← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 3340 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2002-10-31
2002-10-31 19:45 | User Profile
[url=http://www.originaldissent.com/ljg103102.html]Discrimination Now, Tomorrow, and Forever[/url]
by Lewis J. Goldberg
Though not titled An Essay on Discrimination, this column should stand side by side with a pair that I wrote in 1999 called [cleverly enough] An Essay on Tolerance and An Essay on Diversity. Since it's been a while, I recommend you re-read these, and then continue on to this one.
DISCRIMINATE, v.t. [l., difference, distinction; differently applied; Gr., L.] 1. To distinguish; to observe the difference between; as, we may usually discriminate true from false modesty. 2. To separate; to select from others; to make a distinction between; as, in the last judgment, the righteous will be discriminated from the wicked. 3. To mark with notes of difference; to distinguish by some note or mark. We discriminate animals by names, as nature has discriminated them by different shapes and habits.
DISCRIMINATE, v.i. 1. To make a difference or distinction; as, in the application of law, and the punishment of crimes, the judge should discriminate between degrees of guilt. 2. To observe or note a difference; to distinguish; as, in judging of evidence, we should be careful to discriminate between probability and slight presumption.
DISCRIMINATE, a. Distinguished; having the difference marked.
DISCRIMINATION, n. 1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong. 2. The state of being distinguished. 3. Mark of distinction.
[Webster's 1828 Dictionary]
If we cut through the recent liberal redefinition of the term, discrimination is a great concept. It is incredible how far we've come in redefining the language to suit the Marxist masters. Until well into the 20th century, we still saw advertising for fine products aimed at the discriminating consumer.
The modern definition of discrimination forces us to assume that all philosophies arise from a level playing field, and that one person's reality is as good as another. It also forces us to toss common sense - consisting of lessons taught us by history, combined with our own experiences - out the window.
Let's say either my wife or daughter was raped by a black man wearing a red bandana. Under this new order of thinking, if I owned a business, and a man walked in, responding to a help wanted ad, and he was black and wore a red bandana, I would have to hire him if he was the only qualified candidate that applied, else I am open to a lawsuit. Even if there were other applicants; if I acted uneasy around him, he may file suit anyway. I am then no longer a free man. While the US Civil Rights Act and other such regulations were crafted ostensibly to prevent the types of blanket discrimination seen in the first half of the 20th century [No Blacks Allowed lunch counters, etc.] their meaning, scope, and influence has been expanded to cover the most personal choices we make; implicating the title racist even upon the shopper who chooses her checkstand carefully - by socially- imposed guilt if not by force of judgement.
If every man is not free to make his decisions - both stupid and smart ones, then no man is truly free. I can fully understand some restaurant owners - as well as other businesses - wanting to limit their clientele. If they want to say No Hindus Allowed, then they and only they will suffer the consequences of the lost revenue, especially if there is a substantial Hindu population in their area. The fact of the matter is, no one owns anything in America anymore. .we are allowed to possess assets, provided we operate them according to accepted government standards. This is not Washington, Adams, and Mason - this is Stalin, Pol Pot, and Judge Dredd.
And how well the maligning of the word discrimination fits with the same treatment given tolerance and diversity. Too many people unquestioningly accept the prevailing definition, not stopping to think what they've given in to. Let's examine the discernment America has lost by 'eliminating discrimination:'
Discriminating Good From Evil - Part of the prime example for the number one definition above of the word discrimination. If we shield our eyes, allowing all things to be considered good, we become the very evil we fear.
Discriminating Right From Wrong - Lack of discrimination dumbs us to some of the most basic decisions we make in our lives. .decisions regarding employment, commerce, marriage, asssociation, and the like. Life becomes completely wrong when wrong is unnoticed.
Discriminating Truth From Lie - We become the pawn and dupe of the clever ones who rule over us: the politicians, the activists, the lawyers, the myriad organisations in bed with the U.N.
Discriminating Virtue From Vice - We substitute abomination for sacrament, boasting of our filth as if it were pearls, and forcing the world to accept and admire.
Discriminating Safety From Danger - We trust where trust is unwarranted, looking the other way when danger signs show themselves. Even the dog is leery of the man who beats him...only sinful, stupid man goes back for seconds.
Discriminating Cure From Disease - We fill our brains with psychobabble, medications, and philosophies that serve only to mask sin, diverting our minds from the repentance that offers the only cure.
Discriminating Liberty From Slavery - We wear shackles of silk and show them off at parties, competing to see upon whom the chains set ligher.
Those of us who dare to be old-fashioned, read the old books, think the old ways...we are ridiculed and mocked as being out of step. I have seen the devil in whose steps we are being forced to walk, and I want no part of it. In whose steps do you follow?
Your comments and questions are encouraged. [editor@patriotist.com]
*October 31, 2002
Lewis J. Goldberg is the editor of The Patriotist. Article reprinted with permission of same.*
2003-06-02 05:02 | User Profile
[SIZE=3][color=green]What Would Ayn Rand Say?[/color][/SIZE]
Ayn Rand believed in a society where property rights would be the sine qua non of the American way of life. To her, a restaurant owner had every moral right to deny service to anyone he chose, and for whatever reason. But it's that "whatever reason" clause that so terrifies present-day, egalitarian-indoctrinated politicians and academicians. They know full well that granting property owners full control over who accesses, rents, or buys that which they own would result in a national upsurge of racial, gender, and religious discrimination.
Certainly many apartment owners, if granted the legal right to refuse renting to whomever they pleased, would soon be tossing violent, dead-beat blacks out of their complexes with gusto. And gays would be gone too from many places that now are forced to rent to them. Social dissension would soon boil over, and then it would either be 1: Head-bashing time courtesy of our local police in order to quell discrimination-enflamed race riots or 2: Back to rigid federal, state, and local laws preventing racial, gender, and religious discrimination by property owners - which is where we find ourselves at the moment.
2003-06-02 18:03 | User Profile
Ayn Rand's philosophy was created for the sole purpose of weakening gentile ethnoracial identity by deriding and "repudiating" it as a form of collectivisim. Ayn Rand's philosophy is also flawed because it confuses reality (the fact that everyone is, to a less or greater extent, selfish) with logic. In fcat, logic is completely neutrla on the egoism vs. atruism dichotomy; logic is a system of reasoning aimed at arriving at a correct conclusion from a priori knowledge and has little to do with purely existential questions. I have nothing but contempt for Ayn Rand's (aka Alisa Rosenbaum's) pseudo-intellectual charlatanry.
2003-06-03 04:49 | User Profile
[SIZE=3][color=green]Jew or Not, Ayn Rand Opposed Multiculturalism[/color][/SIZE]
PS: Your feelings about Jews aside, I think most white nationalists agree that the owner of a restaurant should be able to deny service to blacks, gays, Pakistanis - whatever - if they so please. And this used to be so before the so-called civil rights movement stripped whites of the right to do so. I believe those rights should be restored, and in that regard I concur with Ayn Rand's stance on the subject.
Finally, I would like to add that even people one despises can be right about some things some of the time. To believe otherwise is the equivalent of some ignorant Ku Klux Klan individual who claims that "all negroes are dumb" when the evidence clearly shows that is false. Likewise, some Jews are right in regard to some things, even if you're convinced they're out to put every white gentile in an oven.
Itz true.
2003-06-03 05:12 | User Profile
Libertarianism, or "objectivism" is simply the Bolshevism of the Right; that is to say, what the Jews attempted to do from the left, via socialism, they are now trying to do from the right, via libertarianism, and other "right-wing" movements (otherwise very different from libertarianism) such as neo-conservativism.
Both left and right wing attempts have in common the objective of denying and destroying white racial identity, through a system of ideology which helps Jews to disguise their influence, and helps them to wield power over others.
Objectivism in particular was almost entirely Jewish in character; reading about its history in NYC in the 60's and 70's is almost a mirror version of the earlier Trotskyite Jewish movements in NYC in the 1930's and 1940's: the same people pursuing the same Jewish tribal objectives (though they would deny it and probably never admitted it to themselves).
Sure, Rand "got it right" in opposing some forms of government repression that happened to target whites in practice. But one could also argue that the earlier Jewish socialists "got it right" in supporting certain social programs which happened to benefit whites.
The bigger picture is that the damage done to whites by Jewish politics - whether of left or right - is far greater than any "benefits" we could have derived from it, benefits we could have achieved ourselves quite nicely, without the deadly Jewish "side effects" involved in accepting the premises and the mental control of Jewish-formulated ideologies.
Until we do things for ourselves, rather than going "cap in hand" looking for approval from some Jewish ideological overseer or another, we will continue to be lost. Jews were very successful in infiltrating both conservative and libertarian movements, and taking them over, precisely because of a white weakness in fearing to "go it alone" and a white fear of meeting with Jewish disapproval.
2003-06-03 05:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by grep14w@Jun 3 2003, 05:12 **Libertarianism, or "objectivism" is simply the Bolshevism of the Right; that is to say, what the Jews attempted to do from the left, via socialism, they are now trying to do from the right, via libertarianism, and other "right-wing" movements (otherwise very different from libertarianism) such as neo-conservativism.
Both left and right wing attempts have in common the objective of denying and destroying white racial identity, through a system of ideology which helps Jews to disguise their influence, and helps them to wield power over others.
Objectivism in particular was almost entirely Jewish in character; reading about its history in NYC in the 60's and 70's is almost a mirror version of the earlier Trotskyite Jewish movements in NYC in the 1930's and 1940's: the same people pursuing the same Jewish tribal objectives (though they would deny it and probably never admitted it to themselves).
**
We've had a number of interesting discussions here on Rand. Here are a couple.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=687&hl=]Ayn Rand's Jewish years[/url]
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=7687&hl=ayn+rand]Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Jewish Interests[/url]
2003-06-03 20:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 2 2003, 22:49 ** [SIZE=3][color=green]Jew or Not, Ayn Rand Opposed Multiculturalism[/color][/SIZE]
PS: Your feelings about Jews aside, **
Where did I mention Jews as a group? I was only talking about Ayn Rand and her pseudo-intellectualism.
2003-06-04 04:09 | User Profile
[color=green][SIZE=3]Ayn Rand & Property Rights[/color][/SIZE]
Quoted from the article that started this thread: "If every man is not free to make his decisions - both stupid and smart ones, then no man is truly free."
ProdigalSon:
A: In today's society, a restaurant owner must serve negroes, even if he would rather not.
B: In Ayn Rand's ideal society, a restaurant owner would be free to refuse service to negroes, gays, or even people with moles on their chins, if he so wished.
So I'm a bit puzzled over how you can so easily dismiss Rand's concept of property rights as "pseudo-intellectual charlatanry". After all, that was the focus of my earlier post - not "weakening gentile ethnoracial identity" or "egoism vs. atruism ".
No, just property rights.
On that and that alone, Ayn Rand believed that the individual property owner had the right to rent, sale, serve or not serve anyone he pleased, whether for logical reasons, hateful reasons, stupid reasons, or just on a blind silly whim.
That's all my post was about.
Now, if you find Rand unpalatable for other reasons, that is your prerogative, of course.
As for you referring to Jews as a group, you did not. Perhaps I drew such an inference based on the fact that you went out of your way to point out Ayn Rand's real name, which is Jewish. As for myself, I have no singular hatred of Jews, even though I'm quite aware of their disproportionate influence in liberal politics, in the film industry, and in the inception of such poisonous organizations as the NAACP, the ADL, and others. That said, I admire some Jews for their accomplishments, Ayn Rand included. In fact, her views regarding property rights were closer to the views held by our country's Founding Fathers than those held by many of today's altruistic white gentiles.
Tom
2003-06-04 17:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 3 2003, 22:09 ** [color=green][SIZE=3]Ayn Rand & Property Rights[/color][/SIZE]
Quoted from the article that started this thread: "If every man is not free to make his decisions - both stupid and smart ones, then no man is truly free."
ProdigalSon:
A: In today's society, a restaurant owner must serve negroes, even if he would rather not.
B: In Ayn Rand's ideal society, a restaurant owner would be free to refuse service to negroes, gays, or even people with moles on their chins, if he so wished.
So I'm a bit puzzled over how you can so easily dismiss Rand's concept of property rights as "pseudo-intellectual charlatanry". After all, that was the focus of my earlier post - not "weakening gentile ethnoracial identity" or "egoism vs. atruism ".
**
I don't dismiss her views on property rights, which were not the focus of her hilosophy. The focus of Ayn Rand's philosophy, just like that of Marxism and other Zionist inspired philosophies was advancing Jewish group interests, by destroying:
Gentile morality and ethics, which are based on an individual's will to sacrifice for the greater good ("Rand" saw no greater good than "enlightened" self-interest)
Destroying gentile ethnoracial identity (by denouncing it as "collectivism" that interferes with a person's "enlightened" self-interest).
Just because some features of Ayn Rand's philosophy are in line with our ideology is no reason to accept Objectivism. For that matter, Communism has its own admirable features, but I don't plan on becoming a Communist any time soon.