We Want Equality Read online

  we want

  EQUALITY

  HOW THE FIGHT FOR EQUALITY

  GAVE WAY TO PREFERENCE

  C. Douglas Love

  Copyright © 2018 by C. Douglas Love

  All rights reserved.

  No part of this book may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law.

  ISBN: 978-0-9891959-1-1

  Published by Thinkordie.org

  For those who are shouted down, ostracized, and attacked for speaking the truth but refuse to be deterred from fighting the mob; and all of those who will join them …

  Table of Contents

  Preface

  1. Equality: A Brief History

  2. How the Fight Got Hijacked

  3. Racial Inequality

  4. Income Inequality

  5. Gender Inequality

  6. Religion: It Sounds the Same

  7. Trump: Fascists, Fake News, and the Future of America

  8. Stemming the Tide

  Afterword

  Acknowledgements

  Notes

  Preface

  Equality. What a powerful word. Achieving it is a lofty goal and as yet we’ve produced only modest degrees of success. Martin Luther King Jr., Alice Paul, Crystal Eastman, Harry Wu, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Lech Walesa, and Nelson Mandela all made tremendous inroads toward this goal. However, do some research and you will find that Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, and Adolf Hitler also spoke often of their goal of equality. Hundreds of books have been written about the methods, the results, and the actions of both groups. History tells us that equality is not the norm.

  As the title of the book states, the long fight for equality has morphed into something the original catalysts for change wouldn’t recognize. When people fought the injustices of the past century, they were demanding changes to laws that stated they were not equal. Some laws prohibited newly arriving immigrants from living in certain areas or owning property, others limited the jobs blacks and others were allowed to hold. This extended into the military for decades. Voting rights were limited by poll taxes and reserved exclusively for men. The point is that the laws they were fighting supported unequal treatment. Unfortunately, when those laws went away, the government turned a blind eye to those who still practiced them. This is no longer the case. There is nowhere in the country where it is legal to list a home for ‘whites only,’ ban women from voting, or post a job stating ‘blacks need not apply.'

  Now I know what my friends on the left will say, “Racism today is covert rather than overt.” I completely agree, as much as it exists. Since the racism is now mostly covert, it’s hard to determine how that racism leads to inequalities. There are two problems those fighting perceived inequalities face: (1) how you define equality, and (2) how you, through legislative means, achieve it.

  Defining equality is difficult. As I often say, words matter. How you define what you’re striving for will dictate what you’re willing to do to achieve it and how you measure your success. Merriam Webster defines equality as: “The state or quality of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another; c: like for each member of a group, class, or society.”

  Based on this definition, you have to ask if this is something that can even be accomplished. Equal in ‘measure and quantity’ for each member of ‘… a group, class, or society,’ where would this work? The job market? The housing market? How about with salaries or education? Logic dictates that any effort to achieve equality will result in further inequality.

  Let’s take the example of a marriage. Both spouses should be equal partners in the relationship, but by the definition above, there would rarely be true equality—'measure and quantity.' If one spouse does all of the cooking and the other cleans, some will say this is equality; they are each responsible for one task. But if the spouse who does the cooking notices that it takes over an hour to prepare dinner but only 15 minutes to clean up, he may begin to complain that the arrangement is not equal.

  In an effort to correct this inequality, he offers a solution. His spouse will do all of the laundry where previously they split the duties. Now that spouse, considering all of the loads that need to be washed, the many trips back and forth to the laundry room and folding and putting away of the laundry, complains that the inequality has simply shifted.

  While an obvious oversimplification, the marriage example suggests an inherent flaw in equality for all. There are too many variables. As difficult as it is to achieve equality in quantity, having the same measure is exponentially more difficult. During the Civil Rights movement, for example, blacks and whites each had the use of drinking fountains and schools as well as areas to sit on busses and in auditoriums, but there was a huge disparity in the measure of each. If whites and blacks both had water fountains, but the blacks’ fountains were farther away, dirtier, or often broken, few would see that as equal. Also, if a white person wanted to, he could use the blacks-only areas; the opposite was not allowed.

  Perhaps the better fight is for fairness rather than equality. The Merriam Webster definition for fair is: “marked by impartiality and honesty: free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism.” This seems closer to what many demanding equality are trying to achieve. It also points to the glaring differences in the treatment of blacks during Jim Crow, regardless of any perceived equality. It’s not fair to have subpar housing, subpar water fountains, or to be treated as a second-class citizen even if the laws allowing this no longer exists. Fairness, however, has its own set of challenges. It is subjective and open to a wide breadth of interpretation. Not only is it difficult to determine what’s fair, the greater challenge is who gets to determine its absence or existence.

  Let’s use housing as an example. Everyone will agree that we all deserve a place to live. Most will even say a ‘decent’ place to live. But who determines what’s decent? It’s easy to see that living in a building managed by a slumlord with sporadic utilities, deficient appliances, and dirty, unsafe common areas is unfair. But what about a family of four living in a one-bedroom apartment, or a fifth-floor unit with no elevator, or a clean, well-appointed apartment an hour away from work in a food desert? Many will say these situations are also unfair.

  Here’s another housing angle. Many say owning a home is the American dream, and being denied this opportunity is unfair. Does this mean the fact that some people own, while many more rent, is a form of inequality? We hear a lot about rich versus poor. Is the fact that some people own mansions while others have small homes or condos unfair? This can go on in virtually every situation.

  Even if we somehow reached a consensus on what is unequal and unfair, that would be the easier part of the fight. The bigger challenge would be how to correct it, and the social justice warriors (SJWs) are going about it the wrong way. Criminals evolve, so law enforcement has to evolve with them. There were no hacking crimes a few decades ago. Now they’re prevalent, and law enforcement has created whole divisions dedicated to stopping them. Those seeking ‘social justice’ haven’t evolved. They are fighting today’s issues in the same manner the Civil Rights movement was fought. They need a 21st century approach.

  When laws stated that blacks were not allowed to do something, that was prima facie racism. The laws that are being opposed now are not so clear cut. In most cases, the opponents are arguing against the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law. They assume that the outcome of the law will have a negative effect on
minorities. Predicting the outcome of a law is not an easy task, and the outcome is often no indication of its original intent.

  Let’s use voting ID laws as an example. Those fighting them argue that they are racist, an attempt to suppress the black vote. To prove the argument, they usually look to the results in areas where these types of laws have been implemented. There are too many factors that affect voter turnout, so that evidence is circumstantial. That means all of the arguments against the law would be anecdotal. They may be right about the effect on the black vote; they may not. One thing is certain; however, they’ll never know if the law was proposed with racist intent. This is important because what they’re actually doing is opposing a law they don’t agree with, which is completely fine, but adding an unfounded racial angle to the argument; something they know will rile up some who know nothing about the law and strike fear in those endorsing it.

  This is not to endorse or oppose voter ID laws. The point here is to show that using these old tactics muddies the waters of racism, and if everything is racist, nothing is racist. You'll lose some who may have joined you, and using racism as a club to strike your opponent is lazy and renders you unable to make cogent arguments. There may be strong constitutional arguments that can be made against voter ID laws, but when people decide the law has racial intent, they don’t bother to look for them. A better approach would be to spend the money and effort to ensure that every person who can legally vote gets an ID. This way, it would no longer matter if the intent of the law was racist, you would have removed the discriminatory effect.

  What these demands of equality really boil down to is policing thought and intent. If the president has executive authority to enforce a policy but some believe his intent is bad, should the courts be able to stop him from enforcing the policy? If one president can use executive powers to mandate something, can his successor use executive power to undo that mandate? Until recently, these things have never been in question.

  Some things cannot be regulated, and if you try, the outcome will almost always be unfair to someone. Some will say they are okay with it, for the greater good. But unless everyone is okay with it, it is not equality. Taking from the rich without their permission to give to the poor is not equality, that’s theft. In that case, why stop there? You should demand that everyone make the same salary regardless of title, industry, or workload. Anything less is, by the Left’s definition, inequality.

  In this book, I will discuss what many deem as the fight for equality and expose both its flaws and the blatant hypocrisy of those demanding it. I will also give glaring examples of how the baton of liberty and justice for all has been picked up by people who no longer want liberty or justice. What they want is preference and ‘social justice’ for some. If the original freedom fighters could see what their fight has become, they would be aghast at how those arguing under the same umbrella are regressing, not advancing, the cause.

  In several places I will refer to my approach called the Logic Board. Here, to accentuate a point, instead of saying an argument is wrong I will give the opponent his argument, then go through the logical steps that follow. The goal is to allow them to see flaws in their argument rather than to dictate to them. Here’s an example.

  Let’s say a congressman sponsors a bill making carjacking a crime with a mandatory 20 year minimum sentence. We’ll also assume that 90% of the offenders are blacks. The opponents to the law say it’s racist on the grounds that it disproportionately affects blacks and is an attempt to lock up black men. We’d go to the Logic Board:

  If you cannot agree on the first question, stop; they are irrational. If you cannot agree on the second question, ask what the punishment should be and how we would prevent repeat offenses. The third question would be where extended discussions can be had. If this is the only disagreement, not only can a compromise be found, but it debunks the racist component, unless they are willing to argue that sentencing for crimes should be based on the race of the perpetrator and not the severity of the crime committed.

  As you will see, the goal is not always to change their minds. It is to allow better clarity, pinpoint where the differences lie, as well as where agreement can be found, and demonstrate whether the opponents are being rational or not.

  We will also evaluate the claims of inequality in several areas to determine if bias and discrimination are the reasons for the inequalities. Where the findings don’t support these claims, evidence will be provided along with a detailed explanation of why discrimination is not the cause of the unequal results, or why it’s just a small factor in a list of things that contribute to them.

  In those situations where there is bias, discrimination, or racism, we will address it directly and offer the most effective method to combat it. This will almost always be through non-governmental intervention. Looking to the government for cures to social ills is wrong. It is not their role, and we have many years of evidence that they are bad at it. It is better for those who are truly trying to create an equal environment to do it themselves, but watching the SJWs, it’s obvious they don’t know how. There is something here for them as well. Hopefully, opening their eyes to the twisted information they’ve been given will help them shift their approach and focus on true inequalities instead of misconceptions.

  Finally, the most important goal of this book is to show that our problems are more cultural than legislative. The Left has had control of our culture for years, and has been slowly moving it in a secular and nihilistic direction. Through the media and entertainment, they’ve been able to deconstruct societal norms and push a political agenda. This shift has accelerated in recent years, and there’s no telling how far we will go if nothing is done to quell it.

  I will end by giving steps we can actively take to wake the sleeping giant within all of us. Those who see the destructive behavior but think ignoring it will make it go away. The people who allow the loudest voices to drown out civility and logic, even if they’re wrong. In order to right the ship and defeat those intent on destroying the country, you have to know the enemy. This book will help you understand the truth about equality, how the Left produces inequality, how their actions are hurting everyone, and what we can do to stop it.

  • 1 •

  Equality: A Brief History

  We’ll be remembered more for what we destroy than what we create.

  – Chuck Palahniuk

  Human nature is flawed. From the murder of Abel at the hands of his brother Cain, brought on solely due to jealousy, people have acted in selfish, violent, and unfair ways. Shortly after Abel’s murder, Genesis chapter 6 verse 5 states, “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” Genesis 6 continues in verse 11, “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.”1

  Sin has been with us since Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, and will always be a part of humanity. It is probably more accurate to say that we are constantly fighting our bad nature in order to do good than it is to say that we are basically good and occasionally act badly. The Bible is full of laws prohibiting bad behavior because there is a strong temptation for people to act in their own interests, regardless of consequences.

  For those who do not want to use religion as a guide, there are many historical examples of immoral behavior. What is most telling is the fact that these things continued to happen, regardless of the level of experience people gained from history. No matter how cultured societies got, or how advanced technology, science, or government became, humans continued to act according to their nature. As evidence of these flaws, we will do a quick run through history to highlight the evils that men do.

  Modern man has been around for tens of thousands of years. Though we only have about 4,000 years of written word, archeological digs and other historic discoveries have given us insight into how humans lived in antiquity. Based on the weapons
, helmets, shields and walled ruins we’ve found, we have evidence of human conflict from the beginning. It is safe to assume, however, that there were far fewer clashes in the beginning. Since the world was less occupied, people were more spread out and less likely to encounter hostiles.

  The fact that most of the world’s civilizations were hunter-gatherers also helped. That would soon change as people began to move to agrarian societies. While the world was vast, areas suitable for farming were much more exclusive. Add to this the fact that technology had not yet reached the point where people could survive far away from all the conditions needed to farm. This means people would begin searching for ideal land, usually near water. It was only a matter of time before conflicts ensued.2

  CONQUESTS

  Groups that settled in a particular area would claim it as theirs. Sometimes they peacefully co-existed with neighboring tribes, other times they fought for control. As populations grew, some tribes absorbed others and kingdoms were formed. The leaders exerted their strength by trying to expand. This brought them into conflict with neighboring tribes or opposing kingdoms.

  Middle East

  If we look at the first city-states of Mesopotamia, we see conquering from the beginning. Its major city of Kish was captured by Sargon of Akkad who made himself ruler.3 When the last of his line died, there were revolts within the kingdom as well as invasions from without.4 This template would repeat itself the world over for centuries, and is still continuing in some countries.

  Mesopotamia was conquered by the Babylonians who were conquered by the Assyrian Empire, who later annexed the Hittites.5 They were in and out of power with Egypt and Babylon.6 In Greece, the Greco-Persian Wars were a series of conflicts culminating with the defeat of Persia.7 Internally, Athens and Sparta battled in the Peloponnesian War.8