A few days ago, someone asked me whether any of the Republican presidential contenders could lead the country to salvation. My answer was an immediate and unequivocal no.
This is not to disparage any of the contenders, who in normal times might very well be capable of steering the ship of state. But we now find ourselves in extraordinary circumstances, and a radically different set of qualifications is needed.
Numerous metaphors have circulated to describe the existential crisis of the West. One of the most picturesque is the runaway locomotive heading full-speed for the cliff. I would add my own little tweak to this image, in order to endow it with full accuracy: The locomotive has already jumped the cliff. We are plunging into the ravine.
If any proof of this is still needed, the events of the last few months should suffice. In fields too numerous to mention, the government and “elites” of the Western countries have been raining ruin and destruction upon the heads of their people. The recent move by Congress and the President to drag the country into now irreversible financial collapse is only the most spectacular scene in this disaster film, a production so appalling and grotesque that no work of fiction could match it.
Only a leader who is fully cognizant of this reality, and operates within its constraints, will be capable of restoring a modicum of health to our dysfunctional society. This eventuality, however, is still out on the horizon. It does not yet belong to our current political constellation.
A Romney, or a Perry, or a Bachmann, if placed into the cab of our plunging locomotive, would instinctively grasp at the levers, attempting to slow the wreck. This, in essence, has been the standard conservative response to the mayhem and destruction sown by the Left. The basic paradigm of the Left has rarely been challenged head-on. No one has been able or willing to shunt the train to another track. Frantically pulling the brakes is the best we could ever hope for. But when the train has jumped the cliff, brakes are of no use (if they ever really were).
This is not meant as a criticism. Leaders are only a reflection of the people. A wise governor or president or king can lead the charge in a certain direction, but he cannot run miles ahead of the pack.
Government is a lagging indicator of the underlying culture. If Barack Hussein Obama didn’t exist, he would have to be invented. He is the logical result of nearly every trend in the West perhaps since the French Revolution, and certainly of the entire landscape in the United States since the 1960s.
In all likelihood, the style of leader we so desperately need will not emerge until the train hits the bottom of the ravine. Only a shock of great magnitude can force the majority to reject the paradigm that has been force-fed over the course of decades.
The old mindset is toxic; it must be uprooted and replaced. The new mindset—the new railroad track—must be constructed on the following simple reality: Civilization is based on inequality. In other words, inequality is beneficial. This seemingly revolutionary principle has been considered obvious at most times and places. No accomplishment is possible without inequality. Excellence in every field depends on it. Without a hierarchy, no domain of human endeavor can function effectively. Without a ranking of people and their abilities, there can be no development of art, industrial design, architecture, literature, theater, baseball, haute cuisine, fine wines, technology, medicine, and so on. Likewise, there can be no aspirations. If everyone is the same, why bother to improve yourself?
Inequality is human. Equality, however, belongs to the animal world, to the herd. It is no coincidence that the ideologies of rampaging egalitarianism seek an endless leveling, in order to reduce society to an amorphous mass of jelly, an undifferentiated herd of cattle. The Left knows that an honest appraisal of human abilities is a great threat to their plans, an obstacle to their dream of a totalitarian world in which the human spirit is crushed forever.
If you doubt what I say about the possibility of our current leadership overtly recognizing and acting in accordance with these principles, run a simple test in your mind. Can you imagine one of the Republican presidential candidates appearing on CNN, and saying flat out, “Equality is bad”? Just like that, those three words. My guess is that you cannot imagine it. And for good reason: It is impossible. The candidate’s political career would be over, effective immediately.
This will change, however, and perhaps very soon. We can lay the groundwork by educating ourselves and those around us. Let us state without hesitation, without conditions, without excuses, that equality is bad.
***************
Our short-term outlook, courtesy of the Manchurian president and his enablers:




The rail analogy is well developed and applied; the scheduled events laid out exactly as they will happen. Our Jeremiah sees the truth and his doom is indeed upon us. A damn’ fine post, put simply.
There seem though, a few little things to consider further:
“Equality is bad” for one. Our equality is founded explicitly in the Declaration of Independence and I will not easily relinquish it. The Left hates the Declaration and wants it gone; isn’t that strange for the self-anointed patrons of equality? Not at all; the equality of the Declaration is an equality of RIGHTS, not of wealth or lifestyles or healtcare. Those latter are a prostitution of the equality recognized by the Founders.
Men bring varied abilities to lifes’ competition; therefore, mens’ results differ. Equality of results cannot exist but when forced; forced men aren’t free. The more euality demanded, the less freedom is available. Nor can forced men be held responsible.
But the equality of RIGHTS is the only platform upon which men can stand against force to defend their freedom and such is the genius of the Founding, expressed in the Declaration.
Jack: I sympathize with the points you made. It is clear from even a simple reading of the Declaration that when the Founders speak of equality, they are referring to equality under the law. This of course is one of the pillars of our freedom, and must be protected at all costs.
Nevertheless, I stick to my guns when it comes to my proposed mantra, “equality is bad.” The Western world has become so steeped in Leftist notions of equality that for the vast majority of people, the word conjures up nothing more than affirmative action, multiculturalism, and all the rest of the collectivist blather. Thus, in my opinion, we need to strike at the heart of the beast. Otherwise, we continue the fatal dance, in which the Left constantly ups the ante and the Right (such as it is) scrambles around trying to prove that the latest dose of “equality” will, for example, harm the supposed beneficiaries just as much as anyone else. Or some similar pathetic reaction, and always on the defensive.
By the way, thank you for your kind words regarding the quality of the post, here and elsewhere.
A thought provoking post. My objection is the use of the word equality. I haven’t seen the Left’s efforts as making people equal. They do not view as Jack pointed out people being equal especially with their elitist selves. I perceive the Left’s effort as forced conformity of the under class. We are all to become atheist, non-thinking, obedient followers of whatever position they think important at the time. That would not be equal because their laws as the “civil right” ones do not produce equality but special treatment of their class distinctions produced by the laws.
I love that picture…
There’s a few things to remember when it comes to the destruction of western culture by the self-appointed “elites.” First off, it took over a century to do it between softening societal attitudes toward sin and tradition and using influential persons to help mold social thinking. Second, they did try to make all people the same, and we plain and simply aren’t. Third, there is no respect for the vulgar, meaning common. None.
I do think that we can be put back together, but it’s not going to be easy and is going to require a reversion in thinking to that of centuries before the 20th.
I am a big fan of anti-egalitarianism. (Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut is one of my favorite short stories). Equality and Freedom are opposites; the more you have of one, the less you’ll have of the other.
While I love the DOE, the idea that all men are created equal is a dubious one. That aside, Dame Hillary has stated explicitly that equality de jure is merely a prelude to equality de facto. So while you indulge in the rational view of equality of two centuries ago, the agenda is quite different.