“It is possible that all humanity is only a phase of development of a certain species of animal of limited duration”[1]. Or a certain type of will of limited duration. Space-time compression is the emergence of industrial singularities that move beyond the individual frame of reference, becoming scalar abstractions ranging from collective arrangements (joint stock companies) to informational-industrial complexes. The unifying aspect of this is capital as an abstracting force.

Every revolution and settlement has centred egalitarianism as the ideological archetype. “The human species is a single-status moral community”[1]. This goes beyond political ideology, expanding into cultural, religious and individual domains. A legal infrastructure has grown from the basis of universal human rights, endlessly developing new modi operandi based on self-referential criteria that moves beyond the nation-state. Identity is expressed in a comparative matrix of dividuated[2] parameters. Birth and biology are plasticised as mere tools or inconveniencies to be modulated.

The performative condemnations of Brian Thompson’s assassination shows the underlying premise of journalism is still alive – never go beyond the surface issues. The brutality of Thompson’s assassination is comparable to the brutality of a private healthcare system that condemns tens of thousands of American people to live in chronic pain, miss cancer diagnoses and avoid treatments. An insurance system that regularly denies claims, with UnitedHealth being one of the worst providers for claim denials[1]. News coverage is nothing if not ephemeral, focusing on the manhunt for the killer and airing condemnations of the act. It should be remembered that this is in a country where people celebrated the assassination of Osama Bin Laden on the streets.

The great trick of modern politics has been the ability of its actors and institutions to cloak themselves in a veil of de-politicisation. Instead of self-interested networks of power, they become fundamental institutions that are the bedrock of a constitutional state. Things that are relatively young in governmental history and ideology, like the concept of human rights or the Office of Budget Responsibility, are quickly woven into a grand arc of political history which suggests they are continuations of time old traditions, stretching back to Magna Carta or the Star Chamber.

The debate over immigration represents the cleavage of an ideological moment. A new orthodoxy of open vs. closed is emerging, a central division “moving from the legal-cultural and into the political and governmental. Openness is an identifying marker, associated with urbanism, globalisation and fluidity”[1]. Immigration is a major aspect of this dichotomy, clarifying what openness and closedness actively entail – the dissolution of sovereignty and national culture for the emergence of a new global community, where the divisions of borders and race are liquified. Fundamentally, immigration is a belief system, tethered to ideological commitments.

The response to the Southport riots and their overspill across the country demonstrate a key facet of Britain’s governing class – it’s hatred of the native people, particularly the white working class and the peri-urban middle class. A seemingly natural response to children being murdered by a psychopathic child of Rwandan immigrants would be to ask why did the police, mental health services and other aspects of this country’s bloated, sclerotic bureaucracies not intervene or flag this. Inevitably, this case will become another in the long line of “he was on our radar” statements, passing the buck to another faceless agency in the administrative state.

The Conservative Party will lose on July 4^th. Polls are predicting a vote share[1] low enough to see them hold less than 100 seats. A Starmer coronation seems inevitable and is the least the Tories deserve. Zero seats should be the aim, nothing less than the destruction of a party that believes nothing, does nothing and will never achieve anything. A vast morass of glorified lobbyists, sex pests and dullards who seem happy to trundle along into oblivion. Let’s just hope the chasm is wide enough to accommodate such collective density.

The late 20^th century was the ushering in of a new era of politics beyond politics. The post-political and post-historical consensus that great ideological conflicts were at an end and governments could settle into the administration of people and things. The shift to governmentality as described by Foucault, “an art of managing things and persons, concerned with tactics, not laws”[1] in which sovereignty, as the distinction of a state to mark an exception, is sublimated. A technocratic, global architecture of international law and institutionalisation sits atop this post-political landscape. As the state is decentred as the locus of power, international institutions step in to set the limits and decide the rules of the game.

The Conservative election pledge of national service and a quadruple lock on pensions has only enhanced the centrality of gerontocracy in the UK. There is no expectation of a Conservative victory, instead shoring up the core voter base as an electoral strategy[1] in the face of a Labour landslide. But no one should be surprised by this. Britain has been a gerontocracy for decades.

In the paranoiac fantasies of modern progressivism, the most widespread and deeply-seated is that of the egalitarian conceit, the blank slate notion of equivalence between sexes, races and cultures. There being no basis to differentiate, there can be no basis to discriminate or compartmentalise. However, as natural differences diverge from each other, specialities and deviations emerge that don’t fit this paradigm. The conceit becomes an enforceable norm, and from it come discursive and coercive instruments of multiculturalism, anti-racism and feminism.