You Are "Bill Gates".

I personally don't believe that public figures such as Bill Gates or Donald Trump have any power. I wonder if they can even choose their own outfits, even during their time off work. They may even believe they are making all of their own decisions. I think they are chosen because they are crazy megalomaniacs that are easily steered and the public can blame all the insanity on the megalomania of its leaders.

On the other hand, everyone has a weakness and these weaknesses get exploited by the devil. Its difficult to know if they are crazy or evil.

Let's just imagine that it's Bill Gates sitting on top of the pyramid.

From the top of this pyramid, a pure materialist begins to think of his position and moral responsibility. He has landed in a position of directing the future development of humanity (materialism is just a
fertile ground for logical contradictions). To do nothing is a decision as well as to do something.

What should be done, if anything should be done, to maximize the probability of humanity succeeding as a species on an evolutionary time scale?  The obvious solution is that humanity should be farmed in
the same way that racehorses and agricultural animals are farmed, such as in The Republic of Plato. Erase disease and disability through selective breeding. This would be the scientific approach if you ask
the experts - smart disciplined people who worked very hard to know a little tiny bit more about the human body than you do, the new priesthood. The human system is unbelievably complex - far beyond
anything that our math could characterize - well understood by anyone with coursework in systems theory at the early undergrad level knows.

What if humanity could start again in some remote location unknown to almost everyone? In this place live the ideal human beings, athletes, poets, mathematicians, all brilliantly funny and better looking than the average teenaged supermodel. No trace of any harmful physical or mental pathologies here. With sufficient numbers (I've heard 600 - 800) humanity can be reconstructed. Humanity 2.0.

Evolving technology provides a class of robots that performs mundane tasks and maintains itself. Humanity 2.0 thinks in terms of the abstract and the beautiful and stretches the physical capability of
the body to that of a circus acrobat. Deep-sea exploration and maybe even space exploration becomes possible. Science becomes scientific again and everyone learns the science of right (jurisprudence).

What do you do with Humanity 1.0?  There are just too many of them to just send them to a giant slaughterhouse and the nukes aren't actually real. All men are sinners and entitlement is always more attractive than responsibility. You get them to commit suicide by infecting groups within the group with a culture of entitlement, or at least a grandiose sense of superiority. You divide humanity into entitled
groups and have them fight each other until everyone is destroyed or too weak to fight any longer.

Things get sicker and sicker with time as the great Western nations, once conscious of both fact and right are no more conscious of right. Nothing can be said to be true or false, its all a matter of opinion.
There is no clear definition of evil as we lose Christianity and it's single commandment "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself". Its the basis of Western Jurisprudence. Universal laws have
created the precision of fairness of a logical statement. Everyone, in the heart, knows what the law is. Christ brought it to light.

The assholes have created a class of morons that hate Christianity because of the programming of Hollywood, Public Education, and the Networks.

To pull this off, you destroy the weak ones with public education, drugs, and entertainment media. You encourage the strong ones to escape the mundane and be your soldiers.

Psychological assault, self-worship, materialism, cultural suicide, and fomented conflict burn Humanity1.0 to the ground.

You create specialists to replace God and train those professionals to drink the purple Kool-Aid by the gallon, where the ordinary person drinks it one cup at a time. You create a class of professionals that
are so overwhelmed by difficult study they lack the further curiosity to learn about political science, morals, or law. Implant a sense of hubris into their training so they feel they don't need any further
education in what is "obvious". Corrupt them, show them that corruption and evil is the true light.

God will be money and power (Luciferians). Train them never to question their peers and to never deviate from the narrative created by their superiors and comrades in their words and actions. Blind faith in their own specialists is required. The "peer review" and "fact-checking"regulates information and directs thought along the narrative.

Give them special privileged talks where they are exposed to the useless eater problem. Explain everything that is wrong with Western society and teach them absolutely nothing about the science of right or the foundations of modern Western society.

Remove the great German Enlightenment thinker, Kant, from the consciousness of Western thinkers. Kant's protege, Fichte, came up with the idea of nationhood and this modern Western system (Fichte's
book is only available in German). Ensure that their political understandings never exceed some essays written by politicians. Ensure they never understand the structure of the West and its basis in the
science of universal law and everlasting peace, Christianity. (See my "Christian Doctrine: Why They Hate Us" on youtube)

 Who are the useless eaters then? It depends on perspective. I doubt that people like Bill Gates have much use for the Rockefeller Health Professionals. Everyone eventually becomes a useless eater as the
standard changes to meet the requirement of declining numbers. I wonder what the doctors think they will be doing after their clients, the useless eaters, are all gone? Who will watch the overpaid athletes
play football? Who will be the students for the professors?

Only Christianity with its doctrines of separation of powers, the Trinity, Original Sin, and universal law can regulate us back to reality. Otherwise, everyone gets what they deserve in triplicate as the world cleansing begins.

 

Assholes.

The following essay is in audio form on YouTube and here

I first encountered a book on this topic, Aaron James book “Assholes” on mainstream bookshelves, it is sold everywhere. Its a good light reading book, with two incredibly important takeaways that I wanted to elaborate on. “Asshole” is a distinctively Western term and Westerners understand its meaning clearly. There is much to be said about these two takeaways.

Aaron James defines the asshole as one that believes he can operate by a different set of rules than everyone else. He explains that masculine word is “asshole” and the feminine is “bitch”. “Asshole” and “bitch” have the same meaning, but here I will use the masculine sense, else some of those Rockefeller Feminist bitches might complain that I am discriminating against women by focusing this essay on bitches rather than assholes. I am safe from the censors if I stick to assholes because assholes are men.
You have to be careful about what you say because there are a lot of assholes that don't think others deserve the right of free speech, although they themselves cannot possibly believe that their own words should ever be censored. Ideals trump reason and rationality in a world run by assholes.
In my experience there are two fundamentally different types of assholes, but they are both assholes for the same reason. There is the arrested development kind of asshole who does not or cannot think beyond punishment and reward in terms of moral conduct and explanations for this lie outside the scope of this essay and are generally well understood. There is the second kind of asshole, the kind with power. 
 

Assholes Of The Second Kind. 

 
I think there are three important observations to be made with the asshole of the second kind. The Republic Of Plato states that secret societies exist to take something away from everyone else and that war is fought for money. The book is 2500 years old but as true today as it was back then. There are universal truths in political science.
The removal of narcissism as a personality disorder from the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual (DSM) in psychiatry has allowed this kind of asshole to proliferate rather than be treated or somehow retarded from having jobs that may involve rational moral thinking of a higher order, I will explain Kohlberg's Stages Of Moral Development in a few moments.
If you are going to talk about assholes in the context of society at large, the topic of the law profession inevitably becomes a key component of the conversation. In Canada, I am sure that the law profession encourages assholism and I can prove this beyond any reasonable doubt, but this is not the topic of this essay.
The very first science was the science of jurisprudence of Rome. The very word “law” implies universality. Law, whether physical, mathematical or moral is universal. In the case of Western law it's basis is universal law, and its essential purpose is to protect you and me from assholes rather than protect an ideological agenda of the powers that be such as in purely statutory systems. The word asshole is essentially a scientific term and not a term of art due to its strict definition.
As a science, it stands up well over time. Its initial precept has not changed in 2000 years, whereas physics has undergone changes in its precepts, first the work of Newton and now Maxwell's and Noethers. Only math and moral law have not had their basic precepts changed - math and the universal law are both accepted rational truths. The very idea of the asshole is as a-priori as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line.
Laws require statutes. Statutes are written with law in mind, statutes make the judgment less dependent on the judge and shorten the time that would otherwise be taken by deducing verdict strictly from first principles. This is the great Roman Justinian innovation to fight corruption, the judgment being made less dependent on the judge, who may be an asshole. It's also worth noting that if engineers deduced everything from first principles we would still be dependent on steam engines. A modern fair system must have many laws but too many laws can lead to statutory abuse.
Statutes need to be regulated and the common law, or the idea of universal law regulates courts to prevent statutory abuse. This is the great innovation of Christianity above other forms of purely statutory religions. Christianity is revolutionary rather than evolutionary when compared to other well known religions in the West in that it is regulative, not constitutive. It regulates statutes so that we are not abused by assholes. Statutes are pictures of this horse, the common law is the actual horse. Statutes, ideally, are ideal expressions of the common law but we don't live in an ideal world.
The great Original Writ of Western Jurisprudence is universal law, sometimes referred to as natural law, but there are faults with every expression, so it is also called the “unwritten law” or the Great Unwritten Writ in books about theoretical jurisprudence.
This natural law has been expressed in many ways, the Greek Golden Rule, The single commandment of the New Testament, the Roman “Right of self”, and in Kant's three successive categorical imperatives. I cannot see why “don't be an asshole” could not be a modern expression of this common law, this precept that is necessary for a science, in this case the science of jurisprudence. Imagine if those words were carved in stone on every courthouse and had lawful force and effect.
Like math having counting and the shortest distance between two points being a straight line is enough to know to be able to deduce all of math, the ideal of “don't be an asshole”could be a precept for the purely rational science of jurisprudence, but the single commandment of the New Testament is written in stone and has served the West well and essentially says the same thing.
Christianity has the concept of Original Sin, no law can be perfect and applied jurisprudence is filled with practical difficulties as anyone who has watched Judge Judy can attest.
The science of law knows a lot about assholes, but statutory regulators do not always know a lot about law, and in many cases they are assholes. People always vote for the lessor of the assholes currently running for office rather than run for office themselves and people tend to vote for highly qualified assholes rather than less qualified non assholes. We worship experts rather than good, honest and hardworking people.
There is always the kind of asshole that puts himself into a position of having to serve two masters (the people and the financial institutions). People fall into corruption and power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To be protected from assholes we must have other assholes in power, its the central argument for anarchy.
Its the original sin. No man can be a moral ideal. We know what is right and wrong, but every single one of us steps in dog shit once in a while. We live in an empirical world. Satan rules the empirical world, Christ rules in the rational world with the precept of universal law. He states that he is not of this world in the New Covenant.
I believe that assholes grew in great numbers when countries allowed private banks to print their money, and made the countries go bankrupt. Elected governments must operate within parameters set by banks and serve the public at the same time. No man can serve two masters, so everyone that tries must be an asshole to some degree. Alan Greenspan explains the power of the banks on YouTube. We live in a world full of assholes because the world is run by private money interests with great concentrations of power, and therefore great concentrations of corruption, and powerful assholes.
Christ himself threw the money changers out of the temple. One does not mix water, the law of man, with wine, the law of reason which gets better with age, unless necessary and money changers do not belong in a place of reasoned law.
Assholes are often sorry they ever became assholes. Imagine if you were walking in a field with dog shit all over the place. If you could never wipe your shoe, would you worry about stepping in it? Probably not because you know it will eventually happen and that shit will stick to your shoe and you can't get it off. So you give up and end up tracking it all over the place. Forgiveness is a necessary part of a good society and a key aspect of Christianity, it lets us wipe off our shoes and always try not to be assholes. The expression “oh well, I'm going to hell anyway” just makes you another asshole in Christianity.
There are three kinds of societies according to Kant, the juristic, the despotic and the ethical society. Kant states succintly, in Metaphysics of Morals, “No one would want to live in an ethical society”. The juristic society has its laws regulated by the common law which creates the science of jurisprudence, hence juristic society. The despotic society is the anarchist society where there are no laws to protect people from assholes that have power. It is a transitional state as society switches from ethical base to juristic, or from juristic to ethical as we are currently experiencing this slow change as ideologies seem to trump what most people think of as common sense.
Ethics is an art because it isn't universal and doesn't have precepts from which a science depends. An ethical system is a system run by men rather than principles. The artist may paint the tree is such a way as its colors please the viewers of the painting. An artist can paint a picture of a tree from a picture of a tree ad infinitum, eventually the painted tree no longer has the essential characteristics of a tree because it loses it's reference to the actual tree. The scientist must draw the tree as it truly is or face sharp criticism.
There is always the dangers of assholes taking power in an ethical society because ethical societies cannot be regulated by the common law. It's precepts come from the hopes, dreams and aspirations of its ruling classes, ideologies, rather than universal principles. It is one law for them another for us. It is asshole law and the people will demand an ethical society citing all of the negatives of the juristic society and without knowing the basis, nature and real history of the juristic society, other than that told by assholes of the second kind that run our society.
There is no yardstick from which to define evil in an ethical society. Evil is as what opposes the agenda that defines the ethic. The agenda changes and the ethic changes along with it.
Assholes have killed more than one hundred million people in the previous century alone and there are always new assholes saying they are smarter than the assholes of history and they will not have to be assholes like the ones of history, such as the ones behind the “Great Leap Forward” or the “New Soviet”, agenda's that killed tens of millions of people who were Christians and therefore had a yardstick from which to clearly identify assholes. There will always be newer and better assholes of the second kind because power creates them and they will always be threatened by Christianity.
History is often recognized as a great big lie, a lie of omission told by assholes. Its not what these assholes say, but what they do not say that allows beliefs and opinions to be molded to the needs of assholes in power. Lies of omission are much less easily detected than lies of commission. Most people know nothing about the Bolshevik Revolution or Great Leap Forward or the many other communist revolutions in the world during the last century because mainstream history is a series of lies of omission rather than commission, and they are written by assholes to serve the needs of the assholes in power rather than the truth.

Assholes of the First Kind. 

 
Blackstone's commentary on English law uses the word “mean” in place of “stupid”, back then stupidity and meanness were almost synonyms.
Morality was taught but sometimes not well understood by the stupid. Now we have educated assholes of the first kind because the education system does not include enough moral education to match the level of power they attain from the practice of the sciences.
C. S. Lewis explains that people in our scientific society study advanced topics and ideas but do not have the moral education required to understand the larger issues that go with their power and influence. This creates what he calls “clever devils”.
Being famous used to denote fame for some great moral act.
Assholes of the second kind deliberately create a retarded development in society to create the assholes of the first kind that will accept a society run by assholes of the second kind. Many simply do not care, or believe they have no power when all the power lies in their own willingness to accept responsibility, not only with votes but with wallet as well. This first kind of asshole operates only from immediate self interest, not long term, and expects those around him to do the same, and expects to be ruled by assholes of the second kind.
One hundred years ago we would have recognized the disadvantage of allowing corporations to export know-how and productive capacities. People would buy things made by their relatives, friends and neighbors. Now we all buy things made by foreign slaves in ethical systems of government run by assholes of the second kind for the short term benefit of cost savings. We worship comfort rather than the good as our highest ideal. Rousseau explains that comfort is one of the great corruptors of mankind. Comfort makes us weak and stupid and we export the power of the people when we export productivity. People losing power leads to people being ruled by assholes.
In political and historical discussions we forget the great standard of truth, the cross examination. That which cannot stand up to cross examination cannot be said to be true. Censorship prevents cross examinations. The scientific method is for the physical sciences and is really nothing more than a physical cross examination of hypothesis by experiment, thought experiments or actual physical ones. Its the gold standard of proof initially brought to us by the Roman jurists.
The concept of evidence also came from the Romans and modern man does not understand what the word “evidence” actually means. Hearsay and media evidence is not actual evidence unless backed by physical evidence. There is in fact no reason to believe that airplanes struck anywhere on 9-11 simply because there is no physical evidence to back this assertion. There is every reason to expect a preponderance of physical evidence if airplanes were in fact involved. If one does not know what evidence is, how can one form a credible opinion on anything?
John Locke once said that the reason for conflict is lack of communication. The defense of ideologies at the expense of universal law requires censorship and therefore increases the possibility of conflict in principle. One can only look at the behavior of those pushing for an ethical society to see how censorship and even violence are used to quash contrary viewpoints. One can be arrested now for expressing contrary viewpoints to “accepted narratives” or challenging establishment ideals. Its likely that I will face censorship for describing Rockefeller Feminist bitches, and perhaps not even from the Rockefeller Feminist bitches themselves but from some other asshole.
Communication is the tool intelligent people use to resolve conflict. Understanding reduces conflict and can only occur with communication. The better and greater the communication, the less chance for conflict. Communication is often restricted by assholes to foment conflict, divide people and create a society more easily led by assholes of the second kind.
Having a valid opinion requires knowledge of both sides of an argument. To have a valid opinion means you believe you can win a debate and for that you have to know your opponents view and why it is wrong, and why he believes it to be true. You can only get this by listening, not by censorship. What do you know that he doesn't? What does he know that you do not? Common ground is achieved with communication. People having common ground gives them defense from assholes of the second kind.
Now people are simply programmed and the modern university educated people have no idea about anything called a juristic society or healthy debate, or really anything that could credibly challenge their programmed views. Education and media programming are designed and created by the assholes of the second kind.
They will stand and cheer for a more ethical society, they will stand and cheer as new more powerful assholes take power and the former assholes that were regulated by scientific jurisprudence disappear, or are executed.
A dumbed down publicly educated and media educated citizen does not understand basic principles of truth, and therefore can be easily regulated with simple propaganda created by assholes. This propaganda takes the form of lies by omission rather than commission as well as ideas that get planted into the subconscious mind in movies created by the assholes of Hollywood. This is a very simple and very powerful technique of propaganda.
Watch almost any movie that involves assholes of the first kind as it's antagonist. They are almost always visibly Christians. This gets people hating Christianity at the subconscious level and then later looking at facts that add up to historical lies of omission written by assholes that reinforce their opinion that is ultimately based on feeling rather than fact.

Kohlberg Stages of Moral Development.

Kohlberg's stages of moral development is a simple, well respected and well known idea. There are hundreds of short five minute explanations for this three stage explanation of moral development on YouTube. Each stage contains part (a) and part (b), some call it six stages. I'm going to explain this concept in a simplified three stage form to better match the context of this essay. Readers are strongly encouraged to watch a few of the many YouTube videos on this topic done by experts.
In stage one we have the people pleasing level. The child seeks only to please those around them and please himself, obedience and self interest are the key words in identifying this first stage.
Social pressure can be quite powerful, we all conform against our better judgment to some degree and politicians operate from pressure from the electorate as well as pressure to conform to long term ethical agendas from the assholes of the second kind.
They are representatives and therefore vote on behalf of the represented. The squeaky wheel gets oiled. This is how Western Democracy works and its maintenance must fall on the citizen if authority and responsibility are to remain balanced. There is no other way for a democracy to work.
The politician can work at stage one and often does so willingly and knowingly. Pleasing your supporters defines the responsibilities associated with the job, because in reality the politicians only quantifiable responsibility is to get himself re-elected. Doing the right thing gets you negative media coverage from assholes and reduced chances of being re-elected.
Somehow, in the media, politicians that were the lesser assholes were made out to be total assholes and the total assholes were portrayed as non assholes. People stopped watching and participating in the system sensing that they were being lied to by assholes. The system became over run by assholes who were really just working in the interest of other bigger and more powerful assholes who run banks and corporations.
Public education policy changed and the responsibility of participating in and maintaining a democracy was no longer taught. People began to think of themselves as merely driftwood floating in a sea of assholes.
Many people now operate professionally at stage one of the stages of moral development. We are becoming a society of assholes of the first kind, and this society is run by assholes of the second kind. You can bet that in hell there is a preponderance of assholes and we are well on our way there.
In stage two there is the recognition for rules. Society must have laws to exist and people should follow those laws for the good of society. This is called the “conventional level” of moral development and moral development ceases at this point for many, maybe even most people.
In stage three, the post conventional stage, there is the recognition that no law can be truly universal. Universal principles trump written law. Fewer people reach this stage of abstract reasoning and this level of reasoning is required to truly understand both Christianity and the science of Western Jurisprudence.
Christianity has the disadvantage of a low cognitive availability because it is not about simple rule following such as the case with other statutory religions. Christian concepts such as Original Sin, The Trinity and the concept of forgiveness have been deduced from logic and reason and they can be justified rather than merely accepted as another rule created by powerful and illustrious assholes.
The Catholics did not only play a key role in the development of modern science but deduced these rational moral concepts from the concept of universal law as preached by Christ in the New Covenant, just as mathematicians created calculus from arithmetic and the basic precepts of Euclidean geometry.
Assholes in power have painted the Catholics as evil with selective propaganda and lies of omission because the Catholics and Protestant Christians have the cognitive tools to identify assholes and therefore must be brainwashed to hate their own religion, or be dumbed down or destroyed to impede opposition that assholes of the second kind may otherwise face.

Conclusions. 

 
The word “asshole” is a uniquely Western word because the West has a system of laws and of internal ethics that essentially follows universal law. The Western consciousness is essentially Christian and Christianity gives us the universal law in written form so that it cannot be changed or restated to serve the needs of assholes in powerful positions. For the most part we treat others the way we would wish or expect to be treated in the West. The Western nations are where everyone wants to live. No one leaves a Western country to live in an ethical, or in other words, under a communist system of government.
This written law of the New Covenant is the lawful basis of the Commonwealth and it is similar in non commonwealth Western countries. The West adopted universal law as a principle from which to regulate law making to create good laws that encourage and preserve human rights, which leads to good commerce and high productivity.
It is the only system of law that forbids slavery because it is juristic and therefore universal where ethical systems are not universal by definition. Christianity and universal law ended slavery in civilized countries. Very few Christians have ever been involved in slavery. Slavery is the business of those who follow statutory rule and ethical systems unregulated by the principle of universal law.
This universal law is the best antidote to the asshole problem, and it is essentially the single commandment of the New Testament. The Western tradition of law may soon be replaced by Noahide, an ethical form of law, written by Jews to govern non Jews. Under Noahide rule Jews and non Jews are governed by different laws. This should remind us the original definition of the asshole.
No one should want to be ruled by assholes, even if they think they are better connected to the assholes in power than everyone else, or even if they are one of the assholes themselves. Anything can change under an ethical system, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains in Gulag Archipelago.
The Protestant Kant explains that Christianity is the “best map of human consciousness” and Kant believed we had moral knowledge a-priori. That is, purely from reason itself prior to any experience. Experience shines a light in the mind to what is already there. The West will soon lose Christianity and common law rule simply because it's people have been dumbed down with public education and media by assholes to the point of not being able to understand it.
Statutory religions such as Judaism, Islam, Atheism and Feminism do not have this clear definition of evil which is why Christianity, by a very long shot, has been the most persecuted religion of history. Assholes in power do not like Christianity and the Christian yardstick for clearly identifying them.
Christianity and Western Jurisprudence remain the best cognitive tools from which to identify assholes, which is why they are both under attack by assholes in power and the asshole propagandists and the asshole public educators who serve these assholes of the second kind.
Thank you for listening, please share, like and comment or send questions and comments to Doug Plumb.
D o u g P l u m b 1 2 3 at gmail dot com. Also see my Youtube channel, Doug Plumb.

Western Jurisprudence

The title sounds heavy, and it is. I was going to do my third video about this topic and still may. But right now my new thoughts have to be committed to paper because these thoughts have been running around in my mind for a while and they make noise. I wish I had more time to write this, or I could get BH to make it funny, because it could be funny, but coming from this dry philosopher, it won't be.
  Imagine you are on a construction site.
  You are on the third floor and watching an argument between the carpenter and the plumber. The plumber had just went downstairs from the second floor to cut a pipe for this apartment on the third floor (slightly out of breath) and meets the carpenter putting the final touches on the kitchen counter. He goes to stick his pipe in and finds it 2 inches too short from the wall. He looks over at the carpenter to explain that his counter was off 2 inches. The carpenter picks up his measuring tape and checks the distance between the counter and water heater and says his distance is right on. So the process repeats all the way up and down the building with tradesmen arguing. The arguments intensify.
  Numerous court cases are filed for time and money lost. Who is going to win and who is going to lose? With the state of politics in our present situation, I would have to say that whoever is best "connected", or of the superior race would win. 
  In this particular scenario, there would be no other yardstick from which to rule. There is nothing solid that the judge can go to to make a truly objective determination.
  The court will rely on numerous judgements and statements made by the tradespeople, all subjective in nature because the measurements were taken from where the guys thought they should be taken.


  So what actually solves this problem? If the building had a cornerstone, the correctness or incorrectness of all measurements could be taken. Everyone's errors could be measured from the cornerstone and all responsibility would be laid bare. The judge would be unburdened from making a subjective judgement . The cornerstone makes the judges life easy and makes the tradesmen's life fair.
  The law is in a sense is similar to a building, each code depends to a certain extent on each and every other code. It can be the subject of much subjective interpretation. 
  One could argue a case in self defence where someone blew a guys head off at 100 yards with a .303 while the guy was carrying a knife and walking in the opposite direction. These kinds of questions are what juries are for and I have to clarify that this is not what I'm talking about.
  This is certainly a problem within the law but it's not really an every day kind of problem.
  Just the number of codes and regulations creates problems and attorneys go in and argue their interpretations of this and that act or statute. There is probate as well. They become like the tradespeople, each arguing from a perspective.

  Jurisprudence became a science in Rome and it is the first thing called a "science" and it came about with jurists looking for a cornerstone. 
  Socrates essentially asks what this cornerstone could be in Plato's Republic and finds the Golden Rule. The Romans refined jurisprudence with the all seeing God Jupiter and this same essential law is codified in the New Testament (single commandment: "do unto others as you would have done to yourself), along with rational guidelines for its preservation (Tree of Knowledge, Water and Wine..). This is Christianity.
  Christianity is the common law and forms the underlying structure of both governments and courts, whether they choose to admit that or not. Common law is Christianity and it is completely rational. Christianity brings rationalism into religion and codifies and preserves it.
  Not many Christians understand this or even the basic doctrines and lessons of the Bible.
  In the story above, without a connection to a jurist cornerstone, the judge is burdened with making a subjective judgement or reading and interpreting thousands of lines of code and then making a subjective judgement. With a cornerstone in place, the judge may find one side clearly in error, in which case, in fact, he has no choice. The judgement is independent of the judge.
  So there is a fundamental difference between a system of laws that has a cornerstone and one that does not. Christianity has the cornerstone, no other system has this cornerstone. Judaism depends on its Rabbi's, Islam has the Imam's and Atheists have their scientists. The Monkey religion has its faith in its rulers. These are all known as statutory religions. They exist for the will of their rulers and have no universal principle.

  With better laws, comes better productivity and that is how the West became powerful, not genetic superiority. The idea of genetic superiority explaining this is a result of an empirical determination of cause. The rational explanation of cause has the advantage in that it is universal.
  The Bible tells us not to be concerned with geneologies. Going back just 64 generations, each of us has 2^64 grandparents. I hope the ones on my branch decided not to "keep it in the family". 

  It is the destruction of this beautiful Common Law itself that will result in the destruction of the West.

Applying Numbers to the JQ

I have been curious about the JQ over the past few months and finally decided to sit down and put some numbers to it using basic statistics. For those who do not know, the JQ is the "Jewish Question". It asks why a disproportionate number of Jews hold the seats of power in Western societies. Numbers lead to an unbiased conclusion as long as they are understood. This essay may be unsuitable for those who are offended by people who ask the JQ.
The JQ is answered by the popular talking heads on YouTube such as Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones and Stephan Molyneux, people who have a clear bias toward the Jewish race and believe them to be superior and that they should be running things based on their inherent superiority. Its a clearly juvenile viewpoint for anyone who has actually read philosophy and the philosophy of laws. Most listeners of Peterson and Molyneux have not, so its easy to pull the wool over their eyes. Both Molyneux and Jones married into the matriarchal Judaism. I don't know if Peterson did or not. There are many other sycophants online as bad as these three, it is these three that I know well.
This has been a simple calculation and the assumptions are:

(1) IQ is normally distributed among any suitably sized group
(2) Standard deviation is 15 for both populations and all IQ's.
(3) Jewish population is assumed to be 20,000, the population of White Goyim is assumed to be 1 million. Jews have about 2% of the numbers of White Goyim in America.

I did this for two assumptions, (1) Jews IQ = 130 average, (2) Jews IQ = 115, in both cases average White Goyim IQ is 100. I did not calculate for IQ above 175, assuming these numbers to be too small for normal distribution.
I did it for an IQ of 130 just to help visualize how the numbers change. The average Jewish IQ is no where near 130, unless you are just listening to Alex Jones. Realistically it may be as high as 115, but more likely around 108.

Results:

(1) Jewish IQ = 130, White Goyim IQ = 100

IQ > 130:
Jews:10,000
White Goyim: 22,800

IQ>145
Jews 3,174
White Goyim: 1,300

IQ>160
Jews: 560
White Goyim: 30

(2) Jewish IQ= 115, White Goyim IQ =100

IQ>130
Jews: 3,174
White Goyim: 22,800

IQ>145
Jews: 456
White Goyim: 1,300

IQ>160
Jews: 26
White Goyim: 30

So, given the amount of Jewish power in government, academia, the media, publishing and of course finance, do these numbers explain it? Will affirmative action be applied to upper level positions in banks?
I'm not a fan of IQ testing, I test above 115. Even adherents to this answer to the JQ admit that Jews may have a higher IQ with numbers and words but that White Goyim is better at spatial orientation. IQ tests can therefore be skewed, if this is true.
You find Jews in math and computer engineering, but not in mechanical or civil engineering. Engineering has been viewed as an inferior profession by many and this may explain the small number of Jews in engineering.
Another useful comparison would be to compare philosophies. Compare Maimonides (the great lawyer of the Jews, known as Ram Bam in the Talmud) with one of our great scholars of law, Immanual Kant, or von Savigny. Compare the past century great thinkers in Judaism, Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno with CS Lewis.
The White Goyim philosophy has been to find the universals, as it has been for thousands of years. It has grown finer with age, as Christ said it would (the wine). The Jewish philosophy has been to espouse Jewish Supremism and to place the Goyim in a highly negative light, to say the least. It is fairly and reasonably called hate literature. It does not have the brilliance or the braininess of the universal philosophy of the White Goyim, who is clearly unmatched in this field. Only the White Christian does philosophy to find universals rather than in group supremism as in Judaism and Islam.

On the topic of philosophy I would like to leave you with two thoughts. The best and the brightest have the greatest capacity for evil as well as good. We have a society led by the best and brightest. How did they become eaters of the pizza? The answer is that they have been given too much liberty. The human being has a natural inclination to expand horizons and is not always good. This IS NOT original sin, as Douglas Murray claims it is. Original sin and sacrifice will have to be the topic of another essay. (the two go hand in hand)
  CS Lewis writes the following passage at the very start of the Screwtape Letters: (Screwtape, the older devil is giving instruction to his apprentice, Wormwood)

"...It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of our Enemies clutches. That may have been so if he lived a few centuries earlier. At that time humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not, and if it was true they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life based on a chain of reasoning. But with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man, ever since he was a boy, has been accustomed to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing around in his head. He does not think of doctrines as "true" or "false", but as "academic", "practical", "outworn", "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon and not argument is your best weapon for keeping him out of the Church.

...By the very act of arguing, you awaken his reason and who knows where that may lead"

The last line really explains why argument about politics is nearly forbidden in modern society and people are offended when truth emerges that challenges their world view.

Does The Left Create Victimhood?

Victim hood creates debt that does not exist in reality, this divides people, makes them angry and creates new groups for leftist exploitation. The Left creates the problems, then offers dialectical materialism to create solutions. Dialectical materialism is the dialect between science and matter and it encompasses the idea that science can one day solve all of the worlds problems and that all problems stem from economics.

The problem with this basic idea is that it is purely reactionary and gives no yardstick from which to judge matters and thus no way back to rational thought. Cultural Marxism has no course but to be purely reactionary and therefore problems are required to get us to think in this context. When problems do not exist they must be created.

A perfect example of created divisions is the “White Mans Privilege” and its mythology that it was White Christians that ran the black slave trade. In truth a disproportionally low number of White Christians were involved. It was known as the Jewish Black slave trade during its time. (see E. Michael Jones, Michael Hoffman, Henry Makow, and other scholars)

This makes blacks angry at whites and they wish to seek redress, this is happening in South Africa where Whites are being murdered and a genocide may soon occur.

The Left says that the Whites stole the land. I say the whites civilized South Africa and brought the Blacks common law. The population of blacks exploded from 2 million consisting of warring tribes to around 40 million living in relative peace under the white mans Common Law.

Cultural Marxism is all about destroying ideas like common law and original sin and bringing dialectical materialism to the forefront of human consciousness. Dialectical materialism and its statutory laws will destroy the common law which will leave the people in charge with an purely statutory system of laws that no one will have any basis to criticize. No one will know how to question authority without the common law yardstick from which to make judgements.

Does law come from authority or does authority come from law? In the West, traditionally, law comes from reason and and authority comes from law. Under dialectical materialism, law comes from authority.

The West is moving away from its traditional common law and toward a system of statutory law based on Talmudic law. Noahide law will be the law for all non Jews. The destruction of the common law, brought about with dialectical materialism will get us there.

The Evangelicals are just as bad with their agenda and use of propaganda to bring us closer to the rapture, but this is a different topic and their propaganda is fundamentally different.

One final thought: Most people casually throw around the idea that we in the West live in democracies. This belief will get us closer and closer to actual pure democracies. In reality, most of the West lives in republics or constitutional democracy. Once full democracy is obtained, despotism follows in short time. This is part of the PTB getting us to forget the common law and our roots and the ideas that made the West strong and free.

The Greatest Quote Ever

It needs no further comment. Its obvious:

"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or worse, when they are required to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."
 
Theodore Dalrymple

White Genocide: Why?

 The following essay is an attempt to explain White Genocide is a slightly different manner the the one on this topic that I posted about a year ago.

Before people adapt an ideal such as Equality, I want them to fully understand what they are giving up. This essay is an effort to convey this understanding, one that has taken me many years to obtain.

  It explains the fundamental reason for Christian White Genocide, which is being done by communists as communists always do, as they always have. There is a basic hatred and opposition of Western Christian ideology that motivates communists. To explain this, I have to explain the concept of law and what makes Western law, the law that is hated by the communist, and why.

 Its a bit discombobulated, please bear with me. I'm watching this Alex Jones Youtube video and felt the urge to switch the title of this little project from "Roman Law" to "White Genocide: Why?" and link it with this video.

  It is law that creates a society, without it, nothing else can be and we live in an anarchy, like monkeys swinging from trees, maybe worse because we have guns. No one sane would argue that you can have a good society with bad laws.

  The Roman Empire grew because it had developed laws. For a thousand or more years, all the best and brightest went to Rome to study law. The word "science" was first used in describing the fundamental nature of theoretical jurisprudence.

  Science did not emerge Newton or Bacon or Descarte, it originated with the Romans and their work on laws. The age of reason started in Rome with a science built around the common law. It didn't start with the Enlightenment.

  The difference between this science and the other hard sciences such as math and physics is not uncertainty. We know when a law has been broken, without looking at code.

  Math and physics sit on hard principles which can be written in compact form on paper, almost perfect abstractions (but people keep making them better). Roman law sits on the pillar of the common law, the law which cannot be written. Jesus Christ writes it as the one commandment of the NT, Immanual Kant writes it as his categorical imperative. The Greeks call it the "Golden Rule" because they couldn't write it down, so they were probably smarter than everybody. Everyone knows it as "The Logos".

  Western law has been based on this precept. Mathematics requires precepts such as counting and the shortest distance between two points being a straight line being those from which all else is built. Law is based on reason, like mathematics. Law requires a precept like mathematics because reason does not create precepts on its own. To be a science the laws developed from the precepts cannot be self contradictory in math or law.

  By science, I do not mean the scientific method, science here refers to logic and not application of the scientific method. The Scientific Method doesn't work for math or minefields and it doesn't work for law. This is the spiritual world, as opposed to the material world, and the scientific method isn't part of the spiritual world.

  Jurisprudence can never be exactly right or exactly wrong in practice. The Golden Rule has some room for interpretation. Justinian codified law so that Judgements would be less dependent on the judge, a fundamental problem of jurisprudence, the judge being well intentioned and well informed, or not. Justinian law gets a bad rap, but law was not understood as well as it is today. Law is a technology, just like any other. They had the old tube type version, we have the digital version of the same thing.

  Another expression of the common law, America (United States is a corp) is a Republic and the basic idea of a Republic is: "A nation by the people, for the people and of the people" and is a well known Abraham Lincoln quote, from which he got the idea from a very highly respected German Scholar of Roman law and theorist, Von Savigny who wrote law books in around mid 1800's. Much of his work is on the web as free PDF's.

 Widespread knowledge of the law could be a serious threat to those who write and administer bad laws, but this is not why good laws must be written. Good laws must be written to preserve the law, which in turn preserves freedom (Von Savigny).

  A law not based on sound principle would be like math adopting an axiom along the lines of 2+2=5, people would just stop using math or stop taking it seriously.

  The common law (which can be partially expressed as all men being equal under the law) is being replaced by another precept: equality of outcome. The two are not compatible. Left wing nut case "equality" will destroy the Western tradition of law.

  Plato explains exactly how this would occur in book 4 of the Republic. Lawyers and legislators would be tripping all over one another making a mess if the law as not based on sound precepts. These must come from the Gods. In Rome the god was Jupiter, who appeared the same for everyone. Jupiter saw all the farms the same. This common law, as written in the New Testament forms the basis for Western law.

  Kant explains that the law must be written, hence the need for the Bible.

  Von Savigny explains the application of the codified law and its jurisdiction in his book, System of the Modern Roman Law, translated from the German Friederich Von Savigny by William Holloway, vol 1, 1867. On the subject of Jural Relations he writes: (S52)

  "The essence of jural relation has been defined as a province of the independent mastery of the individual will (S.52). Its our first matters to search out the object-matters upon which the will can possibly excercise influence and thus extend its mastery; hence a summary of the different sorts of possible jural relations will of itself result.
   ...Thus in the pure logical treatment of the question proposed, there appear to us three main object matters for the mastery of the will; hence, it would appear, that three main sorts of all jural relations would of necessity be admitted. We have therefore next to examine those object matters singly, and the first the individual person as object of a special jural relation.
  On this matter the following view is very prevalent. Man, say some, has a right to his own self which necessarily arises at his birth and can never cease so long as he lives; for this precise reason it is called an ORIGINAL RIGHT...
  ...If henceforth we entirely separate the so-called original rights and recognise the aquired rights as the only ones to which our further examination is to be directed, there will remain only two objects for the excercise of our will: unfree nature and extraneous persons."

  In extraneous persons he gets the law of obligations, from unfree nature, comes property.

  Von Savigny was a German and German law was quite a bit tilted toward freedom than others. Kant is similar in basic thought. Von Savigny was like a Kant, but for jurisprudence. Von Savigny follows the path of reason proves his statements almost as well as Kant. (No wonder the Globalists went after Germany the way it did.)

  BUT Von Savigny is a philosopher in these books, not an actual judge. On that it is Christ that explains this cornerstone. The building, its occupants etc may change or burn down but the cornerstone will always remain for those who wish to use it in future construction.

  We have no lawyers, we must become lawyers. (A lawyer IS NOT synonymous with attorney. If you don't believe me, ask one. I learned that from attorneys before other sources.). There is a saying "only guilty people hire attorneys" and its true. An attorney is merely a wealth transfer agent and hiring one is to admit guilt by admitting that a wealth transfer should take place.

  So, maybe for now, we lose everything with the adoption of equality of outcome as an ideal because we lose the foundation for our law, the very thing that makes us free. Maybe we learn the law instead and decide to defend ourselves - really scare the hell out of the establishment instead of having a talking head just draining unfavorable parts of the swamp.

  Without the Golden Rule as a yardstick, our rulers and legislators will make a mess of everything, just as explained in Plato's Republic, even if they have the best of intentions.

  For over two thousand years the basic problem with communism has been well known, yet it rears its head once again in the minds of a public that has no understanding of its past or of its roots.

  Communism is with us once again in the genocide of these South African farmers. We have not lost to this Bavarian conspiracy, we have good laws and we need to exercise them.
See also White Genocide.

Note: Many people think of the common law as that which is held to be in common belief. What is held to be in common belief is really just a practical application the the law which is common to all men. They are one in the same thing, one a looser approximation of the other.