You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

It goes without saying that the West, and indeed much of the world, has a system in which the people elect their politicians at the ballot box. This is democracy, a system which, according to its own advocates, hold the powerful accountable. But this is not the whole story, and it would be naïve to assume that other forces are not at work trying to influence and rule over society by other means.

The recent controversy surrounding President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, has shone a light on another aspect of society – the judiciary – something which has been overlooked by many on the political right for too long. In the days of old, judges were expected to implement the laws of the land. This was an obvious and vital job to do, and it was a respected role in society. The idea that a judge could overrule the decision of a king, President, Prime Minister or legislature would have been seen as absurd. Yet today, such actions are becoming commonplace throughout the world.

With legal aid, activist judges and the practice of due process being thrown out the window, judges have gone from implementing laws to making up their own, or indeed wrongly interpreting laws to suit their own political benefit. This instantly reduces the power of politicians, because they themselves become subservient to the activist judges who can block anything they do. This has been demonstrated numerous times throughout Trump’s Presidency, where his ‘travel bans’ have been blocked by left-wing judges on several occasions.

Most recently, his decision to end the Temporary Protected Status program was blocked by Edward Chen, a federal judge. Mr. Chen argued that Trump’s decision was "against non-white, non-European immigrants". Of course, he is right, but that does not mean that an elected head of state should have his policy blocked by a Judge. As a reactionary, I firmly believe that power is top down, not bottom up, and the idea that somebody below the ‘King/President/Prime Minister’ can block his authority is simply absurd. The reason I believe this is that in order for society to function correctly, there has to be authority and a secure power at the top of the pecking order. This is no more evident than in the Armed Forces, where such a system is the key ingredient for success. The idea that a Sergeant or Corporal could undermine and block the actions of a General is, of course, insane, yet a similar situation is currently going on with regards to Judges and the Leaders of nations.


But this is not the only problem. Unlike in America where Supreme Court nominees are chosen by the President and then voted on by the Senate, in the UK the Supreme Court operates in very murky circumstances. Created by the Labour Government in 2005 by an Act of Parliament and inaugurated in 2009, its members are chosen behind closed doors in secret. The President of the UK’s Supreme Court, along with the Deputy President of the Supreme Court and a member from the Judicial Appointments Commission of England and Wales, Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission choose a new member, who is then approved by the Lord Chancellor. After that, the Prime Minister must ‘recommend’ that person to the Monarch for appointment.

This system enables Britain’s deep state to have a stranglehold on the UK's courts system. Not only because the Judicial Appointments Commissions are overrun with left-wingers, but also because the elected Prime Minister can only recommend a candidate, not choose one outright. The Lord Chancellor, who has the power to approve candidates, is a position often taken by an unelected member of the House of Lords. The 'House of Lords' may sound very medieval and reactionary, but in reality these days it is mostly comprised of ‘life peers’ rather than men from the aristocracy who inherit titles. Since 2007, the position of Lord Chancellor has been taken by elected MPs, but there is no rule to force this practice to continue.

One of the most annoying and downright evil methods left-wing judges can get their way is by relying on ‘human rights’ legislation and interpreting it to mean whatever they decide. This is very common in immigration decisions relating to asylum applications and deportation hearings. Rapists, enemy combatants, and even foreign spies have been allowed to remain in western countries, something which is having a detrimental impact on our society. Unlike right-wing judges, who tend to uphold a loyalty to the law of the land and interpret legislation correctly, left-wing judges throw decency and common sense into the dustbin and make decisions which are downright suicidal. This is causing large-scale problems in the family courts system, where judges are using left-wing dogma to wrongly remove children from families, or issuing gagging orders to prevent the public knowing about the immoral activities of public figures.

It's not all bad news though, the American Supreme Court has a conservative majority thanks to Trump, something which will ensure his legacy continues long after his political career is over. On top of this, Britain leaving the EU brings the prospect of UK judges being free of tyrannical EU laws, something which could also lead to more common sense decisions being made. As for other countries like Sweden and Germany, where the law is so far left that people are prosecuted and imprisoned for defending themselves against attackers, their future remains gloomy at best.

As the ethnic minority population increases in the west, the standard of judges and juries will slip, something which could hasten the downfall of our societies, or serve to wake up the sleeping blue pilled populations among us.

One thing is for certain though; not enough people understand the importance of dominating and controlling the judiciary, something the populist right and nationalists around the world will have to work on. Getting elected to political office is a big enough challenge as it is, and getting right-wing judges to a stage where they are the majority of all judges in the country is an even bigger challenge, but a necessary one.


Edward Saunders

by Edward Saunders

Edward Saunders writes for Republic Standard and is a life long right wing activist.