FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Discrimination Is Just

In a just world, a group that commits more crime ends up in jail more often and everyone’s ok with that.  The group that is best at engineering and enjoys it most is the majority of the engineers.  The group that is smarter makes more inventions.  The more charismatic gets better mates, the more athletic is over-represented in professional sports.
The trouble is that everyone says they like fairness until it doesn’t benefit them. The reason that the gospel of equalism has failed is that “anti-discrimination” has nothing to do with being just.  It’s really a question of which group is able to gain advantages over another.  It’s just another form of war and conquest.
If the group that commits the most street crime can make a rule against others noticing that they commit more crime, this is not just.  The rationale of course is the “good ones” are hurt by being lumped in with those that make trouble but that doesn’t change the reality that group does in fact commit more crime.  So it’s up to that group to commit less crime and individuals to find ways of disassociating themselves convincingly from the criminal elements.  They have to market themselves, just like everybody else.  In such a fair society everyone is free to make judgments and associate as they will even if you and your own don’t like how it turns out.

From this premise, it is more or less just to have different codes, like Hammurabi did, to address different segments of a population with markedly different characteristics. The underlying problem is that modern enlightenment-derived thought denies the existence of groups and acknowledges only a doctrine of the sacred individual who must invariably be treated as a solitary atom, no matter what.  If you have a group that regularly harbors terrorist suicide bombers, you must still treat them exactly the same as those who rarely harbor terrorists.  Everyone has to watch grandmas get frisked at the airport and somehow endure the overwhelming cognitive dissonance gnawing at their souls.  When a community regularly turns out these suicide bombers, they suffer no consequence because in the delusional enlightened paradigm, groups don’t exist.
A blessedly uneducated 10 year old like the one honest child in The Emperor’s New Clothes could probably figure out common sense solutions to these problems in a few minutes.  Solutions that elude thousands of the “best and brightest” decade after decade.

Even if we studiously ignore distinctions between groups, it’s still pretty easy to tailor laws for different groups, precisely because they are distinct.
One of my favorite ideas is to have a Singaporean style law against “behaving like an animal in public.”  I spent 4 years getting around on the DC metro and encountered every imaginable sort of miscreant.  Addicts shouting at random people, homeless who smelled like weeks of sleeping on top of sewer vents, assholes playing videos or games on their phone at ear piercing volume, dipshits spontaneously busting into impromptu shitty pseudo-rap ditties, shitheads incapable of having conversations with indoor voices.  To stay sane I had to either use earphones or earplugs.  Every once in awhile I’d see someone run up to the window of a departing train and start pounding on the windows to be let in while screaming.  My vision would go red and my blood pressure go through the roof.  I would have a vision in my mind of the petulant fool turning around and seeing a squad of pristinely dressed Officers of the Discipline standing behind them led by Clancy Brown the Kurgan from Shawshank.  You could see your reflection in their boots and they’d wear leather armbands with their perfectly pressed Hugo Boss uniforms.  Clancy Brown the warden would raise the ceremonial stick of punishment, a replica of thousands of others like it across the Empire and pronounce the righteous prayer of justice.  The miscreant would get just a few seconds to scream again, this time in despair before he was set upon.  And after an astonishingly short time, he’d be left there in his own blood and before the Officers left, they’d leave him with a ticket “For Behaving Like A Monkey In Public.”  If he was lucky he’d have a few weeks painful recovery.  If not, “spend the rest of his life drinking his food through a straw.”  This would be a system of divine justice.  Once such a policy was administered, infractions would become very, very seldom and the principle of deterrence would work its magic to create a polite and orderly society.
Of course, this policy, I hardly need say, without any specification whatsoever would punish 80%+ black people.  I encountered a decent slice of white college students, drunk assholes coming from nats and caps games, and self important hipster professionals talking in loud nasal feminine uptalk that met the criteria but there were fewer of them.  It would be completely just though and “blind” to the color of anyone’s skin.  Truly only content of character would count as the activists always dreamed of.  Never does it occur to anyone educated in enlightened ideas, that blind justice might punish any group disproportionately and that true justice might in fact “discriminate” by its very true and uncompromising nature.

See Also: The Masses Crave Discipline

Related Video:

 

2 responses to “Discrimination Is Just

  1. Sam J. September 28, 2016 at 7:11 am

    The way the criminal justice system is set up is a large part of why Blacks get away with harassing Whites so much. The biggest problem is that prisons are integrated. At one time prisons were segregated somewhat. Now if a White person goes to prison they are vastly outnumbered and at a complete disadvantage. If Whites knew they would be going to a White prison instead of an all Black one I think they would be much more inclined to fight back.

    Also when Blacks attack Whites and Whites fight back it not considered defending yourself it just considered fighting. As if you wished to be attacked.

    In the past in New York city they had the death penalty for ANY crime committed with a firearm and the sentence was carried out immediately. They had very little crime or shootings. No guns for criminals gave the average person a fighting chance with criminals. After all criminals are looking for the easy way to make money. If they had to risk getting their heads bashed in every time they robbed someone I bet a whole lot less of it would happen.

  2. Sam J. September 29, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    I’ve gone back and read your post quite often because they’re so illuminating. Lately I’m reading post of “Bloody Shovel”. Very good stuff. I came across this quote,”…For the average men it is beyond obvious that Nationalism was a better state of affairs. Yes, you were likely to be sent to Northern France and be killed because your stupid generals had decided you were to be sent as cannon fodder until the enemy machine gun run out of ammo. Which it never did. But still, you had status. You had dignity. You had a society which told you you were awesome; a society where your natural inclination for typical manly stuff: loyalty, bravado, physical exertion, absurd penchant to fight because of stupid differences, were deemed to be noble and sacred virtues.

    But not now. A woman uses her natural inclination for nagging her husband to no end; and she’s a great woman exercising her rights and using her intellect. A phony uses his natural inclination to make up some arcane bullshit about human rights; and he’s a great intellectual. A normal person uses his powers of reason to notice something obvious about human nature; and he’s a heartless bigot…”

    Such honesty and a cut to the chase.

    https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/the-spectre-of-nationalism/

    he mentioned in another post,

    https://peppermintfrosted.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/history-and-the-historians/

    “…American scholar and economist, Correa Moylan Walsh, in a work which was published both as a unit of three volumes and as separate books, of which the first was entitled The Climax of Civilisation, the second, Socialism, and the last, Feminism (New York, 1917). For decades I have been discussing the numerous modern philosophies of history with anyone who seemed interested in the subject, but in all that time I have encountered only one man who had read or even heard of Walsh’s unique formulation of a cyclic theory that is not fatalistic…”

    Interesting that there’s an author that has a play on history other than “we’re going to die”. I’ll have to force myself to read this. While looking up Walsh’s books I found that the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations had used Walsh’s books as an anti-civilization handbook by doing the opposite of Walsh’s recommendations. Amazing and commented on by John D. Coleman.

    https://archive.org/search.php?query=The%20climax%20of%20civilisation%2C%20by%20Correa%20Moylan%20Walsh

    https://archive.org/details/Tavistock_201601

    Hah. Just saw that you commented on one of the post I linked. Way ahead of me as usual!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: