Law vs. Morality: Revenge IS Justice!

“The strength of Sin is the Law.”

– 1 Corinthians 15:56 –

It was recently reported in the enemedia that there’s a growing Canadian (and worldwide) “backlash” against the criminals known as “muslims” for their gang’s crimes. The enemedia decries this “backlash” as uncivilized, “thuggish” behaviour.

And yet, I’d like to assert that it’s not “thuggish” to want to inflict some Justice on criminals (these “muslims”) for their ongoing crimes!

We’re tired of waiting for “our leaders” and their police gangs to protect us, as they’ve clearly abdicated their oaths of office by refusing to do so!

In fact, it’s clear that ALL politicians owe the world an explanation for why they continually insist that:

“Islam must be a valid religion because it’s god prescribes wanton random murder as the only sure way into it’s heaven! Whee!”

;-(

We’ve been told not to “hate” criminals for their crimes, as if hate were a crime!

But this “Hate” which our betters decry is, for instance, only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing injustices (like islam for instance)! Without hate, no one would be motivated to accuse these criminals of their crimes, and by doing so, hope to end them!

So I’d like to posit, in counter to their nonsense, that in reality, Revenge IS Justice!

(The only caveat being, of course, that trying to get and inflict subjective ‘revenge’ from and on someone for merely thwarting one’s own crimes, is only a perpetuation of one’s crimes, not any form of real, objective justice)!

Fred Bastiat noted something like “We all have the natural right to self defense; bad laws are those which try to deprive us of that right.”

That no-defense nonsense is indeed the current liberal myth – that you are somehow limited to the criminal’s own time-table and plans.

Liberals assert that we have a duty to Submit to other extortion – islam, for instance.

And yet it should never be allowed by such backwards people to be considered “illegal” to accuse these criminals (moslems) of their crimes, allegedly because the painful truth might offend them or hurt their feelings, & so “make” them commit even more crimes!

No problem was ever solved by ignoring it, & nobody is doing even these moslems any favours, by indulging their historic lies that islam is a “religion” (at all, much less one “of peace”) or a “race” (much less one of poor oppressed People Of Colour”)!

ALL moslems are criminals: by their own rules, they must endorse in public every word in the Qur’an, which tells them that they are so “superior” to all non-moslems, that it’s not only their right, but also their holy duty to their god, to extort, enslave, and murder all the non-moslems in the world, simply for the “crime” of not being moslems. So the Qur’an is a clearly-written, us-versus-them hate-crime book, endorsing a permanent might-makes-right death-threat.

ALL muslims are criminals, as being members of the ancient, ongoing global extortion racket called islam. In sharia law texts, muslims are SUPPOSED to be regarded as threats (as “objects of fear”) by all the unbelievers, whether or not the individual muslim has itself actually committed any crimes. That’s why we have laws against simply being a MEMBER of a crime-gang or ‘criminal enterprise’ because the threat is inherent.

ALL muslims are criminals, members of an extortion gang. We have laws against membership in a crime gang, even if one doesn’t specifically engage in any crimes beyond one’s own membership therein endorsing the general threat. Threats are crimes in themselves: they are psychological attacks, also known as intimidation, bullying, coercion, duress, harrassment, activist agitation, extortion, and “terrorism.” And even any “only” attempted crimes are still considered by civilized people to be crimes.

What sort of insane “law” pretends one has to accede to the criminals’ timetables and plans?! “If the criminal stops attacking (for whatever reason, known only to them) then you have to immediately stop defending yourself, too!”

Say a criminal attacks you, but runs out of bullets before managing to finish you off. They then run away, intending to re-load and then return to finish the job.

Obviously, you don’t know why they stopped, nor what they’ll do next (but the balance of probabilities says that, since they’ve already chosen to attack you first, there’s no reason to imagine they suddently became enlightened saints) so why shouldn’t you follow them to make sure?!

They retain all their free-will rights to commit further crimes, while you are limited to their whims and timetables, like some robotic imbecile – the “law” pretends you are limited to immediate defense only, and aren’t allowed to counter-attack at all!

And yet all crimes are routinely counter-attacked well after the facts, sometimes even years later, in the courts of law: by the time when any criminal gets to trial, they aren’t immediately endangering anyone, their crimes are in the past!

“So why punish them at all?” (as liberals might argue!)?

Because they must pay for their past crimes!

Both the falsely-divided “criminal” and “civil” law branches are based on the same idea: You pay for what you take!

This is both how and why revenge IS justice!

All liberal “laws” (What Mark Levin describes as “positivist” laws) are, in fact, crimes.

The only principle any one ever need agree to, is of course the Golden Rule of Law which defines all situational morality as “Do Not Attack First.”

From this agreement, we gain trust, progress, and civilization; this “social contract” means our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (therefore innocent) others first. Period.

The rest are all symptoms, and all sub-sequent valid legislation depends on that Rule: Every law is an if/then warning which says, in effect: If and when you choose to attack first in this, that, or those ways, then this, that, and these punishments will apply to you.

Bad laws are crimes because they attack first. At “best” they are only ‘ethical’ lists of rules and excuses amerliorating bad, attack-first criminal premises.

A “Judge’s” only job is to determine rational cause-and-effect (who started it) and all irrational criminal excuses or alibis are based on the opposite, victim-blaming slanderous pretense.

It should therefore be easy for any judge to see if a law is bad (an attempt to deprive citizens of due process, by disregarding any need for evidence by slanderously insisting on asserting that they are Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent, and so must impossibly prove a negative in order to defend them selves).

Bad laws are slanderously “pre-emptive” first attacks, like all gun control laws:

“Since you DO own a gun, therefore you WILL use it to commit some crimes, SO we must now stop you by ‘defensively’ attacking you first – for your own good, of course!” There’s no if/then; they are threats, not valid warnings. Pretty much every “law” any liberal ever passes, is some form of extortion like this.

Guns exist. They will never again not-exist. More laws do not equal order. In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT – or will not – govern themselves.

Other bad laws depend not on what your free-will choice of what you might DO might eventually be, but on their subjective yet objectifying definition of what you ARE: in islam’s prejudicially slanderous us-versus-them and might makes right sharia code, all weaker groups – foreign infidels, women, children, slaves – are openly and officially pre-discriminated against, encoded right into their system of criminal laws.

Bad (“defensively pre-emptive”) laws are crimes because they attack first.

Unfortunately, there’s only so many symptoms of “Do Not Attack First!” one can address with “laws” of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right,(but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that the legislators are actually doing something responsible to earn their pay and to continue to enjoy the right to govern others – a point which, after whence reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: