VOLUME 6, NUMBER 8 - JUNE 15, 2001

"SOCIAL (IN)JUSTICE"

An editorial by Ray Simmons

In Vol. 6, No. 6 of The Mustard Seed (The New World Order's Sustainable Indicators) we touched on the topic of 'social justice' and said we would comment on the subject in a later newsletter. Most of us probably have some vague definition in mind when we hear the term but do we really understand what it means? Especially, we need to understand the meaning as the term is used in United Nations' documents, which is quite different from the meaning the term had when used by our Founding Fathers.

We'd like to begin with a quote from a former Russian gulag inhabitant:

"I would like to call upon America to be more careful with its trust and prevent those wise persons who are attempting to establish even finer degrees of justice and even finer legal shades of equality - some because of their distorted outlook, others, because of short-sightedness and still others out of self-interest - from falsely using the struggle for peace and for social justice to lead you down a false road. Because they are trying to weaken you; they are trying to disarm your strong and magnificent country in the face of this fearful threat - one that has never been seen before in the history of the world. And I call upon you: ordinary working men of America...do not let yourselves become weak." (Solzhenitsyn, Alexander. June 30, 1975, while speaking in Washington, D.C. Society, November-December 1975.) [emphasis added]

When I was asked for a definition of social justice, I responded: "A legal system under which all people are treated equally under the law." The questioner responded with the comment: "Isn't that the definition for just plain justice?" To which I responded: "I see no difference."

"There is but one safe rule in dealing with black men as with white men; it is the same rule that must be applied in dealing with rich men and poor men; that is, to treat each man, whatever his color, his creed, or his social position, with even-handed justice on his real worth as a man." (Theodore Roosevelt)

"...this country committed itself in the Declaration of Independence to the doctrine of natural equality. The type of individualism that was thus encouraged has led to monstrous inequalities and, with the decline of traditional standards, to the rise of a raw plutocracy…The remedy for such a failure of the man at the top does not lie, as the agitator would have us believe, in inflaming the desires of the man at the bottom; nor again in substituting for real justice some phantasmagoria of social justice." Such substitution generally brings fanatical attacks on property itself, and presently upon thrift and industry; it provokes suppression of competition, which is necessary to rouse man from his native indolence. (The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot by Russell Kirk XII: Critical Conservatism: Babbitt, More, Santayana) [emphasis added]

"But how may Justice be defined? More offers a series of definitions, with the aim of demolishing the sentimental term "social justice" which has been so useful an instrument to radicalism." (The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot by Russell Kirk XII: Critical Conservatism: Babbitt, More, Santayana) [emphasis added]

From the four quotes above it would seem that at least the general opinion of some would be basically the opinion that I expressed. Another conclusion one might draw is that the term 'social justice' has been used as a tool to advance an agenda that may have nothing to do with real justice.

Some Blacks in America today are calling for reparations for past slavery to bring about the social justice they believe has been denied them. But what would this do to the social justice for those who would have to foot the bill? They have no responsibility for the injustice inflicted upon the ancestors of those seeking reparations. Many of them did not have ancestors who were slave owners or even who approved of the institution of slavery. This is just one instance in which the concept of social justice is used to advance an agenda that is actually unjust.

If one takes a closer look of the social justice concept as used by the United Nations' one-world advocates one comes to the eventual conclusion that they are talking about an equalization process that will ultimately reduce the great masses of the world's population to a state of lowest-common-denominator equality. They would return to a world-wide feudal system in which a small group of the elite would control everything while the rest of humanity would be serfs at their bidding. If you want the free food and lodging they provide you must perform the tasks they set for you. The kind of freedom Americans and most of the Western World take for granted today would cease to exist.

The following quote comes from "The Public Papers of Herbert Hoover:"

"Good government is the gift of good people to themselves for the fountain of social justice cannot rise higher than its source. The times call for a soul-searching reexamination of our national purpose in life. We shall call in vain on others to be patriotic if our own patriotism has failed. We shall demand 'good government' in vain if we neglect our own duties in the precinct and at the polls."

Franklin Roosevelt, who was very fond of the 'social justice' term and used it frequently (often in connection with the term 'social welfare'), went so far as to declare it a cause for war in this quote from his personal papers:

"During a quarter of a century more greatly controlled by the spirit of conquest and greed than any similar period since the American and the French Revolutions you have survived and grown. You have come through to the threshold of a new era in which your churches and the other churches--Gentile and Jewish--recognize and stand ready to lead in a new war of peace--the war for social justice." (Address before the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, December 6, 1933)

In this next quote of Mr. Roosevelt one might almost think in terms of today's political sparing:

"It is for that reason that our American form of government will continue to be safest in Democratic hands. The real, actual, undercover Republican leadership is the same as it was four years ago. That leadership will never comprehend the need for a program of social justice and of regard for the well-being of the masses of our people." (Address at the Democratic State Convention, Syracuse, N.Y., September 29, 1936) [emphasis added]

On January 24, 1950, Harry S. Trueman, following the tradition of his predecessor FDR, said concerning the new minimum-wage law:

"This legislation, passed by the 81st Congress at its first session, is an important addition to the laws we live by. It is a measure dictated by social justice."

Now just where is the justice in the federal government telling businesses how much they must pay for labor? In a free-market, the cost of labor should be controlled by supply and demand. What the voting public fails to understand is that if government is given the right or authority to dictate to business it will also have the right or authority to dictate to the individual.

In reading through some of the speeches given by FDR and H. S. Trueman while searching for references to 'social justice,' I was amazed at the similarities between the then Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of today. Even then it was naming itself the liberal party and preaching the socialism that has inflicted so much damage on our once great Republic. Even then they were talking Democracy instead of Republic. Is it any wonder that the vast majority of Americans today think we are a Democracy and have no idea of what a Republic is?

Read the following quote from a Joint Statement Following Discussions With the President of Ecuador, June 22, 1951:

"The President of the Republic of Ecuador and the President (Harry Trueman) of the United States of America have met in Washington, D.C., and have reaffirmed their determination to continue their support of the efforts of the United Nations to reestablish peace in the world. They will remain steadfastly united in the present emergency. The two nations solemnly declare their attachment to the principles set forth in the Charters of the United Nations and of the Organization of American States and in other international agreements to maintain peace and security. They intend to defend themselves against aggression, to settle their disputes by peaceful means, improve the living standards of their peoples, promote their cultural and economic progress, and ensure respect for the fundamental freedoms of man and the principles of social justice that are the bases of their democratic systems. [emphasis added]

Another fact that jumped out at me doing this research was the change in the frequency the term was used. There were a couple of references to social justice in the Federalist Papers, several references I found dating back before the turn of the century (1900) and a few dating from the early part of the century. The connotations attached to the phrase in those early days were more in the nature of denoting a universal freedom rather than a universal equity. It becomes obvious with Franklin Roosevelt, however, that there is a subtle change in the way the term is being used. It begins to take on a connotation of some 'right' to which each human is entitled. From there it eventually evolves into a state of equality for all, with every man deserving his fair share irrespective of his effort or acceptance of his responsibility.

We see this quite clearly in the United Nations' position concerning 'global commons.' If you are not familiar with that position it is, essentially, that all resources (such as water, minerals, fuels, etc.) belong to 'the family of man' and not to the individual or nation whose property contains them. You may drill a well on your property but the water available from that well is not yours, it may have a meter placed on it and you will be charged for the water you draw from it. If you think this is far-fetched, it is already happening in some western states according to the recent Fox News report "Vanishing Freedom 2: Who owns America?"

A reading of some of the provisions called for in the UN Agenda 21 should be a wake-up call to all who value liberty. Again, you may think Agenda 21 is something that will be implemented in the third-world countries but could never happen here. If that's your thinking you'd better check the reports emanating from "The President's Council on Sustainable Development" and how the recommendations from those reports are being implemented by state governments all across the country. The upgrade of "The Clean Waters Act" put in place by Al Gore before Clinton left office is right now impacting how you may and may not use your private property.

The environmental NGOs (The Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, et al) working in conjunction with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and under the auspices of the Clean Waters Act and the Endangered Species Act are finding ways to shut down much of the logging industry, to take grazing rights from ranchers who had been promised them in perpetuity and to take water rights from farmers in California who also had the government's guarantee that those rights would be theirs as long as they were needed.

Social justice is about to demand that you share the same rights and privileges to which your brothers and sisters in the Sudan or other third-world countries find themselves limited.

I recently read a rather interesting obituary. I do not remember many of the details, about all I do remember is the name of the deceased, but I will ad-lib a bit:

HERE LIES COMMON SENSE

During his time he served us well
but experts came and rang his bell.
Now they will tell us better ways
to live our lives, to spend our days,
'tis their bidding we must do.
Oh, Common Sense, I sure miss you!

WE'RE STILL COOKING (OR BEING COOKED)