I was interested to see Mr Higham’s piece on writing a constitution as a task in a process to right the country. I don’t disagree, but having a constitution by itself is not enough. A constitution becomes unstuck if the people are too corrupt, distracted or fearful to uphold it. What is required in the first instance is the instruction of the people (and I actually feel that people have gone short of being preached to) so that they can tell the difference between what is natural and what is the constructed elaborate fake. A constitution should be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but too many Britons don’t know what the obvious is. Look at this example of confusion, for instance: some people believe that the death penalty is barbaric, and that abortion is civilised. Look at how many do not understand that Liberty comes from the prohibition of corruption and vice – the means by which society is undermined and manipulated by those encouraging and introducing it – applied equally across all parts of society.
Britons must first regain an understanding of what they, as human beings – the ultimate creation of God – should expect in their encounters with other people, businesses, government and whatever organisations they transact with as they move through the world. They should also know how robust they can be in defending their natural rights (and the law should allow for it); robustness in this matter in particular is a sure-fire way of engendering the utmost levels of civility. Providing examples and object lessons, and pointing to news events and personal experience to show how victims have been failed in terms of the banishment of natural law from their consciousness, and how they have become victims just because they have lived all their lives according to a fake construct designed to make them resign their innate power to a parasitical governing class; this is also constitutional writing.
I had an experience this week which is demonstrative in the manner just mentioned. Going into the local Post Office, I encountered one of those sharp-faced, scrawny, rickets-legged, shaven-headed criminal-looking types who was straddling the doorway; half-in, half-out. With his inner-most hand he held a lit cigarette. I caused an altercation when I politely told him that I didn’t think he should be smoking where he was positioned – where I had little option but to breathe in his smoke as I passed him. He got in my face and screamed expletives at me. It was none of my business, apparently. Yes, not wanting to be impinged upon is none of my own business.
And these days this is where we are at in this country. As a society we have been worried into not being judgemental (no, it is not the same thing as the Christian injunction against hypocrisy. Judging – confronting with the truth – is a duty). A situation has arisen in this country whereby the victim becomes the aggressor when he complains about being adversely imposed upon, either directly or indirectly. Naturally, therefore, the Post Office door sentinel thought it was reasonable to verbally defecate in my face as a “defence” to my “belligerence”. In this reckoning, he and his ilk have been emboldened by everyone else’s timidity. He has come to learn that his use of intimidation is acceptable, and that generally people will immediately drop their opposition to him when encountering it. Of course, this is all wrong. Cockroaches – including those in the highest of life’s stations (where there exists a slightly different variation of the same vermin)- should be running from a mass enlightenment of decent people who know how to assert their righteousness.
Well, such had this particular situation in the Post Office developed that I felt that I should back down (for reasons to be explained). Alright, alright, says I – as if to let him know that I wasn’t going to antagonise his under-class sense of persecution further. I turned and went about my business. When I had finished and was leaving the building a woman following me out spoke to me and expressed her approval of my action. However, she was concerned that I might have been hurt – showing that she understands, as most normal people do (she wasn’t a political ideologue), that when the intimidation does not force acquiescence, and when there are enough of them – or they are brave-hardy by some artificial means – the cockroaches will enforce with violence their right to do whatever the hell they like.
I assured her that I would have struck the lout in return if he put a finger on me. She was worried about how you never know what else such people may be carrying to attack you with. I told her that I would have disarmed him, but actually now I was showing off. She was right, and this is where a feeling of dissatisfaction about the whole episode stemmed from. I had let the situation develop so that I had put myself at risk. It is not the act of objection or defiance that is dangerous, it is what happens in the follow up. I had moved too close to what could have been an assailant, and I would not have been able to react if he did have a knife.
The ultimate assured way of not letting your act of objection or defiance develop into a dangerous situation is to make sure that the would-be assailant cannot strike first. In other words, I would have liked to have felt safe in the law so that as soon as he threatened me with his voice – which is what he did do, and in doing so signified warning of a physical encounter- I could have knocked the fellow onto his backside and in such a way that he would not be able to get up again very fast. It is natural and obvious that people should be able to resort to whatever measures are necessary to protect themselves. Being able to pre-empt an assault is allowed in natural law on the basis that in letting yourself be hit first, you might forfeit any further means to defend yourself – even from being killed.
Of course, the legislation in the UK is out of kilter with natural law because he who strikes first will be guaranteed at least one night in jail as the perceived aggressor; verbal assault is not counted as the first blow. What is also missing in the UK is reliance on the good character of independent witnesses who, if a case like mine unfolded to the conclusion just mentioned, could approach the arresting officers to testify that the first physical strike was made out of self-defence, and therefore there would be no need to set the expensive wheels of the British “justice” system in motion in order to punish a piece of natural justice.
However, these days witness testimony cannot be relied upon because for many a long year, with the driving out of Christian morals that command that thou should not give false testimony (and other instructions which uphold a justice system), people have been encouraged to become unreliable. Their morality is subjective, and they can do as they please as long as they feel justified. If they want to practise deceit, then there is no good reason for anyone to object (it is morally unsound to object).
The most desirable system of law relies on decent people subscribing to a unified moral code to uphold it. It follows that a constitution is only as good as the people it serves. As I have written before, I don’t believe that a constitution can grow from anywhere but a Judeo-Christian soil bed. And let’s not get sidetracked by a misinterpretation of Christian teaching that manifests itself as Rapturism. The Rapture is no solution, and should not be seen as indicative of the standard Christian position. Indeed, I have detected a movement in British Christian society that advocates a Revivalism that is political by dint of the fact that Christianity is now political. People brought to a Christian lifestyle these days also become engaged in a political fight because of the way that Progressivism, or Liberal-Fascism, is set against it. Look out for a post in the future entitled God is coming, get ready.