(June 26th, 2024)
People in the UK are starting to wake up. Many people.
This is becoming increasingly obvious almost every day, as campaigning goes on
for the general election on July 4th. Today, I’m going to try to
explain just what I think it is that people are waking up to. And where we
might go from here.
As so often, I feel that at the outset I must issue a
Length Warning. This essay is 9,000 words long! But there is so much to be said,
that I make no apology for its length. To put it in perspective, Tom Paine’s
“Common Sense” was more than twice as long – yet it influenced a very large
number of people!
I must also issue a Radical Ideas Warning. Over the years,
I have come to a view of politics, which not only makes consistent sense to me,
but also can help to explain much of what is going on today. This view is,
however, very different from the narratives, lies, hype and nudges, with which
we are constantly bombarded by the establishment and their media. So, get ready
to be surprised, even startled, by some of the ideas in here!
Some leafleting experiences
As campaign manager for my local Reform UK candidate, I am
currently spending many of my mornings or afternoons “on the road” with
leaflets in hand. For a new and relatively unknown party, getting as close to
saturation coverage with leaflets as we can is important, because unlike the
competitors, the party and our candidate are not yet well known to the people
of the constituency. The key is to make sure that people know we exist, and we
are different from and better than the other parties – in wanting to ditch “net
zero,” for example.
By the way, our leaflet is pretty good, too. Our candidate
has managed to put down many of the points he needs to make in a way that is
exactly right. And his wife is a professional graphic designer. Mangled as the
leaflet may be after passage through a constricted letterbox, its message still
comes over clearly.
Sometimes the householder is in their garden, or just
getting out of a car, or just opening the door of their home to go out, when I
drop by. In these cases, I say “May I give you one of these?” and offer a
leaflet. There are, of course, occasional negative reactions – only to be
expected! I have twice been accused, in a very emotional way, of being a
racist. All this shows is how badly the mainstream parties and their media have
screwed up their supporters’ minds. But in any case, I have had far less of these
than I anticipated.
On the other side, I have had some extremely positive
reactions. A couple of week-ends ago, I found, quite by chance, a strong
supporter just as the candidate, trailed by a couple of New York Times camera
people, was leafleting the house on the other side of the road!
Some of the reactions are, in retrospect, funny. I had
delivered a leaflet to a house (door open, nobody in view), when on my way back
to the gate, a little yapping dog chased me off the property. I made it to, and
closed, the gate in time, but I got part of my rucksack caught in the gate
catch. The householder, an old lady, had to come out and help me free myself.
She turned out to be totally pissed off with politics (she said the word
“election” with a level of distaste I have never heard before), but brightened
up when I told her we were different and we wanted to change things. We parted
friends!
Then there was the incident, on our very first “pilot” run
of the leafleting process, whereby I contrived to lock myself in someone’s
garden. I simply couldn’t undo the catch from the inside! This householder,
too, proved to be a friend.
But the most interesting reaction I have noticed is in
between the extremes. I have seen it at least five or six times. The person
takes the leaflet, starts reading it, and it seems to make an impression on
them. In one case, when I passed by again about 10 minutes later, he was still
standing in his garden, reading it and turning it over and over! Certainly,
there didn’t seem to be anything negative about his body language.
It may seem strange that a small turquoise piece of toughened
paper, with white and black lettering on it, can have such an effect. But I
know that it can. For I myself was triggered to join the world-wide liberty
movement back in 1988 through just such an encounter. Someone pressed a small
blue card labelled “The World’s Smallest Political Quiz” into my hand one
Sunday morning in downtown Atlanta, Georgia. And the rest is history.
It isn’t really part of the remit of a leafleteer to
engage in conversations, although polite ones are welcome. But when people have
engaged with me in this way, it often seems to me as if they are thinking about
something. Thinking, perhaps, more deeply and critically than they are
accustomed to. About politics, and what is going on with the current election.
A wake-up call?
I do see, particularly in the comments sections of
articles or videos covering the election, strong indications that some people,
at least, are in a process of waking up towards a heightened level of
understanding. Of course, the web pages I browse tend to be more Reform-centred
and anti-establishment than the mass, so it may be premature to think that this
process has gone beyond a relative few. But the fact is, that many people, from
both rightist and leftist origins, are thinking about this election in ways
they haven’t done before. And a stated intention to vote Reform is a common
thread among a good number of them.
Why should this be? Well, it’s not hard to understand, if
you try to look at the parties objectively.
The mainstream political parties
In the blue corner, we have the Tories. Masters of spin,
lies, deception and cronyism. Not to mention hypocrisy. (Partygate, anyone? Or
private jet from the Glasgow climate conference to London just for dinner?)
They have raised taxes to all but unprecedented levels, deliberately
encouraged out-of-control immigration, and trashed the economy. The only debate
is about which of their prime ministers has done most towards that. (In my
view, all of them are guilty, except possibly Liz Truss). Not to mention
the egregious violations of our human rights which they committed in the name
of “fighting” COVID, including mandating for many workers vaccinations which,
as subsequent evidence has shown, were neither effective nor safe.
The only people who believe anything the Tories say any
more, are those who haven’t yet seen through the smiling façades of their poser
“representatives” to the cess-pools that lie underneath. The Tories deserve
extinction – and I hope Nigel Farage can make himself into the blunt instrument
that brings about that extinction.
In the red corner, Labour. They too are no strangers to
lying and misleading. But their main characteristic is kleptomania. They want
to tax us all so hard, that there will be no pips left to raise even the
tiniest squeak. Sadiq Khan’s highway robbery (literally!) with ULEZ, and his threat
of a million speeding tickets in London in what is left of this year, typify
Labour’s desires. Anyone who wants to live their lives in their own way will be
clobbered.
Anyone who possesses anything, or is any good at anything,
will be clobbered, too. It is hard to avoid comparing Labour’s attitudes on tax
with Josef Stalin and his genocide against the most productive Ukrainian kulaks;
which caused famine, not only for the most efficient farmers among the
peasants, but for everyone else as well.
In the orange corner, the self-proclaimed “Liberal
Democrats.” I have heard it from the lips of one of their former MPs, Lembit
Opik, that today they are neither liberal nor democratic. And he is right. Take,
for example, one policy they are pushing really hard at the county level – a
“road safety” scheme called “Vision Zero.” It is undemocratic, because the
driver of this agenda is the UN and its WHO. People in a democracy should not
be subjected to policies being pushed by an unaccountable third party. At least,
not without a fair, free and full debate. And the scheme is hardly liberal
either. For the Lib Dems, along indeed with Tory candidate Jeremy Hunt, want to
place speed cameras just about everywhere, and to send out special police
squads to catch drivers out. They are no less highway robbers than Sadiq Khan!
And the Greens? They are anti-civilization and anti-human.
I used to find it funny when they moaned, “We’re a blight on the planet.” To
which I used to respond, “Yes, you’re quite right. You are a blight on
the planet.” Greens are humanity haters. They think something called “the
environment,” including wildlife, is more important than human beings. And they
don’t care a damn about the human environment, which we need in order to
flourish: peace, justice, and the absolute maximum of freedom, consistent with
living in a civilized community.
Yet green policies are being pushed by all four mainstream
parties in this election, and that madman Guterres at the UN among many others.
They are designed to destroy the industrial civilization, which we human beings
have built so laboriously over the last 250 years or so. And with it, all
chances of economic prosperity among human beings. Greens, and those that
promote and support green policies, are traitors both to human civilization and
to the human species. None of the four mainstream parties offers any hope for
the future of humanity.
It seems as if the enemies of humanity, in the form of the
mainstream political parties, are in the grip of a frenzy. They want to take
complete control over our lives and behaviours, and to feed gluttonously off us
while they run our economy into the ground. Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens:
they’re all the same. And yet, I am reminded of an old saw: Those whom the gods
wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Who else is there?
What are the alternatives? Of course, there is Reform UK. I
confess that I don’t find its election slogan “Let’s save Britain!” inspiring
at all. It ought to have been something more like “Save our civilization!” But
if I were asked to coin the party’s next slogan, I would say “People before politics.”
For Reform is alone in seeking to put the interests of individual human beings,
families and voluntary societies above the interests of the political state.
Nigel Farage performed an act of genius when he left UKIP
and formed the Brexit party. For he left the far-right nasties like Tommy
Robinson in charge of an empty shell, while attracting instead a very different
kind of person. The Brexit party attracted people of all shades of political
views, united by one thing: wanting to get away from the EU, its ECJ and its
nasty culture of arbitrary, ever tightening collective limits on what people
may do.
The party’s candidates in 2019 were not a bunch of
establishment apparatchiks, like those of other parties. I know this, because I
got to meet a good number of them. In my area, some of those same candidates,
who were withdrawn in 2019, are standing for Reform this time. This has a
potential to become a kind of “party without career politicians.”
And now, of course, Nigel has upped the stakes by declaring
his own candidacy, and taking over the Reform party leadership. Even the media
seem to think that the establishment are worried about this.
There are minor “serious” parties too, like the SDP. But as
one who rejects the Hobbesian idea of social contract, I cannot abide any party
with “social” in their moniker. There is also George Galloway’s Workers Party.
I confess I have a bit of a “soft spot” for George, as he likes to tell things
how he sees them, and doesn’t shirk the consequences. But his manifesto is a
curate’s egg. When it’s good, it’s very very good; but when it’s bad, it’s
awful. And then of course, there are always my old friends the Official Monster
Raving Loonies.
There may be an Independent in your constituency too, many
of whom concentrate on local issues. There are, apparently, 459 Independents
standing in this election. Also, ten Hampshire Independents, and 18 other groups
with “Independent” in their names, most with only one candidate. This is
encouraging for the future, but won’t make much impact this time round.
Of course, you can always choose to rise above it all, and
either spoil your ballot paper, or not bother to vote at all. You can justify
this on the grounds that for you, there is no-one worth voting for. Indeed, I
myself have taken this line in all general and local elections for the last 37
years, including 2019 once my Brexit party candidate had been withdrawn.
But there is something different about this time round. One,
Reform is offering a genuinely different and better set of policies to the same
old same old. Two, they are starting to get predicted vote numbers which, if
they materialize, will damage the Tories very badly, maybe even terminally. And
three, there’s a sense of change in the air. A sense that something is taking
place inside people’s minds, which will have enormous political consequences,
and may even offer us a route out of the callous tyranny that is UK politics
today.
Wachet Auf!
J. S. Bach’s famous church cantata of this name, known in
English as “Sleepers, awake” and first performed in 1731, is arguably the
earliest piece of Enlightenment music. While the words are late 16th
century, and the music has overtones of the old Italian style, there is a
strong feeling of something genuinely new. And it is still a classic. Those who
sang, played or heard it back then must, I think, have felt as if there was a
new and better wind starting to blow through their culture.
The Enlightenment
That wind, of course, was the Enlightenment. That far-reaching
mental movement was begun, almost single-handedly, by an Englishman, John
Locke. His master-work, Two Treatises of Government, was published in
1690, right after the Glorious Revolution. Locke is, without doubt, my
intellectual father. And not just because of the similarity between our
surnames!
His Second Treatise is for me the greatest work of political
philosophy yet written. It ought to be mandatory reading for anyone holding,
taking, or even contemplating any kind of job in government. Indeed, it ought
to be the biggest “best-seller” in history. And since it is hundreds of years
out of copyright, it’s free! The First Treatise isn’t a bad read, either.
From this seed, the Enlightenment grew to bring to wide
attention new ideas, more friendly to the individual than before, that are
commonly called “Enlightenment values.” They included: Greater religious
tolerance. Freedom of thought and action. Natural rights, natural equality of
all human beings, and human dignity. The idea that society exists for
individuals, not the individual for society. Constitutional government, with
the consent of, for the benefit of, and serving rather than ruling over, the
governed. The rule of law; that is, everyone must keep to the same rules. A
desire for human progress, and rational optimism for the future.
The Westphalian nation-state
But before I talk about Locke’s ideas, I will say something
about the political environment in which he and other Europeans of the time
lived. In the 1570s, a French monarchist called Jean Bodin had written a
blueprint for a top-down, monarchical system of government. His ideas were well
liked by monarchs of the time, and by their sycophants. In 1648, after the
Peace of Westphalia, this model began to be rolled out across Europe. And so,
there was born the political system called the Westphalian nation-state.
In Bodin’s scheme, the “sovereign” – the king or ruling
élite – is fundamentally different from, and superior to, the rest of the
population in its territory, the “subjects.” The sovereign has moral
privileges. It can make laws to bind the subjects, and give privileges to those
it chooses to. It can make war and peace. It appoints the top officials of the
state. It is the final court of appeal. It can pardon guilty individuals if it
so wishes. It can issue a currency. It can levy taxes and impositions, and exempt
at will certain individuals or groups from payment. Furthermore, the sovereign
isn’t bound by the laws it makes. And it isn’t responsible for the consequences
to anyone of what it does (also known as “the king can do no wrong.”)
And it is under this scheme that, bags on the side like
“democracy” notwithstanding, we still suffer. In the UK today, sovereignty is
apparently exercised by something called “the crown in Parliament.” Both the
name and its definition are somewhat confused. But in essence, we are callously
ruled over by a politically powerful “blob,” that collectively claim
sovereignty.
This blob includes: Civil “servants.” Bureaucrats and
jobsworths. Advisors and influencers. Quangocrats. Technocrats and “experts.” Academics
and activists. Media moguls. Billionaire plutocrats. Politicians of the
mainstream parties. Green, religious or political-correctness maniacs. Senior
churchmen. “Civil society organizations.” Financial and big-business élites. Big
Pharma, Big Green, Big Tech. Corporate and globalist interests aligned with
them. Oh, and a monarch, too. The blob think they have a right to do anything
they want to the people. Without the people having any come-back against them
at all.
The sham called democracy
Democracy, supposedly, gives people a chance to choose, from
among the various factions squabbling for political power, the one they like
best. But over the last 40 years in particular, the mainstream factions’ ideas
and desires have grown closer to each other. They have all, in essence,
coalesced into a single party, which I call the Tyranny Party.
They all want the same things, such as high taxes,
nanny-state laws, violations of our rights like privacy and freedom of speech,
and “net zero.” They offer nothing but negatives to most of us ordinary human
beings. For decades up until today, very many people who have voted have done
so, not because they actually like any faction, but for what they see as the
least of several evils. A democracy with four factions of one party, and no real
choice, is a sham.
John Locke’s ideas
John Locke did not accept the Hobbesian idea of the “social
contract.” According to that narrative, at some time in the past, a group of
people (or, at least, a majority of them) made a contract with each other, that
they consented to be ruled over despotically by an absolute sovereign. And we,
today, are still bound by their agreement. This is, of course, nonsense.
Instead, Locke started from a view of humans being naturally
in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their
possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of
Nature. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is
reciprocal, no one having more than another.” Of this law of Nature, he says:
“The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one,
and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it,
that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life,
health, liberty or possessions.” This final clause is Locke’s one-sentence
specification of how human beings ought to behave towards each other.
Locke recognized that all human beings are bound together
into a community by this law of Nature. He says: “By which law, common to them
all, he and all the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society
distinct from all other creatures.” But he also knew that, among those born
human, some fail to keep up to this law of Nature. For he continues: “And were
it not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be no
need of any other, no necessity that men should separate from this great and
natural community, and associate into lesser combinations.”
To counter these degenerate men (and women), Locke suggests
that a group of people may choose to form a “political society.” This they do
“by agreeing to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and
peaceable living.” This is his version of the “social contract” idea, and his
rationale for forming a government.
But he is very clear about the purposes of any such
agreement. “The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into
commonwealths, and putting themselves under government,” he says, “is the
preservation of their property.” And: “The end of law is not to abolish or
restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” Moreover, he says of
governments: “Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public
good of the society. It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and
therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to
impoverish the subjects.” And the “public good” he defines as: “the good of
every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules it can be
provided for.”
This is the nub of the Enlightenment idea that government
must be for the benefit of the governed. And it must be for the benefit of all
the governed. Of every single individual, except of course for real criminals
(that is, those that violate the law of human Nature).
Where we are today
It is very clear that today in the UK, government is not
behaving towards us as it should. Government, the very institution that is
supposed to defend and uphold the rights of human beings against criminals and
wrongdoers, has been taken over by, and is being run by, a cadre of those same
criminals and wrongdoers.
Governments, at all levels, have lost trust in, and respect
for, the people they are supposed to serve. In return, very many ordinary
people have lost trust in and respect for governments.
Governments today tax us all but out of existence. They
press ahead manically with tyrannical, destructive policies like “net zero,”
based on nothing but lies and hype. And the system is rigged, so ordinary
people cannot obtain redress, or even get our objections heard.
Moreover, an international élite, spearheaded by the United
Nations, and including multi-national corporations, dishonest politicians, and
activist fellow-travellers, seeks to “unite the world” into a dystopian superstate,
under the tyranny of a global ruling class, unelected and unaccountable. This
is George Orwell’s “1984” on steroids.
In a nutshell: The current political system has failed.
Taxation
“It is true,” John Locke says, “governments cannot be
supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his share of
the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance
of it.”
I read this as meaning that each individual should pay, for
any period in which government defends his assets, in proportion to the benefit
he receives from that protection. And I read “out of his estate his proportion”
as saying that how much he is expected to pay should be in direct proportion to
his total wealth. That means, there should be no taxes on incomes, on
transactions or on productive activities, no taxes at all on the poorest, and
very definitely no impositions on some kinds of people but not others! All
income for a government based on Enlightenment principles should come from a
flat-rate wealth tax or equivalent.
Now, let’s look at Locke’s premise that government must be for
the benefit of the people. And of each individual among the people, real
criminals excepted. Does it not follow, as quid pro quo, that each
individual in government must be a nett benefit to the people? Or, at the very
least, must strive to be a nett benefit? But does that premise not also imply
that anyone in government, that acts against the interests of the governed, is
failing to carry out the duties of their position? And has not anyone in
government, that unjustly acts against the interests of any individual among
the governed, in effect committed a crime against that individual?
Moreover, if a government takes in more in taxes than the
value it provides to the people, is it not failing in its duty to benefit the
people as a whole? And if a government takes more in taxes from any
non-criminal individual than its services are worth to him or her, has it not
committed an injustice against that individual? These are key questions.
Economic means versus political means
At this point, I want to introduce a famous idea from
another thinker of the past. His name was Franz Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer lived
from 1864 to 1943, and was a German Jewish sociologist. In his book The
State (first published in German in 1908), he made a very famous
distinction between the economic means of getting needs satisfied and the
political means. I quote from the English translation of his book:
“There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man,
requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying
his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible
appropriation of the labor of others… I propose in the following discussion to
call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the
labor of others, the economic means for the satisfaction of needs, while the
unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the political
means.”
Oppenheimer also wrote: “All world history, from primitive
times up to our own civilization, presents a single phase, a contest namely
between the economic and the political means.” And: “The state is an
organization of the political means.”
Well, there you have it. The modus operandi of the
state is forcible and/or fraudulent taking of the fruits of other people’s work,
without providing anything of value in return. That’s what all the mainstream
political parties want to do to us today, isn’t it?
But I myself have extended Oppenheimer’s idea. I have come to
highlight the difference between users of the economic means and users
of the political means. I dub this distinction “Oppenheimer’s Razor.” For
it divides and separates honest working people from those that like to use
political power to line their own nests, and those of their cronies.
These two groups need very different environments or
habitats in order to flourish. Indeed, it is as if the human race has separated
into two different, incompatible species. One, I call human beings, or human
beings worth the name. We are an economic species. We need peace, freedom,
justice and an unrestricted free market economy. The other, I dub the
politicals. They are a political species. They want power, direct or indirect,
in a political state.
These two species have become estranged from each other. They
are not us. Because the two need totally different habitats, it is plain
that in the long run, the two species cannot co-exist. In consequence, there is
an undeclared war going on today. In essence, this war is the state versus the
people. The politicals are seeking to use the political state to destroy the
natural habitat for us human beings. And we human beings are slowly, oh so
slowly, waking up to the fact that we are under fire, and must fight back with
everything we’ve got.
What can we do when things go wrong?
John Locke foresaw that governments would always be liable
to go wrong. “A great part of the municipal laws of countries,” he wrote, 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.” Otherwise put, much of the legislation
made by politicians is unethical and just plain wrong. Only those laws that are
consistent with the natural law of humanity can be valid.
He put forward the following suggestion for what we can do
about a government that has gone bad. “But if a long train of abuses,
prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible
to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither
they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse
themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to
them the ends for which government was at first erected.” That’s exactly what happened
back in 1688.
That’s where we are today, too; but it’s worse now. In
theory, a multi-party system of “democracy” ought to offer us opportunities to
kick out a government faction that has behaved badly towards the people, and
replace it by one that promises to do better. The problem we face today,
though, is that none of the established alternatives are any better. It is not
just one bad faction in government that has failed, but the entire system. In
my view, the 16th-century system called the political state has
passed its last-use-by date.
But Locke had prepared for this situation, too. For he
wrote, of government power: “All power given with trust for the attaining an
end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or
opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into
the hands of those that gave it.” Further, the people always retain “a supreme
power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act
contrary to the trust reposed in them.” And they are entitled “to resume their
original liberty.” So, if the entire system of government goes rogue, as has
happened today, we the people have a right to dismantle it. And to replace it,
or not, as we choose.
I think that our situation today demands, not just that we
tinker with the legislative, but that we remove it altogether in its present
form. And replace the state with a form of governance, which works for all
honest, naturally economically productive people.
Just governance
I myself have gone so far as to sketch an outline of a new
system of governance, to supersede the political state. I call it “just
governance.” I have written on this and many related subjects at https://libertarianism.uk/. For today, here
is a brief summary.
Just governance 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
justice to all. By justice, I mean what I call “common-sense justice.” This is
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. Thus,
common-sense justice is individual justice.
What this means, from the individual’s point of view, is
that if you treat others well, you deserve to be treated correspondingly well
by others. And if you treat others badly, you deserve to be treated
correspondingly badly. What could be more common-sense than that?
Common-sense justice leads to accountability, too. Anyone
that has promoted, supported, made or enforced any political policy that has
drained or harmed innocent people, deserves to be made to compensate the
victims of that policy, and where appropriate to take criminal punishment, too.
The words of the prophet Obadiah come to mind: “As thou hast done, it shall be
done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.”
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.
Where will the authority of just governance come from? Why
should people obey and uphold its judgements? Ultimately, this authority can
only come from its impartiality, its objectivity, its honesty, and the
common-sense nature of its principles.
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.
Crucially, just governance will not need or have any
permanent legislative. For its ethical code, which I dub the Convivial Code,
comes from human nature, not from edicts made by political élites.
John Locke’s “no one ought to harm another in his life,
health, liberty or possessions” was an excellent first stab at an outline of
the Code. My own best shot at such an outline is as follows: “Be peaceful. Seek
the facts, and tell the truth. Be honest. Strive always to behave with justice,
integrity and good faith. Be tolerant of those who are tolerant towards you.
Respect the rights and freedoms of those who respect your equal rights and freedoms.
Don’t interfere in other people’s business without a very good, objective
reason. Take responsibility for the effects of your voluntary actions on
others. And practise what you preach.”
Moreover, the Code will be essentially timeless. Once set
up, further changes only become necessary when circumstances occur which have
not been envisaged before, or human nature itself changes, or new knowledge
becomes available about what it is. And these events are rare. Because of this,
absent such events, the Code will be applicable retrospectively.
Activism
Given that things have been going from bad to worse for as
long as they have been doing, there are two main ways in which people can start
to fight back. One is political activism. The Reform UK party is a big part of
that fightback, as soon will be the burgeoning alliances of Independents. The
other is activism, including protests, for human rights and civil liberties.
For those not already familiar with it, I will introduce a
recently formed organization called Together Declaration, commonly known just
as Together. Together is active in promoting and defending our human rights and
civil liberties. It is far more radical than older established groups like
Liberty. We get together to defend human beings against the state.
Together uses social media, letters and e-mails to MPs and
councillors, judiciously chosen protests, and other strategies of engagement.
It also has local groups. Mine (I am deputy leader) is based around Guildford, Woking
and Bagshot, and meets about every two months or so. Together’s current major
campaign is “No to Net Zero.” It is also fighting hard against Low Traffic
Neighbourhoods (LTNs) and other anti-motorist policies. And it retains a strong
interest in the issues which led to its formation, the violations of our rights
which were carried out in the name of “fighting” COVID.
Together and Reform UK have no formal relationship with each
other, but there is a synergy between the two. Indeed, Nigel Farage recently
made a video with Together’s founder Alan Miller. And I am not the only Reform UK
campaign manager who is also a member of my local Together group. If, as seems
likely, a Labour government does seek to squeeze us ordinary people all but out
of existence, I expect that Together will acquire a very high profile as a
leader and co-ordinator of resistance to oppression.
The new mind-set
But there is another way, beyond political action and
protests, in which each of us can take action to help get rid of the bad
policies that are imposed on us, green and otherwise. That is, to play our part
in the moral and intellectual war. And you don’t need to be an intellectual to
contribute in such a war. Even the child who saw that the emperor was naked,
and said so, did his bit.
Improving your mind-set
I will give you 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. This has brought me, in just a few years, into a new
mind-set. A new and, I feel, better way of thinking about what is going on.
One, I have made myself into what I call an evidence-based
person. In any matter in dispute, I always seek the evidence. Otherwise said, I
look for the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts. Which can be
independently checked by anyone who is knowledgeable and motivated enough to do
so.
Two, if I am accused of something – polluting the
atmosphere, causing dangerous global warming, or whatever else – I always
demand proof of the accusation. This must be founded on hard, objective
evidence. And must meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Three, without convincing evidence that I am guilty of
something, I never let myself accept or feel any guilt. And I never accept any
kind of collective guilt. I have contempt for those that try to make me feel
guilty, or to “nudge” me towards their point of view.
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 the problem in quantitative terms. If the numbers don’t stack up,
then the claimed problem isn’t a real one.
Five, when I see psychopathic behaviours, I call them out
for what they are. These include: arrogance, bad faith, corruption, deceit, lying
or misleading, recklessness towards others, untrustworthiness, evasion of
accountability, and hypocrisy (failing to practise what you preach). Many
politicians, and others in government power, have psychopathic tendencies. Indeed,
the ruling “blob” can be seen as like a giant, collective psychopath.
Six, when judging anyone, 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.” (One implication of this is that,
contrary to what detractors of Reform UK people seem to think, I am about as
strongly against racism as it is possible to be.)
Seven, I seek to identify bad laws. I have developed, over
the years, a strong sense of what is right and what is wrong. And what is
right, is what is natural for a civilized human being to do. I try to keep
track of what is right and wrong in a situation, and compare with what is legal
and illegal. If the two differ, that probably shows up a bad law. As Edmund
Burke told us, “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.” And tyranny must be
called out for what it is, and fought against with all the strength we have.
Eight, I seek to identify my fellows. Human beings tend to
be naturally peaceful, truthful, honest, straightforward and respectful of the
rights of other human beings. We also habitually act in good faith, are
tolerant of difference, and live and let live. I feel fellowship with those who
strive to behave in these ways. But those that do the opposites are not my
fellow human beings. And those that have done harms to me have made
themselves into my enemies.
Nine, I seek to identify the enemies of humanity. I seek to
identify those that use, or have used, political power, whether directly or
indirectly, to enrich themselves or their cronies. I reject them as the
parasites they are.
I also seek to identify those that use, or have used,
politics to harm innocent people. Those that promote, support or condone policies that violate the human rights of innocent people. Those in or paid by government, that have acted against the
interests of the people they are supposed to be serving. Those in or paid by
government, that have failed even to try to deliver anything the people would
voluntarily pay for. Those in or paid by government, that have ever lied to, or
been dishonest or devious towards, the people they are supposed to be serving. I
reject them totally, as the pests, vermin and enemies of humanity that they
are.
Ten, I have lost all sense of affiliation or loyalty to the political
state. I have no respect at all for the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.” Nor for the monarchy, the monarch, the parliament (except
for those few members who genuinely do try to represent and benefit the people),
the corrupt and politicized judiciary, or any of the trappings that go with
them. I regard all these as part of a
failed system, which has got to go. I want nothing to do with any political
organization, other than those (including the Reform UK party) which I have
voluntarily joined.
I have now come to think of myself simply as a human being, striving
for the behaviours natural to humanity. John Locke wrote of the “great and
natural community” of all human beings who obey the natural law of humanity. I
have re-discovered my membership in that community. And I want you to, as well.
Waking up
As you strengthen your moral views and improve your
mind-set, you will find yourself, slowly but surely, waking up. You will start
to understand the big picture of what is happening to us. You may well find
yourself asking questions such as: Why would any human being not want
peace, human rights and freedoms, justice, and prosperity for all those who
earn it? Why should any of us tolerate arrogance, bad faith, corruption,
deceit, lying or misleading, recklessness towards others, untrustworthiness,
evasion of accountability, or hypocrisy – in short, psychopathic
characteristics – from anyone in government?
Of course, you may not find yourself agreeing with
everything I say here. You will form your own perspectives on matters which
particularly interest or affect you. But as you become more and more awake, you
will understand better and better who your friends are, and who your enemies
are.
Re-discovering ourselves
Now, here is what I think we must do, before we can bring
about the political changes, which are necessary in order to save our
industrial civilization, and open up a bright future for all human beings worth
the name.
Armed with mental weapons like those I have listed above, we must re-discover our nature as human beings. That nature is: to be creative, to build civilizations, and to take control over our surroundings, and use them to better our lives. We must re-discover our capacity for reason. We must re-discover our human spirit, and our confidence in ourselves. We must re-discover our consciences, the built-in weather vane which tells us what is right for us to do, and what is wrong.
We must re-discover the ideas and values of the Enlightenment. We must completely reject dishonest politics, existing political institutions, and everything they stand for.
We must re-discover the values of the Industrial Revolution.
We must re-discover our natural industry and productivity. We must re-discover
our ability to solve problems. We must 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 last, but not least, we must re-discover, and
re-illuminate, the crucial idea of human rights.
The morality of politics
Government is supposed to be for the benefit of the
governed. Of every individual among the governed, except those who have
committed real crimes. Yet all the mainstream parties have policies they want
to implement, which have had, or will have, the effect of unjustly harming or
inconveniencing people who do not deserve to be harmed or inconvenienced.
To promote, support, make or enforce such a policy is, in my
view, an aggression against the innocent victims of that policy. It is a
particularly cowardly way to hurt people, too. I think of it as morally
equivalent to, unprovoked, punching someone hard in the nose and then running
away. No victim of any bad political policy should ever forgive those that
supported that policy.
For example, I myself have been for 25 years a victim of a
bad law called IR35. This bad law has ruined my career as a one-man software
consultant. Over a quarter century, I have lost at least half a million pounds
I have been prevented from earning; perhaps as much as three quarters of a
million. The effect has been to force me down into poverty in my old age. I
will never forgive either Labour who initiated the policy, or the Tories who,
far from repealing it as they initially promised to, actually made it more
severe.
As to my own record, I feel I have nothing to be forgiven
for. Until Brexit came along as an issue, I had never supported any
political policy of any kind. Even now, the only political policies I actively
support are those which lift unnecessary restrictions on human activities, and
those which solve problems that have been caused by political meddling in our
lives.
Applying common-sense justice
The idea of common-sense justice, which I introduced above,
is a very simple one. Indeed, it is no more than simple common sense.
And yet, this idea leads to consequences, which would not be
at all favourably received by the current establishment. For example, where
more taxes were taken from people than the services provided were worth to
them, we should receive a full refund. And those responsible for those taxes
should be made to provide that refund. To the extent of having all their assets
confiscated for this purpose, if that proves necessary.
Another example is that those that promoted or supported
“net zero” deserve to be made to live net zero. Without any kind of
subsidies or other support. Would a “net zero” economy actually prove to be
sustainable? I think not. The same should be done to those that wanted to stop
us using fossil fuels. They must stop using fossil fuels, and products
made from them.
And how about those, that have supported the EU-initiated culture
of arbitrary, ever tightening limits on what people may do? Do they not deserve
to be themselves subjected to such a culture, with the same level of ferocity
that they displayed towards us? Imagine, for example, them being subjected to
lower and lower limits on how many calories they may eat.
You may well be able to think of many more examples.
The morality of voting
A final thought for this section, about what voting in an
election actually means and implies.
When you vote for a candidate, you are not just saying: “I
think this candidate is the best available.” (Or even the least bad). You are
also underwriting the candidate’s expressed policies. If those policies will
harm innocent people, you bear a share of the responsibility for those harms. And
if it is plain that a policy will cause such harms – for example, “net
zero” or green policies in general, or high taxes, or suppression of basic
freedoms like freedom of speech – then you have committed an aggression against
the victims.
Moreover, if you vote for a party which has had power, you
are also expressing your satisfaction with what the party did, and has done,
with that power. That is why I can never vote for any of Tories, Labour or Lib
Dems. All three of these parties, when in power, have done bad things, which
have harmed innocent people. Including me personally. I regard them all as
criminal gangs, competing for the power of the state, which will enable them
not only to commit more crimes, but to get away with them. And, even though
they have not had titular power, the Greens have significantly influenced the
other parties towards anti-human policies. As far as I am concerned, anyone
that votes for any of the four is committing an aggression against the victims
of their bad policies in the past.
It works the other way about, too. The first-past-the-post
system is grossly biased in favour of the established parties. We could easily
end up in a situation in which Reform UK comes in second place in national vote
share, yet gets almost no seats at all. This, in my view, would make the
resulting government invalid, because a very sizeable number of people – those
who are hacked off with all the establishment parties – would be totally
unrepresented. If Labour start to do to us what they seem to want to do to us,
I think they will find themselves quickly facing levels of protest which have
not been seen since at least the poll tax protests of 1990, or perhaps even
back to the reign of James the Second.
Where we want to get to
I have written copiously elsewhere about how we might
dismantle the state, punish those that have used it against the interests of
the people they were supposed to serve, and re-claim our rights, freedoms and prosperity.
Here is a top-level summary of what we could do to move from the existing
system towards a situation in which we can abolish the state, and replace it by
a new and better structure. It is, if you like, my “leaflet” for the new world.
Major objectives
Here are our major objectives, programs for which we would
set into motion immediately:
·
Hugely reduce the size of government, and the
scope of what it does. This would include abolishing much of the public sector,
along with nominally private “quangos.”
·
Withdraw from all international organizations
and agreements, that go against the interests of the human beings in the
territory.
·
Repeal all laws, that are a drain on or a
disbenefit to human beings.
·
Get rid of all unjust, re-distributory or
confiscatory taxation.
·
End the practices that have enabled parasites
and pests to make gains at the expense of, or to harm or inconvenience, human
beings.
·
Get rid of all unjust or unnecessary restrictions
on the economy.
· Establish sane and sensible policies on energy and environment.
Cultural changes
Here are some “cultural” and “philosophical” changes, which
we would set in motion as soon as possible:
·
Cancel the “cancel culture.”
·
End politicization of the judiciary, most of all
in Blair’s “supreme court.”
·
End the culture of “safety at any cost,” and
mandate objective risk analyses.
·
End the culture of arbitrary, ever-tightening collective
limits on what people may do.
·
Restore the precautionary principle to its true
form, “Look before you leap.”
·
Mandate honest, objective cost versus benefit analyses,
from the point of view of the people, for all projects of governance.
On-going programs
Here are some on-going programs, to be pursued relentlessly over
the longer term:
·
Eliminate all dishonesty, corruption and
psychopathic behaviours from governance, and hugely improve the honesty,
impartiality, objectivity and justice of everything it does.
·
Audit all government-funded employees and
organizations for honesty towards the people. Sack all those found to have been
dishonest, and cancel their cushy pensions.
·
Audit all government-funded projects for
benefits versus costs to the people. Cancel those that are not a nett benefit.
Sack all those that have failed to strive to benefit the people.
·
Make the parasites and pests provide full
compensation to the human beings they drained, or harmed, or both.
·
Move closer and closer to the ideal that what
each individual pays for governance should be in direct proportion to the
benefit that he or she gets from it.
·
Move the laws of the territory closer and closer
to the natural law for human beings.
·
Move more and more towards a system of
governance, whose functions are restricted, as far as possible, to delivering
peace and justice. And in which everyone is treated, as far as practicable, as
he or she treats others.
· Seek to end war world-wide.
And right now?
So, to conclude. Right now, what should any human being
worth the name do?
First and most importantly, do not vote at the upcoming
election for any of the four mainstream parties, Tories, Labour, Lib
Dems or Greens. Give them their come-uppance. Tell them to go to the hell they
want to make for us. Do what you can to persuade others to take the same
attitude. And remember that Reform UK is the best voting option to defend
yourself right now, since it shows the best promise of becoming a sizeable
force quickly.
Second, when pressures from your enemies come on to you or
your fellows, fight back in every way you can. With words, with protests, with
your actions as an example. And always remember that your enemies chose
to do bad things to you and others. They have failed to measure up even to
basic standards of humanity. They owe you compensation for what they did to
you. You don’t owe them anything. Don’t excuse them. Don’t forgive them. Don’t
forget what they did. Vow not to let even one of them get away with anything. And
don’t waste compassion on them. Don’t give a second chance to those that didn’t
allow you even one.
Third, imagine a better system, like the one I have sketched
out above. Do what you can do to bring about that, or something like it. We
need a form of governance which works for honest, economically productive people,
not against us.
Fourth, don’t lose hope. Optimists are often wrong; but
pessimists are almost always right.
Thank you for the patience you have shown by reading this missive.
I hope that my words have had a positive effect on your thinking. And that this
effect can translate into a positive effect, not just on your life, but on the
lives of all of us human beings.
No comments:
Post a Comment