White Genocide: Why ?

My Recent Posts

 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.




Benjamin Goldstein Added Jan 27, 2018 - 9:58am
From the title I would have guessed you talked more about South Africa. But what does it help? For everyone who denies the holocaust, you find at least five who deny the brutal farm murders.
Pure advice on writing: It gets less messy when you write more articles with less topics at once. They shoud be better structured and have white spaces between the paragraphs.
The relationship between Socialism and the situation in South Africa is enough to fill a page. No need to also talk about general principles like science, math and law and leave the dots unconnected. It confuses the reader.
Dave Volek Added Jan 27, 2018 - 10:32am
I too thought this article wandered and could not come to its point. Probably why I don't read much of Mr. Plumb on WB.
opher goodwin Added Jan 27, 2018 - 10:44am
A long rambling nonsense.
Autumn Cote Added Jan 27, 2018 - 10:57am
Please note, this article would be a lot easier to read if you added sim white space between paragraphs.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 27, 2018 - 10:58am
re "It gets less messy when you write more articles with less topics at once. They should be better structured and have white spaces between the paragraphs."
I have been working on this topic for a long time, starting, then scrapping essays on it many times. I cannot seem to put this together well.
My goal was to explain basic principles of law, how they came to be and how/why they are being destroyed.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 27, 2018 - 11:00am
re "A long rambling nonsense.  "
Opher, you are a communist.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 27, 2018 - 11:00am
Overall I think I'm trying too hard to say too much.
Tom C. Purcell Added Jan 27, 2018 - 11:30am
The good thing is, Doug, no filler with your style.  All substance, even if too much content is squeezed in.  It seems to me that you're philosophy-heavy in your thinking and there's nothing wrong with that.  For some folks though, certain content doesn't flow with other content.  Anyway, I appreciate this post.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 27, 2018 - 11:35am
Thanks, as I said before I focus on philosophy and law because there are enouph people giving relevant history but not nearly enough in philosophy and law. Its not surprising, philosophy and law are based on reason - the very enemy, at its root, of this conspiracy we face. Its a war on reason and I'm trying to explain why. I just haven't got there yet.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 27, 2018 - 11:41am
The idea is so important and so big that it requires someone with incredible eloquence to explain it. It completely escapes some people and that scares me.
Tom C. Purcell Added Jan 27, 2018 - 11:45am
I wish I were more familiar with Kant.  Maybe I should be.  I've always enjoyed philosophy but the study of the concept of law, while necessary, can bore me.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Jan 27, 2018 - 11:47am
Opher, you are a communist.
That's on one of his good days. 
Dino Manalis Added Jan 27, 2018 - 12:39pm
Communists deserve some of the blame, but Muslim jihadists are the main menace against Christians in the Middle East, whatever their color, including fellow Arabs and Africans.  All genocide has to be condemned by everyone, including Pope Francis.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 27, 2018 - 1:18pm
re "I wish I were more familiar with Kant.  Maybe I should be.  I've always enjoyed philosophy but the study of the concept of law, while necessary, can bore me.  "
It takes a year at minimum of really concentrated study to get to the point where you can read Kant. I say do what you like. History bores me, applications in engineering bore me.
  There is something called the Philosophy of History that answers the question: How do we study history ? What can we get from it, etc...typical philosophy questions. I think historical criticism would be improved if people knew that philosophy - but I do not.
re "That's on one of his good days. "
lol. Really, I laughed out loud when I read that.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 28, 2018 - 4:09am
Dino, re "Communists deserve some of the blame, but Muslim jihadists are the main menace against Christians in the Middle East, whatever their color, including fellow Arabs and Africans. "
They are financed and encouraged by communists. The CIA is a mind control organization, they always have been. The cloak and dagger stuff is small stuff for them. Its all about Bolshevizing the world.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 28, 2018 - 3:52pm
Instructive video's on law here. (Lighthouse Law)
Leroy Added Jan 31, 2018 - 7:46am
I've always wondered what the difference is between attorney and lawyer.  Thanks for the explanation.  I have disdain for American attorneys.  The most honest one I have ever known became a judge.  He used his judgeship to prevent the land adjoining his from being sold--a dishonest man in the end.  To date, I regret to say I have never met an honest attorney.  They are nothing more than hired guns.  Justice is a side item.  They are above the law.
It's a curious phenomenon that attorneys know very little about the law.  It is more about connections and being able to BS before the judge.  When I needed to know about the law and strategies, I relied on a non-attorney.  He was an individual that had a love for the law.
While I agree with the notion of the prevalence and advocation of white genocide today and the utter disgust with Christians by the left, I am not sure that the article adequately explains this point.  But, I do appreciate your analysis of the law.  Did you see the SOTU address?  Anytime God was mentioned, the Democrats went into a tissy and Pelosi's playing with her dentures intensified. 
Could we not say that the laws of man go back to the Greeks or perhaps even the Code of Hammurabi.  Although harsh, the code, I suspect, was based on logic.  The Bible goes back to the beginning of time, but its laws are based on revelation and not logic.
I agree that we do need written laws.  The Gauls didn't write much of anything down.   Their impact on culture and law is almost zero.  A culture that doesn't write has no lasting effect.
The equality of outcome: there has never been anything more sinister.  We haven't learned our lesson with communism.  There is the notion that it is superior and we just haven't implemented it correctly yet.  You understand.  Philosophically, it is rotten to the core.  It can never succeed.  It might be nice if we could all join hands around the campfire and sing kumbaya, but it is not going to happen.  It is antithetical to the nature of man.  It can only succeed at the barrel of a gun.  It doesn't matter if it is socialism-lite, fascism, or communism; the result is the same.   The biggest difference between the left and the right is that the left tends to be short-term thinkers.  They think in terms of the here and now without consideration of the future.  It is an emotional, kneejerk reaction to problems.  Redistribution of wealth is a common theme.  They never think about what happens when they run out of other people's money.
I look forward to your future articles on the matter.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 31, 2018 - 10:58am
re "It's a curious phenomenon that attorneys know very little about the law."
  They are not taught jurisprudence, they are taught administrative law where it is assumed that we have voluntarily given up the right of self. Plus they are given a speech at the start of law school that no one else is privy to. I guess they are like an engineer who can't derive the formulas, only plugs them in.
re "The equality of outcome: there has never been anything more sinister.  We haven't learned our lesson with communism.  "
Communism is Judaism. See Henry Makow and others such as Michael Hoffman.
  I think Jews have a sufficiently small enough population to run things, but not large enough to have recourse if they go off the rails. Imagine Oprah telling everyone that there were not 6 million in Germany before ww2. They live under this threat, and the Lefties can be made to tear them to bits.
  About 80% of the attorneys back around 2005 were Jewish in Canada. I suspect that is higher now. I asked a few attorneys, criminal lawyers and such - not part of the corp system and essentially decent people. Never heard one dissagree with those figures. We all know what they think of the Golden Rule.
  Thanks for the compliment. I want to do more on this, but I,m so busy. I will do more in a year or two in terms of a youtube video on Kantian freedom.
Katharine Otto Added Jan 31, 2018 - 11:04am
I must be an anarchist, because I believe we have too many laws.  Every new law restricts more freedom.  Worse, laws put people in judgment over each other, and the Golden Rule (which every religion contains, in one form or another), gets lost.  If more people followed the Golden Rule, we wouldn't need laws or governments.
That one third of Congress is composed of "attorneys" should tell you something about why this country is in such a state of hypocritical confusion.
I'm no fan of the Roman Empire, either.  It was not law but brutal war, conquest, and slavery that made it so large and initially prosperous.  
Unlike the majority here, I believe the "masses" are so used to being subjugated that they don't know how to be free.  Monkeys swinging from trees may not have the intellect of our so-called "civilized" societies, but at least they don't run off to fight other monkeys' battles.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 31, 2018 - 12:42pm
If the bad people were the only ones that knew about medicine, we would all be sick or dead, but the techniques would still be there for us to learn. The legal system has been taken from us and we are being held captive by phoney obligation such as the BC bond and the income tax.
re "Unlike the majority here, I believe the "masses" are so used to being subjugated that they don't know how to be free. "
The corruption of comfort.
re "That one third of Congress is composed of "attorneys" should tell you something about why this country is in such a state of hypocritical confusion."
How many of them hear from the electorate? How many people have written letters?