Sunday, June 14, 2015

Zozchial Juztitz

I have a bit of a problem with 'Social Justice', and it seems that quite a few of the customers in the Tavern do too. 

How does 'Social Justice' differ from 'Justice'?

Is it different better? Or different worse?

Some discussion gave some clarity and answers.

Should we be having many other justices too? Is there a 'non-social' justice? A justice that has nothing whatsoever to do with people?  One confined to fish, for example. We didn't get around to those by closing time. Perhaps another day.

Wherever one goes, even in the Christian world, one keeps stumbling over this term and its associated practices. It has infected the Catholic Church no less than many other areas of life and Institutions. And I do not like it one little bit.

Just listen to this. A chap at the bar read it out to me:
The Australian Catholic Social Justice Council (ACSJC) was set up by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC) in 1987 as the national justice and peace agency of the Catholic Church in Australia.

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference mandates the ACSJC to promote research, education, advocacy and action on social justice, peace and human rights, integrating them deeply into the life of the whole Catholic community in Australia, and providing a credible Catholic voice on these matters in Australian society.

In this way the ACSJC seeks to bring good news to the poor, release to captives, sight to the blind and freedom to the oppressed. The ACSJC is accountable to the ACBC through the Bishops Commission for Justice, Ecology and Development.

Ahha. The 'Oppressed'.

These Bishops are fine fellows all. But........

Rarely does one get three whole paragraphs of weasel-words together.

Did you hear Jesus saying any of that? I do reall something about "I bring a sword". 

A sword is needed here just to cut through the mendacious clap-trap. It is a small step, oft taken, to the focus being put on the supposedly patriarchal, racist, homophobic world inflicted on women and 'people of colour'.  Oh how 'Oppressed'.

The Church in Oz is currently right in there railing about 'violence against women', while totally ignoring both the tiny proportion of such violence in the population (5% ?) and the just about equal amount of violence against men.

Jesus on the Cross would not be seen at all if there was a woman in a spat with her husband on the lower slopes of Golgatha.

We shall see where weasel words beget more weasel words and ones that evolve into wolf words and sabretooth tiger words. They turn on you and devour you. The Rabbit-Hole world of Alice in Wonderland was a blood-thirsty place.

The Word that Chist asked us to spread, gets swamped, diverted, 'marginalised' even !.

We all want to see Justice. We all agree with the concept of Justice. And a clear concept it is. It is straightforward but continually gets mangled by increasingly divisive other ideas.  'Divisive' itself is one of those ideas that mangle. One the one hand anything 'divisive' is seen as a 'bad' by the Social Justice Warriors, yet it is used by the same SJWs to divide and destroy. 

It is a 'Political Correctness' term.
Justice does not need an adjective before it.

Or after. Or around.

Zozchial Juztitz on the other hand comes replete wih all the baggage of socialism, marxism, envy, and hatred.  It has NO Place in Christian thought or legislative practice.

It has not only taken over entire fields and meadows of the Church but has become a religion in and of and for itself. No-one is safe from the ire of SJWs. Even SJWs  themselves are not safe. They are just like the early, mid and later Marxists, intent on 'purges' of their predecessors.

The Sherwood Family were in and saying just that. They seemed to know what they were talking about as I overheard.
“Social Justice” is a religion. 
It has saints, dogma, and sacraments. It also has backsliders and apostates. As any religion knows, apostates must be dealt with lest they lead the rest of the flock astray. So any expression that shows them to be in any way rejecting the creeds of Social Justice must be met with a inquisitorial zeal.
They must be made to recant…not just for the safety of the flock but for the good of their own souls. If they, like the proverbial village in Vietnam, have to be destroyed in order to be saved…well…so be it.
They? That does not include me and the Tavern customers being talked about.  And very likely not you too. We are the targets of the original  'direct action', not the also-rans who have to be purged by the next lot on the hierarchy ladder of lefty lunacy. 
The interesting thing is that positions that were blessed by the SJWs in the past become rapidly outmoded and outdated and thus…incorrect. Evolve too slowly and one is a throwback reactionary who does not believe in progress, despite the fact that one’s views may be utterly in harmony with the doctrine of the church of Social Justice from only a few years ago.

SJWs cannot evolve too quickly either. That risks alienating the mass of SJWs who are not yet ready for more advanced views. But they do have a vanguard group who agitates for the more extreme positions, knowing that a slightly less extreme compromise will lead the faithful by the nose to the positions staked out by the vanguard over time.

Four decades ago it was decriminalizing homosexuality and legalizing abortion. Suggesting homosexuals should have the ability to marry and adopt would have been unacceptable except among a small group. And pushing for things like partial birth abortion would not even have been mentioned because it would have been too barbarous to be considered. 
Today, subscribing to these views is a requirement, a holy crusade for equality. Denying these “rights” today is sin. And the SJW church will require one to immediately confess their sin and be forced to undergo a struggle session to get their mind right.
But the interesting thing to watch is the avant-garde views that are slowly assimilated by the mass and made mainstream. What are the avant-garde views today? Where, in other words, are the SJWs headed?

This seems to me one of the reasons that aging liberals often wake up and begin adopting more moderate and in some cases even conservative views…because they were comfortable with progress up to a point but the movement has gone beyond their arbitrarily chosen boundaries and they too suddenly find themselves athwart history yelling stop.
It is also one of the reasons why the “former liberal conversos” are extremely dubious, in my opinion. They often fail to acknowledge that it was their own efforts to promote “progress” in the first place that has landed all of us where we are now.

There is no compromise with progressivism and trying to stop it at some line drawn in the sand is a fool’s errand. 
Trying to hold them at bay cedes momentum to the progressives. Only a concerted campaign to destroy progressives root and branch by forcing the march of history in the other direction will ever have an effect.

Don’t want to be forced to support and defend homosexual marriage? Then arguing for a live and let live approach is stupid. Homosexuals certainly aren’t content with that.

Only forcing the issue the other direction offers hope.
Don’t want to be forced to have your tax money pay for contraception and abortions on demand? Then stop tolerating the existence of abortion which makes that the likeliest outcome over time.
In short, the only solution is to crush the SJWs. Remember…nits make lice. Extirpate them early and often.
I am inclined to agree. Being a Warrior of the old school who was content to plant and harvest and mend the harnesses. Such folk as I prefer to live rather than simply fight; and so when a fight comes along that cannot be avoided by diplomacy or chivalry, you have to go in hard and destroy your enemy so you can get back to daily living and serving God's Good Grace.

Evil cannot be diplomatically 'managed'. It will destroy you unless you stop it dead.

A Church and a Tavern and indeed any person is known by the company they keep. Let us have a look at a few Zozchial Juztitz Warriors and where their zeal leads. We dealt with a few such people the other day when looking at those Robber Barons of the Charity Industry. 

Cathy Young did some of the honours for us.
The Pecking Disorder: Social Justice Warriors Gone Wild

The ordeal of Northwestern University film professor Laura Kipnis, hauled before a campus gender equity tribunal for publishing a critique of academia’s current obsession with sexual misconduct, has brought the backlash against “political correctness” to reliably left-of-center venues such as Vox. But this is only the latest incident in the culture wars over “social justice” that have been wreaking havoc in a wide range of communities—including, but not limited to, universities, the literary world, science fiction fandom and (even) the atheist/skeptic movement.
The progressive crusaders driving these wars have been dubbed “social justice warriors,” or “SJWs,” by their Internet foes. Some activists on the left proudly embrace the label, crowing that it says a lot about the other side that it uses “social justice” as a derisive epithet. 
But in fact, this version of “social justice” is not about social justice at all. 
It is a cultish, essentially totalitarian ideology deeply inimical—as liberals such as Jonathan Chaitwarn in New York Magazine—to the traditional values of the liberal left, and not just because of the movement’s hostility to freedom of “harmful” speech.
At the core of social justice dogma is fixation on identity and “privilege.” 
In Church terms, this is 'the poor'. Many churchmen and lay parishioners are prey to twisted words. 
Some of this discourse touches on real and clear inequities: for instance, the widespread tendency of police and others to treat African-Americans, especially young and male, as potential lawbreakers. Yet even here, the rhetoric of privilege generates far more heat than light.
Not to mention a different sort of Light that Jesus had in mind. This is more like Lucifer's. 
University of California-Merced sociologist Tanya Bolash-Goza, who accepts the social justice left’s view of pervasive structural racism in America, points out that the term “white privilege” turns what should be the norm for all—not being harassed by cops or eyed suspiciously by shop owners—into a special advantage unfairly enjoyed by whites. (Indeed, in its dictionary meaning, “privilege” refers to rights or benefits possessed by the select, not by the majority.) 
This language speaks not to black betterment but to white guilt. It also erases the fact that the “privilege” extends to many non-white groups, such as Asians.
Er.... as I said, it is Divisive. 
Privilege rhetoric offers an absurdly simplistic view of complex social dynamics. A widely cited essay by pro-“social justice” sci-fi writer John Scalzi seeks to explain privilege to geeks by arguing that being a straight white male is akin to playing a videogame on “the lowest difficulty setting.” Does the white son of a poor single mother have it easier than the daughter of a wealthy black couple? As a minor afterthought, Scalzi mentions that “players” in other groups may be better off if they start with more “points” in areas such as wealth. 

But generally, the “social justice” left strenuously avoids the issue of socioeconomic background, which, despite upward mobility, is surely the most tangible and entrenched form of actual privilege in modern American society. Rather, the focus is on racial, sexual, and cultural identities.

While social justice discourse embraces “intersectionality”—the understanding that different forms of social advantage and disadvantage interact with each other—this virtually never works in favor of the “privileged.” 
Thus, intersectionality may mean recognizing that disabled battered women suffer from both sexism and “ableism.” 
Recognizing that disabled men may be at greater risk for spousal abuse because disability reverses the usual male advantage in strength? Not so much. 
To acknowledge advantages enjoyed by the “oppressed”—for instance, gender bias favoring female defendants in criminal cases or mothers in custody suits—is pure heresy. The only moral dilemma is which oppressed identity trumps which: race or gender, sexuality or religion.

This hierarchy of identity politics can lead to some bizarre inversions of progressive values. 
Thus, because Muslims are classified as “marginalized” and “non-privileged” in the West’s power structures, critics of misogyny and homophobia in fundamentalist Islam risk being chastised for “Islamophobic” prejudice. 
Charlie Hebdo, the staunchly left-wing French magazine murderously attacked in January in retaliation for its Mohammed cartoons, was denounced by a number of leftist critics who felt that the magazine’s satirical barbs at Islam (along with other organized religions) amounted to “punching down” at the powerless. The men with guns who shot twelve Charliestaffers were presumably punching up.
On the other hand, since Jews in Western society today are seen as more privileged than not, social justice discourse sheepishly sidesteps anti-Semitism—surely one of the most pernicious forms of bigotry in Western history. 
Salon, more or less the Pravda of today’s social justice left, recently ran a piece arguing that the coming reboot of the X-Men franchise should reinvent its character Magneto, a Jewish Auschwitz survivor, as black in order to “get real about race.” 
The practical effects of such “social justice” ideology be seen in the communities where it flourishes (mainly on college campuses and online). 
It is a reverse caste system in which a person’s status and worth depends entirely on their perceived oppression and disadvantage. 
Nuances of rank can be as rigid as in the most oppressively hierarchical traditional society. A white woman upset by an insulting comment from a white man qualifies for sympathy and support; a white woman distraught at being ripped to shreds by a “woman of color” for an apparent racial faux pas can be ridiculed for “white girl tears.” However, if she turns out to be a rape victim, the mockery probably crosses a line. On the other hand, a straight white male trashed by an online mob for some vague offenses deemed misogynist and racist can invite more vitriol by revealing that he is a sexual abuse survivor suffering from post-traumatic stress.
 Many are the 'Keynote' Warriors. Some are infamous names who are not only feted by the media but employed there. And they are strangely resembling of  quite looney people of the past. Many then and now should really be in mental institutions if Churches had any sway in the Compassion biz.

Whoops. Churches were there in the background of the closing down of mental institutions. They were 'oppressive' places.

Matt Forey had an opinion. I gave him a pint for sheer ascendancy:
5 Modern Day Social Justice Warriors Who Would Have Been Institutionalized In The Past 
Are SJWs mentally ill?  

Social justice warriors are known for their angry, morally righteous proclamations on the evils of modern society. Prominent SJWs such as Anita Sarkeesian, Laurie Penny and John Scalzi rail against the injustices that our supposedly patriarchal, racist, homophobic world inflicts on women and people of color. However, given how ludicrous and out of touch their ideas are, has anyone wondered if SJWs simply aren’t right in the head?
In the past, anyone who made the kinds of statements spat forth by prominent SJWs would have been condemned to an insane asylum. 
Here are five prominent SJWs and how they compare to famous institutionalized writers and ideologues of the past.

1. Jessica Valenti

Best known as the founder of the once-prominent feminist blog Feministing, Jessica Valenti currently works as a staff columnist for The Guardian. Valenti has argued that virginity is a social construct in her book The Purity Myth, declared that women who claim to be rape victims should be automatically believed despite the evidence, and has advocated for rape trials returning to standards of proof that were abandoned in the Middle Ages.
Similar To: Virginia Woolf
A prominent feminist of the early 20th century, Virginia Woolf’s meandering, onanistic fiction was a considerable influence on modernist and postmodernist writers. Her most famous feminist work is the essay “A Room of One’s Own,” which was satirized by the South African poet Roy Campbell in his poem “On the Same”:
Far from the Vulgar haunts of men,
Each sits in her successful room. 
Housekeeping with her fountain pen, 
and writing novels with her broom.
Woolf suffered from bipolar disorder and was repeatedly institutionalized due to the nervous breakdowns she suffered over the course of her life. Starting with the death of her mother when she was 15, she underwent periodic mental breakdowns that were preceded by violent migraines and insomnia, which left their mark on her writing. Woolf eventually committed suicide by drowning in 1941.
2. Jian Ghomeshi
The former host of CBC Radio’s arts program Q, Jian Ghomeshi is an outspoken feminist who once said that he “believe[d] that the world would be a better place if it were run by women.”
Funny how Feminism is so prevalent in the Zozchial Juztitz field. 
Last year, Ghomeshi was fired by CBC Radio after several women came forward with allegations that he beat and raped them. While Ghomeshi attempted to defend himself by claiming that his abuse was actually consensual BDSM, 15 separate women have since claimed that he never once obtained consent from them.

Similar To: The Marquis de Sade

The Marquis de Sade was one of the most prominent writers of the French Revolution; his books on sexual perversion and degeneracy are so legendary that the term “sadism,” the tendency to derive pleasure from inflicting pain on others, takes its name from him. He was also one of the most vehement feminists of his era, seeking to liberate women from patriarchal mores so they could better serve his depraved lusts. Sade spent over 30 years of his life in insane asylums and eventually died in prison after Napoleon ordered his arrest.
3. Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig
A soi-disant Christian socialist and contributor to The New Republic, Stoker Bruenig has a long history of bizarre outbursts. Following the implosion of Rolling Stone’s discredited article “A Rape on Campus,” about a violent gang rape that occurred at the University of Virginia, Stoker Bruenig argued that the reason the piece failed was because “it used rightwing tactics to make a leftist point.” She also accused ROK publisher Roosh Valizadeh of making rape threats against her after he asked his Twitter followers to gauge her attractiveness.
Similar To: Sylvia Plath
A darling of English professors (that is to say Professors of English with large female classes) and anthology editors, Sylvia Plath was a mentally unstable poet who penned doggerel about how her daddy didn’t give her enough hugs when she was growing up. She spent much of her life in mental institutions due to chronic depression; after receiving electroshock therapy in 1953, she attempted suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills. Plath would finally succeed in taking her own life in 1963, leaving her husband and children behind.
4. Hugo Schwyzer
For over a decade, Hugo Schwyzer was one of feminism’s most prominent male voices, writing for major publications such as The Atlantic and Jezebel, teaching community college courses on the subject, and even leading L.A.’s SlutWalk in 2011. Schwyzer took extremist stances even by the standards of male feminists, including advocating that men allow their girlfriends to penetrate them with strap-ons, getting circumcised in his mid-30’s as a gift to his then-wife, and claiming that men should not date women younger than themselves.
In 2013, following revelations that he had been cheating on his wife with a porn star, Schwyzer had a widely-publicized mental breakdown and suicide attempt. In a manic, narcissistic Twitter rant, he revealed that he had falsified his credentials as a feminist professor, engaged in affairs with his female students, and more.
This was especially shocking considering that Schwyzer had built his reputation on being a “reformed bad boy,” who used to sleep with his students, abuse drugs and alcohol, and attempted to murder his ex-girlfriend.
Similar To: Bill Wilson
Bill Wilson, aka Bill W., co-founded Alcoholics Anonymous in 1935 after being repeatedly institutionalized due to his drinking. His inspiration for founding AA came from a “vision” of God he had while on belladonna, an extremely powerful hallucinogen that was used as a quack cure for alcoholism up until a few decades ago. While never formerly diagnosed, Wilson’s grandiose personality and self-aggrandizing behavior fits the definition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Despite being a Christian and a vocal advocate for temperance, Wilson was a serial adulterer known for coercing young women who joined AA into sexual relationships, a practice now known as “13th stepping.” Yet, while he was busy taking advantage of attractive girls who were recovering from alcoholism, Wilson remained unemployed throughout his life and depended on his wife Lois to pay the bills with her day job.
Additionally, despite the purported success of AA in helping drunks sober up, Wilson repeatedly relapsed throughout his life and even begged for whiskey on his deathbed. The inability of the Twelve Steps to cure even the man who thought them up is borne out in AA’s horrifically high failure rates. According to scientific studies, 90 to 95 percent of alcoholics who join AA end up relapsing within six months, and AA may in fact be worse for alcoholics then doing nothing at all.
5. David Futrelle
David Futrelle is a freelance writer from Chicago who has achieved minor notoriety for his anti-anti-feminist blog Manboobz, renamed We Hunted the Mammoth after male feminist Elliot Rodger went on a shooting spree last year. On his blog, Futrelle frequently cherry-picks quotes from trolls in an attempt to smear anti-feminists and MRAs, citing them as examples of what sites like ROK actually advocate.
While Futrelle’s site is frequently mined for reference material by larger publications, he has yet to achieve the big breakthrough he’s been hoping for.
Despite his current advocacy for feminism, Futrelle has a hidden history as a men’s rights sympathizer. A decade ago, he wrote a letter to the Chicago Reader in which he supported the opening of a Borders bookstore in his neighborhood of Andersonville because the only other bookstore was a womens’ one. He also described himself as a “lapsed feminist.”
Similar To: Matt Cvetic
Matt Cvetic was an FBI informant who achieved minor notoriety in the 1940’s after he infiltrated the Communist Party of the USA and wrote about his experiences in the Saturday Evening Post, later testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). His tales of life in the party were dramatized in the radio serial I Was a Communist for the FBI, which was later adapted for film in 1951.
Despite his fame, Cvetic’s testimony was eventually discredited after it was revealed that he was an alcoholic who frequently falsified stories. After being institutionalized due to a nervous breakdown in the late 1950’s, Cvetic died of a drinking-induced heart attack in 1962.
As you can see, the loudest and most prominent SJWs of today exhibit obvious signs of mental illness and substance abuse. While suffering nervous breakdowns or becoming addicted to alcohol don’t inherently make someone evil, those who lack the capacity to manage their own lives have no business telling anyone else how to live theirs. 
Social justice warriors’ moral crusades are the by-products of their defective minds.
It is to be noted, as a warning perhaps, that all of these people would be allowed into the Tavern. I would happily pull a pint or pour some spirit for them. Even mix a fine cocktail for Jessica.  This Tavern is a place for sinners after all.

But the Bouncer would be on hand for quick action and my usual compassion and kindness would be checked by sense and sensitivity. Sinners are fine if their steps are in the right direction.

All of these characters though are apt to be incontinent and I do not permit their wee-wees on my carpets.

I wish our Churchmen had the same attitude.



  1. Nits turn into lice.... and social justice begins in the womb.

    1. Yes, our society (and Churches) seem to have forgotten the nits-comb. Rastafarian 'hair' is all the rage.

  2. "On the other hand, since Jews in Western society today are seen as more privileged than not, social justice discourse sheepishly sidesteps anti-Semitism—"
    Academia, and it's impressionable captured audience of useful idiots (see Sophomoric/Sophist) in the US has evolved in their position of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and "progressed" into Boycott, Diversify, and Sanction...of "investments" related to Israel.
    Nothing of "Social Justice" maven Sanger?

    1. BDS. Good point but offside. BDS SJWs attack Israel and businesses, not 'Jews' per se. They call it being against Zionism. That is the sidestep mentioned. And again the attacks by BDS far outweigh the minor and almost apologetic criticisms that 'might' be levelled against Islam, where one can find any.

      As for Sanger, I could have put my oar in the water more but let the customers do most of the talking.

  3. "As for (admittedly, merely ONE character in the cast of thousands) I could have put my oar in the water more...."
    IMHO, one could WATER SKI behind such a trireme, mindful of course that even our gracious host has to seek food, drink, fire, shelter, and sleep, SOMETIME!

  4. In the end, we're dealing here with humans and humans are corruptible. I have an issue with human intermediaries.

    1. Yes. And also the stuff of Saints. The key issues are Trust - which in other people has to be earned and can easily be faked - and personal responsibility. Both are moral issues.

      We have to be able to Trust others but only with discernment, prudence and the ability to act against the untrustworthy. We have to also take responsibility for our own acts of charity. We may join with others in being charitable but must not let that 'community' subvert us or lull us into any false sense.


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..