The élites, the state and sovereignty
By Neil Lock
(September 19th, 2022)
When I began these essays, I planned them as a set of three: Indictments, Diagnosis and Cure. As a unit, I intended them to assess the current state of politics, and to sketch a way forward for us human beings out of the mess that is politics today. I was paying attention in particular to the situation in the UK, and to the green agenda and the bad politics it has spawned.
As I worked on the Cure essay, however, I found it expanding beyond reasonable limits of space. I also found that recent events had sparked in me some further trains of thought regarding the history of the last eight decades or so, and the role that has been played in it by politicians, corporate bosses, and other élites. I therefore decided to split off these thoughts into this, the third essay of a planned four. In it, I look at “the élites,” and their relations to the political state and the “sovereignty” it claims.
I will begin by summarizing the first two essays, adding some further thoughts on the second.
The first essay in the set, “Indictments” [], I wrote during the November 2021 COP 26 climate conference. Here are some of the main points it made.
Taxation in the UK is at a historic high, and going ever higher. Those in power use tax laws to impoverish the people they are supposed to be serving. For example, my own right to free choice of employment, and thereby my career, has been destroyed by a bad tax law called IR35. They use tax money to enrich themselves. They also like to use tax money to reward their cronies with subsidies, and with lucrative contracts that are not done properly.
Meanwhile, our human rights and freedoms are being routinely violated. Our right of privacy is in tatters, with cameras trained on us all over the place, and our communications being monitored. Even basic rights like freedom of opinion and expression, and free speech on-line, are under serious threat. COVID lockdowns and related measures have violated our freedoms of movement and assembly. They have also disrupted and damaged the lives and businesses of far too many innocent people, particularly small business people.
On top of all this, the UK political class are seeking to destroy the industrial civilization, which we have so laboriously built over centuries. For no better reason than unspecific, unproven and unlikely accusations that humans are causing some kind of problem with the Earth’s climate, or causing millions of species extinctions. The juggernaut of “nett zero” and other green policies, that have no justification in reality, and that go against the needs and the well-being of ordinary people, has rolled on unchecked. Even back in November 2021, these bad policies had already caused chaos in energy markets. And things have only got worse since. Meanwhile, the media continue to bombard us with lies, scares, hype and propaganda.
In that essay, I also related the “long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all pointing the same way” (as John Locke put it), that has brought human civilization, in the islands called Britain in particular, to this pass. These dishonesties have included the 2002 re-writing of the precautionary principle to “justify” government action to combat any perceived risk, even when not supported by the facts. Denying a voice to those opposed to the green agenda, including experts. Denying us a fair and public hearing, and an independent and impartial tribunal. Denying us the presumption of innocence, by inverting the burden of proof and requiring our side to prove that we are not causing a problem. And making it, in effect, impossible to do objective cost-benefit analysis on issues involving carbon dioxide emissions.
The second essay, “Diagnosis” [], had to wait till May 2022. In the meantime, much had happened. The Russians started a war in Ukraine. This has aggravated the energy problems, and started a spiral of rising cost of living and inflation for us all. Not to mention raising the possibility of Europe-wide food shortages due to loss of Ukrainian grain and, further down the line, of fertilizers. And the spectre of nuclear war if the Americans choose to do something silly.
In the UK, the government tried to force meeting places like cinemas and theatres, and organizers of events, to require vaccine passports for people attending. In early 2022 they also tried to force out of their jobs health care workers, both in the NHS and in care homes, who refused to submit to COVID vaccination. Thousands of care home workers were sacked. These were symptoms of a maudlin concern for something they call “safety,” regardless of human rights and of the costs to the people they are supposed to be serving.
Another example is the “on-line safety” bill, which seeks to put absolute power in the hands of bureaucrats to decide what is “harmful communication” or “false communication” in social media and on the Internet. Furthermore, they want be able to fine social media or internet service companies millions of pounds if they fail to take down such material.
Moreover, they continue to pursue schemes like “digital identity” and “central bank digital currencies,” which will create a platform for monitoring even our smallest transactions, and taxing us more and more harshly. And the “Partygate” scandal has shown government trashing the rule of law, by breaking laws they themselves had made. But there’s some good news, for a change: Extinction Rebellion’s April 2022 protests were pretty much a flop.
The world news…
Since May, though, events have moved apace. In two countries in particular, there have been uprisings, both caused by imposing green political policies on farmers.
In Sri Lanka, by early March 2022 a government-mandated transition to organic agriculture [] had caused the production of rice (Sri Lankans’ staple food) and tea (their main export) to plummet by more than 20% in just a few months. The failure of the harvest in March led directly to the mass protests, that during July unseated from power Sri Lankan president Rajapaksa and several of his family. But this doesn’t mean at all that the suffering is over for Sri Lankans. As of late July, 22% of Sri Lankans were in need of food aid. And prospects for the next harvest look to be even worse: [], [].
What has happened in Sri Lanka shows that politicians’ green meddling costs, not only prosperity, but also peace and lives. Rajapaksa and his government have committed crimes against humanity, of a similar kind to Stalin’s policies that caused the Holodomor famine in Ukraine. But far from trying to rectify the problems, the Sri Lankan ruling class has doubled down, and assaulted the protestors.
In the Netherlands, the world’s second largest food exporter, farmers have been protesting since 2019 against regulations aiming to halve emissions of gaseous nitrogen compounds, particularly ammonia, by 2030. These regulations are part of the EU’s so-called “Green Deal.” At one of the protests on July 5th 2022, Dutch police fired live ammunition at a tractor driving away from them. The protests [] spread to other countries, notably Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland.
And yet, it is not at all clear that emissions of nitrogen compounds from farming have ever caused any measurable, significant, negative effects. This article [] gives an introduction to what is going on. The claim seems to be that there is a loss of “biodiversity” in certain “protected areas” that are part of an EU project called “Natura 2000.” Yet, can anyone name even one species that has become extinct in the last 30 years, with that extinction proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been caused by modern Dutch farming practices?
All this trouble comes from a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in November 2018, which made the requirements for assessing the effects of farming “projects” much stricter, and did not allow any mitigation measures already in place to be counted. This ruling is based on a very harsh and, to this layman, unreasonable reading of a clause from the European Commission’s “Habitat Directive” dating from 1992: [].
But ask yourself: Which is more important? Some ill-defined, hard to measure thing called “biodiversity?” Or food for human beings? Shouldn’t human beings always take priority over other species? Would a lion, for example, ever put the welfare of the zebra it hunts ahead of the welfare of its own cubs? Surely not. And why should there ever have been such a thing as a “Habitat Directive” in the first place, unless it was designed to conserve the human habitat – that is, the peace, freedom and justice that we need in order to fulfil ourselves?
It looks as if Rajapaksa and Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte share a common goal: reducing the food supply for human beings. This same Rutte is an “agenda contributor” at the World Economic Forum, an organization that seeks to subject us to a globalist “Great Reset,” of which Prince Charles (as he was when I wrote these words) is also a major promoter. This “Great Reset” is described as: “a new equilibrium among political, economic, social and environmental systems toward common goals.” In which the future is: “a globalized world… best managed by a coalition of multinational corporations, governments (including through the UN system) and select civil society organizations.”
Obviously, we human beings have no place in such a world, except perhaps as slaves. Yet the name of Rutte’s party, translated into English, is the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy! Freedom? Democracy? Concern for people? The “Great Reset” is none of these things. It, too, is a crime against humanity.
The UK news…
Meanwhile, the UK government has continued to meddle in our lives at an ever-increasing rate. Since May, I have learned that they have laid plans to ban smoking in public entirely in England by 2030: []. That there are more restrictions on gambling on the way: []. And that they want to take away the last vestiges of any right for parents to decide when their children ought to go to school: []. Not to mention their attempts to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda without their applications even being considered. Yet these attempts do not seem to be having any effect at all on the flow of asylum seekers: [].
I also discovered a bad law they slipped in last year, the so called “spy cops” act [], which allows undercover police and other government agents to commit real crimes! So much for the rule of law. Moreover, the idea of requiring vaccine passports for access to events within the UK has not gone away: [].
And banks are being encouraged, in order “to help prevent financial crime,” to restrict how much money you are allowed to deposit into your account: []. Or to close the account of someone they suspect may be using it for business purposes or “unlawfully,” or who puts “abusive messages” in payment instructions. Or to put a limit on the amount of money you may have in your accounts, or to impose a charge on those accounts. It looks as if the political élites are limbering up to extend “financial sanctions” régimes, hitherto used primarily against such dubious figures as Russian oligarchs, to anyone they choose to make an example of. They are seeking to use the banks to police existing and planned assaults on our financial freedom, just as they are seeking to use Big Tech to police their assaults on freedom of speech. Such pre-emptive policies violate, not only the presumption of innocence, but also the rights to a fair trial and to due process of law.
The historical context
To return to that second essay. There, I sought to put our situation today into historical context. I put forward my point of view, that we humans are in a war of two species against each other. To outline my view of history, I will give you the following diagram:
Figure 1 – Historical Timeline
On one side are we human beings. It is in our nature to move forward, and to create a better future for human beings. Past eras, in which we have enjoyed success, include the Neolithic revolution, ancient Greece and Rome, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. On the other side are our ultra-conservative and reactionary enemies, seeking to hold back our progress, and even to haul us back down towards where we started.
Our enemies have been responsible for the rise of the political state, that enables an élite to rule over people by force and threat of force. For organized religion and the church, which has enabled another élite to rule by means of mental control and mumbo-jumbo. For religious orthodoxies, wars and witch-hunts. For the Machiavellian behaviours we have become accustomed to from politicians and their hangers-on. For Jean Bodin’s 16th-century underpinning of the intellectual foundation of the political states, under which we still suffer today. And for Thomas Hobbes’ fiction of a “social contract,” which they claim implies that merely by living in a particular place, I have given my consent to be ruled over by whatever bunch of criminals happens to have political power there at the time.
They are also responsible for turning the Enlightenment on its head, into the collectivist politics of today. And today, they are scheming to suppress our industrial civilization, and to suppress truth, rights, freedom, creativity, prosperity and humanity. They want to halt our natural human progress, and to suppress us.
Moreover, an international élite, spearheaded by the United Nations among others, and including multi-national corporations, dishonest politicians, and activist fellow-travellers, seeks to “unite the world” under the tyranny of a global ruling class, unelected and unaccountable. Their agenda seeks to “transform” or “nudge” us all into becoming, at best, mere cogs in a giant, global political machine, to be run by an élite few. This global power grab is supported, gladly, by the political establishment. Including many if not most national politicians, that instead of serving those they ought to represent, choose to support agendas hostile to us.
The state and sovereignty
I discussed, in that second essay, the origins, development and nature of the political state. The state is a top-down system, that enables an élite forcibly to rule over a, potentially large, group of people. It was born in war, and grew through coercive measures taken by the winners of wars against the losers.
States have existed for something over 5,000 years. By the 15th century AD, the state had lost some of its momentum, and had given up a significant amount of power to its rival, the church. But the state received a big fillip in the 16th century, when French monarchist Jean Bodin articulated a new theoretical basis for it. That basis is called “sovereignty.” In Bodin’s scheme for a state, 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 word “subject,” literally, means “thrown under.”)
The sovereign has rights to do certain things, which others don’t share. To make laws to bind the subjects, and give privileges to those it chooses to. To make war and peace. To appoint the top officials of the state. To be the final court of appeal. To pardon guilty individuals if it so wishes. To issue a currency. To 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.”) This is often manifested by a claim of “sovereign immunity.” In many countries, state actors either cannot be prosecuted at all for their actions, or they cannot be prosecuted for crimes, or judgments cannot be enforced against them.
Bodin’s system was rolled out across Europe from the 17th century, as the Westphalian nation state. Since then, it has spread all over the world. Many monarchies, it is true, have lost most or all of their power, being supplanted by oligarchies like parliaments, military juntas or dominant political parties. But in every country or political territory in the world today, there is a class that claims the sovereign privileges of Bodin’s scheme and a right to rule over everyone else. And despite all the “bags on the side” we have tried over the centuries – like constitutions, bills of rights and democracy – we still suffer under Bodin’s system today.
As to “democracy,” our enemies have perverted the Enlightenment idea that ordinary people should be able to set the direction and tone of government, and should have a full and fair say in what policies it will adopt, into the sham democracy we suffer under today. True, the élites in many countries have seen fit to grant individual citizens a “vote,” which in theory could enable them to influence every so often which faction of the ruling class gets power. But in most democracies, and particularly in the UK, all the parties with any chance of winning are part of the same cabal. Their policies may look (slightly) different from each other, but in reality, they are just wings of the same bird. They are all pro-state, anti-individual and anti-human. All the factions competing for power want to do bad things to us, rather than good things for us. All of them want to take us in the same direction; and that direction is down. There is no-one who both is worth voting for and has a decent chance of being elected into power, making an individual’s vote essentially worthless.
It gets worse. Once in power, most of our so-called representatives fail even to try to represent us or our views. They tend to put their own careers first, then their political parties, then the interests of the state that underpins their political power. Doing the job they are supposed to comes, at best, a very poor fourth. And when the needs or the rights of the people they are supposed to represent are opposed to their own interests, or the interests of the state or of their political party, they show no concern at all.
In addition to the practical uselessness of voting, there are two more good reasons why democracy can never work. The first is that it is no more than a bag on the side of the state. Given the privileges state power confers, whoever gets power is always going to be tempted to use that power for personal gain. And if there are particular groups or kinds of individuals they dislike or even hate, they can use the power of the state to disadvantage them. A vote is no protection against becoming a victim of kleptocracy or bad political policies. I compared trying to build democracy on a state to trying to put lipstick on a tyrannosaurus.
The second reason is more subtle. “One man, one vote” can work in a voluntary society, because the members of a voluntary society can reasonably be assumed to share in the aims of the society. If they no longer agree with its aims and purposes, they can and should leave the society. But the people who live in the territory claimed by a state do not form a society. They are only a community. Unlike a voluntary society, they do not have a “general will.” They cannot be expected to share any particular political ideology, or religion, or vision of what they want for the future. So, they cannot reasonably be expected to agree with, or to keep to, rules or policies imposed by any particular political faction or tendency.
The social contract
Moreover, the 17th-century idea of a “social contract,” which the people in a territory are implicitly assumed to have signed up to, is losing its credibility. They have, supposedly, signed up to this contract in order to live in a “civil society,” which will defend them against brutal or fraudulent aggressors. But on reflection, this is complete nonsense. I, for one, have never signed any such contract! Moreover, I cannot leave the claimed “society” without physically uprooting myself. And wherever I go, there is always another political state, seeking to rule over me.
There is another reason why the social contract idea fails to justify political governments as they exist today. If a group of people really had sought to contract together to defend each other against aggressors and the fraudulent, would they not have taken care to exclude from the group anyone that has already shown a penchant for aggression or fraud? The criminals, against whose violence and fraud people felt a need to band together to defend themselves, would never have been invited to be part of the social contract in the first place. Those not able or not willing to behave in a civil manner, would not have been accepted into civil society. They would, rightly, have been treated as outcasts and outlaws.
Human societies and bonding
In that second essay, I also looked at how human societies have evolved over time, and the different kinds of bonds which hold and have held these societies together. I examined, and rejected, the idea that there is something called political “society” in the singular. I quoted from the work of John Locke, the father of the Enlightenment, on how and why the ideas of political society and social contract came about. On the purposes of government. On the natural community of all human beings. And on the limitations that must be placed on government power, and the remedies available when those limits are exceeded.
I examined changes in recent times in the bonds, which have held groups of human beings together in the past. I found that ties such as ancestry, race, language, culture, religion, patriotism and physical proximity have been seriously weakened. And the nation-state and its politics, far from binding people together, have become actively divisive. Democracy, too, has become an empty charade. It is destroying the remnants of social cohesion, breaking apart the very sense of “we” that seemed to give it legitimacy in the first place.
Moreover, I found that the ethical, moral and political foundations of governments are crumbling. The ruse that political governments “serve” and “protect” people is wearing increasingly thin. And the idea that each of us has given consent to whatever those governments choose to do to us is coming to seem absurd. I found that governments today have forfeited the trust of the people. And that it is high time we took back, in John Locke’s words, our “supreme power to remove or alter” government.
Parasites, pests and pawns
I quoted the famous distinction, made by German Jewish thinker Franz Oppenheimer, between the economic and political means of obtaining satisfaction of human needs. The economic means is “one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others.” Whereas the political means is “the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others.” Oppenheimer also made clear: “The state is an organization of the political means.”
I took Oppenheimer’s distinction a step further, and divided users of the political means into two overlapping sub-classes: parasites and pests. Parasites use political power to take resources from others without their consent, then use these resources to enrich themselves or their cronies. Pests, on the other hand, seek political power for the sake of what they can do with it. They want to control people, to screw up people’s lives, and to persecute those they don’t like. Under the heading of pests come also those that carry out violations of human rights, and those that promote, support, make or enforce bad laws that harm innocent people.
I identified a third group of people too, the pawns. Pawns allow themselves to be used by the political parasites and pests. For example, they continue to vote for mainstream political parties. Or they continue to believe and to act on the narratives of the mainstream media. But pawns who use the economic means in their daily lives are not, yet at least, either parasites or pests. Nevertheless, some of these pawns are in danger of making themselves into pests, by supporting illiberal and destructive policies, like the green agenda or the on-line safety bill.
Economic species versus political species
I also broadened Oppenheimer’s distinction between the economic means and the political means into a view of an economic species versus a political species. The economic species are those of us born human, who naturally use the economic means. The political species are the parasites and the pests, that by their natures use the political means. They do not behave as is natural to us human beings. So, they are not us.
I explored the actions, and as far as I could the values and mind-set, of the politicals. Neither parasites nor pests even try to measure up to John Locke’s “law of Nature” standard that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” They fail, by huge margins, to reach even minimal standards of civilized conduct, which ought to be easily attainable by any human being worth the name.
As to their values, they do not seem to value human individuality and independence, or honesty or integrity, or rationality or consistency, or human rights or freedoms. They do not appear to value the rule of law, or the free market, or honest business. Many are not peaceful, and do not act in good faith. And their ideas of justice and equality are warped and collectivist.
As to their mind-set, pests in particular seem to be driven by fear of something. Increasingly, they seek any pretext to expand the powers of the state. They are in a mad, breathless rush to get their plans implemented right now. And two of the things they are worried about are climate change and extinction.
Could it be, I mused, that the parasites and pests perceive, and fear, some coming change – a change in the climate, if you like – of a kind they dread? Do they, perhaps, sense possible breakdown of the system on which their privileged way of life depends? Do they, perhaps, foresee an impending bankruptcy of the political state – ethical, financial, in terms of credibility, or all three? Do they fear, perhaps, a coming failure of their life support system?
Such a fear could explain, I think, a lot of what they are doing to us today. They are striking out, harder and harder, at anyone and anything they think might get in the way of the continued expansion of the state. Such a panic could maybe explain why so many of their actions remind me of a cornered animal. Such an animal is at its most vicious when surrounded and about to die.
The last eight decades
I shall now look at some aspects of human history over the last 80 years or so. These are: The rise and subsequent corruption of the United Nations. The network of élite, globalist organizations that go with it. The rise of the European project, which eventually became the European Union. And the welfare state, which has since evolved into the nanny state. These institutions mostly had their origins during, or shortly after, the second world war.
The United Nations
The United Nations is generally held to have been instituted in 1945. But its roots lie several years earlier. An “Atlantic Charter,” a 1941 joint statement between US president Franklin Roosevelt and UK prime minister Winston Churchill, set out a plan for policies to be implemented once the nazis had been defeated. These included “the fullest collaboration in the economic field between all nations,” “economic advancement and social security,” and that everyone “may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.”
This was all good-sounding stuff. Recall how people in 1941 must have felt about the world political system. Twice in 25 years, an aggressive German state, backed up by powerful allies, had spread violent conflict over much of the world. People must have felt fed up and angry with the nation-state system, to say the least. So, it made sense for forward-thinking politicians to think about plans for a more peaceful future.
At the beginning of 1942, 26 governments, all of which had declared war on the nazis and their Axis allies, signed up to a “Declaration of United Nations,” affirming their support for the Atlantic Charter. The USA and the UK were joined by the Chinese, who had been fighting against Japanese invaders since 1937. They were joined also by the Russians, as soon as Hitler had reneged on the Ribbentrop non-aggression pact. These were the “Big Four” countries, to which France was added after its liberation in 1944.
The United Nations formally began in 1945, after the UN Charter was agreed. The Preamble to the Charter stated its three main goals affecting ordinary people as: “To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” “To regain faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” And “To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” And one of the ways it was to achieve those goals was “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.”
The four stated Purposes of the United Nations can be summarized as follows: To maintain international peace and security. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all. And to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
The UN has taken for itself many of the moral privileges of a sovereign political state. Its property is immune from search or confiscation by any of its member states. It is exempt from taxes, customs duties and import/export restrictions. Its employees, in effect, pay what taxes they pay to the UN itself. It has diplomatic immunity, and its officials also have “functional immunity” from prosecution when carrying out their duties. It even issues its own passports. It seems to me to be a state, and yet outside all other states.
What about the UN’s record? As a peacekeeper, it has been mixed. There seems to be a basic problem; how can the UN be an effective peacekeeper, when so often individual member states have their own agendas on one side of a conflict or another? This was a particular problem during the cold war. Beyond this, the UN has been able to do very little about political de-stabilization caused in other countries by major world powers, such as US meddling in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba or Panama. And one condemnatory resolution apart, it has been able to do nothing to halt or to cut short the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The UN’s record on human rights began reasonably well, with the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, billed as “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” Though, particularly from article 22 onwards, some of the claimed rights seem to reflect a rather collectivist view of the world, and a few are simply misguided. Within the UN framework, the Declaration has been carried forward into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Both came into force in 1976. Since then, progress in this area seems to have been limited to the advancement of groups to whom the UN is over-sympathetic, notably women and “indigenous” people. Indeed, the UN Commission on Human Rights, after years of internal squabbles and lack of effectiveness, had to be replaced in 2006.
Then there is the UN’s alphabet soup of agencies. Some of these have certainly done useful work in the past. For example, the ICAO did some good work on aviation standards, particularly in its early days. And I myself worked, in the 1980s, on a technology transfer project in Indonesia funded by the ITU. But for many of them, the more recent record has been, as for the peacekeepers, rather mixed.
The World Health Organization (WHO), in particular, was late to recognize human-to-human transmissibility of COVID-19, and wrongly deferred to the Chinese political stance of “lockdown at any cost.” And it seems over-keen to get countries to commit to a common pandemic strategy, regardless of individual countries’ cultures and situations.
But UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is even worse. Despite high-sounding ideals, it seems to be a co-ordinating hub for most of the bad things the UN is doing to us. And it anticipated the “sustainable development” nonsense with a “Man and the Biosphere” project, started way back in 1971.
Moreover, to varying degrees, these organizations – and UNESCO in particular – have been infected in the last 15 years or so by the green agenda that is causing so many ructions today. In the first essay of this set, and in an essay on the “global warming” backstory which I referenced from there, I gave an overview of the history of this agenda. It’s a long and sordid story. Something I omitted to include in that overview was the development from “Agenda 21” in 1992, via the Millennium Development Goals (2000), into the “Sustainable Development Goals” agreed in 2015. Recently, though, I wrote specifically on those sustainable development goals and “targets,” and their consequences for us and our economies: []. Here are the conclusions I drew from that exercise. They aren’t nice.
- The United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals” agenda is a blueprint for the destruction of human civilization as we know it, and for tyranny by a self-appointed global ruling class over every human being alive.
- For at least 30 years, the UK government has been a major leader in the stampede towards the “sustainable development” agenda. They have done this without allowing us, the people they are supposed to serve, any other choice, or any chance to object.
- The main thrust of the agenda is a global power grab by an international élite of the rich and powerful, at the expense of ordinary people. The world-view of its promoters, far from being “cultural Marxism” or anything like it, seems to be a globalist, feminist form of fascism.
- The promoters of this agenda use saccharine-coated words to disguise a raging desire to use us human beings as objects for their profit, and to hit and to hurt us if we step out of line in any way. The agenda is a charter for government meddling and centralized control.
- The negative effects of the agenda are now plain for all to see. For example, in food shortages and economic collapse in Sri Lanka. Energy shortages in the UK and Germany. And serious political disruption to farming in the Netherlands and in Canada.
- It is becoming clear that the “sustainable development” agenda, wherever implemented, will produce results that are quite the opposite of sustainable.
- The promoters and supporters of this agenda are traitors to human civilization. It is high time that we human beings started to push back against their agenda and against them.
It seems amazing that an organization, originally founded with goals of preventing future wars and promoting human rights, can have gone so far off the beam. Tyrannical policies rooted in the UN’s “sustainable development” nonsense have more and more violated the human rights of ordinary people. Such policies do nothing for economic or social advancement, or for world peace.
How could this have happened? The answer, I think, is one word… corruption. Factions and individuals within the UN have sought to move it away from what it was supposedly for, towards the kind of globalist tyranny that offers ordinary people, both in Western countries and in the third world, no hope of a future. One such individual is Gro Harlem Brundtland, inventor of the “sustainable development” concept. Another was Maurice Strong, the master networker whose goal was to set in motion policies designed to kill off human industrial civilization.
When, roughly, did the UN go wrong? If I had to put a date on it, it would be between 1968 and 1970. In 1968, UNESCO held in Paris a Biosphere Conference, which led to the “Man and the Biosphere” program. In 1969, the UN made the decision to hold the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. And in 1970, secretary-general U Thant appointed Maurice Strong as secretary-general of that conference. 1970 was also the year of the first “Earth Day,” which U Thant personally approved.
One thing the United Nations has not done, though, is take anything away from the sovereignty of its member states. Would you not have expected that an organization, formed to prevent war, ought to have done its very best to lessen the war-making powers of nation-states, that by their design are empowered to make wars in the first place? Should they not have promoted, and sought agreement on, the idea that “sovereign states may no longer make aggressive wars?” Or at the very least, could they not have persuaded their member states to cap military spending at, say, 1 per cent of GDP? But no. Political states can still make wars, and can get away with them if their military and economic strength is sufficient.
To sum up the UN’s sad story. Today, like moths around a candle, political parasites that seek gain for themselves, and pests that want to rule over people harshly and against their wills, seek to join together to use UN programs to further their aims. As I listed some of them in the essay on the sustainable development goals: Bankers and other “money men.” Big Academe and Green Tech. National politicians. “Stakeholders,” Big Business, Big Tech. Government bureaucracies, quangos, “public-private initiatives,” and quaintly named “civil society organizations.” And, of course, the mainstream media, their propaganda arm. With globalist organizations like the World Bank, World Economic Forum and International Monetary Fund in there too. And the UN and its agencies pulling the strings from the top.
An élite network
Then there is a network of élite organizations, which seem to have two things in common. First, they are dedicated to a globalist political system, to be controlled by themselves and their mates. Second, UK politicians, both Tory and Labour, have played a significant role in building and steering these organizations. There are many such organizations, probably hundreds or thousands. But I’ll concentrate here on just a few of the most obvious.
There is Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum. Founded in 1971, it describes itself as “the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.” It “engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.” It takes an extreme position on the “anthropogenic climate change” issue and on “gender equality.” It has thousands of very influential members, including many high-ups in multi-national companies and political governments.
The WEF, as I described above, seeks a “Global Redesign” and a “Great Reset.” It seems to have no respect for any kind of democracy, or for the participation of ordinary individuals in decision-making. It prefers, instead, that decisions should be taken on people’s behalf by a self-selected group of “stakeholders.” []. It has also told the public that “by 2030, you’ll own nothing and be happy.” And it nominates a yearly cadre of “Young Global Leaders,” who have included Vladimir Putin.
In recent years, the WEF has become wedded more and more to big governments. Its key-note addresses have been given by presidents Xi of China, Modi of India, Bolsonaro of Brazil and Zelenskiy of Ukraine. Since the turn of the century, it has also become increasingly politically correct, and supportive of green and “sustainable development” idiocies. I have already mentioned the involvement of Prince Charles. Members of the board of trustees have included Kofi Annan (former UN general secretary), Tony Blair, Mark Carney (former governor of the Bank of England) and Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission. One of its “Agenda Contributors” is Mark Rutte, current prime minister of the Netherlands and bane of their farmers. The WEF also has tentacles into other organizations with similar kinds of views. One of its past CEOs, former Costa Rican president Jose Maria Figueres, is the brother of Cristiana Figueres, long-time UN climate change czarina.
Schwab himself is a former member of the steering group of the Bilderberg meetings. Those Bilderberg meetings, started in 1954, were designed to bring together European and North American leaders to foster co-operation on political, economic and military issues. Over the years, they have become an annual talk-shop for an invited in-group of global élites. Denis Healey, Labour politician, was a founder member, and in the steering group for 30 years. Healey once described the group as “striving for a one-world government.”
Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands chaired the meetings for their first 22 years. Subsequent steering committee chairmen have included Alec Douglas-Home, former UK prime minister; a UK economist and director of the Bank of England; and a former Tory minister, peer and secretary general of NATO. Participants at meetings have included: Princes Philip and Charles. Many senior politicians, such as post-war Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak. Ursula von der Leyen, Klaus Schwab, Mark Rutte, Mark Carney; all names I mentioned earlier. Antonio Guterres, now secretary-general of the UN. Margaret Thatcher, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, David Cameron. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates. Senior managers from Shell and BP. Kenneth Clarke, pro-European Tory chancellor, attended many times, as did Henry Kissinger. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have also attended. Oh, and Baroness Dido Harding.
More network links. Princes Bernhard and Philip were both presidents of the World Wildlife Fund, the organization which has probably been more strident in its green propaganda than any other (except perhaps the BBC). And has certainly been carrying on that propaganda for longest, first raising the spectre of “anthropogenic global warming” as far back as 1963. Yet back in those days, global cooling was seen as the likely problem, not warming!
The WWF, in its turn, was set up as an offshoot of the IUCN, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Itself founded in 1948 on the initiative of UNESCO, the IUCN had from the beginning a close association with the UN. It was heavily involved in setting up the UN’s 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, and it prepared the UN’s 1982 “World Charter for Nature.” More recently, it has partnered with the “World Business Council for Sustainable Development,” a corporate offshoot of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The IUCN now describes itself as “the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it.”
As I said, there is probably a whole lot more where that came from. But this should, I hope, be enough to give people an idea of how long, and how hard, the international élites have been pushing to impose all these destructive policies on us.
The European project
In the beginning, there was the Council of Europe. Originally the brainchild of Winston Churchill, it was founded by the Treaty of London in 1949. The treaty eulogizes “the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co-operation.” And “the spiritual and moral values which are… the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy.” Fine words!
Today, the Council of Europe describes itself as “the continent’s leading human rights organization.” And its best-known institution is the European Court of Human Rights. Some of whose rulings the UK government has been seeking to allow ministers to ignore: [].
The first president of the Council was Paul-Henri Spaak of Belgium. (In 1945, he had been chairman of the first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.) But he eventually resigned from the Council, after it rejected his proposals for a politically united Europe. He then helped to found the institutions, that later became the European Union.
The Council of Europe is, formally, quite separate from the EU. Unlike many other internationalist organizations, at least into the 2000s, the Council of Europe seems to have remained relatively true to its founders’ stated intentions. However, more recently it has suffered scandals, which have dented public confidence in it.
Then there is the European Commission (EC). The EC is the executive of the EU. Its main architect was post-war French prime minister Robert Schuman. It started life in 1952, as the “High Authority” of the newly formed European Coal and Steel Community. Since at least the late 1950s, it has been telling member governments what they must do (regardless of what their people want). Democracy? Non. After the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) and atomic agency (Euratom), it was merged in 1967 into the Commission of the European Communities.
The UK became a member of the EEC at the beginning of 1973. This was eventually confirmed by referendum in 1975. I didn’t myself vote that day, but I liked the idea of free movement of people, goods and services across borders; even if I didn’t think much of the Common Agricultural Policy. And I didn’t even know about the existence, or the power, of the European Commission. Roy Jenkins, in 1975 UK home secretary and a supporter of the European project, in 1977 became president of the Commission! Hmmm…
The EEC proved to be a positive for me, enabling me to live and work in the Netherlands for three good years in the late 1970s. But in the run up to the Maastricht treaty (1992), it became clear that the European project was moving towards political union, not just economic co-operation. That caused a lot of people in the UK, including me, to turn against it. Surely, I thought, those that took the UK into the EEC must have known back then that the eventual goal was political union? So, why did they not tell us that at the time? Ultimately, this misleading of the UK public by the pro-Europe side in the 1970s was my primary reason for supporting Brexit more than thirty years later.
Further, EU officials have some state-like privileges. They are exempt from income tax in the countries they work in. Though, rather like UN staff, they do pay some taxes to the EU itself. Like the UN, the EU looks in many ways like a state outside all other states. But unlike the UN, it considers itself morally superior to its member states, and claims a right to impose its policies on the governments and the people in those states. Even if those people, and even the national governments, would far rather do something else.
Since the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the European Commission and the EU have become steadily more and more tyrannical. “Directives” have flowed out like bullets from machine-guns. Moreover, the EU has perverted the precautionary principle, just as the UK government did back in 2002, to “justify” pre-emptive regulation against perceived risks, even though there is no proof at all that those risks pose any objectively real problem. They have then used this perversion to impose harsh, collective “limits” and “targets” on things like PM2.5 pollution and nitrogen emissions. And these are forever tightened, as a target morphs into a limit and is replaced by a new, more stringent target.
Such collective restrictions will not only inevitably become intolerable for those subjected to them, but are also sure to fail in the long run. That was another reason why I was desperate for Brexit. But I’m still waiting for all those limits and targets to be scrapped!
And so, here we are, with the ECJ’s 2018 ruling on the 1992 “habitat directive” threatening to kill off a large part of the Dutch farming industry, and to damage food security for everyone in Europe. So much for the stated ideals of the founders of the Council of Europe: justice, individual freedom, political liberty, the rule of law and democracy! So much, for “economic and social advancement,” “freedom from fear and want,” “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person,” and “better standards of life in larger freedom.”
Oh, and this link might interest you: []. The European Commission’s “Circular Economy Action Plan” of 2020, to implement the EU’s “Green New Deal.” “This Circular Economy Action Plan provides a future-oriented agenda for achieving a cleaner and more competitive Europe in co-creation with economic actors, consumers, citizens and civil society organisations.” Haven’t we heard bullshit like this from the UN, and from politicians too? Not to mention the WEF, a key supporter? It “aims at accelerating the transformational change required by the European Green Deal.” And it plans for “a global shift to a circular economy.” All this would be quite funny, if it wasn’t that they want to force it on to everyone. In my opinion, there is only one place fit for such stuff: the “circular file.”
We’ve been had by the EU, as well as by the UN, haven’t we?
The welfare state
In 1942, in the depths of war, William Beveridge authored a report. There were already state schemes in Britain for pensions, health and unemployment insurance. What Beveridge proposed to do was bring these all together into one giant, all-encompassing combine – the welfare state.
Most politicians, of both main parties, supported this. Many ordinary people liked Beveridge’s ideas, too. They liked the idea of a safety net to prevent them becoming poor. They liked the idea of financial security in their old age. They must have thought they were getting something for nothing. But they didn’t stop to think about the long-term costs. They didn’t think about the burden they would be storing up for people in the future. By 1948, most of the proposals had been implemented, buoyed up by the interventionist economic theories of John Maynard Keynes. Although even Beveridge himself was already starting to worry what kind of monster he had sired.
The idea was that the state would provide a raft of services that people found necessary, including health care, unemployment insurance and pensions. Health care would be free of charge at the point of use, being paid for through general taxation. A big part of the thinking, I suspect, was a political marketing ploy, an attempt to fool people into thinking that the state was actually on their side.
But the only likely upshot of these programmes was state growth. Taking on these functions would vastly increase the size of the state, and the scope of what it did. And would enable it to take over the business of the organizations, such as friendly societies, which had previously performed these functions in the free market. It would also tend to politicize people’s lives, and give more and more scope for state functionaries to meddle.
All of these consequences have come about, in spades. And worse; a substantial fraction among the population have allowed themselves to become dependent on the state. Some of them only got into this situation by bad luck, or because deliberate state actions knocked them down; the state “broke their legs, then gave them crutches.” But too many took the bait, and accepted dependence eagerly. In a sham “democracy,” if the political élites can force enough people down into dependence on their state, they will be sitting pretty. No anti-élite group, goes the logic, will ever be able to muster enough support to get any kind of power.
Worse yet, people who have become dependent on the state tend to look to the state to solve all their problems. Even, and perhaps especially, when the state itself is the cause of those problems. This explains why so many are prone to clamour for government to “do something,” even when the best thing it could do for everyone is get itself out of the way.
To the economics of welfare. The amounts of money spent on the UK welfare state are truly eye-watering. I looked at a reasonably representative year (2017), in which total government spending was £772 billion. This was 38% of the UK’s gross domestic product for that year, and also amounted to £11,700 per head of the population, or just over £28,000 per household. Of this, £270 billion (35%) was spent on welfare and pensions, and £145 billion (19%) on health care. More than half of all UK government spending in that year came under these two headings, which together accounted for more than 20% of GDP! And all this excludes education, which might also be classified as a kind of welfare, and weighed in at £102 billion (5% of GDP).
I remember, back in 2009, listening to a respected economist bemoaning the lack of future planning for welfare spending. It seems that over decades no-one had actually bothered to run the numbers for the long term, taking into account the rising longevity of the population. And it was becoming plain, to those in the know, that the numbers didn’t add up. The welfare state was financially unsustainable. This is why both the scope and the rates of taxes to support welfare have, in the last decade or so, “gone through the roof.” Yet the problem still doesn’t seem to be anywhere near solved.
On top of this, the NHS health care system has been in a state of all but permanent “crisis” for at least 15 years. It cannot recruit enough qualified staff. And many of the staff it does have complain about inflexible rosters, overwork and exhaustion. This is nothing new; junior doctors’ long hours were a major problem as far back as the 1970s. Further, morale is low, and sickness rates are soaring. Low pay is a part of the issue; but there are other financial problems too, particularly with doctors’ pensions. And care homes have similar problems, particularly since the attempt to impose a vaccine mandate on their staff.
Moreover, there is now a huge backlog of treatments, which had to be postponed because of the COVID pandemic. The proportion of accident and emergency cases seen within four hours has gone down from about 95 per cent in 2014 to close to 70 per cent. Even before the pandemic started, hospital bed occupancy rates were above their designed levels. That is not getting any better. And a shortage of intensive care unit beds was one of the main drivers that triggered COVID lockdowns.
Then there has been meddling with the education of doctors and nurses, and with the qualifications needed to work in UK health care. Training for doctors and nurses was reformed in the 1970s. It was reformed again in the 1990s with “Project 2000.” With, it seems, some success. But one of the effects was the development of an intensive culture of “achievement targets.” A further reform was undertaken in the 2000s, but this was a failure and led to mass protests by doctors. And now, they are meddling again with the assessment procedure for licensing doctors.
Perhaps such things may need to change from time to time, to reflect progress in medicine as a whole. But even so, this is not the way that any enterprise that wants to keep its skilled staff ought to treat its people! Such meddling, and failure to take into account the views of the people impacted, seem to be characteristic of large, centralized organizations. And most of all of governments, where there is no, or at any rate far less, accountability when things go wrong compared to private enterprises.
Even more extreme is what New Labour did to NHS dentists in 2006, by attempting to impose on them a new contract and a new way of working. Previously, they had in essence been paid by piecework. This did lead to some problems, notably some dentists over-treating. But overall, it allowed dentists to provide the level of treatment they thought most appropriate for each patient, while working in a way they were comfortable with. The new contract, on the other hand, divorced the payments from the treatments done, in a way that brought advantages to some dentists, but disadvantaged many others. It was also described as a contract of “targets and treadmills.” The result was that many dentists simply left the NHS. In my area, NHS dentistry disappeared entirely for almost a decade. Here, again, is what happens when valuable people find themselves being ordered around, against their interests, by a top-down, command-and-control bureaucracy.
Considering the huge amounts of money already having been and being spent on welfare of various kinds, do people really get value for what they pay and have paid? I think not.
The nanny state
Then there’s the “nanny state,” which has grown and grown over the decades, and seeks to use every conceivable excuse to control people in as many aspects of their lives as possible. I have already mentioned upcoming further controls on smoking, gambling and school attendance. “Public health” seems to be the excuse du jour. Though what it has to do with either of the last two I cannot divine; and the impact of smoking on public (as opposed to individual) health has never been proven to be major. Then there are such things as the sugar tax on soft drinks, and meddling in where shops should be allowed to place what foods.
The on-line safety bill, too, is a power grab that facilitates unaccountable political control by bureaucrats over ordinary people’s lives. A maudlin obsession with “safety,” regardless of costs to the people, has been responsible for most of the rights violations we have suffered under the pretext of COVID-19. It has also driven the climate change fiasco. Then there are their assaults on our financial freedoms, supposedly “to help prevent financial crime,” and which they are requiring the banks to police.
The root of this obsession, and so of the constant and destructive “nannying” by government, lies, as far as I can determine, in the UK government’s perversion of the precautionary principle. I covered this perversion in the first essay of this set. In essence, it awards government a licence to act to control any perceived risk, even where there is no hard evidence that the risk is a real problem. And without taking any account at all of the costs and benefits of this government action to those affected by it.
If a child’s nanny did things like these, and her “precautionary” actions ended up causing harm to the child, she should be hauled up in court for cruelty, should she not? The maximum penalty for which has recently been increased from 10 years’ jail to 14. Yet the nanny state and its functionaries are never held accountable for the cruel, harmful things they do to people in the name of ruses like “public health,” “safety” and “preventing crime.” That’s because, from the point of view of those functionaries, “the king can do no wrong.”
I recently re-read George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” There is a school of thought, which says that today’s élites, instead of seeing his master-work as the warning against totalitarianism that it was intended to be, are using it as an instruction manual. To evaluate this claim, I thought I would compare his fictional world with today’s reality.
Orwell certainly got some of his predictions right. Government is spying on our every move. Electricity off, and heating running at half power, if at all; that’s what we could well be facing this winter, because of decades of bad energy policies driven by green nonsense. There are three- or perhaps five-year plans for things like carbon dioxide emissions. There are “adjustments” and “corrections” to the past, like temperature records. They want to punish us for crimethink, and make us into unpersons (at least, on the Internet or financially), if government bureaucrats think something we say on-line is “false communication,” or if we do something they don’t like with our own money. Doublethink is rife; for example, the notion that “sustainable development” policies can ever be sustainable, or the hypocrisy of those that fly by private jet to or from conferences that seek to limit carbon dioxide emissions. And their philosophical outlook seeks to deny the existence of objective reality.
Moreover, Orwell, or at least Emmanuel Goldstein the author of his book-within-a-book, “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism,” made a decent shot at identifying some of the groups that would combine to form the new aristocracy. “Bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians.”
On most of these, except perhaps for the trade unionists, he wasn’t so far off. One thing he failed to predict, though, was that the élitist big business bosses – the crony capitalists, or as I call them “the money men” – would join, and become a key part of, the new ruling class. But he was spot on about the political results they all wanted: oligarchy and collectivism. That they had “The conscious aim of perpetuating unfreedom and inequality.” And that they sought to “arrest progress and freeze history at a certain moment.”
Today’s élites treat us as if they were a superior species, and we an inferior. And just about everything they do to us reduces our freedoms yet further. Moreover, green extremists seek to arrest our progress, by demanding a halt to the use of the fossil fuels, that in the current state of technology are vitally necessary to human civilization. And to freeze history completely, by demanding that we humans should have no effect or “footprint” on our surroundings. They want a world, on which humans leave no mark.
Was Orwell really trying to predict the future? If so, he didn’t get all the details right. I have already mentioned the capitalists. Further, the élites have not managed to find a suitable Big Brother. They seem to be aiming to set up Mother Earth in his place. And, in place of the three superstates Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, we face rather three levels of tyranny; global (the UN and its hangers-on), power blocs (like the EU) and the politicians of individual nation-states. But overall, I’d say that George Orwell got more right than wrong.
That was the week, that was
On Sunday, September 11th, 2022, I noted that the previous week had been the most eventful in UK politics in my lifetime.
On the Monday, we finally got rid of that lying, freedom-hating, economy-destroying, rule-of-law-trashing broken reed of a prime minister, Boris Johnson. On Tuesday, replacement Liz Truss took over. I confess that I didn’t expect anything from her but more of the same; it is not for nothing that she bears the nickname “the iron weather-vane.” In the event, though, she does seem to have shown at least the beginnings of some common sense. Her cabinet, mostly announced on the Wednesday, could not be said to be the ministry of all the talents. (Indeed, I have dubbed it the ministry of all the tints!) But the absence of several senior members of the “Tory blob,” that have spent recent years trying to wreck us all on the rocks, is pleasing. Sunak, Javid, Patel, Raab, Gove, Hunt, Dorries, to name but seven.
Truss has also announced some half way sane energy policies, including lifting the ban on fracking – an absolute essential for UK energy supply in the medium term. For these, she has been castigated by the usual suspects. She has announced (expensive) measures to shield ordinary people, to an extent, from inflated energy prices caused by the combination of Putin’s disruption of gas supply and decades of nonsensical green policies. But perhaps more significantly, she has shown a willingness to back-track on some of the worst of Johnson’s assaults on our rights and freedoms. The bill to allow ministers to ignore rulings from the European Court of Human Rights has been shelved. And the on-line safety bill is to have some of its worst abuses against our right of free speech removed. Though that, of course, is not nearly enough. We need the entire bill, along with the perversion of the precautionary principle and the culture of “safety at any cost” that have driven it and many other recent bad laws, to be scrapped entirely.
Truss is even considering scrapping the sugar tax. There is also talk of repealing smoking bans, at some level at least. The proposed changes with regard to gambling look likely to be reviewed again. And Truss is said to be trying to “slash red tape” and get rid of hold-over policies from the EU that affect the financial sector. All these could, potentially, be good.
That said, we are still a very long way from where we ought to, and need to, be going. It’s a glimmer of a hope of a start, though. Truss could have done worse in her first week or so. But there’s a long, long road still to be travelled. And anti-Truss vultures are already circling. Expect the “Tory blob,” the media and the rest of the establishment to do their best to stab her in the back in the coming weeks or months.
Then on Thursday, we heard that the queen had died. As one who objects, on the grounds that all human beings must be ethically equal, to the very existence of the state and sovereignty, I am no fan of monarchy. I have dismissed Lizzie as “a silly old woman, who lives in a castle and has never done a decent day’s productive work in her life.” And she took more than £80 million a year of our money to support herself and her family. Not, I will say, that Lizzie gave any impression of being a bad person. She certainly seemed far more honest than any of her last six prime ministers!
Some posit that, because Lizzie was who she was, she had a right and a duty to advise and warn her ministers. But if so, she didn’t do her duty very well. She should have been more active than she was on behalf of the people oppressed by bad policies. She failed to get over to the politicians that what they were doing to the people was wrong. Did she deliver value, for the tax money she took, to the people who paid those taxes? If not, she was a parasite.
I can appreciate, though, that she may have felt that her position of power was a “one-shot wonder.” If she had tried to use it, and failed, that would have been the end of any prospect of her ever being able to do anything to help the people. But maybe her parting words to the other Liz on Tuesday may have found their mark. Did Lizzie, perhaps, save herself on her very last day at the office?
So now, we’ve got Charlie as king. A leading promoter of the WEF’s “Great Reset” and of the “sustainable development” fraud. And a hypocrite, who flies in helicopters and private planes, rides in limos, and drives nice cars; while, at the same time, telling ordinary people that we should stop flying in planes, and should walk or cycle instead of driving.
Lizzie may or may not have been a parasite. But Charlie, chump though he appears on the surface, is on the evidence both a pest and a hypocrite. Because I judge individuals by how they behave rather than who they are, I cannot have any respect or fellow feeling for him. Even though we took our degrees at the same Cambridge college. Moreover, as king, will he keep his 2018 promise not to continue expressing his opinions? I’m not sanguine about that.
To sum up
For the last eight decades, the political species in the UK (and elsewhere) have been using the power and lack of accountability of the political state to treat us, the people government is supposed to serve, with callous disregard, while feathering their own nests. They have inexorably expanded government functions. They have raised existing taxes, and made new ones. They have increased the burden and cost of red tape. They have violated our rights and freedoms, spied on us in every way they can, and implemented disastrous economic, environmental and energy policies. They have lied to us, “nudged” us to comply with policies hostile to us, and evaded accountability for their actions. They have also subjected us to unnecessarily long and harsh COVID lockdowns, and used COVID as an excuse to put obstacles and formalities in our way. Similar things have been happening in other countries.
Meanwhile, the UK welfare state is breaking down. It is in crisis both financially, and in terms of delivering the services it is supposed to provide. It started out with good-sounding ideals. But its ulterior purpose was, I think, to try to fool people into believing that the state was on their side. Its main effects have been to increase the size of the state, and the scope of what it does; as well as hauling far too many people down into dependence. And for many employees and suppliers, working with it has become a nightmare of “targets and treadmills.”
Moreover, the welfare state has morphed into the nanny state, which constantly seeks to control more and more of our lives. It bases its policies on a perverted view of the precautionary principle, which it uses to “justify” pre-emptive regulation against perceived risks, even when those risks are minor or not even real. The result is not far away from the dystopian vision, which George Orwell presented in his “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
But on top of overreach by nation-states and their politicians, we have suffered ever increasing meddling by globalist and internationalist actors. The United Nations has been primary among these. It was formed in the 1940s with laudable aims like maintaining peace, upholding human rights and freedoms, and promoting better standards of life. Yet its record, even from the start, has been mixed. It has made itself, in effect, into a state outside all other states. And over the course of 80 years, it has become seriously corrupted. Since around 1970, it has been the main driver of the green and “sustainability” agenda, that goes against the well-being and needs of ordinary people. And it has become one of the nuclei, around which a self-appointed élite has sought to form itself into a global ruling class.
The European Union has been another such internationalist actor. The European project, like the UN, started out with high-sounding ideals. But it, too, became corrupted. What was presented as a project of economic co-operation morphed, gradually but inexorably, into a project of political union. The EU behaves, in many ways, like a state. But in addition, it claims a superiority over its member states, and a right to tell them and their people what to do. Through the same perverted view of precaution that statists in the UK have taken, it has set out to impose on the people of Europe a régime of harsh, collective “limits” and “targets.” And it has taken, and is now taking, the green agenda to levels beyond the bounds of sanity.
All these facets of the oppressions we suffer under today, at each level – global, regional, national – have one thing in common. The parasites and pests that oppress us think and act as if they are sovereigns over us. They make bad laws to bind us. They levy taxes and impositions against us, most of which bring us no benefit. They give privileges to their cronies. They think they aren’t bound by the laws they make. They think they’re kings, and that “the king can do no wrong.”
There, ladies and gentlemen, you have the root of all our problems: sovereignty à la Bodin. Politics, as manifested by the state and its sovereignty, is the problem.
Sovereignty and psychopathy
State power tends to attract psychopaths and those with narcissistic tendencies. This is because, because once power is gained, it can enable them to live out their fantasies. It can let them make themselves and their cronies rich, and can allow them to hurt or disadvantage those they dislike.
Here are some characteristics, that are often found in psychopaths. Do you not agree that, when looking at politicians and other élites today, we see characteristics like these far too often? Is not the proportion of parasites, or even pests, among them unacceptably high?
There is a glib, surface charm they like to cultivate. There is an arrogance born of believing that they are superior human beings. There is the hypocrisy of telling people to do one thing, while themselves doing quite another. There are lies, dishonesty, deceit, insincerity, untrustworthiness, and unscrupulous manipulation of others. There is a lack of empathy with others, and of regard for rights and freedoms. There is failure to accept responsibility for the consequences of their willed actions. There is an apparent lack of remorse towards others. There is a recklessness; failing to show beforehand that their policies are both feasible and beneficial, and failing to properly consider the costs and benefits to the people affected.
At a lower level, among their henchpersons and their supporters, there is a variety of sub-types of parasites and pests. There are bullies. There are killjoys. There are meddlers, that love to snoop, to intrude, to interfere, to restrict. There are enviers that hate success, most of all when it is earned. There are wasters, that take far more out of the tax trough than they are worth. There are obstructors, wanting to make people’s lives more difficult than they need be. There are guilt-trippers, trying to make us feel guilty for just about anything. There are rationalizers, trying to make out that whatever they are doing to us is for a good cause.
I do not mean to imply that all, or even most, people in government are pests or parasites. There are many fine, honest people who are paid by government: in the police, in academe, in health, in education, for example. There are even some politicians who genuinely try to work for the benefit of the people they are supposed to serve. Although they are, I think, a small minority. There are also big company bosses who have genuinely earned their riches, without using political pull and without mis-treating anyone. Nevertheless, the power and moral privilege that the state and its sovereignty offer do, I think, attract a far higher proportion of parasites and pests among the political élites and those that associate with them, than there are in the human population as a whole.
The failure of politics
Here’s where we are today. Government, the very institution that is supposed to defend and uphold the rights of human beings against real criminals, has been taken over by, and is being run by, a cadre of those same criminals. This is made worse by globalist and internationalist organizations, that have their own agendas that go against the rights and well-being of ordinary people. This is not a sustainable situation. It must end.
There is no easy fix, even in a democracy. Today, all the main political parties are bad, even if in slightly different ways. So, voting for a different lot isn’t going to help much if at all. And even if a new party could get power quickly (unlikely in a first-past-the-post system like the UK), those at the helm would face the same pressures that caused the corruption in the first place. Lord Acton was right, when he said that power tends to corrupt. Moreover, I don’t expect a new political party to find it easy to reverse the globalist power-grab agenda, that currently holds sway over much of the ruling élite. The troubles over Brexit were like a child’s tantrum, compared to how those battles will be!
But change is in the air. At the grass roots level, too. Ordinary people are becoming more and more unsettled by what is going on. And this feeling, and the anger and contempt against “authority” which goes with it, are spreading. The fightback of us against them is beginning. Disparate movements are starting up, to defend us human beings against government overreach and political agendas. And people, who would not previously have considered activism, are starting to come together to see what they might do in these causes.
Even some among the political élites, such as Liz Truss, seem to have sensed the disquiet that has been growing around them. Truss’s surprisingly promising start in her first week or so may well be due to an effort to be seen to be relieving some of the pressures that have built up. It may even foreshadow a sea-change in political thought, at least among some Tories.
Could we, perhaps, be seeing the start of some real climate change for the better? Or will the promise prove to have been stillborn?
Where do we go from here?
For me, at least, where we need to go is becoming clear. We human beings need to get rid of the state and its politics. We need to take back, as John Locke put it, our “supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.” We need to unseat, and to bring to justice, the parasites and pests that have drained us and oppressed us, both nationally and internationally. We need to ditch all their bad laws, policies and regulations. We need to require them to compensate their victims, and where appropriate to take criminal punishment in addition. And we need to create, in place of the state and sovereignty, a system of governance that is fit for purpose.
We need to create a form of governance which will serve us human beings, not rule over us. Which will eschew war, and work towards peace and tranquillity. Which will seek to deliver objective justice for every individual, including the parasites and pests. Which will uphold the human rights and freedoms of all those who respect the equal rights and freedoms of others. Which will not require anyone to kow-tow to any particular political or religious ideology. Which will allow maximum freedom and independence to everyone, consistent with living in a civilized community. Which will not require anyone to pay more for its services than those services are objectively worth to them. Which will have honesty, transparency, accountability and quality control built into its processes. And which will not unjustly make favourites of some over others, nor interfere in anything beyond its remit, including individuals’ chosen lifestyles and their honest economic activity.
A new approach is required, to enable us human beings to take back our civilization from the parasites and pests that have been seeking to wreck it – and us. A candidate for such a new approach will be the subject of my fourth and final essay in this set.