Equality is inherently good; its the promise that we can always become better or stronger, or more powerful, & though this promise is often abused by secret tyrants, we just need to attain it reasonably, vs unreasonably.; right equality: follow your leaders and you'll be made equal to them (as equal as is practicable given concrete conditions) vs left equality: just complain and destroy things and then everything will be restored to a "pure state of nature" -where all is rubble (except for the those overlords who caused this ruination).
To the left inequality is an obstruction created by the few living off the work of the many, by profit, whereas to the right, inequality -the profit realized by the differential between different things and natures -is the motive force of of the equalization which is nature., which is the equalization of all things in proportion to their natures.
But the left has this pessimistic view, that says that one has to destroy nature first, to ensure equality, and that's definitely not correct, it's actually natural operation which guarantees equality.
The left sees equality as existing positively, just by nature, so that inequality must come about by some action, whereas the right sees inequality as the natural state and so equality is something to be achieved i.e. to the left happiness is passivity and activity (that is, actual progress) is evil and things are reversed for the right, activity is the real progress and action requires combat and overcoming and competition; it is always a "becoming" , a continual revolution, and so always an "equalization" and not "equality". Life is from "equalizing" but death and slavery comes from "equality"; we see this everyday now, with the left's stormtroopers , and saboteurs, shutting down the transmission of values -both cultural and economic -which comes naturally, and organically from the people themselves.
When talking about how equality is feminine, you forgot of one thing. That is, that defending “equality” in a social setting is the best way to “save face” and keep social relations stable thus, this is the strategy most women take as a matter of course.
The feminine use of equality is manifested equality in a social setting. The masculine interpretation of equality is serious law and force as in the equality of soldiers as a rank. Maybe what we men always miss when trying to understand how women think is that women are geared towards the social so we think they are liars and manipulators and they think we are autistic and uncaring.
Maybe the problem is not equality itself but the feminine version of equality is. After all, the masculine version of equality can produce a working group as it does in monasteries, armies and fascists and communist states. Of course, hierarchy lords over equality in all of these systems but that is the essence of “equality”, it is inherent and necessary but only when it is subordinated to hierarchy.
The problem is hypocrisy: Where are these loud chest-beating pleas for equality when they tune into watch the Olympics every few years?
Shouldn't Usain Bolt be openly shamed and asked to carry a 75lb kettlebell in each hand before running in the 100m because there is a kid from Baltimore, raised by his grandmother, who always wanted to compete in the Olympics but never had the training or access to coaches -- due to his mediocre abilities -- which he still feels terrible about when watching the Games?
The silence from these same types of equality-screeching, self-righteous reprobates is often deafening.
most people are okay with inequality in sports, it's when inequality becomes societal that most people turn white "what will happen to my status?"
On the other hand these ideas would change if society itself were to be like a sport i.e. based around competition.
What makes a sport exciting? why do people play them? It's the promise of getting higher status and rewards, & teamwork itself is a type of equality; that's how we sell the transition from the present to the aristocratic future.
Equality is inherently good; its the promise that we can always become better or stronger, or more powerful, & though this promise is often abused by secret tyrants, we just need to attain it reasonably, vs unreasonably.; right equality: follow your leaders and you'll be made equal to them (as equal as is practicable given concrete conditions) vs left equality: just complain and destroy things and then everything will be restored to a "pure state of nature" -where all is rubble (except for the those overlords who caused this ruination).
To the left inequality is an obstruction created by the few living off the work of the many, by profit, whereas to the right, inequality -the profit realized by the differential between different things and natures -is the motive force of of the equalization which is nature., which is the equalization of all things in proportion to their natures.
But the left has this pessimistic view, that says that one has to destroy nature first, to ensure equality, and that's definitely not correct, it's actually natural operation which guarantees equality.
The left sees equality as existing positively, just by nature, so that inequality must come about by some action, whereas the right sees inequality as the natural state and so equality is something to be achieved i.e. to the left happiness is passivity and activity (that is, actual progress) is evil and things are reversed for the right, activity is the real progress and action requires combat and overcoming and competition; it is always a "becoming" , a continual revolution, and so always an "equalization" and not "equality". Life is from "equalizing" but death and slavery comes from "equality"; we see this everyday now, with the left's stormtroopers , and saboteurs, shutting down the transmission of values -both cultural and economic -which comes naturally, and organically from the people themselves.
When talking about how equality is feminine, you forgot of one thing. That is, that defending “equality” in a social setting is the best way to “save face” and keep social relations stable thus, this is the strategy most women take as a matter of course.
The feminine use of equality is manifested equality in a social setting. The masculine interpretation of equality is serious law and force as in the equality of soldiers as a rank. Maybe what we men always miss when trying to understand how women think is that women are geared towards the social so we think they are liars and manipulators and they think we are autistic and uncaring.
Maybe the problem is not equality itself but the feminine version of equality is. After all, the masculine version of equality can produce a working group as it does in monasteries, armies and fascists and communist states. Of course, hierarchy lords over equality in all of these systems but that is the essence of “equality”, it is inherent and necessary but only when it is subordinated to hierarchy.
The problem is hypocrisy: Where are these loud chest-beating pleas for equality when they tune into watch the Olympics every few years?
Shouldn't Usain Bolt be openly shamed and asked to carry a 75lb kettlebell in each hand before running in the 100m because there is a kid from Baltimore, raised by his grandmother, who always wanted to compete in the Olympics but never had the training or access to coaches -- due to his mediocre abilities -- which he still feels terrible about when watching the Games?
The silence from these same types of equality-screeching, self-righteous reprobates is often deafening.
Exactly. It’s that the idea of equality is feminine per-se and more than lies and hypocrisy to save face are feminine.
most people are okay with inequality in sports, it's when inequality becomes societal that most people turn white "what will happen to my status?"
On the other hand these ideas would change if society itself were to be like a sport i.e. based around competition.
What makes a sport exciting? why do people play them? It's the promise of getting higher status and rewards, & teamwork itself is a type of equality; that's how we sell the transition from the present to the aristocratic future.