One of the great flaws of the Anglosphere is litigiousness. Almost everything important is decided in court. This shows the high trust Anglos have in their institutions. Unfortunately, these institutions can be turned into sophisticated tools for white dispossession. The court system has been corrupted and whites need to recognize this.
Whites just got a forceful reminder. Jared Taylor has summarized the fate of Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and William “Roddie” Bryan. They will probably all die in prison. Their sentences and charges were outrageous, and the judge acted shamefully.
These men were charged because Mr. Bryan publicly released a video he thought would clear them. Instead, the reaction was outrage. No charges would have been filed if everyone involved had been white. However, since Arbery was black, the media turned the shooting into a story about a lynching. That’s clearly not what the video shows, but that was the media message. This quickly led to another prosecutor bringing charges. The press encouraged the state to ruin three men’s lives.
Mr. Bryan sealed his fate by making the video public. He, and the lawyer who advised him to do so, had faith in American institutions and in the common sense of Americans. They were wrong.
In 2012, Professor James Duane of the conservative Regent University School of Law gave a lecture called “Don’t Talk to the Police.” More than 17 million people have watched it, not counting mirror copies. His point was that you can never talk your way out of legal trouble. Even if you are honest and completely innocent, you may doom yourself by mistaking a detail or confessing to something you didn’t know was a crime. The best thing to do is not talk at all and call your lawyer.
White Americans emotionally rebel against this. I rebel against this. We admire honesty and expect the truth to prevail. Our supreme law, the Constitution, has become a quasi-sacred text of a civic religion. By implication, the law itself becomes something sacred, beyond politics. Whites respect — even revere — the law and its servants, including police and judges. According to a recent Pew poll, Americans have more confidence in the Supreme Court than in Congress, newspapers, or the public schools.
We live in a society Anglos built. They came from high-trust, individualistic societies of northern Europe. The law and an abstract conception of justice matter to us. Unlike almost every other group, Northern European whites trust courts rather than clan-based patronage systems to settle disputes. We come from societies relatively low in corruption. When the highest court rules, we obey.
However, the Icelandic sagas and the history of Scottish feuds show that the rule of the clan is not foreign to us. Sicilians learned the rule of omertá — silence — because foreign conquerors (Normans, Bourbons, Moors) were often ruling them and institutions were corrupt. In times of chaos, we might revert to these patterns. Much of the rest of the world still practices clan-based justice. In the Middle East, the clan may have more power than the state. Whites don’t want to be like Arabs. They may therefore cling more desperately to their rationalist, legalistic system. Unfortunately, this is naïve pride.
In the United States, the Supreme Court operates like a small legislature. The Framers may have intended for the judiciary to be the weakest branch, but they underestimated Anglos’ willingness to obey courts. Considering the terrible damage the Supreme Court has inflicted on this country, the Framers’ underestimation of the judiciary may have been their biggest mistake.
Critical Race Theory has already penetrated the legal system. Those in power have told non-whites that white racism causes all their problems. That is not just a temptation to non-whites to commit violence against us. The anti-white assumptions of those who rule us, constantly trumpeted by the media, make it hard for us get a fair trial if there is any taint of race in a case. Other groups see the courts for what they are: political bodies that often exercise power on behalf of groups and specific interests. Whites must see this too.
This is a lesson whites should have learned from the O.J. Simpson trial, in which an appeal to black solidarity led a jury to acquit a suspect with overwhelming evidence against him. What happens when whites are betrayed by the courts? Consider the murder of Jill Halliburton Su, a white woman married to an Asian named Nan Yao Su. Jurors agreed that a black man, Dayonte Resiles, killed Mrs. Su after she found him robbing her house. Mr. Resiles tied her up and then stabbed her 25 times, leaving her to die in a bathtub.
Dayonte Resiles achieved some fame by running out of a court hearing, making it past the bailiff, and remaining free for a week. After he was caught, the Miami Sun-Sentinel ran a story called “No escape this time for accused killer of Davie woman.”
However, he may still escape. Mr. Resiles had accomplices who helped him run from the courtroom, and has at least one support page on Facebook (American Renaissance is banned from Facebook). He also had sympathy from jurors. They agreed that he killed her; they were to decide only whether he was guilty of manslaughter or first-degree murder. During the trial, two black jurors in what the Sun-Sentinel called a “diverse jury,” accused the forewoman of not caring enough about Mr. Resiles’s race. The foreperson said this “narrative” about race was impossible to reverse once it set in. Three jurors “refused to sign off on a verdict [first-degree murder] that would send a young Black man to prison for the rest of his life.”
The jury finally agreed on manslaughter, even though the forewoman was convinced that Mr. Resiles was guilty of first-degree murder. She announced the verdict in open court. However, when the judge began to question each juror individually about the verdict — a standard ritual — she could not bring herself to say “yes.” As she later explained:
I looked at the defense table. They were just cheering and patting him on the back, like he graduated high school or made the winning touchdown at a football game. I thought, what have I done? Is this the world I am creating for my children, a world where someone can get away with murder because of the color of their skin?
This woman took a chance. She hoped another jury would convict Mr. Resiles of first-degree murder. But it might not. A lot will depend on the racial makeup of the jury.
During famous cases such as the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, sex and race of juries are very important to the media. But in all cases, prosecution and defense know that whites and blacks think differently. If you know the racial makeup of the jury, you may know the verdict, or at least whom you must convince. During elections, the same thing takes place on a larger scale. Journalists and analysts make projections based on the turnout of various groups because group behavior is predictable.
A jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse. He’s free and a hero to many conservatives, but he is lucky he didn’t kill any blacks. That alone might very well have led to a guilty verdict.
In 2016, Vox encouraged jury nullification to fight “unfair and racist laws.” Elie Mystal did the same in Above the Law. For blacks, jury nullification is a long-standing practice. Even a paper from the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy trying to debunk the supposed myth of black jury nullification admitted, “[I]n a racially divided society only whites have the luxury of claiming to be color blind.” (58) Blacks don’t forget they are black just because they are on juries. In theory, jury nullification should not be allowed, but acquittals can’t be overturned.
Some progressive District Attorneys want to cut back on law enforcement so they won’t arrest so many blacks. Robert Hampton noted in 2019 that a murder conviction was tossed out because a juror might have used a racial slur during deliberations (he denies it). In contrast, U.S. Army Sergeant Jonathan Pentland lost his career and a jury convicted him of assault for confronting a black youth who had allegedly been bothering neighborhood girls and women. Massive media coverage and loud mobs were part of this case, just as they were the Arbery case. It’s tempting to say media coverage drove the outcome.
We like to believe juries are sealed off from the world when they consider a case. However, myths about white privilege or negative media stereotypes about white Southerners go into the jury rom. Likewise, judges often worry about politics. If they want to advance to a higher court, they must rule in ways that please the media and win the support of a political faction. They won’t be promoted for helping white advocates, even if the law is on our side. It’s hard even to find a lawyer (or be a lawyer) if you are a white advocate.
An Anglo-Saxon legal code doesn’t work without Anglo-Saxons. The code assumes that jurors share assumptions and respect abstract justice. Many blacks don’t. They want their people to get the best outcome. Some inner-city blacks have a “no snitchin’” rule that means police can’t solve murder cases. This means more crime, but at least some in “the community” seems to prefer that.
The professor from Regent is right. There’s no reason to talk to the police. Let a lawyer do it for you. A white defendant in a racial case is unlikely to get a fair trial. If he’s a white advocate, that will be used against him. He cannot trust jurors — probably of any race — to rule fairly. Even posting a flyer could prove dangerous; prosecutors can overcharge you and get a conviction.
The courts aren’t totally lost. Victory is still impossible. But be very careful before filing a lawsuit or doing anything that could get you involved with the law. Courtrooms have become political battlegrounds.
Blacks and whites don’t agree on issues such as police power or free speech. Therefore, we shouldn’t judge each other, at least not in a courtroom. Point nine of the Black Panther Party’s 10 Point Program was a demand that blacks be tried only by black jurors. That is practical only in an all-black country. Today, non-whites are often demanding separation. The English Common law brought us many blessings, but we might be better of being tried by an arbitrary Star Chamber than by a “diverse jury.”