When you hear the word “equality” what comes to mind? A roundtable of knights, a bunch of mediocre child athlete receiving participation awards (oh, wait no, that’s equity. That’s a shit thing to have), or maybe a mural painted by some shmucks in a metropolitan park with a bunch of different colored hands in peace. Er, no that’s diversity and multiculturalism. Damn, these things have gotten so interchangeable you don’t even really know what they mean anymore, huh?

Equality, in its truest, most palatable and logical sense, is the idea that all people, regardless of their traits and innumerable other characteristics that compose them, ought to be treated as equals under the law. That no group should have more leeway than another, in other words. I’m a big advocate of this, and think it should be fought for in our Western models of governance – despite that fact that you can do fucking anything if you have the money or a picture of someone with money doing something…non-kosher and incriminating, but hey, it’s like that everywhere and always. That being said, that’s as far as I’m willing to go on it. As I see it, the extent to which equality is applied should only prevent abuse by the government against the people it governs. That’s really all you need – but of course, that’s not exactly what’s being preached these days.

The perverted and bastardized 2.0 or 3.0 version of “equality” so-called that we seem to be running on as of late, could really not be anything much further from equality at all. No, I’m not talking muh police brutality or muh racism. Such things are so few and far between the media only gets to play with one or two local stories each year. Hardly what I’d call a systemic problem compared to something like a communist empire or a subversive news apparatus pretending to be journalism. Equality, as law, exists in America. There is nothing someone of a different extraction, sex, or sect than myself can’t do that I can – granted they’re a citizen, of course (which should be made much harder). And good thing too; if they were treated differently under the law, their vomited rhetoric about inequality would actually have merit.

While the vast majority of people in this world – in this country more specifically – are generally tuned out to political discourse for the most part (though I’d argue they’re much more with it then they were even 4 years ago) there is very deranged, very shriek-prone fringe of technicolored freaks that live in a world divorced from observable reality, and is typically viewed solely through a slave-made smartphone. O, the irony.

These human drones, despite all there claims to the contrary, are advocating for all the policies the laymen in the political realm would think they were juxtaposing. But there’s this weird, new-fangled thing called lying that’s made a real comeback as of late, and there is, in fact, a very deep disparity between the cringe-fringe’s words and their actions. And nowhere is this made more clear than when you take a look at their prescribed philosophy of intersectionality – one that will be laughed at by scholars centuries from now.

Intersectionality, in a nutshell, encompasses policies and the cultural normalization of hyper-compartmentalization of people based on no less than every quantifiable difference that can be observed between people. You see movements and, in a more official capacity, caucuses for specific ethnicities – all except for one, obviously – as well as other fundraising apparatuses pretending to be agents of change. The existence of these groups alone should be enough of a hint that equality is not really the goal of, well, much of anyone. Largely because there’s no money to be made in it. It’s much easier to squeeze money out of people who are afraid, discontent, and unaware, after all.

But intersectionality doesn’t stop at mere phenotypical expressions; want to make a new group? Just slap a few more tags on there. Black Lives Matter? How about Black Trans Lives Matter? Cause, you know, the black community is famed for it’s tolerance of homosexuals. Within the doctrine of intersectionality, is an almost built-in kill-switch that causes the pool to drain once it gets too full. For those of you familiar with the issue or if you watched my video on the riots, than you’ve probably heard the term “purity spiral”. When a group manages to oust most if not all of it’s opposition, like say, on Twitter, the crusade turns on itself. Splitting further and further into smaller and smaller more niche groups until any resemblance of cohesion the larger group once had is completely wiped away. Think back to any time throughout history when a homogeneous civilization had no foreign or otherwise adversarial force to unite against. The result is always the same.

But while this recent iteration of what could be easily be interchangeably described as “tribalism” is, from my perspective, more of an artificial smokescreen and a cheap (albeit effective) distraction for the coming election, it’s worth pointing out, as I have before, that people in groups breaking off from the greater community to form their own is entirely natural. And if it’s natural, then it is not inherently benevolent nor malevolent. Intersectionality is not so much an alien school of thought as it is a freshman-level understanding of group psychology and sociology.

But why am I pointing all of this out? Is it because I think I have the answer for a more united humanity? The key to becoming what science-fiction writers (oftentimes philosophers and prophets) would deem a class-one civilization? No. And frankly, I find the entire notion of world peace and cooperation to be utterly absurd. Nobody but the more enlightened nations even propose such things, and all it takes is a single dissenter to make the whole thing fall apart.

As I’ve said, equality in the sense that the law should treat all it’s citizens fairly is a just and absolute good, in my view. And the reason I feel the need to specify equality as a legal term is only because equality in the broader sense that all people are born equals is obviously and empirically false. It’s never been the case and it never will be, and the percentage of people excluding the western world that buy into this idea would make the social justice crowd cry themselves into a coma.

What possible justification can be made that a baby born healthy and mutation-free is no better than or is in for a life no worse than a baby born without arms and legs? In what way can you argue that someone who wins a gold medal in an Olympic event is no more physically capable than someone who has been bound in a wheelchair their entire lives? Why are some people left to fend for themselves, while others are kept guarded around the clock by trained specialists with military-grade weaponry? Because equality – as it pertains to the value of individual people – isn’t real. Be it by virtue of one’s station, levels of valuable expertise, or even something as circumstantial as how attractive a person is, nobody is equal, and some people do, in fact, matter more to the wider world than others. Would you give equal consideration to saving either a close friend or family member over a perfect stranger? Of course you wouldn’t.

So the next time someone tells you to combat your internalized biases – the biases that have helped people to survive until around the 50’s – tell them to get bent. Life isn’t fair, theory fears practice, and human nature and ingrained preferences cannot be overridden - except in the most fractured and tainted of souls. Want to end the hate? End the AstroTurfed compassion. Nothing tears people apart like forcing them together.

Watch the Video