This excellent essay points to a crucial piece of wisdom that evades most people:
The reason the New Left's Long March Through the Institutions has been a smashing success (with no signs of slowing down) is that it is first and foremost a MORAL project, designed from a very familiar moral template (Christianity's concern for the weak and downtrodden, its positing a sacred Victim as the center of our moral universe, and most especially the Parable of the Good Samaritan) but given a modern American (yet recognizably Marxist) twist.
The first step, which was a master stroke and the foundation of all their future victories, was to piggyback on the success of the Civil Rights Movement, which allowed the New Left professoriate to present themselves as Official Defenders of the Oppressed. This gave them a bulletproof moral shield and with the added weaponization of the word games and jargon manipulation they're so famous for (especially Motte/Bailey), allowed them to perfect their superweapon, the Bigotry Accusation, and the famous play they keep running because no one can stop it: any opposition to our dogma or deeds is ipso facto retrograde bigotry, because as we are representatives of the Marginalized, attacking us means attacking the Marginalized, which in post-60s America is the moral equivalent of kicking a kitten.
The last cherry on top is the addition of Marxist morality, which is always WHO/WHOM, and which comes down to us now as the famous formula of: no one in an Oppressed class can be guilty, no one in an Oppressor class can be innocent.
The Crit Theorists knew their Marx and Freud but they also knew their Nietzsche (they were all Germans after all), and Nietzsche taught them that whoever creates and wields the newest strongest morality will conquer all in his path. And now that this morality has been installed in the brains of 2 generations of our elite cultural class (especially at a time when all more traditional forms of morality are dying off), voila! you get an entire American elite who are all true believers in the Church of Social Justice, whether they know it or not.
This is a brilliant analysis of the psychology of Social Justice versus the conventional definition of Justice. I thought that I was relatively well informed on the issue, but the author brings up a number of incisive points that I had never considered.
Other readers might be interested in my series of podcasts and videos on ideology:
Thank you. I read every word with close attention and appreciate the balance you bring to this subject. What progressive SJW's have wrought upon American culture is appalling in its mendacious and insidious damage against those outside its confines. The Left Progressive ideology is a perversion of traditional morality as depicted by Lady Justice.
"In 1935, the Nazis in Germany enacted the Nuremberg Race Laws, which reduced the rights of Jews, including which jobs and professions they could have. This restriction reduced competition from Jews, helping those not so restricted."
If actions are being taken, that are unfair to the population at large, rather than passing laws restricting certain jobs or professions for specific ethnicities or races, authoritative bodies should pass laws that curtail the unfair actions for all citizens.
Attempts to legislate morality* are seldom successful and consistently wrong.
That is an 'immoral act' when none of the parties involved are harmed. In other words, it is an act that may assault your sensitivities but not the acting parties.
A Lady Justice sans blindfold is currently wreaking havoc on Donald Trump.
> For serious offenses, we are used to hearing the term “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a standard that leads to fewer guilty convictions but prevents false convictions of innocent people. But, again, if those in power are unlikely to be falsely convicted, they can relax the standard to a looser one, such as a preponderance of evidence or even strict liability.
> Another way to weight the scale is to reduce the common requirement that an offense must be intended by the accused.
“Strict liability” isn’t typically characterized as a relaxation of the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” standard for proving an element of a criminal offence; rather, it means that the offence has no mens rea element at all. This goes to your second point, the need to prove intent, not your first point about the standard of proof for each element of the offence. Examples of strict liability offences under the laws of various U.S. states include things like statutory rape: the fact that sex took place typically must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the defendant’s belief as to the victim’s age does not typically need to be proven.
There seems to be essentially no discernible difference between this dynamic and the various purges of heretics that characterised medieval Christianity. A combination of self-interest (where your personal best interests lie) and self-image (thinking of yourself as 'good') is an unbeatable combo. For example, it kept Stalingrad out of Nazi hands and enabled a tiny RAF to beat back the Luftwaffe. But throw in the egotism of wanting everyone else to be just like you and it becomes despotic really easily.
This excellent essay points to a crucial piece of wisdom that evades most people:
The reason the New Left's Long March Through the Institutions has been a smashing success (with no signs of slowing down) is that it is first and foremost a MORAL project, designed from a very familiar moral template (Christianity's concern for the weak and downtrodden, its positing a sacred Victim as the center of our moral universe, and most especially the Parable of the Good Samaritan) but given a modern American (yet recognizably Marxist) twist.
The first step, which was a master stroke and the foundation of all their future victories, was to piggyback on the success of the Civil Rights Movement, which allowed the New Left professoriate to present themselves as Official Defenders of the Oppressed. This gave them a bulletproof moral shield and with the added weaponization of the word games and jargon manipulation they're so famous for (especially Motte/Bailey), allowed them to perfect their superweapon, the Bigotry Accusation, and the famous play they keep running because no one can stop it: any opposition to our dogma or deeds is ipso facto retrograde bigotry, because as we are representatives of the Marginalized, attacking us means attacking the Marginalized, which in post-60s America is the moral equivalent of kicking a kitten.
The last cherry on top is the addition of Marxist morality, which is always WHO/WHOM, and which comes down to us now as the famous formula of: no one in an Oppressed class can be guilty, no one in an Oppressor class can be innocent.
The Crit Theorists knew their Marx and Freud but they also knew their Nietzsche (they were all Germans after all), and Nietzsche taught them that whoever creates and wields the newest strongest morality will conquer all in his path. And now that this morality has been installed in the brains of 2 generations of our elite cultural class (especially at a time when all more traditional forms of morality are dying off), voila! you get an entire American elite who are all true believers in the Church of Social Justice, whether they know it or not.
This is a brilliant analysis of the psychology of Social Justice versus the conventional definition of Justice. I thought that I was relatively well informed on the issue, but the author brings up a number of incisive points that I had never considered.
Other readers might be interested in my series of podcasts and videos on ideology:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/t/ideology
Thank you. I read every word with close attention and appreciate the balance you bring to this subject. What progressive SJW's have wrought upon American culture is appalling in its mendacious and insidious damage against those outside its confines. The Left Progressive ideology is a perversion of traditional morality as depicted by Lady Justice.
Thanks for the accurate assessment of SJWs.
"In 1935, the Nazis in Germany enacted the Nuremberg Race Laws, which reduced the rights of Jews, including which jobs and professions they could have. This restriction reduced competition from Jews, helping those not so restricted."
If actions are being taken, that are unfair to the population at large, rather than passing laws restricting certain jobs or professions for specific ethnicities or races, authoritative bodies should pass laws that curtail the unfair actions for all citizens.
Attempts to legislate morality* are seldom successful and consistently wrong.
That is an 'immoral act' when none of the parties involved are harmed. In other words, it is an act that may assault your sensitivities but not the acting parties.
A Lady Justice sans blindfold is currently wreaking havoc on Donald Trump.
Very well presented essay, thank you.
A technical point regarding law::
> For serious offenses, we are used to hearing the term “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a standard that leads to fewer guilty convictions but prevents false convictions of innocent people. But, again, if those in power are unlikely to be falsely convicted, they can relax the standard to a looser one, such as a preponderance of evidence or even strict liability.
> Another way to weight the scale is to reduce the common requirement that an offense must be intended by the accused.
“Strict liability” isn’t typically characterized as a relaxation of the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” standard for proving an element of a criminal offence; rather, it means that the offence has no mens rea element at all. This goes to your second point, the need to prove intent, not your first point about the standard of proof for each element of the offence. Examples of strict liability offences under the laws of various U.S. states include things like statutory rape: the fact that sex took place typically must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the defendant’s belief as to the victim’s age does not typically need to be proven.
There seems to be essentially no discernible difference between this dynamic and the various purges of heretics that characterised medieval Christianity. A combination of self-interest (where your personal best interests lie) and self-image (thinking of yourself as 'good') is an unbeatable combo. For example, it kept Stalingrad out of Nazi hands and enabled a tiny RAF to beat back the Luftwaffe. But throw in the egotism of wanting everyone else to be just like you and it becomes despotic really easily.
Great essay. Someone else to follow!