This comes in three forms:
- Equality as truth (everyone is totally equal)
- Equality in practice (everyone must be treated as if they are equal)
- Equality as goal (everyone must and should be equal)
Though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.Hobbes admits that all men are not equal, instead we learn they are "roughly equivalent." His excuse for acting as if equality is real: that should two unite against one, they can defeat that one. Should they use deceit and lies, they may overcome the stronger. We learn from Hobbes the beginnings a modern double-speak: individuals are not equal, but we should treat them as such because the weaker may use immoral tactics against the strong. The weaker may unite to murder their betters. Was this not the root of tactics used in both the Russian and French revolutions? The idea we see here is that even though equality does not truly exist, it may be forced and enforced through the use of violence - through immorality. It is simply assumed that equality is a good thing, so good that it must be sought by any means necessary. The ends claim to justify the means without fully explaining why those ends are worth such terrible means.
We learn this idea of Hobbes - at the root of much modern thought - is based on nothing more than the idea that "people are about the same because the weaker might be able to murder the stronger, given certain variables in the weaker's favor." Within his own argument for equality Hobbes must admit the real existence of inequality - but with the cruel promise that it may be overcome. We see the truth now: Hobbes has already assumed equality as good, despite inequality existing naturally, and must make excuses for us to act as if equality is more than mere idealism.
Seeing equality now as it really is: even by the proponent's own words that equality is not reality, but instead an ideal of the new age. Because it is assumed as an ideal, the modern then justifies parts 2 and 3 above: that we should pretend as if equality is real in practice, and where equality does not exist we must move towards making things equal - because equality is good. Circularity!
Let us attack the root of the problem then: is equality good? No! Because equality is a contradiction in itself. To make two things truly equal is to eliminate differentiation and therefore to destroy the differentiated things. We have already learned from Hobbes, the French and the Bolsheiks that equality is fundamentally based on violence. Without destruction and violence the advocate for equality can not even pretend that equality exists! Violence is totally essential to equality - but do they truly know what they are destroying for? Do they realize that in temporarily restraining themselves to only destroy the most high they are not all the way to their goal? Certainly that is all the slightly-lower care for, to destroy the most high so that they may feel elevated. Yet in doing so they are taking the place of the high. They are next in line to be destroyed. For equality, the admitted high goal of moderns, is not settled on today's fixed limitation on how high things are allowed to go. No, it is a total equality - eventually all must be made equal. In practice, this is a relative limitation - always focused on removing what is currently higher, but never satisfied. This total equality is total destruction, total leveling, elimination of all higher forms. The pulling up of all lower forms. It is so much easier to pull down the higher through destruction than to pull up the lower - for the lower is fixed by nature and may not go higher except in pretending. The higher though may always be destroyed - and this was Hobbes insight. Equality may be treated as if it were real because it is possible bring higher to a lower state by violence towards the higher. This massive leveling only leads to one place: the goal of equality for it should be and must be is nothing more, at root, than advocating for nothingness. No-thing may be different from another - because for even one-thing to be different defeats the goal of equality!
So we see why God had to be the first to go - for he was the most high. Before the aristocracy could be overthrown, first God must be overthrown - because all high things begin and descend from God. When the ultimate goal is to utterly and totally pull-down and level all things for equality, one must start at the top. The top, here like the human head, being from which all lesser things are directed must first be removed before equality can even begin. For if God created all things and the ultimate goal is a destruction of all things through the total leveling of equality, God must be destroyed and His creation follows. With God's death, the modern world has absolutely no direction but modern goals like "equality." We have see this equality for what it truly is and so we see why it was so important to lob the head off of humanity. Now that we have no head, no organizing or directly purpose, we must naturally begin tumbling down towards this goal which permeates everything in modern life: of equality for it must and should be.