In law school (in the late '90s, I have some idea that this would not be taught today) - there is a particular case that ALWAYS causes problems - Shelley v. Kraemer. Everyone knows it is entirely wrongly decided: the finding of "state action" in the court's enforcement of racially restrictive covenants makes no sense in the larger context of what "state action" the Constitution limits. Robert Bork pointed out in a 1971 law review article the obvious problems with Shelley, as well as a bunch of other hot button civil rights cases. That article was used to call him a racist and crater his SCOTUS nomination. (Link to the offending scholarly piece - https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2720&context=ilj).

We had a professor who had worked in the Civil Rights Division of RFK's DoJ during the 60s. He pointed out that RFK as AG wanted to "end racism" but ran up against the problem Bork identifies - and you have as well - it smacks right up against the 1st Amendment and Free Association clause. The Supreme Court - largely infested with the "progressives" of any area - has been the architect of all of the mischief around race relations, from Dred Scott causing the Civil War to Plessy v. Ferguson enshrining "separate but equal" to Brown v. Board's attempts to un-ring the bell. All of it has been caused by the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment

I have thought something like this for a while. Making a law about something allows for litigation on that thing and discrimination laws are a slippery slope to take away people's freedom of action and eventually, thought. I think society eventually comes around to doing the right thing----it just takes a long time. A true Christian wants only good for his fellow man---which is ideal for society. But you cannot MAKE someone become a Christian. They have to come to it in their own mind. It seems like whenever we try take control of others, it does not work out. We need to remember this. It is so difficult to see someone being treated unfairly, but the answer isn't always to make a law.

Also, according to Thomas Sowell, more black families were intact and in or moving towards a good place before the 60's than after.

Expand full comment

The legit reason for such laws was that in some parts of the country, your business was subject to terrorist attack if you did not discriminate. Civil rights laws provided a CYA excuse.

That reason has since expired. A racial discriminator faces more boycotts and worse than an an integrator.


The proper political approach today is to focus on the penalties. Damages should not be so high as to invite offense -- for any tort whatsoever. Jurors should be instructed to make the victim whole, not to hand out a winning lottery ticket.

For example, the damages due to being refused a wedding cake should be bounded by the cost of finding another baker -- which is the same damages I deserve from shoe stores which don't provide wide shoes...

Expand full comment

Mate, you've got it all wrong. They are correcting for a flaw they themselves created, cannot admit and in so doing fuck the world up even further. The problem is that most humans are hardwired for fairness, not equality- so much so that even 50+% of African American men voted against imposed equity in California.

Check out the London Challenge. Here in the UK we used measures (very quietly) learned from Northern Irish Catholics to raise results for Black British kids to the point that there no longer is a racial academic gap. A kid at the Brampton Manor Academy starts their day at 6.00am. If they are one minute late they get 30 minutes detention. Parents are subject to the disciplinary code of conduct- not that any complain, given that their kids are kicking the arse of the kids on the entitled- they beat Eton on pure meritocracy.

Here's the killer. Where real discrimination exists it's proven to overwhelmingly found in customer facing roles. That means service sector, in cities, women, young, single and affluent. The biggest problem for Black America is not the White Male Conservative Racist we've been led to believe, but it's empirically proven to be the White Liberal Karen who is too awkward to say 'how would you like to learn the tricks to double your income through tips?'

Fucking get over it. Stop lying you Liberal cunts. The evidence proves the cynical racism of White female college grads just as surely as my taste buds savour the 10 year old Talisker I'm about to swig. But really, why is it that the Great Migration is reversing? Could it be because Black Families would prefer to deal with a genuine old White bigot honest to their face, rather than a sly White female liberal PMC who would rather avoid giving them a chance?

Expand full comment

Well said. Furthermore, not being able to talk about the wretched problems in the black community for fear of being labeled racist keeps the blacks voting democrat. This entire welfare system was LBJs plan to garner the black vote. It worked brilliantly. But it’s enabled blacks. Does anyone believe black people are more poor because white people won’t hire them? Cause they don’t have opportunities? Jesus you’ve got tons more advantages from being black. Look at the crime stats. 12% of the population commits more than half of the murders in this country. Until we start addressing that nothing will get fixed.

Expand full comment

“...telling someone of a different color to fuck off you don't want to pay their kind to work for you...” is fine as long as you accept the consequences of such statements such as having the shit kicked out of you for being an asshole. Incivility shouldn’t be a crime, but there used to be extralegal consequences.

Expand full comment

Sorry man, but I remember those days. And refusing to serve people because of their inherited appearance is just stupid and divisive. That's why we banned it back then. It was the right thing to do then, and still is.

But thanks for pointing out that MLK went to a communist school. It was his socialist economic stand that got him killed, not his civil rights campaign. Of course, I'm a communist(a real one, not some ID politics woke idiot) and I approve of what he managed to do.

Expand full comment

If Southern Americans could have only stopped, or even minimized, their barbaric treatment of blacks, the rival Constitution and the annihilation of freedom of association could have been avoided. The government had to take action because the people could not help themselves. Now the cure is worse than the disease.

Expand full comment

And you told them to fuck off cos they were stealing your shit or being an arsehole.... not because they were black/white/gay or whatever.

Expand full comment

Judging individuals by the content of their character and not the color of their skin is a nice sentiment that I practice, but I don't appreciate being robbed of the opportunity to be magnanimous by the CRA nor its incompatibility with 1A.

Expand full comment

Property rights, when completely boiled down, represent your right to your own life.

When you work to aquire property, it requires time, and that time requires part of your life. We're not immortal, so how we choose to spend our time is a sacred right. Time is life spent.

So, when someone wants to take claim to your property, they are taking claim to part of your life. Hence the slavery reference. Slaves don't determine how their time is spent and likewise don't own property.

It's the same reason why healthcare is NOT a right. Because healthcare requires someone's time. Someone has to decide to help someone else. People have to come to an agreement on what is acceptable for the time tradeoff.

Civil rights laws are designed to allow the state to control people's property on the basis that they have "committed a crime" because they offended someone.

Consider the case against the baker. He "discriminated against" a gay couple because he wouldn't spend his time baking a cake for them. They sue, on the grounds that discrimination laws require the baker -- to spend some of his life doing what someone else wants him to. That is absurd, and is not constitutional. There is no right to a cake.

If you don't control your property, you don't control your life.

Nobody has a right to a job, and nobody has a right to someone else's life. Period.

Expand full comment

There is a perfect explanation of this process we’re in, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book Democracy the god that failed. The only problem of course is that it renders all cool content creators you could possibly like, from BAP to Slavoj Zizek, obsolete. Maybe..

Good is not only bad. It’s profoundly evil!

Keep it up Kulak

Expand full comment