Christopher Donovan: To follow the path of the White advocate is to encounter, every so often, situations of unremarked absurdity that make you want to scream. First, for the absurdity itself. And second, for the fact that nobody seems to notice the absurdity.
The media drumbeat against the “all-white jury” is one such situation. The New York Times is now weighing in again, accusing prosecutors in the South of wrongfully excluding Blacks from juries. Of course, reporter Shaila Dewan never bothers to mention that defense lawyers want Blacks ON the jury for reasons that mirror why prosecutors want them OFF.
The story itself is a farce. Dewan mocks a prosecutor for calling one potential Black juror unsophisticated for spelling “Wal-Mart” as “Wal-marts.” Really? A New York Times reporter doesn’t consider that a sign of unsophistication? It’s pretty easy to imagine Ms. Dewan attributing unsophistication to a White person for doing the same thing.
On this thin reed, Dewan then opines that “Arguments like these were used for years to keep Blacks off juries in the segregationist South, systematically denying justice to Black defendants and victims.” Were they, really? This particular line is both sweepingly unsupported and oddly rhetorical. But precision is never the order of the day when the press deals with race.
Dewan lines up her SPLC-type sources one after the other, never bothering to reach out to anyone but the prosecutor himself for a different take — and knowing full well he can’t talk. I guess this is what Spiro Agnew meant when he called the press “a gang of cruel faggots.”
Sigh. Allow me to reiterate my point. It’s total hypocrisy for Blacks to complain about the exclusion of Blacks from juries because their motivations for doing so are based on the same generalizations as those made by prosecutors. They know — as well as prosecutors — that Blacks don’t convict Blacks. Therefore, Black defendants want them on juries, and prosecutors don’t. It’s that simple. Same analysis, different conclusion. Is this really a quest for “justice”, or a quest for a legal victory, no matter the facts?
Why won’t the press ever look into THAT? If it’s a big racist lie that Blacks are predictable in their behavior as jurors, wouldn’t the press be rushing to tell us so?
And does the press ever wonder why Blacks are such frequent defendants that this is even an issue?
And does the press ever wonder whether the Black defendant did, in fact, commit the crime charged?
And does the press ever stop to wonder whether it’s being racist against whites by casually assuming that no “all-White jury” could ever render a fair verdict?
I’d love to ask Shaila Dewan these questions, but I’m pretty sure she won’t be taking my call.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Excellent points, well brought-up. Once again we see the reality turned upside-down, and no one willing to investigate the facts of the matter. In history, the people that were concerned about facts and investigated the truth, and invented freedom toward these ends, were white people. Period. WE invented objective justice based on truth or facts. Blacks never did this–you do not find this arising in Africa, it was hard-won by our blood sweat and tears over thousands of years. They still don’t act our way here — even though they grew up in and are immersed in our culture. That is because it is not culture so much as temperment — which is even more highly inherited than IQ (which Richard Lynn objectively puts at about 80% from an objective evaluation of worldwide independent studies on the topic). The objectivity and truth-motives of our race are unique. Our way of looking at the world is unique.
To blacks, violence is not the big no-no it is to us. Having no inherent love and motivation towards truth, power struggles with violence are just fine to them. That is how it is done naturally to them. So many studies of profiles of anger triggers, topology of rage, physical characteristics, temperment, IQ, history, etc back me up in this that it is quite staggering that people are blind to this — have been made purposely blind. They see the world, and morality, differently. They are much less objective because of it.
We know what the Afro wants – he wants Bo and Yalanda sitting in the jury, chaffing, giving attitude, when they are so biased and incompetent no one in their right freaking mind would let them sit among a jury of equals!
The AfroHispanico brain is this:
If laws of the White man are an inconvenience – they are to be broken (due process, impartiality)
If they are convenient – they are meant to be upheld (Civil Rights)
Unbiased juries, incarceration rates, racial quotas, all undermine the rule of law, and White society.
Its time to not cede an inch to the AfroHispanics. RULE OF LAW, and no exceptions.
We know what game you’re trying to play, AngryJew.
You’re trying to sic us on Negroes and Hispanics and distract us from the real problem afflicting us.
Negroes and Hispanics are the symptoms – Jews are the disease. Ultimately, we have to deal with the disease.
We too need to start practicing jury nullification and other forms of nullification. We need to abandon neutral principles and take every opportunity to favor our own and disfavor our racial enemies, most especially the Jews.
The number of black victims of black crime is even higher than the number of white victims therefore the primary effect of advocacy that resulted in fewer black criminals being locked up would be more black crime victims.
I’ve been listening to Brooks Adams “The Theory of Social Revolution” and in the second chapter he talks about how the American judicial system was flawed from the beginning thanks to the Federalist like Hamilton (who knew better). Our supreme court has always been influenced by politics because of the way the member are appointed. Courts subject to politics will always gravitate toward the sovereign which in our case is our alienated elite. When this happens the common man in effect has no rights.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/26302
I wonder if I can sue them, too. I want more black jurors so I can get out of jury duty easier.
When I watched Craig Bodeker’s “A Conversation about Race” I almost dropped dead when he stated that 250.000 white woman where raped by blacks in 2005.
No doubt a black judge or jury would have blamed the white victims and set the racist – black – beasts free to continue their war against our woman.
That`s probably well over a million whites violated in the past 5 years !
Imagine if white people did this in any non-white country ?
There would be war.
HA says: “We too need to start practicing jury nullification and other forms of nullification.”
There is no tit for tat to be had, even if that was consistent with White values and traditions, which it isn’t.
If Blacks regularly nullify when a Black man rapes a White woman – well it seems they already do. Lawyers for the prosecution and the defense have to be aware of it
If White juries regularly nullified when a White man raped a Black woman, they’d nullify in roughly zero cases yearly.
And if a case came up where the honest verdict was guilty, I’d convict no matter what. So would anyone with a decent heart.
Sorry! I re-checked the stats`-
37,000 cases of blacks raping White woman in 2005
( an average of some 100 per day)
And under 10 cases of White men raping black woman.
@AngryJew
The courts is just another bureaucracy. “Rule of law” is rule by lawyers.
And we all know who plumb likes lawyerin’ the most.
The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers, for good reason.
Different people should be treated differently.
When unequal people are treated equally under the law, because they live in the same place, SOMEBODY is gonna end up miserable.
Historically Dixie was pretty lenient about applyin’ the white man’s law to the negro, when it was just negroes involved.
Since they ain’t like us and have a lot of trouble obeyin’ our laws, to hold negroes to our law may be cruel.
On the utha hand, whites have a right to live peacefully and happily too.
And that’s why we should be separated.
Different people should be treated differently by the law — and separated.
I don’t care that the law isn’t equal.
I care that the law is anti-white.
I, for one, like a mix of opinions and POVs. I’d like to ask AngryJew to continue to opine. Presumably we’re all adults and can listen to different perspectives. Besides, who knows if he’s really Jewish?
The fact that blacks are only 13 percent of the US population means that black males are likely about only 6 percent of the US population due to the fact that females outnumber males. Black crime is mostly done by black males. When you think of those numbers black male rapist must be over working themselves.
There were 194,270 white and 17,920 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2006. Out of the 194,270 cases involving white victims, 50.6% had white offenders and 16.7% had black offenders.
Who cares which race raped who; isn’t the more important thing here that a rape occurred? We also have to consider what “rape” is and how easy it is for a man to be charged with rape. Do we know the circumstances of each case?
It is unfortunate that the media looks at one side of the coin, but it’s evident that race sells.
Through experience, “all white juries” do not render fair verdicts, but that’s because white jurors try to be lenient to minorities to avoid being seen as racist, while minorities want to prove the same point by being harsher on someone they can relate to.
This entire study is rubbish and incites more unecessary hate and bigotry. Isn’t there enough of this in the world?
The funny thing is that the people commenting probably have more important things to do. Hate breeds hate.
As a Canadian whose daughter was raped by three blacks, in a city with a small (at the time) black population, I have a different view. The Canadian and UK experience with blacks is different than the US experience. Growing up in the 50s, blacks were visible because there were few of them. Even in the (relatively speaking) black populated Southern Ontario, which was the end of the “underground railway”, the blacks grew up “white” In the 70s I met an old man in the UK who told me that the first black he saw was one with the US Army travelling through his town. The few blacks coming to the UK at the front edge of the immigration wave were OK with adapting. An American friend once referred to this difference (Canada and the US) as Canada having a “different class nigger”.
My daughter was raped by the more recent waves of African and Carribean blacks that began arriving in the mid 70′s and became tidal waves since the 80s. The “different class nigger” my friend referred to.
“This entire study is rubbish and incites more unecessary hate and bigotry. Isn’t there enough of this in the world?
The funny thing is that the people commenting probably have more important things to do. Hate breeds hate.”
Don’t get it, do you, UK lawyer? We WHITES are demonized at every step. We’re blamed (because we’re somehow irrational, evil,
meany racists who falsely and maliciously accuse all these dear, innocent, kind-as-lamb Blacks of things they would never do) for all the ills of the Black man, the crime, the unemployment, the poverty, the drug use, the out-of-wedlock births, etc., etc.
We’re blamed, and WE are the victims. We’re the victims of savage murders like Wichita Massacre; Black man cutting almost completely off his White wife’s head and the black lawyer making the case be about a good cop who said a bad word; and 50,000 of our women being sexually assaulted by your guys, while our guys assault virtually none of your women; and riots anytime you people get cranky.
All this goes on, but if a White man so much as utters some syllables that rhyme with “tigger” but start with an N sound or eats a banana in front of blacks, we lose our livelihoods.
So yeah, it’s easy to hate someone, right back, who has exercised his hate upon you by robbing and hurting you and raping and murdering your family.
And it AIN’T irrational. What these studies show is, our hate of this Black man’s war against us is RATIONAL.
Sorry, but the First Amendment protects Angry Jew’s right to express himself even at a White Nationalist forum. It would be the height of hypocrisy to scream about Jewish imposed censorship via Hate Speech Laws, etc. and then impose censorship on him.
He will, of course, do whatever the hell he pleases, no matter what you or I have to say about it. However, I support the First Amendment and want to see it continue being backed up by the Second.
“Sorry, but the First Amendment protects Angry Jew’s right to express himself”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Censorship pertains to acts of government only.
Free speech cannot be separated from private property. What speech appears here is determined by who owns the site. The basic right is of the site owner, NOT of any potential poster. Allowing posters is the right of the site owner; BANNING others is also an act of free speech- of the site’s owner.
There are no free speech rights for posters UNLESS THEY ARE ON THEIR OWN SITE.