Amerika

You probably remember reading here before how the Fourteenth Amendment ruined America because it imposed equality through the language “equal protection of the laws.”

The moron conservative take on this one is to look at us with their best Redditor eckshyually face and say, no, that’s not what it did at all. It simply extended the Constitution to the states. Obviously they have not thought this one through, since any time new language is added, something changes.

Still not a believer? Fine, hear it from mainstream authorities:

And finally, the Fourteenth Amendment introduced the ideal of equality to the Constitution for the first time, promising “equal protection of the laws.”

Equality is not found in the Bill of Rights. A mention is found in the the Bill of Rights but it is not as moderns mean it:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

To review, we have two terms here:

1. “Separate and equal station”
2. “Created equal”

Anyone who received a decent education, is widely read, or otherwise has a clue will zero in on two words, “station” and “created.” These are mentioned as boundaries to the term equality, and reflect the intent of its use.

In the first term, “station” means caste position, referring to the British use of the term at the time (and even in the present day). In nature, humanity has a hierarchy where each person has a station, or level, at which they have paired duties and privileges.

The Americans wanted to reject the European aristocracy, sensing that coming generations would bring war over this topic as had been steadily building since the 1300s, and so asserted equal station or no caste boundaries.

Next we look at “created” equal. The term “created” is not throwaway or boilerplate language like just about all modern communications contain, but a clear identification of which type of “equality” (a term for nitwits) the framers intended.

They meant “created equal” in the sense of having one, and only one, equal opportunity, namely that of being born and being alive. The Natural Rights ideal of the Bill of Rights repeats this time and again: government is restricted from taking things from you, but what you have depends on your natural abilities and inclinations.

In other words, this is a statement against equality in all forms other than saying that you are born and you get the same chance anyone else does to maximize what you have, which since it is unequal, means you will experience inequality as an outcome.

They used the term “equal,” following ideas in British law, simply as a rejection of aristocrats. Morons later seized on this and used it to argue for Communism, essentially, but it was never intended that way.

Until, that is, the 14A came around. The 14A reverses natural rights and replaces it with civil rights, just like the Civil Rights Act of 1866 upon which the 14A was based.

That means that instead of having a duty to avoid infringing on the state of nature, government has been repurposed to change that state of nature by ensuring that everyone enjoys the “equal protection of the laws.”

For this reason, you are going to get non-stop gooner results in law like anti-White discrimination as law:

Harvard’s use of race as a factor in admissions is in line with Supreme Court precedent — including that of a case from only five years ago — that race ought to narrowly be used in order to promote diversity on college campuses.

To understand this, we have to unpack “equality” (a moron fascinator). How would two people be equal? Obviously, they cannot be equal in abilities, so they would have to be equal in terms of where they end up in the social order.

That means that socially, or in terms of popularity, they must have the same power; economically, or in spending, they must have the same power; politically, or in law and influence on leadership, they must have the same power.

If you pair those to historical events, you have the Enlightenment™ and Magna Carta, Bolshevik Revolution, and French Revolution, retrospectively, following the Peasant Revolts of 1328, which were the first stirrings of worker revolt in the West.

As seen in each of these revolts, equality exists only because there are two groups, the “haves” and “have-nots.” Since the haves came to power naturally, or by demonstrating competence in the past, the have-nots need to be compensated or subsidized by government or crowd intervention to bring them up to the same level.

This means that equality always sounds like it means fairness, or that you line everyone up and give them one muffin apiece; in reality, it always and without exception means that you line everyone up, have them throw their muffins in a big bucket, and then divide those by the number of people.

That means that if someone is born with two muffins, and everyone gets one, you take one muffin from the person with two (the strong) to give to those with none (the weak).

Consequently, when you adopt a program such as “diversity,” it can only mean replacing the heritage population because they, as the people who built the society to which others are emigrating, are always going to be the strong, and the minorities the weak. You remove the heritage population in order to sustain the parasite population.

These parasite populations take many forms. They can be religious or ethnic minorities, weaker sexes like women, sexual non-conformists like swingers or transsexuals, lobbying groups for niche cultures, or even large corporations. They want to dominate the majority, and equality makes guilt into something positive-sounding, so they use that to subvert, subjugate, and exterminate the former majority.

Watch this in action here with yet another insane-retarded legal decision:

In West Virginia, a law prohibits transgender athletes from competing in female sports. Arkansas became the first state to ban gender confirming treatments or surgery for transgender youth.

The DOJ said the laws in both states violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

In this case, people born with a gender they understand are seen as the strong, and the confused neurotics and schizoids who think they might be the other gender are the weak. We take from the strong and give to the weak.

Until we the people wake up — it has been a long two centuries, has it not — and get rid of the 14A, every legal decision will go this way.

America grew prosperous, intelligent, and strong because unlike Europe, it had no mandate for equality. Your equality was that you were born, and you ended up with however many muffins you could achieve, including zero. We tolerated a high body count here to weed out the weak, where Europe nurtured the weak like pets and used them as a symbol of its first Christian and later Enlightenment™ piety.

Without the equality mandate, we had a quality mandate, meaning that we rewarded the functional, ejected the destructive, and ignored everyone else. The weak died out and no one cared, because preserving weakness is damage to strength, and we wanted to be strong and good.

Along came moron lawyer Abraham Lincoln and his cadre of fellow idiots, and they advanced a different theory: in order to end the conflict that threatened our democratic system, since as usual it had amassed a huge amount of criminal industrialists and moronic proles who were voting for stupid insane stuff, he would force equality on the population as a way of subjugating them, weakening them, and masticating them so that the bureaucracy could manipulate them for the ends of government.

One of the great mysteries of history remains whether Lincoln was simply a moron, or a moron and also evil, but in any case, he turned America into a European-style superstate, or rather it was done based on his initiative but after his death, effectively abolishing the Bill of Rights and replacing it with civil rights.

It took another century before that in turn would detonate, and we all live in the shadow of the 1960s now. We either reverse our error, or it consumes us.

Tags: 14A, abraham lincoln, affirmative action, bill of rights, civil rights, fourteenth amendment, natural rights, transsexuals