Ride Hard and Put Away Wet: How White Nationalism Should Use Pat Buchanan: A Review of Where The Right Went Wrong (2004)
Part Two: Social Revolution by Means of Judiciary
By Alex Linder
April 9, 2014
In part one
we didn't so much review Buchanan's book as Buchanan. We looked at where he fits in the political scene, what he means to whites. We concluded, per our title, we should rape him of his valuable points and clever formulations and discard him alongside the road like a used hippy chick. If that seems cruel, consider that it's exactly how he and his ilk treat us. No respect deserves repayment in the same coin.
In part two, we will analyze a portion of Buchanan's book
, How the Right Went Wrong
(2004), looking for things we can use as white nationalists. The book is ten years old, I hear you saying. "What kind of a nimrod reviews a ten-year-old book." Watch your mouth, pal. I want to say, in line with Dean Vernon, you'll get the answer to that question this Saturday
. But that's not true. You'll get it right now. The reason the book matters and date doesn't is that the right has proceeded down same lines it was headed in 2004, which makes sense, given the same forces are in the same relation. The Republican Party leaders-slash-conservative-writers/talking heads/assorted opinionmongers are a bunch of no-good NYC kikes (or in line with them), and the party rank-and-file are the same usual religious mopes and patriotardical cannon fodder. Domestic revolution and democracy-crusading abroad continue apace, same as it ever were.
The book covers three areas: economic policy, foreign policy, and the role of the courts in effecting a social revolution. Jews, of course, pride themselves on being revolutionaries (outside of Israel, that is, in alien lands, white-man lands). Breaking barriers, they call it, when they destroy or revolutionize traditional and effective white intellectual categories, such as anthropology, or social traditions, such as sex being a private rather than a public matter. When jews enter a country, they buy up the media and move into academia and the law schools and teachers colleges, as these are the control positions. From them, jews can leverage their small numbers into great political power. They train the trainers, they teach the teachers, they write the lawbooks, they determine what goes in the textbooks, they select what stories to cover in the papers, they determine how their treatment. In a much shorter order than one might imagine, jews become the source of virtually every single idea that gets widely propagated. Of course, all the ideas they push advance their agenda and damage native whites. Once their control is broad enough, no one else can get an idea into the mainstream. Today, in the West, in 2014, their control, in virtually every nation from USA to Russia, is nearly complete. At least outside the internet, which, as a new communications technology, they have admitted caught them unaware.
We'll leave aside the half the book that covers foreign policy, because we talk about that stuff all the time, and we understand what's going on there: jews use American taxdollars to foment jew-useful wars and revolutions throughout the middle east and in Europe. Likewise, we'll leave discussing Buchanan's economic ideas for a different time. He styles himself an economic nationalist, and argues that the US grew great behind and because of a tariff wall. His ideas have been refuted by Tom Woods, among others.
The thing we want to focus on here is Buchanan's analysis of the way the courts, the Supreme Court in particular, have carried out a domestic social revolution against the wishes of the white majority. What jews want goes, what whites want goes wanting. Buchanan is careful never to mention that it's jews, their activists and judges and media, driving this social revolution carried out through the court. Punch pulling, after, is the heart of professional conservatism.
Buchanan doesn't talk about jews immigrating to America between 1880 and 1920; how they bought up the media like New York Times
and Washington Post
; nor how they moved into and took over the Ivy League academic institutions and top law schools. Rather, he sticks to decisions the Supreme Court and other courts have made, their basis in law, and their effects on American society. Good stuff as far as it goes. But as always with Buchanan, he doesn't go far enough. The American political cover story about liberals doing battle with conservatives is good enough for him, and he doesn't delve beneath the surface at all. We will. That delving is the point of this review.
* * *
The court story, the judicial story, predates the jews. It goes all the way back to the legal founding of the country in the Constitution. The entire thing can be summed up in
the court arrogating power, and the willingness or unwillingness of the people and their democratically selected representatives to stand up to it and either rope it in or take that power back
First, let's make sure you understand the term arrogate
. It means to seize
. To usurp
it. Easy to associate with arrogant
. The main thing seized here, arrogated
, is the right to be the final and ultimate authority in deciding what the Constitution means
. And then inflicting that raw and awesome power on lesser courts and The People.
ar·ro·gate [ar-uh-geyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ar·ro·gat·ed, ar·ro·gat·ing.
1. to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right: to arrogate the right to make decisions.
The Supreme Court arrogated
the final say in determining the meaning of the Constitution. It simply declared, on the basis of no legal authority
, that it has the final say in interpreting the Constitution. Yet, the Constitution doesn't give anyone -- any party or body or person -- the power of being final authority, of final review, which means it's up to the various groups or individuals involved to decide for themselves if other parties have gone beyond the bounds of constitutionality. Now, in point of fact, the powers that be have found it congenial to support the Supreme Court in its interpretive arrogation of the right of final review. So a tradition has built up that in fact, yes, the Supreme Court has the final say. But it's merely tradition. It has no legal justification in the written words or intentions
of the Founding Fathers. Thus, it can be disputed by any party with the balls to do so.
It's akin to Khadaffi's "Line of Death" you may remember from decades ago; a line he arbitrarily drew in the Mediterranean sea and asserted authority on the Liberian side of. My international relations professor said of the LoD, it's not legal, but if people observe it, it tends to become that way, even if just de facto
. So it is with the arrogating usurpation of the right of judicial review
, as it's commonly known. But, again, nowhere in the words of the Founders is any right of the Supreme Court to be the final interpreter of what is constitutional and what isn't.
That is the key point you must take away from this review. Only you can keep the Supreme Court -- or any court -- within bounds (sticking to the law). If you are unwilling to do so, you may count on these courts becoming tyrannical, for that is the nature of men, and that is the nature of bureaucracy and political power.
Let's go a little more in depth.
There are four things white nationalists, and others, need to understand.
- the intended role of the Supreme Court;
- the role it arrogated
- the historical skeleton that is formed by the Supreme Court's (and certain other courts') most important decisions over 200+ years; and, finally
- what we can do about the court today.
All WN should understand these four, just so they have the intellectual backing to explain where their opponents have have seized power illegally. That's the main thing about courts - all of them, not just the Supreme. All courts are composed of men. And men don't necessarily follow the law.
And, -- most important point here --
there is no force save other men that can keep men called judges in line
with the law should they choose to depart from it. Other men
are the only true check on judicial power. Plain words on plain paper aren't enough. If you don't grasp that, you're qualified only for patriotardism, waxing ineloquent about your love for a document that, like all of them, is neither self-interpreting nor self-enforcing, but must be interpreted and enforced through fallible, corrupt, scheming humans. Put not your faith in paper, white man. Put your faith in yourself and Team White. The only paper worthy of faith is toilet paper.
So that's the bottom line with courts -- all
On the first point, the intended
role of the court, the Constitutionally intended (expressly described and circumscribed) role of the Supreme court was for it to serve as the court of final review for disputes between the states. Disputes always arise. The states back then at the start were little or medium-sized independent countries, federated by the constitution, per signed agreement at the convention. The Constitution is probably better seen as a hammered-out compromise among mutually suspicious parties, and not two or three of them, but more than a dozen. The elegant wording shouldn't confuse folks to this reality, but of course the stars-'n'-stripey-eyed set can only see it as a hallowed parchment of fetish. They're called patriotards for a reason. . . . The Supreme Court was the body created to resolve such disputes as should inevitably arise between the states. This is a different and distinct role from being the body created to settle the very meaning of the agreement/arrangement the independent states put together in the first place. There is no such body for that. The Supreme Court is not chartered to go above and beyond the Constitution, only to enforce it in relation to state disputes. But when you're dealing with avaricious and dishonest men, this difference can easily be lost. In practice, unless the states are jealous of their power, they are going to lose it to prehensile courts and federal bureaucracies, which have the media and the army on their side.
But again, let's go over it till it gets between your ears. Who is
the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution? The correct answer is: No one.
Or. Anyone who feels another party is acting unconstitutionally.
Or. Anyone strong enough
. You see? It's an open question. There can be no answer, as it's essentially an axiomatic problem. It must fall to the powers who created the Constitution to decide whether some man or body is going outside them, acting unConsitutionally, and it must fall to these aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. And not necessarily through the courts! Probably not through the courts, since the ultimate court is the problem! But this requires intelligence, imagination and pluck, again, since the authorities tend to congeal around the false notion the Supreme Court is the ultimate decider for everything, and the media tend to conceal the legal/historical truth while bashing any threat to centralized power.
This-all is the political and practical reality of the thing. Not to mention that, of course, like any bureaucratic or political body, the Supreme Court is going to tend to try to increase its power over time, and arrogating the right to be the final arbiter on all matters constitutional, though it have no charter for such, is the first thing the court would see when it looked around; the sweet, delicious, low-hanging fruit just waiting to be plucked and eaten. For after all, just in practical terms, it's hard to raise up the manpower necessary to resist usurpations, once the dust has settled and the new federation is functioning, and the revolutionaries have gone back to their farms in the hinterlands. You see what I mean. In the heat of the revolution, everyone is jealous of his rights and his state's prerogatives since they've just kicked Britain's ass for trying to impose on them; but once the revolution is over, and things are settled and functioning under the new system, it's harder to recall the passions, to gin up the physical forces necessary to counter some party overstepping his bounds. It's just the way of things.
Nevertheless, no matter how dusty the desuetude into which the exercise of the right to reign in a rogue court may have become over 200 years, yet it remains there potent as it ever was, waiting for someone with the will to exercise it. If the Supreme Court acts outside the law, you are fully legally authorized to do whatever you feel it takes to reign it back in. If, say, the Supreme Court, ignores the constitution in order to force blacks into safe white schools, per the jew's anti-white genocidal agenda of integration, whites are completely justified in lynching any Supreme Court justice who voted to approve that agenda. It is that serious. The Founders to a man agree with what I'm saying - they just fought a revolution over this stuff. No man can go outside the bounds of the written law without exposing himself to retribution. If the people are too cowardly or too cowed to reign this black-robed monarch in, then they will suffer such misery as he cares to inflict. But they have every right to do literally whatever they need to do to obtain justice. That's not me saying that. That's the Founders' view. Of course the jew-owned and -operated media won't tell you this - it represents a potential threat to their tyranny.
The Supreme Court arrogated this power of ultimate constitutional review early. Not in 1980, 1950, 1910, but in 1803
. Yet, again, for the tenth time, that arrogation has no legal basis
. Its sanction is purely time and power, and these are informal and customary, rather than legal. So long as the politicians and media agree with the direction of its decisions, its right to make them will be treated as given; as inevitable and necessary and good as the sun rising in the east. So long as the courts pursue a leftist agenda, the press and professors will back then. They'll lie to their readers and students that this is how it's supposed to be; this is good. They won't tell you about your natural right to defend yourself and your neighborhood and your race from authorities who go beyond the law. They don't want you to know that, or to defend yourself. They just want you to shut up and do what they say.
Leftists know how much conservatives and religious tools respect authority and custom and tradition. They don't. But they know their opponents do. They have no trouble redefining or reinterpreting an old term or settled law to support their agenda. Once they succeed in that, then they've created a new tradition, and they gleefully remind conservatives of their bounden duty to support The Law (they've just subverted) in all its august glory. The left is very good at understanding its opposition and how to manipulate it. Thus you see illiberal judges making unConstitutional decisions that can only be enforced by conservative executives using conservative soldiers. Yet they do enforce it. Even when they know the court is misbehaving. And these conservative carriers-out, these executors of the unpopular will, shall we say, browbeat and gun-threaten the conservative population into going along with the new, unwanted, unvoted-for changes, because we must respect the law
. One side cheats. One side doesn't. The side that cheats wins. The side that plays fair loses. That's reality. Until the honest men find some way of holding judges to their sworn duty, upholding the law, rather than rewriting it to their illiberal agenda, the judges will continue to misbehave. Continue to act like kings, foisting their minority agenda, their anti-white agenda, on the unwilling white public. In the old days, do you know what Americans did to judges who didn't follow the law? First, they threatened them. If they refused to comply, then they lynched them.
One more time: There is no law saying the Supreme Court has the right to determine what's Constitutional and what isn't.
And when that Court starts making anti-white decisions at the level of forcing whites to race-mix with niggers, it is far beyond its bounds. But only white men with guns can force it back into line. That takes gumption. Gumption has been lacking in America for a long time.
In political life as in personal life, you get what you tolerate. That's the ultimate message to white nationalists here. If we, like christians, are willing to tolerate a tiny, anti-white majority, let's call them, I don't know, jews
make the decisions that determine the conditions of our personal and body-political life, they surely will. History proves that. The geist
and conditions of outdoor life at the time of this writing, in 2014, are completely determined by white-hating jews. The Constitution, written by white men, confirms free association in the Bill of Rights. Yet that same Constitution, interpreted by jew or leftist lawyers, somehow is interpreted to mean precisely the opposite! The judeocracy can dictate to you whom you employ, the conditions of that employ, whom you rent to, whom your bakery must bake cakes for. The words of the Constitution haven't been changed (remember Garet Garrett's revolution within the form
which came up in part one), but the interpretation has done a 180. Today, you have "free association" as a guaranteed, gen-u-wine, Constitutional right, on paper
,...but in practice you have forced...what? whatever the powers that be want to force you to do - race-mixing, deviant-sexual-behavior servicing, etc. Freedom
remains in the words, but force is the reality. It's better for the ruling jews not
to change the words; sitting there, they fool people - the type commonly called patriotards. People too dumb to see that the mere fact that something is written on paper doesn't mean it will be understood or enforced. This same type loves to yammer about 'God-given' rights, without ever noticing that God never defends those rights. Rights on paper don't matter if we can't exercise them in reality.
Just as under their jewish bolshevism in the USSR and Eastern Europe -- their vile, anti-white, hundred-million-dead jewish-communism -- in AmeriKwa 2014, only your private thoughts are free. It's one multiply-divided nation under ZOG. In the week preceding my writing this, the head of a large and important company was forced to step down because he disapproved of homosexual marriage. In that position, he was on the same side as the majority of voters. Yet he was forced to resign! Judges around the country, at this time, were simply ignoring what the majority of their state's voters wanted, even in the most illiberal states such as Massachusetts, and simply imposing their preferred morality, which is one that elevates sodomitic buddies to the legal level of a husband and wife. The courts thwart the democratic will of the people with diktats. The media back them. The people complain. But the decisions carry. Until people start treating judge and their anti-democratic dictates less respectfully, shall we say, this state of affairs will continue.
It's a straight-up test of manliness, really, how much society is willing to tolerate jew-controlled judges acting like kings. An effeminized society will tolerate anything courts do. They are Authority, the people are informed via tv and in top newspapers by duly licensed and degreed Experts. The talking nodding heads on tv assure us they have our best interests in mind, we adult children. In earlier centuries, we didn't think like this, we laughed at these clowns-with-airs, we threatened or lynched them when they went outside their bounds. Today, the very thought is unthinkable. Democracy is voting for Pepsi or Coke, not lynching judges! Everyone knows that!
But that's wrong. Republican government means nothing if not the people seeing -- by any means -- that majority rule prevails. If it doesn't, then you have a king. Whether the king is a judge, a casino mogul, a media magnate, a president acting like an emperor - anything or anyone extralegally nixing the popular will in favor of a private minority agenda.
Judges are given special protection in today's society. Some of them are arrogant, thinking they are untouchable. Others are aware of their class and its usurpations, and the consequences these could bring. Most feel pretty sure they can't be gotten to because people are generally passive these days, consumers of junk food and sports and pornography, and they don't think or write or read or act much, and seldom in unapproved ways. If they perceive any particular threat, law-unabiding judges can always call for extra police and security, and they usually get it. The media are always on their side, so long as the judges are going outside the law to push the leftist agenda. It's a pretty cushy life, really, for these judges. They're doing something that takes no particular skill, after all. Anyone who can read plain law and is disposed to follow it can make the right decisions. A programmed computer could do what any judge does, and do it quicker and more impartially, which is to say better
. Programmed computers can beat any chess player in the world, and chess is a situation that is far looser, in terms of options to be considered, than law-interpretation.
The Framers devised the Constitution to be clear. They gave the feds certain powers. They reserved the rest to the states, which were sovereign, except, again, for the ceded, enumerated, carefully defined powers.
We're going to let you do these few things, because you need that power, but that's all you get. That's all you can do. That's as far as you can go. If you go beyond that, we will smash you.
That quoted block is the spirit of the constitution, which, again, is a compromise worked out between sovereign, jealous and mutually hostile/suspicious states. It is a not a charter for a massive centralized state and global empire, as we have now.
Any man disposed to follow the Constitution as written would have little problem doing so. But that's the rub. Men aren't
disposed to follow written law, far too often, no matter how clear the meaning. Flesh trumps paper.
This is what the Constitution lovers, who tend to be religious simpletons, can't understand, or can't accept. Anyone clever with words, like lawyers, can rationalize darn near any desired policy as a legitimate interpretation of any words. Throw in the media on your side, that's all you need. Yeah...it really is like that. That's not ever going to change, either. Put your faith in paper, you're going to get burned. The only one who can guarantee that your rights are respected, or vindicated, is you. Is us. Is we. No matter how eloquently and clearly those rights are laid down on the august scroll, if we don't force our enemy to respect them, he won't. Remember - the majority isn't on his side. He has no legitimate democratic option for taking power. He must cheat. It's a lot easier to capture the courts than fake election results.
* * *
The best and most useful chapter in Where The Right Went Wrong
is the ninth: "The Abdication of Congress and the Rise of Judicial Dicatatorship." We know from our research at VNN, by Craig Cobb and I years ago, although unfortunately later lost due to faulty wiring, that jews absolutely dominate law schools, particularly the top tier. Of course, Buchanan will call them leftists, which they are, but that's not the main thing. The main thing is you have jews with a strangehold over the key judge positions, and you have other jews making apologies for them in the mass media jews control. Jews are always at the pressure points in any society so that any view they don't like can be demonized, and its main carriers defamed and discredited and destroyed. You don't even have to be against them overtly, you can simply be honest, and it's a threat. Honesty is anti-semitic. See Robert Bork, and how the jewsmedia destroyed him when he came up for a Supreme Court appointment.
If some tradition jews don't like has a long history, they chip away at it. They're patient. They think long term, not short. They may not be able to reverse cultural views of loose sex and deviant sex like homosexual behavior overnight, but they can over a decade or two. And they're getting better at social-engineering this goy-reversal through law and media and schools as they gain experience with new technologies. The campaign to legitimize homosexuals, as we saw in another thread, was accomplished in one decade, the nineties.
That's pretty remarkable, when you think about it. Even as I write, the last day or two, fresh judges are simply issuing Diktats to their state legislatures to force them to legally acknowledge queer marriage, even if the majority don't support it. That's dictatorship. There's no other word for it. Judges operating outside the law are praised in the jew-controlled media. Far from receiving censure, professional or press, they receive praise. That can only exert a ratchet effect over time. I've mentioned before going to a law-school graduation ceremony and hearing the main speaker, the head of the state supreme court, tell graduating students almost in so many words that if they felt the law was wrong in their heart, they should simply ignore it.
I've said a million times, and will repeat a million more,
jews are the only people who control the media - or need to
. That means that, as a tiny-minority position, jews must control the sense organs of society (the mass media) to have any hope of getting their agenda across. They understand this. It's why they move immediately to take over the media when they enter a non-jew society, whether the White west or the latest sliver of Muslim territory they're invading. Drench the locals in sex talk, in open porn, in masturbation and lesbians garbage, and soon they'll forget all about politics. That is what jews believe. That is what their experts (the Nazi-exiled academics of the Frankfurt School) say will work. That is the course they always follow. Hitler complained of it in Mein Kampf
- the filthy jews polluting Vienna with their sex-dreck; his epiphany that every form of social corruption and morals pollution traced ultimately to the jew. At the same time jews mudwash the brains of the locals with sex, they throw open the borders to race-replace the natives they hate. Again, this is not new, this has been going on wherever jews have political control. Hitler, again, complained of this in Mein Kampf
. The jews controlling France were sticking Francophone nigger troops into the Ruhr, with the aim of racially debasing the German stock. Same thing today in America. We know from Kevin MacDonald's research that jews alone (the alone is the part many dishonest pseudo-WN leave out) are responsible for the USA's reversed -- anti-White/anti-European -- immigration policy
. The deliberate aim was to destroy the white racial basis of the most powerful country on earth because jews hated and felt threatened by a unified white nation. Look around you. Does it look like jews are succeeding? And again, they control the media that interepret everything for you. And the average person takes newspapers and tv and the mass media as legitimate authority, and finds it difficult for biological reasons to oppose it. Again, something jews well know. They are experts in knowing their racial enemies, how they think, and how they can be manipulated.
So let's see what Buchanan says about kritarchy
- a word he doesn't use, but some do, which means rule by judges (as opposed to rule by legislature, or by written law).
He begins by quoting John Randolph to the effect that whoever interprets the laws -- without appeal -- is the sovereign
. That is, if California votes not to give benefits to illegal aliens, and some jew/leftist judge simply throws the vote out, then that judge is the king, and the citizens are his subjects
. And of course we've seen this pattern a thousand times - in pretty much every case where white votes succeeded in thwarting a judeo-leftist agenda item. Wherever by proxy the white majority stands up for itself in the ballot box, its legitimate, democratic vote will be denounced in the controlled mass media and soon enough reversed or thrown out by leftist federal judges. That is how things have operated in the US for decades now. Centralized leftist control of the US exists. It is anti-white, and the mass media wholly support and justify it.
The Gutlessness of Congress
Let's step aside for a brief excursus into the gutlessness of Congress these past few decades.
- Congress has abandoned decision to war to executive, since Truman
- Congress has totally "surrender[ed]" its constitutional authority over trade. International bodies can and do now fine the US and repeal her laws. Binding us into a global world order is the intent and danger.
Buchanan says that all Congressmen care about is being reelected, because it's such a cushy job. Being reelcted means not offending people
. It's better to give certain powers away to other branches than to make the (hard) decisions Congress is supposed to do per the Constitution. Let the executive puzzle out the details on trade treaties and budget bills, so long as the incumbent can escape responsibility for cutting anything some voter relies on. Let the judges make the tough decisions on abortion, or other matters where the voters are split. Then the Congressman can support or whine about the result - but either way, he's not responsible for what the executive or the judge does, and that's what matters most to him, since taking an actual stance costs votes where people are divided.
- the power to coin money was transferred to the Fed. We all know where this has led: private banks owned by jews get to counterfeit money legally, and pass on the new bills to their billionaire buddies at Goldman Sachs. This keeps jews in control while white earners' purchasing power is diluted through the inflation-theft the jews always practice. And justify in their mass media. As in other sectors, white adults are treated as children in a nursery school requiring jewish kindergarten teachers to manage them. We aren't smart enough to manage money, we need some thick-lipped Golub to take care of that for us.
"Congress no longer wants the accountability that goes with the exercise of power. It does not want to govern. Both parties prefer to make only those decisions that will be applauded by constituents and rewarded at the ballot box, and to pass on to others decisions that deeply divide or roil the public."
Getting back to the courts, Buchanan says the 'imperial judiciary' revolution began in 1954 with Brown vs. Board of Education
"In the name of equal rights, the Warren court had effected an historic coup d'etat. It had usurped power over state schools never granted to courts either in federal law or the Constitution."
So, the feds have no legal right to control local schools. They simply took it at gunpoint. That is a good WN talking point. The judeo-System broke its own law to push its agenda. That makes it illegitimate. That makes it a dictatorship.
Segregation was legal under the 14th amendment. But certain people didn't like it, and wanted to end it. They did this by illegal judicial dictate. Eisenhower went along with the illegal usurpation. Of course, the media went along. The Southerners who resisted were demonized and crushed. All 100% illegally. The message, again, is that men will not be bound by what's written on paper, no matter how clear or eloquent
. Men with will and weapons are the only guarantee, ultimately, that written law passed by democratically elected legislatures will be followed.
The left, as a congenital minority position, must of needs be all about power, getting it by any means it can, and then, when it does get it, forcing its minority agenda on others at gunpoint. This is the eternal political reality: the timid majority versus the fanatical minority.
We see today in Greece the same mindset at work: a pro-white nationalist party draws a mere 7% of the vote, and the System throws its legally elected MPs in jail. It simply decides Golden Dawn's majority-views should be illegal, and calls the party a criminal organization. The media back it up. How do whites react when the media, the judges and the entire System are run by people who hate whites? That's the question for our times.
Ok...so we know what people can do about judges - lynch them if they go outside the law. That's what has always been called our 'natural' right. We know how the Supreme Court was intended to function - to settle disputes between states. And we know that the SC has no legal basis for arrogating final review of Constitutionality. The only thing left to do is the spine: lay out the historical court cases that when taken together amount to a genuine revolution in law and society.
Buchanan does this laying out very nicely, in the ninth chapter, as mentioned above. Let's hit the cases. The important thing here, white man, is to know these cases so you can explain to people you talk to how this nasty society we see around us today was facilitated by a queered court system. We know the bigger picture, but it's good to have a handle on the specific court cases. There are not even a dozen over 200+ years, so it's pretty easy to learn them all and keep them in mind for political use. As we end this review, I will bullet good points Buchanan makes; points you should remember as you will find them useful in understanding how our country was broken apart by hostile powers.
- Congress is the dominant branch, by express intent of the Founders and understanding of the men at the Constitutional convention. it dominated before WWII; since then it has "colluded in its own dispossession" (p. 208). Why? I told you why, asshole, pay attention. Because making tough choices alienates people. Alienated people don't vote for you. Not voting for you equals losing office equals loss of access to delicious interns with perky nipples and pliant bottoms and the White House underground bowling alley and sweat-free gym and suchmore and suchlike and suchon. Let judges who can't be diselected make the hard decisions. Who cares if they have an anti-white agenda? You can shake your fist at them on your campaign stops. Then you'll have your intern and eat her too. Are you starting to grok the psychological situation that obtains these days, water brothers?
- neocons (jews) are "presidential supremacists and compulsive interventionists, impatient with any restrictions or restraints, constitutional or otherwise, on the commander in chief's authority to take us into war"
- GATT treaty puts USA under World Trade Organization (WTO), and grants it power to "authorize fines" on the US, and to "demand the appeal of American laws. This it has repeatedly done."
- power to coin money was transferred in 1913 to jew-owned Federal Reserve private bank. This is Congress yieldings its constitutional authority and responsibility to coin money itself. Rich private jews are allowed to legally counterfeit money, which comes out of the purchasing power of the earning white man's honestly acquired money.
- "On the issues of religion, race, morality, and culture that define us as a people, Congress has, for half a century, been surrendering its law-making power to judges and justices. The Supreme Court first seized these powers in a bloodless coup. It marched in and occupied the terrain because Congress did not defend it and would not fight for it." (p. 211) And of course the jew-controlled networks and newspapers backed the anti-white coup.
- members of Congress prefer the perception of power to the reality - let the unelected bureaucrat or judge take the heat for the tough decision. Leftists generally aren't pussies like conservatives. They like power and aren't afraid to use it to enforce their will. Even if a majority is against them. They know the majority are cowards, and won't do anything about it.
- the right is the numerical majority, but the judeo-left is the courage majority
- 1954: Brown vs Board of Education
- Supreme Court "usurped power over state schools never granted to courts either in federal law or the Constitution." "That the 14th Amendment did not outlaw segregation was obvious." Segregation is just an anti-white, illiberal term for one of the social choices resulting from free association - whites using their freedom to exclude dangerous, violent, feral, disgusting blacks from their private worlds. Segregation was legal, but the Supreme Court simply abandoned -- went outside -- the law to declare it illegal, because it wanted to force whites to live the way it told them, rather than the way they wanted and had the democratic and Constitutional right to. It would have been perfectly legitimate for anyone to lynch the Supreme Court members for going outside the law to impose their dictatorship on an unwilling public.
- the lack of effective resistance to the SC's coup emboldened it to enact a social revolution in the decades after Brown
usurpations (hence subject to the natural right of lynch law), to name a few, per area rather than specific cases: redefining pornography as free speech; creating new rights for criminals; imposing limits on state and local prosecutors; outlawing the death penalty (later reversed); declaring abortion a constitutional right; ordering both houses of all state legislatures reapportioned on basis of population alone (attempt to give browns/leftists more power); ordered VMI and Citadel to discard traditions it didn't like; abolished term limits on Congress; forbade Arizona to make English the official language for state business; ordered California to restore welfare benefits to illegal aliens even though 60% had voted to end them; approved racial discrimination against whtie students to advance "compelling state interest" of "diversity" in college; declared homosexual sodomy a constitutional right; declared the First Amendment protects the right of adults to burn the American flag, but prohibits children from reciting the pledge of allegiance to that flag
- the main case we discussed at great length above was:
- 1803: Marbury vs Madison
. This is the case in which the Supreme Court illegally usurped power by claiming the ultimate right of Constitutional review. The chief justice John Marshall "asserted a right of review of all laws enacted by Congress to ensure they conformed to the Constitution." (p. 217) The truth remains there is nothing in the constitution that gives the SC the claimed power, it simply took it. It can be taken back. The moral and legal basis for it is unimpeachable.
- 1854: Dred Scott
. This was the first time the SC used the claimed power of judicial review of Congressional acts per their compliance with constitution. The judge found the slave, Scott, had no standing to sue in federal court. This destroyed the Missouri Compromise worked out between and over free/slave states. This was essentially a 20th-century decision rendered in a 19th-century context, i.e., when men were less willing to be dictated to. You had a split country, divided over extending slavery to the new states being made out of portion of the Louisiana Purchase. The court enforcing a one-size-fits-all decree did not suit one of the two parties in the dispute. "[W]ith Taney declaring the entire Union safe for slavery, the Missouri Compromise was dead." Lincoln simply refused to obey it. Says Buchanan: "...Lincoln challenged John Marshall's doctrine of judicial supremacy as a mortal threat to democracy itself:
...if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed byt he decision of the Supreme Corut...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
The point is not the particular decision, it's that the Supreme Court, in 1854, was trying to enforce a view on the entire country, on a significant matter in which the states and public were deeply divided. That's dictatorship. Democracy means they fight it out through representatives in Congress. And if that fails, through arms in the street. Judicial review is kind of like a referee determining dictating a game's outcome by micromanagement rather than simply calling fouls. The court is there to interpret laws, not create them, and though law professors and other charlatans of the tongue may insist these are these are the same, in practice it's pretty clear when the court is going over the line and into the territory that belongs to the people through their legislature.
- the standing temptation of the sharp minds that go into law must be to use their power to dictate their ideology. Particularly as their fear of being recalled by vote or rope recedes into mere theory. As judges lost their natural fear of man, their increasingly leftist views came to the fore. They began to impose their jew-trained anti-white ideology on the natives, with full media backing. This began with Earl Warren, says Buchanan. He was the leaders of the robed rogues who concocted 1954's Brown vs Board
decision, and flipped America the bird by locating its basis in cant from an anti-white sociologist's doll studies, of all things. The decision was a way of saying to the majority public, we can do whatever the fuck we want, for whatever reason, and you're just going to shut up and like it. And if you don't, and you protest, we'll sic the national guard on you. And that's what happened.
We train judges how to act. They're people like the rest of us. If we let them get away with stuff, they get emboldened. If they receive praise and awards for usurpations, they're going to stay up past midnight thinking up new aggressions. Isn't this self-evident? "We teach people how to treat us," says Oprah or someone, and that fits here perfectly. Leftist judges who cross the line need to be roped in, by some means, or they will continue transgressing against white rights and white society. They've gone so long without experiencing any justice that most of them probably don't even conceive it as a possibility.
- the legal precedent the Supreme Court overthrew, quite illegally, in BvB
, had stood for 58 years. Now that is genuine revolutionary activity. That is genuine usurpation of the legislative prerogative, indeed overt and stated responsibility. If the people don't want segregation, segregated public schools, they can instruct their legislators to do that. It's not illegal under the Constitution. The Supreme Court simply decided to take the law into its own hands, and issue an edict, like a king would. And then send men with guns to shoot anyone who democratically resisted. Thus America devolved into a tyranny. There was resistance, but it was overcome by physical coercion combined with media moralizing. An uncountable number of miseries have resulted from this anti-democratic, illegal Court ruling-usurpation. But you'll never read a single article about them because the people owning and writing the papers are on the side of the anti-white court.
In the 19th century, men were not afraid to tell the courts, even the Supreme Court, to go fuck itself. The most famous example of this came from Andrew Jackson, who famously said: "John Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it." Eisenhower could have said the same thing to his hand-picked Warren after the Brown
decision. He chose to do nothing, even though he disagreed. This was probably the point at which the Supreme Court began being treated as gods on earth. Again, the part Buchanan leaves out here is that by this time, mid-50s, you've got anti-white jews controlling the mass media - all three (and only three) television networks, and the two main papers, the New York Times
and Washington Post
. So long as the court makes anti-white decisions, the jew-controlled mass media will support it and defend those decisions, no matter how illegal, ridiculous and anti-white they are. Hell, Jackson took violent umbrage
at something comparatively minor, given that Brown involved turning the school careers of white children into playthings for jewish social engineers. If anything, whites should have been angrier than Jackson was. And this first violation of their racial rights would be followed by more and worse discriminations and usurpations.
- "Seeing the Warren court seize such powers, lower courts began to push the envelope," says Buchanan on page 221.
- 1967: Judge Skelly Wright outlaws (desegregated) D.C.'s 'track system' for students, leading white students to leave D.C. almost entirely by 1970;
- 1968: Green vs New Kent County
(Virginia): Warren court goes beyond "desegregation" to outlaw a "freedom of choice" plan that lets students decide which of two high schools to attend. "Where Brown
had prohibited the assignment of students by race, Green
commanded it." White students become pawns in the hands of anti-white social engineers. White students have their status reduced by the Supreme Court to the level of teaching aids for black children. The media back this. You can find thousands of articles about the educational needs of black kids, but nary a one about the educational needs of white kids. Again, this is judicial usurpation at the most egregious and offensive level, and whites would be perfectly justified in exercising their natural rights to self and familial defense in correcting matters.
- 1971: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
(North Carolina): ordered the busing of white students out of their own neighborhoods to comply with some social-engineer's racial scheme. Again: white children are nothing but tools of social engineers, who may distribute and arrange them as they see fit to provide learning aids for negros. Whites are not independent agents and citizens, they are human resources to be used by anti-white illiberals. Green
, like Skelly ruling, led to whites moving out of the zone in question.
- Buchanan makes the point that people hate being dictated to by judges, whereas they will tolerate decisions made by Congress. They can get at Congressmen by voting them out (altho elsewhere he points out this never happens) but judges aren't easily gotten to by strictly legal methods.
- 1978: California Regents v. Bakke
: Supreme Court upholds UC-Davis' policy of discriminating racially against white medical school applicants. Justice Blackmun's quote: "In order to get beyond racism we must first take account of race. In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently." Any form of anti-white hostility or legal discrimination will be justified in similar manner, as subsequent decades were to show. Whites, of course, are under no legal or other obligation to tolerate such treatment.
- 1979: United Steelworker v. Weber: Weber was a white discriminated against by a quota in a training program. He sued. He won on trial and appeal, then the Supreme Court decided against him. The 1964 Civil Rights law outlawed racial discrimination...except against whites. You see? The same thing is illegal when whites do it and mandatory when anti-whites do it. So says the court. Precisely what illiberal Humphrey said he would "eat his hat" over if it ever came to play, very similar to Kennedy's saying, around the same time, there would never be more than a few thousand coloreds involved if we race-reversed our immigration policy. When leftists and anti-whites, jews and ideologues, discriminate racially against whites, it's called equality. If whites discriminate in favor of whites, it's called racism, hate, discrimination, and it's illegal, save on private grounds in certain circumstances. Whites must endure this so long as they put up with it. Our country as currently instantiated exists to privilege jews and blacks and other non-whites over whites.
- 2003: The Supreme Court approves anti-white discrimination at Michigan Law School, for at least 25 more years. If the country exists then, demographics are likely to have shifted against the white majority, and it is unlikely this racial discrimination against whites will cease, it is likelier it will be strengthened.
Says Buchanan very aptly:
The Left has found the Ho Chi Minh Trail around democracy. It has found the way -- through filing court cases with collaborator-judges -- to impose its views and values upon our society without having to win elections or persuade legislators." (. 223)
That will wrap it up. No branch of the government has the right to say what is or isn't constitutional - they all do. And so do the people who elect them. You get all the shit you're willing to take. That's the bottom line. So long as whites are too intimidated to stand up to the criminal usurpers, they will have to content themselves with being discriminated against by courts and government offices, brownbeaten in the papers, and beaten down in the streets to barely even bothering to raise a hand to shield its laughing approval. END
P.S. This is a 20-minute interview with Tom Woods I came across the other day, it touches on the usurped right of judicial review, as discussed above. Well worth listening to.