How The Left Destroys Everything In It’s Path By Redefining This One Word
If there is a true “third rail” in relation to political discourse than it goes by the name of “equality”. There is a reason that progressives so fiercely defend themselves against those who would dispute the way in which they define the term. As consummate wordsmiths and propagandists extraordinaire they know that it remains an absolute imperative that they retain the right to define the concept of equality if they are to emerge victorious in the end.
While it may be true that progressives depend on the same well practiced skills to redefine all manner of other words, the fact remains that none can be said to have the same inherent and radiating power as that which emanates from this one little concept of equality. From the very beginning progressives have slyly pursued a loathsome strategy of attacking the very pillars of Western Culture and political thought not from without, but from within. These thieves in the night, these traitors from within, have insinuated themselves into the most valuable and influential institutions of society where they have been diligently chipping away at the very foundations of the culture until now we can see that those foundations are very precarious indeed.
All is not lost, and we still have time to shore up and ultimately repair these crumbling edifices which represent the epitome of Western Thought and Civilization. This is not to say those who wish to defend this last experiment in freedom and dignity should be tending to other things or waiting for others to do their work for them. Everyone must answer the call and it is only by redefining the keystone which supports all that follows will liberty overcome tyranny.
What is it that progressives have done to the concept of equality that raises it to more than the first among equals? Interestingly, depending on the context, they actually have two different definitions. The first definition which comes to mind is:
Equality of Outcome:
This definition tends to be used primarily in the economic sense.
It is not fair for one individual or group to have more of a particular thing than another individual or group and thus the excess must be taken from the one and given to the other.
Essentially this means that everyone should be equal and no one person or group should rise above another.
There are those progressives who argue against such a definition by complaining that it is only the means of production which are owned by the group at large and that thus there is nothing preventing a more equitable stratification of society. The problem with their point of view is that the only way it can exist is if all of the elements of the society remains static or frozen as they were at the one particular point in time. This of course requires a great dead of force and cohersion and yet should this problem be pointed out, while progressives may adamantly reject the premise they cannot provide an alternative.
So, to reiterate, the first way progressives define equality is by claiming that for true equality to exist standards must be flexible to ensure that each individual ends up with the same bucket of gruel.
The second way progressives define equality ends up agreeing with the first definition on the one hand, and exposing the inherent conflict in the doctrine of socialism itself on the other.
In this particular narrative economic factors are not even considered. Socially, at least while the progressives are still in the process of taking power, each group and individual is once again told that their particular cultural imperatives are equally justifiable and that no one should be discriminated against for who they are and yet, in this case, the progressives are fundamentally disagreeing with the meme they just used to justify their economic policies in that for all to be equal the end results must be equal, not in a free and easy way in which you go your way and I go mine, but rather in the restrictive way that all must end up with the same things. In other words, the only way to achieve their type of justice is by ensuring that no one exceeds the level of the lowest common denominator.
At the moment it is the attempt by the Chinese to integrate these two opposing narratives that makes the Chinese experiment so interesting. During the time of the Red Brigades, a time of unbelievable destruction from the point of view of the West, Mao was attempting to solve two of the problems which inevitably appear in any truly socialistic society.
What many in the West, both right and left, seemed not to understand was that the catastrophic destruction which resulted from Mao unleashing his young Red Brigades was not an unfortunate side effect, but was in fact one of the primary goals. China was set back years socially, intellectually, and economically, but Mao always knew that a true socialistic society requires a state of almost continuous revolution if it wishes to remain static and classless. He got his equality, an equality marked by an utter disregard for anything other than the necessity that each individual exist as a person in the physical world.
On the other hand, he now had large numbers of people with idle hands and he soon found productive ways of putting them to work. Mao’s “great leap forward” during this time was powered by an energy source which he had in abundance and rather than depending on heavy machinery and expensive non-renewable energy he enslaved his people equally and put them to work in his factories and brick works until they either dropped dead or completed their program of re-education to the satisfaction of whoever happened to be in charge.
At present, the leadership seems to be attempting to take another route, but in so doing they have been forced to reject many of the attributes of socialism. There’s no way of knowing how things will turn out, but its obvious that socialism did not work out that well the first time around and a systematic return to it at this point will result in a significant economic contraction with the real possibility of a blood bath. In essence, Communist China is a case study of what one must do to ensure the type of equality that the progressives advocate and what the results are when the leadership decides to make the effort.
Equality, as defined by Western Culture.
Equality in the eyes of those adhering to the memes of Western Culture shares little in common with the progressive definition which I have had occasion to explain at length. One can generally trace the history of Western Thought from the Greeks and the Romans through the Jews and the Catholics and the Protestants which followed them. There may be some who disagree with this contention, but those objections will be dealt with in the final section addressing those objections as well as making other comparisons.
It is impossible to understand the Western concept of equality without accepting the fact that it is a natural outgrowth of the Christian belief system. All men are created equal in the sight of God….., that is the message and the foundation for all the freedoms and rights we now enjoy as American citizens. The equality lies not in the intellectual or physical world, but in the spiritual. Whether or not you are Christian, you must understand that your rights come from the Christian God or all is lost.
This does not mean that this spiritual equality of which I speak is only relevant to Christians or that it only applies to the metaphysical world. It is however important in a number of ways which non-Christians may not have realized. In the first place, whatever your faith, color, gender, or ethnicity a Christian believes that within every person is the spiritual entity called a soul. This means that, for a Christian, justice is only served when all of God’s children are treated equally. It is for this reason that Christian countries are the one’s now labeled as secular and that one normally finds the most freedom of religion in those countries which are primarily populated by Christians.
All of the other freedoms come from this belief in the notion that every individual is put here on earth by God and that it is the obligation of each individual to live his/her life in the way best suited to return to God’s Kingdom of Heaven. The next step is to realize that each of us goes to our own reward based on our own individual actions and thus it is unfair to force anyone to worship in a way which may be detrimental to his after-life health.
This means that each individual is equal, not in every particular skill or personality trait, nor in some contrived way where all are made to be equal, but in the sense that he or she should be given as much freedom as possible to live his/her life in whatever way that person believes is the most holy and sacred within certain confines as laid out by God. In other word, equality is something we already have within us, and it is in the way we live our lives, no matter our status or station, which determines how we live on for eternity. This is not to suggest that the progressive notion of equality should not again raise it’s ugly head, the point is that the same rules apply to everyone and that it truly is a matter of “hating the sin, but loving the sinner”.
Conclusion and Comparison.
The contrast between the Western and the Progressive definitions of equality can hardly be overstated. As we have seen, progressives can only enforce their version of equality through the use of constant and overwhelming force. Further, as it is impossible to raise everyone to the same level of intelligence and wealth enjoyed by those at the top of either scale, the only possible result for any society is for virtually everyone to live in the manner as those at the bottom. As far as the bleating of those who complain that they, as in their group’s societal and cultural memes, are not being treated equally when it comes to the “social issues”, they might want to remember that it is that kind of thinking that will lose them all of their freedoms.
The short history I have provides is not meant to suggest that nothing of value was taken from other cultures, but the trend line and history of Western thought speaks for itself. There are those, such as the progressives, who attempt to look back and find fault with the historical narrative, and further suggest that the history of the United States requires that all cultures and societies be accorded equal treatment. Once again, progressives attempt to use their skewed definition of equality to tear apart the very culture which provides them with their dinner. Equality is not a matter of constantly changing standards to meet some arbitrary definition of equality, equality is maintaining the same standards for all, regardless of any other personal or group characteristics.
Printed and published…subject to further editing. I don’t know, I’m rethinking..might have gone long and lost some focus…thoughts?
From → Moral Reasoning