Egalitarianism is the false belief that everyone is equal – that everyone has equal abilities, equal potential, equal intelligence, equal moral and spiritual uprightness, etc. If everyone is equal, then the logic follows that the results should be equal – everyone should be equally wealthy, everyone should follow the same moral and spiritual codes, etc. Since, in the minds of the egalitarians, everyone is equal and should have the same resulting life, if results are not equal, then it must be because one group of people is taking unfair advantage of another group of people. Their answer? Government. Not just any government, but the kind of massive, intrusive government that would be required to force equality on everyone – the kind of government that America has become. Do you see where this is going? If you start out with a false premise, then everything that follows after it is also false.
Egalitarianism was the force behind the period of bloody anarchy known as the French Revolution. It was claimed as the cause for the Russian Revolution and the Chinese “Cultural Revolution” which resulted in the deaths of millions. Egalitarianism is the smilie face that Communism and Socialism hide behind. It is at the heart of the murders of thousands of White farmers in Africa and the resulting starvation when those once-productive farms are turned into wasteland by the “new owners”.
Egalitarianism is behind the “one man – one vote” system in America that has devolved into a situation where our leaders are chosen by those who are promised the biggest share of the loot taken from the rapidly shrinking pool of the productive.
Egalitarianism is a system where everyone is assumed to be completely equal, and thus have equal results. When equality produces unequal results, an egalitarian system reacts by trying to force equal results on unequal people. Since those of lower abilities cannot be force-fed greater abilities, the only option left to an egalitarian society is to place obstacles in the path of those with greater abilities. A classic example of this is “affirmative action” and other racial and gender preference programs. In each of these cases, any equalizing of results are due solely to penalizing one class of people to the benefit of another class of people.
Egalitarianism says that all cultures are equal. When people no longer recognize differences between cultures, they take the path of least resistance. They discard the self-discipline and responsibility that are the hallmarks of higher cultures and adopt the irresponsible, the crude, and the base. That is why we see Black culture spreading far outside that race. The pants-halfway-down look, the acceptance of “rap” as music, the acceptance of children out of wedlock, the lack of respect toward women, the trashing of the English language (far beyond the normal slang of youth) – all of these have spread far beyond the Black race. The egalitarian claim is that when people are mixed (usually through coercion) the best from each group will prevail and be adopted by all. Just the opposite happens: just as churches that bring the world into the church become just like the world, people tend adopt the worst traits of others. There are notable exceptions, of course. There are those few who recognize superior cultures and adopt that culture in order to better themselves and their families. Those are very rare exceptions. People descend to the lowest common denominator when they accept the egalitarian lie.
Egalitarianism is at the very heart of communism – it is the equal sharing of misery. It is a system that discourages individual achievement. It punishes the high achiever and provides moral cover for the slothful. Why work hard to excel if the rewards of hard work and diligence and personal responsibility are taken away and given to others?
Inheritance taxes were devised as a means to promote the egalitarian agenda. These draconian taxes assured that a family could not build the wealth of the next generation. Inheritance taxes just barely cover the administrative cost involved – they exist primarily to promote the egalitarian agenda, not to fund government services. What better way for a government to assure an egalitarian system than by effectively resetting each generation to zero by confiscating their parents’ wealth through inheritance taxes?
One of the major cultural differences between North and South in the years leading up to the War for Southern Independence was the egalitarian nature of Northern culture and the stratified nature of Southern culture. Radical egalitarians like Thaddeus Stevens and John Brown sought to tear down what they saw as the unfair social structure of the South. Southerners, on the other hand, had built a highly refined agrarian society that recognized social and economic standing as something to be sought after, and provided the opportunity to excel both socially and economically. True, advancement seldom came quickly – it might take a full generation or more. The culture of the Old South instilled patience and took a long term view of matters where the years it took to build a better life would be rewarded in the end. That end may be one’s children or grand children, but Southern culture was quite content with a slower pace.
The statement in our Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” was simply a rebuttal to the political theory of the divine right of kings that America was declaring her independence from. It was never intended as a literal statement about the nature of man. The radical egalitarians hijacked the phrase and used it as a powerful weapon in their war on the Western European culture that America was based on.
The only case where all men are truly equal is in the sight of God. In His eyes, we are all sinners in need of salvation through the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ. Other than that, no two people are equal, nor are any races or any other groups of people equal, and any system based on such a lie is doomed to failure.
You should be happy we have egalitarianism. Otherwise you, personally, would have no money, no power, no women and no chance. You are dumber, and more worthless, than the overwhelming majority of people. So do thank egalitarianism.
Colonel –
The churlish response of ‘dan’, above, seems to offer ample reinforcement of the positions you put forth in this post. However, he – and millions of others – enjoy a confidence in their own position that’s unlikely to be shaken by polite argument, or impolite argument for that matter. It’s probably not worth engaging him so I will not do so.
Your post, itself, raises an issue in my mind that I thought I’d bring up even though I’m not sure I’ve thought it through thoroughly enough, even after some time.
There is great debate over the value, and even the nature, of ‘equality. (‘dan’s’ contribution doesn’t rise to the level of ‘debate’ but he still manages to assert some difference here.)
If by ‘equal’, we mean something along the lines of “… the ground is level at the foot of the cross …”, “… we’re all equal in God’s eyes …”, “… that all men are CREATED equal…” (emphasis added) or some other sweeping theological or philosophical (even a very secularist philosophical) position concerning equality – absent from any input whatever from the individual – then I think we can begin to see the outlines of that ‘equal’ which may animate ‘dan’ and many others.
There is something to be said for the authentic goodness of ‘equal’.
However, that ‘equal’, in real terms, isn’t something just floating off in space all by itself. It is heavily weighted by the presumably ‘equal persons’ own choices. If a person chooses a self-destructive path, if he or she wants to avoid work and rely on welfare from the neighbors, if they decide to engage in un-safe sex, if they bring into the world a child which neither of them have any intention of nurturing, protecting and caring for, if they engage in a rich assortment of similar actions … are they, by their own personal choice, ‘equal’ to those who make more responsible choices?
Well, yes they are, in the view of many. That ‘many’, of course, increasingly includes all levels of government throughout the modern western world plus, seemingly, a majority of the voters who repeatedly re-elect the members of those governments to office.
That is – or should be – an astounding reaction to the situations these individuals very happily create. But it’s not.
You’re obviously not receptive to that degree of acceptance and I agree you ought not to be. However, it appears that most around us are. It’s that openly accepting reception of this position which I see as even more troubling than are the actual situations created by these individuals.
Personally, short of reliance on the Bible, I can come up with no possible explanation of why this receptiveness exists. I realize that you wish to keep this site free of religious opinion/debate so I won’t pursue that.
I’ll simply ask why there is now so much emphasis on equality and so little on duty and responsibility? Could it be that pandering – at any level of civic involvement – brings in votes far more quickly than leadership does? Could it be that we have lost the ability to even recognize leadership in the sense that it was practiced, for instance, by Lee?
In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.
Robert E. Lee
Peter Kelley
Mountain City, TN
Good morning, Mr. Kelly. It’s great to hear from you again.
I had not considered the other side of the equation that you presented so well – the acceptance of bad behavior as “normal”. I suspect that’s not what the politicians had in mind when they coined the phrase “the new normal”.
Here’s where, in your last paragraph, you really summed up the whole issue:
I’ll simply ask why there is now so much emphasis on equality and so little on duty and responsibility? Could it be that pandering – at any level of civic involvement – brings in votes far more quickly than leadership does? Could it be that we have lost the ability to even recognize leadership in the sense that it was practiced, for instance, by Lee?
Again, thank you for your post.
For that matter, I also thank “dan” for his post.
A direct quote from your blog post:
Southerners, on the other hand, had built a highly refined agrarian society that recognized social and economic standing as something to be sought after, and provided the opportunity to excel both socially and economically.
Unless, of course, you happened to be black.
Dear Sirs,
There were Black freedmen, including Black slaveholders, in the South.
Blacks voluntarily served the Confederacy, including as soldiers,
before their enlistment was authorized in the last year of the war.
Blacks and Whites worked and played together before the war,
whereas in the “Free States”, there were laws
prohibiting Black residency. It was the effective use of Blacks
by Federally-supported Carpetbagger governments,
that created resentments against the former slaves.
Hatred against Blacks was far more common in the North
than in the South, before the “Reconstruction”.
It is still quite prevalent in the North today.
A New Jersey Copperhead
@jane, a more ignorant point could not have been made by anyone. When you regurgitate the tired Progressive, Abolitionist, Unitarian propaganda. The bottom line, the FACTS if you will do not support your argument.
The South was more equal than anything you have ever seen and will ever see. People earned their place…white or black, male or female.
Here’s a little taste of FACT for you…40% of all slave owners in my home state of Louisiana in 1860 were…black.
I suggest you crack a book…one that doesn’t push any agenda but the TRUTH.
Out.
Stephen, I was talking about this to someone, who said that Marxism or Socialism only rises to fill a vacuum. In other words, when a system fails, it leaves a gap where socialim can come in. That is the current pop-beilef that is being spread around now. In other words, socialism or communism would be necessary if the culture didnt need it. My own belief is that Marxists have to get rid of the current culture and current government in order to control. So, they oust the current sysem and create a gap, where they can take over.
Lydia,
I think that both ideas are correct.
Marxism (under any of its various labels), seeks to destroy other governing systems – as does every other system of government. The U.S. is currently fighting several wars with the alleged goal of replacing an existing system with American-style “democracy”. It is Darwinian politics.
Where a political vacuum exists – or a very weak system – something will move in to replace it. When people are beaten down and believe that the system is such that they cannot excel by their own efforts (as American is increasingly becoming), then Marxism’s siren song of egalitarianism starts to sound appealing.
More to the point relating to American politics; egalitarianism was and is more associated with the legacy of Puritanism in America. After the English Civil War the victorious Puritans imposed a military dictatorship on England which, among other things, outlawed the celebration and observance of Christmas. It was the direct descendants of these same people who became fervent abolutionists in the Greater New England regions of the U.S., centered upon Massachusetts, and who sparked the terrible War Between The States. Their legacy lives on in today’s socialist Democrat Party thanks to FDR.
Sirs,
The most important reason we should oppose egalitarianism, is that it negates the uniqueness of each citizen. This emphasis on the individual, sets us apart from other nations. Egalitarianism forces individuals into categories, despite many significant exceptions within each psuedo-category. The most extreme example of forced egalitarianism, is the belief that it is justified, “that hundreds shall die, so millions may live,” as has been demonstrated all too often by Communism. This concept is irreconcilable with our principle, that the life of every individual citizen is precious, for his contributions, present or potential, and there will never be anyone like him again ever. Oppose egalitarianism, and all its manifestations, always.
A New Jersey Copperhead
Dear Sirs,
Two points please. In the fifth line of the previous comment of yours truly, please read “categories” instead of “illegitimate categories” (though the categories are illegitimate). Secondly, yours truly, has shown Egalitarianism-Destroyer of Nations, to select friends and colleagues, which have included Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, and even atheists. All agreed, generally to completely, with the essay. New Jersey is self-censoring and intellectually stifling. One must be quite tactful in disagreeing with the highly egalitarian views and policies, now in vogue and dominant in this state, today one of the least free (as analyzed through your post, Freedom in the 50 States).
Deo Vindice.
A New Jersey Copperhead
(Previous post edited as requested – thank you, sir! SCM)
Sirs,
Always remember, with the White African farmers of Rhodesia, the Pieds Noirs, European settlers and their descendants, from what today is Algeria, abandoned by de Gaulle, because he found it politically expedient, to do the bidding of the egalitarian Socialists and Communists. The atrocities committed against the Pieds Noirs, by the Algerian nationalist “freedom fighters” are unspeakable. The Pieds Noirs, as well as the Rhodesians, had as much of a right to prosper in Africa, as we do, to live in North America. Though forgotten by the egalitarian-dominated academia of today, we shall always remember them in our hearts.
A New Jersey Copperhead
Excellent point, sir. Thank you for pointing that out.
Once again, we see that egalitarianism and communism are just different words for the same thing.
I agree with the thrust of your article, but a minor point:
The divine right of kings was sorted out in England by a certain Oliver Cromwell, more than 100 years before the Declaration of Independence, reinforced by the “Glorious Revolution” in 1688 and the Bill of Rights in 1689. The American Revolutionary War was against the imposition of rule from London (including taxation) without American parliamentary representation in that city. The King was the titular head of that government, not an absolute monarch. Most Englishmen were sympathetic to your cause, if not necessarily your means.
You’re right about Socialism/Marxism. Life at the lowest common denominator. Dumbing down, anyone?
Nick,
Thanks for the comment and the clarification. The topic of monarchy as a form of government (though that is not the topic of this post) is a fascinating one to me and I really appreciate your adding to the discussion. I hope you’ll stop by and comment often.
@ Dan
How exactly do you know how much money this man makes? You fail at understanding what egalitarianism
@ Author
While the last part about God irked me. Egalitarianism leads to the lowest common denominator. It is for the pathetic, the weak, and the lazy.
(edited by Stephen Clay McGehee. “God” is always capitalized when referring to the God of The Bible. Any disrespect toward God is not permitted here.)
@ Jan
Yet what is funny is that if all racial groups and cultures are equal it would assume that “blacks (or really called Africans) wouldn’t allow themselves to be oppressed in the first place.
@ Author
Trying to attempt to tie Darwinian to Marxism? This is laughable because Darwinism is anything but.
A comment was received from “Lou” but will not be posted. We welcome posts – either supporting or opposing the original post – that contribute to the discussion and are done in a civil manner. Yours was not.
Confederate Colonel is for and about the Southern Gentleman and the Southern Lady, and while we reserve the right to hold critics to somewhat lower standards, your post exceeded even those lower standards. As a reminder to all – each comment is individually reviewed and either approved or rejected.
let’s mark a difference between “equal” and “identical”. The lie of egalitarianism is not that people are equal – because they are, and we understand that males and females, blacks and whites, kings and peasents are all human beings created by God – but that they are, and ought to be, identical in their tendencies, actions, clothes, responsibilites, etc.
Any truthful person knows that men and women are ‘equal’, and should therefore respect and love each. But only an egalitarain thinks that both ought to have the exact same roles and responsibilites.
Equal but different. 16/2 is equal to 8, but nobody after a bit of thought would really say that they are the same. Both are used for different reasons and in different contexts, and one must be converted into the other before it can be used in some context.
That isn’t a perfect analogy, but it is useful.
The phrase “Equal protection under the law” is what really sums it up – for both man’s law and God’s law. Jesus died for all, and that is truly the great equalizer.
The egalitarian insists that because all human beings “are equal” (the basic fallacy of egalitarianism), if results/success/ability, etc. are not equal, then the fault lies in some external “force” such as an “unfair” legal system which must be “fixed” until results are equal. All of society suffers for their cruel stupidity.