Shall We Have Law, or Shall We Have Justice?

IT NOW SEEMS increasingly likely that Joe and the Ho’ have gotten away with blatant election fraud and will be sworn in on January 21. The courts at every level have deemed the overwhelming evidence insufficient to justify a full hearing, let alone an enforcement of the electoral laws. The administration of justice in the West increasingly resembles that of the Third World where political and ethnic affiliations determine outcomes. Even I, almost inured to our decline, have been shocked by, first the blatant electoral fraud and second the inaction of the justice system in the face of such gross criminality. Then factor in the discrimination against Whites via affirmative action and the capture of politics, media, entertainment and academia by forces hostile to Americans of European descent and you’re left thinking of moral and practical alternatives.

Consider what I’ve written before on this and apply it to today’s utterly corrupt political arena.

“Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of justice.” Thus the legendary Oliver Wendell Holmes once admonished a passionate young lawyer who appeared before him at the US Supreme Court. Which raises the question as to what extent the law embodies justice. That requires a definition of justice and I’ll try that without degenerating into sophomoric posturing. I suggest that justice derives from a people’s experience, traditions, ethics, rationality, sense of fairness and the natural law (to the extent this can be understood). Put simply, most people know and understand what is right and just.

In assessing the extent to which the law embodies such a definition we need to distinguish between codified law and the administration of that codified law. In general I’d say the codified law embodies the people’s sense of justice reasonably well even though this is rapidly changing due to the ever-increasing power and intrusion of centralised and undemocratic higher courts such as the execrable European Court of Human Rights and the Federal Courts in America. Conforming with this trend are multiple examples of laws running counter to popular beliefs including repeal of the death penalty and the introduction of so-called ‘hate’ and ‘anti-discrimination’ laws.

But the real distinctions between law and justice relate to administration rather than codification. How often have we been sickened by the acquittal, on some semantic procedural basis, of those clearly guilty of serious crimes? How often do judges apply ridiculously short sentences which allow dangerous killers and rapists to quickly return to society and continue their depredations? How often is the farcical concept of concurrent sentencing applied, resulting in the perpetrator of a string of crimes attracting a sentence for just one? How often do we rage at seeing ‘minorities’ of various hues get off scot free in White countries while Whites, the real citizens, are hunted down by politically motivated prosecutors and severely punished for trivial offences?

Yes, the administration of justice leaves an awful lot to be desired and it’s set to get worse as our societies become increasingly – and of course deliberately – balkanised. Juries will increasingly base their verdicts on race and/or religion. Think of the OJ Simpson trial where a blatantly guilty dual murderer was acquitted by his fellow blacks in the face of all the evidence. How much probity will Muslim jurors and judges (who’ve taken their oath on the Koran) apply in assessing the guilt of accused fellow Muslims? And don’t forget that all it takes in many Western jurisdictions is a tiny number of jurors to forestall a guilty verdict.

Now consider this possibility. After the OJ Simpson acquittal a group of ‘concerned citizens’ drags him from the court and strings him up from the nearest tree. Or this. Mega-thief Jon Corzine, swanning his way to aperitifs in his swish Hamptons estate gets waylaid, beaten to a pulp, tarred and feathered and tied to a tree. Or the worst members of Limerick’s notorious Dundon gang, used to serving short comfortable sentences for a vast array of brutal crimes, are found floating face down in the Shannon after each murder they commit. What of the thousands of black ‘youths’ who currently terrorise law-abiding Whites throughout America and who, in the unlikely event of their being apprehended, are handed derisory sentences? What if another group of ‘concerned citizens’ were to hunt them down and administer on-the-spot frontier justice?

Yes, yes, I know all the problems associated with such a course of action, but as to the narrowest question… justice would indeed be better served. And how bad would such a society be? I know the image of the Old South in America is one where toothless inbreds blaze away at one another all day and then head off to lynch one of them colored folk for not doffing his hat to a White lady. But in fact Southern society was a very polite one with a low murder rate.

Fact is, the administration of the law depends on a compact between the governors and the governed. If that compact breaks down, either through inability (e.g. lack of resources) and/or lack of will, other means must be found. Other means include the posse comitatus (“power of the community”) whereby ordinary citizens can be drafted in to meet a pressing need, albeit under the control of a legally appointed officer. Not surprisingly such laws are now under major attack in America and since I originally wrote this the situation has dramatically deteriorated.

Even positing this alternative would give most people a fit of the vapours. We must respect “The Law.” But I don’t see anything particularly sacred about “The Law.” How could anything operated by lawyers elicit respect? The question though is whether it’s reached such a state of debasement that alternative enforcement methods are called for. For most Western countries the answer is probably no. For now. But with the blatant stealing of an American presidential election I think the answer for Americans is far less clear.

* * *

Source: Irish Savant