The definition of the concept of justice as executed by Western social governmental units demands that those who are wronged do not have the right to directly initiate a personal process to directly claim their own justice through physical repatriation of the item taken but are required to petition the system through its often overly bureaucratic methodology to act as the official dispassionate interlocutor on their behalf. Thus the burden of proof established proving the crime by the person wronged so as the system is itself being fair in approaching the designated perpetrator and imposing a solution be it value for value based upon the market or being remanded into confinement that depending upon their documented demonstrated history of committing such acts theoretically then determines if the incarceration is a penalty to deter or if extended incarceration should be imposed to protect the larger social fabric. The demand by all parties being that the system is set up to accommodate all segments of the society with equal fairness. Thus those who try to waylay the notion of justice by redefining it are essentially anti-social to the point of being considered brigands trying to pervert the process so it favors their own interests at the expense of any other. SJW’s are a perfect example. Though most are agnostic they forever point to a higher sense of intangible standards that are not necessarily the same core beliefs of the general population for which the institutional justice system as loosely described above works. Claiming the moral authority of an extraordinary spiritual commerce with a higher power does not functionally excuse errant antisocial behavior by either the party initially abused or the ones that were the abuser! Blood money (i.e. reparations) expected by any given group as a singular party from the reigning ‘body politique’ over what is claimed to be a longstanding injury wrought by ancestors of the the dominant collection of cultures whose forebears were responsible for setting up the current system in force is equally unfair. Claims of victimization by virtue of past diaspora’s or by a group being held in bondage as part of the recorded history of a previous social order of the past does not sanctify designating their descendants as liable or automatically guilty of an injustice. That is of course if the present system truly upholds their administration on a fair reading of the facts and provable sense of realities associated with the incident in question. Thus the theories behind the demand for public support of Holocaust museums, racially based reparations, unequal benefits provided by the public trust or stated preferences for a given group based upon gender, race, religion, (etc.) mandated upon those conducting business in the public fall apart and are destructive to the larger society over the long hall.
As part of the majority culture termed white many members of same realize that they have more to lose if they violate the implicit law that they are not enabled to take justice into their own hands because they will risk breaking the law in a manner as egregious as the perpetrator of responsible for their. So they lose their proverbial manhood by deferring collecting their due immediately in the false conceptual universe of popular archetypes as distributed by the ceaseless engine of that contentious minority culture that preferentially dominates the universally enjoyed medium of the mass media as a mechanism to take advantages by instilling counterproductive stereotypes that primarily benefit the narrow interests of their exclusive cult at the expense of any other. Thus to exchange this sense of what justice is or is not as demonstrated by the latest graphic portrayal of times past based upon the vagaries of a very stilted narrative does not qualify as having the right to derail the existing system when verifiably blind in terms of of the fairness of its operation. If one does not share these values then why would they want to be living here save to be an active insurgent come simply to despoil it so as to take advantage of its inherent benefits of stealing prosperity? This is exactly why those who do not believe in the foundations of a system cannot be allowed to have a commanding influence over it. How dare the vested interests of a tiny minority force the majority of a given longstanding culture to change their proprieties in terms of the toilet or what is considered reasonable public display of their being. If one is to be outed by having their reputation destroyed in the appallingly slanted reality show morality aka lynch mob fervor of the modern press then that medium is terrorist mechanism that does not serve the public trust. This is a truth more solid than anything scribbled upon parchment in a public rotunda located in some esoteric temple of elitist power due East.