Sometimes I run across something so bizarre that — especially these days, as the left-wingers devolve into full-blown psychosis — it’s hard to tell if it’s real or satire. I accidentally found one this morning. It’s published on the San Francisco Chronicle, so that’s one indicator that it’s insane but real. If it ran in the Babylon Bee, I’d have taken it for brilliant satire.
Opinion: Want true equity? California should force parents to give away their children
Fathers and mothers with greater wealth, education or other resources are more likely to transfer these advantages to their children, compounding privilege over generations. As a result, children of less advantaged parents face an uphill struggle, social mobility has stalled and democracy has been corrupted.
He works through it incrementally.
The rich should give their children to the poor, and the poor should give their children to the rich. Homeowners might swap children with their homeless neighbors.
In his “Republic,” Plato adopted Socrates’ sage advice — that children “be possessed in common, so that no parent will know his own offspring or any child his parents” — in order to defeat nepotism, prevent the amassing of great fortunes and create citizens loyal not to their sons but to society.
How ’bout, Fuck you? You want to see that tragedy of the commons?
In fact, a suggestion from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a recent Supreme Court hearing on a case that could overturn Roe, inspired me to write this column. She posited that abortion rights are no longer necessary because all 50 states now have “safe haven” laws that allow women to turn their babies over to a fire or police department after birth.
But voluntarily surrendering kids isn’t good enough.
My proposal would merely make mandatory such handovers of babies to the state.
But you shouldn’t pay those critics any mind. Because they just can’t see how our relentless pursuit of equity might birth a brave new world.
This dangerously demented dude thinks that Huxley’s Brave New World should be a model for our society. To achieve “equity.”
If you haven’t read the novel, and that synopsis doesn’t quite do it for you, I’ll run down the basics.
Joe Mathews wants you to live in a “utopia” with a genetically engineered caste system of masters and slaves (I suppose he assumes he’d be an Alpha). A “utopia” in which everyone to drugged in complaceny lest they all suicide or turn to violent chaos. A world in which 70% of all women are sterilzed just to make sure no one breeds across caste lines. A “utopia” that appears to be dependent upon an external “savage” class for food and genetic diversity.
Holy shit. Many years ago, I pointed out that 1984 was a cautionary tale, not a how-to manual; a sentiment I’m pleased to see others also noting that (it would be nice to believe my quip inspired those others, but it’s a fairly obvious point).
The pro-1984 advocates have nothing on let’s build a master/slave commie hive for equity Mathews. I suppose I should be relieved that he apparently hasn’t read Hellstrom’s Hive. He’d probably love dispensing with women completely and living a happy life as a mindless drone insect. Come to think of it, I think he’s working on that.
Equity in a Brave New World. Remember: when these nutjobs babble about “equity,” this is what they mean.