Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 87

Thread: Laws Don't Mean Anything

  1. #51
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    841
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    78
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    115
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustaaf View Post
    Neither weakness nor strength is inherently anything. I don't base my morality on either, but on other things.
    This is important to recognize! To be weak or to be strong in the usual sense of the word only has meaning in relation to a certain end. They do not need to be understood in a physical way for example, yet they can be depending on the nature of the end. Strength can either mean taking the neighbour's property, because he is no match for you in case of a physical conflict. Strength can also mean relying on your own qualities to gain property. Strength or weakeness therefor are no terms of quality, but rather of quantity. To be strong is to be sufficiently capable of doing something, while to be weak is a lack thereof. A qualitative meaning only comes into play in relation to the end to which strength is applied.
    Perhaps a better term (and wouldn't Nietzsche agree as well?) on which to base morality is 'superiority'. F.e. physical strength (coercion, tyranny) can be the ultimate tool when one lacks innate superiority.

  2. #52
    Senior Member flâneur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, June 27th, 2012 @ 09:58 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    983
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustaaf View Post
    The weak equals you, me, your mother, my mother, your children, my children etc. If society collapsed tomorrow, the people who deal coke in the hood today would be barging into your house tomorrow, stealing your essentials, pistol whipping you, your brother, your father, or anyone else who tries to stop them,
    Speak for yourself toots.


    You underestimate us....or worse still,judge us by your own low standards.

  3. #53
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Gender
    Posts
    135
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by flâneur View Post
    Speak for yourself toots.


    You underestimate us....or worse still,judge us by your own low standards.
    In the real world, you're not superman. You're not going to just Chuck Norris a gang of 50 armed thugs. It's a fact that the person with reservations about committing unpleasant deeds is going to lose out to the person who isn't. I don't have low standards for myself, but I do have realistic ones. There's a certain freedom in law. It bars - or decreases the chances of - all kinds of unpleasantness befalling me and those dear to me. Without the law, I'd be worrying about them [and myself] 24/7. Civilization gives us more freedom than it takes away.

  4. #54
    Senior Member flâneur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, June 27th, 2012 @ 09:58 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    983
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustaaf View Post
    It's a fact that the person with reservations about committing unpleasant deeds is going to lose out to the person who isn't.
    I have no reservations.

    As i said....dont judge us all by your low standards.

  5. #55
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Gender
    Posts
    135
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by flâneur View Post
    I have no reservations.

    As i said....dont judge us all by your low standards.
    Then, with respect, you've just made my point for me. The only way to survive in such conditions is to be 'strong' and to be 'strong' is to be immoral. Hence, anarchy can neither be said to good, nor can the 'strength' that triumphs in it be said to be moral.

    Civilization is moral, and all who yearn for its destruction are immoral - not even amoral, but plain immoral. And how is not wanting to commit foul acts setting myself low standards? I wear it as a badge of honor that I wouldn't harm another person for my own survival.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Adalwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 11:38 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Niederschlesien/Ostpreußen
    Country
    German Empire German Empire
    Location
    Besetztes Altreich
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalsozialismus
    Posts
    32
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    From the idealistic point of view, law is a means to bring order to the community, to shape the nation into what it has to be in order to survive. Laws can be of different sorts: To protect your people from hostile propaganda, to prevent your race from being defiled by foreign-racial elements. To restrict enemies of the nation. To enforce your citizens to act the correct way. Thus, laws are useful and important, though you *always* have to keep in mind that all laws live and die with the FORCE that stands behind them. Law is nothing sacred, not some divine edict everybody automatically obeys, but merely a tool shaped by the WILL of the nation's LEADERS.

    The fact that in our current reality, law has been twisted by the jews to legitimate their actions and condemn all their enemies (they call it 'international law') is another matter. This pathetic expression of cowardice has to be crushed, and it will one day.

  7. #57
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    Monday, July 30th, 2012 @ 01:10 AM
    Ethnicity
    Angelisc
    Gender
    Posts
    68
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustaaf View Post
    Then, with respect, you've just made my point for me. The only way to survive in such conditions is to be 'strong' and to be 'strong' is to be immoral. Hence, anarchy can neither be said to good, nor can the 'strength' that triumphs in it be said to be moral.

    Civilization is moral, and all who yearn for its destruction are immoral - not even amoral, but plain immoral. And how is not wanting to commit foul acts setting myself low standards? I wear it as a badge of honor that I wouldn't harm another person for my own survival.
    Correction: Cultures uphold morality. Communities uphold morality. Civilisation by contrast frames a people at their most decadent their most immoral.

  8. #58
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Gender
    Posts
    135
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vordringende View Post
    Correction: Cultures uphold morality. Communities uphold morality. Civilisation by contrast frames a people at their most decadent their most immoral.
    I don't follow. Civilization is the foundation for morality, as laws [and internal principles] needed to be drafted to govern the unprecedented co-existence, mingling, interaction with strangers.

    I'll add this: When you are 'moral' toward members of a community you're well acquainted with, this isn't truly moral. Your conduct toward another depends on your like for him. Morality doesn't become an abstract principle, a categorical imperative until it's forced to retreat from the empirical world and anchor itself instead in philosophy/law. This comes about through the coming together of strangers and the assured rights given to all only possible under civilization.

  9. #59
    Senior Member Jens's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 4th, 2018 @ 06:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Alemannisch
    Subrace
    Schwäbisch
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Baden-Wuerttemberg Baden-Wuerttemberg
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    190
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    I find myself agreeing with Gustaaf. Strength and weakness cannot determine morality. Weakness is not a thing. Weakness is simply a lesser amount of strength than the next guy. It is the purpose of the act that determines if it is amoral, immoral, or moral. If the weak act to build up civilization and the strong seek to tear it down, there is no question about who has the moral high ground. Morality is about intent.
    Apfelstrudel mit Vanillesoße, yeah I said it, what are you gonna do?

  10. #60
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    841
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    78
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    115
    Thanked in
    45 Posts
    Although I do not agree with the popular idea that law is everything, I would like to counter its opposite expressed in the opening post, namely that laws don't mean anything. The problem is rather the position of law (and ethics) vis-a-vis other aspects of life. In the Lockean and 'Human-Rightist' conception Law is placed above politics.* Politics are primarily meant to preserve certain rights and thus a primordial 'natural' law.** The practical problems arising from such a conception of law (equal rights for foreigners, right to exploitation for material gain, etc.) can easily lead one to consider the opposite, that law is nothing. Yet law has proven to be an important part of life, so in my view in stead of becoming ethical and legal nihilists, we should appoint law to its proper place in the hierarchy of what makes up life.

    Alfred Rosenberg in the chapter on law in his Myth of the twentieth century talks about a Vedic saying which claims that Law and Unlaw do not exist independently, but are what the Aryan man says they are. I can think of three ways of interpreting this saying (in investigating primordial Aryan/Indo-European thought), without them being mutually exclusive. The first is Rosenberg's own interpretation. According to him it proves that Law is dependent on race. Each race has its own conception of law which is organically linked to the blood and only suitable for that blood. In this way "Aryan" is understood as a racial or ethnic term. A second interpretation could be of a more traditionalist type in which the Aryan is understood has the highest caste not only racially speaking, but also spiritually speaking. What is true according the Aryan is true because the Aryan represents a higher type of human being and in matter of Law possesses an authority due to its anagogical function in relation to a supernatural world. As a third interpretation I'd propose a Nietzschean one. Aryan is again interpreted as a term which designates nobility, but nobility as expressed by the 'Übermensch". It is the Will to Power which gives these Aryan men authority in determining what is right and what is wrong.
    As I said, these interpretations need not be mutually exclusive, so my goal is not to debate which one is right. In all cases in which this Vedic saying can be interpretated, though, we can discover two truths which in my opinion are essential to understanding Law. 1. Law is dependent on Being; not the other way around. Law has its origin in the inner essence of man and is an expression thereof, whether this is an expression of the blood, a type of man closer to a higher reality, or the Will to Power. 2. In case of Law there is a hierarchy. Since it is the Aryan who determines what is Law and what is not, there are also those incapable of determining this and who consequently, as imperfect men, must follow those closer to perfection. These imperfect men are either racially inferiors, people of a lower caste or people with a slave morality, yet the notion of hierarchy is obvious.

    Law should thus be appointed to its proper place in the hierarchy, which means that it should be placed below Being and not above it or even equated with it. In practice this means that Law should be dependent on Politics, since politics are the organizational form of the essence of a type of man (again this goes for all interpretations I have discussed). Only in this way Law attains meaning and can be of service to an organic whole. An organic whole is by definition composed of inequal parts so the second truth, the notion of hierarchy, comes into play as well. The essence of the whole finds its perfection in those at the top of the hierarchy; therefor any organic conception of Law must be one that originates there, depends on the essence and the men representing it and is followed by those lower in the hierarchy who are incapable of determing what is right and wrong on their own.



    *The influence of Christianity on this conception is debatable. Lockes inspiration for his social contract inspired on his natural law (which in contras to Hobbes' was of an ethical and thus legal nature) was Christianity. It might be argued that through the old Testament the Jewish notion of legalism has influenced indirectly modern ideas of human rights. On the other hand Locke's Christian inspiration wasn't really an intellectually deep one in my opinion. At least the Jewish nature of the primacy of Law is pretty clear and the cultural importance of their Torah studies seems to have made them pretty skilled in using it to their own advantage.

    **"Law does not exist to express and to serve life, no, these liberal-communist-democrats said that Life exists in order to serve the Law" (Francis Parker Yockey, The Proclamation of London, p. 53).

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 'Dumb Laws': Largest Collection of Stupid Laws
    By Aeternitas in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 09:02 AM
  2. What are your Gun Laws?
    By Cuchulain in forum Self-Defense & the Art of War
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 02:30 PM
  3. The Laws of Manu
    By Moody in forum Indo-Germanic Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Monday, September 11th, 2006, 07:24 PM
  4. The Laws in Other Countries?
    By Mistress Klaus in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 05:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •