Very few things in nature are equal - perhaps no two things are truly equal: certainly no two people are equal - because no two people are the same (not even identical twins).
Equality always collapses its meaning into 'the same' - whatever sophisticated and nuanced distinctions may be drawn between equality and sameness, always equality is in fact, in the real world, interpreted as 'the same'.
So to ask for equality is to ask for the impossible - which is why its pursuit is *totally* destructive.
Equality can never be attained because sameness can never be attained - and because it can never be attained then the process of trying to establish equality will never stop until everything is destroyed (or the attempt to impose equality is abandoned - which ever comes first).
It is trivially easy to show that two people, or groups of people, are not treated equally, because they never-ever-ever are treated equally: because it is impossible.
If the detection of inequality is taken as an imperative to start imposing equality - then anything can be destroyed, on the grounds that it is not (yet) equal; and everything will in the end be destroyed, as the attempt to impose impossible equality moves from one target to the next.
Yet despite the above, somehow we find ourselves in a position in which equality is regarded as not just something achievable, but as the single most important thing in the world - and the attempt to abolish inequality as the primary political imperative: the primary moral imperative.
So important, that any amount of destruction is justified - e.g. the saying "you can't make an omelet" - that is to say, an equal society - "without breaking eggs".
When the omelet can never, and will never, be made; the result is a world in which people break eggs, heads, organizations and institutions - without compunction, without end.