Donald Trump signed an executive order that specified that the United States federal government only recognizes two sexes; male and female and these equate to the sexes identified by the biological realities of nature. And he used this basis to forbid biological males from participating in Title IX protected women’s sports. This provides a basis for activities excluding one sex from the other based on differences in biological identity. So that’s part one.
But now it’s time to move forward. Now it’s time to acknowledge that there should be activities that males want to participate without women involved. And once again, it is based on biology. It’s very simple. Women are inherently irritating to men.
Now, I say this as a man whose been married to the same woman for forty-eight years. This May I’ll have known Camera Girl for fifty years. She is a delightful woman. Smart, pretty, wise, witty; you name it. She is the greatest joy of my whole existence on this planet. But there are times when I get together with the guys that having her there would be a big mistake. She’s a woman. She’s not as lazy as we are. Or as crass. And she doesn’t care about nuclear weapons, the Roman Empire, the Lord of the Rings, William Shatner, bad movies in general or anything that would qualify her for a get together with the guys. And if she did care about those things she would be too strange a woman for me to get involved with.
And even if she was still the same wonderful person she is now and wanted to hang out with the guys, it still would be a bad idea. And that’s because men occasionally want to escape the company of women. We want to be unfair and objectivize women and say things about them that they won’t like. Basically, we want the space and freedom to act like thirteen-year-old boys again. We want to form our own hierarchies based on whatever primitive and undemocratic criteria we decide on and we absolutely, positively don’t want to fall under the authority of a woman. Now that’s clear enough. We want our space.
Now how do we get it back?
It seems to me; the most logical way is to follow reason and fact. If the Title IX laws protecting separate (but unequal) women’s programs is constitutional then it stands to reason that separate organizations based on the differences between men and women is also constitutional. Fraternal organization can become just that again. And sororal clubs can provide women with their own spaces.
Now whether any of the male organizations that have already been neutered by the government can be resuscitated is highly doubtful. The Boy Scouts of America have just this month officially eliminated the word “boy” from their name. I don’t see how that damage can be undone. But new organizations can be started that will replace these hollowed out shells of the past.
And the time to make this happen is now. With this Supreme Court and President Trump in charge the Justice Department could be the conduit for cases to push for the return of freedom of association. The only real question is whether there is an organization that would be willing to be the test case. It should be a new organization that starts fresh and goes after landmark legislation to end the present persecution of male only activities.
And I think the perfect test case should be my own favorite named organization; The He-Man Woman Hater’s Club. The name says it all. Now all we have to do is get that feminist Republican jurist on board; John Roberts.
Donald Trump said he’d end affirmative action and he did. Below I’ve copied Donald Trump’s executive order for, “ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY”
This is amazing! This is what we’ve needed for generations since the nightmare of the Civil Rights legislation was rolled out in the 1960s.
And I expect the blue state judges and other progressives will fight this tooth and nail. And if Trump wants to secure his legacy in the eyes of his countrymen, he needs to fight back with every bit of power that the office of the presidency provides him. Because this is exactly the policy that will make this country powerful again. Companies hiring the smartest candidate. Police and military authorities requiring applicants for demanding assignments to pass grueling physical tests. No more 5’ 4,” 90 lb. women pretending to be firefighters who can go into a burning building and haul a 200 lb. man to safety.
No more surgeons or airline pilots selected to their positions based on their skin color or sex (or worse, their sexual deviancy). No more Navy Seals or Army Rangers who can’t do ten pull ups or carry an eighty-pound pack and a rifle. And best of all, no more government programs or agencies endlessly telling us that diversity is our strength. In fact, the executive order requires all of these agencies to strip away all of those buzz words; diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. All that jibber jabber has to go. For example, from the text below:
“(ii) Excise references to DEI and DEIA principles, under whatever name they may appear, from Federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures to streamline those procedures, improve speed and efficiency, lower costs, and comply with civil-rights laws; and
(iii) Terminate all “diversity,” “equity,” “equitable decision-making,” “equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,” “advancing equity,” and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.”
And this order has all sorts of clauses to allow the government to go after corporations that employ affirmative action in their hiring and advancement policies. Honestly there are goodies in here everywhere I look. For instance:
“Sec. 4. Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences. (a) The heads of all agencies, with the assistance of the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action with respect to the operations of their agencies to advance in the private sector the policy of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work identified in section 2 of this order.
………………
(b) To further inform and advise me so that my Administration may formulate appropriate and effective civil-rights policy, the Attorney General, within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of OMB, shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI. The report shall contain a proposed strategic enforcement plan identifying:
…………………
(iii) A plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars;”
Etc., etc., etc.
And just to make sure the colleges are held accountable:
Sec. 5. Other Actions. Within 120 days of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall jointly issue guidance to all State and local educational agencies that receive Federal funds, as well as all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., regarding the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
So, all in all, this is like some kind of dream come true for the Right. Now will all this become law without a fight? Hell no. There will be a knock down, drag out fight for every sentence and phrase. I expect screaming women to march around the White House for the next ten years on account of some angry identity group whose feelings have been hurt.
Federal judges in every blue jurisdiction will declare this order unconstitutional. But I predict the Supreme Court will come down on his side. And that is as it should be. Trump has taken the initiative and he has justice and sanity on his side. Let him continue to act in this spirit and he may end up on Mount Rushmore after all. Well done.
For your ease of access I’ve copied the executive action in its entirety below. I recommend going through the whole thing. It’s very well written. I find it very enjoyable just reading it. It’s a form of therapy. And even for that Donald Trump deserves my thanks.
Presidential Actions
ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND
RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY
January 21, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
Yet today, roughly 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critical and influential institutions of American society, including the Federal Government, major corporations, financial institutions, the medical industry, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies, and institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) that can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation.
Illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system. Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.
These illegal DEI and DEIA policies also threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the Nation by diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination when selecting people for jobs and services in key sectors of American society, including all levels of government, and the medical, aviation, and law-enforcement communities. Yet in case after tragic case, the American people have witnessed first-hand the disastrous consequences of illegal, pernicious discrimination that has prioritized how people were born instead of what they were capable of doing.
The Federal Government is charged with enforcing our civil-rights laws. The purpose of this order is to ensure that it does so by ending illegal preferences and discrimination.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the civil rights of all Americans and to promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work. I therefore order all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements. I further order all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.
Sec. 3. Terminating Illegal Discrimination in the Federal Government. (a) The following executive actions are hereby revoked: (i) Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations); (ii) Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011 (Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce); (iii) Executive Order 13672 of July 21, 2014 (Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity); and (iv) The Presidential Memorandum of October 5, 2016 (Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce). (b) The Federal contracting process shall be streamlined to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil-rights laws. Accordingly: (i) Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity), is hereby revoked. For 90 days from the date of this order, Federal contractors may continue to comply with the regulatory scheme in effect on January 20, 2025. (ii) The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor shall immediately cease: (A) Promoting “diversity”; (B) Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “affirmative action”; and (C) Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin. (iii) In accordance with Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), the employment, procurement, and contracting practices of Federal contractors and subcontractors shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation’s civil rights laws. (iv) The head of each agency shall include in every contract or grant award: (A) A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and (B) A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws. (c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the assistance of the Attorney General as requested, shall: (i) Review and revise, as appropriate, all Government-wide processes, directives, and guidance; (ii) Excise references to DEI and DEIA principles, under whatever name they may appear, from Federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures to streamline those procedures, improve speed and efficiency, lower costs, and comply with civil-rights laws; and (iii) Terminate all “diversity,” “equity,” “equitable decision-making,” “equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,” “advancing equity,” and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.
Sec. 4. Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences. (a) The heads of all agencies, with the assistance of the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action with respect to the operations of their agencies to advance in the private sector the policy of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work identified in section 2 of this order. (b) To further inform and advise me so that my Administration may formulate appropriate and effective civil-rights policy, the Attorney General, within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of OMB, shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI. The report shall contain a proposed strategic enforcement plan identifying: (i) Key sectors of concern within each agency’s jurisdiction; (ii) The most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern; (iii) A plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars; (iv) Other strategies to encourage the private sector to end illegal DEI discrimination and preferences and comply with all Federal civil-rights laws; (v) Litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest; and (vi) Potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.
Sec. 5. Other Actions. Within 120 days of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall jointly issue guidance to all State and local educational agencies that receive Federal funds, as well as all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., regarding the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
Sec. 6. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 7. Scope. (a) This order does not apply to lawful Federal or private-sector employment and contracting preferences for veterans of the U.S. armed forces or persons protected by the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq. (b) This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech. (c) This order does not prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. THE WHITE HOUSE, January 21, 2025.
I’ve heard lots of people say that freedom was the Enlightenment Era’s original sin. By demanding freedom, we opened ourselves up to all the ills of our society. But I don’t believe this. All the stuff about equality running us into a ditch because it was the source of feminism and the other isms may be true. But I contend that any society that allows me the freedoms that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights has given me the basis of a happy life.
My idea about what has to be changed is nothing more complicated than to demand the complete restoration of these freedoms. We must resist any demands to give up any part of our rights for the sake of some misbegotten crusade to make everyone “more equal.” People are as equal as they’ll ever be. Which is, not at all. Every individual is just that, an individual. And as long as we provide them with the same freedoms, they’ve got nothing to say about anybody else’s pursuit of happiness.
The beginnings of the restoration of these rights have finally made some headway. The Supreme Court recently outlawed affirmative action in college admissions. Well, that’s a good start. But outlawing it completely in the federal government is what is needed. It’s the feds that have used quotas to force all kinds of businesses and organizations to hire or admit people on the basis of race or sex or sexual deviancy. This is the basis for most of the misery that has gripped this country. Free association is one of the fundamental behaviors of a free people. Choosing who you want to work with or play with is the way you try to make your life yours. We’ve all seen what happens when an affirmative action hire turns out to be a disaster. It builds up animosity and frustration throughout the organization. And it forces the people around the mismatched employee to work twice as hard to make up for the employee that cannot be cajoled or forced out.
And think of how many fraternal organizations were ruined when they were forced to admit women. Half of the reason for the organization was to get away from wives to spend a few happy hours with the guys in a mens-only environment. The same goes for the Boy Scouts. Admitting girls and then gays was a betrayal of the basis of the organization’s reason for existing. And for what? There is already Girl Scouts. There could be a scout’s organization that let anyone in and that didn’t mention God or chivalry or normalcy. But the real point was destroying something that didn’t include them.
And since that’s the point why should we feel bad if we manage to stop this shakedown racket. But you’ll be told that discrimination will be happening. Well, of course it will be. Everywhere you look in life there’s discrimination. How many kids that end up in Harvard and Yale are there because their fathers and grandfathers went there? And how many of those kids are smarter than the thousands that are rejected? And how about the kids who are let in just for the color of their skins. They’re not as smart as the rejects either. So, discrimination is okay if it’s done for the elites or for their pet projects. What’s that old saying? You know who’s in charge by who gets to break the rules. Well, let’s stop with the games. They want to have their kids go to Harvard. Then let’s stop pretending that the people in charge play by the rules they make for us. And let’s just let people live their lives the way they want. If the Bushes and the Romneys want to belong to their secret societies and wouldn’t let me in if their lives depended on it, why should I care? And if my poker game looks like the older version of the kids I grew up with and doesn’t have enough diversity, equity and inclusion why should anyone care?
Let’s face it. With a country as multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious as America has become the only way, we can avoid going for each-other’s throats is if we give each other some room to breathe. The happiest and ultimately the most efficient way to let people organize their lives is to let people organize their own lives the way they want.
And that is what most needs to change in this country if we want it to survive. Drop the affirmative action and drop the policing of employment and membership in organizations and just leave people alone to live their lives the way they want. That is after all the real reason most people came to this country. The nineteenth century immigrants from eastern and southern Europe were under no illusions that they’d be hobnobbing with the Astors and the Rockefellers. They knew they’d be lucky if they got to clean out the chimneys and drain pipes of the Astors and Rockefellers. What they did hope for was the opportunity to pursue their dreams through hard work and enjoy the community of fellow immigrants who huddled together in the various ghettoes of places like New York City. And each ethnicity, even each village had its own neighborhood. Maybe a few city blocks and a church and some store fronts. And all these neighborhoods were cheek to jowl with each other and many of them didn’t get along very well. But as long as they had their own clubs and festivals and customs it worked. All they had to do was obey the law and mind their own business.
A few days ago, I talked about open and closed associations as they related to how people in the Dissident Right felt about the various efforts by people like Chris Rufo to pry back our rights from a government that has embraced anti-constitutional policies like affirmative action and DEI.
And what the dissidents say is that the government shouldn’t be allowed to even ask who you associate with at all. In other words, the Constitution doesn’t say we have to like other people. And they’re right. That is the nature of the Bill of Rights. They are positive rights of individuals, not negative rights.
But what occurred to me today is that as the Left’s destruction of societal norms has advanced, the need for freedom of association has become much more important. Fifty or a hundred years ago even among disparate groups in our country people still believed in the majority of beliefs that governed their behaviors. Whether you were black or white or rich or poor, people still believed in concepts like honest, dishonest; male, female; smart, stupid; legal, illegal; mine, yours. So, you had a basis for communication and there could be the expectation that some mutually acceptable rules of public behavior could exist. We could live under the same laws and for the most part avoid having to shoot each other in the streets.
This is no longer the case.
And as these concepts have disappeared it becomes less and less possible for each of us to associate randomly with everyone without worrying about disaster or at least great disadvantage. For instance, if I live close to a large city and the nearest drugstore is a quarter of a mile away but inside a high crime district and the next nearest one is twenty miles away in a safe suburb I might decide for the sake of safety and peace of mind that I now drive twenty miles out of the way.
Parenthetically, I’ve recently heard community activists in these high crime areas calling drug stores and other retail businesses racist because they are now shutting down their branches in these areas. Apparently, the new standard of wholesale theft in these neighborhoods that has been embraced by the urban prosecutors brings out the secret racist in these corporate executives for some unexplained reason.
And extending this idea consider people with children trying to find public schools that don’t have teachers and administrators who will try to groom their kids for various types of sexual deviancy. Or even white men who are just tired of working at companies that force them to endure various struggle sessions about sex and race relations.
And even though I’m just an old-fashioned white man who is married to a woman and has children and grandchildren and was born when all of that was completely normal and in fact the majority case in America, I can imagine that if you were someone who wasn’t white, wasn’t male and wasn’t straight that you might want to have a venue where whatever your point of view was on things, that point of view would be the orthodoxy. So, if you were a black lesbian living in St Louis, you’d really like to have a bar where all the black lesbians could get together and complain about the white lesbians and the black gay men. I think they should be able to have such a place. But in fact, they currently do. Lots of them.
By the same logic, the Dissident White guys should have a place like that for themselves. And by the same logic nobody should think there’s any reason why either of those places shouldn’t exist. After all, would the black lesbians want to hear the opinions of the old white guys? Probably not. Would the old white guys want to hear the opinions of the black lesbians? Probably not.
Now if there were a black lesbian and an old dissident white guy who were both chess players and they happened to meet at a chess tournament and enjoyed discussing the art and science of chess and got along, well, there would be plenty of opportunity for the two of them to socialize at chess tournaments and lots of other places. But chances are they wouldn’t invite each other to their favorite bars because they wouldn’t feel welcome. And chances are the white dissident wouldn’t want to meet in any of the black neighborhoods in St Louis because he probably wants to live a while longer.
But the point is that we can’t pretend anymore that we’re a single society that can all sit down at the same table and enjoy the same things. We’ve normalized very strange lifestyles and beliefs. We’ve become different groups. We like and dislike different things. In some cases, these likes and dislikes are diametrically opposed. And because of this all we do by forcing these people together is create anger and pain. And this goes for groups on the Left. Currently, transwomen are attacking feminists for not accepting them as women. In fact, transwomen are even attacking lesbians for not wanting to have sexual relations with them. So here you have different segments of the so-called LGBTQ community at war with each other. The only hope for maintaining the larger heterogeneous society is allowing free association to provide space for the disparate groups to enjoy their lives and lifestyles as freely as possible in this polarized mix.
And finally, if you are a member of the hated white straight male group then building your own associations isn’t just advantageous. It’s the only way to avoid extinction. The elite institutions are trying to get rid of you. Organizing is the only way to survive.
I basically agree with your analysis (I haven’t listened to the Zman’s podcast though). Freedom of association is critically important and it’s childish for people to demand to be included in clubs where they aren’t welcome. For example all the current hubbub about Taylor Swift is, in my opinion, because football was one of the last few bastions of testosterone heavy entertainment remaining and now even it is being eroded.
I completely agree that all levels of government must be color blind in their enforcement of the law. Separate but equal was always nonsense.
I will say I have some reservations about “public accommodations” being excluded from freedom of association. I can see forcing grocery stores to allow all law abiding members of a community (that would exclude shop lifters) to purchase food. On the other hand I don’t see why we need to force coffee shops to serve their over priced drinks to everyone. When I was younger the general attitude was that if we force people who don’t like each other to associate then we’ll all discover we aren’t so different after all. The ink is black, the page is white, together we learn to read and write… That just doesn’t seem to be true.
Feel free to call me an idiot (well, within reason :-)).
I listened to the ZMan’s Friday podcast and the topic was an explanation for why he considers the ideal of the color-blind society of such activists as Chris Rufo to be doomed to failure. And I’ll have to say here that he was very clear about why he saw it as unsatisfactory from his point of view.
In a nutshell, he saw the color-blind basis for a multiracial society to be unacceptable because it would not allow for what he called closed associations. And he defined open and closed associations as differing in their method of exclusion. In an open association basically, anyone was admitted who adhered to the basis for which the association was established. In a closed association, those in charge can exclude anyone for basically any reason or no reason at all.
In the ZMan’s mind a society that adheres to a color-blind basis for race relations would never allow closed associations to exist. Now this conclusion is interesting. His position was that the idea of the color-blind society had been put forward back during the William F. Buckley Jr. era of the conservative movement in the 1960s and 1970s and that trying it again would end in the same failure.
I listened carefully to his arguments and came away with several thoughts on his assumptions and conclusions.
My first thought has to do with how the color-blind premise should be applied to American society. What seems fair to me is that if we have a multi-racial society then the most important case where color-blindness should be applied is by the government. In other words, the government treats us all the same. There should be no mention of race in any government policies. We all follow the same equations for our income tax calculations. We all get the same government benefits based on the same measurements of work history and age. We all get to vote just once in an election. And we all have to obey the same laws and we all get the same sentences for committing the same crimes.
And in terms of public accommodations, we can all use the same grocery stores and get the same rates from the electric company. And once again, if we live in the same town, we all have to conform to the same local laws. So, if the local laws say you can’t smoke pot, then anyone regardless of color will be arrested for doing so. And we can eat at the same restaurants. But that restaurant even though it is a public accommodation, is still a private enterprise. It can demand that patrons dress in a certain way. It can demand that diners behave in a specific manner. And regardless of race if someone can’t follow those rules he can be ejected, possibly with police assistance if the result becomes trespass.
And if there is a professional society like the AMA or the Bar Association or an engineering accreditation program these would also be considered public accommodations. As would schools and colleges. But once again everyone must follow the same rules and be judged by the same objective standards. Here the use of standardized testing goes a long way to reinforce these ideas. And this objectivity will prove that when conditions are as equal as they can be that the human population will produce a bell curve of outcomes. That’s right we’re not all exactly the same and that’s just the nature of populations.
And these above referenced cases and things of the same sort are what would be considered public accommodations.
But I don’t assume that private associations need to be open to the general public. In the 1960s and 1970s much was made about how men’s clubs and associations had to be opened up to participation by women. Under a careful analysis of this history, I believe that the Supreme Court could quite easily decide that private associations could limit their memberships based on sex if the whole basis for the association is based on being male or female.
And likewise, why couldn’t there be a club based on its members being of a particular ethnicity or physical characteristic. After all there are already clubs for tall people and there are organizations for senior citizens. There could be clubs for people with blond hair and blue eyes. Parenthetically the ZMan’s favorite example of minorities is “ginger midgets.” There could be a National Association for the Advancement of Ginger Midgets, (NAAGM). And in what way do any of these associations harm people who are not these things? They don’t and therefore they are not unethical.
Based on what the ZMan said in his podcast he would disagree with my analysis because he would say that no mechanism exists to force the federal government to accept the restoration of free association for private, non-public accommodation associations. And maybe he’s right. But regardless, I think that getting the federal government to have to give up on affirmative action and be forced to adhere to color-blind standards would be an enormous improvement over the nightmarish anti-white polices currently practiced in Washington DC.
If and when these first steps have been initiated more effort can be expended to continue working toward the full restoration of the freedoms we were promised under the Bill of Rights. Saying that because past efforts to reestablish constitutional practices have failed that no progress can be made is incorrect. The recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action in college admissions and on abortion are clear examples that even after many decades, a bad decision can be corrected. I think there is great merit in pushing for a color-blind federal government.
What do you think?
On Mondays the ZMan has his usual post and also puts up a post on Taki’s Magazine. Today both of them are very worthwhile. On his site he discourses on the analogy of prison life to our current environment and how freedom of choice has been banished from the public square by a pseudo-religion.
On Taki’s he compare the current American political regime with the Soviet era and likens trying to figure out what the Left will do next with how Kremlinologists in the West of that era tried to read the tea leaves by the Brezhnev’s expression during filmed ceremonies and pontificating on what it meant.
I enjoyed both posts quite a bit. The ZMan is on his game this morning. A good start to the week.
One of my favorite bad thinkers never tires of reminding his readers and listeners that a negative identity is not a strong position to be in. In other words, if you define your identity by what you are against then you lack a basis for defining what you are for. This is the charge he lays at the feet of Conservative Inc. By defining themselves as only against progressivism they are constantly addressing whatever new outrage the Left cooks up but they fail to define what they themselves do stand for. If you’re always on the defensive you never have a chance to advocate for the things you actually want to see implemented.
Far better is to look at what you do believe in and formulate it into a clear and coherent statement. That way when someone asks your stance on this or that example or scenario you have a rational basis for your answer. And also, it gives you a logical basis for formulating an agenda of actions for the future, a plan. Now my identity is relatively innocuous since at heart I’m just a garden variety civic nationalist. What I would want is a return to normal American society with plenty of allowance for individual differences in background and culture. Plenty of room for normal people who want to raise their kids as good American citizens.
So, that all sounds reasonable but when you look at our present situation it becomes much more complicated. For instance, the Boy Scouts of America was an organization with the specific mission of providing boys with a fraternal organization to help them become physically fit, mentally awake and morally straight. And because of that mission it was hounded by homosexuals and feminists until now it isn’t for boys and soon, I’m sure they’ll have to remove the word straight for fear of offending the delicate.
My example is meant to show that trying to define a positive identity makes you a target for those who hate what you are. They will see what you stand for and try to destroy it. The same thing has been done to almost all other social organizations. The US government has forced women into every fraternal organization with the sole exception of religious organizations. And of course, many of these have surrendered too. One of the only exceptions I know of is the Knights of Columbus which is a Roman Catholic fraternal organization which excludes women as anything but auxiliaries.
Well if that is the only exception then that will have to be the path forward. It’ll have to be a religious fraternal society. The organization must utilize the Freedom of Religion under the First Amendment to protect it from the invasive forces of the federal government and may need to restrict itself to states that do not regularly harass conservative organizations. The mission of the organization can be loosely grounded in the usual fraternal agenda. Service to the community, family activities and religious or ethical training are all things that fall under the purview of a religious fraternal organization. The thing that has to be carefully defined is the religious requirements that define the organization such that you can avoid all the latest abnormal behavior. Luckily the Christian Bible (at least the one used up until the 1950s) has scriptural authority for avoiding the whole LGBTQ agenda in one fell swoop. The only thing I’m not sure of is whether it can be structured so that any member from one of the remaining traditionalist sects is eligible or whether a separate religion will need to be founded in order to give it legitimacy. In other words, is it enough for me to be the Grand Exalted Master or do I also have to be the Pope?
All of this sounds crazy but maybe that is what this world actually requires to permit men the freedom to live their lives as they wish to. When the churches themselves become corrupt and controlled by the insane maybe it’s not crazy to think that new churches need to be formed. This sort of dovetails with my earlier talk about the He-Man Woman Hater’s Club. But of course, as time goes on it becomes less of a joke and more of a necessity. And if anyone knows of an existing fraternal organization that already covers all the bases, I’m interested in let me know and I’ll look into it. Until then I’ll order Camera Girl to make me some sandwiches while I think up secret handshakes and build a mystic decoding ring.
In my first post on this subject I addressed the necessity of protecting traditional Christians from being harassed by the LGBTQ mafia. After taking care of that problem, the next freedom of speech issue that needs to be handled is the gatekeeping that the social media companies have been doing that denies access to people of whose politics the gatekeepers do not approve. Either single-handedly or by forming a cartel, companies such as Youtube, Twitter and Facebook have the ability to effectively shut out of the electronic town square anyone that they disapprove of. In the modern age these social media sites are de facto, the only means of free speech in the digital world. And since they act as essentially monopolies they must be treated as such by the federal government.
Currently, Twitter will allow (exclusively) left leaning users to contact the left-leaning “Trust and Safety” Commissariat, to fink on someone they dislike and this will get the wheels in motion to eliminate this wrong thinker. The process may take one or several steps but the eventual outcome will be the removal of the offender from the Twitterverse. Facebook and Youtube have similar set-ups with equally Orwellian titles that allow the Left to exclude the Right from these social media sites. Since these sites benefit from the virtual monopolies that they have they must be regulated as such by the government to prevent them from discriminating against those they dislike.
On the commerce side there are money transfer services like PayPal and Stripe that also have formed cartel like arrangements that conspire to demonetize anyone whose politics they disapprove of. Added to this are the crowdfunding companies that have recently begun doing the same. And these sites are presently the critical locations for doing business on the web. Without them companies and individuals are shut out of e-commerce almost completely. The Left knows this and is using it as a bludgeon to force conformity by anyone who wants to do business on-line.
The good news is that laws already exist to combat this kind of market place manipulation. The Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department are specifically empowered to monitor and enforce anti-trust and unfair trade practices laws. Currently the Justice Department is in the hands of the enemy and is probably incapable of performing its duty with respect to protecting the rights of non-leftist citizens. However, after the mid-terms it may well be that President Trump will be firing the Attorney General, his Deputy and every other swamp creature currently inhabiting it. If that does occur I hope one of the earlier actions of this cleansed department is investigating and punishing these various on-line perpetrators of malfeasance and leveling the playing field in the on-line environment.
It’s entirely possible that none of these issues would rise to the level of a Supreme Court case. But if it does we have the correct court to enforce these cases. With these cases covered I believe we will have provided the people on the right with the on-line environment they need to thrive. Otherwise these strong-arm tactics by the left will increasingly hamper and weaken us.
So many aspects of life under the leftist regime are unpleasant that sometimes it’s difficult to decide what should be fixed first. I think this is part of what leads to the apocalyptic mindset when the Right thinks of how all this will have to be resolved. Back in September the ZMan had a podcast that looked at the current state of the Bill of Rights in America. http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=14969
He makes a pretty compelling case that even though theoretically we still have freedoms of speech and religion and the right to bear arms all of these have been hamstrung through the efforts of courts, state governments, bureaucrats and even corporations that want to tell you how to live.
And that has been in the back of my mind ever since. And now that Brett Kavanaugh has been added to the Supreme Court I think it’s clear what the first priority should be. It’s time to restore the Bill of Rights. It’s time to take a stand against the Courts and States that have criminalized traditional beliefs and practices. And the most egregious example is the gay marriage bamboozle. It’s time for the Supreme Court to tell the Blue States that normal people don’t have to pretend that gay marriage is something they need to celebrate. We can leave the question of the constitutionality of protecting the right to gay marriage for another day but it’s obvious to any reasonable man that eschewing any involvement with it is squarely under the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Religion aspect of the First Amendment. Not being a lawyer, I’m not exactly sure what the best way to provide blanket protection for this. I would guess that a decision from the Supreme Court recognizing the tenets of traditional marriage as protected under the First Amendment should do it. Then if any of the states disobey the ruling the President can send the National Guard in and follow up with some kind of federal oversight to ensure that it sticks.
In addition to the cake bakers and photographers this will also aid the religious organizations, schools and social agencies. For instance, Catholic Adoption agencies have been put out of business because states like Massachusetts prosecuted them for refusing adoption to homosexuals. Now, it may already be too late for some organizations like the Boy Scouts. They seem to have folded. But new organizations can step forward to fill the gap. So, these protections will benefit many parts of traditional life. And in the aggregate, they will make life more tolerable for traditional individuals in America. In fact, what they will allow is the ability for normal people to separate from the progressives in the aspects of life that are most important to people, namely their most strongly held beliefs.
So, this is the first and most critically needed change that the Right needs enacted. There are plenty of other areas where push back against the progressives is needed and I will address these subsequently but without a doubt, this one is first.