Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

I a bit of a nutter and ran for a local election because nobody sane would run against this truly crazy lady.

Seriously, if your remotely a decent person of any political stripe please consider running for a election. Especially if you don't want to. You'll do a lot of good.

Tens of millions, possibly more than a hundred million actually were harmed - as in "they lost their lives" - under influence of the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, writings dear to the hearts of those who organise these struggle sessions against those who refuse to stay in line.

Let all of this new Red Guard bend down in acknowledgement of the error of their ideology and their ways, let them make penance for their misdeeds and let them ever after be known for what they did, just like those who followed Adolf Hitler were marked: as traitors to humanity.

Yes, new Red Guard, that is what is being formed and with the same means as Mao formed his. He also used students for his purposes, bending them to his will by claiming they would be the guards of the new era, battling against "the four olds" of old ideas, old culture, old customs and old habits.

Historian Frank Dikotter accurately summarises Mao’s logic in instigating the Red Guard and their activities: Mao went straight to the students, seeing in the young his most reliable allies. They were impressionable, easy to manipulate and eager to fight. Most of all, they craved a more active role (Dikotter, 2016).

Students in the modern "west" are just as impressionable and easy to manipulate as they were in Mao's China, maybe even more so. Just like so many pampered young people who have lived lives of luxury and abundance they crave for some meaning, to find a role for themselves in society where they get to stand out from the crowd. Once that role was to be found in climbing up the social ladder, in excelling in some field of study or in religion. Then a few things happened which lessened the value of those former goals. Some people just kept on climbing that social ladder until they lost sight of the rest of society from their heights, easily making 500 times as much money as the average person or more. They mistakenly took their financial prowess as a sign of wisdom. At the same time the value of religion, once a steadfast rock of society, dwindled through both the ascent of the age of reason but also because of the many scandals in which the large organised religions of the west were involved. Not that those religions are any worse than the other large religions - Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism among others - but the ascent of the age of reason and the freedom of expression and that of the press made it possible for these scandals to see the light of day. With that, religion lost its moral high ground. With the excesses of the capitalist economies which gave rise to the "1%" and now the "0.1%" of billionaires the system which floats all ships also lost some of its appeal, especially now that the cold war was "won" and the "evil empire" in the east was "vanquished". What, then, should a pampered student looking for a role as a shining knight in armour - whether that be a Saint George or Jeanne d'Arc - look for as a role model. What, indeed, better than an ideology which points out all the failings of current society while forgetting that those failings are the local lows in a plain of welfare which is far higher than it has ever been? An ideology which instead points at a mystical peak to be found somewhere at the end of the rainbow, never seen but prophesied by many? Mao clearly understood this and so does the current crop of ideologues. Get them young, bring them in and bind them.

I choose my leaders based on those who volunteer. To quote Bill Clinton "the best candidate never runs". If the choice is a demagogue or an idiot, which do you choose?

And if you're not happy with these choices, why aren't you running?

I wasn't being glib. I think the observation that liberal courts often favor richer entities is true. The idea that bourgeoisie capital relations need to be suppressed for true justice to occur isn't that hard to believe. The problem when justice systems try to seek some form of restitution based on an unaccountable definition of harm is a consequence. I'm of the opinion that justice requires some form of agreed standard, norms should be left up to discretion as little as possible.

If you're interested in why the idea of harms and complete community based justice can have unintended side effects, I highly recommend reading Rawls (Theory of Justice.) A really fun essay in this vein that I enjoy is Joreen's Tyranny of the Structureless if you're not familiar with it already.