The heroes who let you bend the rules

This follows on from PCar’s comment under the OoL version of the previous post, a comment quoting Conservative Woman:

[H]er speech with its several allusions to the need for compromise, her repeated imputation that the problem still lies with her party and Parliament (not with her) for not falling in line with her phoney BRINO paradigm, the bottom common denominator of which necessarily had to go ever lower. There was no humility at all.

Nail. Head. Oh how far-reaching was that comment within a comment, as noted further down.

First though, where your humble blogger is coming from. If you go to my profile page, there is a political compass, placing me centre-right.


I’ve taken the test several times and each time, the averaged score has put me there. Reason for introducing this personal note is that one needs to know where a writer is coming from, again in the light of further down in this post.  Is he a closet far-left or a closet far-right, is his ‘centrality’ an averaged score?

And what about you, dear reader? Many of us are currently outraged by the way the rules are applied, as Ian Anderson, in Thick as a Brick [Tull], mentions:

And the sandcastle virtues are all swept away
In the tidal destruction the moral melee

And the youngest of the family is moving with authority
Building castles by the sea, he dares the tardy tide to wash them all aside

I’ve come down from the upper class to mend your rotten ways
My father was a man of power whom everyone obeyed

Playing at the hard case
You follow the example of the comic-paper idol
Who lets you bend the rules

That last bit chimes in with Conservative Woman and the cases mentioned above and below.

Against that, which you’ll observe is more in line with hard and fast rules, statutory punishments without flexibility for judges who must follow the code of penalties prescribed, irrespective of the personage being vilified or protected – against that view is the counterview that if the laws say one thing, they are not necessarily to be obeyed if they are wrong in our view, the view of the majority or that of the Bible.

Mr. Brownlow, in Oliver Twist, says that:

If the law supposes that, then the law is an ass.

Supported in the modern day by Ian Hislop, of Private Eye and HIGNFY, when he said, after a finding against him:

If that’s justice, then I’m a banana.

In that case, at that time, many would have agreed with him. Wiki:

Another libel case in May 1989 threatened the magazine’s continued existence when it was ordered to pay £600,000 in damages following an action for libel by Sonia Sutcliffe, wife of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe.

Hislop told reporters waiting outside the High Court: “If that’s justice, then I’m a banana.” The award was dropped to £60,000 on appeal.[13]

Tommy Robinson was also held by quite a few to have been unfairly treated over the 13 month sentence.  Telegraph:

Robinson’s contempt of court conviction was quashed by Court of Appeal judges in August last year and he was released after serving two months of his sentence.

They ruled that the decision to commit him to prison “so promptly” and without “due regard” to rules governing procedures surrounding someone alleged to have acted in contempt of court “gave rise to unfairness”.

But the PTB did not like that – try, try and try again, eh?

Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC announced earlier this month that it was in the public interest to bring fresh proceedings against Robinson.

Now where have we seen that motif before? Perhaps in Ireland where they needed to run the referendum again until they got the correct result?

Ditto the Remoaners at this very moment, egged on by WMD Blair to get the result right once they can rig it to ensure the correct result.

Ditto in the States, where States are seceding, it it were possible, which it’s not, from the Electoral College system.  At least it’s not possible, short of civil war.

And the young man of the family is the Cortez of the Dem family, the Owen Jones here, the other Millennial know-nowts trotted out by the owned MSM.

And now, cue all the articulate anti-democrats who tout that much hijacked and abused term ‘liberals’ – now ranging from classical liberals, through those who support a traditional liberal arts education, to those who are nothing short of totalitarian [the left, CINOs, RINOs and Them themselves].

Which reminds me of that confrontation in A Man for all Seasons [Bolt, text not available online except through various pdfs] who has this exchange between More and Will Roper:

Thomas More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down, d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Roper: Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

That’s precisely the dilemma in this post now:

Take a clear case of Muslims acting to support Shariah Law which results in the current clip on social media of the woman being dragged by her hair by a man along the floor and abused, while other men look on approvingly.

The system they are wishing to be in place is well known by us and yet it results in the Army issuing guidelines on how to recognize any miscreants [us] opposing these things, just as we opposed IRA bombings and FGM – it recognises us as ‘far-right’.

Please see my Political Compass [above] again on that.

To finally get to the point of this post – we all hold contradictory views on things when test cases are brought up to challenge our breaking of the rules in the interest of the safety of the land, of our people, to prevent population replacement, hence the movements across Europe.

Are we wrong to point out that the PTB wish for this conflagration and mass bloodshed to take place, let alone the rapes and mutilations, and that our opposing all this, far from being hate speech, is love speech – love for the common people of all lands, their underpinning faiths and cultures?

Yet if we ride roughshod over the rules, bad as they are, where does that leave us? If you think your humble blogger has the answer to this, then you’d be disappointed.

Yet I do know the PTB must be stopped, the ones misusing the laws they themselves have put into place to exonerate themselves [see Blair and the death penalty for treason]:

And I do know the Muslims must be stopped coming in in these invasive numbers by the PTB – yet how to legally and legitimately stop this if the whole apparatus of state is hellbent on our destruction, the destruction of the common people, the destruction of Europe and other western nations, the destruction of the Christian basis of our culture and our legal systems?

[Late note – the little birds have just started the cacophony of tweeting in the branches outside our window at 04:20, Sunday – what are their rights?  What are mine, sorely in need of sleep?]

4 comments for “The heroes who let you bend the rules

  1. May 26, 2019 at 04:22

    I’ve taken the test repeatedly, and usually come out about one notch south of where you are.

    Zombie’s political test is another interesting way of graphing this:

    • May 26, 2019 at 04:32

      Shall try it after some sleep. And never forget, in the words of a wise man:

      “By creating an artificial abundance of InfoToxins to develop, credibility goes up.”

  2. May 27, 2019 at 02:04

    The political compass is amusing.

    The problem with political debate today is that concepts get thrown about but those concepts are never defined. For example, freedom. But the hell does freedom mean?

    If you have to get up in the morning to go to work you’re not free. You’re a slave. Rich people are free.

    If you’re a woman and you don’t feel safe walking the streets then you’re not free. If you’re a nudist and you feel you should walk about the local shopping mall stark naked and a policeman arrests you for doing so you’re not free.

    If you don’t have enough money to pay today’s horrific electricity bill are you free? You’re free to freeze to death in winter. I guess that’s freedom of a sort. It’s the sort of freedom most right-wingers would approve of.

    Right-wingers think freedom means freedom to make money but that’s an absurdly narrow view.

    The issue of whether freedom is really a good thing is also usually evaded. If I’m truly free then why can’t I demolish my house and build a 20-storey tower block on my land?

    And is it a good thing that people are free to live lives of sexual excess, having sex with anything that has a pulse? Is it be a good thing for people to be allowed to consume whatever drugs they want to? Should people be free to simply walk out of a marriage when they get bored. Or when someone younger and hotter comes along?

    Should we force children to attend school?

    • May 27, 2019 at 03:57

      Yes, that political compass has stood the test of time now and is pretty accurate – it would only be amusing to the opposition.

Comments are closed.