Christopher Donovan: The legal job market is awful. Even when it’s not, the promise of fulfilling and plentiful $100K+ jobs is a lie. Law school creates huge debts (often on top of college debt) that can’t be paid down easily by most lawyers, who sometimes earn less than the police officers they work with in criminal law or the accountants they work with in civil law.
By now — exacerbated by the economic slump — everyone’s on to this as you can see from this article in the Wall Street Journal.
On a personal note, I can vouch for all this. I went to a modestly-ranked law school in New York City and graduated cum laude, but this was nowhere near enough to land an associate position at the likes of Sullivan & Cromwell — or even many lesser firms. And it seems that no matter what you end up doing — transactional work at a big firm, insurance defense or Legal Aid — it’s going to be mind-numbing, repetitive, unglamorous work, with pay that’s better than journalism (my earlier career) but still not always so impressive.
But going to law school, for me, wasn’t all about the possibility of getting rich. Part of my motivation was the anti-White discrimination I’d experienced in my life, and the dawning realization that Whites as a group were getting pretty unfair treatment. Thus far, being a lawyer has paid some dividends, and I hope it pays more. Even if you never take up the White cause as a lawyer, understanding the law gives one a great advantage in a society that’s become ripped apart by multiracialism and turns to lawyers for every little thing. In simply blogging about the issues, I write from a stronger position than someone unfamiliar with the working of American law.
For college-age White advocates out there, consider law school. Jews through the years have correctly recognized that the legal arena is a great place to advance your cause, and they have done so with undeniable success (and have caused undeniable harm to us). Whites should take note.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Facing the Future as a Minority
I agree
“For college-age White advocates out there, consider law school”
Since law school is so expensive, but the chances of the gamble paying off are slim, should White advocates attend the most inexpensive law school they can find — or is it a case of you get what you pay for and the education at cheap state schools is inferior?
Accountant may be a good career for a white advocate. The ability to easily spot financial crimes is bound to be useful.
“For college-age White advocates out there, consider law school.”
But as you wrote and as many websites focused on the legal field spell out, the job market for new lawyers is TERRIBLE. Like most other sectors, it is very over-saturated.
Why would people go to law school to accrue massive debts only to graduate and be underemployed?
“Since law school is so expensive, but the chances of the gamble paying off are slim, should White advocates attend the most inexpensive law school they can find — or is it a case of you get what you pay for and the education at cheap state schools is inferior?”
Almost all law schools cost the same. You have a better chance getting a scholarship at a lower ranked school, but half of all law schools aren’t worth going to for free.
There’s a school of thought that says whites can and should go “crypto”, just like the Jews; that whites can sneak up on the Jews, using the same tactics that the Jews did. But there’s at least a couple of problems with that, in addition to the obvious one that the Jews are wise to the tactic and won’t allow it. First, the vast majority of whites are psychologically ill-prepared to transform their lives into a lie of that magnitude. The law and court system are already so politically-correct that you’d never get anywhere in the field unless you (convincingly!) claimed to believe the bullshit. Keeping a deception of that magnitude going would be like living the life of a spy behind enemy lines. Most people wouldn’t like it or even be capable of doing it. Second, from what I’ve seen of it from the outside, it looks like a situation much like what prevails in Hollywood. It’s been taken over by Jews to such an extent that you have to have Tribal connections to get anywhere. One of my ex-GF’s sister had a law degree. She was graduated second in her class from a mid-ranking law school, magna cum laude, and still wasn’t picked up by any law firms. That was over ten years ago, and she’s yet to work even a single, solitary day as an attorney.
I think most reach a point in their career where they realize that to advance further they will have to spend the rest of their lives getting on, and off of airplanes, in and out of rent a cars, and sleeping in motels & hotels & eating restaurant food. Even if you have the “big plastic”, and go top shelf, this gets old quick.
Although, my career was not in law, I spent much of it working with, for, and against lawyers, accountants, mba’s & engineers.
Regardless of your career, everyone reaches the point where they are comfortable, and to take it to a new level, isn’t necessarily in their best interest. The Peter Principle?
The Germans figured this out back in the 1920′s during the Weimar Republic.
The solution isn’t to go “crypto”. Nonsense
Simply use the affirmative action quota mentality against Jews in Law Medicine Finance and Education.
Just enact laws that limit Jews participation in these three areas to the percent of their numbers in the population. We shall call it Affirmative Reaction
Negative (anti-affirmative) action against Jews is hampered by the fact that few of them publicly admit to being Jews; they want to pass for White while continuing to enjoy the advantages of behind-the-scenes nepotism and self-dealing. Thus, trying to counteract affirmative action in this way would probably backfire against Whites. (Better to just repeal it.)
In any case, we may be missing the point by focusing on the Jews here. Instead of agonizing over who can and cannot afford law school, let’s call a spade a spade and make the most obvious point that can be made on the subject: there’s really no good reason to require lawyers to attend law school at all. It’s all but superfluous with respect to legal competence.
The law is, and always has been, strictly codified, and can thus be learned from books. Even if one objects that certain aspects of law school, some mysterious vocational je ne sais quoi, cannot be reduced to questions on a Bar exam, it would be easy to construct a standardized measure of live performance that could be specifically tested in a hands-on setting. Meanwhile, anyone who passes the Bar exam should be admitted to the Bar, as was the case in most states until pretty recently.
The push to require universal law school attendance for legal practice has been shamelessly calculated by lawyers themselves to limit their competition. That way, the best and biggest fruit, those plum cases with big fat payoffs, remain easily available to fattest, greediest “good old boys” of the profession, who know very well that monopoly pays, and pays big.
However, when it comes to justice, economics is not supposed to be the primary concern. The most important reason not to require law school attendance for the practice of law is painfully obvious: any citizen (willing to study for and pass a reasonable battery of tests) should be able to defend himself in a court of law without being rich, and without being rendered destitute by one or more ravenous $150-$750/hour shysters. In fact, it is clearly impossible to have an equitable system of justice on any other terms.
Although American citizens are technically allowed to defend themselves and pursue civil actions in court, this is made extraordinarily difficult for them. First, the required procedural information, which should be freely and easily available to all who need it, is not that easy to come by in simplified compact form (the American legal system has been rendered a worse-than-Talmudic mess by endless legislation and rising piles of discombobulated and contradictory case law).
Secondly, there are too many judges who hold non-lawyers who try to handle their own cases in obvious contempt … judges who indulge in blatant favoritism and gratuitous secret-handshake fanny-wagging with their fellow law school graduates at the expense of ordinary citizens. I’ve known a few lawyers in my day, and have yet to meet one who has so much more intellectual ability than the average person that the average person should be literally held hostage by the legal system in deference to that ability.
Lawyers who see the defects in this system should know better that to blame academia, which runs parallel scams in countless other fields of endeavor. The purpose of the scam, of course, is to make sure that no one who fails to pay tens or hundreds of grand into the academic machine, and endures years of destructive academic indoctrination, should be allowed to pursue any vocation more elevated than hauling trash.
I see that Mr. Donovan is an attorney who used to be a journalist (that’s a shame – he writes well and should have been able to make it as a journalist). But with all due respect to the profession, those who understand the situation should lay the blame where it belongs: at the feet of the legal system and its legion of absurdly bloated fat-cats, perhaps the most notoriously egotistical, mendacious, meretricious, sanctimonious, and socially destructive bunch of nimrods ever to abuse their profession in order to advance their own precious interests at public expense.
But while greed is probably the most potent factor, it may not be the only one. A case can be made that the present situation, in which intelligent Whites are selectively economically barred from the profession (because increasingly less financial aid is available to Whites), was part of the plan all along. After all, where the law is the gateway to wealth and power, increasing the number of non-Whites able to practice law might as well have been calculated to diminish the wealth and power of Whites.
I suggest that those White lawyers who retain a functioning conscience do something to reverse the blatant injustice of making access to justice contingent on superfluous training requirements and/or feeding the legal machine. The fact that law school no longer pays presents us with a glowing rationale for doing away with it as a requirement for the practice of law, and replacing it with a general, easy-to-use web-based portal for citizen access to comprehensive legal instruction and advice.
An over-reliance on experts is one of the hallmarks of a technological society. This is part of the tyranny; it’s part of the fun. I think a major point of law school — equally true of any college-level training in our technological society — is to enforce conformity of legal thought. While it has unfortunate aspects, this conformity is necessary for the smooth functioning of the system. In order for communication to take place, everyone must understand the meaning of terms and how they are used; what they apply to and what they don’t. On an esoteric level, this means that the words of the law themselves are empty, and have always been so. They can be made to mean whatever the system needs them to mean. In a multiracial, multicultural society, you can’t have, for example, large numbers of legal professionals thinking that the First Amendment protects “hate speech”. That would be disruptive at this point in the system’s development. Nowadays, every graduate must understand that “hate speech” is like shouting fire in a crowded theatre. This is the kind of change, just one of many, that has been gradually carried out over the course of a few decades. So in addition to its essential role in controlling access to the legal process, law school functions as a kind of finishing school for political correctness. It’s designed to tame the law and make it function within society’s norms; and the norms themselves are nothing less than an evolved system of compromises made by the elite “flexible strategizers” (to use KM’s term) in charge of things. Fanatics, freethinkers, and other non-conformists who can’t get with the program either will never be allowed to graduate, will be marginalized if they do graduate, or in extreme cases (like Matt Hale), will be forbidden a license to practice altogether.
What does the author think about simply studying for and taking the bar. There are several states that allow this AFAIK.
There’s a school of thought that says whites can and should go “crypto”, just like the Jews; that whites can sneak up on the Jews, using the same tactics that the Jews did. But there’s at least a couple of problems with that, in addition to the obvious one that the Jews are wise to the tactic and won’t allow it.
The obvious one isn’t a problem, since going crypto means you don’t tell anyone, lol.
First, the vast majority of whites are psychologically ill-prepared to transform their lives into a lie of that magnitude.
There’s no lie, of any magnitude, in fighting secretly for the survival of your people.
Keeping a deception of that magnitude going would be like living the life of a spy behind enemy lines. Most people wouldn’t like it or even be capable of doing it.
Sounds like ethnopatriotism (WNism) to me. :)
The law and court system are already so politically-correct that you’d never get anywhere in the field unless you (convincingly!) claimed to believe the bullshit.
There does seem to be a conflict between getting somewhere in the legal field and pursuing European ethnic interests. That said, I could see a lawyer making a living while vigorously pursuing suits in our ethnic interests.
Second, from what I’ve seen of it from the outside, it looks like a situation much like what prevails in Hollywood. It’s been taken over by Jews to such an extent that you have to have Tribal connections to get anywhere.
Bah, Jews created their own firms back when “WASP” firms ruled the roost, didn’t they?
There’s only one problem we have to overcome to make crypsis a workable strategy; there’s no “we” yet.