"The very existence of government at all, infers inequality. The citizen who is preferred to office becomes the superior to those who are not, so long as he is the repository of power, and the child inherits the wealth of the parent as a controlling law of society." -- James Fenimore Cooper, 'The American Democrat'.

...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." -- Thomas Jefferson, 'The Declaration of Independence'.


Perhaps one of the most irritatingly overused and abused quotes used among pseudo-intellectuals to justify their hackneyed, brain washed arguments and "logic". It has been so over-utilized in our era that many have even begun to perceive it to have a biblical basis, where it does not. (More on that later.)

What's, perhaps, the most appalling about it is that it's so often para-phrased, misquoted and misconstrued, that it has taken the course of a philosophy that it was never meant to be associated with.

The American colonists, during and before the Revolutionary War of the United States, wrote the Declaration of Independence in response to a mandate of heaven (id est, divine right or born superiority) imposed by the King of England during that time period.

Its implication was not that we are all equal in every respect and that there is no such matter as superiority and inferiority and that total egalitarianism is the only recourse for government. Actually, such a philosophy would lean more toward a Communist government than a Democracy/Socialist Republic. What these words entailed was that God does not give anyone Divine Right of Kings.

What these famous words also did was allow for a righteous outlook toward the "unalienable rights" of a government's citizens. Enacting that they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration further boasts the idea that a government is in place to ensure the stability of a nation and if a government fails to acknowledge such, its citizens have the right to overthrow it.

That, my friends, is what the aforementioned quote entails. Not that we are all born of some identical strand of DNA that makes us carbon copies of one another.

This quote has gone to such exceeding lengths by misinformed, delusional pseudo-intellectuals that it has found its way into biblical discussion and even well read Christians believe that these words were uttered somewhere in the Bible's context. But, in all actuality, said texts affirm a distinction between individuals. Squander your time cycling through your Bible or searching online; you will find nothing that validates the view that all people are equal.

So, why, then, is society so baned by the concept of a superior specimen -- an alpha male, of sorts? Barring, of course, the obvious inferiority complex that plagues the hearts of man, it's a standardized philosophical doctrine that has made for itself an extravagantly vigorous stronghold stagnated by a chorus of sheep, reciting the perceived credentials of its values. In other words, it's been polluted into our minds by the media and voices that we are meant to trust at a young age and ingrained into our cerebral cortex. Ergo, you're being brain washed before you're even old enough for it to be considered brain washing.

With such an outlook toward life advocated by programs like Disney, Nickelodeon and other franchises that teach our children values like "don't cheat", "do well in school", "be honest" and other fundamental assets, we take such a philosophy and put it in conjunction with ethical principles such as "don't bully someone."

Without it being challenged adamantly, people are wrapped into this web of thinking -- allowing the television and media agendas to think for them -- and it eventually becomes a majority view. Once it becomes a majority's outlook, then it becomes even more difficult to view as "wrong" or "flawed" because it seems to be a matter of common sense, when in reality, it's not.

Such a philosophy is a way for losers to validate their loss to a winner. As a hypothetical, lets imagine a debate between two people of the highest intellectual quotients on the planet. Quite obviously, there is going to be a winner. As a byproduct, there has to be a loser because for every winner, there is (at minimum) one loser.

The winner is, of course, celebrating and stands on top, proudly. As he should. Now, how do you think the loser feels? Inferior, perhaps? So, what is the logical thing to do here? It's not enough that the judges will give him a medal for effort, but now, our loser has to validate his loss in his mind with such anecdotes as "everyone is equal!" He will, then, begin to critically examine his subordinate and attempt to address any flaw he can find in this individual to further validate his own sense of consciousness.

But that is why he will never be as good as our winner. Because instead of saying "I lost, but I'll get 'im next time," he spends his times looking for ways to feel better about his loss. Thereby, wasting time that can be used to be prepared for round two.

The fact of the matter is that we're not all equal. If you threw everyone into the middle of the ocean, do you think they would all live? Do you think they would all die? No, some would live and some would die because we are not equal.

That's not to say that equality doesn't exist, but it's not an absolute concept. To claim that all people are equal is to oppose many biblical concepts. In addition, it contradicts the very concept of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

So, when I say that I am better than Random Moron 63, it's not because I'm a jerk. It's because I'm being honest when it comes to the bare view of how the world works.
 
 
Genesis 4:9 - "And the LORD said unto 'Cain, Where is Abel, thy brother?' And he said, 'I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?'"

Probably one of the most emphatic statements uttered in the book of Genesis. Such words have been read by generations of individuals for several millenniums. For some reason, this verse either rubs us the wrong way, instills a sense of emotion or inspires some form of reaction.

After slaying his brother, Cain met Jehovah's (God's) query of investigative priority with contempt. Instead of leaving it at "I know not", he adds more: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Such a response warrants further investigation as it implies a defensive nature and a guilty conscience.

Genesis 4:10 - "And he said, 'What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.'"

If you don't know the rest of the story, you can read it here. It's not very long, so it won't bare too much on your time. If you have trouble reading it in that context, scroll up to where it says "King James Version", click the arrow, and click "New King James Version". This article isn't to tell a story you can read on your own though. It is to review the aforementioned verse, which is, conveniently, the topic name; "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Such scrutiny goes to demonstrate human nature, in of itself. Such a follow-up question goes to elucidate upon mankind's indisposition to take responsibility for their actions. If we paint the verse as an analogy, we can see the deeper context:

"Am I responsible for my neighbor?"

Indeed, as a collective society, we are "brothers" in a sense. And when you take into account Adam and Eve and their banishment from the Garden of Eden not due to their sin, but from their inability to accept responsibility for it and, instead, blamed the serpent for coercing them, it begins to come together.

So, what can this one inquiry tell us about how our demeanor toward one another should be? Barring the obvious deduction of humans taking responsibility for their action, consider this:

You are responsible for your neighbor.

Furthermore, consider a popular existentialist accusation/inquiry: "Why does God let bad things happen?"

Well, this thorough analysis of this renowned verse may lead us to insight on the matter. If you're not following me by now, I'll explain in very cut and dry terminology:

God does not stop bad things from happening because we, as fellow human beings, are responsible for our actions.That may not be the explicit answer, but I believe it does provide some insight. Whether you agree or not, you have to at least admit that it allows for free thinking.
 
 
So, I've, recently made a challenge to a few select individuals regarding a certain ethical issue we came across. I asked them to justify the inconsistency in their moral outlook and it seems as though none could. The following is an excerpt from the thread that ignited the whole discussion:

"So theres these kids that I see quite a bit, not my friends, they harass me and my girlfriend and throw stuff at us when they see us together, and more then once I've had to redetail their faces (and one probably won't have kids) because they tried hurting her, but they seem bent on making our lives miserable =/
The only reason that they're doing this is because my girlfriend is my younger sister. Anyone have advice on what to do? I'm truly afraid that I'll go too far one day and she'll have to visit me in prison."

Now, what are your thoughts regarding this? Disgust? Anger? Frustration? Shock? Understandable.

Now, lets get to the bottom of why I have brought this to your attention: What is your position on Same Sex Marriage? I'm going to assume that you're for it as very few people I know are actually against it.

Forgive me from straying from the opening to this article, but it will make sense when all of the pieces come together.

Anyway, why are you for it? I'm going to predict your answer: "They are in love and who are we to restrict their love?"

A strong argument, indeed. But here's where you become a hypocrite: Why is it alright for homosexual couples, but not for incestuous couples? There, really, is no difference between the two. If you have that outlook for one, then why not the other?

Sure, you could argue "Incestuous couples produce mongoloid children!" A very true statement as the mixture of similar genes in an offspring can cause undue complications. But consider this: Homosexual couples cannot even produce children.

"But Ripplemagne! They can adopt!"

Yes, and so can incestuous couples. Just because they're male and female doesn't mean that they have to have a child by their own loins. So, if we can justify one matter with the concept of adoption, why not the other?

So, how do you justify this inconsistency? I doubt you can as people much higher on the intellectual caste have tried and failed.

Which makes you, what? A hypocrite. You likely scorn individuals who believe homosexuality is a disgusting practice, but in another time and place, you act identical.

Now, I have a theory that I have devised over the passed few days and it seems to be be untouchable. For those of you who are shaking your head, saying "conspiracy theorist!", it's not quite that simple. I'm not saying that the following absolutely will occur. Rather that it seems very plausible and given the facts, seems to be rather logical.

We are in the Civil Rights Era. This began with the Civil Rights Movement where minority groups were given freedom and considered equal members of society. From here, it delved into the Women's Suffragist Movement, which gave women the right to vote among other alienable rights. We are at a point where homosexual marriage is the topic of scrutiny, which will, inevitably, allow for such to occur.

Here's where it gets interesting for it may not be in our lifetime or our children's lifetimes, but it's very plausible: The Incestuous Couple Movement. I predict that this will be the next topic of scrutiny which will receive the same attention that the case society is attesting for and debating. This may very well lead into a movement for bestiality far off into the future, but that's thinking too far ahead.

If you really think about it, it's really not as unfathomable as it sounds. During the Women's Suffragist Movement and the Civil Rights Movement, people would have thought "There's no way there'd ever be a movement for homosexuality." Just like people, now, would say "There's no way there'd ever be a movement for incest."

And it would be an identical argument: "Who is the government to stop someone from loving someone?" At that point, they can even use the arguments brought forth by the current movement to propel their ideologies.

If you can, refute my logic and my theory. I would love to hear your view on the matter.