ignorance

  7. equalities not going to go away, but its meaning will continue to change or rather be manipulated. No doubt high-minded, altruistic thinking has laid behind the promotion of equality in the past, and the most obvious origin of this is religion, specifically the golden rule, and the idea that we are all equal under the eyes of god. Starting with various religious fraternities in the middle ages (i’ll ignore all the I am spartacus stuff because that doesn’t fit in with my argument) and continuing down to the english revolution you get the idea of bringing the kingdom of heaven into the here and now. The french revolution, rousseauist general will, and kantian ethics introduce the idea of liberty / fraternity, majoritarian democracy and the idea that we all (are snowflakes who) partake of a kingdom of ends.
    That’s a potted and no doubt insufficient history of equality prior to movements of universal franchise. The point is not that its accurate but that it’s proponents were sincere in what they argued and what they believed in (at least to some extent). What follows in the twentieth century (at the latest) is the knowledge that this universalist altruistic principles relating to shared humanity, and the common good, can very affectively be exploited for particular interests.
    Kant spends some time worrying about the purity of motives (such as might contaminate a universal will to perform duty according to reason for instance) but arguably as the author of this article points out he doesn’t worry about it nearly enough. A realist, (red-pill) analysis of of equality, universal rights etc should immediately factor in, if not necessarily exploit, the machiavellian potential to take such universal principles and applying them for particularist group advantage.
    So the inconsistency that the author points out, which is inevitable and does indeed follow from the mixed motives of self-interest, jealousy, narcissism etc, becomes the essence of equality, both what historically has made it necessary (given the absence of a natural sense of justice in evidence in an unregulated free for all) but also what it makes it doomed.
    Today power pay lips service to universalism while brazenly applying equality to only those battles which can give it advantage. Those who are able to determine what equality should measure and how it should measure that thing are in fact likely to be those with the power to control of the discourse (i.e. to determine the hegemonic discourse). That’s why boardroom equality counts, but overall control over spending power doesn’t; why women in STEM is an equality issue, but declining numbers of men in education and in the professions is not. Its all about having the power to select what is measured & to ensure that what gives you advantage stays off the equality agenda.

    1. ” The point is not that its accurate but that it’s proponents were sincere in what they argued and what they believed in (at least to some extent).”
      Provably false. Merely a tool to control (perform husbandry on) the populace (herd) more effectively.

      1. rousseau, kant, js mill and the like were sincere and well intentioned. As for the politicians who implemented it, that’s far less certain

  8. For liberals and feminists, Equality isn’t “F=M” it’s “F>M”
    À bientôt,

    1. As applied to feminism, yes. The reality of leftists however is much more broad. It is “Me” > “Everybody Else”. These are supremely insecure people who appear to have a mental illness. They seem to need to drag everybody down, in order to slake their own insecurities. Basically, they are evil personified.

      1. “Basically, they are evil personified.”
        Perhaps, but if one considers the adherents to be minions, perhaps the guiding hand exploiting these mental/emotional defectives should be cut off and some re-education performed upon the running dogs?

    1. Equality is having an identical value of some sort. Like
      This makes mathematics possible as the value on the left side is identical to the value on the right side.

  9. I don’t believe in Equality.
    People aren’t equal, they are different. Believing that people are equal, in spite of every evidence that people are different, is a religious belief, and an idiotic one at that.
    People ought to be equally treated with decently and respect, and special rights or titles of nobility are a cancer. This is the foundation of a Just society.
    It is ironic perhaps that those who would tear down a Just society do so in the name of Equality.

  10. Equality is a useful tool to mask our true natures, as Nietzsche said ” The world itself is the will to power – and nothing else! And you yourself are the will to power – and nothing else!” But the question to ask is would it be in a society’s interest for its people to realize this and fully accept it.

  11. “You can believe in equality, or you can believe in reality”
    More importantly, equality as a value is not even desirable even if it COULD be achieved
    Why the hell would you want a world where nobody is better than anybody at anything, be those differences inherent or accomplished? Upon hearing this the equalist will retreat and claim that all they want is equal rights, but the same people will then piss and moan over unequal outcomes, resent the successful, and attribute all these differences to luck, bigotry, privilege, etc

    1. Exactly, equality has to be the biggest farce and largest and most damaging social constructs ever created. It has been a gigantic failure, and it goes to show how pathetic the Left(and many in the Right) have become. The disconnect between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome is something that does not even go through their minds, like the wage gap myth. How can anybody claim that they’re for diversity and equality? Diversity is appreciating differences between people, equality is trying to make everyone conform to one set of rules, one set of norms, one set of dogmatic thinking. They leave out the most important diversity of all, diversity of thought. Everywhere where “equality” has been achieved has been a short-lived disaster and everywhere those evil inequalities existed has lasted for centuries. Such is life.

  12. Equality originally meant the equality of opportunity not the equality of abilities or the equality of outcomes. How it has come to mean we are all the same is beyond me.

  13. I don’t think equality is achievable. As long as we have different opinions, the people with the less popular opinions are going to feel oppresed

  14. When people clamour about wanting equality it’s a lie. What they’re really after is leverage.

    1. Very sharp – they want to ‘level the playing field’ to make it easier to mow.

  15. The only equality I accept is that all men and women, rich and poor, should be subjected to the same laws and punishments without any kind of biasness or favoritism shown to anyside.
    That being said, what a lot of people, especially progressives, don’t seem to understand is that a level of inequality is actually desirable in society because it allows for those who are motivated to excel themselves to achieve what they want to achieve. A hierarchy in an organization also allows someone to know their place within that organization. Within a family unit, I certainly am NOT equal to my parents. I will always respect them as being higher than me in practically all aspects of life.

  16. Here is a short doc about a rapper I know in Toronto.
    He’s got cerebral palsy, is fat, awkward, and by most measures should be a nobody… Fact is, he’s been working on his rap skills since he was a teenager and now he’s getting some recognition for it.
    The way he behaves in the video is kind of an exaggeration of who he naturally is. He doesn’t really always talk with that rap slur, and he was a very different person in high school.
    But I think this video is interesting… I’d say he’s using Game to make it in a world that wouldn’t really give him a second thought otherwise. Some handsome, good genes, solid background dude spent all his years playing video games and doing nothing… and The Mighty Rhino is steps ahead of that guy.

    1. That’s because that dude must’ve realised that all “equality” was going to get him was… nothing.

    2. Thanks for sharing this.
      If this guy can accept and then transcend his painful reality without self-delusion, then so can many of us facing much smaller obstacles. Whenever I encounter a story like this I lose more and more sympathy for SJW narcissists.

      1. Glad someone checked it out.
        Yeah I agree. Its good to keep things in perspective.
        The SJWs seem to be going on a crazy hamster trip right now… and most of them are among the wealthiest people on Earth…

  17. The last week, that has been the main word that irked me. Equality. What is that even? If you go by just the word, it sounds awfully nice. But the truth always comes out in the views. No two people share the same view on equality. It is at best used as an extension of two other independent words, freedom and respect. Unlike either one of those words, equality can’t be discussed without revealing some interesting views, to put it nicely. Life is about experience. If we are all equal, what is the point of experience?

  18. People who believe the myth of an egalitarian utopia have never read Harrison Bergeron. Excellent article.

  19. I think its becoming quite clear that almost anyone who is fighting for equality is from the dregs of society, and they are too lazy to put the work in to better their station in life.
    They want stuff but they don’t want to earn that stuff.
    I don’t expect to have a girlfriend unless I’d be willing to date myself.

    1. “I don’t expect to have a girlfriend unless I’d be willing to date myself.”
      And of course, I presume you wouldn’t expect to make love to a girlfriend unless you’d be willing to make love to yourself, which naturally, you, like many other young bucks, found yourself capable of some time ago, so it’s a big green light.

    2. I really support the k/r ideas of Forney and Anonymous Comservative here.
      To me it’s as if the leftists want to reduce selection pressure as much as they can, pushing the limit further and further.
      Too much rightism and we have a rigid class structure that becomes dysgenic and dyscivic. Too much leftism and we have a bloated, weak society so dyscivic it collapses under its own weight. There has to be selection pressure ( competition), but the ideal system ensures that everyone has the potential to enter the fray. That way the “fittest” always have a chance at competing, but aren’t hamstrung by the losing majority. Allowing everyone to participate by law but not punishing them for success yields the best results and the most competitive population.
      We created such a system in 1776- too bad we’ve long since wrecked it. We’re are beyond the point of no return now.
      These are just my thoughts- one man’s two cents lol.

      1. Fascinating.
        I haven’t had the time yet to read Forney’s work on r/k selection theory and politics although it is definitely high on my list.
        This political philosophy you’re talking about sounds to me a lot like “Justice as Fairness” by Rawls. Where a society is just, where everyone is given just enough starting opportunity that they can work themselves up to potentially reach political influence.
        If they are de facto excluded from being able to participate in the politics of the system, the system is unjust.
        I’m unaware of what you’re referring to with 1776, but I’m interested.

        1. I was referring to the early U.S. system, and it’s development throughout the 19th century. We should have stopped after extending the vote to all men. That way no one is “de facto excluded,” which is an excellent way of putting it (I will use that in the future if you don’t mind) but no one is also arbitrarily held back or propped up, which can avoid the massive crashes that destroy r selected social systems.
          I will check out that book by Rawls.

      2. @Isidore560
        When creating a document. One must be as specific and clearcut as possible so as to leave as little room as possible for weasel and snakes to twist and distort it.

        1. Definitely a wise suggestion, but I’m unsure what you really mean as I’m unsure as to what I really mean lol.
          My comments may not be clear- these are not mature thoughts- just kicking some ideas around and benefitting from others’ input.
          If there’s anything that could be misinterpreted by misandrists or Bogomils, let me know. I don’t want to sabotage our cause.

    “Each individual by virtue of his genetic structure is unparalleled, unprecedented, and unrepeatable.” –U.G.
    All human beings have fundamentally the same anatomical structure (which is in no way different from that of mammals like dogs or pigs), operate through the same biochemical and physiological processes, and are driven by similar biological urges. Yet, no two human beings are alike. What is more important is that the individuality of a person living now is entirely different from anyone who has ever lived before in the past or will live in the future. Each person is unique, unprecedented, unrepeatable, and unparalleled. Each is a unique genetic print out. But sometimes, in one in a million, things click in such a fashion that the individual becomes an outstanding one. Leonardo da Vinci, the great scholar, painter, philosopher – -all rolled into one, the creative genius, was the so-called illegitimate son of a half-witted woman who spent a night with an itinerant soldier at a wayside inn. That clicking of genes is a rare event.
    The biological mechanisms through which each person develops his own behavioral singularity are twofold: his genetic endowment and his evolutionary past. Some of these mechanisms have their roots deep in the evolutionary past of the human genes which human beings have in common with other organisms and which have similar effects on the human species. Other mechanisms are derived from the peculiarities of human genetic endowment. Each individual with his predetermined genetic endowment responds differently to his environment, since each is unique by virtue of his genes.
    There is a uniqueness in each of us. Unfortunately society and polity do not accept this disparateness and club us all into one. Each of us has a different potential that has to be expressed and realized in a unique way. In an attempt to establish the equality among men we have suppressed individual peculiarities which are most useful. For, happiness depends on one’s being exactly fitted to nature’s own work. There are many varied tasks in a modern nation. Human types, instead of being standardized, should be diversified , and their cultural differences maintained and exaggerated by different modes of education and life habits. Each type will find its place. Modern society has refused to recognize the dissimilant of the human being and crowded him into four classes — the rich, the politician, the farmer, and the middle class. The clerk, the police man, the teacher, the shop-keeper, or the government employee, and all others, have the same standard of living as the rest of the middle class. Such ill-categorized types are banded together according to their financial position and not according to their individual characteristics. Obviously they have nothing in common. The best of those people who could develop their potentialities are atrophied by the narrowness of their life. In order to promote human progress it is not enough to hire architects, to buy bricks and steel, and to build schools, or establish innumerable universities, laboratories, libraries, and temples. It is far more important to provide those who devote themselves to the things of the mind with the means of developing their personalities according to their innate constitutions. The brutal materialism of our modern civilization is not only opposed to the soaring of intelligence but it also criticizes the nonaffluent gentle weak who look for other things than money and whose ability does not withstand the struggle of life.
    Every individual is unique since everyone is a genetic print out. But among these unique ones there appear to be some exceptional people who claim transformation. First of all, transformation is a false claim. Secondly, you cannot study one yogi or meditator and apply what is true of him to everyone.
    It is, of course, necessary to study man. He has to understand himself first. Understanding oneself demands not only an accumulation of data but a quantum jump. The Einsteinian world became different from the Newtonian world. Nature attempts to create unique entities. Nature does not use models. A unique individual like Leonardo da Vinci was of no use to nature and was thrown off the evolutionary process, and this specimen is unable to reproduce itself. By using the models of Jesus, Buddha, Rama or Krishna we have destroyed the possibility of nature throwing out unique individuals. Those that recommend these people forget nature’s uniqueness and put everyone on the wrong track. It’s like the blind leading the blind. Society is interested in maintaining the status quo and has provided models for us to follow. You want to be a saint, savior or a revolutionary, but it is an impossibility.
    Throwing up of the uniqueness provided by nature is the blooming of individual uniqueness. It happens once in a way that a person frees himself from the burden of his entire past. One has to be in a primordial and primeval state without primitiveness. If we drop the fictitious model of a saint, we are left with natural biological arrangements. Each cell in the body knows itself. Cells cooperate with each other, not out of love and compassion, but from the terror of self-annihilation. They need to cooperate in order to survive. Can everyone bloom by the flowering of individuality? No, it is impossible; only isolated individuals can. Perhaps genetic engineering can be used to modify the static genetic state and modify genetic destiny.

  21. I knew this leftist feminist girl in college that volunteered to teach inner city kids. She would drive into the ghetto and tutor them because “they needed the most help”. One day she complained to me that it was unfair the teachers were telling the kids their English was wrong. According to her “dis is wut I did las nigt” isnt bad English its just “different” or “black English”, and that the language everyone else speaks is the “language of power” (google language of power, its a leftist buzzword used to describe proper English. I was speechless and we argued about it for about an hour before I gave up. I finally asked her “If they dont need anyone’s help, why are you going there?” Now she was speechless.
    I realized that she didnt want to help them at all. She just wanted to feel like she was helping to feel better about herself. Most of the liberal hogwash I have heard since then has followed this exact model. Its sympathy not empathy. They dont want things to change because they would have nobody to look down on. Their goal seems to be universal mediocrity: keep the losers from winning and stop the winners from dominating.

    1. Speaking one’s own language properly tends to equal higher paying, better jobs.
      All this fake ‘equality’, ‘diversity’ etc. crap is merely a ploy to set the herd at each other’s throats, so when the day comes each ‘special of the day’ will have no problem pushing the ‘nonconformists’ into the incinerator.

    2. I’ll go further. It’s a “helper fetish” imo. With these leftist it’s not about actually helping but being SEEN helping. “Hey everyone look at me helping this poor black kid. Aren’t I something?” It’s a form of attention whoring. They can then go to the leftist coffee shop and act tired and downtrodden.

  22. You confuse equality of persons as human beings under law and morality with equality of outcomes and rewards.

    1. The difference being that feminism proclaims its support for the first, is stupid enough to assert the achievability of the second, and actually believes in neither.

    1. Oh jeezus God almighty . . This is what happens when wild cuckolding single bitch mothers give their cretins over to the state to educate and raise. And then to add insult to injury, the bitch mothers chide and henpeck their sons by telling them things like: ”WHY CAN’T YOU JUST BE MORE LIKE YOUR SISTER?”. I bet this poor kid’s single skank mom never said ”I’m so proud. You are just like your father.” Shame on that bad mother. The kid will eventually rebel. He’ll piss on the bitches grave in the end.

  23. This article is spot on. Most people want to use equality to force better people downward. They will never police themselves. . Equality is a bullying tool used to take money, status, and respect from others.

  24. Most people don’t believe in equality…I know, they’re mostly the people who scream the loudest about it. I love how it works…equality, which means that we’re all the same and no one is better than anyone else etc. And yet, note how feminism is very selective regarding the kinds of “equality”, matter of fact, they can be very specific. Not too long ago it was “equality” in STEM majors? Huh? Methinks you see a position in life and are envious because it holds prestige and use “equality” as the way to easily obtain that prestige. Whether or not, you’re that interested in STEM isn’t that relevant.

  25. Women respect (worship) status, men respect ability. Anybody with the right connections can achieve status, and not everyone can achieve the same abilities. So in a woman’s mind yes, everyone is capable of becoming equal. That’s also an obviously degenerate mindset (just look around you for proof); yet more evidence universal suffrage was a mistake.

  26. Good points, but we’re kind of dragging out the obvious here. The only reasonable idea of “equality” is to provide an un-impeded paying field. It prevent the BEST from being held back, which ultimately benefits everyone.
    The feminist-bolshevik version is what we have, where the best are HELD BACK so that the lame and lazy can appear to be equal.
    What a surprise that the biggest benefactors of inequality (hiring quotas, special set-asides, gov’t funded programs, ladies’ night…)are the weakest among us and always the loudest complainers.
    True equality only exists in math class. Get over it.

  27. There is no such thing as equality. Everyone has varying levels of intelligence/physical strength/artistic talent/financial class therefore it is impossible for a society to ever attain “equality.” When governments/media start to promote this agenda it is a step towards communism, redistribution of wealth & lack of personal responsibility for one’s actions.

Comments are closed.