Seems strange to say, but the truth is that America could use a little more discrimination and failure.  

Now, before getting too far along, I should clarify something: by “discrimination” I do not mean racial prejudice, but rather the idea that the people of the United States must prefer some moral codes and behavioral trends over others. 

You see, the genius of America is that instead of having a short-sighted and often distanced leadership engaging in an oftentimes untrustworthy and corrupt discrimination, the economy, the neighborhood, and the government are intended to function with a kind of democratic discrimination.  This is something which an increasingly larger population of Americans seems to disagree about, but despite what some may say, the very value of discrimination is based upon three things which almost every sensible person agrees about: different societies with different worldviews will produce different behavioral results, the results will not be equally preferable, and people must necessarily be allowed to have preferences on those behavioral results.  It is completely impossible for a free country–or any country–to exist without these principles.

For instance, a truly successful and free economy cannot function unless poor business management is allowed to fail, and has the ability to drag a company down with it.  Or in what Joseph Schumpeter refers to as Creative Destruction, more efficient and beneficial models of production and service must absolutely cause the failure of older, less efficient models of business, which leads to lower costs and better service for the consumer, and potentially more jobs, as our products and services become superior to those of foreign competitors.  When people vote for these products and services with their dollars, they are in effect discriminating between businesses, choosing the business with a superior evolutionary advantage, and leading unresponsive inferior businesses toward failure.  This is discrimination, and it is populism in both cause and effect.

Our own original model of government reflected this idea of competition and failure: when our founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they left very little control to the federal government and instead rewarded significant control to the states.  In fact, before the Civil War, it should be noted that the Bill of Rights was [1] not even applicable in the States, which led to a significant level of local liberty and a great diversity of legal structures.  The idea behind this lack of central power was that states could accurately reflect the moral sense of their local peoples, leading to either success or visible and massive failure.  And through the act of discrimination, people can see which states are failing, and either vote to make their state more like another successful state, or move to the better state.  Either way, a proper environment for both failure and discrimination against the characteristics leading to failure gives rise to a public recognition and support of proper and functional values, which in turn creates healthier societies through a form of evolution. 

Through discrimination and failure, the citizens of a free country were also intended to regulate their own neighborhoods, recognizing and ostracizing morally hazardous traits which are responsible for increased crime and poverty.  In a liberated environment, people can choose who their neighbors are or decide whom they sell their homes to, in effect ostracizing potential trouble-makers.  If they are imprudent in their selections, the neighborhood will become crime-ridden and fall into increasing disrepair, the brotherly attitude amongst neighbors eventually giving way to mistrust and feuding.  If they select their neighbors with wisdom, applying proper moral standards, the neighborhood will become safer, cleaner, and the houses will be maintained or even improved. The same process holds true for the hiring of employees: an improper form of discrimination will only harm the business owner, either by hiring the slovenly or bypassing worthy candidates based upon superficial traits.  Either way, the righteous and wise win, the foolish and immoral suffer.

But in today’s United States of America, discrimination and failure–the very processes by which society either improves or maintains itself–are viewed negatively.  Despite Martin Luther King Jr’s insistence that righteous judgment occurs as a result of the heart’s content and not the color of a man’s skin, Americans are quick to ensure that no person’s political affiliation (meaning, communists), sexual behavior (meaning, promiscuous or perverted), religious belonging (meaning, cultic or [2] potentially dangerous), or familial status (meaning, producing illegitimate children) can be effectively assessed for moral benefit, while other statuses like racial categories are enforced under threat of lawsuit.  Apparently, Dr. King’s dream was enforced by Americans on Opposite Day.

If there is one thing I can guarantee the American public, it is that a society which is legally prohibited from making prudent decisions based upon a person’s behavior-affecting characteristics is unlikely to promote beneficial qualities, while ensuring that more dysgenic qualities flourish.  Adding to the power of anti-moral and multicultural postmodernism, when neighborhoods and businesses are incapable of organizing themselves, it becomes far more difficult for the non-scholarly masses to discern which social structures produce stability, as different behavioral groups each claim superiority and produce statistics, but are geographically homogeneous.  For instance, while those who study the correlations between voting records and crime understand that the most liberal cities in America are [3] also the most dangerous and [4] poverty-stricken, the common man does not.  In short, discernment itself has been castrated for the layman: only the studied and highly discerning will truly understand the purpose of many moral qualities.

One of the most dangerous aspects of the Civil Rights movement was the adoption of affirmative action, which threatened all businesses with lawsuits based upon superficial qualities. An effect little mentioned in public schools, affirmative action attained overnight what the global communism movement could not achieve through decades: the American public’s governmental support of wealth-equality, regardless of personal behavior.  Since the end-goal of affirmative action and the welfare state is to ensure equal distribution of wealth along racial and ethnic lines without taking into serious account the characters of those hired, it essentially forced all conservative businesses to adopt left-wing mantras, which led to today’s overwhelmingly corporate and synthetic celebrations of diversity.

To this day, businesses rarely take conservative discriminatory stances, while openly advertising their overwhelming support for legally protected groups.  This, of course, is out of self-preservation: to avoid doing so is to make one’s business susceptible to [5] multi-million dollar lawsuits.  Although some would argue that the need for equality legislation will be more important than ever as our society becomes more multiracial, this cannot be so: “equality” legislation will only ensure radical social and economic deterioration as the likelihood of multiracial/multi-ethnic transactions increases the ability for legal action while distancing behavioral discrimination from standard practice.  This will not only waste the efficiency of businesses which are forced into firing people they already knew were going to fail, but also serves to bolster the more outwardly displayed forms of moral bankruptcy.

This, of course, is enforced on a local level.  But with the federal government limiting the competition between the states through an improperly applied Bill of Rights (which, once again, [6] was not intended for local or state enforcement), the once obvious visible effects of foolishness have been even more deeply mitigated.  After the Civil War, competition between the states became minimal, as the federal government usurped the rights to control interstate commerce, educational standards, and “enforced” the Bill of Rights on a state and local level, effectively homogenizing the states.  While states today differ, it is not to their originally intended extents.

Now, there are many on both the religious right and left who decry the value of discrimination, especially American religious minorities and those who have an improper understanding of Jesus’ own words.  The first group is easy to understand, while the second has a more convoluted stance.  Usually, when Christians take a governmental or social stance against discrimination, it is done because of Jesus’ commandment to “not judge.” Of course, what clarity their argument lacks is provided five verses later in the book of Matthew, in which Jesus Himself commands His followers to not give their wisdom to [7] what He describes as “swine.” 

If God commands us not to make moral judgments, the burden of proof rests upon those describing themselves as tolerant: they must explain why Jesus commanded us to recognize certain peoples as definitive scum, and then react appropriately based upon our value judgment.  What Jesus is actually trying to say by His commandment is very simple.  He wants us to not place ourselves in positions of moral pride over others, as though we were incapable of the sin others commit.  And even if the false interpretation of Jesus’ words was legitimate, would this not also imply that people should not judge others who may or may not actually be racist?  Or does this non-judgmental attitude only apply to every sin except racism?

In short, by dismantling the means to discriminate, the American people have absolutely dismantled the very dream of American success.  We may be able to coast for a short while longer on the wealth our fathers received through their own judicial prudence, but consider that in the past 50 years, starting at the very moment our policy on discrimination was reversed, the following trends have happened:

-[8] 50% of families no longer stay together, leaving children without guidance and [9] impoverishing neighborhoods.

-According to the World Health Organization, suicide rates have [10] almost doubled for women since 1950

-In large cities like Chicago, over 500 children [11] can be shot in about a year (it should also be noted that Chicago is not America’s most dangerous city)

-The average citizen is [12] buried in debt, with personal bankruptcies doubling in the past decade

-The government has become insolvent and bloated beyond understanding

-Corporate fraud [13] has become commonplace

-Drug abuse and addiction has become legally sanctioned through our pharmaceutical industries

-Doctors now charge their patients more than is financially possible

-[14] Between 1960 and 1993, Illegitimate childbirth rates have increased by 450%

-Portions of the country don’t even speak English

-Around 820,000 babies are murdered by their own mothers [15] every year

-Gang culture continues to sweep across cities which were once wholesome, with the [16] Office of Juvenile Justice reporting almost a million active gang members

-The feminist and homosexual war on gender norms has effectively castrated males, leading men [17] to abandon honor, responsibility, and ambition: men are now greatly outnumbered in academia, and more likely to drop out of school, while more likely to abandon their children.

-The dollar’s value is being depleted, and faces the possibility of collapse.

So we must ask ourselves, does discrimination look so dangerous now?

The solution:

1) Repeal any form of federal anti-discriminatory policy (citizens may choose to repeal their own state’s policies)

2) End all corporate welfare

3) Repeal the 14th amendment and end the incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the states, letting the states reflect the character of their citizens