Legalism and Vigilantism
There is an abhorrent kind of person abound today, appealing to the law as a source of morality after they get their way with it. They are often anti-theistic, or practice a religion in name only, and/or some twisted perversion of it. More often, they only bring up religion to try and “own” their opponents and calling them hypocrites, and throwing it back into the trash once they are done running it through the mud. I shall refer to such person as legalist, though I am not using the Christian theological definition which comes with its own connotations, which do not entirely match with mine. This person is often some sort of humanist and/or social liberal who feigns having a sense of morality when it is convenient for them. If you complain about an institutional injustice that they do not agree with, they may appeal to the law and say something along the lines or it being illegal because it is wrong – if they don’t immediately call you a bigot or an –ist - yet at the same time, throw a fit about tyranny or fascism when a law does not suit them.
For instance, these legalists may defend tooth and nail certain “protected classes” defacto being given more opportunities and privileges in a society, and bash others who complain about this, even if they nominally pretend to care about “equality” which has largely been replaced by “equity” these days. A hallmark of this is the belief in sexual fluidity, which even runs contrary to another concurrent narrative of sexual orientation not being able to be changed. Neither one tells the whole picture, however.
Interestingly enough, in 2001, the U.S. Surgeon General claimed that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, despite admitting that “sexual orientation is usually determined by adolescence”, and not elaborating on what determines it, or what could make it not be determined by then.[1] Undeniably, (“it’s true but you shouldn’t say it”) experiencing sexual abuse in childhood has a strong causation between that sexually deviant orientation and risk-assuming behaviours. [2] It is not a pleasant thing to acknowledge no matter where you stand, but is important because misinformation, if not outright lies, such as this have been harmful to many. Even if it is not outright false – most people will not change theirs, true – it implies that no matter what happens to someone, that part of them will never be affected. In relation to legalism, this is the misconstruction of facts presented in an authoritative manner, which innumerable ways, not just this, has had far-reaching consequences. One might even say politics itself is built upon that.
As such, if a child is sexually exploited and abused and ends up developing psychological traumas that make him or her feel a certain way that was not present before, the first part about trauma and abuse is ignored or handwaved, even if said traumas are shown to impact one’s identity. The second part about feelings is celebrated along with damaging behaviours that come with it, as they may develop other mental conditions alongside the trauma they have experienced. This is because that is their “identity” and who “they really are”, rather than being an unfortunate victim who needs assistance in dealing with their traumas, and certainly not misinformed individuals telling them what their identity is. Many of these young people are deliberately taken advantage of after the fact, by people who exploit their fears and traumas, which worsens their state. I have known people of varying levels of closeness to myself who have been in such situations.
And if laws about misconstructions of reality are institutionalized, as legalists want and have had success with, they will hide behind it now being law. Because the moral defense for them is lacking, it is backed by outrage with the status quo. It is only enforced through a grip on the institutions, and has nothing to do with being morally right. A common phrase these particular legalists use is “it’s called being a good fucking person” as they attempt to ruin anyone or anything openly opposed to them, even people who used to be their friends, or their family. This is often in an attempt to signal how virtuous they are to prevent themselves from being a target, rather than real conviction of belief and a cohesive foundation for believing in them. The vast majority merely imitate what they see from their peers, and scold or punish people who think out loud things in disagreement to the narrative. If they group tells them to believe something else tomorrow in the name of the cause, most people will adopt it without even questioning it, either out of fear or the automatic conditioning that their framework is right, so everything within it must be true.
This also leads many others - namely, your average person who does not think too deeply or very long about politics or social matters - not part of this demographic to accept this. They are a more apathetic kind of legalist. “Well, it’s the law now, it happened for a reason”. They are tacitly accepting that their government knows best in such situations, succumbing to a slow but widespread form of conditioning, which is observable through all kinds of social changes throughout history. Even companies that do not really hold these convictions strongly can see what is best for their business, and as such, emulate certain trends, such as displaying how much they support certain progressive movements during certain times of the year, as they see it as beneficial for their both business and workplace culture.
Some people may refer to the actions of this movement as “cancel culture”, especially when it comes to online, but such a term is obsolete. It is not “cancel culture”. There is no culture war. That is over. It is a merely a finger on a tightening iron grip, not a standalone phenomenon. You are renting an apartment that has new owners who have different rules. And to make this clear, said socially liberal legalists are NOT the owners, they are other tenants in the same apartment. They invite more and more of them over because the owners not only permit, but encourage it. The real owners have given them more privileges, as unlike you, they liked the modified contract they were given. So, if you are concerned about that, act smarter. Be anonymous and confidential when you should. Don’t unnecessarily paint a target on your back, especially over silly things that will not matter within a year. Be careful about who you associate with, whatever group they may belong to. It is increasingly difficult to find and keep friends who are true to you, and you are true to them.
One can be controversial and not be “cancelled” if they play their cards correctly. Keemstar is one such socially shrewd individual. I believe his raw intellect is middling overall, but socially speaking, he is very cunning and knows how to get what he wants out of most social situations, even if it looks like he is floundering at times. He knows how to cover for his mistakes. He genuinely thrives on controversy, and navigates it like a hardy captain, turning a typhoon to a breeze. Most people, however are not Keemstar, nor can they have the same mentality and shrewdness that he does. They are much better off not attempting to emulate him. Even if they are not Keem, some people will gladly put their heads on the chopping block, not even for their own sake or that of the people and values that they love and cherish.
Rather, they seem to be more concerned with situations on the other side of the world – unlikely to get them “cancelled” anyway - which they have no connection to whatsoever, and that they have tenuous understanding of at best - did someone say Syria and Xinjiang? It’s a form of cowardice about what is going around them now; an implicit submission to accepting certain social changes around them in real life, and escapism or ignorance about the situation slowly worsening at home.
So, where does this bring us? To mob justice and vigilantism. Said legalists like to performatively engage in “activism” – rather than actually striving for genuine pursuit of justice - as they are knowingly or unknowingly beholden to the will of others. This is because the people who influence them have a tightening grip on institutions all over the world, thus advancing what they advocate for, and they need to appear as though things are worse than ever for them. They need to invent a constant threat to keep those beneath galvanized, and if you’ve been paying attention, you can name exactly what “normie” liberals see as threats these days.
Mob justice and vigilantism have existed for as long as mankind has organized itself into having lawful institutions. There are biblical accounts of both; therefore, there is some form of tradition in them. They exist as a comparison to said lawful institutions. The reason for their occurrence is when people have felt that these institutions have failed to deliver appropriate justice, and take it into their own hands. They are somewhat interchangeable, although vigilantism does not define scale like mob justice explicitly does.
Vigilantism is not necessarily anarchical; rather, it means one is operating on a different moral standard and through different means of enforcement than the institutional one. It is based on emotions rather than jurisprudence. It is not intrinsically bad or good, as the only thing that is telling us, is that it is operating outside of the parameters of the law. The threat of mob justice however, can lead to pressuring legal institutions into influencing their actions. Maybe they will convict someone of murder despite all evidence to the contrary due to social pressures and a court or jury predisposed to certain beliefs. There would be no way for there to be a fair and impartial trial if the events preceding it permeated every fabric of society for a year, and finding a jury that would be impartial would be nigh impossible. Compare that to, hypothetically, the actions of a large group of discontented people of certain political stripes demonstrating civil disobedience being branded as coup attempters. Do these situations sound familiar? Or perhaps someone who did something very wicked, especially to a young and vulnerable person, may have their life threatened if the court does not have them killed. In that, it is a double-edged sword.
It is important to compare mob justice and vigilantism to legal systems. Legal systems are rather unemotional by themselves, or only performatively emotional. A judge or jury’s emotion may play into the final verdict at times, but it is operating off explicitly defined penalties. Even kangaroo courts who make large show trials about betrayal or the like do things like execute traitors out of pragmatism, rather than truly being guided by emotion.
Western legal systems increasingly are more concerned with popular opinion rather than valuing truth and fairness they claim to do. I suppose that is an inevitable fault of institutional procedures being based on humanist legalism rather than truth and proof of guilt. That is not to say that legal institutions have been entirely righteous before this, but the idea of a fair trial in an increasing number of Western countries which pride themselves on their alleged lack of corruption and being beacons of liberty, seems increasingly distant as social pressures mount. Plea deals are one thing that furthers this, but that is another topic for another time.
From where I stand, those who have true hearts are not the ones who wield the institutional hammer of justice these days. They certainly are not the ones making the world worse, as much as they may be scapegoated for it.
“He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.” – Proverbs 17:15
[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20070220184835/http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/sexualhealth/call.htm#III