Red Pill on Inequality

The phrase “All men are created equal” has been repeated by Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and most major political figures in the two ruling US political parties over the last several decades. It is certainly the most enduring meme in American history. But it is also self-evidently and demonstrably false.

George Fitzhugh pointed out the obvious in his book Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society (1854):

It is, we believe, conceded on all hands, that men are not born physically, morally or intellectually equal, – some are males, some females, some from birth, large, strong and healthy, others weak, small and sickly – some are naturally amiable, others prone to all kinds of wickedness – some brave, others timid. Their natural inequalities beget inequalities of rights. The weak in mind or body require guidance, support and protection; they must obey and work for those who protect and guide them – they have a natural right to guardians, committees, teachers or masters. Nature has made them slaves; all that law and government can do, is to regulate, modify and mitigate their slavery.

Fitzhugh’s understanding of the world “slavery” was not limited to the African chattel slavery of his time but extended to all social and legal limitations – even family roles and submission to the rule of law. In the excerpt above the Virginian first pointed out the inequality of our birth or condition and then made the case that this justly leads to inequalities of rights. The criminal has no right to freedom; society justly limits his rights by imprisoning or punishing him. The child has no right to vote; society justly limits his rights and sets laws under which he must live without his consent. Rights are naturally restricted by families (in the case of children) and governments (in the case of criminals, aliens and other classes of men) and this serves a positive social good.

This is a major red pill and perhaps the fundamental belief shared by all those on the Right since the time of the American and French revolutions. We may debate policy on precisely how government should regulate, modify or mitigate inequality but it naturally exists. And, as Hunter Wallace has pointed out, liberalism (i.e., the war against inequality) yields “a permanent state of social revolution” that “push[es] liberty and equality to greater and greater extremes at the expense of solidarity.” Ultimately, it brings about “the unraveling of the social fabric.” Like Fitzhugh, men of the Right today embrace inequality as we seek to build a healthy society and avoid “a loss of social cohesion that results in extreme atomization and social strife.”

About Palmetto Patriot 242 Articles
South Carolinian. Southern Nationalist. Anglican.


  1. “The weak in mind or body require guidance, support and protection; they must obey and work for those who protect and guide them – they have a natural right to guardians, committees, teachers or masters.”

    So, for instance, let’s say you hear that some pitiably weak-in-mind people are living thousands of miles away from you in—well, let’s say Africa. Recognizing that they require guidance, support, and protection and that they have a natural right to guardians, committees, teachers, or masters, you should form a joint-stock company that will construct and outfit ships by which you can forcibly transport them on an industrial scale to Western Hemisphere plantations, where, as they’ll obey and work for you who will protect and guide them, they will no longer have to suffer the way of life with which they’re familiar. In the alternative, you could simply leave them alone, but if you were to do something like that, well, then, obviously you’d irresponsibly be acting in accordance with some self-evidently and demonstrably false meme such as “All men are created equal.” (Don’t ask me, by the way, why the falseness of a meme that is self-evidently false should have to be demonstrated.)

  2. Can we ever, ever, EVER stop having this kindergarten-level discussion? “All men are created equal” is a Lockean proposition, not an existential nor an ontological proposition. If you don’t know what I mean by those distinctions, then please just STOP having this argument; you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  3. The corollary to this ontological heresy, in matters theological, was addressed as well by St. Paul, Augustine, Saint Prosper of Aquitaine, Luther, Calvin, Whitefield, Ryle, Pink, Machen, Schaefer, and Rushdoony- the concept of election and predestination.

    While this is not the place to go into matters theological on this forum, it needs to be noted that God -the God of the Bible and the father of Jesus Christ -has never, ever, ever been known as a Universalist.

    Indeed, the entirety of biblical/Christian religion has been that God elects some, and bypasses others.

    This concept-eminently biblical and proven by any theological investigation into Scripture -is the theological “glue” -which underlay everything in western civilization, from the divine right of kings to the exclusion of the Jews from society.

    And the conscious departure from this Truth, also lies behind every single failed social experiment -from the French revolution, to the American ‘experiment,’ to the Emancipation Proclamation, to The Bolshevik Revolution, the emancipation of the Jews, votes for women, to gay rights, unlimited immigration, and the modern Moslem morass we find ourselves in today.

    When God has a specific race and people that he has chosen “from before the foundation of the world,” [Eph. 1:4] there is no argument that can assail that. This is the concept of Christendom, the concept of American exceptionalism, the concept of the holy Roman empire, holy Russia, Byzantium, Rome, (the false application of it by the godless Jews) as well as the secular/satanic transmission of that idea into the Bolshevik ideology…which is merely Talmudism, secularized.

    For if “God loves everyone” then trannies and faggots and niggers (Oh, my!) can get into the Kingdom before white righteous people…And there are those idiots out there today who believe that! (John Piper)

    So, if we’re going to restore white society, we also need to return to the doctrines of Grace, and the concept of God chooses some and bypasses others…for both His bestowal of grace in IQ, artistic achievement, scientific proficiency, and organizational management…

    In favor of those who are on the other side: Lesbians, faggots, feminist, SWJs, anti-fa, Jews, liberals, Hillary Clinton, Madonna, Robert Reich, Lindsey Graham, John McCain …and the other damned of the world.

    ” This is most certainly true. “

  4. This is tough one to crack as Michael mentions, American leaders like Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan mouth this “everyone is born equal” nonsense/lies. What is more or what is the same, the Judeo Christian Apostle Paul the former Jewish Pharisee Saul of Tarsus pushes the most extreme form of universal “equality”, complete with sexual and racial/ethnic equality – it might as well be the vision of John Lennon’s “Imagine” – where we are supposed to “imagine” that the entire world will be equal, will live as one, maybe house 925,000 HIV + Black African Hutus in John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s expensive home in the Dakota on Central Park West in Manhattan New York City.

    Here’s the Apostle Paul/Rabbi Saul of Tarsus trying to explain to a skeptical Greek Gentile audience that the past divisions between Greeks and Jews would no longer matter after everyone accepted Jesus Christ.

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
    Galaitians 3:28

    So 2,000 years later is that the way it turned out? Are there no divisions in the USA between say how Jews and (White) Gentiles vote in elections? Any differences on how White Gentiles/Greeks and American Jews feel about mass immigration – did everyone accept Jesus Christ and become “equal” become the same?

    The answer was a clear


    • Paul was talking about a Christian’s spiritual condition before God, not our earthly condition. Paul went to great lengths endorsing hierarchy, structure and authority within the Church, family, and also civil government. That passage in Galatians has been (and still is) perverted by Gnosticism to endorse utopian equality.

      • I think the Galatians quote is clearly:

        A) Utopian universalist
        B) Anti nature
        C) Anti Roman empire subversion with a very strong Jewish component to this subversion.

        Paul can be best viewed as a Karl Marx internationalist or more recently
        A very jewish Neo Conservative who supposedly “saw the light on the road to Damascus Syria”, became a Christian and was offering the GOSPEL TRUTH – Good news to the Greeks and Gentile Romans who destroyed jewish rule in Palestine.

        Have we seen this conversion before in former Liberal Leftist Jews becoming Neo Conservative and coming over to our side in places like National Review where they proceed to purge all the sane, healthy White guys who spoke against our people being dispossessed and abused?

        Also, look at this mosaic of St. Paul/Pharisee Saul of Tarsus – he looks like NY York Jew Senator Charles Schumer!

        • Paul knew what he was saying. He was recruiting the school scum of the empire and not a few guilty aristocrats.

          • Yes, but I agree with the German Philosopher NIETZSCHE that St. Paul/Rabbi Saul of Tarsus was doing a bit more than that – deliberately spreading a universalist, race denying slave mentality to undermine the hated Roman Empire that had just recently destroyed Jewish rule in Palestine. It’s the same as other forms of Jewish Marxism, Communism. Here’s what NIETZSCHE said about St. Paul – the ultimate Jew as nasty as any Polish Jew.

            NIETZSCHE, FRIEDRICH. 19th c. German philosopher.

            The Jews are the most remarkable people in human history because, whenever they have been faced with the question, “to be or not to be,” they have always decided, with an uncanny insight, to be, at any price – even if that price was the radical falsification of human nature, naturalness, reality, and the entire inner world as well as the external world. They have entrenched themselves within all the provisos under which a people can survive intact, or has been allowed to survive. Out of their own consciousness they have evolved a set of ideas in opposition to all natural conditions of living – one by one they have taken religion, culture, morality, history, and psychology, and converted them irreparably into a contradiction of their natural meaning. We meet with the same phenomenon elsewhere, but all disjointed, a mere copy – for the Christian church lacks all claim to originality as compared with the “holy race” . . . Because of their capacity for distortion, the Jews are the most fateful people in human history. In the course of their operations they have hoodwinked mankind so much that, even to this day, the Christian can feel anti-Semitic without realizing that he himself is the logical consequence of Judaism.

            In my Genealogy of Morals I give the first psychological explanation of the distinction between a noble morality and a morality of resentment; the latter being merely a negation of the former – and this latter is the Jewish-Christian morality through and through! In order to be able to say no to life on the up-grade, to success, power, and beauty, and self- affirmation on earth, it was necessary for the instinct of resentment, or for the genius of resentment, to discover another world, one from which that affirmation of life could be regarded as evil and reprehensible. Psychologically considered, the Jews are a people very hard to suppress, who when they had to face impossible surroundings, deliberately selected the part of decadence, and made their choice with a profound worldly wisdom in order to preserve themselves intact. I do not mean that the Jews were overcome by decadence, but that they saw in it a method by which they could assert themselves against the world. The Jews are the opposite of decadent: they have simply been obliged to take on the part, so much so that with an incredible degree of histrionic genius, they have managed to place themselves in control of all decadent movements (such as Paul’s Christianity) in order to make themselves stronger than the assertive forces of life. The kind of man who seeks power under Judaism or Christianity (that is, the priest) uses decadence as no more than a means to an end. This kind of fellow has a real interest in making people sick, and in upsetting the ideas of “good” and “evil,” “true” and “false,” in a way which is dangerous to life and a slander against this world in which we live…

            The Gospels are invaluable as evidence of the corruption which had already attacked the early Christian community. At the death of the savior, a process of decay began which Paul, with the cyclical logic of a rabbi, merely developed to its conclusion. These Gospels cannot be read with too much care; there are difficulties in every word of them. I admit, and I hope it will not be held against me, that it is this very fact which makes them such a delight for a psychologist. For they are the reverse of a merely naive corruption: they represent an ultimate refinement, an artistic triumph of mental rottenness…

            Here we are among Jews: this is the first thing to be remembered if we don’t wish to lose the scent. in this book, the illusion of personal “holiness,” which literally amounts to genius, and has never been even approached in other books or by other men; the elevation of deceit in attitude and phrase to the status of an art – is not any accident due to the exceptional talents of any one individual. It is a racial matter. in the formulation of Christianity, the art of concocting holy lies, which is the essence of Jewishness, after many centuries of earnest apprenticeship and practice in Judea, has reached technical perfection. The Christian, who is the last word in falsity, is the Jew repeating his type – thrice a Jew…

            Little super-Jews, fit only for the madhouse, reversed all values to suit themselves, as if the followers of Christ alone were the meaning, the salt, the standard, and even the supreme court of mankind… Such a calamity was only possible because a species of megalomania, similar to this one, and racially like it (orthodox Jewish) was already in existence. When a division appeared between official Jews and Christian Jews, the latter had no alternative but to employ the self-protective measures peculiar to the Jews themselves, whereas the Jews had used it only against Gentiles. The Christian is only a noncomformist Jew…

            It is advisable to put on gloves before handling the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes this precaution advisable. We would as soon hob-nob with Polish Jews as with early Christians, and there is no need to elaborate our objection: neither smells good…

            Paul, the Jew, the eternal and perfect Jew – Paul the genius – realized that, by means of the small sectarian Christian movement which had broken away from Judaism, a world conflagration could be kindled. He realized that, by means of “God on the Cross,” everything underhand, seditious, and a product of rebellious intrigues within the empire, might be welded together into one immense power. “For salvation is of the Jews”. . . (The Antichrist)

            It is a bit amusing that even Nietzsche, in the middle of this, felt the urge to divert the accusation of bigotry with an ambiguous phrase that is usually translated as a condemnation of ‘anti-Semitism.’ As we read it nowadays, the sentence appears something like: ‘An anti-Semite is unworthy of respect, because he is a liar on principle.’ What

            Nietzsche really intended, however, would be the following: ‘An anti-Semite does not become more worthy of respect because he is a liar for the sake of principle.’ (His context is a rejection of senseless people who make a point of holding prejudged, ill-considered notions about anything, including the Jews.)

        • Every once in a while i get a wild hair and post a comment, and get a reminder of why it’s a waste of time. Thanks for the reminder.

        • You’re clearly a troll, which I don’t mind if the troll is clever. You’re not, just boring and repetitive.

      • You are no doubt correct that the quote reflects a type of spiritually equality. Why is this interpretation considered acceptable? Spiritual equality is itself a subversive idea. We are unequal physically, morally, culturally, yet somehow we are spiritually all the same. Not according to the teachings of any traditional culture.

        • Just when I’d lost faith in the Comments Section, along comes an insightful, thought-provoking question. Thanks Mac, I’d like to think on that. I think I see your point.

  5. Here’s a remarkable Nick Cohen article

    As someone loosely ascribing to the Alt-Right I don’t hate Islam.
    I just dislike the subhuman monkeys pressing their flesh in other people’s countries. There are half a dozen good things to say about their customs and practices.

    Cohen knows he can run off to his Israel if things go tits up in England, largely because of his anti-fascist efforts to fuck up England.

  6. what SJW’s call “inequality” biology calls “variability” – & it’s the crucial ingredient for evolution.

  7. There is no proof of equality never has been but conservatives never ask a leftist to provide proof of anything especially proof of equality.

    I blame the conservatives.

  8. “Equality” is but rhetoric, no one especially any leftist believes in it. Anyone who uses this rhetoric against you already views themselves as superior.

    While conservatives dream the dream of having intelligent intellectual discussions with the left I dream of freedom from the left and their new caste system (see the definition of Intersectionality).

  9. “All men are created equal”

    Given the society and the cultural context, Jefferson my not of meant Africans, Asians and Injuns. Working from basic assumptions, he didn’t say All Englishmen, or All White men are created equal. Everyone at the the time, just knew it.

    • Jefferson was appealing to French liberals of the day which eventually paid off. No where in Jefferson’s life or writings is there any evidence of belief in equality, especially racial equality. Lincoln took the phrase and turned it into a proposition which we’ve been plagued with ever since.

      • Jefferson was simply a White man addressing a White audience. He never conceived that non Whites and their White/Jewish handlers would seize control of the polity and government. Or twist his words to push their agenda.

  10. The fact that blacks “need” affirmative action, quotas, subsidized housing, etc. is a tacit admission of their inequality.

  11. By believing in full spectrum equality, the Left naturally attracts weakness and inferiority. The siren call for inclusiveness of everyone and everything includes just that – from the less able to the unable and the less capable to the incapable. Standards are everything when everything is at stake.

  12. The Declaration of Independence is saying that all men are equal IN THAT God gave them life, liberty and they can pursue happiness. It does NOT claim they’re equal in abilities or outcomes. Nor does it say they are all Americans, nor even that they should be granted the same rights and privileges by government. For example, a child of Palestinian ethnicity born in Israel is not allowed the same rights and privileges by the “Jewish state”. The founding fathers owned slaves after all.

  13. There are as many ways of being as there are humans. Deciding a priori who is inferior is what the Nazis did. Do we want to emulate them?

Comments are closed.