6. An
evolutionary perspective
Next, I’ll try to put the last 40,000 years of human
history, as I have recounted it above, into wider context.
Over long timescales (far longer than 40,000 years), it
seems that the human species and its ancestors have generally proceeded by a
mixture of revolutions and evolutions. The revolutions move the species
forward, for example through the learning of new skills. (Examples I gave
earlier included making stone tools, evolving language, and the use of fire).
The evolutions select, from among a number of candidates, which tendency or
sub-species is best equipped to go forward into the future. By doing this, the evolutions
get rid of the dross, so we can proceed onwards and upwards into the future.
In this context, our five revolutions, of humanity, reason,
discovery, freedom and creativity, have all been major forward steps. Against
this, our enemies have set their five counter-revolutions: The state.
Institutional religion. Orthodoxy, tyranny and dishonesty as the modus
operandi of church and state. Collectivism, and the disregard for
individual rights and freedoms which it generates. And suppression of us human
beings, and all we stand for.
The economic means versus the political means
Now, I’ll introduce a famous idea of the German Jewish
sociologist, Franz Oppenheimer, who lived from 1864 to 1943. His legacy and
genius, in my view, lies in one crucial distinction. He pits what he calls the
economic means of getting needs satisfied – “the equivalent exchange of one’s
own labour for the labour of others” – against the political means – “the
unrequited appropriation of the labour of others.”
The economic means, then, is exemplified by honest business
and trade. Whereas the political means is exemplified by a state taxing, and extorting
from, people. Perhaps for its own gain, perhaps for the gain of its cronies or
client class, or perhaps to push forward its pet projects.
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.” He was spot-on right about that!
Oppenheimer’s Razor, and a species split
Oppenheimer has also led me to make a further distinction,
between users of the economic means and users of the political
means. This distinction, I dub Oppenheimer’s Razor.
Indeed, through many years of study, I have reached the
conclusion that over the last few millennia, humans have separated into two
different and incompatible species. One of which, by our nature, uses the
economic means; the other, by its nature, uses the political means. The
two species are physically very similar, even being able to mate with each
other. But mentally, and in preferred habitat and means of obtaining
sustenance, the two are very different. They look like us, but they don’t
behave like us. And Oppenheimer’s Razor is the dividing line between the two.
My thesis is that over the centuries, and in the last few
decades in particular, the two species have diverged so far, that the political
species – them – has now become actively parasitical on, and hostile and
pestilent towards, the economic species – us.
Humans versus politicals
Those among homo sapiens, to whom the economic
means is natural, I call humans, human beings, or human beings worth the name.
We are an economic species; an economic animal. By our nature, we use the
economic means to get our needs satisfied. On the other hand, I dub those, to
whom the political means is natural, politicals, or simply our enemies.
They are a political species, a political animal.
Aristotle, by the way, was wrong when he said: “Man is by nature a political animal.” The reason, as I see it, is that the word he needed,
“civilized,” did not exist yet. That would later be invented by the Romans.
As I see things, we humans are naturally peaceful and honest,
and strive to act in good faith. We are fit to live in a civilization of peace,
progress and prosperity, driven by Franz Oppenheimer’s economic means. We
flourish best in a habitat of peace, human rights, objective justice, and
maximum freedom for all, including the economic free market and free trade. We
are naturally progressive, and we want to move forward into a better future. We
want only the minimum of government, to enable us to live together peacefully
and in justice. We favour freedom and economic progress for all. And our
long-term mission is to make our planet into a peaceful, beautiful, comfortable
home and garden for our species, humanity.
In contrast, the politicals tend to be Machiavellian in
their characters. They are dishonest and tyrannical, and they very often act in
bad faith. Their preferred habitat is one that enables them to take resources
from others, and to use them for their own purposes; or to do harm to innocent
people and get away with it; or both. They thrive in positions of power and
influence, direct or indirect, in a political state. Or in some other top-down
organization, such as bureaucratic, religious, military or big-company
hierarchies, or organized criminal or terrorist gangs, or destructive political
activist groups.
Parasites and pests
I identified also, among users of Oppenheimer’s political
means, two overlapping tendencies. Which I labelled parasites and pests.
Parasites use the resources they appropriate to enrich
themselves and their cronies, or to rake in money in order to implement their
pet schemes. They are bad enough. But pests go further. Pests (or, otherwise
put, vermin) want power for the sake of what they can do with it. Pests pervert
the natural human instinct to take control of our surroundings into a rabid
desire to control us human beings. So, these pests want to use politics to control
people, to bully and persecute people, and to screw up people’s lives. They
also want to evade all responsibility for what they have done to their victims.
Both parasites and pests like “authority,” orthodoxy and
oppressive government, and hate freedom, independence and earned prosperity.
They hate us human beings. They seek to hold back the progress which is natural
to us, and even to haul us back down towards where we started from. And yet,
they consider themselves to be superior to us, and above reproach. But in
reality, neither parasites nor pests are fit to be invited into any society of
human beings worth the name.
Consider too, if you will, the wrong that is committed when
any individual promotes, supports, makes or enforces a political policy, that
causes harm to, or violates the rights of, any innocent human being. Albeit
cloaked in “legitimacy” and “legality,” it is still a real wrong – and a very
grave one. The victims have no way to protect themselves, no relief from the
pain caused to them, and no means of redress within the system.
No human being worth the name would ever do such a thing to
another. It is a brutal, callous, heartless, remorseless way to behave. It is
also cowardly; I have compared it to punching someone in the face hard, then
running away. It is inhuman behaviour. And those that indulge in it are
showing themselves up as the inhuman pests they are.
Why is all this happening? And why now?
As a hominin species, we have the capability to take control
of our surroundings, and to mould them to suit ourselves. But this applies to
our enemies the politicals, too. How I read the situation today is that we are
in an undeclared, but very real, war.
The political system called the state, that allows our
enemies power to exploit us and oppress us, has reached the end of its road.
Indeed, in my estimation it is now at least two centuries past its last-use-by
date. Yet the state is our enemies’ natural habitat. Its continuance is
essential for their success, and even for their survival. So, they are
straining to preserve the failed, outdated political system we suffer under
today, and even to extend its power over us. But as part of that, they are seeking
to destroy our habitat – our industrial civilization, and the rights,
freedoms and justice which we need to flourish. That is why we are at war
today.
One particular front in this war stands out for me. As
Reform UK interim campaigns manager in my local constituency, I had been
planning to contest the county council elections in May mainly on the issues of
nett zero and anti-car policies. Both Labour and the Tories know that if the
people of rural English counties, such as Surrey, are allowed to express their
anger over these policies, their electoral butts will get kicked, hard. So,
they have shut down our chance to tell them what we think of them. I think
their strategy is probably to delay any elections, until it will be too late to
halt their destruction of our Western industrial civilization.
I will repeat the words of Edward Henry, with which I began
this missive. “The greatest horrors of the world are caused by those who claim
to act in the name of good, enforcing a perverted vision of order that leaves
no room for dissent.” Our enemies are claiming to act in the name of good. Yet
what they are doing is not good for us at all. They are enforcing on us a
perverted vision of order, one in which they are trashing our rights and
freedoms, our prosperity and our economy. And all for nothing but buzz-phrases
like “saving the planet.” Yet they are also leaving no room for dissent. And
more: they are actively taking steps to prevent us being able to express our
dissent. Our friend Mr Henry, like Mr Oppenheimer, is spot-on right.
It is time, I think, for the next evolution of humanity to
kick in.
No comments:
Post a Comment