"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.
...
"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.
RSS Feed