The West has reached a stage in its decline at which private individuals are able to criminalize other private individuals by taking offence at them. The obvious problem with this is that, although practically anyone can find someone to offend them for some reason, only those who are reputable and within reach of the law can become suitable targets for the offence takers. Thus, offenders tend to be selected much more for their material and social suitability than for anything they have actually done or said, while those claiming to be offended can be anyone simply seeking to remedy a vague sense of inferiority or victimhood.

The trial and imprisonment of Lord St. Davids was classic in this respect.

Lord St. Davids

Stage 1: Self Induced Victimhood

A year ago, when Britain voted for independence by a democratic majority, a former model called Gina Miller took it upon herself and her third husband’s massive fortune to question the constitutional legality of the Brexit process in the Supreme Court. For a heart-stopping moment, this woman’s tight-lipped smirk dominated the front pages of the press, emblematic of the smug manipulation of the nation’s legal systems by an elite minority of bad losers.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, however, not only provided Ms Miller with the legal clarification she sought but actually served to secure the constitutional validity of the process that Brexit would take. So she quietened down and was happy for a few months.

A woman can only humiliate herself so much before her whole life becomes a vendetta against her society.

Ms Miller is from Guyana, a former British colony, but is descended from coolies brought in from Britain’s larger colony, India. She claims to have suffered domestic abuse from her second husband, British philanthropist Jon Maguire, whom she divorced in 2002. In 2010, when the idea of Brexit was still hopelessly idealistic, Maguire stood as a political candidate on a pro-Brexit platform. I will let you ponder whether Miller’s recent attempt to manipulate the course of British self-determination was driven by a respect for due process or a vendetta rooted in something else.

In any case, Miller could only launch a legal bid to thwart the will of 15 million voters because Britain is an exceptionally tolerant society which believes in upholding the plea of an conscientious individual against the will of the nation. Even in Britain, however, a reasonably intelligent person should have anticipated that someone might say something nasty behind her back. Miller says that the abuse that she claims to have suffered in her previous husband made her strong enough to endure a torrent of bile directed at her by the public. She certainly wasn’t brave enough to handle the following:

£5,000 for the first person to ‘accidentally’ run over this bloody troublesome first-generation immigrant.

The comment was shared privately on Facebook by Lord St. Davids, a society rascal. It was accompanied by a description of Ms Miller as a ‘boat hopper’ as well as a suggestion that migrants in general should return to their ‘stinking jungles.’ I might not have said these things myself, but it would have been amazing if nobody had come out with something of the sort.

Stage 2: The White Knight Offence Broker

Normally, Lord St. Davids’ comments would have gone unnoticed. However, the opportunity to connect a litigious celebrity woman with another celebrity scapegoat for the scorn she had recently suffered proved too tempting for a desperate society blogger named Matthew Steeples. Seeing his chance to cream off some media attention for himself, this pathetic man picked up Lord St. Davids’ comments and forwarded them directly to Miller. She swallowed the bait, felt ‘violated’ by the ‘racist’ language, hired security guards and went to court. Lord St. Davids was handed a 12 week prison sentence and Steeples’ blog, a kind of low Testosterone Takimag, celebrated with the language of heroic vanquishment.

Matthew Steeples – a translucent invertebrate lurking at the bottom of London’s social ocean for a fragment of celebrity to fall from above

£5000 for a killer, advertised for by a private citizen on Facebook. Could this be taken as a serious threat? Of course not.

A distinction has to be drawn between renting bodyguards because you feel threatened by an individual and renting bodyguards because you are actually in danger.

Were Lord St. Philips’ references to “stinking jungles” and “boat hoppers” racist? Of course not.

For many, Miller’s intervention grated more because she is a foreigner – but the difference between treachery and invasion has never been described in terms of race and I doubt her critics could care less whether she were Chinese, Rhodesian or an Eskimo. (Even racist comments should be permissible when directed at a figure who deliberately thrusts herself into the public life. The legal suppression of true bigotry prevents it from defeating itself).

Stage 3: Trial By Press

This pathetic and hypocritical trial became a useful catharsis for many disparate personal interests, exposing more about the nature of Lord St. Davids’ critics than I think they intended. For starters, the judge passed the sentence with a tiresomely formulaic indication of her own cookie-cut conscience:

…you show hatred by publicly directing abusive threats at others, which is a criminal offence in this multi-racial society we are lucky enough to live in.

However, unrestrained by fetters of reality or legal formality, it was the press pillorying that truly let the mask of justice slip to reveal the underlying motives of the obstinate, bigoted and puritanical mob. In order to construe the criminality of fashion, previous comments of Lord St. Davids’, mostly on the theme of condemning immigrants, were dredged up by the courts and the papers. Few had the impartiality to concede that he had also called for Tony Blair to be tortured, because such a revelation would have risked exonerating him in the eyes of the public. The papers also wasted no time in listing his former convictions, foreign escapades and bankruptcies (which make for hilarious reading, by the way).

Nawdy!

Predictably, however, the self-appointed inquisition overplayed their hand by broadcasting – horror of horrors – that Lord St. Davids is a supporter of Donald Trump. I don’t know which gallery of the coliseum The Mirror thought they were addressing with this attempted slight, but we all heard it and the only possible sane response is to ask why, if the outrage truly had anything to do with anything Lord St. Davids had said, did The Mirror deem this information relevant for its readership? Is support of Donald Trump a crime now? What kind of blinkered morons are reading this paper? Do they not understand that it was exactly this sort of pig-headed pillorying of the opponent that lead to Trump being elected in the first place? Although we must assume that Brexitland is on the right course, some commentators still display an astonishing level of naiveté about the spell of anti-white racism and class war that their propagandists cast over them.

“Guess Lord. St. Davids got a lenient sentence because he’s a white aristocrat – would have been longer if he was black and unemployed.” – Commentator

No. He only got noticed because he’s a white aristocrat. If he had been an unemployed East-London Somali waving a meat cleaver and chanting death to the infidel to a cheering crowd of brethren, there would have been no virtue to be signaled in relaying his comments and no social or material capital to be gained from feeling intimidated by them. When an outburst emerges from the ranks of elite white men, however, the culprit is pointed out like a tiny green shoot in the the Sahara: irrevocable proof once and for all that the sterile, peaceful, environment is under mortal threat.

Faced with the constant prospect of arbitrary punishment a person who – by wealth, standing, opinion, or accident of birth – finds himself in the camp of the offenders might as well consider himself on relentless parole.

The only question, then, is whether or not he should self-censure accordingly. Well, I think we all know the answer to that.

Double Down And Never Surrender

Lord St. Davids refused to stand in court until deputy chief magistrate Tan Ikram addressed him by his correct title.

Self-interested heroism which that is only displayed under state protection will stop when people like Steeples stop being rewarded for it. Until then, it is people like Lord St. Davids who preserve the extremities of acceptable speech.

Fortunately, the only person who the law is attempting to correct in this situation is the only person who won’t change a bit. The British aristocracy have mostly experienced life in a boarding school system which would make Guyana look like Switzerland and, as a result, are completely invulnerable to limp-wristed attempts at penal correction. When he gets out later this summer, Lord St. Davids is going to enjoy more goodwill than ever before. The legal order may bend toward social homogeneity and tyrannical kitsch, but the social order (that toadying court eunuchs like Steeples want so desperately to be a part of), will always follow Lords like Viscount St.David.

Where the party goes, the nation and its laws will eventually follow. That’s how civil society works in Britain, and anyone who finds our green pastures intolerable is free to head back to their fragrant woodlands.

Read Next: British Police Chief Will Prioritize Online Abuse Reports Over Burglaries