Immigration Forum / Canada / February 2006

The laws of our ancestors cannot be violated with impunity.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8071
by Kevin Alfred Strom
2006-02-26

     A FEW DAYS AGO I visited one of the most venerated historical sites in
the United States, the National Archives, where I saw with my own eyes the
founding document of this nation, the Constitution. I was moved by the sight
of the words which formed and still ought to form the Supreme Law of this
nation, the words which set a wall -- forever, it was thought -- between our
rights and freedoms, and the ambitions of tyrants and demagogues.

     Every February we are subjected a quasi-religious frenzy of adulation
for the changes wrought in America's laws by the so-called "civil rights
movement" -- so now is an especially good time to take a look at what the
Supreme Law really meant to the people who created it and how the precious
legacy of freedom and self-determination they bequeathed to us hangs today
by the frailest and most tattered of threads.

     The wildly misnamed "civil rights movement" was and is the epitome of
injustice, trampling as it does upon the sacred right of free association,
and creating bogus "rights" and "entitlements" which, in many cases,
represent exactly the kind of oppression and government thievery that the
founders of America were attempting to prevent when they wrote the
Constitution.

     It is true that Jefferson wrote the words "all Men are created equal"
which have been so useful to our enemies in imposing multiracial tyranny
over the United States. But he was attempting to overthrow a corrupt
aristocracy of favoritism and class, and his words have no racial
implication whatever -- except the one that dishonest multiracialists have
grafted onto them.

     The evidence of their misappropriation is found in the life and works
of the man who wrote them.

     Jefferson's lifelong advocacy of racial separatism is well-documented
and undeniable. He desired that all Blacks be returned to Africa or, in the
interest of practicality, shipped to the island of Santo Domingo in the
Caribbean. Any interpretation of Jefferson's words which is in direct
contradiction to his forcefully and repeatedly expressed beliefs on race is
obviously an incorrect interpretation.

     Naturally, what the boobs are taught in the schools and on the idiot
box about these words is totally at variance with the facts of the matter.

     Thomas Jefferson, who rationally opposed Black slavery on the grounds
that it was bad for both races, also opposed converting America into a
multiracial society. His plan to end slavery included a plan for the humane
resettlement of all freed Blacks in Africa.

     From 1776 to 1778, Jefferson drafted proposed revisions and
modernizations to the laws of Virginia dealing with slaves. When finished,
his proposals included these provisions:

     1. Free Blacks were forbidden to enter the state.

     2. Blacks freed in Virginia were required to leave the state within
one year.

     3. A White woman bearing a mixed-race child was required to leave
Virginia within one year.

     4. Those who violated these statutes were to be placed "outside of the
protection of the laws" -- that is, they could be dealt with by anyone in
any way with absolute impunity, which was the original meaning of the term
"outlaw" and which certainly constituted a most terrible punishment.

     In 1824, only two years before his death, Jefferson proposed an
alternative to the emancipation and relocation of all Blacks to Africa:
gradual emancipation of all newly-born Blacks, and their transportation
after a few years to the island of Santo Domingo.

     Throughout his public life, Jefferson held true to his concept of
humane racial separation which he summed up in his Notes on the State of
Virginia (1781, Query XIV):

     "Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave,
when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master.
But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to
be removed beyond the reach of mixture."

     Modern Americans, particularly those with no or only a dim memory of
the Old America, are probably easy to fool in large numbers. That is why the
media liars and "educators" are able to get away with twisting Jefferson's
legacy until it is close to being the opposite of Jefferson's actual views.
Take a look at what they have done to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. They
have made him into an icon of multiracialism.

     Considering the fact that Lincoln wanted the freed slaves to be
resettled in Africa, he certainly was no integrationist.

     Lincoln was, on balance, a baleful figure in our nation's history. His
de facto suspension of the Constitution (for example, when he imprisoned the
legislature of Maryland before they had the chance to vote to secede from
the Union) marked the end of the First American Republic, the Republic of
the founders. His prosecution of that horribly fratricidal war, from which
genetic impoverishment we have not yet recovered, is a black mark against
him.

     But, compared with modern multiracialists, he was a saint. Yes, he did
kill White men and women and children to achieve crass political objectives.
But he drew the line at forcing them to share their society with Blacks.
That he never countenanced.

     So let us consider the real nature and value of our rights, and of the
Supreme Law by which we are supposed to be governed.

     If we are to realistically assess our heritage and our prospects
today, we must not romanticize or mythologize the Framers or our founding
document. We must acknowledge that "rights" are a concept only and have no
physical existence except as a cloud of zooming electrons in our brains. No
matter where you search or how long you search, even if you carefully sift
the entire Universe with a sieve, you will not be able to lay your hands on
a single right. Rights are, however, a very useful concept when setting up
societies.

     Intelligent and community-minded White people, like those who founded
the United States of America, naturally want to set things up so they and
their posterity are protected by the force of law such that they can keep
the vast preponderance of the fruits of their labor, keep the savages and
congenital criminals at bay, have the ability to learn and communicate
without undue restriction, and many other things.

     So, from time to time, they institute governments and constitutions
which embody these rights as laws. (The United States Constitution, as
originally formulated, is a good example of what can be done when intentions
are good and the racial quality of the population is reasonably high. Sadly,
that Constitution was in many respects abrogated long ago and now exists
primarily as window-dressing for a regime which in most important ways is
the opposite of that intended by the authors of the Constitution.)

     Modern Americans are continually told that they enjoy "freedom and
democracy," and those two terms are usually conflated. But real
"democracy" -- real rule of the majority of "voters" or majority of
"representatives" -- would mean that our freedoms, our property, and our
very lives would be totally at the mercy of whoever could sway the majority
on any given day, and we know from their own writings that it was precisely
this kind of mob rule that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

     Freedom is an extremely rare bird on Earth indeed, and it never
coexists with democracy. The mob must be restrained by a constitution (and
the power necessary to enforce it), and that is what preserves what little
is left of our freedoms in the West. Again and again our Constitution states
"Congress shall make no law...."

     The framers of the American constitution were horrified at the idea of
democracy and strove to avoid it in the new Republic. The rubes didn't get
fully snookered by the democracy hoax until the Wilson administration and
his phony war "to make the world safe for democracy."

     Remember, even the most brutal African tyrannies and Communist slave
states have regular elections and legislatures and everything that goes with
the democratic Big Store setup. Just like we do. Voting has little or
nothing to do with freedom and rights.

     Voting -- and the things that legally could be done through voting --
were in fact restricted and limited by the Framers. And they also carefully
limited who was permitted to vote.

     When the franchise is restricted, as it was in the America of the
Founders (and as it still could be by an IQ test or a literacy and history
test) then something approaching real self-government is possible, since --
and I am going to be brutally frank here -- then the morons no longer form a
controlling plurality.

     When the average quality of the human material you have to work with
is as low as it is in multiracialist America, the one-biped one-vote
principle is just a guarantor of the election of the slickest liars approved
of by the media bosses.

     But despite the fact that the boobs will believe almost anything they
are told, a principle upon which many fortunes have been made and many
candidates elected, there are still a few readers of these lines capable of
rational thought, and of checking the facts for themselves. There is a White
nation here waiting to be reborn in freedom.

     It is for these that I write.

     What the Founders gave us was racially-based representative government
which guaranteed freedom of thought and action to its citizens by tying down
the government (and the mob) with a constitution. For short, I will label
this concept "self-government."

     Multiracialists believe it is permissible, even laudable, to allow or
encourage the transformation of formerly White societies into largely
non-White societies. They think it is permissible, even necessary, to
imprison or punish those who would oppose this trend.

     We should carefully compare the record of non-White societies with
that of White societies in creating, securing, and maintaining
self-government.

     Self-government, like science, is essentially unknown to African
history. Bloody Liberia, you may recall, began with a carbon copy of the
U.S. Constitution.

     It seems to be mainly alien to Asia and the Mideast as well. The
Philippines began similarly to Liberia. And we all know how well Haiti is
faring since "democracy" was "restored" there by several successive American
administrations.

     In Latin America, freedom and self-government shine the brightest
where White genes predominate: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay. Other nations
there are quite livable, too, when the genetic elite has the reins of power,
though this can hardly be called self-government.

     In Europe and places where Europeans have planted their colonies the
examples are ancient, recurring, and sometimes enduring.
     But as we transform ourselves into the racial equivalent of Haiti or
Guatemala, our freedoms will contract accordingly and our chances for
self-government will become essentially nil.

     Though God gave no one any rights of any kind -- He did give us
minds which crave, and perhaps need, independence and freedom. And He also
gave us muscles and hands and brains with which to obtain the independence
we crave, and to fight against all who would take it from us.

     So it has always been: a people has the rights it is willing to fight
for. One of these rights that our ancestors, at least, were willing to fight
and die for was the right of freedom of speech. By the definition we have
established we can fairly call it a sacred right of our people.

     Therefore, by our standards, any government that would punish a human
being for the content of his speech is a criminal government and deserves to
be opposed.

     Therefore those who would stand for the right of free speech must
stand in opposition to the governments of Canada, France, Austria, Germany,
and Britain -- all of which criminalize speech which casts doubt on Jewish
atrocity stories or speech which is critical of certain protected racial
groups.

     Another right our ancestors were willing to fight and die for was the
right of individuals to be armed. Under the Constitution, this right was
sacrosanct, and was clearly understood to be so from time of the Founders'
clear statements on the subject until quite recently, when the liars and
destroyers of the Constitution achieved their pinnacle of success under the
regime of the treasonous piece of human filth who contaminated the White
House from 1933 to 1945 and his successors.

     That administration, and the vast army of Jewish supremacists and
subversives which it brought into Washington and into power, was the literal
executioner of many of our Constitutional rights. How did they do it?

     As its authors made quite clear, the purpose of the Constitution was
to define a few strictly limited powers for the government beyond which it
was never to trespass, reserving all others for the people, and taking care
to enumerate in the Bill of Rights various areas where Congress could "make
no law." But the second Roosevelt administration, and all administrations
since then, have evaded almost the entire concept of limitation of powers by
twisting two words in the preamble to the Constitution: "general welfare."

     Since the Framers said they were establishing the Constitution to
promote the "general welfare" or overall good of the people, the subverters
argued that the legislature could therefore do practically anything that
they declared was for the "general welfare." It's a childish argument,
obviously false, but it is essentially on this basis that we are now
subjected to the Orwellian "Living Constitution" doctrine which means in
practice that we must submit to every jot and tittle of the reams of paper
(called laws) emitted by (but often unread by) the whores on Capitol Hill,
even if the Acts of the criminals are specifically forbidden by the Supreme
Law.

     For example, the Second Amendment, you will remember, was even
stronger than the "Congress shall make no law" provisions, since it went
further and enjoined the government from even infringing upon the right of
the people to keep and bear arms -- in other words, the government could do
nothing which encroached even in the slightest way upon the people's right
to keep and bear arms.

     To the extent that judges have "interpreted" this right of the
citizens out of existence, and to the extent that legislators and their real
employers have violated the founders' intent in this matter, they are
criminals and should face exemplary punishment.

     After all, guns are merely inanimate objects, like stones or frying
pans, totally incapable of causing even the slightest harm.

     Those who fear an armed White populace, on the other hand, are by
their very nature dangerous to our freedoms, our security, our property, our
money, and our very existence as a people.

     They are actually far more dangerous than ordinary criminals: Like
muggers, they take what doesn't belong to them -- but unlike muggers, they
often have the force of "law" behind their thefts and almost always present
us with a concocted fake "morality" to convince us that their depredations
are "right" and "just" or "for our own good."

     A excellent argument could even be made that most of the actions of
the politicial employees are already illegal -- if we take the Constitution
of the United States seriously, that is. So it is certainly rational to stop
registering guns.

     All joking aside, let those who commit these illegal acts be brought
before a renewed bar of justice. Since a patriotic renewal would mean
literally "miles of trials," we might begin with those who have been
instrumental in infringing our right to keep and bear arms -- that is,
restricting that right in even the slightest way.

     The United States Code states that it is a crime "If two or more
persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant
of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of
any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or because of his having so exercised the same." This crime
is punishable by ten years' imprisonment, or, if death results, by up to
life imprisonment.

     Of course, the gun grabbers who deny the citizens the right to defend
themselves against criminals and savages have oppressed Americans and this
oppression has resulted in innumerable deaths, and these violators of the
law should be indicted under this provision of the United States Code.

     In addition the functionaries which place innocent White children in
the maw of multiracialist hellholes like the Detroit and Los Angeles schools
are acting in direct contradiction to the words and the intent of the
Framers of the Supreme Law of the land should be indicted for violating the
Constitution and multiple statutes of federal law.

     In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has
taken away our rights of free association and removed the protections
afforded to the White working man intended by the Founding Fathers, should
be indicted for violations of the cited statute, the Constitution, and
multiple statutes of federal law.

     In addition, the Bush administration, which openly flouts the law and
spies on American citizens, and which persecutes innocent free thinkers like
Ernst Zundel and Chester Doles because they are not liked by a rich and
powerful alien pressure group, should be indicted for violations of the
cited statute, the Constitution, and multiple statutes of federal law.

     Need I go on?

     The corrupt and alien-influenced power structure that squats in
Washington routinely, regularly, and knowingly violates not only our ancient
and legitimate laws, but even violates their own edicts whenever it suits
their purposes. They have very nearly achieved their goals of taking our
freedom and our self-determination away from us. But a consciousness is
building among White men and women to regain our precious independence and
protect our heritage.

     The process will require great work, great sacrifice, and probably
great tribulation, but I believe we can have self-government once again. But
we must never forget that this great evolutionary step -- which is what true
self-government really is -- requires a population of a relatively high
intellect and character; and it further requires a certain worldview alien
to the mentalities of the vast majority of the peoples of the Earth.

     As I said before, Liberia was founded with the noblest of intentions
with a constitution modeled almost exactly on that of the United States. It
ended with a warlord shooting his political rivals in the head on the bloody
beaches of the South Atlantic and with literal cannibalism. The current
panjandrum there, of course, promises a "return" to "democracy," and makes
many other noises which, he has learned, will cause the White idiots to open
their pocketbooks. You know where that is going.

     The Philippines, who can boast of only a somewhat more edifying
history, began similarly, with a near-replica of the United States
Constitution.

     Some peoples are suited for freedom and self-government and some are
not. Those which are not usually prove it in short order.

     As America has gotten less and less White, it has veered inexorably
toward a centralized police state, with only the barest of lip service paid
to the founding principles (and then only when they cannot be actively
falsified into their very opposites).

     We can recover our freedom only by rediscovering that we are White. We
can recover our freedom only by building a new White community which will
embody our racial ideals and the ideals of self-government in even stronger
and more permanent form than our ancestors embodied them in those sacred
words on parchment found in the National Archives.

     The revolution is in our hearts and minds. Our destiny is our hands
and in our souls. Let us build a new society and a new world.

--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Conservative
Unite Against Multiculturalism!

"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up the Traitors!"