The Cult of Equality

Postmodern morality seems to be "equality is the only true goodness". So if everyone is miserable, it's good, so long as black people, white people, men, women, gays, straight people, etc are all equally miserable.

Equality is good of course, but doesn't it seem like it's become the end-all, be-all of goodness?

It's called the human race.Not the every body runs and finishes in no particular order.I now your point OP and I agree it just pisses me off.
s+f

equality is for losers and people with a guilty conscience. and if you possess virtue, you are its victim

@Totalstranger welll, that's an interesting take on the topic. Equality is what humans SHOULD strive for as we are all humans after all, and things such as race, religion or sexual orientation, should have no barring on what rights you have.

To the OP, I think your anger is misdirected. Perhaps the PC crowd is to blame for making such a big deal out of equality.

It's not the Holy Grail of goodness, people just warped that idea onto a pedestal to make it impossible to reach. Remember, a divided populace is easier to control.

The holy grail of goodness is to stop killing each other. Respecting each other should just be a natural state of being.

~Keeper

people's egos are the main reason of conflict in this world. 'I', 'we', 'mine', 'ours' etc. lack of empathy, lack of understanding, lack of spirituality.

we ARE equal.
because we are One.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


that's also true, at least to some degree. the main tactics used by TPTB are 'divide and conquer'. simple as that.

I dont think that equality is the "end all be all" of goodness. but i do think that its a good starting point to achieve goodness. i am no better than any one else simply because of my skin tone, or income level, or sexual orientation etc...we're all human so we're all equal. and in order for us to really truly make progress in the world, everyone needs to realize that as long as we're all human, we're all equal.

Nope - equality is pure NWO social engineering/propaganda - well spotted OP.

So many things that people take for granted in their daily lives - their beliefs and values and so on - are actually delivered to them by the NWO for a specific purpose.

Equality is ALWAYS misrepresented and misinterpreted - on purpose. What it should mean is that people are treated with regard to their own individuality - but the way that 'they' want it interpreted is, equality means everyone is treated the same.

You cannot have equality where you treat everyone the same - everyone is different - different cultures, different strengths and weaknesses - sameness is not equality.

For example - women are averagely not as physically strong as men - so they should be treated differently with respect to that. That is not being 'unequal' it is in fact treating people with the same respect of their personal abilities.

No doubt that this will bring the reaction that people have been infected with by the NWO for so long. I would ask people to really think about it - before reacting.

Most of the friction comes from the fact that people are different, but we somehow have to pretend they are not.

On the other hand - years of this kind of thinking, and a culture that supports it is not going to flip over in someones head immediately.

The 'equality' mantra is actually useful for them in many ways.

Firstly between the sexes - it means that women feel they need to work, and to show themselves in the workplace. This means more workers for the NWO to tax, and less stable families. Also - when you erode living standards over time - then people don't realize there was even a time when one income was more than sufficient for a family.

Equality of race is simply a tool to use to create frictions and divisions where they never existed. By making people hyper sensitive to racial issues it divides populations - people focus on race, and the 'racist' term gets a great deal of effective use making people hate each other.

Equality is nothing more than propaganda - real equality is simply showing respect for peoples individuality - and that means treating everyone differently.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Amagnon]

Real equality should also imply equality before the law, that is law rules should be handled equally regarding all citizens. Example: If a police officer is found to be corrupt he gets sacked. If the Obama administration is found to be corrupt nothing happens. That's "equality". It's called the Banana Republic of the United States.

Is there any substantial difference between an Obama administration and a Mobutu Sese Seko administration (besides local peculiarities)? Well, not really. Example: Both administrations fervently nailed their flag to the mast of respect for the principle of equality of all citizens.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ffd500502251.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 27-11-2009 by DeepSea]

Equality where the courts are not corrupt and people are not favored based on their status or lack there of I support. Prosperity depends on this sort of equality.

Equality where all things are leveled. This is just reality. Eventually, all living things will be levelled or laid low. Sometimes, I hate this universal law. Mostly ,I am indifferent to this.

False equality I can't stand. There is no point in pretending all people can jump equally high. This is not equaltiy it is corruption. Steal from the earth and the earth will steal from you. All the people benefiting from false equality are missing the opportunity to develop their real talents.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by eradown]

reply to post by Amagnon


The equality that gets thrown around actually is more of a lowering. Strengths and weakness vary from person to person. Equality of opportunity does not imply equality of ability.
Personally I am not keen on the NWO thing. Although in reading your post and my own thoughts, it makes much more sense to me now.

Equality isn't sameness.

And all the people who hate equality are terrifying to me.

Because, you all surely judge yourself to be one who will be an owner and not the owned. Or that in being owned you are somehow fullfilling some purpose.

Terrifying. Abhorrent.

Amagnon:

This caught my eye. "Firstly between the sexes - it means that women feel they need to work, and to show themselves in the workplace. This means more workers for the NWO to tax, and less stable families. Also - when you erode living standards over time - then people don't realize there was even a time when one income was more than sufficient for a family."

I know that the CIA funded Ms. Magazine, and that TPTB got behind feminism to supposedly increase the tax base by putting more people to work. But, isn't it possible that women might actually be capable or working? Or might actually WANT to use their talents? I don't know your true feelings on this, but is SOUNDS as if you believe it is a mistake for women to want to get a job, and this, strikes me as the very definition of inequality. I mean, more women than men attend college now. Can you imagine how devastating for our future as a nation it would be if we told them all to just go home at read the Joy of Cooking?

Just because a particular movement gets hijacked by people with alternate interests, that does not mean that the movement was itself wrongheaded.

You spoke of women and physical strength. And that's fine. I get it. If a woman wants to join the fire department, she needs be able to do a lot of heavy lifting. Lives depend on it. But, if respecting INDIVIDUAL differences is what you say is important, why categorize based on such a general attribute? Why even bring up gender at all, if you say you value INDIVIDUAL capabilities? Why not let women apply for the job like everybody else, and let those who can, do? I wouldn't change the physical standards for women given the life and death nature of fire fighting, but...

Well, I'll stop there, so you can clarify how you feel about this. I don't want to unfairly peg you. I was just a little taken aback. My wife is a highly capable behavioral therapist, and many lives would be the worse if not for her incredible efforts. Wouldn't it be a tragedy to make her say home and cook me dinner instead?

But, I'm open to being corrected.


later.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Equality is good of course, but doesn't it seem like it's become the end-all, be-all of goodness?

Some folks seem to disagree..

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Postmodern morality seems to be "equality is the only true goodness". So if everyone is miserable, it's good, so long as black people, white people, men, women, gays, straight people, etc are all equally miserable.

Equality is good of course, but doesn't it seem like it's become the end-all, be-all of goodness?

A few thoughts:
- Equality before the law is a great ideal. You speak as if the political lip-service around "equality" has actually been realized, which it hasn't. In a postmodern sense, "equality" can be seen as just another privileged discourse. Just because political correctness is a hallmark of our period does not necessarily mean that post-modernist theory concurs with this or envisions an equal society that no longer features oppression and agency.
- Especially in the post-colonial world people come from unequal backgrounds and the situation is that innocent young people are unequally treated to compenstate for the inequality of the past (especially as regards Affrimative Action). In so many other ways the law still favors the rich. Often equality means simply replacing one elite with another. In South Africa everyone received legal equality post-1994 (at least in theory), but the poor masses are still unhappy, because the former ruling white elite has simply been replaced by a black elite. Materially, the majority has gained little, if anything at all.
- Much misery is caused by creating artificial need. The media creates equal needs for material happiness to an unequal populace. So when people in shanty towns see (for example) The Kardashians they feel inadequate and unequal, because the chances of them ever gaining this economic prosperity, or even buying the Dash products is close to zero. The fact that the super rich come from dynasties of "lucky sperm" is obscured, so the poor feel guilty about "not making it".
- Happiness and misery are still measured by material standards, and equal laws in themselves do not create equal wealth.
- Depending on the definition, postmodernism is quite pessimistic on utopian thoughts on equality. The constant improvement of society by technology and materialism is actually a modernist tendency. However, such advancement also gave us the holocaust and other horrors, so postmodernism turned against this. The undermining of privileged discourse (or the discourse of power that regards itself as self-evident) is not necessarily a socialist endeavor. The relinquishing of old power structures is actually just a new way to disguise inequality: when white cops tear-gassed rioting blacks in the 1980s the world was horrified, now they are still rioting and nobody cares, because the police brutality comes from black cops in a democratically elected state. The secret seems to be to create the illusion of equality.
- Perhaps there's something to be said for equality. If I was born into history I would rather be born as nobility rather than a serf or slave. Being miserably unequal is not pleasant. Perhaps it depends whether one is looking up towards a more priviledged position, or whether one is looking down, and equality means a drop in wealth and class.

reply to post by Donnie Darko



Hi.

Can you please flush out a couple of examples demonstrating how the concpet of equality is hurting us as a people?

Seems to me, being capitalist as we are, we're more or less a meritocracy (forget about the oligarchy for now...). Equality is supposed to mean equal protection under the law, and equal opportunity to succeed. And that's about where it ends. The rest is just fodder for academic debate, and has little bearing on real life.

Before we had a country that embraced equality, we had aristocracy. Is that better? Are people really superior because they have a rich daddy?

Dunno. It's fine if this bothers you. I'm sure we could split philosophical hairs ad infinitum about this concept. But as a policy - in terms of laws and actions, etc - what's so bad that's happening?

Just curious.

peace.

reply to post by TrueTruth

The US may no longer have aristocracy, but it certainly has elite families. No offense to them, but what did Paris Hilton ever do that is so merit based? Would George W. Bush have been President based on merit, without a rich daddy?
A problem is that a current notion of equality is based on upliftment, which translates into upliftment into an unsustainable lifestyle. The rich won't lower themselves to any common standard, and the rest desire that standard at any cost.
Since the idea of equality is bound to prosperity, upliftment can only be gained by "levelling the playing fields". This means new forms of inequality for white males (at least in South Africa). Such policies are especially disasterous when education has been unequal in the past. Ultimately color and gender become more important than competency and standards plummet. The new equality therefore brings a new discourse of discrimination against "racists", "bigots" and "chauvenists". Often such labels are misused to silence dissent. Ultimately everyone feels victimized, and every group becomes a special interest group, which really solves nothing in practise.
Sometimes I feel that the only thing that makes us equal is that we all feel treated unequally!

reply to post by halfoldman



Hi. Thanks for the reply.

Re. Paris Hilton - I don't disagree. But this isn't the issue, really, and is why I said 'forget the oligarchy' just for now. I was referring to why the principles of equality under the law, and equal opportunity, represent progress from the past. A system of merit is surely superior to a system of privilege.

Re. upliftment. I'm not entirely opposed to this idea. I mean, let's be real - sometimes, a redistribution of wealth is the only logical and sensible path. If you have a situation of extreme imbalance in terms of wealth distribution, what good is an 'equal' shot to succeed if the playing field is in fact completely tilted? Even if you suddenly 'free' an historically repressed population, the previous rulers still often hold so much wealth that the former can never lift itself up to any kind of decent standard of living. And when this is the case, I fully favor a little Robin Hood action. Hoarding is not a right - it is an abomination. There's a balance to be struck here somewhere. You are correct that we can not all ever live like the rich do, but that doesn't have to be the name of the game. I think people understand that concept, and people I know in more socialist nations seem to get it and roll with it just fine. We don't want to BE thieves - we just don't want to have to compete with them.

Re. South Africa. You'll have to educate me here. I know next to nothing about what's happening on this issue. I know there was some beef over land redistribution, and some trouble with the new occupants not having the skills or tools to make the land productive enough... but I don't know anything about how white males are disadvantaged per say. Can you fill me in?

Re. special interest groups. I sympathize. Makes me uncomfortable too. I'm such a hybrid of nationalities that I feel no particular ethnic identity, despite being very white, and almost entirely European. I have mixed feelings about things like "pride" parades, be they for gays, hispanics, or anyone else. I understand why these kinds of race groups came to exist (I believe survival had more than a little to do with it), but since I don't have a team, I kind of feel left out of the party. I feel just as uncomfortable with 'black power' as I do with 'white power'. I just want people to be people, even if that's naive in this period in time. I suppose I also have the privilege of living in a place where I am in the color-majority, and don't having to think about it much. Black people in my town down have that luxury, and yes, they do get treated with mistrust. Sucks.


Anyhow. Equality can mean many, many things. We can't let the post-modernists ruin such an historically profound concept by being egg-headed about it.





Thanks.

What is equal?

Equal in whose eyes?

If citizens are all members of the same club, that is, they are fellow members of a country, then they might have a rule which stipulates that all members of this club are equal in eyes of said club. In this way, we might find a country which dictates: all are equal.

That has no meaning in the eyes of someone that does not identify as a member of that country. So racists might consider foreign citizens to be equal only to dogs for instance. A hungry tiger might find an african american baby more than equal to a rich white one -- if the dark skinned one is fatter.

Equality is an artificial concept which is only true within an artificial system. However, I know of no such system. In the USA people are deffinately not equal. The system itself advantages one race or gender over another in many cases.

In some cases, it's our human lords that demonstrate the truth of inequality -- for instance, the rich can break more laws without penalty, and when there is a penalty it's less than what the poor criminal suffers.

I am smarter than you. Or not. I am stronger than you, or not. Nothing is truly equal. We can SAY we are equal according to a system of laws, but a part of our law states that law itself is in the hands of some and not others. The law is a tool of governance, for justice or injustice doesn't matter, only some hold this weapon in their hands.

You are not equal to your masters. You are not equal to any that your masters favor. You are not equal to those that hold greater power in any form.

I INSIST on the "egg headed" equality.

Because the version of "equality" that others seem so fond of, that *I* have a place and purpose defined by what that person finds important - my strength of body, the size of my arm, the quality of my reproductive organs, the God I worship, the money I make, the family I come from....well, I disagree.

Not everyone does something with their equality, and therefore their outcomes are different. But that decision is MINE. If you don't like it, make your own FOR YOURSELF.

May the egg heads win.