Humans versus Politicals: Part Fourteen - A mind-set perspective

 

14.  A mind-set perspective

To conclude this missive, I will look at the situation from the point of view of the mind-sets of the protagonists on the two sides. And try to give a tiny peek at what may be on the way in the future.

The new mind-set

I said earlier that in about 1995, I sensed a change in the patterns of what I felt able to think about. I found that I could think thoughts, which I could not have thought before. That process of mental release has continued, slowly, over the intervening three decades. But during the second half of 2023, and even more in 2024 and early 2025, I feel that the process has accelerated.

Not only has it accelerated in terms of what individuals can find themselves thinking, but it has also broadened into the minds of many more people. As witness the increase in Reform UK party membership since early December 2024. As I write these words on March 30^th, Reform membership, having overtaken Tory membership before the new year, has broken 220,000, despite internal squabbles. And many of the new members are young people.

Clearly, in recent months, very many people have become concerned about the bad things that are being done to them. And those concerns are starting to translate into desire for action, and a will to take action. Already, two visible results of these changes of mind-set are a strengthened pushback by ordinary people against government overreach, and a new determination to fight hard for our human rights and freedoms.

The Re-discovery

As I experience it, for us human beings there is now a sense of emergence, if not yet from the political tyranny to which we are subjected, then at least from the mental tyranny of thinking that the present system is natural, morally right and immutable. There is growing anger, contempt and hatred against the parasites and pests that game that system for their own purposes, whether selfish or tyrannical; and against the state and its moral inequalities.  Yet on the other side, there is a new sense of confidence in ourselves and our capabilities. There is a prospect of better times ahead; albeit, we have a lot to do to get there.

The new mind-set, I think, is moving in the same direction as the new attitudes and ways of thinking, which spread during the Renaissance. Back then, our forebears embarked on an era of Discovery: of ideas both old and new, of new places, of ourselves. The paradigm which underlies the new mind-set, I think, is Re-discovery. We are starting to re-discover ourselves, and to recognize our potential. I expect that the process of re-discovery, just like the Renaissance, will be a spiritual revolution: a change for the better in the human spirit.

We will re-discover our Humanity, our nature as human beings. We will re-discover that we are naturally good, and that this is our planet. And that its resources are for us to use wisely, to build a home and garden fit for a civilized species. We will re-discover our Reason and our rationality. We will re-discover our “bullshit meters,” which enable us to reject lies, hype and unfounded scares.

We will re-discover our human spirit, and our confidence in ourselves. We will re-discover our consciences: the built-in weather-vane or barometer, that gives us a sense of what is right and wrong for us human beings to do. We will come to judge individuals by their behaviours, rather than by who they are, or by things outside their control. And we will reject and ostracize those that fail to behave up to the standards of humanity, including peacefulness, truthfulness and honesty, responsibility, and respect for human rights and freedoms.

We will re-discover the ideas and values of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. We will re-discover our natural industry and productivity, and our ability to solve problems. We will re-discover honest business and trade for what they are: the natural ways for human beings to relate to each other in the public sphere. And moving forward, we will re-discover, and re-illuminate, the crucial idea of human rights.

More and more, we will come to think outside the political paradigm. We will reject the Westphalian political state, with its “sovereignty,” its taxes, its bad laws and its violations of rights and freedoms. We will reject the “social contract” falsehood. We will reject all the old political parties. We will reject all politicized laws that go against the natural law of humanity. We will reject political government, and we will withdraw our consent to it. We will reject, too, all supra-national political organizations, such as the UN and EU. Along with those companies, multi-national or not, that have used politics either for their own profit, or to further political agendas they favour.

Each of us will re-discover our membership in the great and natural community of all human beings worth the name. We will come to care about all our fellow human beings; but only about our fellow human beings. We will neither feel nor show concern or compassion for those that behave, or have behaved, towards us or others in an inhumane manner. They didn’t care about us; so we won’t waste our care on them. You might as well expect Jews to feel compassion or concern for nazis.

We will reject promoters, supporters, makers and enforcers of laws that harm, or violate the rights of, innocent people. We will reject the arrogant, the dishonest, the deceitful, hypocrites and those that show other psychopathic behaviours. We will reject the parasites that use political power for their own gain, or for the gain of their cronies. We will reject the pests that use political power to harm innocent people, and to get away with it. We will reject all those individuals in government, that fail to serve the people they are supposed to be a benefit to, or that act with dishonesty or in bad faith towards any of us. Or that harm us or violate our rights, or support, co-operate with or condone any political agenda that harms us or violates our rights.

We will see those that have promoted, supported, made or enforced bad policies without any foundation in evidence, such as nett zero, for what they are; traitors to human civilization. We will see those “experts,” that lied about or ignored evidence in pursuit of policy goals, as the quislings they are. We will see those that worked towards, or utilized, the perversion of the precautionary principle into a tool for tyranny, as the perpetrators of crimes against humanity that they are.

We will re-discover what we human beings want and need in order to fulfil ourselves. We need human rights and dignity respected and upheld. We need self-determination and independence for everyone. We need an end to oppression, exploitation, war, bad laws, gross or persistent injustices, violations of rights and freedoms, the mental miasma of lies, deceit, hype, gloom and fear, and the culture of safety at any cost. We need an unrestricted free market economy. We need maximum freedom to choose and act for everyone, and objective, common-sense justice for all.

Our enemies’ mind-set

In contrast to our positive, forward moving mind-set, our enemies’ ways of thinking are still mired in politics, and in the system – the state – that enables politics as it is today to continue.

They are arrogant; they think they are superior to others. They are hypocritical; they think that what they tell others to do doesn’t apply to them. They have little or no concern for ethics or for human rights. They are happy to lie or deceive, and they shun the truth. They routinely deal in bad faith. They favour hype and fear over rational analysis of the evidence. They want to smear, insult, and suppress the views of, those who disagree with them. They are reckless, irresponsible and intolerant, and they accept no accountability. Looking at their behaviours, and listening to their words, we see these characteristics coming out again and again.

But I am coming to think that the lies, hype, fear and ad hominems our enemies spout may be more than just propaganda tools.  I think they may be genuinely afraid of something. Deep down inside, do they perhaps feel panic and fear for their own futures? Might they have divined, for example, that the political system, on which their entire privileged way of life depends, is not sustainable? That the state is, ethically, already bankrupt; and perilously close to financial bankruptcy, too? And that, on its present course, it will soon fail?

These twin senses of bankruptcy and fear might well explain many of the things that are going on today. It may well explain why so much that political governments do is directed towards getting in more, and more, and more “revenue” for their state, and for the client class that hangs on to their coat-tails. Why our enemies rant so much about “safety” and “sustainability.” Why they think their scares are “existential” problems. Why everything is “worse than we thought!” Why, every time people lose interest in one set of scares, our enemies dream up new scares to replace them. Why they want to spy on us with facial recognition cameras; for, I think, our enemies are afraid of us, and what we might do to them once enough of us come to understand how badly they have treated us. Why extinction is one of the things they are so worried about. And why they seem so often to be in a mad, breathless rush to take Action! to get their plans implemented right now.

It could also explain why they refuse to acknowledge, or even to look at, the facts and evidence. They don’t want anyone (least of all themselves) to find out that their apocalyptic claims about climate change, or air pollution, or whatever is the scare du jour, are unfounded! It could explain why they brook no contrarian views, and so often seek to suppress those views. Could it be, perhaps, that they have so much invested in their scams, that they feel they can’t afford to let the truth come out?

Minds on the move

As recently as two years ago, I was concerned that far too many people were trapped in a mind-set that led me to label them as “pawns.” They are not bad people, because they are naturally economically productive, and they avoid politics in most aspects of their lives. Nevertheless, they have in the past allied themselves with our enemies, by supporting the current political set-up. They do this, primarily, by continuing to vote for the old, mainstream political parties, so underwriting the charade of sham “democracy.”

But just recently, something seems to have flipped. This has caused the mental release, which I spoke of at the beginning of this chapter, to begin broadening its base. People who used to be half-asleep, and behaved like pawns, have started waking up. The rise of Reform party membership is just one symptom of this. I am confident that more symptoms will start to show quite soon.

I think I see the beginnings of a tidal wave of anger, hatred and contempt, to be focused against the political parasites and pests that have robbed us, oppressed us and violated our human rights and freedoms for so long. And that will lead to a strengthening movement among our fellow human beings, to get those parasites and pests off all our backs.

Some of us will be minded, more and more, to become politically active in Reform or another non-mainstream party, or to take part in political protests. In support of the farmers, or against the bad law du jour that is before the parliament, for example. But there is another way, beyond political action and protests, in which each of us can take action to help get rid of nett zero, anti-car policies, centrally planned immigration, government waste, heavy and unjust taxation, ubiquitous spy cameras, and other bad things that are being imposed on us.

That way is, to play our part in the moral and intellectual fight. For ultimately, the war we are in is a moral and ethical one. What has been and is being done to us is, in reality, wrong at a fundamental level. Indeed, I take the view that before we can mount effective political action against what is being done to us, we need first to engage in, fight and win this moral war.

A few tips on the moral fight

Now, you don’t need to be an intellectual to contribute in a moral war. Even the child who saw that the emperor was naked, and said so, did his bit. To start to make our contribution, each of us must re-examine the attitudes in our minds. We must re-form, and strengthen, our views on the issues. Then, we must do what we can to communicate our thinking to others. So, I will give you here a few tips on how, over the years, I have managed to put myself through a process of moral strengthening, and improve my own thinking processes. I hope you may find at least some of these tips useful.

One, I have made myself into what I call an evidence-based person. In any matter in dispute, I always look for the evidence. That is, facts which can be independently checked by anyone who is knowledgeable and motivated enough to do so. A wise man recently told me: “Don’t get mad, just stick to the facts.” The facts, all of the facts, and nothing but the facts.

Two, whenever I am accused of something – polluting the atmosphere, causing dangerous climate change, or whatever else – I always demand proof of the accusation. That proof must be founded on hard, objective evidence. And it must meet the same standard, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, that I would require if I were on the jury in a court of criminal law.

Three, without convincing evidence that I am guilty of something, I never let myself accept or feel any guilt over the matter. I resist the clever techniques of those that want to manipulate my mind, and instil in me a false sense of guilt. I am “un-nudgeable.”

Moreover, I reject any kind of collective guilt. I am, of course, responsible for the effects on others of my own willed actions. But, unless I have explicitly taken on some responsibility for someone else’s behaviour (such as bringing up a child, or doing a management job in business), I feel no responsibility for what anyone else does without my say-so.

Four, if a problem is brought up regarding some activity, and the problem appears to be – or may plausibly be – real, I will always try to assess it in quantitative terms. If the numbers don’t add up, there is something fishy about the problem as stated. And it may well not be a real problem after all.

Five, when judging an individual, I try always to judge them by their behaviours, not by superficial traits, or by who they are. “It’s what they do that matters, not who they are.” And if their behaviour is wrong, and most of all if it causes unjust harm to others, the individuals that do it deserve to be brought to justice, and made to compensate the victims.

Six, too many people treat laws made by politicians as valid, because they have been made according to some procedure that is deemed to be “lawful.” But in reality, many are bad laws. They might be “legal,” but they are not lawful. “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny,” as Edmund Burke put it. Or, in the words of John Locke: “a great part of the municipal laws of countries” are no more than “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words.” And such laws are “only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature.”

In short, don’t assume that government is always right. And when something it does to us is morally wrong, call it out for what it is.

Seventh and last, identify who are your fellows and who are your enemies. What are the differences? We human beings are naturally peaceful, truthful, honest, straightforward and respectful of the rights of other human beings. We also strive to act in good faith. Moreover, the great majority of us strive to “live and let live” in our dealings with our fellows. In contrast, politicals behave very badly towards others. They indulge in lies, dishonesty, deception, arrogance, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, evasion of accountability, aggression, recklessness towards others, favouritism, targeting of scapegoats, intolerance, bad faith, and violations of human rights and freedoms. Judged on their behaviours, they are not us.

Our moral movement and its consequences

Our moral movement, I expect, will likely be focused in the first instance against the bad behaviours that are so rife among our enemies. Some of which, I have listed in the section just above, as well as in earlier chapters. We will contrast these behaviours, and the inhuman parasites and pests that use them, against the behaviours which are natural to us human beings worth the name. Some of which, I have also listed above and in earlier chapters.

To put the mechanics of our moral movement in a nutshell: First, identify the behaviours, present and past, of those in or paid for by government. And particularly those that have, or have had, political power or influence. Second, evaluate each individual, as best you can, for what they have done for (or against) the people they were supposed to serve, and what they have done for (or against) you. And use the judgement by behaviour principle to work out who are your fellows, and who (or what) are your enemies. Third, co-operate with and cherish your fellows, and fight against your enemies with all your strength. Striving, all the while, to bring every one of your enemies to common-sense justice, to make them compensate their victims in full, and to subject them to the criminal punishment that they deserve. And not to let a single one of them get away with anything.

We human beings will come to see the parasites and pests, that need the political state in order to survive and prosper, as the moral Neanderthals they are. We will dump the dishonest, and those that act in bad faith. We will blow away the state and its politics. We will abolish the “public sector,” sack all its employees that fail to deliver value to taxpayers, and cancel their cushy pensions. If they want to survive, they will need either to find productive jobs, or create their own businesses. At the same time, I expect, in the UK we will re-set the laws to how they were at a suitably chosen past date; perhaps in early 1992, prior to the Rio “summit.”

Beyond this, we will punish the worst offenders as they deserve. For example, I expect that those, that promoted or supported nett zero, will be sent to an enclave, in which they must live a nett zero lifestyle. We will see whether or not a nett zero economy is sustainable! And those that wanted to end the use of fossil fuels will be made to live in an enclave without any fossil fuels, or any products made using them.

Some of our enemies, perhaps, may reform themselves, start to behave as human beings, compensate those they wronged, and join our convivial community. But many will not. Thus, those that live by the state will die with the state. Homo sapiens politicus, the political animal, whose habitat is the political state, will be superseded by homo sapiens convivendus, the convivial and economic animal, whose habitat is peace, justice, rights and freedoms, the free market and free trade. Those that fail to make themselves human will share the fate of their forebears of 40,000 years ago. And good riddance.

That is where I shall leave matters for today.

Humans versus Politicals: Part Thirteen - Just governance

 

13. Just governance

Next, I will outline my proposal for a new, bottom-up system of governance, which can replace, and fix the problems with, the current, top-down, failed system of political states and governments.

I call my proposed system, to supersede the political state, “just governance.” The following is a brief summary of how it might work.

The functions of just governance

The new system will govern communities of individuals, in much the same way as a referee governs a football match. It will also adjudicate as needed on the relationships between those individuals, the voluntary societies to which they belong, and other individuals and societies they interact with.

The primary function of just governance will be provision of common-sense justice to all. Maintenance of peace and tranquillity, and the upholding of the human rights of all those who respect others’ equal rights, are also important functions. And just governance will allow maximum freedom for everyone, consistent with living in a civilized community.

Just governance will also include strong quality assurance on its own processes. For example, lying, or any kind of dishonesty, by officials of governance against the people they are supposed to be serving will be a very serious, even a dismissal, offence. Regular audits will also be conducted on both the value-for-money to the governed of all projects of governance, and the honesty, objectivity, openness and transparency of all those in positions of any power. Think of Donald Trump’s “DOGE” on steroids.

Just governance will also need some subsidiary functions, such as diplomacy with other just governances and, for a time, with legacy states. Another possible function would be some level of co-ordination of infrastructure development between neighbouring communities.

Crucially, just governance will not have any permanent legislative. For its code of law, the natural law of humanity, comes from human nature, not from edicts made by political élites.

The character of just governance

Just governance will be bottom-up and de-politicized. It will focus on the individual, and on small communities. And it will not allow any political or religious ideology or agenda to be imposed on any of the governed against their wills. Moreover, it will not seek to control or to meddle with economic activity in any way.

In structure, it will be like a network, not a hierarchy. It will have no central or commanding point, at which undue concentration of political power can collect. Except in clear emergency, it will be reactive rather than pro-active. And it will have no mechanisms to enable one interest group unjustly to override the interests of others.

Just governance need not be territorial. But it is likely that, while there are legacy states still in existence, in order to defend against their aggressions the community it governs will need to be defined as the inhabitants of a particular territory. I refer to such a governance as an “area of just governance.”

The judicial function

The primary institutions of just governance will be judicial, including impartial arbitration of disputes and objective assessment of externalities and risks. The major institution will be courts of just governance.

Ultimately, the authority of just governance can only come from its impartiality, its objectivity, its honesty, and the common-sense nature of its principles.

As in today’s legal systems, I expect there will be a separation between two areas of justice. On the one hand, arbitration and restorative justice; that is, the resolution of disputes, and the calculation and ordering of restitution for wrongs. And on the other hand, criminal or retributive justice.

Another aspect of the judicial function will be to make objective assessments of actual or alleged externalities (side effects), such as pollution or noise, which cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause, damage to others. If appropriate, those that cause such externalities will be made to compensate the individuals and groups affected by the damage they caused, each in proportion to the amount of harm they suffer. The judicial function will also be able to analyze and assess actual or alleged risks, in much the same way as for externalities.

Secondary aims and functions

The secondary aims of just governance are upholding human rights, and allowing maximum freedom for everyone. That freedom, of course, must be tempered by individual responsibility for the effects of willed actions on others.

The function that upholds rights would correspond, in today’s terms, to a police force. Other aspects of the upholding rights function might be the emergency services which today are often required, with or without police, at or after incidents. Under the same heading, when required, would come dealing with disasters such as floods, and defence against invaders, military aggressors and violent gangs.

Local and emergency rules

There will, at times and in places, be a need to make what I call “local rules.” These are sane, sensible, non-politicized conventions for the benefit of all users of the public space (that is, space open to all) in the local area. Like which side of the road you should drive on. But local rules must be kept to a minimum.

There may also be a need to make temporary rules in the event of a clear emergency, such as a flood or an epidemic. But the scope and period of such rules must be as limited as possible.

Comparison with today’s governments

In stark contrast to today’s governments, a just governance will have no political or religious agendas. It will not pick favourites to be treated better than they deserve, or scapegoats to be treated worse than they deserve. It will at all times maintain its objectives of upholding rights and freedoms, delivering common-sense justice to all, and allowing maximum freedom to all who behave in a convivial manner. It will never intentionally impose costs on groups or individuals for anything that does not bring corresponding benefits to those same groups or individuals.

If an apparent problem surfaces, it will be evaluated objectively and honestly before any action is taken on it. The true version of the precautionary principle, “look before you leap,” will be restored. No precipitate action will be taken unless the claimed problem is shown to be, beyond reasonable doubt, real. And no action will be taken that imposes costs on anyone who is not provably a part of the cause of a problem.

Should emergency action be taken, which does not result in a solution to the problem, just governance will take steps to compensate those who were unjustly harmed. Should the claimed problem be found to be based on false principles, it will take appropriate action against those that made, or aided or abetted, the false claims.

Rules for territorial just governances

This section applies to areas of just governance. That is, just governances which, for historical reasons, are still territorial.

I expect that only in three circumstances will a territorial just governance ever need to negotiate with those outside its area. First, its trade policies with other just governances, and with legacy states while they still exist, will always be along the lines of: “you treat us fair, and we’ll treat you fair.” It may make trade agreements, as long as they fully conform to this ideal.

Second, its foreign policies will be along the same lines. But in addition, while legacy states still exist, it may make mutual defence pacts with other just governances, or in exceptional circumstances with a legacy state or states. It will not make any other pacts or “treaties” with external parties, including multi-national companies or other multi-national organizations.

Third, provided the people governed agree in each case, it may make alliances as necessary with other just governances, for the purpose of improving just governance.

A possible structure for just governance

Here, I will sketch out some ideas on a possible structure for just governance. Of course, any new system on this kind of scale will have to be prototyped first; and the good ideas taken forward, and the less good modified. So, the system may end up looking significantly different from my proposals.

Just governance will, by design, be de-centralized. The communities, in which the governed live, will be small enough to produce diverse “flavours” of community for people of different tastes. I have in mind a town or small city, with a population range of a few thousands up to perhaps a hundred thousand. Economically, different communities will tend to specialize in different things. So, there will be much trade, both between neighbouring communities and between those further apart. Moreover, free movement will be the norm.

I envisage, first, local or neighbourhood organizations, on a scale of a few hundred people. And second, community organizations, on the scale of a town, small city, or suburb of a larger city. There will also be governance institutions, which can provide services on a wider basis than just a single community. Anything, which requires a larger scale of co-operation yet, will be handled through alliances.

The neighbourhood

I envisage that the neighbourhood of just governance (NJG) will be a voluntary society in a neighbourhood of a few hundred people, for those who take an interest in just governance locally. Its main functions will be to conserve the special characteristics of the local area, and to assess possible changes to it, including the suitability of potential incoming migrants. It will operate, in essence, by direct democracy.

Once legacy states are gone, I envisage that incoming migration will be controlled at the neighbourhood level. I expect that those wishing to join and to reside permanently in a neighbourhood will be expected to present themselves to a meeting of the NJG, and seek approval from its members.

The community

I envisage the community of just governance (CJG) to govern a unit large enough to be economically viable in the free market. I envisage that CJGs will probably be non-profit companies. I expect the remit of a CJG to be closer to that of a town council than anything else today.

I would expect the CJG to organize those functions of just governance which must be delivered at the local level. I expect the services to include: Police (except detectives), firemen, paramedics and other first responders. Maintaining a capability for military defence. Making and administering local (and, at need, emergency) rules as required. Providing premises and support staff for courts of just governance. And maintaining pre-existing infrastructure in the public space, such as roads and footpaths.

In addition to regular discussions on CJG-level matters among representatives from the NJGs, I expect there would be periodic (probably yearly) meetings open to all community residents, something like a New England open town meeting.

At need, and with the agreement of the people they serve, communities will be able to split or merge.

At the wider level

The institution, which I expect to deliver those services of just governance that can be managed and delivered from outside any particular CJG, I have dubbed the Society for Just Governance (SJG). An SJG will probably be a non-profit company. It will be the nearest equivalent in just governance to a government today.

It will be a project management and contracting organization, using externally sourced skills, such as detectives, judges and arbitrators, risk and cost-benefit assessors, diplomats and negotiators, and quality auditors, to do the work. It will compete with other SJGs in the free market.

Co-operation between just governances

Where just governances are territorial, they will have the latitude to co-operate with each other, for any of the purposes of just governance, through alliances. Individual communities will be able to withdraw from or change alliances, if their people so indicate.

How to pay for just governance

What an individual is expected to pay for just governance should be in proportion to the benefit he or she gets from it. I see the benefits provided by just governance – for example, protection of property – as being in direct proportion to the individual’s total wealth. Thus, periodic payments should be in proportion to the individual’s total wealth at the time.

Of the remaining current governmental functions, those services which are necessary, but not part of core governance – such as welfare, pensions, health care and education – need to be de-politicized, with control being passed to those who provide those services. And new, just and more flexible financial arrangements will have to be devised. Development of new infrastructure will also need to be reviewed. I would expect that, under just governance, most new infrastructure would be paid for by user fees, such as tolls.

As an important feature of the system of payment for just governance, there will be no taxes on incomes or on transactions. Nor will there be any re-distributory or confiscatory taxation.

In the best of all possible worlds, just governance might be funded, in an area with a common currency, without the need for any form of taxation resembling today’s. This could be done by allowing the currency to be inflated by a small percentage each month or year. About 1.5% a year (0.125% a month) was my back-of-an-envelope figure for what might be needed to support the core functions of just governance. This would affect all assets denominated in the currency, so should produce the desired distribution of payments according to wealth. But to work out how to make such a system practical goes beyond my pay grade in economics.

Humans versus Politicals: Part Twelve - A governance perspective

 

12. A governance perspective

Now, I will look at what we human beings need in terms of governance. I deliberately use this word in preference to the more usual “government,” because I wish to maintain a clear separation between the two. Government is how things are organized today, under a political system run by a political species for its own benefit. Whereas governance is how things should be organized, for maximum benefit to all human beings worth the name.

Near the end of this chapter, I will compare the performance of those in government, and of political government as a whole, against what we ought to be able to expect from governance.

Why is governance needed?

Some form of governance is, regrettably, a necessity. John Locke knew this. For he said: “Though the law of Nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures, yet men, being biased by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.”

To this, he proposes a solution: “a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law.” (In Locke’s time, “indifferent” meant what we would now call “impartial.”)

Enlightenment values

I listed what I called “Enlightenment values” in the chapter above on historical perspective. I will look at each of those values, which affect the functions and tone of governance. And I will show how the natural law of humanity, and the principles of ethical equality, voluntary society, common-sense justice and maximum freedom, can be combined together to form the philosophical foundation of a new system of governance to supplant the political state.

Tolerance in religion. Governance must allow everyone the right to full and free choice of religion. Provided only that they do not attempt to browbeat, foist or force any particular religious beliefs or belief system on to others.

Freedom of thought and action. Governance must be founded on the maximum freedom principle: Except where countermanded by common-sense justice, the Convivial Code or respect for rights, every individual must be free to choose and act as he or she wishes. Provided only that their actions do not unjustly cause harm to, or unjustly impose unreasonable risks of harm on, others.

Natural rights, natural law of humanity, natural equality of all human beings, and human dignity. Governance must be founded on the ethical equality principle. That is, that among human beings, what is right for one to do, is right for another to do in similar circumstances, and vice versa. The law to be upheld, and at need enforced, by governance must be the natural law of humanity. And governance must uphold the rights of all human beings who respect the equal rights of others. This includes the right to dignity; in other words, the right to be treated with the respect due to a human being.

The idea that any society exists for the individuals in it, not the individual for the society. Governance must be founded on the voluntary society principle. That is: All societies must be voluntary. Otherwise put: “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” And if a member of a society finds that he or she no longer feels aligned with the aims and purposes of that society, governance must allow him or her to freely leave the society.

Constitutional governance. Every governance must have a clear and publicly available constitution, specifying the limits of what it may or may not do.

Governance of the people, by the people. When Lincoln uttered his famous words, his listeners would have thought of themselves as part of a Lockean political society, into which they had voluntarily entered. To say that the people should be governed by the people was to say that only members of that society should be allowed to take part in the deliberations of the society. Otherwise put, no external parties should be allowed to influence the direction in which that society moves. This is ultimately why those who, like me, respect the values of the Enlightenment, do not accept that external parties (such as the UN, EU, WEF or WBCSD) should be allowed any kind of political power over the inhabitants of any democracy.

It is interesting to note that the constitution of the Reform UK party makes this idea explicit. “The Party believes that the United Kingdom … should only be governed by her own citizens … and that the only laws that should apply within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are those wholly made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.”

But I think Lincoln’s words need to be translated into a form more compatible with my new system of governance, which I will put forward in the next chapter. Rather than talking of the people, I would suggest substituting human beings. Lincoln’s words then become: Governance of human beings, by human beings. That is, only those whose behaviours measure up to human standards – those who obey the natural law of humanity – may be allowed to play any part at all in governance.

Governance for the benefit of the governed. Everything governance does must be directed to the benefit of those it governs; and to the benefit of every single individual among them, except only those that violate the natural law of humanity. Another facet of this is that everyone in governance is there to serve the governed, not to drain them or to impose political agendas on them.

Further, governance must never undertake any project for which the costs to the governed, whether financial or otherwise, are greater than the benefits which accrue to them from the project. This must apply to costs incurred both at the level of groups of people and at the level of individuals. Governance must also monitor the actual costs versus benefits of its projects, and strike down any project that fails to provide a nett benefit to the governed.

Governance with the consent of the governed. Every project which governance undertakes must first be agreed to by all those among the governed, who obey the natural law of humanity. In practice, this means that governance will not be allowed to do anything that unjustly harms any human being worth the name.

The rule of law. Any governance founded on the ethical equality principle will automatically incorporate the rule of law. That is, those in positions of power in governance, such as officials and judges, should have to obey the same rules as everyone else.

The ideal of justice. Governance must be founded on the common-sense justice principle. That is, that every individual deserves to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others. With the natural law of humanity as the “universal law” postulated by Kant, and combined with the ethical equality, voluntary society and maximum freedom principles as above, this principle will enable that “the freedom of the will of each can coexist together with the freedom of everyone.”

The free market, free trade and honest business

Key among the values we have inherited from, or developed during, the Industrial Revolution are the free market and free trade. As I put it earlier, the habitat we human beings need is one of peace, individual justice, human rights and freedoms, and a free market in which we can all ply our trades, and develop and make use of our skills. Another of our values is honest business. That is, the honest provision of goods or services to others, for which they are voluntarily willing to pay.

It follows that neither any governance, nor anyone else, may unjustly put an obstacle in the way of the economic free market, or of anyone’s access to it. Nor may anyone unjustly put any obstacle in the way of honest business activity. And people should be able to trade with each other in whatever ways they mutually agree. Unless, of course such trade violates human rights or freedoms, or imposes unjust, objective harm on anyone (including third parties), or unjustly imposes unreasonable risk of harm on anyone.

Governance must, therefore, uphold the free market, discourage interference with honest business activity, and prevent obstacles being placed in the way of anyone’s access to the market.

Governance of human beings, by human beings

It almost goes without saying that everyone in any position of power in governance must behave in ways that are exemplary. If anything, they ought to be judged by stricter standards than everyone else. And if they do fail to measure up to the natural law of humanity, they must be removed forthwith from any position in which they have any measure of power over anyone. Moreover, they must be required to compensate anyone they harmed through their wrongdoings. And take criminal punishment too, should it be appropriate.

I will repeat here John Locke’s formulation of the natural law of humanity: “Being all equal and independent, no-one should harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Anyone in governance must keep strictly to this in all dealings with human beings worth the name.

Further, they should treat the people they are supposed to serve as their equals, and should never use double standards. They should show respect for their dignity as human beings, and should never display arrogance. They should show respect for the independence of others, and should never interfere in others’ lives without a very good reason. They should not kill or injure people, violate people’s rights or freedoms, or damage any of their property, or take any of their property without providing in return a value which is acceptable to them.

Looking again at my list of 24 obligations to outline the Convivial Code, they must measure up to all seven of the positive obligations. They must respect all human rights and freedoms. They must always seek the truth. They must be truthful, honest, candid, straightforward and sincere in all their dealings. They must be accountable: they must take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable effects of their voluntary actions on others. They must compensate those to whom they unjustly cause damage through such voluntary actions. They must ensure that, if they impose risks on others, they have resources available to compensate the victims if something goes wrong. And they must always practise what they preach. Hypocrisy, that is, acting in contradiction to the individual’s stated ethical beliefs, or failing to practise what the individual preaches, can never be acceptable.

The four positive expectations represent areas in which anyone, who is worthy of any position of power over others, should be expected to go further than merely striving, and should actually reach the full standard whenever it is achievable. Thus, such people must be independent, rational thinkers and actors. They must be reliable, always striving to do what they have agreed to do. They must be tolerant of difference. And they must be objective, fair and just towards everyone, and must always act with integrity and in good faith. Bad faith is simply never acceptable from anyone in any position of power!

As to the negative obligations: (Some of these overlap with John Locke’s list). Those in positions of power must never aggress against anyone’s life, person or property. They must not interfere in other people’s lives without a good, objectively justifiable reason. They must not unjustly do to others what those others do not want done to them. They must not intentionally do or aggravate injustice. They must not promote, support, co-operate with or condone any unjust violation of human rights or freedoms, or any other violation of the natural law of humanity. They must not seek to control others’ conduct through emotional manipulation. They must not put any obstacle in the way of the economic free market, or unjustly deny anyone’s access to it. They must not unjustly deny others the right to make their own decisions in thought or action. They must not deny anyone the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, or require them to prove a negative. They must not try to take more from others than they are justly entitled to, or to impose costs on others that bring no benefit to those others. They must not pick favourites, or operate double standards with anyone. They must not recklessly impose harm, or unreasonable risk of harm, on others. And they must never willingly allow themselves to become a drain on others.

The behaviour of today’s governments as a whole

Next, I will look at government under the current system, and some of the ways in which it acts today towards those it is supposed to be serving.

If there is any point in having a system of government at all, then ought it not most of all to defend the habitat, which we need in order to flourish and to fulfil our nature as human beings? But today’s political governments do no such thing. Instead, they seek to exploit us through extortion, to progress their tyrannical agendas, and to rule over us ever more and more harshly. Not to mention making wars in various parts of the world.

Far from defending and preserving it, our enemies are seeking to destroy the habitat of peace, rights, freedoms, justice and the free market, which we need in order to fulfil ourselves. Far from securing for us a habitat in which we can flourish, political government endangers peace, creates injustices, violates our human rights, and suppresses our prosperity and our progress. It lies to us, threatens us, seeks to manipulate our minds, harasses us, impoverishes us, and suppresses our humanity.

An added dimension of tyranny is provided by the globalist, internationalist and environmentalist élites. Organizations like the UN and the EU have set themselves up rather as if they were states, yet above and beyond the nation-state. They and their cronies and hangers-on, including corporate and religious leaders, want to force their tyrannical agendas on to us, not just within the confines of each nation-state, but world-wide.

Thus, the politicals pervert the idea of government from something which ought to defend and protect the habitat which we human beings need in order to fulfil ourselves, into a system of tyranny by them over us. And they and their cronies are seeking to impose this tyranny on all of us human beings world-wide.

Some ways in which political government fails us

Does political government respect our human rights and freedoms? No. It stalks us with cameras, restricts our freedom of speech, seeks to put tight controls on our behaviour, and takes away our earnings and our property without offering us anything of value to us in return. It also denies us the presumption of innocence, and requires us to prove negatives.

Does government always seek, and tell, the truth? No. It routinely lies, misleads, obscures and obfuscates. And it goes so far as to suppress those who seek to tell truths, when those truths go against the establishment narratives.

Is government today always truthful, honest, candid and straightforward? The only answer I can give to this is, “You must be joking!” Bad faith by government towards the people they are supposed to serve has become the norm, rather than an exception.

Does government always take responsibility for, and compensate the victims of, the bad effects of its policies? No. We’re still owed compensation for what we have unjustly lost through high taxes, “nett zero,” the culture of over-safety, COVID lockdowns, anti-car policies, IR35, and many more.

Does government always practise what it preaches? Again, you must be joking. Partygate, and private jets to climate conferences, are just two examples of the hypocrisy that is now rampant in government.

Does government always uphold the free market, discourage interference with honest business activity, and prevent obstacles being placed in the way of anyone’s access to the market? As a victim of IR35, I can only answer this with an expletive.

Does government ensure it has the consent of the governed – all the governed, real criminals excepted – before doing anything that might harm an innocent person? Not a chance. Even if current “democracy” were a workable system, 20% of eligible voters would not be nearly enough to provide any kind of mandate to govern. And governments at various levels do things for which they have no kind of mandate from the people at all. For example, Surrey County Council joining the activist organization UK 100.

Does government always act for the benefit of the governed? No. It routinely does things to us, whose effects on our lives are negative. And it fails to do objective, honest risk analyses and cost-benefit analyses, from the point of view of the people, on its projects. Worse, in some cases, such as nett zero, it has specifically exempted itself from having to do such analyses.

Does government act for the benefit of all the governed, real criminals excepted? No. It picks on groups and individuals it doesn’t like, and singles them out for unjust punishment. Small business people, farmers, car drivers and pensioners are among the victim groups today.

Does government commit aggressions against innocent people? Does it interfere? Does it violate human rights and freedoms? Does it seek to manipulate or “nudge” people emotionally? Does it pick favourites, or operate double standards? Does it act recklessly? To these, I answer: Of course it does! For all these things are built into the political state at its roots.

The behaviour of those in power

In complete contrast to what we human beings want from those in governance, our enemies the politicals are wired into the state, and its ways of doing things. They arrogate to themselves the moral privileges, to which they think their membership of the “sovereign” of the state entitles them. And they evade accountability for, and think they should not be held responsible for, what they do to the people they are supposed to be serving.

As to how well our enemies measure up to the obligations I listed above, the answer is: Very badly. I will repeat my list from the previous chapter, of behaviours they like to indulge in: Lies. Dishonesty. Deception. Arrogance. Hypocrisy. Irresponsibility. Evasion of accountability. Aggression. Recklessness towards others. Favouritism. Targeting of scapegoats. Intolerance. Bad faith. And violations of human rights and freedoms. If you look at the list of negative obligations I gave above, you will see that most of our enemies violate several of those negative obligations, and some violate most of them.

The roots of all these bad behaviours are dishonesty and bad faith. Here, then, are the main differences between governance as we human beings need it, and the political governments we suffer under today. One, governance must always be honest with the people it is there to serve. Meaning, at least, truthful, candid, straightforward and sincere. Whereas political governments, whenever those in power feel the need, will always be dishonest towards the people. And two, governance must always act in the interests of, and in good faith towards, the governed. Whereas political governments routinely show bad faith towards, and act against the interests of, the governed, both as a whole and as individuals.

Fraud or worse

Here is a brief list of some of the things that government officials and their hangers-on routinely do to us today, that are dishonest and incompatible with the natural law of humanity. From the point of view of any human being worth the name, these activities constitute fraud or worse against the people they are supposed to be serving:

1)     Violating, or aiding, abetting or condoning any violation of, any of the human rights and freedoms of individuals who respect the equal rights and freedoms of others.

2)     Acting against the interests of the people they are supposed to serve, either as a whole, or by harassing or victimizing individuals or groups who are innocent of any real wrongdoing.

3)     Promoting, supporting, making or enforcing any political policy, that goes against the interests of the governed as a whole, or of any non-criminal individual among the governed.

4)     Using money taken through taxation for purposes which fail to bring a benefit to those who paid the taxes.

5)     Failing to strive to ensure that all government activities financed through taxation bring a benefit, commensurate with what each of them paid, to every individual who paid the taxes.

6)     Lying to, attempting to deceive, being dishonest towards, or acting in bad faith towards, any of the people they are supposed to serve.

Any of these bad behaviours ought to result in:

1)     Dismissal from any and all government positions.

2)     Cancellation of pension.

3)     Lifetime bans on working in future for, and on being paid money by, governance.

4)     The full bill for compensation to the victims of their bad behaviours.

5)     Ostracism, at least until that bill has been paid, by all human beings worth the name.

6)     If the behaviour is egregious enough, criminal punishment in addition.

Humans versus Politicals: Part Eleven - A cultural and behavioural perspective

 

11. A cultural and behavioural perspective

Next, I will look at us and them from the point of view of cultural attitudes, and the behaviours they tend to lead to.

Our culture

For us, human beings worth the name, our cultural attitudes are in essence formed from the values which we favour, as I discussed above. And particularly, the values of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, our two most recent forward-moving revolutions. Some of these values, I listed in the previous chapter. There is a fuller list in the chapter “A historical perspective.”

Now, it is quite easy for someone whose native culture is English to identify with the values of the Enlightenment. Seeded in England by John Locke, the Enlightenment was transmitted first to the Scots and the Americans. With some success, as shown by sages like Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Benjamin Franklin and Adam Smith. Later, it was passed on, with varying degrees of success, to the French; to others in Europe; to the Jews; to the British colonies, and some colonies of European powers; and, to an extent, to the Muslim world.

We English should not neglect the earlier revolutions, either. While England came late to the Renaissance compared with other European countries, the best of Renaissance culture was already present in Elizabethan times. And the legacy of ancient Greece and Rome was revived and well preserved, too. To the extent that even today, those whose parents so choose (and can afford it) can receive in England a “classical education.” I myself can vouch that, for those with the mental wherewithal, such an education does indeed foster a respect for truth and evidence, and an ability to think precisely and rationally, that goes beyond the norm. That is very likely one of the main reasons why Labour want to price it out of people’s reach.

Moreover, England was also the 18^th- and 19^th-century cradle of the Industrial Revolution. The Welsh weren’t far behind, with their coal and metal industries. The Scots started a bit later, but had created an industrial power-house before 1900. The Northern Irish, too, became adept at industries such as linen and shipbuilding.

The culture of Enlightenment twinned with industry spread, over time, through the major countries now known as the “Anglosphere.” The core Anglosphere consists of the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. With the result that the larger Anglosphere countries, first the UK and then the USA, have tended to dominate the world economically for 200 years and more. And, in many times and places, militarily and politically too.

But as human beings worth the name, the culture that defines us does not need to be tied to any particular cultural framework. It does not require people to share any particular skin colour, or racial origin, or political or religious ideology, or nationality, or language, or gender, or sexual orientation, or any other characteristic beyond simply behaving as human beings. Our culture is ultimately, therefore, rooted in human nature.

I will try to list some of the further characteristics of our culture, as I see them. First and foremost, the individual is important. Self-determination and independence for everyone are desirable goals. Moreover, we understand that our fellow human beings are individuals, and so they are important, too. That is one reason why we judge them by their behaviour as individuals, not merely by characteristics which they may share with others.

Second, human rights and dignity are to be respected and upheld, for all those who do the same for others. Common-sense justice, the condition in which each individual is treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others, is also to be respected and upheld. There must be an unrestricted free market economy, and free trade between people in different places. And there must be maximum freedom of choice and action for every individual, consistent with living in a civilized community.

Third, our culture is founded on the natural law of humanity. And, absent good reasons such as acting in self-defence, violations of this natural law are seen as wrong. For example, oppression and exploitation of some individuals by others are wrong. Double standards and favouritism are wrong. Warlike or violent aggression is wrong. Lies, deceit, dishonesty, obfuscation and suppression of the truth are wrong. Hypocrisy, failing to practise what the individual preaches that others should practise, is wrong. Overreach by anyone in a position of government power is wrong. And promoting, supporting, making and enforcing bad laws –laws that go against, outside or beyond the law natural to human beings – are all wrong.

Fourth, our culture is based on rationality, on objectivity, and on justice. Wherever applied, it will seek objective, common-sense justice for all. It will use objective risk and cost-benefit analyses wherever they are appropriate. And everyone will be held accountable for, and obliged to compensate the victims of, any unjust and objective wrongs they commit.

Our behaviours

We human beings are not perfect. All of us have bad moments occasionally, particularly when we are under attack, or feel threatened. But we learn, over time, how to minimize the negative effects on others of our mistakes and our losses of self-control. Moreover, we avoid, wherever we can, causing harm to our fellow human beings. When we do cause unjust harm to a human being, we feel a responsibility to compensate them if we possibly can. And, while all life involves taking risks of one kind or another, we try to avoid imposing unreasonable risks on others.

On top of this, we strive, at least, to be peaceful, truthful, honest, candid, straightforward and respectful of the rights of other human beings. We also strive to act in good faith. The great majority of human beings worth the name are also prepared to “live and let live” in their dealings with their fellows, and many actually manage to live up to this standard in practice. In summary, we do our best to live up to our nature as human beings.

Our enemies’ behaviours

In complete contrast, politicals often behave very badly towards others. They indulge in lies, dishonesty, deception, arrogance, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, evasion of accountability, aggression, recklessness towards others, favouritism, targeting of scapegoats, intolerance, bad faith, and violations of human rights and freedoms. Rather than trying to live up to human nature, they live down in the murky depths of their inhuman nature. They behave, for want of a better word, like psychopaths.

You can see examples of these psychopathic behaviours in blatant lies, like the ones Tony Blair spread to “justify” the war in Iraq. Arrogance, like Boris Johnson partying during COVID in direct violation of a law he was involved in making. Hypocrisy, like those that travel by helicopter or private plane to attend or speak at meetings seeking to force us to cut our CO₂ emissions. Deception and bad faith, like those that have misused science in an attempt to bring about political policies they desire, and those that have sought to prevent any honest, objective cost-benefit analysis being done on “nett zero” and related policies. Violations of our rights and freedoms, like stalking our movements with cameras, denying us the presumption of innocence, and seeking to deem anything that contradicts their narratives, even if factually true, to be “misinformation.” Irresponsibility, like setting a “nett zero” target that is not feasible, or returning old people during COVID from hospitals to their care homes without testing them for COVID. And evasion of accountability, like claiming immunity, or using private e-mail addresses to hide the trail of what they have done.

Our enemies’ culture

Our enemies’ culture is a top-down culture of politics. I have dubbed it “Downerism.” (“Downer” is short for “top-downer.”)

The Downer methodology begins with an agenda. Often, a more or less thinly disguised programme of hatred and destruction. Next, Downer agenda setters seek to use politics to force their vision on others against their wills. They pursue power and control over others. And they build political movements, in order (apparently) to legitimize their agenda and their ideology.

For Downers, legislation made by those in power trumps any notions of right and wrong, and any ideal of justice. Thus, they seek to get made bad and oppressive laws, with which to drain and to rule over people, and to impose their agenda and ideology on everyone.

But to sustain their agendas, they require narratives and propaganda. So, they like to create a mental atmosphere of lies and deceit, hype, gloom and doom, and unreasoning fear. They season this atmosphere with fake or misleading news, smears and insults. And they seek to suppress dissenting views.

At the bottom of the pyramid, the foot soldiers of Downerism believe, with blind faith, in the Downer agendas and narratives. They promote, support or enforce bad, unjust laws. They think that those bad laws are right, just because some bunch of politicians made them. And that those who will not believe the faith, must be made to follow it by force.

I will list a few more characteristics of our enemies’ culture. The political state is vitally important to them. The collective, “society” or “the community” is everything to them, and the individual is nothing. And they see those of us, who wish to be independent and to have nothing to do with their state, as bad people, and deserving of punishment.

They see oppression and exploitation as OK, as long as they are done by the state. Human rights and freedoms become irrelevant, just as soon as the state wishes to violate them. Their idea of “justice” is simply whatever the state defines it to be. They disregard the costs they impose on those they rule over. And they see war, even aggressive war, as desirable, if they or their state profit from it.

They see all laws made by the state as automatically right, no matter how unjust, and no matter how bad their consequences. These include arbitrary, collective “targets” and “limits,” made in the name of “the environment,” “safety” and other such ruses. They see lies, deceit, dishonesty, obfuscation and suppression of the truth as OK. They see nothing wrong with government overreach. They see nothing wrong with state functionaries disobeying laws they themselves made, or with those same functionaries evading responsibility for the consequences of what they did. And they want the economy within the boundaries of a state to be controlled by the state, and the world-wide economy to be controlled by a global political class.

To sum up

Our culture is founded, ultimately, on our humanity, and on the honesty which is part of human nature. It is based on truth and rationality, the importance of the individual, objectivity and justice, rights and freedoms, and the values of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution.

In contrast, our enemies’ culture has no concern for truth and reason, for honesty, for the human individual, or for the values of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. Instead, it is rooted in faith and force. In narratives, and the silencing of contrary views. In lies and deceptions, hypocrisy and psychopathic behaviours. In state supremacy, political power and political agendas. In collectivism. And in agendas intended to bring about the suppression of humanity, in particular our economy, prosperity, rights and freedoms; and even our core humanity.

Such is the nature of the “culture wars,” in which we are today embroiled.

Humans versus Politicals: Part Ten - An identity, values and virtues perspective

 

10. An identity, values and virtues perspective

Next, I will look at the two species – us and them – from a perspective of the identity perceived by, and the virtues and values which are important to, the members of each.

Identity

Most people are taught, in varying degrees, to see themselves as having some political identity, such as a particular nationality, or perhaps a particular cultural heritage. For someone from England, this poses a particular problem: am I British or English? Since I myself feel contempt for politics and the “British” state, when I need to give a nationality, I always say “English.” And I know I am by no means alone in this choice. (I, and others like me, can get away with this today, given that England has no political existence.)

Another way to identify yourself is by what you do, such as your profession or job. Carl Jung’s “You are what you do” is, perhaps, closer to the truth than Jung himself would have realized. (Iain M. Banks’ version, “You is what you done,” is closer still). As members of an economic species, there is a lot to be said for each of us identifying ourselves by one or more of our chosen means of contributing to humanity. And I know many people who do this.

But for me personally, the question “what identity do I feel?” is a very simple one to answer. The answer is: “I am a human being.” First and foremost, of course, I am an individual. But I am also a member of the human species, striving to keep to the natural law of humanity.

The characteristics, which I feel identify me most closely, are my humanity and my honesty. Here, I use “honesty” both in the conventional senses, and in the sense of one who seeks to keep to the natural law of humanity. And for those of us, who strive to judge those around us by their behaviour, not by who they are, it is particularly easy to feel ourselves simply to be human beings. Neither we nor our fellows need to be anything more!

In contrast, our enemies expect us to identify ourselves by some political label. Perhaps by a nationality, or by our support of a particular political ideology. Or maybe by a race, a gender, a religion, an ethnicity or a social class. Indeed, they seek to encourage “identity politics,” in which people feel themselves to be divided from everyone else along fault lines such as these. Such divisions, of course, make it harder for ordinary people to band together to defend themselves against the oppressions, to which the political élites seek to subject them.

As to the identity which our enemies as individuals feel, it seems quite hard to characterize. In their behaviours, they often show arrogance, as if those with state power feel they are better people than those they oppress, just by virtue of their positions of power. There are also visible tendencies towards corruption, recklessness, hypocrisy and rejection of accountability, perhaps inspired by the idea that “the king can do no wrong.”

All in all, it is hard to understand how our enemies, if they have consciences, can possibly live with themselves. Maybe they do not have consciences at all?

Values and virtues

Historically, the ideas of virtues and values have been closely connected. But in recent times, a distinction has grown up between the two. Virtues are moral standards which are considered desirable. Values are practical goals or ideals, which are considered desirable. So, virtues are ethical ideas, while values are closer to political ones.

Human virtues

We human beings, the economic species, tend to think ethically; that is, about what is right and wrong. Thus, we think primarily in terms of virtues, rather than values. But whatever each of us sees as a virtue, we strive to live up to, and so to make into one of our values.

Our virtues vary in detail from individual to individual. Despite this, many of us think along the same lines; we value different variations on a similar theme. Some among us value highly the four cardinal virtues put forward by Aristotle, and later adopted by Christianity: prudence, justice, temperance and courage. Others add one or more of the other virtues in his list: self-discipline, moderation, modesty, humility, generosity, friendliness, truthfulness, honesty.

Myself, I look at ethics more in terms of respect for others’ rights than of virtuous behaviour. Despite this, I have given my own list of ten virtues: honesty, respect for rights and freedoms, independence, truthfulness, responsibility, integrity, mutual tolerance, mutual good faith, conscience (i.e. knowing right from wrong), and Franz Oppenheimer’s “economic means” of co-operating with others.

Our enemies’ “virtues”

The political species today, so it seems, think more in terms of values than of virtues. They think in political terms, of desired goals and “the art of the possible,” rather than in terms of ethics, what is right and virtuous, or wrong and despicable.

I may be being unduly cynical here, but I can see very little that our enemies show in terms of positive virtues. I can think of just two things they seem to think of as virtues: selflessness or altruism, and political correctness. Both of which I see as anti-virtues; negatives, not positives.

Beyond these, they like to “virtue signal” their conformance to some norm they think of as desirable. For example, refusing to deal with fossil fuel companies, or making mantras out of glib phrases like “all-electric” or “zero emissions.” Virtue signalling is a behaviour, which I personally find abhorrent. Those that virtue signal, I like to say, are showing their lack of any real virtues.

Human values

As with our virtues, our values as human beings vary in detail from individual to individual. But we tend to pick out as our strongest values those ideas, whose genesis and growth came during the best periods of our history.

Thus, we tend to value highly the part of our nature, which leads us to take control of our surroundings, to make use of them for our benefit, and to leave our mark on them. We also value highly the rationality and powers of reasoning, which we learned back in ancient Greek times. Along with their later derivative, honest science. And we value the climate of discovery, and the sense of spiritual renewal, which were hallmarks of the Renaissance.

We hold dear to us the values which we learned at the Enlightenment, a list of which I gave earlier. Including: Mutual tolerance. Individual liberty, freedom of thought and action. Natural rights, natural equality of all human beings. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Government with the consent of, and for the benefit of, the governed – all the governed, real wrongdoers excepted. The rule of law. An ideal of justice which upholds rights and freedoms for all those who respect others' rights and freedoms. A desire for human progress, and a rational optimism for the future.

We also cherish the values which we inherited from the Industrial Revolution. Such as: The free market and free trade. Honest business. Being creative, solving problems, and trading with each other for mutual benefit. Moreover, we set a high value on human rights and freedoms for all those who earn them.

Ultimately, our highest values are humanity and individuality. We are human beings, and we are individuals. We know that others of our species are individuals, too. And we judge each of them by their behaviours, not by who they are. Thus, we value all those, who behave as human beings, as the individuals they are. And we value humanity, our species, as a whole.

Our enemies’ values

Our enemies’ professed values tend to sound good at first, but rapidly become inconsistent or incoherent when subjected to analysis.

“Sustainability” (ability to endure into the future) seems for our enemies to be a prime value today. Although it is ironic that, as shown by the 2022 famine in Sri Lanka, policies made in the name of sustainability have proved not to be sustainable. This is starting to show in other areas too. For example, “nett zero” policies are now beginning to be seen as what they are, destructive interventions whose effect will be to make energy and travel unaffordable for most.

They seem to value re-cycling, to the point where it becomes almost a religion. “Safety” and “security” are also value buzz-words they like to use frequently. Even when they come at a high cost in human rights, freedoms or dignity; and when their reckless actions contradict their rhetoric of “safety.”

They also claim to value “health.” But this seems to be little more than a ruse to scapegoat people who don’t match criteria they perceive as ideal, or to “justify” bad health policies like COVID lockdowns.

They do not put much value, if any, on humanity, or the human species as a whole. And they are, very often, anti-individual. Instead, they value collectivism, and political ideologies derived from it. They seem to see politics and “unity” as good things, too. For them, the collective is everything, and the individual is nothing.

They pay lip service to “rights,” and yet they show no respect at all for our basic human rights such as property, privacy, the presumption of innocence, and freedom of speech.

They set a high store on things they call “diversity,” “equality” and “inclusion.” And yet, their kind of “diversity” leads to an all-pervading sameness, like pots of black and white paint muddled into a uniform grey. Their kind of “equality” requires the power of the state, with its extreme ethical inequality, in order to implement it. And their kind of “inclusion” does not bring people together, but divides them from each other.

They seem to think that “the planet,” wildlife, “climate” and “protection for habitats and ecosystems” are more deserving of concern than human beings. Yet they show no concern whatsoever for the environment of peace, freedom and justice, which we human beings need in order to flourish. Further, they value something they call “nature,” but they do not value our human nature.

They value “low impact” or “low footprint” on the world outside. Which they like to enforce through arbitrary, collective, ever-tightening limits. Economically, they value “zero growth” or even “de-growth.” These dubious “values” are ultra-conservative, opposed to change of any kind to the status quo, except when it pushes us human beings down harder under the boot of oppression. Yet they also want to “transform societies” into something that is quite the antithesis of any civilization worth the name. And they want to “nudge” and “transform” us human beings into something quite foreign to humanity.

They do not seem to value honesty at all. Indeed, deviousness, and the invention of baseless narratives and accusations that goes with it, is becoming more and more obvious among them. You can see, for example, how pressures against farmers are being applied in different places using different ruses. In Sri Lanka, it was a forced shift to “organic” farming. In the Netherlands, it has been forced by the EU, using the excuse of “biodiversity.” In the UK, it is being done using unjust, confiscatory taxation. It is not hard to conclude that, despite different excuses, the agenda in each case is the same. The agenda is to make it difficult for the farmers to do their jobs. And thus, to threaten food security for everyone.

Moreover, our enemies seek to enforce their values on us, even against our own values and wills. And they use threats of violence, or even actual violence, to do so. Tolerance of others, when those others’ desires go against their agendas, has no place in their value system.

And so, we and they are at war.

Humans versus Politicals: Part Nine - Our enemies' nature

 

9. Our enemies’ nature

Next, I will review the natural imperatives, which – judging by their actions – appear to be experienced by our enemies the politicals. Many of them look like perversions of the natural imperatives, which we human beings experience.

Perversion of control of surroundings into control of us

Instead of our natural urge to take control over our physical surroundings, our enemies the politicals seem to feel a strong urge to take control over us human beings. This leads them to treat us as less than human, and to make themselves parasitical on us, and hostile to us. So, they have sought more and more to violate our human rights, and to deny us our freedoms.

There is another perverted line of thought, which makes out that humans are not the rational, convivial, civilized, human beings we truly are, but merely sorry, accidental creatures. And that we are mostly bad rather than good. Many of our enemies hold this view, and it perverts their entire world-view into something like a religion of anti-humanism. Which emboldens them to try to browbeat, or even to force, people into believing in the tenets of that religion. The UK “climate and nature” bill forms a clear example of this perversion, falsely accusing us as it does of causing “degradation and loss of nature.”

This anti-human religion places something they call “the environment,” or “the planet,” or “nature,” up on a pedestal, to be worshipped like a god. It demands religious-style rituals to this god, such as cutting CO₂ emissions, cutting particulate matter emissions, and recycling, all of them at almost any cost. It regards wildlife as more important than human beings. It dubs things which are not the work of humans as “natural,” with a clear implication that we human beings are, in some sense, un-natural. And in contrast to our true calling, which is to make our planet into a peaceful, beautiful, comfortable home and garden for humanity, it demands that we “reduce our footprint,” or even stop leaving any mark on our planet at all.

Perversion of reason into narratives

Instead of our natural urge to look at the evidence and make rational deductions from it, the politicals turn the entire process of reasoning upside-down, and construct narratives, which they then present as if they were truths. This can easily be seen with religious dogmas. I mentioned earlier the Catholic dogma of “transubstantiation,” and the severe penalties for not believing in it (and, a century or so later, for believing in it!)

We experience echoes of such dogmas today, with green narratives such as “anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide cause catastrophic climate change.” These get trumpeted again and again by supporters of the destructive policies they are intended to “justify.” Even after they have been totally debunked, these narratives come back again and again; the idea of the Gulf Stream “collapsing” and slowing down to a stop is an example. Yet those who, like me, look objectively at the evidence, and make rational deductions such as “there is no hard evidence that emissions of CO₂ by human civilization have ever caused any climate problems at all” are silenced, or smeared with nasty names like “denier,” “far-right,” “flat earther” or “conspiracy theorist.”

A recent lulu along these lines came from the New York Times, claiming that vanilla plants are about to disappear because of climate change. Yet the world production of vanilla almost doubled between 2000 and 2022, and went up again in 2023. It looks as if those that regurgitate such narratives have no concern at all for whether or not they are accurate. They simply do not care about the truth. While the narratives may not in a technical sense be lies, because the narrator may not know that the narrative is false, they are certainly at least misleading bullshit.

It is a characteristic of such narratives that those that peddle them do not like to have them contradicted. This is why, for example, the BBC – a master peddler of such narratives, if ever there was one – have gone out of their way to exclude those skeptical of the “climate change” memes from their discussions. They also do not like to have their narratives closely examined, or picked apart. And because of this, they do not like ideas contrary to their narratives being disseminated into the general population. This also explains why political actors, including the UK government, are so keen to censor what they deem to be “misinformation” – a category so broad, that just about any statement, even a simple truth, can be made out to be misinformation.

And it isn’t just governments that censor views that go against, or even contradict, their narratives, by deeming as “misinformation” what may well be absolutely true and factual statements. Scientific and medical journals do it. YouTube does it. Censorship is rife among the allies of the political establishment.

The politicals often use narratives intended to make people fearful. Or to stir up emotions, particularly against people they do not like. For example, as a Reform UK member, I have several times been told, aggressively, that Reform people are racists. Where they got that idea from, I cannot be sure; but it is clearly a narrative without truth. For example, I am not a racist! That I always seek to use the judgement by behaviour principle speaks for that. Nor, as far as I am aware, is party chairman Zia Yusuf a racist!

It is also a standard tactic to call Reform people “far-right.” I had to look up the meaning of this phrase! I see “radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies.” Well, no-one I work with in Reform is authoritarian. And many, probably most, are neither ultra-nationalist or nativist. This label is simply a gratuitous smear.

Across the pond, there is the narrative: “Donald Trump is a fascist.” Now, Trump is no saint. But can he really be a fascist? Anyone wanting to liken Trump to Hitler must explain why, from 2016 to 2020, Trump was one of only three US presidents since the second world war not to have initiated a new war. (The other two were Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter). And he seems to have been doing his best to bring the war in Ukraine to a halt, too.

To return to the UK. Recently there have been negative narratives about certain groups cropping up on news channels. One pundit told us: “pensioners spend most of their money on cigarettes and alcohol.” This is a classic technique of wantonly stirring up negative emotions against a victim group of people. Take some activity or activities disapproved of by many, and subtly accuse all members of the group of doing these things, when in reality only a very small minority do so. It is ironic that those, that want to silence others by accusing them of nebulous “hate crimes,” themselves routinely use narratives that stir up hatred!

Another narrative I have heard, along similar lines, is: “pensioners deserve what they get for ripping off the young.” This is another common manipulation technique: make an accusation that sounds serious, but is unclear and thus difficult to respond to, and is not backed up by any evidence. Such a technique is more effective when combined with not allowing the accused the right to demand evidence for their supposed wrongdoing, or even to reply at all.

More generally, the politicals use their narratives to show their arrogance and contempt for us human beings. But with practice, it becomes fairly easy to identify such narratives, to see them as the manipulative bullshit they are, and to reject both the narrative and the narrator. It is also possible, if you have an opportunity to respond, to put the narrator on the defensive by demanding hard evidence, with a reply like: “Please name one young person I have ripped off, and tell me precisely what I did to rip them off, and approximately when.”

Perversion of right/wrong into legal/illegal

For our enemies, legislation made by those in political power trumps any notions of right and wrong, and any ideal of justice. Thus, they seek to get made laws, with which to rule over people. They deny the natural law of humanity, which should determine how human beings should behave, and replace it by a set of politicized laws, most often intended to enrich themselves and their cronies, or to further their pet political agendas. They pervert the natural distinction between right and wrong conduct among human beings into an unnatural, and often arbitrary, distinction between legal and illegal conduct.

But in very many cases, the restrictions or mandates they seek to force on us are bad laws. John Locke knew about this problem. For he said that “a great part of the municipal laws of countries” are no more than “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words.” And such laws are “only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature.”

As Edmund Burke has told us, “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.” Laws made by politicals, that go against, outside or beyond the law natural to human beings, are not valid, and should not be obeyed by human beings. They might be “legal,” but they are not lawful. And to promote, support, make or enforce such laws violates the natural law of humanity.

Moreover, because they have little or no idea of right and wrong, our enemies have little or no respect for the rights or freedoms of human beings. They will seek to do to their victims whatever furthers their agenda, no matter how much harm and pain results to those victims. They do not mind violating rights, picking on innocent scapegoats, or creating or spreading moral panics. And for many of them, violence and even war are OK.

Thus, when the politicals are in control, ethics goes out of the window, and so do human rights. What is right and wrong for human beings to do, is not seen as an important matter. In its place, everything revolves around what is legal or illegal, no matter how bad the laws are.

Perversion of civilization into political government

It is natural for us human beings to form civilizations. Such civilizations must be organized for the public good. That is, so as to benefit all human beings in the civilization. Thus, civilizations can provide us a habitat of peace, individual justice, human rights, and a free market with free trade. But our enemies have perverted our natural urge to build civilizations into an urge for them to impose on us a top-down system of political government.

Now, just what is it, that does most to make today’s political system so destructive towards us human beings? The answer is clear: The political means. By taking away from us resources we need to use in order to fulfil ourselves, our enemies are suppressing every one of us. Worse, they can then use the resources they have stolen from us to interfere in our lives.

Today’s governments press ahead manically with tyrannical and destructive policies like “nett zero,” based on no more than lies and scares. And the system is rigged, so ordinary people cannot obtain redress, or even get our objections heard. Moreover, members of political governments often disobey their own rules, as for example over Partygate. It’s not surprising, then, that the ethical and moral foundations of governments are crumbling.

And the ruse that governments serve and protect people is wearing increasingly thin. Indeed, an ancient question seems to be re-surfacing in people’s minds: Quis custodiet custodes? Who will guard the guardians? Who will protect us against the “protectors?”

The next question is: How have the political means, and the tyranny it encourages, become normal conduct for governments today? The answer is also clear. The system under which we suffer, the “Westphalian” political state, encourages the unscrupulous to seek power. So-called “democracy,” and the political party system, provide them with a route towards that power. And when they get power, they will use the moral privileges, which the state confers upon them, for their own gain and the gain of their client class, and to force on us their own nefarious agendas. Thus, they make themselves into parasites and pests on the people they are supposed to be serving.