Latest / UK Column Radio / The Natural Order

Transcript

The Natural Order · UK Column Radio

• 0:07
  Hello and welcome to UK column. I'm Ben Rubin and I am excited
• 0:13
  to be sitting in the studio today with Will Keate.
• 0:16
  Hello Will. Very good to be here.
• 0:17
  Thank you, Ben. Be here, yeah.
• 0:19
  And Will is definitely not an expert.
• 0:24
  Thank you. But I will say that he is one of
• 0:29
  our great minds and researchers as it relates to constitutional
• 0:33
  issues. And I think that's fair to say.
• 0:37
  He probably wouldn't say that himself, but I mean, I'm going
• 0:39
  to give him. I'm going to give him those.
• 0:41
  Credentials. I said definitely.
• 0:42
  Don't call me an expert. Yeah, yes, because we're all,
• 0:44
  we're always learning. Exactly.
• 0:46
  But it's been a long time. Yeah, about 15 years or so on,
• 0:48
  on constitutional all, I suppose.
• 0:50
  Yeah, in a bit of a while. Fantastic.
• 0:54
  Good stuff. And and we're here to talk about
• 0:56
  a very important issue, right, Because there are a lot of
• 1:00
  discussions happening in the country at the minute about the
• 1:04
  future direction of the nation, how it will be constituted, how
• 1:10
  we will be governed. And I think it's really
• 1:14
  important for people to understand at a, at a, a
• 1:18
  fundamental level, what we actually already have in place
• 1:22
  constitutionally, what we're supposed to have in place and
• 1:27
  really kind of start from the bottom up basically and kind of
• 1:30
  layer in the different fundamental components of it,
• 1:33
  right? And where are what, what are our
• 1:35
  rights and, and where do they come from?
• 1:37
  And how does our existing system as it's supposed to work,
• 1:45
  outperform these new things that they're trying to bring in?
• 1:48
  Exactly. Yes, absolutely.
• 1:50
  Yeah, exactly. So where do our where do our
• 1:52
  rights come from? Will so our, our, our rights
• 1:55
  come from, from the natural order, from, from nature and,
• 2:01
  and that, and that's a tricky one for people straight away.
• 2:03
  Or what do you mean by that? So what I mean by that is that
• 2:07
  you can, you can very well, not quickly, because it's not an
• 2:10
  easy study. You, you can, you can do some
• 2:12
  things and recognise some things quite, quite quickly.
• 2:15
  Other things, it takes a little bit longer to look at the more
• 2:18
  subtle dynamics of this. But if you look at the way that
• 2:21
  that humans interact with each other, if you look at the way
• 2:25
  that humans interact with with reality, so this is really down
• 2:29
  to our nature, you, you begin to realise that certain behaviours,
• 2:34
  if you engage in certain behaviours, it will go very well
• 2:39
  for you. Life will go very well for you.
• 2:41
  The the natural order and reality will will prop you up
• 2:44
  and assist you in in your your living and things will go well.
• 2:50
  If you engage in certain other behaviours, things are going to
• 2:53
  go very badly wrong and you'll get disharmony and chaos and
• 2:58
  will will manifest in your life. And that will happen both
• 3:02
  individually, but it will also happen in the collective in the
• 3:05
  aggregate as well. And those those laws and those
• 3:09
  dynamics of the universe, you could say are inherent.
• 3:13
  They're you can't argue with them.
• 3:15
  They're not man made laws. They're just existing laws of
• 3:19
  the natural order that, that determine certain behaviours
• 3:23
  being a good thing for us and other behaviours being a a
• 3:26
  pretty bad thing for us as well. And when and when you start to
• 3:30
  look at that quite closely, you can begin to glean what would be
• 3:34
  your rights from right behaviour and what would be a, a bad idea
• 3:40
  to go outside what your rights would be.
• 3:42
  You, you find the edges, if you like, of what that would be.
• 3:46
  And you can determine what that is.
• 3:48
  And, and just to cut a Long story short, where, where does
• 3:52
  that take us? It takes us essentially down to
• 3:54
  the, the golden rule, which is that my rights end where
• 3:58
  another's begin. And what that actually is doing
• 4:01
  is, is it's expressing the sort of coupled principle there of
• 4:05
  our individual or fundamental rights on the one hand, which
• 4:12
  is, which is the, the, the feminine aspect of us, which is
• 4:16
  the sort of the freedom aspect. And then on the other hand is
• 4:19
  the, the boundaries and the borders to that, which is the
• 4:22
  equity. And what of course we mean by
• 4:25
  equity, and we've talked about this before because that word
• 4:27
  has been hijacked. What it actually means is that
• 4:30
  we're all under the same set of standards.
• 4:32
  We're all held to account under law equally.
• 4:37
  Yeah. So we're all under the law
• 4:38
  equally. That's what equity means
• 4:40
  specifically and should mean. And, and it's, it's the two of
• 4:44
  those ideas together, the individual or fundamental rights
• 4:47
  on the one hand, which is that I am self determining.
• 4:50
  I can make my own choices that I feel are best for me.
• 4:56
  But where you start to see those encroaching on someone else's
• 4:59
  ability to exercise their choices, that's the equity
• 5:04
  that's coming into play there. And that's natural, natural
• 5:09
  rights. That's natural law at play
• 5:12
  there. You're beginning to see coming
• 5:13
  through. And that's how we determine a
• 5:16
  legitimate rule of law. So now we're starting to sort of
• 5:20
  just bring to the surface there, well, what is our man made rule
• 5:23
  of law in our community? If you base it on natural
• 5:27
  rights, natural principles of justice, then then your
• 5:31
  community's going to go, OK, you're going to go all right
• 5:34
  there. Things are going to unfold
• 5:35
  pretty well for you. If you distort that and you
• 5:40
  start to ignore those fundamental principles and you
• 5:43
  get away, you move away from my rights and where another's begin
• 5:49
  and you start to introduce the concept of coercion, that
• 5:52
  someone is taking a a view of how other people should live.
• 5:58
  I am going to to decide what's best for you, whether you like
• 6:01
  it or not, right? These are the kinds of phrases
• 6:04
  of a collectivist and we could get into that.
• 6:07
  What that is then think you are introducing some concepts,
• 6:11
  concepts and some principles that are going to take you into
• 6:16
  a very bad place, you and your community.
• 6:19
  And that's going to manifest at a kind of micro level, all kinds
• 6:23
  of dynamics that are going to take you down.
• 6:26
  OK. So that give you a sort of a.
• 6:30
  There's a lot. There's quite a lot in there.
• 6:33
  Yeah, yeah, quite. A bit to unpack, but.
• 6:34
  Yeah, Well, let's, let's wind this one back.
• 6:36
  I've written a few things down, right?
• 6:38
  So the first one is that essentially these laws are
• 6:40
  immutable and they're, yes, they're embedded into the fabric
• 6:42
  of reality completely, right. So it's almost, it's almost like
• 6:45
  physical laws, like gravity. Very.
• 6:47
  Similar to that, the laws of thermodynamics, anything like
• 6:49
  that. Exactly.
• 6:50
  You can compare it to that kind of thing.
• 6:51
  Yeah, absolutely. Right.
• 6:52
  OK. And, and when and when we when
• 6:56
  we break these laws, we descend into disharmony and chaos.
• 7:00
  Absolutely. That's exactly it.
• 7:02
  Yes. And it feels like we are
• 7:05
  descending into disharmony and chaos.
• 7:07
  Probably does. Yeah, increasingly so, actually,
• 7:11
  Yes. Yeah.
• 7:12
  And and the thing that I would, I mean maybe the next place we
• 7:14
  go there is well how much do we do?
• 7:16
  Do we spot this and understand these principles?
• 7:19
  Because what is often misunderstood is that, you know,
• 7:23
  because we like to hurl abuse at the, the, the powers that be
• 7:26
  and, and, and, and understandably so, and rightly
• 7:28
  so in many, many respects. The difficulty is that to a very
• 7:32
  large extent we are doing this to ourselves because we don't
• 7:36
  spot this, we don't understand it properly, we don't
• 7:39
  acknowledge it either. And so we engage in behaviours
• 7:42
  that that are self sabotaging, we end up taking ourselves down
• 7:47
  through in, in, in attention, not focusing on these things
• 7:53
  ourselves. So we think we have a moral
• 7:56
  right to stand on the moral high ground here and to, to blame the
• 8:00
  powers that be And, and in many respects we do.
• 8:03
  But we also don't realise that we've engaged in certain
• 8:06
  behaviours and dynamics that have kind of put them there in
• 8:09
  the 1st place and allowed it to happen as well.
• 8:11
  Yes. Yeah.
• 8:14
  And that's essentially we're outsourcing our agency to other
• 8:19
  to others and. That's not the behaviour of a
• 8:22
  sovereign. Right.
• 8:24
  OK, well, that's an important word, right?
• 8:27
  What is sovereignty? Well, exactly.
• 8:29
  We'll come back to that. OK.
• 8:31
  So let me just just pick up on a couple of other things that you
• 8:34
  said there. So you talked about this idea of
• 8:35
  freedom and that and that resonating with the the feminine
• 8:40
  aspect. And then you introduced equity.
• 8:43
  So we can be free, but we also have to be.
• 8:46
  Boundaries and. Borders and there, but there are
• 8:47
  boundaries and borders to that. Does that, does that then
• 8:50
  conversely resonate with the masculine?
• 8:52
  Yes. Yeah, totally, because because
• 8:54
  that's about control, right. OK.
• 8:56
  And you need a mid position of that.
• 8:57
  You need a balanced position, yes.
• 8:59
  You know, and, and in spiritual science, we, you might describe
• 9:02
  that as the Christ impulse, you know, which is the impulse of
• 9:05
  love, which is, you know, giving, giving people the, the,
• 9:10
  the freedom to, to make their own choices, but also
• 9:13
  understanding that there are naturally existing boundaries to
• 9:16
  that as well. And yeah, that absolutely.
• 9:21
  And that and that would be expressed as individualism, as a
• 9:24
  as a kind of philosophy of individualism.
• 9:26
  Yes, OK. So that's, that's and actually
• 9:30
  within what you've already said, it's really interesting this
• 9:33
  because we're we have these conversations and I think some
• 9:36
  people will listen to this and go, well, hang on a minute.
• 9:38
  You haven't actually said what the, you know, the laws are the
• 9:41
  right or rights are. But actually within, yeah, the
• 9:45
  Golden Rule, you are free up until the point where you
• 9:49
  impinge on the freedom of others.
• 9:50
  Where you hurt others or remove their choices.
• 9:52
  Yes, then then actually that that actually covers basically
• 9:56
  totally. Isn't it?
• 9:57
  Yeah. Completely, Yeah.
• 9:58
  Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.
• 10:00
  So where are we really breaking these, these, these laws at the
• 10:03
  moment then we're, I mean, it's basically everywhere, isn't it?
• 10:06
  If you think about the way that our system's currently
• 10:09
  constituted and and the way that people are behaving within it,
• 10:13
  yes, this is happening all the time.
• 10:15
  It is yes. And and and so actually, if we
• 10:19
  if we start to sort of paint the picture of how our authentic
• 10:22
  rule of law was always supposed to function.
• 10:25
  Yes. OK.
• 10:26
  That's a good place to start. Yeah.
• 10:28
  Look at how the Constitution was originally set up and how it was
• 10:31
  intended. Yeah, it's based on a set of of
• 10:34
  customary principles that had been learnt from natural law.
• 10:38
  And all right, from a historical perspective, we could go into
• 10:41
  that. And, and those principles are
• 10:43
  that that man governs themselves, that it's self
• 10:46
  governance. You don't constitute a
• 10:49
  government such that it can act under its own volition to start
• 10:54
  imposing regulation and rules on the citizenry.
• 10:59
  What what actually should be happening is that the the
• 11:02
  citizenry owns its laws and that any government in inverted
• 11:08
  commas, but let's call it an administration more correctly
• 11:11
  and America got that right of course, in doing that.
• 11:14
  That was a reflection of of truth that that any
• 11:17
  administration that you have in the public space, really its job
• 11:21
  is to execute the wishes of self management and self governance
• 11:28
  by the people. Right.
• 11:30
  And so the key question at that point comes up, which is, well,
• 11:33
  what? What is that?
• 11:34
  That man made mechanism that that needs to exist within our
• 11:39
  constitutional rule of law that allows for the people to govern
• 11:43
  themselves, to allow them to decide on the the edges of
• 11:48
  acceptable behaviour that they wish to abide by.
• 11:51
  Yes, that's that's really what what you're getting to.
• 11:54
  That's the piece in between that takes us to our man made rule of
• 11:58
  law, if you like. And and that's why because I
• 12:02
  started life actually as a voluntarist really.
• 12:04
  And I started life. Well, I suppose I did when I was
• 12:07
  born, I was a voluntarist then maybe as well.
• 12:10
  But what I mean is, is I started my journey, you know, sort of, I
• 12:13
  don't know, about 20 years ago perhaps as a voluntarist with
• 12:16
  sort of anarchist leanings. And I was following that.
• 12:22
  And then I started to look at, at, at the English
• 12:24
  constitutional law. And I was seeing all kinds of
• 12:28
  contradictions and all kinds of cyclic arguments in the way that
• 12:32
  the English constitution is described and expressed.
• 12:35
  And I thought there's something not right here because it, it
• 12:37
  doesn't fit these principles of volunteerism, this idea that we
• 12:41
  should be self determining, that we should be self governing.
• 12:45
  And then I started to peel more and more layers back.
• 12:47
  And I realised that actually what was happening was that the
• 12:50
  English constitutional law was being expressed incorrectly and
• 12:54
  that you have to pull enough of those layers back to get to the
• 12:57
  authentic English constitution as it was supposed to function.
• 13:02
  And if you keep going back through those layers, what you
• 13:05
  ultimately end up with is a a framework or a rule of law that
• 13:12
  essentially places trial by jury at its centre and trial by jury.
• 13:18
  But this is the key with the key feature of jury independence,
• 13:23
  which is that that the jury gets to decide justice independently
• 13:29
  of any man made laws that are created through a legislature.
• 13:35
  And so you decide on the justice independently of that meaning,
• 13:39
  meaning my conscious decision as a juror according to my
• 13:44
  conscience is not bound by the legislation that brought the
• 13:49
  defendant into court in the 1st place.
• 13:53
  And and that is the paramount feature of your constitution
• 13:58
  because if you don't put that front and centre as the central
• 14:01
  pillar of your constitution, you don't actually have self
• 14:05
  governance. You don't have a mechanism by
• 14:07
  which the people can govern themselves.
• 14:11
  It's missing, right? And this, this most famously was
• 14:16
  codified in Magna Carta, right? So if you go and read Magna
• 14:20
  Carta again, similarly to what I was just saying a moment ago, I
• 14:25
  actually I only read it for the first time recently and I was
• 14:28
  kind of going weird. Bits in that as well.
• 14:30
  Oh, yeah, of course. Yeah.
• 14:31
  You know, what did they say? The past is a foreign country.
• 14:34
  They do things differently there, right?
• 14:35
  A lot of it doesn't quite add up with us.
• 14:37
  Because a lot of it was about local and current time.
• 14:40
  Yeah, exactly. Yeah, Yeah.
• 14:42
  But and then and then the sort of pointy bits as it relates to
• 14:45
  what we're talking about, they're actually quite sparse.
• 14:48
  So it's slightly well you have, you have, you have a jury trial.
• 14:51
  Yeah, and so Article 39 and 40 are the most important.
• 14:54
  Thing you go you know exactly I do right but is it but, but, but
• 14:57
  actually and, and, and that that therein lies your your, your
• 15:01
  governance model correct and actually and so oh wow, okay.
• 15:05
  It's it's incredibly lightweight.
• 15:07
  It's incredibly powerful, Yeah. But quite straight away.
• 15:10
  Well, exactly, Yeah. Yeah.
• 15:12
  Exactly, exactly. And, and and essentially at that
• 15:16
  point is this is this, is this anarchy?
• 15:19
  Is this a form of anarchy? Would that fit into that
• 15:21
  bracket? Essentially self governance.
• 15:23
  It's sort of a bit anarchistic like if you want to put it like
• 15:26
  that, but it's with the sort of protection and framework of, of,
• 15:31
  of, of, of public justice, which is carries the recognition.
• 15:35
  And, and I would say that that's a principle of natural law that
• 15:38
  we submit to the consciences of those around us in our
• 15:41
  community, right? That's so I would describe trial
• 15:44
  by jury as just a more formal expression under English law of
• 15:49
  a natural law tribunal. Yeah.
• 15:52
  And, and that, that, that natural law tribunal, that's
• 15:56
  just reflecting a principle that we, if we do something wrong or
• 16:00
  it's perceived by the community that we may have done something
• 16:05
  that is, is, is dangerous to somebody, that we've, that we've
• 16:08
  hurt someone, that, that we are then brought to a space.
• 16:14
  And that is considered and the evidence is put before before
• 16:17
  the court, if you like. And all of that is thrashed
• 16:20
  through, but it's done by our peers, it's done by our social
• 16:23
  equals, because that's a reflection of the equity, right.
• 16:28
  And and so really, trial by jury is just a sort of formalised
• 16:31
  version of what I would call a natural law tribunal
• 16:34
  essentially. Yeah.
• 16:35
  And, and actually, you could, you can look at that and say,
• 16:37
  well, it's kind of an inevitable.
• 16:40
  It's a little bit like, you know, the the language, language
• 16:42
  that was used by the the forefathers of the American
• 16:45
  Constitution when they said we hold these truths to be self
• 16:49
  evident, right. So there's a reflection, if you
• 16:52
  like, in there of the recognition that this is about
• 16:55
  natural justice. It's about the principles of
• 16:58
  natural law that, that this is, is fairness and equity here at
• 17:02
  play. And if you're going to have
• 17:04
  equity, then then you, you have everybody judging the law
• 17:09
  essentially and being, yeah, being a judge of that, of that
• 17:12
  justice. Yes, and and and the, the, the
• 17:15
  jury's role is to is to judge the the legislation as much as
• 17:21
  it is to judge totally the the individual who's on trial.
• 17:24
  Absolutely, because you're. So it's like self.
• 17:26
  Correcting essentially exactly right yeah, yeah and and and
• 17:30
  because your God given consciences sits higher than
• 17:34
  than a a man made political opinion on on a on the formation
• 17:38
  of legislation. Yeah.
• 17:40
  And that's not to say that you can't have legislation, you
• 17:43
  know, but you've got to be guarded and vigilant to make
• 17:47
  sure that any legislation that is created for practical
• 17:51
  purposes, you know, it's it's kind of like using the phrase
• 17:54
  for the avoidance of doubt. You could say that in a way
• 17:57
  that's the purpose of legislation for the avoidance of
• 18:00
  doubt, etcetera. That's fine to do that.
• 18:03
  And you would hope that all legislation on your statute
• 18:06
  book, which would, which would mean probably very little
• 18:08
  legislation has to be in alignment with natural law
• 18:12
  principles. But all legislation must come
• 18:15
  before that natural law tribunal to be tested every single time
• 18:20
  that someone is is in court. Yes.
• 18:26
  OK. So this, so then in terms of the
• 18:31
  the way that this has been captured, we have Magna Carta,
• 18:34
  12/15 Magna Carta. That's the sort of the original
• 18:37
  that's the most gold standard. It's the most recent expression
• 18:41
  of it, and it's an important thing to correct.
• 18:45
  That's often stated incorrectly that that sort of started it
• 18:49
  all. And that's not the case because
• 18:52
  remember that what we're doing is reflecting truths, yeah, that
• 18:54
  already exist. So you So what?
• 18:56
  More correctly, you would say that Magna Carta is the most
• 18:59
  recent expression of the principles of our Constitution,
• 19:01
  right? The 12:50.
• 19:03
  That's where it was written down, essentially.
• 19:06
  Just to be absolutely clear. Yeah, this is how things are
• 19:09
  supposed to work. Absolutely.
• 19:10
  But and, and then since then, suppose that 800 and 810 years
• 19:15
  now, it's just been a constant process of governments and
• 19:19
  monarchs attempting to degrade the the rights of.
• 19:23
  Yeah, it's a mix of that, but they keep people capitalising
• 19:26
  on, on, on power grabs. But it's also the the, the
• 19:31
  citizenry becoming lazy as well because, because maybe we quite
• 19:36
  like the idea of representative government as it was sold to us.
• 19:41
  So we begin to get to the point of, well, if we're going to
• 19:44
  manage our society from the centre through policy and
• 19:48
  regulation, because actually in for all of us to have a kind of
• 19:52
  a centrally and managed society that's efficient, then then we
• 19:56
  need to drive policy and regulation from the centre.
• 20:00
  Now you're getting into a very dangerous place because actually
• 20:02
  you can't do that under the principles that we've just
• 20:05
  explained, which is my rights and where and others begin,
• 20:08
  begin what you're claiming. Incorrectly is that you think
• 20:13
  you have the right to do that by the fact that that piece of
• 20:16
  policy is supported by a by the opinions of a larger number.
• 20:22
  So now we're into this whole business that you you claim
• 20:26
  legitimacy through majority yes and that really was green
• 20:30
  lighted and 1st legitimised through the glorious revolution
• 20:36
  and the Bill of Rights. That was the point really, that
• 20:40
  so a lot of people make the mistake.
• 20:41
  They think the Bill of Rights was an extension of our
• 20:43
  constitutional principles. But look at, if you peel enough
• 20:47
  of the, of the onion layers back philosophically, what you, you
• 20:51
  come to realise is that what was formed ideologically at that
• 20:56
  point by John Locke and and, and others and and and the Whigs, if
• 21:00
  you like, at that time was actually a, an ideology that is
• 21:05
  in, in, in complete opposition right to the authentic rule of
• 21:10
  law. Yes, but that's not how it's
• 21:12
  sold to us. No, and that's a glorious
• 21:15
  revolution. Glorious revolution.
• 21:16
  If it was anything but glorious, really.
• 21:18
  It was actually a coup of England, really.
• 21:20
  But yeah. OK.
• 21:21
  Probably won't have time to go into that, but.
• 21:23
  Yes, well, I mean, there's, there's so much to, to, to
• 21:26
  expand on and I hope people take this as an opportunity to go off
• 21:29
  and do their own research as ever with anything that we would
• 21:31
  call in UK column right. This should be a starting point
• 21:34
  for people, um, rather than an end point.
• 21:38
  So that's, so that's, that's interesting.
• 21:40
  The tyranny of the majority. There's this term that gets used
• 21:43
  a lot, which is liberal democracy.
• 21:45
  And I always define that as liberal.
• 21:49
  We can do whatever we want, yes, democracy, if enough people go
• 21:53
  along with. It Right.
• 21:54
  Exactly. And that gives you the
• 21:55
  legitimacy to remove the individual rights of the
• 21:57
  minority? Yes.
• 21:58
  Just because a greater number of people think that thing.
• 22:02
  Yeah. No, you don't have the moral
• 22:04
  authority to do that. Yeah, yeah, we.
• 22:06
  But. And they're trying to bend the
• 22:08
  universe to their will, essentially.
• 22:10
  Right. Because it doesn't matter how
• 22:11
  many people say if he's wrong, yes, and he's wrong, yeah.
• 22:15
  You can't precisely change truth.
• 22:17
  Yes, to fit you, to fit your agenda.
• 22:20
  Yes, right and wrong behaviour already exists objectively.
• 22:23
  Yeah. In, in, in the universe.
• 22:24
  I say that because actually it's important to also to understand
• 22:28
  that, that we have moral conundrums.
• 22:30
  So it's not always clear in every situation.
• 22:33
  The principles are objective. Yeah.
• 22:35
  So you can start to glean from a study of natural law that the
• 22:38
  principles are there. There's no question about it
• 22:41
  that that that the universe requires, you know, self
• 22:45
  governance, personal choice, because what does that lead to?
• 22:48
  It leads to self responsibility and trustworthiness.
• 22:52
  Yeah. It becomes, in other words, what
• 22:54
  you're aiming for is for every individual to become a self
• 22:56
  master of themselves. Yeah.
• 23:00
  You don't submit and become a become weak.
• 23:04
  That's that's not a, a growth in your humanity.
• 23:08
  It's not an evolution. That's a devolution when you
• 23:11
  submit through compliance. Yeah.
• 23:15
  So that's opening up consensus, groupthink, compliance being
• 23:21
  problematic. Yeah, it opens up a whole load.
• 23:25
  You're going to need a whole pad of paper for this.
• 23:27
  No that. Would feel weak.
• 23:28
  This is good, yeah. This is great.
• 23:29
  Well, no, the one that the one that always lands with me is, is
• 23:32
  personal choice and responsibility ultimately,
• 23:34
  right? And, and people might get a
• 23:35
  little bit upset when I say this, but I'm going to say it
• 23:37
  anyway, right? Which is and and actually, this
• 23:40
  is the only way to actually go about fixing anything is to
• 23:43
  think about what did I do wrong here?
• 23:46
  Yeah, right. And, and this is this is the bit
• 23:49
  that people find really difficult because the world is
• 23:51
  going to hell in a handbasket at the moment.
• 23:53
  We've talked about the fact that disharmony and chaos is
• 23:56
  proliferating and and the natural order is being
• 23:58
  undermined. And we actually have to take
• 24:02
  responsibility for that. What have we done as individuals
• 24:06
  in order to facilitate that? And there will be many things.
• 24:10
  All right. And actually, there's a lot of
• 24:11
  people who, who sit in the the truth movement, the freedom
• 24:18
  movement, whatever you want to call it, who, who have a, a
• 24:21
  little bit of a holier than thou attitude about, about the way
• 24:24
  things are going and essentially that it's nothing to do with
• 24:27
  them and it's all to do with the other people.
• 24:29
  And often oversimplify justice as well, not realise that that
• 24:33
  actually justice and moral conundrums are complex and
• 24:36
  there's, and there's nuance that's required in these things,
• 24:38
  you know, So you get a lot of people in the freedom and all
• 24:41
  these people must go to prison or, and that's where we get sort
• 24:44
  of positions where, where we've got some members of, of of sort
• 24:47
  of freedom movement circles, if you like, calling for the death
• 24:50
  penalty. Well, to be doing that at a time
• 24:52
  when your government is becoming more tyrannical is really a very
• 24:55
  stupid thing to be doing, I, I would say.
• 24:58
  But anyway. Yeah, be careful what you wish
• 25:02
  for, right? Yeah.
• 25:03
  Exactly. I mean, one should say perhaps
• 25:06
  at this point that, that just to sort of explore that a little
• 25:09
  bit more, is that when, when you lose track of, of your grounding
• 25:16
  ideology and your principles and you start to take on belief
• 25:20
  systems that fly in the face of truth and that society does it
• 25:25
  broadly without noticing it, without spotting it.
• 25:29
  What you end up taking on as beliefs is things that will,
• 25:32
  will generate unintended consequences.
• 25:36
  And actually, that's what we're seeing now in the size of the
• 25:39
  state. So the size of the, the state is
• 25:42
  now collapsing under its own weight of complexity.
• 25:46
  I I would argue through, through the the production of, of too
• 25:50
  much regulation and legislation and, and that and that's the
• 25:57
  issue. And so, So what quite often we
• 25:59
  see as crimes of the state against us isn't necessarily
• 26:05
  like it's people out to get you because they all know it's not
• 26:08
  that. It's quite often the unfolding
• 26:11
  subtle dynamics of the fact that we've already outsourced and
• 26:16
  that people in government have huge pressures and expectations
• 26:19
  on them to legislate because because we've outsourced it.
• 26:24
  And and what you're now seeing as a result of that is it all
• 26:27
  falling apart because we've just gone and created too much, too
• 26:30
  much regulation, unintended consequence is that.
• 26:33
  Yes, and, and actually you've, we've created through the
• 26:39
  civilizational structure that we've adopted over the past
• 26:42
  several centuries, the way the education system works, like
• 26:45
  the, the, the whole setup, basically you've got a class of
• 26:48
  people in the civil service, in the political class essentially
• 26:52
  who only actually understand how to write laws and enact laws.
• 26:56
  That's their currency, that's what they trade in.
• 26:58
  And they've developed this mindset that, and you've seen
• 27:02
  this all over the place, right? That if we write it down hard
• 27:05
  enough, then it will then it will be so.
• 27:08
  Yeah, right. And, and this obsession with
• 27:10
  policy, we need policy for this, policy for that.
• 27:12
  If we write the right policy, then the world will change.
• 27:15
  Like you can write whatever you want if it's, if it's, if it's
• 27:19
  impractical, unfeasible, UN actually undesirable for this
• 27:23
  thing to actually to to to manifest.
• 27:25
  And at the point when they come up with it, yeah, they won't see
• 27:27
  those unintended concepts. Absolutely no.
• 27:30
  And so that that's the complete introducing complexity, yes, in
• 27:33
  a left brain sense. And layering it and it's just
• 27:36
  more complexity on top of more complexity on top of more
• 27:39
  complexity. And then and then the whole
• 27:41
  thing just. Yeah, it could.
• 27:43
  It just becomes, it breaks under the weight of its own country.
• 27:48
  Internal contradictions. Yeah.
• 27:50
  You know, it's actually sort of descent into lunacy, basically.
• 27:54
  It's what we're looking at. Yeah, it is complete.
• 27:56
  Form of madness. Complete madness and that's, you
• 27:59
  know, basically half of our our economic output, you know, as a
• 28:05
  sort of yardstick for how much time and energy and effort that
• 28:09
  takes up in in our society at the moment because, you know,
• 28:12
  basically 50% of our GDP is government spend.
• 28:16
  Then then since management exactly half of what half of
• 28:21
  what happens in terms of productive.
• 28:24
  Well, I say productive, not probably productive in terms of
• 28:27
  activity, let's say in the country is just managing the the
• 28:31
  the lunacy and adding on additional players to it.
• 28:36
  Absolutely right. You couldn't make it up really.
• 28:38
  It's a very shortly shame it is, but we do need some.
• 28:44
  We talked about administration, right?
• 28:46
  Use that term, You know, so it's very easy to be kind of
• 28:51
  absolutist and say, well, we should have no government
• 28:54
  whatsoever, but there actually is a role for some kind of
• 28:59
  administration of the system that we've described, right,
• 29:02
  Because you have a trial by jury.
• 29:03
  Justice system. The justice system, right,
• 29:05
  because you need a judiciary, you have a trial, you're going
• 29:07
  to have a trial and you need a judge, you need someone to, to,
• 29:10
  to oversee that. And, and also you, you know,
• 29:14
  ultimately the role of the state and Mike talks about this quite
• 29:17
  a lot, right? Is actually the the only role
• 29:20
  the state really should be to protect the weak and the
• 29:21
  powerful. Yes, it feels it is hold the
• 29:24
  individual rights in the way of life of the people.
• 29:27
  Yes, that's essentially what it is.
• 29:28
  Yeah. So you're right.
• 29:29
  I mean, just just to get into that, you know, because the
• 29:31
  systems of justice that you have in place there and the
• 29:35
  mechanisms that have to be there, how do you manage that if
• 29:38
  you don't have a state? And and those are interesting
• 29:40
  questions. But the first thing actually you
• 29:42
  were saying about a judge, the judge is not really meant to be
• 29:45
  the judge because the, the, the, the judges, if you, you know, we
• 29:49
  call it the independent judiciary.
• 29:51
  Yeah, well, the independent judiciary is really the people
• 29:56
  themselves. Right.
• 29:57
  Yeah, the members of the of the jury.
• 29:59
  It's the people governing themselves.
• 30:01
  Self governance. They're like, they're like the
• 30:02
  referees, what they should be. Doing right, yes, in the game.
• 30:05
  So the the judge you could think of perhaps it's often thought
• 30:09
  that that the judge's original purpose was more like a
• 30:13
  convener. Yeah, the president of the
• 30:17
  proceedings, you know who's who's sort of pulling it all
• 30:19
  together And, and who are they? Well, they're just, they're just
• 30:22
  volunteers of the community stepping up to do that job.
• 30:26
  Yeah. And that's what we mean by the
• 30:28
  public in a sense, is just people who, well, we know that
• 30:31
  certain jobs have got to be done, so we're going to
• 30:33
  volunteer to do those things. And that's how it's evolved.
• 30:36
  That's in, you know, over time. But, but unfortunately the
• 30:39
  distortions have come in that actually it's the, it's the
• 30:42
  judge's role to judge the law. So the mantra that's often put
• 30:45
  out now by our justice system is that, you know, even even in, in
• 30:50
  our trial by jury now, by the way, and only 1% of cases reach
• 30:54
  trial by jury, I should say that at this point.
• 30:57
  So Muhammad is 1% really. So we're the thing that we're
• 31:01
  guaranteed in a bad place, the thing that we're.
• 31:03
  Guaranteed. Yeah.
• 31:05
  Only 1% of cases. So we've got a problem with the
• 31:08
  Magistrates Court in a big way, right?
• 31:10
  Yeah. So the modern justice system
• 31:11
  puts out the mantra that the, that the, that the jury judges
• 31:15
  the facts and the judge judges the law.
• 31:19
  And this is just put out as a kind of a, an accepted mantra.
• 31:23
  But actually the if you go back and look at the history and even
• 31:26
  further back into Saxon times and in other parts of of of
• 31:30
  Europe, you can go into look at the history of the jury in
• 31:33
  Scandinavia even as well. And you can start to see that in
• 31:38
  fact, and this is, this is one of the sort of slightly
• 31:41
  disingenuous arguments that's used by the establishment.
• 31:44
  Oh no, there was no history of trial by jury.
• 31:47
  Well, the reason for that is because what, what they're
• 31:49
  comparing it with is, is the is with the distorted version of
• 31:53
  trial by jury that you have now, which is this what I've just
• 31:56
  explained, that the jury doesn't have the right to judge the law.
• 32:00
  The further back you go. And if you go back into Saxon
• 32:02
  times, actually it was 1 and the same.
• 32:04
  So you you have the OR twelve citizens that you could think of
• 32:09
  as a jury. What they were actually doing
• 32:11
  was doing was judging all matters.
• 32:13
  They were judging the law, probably the admissibility of
• 32:16
  evidence themselves as well. They were judging the facts and
• 32:19
  they were judging the punishment.
• 32:21
  Right. I was going to ask about the
• 32:22
  sentence. Yeah.
• 32:23
  Yeah, all four, all four aspects.
• 32:25
  Of the case because that's essentially now held by the the
• 32:27
  the the the judge, isn't it the judge decides the sentence yeah
• 32:30
  and and a lot of the time they'll be issuing guidance on
• 32:33
  all sorts of. Right components.
• 32:34
  Well, the judges themselves are also being Hanford by ever
• 32:37
  increased increasing justice from the justice to the Ministry
• 32:44
  of Justice, the Sentencing Council, which creates which
• 32:48
  which which people in the freedom movement are beginning
• 32:50
  to learn about because it all came up in this 22 tier justice
• 32:53
  stuff that everybody was talking about.
• 32:56
  And we've now learnt, of course, that, well, people have
• 32:58
  generally learnt now that that even judges themselves are being
• 33:01
  Hanford by sentencing guidelines, which are becoming
• 33:04
  sort of ever increasingly complex and rigorous as well.
• 33:08
  Now, what is that? Well, what it is in fact is
• 33:11
  because the, the Ministry of Justice really falls under the
• 33:14
  executive, which is, you know, the Cabinet Office and, and,
• 33:18
  and, and so what's happening there is that you've got a kind
• 33:20
  of a form of legislating for how judges now see, see justice and,
• 33:28
  and, and yeah, it's so you've got these kind of complex.
• 33:33
  And yet at the same time we're pretending that we have
• 33:35
  separation of powers in the three branches of government,
• 33:38
  which which frankly, I see as APR exercise and nothing more.
• 33:42
  The whole, the whole 3 branches of government is for me just a
• 33:46
  smoke and mirrors exercise actually, because they still
• 33:49
  have those connections all over the place between in, in the big
• 33:53
  broad machinery of government. You've got, I think Mike was
• 33:57
  saying that you've got this, this whole business of the
• 33:59
  Cabinet Office effectively or the, the, the executive in the
• 34:02
  form of the Prime Minister and his cabinet sitting in the
• 34:06
  legislature anyway. And the top of the legislature
• 34:09
  was a court. Well, it's all a court actually.
• 34:12
  And in was it 2005, you've got the breaking off of the, the
• 34:17
  appellate committee of the, the, the upper house is now the
• 34:23
  Supreme Court. Whereas actually, really all of
• 34:26
  this is meant to be joined up thinking under the King.
• 34:29
  Yes, and, and, and let's stop pretending otherwise, right?
• 34:32
  And, and you've got, you know, things like the King's
• 34:34
  prerogative powers being borrowed by the Prime Minister.
• 34:39
  That's just madness. It's all just smoke and mirrors
• 34:43
  I think. Yes, yeah, yeah, they're they're
• 34:47
  they're playing games, yeah. And this has been going on for
• 34:52
  quite some time. So basically because you just
• 34:54
  talked about the Glorious Revolution, when was that 16?
• 34:57
  SO168891689 was all, all happening and, and the yeah, it,
• 35:03
  it was sort of, you know, the, the, the framing of of James the
• 35:06
  second as a, as a, as a bad king, When in fact, actually, if
• 35:09
  you take a closer look, I'm sure you didn't do everything right.
• 35:11
  But if you take a closer look at what James the Second was doing,
• 35:14
  he was very concerned about civil rights.
• 35:16
  He was concerned about these issues.
• 35:17
  He was actually quite a good king.
• 35:19
  If you look at his actions and what was really going on.
• 35:21
  And, and, and actually what came in at the Glorious Revolution
• 35:27
  was, was a sort of through a kind of load of silent
• 35:29
  conventions, was this elevation of Parliament, which is a really
• 35:34
  so it looked like, you know, for the people at the time, as
• 35:37
  though this might be a really good thing because it's all
• 35:39
  about your representation in Parliament for policy.
• 35:44
  And, and we've been through that adult suffrage, the dangers of
• 35:46
  adult suffrage, which is what voting in, in elections in that,
• 35:51
  in that respect, in order to bring about party policy.
• 35:55
  That's what it does. And so that's what it brought
• 35:58
  about. And then, of course, you had the
• 35:59
  formation of the Bank of England in 1694.
• 36:02
  You had the, the, the, the creation of the, of the new
• 36:06
  political union with Scotland in what was it 1707?
• 36:10
  I think it was soon after so you can see how all of this started
• 36:14
  to happen then that that was when it all.
• 36:17
  Started centralisation of power basically and completely
• 36:20
  disenfranchising the the the, the common man.
• 36:23
  Ultimately, you know the the the the wider population.
• 36:26
  That's not to say that things were not all Absolutely Fabulous
• 36:28
  before that, because of course you had a century in the 17th
• 36:31
  century of absolute chaos where the kings were actually getting
• 36:35
  out of hand and, and the, the divine right of kings in the way
• 36:40
  that that was expressed became a problem in its own right.
• 36:42
  But what had happened is that people forgot the mechanism for
• 36:47
  bringing the king to account, the head of state to account
• 36:50
  through his own trial by jury, which is essentially what Magna
• 36:53
  Carta was all about. They brought the, the king, King
• 36:56
  John to account through his peers, the peers of the realm.
• 37:00
  It's kind of holding a, a court essentially that you've breached
• 37:04
  your coronation oath that already existed.
• 37:07
  Yeah. The principles of, of your
• 37:08
  coronation oath, which is customary common law.
• 37:11
  You, you've, you've committed crimes under our constitutional
• 37:16
  law, which already existed. And we're bringing you to
• 37:19
  account, and we're going to hold you to this in perpetuity.
• 37:22
  And you're going to sign or seal rather that in perpetuity so
• 37:27
  that the administration that's formed is formed under this
• 37:31
  limitation. Yeah, it always was under that
• 37:34
  limitation, by the way, But it's just for the avoidance of doubt.
• 37:38
  Here it is again. So that's what Magna Carta was.
• 37:42
  Right. And how many iterations have
• 37:45
  have there been of Magna Carta itself, right, Because there are
• 37:48
  versions of it. So I think even within that
• 37:50
  document there, there have been attempts to reduce its its
• 37:53
  power, right. Yes, and again, there's a lot of
• 37:55
  smoke and mirrors around that as well.
• 37:56
  So the 12:15 Magna Carta, the Great Charter is the is, is the
• 38:01
  document that's beyond the reach of Parliament.
• 38:04
  So that's the real thing. And people in the in the
• 38:07
  establishment will say, well, that's not really law.
• 38:09
  And that's been repealed and you know, although it hasn't because
• 38:13
  that's that's the promise under which the king was was made.
• 38:17
  That's that's how that was made. So yes, you're right.
• 38:20
  The further iterations, I mean there was one in 2000 and sixty
• 38:22
  2016, 12/16/12 a little bit further but a little bit further
• 38:28
  like. That so they actually tried to
• 38:31
  so that they so he sealed it and then the next year they tried to
• 38:34
  change it. Yeah, well, yes.
• 38:35
  Although actually Stephen Langton, the Archbishop who who
• 38:38
  kind of was very involved in this, was actually involved in
• 38:42
  that actually. And in fact, yeah, 12/12/16,
• 38:46
  12:17 is another one, 1225 under King Henry, that was, that was a
• 38:50
  very important one. That's the one where there was
• 38:52
  a, a ceremony where they all like threw down their tabards or
• 38:56
  swords or whatever it was. And they were really zealous for
• 38:59
  these rites. They absolutely genuinely
• 39:02
  believed them. They absolutely believed in the
• 39:04
  content of what had happened in the Great Charter.
• 39:08
  And, and in fact, the, the, the, the kings at the time, as you
• 39:11
  know, going from the Norman kings into the Plantagenets were
• 39:14
  also keen to, to express this through in a sense, their
• 39:19
  manifesto. And so actually what was
• 39:21
  happening was a legislative version of the Magna Carta,
• 39:26
  which was really an expression of the King's manifesto, if you
• 39:32
  like to, to, to, to govern according to these principles.
• 39:36
  So the last one and the one that's currently on the statute
• 39:39
  books is the Confirmatio Cartarum of 1297, which is the
• 39:42
  Edward the First statute. But all of these really were
• 39:46
  just expressions of the king saying, yeah, I'm upholding
• 39:50
  these principles. You know, I, I, I agree with
• 39:52
  them. So that's really what it is.
• 39:54
  But it's important for people and the establishment certainly
• 39:57
  don't realise, realise and understand this, that the
• 39:59
  authority doesn't come from the legislation, doesn't come from
• 40:03
  the legislative versions. Of Magna Carta.
• 40:05
  Those are just re expressions of those principles that you can't
• 40:09
  really repeal because they're just truths.
• 40:11
  The authority actually comes from the 12:15 because you know,
• 40:16
  that was the promise under which the the head of state promised
• 40:21
  to the people that that's how it would all work.
• 40:23
  In perpetuity. In perpetuity.
• 40:25
  To the point, yeah, Yeah, exactly.
• 40:27
  Yeah. And and that itself, as we, as
• 40:29
  you established at the start, was actually just an expression
• 40:33
  of the immutable fundamental laws that exist in natural
• 40:38
  justice, in reality and the natural.
• 40:40
  Justice to work like that. It can't work any other way Yes
• 40:42
  exactly. Okay, well, it can, it can work
• 40:45
  other, other ways, but not without serious detrimental,
• 40:49
  destructive, you know, downward spiralling consequences for your
• 40:54
  society. Yes, yeah, you absolutely can go
• 40:57
  against the natural order principles if you want.
• 40:59
  Yeah, be my guest. Tell me how it works out for you
• 41:05
  exactly. Yeah, OK, good, good.
• 41:07
  Right. Let's go back to to trial by
• 41:09
  jury because we were talking about you, you mentioned that
• 41:11
  statistic that actually only 1% of trials now go to trial by
• 41:15
  jury and, and the, the introduction.
• 41:18
  Is 1% yeah, pretty. Much.
• 41:19
  Well, yes, if it isn't exactly 1%, it's not enough.
• 41:23
  It's around that it's certainly not enough and.
• 41:24
  They're going after it, right, because this is one of the big
• 41:27
  areas with which they're focused on and they're really trying to
• 41:30
  ramp up magistrates calls. So there's a big push to.
• 41:35
  Or another intermediate straight in between.
• 41:37
  Yes, there's another option. Yeah.
• 41:39
  And that's these are all, these are all denials of rights.
• 41:43
  Essentially, you've been denied the fundamental.
• 41:45
  Rights, Yeah, or, or legislating away your birthright.
• 41:49
  So the very idea that the government itself can legislate
• 41:52
  away these principles is, is absolutely absurd and ludicrous.
• 42:00
  You know, and, and, and The thing is, is that that broadly
• 42:02
  speaking, certainly the the the mainstream part of society isn't
• 42:05
  saying anything about it because they don't understand it.
• 42:08
  But I would say actually that that broadly the, the awake
• 42:12
  communities to our, the sort of conspiratorial nature of our
• 42:15
  society, they're not really focusing on it either.
• 42:20
  And I would say that this is a 'cause you know, in, in fact,
• 42:23
  most of the issues that that we are dealing with can, can be
• 42:27
  kind of solved by just getting your governance back in place by
• 42:31
  by calling for jury independence as a concept and calling them
• 42:35
  out under this and saying actually, you don't understand
• 42:37
  how the rule of law is supposed to operate.
• 42:40
  So you're right, we've had the Leveson review, which is is
• 42:45
  perhaps we're getting close to that conclusion.
• 42:47
  And in fact, I put up on my website,
• 42:49
  commonlawconstitution.org the other day, I think it was a
• 42:53
  Telegraph article that was hinting at the fact that that
• 42:57
  the media are aware of the contents of that review and the
• 43:04
  conclusions that that Sir Brian Leveson has come to in that and
• 43:09
  and together. Now the investigatory powers
• 43:12
  commissioner, I think, isn't he? I can't remember the exact
• 43:15
  title. Yeah, very powerful man.
• 43:18
  Extraordinarily powerful and influential.
• 43:20
  Yeah, absolutely. OK.
• 43:22
  So there's there are things emanating from the conclusions
• 43:26
  are there? I think so.
• 43:27
  I think beginning to come out, we've been needing to, you know,
• 43:29
  see, see possible hints and clues as to what might be
• 43:32
  happening. And what are the and what are
• 43:34
  the suggestions? Well, as you said, we'll have to
• 43:35
  provide a link to this if we go and have a look.
• 43:38
  At that, yeah, I'll take it out. I'll have a look and yeah, it's
• 43:42
  a couple of weeks ago I think it was an article in the Telegraph,
• 43:44
  OK. But yeah, it's, it's, it's the
• 43:47
  potential threat of further limiting a trial by jury, right?
• 43:52
  And, and, and we're already in a bad place with it, you know,
• 43:55
  and, and, but what I'm seeing is not enough people jumping up and
• 43:59
  down about this causal factor, you know, and, and they're being
• 44:02
  distracted by, you know, yes, important things and other
• 44:05
  things, understandably. But actually, if you get
• 44:08
  distracted by the effects at the expense of dealing with your
• 44:12
  governance, self governance of the nation and that concept,
• 44:16
  then then in a sense, through inattention and inaction, you're
• 44:20
  actually take you're further taking yourself down.
• 44:23
  You know, every day, every hour that goes by that you're not
• 44:25
  talking about these issues that we're talking about now, partly
• 44:29
  to re educate yourself so that you become clearer on it as
• 44:31
  well. Every every hour and day and
• 44:34
  week that goes by that we're not talking about this, you're
• 44:38
  actually contributing to that, that that destruction that is
• 44:41
  self destructive. I would say I.
• 44:43
  Would agree. Yes, I mean this because it is
• 44:45
  the clues in the name, it's constitutional.
• 44:47
  It's it's the constitution, the makeup of the society that that
• 44:51
  we are in and how. We should be absolutely
• 44:53
  passionate about this. Yeah.
• 44:55
  Absolutely, absolutely. And they were back in the day,
• 44:57
  you know, as I've said to you on an, on a discussion we had
• 45:00
  before, you know, how the, the, the, the, the community in the,
• 45:03
  you know, Norman times were absolutely zealous for their
• 45:06
  rights. That was the word that, yeah,
• 45:08
  often comes out in writings that you see that written zealous.
• 45:11
  I wrote Zealous down. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 45:14
  Well, we're not now. No, no.
• 45:16
  People are totally apathetic and, and people don't feel like
• 45:22
  they have any kind of capacity to do anything really.
• 45:27
  It's quite odd, you know. Well, we've let things go so far
• 45:30
  that it's now become very complicated to know what is best
• 45:32
  to do. Yeah, and it's understandable
• 45:34
  and I get that. But the first thing you've got
• 45:36
  to do is educate yourself on this stuff.
• 45:38
  Become clear on where do your rights come from?
• 45:41
  What are the limits of government actually and why and
• 45:43
  where do they think they get their power from or don't or
• 45:46
  purport to get their power from and their right.
• 45:50
  This is all to do with jurisprudence and, and some the
• 45:53
  philosophy of law and and and and.
• 45:56
  It's important to get into it and to understand it.
• 45:59
  Well, well, well, let's let's begin to that then.
• 46:02
  So where, where do they think they get their, their rights
• 46:05
  from? Is it, is it just through the
• 46:06
  compliance of people going along with the proclamations that
• 46:10
  these people are making? Is that where they get their
• 46:12
  power? Well, that they they give
• 46:13
  themselves that power through that false belief.
• 46:16
  Yes. That they think that they, they
• 46:19
  have the right to do it because they are doing good for society,
• 46:23
  right? So it's, it's these phrases like
• 46:25
  for the greater good, right? So we're starting to get into,
• 46:28
  you know, what we were talking about sort of communitarianism
• 46:31
  and this, this idea that, that this collectivist impulse that
• 46:37
  I, I'm going to decide what's best for you, whether you like
• 46:40
  it or not. That's the expression, that's
• 46:42
  the impulse behind it. And I have the right to do that
• 46:46
  because my ideas and my my grand ideas for how society needs to
• 46:52
  be fixed gives me the right to just go ahead and do it.
• 46:56
  Yeah, because that's the collective.
• 46:57
  Because I'm kinder and more empathetic than you.
• 47:01
  That's basically there's a. Gas light there isn't.
• 47:03
  That it's a gas light. There's a total lack of self
• 47:05
  awareness with a lot of people as well, yeah.
• 47:08
  And an enormous amount of arrogance you find with the sort
• 47:11
  of collectivist viewpoint that because they supposedly want the
• 47:16
  best for everybody, then that gives them the right to impose
• 47:19
  their will. And actually that's not not the
• 47:22
  case at all. You know who's going to protect
• 47:24
  us from you? Yeah, yeah.
• 47:26
  And we and we need to, I mean, the, the sort of the sort of
• 47:30
  line that you want to watch out for this is kind of like a like
• 47:33
  a red flag in, in, in people's conversation when you see when
• 47:37
  people say we need to do this right.
• 47:40
  We need to if, if you hear sentences like that, yeah,
• 47:44
  that's a, that's a danger point because that's a collectivist
• 47:46
  impulse, right? Oh, we need to do this right.
• 47:49
  Who are you including in the we there?
• 47:52
  Yeah, That's not individualist. That's, that's not a philosophy
• 47:55
  of minding your own business and leaving people to their own
• 47:58
  choices. Yeah.
• 47:59
  And there are two, two caveats to that, by the way, Minding
• 48:02
  your own business. It's we must call out wrongdoing
• 48:05
  where we see it. Yes.
• 48:07
  And, and also we at a spiritual level at least, yes, there is
• 48:11
  the matter of charity, you know, which is that we don't want to
• 48:15
  formulate a selfish society here.
• 48:17
  But on the other hand, nor can you force somebody to be kind
• 48:21
  through legislation. It's not kindness.
• 48:24
  It's not kindness at that point. Yes, exactly.
• 48:27
  You know, we're sort of kidding ourselves that we live in a
• 48:29
  civilised society because we're really kind to, to the less
• 48:32
  fortunate, you know, Well, actually, you're not kind.
• 48:34
  It's just that someone will kick down your door if if you don't
• 48:37
  pay those taxes that are being forced out of you through
• 48:40
  coercion. Well, exactly.
• 48:41
  It's one all all under threat of violence.
• 48:43
  Anything that's just a lie is under is under threat of
• 48:46
  violence ultimately. Yeah.
• 48:47
  So it's interesting you there you talking to?
• 48:50
  Well, individual, we're individuals.
• 48:54
  Leave me to my business and we we're back to this idea of
• 48:59
  freedom versus equity. We're not versus freedom and
• 49:01
  equity come together in, in, in a, in a in integrated symbiotic
• 49:07
  relationship with each other, right, Because again, it's, it's
• 49:10
  we're free, but your freedoms end where mine begin totally
• 49:14
  right, right. And and actually.
• 49:16
  This is of natural. Law and a lot of the, a lot of
• 49:18
  the kind of communitarian people, they, they look around
• 49:22
  and I have to, you have to agree with them, right?
• 49:25
  The world is extraordinarily unjust and and unequal and it's
• 49:30
  becoming more so. But because there are too many
• 49:35
  people who are exercising too much freedom to the detriment of
• 49:38
  everybody else, what they're ignoring is the other side of
• 49:41
  that equation ultimately, which is that we are all equal under
• 49:45
  the under the law. And it's not their job to fix
• 49:48
  it, right? OK.
• 49:51
  Would you say expand on that? Well, again, that's the impulse
• 49:55
  of the collectivist. It's not your job to fix
• 49:57
  everybody else's problems, Right?
• 49:59
  We have, because that's not the expression of self governance.
• 50:03
  Yeah, self, self. You only learn to be self
• 50:05
  governing and to be a self master if you learn to fix your
• 50:08
  own problems and, and and you, you learn to take responsibility
• 50:12
  for your own choices because it's at that point that you've
• 50:14
  become trustworthy as a human being.
• 50:17
  Yeah, yeah. If you're meddling around in
• 50:18
  other people's affairs, you're fundamentally untrustworthy.
• 50:22
  Right. So this is the stuff that we all
• 50:24
  need to explore. Very interesting because these
• 50:29
  collectivist ideas, they are, they are particularly coalescing
• 50:34
  around the people who were talking about first rewrite,
• 50:37
  literally rewriting the Constitution, right?
• 50:40
  So you've got Gordon Brown at the moment, was actually never
• 50:43
  elected as Prime Minister. He was an MP, He lost the
• 50:46
  general election. David Cameron he didn't.
• 50:49
  Actually win a. He didn't win a general election
• 50:52
  and he's now on the the trustee board of the Rockefeller
• 50:56
  Foundation. And he's leading this big
• 50:59
  programme to rewrite the British constitution, change the
• 51:02
  structure of the upper house like, oh, literally, which is
• 51:05
  their dream. That's what they want to do.
• 51:07
  They want to remove these principles of of national
• 51:11
  sovereignty and constitutionalism.
• 51:12
  Yes, that's what they want to get rid of.
• 51:14
  That's what they are terrified of more than anything is the
• 51:17
  principles of individual rights, national constitutionalism.
• 51:23
  That's what they're wanting to remove more than anything.
• 51:26
  Which is which is our defence against tyranny?
• 51:28
  Yes, right it. Always was and it and it
• 51:32
  embodies and frames those fundamental principles of the
• 51:35
  natural order. Yeah, because because otherwise
• 51:37
  you're in, you're into a world which is, you know what we were
• 51:39
  talking about earlier, this sort of Liberal Democratic world
• 51:43
  where we can do anything we want if enough people go along with
• 51:46
  it. Yes, Right.
• 51:47
  And, and, and that would just wreak absolute havoc with the
• 51:50
  people who don't want to go along with it.
• 51:52
  Yeah. Because actually you might be
• 51:53
  incorrect or it doesn't meet up with my my my values.
• 51:56
  Unintended consequences. Exactly.
• 51:58
  Yeah. And those people will, they're
• 52:01
  coalescing around this collectivist worldview.
• 52:04
  They want to completely transform, basically scrap and
• 52:07
  rewrite the the Constitution. Rewiring the the the the kind of
• 52:11
  framework of our the way we, the way we live.
• 52:14
  I think you used was a phrase. Maybe, I can't remember.
• 52:16
  No, they are, they're rewiring it and they're going off.
• 52:19
  They're going off the child by jury.
• 52:22
  They, they want to dial up the magistrates.
• 52:27
  They're also really pushing on what they call diverse diversity
• 52:34
  in the magistrates courts, which does throw in, begin to throw
• 52:38
  into question this idea of being judged by peers because actually
• 52:42
  peers means fellow citizens, right?
• 52:45
  But if you've got people who are.
• 52:47
  Yeah, that would be their argument that the Magistrates
• 52:48
  Court, that would be their argument for justifying the
• 52:52
  Magistrates Court, is that the magistrates are our peers, yes.
• 52:56
  But if you've got people who are sitting in the magistrate's
• 52:58
  chair who are from completely different cultures, then you're
• 53:00
  not being judged by your peers, yeah.
• 53:02
  And they're kind of professionalised because
• 53:04
  they're, they're used, they're not paid, which is quite
• 53:06
  important to make that, that point.
• 53:08
  Yeah. And, and also actually it's,
• 53:11
  it's important to understand in the Magistrates Court as well,
• 53:14
  is that it's not just magistrates.
• 53:16
  So quite often they'll swap out a magistrate for a, for a, a
• 53:20
  judge. Yeah, who is state paid and you
• 53:23
  know, so it's not our jury. It's not.
• 53:26
  It's not a jury. And it absolutely is not that
• 53:29
  our jury. And what they're really pushing
• 53:30
  towards is to run all this stuff algorithmically using AI.
• 53:35
  Yes, that's what the end point, because they don't want to
• 53:38
  basically it's all about efficiency.
• 53:39
  They don't want to pay for anything.
• 53:40
  Yeah, right. Yeah.
• 53:41
  So you, you, you'll get, you'll get something that we call
• 53:44
  justice. But actually it's not justice.
• 53:47
  It's the lowest possible level completely of algorithmically
• 53:51
  applied legislation compliance with arbitrary legislation that
• 53:57
  you can possibly. And that justification of that,
• 54:00
  of course, is that we've got 70,000 case case backlog.
• 54:04
  Yeah, in the Crown Court. Yeah, yeah.
• 54:07
  Which I would argue has been created through a perfect storm
• 54:11
  of underfunding of the justice system.
• 54:12
  Yeah, but they've done it deliberately.
• 54:14
  Creative destruction. Creative destruction is what
• 54:16
  they call. It yeah, I mean, I I put a
• 54:18
  video. Out.
• 54:18
  Oh, no, it's all broken. We've got to fix it.
• 54:21
  Yeah, but you broke. We.
• 54:22
  We will ignore the fact that we broke it.
• 54:24
  Exactly. Yeah, and, and, and, and those
• 54:26
  in the justice system actually are frustrated by that too.
• 54:29
  You know, I mean, the lawyers know this, the, the judges know
• 54:31
  that. I mean, you've got a problem
• 54:32
  with the, the physical state of courts as well.
• 54:36
  I mean, lawyers know this, that when they go into court, you
• 54:38
  know, there are kind of bowls out to catch the drips from the
• 54:40
  ceiling. This kind of stuff is going on.
• 54:42
  You've got a, you've got chaos from the, you know, the, the,
• 54:46
  what is it called the, the prisoner escort system, which is
• 54:48
  the, the, the system for bringing prisoners to the court
• 54:51
  system. And then quite often you get
• 54:54
  cases being, you know, because, because they didn't turn up, the
• 54:57
  prisoner wasn't well, you know, so that you've got a delay.
• 54:59
  OK, so you've got these massive inefficiencies going on and
• 55:03
  those in the justice system are massively frustrated by that
• 55:05
  too, but they're not seeing that problem.
• 55:08
  And, and, and, and if you go back further than that, of
• 55:10
  course, why have we got this massive case backlog?
• 55:14
  It's because you've gone and created a legislative landscape
• 55:18
  through complexity that is so huge that you this is that's the
• 55:23
  why it exists in the first place.
• 55:26
  Exactly, exactly. OK, fascinating.
• 55:30
  Let's just finish up with, I want to show you this, which is,
• 55:36
  and I'll hold this up to the camera and we'll put it up on
• 55:40
  screen as well as we're talking through it.
• 55:42
  But this is from Makespace Oxford.
• 55:45
  So yes, you did a segment on this.
• 55:47
  Yeah, I did a. Segment on this on the news,
• 55:49
  right? Because basically what they did
• 55:51
  and people need to understand that the the British government
• 55:56
  is actually right now building a parallel system that is based on
• 56:03
  a completely different constitution and they have
• 56:07
  opened it up. They call it the dark matter,
• 56:09
  right? So it's all this stuff down
• 56:11
  here. So they call these problems root
• 56:14
  problems include things like private ownership.
• 56:18
  That's a root problem apparently.
• 56:21
  And this idea of of separation of basically is individualism.
• 56:25
  Individualism. That that which that is a
• 56:28
  problem. They're saying that, yeah, yeah.
• 56:30
  And, and what you're saying and should be individuals.
• 56:32
  And what our Constitution says is that we are and have to be
• 56:36
  individuals. We have to be individuals, not
• 56:39
  in, in, in, in a selfish, selfish expression.
• 56:42
  Yeah. But as individuals, we come to
• 56:44
  understand that, that, that we have to manage ourselves
• 56:47
  responsibly so as not to tread on other people.
• 56:51
  Yes. So it's it's fundamentally not
• 56:52
  selfish. Yeah.
• 56:53
  And when we want to engage with others, we do so as, as, yeah,
• 56:59
  under, under, under, you know, our voluntary action, you know,
• 57:03
  we want to come together as a group of other people with other
• 57:06
  individuals because we wish to do that.
• 57:08
  Not because, not because we're told we have to or not because
• 57:11
  we're put in a category or because we're, you know, it's
• 57:14
  all based on, on the, the volunteerism.
• 57:18
  That's what it's all about. So, yeah, I mean, freedom of
• 57:21
  expression is probably going to be another one there.
• 57:23
  You know, freedom of ideas, freedom, you know, all of this,
• 57:26
  all of the things that are expressions of individualism are
• 57:30
  probably under the root problems there.
• 57:32
  Yes, they are. And private ownership, private
• 57:35
  ownership and they talk about this imperialist mindset and
• 57:42
  extractivist mindset. And I'm certainly not
• 57:45
  extractivist and I'm certainly not an imperialist.
• 57:48
  I'm not entirely sure what they mean by that, but I think it's
• 57:50
  basically western society, western civilization.
• 57:54
  Evils of. Western society has been
• 57:56
  presented as as as universally evil, but actually a lot of the
• 58:00
  bad stuff that's happened, and there are plenty of bad things
• 58:03
  that our societies have done both at home and abroad over
• 58:07
  centuries. The vast majority of that is
• 58:10
  being driven by the people who are deliberately trying to
• 58:12
  degrade our constitutional rights completely.
• 58:14
  Yeah. So actually, the things that are
• 58:16
  being identified, the things that are potentially I could
• 58:19
  understand as being legitimate problems have actually been,
• 58:22
  have been, have been, have been put there by the people who are
• 58:25
  trying to, to, to do the things that we've just been talking
• 58:28
  about, quite frankly. And then also one thing that I
• 58:33
  think is really crucial for people who who might veer
• 58:37
  towards the kind of collectivist worldview to, to appreciate is
• 58:41
  that the collective is made up of individuals.
• 58:45
  Yes, right. And that's what collectivism
• 58:48
  misses out when people talk about how well you want to think
• 58:50
  about the collective. I should clarify that.
• 58:52
  But it's made the collective. The base unit of the collective
• 58:56
  is the. Individual who are there
• 58:58
  voluntarily, yes, that's the key, yes.
• 59:00
  Yes. Collectivism is is where you
• 59:03
  are. You're, you're, you're seen or
• 59:05
  identified as a group and whether you like it or not, and
• 59:09
  you're given given rights or, or, or have rights taken away on
• 59:12
  the basis of an identity. So we get into group identity.
• 59:16
  We get into, you know, Jordan Peterson talks about group
• 59:18
  identity. That's a modernist concept,
• 59:21
  postmodern concept, really. So that's where we're getting
• 59:25
  into. So that that's people need to be
• 59:27
  really clear on what individualism and collectivism
• 59:31
  really is. And I actually, I did a series
• 59:35
  on that of little short videos of only about 15 minutes each on
• 59:39
  the law and alchemy.org YouTube channel where I take people
• 59:43
  through those steps of understanding the difference
• 59:46
  between individualism and collectivism and why
• 59:48
  collectivism is important to reject individualism is
• 59:51
  important to embrace. And how those, those, those
• 59:54
  those two different ideologies can be distorted.
• 59:57
  The meaning can be distorted as well.
• 59:59
  And and individualism often people.
• 1:00:03
  Wrongly say, oh, that's just a selfish ideology.
• 1:00:06
  But as we've said, it isn't because, you know, individuals,
• 1:00:09
  it's about, it's not about not forming collectives.
• 1:00:12
  It's about doing that as individuals voluntarily.
• 1:00:15
  Yeah, yeah, definitely. OK, fascinating.
• 1:00:20
  So look, just just to wrap up, what what can we do to help re
• 1:00:26
  establish these immutable, inalienable right principles in
• 1:00:35
  our daily lives around us now? We we need to be creating a lot
• 1:00:41
  of buzz and activity about these subjects.
• 1:00:43
  It's really educational to start with.
• 1:00:45
  Yeah. And a lot of people will go, oh,
• 1:00:47
  well, we haven't got time for that kind of stuff.
• 1:00:48
  I I don't care. You don't have, you don't have a
• 1:00:50
  choice. Yeah.
• 1:00:52
  The universe will not give you that choice, I'm afraid.
• 1:00:54
  OK. Because actually, if you don't
• 1:00:56
  deal with this at the root cause, you have to educate
• 1:00:59
  yourself and become absolutely clear on natural law, objective
• 1:01:05
  morality, understanding through logic and reason, the difference
• 1:01:08
  between those two ideologies, individualism and collectivism,
• 1:01:12
  and how that community that is not based on the principles that
• 1:01:15
  are baked into the natural order.
• 1:01:18
  You're going to take your society down that way and it
• 1:01:20
  will keep going down until you learn it.
• 1:01:23
  It's, it's simple as that. So it's education, It's
• 1:01:25
  educating others when you've got clear on it in the social media
• 1:01:28
  space, causing people to to question those ideas, to reflect
• 1:01:34
  on those ideas, putting awkward and difficult questions before
• 1:01:37
  them that cause them to reflect on these kind of incorrect
• 1:01:42
  belief systems that have come about.
• 1:01:44
  We're going to have to do that it it probably wouldn't take as
• 1:01:46
  long as we think it would if huge numbers started to do this
• 1:01:51
  and we created that that buzz and that activity in the social
• 1:01:55
  media space. But yeah, we've got to do it.
• 1:01:57
  We've got to become familiar. With this, OK, there's a job for
• 1:02:01
  us to do there and we'll share some, some some useful links
• 1:02:05
  around all of these topics from Will and others so that you can
• 1:02:10
  educate yourself and then begin to educate others and we can all
• 1:02:12
  start to get active in this area.
• 1:02:14
  Very, very important. I think the, the trial by jury
• 1:02:17
  piece in particular really lands with people who are maybe a
• 1:02:21
  little bit less less engaged with some of the other topics
• 1:02:25
  that we talk about. People actually do understand
• 1:02:28
  that the trial by jury is actually really important.
• 1:02:30
  So I think that that's a. And you're not sounding lunatic
• 1:02:33
  as well when you're doing it because actually what we're
• 1:02:35
  talking about is the constitutional rule of law.
• 1:02:37
  So even with mainstreamers, you can actually be quite tempered
• 1:02:41
  and sensible sounding when you bring these subjects up.
• 1:02:44
  And that's a benefit, you know, so that that's a reason to, to
• 1:02:48
  talk about it with, with, you know, people who aren't awake in
• 1:02:51
  the conspiratorial sense. You can talk about this, this
• 1:02:54
  stuff, you know, without sounding completely lunatic.
• 1:03:00
  Good. Hopefully so.
• 1:03:01
  OK, fantastic. Will Keats, it's been a
• 1:03:03
  pleasure. UK column, you're all fantastic.
• 1:03:06
  I hope you enjoyed that. Thanks for coming in.
• 1:03:08
  It's been great. Good to have you in the studio
• 1:03:10
  and until next time, thank you for watching.