In Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority, much attention is paid to the unraveling of America’s legal system over the last century; a topic worthy of more attention than it often receives from right-wing counter-culture-ists. While many of the cultural figures the late Mr. Robertson examined (Eldridge Cleaver, Susan Sontag, etc.) were well known, his documentation of lesser known but more powerful, Cultural Marxists (e.g. Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis) in the legal world makes for hard reading. Yet it was that section of his book that my thoughts naturally drifted to upon learning that a group of Democratic congressmen are agitating to have Donald Sterling pay taxes on the two and a half million dollar fine he has been saddled with. The author, who pulled no punches, (its author was also the founder and editor of Instauration magazine) wrote frankly:
The more minority influence has been brought to bear on the American legal system, the more its breakdown is becoming apparent. The English common law, which derived from Northern European folk law, functioned adequately, at times superbly, in the United States as long as the nation was dominated by people of English and Northern European descent. But when minorities became an important element in both the law-making and the law- breaking process, American law underwent a deep transformation.
It becomes harder still to ignore the above passage when looking over exactly which Democratic congressmen are behind the bill. It is being sponsored by one Antonio Cárdenas, who (at the time of this writing) recently tweeted, “Fixing broken #immigration sys=supercharge economy&allow top scientists&researchers 2 stay. They train&learn here, let them stay #TimeIsNow”. Sr. Cárdenas’ co-sponsors are: Joe García (D-Fla.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), and Juan Vargas (D-Calif.). A complete dossier on each of this gang would reach a length inappropriate for a mere blog post, so only slices from each of their illustrious careers will be highlighted:
- Sr. García was hand picked by President Obama to serve as director of the Office of Minority Economic Impact and Diversity of the United States Department of Energy
- Sr. Grijalva was not only part of a radical Mestizo group in his college days, but has has lamented that, “In a perfect, perfect world we’d have an open border”
- Ms. Napolitano may serve as the group’s token white, but she has served on Congress’s Hispanic Caucus, and gained some notoriety a few years ago for making a pretty penny by loaning money to her own campaign — at 18% interest rates
- Sr. Ruiz’s website advertises (under “Standing Up for What’s Right”, no less) that, “The executive order to stop deporting young people who were brought here through no fault of their own is very important to me.”
- Brother Rush requires no introduction for those of you who have been reading Steve Sailer regularly for more than a couple years. He is none other than the ex-Black Panther who trounced one Barack Obama nearly a decade ago in a Chicago election — by cornering the black vote.
What happy warriors they must be in their attempt to salt the wound of man who gave money to both the NAACP and the United Negro College Fund. And it must be as warriors that they see themselves; their proposal is the perfect example of using taxation as a political weapon — not necessary means in funding a necessary state. However, the same goes for those who levied the fine against Mr. Sterling in the first place, as fines have historically been used as either restitution for victims, or to pay for courts, police, public defendants, etc. The fine in this case serves no such function, and it does not pretend to. The fine serves to inform Mr. Sterling that he is bad and wrong, and a tax on the fine will serve to remind him of that all the more.
But the adulteration of law has never bothered those who have a divinely secular mission to make the world a better place, and anti-white politicians and talking heads are of course no exception. The real question at hand is, “if Donald Sterling can be fined two and a half million, and then likely taxed, how much can the rest of us be fined for saying… anything?” To appreciate the implications of this, read John Seiler’s recent Chronicles piece, “Bathroom Break” and consider what might happen if being charged with hate crimes were to suddenly be replaced with “hate fines.”
Originally published by Chronicles on May 7th, 2014