The surprise the article mentions is not directed at the injustice around us, but at the "strange methods employed by the new-left against those injustices. (I"

The surprise the article mentions is not directed at the injustice around us, but at the "strange methods employed by the new-left against those injustices. (I"m attempting to summarize the article, not necessarily providing my own opinion here). The middle of the article is best, when it puts name to the movement and attempts to describe it so it can be understood by a moderate / non-ultra-progressive thinker. In this case, it casts those moderates as people who would otherwise support the traditional "liberalism"'s quests for equality under the law and opportunity, regardless of race, creed, sex, etc etc, and incrementally improving a system created hundreds of years ago by dead white guys. It attempts to describe impartially the ultra-progressive viewpoint that any competition that has a winner should be torn down, since it obviously has systemic biases due to it being created by dead white guys (their words, mostly).