Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
"...men bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black and black is white, according as they are paid."
And it was not for nothing that 400 years ago William Shakespeare had one of his characters -- Dick the butcher in King Henry VI -- say: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Dick was expressing a very popular sentiment in those days.
In fact, that has been a popular sentiment as long as there have been lawyers. Some 2200 years ago serious and tradition-minded Romans were sufficiently troubled by the behavior of lawyers and by their negative effect on public morale that they made a serious effort to rein them in. In 204 BC the Roman Senate passed a law prohibiting lawyers from plying their trade for money. A man skilled in the law might volunteer to defend a friend or a cause in the law courts, but he was forbidden to accept a fee for his services. That would have been one of the best ideas the Romans ever had, if there had been some way to enforce that law effectively. Of course, as the Roman Republic declined and became more and more democratic, it became increasingly difficult to keep lawyers in check and prevent them from accepting fees under the table, and young men with more ambition than scruples flocked to the practice of law.
For a successful Roman lawyer the essential skill was rhetoric. The Greeks had reduced rhetoric to a science -- the science of persuasion -- and a number of Greek rhetoricians set up schools of rhetoric in Rome. Tradition-minded Romans saw these rhetoric schools as a subversive influence: as an assault on Roman morals and customs. Cato the Censor commented early in the 2nd century BC that after listening to some of these clever Greeks it was impossible to know what was true and what was not. Some Greeks themselves shared Cato's view of the rhetoricians, and already two centuries before Cato, Plato had referred to them as notorious for "making the worse appear the better cause." In 161 BC the Roman Senate ordered all of these Greek schools of rhetoric closed and their teachers expelled from Rome.
Alas, that provided only a momentary halt to the problem, and the rhetoricians and the lawyers were soon back in greater force than ever. The rhetoric schools were shut down again in 92 BC by the censors, who were Rome's official guardians of public morality, but again the cure was insufficient for the sickness. Trying to keep lawyers out of the Republic in its last days was like trying to keep maggots away from a dead horse.
And of course, the fact that there always has been an overabundance of men with more ambition than scruples wasn't the only reason for this; there also was the fact that there was a real need for lawyers. As long as we live in a society based on law, we need men to formulate laws, to administer laws, to interpret laws, and to help ordinary citizens cope with the laws. We also need safeguards to prevent laws and lawyers from swamping our society. We need safeguards to keep laws as simple as they can be while still serving their purpose, and to keep them from proliferating unnecessarily. We need safeguards to prevent lawyers from abusing the system. And unfortunately, these safeguards do not exist in our society. Lawyers are out of control. The legal system is out of control. The Romans at least tried to provide safeguards against the lawyers. We haven't even tried.
The reason we haven't tried is that we have in effect put the foxes in charge of the henhouse. The people we have put in charge of our legislative system and our judicial system are all lawyers themselves, and they are as a class not inclined to do anything to curtail their bread and butter or to limit their power and influence. The result is the sorry spectacle we witnessed in the U.S. Senate last week, when a bunch of crooked lawyers was called on to deal with another crooked lawyer who had been caught in flagrante delicto. The senators didn't really care that Clinton had broken the law. What they cared about was his popularity polls. They weren't concerned about having a felon and a reprobate in the White House; they were concerned about votes, about their own popularity polls. That's why we saw the Republican lawyers dancing all around the real issues and failing to come to grips with them. That's why we saw Charles Schumer and other Democrat lawyers dancing the hora in the halls outside the Senate chamber after the head lawyer of their party was acquitted. What a disgusting scene!
Well, it's easy enough to hate lawyers any day of the week on general principles, but I'll tell you about some very specific things the lawyers are up to now which ought to make a real lawyer-hater out of every patriot. What sparked today's comments was the jury verdict earlier this month against an anti-abortion group which has a site on the Internet. Probably you've already heard something about the case. A group of abortionists and their lawyers went to Federal court with a lawsuit against anti-abortion activists who used the Internet to publish "wanted" posters with photographs, names, and descriptions of abortionists. Rewards were offered for personal information on some of the abortionists. The anti-abortionists did not actually threaten the abortionists or urge anyone to harm them, but they did describe them as "baby butchers." During the past five years four abortion doctors have been shot to death, and three other abortion-clinic workers have been killed by anti-abortionists, and whenever one of the abortionists was assassinated his name would have a line drawn through it on the Internet "wanted" list.
A Federal jury in Portland, Oregon, agreed with the lawyers for the abortionists that the public stand of the anti-abortionists might have encouraged the assassins to take action against the abortionists, and the jury ordered the anti-abortionists to pay more than $107 million to the abortionists and their lawyers.
Now, I should tell you that I am not opposed to all abortions on religious grounds, as most anti-abortionists are. I am opposed on racial grounds to the large-scale abortion for mere convenience that we have in the United States and much of Europe today. I am opposed to the large-scale killing of healthy, White babies, just because the mothers decide that it would be inconvenient for their careers or their life-styles to give birth. I believe that the fact that the U.S. government and much of American society, with the vigorous encouragement of the mass media, approve of the large-scale abortion of healthy, White babies for the sake of convenience is a sign of the moral collapse of our society. I see a sign of moral collapse whenever the convenience of the individual is given precedence over the health and welfare of the race. And in line with this racial view, I approve of abortion whenever it serves a eugenic purpose.
My views on abortion, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is the use of the courts, the use of the judicial system, to punish Political Incorrectness at the expense of everyone's freedom. And if you think that your freedom of speech is not jeopardized when a bunch of Jews and feminists can use the courts to silence their critics, as they did in Portland this month, then you aren't thinking very clearly.
I should point out that this $107 million verdict in Portland against anti-abortionists is only one case in a growing trend of using the courts to take away our freedom. In New York just last week another Federal jury ordered gun manufacturers to pay nearly $4 million in a lawsuit brought by gun-control advocates, even though none of the defendants had done anything unlawful, and no firearm they had manufactured could be tied to any specific wrongful action. They were found guilty on general grounds of being negligent by manufacturing guns which might be used by criminals to harm other people. This verdict is a direct threat to every American's right to self-defense. It is a threat to all of us because the people who would like to keep anyone except the Clinton government's jackbooted thugs from having a firearm have decided to use civil litigation against gun manufacturers and gun dealers to achieve their aim.
Even before last week's New York verdict lawyers representing the cities of Chicago, New Orleans, Miami, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, had filed separate but similar lawsuits against gun manufacturers, claiming that the manufacturers have been negligent by failing to take effective steps to ensure that their guns do not end up in the hands of criminals. Lawyers for Atlanta, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Baltimore are eager to follow with their own lawsuits. Some of these plaintiffs have been frank enough to admit that their aim is not so much to recover money from the gun-makers as it is to bankrupt them and force them out of business.
Many of the people associated with these lawsuits are prominent in the movement to repeal the Second Amendment. Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell heads a committee on gun control in the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which has been behind all of the lawsuits filed -- or soon to be filed -- against gun manufacturers by various cities. Rendell's committee works closely with a group of Democratic senators on the formulation of strategy for gun control -- specifically with California Senator Diane Feinstein, New York Senator Charles Schumer, and New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg. All three senators are leaders of the gun-banning faction in the U.S. Senate -- and all three are Jews, as is Mayor Edward Rendell himself.
The lawyers behind these class-action lawsuits against firearms manufacturers are following the example set by a series of successful class-action lawsuits against tobacco companies during the past couple of years. Let me tell you, I believe that smoking is an extremely harmful vice our society needs to rid itself of. The companies which sell tobacco products are in my view more morally reprehensible than the drug cartels which bring cocaine and heroin into America. Certainly tobacco kills far more addicts every year than die from their addiction to cocaine, heroin, and all other addictive drugs combined. If it is illegal to import, sell, or possess heroin, then tobacco products also should be illegal.
The politicians, of course, are afraid to tackle the problem of nicotine addiction head-on. There are too many tobacco farmers and too many smokers in the United States. The politicians would lose too many votes. So instead of dealing with the tobacco problem in an honest and direct way they have misused the courts by filing class-action lawsuits against the tobacco companies.
The fact is that the tobacco companies are acting in a legal manner. Every package of cigarettes has a warning on it. No one who gets lung cancer or throat cancer from smoking can claim that he wasn't warned of the danger. That simple fact had been sufficient to protect the tobacco companies from lawsuits in the past -- but not in the Clinton era. Things have become more democratic just in the last decade. Now just obeying the law isn't good enough. Now juries are buying the argument by plaintiffs' lawyers that tobacco companies should pay damages to people who didn't have the self-discipline to avoid becoming nicotine addicts; that anti-abortion groups are responsible if someone is motivated by their anti-abortion message to shoot an abortionist or blow up an abortion clinic; that firearms manufacturers must pay if their guns fall into the hands of criminals or of people who are not intelligent enough to use them properly, even though they are manufactured and sold legally and are safe and effective when used properly. This is really a feminine argument -- the argument that people should be protected from their own weakness or foolishness, that it's unfair -- perhaps even racist -- to put all the blame on criminals for criminal actions, and that no one should be permitted to say really harsh or unkind things against others, abortionists or otherwise. Juries have become more feminine in their attitudes, and lawyers are taking advantage of it.
The tobacco companies may be wealthy enough to withstand class-action lawsuits, but most firearms makers aren't, and certainly no anti-abortion group is. The result is that the courts in America are being used in a way that they never were intended to be used. They are being used by special-interest groups to silence their critics and to impose their social or political agendas on the rest of us against our wills. And the lawyers, instead of opposing this misuse of the judicial system, are in a feeding frenzy. Hundreds of lawyers have become wealthy from these class-action lawsuits, and thousands of others are hoping to do the same.
Of course, it's not just the greed and irresponsibility of lawyers as a class which should be blamed for this misuse of the courts. As is the case with most of the ills afflicting our society today, the Jews -- and not just Jewish lawyers -- have a role in it. Jewish groups have been screaming for months that the wave of killings of abortionists is motivated by anti-Semitism, since a majority of the abortionists who have been shot have been Jews. Jewish groups have been especially shrill about this since the shooting of the Jewish abortionist Dr. Barnett Slepian near Buffalo, New York, last October 23. The fact is that Jews are greatly overrepresented among abortionists, just as they are among those pushing for gun control; if you shoot into a crowd of abortion doctors you're likely to kill a Jew. Jewish groups, however, are convinced that most anti-abortionists are also at least latently anti-Semitic. And so Jews generally have encouraged these lawsuits and cheered the recent verdicts.
And of course, the most notorious use of class-action lawsuits has been their use by Jewish organizations who currently are extorting billions of dollars from banks, insurance companies, governments, and manufacturers around the world in the form of Second World War reparations. Considering everything, to speak out against class-action lawsuits almost could be interpreted as anti-Semitic.
A similar misuse of the courts -- which need not involve a whole class of plaintiffs -- is that engaged in most notoriously by a lawyer named Morris Dees and the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center. Morris Dees uses the courts as a prop to assist him in raising money from a large mailing list of feminists, Jews, leftists, and other supporters of the Clinton agenda. He looks for a group which is unpopular with his supporters -- a group of anti-abortionists, for example, or a religious group with a doctrine his Jewish supporters consider anti-Semitic -- then he looks for a plaintiff he can use as a straw man for filing a lawsuit against the target group. Then he sends out fund appeals to his list of feminists, Jews, and leftists, in which he says:
"I am suing such-and-such a group, and I intend to bankrupt them and put them out of business, but I need your help. This lawsuit is very expensive. Send me your largest possible donation today, and I will shut this group down for you."
And he has built up a bank account of more than $70 million in this fashion during the past few years, because he always brings in far more money with his fund appeals than he actually spends on litigation against the target groups.
Using the courts in this fashion is called barratry, and lawyers who engaged in barratry used to be disbarred -- but not in the Clinton era. In the Clinton era Morris Dees is a darling of the legal establishment. He is invited to speak to groups of lawyers. He is given awards by bar associations. Other lawyers admire him for his success at barratry. They envy him for the amount of money he has made at it. And Dees, unlike the group of abortionists who won the lawsuit in Portland recently and unlike most of the gun-control advocates filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers, doesn't even pretend to be anything but a barrator. He brags publicly about it. When he sued me, on a legal theory so far-fetched you wouldn't believe it, because I had purchased some real estate from a church that was one of his targets, he bragged to the newspapers and to his list of supporters: "I'm going to shut Pierce down."
Well, he didn't shut me down, but he got his lawsuit against me tried in a court where the judge was a Clinton appointee, and it ended up costing me nearly $150,000, while Dees raked in nearly $10 million in donations from his supporters. At the moment he is suing another unpopular church in Idaho and soliciting donations from his list of leftists, feminists, and Jews to support the suit. And other lawyers will not condemn him. They just envy him.
Morris Dees, more than any other lawyer, epitomizes what is wrong with our legal system in America today. He helps us to understand why there has been a general feeling among our people, from the time of Plato to the present -- a feeling expressed over and over by our writers down through the millennia -- that there is something fundamentally unclean about men whose profession it is to make the worse cause seem the better, to use Plato's words, or to prove that white is black and black is white, according as they are paid, to use Swift's words. The noble Romans considered such a profession to be un-Roman, and today we consider it to be un-Aryan.
Our legal system has become a system of lawyers, run entirely by lawyers, solely for the enrichment of lawyers. It is a malignant system which threatens the freedom of us all and which does not have the will to cure itself. It is because of this that the cure will have to come from outside the legal system and will have to be a very painful cure indeed. Someday, in a new society, we will have to build a new legal system. Let us not make the same mistakes we made -- and that the Romans made before us. Let us build a system with adequate safeguards: a system to serve the race, not the lawyers.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page