Communism: Social justice
First came the claims of ‘systemic discrimination’. They, in short, stated unequivocally that some racial groups performed worse than others, explicitly due to the colour of their skin.
I know, I know - sounds like a job for the social justice warrior.
But, very strangely, while they did in fact engage, they amusingly did so on the side of the discriminators, to whom, merely considering any other potential input factor was considered hateful. It simply could not be that this wasn’t a ruling explicitly on race.
Of course, alleged ‘systemic discrimination’ wasn’t just about race. It was also about gender. And sexuality. And every other metric which you care to mention… which you’d have thought would be explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc to judge on account of. But no, it all very strangely works the other way.
It really is all upside-down in the world of the social justice warrior - especially in the context of freedom.
-
The claims of ‘systemic discrimination’ were met by requests to outline the legislation responsible for said, because that’s how our system works. We have a common set of laws - a legislative framework - and when we collectively (and democratically) discover an issue therein, we seek to fix this issue by changing the law. And this, in turn, moves through judges, who rule on account of said law.
This is pretty basic stuff, and it’s how Western style democracies are supposed to work. Within the legal framework, you are entirely allowed to seek your fortune and fame.
Of course, this doesn’t appear to apply to the corrupt elite nor their useful idiots, antifa, who have made a complete and utter mockery of the social contract repeatedly.
But those who make said claims refuse to identify said legislative issues, instead, relying on opaque claims of ‘historical injustice’ and so forth. And in that regard - sure, there were issues in the past, but they should largely - if not completely - have been ironed out by now. Ironically, the best remaining contemporary examples in this regard are laws related to ‘positive discrimination’ and so forth. Those laws, in fact, are generally explicitly racist/sexist/etc, but for some reason - which no-one can fully explain, without resorting to unprovable claims - that’s apparently fine.
-
So on a background of opaque claims of ‘systemic discrimination’, some decided we must have ‘social justice’. Exactly what this relates to, well, it’s more of the same. It’s correcting past ills, and so forth. But where this becomes stuck is here -
Given our legal framework, why can’t they propose a set a legislation which seeks to correct said ills?
They, generally, refuse to do so, and why is fairly simple. Because these proposed laws would be explicitly racist/sexist and so forth. In fact, the few who do come up with legislation, prove this point exactly - like this absurdity of what’s currently taking place in hyper-liberal world tech capital San Francisco, which entirely by coincidence is also collapsing in spite of their wealth of highly paid employees translating into taxes for local authorities.
Why a single white person would remain should this be enacted I will never understand. You will be plucked for crimes your ancestors are alleged to have committed.
And never mind your Union forefathers dying in the civil war, no. And it certainly doesn’t even matter if you’re a polish H1B worker, nor if your country was the first in the world to ban slavery, with would mean either Denmark or the United Kingdom, depending on definition. No, you will be explicitly judged by the colour of your skin.
And so will your unborn children. It’s the original sin, repackaged as explicit racism.
And this, of course, furthermore also creates a perverse incentive of exploitation.
-
The correct action here, of course, is to correct the ills of the existing framework, which though certainly not perfect, is almost certainly better than any alternative the world has seen over the long term, also considering the appeals process.
Because the alternative here to a clearly defined set of laws, would be to hand some unaccountable cureaucratic judge (or council) power to rule arbitrarily. And the very last person you’d want act in that capacity, is someone biased to the extreme. But ask any social justice warrior who should act in this capacity, and I can absolutely guarantee that few if any conservatives would be elected in a such capacity. No, in fact, they would virtually all be fellow hard left types social warrior types, not just because that’s the prevailing ideology of that community, but also because if there is one thing they refuse to, it’s listen. Hell, they practically always even refuse civil debate, the claim being that this ‘lends hate a platform’. And never mind their own explicit bigorty.
-
Those who follow said ‘social justice’ ideology are generally considered ‘woke’. The terms here are somewhat interchangeable, because what do you do with woke values? You seek justice, naturally. Regardless, the hypothetical argument here is that ‘woke’ describes a passive state, and ‘social justice warrior’ the active. But both are centered around the principle of ‘social justice’.
And oh boy, there is a lot of claimed justice to seek.
Because - as outline above - it’s not just racial injustice. It’s also women’s inequality, gay rights, ... in fact, there’s an incredibly long list of injustice, should you listen to their arguments, which by and large can be summed as such: men vs women, rich vs poor, straight vs gay, white vs black, young vs old, … oppressor vs oppressed, in other words.
Us vs them.
This can be summed up rapidly. Its Frankfurt School Critical Theory.
And critical theory is Marxism.
-
But with these labels, we have a new problem. Because there are rather a lot of categories of injustice; there’s that experienced by the white straight men, or the black gay women, or even asian asexual women, and so forth. In fact, there’s an almost infinite amount of combinations of justice to seek, and this is where the next invention comes into play.
Intersectionality.
The premise is that the concept of ‘intersectionality’ will allow the injustices experienced by differing social groups to be weighted relative to one another, so that said wrongs can be corrected. The concept in itself, of course, is absurd, because there is a huge slew of socio-economic inputs which are never considered. You simply cannot create binary categories to include all factors without ending up with a combinational explosion. Wealth, gender, age, height, sexuality… 2^5 = 32 categories already. Another 5 and you have 1,024.
However, what this system does mean, is that we once again end up in a situation where someone will judge which social group is the more marginalised one.
It also, again, creates a deeply destructive system, where socio-economic groups intentionally sabotaging themselves receive the most benefit. It’s a completely unworkable proposition, but those acting in advocacy will never accept this in a million years.
But - intentional or not (and it obviously is) - this also means that intersectionality can be used as an express framework for systemic discriminanation. It can be used to discriminate and favour any group you may wish, for whatever purpose - because the judge in these matters do not have a legal framework to stick to whatsoever.
What all this absurdity should do, is highlight why the legal framework exists in the first place, and why intersectionality is a deeply destructive framework, which delivers exactly the opposite of its premise.
-
So, to quickly sum up before moving forward -
Woke means following an agenda of social justice.
Social justice calls for a judge to rule the individual case of claimed injustice.
Said judge will rule outside of stated law, because any legislation seeking to correct alleged injustice would be explicitly racist, sexist, etc.
Without a legal framework, judging a case on merits for a 3rd party becomes virtually impossible.
Claims of injustice takes many shapes - categories - and we find these as gender, sexuality, race, wealth, age, and so forth.
The quantity of categories will lead to an eventual combinatorial explosion.
To correct for overlapping categories, intersectionality is presented, which in short claims to interpret injustice carried out against groups of people as a whole. Individuality as a concept? No such thing.
This, also, furthermore calls for someone working in a high position of judgmental capacity, to interpret the many combinations of alleged injustice.
In the context of intersectional injustice, your personal background or individual experience simply does not matter. What matters is if you’re black or white, male or female, etc, which is explicitly what it claims that it is seeking to solve.
This leads inescapably to intersectionality being an easily exploitable system of mass discrimination.
-
It is commonly stated, that communists turn absurdities into crimes, and then judge you accordingly.
How exactly does that differ from the approach favoured by followers of social justice, be they woke or warriors?
It simply doesn’t.
Being woke (or being for social justice, for that matter) means subscribing to veiled marxism.
-
So how does all of this fit in with contemporary settings? Well, here are two examples.
The first is in a WHO report, authored in 2008, with Michael Marmot being the lead author; ‘Closing the gap in a generation’.
And while this is an extraordinary report for a great number of reasons - including wanting to wholesale reorganise society as a general recommendation, and wanting the WHO to roll out a global surveillance system to monitor any alleged health inequity.
But it also - in true communist fashion - makes one absurd promise after another, but these are only possible through global governance (of course), a ‘strong public sector’, a whole-of-society approach, and utilising a framework of Social Determinants of Health Marxism… all of which, identically, match calls in ‘One Health’ proposals around this time.
Oh wait, and all of those are also in the pandemic treaty, and Berlin Principles!
But in the context of ‘social justice’, where it jumps the shark is not on page 21, where it outlines its integration into SDG 16.9 (which from an implementationary perspective is about digital identity), but instead in Section 3, where it states that said surveillance data used to determine the Social Determinants of Health still would require to be judged on fitness for purpose.
And that’s where the undemocratic, unaccountable Marxist judge discussed above comes in play, who will decide your fate outside the scope of legislation.
-
Another example is contemporary legislation on ‘hate speech’ in the European Union.
The earliest document in this regard actually traces back to 1950, before the Union officially formed in 1992; ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms‘.
This, however, derived upon 1948 work by the United Nations.
‘Hate speech’ as a concept started gathering pace during several rulings on Article 8 and LGBT around 20 years ago.
And these are summed up in the general article as such -
This caually states that the article has a ‘broad interpretation’, which will eventually be interpreted by… a judge, ruling through broad interpretation.
And that’s it. All other links to a strict definition eventually leads to circular reference beyond the above.
-
But even a raging Marxist judge ruling over you isn’t as bad as what’s in the works. Because at least with a Marxist judge, you will still speak to another human.
But this is far worse. And it’s from 2022, with earlier work in 2021. Courtesy of the Council of Europe and the Alan Turing Institute.
But through AI, you will never manage even that. Rather, the engineering team who wrote the AI - and the team training it - will be physically removed from you. You will have literally no-one to speak to. A computer will decide your fate, and there will be virtually nothing you can do to influence the outcome.