Blueprint for the Voluntaryist Revolution: Part II – The Party’s Over

Just think – a general election is announced, and nobody turns up. (Original published on A Plague on Both Houses)

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times – we cannot vote our way out of the mess we’re in. I am now going to contradict, or more accurately qualify, that statement. Voting for political parties will not get us out of this mess for the reasons I outlined in Part I – namely that political parties have proven themselves to be easily corruptible extensions of centralised power in the hierarchy of oligarchic power.

The only people’s revolution that would peacefully, and democratically, turn the tide in short order, with the least amount of disruption to societal structures (at least in the short term), is a revolution that completely hijacks the existing political and governmental structures to make them moral and democratic.

We have already been given the structures for democracy; we just don’t believe we, the people, are capable of running them because we have been fundamentally brainwashed into believing that power has to be centralised in order for systems to operate efficiently and effectively. We don’t believe that good decisions can be made quickly unless they’re made by a small, ‘experienced’ cabal of ‘our betters’.

But there is still a narrow window of opportunity left for us to have the last laugh, and to use these structures in the way they were intended to be used – by us and not by ‘Them’. I’m suggesting that all we have to do is issue a new contract, and issue a P45[i] to the current 650 employees in Parliament.

I’m going to build on David Fleming’s Independent Alliance idea – all credit to him for it. This variation of it, however, creates a broader tent in that we are not asking people to subscribe to our political positions. We are asking them to subscribe to a principle that will result in a less coercive, more honest political system. Unless everyone signs up to a non-negotiable value – voluntaryism – we are not going to get an improvement in politics. Only authoritarians will baulk at that, and that’s fine because they’re the ones who need to be sidelined.

We are asking everyone to subscribe to fully open debate and bottom-up policies and laws that have Voluntaryist guardrails built into them. If mistakes happen, no-one gets hurt. No-one will get everything they want, but we will all get open and transparent debate that ought to skewer the more lethal authoritarian policies that are being driven.

So, starting with the independent MP idea, I will tag on something fundamentally different at the beginning, and then tag on a lot more at the end by proposing a sketch of the mechanisms and the process by which a people’s government could completely usurp the oligarchy, and actually work without any requirement whatsoever for us to obtain PhDs in political science and administration. Everything is already there. All it requires is cooperation and steering by half-sensible people not in the pay of the oligarchy, and not chained by a party hierarchy.

Here is the outline for the Blueprint for the Voluntaryist Revolution. It’s a skeleton which hopefully has enough bones on it to allow the flesh to be added.

1. Formal withdrawal of consent – a repudiation of the current contract.

2. Who is going to lead the Voluntaryist revolution?

3. Changing the contract – telling, not asking, our government to institute elections banning political parties and setting the conditions, and a new contract, for the election of 650 totally independent MPs.

4. How to form a ‘cabinet’.

5. Guardrails to protect Voluntaryism and the first items on the agenda for the new Voluntaryist parliament.

6. The barrier to success.

Formal withdrawal of consent – a repudiation of the current contract

In his famous work, Nineteen Eighty Four, George Orwell wrote of the ‘proles’ (that’s you and me):

“Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”

He was articulating what he saw as a paradox that makes revolution impossible – revolution requires consciousness, but consciousness comes from the actual act of revolution. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the great man was…erm…wrong. History has shown that there have always been enough angry people to kickstart a revolution. They didn’t need to rebel in order to become angry and conscious of the need for change. They first got pissed off, and then they rebelled. Revolution is not the problem. The problem is that there has been an almost equal number of counter-revolutions. Once the revolution has started, the problem is…you guessed it… then what?

So let’s discuss how to start a Voluntaryist Revolution.

The most terrifying thing for the Establishment is nobody turning up for their scams. Frankie Goes to Hollywood said it about war: “Just think – war breaks out and nobody turns up.”

The same terror would grip them if no-one turned up for the ritual that grants consent to illegitimate authority – elections. Just think – a general election is announced, and nobody turns up. We simply boycott the elections. The only way to repudiate the contract is to walk away from it. If we can say The System did not achieve an acceptable quorum of voters, then ‘They’ truly don’t have the consent of the population to rule. We won’t comply with any legislation passed by a government that doesn’t have the support of the electorate. Turnout was 60% at the last election, so a drop to around 10-20% would send a powerful enough signal to kick things off.

Once we’ve achieved that, we move on to telling them, not asking them, how things are going to work from here on in.

So, the very first step is to start a campaign for a total nationwide boycott of the next general election. The marketing outline for this campaign is in Part I. I think it’s possible that we’ve reached critical mass in understanding that the state has been captured. That’s not even a controversial statement to make any longer. Mainstream Lefties like Matt Kennard are saying the entire political system is hijacked by corporations. They’ve always known that, but now ordinary people know it. I haven’t spoken to an uber driver who doesn’t know it! I think even the Professional Managerial Class idiocracy have now got the memo. After all, it was Harvard University that first went public with the findings of an irrefutable Ivy League study that confirmed state capture.

What irks me is people like Matt Kennard insisting that the only major political party that hasn’t been corrupted is the Green Party. Garbage! Even if that were true, does that mean our only option is to institute a one-party Green state? He’s only saying that because he’s a Lefty and the Greens now appear to be the only viable alternative for a Left vote.

But if he were right that they haven’t been captured, you’d have to conclude that the Greens are next to go down, based on the corporatocracy’s track record and imperative for capturing political parties. And I’ve got news for Mr Kennard – the Greens have been hijacked by the UN Sustainable Development agenda which is a Corporate agenda! In one sense, they don’t need to be captured in the crude way that the other parties have been. They already are captured. The Greens would in fact be the preferred choice of the oligarchy because they will happily implement the fascist digital panopticon if it means tethering it to sustainability and climate change.

If mainstream Lefties like Kennard took the time to understand the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), they’d see in them the whole societal technocratic digitisation agenda about which he’s voicing suspicion in his interview with Myriam Francois. The UN’s SDGs represent the whole Fourth Industrial Revolution package by stealth, coated in Leftist treacle.

What’s Kennard’s solution? “Support leaders who are taking on corporate power.” In other words, find a hero. Continue to be infantilised. How has that worked out so far? A hero cannot take on global capital. No political party under a ‘good leader’ is going to change this dynamic, and in fact advocating for a ‘leader’ betrays a fundamental belief in centralised power, which is the whole problem. What mainstream Leftists or Rightists absolutely don’t believe in is a true people’s revolution!

And the reason why Leftists like Kennard don’t believe in a people’s revolution is that they are still stuck in the Left-Right divide. They don’t believe that the sensible ‘Left’ and the sensible ‘Right’, which collectively constitutes the majority of the population, could actually form a Voluntaryist coalition. And such a coalition frightens both sides of the divide because they won’t be able to bang on about how awful the other side is anymore.

What’s Kennard’s other solution? Getting out more information, because he asserts that once people understand, “they are galvanised to action”. So he agrees we need mass action, but what kind of mass action? Did screaming and shouting in the streets with placards stop the Gaza genocide?

The only mass action that the Establishment fears is action that results in trashing the political party system entirely in order to usurp the Zionist corporatocracy. But that is more complicated. It requires a real plan, not just placards and marching. That’s why no-one advocates for it. It seems too hard, and ‘They’ are banking on us chickening out at the mere thought of it.

The withdrawal of consent by mass boycott of elections is the most powerful and peaceful way to say “No” to the whole current system. While it is only the first step, it is vital for the removal of the corrupt political party system. This step represents formal contract repudiation.

To repurpose Orwell’s observation:

Until they become conscious they will never withdraw their consent to abuse, and until they have withdrawn their consent they cannot take power.

Who is going to lead the Voluntaryist revolution?

Obviously, the Voluntaryist gospel should be spread by genuine Voluntaryists who understand the ruling class’s endgame – technocratic totalitarianism. These individuals and groups would therefore have Camp 3 credentials, and an ability to appeal to well-meaning Normies from both sides of the political divide.

Alt-media is filled with grifters and oxymoronic pro-Establishment freedom advocates. After six years in the game, we have a good idea of who they are. For starters, if they’re Zionist, they’re pro-Establishment, because the Establishment is Zionist. People or groups who have stood with Zionism, or said nothing against it, are not qualified to strike a blow against state corporate capture because the corporatocracy is run by the Zionist Imperialist Mafia. In short, Zionism and Voluntaryism is oil and water.

This approach is not being divisive. It is a necessary safeguard to ensure that the movement is united under the principle of Voluntaryism as a way of organising society. Voluntaryism is the spiritual bedrock of this movement, and if we can’t sell it to the majority of people, then some form of authoritarianism will continue to prevail by default.

So, a Camp 3 coalition of Voluntaryists should flesh out, communicate and market the plan, including the statement of Voluntaryist principles. These are loosely sketched out below under the heading Guardrails to protect Voluntaryism, but we would need a formal statement to which a Voluntaryist Parliament would be legally bound. This coalition would communicate and negotiate at each stage, and admit new members as things progress. I believe that most people are Voluntaryists at heart; they just haven’t gone that step further to understand how a society could formally adopt it as a way of living. I maintain that anyone in a freedom movement who isn’t a Voluntaryist doesn’t understand freedom. After all, Voluntaryism is non-coercion, and non-coercion is freedom.

Changing the contract – new elections for truly independent MPs and criteria for qualification

Once we’ve repudiated the party political contract with a successful boycott, the government will probably decide to ignore us. At that point, we’ll already have a people’s mandate to move to mass non-compliance campaigns. If an electoral boycott is successful, those too will be successful. ‘They’ will not be able to ignore us forever.

Once the Establishment decides to engage with the movement, here are the outlines of a new contract:

Parliament is to be dissolved to pave the way for a general election that bans all political parties from participating. Banning political parties is not a contradiction of Voluntaryism. Remember, at this point a successful mass boycott would have been organised to achieve the clearly stated goal of bringing an end to the political party as a vehicle of people’s representation in Parliament. The people will have thus voluntarily rejected the political party system.

So at this point, only independent MPs are eligible; anyone who has previously served as an MP for a political party is not eligible to stand. Previous independent MPs are eligible. Jeremy Corbyn is an example of where debate might arise when someone has served as an MP in the past and then became and independent.

There will be a period of three months leading up to the dissolution of parliament in which candidates within each constituency will need to secure enough signatures to qualify for entry on the ballot.

The top, say, five candidates (or some other number to be agreed) with the most signatures will qualify for their constituency ballot.

Candidates, during a campaign to obtain signatures to get on the ballot and to be subsequently elected, may not accept donations from a corporate body or any institution that is not a person. All donations over a specified amount, say £1,000, individually or in the aggregate, from any single individual are not permitted. The Electoral Commission will audit donations, and sanction candidates according to the severity of the breach.

All candidates must disclose and make public the details of all their directorships, both current and those held within the last 18 months, including directorships of closely associated persons (to be defined).

Candidates must also disclose and make public their tax returns for the last 3 years, and their net wealth. Voluntaryism cannot seek to prevent wealthy individuals from standing but, in recognition of the fact that money has corrupted politics and that the rich are unlikely to depose the rich, voters have a right to know this important detail about their candidates. The very act of standing for public office reduces the degree of privacy to which a candidate is entitled since candidate transparency and disclosure are necessary to elect truly independent candidates. If a multi-millionaire or billionaire is able to convince their constituents that they are sincere Voluntaryists, then so be it.

Candidates must also agree to a criminal records check and must make the results publicly available.

Candidates will be required to agree in writing to campaign and legislate on Voluntaryist principles. If this whole idea gets any traction, we can move to crafting the principles to which all candidates must agree.

We may need to add one or two other qualification / disqualification criteria, but one final and vitally important one to throw in for now is a ban on freemasons or members of secret societies, and membership of global oligarchic think tanks like the Bilderberg group or the Council on Foreign Relations, which formulate global policies that have subverted democracy. Read my three-part series on Operation Gladio and then tell me that secret societies aren’t a threat to democracy and freedom. Some people proudly declare their membership of these cloistered clubs, but the word ‘secret’ implies that we will not simply be able to do a google search to expose them. If they are required to confirm that they aren’t, we must rely on them being ratted out in due course.

The only principle we are going to impose is Voluntaryism. After all, how else are we to have any chance of achieving Voluntaryism as a societal and political goal? Imposing Voluntaryism sounds like a contradiction, but it is no more of a contradiction than declaring that the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself. The only cure for authoritarianism is Voluntaryism , and unless we make a real commitment to it, both politically and spiritually, we will simply end up replacing one type of tyranny with another.

Constituents should have the right to recall an MP at any stage in the term of office for failure to abide by the Voluntaryist principles that they must pledge to abide by.

The pledge of allegiance to a King or Queen goes. Candidates will pledge allegiance to their constituents, because that’s who they’re supposed to serve. As a Voluntaryist, I don’t care what the people decide to do with the monarchy, as long as the monarchy does not impede a Voluntaryist parliament in any way. It wouldn’t be Voluntaryist if they could! Voluntaryism returns power to its rightful place – the people.

How to form a cabinet

The idea that We The People could not run the machinery of government to make it more moral is a sad reflection of the apathy, low self-esteem, and ignorance in the general population about how the machine actually works (or doesn’t work in too many cases). Above all, we endow those clowns called ministers with intelligence and know-how that they do not deserve.

In the case of parliamentarians, the truth is that a truly democratic process of electing representatives, chosen not by a party but by the people, would yield a calibre of person far superior, and far more fit for the job than the current lot of order-followers.

Do you really think that in a fair competition among 73,000 voters (the average size of a UK constituency), we could get a worse result than Keir Starmer, David Lammy, or any other politician of any stripe who has climbed the greasy pole? Every corner of the country has talented, and above all decent, people who want to serve their community and not Satan or Mammon, as most of the current lot are.

There are 24 ministerial departments that comprise the machinery of UK government. If you allocated all 650 independent MPs to a department, each department would be run by a committee of 27 MPs. Instead of top-down dictatorship of one minister, advocating anti-democratic outrages like abolition of the jury system, you’d have bottom-up policy and law-making by 27. Those 27, in turn, must canvass their constituents to determine whether a policy has public support. If an issue doesn’t pass a constituents’ plebiscite based on open debate, it can’t get the vote from that MP.

You wouldn’t allocate all MPs to a departmental committee. You would want to keep a number of MPs free to perform other functions, making the membership of each departmental committee smaller than 27. From that small but sizeable minority of floating MPs, a Speaker would be elected to schedule departmental work agendas for debate in the House, set the agenda in collaboration with departmental committees, and preside over debates. The remainder would continue to oversee existing accountability committees, generally troubleshoot, and independently review the work of the departmental committees.

Currently, the Executive branch of government (the Cabinet, or government) is fused with the Legislature (House of Parliament) because the Cabinet is drawn from the majority in the House. So Parliament effectively does what the Cabinet instructs, and the Judiciary then enforces the orders of the Executive and the House. It’s a perfect dictatorship of the triumvirate, and the political party taking control of both government and Parliament is the glue that holds it together. We are under an eternal dictatorship of the political party, which, in turn, is under the dictatorship of the oligarchy.

I am suggesting that a way out of this dictatorship is to insert a symbolic grenade into all political parties and pull the pin, thereby dispersing the power into 650 independent people’s MPs who answer to their consciences and their constituents, instead of a party whip. The Executive and the legislature are still fused but they are now genuinely representing the people and not a controlled political party.

Another way to further dissipate the power of the Legislature would be to fortify the House of Lords’ function as the body that reviews and blocks legislation that is not Voluntaryist, but that House would have to become an elected House, with perhaps a name change to something with less feudal overtones.

“Government by committee!”, I hear people screaming in protest. But the alternative is what we have now – government by dictatorship. Either you want a people’s democracy, which will be messier at first, but far less lethal than dictatorship, or you can have the two-party dictatorship that we’ve got now.

Now! Here’s the thing about the fear we have about driving the car. Recall the analogy I used in Part I, referring to my disturbing childhood dream. The car, which represents the machinery of government, to a great extent runs itself. A Cabinet merely gives the driver the destination. The driver is the civil service, whose job it is to drive the car in the direction the Cabinet tells it to.

The UK public sector employs 6.19 million people, or 18% of the total UK workforce of 34.3 million. Those 6 million government employees, for the most part, know how to do their jobs. They are the drivers of the car. If they appear to be incompetent, it is because they are led by ministerial donkeys who are giving them anti-human policy directives. I don’t deny, and neither would most of them, that the self-perpetuating bureaucracy is a Kafkaesque nightmare that will take another revolution to change. But the fact remains that we simply need to know where we want to go and inform them of the destination. That’s what that bunch of skilful dissemblers called a Cabinet does. They aren’t any cleverer than us; they’re just more devious than us.

So, you can appoint a Chair for each departmental committee, and then call them the Minister of Department X, but that person would only be the representative spokesperson of the 27 members. They would issue agreed policy statements and liaise with other departments to coordinate policy. They would have no more or less power than the other 26 committee members, who in turn are empowered by their constituents.

You could appoint a PM either from the Cabinet Office department or from the Chairs of the 24 departments. That could happen by a voting process within the Chairs of each department or within the membership of the Cabinet Office department. But again, that PM would merely be a spokesperson for the departments as a collective. That vote doesn’t have to happen on the first day that Parliament sits. Coalition governments in Europe often take weeks, sometimes months to form, so waiting 4-8 weeks to announce a titular PM is nothing to lose sleep over.

The job of each member of the departmental committee would be to filter bottom-up policy ideas, assess what is desirable in accordance with Voluntaryist principles, and doable. They then vote on it and liaise with the civil servants to implement policy or draft legislation. The key factors driving each member’s vote on an issue are its appeal to constituents and its conformity with voluntaryist principles. The bank of knowledge of what has been done in the past, and how government works, is the civil service. The departmental committee’s job is to decide what to do in the interests of society – that’s determining the car’s destination. The civil service determines how to get there – that’s driving the car.

Sceptics might say, “Well, nothing would get done.” Wrong. Only things that have overwhelming popular support, and which are not coercive, would get done. Which would mean that far fewer things would get done, but that is precisely the result we want, because it means less government interference in our lives. It would mean government acting only to restrain evil, as opposed to purportedly ‘doing good’. There would be less legislation, but that should not be mistaken for getting nothing done.

This would be a good result. In fact, the first five years of a new Voluntaryist parliament would be spent undoing the nonsense done in the last 25 years, which would mean opening up honest debates about the top-down diktat that has become the order of the day, and then burning rafts of oppressive non-voluntaryist legislation.

I’m quite sure that there would be people in the so-called freedom movement who would be horrified by this method of government. My blunt response is that the more horrified you are by this, the more authoritarian you are. This is what a real democracy in a complex, large society would actually look like. It would be messy at first, but it would work. The alternative is the centralised top-down control currently strangling us.

The next big question is: what are the guardrails to prevent a tyranny of the majority? Let’s tackle that, together with what would be the first items of business on the agenda of a new Voluntaryist government.

Guardrails to protect Voluntaryism and the first order of business for a Voluntaryist parliament

People, especially anarchists, will be quick to point out that the term “Voluntaryist government” is an oxymoron. And I’d have to agree, if you define government as the body to which we have hitherto foolishly granted authority to dictate our lives. However, I’m trying to redefine it as a body that is truly representative of citizens, and elected to administer services that we collectively need to draw on as a society. The former concept of government can’t be Voluntaryist, but the latter can.

A Voluntaryist must pledge to uphold, without exception, the following:

• Freedom of speech
• Individual privacy, including my home is my castle
• Bodily autonomy
• Freedom of movement
• Freedom of assembly and association
• Non-coercion in all legislation and policy

If we examine each of these briefly, we can see how these principles put into practice could halt much, if not all, of the tyranny currently in train.

Speech that explicitly encourages or incites violence, should remain unlawful. All other speech, including so-called hate speech, no matter how offensive, should be lawful as it does not cause harm, harm being defined purely as physical injury, and damage to, or loss of, property. The only answer to offensive speech is better speech. The Online Safety Act is nothing less than a Trojan Horse for suppressing legitimate speech. If parents are concerned about their children accessing ‘harmful’ material, they should re-assess their parenting responsibilities rather than outsourcing parenting to the state.

Privacy entails the right to protect one’s personal information, and to secure that information from exploitation by another party without our explicit consent. That means I should not have to identify myself in order to access all manner of services, including the most basic ones. After 12 years of owning a smartphone, Apple is now telling me to “set up Face ID” and verify that I am over 18 years of age. Take a running jump, Apple.

The only reason for another party to require my identity details before engaging with me is to prevent fraud as a consequence of that specific interaction. As such, I expect a bank to prove that I am the owner of my account before I withdraw my money from it. The combination of passwords, security codes, and physical card security measures have proven more than adequate for my entire adult life, but now ID is being demanded for the most innocuous online interactions. This is the coercive digitisation agenda at work.

When individual privacy rights are properly enforced, the whole Digital ID agenda, along with the surveillance panopticon that it serves, goes out the window. Programmable digital currencies fail the privacy test because they will use private data that a bank has no right to hold in order to determine how the currency is used.

My home is my castle. If you want a smart meter installed in your home, knock yourself out, but I don’t. If you think the planet is about to boil and evaporate into the stratosphere, then take whatever measures you deem fit to prevent this calamity, and I’ll take whatever measures I deem fit, which will be just about nil.

Bodily autonomy is an obvious voluntaryist pillar, the importance of which has been explained in a recent piece I did, and many others besides. Want to have a ‘pandemic’? Knock yourself out, but don’t think you’re going to inject me with your bag of tricks, which is the whole point of ‘pandemics’. Once people understand that they have an inalienable right to refuse any medical treatment, we will mysteriously see the end of ‘pandemics’.

Spraying particulate matter into the atmosphere in order to dim the sun? Putting aside the howling-at-the-moon madness of such lunacy, the government has, without our consent, enforced exposure of the entire population to chemicals via stratospheric aerosol injection. This disregard by the ruling class for what they call ‘the herd’ is actually worse now than it was in the Dark Ages. But that is probably because we are less intelligent now than we were back then. Smokers were banned many years ago from forcing others to inhale secondary smoke in enclosed spaces. I welcomed that move, but now, in direct contradiction of that logic, the government subjects us to indiscriminate chemical exposure from stratospheric aerosol injection without our individual consent on the patently false pretext of ‘saving the planet’ from the ravages of sunlight. For how much longer are we going to tolerate this?

Freedom of movement in public spaces is essential to voluntaryism, because it restrains arbitrary government attempts to control populations by controlling our movement. Again, you want to have a pandemic? Knock yourself out, and stay indoors for two years. But if I want to walk down the street and visit my friend’s house, that’s between me and my friend, and no-one else. My risk, my choice.

The point about coercion is that it doesn’t engender belief in the stated objectives of the coercion. It engenders resentment, and resistance – active or passive. Of course, tyrants don’t actually care whether you believe in their purported pretexts for coercion; they just want compliance, because compliance confirms their power over you. There’s a word for this – bullying. So why is the Western professional managerial class, which has built up a formidable industry around discouraging and punishing bullying in the workplace, cultivating a culture of bullying entire societies into complying with everything from climate alarmism to Digital ID and policing speech on social media, to name just a few of their agendas?

The government knows full well that it does not have the artifice to convince people of the merits of an oligarchic-driven agenda, so it has resorted to the tactic the ruling class has used for millennia – force and violence. We must now resist.

The principles of voluntaryism require transparent debate on policies. The so-called science that underpins one of the government’s most destructive policies – Net Zero – was never openly debated. An edict from the UN’s IPCC was passed down and we were told that the science is settled. The lie is that we need to furiously reduce carbon emissions to avoid an existential planetary disaster. A voluntaryist approach would be to simply line up the ten most credible climate sceptics against the IPCC’s ten most ardent climate alarmists and see where that debate leads. At best, the climate alarmist case will be thrown out. At worst, a sufficient level of doubt will be introduced to bring into question the insane Net Zero juggernaut. The mere introduction of doubt or scepticism means that you can’t bet the house on the IPCC agenda with Net Zero madness. At that point we should be able to turn our attention to tackling actual environmental destruction once the obsessive focus on ‘carbon’ recedes.

If the Bank of England’s digital currency agenda, aptly dubbed a solution in search of a problem, were subjected to the same open and transparent debate, it too would collapse. When we admit a wider array of knowledgeable voices into that debate, we will find there is a nefarious ruling class agenda, and the program will be halted. That’s what the government fears – open debate on all the policies it is coercing us into.

Ultimately, Voluntaryism aims to constitutionally guarantee that all services supplied by government cannot breach Natural Law. Coercion is a breach of Natural Law. Policing must be restricted to the prevention of, or intervention in, assaults or theft, but not speech or free expression. It must be constitutionally enshrined that any activity that promotes a violation of Natural Law is by definition unlawful. On those grounds, citizens taxes could not fund any war that was not purely in self-defence, the only determinant of self-defence being a proven attack on UK soil by another party.

The whole question of what the government could legally tax us for would be up for grabs, but we can tackle that once we’ve got the Voluntaryist ball rolling.

In the final analysis, a truly Voluntaryist parliament would not proceed with any policy when open and honest debate raises doubts about the policy. This would greatly restrict government activity to preventing evil as opposed to claiming to do ‘good’. If the government wants to create a fund to do good, then there has to be an opt-out for those who don’t believe in that particular good.

Pre-empting anarchist purist arguments

To the anarchist purists in the room who want the end of government, I ask them: in whose lifetime do they expect this to happen? What plan do they have to get us there in an orderly way that preserves the dignity and livelihoods of the 6 million people employed in the public sector, to whom I have referred above? I have found that ranting at government is actually quite easy to do. The mere premise that a self-respecting person would subject themselves to the authority of a venal bunch of controllers and drama-addicted order-followers is enough to end the argument. But actually solving the problem of government is where the rant ends and paralysis begins.

Anarchism is a spiritual and intellectual journey that not many are prepared to make, and for that reason, practical solutions are going to have to offer a value system and a roadmap that makes Voluntaryism credible and doable.

In positing a Voluntaryist parliament, I am obviously not advocating unequivocal support for government. It is the beginning of an overhaul of government. I am separating the spiritual purism of wanting the abolition of government authority from my life, from the political reality of 6.19 million lives who depend on this institution for a living, and who are driving a complex machine, which, if it collapsed overnight, would lead to catastrophic consequences. The purists might retort that they are not naïve and therefore not seeking an overnight collapse of government. The purists, as far as I can tell, are admirably spreading their gospel, in the hopes of encouraging increasing withdrawal from government, thus causing it to wither on the vine.

However, this institution called government has evolved over millennia, and its peaceful, gradual decay might take just as long. And as long as government is controlled by the ruling class, which it always has been, that unravelling may never happen because the ruling class uses the very thing we are up against – government – to control the message. In the meantime, the ruling elite is planning on putting us in a digital gulag, again using government, within a few years.

Faced with that political reality, the trade-off is simple – reclaim government and make it truly work for us. Voluntaryist government is the only way to turn this Titanic around and make government moral.

The barrier to success

I’m pretty certain that everything I’ve just written here is a complete fantasy! Whether it can be made into a reality depends on how much work we’re prepared to do to convince people that Party Politics is the primary tool that the oligarchy uses to keep us voting for the interests of the oligarchy.

Here in the UK, if the people get fed up of the existing two-party ding-dong, all ‘They’ have to do is introduce two new parties. It’s now Reform versus the Greens, with Labour and Conservatives welcome to pick up the scraps and form a compliant ‘opposition’. And just like Homer Simpson repeatedly burning his hand on the hot plate, the Normies are vowing to go to the polls and vote harder in a new two-party ding-dong. It’s not Red and Blue anymore. It’s Green and Turquoise. What an amazing difference!

We need to convince people that The Party’s Over!

This is a BIG plan. It’s outrageously ambitious and cannot be achieved without a community and disciplined organisation. But in the face of a massive threat from The System, perhaps it’s time to think big rather than thinking of where to run and hide. For the first time in history, the totalitarians are implementing a technocratic system that leaves no room for escape. And they are not asking for our permission. They have hijacked the government and the law-making process, and they’re going full steam ahead. Ducking and diving is one way to deal with it but, if we are to dream big, then perhaps symbolically storming the parliamentary Bastille and taking it back might be another.

The main barrier will be getting enough people to boycott the next general election. But a boycott must be seen as the first part of a comprehensive yet easy to understand plan – people will not boycott unless they can put some faith in what comes after it, and a boycott is the only way to comprehensively and peacefully delegitimise the current abusive party system.

What happens if not enough people answer the call to boycott? Well, we’d have to look at the numbers that boycotted and tap into that group to build a new movement. Its core mission would be to run non-compliance campaigns, and to keep working on the next boycott. As the government inevitably disappoints those who did vote, you’d hope that our numbers would swell, and maybe we’ll succeed on a second or third attempt.

In the final analysis, it’s not the mechanics and administrative issues involved at each stage that would prevent this from working. There is only one true barrier to our success, and that is the willingness of enough people to embrace their own ability to take back control of parliament by not delegating control to a political party. And that, in turn, hinges on the level of consciousness. It’s as simple as that.

Until people know in the core of their bones that the politicians are not better or smarter than us, we will always be beaten. No politician and no party is going to save us. This plan will not fail on a technical or process hitch. It would fail on a spiritual deficit alone. And that is why ‘They’ are confident of winning. That’s why ‘They’ are revealing the method. ‘They’ think we are spiritually beaten. Are we?

[i] Mandatory form issued by a UK employer on termination of a worker’s employment.