Webster's dictionary defines equality as; 1 n., pl. - state or instance of being equal
By that definition the masses would have you believe that all humans, be they whatever race are entitled to those equal rights. Having personally defined a 'right' as that which one (or a group) has taken earnestly, then it is that there could never be "equal rights" among the different races. The negros didn't fight (willingly) by our side to defend our new found America from Britain. Neither did any of the third world immigrants that plague our shores day by day. So what right should they have in our country?
It is true that every man, woman and child on our Earth are made up of 99% (actually fractions more) the same genetic code. However it is also a proven fact that homo-sapiens and chimpanzees share 98.3% of the same genetic code. When put in perspective that less than 1% doesn't seem so insignificant does it? No. It doesn't.
There is no such thing as equality, and should it exist we shall never find it's example in these realms. There is only one set of laws that are true and unbreakable by any means. Those are the laws of nature. The laws that have proven time and time again that the strongest should and shall prevail. This is demonstrated throughout the world every day from our animal kingdom to our "justice" system. From Earths great histories to our Superior Aryan race. Fictional equality may be the format for the torturous government of our country today, but I find it extremely hard to digest that this America is what our dear forefather Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he penned the words "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal...".
If these truths were to be self evident than why didn't Jefferson free the slaves?
It lies in those two words alone that his statement did not include the equality of non-whites. For it is evident that we (whites) had to lower our standards of living (and continue to) for all of the non-whites to be included in our nation. So what is self evident by this fact of the matter is that we are not equal.
Yet still there are greater injustices that have been forged upon us in this, the age of the Equality Revolution.
Let us focus for a moment on the 'men' part of Jefferson's statement, for it stands that sexual equality is no exception. It to is painted, a pretty fiction by the liberal Jewish mass media.
Since the sexual revolution women have "escalated" to the same standard as men. However in some circumstances the standard for women had to be lowered for them to be included. For example, US Army Regulation 600-9 states that male soldiers in the age range of 21-27 years old are required to have no less than 22% body fat. For female soldiers of the same ages the requirement is only 30%. This may be an adherence to women's different chemical make up, but I ask how is that then beneficial? Another example from the same Army Regulation is that women 58 in. tall / 112 lbs can be enlisted into the Army. A man has to be 5 ft (60 in.) tall or over to be considered. The same is in-equality is present (by the same article) in that males of 72 in. tall (in the same age group) must weigh 195 lbs. Females 72 in. tall are only required to weigh 172 lbs. Is that the definition of equality? Shouldn't a woman that is going to be performing the same tasks as her brother be of the same standard?
I fully understand that some women are very capable of accomplishing some of the tasks that men are capable of and vise versa. I also understand that some women are totally incapable of some of the traditional roles of women and vise versa. However it is stated in nature that men and women are not equal. Not better or worse by any means. Just not equal. There will forever be differences, not solely in appearance, but in chemical composition, thought patterns and sexual organs (to skim just the surface) that can never be equalized. Always there will be roles that men and women can never switch. Most evidently, men will never be able to birth a child, nor will a female ever be able to fertilize an egg.
There it stands that men and women are little more than parts of a whole. The two parts alone, though they may act and exist apart, will never prosper or carry on without each other. Males and females together form the most perfect unification in the universe. The unity that creates life. The unity that creates true love. For any future this unity must be made. None of the world could survive without this beautiful union. Without these differences all of man kind would cease to exist.
My question now is, where did we so suddenly come up with this idea of sexual equality? After so many hundreds and thousands of years of women having their own specific roles and duties at which their capability exceeds that of a man, did some woman somewhere jump up and say "STOP EVERYTHING! This is wrong!".
Just to reiterate, there are instances out of the norm in every circumstance in life. Some women may be / are better than some men at some of the traditional duties of men and some men better than some women at some women's traditional duties. But basis for civilization does not render to these few instances. It has and will stand in the truest laws of nature that we are merely parts. Dependent upon each other for perpetual survival.
Lets face it fellas, we live in the twenty-first century and women won the right to vote almost 100 years ago (1920). Women are not going to loose that "right" or be sent into exile 'in the kitchen bare-foot and pregnant'. Women have made great contributions to the government, economy and general way of life in our country since 1920 (and well before). But when these women went out into the workforce and started having to pay attention to politics and all the things that came with the responsibility of equal rights of men, who was there to pick up the roles that they were now in some way, however insignificant, neglecting?
When Sarah went to John in the late 1920's and said she wanted to go out and get a job, did John say, "Ok honey. I'll quit my job and stay home take care of the kids and cook dinner."
~If you answered yes to this question you might be a retard~ :)
No John certainly did not say any such thing. If John even gave his wife *permission to get a job, he most certainly did not offer to stay at home with the children.
(*Yes I said permission. Until fairly recent years it was customary at Catholic and Protestant weddings for the grooms vows to include to "love and honor" his wife, while the brides vows were to love honor and obey her husband.)
