We, people living in the modern age, are today baffled by the logic assumptions made by rulers of the media. We're often interested in what they have to say, even if what they are trying to say makes no sense in a real life applied. This media-enforced insanity spreads throughout the entire society, working on all levels: commercial papers on streetlamps, daily news magazines, celebrities on TV, schools and so on. Much like the ordinary human being enjoys taking in a daily amount of air, she also enjoys taking in a daily amount of media-driven opinions. Not surprisingly it often works.

Something that has become the core of any Democratic and modern thinking is the humanist view. Humanism, much like mass media, works on several levels in order to achieve its goals. First we have the basic assumption that all people are equal, a perfect way of creating a streamlined fantasy of reality. With equality you can easily detest those better than you and put them down on the same level as yourself, while you at same time may excuse the failed and horrible, letting that category reach the level you, as a rightful humanist, currently stands on. Moving on, we have the 'all races are equal'. Wow, let's stop here for a moment. All races are equal? That's right; they're all the same, so why differ them? Even, why separate them when we're all the same anyway? This, as I think most readers already know, justifies multiculturalism in the perfect way: There are no differences among any individuals, so why care if we have children together? Clearly, this has also worked fine to propagate about in the medias.

Now, knowing humanism allows much more than just equality to rise, there is a plot hole in this big illusionary thinking: How come some people are more intelligent than others, how come some are great athletes while others are poor athletes? How come some races have evolved further than others?

Over time, this has been the classic counter-argument for those who naturally oppose humanism, since the realisation that all human beings differ in some way have been made. While the humanist of denial will still preach about how a man-made morality is more worth than the five minute-look in a forest it takes to realise the truth, the 'intelligent' humanist has come up with a new argument, probably fooling most people.

It's the new kind of humanism one could say, although preaching the same core values dressed up in a suit of logic: We agree that all human beings are 'unique' and different, that we all differ in abilities for obvious reasons. BUT, while being different, we're still just as much worth. Upon first confrontation with this claim, one finds it odd, since most humanists often try denial as tactic instead.
Inhumanist: So basically we're unequal, yet equal?
'Intelligent' humanist: That's right, you are lot smarter than Adam over there, still, you two are equal worth.

Upon reflection, this can be seen-through as yet another poor tactic to convert the last brave inhumanists into ordinary pro-equal-democrats. And it is, but the problem is, it's lacking a little bit of what some call 'reality' and others call...'reality'. You see, by claiming equal unequalness, one tricks with logic in order to enforce the same old values, but with a new method. Humanists using this tactic will often admit the differences between human beings, but at the same time claim, that all the differences are equal. How clever; here is a professor in mathematics and there is a low-life-scum that just raped two teenagers in a park, but hey, their differences in abilities and moral character are WORTH THE SAME. Really, how clever...

This is insanity dressed up as moral logic. The earth is filled with oxygen for us human beings to breath, and as we all know, some is polluted and some is less polluted. Now, since both types of oxygen are still air, does this mean we should annihilate bad air instead of fresh air?

You see, the funny thing about living inside a red ball is that it's damn hard to deny the situation. Of course, you can picture it as square; you can paint it blue inside your mind, hell – even try to claim you're free, but in the end, it's still a ball and my god it's red. Same thing can easily be applied to these 'new types' of humanists: They want us to believe that everything is equal, yet, when they clearly show their fear and despise for inhumanists, they prove themselves what kind of equality they are preaching: a false and non-existant one. Go and ask an anti-racist if a racist is worth the same (and thereby equal) as a non-racist. If that doesn't trigger the button, how about introducing a more complex dilemma: Let's assume all people's opinions are equal. Now, let's say the majority of a people are against equality. Will the anti-equal group be just as worth as the pro-equal group, and will the situation itself be as equal to a situation lacking such a dilemma (in other words, is a non-equal state equal to an equal state?)? Why are we fighting for equality, if it approves of inequality?

The best way to fight moralised logical thinking is with moralised logical thinking.

Eventually, or long ago, it will go up for most aware people that humanism and such beliefs alike share common ancestor: Morality over Nature. Stressed so much, it still can be stressed a bit more, about how dangerous it is to let a mass of people believe they stand above everything – including the system in which they themselves live in. Nothing about an equal inequality makes sense, other than to justify the worse and detest the better. While bad things clearly are bad, nothing is worse than equality, as it destroys all the unique traits of nature and turns it into generic mediocrity forever.
One could even claim: Equal inequality is actually unequal equality. How logical...

As some could guess, the humanist wants the last word in this article: But if we're all unequal, then why are you afraid that people will turn equal?

And as most of us already have guessed, sanity and naturalism replies: I'm not, because at the end of the day, you will still create mediocrity, while I will be heading for the stars. With or without your moral.

February 26, 2006