The Nuremberg Trials

The justice system in the UK and abroad

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Paul » 16 May 2013, 02:23

Gavin wrote:
Meet the "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" (her title won't fit on one line):

Image

No, I didn't even know this pointless role existed either. Do check the Wikipedia entry, which mentions how she is (of course) Labour.....


My goodness, what a creature that is.

I was about to say - Baroness Upholland (not a title I was aware of) - surely this can't be the Upholland which is a mere sub-district of ........Wigan?

Reading the Wiki article one finds that it is. It's astonishing, in an almost comical way. You don't have Lords and Ladies that hail from sub-regions of Wigan. Or anywhere like that. You just don't. You then find out that the title was 'created' by - Labour and Blair (of course) and that in just 1999. It's cultural (and class) vandalism of sorts.

I find the woman is from a coal-mining background and went to an old-style grammar school. I'm becoming slightly self-concious at this point. Then she goes onto university (I didn't - phew...!) and decides to study ...... Sociology!

You see what I mean? In a way, I'm increasingly glad I decided not to go to University. At the very least I would have had to endure these type of fools and, even worse, their mentors. I decided to go to work instead.

I know exactly the type of creature this woman is. I'll also tell you here and now that Wigan Council (Labour forever) is the benchmark for this type of person. It's stuffed with them and it's from their ranks (or similar) that this woman has emerged. I've met some of them, though less highly placed of course. Nationally, there must be tens of thousands, or more, of this type of person and it's bewildering to think what must actually be done with them all.

In truth, despite what I may have gone along with (slighltly) or even said here, the idea of retrospective treason charges against previous bad politicians is a grim idea. Even worse is the thought of then also retrospectively applying the death penalty in respect of those retrospective charges. It's worryingly extreme. It's also never going to happen.

Including all the reasons given by Jonathan (and others), there would be the matter of - who exactly? Blair and Mandleson? The Labour Cabinet - shifting as it no doubt was? All Labour MPs - sifting through to see who voted for what motion? Surely unthinkable, illegal by our code of laws and immoral?

How far would or could it extend? Imagine all the quango postings and the sheer number of civil servants and their lickspittles. To be honest, half the entire country is corrupt one could easily say. It comes back then to Caleb's note that people only get the government they deserve and at least to some degree I think that's true. One might note that TD's attitude to the financial crisis people have found themselves in, is to state that they were willing participants in their own downfall, government and banking frauds notwithstanding. Quite swiftly, they have then only portrayed themselves as victims, never as co-perpetrators. So now, many of the public with their dis-satisfaction.

Not people here I'm sure. But how many people have gone along with all this, even so far as to refrain from opening their mouths and speaking up for the plain truth? Again, maybe not people here but you will know that any attempt at speaking out has often been met with ridicule.

How far would 'the purge' extend? Into education and maybe the NHS? What about the Police? We're never going to get to the situation where we're stringing up teachers and policemen - are we? Imagine if it were like that. Goodness me, it would be the Terror all over again. Our own Civil War is a grim picture too, not something we would wish to emulate. And what about the Queen - is she a traitor too? I beg your pardon but it's all vaguely ridiculous.

How far back does it extend too? Heath has been mentioned - from 40 years ago. What about the govt's of the permissive 1960s, or even the post-war gov't that implemented the welfare state? Surely not, and what would be the point? But how does one implement a statute of limitations on what is now viewed as a paramount crime? It's unworkable as much as it is immoral.

But anyway, that's not to say people couldn't be prosecuted for definitive crimes (even of negligence) that they have committed in office or since. A network of nepotism and collaboration stripped away would reveal much. And at the least, all these useless offices of state should be abolished, all the quangos disbanded, scores of bureaucrats dismissed from office and etc, etc. Unfortunately, it can only peaceably come about by the slow process of political change.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Gavin » 02 Jun 2013, 18:42

Tony Blair explains to us there is "a problem within Islam".
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Nick » 03 Jun 2013, 09:48

You guys wonder how come "nobody speaks out about this" - aren't politicians supposed to protect us? etc. The bottom line is: just not enough people care. And if they care, they complain but don't act. For instances cases such as "teachers spewing lies to defend multiculturalism" or "Blair and Cameron should be sued for economic mismanagement" will remain too subjective for them to stand trial for that. What are you going to do - sue everyone who voted Labour? People are too gobbled up in watching celebrity gossip, worrying whether branches of their neighbour's tree is growing above their frence and wondering about what their colleagues think of their new dress. There should be a vanguard who cares about this. That is what me and my friend are working on, and assume that only those self-motivated enough to pursue their actions will seek us out.
Nick
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 25 May 2013, 10:58

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Jonathan » 04 Jun 2013, 08:52

Gavin wrote:Jonathan, does your position mean you are also actually against the Nuremberg Trials themselves then? Indeed against trials for any perceived injustices committed by politicians while in office?


The Nuremberg trials themselves are a different kettle of fish -
1) They were conducted by the victorious allies against the German leadership, not by the Germans themselves.
2) There was no lack of formal laws of war which were broken by the Germans.
3) The magnitude of the crimes was so great that an unusual procedure seemed quite reasonable.

The Nurember trials were quite justified, in my opinion - though I am not particularly knowledgeable about them.

However, as a precedent, they are problematic, because men were tried in a court which was constituted after their crimes were committed. This has created a great temptation to establish other courts ex-post-facto to condemn other men for much lesser crimes than Genocide. Such courts are inherently political courts, not courts of Justice, and are therefore used to advance political goals.

To sum up: If Hitler had survived the war, and I were a German prosecutor writing up the charges, I would definitely put in things like staging the Reichstag fire, the night of long knives, the crimes of the Gestapo, orchestrating the Holocaust, slave labor camps, etc. There is no lack of these.

I would not put in things like "Ruining Germany by starting a war which we lost through a gross misjudgement", or "Losing the Sixth Army at Stalingrad by giving senseless not-one-step-back commands".

There are many charges which are not clear-cut at all, and I have no idea what the right decision would be. But if you use criminal courts to punish leaders who started a war which turned out poorly, or for conducting a war poorly, you will find that your leaders are too fearful to fight, even when it's necessary; or too fearful to admit defeat, even when prolonging the fight will be disastrous; or unwilling to relinquish power after a defeat.

Punish the criminal in court; and the fool in the ballot-box.
Jonathan
 
Posts: 407
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Gavin » 04 Jun 2013, 11:49

So there is a line, and it depends where that line is drawn. I don't know how you would be in Israel, but here in the UK we draw it, I think, at massively changing the demographic and the culture of our country with no explicit mandate from the people, while demonising any resistance as "racist" and simultaneously lining one's own pockets. That's surely called treachery. Simply "voting people out" once it is done, doesn't seem enough to us for that. A lot of people want to see trials.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Nathan » 04 Jun 2013, 12:00

I certainly want to see people brought to justice, but Jonathan has a point - apart from war crimes, where there is perhaps a more concrete case, which of our current laws would Blair et al have actually broken? Surely that is the key criterion here, regardless of how strong people's opinions are. It is unfortunate we don't yet have a legal expert reading this forum.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Jonathan » 04 Jun 2013, 12:41

Gavin wrote:So there is a line, and it depends where that line is drawn.


I rather thought I was making the opposite point, that the line is clear-cut: Where a law has been broken, go to court; where it has not, go to the ballot-box.

I don't know how you would be in Israel, but here in the UK we draw it, I think, at massively changing the demographic and the culture of our country with no explicit mandate from the people, while demonising any resistance as "racist" and simultaneously lining one's own pockets. That's surely called treachery. Simply "voting people out" once it is done, doesn't seem enough to us for that. A lot of people want to see trials.


In Israel, such a policy would result in the opposition vocally contesting that policy, and coming into power in the next elections. In Britain, it has been followed for several decades without that happening, which surely tells you something about about the electorate; there is nothing the opposition wants more than to get into power, and if this policy might have been the route to power, they would have contested it.

The difficult fact to swallow here is that large segments of Britain have been complicit in this policy; the politicians endorsed it, the bureaucracy implemented it, the intelligentsia praised it, the middle classes basked in the warm glow of its righteousness, and the lower classes were apathetic.

The demand for a trial is a search for a scapegoat. Hundreds of thousands were involved, each doing a little bit. Who will you hang, and where will you stop? The Prime Minister who first allowed immigrants? But he only allowed a trickle. The next one who let the numbers increase? He was only implementing the policies of his predecessor, and besides, it was still a trickle. The bureaucrat who loosened requirements slightly? The one who allowed forms to be translated into Somali? The judge who set a precedent for granting asylum to a man without a passport? The hundred judges who followed his precedent? The cabinet which increased benefits by 3%, encouraging more immigration? The editor who published 1,000 articles supporting immigration? The one who published 10?

Governments do a hundred things without an "explicit mandate from the people". Any one of these may turn out to be part of a disaster in 20 years' time. In fact, most of them probably will. Will every government bureaucrat be held legally liable for mistaken policies to which he contributes? Every MP? Every Cabinet Minister? Let's take the minimal approach - only the PM will be held so responsible. What kind of man would offer himself for this position, knowing that half a dozen of his predecessors are in jail for implementing policies which were popular at the time, but judged treasonable a decade or two later?

There is a comparable period in British history, that leading up to WWII, in which successive governments followed the disastrous path of appeasement. Then, as now, there was a temptation to deal harshly with those responsible. Churchill addressed this temptation with these words:
There are many who would hold an inquest in the House of Commons on the conduct of the Governments--and of Parliaments, for they are in it, too--during the years which led up to this catastrophe. They seek to indict those who were responsible for the guidance of our affairs. This also would be a foolish and pernicious process. There are too many in it. Let each man search his conscience and search his speeches. I frequently search mine. Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future...

(http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/churchill-hour.htm)
Jonathan
 
Posts: 407
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Gavin » 04 Jun 2013, 12:44

Nathan, I think the criminal offence in question would be that of treason.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Gavin » 04 Jun 2013, 12:57

Jonathan, while I understand the caution you are calling, one of the things that concerns me about your position is that it seems to allow for anything as long as it is legal. The Nazis, once democratically elected, repealed many laws and instigated many new ones which people followed, later claiming at Nuremberg (correctly) that they had done nothing illegal. What do you feel about such a defence?

I agree with the defence of "I had to go along with it or I would have been killed, so I did so minimally" and so did Nuremberg judges generally, but they didn't excuse people who clearly bought into the policy ideologically. On numbers also, not every Nazi was punished - in particular the leading and particularly zealous party members were. Yet still the trials proceeded.

On the claim that calls for trials are calls for a scapegoat, I don't agree with this. Guidance surely came from the top. The same argument (and the "sheer numbers" argument) was also used in the official report regarding the recent NHS scandals and as a result nobody at all was punished - and few people agreed with that.

What Labour were doing was party policy, albeit not overt. In a similar way that the Nazis, once in power, quelled dissent against the Führer, multiculturalists demonised anybody who opposed their policy. True enough, they were not thrown in jail or killed. Well, actually they could be thrown in jail. And they could be killed if they voiced their opinions in the wrong places! But they would be ostracised and would more than likely lose their jobs. This latter point is even true today, yet when people can comment anonymously we see how they really feel.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Gavin » 04 Jun 2013, 13:21

That's a good quotation from Churchill - we usually only hear the end of that great speech. In the beginning he is mainly speaking about military strategic errors and saying that time should not be wasted on chastising those who were doing their best at the time - rather, this is in still an emergency and we should concentrate on rallying forces, learning from our mistakes and "finishing the job". Commendable, as usual.

He does seem to refer to the appeasement period also though, but I would say that appeasement (while not admirable) is not quite the same as actively engaging in a policy to change a country also irreversibly with no mandate to do so and while demonising opponents.

I do agree with you, however, to some degree about the role of the British public in creating our current mess (though I ask that the climate of demonisation is taken into account - this is something that Ed West details in his book). I never voted Labour! The problem now though is that since they imported vote generating individuals (and knew they were doing this) they made sure the situation was self-perpetuating and very hard to change.

I'm still on the side of trials for the leadership who instigated these policies against the British people, but just like Nathan, I would like to see a proper legal case put. I'm not exactly holding my breath. And anyway, lawyers seem to be able to prove whatever they want to prove at a given time. It depends who's running the show.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Jonathan » 05 Jun 2013, 07:04

Jonathan, while I understand the caution you are calling, one of the things that concerns me about your position is that it seems to allow for anything as long as it is legal. The Nazis, once democratically elected, repealed many laws and instigated many new ones which people followed, later claiming at Nuremberg (correctly) that they had done nothing illegal. What do you feel about such a defence?


If my line of reasoning were extended too far, this is precisely the argument which would undo it completely. I most emphatically do not extend it indefinitely, though I did not take the trouble to make this clear in my previous posts.

How far do I extend it? It's not an easy question. In basic training I was told that I must obey orders; even illegal orders, but not morally repugnant orders. The phrasing is something like 'an egregiously illegal order with a black flag flying above it', and I think it's taken from a Supreme Court ruling. So if an officer orders his platoon to seize a house, he's not confronted with a dozen soldiers with their lawyers on their cellphones, but if - heaven forbid - he tells them to shoot the inhabitants, his soldiers won't need to call their lawyers before confronting him.

This criterion requires men to consult their consciences - taking into account, of course, the collective conscience of society at large. In our hypothetical example, it is sufficient to condemn most of the guilty - from the Eichmanns at the top who determined the policy, to the men who drove the trains, guarded the camps, conducted mass executions, etc.

It is true that relying on the individual conscience does leave room for ambiguity. But the more important fact is that the conscience is sufficient. Consider the vast gulf between a man in an einsatzgruppen told to lead twenty civilians into a wood and shoot them, and the men you would accuse. The former knows perfectly well the evil nature of his orders. The harm they do is plainly in front of his eyes - twenty innocent lives snuffed out. The supposed good (getting rid of untermensch) is vague and abstract. He need only consult his conscience (assuming he still has it) as to whether this action is right or wrong.

Now consider the equivalent case - the captain of a coast guard patrol boat comes across a boat of twenty somalis heading for England, and is given an order to escort them to shore. You would require him to disobey this order, so as not to play a small part in the cultural overthrow of England. What is required of him to disobey? He must understand the importance of cultural differences. He must decide whether the rate of immigration into England is such that English culture is being threatened. He must judge whether these immigrants will integrate or not (maybe they're Christian Ethiopians, not Muslim Somalis - or does this matter?). He must be convinced that government policy will be too weak to stop immigration later on when the problem becomes too serious. He must know that these men will not be deported later on to correct the problem. Also, he must know that public policy in ten or twenty years will view the problem in these terms, and agree with his decision - an important point, since turning the boat back - possibly even sinking it - will definitely result in immediate harm to those upon it.

See how great the difference is! The first man needs but a conscience; the second one needs a prophet.
Jonathan
 
Posts: 407
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: The Nuremberg Trials

Postby Elliott » 17 Jul 2013, 22:49

I'm sorry to reply to this thread after a long gap since the last post. I was impressed - slightly thrown - by Jonathan's arguments. I think both he and Gavin make very good points, but I am emotionally and morally inclined towards Gavin's view, so I have concentrated on finding responses to Jonathan's argument. I think that, when a leader betrays his people, there should ideally be a way to punish him - not just for the people's sense of justice, but also to deter similar betrayal by future leaders - therefore objections to these hypothetical Nuremberg-esque trials need to be confronted and either defused or conceded to.

Jonathan wrote:The Nuremberg trials themselves are a different kettle of fish -
1) They were conducted by the victorious allies against the German leadership, not by the Germans themselves.


2) There was no lack of formal laws of war which were broken by the Germans.

We have the laws against treason and Breach of Duty. We also have the concept of Duty of Care:

Generally, a duty of care arises where one individual or group undertakes an activity which could reasonably harm another, either physically, mentally, or economically.

3) The magnitude of the [Nazi Party's] crimes was so great that an unusual procedure [the Nuremberg Trials] seemed quite reasonable.

That is true. However, I would say that it is also a crime of great magnitude to deliberately transform a society demographically, with no mandate from the people (and knowing full well that, if asked, they would strongly object) and even doing so with the specific intent of transforming it (not bringing some benefit to the current society, but to actually transform it into a different society).

However, as a precedent, they [the Nuremberg Trials] are problematic, because men were tried in a court which was constituted after their crimes were committed. This has created a great temptation to establish other courts ex-post-facto to condemn other men for much lesser crimes than Genocide. Such courts are inherently political courts, not courts of Justice, and are therefore used to advance political goals.

Understood. However, in the case of the British people (or any other European people) punishing their governments for allowing mass Third World immigration, it would not be political as such. The move to put politicians on trial would not be led by some future political party. On the contrary, you can already see public demands for it in newspaper comment threads and in everyday conversations (with people who have much less extreme views than mine). These hypothetical future trials are not political as I envisage them. I think they would arise very much as an expression of the popular will. "The popular will" is a dangerous concept so I will put it in other words: too many ordinary people would want Tony Blair punished for him not to be punished.

There are many charges which are not clear-cut at all, and I have no idea what the right decision would be. But if you use criminal courts to punish leaders who started a war which turned out poorly, or for conducting a war poorly, you will find that your leaders are too fearful to fight, even when it's necessary; or too fearful to admit defeat, even when prolonging the fight will be disastrous; or unwilling to relinquish power after a defeat.

These are dangers, but they have solutions:

  • punish leaders more for not fighting when it's necessary
  • punish leaders for prolonging a fight disastrously
  • punish leaders for not relinquishing power after a defeat
Enshrine each of these in law so that leaders know what will happen to them if they fail to perform their duty or to make reasonable attempts to perform it.

In Britain, [the policy of mass immigration] has been followed for several decades without [opposition parties vocally contesting it], which surely tells you something about about the electorate; there is nothing the opposition wants more than to get into power, and if this policy might have been the route to power, they would have contested it.

It's not that simple. Opposition parties know that the electorate would like all sorts of things, but are prevented by the media from offering them. The death penalty (which I do not necessarily support) would be an example: most British people want it reinstated, yet such is completely outside the Overton Window. Grammar schools: most British people want them reinstated, yet such is completely outside the Overton Window. Multiculturalism: very few white British people support it, yet its (genuine) abolition is completely outside the Overton Window. Mass immigration: everyone I know wants it halted completely, right now, yet such is completely outside the Overton Window. Deporting Islamic hate preachers: I don't know anyone who would object to this, yet these villains continue to live amongst us because simply deporting them, making the national group decision that they are not welcome here, is completely outside the Overton Window.

Politics is largely a game played by politicians, the media and the intelligentsia. Ordinary people, the electorate, seem to be virtually irrelevant. I will certainly concede that the UKIP phenomenon should have happened long before now, but, that it hasn't (and that, having now happened, the party still doesn't stand a chance of being voted into government in 2015 despite being the only party with the British people's interests at heart) is because the media, taking their cue from a detached intelligentsia, ensure that parties like UKIP are demonised and mocked as much as possible.

You are right that vocally opposing mass immigration would have been a route into power for any party that seemed halfway decent (which disqualifies fascist parties like the BNP etc.). That no party has grasped the baton and leapt forwards with it is a sign of just how much the political narrative is set, not by what the electorate want, but by what the media and intelligentsia want. 74% of the British public supported Enoch Powell in 1968, but still the political system destroyed him and, ever since, every politician has known the personal consequences of vocally opposing mass immigration. Now you might say this excuses them for their inaction against the problem, but I think it further indicts them: it means that every politician who started his career since 1968 has gone into it knowing that he was not going to do anything about mass immigration. The media/political reaction to Woolwich ("another Islamist atrocity, but let's not worry about Muslims, let's worry about the irrational behaviour of non-Muslims") shows just how ramified and deeply-embedded this acceptance of mass immigration now is: the elite consider, not the violent anti-British Islamic fundamentalists, but the indigenous people of Britain as the dangerous irrational enemy, the thing that is to be controlled and contained.

The difficult fact to swallow here is that large segments of Britain have been complicit in this policy; the politicians endorsed it, the bureaucracy implemented it, the intelligentsia praised it, the middle classes basked in the warm glow of its righteousness, and the lower classes were apathetic.

See my paragraphs above, but also this post where I addressed this issue a year ago. I actually do agree with you that the British people bear some responsibility for mass immigration, in that they continued to vote for parties that allowed it even though they were opposed to it. I think they were misled, not just about the economic/cultural consequences of mass immigration but also about the character implications ("you're an evil hate-filled racist!") of opposing it in principle. They were told that, to be a good person, you had to be pro mass immigration, or at least to be silent on the issue.

The demand for a trial is a search for a scapegoat.

I would disagree. I think it is a search for justice.

Hundreds of thousands were involved, each doing a little bit. Who will you hang, and where will you stop? The Prime Minister who first allowed immigrants? But he only allowed a trickle. The next one who let the numbers increase? He was only implementing the policies of his predecessor, and besides, it was still a trickle. The bureaucrat who loosened requirements slightly? The one who allowed forms to be translated into Somali? The judge who set a precedent for granting asylum to a man without a passport? The hundred judges who followed his precedent? The cabinet which increased benefits by 3%, encouraging more immigration? The editor who published 1,000 articles supporting immigration? The one who published 10?

I don't think it is necessary - even if it were possible - to punish every single person involved. We are talking about achieving a sense of justice, a sense that right is on the public's side, not on those who sup from the elite trough day in day out. Rather than go for each and every individual, merely investigate (put on trial) those judges who are known to have passed ludicrous sentences (like allowing Abu Qatada to remain in Britain) and those politicians who are known to have been involved consciously in nation-transforming legislations and initiatives (such as the New Labour cabinet).

Governments do a hundred things without an "explicit mandate from the people". Any one of these may turn out to be part of a disaster in 20 years' time. In fact, most of them probably will. Will every government bureaucrat be held legally liable for mistaken policies to which he contributes? Every MP? Every Cabinet Minister? Let's take the minimal approach - only the PM will be held so responsible. What kind of man would offer himself for this position, knowing that half a dozen of his predecessors are in jail for implementing policies which were popular at the time, but judged treasonable a decade or two later?

I can see the point you are making, but I think it would be pretty clear that future leaders would be quite safe as long as they didn't attempt to erase their own electorate from existence like New Labour did. (It's not the sort of thing one does by accident!)

There is a comparable period in British history, that leading up to WWII, in which successive governments followed the disastrous path of appeasement.

Understood, and indeed that is a comparable period, but only up to a point. The British government's crime then was to fail to react to something external; here, their crime is to actively wreak destruction on their own country. That is far more serious and far more evil. In 1938, they were incompetent defenders; in 2013, they are psychopathic overlords who view the people as putty to be shaped to their will (which, ironically enough, is a paraphrase of something Hitler said about the German people!).

One other distinction between Chamberlain-style appeasement and Blair-style cultural destruction. When WW2 ended, the appeasement was over with and did not have long-lasting effects. By contrast, mass immigration absolutely does, and government after government has continued to allow it when they could have stopped it at any time.

Now consider the equivalent case - the captain of a coast guard patrol boat comes across a boat of twenty somalis heading for England, and is given an order to escort them to shore. You would require him to disobey this order, so as not to play a small part in the cultural overthrow of England. What is required of him to disobey? He must understand the importance of cultural differences. He must decide whether the rate of immigration into England is such that English culture is being threatened. He must judge whether these immigrants will integrate or not

I believe that ordinary Britons knew and understood every single one of these things as far back as 1950. They are not difficult things to extrapolate; common sense tells you that a low IQ African tribesman is probably not going to do well in the First World. Even if you do not believe in IQ differentials, it is common sense to think that people who built dysfunctional (Third World) societies will probably not be the greatest additions to a functional (First World) society. Ordinary British people knew this. It was the elites who refused to see what was plainly obvious.

But we needn't bring IQ into it. We could simply look at it as an example of a government performing an operation on a people to which the people have not consented. Essentially every government post 1948 has said "we are going to change you, whether you like it or not". At the very least, a government should ask its electorate's permission before proceeding to alter that electorate genetically and culturally.

Retrospective punishment for historically unique crimes would certainly be unprecedented, at least in the modern age. I think I know the British people well enough to know that, the punishment over with, they would want to re-establish civilisation as quickly as possible, not fall for a dictator or a militaristic form of government. It would be a highly unusual set of trials, possibly never repeated.

History advances and new provisions are made for things that were previously unknown to be problems, or that simply never had provisions before. For example, we didn't have war crime trials until (according to Wikipedia) 1474, with the case of Peter von Hagenbach. Then, four centuries later, we got the first Hague Convention. Things change. I think that mass immigration will herald similar changes. In 1948, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, it was thought proper to regard all people as equal, and therefore all deserving of the chance to live anywhere they liked. I think the subsequent experience has taught us that this is a dangerous, idealistic and naive view of people. Of course, we ordinary little people never wanted it in the first place, because we wanted our own countries, our own homelands, but our elites were in love with the idea so they disregarded us. That is, I believe, going to come to be considered a crime on a par with war crimes. War crimes tribunals were set up retrospectively because they were the only way to achieve justice in an age that, hitherto, had no provision for achieving justice regarding war crimes. I think exactly the same thing is going to happen regarding demographic transformation of a society by its government. That this will be a step forward in legislative history will not stop it from happening.

Rulers do need to be brought back into line occasionally. In that sense, these trials would not be unprecedented but simply a natural part of history's cycle. Post-1945, the state has come to believe in itself as an entity with moral right on its side, by default. Therefore, when politicians decided to elect a new electorate, they probably thought it was a good idea simply because they had come up with it. And even if it was not a conscious plan of action but merely a reaction to uncontrolled events, it was still a belief in the power of the state which allowed politicians to do nothing, to sit and watch. They have believed themselves automatically good, automatically entitled, automatically righteous, and have quite ruthlessly attacked anybody who tried to hold them back from their project. That hubris has to be curtailed, definitively, if the free West is to remain free and Western. Trials would indeed be a blunt instrument and undoubtedly many of the guilty men would escape nonetheless, but what is at stake here is the very fate of the West. This is not a time to be squeamish.

My earlier mention of the Holocaust is apt, because I think it might help to explain why Jonathan is fearful about the possible consequences (tyranny, dictatorship) of electorates punishing politicians. For many centuries, the Jewish people were nomadic and frequently the victims of oppression. Then WW2 and the Holocaust, in which their victimhood reached its terrible culmination. Thus they fear the possibility of future oppression, and are wary of laying the grounds for such. It is very understandable that the Jewish historical experience (especially the Holocaust) should lead to a fear of tyranny, but, while the possibility of tyranny should be considered, it should not stop us from pursuing justice. There are always things that can go wrong. There are always unforeseen developments. But that should not paralyse us in a state of absolute caution. If, by getting what we want, we unwittingly lay the ground for a dictator, then we deal with that dictator, we cross that bridge if and when we come to it; we do not cancel everything on the grounds that this might happen. That would be cowardly. And the British people are not cowardly, and historically they are not used to being treated with contempt by their governments (which is why they are outraged by what has been done these last sixty years, especially the last fifteen years).

There is a case to be made that, morally, it is better to be a victim than to be guilty of anything; better to be the Auschwitz inmate than the Auschwitz guard. But I don't think it need be a choice between these two extremes. The British people can be aggressive and decisive, and then return to normality. Unlike most other European peoples, the Brits do not take well to dictatorship. Any dictatorship that arose would, I think, be quickly dealt with.

To return to the bigger picture...

If we do nothing, what is the lesson that future leaders will take from this? That you can demographically transform a society out of recognition and against its people's will, and get away with it; that, to all intents and purposes, you can dissolve a people, erase it from existence, and get away with it. That is not a lesson I feel comfortable allowing future leaders to learn. They should be shown the error of their hubris and treachery - if not so that the British people have some justice, then to help ensure that future leaders do not repeat their treachery.

Even disregarding future leaders, this is an issue here and now, in the present, and people's feelings are here and now, in the present. Yes, we must strive for the noble aim of considering the long-term implications of what we do (and considering the long-term implications is precisely what the British government failed to do every single year since 1948) but we also have to deal with the heartache of the here and now. To allow the corrupt and crooked politicians who did this to Britain to just walk away, would not bode well for the British people's sense of dignity, morality or self-respect: it would confirm their status as dhimmis, not of Muslims but of their own government.

Put simply: this is an unprecedented situation, but to not act upon it and punish the guilty would be to let the guilty off. That is not justice. And its implications - that the peoples of Europe are slaves of their governments, without dignity or a right to a homeland or a right to exist - are monstrous. If some blood is shed to right this wrong, if a few mistakes are made to restore justice and restore dignity for the peoples of the West, so be it.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Previous

Return to Law, Crime & Justice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.