Real social justice

Most of what gets passed off as social justice in the West today is embarrassing horseshit. Insecure, professionally marginal ne’er-do-wells in the arts and humanities who know that they will never have the same social proof as their peers in the FIRE sector decide to assuage their own inferiority by lashing out at various minor annoyances who have been rude to them at some point, conflating their resulting butthurt with the real traumas sustained by normal people in real life. This would be merely annoying if they were yelling into the wind; unfortunately, they find receptive audiences for their horrific tales about how verily, thou rotten scoundrel, thou hast caused most grievous injury unto mine bunghole.

Their adversaries on the up-by-the-bootstraps right wing are no less obnoxious. Lately the latter have taken to carrying on about Jonathan Haidt’s five moral senses and how embarrassing it for liberals that they have such undeveloped senses of loyalty, purity, and authority, and instead focus exclusively on harm and faaaaaaairness. All five of these moral senses are equally compelling to immoral people who consider it inappropriate to value not hurting or being unfair to others over compelling obedience to God knows whom and what just because. When I ponder these five moral senses, I can never come to a settled conclusion as to whether Haidt is a visionary or a schmuck running deceptively crude social controls on behalf of tyrants.

Speaking of fairness, though, here’s some. Think about the self-important scumbag hustlers and their apologists who infest positions of power in the Anglo-American world: the multilevel marketing scammers, the “Prosperity Gospel” preachers, the #TCOT Congressmen, the various executives and functionaries who knowingly orchestrated the subprime mortgage bubble and crash through their systematic fraud, the student loan racketeers, the lobbyists representing any of these constituencies, Megan McArdle, Anna Beavon Gravely.

In a fair society, these people would be living under the Cross-Bronx Expressway and eating chow mein out of a dumpster. There are Americans who routinely live harder lives than that, and hardly any of them deserve it. If a society is going to consign some of its members to that sort of hardship, can’t it at least reserve the hard knocks for people who might benefit morally from the humiliation? One comes across the floridly psychotic living like this in the major cities, and some of them have overtly violent ideation, like the guy I saw at Market East a few years ago yelling about smashing in some dude’s kneecaps with a sledgehammer. He probably didn’t even know that he was in Philadelphia. The least someone that crazy deserves is a warm, dry place to get some sleep overnight, if there’s any sleep to be gotten. The SEPTA and Philadelphia Police, to their great credit, let the homeless sleep unmolested overnight in Market East back when I was living in Philly, or mutter about kneecap stigmata if that’s their scene, as long as they aren’t disturbing the exhausted too much. They may still allow this, for all I know.

The ones who deserve to be sleeping on a steam grate aren’t the ones sleeping there. It’s because we’re a wicked society and a wicked people. We celebrate cutthroats who aren’t quite criminal but are the next thing to it, who are so self-dealing, deceptive, destructive, and fraudulent that they really ought to be put out on the street, at least until they can come back with proof that some Pakistani franchisee has taken pity on them and given them a few hours here and there stocking his 7-Eleven. Then they’d be doing something positive with their lives. They’d be doing something for society, instead of to society. Megan McArdle, the daughter of an industry lobbyist who is on a first-name basis with New York City Mayors, makes a big show of being a public intellectual with her Go Galt agitprop. If she were lounging around the Hamptons for weeks on end and getting up at ten in the morning for a tall boy of Sutter Home Chardonnay, she’d merely be a net drain on society. Instead, she’s actively destroying it by telling other people to work for free, if that’s what it takes to stay in the game. Bitch please. Whom won’t she throw under the bus in her pathetic quest to look self-reliant?

Maybe we should pray for mercy instead of justice. The Italians think it prudent. The cool thing is, though, as a society we don’t believe in either mercy or justice. We’re worse than the Timmy-Jimmy cripple fight. At least those two were picking on someone roughly their own size. If you think that’s an unpatriotic smear, go tell any of the shitheads listed above to fuck off. Don’t be part of the problem, then tell me that there is no problem and that I’m rude for calling attention to the problem.

One thing I’ll say for the SJW’s is that they’re low-functioning psychopaths, mostly. They’re the Robert Pickton style of activist creep, too disheveled and disinhibited to really be taken seriously. The others I listed are high-functioning. If you’re going to be leery of anyone, be leery of them.

2 thoughts on “Real social justice

  1. I’d argue that multicultural societies provide the perfect environment for the cutthroat hustling you mentioned. You’re forced to live in a society that is at war with itself and your conceptual space is overloaded with people you share nothing with… the incentives to maintain meaningful bonds and social cohesion start to deteriorate, cheating is incentivized.

    Would love to hear your thoughts on SCALE, i think it’s a concept that’s up your alley:

    • I had some trouble figuring out SCALE at first, but I think I have some sense of it now. It seems like a reasonable enough model for explaining this sort of dyscivic greed in heavily populated, multiethnic societies, but I don’t think it’s an ideal model. Similar levels of greed and fraud have done immense damage in monoethnic societies (e.g., England during enclosure and early industrialization) and societies with small minority populations (e.g., Tsarist Russia, with a modest Jewish minority that the tsars used as their foil and scapegoat).

      Ethnic clashes (and racial ones, race being a close proxy for ethnicity) are a convenient way for elites to divide their subjects against each other, of course. This is why they often do everything they can to inflame ethnic tensions and violently suppress emerging cross-ethnic proletarian alliances. At least two significant white-black alliances were suppressed by the gentry and their enforcers in the US South: Bacon’s Rebellion in the late 17th Century and interracial proto-UFW sharecroppers’ unions in the late 19th Century.

      In the case of today’s Latino-Anglo clashes, there are huge class and civic gulfs between native-born Anglos and foreign Latinos which confound strictly ethnic analyses. The clash in this case isn’t just between natives and foreigners, but also between yeomen and peasants.

      You’re right that it’s harder to divide the working class against itself in monoethnic societies. It may, however, be as much because ethnic differences are too tempting a wedge for the elites to refrain from driving between the proles as it is because the different ethnic groups naturally hate each other.

      BTW, this sort of prole-on-prole, burgher-on-prole, etc. clash instigated by elite third-party provocateurs is a perfect example of what I categorize around here as “bum fights.” I can’t think offhand of a grossly unequal society that hasn’t had conniving elites stirring up this sort of discord among the poors in order to deflect agitation that would otherwise threaten its dominance, or, in extreme circumstances, its lives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s