Egalitarianism: Parasites seeking asylum from their own ineptness
Chances are dear reader you fall on the latter half of this upcoming statement as opposed to the former, that often there are those who are on the cutting edge, who fearlessly face down the impossible with a mentality that is obscure to all others, and there are those who wish to sit down with such people and share in the wealth of fiscal opportunity they have created with sheer uniqueness. People who believe in consensus building and shared ideas are those trained in the false ways of egalitarianism. Most every education system in the world teaches this forged method of human achievement because it masks a grim reality—that it is the very few who have the courage to face down the unknown, the perilous opportunities of uncharted waters, but the many wish to take credit for the voyage once safety is realized and strategy is achieved.
I have sat through many dozens of human endeavor where I solitarily cut through the dangers of a task only to have a parade of parasites join me at the finish line wanting to pop corks and celebrate in a victory with the chant of “teamwork.” I laugh inwardly at such people knowing that at any moment I could repeat the task over and over again forever—but they could not, and they know it. They hope that I don’t know it, or that nobody else discovers it, but they do—and it terrifies them. So they promote the social activity that was taught to them during their educations—egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning “equal”)—or, rarely, equalitarianism[1][2]—is a trend of thought that favors equality for particular categories of, or for all, living entities. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[3] The Cultural theory of risk holds egalitarianism as defined by (1) a negative attitude towards rules and principles, and (2) a positive attitude towards group decision-making, with fatalism termed as its opposite.[4] According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English.[5] It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights[6] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralisation of power. Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.[7][8][9]
At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies aresocialism, communism, anarchism, libertarianism, left-libertarianism, social liberalism and progressivism,[dubious – discuss] all of which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question.
One argument is that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civic reformism. Without it, democracy loses any tie—─argumentative or practical—─to a coherent design of public policy endeavoring to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship. For instance, some argue that modern representative democracy is a realization of political egalitarianism, while in reality, most political power still resides in the hands of a ruling class, rather than in the hands of the people.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism allows a room full of businessmen to believe that they deserve a seat at the table when it is only one or two at the table who gave them all something to talk about. Without the initiative of the self-motivated, nothing happens. In politics, board meetings and town hall gatherings allow democracy to claim the rewards of the very few who created the options discussed such as whether or not a new store could be built into a community, or how to spend the tax money taken from property owners. The money and business opportunities were created by the very few, but is spent and consumed by the many who wish to see themselves as equal contributors to the process through egalitarianism. But they are not equal, they are simply parasites—they depend on the actions of others to sustain themselves.
In the case of today’s egalitarian trend, for over two hundred years Europe’s altruist, collectivist intellectuals claimed to be the voice of the people—the champions of the downtrodden, the disinherited masses. They advocated unlimited majority rule—rule by consensus. But their error was that they failed to pay heed to those who created their opportunities. Without those types—the creators–the “champions of the people” would have nothing to discuss or distribute to the masses. Capitalism and its moral—metaphysical bases had to be destroyed by the egalitarians so that the evidence of this parasitic enterprise indulged in by the could be realized. The concept of justice had to be destroyed so that value judgments could not be distributed to those who were ripped off—the creators of virtually everything—the forward thinking individualist whose mind and effort molded the world from their sheer imaginations.
In the end, it was Payton Manning who won the game for Denver and the loss of Ray Lewis sealed it for Baltimore. Everyone else playing the game were egalitarians. The Broncos “team” simply rode the coattails of Payton Manning. Without him, they would only be “average.”
Every time I encounter these egalitarians it sickens me to my very core. I offset my disgust by withdrawing from them for long periods of time, and I always return to the act of creation not for them, but for me. I create because I enjoy it. But the process of the egalitarians never ceases to disgust me in the way that maggots on a rotting corpse might sicken the stomach. Egalitarians are simply vile to the creative process, and they bring nothing to the table. Consensus building exercises do not work, it has never worked, and it will never work under any conditions. There are always only two types, there are people with ideas, then there are people who seek to loot portions of other people’s ideas to fill voids in their own lives. Value is not created through equalitarianism. It is simply another form of wealth redistribution, the value of those who create given to those who do not by democracy.
Rich Hoffman
Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE. CLICK HERE!
