Important Texts and Quotes of Relevance

[clement]

i will post texts and quotes here that i believe are important to understand the world we live in from a white, european point of view

first, cato about the oppian laws:

[34.2]"If we had, each one of us, made it a rule to uphold the rights and authority of the husband in our own households we should not now have this trouble with the whole body of our women. As things are now our liberty of action, which has been checked and rendered powerless by female despotism at home, is actually crushed and trampled on here in the Forum, and because we were unable to withstand them individually we have now to dread their united strength. I used to think that it was a fabulous story which tells us that in a certain island the whole of the male sex was extirpated by a conspiracy amongst the women; there is no class of women from whom the gravest dangers may not arise, if once you allow intrigues, plots, secret cabals to go on. I can hardly make up my mind which is worse, the affair itself or the disastrous precedent set up. The latter concerns us as consuls and magistrates; the former has to do more with you, Quirites. Whether the measure before you is for the good of the commonwealth or not is for you to determine by your votes; this tumult amongst the women, whether a spontaneous movement or due to your instigation, M. Fundanius and L. Valerius, certainly points to failure on the part of the magistrates, but whether it reflects more on you tribunes or on the consuls I do not know. It brings the greater discredit on you if you have carried your tribunitian agitation so far as to create unrest among the women, but more disgrace upon us if we have to submit to laws being imposed upon us through fear of a secession on their part, as we had to do formerly on occasions of the secession of the plebs. It was not without a feeling of shame that I made my way into the Forum through a regular army of women. Had not my respect for the dignity and modesty of some amongst them, more than any consideration for them as a whole, restrained me from letting them be publicly rebuked by a consul, I should have said, 'What is this habit you have formed of running abroad and blocking the streets and accosting men who are strangers to you? Could you not each of you put the very same question to your husbands at home? Surely you do not make yourselves more attractive in public than in private, to other women's husbands more than to your own? If matrons were kept by their natural modesty within the limits of their rights, it would be most unbecoming for you to trouble yourselves even at home about the laws which may be passed or repealed here.' Our ancestors would have no woman transact even private business except through her guardian, they placed them under the tutelage of parents or brothers or husbands. We suffer them now to dabble in politics and mix themselves up with the business of the Forum and public debates and election contests. What are they doing now in the public roads and at the street corners but recommending to the plebs the proposal of their tribunes and voting for the repeal of the law. Give the reins to a headstrong nature, to a creature that has not been tamed, and then hope that they will themselves set bounds to their licence if you do not do it yourselves. This is the smallest of those restrictions which have been imposed upon women by ancestral custom or by laws, and which they submit to with such impatience. What they really want is unrestricted freedom, or to speak the truth, licence, and if they win on this occasion what is there that they will not attempt?

[34.3]"Call to mind all the regulations respecting women by which our ancestors curbed their licence and made them obedient to their husbands, and yet in spite of all those restrictions you can scarcely hold them in. If you allow them to pull away these restraints and wrench them out one after another, and finally put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows they will become your masters. But surely, you say, what they object to is having a new restriction imposed upon them, they are not deprecating the assertion of a right but the infliction of a wrong. No, they are demanding the abrogation of a law which you enacted by your suffrages and which the practical experience of all these years has approved and justified. This they would have you repeal; that means that by rescinding this they would have you weaken all. No law is equally agreeable to everybody, the only question is whether it is beneficial on the whole and good for the majority. If everyone who feels himself personally aggrieved by a law is to destroy it and get rid of it, what is gained by the whole body of citizens making laws which those against whom they are enacted can in a short time repeal? I want, however, to learn the reason why these excited matrons have run out into the streets and scarcely keep away from the Forum and the Assembly. Is it that those taken prisoners by Hannibal - their fathers and husbands and children and brothers - may be ransomed? The republic is a long way from this misfortune, and may it ever remain so! Still, when this did happen, you refused to do so in spite of their dutiful entreaties. But, you may say, it is not dutiful affection and solicitude for those they love that has brought them together; they are going to welcome Mater Idaea on her way from Phrygian Pessinus. What pretext in the least degree respectable is put forward for this female insurrection? 'That we may shine,' they say, 'in gold and purple, that we may ride in carriages on festal and ordinary days alike, as though in triumph for having defeated and repealed a law after capturing and forcing from you your votes.'

[34.4]"You have often heard me complain of the expensive habits of women and often, too, of those of men, not only private citizens but even magistrates, and I have often said that the community suffers from two opposite vices - avarice and luxury - pestilential diseases which have proved the ruin of all great empires. The brighter and better the fortunes of the republic become day by day, and the greater the growth of its dominion - and now we are penetrating into Greece and Asia, regions filled with everything that can tempt appetite or excite desire, and are even laying hands on the treasures of kings - so much the more do I dread the prospect of these things taking us captive rather than we them. It was a bad day for this City, believe me, when the statues were brought from Syracuse. I hear far too many people praising and admiring those which adorn Athens and Corinth and laughing at the clay images of our gods standing in front of their temples. I for my part prefer these gods who are propitious to us, and I trust that they will continue to be so as long as we allow them to remain in their present abodes.

In the days of our forefathers Pyrrhus attempted, through his ambassador Cineas, to tamper with the loyalty of women as well as men by means of bribes. The Law of Oppius in restraint of female extravagance had not then been passed, still not a single woman accepted a bribe. What do you think was the reason? The same reason which our forefathers had for not making any law on the subject; there was no extravagance to be restrained. Diseases must be recognised before remedies are applied, and so the passion for self-indulgence must be in existence before the laws which are to curb it. What called out the Licinian Law which restricted estates to 500 jugera except the keen desire of adding field to field? What led to the passing of the Cincian Law concerning presents and fees except the condition of the plebeians who had become tributaries and taxpayers to the senate? It is not therefore in the least surprising that neither the Oppian nor any other law was in those days required to set limits to the expensive habits of women when they refused to accept the gold and purple that was freely offered to them. If Cineas were to go in these days about the City with his gifts, he would find women standing in the streets quite ready to accept them.

There are some desires of which I cannot penetrate either the motive or the reason. That what is permitted to another should be forbidden to you may naturally create a feeling of shame or indignation, but when all are upon the same level as far as dress is concerned why should any one of you fear that you will not attract notice ? The very last things to be ashamed of are thriftiness and poverty, but this law relieves you of both since you do not possess what it forbids you to possess. The wealthy woman says, 'This levelling down is just what I do not tolerate. Why am I not to be admired and looked at for my gold and purple? Why is the poverty of others disguised under this appearance of law so that they may be thought to have possessed, had the law allowed it, what it was quite out of their power to possess?'

Do you want, Quirites, to plunge your wives into a rivalry of this nature, where the rich desire to have what no one else can afford, and the poor, that they may not be despised for their poverty, stretch their expenses beyond their means? Depend upon it, as soon as a woman begins to be ashamed of what she ought not to be ashamed of she will cease to feel shame at what she ought to be ashamed of. She who is in a position to do so will get what she wants with her own money, she who cannot do this will ask her husband. The husband is in a pitiable plight whether he yields or refuses; in the latter case he will see another giving what he refused to give. Now they are soliciting other women's husbands, and what is worse they are soliciting votes for the repeal of a law, and are getting them from some, against the interest of you and your property and your children. When once the law has ceased to fix a limit to your wife's expenses, you will never fix one. Do not imagine that things will be the same as they were before the law was made. It is safer for an evil-doer not to be prosecuted than for him to be tried and then acquitted, and luxury and extravagance would have been more tolerable had they never been interfered with than they will be now, just like wild beasts which have been irritated by their chains and then released. I give my vote against every attempt to repeal the law, and pray that all the gods may give your action a fortunate result."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tXt/ah/Livy/Livy34.html

 

[clement]

citizen and foreigner in ancient european civilisations

The citizen was recognized by the fact that he had a part in the religion of the city,and it was from this participation that he derived all his civil and political rights. Ifhe renounced the worship, he renounced the rights. We have already spoken of thepublic meals, which were the principal ceremony of the national worship. Now, atSparta, one who did not join in these, even if it was not his fault, ceased at once tobe counted among the citizens.395 At Athens, one who did not take part in thefestivals of the national gods lost the rights of a citizen.396

At Rome, it was necessary to have been present at the sacred ceremony of thelustration,in order to enjoy political rights.397 The man who had not taken part in this— that is to say, who had not joined in the common prayer and the sacrifice — losthis citizenship until the next lustration.

If we wished to give an exact definition of a citizen, we should say that it was aman who had the religion of the city.398 The stranger, on the contrary, is one who hasnot access to the worship, one whom the gods of the city do not protect, and who hasnot even the right to invoke them. For these national gods do not wish to receiveprayers and offering except from citizens; they repulse the stranger; entrance intotheir temples is forbidden to him, and his presence during the sacrifice is a sacrilege.Evidence of this ancient sentiment of repulsion has remained in one of the principalrites of Roman worship. The pontiff, when he sacrifices in the open air, must havehis head veiled: “For before the sacred fires in the religious act which is offered to the national gods, the face of a stranger must not appear to the pontiff; the auspiceswould be disturbed.”399 A sacred object which fell for a moment into the hands of astranger at once became profane. It could not recover its religious character exceptby an expiatory ceremony.400 If the enemy seized upon a city, and the citizenssucceeded in recovering it, above all things it was important that the temples shouldbe purified and all the fires extinguished and rekindled. The presence of the strangerhad defiled them.

Thus religion established between the citizen and the stranger a profound andineffaceable distinction. This same religion, so long as it held its sway over the mindsof men, forbade the right of citizenship to be granted to a stranger. In the time ofHerodotus, Sparta had accorded it to no one except a prophet; and even for this theformal command of the oracle was necessary. Athens granted it sometimes; but withwhat precautions! First, it was necessary that the united people should vote by secretballot for the admission of the stranger. Even this was nothing as yet; nine daysafterwards a second assembly had to confirm the previous vote, and in this secondcase six thousand votes were required in favor of the admission — a number whichwill appear enormous when we recollect that it was very rare for an Athenianassembly to comprise so many citizens. After this a vote of the senate was requiredto confirm the decision of this double assembly. Finally, any citizen could oppose asort of veto, and attack the decree as contrary to the ancient laws. Certainly there wasno other public act where the legislator was surrounded with so many difficulties andprecautions as that which conferred upon a stranger the title of citizen. Theformalities to go through were not near so great in declaring war, or in passing a newlaw. Why should these men oppose so many obstacles to a stranger who wished tobecome a citizen? Assuredly they did not fear that in the political assemblies his votewould turn the balance. Demosthenes gives us the true motive and the true thoughtof the Athenians: “It is because the purity of the sacrifices must be preserved.” Toexclude the stranger was to “watch over the sacred ceremonies.” To admit a strangeramong the citizens was “to give him a part in the religion and in the sacrifices.”402Now for such an act the people did not consider themselves entirely free, and wereseized with religious scruples; for they knew that the national gods were disposed to repulse the stranger, and that the sacrifices would perhaps be rendered useless by thepresence of the new comer. The gift of the rights of a citizen to a stranger was a realviolation of the fundamental principles of the national religion; and it is for thisreason that, in the beginning, the city was so sparing of it. We must also note that theman admitted to citizenship with so much difficulty could be neither archon norpriest. The city, indeed, permitted him to take part in its worship, but as to presidingat it, that would have been too much.

No one could become a citizen at Athens if he was a citizen in another city;403 forit was a religious impossibility to be at the same time a member of two cities, as italso was to be a member of two families. One could not have two religions at thesame time.

The participation in the worship carried with it the possession of rights. As thecitizen might assist in the sacrifice which preceded the assembly, he could also voteat the assembly. As he could perform the sacrifices in the name of the city, he mightbe a prytane and an archon. Having the religion of the city, he might claim rightsunder its laws, and perform all the ceremonies of legal procedure.

The stranger, on the contrary, having no part in the religion, had none in the law.If he entered the sacred enclosure which the priests had traced for the assembly, hewas punished with death. The laws of the city did not exist for him. If he hadcommitted a crime, he was treated as a slave, and punished without process of law,the city owing him no legal protection.404 When men arrived at that stage that theyfelt the need of having laws for the stranger, it was necessary to establish anexceptional tribunal. At Rome, in order to judge the alien, the pretor had to becomean alien himself — proctor peregrinus. At Athens the judge of foreigners was thepolemarch — that is to say, the magistrate who was charged with the cares of war,and of all transactions with the enemy.405

Neither at Rome nor at Athens could a foreigner be a proprietor.406 He could notmarry; or, if he married, his marriage was not recognized, and his children werereputed illegitimate.407 He could not make a contract with a citizen; at any rate, thelaw did not recognize such a contract as valid. At first he could take no part incommerce.408 The Roman law forbade him to inherit from a citizen, and even forbade a citizen to inherit from him.409 They pushed this principle so far, that if a foreignerobtained the rights of a citizen without his son, born before this event, obtaining thesame favor, the son became a foreigner in regard to his father, and could not inheritfrom him.410 The distinction between citizen and foreigner was stronger than thenatural tie between father and son.

At first blush it would seem as if the aim had been to establish a system that shouldbe vexatious towards foreigners; but there was nothing of this. Athens and Rome, onthe contrary, gave him a good reception, both for commercial and political reasons.But neither their good will nor their interest could abolish the ancient laws whichreligion had established. This religion did not permit the stranger to become aproprietor, because he could not have any part in the religious soil of the city. Itpermitted neither the foreigner to inherit from the citizen, nor the citizen to inheritfrom the foreigner; because every transmission of property carried with it thetransmission of a worship, and it was as impossible for the citizen to perform theforeigner's worship as for the foreigner to perform the citizen's.

Citizens could welcome the foreigner, watch over him, even esteem him if he wasrich and honorable; but they could give him no part in their religion or their laws. Theslave in certain respects was better treated than he was, because the slave, being amember of the family whose worship he shared, was connected with the city throughhis master; the gods protected him. The Roman religion taught, therefore, that thetomb of the slave was sacred, but that the foreigner's was not.411

A foreigner, to be of any account in the eyes of the law, to be enabled to engage intrade, to make contracts, to enjoy his property securely, to have the benefit of thelaws of the city to protect him, must become the client of a citizen. Rome and Athensrequired every foreigner to adopt a patron.412 By choosing a citizen as a patron theforeigner became connected with the city. Thenceforth he participated in some of thebenefits of the civil law, and its protection was secured.

https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/fustel/AncientCity.pdf

 

[clement]

“Excess of liberty, whether it lies in state or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.”

from plato in "the republic"

 

[clement]

about one of the origins of the idea that every human being has right to a fair trial and all are equal before the law:

“The Talmud ordained with great emphasis that every person charged with the violation of some law be given a fair trial and before the law all were to be scrupulously equal, whether a king or a pauper”

an idea alien to europeans originally
not unique to jews but definitely of middle-eastern origin

 

[Dwight Mansburden]

about one of the origins of the idea that every human being has right to a fair trial and all are equal before the law:

an idea alien to europeans originally
not unique to jews but definitely of middle-eastern origin

We already live in a society where not every human being has the right to a fair trial and we are not equal under the law. It's white heterosexual men who are considered unequal before the law and are most often denied a right to a fair trial. Derek Chauvin, for example, did not get a fair trial. Both the verdict and the harshness of the sentence were pre-ordained. That sham trial was run to appease BLM and everyone, supporters and opponents, knew it. Any white person accused of "racism" will find it almost impossible to get a fair trial, as they will be convicted by the controlled media and online SJW lynch mobs before the trial in the courtroom even begins.

Sexual assault accusations are another area in which a group of people (heterosexual men in this case, mostly white although it's happened to non-whites and even Jews too) are denied a fair trial and are considered unequal before the law. In today's unequal, feminist society, the word of a woman is considered more valuable than the word of a man. The mere accusation of sexual assault is enough to destroy a man's life. No actual trial is even necessary. All some feminazi harpy has to do is scream #MeToo and a man's life is ruined, just like that, with no actual evidence required. There's also the case of "regret rape" (where a woman has consensual sex with a man, later regrets it, and then calls it rape), yet another way for a man's life to be destroyed without due process. Suggesting that fair trials and equality before the law should be opposed is an incredibly foolish idea, it's playing with fire, and most often the white man is the one who's going to get burned.

As for the idea that we should oppose fair trials and equality before the law because they're "Jewish inventions" - first of all, it's doubtful that they actually are Jewish inventions. A Jewish source claims that Jews invented those things? Hardly unbiased. Color me skeptical on that one. And even if they were, we shouldn't oppose a good idea just because it came from Jews. If there's some kind of tool or resource that can make my life easier or help the white race, I'm not going to avoid it just because it was invented by a Jew.

White nationalists and other marginalized groups fall for this stuff because it sounds tempting and they think they can use it to "put their enemies in their place." In reality, because WNs and their allies are largely powerless and their enemies are the ones in power, this "some animals are more equal than others" crap is always going to end up getting used against our side, and our enemies are going to be the ones putting us in what they think is "our place."

 

[Booth]

No person who has a court-appointed attorney gets a fair trial in any state in the U.S. If, a high-profile lawyer is willing to take the case pro bono the defendant might get a chance for a fair trial. There are no Perry Mason moments in a courtroom.

 

[clement]

We already live in a society where not every human being has the right to a fair trial and we are not equal under the law. It's white heterosexual men who are considered unequal before the law and are most often denied a right to a fair trial. Derek Chauvin, for example, did not get a fair trial. Both the verdict and the harshness of the sentence were pre-ordained. That sham trial was run to appease BLM and everyone, supporters and opponents, knew it. Any white person accused of "racism" will find it almost impossible to get a fair trial, as they will be convicted by the controlled media and online SJW lynch mobs before the trial in the courtroom even begins.

Sexual assault accusations are another area in which a group of people (heterosexual men in this case, mostly white although it's happened to non-whites and even Jews too) are denied a fair trial and are considered unequal before the law. In today's unequal, feminist society, the word of a woman is considered more valuable than the word of a man. The mere accusation of sexual assault is enough to destroy a man's life. No actual trial is even necessary. All some feminazi harpy has to do is scream #MeToo and a man's life is ruined, just like that, with no actual evidence required. There's also the case of "regret rape" (where a woman has consensual sex with a man, later regrets it, and then calls it rape), yet another way for a man's life to be destroyed without due process. Suggesting that fair trials and equality before the law should be opposed is an incredibly foolish idea, it's playing with fire, and most often the white man is the one who's going to get burned.

As for the idea that we should oppose fair trials and equality before the law because they're "Jewish inventions" - first of all, it's doubtful that they actually are Jewish inventions. A Jewish source claims that Jews invented those things? Hardly unbiased. Color me skeptical on that one. And even if they were, we shouldn't oppose a good idea just because it came from Jews. If there's some kind of tool or resource that can make my life easier or help the white race, I'm not going to avoid it just because it was invented by a Jew.

White nationalists and other marginalized groups fall for this stuff because it sounds tempting and they think they can use it to "put their enemies in their place." In reality, because WNs and their allies are largely powerless and their enemies are the ones in power, this "some animals are more equal than others" crap is always going to end up getting used against our side, and our enemies are going to be the ones putting us in what they think is "our place."

why not go back to the way the ancient europeans did it?
you get judged differently depending on who you are and what your responsibilities are
a politician and high responsibility person gets judged more harshly than a common man
and each people/race is judged by its own law
modern democracies claim falsely that they are descended from those ancient civilisations but they reject everything that our ancestors believed in and everything they stood for

 

[clement]

No person who has a court-appointed attorney gets a fair trial in any state in the U.S. If, a high-profile lawyer is willing to take the case pro bono the defendant might get a chance for a fair trial. There are no Perry Mason moments in a courtroom.

what would the alternative be?
every person gets the best lawyer for free?

 

[Booth]

No, Both sides get the same amount of money to try their cases. That way, the State cannot have an unjust advantage in being able to have an unlimited amount of money to get a conviction. Plus, each side would be limited to one lawyer and one prosecutor, and the best lawyer wins.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

how about the historical practice that was used in many states, wherein lawyers were banned and litigants represented themselves?

 

[clement]

modern science, which is mostly of middle-eastern/east asian origin, forced the ridiculous idea that all men are descended from the most primitive animals, and ultimately from lifeless rocks or something like that
ofcourse all white, european men have always been what would be called creationists
a late example of a white, european creationsist:

Late in the history of Rome, a theory of race developed which might, under other circumstances, have become immensely powerful. It was that of Julian the Apostate, who succeeded Constantine as emperor in the fourth century A.D. Julian questioned the idea that all mankind is descended from a single pair. He pointed out "how very different in their bodies are the Germans and Scythians from the Libyans and Ethiopians." Even more do these people differ in their dispositions and intelligence. "Come," declares Julian, "tell me why it is that the Celts and the Germans are fierce, while the Hellenes and the Romans are, generally speaking, inclined to political life and humane, though at the same time unyielding and warlike?" Egyptians are "more intelligent and more given to crafts," Syrians "unwarlike and effeminate" but at the same time "intelligent, hot-tempered, vain, and quick to learn." He argued that mankind could not possibly be all descended from one pair because the world had not existed long enough to be peopled under such an arrangement, "even if the women used to bear many children at a time to their husbands, like swine." But his principal point is that "if we were descended from, one man and one woman, it is not likely that our laws would show such a great divergence."10 Julian preferred to accept another account of creation, that found in Plato's Timaeus. There mankind is said to have originated from drops of sacred blood which fell from Zeus. Whereas Zeus was the creator of all men, different peoples have inherited their peculiar characteristics from lesser deities. Ares passed on his character to warlike peoples; Athene gave other peoples both wisdom and military ability; Hermes was the father of those who were intelligent but not bellicose; and so on. And then Julian draws explicitly racist conclusions. "Can we suppose," he asks, "that there is not some mark or symbol indelibly stamped upon the souls of men, which will accurately indicate their descent and vindicate it as legitimate? . . . When a man has virtuous progenitors and is himself like them, he may with confidence be described as nobly born

 

[clement]

some examples of how modern universities and college are products of middle-eastern, islamic civilisation, and foreign to white europeans

not really surprising , once this is known, to see these universities being the source of so much harm to white civilisation

the license to teach:

about the method of disputation:

the doctorate:

from wikipedia:

Nevertheless, Makdisi has asserted that the European university borrowed many of its features from the Islamic madrasa, including the concepts of a degree and doctorate.[46] Makdisi and Hugh Goddard have also highlighted other terms and concepts now used in modern universities which most likely have Islamic origins, including "the fact that we still talk of professors holding the 'chairman' of their subject" being based on the "traditional Islamic pattern of teaching where the professor sits on a chair and the students sit around him", the term 'academic circles' being derived from the way in which Islamic students "sat in a circle around their professor", and terms such as "having 'fellows', 'reading' a subject, and obtaining 'degrees', can all be traced back" to the Islamic concepts of aṣḥāb ('companions, as of Muhammad'), qirāʼah ('reading aloud the Qur'an') and ijāzah ('licence [to teach]') respectively. Makdisi has listed eighteen such parallels in terminology which can be traced back to their roots in Islamic education. Some of the practices now common in modern universities which Makdisi and Goddard trace back to an Islamic root include "practices such as delivering inaugural lectures, wearing academic robes, obtaining doctorates by defending a thesis, and even the idea of academic freedom are also modelled on Islamic custom."[89] The Islamic scholarly system of fatwá and ijmāʻ, meaning opinion and consensus respectively, formed the basis of the "scholarly system the West has practised in university scholarship from the Middle Ages down to the present day."[90] According to Makdisi and Goddard, "the idea of academic freedom" in universities was also "modelled on Islamic custom" as practised in the medieval Madrasa system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was "certainly discernible in the foundation of the first deliberately planned university" in Europe, the University of Naples Federico II founded by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor in 1224.[89]

 

[clement]

a part of "charlemagne muhammad and the arab roots of capitalism" which exposes the arab and muslim origins of the free market and capitalism:

---