What Derb Is Missing

Jussie Smollett was recently found guilty on five felony counts of lying to police and disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to 150 days in jail. These were the charges brought against Jussie for orchestrating a hate hoax and lying to police about it. The story itself was slightly less believable than if he’d said he was heterosexual or rode a dinosaur to work, and it ended up costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in police pay and overtime. Given that he is both non-White and openly gay (which, by law, must be pointed out in every third paragraph in every news story regarding him), Smollett served less than seven of those 150 days and was released on bail pending an appeal.

John Derbyshire commented on this sentencing on the March 19, 2022, episode of “Radio Derb.” Mr. Derbyshire is of the opinion that the original plea deal, in which all charges were dropped in return for some community service and forfeiture of his bond, was appropriate. From a strictly legal point of view, all Smollett did was lie to police about a hoaxed hate crime. Several of Mr. Derbyshire’s listeners and blog readers criticized him over this. They pointed out that Smollett had committed a blood libel against Whites, which Mr. Derbyshire agrees with. He points out, though, that this is not a crime. Neither is being a repugnant dirt bag. Derbyshire then went on to express his consternation at so many peoples’ inability to grasp this simple, legalistic concept. It was his opinion that the legal system should conduct itself based on an impersonal and impartial interpretation of the laws as they are written. Furthermore, it appeared as though Derbyshire found those dissenting opinions as either invalid or confusing.

Derbyshire is 100% spot on, theoretically. In a just, sane country, the legal system should be blind and even handed. It should mete out justice in accordance with the laws and precedents as written. Punishments should be appropriate for the crime committed. This kind of thinking is perfectly suitable for majority White countries, or the America that stopped existing sometime in the 1990s. This isn’t to say it’s morally wrong, because it isn’t. This isn’t even to say I necessarily disagree with Derbyshire, because I’m not entirely sure I do.

The people he disagrees with may not even necessarily disagree with the morality of a blind and actually fair (not the ridiculous, infantile definition our enemies use) legal system. What they view, however, is a legal system that is not a justice system. They see White people being persecuted and prosecuted for the crime of not letting their non-White attacker kill them.

White America views the media in gleeful, unabashed cahoots with radical idealogues working diligently to demonize White people and criminalize them for being White. One need not look any further than the “trial” of Derek Chauvin. His crime? Being a law enforcement officer in the vicinity of an overdosing black drug addict. They also saw the Rittenhouse trial, where a young man was lied about repeatedly by prosecutors and their vicious partners in the media. They recall Nick Sandmann’s trial via pundits on television, where he was also lied about by literally everyone in the punditry class. Sandmann’s trespass? Smiling in front of some weirdo yelling and banging a drum in his face. The boy (for he was a boy at the time) smiled nervously, likely completely unprepared for what happened next, and was vilified the way Kermit Gosnell should have been.

Whites see stories like this over and over and have realized that the people on the other side consider them an enemy that must be destroyed. These Whites further realize that their self-proclaimed enemies are operating under a completely different set of rules and moral framework. They watch their representatives in media and government blather on about “if a Democrat did this or that” and tax rates, while the other side is throwing people in jail for being angry about the rape of their children and it being covered up by corrupt school boards.

In the eyes of a growing number of Whites, the moral high ground of an aloof, high-minded and dispassionate interpretation of the law is a less effective defense than the Maginot Line. They want to start winning. They want their enemies punished by the same standards that are used to punish them. For many, it isn’t out of some kind of vengeance, though that may play a part. It is, however, the inevitable result of the frenetic, compulsive, ham fisted pushing of “equality” by the ruling class.

The peasants have been told at every turn for multiple generations about equality, so it is only natural that they become outraged when they notice their own people suffering under what is clearly anti-White bigotry and inequality. They rightly ask why one group should have tools at their disposal like The Bail Project, a corporate media willing to flat out lie for them, retrying crimes until the “correct” verdict is reached, and orchestrated widespread riots; meanwhile, they can’t even chip in for someone’s legal defense without the threat of being doxxed.

White America correctly sees what’s happening as an incredibly one-sided application of “justice” that operates on two very different sets of rules, and more Whites are growing sick of it each day. While they realize a blood libel against Whites is not illegal per se, they still want the standard of malicious prosecution and triple jeopardy of local, State and federal hate crime charges pressed (when applicable). They want people like Jussie Smollett treated with equal hatred and disgust by the media, and for them to call him a dangerous extremist. After all, if it’s good enough for anyone who’s ever questioned the integrity of a really odd election, why isn’t it good enough for an actual liar and criminal?

It isn’t so much that White America doesn’t understand the concept that the legal system shouldn’t prosecute people for things that aren’t illegal. They do understand it, which feeds their frustration and anger. It’s more so that it does prosecute people for things that aren’t illegal; thus far, it’s only ever been one sided. These people want their equality, too.

A functioning, civilized society should operate how Mr. Derbyshire views it. However, we do not live in a functioning, civilized society. We live in a semi-collapsed society where the personal grudges and agendas of the highest bidder play a bigger factor in how someone is portrayed in the media (and in the courts) than pesky things like facts. The legal system is so lopsided that the most patient and forgiving group in Western history is beginning to get fed up. They want to see their opponents punished.

I truly and deeply wish this wasn’t the case. I wish we could have that society where the “news” would just report the facts, and prosecutors wouldn’t use their unlimited budgets to punish people they find icky. I wish we lived in a world where the idea of rioting because a White person wasn’t punished enough for defending themself against a “protected-class” assailant was something for dime store, dystopian novels. But we do not and have not for a long time.

God willing, we will again.