The British justice system is broken, and that so many people lament ludicrously soft punishment for crime, or are frustrated that would-be criminals do not even get to go before a judge, demonstrates that a good deal of the population are quite aware of the fact. British politics is also broken; again something that must be widely appreciated if the voluminous cries from the public about being cheated by self-serving politicians who fail to keep manifesto pledges upon gaining office are anything to go by.
The troubling realisation about this state of affairs is this: if so many people understand that the pillars of decent and civil society are shattered, then why don’t they do something about it? The main answer must be that everyone who can see a problem probably thinks that it is somebody else’s fault, or that there is nothing to be done about it. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Yes, broken society is made up of the effects of criminally motivated people, whether they be in the under, working, middle or the ruling class, who steal, cheat and murder, and who are untouchable and unreachable by the modern day equivalents to the historical offices, not necessarily of state, but of town-corporation charity or religion, that had been established to persuade a level of conformity which is essential to social coherence. (The disconnection has been caused deliberately, of course, by a ruling class which desires control through chaos, destitution and welfare dependency). But more than that, broken society is comprised of each and every so-called law abiding individual who has been corrupted by Marxist persuasion and conditioning into accepting that their own subjective personal morality, which in reality represents a very little amount of properness, discipline and honourableness, is enough to qualify them for membership of a society that supposedly remains coherent because it is defined by Government, and therefore isolated from our individual actions.
For a simple demonstration of the effects of moral relativism, the reader is referred to the behaviour of motor car drivers, and indeed pedestrians, at traffic lights on road crossings. There is not a better place to be found to witness the daily evils, that people so readily excuse in themselves, in what are, in fact, outpourings of selfishness, inconsideration, bloody mindedness, and irresponsibility.
Firstly the reader must have seen an example of the pedestrian, usually a chav, or a charver depending on which part of the country you come from, who just steps into the road without waiting for the lights to change to halt the traffic. This is truly remarkable behaviour which betrays a belief in full dislocation from the system that requires cooperation for it to work. Demonstrated here is the attitude in the British underclass, which was deliberately nurtured by the British Government, that it is possible to get everything for nothing. An argument for handing out ladles of cash for not very much in return was that it was poverty that caused crime; this is wrong, of course, the cause is a lack of a comprehension about the need to fit into a coherent society – exactly the sort of thing evidenced when a baseball capped, rickets-gaited charver (who has chosen to buy fags rather than fruit) steps out at traffic lights. In fact, giving, in return for not very much, to a morally denuded generation of underclass is the sort of thing that could only encourage crime, as British social engineers probably well understood, because the victim of welfare becomes disconnected from the desirable code of social interaction involved in acquiring essentials, property and goods – i.e. honest toil.
The reader may also have noticed that these days an amber light is treated by a motorist approaching a set of traffic lights at a road crossing differently than was originally intended. An amber light after a green used to warn the driver, who should be approaching in a manner that anticipates it in any case, to slow down to a halt for a red light. The driver stopped at an amber light if it was possible to do so. Nowadays, this amber light seems to signify to the driver that he or she should accelerate in order to beat the red light. It is entitrely predictable, in fact, that it won’t be very long until such is the degeneration of people in the UK into animals whose actions are controlled entirely by basic emotional responses, that the red light will take on a completely different meaning itself. It will mean that the approaching driver has only a few seconds remaining to get across the lights before pedestrians will start to use the road space. Indeed, jumping a red light is not a thing of the future; drivers already do it in copious amounts.
Then there are the drivers who, on seeing an amber light after a green, drive into the pedestrian crossing space even though they are not able to exit it. This action is calculated, and it is a manoeuvre that enables the driver to justify driving through a red light when the exit becomes clear. However, what happens more often than not is that the exit does not clear, and so when a pedestrian needs to cross, he or she finds their way obstructed by a motor vehicle.
As the reader should appreciate, the social transaction of a set of traffic lights at a pedestrian crossing is a metaphor for and a microcosm of bigger social arrangements. When drivers start to harbour their own judgements about the value of the different signals in that system, which leads to a modification of their own behaviour that merely satisfies subjective requirements, then disharmony in the system always ensues. At level crossings where a motorist encounters an uncompromising user of the system – the train – then it can lead to death.
If one cannot obey a simple social construct like traffic lights because one feels that to do so somehow wins some slim advantage, then how is one able to accommodate the wider rule of law? Without the rule of law, there is only chaos, and, as abovementioned, death. The small gain that a driver may get by jumping a red light is synonymous with any perceived advantage brought by cheating whatever code for social interaction a person finds himself in (the readers should be able to think of his or own examples); but all such advantages are really not worth the having for the damage they do in terms of breaking society. It is these short-sighted, short-term people, and there are so many of them, who do not have standards for their own behaviour, and therefore cannot have any standards in terms of expectations for the behaviour of others. At this point, then, in such a person’s appreciation of the world, it doesn’t matter that the politician can get away with defrauding the tax payer, or that a Saturday-night thug can get away with murder; yes, there is always noise generated in complaint, but what do these onlookers ever really do about it? The answer is nothing; and so come we full circle in this article. The corrupted British people keep choosing the same failed political options, and they never change themselves. This is what is really at the crux of a shattered society, and so the buck-passing and denial does not cut it anymore; there is quite clearly something that the culpable can do to fix it.
And on the specific point of behaviour at traffic lights, here is a message for motorists from someone who has to use crossings as a pedestrian. Just because you can sit behind the wheel of a car, it does not mean that you can drive, and it certainly does not turn you into Graham Hill (though perhaps more like a computer console pilot like some modern day Formula One drivers). Driving a vehicle is also about being able to stop in good time at a line – not over it or well behind it – on demand; it is not just about being able to go full throttle through high speed bends. If you think that you can drive well, then the chances are that you probably can’t, and you probably shouldn’t even be on a road.