What’s Wrong With ‘Equality’?




“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
Redstockings, 1969

“Woman’s biology oppresses her only when she relates to men. The basis of the inequality of the sexes here is seen as the inequality inherent in heterosexual intercourse as a result of sex-specific anatomy. To transcend or avoid this in personal life by having sexual relations only with women — lesbianism — eliminates the gender-based underpin­nings of sexual inequality in this view. . . . Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality(2010)

“By demonizing males and stigmatizing heterosexuality . . . feminism seeks to createequality, but what it actually creates isdecadence and chaos.”
Robert Stacy McCain, “Feminism: Death Cult Chaos,” Dec. 30, 2015

One of the fundamental principles of logic is that you cannot reach a true conclusion if your argument is based on a false premise. Feminists have been proving this for nearly 50 years.

It should have been obvious from the moment the Women’s Liberation Movement emerged in the late 1960s that feminists would ultimately fail to bring about the “equality” they promised, and that this radical movement would inflict enormous damage to American society. Here we are, decades later, and young feminists who were not even born when this movement began are vehemently insisting that they are victims of an “oppression” for which “all men” are to blame. What feminists now demand — as a bare minimum, sine qua non — is that Hillary Rodham Clinton (Wellesley College, Class of 1969; Yale Law School, Class of 1973) be elected President of the United States, and feminists will condemn everyone who opposes Hillary’s election as a misogynist.

The Bernie Sanders campaign is a token resistance to the foregone conclusion of the Clinton nomination, and it does not matter who the Republican Party nominates as its candidate. In 2016, feminists will attempt to convince the electorate that the only people who will vote Republican on Nov. 8 are those who hate women. Anticipating this attack (it has been evident for many months now) it is necessary for conservatives to understand what feminism actually means, so that they can explain to the American people why “equality” is wrong.

This requires an argument that is as difficult to make in 21st-century America as it was in 18th-century France. Long before the outbreak of theReign of Terror during the French Revolution, Edmund Burke foresaw the danger inherent in the premise of the radical rhetoric of “equality.” That the revolution ended in the establishment of a military dictatorship under Napoleon should suffice to prove that Burke’s warnings were prophetic. Furthermore, as must be obvious to any student of history, the radicalism of Jacobin France was the inspiration of Marxist socialism, which in turn inspired the Bolshevik Revolution, which led to the dictatorship of Josef Stalin. Over and over, we see the same lesson repeated: Radicals promise “equality,” and the end result is tyranny. Only a fool would expect feminism to deviate from this precedent, and what we see on university campuses today — where opposition to feminism is effectively prohibited — is a foreshadowing of what we might expect under the regime of President Hillary Clinton.

Explaining what is wrong with the politics of “equality” is never easy. Everyone can think of some unfairness they have experienced in life, and it is easy to accept “equality” as a synonym for fairness, which is why a political rhetoric that promises “equality” has such an enduring popular appeal. It takes a lot more thought, and a consideration of consequences that are not apparent in the superficial discourse of campaign slogans, to realize that (a) measures intended to create “equality” are generally both harmful to society and expensive to taxpayers, and (b) “equality” itself is ultimately an impossible goal. Of course, if you are willing to run up a national debt of nearly $19 trillion, the expense of “equality” may be something taxpayers can ignore. However, as Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, and not even the wealthiest nation on Earth can forever postpone paying its debts. Perhaps there are those who would justify such reckless spending in the name of “equality,” yet we are told that the gap between the rich and poor keeps growing, despite the many trillions of dollars that have been spent to help the poor since Lyndon Johnson inaugurated his “War on Poverty” policy in the 1960s. When you listen to Democrats talk, it seems as if they have forgotten what Ronald Reagan said in his 1988 State of the Union address:


My friends, some years ago, the Federal Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won. Today the Federal Government has 59 major welfare programs and spends more than $100 billion a year on them. What has all this money done? Well, too often it has only made poverty harder to escape. Federal welfare programs have created a massive social problem. With the best of intentions, government created a poverty trap that wreaks havoc on the very support system the poor need most to lift themselves out of poverty: the family. Dependency has become the one enduring heirloom, passed from one generation to the next, of too many fragmented families.


By attempting to make government a substitute for the family, liberal anti-poverty programs “created a massive social problem” that Democrats are now evidently determined to make even worse.

The Democrat Party is committed to feminism, and feminism is committed to the destruction of the family. Feminists have spent decades denouncing marriage and motherhood as “patriarchal structures” by which “all men have oppressed women.” What is their motive?

The feminist myth that their movement is about rectifying an unjust inequality is exposed as a self-serving lie once you begin examining the biographies of the leading proponents of feminist ideology. Catharine MacKinnon, for example, is the daughter of a Republican congressman and judge; her family’s wealth enabled her to attend elite schools (Smith College and Yale University) and to spend 18 years writing her grand opus, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. It is astonishing to read, in the preface of her 1989 book (p. xiv), that the first chapter “was written in 1971-72, revised in 1975, and published in Signs in 1982.” Only an extraordinary sort of financial security can explain how a writer could be able to wait a full decade between writing the first draft of an essay and its initial publication. During the intervening years, MacKinnon publishedThe Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979) just two years after graduating from Yale Law School. This Marxist daughter of a Republican father was able to make herself an “expert” on the problems of “working women” precisely because she never had to work a day in her life.

The secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money. It was her remarkable socioeconomic privilege that was the basis of MacKinnon’s lifelong assault on “male supremacy,” and we see a similar pattern in the lives of many other feminists. Consider this statement:

“We are angry because we are oppressed by male supremacy. We have been f–ked over all our lives by a system which is based on the domination of men over women, which defines male as good and female as only as good as the man you are with. It is a system in which heterosexuality is rigidly enforced and Lesbianism rigidly suppressed.”

So wrote Ginny Berson in the 1972 cover story of the first issue of The Furies, the lesbian-feminist newspaper published by a radical Washington, D.C.-based collective founded by Charlotte Bunch. Both of these women were the beneficiaries of elite education. Charlotte Bunch graduated from Duke University in 1966, and Ginny Berson graduated in 1967 from Mount Holyoke College, one of the prestigious “Seven Sisters,”the all-women’s colleges that were analogous to the Ivy League, back when elite schools like Harvard, Yale and Columbia were all-male. Annual tuition for the 2015-2016 academic year is $49,341 at Duke and $43,886 at Mount Holyoke, so the claim that privileged women like Charlotte Bunch and Ginny Berson were “oppressed” and “f–ked over” by “male supremacy” was as manifestly absurd in 1972 as it is today.


Feminism is a movement led by privileged women who seek to gain money and power for themselves by advocating an ideology which aims to destroy the family as the basis of society. The consequences of such a movement’s success will not be “equality,” but rather the destruction of all hope for happiness for many millions of American women who do not have the advantages of wealth, social privilege and elite education that feminists like Hillary Clinton take for granted. As Burke said of the French Revolution, feminists “therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things,” and anyone who thinks that President Hillary Clinton will do anything else is in for a rude awakening.

Will America drink the Kool-Aid of “equality”?

What Trudeau’s senior Parliamentary Secretary thinks of Hezbollah?



Canada’s Liberal government, lead by Jean Chrétien, designated in December 2002 Hizballah (a.k.a. Hezbollah and the Islamic Resistance) as a terrorist organization.

The decision which appeared on Canada Gazette on December 13, 2002 amended the declared list of terrorist organization by replacing the name of “Hizballah External Security Organization” with “Hizballah”:

“The Regulations remove the name of one entity, “Hizballah External Security Organization” (the “HESO”) in the schedule to the United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations and replace it by the name “Hizballah” (the organisation as a whole). This change has been made on the basis of the close connection between the organisation as a whole and the HESO, and the recent statement by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, encouraging suicide bombings. There are reasonable grounds to believe the Hizballah organisation as a whole is involved in or associated with terrorist activities.

The Ministry of Public Safety provides an updated information background on Hezbollah:

One of the most technically capable terrorist groups in the world, Hizballah is a radical Shia group ideologically inspired by the Iranian revolution.

“Its goals are the liberation of Jerusalem, the destruction of Israel, and, ultimately, the establishment of a revolutionary Shia Islamic state in Lebanon, modelled after Iran.

“Formed in 1982 in response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Hizballah carried out some of the most infamous terror attacks of the Lebanese civil war, such as the suicide bombings of the barracks of United States Marines and French paratroopers in Beirut, as well as the hijacking of TWA Flight 847.

“While all other Lebanese militias disarmed at the end of Lebanon’s civil war in 1990, Hizballah continued to fight, waging a guerilla war against Israeli troops stationed in southern Lebanon.

“Following Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Hizballah attacks against Israeli forces continued, concentrated on the disputed Shebaa Farms area. In 2006, Hizballah provoked Israel’s invasion of Lebanon by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and killing eight others.”

During the war in summer 2006 between Israel and Hezbollah, which as aforesaid was included 4 years earlier in Canada’s black list of terrorist organizations, Then Liberal MP, Omar Alghabra, and today the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), called on the Conservative federal government to espouse a “neutral approach towards the conflict and to call for an immediate ceasefire followed by bringing all sides, implicitly including Hezbollah, to the negotiating table.

The following is an excerpt of Omar Alghabra’s statement  during the debate in Parliament on August 1, 2006:

“…What I’m hearing from the Conservatives today is quite interesting. They’re mischaracterizing the conflict right now as if it’s between Hezbollah and Israel, as if they have picked an empty corner on this planet and started bombing each other, neglecting the hundreds and thousands of civilians who are killed, maimed, or displaced.

“The government claims to have the moral courage to condemn targeting civilians. Well, the opposition parties have agreed with them in condemning the acts of Hezbollah that target civilians. But we also have the moral courage to condemn any acts of violence committed by Israel against civilians, and we expect the government, which claims to have moral courage, to speak up on behalf of civilians and civilian infrastructure.

“Mr. Van Loan has said he knows what is right and what is wrong when he sees it. They talk about how sympathetic they are to the civilians who are being killed and displaced, but they’re reluctant to call for a ceasefire. What does that mean? They’re condoning the ongoing conflict. They’re condoning the ongoing violence, and that is reprehensible and regrettable.

Canadians expect their government not to be neutral, as you said, Mr. Van Loan, but to be fair and to condemn violence against civilians by all parties. The best way to do it is by calling for an immediate ceasefire, not talk about it as an abstraction. It’s not an abstraction to the civilians, including Canadians who are caught up in the crossfire over there. It’s not a philosophical debate; it’s a real tragedy, where Canadians and other civilians are being subjected to ongoing violence on both sides, in Israel and in Lebanon, and also we can’t forget the Palestinian territories.

We must have the moral courage to ask for a ceasefire immediately and then bring all the sides to which you’re referring to the negotiating table.

“We can set the conditions that are needed to make a sustainable ceasefire. But for anybody who has an ounce of heart, you cannot watch the civilian devastation and destruction and say you’re reluctant to ask for a ceasefire right now. I don’t care how much difference that call can make; it is imperative to send a message, a signal, that Canada unconditionally always stands on the side of the protection of civilians on all sides.

“We want to condemn the acts of Hezbollah that target civilians–we’ll all agree with you–but we also must protect the civilians in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories by standing up for their rights and human rights. I don’t know how anybody can hide behind human rights and international law by saying let the fire continue.

“So I call upon the government…and this is the Conservative Party, by the way, that is raising funds on the back of this tragedy, that is raising funds on the back of a tragedy that civilians on all sides are suffering from. Nobody is benefiting from this except the Conservatives who want to raise money from it. I urge the government to reconsider and call for an immediate ceasefire and work with all responsible parties. We’re not just the friend of Israel, we’re not just the friend of Lebanon; we’re the friend of peace and prosperity and human rights.”

Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aqsa Brigades should not be designated as terrorist organizations

On September 17, 2004, Omar Alghabra, then (2004-5) the President of the Canadian Arab Federation, slammed the “biased reporting” approach espoused by CanWest. As a glaring example to the “biased approach” the statement noted that CanWest described al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades a “terrorist” organization.

CanWest, one of the largest media conglomerates in Canada, is failing its responsibility towards all Canadians, not just Arabs and Muslims,” said Omar Alghabra, CAF president. “The media has moral and ethical obligations to report the facts when it comes to news reporting, not the opinions of their editors.”

Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade (AAMB) was designated in 2003 by Canada as a terrorist organization and its status was reaffirmed in November 2014.

According to Public Safety Canada, “The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade (AAMB) emerged at the outset of the 2000 Palestinian al-Aqsa intifada and consists of loose cells of Palestinian militants loyal to, but not under the direct control of, the secular-nationalist Fatah party. The AAMB attacks Israeli military targets and Israeli settlers, aiming to expel Israeli presence from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and to establish an independent and sovereign Palestinian state there. The AAMB has conducted armed, suicide and rocket attacks to achieve its objectives.”

The “social” network of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad is legitimate and should be financially supported by Canadians

Two years earlier, the Canadian Arab Federation called on the federal government not to designate Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad as terrorist organizations. The following are excerpts of the CAF’s press release in this regard issued on December 9, 2012:

The Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) called on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General to proceed with extreme caution on the matter of adding to the Canadian list of terrorist organizations.

In letters to Bill Graham and Wayne Easter, CAF urged the ministers to assess genuine and credible security concerns, rather than political motivations, before adding organizations to the list.

CAF explained that it views Hezbollah as a legitimate Lebanese political party, in that it has representation in the country’s parliament and an extensive network of badly needed social service programs.

CAF implored the ministers not to succumb to political pressure, and to use only the rule of law and substantiated evidence in determining the status of Hezbollah in Canada.

With respect to the recent addition of Hamas and Islamic Jehad [Jihad] to the list of terrorist organizations, CAF indicated that these two organizations were borne out of 35 years of violent occupation of Palestine.

The listing of these organizations does not recognize the reality of the occupation and the context within which the violence is taking place,” the letters said. “The Canadian government as such has censured one form of violence while remaining silent on another – hardly an even-handed approach.”

CAF also pointed out that the listings will severely curb legitimate fundraising for charitable and humanitarian causes, and might affect the remittances from Palestinian Canadians that many families in the impoverished West Bank and Gaza have come to depend on.

Provisions need to be made to avoid worsening the already appalling humanitarian situation in Palestine by the application of the terrorist label to these two organizations, CAF stated.