czech version

Equality in an individualistic world, relativism, egalitarianism

 In older societies inequality was explained either as being an inherited privilege or practically on the base of uneven results of work caused by uneven work performances. We can evaluate equality according to what impression it makes in a real modification, whether it acts compositionally or disruptively. Therefore there is also a border of compositionality. Equality as a compositional value is always connected only to justice and rights on the base of fulfilled obligations.

 Productive societies tried to introduce as high starting equality as possible in the work competition – equality of opportunity, which is a compositional meta-institution coming from the feeling of justice. Educational system and in fact the whole culture were coming towards this, everyone should have an opportunity. Many virtues were connected to this: work was appreciated and work results were sacred because people assumed that the results are based only on the work done. Question is, how perfect it was, but anyway it was productive. In today’s modernity the equality of opportunity is destroyed for children and students. With the increase of mafia influence, rich parents force educational workers to promote their children, private schools do not resist the power of money and they do not evaluate the students according to their knowledge.

 Existential equality expresses the equality of human individuals on the base of their existence. To some extent, this equality has a compositional value, it is called citizen equality and it is an expression of justice before bureaucracy, it also contains the equality of opportunity for everyone and it is necessary for a democratic mechanism and life in a free society itself to function. It is a kind of natural principle, supported by many agendas and Christian religion derives it from equality of people before God. It is one of the basic laws of human society. Yet all the people did not necessarily have to be citizens, inner relationships of a group of people or a class were often involved.

 It is important to mention, that just this equality is not kept in an unnatural world. There is no equality between the citizen and an institution and the equality between citizens is also diminished, because by decomposition of order and going towards nothingness the institutions do not work well and are not able to protect the weak. State institutions often work closely with private mafias. These are usually exclusive monopoly companies that manage e.g. the water supply or waste disposal and the law gives them enormous power over citizens. Even laws ensuring that in a mafia world you can lose a great amount of money or property because of a small debt were accepted. Firstly, the interests on credits are growing immorally and secondly, there is no equality before the law. The bureaus and exclusive companies can afford to make mistakes for which they do not have to take responsibility: citizens can sue them, but no one does that, because it is complicated, it takes long time and you have to pay the court fees. An institution or a company carries the seizure immediately, often without a trial or an announcement. This is one of the many methods of destroying the middle class. While the enormous debt created using this method from a meaningless debt prevents the citizen from getting out of this situation, he becomes a homeless outlaw. The obligation to take care of independent means of the citizens, allowing independence, is not fulfilled. Neither the super-rich nor the mafia state however can wish the independence of citizens. Current global system destroying the middle class and opening the scissors between the rich and the poor is one of the aspects of gradual interruption of continuity.

 Decadent deformation of existential equality could be called unconditional equality. With the presence of individualism unconditional equality drives all ideas about equality of genders and sexual orientations into all consequences, the equality between a child and an adult and other weedy and decomposing ideals. Such equality comes from a perfect image of disjunction, even alienation. It is the “first” agreement between the “gods”, who have to be equal by their mere existence just to avoid conflict.

 Equality is often an expression of a desire for an order that diminished. Equality is supposed to substitute for this order as an alternative justice. In times of retraction from the securities of order and coming towards chaos equality is understood as a kind of last straw, before the chaos breaks out, some kind of fear from anarchy. Note that people are willing to accept inequalities, even be loyal to people on higher positions and with more assets, but this requires explaining these inequalities morally within the order. If there is no explanation or acknowledged rules, they do not accept these differences. Moral chaos is therefore accompanied by the requirement for unconditional equality. It is an unproductive requirement; it deepens the chaos, because every higher organism naturally needs structure, which means uneven distribution of elements. Unconditional equality helps individualism to decompose society into elements and in this reality has a decomposing value.

The only equality, which can be required within the return to naturalness, is equilibrium equality. You can achieve this by removing the hierarchic and egalitarian myths. For example the issue of manual work, which is usually badly paid on the base of an obsolete idea, that intellectual work is superior to manual work. If the myth is destroyed on the base of an idea of nominal equality of work and especially if we introduce a complex concept of work, manual work can on the base of natural market equilibrium be valued naturally and maybe paid better. Egalitarian myth, which leads women to imitate men and requires, that the roles of both sexes be the same, leads to neglecting the natural mission of women. Equal division of work with respect to workload and intensity while respecting all the differences of both roles and division of work, is equilibrium equality. It is a kind of citizen equality.

 When people are equal on the base of their mere existence, their products, ideas and cultures have to be equal too. For people to be unconditionally equal, when they in fact are not, it is necessary to relativize their differences, the quality of their behaviour and the results of their activities. If the differences between people and groups of people are relativized, their values are relativized too, because relativizing is the only method ensuring unconditional equality. Individual values are not emphasized but they are not condemned either. Any value can be accepted, if it is pragmatically relevant. Within this there is no more valuable work for the society, there is no acknowledgement of selfless virtues or any moral values.

 Relativism is a child born from expanding unconditional equality. It is an intersection of nothingness, which chose equality as its base. Relativism is an effort to merge the opposites, it is the antithesis of equilibrium, which harmonizes but maintains the opposites. With loss of order it becomes very difficult to explain and harmonize differences and equality solves maintaining certain equilibrium. It is best to diminish the differences, erase them, and if it is possible, do not accept them at all. This solves the problems with evaluating work results. However opposites create natural mechanisms, they create life, which is a harmonization of the opposites that still remain intact. It relativizes cowardice, which is not despised; it is clouded. Heroes are also not valued in a relativistic society. They usually get into trouble and relativist media try to find something wrong about them, usually something trivial, a failure of some kind, so that they could besmirch them and relativize their acts: “heroism is not obligatory”. However not even good work is valued, relativists search for small failures, which are not “forgiven”, the overall contribution of a person is incomparable, because the awareness of equality vanished. There are no models and relativizing leads to destroying all significant personalities. Nothingness arises; relativism does not substitute any valuable elements that have not yet been equalized with anything.

The only thing opposing relativism so far is the market and uneven economic results based on it. Therefore all non-relativists realize themselves only in the market and in a differentiated private ownership; in a deformed thinking they try to make the market solve everything and make it take over the positions of all other values, which have been relativized because they feel that it is the last outpost of freedom and the last possibility to excel. The market has visible successes as opposed to relativistic and egalitarian regimes and therefore its advocates have something to lean on to. By this, things are solved only via materialistic ways and many liberals do not understand that competition should take place in other areas too, and the values that the society needs are not only materialistic. It is also what Habermas calls system eating the “life world”. It is filling of the nothingness with market. Relativist idea is also for example feminism, which in some of its agendas violently tries to merge the male and the female role and minimizes the differences. This automatically decreases the female role and also motherhood (“…women who focus on career are almost men…” – see 61), because it opposes equalling of both roles. 

 Ethno-masochism and masochism itself is a visible perverse product of relativism. Self-flagellation took on the appearance of pervert lowering of everything valuable, everything that created life and destruction of all values. Regarding European civilization, it is not only relativistic lowering of its value, but also direct destroying and hatred towards it, which makes it then identical with enemies. It is manifested by an admiration of other civilizations and devaluation of own civilization. Ethno-masochism as the dark side of patriotism helps to decompose the state and the coherence of the society. Sometimes it becomes a base for irresponsibility, disrespect and it explains moral failures. Anthropic-masochism is hatred towards the man and the civilization itself, usually realized in various ecological movements and honest ecologists are not able to uncover its pathological content.

 Relativism is an idea, which rarely calls for its egalitarian emotive roots – love and envy. An example of pure relativism is relativizing of the evil, respectively criminality. In relativism the good and the bad blend in, they are not polar principles, it is as if there was still some distorted concept of love, an idea that there is no evil and that it is not necessary to fight it (e.g. proclaiming love by president Havel). Solving the problems of evil is complicated for a modernistic man, weakening of will is manifested by succumbing to evil, which means resigning on equilibrium and justice and it allows and leads to pacifism and the policy of appeasement. Love is not an emotive human value, but a relativizing method – love should aim at the objects of evil that do not deserve it.

 Relativist ideas like to pretend that they are general. They would like to solve the inconsistency of elements and connect them with nothingness. Elements should somehow lose their value; then they can be subordinated to some general relativist idea, which does not require value. This solves unity, or at least mutual aggression. These efforts are sometimes honest and sometimes scheming and are supposed to weaken one of the elements to ensure winning to another one. Great effort is made to weaken Islam like this. It is a religion incompatible with any other religion and it can live in peace with other religions only when the communities are completely separate, which happened throughout the history in the Middle East and which is also the reason why Christians remained there. If Islam would retreat from stoning a Muslim woman, who married a non-Muslim, or from the obligation to keep women covered, it would cease to be what it is and the Muslim communities would disintegrate, like it happened to Jews. Relativist unity of religious views can be achieved only by ensuring that there are virtually no religions.

 Multiculturalism is a typical example of relativism. It does not differentiate between individual cultures and claims that no culture can be assessed externally, because each external assessment is burdened by myths of another culture (see 53,58). In terms of communication it is necessary to consider them being of the same value. This can be respected, if each culture makes its own living and has its own territory. Cultures compete with each other and their value manifests complexly. Such a manifestation does not necessarily have to show the value of current European civilization as being the most advanced materially. The criterion of the competition of models and imitation can be only the value, not equality, as it is created by relativist multiculturalism mostly by claiming equality of cultures based on their existence. Cultures will never be equal, they cannot even be considered equal, only mutual relationships can be equal. In admixture of cities, value is not manifested at all. The only culture, usually the home culture, is better adapted to environment (e.g. the market mechanism), which makes it more successful. Unsuccessful ethnicities try to promote their culture usually via violence or by causing external pressures. Socialistic redistribution is basically unfair, because it requires that the more successful culture subsidize the less successful one, usually a foreign and aggressive one. The whole principle of multiculturalism is based on unfairness to all and causes righteous xenophobia, chauvinism and aggression. Moreover, the home culture has the right of inheritance for its homeland within the principle of continuality. Home residents cannot be forced to accept immigrants; if they accept them, they can dictate the conditions for their adaption. An immigrant therefore has the freedom of choice given by the selection of environment, not by promoting their rights in the environment of a foreign culture. Traditional cultural environment is not automatically available to everyone, except under duress and in an aggressive way – exactly the way, which is unacceptable culturally in terms of real timeless multiculturalism, peace and cooperation.

 Egalitarianism is a type of unconditional equality focused on promoting equality of economical results of individuals. The strictest regime built on this idea was political communism. Today especially socialist movements promote it; it is an issue of the rate of this value. Stricter form of egalitarianism relativizes the work and activity results and claim, that the performances are very much alike, that there is no need to reward a higher performance and if there is such, it is a commonplace, and regarding love to other people, it has to be given to the society without any reward. If egalitarianism loses persuasiveness and its unfairness is too visible, there is a request for “love and sacrifice for others”. In this composition, they count on natural altruism, which was originally led to helping those in need survive. Here this feeling is exploited for the purposes of egalitarianism, it is enforced by aggressive means in a distorted name of “love”, sometimes falsely called solidarity of the working.

 Property equality is an extreme unproductive requirement, which takes out the initiative and lowers the productivity. However it is necessary to distinguish an equality project from social care – we need to help the weak so that they do not suffer from insufficiency of basic means.

 If we accept a communist egalitarian project of society with its needs already saturated and the people would not have to work so much anymore, then people will have nothing to aim for, they will become animals inside a cage and will gradually start losing their performance abilities. Removal of competition in an existential environment brings complete removal of the law of natural selection. It will not matter if a person is successful or not, it will not impact selective reproduction and current decadence will be intensified. In such a society people accept the roles of children of a caring mother. Their life consists of children’s plays, they will not accept responsibility for their families, they will never grow up and they will not have children of their own. Those who refuse to become children, will not get a chance to realize themselves other that in the structure of this society, they will try to get to higher positions to fulfil their ambitions and this all will eventually lead to those infamous fights over nomenclature positions ending with immoralities and crimes. Strict egalitarianism slides down to immorality or indifference and sloth. Yet there will be continuous dissatisfaction with material standard, which however will not be possible to change by own efforts and therefore will lead to rebellion and undermining of the regime. Children will cry and stipulate their toys. No organized competitions that are actually just children’s plays based on non-material or symbolic acknowledgement can substitute work for a living. Effort for employment, acceptance and recognition is a part of human essence and it cannot be deteriorated to a nursing school without real life fights. If so, then the natural human will to live will vanish. People will still try to win over others, but it depends if the aim of this effort has any meaning for the society or if it is just a children’s play determined to satisfy their confidence. In a society of adolescents without work and unsecured materially, there will be nothing real to gain and life, including reproduction, will lose its meaning. If complete degradation is to be avoided, totalitarianism and forced labour is needed. Cable implementation of laws for keeping concern (see 68) is the principal that a person will never lose their concerns – if they do, it ceases to exist.

 I have already expressed myself in terms of social security in this book, here I will only describe some of the issues: Human health is something completely unique, which has nothing to do with any social or political affairs. While other issues of social topics are predictable, illness has no predictability and can hardly be influenced by the person. Health care services have to accept the demand for equal opportunities to make a living. Perhaps with respect to the practice, some form of participation of the patients, for prevention of overuse could be required. To pay for healthcare services would be mostly a fatal social unfairness, regardless the point of view. To sell the house and destroy a family to get money for a surgery, which will prolong grandfather’s painful life by months, is a nonsense, which we cannot introduce, partially because it would be abused.

It is not the same with predictable social topics, which the state took upon itself because it decomposed smaller communities – municipalities and families – and had to comply with people’s emotions of solidarity. This brings problems connected to the fact that a big society set abstract rules for social topics for everyone, whereas these vague rules cause unfairness and overuse, just because they are abstract and undistinguishing. Big society therefore cannot productively take over the social system, except for health care, and it is necessary that small communities – families and municipalities – take responsibility for this issue retroactively. Some retroactive restrictions decompose family solidarity, such as when pensions from state liberate the young from the responsibility for the old.
It is obvious that people in productive age cannot take state support while not working. This is a purely decadent situation that leads to interruption of continuity. This is an issue of both sides of the argument. People have to have the opportunity to work but on the other hand they have to carry out work they do not like, without blackmailing and for an adequate amount of money.