When I wrote about no specific policy demands until we are allowed to talk openly about the whole subject of white genocide, Old Blighty asked,
“Are you saying those of us that want genocide tribunals, should not discuss our desire for them? I understand if that is the case. Practical politics requires discipline.”
Let me say first that the word “tribunals” gives anti-whites too much ammunition to call us dangerous. When I precluded the word “revolution,” I really meant just be sure you aren’t giving them ammunition.
In many cases what we are doing cannot be called anything BUT revolution. But words are our ammunition. Just be sure it doesn’t blow up in your face.
Almost every mistake I advise you against is one I have made over and over and over, ad nauseam. Frankly, the reason a warning bell goes off inside me when we discuss what will happen to them after because I like it too much.
One thing that most people do not realize is that people like me and BBG have been flayed mentally for half a century. We were not allowed to reply.
There is a term for that. It’s called mental torture. I have had to curb my temper all this time. Some conservative who blandly agreed to get rid of my race I had to treat as if I respected him if our cause was to survive.
After a lifetime of mental torture, it is a little hard not to love the idea of the other side getting theirs. For some of us who have suffered mental torture, it may be a necessary relief.
I have thought a LOT about what the punishment should be.
Although it is not to do what the enemy does as a lot of people like to say, in this case we could take the whole page right out of their book.
My idea is that we should make heirs and survivors, those billionaires and those large companies, pay MONEY for what is being done.
Think about it. Big, loud tribunals have a limited life span. But rewards for informants of just one or two percent of the money they bring in will last FOREVER.
I am very serious about this. You can take money from rich people more or less indefinitely.
BIG money.
Big, big, BIG money.
Fines are not considered punishment in the same way the word “tribunal” implies. I love the idea of a future where they live like we do, never knowing when someone is going to get to the heirs of one of their ancestors who put a paid ad in the New York Times and argue that they are therefore responsible for the whole history of that publication.
Informers are going to make arguments like that, and we will sit back and help them have their fun. The entire history of the anti-white movement will be known to everybody without our saying a word.
We can pay off the national debt just as a start, with all the Gateses and their like involved. The whole history of this whole thing will be exposed DAILY.
The point is that they want us to sound like totalitarians, because every time someone imposes a totalitarian regime they point to other tyrannies. But cutting taxes by nailing race traitors is not bloody. It is more a civil action than a criminal one.
But those of us who have suffered years of mental torture are well aware that a straight prison sentence can be a lot kinder than spending your entire life wondering when somebody, somewhere, is going to comedown on you.
There is even a certain joy in being a martyr to a cause, but we will not give them that. We will just turn a lot of billionaires into multimillionaires. You can’t attach a Nazi label to that, but it is far, far more permanent under its own steam and it will NEVER go away.
This is a lesson I got out of a lifetime of mental torture.
We don’t jail people. We don’t shoot people. We just make sure the dread lasts their entire lives.
Liberals did that to us, and it is very effective.
#1 by Genseric on 02/06/2011 - 7:02 am
I agree. I think that getting inside someone’s mind is far more insidious than intimidating them with outright punitive damages. But, when you combine the two you have a lethal combination. The latter are KNOWN quantities. The effects of mental torture is much more difficult to quantify as the amount of mental anguish felt is specific or unique to the person being targeted.
And you are right, ‘sell-outs’ can always be counted on to do their thing. And they will get their price.
I think the second reason that I visit this web page almost every day is that I learn something NEW and practical every time I read Bob’s blog. Well, at least it is new to me.
Of course, the lot of you already know what the FIRST reason is.
-Do NOT call it a Revolution (I did once, but I think I got away with it).-
#2 by OldBlighty on 02/06/2011 - 7:38 am
I like your idea Bob.
The left leaning folks, are sure to betray their comrades, if they can stick it to the big end of town and make a really good living at it.
#3 by backbaygrouch on 02/06/2011 - 7:45 am
What Bob is proposing is not a Court, but the use of the court system. In a nutshell it is the validation of a new tort – the encouragement of the genocide of the White race. It is a Common Law way of vengeance.
There are plenty of precedents. The whole reparations for slavery movement. The reason for suing a Connecticut insurance company in the 21st century for issuing policies insuring slave ships in the 1840s sounds insane, but it can be lucrative. It only takes one victory, or surrender, to get the ball rolling. When one sucker pays up everyone else is vulnerable.
Once there is money on the table the law of the jungle takes over. Everyone and their uncle will be on the make, looking for an opportunity for easy money. Call it free market revenge.
There were treaties signed after WWII settling up accounts between nations and their citizens. It is the best way to handle things and to move on. But that didn’t stop Holocaust Racketeers from getting American judges to create a hostile environment for Germany and Switzerland to the extent that both nations have coughed up billions to Jewish extortionists.
Note in both cases the mechanism does not involve establishing tribunals. In truth the legal system was abused. Sympathetic judges allowed themselves to ignore the law and then they created new law in the form of torts and imaginative contract interpretations. That is how it works. It is a bastardization of the Common Law but it is the Common Law template.
Actually a tribunal would be counterproductive. Norway established the right to compensation for Jewish victims with rational standards of proof. No one came forward. They would have had to prove damages. An important factor in the looting of Germany by “Holocaust Survivors” has been that from the beginning the occupying forces made it clear that claims were not to be examined. Damned few could have made it past scrutiny.
The last thing you want is a tribunal with standards. Uncertainty is a very cruel tool. It haunts night and day. Relentlessly.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a noble way to live. But it is not politics. There the baseline is, “Do unto others as they do unto you.”
#4 by shari on 02/06/2011 - 8:57 am
Shouldn’t there be trials for the truely guilty? Of course their decendants shouldn’t be hung. Although they shouldn’t benefit from ill gotten wealth either.
#5 by Dave on 02/06/2011 - 1:20 pm
Robert Whitaker is spot on with this. Justice is not a policy.
Accordingly, the anti-white whites are destined to pay for their crimes, more severely than they can possibility imagine, as assuredly as the sun rises in east and sets in the west.
As for nonwhites, their destiny is to learn the meaning of no longer enjoying the good will of the white race, something they are incapable of imagining. As paradox and irony always prevails, it is then and only then they will learn the true meaning of gratitude.
#6 by OldBlighty on 02/06/2011 - 2:09 pm
The other thing I like about this idea, is it gives our enemies nothing they can come to grips with.
All we’d be saying is, “There is gold in them thar hills!” and greed would take care of the rest.
#7 by BGLass on 02/06/2011 - 2:23 pm
As a kid, I’d assume we would get a White Reservation. T.v. announced globalism, and teachers said whites were “has-beens;” it was browning of the u.s. and whites will no longer exist, etc.
It seemed logical that, like Indians, if it was our time to go we’d get a homeland, like them, a country within the country that others would pay for, like with the indians.
It just seemed a matter of custom here. Trying to vanish whites by assimilation, instead, looked really cheap, or else like racism, which was supposed to be bad.
#8 by shari on 02/07/2011 - 7:15 am
Thanks to Horus for helping me understand this better. I can see where, this would tend to make anyone with an anti-white background, even smaller fish, want to live quietly, mind their own bussiness and not involve themselves in politics. Also help forgetful rabbits to REMEMBER. Very important!