The Star Chamber Phase

Note #1: If you are thinking the kids need something to wear to school that celebrates our diversity, consider buy one of these new shirts. Nothing tells the world how hard you celebrate our diversity like a Lagos Trading Company t-shirt.

Note #2: I was invited on to chat with Peter Quinones about the Republican debate, the courage of Trump, the Tucker interview and many other things. For those missing the sound of me droning on each Friday, you can get your fix here.

The term “star chamber” has fallen out of use over the last few decades, but it was a common term used by the American Left in the 20th century. They would use it when arguing that the courts were acting arbitrarily. Other times they would use it in the context of public opinion when one of their guys was in trouble. The point was that the media was being unfair to their guy. Star chambers were bad so anything with those words associated with it must be bad too.

The Star Chamber was a real thing. It was an English court setup in the 15th century to oversee cases involving socially and political important people. This court was staffed with advisors to the king. This way the judges would not be intimidated by the status of the accused. No one knows for sure how it got the name “star chamber” but the most popular theory says it comes from the decorations. The ceiling was painted with gold stars on a blue background.

Of course, like all government power, it was soon abused by the people wielding it to first attack their enemies in court and then to suppress dissent. The main reason it was subverted into an instrument of oppression is it lacked due process. There was no appealing the decisions of the court and since it operated by its own rules, there could be no appeal to a fixed set of rules. This allowed the king to use the system to persecute his enemies and stamp out dissent.

It is why up until the last few decades, the American court system was based on a fixed set of rules that governed all courts. This was ensured by an appeals system that ended with the Supreme Court. Forgotten today, the primary purpose of the Supreme Court was to make sure the court system followed the rules, the primary source of which is the Constitution itself. The courts being open to the public was an additional check on abuse of the legal system by the powerful.

The reason “star chamber” has fallen out of fashion in America is the Left has seized control of the institutions, including the centers of cultural production. They no longer look at the abuse of power as a problem because they have all the power so by definition all uses of power are justified. Note that their objections to the secret courts created after 9/11 were ceremonial and halfhearted. In reality they welcomed this new tool they could use in pursuit of their agenda.

Note also that the only thing we know about these secret courts is they were used against Donald Trump in the 2016 election. To date no one has produced an example of how these courts prevented terrorism. The documented abuses of these secret courts by the FBI have gone unaddressed. Because the courts are secret, we have no idea what goes on inside them, so there is no way to know they are not being used against dissidents in the same way they were used against Trump.

Putting that aside, the court system we can see is also going through a transformation toward the Star Chamber model. Again, Trump provides some examples. In his Florida case the court has warned him about making public statements. There is the threat of a gag order hanging over him. In Washington, Jack Smith has asked the court for what amounts to a gag order on Trump. In Georgia, Trump cancelled a press conference about the case for fear of retribution from the court.

Since we get our information about court proceedings from the media and the media is now an agent of the state, it is not hard to see why proscribed people would want to have their say outside the courthouse. The only chance for fairness in the courtroom now is for the accused to make his appeals outside the courthouse. Naturally, the courts now wish to stifle such conduct. If they can gag the accused, he cannot shine a light on the abuses inside the court through appeals to the public.

This is not just a phenomenon in high profile political cases. Increasingly, local judges and prosecutors are doing the same thing. Here is a case of a famous college football player accused of heinous crimes. If you read between the lines, he was framed by the cops but was forced to remain quiet in order to get out of the case. He comes from money and his father is famous, but none of that matters in a court system that is increasingly the tool of arbitrary state power.

The difference between the rule of law and rule by men is that the former has a clear and precises set of rules open to the public, while the latter is based on the momentary whims of the people who wield power. The proliferation of laws along with a proliferation of ways to interpret the laws has made everything illegal. No one can now list all of the federal crimes on the books. As a result, most people are breaking the law every day of their life without knowing it.

The reason this matters is one of the predicates for social upheaval, like civil wars and revolutions, is the collapse of trust in the law. The Star Chamber system, for example, ended with the English Civil War. The American Revolution was, in part, a response to the collapse of legal authority. The American Civil War was due, in part, to a collapse in trust by both sides in the courts fairly dealing with the slavery issue. The legal system no longer provided a solution to disputes.

When no one trusts the law or the legal system, no one has a reason to obey the rules, much less respect the system that creates them. Put another way, when everyone is in violation of the law, then everyone is motivated to live outside the law. This is the fundamental definition of the outlaw. He is an outlaw because he rejects the system of laws and therefore exists outside the law. This is also the starting place for every revolutionary and revolutionary movement.

In the end, the test of a legal system is the test of a society. That is, how much protection does it provide to those with the least power. A society that provides only protection to the powerful is a tyranny. A legal system that provides no protection to those without power from those with power is also a tyranny. The Star Chamber became the symbol of tyrannical rule because it was the instrument of tyranny, just as our legal system is today.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at

129 thoughts on “The Star Chamber Phase

  1. A lot of Germanic law codes require trials to be held in the open air or outdoors. Putting stars on the ceiling was a work around of that

  2. Unfortunately, the only people who care about rule by law are the same evil people who care about violent crime when it doesn’t impact them or freedom of speech. When it is shown that the bad whites care about an issue, good people immediately embrace the opposite assuming, as usual, that the opposite is acceptable to the elite.

    Case in point, child trafficking. Once Sound of Freedom was released and championed by bad people, the propaganda system has gone all in debunking concern for child trafficking. If you express concern over child trafficking, unless it can be blamed on Putin, you run the risk of being socially ostrichized as spreading stupid, evil Q conspiracy theories.

    • They’re accidentally right that the movie is Q-like (“Q-adjacent,” they all said at once) propaganda. It shares Q’s false premise—the “gay” in the “op”—that the long train of abuses is about to be derailed by good cops, “white hats” in the agencies, sleeper agents of *us*. There’s nothing even slightly like that in real life, just raped kids being piled to the heavens forever. It’s brilliantly demoralizing.

      • I think the cops and feds have that fantasy of themselves, even if all they do in real life is shoot puppies.

  3. On another note, did anyone see that video of McConnell today? Damnation. To think we’re in part ruled over by pathetic husks such as him, gibberin joe, Feinstein and fetterman, to say nothing of the rest of the scheming shysters. A truly sad state of affairs to say the least.

    • Odin just enjoys pulling his soul down into Helheim for brief periods so he can see what awaits him, but it causes him to short out here in Midgard,

    • This is very disturbing. In the USSR, the Politburo did not DARE retire even enfeebled by age, as enemies galore internally would set upon them the moment they gave up power. The CCP, until recently, did not hold that and allowed aging leaders to gracefully retire without retaliation in the interests of allowing peace versus score settling.

      There must be very many people with scores to settle to force all these to simply hang around well past the age of retirement: Schumer, Feinstein, McConnell, Pelosi, etc. Equally unusual, they are not being forced out by younger people with ambition. Obama forced out famously his mentor by challenging signatures at election time.

  4. Rule of law is one of those nice ideas that can only exist in the magical world of Platonic ideal forms, like human rights or high quality beef at a Chinese restaurant.

    Think about it, power always tries to accumulate in nature and rule of law will always be in opposition to whoever has the power. If the people have the power then the mob just lynches their enemies against the rule of law. If the elites have the power then extortion and assassins thwart the rule of law.

    The only situation where rule of law would function is a ridiculously unstable equilibrium of power where the government, oligarchy, and the public all fear each other enough such that they prefer an honest court over the possibility of reprisal from one of the other estates. This would only occur in a state of mutually assured destruction, so to use our situation as an example the government would have to realistically fear a mob uprising in order to keep them from using secret courts and phony laws to rig the election in their favor. Obviously they don’t fear that given that America’s rebel forces can be easily defeated by tipping their Rascals over and leaving them to flail their morbidly obese limbs about wildly and squealing like pigs.

  5. The most frustrating part of living in ‘Muricahh of 2023 is all the people, mostly over 70, who still believe that they system can give a fair shake after appeals. Look at all the MAGAs who are buying the “retribution” T shirts with the mug shot of the century. Most of them still think “punished Trump” will emerge to save the day. It’s possible that even Trump himself thinks he’ll get a pardon from the governor before any serious repercussions happen. Until of course……he hears the clink of the cell. When the cell door finally closed, both he and his constituents will have a lot of reflecting to do. Much of that reflecting will be “why isn’t this a Hollywood ending?”

    The people who still have some sort of faith that they system will right itself are the ones adding fuel to the fire of a tyrannical system. This is at the heart of my rage against the boomer generation, which blindly clings to the Hollywood ending. But what will happen when this entire production has a very FRENCH ending. An ending with NO EPILOGUE where everyone is fukt over and the picture suddenly goes black with the word “FIN.” I once had co-workers from France who told me I would do well there with my mentality.

    • My brother, Gen X, is an intelligent guy but he sees Trump as a Savior figure. Remember when we laughed about how the liberals saw Obama as a “light bringer” who would calm the seas and heal the environment just by existing? My brother is that way about Trump.

      Further, my brother will agree with me about all the problems related to race and immigration, but all that goes out the window if Trump becomes President. In his vision, Trump will create such a strong economy that all racial problems will vanish in the collective prosperity.

      It’s embarrassing and a real flaw in his otherwise sterling character.

      Finally, he’s untroubled by all the court actions against Trump because he is absolutely convinced that Trump will be president again because Trump is the Savior.

    • I’ll have to admit Trump’s demeanor and behavior have earned great admiration from me, which I thought impossible. No doubt he thinks “lowest black unemployment in history” will keep the all-savage D.C. jury from convicting him, or that the dimwitted affirmative action judge will conduct a fair trial, or the shills and whores he appointed to the USSC will assure justice. Still, I can’t help but contrast how stoically he has responded with every other politician in our time who was in a tight spot. It is shocking, honestly.

      Trump was a failure as a president, but as a martyr he is proving quite valuable.

      • I’m not even buying the failure as president thing these days. He has to play by rules set up to keep him from doing anything.

        He failed by not firing every political appointee in government 5 minutes after being sworn in. I said he should do that before he took office. He didn’t. Therefore, he failed.

        But no more wars the the Middle East and no war with Ukraine. The border wall was being built and normalized the principle that it can be done. Taxes on my wealthy friends went up while taxes on my middle class friends went down. He had China on the ropes until they conspired with Fauci and the government in general to release COVID. Even that went well compared to the Biden regime’s demonstrably worse and horrible results.

        The success of Trump is the destruction of any illusion that we have a 2-party system. The destruction of the elections illusion. And the destruction of the institutions as protectors of liberty. The DOJ is just a Central American hit squad in suits. Most people know this now. Half of them think it’s okay as long as the hit squads come after us and not them.

        Trump’s increasing popularity is a measure of institutional collapse. He’s the accelerant in the chemical reaction.

        • The Trump Presidency was lousy for reasons beyond not actually doing what he promised on the campaign trail.

  6. If you look at the reporting of the Trump trials, there is clearly an attempt to “pile onto” him psychologically, one tackle after the other.

    The timing of the indictments is staggered so that the news lands like body blows to Trump.

    The overall impression one gets is of a psychological attempt to intimidate. They are using the courts because this is (still) a civil society. And I think there may be a sense of “justice” to them to use the legal bludgeon because Trump himself resorted freely to the courts to get back at people. Call it “poetic justice” from the liberals in charge.

    The fact remains that liberals are still afraid of Trump. He is the high school bully writ large as president. He is the incarnation of all those Chads who picked on them when they were little and defenseless. Bush Senior was just a dweeb like them so he didn’t frighten them. Bush Junior was a harmless frat boy. But Trump is like a leech which has waxed on blood and grown fat and dangerous, in the eyes of the liberals.

    The End. (Click on my name to come read my blog.)

    • The libs are not afraid of Trump. The reason they are going after him so hard is because they’ve LOST their fear of him. Libs are cowards. If they were actually afraid of him, they’d be kissing his ass and competing to win his favor.

      After Jan 6th failed, Trump gave up and no one really did anything about the stolen election, they realized Trump really has zero support. By zero support, I mean that Trump has no one who will kill for him, or die for him. People who will VOTE for him don’t count as support.

      • They’re more fearful of the rupture in their reality Trump brought to them than they are of the man himself. And BTW, Trump isn’t seen as a mere man, but as both an legit evil creature and eternal symbol of being part of a larger evil. A mere man can be jailed, cajoled, threatened, beaten, and even killed on whim (this last part is definitely coming down the pipe, prog movements of all stripes eventually shift to liquidation when all else fails to work). The idea is, however, is much harder to kill and feeds right into the leftists requirement for endless struggle towards utopia. Tldr of my blathering is you’re too stuck on progs perceiving Trump as a matetial threat.

  7. The only solution is peaceful divorce. As Z is fond of saying, they turn virtues into vices. They now wear our institutions, especially the courts, as skinsuits and demand respect. This is no surprise. Since they don’t even see normie whites as human beings, they laugh at our distress.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like Trump. To me, he’s a means to an end. He was a dreadful president and is a dreadful boor as a human being. He’s a raging narcissist who is thoughtless and easily distracted. But he brought pain to the people in charge and that was enough for me to vote for him twice.

    But what they’re doing to him is unworthy of a banana republic. They are attempting (and will succeed) to jail the leader of the opposition. This is a mark of a petty tyranny.

    I’ve read all of the indictments and they might as well be written in crayon. The logic is so lacking, but when you consider they were written by low-IQ diversity hire attorneys who must’ve “passed” the bar by chicanery, it tracks since they’re doing the bidding of their ruling elite paymasters.

    Even if by some chance they weren’t able to get convictions (and they only need one in four chances), they will make him spend hundreds of millions on his legal defense. The process is also part of the punishment. He’ll be weakened. Either way they win, we lose.

    It is anarcho-tyranny, as the great Sam Francis said. Gangs of blacks are robbing at will, but will go free because our leaders don’t want to “lock up black bodies” in prison. Thought crimes by normie whites and fake insurrections will get the book thrown at you and then some. It was a close-run thing that Rittenhouse managed to avoid going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison for self-defense.

    Dark times loom ahead, but the system will collapse of its own rotten weight soon enough. Truth always triumphs.

  8. “A society that provides only protection to the powerful is a tyranny. A legal system that provides no protection to those without power from those with power is also a tyranny.”
    This is true, but Trump is not a good example of this. Trump has far more power than your average January 6th protester, however, he has been declared an enemy of the regime because he awoke racial consciousness among a substantial fraction of white people, regardless of how little he did for them, and the fraction of the power structure that promoted him has largely abandoned him for just this reason. They were willing to take this risk once, but it appears they do NOT wish risk another round.
    He still has substantial support among Republican voters, and some elements of the politicos (e.g., some Congressmen) are still supporting him, either out of sincerity or to protect their seats, but the REAL power structure, both Republicrat and Democan is doing everything in their power to bury him.

    • Good comment NOI.

      I am not certain Trump woke it up in the people. I think he intuitively understood it, and also saw the border as a problem. He also saw de-industrialization not just as an economic problem but as the dispossession of heartland Americans.

      Trump did not wake up Heritage Americans, (Americans of European ancestry), to racial consciousness. It lived in a portion of Trump’s supporters independent of Trump. For the rest, The Left has been awakening white racial consciousness all on their own.

      They know that. They are persecuting Trump for giving them a voice. The real reason they hate Trump is that he is the champion of the nation state. Trump intuitively knows that without the people who founded and built the nation state you have no champions of it and thus no nation state. They are bound and determined to destroy the nation state by any means. This means they must replace the population who want it and vanquish any champion of it who understands that the people and the nation state are inseparable.

      All that The Left is doing is awakening and making racial identity essential to the one group of Americans who ironically had the weakest if any sense of it – the majority who are the sons and daughters of the pioneers and settlers of European ancestry. The once majority is waking up to the reality that they were dispossessed of their country in the 1960s. That was the Revolutionary era and now we are entering the power consolidation phase of post-America.

      Whites face a choice.

      1. Submit and let the Republican party be the non-white face of token resistance living in the denial of civ-nattery that itself no longer acknowledges citizenship. I call that the Vivek option. Even Vivek does not say the word citizen. He calls people here those who merit the privilege of living in America. He gave away his true view with that one.

      2. Embrace their identity, be proud of it and fight to assert primacy in who controls the country so that even if it dissolves we head the table if not control the course of it. This means that instead of deferring to non-whites, white men emerge as the representatives of Heritage America because that is who we choose to represent us and our interests.

      This decision will determine what our children do. If we go with option one, then they will be told that they and their heritage and ancestry do not matter and our race will slowly die out and maybe even go out at some point with a genocidal bang. If we go with option one, our posterity will rally to their own cause and there is hope that our people can continue and have the hope of reconstituting and repossessing their sovereignty and upward destiny.

  9. The difference between the rule of law and rule by men is that the former has a clear and precise set of rules open to the public, while the latter is based on the momentary whims of the people who wield power

    I know I have said it before, but there is no such thing as rule of law. All laws have to be interpreted and applied by men at various levels, and it is the trustworthiness of those men that determine whether power will be used tyrannically. Thus, there is only rule by men. Just like it’s he who counts the votes that counts, it is he who interprets the law that matters.

  10. This is from the referenced rich athlete trial story:

    “In his statement, Kitna said all of his devices confiscated by investigators were returned to him after forensic testing was used and found “no other images that were even questionable: No photos, no videos, no chats, no searches for inappropriate material, not one illegal activity.”

    Kitna revealed he had to undergo an extensive psychosexual evaluation, which is an assessment used in cases involving sexual misconduct to evaluate a client’s social and sexual history.

    The evaluation, conducted by a doctor with over 40 years of experience revealed Kitna had no “deviant characteristics, had normal interests as a teenager, and I’m in the lowest possible percentile for likelihood to commit a crime,” according to Kitna.”

    In other words he acquiesced to, “expert” evaluation and the forfeiture of all of his digital records to prove his mental state was proper. They got a low IQ athlete to submit. The implication of this should frighten you to the core.

    The AngloAmerican legal system is predicated upon a crime being a tangible offense. Harm is defined by harm in the physical realm – damage to person or property or reputation. Guilt is established by physical evidence establishing your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    This means that he submits to the new justice system – the court of public opinion – mob rule. He also submits not to a court a jury and its verdict, but to an expert class of psychologists and to the complete forfeiture of his privacy. He did all of this without committing a crime.

    There is a path to redemption for him and that is to sue to the ground all of those who libeled him. Of course, he won’t because what is most important to him is the opportunity to play a child’s game for fame and fortune. His fame and fortune will depend upon the media he will need to sue to the ground for libel.

    “This system has reduced the people of this country to a bunch of sniveling cowards.” – Gregory Hood

    • P.S. He may “redeem”, himself where the sick and twisted definition of redemption in this bugman realm is to rise to fame and fortune playing a game for demoralized idol worshippers after sacrificing his dignity. It is an inversion of the phoenix myth. Rather than a phoenix rising from the ashes, a ghost of a man of ashes rises from a burnt out egg.

      In any case, he will be lauded and applauded by the NFL and college sports as a hero who transformed himself and overcame the odds. Of course, the system will love this

      Never watch sportsball. That system is a fundamental part of the system, and it is pure evil. It will cheer and get you to cheer for anything, including bugmen who will grovel and cower and throw dirt on the coffin of our justice system all for a chance to play in the arena.

      Never ever ever watch sportsball.

  11. Finally somebody has answered my question about “gag orders”.

    Innocent until proven guilty. That means a free citizen, with the right to speak freely, name his accuser, claim his innocence, say anything, really.

    How can any bozo punish a free man with a gag order, as if he were a prisoner who had lost his rights? Both are equal, citizens under the law.

    Gag orders are utterly illegal.
    But then the “Left”- foreign values, that is- also issues “hate speech” laws too.
    The Left’s values of hierarchy have replaced our American ones, yet again.

    • Alzaebo: “Gag orders are utterly illegal.”

      Gag orders are not just utterly illegal but are also in fact utterly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


      There is no possible “law” via which Trump can be forbidden to speak.

    • That was one I saw as a kid, because my dad had it on TV, and found it pretty interesting, but then when I watched it later in life the smell of the stack of sweaty tiny hats making the movie came through the TV.

      • There are a lot of TV shows and movies that I thought were good, and now that I am more JQ aware, the obvious influence of the people who made them shows through and spoils them.

  12. The old concept of the outlaw was simply a person who was outside the protection of the law. Sulla’s proscriptions, for example, simply defined certain people as being outside the protection of the law, meaning no crime could be committed against them.

    I mean, nothing you did to that person was a crime.

    Whites are outlaws in the US. Simple as.

  13. First they came for the white nationalists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a white nationalist.

    Then they came for the dissident right, and I did not speak out — because I was not dissident right.

    Then they came for Donald Trump, and I did not speak out — because I( was not Donald Trump.

    Then they came for me — and there was no-one left to speak for me.

    • First they came for the white nationalists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a white nationalist.

      Then they came for the dissident right, and I did not speak out — because I was not dissident right.

      Then they came for the conservatives and I did not speak out — because I was not conservative.

      Then they collapsed, because there was no one competent left.

  14. Long-time practicing attorney here. The truth is that in non-political matters, the US justice system is still capable of producing even-handed, just results in the vast majority of cases. However, in highly politicized matters it is not. No attorney with a shred of integrity or ethics can even recognize the justice system as it currently operates in these high-profile cases.

    I saw this coming decades ago while in law school. I attended a top-tier law school that was in the process of being taken over by Marxists. The Dean was an aging white man who was a spineless simp, and what most people here would consider an old-school liberal. Driven by leftist faculty, the law school embarked on an aggressive diversity drive, with all the features we all now recognize including: aggressive recruitment of minority, female, and LGBT faculty; instant tenure contracts offered to recruitment targets with no meaningful academic achievements; diversity quotas for admissions resulting in a significant portion of the students being wholly unable to grasp the material (some unable to read; most unable to write), coupled with the development of a “grievance law” curriculum that existed to hand out credits and high scores to this significant portion of students; the slow but certain nudging of white male professors out of the institution, etc.

    The speed of the transition was amazing. In a matter of five years it went from a modestly left-leaning law school to a fully radicalized entity advancing the interests of the Marxist left. The simp Dean got pushed out for being insufficiently supportive of diversity efforts, a well-deserved fate. Why any employer would recruit from the institution is beyond me.

    More to the point of the post today, though, was the arbitrary and capricious system of suppression of thought and speech by students. Law schools have always leaned left, so any student with conservative views expects to be marginalized and ridiculed in the classroom as a penalty for their views. During my time there numerous conservative students who made the mistake of speaking out were put on probation and/or expelled from the school. Expulsion was a black mark on their record. None were able to get into another law school.

    These people are deadly serious, committed, and capable Marxists. They will stop at nothing to advance their agenda. Plan accordingly.

    • My question to you would be, What constitutes political? To me, nearly ever aspect of society has been politicized; thus, nearly every aspect of the courts have been, as well.

      • The vast majority of litigation is non-political, routine commercial litigation relating to contracts issues, intellectual property issues, liability issues, insurance coverage, etc. By and large, the US judicial system handles these cases in an even-handed and just manner. Yes, there are always crazy, incorrect outcomes, as with any human system, but the system gets most of them right. And most that they get wrong are corrected on appeal.

        I think everyone here would agree that it fails in cases which have political consequences. The Soros District Attorney issue seems new to most people, but that strategy has been incubating since I was in law school decades ago. The path to being elected as a district attorney used to be to prove your creds as a prosecutor in the DA’s office, rise to a management level attorney, then run for office. The idea that a criminal defense attorney or an ACLU attorney would switch teams and run for DA seemed ludicrous, but they have been incubating that strategy for decades.

        • I understand your point, but I am using political in the loosest sense of the term – relating to polity. I do not claim to know the ins and outs of volume, but liability and insurance rules are heavily politicized due to the companies’ 1) Diversity of clientele and 2) The coercion to purchase their goods and 3) Their ability to selectively apply laws due to their monopoly.
          Allow me to put it thusly: What reasonable society would allow the policies of insurance to operate as they do? The courts allow this.

    • Wouldn’t “anti-traditional white people” be a more accurate description of the agents of transformation that you describe instead of “Marxists?”

      If we fight “Marxists” and ignore the fundamental racial aspect, then if we ever win, we’ll just recreate our current situation.

      (I’m not saying that all whites are a united group. I’m saying that many elite whites are also anti-traditional white people.)

      • I like anti-traditional white people, it’s an excellent term for what we face now. Marxist is old fashioned, it’s got little to do with our enemies now. They’ve gone beyond Marxism into something that is really not even human. Their motivations and their nihilism would have Karl fearful that he was on the wrong side of history. A lot of them are barely human now, almost demonic. Using terms from 3 centuries back makes them look less dangerous than they really are.

      • The most accurate appellation would be postmodern fascists. These people are not Marxists. They’re worse.

    • I completely disagree with your assessment, though to be fair, I’m not a lawyer. The discretion of the prosecutor along with plea deals have made the criminal justice system corrupt the core. Nearly all cases are now resolved with plea deals. You can get anyone to plea to any charge if you widen the gap between the plea and conviction large enough.

      Then there is the differential enforcement of the law based on locale (but within the same state). Same law. Same sentencing guidelines, huge disparity of sentencing and even charging. Though nominally the same laws, If you live in the city, you are subject to one law and in the suburbs and rural areas, you are subject to a different one. What will get you probation in the city will result in state prison time in the surrounding counties.

      Most states have pretty draconian sentencing laws. Very few people get these draconian sentences. These are used as leverage or when they really want the person. Sometimes this discretion helps the cause of justice (like threats of long sentences to get cooperation), but many times it does not.

      But there is also the grift that has infested the CJS like civil asset forfeiture. They play so many games in this that’s it hard to believe it is even happening. It’s just a giant system of theft and corruption. They do everything they can to run up the legal bills if you try to sue them and prove your money dindu nuffin (a reversal of the burden of proof). They will even offer to settle by giving you 1/2 your money back. Anyone carrying money in any amount is subject to this forfeiture. The average amount seized is very low in most states.

      In my locale, there are no bail bondsmen. The city does it all. They take 30% of your bail no matter the outcome. They can arrest you on trumped up charges and then drop the charges against you in a couple of months and they still take 30% of your bail money.

      • I’ll only note that the White prosecutor in my nearly all White county made a persuasive case for their use of plea deals (cases where getting witnesses to testify is iffy, cases where there is no doubt about guilt and the accused just want to start serving their time, and so on). Mileage no doubt varies greatly on this.

      • As guest said, it is for those political cases, and criminal matters which you identify are almost always political or become so. Yes, it also varies by jurisdiction, which is simply a reflection of the constituents of the jurisdiction. A progressive leaning jurisdiction is going to elect liberal judges, liberal prosecutors and have liberal juries. Conservative ones will have conservatives. That’s why you can have a court system in Austin that is completely corrupt and incompetent, but one in Fort Worth that is reasonable. Both “applying” the same Texas law.

    • Your experience in law school is basically the plot of Dostoyevsky’s _The Demons_. Classical liberals simply unable to conceptualize the implications of their beliefs & therefore cannot stop what is coming.

    • Guest, please speak here more often. This is vital intel. And you are another one of /ourguys/ behind the lines.

      • Thank you. I have been here basically since the beginning of the blog. Discovering this blog was a bit like discovering that I have an intellectual doppelganger in a parallel universe. My spouse still believes, incorrectly, that I am Zman, which I take as a great compliment. I am not nearly as well read as our esteemed host.

        There are tons of “conservative” attorneys out there. I would venture to say the majority of attorneys are conservative or maybe what we would call a classic liberal (a phrase which has lost all meaning), but they tend to end up in private practice or corporate practice working on apolitical matters, as described above. I’m a case in point.

        In matters political, the radical left attorneys dominate because they are aggressive and there is no organized group of radical right attorneys to oppose them. It’s a perfect mirror of society at large. The most the right has had to offer is the Federalist Society. Leftists bemoan the Federalist Society, but the truth is that it has been only marginally effective at stopping the ever-increasing leftward tilt of the court system.

    • “… the US justice system is still capable of producing even-handed, just results in the vast majority of cases.”

      I’m tending to disagree. Those cases that mean nothing wrt the political philosophy of those in power, perhaps. But for how long? As mentioned, everything these days seems to have, or will have, a political bent.

      There is also the case of government regulatory agencies which decidedly do have a political, Leftist bent. The Court systems rarely touch these cases of gross governmental agency abuse because the agencies involved have their “own” appeals system. In short, they themselves judge their own actions, not an independent Court accountable to the people in some fashion. Rarely can the little guy fight his way through the agency’s appeals process to even make it to an “independent” Court.

      • I think he’s just pointing out that courts mostly see mostly, for lack of a better way to put, boring cases in great numbers with at least somewhat satisfactory outcomes. I would agree this is increasingly not the case when seemingly every reprobate arrested for horrific crimes has been doing “turnstile justice” for decades.

        • Agreed. There’s much “perception” in both our comments. I can see that I tend to ignore the majority of cases as they pass under my radar *precisely* due to their reasonableness. It’s the outliers that give me a “There for the Grace of God go I” reaction.

    • >In a matter of five years it went from a modestly left-leaning law school to a fully radicalized entity advancing the interests of the Marxist left.

      Long-time civil servant here. This exact same process is underway at all levels in all agencies, even those that used to be at least partly shielded because they had something to do with defense, law enforcement or public safety.

      The injection mandate coupled with the aggressive promotion of the degeneracy agenda has silenced anyone concerned about what is happening and how it will affect an agency’s mission. Senior-level positions are being filled with completely unqualified and often untrainable candidates from protected classes. Lower level jobs are often going unfilled because hiring lists do not contain enough diversity candidates. This is all bad enough, but agency objectives are being amended to make DEI a primary agency mission.

      I am not sure I would characterize the interests being advanced here as necessarily “Marxist”, but the speed at which this is happening is similarly amazing.

      • Believe me, I am fully aware of this. The agencies with which I interface in my day job have, since the Obama administration, all shifted hard toward progressive radicalism. And yes, the speed and ferocity of the DEI push in the past few years has been like nothing we’ve seen.

        They are aggressively pushing it to vendors. If you want to work with ABC agency or their contractors, you must meet their diversity requirements, as a whole and on every single project. This is now percolating down through the private sector. It is pervasive, like fungus.

        And yes, they are Marxists. More particularly, they are Trotskyites implementing a modern version of the Permanent Revolution. Mere Republicans are no match for these people, and there is no organized political right in America. We literally don’t have a team to put on the field.

        I got a lot of grief from keyboard warriors a few weeks ago when I argued that the best course of action for most of us here is to leave the US. The “stay and fight” crowd has no idea what they are up against. The entire apparatus of government, the legal system, the education system, the media, and corporate America is now fully under the control of the political left, and changing demographics will ensure it remains that way, permanently. Don’t be the German High Command. The war is lost. The America that we knew and loved is dead, and it’s not coming back. It’s time to move on.

        • It’s ironic:

          Conservatives lost by playing like Trotsky and not fighting for control of the bureaucracy while the Trotskyists, if that is what they, have won by aping Stalin and capturing the bureaucracy.

          You may be right about exile… but take care and watch for icepicks!

        • Although I’m not likely to emigrate, in my adult life I’ve travelled to many nations, and even looked at a few locales where Westerners retire to.

          I want to live in the country where the grocery store or shopping mall security keeps the riffraff out to begin with. In extremis, say in the case of a theft, they have few qualms about using force up to including deadly, to stop the perpetrator. Such places probably exist, but for me to live or even visit there might be problematic.

          Currently, I live in a nation where individuals or even organized gangs take what they please from a store and blithely exit without paying. Unchallenged, in full view of employees and “security.” In the unlikely event that the law is even motivated to apprehend them, they face at worst misdemeanor charges.

          The above is but one example of (perhaps) noble intentions at “social justice.” In some cases such legal changes are by popular vote, not merely by Leftist legislature or judge. From this vantage point, I’d say our society is circling the drain. I don’t know what’s coming next, and given the choice, I perhaps would rather watch the news from Dubai.

        • Where are we supposed to go. And if you’re 60+ years old we’re going pick up and start all over in Costa Rica? May as well stay put and watch the show.

  15. It’s worth mentioning the anarcho-tyranny aspect of the rule of men. While the law is being selectively and maliciously and even falsely enforced against dissidents and other enemies of the ruling class, the law is being ignored in other contexts. Not just in the US. In the home of the common law, being held up or suffering a home invasion will not get a policeman to come to where you are and the odds of the crime being solved and ending in a prosecution is in the single digits. But let you post a tweet they don’t like. The whole swat team shows up. They also have non-crime hate offenses where the cops come out and lecture you on your alleged hate for an hour, even when it wasn’t illegal.

    Kensington Ave is perfect example of anarcho-tyranny in the US. By now, everyone has seen the footage. This has been going on for decades. Open air drug dealing, open air drug taking and many other offenses being done in the open with no efforts to conceal. Nobody gets arrested. We’re the laughing stock of the first world. The cops don’t care. The city doesn’t care. The Republican hopeful for mayor, David Oh, embarrassed by the third world nature of it all, threatened to first give warnings and then start enforcing the law in Kensington via drones (there always has to be a retarded angle). The whole media-gov apparatus kicked into high gear denouncing Oh (nice American name) as heartless and how enforcing the law is not a solution. It’s not an accident that almost all the people in those videos are White. They mostly don’t come from that area. While Kensington was a White working class area, that was a long time ago. It’s mostly Puerto Rican and black.

  16. Are these cases against trump sort of a provocation towards the supreme Court in that they want to dare them to throw out the convicted/indictment?

    • Ruling parties don’t do bankshots. They charge for a dunk and know the whistle won’t blow. The purpose of the cases against Trump is guilty verdicts. The mugshot was to make him look like a criminal. Etc. The crowd jeers and chants “bullshit bullshit bullshit,” but—scoreboard.

      Even when they’re calling for escalation—”insurrection,” signaling impulsive assassins to go after Trump judges, the fake story of Trump fighting the Secret Service so cops will be trigger-happy with him—they don’t have a specific plan. They’re *lusting openly*. “Stochastic terrorism” was them describing how Our Democracy works. Say “red mirage” and it will appear.

      Yes, the proper lawful course of the cases would for the SC to intercede and dismiss them all on black-letter Constitutional grounds, and the regime reaction to that would be some kind of violent insanity that they’re very, very ready to unleash. But there are only five justices who even pretend to adhere to the Constitution, and three of them will never forgive Trump for making them “Trump judges.” All Amy Coney Barrett ever wanted was to be applauded at brunch. She’ll make it happen.

  17. These court cases against Trump make me wonder how many people live in the perpetual present. It’s like most people just cannot recall 3 years ago when the beautiful people all simultaneously started griping and moaning about Trump turning America into a banana republic by asking the prosecutor in Ukraine to look into the corruption of Joe Biden, a likely future opponent.

    • I saw some post from a twitter screenshot of a regime toady making a case about something or other and it was apparent that this person’s complete worldview existed with the walled intellectual garden setup by the regime, and not because they necessarily desired that, but because, Idiocracy style, they were incapable of forming any views beyond the handful that had been spoon-fed to them. It’s like a madlibs where every space they encounter is filled in with “white supremacy” or “fascism”

  18. The British Empire thrived for centuries because commercial maritime disputes were dealt with by either industry arbitration or the Admiralty courts in a way that was fair to outsiders..Indeed, there were complaints during the Napoleonic wars that British courts were being too fair to countries trading with France, and sometimes reversing captures of their shipping..That all changed in WW1, when England went full neocon..beginning by the Royal Navy cutting all international cables except their own, to prevent news from the continent reaching North America and protect British propaganda….

    • It really is crazy how far you can go in power by just being fair and just. There’s immense soft power in it, you just have ensure you never make allies with anyone.

  19. Speaking of no respect for the law, wasn’t it just a few short weeks ago that SCOTUS told the executive that its plan of massive student loan forgiveness was illegal? And yet in the past few weeks I know of four people who received letters announcing that their remaining debt has been cancelled. The three dollar amounts that I know of were $35K, $63K, and $90K!

    The largest one is a person I’m very familiar with, a lifelong friend and a bit of a ne’er-do-well. To his credit he’s been working good jobs the past few years but before that he led a checkered life. Never married, no children, but for 30 years he basically ignored his loans. Now he’s basically been given a check for 90 thousand dollars as a reward for his negligence.

    As CoaSC mentioned, this attacks the rule of law at both ends. We have a, cough, co-equal branch of the government telling the Supreme Court that it really doesn’t care how it rules, it’s just going to do whatever it wants anyway. On the other hand, the little guy is encouraged to flout good-faith contractual agreements.

    • Immediately after the ruling, they said they were going to forgive the loans anyway, and of course nobody is going to stop them. There has been lots of this the past 20 years. The best example IMO is DACA. We all know about DACA, well long forgotten was this was a proposed law called the Dream Act that was rejected by Congress. After it got rejected, King Obama just set it up anyway and dared anybody to stop him. Theoretically it lacks the permanent residence part of the Dream Act, but, well, come on. We’re stuck with this forever now.

    • The “negligence” is the army of teachers, parents, and other people in authority that urged 18-year-olds to take out $100K loans. Even if many of them went on to get degrees in ridiculous majors like sociology (more negligence on the part of authority figures) it still isn’t fair.

      What if you were encouraged by multitudes of people during your most impressionable ages to buy a loaded Porsche SUV after graduation, instead of a base model Nissan Versa, because that will guarantee you wealth and comfort? And then when you quickly realize that the Porsche SUV is an enormous financial burden, you get lectures that you entered into a contract fair and square, and personal responsi-yadda-yadda? Sounds like the poor kid got hosed, and was the victim of horrible advice on one end, and hard-heartedness on the other.

      I’m glad those people got forgiven. Everyone’s debts should be forgiven, if an injustice has been done. It has happened throughout history, and is a part of holy scripture.

      • Marko, I share your contempt for everyone involved in the scam that higher education has become today, the lenders, the government, the schools, etc. But that doesn’t account for all of these cases.

        In my case I’m talking about people who didn’t go the Porsche route, but still decided not to make the slightest effort to repay their obligations and have now been given a winning lottery ticket. One example I know of, a woman who went to a SUNY college in the 90’s, while they were still quite affordable, and was immediately hired into the teaching profession upon graduation. Why, over 25 years later, would she still have a balance? Those loans did what they were intended to do and she materially benefitted from them.

        Legitimate debt relief can have a salutary effect on society in certain circumstances, but when it does little more than reward negligent behavior I can’t say I’m a fan.

      • Forget about Black studies and Sociology majors. Something like 30-40% of those with loans never complete a degree! This means a mismatch between Admissions and Student Candidate which indicates incompetence at best and malfeasance at worse. (I opt for the second reason.)

        This can easily be fixed, and has for profit “trade” schools. The government lending agency requires reports from these private institutions as to graduation rates and success in future employment. Those schools with dismal records are denied loans. The student might apply for money, but the school could not receive it—and for the most part the schools were the primary entity applying for and handling the loan arrangements in the first place. Not for profit, academic institutions were exempt from this Federal oversight.

        Make everyone responsible for the success of their students. This would handle at least half of the problem.

      • The main problem is that the wrong people are being held responsible for those loans. The loans are still being repaid, but at the expense of the tax slaves.

        What should happen is that those loans should be declared void, and those owning the debt should be told to be thankful that they’re not hanging from lampposts.

    • The same is happening with the AA ruling. Aside from the massive lived experience essay loophole many colleges are openly discussing how they will not comply. I saw a statement from a Villanova provost that Catholic schools may be exempt because AA falls under some religious freedom contrivance.

  20. This folds into your column yesterday about the economy and power of the dollar, and acts as a counterargument to a few of its points.

    The American economy, particularly its markets, have thrived precisely because the rule of law was seen as guaranteeing things were on the up and up. Markets were presumed to be transparent, and if shenanigans were underway, redress was available in the courts. Favoritism and other state-sanctioned corruption were presumed to be absent, so those were not considered among the risks with investments. Regulators and the law would make certain things were on the up and up.

    All that is gone. One seemingly minor incident illustrates the point. To reup, Gamestop may have seemed somewhat trivial but it was a watershed moment. There likely have been other instances, but this was a very high profile case of federal agents dispatched to investigate why people not favored took profits at the expense of those who are favored. Despite claims to the contrary, that harassment solely was a case of who/whom, which is what the legal system is now.

    Can someone invest with confidence with a corrupted legal system?

    They cannot.

    People will tolerate civil rights and civil liberties violations, which are now rampant, as long as houses are warm and bellies are full. Hesitancy to invest will lead to economic discomfort and intolerance of autocracy.

    The GAE possibly can divorce a stable and powerful economy from a shaky polity, but based on history that’s not the way to bet. We see the outlines of that contradiction now.

  21. I’d argue that the rule of law is being attacked on two sides. The first is what Z writes about here, which is the elite bypassing the law to attack opponents.

    But the rule of law is also being attacked from underneath by non-whites who feel no connection to laws created by and for whites. Huge portions of non-whites only follow the law out of fear of retribution of the system. That’s different from most whites who obey the law because they believe in the laws and the rule of law.

    As whites see both their rulers and non-whites ignoring the law, they will eventually determine that following the law is a sucker’s game.

    • Sam Francis called this phenomenon Anarcho-Tyranny. A truly original concept for which he will be justly celebrated by future historians, even if they happen to be robots or bugs.

    • I’ll emphasize your point by adding that supporting a legal system requires low time preference and intelligence, qualities that many races just don’t have much of.

      If a court issues a ruling that a person dislikes, for that person to continue to support that legal system requires that the person to be able to see that, in the long run, that legal system is better than its absence.

      A significant proportion of non-whites are simply unable to carry out this thought process. They want themselves or their race to win the case in front of the court right now and they are unable to see beyond the immediate.

      • Part of it is that NW Europeans were bred for the rule of law. The church banned cousin marriage would broke up the clans. People were marrying people outside their clans. This meant that disputes were no longer settled by clan leaders but the law.

        This worked really well for centuries. It allowed NW Europeans to work together in a way that clannish societies never could. We could organize millions of unrelated men to work toward some goal whether military or economic.

        It’s likely why we dominated for 500 years over more clannish parts of the world.

        However, this system had a fatal flaw. It only works if you keep clannish people out of your society, but the underlying ethos of treating people as individuals rather than as a member of another clan makes that hard to do.

        Once communication and travel became easy, the clannish folk started to arrive in the non-clannish white countries, a process that will eventually destroy them. NW Europeans will either disappear as various peoples (really, get integrated into other clannish peoples) or will revert back to more clannish behavior.

        Sorry, colorblind CivNats, those are the only two possibilities.

        • “It only works if you keep clannish people out of your society, but the underlying ethos of treating people as individuals rather than as a member of another clan makes that hard to do.”


          “NW Europeans will either disappear as various peoples (really, get integrated into other clannish peoples) or will revert back to more clannish behavior.”

          What you talked about is our way. That’s our clan. Somehow got convinced it was the ideas and not the people. Sold our souls imo.

          • Enlightenment ideals were inevitable from the breeding out of clannishness. Culture is downstream from biology, after all.

            But Enlightenment ideals also inevitably led us to this point.

            It’s just nature doing its thing. A genetic variation (pushed by culture in this case) worked extremely well and allowed that group to expand and flourish. But the environment changed (ironically, that same group changed the environment) and that group is no longer well-adapted to the new environment and is struggling.

            As always, adapt or die.

        • Incredible post CoaSC. You described a complex phenomenon in a very succinct manner. Well done.

          • Thanks. I’ve been reading and thinking about this for a long time. Unfortunately, understanding the real underlying issues also makes it very clear that there’s no way back to what we once had.

            Z is right. We have to move forward and accept the world that we live in.

        • As you note, NW Europeans were able to rise above their clannishness. This gives the color-blind civnats hope that all groups can do the same.

          It’s always hard to argue a negative, but non-whites, including the chosen, are for all intents and purposes unable to transcend their tribalism and we must act according to that fact.

          • They’re unable to transcend their tribalism because they never went through centuries of having it bred out of them, like we did.

            That’s what frustrates me so much about the Sailer HBD crowd. They know the genetic differences, but still cling to their colorblind civic nationalism. Truly bizarre to watch. Like Anton, they really believe that their “natural rights” will overcome the genetic barriers.


        • Excellent distillation, Citizen, of the main thesis of the book The WEIRDest People in the World. The NW European system survived and prospered as long as it was confined to NW European people; it cannot survive the importation of large numbers of people who have evolved in clannish societies.

          • Always meant to read that book, but I’d suspect that the author treads lightly on the genetic aspect of how we became weird.

            But, yes, once you let clannish people into your borders, it’s game over.

        • Excellent insight, Citizen. Genius. I’ve struggled for years to try to understand why only the peoples from north and west of the Hajnal line are programmed to accept the values of the Enlightenment. This likely explains it.

      • Yep. See negro jubilation over the aquittal of the obvious murderer OJ Simpson as a case in point.

        • Quite. For this, you can thank an Anglo, King Alfred and his Book of Common Law, applied to both commoners and kings.

          For this, Alfred was the only English king titled, “the Great”.

          • But in Alfred’s day, there was no sizeable component of alien, inherently oppositionally tribal subjects in the realm.
            Alfred was advocating a just legal system for the benefit and flourishing of the English People.
            Citizen of a Silly Country has clearly articulated the argument that this system is fatally undermined when alien tribalists successfully infiltrate and corrupt this system devised to lessen social tensions and provide for a more equitable justice system within a True Nation, i.e., a genuine ethnostate within which it is no shame that tradition holds sway.

          • But in Alfred’s day, there was no sizeable component of alien, inherently oppositionally tribal subjects in the realm.

            Pick up a history book.

            Britain was half conquered by Danes in Alfred’s time. He barely escaped being killed and his kingdom conquered.

            There were also Cetic-British remnants and Sotts in the north.

          • Dinodoxy,

            Those people were not in Alfred’s realm, a realm that Alfred fought to carve out against the Danish invaders. Of course there were other peoples on the island of Great Britain, do you really believe that I am ignorant of that fact? I was speaking of the dynamic of Alfred’s strategy of supporting his people by carving out a space for his People, the English People in contradistinction to the others all around him, and setting them apart. Geez, do you think that there might be something we white people of the FUSA might stand to learn from that, beleaguered as we are by invading hordes, and through the machinations of other tribes already thrusting us into the wilderness both figuratively and literally (as Alfred and his fyrd were in their time)? Alfred was a pretty inspiring figure in my book, a man who led his People in their fight out of a corner, and who laid the foundation for the survival and future resurgence of his Nation; that was the book that I picked up and read pace your snarky remark. In my comment, that was the burden of the song, but I guess that you missed that in your haste to appear superior.

    • Unfortunately, YT has a big target on his back with respect to following the law or not. I’d just like to see some White guy stroll out of Neiman Marcus with a garbage bag full of unpayed for merchandise. If the cops didn’t gun him down, I’d be somewhat surprised. I imagine that’ll change at some point, but not now.

    • Relatedly, it is quite apparent that in legal clashes between whites and negroes, there is a big lead boot on the scales of so-called “justice” in favor of the nuggras. If whites are going to be persecuted for defending themselves, even mildly, against negro malefeasance, why not simply blaze away with a heater and let the chips fall where they may? How much do you really have to lose?

  22. Even the revered jury trial is no longer a check. A jury of Portland liberals will acquit antifa gang members for beating Andy Ngo. By the same token there is no way a DC jury will acquit a conservative public figure accused of a non-crime.

    Don’t even get me started on the tort system.

    • That issue is similar to the idea that democracy breaks down when one group of people no longer accept the right of another group of people to rule over them – even if the second group wins more than 50% of the vote.

      A democracy is no different from a tyranny is one group uses their majority status to enslave or abuse another group. If a majority of non-whites votes to tax whites at 75% and themselves at 0%, that’s both democratic and tyrannyical.

        • I’ve seen stats that break down aggregate financial contributions by race in America. If it were whites, despite the massive government we would still balance the budget every year.

          Thus, whites are taxed at over 100% when you account for the debt and interest and POCs are free riding at a net surplus when you add everything up.

          I can’t remember who does this and his web site, but his methodology seems solid. If anyone here knows would appreciate the reference.

          In short TC, it is already here.

    • Jury trials are weird to begin with. Why would you want 12 randos off the street arbitrating in legal matters rather than, say, some guy who have a long and relevant career in law and litigation, a guy who actually knows how the legal system works and what the laws are?

      One of the jurors in the OJ Simpson trial openly told a news camera that the verdict was payback for Rodney King.

      • The theory was the judge is a state actor and the jurors were not. In a who/whom system, with jurors likely to be limited to the favored (imagine how much doxing takes place pretrial), that may no longer be true.

        • This makes sense in a society where all are subject to the same aristocracy and there is a sense of solidarity. Then you ensure that this isn’t a case of some rich guy getting mad at a peasant and wanting retribution.

          In a world of Red vs. Blue, they are no longer seen as a fellow citizen, but an enemy combatant, and they let their bloodlust determine guilt.

        • That is an excellent point Jack Dodson. If you look at jury selection it is often in the case of blacks a racial headcount. In essence it is an admission and an open rejection of the justice system. They are saying it isn’t the system it is the people.

          When a people don’t agree on the justice system you no longer have a society, given that a justice system is one of the fundamental reasons for creating a society. When 13% of the population rejects it, the right thing to do is to calmly admit that you can’t live together and bid them a peaceful and just farewell.

          I think that was the entire idea behind Liberia and the ACS. It failed because America was so busy settling the frontier and building up a great civilization that it neglected and ignored the men who foresaw what would happen if there wasn’t a repatriation. In fact, the few who did go to Liberia are proof they were right.

          All that effort to discover, conquer and settle a continent and it appears to have been for nothing. It isn’t too late to make it have been for something, but dealing with the problems they ignored is a far tougher task than the great things they did while ignoring them. A great and spirited people taming a virgin continent and planting their civilization on it will pale in comparison to what is required to create a new success story for those of our people who are up to the task.

      • I’ll take the 12 randos. I agree with WF Buckley, who said something like he would rather be ruled by the first 2000 names in the phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard. The key is to not live in areas with liberal DAs, where you could fall prey to a black or very liberal jury.

        • I agree with WF Buckley, who said something like he would rather be ruled by the first 2000 names in the phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard.

          Nice quip, but it’s just a quip.

          I’d prefer to be judged by a professional who will lose both face and career if he makes a serious mistake, not someone who can waltz off and with impunity tell the world afterwards: “yeah, we set a murderer free because fuck whites. What are you going to do about it, honky?”

          I understand the argument about the judge being an agent of the government, but that is inevitable when you hand someone the responsibility to act on behalf of the state, be it a judge or a jury. Transparency would go a long way towards keeping judges honest but if a juror is in it for the TikTok clout, transparency would do eff all.

          And what’s with the public election of prosecutors, then? The prosecutor is supposed to be an agent of the state. When you make him run for election campaign, you make him beholden to his sponsors, whether it’s an oligarch or an ethnic constituency.

          • And what’s with the public election of prosecutors, then?
            –In hindsight that’s an admission of failure, i.e. the prosecutor has turned into a glorified legislator and should therefor be elected, with the voting an attempt to fix something already broken.

          • I’d prefer to be judged by a professional who will lose both face and career if he makes a serious mistake,

            We just went through this with CoVid.

            The “non political” public health professionals were horrific. Worse even than democratically elected politicians.

      • It made sense in 18th, 19th and most of the 20th century for the US. But it’s supremely stupid in a multi-racial country increasing inhabited by clannish tribes.

        Times change.

      • Better still, why why prefer juries where the IQ of the average juror is 100 when you could have jurors with an average IQ of 115? Many legal cases are extremely complex and beyond the ken of the average person. Perhaps justice would be better served by a cadre of intelligent, well-trained, professional jurors. Of course, who trains the jurors could be something of an issue. Clearly, for instance, postmodern law schools would have no business performing that task.

        • Perhaps justice would be better served by a cadre of intelligent, well-trained, professional jurors.

          That’d just give you ten amateur judges for one professional, and you’d still have the same problems with jury intimidation, bribery, mass media manipulation and ethnic hatred.

          And yes, the idea works a lot better in a socially coherent, white society but if I were on trial, I’d still prefer a judge to a jury. Randos are morons.

          • The reason people avoid jury duty is because the “highest, most important duty under the law” is too stingy to pay a living wage for the jurors.

            Deliberately. We’ve lost our fair juries because of goddam peanuts.

          • True, except for the fact that they wouldn’t be amateurs, randos or morons. Otherwise, spot on.

            And who’s to say a judge couldn’t be intimidated, bribed, manipulated and motivated by ethnic hatred?

        • For civil disputes among those who can afford it, that is what private arbitration offers. In theory.

      • When it began the jury system meant a jury composed a people who had some acquaintance with the people involved and could assess their credibility. At some point, “impartiality” became synonymous with “blind ignorance.” The descent of the West into a system of competing tribes and clans means that the jury system no longer functions properly. Trouble is, the same descent is undermining the competence and impartiality of the judiciary itself. One of the George Floyd police defendants was convicted a form of manslaughter in a bench trial (without a jury) in what was clearly a total miscarriage of justice. An interesting development would be if the Hmong community in Minneapolis (the policeman was a Hmong) decided to send a “delegation with appropriate tools” to explain to the judge the error of his ruling and its repercussions in the Hmong community.

    • Didn’t the lawyer for the defendants literally threaten the jury too?

      The Rule of Law is dead.

      • Maniac: For racially-aware Whites, it most certainly is. Anarcho-tyranny is the order of the day. My ‘cope’ is to minimize my contact with the legal and administrative system. Not to the point of having no legal ID or setting up some faux-company to hold my land in another name (I’ve read this advocated, and if you can do so and figure it’s ultimately worth it then go for it), but other little things. I have a driver’s license but it’s not compliant with the “real ID ” act. I’m not registered to vote. I have no apps or payment means on my phone or computer. I increasingly pay local bills in person and in cash. I assume any contact with legal authority will be inherently hostile to me and my beliefs, and so act to minimize this possibility.

    • That is because Leftists have no principles other than the acquisition of total power. In practice, this means legal niceties be damned, and let jury nullification reign.

      • Jury nullification is a useful safegaurd, and can be used for good as well as evil. If abuse of it leads to breakdown, then perhaps so much the better. If Joe normie figures his only hope of getting justice has become a do-it-yourself affair the people on charge will have a tougher time making anarchotyranny work the way they want it to.

        More anarcho, less tyranny.

        • Agreed. We no longer share a country with citizens holding different views; we are now at war with enemies who seek to grind us underfoot. That being the case, we must fight fire with fire, and that means no longer standing on principle. Of course, it may already be too late.

      • Doxing is intended to chill jury nullification. Any white person on bond is a fool not to skip out. That’s not to knock jury nullification, and it should be employed, but it carries risk.

  23. According to a few Russian youtubers I watch this is very much the system they live under. Soviet oppression may have dissipated but that didn’t leave them any sort of liberty, just not as bad.

    How fortunate for us to finally devolve into such a system also. Does this just keep going on or do we get one those civil wars or blowbacks many are talking about?

    • The dissident right isn’t a good place to point this out. Folks here tend to assume that since China and Russia oppose the GAE they must therefore be good.

      In reality both nations embody the two things the DR is supposed to hate the most: Russia is run by its corrupt oligarchy, many of them with the triple you-know-who parentheses. China is the technocratic bugman dystopia. But Putin says he loves Jesus and Chinese like to make monkey sounds at blacks so they must be based…

  24. Z’s favorite commentator Nick Fuentes made a very good point about the gag order that one of the judges put on Donald Trump. Fuentes pointed out that since this lawfare is one of the primary issues of the election season, telling Donald Trump he cannot talk about this lawfare is the same as telling Trump that he cannot talk about one the primary issues of the election. They have it set up so that, quite literally, the Brandon Justice Department is running his campaign.

    Pair this up with the fact that the media, using their power to ignore, simply will not report on Trump’s campaign (they did this in 2020, too), while also running Brandon’s PR (you saw this in their coverage of his visit to Maui) and you have easily the most rigged election in American history, before any fortifications, and it’s going to get even worse.

    • How dare you! You know there is a Jihad in this site against Nick Fuentes.

      The mask is off now more than ever, there is hope when Fuentes, Jimmy Dore, Russell Brand, Ramz, Scott Adams, Tucker and many others that cannot be more different are aware of the same situation. Basically the regime crossed a big red line that warned all of us about how serious they are about keeping the scam up. Dore is now a cough theorist and there is no theory he won’t pursue (Maui), this happens once you take the red pill, it’s malfeasance all the way down and nothing they say is true.

      We definitely know now that JFK, RFK Sr, Nixon etc were nixed because they became too close to the truth. Now it’s Orange man turn. But now it seems we have serious people of all ages aware of what is going on.

      No way that the “bigger than Watergate” method is not going to be laugh off and other shenanigans. Of many suspicious campaigns I think the following were attempts to create a public opinion case against Trump: Grab them by the p*sy (directed at Christians), porn star NDA (similar plus feminists also riled up), Al Franken metoo (Senator goes down, so now do president, they added women claiming being sexually assaulted by Trump)… this one was hilarious when that crazy woman said to Anderson Cooper that r*pe is seeexyyy LMAO.

      Now Trump is a coup leader and election interferist (!) His crime, suggestion of shenanigans in an election where he was a candidate. He pointed out the absurdity of this when Hillary has not recognized the 2016 election yet. The classification scandal was also ridiculous when Hillary (not a President) did worst in her emails (reason they have this humiliation line “but her emails”… this works because the political fanatics think is so effective, basically it is mental self satisfaction)

      • Dore is even making statements gentling questioning climate change science. You know for a lefty that has got to be a hard pill for him to swallow.

Comments are closed.