Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

The Decline and Fall of the British Empire

April 22nd, 2006 . by Matt

britain
‘Great’ Britain – It was probably better under the Romans

I took the name of this post from The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. I am not saying that the ‘British Empire’ is falling, it already has, what I am referring to the the lack of moral compass in the British government (and presumably the people that are electing these demagogues). I have been following the progress of the British decline, and the outlook seems bleak. From the impossibility of a politically correct ‘war on terror’, to refusing to deport ‘refugees’ that express terrorist sentiments, to banning Winnie the Pooh because it is the subject of one of the taboos of a backward people, Britain can no longer tell right from wrong, let alone fight for what is right.

The self righteous politically correct moralizing of the British government is in direct contrast to its moral turpitude. Theodore Dalrymple writing in CITY journal describes a situation in which terrible crimes go almost unpunished, while a ‘homophobic’ joke is met by an army of police.

Returning briefly to England from France for a speaking engagement, I bought three of the major dailies to catch up on the latest developments in my native land. The impression they gave was of a country in the grip of a thoroughgoing moral frivolity. In a strange inversion of proper priorities, important matters are taken lightly and trivial ones taken seriously.

This is not the charming or uplifting frivolity of Feydeau’s farces or Oscar Wilde’s comedies; it is the frivolity of real decadence, bespeaking a profound failure of nerve bound to have disastrous consequences for the country’s quality of life. The newspapers portrayed frivolity without gaiety and earnestness without seriousness—a most unattractive combination.

Of the two instances of serious matters taken with levity, the first concerned a 42-year-old barrister, Peter Wareing, attacked in the street while walking home from a barbecue with two friends, a man and a woman. They passed a group of seven teenagers who had been drinking heavily, one of whom, a girl, complained that the barrister and his friends were “staring” at them. Nowadays, English youth of aggressive disposition and porcelain-fragile ego regard such alleged staring as a justified casus belli.

The girl attacked the woman in the other party. When Wareing and his male friend tried to separate them, two of the youths, aged 18 and 16, in turn attacked them. They hit the barrister’s friend into some bushes, injuring him slightly, and then knocked the barrister to the ground, knocking him down a second time after he had struggled to his feet. This second time, his head hit the ground, injuring his brain severely. He was unconscious and on life support for two months afterward. At first, his face was so disfigured that his three children were not allowed to see him.

The doctors told his wife, a nurse, that he was unlikely to survive, and she prepared the children for their father’s death. She wrote in a journal that she kept as she sat by his bed, “Very scary feeling that all his natural life is gone.” Nevertheless, he made an unexpected, though partial, recovery. His memory remains impaired, as does his speech; he may never be able to resume his legal career fully. It is possible that his income will be much lower for the rest of his life than it would otherwise have been, to the great disadvantage of his wife and children.

One of the two assailants, Daniel Hayward, demonstrated that he had learned nothing—at least, nothing of any comfort to the public—after he had ruined the barrister’s life. While awaiting trial on bail, he attacked the landlord of a pub and punched him in the face, for which he received a sentence of 21 days in prison.

Before passing sentence for the attack on Wareing, the judge was eloquent in his condemnation of the two youths. “You were looking for trouble and prepared to use any excuse to visit violence on anyone you came by. It is the callousness of this that is so chilling. . . . You do not seem to care that others have been blighted by your gratuitous violence.”

You might have thought that this was a prelude to the passing of a very long prison sentence on the two youths. If so, however, you would be entirely mistaken. Both received sentences of 18 months, with an automatic nine-month remission, more or less as of right. In other words, they would serve nine months in prison for having destroyed the health and career of a completely innocent man, caused his wife untold suffering, and deprived three young children of a normal father. One of the perpetrators, too, had shown a complete lack of remorse for what he had done and an inclination to repeat it.

Even at so young an age, nine months is not a very long time. Moreover, when I recall that for youths like these a prison sentence is likely to be a badge of honor rather than a disgrace, I cannot but conclude that the British state is either utterly indifferent to or incapable of the one task that inescapably belongs to it: preserving the peace and ensuring that its citizens may go about their lawful business in safety. It does not know how to deter, prevent, or punish. The remarks of the policeman in charge of the case were not encouraging. He said afterward that he hoped that “the sentences . . . send a clear warning to people who think it is acceptable to consume large quantities of alcohol, then assault members of the public in unprovoked attacks.” If the law supposes that, as Mr. Bumble said in Oliver Twist, “the law is a ass—a idiot.”

As for Peter Wareing, even in his brain-damaged state, he had a better appreciation of things. He was evidently a man of some spirit: having been a salesman, he decided to study for the law, supported himself at law school by a variety of manual jobs, and qualified at the bar at the age of 40. The extent of his recovery astounded his neurosurgeon, who attributed it to Wareing’s determination and “bloody-mindedness.” He is avid to get back to work, but the contrast between the nominal 18-month sentence for his attackers and his own “life sentence,” as he called it, of struggle against disability is not lost on him. “If there were real justice,” he said, “they would have gone to prison for life.” Could any compassionate person disagree?

Perhaps the final insult is that the state is paying for him to have psychotherapy to suppress his anger. “I have this rage inside me for the people who did this,” he said. “I truly hate them.” Having failed in its primary duty, the state then treats the rage naturally consequent upon this failure as pathological, in need of therapy. On reading Peter Wareing’s story, ordinary, decent citizens will themselves feel a sense of impotent rage, despair, betrayal, and abandonment similar to his. Do we all need psychotherapy?

A second case similarly illustrates the refusal of the British state to take the lives of its citizens seriously. An engineer—Philip Carroll, the father of four—was tinkering with his car outside his home. Four drunken youths sat on a wall on his property, and he asked them to leave. They argued with him, and one of them threw a stone at his car. He chased this youth and caught him, but between 20 and 40 more youths loitering drunkenly nearby rallied round, and one 15-year-old hit the engineer to the ground, where he too banged his head and received severe brain damage. Unconscious for 18 days, he needed three operations to survive; and now he too has an impaired memory and might never work again.

According to his parents, the culprit, Michael Kuba-Kuba, felt deeply ashamed of what he had done, but this did not in the least prevent him during the trial from claiming (unsuccessfully, in the event) that he had been acting in self-defense. This does not sound like genuine shame to me but rather an attempt to get away with it. Before passing sentence, the judge said: “I have to try to ensure that the courts will treat incidents like this with great severity, to send out a message to other young people that violence is not acceptable.”

Another prelude, you might think, to a stiff sentence—but again you would be wrong. The young man got 12 months, of which he will serve six. Six months for the active life of a man—for having caused 30 or 40 years of disability, as well as incalculable suffering to the disabled man’s family! It is not difficult to imagine Kuba-Kuba returning from prison to a hero’s welcome, because he had simultaneously gotten away with near-murder and survived the rite of passage that imprisonment now represents. The message the judge sent out to other young people, no doubt unintentionally, was that youths may destroy other people’s lives with virtual impunity, for the British state does not care in the least about protecting them or deterring such crimes.

Two aspects of the case went unexamined in the newspapers. The first was that Kuba-Kuba’s parents were the owners of a grocery store specializing in African foods, and were deeply religious. The young man doubtless did not grow up in abject poverty, then; nor would he have derived his readiness for violence from anything his parents might have taught him.

The second was that Kuba-Kuba was a talented athlete, apparently of Olympic standard. He was a promising soccer player, so promising that several major teams were seriously interested in recruiting him. If, as seemed likely, he had made the grade, he would have become a multimillionaire by his early twenties, earning more in a year than most people in a lifetime. Lack of economic prospects and the frustration it entails can hardly explain a propensity to violence in his case, therefore.

We must look elsewhere for the source of his violent conduct. Possibly he was born a sport of nature, a creature biologically destined to violence—no doubt there are such cases. But far more likely was that an aggressive popular culture that glorifies egotistical impulsivity and denigrates self-control influenced him. Although his parents presented him, in their statements, as a paragon of virtue, he already had a conviction for theft, and he clearly hung about with teenagers who drank a lot and made a nuisance of themselves. Carroll confronted the youth who threw the stone precisely because he was exasperated by the unruly behavior that prevailed in his neighborhood, undeterred and unpunished by the state. A senior policeman said after the attack, “We have gangs of young people hanging around on street corners being abusive, intimidating and causing trouble. . . . They don’t give a damn about the police or the criminal justice system.”

And who can blame them? What deterrent, punishment, vengeance, or protection for society is six months in prison for having injured a man so badly that he did not recognize his wife or children for several months afterward, that he now has poor eyesight, has lost his sense of smell and taste, has to wear a brace on one foot and a hard hat to protect his skull, and says of himself, “I just have no interest in anything or anyone”—having previously been a highly successful man?

Having seen how the British state takes the serious lightly, let us now see how it takes the trivial seriously.

The newspapers reported the case of an Oxford student who, slightly drunk after celebrating the end of his exams, approached a mounted policeman. “Excuse me,” said the young man to the policeman, “do you realize your horse is gay?”

This was not a very witty remark, but it was hardly filled with deep malice either. It was, perhaps, a manifestation of the youthful silliness of which most of us have been guilty in our time. And Oxford was once a city in which drunken students often played, and were even expected to play, pranks on the police, such as knocking off their helmets.

The policeman did not think the student’s remark was innocent, however. He called two squad cars to his aid, and, in a city in which it is notoriously difficult to interest the police in so trivial a matter as robbery or burglary, they arrived almost at once. Apparently, the mounted policeman thought—if thought is quite the word I seek—that the young man’s remark was likely to “cause harassment, alarm or distress.” He was arrested and charged under the Public Order Act for having made a “homophobic remark.”

Here is a lesson for us all – if you are ever in serious trouble or are being bashed in the dangerous streets of ‘Great’ Britian, call the police and tell them homophobes are making jokes and you will get the immediate assistance you require. If you are being assualted, dont even think about self defense because it is illegal in Britain, and is severely punished.

In other British news, the police arrested a 10 year old boy for schoolyard insults. The Crown Prosecution Service charged the boy with “racially abusing” another pupil. This was too much for this particular judge (who knows what would have happened if it was a different judge), who expressed disbelief at the charges.

Judge Finestein spoke out when the boy, from Irlam, Greater Manchester, appeared at Salford youth court accused of racially abusing a fellow pupil.

He called an 11-year-old boy “Paki”, allegedly referred to him as “bin Laden” and chanted: “He’s on the run, pull the trigger and shoot the nigger”. He is said to have made the comments in the school playground between July 1 last year and Jan 30 this year.

The 10-year-old denied the racially aggravated public order offence and said he was now friends with the boy.

He admitted calling him a “Paki” but said he did not use any other racist terms and claimed the complainant had called him “white trash”.

Judge Finestein said he thought prosecuting the youngster was “crazy” and urged the Crown Prosecution Service to reverse its decision. He said: “Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? I was repeatedly called fat at school. Does this amount to a criminal offence?

“This is political correctness gone mad. It’s crazy. Nobody is more against racist abuse than me but these are boys in a playground. This is nonsense.”

You would think that the British police has better things to do. I will continue to monitor Britains slow ‘death by a thousand cuts‘, but lets hope the British people wake up and throw out the snake oil peddlers that are currently running the country.


6 Responses to “The Decline and Fall of the British Empire”

  1. comment number 1 by: polysics

    that 10 year old boy suuure was racist. I hope he goes to prison.

  2. comment number 2 by: Matt

    that 10 year old boy suuure was racist. I hope he goes to prison.

    Why prison? He will probably get out of prison in a few years. Better that he should be executed, then society no longer has to fear this boys racism.

  3. comment number 3 by: polysics

    good point

  4. comment number 4 by: qbe9584

    A question for you. The Chosun were a bureaucratically ensconced technocracy. They sold out their country to Japan. If the political leaders and the law enforcment agencies of a country begin to hold themselves as dicrete entities from the law abiding, non ruling mass of citizens, at what point does the danger of being sold out to an external threat become real and concrete?

    In Britain, it’s like there are three factions: the law abiding populace, the non law abiding populace, and a government who doesn’t identify with either group and treats them both as threats and adversaries. The reaction is like when the Afrikaaner government impassively watched the Zulu populace assault the Xhosa populace at political gatherings.

  5. comment number 5 by: eli

    Something really stinks across the pond. You can also be jailed in Britain for defending againt home invaders. If someone breaks in your house and you hit them with something, you will be arrested for assault, even though they are on your property and stealing your things.

  6. comment number 6 by: Phred

    It’s not our fault. We don’t like our politicians and Law Lords either. Right and wrong has been strangled by European bureaucracy and their stupid “human rights” bollocks. And there’s nothing we can do about it. The majority of Britons would prefer to pull out of Europe and trade with the rest of the world freely rather than have their restrictions (not only trade) placed upon us.

    The EU s a drain on tax payers money and we would benefit a lot more if we decided to trade with other countries than lousy over-priced, overrated european ones.

    The worst thing is, there is not a single political party in all of britain who are willing to do what we really want them to do. It’s like as if they all made a pact or something, like when some companies get together and fix their prices. There should be a law against that. (the political equivalent of price fixing I mean).

    Did anyone understand any if that? lol