Equality 3


To live anywhere in the world today and be against equality because of race or color is like living in Alaska and being against snow.                                               William Faulkner.


A precarious road

Faulkner’s is a bold statement which may please the liberal elite and the PC brigade, as they would view it as a powerful endorsement of their belief system. Maybe so, that could very well be how Faulkner, envisaged it himself. Of course, there is no time frame to Faulkner’s assertion which I think is rather important. For me, I see equality as a yellow brick road, it’s a long road, with many a winding turn, leading to who knows where.

If we elicit the statement at ground level, it’s quite clear; – you’re a bit of a noddy, not to support equality.

  • How do we proceed?
  • How do we define equality?
  • How do we implement equal rights?

Do we move forward by legislation, to enforce equal rights? In court cases to ensure that we uphold the principle? By the very blunt instrument of social pressure supplemented by liberal media propaganda, whereby you are a fascist, racist, and a Taliban loving redneck if you dare to disagree?

If by legislation, do we start by implementing laws that right the wrongs of previous generations? How will that sit with the present generation? Can we insist that they put their lives on hold while we experiment with correcting their forebears’ misdeeds? That ‘some’ must go without in order to allow minority progress elsewhere? When the truth is that that ‘some’ will be the poor and upwardly mobile, and not the rich. That the poor who gained nothing from the original sin must pay for the folly of the rich again.

Q. Who is promoting legislative change?

Why, none other than the liberal elite and the PC brigade – it won’t be causing them any financial hardship, will it?

Is progress then a misnomer?                    Is equality a misnomer?

In writing about the American legal debate on race, i.e. “color blindness”, Steven V. Mazie, suggests that discrimination to ameliorate discrimination is justifiable. He argues that the short-term dislocation of individuals and the resultant rise in racial tension are acceptable for the longer term good. Such a prognosis would assume that the end justifies the means, that as long as things turn out alright in the end, we can override the negative in the present. A crystal ball would be an advantage to everyone but Mazie, as we, does not have one.

Moreover, for those dislodged from their potential chart, could find their future and that of their family does not take the high road but rather, a distinctive veer down the low road. If the concept of ’affirmative action’ legislation is to create forward movement of minorities so that they can influence future generations on a positive path, then the same is true of being forced down the low road; for in doing so, you are creating an equally powerful negative. Who plays God?

To argue that ‘some’ must suffer that others make progress and that that be done by government diktat is not just myopic but reprehensible. Such a route does not amount to social justice. It is akin to having nothing relevant to add to the debate.

(Steven V. Mazie, Law Journal for Social Justice, Vol. 2 2011)

In my little dictionary, equality reads thus: the state of having the same rights, opportunities, or advantages as others.

Furthermore, the whole theory of equality lacks coherence in that it has never actually existed. Equality is an ideology, not intrinsic to nature. It is a political aspiration, one to be added to a wish list. The eleventh commandment, if you like. Then, we’ve had the Ten Commandments for over two thousand years and none of them have come to fruition.

There are many barriers to equality, one such is nationalism. Pride, can sweep up nationalism into a tidal wave of hate.  It’s quite easy to manipulate those afflicted with this common cold of a disposition, and the consequences can be deadly.

Another major force against equality is belief systems. Religion since its invocation has kept us apart and shows no sign of abating. Can we have religion and equality too? Not as long as we have hate, segregation and war. Perhaps the crusades are not yet over.

The ‘Wall of China’ against equality is capitalism. The economic system under which we live has the greatest affect on our psyche. For want of a better cliché, it has made our world into a ‘dog eat dog’ environment. Under capitalism, we may witness extremes of good, but overall it feeds the devil in us.

I don’t know who came up with the tenets of the 7 deadly sins but that person(s) should have received the equivalent of the Nobel Prize. Capitalism satiates those basic emotions. Whoever, the psychologist was, (didn’t have them in those days) we have been parcelled rather snugly and, not until we escape the wrapping can we really start to think.

We only have to look at the emerging economic giants of China and India, to witness the horrors of employment for thousands in the ‘new’ factories. Many work in conditions reminiscent of Blake’s ‘dark satanic mills’ of centuries earlier. Progress on equality is slow, while the equation on profit remains constant.

Not only do we have religion & capitalism reined against equality, but they are at loggerheads with each other. One enjoins us towards love – on the basis of the ten commandments – the other advocates self. A case of WE v ME, there is no equality in that scenario.

Thus, there are as many barriers to equality as trees in a wood, and here-in lies a big, big hurdle, the philosophy of the PC’s; they can’t see the tree for the wood.

And so,the Equality Act 2010 was a giant hoax made up by petulant children (Labour) to hurt the opposing gang (Conservatives). Well, those gangs are not very street wise.



A factory/ office somewhere in town, any town; the boss calls a meeting, everyone attends;

Boss, “As of today the Government (Labour) has passed a law. It’s called the Equality Act. Everyone is now equal!”

“Polly! Polly, put the kettle on, and we’ll have some tea”.

If only there was an easy answer, but the yellow brick road must be built paving stone by paving stone. The story continues with dialectics not diatribes. Education, education, education, – some fatuous politician once proposed such a path but in a different context, and even then, he didn’t mean it; he just took it for a spin around the block and then left it outside the back door. However, in the context of equality, education is the foundation for the paving stones.

In that Faulkner, was very optimistic in the opening statement, perhaps we should give more credence to:

“The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones”. W.F.


Meanwhile we must learn to sing in harmony –                    the road is long………….he ain’t heavy…



“If history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories”.

Judge Thomas,

Cited in, Law Journal for Social Justice.


They are not the wise men!


Polly’s Poisoned Pen

Doing a search on the net I came across this quote:

“The phrase political correctness was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say: Paki, spastic, or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them, playground bullies who never grew up. The political correct society is the civilised society, however much some may squirm at the more inelegant official circumlocutions designed to avoid offence”.               Polly Toynbee.

 Goodness, does she have a bee in her bonnet! (no pun intended)

I can’t believe she really said or wrote that piece. Well, it’s in print, so we must assume.

So how does she characterize you – the overwhelming majority of the public?

What I can infer from the writing: the reference to ‘coded cover’ would suggest you are all: devious, secretive, perverse and ashamed of your beliefs otherwise you wouldn’t spout them undercover!    OO thingmy.

Then she goes for the jugular, you are all: racist, homophobic, cruel & thoughtless,angry, backward, immature & petulant, and not forgetting intolerant.

That is quite an array of poison arrows…………………..      Duck!

Me? the boss says I’m immature & petulant at times, and angry on occasions. As for the rest – I don’t think so.

Which of Polly’s adjectives pierces your sensitive soul?

When you think about it, she is quite abusive in her comments. There is a lot of venom in her attack, some might say, it was a vicious diatribe, intent on putting others down, and causing offence. It was definately intolerant of those who would not agree with her point of view. She appears to have tarred everyone with the same brush, no exceptions; you agree with her or you are all of the above. Typical PC.

Hmmmm. I’m thinking hypocracy. What are you thinking?