Theology of History
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Egalitarianism - II
Avoiding the False Anti-Egalitarianism
The first thing I would like to draw attention to is the false anti-egalitarian apologetics, or false egalitarian apologetics. For example, let us suppose a discussion about one topic raised by egalitarianism: Whether there should be a King or a President of the Republic.
There are people who discuss this for hours, in the following terms:
“There must be a king because the king governs for his entire life.
“But if the king is bad, he can abuse that power his whole life and bring the State to its knees.”
“Well, it so happens that the king is hardly ever bad because he is educated for the position.”
“But if a dynasty is poorly prepared and educated, this can go on for several generations and lead to an irremediable disaster."
“But people can also be bad, and thus they can elect a succession of terrible presidents and also lead the country to ruin."
“But a terrible succession of terrible presidents is less bad than an entire generation of terrible monarchs, and lasts for less time.”
“If the royal family is decadent, its longevity is short and the reigns will be of short duration, as in the case of the Valois. Thus there is not such a great danger, etc."
And so they discuss the topic for hours, without any result. Starting from theory, they then go on to the facts:
“See how good Pedro II’s reign (in Brazil 1831-1889) was.”
The other will respond: “But imagine if Pedro I had reigned so long!”
“But it is not as bad as the succession of presidents we have had, etc.”
When this is over, they move on to the statistics:
“During the Empire, Brazil had the second largest merchant navy in the world. After the Republic, this ended.”
“During the Empire, sugar from the Northeast yielded much greater profits than it did later during the Republic.”
“Yes, but after beet sugar was discovered in Germany, cane sugar declined. So this does not necessarily prove that the Empire was good and the Republic was bad…”
Each side clings to its arguments and will not budge. And that is how the battle for and against equality is fought.
A false charity: the inferior should not suffer
The question of aristocracy is resolved in the same way.
Then they move on to smaller matters, such as whether or not men's attitudes should be egalitarian. With this the question of kindness arises.
The argument is this: Everyone who has a superior over him suffers because he is not not equal to that superior. So then, if I am intelligent and I have someone more intelligent over me, I suffer because I am not as intelligent as he. But if I have someone less intelligent over me, he suffers because he is not as smart as I am.
And so there is a constant suffering. I see someone with more, I suffer; I see someone with less, I am distressed. Thus the law of charity consists in everyone disguising his intelligence, so that the less intelligent do not suffer and peace is established.
As for education, the same thing happens. I am very educated, but I suffer when I see someone who is better educated than me, but I also have my revenge when I see someone who is less well educated.
There was someone who described French society before the Revolution as a cascade of contempt for those below them. It started from the top: The king had contempt for the royal family. The royal family responded by despising the high nobility. The latter responded by despising the middle class, and so on. Thus life was a series of despisals.
You see that at the bottom of all this is the people. So, for the people to not suffer charity would consist in disguising one’s education. In this way, the answer is to hide or diminish one’s qualities, to level them. Thus, we have the employer who treats his employee with vulgarity, the teacher who treats his student with vulgarity, the father who treats his children with vulgarity. All of them are good men because they do not make others suffer.
An irrational discussion
This whole problem is one that has no escape. The supporter of “goodness” is an eminently irrational person. You cannot argue with him because he is irrational in every sense of the word. He has formed a emotional conception of goodness that arises from his hypersensitive and inflamed nerves. It is impossible to budge him. It is like trying to persuade a person who is emotionally in favor of the death penalty that the death penalty is legitimate. He takes a passionate position filled with illogical arguments.
If, then, we want to position ourselves well in the matter of equality and inequality, our first concern must be to avoid these collateral fields where the battle can only be fought with a tremendous exhaustion of forces, for an indefinite time and without any benefit. It is not a battle in which one person convinces another.
Let us, then, try to place the question in different terms.
A universal Revolution fueled by Egalitarianism
The true formulation of the problem of egalitarianism is the “Revolution”
When I try to demonstrate the central point of the thesis with people, I encounter great difficulty. I think we should begin by showing the following positive fact: In countries of Western culture, and in countries of Eastern culture where the breath of Western culture has entered – which is practically the entire world – this world is being is swept away by a whirlwind of an egalitarian character.
1 – A transformation of an entire order of things
This is not an armed revolution, although sometimes this process is carried out with arms, but not necessarily so. It is a revolution in the broad sense of the word, that is, a transformation of an entire order of things, in absolutely every field of life, as a consequence of an internal transformation in man, a transformation in the human spirit.
The human spirit is undergoing a transformation that is a revolution because human values are being turned upside down. It is a revolution because order is being replaced by disorder. This transformation that is taking place inside the human soul in all men in the cycle of culture of our epoch is the gradual, progressive transformation that we must call egalitarianism.
2 – The Revolution is one
There is, therefore, an egalitarian revolution throughout the world, which is one.
But in what sense is it one? It is one throughout the world. There is no Burmese egalitarianism that is different from the Swiss or Brazilian egalitarianism. It is the one same egalitarianism that also forms a single body with the Russian egalitarianism.
Russia is not the opposite of democracy [understood here in the sense condemned by St. Pius X in his Letter Notre Charge Apostolique in which he pointed out the error of the Le Sillon French movement which proclaimed that only democracy could inaugurate the kingdom of perfect justice.] Rather, it is precisely the most deeply rooted part of democracy. If the rest of the world is pink, Russia is red. But Russia is part of the single bloc that is this egalitarian revolution, even though it is the most evolved part of the process.
So, there is a unity in the egalitarian revolution that encompasses every sphere of human life. No field of human life is exempt from this revolutionary whirlwind.
3 – It is a universal Revolution
Also there is a unity of cause: As noted, all men in society, receiving the influences of the same ideas and being moved by the same appetites, are being driven toward the same end. All the elements exist, therefore, that attest to a unity in the revolution.
In contrast, let us look at the revolutions in Latin America of 30 or 40 years ago. A newspaper headline would read: “Revolution in Venezuela; President X deposed.” A few days later: “Revolution in Paraguay, so-and-so reinstated.” A few days later: “Revolution in Brazil; the squadron revolted, no shots fired, but the situation is hot.”
Could these revolutions be considered as revolutions of the same character? No, they were very particular revolutions, aiming at ends specific to a particular place. There is not an interaction among them. The egalitarian revolution is different. In it has a unity of aim.
I repeat, we are facing a universal revolution. One, because it encompasses the entire world and all fields of human activity. Two, because of its cause, which is all men in society are receiving influences, interacting, and being driven by a single cause, which is the conspiracy to establish equality in the world.
The Revolution exists
The first thing we must do is prove that this revolution exists.
What is the strategic interest in proving the existence of this revolution when we are discussing it with a person who is not of our orientation?
The point is this: The great majority of egalitarian spirits have a kind of confused sympathy for equality, a vague sympathy that is not grounded on any argument. They have a certain antipathy to the inequality they see, but in general they do not want to arrive at complete equality. On the contrary, they still have enough common sense to understand that complete equality is an aberration.
Thus, if it is proved to them that we are moving toward complete equality, and that in every small incident of equality and inequality we must see a part of the great plan for complete egalitarian-ization, and that every little question of equality and inequality transcends its own sphere to raise the great question of whether or not there should be equality in the world, then we have legions of people who are capable of crystallizing on our side.
So, the grand argument, the great way of establishing our position, consists in giving evidence for this thesis. It is the best way to produce crystallizations of minds.
It should be considered that in our society the fight for egalitarianism is taking place through numerous small changes that we observe daily. The best way to make our argument is to know how to demonstrate that the origin of evil is in this movement and to show how it takes place in practice.
We should realize that this is the core of the problem and that if we can prove this, the problem can be resolved. The existence of this egalitarianism that is growing throughout the world is easily proved.
Today, I will stop here. I have indicated the problems to be avoided in studying the egalitarian issue; I have pointed out the core of the problem and shown the importance of addressing this central problem.
To be continued
There are people who discuss this for hours, in the following terms:
King or President: US President Woodrow Wilson vs. Britain’s King George III
“But if the king is bad, he can abuse that power his whole life and bring the State to its knees.”
“Well, it so happens that the king is hardly ever bad because he is educated for the position.”
“But if a dynasty is poorly prepared and educated, this can go on for several generations and lead to an irremediable disaster."
“But people can also be bad, and thus they can elect a succession of terrible presidents and also lead the country to ruin."
“But a terrible succession of terrible presidents is less bad than an entire generation of terrible monarchs, and lasts for less time.”
“If the royal family is decadent, its longevity is short and the reigns will be of short duration, as in the case of the Valois. Thus there is not such a great danger, etc."
And so they discuss the topic for hours, without any result. Starting from theory, they then go on to the facts:
“See how good Pedro II’s reign (in Brazil 1831-1889) was.”
The popular Emperor Pedro II, nicknamed ‘the Magnanimous’
“But it is not as bad as the succession of presidents we have had, etc.”
When this is over, they move on to the statistics:
“During the Empire, Brazil had the second largest merchant navy in the world. After the Republic, this ended.”
“During the Empire, sugar from the Northeast yielded much greater profits than it did later during the Republic.”
“Yes, but after beet sugar was discovered in Germany, cane sugar declined. So this does not necessarily prove that the Empire was good and the Republic was bad…”
Each side clings to its arguments and will not budge. And that is how the battle for and against equality is fought.
A false charity: the inferior should not suffer
The question of aristocracy is resolved in the same way.
Then they move on to smaller matters, such as whether or not men's attitudes should be egalitarian. With this the question of kindness arises.
It is unbearable to have to see persons with more education, wealth, etc.
And so there is a constant suffering. I see someone with more, I suffer; I see someone with less, I am distressed. Thus the law of charity consists in everyone disguising his intelligence, so that the less intelligent do not suffer and peace is established.
As for education, the same thing happens. I am very educated, but I suffer when I see someone who is better educated than me, but I also have my revenge when I see someone who is less well educated.
There was someone who described French society before the Revolution as a cascade of contempt for those below them. It started from the top: The king had contempt for the royal family. The royal family responded by despising the high nobility. The latter responded by despising the middle class, and so on. Thus life was a series of despisals.
You see that at the bottom of all this is the people. So, for the people to not suffer charity would consist in disguising one’s education. In this way, the answer is to hide or diminish one’s qualities, to level them. Thus, we have the employer who treats his employee with vulgarity, the teacher who treats his student with vulgarity, the father who treats his children with vulgarity. All of them are good men because they do not make others suffer.
An irrational discussion
This whole problem is one that has no escape. The supporter of “goodness” is an eminently irrational person. You cannot argue with him because he is irrational in every sense of the word. He has formed a emotional conception of goodness that arises from his hypersensitive and inflamed nerves. It is impossible to budge him. It is like trying to persuade a person who is emotionally in favor of the death penalty that the death penalty is legitimate. He takes a passionate position filled with illogical arguments.
If, then, we want to position ourselves well in the matter of equality and inequality, our first concern must be to avoid these collateral fields where the battle can only be fought with a tremendous exhaustion of forces, for an indefinite time and without any benefit. It is not a battle in which one person convinces another.
Let us, then, try to place the question in different terms.
A universal Revolution fueled by Egalitarianism
The true formulation of the problem of egalitarianism is the “Revolution”
When I try to demonstrate the central point of the thesis with people, I encounter great difficulty. I think we should begin by showing the following positive fact: In countries of Western culture, and in countries of Eastern culture where the breath of Western culture has entered – which is practically the entire world – this world is being is swept away by a whirlwind of an egalitarian character.
1 – A transformation of an entire order of things
This is not an armed revolution, although sometimes this process is carried out with arms, but not necessarily so. It is a revolution in the broad sense of the word, that is, a transformation of an entire order of things, in absolutely every field of life, as a consequence of an internal transformation in man, a transformation in the human spirit.
The Revolution is one: people in Myanmar, above, look the same as those in the U.S., below
... no difference in Russia, below
2 – The Revolution is one
There is, therefore, an egalitarian revolution throughout the world, which is one.
But in what sense is it one? It is one throughout the world. There is no Burmese egalitarianism that is different from the Swiss or Brazilian egalitarianism. It is the one same egalitarianism that also forms a single body with the Russian egalitarianism.
Russia is not the opposite of democracy [understood here in the sense condemned by St. Pius X in his Letter Notre Charge Apostolique in which he pointed out the error of the Le Sillon French movement which proclaimed that only democracy could inaugurate the kingdom of perfect justice.] Rather, it is precisely the most deeply rooted part of democracy. If the rest of the world is pink, Russia is red. But Russia is part of the single bloc that is this egalitarian revolution, even though it is the most evolved part of the process.
So, there is a unity in the egalitarian revolution that encompasses every sphere of human life. No field of human life is exempt from this revolutionary whirlwind.
3 – It is a universal Revolution
Also there is a unity of cause: As noted, all men in society, receiving the influences of the same ideas and being moved by the same appetites, are being driven toward the same end. All the elements exist, therefore, that attest to a unity in the revolution.
The revolution is universal: students protesting in Mexico, above, in Brazil, below...
... & Switzerland, below
Could these revolutions be considered as revolutions of the same character? No, they were very particular revolutions, aiming at ends specific to a particular place. There is not an interaction among them. The egalitarian revolution is different. In it has a unity of aim.
I repeat, we are facing a universal revolution. One, because it encompasses the entire world and all fields of human activity. Two, because of its cause, which is all men in society are receiving influences, interacting, and being driven by a single cause, which is the conspiracy to establish equality in the world.
The Revolution exists
The first thing we must do is prove that this revolution exists.
What is the strategic interest in proving the existence of this revolution when we are discussing it with a person who is not of our orientation?
The point is this: The great majority of egalitarian spirits have a kind of confused sympathy for equality, a vague sympathy that is not grounded on any argument. They have a certain antipathy to the inequality they see, but in general they do not want to arrive at complete equality. On the contrary, they still have enough common sense to understand that complete equality is an aberration.
Thus, if it is proved to them that we are moving toward complete equality, and that in every small incident of equality and inequality we must see a part of the great plan for complete egalitarian-ization, and that every little question of equality and inequality transcends its own sphere to raise the great question of whether or not there should be equality in the world, then we have legions of people who are capable of crystallizing on our side.
So, the grand argument, the great way of establishing our position, consists in giving evidence for this thesis. It is the best way to produce crystallizations of minds.
Anarchism calls for complete equality; most will still reject that much radicality.
We should realize that this is the core of the problem and that if we can prove this, the problem can be resolved. The existence of this egalitarianism that is growing throughout the world is easily proved.
Today, I will stop here. I have indicated the problems to be avoided in studying the egalitarian issue; I have pointed out the core of the problem and shown the importance of addressing this central problem.
To be continued
Posted October 3, 2025
______________________
______________________
 |
 |
 |