The Unobtainable Equality

The Unobtainable Equality

I wrote a piece concerning the human condition and progressivism in my last blog (www.discourseweekly.com). Our companies vision is created around perfecting the human condition in the industry of water. In other words, what we have control over is our impact on water as a company. Lets us consider the human condition as part of our vision. "The characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality."

Therefore, our new vision statement should be " Providing innovation for the essentials of human existence."

"Progressivism is an ideology based on the idea that historical and social progress is inevitable. The idea of progress assumes movement toward some ideal or end that usually includes the perfectibility of human nature and human society." When we talk about "progress our evolution" in our industry, we are committed to a concern for water, air, health, and equality. (I want to remove equality and exchange it for fair achievement). We want to progress our industry, our society, and the human condition for the benefit of mankind, and that is a noble cause. There are, however grave concerns for some ideas of progressivism.

The Progressive believes that progress is being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, minimally regulated capitalism, and out-of-control monopolistic corporations. An intense and sometimes violent conflict between workers and capitalists and a need for measures to address these problems are the goals of progressives today. In our recent history, progressives use violence against our public officials, publicly traded companies, et al. to promote equality. Let us be mindful, equality in its human abstract form does not exist outside of mathematics. In other words, equality is unobtainable outside of mathematics. The abstract thought of equality and its ideology of governing is found in oligarchy, socialism, communism, and eventually totalitarianism. Even then, equality will be unobtainable and eventually enslaves the population. However, fair achievement can be obtainable and should be examined as the best way to progress our evolution. Example: Harvard University has been accused of discrimination against Asian Americans based on achievement. With higher grade point averages, higher SAT scores, and achieving higher academic standards, they are discriminated against for lesser quality candidates. Why work harder if the color of your skin is going to get you into Harvard? Why achieve if a socialist government is going to give you what you need to live?

The idea that the greedy rich control everything and the want for equality is a progressive trait. Basically, a progressive wants to take from one person and give to another, without that person's permission, his or her possessions. If you believe that you own yourself and own your achievements, being forced to give up your achievements is a form of slavery.

Progressives use white privilege to poison the minds of our youth. Liberal Professors attempt to convince our youth, they should give up their achievements because of a historical past. Today's white youth have no control over what happened 150 years ago yet are shamed in a class by academia and, all in the name of equality. An equality that is, in fact, unobtainable. 

Progressives, in order to obtain equality, will use governance to apply unattainable equality. I believe countries under such rule will eventually fall to totalitarianism. Sometimes, I think we are almost there in America. Our country may indeed be an oligarchy. I think the election of Donald Trump has threatened the oligarchy. What I do know is, if the progressive doctrine achieves power, we will all be slaves to the common good and, achievement may no longer matter. When achievement no longer matters, our ability to innovate best practices to protect air, water, achievement, all those things we desire fail.

I think progressives like to attack the achievement of others. Just remember, being rich is a matter of perspective and, not all are evil or want power over others. I think we can all say: "You are richer than me, or you achieved more than me," but to go on and say, I want equality, so give me your stuff. Give me your stuff so I may bind your hands with the chains of slavery. Meaning, I demand you work for me for free, as I blame you and your ancestors for my human condition, should not be tolerated. Equality will forever be unobtainable as long as our country believes in liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. Not one of us is the same or grew up the same or shares the same experiences or talent. Therefore our achievements (like equality) will not be the same nor have the same results. In this manner, our lives will be different, will create the rich and the poor and the haves and have-nots. The only way we can create a fairer society is to have a concern for fair achievement and the opportunity to achieve. Fair achievement is obtainable, and in America, we won that battle in the 1960s with the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, during the same period, we also witness social welfare that squashes a want to achieve. Meaning, there is not one law that keeps a person from achieving but, due to social welfare, "the want" to achieve is diminished. 

Diversity "A range of different things"

Diversity “A range of different things.”

An article ran in the Williamsburg Gazette with concern to William and Marys look to the future. I offer my observations and concerns.

President Taylor Reveley was working on diversity before he retired. He removed a Confederate plaque in August of 2015 from the Wren building. He promised diversity in naming all soldiers who fought in the civil war be remembered with a plaque. When asked about the plaque in 2018 the College would only tell us, they were still working on it. Three years have passed and the College does not honor its diversity promise of including all of the fallen.

In 2016, I approached Taylor Reveley with the idea, an opportunity to, start an aviation school. It was the first year of the Williamsburg Aviation Scholarship Program or (WASP). A group of industry leaders had formed this program. This program is designed to help students learn to fly and possibly fill jobs in aviation where there is a shortage of pilots. Mr. Reveley did attend an informational meeting but, when pressed later, he said and I quote “aviation is not a fit for our College.” Where is the diversity, I thought?

Now enters Katherine Rowe. Ms. Rowe has continued her efforts to focus on how to prepare students for post- graduation. I would like to note the recent discussion where mostly professor and faculty attended along with two students. Sitting in groups of ten they discussed ways to make the College more diverse.

Diversity “A range of different things.” How can a discussion on diversity and preparing students for post-graduation be discussed without a diversified field of participants in the discussion groups? If one is going to believe faculty and professors can possibly offer diversity while hiding behind the wall of a College, and most not experiencing the real world in decades then, I would have to say this discussion was a failure. Where are your industry leaders in this discussion? You know, the ones who will hire your precious snowflakes?

Diversity “A range of different things.” When will the College (any College) acknowledge the need for diversity within its own ranks? I am reminded of the Honors ceremony my wife and I attended when my wife was doing graduate work in special education at W&M. The speaker says, “go out and change the world!” It was all my wife could do to keep me from busting out laughing. I looked around the room and, I watched these 20 something’s gobbling up fantasies of changing the world. Then a horrible thought came over me. What if these indoctrinated progressives actually do change the world or worse change America? As a 50-year old something in attendance, I began to realize the danger.

Apologizing for history

I have but two words for this, utter nonsense. Formally apologizing for Jim Crow laws and slavery is nothing more than "white guilt." However, a deeper understanding of the underlying progressive ideology that is indoctrinating our children, runs deeper than white guilt. Let us in turn, consider multiculturalism as the deeply rooted W&M cause. Diversity is being used to achieve this globalization goal progressives teach our children. In doing so, is diversity put at risk? The answer can be found in W&M’s mission statement along with W&M’s vision statement.

• Attract outstanding students from diverse backgrounds.
• Develop a diverse faculty
• Provide challenging curriculums in liberal arts and sciences
• Prepare students for intellectual, professional and public leadership
• Instill in students an appreciation for the human condition, a concern for public well-being.
• Use of its faculty and students to further human knowledge and understanding.
• W&M vision statement. “develop critical thinking and understanding of diverse perspectives.”

The human condition and applying Progressivism.

“Progressivism is an ideology based on the idea that historical and social progress is inevitable. The idea of progress assumes movement toward some ideal or end that usually includes the perfectibility of human nature and human society. One has to ask, Is it the goal of W&M to perfect human nature and society? If W&M is instilling in its students an appreciation for the human condition and public well-being through the closed eyes of progressivism, in the name of diversity and, the ultimate goal of globalization or “one rule government” then we are all in trouble and should be alarmed.

William and Mary’s utter nonsense in apologizing for something that happened in the past is, not only the white guilt of a few but, it is, in fact, a ploy to create the idea of globalism. W&M et al are altering our understanding of history through the removal of plaques, removal of statues, teaching and, the erasure of the past. In doing so W&M is trying to unite people into accepting one world thought by, erasing the past they feel divides us. Removal of the Christian cross from the chapel is an excellent example of W&M’s attempt to globalize the college and thus globalize the world. The removal of a cross, so that “others felt welcomed” was Dr. Nichols call for diversity. Obviously, W&M backed down after donations and pledges were denied. I guess W&M cares more about money than they do about their principles.

In closing: W&M’s indoctrination of students into progressive ideology lacks the diversity it seeks and seems to be an oxymoron. There seems to be no diversity within its own ranks in this writer’s opinions and observations and thus students are not developing critical thinking skills if, only one political vision, one view of the world and, one side of the story, is taught. In this manner, W&M fails its own mission statement. William and Mary seemingly want to teach diversity that is geared toward the globalization of the world. Yet, when it comes to teaching diversity in political ideologies, creating diversity within in its curriculum, diversifying its faculty and providing the basic understanding, humans will forever be tribal, does not fit their global agenda. Thus, the realization of danger as reported earlier. God help us all if, W&M succeeds in the destruction of America through progressive ideology and globalism.

Discourse: 1st amendment under attack by the political party the media supports.

Discourse: October 7th, 2018: Newport News VA, Daily Press “Where the Newspaper Stands”

“It was a victory because it strengthens a principle that we hold sacred in any democracy- that the public’s work should be done before the public’s eye.” On the surface, this seems to be a legitimate and thoughtful ideology. Let’s dig deeper to reveal fallacies in this opinion.

National security – Staff leakers have routinely leaked classified information to the media, in the Trump administration. The media, in turn, is all too glad to print anonymous unauthorized leaks. Some might say, like The Daily Press “public work should be done in the public eye”. I disagree, unauthorized leaks to the press undermine the duly elected President of the United States and can put operatives in the field into harm’s way. It is a noble idea to be transparent, but another to use the idea of transparency to viciously attack a political opponent. This is what the Daily Press et al does every day. The media has no shame in putting people’s lives at risk.

The Democrats have put people’s lives at risk for political gain. Dr. Ford, is an example of leaked information, of unsubstantiated allegations from 36 years ago, against a political opponent. The media was all too glad to run with unfounded allegations, leaked to the media without, regard to ruining the lives of others. This was done in the name of supporting one political party over another, but not in the name of transparency. I think one can say truthfully, the media no longer investigate for the truth but, willing to report unsubstantiated claims, whether true or not.

According to the Investor Business Daily 2016 – “The Democrats have attacked the 1st, 2nd and 5th amendment. Incredibly, the Democrats' disdain for the Bill of Rights includes even the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech. Party leaders have in the recent past, openly pushed to limit free speech rights when it conflicts with their own viewpoints.

In a speech at an Iowa community college, for example, Hillary Clinton: "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment. I threw up in my mouth a little when, I read that Hillary Clinton wanted to get money out of politics, a lie if I ever heard one. "Left unsaid is that the only way to do what she suggests, to put restrictions on the 1st Amendment? A few years ago, 54 Senate Democrats voted for a new constitutional amendment that would do just that.

In California, Democrats pushed a state bill that would have criminalized speech that questions the "consensus" on climate change. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee, she has discussed with her colleagues the possibility of pursuing civil actions against "climate change deniers."

Democrats have long expressed frustration, if not outright contempt, for the Constitution whenever it hinders their ability to enact some new government program. President Obama had repeatedly complained about the "messy" process the Constitution's co-equal branches created and has several times acted as though the Constitution's limits on the president's authority simply don't apply to him.

The fact that a major U.S. political party -- which still considers itself mainstream -- is now willing to specifically target amendments designed to protect Americans from tyrannical government control is alarming, to say the least. “

In closing: The first amendment, an amendment the Daily Press holds so dear, is under attack by the very political party they support. Oh, and one more thing, we are not a Democracy Daily Press, we are a Republic. How many times do we have to correct you?