Posts
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.
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.
