Dismissal of human rights

Since the 19th century, the entire concept of natural law and inalienable rights has been under assault. The battle seemed to be over by the 1930s, as socialism and communism were sweeping the world. Even in so-called capitalist countries the law-making power of government had grown to an extent unimaginable to their founding fathers. The twin victors were the “common good” (i.e., “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”) and “legal positivism” (i.e., that the law is simply “the command of the ruler”).* Without restraint or limit, whatever was written in a nation’s code of laws was The Law.

It mattered not whether that ruler was Adolf Hitler in Germany, Joseph Stalin in Russia, or any law-making body anywhere in the world — the law was the law.

Even the memory that there were fundamental human rights that no government could take away was fading from the world.

The horrifying atrocities committed by such twentieth-century dictators revived world interest in a standard higher than positive law — man’s law. If rulers could command whatever they wished without the restraints and limits of natural law and inalienable rights then great evils could be unleashed upon the world.

Ignorance of such rights on the part of the people (the desired result of forced government schooling) ensured that governments could soon reassert the power to make any law at all. Invading private property is the nature and practice of socialism. Doing so sweeps aside natural law and inalienable rights in fact, and socialist governments need only wait for the right political conditions to take them away in law. Real or manufactured crises serve that purpose well.

Cries of “child abuse” such as those raised against the loving parents of the Communities of the Twelve Tribes in Klosterzimmern and Wornitz, Germany, are among the most powerful crises government and propaganda organs can manufacture.

The product − the state of public alarm and acceptance of extreme government actions − is still good even when the crisis is immediately disproved and that proof publicly acknowledged.

Indeed, the Jugendamt (youth services) acknowledging that the children were healthy, normal, and unharmed changed nothing at all…neither the situation for the parents or the assumption of greater power by the state. Something far more important than the welfare of the children and the parents’ (and children’s) rights under the Basic Law (Constitution) of Germany was at stake here.

This tacit dismissal of human rights by the government, and its acceptance by the people, is the very large common ground that the National Socialists led by the Fuhrer share with socialists in Germany today, and indeed share with any socialist nation.

This is why some nations regard children as the property of the state. It is why the United Nations presumes to instruct even individual families in those individual states in how to raise their children. Indeed, in 2006, the eighteen member UN Committee on the Rights of the Child determined on its own that parental discipline of children by parents should be outlawed. Thus, a tiny gathering of bureaucrats seeks to determine the lives and futures of seven billion people down to how they raise their children.

Individual, inalienable rights will obviously stand in the way of global government. One or the other will have to go.

Only governments abiding within the restraints of their constitutional powers, who see their most important mandate as protecting the rights of their citizens that are articulated in those same constitutions, can preserve individual rights.** Apart from that, the light of conscience will be extinguished on planet earth under the brute force of governments that know neither restraint or limit.

To destroy and devastate children’s consciences is the goal of so-called “spanking bans.” Such children grow up knowing no one gives a damn about them and their atrocious behavior. You can look to Sweden and see. Germany is not far behind.


* Lynch, John, “Natural Law,” Encarta Encyclopedia 2000.

** See the paper, “The Constitution — Binding Law or Empty Words,” p. 4.