Equity, apart from its financial sense, means 'justice according to natural law or right, free from bias or favouritism'. As such it might have less politically negative connotations than ‘equality’ which, rejected by the laws of nature, belongs more to revolutionary dreams of Utopia.
'Wealth inequality' can therefore only be a socialist term. If everyone in the world were 'equally' poor, would there then be no problem? If everyone were equally rich, wealth would be as meaningless as it in fact is, without a constructive cause that furthers the general interests of mankind.

As Thatcher said, there is no freedom without economic freedom.
Today, economic reality is that those who from their own efforts create a prosperous enterprise, naturally create employment and wealth not only for a nation, but eventually for the whole world. Those who are encouraged to covet and destroy the results of other people's efforts, for example the South African anarchists who destroy the farms of 'whites' and evict them with impunity, only create a desert of misery and more poverty. Thus everyone would end up being equally poor. Marxism proved to be a failed ideology, because irrevocably it leads to economic stagnation and poverty, equal, conform, poverty.

Most of the above was a FB comment. I add it here, because it's pertinent to the point I hope to  elaborate on. Since no proof has come to light of Russian meddling in the last US Presidential elections (unlike the blatant, public meddling of Obama in the USA, the UK, and France) Soros and his lackeys are now trying to blame the social media. It would be like blaming the elements, or material things for destroying human life. Abortion destroys human life. What is the difference between killing a perfectly healthy, unborn child, and doing away with someone older by pointing a gun at him or her and pulling the trigger?

Maybe March madness should therefore include the 'March for Our Lives'. The young protesters are convinced that if worthy and responsible Americans hand in their guns, the USA will be a safer place to live in. Without considering the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, logic, reality, and recorded examples would prove them to be naively wrong.
The hypocrisy of blaming things instead of criminals, is highlighted when the 'March for Our Lives' doesn't include the murder of unborn human life.
According to the politically correct agenda, that young people today seem to be conditioned to fully adhere to, even late term abortion is a woman's 'right'. But this radically cancels out the notion of 'equality', and obviously life itself.
If the majority of these young protesters had been equally subject to late term abortion, for example, had they been dissected with surgical instruments, and their organs sold, wouldn't protesting against private gun ownership be a far more pointless consideration?

In view of this, (for part of the 'agenda' is the absurd belief that unborn babies don't qualify to benefit from 'equal rights'. According to some they have no rights whatsoever) the 'March for Our Lives' is more a politically motivated demonstration, than a thoughtful solution to save lives and reduce or deter homicidal crime in the USA.
If it were judged that firearms had no effect in reducing or deterring crime, then the police themselves should also be disarmed. Then why not disarm the military on the false assumption that it would generally prevent war? This would give absolute free rein to criminals and international terrorists to do as they please, and in whatever way, wherever and whenever. In fact we have seen how often Islamic radicals have used lorries and smaller vehicles to crush innocent people to death. The death toll (85) in Nice, France, for example, could have been greatly reduced had someone been armed and able to shoot the rabid, truck driving maniac. It also goes without saying that death and destruction caused by suicide bombing can be far greater and certainly immediate, than that caused by automatic firearms. And finally why insist on disarming innocent, responsible civilians, when criminals can always procure whatever arm they consider suitable for whatever crime they wish to carry out, in any case?

The agenda, however is a growing, poisonous mushroom. The confiscation of firearms, and late term abortion are only two aspects of what certain sectarians are trying to impose in the USA and elsewhere. Denaturing gender is another aspect. The younger generations already seem to be brainwashed into believing that gender is just as much, if not more, a choice than it is a natural condition. Words such as 'transsexual', would never be used fifty years ago. But today the program insists on the idea that there is no longer any exceptions to the rule. Everything and anything goes. One can be what one wants. It’s ‘normal'. Surgery takes care of the rest, if deemed necessary.
The argument that babies adopted by two loving fathers is just as acceptable as babies adopted by a normal loving couple, has been validated, even though logic would decree that if parents establish the norm, then history is likely to repeat itself in the former case.

The agenda is such that homosexuals who, having benefitted from normal, parental love and acceptance, are against the adoption of children by homosexual couples, are never given the opportunity to express their valuable opinions by the msm. They would be crossing the agenda's red line of political correctness.

Russophobia is also politically correct. Any nation that rejects the agenda can only be an enemy of ‘progress,’ including the long term program of which ‘cultureless identity' also seems to be the objective. In contrast, Islamophobia is a heinously criminal, offensive, totally unjustifiable attitude, because mass Muslim immigration is believed to be the essential catalyser that will eventually bring about ‘cultureless identity’ in Terra nullius.

The banker divinities' fatal miscalculation that Utopia, a peaceful, harmoniously conform, international society can only be the result of such long, concerted, extravagant efforts, when natural reality overrules the irresponsible whims of burnt out multibillionaires. Progress is obviously cancelled out by bellicose regression. In Dystopia one can never reach the stars.

Text © Mirino. (Image by Todd Heisler/The New York Times, with thanks).
March, 2018