Dreaming of a Less Equal World
Postcon 1: Axioms
Introduction
Most political arguments are a waste of time. Not because debate is useless—but because almost no one is debating the right thing. They argue over policies, outcomes, and historical events, all while standing on completely different foundations. If you want to change how someone thinks, you can’t just tug on their conclusions. You have to go deeper. You have to challenge their axioms.
This piece is a follow-up to Postconservatism. In that essay, I outlined the death of traditional society. Here, I take the next step: defining what must rise in its place—not just in platforms or aesthetics, but in moral structure. Postcons don’t need better arguments within the dominant worldview. We need to tear out that worldview at the root—and replace its sacred assumptions with our own.
Until we do that, nothing truly changes. We’re just arguing over house rules inside someone else’s home. It’s time to burn it down—and build a new one.
Understanding Axioms
If you want to truly understand philosophy and politics, the most important concept to grasp is the idea of axioms.
Axiom (noun): A foundational principle or assumption accepted as true without proof and used as the starting point for further reasoning or argument. Axioms are the invisible bedrock beneath every worldview. They are not conclusions, but the unquestioned premises on which conclusions are built. Whether in philosophy, politics, science, or mathematics, all systems of thought rest on a set of core assumptions—things taken for granted.
Most people argue about policies, ideologies, or outcomes without realizing they’re standing on different sets of axioms. If two people fundamentally disagree, it’s usually because they’re starting from different premises. That’s why identifying and understanding axioms—both your own and others’—is key to grasping not just what people believe, but why they believe it.
Some common political axioms include:
Individuals have natural rights
The state exists to serve the people
Equality is a moral good
Hierarchy is inevitable
Freedom is more important than security
Axioms and Us
To effectively confront the left, we must go to the root of the disagreement. Nearly all leftist prescriptions stem from two core axioms: equality and humanism.
Consider a familiar debate about taxation and redistribution:
Left: I support raising taxes on the wealthy.
Right: Why?
Left: To fund social programs for the poor.
Right: Why?
Left: Because the poor will benefit.
Right: So?
Left: They’ll be happier.
Right: So?
Left: …
Eventually, the conversation stalls—because we’ve hit bedrock. The belief that maximizing happiness for the greatest number is inherently good is not universally shared.
Another example:
Left: I support higher taxes on the rich.
Right: Why?
Left: Because they have too much power.
Right: Why is that a problem?
Left: They control society.
Right: So?
Left: I believe in equality.
Right: Why?
Left: …
Again, we reach a fundamental divide: Should equality be pursued as a moral end in itself?
Who We Are—and Who They Are
The left is rooted in humanism and egalitarianism. They advocate redistributing resources not only to uplift humankind, but to achieve equality as a moral imperative.
What about the right? Does rejecting these axioms make us antihumanist or inegalitarian? In a word: yes. We are not primarily concerned with maximizing collective happiness or ensuring equal outcomes. Those are their goals, rooted in their moral framework. Ours lies elsewhere—beyond the herd, beyond the human, beyond equality.
Right-wing thought pursues something beyond the well-being of humanity. The object of that pursuit varies:
A religious conservative may strive to uphold divine law
A futurist might prioritize technological transcendence
A Nietzschean, like myself, seeks to affirm the will to power and bring about higher forms of life
Whatever the aim, it is not reducible to human happiness or material equality.
But rejecting their axioms doesn’t mean we lack direction. In fact, it grants us freedom. If equality is no longer sacred, we are free to deconstruct it—not politely, but strategically. If humanism is no longer our god, we are free to become its heretics.
Cutting to the Chase
If we want to defeat them, we must be able to say:
“Yes, I'm aware your policy would bring about more equality. I am against that.”
Or:
“Yes, I'm aware your policy would serve the human interest—but that's not my top priority. We should instead serve [insert higher value here].”
We must attack the problem at its source. We can’t keep circling forever, pretending we disagree only on superficial issues like guns, taxes, or national identity—while acting as though we share the same moral foundation.
We don’t.
We don’t share the same definitions of good and bad. What they consider heaven probably looks like hell to us—and vice versa.
Weaponized Deconstruction
It’s time to take their sacred cows—equality, inclusion, empathy—and run them through the same postmodern meat grinder they used on God, tradition, and nation.
They taught us to question everything—except themselves.
Now we finish the job. We ask:
Why is equality good?
Why should humanity come first?
Why obey the values of a system that despises us?
Don’t argue for utopia. Mock theirs. Use irony as a scalpel and cruelty as a bludgeon.
“Equality is fag morality,” etc.
Always Go for the Jugular
Never accept the moral premises of the left—even when you happen to agree with their conclusions. Conceding their moral framework is the first step toward ideological defeat.
Stay on the offensive. Don’t merely debate their policies—attack their foundational assumptions.
Example:
Leftist claim: “We shouldn’t have slavery because people are equal and deserve freedom.”
Incorrect response: “Yes, I agree slavery is bad.”
(This surrenders to the moral premise of equality—even if the conclusion is agreeable.)
Correct response: “Slavery is bad because it’s dysgenic—most people of every race are natural slaves.”
Grounding Your Beliefs
The past few years have been defined by our transgressions against leftist norms—whether it’s dropping the hard R, using Hitler iconography, or casually saying “retard.”
But while we've poked the hornet’s nest, we’ve often neglected the philosophical foundation beneath our rebellion.
Even if the entire population embraces race realism, sex essentialism, etc., it will mean nothing if their axioms remain rooted in equality and humanism.
It’s entirely possible for these views to go mainstream—while society still remains shackled by fag morality. The rhetoric would just shift from “everyone is inherently equal” to “we have to make everyone as equal as possible.”
The race realists can win on HBD—and it’ll just become a case for super-affirmative action.
As long as egalitarianism remains the goal, and “humanity” the standard, we haven’t truly won.
The Worldview We Must Push
“Human happiness is not the highest good.”
“There shouldn’t be equality.”
These must become the axiomatic values of the elite and then the masses. That means attacking equality and humanism at every opportunity—and prescribing inequality and anti-humanism as the antidote.
Only then can we confront the opposing worldview at its root—and replace it with something deeper, stronger, and unapologetically our own.
In a nutshell, the Enlightenment can go fuck itself. Huzzah.
This is good. A common error boomers fall into is conceding some premises to the left. Do not take prisoners, do not surrender. This is a good rundown on axioms, which are fundamental for philosophy and law.