The Rule Of Right Versus The Rule Of Law: Pick a side
You either support the rule of law or you do not. Shelley Luther is a law breaker. If you believe in the rule of law, absolutely, as the oligarch puppets at MSNBC would have you do, what else is there to say? If your commitment to the rule of law is bottomless and unyielding, Shelley Luther was thrown in jail where she belonged, end of story. Yet most of us understand, even if in our gut, that this is not the end of the story.
The COVID crisis is a sterling example of how an excessive commitment to the rule of law can easily enable tyranny and serfdom. There are laws in North Korea and Red China, and there were laws in National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union as well. That something is a law, which is to say some rule some low-IQ legislator drew up, is not a sufficient reason to follow it. It just isn’t. Further analysis is necessary.
Conservatives often say that a strict adherence to the rule of law is a powerful prophylactic against tyranny. Is that really so? Doubtful. Tyranny and totalitarianism are at least as likely to emerge via a careful adherence to the law as they are to arise from the flouting, circumvention, or disregarding of it. A general, fairly slender attachment to the law is basically sufficient to preserve the social order. With that said, obeying rules and commands rarely secures essential rights or liberates people. Obedience to rules written by those in power serves the rulers primarily, not the ruled. That seems somewhat self-evident to me.
Moreover, if laws should always be followed, there would be no America. The American Revolution was a revolt against the laws and hegemony of the British crown. Yet all day long the propagandists in the press tell us how we must all obey, how important the rule of law is for keeping us safe and free. But do you think your government is keeping you safe? And do you feel free? I certainly do not feel free going on my third month of house arrest.
To be clear, Shelley Luther is a patriot and a hero. She is also a criminal. And there is nothing paradoxical about those two claims. Because there is a point where government overreach becomes unthinkable and totalitarian. There is a point where following the law means doing something one’s conscience cannot countenance. And there is a point where a regard for the law is nothing more than a command to obey whatever courts or rulers decide, no matter how insane or contrary to your interests or values. At these points, the rule of law ceases to be an asset or an ally to the people, but becomes instead an enemy. That does not mean that a solid respect for the law is not, generally speaking, a good thing. What it means is that we all must recognize lines and exceptions to the general rule. In truth, an excessive deference for the rule of law is at least as dangerous as a lack of deference for it.
Unfortunately, so-called conservatism has become meek, servile, and excessively fond of the rule of law in recent decades. To be fair, not all conservatives have prostrated themselves before government power in this way, but far too many have. Yet there is nothing “conservative” about being a law-fellating peon when the powers that be are dismantling traditional values and traditional modes of living at an epic clip, or when the laws themselves become vicious, outrageous, or totalitarian. Our ruling class has already, largely through the law mind you, dismantled and disfigured America. There is really not much left of the Founding Era, culturally, ethnically, morally, etc. Even America of a mere seventy five years ago, is now all but gone.
So, I am sick and tired of hearing how wonderful the rule of law is. The rule of law is only as wonderful as the laws themselves, and as someone who works in the field of law, I can tell you most laws are not so wonderful. In fact, many, if not most, of the laws set down on paper by American legislatures, are perfectly idiotic. They are garbage.
They often create bigger problems than they resolve. A majority of them could probably be repealed tomorrow at no utility cost to the citizenry and most of those remaining should be rewritten in fundamental ways. The way they are interpreted by American courts is even more shameful. Criminal laws especially, are consistently interpreted by the courts to make prosecutions and convictions as easy as possible. As a whole, our laws enrich the rich and arm the powerful. And the faith most state legislatures have in the benevolence of government power is rather astounding. The Founders would not be pleased. The authority for state governors to issue tyrannical COVID directives originated in state legislatures after all. The American legal system today seeks to monitor, regulate, and control us by and large, rather than benefit and uplift us, as it was supposed to do. It is really not structured for, nor would it be endured by, a free people.
Those maintaining a childish reverence for the rule of law whilst also celebrating this Texas salon owner’s lawless actions, must engage in faulty hair-splitting and intellectual chicanery to do so. They say things like proclamations, directives and executive orders “aren’t really the law.” But they are the law. They carry the force of law. They can be enforced by law enforcement, just like statutes and court orders can. That is the hard reality of things.
Moreover, even if this argument had merit, it would still be a road to nowhere. After all, if Shelley Luther was defying some totalitarian statute instead, would she be any less right? Is a totalitarian decree better or worse than a totalitarian statute? Which should we be more inclined to lie down like dogs before? Thus, this particular argument (“it is not really the law”) is firstly not persuasive, and secondly, misses the point.
The political right needs to reflect deeply on its relationship with the law. Shelley Luther can be a hero or the law can be sacrosanct. Both can not be true. The right can not have it both ways without experiencing some level of cognitive dissonance. For my part, I think there are circumstances when it is quite acceptable, even noble, to be a lawbreaker. Samuel Adams was a lawbreaker. The British wanted to hang him for his crimes. Now I enjoy drinking beer with his shining visage on it. Most crucially though, let us not dance around that acknowledgment. Let us not be intellectual weasels possessive of two logically incompatible thoughts. Let us proclaim it loud and clear, because the times demand it: There are matters and interests that stand above the law, and disobedience to the law is not only tolerable at times, it is morally obligatory.
Finally, what is it with people named Luther and a contempt for corruption and abuse emanating from the echelons of power? When will Ms. Luther be drafting her own 95 theses? God knows America needs its own reformation.
This has Kevin McDonald’s name on it, but I don’t think it is his writing. Is this correct?
I was thinking the same thing. If it is him, I’m liking the polemical KMac.
I spotted that too. The author says he “works in the law.”
That was my very first thought … I even had to scroll up to see his name again.
I can tell you, right now, that I don’t believe this is Kevin MacDonald’s writing!
Your right, its not his style of writing.He often uses given in his writings, don’t think he did in this article?
Well, if it is, I didn’t know he was a lawyer, as he states.
Yeah, that is not KMac’s voice. There is something STRANGE going on here
I’m fairly sure this was a mixup, not yet corrected (unless there is more than one “Kevin MacDonald” writing for TOO, in which case, given the name of the editor, some preemptive clarification would have been in order). First, the author says,
“So, I am sick and tired of hearing how wonderful the rule of law is. The rule of law is only as wonderful as the laws themselves, and as someone who works in the field of law, I can tell you most laws are not so wonderful. In fact, many, if not most, of the laws set down on paper by American legislatures, are perfectly idiotic. They are garbage.”
KMac works in scientific psychology, evolutionary theory, and history. I don’t think he would describe law as his “field”. Second, this colloquial language is not his mode at all. Third, and frankly, the quality of analysis (as well as expression) here is not up to his intellectual standard.
This piece is a rant. The issues of the Ms. Luther case are profound and troubling, and not in the least simple and binary. Morally, I’m on the side of Ms. Luther, if only because she seems like a fellow Middle American, and one who, moreover, doesn’t like being bossed around by sh—y bureaucrats. I understand and respect that sentiment. It’s very “(Middle) American”, and I want to live in a version of my ancestral land which still produces and honors such reactions.
But contra this author, the impartial rule of law is a genuine cornerstone of civilization, and esp America’s Anglo-Occidental civilization. I want to live in a civilized country as well as a free one. Indeed, as with all true conservatives, I hold that liberty, correctly understood, derives from, or is an artifact of, the rule of law properly instantiated and applied. Without law, liberty usually descends into anarchy, which ends up as merely another kind of tyranny (the rule of the immediately as against legislatively strong). Ascertaining, in ever changing contexts, the proper balance between maximizing freedom, and maintaining that order upon which freedom depends, is the perennial task of the true conservative (ESPECIALLY in the Anglo-American tradition).
What the author is reaching for, but never quite grasps, is the idea that for the law to merit obedience it must either codify or somehow derive from or reflect a ‘higher’ or ‘eternal’ moral law; that is, either divine law, or some kind of inherent and universal natural law. Thus, if a positive law statute (“murder is illegal”) is or aligns with a divine law (“Thou shalt not kill”), then there would be a duty to obey it. But, one concludes from the author’s reasoning, if a statute (“Report your parents for crimethink”) violates divine law (“Honor thy father and mother”), then there would be a duty to disobey it. I myself generally agree with this analysis, though I recognize it can be carried to unjustifiable, anarchic extremes.
But how do we assess the Luther case in light of eternal law? To me, it’s not simple. Luther is obviously not a *true* criminal; ie, someone evil who intentionally menaces and inflicts cruelty upon society. OTOH, the individual does not get to choose which laws he will obey. By “choose” I mean morally choose; that is, choose one way or another and remain a moral person (obviously where the forces of law enforcement are strong enough, one cannot actually evade obedience to laws without experiencing punishment). Whether we absolve someone who has intentionally violated a statute depends not upon that person’s true moral character overall, but whether the statute is morally defensible.
Imagine Ms. Luther had robbed a gas station out of a genuine need to “feed her children” (I think that was her self-exculpatory excuse for illegally reopening her salon). She might be a basically good person, and moreover, one operating in a good cause, but she would still deserve to be convicted because she intentionally violated a positive law [against robbery] that aligns with the eternal moral law (“Thou shalt not steal”). Ideally, there might be some equitable remedy in her specific case, esp in light of the state COVID shutdown coercively putting her ability to feed her children in jeopardy. Perhaps a gubernatorial or Presidential pardon post-conviction would be in order. But that a robber should be convicted regardless of the moral character of his/her motivations is a bedrock principle of justice as well as the rule of law. The law is interested in intent, not morally exculpating motives.
But Ms. Luther did not do something which is clearly evil in itself. It is always properly illegal to commit robbery (although there might be “higher law” morally justificatory reasons for having done so, they cannot nullify the crime, though in rare cases they might excuse it {eg, James Bond heisting someone’s shotgun from a truck gun rack in order to fend off a bevy of Chicom assassins or Mexican ‘narcotrafficantes’}). But it is rarely illegal, and certainly not inherently so, to open a hair salon. In this case, however, it was.
So we’re back to the core issue: was the state acting morally improperly (ie, tyrannically) in forbidding Ms. Luther to reopen her salon as part of a broad suite of not permanent but indefinitely lasting business closure laws aimed at halting the spread of a contagious disease? Is that really, as the author implies, so easy a question to decide? I don’t think so. Public quarantine laws (in the past, often extremely harsh ones) to mitigate outbreaks of plagues are thousands of years old. Many hold, as do I, that using coercive power to fight plague is one of the core, and indeed, very few legitimate, functions of collective or state action. Most of what government does is, to us Anglo-American (true) conservatives, totally illegitimate. Every social welfare program, social insurance program, business “stimulus” program, public healthcare initiative, arts subsidy, central bank establishment, and much else should be halted or abolished forthwith.
But some state functions are justified. These all involve what I call “systemic preservation” measures. That is, they serve to uphold the conditions necessary for liberty. These include national defense and espionage services; law enforcement, courts, and punishment zones or penitentiaries; border controls and citizenship procedures; environmental protections; perhaps eugenic controls … and, definitely, epidemiological defenses and protocols. The need for state-directed action to combat plague is both a core function, and justification for the very existence, of government.
I hold that it was not *necessarily* improper for the state to forbid the opening of Ms. Luther’s salon (along with other such venues deemed to be plague transmission vectors). Of course, this is really a scientific question. Whether in epidemiological fact hair salons need to be shuttered to fight COVID-19 I don’t know, am not qualified to determine, and remain sceptical. But the principle that laws protecting public health from disease transmission are morally justifiable in light of both “higher law” and the permissible functions of state action, and so are not tyrannical and therefore ought to be obeyed, is, I think, undeniable. Therefore, at the very least, it is not obvious, as a matter of law, that the state’s arresting of Ms. Luther, who deliberately and intentionally violated a prima facie morally legitimate law, was tyrannical. That I might personally identify with Ms. Luther, as well as think, in light of how the COVID crisis has unfolded, that what she did was no big deal, in no way nullifies the fact that Luther knowingly violated a legitimate statute.
As a matter of the justice of fidelity to the rule of law, the arrest of Luther was appropriate. People cannot be allowed to choose which laws they will obey, or society will collapse. Still more importantly, they especially cannot be allowed functionally to violate infectious disease mitigation laws (which would be the case were Luther to avoid punishment). In an outbreak far more lethal than COVID, such laws may well save millions of lives. As a matter of “higher law” morality, which looks at the total person and total situation, her conviction, if any, should be fully pardoned (though without any restitution of court or attorney fees, or any right of suing for wrongful arrest, as the arrest was proper, and she did selfishly bring it upon herself).
This is a badly written, boring, stupid piece of aimless blovating…of course the third-rate “professor” wrote it! It’s amusing that the truly stupid regulars on this website worship KM but can’t lie convincingly about his competence. That’s his thing, dear.
—–
(Mod. Note: Begone!, third-rate troll.)
@Leon Haller. Such a lot of words to say relatively little. And a prostrate justification for perversion-openly-of the Supreme Law, The Constitution. I regard you as suspiciously on the wrong side, which is that of the elites, Gobalists, NWO, and at the core, the Chosenites.
I find very little, if any, of value in your comment, resembling the pathological ooze expected of academic law professors, and others of the “academy”.
That’s because you’re obviously [Redacted personal insult] to understand the real significance of what I wrote, let alone to state any substantive objections. I set forth the issues in this very complex matter, which does not admit of simple solutions (no matter how much certain “patriot” types insist it does). Real philosophers as well as legal theoreticians engage in close textual analysis as a matter of course. But you are undoubtedly not “of the academy”, so you are unaware of academic conventions. Too bad – for you.
—-
(Mod. Note: “Haller”, No more smarmy, juvenile insults of other commenters, OK?)
It is obvious that Covid-19 is an overblown hoax. There was no justification for forcing small businesses to shut down. Luther is not the sort of person who would have reopened her salon if she thought doing so would endanger others. When she was confronted by the judge and told to apologize, she was not being asked her opinion about the seriousness of the “pandemic.” So she didn’t say what was obvious. Instead, she said that it would be inappropriate for her to feel sorry for taking needed action to feed her kids and enable her stylists to feed theirs.
The American people are not obligated — morally or legally — to submit to a tyranny born of fraud.
It is the tyrants themselves, including that judge, who need to be arrested by the people and then thrown in prison — or worse.
1) ” What the author is reaching for but never quite grasps”. No, I was not reaching for the concept of “divine law” or anything else that doesn’t really derive from whatever non-existent entity you worship. LOL. Not kind of, not sort, not at all.
2) My piece is a rant? Your piece is longer than mine, & your piece is not even a piece! It is a darned comment, and one that most people on Earth could not even bear to read the entirety of! Good grief, the irony.
3) Anglo-American conservatives are true conservatives? Please. Also, last I checked Americans broke with the Anglos & their traditions in 1776. I think you may be on the wrong side of the Atlantic, friend. Furthermore, you speak of this Anglo tradition like it is so great & glorious, but look at England today. The English are a completely enserfed people. Some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Two years ago they arrested a man in the UK who taught his dog to do the Hitler salute. Shall the rest of us follow those hallowed Anglo traditions until we are all of us enserfed equally? You sound like a New Yorker or a Californian when they ramble on about their states being models for the rest of America. That is madness. I look at England today & think, “RUN”! Doing whatever Anglos aren’t doing would be more sensible than hewing to your traditions. You should be ashamed of what your people have become and where your traditions have led. Yet you proceed to lecture me about the law whilst glorifying those traditions even as the end result of your Anglophilic weltanschauung is exhibit A, the European dhimmi nation in perhaps the worst shape of all, with the possible exception of Sweden!
4) The question is not whether emergency measures during public health crises can ever be justified, the question is whether the measures taken were remotely proportionate to the threat posed. The answer to that question should be obvious to you. And that is what separates a good law from a bad one, a tolerable one from an intolerable one. You mention the plague, but by doing so you make my point. This was not the plague. Not even close. So, no, it may not be obvious that arresting this woman was, *as a matter of law*, tyrannical or totalitarian. But it was so nevertheless, & that is quite obvious, as a matter of reason and good sense. *The law is not & should not be the ultimate arbiter of things, which is the whole point of this article!* I think you may have missed it, since you are trying to answer the principal question by reference to the law itself.
5) Additionally, I do not believe & still do not believe that state legislatures have the authority to grant to state governors the almost infinite “emergency” powers they granted governors in many cases, with zero oversight, zero checks, etc. Indeed, you claim that is not tyranny, and yet that is kind of a cornerstone (nay, the keystone) of tyranny, is it not (complete discretion)? Moreover, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is more or less in agreement with me on that. That is worth noting. Surely tyrants must be held accountable, no? And if courts won’t hold them accountable, does it make one an immoral man to try to hold them accountable oneself whether doing so is lawful or not? You are correct anyway that there is nothing wrong with having laws such as these to address major public health crisis. But even then, limits must be placed on executive discretion/authority and restrictions on liberty must always be proportionate to the magnitude of the threat posed. That is a must, or, as witnessed, outright tyranny ensues. Granted, such an analysis does require a great deal of legwork as you rightly state, but all hard questions and moral dilemmas are this way.
6) “People can not be allowed to choose which laws to obey or society will collapse”. And yet many, many people decide this very thing every single day and societies don’t collapse. Sometimes law enforcement gives them a pass. Sometimes the courts do. This slippery slope stuff is just not convincing. Again, a very attenuated commitment to law-abidingness will suffice to maintain civilization, and even that may not be necessary. The law’s own incentives (punishments for wrongdoing, etc.) do most of the work after all! There is simply no need to worship the law or even respect it for the most part. Moreover, it must be noted that the Supreme Court of Texas basically ruled that Luther could unilaterally decide to ignore the law, when it let her off the hook completely! So, remind me again, did society collapse? Muh “rule of law”!!!
7) I have no idea what a “true conservative” is, but I know what a “conservative” is & they conserve absolutely nothing. They fellate crappy laws & pledge allegiance to a government that has been dismantling tradition gung-ho for over a century now, not to mention destroying the very race of people that founded this nation. So what is a “true conservative”? Someone who “truly conserves nothing” perhaps! Not interested in “conservatism” anyhow, whatever the term even means. You can keep it in whatever orifice you prefer to hold your law worship. : )
8) I happen to think a bit of irreverence and recalcitrancy toward the law can serve societies quite well, but as I stated, it is all about striking the right balance between a shallow obedience and a careful willingness to defy. Verily, without the blood of patriots and tyrants both, you can not refresh the tree of liberty, now can you?
9) Finally, history shows that men are more disposed to become comfortable under a pleasant tyranny than to endure great discomfort in the pursuit of their deliverance from serfdom. As a general rule, celebrating the law helps no one except the powerful. Indeed, it doesn’t even help the law typically, and quite often hurts it. Abbott changed his decree after Shelley Luther broke the law! Compliance with terrible law will often cement it in place. An argument could be made that an excessive obedience to the law doesn’t just make tyranny more likely, as I argued above, it also makes the law itself less dynamic and less rational. In other words, by exalting the law you are inadvertently debasing it.
Amalric de Droevig: I assume you’re replying to Leon Haller, not to me.
1) ” What the author is reaching for but never quite grasps”. No, I was not reaching for the concept of “divine law” or anything else that doesn’t really derive from whatever non-existent entity you worship. LOL. Not kind of, not sort, not at all.
2) My piece is a rant? Your piece is longer than mine, & your piece is not even a piece! It is a darned comment, and one that most people on Earth could not even bear to read the entirety of! Good grief, the irony.
3) Anglo-American conservatives are true conservatives? Please. Also, last I checked Americans broke with the Anglos & their traditions in 1776. I think you may be on the wrong side of the Atlantic, friend. Furthermore, you speak of this Anglo tradition like it is so great & glorious, but look at England today. The English are a completely enserfed people. Some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Two years ago they arrested a man in the UK who taught his dog to do the Hitler salute. Shall the rest of us follow those hallowed Anglo traditions until we are all of us enserfed equally? You sound like a New Yorker or a Californian when they ramble on about their states being models for the rest of America. That is madness. I look at England today & think, “RUN”! Doing whatever Anglos aren’t doing would be more sensible than hewing to your traditions. You should be ashamed of what your people have become and where your traditions have led. Yet you proceed to lecture me about the law whilst glorifying those traditions even as the end result of your Anglophilic weltanschauung is exhibit A, the European dhimmi nation in perhaps the worst shape of all, with the possible exception of Sweden!
4) The question is not whether emergency measures during public health crises can ever be justified, the question is whether the measures taken were remotely proportionate to the threat posed. The answer to that question should be obvious to you. And that is what separates a good law from a bad one, a tolerable one from an intolerable one. You mention the plague, but by doing so you make my point. This was not the plague. Not even close. So, no, it may not be obvious that arresting this woman was, *as a matter of law*, tyrannical or totalitarian. But it was so nevertheless, & that is quite obvious, as a matter of reason and good sense. *The law is not & should not be the ultimate arbiter of things, which is the whole point of this article!* I think you may have missed it, since you are trying to answer the principal question by reference to the law itself.
5) Additionally, I do not believe & still do not believe that state legislatures have the authority to grant to state governors the almost infinite “emergency” powers they granted governors in many cases, with zero oversight, zero checks, etc. Indeed, you claim that is not tyranny, and yet that is kind of a cornerstone (nay, the keystone) of tyranny, is it not (complete discretion)? Moreover, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is more or less in agreement with me on that. That is worth noting. Surely tyrants must be held accountable, no? And if courts won’t hold them accountable, does it make one an immoral man to try to hold them accountable oneself whether doing so is lawful or not? You are correct anyway that there is nothing wrong with having laws such as these to address major public health crisis. But even then, limits must be placed on executive discretion/authority and restrictions on liberty must always be proportionate to the magnitude of the threat posed. That is a must, or, as witnessed, outright tyranny ensues. Granted, such an analysis does require a great deal of legwork as you rightly state, but all hard questions and moral dilemmas are this way.
6) “People can not be allowed to choose which laws to obey or society will collapse”. And yet many, many people decide this very thing every single day and societies don’t collapse. Sometimes law enforcement gives them a pass. Sometimes the courts do. This slippery slope stuff is just not convincing. Again, a very attenuated commitment to law-abidingness will suffice to maintain civilization, and even that may not be necessary. The law’s own incentives (punishments for wrongdoing, etc.) do most of the work after all! There is simply no need to worship the law or even respect it for the most part. Moreover, it must be noted that the Supreme Court of Texas basically ruled that Luther could unilaterally decide to ignore the law, when it let her off the hook completely! So, remind me again, did society collapse? Muh “rule of law”!!!
6) I have no idea what a “true conservative” is, but I know what a “conservative” is & they conserve absolutely nothing. They fellate crappy laws & pledge allegiance to a government that has been dismantling tradition gung-ho for over a century now, not to mention destroying the very race of people that founded this nation. So what is a “true conservative”? Someone who “truly conserves nothing” perhaps! Not interested in “conservatism” anyhow, whatever the term even means. You can keep it in whatever orifice you prefer to hold your law worship. : )
7) I happen to think a bit of irreverence and recalcitrancy toward the law can serve societies quite well, but as I stated, it is all about striking the right balance between a shallow obedience and a careful willingness to defy. Verily, without the blood of patriots and tyrants both, you can not refresh the tree of liberty, now can you?
8) Finally, history shows that men are more disposed to become comfortable under a pleasant tyranny than to endure great discomfort in the pursuit of their deliverance from serfdom. As a general rule, celebrating the law helps no one except the powerful. Indeed, it doesn’t even help the law typically, and quite often hurts it. Abbott changed his decree after Shelley Luther broke the law! Compliance with terrible law will often cement it in place. An argument could be made that an excessive obedience to the law doesn’t just make tyranny more likely, as I argued above, it also makes the law itself less dynamic and less rational. In other words, by exalting the law you are inadvertently debasing it.
I don’t think there is even a prima facie moral obligation to obey law as such, independent of its content. To hold that there is, is to add to the already powerful self-interested reasons for obedience a morally perverse one, the so-called “respect for law.” The good sense of citizens should act as the ultimate check and balance on the exercise of official authority. The rebellion against these tyrannical lockdown orders presents a fine opportunity for national populism to surge.
Respect for law is a bedrock principle of civilization. Without law, civilization would collapse, which in turn would lead to a breakdown of property rights and the division of labor, to be followed by millions of unnecessary deaths. Of course, laws can be evil, but the law itself is either divinely ordained (as Christians have held for millennia), or else, as stated, a necessity for advanced civilization and industry.
On the contrary, respect for just law in a justly constituted society is what may be termed the bedrock of civilization. In the present-day USA, where law’s basis no longer consistently rises above the morally dubious and where its enforcement tends daily ever more to the arbitrary, claims that that societal standard is met are ipso facto risible.
Even so conservative a legal analyst as Aquinas would, I suggest, urge little or nothing more than a prudential attitude of functional conformity with statute law in a society whose legal presumptions have become deceptive and godless—a society like ours or like that of most of the formerly Christian nations of Europe.
Totally agree! And the sphere for this moral rebellion looks like it will soon massively expand as the US leadership has proclaimed its intent to use military force to inject us with vaccinations that will modify our genetic makeup. What could be more invasive? What more a transgression against individual liberty?
Synchronicity? Perhaps great minds think alike spontaneously simultaneously! Very recently, Anna Von Reitz addressed the phrase “rule of law”. If I may, then I would share with you her comments below.
“When you hear these jokers talking about “The Rule of Law”—- realize that this is an inside joke.
“They are talking about the Court Rules that the British Courts get to make up as they go— not any Public Law, not any kind of law you ever agreed to.
“They are using this as a buzzword to make you think that they are pro-sanity and public safety, but no, what they are actually talking about is using the Blackrobes to rule and protect them from the rest of us.
“This is the result of the corruption of the English Common Law and its admixture with Admiralty Law in the 1750’s, which gave all the power of the courts to the judges, not the juries and allowed the judges to use their own politicized “discretion” to ignore the Public Law and enforce private policies instead.
“You don’t want “The Rule of Law”— you want the Law. Period. The real deal.
“So the next time some politician starts talking blithely about “The Rule of Law”— bring that person up short, explain what it means, and ask—- now, is that what you mean to say and support? Judges unaccountable to the Public Law making things up as they go?”
See this article and over 2400 others on Anna’s website here: www[dot]annavonreitz[dot].com
Thanks, Kevin! Hope you live to be 120.
In regards to COVID19, I was specifically trained as an auditor/CPA for 30 years to detect fraud, deception, lies, and plain old monkey business. I was very good at what I was trained. In my professional opinion, the COVID19 thing is a hoax, designed (successfully) to engineer both an unprecedented transfer of wealth as well as an increase in human control.
Your professional detection of fraud in this global virus hysteria is worth its weight in gold . We need about 1000 more fraud detectors like you to take a kill shot at the jewmaster hoaxsters .
There are six multi-national global media conglomerates that provide as much as about 95% of all information to the world in a multitude of languages . Those conglomerates are ultimately controlled by credit money issued by central banks which in turn are ultimately controlled by Rothschild Empire jewmasters via the global finance capitol City of London . That is what White Nationalists are up against — all that gold and everything it controls ( which includes gargantuan hoaxes ).
Moneytalks, Finally an opinion that an uneducated peon like myself can understand and in plain English too! The vernacular of the “common working Population wouldn’t hurt TOOs circulation a bit either! How do we Combat the Jew hoaxers,Money? No offense to the intellectual showmanship on display by all the gifted contributors to TOO. I enjoy trying to decipher the the points being expressed and learn a lot in the process. Thanks for a concise statement of fact that I and many other of the “great unwashed” can wholeheartedly agree with!
Thanks for the acknowledgement . It is encouraging to know that at least some of my comments make sense to someone .
In substance and style this short but powerful essay is very unusual for Kevin MacDonald. I would never guess he was the author.
It would appear the actual writer is a lawyer.
I doubt it’s him.
Since when does he work “in the field of law”?
I will guess he isn’t the author. This is not his voice and only creative writers – not evolutionary psychologists – can change
voices or would even want to.
Something is happening here but I don’t know what it is. Why couldn’t whoever wrote this just use a pseudonym? But wait a minute! The author said his field is law. There goes MacDonald. This must be some technical f*ckup
It is doubtful that, for example, Covid-19 lockdown orders issued by governors are truly “law.”
Why haven’t the legislatures passed such “laws” if they were needed?
SCOTUS’s 5-4 vote to “legalize” same sex marriage was not a law, and it was clearly contrary to current law and the Constitution. SCOTUS cannot make law.
If SCOTUS votes 5-4 to imprison all conservatives or White people, is that a “law”?
It’s plain, Ronnie, that your questions are rhetorical or, put otherwise, that you are in no doubt as to what the correct answers are.
Understood either way, the effect is the same: to underscore the visionary nature of Mr. Haller’s lengthy reflections above (May 18, 1:49 a.m.). The rulers of American society dispensed with all but the notional framework of “rule of law” decades ago. The Covid hoax has been the occasion—whether opportunistic or long planned hardly matters for practical purposes—for discarding the tattered frame and moving boldly to rule by ukase.
Do you see any indication that our rulers’ vehicle is even equipped with a reverse gear? I certainly don’t.
Absent a most unlikely second epidemic—specifically, an epidemic of moral principle and intestinal fortitude infecting Trump and his inner circle (if indeed there is such a thing)—I see little likelihood of a return to even the far-from-desirable pre-hoax status quo without widespread shedding of patriotic resisters’ blood. As there is thus far no visible evidence of pushback beyond the odd video or two, I’m not looking to place any bets on such a thing happening. My sole consolation at this point is that given my age, my years of having to live as a serf will be numbered at the low end of the scale.
Exactly, Eric! They are now talking about forced vaccinations . . . although the death rate from COVID-19 seems to be no higher than that from the annual flu.
My friend age 66 passed away in March 2020. He suffered a stroke in July 2018 that left him paralyzed on the left side of his body. In a phone conversation before his death he stated that as a result of taking all of those medicines for the stroke, heart, diabetes and etc his kidneys gave out and he is not expected to live much longer as he has great difficulty going for dialysis as they can not find a vein to connect to the dialysis machine.
His wife called me stating that his death certificate states the cause of death to be coronavirus. When she asked the doctor as to why coronavirus was stated as the cause of death the doctor advised that doctors were advised that they were to put regardless of it was the cause or not.
The only statistics re covid deaths we can really trust are the differences in death rates compared to the same time period in previous years. For example, if the highest number of deaths in a certain time period over the last 10 years was 300,000, with the average being 270,000, and this year it was 400,000, we could reasonably conclude that about 100,000 died of covid. If the number of deaths during the period this year were under 300,000 then the number of deaths from covid would be statistically insignificant.
I am sorrry abut your friend. but it does sound like he was in a bad way even before he got SARS 2. Perhaps he was one who would have very likely died soon anyway. Saying his death was caused by SARS 2 or Covid 19 does seem very problematic and may mean someone is interested in boosting the statistics on STARS
deaths. On the other hand when some other people with conditions like diabetes, hearty disease, or post stroke syndrome die after getting SARS, it is more likely that there is a case to be made against the virus. It is quite possible to live a long time with conditions or at least what older people consider a long time . The actor Kirk Douglas had a debilitating stroke at 72 and just died at 103. What if he had gotten SARS after the stroke? When the conditions are conjoined with SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME, it is reasonable to consider that the survival of a person with conditions has been impacted by the virus. Whether condition or virus actually technically tips the longevity scale is academic,no?
According to Pastor Chuck Baldwin, during the rise in the U.S. of deaths “caused” by Covid-19, deaths attributed other causes — common flu, pneumonia, heart attack, cancer, etc. — have dramatically decreased.
Remarkable!
Well one could hypothesize that COVID 19 killed then before flue, and heart disease did.
I am 74 and in quite good shape Traditional flu
is not something I take lightly. Having had it twice I know what a bitch it can be. But I think I could take it on. However this new BUG scares the hell out of me. Sometimes it is called Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome which I think is more apt than COVID 19
Pastor Chuck Baldwin!?
Pastor Chuck Baldwin is one of the very few Christian pastors out there who are openly critical of Jews.
LA County Health Director
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYFMBxsWkAsPW89?format=jpg&name=large
OK, She looks like she has SARS 2.
But what of it?
I have always seen “the rule of law” in this way:
– legislators decide to enact something;
– whatever is enacted becomes law;
– failing to observe the law has consequences of varying degrees;
– if you “break the law” and no one knows, there is no law broken and there are no consequences;
– the “rule of law” is the consequences, not the law itself.
There is and can never be, a law that actually says you have to follow laws. What they say is these are the consequences of not doing what you are told to do. That is why there is jury nullification, which can actually acknowledge that a law has been broken but there will be no consequences.
“A man who’s morals are above those of the society in which he lives is a law onto himself”
Aristotle
Even the government indoctrination (public) high school I went to for a couple of years (1967-1969) assigned Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” as one of the required readings for freshman English. I guess books like that are no longer assigned, and most of the people who read them when I did have forgotten about them.
Other books and essays I read around that time that would be appropriate to assign today: Eric Hoffer, “The True Believer;” William Golding, “Lord of the Flies;” Gabriel Marcel, “Man Against Mass Society;” C. Vergil Geurghiu (sp.?), “The 25th Hour;” George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” and “1984.”
We should have anti-legislatures to nullify laws as fast as legislatures pass them.
The American ideal is small, unintrusive government. The American reality is multiple layers of government — federal, state, country, city; regional authorities such as transit districts (who are following directives from the UN and the Club of Rome — Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030); quasi-governmental organizations such as utility companies; unelected regulators who decide on the details of newly created laws; and “non-profit” organizations that carry out governmental tasks.
Politicians at all levels are bribed. Those who turn down the bribes don’t stay in office long. That means we are ruled by oligarchs, not by ourselves. An international oligarchy is now pushing us towards world government. David Rockefeller’s stated ideal is a world governed the way Communist China is governed.
His vision has been realized. We are now China, thanks to a plan-demic. That means all laws are null and void. So are the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The world is now in a state of total lawlessness. Which is to say that the moral authority of government no longer exists.
In the process of becoming China, we are learning about how so-called charities and foundations are exerting power over us: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (didn’t I see Melinda wearing an upside down cross?), George Soros’s Open Societies Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation.
Government agencies like the NIH accept money from the Gates foundation and do what that foundation — not the taxpayers — wants them to do.
Last, there is the “fourth branch” of government — the mainstream media — that serves as a Jewish ministry of propaganda, determining who gets heard and who doesn’t.
We would be better off being ruled by kings and priests than we are by the monstrosity that rules us today. At least every once in while you would luck into a benevolent and intelligent king sincerely concerned about the well-being of his people.
No, the American ideal is not small unintrusive government Eric. That is the Anglo American ideal. My ideal is large interventionist government in order to help provide European white people
with a high standard of living, which includes leisure time and protection from usurious business practices by Jews and their imitators. My ideal is
National Socialism though you can call it what you want and forget the uniforms. Am I not American?
Achilles Wannabe: You are right. It was predominantly Anglo-Saxon people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The first immigration act (of 1790) limited citizenship to white (European-descended) people. National independence and self-determination, and avoiding foreign entanglements, were primary concerns of the founding fathers. Government’s only legitimate concern was to enhance the well-being of the people. This basically meant leaving them free to do what they wanted (as long as they didn’t harm others) and property rights to secure their independence.
All of the above is consistent with National Socialism. (The “socialism” in National Socialism only meant that no German could be exploited. It didn’t mean “free stuff” for everyone). The only difference between NS Germany and the America of the founding fathers is that Germany was under siege by international bankers and Communists when Hitler got elected. This internal subversion and external threat required curbs on freedom. But those curbs would logically be dispensed with once the threat had passed. Unfortunately, the threat didn’t pass. Germany was defeated by its enemies.
So, in a sense, was the United States. The first sign that things were not going to work out as planned was the Whiskey Rebellion. Then came attempts to found a national bank controlled by private interests. Next came the industrial revolution and Civil War. The agrarian Jeffersonian South was suited to small, non-intrusive government, but the industrializing Hamiltonian North wasn’t.
Rothschild money poured in to finance Rockefeller and Morgan. Lincoln tore up the Constitution and created the Big Government system that we have today. In 1913, the Jews took control of the presidency. They have exerted control (in greater or lesser degree) ever since.
We have moved through rule by WASPs and rule by Jews to the present day rule by globalist oligarchs, but Jewish and non-Jewish. Their ideal is a world government modeled after China. Globalism is essentially a synthesis of Jewish finance capitalism and Jewish Communism. The result is the same for both — despotic rule by a small elite, either through the market place or through totalitarian despotism. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion lays out the Plan. The Jews, for now, are sharing power with non-Jews like the Rockefellers. That is the only difference.
These conspirators — and that’s what they are — have so corrupted the West that existing nations and systems are beyond saving. Thanks to their propaganda, most white people are beyond saving. All that is left is a remnant, which will either create a new ethnostate or confederation of ethnostates or disappear into history.
National socialism and the America of the founding fathers are both appropriate models to follow for any ethnostates that might arise. But those states would have to be exclusively white, with no Jews, and with one official state church, excluding all other churches. In other words, “being a beacon for all mankind” open to all and sundry turned out to be a prescription for failure. We cannot make that mistake again.
Yeah I would agree with most of what you just said. I think you are more libertarian, I more
socialist. Your tendency is more anglo, mine more Irish
. But that is ok. Like there are racial differences there are ethnic differences, Neither are more American than the other. Or maybe I should say whiter than the other. That is just a point I want to occasionally make
in WN settngs especially lately when we see government acting very aggressively in ways that I am not necessarily on principle against.
But we could always work it out – split the difference. We have the same enemies. But you will understand I hope that when I hear small government or limited government I hear echoes from
a past I am not necessarily in sync with. But I don’t have to be in sync. I just have to be in the debate, Unfortunately
we are probably never going to get a chance to argue over “free stuff” in OUR ethnic state.
Peace.
AW- how is government going to “provide a high standard of living?” Before that, what is government?
I disagree. I would have to spend hours writing a thorough refutation. Folks on this site have grave difficulty with facts.
Wow. The dog barks ferociously at other dogs from the safety of a speeding car.
” All that is left is a remnant, which will either create a new ethnostate or confederation of ethnostates or disappear into history.” Amen to that .
We need to set up an underground railroad , similar to what the southern slaves had , to assist that remnant in their escape to the Northwest USA ( unless you know of a better place to establish a WN enclave : Washington , Oregon , Idaho , Montana , Wyoming ) . Most of them would need to relocate to small cities and remain ethnicly connected and ethnicly dedicated via a core WN priesthood similar to how the jews did it over thousand-year timespans and worldwide dispersions .
A johnny-come-lately if generously considered a “student of history”, otherwise a “nobody”, I too have thought seriously about an “underground railroad”. Judiciously chosen areas of the American northwest [WELL WEST of the Left Coast], carefully staked out sectors of other states bordering [National] Socialist Canada, REDOUBTS as the “Liberty Movement” [cf. Brandon Smith] terms them, may prove viable. (Does anyone here besides myself recall the work and advocacy of Norman Livergood?)
Humbly, I suggest revisiting Simon Black’s work and advocacy, too. Heading south of the border — cue the Doobie Brothers — might well offer better chances. Mexico, for example, has what appears a 100-year lag on the US along the dimension of kultural marxi$m, to me a very big CONsideration.
For the “Alamo types” — the Disney variety, featuring Bowie knives and coonskin caps — I would recommend Anna Von Reitz, the shelter of becoming and standing your ground as “American State Nationals, NOT “US Citizens”, and hope Constitutional guarantees for the former get acknowledged and deferred to by psychopathic, above-the-Law Power$ That Be coming down hard, even as I write, ON ALL OF US’uns!!
I like southeastern Alaska as a potential ethnostate. It is relatively temperate, largely consists of islands, and is isolated both from the lower 48 states as well as most of the rest of Alaska. It is as though you took a chunk of western Canada and made it a part of the U.S.
“That something is a law, which is to say some rule some low-IQ legislator drew up”
That sentence cracked me up. Thanks for reminding me that I too have the potential
to be legislator. This article has restored a small measure of my self esteem.
Speaking of Disobeying Laws.
Is there an implicit law of explanatory behavior that provides a common ground for the Right and Left?
And, if so, shouldn’t that law be disobeyed by anyone genuinely concerned about Western cultural life, or European cultural life (which includes its geographical extensions, ie; The USA, etc)?
Let’s reframe and simplify the question.
Is there any point at which the Right and Left meet?
Yes.
The assumption of both is that intellectually their explanation is capable of explaining reality and that morally one is redeemed by doing what that explanation tells them.
In short, they’re both redemptive.
In other words, they’re salvation systems.
From this perspective ideology has added nothing to our understanding of human behavior, to the relationship between the verbal and non-verbal, or, explanation and behavior, theory and data, idea and reality, etc.
That’s why the structure of ideological thinking is identical to theological thinking, and why both are so easily polarized.
The more both are continuously reinforced, the more people actually believe that there are literally only two options in life, the Right and the Left.
People here often object to the notion of a Judeo-Christian tradition.
Fair enough.
But the fact is, the West has for a long time, right or wrong, good or bad, tacked the two books together.
And there’s no question that some aspects of Christianity have accepted the Old Testament as an important part of its faith.
So, let’s examine briefly the intellectual structure of the Old and New Testament and then compare it with the structure of Marxism.
The Structure of The Old/New Testament goes like this:
God cretaed Man who sinned, and
as a necessary consequence of that sin,
given the nature of God,
God sent his son to redeem Man from sin.
The Structure of Marxist thought:
History created Society, which
sinned in producing Capitalism, and
as a necessary consequence of sinful Capitalism
History will send the Proletariat to redeem Man from Capitalism.
The point is, if no new pattern has been added in the pattern of an Explanatory System (which is all any belief amounts to) than the “innovative” pattern is nothing but the original pattern in which the terms have been changed but the structure remains unaltered.
This is true of every single derivative of both the Right and Left.
They’re both salvation systems that say, in effect, if you follow this pattern of verbal behavior you and the society we all live in will be redeemed.
When, in fact, the only thing that’s redeemed is verbal behavior, which might not amount to much, or, it might amount to alot, and all bad.
Swimming around in this morass we haven’t gotten very far in the past 200+ years, except in terms of technology and economics, and both of them are dependent on science.
And modern science, ie; post-1840 is when the definition of science changed. So much so, in fact, that Darwin said in the 4th edition of his Origin that a scientific theory is a mental convenience and twenty years later Ludwig von Boltzmann and his students began talking about the hypothetical character of all theoretical constructs.
Now, the Left, of course, hijacked these ideas, including “diversity” another 19th century idea, and especially the notion of a “construct” and proceeded in typical Marxist fashion to absolutize them.
Armed with this absolutist club they proceeded to beat the Right over the head and into submission, literally, as this excellent article makes perfectly clear (whoever wrote it).
Concluding Moral:
As men and women of European culture and its geographical extensions, who are rightfully concerned with both preserving and trascending that culture, we owe it to ourselves to ditch once and for all the archaic paradigm of the Right and Left and the absolutism and polarization it spawns.
This could be done by aggressively rejecting any and all salvation systems and the corresponding notion that any explanation is capable of permanently redeeming human behavior (an absurdity).
Intellectually this means understanding anti-redemptive explanatory behavior.
Socially it means aggressive, relentless and unapologetic disruption. The kind of disruption that would make the Left today (and the Right of yesterday) blush with shame and envy.
But, above all, culturally this means understanding the fact that all of modern science was made possible by the period of our history known as Romanticism, an understanding of which is absolutely essential and which both the Right and Left have absolutely poisoned through their ahistorical and pseudo and anti-intellectual distortions.
The reason why is because they both hyposticized the key terms of their respective explanations. They’re both guilty of the fallacy of misplaced correctness.
The instability of our explanations should be exploited to our benefit, not avoided at our expense.
Many here, many of our brightest and best, could begin by removing the word “Right” from Dissident Right and replacing the word Dissident with Anti-Redemptive.
This is how paradigms are broken.
P.S.
This is not to say that the structure of the thinking found on both the Right and Left hasn’t enabled both to make valid propositions.
It’s just that as things change and their respective structures remain the same the value of said propositions begin to lose their creative force and become with time totally irrelevant and virtually useless.
All that’s left is their destructive power.
A fact easily confirmed, now more than ever.
Darwin , Boltzmann and their acolytes have inadvertently bogged down scientific progress by unwittingly introducing more doubt ( with their assertions about “mental convenience” and “hypothetical character” of scientific statements about empirically verifiable knowledge ) into the entire worldwide scientific enterprise than is warranted . Those doubts , now widely and readily accepted with little or no criticism , are the offspring of either conjectural science , false science , or probabilistic science .
Let this brief example stand as a starting point for a more rigorous critical analysis of the hypothetical factors in scientific knowledge . If you doubt that the formulaic theory of gravity — {{{ F = ma }}} — ( which has no probability content and is not a probabilistic scientific statement ) would remain valid ( ie. continue to be true and empirically verifiable ) for your empirical test while standing on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy or any other galaxy in the cosmos , then I have a gorgeous million-dollar bridge in the middle of the Sahara desert that I will sell to you at a 50% discount sale price .
Please note , that it is understood that you would need to establish the precise value of the acceleration constant “a” where you are standing on that planet . The mass “m” would remain constant unless you are testing a radioactive substance .
Also please note , the mathematical principle of induction is used to remove all doubt from and PROVE mathematical theory ; where mathematics is a major predictive language of science . Therefore , there should be NO DOUBT that {{{ F = ma }}} anywhere in the universe except perhaps in the subatomic realm where the formula was not intended to apply since the existence of atoms were not then empirically verified when the formula was discovered by Newton and publicized in 1687 .
Unwarranted doubts about scientific knowledge serve no good purpose and are dysfunctional for the longterm and indefinite survivability of mankind .
Once again, an articulate article that does not instruct us in the specific techniques necessary to both defy the law and achieve our nation-state’s survival.
Well, there are conservatives and then there are Conservatives. There is law and then there is Law. I don’t think that respect for the rule of law references actual legislation. For Rule of Law to mean anything legitimate, it must appeal to Natural Law outside the limits of incidental human passions and specific political realities. Natural law was the basis for the American Revolution over and above laws ordained by kingship or parliaments.
The appeal to the Rule of Law always presupposes an ultimate Natural Law variant. Only scoundrels and dimwits rest their cases on actual legislation. And ultimately all appeal to a higher political metaphysic when they wish to circumvent actual legislation. And everybody wishes to circumvent legislation when it violates their interests.
I have increasingly worried that behind White Nationalism is actually Anglo nationalism with its reactive libertarian distrust of the state and its willingness to let property owners do their worst either because of some metaphysical right of the individual or because it will somehow benefit the whole. This certitude that so many WN’s seem to have that corona fear and the consequential lockdown is PURELY an invention
of big government and its allies and a violation of people’s supposed God given or nature given rights to access to markets has done nothing to dispel my concerns. I don’t trust THIS government because I know who runs it and for whom it is being run but the principle of a government being able to act and interfere in the defense and/ or enhancement of a nation’s population’s social security is another issue. I would just like to remind WN’s that while all Anglos are white, not all whites are Anglo. Some of us WN’s come out of traditions which are more respectful of government intervention. In fact we expect it It’s called national socialism. Use another name if you like but that is what we are in this for.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a national socialist.
The socialist “public schools” [copied after the Prussian system] is the basic wrecking ball against the West [and/or USA].
No, the basic wreaking ball against the west -circa December 8th, 1941 – was Jewish Power conjoined with philosometic WASP Power aided and abetted by deracinated Anlgo individualism Ultimately everyone was left vulnerable to organized Jewry, even the WASP who turned out to be just a useful idiot
I see you did not deny that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a national socialist, Francis Bellamy [1892]. You did not deny my claim that the government schools are socialist [monopolies, enforced at gunpoint].
I don’t know what is NECESSARILY wrong with socialist monopolies – even if at gunpoint if necessary. I’m certainly not making an argument for our school system. Maybe everything depends on what the monopolies are about and for whom. At some point – perhaps the Reganomics stage of our
“Republic” -freedom becomes for most people just another word for nothing left to lose.
Dynamite observation !!!
Did some quick research on Bellamy. No indication that he was a national socialist. A socialist, yes, but not a national socialist. So the Pledge of Allegiance was not written by a national socialist (Nazi).
As for the public schools,” they served a useful purpose in assimilating people from different European nations and “Americanizing” them. That was fine for as long as those people were white and European.
I myself never believed in public education. That would be like believing in government restaurants.
Would you want to eat in restaurants if they were all run by the government? I wouldn’t.
The distinction between LAW (you name it “RIGHT” in your article) and STATUTES (you name it “LAW”) is very important!
Law: It emerges voluntarily by legal conviction and corresponding exercise within the community. The individuals legislate themselves by agreement or voluntary submission. Everybody can avoid an inconvenient law by relocating into another territory with different (customary) law. Law develops and exists on behalf of the community’s members and their organization of coexistence. The individual genuinely participates in the creation and exercise of law. Without distinction of his person or role in the community everyone is subject to law. Law organizes the communal life and brings about peace. Law embraces functions of peace, order, integration and freedom.
Statutes: The diametric opposite of law is statute. It doesn’t originate voluntarily but arbitrarily by the state’s exercise of power, violence and coercion – in accordance with its interests. It gets imposed from on high. One cannot avoid statutes as the entire earth is plastered with states and all states without exception secure their power through statutes. Statutes develop and exist on behalf of the preservation and protection of state power and its minions’ promotion. A true participation of the individual in the origination and application of statutes doesn’t occur, merely some deceptive pseudo-participation (election of representatives and senators, legislation by representatives and senators, application of the statutes by the state). The state and its cronies for their part are not subject to the self-issued statutes. Statutes confuse and destroy the coexistence of individuals. Thanks to the violent enforcement of particular interests statutes have an integrated conflict function. The consequent conflicts are of course settled violently by the state and its bureaucracy in order to affirm their right to exist. Statutes embrace a chaos function as they disturb or even dissolve the naturally establishing order in a society by violent interventions. Statutes wield a disintegration function as they sow the seeds of discord and arbitrarily exclude demographic groups from the community, segregating them into beneficiaries and underdogs. And statutes own a severe freedom limiting function, eliminating the individual’s natural liberties to his own body and property for the purpose of gaining benefits for the state’s bureaucracy and cronies and for better surveillance.
The foundation of law is ethics. The purpose of law is the peaceful coexistence of individuals.
The foundation of statute is violence. The purpose of statute is the protection and the exercise of state power.
As violence can never be moral (exception: acting in self-defense, but legislating doesn’t happen in self-defense), statute and law cannot be one and the same but are diametric opposites. Irrespective of its content a statute is always amoral as it rests upon violence and violence only.
(Customary) law is the genuine law, statutes are nothing but violence and oppression in disguise.
We need no statutes, we need law!
“That something is a law, which is to say some rule some low-IQ legislator drew up, is not a sufficient reason to follow it.”
There are two basic sources of law traditionally in the West: 1) common law which is case law made by judges in the course of litigation which is established as precedent for deciding future cases; and 2) statutory law enacted by legislatures.
Until the judiciary became the jewdiciary in the 20th Century common law was sound and rational with very little volatility because changes were slight and only incremental as new fact situations warranted because prior to Jews there was no subversion among judges.
Legislation on the other hand has always been problematical because it is law made to apply to prospective factual scenarios / events where changes in case law are made in response to facts/events which have already occurred, and man’s mind is incapable of contemplating and providing for all possible future scenarios.
And that natural weakness in legislation precedes the current era where in order to get funding for election most legislators committed themselves to being complaint shabbat goys.
Why are we getting no response from the moderator about this question about KMac’s
purported authorship of this article? Could it be that this is not a technical fu*kup? Could it be that this is some sort of Jekyll and Hyde thing? If so, my Jekyll is the KMac who more than anyone else brought me to WN with his
trilogy. THIS guy is Hyde
——
(Mod. Note: You’re getting no response from this mod because I haven’t ASKED KMac about it. Send him a letter to the editor and find out from him.)
Presumably YOU would know if this was a technical fu*kup, right?
——
(Mod. Note: No, I’m not the editor, just the lowly comment approver. BTW, Dr. MacDonald informed me that he’d corrected the byline, noting that it was an error on his part. The good ship TOO sails on!)
Oh, you are not lowly.
And I am very glad that that article was not written by KMac.
Thank you. Be well
I am not finding any Letters to the Editor link
——-
(Mod Note: Please look at the contents of the “Contact Us” link at the top of the page, in the header. You’ll find many ways to contact TOO there.)
“And that natural weakness in legislation precedes the current era where in order to get funding for election most legislators committed themselves to being complaint (compliant?) shabbat goys”
I believe that this system has had the most catastrophic, irreparable outcomes for most Americans-
especially White Christian Americans.
The finally, put up the authors name!!
AMALRIC DE DROEVIG