Written by Mary Curran




How did we arrive at the present tyranny?

Once we had Common Law, and inalienable God-given rights over our persons, property and children, with no liabilities attached. We could do anything provided it wasn’t forbidden by the law. The authorities could not violate these “red lines” unless where permitted by law.

The nearest things we ever had to a Constitution were Magna Carta and William of Orange’s Accession Treaty in 1688 which defined the minimum requirements expected of the Crown. These were based on the grievances and requirements of that time.

Our Common Law did not need to be codified but was based on what was lawful or unlawful. Lawful was in accordance with the natural law, God’s law, the sense of right and wrong that resonates with the ordinary man’s conscience (formed by a Christian upbringing), experience and common sense. In law courts, the judge decided on matters of law; the jury on facts and natural law; the juries’ verdicts formed precedents shaping subsequent law.

Now, we have thrown away this priceless system for one based purely on legality, where lawfulness, legitimacy and our country’s traditions have gone out of the window. The State can do all evil provided it has been passed into law.

I believe the slippery slope began with the Enlightenment. In France, with the revolution came a declaration of rights, a written constitution for France. A new worldview appeared in Europe which saw citizens as a blank slate with no rights at all until these were conferred by the State. The inherent flaws in this were not exposed until States accrued wealth.

Regarding Britain, in the late 19th century the Localism law was passed transferring rights from citizens to local authorities. Does this perhaps account for the fact that one private individual suing a local official (at his own expense of course) found that the official’s defence was financed by the public purse?

After WW2 a major erosion of our freedoms took place under Attlee’s socialist government, limiting our rights over, for example, building on our own land or what our children were taught in State schools.

And Churchill signed up to the Council of Europe in 1950. The UN was created and Human Rights legislation passed internationally, supposedly creating a basic standard for the rights of man, but which in fact eroded our rights, in Britain at least. Even Brexit would not have released us from these legislations as they were independent of, and preceded, the EU. Later, Blair enshrined its concepts into British statute books.

Forward now to the postmodern era. The totalitarian postmodern view is held nowadays by many, that we are post-Enlightenment men, and don’t have or need God-given rights: if most people accept excessive erosion of our liberties, then it’s acceptable.

Also the distinction between rights – which are unqualified – and powers – delegated rights with obligations attached – became muddied. Thus children are now taught, inaccurately, that every right comes with obligations, e.g, you have a right to free speech but other people have a right to be protected from your views. “You can’t interfere with me” has degenerated into “The government must interfere with you because of my rights.”

It now is becoming clear how we’re moving towards the insidious concept of “for the greater good”. The “greater good” really means “the good of the Totalitarian State”. It has been the excuse of tyrants for all sorts of abominations.

This is the collectivist mentality that treats us all as if we were identical like bees and wants to cut us all down to the lowest denominator. The allegedly all-wise, all-good Nanny State claims the “right” to “guide” or rather coerce childlike us into doing what’s “best” for us.

Incidentally is it any accident that many official websites are full of cartoon-like illustrations? Is this not being done deliberately to infantilise us?

The next thing is to see whether we can find a basis for refusing assent say to dangerous vaccines, which we may have forced on us on the philosophical ground that it’s “for the common good” even if we can prove that it’s not.

Stay tuned for Part 2, coming soon.


Photo by rachaelvoorhees

Print Friendly, PDF & Email