1,730 words
The Left has many centers of gravity but few have been as singularly pernicious as the legal profession. The subject of judicial hostility could fill several books, but suffice it to say that the legal system is completely out of control, and has been for some time, although in the past they were more discrete. The legal system across the West has been fashioned into an objective enemy of the people and thus cannot be fixed by a few token structural reforms.
The problem with the legal profession mainly stems from the people in it: lawyers. Lawyers don’t grow on trees. They are made in law schools. Thus if we want to fix the legal profession, we need to overhaul law schools.
First, the prevailing K-JD (kindergarten through juris doctor) pipeline costs too much time, and more importantly, too much money. Per Grok, the average cost for three years of law school is now $230,000 (this includes tuition, fees, and living expenses). That’s on top of the cost of an undergraduate degree which is currently $116,000 for public in-state colleges. Those who can’t find a way to have someone else pay for all or most of their education such as a rich parent, scholarship, or as in my case the GI Bill, will graduate with a loaded gun of (generally) un-dischargeable debt to their head.
This naturally tends to select for lawyers who are either extremely rich or who are hyper-aggressive strivers who would probably kill their own grandma if it helped them win a scholarship or get into a slightly more prestigious school. I don’t believe in penalizing wealth or excellence, but there is too much of a good thing. The legal system currently selects for people who tend to be problematic, insular, arrogant, dark triad, and careerist while excluding people who would otherwise make just as good, if not better, lawyers. There are many outstanding lawyers, and I would even say that the vast majority of lawyers are good people. But they are thrown into a career field with perverse incentives and which facilitates the dominance of a troublesome few.
There is striking paradox in the legal profession in which there simultaneously are too many and too few lawyers.
On one hand, there is constant talk about a “lack of access to justice.” We should be very hesitant to dismiss this as a Leftist buzzword even if it sounds like one. For example, the 2024 California Justice Gap Study found that of Californians who speak to lawyers about representation, one in five are told that they have a valid case but that it isn’t financially worthwhile for the lawyer to pursue.[1] This can encompass issues as politically neutral as real estate megacorps making bad faith attempts to withhold tenant deposits when they move out (as happened to my roommates and I).
Meanwhile, there are too many lawyers chasing the big bucks in big firms in big cities. This has led to a rise in “attorney deserts” which are usually rural areas.[2] Much of this is driven by having to pay off usurious student loans.
Crippling student debt is also why what should be an employee labor market due to scarcity is instead ruthlessly dominated by employers. And while this also leads to a labor market which allows employers to abuse employees and especially at Big Law, it also leads to conformity. Nobody wants to endanger their career when they have the Debt of Damocles over their head. This naturally incentivizes conformity to liberal cultural norms. This is why lawyers LARP as Atticus Finch for all manner of Leftist causes, while the defendants in the Sines v. Kessler Charlottesville case struggled to find and keep legal representation, and conservatives who sought legal representation against vaccine mandates, were usually dismissively told “just take the vax.” Lack of access to justice indeed.
Thus, excessive student debt drives employee abuse, Leftist conformity, and lack of access to justice. Contrast all this to Cephalus, who in Plato’s Republic says that wealth helps prevent him from acting unjustly out of necessity. Reducing student loan debt won’t solve the legal profession’s problems but it would ameliorate some of its more extreme aspects.
Trump proposed creating a free online university devoid of woke politics, the American Academy. While it would only target the undergraduate segment of the K-JD pipeline, the American Academy is still a major step in the right direction.
More importantly, it is scalable. Creating an equivalent for law school would be an easy task compared to the vast breadth of undergraduate curricula. In fact, digital 1L (first year of law school) and bar exam prep courses basically do this already and are relatively cheap compared to the cost of law school.
This flows into an even more radical solution than the American Academy: eliminating an undergraduate and/or JD degree in whole or in part.
Let’s begin with undergraduate degrees. You can learn more on your own these days, and most importantly, undergraduate writing is the exact opposite of what is appropriate for law. Students waste four years learning to fluff and overanalyze when they ought to be learning how to write clear, short, concise sentences. In law, you want to say as much as possible in as few words as possible without sacrificing clarity. Judges and other lawyers read all day, and clients are normal people. They don’t want to indulge academic slop.
The only real downside to eliminating a four-year degree for law school or the bar exam is that college in real life is an important social and networking opportunity, but if enough students, and especially conservatives, opt for the American Academy then the College Republicans, fraternities, and sororities could open their ranks to local online students. This could also lead to a reinvigoration of off-campus social life.
Why not eliminate law school in whole or in part? If you can’t read or brief a case after a semester or two, you probably shouldn’t be in law. There’s public speaking with the modified Socratic method, but again, it shouldn’t take more than a year to become confident in public speaking. A lot of this is helping young people build confidence in a society that discourages them. There is also a need to impress upon students the importance of showing up on time and prepared, like a normal human, but this can be learned from a real-world job, and in my opinion, undergraduate study encourages lackadaisical habits, which is another argument for eliminating it. Legal research and writing are important, but these skills can be learned like any other, and again, undergraduate habits are not conducive to them. Law professors can be amazing, and it is good to have their insight, but much of a law school’s budget doesn’t go to their well-deserved salaries. Furthermore, just as many law jobs will most likely be replaced by AI, there’s a good chance that professors could be substantially replaced by AI too.
Much as in undergraduate study, networking is something that would be lost, but schools needn’t have a monopoly on networking. Besides, correlation between good schools and good students isn’t necessarily causation. It is not so much that high-tier schools produce good students with high bar pass rates who go on to be stellar attorneys. It’s more that good students usually attend good schools.
Much noise is made about “thinking like a lawyer,” but this is actually quite simple. It really comes down to spotting issues, expanding and contracting categories, and organizing ambiguous and complicated fact patterns into different timelines. For example: Is there a contract or not? When was it formed and what are its terms? If there is a contract, did Seller breach? If a breach, what damages for Buyer? If no breach, is there a backup like restitution? Students struggle to think like a lawyer only if they can’t think at all.
Alas, a lot of practical stuff is not even taught in law school. That’s expected to come from work and interning.
To most people, law school is a nebulous, grandiose meme, but once dismantled into concrete pieces, it’s not that big of a deal. There is no way to justify the time or cost. In fact, I suspect that it is partially intended as a shit test to see if people will work long hours at Big Law like good little slaves.
Thus, undergraduate and law school should be partially or totally eliminated for the bar exam. I am hesitant to say totally for law school, but reducing it to one year followed by self-study, AI, tutoring, etc., should be sufficient. Some might be concerned about a drop in quality, but we already have Justice Jackson writing “(wait for it)” and alluding to the hypothetical opinions of Martian aliens in her Supreme Court dissent.[3] Half of the bar exam is multiple choice, and the essays test for basic competence, so it is much easier than law school except for the fact that it tests many more subjects than the usual five or so per semester. Even then, people have gotten good at predicting what subjects will be tested based on exam cycles.
In fact, attorney quality would probably improve by eliminating law school in whole or part because passing the bar would require more self-discipline and motivation. There are plenty of construction workers and ruralites who would make better attorneys than the current batch of diverse, credentialed midwits.
Along with increasing the quality of lawyers and access to justice, making it easier and cheaper to become an attorney would also demystify the profession. For too long, its inaccessibility has built up a mystique which leads to arrogance. I have been inside the military and law and am no longer very impressed with either of them. The notion that these people are special is part of why there are too many lawyers in politics (yes, I’m guilty as charged).
Law is inherently tied to the academic world which creates lawyers. Both law and academia are antiwhite and bloated. Cutting out the usurious middleman as much as possible would be an outstanding way to advance the interests of nationalists, conservatives, and the general public. Trump’s American Academy would be a major reform in the right direction, but it would be even better to eliminate undergraduate and law school in whole or in part.
Notes
[1] https://publications.calbar.ca.gov/justice-gap-study/executive-summary
[2] Id.
[3] See Trump v. CASA 06 U. S. ____ (2025) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
27 comments
Great article! What exactly did justice Jackson do, I am not going to read all that little print on my phone? 🙃
What does LARP stand for? 🙃
That means “live-action role playing”. In context, it’s a dismissive way of saying they’re putting on a show.
…or that they’re pretending to be something – usually something grandiose – that they’re not.
An interim measure might be to reduce the cost of higher education. Administrative bloat has become a major problem. (How many Associate Deans of Diversity does America need, anyway?) Executive salaries have gone through the roof too. Colleges were cranking out degrees in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s well enough with a much leaner staff, and there’s no reason we couldn’t go back to that. I’ve noticed that my own alma mater has done massive and unnecessary remodeling projects that don’t fit in with the original architectural scheme, likely wasting tens of millions of dollars. Is IT infrastructure adding to the cost? The purpose of automation is to increase efficiency; if it’s not doing that, then it’s time to rethink things.
Another problem is that on top of too many administrators, universities use a lot of graduate students and adjunct faculty to teach classes. Many adjunct faculty teachers are PhD’s who would like a full-time university teaching position but can’t get one due to so called budget constraints. Much has been written about unnecessary renovations on college buildings. Another topic that has received some news coverage is the fact that many universities are constructing a lot of buildings that they don’t need.
What we have recently begun to call “daycare jobs” have existed for a long time but under the radar and mostly limited to academia.
Is My Cousin Vinny a good example of a street smart and anti-formal, everydaymanish personality that can out-succeed a stiff Phillips Exeter white shoe Yalie in the courtroom in the legal world you envision?
No. That awful piece of Hollywood propaganda was promoted to show that an “everyman” from New York can outwit even the most sophisticated Southerner.
I call lawyers “suers”—-ue or -ew, take your pick!
I like law school now mainly through an interest in politics since I’m in white nationalism, but I don’t think it’s something that I ever would’ve embarked upon when I was young because I was more into science at that time. But I really like that show Suits, which is about an elite law firm that takes only Harvard grads. But it’s sort of depressing because here you have these people, going to the most selective institutions in the world, having Prometheus IQ level LSAT scores, and then here they are arguing with blacks over bedbugs. It’s so mundane, such a comedown.
There doesn’t seem to be anything to the American Academy other than its initial announcement.
This seems like a good list of reforms, and many could apply even to STEM pursuits. I think we could decolonize American STEM departments by just having garage based maker collectives and reconstituting apprenticeship programs.
Any reform that we do should be open only to Heritage Americans. The tech oligarchy will never consent to that. Whatever we do, it has to be de-facto for HANs only by making it informal. Then the questions becomes credentialing and certification.
The legal profession generally selects for conformity and careerism. I come from a European country where university education is free, but the situation is the same as described by Mr. Zsutty. This is because selection for conformity and psychopathy then takes place mainly within the legal professions themselves—in the judiciary and the Bar, where it is very difficult to break into and gain a stable position. A law degree alone means very little in the European system, and candidates for senior positions, such as judges, must undergo several years of additional training and examinations while working under devastating pressure. The same applies to legal representation and consulting, where there is also extreme commercial competition. Starting your own law firm is impossible without a huge initial investment. This environment inevitably generates people for top positions who are very hard-working but at the same time extremely conformist to the current political system—they are either limited bureaucratic types (often women) or aggressive careerists and ruthless money hoarders. These types of people do not think beyond the boundaries of the system—they lack the imagination to do so, and they also fear that if the system collapses, they will lose their hard-won positions.
This is a thought provoking post. It indicates that usury, while it should be crushed as a practice, may not be the root of the problem. What is surfacing is that the system nurtures and selects for ruthless psychopaths.
I think what may lie underneath all of these problems is industrial and post-industrial centralization. Everything is increasingly centralized and for every layer, up people get farther and farther removed from each other. The rewards of status, money and leisure and/or security guarantees become ever higher stakes, and for an ever shrinking group of people fighting for an ever growing, (at the top), pie.
At one point in time, all of these functions were carried out locally. There were centralized and remote nodes, but they were much less central and much less capable of control of the minutiae of the lower level’s operations. We don’t talk about this, but in a more local system, where you know the people in your village, town or small city and you see them out and about town at least periodically, you still know them. They know you or at least of you with some better acquainted links in the chain of separation. They will have to face you and that changes social dynamics.
Our history and tradition is littered with scenes of officials paying heavy and even the ultimate price for gross abuse and dereliction of duty. The ease of getting away with abuse and the inability to inflict cost means that we are rife with abuse and it gets worse as worse psychopaths recognize that there are no consequences and only rewards for abusing positions of power.
What is interesting is this phenomenon has tangibly increased in open displays of psychopathy even within teams interacting with each other every day – for teams that are fully remote. I have seen crazy cutthroat behavior and crazy 1:1 over video social interactions that never happened prior to fully remote working. When a person does not have to look you in the eye or face your physical presence, they will do things they never once considered doing because of the lack of proximity and the lack of group observation.
I think all discussions need to account for proximity, centrality … … when we start to think about reforms and why things are so bad and getting so much worse.
I think that one thing that is coming back to our world is going to be a system of extra-judicial reprisal when abuses have no recourse. We are already there with replacement migration. Right now, the Left is engaged in it by attacking ICE agents and their facilities. Traditionalists and European nativists have suffered horrific abuses that are unprecedented in nature and scope. It is only a matter of time, before people who abide by the law find ways to bring consequences to abusers in order to discourage the frequency and severity of abuses as we move forward into the Hobbesian nightmare of post-modernity. We must do all we can to build our own locales and mitigate the impact and psychopathy that comes with mass, remote centralization.
We need more small law firms serving local communities, local banks making investments in local productive enterprises (per Richard Warner), and in general more small businesses, artisan shops, family farms, mom-and-pop retail.
Save for the most capital-intensive industries, which will be highly automated regardless, we need to move labor back to “small and beautiful” concerns, in combination with UBI once we rid ourselves of the post-1965’s.
A big step in the right direction would be simply allowing law readers to sit the bar in every state instead of just California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Reading the law is how lawyers were made before the ABA started acting like a mafia and destroying the apprenticeship model that made the profession great. We have a lot of lawyers in our movement, perhaps we could start a network for law readers and lawyers willing to take them on.
I agree with much of what Mr Zsutty says here, except for one massive point. In essence, he is arguing for breaking down barriers for entry to the profession, whereas I believe it should be organized as a true guild. Rather than send aspiring lawyers to law school or allow them to learn the law on-the-cheap online a la Zsutty’s liberal reforms, aspiring lawyers should serve as apprentices to “master lawyers.” Rather than go to law school or even undergrad college, they would toil for a master in exchange for free training and a secure position in a (currently) very precarious world. At a certain point they would be minted as master lawyers themselves and have choice of either: (i) continue to work for same master; (ii) establish own firm or partner with others; or (iii) work for the government. This would have to go hand-in-hand with downsizing the big firms to accommodate true master/apprentice structures. It would, however, make the profession very difficult to enter if few apprenticeships available.
It should be possible to skip a Bachelors Degree for law and medicine if you score high enough on SATs and the like.
Maybe. Today it takes a Bachelor’s degree just to go to paralegal school. That is how glutted the legal profession is with ambulance chasers.
🙂
Law is inherently tied to the academic world which creates lawyers. Both law and academia are antiwhite and bloated. Cutting out the usurious middleman as much as possible would be an outstanding way to advance the interests of nationalists…
—
I have some excellent attorney friends, but have seen my share of shitheads in suits — trained liars. In law schools they are taught to build a defense case in moot court, then told to switch to prosecuting the same case. Think about that. Trained to lie.
Lawyers generally would overcharge for their time and their knowledge of the law, once represented by those impressive shelves of statute books behind their desks where they could conveniently pull a volume down and read to a prospective client a course of action.
Now, however, all of what’s in those thick books can easily be found online and updated, so who needs lawyers if one is willing and determined to keep the process and the system halfway honest by searching the law online?
I found this out in a years-long ordeal with crooked lawyers and court officers in West Verginia. I tell the story of taking a case, where I was being railroaded by “the Club,” to the WV supreme Court pro se by my wife and I doing extensive legal research ourselves online, filing motions and complaints that had to be heard and recorded in transcripts — procedure, defendendant’s rights, violations of court officers’ ethics, etc. It’s all there now and easy to discover.
This book is instructive for pro-White activists: Pocahontas Show Trial by William W. Williams – Cosmotheism
Dr. William Pierce gave us his take on the corrupt justice system 26 years ago, here: “Lawyers” at nationalvanguard.org, concluding with:
…Our legal system has become a system of lawyers, run entirely by lawyers, solely for the enrichment of lawyers. It is a malignant system which threatens the freedom of us all and which does not have the will to cure itself. It is because of this that the cure will have to come from outside the legal system and will have to be a very painful cure indeed. Someday, in a new society, we will have to build a new legal system. Let us not make the same mistakes we made — and that the Romans made before us. Let us build a system with adequate safeguards: a system to serve the race, not the lawyers.
In law schools they are taught to build a defense case in moot court, then told to switch to prosecuting the same case. Think about that. Trained to lie. Dark Torquemada and red hot iron tongs meets a strappado can cure the psychopathic liar’s chronic problem real quick. Then they won’t do it anymore.
I have a question that is only partly on topic but I don’t think I’ll see a better thread to ask it or better people to ask so here goes.
Why do legal precedents and “landmark decisions” run so heavily antiwhite?
I know part of the answer but this part raises more questions. When antiwhites get a case that serves their cause they push it all the way to maximum victory. There is ample money to back this up. But when Whites and “conservatives” get a case that could potentially help us they settle. The antiwhite establishment throws money at a single complainant, no precedent is set, and the structure of the law stays biased and unjust.
I am thinking of the recently concluded Gina Carano case, in which even the money of Elon Musk was not enough backing to get the complainant to go for a decision rather than settling, but there are many such cases and there have been for generations.
Is it that Whites are inherently weak and inclined to settle for selfishness and the short money? Are we a race of lousy clients? Is it that the lawyers have for generations told their White clients to settle, to take a little money, shut up and go away, while lawyers for antiwhite causes have fought like berserk warriors for final victory? What is it?
I don’t claim to have all the answers, however, it’s obvious that these anti-white lawyers are well organized and highly motivated. Many of them become lawyers so they can be activists and disrupt the system. Also, many judges are leftists, and a good attorney can accurately predict the decisions the judge will make ahead of time. George Soros has put some district attorneys in place with his wealth that are practically on the side of black criminals. Certain oligarchs bankroll these parasites.
Joe Gould: August 8, 2025 I have a question that is only partly on topic… Why do legal precedents and “landmark decisions” run so heavily antiwhite?
—
You answered your own just slightly-off-topic question, Joe. Bigfoot answered further, but Mr. Zsutty nailed it fully in his one simple six-word statement: Both law and academia are antiwhite
I repeat the profound quote from Dr. Pierce, for emphasis:
…Our legal system has become a system of lawyers, run entirely by lawyers, solely for the enrichment of lawyers. It is a malignant system which threatens the freedom of us all and which does not have the will to cure itself. It is because of this that the cure will have to come from outside the legal system and will have to be a very painful cure indeed. Someday, in a new society, we will have to build a new legal system. Let us not make the same mistakes we made — and that the Romans made before us. Let us build a system with adequate safeguards: a system to serve the race, not the lawyers.
Academia plays its major role in the corrupt system by currently favoring inferior, racially alien Blacks and Browns over Whites (and also some Asians) in not just law schools, but medical schools and other professions as well.
We must rebuild the entire system of justice to serve our race rather than continue to suffer the current anti-White legal system.
It will require that Whites withdraw our consent to be governed by those opposed to our interests and welfare: a revolution. The revolution does not need to be “painful”; it can be peaceful if we have the will as well as the determination to separate and organize the best of our people to preserve our race. Consider this, also from Pierce in: “What is the National Alliance?” at natall.com |
A New Educational System
A proper educational system serves three purposes: it passes a people’s cultural, intellectual, and spiritual heritage from generation to generation; it teaches skills and techniques; and it guides the character development of individuals from childhood to adulthood. The first purpose is served by teaching facts and ideas: language, history, science, ethics, and so on.
The second purpose is served by teaching the child or young adult how to do things that will be useful to himself and/or society: how to play a musical instrument, how to weld, how to manage a business, how to type, how to repair a motor vehicle, how to fight with and without weapons, how to draw, how to swim, how to raise children, how to grow food, how to build a house.
The third purpose is served by challenging, testing, conditioning: by forcing the child to exercise his will, to discipline himself, to endure discomfort, to make plans and carry them out, to overcome fears, to accept responsibility, to be truthful, and generally to develop and strengthen those traits of character valued by a healthy Aryan society.
The present educational system in America completely neglects the third purpose and does poorly with the first two, even in those fortunate areas not yet encumbered with an appreciable “multicultural” contingent. The most important reason for its poor performance is that it has lost any clear understanding of purpose. In order to pass on a people’s cultural, intellectual, and spiritual heritage, it must first know the answer to the question: Which people’s heritage? Today such a question is Politically Incorrect and therefore not admissible.
Even many decades ago, before it became Politically Incorrect to understand that the heritage to be passed on is European, there was no depth of purpose. The reason for passing on the European heritage is not just to help young people qualify for higher-paid employment or become better dinner-table conversationalists. It is to instill in them a consciousness of what it means to be European—a race consciousness—and thereby to make racial patriots of them. Facts and ideas have a spiritual component, and this component must be emphasized in the educational process.
There certainly will be sexual and occupational specialization in the second area of educational activity, and sexual specialization in the third. Even in the first area, children undoubtedly will be separated according to ability: not every child needs to learn Greek and Latin and the infinitesimal calculus to acquire a feeling for his race and its ways. Nevertheless, a proper educational system should provide a common body of knowledge and understanding shared by everyone, so that every member of the society has a fully developed sense of peoplehood. The boy who aims at becoming a machinist should read Homer, at least in translation, and the boy who plans to teach literature should understand what it means to be a good welder, at least to the extent of trying his hand at it.
It is by pursuing the third purpose, however, that a new educational system will make the most radical contribution to Aryan society. Education that concerns itself with the development of the whole person and focuses as strongly on forming character as on imparting knowledge or teaching skills dates back to ancient Greece, and it enjoyed an all-too-brief revival in the mid-20th century in National Socialist Germany, before being outlawed by the advocates of permissiveness. Today permissiveness rules throughout the Aryan world. “Education” is something that takes place only in designated buildings for a few hours on prescribed days, under conditions approaching chaos. Inside or outside these buildings, discipline is minimal. Children grow up in a world without standards of performance, without clear guidelines for behavior, without any strong source of authority. We see the products of this system all around us: too many weak, indecisive men and too many unfeminine women; a general lack of significant goals and self-confidence; a self-indulgent population without self-discipline or inner strength, restlessly seeking “happiness.”
By ensuring that each child born to our race grows into the strongest, most capable, most responsible, and most conscious future citizen that his genes make possible, we will gain an enormous advantage over any race without such an educational system….
“Many of them become lawyers so they can be activists and disrupt the system.”
They are the system.
The system has been antiwhite at the top since the famous footnote four of United States v. Carolene Products Company in 1938. It has been extremely antiwhite since Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Dr Petr Hampl is a Czech sociologist who has written articles for Counter-Currents. He wrote a brief synopsis not too long ago; they are called glosses on his website. He made the point that leftist organizations in Europe such as NGO’s have an advantage over their citizens or anyone who opposes their agenda, such as flooding Europe with third world immigrants. It’s the fact that they are better organized and have been doing it for a long time. This makes a difference. Our political leaders have kicked the can down the road to an extent; this is where things like the Brown decision come in. Whites have moved to other neighborhoods to avoid having to deal with it. Illegal immigration has been going on for a long time, however, whites were still in the majority and didn’t put up enough resistance. A lot of what we are having to deal with has been a continuous build up over time. This really became apparent during the BLM riots of 2020, nothing was done to stop it. Our political and military leadership response, if you want to call it that, was impotent. Where the country goes from here and how the legal system affects whites remains to be seen. Keep in mind that years from now, we could have another democrat as president. Will whites be prosecuted for criticizing the government like they are in parts of Europe?
Much noise is made about “thinking like a lawyer,” but this is actually quite simple. It really comes down to spotting issues, expanding and contracting categories, and organizing ambiguous and complicated fact patterns into different timelines. For example: Is there a contract or not? When was it formed and what are its terms? If there is a contract, did Seller breach? If a breach, what damages for Buyer? If no breach, is there a backup like restitution? Students struggle to think like a lawyer only if they can’t think at all.
Sorry, but this is just complete nonsense. The cognitive skills described here most certainly do NOT come naturally to most people, although they can be taught to certain types of people. Take a quick look at the comments section of any YouTube video if you want examples of this fact. The first semester or year of law school is a perfect opportunity to separate the wheat from the chaff in that regard. I would also add that the law school environment does get students used to the idea of being put on the spot and having to defend their positions in a large group, which is a skill most people are not necessarily taught in an undergraduate environment, and is a skill that will be vital if they plan on litigating.
Some pretty good ideas in this article, especially reducing the amount of years it takes to become a lawyer. For those asking why legal precedents tend to lean so anti-white, I would invite you take good look at the last names of the legal professions movers and shakers. I’m not talking about your average general practitioner in the town square, but the law professors in the Ivy League law schools as well as the upper level of the federal judiciary, especially starting in the 20th century. It’s no big mystery, really.
To paraquote: There is too much education and no way to justify the time or cost. Law is connected to the academic world which creates lawyers and because law and academia are antiwhite and bloated, there are plenty of custodians and farmers who would make better attorneys than the current batch of diverse, credentialed simpletons.
This pretty much sounds like all of higher education in general. See B. Kaplan’s The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. ISBN: 978-0691174655
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.