Author of our Disease

The Original Sin was the rejection of authority, punishment for which was our being cast out of the Garden of Eden. Until that rejection all our needs were met and after that we necessarily assumed personal responsibility for our survival. How different then is the position for any individual today when confronted by the myriad claims to authority by the agents of state? The simple answer is none, though qualitatively, Gods offer of a paradise on Earth is an unarguably superior bargain than that extended by the mandarins who would act in loco Dei from cradle to grave.

Importantly it should be recognised that not even a supreme being imposed authority, it was an expressly contractual relationship, voided following Eve, having tasted forbidden fruit then convinced Adam to consume similarly. Until that breach, God fulfilled the role of parent, providing for his wards. Adam and Eve’s mistake, in the eyes of God at least, was to disregard his instruction and in so doing, in rejecting his authority, they assumed responsibility for themselves. They became adult.

There is therefore no authority outside of that which is naturally endowed to a parent over their child or that which is granted under contract. All other claims to authority are a grotesque fiction grafted upon an ever increasingly infantilised population, seemingly content to cede control over vast swathes of what previous generations would have commonly considered to be private matters. We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, wards of state, and it is a state which, with its monopoly of violence, aggressively and unlawfully (cf: Statute of Monopolies 1623) seeks to dissuade the people from venturing beyond the thin veneer of the constrained choices it permits through an elaborate fraud masquerading as a free society.

Rather than fulfilling the parental role of preparation, for the parent is accountable for the actions of the child until such a time as the child assumes that responsibility for themselves (i.e., they become an adult), the state has instead become an abusive controlling agent who will brook no dissent from its wards. Mother has built the wall, trapping the child in a toxic solution of arrested development where only actions, supportive of the continuance of this diseased condition are permitted. After all, Mother knows best and only wants to keep you safe.

What then are we to do to remedy this state of affairs? It is trite that we describe that which we need to manifest. Taken together, the Magna Carta (1297) through to the Bill of Rights (1688), the Coronation Oath Act (1688) and the Act of Settlement (1700), perfectly describe our system of lawful governance, one which enshrines the fundamental right to do whatever we please save that which causes another harm. That we have yet to fully manifest this system in all its elegant simplicity is the fault that we must remedy, if we are to fully achieve that which our ancestors from time immemorial have sought to enact.

Pertinently the fissure along which our current malignant governance arrangements have been able to grow is due entirely to the hollowed and ill-constituted state of our judicial system. Simply put, as presently arranged it utterly fails to do its job, which is, as Lord Diplock elegantly described;

‘they [parliament] are responsible to a court of justice for the lawfulness of what they do, and of that the court is the only judge.’ R v Inland Revenue Comrs, Ex p National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, 644

Fortunately, we have a surprising ally in our burning task to reform and re-energise the judiciary. The Government! In their hubris they are now seeking to control the judiciary themselves, as the governments has stated, it is their goal to determine which of its actions should be subject to judicial review. This is as clear a dictatorial power grab aimed at stymying the judiciary as they could plainly make. It presents as clear and present a danger that they could conceivably advance, it is an existential threat to the core purpose of the judiciary themselves. As wake-up calls go you could not ask for a finer one.

That is not to say that we can rely upon the judiciary themselves in dealing with this profound matter, these are after all the actions of powerful vested interests which are acting to destroy the lynchpin of our traditional governance arrangements; that we are all equally answerable to law. It is clear that the government would have you liable for your actions and will seek all means to ensure that you are held accountable whereas they themselves are seeking to pick and choose what they are to be accountable to, incidentally this is precisely what Boris Johnson explicitly stated with regard to which Laws they would decide to follow with respect to Brexit.

That the government are evidencing their clear descent into tyranny by such obvious measures is simply helpful in so much as it makes the problem of government ever more obvious and the need to seek remedy ever more pressing. That it is for the judiciary to re-assert their primacy over the actions of the legislature is beyond question. That our courts need to be re-formed such that the People can exercise their unconstrained standing (their birth right) to bring the government to heel is the manifestation of our forebear’s design.

The question then which we are obligated to have our court determine, clearly and without equivocation, is whether the governments belief that they possess the authority to assert their will upon the people has the force of law as they would have you mistakenly believe, or whether we the people are ready to reject their presumption of authority over us and expel ourselves from the toxic clutches of their fallen garden.