I am not an Objectivist. I am an imperialist. I mourn the death of the British Empire, and the loss of the British Aristocracy.

Because Britain, particularly England, (but not only, my blood ancestors lost their title, lands and status) you had to earn a title, and then you had to keep it. You could buy the title, or get it by extensive service, but to keep it you had to preserve your fortune and lands. Both became harder in the 20th century. Many families that failed, including my great great grandfather, emigrated.

My grandmother’s grandfather.

But the objectivist are correct on this. Egalitarianism is wrong. One cannot ensure equal outcomes but by force. Not that force itself has any moral significance: it is a tool. But that the cosnequences of enforcing equal outcomes are destruction and tyranny.

In case this question really is being asked in genuine innocence, or in reasonable doubt about what egalitarianism actually means in practice, one can find a vividly detailed concretization of it in Atlas Shrugged, in the story of what happened to the Twentieth Century Motor Company when it tried to implement the slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The story is reprinted in Ayn Rand’s first non-fiction book, For the New Intellectual.

The slogan is a nearly perfect expression of the meaning of egalitarianism — using physical force to reduce everyone’s level of prosperity, happiness and health to an undifferentiated commonality in which everyone is the same (except, perhaps, in ability and therefore duty to serve, like a beast of burden). Clearly such initiation of physical force is evil, by Objectivist standards.

The slogan technically doesn’t say that everyone is equal in “need,” but in practice that is exactly what it means.

Since differences in ability actually exist in reality, what is the justification and justice in trying to rewrite reality so blatantly? And what are the practical consequences of doing so? See Atlas Shrugged for the consequences. Contradictions cannot exist, and any attempt to make a contradiction exist leads only to destruction. If that is what egalitarianism means, it’s not only evil, unjust, and anti-life, but metaphysically impossible and epistemologically contradictory. Does one need a more complete list of everything that’s wrong with egalitarianism than that?

However, the demand that everyone is equal and all choices are valid remains. It takes a considerable effort by progressives, and two or three generations of controlling the education system, the systems of mass media, and most of the chattering class to make people see any unequal outcomes as unjust.

But then, having won the long battle, they are doubling down. They are repeating the error of the Soviet: the ordinary mand decided that the lies of the Soviet were untenable, and then shrugged. And when that happened, akin to Atlas, things broke.

What happened to the Russians and the Eastern Europeans can happen to us. We have no more virtue than they had: we share the same culture, and like them, our elite has rejected it.

Liberals are evil. Nuff said.

It should have been obvious from the moment the Women’s Liberation Movement emerged in the late 1960s that feminists would ultimately fail to bring about the “equality” they promised, and that this radical movement would inflict enormous damage to American society. Here we are, decades later, and young feminists who were not even born when this movement began are vehemently insisting that they are victims of an “oppression” for which “all men” are to blame. What feminists now demand — as a bare minimum, sine qua non — is that Hillary Rodham Clinton (Wellesley College, Class of 1969; Yale Law School, Class of 1973) be elected President of the United States, and feminists will condemn everyone who opposes Hillary’s election as a misogynist.

The Bernie Sanders campaign is a token resistance to the foregone conclusion of the Clinton nomination, and it does not matter who the Republican Party nominates as its candidate. In 2016, feminists will attempt to convince the electorate that the only people who will vote Republican on Nov. 8 are those who hate women. Anticipating this attack (it has been evident for many months now) it is necessary for conservatives to understand what feminism actually means, so that they can explain to the American people why “equality” is wrong.

This requires an argument that is as difficult to make in 21st-century America as it was in 18th-century France. Long before the outbreak of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, Edmund Burke foresaw the danger inherent in the premise of the radical rhetoric of “equality.” That the revolution ended in the establishment of a military dictatorship under Napoleon should suffice to prove that Burke’s warnings were prophetic. Furthermore, as must be obvious to any student of history, the radicalism of Jacobin France was the inspiration of Marxist socialism, which in turn inspired the Bolshevik Revolution, which led to the dictatorship of Josef Stalin. Over and over, we see the same lesson repeated: Radicals promise “equality,” and the end result is tyranny. Only a fool would expect feminism to deviate from this precedent, and what we see on university campuses today — where opposition to feminism is effectively prohibited — is a foreshadowing of what we might expect under the regime of President Hillary Clinton.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

There are a couple of things left unmentioned. Firstly, the moral is generally the functional. Thrift and hard work generally leads to savings, and savings to property. Fidelity and Chastity ensure that children have an educational advantage and that hard work is not stolen by the family courts. As in the family, in society: a society that encourage shtese and does not steal from those who save generally prospers.

But that which subsidizes people to be idle, feckless and unchaste will find they have a large unproductive class, which grows even as regulations and taxes increase. To the point of stagflation and bankruptcy. But the progressives will not allow for that.

SJWs like Obvious are deceitful from head-to-toe. When their side is being identified and boycotted, they shriek like little bitches about McCarthyism and blacklists and free speech. Then they turn around and do it the first chance they get.

Enough. Let’s just fight it out, drive them out, and be done with them. Liberty is not possible as long as they are in our midst. It is, as the Founding Fathers said, only for a moral people, and they are avowedly immoral.

THe times are too interesting. There is a winnowing to come. Do not be part of this progressive system. Do not be like them.

UPDATE.

Keoni Galt has another spin on this. One this Pakeha agrees with. In the old days there were a whole pile of George (hori) jokes… usually at the European (pakeha) expense.

I want to acknowledge differences, and get along with most, rather than police my speech to avoid offending the tolerence comissioners.

No siree, it’s the 21st century, and we can no longer hurt anyone’s FEEEEEEEELLLLLIIINNGS.

Everybody is so fuckin’ sensitive. It sucks. I want my openly racist society back. More and more we see letters to the editors and magazine articles and tell-a-vision programs pushing the “colorblind” paradigm and that all of the racist stereotypes that bonded us all together in common racism in 20th century Hawaii, are now being considered more and more to be thoughtcrime and badthink that must be expunged from our consciousness. It makes me sick to see Hawaii’s uniquely harmonious and cooperative society founded on a solid sense of racial differences, slowly and inexorably being subsumed by the homogenized and globalized Brave New World Order mass media culture programming of hypersensitivity and ludicrous “equality.”

Up until recently, we didn’t have a pretend, fake ideal that everyone supposedly openly touts while harboring secret racism in their carefully guarded hearts and circumspect tongues. No siree, here in our island paradise, we embraced bigotry and race-based differences whole-heartedly and without reservation.

Our code word for it nowadays is “local humor” I’ve been to parties where people asked if it were okay to tell “local jokes,” basically asking permission from all present if it’s okay to tell race-based stereotypical jokes. Most are still down with the program…but more and more people are starting to reject what was once a proudly and openly racist society…and from where I sit, we ‘aint better off for it.

See…one of the reasons our society of mixed races “works” is because no matter what race you are or what culture you come from, we have this overriding culture of “ALOHA SPIRIT” that most people quickly assimilate to. In many ways, it’s similar to how all the different pale face crackers assimilated into the AMERICAN DREAM in the 19th century. Anglo-Germanic-Iberian-Mediterranean-Slavic-Aryan-Nordic migrations all arrived with different cultures and languages, with the only thing in common being melanin-deficient and solar-sensitive skin. But buying into the American dream eventually gave us what many now consider simply as white Americans (or Canadians).

Just as the miscegenation of all those Euro-strains of paleface resulted in a generic, homogenized race called “white” we have the same thing here in Hawaii….but it ‘aint called Hawaiian. Only those of us with actual Half-Savage Aboriginal blood in our veins can be called Hawaiian. Those who are born and raised here, but have no Hawaiian blood, and are for the most part the Oriental descendents of the plantation workers imported by the haole sugar barons as third world serfs, they are something else – “local.”