— Counter-Currents —

More than a Tawdry Tabloid:
The Meaning of the O. J. Simpson Affair

3,156 words [1]

The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story
Directed by Ryan Murphy & Anthony Hemingway
Starring, Sterling K. Brown, Kenneth Choi, Christian Clemenson, Cuba Gooding Jr., Bruce Greenwood, Nathan Lane, Sarah Paulson, Steven Pasquale, David Schwimmer, John Travolta, Courtney B. Vance, Malcolm-Jamal Warner, and others

Jeffrey Toobin
The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson,
New York: Random House, 1996

Part 1 of 2. Part 2 here [2].

It’s been more than two decades since the O. J. Simpson murder investigation and the “Trial of the Century,”[1] [3] and yet this tawdry affair still arouses a great deal of interest and discussion. The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story, a 2016 mini-series based on the Jeffrey Toobin book about the affair, was solid ratings gold. O. J. Simpson was also recently at the center of the “Parole Hearing of the Century,” due to his incarceration in Nevada for a different crime.

The “Trial of the Century” started because on June 13, 1994,  O. J. Simpson was accused of murdering his white ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her Jewish friend Ron Goldman in a fit of jealous rage. The accused at the center of the 1994 murder investigation and 1995 trial, O. J. Simpson (played in the series by Cuba Gooding Jr.), was a successful black football player, a celebrity promoter of the Hertz Car Rental Company,[2] [4] and a starring actor in several films. Indeed, at the time the story unfolded O. J. Simpson had just starred in the movie The Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult.

The story captured the American public’s attention from beginning to end. The “low-speed chase” — where a suicidal O. J. Simpson was driven back to his house in a white Ford Bronco by his friend Al “AC” Cowlings (Malcolm-Jamal Warner) while being chased by a “phalanx” of Los Angeles Police — was watched by an audience of 95 million people, including this author.[3] [5] The O. J. Simpson “not-guilty” verdict was watched live by a high estimate of 150 million people, also including this author. It is believed $480 million in economic activity was lost during the verdict and its aftermath because so many stopped work to tune in.[4] [6]

What makes the O. J. Simpson case so compelling is that this real-life situation perfectly fit two essential elements of storytelling. First, it matches the pattern of the ancient Greek tragedy. O. J. Simpson came from a humble background and rose to fame in two very competitive fields – football and acting – but he lost it all. From this storytelling perspective O. J. Simpson was like Icarus, who flew too close to the sun and crashed into the sea.

The other characters were also like tragic heroes in the old Greek plays. Police detective Mark Fuhrman (Steven Pasquale) and prosecutors Chris Darden (Sterling K. Brown) and Marcia Clark (Sarah Paulson) were all dedicated civil servants who had to carry out their respective duties with decorum despite enormous social pressures aligned against them. Fred Goldman (Joseph Siravo), father of the slain Ron Goldman, was also a doomed hero. Fred waged a hopeless battle for justice for his son from the beginning. The scene in The People v. O. J. Simpson where Fred Goldman speaks to Marcia Clark about the injustice of it all is gripping and intense, and matches the intensity of the actual events.[5] [7]

The next aspect to the O. J. Simpson case was the whopping sense of suspense over the course of the entire affair, from the “low-speed chase” to the gripping verdict. It fits Alfred Hitchcock’s theory of suspense in which, “…[T]he public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: ‘…There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!’”[6] [8]

[9]During the “low-speed chase,” as all the networks tuned in to the live feed coming from LA’s news helicopters, the public came to know that a likeable black celebrity — armed with a pistol and contemplating suicide — was being chased by an armed and well-trained police force known for sometimes being mean to blacks. As the viewers continued to watch they were made aware O. J. was headed to his house, where he was going to be met by the hard, well-armed men of the LAPD’s SWAT Team. How would the “low-speed chase” end? Would O. J. blow out his brains in the white Ford Bronco or try and take down some cops and die in a hail of hollow-tipped SWAT bullets? In the spirit of Hitchcock’s audience longing to warn those on screen, Vance Evans, a fellow football colleague of the then-fugitive O. J. cried out melodramatically while being interviewed by LA Local News as the chase went on, “…Stop, [O. J.] please stop in Jesus’s name just stop. Cause we love you…”[7] [10]

During the trial the suspense continued. In criminal matters, Anglo-Saxon Common Law assumes justice will be best found through a legal process specifically designed to be a contest. Since O. J. spared no expense on his defense and hired aggressive, attention-seeking lawyers, his “Dream Team” made every step of the trial an ultra-competitive affair. This ultra-competitive spirit made the outcome of the trial difficult to determine, despite O. J.’s guilt-indicating behavior during the “low-speed chase” and the overwhelming circumstantial and DNA evidence. Most importantly, what would follow the verdict? As the racial aspects of the trial moved to the forefront, the public came to realize that the outcome could create another race riot.

All of the above is captured by the team of producers, screenwriters, actors, and directors that made the mini-series The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story. It is a series worth watching. From the perspective of a white advocate, the O. J. Simpson trial is instructive as the entire thing was also an implosion of the artificial, race-mixed, politically-correct social system developed by the American political elite during the “civil rights” revolutions of the 1960s. Jeffrey Toobin’s book on the matter sheds much light on the artificial social system without drawing any conclusions supportive of white advocacy.

Part 1: The Artificial, Race-Mixed Social System

The artificial, race-mixed social system which propped up O. J. Simpson and led to the creation of the O. J.-Nicole Brown Simpson marriage was the result of a metapolitical integrationist effort with heavy Jewish involvement[8] [11] that started in the early 20th Century. The NAACP, a “civil rights” organization, was started in 1909 with a solid base of Jewish support and control. Strangely, the NAACP’s aim then, and now, is not the logical solution to racial tensions by moving blacks away from evil white racists to some far-off Black Zion, but instead to further mesh the two incompatible populations together. The “civil rights” metapolitical effort won completely with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but shortly thereafter black violence became so bad — and black progress turned out to be so minimal and artificial — that the “civil rights” movement should have been called a total failure by 1972.[9] [12]

The “civil rights” movement was not called a failure because so many whites irrationally bought into it, such that it can only be understood as a sort of religious mania. Following this strange theology, white social leaders scoured the pathology-ridden black community for positive examples of Black heros. What this effort produced, with considerable regularity, was a black with high social competence but lacking a moral underpinning or an intellectual foundation. O. J. Simpson’s behavior and ultimate fate were not much different from those of his immoral but socially-competent black celebrity colleague, Bill Cosby.

The artificial social system resulting from the “civil rights” revolution also requires a number of props created by whites. The first prop is that institutions must have one set of standards for whites and another for blacks. For example, American universities allow black athletes to be recruited and retained as a “student-athlete,” although many of these blacks don’t have the scholastic abilities to qualify as a student and ultimately don’t learn anything.

O. J. Simpson was a perfect example of this. Toobin is quite frank on O. J.’s intellectual limitations while ignoring his high social competence. He writes,

Treating Simpson as the equal of his lawyers fit nicely with the paternalistic approach many mainstream journalists take in writing about race. According to these informal standards, white reporters can write with candor about the intellectual limitations of their fellow whites, but not blacks. Absurdly, black sensibilities are thought to be too tender for the truth. Indeed, it is thought to be flirting with a charge of racism to draw attention to the intellectual limitations of any African-American, especially a prominent one like Simpson. So accepting the idea of Simpson as the peer of his attorneys relieved the mainstream press of confronting the obvious truth about him—that he was an uneducated, semiliterate ex-athlete who could barely understand much about the legal proceedings against him.[10] [13]

Another prop of the artificial social system comes from the enormous race-related propaganda broadcast in movies and television. The interracial Simpson marriage was only possible in the first place due to this propaganda. Ironically, one of the “dog witnesses” that helped establish the time of the murders was a screenwriter named Pablo Fenjves. Fenjves was a Jewish son of “Holocaust survivors” who had moved to Brentwood after writing the screenplay for an HBO film promoting interracial relationships called The Affair.[11] [14] Nicole Brown Simpson would have done herself (and Ron Goldman) more good had she ignored the race-mixing nonsense on TV, and instead read a study on fatal violence among spouses whose abstract contains the following sentence:

The risk of [fatal] victimization was greater for spouses in interracial than in intraracial marriages and increased as age differences between spouses increased.[12] [15]

Nicole had met O. J. when she was 18 and he was nearly 30.

Part 2: The Intersection of Race and Feminism

In the middle 1990s, the pro-black “civil rights” movement was firmly in control of society. At the same time, feminists also appeared firmly in control of society. The establishment made all their decisions on behalf of “women and minorities.” The question of who was more powerful — “pro-women” feminists or pro-black “civil rights” supporters — had not yet been tested. The O. J. Simpson trial proved to be such a test.

The life of Nicole Brown Simpson was a feminist life, at least in the sense of the Cyndi Lauper, Girls Just Want to Have Fun[13] [16] part of feminism. Toobin writes,

Nicole described herself as a ‘party animal’ and said her personal goals were “to raise my kids as best I can; beyond that I haven’t thought about me.” She added, “I’m sure I will get a goal someday.” It wasn’t until Nicole was in her mid-thirties and divorced that she began to consider entering the business world.[14] [17]

As a result of this irresponsible living, Nicole was effectively dependent upon O. J. for alimony and child support. This may have been why she didn’t move further away from her ex, despite his history of violence against her. In short, with some variation Nicole’s life would play out and end in the tragic manner of the classic opera Carmen.[15] [18]

Had Nicole and O. J. each married within their own race and been faithful to their respective spouses, they both might today be looking back at a successful life with their grandkids. Ron Goldman would also have likely gone on to a productive life. Instead, the lives of Ron Goldman, Nicole Brown Simpson, and O. J. Simpson would intersect in a docket file before prosecutor Marcia Clark.

[19]Marcia Clark was a top trial lawyer in the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. She had a reputation for winning and professionalism. The O. J. Simpson case was not the first difficult, highly-visible case that she’d prosecuted. She had also been an attorney in the trial of James Henry Hawkins, Jr.

In 1983, Hawkins was involved in a Watts gang dispute and initially won acclaim for his story of killing a gang member while defending his family’s store. However, evidence came to light that Hawkins’s story was not true – the killing was plain old criminal murder. Further investigation showed that Hawkins had murdered two other people.[16] [20] The resulting trial of Hawkins, said defending attorney Barry Levin, “was like a war.”[17] [21] Jury selection lasted six months and the trial lasted another thirteen months. Marcia Clark was a tiger throughout.

While there are parallels between the Hawkins trial and the O. J. Simpson case, there are also some critical differences. The Hawkins killings were an intraracial affair with no possible hint of police foul play. Unlike O. J. Simpson, James Henry Hawkins, Jr. was not a celebrity with a fan base prior to his trial. Additionally, Hawkins became an increasingly unlikeable figure, especially after he escaped from custody in 1985 and got in a shootout with police. The affair was also only well-known in the Greater Los Angeles region.

During the O. J. Simpson trial Marcia Clark became the lead prosecutor, although more by accident than any deliberate design. In short, she became lead because she was the one who answered the phone. Jeffrey Toobin argues that had the spectacular nature of the case been truly recognized at the outset, District Attorney Gil Garcetti (Bruce Greenwood) might have picked a different prosecutorial team. As it happened, once Ms. Clark became the public face of the DA’s Office, Garcetti, who was a socially-liberal but tough-on-crime Democrat, was forced to keep her on as prosecutor. If he replaced her with another attorney, he’d be open to charges of betrayal from the feminist side of his political base. However, there was reason for worry about a female prosecutor in a nationally-visible tabloid case. Writes Toobin,

What was less known — or at least less commented upon in the media — was that most of [high-profile] cases had been lost by women prosecutors with pugnacious demeanors, among them Lael Rubin in McMartin Preschool; Lea D’Agostino in Twilight Zone; and Pamela Bozanich in Menendez. All of these prosecutors came across as aggressive and outspoken, just as Marcia Clark did at her post-arraignment press conference.[18] [22]

Marcia Clark, by accident, had become an unwitting feminist icon and a symbolic champion for the fruits of feminism: divorce, single motherhood, and a grinding career in a masculine job. She also became an advocate for those facing domestic violence. Acting in the latter capacity, and as prosecutor in the O. J. Trial, Marcia Clark did a tremendous job in the face of enormous criticism and long odds. However, she did not convince the jury, and O. J. walked free.

Whatever aspect of feminism caused Clark — as well as those female prosecutors listed above — to lose their respective cases is probably something that can never be proven, but one can venture a semi-decent theory. First, evaluating and thinking about the sexual allure of women is ubiquitous and constant, despite feminist concern about “objectifying” women.[19] [23] When a woman gets on TV, this merely intensifies. There is probably an evolutionary reason for thinking about a woman’s looks on the part of both the men and women doing the looking.

As a result of the above, Marcia Clark’s hair, demeanor, and clothing became a constant topic of discussion as the trial poked along. As a result, focus shifted from her well-delivered presentation of the evidence to her appearance. One tabloid even ran a topless photo[20] [24] of Clark. In the mini-series, the episode Marcia, Marcia, Marcia explores this aspect of the case with expert dramatic flair. Essentially, Marcia Clark’s femininity was a distraction.

Second, to be frank, it is not enjoyable to listen to an aggressive woman talking, especially after her voice deepens with age. There are words for aggressive, pugnacious women that don’t apply to men, such as scold, harridan, nag, etc. Along this line of thought, it must be noted that the DA’s hired jury consultant, Donald Vinson (Albert Malafronte), said Marcia Clark gave potential black women jurors the impression of a “castrating bitch.”[21] [25] This unpleasant feeling so many get from an aggressive woman may have been more of a factor behind Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 election, than “Russian Hackers.” It might not be fair, but it is so.

Ultimately, Marcia Clark’s changing haircuts, clothing choices, and style of speaking mattered less than the question of race over sex. Before the O. J. Simpson trial the relative strength of feminist ideology vs. racial “civil rights” ideology was an open question; afterwards it was not. The black women in the jury picked race.


[1] [26] During the Twentieth Century there were two “Trials of the Century.” The O. J. Simpson trial was the second such affair. The first was the case of the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh’s 20-month-old son Charles Jr. on March 1st, 1932. The case is notable in that it launched J. Edgar Hoover’s career as a celebrity director of the FBI. Additionally, Operation Desert Storm Hero General Norman Schwarzkopf’s father Herbert Schwarzkopf was involved in the case as superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. The case brought to the forefront new police procedures and increased the Federal Government’s jurisdiction in kidnapping cases. This trial often serves as a backdrop in movies and other cultural works.

[2] [27] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Van5Gv6lbY4 [28]

[3] [29] http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/22/us/95-million-watched-the-chase.html [30]

[4] [31] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-world-stopped-when-the-oj-simpson-verdict-was-read-2014-6 [32]

[5] [33] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki9YwIO406o [34]

[6] [35] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/728496-there-is-a-distinct-difference-between-suspense-and-surprise-and [36]

[7] [37] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUyWS6j5rS4 [38] 7:24 to 7:30.

[8] [39] Many of O. J. Simpson’s “white” friends were, in fact, Jews. Additionally, Dream Team and defense expert witnesses had a heavy Jewish component. Bob Shapiro and Alan Dershowitz are Jews.

[9] [40] 1972 is a good year to show the fallacy of presuming blacks are equal to whites. In that year, the Pruitt-Igoe Housing project was destroyed after its black residents had befouled it beyond repair. The black residents had been given the accommodations for free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe [41]

[10] [42] Jeffrey Toobin, The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson, (New York: Random House), 1996. p. 169

[11] [43] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112305/ [44]

[12] [45] https://media.8ch.net/pdf/src/1428425467107-3.pdf [46]

[13] [47] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A [48]

[14] [49] Toobin, op. cit., p. 15.

[15] [50] For more thoughts on Carmen and crimes of passion: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013174.html [51]

[16] [52] http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-13/local/me-1924_1_hawkins-family [53]

[17] [54] Toobin, op. cit., p. 76

[18] [55] Ibid, p. 114

[19] [56] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/joy-goh-mah/objectification-women-sexy-pictures_b_3403251.html [57]

[20] [58] Marcia Clark née Kleks was of Jewish ethnic origins. Her father was an immigrant from Israel. While attending UCLA, she married her first husband, Gaby Horowitz, also a Jew with roots in Israel. Horowitz was a professional backgammon player during a time when the game was popular. According to backgammon player Danny Kleinman, Horowitz cheated at backgammon. Marcia divorced him and married her second husband Gordon Clark, a Scientologist. She bore two children with Gordon and then divorced him. He didn’t see it coming, so many of Marcia’s child care issues were related to the hurt caused by her nuking the Clark marriage. The topless photos originated from the backgammon-cheating Horowitz.

[21] [59] Toobin, op. cit., p. 193