“You may trace Equality in letters of silver on tablets of burnished gold, but without engineering a perpetual miracle, you can not make it – true…
Every national appeal is now made, not to the Noblest and the Best, but to the riff-raff – the slave hordes – who possess less intelligence than night-owls. All that is brave, honorable, heroic is ignored tacitly, for fear of offending the deified Herd, ‘the Majority’. “Equality of conditions” is its debasing shibboleth and verily ,he who has temerity enough to spit upon Equality is liable to be horned to death.”
– Might is Right – Ragnar Redbeard
Given the importance I place on this particular topic, I thought it might be beneficial to my readers to publish a recent discussion I had in a YouTube comments section concerning The Equality of Opportunity Principle. I will include a link to the YouTube video I was commenting on here.
I find that normies of all stripes just assume this principle as “common sense” and thus never bother to question whether such a principle should be adopted or extolled as a virtue. Indeed, it has become a sacrosanct dogma, that I think should be cogently examined.
Me: You just assume that sexism = bad and equality = good.
Me: Emma Grace Stephenson your character has been shaped by the values of the dominant culture which surrounds you. It is the soil from which you sprung. This culture values equality, and hates inequality. It is called slave morality. Equality is a slave virtue as it only benefits those who lack power but crave it. I’m a philosopher of meta ethics, I don’t have to presume anything about you. I know the only reason you have to assume sexism = bad is because you are a product of your culture. We all are to some extent. If you had been born in the 7th century during the time of the Vikings you would have a very different set of value assumptions.
Some rare individuals are able to transcend the slave morality which surrounds them. But they have to question it, they have to ask themselves deep questions like “what is the nature of morality?”. “What is its purpose? Truth? Or power?” Etc. You clearly haven’t done that yet. Probably because you are a woman and are biologically and mentally predisposed to the “morality of care” (slave morality). That is, you have inbuilt feminine womanly, motherly instincts which cause you to align more with such values. I’m not saying that you are a full blown sjw, but you clearly do assume many of the same value premises. All normies do. All republicans, libertarians, sjws, and liberals share the same basic core value premises. Secular slave morality is a remnant of Christian slave morality. Notice that only formally Christian cultures suffer from secular slave morality/sjw-ism. Islamic cultures don’t, neither do the Japanese etc. Hope that helps. If not, I and other philosophers have written books on the topic.
Please define how you were employing the term sexism in this video, and if I’m wrong about you, I’ll apologize.
Me: Emma Grace Stephenson no, I think you misunderstand. I am not necessarily in every case applying group and biological averages to individuals. That is, if you can provide me with a particular example where it would be detrimental to my goals to do so.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could provide me with an instance in which you think equality of opportunity should be applied, and I’ll let you know why I do or don’t agree. And, perhaps you could explain why one ought adopt your equality of opportunity principle in the first place?
Also, please explain why there need be no overlap. When making public policy averages must be considered because it is inefficient, pointless, and destructive not to take group averages into consideration.
For example, here in the States we have been operating on the assumption that egalitarianism is true. And because of this, we have poured billions of dollars into black inner city schools. But this has proved pointless because blacks have a lower average iq than whites and Asians. The people who make the policies do so under the false assumption that every race has the same innate academic potential.. This is fake news. Iq is innately genetic and it is a predictor of academic and financial success. Because of egalitarian dogma, when blacks fail, it is assumed to be “racist whities” fault. Now, if you say “why shouldn’t we just judge people on their individual academic achievements when it comes to college entrance exams?”, my response would be that due to human nature, diversity is not a strength. It has proven itself to be particularly destructive to white European countries. Also, if we did that, pretty much only whites, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews would get into college and blacks and other minorities would chimp out.
Multi racialism and multiculturalism has proven to cause needless conflict, and it leads to low social trust and cohesion. It fragments society into diametrically opposed racial voting blocks. Again, this is due to the inherent tribalism within human nature. Here in the states, racial diversity has lead to anti white bigotry. And now, Europeans will soon be minorities in their own countries. Countries that were built for them, by the blood sweat and tears of their ancestors. Diverse countries are susceptible to cultural Marxism, white privileged ideology etc. To racial conflict, and so on…
Of course I made assumptions about you, you’re a woman, how intelligent could you be?? lol ; ) Oops! I think I grabbed by the pussie on that one. Clearly race does dictate at least some aspects of a person’s character. See race and iq, race and crime stats etc. Clearly gender also effects one’s character enough to shape their propensity to commit violent crimes, and to also how they choose to vote. Men commit far more violent crimes than woman, and woman overwhelmingly vote left. This is true in every country.
I understand how such a belief may make you feel warm and cozy inside, but given what we know thus far about evolution via natural selection, how could it be that one’s genetics doesn’t impact their character? Do you believe in souls and other such non sense as well? Sincere question.
Me: Emma Grace Stephenson so yes, I am saying that minorities will take issue over un equal out comes because this is what they have done here in the United States.
Not only have they resorted to violence but they also use social justice slave morality & white guilt against whites. Parasitic organisms do not thrive in meritocracies. To make things worse, whites do this to whites. That is, whites (Europeans) are told that they are privileged and must feel guilty for their success.
I don’t know about in your country, but we have something called “affirmative action”. But even if we gave your “equality of opportunity” a try, then Asians would have disproportionate control over academia, they would also gain more financial success and political power due to their higher average iq’s and this country would become Chinese. From what I’ve heard about a certain city in Canada, this has already happened. And here lies the problem with your view. It isn’t in line with human nature. I understand that you are an individualist, and that you just wanna judge people on an individual level, but most people don’t share your values. Each racial group on average seeks to use government to empower itself. Blacks overwhelmingly vote as a group for their interests, Asians do this as well, and so do non white Hispanics. And then there is the fact, that most people on average prefer to live and surround themselves with people who look like them. Who share their dna. Even the politicians who promote flooding European countries with non whites live in predominantly white gated communities. They won’t send their kids to public schools with non whites, but they expect everyone else to. The fact of the matter is, that you may want equality of opportunity and see everyone as individuals, but it is a fantasy to think that when whites become a minority, that non whites will return the favor. Sure, a few might, but these are the exceptions not the rule. My solution for the United States, is balkanization. Whites created the US, constitution, “freedom of speech”, “the right to bare arms” etc, but when whites become a minority there will be nothing stoping non whites from shredding it. You may like “equality of opportunity” as you define it, but most non whites do not share your values.
If whites are the only ones conditioned to see everyone as individuals, if they are the only group who refuses to organize for their own in group, the only one’s afraid of being called “racist”, then whites will lose politically; and they will be genetically replaced.
Both here in the US and in Europe whites have very low birth rates. Below replacement levels in fact. Even if we stopped all non white immigration today, whites are destined to become an absolute minority by 2045.
Non whites on average don’t identify with old white men in powered wigs (who penned the constitution). To them, that’s just “white man’s values”. Non whites overwhelmingly vote for socialism and equality of outcome, because it benefits their groups at the expense of whites. Due to multi racialism our government is so divided it is currently in the longest government shut down in American history.
Whites are demonized in movies, the main stream media, and prosecuted for defending themselves against angry anti white bigots. If it’s this bad now, what makes you think it’s gonna get better in 2045? I understand that you think that equality of opportunity sounds good in theory, but it doesn’t actually work in practice. The United States has proven this.
Now, as to not judging people on the basis of sex, again, there are circumstances in which it makes sense. for one, how is it conducive to society, for woman to be in the work force rather than a stay at home mom? Woman are not equal to men. Evolution doesn’t do equal. The truth is, trying equalize woman with men has made them bitter and un happy. Of course, there are a few exceptions. And if I am trying to find the best person for a particular job, then it doesn’t matter if that person is male or female. Or does it?
“You cannot predict a person’s weight or height on the basis of gender” (sorry about the paraphrase but YouTube doesn’t allow me to copy and paste a quote from your comments) yes, you literally can. You can make an educated guess on the basis of known statistical facts about each gender. I can and often do make accurate statistical judgements about people based upon their gender all the time, and at least 80% of the time, those predictions turn out to be correct. Let’s take you for example. I admittedly only watched the first few minutes of your video and I was able to accurately predict your political views and the way you would define sexism. I didn’t know for sure, but I was able to make an educated guess. Granted, that wasn’t solely on the basis of your gender, it was also on the basis of you being a white woman from a western country. Also, the fact that you are making videos on a libertarian channel. In fact an Aussie friend and I were chatting when I got the notification for your last comment. We predicted that you would pretty much define “equality of opportunity” as being what we have now.
Here’s a scenario. Let’s say you knew that tomorrow people were gonna try to inflict bodily harm upon you. Let’s say that you had a choice between choosing 10 men or 10 women to fight along side you, and the only thing you were allowed to know about these individuals is their sex. Who would you pick? I think we both know who you would pick. Lets say you are in the woods and you see a grizzly bear, approaching you, are you going to just stand there and say “nothing to fear hear. I cannot make accurate predictions about individual bears. That would be speciesism.” Or are you going to realize that statistically speaking there is a high probability that if that bear gets within a certain distance, he will probably maw you to death?
To bring this closer to home. According to fbi crime stats you are 25 times more likely to be violently assaulted by a black man than a white man.
Do you how many white woman are violently assaulted each year in the US by black males? Care to guess how many black women are violently assaulted by white men? No where near as many, in spite of the fact that there are far more white men than black men in the United States.
Violent crime is highly correlated to higher testosterone levels. Black males on average have higher testosterone levels than European and Asian males, and it is a statistical fact that black males commit disproportionately more violent crimes than any other group. The point I am making, is that you can make accurate predictions concerning immutable biological characteristics, and that we in fact do it all the time. And those who fail to connect the dots do so at their own risk.
Yes, men commit the majority of violent crimes. Far more than woman, and if I remember correctly, you’ve already admitted this. Let’s say that by some freak of the cosmos you some how knew that someone was going to try and sexually assault you tomorrow. Let’s say you didn’t know the gender of the person. Is it reasonable to assume that the assailant will most likely be male? I think we both know, it would be a reasonable prediction.
But this takes us back to my original comment and the point I was attempting to make. Which is that your values are not empirical but the product of your environment, and thus you automatically assume that equality of some sort ought to exist. I know this, because you mentioned sexism in a non favorable light in your video. The point of my comment was to get you to question this value because most people don’t do that. Values are something they argue from, not to. We argue about law, not whether law should exist. Republicans and democrats argue about whether there is racial equality not whether racial equality should exist. About whether racism exists, not whether it should exist. All this is taken for granted. My comment was trying to get you to think about the nature of morality. To think for yourself, instead of thinking within the moral paradigm that has been constructed for you.
“Judge people by the content of their character not by the color of their skin” isn’t even true or false. It is an expression of subjective sentiment, a command that has been drilled into the minds of westerners since the 1960’s. Also, not even white nationalists judge people by the color of their skin. Race isn’t just skin color. That’s just a laughable straw man dreamed up by a well known black communist and plagiarist (MLK).
Me: Emma Grace Stephenson it doesn’t matter if you think that minorities won’t riot because of inequality of out come, it’s already happened.
“I think in the longterm, people will find themselves deeply fulfilled and at ease in a system of equality of opportunity that does not make presumptions about their identity traits.” 1. What evidence do you have to support this belief? This is merely a promissory note for which I see no basis. 2. Such a system doesn’t exist to my knowledge. People are hired because of their non whiteness here in the US and Europe all the time. Companies are rewarded by the government for hiring non whites, and companies go out of their way to not hire white males in order to virtue signal how in line with sjw slave morality they are. Again, your equality of opportunity is not in touch with reality. I MEAN MY GOD WOMAN! You even admit in your video that you are a beneficiary of “affirmative action”.
Emma: I assume you are the type of person that thinks that white people of today ought not to feel obliged to pay reparations for the misdeeds of their ancestors? I am also in that camp, but I think that to consistently apply this aversion to intra-generational responsibility, you ought not to claim any entitlement to the achievements of your ancestors either.
Me: I’m a moral nihilist. I don’t believe in moral obligation. No one “owes” anyone anything in reality. “To owe” is just a human made concept meant to control people and wealth distribution. Morality, politics, and religion are about power not truth. I haven’t claimed any entitlements. However, I do prefer that whites have exclusive access to that which their ancestors created for them. It’s a personal preference many share and it is a very human inclination.
Emma: When white people say ‘we built that’ I recoil. We did not ‘build that’. Our ancestors may have built many great things such as the scientific method or the English common law , but that doesn’t make us exclusively entitled to the benefits of the those things, just as we are not obliged to feel shame for slavery or the colonial misdeeds of white people. Intra-generational guilt, shame, pride, entitlement – none of them are justified, in my opinion.
Me: Again, this criticism doesn’t apply to me. I’m not making moral truth claims. I don’t believe in entitlements in any categorical objective sense. If I were to say “we built that” I merely mean that those who share my dna built it. We are all a continuation of our ancestors dna. Our dna has proven the capacity to achieve amazing feats. It is because of the achievement of our European ancestors that we are able to have this discussion even though you and I are on separate parts of the globe. No other kind of dna achieved what European dna has. And I don’t believe that non whites are owed access to white civilization. Also, there is no such thing as “justification” in a moral sense. There are is no such thing as “right” only might.
Emma: My entire video was about affirmative action, I can’t believe you literally thought you were introducing that concept to me. You must have just watched the first few minutes and then got to typing your comments. I am perfectly aware of the ridiculous spectacle of white shame too.”
Me: My comment was clearly not directed at your entire video, and I’ve already explained what my comment was about so I won’t repeat myself. And I have already stated I didn’t watch your entire video. White guilt is a form of what Nietzsche called “bad conscience”, a means by which to psychology manipulate a given population. Christianity has been using bad conscience to control unwitting adherents for 2000 yrs. Secular slave morality is merely a continuation of this.
Emma: Just because there is excessive racial division in your country (which, by the way, I reside in), doesn’t mean that the racial division is an ineradicable fact of life. Politicians, especially left-wing politicians at this moment in time, often thrive on racial conflict and exacerbate it for political gain. We simply do not know how a system that truly steered clear of identity politics might reduce hostility between racial groups over time.”
Me: Politicians didnt create racial division and fault lines, they just exploit them as you mentioned. The fault lines are there regardless, and racial hostility has existed throughout human history. To think that it is going to just go away, or that we can all live together productively is absurd. We obviously cannot successfully share a system of government and I have already explained why. Your promissory note of racial harmony is just faith. I’m a skeptic. Faith is anathema!
So you live in the United States? I figured you were in Australia given your accent. I live in Keene N.H.
Emma: You are right that my ‘equality of opportunity principle’ is ‘out of touch with reality’. But your ideal ‘balkanisation of the US’ is also a fantasy. You cannot disqualify my ideal by a metric that you do not apply to your own ideal.”
Me: No, actually, bulkanization is very real and has obviously already happened in other places. There is no reason to presume we are immune to this societal phenomenon. The same cannot be said concerning your equality of opportunity principle. The “United” states is really just a misnomer. There is very little these days especially that is “united” about America. I keep hearing people talk about the coming civil war.
But the Civil War is already here, only it isn’t YET being fought with bombs and bullets. Other means are currently being employed against those on the right. Balkanization has already begun and if you can’t see that, then you are ignorant or ideologically blind. Conservatives have been violently asaulted and then imprisoned for defending themselves as recently as 2017. Considering the fact that all those millions of kids that have been indoctrinated with left wing commie propaganda in government schools are now of voting age, it is doubtful that the right can continue to win presidential elections. What do you think is going to happen when the left ciezes total power in America? Given these and many other factors, Balkanization isn’t far fetched, and certainly not contrary to humanities tribal nature, un like your equality asylum pipe dream.
Emma: you can make educated guesses about individuals based on group averages, but you will often be wrong, and that is an injustice. Predicting the gender of a sex offender is not the same thing as predicting that someone will be a sex offender on the basis of gender alone. If you get sexually assaulted, there’s a high probability that the attacker will be male. If you meet a man on the street, there is NOT a high probability that he will sexually assault you.”
Me: I’m not sure how you think this is a criticism of my arguments. Of course in our personal lives it makes sense to judge people for the most part as individuals. But not always. If you needed a ride home for some reason and two strangers offered you a ride home. One a black male and one a white female. You are in most cases statistically much safer taking a ride home from a white female than a black male. We could think of some exceptions, but this is generally true. There is no such thing as “injustice” in any normative sense.
Emma: I have not once denied that genetics play a role in character and behaviour. I accept everything that you have said about violence being a male domain, and the differences in crime rates between races. My point is that there is significant overlap in character and behaviour traits between groups delineated by race, gender etc and that therefore, you will not be able to predict the character or behaviour of an individual if all you know about them is their gender or race. Which AGAIN, is NOT the same thing as predicting the race or gender of an individual if you know that they committed a particular assault.”
Me: If I have a son and a daughter, I know that my son is more likely to commit a violent crime than my daughter given certain factors and circumstances. Just on the basis of gender alone. There are exceptions, but on the basis of gender alone, we can make accurate predictions. He has much higher levels of testosterone than her, he is physically more capable of violence and than her. It’s just common sense. Now, if I’m a college administrator looking to hire a mathematics Prof, I know that hiring a man for the job would be more beneficial and probably less hassle down the road (in some ways). I don’t have to worry about a man getting pregnant and taking an extended absence on that basis. I know that in today’s sjw metoo climate he’s far less likely to make false allegations of sexual harassment. I know that he’s far less likely to gossip and start work place drama. Let’s face it! Women are almost always the instigators of work place drama. It’s just a fact.
Emma: You yourself falsely predicted that I would not know anything about affirmative action, white guilt, or crime statistics in the USA, and you were wrong on all three counts.”
Me: I never made any such predictions. Not at anytime. Can we be wrong about our predictions? Yes, but those are the laws of probility, and given what we know about race and gender we would be more often right than wrong.
Emma: You regularly mixed up ‘equality of outcome’ and ‘equality of opportunity’ when attempting to dissect my arguments, then you asked me for examples, which suggests to me that you were not familiar with the distinction prior to this discussion.”
Me: No, I made a single typo, which isn’t equivalent to failing to distinguish between equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. I asked you for a definition, because this is standard procedure when in a serious discussion. It is a way of trying to avoid arguing passed one another which is probably more common than you realize. Sometimes people can discover that they actually agree when defining terms. In the indoctrination section of my book concerning meta ethics, I begin by defining my terms. It is what I’ve been trained to do. I asked you for a particular example to get a better idea of how you personally are employing your terms. Again, standard procedure.
Emma: You made impulsive predictions about the contents of my mind on the basis of my gender, skin colour and country of origin. Sorry, but you have refuted your own point my friend!”
Me: Nope, my predictions were not impulsive but based upon years of human experience and on the basis of meta ethical facts concerning western civilization. I have spent years studying how moralities are implanted in the average psyche through cultural, familial, and social conditioning. My predictions were also proven correct.
You have yet to prove that your thesis that no accurate predictions can be made on the basis of race and gender alone, and I have repeatedly provided demonstratable counter examples to your claim. You have therefore been refuted. Thanks for playing ; )
But at any rate, I think we should end our discussion here.
Me: Final thoughts: actual equality of opportunity is a mirage as you’ve admitted. Does a rich man’s son and a poor man’s son have “equality of opportunity”? Without equal starting points how can there be equal opportunity? Are all born with equal bank accounts? Equal intellect? Equal physical ability? Equal life spans? And why should that be our ideal? Why not inequality of opportunity? Because you are coming from a place of compassion? Who made compassion a sacrosanct virtue? Why should the rich man regard the poor man’s son at all if it doesn’t benefit him in anyway? Is it not every father’s joy to give his children every advantage over the children of other men? The only way to have actual equality of opportunity would be to handicap the able and the powerful, to drag all that is strong, Noble, and beautiful to the depths of Sheol!
Why shouldn’t a person prefer to advantage his own racial group or gender at the expense of other groups? And is this not what is already happening? Do not racial groups use the violence of the State to redistribute wealth from their out group to their own group? Shouldn’t this teach us that racial groups cannot peacefully live under the same system of democratic governance? Life is will to power, and the belief in equality is merely a means by which the powerless seek to advantage themselves at the expense of the powerful. My argument isn’t just that “equality of opportunity” shouldn’t occur, it is that due to human nature, it doesn’t, and cannot.
Regarding your comments about sexism, I see no reason women shouldn’t be discriminated against. Giving women the vote, treating them as equals (men and women are not equal) has proved to be destructive to both sexes and therefore civilization itself. Because of women’s libertion we are witnessing the erosion of the family unit, dramatically low white birth rates, mass non white invasions, and a bloated welfare state. Woman are dangerous animals whose instincts must be tamed by men for the sake of Western civilization, and indeed for the sake of woman herself. Woman must be put back in chains! (So to speak).
“In actual operation Nature is cruel and merciless to men, as to all other beings. Let a tribe of human animals live a rational life, Nature will smile upon them and their posterity; but let them attempt to organize an unnatural mode of existence an equality elysium, and they will be punished even to the point of extermination.”
– Might is Right – Ragnar Redbeard