By Order of the Court

I occasionally fear I am not doing enough to immiserate my posterity. The uncomfortable truth is that they’d likely have a somewhat fulfilling life with little opportunity to have their body parts strewn across the street if the matter was left entirely to my own initiative.

When you reflect on some of the true visionaries of stabbing their children in the neck, a certain common core becomes apparent. The bullet points below all being proven effective.

* Never stand between a plutocrat and a penny. Allow them full latitude to import “cheap” labor that becomes geometrically more expensive over time. (Whether slave or helot labor is immaterial)

* Grant universal suffrage. The more imbeciles, immigrants, and emotionally incontinent I can accumulate to negate my sons’ votes, the better.

* Proselytize the religion of ‘isms. If I can convince my children that being ruled by jews, replaced by aztecs, beaten by blacks, and bombed by muslims is a demand of morality, they will live miserably indeed.

There are certainly others you will want to consider, though today’s topic is on a fourth maximum of misery: Always obey the diktats of robed lawyers. Or in the case of France, those who stand on rooftops.

In a judgement expected to lead to bans being overturned in around 30 coastal towns, the State Council, France’s highest administrative court, ruled Friday the measure (to ban muslim potato sacks on French beaches) was a “serious and clearly illegal violation of fundamental freedoms.”

It is not true that the entire liberal Whites off Earth now agenda has been advanced through and defended by Western courts. Though without their resolute support, its victories would have been remarkably modest in comparison. Wherever a European people resist the encroachments of hostile aliens, we can be certain a court is busy unearthing new “fundamental freedoms.” Though as some of you may have noticed, the Freedom of Association remains well-concealed in the chambers of jurisprudence.

And let’s not even soil ourselves with more exotic legal theories, like the freedom to live in separate countries and the freedom to not be invaded by foreigners.

It seems beyond refute to suggest that a people must have some peaceful recourse to alter their legal boundaries as circumstances vary. That includes legislation to defend themselves, their institutions, and their habitat from–let’s just make something up–millions of antagonistic africans and levantines who want to move there and make the place their own.

Passing measures to prevent this is precisely the sort of “fundamental freedom” law schools mysteriously neglect to teach. As a result, their graduates routinely deny it to the natives who subsidize their sinecures. It is no exaggeration to say that the acceptance of Judicial Review has been one of the least understood and most fruitful contributors to our children’s misery.

Oddly enough, some Europeans are beginning to agree. And that agreement means treating court rulings like blacks treat paternity tests: fuck em. I’ve written previously on Catalonians ignoring Spanish courts in pursuit of independence. And now multiple French mayors are giving a single finger salute to the cloistered roof-dwellers in Paris.

French resorts were defiant after a ban on the burkini in a Riviera town was overturned, vowing to keep the restrictions in place and continue imposing fines on women who wear the full-body swimsuit.

…the ruling, which only applied to the ban imposed by Villeneuve-Loubet, was quickly dismissed by several other towns, including Nice, which vowed to keep the restrictions in place and continue imposing fines on women who wear the full-body swimsuit.

Nice town hall said it would “continue to fine” women wearing the burkini and the far-right mayor of Frejus, David Rachline, insisted his ban was “still valid”, telling AFP there was “no legal procedure” against his ruling.

What the far right mayor means by his “no legal procedure” quip is: How many divisions has the court got? And that’s the situation with most subverted institutions in the West. They are megaphones for your enemies to say “die already.” The mayor is responding with Molon Labe. The debate about legalities is all camouflage for the existential conflict occurring below.

And Mr. Rachline isn’t the only one still holding his sword.

Defiant Ange-Pierre Vivoni, the mayor of Sisco on the island of Corscia, pledged to keep the law banning the full-length Islamic swimsuit despite the decree from judges in Paris. 

The rebellious politician threw doubt over the enforcability of the legal order after insisting it “does not affect” his town, which was the scene of a horrific beach brawl which spurred a series of French coastal towns to ban the burkini.

Resistance to court rulings is going to become an increasing feature of conflict between the states and nations of the West. And most judiciaries are determined to not allow the people a voice in their future. Which means decisions will be made as they often are when peaceful options are taken off the table.

In its ruling, the State Council said: “The emotion and the concerns arising from terrorist attacks, especially the attack in Nice on July 14, are not sufficient to legally justify a ban.”

Yes well thanks for your input, State Council. I’m sure the French will give it due consideration. In the meantime, if you’re feeling aggrieved by the Little People’s insolence take a ferry over to Corsica and enforce the ruling yourself. Our misery depends on it.


8 thoughts on “By Order of the Court

  1. Pingback: By Order of the Court | Reaction Times

  2. Capitulation and appeasement, from a people who are ruled by a small group of slithering snakes that want them dead, and who are being replaced and overrun by a savage race who want them dead. What a disaster.

  3. When topless and nude beach-goers first started appearing, there was some brou-ha-ha, but eventually and by neither legislative nor judicial mutual consent, a portion of the beach was set aside for those inclined to scanty or no clothing. Were I French (Sank ‘eaven for borders!), while the burkini is an affront to the eyes, I’d be inclined to SEGREGATE them, though I’d also have been inclined not to have let them in in the first place and obviously far less so now. Wouldn’t want to be told what I can wear on the beach, but even less would I like some “State Council” handing down diktats.

    First I fled the US 20 years ago when I envisioned what I believed it’d become, then I fled Europe when the vision reappeared and non, je ne regrette rien.

  4. “Though as some of you may have noticed, the Freedom of Association remains well-concealed in the chambers of jurisprudence.

    And let’s not even soil ourselves with more exotic legal theories, like the freedom to live in separate countries and the freedom to not be invaded by foreigners.”

    Arcane, indeed! Yea verily, one must take lantern in hand and scour the dusty bowels of the law to search for these complex, subtle doctrines–the right to be let alone, the right to be secure behind borders. Who now living has heard of such? Why that’s back there with “usufruct” and “primogeniture!”

  5. Give them a taste of the own ideology – full Sharia applied to Muslims in the way they apply it to non-Muslims. A taste of their own medicine is long overdue.

    When they are a minority amongst us, they are safe. When we a minority amongst them, we are persecuted and destroyed. This has got to change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s