Thursday, 11 December 2008
Legal Self Government For the English and Sharia Law
Image - King Alfred and his Witan
Now that the trend of allowing Sharai Law to become part of English law, then perhaps the English should demand the removal of Norman Law and the Curia Regis system and the return to the Witan system of self legal government for the Indigenous English folk themselves.
The article below is a repost, but seeing as the issue of Sharia Law is now being propagandised and inserted into English law - the points it makes are valid as to the restoration of the rights and legal systems of the Eneglish Folk.
The Tyranny of the Minorities.
The State as a mechanism of the nation is defined in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1933 Article 1.
This treaty defines a 'State' as requiring ;
1) A Permanent population
2) A defined territory
3) A government
4) A capacity to enter into relations with other states.
The British Constitutional Nation State has possessed these features since the creation of the English Nation in the 10th Century, from which it derives, and is therefore one of the oldest continuous constitutional nation states in the world.
The primary component of any Nation State is its people, this being its permanent indigenous population.
The permanent population of any state are the indigenous people and the indigenous community of that nation who historically formed the nation and the state itself. These people are the Natural Citizens of the State.
The indigenous people create the State and the State derives its authority only from it representing the interests of the indigenous People.
A permanent indigenous population is not composed of transient migrants, refugees, naturalised subjects or guest workers utilising modern global transit systems to enter and exit nation states at will.
The permanent population and citizenry of Britain are solely those people who are descendants of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and closely assimilated Northern European population of the British National Community whose ancestors first created the British State at the time of the Act of Settlement 1701, and whose ancestors fought for their rights as enacted in Magna Carta and the Bill Of Rights. They alone are the Natural Citizens of the British Constitutional Nation State and National Community who possess Constitutional Rights as well as individual civil liberties and civil rights.
The fundamental basis of British society, which is the British National Community, did not arise as the result of a mutual social contract between unrelated individuals rationally trying to maximize their best economic interests, but is rather that of an tribal association whose most ancient form is the extended family as the basis of an ethnic National Community.
The National Community is not defined by politics or economics, it is defined by ethnicity. The National Community is defined as a mode of organic sociality deriving from a tribal or national (gemeinschaft) basis as in the theory of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, 1887) put forward by Ferdinand Tonnies (1855-1936).
The National Community exists in opposition to Modern Society. Modern society's practical, technological, mechanical and functional social relations, in which social organization within the British nation state is based solely on individuality and individual interests or aggregated social, political or economic interests regulated by the Rule of Law.
The National Community existed as a real organic collective before the artificialities of modern civil society were constructed and is therefore superior to it. Society and the State are the creations of the National Community, and therefore it must primarily serve the interests of the National Community.
The function of the State is to serve the National Community and to ensure the Rule of Law.
The role of the State in the Social Contract as a functional mechanism within British society is to uphold and defend the historical constitutional laws and rules of the indigenous People that govern and regulate the actions of the Crown, the government and Judges when they exercise their authority and create and apply the laws of the country against both the individual and the National Community.
This process ensures we live in a free and democratic society based on the Rule of Law.
The State is a constitutional mechanism that prevents society, the politicians, civil servants and judges from betraying the people by breaching the rules of the constitution itself. The State ensures that society, the Crown, the legislature, executive and the Judges all stay within the rules and laws of the Constitution settlement and thereby the State defends the basis of the Rule of Law and civil society itself.
The constitutional framework of the State is the foundation of liberty itself.
The constitution is the body of ancestral laws, historic rules and processes that defines the Social Contract and the Environmental Contract between the indigenous people, the government, society and the State.
The essential roles of the State are to ensure internal security, defend the people from external and internal aggression, ensure individual our sectarian interests do not threaten order within Society and to defend national community rights and individual civil liberties.
In the Anglo-Saxon legal system which is the basis of British and English Law and Politics the word 'Folc' from which comes the word Folk means not just the Anglo-Saxon people, it also means the English nation itself.
The Anglo-Saxon word ' Cynn ' means ;
The word ' Maegd ' means ;
All these words share a linked meaning where the families, the folk and the Nation are one.
Therefore we can see that the fundamental basis of British society is not the result of a mutual contract between individuals rationally trying to maximize their best economic interests, but rather that of an tribal association whose most ancient form is the extended Anglo-Saxon families and Celtic families and their respective tribal groups.
We can also see through genetic research, history, migration studies and cultural linkage that the racial root of all the families of the permanent population of Britain are derived solely from the Northern European racial group that have existed in Europe from at least as far back as the Neolithic. This is proof that units of individual family groups solely from the Celto-Norse Northern European racial group were the ethnic basis of the Anglo-Saxon tribes, that the Anglo-Saxon tribes were the basis of the Anglo-Saxon Folk and that the Anglo-Saxon Folk are the English of the English nation.
This dynamic process also created the indigenous British people of the British Nation who are an amalgam of the European Celtic and Norse tribal groups as defined by ethnicity, geography and culture. In 738 A.D St. Boniface reported that the continental Saxon tribes said of the English people ' We are of one blood and one bone ' proving that the consciousness of a racial community existed linking the Anglo-Saxons and the Germanic tribes of Europe into one unified tribal group.
Therefore in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition the ' permanent population ' of the British nation is the indigenous Anglo-Saxon Folk of Great Britain and the indigenous Celtic tribes of Britain and those fellow racial Europeans absorbed into the British National Community who are descendants of the Celtic and Germanic tribes of Europe. The laws of the dooms of King Ine of Wessex who came to power in AD 688 confirm that indigenous Celtic Britons and Anglo-Saxons were both protected as equals under the Kings laws.
The laets of Kent also show a similar absorption process taking place in South East England as the two populations began to intermarry.
The nature of the British legal and political are also linked to ethnicity.
The historical liberties of the British people are the liberties solely of the indigenous people of Britain. The etymological source of the word 'Justice ' is Latin and it represents a Roman legal concept not an indigenous legal tradition.
The Roman concept of ' Justice' is postulated on the belief that there exists a set of universal abstract principles capable of being codified into an authoritative body of law against which empirical phenomena can be rationally measured to arrive at a 'just' result in the event of conflict. It also implies the existence of a judge with the authority and capability to act as an impartial party adjudicating all legal disputes based upon the application of those universal abstract principles.
In the Anglo-Saxon legal system any legal conflicts in the local community were decided using the local historic laws of the indigenous local people instead of universal abstract principles, they were also based on local precedent and custom rather than the direct application of any abstract universal legal principles, they utilised a jury of peers from the same community instead of a judge independent of the country and the people themselves conducted the legal trials according to local their edicts and laws as opposed to the decrees of any central political or legal authorities.
In the writings of Tacitus it states that the Kings of the tribes of Germany possessed no right of arbitrary power or unlimited power.
The restrictions on their right to exercise power were based on local custom and precedent and the Kings were controlled by their Councils. The local Anglo-Saxon tribes had councils that advised the King in the form of the Witan Gemoot and the ' micelra gesomnunge Godes theowa ' these being the wise men of the Anglo-Saxon tribes and the religious leaders of the tribes.
The Witan councils were even able to remove a King and depose them from their throne if they abused their powers. The King reigned only with the consent of the people as expressed through the will of the Witan. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles reveals that in the year AD 757 ' Cynewulf and the Witan of the West Saxons deprived Sigebryht of his kingdom for his unrighteous deeds, except Hampshire '. This showed than an English King could only rule with the consent of the council of the Witan.
It was only during the reign of King Aethelbert in the late sixth century that the ancient laws and customs of the Anglo-Saxon people were written down and tribal custom was slowly replaced with a semi-formal legal system of laws of the Anglo-Saxon peoples given the authority to be applied in legal proceedings before the Witan or local courts under the authority of the Crown.
These laws were written down in English, not in Latin, and there was no attempt to produce a codified legal system with universal legal principles to be applied in all cases. These were English laws for the English people. Local custom and precedent were seen as operating alongside the Kings legal authority and power to decide procedural rules. It was because a crime was seen not just as an attack on the victim but also as an attack upon the Kings Peace and also an affront to the Kings power in his realm that the legal procedures in the trials of criminals of early British society gained their authority and were applied in the Kings name.
It is to King Alfred The Great of Wessex who began to reign in AD 871 that we can see the birth of a dynamic process of consolidating a set of English laws acceptable to all the English people both Celtic and Germanic. The adoption of the disparate customs and laws of the various Anglo-Saxon and Celtic tribes of England into one formal English Law Code was an attempt by the King to unify the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and Celtic tribes into one English nation residing under the protection of the Kings Peace. Two hundred years later when William of Normandy conquered England he swore at his coronation to uphold not only the laws of Edward his cousin and predecessor but also the laws of King Alfred The Great.
The British State is the guardian of the British National Community and derives its authority within the nation from the ancient customs and laws of Anglo-Saxon England and the Celtic tribes from whose peoples was first formed the English nation and society. Its function as part of the Social Contract in British society is to uphold the historical constitutional laws and rules that regulate the actions of the Crown, the government and Judges when they exercise their authority and create the laws of Britain.
The State is not the Crown, the government nor the politicians. The State is the process that ensures the Crown, politicians, the judges and the government all abide by the law. The State ensures that the power of the Royal Prerogative is exercised only within the constitutionally defined Rule of Law. A constitutional system based on the rule of law is a prerequisite for the evolution and existence of a civil society and for the maintenance of civil liberties. Countries with Sharia Law cannot create civil societies. Nor can nations who have surrendered their sovereignty to supra-national institutions and international corporations be said to be democracies nor civil societies.
The Social Contract is the indissolvable bond between the people, the national community and the State, it is not under the dominion of either Crown, government, Judges nor politicians. Governments and politicians, Judges and Civil servants are transient functionaries that operate under the control of the State. The State exists to ensure the people are the masters of their government.The States primary operational role is to ensure internal and external security against aggressors and terrorists and also that the rule of law is maintained so that the ' war against all ' that Hobbes defined as the nature of a society without a state does not tear the country apart.
Even the Minimal State is also a national security state. Internal national order ensures the threat from external aggression is minimised. The State is the primary bulwark from internal tyranny and external invasion. It is in the interests of the people and national security that society is regulated by the State rather than controlled by the media, corporate state governments, the global corporations, the US, the EU, the UN, the WTO, the Bilderbergers, the international bankers, international socialists, one world liberals and Dar Al Islam.
We will restore power to the people and end the tyranny of the minorities.The following are also the anti-thesis of the Constitutional State as these are minorities exercising power over the majority for the benefit of minorities ;
The corrupt political parties and their corporate backers and the QUANGO state structures they have created ;
The ethnic minority pressure groups - the CRE and the Race Relations Industry
The international immigrant criminal gangs
The Muslim Political lobby groups that want Sharia law in the UK
Politically correct Media and BBC, Channel 4 etc
The Judges and the Attorney General, ACPO, CPS, DPP etc
The EU and UN - supra-national institutions.
The banks and financial institutions - WTO and World Bank
The oil companies and energy corporations
The Far Left intellectuals and academics who espouse universal rights based on internationalism
The Reactionary Capitalist elite that espouse globalism and international capitalismEach of the above have undermined our democratic society.
The right of the State in the past to delegate power to foreign institutions such as the EU and UN also means the State in the name of the People has the right to repatriate those powers whenever it wishes. This is the basis of the sovereignty of Parliament itself.
The right of the State to include foreign peoples as citizens of the State in the past also means the State has the power to change the legal status of those foreign peoples as citizens of the State if required by circumstance relating to their wrongdoings or by a free vote of the people themselves.
The State is also responsible for educating the individual about their rights and liberties and hence ensures the liberty of the individual and the community itself.
If the State did not educate the individual about the constitution then they would have no rights, for they and the community would remain ignorant of the fact that such rights even existed.
The whole operation of the concepts of Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty depends entirely on the interaction of the State and the constitution with the people. The freedom to attain ones own goals according to ones own will and also the freedom from being coerced to fulfil anothers goals at the expense of our own ambitions are both dependent upon the State operating as a mechanism involved in the regulation of social relations between the citizenry and the government.
Any nation that has open borders cannot be an Open Society.
The fact that the British nation state has millions of illegal immigrants in the country means we cannot operate or exist as an Open Society.
Any nation that seeks to save the world merely ends up betraying its own people.
In Modern Britain we cannot live in an Open Society as we have allowed millions of illegal immigrants, bogus refugees, foreign criminals and other illegal entrants in the country that threaten national security.
People do not live in an Open Society if they live in fear of suicide bombers, foreign criminals, immigrants colonising their areas and terrorists. The basis of an Open Society is predicated on the freedom from fear.
The presence of the terrorists in the nation allows the Liberal Fascists to pass ever more laws that destroy the basis of the Open Society. The Politicians are as dangerous to liberty as the Terrorists.
Both laws and bombs kill liberty.
Only by the State removing those illegal entrants and terrorists that threaten the people can the threat from the politicians be removed.
An Open Society can only exist in nations that control their borders and rigorously police who comes in and out of the country and who also prohibit foreign religious groups and alien ethnic groups from organising to challenge the demographic, cultural and social, economic, political supremacy of Every Open Society must resist all those forces that threaten the constitutional structure and settlement of the State.
Political freedom and civil liberties in an open society depend upon nationalist policies and a strong constitutional state structure. If the intellectual elite in any society is obsessed only with the rights of individuals or aliens then it is an Ideological Open Society as opposed to a Functional Open Society. We support an National Community as opposed to an Open Society. An Open Society in a nation existing under the dominion of globalisation is neither free, nor a community nor a society. The indigenous people are deracinated and relegated to the status of economic units merely squatting on the land. Community is transformed into colonies of immigrants and Society is replaced with wage slavery and the black economy.
The nation is not free when terrorists roam the streets and the government pass ever more laws to remove our civil rights and liberties.
The National Community is concerned with using the mechanisms of the State, government and the Market in as minimal manner as possible to ensure the ancestral rights and individual liberties of the families and individuals that form the micro-communities of the Nation are protected and promoted both from internal threats and external aggressors.
A National Community is based on defending and securing the organic realities of the nation as opposed to internationalist ideological constructs. The National Community is concerned with securing the borders of the nation state, protecting the national environment, removing illegal aliens and illegal entrants, making sure people have decent homes, adequate health care, schools, that helps the old the disabled and the poor and that seeks to secure the civil rights and the civil liberties of the British people above all others.
The National Community is based on the organic reality of the people and the environment of the nation both being dependent upon the other for survival. It recognises the importance and validity of the physical laws that govern human societies and seeks to live within the sustainable natural limits of its own environment. It ensures the citizens and subjects of the nation reap real social and economic benefits as opposed to the hollow 'intellectual ' benefits of living in poverty in an Ideological Open Society that invites the world to live within its borders.
In the Ideological Open Society the concept of universal rights is more important than Community Rights.
In the Ideological Open Society if 200 million Chinese fled to Britain and claimed refugees status, then each of them would have the exact same Citizenship rights as those Britons whose ancestors have resided here for thousands of years. Even though the influx of aliens would destroy Britain both socially and environmentally and destroy all the civil rights and liberties of those of us already living in Britain, the proponents of the Ideological Open Society would still allow them to stay and bestow upon them full British Citizenship status.
The Social Contract that forms the functional basis of the National Community also demands the power of the State to secure and perpetuate its own existence. The fundamental rules that the British State exists to protect are non-negotiable rules, they are the constitutional core of the Nation state itself and form the framework of governance and society itself. Human dignity exists in modern societies only through a strong State that exists only to serve the interests and secure the interests of the British people themselves and the British national community.As Alain de Benoist wrote in Terre et Peuple 18 (Winter Solstice 2003)
" First, there is the notion of community, which Ferdinand Tönnies developed in opposition to his concept of society. In distinction to a society's mechanical [or functional] relations, in which social organization is based on individuality and individual interests, community defines a mode of organic sociality. In Max Weber's term, this notion is an ideal type, for every collectivity, in different proportions of course, possesses traits that are distinct to both community and society. Based on Tönnies work, but with reference to Aristotle, there has arisen a communitarian school of thought, whose principal representatives are Alasdair McIntyre, Charles Taylor, and Michael Sandal. This school highlights the fictitious character of liberal anthropology, insofar as liberalism posits an atomized individual who exists anterior to his ends, that is, an individual whose rational choices and behavior are made and motivated outside a specific socio-historical context. For the communitarian, [by contrast, the extra-individual forces of larger social or communal ties] are what constitute and motivate the individual. Identity, thus, is that which we choose to be before we even recognize who we are, being that inherited framework which defines the horizon of our shared values and lends meaning to the things of our world. As a specific moral value, then, identity is anterior to any universal conception of justice -- although the liberal believes such a conception ought to trump every particularistic sense of the good. Communitarianism, then, responds to liberalism's dissolution of organic ties and the crisis of the nation-state it provokes, for liberal society is no longer able to generate sustainable forms of sociality. In reaction, communities of all sorts, whether inherited or chosen, now seek to reassert themselves in public life and to break out of the private, individualistic sphere in which liberalism has sought to confine them " .
In the article 'The French New Right in the year 2000' Alain De Benoist and Charles Champetier write
" Liberalism embodies the dominant ideology of modernity. It was the first to appear and will be the last to disappear. In the beginning, liberal thought contraposed an autonomous economy to the morality, politics and society in which it had been formerly embedded. Later, it turned commercial value into the essence of all communal life. The advent of the "primacy of quantity" signalled this transition from market economics to market societies, i.e., the extension of the laws of commercial exchange, ruled by the "invisible hand," to all spheres of existence. On the other hand, liberalism also engendered modern individualism, both from a false anthropology and from the descriptive as well as normative view based on a one-dimensional man drawing his "inalienable rights" from his essentially asocial nature continually trying to maximize his best interest by eliminating any non-quantifiable consideration and any value unrelated to rational calculation.
This dual individualistic and economic impulse is accompanied by a Darwinian social vision which, in the final analysis, reduces social life to a generalized competition, to a new version of "war of all against all" to select the "best."
Aside from the fact that "pure and perfect" competition is a myth, since there are always power relations, it says absolutely nothing about the value of what is chosen: what is better or worse. Evolution selects those most apt to survive.
But man is not satisfied with mere survival: he orders his life in a hierarchy of values about which liberals claim to remain neutral. In the 20th century, the iniquitous character of liberal domination generated a legitimate reaction: the appearance of the socialist movement. Under the influence of Marxism, however, this movement became misdirected. Yet, despite their mutual hostility, liberalism and Marxism basically belong to the same universe and are both the heirs of Enlightenment thought: they share the same individualism, even the same universal egalitarianism, the same rationalism, the same primacy of economics, the same stress on the emancipatory value of labor, the same faith in progress, the same idea of an end of history. In almost all respects, liberalism has only realized more effectively certain objectives it shares with Marxism: the eradication of collective identities and traditional cultures, the disenchantment of the world, and the universalization of the system of production. The ravages of the market have also triggered the rise and growth of the welfare state. Throughout history, the market and the state have appeared on an equal footing, the latter seeking to subject inter-communal, non-market exchange, which is intangible, to the law of money, and to turn homogenous economic space into a tool of its power. The dissolution of communal bonds, spurred by the commercialization of social life, has necessitated the progressive strengthening of the welfare state, since it is entrusted with the redistribution necessary to mitigate the failures of traditional solidarity.
Far from hindering liberalism, these statist interventions have allowed it to prosper by avoiding a social explosion, thus generating the security and stability indispensable to exchange. In return, the welfare state, which is nothing but an abstract, anonymous and opaque redistributive structure, has generalized irresponsibility, transforming the members of society into nothing more than recipients of public assistance, who no longer seek to overthrow the liberal system, but only to prolong the indefinite extension of rights with no quid pro quo. Finally, liberalism denies the specificity of politics, which always implies arbitrariness of decisions and plurality of goals. From this viewpoint, the term "liberal politics" appears to be a contradiction in terms. Seeking to form social bonds on the basis of a theory of rational choice that reduces citizenship to utility, it ends up with an ideal "scientific" management of global society by technical experts.
The liberal state, all too often synonymous with a republic of judges, is committed to the parallel goals of abstaining from proposing a model of the good life while seeking to neutralize conflicts inherent in the diversity of social life by pursuing policies aimed at determining, by purely juridical procedures, what is just rather than what is good. The public sphere dissolves into the private, while representative democracy is reduced to a market in which supply becomes increasingly limited (concentration of programs and convergence of policies) and demand less and less motivated (abstention). In the age of globalization, liberalism no longer presents itself as an ideology, but as a global system of production and reproduction of men and commodities, supplemented by the hypermodernism of human rights.
In its economic, political and moral forms, liberalism represents the central bloc of the ideas of a modernity that is finished. Thus, it is the main obstacle to anything seeking to go beyond it. "
In the same article they write " Human existence is inseparable from the communities and social groups in which it reveals itself. The idea of a primitive "state of nature" in which autonomous individuals might have coexisted is pure fiction: society is not the result of a contract of men trying to maximize their best interests, but rather of a spontaneous association whose most ancient form is undoubtedly the extended family. The communities within which society is grounded are constituted by a complex net of intermediary bodies situated among individuals, groups of individuals, and humanity. Some are inherited (native), other are chosen (cooperative). The social bond, whose autonomy the classical right parties have never recognized, and which should not be confused with "civil society," is defined, first and foremost, as a model for individual actions, not as the global effect of these actions. It rests on shared consent and is prior to this model.
Membership in the collective does not destroy individual identity; rather, it is the basis for it. When one leaves one's original community, it is generally to join another one. Communities are constituted and maintain themselves on the basis of who belongs to them. Membership is all that is required. There is the vertical reciprocity of rights and duties, contributions and distributions, obedience and assistance, and a horizontal reciprocity of gifts, fraternity, friendship, and love. The richness of social life is proportional to the diversity of the members: this diversity is constantly threatened either by shortcomings (conformity, lack of differentiation) or excesses (secession, atomization). The holistic conception, where the whole exceeds the sum of its parts and possesses qualities none of its individual parts have, has been defeated by modern universalism and individualism, which have associated community with the ideas of submission to hierarchy, entanglement, or parochialism. This universalism and individualism have been deployed in two ways: the contract (politics) and the market (economics). But, in reality, modernity has not liberated man from his original familial belonging or from local, tribal, corporative or religious attachments. It has only submitted him to other constraints, which are harsher, because they are further away, more impersonal, and more demanding: a mechanistic, abstract, and homogenous subjugation has replaced multiform organic modes.
In becoming more solitary, man has also become more vulnerable and more destitute. He has become disconnected from meaning, because he can no longer identify himself with a model, and because there is no longer any way for him to understand his place in the social whole. Individualism has resulted in disaffiliation, separation, deinstitutionalization (thus, the family no longer socializes), and the appropriation of the social bond by statist bureaucracies.
In the final analysis, the great project of modern emancipation has resulted only in generalized alienation. Because modern societies tend to bring together individuals who experience each other as strangers, no longer having any mutual confidence, they cannot envision a social relation not subject to a "neutral" regulatory authority. The pure forms are exchange (a market system of the rule of the strongest) and submission (the totalitarian system of obedience to the all-powerful state). The mixed form that now prevails is a proliferation of abstract juridical rules that gradually intersect every area of existence, whereby relations with others are permanently controlled in order to ward off the threat of implosion. Only a return to communities and to a politics of human dimensions can remedy exclusion or dissolution of the social bond, its reification, and its juridification. "
In the article Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: A sociological view of the decay of modern society' Alain De Benoist writes " Fundamentally, classical liberalism was a doctrine which, out of an abstract individual, created the pivot of its survival. In its mildest form it merely emphasized individual freedom of action, and condemned excessive bureaucratic involvement by government. But praiseworthy though its defense of individual freedom was, its claim that the ideal system is that in which there is the least possible emphasis on nationhood leads to situations which in fact endanger the freedom of the individual. In its extreme form, classical liberalism has developed into universal libertarianism, and at this point it comes close to advocating anarchy. From the sociological standpoint, in its extreme form, modern internationalist liberalism defines itself totally in terms of the gesellschaft society of Tonnies. It denies the historical concept of the nation state by rejecting the notion of any common interest between individuals who traditionally shared a common heritage. In the place of nationhood it proposes to generate a new international social pattern centered on the individual's quest for optimal personal and economic interest.
Within the context of extreme liberalism, only the interplay of individual interests creates a functional society - a society in which the whole is viewed only as a chance aggregate of anonymous particles. The essence of modern liberal thought is that order is believed to be able to consolidate itself by means of all-out economic competition, that is, through the battle of all against all, requiring governments to do no more than set certain essential ground rules and provide certain services which the individual alone cannot adequately provide. Indeed, modern liberalism has gone so far along this path that it is today directly opposed to thee goals of classical liberalism and libertarianism in that it denies the individual any inalienable right to property, but still shares with modern liberalism and with libertarianism an antagonism toward the idea of nationhood. Shorn of the protection of a society which identifies with its members because of a shared national history and destiny, the individual is left to grasp struggle for his own survival, without the protective sense of community which his forebears enjoyed since the earliest of human history.
Decadence in modern mass multi-cultural societies begins at a moment when there is no longer any discernable meaning within society. Meaning is destroyed by raising individualism above all other values because rampant individualism encourages the anarchical proliferation of egotism at the expense of the values that were once part of the national heritage, values that give form to the concept of nationhood and the nation state, to a state which is more than just a political entity, and which corresponds to a particular people who are conscious of sharing a common heritage for the survival of which they are prepared to make personal sacrifices.
Man evolved in cooperating groups united by common cultural and genetic ties, and it is only in such a setting that the individual can feel truly free, and truly protected. Men cannot live happily alone and without values or any sense of identity: such a situation leads to nihilism, drug abuse, criminality and worse. With the spread of purely egotistic goals at the expense of the altruistic regard for family and nation, the individual begins to talk of his rights rather than his duties, for he no longer feels any sense of destiny, of belonging to and being a part of a greater and more enduring entity. He no longer rejoices in the secure belief that he shares in a heritage which it is part of his common duty to protect - he no longer feels that he has anything in common with those around him. In short, he feels lonely and oppressed. Since all values have become strictly personal, everything is now equal to everything; e.g., nothing equals nothing.
A society without strong beliefs," declared Regis Debray in his interview with J.P. Enthoven in Le Nouvel Observateur, (October 10, 1981), " is a society about to die." Modern liberalism is particularly critical of nationalism. Hence, the question needs to be raised: Can modern liberal society provide strong unifying communal beliefs in view of the fact that on the one hand it views communal life as nonessential, while on the other, it remains impotent to envision any belief - unless this belief is reducible to economic conduct ? ".
Universal rights do not exist and cannot be claimed by immigrants because we do not live in a global society, we live in the British Nation and therefore possess British national civil and constitutional rights.
We live in Britain and therefore the civil rights of the British people are geo-specific and not universally applicable to all peoples. The British Nation State is a geo-specific entity, therefore the constitutional and civil rights of Britain can only be claimed by those citizens of the British State.
Then there is the two definitions of British Citizenship itself - Natural Citizens and Naturalised Citizens.
Natural Citizens of the National Community possess Constitutional Rights as well as civil liberties and civil rights. Jus sanguinis (Latin for "right of blood") is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be passed to any individual born to parents who are National Citizens of that state.
It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for "right of soil"). The principle of Active Citizenship and Community Rights requires that Natural Citizens are able to utilise the constitution of the State to control the actions and activities of elected governments and other sections and systems of society.
The indigenous people of Britain as the Natural Citizens of the National Community and the State are entitled to Constitutional Rights. Natural Citizenship bestows not just rights and entitlements but also imposes duties and obligations.
Constitutional Rights are the constitutionally defined civil rights of Natural Citizens as enshrined within the Social Contract which exists between the indigenous permanent population based on familial descent from the first creators of that society and the State.
In the modern globalised system citizenship is determined not by birth or by the State but by economics, ideology and international dynamics ranging from civil wars to climate change.
Unless the indigenous peoples of the British nation are given Constitutional Rights that recognise the importance of our rights as a Community and that allow them to repatriate their sovereign power from all supra-national political, religious, economic and corporate elites and end the dynamic of de-nationalisation then they will eventually be dispossessed of their own country.
This process of the de-nationalisation threatens the very existence of the United Kingdom as an ethnic, cultural, political, economic and social unity of the British nation itself. Therefore the State must become the mechanism that ensures that Constitutional Rights are protected and Natural Citizens empowered to reverse this process. De-Nationalisation must be followed by Re-Nationalisation.
In the British Constitutional State the laws and rights that apply to the Natural Citizens include the constitutional laws of the UK. The People are the Guardians of Liberty. They should be able to claim direct rights relating to the Constitution in public law cases against the government and to defend themselves in legal cases using the constitution.
Why should Britons lose their right to free speech and the right to enjoy their own property because of politically correct Race Relations Laws designed to silence debate on mass immigration into Britain.
Why should we lose our right to criticize Islamic fundamentalism just because Islamic terrorists are bombing British cities and Saudi Arabian oil billionaires are supping in Downing Street with the Prime Minister ?
We must enact and empower Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and restore total power to the British Constitution.
We must also restore Unrestricted Free Speech. We must restore our traditional constitutional liberties.
Natural Citizens also in the future should have to agree by referendum to any laws that change the constitutional nature or structures of the British State. Natural Citizens will have Constitutional Civil Rights and these will be Direct Claim Rights against the government. They will be able to use the Constitution against the government and the laws of transient political parties in government in civil and criminal cases eg in Race Relations Acts that limit free speech, that say they cannot discriminate against people, that limit their right to use their property as they wish.
The liberties of our ancestors are our sacred heritage.
Those whose ancestors were the creators of the State, are the masters of the State. It is only in their best interests that the government must act at all times. The State and the government are merely mechanisms for the preservation and promotion of the interests of the people that created them. Their function is to serve the society that gives them form. Through the Constitutional State the Naturalised Citizen becomes the Guardians of liberty for all the people. The Naturalised Citizen depends on the Natural Citizen to monitor, defend and protect society from all internal tyrants whether in Ermine, suits, uniforms or a wearing Crown.
The British constitution is the foundation of the Social Contract. For those with Natural Citizenship the British constitution is a living process, an active set of principals that can be claimed directly against the State itself in a court of law if the State is itself changing any of its own historical structures, rules, precedents and processes either directly through Parliament in the form of laws or indirectly such as through the activities of semi autonomous regulatory processes of the international and national economic, political, social and cultural systems. The role of the indigenous people in the Social Contract is to ensure the State is acting in accord with the interests of the people. Only by the people remaining loyal to the State and defending the Constitution can the People defeat the threat of internationalism.
Where the State has exercised its legislative authority in the past to alter the constitution of the UK without seeking the opinion of the Natural Citizens in the form of REFERENDA , then such laws are inherently null and void. They have to agree to any laws that change the constitutional nature or structures of the British State.
The failure of the State to give its indigenous citizens their Constitutional Claim Rights in the past to fairly challenge the laws passed by the politicians in the past thereby nullifies the existence of all present laws passed to the detriment of the people and the nation. Whenever a law in the past has changeds a constitutional rule then express permission for this change must have been given by the Natural Citizens via a referenda run according to equal access to the media and funded by the government. If that did not happen, then that law today has no legal basis.
That's is why we must also regulate the power of the media to ensure that they cannot campaign for specific political parties because of their own sectarian financial interests or causes antithetical to the national interest or the interests of the Natural Citizens. The failure of the British political system to make the Constitution an active principal for its citizens to challenge laws on a par with the right of Parliamentarians to pass laws means the laws that have been passed by the politicians do not derive their authority from the People.
The ultimate authority for the legitimacy of all laws is not the state, the government or the politicians - IT IS THE PEOPLE.
The right of the people to challenge the laws of the politicians is the basis of democracy. In the party political system the politicians are either the instruments of sectarian social interests, ideology or capital, they are not the defenders of liberty or the constitution.
No ESTABLISHMENT politician goes into politics to defend the British constitution or the civil rights of the people, they are chasing pensions, directorships, honours and titles.
They use their governmental power to create laws as an instrument of those that fund them and support them, such as the trade unions and big business.The State is not safe in the hands of the politicians without a constitutional checking mechanism, in their hands the torch of freedom becomes the firebrand of tyranny. Naturalised Subjects should have the same civil liberties as the Natural Citizens and they can also claim their rights to use the ECHR and HRA 1998 to stop the government unlawfully interfering with their civil liberties and freedoms to do all that which is not prohibited by law.
Natural Citizenship is held solely by the indigenous peoples as defined under the concept of Jus Sanguinus. They should hold Passports with English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Anglo-Irish or as Indigenous British.
Naturalised Subject status is Jus Solis status. This applies to all immigrants. They are subjects of the government under the protection of the Crown.
They have to abide by the rules of the Social Contract both with the Natural Citizens and as regards their duties to the State.
The social contract with all those Naturalised Subjects that were allowed to enter the UK was predicated on certain fundamentals ;
1 ) That they accepted under the British constitutional system that it was the British politicians that invited them and that if they wished the British people and the politicians they elect would always have the right on our democratic system to ask them to leave. Also that they did not come here to become colonists as opposed to subjects or seek to organise to impose their culture or ways on us and our society. The rights of the indigenous majority are the basis of our national Democracy.
2) That they did not break the law when in the country and that they remained as lawful subjects of the State. That they must obey the law or leave.
3) That they did not assist the enemies of the British State or be involved in terrorism or supporting terrorism in any way.
4) That they entered the country lawfully and did not assist others to enter the country illegally.
5) That they did not organise politically to impose their religion or culture on the British state and British society. This Land is our Land.
6) That they pledged exclusive loyalty to the British nation and people before their loyalty to their religion or country of birth.
7) That they pledged to conform to our ancestral constitution, culture, traditions and way of life in our land.
8) That they would not use the political or legal systems to undermine the constitutional structure of the British State or seek to use the law, religion or politics to undermine the constitutional structure of the British state.
9) That they would not use their liberties to threaten liberty itself and our society.
10) That they owed their exclusive loyalty to the British people and Nation and not any ideological, national or theological third party.
11) That they understand that Democracy is the rule of the majority. The rule of minorities is the anti-thesis of democracy.
Those immigrants and Naturalised Subjects that have breached or exploited these rules are in breach of their citizenship rights and therefore are liable for deportation and removal from the country in the name of National Security and returned to their ancestral lands under the principle of Lex Sanguinis and the Right of Return as defined under the Leges Sanguinis laws of those nations they came from.