Elie Mystal's Lament: Politically Incorrect Comments on Above the Law

Christopher Donovan 

October 8, 2009 

The legal gossip blog Above the Law is a juicy read for bored big-firm associates wanting to know who's hiring, who's firing, and whose bitter goodbye e-mail is now circulating the Internet. It's also got enough interesting stuff for everyone else, like interviews with Sandra Day O'Connor or the "Lawyer of the Day" feature, for attorneys who've made complete fools of themselves. 

Founder David Lat is a bright Asian from tony New Jersey suburbs who's worked for Jewish power firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and as a federal prosecutor. He went to Yale Law School and flirted with the Federalist Society, the legal group deemed "conservative" by the MSM but that in reality functions mostly as a vehicle for Jewish interests like support for Israel. He's now established himself as a legal pundit of sorts. 

The word at Above the Law is "snark." If the firm isn't Cravath and the school isn't Yale, it's what they call a "TTT", or "third-tier toilet." Some of the site's devotees take crass and cynical to whole new levels. 

In August of 2008, Lat turned over the editor reigns of Above the Law to a Black Harvard Law grad named Elie Mystal, which as near as I can tell is not a pseudonym. It's pronounced "Eh-lee Mis-tahl", and despite the feminine sound, "Elie" is a male. (His father has the same name, and in a funny sidenote, got in trouble with the Southern Poverty Law Center for anti-immigrant comments made in his capacity as a Long Island politician.)

I don't have much to say about Mystal's skills as a writer or blogger, though he's frequently hit for a lack thereof by Above the Law commenters. It's a safe bet that affirmative action has played a role in his life. And I do note that in his position of power, he likes to take Black (or other minority) advocacy positions.  

For a good recent example, see here. .  

And here's where I'd normally reveal the complaint for the nonsense it is. But if you scroll down through the comments, you'll notice that the commenters have already taken care of that. 

Here's one:

When Jews discovered that their full potential wasn't recognized and used, they formed their own law firms and completely outclassed their WASP competitors. If the black lawyers really are equally competent and really are discriminated against, why is there not a single black law firm in the V100?

(Though I wouldn't say Jewish firms "outclassed" gentile ones — outmuscled is more like it. The Jewish takeover of American law is a great topic for another day.)

And another:

Sorry, we have a black president now. The hand-out generation needs to find a new excuse for failing to perform. Think Barack Obama sat around feeling sorry for himself that white men had been voted into office 43 out of 43 times before him?

Or:

Why would I want to build a "professional relationship" with someone who comes from a culture that is increasingly obsessed with branding me a racist by any means necessary? It's not worth the risk, e.g., that making a positive comment about the watermelon served as part of a lunch meeting won't get me written up. Race relations have turned into such a PC minefield that I'd rather just stay out of it altogether.

Others simply say that Blacks don't work as hard.

Now, any number of the 283 posts to this topic are made in jest, and a few support Mystal's complaint. But most do not. They generally support the position that Blacks at big firms got there through affirmative action, with all the expected results. 

In other words, Mystal's complaint doesn't go unanswered. And though most Above the Law readers and commenters would eschew or mock White advocacy as "racism", I sense real dissent bubbling up through the ranks. 

Mystal, naturally, dismisses the "racists" as a cranky minority given to blog vandalism. 

But the pro-White comments on Above the Law are part of a larger trend. I've simply seen too much of a variety and placement of pro-White comments to dismiss the entire phenomenon as a lone Stormfronter with too much time on his hands. Pro-White comments, from subtle to over-the-top, appear everywhere on the Internet these days. Previously, I've noted that the New York Times was so alarmed by this that it announced it would be censoring such comments. 

The problem with censorship is that commenters are immediately stunned into a recognition that their reasoned dissent is actually deemed "illegal" by the powers that be. That in turn sets off a chain reaction of anger and inquiry: the position is burnished, and now the censorship target is motivated to find out who wants him censored, and why. It also has the effect of simply turning away readers. 

Alternatively, the comments go up — and White advocacy is strengthened.  

All of which adds up to a big problem for opponents of Whites. 

The death of the MSM and rise of the Internet is, on balance, good for Whites. The tightly-controlled (traditionally, by Jews) MSM organs are dying, and even arguably anti-White blogs like Above the Law can't lock out all pro-White comments. 

And if young White lawyers start heading in a pro-White direction, by the way, this could mean big problems for the system. By positioning, they are expected to be on the enemy side: They've been trained in law "schul," as a friend likes to say, and see their elders hold up "civil rights" and Atticus Finch (while they, meanwhile, grew up with O.J.). Today, they're being laid off by the hundreds and see affirmative action ridiculousness up close, so they wouldn't seem to have as much to lose. 

Say what you will about lawyers, but they are articulate, and they are good at making trouble. Now that the system needing dismantling is essentially anti-White, this could come in handy. 

Christopher Donovan (email him) is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.