Two days before Election Day, good ol' Comrade Harris decided to throw her full support behind the communistic doctrine of "equity," whereby the always-fair-and-benevolent government ensures we all reach the same outcome of total happiness and wealth in this life.

Here's her full 50-second screed:

"So there's a big difference between equality and equity," said Harris. "Equality suggests, 'Oh everyone should get the same amount.'"

I'm gonna stop you right there, senator. We need to define what you mean by "equality." When you define it as everybody getting "the same amount," I have a sneaking suspicion even your conceptions about equality are tainted with socialistic ideology.

Here's the most complete definition I could find:

Equality: "The state of being equal; identity in magnitude or dimensions, value, qualities, degree, etc.; the state of being neither superior nor inferior, greater nor less, better nor worse, stronger nor weaker, etc., with regard to the thing or things compared."

Alright, know that we have that down, let's dive back into this full-blown communist manifesto:

"The problem with that, not everybody's starting out from the same place," says Harris, showing an evil white man starting his climb up a mountain while a poor black woman struggles to get up. "So if we're all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you're still going to be that far back behind me. It's about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing, and then compete on equal footing."

Doesn't that sound nice? It's all about empowering people, right? What could be so wrong with this?

"Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place," said Harris, finishing her idea of a utopia on earth.

This all sounds nice. It sounds great on the surface. It doesn't even sound socialistic to the untrained ear. This language of "equity," however, drives at a core idea of socialism: the uniform equality of outcome for all people.

Karl Marx believed that one of the first steps in moving to full communism – a classless utopian world where there is no property, money, crime, or abuse of power (LOLZ) – was the establishment of equal outcomes for all people. Instead of simply being treated and valued equally, everyone would have the exact same outcomes in life. This was summed up in the slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Imagine a high school class with 20 students. Five studied vigorously for the test. 10 studied moderately. The other 5 haven't paid attention all semester. Imagine the teacher used this idea of equity in her grading. She would need to ensure that every student gets the same grade, so she would dock points from the more hardworking students and give them to those who either struggled with the material or didn't even try (or both).

Would this be fair?

Canadian professor Jordan B. Peterson has made some amazing points on this subject over the years (see him curb-stop this ideology in this video).

Equality, Peterson argues, has traditionally meant that each citizen is given equal status under the law and equal opportunity to succeed. He argues that these principles are "grounded in the very deep and ancient Judeo-Christian proposition that man and women alike are made in the image of God." America's founders would agree, as enshrined in Declaration. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are among the inalienable rights endowed to us by... you know, the thing.

Equity, Peterson argues, "is a whole different ballgame." Those like Harris argue that if there isn't equal representation of all "intersecting" identities (race, sexual status, gender, etc.) in every business, school, organization, and company, then it's because of prejudiced people who need to be stopped.

Imagine that classroom again for a moment. What this means is that a teacher will not only ensure all students pass – nullifying any incentive to study in the first place – but will do her best to ensure there is "equitable" representation at all levels.

If those 5 students who studied were all white male students, for example, perhaps she'll dock some of their grades further while elevating the grades of a black or transgender student. Those with less "representation" get better treatment, regardless of who actually put the work in. When classroom structure falls apart and tensions inevitably disrupt due to this unjust policy, the teacher will then use force to ensure ToLeRaNcE is followed, while turning the good-grade-getters into the enemy.

That use of force against dissidents is what people like Kamala Harris won't discuss. Yet. Coupled with an extreme push to disarm the citizenry, however, it's dishonest to say it isn't in the cards.

The path to the gulags is a slow one filled with promises of equal outcomes and happy dreams.

(Ask 100 million people from Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China. Oh, you can't, they're dead.)

Peterson does a brilliant job detailing how this logic "suffers from the oversimplification typical of ideological thinkers: that one cause (prejudice) is sufficient explanation for a very complex phenomenon," and that "it is impossible to implement, as there are simply too many organizations, strata of positions, and identities of the identity group sort to possibly treat in the 'equitable' manner demanded by the ideologues."

Peterson also notes this important distinction:

"[Equity] is being pushed by individuals who have made the hypothesis that the West is a singularly oppressive patriarchy an unshakeable axiom, and who will fight tooth and nail any idea that threatens that absolute article of faith, no matter how absurd the arguments that constitute that fight are destined to become."

Harris was immediately called out after sharing this overt nod to Marxist dogma:

Here's the profound and grotesque truth. THIS is the only "equitable outcome" guaranteed by Harris's ideology:

"It is my fervent hope, and optimistic belief, that the doctrine of equity contains within it so many intrinsic contradictions that it will actually be the death of the radical left," writes Peterson.

One can hope.