Dear Friends,
It seems to me, when you modify a noun with an adjective, the very nature of the noun is changed. Would you say a “Train” car is the same as a “White” car, or “car?” They are not. Moreover, this tendency becomes more pronounced the more singular and conceptual the noun is. Would you say “Innate” intelligence is the same as “Military” intelligence? Modifiers modify the meaning of a noun. That is their roll in the English language. So, when someone put’s a modifier before an important idea, it means they are changing the very substance of that idea into something else… possibly it’s opposite. Like the term, “social” justice. The modifier social changes the innate meaning of Justice into it’s polar opposite… an ingenious trick of logic to manipulate people into favoring arbitrary rule.
Is the word “Love” subject to modification without destroying something fundamental about it? Is self love the same as love? Can you modify love with the words, social, economic, or racial? How would you take someone who said, “I stand for social love…?” Would you opine how wise they are… or think them foolish to yourself? What would social love be? Would it be love? How about economic love? Wouldn’t that be someone in love with money? Wouldn’t a person only interested in racial love be at heart a racist? Is racism good, when it is used to gain political favor for a particular race, that is called… oppressed? These and more are questions we should ask ourselves when we hear the terms, social justice, economic justice or racial justice.
So why modify a noun like justice? Isn’t the concept of Justice in and of itself good? Well, yes and no. It is pure, as conceptualized, but has been perverted by psychopathic leaders to become a tool to manipulate us. No discussion of justice would be complete without at least a passing mention of Plato’s Republic, and Thrasymachus’ diatribe against Justice as a means to “Justice,” but as a means of control. The thrust of his speech was that the rulers are not just, they use the term to convince the people that their rule, stealing and oppression, is rightful. The rulers need not be just or act just… only appear just. In fact this is exactly what progressives mean, when they modify Justice with social, economic, racial, etc… They intend to exploit Justice as a tool of oppression rather than a means to actual Justice.
Why is it that our ear rejects social love but not social justice? Because we have become inured to the term social modifying the concept of Justice for so long. Even though we still find the term a little off putting to the ear… because concepts like Justice, Love, Compassion, Reciprocation, etc… are not subject to modification without something fundamental changing. Like smelling rotten eggs so long you don’t notice it. You could notice the lack of that smell as a lightening of the air… but that is all, once you have become inured to it. Our innate unconceptualized knowledge of the English language makes such terms grating… unless they are introduced to us as self evident, and we are inured to them by much repetition.
Seems like a lot of work to me, to invent modifications to pervert the term Justice, only to gain leverage over the human race, but then again, I am not a “Great Man,” according to Thrasymachus. Great men, thankfully, are few, like Alexander, Napoleon, Duke of Wellington, Hitler, FDR, Mao, Stalin and Tamerlane, they explode onto the world stage, create huge amounts of suffering, go down in history as great men, then meet their eternal reward. Often it takes great men to stop great men, like Scipio Africanus and Hannibal. Nevertheless, To go to such great lengths, to change the very meaning of Justice to suit one’s own interests, shows a great man in action. Psychopathic to their core, lustful after power over humanity and careless of other men’s lives… very progressive.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
