Friday, 18 July 2014

What the debate between Natural Law v Legal Positivism should really be about - Theocracy v Secularism

What was that all about anyway?

Most people already know they obey the law because the fear punishment than because they think it would be immoral to break the law.

If you think it is immoral to break the law, then you must logically think that the law is moral.

Irrespective of whether you think the law is moral or not, you would seek to avoid its punishment.

Do lawyers think much about the morality of law, or are they more interested in applying it and interpreting it in a way that suits their clients and works in the interests of their clients, or if not their clients, themselves?

What has morality got to do with a lawyer as he goes about his business? Nothing, I would suggest.  What is legal is not immoral, and it is socially and politically acceptable to operate within those parameters, whatever they are.

What then is this imbecilic subject called jurisprudence that law undergraduates are obliged to study in their third year?  Perhaps it is an introduction into academic philosophy, to make law students grateful that if studying law is a waste of time and money, it is not such a waste of time and money as studying academic philosophy.

What is justice? What is considered fair by most people, even if they have no legal knowledge.

What is the origin of this so called "debate" between natural law and legal positivism? It may have been an academic exercise of wasting the time and energy of law students, would be my suggestion.

Even those without legal knowledge would know that some laws are fair enough and others an insult an affront to justice, and that they obey laws irrespective of their morality simply to avoid punishment.

What could have been a very interesting question about the morality or otherwise of God's laws has been subsumed in a pointless debate about what constitutes law and what is morality, without any attempt to define the latter at all.

In short, law schools up and down the country have been led down a blind alley by whoever devises the syllabus for law students and lecturers in jurisprudence have been stating the obvious while competing to state it in the most obscure ways possible.

What was the purpose of this? To subvert social conservatism, of course.

That infamously dull legal positivist H L A Hart had a wiife who was a commie. Actually, all the legal philosophers law students have had to study for decades were Commie Pinkos.

Hart is described as a social democrat in the obituary and his blessed wife once a member of the Communist Party. This brings to mind Smiley's infamously treacherous wife Ann in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. So now we know that this debate has been a conspiracy of liberals who have gone against the principles of the God's laws and think it very fine to do so. Rather than inviting us to consider the clever and wise laws that they have passed that are so obviously cleverer and wiser than God's laws, they have kettled us into a bind alley of choosing between whether we are natural lawyers or legal positivists, when it is obvious to anyone even without legal knowledge that some laws are obviously moral while others are obviously not, and that is all that needs to be said about the subject.

What we should be discussing, and which we have been prevented from discussing through a foul liberal conspiracy to keep us in ignorance while wasting our time, are the following:

  1. What is the nature and purpose of morality?
  2. Is morality synonymous with the long term national interest?
  3. Have you noticed feminists ever discussing the long term national interest?
  4. Have you noticed that feminists only care about privileging women for being women without any thought for the long term national interest?
  5. Is the purpose of morality to obtain social cohesion in a society?
  6. Is the purpose of social cohesion to preserve the existence and strength of a society?
  7. Is the institution of marriage necessary for social cohesion?
  8. Do you have social cohesion when most members of your society are agreed about general standards of behaviour and morality?
  9. Is the purpose of social cohesion to protect a society from its external and internal enemies?
  10. If our external enemies are invaders and rival nations, are the internal enemies of a society sluts and socialists? 
  11. Have you noticed how socialists always support feminism and how feminism supports the right of women to be sluts?
  12. If you cannot subvert a society through open revolution, you do so through corrupting the morals of its women. Have you not noticed?
  13. The lower the standard of sexual morality, the more chaotic the society, the more irrational its decisions, and the more men are afraid of sluts. Have you not noticed?
  14. Are you really sure that sex between consenting adults has absolutely no long term effect on the health, strength and prosperity of your nation?
  15. Is the existence of masculine and parental authority a necessary ingredient of marriage and social cohesion?
  16. Is masculine and parental authority obtainable only through marriage?
  17. Are single mothers capable of exercising masculine and parental authority? (Is this question as stupid as the question law students have had to answer on whether a law has to be moral to be considered law?)
  18. Should single mothers be discouraged by the law if their offspring tend to be criminal under-achievers?
  19. Would it be immoral not to pass laws that would discourage single mothers from mostly having offspring that will only grow up into under-achieving criminal degenerates?
  20. Is it immoral not to criticise irresponsible and promiscuous women who become single mothers incapable of exercising parental and masculine authority over their illegitimate offspring that they do not bring up properly?
  21. Are the men who do not wish to offend sluts hoping to get sex or votes from them?
  22. What should we think of men afraid of criticising sluts because they hope to get sex or votes from them?
  23. Did you know that in Britain most women are sluts because the overwhelming majority of its sexually liberated people think there is nothing wrong with premarital sex? 
  24. Is it immoral not to make an attempt to reinforce the  practice of the institution of marriage when it is clear that most never married single mothers who subvert it are irresponsible, selfish and stupid women whose offspring are under-achieving criminal degenerate sluts and bastards?
  25. Are men who are afraid of unmarried single mothers and by extension sluts reluctant to offend them because they are hoping for sex and votes from lower than sluts?
  26. Is a society of sluts and men who are afraid of offending sluts the kind of society likely to attract the hatred, ridicule and contempt of other nations whose society do not consist mostly of sluts and bastards?
  27. Is Britain's "paedo problem" anything to do with the widespread prevalence of sluts? 
  28. Is paedos are mosquitoes, are never married single mothers awarded and rewarded with council accommodation at taxpayers' expense not stagnant pools of water?
  29. Are you really surprised that British Muslims don't want to integrate into a society of sluts, bastards and paedos?
  30. If men are motivated solely by sex, should not this motivation not be better managed in order to benefit society than simply allowing sluts to breed bastards with anyone, anytime anywhere at taxpayers' expense? 
  31. Do sluts giving sex to men free corrupt their characters and turn them into contemptible emasculated cowardly hypocritical effeminates afraid of offending sluts?
  32. "The sluttier the women, the more pussy-whipped the men." Have you not noticed?
  33. Is everything about feminism an attempt to subvert God's laws?
  34. Is a matriarchy or a patriarchy more likely to have moral laws and preserve the rule of law?
  35. What makes a law moral?
  36. Are all God's laws moral?
  37. Where are God's laws to be found?
  38. If God's laws are to be found in the scripture of all the world's major religions, what is the one thing they have in common?
  39. If what they have in common is the promotion of the patriarchy through marriage, are we to infer that all laws that do not respect marriage ie legislation that promotes feminism, are in fact immoral?
  40. How can we tell if a law is immoral?
  41. How should we define good and evil?
  42. If there are two forms of evil, are we not morally obliged to choose the lesser one?
  43. Which is the lesser evil: the patriarchy or the matriarchy?
  44. Can the usefulness of such definitions be judged by how well it enables us to distinguish one from the other?
  45. Are all man-made laws immoral?
  46. If some man-made laws are moral is it only when they coincide with God's laws?
  47. Has the marginalisation of God's laws by generations of subversive, arrogant and ignorant liberals been in the long term national interest?
  48. Is God an instrument of government?
  49. Would it be useful for government if most people believed in God?
  50. Do you think academic philosophers will be discussing this question? If not, is it because they are mostly useless libtards for whom this question will not compute? 
  51. We already obey stupid laws we don't agree with to please feminists, champagne socialists, libtards and their running dogs, so what is the problem of having a theocracy and obeying a different set of rules we don't always agree with, if it is in the long term national interest?
  52. Do you think any feminist, libtard or socialist can answer these questions honestly without ceasing to be a feminist, libtard or socialist?
  53. How many people in government do you think will be discussing these ideas?
  54. Can you imagine BNP or UKIP discussing these ideas?
  55. Is there any purpose in having elections to take place when it amounts to no more than political parties pandering to the vices of their voters every five years?
  56. Is representative democracy fatally flawed?
  57. Can a representative democracy reform itself?
  58. Should representative democracy be considered synonymous with good government when it is clear that it is so fatally flawed that it cannot reform itself?
  59. Shouldn't our politicians be concentrating on good government rather than on pandering to the vices of their voters every 5 years?
  60. Can education be reformed in this country within 5 years?
  61. If not, is this the reason why successive governments refuse to tackle it and only end up conspiring to hide its failure?
  62. What will happen to a country whose populace are mostly sluts and bastards with a substandard education that makes employers and businesses always prefer to hire immigrant workers?
  63. Can Britain explain its foreign policy in rational and moral terms or is it all really a matter of destabilising other people's countries so as to sell them arms when they descend into war and revolution?
  64. Is UK foreign and domestic policy both immoral and irrational?


Brit in Norway said...

From Michael Hoffmanns "discovering Judaism" : (p266) "The nucleus of Orthodox Judaism at it s deepest, most esoteric level is the sexual Propitiation of the myrionymous (many named) goddess, Isis-Hecate Demeter-Ishtar-Shekhinah-Lilith.....
There in lies the root of the rot, Jews and Judaic thinking are in control, and they worship an imaginary whore which they have transmuted into the destruction of civilisation. I agree with you that proper masculine thinking needs to return.

Claire Khaw said...

Do Jews "worship an imaginary whore"? It is not something I had noticed. All the Abrahamic faiths promote the same moral values in that they all sanctify the institution of marriage, whose operating principle is the prohibition of extramarital sex.

Policies that detract from this principle will rob a society of the protection social cohesion affords it.

Brit in Norway said...

I would argue that modern Judaism is not abrahamic. It is a dualist philosophy. In a bid for tikkun olam, they have promoted the feminine energy in the west - the idea being that they will apply the iron masculine energy later to "restore balance" and
their Jewish world order. But it is a high risk strategy and I think
it will backfire on them, although in the meantime we see the
destruction it is causing. On a cheerful note, after losing the braver and nobler men in WWII, we have passed the 2 generations later stage where there is a recovery genetically so we will be seeing some male backbone soon.

Claire Khaw said...

You seem to regard Jews as a monolith dedicated solely to the downfall of the gentile.

My view is that they often disagree with each other and don't know what they are doing either.

I am saying that the superior scripture of Islam will shine through when someone actually reads the Koran and follows it properly.

My view is that all the Abrahamic faiths promote the patriarchy but in the West nobody respects marriage, which has resulted in degeneracy and dementia. Nothing the West does makes any sense.

Do you think "male backbone" is going to come back, out of nowhere? It needs to be cultivated for generations.

Brit in Norway said...

Well I know the Jews disagree but they stick together for the most part when it comes to dealing with outsiders and obviously have the most power, how else did they manage to get Israel? How would you go about getting the Jews to see it your way and accepting "secular koranism" ? For that matter, how do you get the average European to go with it?
I think you have to accept that only a racial nationalist movement has any chance of restoring patriarchy and
sane govt given the conditions we re in, major English cities are full of third world trash. If we made you fuhrer, how would you turn it round Claire ?

Claire Khaw said...

You don't think the Israelis are likely to accept my solution, but at least I am putting it to them that Israel needs to be a theocracy for Jews there to have peaceful enjoyment of Israel. I imagine religious Jews can see my point even though the secular Jews will detest my solution. It is up to the Jews who wish to have peaceful enjoyment of Israel to choose my solution, and if they are not sufficient in numbers or powerful enough to prevail, then it would appear that no one there deserves peace.

Not quite sure what your solution is.

Brit in Norway said...

Well anyway thanks for elaborating. I don t have a direct quick fix solution at this time unfortunately. Racial/ethno nationalism has the greater chance of success, but I agree with your criticism that it is too plebian at present (we don't have
a Moseley or Tyndall at the moment. ) In relation to your points
about law (natural law vs positivism) you could
argue that positivism is an alien influence. Some nationalist
commentators have inferred as such and pointed out for
example that taxation is illegal in the sense that it
is not a contract between 2 individuals. Prior to the regicide of
King Charles I, at least a levy of a tax was based on a form of
contract between a lord and his king, or a lord
and his tenants. Acts of law such as "incorporation" of
companies actually violate the fundamental tenets of
English law, that is contract between 2
individuals. Simon Sheppard in his trial in UK argued that King
Edwards banning of Jews from the realm had never been
revoked and thus the laws he was being prosecuted under (legal
positivism) such as "race" laws were Posited by aliens and thus
invalid. In summary, whilst I don't disagree with your criticism of
matriarchy and it s link to positivism, I would argue that it is alien
(judaic) thinking which is underneath it all. I think your main
problem with the civic nationalism approach is that you could
deal with the matriarchy, but I don't see how you could stop
Jews being Jews. If you could achieve the latter, then I could be
won over.

Claire Khaw said...

The quickest way to stop Zionists from controlling your foreign policy is to abolish representative democracy and establish direct democracy under a narrower taxpayer only franchise in a one-party state.

Natural law = patriarchy, ie a theocracy in harmony with the principles of the Abrahamic faiths

Legal positivism = matriarchy, ie any laws that are against the principles of the Abrahamic faiths.

You hate the Jews and Muslims because they are cleverer and have more group solidarity than you and because of this you seem to want to abolish their religion which makes them cleverer and stronger than you, rather than compete against them through imposing sexual restraint and abolishing the welfare state both of which are dysgenic.

As the Koran says "God will not change the lot of a people who do not change what is in their hearts", and in your heart you have the idea that you can enjoy sexual liberation without paying the ultimate price of racial and national degeneracy.