The civil rights movement started out as a quest for an equality of opportunity. Their goal? Racial justice, a noble goal that any rational individual must support. After the passing of Dr. King, the racial justice movement gave way to leaders seeking racial equality. The difference between justice and equality (commonly called 'fairness') is crucial, a difference that can't be overemphasized. If you want to understand the civil rights movement's metamorphosis, you must understand the vital difference between these two concepts.

During those heady bygone days, an Edenesque era before it became politically incorrect, justice held an honored place at America's philosophical table. That changed with the advent of Amerika's Parasite culture, a mindset that whines, 'gimme whether I deserve it or not', elevated a new term to replace justice: Equality. Both concepts - Equality, Justice - apply whenever an individual gets measured, tested, evaluated or judged, The primary difference between the two concepts concerns the term's implied emphasis. The devil is always in the details.

'Justice' places the emphasis on the measurement standard being used. At the very least, the standard must be objective; it must be impartially applied to all who are tested, measured, evaluated or judged. Putting a fine point on it, justice is when the most qualified individual, based on an objective, 'one-size-fits-all' standard, is selected to fill a job opening, gains college admission, qualifies for a scholarship, receives an award, etc. This is what the euphemism, 'the level playing field' is supposed to mean.

'Equality', on the other hand betrays an obsession with the results. Devotees of 'equality' would - and have - willingly sacrificed the objective, unbiased standard in order to achieve the desired result. Affirmative Action programs are 'equality' oriented, since they seek to achieve an equality of results by using a relaxed standard for 'underrepresented groups' (based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) while employing an impossibly difficult standard for 'overrepresented groups'. Equality usually involves some irrational, irrelevant, criteria, the most popular of which is U.S. Census data. For example, equality in college admissions is when the incoming freshman class reflects the population distribution in such erroneous factors as race, ethnicity and gender, no matter how this result was achieved. If too many Asians - based on their percentage of the population - meet the entrance standards, the entrance criteria for Asians applicants will be raised until the proper balance is achieved. If too few Latinos qualify for admission, the criteria for Latinos will be lowered, until enough of them are included.

The contrast between justice and equality goes deeper than the primary focus. Justice involves an individual who is being evaluated against an objective standard. Equality, on the other hand, is a comparative term which involves analyzing the results achieved by two or more people. In other words justice, pertains to an individual while equality carries an implicit 'group' orientation. It's this last fact which makes equality the darling of properly-hyphenated victim groups that promote group-think as a panacea for all of society's ailments.

Inspired by such equality Nazis as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Catherine MacKinnon, and Gloria Allred, a thriving rights industry harasses Amerika with chronically oppressed victims' groups such as NOW, NAACP, GLAAD, MALDEF, The Rainbow Coalition, et al. These professional whiners refuse to face the unalterable fact that life, by its very nature, is inherently unfair. Although inequality is an integral human condition, not even these group think cretins can realistically claim that life is, inherently, unjust.

The best way to understand life's inescapable inequality is by personalizing it. Should I demand athletic ineptitude quotas because I can't play basketball like a Michael Jordon, can't throw a football with the skill of a Joe Montana, can't shoot a hockey puck like Wayne Gretsky? Should I organize a group fighting intellectual oppression because I can't redefine the Universe like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein? Should I demand reparations because life didn't make me an orator with the eloquence of a Robert G. Ingersoll? Or, should I accept the fact that, when evaluated by an objective standard of performance I'm just not good enough? Certain properly-hyphenated individuals - when measured by an objective, unbiased standard - just aren't good enough. Appeasers don't do them any favors by glossing over this harsh truth with quotas and relaxed standards. The sooner self-proclaimed 'victims' accept life's inherent inequality, the sooner they can develop their real abilities.

Until and unless the 'Rights Industry' returns to its justice-seeking origins, it will continue to divide Amerika's sovereign individuals along the artificial fault lines created by race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Perpetual victims won't find their rightful place in Amerikan society, until they accept life's unflinching inequality. The dirty little secret that Je$$e and Company refuse to admit is that the battle for racial justice is over and they won it, years ago. Admitting that - privately or publically - puts Jesse - puts all the professional whiners - out of a job. But, since inequality is a fundamental, inalterable human condition, the chronically oppressed can continue this Don Quixotesque struggle for racial equality, forever. It makes as much sense as forming a group to abolish gravity.

Ethnocrat job security? You better believe it, race-profiling Sparky.

– T.D. Treat