The definition by Investopedia is: ‘Social Justice is a political and philosophical concept which holds that all people should have equal access to wealth, health, wellbeing, justice and opportunity.’
The New Oxford American Dictionary says ‘justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.’
Yet another definition from the Business Directory is: ‘The fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice.’
Yet the Center for Economic and Social Justice defines the it as ‘the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions.’
Even the definitions don’t match. The concept sounds quite reasonable until one tries to apply the concept. None of the definitions spell out how Social Justice is applied. Look at some parts: ‘All people have equal access to wealth!’ Do they mean we take almost all from productive working people and hand it to those that do not work irrespective of willingness.
What does ‘equal access to justice’ mean in practice? How does one determine ‘equal distribution of privileges’? How can this ever by put into law? How can one make a law about ‘distribution of privileges’. Social Justice is simply not compatible with the rule of law. Anyone can claim they are ‘disadvantaged’ and have been given no ‘privileges’ and claim the trappings of the hard-working. Can one be acquitted of rape if one claims that one is disadvantaged and under-privileged?
There is an implicit assumption in Christian nations that you may keep what you earn less a modicum of tax for national upkeep, defence, and welfare to those not working. It has the potential to change the productive persons into the pariahs of the nation due to their ‘privileged’ position. If you have all limbs functioning, worked hard at school and did all homework, got your act together so that someone might employ you, got up before sunrise to fight the traffic to work for ten years to pay a mortgage and look after a family, you are deemed ‘privileged’ and others who did not gruel should have ‘equal access to wealth’. This is Bolshevism in disguise. Aaron Shapiro calls it: “It is being used as a revolution of sorts like the Guillotine in the Jacobin era.” Yelling at the productive successful citizens is shutting them down.
This new Communism will suffer from the same problems as the previous failed implementations. Communism did a good job of creating equality for the masses — they were all equally in poverty. They were all equal other than the dictator creators. It becomes the dictatorship of the few. Communism always had a problem getting males to do good day’s work. In the words of Lech Walesa “The system suppresses individual initiative.”
Communism and even the Social Justice ideology relies on the inappropriate assumption that everybody deserves the same treatment irrespective of each person’s effort. The previously failed concept tolerates people that are prepared to be unproductive. Why shovel dirt when you can lean on the shovel. It can never happen that there are equal outcomes for all persons. Slavery uses the whip to get productivity. Capitalism uses money to get productivity. Patriarchy uses sex to get productivity.
As previously, it deludes them with a previously failed ideology which inspires them with a false hope. I never forget the witticism of John Kenneth Galbraith: “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.” Above the humour, Emanuel Celler said of his homeland: “Communism feeds on aggression, hatred, and the imprisonment of men’s minds and souls. This shall not take root in the United States.” Unfortunately, the man was wrong. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had lived through it in Russia and could detect what was happening in the West. “For us in Russia, communism is a dead dog, while, for many people in the West, it is still a living lion.” Even Karl Marx recognised the situation. “There is a specter haunting Europe, the specter of Communism.”
We now get ‘Social Justice Warriors’ shouting: “Check your privilege.” All trained in the new propaganda houses called universities.
‘Social Justice’ is being used to claim outrage at ‘target persons’. The targeted persons are those that are successful or even someone who accidentally uses a wrong description of a transgender person. An amount of group-think is added, so that any person that comes from a group that is ‘deemed’ to be ‘privileged’ is automatically considered to be privileged and should be subject to derision. Thus the common refrain: “Watch your privilege!?”
‘Cis-gendered’ is now a term that is used to describe a person that is standard male or female. This can also be used to claim the person is ‘privileged’ and thus worthy of derision.
White persons are considered to be the excessively privileged persons under ‘Social Justice’. Under feminism, females are considered to be repressed. So cisgendered white males come in for the greatest derision. Thus the comments in the Urban Dictionary. In the Urban Dictionary, persons explain their interpretation of the meaning of words as in common usage. So it is a valuable insight into the colloquial meaning of words. On Social Justice, their definitions are equally vague but the comments hint at the issues created by those wishing to enforce ‘Social Justice’ (as opposed to justice) on others.
So we are talking about something that is quite dangerous. One blogger describes it as a term used by young persons to express their frustration at their own failures in life. They claim a victim status and blame the failure on others and use the concept of equality of opportunity for their own personal gain. But that is not the complete story. We are talking about a wider use of the term that has the potential to incapacitate society. I sometimes say about various organisations: “What they say and what they do are not the same.” It can be applied to feminism, political parties, organisations, and individuals. It applies to ‘Social Justice’ and ‘Social Justice Warriors’. Perhaps do a search on the internet for ‘SJW’ which is short for Social Justice Warrior to get a glimpse of what they get up to. One can describe Social Justice as:
“The process of valuing, expressing, and promoting love, respect, harmony, trust, admiration, generosity, peace, and equity upon other people in any society, regardless of their race, ethnicity, color, sex, national origin, height, weight, age, handicap level, marital status, occupation, etc. This can also be known as social harmony between diverse groups of people.” [1]
But this covers for its sins. In practice this occurs:
“The distribution of advantages to the good or innocent and disadvantages to the bad or evil in any society.” [1]
But the trick is in the wording. The ‘bad or evil’ are those who are deemed to be ‘bad or evil’. In practice this is those deemed ‘privileged’.
The revolutionary component is that the disaffected are turned against those deemed to be privileged. It is a hint at a ‘Communist Utopia’. How they ever expect to run a society when the productive are outed by the unproductive. It has similarities to other Communist purges that tipped nations upside down. For this reason, it should not be taken lightly. From other sources:
‘Social Justice’ has become a term that is used to direct outrage and hate at an ‘appropriate’ target. Previous targets have included: other countries, other other religions, Nazis, Communists, witches and so on. Hate was direct at them due to some evil they were supposed to emanate. The current hate is directed by the ‘Social Justice Warriors’. It is a sort of witch hunt combined with lynching mob. One Chinese immigrant described it as being similar to the purges of the Cultural Revolution. Gangs of students and Red Guards attacked persons that were dressed in ‘bourgeois clothes’. Signs deemed to be ‘imperialist’ were torn down. Intellectuals were denounced, often murdered or driven to suicide. The essential component is denunciation. The stated goal of the Cultural Revolution was to enforce ‘true’ Communist ideology by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from the society, If one was deemed to be contrary to the required ideology, they were denounced. You can now witness professors being purged from their positions for talking contrary to the ideologies of ‘Political Correctness’, ‘Social Justice’, and Feminism. Since social injustices cannot be processed in the legal system, the SJWs rely on discrediting and shaming their targets.
‘Social Justice’ is a form of an unwritten law that is used to override nations-state law. ‘Social Justice’ cannot be used to arrest people, but they can destroy the careers of their ‘enemies’ and ensure that they have no means to support their families. It can be identified as a form of blacklisting. Sweden already has a Social Justice Blacklist. You are likely to appear on the list if you have said something negative about Sweden, Islam or immigration. Even Tim Pool, an independent journalist, is on the Blacklist. One commenter comments: “It’s funny how people who make videos for YouTube are included, but the Muslims who turned them into the rape capital of the West aren’t." Another blogger blogged: “The left are simply following in the footsteps of their forebears the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and the Communist party.” India has a Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Last year, it blacklisted thirteen NGOs for violating ‘guidelines’ and committing ‘irregularities’.
An era of self censorship is occurring in academic circles as the speakers are feared of being accused by a type of ‘Thought Crime’ but the ‘Thought Police’. The ‘crime’ does not have to be proved. An accusation is sufficient.
A seemingly endless stream of memes are appearing to dent these SJWs:
And
This one hints at the destruction of racial identity which someone described as the ‘Browning of Australia’ through immigration under the agenda of ‘Multiculturalism’ which was implemented without a vote or referendum.
This meme is suggesting who will have power over us when Social Justice is implemented.
This meme makes fun of female SJW logic.
Many organisation now claim that they want to be part of ..... ‘the spreading of Social Justice’. This includes universities, colleges, labour unions, charities, and private foundations. As an example:
“The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families—to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement.” [paaflcio.org]
AFL-CIO is a labour union that represents 12.5 million working men and women. Oppps! Triggered! They are ‘Politically Incorrect’ with the expression ‘men and women’. They forgot all the other hundred or more genders.
Friedrich Hayek, an eminent economist and philosopher had an early insight into the problem:
1973: “I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term ‘social justice’.” [3]
Comments about Social Justice include:
The reality is that Social Justice creates injustice when put into practice. Friedrich Hayek spotted the problem with the concept of Social Justice many years ago.
He talked about it in his aptly titled book ‘The Mirage of Social Justice’ and other books. Here are some samples of his foresight:
“That the state ought to treat all people equally in spite the fact that they are unequal; you can’t deduce from this, a rule, that because the people are unequal, you ought to treat them unequally in order to make them equal, and that’s what social justice amounts to. It’s a demand that the state should treat different people differently in order to place them in the same position. The rule of equal treatment applies only to things the state has to do in any case, but to make, making people equal a goal of governmental policy, would force government to treat people very unequally indeed.”
“While an equality of rights under a limited government is possible and an essential condition of individual freedom, a claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”
“The idea of social justice is that the state should treat different people unequally in order to make them equal.”
1978: “I am certain, however, that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice.” [4]
“Social justice rests on the hate towards those that enjoy a comfortable position, namely, upon envy.” [4]
Urban Dictionary gives us a view of person’s views of Social Justice Warriors:
An example:
White straight male: “Hi”
SJW: “OMG How dare you oppress me with your white male gaze get away from me you pig!”
The meaning of ‘Social Justice Warrior’ has evolved over the years and may now even depend on the context. Originally, the term had a positive connotation. It could be applied to Martin Luther King Jr. and to Mahatma Gandhi due to their efforts to bring justice and equality to oppressed groups. Its use possibly goes back as far as 1824. This positive connotation possibly continued until about 2011.
Around 2011 the term began to be used to express contempt for those espousing the corrupted form of Social Justice. Some believe that they will cause the downfall of Western society as we currently know it! They are the main propagators of ‘Cultural Marxism’. Cultural Marxism as been described as “a revolutionary leftist idea that traditional culture is the source of oppression in the modern world.” Got Questions continues with:
“Cultural Marxism is often linked to an insistence upon political correctness, multiculturalism, and perpetual attacks on the foundations of culture: the nuclear family, marriage, patriotism, traditional morality, law and order, etc. Cultural Marxists are assumed to be committed to establishing economic Marxism, in which case their cultural attacks are a necessary preparation for their ultimate goal.”
What can be clearly seen around us is a culture where derogatory attitudes toward males, white persons, Christians, fathers, and heterosexuals are tolerated or encouraged. Similar attitudes towards females, Muslims, minority groups, Jews, mothers, transgender persons, and homosexuals are decisively condemned ‘hateful’, transphobic, racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, and homophobic. Satan’s Pulpit is waging a war in the minds and hearts of us as individuals. Scott Oliver at Vice advises:
“The ultimate goal of cultural Marxism, we’re led to believe, is to slowly and stealthily dilute and subvert white, Christian Western culture, thereby opening sovereign nations to rule by a one-world corporate government. Whether that’s by Jews, lizards or communists isn’t always clear.”
He adds more fuel:
“So the theory goes, ‘cultural Marxism’ was the master plan of a group of émigré Jewish-German academics – widely known today as the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory — who fled Nazi Germany in 1936, decamping to New York.”
The effect has been so great that, under the heading “UK: Muslim rapes 13 year old but no jail time because ‘He didn’t know it was wrong’ ” are these words:
“Let us understand this: In the UK, being critical of Islam on Facebook gets you arrested and tossed in jail. However, if you are a Muslim and rape a 13-year-old girl, there is no jail time because your ‘religious education’ taught you that ‘women are worthless.’ ”
Apparently, he had been taught that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground’. I believe that he had been taught that European girls were as dirt as in this comment by Mohammed Shafiq, of Muslim youth group, the Ramadhan Foundation, called it racism. “These young men do not see white girls as equal, as valuable, of high moral standing as their own daughters, and their own sisters, which is wrong.”
Barbara Ellen adds more fuel: “What no one is saying is that if Asian boys view white girls as drunken, worthless, sub-human trash, then, frankly, so does much of non-Asian Britain. In recent years, haven’t we all become rather too comfortable with seeing girls portrayed like this?” When I ask young males whether they see girls as someone pleasant they could have a relationship with or whether they see them as a ‘fuckbag’, they think for a while and occasionally say ‘fuckbag’. Thus, the status of Western girls has been eroded. I believe that this is caused by the sexual revolution and the acceptance of pornography. Thus both are components of modified culture that has been propagandised onto a previously Christian culture. Barbara proffers that there is “Straw talks of young Asian men being like any others, ‘fizzing and popping with testosterone, but Pakistani girls are off limits’ ” So we have blatant racism. White girls are fair game whilst Pakistani girls are off limits. So deep seated it this anti-white racism, that Badrul Hussain, spontaneously ranted to a female ticket inspector: “All white women are only good for one thing — For men like me to fuck and use like trash.” Rebel Priest claims that: “Any member of the public who makes too much fuss about the perpetrators, mostly Muslim men of Pakistani origin, risks arrest.” Anti-Muslim racism is jailable whilst anti-White racism is not. Islamic State magazine Dabiq quotes Shaykh Abū Muhammad al-’Adnānī’s speech: “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted.” Multiculturalism in such and environment is not possible. When one group has one rule for its females and another for the females of other groups, cooperation is never possible. stuffjewishyoungadultslike lists a common expression: “Shiksas are for practice, Jewesses are for keeps”. Shiksa is defined as a derogatory term for a gentile girl or woman. Particular for an attractive woman who could be a ‘temptation’ to a Jewish male which tends to translate to a gentile female with typical Aryan features including fair hair and blue eyes. They are notches in the belt for Jewish boys. Urban Dictionary: “An insulting term used by Jews to signify any non Jewish woman. Almost always used among Jews as a disrespectful offensive term for any non Jewish girl or woman.”
National Vanguard is even harsher with: “Shiksa is a usually insulting Yiddish term for a non-Jewish woman. It comes from a Hebrew root meaning ‘abomination’, ‘impure’, or ‘object of loathing’. But, presumably, okay ‘for practice’.” Again, we are looking at a clash of cultures and religions. How can this this Multiculturalism that was never voted on nor put to a consensus ever function with these attitudes. Whilst these religions have exclusive practices and are willing to take advantage of white Christianity, there is no hope of cooperation. Even the act of demanding a a cultural or religious exclusivity in potential marriage partners means that there will never be cooperation.
Picta goes the whole hog by claiming:
“The modern formula is this: Jews within a host nation Endeavor to control the media outlets, legitimize their special interest groups, erode societal standards, and take positions of power in finance, law, industry, organized crime, government, unions, academia, medicine, the arts, and the military. Using the resulting influence, they redirect the host nation’s accumulated assets to aid Israel, attack Israel’s enemies, and enrich themselves. The Jews call this ‘leverage’, and it weakens the host nation.”
If there is any truth, we again have an example of how different religions and cultures are set for failure to cooperate.
After the implementation of Communism in USSR, those that wish to control society realized that force alone was insufficient and that it was culture that was critical to social change and the control of society. Thus, over my lifetime, I have watched the social change in the West. I see the start as the music of the sixties. The music was censored, although we learned to interpret the double meanings. Obvious ones include Rod Stewart: ‘Spread your wings and let me come inside.’ Even Shakespeare had some double meanings: ‘Candles for the nunnery.’ However, the music industry carefully let out that our music heroes were sleeping with many women. As a young man, I remember that I was not a ‘complete’ man if I had not slept with numerous women. We put pressure on the girls to sleep with us. That culture of promiscuity was amplified by the James Bond movies, where the hero would bed numerous fulsome women with ease. Communist manuscripts assigned to the Communist Party of America had such statements in them.
Although Social Justice may appear to be something minor, it is part of a wider plan that has unfolded over my lifetime. I cannot predict when they will unleash the next stage. The current demonization of the fairly elected president is suspicious. One magazine headlines ‘The coup against Trump is in progress’. He is accused of treason and high crimes and the press runs a constant war of criticism against him using the talking heads. Books are appearing ‘The Coup D’&eaccute;tat Against President Donald J. Trump.’ The nature of a modern democracy is that you choose amongst opposing candidates and the one that wins runs the country for a few years and you can vote him out at the end of the term. If you have a coup, you no longer have a democracy, you have a civil war. The book description includes:
“This book explores the covert background of the Deep State and the history of who is behind these clandestine operations against the President. It also reveals who funds them ... I explore the myriad of secret societies and name the perpetrators as well. This book covers the high-stakes collaboration of fifth columnists, orchestrated by controlled media and globalists such as billionaire George Soros. When all else fails, the deluded New World Order group will attempt to create a global economic crisis. ... Trump knows everything, and he is in process of taking the New World Order people down. ... The mainstream media is using distractions to move the public away from the truth. The real hidden hand of the small group of families who run the monetary system of the world includes, among other players, the Committee of 300. This encompasses the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and the Council on Foreign Relations.”
The SJWs will play their part in the destabilisation. I dislike Trump intensely. However, I would have voted for him as I saw that he was likely to ‘get the job done’. We certainly don’t need a methodical undermining of the man by the media. Let the man get on with the job in hand.
It then appears that we have the of an organs and intellectual movements attempting to destabilize our society from within. Democracy, wit all its faults, is worth preserving as the alternatives are potentially hideous. Previous revolutions tell us that the result of a revolution is worse than what it replaced. All of these groups must be strongly fought.
The meaning of Social Justice in the current era no longer requires equal treatment for every person under the rule of law. The meaning has become closer to an equality of outcomes. It thus destroys society’s systems that have been the cornerstone of the development of the West. Speaking the truth about those who commit wrongdoing is considered a crime. Speakers at universities who speak unwanted truths are met by menacing mobs. This occurred when Bettina Arndt spoke at a university on what she claims is the ‘myth of a rape crisis’ on campuses. A Jewish view on the topic is here placed. Can you spot its inappropriateness:
“Helen Pluckrose describes the factors behind the social-justice river into which we are today pouring all our energies of Jewish action and self-definition:
“Morality is culturally relative, as is reality itself. Empirical evidence is suspect and so are any culturally dominant ideas including science, reason, and universal liberalism. These are Enlightenment values which are naïve, totalizing and oppressive, and there is a moral necessity to smash them. Far more important is the lived experience, narratives and beliefs of ‘marginalized’ groups all of which are equally ‘true’ but must now be privileged over Enlightenment values to reverse an oppressive, unjust and entirely arbitrary social construction of reality, morality and knowledge...”
She is eloquently saying to smash the ideas of science, reason, and possibly freedom. She claims they are naïve, totalizing, and oppressive. The author, Josh Block, then claims that some of these things are “just one more illegitimate view produced by white men of privilege.”
Ben Shapiro discussed the victim mentality plaguing college campuses:
“Your identity is your virtue. This creates a hierarchy of victimhood ... straight white males are at the very bottom, because straight white males are the victimizers. We can tell whether what you say has value not based on what you’re actually saying, but based instead on your place in this hierarchy of victimhood. If we could somehow find the unicorn of intersectionality, the bisexual, transgender who’s three-quarters black, one quarter Native American and disabled, if we could find that person, we could all just go home, because that person would have every great view. No matter what that person said, it would have to be right; you could not be more of a victim than that human being. And victimhood in our culture now confers privilege.”
After some humour he continued.
“It turns out facts are not hate. It turns out that truth is not hate. If you don’t like what I have to say, then maybe you should argue with what I have to say instead of simply declaring it hate speech and therefore off-limits.”
After more humour he continued.
“That’s not to suggest there aren’t isolated racists and isolated sexists and isolated homophobes and bigots; of course there are; of course there are. But the idea that the institutional society as a whole is out to get you is just plain false, and not only is it false; it’s counterproductive, and destroys your chances at success. Because if you imbibe the spirit that says that you are inherently going to fail, that anybody who says something, who disagrees with you, is going to cause you to be unable to study, and you get a ‘C’ in your diversity studies course, and you can’t go to the law school you wanted to, that’s your own damn fault. That philosophy is your own damn fault. You want to succeed in America? Work harder. That’s all.”
In answer to a question, Ben Shapiro uttered:
“I actually oppose a lot of the hate speech laws, because I think that once you give the government the power to decide which views are acceptable and which are not acceptable, then that gun can turn on you in a hurry, and that scares me a lot more than the idea of a couple of kooks walking around with silly-looking Hitler moustaches.”
Later he stated:
“Because here’s the thing: we’re all either dependent on government or we’re dependent on capitalism. And so we have to make people dependent on capitalism again; we have to make people dependent on markets again, on freedom again, and not on government again.”