07 October – Eric Thomson
You raise several fundamentally important points: (1) The problem of maintaining any form of justice and security in a multi-racial, multi-cultural Babel state. (2) The sad state of juries and the fiction that they are our 'peers'. (3) Criminal culpability.

(1) The Zionist founders of North America's bankster empire figured they could profit from 'divide and rule', as well as 'cheap labor'. To prevent 'too much diversity' amongst the governed, children were forced to attend public schools for standardized indoctrination, then, as now, but the message is different: diversity, rather than conformity. "American" used to mean that one could at least speak English. Now, anybody can be an "American", no matter how strange his behavior and language. The bottom line in the 'divide and rule' racket is that the rulers do not command a population which sees them as legitimate. If the president is not Black, he is just another 'honkey cracker' to the Black people. If he is not hispano-mestizo, a member of La Raza, he is just another 'gringo' bandit who 'stole' Northern Mexico, all the way up to the Canadian border. If he is not Chinese, he is just a 'foreign devil', who must be suffered until clever Yellow men can replace him, and drive all foreign devils out of the land which Chinese call The Golden Mountain. Since the ruled vastly outnumber the rulers, who have alienated their own constituency with their 'minority preferences', the denizens of this continent are beginning to view the representatives of the ZOG as one more bandit gang, among others. By redefining "American" to mean a denizen of the territory so named, the population has no real identity and, hence, no loyalty to something called "America", and even less loyalty to that absurd entity labeled "The United States of America" and its paper monarch, The Constitution, which the U.S. government respects least of all. To think that 'security' is possible with such demographics is to be deluded. Who will be in charge of our 'security'? Let us suppose that we have colorblind robo-cops which enforce "the law" strictly and evenhandedly. What would the courts say about their 'failure' to allow for preferential treatment for 'persons of color', mental defectives and other 'special' categories of biped? As reported by The Wall Street Journal, no Black jury would convict a Black shoplifter, in normal practice. When the cop is also Black, one might suspect his judgment would be affected by the race of his quarry, just as alleged in the case of White cops. Recent reports of Mexican customs and immigration officers with U.S. citizenship who collaborate with their Mexican congeners to smuggle drugs and mestizos into the U.S.A. indicates a reality which the Freemasonic mumbo-jumbo of "naturalization" cannot overcome. Eventually, Whites will have to favor their race, simply to survive, as they must do in the U.S. prison system. Unless Whites actively participate on behalf of their survival, we will not survive. It's impossible to live if one stops breathing, and it is also impossible to live if one does not fight those who want our land and our livelihoods and our children's future. Of course, I direct my words to White men, not White maggots who feast on the remains of this former country of ours.

(2) Juries are essential to our Anglo-Saxon justice system, so it is logical that juries decay as our society decays. Every schoolchild should know his rights and duties as a citizen. Jury duty is on par with one's right to vote, but I was never taught about a jury's functions as triers of fact, with the power to nullify a law, if it is deemed to conflict with values that the jury recognizes as 'fact'. A hand-picked Canadian jury in an abortion case not only acquitted the abortion jew Morgenthaler of performing abortions against the law, but went on to declare the law null and void in the case of "medical emergencies", such as saving a woman from the expense and inconvenience of childbearing. Such a deal!

The Wall Street Journal also reported the frequency of jury-tampering, which is a crime, but not so serious as being convicted for murder, so the risk of influencing jurors and/or witnesses with threats and/or bribes is well worth it. Jury-tampering is child's play. All one needs are the names and addresses of the jurors! During a thoughtcrime trial in Canada, the jews overheard one juror expressing admiration for the defence attorney. A jewess lawyer was sent to her workplace and, pretending to be an interested member of the public, asked the dumb Gentile woman some questions which got the ignorant woman thrown off the jury. Not only did that ploy remove a defence-friendly juror, but it cowed the other jurors. I was in the court when 3 jews testified that they had been to Auschwitz and were transferred out by the German authorities. The fourth jew, Vrba, lied that such was impossible: "The only way out of Auschwitz was up the chimney, dead, or under the wire, as an escapee." By that time the jury had lost all their critical faculties and could not see that someone was lying, or that the 3 jews who testified that they'd been to Auschwitz and were transferred, were really dead. Such creatures are certainly NOT my peers! In view of all the anti-White racism involved in jury selection, it could be argued that no White person can have a jury of his peers unless they are White, and I do not mean "ZOG-White", which includes Eurasians and Afro-Eurasians. For ZOG's version of "White", just check out the current Wanted Posters in your local post office. Sample enclosed.

(3) Criminal culpability: The fellow you quoted as saying that the captain of a tug whose barges caused a bridge collapse, resulting in deaths, was a "murderer", may be correct. I do not know the particulars, but if the deaths were due to the captain's negligence, then he'd be culpable, at least to the extent of manslaughter. I think many people would agree with my definition of 'equality' under the law: if one is old enough to kill, he is old enough to die for his crime; if one is sane enough to kill, he is sane enough to die, and if one is smart enough' to kill, he is sufficiently intelligent to be executed.

Some countries have long equated homicide by automobile as homicide, period. Injuries inflicted by cars have also been treated as assault. Let us suppose that I fired up a powersaw when others were in the vicinity, and I was drunk, defective and/or careless and inattentive. As I flailed about with my powersaw, I just 'happened' to saw a bystander's head off and rip the guts out of another. Would the law view these accidental as being 'normal' results of powersaw use? Would I be treated like a driver who commits the same atrocities with a car, instead of a saw? In neither case would I have intended to kill and maim people, but the results were as bad as if I had committed willful murder. Does lack of intent remove culpability? I do not accept that. The man who kills with specific intent is a criminal, but the man who kills from lack of care or concern for others is a monster who does not belong in our society. Personally, I feel more secure amongst thoughtful, careful killers than I do among careless, thoughtless ones. Imagine being killed for no reason at all! I would therefore increase penalties for careless drivers, such as sentences of useful labor toward compensation of the victims of mindless motoring. A proper Nazi government would emphasize earning one's way back into society through the payment of compensation to the victims and orphans resulting from one's crime or negligence. Naturally, such items as cars, guns, blunt and sharp objects, &c. would be deemed 'responsibilities', rather than items of 'personal consumption'.

The present system of "criminal justice" is nothing of the sort. If I lose property to theft, for example, I may receive no compensation for my loss, even if the thief is captured. If he is found guilty, I must pay for his incarceration, and I receive nothing from the thief. Eventually, he is released, after partial completion of his sentence, so he can steal again. In murder cases, there is no compensation whatsoever. The murderer need not even contribute to the victim's funeral services or burial. If someone hurts another's interests or person, through violation of laws, the perpetrator may be fined or jailed, but the victim receives nothing. The government receives the fine and the tax-payer victim pays for the felon's incarceration, which is more expensive than if the felon were to reside in a first class hotel. In summation, our present system of "justice" is neither fair nor economical, for it allows a felon to attack the victim and live off honest people's labor as a prisoner. Double-double bad! This is why Turd Worlders usually 'take the law into their own hands', rather than rely upon a justice system which is usually corrupt, irrelevant and ineffective. People like their justice served fresh and hot, and justice must be seen to be done. Stay tuned: there are lynch mobs in our future.

Police are the soldiers who wage war against domestic criminals. Foreign enemies wage war against society from abroad and criminals wage war against society from within. As I understand, the former Soviet Union equated criminal acts with acts of war. When the social loss is the same, what is the difference: Say a building is destroyed by an enemy bomber or by a domestic arsonist; the damage to society is the same. Why should the arsonist be treated other than an enemy of his society? White-collar criminals inflict worse damage than bank robbers and enemy air raids. Why should they receive better treatment from their victims than the latter? When results are similar, penalties should be similar for those who inflict loss and suffering on society, especially the traitors who are currently completing the wrecking of North American society, along with their mud-minions. We are definitely at war, but few Whites comprehend the situation and fewer care to do anything about it, such as ORGANIZE and FIGHT!