Liberty in Home Affairs And Authoritarianism in Foreign Affairs: A Post-Brexit Goal

Something is rotten in the land of Magna Carta. Whilst the events which transpired at Runnymede in 1215 have indeed set in motion a tradition in which liberty has tended to expand rather than contract, two world wars and one Tony Blair later and liberty is once again on the defensive.

Today, anti-democratic EU diktats authored by those concerned with increasing the power of the government-corporate complex have strangled English liberty. Not only are individuals made to feel as though they are criminals when exercising the mundane prerogatives of daily life whether conducting a banking transaction or purchasing a whisky from an off-licence, but the very liberty to walk down the street in peace has been put to flame by a tidal wave of violent banditry that the police seem unable or unwilling to stop.

As for why police are unable to stop a blood-soaked wave knife crime and other drug induced violence, one of the reasons is because police are too busy monitoring the internet for content that may cause personal offence to someone. If such fake policing existed during the age of Jack The Ripper, hundreds of constables would have descended on speakers corner at a moment’s notice whilst ignoring the rampage of a serial killer on the other side of the metropolis.

Whilst the disastrous Theresa May sought to follow in Tony Blair’s footsteps of big government continental and proto-communistic/proto-fascistic censorship, Britain’s contemporary foreign policy is perversely being conducted in a manner that one could only hope for in home affairs.

Britain’s foreign policy is by definition (though not as a matter of fact) an exercise in spreading liberty. This cause is proclaimed with such fanaticism that the al-Qaeda off-shoot Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Syrian throat choppers, Ukrainian anti-Semites, Chinese gangsters, Balkan mafiosos and Afghan warlords have at various times been supported by a post-normal British foreign policy elite.

What such imbeciles fail to apprehend is that English liberty (which in more recent centuries can be called British liberty) evolved over many centuries from 1215 until 1914 when the tide of liberty became slowly reversed as the Great War led to the birth of new authoritarian tactics on the home front. That being said, it was not until the arrival of Tony Blair’s ghastly government (better called a regime) that liberty became a target in peace time. In any case, the saga of English liberty is one of organic development predicated on addressing problems in a manner that is rational and flexible rather than authoritarian and ideological.

Everything from the imperial system of weights and measures and the Common Law to the unwritten constitution and parliamentary supremacy are products of a steadfast yet unannounced quest for liberty based on an acknowledgement of the natural conditions in English and British life.

Other countries including most of those in continental Europe have histories, political regimes and judicial systems based on diktat rather than on logic, empiricism and that gentle hand of gradualism. Quite frankly, the vast majority of countries in the world (outside of certain Commonwealth nations that for reasons of cultural and familial fraternity retained English political and legal traditions) have inexplicably different political and judicial traditions.

It is not only embarrassing humbug but it is utterly foolish to believe that the world could be any different. And yet, in a spirit reminiscent of the great savage Trotsky, British politicians including so-called conservatives seek to force a cheap imitation of English liberty onto cultures that have nothing in common with England.

The latest example of applying the murderous methods of Trotsky to a fake cause of liberty has arisen in Hong Kong.

Forgetting the fact that most of the the younger British politicians understand nothing of English history nor the English liberty that they claim to defend, such people imagine that one can somehow shout childish epithets about “freedom” and in the process somehow magically form an empire based on ideology rather than one based on economic control that can be enforced at the point of a gun if necessary. No empire has ever been built on ideas. From Cyrus and Julius Caesar, Charlemagne and Mehmed to Stalin and Hitler, all empires are built on control over a unified economic system that is enforced under the strict penalty of law – often martial law.

In spite of these historic truths, many too many are content with fooling themselves into believing that forcing the foreign medicine of liberty on to cultures with their own unique characteristics and traditions is somehow possible and advisable when in reality it is both impossible and dangerous.

If Britain is to revive even some of what has been lost after two world wars and one Tony Blair, one must return to a state of traditional liberty at home combined with an singularly authoritarian foreign policy which in the words of a physician’s Hippocratic Oath is guided by the maxim of doing no harm.

There is a place in the world where English liberty ought to be restored and that place is the United Kingdom. For those who seek quixotic struggles in which this product is exported to incredibly foreign places where it is neither understood nor desired, one ought to resign one’s self to the life not of a statesman but to that of a fantasy novelist.

Comments are closed.