Miscegenation: The Morality of Death

[R. Bryant]

Miscegenation: The Morality of Death
by Dr. William Pierce

National Vanguard Magazine - Number 117 (March-April 1997)


History has taught us that the most fundamental necessities for the existence of a healthy and progressive White society are the racial quality of its members and a moral code or value system which complements and enhances that quality.

Ultimately, of course, the former is much more fundamental than the latter. Only a sound race can give birth to sound racial ethics. Without the living biological entity, there is and can be nothing. But as long as the race survives--as long as the potential for effective racial sovereignty exists--alien and spiritually damaging values alone will not prove fatal.

The enemies of our race have obviously long understood this truth. That is why, a half-century ago, they waged the most vicious war the world has ever seen in order to destroy an idea based upon that racial truth. That is why they subsequently organized the systematic swamping of White civilization by millions of alien immigrants. And that is why they have used their control of the news and entertainment media, of the government, and of schools and universities to implement a massive propaganda campaign to encourage miscegenation between Whites and non-Whites.

Of course, miscegenation is not a natural occurrence. Evolution would have been impossible if every evolutionary experiment had been short-circuited by cross-breeding. Nature's urge toward higher and more complex life forms has demanded that subspecies remain genetically isolated until all possibility of genetic admixture has been removed. Even though such isolation of the various human subspecies from one another has not been of sufficient length to ensure the impossibility of genetic admixture, it has ensured the existence of deep-seated psychological barriers which, under natural conditions, prevent miscegenation.

When these natural conditions are disrupted and distorted, however, unnatural sexual activities such as homosexuality and miscegenation have been known to result. Just as bulls have been known to mount mares, and St. Bernard dogs have tried to mate with Chihuahuas when forced into close confinement and deprived of their natural environment, so Whites have copulated with Negroes in similar circumstances. It is the disruption of the White man's natural environment and the dehumanization of his society and culture, therefore, which the Jews and their collaborators in the news and entertainment media have consistently worked for in order to encourage racial mixing.

This campaign began at least as early as 1967, when 16 U.S. states still had laws against miscegenation. In that year Jewish director/producer Stanley Kramer brought out the film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, starring Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy as a couple whose daughter begins an affair with a Negro. The aim of the film was clear and since has been admitted. It was designed as an "educational film" for White Americans: after seeing their on-screen heroes, Tracy and Hepburn, surrendering their White daughter to a Black male, they would feel less compunction in doing the same. 1

Since that time Whites have not just been encouraged to mate with Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, they have been subject to every conceivable Pavlovian method to blackmail and bully them emotionally into doing so. With ever increasing intensity the message has been that miscegenation is not just an option, but the option that society expects. Particularly, the primary aim of the Political Correctness movement, in all of its manifestations, has been to confuse heterosexual Whites and make them feel sinful and guilty for being White; to encourage them to "repent" by helping put their race out of existence.

The Hollywood film Last of the Mohicans, which came out in 1992 with the Jewish actor Daniel Day-Lewis in the leading role, is a typical example of how the Jewish news and entertainment media have spearheaded this campaign. In the film White males are portrayed as weak, cowardly, disloyal, and barbaric--and as justly deserving of their slaughter at the hands of the noble, dignified, courageous, and sexy Red Indians. Yes, just to ensure that White women don't miss the implication that White men are worthless, the leading White female character dumps her despicable British-officer fiancé and runs off into the sunset with the Mohican hero. The underlying message of the film is clear: race-mixing is not only natural and understandable, it is also the morally right thing to do.

Zoologists and anthropologists have identified two types of feral constraint which ensure that under natural conditions animal groups--including human groups--which may be able to interbreed with each other refrain from doing so. On one hand, there are inborn biological impulses based upon physical "sign stimuli," such as smell, color, and visual differentiation. Then there is the behavioral imprinting and habituation which takes place in the early weeks and months of infancy based upon the intimate relationship between the mother and the infant. This helps to ensure that when sexual mating is eventually attempted, it will take place only with those forms that resemble the parent or siblings. 2

Not surprisingly, the Jews have gone all out to corrupt and cripple the latter tendency in Whites, particularly under the guise of "children's entertainment." In 1994, for example, the Walt Disney Company brought out a re-adaptation of its 1967 film The Jungle Book. This was Disney's first children's offering since being taken over by the Jewish clique headed by Michael Eisner, and, predictably, it was a complete distortion, both of the original Kipling story and the 1967 Disney animated version. With a story line remarkably similar to Last of the Mohicans, the White heroine rejects her British-officer fiancé for an Indian jungle boy played by a Chinese actor.

Significantly, the White girl's decision is portrayed as being based upon moral considerations of right and wrong, upon her realization that White society and White men in particular are irredeemably bad. Eisner pursued this line in the two subsequent Disney animated children's films, Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which are similar both in their pernicious race-mixing propaganda and in their blatant disregard for the original stories. Such systematic consistency in shape and content suggests design rather than coincidence.

In any case, the actual motivation of Michael Eisner in churning out such material is not the most important question. The thing that really matters is the actual effect of his efforts: young children are being influenced, at an age where they are most open to behavioral imprinting, with a message that miscegenation is good and morally correct, and that Whiteness is evil and morally wrong.

Just as young Whites in the past were encouraged by an alien religious dogma to feel sinful because of their natural sexual urges, to feel unclean in having them, and to seek "salvation" by denying them, so today they are indoctrinated with guilt-inducing ideas about being White. And the solution which they are offered to overcome these artificial feelings of guilt and self-hate is increasingly clear: mate with a non-White partner and have mongrel offspring. Racial suicide is thus insidiously presented to them as the only way in which they can overcome their Whiteness and all the consequent pain and shame that goes with it.

Actually, miscegenation has rapidly emerged as the official religion of the New World Order and its adherents. Propagated with an increasingly hysterical fervor, it has been developed as the new universal slave-morality which embraces and transcends established religions such as Christianity. In March 1994, for example, evangelist Billy Graham's publication Christianity Today urged readers to rejoice over the existence of mixed-race marriages and mixed-race children and to do everything possible to make them fully accepted into society. It even stated that this is one area where the news and entertainment media are morally ahead of the churches.

This propagation of miscegenation as an ideological crusade also has made significant inroads into the education system. When a North Carolina middle school principal recently cautioned a White female student and a Black male student about the dangers of interracial dating, he was immediately suspended from his job and disciplined. He was not allowed to return to work until he had been "reeducated" after confessing and repenting his "sins" in a counseling and sensitivity training program. 3

The ideological nature of this campaign to promote miscegenation was also reflected in an article in the August 1996 issue of Maryland Family Magazine, part of the Times Mirror group. Written by Helen Armiger, described as a candidate for ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church, "How to Raise an Unbiased Child" argues that society is compelled to teach its youth to live harmoniously and productively within a global environment. Quoting approvingly a Maryland education official, Arminger insisted that there exists a moral obligation to provide children with the opportunity to engage in a variety of relationships with people of different races and sexual orientations without any kind of parental or social constraint.

Behind the high-sounding slogans portraying miscegenation as morally imperative and beneficial, the motivation of its proponents is clear: the intention is not to "save" or "redeem" Whites, but to destroy them completely. What such "morality" really derives from is a totally subjective, alien mind-set which seeks the biological extinction of the White race, and which, from its own perspective, sees such an extinction as a good and righteous thing. Some of its proponents are much more honest than others in admitting to this reality. One journal, Race Traitor, edited by Noel Ignatiev and subtitled "Treason to Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity," openly declares its conviction that the only way to solve the social problems of the age is to abolish the White race. Its admitted aim is not "multiculturalism" or "multiracialism," but biological unity and racelessness. 4

Such thinking is not confined to the political fringes. On September 29, 1996, The New York Times Magazine ran an article by Jewish writer Stanley Crouch (author of the book The All-American Skin Game: Or, the Decoy of Race ). Entitled "Race is Over," Crouch's article confidently predicted that a century from today unprecedented levels of racial mixing--of a wide variety of combinations--will ensure that the very concept of race will be redundant. Americans of the future, it argues, will find themselves surrounded in every direction by people who are part Asian, part Latin, part European, part American Indian. The sweep of body types, combinations of facial features, hair textures, eye colors, and what are now "unexpected skin tones" will, in Crouch's view, be far more common because the current paranoia over mixed marriages should be by then largely a superstition of the past.

Even this declared goal, however, reveals only part of the agenda, because one particular race has an exemption ticket from this universal morality of genetic amalgamation. But The New York Times Magazine article symbolizes what the Politically Correct movement is really all about. When the mainstream Harper's Magazine runs articles advocating government- sponsored summer camps for young White girls to meet and begin relationships with non-White males, it is not doing "good" for those girls; it is actively encouraging what is most definitely bad for them. And when the Prudential Insurance Company of America sponsors a series of racial unity conferences for children across America and the world, it is not doing what is "right" for those children; it is doing what is totally and utterly wrong for them.

Actually, such "morality" is without any moral foundation whatsoever. It's not based on any natural or biological law, nor does it follow any rational or scientific line of reasoning. This helps to explain why it is having some difficulty in achieving its objectives. Undoubtedly many Whites preach the cause of miscegenation, and many have put it into practice. But, revealingly, the numbers in the latter camp are still much smaller than in the former.

Some of the Whites who advocate race-mixing are obviously unhealthy in a genetic sense, and mentally ill as opposed to spiritually sick. The person who wrote to his local newspaper recently stating his frustrated wish to have five per cent Black blood in his ancestry so as to blend in with what he considers the ideal American racial composition, may be an example. 5

In any case, in instances such as these miscegenation could even be considered a tool of natural selection in weeding such people out of the White gene pool.

For the majority of Whites who advocate miscegenation, however, their sense of righteousness in espousing it is nothing more than a manifestation of trendiness: of wanting to feel and appear fashionable.

Take, for example, the case of the young Hollywood couple Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Both appear to be healthy and physically attractive specimens of Aryan humanity. Yet they have recently adopted a Black child and actively collaborated with the Jewish media in publicizing it as a fine and noble deed which has helped the cause of human and societal "progress." There is nothing biologically wrong with this couple; they've just gone out of their way to make a fashion statement. And the adopted child is nothing more than a fashion accessory for their symbolic commitment to the idea of miscegenation.

Indeed, it is revealing that for all their fashion consciousness, Cruise and Kidman chose to marry each other rather than non-Whites: they chose to adopt a non-White child rather than to create one. Even they, therefore, whether conscious of it or not, are evidence that most Whites are not yet putting the idea of miscegenation into practice--regardless of the lip service which they might feel compelled to give it.

A recent study of miscegenation statistics by Jewish academic Douglas J. Besherov, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, seemed to give some credence to this view, although the report highlighted some very disturbing trends. These included a tripling of marriages between Whites and Blacks since 1970, and a sharp increase in marriages between Whites and Asians or Hispanics. The U.S. Census Bureau counted about 150,000 interracial marriages nationwide in 1960. By 1990 that number grew tenfold to 1.5 million. In 1994 it was estimated at more than 3 million.

Equally alarming was the statistic that 35.4 percent of White women married to Black men said they planned to have children, a higher proportion than the 29 percent of White women married to White men who said they wanted children. This is on top of a four-fold increase in mixed-race births since 1970, although not all of these involved a White parent.

Such trends are obviously ominous and potentially catastrophic by pointing in the long term to the biological extinction of White America. In the short term, however, from the perspective of those of us trying to prevent such a nightmare from unfolding, they do provide at least some grounds for optimism and opportunity. Despite 30 years of Judeo-Christian brainwashing, over 90 per cent of Whites are declining to transgress what Douglas J.Besherov admits is American society's "last taboo."

Similarly, despite the efforts of Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH, now retired), who in 1994 introduced the Multiethnic Placement Act in the Senate in an effort to bring about an increase in transracial adoptions, most Whites appear still to prefer to adopt White babies, and most non-Whites still prefer to adopt non-White babies. Such attitudes, moreover, appear to be hardening in spite of the Clinton administration's attempts to legislate against them.

The Cruise-Kidman adoption, for instance, was condemned by the National Association of Black Social Workers on the grounds that transracial adoptions amounted to racial and cultural genocide.

Undoubtedly an important factor in this situation has been the growth in tensions that has accompanied the transition to a multiracial society. As racial and ethnic identification has become more relevant in people's lives, the resulting racial polarization and intensified group solidarity have mitigated somewhat against the idea of interracial mating. It seems clear, for example, that the O.J. Simpson trial served the useful purpose of intensifying both White and Black racial consciousness and of discrediting the idea of miscegenation.

One hopeful sign of this was the fact that Hulond Humphries, a White high school principal in Wedowee, Alabama, who was ousted from his position in 1994 for threatening to cancel the spring prom if interracial couples turned up, recently won an election runoff for superintendent of schools.

As with the race question in general, many Whites--for the moment at least--seem to be carrying around with them two conflicting value systems in relation to race-mixing: the one they publicly purport to hold and the one they actually live their private lives by. While the former is artificially created and only maintained by continuous external conditioning, the latter arises from instinct, which is genetically ingrained.

Thus, although race-mixing propaganda may have been purposefully designed to appeal to the subconscious and to avoid encountering rational faculties, it has inevitably come up against subconscious genetic realities which are not easily influenced by alien attempts at behavioral modification. Consequently, while it has been relatively easy to bring about widescale spiritual sickness and confusion, it has been much more difficult to implement widescale biological amalgamation.

Such a situation, however, will not last forever. History is full of examples of artificial and destructive moralities triumphing over the natural order. Despite its setbacks, the cult of miscegenation has spread substantially over the last thirty years and will continue to do so. Current trends continue to point to the most fundamental and inescapable reality which confronts us today: the White race stands on the precipice of biological extinction.

And one thing is certain: as the strains and tensions of this multiracial society increase in the coming years, so the campaign to destroy us through racial mixing will intensify. For this reason alone, regardless of increased racial polarization, the false morality of miscegenation will not disappear naturally. The circumstances of racial chaos will help us, but only organized and radical action on our part will achieve the vital necessity of a complete and decisive separation of the races and the final destruction of the morality of death.

Notes:

1 Newsweek , June 10, 1991.
2 Roger Pearson, 'Ecology, Adaptation, and Speciation,' in Ecology and Evolution , Washington, DC (1996).
3 Raleigh News and Record , February 10, 1996.
4 Race Traitor , No. 2, Winter 1993.
5 Letter from Ivan Wittman to Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , May 4, 1996.
National Alliance Main Page | National Vanguard Directory

[Wade Hampton III]

Much has gone downhill since the early 90s when this item was first published,
as evidenced by a moral turpitude of the miscegenators almost on an equal basis
of the Negroes...both having an "attitude," so to speak. Perhaps even THAT could
be challenged by the "attitude" manifested by White Liberals and Ayn Rand "Objectivists."
As I recall, Dr. Pierce once described these people as needing an "attitude adjustment"
by the application of a good sturdy Oak table leg up and about the upper torso. However,
in all fairness to our Founder, I believe he later revised his position on this issue by
stating that a simple change in their "authority figures" would be sufficient.

[Will Williams]

Miscegenation: The Morality of Death
by Dr. William Pierce
[...]

Undoubtedly an important factor in this situation has been the growth in tensions that has accompanied the transition to a multiracial society. As racial and ethnic identification has become more relevant in people's lives, the resulting racial polarization and intensified group solidarity have mitigated somewhat against the idea of interracial mating. It seems clear, for example, that the O.J. Simpson trial served the useful purpose of intensifying both White and Black racial consciousness and of discrediting the idea of miscegenation...

F. Lee Bailey: O.J. Trial Was a 'Circus'
Thursday, 22 May 2014
By Sean Piccoli

Renowned defense attorney F. Lee Bailey called his most famous case, the O.J. Simpson murder trial, a "circus" and "a poor example" of American jurisprudence even though his client went free.

Bailey, a former Marine and author of several books including last year's "Excellence in Cross-Examination," spoke with "America's Forum" host JD Hayworth on Newsmax TV on Thursday about the Simpson saga and his career-launching win in another famous case — the Sam Sheppard murder retrial of 1966.

A broadcaster and television show host, Bailey rejected the conventional wisdom that the O.J. case, with its slow-speed car chase — "An oxymoron if I ever heard one," he said — and exhaustively televised trial, launched the reality TV era.

"There had been many prior trials that had been televised," Bailey told Hayworth. "Some had been watched fairly intently."

"However, this was a circus," he said of the Simpson proceedings, "and the big camera on the wall brought it home to American television and many people were fascinated by this. ... So it became, unfortunately, an example of an American trial. It was a poor example."

Bailey said he started working on Simpson's defense "with reluctance, because in California any two-week trial can take a year."

The Simpson trial started with jury selection on Sept. 26, 1994 — three months after the murders of Nicole Simpson Brown and Ronald Goldman — and ended with the former star running back's acquittal about a year later, on Oct. 3, 1995.

Bailey wasn't so ambivalent about the Sheppard trial, which riveted America in the 1950s, and again in the '60s, and inspired "The Fugitive" television series and movie.

"I took it on because I got angry," he said. "A lieutenant or detective in Cleveland said to me after a big argument about Sheppard ... 'If Sam Sheppard is innocent I don't want to know it.' And I said, 'Yes, I bet there are a lot just like you in Ohio, and I'm going to make them as miserable as I can by getting him out and showing he didn't do it.' "

"The nice thing about that was when I went to pick a jury for the second trial in 1966, 'The Fugitive' had been running on TV for several years, was very popular, and everybody knew 'The Fugitive' was innocent," he said. "That was a bit of a leg up."

Bailey, 80, got his law degree from Boston University but didn't want to practice. He wanted to be a writer, until the armed forces came calling.

"Actually, my time in the Marine Corps was the reason I became a lawyer," he said. "I had no intention of doing anything but writing, and then the Marine Corps conscripted me because they ran out of lawyers, and I found that I loved the life in the [military] courtroom."

He added: "Once I got out in the civilian life, I didn't love it [practicing law] so much anymore because it was nowhere near as clean. It was a dirty business much of the time."


Related Stories:
Ron Goldman's Sister: Still 'No Doubt' OJ Killed My Brother
Court Weighs F. Lee Bailey's Bid to Practice Law in Maine

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/OJ-Tri ... z32ZjZlXRM

[Will Williams]

With the 20th anniversary of the O.J. Simpson murders and subsequent "Trial of the Century" looming, it's a good time to look back on the case.
------------


For famed, disbarred attorney F. Lee Bailey, ‘redemption’ only part of it
At 80 and settled in Maine, Bailey still has more he wants to do in his career and says being readmitted to law practice would help.

By Scott Dolan [email protected]
Staff Writer

YARMOUTH — The thought of redemption crosses the mind of F. Lee Bailey. One of the most famous defense attorneys in the United States, he tried some of the nation’s most gripping, gruesome criminal cases before a fall from grace more than a decade ago left him disbarred from practicing law.


F. Lee Bailey poses next to a photo of O.J. Simpson
as he reacts after the court clerk announced that
Simpson was found not guilty of the murders of Nicole
Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Staff Photographer

Famed defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, who was disbarred more than a decade ago, talks about the highs and lows of his career with Press Herald reporter Scott Dolan. Bailey describes what drew him to move to Maine and his hopes, at the age of 80, that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court will grant his request to be licensed to practice law here.
But restoring his tarnished legacy isn’t the sole focus now for Bailey, who at 80 remains as sharp as a younger man as he seeks to be admitted to the bar in Maine so he can again practice law.

“I think there’s an element of redemption in it, but that’s certainly not the primary motivation,” Bailey said during a recent interview at his Yarmouth office, where he talked about the highs and lows of his storied career.

The Maine Board of Bar Examiners rejected Bailey’s application in 2012, saying in a 5-4 decision that he lacked “the requisite good fitness and fitness necessary” to return to practicing law.

But that didn’t settle the matter for Bailey, whose clients’ names read like a who’s who list of defendant celebrities – from Dr. Sam Sheppard, who became the inspiration behind “The Fugitive” hit television series in the 1960s, to football star O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted of his ex-wife’s murder after an internationally publicized trial in 1995.


Orenthal and Nicole Simpson

The question of whether Bailey should be admitted to the bar is now in the hands of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, after first a single justice of the court’s seven members overturned the Board of Bar Examiners’ decision last year and then the board appealed. The state’s highest court heard oral arguments in Bailey’s case last week, but it has set no timetable on when it will make a final ruling.

“We’re at the point now where the jury is out. So I sit and wait,” Bailey said.

Bailey said he sought to be admitted for a number of reasons. Chief among them are that he and a co-author, Kenneth Fishman, published a book last year, “Excellence in Cross-Examination,” and he would like to start a master-level law education course specifically for practicing lawyers to learn the “fading profession” of trying a case in court.

“It’s a lot more palatable to promote the book if one is a member of the bar, though people write books without being members of anything,” he said.

But Bailey, who was eligible in 2006 to reapply to be a lawyer, said he had no plans to apply in Maine until he encountered an excellent legal community here and a professional environment that he considers a much more pleasant one than exists in other states where he has practiced.

“At the time I decided to move to Maine and did move – which was finally in 2010, though I had been working up here since 2006 – I had absolutely no intention of applying for the bar. That didn’t happen until over a year later. There are those who are trying to argue that I thought the Maine courts would be a pushover, which is anything but true. I thought it might be more difficult than it would be to be reinstated in Massachusetts,” he said.

Bailey said what finally pushed him to take the bar exam was encouragement from Debbie Elliott, his girlfriend and partner at Bailey & Elliott Consulting, and from two lawyer friends who are older than he and continue to practice.

He’d been coming to Maine for vacations and visits since he was a boy growing up in Massachusetts and had long thought that he would retire here.

“Retirement is a word I used to use,” Bailey said. “When I was very, very young and fell in love with Yarmouth, Maine, I said, ‘That’s where I’m going to retire.’ As life went on and I found out it didn’t end at 40, 60 or 80, I resolved that it is a place where I would settle but not retire. My experience is, people who retire die sooner than they should have.”

Born in Waltham, Mass., as Francis Lee Bailey Jr. in 1933, he first became a legal officer in the military on July 7, 1954, before being admitted to civilian practice as a full-fledged lawyer on Nov. 16, 1960. Bailey ticked off those dates from memory without a moment’s hesitation.

The Sheppard case launched Bailey into the public’s eye only a year after he received his law license. He became Sheppard’s lead attorney in 1961, years after the Ohio doctor had been convicted in 1954 of the brutal murder of his pregnant wife, Marilyn, at their suburban home outside Cleveland.

Bailey took the lengthy appeal process all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966. The nation’s highest court struck down Sheppard’s conviction in an 8-1 decision, in part because of the “carnival atmosphere” of Sheppard’s trial. At retrial, Bailey took advantage of the case’s notoriety, asking jurors whether they had heard of “The Fugitive” television series, which most of them had.

“Everybody knew ‘The Fugitive’ was Sam Sheppard, and everybody knew ‘The Fugitive’ was innocent. So I think I went in with a presumption of innocence really working for once,” Bailey said. “He was summarilly acquitted, and he died four years later.”

Bailey went on to represent Albert DeSalvo, long suspected in the “Boston Strangler” killings that terrorized the city in the 1960s. He won the acquittal of Army Capt. Ernest Medina in his 1971 court-martial for the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. He defended Patty Hearst, a newspaper heiress turned terrorist after she was kidnapped and brainwashed by a left-wing revolutionary group.

The walls of his Yarmouth office hold memorabilia of his high-profile career. He has framed front-page covers of Time and Newsweek magazines and an enlarged photograph of him at O.J. Simpson’s side moments after the jury declared Simpson not guilty of two counts of murder.


Disbarred White attorney Bailey helped defend
Black slasher of White woman

But that career ended first in 2001, when the Florida Supreme Court found unanimously that Bailey had mishandled stock forfeited by a drug-smuggling client, followed by a reciprocal disbarment in Massachusetts in 2003.

The complaints were brought against Bailey in 1999 by The Florida Bar, after Bailey’s defense of Claude Duboc from 1994 to 1996. Bailey said the money earned from about $6 million worth of stocks that had belonged to Duboc belonged to him as payment for his services, while The Florida Bar contended that Bailey knew that he was given control of the stocks with the understanding they would ultimately be turned over to the federal government.

Florida attorney David Ristoff, who served as lead prosecutor for The Florida Bar as it pursued the case against Bailey from 1999 to 2001, said Bailey accepted “no responsibility” for his actions at the time of the case. But Ristoff added that the allegations are from “an incredibly long time ago” – 1994 and 1995.

“I don’t hold any ill will toward the man,” Ristoff said in a phone interview last week. “If the court finds he is rehabilitated, then God bless him.”

Ristoff said he was “incredibly impressed” that Bailey passed the Maine bar exam at his age.

“There’s really no lawyers like Bailey was in terms of stature,” said Ristoff, now in private practice in Florida.

The Maine Board of Bar Examiners was less forgiving in its majority decision, written by Portland attorney Jennifer Archer, denying Bailey’s application to practice law in Maine.

“Rather than accepting that he was disbarred because of his own conduct, Bailey continues to place blame elsewhere,” Archer wrote in the 29-page finding. “It is clear that Bailey does not recognize the wrongfulness of his past conduct.”

Bailey said if the Supreme Judicial Court ultimately agrees with the Board of Bar Examiners, it won’t stop him from continuing the work he has been doing, especially in consulting and in his ongoing efforts for prison reform.

“If they say no, I’ve got quite a lot of years to go,” Bailey said. “It will certainly be a disappointment, but it’s not enough to disassemble it.”

Scott Dolan can be contacted at 791-6304 or at: [email protected]

http://www.pressherald.com/news/For_fam ... genum=full

[Will Williams]

American Dissident Voices broadcast from October 1995:

The End of Justice in America
Lessons of the Simpson Trial
by Dr. William L. Pierce

SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT, very significant, happened recently in Los Angeles. I didn't want to comment on it right away, when there was a lot of public excitement about it. But I've waited long enough, I believe, for the initial shock of this event to wear off, and so now we should be able to consider the matter calmly and rationally.

To get immediately to the point, the significance of the O.J. Simpson verdict is that the whole nation, from the empty-headed, trendy viewers of soap operas and football games all the way up to the serious, thoughtful men and women who have a deep concern for the future of our people -- all of us have had an impressive demonstration of the fact that our justice system simply does not work. It has broken down. It no longer deserves our respect or our trust.

And what is a country without a system of justice?

A country which is not ruled by a sound system of justice either will be ruled by tyranny, or it will descend into chaos and anarchy. In America we can see both of these tendencies at the same time: more and more chaos and anarchy in our cities and in the conduct of public affairs, and more and more tyranny by a government trying to keep a grip on things.

I do not mean to say that the Simpson acquittal represented any sudden change in the American justice system. It has been true for decades, for example, that in America's courts a defendant got just as much justice as he could afford to buy. It also is true that the decisions of juries have become more and more capricious in recent years, with the obviously guilty turned loose and the obviously innocent convicted. Terrible miscarriages of justice are happening more and more frequently. It is often the case that Political Correctness is more important in determining the outcome of a trial than any considerations of justice.

Let me tell you about just one such case with which I am familiar. In May 1991 a young White man, George Loeb, and his wife drove into a supermarket parking lot in Jacksonville, Florida, to buy groceries. As they entered the parking lot a car driven by a Black male almost struck their car. The two drivers exchanged angry insults, with the Black calling Mr. Loeb a cracker and a honkie. Then the Black drove off, and the Loebs did their shopping. They had bought their groceries, were back in their car, and were ready to go home when the Black returned -- this time with another Black male and a brick. The Black got out of his car and advanced toward the Loebs' car with the brick in his hand. He announced loudly to Loeb, I'm gonna smash your motherf--ing head in.

As the Black approached, Loeb responded by tearing open the glove compartment of his car, seizing a pistol his wife kept there for her protection, and firing two shots at the Black, killing him. Loeb was arrested and put on trial. At the trial both the defense witnesses and the prosecution witnesses recounted nearly the same sequence of events. The prosecution witnesses -- the slain Black's friend and a White woman who had been in the parking lot -- both admitted that the slain Black had threatened to smash Mr. Loeb's head with the brick he carried. They claimed, however, that he had dropped his brick just before he was shot, whereas the defense witnesses said that he still had the brick in his hand when he was struck by the bullets.

The key to the outcome of the trial, however, was the charge made against Mr. Loeb by the Jewish prosecutor that he was a White racist. The prosecutor introduced into evidence books and personal letters seized in the Loebs' residence, indicating that Mr. Loeb strongly disliked Blacks and believed that they should be sent back to Africa. Mr. Loeb was then convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Does that sound incredible? A conviction for premeditated murder, when the shooting clearly was neither murder nor premeditated but instead was an act of self-defense? Life in prison for a family man, a university graduate with a stable marriage who had never been in trouble with the law and was merely defending himself and his wife against an armed attacker? Does that sound like American justice?

I must admit that when I first heard the story about George Loeb's conviction, I didn't believe it either. I thought that I was hearing a biased, exaggerated account of what had happened, that surely Mr. Loeb had done something which justified his conviction and the sentence which was imposed on him. So I obtained a videotape of the trial and viewed it for myself. You can do the same if you want. The complete video record of the trial -- which, by the way, lasted only 30 hours, because, unlike O.J. Simpson, that's all the justice Mr. Loeb could afford to buy -- the complete video record is available from the Courtroom Television Network, 600 Third Avenue, in New York City. It is an astounding record -- and horrifying -- and terribly depressing.

Before I saw that video I didn't believe something like that could happen in the United States. I spoke about it with friends who are lawyers, however, and they told me that it happens all the time.

The difference between the George Loeb trial and the O.J. Simpson trial -- besides the fact that the former is a middle-class White man who always has obeyed the law, and the latter is a multimillionaire Black sports star who buys his way out of his criminal problems -- the difference is that nobody knew about the Loeb trial, and so no one could be shocked by it, while everyone knows about the Simpson trial. The corruption of the justice system exemplified by the Loeb trial remained hidden, while the corruption exemplified by the Simpson trial has been seen by the whole world. That's the important difference.

We not only have seen it: we have had our faces rubbed in it for more than a year. We cannot ignore it or pretend that it doesn't exist. And this is very important, not just because it has shocked us: it is important because when people lose their faith in the system of justice, when they realize that they cannot count on that system to function fairly and rationally, when they see innocent people destroyed by that system and guilty people turned loose, when they realize that the system not only is capricious but that it has been corrupted by Political Correctness and is biased against people like themselves, then those people will withdraw their support from the government of which that failed justice system is a part.

People will put up with a great deal of inefficiency and mismanagement from a government, so long as they believe that there is a justice system which functions fairly and effectively, a justice system which punishes criminals and protects the innocent from government persecution. But when they no longer believe that, they will turn against the government. That's what our forefathers did 220 years ago, when they realized that they no longer could count on justice from the government of Great Britain.

And this recognition of what has happened to the justice system in America is long overdue, especially on the part of middle-class White conservatives. These conservatives want desperately to have faith in the system. They want to believe that if they continue saving money to send their children off to a good university, then their grandchildren will be able to grow up in an orderly and just world, a world in which there will be a place for them. They want to believe that somehow the growing problems in our society will be repaired, and that everything will work out all right.

But things won't work out all right by themselves. The problems won't get fixed up. Instead, things will continue getting worse. It's not just that the American justice system has developed a few flaws which need to be fixed; the problem is that the system is no longer American. We used to have a justice system rooted in Anglo-Saxon common law, rooted in the traditions of our ancestors in Europe. That was an American system. What we have now is the result of 50 years of forced multiculturalism. It's a system which is completely alien to us.

Just look at the Simpson trial itself, completely aside from the unjust verdict: the trial, up to the time the case went to the jury, certainly wasn't anything that a White American could be proud of. It was hardly even a trial; it was a multicultural circus, a long-running soap opera made for television.

It was a paradigm of multiculturalism and trendiness: We had a Japanese judge married to a White woman who is a police captain. We had a prosecution team consisting of a Black male and a Jewess currently being divorced by a White man. We had a defense team which, with the exception of F. Lee Bailey, was entirely Jewish and Black. We had a Black defendant who likes to run with White women -- and beat them up. We had one Jewish murder victim and one White female victim who had been raised by her liberal parents to couple with Blacks. We had a racially mixed but mostly Black jury. And the whole thing seems to have been run more for the benefit of the television networks than for the sake of justice.

Can any White person seeking justice in the courts or accused of a crime by the government have faith that justice will be done for him in such a circus setting?

I think not.

Can the public realistically hope to be protected from murderers and other criminals -- especially if those criminals are rich and Black -- by such a system?

I think not.

Imagine that you have to walk into such a courtroom as a defendant. Imagine that you are charged by the government with being Politically Incorrect -- with, say, failing to rent an apartment to a pair of homosexuals or to hire someone with AIDS -- or, perhaps, daring to defend yourself against an armed Black assailant. Do you believe that you'll get a fair trial?

I think you'll agree with me that you almost certainly will not.

How did this happen to our justice system?

The sad truth is that we let it happen. Remember, it didn't happen overnight. The O. J. Simpson verdict may have burst upon the consciousness of the public like a thunderbolt, but the subversion and wrecking of our American justice system have been going on quietly for decades. And we didn't oppose it. Some of us wanted to be trendy and fashionable, and so we went along with the multiculturalism. Some of us were cowards. We knew what was happening was wrong, but we were afraid to say so: we were afraid of being called racists and anti-Semites. And many of us were just indifferent to what was happening: we were too selfish to get involved. And so we let America's enemies destroy our justice system. We let them destroy the only shield we had against governmental tyranny on the one hand and mob rule on the other hand: our only shield -- and now it's gone.

We didn't stand up for our honest, decent White policemen, for our racially conscious White policemen like Detective Mark Fuhrman, who, God bless him, fought the multicultural terror and anarchy in the streets in the only way he knew, without any support from the politicians and the bureaucrats. He may have been a little rough in his methods sometimes, but he knew the nature of the beast he was fighting. He knew that if we don't destroy it, it surely will destroy us.

We let the politicians and the bureaucrats follow the lead of the controlled media and weed out the racially conscious White policemen and replace them with Politically Correct trendies, who collaborate with the multicultural terrorists instead of fighting them. The same thing has happened in the courts that has happened in the police departments around the country. The honest, no-nonsense judges have been replaced by media-conscious trendies like Lance Ito.

During her closing argument the Jewish prosecutor in the Simpson trial, Marcia Clark, said that we all wish that there were no one like Mark Fuhrman on this planet. Do you remember that? When I heard her say that, it really infuriated me. I suspect that many of you who also heard her say that thought at the time, as I did, that, no, we are happy to share this planet with Detective Mark Fuhrman. Instead, we will welcome the day when there are no longer any Marcia Clarks, or people of her type, on this planet.

So how will we reach that day? How will we oppose the multiculturalists who have destroyed our justice system -- and much else in our country? How will we fight them? How will we reclaim this planet for our people? How will we take it away from her people and undo the damage they've done?

Ultimately, we'll have to fight them the same way our forefathers fought King George. But we have much fighting of another kind to do before then. We have to wake up millions of our fellow citizens who have been indifferent to what's been happening in this country for the past 50 years, and we have to pound some sense into their heads. Maybe we can't change the fact of their selfishness, but we can make them understand that it's their country which is being destroyed. It's their heritage and their future. And as for the millions who are too shortsighted to care about their future or their heritage, we must make them realize that the danger to them of a failed justice system is here and now, not just in the future. The O.J. Simpson trial was real. The George Loeb trial was real. I didn't invent them. The government did. The multiculturalists did. But we have to fight them.

It'll be a tough fight against the government and all of those Jewish television networks, but not an impossible fight. They have some fatal weaknesses. You know, they really didn't want O. J. Simpson back out on the street. They didn't want the insane verdict they got in that trial. It makes them look very foolish, very weak. But they couldn't help it. They couldn't control it. They've built a Frankenstein's monster: a destructive, uncontrollable monster. What they've built won't work, because it's unnatural, but they can't admit that, even to themselves. They think that they can take justice away from us, as they did in the George Loeb trial, and give us a big dose of egalitarianism and multiculturalism and diversity instead, and that everything will run smoothly. But without justice there can be no peace, no confidence in government, no social stability -- and ultimately no society at all.

What that means for us is that there will be more and more embarrassing failures for the multiculturalists, failures like the O.J. Simpson trial, which will expose the unnaturalness and the destructiveness of their policies for everyone to see. It's our job to help people see these things and understand their significance and place the blame where it belongs.

The government and the controlled media will fight back by trying to stop us from explaining these things to people. Any criticism of their policies they will call hate, and they will call for outlawing hate, for making any criticism of them or their policies illegal.

As our society continues to come apart because of these policies, they will claim that it is our exposure of the foolishness and destructiveness of their policies which is destroying our society, rather than the policies themselves.

As people become more frustrated and angry because of the destruction of their justice system, the government and the controlled media will claim that if only we could be prevented from talking about what has happened to the justice system, then the people would no longer be angry.

Do you remember that right after the tragedy in Oklahoma City this spring, Bill Clinton went on television and announced that the bombing was the fault of people who criticized the government? He said it wasn't the fault of his own Justice Department, which had murdered nearly 100 innocent people at Waco and then lied about what had happened, but instead it was the fault of people like me, who criticized the government for killing all of those innocent people. Do you remember that? He wanted to get us off the air, to shut us up, so that his so-called Justice Department could escape blame.

Let me tell you: the multiculturalists will not shut us up. They can pass all the repressive laws against free speech they want, but we will not be silent.

And you know, even if they could shut us up, even if the government locked us up under the so-called hate speech laws they're trying to get passed, the destructiveness and foolishness of multiculturalism would still be exposed by the government's own failures.

The colossal embarrassment of the Simpson trial may be a first, but it's not a last. The justice system has been thoroughly wrecked, and it will continue to be a threat both to innocent individuals like George Loeb, and to the general public, by turning people like O.J. Simpson loose. That can't be hidden. The Simpson trial gave everyone a nice, long look at the emperor's nakedness, and they will be much more alert than before to further revelations. And believe me, there will be more revelations.