When Rosa Parks chose that fateful day

in 1955 to refuse to give up her bus seat to a white passenger she helped set in motion the Civil Rights movement that ultimately lead to equality for black Americans. Likewise, Martin Luther King Jnr in his “I have a dream” speech galvanised international support for equality for all in what was still an essentially racist America struggling to throw off its slave past.

William Wilberforce, tireless opponent of slavery, was one of a growing number of voices that demanded the end of the slave trade and lived to see the success of his vision.

Today, we celebrate men and women like Parks, Luther King and Wilberforce as heroes who lead the way to a better and more equal society, but is that really the case? If we take the research of Professor Heinrich Storling, former Professor of Sweden’s most distinguished university, seriously then we may have to downplay their efforts and replace them with a somewhat boring alternate narrative: social evolution.

“We have a tendency to look for heroes and leaders in the cause for change, but most of the time it is not the people with the loud voices that effect that change, but rather society as a whole that evolves slowly from one place to another in response to a changing world and environment.”

Professor Storling explains in his recent speech to the Scandinavian Conference on International Affairs that the driving force in societal change is not protest or rebellion, but the strange and almost mystical power of ‘social evolution’.

Invoking the New Age-like concept of ‘collective consciousness’ he stunned his audience by claiming that most of the large-scale changes in our society over the last 100 years were the result of collective social evolution.

“There are often big names or big events that headline large changes in our society, but they are just that – headlines. Without them, the same changes would still have occurred, perhaps slower, but also perhaps faster.”

According to Storling, major changes like the emancipation of the slaves in the western world was a ‘social inevitability’ brought about by rapid changes to industrial technology and even the political landscape. Even the collapse of Soviet Communism was less a victory for the West than it was the force of social evolution demanding that the East morph into the clearly more attractive West. (Sorry Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher!)

“Yes, the likes of Wilberforce hurried it along and gave the movement a nice moral flourish, but the essence of the ending of the slave trade was that society had moved on, had evolved to neither want nor need slavery. The moral argument gave them a nice hat to hang their evolution onto and little more.”

“Social evolution is the great inevitability. We cannot stop it nor start it, at least not as a small group of individuals. We cannot predict it either as it is dependent on forces and actions we cannot predict or alter.

“Gay Marriage is the latest chapter of the great social evolutionary novel. Just as the establishment of Gay Rights and basic equality was an evolutionary leap, so is the one of marriage for non-heterosexuals. And yet it is important only in that it completes this evolutionary step.

“I am well and truly out of step with the growing number of people supporting Gay Marriage who appeal to non-existent concepts such as social equality or justice or even morality. I support it because of its absolute inevitability and how in only a few years it will be treated as just the norm and part of a now evolved social fabric. I see no problems with it personally, but I also see no alternatives and prefer to spend my time fighting battles that are actual battles and not evolutionary movements.

Storling took a short time to refer to the dark side of social evolution. He referred to Nazi Germany and ISIS as examples of social evolution taking a dark twist and how they are not unprecedented.

“If this were Star Trek we would all be living in a social nirvana having evolved into a crime-free, rich and prosperous world, but alas, it is not so. The world is full of flawed human beings with more than a dose of pure evil thrown into the mix. Our social evolution will therefore carry forward the flaws and sociopathy of our generation in some form. Just as biological evolution does not throw out the bad and only carry forward the good, so it is with social evolution.

“If we could but understand how our world evolves we could perhaps avoid some of the pointless hand-wringing and shouting so typical of the gay marriage debate and its predecessors. In essence, we can alter the shape of our destination, but not the destination itself. Society has a mind of its own or more accurately… a mind of all of us.


reprinted with permission

Karnal wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:


I wrote it. every word.

____ wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 5:54pm:


as if anyone cares about the opinion of the forum's most illiterate and uneducated buffoon.  A brighter gay person would have taken a look at the argument.  Is it too long for you to read? too many big words?

____ wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:00pm:




I see... it WAS too hard for you to follow.  Here's one you might understand.  and it has 'd1ck' in it too!

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:09pm:



There is no god ... by not mentioning your topic in your emotional drivel, is that suppose to prove your atheism ?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 5:44pm:


I’m sorry, Longy. It is so obvious you didn’t write that article, you’ve blown your last chance to redeem yourself.

You got this straight out of Time or Newsweek. Rosa Parks? You wouldn’t even know who she is.

The challenge was to write an article, not copy it. What’s with the reprinted with permission?

And if you’re pretending you pulled that off your spike, you can forget that too. The challenge was to write an article from scratch.

Believe it or not, I thought you did write your other OP. Not anymore. Rosa Parks and William Wilberforce have just done you in. There’s not a local reference or even an IDIOT in the entire article. You’re just trying to get the board off your back, but not one poster here could possibly believe you wrote that, and you know it.

You’ve just disqualified yourself from your own challenge. Not bad. I thought you’d at least play it out for a few days to pretend, but you’re too dumb to even do that.

Playing the high moral ground over what you will and won’t write clearly doesn’t extend to plagurism, and that’s the clearest sign you’re a fake. No "serious" writer would ever pass someone else’s work off as their own - Andrew Bolt excluded. We can call him a writer based on his pay grade if nothing else.

But Andrew Bolt you’re not. I’m sure the author of this piece will turn up. Until then, you’re done. You don’t even get another chance to try again. Based on this p1ss-weak attempt, we all know you wouldn’t anyway.

Monstrous fail of Gold Medal proportions, Longy. Your unmet challenge - and your unabashed plagurism - have just marked you as the biggest fake here.

Sorry, Longy. You’re done.

Karnal wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:31pm:


LOL... I guess you needed to google Rosa Parks yourself!

this is rather unexpectedly funny!