by Dr. William L. Pierce
LAST SUNDAY I listened to a Harvard Law School professor advocate a return to the use of torture to extract information and confessions from suspects. The professor was Alan Dershowitz. That’s the Jewish lawyer who helped get O.J. Simpson acquitted in 1995 after he cut the throats of his wife and her boyfriend. Ironically, Dershowitz also has a reputation as a civil libertarian.
Dershowitz was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the CBS program 60 Minutes, which made the entire scene appropriately Jewish: a Jewish interviewer, Wallace; a Jewish interviewee, Dershowitz; and a television network owned by the Jew Sumner Redstone. I say “appropriately Jewish” because, despite the waffling and qualifications and opposing opinions about the use of torture by the government to obtain confessions, the net effect of the program — and really, it was the intended effect — was to leave viewers with the thought that, although some people are against it, it is not an entirely bad thing for the government to torture suspects, at least in some cases. It is not unthinkable.
Dershowitz’s argument is that when torture may save lives it is justified: for example, when the government is holding someone who may have knowledge of a bomb that is set to go off at an undisclosed location. Tear his fingernails out to find out whether or not he really does know something about a bomb. If he admits that he does, then use a red-hot poker to find out where the bomb is and when it is set to go off. Hundreds of lives may be saved. If the poor bastard really didn’t know anything about a bomb — if the secret police had the wrong man — well, hey, all he’s lost are his fingernails. Seems like a reasonable trade-off, doesn’t it: one man’s fingernails against the possibility of saving hundreds of lives? Alan Dershowitz thinks that’s a fair trade. The FBI, which has been hinting that it may need to use torture to do its job of protecting the public from terrorists in the future, thinks it is too. The Israeli government, which tortures Palestinian prisoners whether it suspects they know something about a bomb or not, agrees.
Of course, the people who founded this country and wrote our Constitution thought the government should be prohibited from torturing prisoners under any circumstances. They forbade it absolutely. They were willing to sacrifice lives, including their own, to uphold that and the other provisions of the Constitution. They believed that certain principles are even more important than saving lives.
But, hey, what did they know? They were completely out of touch with the problems we face today. They were all White racists and male chauvinists, and most of them didn’t even own flush toilets. How could they know how important it is for us to feel secure from terrorism while we’re watching our ball games or shopping in our malls?
OK, let’s drop the sarcasm. Alan Dershowitz isn’t advocating torture as a means of saving American lives. He believes that torture may be useful here to safeguard Jewish interests, just as it is useful in Israel for that purpose. That’s all the man cares about. Fundamentally, he’s not a lawyer or a civil libertarian; he’s not an American; he’s not even a fellow human being. Alan Dershowitz is a Jew, and that says it all. He understands that the United States, by letting itself be used as Israel’s bully boy, leaves itself open to further terrorist attacks from Muslims and other victims of Israel. He wants the U.S. government to have all the weapons at its disposal that may be helpful in defeating Israel’s enemies. He is convinced that the torture of suspects can be a useful weapon — as long as those suspects are enemies of Israel, enemies of the Jews, of course.
I’ll guarantee you that Dershowitz would be singing quite a different tune if the people we needed to torture in order to find out where the bomb is hidden were Jews. I’ll guarantee you that he is not in favor of torturing members of the Jewish Defense League to find out about the next mosque bombing they have planned. I’ll guarantee you that he would not have been in favor of torturing the Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, to find out all of the U.S. military secrets Pollard stole for Israel and that Israel in turn sold to China. That is likely to cost us many lives some day, but you can be certain that Alan Dershowitz doesn’t believe that we should have tortured Pollard in order to gain information that may minimize the number of casualties we’ll suffer in a conflict with China.
Well, that’s another subject. Today I want to talk about what people like Dershowitz have done to the American system of justice. Scrapping our prohibition against torturing people to make them confess is the least of it. The whole judicial system in this country has become terminally corrupt. Most of the same outward forms are maintained that we had 200 years ago, but in its actual workings and in its spirit the system has been thoroughly corrupted. But instead of talking in generalities about this problem, I’ll give you some specific examples.
Six months ago my organization, the National Alliance, organized a public protest demonstration outside the German Embassy in Washington. We were protesting the lack of free speech in Germany. Germans, of course, lost their freedom of speech and their right to keep and bear arms and other freedoms, along with much German territory and many German lives, when they lost the Second World War. Germans are prosecuted these days for writing or saying Politically Incorrect things — even for being caught listening to Politically Incorrect music or reading Politically Incorrect books. We thought it would be nice to tell the German government that it shouldn’t put people in prison for what they say — that it’s time to restore to the German people some of the civil liberties they had until 1945 — and we also thought that the American public should be made aware of the lack of freedom in Germany. Most Americans don’t know that Germans can be imprisoned for what they say, that many Germans are sitting in prison now for having made a Politically Incorrect comment in public.
So my organization held a demonstration outside the German Embassy last July 29 to make a public issue of this lack of freedom in Germany. We did everything strictly according to the law. We obtained a permit for our demonstration from the government of the District of Columbia. We notified the police well in advance, so that they would be prepared to control traffic at the demonstration and maintain order. We showed up at the appointed time and began marching in an orderly fashion along the sidewalk outside the German Embassy with our signs.
Then a gang of 40 or so Jews and communists, many of them wearing masks and carrying weapons, arrived on the scene. Two of these, one a Jew and the other a Caribbean mulatto, attacked the National Alliance member, Billy Roper, who was coordinating the demonstration. In full view of the police and news cameramen, they struck Billy in the head with a tire iron and a heavy lug wrench, cutting a nasty gash above his right eye and breaking a bone in his eye socket. The police arrested the two attackers at the scene. The two were later identified in the newspaper of the Progressive Labor Party, a violent communist organization, as members of that group. The Progressive Labor Party newspaper praised the actions of its two members and urged more such attacks in order to prevent the National Alliance from holding further public demonstrations.
Despite our protests and all of the evidence presented to the prosecutor, the two communist thugs were charged only with simple assault, a misdemeanor, and they were released from custody on the same day they were arrested. Their trial came up in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia on the eighth of this month. The Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to prosecute the case was a Negress from Nigeria. The two defense attorneys were Blacks. The judge was a Black. There was no jury, because the two communists asked to be tried by the Black judge only.
During the trial a videotape obtained from a news cameraman was played for the judge. It clearly showed one of the communists swinging a lug wrench at Billy Roper’s head, with the other communist kicking him from behind. We also had eyewitnesses who had been at the demonstration, we had Billy Roper’s medical records, we had photographs showing blood streaming down Billy’s face from his wound, and we had the Progressive Labor Party newspaper bragging about the assault and urging its members to commit more such assaults. The Black judge ignored the evidence and on January 9 acquitted both communists.
Now, I can assure you that if the demonstrators at the German Embassy had been Jews demanding even further restrictions on German freedom, and if two National Alliance members had attacked one of the Jews with a tire iron, and the other circumstances were the same, our two members would have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily harm, assault with intent to kill — all felonies — and also with conspiracy to commit all of these felonies. If I had then bragged about the assault on one of my broadcasts, identified the assailants as members of the National Alliance, and urged more such assaults in order to keep the Jews from demonstrating, additional criminal charges of attempting to deny the Jews their civil rights would have been filed, and our two members would be looking now at sentences of 50 years each.
I’ll tell you about another real example of the working of our judicial system. The unchecked influx of non-White illegal immigrants into the United States is a problem all across the country, but it is especially irritating to White residents in some areas that have received an unusually heavy influx of illegals, such as the suburbs of New York City. Especially heavily impacted is the Long Island town of Farmingville, where illegal immigrants are to be seen on street corners every morning looking for day labor, and the government does nothing about them. On September 17, 2000, two White men who live in Farmingville decided that they’d had enough. They picked up two illegal mestizos in their truck under the pretense of offering them work, drove them to a vacant building, and gave them a beating.
The two illegal aliens returned to Mexico after that, but the two White men, Chris Slavin and Ryan Wagner, were arrested and charged with assaulting them. Both White men were convicted, and on the ninth day of this month — the same day the two communist thugs who attacked Billy Roper with a tire iron and a lug wrench were acquitted by a Black judge in the District of Columbia — a Jewish judge in New York, Stephen Braslow, sentenced 20-year-old Ryan Wagner to 25 years in prison. Earlier, 29-year-old Chris Slavin also was sentenced to 25 years in prison for beating up the two illegal aliens.
It’s interesting to compare these two assault cases, which wound up on the same day this month, isn’t it? Now, I realize that we never did have a perfect system of justice in America, and that going on trial always was a little like playing Russian roulette. But I think that in the past — before the Second World War, for example — judges and juries and prosecutors more often than not actually wanted to see justice done. They wanted to see the guilty punished and the innocent acquitted. It used to be a White man’s system, and it worked moderately well.
If 65 or 70 years ago two communist thugs, one a Jew and one a mulatto, had attacked a law-abiding White citizen on a sidewalk in the nation’s capital and tried to keep him from peacefully expressing his opinion by beating his head in with a tire iron, they would have been lucky to be sentenced to only 25 years in prison. If 65 or 70 years ago two young White men, exasperated by the failure of the government to keep illegal non-White aliens out of the country, had taken it upon themselves to beat up a couple of them, they might have been fined for disorderly conduct, but they certainly wouldn’t have had their lives destroyed by being sentenced to 25 years in prison.
And the difference isn’t just that what used to be a White man’s justice system is now substantially polluted by a heavy infusion of non-Whites, with Black and Jewish judges and prosecutors everywhere, especially in the eastern metropolitan areas. Everyone in the system, including the Whites, has been corrupted. The Blacks and Jews and other non-Whites are feeling their oats, of course, and are enjoying their opportunity to use the White man’s own system against him. They don’t even bother to apologize when they commit judicial atrocities of the sort they committed on January 9 that I have cited here. Their attitude is, “Hey, Whitey, we’re in charge now, and we’re going to stick it to you, and there’s nothing you can do about it.” And the White lawyers remaining in the system, instead of fighting the corruption, are going along with it. They’re not only terrified of being accused of being “racists” if they don’t go along; they’re jumping on the bandwagon with enthusiasm, as eager to demonstrate their anti-White bias as the Blacks and Jews, and they are sticking it to any poor White person who falls into their clutches in any case that has racial overtones.
Here’s another example: Last month two young members of the National Alliance were arrested in Philadelphia and charged with several felonies, including “ethnic intimidation” and something called “institutional vandalism,” which is the vandalizing of an “institution,” such as a church or a synagogue, and causing more than $5,000 damage. The judge set their bonds at $50,000 each.
What had they actually done? They had put a National Alliance sticker on a “no parking” sign. The sticker said, “Don’t catch AIDS!” and warned White women not to have sex with Blacks, citing the fact that heterosexual Black males are 14 times as likely as heterosexual White males to be infected with HIV. Because the sticker mentioned Blacks it was called “ethnic intimidation.” Because the “no parking” sign was on a chain-link construction fence around a memorial to Vietnam veterans — that is, an “institution” — it was called “institutional vandalism.” How the judge figured that more than $5,000 damage was done to the “no parking” sign by a gummed sticker is a mystery.
Actually, in a city such as Philadelphia, which certainly has one of the most corrupt establishments in the country, there’s not even an effort made to justify such charges. The local politicians and bureaucrats figure they don’t have to justify themselves. They are the law, and you’d better watch out! If you try to exercise what you thought were your Constitutional rights in their town, they’ll lock you up in a hurry. And I’m talking now about White politicians and bureaucrats. A Philadelphia-area newspaper, the Burlington County Times, reporting on the arrests, quoted a police captain, Thomas Quinn — solidly Irish, judging from the name. Said Captain Quinn:
This is not something we’re going to take lightly. If you come into the city, and we catch you doing this, you’re going to be charged with felonies.
Did you catch that? Captain Quinn says the Philadelphia Police Department isn’t going to take it lightly if someone comes into Philadelphia and expresses a Politically Incorrect opinion. If someone puts up a Politically Incorrect sticker he will be charged with felonies. What Captain Quinn meant, but didn’t say, is that if you’re White, you’ll be charged with felonies. Certainly, if you’re a Black and you put up a sticker that says “Black Power!” Captain Quinn isn’t going to mess with you. No judge is going to charge you with a felony for that. The White judicial and law-enforcement establishment in Philadelphia knows that if a Black got charged with multiple felonies for putting up a sticker, the Blacks would riot, and every Jewish lawyer in the city would be screaming for the offending White police official or judge to be fired.
Philadelphia, like New York and Washington, is undoubtedly a bit worse than most of the rest of the country, but we can see the same tendency everywhere. And you know, it shouldn’t be like that. Our Constitutional rights should be respected by the police and the courts without our having to threaten to riot. That’s the way it used to be, when we had a White man’s system. That’s when principles were more important than comfort and security or Political Correctness. What has happened?
I’ll tell you what’s happened. First, we let Jews infiltrate and begin taking over our mass media: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the weekly news magazines, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, the TV networks, and eventually all the rest. Through the media they began pumping Jewish spiritual poison into our society: egalitarianism and White guilt. This paved the way for the multicultural insanity that has corrupted our justice system and is now destroying Western civilization. In the 1960s this primed our young people for the so-called “counterculture revolution”: the revolution in which Jewish gurus taught our young people that principles don’t matter; that if it feels good, do it; that only the individual and what he wants is important; that race and nation and tradition and culture are irrelevant; that it’s every man for himself.
And so now we have a justice system in America in which not even the White judges and prosecutors care about justice but only about what is good for their careers in a Politically Correct system. And with such a system, it only makes sense to take the next step and begin using torture to get confessions. Jews like Alan Dershowitz will continue to push that idea, a step at a time, and the yahoos who have little American flags tied to their car antennas will cheer the Jews on, believing that it’s only Muslim terrorists who will have their fingernails torn out, and that using torture on Muslims will allow the yahoos to watch their ball games in greater safety. But I’ll guarantee you that ultimately it’s not just Muslims that Dershowitz and his tribe have in mind when they advocate torture: it’s you and I; it’s everyone who stands in the way of the total supremacy of their tribe.
One final thought today: Do you remember the enormous hullabaloo back in 1998 when three White men in Jasper, Texas, picked up a Black hitchhiker, beat him up, and then killed him by dragging him behind their truck? The trials of the White men became a media circus, and murder convictions and death sentences were guaranteed, as the local judicial system and also the local White lemmings fell all over themselves to do what the media expected of them.
Late Friday night of last week there was another killing of a hitchhiker in Jasper, Texas. A man was given a ride in a pickup truck by four other men, and when the hitchhiker refused to give them $50 they decided to kill him. They began beating him, and when he tried to escape they chased him along a country road in their truck and ran him down. Then they deliberately ran their truck over him and killed him, leaving his crushed body on the road. The big difference between the killing last week and the one in 1998 is that the victim last week was a White man, 44-year-old Ken Tillery, and the four men who deliberately ran their truck over his body are Blacks. Have you seen or heard anything about this murder in the media? There was a very brief Associated Press report on it this Monday, January 21, but very few newspapers have printed that report. Do you think there will be a big hullabaloo and a show trial with demands for the death penalty the way there was after the 1998 killing? Don’t count on it. We now have a multicultural justice system, and we deserve it.
* * *