THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

NO EUROPEAN BILL OF RIGHTS | 2002-08-31

Recently there was another scene straight out of the Inquisition in Europe. A European graduate student was trying to stay out of prison for research he had been doing. In France and Germany you get an automatic one-year prison sentence if you question any aspect of the Holocaust.

As in the United Kingdom, when it comes to Hate Law, "the truth is no excuse" (The Crown Versus Joseph Pierce,1986). So a French grad student had found some information that questioned the holocaust and he was trying to stay out of prison. He sat there at his university, that Citadel of Free Inquiry, and insisted that he hadn't spoken Heresy. His professors were mostly Inquisitors.

In Germany, a person was accused under the Holocaust law and he could not have witnesses, because the witnesses would have gone to prison for testifying on his side.

Can you imagine the shriek that would go up around the world if an American witness for a terrorist were threatened with prison for testifying in the terrorists' favor?

But, of course, when it comes to violating Political Correctness, one has no rights.

Listening to Europeans, you get the impression that their court system must be perfect. They have none of our exposures of police misconduct or convicting of the innocent.

In Europe, they have these little guys in round hats or wigs or some other uniform who pronounce what, if you listen to the silence, must be perfect justice. Our system is messy.

Anything human is messy. So why is European justice, like so much else in Europe, so perfect?

Well, first of all, we all know that these countries are largely white. Nobody is allowed to say it, but that helps a LOT. But lately, even that hasn't overcome the sheer dumbness of leftist policy.

The European crime rate, under policies of the kind being developed in Johannesburg for the environment, has gone from astonishingly low to unbearably high.

But in Europe, the people are obedient. They apparently don't mind the crime rate. You don't have the kind of hell-raising you do here.

Europe is the leftists' dreamland. The people there obey and believe. The fashion right now is to take guns away every time a nut misuses one. Europeans rush to obey the fashion. Australians and Canadians, good little colonials, do the same thing. Since gun confiscation, crime has shot up in Australia, but once you get a leftist law in a European colony, it is forever.

The American east coast and the Ivy League LOVE Europe.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT | 2004-07-11

Last night I attended a little meeting, six people, which was about decent treatment for prisoners. This seems odd, given that I am a raging right-winger. We are supposed to HATE all prison inmates.

My reason for being at that meeting can be summed up in three words:

I hate cruelty.

When I say I hate cruelty, this does not fall into a general Christian philosophy of Respect for Life or something. I just hate the idea of anyone being hurt if there is not a damned good reason for it.

I am not a generally nice person when it comes to punishment.

I do not value life all that much, if by "life" you just mean a beating heart and the ability to experience pain. That is for preachers to rave about. They make their living on stuff like that.

I do not have A Respect for All Life. I would cheerfully kill a Ted Bundy with my own hands. But I am not capable of hating him.

There is an old saying, "A man should shoot his own dog." So if someone says, "You believe in the death penalty, but could you do the killing yourself," I reply "Yes." I know myself very well by now and I would do it myself.

I do not even believe in Justice, if that means hurting people just for the sake of getting them back because they have done bad things.

I do believe in PREVENTIVE cruelty. Preventive cruelty is the only thing that will scare bad people into not hurting others. And yes, I will do it myself.

I know a lot about the nastier sides of life. Most of what I know is better left unsaid.

But I can say this on the record: I have worked in prisons and many of my sponsees in alcohol and drug recovery were ex-cons and I have conducted recovery meetings in prisons and so forth. I have been there, I have done that.

The fact is that bad people need to be frightened into line. This is not abstract justice, this is a matter of protecting people.

There is inexcusable sadism in the prison system. Yet the term "prison reform" sticks in the craw of decent people for a very good reason.

"Prison reform" has been used as a cover by those who hate white gentiles and want to help anyone who is a criminal in our society. In his trilogy, "The Gulag Archipelago" Aleksander Solzhenitsyn described the Soviet concentration camps he was in, but he did more than that. Solzhenitsyn went back and did an entire history of those camps and the tens of millions who died in them. They were agonizing deaths, not as merciful as gas chambers.

In one chapter Solzhenitsyn describes "the thieves," career criminals who lorded it over all the political prisoners in those camps. The career criminals were given the right to beat up other prisoners, to steal from other prisoners, to torture political prisoners, to kill other prisoners.

Since the book was written for Russians, the chapter on these career criminals in the camps had a title Solzhenitsyn never explained. It was called "The Socially Friendly."

Here is why he used that title. It is an explanation every person familiar with Marxist theory already knows:

To a Marxist, the people of a country are the enemy. The enemy of the people, the career criminal, is described in Marxist ideology as "the socially friendly." To a leftist, the enemy of society, the murderer, rapist or thief, is "socially friendly."

Leftists use "prison reform" for their own purposes. They have given it a bad name. They are the friends of our enemies, the bad guys, the career criminals and psychopaths.

On the right, the reaction against this leftist type of "prison reform" has been used just as cynically.

In prisons, the easiest way to prevent hardened criminals from making trouble is to make sure each hardened criminal inside the prison has his own young sex slave. This is standard practice and anybody who objects to it is said to be "soft on criminals."

So dedicated people try hard to get this sort of inexcusable abuse into the public eye. They keep trying to get people to pay attention to it and are ignored. The minute they succeed in finally getting this sort of outrage into the public eye, professional "prison reformers" grab hold of it for their own purposes. The people who fought so long to get attention on the real abuses are then pushed aside by those who make their living on this sort of thing.

The professional leftists make it a part of their political agenda and "prison reform" is discredited once again.

Then the professional rightists take back over and prison authorities are given free reign once again.

I told you before that the Council of Conservative Citizens is being taken away from the inarticulate people who fought so hard to make it successful. Now that it has some potential due to their hard work, the screaming preachers are taking it over. The same thing happened to "prison reform."

The same thing happened to environmentalism. When hard-working grassroots people defied the industrialists and got the runaway pollution of America into the public eye, they were shoved aside by the leftists who wanted "protecting the environment" to be their battle-cry for turning the entire economy over to the bureaucrats.

So "environmentalism" got discredited for people on the right and the polluters get a free ride under Bush.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

I DEFEND CONSERVATIVES AGAINST ANONYMOUS | 2005-12-01

Never do I defend conservatives at all.

But there is one charge I will not tolerate. Anonymous accused conservatives of one thing I will defend them against to my dying breath.

He said they had cajones.

He said that conservative might commit MURDER for their principles. I thought I made it perfectly clear that conservatives would not get out of line for the Men's Room for their principles.

Rightists kill. Anti-leftists kill.

But CONSERVATIVES?

Accusing a conservative of murder is like indicting a rabbit for slaughtering a pack of wolves.

HISTORY: THE HAMILTON CROWD | nationalsalvation.net

"In the end, failing to deal effectively with the Hamilton crowd led to Lincoln's War, the loss of freedom, and the death of the Old Republic."

Peter, would you expand on this? I've never run across this line of reasoning before (I went to public school).

Comment by Mark

ME:

This entry does not let Peter out of making his own reply, because this is an important subject.

Sam Dickson, as usual, delivered a brilliant speech at the Council of Conservative Citizens. One of his major points was that Lincoln was elected by people who had no roots here. He talked about some of Lincoln's hate speeches in Chicago during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates when he appealed to German immigrants by saying he hated the established American Anglos who looked down on the new Germans, just as he, a poor boy from Kentucky, did.

Sam talked about the immigrants who had come to the United States, not to ***A*** state, and who thought this states rights business was absurd. To them America was a foreign country they had come to, and all they knew about it was the words it used. Their ROOTS were back in Europe. Their family did not have any roots in any particular state.

Hamilton was another resentful man who arrived in America from the West Indies in 1773. To him, America was an instrument he felt could be used to reach High Ideals. He wanted to use it to build a big standing army and a continental power. He was obsessed by America's Principles, its WORDS.

In the Civil War, Lincoln's and Hamilton's Wordism won out over Jefferson's and Jefferson Davis' IDENTITY with America as a people and a race.

Pain:

The problem is that the people who take the swords at Yorktown shouldn't. The war is won by the guerillas, and the ones who win it are the leaders. Give credit where credit is due or face trouble later.

Comment by Pain

ME:

If the enemy was the British, it may make sense to send those who have been working closely with them "to take the swords." But that says wrongly that these people - and not the guerillas - won the war.

Before American independence, the group that became the Hamiltonians were half-Tories. They were half-respectable and did not fully support independence until late in the game. They had some connections and they were able to bring ideas of independence past the radicals into the mainstream.

But if they were not full revolutionaries before the war, they were not full revolutionaries after it either.

They had other intentions.

The Jeffersonians were the real revolutionaries, and acknowledged as the true guerillas, they held power in the old republic for the next 80 years.

The Hamiltonians were the aides-de-camp, the people who occupied the "IMPORTANT" POSITIONS during the war. The "swords of battle" were surrendered to them and so they were treated with respect for those same 80 years.

Until their other intentions hatched in 1861.