The Rampaging Outlaw
by Revilo P. Oliver
THE TRIBUNAL in Tel-Aviv-on-the-Potomac has upheld a lower court, which sentenced Manuel Antonio Noriega, the former President of Panama, to forty years in prison for having offended Lord Bushy. That was to be expected, since, as we all know, the function of the Revolutionary Tribunal is to give a legal coloring to the commands of our rulers.
What the old Supreme Court, which once sat in the same building, would have done is uncertain. It might well have held that the United States was bound by its treaties until it repudiated them, and that numerous treaties had recognized the Republic of Panama as an independent and sovereign nation. But it is true that the Supreme Court often showed itself pavid and time-serving since 1860. The last Justice who dared apply the provisions of the Constitution strictly, even when his decision would be unpopular, was Chief Justice Robert B. Taney.
It is true, also, that the Republic of Panama was the result of a blunder by an American employee, who exceeded his instructions. (1) But the United States had repeatedly recognized it as a sovereign nation, as, indeed, it was necessary to do before stripping the American boobs of the canal they had built through the Isthmus.
(1. Cf. Liberty Bell, July 1990, pp. 1-16.)
The effect of the recent decision is merely to confirm the status of the American people as a horde of barbarians who have long repudiated international law and the standards of civilization. (2) Their government has now openly arrogated to itself the privileges of its Jewish masters, who operate as outlaws and terrorists, with contemptuous disregard of the integrity of civilized nations, as in their kidnapping of Eichmann from Argentina. (3)
(2. Cf. Liberty Bell, July 1992, pp. 17-28.)
(3. See Liberty Bell, August 1988. The article is accurate in its description of the Jewish outrage (Mr. Taylor, of course, is the only authority for the narration of his personal experiences.). The best commentary on the affair is Paul Rassinier’s Le véritable procès Eichmann, ou Les vainqueurs incorrigibles (Paris, 1963; English translation available from the Noontide Press, Costa Mesa, California.)
The interesting corollary of this is that we cannot reasonably complain if other countries emulate our banditry and contempt for nations that do not have the power to answer our lawless violence with force. For example, a British court recently indicted the American aviators who, by what must have been more than negligence, killed nine British soldiers, whom Mrs. Thatcher had sent to the Persian Gulf to give a semblance of British coöperation in Lord Bushy’s attack on Iraq. The indictments were followed by a demand for extradition of the guilty, but the Director of Public Prosecutions then ruled that British courts had no jurisdiction to punish crimes that were not committed on British territory (except when God’s Race wanted to make some Aryan suffer). (4)
(4. See the well-reasoned letter by H.S. Hall in the July issue of Spearhead, p. 15. The information that has reached me neither discloses the probable motive of the pilots who killed the British soldiers, nor indicates their race. Congoids are biologically incapable of piloting aircraft, but it is said that some mulattos can be trained to do so, and, of course, in a multi-racial compost heap, they would be cuddled and given preference over Americans. Jews have deeply penetrated the Air Force and are usually competent pilots, as are many Semites and Mongolians.)
I do not know where the American aviators are now. If they are on some foreign station, the British Secret Service, emulating Mossad’s kidnapping of Vanunu in England, could use an attractive female operative as bait to lure them into a place in which they could be packed up and shipped to England, and the British, emulating the United States’ treatment of Noriega, could then try them in violation of British law, and hang them. But if the aviators have returned to this country, they could not be kidnapped without arousing vehement protest from the Irish in the United States, and even Bushy might feel that the British had infringed on his righteous privilege to order terrorist abductions.
We can go farther in our speculations. When Bushy recently visited Panama, a large contingent of agents with drawn guns protected him from the crowds of Panamanians, who jeered him to express their hatred of the country that had lawlessly and treacherously (i.e., without provocation and without warning) invaded their own. And, of course, his army was ready to act, should he need further protection. It is not inconceivable, however, that our Lord might some day, especially after he leaves the White House, find himself in a position in which Palestinian agents could kidnap him and take him to Saddam Hussein for trial and eventual execution as a “war criminal.” There is an aphorism about men of violence who are hoist with their own petard.
This, of course, does not mean that we should welcome such a bit of “poetic justice.” We know now that Ross Perot’s antics were designed, as we suspected from the first, (5) to ruin Patrick Buchanan’s candidacy for nomination in the Republican wing of the Demopublican Party. Buchanan, nevertheless, received 27% of the votes in California as a whole, 30% in Los Angeles County, 52% in one district in the city. That, however, was the end of his campaign.
(5. The alternative was that he intended to throw the election into the House of Representatives and thus ensure the election of the sleazy race-mixer called Clinton. That seemed less probable. In most states, persons who signed petitions to put Perot on the ballot thereby debarred themselves from voting for Buchanan in the Republican primary. It is noteworthy that Perot, having appealed to the voters who were likely to support Buchanan, proceeded to demoralize them by a series of well-timed announcements by which he destroyed, one after another, their hopes that, if elected, he would represent American interests in one or another item of policy, such as the right to own guns and halting the immigration of racial garbage.)
Now the voters are faced with a choice between Lord Bushy and a mongrel on whom respectable niggers will look down, recognizing him as a “piece of poor White trash.” (6) Plain self-respect obliges us to choose to serve Bushy, who, to everyone’s astonishment, has, since Buchanan announced his candidacy, shown an unwonted respect for American interests.
(6. ‘Poor’ refers to quality, not to income. Before the Jews succeeded in mobilizing the niggers as a weapon against us, there was a social structure in all communities that contained a considerable number of Blacks: 1) White people, always recognized as superior; 2) Decent “colored folk,” who took pride in the Aryans who employed them; 3) “White trash,” persons whom respectable Whites regarded as unacceptable and untrustworthy or whose conduct evinced dishonesty or lawlessness; and, barely below them, 4) “no-‘count niggers,” who were shiftless, disinclined to work, and criminally inclined.)
He refused to give the Sheenies in Israel the ten billion dollars they demanded from their American serfs in addition to the $110,000,000 that tax-paying animals give them every week. He thus — bravely, it seems — made indignant the Masters of Deceit, who expect their dogs to perform on command. He went down to Rio de Janeiro to attend an international conference on ecology which the “Third World” was using to shakedown the Aryan boobs in North America and Europe, and he refused to yield to blackmail, even though “scientists,” ambitious for publicity and promotion, were hysterically yelling that we have “only two years to save the planet,” at the expense, of course, of American tax-paying animals. It would be too much to suppose that he had a change of heart, but at the very least we can respect him as a literate man, infinitely superior to the bedraggled Jews’ stooge whom the Demopublicans have presented to us as the only alternative. One could, of course, argue that election of the multiracial scalawag would encourage his masters to hasten the inevitable collapse of the United States, but it is hard to see how that would be an advantage.
* * *
Source: Liberty Bell magazine, August 1992