Humans versus Politicals: Part Eight - Some political deductions

 

8. Some political deductions

I will now make some deductions from my philosophical system and my view of history, and apply them to politics as it exists today.

The political state contradicts ethical equality and the rule of law

The Westphalian political state, with its sovereign and subjects, directly contradicts the idea of ethical equality. For it affords the sovereign moral privileges to do things which the subjects may not.

It also contradicts the Enlightenment idea of the rule of law. That is, that every individual under it must obey the same rules as everyone else. We have seen many examples in recent years of contempt for the rule of law being shown by those in positions of political power.  For example, by Boris Johnson over the Partygate scandal.

Thus, the ethical equality principle de-legitimizes the political state, with its morally privileged élites, and puts in its place a foundation, on which we can build civilizations which incorporate the rule of law.

The political state contradicts common-sense justice

The common-sense justice principle, too, has radical repercussions. For it blows away another pillar of the political state: the idea of sovereign immunity, or “the king can do no wrong.”

Under common-sense justice, those acting on behalf of a state should be judged exactly as anyone else would have been. Thus, anyone in, or formerly in, a position of government power will be held fully responsible for any negative consequences of their actions or policies on human beings. Indeed, since a wrongdoer that has had political power is likely to have done more harm than those who have not, the (formerly) powerful will often be the hardest hit by stringent application of the principle.

The political state depends for support on the “social contract” fiction

When you see that the “social contract” idea is no more than a fiction, and that you have never given your consent to join any “political society” against your will, you can see another serious problem of the political state. For the idea that a state has a right to rule over people in a geographical area depends critically on those people feeling some kind of collective identity. For example, a common nationality, or a sense of “we’re all in this together.”

Once you understand the falsity of the social contract idea, you can easily reject all sense of collective identity or statist political society. You understand that you are not a member of any collective you don’t want to be in. And that you are not “British” in any sense beyond living in a particular island; nor are you a mere “citizen” of a state called the “UK.” You are simply a human being. And, provided you keep to the natural law of humanity, no-one has any right at all to tell you what to do, or to violate your rights, or otherwise to harm you.

Judgement by behaviour enables you to distinguish humans from politicals

An important feature of the judgement by behaviour principle is that it helps you to distinguish your friends, human beings worth the name, from your enemies, the politicals. For all you need do, when examining a behaviour, is ask: Is this behaviour consistent, or not, with the natural law of humanity, as you understand it?

If an individual deviates from this law grossly or often, and there is no valid excuse such as self-defence, then that individual has shown itself up for what it is: a political and an enemy of humanity.

Why democracy doesn’t work, and never can

Once you have appreciated that the people of a geographical area are only a community, not a voluntary society, you can start to see why democracy, as currently conceived, does not work, and never can work.

“One man, one vote” is a sound way to run a voluntary society. (It is, however, worth noting that there are others: for example, the shareholding method). This modus operandi is sound, because everyone in the society can be presumed to agree on the society’s aims, and therefore on the direction in which they want it to go. If they do not agree with these aims, they can, and should, leave the society. But even if everyone agrees with the aims, there will be differences in opinion on how best to achieve the desired direction, or on who would be best equipped to guide the society. These need to be resolved. Majority voting is quite a popular way to do this, since it gives an illusion, at least, that everyone’s desires matter equally.

In contrast, when “one man, one vote” is used to select a tendency among people who are merely a community, there will always be disputes about what direction is desirable.

Before any pretence of democracy for all, political factions had already formed, each seeking to push their own ideas about the direction of travel of the state. The advent of sham democracy has led each of these factions to attract a core of supporters, with the aim of achieving political power. In the UK with its first-past-the-post system, this has led most of the time to a see-saw of power between two main factions, each with their own core of support.

That process still happens, and it is how Labour have power today. But it has become more and more unpopular, as we have found ourselves for more and more of the time ruled over by a faction hostile to us. Worse, the policies of the mainstream parties have converged. I do not jest when I dub them the Tyranny Party! So, we increasingly feel totally unrepresented, and many of us have lost both confidence in, and respect for, all the mainstream political factions.

Moreover, political power gained through election tends to attract exactly the kind of devious psychopaths that want to harm or impoverish others, and to evade accountability for the results. Far from giving us any say in the direction of a country, the current “democratic” political party system tends to produce kakistocracy – the rule of the worst.

Further, even if it was run completely fairly and honestly, democracy would still be a majoritarian system. But as Mahatma Gandhi has told us: “In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.” And a lot of decisions come down, ultimately, to matters of conscience: to deciding, in a particular instance, what is right and what is wrong. The idea that ten people can vote to tell nine people what is to be “legal” or “illegal” for them to do, is a travesty of all conceptions of freedom and justice. That democracy, as it exists today, is neither fair nor honest, makes things worse.

Democracy today is coming to be seen as the empty sham it is. We the people are not even being listened to by those that are supposed to “represent” us. They listen, not to us, but to the greedy and tyrannical urges of their parties and their leaders, to the bureaucrats, academics and others that misadvise them, and to internationalist, environmentalist and corporate élites.

Further, democracy ends up breaking apart the very sense of “we” that seemed to give it legitimacy in the first place. The victims of unjust policies feel harshly treated, and become disaffected. Those who have been harmed by the policies of particular parties come to hate those parties, and those that vote for them. And those who have been harmed by policies of successive governments of all parties, come to feel hatred and contempt for the whole political system, and for anyone that uses it for their own ends. Thus, sham democracy destroys the cohesion, the “glue” which ought to keep a community of people together.

Today’s governments do not have the consent of the people

In a democracy, if you did not vote in a particular election, or you voted for a party or individual that did not acquire any power to make policies, you have not given your consent to the legitimacy of either the resulting government, or of the policies they make. Moreover, if you did not vote for a party in an election, then you did not give it any licence to make laws to bind you, or taxes to impoverish you.

For example, I voted Reform at the general election in 2024. I did not vote at all in 2019, after my Brexit party candidate was withdrawn. (The last time I voted in a general election before that was for a Tory, way back in 1987). I have never voted Labour, and I have not given my consent to any of their policies ever. (Least of all IR35). Nor have I given my consent to any of the policies of any party in government over at least the last three decades, except for Brexit, for which I voted in the 2016 referendum and the 2019 European elections.

Moreover, the votes of just 20 per cent of eligible voters cannot reasonably be taken to be consent of the people as a whole to be governed by Labour. Particularly when no less than 40 per cent, by declining to vote, indicated that they did not want to be ruled over by any political faction at all, and 54 per cent did not want any of the mainstream factions. I therefore consider that Labour do not have any mandate from the people to rule over us, and certainly have no right to do to us any of the bad things they are doing. It’s time we told them, in no uncertain terms, to cease, desist and go to hell.

The morality of voting

When you vote for a candidate in an election, 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 policies. If those policies will harm or inconvenience innocent people, you bear your share of the responsibility for those harms or inconveniences. And if it is plain that a policy will cause such difficulties – for example, nett zero or green policies in general, or high taxes, or suppression of basic freedoms like freedom of speech – then you have, at the very least, aided and abetted 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, now, I can never vote for any of Tories, Labour or Lib Dems. All three of these parties, when in power nationally or locally, have done things that have harmed innocent people, including me. I regard all three of these as criminal gangs, competing for the power of the state, which enables 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 very significantly influenced the other parties towards anti-human policies. In many ways, they are the worst of the lot.

From my viewpoint, if you vote for any of the four, you are committing an aggression against the victims, past, present or future, of their bad policies. That is not something any human being should ever do.

Religious tolerance versus political intolerance

I have noticed that, for the most part, we don’t seem to have today the same problems with religious intolerance that we had in past centuries. It is generally accepted in the UK that Christians of all kinds, and Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus, and Buddhists, and Sikhs, and atheists and agnostics, can simply do their own religious things with whomever they please. There is little or no pressure for us all to conform to any one religious agenda – if you disregard the scares about extreme Islamists trying to force Sharia law on us all.

Contrast this with the 16^th century, where if you didn’t affirm the Catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation” – bread becoming flesh and wine becoming blood – the penalty during the reigns of at least two English monarchs was to be burned at the stake. (Yet by the 1670s, those who did affirm it were excluded from government office, or from graduating from a university! Proving the arbitrary nature of top-down law-making.) But in any case, knowing what we know today, transubstantiation is chemically impossible. There is, for example, far more iron in blood than in wine.

I ask: If we today can have freedom of religion, why don’t we have freedom in politics too? Why should any of us be forced to conform to the policies of whatever faction is in power? Why can’t we just each do our own things, as we can in religion, as long as we respect the rights and freedoms of everyone else?

As I recounted above, I see this as a consequence of a political model that, wrongly, sees the people in a geographical area (and therefore, under the “Westphalian” system, subject to rule by a political state) as being a society. When, in reality, we are only a community. We have no general will, and therefore should not be subjected to any policies of any state, or of any political faction within it.

Imagine, if you will, a system in which Hindus (for example) could be elected in a country, for years at a time, into positions where they could force everyone to behave as a Hindu, or face penalties. And the only opposition parties were Muslims, Christians, and atheists, all of whom would do the same thing for their own belief system. How could an agnostic like me, who considers all belief systems not based on evidence (including environmentalism and conventional religions) to be stupid, survive under such a system?

Today’s governments fail to act for the benefit of the people

Given the evidence I presented in the chapter “Where we are today” above, it is clear that in recent decades, governments have not been acting for the benefit of the people. Virtually everything they do brings more power to the state, at the expense of the people government is supposed to be serving. And very often, what they do brings benefit to their cronies, such as giving government contracts to their friends, or privileges to donors to their party.

On top of this, they are continuing to force on to us policies, such as “nett zero” and anti-car policies, that are actively hostile to our interests. Yet we have never had any chance to say “No” to these policies. These policies are being pushed by outside vested interests, notably the United Nations. They are also supported by all the mainstream political parties. Under such a system, our needs and desires count for nothing.

Worse, governments have become very cavalier about the costs to the people of the policies they put forward. For example, as I documented in the last of my 2023 set of essays debunking the “climate crisis” meme, no objective, quantitative, honest cost-benefit analysis, from the point of view of the people affected, has ever been done on “nett zero.” And at several points over recent decades, successive governments have actually moved to prevent any such analysis being done. So, it is not just our needs and desires that they ignore; they also take no account of the costs to us of what they want to impose on us. Or, indeed, of whether their projects are economically viable, or indeed feasible at all.

Worse yet, governments like to single out for especially bad treatment people whom they don’t like for some reason. Far from acting for the public good, that is, the good of every individual, governments of all political factions pick on groups and individuals to victimize. In the recent words of one pundit, they “really stick it to the people they hate.”

Today, Labour’s latest chosen victims are pensioners, private schools, farmers and family businesses, who join car drivers and small business people, both also targeted by the Tories, as victims of the brutal, remorseless political parasites and pests and their state machine.

The failure of capitalism

It isn’t just government that has become corrupted and gone bad. The economic system, that we know as “capitalism,” has gone seriously wrong, too.

When I started my first job at IBM back in 1971, I didn’t see much in the way of corporate politics. There were, of course, a few not-very-nice people around, as there are in every workplace. And being young, talented and naïve, I tended at first to get more of the fall-out than most. But I did not see people I worked with scheming for their own ends, or working against the company that employed them.

By the mid-1980s, all that had changed. I remember seeing it plain as day in a technical consultancy assignment I did in the financial sector in 1987. Those I met in the client company divided into two groups, who wanted to go in quite different directions. Their reactions to my report were not based on an honest assessment of the work I had done, but on which side of this political divide they took. It wasn’t a nice experience.

Then in the early 1990s, when doing bid management for a computer systems company, I found some very strange attitudes among potential clients. Their stated requirements didn’t seem to make sense, either technically or commercially. It was only later that I realized this was a symptom of the corruption, which was starting to overtake many companies in the UK at that time. From being dedicated to serving their customers (and enjoying financial success as a side-effect), many companies, particularly large ones, were moving more and more towards a culture of just raking in as much money as they could, as fast as they could. The economy was being taken over by what I call “the money men.”

Since then, this culture has become all but endemic. Train companies, for example, instead of treating their passengers as human beings, have taken to seeing profits and “revenue protection” as their priority. With the effect that every passenger is treated as a potential thief, and watched with cameras, as if they are likely to be committing crimes.

Moreover, many big companies have become more and more dishonest and disrespectful towards their customers. Microsoft, for example, have all but destroyed the whole concept of backwards compatibility in software. And Big Pharma drug companies rushed out COVID vaccines they claimed to be “safe and effective”, that turned out to be neither effective nor safe. Yet they have not been made to compensate the victims of their negligence and recklessness, and are now constructing factories all over the world to make similar drugs!

My diagnosis of what has happened is that, as financial and regulatory pressures on companies from governments have steadily increased over the decades, many bosses decided to “go with the flow.” They would do what they felt was needed to keep their companies afloat, regardless of morality. Often, this included active co-operation with bad political policies, for example by rolling out privacy-violating cameras for schemes such as ULEZ.

As a result, the free market “capitalism” that many people, particularly Americans, used to look up to as exemplifying the right way to live, has been corrupted. Capitalism no longer has anything to do with the honest business activity and trade, which lie at the heart of the proper relationships between human beings in the public sphere. It has been replaced by an attitude of “rake in as much money as you can.” And in many cases, it has turned into active crony capitalism (“crapitalism”) in service of political ploys.

Why have the UK government encouraged large-scale immigration?

For many years, people towards the conservative end or “right” of the standard political spectrum have been voicing concerns about the levels of immigration to the UK in recent decades. According to Worldometers, from just over 50 million in 1950, the UK population grew to 59 million by 2000, and stood in 2024 at 69 million. A 12 percent increase in the population over 50 years has been followed by a 17 per cent increase in less than half that time. And all this against the backdrop of a falling fertility rate since 2010.

There was a huge “knee-bend” in nett immigration, beginning in the early 2000s. Yearly levels are now 2.7 times what they were in 2000, and almost seven times what they were in the 1990s. This has had severe negative effects, particularly on the housing market.

The complaints have been loudest about “illegal” immigration. (Whatever that means). But these are only a small proportion of the whole. Far greater are the numbers coming in “legally.” A lot of these people are coming in for the purpose of working in the UK. Before 2021, the bulk of these immigrants were from the EU. Since then, the number of immigrants from outside the EU has gone up by two-thirds in just three years. Many are coming from countries like India, Nigeria and Zimbabwe, and around 60% of “skilled worker” visas issued have been for jobs in health care and care homes.

It looks as though the state, which funds most of these jobs either directly or through private care providers, has been deliberately encouraging these high levels of immigration for its own purposes. Such as inviting in those with skills it perceives as needed, and securing a tax base for the future. This is, quite clearly, social engineering. Indeed, my local borough – with a population, as of 2013, of about 123,000 – has been tasked with “supporting the delivery of at least an additional 11,210 homes in the period 2013 to 2032.” At an average of 2.36 residents per household, this gives a population increase of 26,500, or 21.5%, over 20 years.

I am not absolutely certain about this, but there may also be a more sinister purpose to the UK state’s machinations on immigration. That is, that they are seeking to weaken or even destroy the sense of identity, culture and historical continuity, which used to hold the indigenous people of the UK together in reasonable harmony for many centuries. It may even be that, beyond destroying the fruits of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, they are seeking also to destroy the culture that made those revolutions possible.

The state’s financial problems

There is certainly evidence that the UK state is in big financial trouble. The “national debt” is around £180,000 per person, and there seem to be no efforts to get it under control by cutting government spending or functions. Moreover, I recall being told in the 2000s by a prominent free-market economist that the welfare state had no chance of surviving in anything like its then form, because the numbers simply didn’t add up.

Despite immigration, the UK population is aging steadily. The median age has gone up from a low of 33 in 1975 to 40 today. With such a trend, they couldn’t possibly rake in enough in taxes to keep the welfare system, as it was in the 2000s, running for very long. Given this, it is hardly surprising that taxes have gone through the roof.

It looks as if governments have been doing all this, not at all for the benefit of the people they are supposed to serve, but for the benefit of the state. And, since they themselves live by and off the state, they are in effect doing these things for their own benefit. Those responsible for these policies are both parasites and pests against the people.

This can also help explain why Labour are treating pensioners so harshly. In their eyes, pensioners are no longer a source of revenue for the state, as they were when working. They now see pensioners as a liability. To be disposed of by any means they think they can get away with. Starving older people, or freezing us to death, are acceptable, even desirable, from the point of view of these cruel, ruthless pests.

Indeed, prime minister Keir Starmer has already acquired the nickname “Keir Starver”. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has become “Rachel Thieves,” and also “Rachel Freeze” for cancelling the help with energy bills for pensioners to keep warm. And a Labour MP has said: “whether or not pensioners freeze to death is their choice.” A “choice” between freezing and starving is no better than a choice between being hung and being shot!

It doesn’t seem to matter to them at all how many years people have paid taxes for, or how little they received in benefits in all that time. This is particularly galling for someone like me, who from the end of my education at age 21 up to my 60s, never claimed a single penny in government benefits of any kind. And on top of that, they used IR35 to wantonly destroy my career, making it impossible for me to go back to my “day job” at this late stage in my career. Now that my savings are close to running out, I need every penny of income I can get. Yet the politicals want to take away from me what few scraps I have, and still want to prevent me practising my trade. Cruel and ruthless are understatements.

The position I have reached over the years on the national debt is as follows. The debt is not our debt, in any meaningful sense of the word we. It is certainly not my debt, or your debt. This debt is the state’s debt. Suggesting that a good way forward would be to do to the state just what we would do to any other bankrupt organization. That is, close it down altogether, sack all its employees and cancel their cushy pensions, and distribute its assets justly among its creditors. Including pensioners.

The state is out of date

There has, since around the mid-1990s, been a meme going round that the state is out of date, and no longer fit as a vehicle for government (if, indeed, it ever was). There was even a 2014 book by Gregory Sams, entitled “The state is out of date.” Part of his message is: “The wheel needs a new hub, not just another revolution.” I think he is saying, in his way, the same as I mean when I say “dismantle the system, and replace it by a new one.” This is the second of John Locke’s three levels of responses to a situation that has degenerated into tyranny.

Consider, if you will, whether in a world with nuclear weapons, it makes sense to allow a political system to continue, that has war built in to its roots? Or, in cultures which have been through the Enlightenment and are supposedly “democratic,” to allow an élite class carte blanche to make bad laws, that harm innocent human beings, like farmers, one-man software consultants or pensioners? Or to exempt themselves or their cronies from their bad laws? Or to evade being held responsible for damage they do to those they are supposed to be serving?

In my view, the answer is obvious. The political state is not only financially bankrupt, but morally bankrupt too. It has passed its last-use-by date.

We need to get rid of the state, and replace it by a system that works for us human beings. We need to make the political parasites and pests, that have used, and still use, the state to rob us and oppress us, compensate their victims in full. And we need to kick those that fail to deliver the compensation they owe, those that promoted, supported, made or enforced policies that harmed innocent people, and those that have set out their stall to destroy Western industrial civilization, out of our human civilization. They should never again receive any of the benefits of civilization. Further, those whose conduct deserves criminal punishment in addition, should receive that punishment in appropriate measure.

The war we’re in

We find ourselves embroiled today in a war. It is a war between, on one side, we human beings worth the name; and on the other, political parasites and pests. This war is an existential struggle for, if I may use a religious word, the soul of humanity.

Only one side can win this war. And I cannot conceive that our enemies can possibly win in the long term. For if they did manage to reduce us human beings to nothing more than serfs or slaves, their economy would quickly collapse, taking them with it.

I have come to compare this war we’re in with the long-ago struggles between homo sapiens and the Neanderthals. But this time round, the differences between us and them are not things like stockier physiques or prognathous jaws. The differences are mental. And the area of thought, in which our enemies lack most when compared to us, is ethics and morality. So much so, that I have come to dub our enemies “moral Neanderthals.”

Today, our enemies are attacking the legacies of all five of our revolutions of the last few thousand years. First, they seem to think of us human beings, not as naturally good, and fit and ready to make our Earth into the peaceful, beautiful home and garden we deserve, but as naturally bad and a blight on the planet. That is just what their “climate and nature bill” is trying to make out. And yet, we can more and more easily see that in reality, they are the ones that are bad and a blight on the planet.

Second, like extreme religious maniacs, they have lost contact with reality and reason, and supplanted them by narratives and dogmas. Yet those of us, who maintain our faculties of reason and respect for evidence, can now easily see that their narratives are false. For example, more and more scientific papers are now being published, in some of the most prestigious journals too, which call into very serious question the entire “catastrophic human-caused climate change” narrative. Yet the propagandists continue to shout their dogmas at the tops of their voices.

Third, they are seeking to impose on us orthodoxy in everything we do. And they are doing so in a manner that is both dishonest and tyrannical. Fourth, they disregard, or pooh-pooh, the values of the Enlightenment. And fifth, they are seeking to destroy our Western industrial civilization. Yet, more and more people are starting to see through their ruses, and to uncover the lies and contradictions at the roots of their whole way of thought.

Our enemies seem to have gone mad. I am reminded of the old saw: Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. I wonder, could it be that our enemies’ minds are starting to shake themselves apart?

Are we in the run up to another evolution of humanity?

Could it be, I ask, that today we may be coming towards a tipping point? At which, we honest human beings can finally discredit, remove from power, and bring to justice the politicals, the enemies of human liberty and prosperity? Thus, getting rid of the political dross, and enabling us human beings to take full possession of our planet?

I have for many years held the view that, before we can create a political revolution to fix our ills, we human beings need first to go through a mental and moral revolution. About 1995, I sensed a change in the patterns of what I felt able to think about. I sensed this as: “I and others can now think things, which we previously couldn’t.” This sense of change of pattern was, very likely, what triggered me in the direction of the radical ideas I hold now.

As time has gone on, I have more and more felt that such a mental revolution is on the way. At which, very many people will finally lose the “wool” that our enemies have placed over our eyes for so long, and will be able at last to see things for how they are. Sometimes, I feel this tipping point is oh-so-close; I can almost see it! At other moments, it seems so far away and unlikely, I am tempted to despair. But even as my life situation continues to go from bad to worse, I am starting to find these moments less common.

Getting through the next few years alive, sane and solvent will, no doubt, be extremely difficult for all of us human beings. But I am becoming more and more optimistic that, even if I personally do not live long enough to see it, the next and due evolution of humanity is on its way. And, by evolutionary standards, very soon.