After-church reading

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.

26 comments for “After-church reading

  1. john in cheshire
    July 17, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    luikkerland, well said. My sentiments entirely.

  2. July 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    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.

    Quite right. Good system, workable, depends on the people using it but has an uplifting effect on them over time and over generations. Until next time they get careless.

  3. bnzss
    July 17, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Ah, Christian morals!

    I love this ‘moral soil’ stuff.

  4. Caernunos
    July 17, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    ” Look at how many do not understand that Liberty comes from the prohibition of corruption and vice”. I genuinely cannot fathom this statement, prohibition didn’t work for alcohol in the US and it is badly failing us now. But then when I ‘confront with the truth’ about The Bible, I see instructions to kill those that oppose, sometimes instructions to let wife and daughter be raped and murdered and helpful hints about keeping slaves. So I guess I miss several points here.

    • July 17, 2011 at 5:59 pm

      Yes, the old positive, v negative liberty thing. Liberty is leaving people alone to live their lives as they see fit. That liberty extends only as far as it does not adversely affect the liberty of others. That’s it, nothing more, nothing less.

      Here, I diverge from my allies in that I see no need for religion to be involved at all. I am with the American founding fathers on this one. The state shall make no laws regarding religion etc, etc. By the same token, the state should preserve the right to freedom of religion as a basic civil liberty.

      • Voice of Reason
        July 17, 2011 at 9:13 pm

        I’m with you on this. As I have said before, I am in the US, where the neo-Puritans have taken over the GOP, poised to inflict their ideas of Christian governance on the land.

        • Revolution Harry
          September 20, 2011 at 11:24 pm

          I can pretty much guarantee that true Biblical Christianity will have no bearing on the governance of America for the foreseeable future.

  5. Lord T
    July 17, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    Let me be devils advocate here.

    Verbal abuse is NOT striking the first blow and I would not be happy with you or anyone else striking someone because of a perceived slight via a verbal response.

    Let’s tae a slightly different example. You are walking along minding you own business and someone smoking walks by you breathing smoke into your face. You tell him off and he then attacks you after that and kills you. All the witnesses saw and heard was you verbally assaulting him and him defending himself. CCTV, grainy but enough for body movement, shows you telling him off and him reacting. Still happy about verbal abuse being an initiation of violence?

  6. July 17, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    IIRC, ‘assault’ in law means putting a person in fear of immediate physical harm to him/herself at the hands of the ‘assaulter’ and need not involve physical contact. Hence ‘assault *and* battery’, the first preceding the second but being separate from it.

    In these terms, the lout in the doorway assaulted you. This means you would be justified in law if you took pre-emptive action to avert the immediate physical harm your had good reason to believe was about to be inflicted upon you by the frightening shouter, perhaps by upending him, as you suggest. Legals, probably, but advisable? I guess not, unless there was a policeman watching the whole thing. But then, the policeman would, on easumes, have collared the shouter anyway.

    In the absence of a policeman or other legitimate help, discretion is the better part, etc.

    As to the rest, you’re right, of course.

    • July 17, 2011 at 7:39 pm

      Sorry about the typos.

    • luikkerland
      July 17, 2011 at 10:00 pm

      Thanks for the heads up

  7. July 17, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    “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.”

    You are Mary Whitehouse and I claim my £5.

    Out of my bookmarks with you, illebral authoritarian arsehole.

    • luikkerland
      July 17, 2011 at 10:05 pm

      You are projecting, on all three counts.

      • luikkerland
        July 17, 2011 at 10:44 pm

        p.s. as much as I am devastated that I will not inhabit said bookmarks, and therefore fear the cessation of such finely crafted argument from these quarters again, I would advise the commenter to brush up on THE comment policy, which he may object to – in actual fact – it being a small measure of prohibition in itself.

  8. July 17, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    We were talking today about Orphans, about liberty and so on and i took the point of view that the position which was going to be sustainable was a natural position. This is the problem with ideology – it requires codicils to make it workable – in the case of leftist ideology, nothing works.

    There’s a type of authoritarian right which is part of the patriarchal society but eventually, it must bend more towards freedom. Out-and-out libertarianism can’t work either for long because with total freedom, you must, by definition, impinge on others.

    So both positions tend back to a more normal position which some call classical liberalism – have freedom but until it infringes directly or impinges directly on others. Easy to define in principle, much harder to define in practice.

    As someone said – it is a slide rule thing – there are positions on the continuum. As long as the anarchic libertarian can tend towards that position and as long as the conservative can ease up a bit, then both can form a society. Otherwise, there are just warring camps.

  9. Uncle Badger
    July 17, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    But we had a societal system that grew out of this Judeo-Christianity of which you speak so approvingly.

    There are good arguments for suggesting that is how we ended-up in the mess we are: when the cloying meekness mutated into socialism and its kin.

    • nemesis
      July 17, 2011 at 11:45 pm

      Are you suggesting Uncle Badger, that Judeo-Christianity caused socialism?
      The Christian message is one of love, tolerance and forgiveness. Maybe the State has tried to take over where the Church left off and enshrined these principles in law – which is where it started to go wrong.

      • July 18, 2011 at 8:17 am

        Are you suggesting Uncle Badger, that Judeo-Christianity caused socialism?

        You know, Nemesis, in some ways the protestantism which dominated for so long did allow socialism to breed. It allowed many ideas to breed, including ideas antithetical to itself.

        This is the danger of a society based on freedom and we can do nothing about it – we have to still allow that freedom.

        • nemesis
          July 19, 2011 at 1:25 am

          Sorry, I think I missed the gist of the argument. It was the ‘cloying meekness’ remark which rang alarm bells.
          We seem to have the Church usurped by politics and the State who seem to believe they are the arbiters of moral authority. Neither of which have done themselves any favours in doing so.

  10. Antony
    July 18, 2011 at 4:07 am

    I’m sorry Luikkerland – but this is crap.

    Half in the door, half out. What? In or out. What is it?

    If in, then he is breaking the law as it currently stands. Grow some balls, get a copper and get him done.

    If out, then he is a free man. You might not like the smoke, but he is _NOT_ breaking the law. And, as such, in my view is entitled to answer back to someone interfering in a lawful activity just because THEY don’t approve. I get this crap when I am having a cigarette sat outside my local on one of the tables. I have already been pushed outside whilst doing a lawful activity. Don’t then complain again because you don’t think I have been pushed far away enough for your own personal tastes.

    “…sharp-faced, scrawny, rickets-legged, shaven-headed criminal-looking types…”

    I am tall, slim and shaven-headed. Does that mean I am a criminal? Or just look like one?

    In your view, of course.

    I’m sorry but this article is the exact opposite of what I thought this site was about.

    Freedom of the individual, and all that?

    • July 18, 2011 at 8:13 am

      I’m sorry but this article is the exact opposite of what I thought this site was about.

      Antony, this site is about Luikkerland being able to put his point of view and you being able to fisk it, openly and freely, without anyone infringing on that, on ideological grounds.

      It’s about saying what we really think and then running the risk we’ll be called out for what we write, minus litigation, minus the PC police. Voltaire’s maxim looms large at this site.

    • luikkerland
      July 18, 2011 at 9:44 am

      See how this gentleman has constructed a straw man to argue with? When was public-smoking legislation mentioned anywhere in this article?

      Of course, I forgot that people cannot construct mental pictures from words anymore. Half-in, half-out equals standing in the doorway, making an already narrow passage (it’s about the width of two people, then, you see) all the more narrower, and therefore emitting smoke where I need to pass, which I do not expect, and do not want to put up with.

      And here is another example of the confusion of which I speak (which is so widespread, and determined not to be corrected, that one must assumed that we are indeed in the days of final judgement). It is now meant to be an act of courageousness to involve an agent of the state in matter of a civil transaction?

      This is the mindset of a slave, and not suprising because of how the importance of a moral code as the voluntary means to enforce the necessary amount of prohibition that society needs to function has been eroded.

      I haven’t seen you, I could not possibly comment about whether or not you are criminal-looking (as you rightly say, according to how I have an idea about what this means to me), or for that matter if you are tall, or shaven-headed. I did, on the other hand, observe the features of this particular scumbag at the Post Office, and described him here as I felt fit, as I am allowed per my freedom to express myself.

      Here is an observation also for free: dealing with people who will not take responsibility for their own actions, who think that they should be able to do what they please, and think that whatever they do does not have a repercussion elsewhere, and also who do not understand this concept when it is presented to them, is like dealing with babies. Dealing with people who cannot understand, and will not tolerate, that there is a different viewpoint to their own is like dealing with babies. As we know, babies are incontinent, and reliant on Momma to empty their nappies. Therefore, a society comprised of babies is one of never ending excrement, and this is pretty much where we are at.

  11. David
    July 18, 2011 at 10:51 am

    This is a difficult one. The manager of the Post Office should have done something about the smoker as it’s a non smoking environment. To be honest luikkerland, although I agree with the central theme of the piece (the people supporting the constitution through action), I fear that with this incident you chose the wrong battle. There are much MUCH more important things to deal with than some idiot pushing the envelope by smoking a fag half in and half out a doorway.

    It wasn’t that long ago that smokers had the FREEDOM to smoke anywhere – now they’re persecuted almost non stop (see Dick Puddlecote’s ‘Stony Stratford’ standoff on his website) and that goes against the fundamental laws of this country – natural law (constitutional law), as you rightly state. In which case the smoker WAS actually upholding the constitution.

    I’m not a smoker and actually like smoke free environments, but I would much rather have back the free country I used to live in.

  12. RTS
    July 18, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    “The most desirable system of law relies on decent people subscribing to a unified moral code to uphold it.”

    Wrong. This is the way to tyranny. Morality is ALWAYS subjective, whether your moral code is a product of your upbringing and experiences or is based on a book allegedly written on behalf of a sky pixie doesn’t matter, a functioning society needs to cater to differing values (as far as possible), not enshrine the values of one group in law and by extension forcing them upon others.

    The most desireable system of law is one that seeks to simply itself and minimise its scope. The best way imho is for a legal system and perhaps a constitution to limit itself to the rights of the individual.
    If a right isn’t violated, then a crime isn’t commited. If an agreement is struck between two consenting adults then the law doesn’t get involved unless one party violates the agreement.

    Said constitution must bear in mind that it is impossible for the actions of one individual to never impinge on someone else to some degree. I take it you drive a car, have electricity in your house, gas central heating? Using these, generates pollution and thus impinges on other people and if we’re to live together we must accept a certain amount of that.

Comments are closed.