Chronicles of the Kritarchy
IT’S WELL PAST TIME the term kritarchy percolated into the public consciousness. It means rule by judges, and bears a lineage descending from ancient Israel. Thus making it particularly apt given the ethnic composition of the Court. Western civilization suffers no deficit of hurdles to its survival, though from a purely civics perspective I think few exceed the JQ: the judiciary question. [Those few, in our view, include the other, even more significant, JQ — of course. — Ed.]
It was never anyone’s intent to fashion a government whereby preening goofballs in Western Washington are granted the power to compel immigration officials to stand down across the country because Our Constitution requires Muslim saturation. That the actual source of this country’s alleged self-rule has never approved of this inflow is deemed wholly irrelevant. As we’ve noted here many times, the American people have again and again been the unwilling passengers of a power-drunk court. As a result of this judicial fiat (and federal bayonets) liberal anti-society has been shoved forward to full cultural preeminence, rather than growing mold naturally on a pierced, purple-haired corpse.
All of this long train of abuses, to borrow from the guy engraved on nickels, results from the doctrine of judicial review. This being a bald usurpation of the separation of powers granted to the court — by the court — in Marbury v. Madison. That decision should have prompted President Jefferson to burn the Supreme Court to the ground and toss its pretentious occupants into the Potomac. Instead the decision was allowed to stand, and the Kritarchy took its first wobbly steps.
By some accounts Jefferson was even more intellectually endowed than Ashley Judd, and so accurately estimated the eventual harvest from what had just been sown.
The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.
The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete act of suicide. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow… The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.
I hope you’ll spare the time to absorb those remarks. And how every one of his fears have come to blossom in the rich soil of man’s self-importance.
Of course that brings us back to Trump, a bow-tie, and a pompous panel of Ninth Circuit philosopher kings. I read the 29 page opinion and marveled at several elements. For one, the assertion that Washington state suffered “irreparable” damage through a temporary curtailment of Maghrebi squatters. This in contrast to the apparently ephemeral nature of Americans being colonized, parasitized, and perforated by them. I also enjoyed this piece of rationalization:
To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war.
Haha. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Supreme Court will determine who may do what. Well the people are grateful for the court’s benign gesture of clarity. And you will also notice the rote “counseling of deference” to the political branches on occasions of political matters. This being counsel the court always offers itself, but never actually heeds.
All of which leaves me bitterly relieved that Trump has apparently decided to withdraw his order rather than pursue it to the highest star chamber.
Relieved because he was going to lose. Not from the frailty of his constitutional position, but because the Constitution had no role. He needed five out of eight votes to overturn. He didn’t have them. And no words written by either his solicitor or James Madison was going to provide them. The law has nothing to do with it.
And certain rejection was the upside. It is completely conceivable that a five leftist majority (Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, and Wise Lat) would have taken this succulent opportunity to add another glowing chapter to the Court’s history of landmark legislation. So imagine if this majority colluded to remake immigration law from the roots, just as it recently did the ancient institution of marriage. Borders place an undue burden on the free movement of peoples, and at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. As a result, we find immigration restriction to be unconstitutional. I assure you, there would be no deficit of gall or rhetorical gas to drive the decision.
Under that plausible scenario, Trump would not only be rejected, but put in the highly uncomfortable position of being told his entire campaign platform is now illegal. And that’s where the bitter part of my sentiment begins. Because such a ruling with such a president just might be sufficient to instigate the constitutional crisis that has frankly been long overdue.
Politicians must pay their constituents lip service before betraying them. Their campaign promises are thus another compliment vice pays to virtue. Courts are under no such obligation. Their edicts are not responsive to popular appeal, and can not be replaced by popular vote. Their rule reduces a free and sovereign people to mere litigants.
A kritarchy is not the antithesis of republican government, but it is far on the opposite pole. It is a form of rule that was never ratified by any parties but those on the court itself. As a result it carries all the moral heft of titles self-bestowed by an African dictator.
* * *
Source: The Kakistocracy
Stopping the Hijacking of America
by Dr. William L. Pierce
TODAY I WANT to simply state a few facts — and make a few simple statements about what I believe. First, I want to tell you why I make these broadcasts every week. I make these broadcasts because America is being hijacked, and I want to stop the hijacking. America used to belong to me and to people like me, people whose ancestors came over here from Europe, settled the land, fought the Indians, and built a civilization here: a civilization based on the values and ideals that they brought here with them from Europe, values and ideals which have belonged to my people for thousands of years.
But America is being hijacked. It is being taken away from my people, so that it can become the property of an alien people instead. It is being changed, perverted, to suit their tastes and their needs instead of the tastes and needs of my people. I want to stop this hijacking. I want to take America back and make it the heritage of my people again.
Now I will tell you how America is being hijacked and how I believe we must oppose the hijackers. This is a little longer, a little more complicated, but I will try to keep it as short and simple as I can. My people who came to America from Europe had much in common. They were of one blood and one set of ideals. They came from many nations — from England and Scotland and Ireland and Norway and Sweden and Poland and Germany and Ukraine and Italy and France but they had a common history, when viewed from a perspective of thousands of years.
There were bad people, weak people, corrupt people among my ancestors — and many very stupid and credulous people — but among my people there also were many very good people, strong people, honorable people, and many wonderfully wise and creative people. All together, the good and the bad, the strong and the weak, our people formed a society with common values and a common heritage, and this society, this community of common blood and common traditions and common interests, overcame every obstacle and built a new country here in the Western Hemisphere. We knew how to cope with adversity and with our own bad elements. When someone like Bill Clinton popped up, we would give him a public flogging and put him in the stocks on a platform in the village square for a few days. If that didn’t make him behave himself, we would drag him off to gallows hill, hang him in public, and be done with him.
We had conflicts among our people of course. We had struggle and injustice and pain in our lives. That’s the way it always had been in Europe, and that’s the way it was here too. That’s what had made us strong: the conflict and the struggle. It had made us strong, because on the whole the better and the stronger of our people prevailed over the rest. Despite the pain and the injustice, we had joy in our lives because it was our world. It was the type of world we had lived in for countless thousands of generations, and we were adapted to it.
But in America we became careless — as we often had been careless in Europe too. After we had whipped the Indians and tamed the frontier and built cities and railroads in America, we admitted into our midst a different and very dangerous sort of person, who did not share our blood or our history or our values. We admitted the Jews, who in many cases looked physically similar to our own people, but whose souls were the product of quite a different evolution: they were the product of the marketplaces of the Middle East, where they had been bred for hundreds of generations. They came to us with false faces and false tongues, and we didn’t know how to deal with them. They presented themselves as persecuted victims seeking freedom and justice, when in fact they were persecutors and victimizers seeking new victims. They spoke to us of the virtues of tolerance and diversity and openness and acceptance, when in fact they were the most exclusive and intolerant people on earth. They thought of themselves as a select race, a Chosen People, superior to all other peoples and the rightful owners of all the wealth of every nation.
In Europe they had fomented revolutions and wars. One of them, Karl Marx, began a movement which eventually murdered 60 million of our people — and that’s much worse than it sounds, because the murdering was done selectively, targeting the best of our people to be killed. Marx’s movement never really caught on in America, as a movement, but its basic ideas did: principally egalitarianism. In America the Jews focused from the start on acquiring control of public opinion, control of the dissemination of information and ideas, control of the images of reality presented to our people. That really began in the 19th century, but for most practical purposes it was in the 20th century that it became effective. The 20th century has been the Jewish century. It has been a century during which Jewish control of the mass media of news and entertainment has been used not just to consolidate Jewish political power and ownership of a vastly disproportionate share of America’s wealth, but also to promote Jewish ideology, a Jewish visionary America. And when I say Jewish ideology and a Jewish vision of America, I don’t mean the ideology and the vision that the Jews have among themselves; I mean the ideology and the vision that they want us to have in order to facilitate their hijacking of America.
Part of the ideology they have promoted among us, as I just mentioned, is egalitarianism. That is the notion that all human beings are born essentially equal in their capabilities, whether male or female, whether Black or White, whether from a family of achievers and creators or a family of chronic losers. Jews did not invent this notion and introduce it to America all by themselves in the 20th century, of course. It is a notion which has been around a long time among certain elements of our own people. The Jews took it away from the cranks and crackpots, exaggerated it a hundred-fold, and popularized it, mainstreamed it.
And throughout this century it has been the Jews who have been the foremost promoters of the doctrine that tells us that if Whites are more successful than Blacks, it is only because White racism has held the Blacks down. If more men are top corporate executives than women, it is only because of sexism. If one White person achieves more in his life than another, it is only because he was given advantages that the other did not receive. The egalitarian ideology also carries with it the notion that equality is not only a scientific fact but also a moral fact. If people are not equal then they should be. It is our moral obligation to try to make them equal. It is our moral obligation to fight against racism and sexism and homophobia and every other tendency to make people unequal or to consider them as different in some way. It is our moral obligation not to discriminate among people in any way: not to prefer women over men for certain roles in our society or men over women for other roles, or to prefer Whites over Blacks for neighbors or schoolmates, or to think of heterosexuals as being healthier or more wholesome in general than homosexuals.
That’s part of the ideology the Jews have promoted among us. And another part is the ideology of individualism. That is the notion that each us is an island entire of itself and should think of himself as such. We should not think of ourselves or of others as members of a race or a sex or any other collectivity, but only as isolated individuals. When we see a Gypsy or a Black or a Jew, we mustn’t think, “Oh, there’s a Gypsy,” or, “Oh, there’s a Black,” or “Oh, there’s a Jew.” We’re supposed to think, “Oh, there’s an individual,” and we’re supposed to shut out of our minds everything that experience has taught us about the general nature of Gypsies or Blacks or Jews.
Individualism also carries with it the notion that each individual has a responsibility only to himself — A pregnant woman has no responsibility to the unborn child inside herself. A man has no responsibility to either his ancestors or to his posterity — and certainly no responsibility to his race.
But ideology is only part of what the Jews have been promoting among us. They also promote feelings and emotions: the feeling of White racial guilt, for example, and White self-hatred. That is done on a huge scale and very skillfully, very successfully. It is especially effective with women, but also with men who are overly socialized, men who look to the crowd around them, rather than within themselves, for their opinions and attitudes. The entertainment media — especially Hollywood and television — do this indirectly, almost subliminally, in their screenwriting and in their casting of heroes and villains. They also do it quite directly in their contrived coverage of the news — and I have given you some very cogent examples of that in recent programs.
The result is that it has become fashionable among the most highly socialized Whites to cheer the news that there soon will be a non-White majority in America. It has become fashionable to cheer for the Indians instead of the cowboys, just as it is fashionable to cheer for the Jews in any conflict with Gentiles, to cheer for the homosexuals in any conflict with heterosexuals, to cheer for non-Whites in any conflict with Whites. They have made Political Correctness fashionable.
And even those Whites who believe that they successfully have resisted becoming Politically Correct have for the most part been intimidated to such an extent by the atmosphere of coercive conformity generated by the media that they are terrified of breaking the most fundamental taboos: of saying or doing anything which may be thought racist or sexist or homophobic. They feel compelled to pay lip service to diversity and democracy and feminism and egalitarianism and individualism.
This is what the Jews have done with their control of America’s mass media in this century — mostly in the past 50 years. They have morally disarmed White Americans. They have disconnected us from our roots. They have alienated us from our own race, from our own heritage. They have made a substantial portion of us ashamed of our own race, consciously hostile to our own people, and they’re working on the rest of us. That’s what they’ve done with propaganda alone.
But they haven’t left it at propaganda. They are intent on destroying us physically as well as morally. That’s why we have the ruinous immigration policy we do, which is flooding America with non-Whites from the Third World. That’s why they are behind feminism: why most of the leaders of the feminist movement during this century have been Jewesses. That’s why they’re promoters of large-scale abortion, why so many abortionists are Jews. That’s why they are virtually all in favor of gun control and of so-called “hate crime” laws. That’s why so many of them have come out from behind the scenes in just the last decade and assumed formal posts of power in what used to be our government. And that’s why they love Bill Clinton so much — not because he can’t control his zipper, but because he lets them control the government: our Treasury Department, our Defense Department, our State Department, our National Security Council, our relations with the United Nations; they control them all.
If the Jews are able to continue their programs of moral and physical destruction for another 50 years — if we simply let them continue doing what they are doing now — they will pretty well have finished their hijacking of America. There will be no single group in America with the numbers and the will to oppose them. The country will be simply a conglomeration of mutually hostile and disorganized minorities, controlled by the one truly organized minority. The Jews will control everything and own everything. And we will continue breeding ourselves into extinction, voting ourselves into extinction, hating ourselves into extinction.
That is how America is being hijacked.
What can we do about it? How can we stop the hijacking? You know, I’ve answered this question in a dozen different ways on earlier programs. Today I’ll try to answer it in yet one more way. But first I’ll take this opportunity to respond to two types of letters which I’ve been receiving from listeners.
There are some listeners who tell me that all is lost, that it’s too late to stop the hijacking, that we should have started 50 years ago, that all we’re doing now is talking, while the Jews continue consolidating their position. And occasionally one of these listeners will run out and do something premature and foolish, commit some act of desperation, because he is convinced that all is lost, and it doesn’t matter what he does. These listeners believe that unless we are on the barricades actually shooting at the hijackers and their collaborators we aren’t accomplishing anything.
And on the other hand there are listeners who tell me that they agree with everything I say, except my occasional hints that violence may lie in our future. They tell me I should never say anything which indicates that we will have to do anything other than vote our way out of our present predicament.
I will answer listeners in both of these groups in this way: We must not bind ourselves with the notion that there is only one tactic which can lead to success. We must not believe that violence is the only tactic which can accomplish anything. If we believe that, then certainly all will be lost. But we also must not believe that voting is the only path to success, because that belief also will lead us to failure and extinction.
We must understand that there are certain fixed principles which always must guide us, but that our tactics always must change to suit our present conditions and our present needs. We must be bound only by our vision of our ultimate goal and by our principles, but never by an inflexible commitment to one tactic or another.
But you know, I promised to keep my comments today simple. So I’ll not talk too much about ultimate goals. I’ll just say that we want our country back. We want our world back. We want to live among our own kind and in accordance with our own ways, our own traditions. We want to stop the hijacking and begin repairing the damage caused by the hijackers. That’s what we’re aiming for.
And our most basic principle is that we will do whatever we must do in order to achieve this. Life is the most important thing for us: the life of our people. We will do what we must, sacrifice what we must, in order to safeguard and further that life, just as our ancestors did what they had to do to preserve and protect the life of our people, the life of our race.
And as for our tactics, let us remember that they are not based on principle, but only on intelligence, only on a careful calculation of what is needed at the moment. And at this moment talking is needed, much more talking, because that is our way of reaching out to others, of helping others to understand, of motivating others. If our talk were not important and also effective, our people’s enemies would not be trying so hard to silence us.
Did you know that for every radio station now broadcasting this program, the Jews have succeeded in forcing the owners of ten other stations to cancel their contracts with us? The Jews apply pressure to a station’s advertisers, they threaten the owner, sometimes they even organize demonstrations outside the station in order to intimidate the people who work at the station. In the last few weeks we have lost stations in Cleveland, in Houston, in St. Louis, in Austin, and in Monterey, California, as a result of these Jewish tactics. But we continue to find new stations, and the number of our listeners continues to grow.
Talking is needed when it is directed toward a purpose, when it is not just idle chatter with those who already understand but is directed toward those who need to understand. And I am doing more than talking. I am reaching out to people through other media besides radio. I am reaching out with the printed word and with music, and I will be reaching out through video and through every other medium. Outreach at this time is essential. Building understanding is essential. Building our numbers and our resources is essential. Organizing the people we reach — or at least some of them — also is essential.
The truth is that despite what the Jewish media would have you believe — despite their television image of an America consisting of a mindless, multicultural mass of happy lemmings; despite Bill Clinton’s popularity polls — there are millions of serious and concerned Americans out there who are appalled at what the Jews are doing to their country, to their civilization, and to their race. There are millions of them who see the grinning, bloodthirsty predators behind the masks worn by our enemies, millions who are horrified that our nation’s armed forces are in the hands of the Jewish gangsters in Washington: gangsters who are ready and willing to use their control over Bill Clinton to start a war whenever they think it suits their purpose, a war against Iraq or against Serbia or against anyone else who refuses to obey their orders and who stands in the way of their greedy, megalomaniac dream of total world domination. There are millions of people who perhaps have been intimidated into silence at the moment, but who still have eyes to see and minds to understand and hearts to hate what is being done to us. And they will hate what is being done even more as the Jews proceed with their filthy business.
And so once again, how will we stop the hijacking of our world? We will do it by reaching out to the millions of our people who care about the future, who care about their race, who care about the sort of world their children and their grandchildren will inherit and who have not joined the degraded mass of lemmings who dance mindlessly to every tune played by the Jews and think only of conforming and consuming. We will reach out to them, we will help them to understand, we will try to help them find courage, and we will organize the best of them to reach out to others.
That’s what we are doing now. And when conditions change, we will do whatever else is called for. And you can be — you should be — a part of what we’re doing. If you understand, if you have a sense of responsibility and a sense of honor, then you must join forces with me.
* * *
Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast, March 27th, 1999
Ireland: Judge Orders Jail for Artist Who Said Jewish “Holocaust” Was a Hoax
It’s not really clear what in the Hell he’s actually being jailed for, but the Judge’s words are so absurdly over the top that his decision reads like a parody of Jewish totalitarianism.
A JUDGE HAS jailed a ‘Holocaust denier’ for five months for using performance art in the public square in Ennis to further his claims that the Holocaust did not take place.
At Ennis District Court, Judge Patrick Durcan jailed 49-year old Dermot Mulqueen (pictured) of Steele’s Terrace, Ennis for five months for the lunchtime public performance on January 23rd of this year where he put an axe through a TV at the Daniel O’Connell monument in Ennis town centre.
Judge Durcan jailed Mr Mulqueen for five months for breaching Section 9 of the Firearms Act and two months for breaching Section 6 of the Public Order Act.
Mr Mulqueen told the court that the performance art entitled ‘Liberation of the Mind’ was carried out to launch International Holocaust Hoax Day.
Prior to carrying out the performance in front a crowd of mainly teenagers in Ennis, Mr Mulqueen informed his Twitter followers what he was about to do.
In front of a crowd at the monument, Mr Mulqueen had erected a sign entitled ‘International Holocaust Hoax Day’.
Sentencing Mr Mulqueen, Judge Durcan said that Mr Mulqueen “may have a view and an interpretation of history, but it is an historical fact that the Holocaust was the greatest crime perpetrated against a section of mankind in the history of mankind”.
Judge Durcan said that by his actions, Mr Mulqueen “behaved in the most offensive way, not merely towards a particular section of society but towards society generally”.
The judge said that Mr Mulqueen’s behaviour on the day “would be regarded with abhorrence and repugnance by any reasonable minded human and by the vast, vast majority of people”.
Judge Durcan said that Mr Mulqueen “engaged in the most reckless behaviour”.
He said: “Mr Mulqueen was reckless and offensive in the extreme. He was gratuitously insulting not merely to a section of society who we know were most directly affected by the Holocaust but he was gratuitously insulting to most reasonably minded men and women who maintain civic society.
The judge remarked: “I am only surprised that he has not been charged with other offences.”
He said: “I regard his behaviour on this occasion as one of the most serious breaches of the Criminal Justice Public Order Act that I have come across.”
Judge Durcan asked: “Does Mr Mulqueen have any comprehension of the huge sense of outrage and insult that his behaviour would cause to so many people?”
Solicitor for Mr Mulqueen, Patrick Moylan said that Mr Mulqueen “is not in any way racist and has no problem with the Jewish community. His views are based on something he has read and now believes and he created a work of art on the back of that.”
Garda Michael Daniels said that Mr Mulqueen was taking photos of what the accused called ‘a conceptual work of art’ and uploading the photos on to his Twitter and Facebook accounts while at the monument.
Garda Daniels said that local Gardai were monitoring the event through CCTV and moved in to arrest Mr Mulqueen after he smashed the TV with the axe.
Mr Moylan said that his client “was taken aback” to be arrested in the first place. He said that his client is single with no children, has no previous convictions and is currently on social welfare after previously working in Dublin as a taxi-driver.
In his statement to Gardai, Mr Mulqueen said: “I found out that the Holocaust was a hoax in August 2013 after coming across a video by David Cole on Auschwitz on YouTube.”
Mr Mulqueen told Gardai: “I am not a racist but I have found out that the Holocaust was a hoax and I wanted to highlight this so that other people would realise this.”
He said that “people are not aware that Jews declared war first on Germany in 1933” and that putting the axe through the TV was an act against “Zionist Holocaust brainwashing”.
He said: “I had no intention to harm any member of the public.” He confirmed to Gardai that he was not on any medication or suffering from any mental illness.
Mr Mulqueen said that the Nazis had no plans to exterminate the Jews but had a territorial final solution to move the Jews from German held territory “and I have problems with this Holocaust religion”.
In evidence, Mr Mulqueen told Judge Durcan: “I never realised you could get arrested for swinging any axe into your own TV.”
Mr Mulqueen said that the YouTube video he watched show that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were actually a bomb shelter converted into a gas chamber after WWII.
Under cross examination from Insp Tom Kennedy, Mr Mulqueen said: “I wasn’t breaking the law – I was breaking a taboo. There was nothing threatening about what I did.”
Asked by Insp Kennedy did he realise how his ‘performance’ would be so offensive in his claim that the Holocaust was a hoax, Mr Mulqueen replied: “There is a whole industry out there that have made a fortune out of putting forward the Holocaust hoax. The legal profession has made a fortune and it it offensive to all the people on the gravy train. The Germans never had an extermination final solution – they had a territorial final solution.”
In response to a plea by Mr Moylan to suspend the jail term, Judge Durcan refused by virtue of Mr Mulqueen’s behaviour.
After imposing sentence, Mr Mulqueen was released on bail pending his appeal to the circuit court.
* * *
Source: Irish Independent
Sylvia Stolz – Reply to Holocaust Denial Accusations Jan-2013 – ‘Eng Subs’ (full)
German lawyer Sylvia Stolz replies to her critics as rumors swirl that she will be charged (again) with ‘Holocaust Denial’ for a speech she gave at an anti-censorship conference in November 2012.