Egalitarianism and the Slippery Slope

Leftists don't believe in any form of natural hierarchy or irreducible human difference. They reject the very concept of unequal outcomes based on the inherent differentiation that exists in reality between individuals and groups. Hence Marx wrote:

[I]n communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

The father of communism just couldn't cope with the idea that people are unequal, that some are more suited to being a fisherman than an critic (i.e. philosopher), and vice-versa.

Today's left has largely forgotten about the economic basis of Marxism and its doctrine of class struggle, but where their thinking is identical with their precursors is in its denial of difference and rejection of hierarchy. When they realised that working class white men were not interested in their revolutionary fantasies, the left's drive to destroy Western civilisation found new rationales in terms of a plethora of "intersectional" anti-white, anti-male, anti-family ideologies, all of which are based on the same lie of equality.

The only hierarchy they acknowledge as just is that of victimhood, with black disabled transfolk at the top, white women at the bottom—and white, heterosexual men set apart as the necessary scapegoat for the existence of inequality.

Leftists' progressivism derives from the simple fact that their utopia is so far removed from anything in human experience, actual or possible. They will never be satisfied no matter how hard conservatives cuck and cave to their inexorable egalitarian logic, simply because their wishes can never be fulfilled.

What we must realise today is that communism continues to rack up real, as opposed to imaginary, victims in addition to the 100 million people it put in mass graves in the 20th Century.

Our children are already among them, but things look like getting a lot worse in the near future.

Where to After Trannies?

We have seen how the logic of sexual liberation, feminism and gay liberation has led to a comprehensive program of undoing sexual identity, starting in early childhood. This is now on the curriculum in all Australian schools.

It is less well-known that paedophilia and high-falutin ideological justifications for it have always been on the agenda. In fact, they used to be front and centre until a more cautious, tactical approach won out among gay liberationists.

Well, kind of...

For example, one of the founders of Safe Schools advocates paedophilia from his tenured academic position, where he remains comfortably ensconced.

Three Recent Harbingers

In recent news cycles, I am aware of three major stories that gave rise to official narratives for which current age of consent laws are a sticking point for the left wing narrative. What each case has in common is the way in which sexual violation of an innocent and inherently subordinate party is excused by a tacit appeal to equality.

1. Telford: Police report said girls consented to be trafficked

Breitbart reports:

Police officers investigating the Telford grooming gang scandal, possibly the largest in UK history, were sent an internal memo telling them “in most cases the sex is consensual.

The initial police probe, Operation Chalice, identified at least 100 potential victims in Telford targeted between 2007 and 2009. However, fewer than ten men were jailed despite the police admitting as many as 200 groomers may be involved.

West Mercia Police sent the memo the year after Chalice was closed, to officers investigating on-going child sexual exploitation in the force area, The Mirror reports. Officers also considered some of the young victims as prostitutes.

What happens, once the radical egalitarian premise is established, is that an inverted hierarchy based not on natural differences but on a priori victimhood status is established place of the former. In another context, being female and a child would trump being an adult male, but in the calculus of oppression values, being brown-skinned bestows privilege of another order of magnitude.

Since the oppression-hierarchy is the only one admitted as valid by the left, it must negate the non-exploitative hierarchical relationship between adults and children that can be assumed to exist within a traditional, high-trust community like those that used characterise British society.

Of course, these Moslem invaders cannot be expected to take any but an exploitative and hostile interest in young white girls thrown at their feet by the country's contemptuous elite.

In the leftist mind, a dilemma plays out with a predictable outcome. Either the parties are equal and consent can be assumed, or one is oppressing the other. If the latter is true, no investigation into the facts is necessary: all you need is a colour chart.

2. Aboriginal STDs: Don't worry, it's all between consenting children

In response to a report by The Australian, Fairfax recently published a "nothing to see here" piece on astronomical rates of STDs among Aboriginal children, including a 6000% higher rate of syhillis. They interviewed several leftist and aboriginal academics who discounted offhand any possibility that child abuse might be involved.

Olga Havnen, chief executive of Danila Dilba Aboriginal Health Service, which provides care to about 80 per cent of greater Darwin's Indigenous population, said STI rates among young Indigenous people were "deeply concerning" but the vast majority were contracted "through consensual sexual relations".

Now, in the civilised world we have something called the age of consent. Yes, it is a legal fiction, but a necessary one. At some ill-defined point, a child becomes a young adult and able to take serious decisions, such as whether to consent to sexual activity. Discard this concept, and we discard that of childhood innocence, and any intention of protecting it.

Astonishingly, this denial comes less than a month after the rape of a two year old girl in Tenant Creek made national news, with no mention of the case or others like it mentioned in the report.

Just as it must never be admitted that Moslems in the UK are any different to locals, so it must never be admitted that Aboriginals are any different to other groups here. To maintain this fiction, it is maintained in both cases that the victims are autonomous sexual adventurers, regardless of age and vulnerability—just as leftist ideology would have them in any case.

3. Huffpo celebrates man-dolphin sex

The Huffington Post recently published an interview with a man who admits to having had sex with a dolphin. The way he rationalises his perversion is, essentially, to claim first that the act was consensual, and second that our revulsion towards it is a result of unreasoning prejudice.

Sounding like a paedophile, he claims that Dolly the dolphin not only consented, but in fact that it was she who "seduced" him. He then further rationalises:

150 years ago, black people were considered a degenerate sub-species of the human being. ... And I’m hoping that in a more enlightened future, zoophilia will be no more regarded as controversial or harmful than interracial sex is today.

So many Juliets and Romeos.

He thus appeals to the narrative of endless progress towards a continuously receding horizon of perfect equality, implying that our revulsion at his act is based on a devaluation of his victim. It is because we falsely assume that animals are not our equals that we object to copulating with them.

Interestingly, he also credits his own childhood sexual abuse (perpetrated by a prominent, card-carrying cultural Marxist!) with warping his sexuality towards zoophilia. Now, if he favours normalising the admitted consequences of child sexual abuse, what conclusion must be drawn—especially as his logic can just as well be used to defend paedophilia.


The leftist obsession with promoting sexual degeneracy is based, ideologically speaking, on the essential premise of radical equality. Most left wing groups do not yet openly advocate for paedophilia and the abolition of age of consent laws, but give them time. Denial of all morally relevant human differences (except those allegedly "constructed" by white male heterosexuals to oppress everyone else) is their core belief. Remove it, and they have nothing left but sheer hatred of all that is normal, healthy and good.

That hatred is no doubt a potent factor in itself; in fact, we might think of it as the fuel that powers the vehicle of their ideology. Whether and when paedophiles get a "P" in the ever-expanding LGBT initialism depends on the octane rating of normal people's instincts in an increasingly decadent society.

We must put nothing past them, and never assume that they will stop at any point on the slippery slope to complete moral insanity.

They're growing impatient for their moment.