Friday, March 29, 2013

The Downside of Equality


The illustration has no deep significance.  It's just meant to be eye-catching.  did it work?  Anyway....
"Equality" is a feel-good word, like "diversity" or "inclusion."  Well, it shouldn't be.  Equality is a good thing in some instances, a bad thing in some instances, and an utterly idiotic, self-destructive thing is some other instances. Andy Nowicki explains:


March 26, 2013 Andy Nowicki


"Equality" is one of the hoariest cliches and most pernicious slogans of modern times. Said to derive from a supposedly common-sense notion of fairness, the mad clamor underway toequalize the human race in fact has no basis whatsoever in justice or reality, human or otherwise.

Indeed, pushing the idea of equality is almost inevitably deeply debasing to a culture. Agitating for greater "equality" does nothing to make the dumb smart, the ugly beautiful, or the poor rich; instead, it only makes nearly everything— be it fashion, the arts, language, commerce, or general human interaction-- duller, less pleasant, less orderly, less desirable, and infinitely more tacky, tawdry, and loathsome. More crucially, the ramming of equality down our collective gullet requires the construction of a hateful bureaucracy to monitor, control, and altogether enslave the very people it supposedly wishes to uplift and empower. The imposition of equality , that is, requires the self-appointment of a vanguard elite who arrogate to themselves the task of being the equalizers. Thus the attempt to construct a society of “equals” invariably leads to perpetual exercise of tyranny.

But how did we get to the point where this obviously insane concept came to be enshrined as an ideal? And why, after the untold carnage, horror, and heartbreak it has caused, do we still view equality as a thing worth pursuing, worth sacrificing for, a patriotic duty even?

The term "equailty” of course, isn’t exactly new; it first sprung up as a vogue among the Western intellectual elite over two centuries ago. It in large part inspired two major political upheavals, one in America and the other in France. Upon deciding to be unencumbered states, representatives of the thirteen former English colonies in the New World signed the Declaration of Independence, which holds it to be “self-evident” that “all men are created equal”; meanwhile, those guillotine-happy men of Gaul made “egalite” one of their watchwords of revolution.

3 comments:

  1. All men are NOT created equal. Some are born with greater intelligence, others with greater beauty. Others are born sick and feeble, or with no outstanding qualities. In both birth and upbringing, in every scope of ability all men are inherently different. Yes, that is why there is discrimination, struggle, and the unfaltering march of evolution.
    Inequality is not wrong, equality is! Where would we be if the dogma of the egalitarians were followed consistently? A race of primitive, apelike creatures wandering the savannas of Africa, for inequality is the driving force of evolution. Truly, the very existence of man is discriminatory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Equality meant that there was no peerage/peasantry distinction made in heaven and there should be none under the law. ("We're all free men protected by the Constitution." Jax Teller, Sons of Anarchy)
    It also means we all enjoy equal protection of the law. It was never meant we were equally smart, strong or pretty, that we are not SSP the same way, that the ways we are SSP are equally appropriate for all circumstances, or that all persons are equally attracted to the same people equally. Expecting the same outcome is ridiculous.
    None of which has anything to do with the current issue of "marriage equality" which is a phrase for the movement to assure that homosexual unions be granted the same legal status as unions between heterosexuals. specifically as regard inheritance rights, insurance coverage, custody rights,etc.. As long as this is not turned into an effort to require churches to change whether they bless and recognize such unions as "sacramental unions" (Catholics and certain others) I actually see no problem here. Not saying I'm for it, just saying that I admit the claims and interests involved are just.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct, as usual, and what you say about equality has to be repeated over and over, because the left just doesn't get it, and doesn't WANT to get it.

      Delete