I wasn’t planning on another of these so quickly, but since our slide into Doom accelerated this week, there is no choice. But since we already covered the news side (here and here), today an explanation.
Egalitarianism has been with us roughly two-and-a-half centuries. Plenty of time for it to have gnawed away at the foundations of sanity. It grew, or rather mutated from, Christianity, which holds (what is true) that God loves all. From God loves all, it morphed to God loves all equally, a subtle distinction, and one which has less claim to truth.
God loves all equally quickly degraded to all are equal before the law, which everybody understands can’t be true exactly—exceptions can be thought of; and note the first absence of the Almighty—though it has a pleasing ring to it. We’re still in the Eighteenth century.
Over the course of next century, all equal before the law became all are equal, a shocking falsity, a proposition nobody believes, especially by those who wield it (they believe themselves superior, i.e. unequal, in enlightenment). So it is false and not believed, but it it still insisted upon in the hopes that it will become true. We’ve reached 1968, or thereabouts.
The pace quickened. All are equal became all must be equal. Equality became a weapon. The real differences which everybody sees and acknowledges and which are necessary for the perpetuation of the species are said not to exist, though everybody knows they do. Again, the hope is that by forceful repetition of the phrase what is false will become true.
Egalitarianism proponents are now increasingly turning to the State to enforce the equality. When any inequality is discovered, and since equality is holy, departures from it are evil. I mean they are caused by evil. And therefore should be unlawful and punishable.
That, say, among top mathematicians many more men than women will be discovered is the result of prejudice, or sexism, or “institutional discrimination”, or possibly all three, with a little hate mixed in. It is now unacceptable utterly, a blasphemy, to claim that is part of men’s nature to exhibit superior quantitative reasoning. Even though everybody knows it is true.
A theorem of egalitarianism is that anybody can say they are what they are not, and since all must be equal, their claim must be believed. Thus a man can insist he was “born gay”, which used to mean he (at times and perhaps not exclusively) suffered from same sex attraction, but under egalitarianism it means he is a different creature. He is no longer a man, but a gay-man, something different, an organism apart from the rest of humanity, yet somehow (don’t ask how) still part of it.
Those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of gay-men, say by pointing out all scientific evidence is against it, are evil. The evidence is that identical twins suffer from same sex attraction at rates only slightly higher than other men, an observation which proves people aren’t “born that way”, and that many men report leaving their suffering behind, which proves the condition is not always (and probably never, except by choice) permanent.
That evidence is anathema. Put it before any enlightened person to see how quickly it is denied or how fast the conversation is changed and you are condemned. It is a dismal, useless exercise because the evidence is meaningless. Don’t forget everybody always knew that our differences are real and formed by our natures. Egalitarianism only must publicly insist on the absence of differences: it need not hold privately that they do not exist. As before, every enlightened person believes himself superior and unequal. Equality is a goal, not a fact.
Now everybody also knows that to be religious it to be discriminating, that religion is discrimination. The greater the religion of a person, the less he is under the spell of egalitarianism. (Non-religious can be against egalitarianism, too, of course.) At the very least, the religious person will believe he is lesser, i.e. not equal, with his gods.
Christians, for instance, must be anti-egalitarian. They know their talents are not distributed equally. Whereas to an enlightened person “inequality” is a hateful, negative word describing the state of secular sin, a Christian must acknowledge, openly, our different natures. Inequality is a positive word to Christians. (If you are unable to see this, you are, like many, saturated with egalitarianism.)
Egalitarianism, a perverted form of Christianity, and Christianity itself are now incompatible. It is therefore obvious the war between them can only become more brutal and pervasive. Doom awaits.
Update See this from Ed Feser on stages of the battle.