Lee in the Mountains

Doing the Lord's Work by Saving the White Race

Monthly Archives: April 2015

The Moral Case For Discrimination


Defenders of legislation designed to protect the religious freedom rights of businesses argue that such laws do not amount to discrimination against gays. However, not only are such advocates actually barking up the wrong tree, they’re not even in the right forest.

Instead of helping to reinforce the enemy’s primary premise (the idea that discrimination of any kind is wrong) while boxing themselves into legalistic corners, desperate to comply with the enemy’s terms, those who would overthrow the tyranny of political correctness must go on the attack instead.

How? Upset the enemy’s apple cart completely. Get in their faces and defiantly inform them (and everyone else concerned) that discrimination is not only moral, right, and fair; it is a patriotic imperative, and everything our population has been taught about discrimination has been false.

What’s wrong with discrimination? Nothing. In fact, you have a duty to discriminate in favor of the good, and against the inferior.

The ancient Chinese classic, The Book of Changes, holds that discrimination — the setting of limits — is the very backbone of morality.

Sodomy is inferior to procreation. Sue me already.

A society which makes it illegal to favor the superior over the inferior is doomed, that much more so when it requires that the inferior be favored over the superior. Now the astonishment ensues, that anyone would dare even speak of such things as superior and inferior! Such hateful bigotry! Why, there’s no such thing! Everything and everyone is equal in every way!

The controversy over Christian caterers and gay weddings is only one facet of the overall, ongoing political maelstrom which necessitates clarity. I don’t much care what the courts have ruled on any of this; they’re just as likely to be wrong — and not just because they’ve been rather dishonest about it all.

Our distorted legal system says that the fundamental right of freedom of association is somehow trumped by the imagined (and non-existent, in truth) “right” not to be offended or discriminated against. If people’s right to freedom of association (and private property rights) were protected instead, private business owners could just hire or serve only who they see fit, for any reason or no reason at all. And the chips would fall where they may. After all, the business operator (not the judge, leftist talk show pundit, or lawmaker) is the one who has to spend most of his or her waking hours dealing with the employees and customers in question.

Conventional thinkers and jurists argue that businesses, having an alleged orientation and obligation toward “public accommodation,” are by that principle forbidden from denying service to patrons based on whatever status. But how honest is that characterization, anyway? There’s really no such thing as a business which “accommodates the public.” In reality, businesses accommodate only those with the means and willingness to pay for the goods or services they offer. That is, discrimination against those in the general public who can’t or won’t pay is already inherent (although even that concept seems less and less intact anymore!). Besides, money is not the only social currency. Good manners and all kinds of other preferences can and should be considered as to a business owner’s prerogatives.

When you chose to read this, you discriminated against all the other articles you could be reading during this time, or other things you could be doing. Is that somehow unfair to someone? Shouldn’t there be government arbiters of what people read, to make sure you don’t make “discriminatory” selections? How would that work, seeing as discrimination against someone’s writing would always be inevitable? You see where this leads. Yes, they are actually trying to put such programs in place.

If discrimination is supposedly so wrong and illegal, why does our immigration system (since 1965, that is) so heavily favor non-whites from the third world, to the relative exclusion of whites?

The point is that regardless of what the “do-gooders” say or attempt, discrimination of some kind is always going to take place, no matter what. The important thing is that it be the right kind. That’s where the real debate comes into play.

So what is the “right kind” of discrimination?

Contrary to the conventional thinking, even governments should actively discriminate. The Japanese are morally right to discriminate in favor of Japanese (why shouldn’t they?), and the ethnic majority in whatever country, wherever, should be free to assert itself and create laws favoring their prevalence — this is the very essence and purpose of having national identity in the first place, lest the abject chaos of unlimited diversity trump borders, language, and culture. The alternative is what we see here now in the U.S.: increasing dissolution, tension, conflict, and the anti-American tyranny of protected minority sacred cows. Phooey.

Speaking of cows, next we’ll be told that cows are unable to read and practice things like medicine only because of centuries of oppression by farmers (mostly white farmers of course), and that therefore the “achievement gap” is the result of the “disparate impact” of….oh, never mind.

Agenda-driven discrimination does not mean scuttling the rule of law, it means the rule of law is intact — just not the Orwellian, Marxist BS we have now. Those who prattle on about “equal protection under the law” have yet to answer regarding the inevitability of discrimination I’ve mentioned.

As it happens now, unfortunately, and mainly due to twisted interpretations of history and its implications, conservative white males have for generations accepted and helped perpetuate the premise that they are the ones to be targeted for discrimination by any and all entities, public and private, so that a de facto regime of black/brown/female/LGBT supremacy can reign over America. This is anything but equal protection, and it’s despite the fact that white males are the ones who sacrificed themselves in untold numbers to end slavery and tyranny in this hemisphere and elsewhere on the planet — still, we are the ones against whom the endless political pogroms are being waged, because it is imagined that we are guilty, when in fact the entire world was “guilty” of slavery, yet it was whites who did something about it!

In suicidal, politically correct Britain, at least they don’t pretend it’s not discrimination when they wage political and economic persecution against whites, and especially against Christian white males — they call their affirmative action/diversity programs “positive discrimination.” Isn’t that cute?

Efforts against shopkeepers being allowed to decide for themselves whom to serve and how to conduct their own business evidence a pretty dim view of the ability of individual citizens to exercise their own, sound moral judgment about human relations, and about business, for that matter. That control-freak impulse is at the very heart of the fascist Left’s fetish for government intrusion into people’s lives, and their growing bureaus of Thought Police. But nothing gives us any indication that such control-freaks are in reality better people, with better moral judgment, than any given store owner, any given citizen.

In fact, given the recent campaign of malicious terrorism we’ve seen waged against a completely innocent Christian pizza shop owner in Indiana, it’s pretty clear that those screaming the loudest against discrimination are actually the most hateful, dangerous bigots on the planet.