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.
I agree with you that the history here is important and informative. I found the following all to be very strong, each taking slightly different perspectives on the cause of the rise of the present ideology: America’s Cultural Revolution by Chris Rufo, The Origins of Woke by Richard Hanania, and The Identity Trap, by Yascha Mounk. And thank you for the kind words!
Fair. I mentioned Lindsay's work in the Safetyism (on 12/1) piece and could have added his work regarding the history of this to the list. Thanks for the addition!
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.
I agree with your comment. But the Right Conservatives do little or nothing to halt the assault on our civilization. We essentially live in a plutocratic oligarchy.
I'm by no means excusing conservatives, who for the most part, conserve nothing. Some of them claiming to be conservatives are actually subversive to the conservative ideology. I agree with you.
"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.
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.
I think that’s right. I don’t like being the old guy, but as I get older it seems to me that the idea that history repeats itself seems right. Human nature doesn’t change, just the technology. So the same patterns recur. In that context, some of the strongest psychological systems are self-interest, coalitional psychology, and morality. These elements are often tugging hardest at the strings of history.
This is why I consistently think that Twitter was the most damaging invention in my lifetime. An example of tech which brings out the worst of human nature (as well as some of the best).
Fair, thanks for the clarification. I should have been more precise. I’m currently working on a piece that looks specifically at these distinctions and in a bit more depth how the need to intent, or not, to assign guilt has changed. Thanks for the kind words and the correction.
I didn’t take it to be pedantic. Such distinctions, especially when it comes to law, are important.
On your point, it seems to me that it does seem as if explanations such as trauma—and to some extent, “culture”—are seen as exculpatory. I recently read Prey by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and was surprised by what I learned about what was viewed as excusing behavior. But I retain the view that this logic is not applied uniformly. What to me seem like perfectly good reasons for exculpation—lack of intent or knowledge—are often, not accepted. I have in mind cases such as Don McNeil’s expulsion from the Times. But I’m likely biased because I am looking for evidence in favor of my view here, that morality—and the law—is used as defense for some putative offenders and attack for others.
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.
I agree with you that the history here is important and informative. I found the following all to be very strong, each taking slightly different perspectives on the cause of the rise of the present ideology: America’s Cultural Revolution by Chris Rufo, The Origins of Woke by Richard Hanania, and The Identity Trap, by Yascha Mounk. And thank you for the kind words!
Thank you for the great piece!
And I would add James Lindsay to your list, he is a very sharp analyst of the Social Justice movement.
Cheers!
Fair. I mentioned Lindsay's work in the Safetyism (on 12/1) piece and could have added his work regarding the history of this to the list. Thanks for the addition!
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.
I agree with your comment. But the Right Conservatives do little or nothing to halt the assault on our civilization. We essentially live in a plutocratic oligarchy.
I'm by no means excusing conservatives, who for the most part, conserve nothing. Some of them claiming to be conservatives are actually subversive to the conservative ideology. I agree with you.
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.
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.
I think that’s right. I don’t like being the old guy, but as I get older it seems to me that the idea that history repeats itself seems right. Human nature doesn’t change, just the technology. So the same patterns recur. In that context, some of the strongest psychological systems are self-interest, coalitional psychology, and morality. These elements are often tugging hardest at the strings of history.
This is why I consistently think that Twitter was the most damaging invention in my lifetime. An example of tech which brings out the worst of human nature (as well as some of the best).
Great essay. Someone else to follow!
Thanks for the kind words!
Fair, thanks for the clarification. I should have been more precise. I’m currently working on a piece that looks specifically at these distinctions and in a bit more depth how the need to intent, or not, to assign guilt has changed. Thanks for the kind words and the correction.
I didn’t take it to be pedantic. Such distinctions, especially when it comes to law, are important.
On your point, it seems to me that it does seem as if explanations such as trauma—and to some extent, “culture”—are seen as exculpatory. I recently read Prey by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and was surprised by what I learned about what was viewed as excusing behavior. But I retain the view that this logic is not applied uniformly. What to me seem like perfectly good reasons for exculpation—lack of intent or knowledge—are often, not accepted. I have in mind cases such as Don McNeil’s expulsion from the Times. But I’m likely biased because I am looking for evidence in favor of my view here, that morality—and the law—is used as defense for some putative offenders and attack for others.