The Ancient Egyptian Story That Planted The Seed Of “Social Justice”

History has weaved great men into our lives and we do our best to imitate them when circumstance requires us to do so. The Social Justice Warrior (SJW) also imitates an ancient form. Regardless of what we define as intellectual, moral and technological progress the official political protest seems to be an atavism. But when, where and why did the SJW first make use of his method for achieving affluence and power? Is victim-hood a high virtue or praiseworthy method? And what is the limitation of this method?

A model figure to direct a man rightly on the ways of life and make him prosper on earth.

The original victim of the higher-born

The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a story of social justice thought to have been composed in Middle Kingdom Ancient Egypt, around the Twelfth Dynasty (1991 – 1783 BC). It is significant for one reason: it marks civilized man’s first awakening to social justice. A peasant named Khun-Anup lives with his family on the fringes of Egyptian high society making a meager living trading salt, an important commodity, thus he holds himself and his work in high esteem. Occasionally he travels to the more affluent parts of Egypt to trade his product.

In order to do this, he must pass the estates which are owned by nobles and managed by overseers. Since the land is private, he respectfully uses a path between the river and the cultivated fields. A typically middle class estate manager has an irrational prejudice against Khun-Anup. He covers the path, forcing the peasant to commit a crime against the noble by passing through the fields.

When Khun-Anup does this, his donkey eats some of the grain, amounting to theft. This is reason enough for the overseer to impound the peasant’s donkey and goods, as well as have him beaten. The higher-born overseer taunts and teases the peasant, insisting that nobody will hear his complaint about this treatment as injustices of this sort are a regular occurrence between the classes.

A degrading and repetitive method

Khun-Anup holds a grudge and vows that he will be heard by a superior. Through eloquent speech he makes his case. He manages to get the ear of the noble (basically he loiters around the private property shouting his protest every time the noble passes) and by appeal to his humanity and sense of fairness Khun-Anup wins him over. The noble however, has his own agenda and wants to win the favour of the Pharaoh.

He informs the Egyptian king about this eloquent peasant and the two collude to make Khun-Anup continue protesting by denying him his justice. Each time the peasant protests he is denied in order to have him improve the quality of his argument. Each protest is recorded by a scribe and heard by the king. This is done nine times with each protest a more convincing complaint about mistreatment and disadvantage against privilege and entitlement. In the end the peasant is pardoned, he gets his restitution and most significantly, he is elevated to the position of overseer while the unjust overseer himself becomes a peasant.

Circumstance and cosmic justice

What needs to be understood about circumstance in this case is that the Middle Kingdom was a period of reunification of the state, after having suffered from civil wars caused by the democratization of power. The kings of this period needed to cultivate loyalty to the central political authority, and since there was never any set of codified laws laid out to govern social behaviour in ancient Egypt, people enjoyed a freedom quite unique for the world at that time. Social justice therefore was based on a religious belief in cosmic or universal justice called maat , which was maintained by the divine Egyptian king.

Good speech is a hidden gem.

Equal and interchangeable

So what can we learn from this ancient parallel in order to gain some depth of knowledge regarding the contemporary SJW issue? First, it was reasoned that a political solution is required for any trivial infringement of personal rights, even when those personal rights do not exist. The implication here is that the central authority, government or pharaoh enjoys omnipotent power. Middle management simply doing their job protecting the interests of their superiors in a private matter is not exempt from central power goals and as far as the highest office in the state is concerned, the peasant and the overseer are completely interchangeable—or absolutely equal.

Second, regarding the psychology of the SJW, the outcome of the tale suggests that the goal was always the acquisition of individual power and wealth. Khun-Anup always had a self-important disposition through his commodity. What he eventually showed he wanted was the privileged position of the overseer and to witness the downfall of the one he thought privileged.

Third is the matter of virtue. Nine episodes of improving an argument of victim-hood and unjust treatment made the peasant progressively more qualified to take the overseers position, without the overseer getting a chance at self-defense. During the period of political protest and improved complaining the peasant’s family was compensated by the central authority for his absence. So his aspiration to be the supreme victim certainly was profitable, and subsequently can be deemed a lofty virtue by a specifically predisposed individual.

The rich man of last year will be the vagabond of this year.

The divinity of political authority

Khun-Anup had no other option but to continuously debase himself. There was no social mobility in his society, his only chance to achieve affluence and power was to persistently complain about injustice. In our society central government is not divine and certainly can’t rearrange the universal order to move a protester from poverty to power. The significant limitation is on the part of the political authority so pointing accusing fingers at historical villains can’t work because it only serves to further delegitimize the political role.


Thousands of years after the initial rise, we should have evolved beyond this enchanted idea of justice. When we aim to imitate ancient successes and rival the achievements of famous men we are not compelled to be the most eloquent vulnerable victim. Feeling included in a trend or movement may be one of life’s great joys, but consider the ancient form you are imitating and the type of character you want to weave into the lives of future generations.

Read the entire tale in: Lichtheim, M 1973. Ancient Egyptian Literature Volume 1: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Read More: The Most Important Way You Can Fight The “Social Justice” Collective 

57 thoughts on “The Ancient Egyptian Story That Planted The Seed Of “Social Justice””

  1. “What he eventually showed he wanted was the privileged position of the overseer and to witness the downfall of the one he thought privileged.”
    What do all causes and movements seek?
    Power or influence in central government to force feed their agenda to the masses.
    I like this story. Good job!

    1. “Men often mistake killing and revenge for justice. They seldom have the stomach for justice.”― Robert Jordan

  2. The protesters are the grass eater class. So are the overseers. Elites can interchange them so long as the ‘whine’-edly mobile grass eaters remain in the gears of the bureaucracy.
    Modern SJWs on campuses will upon graduation be steered into the bureaucratic wheel, working for HR, socialist services, regulation, family law, logjam fed legal tasking or any of the other useless eater branches that form the weight and overgrowth of service jobs for unwanted human energy. The elites steer you into the duplicative yet gravy salaried bureaucratic wheel jobs when they’re ‘spent’ with you and your disheveled autonomous mindstate. And thereafter there’s an unspoken gag order on non approved activism. “mooooo – you fucking cows”
    And the lower and milddle state worms encourage their friends, associates, family and children to join them in their blood sucking flea fest career path. How many people know of government wog parents, relatives or associations that try to sell the perks of some stick in the mud retarded government career path? They especially try to hard sell the government schtick when someone shows potential or is creative but has a nonconformist and unkosher activist bent. They want to throw your idealism under the bus and into the government bureaucratic black hole. And the elites remain unscathed and in control of the farm.

    1. “Lucifer, you have the freedom of both heaven and the earth, but thou shalt not use the ladies”
      “I told you I wanted to be known as Lucy you tyrant”

    2. The Devil is gay. I know this from the fact that he has pointed ears and a tail. He also runs around naked with a pitchfork and he tries to poke you in the hiney with it. But the pointed ears are the giveaway. Definately gay. Yep Lucifer is queer, light on the loafers, a fudge packer. The motherfucker is a fag.

    3. You posted something I actually agree with wholeheartedly. Well done.

    4. The world “Lucifer” is only used once in the entire Bible, and only in the KJV. The context of the passage where it is used is clearly demonstrates it is referring to King Nebuchadnezzar.
      The word “satan” is a transliterated word in the Bible. It’s the Hebrew word for “adversary”. “Devil” is also transliterated. It is the Greek word meaning “false accuser”.
      The mythology built up around the idea of a “Lucifer”, who is also “Satan”, or the “devil” is just that: mythology. There is no invisible, extra dimensional, arch enemy of God with an army of demons. Only wicked man and his sinful nature.
      “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” – 1 Peter 5:8
      Peter is definitely talking about the Roman government. I guarantee you, the false accusing Roman government, who were hunting and killing Christians, were much more of a concern than some red, forked tailed, invisible spirit making people do bad things. “The serpent made me do it!” . . . Right?
      The first rebel was indeed an adversary and a false accuser. Its in every human’s nature. There are plenty of devils and satans out there right now who want to get you, but most of them wear three piece suits.

      1. Lucifer means bearer of the light. Nebuchadnezzar never held the title. Isaiah clearly refers to the power behind King Neb, which is of course satan. You can also see a parallel of the fall of lucifer in Ezekiel 28, which mentions the king of Tyrus, but clearly refers to the power behind the throne.
        Strangely enough, the modern, corrupt versions of the bible removes “lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12 and replaced it with morning star (NIV), day star (ESV), star of the morning (NASB).
        Who is the Day Star? Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:19). Who is the Morning Star? Jesus. (Revelation 22:16).
        Lucifer/Satan was the first Sh*tlib, SJW.

        1. Oh no, not another king James only tirade.
          All bibles are corrupt, all favor the religious agenda of whatever sect translated them.
          If you want a perfect bible translation, you would have to hire an atheist to do it, and even that probably would not work.
          It always amuses and saddens me when these hyper conservative christian taliban nutcases think that the KJV is divinely inspired scripture, and without error.
          The king James translators themselves said it was not perfect, and would contain mistakes.
          The fact that we have a multitude more information and scholarship now than the kings translators had in 1611 falls on deaf ears to these people.
          All bibles are the work of corrupt people with a religious agenda, and cannot be trusted.

        2. Its the vatican and her daughters that corrupt the scriptures. Aany bible version that is accepted and approved by vatican is corrupt.

        3. I agree with most of your sentiment. I’ve been on a kick lately of pointing out how mainstream conservatives are arguably the worst political/religious persuasion out there today. They’ve done more than any other group to prop up our wicked world system politically, financially, socially, religiously, and every other way you can think of. Way more than liberals or any other group.
          Try to extend some truth to a mainstream conservative and you’ll find 99% of them are immune to facts. They’ll ignore them, ad hominem, emotionally argue with you, summarily disregard credible sources based on nothing, and quickly return to propping up the pot that slowly boils the frog with all their might. They always get a pass though because “they mean well” or “they’re just misled”. More and more I’m not so sure.
          As far as the “KJV only’ers” I totally agree. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Limiting oneself to only one English translation is putting faith in men, not in God, and is hypocritical and opposite of that very Biblical principle.
          I’m actually more of a “NIV never’er” and even so I still will glance at how those translators chose to render a certain verse. There are tons of super liberal translations that would be more appropriate targets of a Bible students bias than directing that bias against everything that is not KJV.

        4. The Church compiled the Bible (you’re welcome), and your bisexual King Jimmie just deleted the deuterocanonical books on the grounds that Greek originals weren’t good enough, but since modern archaeology has uncovered these same books in Hebrew, you’re in a pickle, eh?
          Though I have to agree that KJB beats the most recent translation from the Vatican, being much more Catholic. Thank goodness KJ I didn’t delete the Book of James like that foul Luther did. Yet, the differences are largely cosmetic; traditional interpretation makes the real difference (it always amuses me how anti-Christians assume each version of Scripture is a manipulation unrecognizable to the others, maybe it excuses their scholarly laziness). Still, for a monolingual Anglo, the Douay Rheims is the most pristine version.

        5. Nope.
          Early church father Jerome “created” the counterfeit bible of the RCC called the Latin Vulgate. Where did the Latin Vulgate come from, it came from the corrupt Alexandrian Manuscripts from Egypt that downplayed Jesus’ deity, the virgin birth, etc. The Catholic bible supports the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books because from them came the idea of purgatory, prayers of the dead and other perversions practiced by the church. Jesus or other New testament author never quoted from any of these heretical text.
          The RCC did not compile the bible, instead it created a messed up version based on corrupt text. From that came the modern rotten versions, all trying to push out the KJB out of the picture.
          By the way, King James wasn’t a bisexual. That lie started decades after his death by his adversaries.

      2. Who tempted Jesus in the desert if there is no Satan? Who was the Serpent in the garden if there is no Satan? Who is the Devil who is the father of lies that Jesus talked about in John 8? What about demon possession? Sorcery in the Old Testament?

        1. Your error here is assuming that bible is factual.
          Once you remove the religious bias, it becomes easy to see that Satan does not really exist.
          Satan is not the father of lies, religion is.

        2. The person I replied to is arguing that according to the bible (whether it is factual or not), there is no Satan. That is clearly false. The bible clearly claims that there is a literal Satan.
          I never claimed that the bible was factual, we’re merely having an argument about what the bible says. Not interested in debating an atheist.

        3. I replied to Luke and it answers your objection as well. For whatever reason, it was flagged by the site as spam so I’ve reached out to get that corrected. My response to Luke is lengthy and detailed to support my position.
          The idea that my position is “clearly false” would be better supported by you if you would demonstrate where the Bible supports your assertion. “Satan” is a transliterated word, not a personal name, and I’d love to see anyone claiming otherwise lay out a clear Biblical case supporting their argument. Statements like, “It clearly does”, or “If it wasn’t mythological Satan in verses X, Y, and Z than who was it? Therefore, it must be mythological Satan.” are not arguments.

      3. Perhaps there is no one devil, but Christ was definitely talking to some sort of demon when He was being tempted. I don’t care if it’s one thing or several things; there’re wicked men, and wicked things that aren’t men.

        1. Luke, I replied to your comment. I see Disqus is reporting that it is flagged as spam. Scrolling through my comments on RoK, I see several others that appear randomly flagged as such.
          I’d be real surprised if RoK is censoring anyone. You’re a mod, would you mind checking into whatever is marking my comments randomly as spam and fix it? Somehow I have a nagging suspicion Disqus’ assurance that, “We’re working on fixing this”, is less than accurate.

    5. I disagree. It was God actually. He has an equalist approach to things. He forgives ALL sinners.
      Add to it his spawn obsession with the poor and income redistribution and you get the idea.

      1. Wrong. That’s simply justice of the individual without the “social” modifier. When an individual does what needs to do be done to be forgiven, then he should be fogiven.
        That aside the bible makes it clear that there is no equality. As such it is mentioned that “what you do to the least among you, you do to me”
        and so forth.

  3. In other words, to quote the wise king Solomon: “There is nothing new under the sun.”
    We tend to think we’re the first to experience a phenomenon or the first to come up with some philosophical concept, but we are always wrong. The best we can do is be the first in public memory. Even communism isn’t particularly new – communes have been attempted throughout history, and all the examples in our memory have failed (I’m thinking of Jamestown’s socialist compact, which within a year was replaced by individual property and ownership).
    Do not be deceived, my fellows. Our struggle is the struggle of man throughout the long history of our existence, a struggle against “principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”. We will not end it, but we must struggle.

  4. I think “social justice” arises as one of the means of “rebellion” in societies with rigid top-down hierarchies. The people at the top in these societies are never held accountable, and this state of affairs is justified by “arguments” that essentially ignore the problem. Basically, rigid top-down hierarchies are fragile, and everyone is jockeying for those cushy top-dog positions.
    Now, some level of hierarchy is necessary for a civilization to function. However, the hierarchy needs to be flexible. Basically, those at the top need to be held accountable in some way just like everyone else is. This sort of organization greatly reduces the urge to “rebel” in an SJW fashion.

  5. I think Adam was wayyyyy omega:
    New International Version
    The man said, “The woman you put here with me–she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
    It should have gone like this:
    Hey. God, I’m right here! That back-stabbing-bitch Eve, try to poison me with her ill skill, she’s done, killed her bro. NEXT!!

    1. There was literally no experience for him to fall back on. I give him a pass, like I do every pioneer who gets some shit wrong.

    2. Eve was uncorrupted at that point Adam had no reason to doubt her.
      Interestingly enough Adam was the first patriarch he founded patriarchy.

    3. Listen, that was Adam pre-Red Pill.
      After Red Pill, aka. after getting kicked out of Paradise, I bet he swallowed it hook line and sinker, and never looked back since.
      The only setback he must have experienced in his life, is that after learning Game he could not really practice it. Except on Eve. Must have been a Red Pill marriage.

  6. Thank you for this bit of history. It is a very interesting look to the past for a window on the present. The only thing I would quibble about is the context. This story is a story of injustice.
    I am currently reading The Death Of Caesar (Barry Strauss). Caesar was out to destroy the Republic. Not because he did not believe in it (my personal opinion) but because it clearly was not working. The elites were an absolute terror and oppressor of the poor and underclasses. Like Trump, Caesar was absolutely hated and despised by the noble/senatorial classes (i.e. the best men, our “betters”). Caesar came along and upended this oligarchical nightmare and repealed debts, gave land to the poor and the army, and placed non-noble/elite family lines in positions of power they did not and should not posses by “dignatas” of noble heritage or birth. Caesar did far more to try and better the state of the poor in Rome than the nobles and senators did and like Trump, he was a populist – the masses liked him.
    This story is similar in context. There is nothing wrong with a society that values justice for the poor and the oppressed. So for me, this is not the right context for this story – i.e. to stand around and claim grievance and oppression to then turn around and take the power that one is wailing against.
    The context for this story today is… a class of people that have ZERO oppression. There is ZERO injustice against them. Black, gay, woman, tranny. What we have currently is the most ENTITLED groups who WERE once oppressed (except for women that is)… now making an outright grab for power and control over the whole of western culture and society.
    This… is the difference. Khun-Anup had a legitimate grievance, as blacks and gays once did. He was only given the power he wailed against AFTER presenting a solid argument nine times. The left/SJWs of today have ZERO argument. Their wailings are that of a spoiled and narcissistic child, not an oppressed class.
    While this story does indicate a clear and persistent subtext of protest and critique of elites in history, the current state of said tradition is so malformed and cancerous it no longer knows what it is even complaining about; they just want power, and for us cis-gender vanilla norm European males to die off already. THAT.. is the argument and even said nine times different does not make it valid.
    There is a danger that in combating feminists/SJWs and the left, we may become the very thing we are fighting against – unfeeling, unresponsive, uncritical protestors of change for changes sake. We most not forget, like this story demonstrates, that we need to have a VALID ARGUMENT, one we must refine continually, ten times or more if needed, in order to bring about change and take back the reigns of power in forming a new patriarchal society once more.
    Every man, every group, wants power. Agitating and working to bring about a change in power will forever be in our history. Let’s be sure that our story of a return of Kings is about justice and what is right, not simply a grab for power.

    1. I skim read your comment but it seems sound. I think the author identifies some social justice facets in the story, but you’re right in thinking this should probably seen as a case of actual individual injustice rather than what would be described as social injustice, which for me implies some kind of class basis for applying justice. That’s a kind of important distinction I think because social justice moves us away from personal / individual justice

      1. Excelling addition to my comment. Yes… it is individual justice where true justice lies. If a group of individuals ALL have the same injustice (i.e. argument), then their could be a case for social justice of class or race. The problem today is… if you are not white, you are oppressed. THAT… is the single argument they keep yelling at us whities and it is not working anymore, if it ever did.
        Social injustice is a cancer because it is based on race or class ALONE, full stop, with no argument PAST that group identification.

        1. agree completely. We need to return to justice for the individual, based on an expectation of full equality under the law.

    2. Social Justice is a real thing, unfortunately it’s meaning has been hijacked by the forces of the left and perverted to their cause. Certainly we do want to all live in a just society, even a society where those of lesser means are taken care of. This is not what the leftist version of social justice is. That version is about perpetuating and increasing the pain and suffering of others to preserve and establish a hierarchy for and of the left.
      Therefore you are very right to point out that it is the validity of the argument which merits the proper action towards it. Legitimate grievances should be answered by proper authorities that is why we have them after all.

    3. Egads, Mr. Meridius; what Third World existence are you arguing and fighting your way through?!
      Here in America, it was a warm and sunny Saturday, and the livin’s easy:
      I feel fortunate to live in the United States of America; there is nothing and no one that I need to fight today: affordable education is abundant; we just paid the bills for the first half of the month; earlier, I safely drove to the grocery store, (no fear of IEDs), buying gourmet cheeses to accompany our heirloom tomatoes, too many delicious choices!
      Returning to school, now that my daughter has graduated college and started her career; swimming in a heated pool listening to Leon Russell and the Shelter People, (on vinyl, nothing better than analog); making love in the afternoon, because we can (!); and because we live alone, (like parent’s of a 23-year old should live); no-underemployed, over-educated, adult-aged, irresponsible children living here; our family cranks out another generation of hard-working, tax-paying, contributing members of society about every 25 years.
      This is a beautiful place and time in history, for working-class people like us:
      In reverence to the men and women that actually did fight for the freedom I enjoy today; maintaining this Life of Liberty, and Pursuing Happiness, is my duty, and one of the best ways to honor their memory.

      1. The Earth is a demographic jungle. Your reproductive quota is unattainable now. One k-motherselected female offspring is a lost particle of mist in the brown ocean. And you work in that flesh eating toxic environment. When is the last time you juiced your knockers? You’ve got a 20 yo piece of glandular process cheese in there comprised of your past intake of preserved hydrogenated vegetable oils and trans fats and that solidified spoiled milk ain’t going anywhere soon. Reproductive tumors are glandular. Use em or lose em. Proper tittie feeding breeder mothers know to keep their ducts flushed. The wall is approaching and you’re listening to hippie chick music.

        1. “They’re like little boys, men. Sometimes of course they’re rather naughty and you have to pretend to be angry with them. They attach so much importance to such entirely unimportant things that it’s really touching. And they’re so helpless. Have you never nursed a man when he’s ill? It wrings your heart. It’s just like a dog or a horse. They haven’t got the sense to come in out of the rain, poor darlings. They have all the charming qualities that accompany general incompetence. They’re sweet and good and silly, and tiresome and selfish. You can’t help liking them, they’re so ingenuous, and so simple. They have no complexity or finesse. I think they’re sweet, but it’s absurd to take them seriously.”
          ― W. Somerset Maugham, The Constant Wife

    4. “This… is the difference. Khun-Anup had a legitimate grievance, as blacks…once did”
      They only ever had one legitimate grievance. That they were removed from Africa in the first place. An enormous grievance, I grant you. And when the civil war was ended, they should have been sent back, or at least to the Caribbean.
      The other “grievances” were pure and utter BS.
      The 64 and 68 (un)civil rights acts were and still are completely unconstitutional and morally wrong. No government has the right to tell private citizens how to administer their own property, including businesses.
      BTW, what grievances did the gays ever have?
      As long as they kept their behavior private, they were fine.
      What’s wrong with that?

  7. At risk of repeating my response to Maximus below while this is an interesting article it’s attempt to trace the roots of social justice warriordom to the ancient world runs the risk of obscuring it’s most important feature, which is that when we shift towards a notion of social justice, we move away from the notion of individual justice before the law. The reason for that is that the individual is no longer seen primarily as an individual who is equal before the law (if the legal system of the time indeed is constituted that was) and should be treated as such, but instead is seen in the first instance as a member of a class or identity group. A cleaner for instance claiming that she isn’t getting the same wage as a road-sweeper for instance can’t make any claim for justice on the basis of personal grievance, she has to first identify as a woman, a class of historically oppressed people, and make the further claim that she is discriminated by virtue of the fact that her job is gendered and that an equivalent rank job – that of roadsweeper in this instance – is unfairly paid more – because roadsweeping jobs are primarily performed by men, who happen to be the privileged / oppressor class. In that scenario there is no individual justice involved except insofar as the individual concerned is understand as being a member of a wider class.
    It is this type of ‘social’ i.e. class-based justice, which supplants (rather than complements) individual justice.
    The caveat here though perhaps is that in the ancient world, and throughout most of history individuals were not generally equal under the law. They were indeed actually treated differently on account of the classes they occupied. So in a sense there is a mirror image here. What we see in the case of Khun Anap, is someone who is seeking individual justice for what is effectively an instance of actual class oppression. The resolution for Khun Anap is an individualised form of injustice that may or may not have implications for all men of his class or individuals like him in a similar situation (there is no indication of anything like precedent based common or statute law). Khun Anap achieve justice as an individual but it is not clear whether this is also a social justice victory. If it were, I would probably consider it ‘progress’ (in the social justice sense of the word). Insofar as it would be progress that would reflect the fact that people of Khun’s class were progressing towards the enjoyment of something like full citizenship or equality under the law. The problem with modern social justice is that it does not stop there. It is does not stop with the individuals equality under the law, but seeks to level everything through class warfare / communism, all the while I would add seeking to disguise the motivation to get one up on one’s class rival in the process

    1. Very clever analysis, well done, Sir!
      What I would like to add is, in case of SJW-s, I would not even say that they are really seeking social justice.
      In reality, in most cases what they are doing, is what is called false accusations, both on individual and social level.
      And they expect everyone to behave as if their false accusations were unquestionable, proven facts which should be the basis of corrective measures, the foundations of the “justice” to be meted out.
      This is not seeking justice.
      They are seeking social injustice based on false accusations.

      1. Thank you. Yes social justice does seem to encourage false accusations. This is because social justice and justice for the individual tend to work against each other as the former prioritises political change.
        I don’t think that for the most part they deliberately push false accusations but they will always support a case that fits their preferred narrative and if the accusation in question turns out to be false or unsound, it matters little to them to the extent that it works to further the wider social justice imperative. That’s why feminists care less about the danger of false accusations than they do about improving conviction rates etc. and yes there is even the worry that false accusations may actually be politically useful insofar as they keep men scared and off balance.
        Justice in such instances relate not to whether someone did or didn’t commit a crime as to whether the perceived imbalance of power is addressed. That’s a very dangerous line and is incompatible with any kind of fair system of justice

        1. In case of false accusations, I did not even think about specific cases or individuals.
          Rather, the whole basis of social justice are false accusations, like:
          “men oppress women”, or “white people are racists” or “straight white cishetero males oppress the fuck out of everybody” and that all these “crimes” require justice, manifesting in actual activity in the real world.

        2. well those sort of generalisations are the starting point. I think the need here is to distinguish between ‘social justice’ which is based very often marxist or hard left critique of existing power structures and the administration of actual justice whereby individuals are equal before the law. Evaluating (and presumably challenging) ssertions about class oppression needs to be done on an empirical evidentiary basis. The fact is social justice, and the class struggle conception of the world upon which it tends to be based, depends almost entirely on hard left ideology, rather than primarily on empirical evaluation of the world around us. Obviously there are groups of people who may have been disadvantaged in whatever way as a group, or a class, but if the focus is upon ensuring that all people are equal under the law then such historical (and social) injustices become irrelevant to the administration of law. Marxism, socialism & the social justice it peddles always attacks the rights and person of the individual qua individual

  8. I wonder if it is just a coincidence the name Israel incorporates the names of three Egyptian Gods/Goddesses Is (Isis) Ra and El

    1. Using romanized letters makes that assertion null. The Egyptian language doesn’t spell Isis or Osiris or Amon or Ra the way we do in English. And I Doubt that in regards to Hebrew as well

  9. To complement, I would say that Akhenaten’s regime is the first instance in history of a “social justice”-style revolution, where the old order needed to be completely demolished in favor of a new, radical social order.
    Akhenaten overturned the ancient order by proclaiming himself to live on ma’at and say that all the old gods were false. In his attempt to cement this control, he strictly controlled language and daily life in Egypt and in his new capital in particular.
    He may not have been concerned strictly with social equality, but he did pioneer many of their tactics, methods, and steadfast devotion to societal deconstruction.

  10. our centralized political authority does have the power to make a poor man rich and a rich man poor overnight, primarily via tort litigation and the judiciary, though regulation and tax policy can sometimes cause windfall profits and precipitous impoverishment, as well, as when Donald Trump and other Atlantic City Casino owners were ruined by a sudden change in tax policy.

  11. “Twelfth Dynasty (1991 – 1783 BC). It is significant for one reason: it marks civilized man’s first awakening to social justice”
    Its the first examples of “Justice” in action PERIOD. The basis of the notion of it in “Western Civilization” from Africa.
    plaintiff, defendant, private property rights, right to redress, right to appeal, restitution, ability of those with lower social status to seek justice against violators of higher status, entire proceedings committed to writing etc……
    12th Dynasty

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *