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.

A Psychiatrist Convention

There is a story that I heard on YouTube last week, I've been telling it to a few people. Some of them get it. So I'll tell it below and lets see what everybody thinks.
  Psychiatrists were at a convention and a paper was presented. It was not much of a paper but more of a complaint.
  In it the doctor described how his practice had grown, how he was understaffed and could not keep up with the workload. People were coming in for the first time and he had to perform tests to determine if they were crazy or not. Another psychiatrist during a question period mentioned that he had the same problem, having to rent the office next door for additional waiting room space for all of his new clients. Others echoes his concern citing the well known fact that it takes between forty and sixty man hours to properly evaluate a persons sanity.
 Then one doctor stood up and explained that he had a small office in a basement with no secretary and had a small waiting room consisting of a few chairs and he was easily able to keep up with the workload, help his patients and quickly determine their sanity. He explained that his waiting room contained only a tap and in the corner, some old mops, and some chairs.
  He said that when he came in in the morning he would let everyone in, sit them down, then turn on the tap in the corner and watch the waiting room from the window in his office. Patients that turned off the tap were judged sane and the ones that picked up a mop to known to be in need of help.

  When we discuss politics in the conventional framework set forth by mainstream media, wanting the Fed to adjust rates, changing social policy, etc, we are using the mops to clean up a mess created by the fact that we have Jewish money. The monster debt is really nothing but a hoax. There is no possible promise that could back the promise that our promisary notes use as backing. No consideration has ever taken place between the Fed and the government, the Fed simply operates under its own agenda with no oversight from the government, nor obligation to the government (Alan Greenspan says this on YouTube so don't start calling me an anti semite again)
  The only possible solution to get us out of this mess is to turn off the tap and recognize those folks who want to keep mopping the floor as nuts. Political will and knowledge for monetary reform would get us monetary reform. For people unfamiliar with the idea, see movies such as The Money Masters on YouTube.

Kant And The Misleading Frankfurt School

The Eclipse Of Reason by Adorno/Horkheimer a key founding document of the Frankfurt School and is an argument against Christianity done along the lines of Critical Philosophy. It does make a decent criticism of Christianity based on it's subjective nature in its lawful determinations. It is the subjective nature of Christianity that Judaism stands against. Ideas like Jury's can prevent absolute power desired by the Jews.

A fundamental aspect of Christianity is it's reliance on conscience rather than absolute law. No man is without sin and no man made law is perfect. Christianity and English Jurisprudence created the jury, the conscience of the court, the Holy Ghost in the Trinity. Christinity's fundamental doctrines protect us from tyranny. I explain the fundamentals here  "Why Are Christians Being Persecuted" from Kant's work on religion).

Dr John Coleman credits the great music critic, Theodore Adorno, with writing much of the music we know as coming from the Rolling Stones and Beatles in one of his books on the socialist conspiracy for world domination. Adorno has certainly been a leading figure in the cultural changes experienced over the past century.

The Eclipse Of Reason criticizes modern society along the lines of it's subjective ethic. It does not mention that it has been mostly Jew's that have lead us down this path to "freedom". Christianity takes the blame for everything that has gone wrong. The essay suggests that a return to Neo-Thomism is the most likely solution, perhaps in this statement they are pointing us toward Noahide laws. I do not know what Neo Thomism is and cannot find a useful definition or book anywhere. Perhaps someone can enlighten me in the comments, it's been a "burning" question.

The essay, The Eclipse Of Reason, of about one hundred pages in length can be found on the web as a free PDF. Its sister document, the Dialectic Of Enlightenment is said by the Adorno/Horkheimer team to be the more academic version of the same statement. The Eclipse of Reason is by no means an easy read. Anyone that has doubts about a grand Jewish conspiracy should probably read the first ten or twenty pages of the Dialectic.

I enjoy cautiously reading Horkheimer & Adorno (they come as a pair, joined at the hip), the stuff is challenging and they do make some valid points. It becomes obvious that they view Kant as a serious threat to the credibility of their project. I'm a follower of Kant and when I read it's usually Kant so I picked up a copy of Adorno's Critique of Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason mostly to read some Critical Philosophy for myself.

Kant is largely unknown today or just remembered as part of the past, outshined by the likes of Berkeley, Hume, and Locke. In reality he is much greater than that, having redefined the problem of philosophy after reading his contemporaries, the most notable of which being Hume. Kant is likely one of the two most quoted philosophers in the history of the subject and is often quoted alongside Plato as being one of the most important thinkers to have ever lived. Schopenhauer is not the only one to have made this statement. Its been repeated often.

His views on space, time and human ontological and epistemological perception forms the basis for his hypothesis that the world cannot exist as we see it. The philosophical problem becomes one of perception.

Adorno's Critique of Kant is short, sharp and directly to the point in the first few pages but also fundamentally wrong. In these few pages of his Critique against Kant he makes a very naive statement that Einstein's relativity disproves the Kantian view on space and time, effectively discrediting the entire Kantian project on freedom itself. This particular criticism is often echoed in online discussions that I've participated in whenever the works of Kant comes up by both casual readers and academics.

Kant's views seem ridiculous to the first time reader and really only gradually begin to make sense on the second or third read. Kant himself even re-wrote it after some initial misunderstandings by his contemporaries. Many misunderstand him as a solipsist as I did on my first read. I can't really get into detail here without writing a hundred pages on the subject.

In the early part of the last century Bertrand Russell wrote some very interesting and short books on various subjects, one being a qualitative explanation on Einsteins relativity. At the end of the book he does a chapter on Kant's view of space and time to caution the reader against believing that the theory of relativity either discredits or credits the Kantian view (both arguments can be put forward with some ground) . This alone speaks to the importance of Kant. A reader of Russell's casual work was expected to be familiar with Kant's main body of work. He cautions the reader that these two views are quite unrelated, one being about perception and one being about reality. It is an obvious point to anyone that has studied Kant in detail, perhaps not so obvious for many who only give Kant a cursory look.

It seems to me that a scholar such as Adorno, who quotes Kant regularly in his works, would not only be aware of the fallacy involved in his basic critique of Kant but would also go to great effort to discredit him, given the goals of the Frankfurt School. The work of this great Christian scholar falling by the waste side in modern thought is no accident. It is a fundamental work on freedom itself, one that will be remembered long after his contemporaries have been forgotten. Its no surprise that those who wish to assault freedom would attempt to discredit Kant in a deep and fundamental way, one that often holds some water in the minds of both casual readers and academics.

Kant explains that his view is subjective, we may look at the world as materialistic in conception or as if there is more to the world than science and causality (cause and effect) itself. There is no penalty paid by science either way. There is no possible way of knowing. Many people do not like Kant, but this fundamental notion put forward by Adorno is incorrect and likely intentionally incorrect.

Two final notes:

(1) The Kantian ethic sits on a subjective basis in the sense that we can choose ethics and morals rather than pure materialism. If this choice is made then morals and ethics become logical and objective. They are are not subjective in themselves. This is a key point as Kantian subjectivity is often used to undermine absolutes in his works.

(2) I would like to caution anyone considering reading Kant's opus magnus in that his Logic notes by Wolfgang Schwarz and the recently published Routledge Guide by Sabastian Gardner are absolutely necessary prerequisites to reading Kant. Gardner's work makes reading Kant actually possible for a non academic such as myself. Garner has a YouTube talk on Kant.

He and other modern scholars do attempt to discredit him in subtle ways.