Bari Weiss: an interview, and a definition
First, the interview:
Now, the definition, which I found here but which appeared in this piece by Weiss and refers to the leftist philosophy that dominates universities and beyond and is especially rife among the young adults indoctrinated in it:
What I saw was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Color blindness with race obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob.
People were to be given authority in this new order not in recognition of their gifts, hard work, accomplishments, or contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their group had suffered, as defined by radical ideologues.
It is indeed a replacement of traditional and/or commonsense approaches with attitudes designed to end Western culture as we know it, and to facilitate the triumph of evil.
“It is indeed a replacement of traditional and/or commonsense approaches with attitudes designed to end Western culture as we know it, and to facilitate the triumph of evil.”
The greater the evil, the greater the sacrifice good must make to defeat it.
The young Israeli couple really grab my attention and compassion. They are grieving and trying to do something that will prevent such atrocious savagery from happening again.
They feel the need to share their anguish and experiences in the hope that it can help people understand the depravity and horror of what Hamas is and what they have done.
Your quote from the Weiss essay is a perfect description of the metamorphosis of opinion in academia. It has turned the world upside down – lack of accomplishment must be rewarded and accomplishment must be punished. A new form of statist authoritarianism meant to overthrow the existing order.
It.Must.Be.Rejected.
This is the seed for the “decolonization” movement among white leftists and Marxist indigenous people.
If you’ve got power position or privilege now, and you also are white and are somewhere where white folks settled from afar… you must go.
If possible, I would like to ask a leftist why powerless = good and powerful = bad. Is it not possible that a powerful person can do good? Or that a powerless person can do bad? And if so, how is it reasonable to lump the powerful and powerless into groups without looking at the individual? Do you, the leftist think that everything you and your leftist friends do is always good? I wonder how such a person would honestly answer without dodging the questions.
long story short, yes, they do, they want to perfect humanity, which means doing away with the inconvenience of binary gender, it is the promise that Satan offered, to Adam, and that has reappeared over Millenia, in more modern times it was the standard of the Jacobin and the Marxist,
Bill K (7:27 pm) asks, rhetorically,
“Do you, the leftist think that everything you and your leftist friends do is always good? I wonder how such a person would honestly answer without dodging the questions.”
The answer is yes. The reason is that the leftist truly, truly believes (fancies!) that his/her/its motives are always pure, always selflessly impelled by a concern for the downtrodden, the underdog, the powerless, the hapless/helpless.
I’d suppose that “such a person” will happily concede that while his/her/its individual actions may at times fall short of metaphysically absolute good, it’s merely human frailty at work. But his/her/its intentions are ideologically righteous, pure as the driven snow.
Many years ago, an older friend remarked that “liberals believe humans are perfectible, and they hold themselves up as examples.” Maybe “liberals” should now be replaced by “leftists”, but for me, the point either way is very sound.
M J R, I fear you’re right. Hopefully not with all leftists, but as Shakespeare said,
“Courage, man; the hurt cannot be much.
Mercutio: No, ’tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough, ’twill serve. Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man.”
Interesting follow-on to the previous post regarding “universal morality”and its roots. I would add that The Bible clearly tells us that it is prohibited to judge the case of the poor person differently than that of the wealthy one. In fact, there are numerous places in The Bible where this is explicitly or implicitly stated. For perhaps the clearest example I give you Leviticus 19:15 (ESV), “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” In James 2, 8-9 (ESV), he states, “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.” There are many other such sentiments expressed throughout The Bible, all of which establish that judging individuals on the basis of their membership in a group or class is anti-God and therefore, it is safe to conclude that the entire philosophy advancing such notions is satanic, as pointed out by M. Cervantes above.
M Cervantes (7:37pm) gets to the absolute heart of it. “they want to perfect humanity”. It is a religious mission to which they are as devoted as any jihadist. And, to quote myself, those who resist “are not just sinners, but in a sense sin itself.”’ We are the impurities that must be washed away.
Steve (retired/recovering lawyer) wrote
Nailed it!
Steve, I wholeheartedly agree, and would add the whole 18th chapter of Ezekiel that roundly condemns punishing the son for his father’s guilt and vice versa. This puts paid to ‘social justice’. ‘Social justice’ is such a cleverly heinous perversion of justice that I wish Orwell had anticipated and included the term in Animal Farm.
If possible, I would like to ask a leftist why powerless = good and powerful = bad
–Bill K
A bit of the Devil’s Advocate…
Back in the 20th Century, abuses of laissez-faire capitalism and Jim Crow racism truly were abusive. The left did come down on the Right Side of History and they have been dining out on it ever since.
It’s clear enough what Weiss was trying to say …
“People were to be given authority in this new order not in recognition of their gifts, hard work, accomplishments, or contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their group had suffered, as defined by radical ideologues.”
… but she didn’t say it. “Inverse” should have been “direct.”
On the general point, here’s something pertinent from, of all people, Saul Alinsky:
The fact that people are poor or discriminated against doesn’t necessarily endow them with any special qualities of justice, nobility, charity, or compassion.