Egalitarianism - PART 1
Egalitarianism is nonsense. Not just from a political standpoint, but also from a philosophical standpoint. It's unnatural, and it requires, force, violence, perpetual violence in order to maintain it. In fact in requires perpetual escalating violence, since the system is becoming more and more instable, so you need to exert more and more force in order to maintain it.
The Process
So if the goal is to make 2 humans equal, you start first with their wallets, redistribute their wealth equally, and end up with plastic surgeries making them look more equal, or start regulating their sexual lives and the government will choose who they can have sex with. In this case you can only achieve equality, if you metaphorically murder them, because their unique personalities will die, and you are left with a copy of yourself, and who would want that?
It would be like an echo-chamber of your own personalities. The left is really contradictory. They claim to want diversity, but in reality they are doing the exact opposite, making everyone the same. Diversity means free market, and freedom of choice, but this is the exact opposite: Communism.
The Endgame
It's a false belief system that denies nature and the natural order. And it can only be maintained by escalating force. Think of it like a sinking submarine that is under increasing pressure as it gets deeper, so you have to make the walls thicker and thicker, in order to not collapse, but when it will, the sheer force of the collapse will be biblical.
So maybe humanity can survive an economic collapse. As it did in the past. But can they survive a total rot of individualism? I mean sure a human can hunt animals if he is starving. But if you create this generation of pussies and cowards, who are extremely obedient, but also extremely vulnerable without their slave masters, then what will happen to them?
How can collectivists survive an economic collapse? These people don't even know how to cook (women included), not to mention to survive in a hard situation. But they probably won't. So this is a disservice to everyone, by promising fake utopia to leftists, and when the dream falls apart, everyone will be left vulnerable to the chaos that will reign.
Just look at Sweden, and their problems with the immigrants. This is exactly what I am talking about. A generation of weak minded people, being conquered by violent thugs, they have no chance.
Mind vs Instinct
The problem is the dual nature of the human brain. On one hand you have the mind, which is a brilliant, but dangerous tool, and on the other hand you have the instinct, which is just a raw, brutal, and primitive motivational force.
If you rely on only instincts, then you are a brutal, but primitive animal, who will most likely survive, but fail to reach the next level of life experience. I mean a wolf's life is not that special, and it's pretty poor, while a human can have rich life experiences.
Now the mind is a brilliant tool, but it's also very very dangerous, especially in the hands of idiots. Idiots who have enough intelligence to think, but not enough intelligence to think rationally. Or in other words, these dreamers, who are totally detached from reality, and trying to force their delusions into people.
Now these might be religious beliefs, or ideological beliefs, or maybe the two are the same. Well, the whole egalitarian agenda, is a right example of this, it's pushed religiously, and it's just a delusion of some people who have spent more time in their dreams, than in the outside world.
And sure, people can have any delusions they want, I am fine with it, as long as they don't hurt anyone. But if they start forcing their nonsense beliefs on others, then it's very very bad.
Good post. I agree completely - I read it twice to make sure.
I made a few observations while I read it:
-Sweden is a proto-case for the [wolf/sheep|predator/prey] society stable dynamic. The first decent wolf pack to bump into a sheep society will dominate it and will be nearly impossible to be displaced by the sheep until A) the wolf pack destroys the flock or B) it is displaced by a more dominant wolf pack.
-Transitioning from a collectivist society to an individualist society will be difficult to achieve from within that society or by other peaceful means because it will be opposed by both the slaves and the masters. The slaves may be agreeable to a new master, but it will still result in a collectivist society. A peaceful transition appears to rely on the assumption that a collectivist can be converted to an individualist. While there is certainly a spectrum between collectivist and individualist, and molding forces can be applied to polarize margin cases toward either pole, it is not clear that in general the poles are convertible. While humans are defined by a great deal of plasticity and adaptability, they are also defined, perhaps more so, by where they are rigid and inflexible. Human history shows selective pressure for [follower|slave|sheep] in every conquest and subjugation. If you don't look too carefully, history appears to be entirely a long chain of this selective pressure. That quite simple suggests genetic basis for following behavior directly at the cost of filtering out individualists. Genetic basis for following behavior suggests limits on the real ability of a follower to become an individualist. An actual study on this would be nice so we can get a better picture of what we are dealing with. More work needs to be done on possible peaceful societal transition paths. It isn't a trivial problem.
I have a partial solution that retains diversity without the homogeneity cost of egalitarianism. It also allows freedom or subjugation, by choice. I'll do a write up. The main problem with it is freedom, and the actual implications of freedom.