UPON BEING CONVICTED OF "INCITEMENT TO RACIAL HATRED"
By Carlos W. Porter
I just got five months for "incitement to racial hatred". (No details,
please; I'm saving them for
the New York Times.)
Actually, I'm in favour of "hate" laws; I think we need them; I think they are essential. The only problem is, the penalties are nowhere near severe enough!
Is a real criminal impressed by a few months in a reasonably comfortable jail? Of course not. The attitude of a real criminal is, "I've robbed three banks and they're charging me with car theft? What a joke." That's my attitude.
It therefore follows that if we are serious about stamping out "hatred", all forms of "hatred" must be punishable, not by imprisonment, but by more or less instant death by hanging, exactly as at Nuremberg. But I think the procedures and criteria employed should be the same as under the obscenity laws.
For example, back in the good old days (i.e., when we were prosecuting Jews for violating the obscenity laws instead of engineers, chemists, and historians for writing obscure scientific papers about ferric-ferro-cyanide compounds in brickwork at Auschwitz), Federal, state, and local statutes were often extremely explicit and detailed as to exactly what was prohibited and what was not. There were long lists describing in great detail what was permissible and what was not. (The strictest statutes, surprisingly, were the state laws of Oregon and the city ordinances of Sacramento.)
Nudity, for example, might be entirely acceptable, but there was to
be "no touching", no "display of the genitals", etc, "in a primarily sexual
context", no "sexual acts", whether "normal or abnormal", involving
or more persons", of "the same or opposite sex", etc. etc. [for example,
from the Oregon statute: "human masturbation, sexual intercourse, or
touching of the genitals, pubic areas or buttocks of the human male
female, or the breasts of the female, whether alone or between members
of the same or opposite sex or between humans and animals in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or gratification."]
All this broke down under endless hair-splitting by the Jews, who always claim to be unable to understand plain, simple language whenever it suits them.
"What is art", what is "normal", what constitutes “redeeming social value", what is "patently offensive to the standards of the community", they asked.
What is the "community?", they asked. Is it California, San Francisco,
or just North
Beach? Does the "community" include children? How can you say that
deviant pornography is "offensive" if it doesn't "offend" deviants?
Lake in the nude would still be Swan Lake, and that's art; so why isn't cunnilingus on a juke box art, too?
Thousands of court cases later, it was finally decided that "obscenity" meant "appeal to prurient interest". So in every obscenity trial, the defence lawyer simply asked the prosecution witnesses whether the material appealed to his/her "prurient interest". The question always went something like this:
"How do you feel about this material personally, do you find it
stimulating?" (Remember, these are prosecution witnesses being asked the question, the people who brought the complaint.) The answer was always,
"No, I think it's disgusting", or, "I think it's boring". Then, since nobody would ever admit that the stuff turned him/her on, it was argued that it didn't appeal to anybody's "prurient interest", and was therefore not obscene!
In one Supreme Court case (U.S. vs. Cohen) [403 U.S. 15 (1971)], it
held that the words "Fuck the Draft" did not appeal to anybody's "prurient interest" and were therefore not obscene; a long series of
other cases then held that expressions such as "mother-fucking racist
cop" did not appeal to anybody's "prurient interest" either, so nothing
was ever obscene, so everything had to be legalized! [see, for example,
Gooding vs. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972); Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U.S. 901 (1972); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 408 U.S. 913 (1972); Brown v. Oklahoma, 408 U.S. 914 1972)].
So I say: do the liberals admit to "hating" anybody because of racist epithets (like "nigger", "kike", "gook", "queer", etc.) or "racist" or "Hoaxoco$t-Denial" literature? Of course not. The liberals always claim they're afraid that somebody ELSE might hate somebody! Golly!
OK. Since nobody ever admits to "hating" anybody because of OUR literature, it follows that OUR literature does not constitute the crime of "incitement to racial hatred", and that we cannot be convicted of "hate crimes".
But, since EVERYBODY admits to hating "Nazis" and "racists" because of literature published by Jews, it follows that, while WE cannot be convicted of the crime of "incitement to racial hatred", the Jews CAN be.
Now. Since "hatred" is to be punishable by instant death, this gives us an excuse to clean up America without being accused of "racism" and "anti-Semitism".
Blacks and Mexicans all hate each other, and both hate us (as they will readily admit), so they're all punishable by death; the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese etc., all hate each other, so it's in the "drinko" with "El Chinko", etc. etc.
Homosexuals, by way of variety (since they like variety so much), will be convicted of "hetero-phobic hysteria" and will be exiled to one of our Pleasure Island FAGULAGS (faggot gulags) in the frozen tundra of the North, where they will be allowed to do what they like to each other, but will be denied police protection and medical care.
When they get done robbing, murdering, and torturing each other, and
infecting each other with all their filthy diseases, that will be the
end of this year's faggot crop (until next year --presumably, in a
society, each year's crop would be somewhat smaller). To keep them "stoned" in accordance with Biblical teachings, we'll air-drop them
poppers and alcohol on Sunday morning -- but no food, unless they can
grow it. Homo, homo, on the range-o, R.I.P.
Presto! An all-white Christian America. No more niggers, no more gooks; no more coons, kikes, queers, and spooks. And all without racism, anti-Semitism, RICO, or even the conspiracy laws (which we can still use, of course) -- just good, old-fashioned, "hate" laws.
The Jews think they can always twist everything just to suit themselves.
Well, we'll just have to twist things right back again. Twisting words
always ends with twisting necks.
CARLOS W. PORTER
[All legal references from: chapter 54, "Defense of an Obscenity Case",
by Richard I. Targow and Paul N. Savoy, in "Criminal Defense
Techniques", The Matthew Bender Co., edited by Sidney Bernstein, 1984
Return to: Sub-index to financial, legal and other satires
Sub-index to financial, legal and other satires
Return to ARTICLES PAGE
Return to CONTENTS PAGE