Eat my egalitarianism, Blair.

Many of you have seen over the past few months, the rise of the ever-so-hateful Blair Cottrell.

This man uses a particular maxim to justify his racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia, violent tendencies and political beliefs (fascism).

He uses nature.

 “Nature does not favour equality. Equality does not exist in nature.” – Blair Cottrell, every day.

Now, in many instances, I would agree with the man. Nature does show a lot of inequality, well, in the eyes of humans, anyway. I would not, however, go as far as to use it to justify sheer hatred. But for the sake of the argument, let’s break it down.


You see, this man has used this maxim to argue that egalitarianism is unnatural. Therefore, the concepts of racism, sexism, homophobia and Islamophobia do not exist. Not only this, he uses this argument to desensitise his following into believing that makes the actions such words describe, ‘ok’.

Screen Shot 2015-07-07 at 10.08.58 pmEquality is defined as “the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.”

Throughout nature, there is a struggle to find equality. Blair argues that the universe was not made by a perfect storm of equal proportions and forces, but by a balance. I would argue that a balance, an equal balance, is no different.

We see this in many forms. Blair may only look as far as an eagle swooping its prey to declare ‘inequality’, but let’s look a little deeper.
For example, equal balance between the molecular makeup of hydrogen peroxide, or H2O2. Equal proportions of molecules of hydrogen, equal proportions of peroxide. There is also ‘imbalance’ – H2O, unequal parts hydrogen to oxygen.
It depends on the way one will look at it.

How can Blair claim equality does not exist within nature, when we do not even yet know the extent and vastness of nature, and the universe? That makes you an assuming asshole.

I am trailing that off to make a point about specific equality within nature, however. Blair uses that point, but one thing he is really talking about is social equality. So, even though he unjustly uses nature to justify his inhumane stance, I will address what he actually means.

When Blair uses nature to justify social inequality, it boils down to capability of mankind. I shall explain.

See, when using the argument of social inequality within nature to justify a point of hatred, you open up a can of worms you really shouldn’t touch. Natural equity is defined as “That which is founded in natural justice, in honesty and right, and which arises ex aequo et bono”. That which is unnatural, is not naturally just.

This raises many questions.

  • Should we favour natural equity over human capability?
  • Should Blair, for example, refuse medical attention, as it defies natural justice?
  • Should Blair deny the use of a motor vehicle, as it defies natural equity?
  • Should Blair refuse wage labor, as it defies natural equity?

If we are going to follow the idea of natural and unnatural justice, then yes, he should. But does he? No. Because it is inconvenient.

Now, when he mentions that social equality is unnatural, it also raises questions based on the motives of his own movement. Let’s assume for example, the rise of Islamic State. A force moving through areas, leaving a trail of destruction in order to gain for themselves. To bring in their own idea of power, authority, and totalitarianism.

Hang on? That happens in nature!

Meerkats, for example, will wage war for territory, killing over land and their right to such. Their motivations may be slightly different, but the social concept behind it is no different to that of ISIS. They also exhibit social hierarchy. Much like ISIS.

Much like their own (UPF) movement attempts. So, how can one man, who is against unnatural social equality, claim that ISIS and their plight is wrong? Well, he just can’t.

Blair also mentions that the struggle for equality is going to cause the regression and eventual dying out of mankind. Whilst I don’t believe that will be the cause, we all know that our time on earth is finite. Life is finite. Life will end for all. Whether it be climate change, an asteroid crashing into earth, the death of our life source – the sun, or even the eventual collapse of the universe. Using the argument that social equality will cause the demise of mankind is silly. Whilst I do agree that mankind is finite, I do not agree that social equality and the endeavour of such will play part in it.

See, social equality is known as ‘progressive’. Social equality and what it strives for has had a profound effect on the progression of mankind. Does Blair believe that if we allowed natural equity, and stopped all that which is “unnatural”, that we would be where we are today?

As cheesy as it may sound, let’s take a look at the things women have invented and discovered, whilst also reminding ourselves that only a few centuries ago, a woman would not even fathom of doing such things, as women had a ‘social purpose’

  • Computers
  • Kevlar
  • Windshield Wipers
  • The discovery of the double helix
  • Spread spectrum communications
  • Telomerase
  • Radioactive separation
  • The highlight of DDT and its dangers
  • The cure for Huntington’s disease

The list goes on. I honestly believe this list would be ever more extensive, had we dropped regressive and archaic sexist attitudes centuries ago. Sadly, most of these women who have pioneered, have only done so in recent times.

I would like to lastly bring Blair to the necessity of “natural equality” and its ramifications on society.

Riddle me this:

  • LGBTQI rights hurt nobody, and we are more than capable of allowing them. This provides happiness to so many who are discriminated, so for what reason should we deny this?
  • Women’s rights and freedoms hurt nobody, so for what reason should we restrict them and condemn women to a “socially natural” role?
  • Racism and essentialism are regressive, harmful and nasty concepts. For what reason should we allow them, when we are more than capable of ridding ourselves of them?

Humanity has the capability of progressing through social inequality, at no harm to anyone else. So, for what reason should we continue to subject those who we discriminate against, to discrimination?

Your argument of social equality being unnatural is ridiculous. Humanity has the capacity to advance, social justice and equality allows such. For what reason, other than sheer hate, do you have to hold back the world? Views like yours are the reason we aren’t more advanced today. There is no reason for us to hold back – none at all.

Egalitarianism is as much the end result as it is the process of social equality. Progression is the reason you are where you are today.

You can sit there and despise humanity, our progress, and the beauty of where we have come from to where we are today, but you will do that quietly, in private, and you will keep your hateful concepts and regressive attitudes to yourself.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s