[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: No One Believes in Equality No one believes in equality, no matter what they claim. To be totally equal, people would have to be totally identical, the way two quarters or two nickels are identical. And being identical, they’d be interchangeable. The closest to total equality and total identicalness in nature are bees and ants, but even they are not identical and still have a division of labor, so they’re not interchangeable. On TV and in the movies, the closest were the Borg from “Star Trek.” Even they’re not equal and identical. Close, though, for humans. Let’s do a thought experiment and imagine if people were totally equal. We’d be clones, meaning we’d have to take over our evolution, an idea which has made science-fiction writers salivate for decades, even before even H.G. Wells and his “The Island of Dr. Moreau.” We’d either be hermaphrodites or else sexless clones, with babies grown in artificial wombs. Loveless, sexless clones, since love and lust are too upsetting to a well-ordered society. Aldous Huxley came close to such a society in “Brave New World,” but even he didn’t go all the way. All of us would look exactly alike to avoid envy, unless we can rid ourselves of envy. We’d have to edit our genes and change our brains and get rid of families and religion and other primitive things we wouldn’t need anymore. We’d have to think exactly alike. Isn’t that the goal of Political Correctness, anyway? The only way that could happen is if we were a hive mind, such as the one Orson Scott Card wrote about in “Ender’s Game.” We’d have no individuality whatsoever. What an awful world! It wouldn’t be a Heaven on Earth; it’d be a Hell. Why would anyone want it? Don’t the supporters of “equality” ever think it though to its logical end? If they did, they’d be horrified. I suppose a few lunatics, probably some man-hating atheistic nihilistic socialist/radical feminist New York lesbians, fantasize about such a world, but the mentally-ill hallucinations of one out of every 50 million people don’t exactly count. We don’t believe in equality in sports. You’ll never see Affirmative Action there. Yet we do believe in it economically, even though it’s a brake on wages and the creation of jobs. Michelle Obama had a job at a Chicago hospital making some $300,000 a year. When she left they eliminated her job. It was a make-work job because she was (is) an incompetent Affirmative Action baby. We don’t believe in Affirmative Action for romantic relationships. I’ve pointed out to people they should imagine if there were laws enforcing such equality, and think about the trouble it would cause. Imagine if women were required by law to ask out a certain number of men a week, keep track of it, and report every week to the Federal Affirmative Actions Bureau of Dating and Romance. And then the bureaucrats would call the men to make sure the women weren’t lying. Then there would have to be re-education classes to change the mentality of resentful, recalcitrant women, the way men at corporations are required to attend “sensitivity” classes about workplace sexual harassment, etc. Nonsense? Of course. But it’s not so much more nonsensical than businesses that have to file reams of paperwork to the federal government to make sure they hire they right number of women, blacks, Hispanics and whoever else is the minority de jure. If “equality” is not about equality, what is it about? Ultimately it’s about special rights. It always is. It’s about money/political power, one of the worst banes of human existence. Since we are not going to have equality, being that it is impossible, what we will end up with is what we always end up with until revolts overturn it: a vanishingly small minority of extremely wealthy and politically powerful people, who crush everyone else with the power of the State and try to force equality and poverty on them. It’s why we end up with loons like the multimillionaire Al Gore, who thinks everyone else should make crushing sacrifices while he lives in a mansion that uses the energy of ten houses. “Equality” itself is a fraud, even if unwittingly. It doesn’t lead to equality at all, just wealth and power for a handful and poverty for nearly everyone else. I’ve heard this called “the tyranny of a clique in the name of the equality of all.” There are people who believe they are intellectually and morally superior to everyone else, and who are convinced they can “rationally” plan society and move people around like chess pieces (Michael Oakeshott called these people “rationalists” and Thomas Sowell sneered at them as “the Anointed”). I don’t really understand the mentality, being that it is so alien to me, but it certainly exists. It’s a tribute to the empathic power of the human imagination that I can comprehend at all the mentality of such people. Still, I find it nearly impossible to understand their blindness and hypocrisy. It doesn’t matter what their names are – Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi, Cornel West – all of them believe they are better than the unwashed masses, and should rule ever them. As long, of course, as long as they are extremely wealthy and politically powerful -- and everyone else is not. Our public schools, from beginning to end, have failed to educate children about the nature of the State, and the tyranny of the clique and the poverty of the many. Churches have failed, too, being that so many are busy with their Tribulation/ Rapture fantasies or else supporting open borders to increase their congregations. What to do? As always, it is up to individuals to educate themselves. What other choice is there?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: Turtle (#0)
That was a well put together piece Bob. Well done.
Most people give an unthinking knee-jerk response when asked about equality. When I tell them what it really means taken to its logical end, they get these looks on their faces which mean their brains are hurting because their paradigms are shifting -- without a clutch.
#3. To: Turtle (#2)
Equality has been questioned in the past by some enlightened souls. Sometimes the questioning has even made historical impact, such as with the story Harrison Bergeron, which is a great short read if you haven't read it yet. The unfortunate part is that nobody seems to grok the fundamental problem with forcing equality of outcomes, such as with affirmative action. Public schools have done a dandy job of destroying reality and instilling fantasy into the heads of several generations now. My favorite argument against "equality" is taking the person asking for it to task. I'll state, simply, "Ok, let's eliminate women's sports altogether, and make competition between individuals, not genders" or "let's eliminate gender/race based hiring and let the market decide on its own who is best qualified for a job". Suddenly, especially if I'm talking to a woman, the topic gets quickly changed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||