The Appeal Court has decided not to extend the sentences of the killers of P C Harper. Another court has refused to prevent an extra runway being built at Heathrow thus opening the way to doubling the traffic and pollution over London.
Last year the Supreme Court tried to overturn the Brexit referendum. Meanwhile day after day immigrant appeal court judges seem bent on opening Britain’s doors to all immigrants however insultingly bogus their reasons for applying to stay here are.
The Court of Appeal has given permission, despite her citizenship having being revoked, for terrorist Shamima Begum to re-enter Britain in order to fight her appeal to return here for good . I wonder what the outcome of her appeal will be?
Is the judiciary an enemy of the native British working class, for this is where these rulings have their most devastating impact?
Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine
Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine
I can’t remember if the formulation of the tradition of English Common Law dates from the reign of Henry II or Henry III, but the tradition was certainly much older than its mediaeval formulation, dating back, in part, to the laws of King Ine of Wessex, whose written laws were, in part, formulations of even older unwritten traditions.
Until quite recently, the Common Law was the fundamental law of England, and applied in all cases where no Statute Law had been invented. Even the proliferation of Statute Law interference in the 19th and 20th Centuries didn’t change the “default setting”: wherever there was no applicable Statute Law, Common Law applied.
But “nous avons changé tout cela!” Thanks to the imported nonsense of the “Human Rights Act” of 1998 (which has a distant bastard ancestry in Roman Civil Law), our ancient Common Law is now superseded by alien legislative principles. No longer do our judges base their decisions on what has been considered right or wrong by Englishmen “since time immemorial”, but on what has been considered right or wrong this week by The Guardian.
And our traditional supreme court (the House of Lords) has been replaced by a fake “Supreme Court”, derived from another foreign model, and politically biased by design.
(I wrote the above as if I were an Englishman, but in fact I’m a Scot. I used to envy you Sassenachs for having a legal system that wasn’t as ridiculous as ours, but Tony Blair and his successors have not only reduced you to our legal level, but reduced both you and us to the legal level of benighted Frenchmen.)
I’d say the entire ruling/professional classes despise the British working class, just as they despise their own nation and history. Beneficiaries of their superior humanities education and the sacred teachings of the Prophet Karl, our political elites know they can’t possibly virtue-signal their anti-racist virtue and moral superiority by defending ignorant gammons and little Englanders.
Yes Nick, there is truth in each of the points you make here.
I’ll add:
Many members of the working classes despise members of the ruling, professional, investor, and managerial classes.
And many who do actual productive work in all walks and stations of life despise members of the non-working and parasitic classes.
And vice versa, obviously.
Is there any remedy to any of this -including the ever-growing numbers of the parasitic classes?
Let us consider:
What was once known as “education” has failed in this task.
Just as “religion” failed in earlier times, and contemporary spiritual/New Age doctrines are also failing.
And also clearly, Big Statism which promised, and continues to promise, to fix all human problems by re-distribution of material wealth and by legislation to protect the tender emotional states of persons with vulnerable emotional states has failed, and will continue to fail.
To me, the challenge facing persons who seek to live a worthwhile, flourishing life is now as it ever been:
Accept that, from time to time, if not constantly, Life-on-Earth will present one with Massive Threats to One’s Equanimity if not Existence, and then just battle on, best one can, while providing succour and support to those one loves.
Such a view has been articulated by observers in many regions of the Earth, for quite a few thousand years.
Nicholas:
Speaking as a “beneficiary” of a “superior humanities education”, I can assure you that not all such “beneficiaries” worship the Prophet Karl – whether his surname be Marx or Popper.
When I was an undergraduate in the 1980s, I was expected to read the drivelling Marxist books of Geoffrey de Ste Croix, and to listen to the drivelling Marxist lectures of George Forrest, but I was meanwhile provided with an antidote to their drivel, and to all such drivel, in the texts of Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon.
But it’s doubtful whether such a “superior humanities education” is still available. Just as science has largely been replaced by pseudoscience, so the humanities have been largely replaced by pseudo-humanities. And nobody seems to mind.
Who knows the “law” when it comes to the people’s remedy in event of bad government?
In this matter, I include in “government” the actions by elected politicians, the actions by members of the civil services and various other tax-payer funded entities, by the Sovereign, and by practitioners of the “law” whether on the bench or as just plain lawyers?
Certainly, pursuit of remedy of bad government by violence is prohibited by “law”.
So what can be done, esp if the “law” itself is enacted and practised against the interests of the plain, striving classes who are actually law-abiding, and when the “law” is set up to defend the “government” against remedy of bad government?
To anyone still not convinced the law is an ass read “Outrageous Fortune” by the late Terence Frisby – the story of his 14 year battle as litigant-in-person trying to stop being bankrupted by his divorce. An escoriating indictment of our legal system and the cosy relationship between barristers and judges.
Once Begum is in this country, what’s the betting she will never leave, regardless of the outcome of her court case.
She will never leave, and she and all her dependents will be on the public payroll, in perpetuity.
Oh, and some around her will always be security risks, and so there will be all the costs of surveillance and policing, and lawyers to get them off the hook.
Answer to the Editor’s question in the final sentence is:
Yes.
Now me, having descended from a long line of working-class folk, ask this question:
How, really, can the working classes, and those who rely on the daily activities of the working-classes-
-that is, the many tens of millions of the low-end desk/computer-bound admin people, the tech professionals, the managers, and investors too actually, and of course obviously the non-working classes and the anti-working classes-
-be mobilised to secure their own futures, which to say again-
-depend mightily on the contributions of the law-abiding, striving working-classes.
True, the beneficiaries of the labours of the labouring-people are likely not to be bothered about such folk, but just perhaps their own interests might be revealed to them, and by that, set in motion.
Street politics will only produce mass imprisonment and intimidation, for the reasons given in the OP. Single-issue politics won’t have the requisite historical purchase.
The answer to your question then, Harry, is that only through crow-barring a party-politics of our people’s life and rights can a peaceful challenge to power be raised. That, however, requires that the political culture as it is now constituted can abide this message, which is certainly not the case today. For that precondition to be met, we have to accept that we have lost the war of position but we do win the war of ideas wherever we can can compete. As we are excluded from the political culture we have to speak directly to those who are not excluded; and this is the meat of the cultural activism I am seeking to initiate (and about which I have spoken to you already – I only wish that you and others here who might share your determination to change things would listen more closely to what I am saying).
GW, in response to your wish, I will indeed listen more closely to what you say.
I already know of your great scholarship, and I am sincere when I say I will pay more attention to your diagnoses and recommendations for remedy.
Meanwhile, I express this view:
That, while physical violence is best avoided, except in defence, we must apply unrelenting ruthlessness in the use of concepts and information, in massive volume in many media, and be unstinting and unstoppable in pursuit of political influence-
-with all of this informed by deep comprehension of the principles of both strategic implementation and rat-cunning-
-if control of our lives by the marxist-inspired, anti-white, Big State people is to be reduced, if not eliminated.
All best wishes to you GW -Harry.