RSS
Lawfare — using the legal system against political opponents — is now a common leftist tactic. It’s effective. Just last month, VDARE.com announced it is effectively shutting down operations after 25 years. Perhaps more than any other site, VDARE has spotlighted how America’s immigration policy leads to demographic disaster. Its shuttering would be a huge loss, especially in light of the border crisis that threatens to sweep away what remains of traditional America.
It is not just VDARE facing lawfare by George Soros-backed prosecutors such as New York Attorney General Leticia James. The National Rifle Foundation (NRA) and — most famously — Donald Trump are in their crosshairs. Unlike VDARE, Mr. Trump and the NRA have the resources and influence to at least fight back. VDARE was not even charged with anything, but has had to spend nearly $1 million as Miss James “investigates” real estate agreements regarding a property in West Virginia. VDARE has only two full-time employees and an annual budget of $800,000.
If this campaign is successful, all dissidents could face similar attacks. The Left will not stop with VDARE.
What was done to VDARE was horrific and unjust, and it should serve as a warning to other conservative non-profits.
There was no scandal and no criminal activity but the Left still was able to weaponize lawfare to grind them down.
This was just a test run, get ready to see a… pic.twitter.com/CmvUrRA8SL
— Lauren Witzke (@LaurenWitzkeDE) April 7, 2024
Peter Brimelow and @vdare are targeted by the same NY prosecutor who is persecuting Trump. This is the takedown of our Western Civilization. We need to stand up for Vdare’s freedom of speech. https://t.co/qXRExlUNr5
— Steve King (@SteveKingIA) April 17, 2024
The judiciary was historically the most admired and respected branch of the US government and all Americans are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. What happened?
The legal clash
Wilmot Robertson noted the decline of the US judiciary over 50 years ago. His classic work The Dispossessed Majority (1972) has a section called “The Legal Clash” that explores how whites lost control of a system they had built.
Robertson believed that law first developed from tribal customs. Knowing their people’s fear of the supernatural, tribal chiefs claimed divine guidance for laws they laid down. As societies grew complex, laws regulated more and more behavior, and a diversity of people means a diversity of customs and attitudes. Robertson wrote:
The more minority influence has been brought to bear on the American legal system, the more breakdown is becoming apparent. The English common law, which derived from Northern European folk law, functioned adequately, at the times superbly, in the United States as long as the nation was dominated by people of English and Northern European descent. But when minorities became an important element in both the law-making and law-breaking process, American law underwent a deep transformation. . . . [T]he law is not an abstract set of principles equally applicable to all men, but an organic part of a people’s culture, with a style and form unique to its culture.
What made Anglo-American law unique? Robertson cites the notion of personal rather than collective guilt, something rarely found among non-whites. As the legal system became more diverse, the individual became part of a group, and by the 1960s, jury trials involving blacks had become a farce. Robertson lists many cases of black jurors refusing to convict obviously guilty blacks who had victimized whites. This has only gotten worse over the years and the not-guilty verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder case is a prominent example. The writers of the Constitution would abhor double jeopardy, jury nullification, and lawfare, yet these are now aspects of the US justice system.
Why didn’t the Constitution protect us from these things?
Robertson notes the Framers treated non-whites with “studied indifference.” Black slaves were “other persons” for apportionment, and American Indians were not counted at all. It took a civil war and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to grant citizenship and other rights to blacks, which shows that the authors of the Constitution meant it to apply only to whites. Even after these amendments, cases such as Civil Rights (1883) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) granted freedom of association to whites and sanctioned exclusion of blacks.
The judiciary started to diversify throughout the 20th century, with non-whites, non-Christians, and women appointed to the bench. Starting in the 1950s, the Warren Court and later the Burger Court issued a series of defeats for whites as the judiciary moved sharply left. Whites lost all the major civil rights cases of the 1950s and 60s and any hope for a more conservative Supreme Court was dashed as justices (many appointed by Republicans) defended racial preferences in cases throughout the 1970s. There is now only one white Protestant justice (Neil Gorsuch, raised Catholic), meaning any organic link to the framers has been all but severed. Robertson wrote:
Wallowing in the deceptive glow of the liberal-minority Weltanschauung, the Warren court attempted to transform the organic law of Majority America into a code of moral and racial imperatives as inapplicable to the crucial issues of the day as they were unenforceable. The Burger and Rehnquist courts never made any meaningful counter-decisions to reverse the trend. By its ill-timed and ill-conceived reinterpretation of the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court has in effect usurped the legislative function of Congress — a gross abuse of the judicial power as defined by the Constitution.
Many conservatives like to point to the antics of Justices Ketanji Brown and Sonia Sotomayor as evidence of decline, but Robertson lists case after case of much earlier unethical and even illegal behavior by justices. Here are just a few:
- When he heard about President Kennedy’s assassination, Earl Warren sent out a press release insinuating (wrongly) that the killer was a right-wing racist.
- Felix Frankfurter and Stanley Reed appeared as character witnesses for Alger Hiss in his 1949 federal trial for perjury.
- William Douglas received a $12,000 annual payment from the Albert Parvin Foundation while on the Court. The money came from a Las Vegas casino and Douglas refused to resign until it became known that Parvin engaged in many sordid financial dealings with Louis Wolfson, who was under investigation for stock fraud.
- Abe Fortas was forced to resign in 1969 after it was discovered he was getting $20,000 a year from the same Louis Wolfson.
- The Court reversed Muhammed Ali’s conviction for draft dodging on a technicality, because it feared black riots.
Robertson writes that the judiciary is most responsible for white dispossession because it was easier to corrupt nine justices than to out-vote or out-legislate a 90-percent-white electorate. This is a view that prominent Dissident Right voices now accept:
A much smarter brand of elites started the slow march of destruction through our criminal justice system using race as a wedge
Now their much dumber successors can't stop bragging about the subversion https://t.co/tMtjtUfmmJ
— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) April 15, 2024
The law is just a weapon. What matters is the balance of political forces, the racial demographics (basically same thing), and the willpower of those on your side. It shouldn’t be this way and maybe at one time it wasn’t. But it is now. There’s no legitimacy to it as such.
— James Kirkpatrick (@VDAREJamesK) April 15, 2024
In his concluding chapter on the decline of US justice, Robertson cited statistics and horrifying examples of whites killed by black criminals and noted that blacks often do not think they are criminals, but soldiers in a race war. Three of the four main prosecutors targeting Donald Trump with lawfare are black — a fact that makes blacks proud:
Joy Reid: "For me, there is something wonderfully poetic about the fact that the first person to criminally prosecute Donald Trump is a black Harvard grad. And a black woman is doing the same exact thing in Georgia. And a black woman forced you to pay a $175 million dollar fine.… pic.twitter.com/Yo0S6lvZ7V
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) April 16, 2024
Lawfare is a symptom of the decline of US law and the dispossession of whites. A justice system developed by and for white people does not work for an increasingly non-white nation. How could people with no history of individual rights have any reverence for the Constitution or “the white man’s justice”? Scott Greer recently wrote:
Colorblind individualism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s the result of the unique culture brought here by a particular people. Random individuals didn’t invent fair play, meritocracy, and equality before the law from nothing. It came from the Anglo-Protestant tradition that Europeans assimilated into in America. It’s no wonder whites are the only ones who believe in it.
Solutions?
Robertson offered a solution. He approved of impeaching judges, but thought it would not solve the problem. He called instead for separate legal systems for whites and minorities. Romans had different laws for citizens (jus civile) and non-Romans (jus gentium). In the Middle Ages, England had special laws for foreign merchants. Even the US acknowledges the Napoleonic Code as the state law of Louisiana. Robertson writes:
An ethnic departmentalization of American law would return to the minorities the laws they have lived by for thousands of years, while removing minority members from the jurisdiction of laws they have never learned to live by. . . . Majority law would be a mix of Anglo-Saxon common law and American constitutional law restored to a climate of reason, respect and responsibility and ready to focus once again on what should be its primary purpose — guarding and expanding the Majority’s freedom of action.
Robertson was writing in 1972. Whites are now a fading majority (57 percent, according to the 2020 Census). Does this make separate justice more or less likely?
Many on the Dissident Right criticize Donald Trump. As president, he wasted many opportunities and talked a better game than he played, but a second term may be our best chance for at least slowing lawfare against dissidents, especially white advocates. As one of the main victims of lawfare, Mr. Trump certainly knows how it can be abused. A legal system created by whites is now being used against us by non-whites and leftists. Wilmot Robertson saw this coming half a century years ago.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thanks, Mr. Bradley for this straightforward account of a key aspect of our dispossession.
It’s all so obvious. It was all done right out in the open. Born in 1942, I watched it happen step by step, unbelieving, despairing.
The situation is hopeless now. Heroic types on UR revolt against this fact. “We can reverse this!” “We can reassert our rights!” “We can restore our civilization!” I just don’t see it.
Other commenters, the more relalistic ones, advise fleeing the country or preparing a personal fortress for fighting and surviving the coming race war when the U.S. collapses into total chaos.
Your article is focussed on one aspect of our dispossession, the corruption of our judiciary. There are other aspects.
Let me mention two.
First there are the names. ‘Frankfurter,’ ‘Fortas,’ ‘Breyer,’ ‘Ginsberg,’ ‘Brandeis,’ etc., etc.
The individuals behind these names—along with thousands of others in media, entertainment, banking, education, and other fields—are the the prime agents of our destruction.
Second there are white Americans themselves, brainwashed, leaderless, brainless. Whites let it happen. That is an inescapable fact.
Paul Craig Roberts is right when he decries American ‘insouciance.’ I’ve spoken out against dispossession and replacement since I was a boy. To zero effect. White Americans just don’t care. They are unsavable.
If I were twenty years younger I would flee. Now I just wait. Younger whites can wake from their decades long sleep when their doors are being burst open by the mob. I’ll be elsewhere.
We might also add the rampant practice of civil asset forfeiture to the list of corruptions of our basic freedoms. It is quite an irony that this abuse was actually outlawed in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which was in force in America until 1783. It affirmed, “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void” under common statute law.
Also in that document are some of the other reasons cited for removing James II from power, because under his rule “excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects; And excessive fines have been imposed; And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted…All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm.”
We are long overdue for a “Glorious Revolution” of our own. Let us hope it will be as bloodless as England’s was in 1688.
Indeed, but what the NRA lacks is the innocence necessary to win, and its main lawyer who’s systematically looting because he hates gun owners and his father in law (long story) might exhaust its resources before the end of the case.
Three decades of extreme corruption is catching up with it; that the prosecutor is a Negress and the amazingly fair minded judge a Jew is not so relevant. Except that the former’s objective was to dissolve the organization and hand out whatever money was left over to gun grabbing groups, which the judge nixed.
Perhaps because the injured parties are its members, perhaps because he realizes how serious this all is, how the optics look terrible, and how it might enrage people. Which might also explain why the prosecutor didn’t criminally charge anyone when she should have arrested tens to hundreds of people (the latter number due to its insanely large board of 76 people).
Maybe it’s all as simple as understanding that white racism previously prevented the existence of true justice in society and that that is coming to an end.
It should never be forgotten that Western civilization was the result of a long chain of horrific crimes when hundreds of millions of human beings were murdered to rob or enslave them.
And when some can kill and steal with impunity, all justice is nothing more than convenience. And that is why we cannot speak of a tradition of justice in today’s world.
The perpetrators of these decisions are mostly dead, by now, so, they don’t have to live with consequences of them. How fortunate for them.
It’s kind of amusing to see the descendants of the Lincolnite victors of the Unpleasantness undone by their victory to preserve the Union and make the CONUS safe for extortionate tariffs: their real objectives of the war.
Most Union soldiers had little love for black slaves; if you read their letters home from the front.
Placing the words ‘America’ and ‘Justice’ within the same sentence, or even on the same page, is the most oxymoronic performance anyone could ever imagine within the writing world.
America = No Mercy for the Sheep (Latin)
Justice = Ju (No Law), s (Speak), ti (Title), ce (Judges).
Judges with a Title, Speak No Law.
Judges in America, and indeed the rest of the world, have been constantly ‘taking the mickey’ out of the poor unfortunate public, who have been educated to such a low level of comprehension, they have no chance to see what is forced upon them by the fictitious conveyance of language in EVERY court room, on EVERY single working day..!!
So much for justice. I rest my case..!!
Wakey, wakey, hand off snakey!!
Justice has always been the tool of the powerful.
Whichever special interest group is served by justice is also the power… even if that group decry weakness.
What we see in the war in Ukraine and the massacre of the innocent in Gaza is the powerful in the U.S moving forward their agenda on steroids for fear that they cannot rig the election a second time. The special interest goup even said that their century is coming to an end.
So why is Trump such a danger to these people even though he makes the right noises and dips his hat to them? Trump is a danger because he cannot be blackmailed, they have tried it by releasing his dalliances and audio tapes…but with no discernable results.
The artificial closing of the gap between Trump and Biden in the latest election polling recently suggests the special interest group is going for another rigged result…will people swallow it again?
Trump will be in such a powerful position over these evildoers when elected…if he has a morality and wants his name up there with JFK and others then he could clean up the swamp proper this time and hand the criminals over for trial at the Hague and other courts…its up to him.
Or will Trump be another failure…will he betray his country, his people again? We wait and see.
How does this get around the Sixth Amendment? It is the very opposite of a speedy trial.
There is no trial.
With the complicity of corrupt judge who has to approve them, Leticia James is bankrupting VDARE with onerous subpoenas. And the latest demanded True Names of VDARE associated people which VDARE successfully objected to, but the judge nonetheless is fining them every day while they spend low six figures redacting those names. “The process is the punishment.”
That’s the point. Don’t they have a right to one? Or do “criminal defendants” have rights that everyone else doesn’t? That’s upside-down.
Which violates the Sixth and the Eighth Amendments!
It’s also an attempt to expose the donors. That the ACLU isn’t all over this shows that organization’s compromised standards, but where are the “right-wing” counterparts?
Evidently questioning immigration policy is more threatening than publishing DIY plans for thermonuclear weapons:
The H-Bomb Case Revisited
The Holocaust Bomb: a Question of Time, by Howard Morland [who wrote the original piece]
I read Wilmott Robertson’s book “The Dispossessed Majotity” in the early 1970’s. Much of what he predicted in it is coming to pass.
I’ve realized that for decades…
In today’s America, and in many other parts of the world, the process is the punishment. Selective prosecution is a major problem in this country. BLM and Antifa types who have committed crimes are ignored while innocents who defend themselves (but are of the wrong political persuasion) are charged with crimes.
Being charged with a crime, the indictment, the arraignment and trial are all a part of the punishment. Even if the case is dismissed, the damage, the difficult days, the threat of fines, incarceration and legal bills, and the uncertainty of what comes next are all punishments.
Observe those who were arrested after the January 6, 2020 demonstrations—those who were purposely let in to the capitol by FBI types and then arrested, days, weeks, and months after the event.
Those who are presently incarcerated in the D. C. gulag for the January 6, demonstrations are “special cases”–”political prisoners” who have been identified by their political enemies and prison staff and have been selected for “special treatment”.
Even if their cases are dismissed, the damage has already been done. The time served, the harassment and brutality can never be “taken back”.
This also extends to the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is clearly observed on video defending his own life against rioters, who was “put through the legal wringer”–once again, the process being the punishment. Thankfully, he was acquitted by a competently-run legal system (in his case).
The St. Louis couple who were charged with “brandishing weapons” against the BLM and Antifa criminals who broke down a barrier and were trespassing on private property is but another example of selective prosecution. They were indicted on “weapons charges” for merely defending themselves.
My third and final example of this is the “Satilla Three” who are languishing in prison for defending their lives and neighborhood against Ahmad Arbery, a career criminal who was “casing” construction sites for materials and tools that he could steal. In this case, the “powers that be” went “prosecutor shopping” when the initial prosecutor refused to indict. It took “four tries” before they found a prosecutor who would indict.
It turns out that Arbery was not being “chased”, but had “doubled back” and threatened the man with the shotgun, pulling on it causing it to fire. You see, Arbery had felt “disrespected”, and in his feral, simian way had to confront the man who had “disrespected” him. Arbery could have run off in any direction, but chose to confront the man with the shotgun. This was a clear case of self-defense, having been video taped as well. The trial was a fiasco, with a weak, incompetent judge, civil-rights hustlers and Arbery family members in the courtroom threatening riots if the “correct” verdict was not rendered. Requests for a change of venue and a sequestered jury were denied. Evidence showing Arbery’s previous criminal activity in the Satilla Shores neighborhood was also suppressed. It would seem that, with all of the legal and procedural misconduct, these three men should have good grounds for a successful appeal.
Once again, the process is the punishment…something democRATs have been using to their advantage.