Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Additional Commentary and References


What is the proper role of legal institutions in American society?

  A strong genetic.viewpoint:  

A strong environmental.viewpoint:
An increase in laws and lawyers cor-  
More laws mean that more sharp minds
relates with a sick, fractured society    
show us how to act more civilized
Homogeneous societies require fewer  
We need "activist" laws that improve so-
laws because of shared traits, culture  
cial policy across many different groups
Laws cannot substitute for having own  
Law preserves America's best values as
  people control nation's strategic bases    
it undergoes major racial transformations

Sample argument: The fundamental problem with relying on laws to make society honest and hold it together is that they tend to be least effective at the highest policy levels where they are most needed. Tacitus noted, "Where the state is most corrupt, the laws are most multiplied." Pythagoras said, "As soon as laws are necessary for men, they are no longer fit for freedom." The most reliable safeguard for a society is not the creation of "better laws" per se, but rather insuring that the people who man the strategic bases of society share ones race, ethnicity, culture, and other vital values and interests. In this way, they will have a natural sense of caretakership. They will be more likely to identify with you and resolve "gray zone" policy issues in your favor. Conversely if aliens take control of the strategic bases of your society, God help you, because no laws will ever protect you in the long run from their quiet, clever skullduggery motivated by their alien interests. Indeed, it is the men who make the system more than the system that makes the men. Anarcho-libertarians observe that in communities of mostly fair-minded, reasonable, honest people, most disputes that cannot be resolved on a personal level can still be resolved through private arbitration without escalating to state intervention. Most Anglo-Saxon common law is based on simple common sense principles that do not require formal legal training or a legal library to understand. Laws must reflect ancestral traditions to insure that your men continue to run your system. "Equality" becomes meaningless as we remove it from its traditional context in Anglo-Saxon common law and egalitarian Northern European tribal communities. "Law" will not prevent multi-racial America from eventually coming apart at the seams much like the former Yugoslavia.
. . .

Sample argument: As a multi-racial society and global economic leader, America has necessarily evolved complex laws and regulations to cope with the huge size and complexity of the underlying society. All of this has been developed with the assistance of the best and the brightest legal scholars in the world. To the extent that steady growth and size means success, these changed characteristics of American law have been companions of successful growth and adaptation to a complex world. In addition, the general trend in American law and political rhetoric has been to take literally the saying in the Declaration of Independence that "All men are created equal." We need pervasive government and powerful, socially-conscious courts to cement this vision in all areas of American life. The ideas expressed in the opposing statement are really forms of obsolescent 19th century white racism and paternalism inappropriate for a globalized world. We have expanded our society well beyond the WASP population that comprised the overwhelming majority up until the 1840's by creating an intricate system of additional regulatory safeguards. Our affirmative action laws prevent whites from "turning back the clock" on "equality" so that America may be increasingly led by nonwhites. Laws that create special protected classes for minorities such as blacks and Jews teach us how to share and get along better. We need to err on the side of too much legal intervention to forestall any risk of racial or ethnically-motivated violence, bigotry, and prejudice. While the whole trend of "political correctness" and "hate crime" laws may seem obnoxious to staunch defenders of free speech, they are balanced by our need to firmly teach everyone how to get along and act more civilized.

Last updated 9 Aug 2007 by William B. Fox)

If having lots of laws and lawyers is such a wonderful thing, we might ask why the number of lawyers per capita in America has an inverse correlation with social efficiency. I think that the chart below and explanation from the Grandfather economic report exposes an important underlying reality in America.

The Grandfather Economic Report comments:

USA Leads the World in Lawyers

America has 281 lawyers for every 100,000 people, compared to Britain with 94, 33 in France and a mere 7 in Japan.

Americans have a proper contempt for the vast mass of lawyers. Source - The Economist, page 35, December 16, 2000


Author's comment: It is interesting that the chart ranking of the nations regarding lawyer concentration correlates with the same ranking concerning trade competitiveness and inflation rates.

Trade: while America has the highest density of lawyers it also has the greatest current account (foreign trade competitiveness) deficit ratio to GDP. Japan with the fewest lawyers has the world's highest trade surplus. Current account data 2003: USA 5% GDP deficit, Britain 2.1% GDP deficit, France 1.3% surplus, Japan 3% surplus. Same as ranking December 2000: USA 4.3% GDP deficit, Britain 1.6% deficit, France 2.3% surplus, Japan 2.5% surplus. (see International Trade Report)

Inflation: the higher a nation's lawyer density the higher is it's inflation ratio, in comparison to other nations. Inflation data 2000 period: USA 3.4% (with doctored numbers - see Inflation Report), Britain 3.2%, France 2.25%, Japan 0%.

From this data one could argue that the higher a nation's lawyer ratio the less competitive it is regarding international trade - and the higher it's inflation rate. The above chart suggests that once a nation has more than 50 lawyers per 100,000 person population the above correlation results. It could further be argued that by this measure the USA, with a lawyer density ratio of 281, has 5 times too many lawyers. Whatever the excess, the fact citizen trust in the ethics of lawyers reaching new lows suggests troubling implications looking forward.

A November 2003 email from a reader in Austria: "One of the items in the US where we shake our heads about is the high number of lawyers taking over the whole society and literally keeping it at ransom. In Europe, if one looses a lawsuit, he has to pay all costs. This makes suing risky."

UPDATE > 2003 data shows the number of lawyers per 100,000 citizens increased to 361 (compared to 281 shown in above chart), according to population data and American Bar Assoc. ( --Editor's Note: currently a broken link)

U.S. Companies Spending a Fortune in Court. The typical U.S. company faces an average of 305 lawsuits and spends $12 million a year on litigation alone, not including settlements or judgments. A strong majority of companies, 63 percent, also said they had hired outside counsel to conduct internal investigations in the past year.10/13/06 (

March 28, 2007 – United Press International: “The U.S. legal system imposes a cost of $865 billion a year on the U.S. economy, or $9,800 a family, a San Francisco ‘free-market’ think tank reports. The costs associated with civil lawsuits, and the fear of them, is 27 times more than the federal government spends on homeland security; 30 times what the National Institutes of Health dedicates to biomedical research; and 13 times the amount the U.S. education department spends to educate children, the Pacific Research Institute says.”

Additionally, $865 billion imposed legal system cost is 50% more than spent on social security and 60% more than spent on defense - - see Federal Govt. Spending Report

My hat is off to Michael Hodges whose selfless work at the Grandfather Economic Report is waking up America!

Law and the genetic viewpoint

In my environmental vs. genetics article, I analyze the relationship between between legal institutions and an indigenous social structure that favors decentralization. The following is a brief summary.

American law stems from the Anglo-Saxon Common Law of the colonial period. The Anglo-Saxon Common Law in turn evolved from ancient Nordic and Celtic tribal traditions. Relative to most other peoples on the planet, the social structure of the Nordic and Celtic tribes has always been characterized by having a large middle class of armed free men and land-owning homesteaders. These societies always had a relatively small peasantry and aristocracy in proportion to their free farmers (or free fishermen and other seafarers, as in the case of many Baltic and North Sea countries). The freemen were descendents of hardy warriors, hunters, fishermen, farmers, and artisans who were the product of a long evolutionary process under highly dispersed conditions in cold environments that required a high degree of self-sufficiency, individual initiative, personal territoriality, technological adaptiveness, self-restraint, and forethought. Their legal institutions reflect these innate mental characteristics developed by a unique evolutionary process. Therefore, compared to most other societies on the planet, these peoples have always enjoyed an unusually high level of rational procedure and consistently applied legal principles.

Many traits of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law, such as the chivalrous right to confront ones accuser's in a sportsmanlike setting that places evidence and logic over politics, may reflect chivalrous traits found among mammalian species that evolve under dispersed conditions in semi-Arctic and Arctic zones. Clearly there are strong racial and biological components to the Anglo-Saxon approach to administering justice that are nearly incomprehensible to other racial and ethnic groups from other parts of the planet.

From a racial nationalist perspective, people instinctively tend to want to be among their own kind and biologically reject forced race mixing (see "Zoological Subspecies in Man" by Dr. Norman Hall). Therefore, the creation of a multi-racial and multi-cultural society introduces layers of quiet civil war and other forms of strife within a society that reduce its overall level of social and economic efficiency. At the same time, increased multi-racialism and multi-culturalism increases the need for professional arbitrators such as lawyers. It also tempts the rulers of the multi-racial society to increase state centralization and police power in an effort to keep things together at all costs as grass roots racial and ethnic commonalities erode away.

The following passage was extracted from my environmental vs. genetics article:

In a healthy, racially homogeneous society, rules for moral behavior do not need to be very complicated

The late libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne pointed out that at root, most Anglo-Saxon common law was based on three simple principles.

a) Do what you say you are going to do (contract law)
b) Do not harm my person or my property (tort and criminal law)
c) Do not trespass against me or my property unless you obtain my permission first

When in doubt, one can generally apply the Golden Rule, that is, treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself.

Harry Brown pointed out that these simple rules should be adequate to guide most people in most situations throughout life. However, he noted that is true that serious conflicts will inevitably arise. However, he argued that even here private citizens can satisfactorily resolve their problems without the intervention of police, a court system, or other expensive state-operated entities.

According to Browne, the next step up should be arbitration. This simply involves having both sides to a dispute agree to present their case before a third party, whose ruling becomes binding. The third party can be anyone they trust from any walk of life. It does not have to be a lawyer or judge.

Why does the government oppose Harry Browne's refreshing perspective?

Unfortunately Americans are being conditioned today by national media and the Bush administration to believe that we need more Federal oversight through the so-called Department of Homeland Security, more curtailment of civil liberties through the so-called Patriot Act, and more surveillance by its police agencies.

Unfortunately too many Americans are completely ignorant regarding libertarian alternatives. They passively accept police state options spoon fed to them by corrupt and irresponsible leaders. The police state then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because too many people simply do not know any better.

Unfortunately there are also underlying social and racial dimensions that also help create the police state as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Too many Americans are ignorant about these underlying dynamics as well.

Racial demographic change and the emerging police state

Historically, racially homogeneous, ethnically conscious northern European societies have tended to have very low crime rates. Historically, they have tended to decentralize police power among the citizenry through various traditions.

A few examples out of a very long list include private gun ownership (stops crimes before they take place), trial by jury (a check against judicial tyranny), jury nullification (jury can nullify application of laws that defy common sense), posse comitatus (prevents police from turning into a military occupation force), habeas corpus (prevents arbitrary detention by state authorities), and the doctrine of citizen's arrest and Sheriff's posse under English Common Law (common citizens can voluntarily work closely with the police to the point of becoming almost interchangeable with them).

As I mentioned in my centralized vs. decentralized discussion, American pioneer communities were amazingly self-sufficient and decentralized by contemporary standards. In fact, some academic studies suggest that the real crime rate was vastly lower in frontier communities than suggested by movies or popular fiction. (See, for example, Anderson, Terry and Hill, P.J., “An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: the not so Wild, Wild West,” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 3, No. 1, 1979, pp. 9–29.) Of course I am talking here about ethnically homogeneous, northern European-descended pioneer settlements with a wide variety of trades and geared towards farming, industry, and raising families, and not thin little exploitation saloon towns loaded with gambling tables, liquor, and prostitutes specifically geared to to accommodate bachelor miners or cowboys at the end of cattle drives. Common sense alone tells you that the latter situations were trouble waiting to happen.

In broad outline, let me explain how social and demographic changes can encourage the evolution of the police state.

First, greedy business owners get a quick boost to profits by importing low cost labor consisting of alien peoples. Bought politicians get nice under-the-table bribes from either the businessmen or immigrants themselves to relax the immigration rules. The greedy business owners and bought politicians grab their money and run.

On the back end, America is left with more social strife and alienation as the genetic and cultural distances within the population widen. The controlled national media pumps out ever more leftist integration propaganda to try to hold everything together. This in turn further alienates the core white population from any sense of indigenous cultural values that promote honor, industry, and genuine community defense.

The aliens themselves vastly increase crime, such as the fifty times higher rates for certain violent crimes committed by blacks compared to whites discussed by Attorney Edgar Steele, or the leadership of organized crime in America by Jews as documented by Michael Collins Piper in Final Judgment and many other sources.

With greater alien influence, the crime rate and level of social instability rises. Then, as a cosmetic response to these deeper underlying social problems, we get more government oversight. More police. More surveillance. Ultimately we get a police state. And ultimately everyone suffers.

But it gets even worse than all of this. The ultimate end game of the police state is that the people at the top of centralized power become very corrupt and tyrannical.

It should be no wonder that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Extreme centralization is itself a criminal act which appeals to a criminal mentality. It steals from the common people their civil liberties and their political right to exert grass roots popular sovereignty.

Normally in a healthy society honest citizens and the police work hand in hand to solve crimes and arrest and punish the bad guys. In the corrupt police state, honest citizens become terrified of initiating any contact with the police whatsoever. People even become afraid to report crimes or present evidence for fear that they will get put on the radar screens of corrupt authorities. Then they might get subjected to petty rules are applied in a Talmudic manner designed to unjustly frame and imprison them.

As one example, Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out in The Gulag Archipelago that in the Stalinist era, no one in their right mind would ever dream of walking into a KGB station to simply inquire about an official interpretation of rules and regulations or ask about the Constitution of the Soviet Union.

Everything gets so politicized and fearful in a police state that even honest cops who just want to do straight police work suffer along with everyone else. Policemen are forced to overlook serious crimes, tamper with evidence, and do other dirty things to please their bosses.

Once a person understands libertarian alternatives, and in addition understands underlying racial, ethnic, and cultural causal factors behind crime, all of this really paints the policies of the Bush Administration in a very different light.

Please recollect that the Feds called in private paramilitary forces such as Blackwater, Inc. to kick in doors and collect privately owned firearms during the Katrina disaster in August-Sept 2005 in New Orleans. It is bad enough that the Feds have used "private contractors" to "rendition" and torture prisoners overseas in an effort to circumvent U.S. laws. Now part of all that moral rot is coming home to roost on home turf.

The Bush administration ignores massive illegal Third World immigration and evidence of Mossad complicity in staging 9-11, and then turns around and militarizes our police forces. It also destroys our civil liberties through the Patriot Act and whatever else it thinks it can get away with.

This whole notion that somehow we are going to solve our crime problems simply by arming our local policeman with bullet proof vests, automatic weapons, and other military gear, and in addition we must give them the authority to closely monitor and arrest common citizens at will all of this is unbelievably childish. It is also part of an overall pattern that suggests that America's paranoid ruling elite is secretly at war with the rest of the population, and that our local policemen are simply being used as pawns in a much bigger and darker game.

Harry Browne wrote many articles that demonstrated how more government and more laws can paradoxically result in more victimization, not more protection. For example, consider his article: "Your Innocence is No Protection"

When the politicians violate the Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act or some other guaranteed-to-bring-peace-and-security-to-the-world scheme, they always reassure us by saying:

"If you aren't guilty, you have nothing to fear."

If only that were so. The truth is that innocence is no protection at all against government agencies with the power to do what they think best — or against a government agent hoping for promotion and willing to do whatever he can get away with.

• Tell a businessman he has nothing to fear from the piles of forms he must file to prove he doesn't discriminate.

• Tell a home owner he has nothing to fear when his property is seized by the government in a mistaken — or contrived — drug raid.

• Tell a taxpayer he has nothing to fear when the IRS drags him into a "taxpayer compliance" audit that eats up a week of his life, costs him thousands of dollars in accounting fees, and threatens him with unbearable penalties.

It is the innocent who suffer most from government's intrusions. How many times have we seen the following pattern?

1. The press and politicians demand that something be done about violent crime, terrorist acts, drug dealing, tax evasion, or whatever is the Urgent Concern of the Month.

2. A tough, new, take-no-prisoners law or policy is put into place.

3. After the dust settles, the initial "problem" continues unabated, because the guilty continue to slip through the net. But the innocent are left burdened with new chores, expenses, and hazards — more mandatory reports to file, less privacy, reduced access to products and services, higher costs, heavier taxes, and a new set of penalties for those who shirk their duty to fight in the War on ___________ (fill in the blank).

4. And, needless to say, the ineffectual law is never repealed.

Being innocent doesn't allow you to ignore the government's demands for reports — or to say "No, thanks" when a government agent wants to search your records, your place of business, or your home — or to refuse to observe regulations that were aimed at the guilty, not you.

When coercion is used to solve social problems, we all suffer. The coercion fails to achieve its stated aims, but it is wondrously effective at harming the innocent.

Even worse, every year a few million innocent people suffer special burdens — greater than those the government places on all of us. The dismantling of the Bill of Rights has allowed the government to disrupt their lives, confiscate their property, or even kill them — even though they've committed no crimes.

I hope you never become one of them.

In his article: "For Public Safety, We Need Less Government, Not More," Harry Browne commented:

. . .In 1943, there were 44 homicides in New York City. In 1995, with roughly the same population, New York City had 1,499 homicides — and this was celebrated as an improvement. {1}

The truth is that our cities are still unsafe.

Liberal politicians say the crime problem is caused by widespread poverty. But the federal government has thrown trillions of dollars at poverty in the past 30 years while the crime rate continued to rise. By contrast, the crime rate fell dramatically during the poverty-stricken Great Depression of the 1930s.

Conservative politicians say the crime problem stems from lenient judges, the coddling of criminals, and a lack of prisons. But the prison population quadrupled between 1980 and 1997. How many people have to be locked up to make America safe?

How do we reduce crime without the same old futile proposals for more prisons, tougher laws, more federal handouts, higher taxes, more trampling on the Bill of Rights?

Why Crime-Fighting Is Ineffective

To answer that question we first have to ask: Why is crime such a problem?

Primarily because we rely so much on government for law enforcement.

Government is government. It doesn't matter whether government is performing a function you want it to perform or one you think it should avoid. Anything government does will be organized, financed, and carried out using force — not just force against criminals, but force against taxpayers and innocent bystanders. Any program based on force will be inefficient, expensive, misdirected, and intrusive of individual liberty.

It doesn't matter how conscientious the crime fighters are, government — by its nature — can't be very efficient at anything. It never has been and it never will be.

Even where you believe government must be utilized, you should minimize its role and maximize reliance on individual citizens acting voluntarily.

That's the key. Crime rates were much lower when we relied far less on government — and far more on individuals acting in their own self-interest.

And if we want to bring back the safety of those times, we need to make big changes in five areas. Each of them involves a reduction in government, not an increase...

This article is worth linking to are reading in its entirety. Let me at least provide the last summary section here:


Crime rates will drop to the level of a generation ago only when we reduce our dependence upon government. . . .

1. Repeal gun-control laws and criminals will start fearing innocent citizens.

2. Get the federal government out of local law enforcement, and law enforcement will be much more effective and less expensive.

3. Repeal the asset forfeiture laws, and crime-fighting agencies will refocus on the most dangerous criminals, rather than on the most valuable property.

4. End the prosecution of victimless crimes — especially drug crimes — and the courts will tell the truly violent criminals to step to the head of the line.

5. Reduce the enormous number of pointless and harmful laws and regulations, and citizens will respect the laws that remain.

Will these five proposals do away with crime entirely? Of course not. Even the freest and most prosperous country in the world will have people who try to get what they want by taking it from others.

But you can have a peaceful city and a peaceful neighborhood. And you can have it without making big government any bigger — but instead by reducing our reliance on government and relying more on citizens who have an interest in minimizing crime.

Libertarian solutions are sometimes accused of being too extreme. But what could be extreme about wanting to reduce crime, making our schools safer, and setting our citizens free?

The real extremists are those who continue to let children die in school shootings and drive-by killings rather than give up their love affair with big government.

One reason why the Anglo-Saxon common law is so simple is because it is supposed to be based upon truth and honesty. It is rooted in the common sense of the Anglo-Saxon-descended community. There is a kind of purity of the soul and innate public altruism involved. There is a focus upon the use of facts, logic, and consistent application of principle as ends in themselves to serve a higher public purpose.

It is worth emphasizing how successful decentralization depends heavily on the innate level of individual virtue within a society. Decentralized law enforcement only works to the extent that the general population has a reasonably high level of innate honesty, courage, knowledge, and social responsibility. Decentralization actually means increasing the burden of social stress, self-discipline, and responsibility that each citizen must bear on his own. This brings us back to the "republican virtue" concept developed in ancient Rome and espoused by early American leaders.

Tom Paine stated in Common Sense: ". . .it is easy to see that when republican virtues fail, slavery ensues." Thomas Jefferson once commented: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Benjamin Franklin observed: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Not all tribes and races have inherent nobility. Not all of them can manifest the various noble traits entailed in the republican virtue concept. For example in my mutualism vs. parasitism article, I discuss how an institutionalized objective of Thug and Aztec law was to procure fresh innocent victims for sadistic ritualistic sacrifices. Many Aztec priests seemed to be more interested in ripping out beating hearts out and eating people than finding truth and practicing fair dealing.

I discuss other dark peoples as well. For example, we see a very low and mean spirit lying beneath the endless piles of convoluted laws comprising the Jewish Talmud. Rather than determine the truth about guilt or innocence based upon consistent, humane principles, the real objective often has more to do with finding clever legal tricks that enable one to ensnare political enemies or allow friends to beat the rap. We also find numerous loop holes that allow corrupt people to indulge their perverse tendencies at the expense of honest and innocent people. Some of the latter people are Christians who are mocked as being weak and stupid.

Loop holes in the Talmud permit all kinds of amazing perversions. Please see Rev Ted Pike's analysis of the corruption in the Talmud in the Rev Ted Pike archive. Some examples include the articles: "Pedophilia: The Talmud's Dirty Secret," "Talmud: Wellspring of Jewish Pornography Industry," and "Have You Read the Talmud Lately?" He feels that an important mission of Jesus was to try to help the Jews clean all this up. If we are to accept Bible stories as actual history, then instead of feeling grateful, the Pharisees framed and murdered this innocent man and then continued with their evil ways.

Please consider other analyses of the Talmud, for example the online work The Jewish Religion, Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling. In her first chapter she commented "... the Talmud reverses every one of the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Moses and the Prophets, and enshrines their opposites under a `whited sepulcher' which is a disguise for murder and `all uncleanness,' as Christ charged. Murder of non-Pharisees is always permitted; theft, sodomy, incest, rape are all permitted. For example, the righteousness of grown men violating baby girls under three is a favorite topic for discussion in book after book of the Talmud."

Please also see the Talmud Unmasked written in 1892 by Father I. B. Pranaitis. These types of works might help you understand why Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant movement, experienced a remarkable change in his attitude towards Jews after he first read the Talmud. He latter penned On The Jews and Their Lies.

I take a more secular viewpoint. In my analysis of Jewish criminal totalitarian psychopathology in my mutualism vs. parasitism article, I discuss how the Jews evolved as a highly urbanized people in very focused occupations that reward trickery over the past several thousand years. Perhaps as much as 40% of the Jewish population could be genetically psychopathic. Their convoluted and nasty legal traditions seem to mirror this underlying social reality. There is a vicious and mafia-gangster quality to Jewish behavior that is alien to northern European traditions that esteem chivalrous conduct and individualism.

It bears repeating that while not all Jews are bad, the Jewish culture seems to be so heavily geared towards deception, low cunning, and the selfish exploitation of out-groups that the worst Jews do not infrequently rise to the top. Perhaps it is no great surprise that Jews have led organized crime in America as well as political mass murder in Russia. They have run exploitive industries such as ante-bellum black slavery, contemporary international white slavery, liquor, anti-white propagandistic entertainment, and pornography.

I am convinced that Jews need anti-Semitism for two reasons: (a) they require enemies to reinforce a sense of group identity and cohesion and (b) the Jewish culture is so heavily geared towards intrigue and covertly fighting enemies (for thousands of years they have been "under siege") that they cannot restrain themselves once they find themselves in a social environment where everyone is nice to them. It is like throwing a gang of mangy wolves into the middle of a flock of sheep.

In any case, this is not a balanced society capable of practicing a high level of republican virtue among its general members. In fact, the late professor Israel Shahak points out in Jewish History, Jewish Religion, the Weight of Three Thousand Years that Judaism is fundamentally a totalitarian religion. We learn from various sources such as By Way of Deception by former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky that Israel is basically a police state run by the Mossad, the most dangerous espionage organization in the world today. The Mossad engages in routine assassination missions, and can count upon the covert cooperation of millions of Jews in America and around the world through its sayanim program.

.Commentary regarding statements on the environmental side of this issue:

In America today, we are being continually bombarded with propaganda by our politicians and controlled national media about the wonderfulness of new laws that are designed to reduce social conflict in our increasingly multi-racial, multi-cultural society. We are programmed to believe that we more and more "activist" laws that improve social policy among many different groups.

The great turning point in American history where American lost the will to resist the legal imperialism of moralistic, nanny government was the Civil War, more accurately termed The War Against Southern Independence. Harry Browne's article "Who Cares about the Civil War?" provides a good summary of what actually happened:

The Lincoln Presidency imposed a police state upon America — North and South. He shut down newspapers that disagreed with him, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned civilians without trials, and went to war — all without Congressional authority.

Just as future Presidents would do, he used the war as an excuse to increase government dramatically. He rewarded his political friends with pork-barrel projects, flooded the country with paper money, established a national banking system to finance a large federal debt, and imposed the first income tax. He also destroyed the balance between the executive and Congressional branches, and between the federal government and the states.

He set in motion many precedents we suffer from today. That's why it's important to understand the Civil War for what it was, not what the myth-makers want it to be.

In my articles archive page, I provide some other sources that provide important insights into this extremely pivotal period in American history.

The American Lenin by L. Neil Smith. American libertarian writer explains why Abraham Lincoln was America's first "Communist" President. The web page hosting this article has links to other good articles.
King Lincoln archive at Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo has numerous brilliant articles that explain how Lincoln stood on the side of centralization and exploitive special interests all of his career. He was far more interested in collecting high tariffs that favored Northern patrons and was relatively unconcerned with "emancipation" except as a political expedient. Overall, Lincoln proved to be one of the greatest enemies of genuine libertarianism in American history.
The Lesson of Appomattox. . .Learn it or Die
by Alan Stang. A great tragedy of the War of Southern Independence is that Southerners only learned too late that it should have been treated as a Civil War. They should have fought to protect Thomas Jefferson's concept of a union against Lincoln (!) Try to wrap your brain around this one.
Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln by Sam Dickson. Written in the 1970's, this was one of the original revisionist articles in post WWII era boldly debunking Lincoln written by a paleo-conservative prior to when it became fashionable for contemporary libertarians to jump into the fray.
Sherman's March
by Clyde Wilson. Mentions War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco.

Just as the beauty of the Lincoln Memorial contrasts with the ugliness of the real historical person, similarly the national icons of "equal justice" in America have an equally suspect reality behind them.

Many libertarians such as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts like to characterize the federal entity that came out of the horrible War of Southern Independence period as "neo-Jacobin" government. For those unfamiliar with the meaning of the term "Jacobin," it refers to the leftist crazies that ran the Terror phase of the French Revolution. Therefore, "neo-Jacobins" are authoritarian leftists who reinterpret laws as they see fit and are more than willing to impose laws top down upon the people, even at the end of bayonets.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. Constitution has not been exempt from the ravages of "neo-Jacobinism.". Let us take for example the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. According to its author Dr. Thomas E. Woods, the copy editor for his work told him that reading it put a cold chill up her spine because it made her realize how we have steadily lost fundamental political rights over the course of American history. Another book titled The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution by Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D.. creates an even stronger impression in this regard. What sticks out like a sore thumb are all the repeated instances in which the Constitution, the supreme law of our land, has been repeatedly usurped, ignored, and even twisted to have an opposite meaning compared to what was originally intended.

Dr Gutzman provides the following bullet points on the back cover of his admirable work:

That secession was constitutional

That the Supreme Court was meant to be the least powerful branch of government

That Supreme Court justices have used pop sociology, rather than the words of the Constitution to concoct "constitutional law"

Why The Federalist is far less important than the ratifying debates in understanding the Constitution.

Why many famous Supreme Court justices should be infamous for acting against the Constitution

For the remainder of this commentary, I wish to focus on attacks upon our First Amendment rights. Our right of free speech is our most important right of all. After all, if we are prohibited from communicating, how can we protect any of our other rights?

Please look through my articles on free speech-related issues in the Rev Ted Pike archive to understand how the ADL and other Jewish pressure groups are waging a continuous underhanded campaign to steal from us our last free speech rights. This helps us to give us a very different picture of the American legal system. We see how it often has more to do with the outcome of partisan political battles than sublime principles.

In fact, it is worse than that. Please read Final Judgment and Viper's Venom. Please read about the Lavon affair, the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, the Jonathan Pollard treason, evidence for Mossad orchestration of 9-11, and many other examples of Jewish supremacist evil almost too numerous to mention.

Please compare these treacherous activities with the anti-First Amendment pattern of behavior of the ADL and other Jewish pressure groups listed in the Rev Ted Pike archive. There is nothing honest, well-intentioned, publicly-spirited, or academic about this evil campaign. Please consider the possibility that the American legal system is being continually subjected to a systematic psycho-political warfare attack by a hostile alien entity whose ultimate aim is to steal from Americans all of our essential freedoms.

Please consider my 16 May 2007 essay reproduced below that describes how far the sinister trend in restrictive "hate crime" legislation has come. Ask yourself what it says about the character of legal authorities in America that they have allowed it to come this far. Also, please ask yourself how far Americans have strayed from Harry Browne's three simple legal principles stated at the beginning of this article that were sufficient for most Americans in early America.

It is all very sinister
for at least nine major reasons

by William B. Fox
Last updated 16 May 2007

The whole "hate crime" concept serves at least nine sinister purposes:
1) It encourages the use of "legal terrorism," where laws are used as snares to wage legal harassment campaigns. Deep-pocketed entities wear out and bankrupt their political adversaries by dragging them through nuisance litigation. Employers become scared to hire or retain politically conscious straight white males for fear that they could become targets of nuisance "civil rights" and "hate crime"-related suits or backdoor whisper campaigns or negative national media spin that could hurt their businesses.
2) "Hate crime" laws support political "victimhood" for "minorities." In fact, they work so well to promote artificially inflated white guilt that we see numerous cases of "hate crime" hoaxes staged by minorities, such as the Tawana Brawley affair.
3) The "hate crime" concept creates a "guilt by association" climate regarding certain topics, thereby helping to inhibit certain types of thought and analysis. This has been particularly true regarding topics involving racial differences or criminal behavior by Jews. The big danger is that once certain types of "thought" is tainted with a "criminal association," and the focus of "criminality" is taken off certain actions, then any thing that the people in power do not like can be tainted with "criminality." For starters, any ideas or attitudes that they find "subversive" for any reason can become criminalized as "seditious" ("sedition" implies arousing some form of "hatred" or "dislike" for the state). This is how Stalin was able to liquidate members of the Bolshevik old guard he did not like during the 1930's show trials. "Disloyalty" was defined as anything the self-styled "infallible leader" of the Communist Party happened to say is "disloyal" for the moment. Conditioning the general public to accept the concept of "hate crime" is an important step towards this kind of total police state tyranny. After all, if the government today can triple penalties when someone commits a violent act against a minority member while voicing a racial epithet, just wait until they can catch you doing some little illegal thing that involves the government and then find a way to link this to something you have said that is critical of the government (immediately construed as "hateful" of course) so that they can then multiply the penalties three, five, ten, or however many times they like. So for example if a cop catches you going three mph over the speed limit on a Federal road like an Interstate, they will know that you deliberately went over the speed limit because you happened to once say something critical of the government a few years back and therefore must have a "bad" (or "hateful") attitude. Therefore you deserve perhaps a one hundred times multiplied penalty such as ten years in a penitentiary as just desserts. If this sounds totally absurd, just reflect on how once upon a time people got shot in the old Soviet Union for very simple things like owning a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. See how it works?
4) "Hate crime" laws deflect attention away from the fact that the white population in America is being slowly genocided, and that it has its own moral right to exist. As Thomas W. Chittum observes in Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America, the white population in America has been steadily declining by about 1-1.5% of the total population a year for many, many years. An American Renaissance article observed that in recent decades, 30 million white Americans have been replaced by 30 million Mexicans. European history shows that once a dominant ethno-racial group drops below 75% of the total population within a country, it tends to become increasingly unstable. Chronic instability in turn tends to lead to things like secessionism, civil war, or police state repression designed to keep things unified at all costs.

"Hate crime" laws deflect attention away from the fact that under certain circumstances the emotion of "hate" is both healthy and desirable. People instinctively feel hatred towards those things which threaten to destroy them. It motivates them to take defensive action for their own preservation. If you believe in the right of self-defense, you must believe that the trait of hatred has survived as an instinct through evolution because it is vitally necessary for basic survival.
6) "Hate crime" laws tend to give the Federal government additional leverage points to control local state police. Give the massive resources of the Federal government, local state police then feel more intimidated to do whatever master puppeteer bureaucrats back in Washington, D.C. want them to do, no matter how arbitrary, ridiculous, or self-serving these things might be.
7) The piling on of more and more "hate crime" laws deflects attention away from the fact that in healthy societies, relatively few laws are needed for people to get along. The ancient Roman writer Tacitus once noted that "Where the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied." The late libertarian writer Harry Browne noted how the Anglo-Saxon Common Law is generally based on a few very simple, common sense principles.
8) "Hate crime" laws have been a disaster in Canada, Britain, and other supposedly "Western" countries, full of draconian "unintended consequences." People have been thrown in jail for making relatively mild criticisms regarding such topics as homosexuality, Holocaust claims, and pro-nonwhite racial policies. Significantly, the greatest promoter of "hate laws," the ADL, also blindly supports corrupt police state practices in the exclusively Jewish State of Israel. Please see my analysis of breathtaking examples of Jewish supremacist tyranny, criminality, psychopathology, arrogance, and hypocrisy in my mutualism vs. parasitism discussion. Not all Jews are bad, but for reasons that I explain in this article, they seem to have problems preventing sociopaths from rising to the top.
9) The ultimate goal of "hate crime" laws is to strangle any freedom of speech that supports awareness of Jewish criminal conduct, Jewish usurpation of our Constitution, and the overall Jewish contribution towards the destruction of America. They do not want us to know about how millions of Jews occupy our power centers in our biggest cities. They do not want us to think too hard about the implications of their incredible ethnic solidarity, control of major national media, control of major wealth and businesses, and control of the privately owned central banking cartel called the Federal Reserve. They do not want us to know about Jewish orchestration of Bolshevik mass murder in Russia, the Lavon Affair, the murder of JFK, their spy nests, their domination of organized crime, their creation of wide-open borders to the Third World, their deliberate assault on the U.S.S. Liberty, their ethnic cleansing of Palestine, their probable central involvement in executing the 9-11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center buildings, and hosts of other crimes documented in books such as Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, and The Viper's Venom. They want us to trust the "New World Order" elite totally and completely forsake popular sovereignty, the Constitution, and other traditions of freedom and self-determination related to our European ancestry and cultural heritage.
The Internet took them by surprise, so now they require more "hate crime" laws. They need to restore the curtain of darkness and the wall of illusion. They need to continue their campaigns to mainstream homosexuality, promote "life-style" abortions, and legitimize their Kosher brand of high treason against America. Despite scholarly evidence that much of the Old Testament may be based upon fabricated stories (see my discussion of religion at the end of this web page), or polls that show that most American Jews are atheists, they still need to posture as a self-anointed, specially favored people of God.
At a time when America is on the ropes economically with skyrocketing debt and loss of industry -- at a time when America desperately needs to protect its own borders and to rebuild its internal industry, savings, and economic viability -- they unmercifully use us up as their continuing cannon fodder for global interventionism. They could care less if they suck us so dry that they set the stage for a Civil War Two disaster in North America.
Yes, my fellow Americans, ask not why America should continue serving as a willing stooge of Big Oil and Zionism in the Middle East. Ask not why America should willingly crucify itself for the benefit of the exclusively Jewish state of Israel. Ask not why you as a white person or as a member of a white community or even as a member of the white race even have a right to survive. (The same type of basic survival question also applies to non-Jewish nonwhites). They only want us to think in "approved" areas suggested by hate crime laws regardless of the utterly destructive consequences to ourselves.

All of this having been said, I would like to revisit some of the aforementioned points with some additional commentary.
As mentioned, "Legal Terrorism" involves entities with deep pockets who maliciously apply laws to drag their less well-financed adversaries through lengthy and costly legal proceedings in order to intimidate, bankrupt or otherwise neutralize them as the first objective, regardless of the merits of the cases involved. As four examples, in "Don't Practice Legal Terrorism," (Forbes, 09.04.06), Paul Johnson charges that overzealous, deep-pocketed government regulators threaten to kill entrepreneurial risk-taking with interventionist legal actions. In the book Legal Terrorism: The Truth About the Christic Institute, Dr. Susan Huck charged that a liberal institute misapplied Federal racketeering laws to drag out proceedings and potentially bankrupt former CIA officers, who were later awarded $1 million by a court for defendant's legal expenses. In the book The ACLU Vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values, authors Alan Sears and Craig Osten claim that the ACLU has misused its deep pockets to wage a campaign of "legal terrorism" in support of its radical leftist agenda against poorly financed conservative adversaries. Lastly, the book Trial on Trial: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944 by Lawrence Dennis describes how FDR deliberately dragged prominent American rightists through lengthy court proceedings on spurious charges in the early 1940's with the intent of impoverishing them, wasting their time, and intimidating would-be activists. Please see the Nov-Dec 1999 The Barnes Review online article "A Mockery of Justice: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944 " by Michael Collins Piper and Ken Hoop about this sad affair.
. . . In other words, proposed "hate crime" laws are really about creating additional minefields of legal snares that dramatically increase legal defense costs, liability risks, and administrative costs for "little guys" who dare to express dissident views. They are the ones who ultimately get driven under the table before plutocrats, well-endowed institutions, and deep-pocketed corporations. "Hate crime" laws are ultimately about big money boys who feel their power slipping away before a free Internet. They are desperately trying to preserve their special privileges, hide their corruption, and remain empowered to abuse others.
. . .Hate crime laws have virtually nothing to do with reducing or managing real "hate." In the final analysis, they have nothing to do with protecting gays, minorities, and other groups who are already adequately protected by the Constitution, tort law, and a vast menu of civil rights laws. However, as Rev Pike explains in his article "The Funeral of Free Speech," they have everything to do with putting state police under centralized federal command and creating a separate thought crime tribunal system (similar to what already exists in Canada) which is a major step towards a perfect police state. In fact, by suppressing civil liberties, the passage of "hate crime" laws actually increase overall hatred, alienation, and resentment in society. If they are passed, they may even help spark revolutionary rebellions. This is one reason why ADL Jewish supremacists and their Establishment collaborators talk about eliminating all private gun ownership, installing "total surveillance," and quietly going about building more FEMA detention camps.
If there is any "good" behind "hate crime laws," it is the fact that their absurdity helps thinking Americans understand the recklessly selfish, crooked, and irresponsible behavior of various members of America's alien ruling elite who continue to poison and trash up this once truly great country. Expressed in another way, once the extremely dangerous nature of the "hate crime" legislative initiatives finally sinks in, it should make responsible Americans really wonder about the malevolent and crooked character of the people who keep relentlessly pushing it.

In summary, while I agree that it is indeed very comforting to be able to believe that we have very competent, honest, and erudite legal authorities over us in America today, a big problem with our multi-racial, multi-cultural, and alien-dominated society is that even if our legal authorities are good and decent people, we still have big problems understanding exactly what laws from what people should be applied in what particular way to what Americans. Beneath the facade of righteous quasi-religious legitimacy, the American legal system remains a convoluted and unstable mess. It is not a genuine source of firm, fair, and wise guidance. It is just a mess, pure and simple.

Return to question 17

Proceed to commentary for question 18


Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.