A punk anarchist long ago taught me about equity. He hated anything successful or beautiful. Instinctually he wanted to destroy it so it was made equal to everything broken and ugly. When he saw something well made, he raged inside that something so good existed in contrast to his wretched life experiences, and he revenged himself by smashing and ruining the superior exception to mediocrity. He despised people who figured out how to do things well and build better results.

Equity promises equal outcomes so that whether something starts beautiful or ugly, it makes everything end up identically ugly by destroying the good. This ideology benefits the ugly people who will no longer have to feel less than equal when they see something beautiful that is obviously different from them and does not suffer their inherent defects. As majorities favor the poorly constituted, democracy aligns its power for equity so the ugly and inadequate dominate.

Though people are born with different abilities and characteristics that shape their lives, equity pretends everyone should get the same outcome no matter the quality and substance of their ingredients. When results naturally show great variance, those who do the worst respond to their situation by claiming there are conspiracies and cheating that allowed the well constituted to achieve good results, while low ability people struggle for supposedly no reason.

In real life, no promises about outcomes can be made, especially when nature’s diversity starts everyone with different qualities and attributes that cannot be changed. Individuals with higher levels of intelligence can complete cognitive demanding tasks which result in academic and career achievements, while the less intelligent lack basic ability to understand complex subjects and tasks.

Similarly, people who possess traits such as motivation, determination, and perseverance will tend to achieve greater levels of success in areas such as career advancement and personal relationships. On the other hand, traits such as laziness and lack of drive lead to failure in these areas.

Those with chronic health conditions will usually fall behind too, even if they otherwise have above average traits. They will spend so much time maintaining their health that they will not have much left for developing skills and pursuing topics to a high level of understanding. Likewise, people who spend their time playing video games and watching entertainment will also handicap themselves by wasting years of potential as passive vegetables while others apply themselves to useful interests.

To make people equal would require genetic engineering we do not yet have. Alternatively we could unethically suppress natural differences to prevent exceptional people from developing and propagating. Equal outcomes would necessitate the intervention of the state to govern every aspect of individual affairs. The state would need to enforce policies that attempt to level the playing field, artificially boosting the prospects of those who may not possess the natural skills and abilities required for success, and lowering the outcomes of people with higher skills and abilities to keep them from achieving anything significant.

The public must be convinced that this policy is valid and desirable by deceiving them into believing that they will be better off under this system, and that their efforts will be rewarded regardless of their innate abilities. For a while it will be possible to take money from the successful to subsidize the failing, but the successful will soon find this a pointless burden and separate themselves from such a system.

It would be a high tension system of ruling over people. The state would have to enforce this policy by coercion with threats of imprisonment and violence to compel individuals to comply with the government’s will. This would necessitate the suppression of individual freedoms, the control of the media, and the use of force to ensure compliance. To achieve these objectives, an increased surveillance state, relentless propaganda, training children to repeat regime doctrine, and introduction of social credit scores with strict punishments would also be required to make subjects obedient.

These extremes are the rational consequence of equity, but since equity is just a scam to grab power and siphon money to its leaders, full implementation is unlikely to be seriously pursued. It will soon be exposed and fade away as another empty utopian promise. The goal is not really to achieve its aims, but to claim their plans for a glorious future are being held up and stuck in the middle by a few small obstacles that will require shifting more power and public money their way. They’ll claim success is imminent as soon as their demands of the citizen are voluntarily ceded. From such a position, the new rulers can claim to have a mandate to further increase their power and solidify it through law.

We see from infanthood that some people are more intelligent, creative, and talented than others. No one suddenly presents exceptional traits later in life that they were not born with. Some individuals possess innate athletic abilities, while others have a strong work ethic and are highly disciplined. Therefore, to try and achieve the same outcome for everyone, irrespective of their individual characteristics, is unrealistic. Making it policy or law is insane.

As a movement, equity attempts a totalitarian power play to get the public to conform to ludicrous lies. The rulers present illusions rather than solutions and then apply official propaganda amplified by loyal media partners. The public is expected to accept these fraudulent depictions as representing reality and then repeat them to others as legitimate information instead of discussing how the new system is a failure that costs us all. Those who question the narrative will be scorned and ostracized, without any concern for logic, as a way of making excuses for failing to account for reason and function.

One Comment Add yours

  1. Jeff Dawkins says:

    ‘Algebra for none’ fails in San Francisco

    Frustrated by high failure rates in eighth-grade algebra, San Francisco Unified decided in 2015 to delay algebra till ninth grade and place low, average and high achievers in the same classes. The goal was to improve achievement for black and Hispanic students, preparing more for advanced math.

    That didn’t happen, concludes a study by a team of Stanford professors. “Large ethnoracial gaps in advanced math course-taking . . . did not change.” Black students aren’t more likely to enroll in AP math; Hispanic enrollment increased by 1 percentage point. Overall, there was no change in the number of students receiving credit for advanced math classes, or the number taking math in 12th grade.

    Families face a “nightmare of workarounds” to get their high-achieving children on track for advanced math, write Rex Ridgeway and David Margulies in a San Francisco Examiner commentary.

    “Families with resources turn to fee-required online algebra 1 courses in eighth grade, outside the public school system, or enroll their kids in private schools,” they write. Those who can’t afford it must take a compression class that combines advanced algebra and pre-calculus or take a year of double math to get on track for AP Calculus.

    The district “will take credit for my granddaughter’s mathematical success as proof their policies work,” one of the authors writes. “In reality, this took two of her summers and nearly $2,000.”


Leave a Reply