Death penalty

The same goes for death penalty and for Charles De Gaulle : we are fiercely in favor or fiercely opposed to them. And it is quite obvious that within the national camp, we are rather in favor of death penalty and totally against De Gaulle !

However, as I tried hard to distinguish three differents De Gaulle, and demonstrate that the more respectable one – the one from the middle of the 60’s – was the least popular one, I want, this time to try hard to demonstrate to our subtle readers that there can be a progressive way to be in favor of death penalty and a reactionary way to be opposed to it.

Here i go !

Symbol of the left-wing or left-wing boiled down to symbols ?

Firstly, to fix Robert Badinter’s wagon. Let us ask this crucial question : what has the abolition of death penalty changed in the life of the people in France ?

Appart from the lives of two hardened criminals and three psychopaths who went from dead for good to be walled up alive, it has changed nothing.

For the remaining sixty millions, this abolition has had less concrete impact than the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, the smoke-free law or the supression of the road tax disk !

The socialites and the left-wing idiots will be, of course, offended that one dares to take such a strong symbol for a “detail”, a posture that most of all allow them to not be irritated to see, behing this symbol of the left-wing, a left-wing boiled down to symbols ! A fig leaf for business lawyers lacking spiritual complements (Robert Badinter) which moreover does not always obey to the logic of social progress...

Traditional death penalty and the sacredness of life...

The traditional death penalty which was paradoxically justified by the sacredness of life, the “thou shalt not kill” from the Decalogue, was like incest, an intransgressible taboo. A universal barrier that brought murderers to their radical exclusions from human community, following a public ceremonial whose emphasis (“place de grève”, executioner, guillotine...) was not without respect, comparing to the actual immurement or the disgraceful injection used today in the USA...

A death penalty that was threatening in fact so little people that it should have been the last emergency measure (after the return to full-employments,health, education, accomodations, child care facilities...) in an authentic left-wing government.

It was the first under Mitterand.

This classic death penalty was met, at that time, with religious abolitionism, which was asking the question of whether a human community has the right to take the place of God by taking life, reversing the “ thou shalt not kill” against themselves in a right-wing abolitionism also logically opposed to abortion.

End of sacred, human rights and liberalism

At the hands of those two traditional positions, the progressive abolitionism was advocating its humanist logic of credit that must enjoy every human being, always amendable and primarly victims of their environment. An abolitionism that we will describe as Masonic or Marxist, and which since then has deteriorated into this laxity of little white man’s guilt, advocated by the very leftist “syndicat de la magistrature”...

A “left-wing” abolitionism which is not to be quite confused with liberal abolitionism for which, except profit, nothing is sacred, neither life or death, and that allow the “bohemian bourgeois” to find criminal to take the life of a vile assassin, but normal to take the life of an innocent future baby. To be at the same time, without any ethical problems at all, in favor of death penalty and against abortion !

A deceitful abolitionism, that is typical of the bourgeois mentality who likes to sow the wind but not to reap the whirlwind. Which also allow them nowadays, for instance, to be in favor of immigration but against Islam, knowing that one is the reason of propagation of the other !

A liberal desecration which has seen, under cover of abolitionism, the punishments for homicide going from an average of sixteen years to twenty-three years for the prisonners ; Or, an objective worsening of their conditions.

A liberal abolitionism used today as left-wing pretence (human rights red herrings, charities...) to hide under the lyrico-symbolic grandiloquence the renunciation of concrete progressivism, the renunciation of a social left-wing that was not meant to save the heads of a handful of bastards, but was meant to make the life of the little people better.

From the left-wing pretence to Eugenics

Left-wing pretence that the neo-conservative American oligarchy has finally spared itself since the 90’s – being our model and our future (let us not forget that the neo-cons come from the Maoist and Trotskyist left-wing) – by slowly reintroducing capital punishment in a form totally desacrated and dispassionate of Eugenics.

A pure and simple elimination of losers that does not anymore only concern few monsters, for whom the guillotine (here until Robert Badinter) was the statue of the commendatore, but mainly concerns lost young black men by hundreds, eliminated from the “libertarian-liberal” big game.

An extension of the liberal logic that trivialize death, the one of the victims here and the one of the criminals elsewhere, in a process of global desecration of life. A desacration of life as well of death which also explains the vogue for cremation – going from 1 to 20% in 20 years – and whose goal is eventually to give the urban cemetery space to real estate speculation.

Voila !

-Text partly taken from “Abécédaire de la bêtise ambiante” and published for the first time in April 2002.

Alain Soral

Translation : Romain Redouin.