Tweet
One of the cult-like religions of modernity is no doubt equality, or egalitarianism. It is the cherry on the ice cream sundae of the Left, and hence why for over a century, the Left, has always stood for morality, justice, and idealism, all because of this one magical word that has been uttered so much in the ant hills of time, that it is virtually an unquestioned dogma among the modern saints of the modern world. So thorough has this ideology of egalitarianism entrenched into our minds that we cannot see society any other way than this ( hence the continues and blind support of the modern welfare-warfare-redistribution State ).
In all times and all places the proponents of equality and egalitarianism have stood as being the surrogates of "society", or "the people", both abstract holistic entities. Whether anyone in todays social strata advances in popularity all depends on whether that person, politician, economist, intellectual, represents and reflects the values of "society" or "the people" to make things "equal" so not as to displease the hapless masses so dependent on the nanny State which is said to bring about equality and harmonize everything into egalitarian bliss. Why should equality be an unquestioned ethical ideal? If the goal stampedes over the nature of man and biology, then why continue to support and babble the creed of egalitarianism? What is "equality"? When people state that "we are all equal" or "we should be equal", what do they mean? Clearly they display a gross exaggeration of language, and not enough knowledge of biology, or reality, or both perhaps. "Equality" in the true sense of the word, can only happen when two people are alike in all attributes, not just some, not just one, but all. Two people who have the same height are said to be "equal" in height. Two rocks that are identical in weight are said to be "equal", etc. But this is overlooking one important aspect, it only focus' on one aspect to attain the label of "equality". Thus whereas something might be equal in height, it is not equal in weight, color, strength, density, etc. So in order to achieve the egalitarian ideal of "equality", between man that is ( since that is the only thing they are concerned about ), we have be all equal, meaning we have to be identical in all attributes, not just one or some.
This "ideal" that egalitarians work for, is very scary, and looks as if its something out of science fiction and horror blended together. When confronted with superior arguments and evidence to the contrary of "equality", the egalitarian will shout "But just because we don't have it now, doesn't mean we should try", indeed Marx would agree. Such is the last refuge of someone who does not argue rationally, or logically, but merely to vindicate the position that he just held, that was demolished by superior arguments.
We have had all sorts of blather regarding equality, from equality in income, to equality before the law, to equality under the law, to equality in hiring, to equality in races, to equality in sexes, to equality in looks, to equality in weight, to equality in physical appearance, etc. The list of this equality bromide is endless, and is virtually advocated everywhere regardless of common sense, simple common sense, where natural differences exist. And that is what revolutions claimed to have brought with them whether it was the Jacobins in France, or the Bolsheviks in Russia, all uttering the same catch phrase of from their excrement, "equality", the "people", "equality", the "people". One would thing black is white if one heard it long enough, so too with equality, that it has been chanted and supplanted into the psyche of the masses that anyone to argue against such a dogma in the modern day, would be like a Christian against the Roman Emperor, or a bourgeois against Stalin. The essence of all the campaigns throughout history of forces that claimed to represent "the people" and bring about "equality", have all reverted to force, tyranny, and uniformity. They have all sought to reduce man down from his individuality, to conformity, to the mass, to the whole. Such forces claim that man does not really know what he wants, and that he needs to be guided, for the "greater good" of "society" ( hence this is something that environmentalists use ), and behold the secret behind politics, of how we make decisions for other people, since other people cannot rule themselves, we need to assert ourselves over them, that is what voting means.
It used to be that discrimination was not a negative thing, and in fact was looked upon positively. When someone was told "You have a discriminating mind" it was a compliment, for their ability to differentiate. Indeed, that is what discrimination is. Everyday every second we as humans discriminate, because that is what we do as individuals. Only in the horror society of modern day egalitarianism is discrimination something to be cast down upon and frowned upon and uprooted, like a Jew from Nazi Germany. Indeed, to discriminate is the natural and cognitive ability to differentiate. So the list of things that are "unequal" is endless, and need to be equalized, and hence the list of things that "discriminate" because they are not equal, is endless. The death penalty discriminates the groups of people from whos ranks murderers are taken, a man discriminates against woman, a set of stairs discriminates cripples, etc. So anything that is true to its original intent and definition, is by the fact itself discriminatory against that which it is not. The logical ramifications of this are indeed scary.
And here is what Kurt Vonnegut had to say about a fully egalitarian society:
The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
It further followed:
Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a governmetn transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
It follows that "egalitarianism" is illogical. It is fallacious. It is wrong and an incorrect idea and should be discarded. It has only brought misery where it has been employed and it will continue to bring misery. Good riddance to "equality" and thank God for unfairness and inequality.
In all times and all places the proponents of equality and egalitarianism have stood as being the surrogates of "society", or "the people", both abstract holistic entities. Whether anyone in todays social strata advances in popularity all depends on whether that person, politician, economist, intellectual, represents and reflects the values of "society" or "the people" to make things "equal" so not as to displease the hapless masses so dependent on the nanny State which is said to bring about equality and harmonize everything into egalitarian bliss. Why should equality be an unquestioned ethical ideal? If the goal stampedes over the nature of man and biology, then why continue to support and babble the creed of egalitarianism? What is "equality"? When people state that "we are all equal" or "we should be equal", what do they mean? Clearly they display a gross exaggeration of language, and not enough knowledge of biology, or reality, or both perhaps. "Equality" in the true sense of the word, can only happen when two people are alike in all attributes, not just some, not just one, but all. Two people who have the same height are said to be "equal" in height. Two rocks that are identical in weight are said to be "equal", etc. But this is overlooking one important aspect, it only focus' on one aspect to attain the label of "equality". Thus whereas something might be equal in height, it is not equal in weight, color, strength, density, etc. So in order to achieve the egalitarian ideal of "equality", between man that is ( since that is the only thing they are concerned about ), we have be all equal, meaning we have to be identical in all attributes, not just one or some.
This "ideal" that egalitarians work for, is very scary, and looks as if its something out of science fiction and horror blended together. When confronted with superior arguments and evidence to the contrary of "equality", the egalitarian will shout "But just because we don't have it now, doesn't mean we should try", indeed Marx would agree. Such is the last refuge of someone who does not argue rationally, or logically, but merely to vindicate the position that he just held, that was demolished by superior arguments.
We have had all sorts of blather regarding equality, from equality in income, to equality before the law, to equality under the law, to equality in hiring, to equality in races, to equality in sexes, to equality in looks, to equality in weight, to equality in physical appearance, etc. The list of this equality bromide is endless, and is virtually advocated everywhere regardless of common sense, simple common sense, where natural differences exist. And that is what revolutions claimed to have brought with them whether it was the Jacobins in France, or the Bolsheviks in Russia, all uttering the same catch phrase of from their excrement, "equality", the "people", "equality", the "people". One would thing black is white if one heard it long enough, so too with equality, that it has been chanted and supplanted into the psyche of the masses that anyone to argue against such a dogma in the modern day, would be like a Christian against the Roman Emperor, or a bourgeois against Stalin. The essence of all the campaigns throughout history of forces that claimed to represent "the people" and bring about "equality", have all reverted to force, tyranny, and uniformity. They have all sought to reduce man down from his individuality, to conformity, to the mass, to the whole. Such forces claim that man does not really know what he wants, and that he needs to be guided, for the "greater good" of "society" ( hence this is something that environmentalists use ), and behold the secret behind politics, of how we make decisions for other people, since other people cannot rule themselves, we need to assert ourselves over them, that is what voting means.
It used to be that discrimination was not a negative thing, and in fact was looked upon positively. When someone was told "You have a discriminating mind" it was a compliment, for their ability to differentiate. Indeed, that is what discrimination is. Everyday every second we as humans discriminate, because that is what we do as individuals. Only in the horror society of modern day egalitarianism is discrimination something to be cast down upon and frowned upon and uprooted, like a Jew from Nazi Germany. Indeed, to discriminate is the natural and cognitive ability to differentiate. So the list of things that are "unequal" is endless, and need to be equalized, and hence the list of things that "discriminate" because they are not equal, is endless. The death penalty discriminates the groups of people from whos ranks murderers are taken, a man discriminates against woman, a set of stairs discriminates cripples, etc. So anything that is true to its original intent and definition, is by the fact itself discriminatory against that which it is not. The logical ramifications of this are indeed scary.
And here is what Kurt Vonnegut had to say about a fully egalitarian society:
The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
It further followed:
Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a governmetn transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
It follows that "egalitarianism" is illogical. It is fallacious. It is wrong and an incorrect idea and should be discarded. It has only brought misery where it has been employed and it will continue to bring misery. Good riddance to "equality" and thank God for unfairness and inequality.
Comment