by Eric Thomson

I first heard this Roman mantra as a pupil in elementary school. It was one of the Roman artifacts which the founders of the United States had expropriated, along with the Roman eagle, seen on the back of the quarter; the fasces, which appeared on the back of the Mercury head dime, and still appears in government buildings of the pre-World War II era; the republican form of government, and the Roman salute which U.S. school children used to perform when pledging allegiance to the flag. None of these institutions and symbols saved Rome. Rome perished for lack of Romans.

It should be obvious to the least 'educated' person that "a government of laws, not of men" is pure codswallop, with no bearing nor basis on reality. Apparently, enough Romans believed this nonsense to acquiesce in the invasion and conquest of Rome by non-Romans who arrived as slaves, immigrants and conquered peoples who were incorporated into the Roman Empire. As Rome decayed genetically and morally, it was decided to make such aliens "Roman citizens". After that folly, Rome's decline became a fall, and Rome passed into history.

I once asked an Anglo-mestizo agent of "The Immigration and Naturalization Service" what he thought he was doing. Well, he opined, he was "making new Americans" and he was attempting to keep out and/or deport illegal aliens. Knowing as I do that nations are biological, not geographical entities, I asked him what sort of mumbo-jumbo could make an alien into someone of another "nation". He was bemused. I said that one could "naturalize" sand as sugar, tar as chocolate and talcum powder as flour in a recipe for chocolate cake, but what you got out of it would be anything but chocolate cake! Well, he opined, anyone who swore to abide by "American" law and was duly naturalized was a bona fide U.S. citizen. Yes, I agreed, but he brings his nationality and his culture along with him. "Ah yes," he grinned vapidly, "and that's what makes 'America' (sic) great." "And that's the very same policy which completed the downfall of Rome," I added.

Let's compare this bogus 'nation' of laws to a real nation of people; Japan, for instance. Japan has the fewest lawyers of any country. How could this be? It has to do with real, biological nationhood. The Japanese are a sub-race and therefore have a national character and a national identity. Japan is not their business address as is the U.S.A. for natives and immigrants alike. Japan is their ancestral, mystical, biological homeland. It molds and supports Japanese character and Japanese society: blood and soil, remember? This does not mean that Aryans should 'aspire' to become Japanese, any more than we should aspire to become zebras, but we may learn important things when we compare the real Japanese nation to the phoney U.S. 'nation' cum Roman Empire.

Because Japanese have their national character, they agree upon most things, although they may differ on the means of attaining them. Even their corruption is understandable in Japanese terms. If a Jap crook gets caught stealing, there is no quibbling about the definition of the word "theft". Everyone, including the thief, agrees upon the matter, as well as upon the punishment. No lawyer need apply. This is a far cry from the Jew-Ess-Eh, which is fast becoming a 'nation' of lawyers and litigants who cannot even agree upon the definition of the word "is". Should we be surprised at any of this?

The absurdity of the myth that any document can supplant the rule of men has long been public knowledge, although it is ignored. Consider what happened when the jew-book was made available to anyone who could read: religious wrangling and 'holy wars' became the order of the day. Jesus ben Yahweh's 'word' did not produce unity, but fission and schism, wars and conflict, because, dear reader, the meaning lies not in the word itself, but in the reader thereof. This explains why everyone wants something 'good', but few can agree what it is.

Politics is people-power, not words on paper. It is not laws which make the men, but men who use and interpret the laws. A government of laws, not of men, is like an army of uniforms, not of men.


25 January 1999