Equality is a Muslim God

Equality is not a god that accepts and ministers to failure, like Christ, nor a god that prefers moderation, like Siddartha’s dharma. Nor is it a god satisfied by material offerings, like the ancient spirits of the world.

Equality is a god that demands perfection, punishes weakness, and calls for the destruction of unbelievers. It is heretical to claim there are “different paths to Equality”, for there is only one, unquestionable path, that has many pillars which must all be followed. Its holy warriors must always be pure, must work twice as hard to cleanse themselves if any flaw is detected, and are always open to any practice that could improve their purity. It rewards those who fight for its cause, although its adherents argue over whether violence is an acceptable form of battle. Yes, Equality is a Muslim God.

Many things are evil in the eyes of equality. Equality implies the elimination of any discrimination between levels of ability, worth, or desire– that is to say, any judgment of a thing whatsoever, except for determining its equalness. For example: Force is evil, for its sole use is to dominate other people, which is unequal. Strength is evil for the same reason. Leadership is evil, for it implies following. Mutual exchange (“capitalism”) is evil, because extensive research has proven that this involves inequality. Beauty is evil, for it implies ugliness, and judging people or things in this way makes them unequal. Chastity is evil, for it implies that loose morals are bad, etc. Pride in one’s own heritage is evil, because it implies that there are Others and that they are not as good as you. These evils are given different names by adherents, that is classism, racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, speciesism etc. To an unbeliever, being accused of one of these things should be treated like an accusation of shirk or dhanb, but the forces of Equality are strong.

It should go without saying that obedience to anything besides equality is evil, for there is no God but Equality. However, the recognition of this evil is not widespread but takes stages. Obedience to the state, the state being the dominant power system of the 21st century, is the first to go for equalists; and for the most part, this is their most noticeable trait. For the more fervent, obedience to one’s superiors at work is also abandoned, and the true extremists find that obedience to a religion, to one’s parents, or to anything else besides equality itself is unacceptable.

Now you may ask, what is good in the eyes of the equalists? This is simple, as simple as it is for the Muslims. What makes people more equal is good. This is not a faith that allows moderation, or a variety of different virtues. There is only the one scale of righteousness, which has at its top Equality and at its bottom something called “hatred”, bizarrely so for such an all-hating faith. There is no halfway, since complete Equality is desired, and if we agree that there is nothing bad about things that we once judged, we can bring human beings closer to this divine perfection. Therefore, celebrating disorder, disobedience, weakness, ugliness, sluttiness, and so on are all good things. For the covert unbeliever, this has the discomfiting effect that celebrating respect, tradition, beauty, etc. will get you eyed with suspicion. But this is nothing compared to condemning disrespect or disorder; these things will quickly mark you as a heretic, and you will have a fatwa placed upon you. As with Islam, defection from Equality is the most heinous possible crime.

It’s the radicals you need to worry about, and many of them have gathered on the Internet, waiting to stone to death anyone who dares to mock Equality. It is these radical extremists who remain in the Occupy movement itself long after it has lost its critical mass. They will excuse any rape or theft as a necessary sacrifice on the way to Equality. Like extremists of every stripe, they are dangerous and can be pushed to violence and murder. Like Islamic terrorists, they will even burn down public buildings at the expense of their own lives.

But most of those who vote for the left-leaning parties are what we ought to call moderate equalists. They may do some of the rituals, they will certainly speak highly of equality when they hear it mentioned, but they have not yet been educated about the full extent of the faith. Their awareness, so to speak, has not been raised. Some of them, Equality help them, may even condone unequal relationships between themselves and others, through thoughtlessness of course. They are all inspired by the selfless jihadis, the Occupiers who are fighting fiercely against the vague menace of inequality. If you ask them whether they condone violence in the name of their god, they might outright deny it, or they might hem and haw. “Violence was good sometimes, you know. Like when the Nazis were threatening us with inequality, we beat them and showed them that equality was good… although, I sometimes wish we had beaten the Nazis as a gender-neutral, non-hierarchical autonomous collective…”

Because Equality is a jealous god (and is indeed the favored god of the jealous), it proclaims that all institutions either seek it or lack it, and does not admit the complexity of the world. The world is full of diverse cultures and endless social situations. People are not always fighting “for equality” or “against equality”, and in fact that is more the exception than the rule, although Marx’s command to rewrite history has obscured this fact. Adherents of the mature religions, those authorities written on tattered parchment and ancient stone, understand that human beings have endless motivations which cannot all be answered with “more equality”. In the 20th century Equality was a good leader to us; in the 21st it will not prove so helpful, and people shall abandon it for a stronger god.

Most of the Right is engaged in simple religious struggle against Equality. Although they might not realize the nature of their enemy, they see the single-minded, intolerant, Muslim nature of Equality and they know that it is a false god. Their gods are indeed more merciful than Equality, and although the equalists celebrate every teenage defection with raucous applause, the private defections by adults to the side of Tradition are just as common. We in the New Right are in a more precarious state. We have the insecurity of atheists, and like Evola, we may be constantly searching for a truly powerful Tradition that can provide us secure refuge from the tyranny of equality. But in the meantime, we have the logical upper hand of atheists as well.

For the New Right, at least, the process to refute a believer is simple: tell them to make a list of all the gods they don’t believe in. Then add just one more: Equality. Now they may see the consistency of your position.

40 Comments

  1. hattip says:

    Equality iis a God that hates the individual. Meditate on that one.

    1. Esotericist says:

      When we’re all equal and exactly the same, we can love ourselves as one. We’ll be like the Borg, but each person will have their own style. Like the Rolling Stones.

    2. Sun says:

      Well they can’t be a herd and individuals, unless they are a herd of individuals (which I think don’t agree).

      Lets have a quote from a dead man:

      “My conception of freedom. – The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it – what it costs us. I give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. One knows, indeed, what their ways bring: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic – every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.”

      Twilight of the Idols (1888). Expeditions of an Untimely Man, 38 Nietzsche

      1. Ryan says:

        hey he is dead so thats totally irrelvant mister!
        the rolling stones were the steamroller, not the new road. the new road will not have any forms forms of distinction. you must pray five times a day, once with your credit card to those scrawny ugandan australoids, around noon with your soy beverage. at five with your new york time article on “transgender appriciation” and last, when you appease the “COOL” god with your mescengenation.

  2. Avery Morrow says:

    The audience of this post is primarily Christian, pagan, and atheist traditionalists. However, I did spend some time thinking about what would happen if a Muslim read it. If the Muslim also believes in Equality, of course, he’d just be doubly outraged. Nothing to worry about there. If the Muslim was also traditionalist, I feel like he’d be familiar with criticism and take this rather metaphorical criticism lightly. So I concluded that I shouldn’t worry.

    1. Esotericist says:

      I may be reading too much into your article, but I saw this one as a criticism of the modern secularism that assumes we’ve left behind religious thinking.

      We just swapped the old gods for newer and angrier ones. Islam make seek world conquest and to blow up anyone who opposes Islam, but equality seeks world conquest and to destroy anyone that is not Equality. It’s total conformity.

      Muslims reading this blog will probably be of the healthy type who realize that a caricature of Mohammed in Denmark is not going to destroy their religion, but who would also avoid anyone who did such a thing, in their own countries.

      1. Avery Morrow says:

        That is exactly my point. How will we view this period of history in the future? Defection from Equality is increasingly becoming an issue that gets talk shows taken off the air, freethinking people shunned by their friends, etc. Yet this, too, will pass. And when our great-great-grandchildren look back on this era, when they read our fiction and our newspapers, they will be flummoxed by how completely Equality had taken hold of every aspect of modern life.

        Religion (as I done learned in college) is a word that only has metaphorical, comparative value. So I use it here to its fullest extent. This is the god of our age.

        1. Esotericist says:

          You’re right: equality is the god of our age, and we make sacrifices to it daily.

          Human beings tend to get more adamant about dogma when it is failing. What we are seeing lately are the spasms of a dying idea.

          This is why we need to push even harder for its demise, and for something sensible to take its place.

      2. Meow Mix says:

        Zizek once remarked that the term Islamic ‘fundamentalist’ was misleading precisely because a fundamentalist is one who is so sure of their righteous ways that the critique of others cannot phase them. For him, at least, the true fundamentalists are the Amish and Zen Buddhists, who are confident to the point of being oblivious of outsiders. That many Muslims would go into a murderous rampage over a drawing of Mohammed shows that they are the opposite of fundamentalists: they are insecure. They hate the ‘great Satan’ West precisely because they are seduced by it. Very off topic, but oh well.

        1. Anon says:

          Your logic (obtained somewhat from Zizek, I assume) assumes that reacting strongly to what one considers blasphemy implies insecurity of belief.

          Instead, it may be that Muslims are encouraged to correct falsehood by hand (strongest form of faith), tongue, or at the very least via thought (weakest form of faith). This is based on Prophetic sayings (hadeeth).

          1. Sun says:

            I would agree with you. Assurance of fanatical zeal doesn’t disallow someone from wanting to kill you, it tends to strengthen it. Due to the fundamentals of Amish and Zen beliefs are different compounded with other cultural forces it is very different.

            To understand Islam you have to understand the genesis that gave rise to it–the history which is forged in war and blood.

          2. Esotericist says:

            “assumes that reacting strongly to what one considers blasphemy implies insecurity of belief”

            Zizek is a leftist. They all think this way.

            Fundamentalism however seems to me to be a taking of religion seriously, instead of making it a “lifestyle choice.” The problem is that many fundies regard the word of holy books as literal, when it is clearly poetry.

      3. Sun says:

        Muslim roughly means “submission.” Islam is a very hierarchical religion steaming from Middle Eastern peoples from the Semitic region of the world.

        It will be amusing when the egalitarians get something really different once certain populations dramatically shift to reflect Islam.

        Demographics change destiny.

        1. ogg says:

          Allow me to interject for a moment. There is no official hierarchy in Islam, there is no official priests either.

          1. Sun says:

            So Allah, then Muhammad, then other prophets, then Muhammad’s successors (whom Shiites and Sunni…lets just say “disagree”), Mullah/Shaikh (master/elder), men, then women, isn’t a hierarchy?

            Not to mention Caliphates, a title that is gone but only recently.

            I did some research, since I was curious and my knowledge is lackluster and found this:
            http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=803&CATE=3

          2. john says:

            There is a hierarchy, but its based on the amount of knowledge, ie. where and how long the person studied. There are rules regarding marriage such as people from different economic, education or racial backgrounds being unsuitable to marry one another.

      4. Ryan says:

        good point

    2. ferret says:

      “If the Muslim was also traditionalist, I feel like he’d be familiar with criticism and take this rather metaphorical criticism lightly.”

      Something metaphorical for you may appear offensive even for a “traditionalist”. It’s not in Muslim tradition to take something like this “lightly”.

      I tried to imagine what would happen if, say, tomorrow all kinds of equalities (equality of outcome, equality of opportunity, equality of autonomy, etc.) are defeated without changing capitalist society basics. Would be fun.

      1. Sun says:

        I’m careful when I judge when one utters “equality,” because as you pointed out, it can mean different things in different context.

        The closest I would agree with any egalitarian is “equality of opportunity” and nothing more [and even this has become not an absolute rule for me].

        1. crow says:

          It is curious how ‘equality’ is only ever seen as an upstream-movement thing.
          Every bum should be rich. Every barbarian should be lauded, every talent-less nobody a rock-star, etc.
          There seems this complete blind-spot for equality of outcomes that would also include moving from wherever you are to the level of the wino-burnout who sleeps under an overpass.

        2. Esotericist says:

          Don’t we call that meritocracy?

          I think we should give favor to genetics. Good family, probably a good kid, and if not, surely a bad one.

    3. Anon says:

      While what you have said above is mostly true, the metaphor of your article is somewhat contrived.

      This is mostly due to your misconceptions regarding Islam. Of course, your accounts of it must mostly be based on what you see of it in the West, or from what can be gleaned from foreign media in Islamic countries (though I doubt the latter as it would be an insult to your intelligence), so this is understandable. Of course, I may be incorrect, and you could be a Hafiz (one who has memorized the contents of the Qur’an) :-)

      Before I proceed, I would like to posit that a religion does not consist of the actions of a majority of its members, but instead the fundamentals of its core, uncorrupted sacred texts and traditions. “Traditions” differ from “actions” because what is meant by the former is the values carried down unchanged through generations, while the latter simply implies what is carried out at a given time (which may be innovations). If these texts or traditions are altered at some point and become the canonical representation of the religion, everything above still holds because these are now considered as ‘uncorrupted’. This is my axiom.

      A few examples:

      Islam does not sanction the wholesale slaughter of those who do not believe in its tenets – Qur’an: Surat Al-Kāfirūn [109]
      It does however, sanction that Islam shall be the dominant religion. So does any religious and/or cultural system. This is part of cultural preservation.

      Islam is in fact described as moderate. Of course, to outsiders, this seems patently false. However, Islam strongly discourages asceticism – http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0004P0014.aspx

      As a Muslim, I am most concerned by the growing influence of liberalism in Islam. So, while your article may be metaphorical, it actually uncovers the underbelly of modern Islamic liberalism. It’s no coincidence that this is the form of Islam most supported by the West’s leaders.

      1. Sun says:

        “They ask you about the sacred month – about fighting therein. Say, ‘Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah . And fitnah is greater than killing.’ And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever – for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally.”
        –Quran (2:217)

        I have listened to clerics take about, from a Islamic theological standpoint, as to what they refer as the decadence of the West and the blasphemy they see on TV and other form of media; however, I would argue that this has only caused more zeal in Muslims to fight against it.

        And fight against it, they will. As it is their duty, by their god, Allah.

        Case in point, Muslim feminist women who even insist of being treated like other Western women get acid splashed on their face.

        http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/24/muslim-women-disfigured-by-acid-by-phyllis-chesler/

        I wouldn’t be concerned with the morphing of Islam anytime soon especially with the decline of the West. I fully suspect that Islam will retake most of Europe like the Abbasid Caliphate or the Ottomans did.

        It is truly a clash of civilizations that are wholly incompatible. It isn’t just one of the manifestations (like Liberalism), but the entire Western World stemming from 2000-1500 years ago and intensifying during the Medieval period. A history of bloodshed and differences.

      2. Sun says:

        Of course, one could cite other passages from other major religions, like Christianity, but the difference is (for Christianity as this example), as an institution, it has evolved, along with other cultural forces in the Western World tempering anything that would have been common in the Dark or Medieval Ages.

        Furthermore, there a cultural impact that Christianity, in the Western World, has made regardless of whether one is one secular or not. My name for instance, is a biblical–even though I am not Christian. I celebrate Christian holidays because it is part of my traditional heritage. The architecture of many buildings have evolutionary roots to Churches, etc.

    4. ogg says:

      I’m a muslim and a traditionalist (what would I be doing here if I loved equality?) and totally agree with you. Carry on my infidel friend, no need to worry about bombs.

      1. Esotericist says:

        At this blog, we’re infidels first and foremost to Western liberalism, and they are the people most likely to fly planes into us (metaphorically).

    5. EvilBuzzard says:

      If he was heavily into Wahhabi, you may need a passport and a bolt-hole.

      1. EvilBuzzard says:

        I’ll add to that. This is one of the few posts I’ve seen even risk openly criticize Islam. That’s one reason the religious villains in Hollywood Movies all thump bibiles instead of the Koran. Way fewer beheadings that way….

    6. umar says:

      Muslim here. I understood what he’s trying to say, but it comes off as sounding very weird. Islam is not egalitarian.

  3. crow says:

    Equality is only of interest to those who feel unequal.
    Achieving equality would, by definition, include them.
    So they are all for it.

    My life has been characterized by inequality.
    I had less, was less, that anybody around me.
    I glory in it, now, because I could never, never have become what I am, now, had this not been the case.

    Equality is the God of the truly stupid.
    Pity them, for nothing can inject life into their lives.
    Like the Black Death, they are ultimately doomed organisms, although the damage they will do, in their finite lifetimes, will be immense.

    Take heart in this: the universe, itself, is a system in balance.
    It wavers and trembles, shudders and shakes, on its automatic way to re-balancing itself.
    Plagues come and go. There are always casualties.
    But there is, as well, always recovery.
    Not always for the individual, but for the glory of the whole.

    1. Sun says:

      Then you might want to save yourself from Humanitarians.

      You think it is bad now.

    2. Esotericist says:

      In the old days, they called inequality “adversity.”

      Builds character.

  4. Ryan says:

    equality, like islam, even has it’s own form of asthetics-(or lack of). what would be “euro-centric” today, was art. now there is this attempt, mainly through media and youth “culture” to push the imagry of the multi-cult. instead of a naked jew on a stick, we have a smiling, friendly token black guy.

  5. Ted Swanson says:

    Great work, Avery. You write with a great balance of analysis and imagination. I love it!

  6. crow says:

    You know, Hitler might have achieved great things, had he not been a leftist – as in National-Socialist – and been able to resist the urge to wage a war on two fronts.
    Amerika might do well to heed this.
    If you’re going to have enemies, then having one enemy at a time is probably a good idea.

    1. Sun says:

      I wrote a big rambling post but decided against it because it goes off topic from the original topic.

      Consider yourself lucky crow.

      1. crow says:

        Lucky is what I am.
        Nothing wrong with going off-topic, here.
        It’s one of the few mediums where you can.
        Only gratuitous insults are frowned-upon.

      2. Sun says:

        Such men who face Sun’s rambling post are never heard from again…

        1. crow says:

          Men may flee in terror, but a crow?
          Crows seem to cackle and taunt.
          No wonder so many despise them.
          Entirely missing what it is that they despise.

          SQUAWK (:>

  7. [...] 2012by Ferdinand Bardamu on March 18, 2012in LinkageFrom here (NSFW).Avery Morrow – “Equality is a Muslim God”Brett Stevens – “Ducking the Meme“, “Spycatcher, by Peter [...]

Leave a Reply

43 queries. 1.026 seconds