Time to take back our civilization from the parasites and pests
Part Four: Diagnosis
By Neil Lock
(June 21st, 2023)
“The world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured.”
- George Orwell []
This is the fourth in a set of five essays, in which I relate, analyze and diagnose the woes to which we human beings are subjected by today’s political system, and aim to put forward some ideas for how we might fix them. You can find the first three at [], [] and [].
In order to make the final two essays in this set as complete in themselves as possible, I will first summarize what I found while writing the first three essays, and will add a few recent updates. I will then proceed to my diagnosis. I shall aim to identify just what it is that has gone wrong, and why the political élites and their cronies, that are the enemies of all good human beings, are subjecting us to all the bad things they are doing to us today.
Part One: Indictments
I wrote Part One in November 2021, during the Glasgow CoP 26 climate conference. It concentrated mainly on the issue of global warming or climate change. I told how those in power today are pushing draconian – and totally impractical – energy, transport and environmental policies, that go against the needs and the well-being of ordinary people. And I told of, in John Locke’s words, the “long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way,” which they have used in their attempts to make us believe in and kow-tow to these policies.
I referenced a long list of what I called “shenanigans.” Including: Corruption of science. Moving the goalposts, again and again. Government whitewashing of real wrongdoing. Re-writing the precautionary principle to favour political action. And making it impossible to do proper cost-benefit analysis on anything involving carbon dioxide emissions.
I sought hard evidence for the accusation that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide gas have caused or are causing catastrophic, or even potentially catastrophic, change in the global climate. I looked into, for example: sea ice, polar bears, Antarctica, coral islands, heat stress, hurricanes, and extreme weather. I found no cause for concern. Rather, I gained a sense that, contrary to all the hype, things are much as they have always been. I looked at related claims like air pollution, species extinction and “biodiversity,” and over-population. And I found these too no more than parts of a juggernaut of lies and fabrications, without any hard, objective evidence that there is any real problem.
I mentioned there, too, many other problems we are today burdened with, such as: Heavy taxation. Bad laws that interfere with people’s careers, or hold back the economy, or both. Violations of our rights and freedoms, including those that have grossly increased in number and scale under the pretext of fighting the COVID virus. Lucrative government contracts for cronies, that are not done properly. And lies, scares and hype in the media.
At the end, I listed some of our rights and freedoms, that have been and are being seriously violated by our enemies in pushing their agendas. Including: Equality before the law. The presumption of innocence. Fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. The necessary guarantees for us to be able to defend ourselves against accusations. Property. Privacy. Freedom of movement. Freedom of peaceful assembly. Free choice of employment. Freedom of opinion, speech and expression.
Part Two: History, large and small
Part Two in this series, I published in December 2022. I entitled it “History, large and small.” It was 18,000 words long!
History in the large
After a brief quasi-autobiography, I expounded my view of human history on the large scale.
My take is that, over thousands of years, we have gone through a series of forward-moving revolutions, in each of which we open up, explore and develop new levels or dimensions of our humanity. But each revolution is followed by a regressive, anti-human counter-revolution from those that are hostile to our progress. I credit the origin of this idea to an American thinker, who calls himself Jason Alexander. But my scheme differs from his in many details.
To sum up my view of human history in the large, here is my list of five periods in history, during which we humans have made revolutionary progress, together with the paradigms which underpinned those times of progress. In chronological order:
- The Neolithic revolution (Humanity).
- Classical Greece (Reason).
- The Renaissance (Discovery).
- The Enlightenment (Freedom).
- The Industrial Revolution (Creativity).
And here are the counter-paradigms, with which our enemies have responded:
- The state.
- The church and institutional religion.
- Orthodoxy, political dishonesty, and the psychopathic and tyrannical behaviours that go with them.
- Collectivism and the political ideologies it spawned, such as communism and fascism.
- Suppression of economic progress and prosperity, freedom, rights, truth and the human spirit.
Right now, we are coming up to a crux point. At which, I very much hope and expect, we will re-discover the values of our five revolutionary periods: Humanity, Reason, Discovery, Freedom and Creativity. And by doing so, we will bring to an end the “Age of Politics,” the age of the state, the church, orthodoxy, dishonesty, tyranny, collectivism and suppression, in which we are mired today.
The last 80 years
I followed up by looking, in a bit more detail, at the history of the last 80 years or so. I told of the rise, and the corruption, of the United Nations. I told of the network of élite, globalist organizations that go with it. I told of the European project, which eventually became the European Union. And of the welfare state, which has since morphed into the nanny state. I compared our situation today to George Orwell’s dystopian vision in “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” And I concluded that Orwell wasn’t far wrong.
For the last eight decades, the UK political élites, and their corporate and other cronies, have been using the power and lack of accountability of the state to treat us, the people government is supposed to serve, with callous disregard, while at the same time feathering their own nests. Meanwhile, the welfare state is breaking down, while the nanny state constantly seeks to control more and more of our lives. But on top of gross overreach by nation-states and their politicians, we have also suffered ever increasing meddling, spurred on by globalist and internationalist actors: United Nations, European Union, World Economic Forum, and all the rest.
Next, I looked at what had happened in the year or so since the first essay. Two green CoPs (Conferences of the Parties). The war in Ukraine, and its consequences. The antics of green maniacs like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. Famine in Sri Lanka, caused by bad green policies. Purposely ruining the farming industry in the Netherlands, the second biggest food exporter in the world.
In the UK, the “Partygate” scandal. Draconian COVID lockdowns, and attempts to impose compulsory vaccination, all done on ethically very dubious grounds. Rwanda deportations. More and more bad laws being made. A brief spell under Liz Truss, who seemed to be trying to offer people some hope, at least. But the Tory “blob” prevailed. The portcullis went down with a clang, Truss was out on her ear, and we’re back to the “new normal” of ever-worsening poverty and ever-increasing oppression.
And I closed my brief post-script with the following words. “There, ladies and gentlemen, you have the cause of all our problems: the state à la Bodin, with the false sovereignty it claims, and the bad politics it engenders. The state is the problem.”
It’s now June 2023, and time for some updates on UK events since the second essay. As far as the green agenda is concerned, I have traced the UK government’s handling of the issues in a series of recent essays. An account of what they have done to us since April 2019 is here: []. An overview of the history of the green agenda since 1992 is here: []. This includes a fairly detailed account of the perversion of the precautionary principle into a tool for tyranny.
I have also documented what I call “the case of the missing cost-benefit analysis,” here: []. You would have thought that any government, that cared in the slightest about the people it is supposed to serve, would do a rigorous analysis of the costs and benefits to those people of any proposed policy, before it did anything to implement that policy. And if the costs to the people were greater than the benefits, the policy would not go ahead.
Yet, in the case of “net zero” and similar policies, the UK government have taken more and more extreme steps to avoid doing a proper cost-benefit analysis. They began with the Stern Review of 2006, which was clearly biased in favour of CO2-reducing policies. Although the review was savaged by economists, they still went ahead using its numbers, and our idiot “representatives” passed the 2008 climate change bill. In 2007-9 they did a bait-and-switch, and changed the way of valuing CO2 emissions so that the policy drove the numbers, not the other way around. In 2019, they produced something purporting to be a cost-benefit analysis, that was nothing of the kind. And in 2020 they changed the rules again, this time to exempt what they called “strategic” projects, including “net zero,” from any need for cost-benefit analysis at all!
But the UK government have been doing lots of bad things to us on other fronts, too. In December 2022, Andrew Bridgen MP made a speech in the House of Commons [], in which he alleged that harms had been suffered by at least half a million people due to side effects of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccinations, and called for a halt to the implementation of these vaccines. This produced a furore, which saw him vilified and accused of “conspiracy theories” and “misinformation,” and resulted in his suspension from the Tory party. Now, Bridgen seems to be a colourful character, and a bit of a wide boy to boot. So much so, that the Tory party have now expelled him altogether, on a totally trumped-up charge of “comparing COVID vaccines to the Holocaust!”
And yet, I smell a rat here. That all media outlets seem to have been reporting the matter in exactly the same words is suggestive. And what Mr Bridgen said to parliament seems to me to express genuine concerns shared by many people, which deserve objective and unbiased investigation.
In January, Big Brother Watch released a report [] documenting the activities of several UK government and military departments that, as the report says, “have stepped outside of their remits to treat political dissent as fake news.” The report also says, “What this investigation has found should trigger an alarm bell for democracy and freedom of speech in the UK.”
Individuals monitored and reported on by these departments have included: David Davis MP. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption. Baroness Chakrabarti, former director of Liberty. TV and radio presenter, and climate-crisis and COVID-vaccine skeptic, Julia Hartley-Brewer. Toby Young of the Daily Skeptic and the Free Speech Union. Reform UK Party leader Richard Tice. And Carl Heneghan, professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford. It is no coincidence, I think, that many of those who have been monitored have reputations as outspoken advocates for civil liberties.
In June, the existence and functions of the government’s so-called “Counter-Disinformation Unit” were reported in the mainstream media for the first time: []. This is, to say the least, concerning. Government was in “hourly” contact with social media firms to “encourage… the swift takedown” of posts in an attempt to curtail discussion of controversial lockdown policies. The head of the unit referred to it as a “cell,” in terms similar to those used by the IRA. And, as evidenced by [], some at least of the material censored was not disinformation of any kind, but merely opinions unpalatable to the establishment.
Meanwhile, the “on-line safety” bill proceeds apace. The latest I have been able to find on its status is here: []. The government “fact sheet” that was issued in January seems to have been taken down. But as far as I am aware, the bill still includes a “false communication” offence; raising the spectre of some bureaucrat arbitrarily deciding that some statement is “misinformation” or “disinformation,” even if it is simply the truth. As an example: “There is absolutely no evidence for any climate crisis caused by emissions of carbon dioxide from human civilization.” This is a true statement, but it goes against establishment narratives. Would it be liable to removal? Or how about: “COVID-19 vaccine side-effects have caused significant harm to many people?” Oh, sorry, Andrew Bridgen has already tried that one.
There are now seen to be even wider implications of technologies such as “client-side scanning,” that might be required in mobile phones in order to comply with the “on-line safety bill.” See [].
Moreover, the bill exempts from its scope anyone officially deemed a “news provider.” So, the mainstream media, and most of all the BBC, can continue to spout propaganda and lies with impunity, while ordinary people telling the plain truth will be open to suppression?
Oh, and according to the now removed “fact sheet,” the bureaucracy will be able to “use proactive technologies to identify illegal content.” And will “consider how to tackle wider harms to democracy caused by false information.” Moreover, “misinformation and disinformation about vaccines” was given as an example of a harm “that could cause significant physical or psychological harm to children!”
And there’s more bad news, too. In recent months, the UK government seems to have embarked on a veritable orgy of theft. The London Ultra Low Emissions Zone, a scheme to fleece car drivers, is (still) due to be extended to the whole of London from August. It will force many older and poorer people, unable to afford either to pay the fees or to buy a new car, out of their cars altogether. Despite strong opposition, even including several local governments, and a pending High Court review, this still seems to be going ahead.
Meanwhile, the taxman is tightening his iron grip on more and more people’s lives. Even basic state pensioners now have to pay income tax out of their pensions; while a friend has been landed with a tax demand for several tens of thousands, which he doesn’t have. And I heard of a case where the “crown” is seeking to use a small error by a lawyer to re-possess the property of a third party.
More widely, in the UK today there is an atmosphere of ever-increasing panic and madness, and of ever-tightening control by government over the people it is supposed to be serving. There is now a mounting push-back from ordinary people against some of these impositions, most of all the victimization of car drivers. But we face the problem that political government can make bad laws faster than any number of us can protest to get them stopped. In my view, we need a stronger and wider push-back than just fighting against bad laws as they come up. That is a big part of what this series of essays is about.
However, there have been two small pieces of good news in the UK in June 2023. At last, we’re rid of Boris Johnson. For a while, at least. And some of the mainstream media have finally woken up enough to start opening some sizeable cans of worms arising from the Partygate scandal. These worms, indeed, seem wriggly enough to be causing significant numbers of people to re-assess their attitudes about how government should be treating us.
Part Three: My Liberty Philosophy
The third essay of the set, which I wrote in January 2023, was even longer than the second! In it, I outlined my philosophical thinking. I created my philosophy, which I originally called “Honest Common Sense,” and outlined it in a short book which I wrote in 2014. I have since created a new version, which I call “Honest Common Sense 2.0.” I published this in the summer of 2021, in a set of six essays totalling 60,000 words. They are linked from the second essay of the current set.
The third essay of the current set gave an outline of the philosophy, and incorporated a few small improvements since 2021. I shall give, in the final essay of this set, a summary of the philosophical concepts which are necessary to get us moving forward.
A preliminary step towards diagnosis
I ended that third essay with a foretaste of what is to come in this one. I considered Franz Oppenheimer’s distinction between the economic means of getting needs satisfied (the equivalent exchange of one’s own labour for the labour of others) and the political means (the unrequited appropriation of the labour of others.) And I identified, among users of the political means, two overlapping tendencies. Which I labelled parasites and pests.
Parasites use the resources they appropriate to enrich themselves and their cronies. They are bad enough. But pests go further. Pests want power for the sake of what they can do with it. Pests want to control people, to persecute, and to screw up people’s lives. I gave examples of both tendencies.
I also identified a third group, the pawns. They are not directly parasites or pests. But they ally themselves with the parasites and pests, by supporting the current political set-up, and most of all by continuing to vote for mainstream political parties. Worse, some pawns come to support the bad agendas they have been spoon-fed, and may even start to feel a desire to force those agendas on to others. These are in severe danger of making themselves into pests.
The failure of politics
To get moving towards Diagnosis, I will begin by expressing where we are today in one sentence: The current political system has failed. It has failed in several different but related ways, which I shall discuss below.
The failure of government
Government, the very institution that is supposed to defend and uphold the rights of human beings against degenerates, criminals and wrongdoers, has been taken over by, and is being run by, a cadre of those same degenerates, criminals and wrongdoers. Far from defending our rights and freedoms, the UK establishment criminal gang, which includes all four of the major political parties, are taking every opportunity they can to destroy them. It is as if the fox has taken charge of the hen-house.
Worse, 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. Some of them, indeed, seem to want to reduce us to the status of mere numbers in a database. 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.
Further, today’s governments press ahead manically with tyrannical and destructive policies like “net zero,” based on no more than lies and scares. And the system is rigged, so ordinary people cannot obtain redress, or even get our objections heard. Moreover, governments often disobey their own rules, as for example over Partygate. It’s not surprising, then, that the ethical and moral foundations of governments are crumbling. And the ruse that governments serve and protect people is wearing increasingly thin. Indeed, an ancient question seems to be re-surfacing in people’s minds: Quis custodiet custodes? Who will guard the guardians? Who will protect us against the “protectors?”
The failure of trust and respect
Governments, at all levels, have lost trust in, and respect for, the people they are supposed to serve. Not to mention losing contact with reality, too. They treat us as objects to be exploited, or as nothing more than numbers in a database, which they think of as a “single source of truth.” If they consider us to be human beings at all, they think we’re bad; so, they want to treat us badly. And they use lies and unfounded scares as excuses to do just that.
In return, ordinary people have lost, and are losing, trust in and respect for governments. Governments and their hangers-on treat us as if they hate us. And many of us are coming to feel contempt and hatred for them in return. Increasingly, we are coming to see governments as the criminal gangs they are. Thus, the entire basis of trust, on which government has relied since the Enlightenment, is falling apart. This situation is not sustainable.
The failure of representation
There is no easy fix for these problems, even in a so-called democracy. Today, all the mainstream political parties are bad, albeit in somewhat different ways. They are merely different factions of the same criminal gang. So, voting for a different lot, a different choice off the same menu, isn’t going to help much if at all.
Most of our so-called “representatives” today fail to represent us. They fail to fight our corner for each and every one of us, as a true representative would do. They do not even fight for the interests of the people of their area as a whole. Instead, a lot of them just seek to impose on everyone the particular policies favoured by their own party, their own establishment faction, regardless of the effects of those policies on the people they are supposed to represent.
Many of them are deeply dishonest, too, as shown by the scandals which crop up so regularly. For most of them, their first loyalty is to their own careers. Their second loyalty is to their political party. Their third loyalty is to the state, that makes possible their positions of power. The people they are supposed to serve come, at best, a very poor fourth.
This is not to suggest that every politician is necessarily an inhuman, criminal psychopath. A few of them do show some traces of honesty, and even occasional touches of humanity. But these are a minority. Lord Acton was right, when he said that power tends to corrupt.
Could a new party bring about an improvement? In the short term, maybe – as the Brexit party, briefly, did in 2019. But on the longer view, those at the helm of a new party will have to be extraordinarily good and strong characters, if they are to avoid being sucked down into the corruption that is endemic to the political state. Besides, it is very unlikely, particularly in a first-past-the-post system like the UK, that any new party could get real power quickly.
Moreover, I don’t expect any political party to find it easy to reverse the globalist power-grab, whose agenda currently holds sway over much of the ruling élite. The troubles over Brexit were like a child’s tantrum, compared to how those battles would be!
The failure of democracy
There’s more. Today’s system of sham “democracy” divides people from each other. The victims of unjust policies feel harshly treated, and become disaffected. Moreover, those who have been harmed by the policies of particular parties come to hate those parties. And people – and eventually, many people – lose all sense of affinity with all of the major parties. They (we) come to view politics, politicians, the establishment and government with contempt and loathing. And eventually, they (we) lose all sense of belonging, and of fellow feeling for those that continue to support the system. Thus “democracy,” as it exists today, ends up breaking apart the very sense of “we” that seemed to give it legitimacy in the first place. It destroys the cohesion, the “glue” which ought to keep a community of people together.
I myself am now way, way out on that limb. Every one of the four major UK parties, Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green, is actively hostile to me. I am, for my sins, a member of the Reform UK party. But it’s not like the Brexit party in 2019, where you could sense that this was a different and better animal than the other political parties, and was going to have a big effect (and it did). So, I’m not holding my breath that Reform UK will ever be much better.
Why democracy can never work
On top of this, there is a fundamental reason why democracy, as it is conceived today, can never be workable. For “one man one vote,” however good it may be for making decisions in a voluntary society, is not appropriate when the people concerned are only a community.
If 52 members of a voluntary society want to do A, and 48 want to do B, then A can be considered the general will of the society, and the society as a whole is justified in doing A rather than B. This is what, after dishonest and long-drawn-out attempts by political élites to stop it, eventually happened following the Brexit referendum of 2016.
In a mere community, on the other hand, if 52 members want A, and 48 want B, that does not give the 52 any right to over-ride the wishes of the 48. Unless doing A or B (or both at the same time) causes objective harm to other people, those who want to do A have the right to do A, and those who want to do B have the right to do B. As Mahatma Gandhi put it: “In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.”
And, since the people who live in a particular geographical area, such as the territory claimed by a state, are not a society, but only a community, “one man one vote” is not an appropriate way to make decisions or to resolve disputes within that community. No group of people, even if a majority, should be able to take away any of the rights or freedoms of another group of people, unless there is hard, objective evidence that the group to be restrained are actually causing, or seeking to cause, harms to, or violations of the rights or freedoms of, others.
The failure of bonding
Next, I’ll try to put all this into some historical context. I’ll take a look at how human societies have developed over time, and the different kinds of inter-personal bonds which have arisen – and faded – as a result.
First, there are blood ties. Of which, the “nuclear family” is by far the strongest. These have always been, and still are, important, particularly for the bringing up of children.
Second, there are voluntary associations with others, which people make for mutual benefit. In our hunter-gatherer days, people organized themselves into bands, and later into settled tribes; the main benefit being the division of labour. They were initially blood-tie based, but the bigger they got, the less close the blood ties became.
We can also form voluntary societies of many kinds. Their purposes can range, for example, from the performance of a common hobby, to a business enterprise, to a society of people with similar goals and interests, to a society of people with shared ideas and values.
Third, there are ties of culture, such as shared language, or history, or religion, or political ideas of how groups of humans should best be organized. These, again, can have a blood-tie element, but often do not. People who share a language or a set of values do not always share an ancestry or a skin colour, or vice versa. There is also a love, which many people feel, for the land and people of their particular area. That is the love, which I refer to as patriotism.
Fourth, there are political ties, and, in particular the “nation.” Nationalism, at its root, is an attachment to a political state. But many people today seem to think of the nation state and its politics as the primary force that binds the people in an area together. And too many seem to think of politics as a replacement for and consummation of the older binding forces, such as shared ancestry, culture, language, religion, or place of origin or residence.
But today, things are changing. The bonds, which historically have held groups of people together, are increasingly failing. Ties of ancestry and race have become less and less important, as people of different races have migrated across the world, and interbred, over the last century and more. Indeed, there is a body of opinion that now sees those, who find these ties important, as “racists.”
Language and culture, too, are losing their power to bind. When I walk around my area in Surrey, I am as likely to hear Polish, or Italian, or some Romance-style language I can’t even identify, as I am to hear English. And when I go into my local convenience store, the radio is often on in Urdu or Bengali.
Meanwhile, religion is coming to be seen by many as increasingly irrelevant to modern life. Migrations, ease of travel and the Internet have made patriotism and mere physical proximity no longer the binding forces they used to be. And politics, far from uniting people, has become strongly divisive.
Moreover, the idea of a “social contract,” which the people residing in a territory are implicitly assumed to have signed up to, is losing credibility. As to democracy, our enemies have perverted the Enlightenment ideas 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 divisive sham “democracy” we suffer under today.
It feels to me very much as if the “Age of Politics,” in which we have been enmeshed for thousands of years, is finally drawing to a close. I for one won’t be sad to see it go.
A species split
Now, it’s time to unveil my diagnosis of the root of the problems we suffer today. At first, it may seem to many people an outlandish idea, even a crackpot one. But I hope that all my readers will bear with me, as I present more and more evidence for my proposition.
I posit that the human species has, over the course of several thousand years, divided into two sub-species. This idea is not original with me. Indeed, Jason Alexander, from whom I got the original blueprint for my historical perspective, wrote in one of his pamphlets, way back in 1990, of a “species separation on the order of the Neanderthal extinction.” I am now certain that he was right. But I can claim an advantage over him. For I have managed to identify, explicitly, the nature of the split, and the dividing line along which it has taken place.
Economic means versus political means
I wrote earlier about Franz Oppenheimer’s famous distinction between the economic means and the political means. I will quote from his book The State (English translation 1922). “There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others… I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the economic means for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the political means.”
Oppenheimer also wrote: “All world history, from primitive times up to our own civilization, presents a single phase, a contest namely between the economic and the political means.” And: “The state is an organization of the political means.” He knew what was going on!
John Locke’s view
I will remind you, also, of the word John Locke used to describe those, against whose crimes and predations governments, supposedly, exist to defend us. He called them degenerate; a word which had then, and still has, the meaning of “no longer of their kind.” He described them as “varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature and to be a noxious creature.”
He says also, of the individual under the law of Nature: “By which law, common to them all, he and all the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society distinct from all other creatures.” And “were it not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be… no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and associate into lesser combinations.” So, if it hadn’t been for these degenerates among us, we wouldn’t ever have needed political societies, or political governments.
Locke, too, understood what was going on. These degenerates had become estranged from us human beings. Even back then, more than three centuries ago. And they have only got worse since then. They are no longer human, but noxious creatures. Parasites, pests or both.
Economic species versus political species
Here is the root of the difference between the two sub-species.
One, which I will call the economic species or economic animal, by its nature uses Oppenheimer’s economic means to interact with others. I also call us simply human beings, or sometimes human beings worth the name. The preferred habitat of our species is one in which every human individual has the maximum chance to flourish, and to become happy and prosperous. Our natural habitat is the economic free market, supported by honest systems that maintain peace, uphold human rights and freedoms, and deliver objective, individual justice for all.
The other, the political species, political animal or just politicals, by its nature uses Oppenheimer’s political means to rob or to harm others. Their preferred habitat is in positions of power and influence, direct or indirect, in a political state. Or in some other top-down organization, such as religious, military or big-company hierarchies, or organized criminal or terrorist gangs, or political activist groups. Their natural habitat is one that enables them to take resources from others, and to use them for their own purposes, or to cause harm to innocent people, or both.
The dividing line, the blade that divides us, the economic species, from them, the political species, I dub Oppenheimer’s Razor. We, by our nature, use the economic means in order to get our needs satisfied. They use 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. Over the centuries, and in the last few decades in particular, the two species have diverged so far, that the political species has now become actively parasitical on, and hostile and pestilent towards, the economic species. And we, in our turn, are starting to push back against the predations and provocations by our enemies.
Evidence from biology
There is biological evidence that new species, of birds at least, can split off from a parent species in only a few generations. Here is an example: []. Given long enough, such birds can even develop different beak shapes, adapted to their available food sources. But mental changes, such as song and mating behaviour, can change much faster.
Is it conceivable that, over the five thousand and more years the political state has been in existence, those on top of the governmental apparatus may have differentiated in their behaviour from those subjected to it? I think it is more than conceivable. Five thousand years is around 200 generations, long enough for significant changes to take place.
Evidence from history
That political power and influence has a tendency to become hereditary is obvious. A very fervent Royalist, and a courtier of Charles II in the 17th century, was Sir Winston Churchill (1620-1688). Prime minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) was directly descended from him. Moreover, his daughter Arabella was a mistress of James II, and a direct ancestor of Diana Spencer, former princess of Wales. Even in the USA, a supposed republic, there are political “dynasties.” Roosevelts, Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes, to name but four. It happens elsewhere, too. And I’m not the only one to have noticed this tendency: [].
It’s worth noting also that some religions have, or have had, hereditary priestly castes. And despite the Catholic church not having such a caste, the Borgia family produced three popes, the Contis four (and an antipope!) and the Medicis four. It does look as though power and influence do tend to breed power and influence, sometimes over considerable periods of time.
Behaviour and thinking
But perhaps the strongest evidence for a species split comes from examining the behaviour patterns of those on both sides of the dividing line, and trying to gauge the thinking behind them. As a tool for doing this, I put forward four questions to be answered for each:
- What do they (or we) promote as values and/or virtues?
- What behaviours do they (or we) tend to display?
- What do they (or we) seem to hate?
- What do they (or we) seem to be afraid of?
I shall answer these questions in order. In each case, I will assess the human species first, and the political species second.
Values and virtues
Historically, the ideas of virtues and values have been closely connected. But in recent times, a distinction has grown up between the two. Virtues are moral standards which are considered desirable. Values are practical goals or ideals, which are considered desirable. So, virtues are ethical ideas, while values are closer to political ones.
Each individual evolves, over time, his or her own perceptions of virtues and values. And each individual prefers to associate with those who, more or less, share their own perceptions.
Human virtues and values
We human beings, the economic species, tend to think ethically; that is, about what is right and wrong. Thus, we think primarily in terms of virtues, rather than values. But whatever each of us sees as a virtue, we strive to live up to, and so to make into one of our values.
Our virtues and values vary in detail from individual to individual. Despite this, many of us think along the same lines; we value different variations on a similar theme. Some among us value highly the four cardinal virtues put forward by Aristotle, and later adopted by Christianity: prudence, justice, temperance and courage. Others add one or more of the other virtues in his list: self-discipline, moderation, modesty, humility, generosity, friendliness, truthfulness, honesty. Yet others may have formed an attachment to some particular virtue or set of virtues, which they consider to be worthy of honour.
My own lists of virtues and values
I myself look at ethics more in terms of respect for others’ rights than of virtuous behaviour. Despite this, I have given my own list of virtues: honesty, independence, truthfulness, responsibility, integrity, mutual tolerance, mutual good faith. To which, I will add two more: conscience and co-operation.
One important note regarding mutual tolerance. Sometimes, if the impact of someone’s actions on us are negative but small, it may be sensible, rather than try to pursue them and get them to stop those actions, is to accept these effects, while discounting them against any small negative effects your actions may have on them. An example I have used in the past is: “I’ll accept a reasonable amount of noise from your ghetto-blaster (or motor-bike), if you’ll accept a reasonable amount of exhaust from my car in return.” I call this attitude “civilized tolerance,” and it is a key value for human beings worth the name.
The six ethical and organizational principles, which I gave in the second essay of this set, can also be looked at as six of my primary values: ethical equality, honesty and integrity, respect for rights, judgement by behaviour, voluntary society, common-sense justice.
I gave another list of my major virtues and values in obligation form. Obligations back-to-back with rights; you have a right, when everyone around you follows the corresponding obligation(s). Here is my list: “Be peaceful. Seek the facts, and tell the truth. Be honest. Strive always to behave with justice, integrity and good faith. Be tolerant of those who are tolerant towards you. Respect the rights and freedoms of those who respect your equal rights and freedoms. Don’t interfere in other people’s business without a very good, objective reason. And take responsibility for the effects of your voluntary actions on others.” To which, I will now add: Practise what you preach.
I will also add here John Locke’s description of the natural law for human beings: “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.”
Then there is a list, which I have given many times, of what I call “Enlightenment values.” I make no apologies for repeating it once more. “The use and celebration of human reason. Rational inquiry, and the pursuit of science. Greater tolerance in religion. Individual liberty and independence; freedom of thought and action. The pursuit of happiness. Natural rights, natural equality of all human beings, and human dignity. The idea that society exists for the individual, not the individual for society. Constitutional government, for the benefit of, and with the consent of, the governed. The rule of law; that is, those with government power, such as lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges, should have to obey the same rules as everyone else. An ideal of justice which, per Kant, allows that ‘the freedom of the will of each can coexist together with the freedom of everyone in accordance with a universal law.’ A desire for human progress, and a rational optimism for the future.” These are the values, which have enabled us to build human industrial civilization over more than 250 years.
The political species’ values
The political species today, it seems, think more in terms of values than of virtues. They think in political terms, of desired goals and “the art of the possible,” rather than in terms of ethics, what is right and virtuous, or wrong and despicable. That means that they will often seek to enforce their own values on others, even against the values and the wills of those others. And they are happy to use threats of violence, or even actual violence, to do so. Tolerance of others, when those others’ desires go against their agendas, is no part of their value system.
“Sustainability” (ability to endure into the future) seems to them to be a prime value today. Although it is ironic that, as shown recently in Sri Lanka, policies made in the name of sustainability have proved not to be sustainable. They seem to value re-cycling, to the point where it becomes almost a religion. “Safety” and “security” are also value buzz-words they like to use frequently; even when they come at a high cost in human rights, freedoms or dignity. They also claim to value “health.” But this seems to be little more than a ruse to scapegoat people like the obese, who don’t match criteria the politicals perceive as ideal; or to “justify” bad policies like compulsory COVID vaccination.
They value “low impact” or “low footprint” on the world outside. Which they like to enforce through ever-tightening, collective “targets” and “limits.” And economically, they value “zero growth” or even “de-growth.” These are some of the “values,” if you will pardon the scare quotes, of the fifth counter-revolution, that seeks to suppress our rights, freedoms, economy, prosperity, and much else. These dubious “values” are ultra-conservative. They are opposed to change of any kind to the status quo, except when it pushes us human beings down harder under the boot of oppression. As George Orwell put it, they want to arrest progress and freeze history at a certain moment.
The one kind of change they do seem interested in is “transformation.” They want to “transform societies” into something that is quite the opposite of any civilization worth the name. And they want to “nudge” and “transform” us human beings into something quite foreign to humanity. Telling us, for example, that “we’ll own nothing, and we’ll be happy.”
Then there are “values,” also deserving of scare quotes, which they have inherited from the fourth counter-revolution. These are collectivism, and political ideologies derived from it, such as socialism, conservatism, communism, nationalism and fascism. And now, their modern counterparts, regionalism (such as the EU), globalism and internationalism.
They seem to see politics and “unity” as good things, too. They like mantras such as “we’re all in this together.” But they usually leave it unsaid – and often unclear – exactly who “we” are. A nation? A state? A political party? Their own “in crowd?”
The only things they seem to consider virtues are selflessness or altruism, and political correctness. Though they do like to “virtue signal” glib, meaningless phrases like “zero emissions.” Those that virtue signal, I like to say, are showing their lack of real virtues.
They seem to think that “the planet,” wildlife, and “protection for habitats and ecosystems” are more deserving of concern than human beings. Yet no lion or giraffe, for example, would ever put the interests of another species ahead of the interests of its own! Raising the question, are those that put “higher causes” above human beings, actually human beings?
Further, they value something they call “nature,” but they do not value human nature. They say we should live in harmony with nature; but they do not seem to appreciate that a human being, who lives in harmony with human nature, is already living in harmony with nature. Some of them have gone so far as to castigate human beings as a “blight on the planet!” (To which my usual response is, “Yes, you’re right. You’re a blight on the planet.”)
Not far different is their meme that “there are too many of us.” This seems to mean that, for their tastes, there are too many human beings on our planet. Now, I find that meme highly debatable. For more human beings means more productive people, and potentially bigger markets for other productive people. I do worry, though, that this meme may be tied in with their green policies to disrupt farming, as in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands. Anyone that wants to make food scarcer and more expensive for other people is, without doubt, a pest.
It is, however, true that some parts of the world – big cities – are sufficiently densely populated to be uncomfortable. We should, perhaps, spread ourselves out a bit more; but this will require a system under which land ownership is not concentrated predominantly in the hands of a small élite. In any case, my response to “there are too many of us” is similar to the above. “Yes, you’re right; there are too many of you!”
They also seem to think that women are superior to men, and indigenous cultures to Western industrial ones. Moreover, they have bizarre ideas of “equality” and “justice,” both of which seem to mean just what they want them to mean, and yet which they want to use to “justify” their bad political policies.
In summary, I find that the “values” professed by the political species seem rather strange, and many of them are very unpleasant and anti-human.
How we human beings behave
No human being is perfect. All of us have bad moments occasionally, particularly when we are under attack, or feel threatened. But we learn, over time, how to minimize the negative effects on others of our mistakes and our losses of self-control.
We avoid, wherever we can, causing harm to our fellow human beings. Indeed, no human being worth the name, in his or her right mind, would ever intentionally harm another human being without good and provable reason. Moreover, when we do cause unjust harm to a human being, we feel a responsibility to compensate them if we possibly can. And, while all life involves taking risks of one kind or another, we try to avoid imposing unreasonable risks on others. We aim, as far as we can, to take only good risks.
As to positives, we strive to behave in ways that are natural to human beings. We try to behave convivially, that is, in ways that make us fit to be lived with. That said, each of us is an individual; and each of us must strive to live our own life in our own way.
We are naturally peaceful, truthful, honest, straightforward and respectful of the rights and freedoms of our fellow human beings. We try to act in good faith. If we do preach to others about some matter, we always strive to practise ourselves whatever it is that we preach for others. We strive to be economically productive, and not to let ourselves become a drain on others. We aim to solve problems, rather than creating or amplifying problems. We aim to be constructive, rather than destructive.
We do not seek to use politics, either to enrich ourselves or our friends, or unjustly to harm anyone. If we do take any part in politics, we do so only in self-defence, or in seeking justice, or perhaps in a genuine and honest attempt to make the world a better place for all human beings worth the name.
How the political species behave
The political species, in complete contrast, tend to behave in ways that reflect the traits of the political state, to whose continued existence and power they are so closely wedded. Not all of them, it is fair to say, necessarily show all of these traits. But virtually all of them show some of them, at least. And many show an increasing tendency with time towards behaviours that are more and more unethical, and less and less respectful of rights and freedoms.
The political species behave arrogantly; they think they have a right to tell other people what to do. Many of them seem to have a strong, innate desire to control other people. And they are inconsiderate; they want to control people, regardless of what their victims think or want.
They are very often intolerant, too. For example, in their desire to force us to reduce emissions of some gas they consider “bad” again and again towards zero. Rather than considering the question: What would be the optimal level of these emissions, at which we could live together without unreasonably impinging on each other’s lives? The political species have no idea at all of what I call “civilized tolerance.”
They like to obstruct our progress, and to meddle in our lives. They are often reckless, and willing to subject us to risks, from which they may get gains, but we do not. They behave with envy and hatred. They particularly envy and hate those among us human beings, who are good at what we do. They hate us for our virtues.
They show no concern for the effects of their actions on others, and do not seem to care about the costs they impose on their victims. They like to move the goalposts. And they are remorseless.
They are greedy; they think they have an entitlement to resources which rightly belong to other people. They take as much from others as they think they can get away with, and always want more. They are parasites on us human beings. Moreover, they often waste the resources they take. Or they use the resources to attack innocent people, and cause harm, pain or inconvenience to them. Those that do these things behave towards us human beings as pests.
They are profoundly dishonest. They will lie, or evade important questions, as readily as tell the truth. They easily become corrupt, or act in bad faith. They like to create problems where none exist, or to scare people, or to paint matters as worse than they are. They will use tricks to mislead people, or to cover up, hide or obfuscate the facts. They seek to suppress the truth, and often deny facts and reality when the facts do not support their agendas. They bullshit. They seek to instil false guilt in people who are innocent of any real wrongdoing.
They are untrustworthy. They are often selfish. They are frequently aggressive or destructive. They are relentless. And they seek to evade responsibility for the effects of their actions on others.
They are very often hypocrites. They do not even attempt to practise what they preach. They want to force others to make sacrifices, yet are not willing to make any of those sacrifices themselves.
Moreover, they like to project their own failings on to others. For example, they call those of us, who do not accept the green accusations, “deniers.” When they are the ones that are denying reality! They call humans a “blight on the planet,” when it is they themselves that are the blight. And they smear us as bad people, whereas it is they themselves that are bad.
Hatreds and fears
To work out what or who an individual hates or fears is not always easy. It requires first observing their behaviour, then trying to assess their state of mind.
But there is a general relation between values (or virtues) and hatreds, which can help with this process. For whatever or whoever obstructs one of your values, or prevents you from putting into practice one of your virtues, is a good candidate for displeasure or worse. And your fears may well include the consequences of the obstructions, and the prospect of more.
What we human beings hate
Generally, what we human beings tend to hate are: Things that cause us pain, whether physical, mental or financial. Things that restrict us from living our lives to the full. And those individuals and organizations that cause us pain, or lay on us restrictions. One thing we hate very strongly, perhaps more strongly than anything else, is being treated unjustly.
We feel these hatreds most strongly when we as individuals are the victims; but we also feel them at second hand, when our fellow human beings are the sufferers.
We tend to hate behaviours like those the politicals show towards us. And, over time, we come to feel hatred and contempt for those that practise these behaviours. So, those that do these things to us become our enemies.
What the political species hate
The political species’ hatreds, so it seems, are different in kind from ours. They like to pick on, and target, scapegoats. Shown, for example, by the oppression of Jews and other racial or religious groups in very many places and times, or of the kulaks by Stalin, or of Cambodian city dwellers and middle classes by Pol Pot. They also hate anyone that tries to resist their schemes, or to speak up against them. And often, they hate us human beings for our virtues.
One of the political species’ main desires today is to suppress our economy. So, it isn’t surprising that a lot of the hatreds they show are in the economic area. They hate industry. I don’t just mean industry in the sense of making goods in factories, but in a more general sense of being industrious. They seem to have a hatred for people who are more than averagely productive, or who develop their talents to the full. I wonder whether this may be, partly at least, due to envy? For most politicals are not, as individuals, economically productive. They also tend to hate excellence, and people who perform excellently. You can see this in the school playground, where bullies often target the brightest children.
As far as the rewards of industry are concerned, the political species hate earned success, and the pleasures which can flow from that success. They don’t object to prosperity in itself, since they want it for themselves; it is earned prosperity that they hate. For this reason, they dislike the free market, and want to regulate it to benefit themselves and their mates.
Their attitudes to “capitalism” and “profits” are rather odd. They condemn capitalism as greedy, exploitative and leading to inequality. Yet at the same time, they are happy when they themselves, or their cronies, become rich by exploiting the capitalist system. And, while they often like to use “profit” as a pejorative, they don’t mind profits at all when they accrue to them. They pooh-pooh earned profit, but they think profiteering is just fine.
Being by their nature collectivist, the political species show a very strong hatred of individuality and independence, and of those who possess these traits. If you wonder why they have used IR35 to hammer people as diverse as software consultants and lorry drivers, it is down to their hatred of independent people. And their witch-hunt against our cars, I think, is also driven at its roots by their hatred of independence and individuality. They hate us for wanting to be in control over when, where and how we travel.
They hate small business people, too; as shown for example by draconian COVID-19 restrictions, which hit small businesses harder than anyone else. More generally, they want to suppress or destroy the habitat which we human beings need in order to flourish; peace, justice, human rights, and freedom of choice and action.
Their ultra-conservatism leads them to be against all change, unless it is controlled by them. It leads them to esteem static values like “safety,” “security” and “sustainability,” over and above dynamism, the desire for new discoveries, and the progress which is natural to human beings. It also leads them to an all but worshipping view of the political state, the bulwark of the existing order. And it leads them to seek to use heavy taxes, bad laws and wars as means towards promoting their own interests, and harming those they choose as their scapegoats.
Further, in order to maintain the doublethink that underlies their world-view, they have to deny reality. They hate objectivity, and people who demand evidence for their claims. They hate, and deny, facts which contradict their narratives; while at the same time labelling those, who present these facts, as “deniers,” “disinformers” or worse. And they seek to pervert science into a tool to “justify” their narratives, while suppressing honest, objective science. Instead of formulating evidence-based policy, they like to fabricate policy-based evidence.
In short, the political species hate the very values which make us human beings, such as reason, independence, individual freedom and economic productivity. They hate us for our virtues. They hate humanity.
What we human beings fear
We human beings tend to fear, for the most part, much the same things that we hate. Pain of various kinds, impositions, restrictions.
But some of our worst fears – or, at least, of mine – are for the future we face, if there is not radical change in the political system very soon. Widespread poverty, caused by hateful political policies. Loss of yet more human rights and freedoms, leading to inability to live our lives with the dignity appropriate to human beings. Innocent people being singled out for mistreatment or punishment.
But there are also fears about what we will need to do in order to bring about the radical change we need. Will we need to build, and to take part in, massive civil disobedience? Will we need to prepare ourselves against physical or financial attacks, and to defend against those attacks? Will matters escalate so far as to reach civil war of the people against the politicals?
In the short term, the future looks bleak. Yet, if we are to get through this perilous time into the better world we deserve, we have to make change – radical change – for the better.
Three things, at least, we must never give up on. One, we must never lose hope. As Abraham Lincoln put it, quoting an ancient sage: “This, too, shall pass away.” Two, our enemies have tried, and are trying, to destroy our natural habitat. We should, therefore, have no qualms at all about destroying their preferred habitat, the state and its politics. They don’t care about our environment; so, we should neither feel nor show any concern for theirs. And third, we must never let even a single one of our enemies get away with anything.
What the political species fear
The political species themselves, of course, have their own fears. I do not have direct access to their minds; so, I have to infer what they fear from how they behave and what they say.
They fear, I think, a change in the climate. By this, I don’t mean a change in the average of global weather. I think they fear, perhaps more than anything else, a change in the mental climate among human beings. I think such a change already began, decades ago. Around the mid-1990s, I first sensed a whiff of mental “sea-change,” which I perceived as “things can be thought now, which could not have been thought before.” I wonder if our enemies fear such a change? That might explain why “climate change” is such a big deal to them, and why they are so completely blind to the fact that it isn’t a problem in reality.
I also think they fear financial collapse. In particular, financial collapse of the state. The state is a parasite and a pest; it cannot create wealth, only feed off it and misuse it. Might they have divined, perhaps, that the political system, on which their entire privileged, parasitic way of life depends, is not sustainable? That the state is, ethically, already bankrupt; and perilously close to financial bankruptcy, too? And that, on its present course, it will soon fail? Such a sense of imminent bankruptcy could easily explain why so much that states and governments do today is directed towards getting in more, more, and more “revenue” for their state.
If you wonder why successive UK governments have encouraged huge numbers of immigrants, enough to raise the population by 20 per cent in 20 years, might it be, perhaps, to secure a tax base for the future, as the population continues to age? If you wonder why they tax us more and more harshly, and for more and more dubious “reasons,” might it be because they fear that the state is so over-stretched, that the next economic recession may take it, and so the entire political order, with it?
Another fear they seem to have, closely related to the “climate change” one, is fear of the truth coming out. The élites, so it seems, feel uncomfortable and insecure. When questioned, they can’t, or won’t, respond with straight answers. When invited to debate, they ignore or refuse the invitation. When criticized or caught out, they never take in the criticism, never correct their story, and never admit they were wrong. Do they feel that allowing free speech and free debate will undermine their positions? Could this be the motivation, not only for the “counter-disinformation unit” and the draconian “on-line safety” bill, but also for the machinations against Andrew Bridgen MP?
It is well said that “there is no smoke without fire.” There are now so many skeletons in the political species’ closet, that discovery is inevitable if they continue to allow truths to be spread. And as and when these skeletal truths come out in a manner sufficiently detailed and credible to persuade very many people, then our enemies the political species will be seen as the degenerates, the parasites and pests, that they are. That, surely, is something they will want to do almost anything to avoid. After all, those that, again and again, can’t, or won’t, behave as human beings cannot reasonably expect to be treated as human beings.
But I’ve left the most fascinating question of all till last. It’s plain that there is no substance at all to our enemies’ claims of humans causing “a sixth mass extinction,” or anything like it. So, why are they so concerned about species extinction? And why do they keep on telling us that non-problems like “climate change” are existential? Why does it look as if, from their point of view, just about everything is a catastrophe? Could it be, that there really is a crisis, not in the weather or the climate, but inside our enemies’ minds? Could it be, that they already know that they have diverged from humanity, on to a path that is rapidly coming to a dead end?
Could their green agendas and their push to destroy our industrial civilization be driven, perhaps, by more than just hatred of humanity and of the economic means? Could the political species, perhaps, have become aware that if they allow us to create a free, just world without states or politics, they will be doomed to go the same way as the Neanderthals? For you can’t build any worthwhile civilization out of individuals, like the politicals, that are naturally dishonest towards others.
I think they’re scared. I think they really are scared. It looks to me as if they fear change in the mental climate. They fear the future. They fear the truth. And they fear us.
The expansion of the political species
In recent decades, the number of individuals showing the behaviour traits of the political species has grown greatly. It looks as if the political species have set out, quite deliberately, to attract to their way of life as many susceptible individuals as they can.
Today, the political species are not just in evidence in parliaments, government bureaucracies and “the corridors of power.” They do, however, include all the expected suspects. They include the great majority of politicians. Many government employees. The dishonest among police and soldiers. Most of the political establishment, and those that are well connected with it. And many in church hierarchies, too; let’s not forget that institutional religion and the church were the products of our enemies’ second counter-revolution, just as politics and the state were the products of the first.
The malign influence of the political species has also extended to: Advisors, influencers and officials, both in government and in “non-governmental organizations.” Technocrats and other “experts.” Quangos, “public-private initiatives,” and quaintly named “civil society organizations.” The financial and big-business élites, including many greedy or politicized company bosses. Big Pharma, Big Green, Big Tech. Much of the mainstream media. Many academics. Activists of many different hues. And rich individuals and “celebrities” with their own political goals, or with narcissistic tendencies, or both.
With hindsight, I find it not so surprising that the politicals have managed to corrupt big business. For several of the Machiavellian and psychopathic traits, that I listed above, are also in evidence among many of those at the top of larger businesses. It is well known that you often find psychopaths, not just in prisons, but also in boardrooms. And Machiavellian behaviours seem to be second nature to many politicians and other government officials.
Looking back through my life, I have witnessed some of these corruptions at first hand. By the mid-1980s, the politicking going on inside big companies was obvious. I first experienced it at a client in the financial sector, and it wasn’t nice. By the early 1990s, when doing bid management for a computer systems company, I encountered attitudes and behaviours in potential client companies, which didn’t seem to make commercial, or any other kind of, sense. I know now that was the visible side of politicking and corruption.
The politicals have been able to extend their influence, and to corrupt people who were not originally part of the establishment, by a variety of means. By carrots – also known as crossing palms with silver, that silver having been taken from taxpayers. By sticks – by threatening people, particularly company bosses, with bad consequences if they fail to fall in line with the goals of the politicals. And by propaganda – by overwhelming the minds of those who are not mentally strong enough to resist corruption. As a result, there is a far higher proportion of parasites and pests among the political élites, and among those that associate with them, than there are in the population as a whole.
On top of all these, there is the globalist or internationalist wing of the political species. You will find many parasites and pests in the United Nations and its agencies. In the European Union and its hangers-on. In the World Bank, World Economic Forum and International Monetary Fund. And in other globalist and internationalist organizations, too. Such as the World Wildlife Fund, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization, and many more.
All this being said, though, the political species in the world today forms only a small fraction of the total world population. We human beings still outnumber them by a factor of many to one. That should, I hope, prove decisive in the end.
To sum up my evidence. There are significant differences between the virtues and values, behaviour traits, and apparent hatreds and fears of human beings and of politicals.
Virtues and values
Human beings tend to think in terms of moral goals or virtues, whereas politicals favour values, and the political goals associated with them. Human beings seek to try to live their virtues, and turn them into values; but politicals seek to impose their values on others.
Human beings tend to be naturally peaceful, truthful, honest, straightforward and respectful of the rights of other human beings. We also strive to act in good faith. The great majority of human beings worth the name are also prepared to “live and let live” in their dealings with their fellows, and many actually manage to live up to this standard in practice.
In complete contrast, politicals often behave very badly towards others. They indulge in lies, dishonesty, deception, arrogance, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, evasion of accountability, aggression, recklessness towards others, intolerance, bad faith, and violations of human rights and freedoms.
Human beings tend to hate most of all those things and individuals – including politicals and their machinations – that cause harm to themselves, or to their fellow human beings.
The political species, on the other hand, like to pick on scapegoats, and to do hateful things to them. They hate change, unless they are in control of it. They hate facts, truth and objectivity. They hate industry, excellence, earned success, individuality and independence. They hate us for our virtues. They hate humanity.
We human beings, broadly, fear the same things we hate. Including the effects of the policies the politicals have imposed on us, are imposing on us, and are seeking to impose on us in the future.
Politicals, on the other hand, fear “climate change,” of whatever kind. They fear that the state that succours them may collapse, perhaps financially, perhaps for other reasons. They fear the truth coming out into the open. And they seem to fear “existential” threats, and even “extinction!”
Traitors to humanity
For myself, I have come to see our enemies, the political species, as nothing less than traitors to humanity.
Those that promote, actively support, help to make, or voluntarily co-operate with bad and unjust political policies, such as “net zero,” are traitors to human civilization and prosperity. And those that promote, support, carry out or condone violations of the human rights of innocent people, including re-distributory or confiscatory taxation, are traitors to humanity as a whole. We have no more reason to feel, or to show, concern or compassion for them, than Jews would have had to show the same for nazis. They deserve to be kicked out of human civilization, and denied all its benefits.
Further, those that put their political ideology, or their particular brand of religion, or the planet, or “nature,” above the interests of human beings, are traitors to the human species. They are not fit to be accepted into any community of human beings worth the name.
To sum up my thesis
There is, in my mind, no doubt at all that the human species has now split into two sub-species, with two completely different sets of natural behaviours. One sub-species naturally uses Franz Oppenheimer’s economic means, the equivalent exchange of one’s own labour for the labour of others. This species is us, the human beings worth the name.
The other sub-species, by its nature, uses the political means, the unrequited appropriation of the labour of others. They are the parasites and pests, that cause virtually all the troubles in the world. The parasites use political power to enrich themselves and their cronies. The pests use political power to hurt people they don’t like. That species, the political species, is them.
The behaviours of the political species can be summarized in one word: Machiavellian. Their habits check many of the boxes generally associated with psychopaths. Lies and half-truths, dishonesty, deception, arrogance, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, evasion of accountability, aggression, recklessness towards others, intolerance, bad faith, and violations of human rights and freedoms. In contrast, we human beings are naturally peaceful, truthful, honest, straightforward and respectful of the rights and freedoms of our fellow human beings.
The dividing line between the two, I call Oppenheimer’s Razor. One species, human beings worth the name, are economic animals. The other species, the parasites and pests, are political animals. Human beings are naturally honest, and strive to act in good faith. The political species are naturally dishonest, and very often act in bad faith. The two can no longer be regarded as a single species. To mis-quote George Orwell: “humans good, politicals bad!”
Our enemies have been the beneficiaries of a bad political system, that instead of favouring honest, productive human beings, has favoured the most dishonest and corrupt. Today, they are doing everything in their power to keep this system going, at the expense of, and to the hurt of, all human beings worth the name. We must bring down the politicals, and the system that supports them, before they succeed in bringing us down to their level.
I rest my case, dear readers.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad
It does seem to me that many of our enemies have left their senses. I am reminded of the old saw “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad,” anticipated by Sophocles in the form: “evil appears as good in the minds of those whom god leads to destruction.”
Examples of their madnesses include: The perversion of the natural human urge to take control of our surroundings, into an un-natural urge to control us human beings. The sheer recklessness and unfeasibility of projects like Net Zero. The increasing levels of cover-up, in order to avoid doing any objective cost-benefit or risk-benefit analysis on such projects. The arrogant perversion of the precautionary principle into a tool for tyranny. The whitewashing of real wrongdoings, as in the Climategate inquiries. The level of unreasoning fear shown in some of their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The constant bombardment with lies and scares. The constant moving of goalposts. The widespread violations of basic human rights, such as privacy and freedom of speech. The arrogant and hypocritical breaking by government of laws they themselves made. And the suppression and “cancelling” of dissenting voices; suggesting that, like the Catholic church with Galileo, they are unable to provide adequate answers to the dissenters’ arguments.
Now, I am no believer in gods, either singular or plural. And yet, this old saw does provide me with some reasons for optimism, and even hope. If our enemies are as sick in their minds and as desperate as I suspect they may be, then our path to a better future may turn out to be quite a lot easier than it appears at first sight.
How to make that happen? And where do we go from there? As Michael Ende has put it: “But that is another story and shall be told another time.”