Jonah J. Goldberg on SOCIAL JUSTICE .... whose social imagination is it anyway?

Today's blog is simply re-posting the most brilliant analysis of social justice ever. Jonah Jacob Goldberg, age 47, is an American conservative syndicated columnist, author and commentator. Goldberg writes about politics and culture for National Review, where he is a Senior Editor. He is the author of these books: Liberal Fascism (2008) and The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas (2012). In the later publication, we find a chapter called - Social Justice. It is incredibly insightful and eye-opening.

From the chapter - "Social Justice", from 'Tyranny of Cliches' by Jonah J. Goldberg, we read about the great deception which is about making the world into a liberal utopia whereby everyone gets what they want when they want it if we only just educate, indoctrinate, brainwash in order to convince people of their 'right' laws which holds up their all benevolent social justice. Its just empty vessel ...an ideology that crept in long ago and its deployment in the making for some time.

It was really had to pick and choose which pages to share. In an attempt to summarize and blend some of Goldberg's observations with my own, this is what was arrived at. However, it would be better to suggest reading the entire book or at least this entire chapter.  In a nutshell, provided here is what can very well be understood as the fundamental foundation of 'social justice'.

Of course, social justice as it sounds was and remains a humanitarian dialogue; and that's about it. Why? Because, in a fallen world it is not possible to be god. The discussion began in the Catholic church going back to 1840. Ironically, the intention may have been innocent but it was born of evil as it puts man at the helm of this fallen world. It leaves God out of the picture, out of the greater good (which He is). We know that this world is passing away and it must as it is fallen and under the law of sin and death. Perhaps, that naive beginning, born of evil, has its purpose too. As we can observe today, it has been adopted by the Left and made into their liberal mission statement which promises a utopia here and now... exactly what Satan wants us to believe. Maybe its part of the great deception.

As it is often put forward and could have one thinking ...the millennium has already started and it began when the social justice movement appeared on the horizon back in 1840. This is what some would like us to believe... that the new heaven and earth are just around the corner; in fact, herald in after the next election if only the democrats get in. But for those of us that are Biblical literate, the second coming has not happened yet nor has the rapture. So, no this is not the millennium - the thousand year reign prior to the new heaven and new earth.

How to not be deceived? Whenever man does not give credit to God and takes it for himself as if he is his own savior, we should be wary. What tells us that there is a strong movement to deceive? Look around. We see this in the mission statements of universities and colleges. For example, The social justice disposition of Brooklyn College has four pillars of their conceptual framework. They say: "We educate teacher candidates and other school personnel about issues of social injustice such as institutionalized racism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism and invite them to develop strategies and practices that challenge such biases - pg. 137.

Many universities around the country are such advocating social justice and at the same time diversity. Sounds fair, right?  But, realistically, how can we have social justice for all differences and appreciate all those differences if the goal is to be fair for everyone.

Again... As Goldberg writes on page 137, the phrase social justice means everything.  Its wants everyone to be happy, to enjoy life being whoever they are and doing whatever they want as long as it is not about conflict... that is conflicting with this/their mantra which is that social justice demands a chicken in every pot but never has a practical means to do it. It always comes back to 'education'. If we just educate. Sorry, to say but most people don't even know how to cook a chicken in a pot knowing that it will be chicken soup.

It is ideological, it wants everything good for everybody and all at the same time or so we are led to believe. How is that possible? Its not... not in this fallen world. The liberal social justice agenda in this country wants to and assumes all kinds of rights: social rights, economic rights etc. Goldberg asks us to think of it this way... the Bill of Rights is framed in the negative because your rights are prior and independent from the government. Hence, "Congress shall make no law..." infringing on this or that right". It means that the government cannot promise all kinds of rights to everyone. Get it?

Whereas a social justice bill of rights might begin, "Government must provide a home, a car, a job, French bulldog puppy, and whatever else. As Goldberg points, you cannot truly have such rights because you are not born with them, as if then they have to be protected. You are not born with an inalienable right to a home. If yes, then why not an inalienable right to a hovercraft or jetpack? ~ Goldberg pgs.142-43.

The fundamental problem with such wide applications of social justice is that there are no limiting principles. There could not be. That's right. Because, every individual in a fallen world is able to demand anything as his/her right - social justice as far as the eye can see pg 144. Given that and being born in a fallen world such social justice would guarantee that evil wins.

Ultimately, social justice is about empire building, Goldberg on pg. 145. Keep in mind that the Roman Empire was sustained by the 'idea of Rome' which always fell far short of the reality. They always promised to build a better world but never had the foggiest idea how to do it. The Romans knew how to build roads, and toilets; all the centurions of social justice know how to provide using someone else's money. Its imperialism fueled by guilt and sustained by smugness. But it is successful. Theses centurions and citizens of social justice, run our schools, our charities, our newspapers (our banks) and if they have their way... our world ~ Jonah J. Goldberg pg. 146.

*Pass it on if you agree!

Who wouldn't wanna be a Liberal ~ In the Social Imagination?

Who wouldn't wanna be a liberal, right? Especially, if you can wear flip flops to work and don't have to get there til 10 as long as you do your job, right? Who wouldn't wanna be a sexual non-descript, a thing but not anything in particular. Sexually, what's one from another... sleeping with anything and everything that turns your head or turns you on; using whatever bathroom or fire-hydrant, bus-stop, tree or bush you want when you want it? Who wouldn't want the government to pay for all the utility bills especially water, and rent and a bad decision or an abortion? The toilet thing is the most liberating/freeing. For example, my newbie immigrant neighbor peed against his fence yesterday... never mind was in the yard with full view. Its all about freedom and toleration in the liberal mindset.

A liberal we all wanna be but yet something in us should tell us that we cannot or should not; unless, one is just a total conformist, a fly by night cause you sleep all day, a political agitator that gets paid to do it,  a person that is just a person that's all and for being just that thinks that he/she should get all the attention that a person justly deserves. But, isn't society at large really just made of 'persons'.  So, what's the problem with being liberal? There is no problem. Yes, and that's the beauty of the liberal mind... there is no problem. The liberal is a sea of persons in which no one can expect anything from you or demand anything from you or want or need or even ask for anything from you. The liberal is and that's just it. Get it?

The liberal is like a flower, it is like the rain, it is like a season, it is like the sun, it is like nature, it is a plain ole thing. But, how would that be if it were what it still likes to think of itself as... an evolving person/animal/thing? If it can think and do something then it is either evolving or already evolved. But, if the liberal is just a flower or the rain, a season, the sun or even nature at large then it can't really think or do anything for itself and it certainly doesn't want to and probably doesn't have to thus - it must already be evolved. Its already in the perfect state of mind And, that's the key to understanding the liberal mind and the wanna be liberal mind. The liberal is happy to be in the perfect state with the state of his/her being in harmony with the state of its being.

Who wouldn't wanna be that? In that state of being, no one would be different or have to be recognized or labeled as different. What for? In fact, there would no longer be anything or any reason to tolerate... put up with since the liberal is the perfect state. Would you be able to sing a different song, walk to a different tune/drum, or just stand out as being different? No! What for? That would destroy the harmony of the liberal mindset and liberal being. If one light goes out among its sameness, there is already one just like it in place. No one would even notice. Cause if you did, things wouldn't be the same anymore!

If we were to be different, then we would have to come back to accepting our differences! And, that is not what we want. What liberals really want is tolerance for their evil sameness. But, you say they are not about evil nor about sameness, they are about totally being free and that's different. Yes and No. For sure, they are not about being different. They want sameness of the worse kind. Total liberty, in fact unchecked freedoms. Their goal maybe even unknowingly becomes a sea of perversion, a sea of unrestricted evil cause its all about freeing of reprobate mind- Romans 1:28.

And worse yet, we would have to come back to 'their' toleration of everything and everybody. But, would that be nice. They really want tulips, daises and daffodils mixed in with cosmos, roses, and weeds. Some of you think may think this is exactly the liberal but its not. The liberal wants toleration but will not tolerate anyone against their freedoms, their corrupted social imagination which puts sameness first because what they want tolerated no one really wants to put with.

Can conservatives like things the same? Yes, if it means established solid social platforms to be used as a means of departure so that interaction can take place where difference exist. Such platforms provide an interactive social arena which give definition to groups interacting within and provide boundaries of behavior... a means to be different within borders. This gives stability to a group any group that socially identifies who it is and is not among other groups that it encounters. In this way, all groups know what they are putting up with and what they knowingly what be able to put up with. What is the solution in that case... join groups that are like minded and be happy! Oh, that's bad that's self segregation. Someone yells...
"What if they lash out at others that are not like them"? Yes, that is the liberal retort...

What if!!!! Well, FYI, there are decent laws in place for most what ifs. Most of which come under the most 'liberal' of Constitutions to believe it or not. Its a fair social contract with civil liberties that most different types and groups can appreciate as it serves the majority as well as minority, and it has served for more than 200 years. People don't really change. There is nothing new under the sun -Ecclesiastes 1:9. Why? Because, this is not a perfect world, its a fallen world and no man can engineer it perfectly for every man on the face of the earth. Somehow... liberals believe that. If I didn't know any better, I would wanna be a liberal.

When the Social Imagination Is Trapped into Toleration!

The foundation of any social imagination is its constituents. Those that compose it, make it something that has definition and borders. Anything that is something has definition and borders otherwise it wouldn't be anything. Some call this society, culture, or in-group. Though others maybe outside of one group they are certainly part of another group. No man is an island. And no man wants to be an island. Everyone wants to be part of a group. The tighter the group, the safer one feels and becomes thus reasonably behaved. They know who they are and are not. They are comfortable and at ease, without stress... one of the guys/gals.


Now if something creeps into the group or is even invited in based on false assumptions, then that something can be seen as foreign, and then the stress levels starts to rise. As as a means to cope, toleration is employed; with the idea and assumption that it will soon leave or be integrated. Some imagine that being tolerant in this situation is freeing... really? Tolerant as a phrasal verb means putting up with. Perhaps, in some instances it is wise to tolerate as an advantage is seen in doing so. But, for long periods of time with loss of expectations as to why tolerating is wise ...if continued, then one can expect negative outcomes.

Toleration is subjective and objective. One can apply toleration when necessary and reap the benefits or not and move on. Objectively, any one person or animal can only tolerate for so long.  An old dog can only put up with a child on its tail for so long. Anyone can observe this... and being objective about it.

In social interaction, objectively speaking when we observe 'social' evolution, we see that the group that succeeds does so not tolerating too much. In fact, amounts of toleration can be part of the ploy to conquer its competition and then take any spoils. There is another maneuver by less aggressive types which would be to evade such an encounter and just hide out or move out of the way so as not to be conquered or eaten up. Tolerating is the later... putting up with something in order to stay alive or in the circle of the higher ups, the eaters.

So, in a social situation 'society' who is always calling for toleration? The lower echelons or the higher ups - elites. The lower are wiser and move out of the way. The higher ups - elites, cannot tolerate very much so they deploy it as a tactic. This way they can round up and pen up the weaker who are already applying toleration and will be willing to tolerate even more - putting up with whatever the elites tell them to tolerate. Those that won't tolerate are shown to be the aggressive 'bully' types when the real bullies are those pulling the strings at the top. Will the non aggressive types ever stop tolerating them? If they did, they would not be weaker anymore they would have joined the aggressive types ... that never would put up with simply tolerating anything anymore. No longer willing to be trapped by deployed toleration!

And we are back to the in-group. Elites are in-groups too as much as any group is having members. They get stressed out too when foreigners enter. But, does that mean we have to tolerate for them? Does it mean we have to put up with something so that they either don't have to and they can rake in the benefits of our toleration?

Is this/that a call for zero for toleration? No... every group knows how much it can tolerate.

No man is an island and no man wants anyone to take his island ...his comfort. And no man wants to put up with anything if he/she does not have to.

The Slippery Slope of Being Anti-Self Segregating!

In a an article by Liz Goodwin, Senior National Affairs Reporter, one can read that the former secretary of state argued for a volunteer plan that would help combat growing self-segregation in America, where people surround themselves with people who think, talk, look and read the same news as them. H.C. stated clearly ...“That comes with a cost, it magnifies our differences,” she said, adding that the election has drawn attention to that trend. And, adding...“Then it makes it harder to put those differences aside when our country needs us.” ~ HC

This organization would be called “Reservists” and under Hillary Clinton’s plan they would respond to natural disasters, help the homeless or tackle other local problems, the campaign said. Under the plan, they would be eligible for college credit, time off from work, or even a “modest stipend,” based on financial need, to participate in the reserve. (Clinton will negotiate with higher education institutions and corporations to get those benefits.) Not really volunteers as promoted but lured by treats and money.

Such a plan as it was once before is to ban self-segregation... and it begins with their version of education.

The question one should ask- Tackle what local problems? Don't we have a democratic republic for the people and by the people? Yes. Is it flawed? Yes. Why? Because this is a fallen world and the reboot hasn't happened yet. One should wonder what local problems HC is talking about if the Federal government has to take over the job that is every Americans' duty - to build up their own communities from the grass roots.

The claim is that people are not able to and it is suggested that diversity is the cause of the problem of self segregating. Really? Diversity does mean differences but given our American social contract - Civil Liberties, and accepting that, we should and we do get along. As for the argument of self segregating. Well we all do it.

We all socially set ourselves a part because it rests on a deeply embedded premise... identity. Who am I and who am I not. We want to be liked, we want to be part of the in-group. We should this in many forms of social interaction from choosing and buying thus owning the latest social media technology. We dress ourselves up in certain clothes, shoes and ladies who doesn't gotta have the latest Coach handbag or Victoria's Secret bra. Not to mention certain t-shirts with trendy phrases printed on them with the tag on the outside showing the brand name label with a price tag over $30/40.

Its not just religion that causes people to be of a certain mindset. Its many other aspects of everyday life lived in a group. Its status, its prestige, its who you know. We all want to be an individual and yet a member of the group. People, being social creatures, naturally gravitate toward like minded people. Isn't that really the agenda of the DNC under HC... we want you to think like this and not like that. They self segregate for their purposes... its human nature.

Erase this from humankind and we get robots... so, let the good come with the bad and the ugly. The world will be more human than inhuman. Its a slippery slope to think that a certain person or agenda has all the answers for life on earth.

What does Diversity mean in the Social Imagination?

In Jonah Goldberg's, a New York Times Best Selling author, book - The Tyranny of Cliches, we can read on page 92, that diversity is an abracadabra word that magically makes inconvenient facts disappear and forces everyone to get in line. Diversity means differences and that means being uncomfortable in the midst of it.  The United States of America was known as a melting pot where differences could melt into a unified entity - the American.

Isn't that what the ruling elite, our politicians and educators want today... a non self segregating all around American who loves his/her country and believes that the government is for the people? It seems that is what they want but then why do they go about with diversity on their lips? Isn't it then a means to control certain groups, to label them to their own advantage? You see, they don't imagine a diverse multi cultural entity that blends and smooths things out for itself. Why? Because, then their power would be lost. Who would need them, right?

They make the claim that Diversity makes us stronger... It can make them stronger. As just stated above, if they do the labeling, they get to control what they label. Nevertheless, diversity as a plus can be argued on both sides of the coin. It does if we think about diversity in a stock report or investor portfolio but if we want to have a solid piece of steel we won't mix clay with it... they don't cleave.  But, they continue to make the argument that diversity is useful in groupthink. Ok, but How???

People can bring up different issues pertaining to their spheres of knowledge and know how, which includes their cultural data; but if we have our own spheres of knowledge and know how in a cultural context then how do we appreciate each other's differences... the different meanings that can be applied? Then we cannot really apply diversity if in that there exists different meaning for different groups. So, the agenda must be to make everyone the same but in a way that they think its all about diversity.

As Goldberg points out in his book, on page 96, there is a deeper level to the agenda of such diversity. Its about power and because of that it gives power to the social engineers. Which is true as I was kicked off the dept for stating exactly that. As Goldberg continues, and I agree, by making diversity a compelling state interest or social imperative, someone has to decide what does or does not count as beneficial diversity and that someone is invariable a social engineer like Lee Bollinger at the University of Michigan who assigned a numerical value to the race of applicants. If you oppose such narrow schemes, then you are against diversity which is in some circles code for racist [pg. 97].

The irony regarding that the popular creation of a particular student group with special events connected to that group being different. Moreover, faculty and administration thereby actually encourage differences and labeling. But, again this is their way of controlling.  Don't forget they are part of the system of elite control.

Robert Putnam a liberal sociologist from Harvard discovered that diverse communities become frayed. People end up bowling alone as social trust plummets [pg. 98].

In my own research conducted for the study of the western social imagination, the results showed that people though likely diversity being out there... they did not want it at home so to speak. They described their ideal soceity as cohesive and in solidarity via social contract and similar belief system. Not much living the diversity though having access to it would be acceptable if there was ever a need to change things up a bit.

I am sure that you have observed that pizza in America is not the same as pizza in Naples or Chinese food as we would experience in China. We like to know that there is variety if we want to add some to our own life. But, just because you put a certain sauce or spice on your food does not mean it has the same taste, or meaning in your life as it does in the place of its origin.

 * Source ~ The Tyranny of Cliches, How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas. By Jonah Goldberg:2013