Equality and the death of human civilization. This is gonna be

File: Racism is magic (Specifically witchcraft).png (120KB, 736x778px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 736x778px

When faced with these facts, a progressive will turn back to their essential articles of faith and throw an error code. If all men (feminist shrieking) are created (materialist shrieking) equal, but equality does not exist, then something must have gone WRONG. This is as close as a progressive can ever come to espousing an objective moral statement without being hypocritical. Note that this does not stop them from doing so in a plethora of other cases. Here, also, is found the original sin of progressive dogma. If someone is more successful than the mean, he (pronouns multiply silently in the distance) must be guilty of snatching that success from those for whom it was somehow destined. If someone is unsuccessful, then they are being oppressed by whomever managed to siphon off the karma that should have guaranteed their victorious destiny.

This is the point where classical Marxism arose. Since equality was the only objective fundamental good that a materialist could conceive of, then the reapportionment of resources from the more successful to the less successful was the only moral course of action. However, it is with the failure of every Marxist state to ever exist that the Progressive cult hit its first real doctrinal snag. Each Marxist state failed when it tried to compete with their less enlightened economic counterparts. Or, in most cases, when they came into contact with basic human biology, namely the requirement of all living things to consume food. Moreover, they had discovered that some forms of success were too immaterial to be apportioned. Some people were inherently more attractive, some lifestyle choices were inherently healthier, some sexes are inherently better adapted to specific roles. Since it impossible to collectivize gender (they’ve certainly tried), the reformed church of progressivism came up with the idea of reapportioning the concept of success.

File: Sowell on empathy.jpg (71KB, 503x305px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 503x305px

Now, as a biosphere is capable of producing only a finite amount of resources, a society is capable of producing a finite amount of success. People inherently find themselves unwilling to recognize everyone as a winner. However, while there is only a finite amount of success in the world, society is capable of producing an infinite (or at least arbitrarily large) amount of failure. If that industriously produced failure can be “fairly” apportioned, the shining concept of equality can finally be reached. Namely at the level of the lowest common denominator. Everyone can be a success only once nobody is. The rich can’t take bread from the mouth of the poor once there is no bread. Thus, was born the “white liberal guilt” meme. The moral thing to do, for a conscientious member of the privileged class (read that as white, straight and male.) is to cast off the scarlet S of success as quickly as possible by adopting the habits and behaviors of those less successful. The wealthy must vote for the government which promises to strip them of their money; the free for the one which will strip them of their rights. Citizens of successful countries are expected to import as many of the poor and unemployable as possible to even out the global poverty levels. Even sexually, Men are encouraged to adopt sexual behaviors and identities which ensure they’ll never breed. Cultural Marxism is not about the redistribution of wealth, it is the redistribution of poverty.

File: Traps are sad.png (65KB, 1350x295px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1350x295px

The rotten heart of progressivism, the root which nurtures this religion of cultural suicide is the very first assumption “we are all equal.” If there is any doubt that the faith in this statement is religious fanaticism, simply ask someone why they believe it. The innocent question “Why do you believe that?” is met either with shock that you would dare question something so fundamental, or anger as if you had personally attacked their own moral value. It’s much the same reaction you would get if you asked a catholic why they bothered listening to the pope.

When viewed from a materialistic vantage (From which progressivism claims its origin), there is clearly no reason to believe that humans should all be considered equally valuable and valid any more than you would consider the same things of individual sea turtles. An organism is successful if its expressed genetic traits are better adapted to its environment than its competitors. These adaptations are considered better adapted if the creature succeeds at the essential functions of the organism, namely acquiring resources and passing on its genes by breeding. From this point of view, it’s quite clear that humanity consists of multiple distinct populations, each containing genes that have been subject to generations of pruning by the selection pressures of the environments from which these populations spring. If straight white males are more successful in society, then the adaptations of being straight white and male (and the numerous behaviors associated with these demographics) must be better adapted to performing their essential biological functions within the environment of your society. Natural selection does not produce or favor “diversity”, rather it gradually progresses a population towards homogeneity by eliminating the less efficient adaptations. This holds true for as long as the environment remains the same.

File: And it will not swiftly abate.jpg (299KB, 2000x1271px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 2000x1271px

The universal conceit of the progressive is almost always a misunderstanding of their own creation myth. Somehow, these very intelligent and well-educated people have gotten the idea that evolution is a very neat progression from objectively worse to better. Again and again you’ll hear them claim to be “on the right side of history” as if humanity is evolving towards some unstoppable destiny which definitely matches their own preferences. The truly ironic fact, however, is that progressives are themselves working to thwart any kind of progress. By removing the natural methods of selection from the population (and by importing populations that were not exposed to the same selection process) they are allowing more and more “diverse” (read maladapted) expressions to build up within the population. What they have forgotten is that society, even civilization itself is an adaptation. A set of shared traits created by a selection for cooperation and a certain degree of conformity. Once a significant amount of the population no longer possess the traits which made cooperation possible, civilization itself will cease to exist.