I’ve been casually using the term “equality” in a disparaging way for some time, but I’m not sure all readers understand what I’m getting at, so I’ll explain myself.
There are two understandings of the word “equality” in the contemporary United States. The first and original, which is equality before the law, is losing ground to the second, which is equality of outcome. I call the latter “equalism.”
Practically everyone who has been to school in the US is familiar with the phrase “all men are created equal,” but only a minority has any sense of its context. The American Revolution was a repudiation of the British aristocracy and the privileges of title and birth. Although these had long been a feature of British society, they served little purpose in the colonies, where men’s fortunes were not set in stone at birth, but rather made or lost on the frontier, in trade, or on the farm. Furthermore, they incited feelings of anger amongst colonists, who suspected that their hard-earned profits were being taxed to pay for the idle lives of foppish lords back in England.
By declaring themselves “equal,” Americans thereby liberated themselves from any obligations to those who outranked them by title, and removed handicaps to their own political ascendance. So the Declaration of Independence, which contained the phrase, was not so much a statement of magnanimity as it was of self-interest.
However, as selfish as the motive may have been, there is much to be said for the concept of legal equality. A good model for how it works is the athletic world. In a basketball game, the hoops are set at a standard height on both sides, the court is a certain regulation size, and the rules apply equally to players.
The result is that a player or team of superior skill and talent will rise above others, because the rules are consistent. If, on the other hand, one team had to play with a higher basket, or was refereed more strictly, the game’s result would not necessarily be dependent on skill and talent. The winner or loser would likely be determined by which team was favored, which is much closer to aristocracy than legal equality.
So, if we want a society in which people can live up to their potential (or lack of it), legal equality is a better means of doing so than aristocracy. The idea is that all of us benefit, because people have the opportunity to achieve their maximum potential without hindrance.
This is an ideal, and doesn’t work perfectly in practice. Even in professional sports, many athletes had an advantage when young and others were disadvantaged. Some may have had fathers who were football coaches, while others may have been too poor to afford the fees for extracurricular activities and so on. The same goes for those who are born into wealth whose parents can afford to prepare them for college and a well-compensated job vs. those whose fathers were impoverished as a result of divorce. However, it is generally understood that despite the flaws, legal equality provides more opportunities than a system in which certain people simply are not allowed to compete for one reason or another, or are deliberately handicapped.
The new “equality,” which is prevalent today, has little to do with legal equality, but rather what is often called de facto equality, or equality of outcome. Under this form of equality there lies an assumption that all people have the same potential if only certain conditions are met. Although this has been scientifically discredited for a long time, it has not prevented people from sincerely believing in it. This is why I describe Equalism as a religious faith, and I do not do so merely to take a cheap shot, but because it has all the characteristics of a religious belief that is not based in any way on reason.
the Equalist rejects legal equality where it is not producing the desired result. In the armed forces, for example, female recruits are not held to the same standards as male recruits, yet they are called “soldiers” and afforded all the same privileges (but not responsibilities). Often, those tasked with an equalist mandate will resort to deception to achieve their goal. When the Marine Corps recently said it will require men and women to complete the same physical test so as to ensure “equality,” they neglected to mention that the test will be scored differently. This is what we know of as “moving the goalposts,” and that is exactly how equalists achieve their version of equality.
The means are roughly the same as in aristocracy, where some people are privileged and others handicapped by the rules. This is not the kind of equality our founding fathers intended, and in all likelihood they would have changed the wording of the Declaration of Independence if they had known people would come to interpret it in that manner.
Feminists, for their part, are equalists to the bone, and they will never be otherwise, because under legal equality (men and women are not legally equal under current American law) they would lose hands-down in just about every competitive endeavor. This is why it is foolish to assume that they would ever support true legal equality; it’s against their self-interest, and women would never deliberately work against their self-interest (they are demonstrably more intelligent than men in that regard). Although it’s understandable that women may never want true legal equality, and it might not be for the greater good if they were, equalism will eventually work against their interests, too, because they will be obliged to depend on the state rather than the men in their lives for their female privilege, and the state doesn’t really care about individuals all that much when it comes down to it. If the state were really all that caring, wouldn’t children who grow up as wards of the state be better off than those with parents? That’s something women really ought to think about.
It’s time that Americans started making a clear distinction between equalism and legal equality, because people often confuse the two, and we should have the opportunity to choose which one we prefer.
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
As a descendent from time immemorial of subjects of English Monarchs, and without being descended from Aristocracy, I am greatly surprised to learn that my fortune, or lack of it, was ‘set in stone at birth’. I believe this would have equally surprised my ancestors, if for no other reason than that England is more or less the birth place of free trade, with fortunes being won and lost on a regular basis, where titles were and are handed out for success and where writers like Voltaire and others marvelled at English ‘freedom’. I won’t belabour the point, but feel compelled to take exception to the authors understanding of American colonial history, and his assertion that taxation in the colonies went to pay for ‘the idle lives of foppish Lords back in England’. I now set out the correct position:
After the Indian wars where England had comprehensively defeated the French, the position of the colonists (secured entirely by English troops) was secure. There was however the question of taxation because armies do not come free, even for American colonists and further HMG intended to keep its promise to the Indians not to expand west of the Allegehenies – and partly for reason of security – which promise did not please the Colonists. Previously the matter of taxation had been settled in the assemblies with the various Governors, but it was felt that this haphazard arrangement needed to be improved, and thus an internal tax on sugar and a Stamp Act on Documents was passed. This led to the ‘massacre’ in Boston of as many as five people. This new system thus proving unsatisfactory a further attempt was made by taxing certain goods including Tea and The Imposition of a Stamp Act on documents. This also proved equally unsatisfactory, and HMG caved in again to its Colonists. The behaviour of the Colonists was less an attack on The Crown than on the sovereignty of Parliament, for it is in Parliament that power lied and still lies. Having eventually caved in three times Parliament had had enough and sent in the troops.
Beyond that I have no intention of commenting on your Locke and Paine inspired founding documents. If I were being really nasty I would point out that women in England always had considerable freedom – to vote in local government, to run their own businesses, as many did, and many were well educated; my mother’s old school was founded in 1726 – but for some reason – as De Tocqueville noted nearly two hundred years ago – America, in its love-affair with equality, was in danger of producing weak men and strong women: The result is equality of result, and preferrential treaty for those blessed with a Vagina.
Women’s Rights ?
In short:
They ever want to be eekqwall to you, but never want you to ever be eekqwall to them.
Natural perverts no ?
I think “equalism” is a horrible myth. If we’re all unequivocally equal, and it matters most with outcomes, never mind trying to create this illusion with just women, why just them, there are still many other instances of “oppression”? We should all be MIT students, all be navy seals, all be div 1 athletes, all be gold medal winners and participate in the olymipics, etc. I think much of the success of feminism was their appeal towards the american ideals of equality (misguided as they were), and up until now, those arguments were hard to counter. However, since feminism has proven to be a supremacy movement and, since, by their own admission, women are (apparently) superior to men, they in turn have only proven that equality does not exist. Alternatively, by creating draconian “gender” laws and to force concepts like “proportionality” in areas like STEM, sports and the military is an ipsofacto admission of female inferiority. Why would they need this in the first place if they were equal, let alone “superior”? Once again proving that equality or equalism does not exist. Telling everyone that they’re completely equal to everyone else is causing un-told damage across society. You have to wonder why the #1 health condition in the US is mental health and why we’re seeing an epidemic of narcissism. When you really think about it, it’s a very sick idea. Our world, especially, our modern mechanized digital world cannot operate without inequality. You can’t see a retarded person as the CEO of google can you? But he or she is theoretically equal to all of us, so, why not? Worse yet, our societal caretakers are extremely discriminatory and even racist. Scratch the surface of our elites and you’ll hear things like “well only some people should vote”, population control and echoes of eugenics. So, what do we do when the very people behind all this social engineering are themselves non-believers in equality? When we have to drug boys, rob them of their intellect, their potential, their future and their lives (in public taxpayer supported schools to boot) all to accommodate a false notion that boys are unconditionally equal to girls (forcing this to exist when it just doesn’t) should be a glaring nuclear-hot signal to stop, step back and reassess everything. Among many assumptions that must be revisited is one of the key delivery agents of feminism, which is this idea of radical equality or equalism. A narrative should be started that finally and openly dismissing the existence of equalism but still steadfastly holds onto the institution of equality under law. That will take a bit of the proverbial threading of the needle, nonetheless, if done – that will be progress.
OT
“Equality before the law” is the state motto of Nebraska, but Nebraska was one of the five states that rescinded its ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
On Topic
I don’t think feminists are even remotely close to being equalists when it comes to equality of outcome either.
They have always been perfectly content with the majority of winners in almost every possible metric of success being female.
I suppose they have had a huge collective temper tantrum that the United States allowed in the “Lost Boys of Sudan,” most of whom are from what is now South Sudan. They probably vilify these male immigrants for not having been in bombed out villages when their families were being killed. These young men were tending cattle when their villages were destroyed, and in order to get to refugee camps they had to eat mud, scavenge for wild vegetables, and drink their own urine to survive. What is between their legs is enough to get any feminist going on a misandrist rant.
Try spinning this, Manboobz.
Opus, just out of curiosity, is it widely known in the UK that the most English states in the US (by ancestry) are in the deep South? Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi whites are overwhelmingly of English extraction — much more so than New England these days.
I am writing a play entitled Condoms Are Not Romantic: Get Out of Paying Child Support on June 15th in remembrance of T0m Ball.
Feminist Inquisitor: So you are saying that people are not equal we damn you to social boycott and ostracism. We demand you respect our equality!
Epoche*: No one is saying that that the government shouldnt help the less fortunate we are just saying that if the government did less everyone would have more including the unfit mothers of democracy that we absolute have to care about no matter what. Im on probation anyways for making more than the median income and I can get that shortened by volunteering for this educational reformer named Geoffrey Canada. His pioneering research includes the idea that we can take a woman who has an IQ of 65 and give her the right to fornicate in a public library bathroom and that by throwing a half million dollars in her direction we can move her into the middle class. My student loans are in default and I am staying with my gf who has 3 kids by 3 different men at least until she gets her earned income credit check come tax time. Now this is progress!
From each according to his ability, to each according to her need.
- Karl Marx
Equalism eventually devolves into the lowest common denominator of potential. Read Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron”, Orwell’s “Animal Farm” for fictionalized dissertations.
Women were not excelling because they were being restrained and repressed. It’s the only reason, because otherwise they’re just as astute and capable as man. To this day feminists still believe there is a “hidden subconscious bias” working against them, because otherwise women should be achieving and accomplishing in far greater numbers today, and they’re not. Men are STILL beating them in every realm and the few select women who ARE excelling (just as there’s always been), are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Conservativatism is cold and heartless because free market capitalism must have winners and losers to thrive. Liberalism is kind and sympathetic to those less fortunate and less capable. They believe it’s the government’s function to “equalize” the citizenry so there will be no poor or rich – just a compliant lower-middle. We need “economic justice” for all because it’s not fair that some people get to be rich, while the rest of us aren’t. Just because we don’t have the ability doesn’t mean we don’t deserve an “equal” life.
This is our current President’s philosophy.
Equality was the main theme of his inaugaral address.
Those that are NOT talented, born with a silver spoon in their mouths, intelligent, hard working and/or lucky – have a President that speaks for them…the downtrodden have-nots. Privilaged white males MUST be marginalized so that every member of the “identifiable victim class” can rise up and make America great again, (or at least appear fair and just).
And yet despite the open war on them as a group, the privilaged white male CONTINUES to achieve and produce in just as disproportionate numbers as ever before. Nothing seems to disuade or discourage him.
Equality and Legal Equality . Sometimes mistaken for types of Equality.
The Government has a responsible to equality .
The type some talk of is a human equality . Me As in I, as you as in I ,The same under God .
The market and inhibiting Violence is the governmental problem in the sense of “It has responsibility attached to it if nothing is done . So The way it is approached is Removing barriers of inequality .
A suggestion of tolerance can also be made by The Government to address the indivisibly inequality . But We all know that some men are not equal in Logic and IQ and stature so with delicate , Vary delicate hands of the invisible market . We can give opportunity to all in the form of Monetary rewards .
But as soon as the Government endeavors into Debt prison and Credit manipulation by Tax and HHS reporting we can really never have true Market equality .
The Market is suspect to social hierarchy . So the Government will do what they always do make them self’s the recipient of equality , Hence the numbers are adjusted to reflect a total compliance to the problem as If to say Look we did It for you but , We all know I can’t open a store without a loan and I will be denied . even If I could Id be crushed by , Yes the market .
So this equality Only exists within the Government halls . So if someone can tell me what a barrier of Inequality is Id like to see one .
Because although it sounds good I think its a Myth .
@W.F.
No, and I was not aware of that, for I had always assumed that New England was most likely to have the highest proportion of English descendants, and Georgia, Alabama and Mississipi were not amongst the original thirteen colonies. I knew that there were a lot of German descendants in Maryland and Pennsylvania; Scandinavians in places like Minnesota, and Italians, Irish and Poles in the North generally. Never really thought about the South, or from where they had originated.
@Opus
I ask because I was recently reading one of Orwell’s essays, and his descriptions of some of the elements of the English character brought the South to mind. The English love of flowers, for example, and the considerate, humane nature of the common English (Southerners are really very decent, considerate people in person). Also, one negative stereotype – the hanging judge of old – who is more a feature of the South than anywhere else in the US. And then there is the English tradition of lively, yet impersonal debate and argument, much better preserved in the South than elsewhere. The list goes on and on, and I’m surprised people haven’t written more about the subject. But most people aren’t as interested in cultural anthropology as I am, and there is a real anti-Southern prejudice in much of the US, so perhaps it’s more convenient to write them off as uncouth rednecks (which they are not, really).
I will note that many of the feminists in power currently are jewish and use the same type of language against white males that the nazis used against the jews. We dont want to oppress women we just want to be left alone.
Good point WF we write them off but, The system of education has so , diminished there linguistic culture , Mark twain .
Similar to what the university’s now doing reporting and taking action against people for using weasel words .
One way to assure victory in an argument of ideology is to force a set of prepositional logic that are unfamiliar to the untrained .
In this case Equality is determined by a unequal advantage .
VAWA is solely dedicated to female supremacist by proxy violence.
This violates the 14th amendment protections against unequal justice.
Roughly 600,00 officers per year engage in this unconstitutional activity,having retained *their* bill of rights by way of the ‘law enforcement bill of rights’ this prevents them from losing their civil right to carry arms and thus lose their jobs.
Also note that judges charged with DV are never prosecuted under that section of the law,and rarely convicted upon ancillary charges.
Roughly 1 million men per year are falsely accused of DV,and often lose their civil rights ex-parte,that is to say lacking a hearing or trial.
The Supreme Court upheld VAWA by rationale of the Commercial Commerce clause,citing a loss of tourism monies as the reason to violate Constitutional
protections.
The Congress people and Senators refuse to address this issue as they obtain ultra and extra-legal powers by usurpation.
This results in an ever-increasing caste society,and the loss of nuclear family units for the majority.
Women are so short sighted and spiteful they insist that those unjust laws are still lacking in power.
I too was reading Thomas Balls manifesto earlier this evening,and it’s no wonder the media refused to give it coverage,he spelled it out quite logically and clearly.
VAWA should be challenged in SCOTUS
on the grounds it violates 14th amendment rights.
Passing an ERA would not help,look at Canada’s version of the ERA,the second subsection clearly eliminates white males as not of the ‘disempowered’ class.
Remove these oppressive laws (title IX) and the playing field would be closer to level again.
Of course nothing will compensate for the sexual power women have,but we could get a fair shake in the courts.
The way it stands now the US is on the railroad to slavery for certain ‘privileged’ demographics.
It’s not just the rad-fems spouting this misandrist drivel,it’s been written into law at the Federal level.
Also the UN women’s groups are using feminism and war hand in hand to control the populace and cultures of foreign nations.
Right off,Afghanistan,Syria,Libya,India,Pakistan,Germany,Briton,Australia!
And others.
Some of the Australian and Indian laws are clearly insane,keeping men either locked up w/o a trial or making instant conviction upon accusation.
There seems to be no way to stop these usurpation’s of our rights.
Our representatives have sent the clear message to men,and that is “Fuck you.”
Welmer this is one of your best posts. If we are really going to have a men’s rights movement I think we have to create memes. One of them could be Stirner’s Critics. We need to attack the core of identity politics: people are not only unequal in abilities but also in values and that by not allowing people to segregate themselves (not necessarily by race but rather by moral belief) you do great damage to their humanity.
@ keyster:
“And yet despite the open war on them as a group, the privileged white male CONTINUES to achieve and produce in just as disproportionate numbers as ever before. Nothing seems to disuade or discourage him.”
This may be changing. Those evil heterosexual white males realize that on average it takes about five years to start a new business and grow it to the point where it produces more revenue than a regular job would make. The problem is that Obama and his gang are in the White House for the next four years.
Jim Grant notes that’s something has changed:
“It is not a characteristic American economy,” he explains. “What we are missing is a dynamism, the entrepreneurial zest and vigor that has characterized this country.”
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/fed-actions-counterproductive-jim-grant-150817263.html
Or, you can ask Bruce Springsteen:
“Born down in a dead man town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that’s been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up”
“Born in the USA”
To study Legal Equality you have to review the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendement and all it’s most recent challenges (the fire fighters challenging testing for minorities vs. whites for promotion). There is a ruling coming up this year from a woman regarding admission standards at University of Texas. IOW all the challenges to the Equal Protection Clause are on reverse discrimination grounds or white vs. racial affirmative action. No one will dare do it on gender grounds.
If there was ever anything approaching REAL Men’s Rights Activism it would be to challenge VAWA under the equal protection clause, which it clearly violates – the list goes on from there, but you need precedent. What’s needed is about a million dollars. The orange donate button is towards the upper right of this web page. Give today.
@Nemo
Get a load of this…
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2013/02/ap-survey-marines-mixed-women-in-combat-020113/
17% of Marines to quit because they fear false sexual harrasement and rape charges if women are put in combat roles. Yeah, it’s like that.
“This is why it is foolish to assume that they would ever support true legal equality; it’s against their self-interest, and women would never deliberately work against their self-interest…”
This is why you will never see the end of affirmative action – women like it when they get treated special. It’s just that easy. Anytime a woman (or a “man”) tries to give you some sort of moral or ethical justification for affirmative action, it’s BS. Women want special treatment from men, it’s that simple.
W.F Price conjectures that the majority of the population of ‘New England’ was not ‘English’. This is true. Yet the English predominated by virtue of their association with HMG (His Majesty’s Government.) in that part of the America’s. ‘America’ in truth was discovered and settled ‘first’ by the Spanish, Portuguese, French and Dutch , not the English, nor were the English the majority of those who settled the frontier, but a minority… (the habit of forcibly or persuasively requiring people to change their surnames to an English one adds to this misperception,) nor do people who claim the constitution was based or inspired on the Magna Carta, really understand the meaning of the Magna Carta, or, to whom the benefits of freedom rightly accrue, and for what purpose, according to that document.
Also, Opus points out the virtue of the English free market by referring to the approval of the likes of Volitaire. Opus either doesn’t know Volitaire, or overlooks Volitaires preferred virtue – guile. In short Volitaire approved of England’s ‘free market’ (which is a word used in the same way the Gov. used words like ‘equality, freedom and democracy’ today…as a carrot tied to a stick held over one’s head)
not because he cared for economic freedom, because he was a avid student in the art of controlling the masses.
Furthermore, studies done of corpses disinterred from European graves show the bones of the English of this period having the worst caloric and vital nutrient deficiencies of ANY European state of the same period, even Western Russia.
I believe in free markets, but I do not believe England had anything that could be called a ‘free’ market…..they had something called that, but obviously the English language and the English themselves are notable for their proclivity to often call something the opposite of what it is.
“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. ” –from “Harrison Bergeron,” by Kurt Vonnegut
Up until a few generations ago, “eGalitarian” was about equality of outcomes (equalism, affirmative action, etc) while eQualitarian” was about equality in the eyes of the law (equal rights, EEO, etc.). Back when I looked into this, we did not have Yahoo or Google, and I found the distinction while looking up the terms in an old unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. The reason I looked was that we had just started publishing The Egalitarian as a quarterly companion to The Backlash! I did only one issue of Egalitarian, followed by 3 issues of The Equalitarian. For almost 20 years I tried to get folks to ignore the modern dictionaries, which eradicate the distinction and treat the terms as synonymous, and to reclaim the older definitions, but it’s an uphill battle.
That equalism stuff destroys the drive and character of whole classes of people. I think that has done more damage to the black community than any racist actions has. Welmer just did an article about the EBT cards that show how the equalism in motherhood cost billions in tax money to make being a babymamma the same as a proper married woman.
@W.F.
In my reply to your question about the south I was minded to write something like your last sentance, but thought better of it, for indeed our view of the South – surely derived from what we see in American movies like Gone with the Wind – is exactly as you describe. I have never been in the deep South so I have no personal experience. It is certainly true that the English are crazy about Gardens, have some dreadful Judges, and – I would guess – enjoy lively but impersonal debate. I am of course prejudiced somewhat in the last remark for Counsel will speak to any brief, and of course the Scots regard any debate that ends up with less than a number of dead, wasted.
I was considering that ridiculous phrase, ‘no taxation without representation’. I don’t recall the Falkland Islanders complaining about no taxation without representation in 1982 or at any time since! These days, when every western country has universal suffrage, it is easy to fail to see the sophistry, in the remark. The fact is that for most of human history, and down to the 1920s most people who were taxed had no say, not even the notional say of a vote every four years, in the affairs of State, and had it not been for the Suffragettes and their apex-fallacy, where they failed to see (as was the case) that most men had no vote, yet paid taxes nevertheless, the position might have remained unchanged, indeed even when I first went out to work I could have been paying taxes and yet had no vote! Those young men being slaughtered on The Somme, largely minors, had no vote, yet their sisters comfortably ensconced by the fire-side, handing out white-feathers, demanded preferrential treatment.
It occurs to me that in the 1760s – and someone surely considered this then – that a solution to the discontent, would have been to elect Members of Parliament from the Colonies, yet by reason of the difficulties of communication between England and New England, that idea would surely have been still-born. Had it been tried, however, the Colonists would have run into a worse problem, namely that by reason of England’s then greater population, in theory, the Home country could easily have outvoted the Colonists. The truth seems to be that inevitably England and New England were becoming different, and that a break was sooner or later inevitable, even though most English simply loath all their neighbours especially those in the continent of Europe, and metephotrically regard themselves as being situate about fifty miles off Nantucket Sound.
It is hardly surprising therefore that Myth rather than History is what is taught to American school-boys about The American War of Independence – which is also what we call it and not The American Colonial Insurrection. You also have the advantage of the felicitous writngs of your Founding Fathers to bouy up this starting date for your country. Pity England.
English school-boys know only two dates in English History, neither of them glorious, and one of them in any event is wrong. It is not the case that Julius Caeser successfully invaded Celtic run Britain in 55B.C. He may have Veni’d and even Vedi’d but he certainly did not Vici. He was beaten and returned to Gaul. It was nearly a century before the Romans in the reign of Claudius tried again this time successfully – in the year 41 A.D. My only defence to our poor military performance on that occsasion is to observe that defeat against commanders of the stature of Vespaisianus is no shame. After that it was ‘Romans Ejut Domus’ until the Romans left in 409A.D. It is curious then that the idyllic period of Arthur, the Round Table, and Merlin, after the battle of Mons Gropious in 500 A.D. told the story of Romano-Britains rather than emergent Anglo-Saxons. The other date is 1066 in which the rightful King, Harold, was defeated just outside Hastings by a force of invading Normans (that is to say Vikings) led by William the Bastard. We are and have been an occupied nation since that time and I am perhaps the last surviving member of the A.S.L.F. (The Anglo-Saxon Liberation Front).
When I was in D.C. I found myself, along with some American friends, one warm summer night by The Jefferson Memorial. The place I regret to say smelt like a urinal, but in the gloom one could read on the internal walls the words of Jefferson, which a female, who was otherwise kind and well disposed towards me, though as she was some 150 pounds overweight, I had to pass on – began to read the inmortal prose. I did not know what to say, and as English school-boys are not taught the detail of the War of Independence, I determined, so that I might be better perpared next time, that I would learn the truer facts of your revolution – hence yesterday’s post up above.
We had our own revolution of course, and truly glorious it was, for in the year 1689 the Papist-loving Monarch James II fled to France to avoid death and without a shot being fired – but still no great ringing prose was prepared, so we have to put up with Shakespeare instead – ‘once more unto the breach’ and Churchill ‘we will fight them on the beaches’. Great stuff and of course complete nonsense.
numnut
There is an insidious little war going on that I and Many others have been dragged into by Choice or simply by ancillary support willing and unwilling .
I remember long ago asking myself why I was roped into this thing . The answer is there is no answer . It just keeps escalating.
Because the truth is Hurt people ,Hurt People .
On my first visit to HHS I was sitting there and the women looked down at my shoe’s and seen some water on the Ground , She immediately freaked Out calling the Head person and a Janitor with rubber gloves and a toxic removal specimen Bag.
(Same thing post 911 )I was visited by a sheriff asking questions about a bomb threat
Me still in the dark about the hidden war I cocked my head sideways and pondered what The fuck they where doing .
I realized I had been dragged into this war by stupidity . I had been accused of bringing a toxic substance into a Government Building , The substance being water with maybe some dirt and road oil .
Since then I can’t fly , get turned down for all loans and feel I’m always being watched . Some people simply call it red flagged .
But this is the way it works , Hurt people hurt people . You would figure the Government would eventually take the High road . No that’s not Going to happen , There going to feed it , Memos will be sent making all government employs Paranoid , Then The employee will Have something Go wrong in his / her life and Blame the Client . Purposely hurting the client and The client Becomes angry and Becomes one of those people they actually do Bring Toxins into the Government Building and it Goes on and On and ON .
Iv watched this for over Twenty five years . And it ain’t getting better . Some government Judges have taken to Legal Terrorism and some Men have taken to Revenge Terrorism . Both escalating the problem and neither willing to sit down and talk .
Im pretty sure this is a result of the Feminist takeover of HHS . Little paranoid angry Girls doing what angry sluts do . They make everybody life around them miserable . Why daddy issue’s , Didn’t get that pony on her tenth birthday , who the Fuck knows . But , I’m sure it going to escalate .
So sit back and watch in confusion and wonder , The shows Just beginning .
@Price
“…Opus, just out of curiosity, is it widely known in the UK that the most English states in the US (by ancestry) are in the deep South? Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi whites are overwhelmingly of English extraction — much more so than New England these days….”
The whites of those states are of Scots-Irish extraction, originally from the violent, lawless borderlands between England and Scotland. Cattle rustlers and clannish bushwhackers as far back as the 16th century, they have a bred-in-the-bone hatred of outside authority; which originally would have been represented by the peoples now called “The English”. This is the lineage that produced Andrew Jackson.
@ddd… the Cavaliers went to Virginia, the Roundheads to Massachusets. The US civil war was not their first.
Equality before the law is based on the understanding that man’s laws are derived from God’s laws. We are all equal in the eyes of God. We are all therefore equal before the law.
Equalism is a form of idolatry what dates back to the 3rd century BC. It is an Idea, which is to say it does not exist. There is no such thing. It is something we are told we must value for its own sake, and lastly, something for which great sacrifices are demanded. Make no sacrifices for equality.
cf The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2112-2113.
…and of course the Scots regard any debate that ends up with less than a number of dead, wasted.
Americans no very little about (Americans know very little about any politics outside of America, and even then they know only what late night comedians spew and spot coverage of sound bites on local news whilst checking the weather forecast)…about the campaign underway for Scotland’s attempt at secession from the “United” Kingdom.
“Diversity is our greatness strength” is the common refrain. Actually it’s our greatest weakness, because “some are more diverse than others”. The Euro-American, Afro-American and now Hispanic-American cultures are NOT melting well together in the pot. They’re largely self-segregating and promoting the ascendence of their own cultural influences from within, through our sympathetic media and opportunistic politicians. This is not to mention conservative vs. liberal agendas; abortion, gun control, class warfare, taxing/spending philosophy, etc.
“Reverse” discrimination against the hetero-normative privilaged white male is done through affirmative action quotas – in clear violation of the equal protection clause and decided to be JUST by a woman, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who believed diversity would add to the educational experience of all Americans – social engineer she fancied herself as.
Diversity only works in Hollywood Propaganda. Cacasians, Negros and Latinos (and more recently Asians) in America are generally not gathering together geographically or commingling at social functions. They have little in common with each other value wise and don’t trust each other. History and climate informs their experience. We are divided as a nation more than ever, but yet still insist on ignoring painful truths about human nature, trying to social engineer are way out of it through government intervention.
Has the birth of Londinistan strengthened the UK. Has the influx of Muslim immigrants throughout Europe made Europe more robust?
Has a “diversity of ideas and opinions” informed through foreign cultural experiences added to the betterment of Europe? …besides perhaps unique foods and other arts?
Blacks in America invented our popular music. Hispanics and Asians brought us exotic foods. Are we “stronger” for it? Should they get priority in the “progressive stack” because of the privilaged white male’s sins of the past? And if so, when will the penance for his anscestor’s wrongs ever be allowed to expire? “25 years or so”, as Sandra Day O’Conner alluded?
@Taxi Driver
Indeed. Charleston SC was named after Charles II in 1670; that never would have happened in New England at the time.
Doomsday book of 1086
“Everybody had to pay their tax to the king. This meant that no lord or other nobleman could build up enough money to raise a private army to challenge William. It also meant that William had money to increase the size of his own army – paid for by English taxes. William did not live long enough to see the benefit of the Domesday Book. He died in September 1087 but his successor, William II (also known as William Rufus) did benefit as he knew as soon as he was crowned who owed him what and who his troublesome lords might be – because of the wealth they had. ”
How many ploughs are there in the manor ?
How many mills and fishponds ?
How many freemen, villagers and slaves are there in the manor ?
How much woodland, pasture, meadow ?
What does each freeman owe in the manor ?
How much is the manor worth ?
Ah, Eeeeek-wallet-eee, thy name is woman.
‘fathers who were impoverished as a result of divorce’. I take this to mean by their harridan ex-wives (who else, amiright guys?) who’ll just turn around and spend it on manicures and beauty treatments. Who’s ever heard of women spending child support on the CHILD
Good discussion, but a bit incomplete. Equality is more than just legal equality and equailtiy of outcomes. I have identified five types of equality, one of which (equality of outcome) is a pseudoequality. The equalities are equal rights, equal opportunity, equal protectionof law, and equal responsibility. These last four shgould be of primary concern to any society as they ensure that people are treated equally in all aspects of life. Once equal outcome becomes the focus, a society is doomed as equal outcomes ensures that the best, brightest, and most capable persons become handicapped. Societies with this focus become less productive, less innovative, and ultimately less relevant since it is impossible to raise the least capable to the highest level, but it is possible to handicap the most capable to lower them to the level of the least capable.
Both “equalities” he mentioned are connected by the word itself and the meaning behind the word. The context changes and through rational thought one leads to another (which is why we are where we are today).
Well W.F. Pierce maybe even more disappointed because he forgot “equality of sameness” which is the next stage in equality.
@Opus
To say that it was the British Army that kept the American colonies safe from the French is not totally accurate. The American militas did a great job of defending their homes from the attacks of the French and their Indian Allies. For much of the wars, it was the colonists who did much of the fighting and most of the military victories achieved by the British really came from the colonial troops. In fact, time after time the colonists saw the British Army defeated and I am sure that this took away much of their fear of the British Army which eventually led to them boldly challenging it.
Americans were very proud Englishmen. Yet after the French and Indian Wars, England itself proclaimed that they were not Englishmen although they were expected to be loyal to the Crown. Such was the decision that came out of a case before the Highest Court of England. The American colonies could’ve and should’ve sent representatives to the Parliament in London but this was not allowed. The representatives that came from the backwoods of the southern and later western states had as much trouble getting to Washington, D.C as would’ve any American member of Parliament getting to London. So it was quite feasible.
Since Americans could not have all the rights of a typical Englishman, what were they supposed to do? And in light of this, any governmental dictum that originated from London was seen as tyrannical since they weren’t consulted. Thus came the cry of ” Taxation without Representation” and a war of independence.
Does the government care what happens to soldiers aafter they are veterans? Apparently not. Movie “Born on the 4th of July” depicted it well when during the Vietnam War men only were drafted. Now that combat restrictions are being removed for women. maybe feminists will concern with the veterans suicide. Link;
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/01/study-22-military-veterans-commit-suicide-every-day/
Hmm, if equal rights and equal responsibility was important to the female population? Then why would 85% of all custody battles go to them. Are we saying that 85% of all men, or fathers are unfit to be parents? Realising what being a n.c.p means, no power or voice in really molding our children! kind of got off subject, but this is the example of when we give power to those who didnt have power in the first place, not that i agree with anyone being slaves or anyone being masters! This is an example of whats wrong with Amercan Politics, there is too much SELF INTERESTS involved. If this is the example of the feminist movement? Then no wonder no one wants to open the door to them on other issues. Its like the Tears For Fears song in the 80′s “Every One Want To Rule The World” And as a wise man once said “be careful when you overthrow a tyrant! that another one dosnt replace them!”
Yes we need to point out the difference in opinion on what equality.