Observations About the World, Part Forty-Three

Photograph of the Atlas globe

Injustice |
Monday – September 7, 2026

Justice, injustice... These are hard things to deal with, and indeed the world is full of injustice, everywhere you can see and hardly any justice. And really, it must be stated, whatever justice we can find, so-called "justice", does appear to be quite artificial, read "The Problem of Secular Law". Of course, there can be much understanding to be had for the people who seek justice where they see injustice, and for their actions and beliefs it must be granted that they are angels, or at least they are true in their convictions. Of course, the problem with people who seek justice in a world full of injustice, is perhaps above all that these people seldom understand what true justice is, and conversely they also seldom understand true injustice. If injustice is the negation of continual justice, justice in their view,* then it is perfectly understandable that they are so moved and motivated by the false notions of the humanist axiom, of positivism and of a refusal to retrait in the face of all of this injustice. Why should we, for instance, allow for injustice when we can move against it? This is perhaps the central question that they, the moderns, have to answer for, and this is why they have developed elaborate legal frameworks and notions of international law and solidarity, solidarity with people who are utterly unlike themselves, but of course their ideology, Liberalism, must by its very nature claim dominion over all men, including necessarily the most distant and disparate tribes, really the most primitive peoples from their point of view, read "My Views on Western Intervention". So, here we are in our 21st century, all up in arms about the supposed sufferings of people from across the other side of the globe, our so-called brothers and sisters, brothers and sisters in liberalism, in human universality and conformity – the formless man of the masses, without dignity, distinction, and qualified rank. Really, for any of these fantasies about justice to ever find ground in reality, it would be quite necessary for man to completely shed his humanity, his distinction, and his belonging in the world, read "Hierarchy". Perhaps this was the goal all along, the creation of the democratic man,† read "Transhumanism"?

    Perhaps I should state the question like this: who is in charge of what should be considered justice and in turn injustice? Is it injustice for people to suffer their fate as long as they remain in their station? Is it injustice in that aforementioned event for strangers, men of different lineage and from different tribes, to not intervene on behalf of the mechanical God of modernity, read "Mechanism"? Are we responsible for our collective fate as a species? Yes, if you are a modern man, if you adhere to the pseudo principles of the humanist axiom, you are forced to conclude that you simply cannot leave other men to their fate, thus we arrive in the modern age, in all its convulsions over so-called injustice, as if the negation of action itself constitutes injustice. This is truly a novel consideration of both justice and injustice under the sun, and the ugliest children of this idea is perhaps that neologism of so-called equity, as if egalitarianism was not enough, we must now also take the further step of creating justice, artificial justice that is, which also means that we must proclaim ourselves Gods, read "My Views on the Hubris of Modern Man". There is surely an absurd element involved here: we are asked to torture ourselves because of what we perceive as strange modalities in foreign lands, strange and delicate cultures that we do not understand, read "My Views on Afghanistan".

    The fact is of course, that suffering is a part of life and that suffering has always been a part of life, and indeed certain people tend to suffer more than other people: would we be right in assuming that a handicapped or spastik person would face more material difficulties in life than someone born without this burden, without this hindrance? Of course we would be right, and there is very little that can be done to accommodate such persons, although some things can be done. When we are called to sacrifice ourselves in order to create justice in any moment, though, is this really accommodation or perhaps something else, something quite pernicious and absolutist? Yes, it would seem that egalitarianism is absolutist, which means that one of two things must occur—and here we are still only concerned with the corporeal world: either egalitarianism and its even more pernicious mutant equity (justice) are true and the world is indeed better of because of these conceptions, these theories; or the world is made a worse place, for as you displace something that is real, you cannot simply expect reality to adhere to your idealism, your ideology – your misconceptions. Now, if you never or only seldom have to live with the consequences of reality, read "Politicians", I suppose that you find it quite right to be able to order people around without consequence, and as the world dissolves under your boots, you still manage to remain infatuated with your own ability to cause your own justification. After all, someone has to make justice, and now that the world is falling apart, you have made it your "duty" to salvage the mess.

    One could make the argument that this is injustice, that actions that purposefully create disarray and suffering is evil and must therefore constitute an injustice, an abnormal state, an artificial state, that must be rectified, even if violent destruction is called for. This has always, since the Code of Hammurabi, been the case; indeed this justice is as old as the world, and this justice can even be described by profane science: an abnormal state must be justified and in that case upheld by some axiomatic truth, or that state must cease in a counterreaction, indeed an equilibrium must exist in any system, unless there is a force that pulls against the system, and in which case such a force must be justified. Really, from a profane point of view, it could be construed that life itself constitutes an abnormal state, a chemical reaction, and that every death in this sense is inevitable and even just, and if not just simply amoral and neutral. Again, the contradiction is painful and quite unresolvable, and it shows. Either justice serves a positive end, to balance the scales of the celestial order, or it does not, and in which case the meaning of justice can be anything under the sun, as long as it adheres to the false principles of modern man.

Reginald Drax (AKA, M. C. Dutt) – September 7, 2026.

Footnote(s)

* For more on this, I must direct you to my posts: "Ideological Indoctrination" and "My Views on Liberalism".

† Here we must consider the tragic and seemingly unavoidable conclusion of multiculturalism and mass immigration: is the point of this ideology the complete erasure of qualified distinction, the destruction of the races of man in favor of the inscrutable mass? For more on this, I direct you to most posts: "Democracy", "My Views on Multiculturalism", and "The Problem of Immigration".