These days it is fashionable to have the opinion that equality is inherently fair. In contrast to this belief, the world is rife with inequality and there is no indication that this reality will change anytime soon. Nevertheless, when one firmly holds the belief that equality is inherently fair, one will have faith that no obstacle is big enough to stop "progress," i.e. the process by which it is thought inequality will be "inevitably" abolished in this world. Even when there are no signs of change in any meaningful or objectively progressive way, people who have been led to think equality is always fair will continue to support and fight for equality. Assuming that equality is absolutely good, these same individuals regard inequality as the root of all evil. As if they know the key to the past, present, and future, they will tell us about how equality has plagued humanity for all of human history, yet we must fight for change in the present while victory is inevitable in the future. Thus, it is truly their firm belief that they understand all of human history - what was, what is, what will be. They will ignore all signs that they are fighting against reality, nature, time, evolution, etc. because their minds have been programmed to do so; only the goal matters to them, and no matter the costs or consequences, they will pursue that goal, even when that means the total destruction of society along with all the traditional customs, beliefs, and values that hold it together as a web of delicate threads running through our daily human lives. Blinded with the ideology of equality, the republicans will fight for the destruction of humanity and civilisation.
I think that it is time for an explicit and sophisticated ideology of inequality. What we have known for all of human history must be made explicit: inequality is the norm in this world, and it is necessarily so. The assumption that equality is inherently fair is not just obviously mistaken, but such a ridiculous concept is dangerously delusional as it leads to unwarranted radicalism - a fact which has become painfully obvious because of the various sectarian strands of republicanism. After all, even a child can tell that equality is not necessarily fair. For instance, a big person may be given a bigger portion of food at the table than his small neighbour who eats very little while he naturally needs less. It would be an artificial situation to force the big person to eat the same portion of food as the small person or vice versa. However, those who believe equality is necessarily good will be advocating and consequently doing practically just that. The idea that equality is good while we live in a world of inequality is sheer madness. Observing the world around us, it should actually dawn upon us that inequality might not be such a bad thing after all. In fact, it might even be a good thing. Nature necessitates variety. Evolution occurs because of that necessity. Inequality exists because of evolution. That being the case, inequality is the road to progress, while equality is the road to regression. If we were all the same, we would obviously not be making a leap forward but a huge leap backwards. Equality is artificial, and absolute equality cannot exist because it does not belong to this world.
Theories can make us crazy about equality, but equality is not all-good. Actually, equality can be quite evil. When I was studying feudalism, it occurred to me that our feudal forefathers were not wrong in their worldview that there was nothing wrong with (the maintenance of) inequality in this world. After all, if all the rich people who lived in feudal times chose to give up their wealth for life as a beggar, then everyone would have been poor and no one could have shared some of their wealth with the poor. Equality is not necessarily a good thing. Those who criticise the feudal system merely for the inequality that existed in this system are biased about the nature of equality; such individuals think equality is only fair and good. However, any mature-thinking person ought to be more reasonable and not entertain such simplistic thoughts. The world is not rose-coloured and we are not living in fairy-tales. Equality is not a good thing in and of itself, and it is certainly not something that is to be pursued at all costs and all times. In fact, I believe that inequality is a much better thing to pursue, because (a) all humans are not equal, and (b) if all humans are not equal, it will better suit their needs to treat them unequally. The idea of our feudal ancestors - and this is an idea pretty much in harmony with nature - was to help people through inequality. They recognised that we can do good in a world where things are as they are; we can improve the world through its natural framework.
We do not need to rebel against the world to make it a better and nicer place; no, the opposite should be done. We should embrace the world as it is, and seek to do the best we can within the world's limitations. This may not sound spectacular, but it is also not meant to be, because what is natural is what is and ought to be normal. There is an imperative to follow the rules of the world in which we live. If we think that we can simply change the rules, we will be painfully disappointed, because our efforts will be totally in vain. The rules cannot be changed, but we can live by those rules and do so honourably. The inequality of individuals, of groups, of cultures, is a good thing in my eyes; it is what makes the world so wonderfully diverse. Monarchy embraces that diversity; it says yes to inequality. There is nothing wrong with the rules of the world, because that would presuppose that we can change those rules. Likewise, there is nothing intrinstically wrong with inequality. It is only that ideological types have been led to believe equality is absolutely fair and good. It is absurd even to focus on something such as inequality, while we can focus on helping people. Attacking inequality is a dangerous thing, because it will lead to destruction. However, helping humanity is a much better goal to pursue, and if one genuinely pursues that goal, one will not focus on fighting inequality. In fact, inequality is not that which hinders helping humanity but is that through which humanity can be helped.
In the end, it may be argued that fighting against inequality is inhumane or anti-human. The maintenance of inequality may actually be very good for people. Feudalism recognised that. It is difficult for us now to understand what kind of ideology our feudal ancestors had, but it is actually vitally important for us today to study and investigate feudalism and to try to understand better what our feudal ancestors thought. We can learn a lot from those who lived in a natural way. Of course, feudal ideology did perhaps not need to be explicitly expressed at the time because it was a natural fact; it grew and came to people naturally. After all, feudalism was probably not created by some verbose theorists who wished to improve the world while ignoring the simple fact that reality cannot be altered unless one understands, accepts, and lives by the rules of this world. I think, moreover, that we need to see feudalism in its medieval context, and that if ever we were to adopt feudalism today, it would have to be naturally adapted to our specific needs and desires that we have as a people in our time and place. Even in the past feudalism used to mean many different things in different times and places. Feudalism was a very dynamic system, which changed according to the people's needs in a certain time and place.
We may, for example, also say that our modern society shows feudal characteristics. This is not per se bad. It is just a fact. I believe that even though hunter-gatherer societies may appear more egalitarian on the surface, as Marx has noted, there is nevertheless inequality between individual hunter-gatherers, at least in the final analysis. Individuals are not equal, and so it would be absurd to think that hunter-gatherers would be equal. Of course, they may share food and other resources more or less equally among themselves, but this does not make the entire society equal. It is, perhaps, in a relative sense true that hunter-gatherer societies are more equal, because, after all, there are more professions in more complex societies, because those societies necessitate more specialisation while there are more things that need to be done for the maintenance of such societies. I do firmly believe that feudal structures will only be seen in more complex societies such as in Europe or East Asia. Where there is a higher need for specialisation, there is a higher demand for inequality. Since hunter-gatherers have less need for inequality, they also tend to develop and reproduce social structures that are not - or in any case much less - feudal. Due to the complexity of the West, feudal structures will always resurface no matter what republicans try to do for the realisation of their ideal of absolute equality on earth. Realising that there is a timeless aspect to feudalism, I am willing to identify as a feudalist, even if it is just to taunt Marxists and others who are biased against feudalism.
To conclude this article, I think that monarchists should embrace inequality, emphasise the need to help people through inequality, and develop an elaborate ideology of inequality that is, although such an ideology must be justified theoretically or philosophically, in harmony with nature and humanity. In the end, an ideology of inequality, which fits monarchism, will be much more altruistic, because humanity can be helped much more effectively through inequality than it can ever be through inherently artificial equality. If helping and improving humanity is moral, i.e. something that we should all pursue and seek after, then a moral argument can also be made for pursuing (the maintenance of) inequality instead of (artificially creating) equality.
