The egalitarian ratchet effect: Why opposition to transsexualism will fail

The importance of a transvaluation of values

The ring-wing on Substack is an interesting community. Perhaps I have been led down a particular niche in terms of the people I follow and the writers who are recommended to me, but it seems like a heavy focus of this community is writing about how evil the left are for pushing a transsexual agenda both through society as a whole and especially targeted to children.

Now, I agree with the right that the left’s position on this is deeply immoral. But if one steps back and looks at it on a historical basis, it’s just another battle in a much larger culture war, a culture war the right always loses.

The way it works is as follows: the left decide that some newly created/defined victimized group needs protection, and there is an oppressor group which must be overthrown in order to help the victims. Currently it is the trannies; straight people and normal culture are oppressing them! Before trannies it was gay marriage; straight people and normal culture are oppressing them! Or how about the obese, or the disabled - able-bodied and thin people are oppressing them! And before that it was various minority groups; white culture is oppressing them! As well as women: male culture is oppressing them! Overthrow the evil oppressors! Or from the economic side with communism — the capitalists are exploiting the workers! Workers of the world unite!

Can you see the unifying element of all these disparate historical battles? It should be clear: it stems from the push for egalitarianism, that “the first shall be last and the last shall be first”, which derives from Christianity and specifically from Paul. “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 NKJV), "Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant" (Matthew 20:26-28), and “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things — and the things that are not — to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him” (1^st Corinthians 1:27).¹

Here is a crude, basic chart showing over a 2,000 year period how the push for egalitarianism in all its forms has intensified over time:

Chart notes: Core societal values do not sit still; they get reinforced and progress to stronger and stronger levels over time as a ratchet effect. This is why opposition to any specific spot along the path toward more-equality (at a faster and faster pace) is destined to fail, because it has not addressed the core beliefs that have resulted in that egalitarian push in the first place. The central bank owning Rothschilds and their allies accelerate the egalitarianism push but are not the root cause of it.²

This ratchet effect has commonalities with what Brett Andersen refers to as the cultural ratchet effect, which he defines as follows:

Michael Tomasello (the developmental psychologist mentioned earlier), in his 1999 book The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, describes the “ratcheting” process by which cumulative cultural evolution occurs. This process requires, in the first place, a kind of blind imitation, in which people imitate their cultural models without any rational explanation for their actions. This is referred to in the literature as “overimitation”. Chimpanzees don’t do this. If you show a chimpanzee how to perform a certain task, they will only imitate actions that are causally relevant to the task at hand. Human beings will imitate even irrelevant actions. This may seem irrational, but it is absolutely necessary for the cultural ratcheting process….

Imitation, however, is not enough for the cultural ratcheting process to work. The other side of the coin is innovation, or the propensity to tinker with culturally evolved products. Without some level of innovation, cultural products would not change over time....

Cumulative cultural evolution requires both the conservative impulse to imitate and the progressive impulse to tinker. These two processes — imitation and innovation — make up the ratcheting effect by which complex cultural products (e.g., institutions, practices, technologies, etc.) evolve over time.

The egalitarian ratchet effect, like the cultural ratchet effect, builds on itself over time as a process of imitation and innovation, animated by society’s core values.

However, because complete equality is impossible to achieve via raising up the lower performing groups, the only way to achieve pure equality is by flattening down and destroying those who excel more than baseline. This ultimately cumulates in one of three ways:

1. the leftist singularity, i.e. genocide of the disfavored group(s) as seen in communism under Mao, the “kulak” liquidation under Lenin/Stalin, and Pol Pot’s butchery of 25% of his population, to try to achieve the desired final egalitarian state, which ultimately fails anyway because pure equality is impossible;

2. Societal weakness results in conquest by foreign powers; or

3. A societal transvaluation of values occurs.

---

Tracing the ratchet effect of egalitarianism over time

2,000 years ago, Rome’s values were warrior-centric, valuing strength, greatness, individuality, self-determination, immediacy of purpose, hierarchy, nobility, what could be accomplished in the here and now. According to Nietzsche in his first treatise in “On the Genealogy of Morality”, the Roman aristocracy used a “good” vs “bad” system of morality; what was good were the traits that separated them from the masses. Paul of Tarsus inverted and transvalued those values for the gentile population, offering them a value system of “good” vs “evil”: what was “good” was subservience, conformity, equality, pity, guilt, suffering and self-hatred - the herd mentality; what was “evil” were those who were inegalitarian, i.e. those with traditional “good” values. Paul offered the masses these inverted values as a weapon of war in the Jewish battle against the Roman Empire to rile up the masses against the Roman elites, which was too strong to defeat militarily (although they certainly tried).

Nietzsche’s treatise is an important one; in my opinion the key essay to understand society over the past two thousand years, and can be read here. It’s not long.

After priestly values conquered Rome, which took about 400 years, and even though Rome itself was conquered by barbarians and the western Empire fragmented, a Christian Europe ultimately reached a kind of balance: it possessed extreme priestly egalitarian core values, but it was held in check by a rigid hierarchical Catholicism. And this structure lasted, more or less, for about a thousand years.

What changed the fundamental dynamic at that point? An advancement in technology: The Guttenberg printing press. The free dissemination of the written word at a cheap, affordable price resulted in the population asking why they needed Catholic priests as gatekeepers to knowledge at all. Protestantism under Martin Luther and Calvin then removed the hierarchical guardrails at the heart of Catholicism; then egalitarianism evolved through various permutations such as the French Revolution (“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”) through mainstream Protestantism to Unitarianism, which took over the university system in America before dropping their belief in God (while keeping the underlying value beliefs) as a way to outcompete their religious brethren in an environment that favored the separation of Church and State. This is why so-called atheists such as Richard Dawkins are merely Christians in denial; although they may no longer believe in God, they still believe in all of the fundamental values of the Christian religion going back two thousand years.

As historian Tom Holland (author of the excellent book “Dominion”) explains in an eloquent eight minute video segment below, liberals, secularists, communists, atheists, are all essentially Christians in their beliefs and metaphysics:

Specifically Holland says,

"I would say to look at the most obvious one because it's the symbol of Christianity, if you look at the cross, it’s such an odd thing to have as a focus of veneration, and to have as a fundamental symbol of civilization. Because a cross is a symbol of torture.  And to the Romans it was an emblem of their power to torture to death their inferiors. So crucifixion was inflicted on those who opposed Roman power in the provinces.  But it’s also the paradigmatic fate that is visited on slaves who rebel against their masters.  And everyone who’s seen Spartacus remembers the rows of crosses lining the Appian way.  It’s a billboard advertising the ability of Rome to crush rebellion by the weak, and therefore it serves as a symbol of the powerful over the powerless.  Christianity absolutely upends that it says the cross is a symbol of the powerless triumphing over the powerful, the slave triumphing over its master, of the victim triumphing over the torturer, and this is such a radical notion its hard to express how radical it is.  And the idea that the last shall be first, that there is inherent dignity and value and power in being a victim, this is something that would have been utterly bewildering to the Romans.  And it takes a long time for first the Roman world and then the world of the Germanic conquerers in the west and so on to properly synthesize and understand it.  And thats why I think in a way we are so habituated to it that it takes an effort to understand just how weird and strange that idea is.

And its why actually I think the modern who has most profoundly and unsettlingly understood just how radical that idea is, how radical the idea that the cross of all things should become the emblem of a new civilization was a man who was not just an atheist but a radically hostile anti-Christian atheist Frederick Nietzsche, and Nietzsche said this is a repellant thing.  Nietzsche identified the power and the glory and the beauty of classical civilization and he thought that Christianity was notoriously a religion for slaves and he saw in the emblem of Christ nailed to the cross a kind of disgusting subversion of the ideals of the classical world, privileging of those who properly should be ground beneath the heels of the mighty, and he saw it as a kind of sickness that then infected the “blonde beast”, that this primordial figure of the warrior gets corrupted and gets turned into a monkish figure who’s sick with poverty and sympathy for the poor and the oppressed, and Nietzsche thought it was disgusting.  Now those ideas, however vulgarized, of course feed into a very septic subject which is fascism.

Fascism, I think, was the most radical revolutionary movement that Europe has seen since the age of Constantine. Because unlike the French Revolution, unlike the Russian Revolution, it doesn’t even target institutional Christianity: it targets the moral/ethical fundamentals of Christianity. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution are still preaching the idea that the victim should be raised up from the dust and that the oppressor should be humbled into the dust; it’s still preaching the idea that the first should be last and the last should be first just as Christ has done.

The Nazis do not buy into that. The Nazis buy into the Nietzschean idea that the weak are weak and should be treated as weak, as contemptible, as something to be crushed….

Atheists of today [like Richard Dawkins et al]… they are basically Christians. Nietzsche saw humanists, communists, liberals—people who may define themselves against Christianity—as being absolutely in the fundamentals Christian, and I think he is right about that because I think that in a sense atheism doesn’t repudiate the kind of ethics and the morals and the values of Christianity."

The above eight minute segment is part of an hour interview which can be viewed here if one cares to; it’s a very illuminating and interesting interview throughout.

After crypto-Christians superficially dropped their belief in God and thought of themselves as secular to get around the separation of Church and State, they pushed those values onto the world. And it really went into hyperdrive after the Christian west defeated Hitler in World War 2; Hitler’s failed attempt at transvaluing priestly values back into Roman inegalitarian hierarchical values resulted in a supercharged reinvigoration of these priestly values.

Within 100 years the white percentage of the world population dropped from 25% to 6.5% (1900-2000), in America from 90% to 60% (1965-2020) and in other European countries a lesser but still strong percentage; the west experienced massively declining birthrates, declining morals, and an intense and omnipresent push for egalitarianism in all its forms. For example, Obama didn’t come out in favor of gay marriage until 2012; yet only ten years later in 2022 Tucker Carlson, the furthest right figure allowed on air until his termination, was also in favor of gay marriage.³ “Far right” Ted Cruz recently told Uganda they were extremely evil for not allowing it.

The unhinged, parabolic nature of this extreme push for equality as currently exemplified by the transsexual movement cannot be separated from the history that is described herein; nor can it be effectively opposed. Sure, you can boycott Target or Bud Light or watch “What is a Woman?” or whatever, but meanwhile transsexualism continues to spread and globohomo continues to indoctrinate your children. The mega-corporations that are subject to boycotts receive all sorts of backchannel benefits that more than make up for the inconvenience of their betrayal of their core customer base (which is the same reason why Disney pushes child sex grooming).

After transsexualism triumphs, up next will be pushes for pedophelia and beastiality (“sexual attraction” equality) and white genocide (like is currently happening on a low-level in South Africa), among who knows what other horrible, deviant practices we can’t even imagine at this time. Given the parabolic nature of the moves, it will happen faster and faster, over a shorter and shorter period of time.

---

What can be done if pushing back on transsexualism isn’t and won’t work?

The answer is that there needs to be a transvaluation of values away from egalitarianism. To be able to say without caveat or further explanation: this world is unequal, it will always be unequal to a degree, and instead of trying to push down greatness and nobility in order to achieve equality for all (because the bottom cannot be raised up enough in anything to make up for the gap), we should accept that inequality is a part of life and those that can be great should be great.

There are two types of transvaluation that can occur: partial and full. In a full transvaluation of values to Roman style warrior values, inequality is promoted as an ideal and the poor, the destitute, the obese and dumb are discarded like genetic detritus, both individually and as classes. Taken to an extreme, that means extermination of the out-groups. Hitler’s zeal for lebensraum was so great that even though the Ukrainians and other Soviet satellite states greeted the Nazis as liberators, they ended up resisting them because of how extreme and harsh the Nazi policies were. Perhaps their resistance played a key role in the outcome of the war.⁴ This exterminationism is also what blogger Cesar Tort promotes, for example (Cesar has interesting historical points sometimes but he really is quite extreme).

Tom Holland is correct in his criticism of those who push pure warrior values, though, as he states in “Dominion”:

“The more years I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, so the more alien I increasingly found it.  The values of Leonidas, whose people had practiced a particularly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognized as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more.  It was not just the extremes of callousness that unsettled me, but the complete lack of any sense that the poor or the weak might have the slightest intrinsic value.  Why did I find this disturbing?  Because, in my morals and ethics, I was not a Spartan or a Roman at all.  That my belief in God had faded over the course of my teenage years did not mean that I had ceased to be Christian.  For a millennium and more, the civilization into which I had been born was Christendom.  Assumptions that I had grown up with - about how a society should properly be organized, and the principles that it should uphold - were not bred of classical antiquity, still less of ‘human nature’, but very distinctively of that civilization’s Christian past.  So profound has been the impact of Christianity on the development of Western civilization that it has come to be hidden from view.  It is the incomplete revolutions which are remembered; the fate of those whose triumph is to be taken for granted.”

Let’s not forget that Christianity was so successful because it appealed to such a tremendous number of people who were otherwise valueless in Roman society.

There is a third possibility other than just pure warrior and pure egalitarian values.

The other possibility is a partial transvaluation of values, where one seeks a balance between warrior and priestly values, between egalitarianism and in-egalitarianism. This can take many forms; above the stability brought upon by 1,000 years of Catholic rule can be attributed to the balance between the two energies (also see the Byzantine Empire). To value strength, nobility, honor, while still acknowledging that the worse off have value, with a measure of humility and grace; one could say that Lee Kuan Yew exemplified this balance as he brought up Singapore from nothing to a massive success using his combination of strong-armed dictatorship along with building up a large middle class; he approached things from a Confucius standpoint, focused on the betterment of society, and he did not let politically incorrect ideas around the inherent inequality between different groups (Chinese vs. Malays, Muslims vs. Confucists, men vs. women, etc) get in the way of doing what it took to advance the interests of the nation as a whole.

Society works best in balance, and currently all we have is extreme egalitarian values, with no ability to argue that hierarchy and inequality is both okay and proper on its own terms, and you are not a “bad” person for acknowledging that; that society’s egalitarianism is not based in “reason” or “rationality” but rather a pure, intense religious belief dating back 2,000 years that has become unmoored from reality; that the goal should be to re-center and match society with reality as much as possible, and that to deny reality is only going to cause pain and suffering for both individuals and groups in the long term. There are characteristic differences between groups of people, between men and women, between races, between people of different sexual orientations, on the level of a bell curve; that to deny those differences is to inevitably result in assigning blame wrongfully to other groups, and that instituting even more measures to try to “correct” for it is just not going to work and will end up dragging society down to the lowest common denominator.

Tom Holland identifies the transvaluation of values argument but, perhaps correctly, does not step over the line; to argue even for a partial transvaluation of values could impact his quite successful writing career. In “Dominion” he skipped over World War 2 entirely; one can infer he did this entirely intentionally based on his statements in the above interview.

People ask what can be done to resist globohomo at this time. There is nothing outwardly that can be done on a political level; any populist revolution is guaranteed to fail, just as Trump’s did, due to Kynosargas’s accurate criticisms about the weaknesses of right-wing populism. It is a time for inward focus and education about the transformation of values that must occur if there is to be a hope for future change.

1. Or see Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, section 51: "Christianity was not "national," it was not based on race--it appealed to all the varieties of men disinherited by life, it had its allies everywhere. Christianity has the rancour of the sick at its very core--the instinct against the healthy, against health. Everything that is well--constituted, proud, gallant and, above all, beautiful gives offense to its ears and eyes. Again I remind you of Paul's priceless saying: "And God hath chosen the weak things of the world, the foolish things of the world, the base things of the world, and things which are despised": this was the formula; in hoc signo the decadence triumphed.”

2. The Rothschild and ally central bank owners use egalitarianism as divide et impera tactics in order to increase their wealth, but the reason the Christian masses go along with it is because they have accepted the religious belief in equality as pushed by Paul. If they didn’t have that religious belief they would treat (for example) Jews as just another non-special sect among many like the Romans did, instead of at minimum the “former chosen people” who believe in half of their holy book and historically received special carve-out privileges as money lenders (Christians and Muslims were forbidden from money lending). Judaism was the only religion that Christians did not ban when they took over the Roman Empire. This strange dynamic continues today with Jews having a -40 favorability toward evangelicals while evangelicals are +39 toward Jews per polling.

3. He slid it in quietly mid-op ed: “It's pretty interesting when you think about it. So this is a bill signing, affirming the legality – legalizing once again, gay marriage, which most people support in this country. Should people be able to get married if they love each other? Yeah, they should. That's fine. Not that controversial a point at this stage.”

4. To be fair, there were a tremendous number of communist partisans behind enemy lines, and it was quite difficult to tell friend from foe. Leon Degrelle argues in his autobiography “The Eastern Front” that extremely harsh early Nazi policies in Eastern Europe were later made much more mild once they understood that the general population were not virulent Bolsheviks, but the general opinion had turned against them by that time.