I have written before about the breakdown of the judicial system in this country. Right after the O.J. Simpson trial last year I pointed out that the courts in America have become terminally corrupt. I gave you an example of this corruption: the 1992 trial of a young White man named George Loeb in a Florida court. That was a case in which Mr. Loeb and his wife had gone to a supermarket to shop and in the parking lot nearly had their car struck by a car driven by a young Black male. Angry words were exchanged. Then the Black male drove away, and the Loebs did their shopping.
When the Loebs returned to their car, the Black male drove back into the parking lot, this time with a Black friend. He got out of his car and approached the Loebs’ car on foot. He had a brick in his hand and was screaming that he intended to smash Mr. Loeb’s head in with the brick. Mr. Loeb snatched a pistol from the glove compartment of his car and shot the Black dead. It was a clear case of self-defense.
A Jewish prosecutor, however, charged Mr. Loeb with murder, and he was put on trial. With the permission of a cooperative judge, the prosecutor read to the jury personal correspondence which had been illegally seized from Mr. Loeb’s home. The correspondence revealed that Mr. Loeb had a strong dislike for Blacks. It revealed that he was a “White racist.” The jury did the Politically Correct thing and found Mr. Loeb guilty of murder. Then the judge did the Politically Correct thing and sentenced him to life in prison.
At the time I told you about the Loeb trial I pointed out that similarly horrifying things happen in our court system all the time, and that the average person never hears about them. I pointed out that the O.J. Simpson trial was unusual only in the amount of publicity it received, but not in its failure to yield a just verdict.
Now let’s talk about another recent trial which illustrates my point. That’s the New York trial of Bernhard Goetz. Perhaps you remember when this case first came to public attention, 12 years ago. Goetz, a 36-year-old electronics engineer, was riding the New York subway when four Black thugs approached him and demanded that he give them money. Goetz responded in a perfectly reasonable way: he pulled out his revolver and shot all four of them. Unfortunately, he didn’t kill them, although he did cripple one of them. The three Blacks who weren’t crippled recovered and continued their lives of crime. And New York being what it is, Goetz was arrested and charged with attempted murder for protecting himself. He was also charged with having a weapon to defend himself. He ended up going to prison for the better part of a year for possessing a gun to defend himself.
And then a couple of Jewish lawyers from the Communist-front National Lawyers Guild, William Kunstler and Ronald Kuby, sued Mr. Goetz on behalf of one of the Blacks who had tried to rob him. The case dragged through the courts, using up all of Mr. Goetz’ savings. Kunstler died during the process, but Kuby persevered. The case finally went to the jury last month: a Bronx, New York, jury of four Blacks and two Puerto Ricans. The jury decided that Mr. Goetz should pay $43 million to the Black who had tried to rob him forty-three million dollars! The Jewish lawyer gloated over the verdict and crowed that it “sends a message to all racists with guns who think young Black lives are worth nothing. They’re worth a lot.” Score another loss for decent folks. Score another win for the Clintonistas. Score another win for the forces of corruption and destruction. Score another win for the Jews.
You know, I don’t want to create the impression that I believe that the destruction of America’s system of justice is entirely the Jews’ doing. They certainly are heavily involved in it. They were heavily involved — decisively involved — in all three cases I’ve cited as examples of what’s happened to our judicial system: the O.J. Simpson trial, the George Loeb trial, and the Bernhard Goetz trial. Jews are heavily involved in the corruption and destruction of every aspect of our civilization. It’s in their nature. But to be frank, our legal system was in serious trouble even before the Jews became involved in it.
Nearly three centuries ago — 270 years ago to be exact — the English writer Jonathan Swift wrote of the lawyers of his day that they are “men . . . bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid.” Swift went on to give a satirical illustration of the way the court system worked in the England of his day. I’ll quote just a few words of what he wrote. It’s from his best-known book, Gulliver’s Travels, and I’m paraphrasing it a bit. Swift explained: My neighbor . . . I will suppose, has a mind to my cow; he hires . . . [a lawyer] to prove that he ought to have my cow from me. I must then hire another of them to defend my right, it being against all rules of law that any man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now in this case, I who am the right owner lie under two great disadvantages. First, my advocate, being as I said before practiced almost from his cradle in defending falsehood, is quite out of his element when he would argue for right, which as an office unnatural he attempts with great awkwardness, if not with an ill will. The second disadvantage is that my advocate must proceed with great caution, for since the maintenance of so many depends on the keeping up of business, should he proceed too summarily, if he does not incur the displeasure of his superiors, he is sure to gain the ill will and hatred of his brethren as being by them esteemed one that would lessen the practice of the law.
This being the case, I have but two methods to preserve my cow. The first is to gain over my adversary’s advocate with a double fee . . . . The second way is for my advocate not to insist on the justice of my cause, by allowing the cow to belong to my adversary; and this if it be dexterously and skillfully done will go a great way toward obtaining a favorable verdict, it having been found from a careful observation of issues and events that the wrong side, under the management of such practitioners, has the fairer chance for success . . . . It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again, and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities to justify the most iniquitous opinions….
In pleading they studiously avoid entering into the merits of the cause, but are loud, violent, and tedious in dwelling on all circumstances which are not to the purpose. For instance, in the case already mentioned they never desire to know what claim my adversary hath to my cow, but whether the said cow were red or black, her horns long or short, whether the field I graze her in be round or square, whether she were milked at home or abroad, what diseases she is subject to, and the like. After which, they consult precedents, adjourn the cause from time to time, and in ten, twenty, or thirty years come to an issue.
Now Swift, as I mentioned, was a satirist, but there was much truth in what he wrote about the lawyers and the judicial system of three hundred years ago. It is striking how little that system has changed between Swift’s day and ours. Four hundred years ago, at a time when there were no Jews at all in England, Shakespeare had one of the characters in his play King Henry VI say, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” And that expression of popular sentiment was already widespread in Shakespeare’s day — and not without reason.
The basic problem is that our legal profession never has been a profession devoted to justice, but rather to arguing, as Swift noted, that white is black or black is white, according as its practitioners are paid. The principal aim of the profession is the enrichment of lawyers, and the court system functions accordingly. And the lawyers who become judges and rule over this system tend not to be the most just, but rather the slickest, slyest, and most ambitious men of their profession.
It was a bad system to start with, and that’s our fault. It’s something we really must straighten out by ourselves one of these days. But it has been made much, much worse by the Jewish influx into the system during this century. It has gotten to the point now where Blacks can literally get away with murder, if they have the money to hire a clever lawyer and if they can get a preponderance of Blacks on the jury. And Whites can expect to be crucified by the system, in any case where race is an issue, if they either cannot afford to pay a sufficiently clever and aggressive lawyer, or if they are unfortunate enough to have a preponderance of non-Whites on their jury. Poor Bernhard Goetz suffered both from an incompetent lawyer — Jewish lawyer, incidentally, just like his adversary’s lawyer — and from a non-White jury. The fellow’s life has been ruined because he dared to resist a gang of Black muggers.
Now, all of this does not mean that it is impossible for a White person to get justice in our courts. If one is lucky, one will not have the unfortunate circumstances that George Loeb and Bernhard Goetz had. And of course, it helps a great deal to be rich. Those who are very wealthy can still hope to buy justice in the courts — if they don’t live in a place like New York or Los Angeles, of course. There are still a few honorable and competent lawyers in the profession. I know some of them personally. There may even be an honest judge or two left in the system, who still put the law above Political Correctness.
Nevertheless, those of us who have only modest means must look at an encounter with the legal justice system in America about like a game of Russian roulette, especially where there is any racial issue. We’ve seen over and over again, and not just in the O.J. Simpson trial, the reluctance of Black juries to convict Black criminals for offenses against Whites. And we’ve seen the same sort of racially motivated verdicts when Whites are tried by non-White juries. The fact is that non-White jurors usually have a strong sense of racial consciousness. They vote in accordance with their racial feelings instead of in accordance with the law and the evidence.
And White jurors, unfortunately, lack this sense of racial consciousness. They are far more likely to vote in a Politically Correct manner, as they did in the George Loeb case, or to let themselves be intimidated into going along with the Blacks, as was the case with the two White women on the O.J. Simpson jury. White Americans have been so brainwashed and browbeaten by the controlled media that they are afraid to express even the tiniest bit of racial feeling. There is nothing they fear more than being thought to be “racist.” Some of them have even let their natural racial feelings become inverted: their racial consciousness has become racial self-hatred. They automatically favor the non-White side in any racial issue.
So a judicial system which was bad enough back in the days when America was still a White country has become much, much worse in the racially polarized country we have today. Can you imagine what it will be like in another 50 years, when Whites will be a minority in America? Imagine that you’ve been obliged to shoot a Black or Mexican burglar in your home or to defend your wife against a gang of non-White attackers. Imagine a Jewish prosecutor then forcing you to stand trial before a jury which has a non-White majority. A frightening prospect, isn’t it, regardless of whether or not the prosecutor will introduce any evidence that your opinions on racial matters are not Politically Correct?
One would think that the legal profession itself would have tried to keep matters from becoming as bad as they have, if only from self-interest. They understand as well as anyone that when the public loses its last traces of confidence in the system of justice, the lawyers will be in trouble. But instead of trying to keep the system working, they have let it be corrupted even further by Jewish pressure groups pushing for what they call “hate crime” legislation. We’ve all heard this yammering in the media about the need for new laws to stop “hate crimes.” The Jewish groups doing the pushing — groups such as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center — are referred to respectfully by the media as “human rights organizations,” but that’s a terrible misnomer. These organizations are working to take away our rights. They want to make it illegal to say anything they don’t like. Anything they don’t like they call “hate speech.” In the past they used to apply behind-the-scenes pressure in order to stifle any views they didn’t like. They would approach publishers and demand that any book they deemed hostile to their own interests be withdrawn from publication. They wrote to librarians and demanded that books they didn’t like be taken off the shelves. They contacted the owners of bookstores with the same demand.
In fact, they’re still engaged in this sort of secret censorship. The Southern Poverty Law Center and other Jewish organizations right now are putting pressure on bookstore chains in an effort to keep one of my books, The Turner Diaries, out of circulation. They like to wave it around on television and quote from it and tell everyone what a dangerous book it is, what a racist book it is, but they don’t want you to be able to read it for yourself.
Fortunately, most bookstore owners are becoming resistant to this sort of un-American censorship effort. So these Jewish groups are lobbying the lawyers and the politicians. They want the legislators in Congress to help them abolish the First Amendment. And they’ve also been lobbying for more laws against what they call “hate crime.” To them George Loeb was a “hate criminal” because he defended himself and his wife against a Black attacker threatening them with a brick. And Bernhard Goetz is a “hate criminal” because he defended himself against four Black muggers on the subway. White people who defend themselves against Blacks are “hate criminals.”
Now, they won’t come right out and state it that plainly, of course. But that’s what they mean when they talk about “hate crime.” They want Whites to be afraid to defend themselves. They want White people to be demoralized and intimidated. They want every White person to feel guilty for even thinking about defending himself or his family or his property from the growing flood of non-Whites all around him. That’s what the Jewish lawyer who first bankrupted Bernhard Goetz with litigation and then got a $43 million judgment against him meant when he gloatingly announced that the verdict of the non-White jury “sends a message to all racists with guns.” “You can’t defend yourselves from us,” Kuby was smirking. In effect, he was saying, “If you don’t let us do whatever we want, you’re a hate criminal, and we’ll use the justice system to destroy you.”
And in fact, that’s what’s happening. The court system in America has become so corrupt that it is being used by the enemies of our people to take away our most fundamental rights. And those who have corrupted the system are working day and night to institutionalize the corruption. They are working with the politicians to ensure that the shocking miscarriages of justice they obtained in the Loeb trial in Florida and the Goetz trial in New York become the rule everywhere. And the White lawyers and judges are putting up very little resistance. They don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want to endanger their own positions in the system. They know that anything they say against what is happening will be condemned by the controlled media and by many of their own colleagues as À “hate speech.” So they’re permitting the Jews to corrupt the system and in many cases are even helping them.
What can we do about this frightening and depressing situation, besides trying our best to avoid any encounter with courts or lawyers? Shall we promise ourselves that if we ever have to shoot a burglar we’ll just get rid of the body and not call the police? Shall we promise ourselves that if we ever have to defend ourselves against a non-White mugger we’ll leave no witnesses alive to testify against us?
No, that’s really not practical in many cases. The first thing that we can do is stop being frightened and depressed and instead become angry. Our enemies want us to be frightened and depressed. That’s what they intend when they gloat and announce that they’re sending a message to all racists with guns. So instead of being intimidated by this Jewish arrogance, we must become enraged. We must become boiling mad. We must let our anger reinforce our determination to put a final and total end to their corrupt system, no matter what it takes.
And the second thing that we must do is speak up. Don’t remain silent in the face of this Jewish assault on our freedom and on our civilization. When a mostly Black jury frees a Black murderer, as in the O.J. Simpson trial, express your outrage! Don’t be afraid of being called a “racist.” When a White man is punished for defending himself against Black criminals, speak up! Tell people what you think.
That’s what we’re doing with this web page. We’re telling people what we think about the destruction of our justice system. And we’re finding that more and more people agree with us. You speak up too! Don’t be afraid!