PART 1 – The Glorious Revolution – the UK since 1945

At the end of my previous blog, I said that I was going to draw some parallels between what King James II did between 1685 and 1688 and what has been going on in this country since 1940.

My understanding and interpretation of events since probably before the beginning of WWII but definitely since 1940 is that the British governments of the United Kingdom have been gradually but methodically destroying the English Constitution, and the country itself, and especially England and the English.

Having a majority in the House of Commons the government has usually been able to obtain the money that they require for this project, just as King James II obtained his money from the House of Commons. James did not disclose exactly how he was going to use the money. Generally, governments have said what they were planning to do, but they haven’t always done what they said!

But money has not been a problem for the government. If it couldn't tax people it just borrowed money, which the people would eventually have to repay plus interest anyway. To them it didn't matter whether they got tax money or they borrowed money.

In fact, the more they borrowed the better for this project, because borrowing money, i.e. printing non-existent ‘money’ into existence, and having a banking system that can produce money out of thin air as well through fractional banking, merely serves to increase inflation which in turn reduces the value of the people's money. Those who print money get the benefit of that money because the system hasn't worked out yet that the system is being flooded with more ‘money’. Increase the Money Supply and you increase inflation i.e. reducing the purchasing power of Sterling, in our case. So, money has never really been a problem.

We have also suffered from high taxation too! This is a draining away of the wealth of individuals, families, small businesses, and companies.

Central to all that happened was the Law and the Judges.  James filled the bench with judges who would interpret the law in the way the King wished the law to be interpreted to further his plans.

When I was at university studying law (in the 1970s) some argued that the judges were biased. Usually, the accusation came from those who are politically on the Left. As an undergraduate I read ‘The Politics of the Judiciary’ by J.A.G. Griffiths, in which he argued that the judges had been politically motivated on many occasions.

In the past, we prided themselves on the lack of corruption amongst our judges, but it doesn’t seem too hard to perceive that some of our judges, in certain cases, are in fact politically biased against those who are opposed to the State’s narrative, especially in respect of mass illegal immigration.

A number of decisions that have been made would appear to be politically motivated rather than legally motivated and the penalties handed out to those who disagree with the government are far in excess of those penalties handed out to those who are on the Left or fit into certain other categories.

King James's attitude was that his judges would interpret the law the way he wanted them to, but if there were laws that the judges had no effect on and Parliament wouldn’t change, he would set that law aside temporarily or would ‘suspend’ the law entirely. The first could sometimes be lawful in an emergency, but the latter was never lawful under English Common Law. No one, not even the king, could just suspend the laws.

James filled the Army, the Navy, the Cabinet and the Civil Service with men who were willing to do what he told them to do, irrespective of the law and customs of this realm. The governments of this country have for a very long time set up quangos filled with their appointees. The House of Lords has been filled with others like them.

I'm not making a party-political point: they've all done it and they all have their "people" in place. All our institutions have been filled with such people by the Uni party. They are not there to promote the policies of King James II of course. They are there to promote this project of destruction of the English Constitution and the English people, as well as the rest of Britain. You will immediately say why would anyone do such a thing? I suggest the reason for this later.

James banned the Church of England and anyone else from saying anything negative about the Roman Catholic Church or Roman Catholicism. There is a famous example of the King ordering one of the bishops of the Church of England to dismiss one of his clergy for delivering a sermon in which he criticized Roman Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church. The bishop considered this command was unlawful and therefore refused. Others may have given in to that pressure and dismissed the clergyman for doing something that a Church of England clergyman should, on occasions, do, i.e. point out the errors of Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church.

James sought to rid the country of Protestantism, whether in the Church of England or amongst the Nonconformists. There were laws already in place penalizing Roman Catholics and Nonconformists, the Clarendon Code, which he sought to use against all those who might speak against his religion, his party, Roman Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church. He suspended the Code as it impacted Catholics. The aim was to eradicate Protestantism and turn the country back to the "true faith" by making England Catholic again. Most of the English did not want to be Catholic again. They liked being Protestant, believing that Catholicism was the same as tyranny and oppression. They did not wish to go back to that.

(To be Continued).