Reintroducing Aryan Law
it was illegal to be a cuck in NS Germany
-Newsletter 92: 23 May 1938
According to the pre-existing Germanic law—based on the general conceptions of morality—a husband is entitled to contest the legitimacy of a child borne by his wife, within a period of one year he has knowledge of the child’s birth. According to the new law, this period may begin at the stage when the husband first learns of circumstances which may affect the child’s paternity. The period itself, however, remains one year. But this is by no means the most far reaching alteration in the paternity law. For the new law has introduced something hitherto unknown—the right of the state to intervene and to contest paternity or legitimacy.
The state is not interested in the ignorance of a husband of the paternity of his wife’s child, nor in his expressed desire not to contest the paternity in cases where he knows he could do so with success. According to the new law, the state itself in certain cases may, when warranted by public interests, order a state prosecutor to contest paternity whether the father desires it or not. Attorney Rexroth’s article demonstrates that the public interest may be said to be involved, not only in cases of mixed marriage, when, for instance, a child is born of an Aryan mother and brought up by Aryans—or when a child is born of Aryan parents but is brought up by Jews—in all cases, in other words, which would affect the child’s eligibility for civil service or the army. It is likewise involved, he shows, in the question of hereditary health, of eugenics. It is also understood that these new regulations may be made retroactively—that the legitimate birth, or the paternity, of persons of advanced years, or who are already dead, may be contested legally.
The second example is a lecture, delivered recently by a prominent Nazi lawyer and official. Hermann Schroer, at a district meeting of the National Socialist Law Society in Cologne, on the subject: ‘Judaism—Capital Punishment—National Socialism.’ ‘The approval of capital punishment’, said the speaker, as reported in the Westdeutscher Beobachter of 10 May, ‘is a National Socialist dogma’. However, pursued Herr Schroer, the attitude pursued by National Socialism toward capital punishment—as, in fact, toward all legal penalties—is based on national and racial conceptions.
In the Mosaic law, as evidenced in the Old Testament, there were ‘a number of transgressions which were punishable by death, but not—and this is a symptom of the inferiority of the Mosaic Code—the crime of attacks upon the State. The ‘Old Germanic right of imposing the death penalty’ was sharply in contrast the speaker claimed, with the Mosaic or Talmudic law.
‘For with the Old Germans’, he continued, ‘those who were racially sound were not punished with death, in spite of their guilt, while the racially degenerate were destroyed…The tragedy of Aryan law begins with the introduction of Mosaic conceptions into the Germanic penal code…Once again National Socialist penal law, however, has regained the right path. In the future, a homicide shall only be treated as a murder, and punished by the death penalty, when accompanied by particularly reprehensible features. The distinction between premeditated and non-premeditated homicide has been dropped. In its place, there has been revived the ancient Germanic racial-biological principle.