Standing as a Pirate Party Candidate
yep, i'm standing as an MP in the next general
i was asked recently by a constituent about nuclear
proliferation. i thought it best to reply here, publicly.
please understand that as the Pirate Party manifesto covers
Copyright Law, Privacy and Freedom of Speech, anything that
is outside of that remit - such as nuclear proliferation -
is entirely personal views, and has nothing to do with the
the questions i was asked basically are: would you
or no, to continue spending billions on trident; would you
back support for an international ban on nuclear weapons,
yes or no.
the short answers are, first question: _i_ do not
right to make that decision (no politician does) - i will
represent the "will of the people", no more, no less; second
question: damn fricking right i will.
that's the short answers: now we need some
the person who wrote to me made some very clear and
intelligent points: an arms race encourages stable and
unstable regimes alike to research, develop or obtain
thus, owning nuclear weapons does not result in
safety or security: rather it merely places you into a
situation where you can threaten one country's population
with death, should they choose to cause the death of your
therein lies an assumption: that the country that is
threatening your population with death CARES about its own
population. what if the regime - the person with their
finger on the button - is so unstable that they WANT the
entire world to descend into chaos, and WANT to bring about
the death of billions?
the key shocking insight and parallel is this:
want an "arms race" are no more advanced, in spirituality or
intelligence, than animals. animals - especially alpha
males - posture and gesture. they show their claws; they
roar, they show their teeth and their coloured plumage or
backsides. these animals are "gesturing" so that they do
not _actually_ have to fight. sometimes that works;
sometimes it does not, and the animals have to resort to
violence to resolve the issue.
the proliferation of nuclear weapons is no
country wants to be able to protect its population; each
country has to have the tools and means to do that, and if
they feel threatened, they'll get it by any means necessary.
now - here's where animals and humans differ: we
ability to communicate and negotiate. thus, we can enter
into treaties. "we'll pay you billions of dollars per year
if you will offer to be our protector. if someone blows us
to smithereens, you promise to blow them to smithereens".
there's a slight problem with such treaties: they
sovereignty of countries into the hands of the "protector".
i'll say that again. the country that places its "safety"
into the hands of another realm is effectively no longer a
sovereign state. why? because that country can be
blackmailed: the plug can be threatened to be pulled on the
deal, at any time, and that kind of threat is something that
has to be taken seriously.
thus, sadly, in effect, in an awful way, owning
weapons guarantees that a country can retain its
i don't really like reaching that conclusion, not
because if you look above (the assumption pointed out at the
beginning), that sovereignty is only relevant if you
actually have a live population to care for, instead of a
smoking barren wreck of a radioactive planet.
let's come back to that blackmailing issue.
what if a country gets threatened by their
they will withdraw their "protection"? what can that
country do about that? well, let's see - they could
potentially go and talk to another country, and negotiate
another deal. if, say, the United States threatens to
withdraw its "protection", that country might wish to enter
into an agreement with any of the other Sovereign Nuclear
Powers, such as China, Russia, North Korea, Israel, France
(or even Iran - assuming they've actually got nuclear
goodness me, that wouldn't go down very well, would
countries entering into treaties with Iran or North Korea
for nuclear protection, my gosh golly _that_ must never
happen, must it.
thus, it would be viewed as utterly essential by say
example the United States to ensure that that never happens.
it would be essential to ensure say for example by the
United States that the countries over which it has an
absolute stranglehold, remain, in effect "De-
this is why it is so essential that the Sovereignty
Nations be re-established, because it has a world
stabilising effect. blackmailing such as this could not
happen, because Sovereign states could simply walk away from
one treaty after being threatened and secretly negotiate
another, with other countries.
even the _possibility_ of being able to secretly
such treaties is enough to guarantee that a "protector" will
not threaten to renege on its existing treaties.
the thought of one country being able to secretly
for protection with another country like Iran or North Korea
WOW that should send an absolute rocket up the backsides of
anyone thinking of blackmailing another Sovereign State.
so, if we had complete secrecy of communications
Sovereign States, stability can be achieved between Nations.
the key here is secrecy.
and the problem that we have right now is that
privacy - is extremely difficult to achieve (oh look - maybe
this issue is why i joined and am standing for the Pirate
Party after all....)
imagine the two following scenarios:
US: "we're going to withdraw our 'protection' unless you
support us on X [ACTA, DEB, CAFTA etc.]" UK: "well, then,
you can get lost - we don't need your 'protection'" US: "are
you negotiating with a rogue state for alternative
'protection'??" UK: "that's absolutely none of your
business: we are a Sovereign State. we don't like your
threat." US: "oh shit. please don't back out on the deal,
we didn't mean it really, ha ha" UK: "do you hear us
laughing? you phoned _us_ to threaten us with blackmail to
sign a deal that's not in our nation's interests. _don't_
do that again." US: "sorreee."
or do you prefer this:
US: "we're going to withdraw our 'protection' unless you
support us on X [ACTA, DEB, CAFTA etc.]. under the so-
'terror' laws you kindly enacted har har, we have access to
all your communications; we have access to all the banking
records. we have far more powerful crypto than you. we hav
far more powerful crypto crackers than you. you cannot do
anything without us knowing about
it. therefore, we hold all the cards. now do what we
want." UK: "oh shit".
which of those two scenarios do you prefer? which one
it clear that secrecy of communications between Sovereign
States is of absolute paramount critical importance, for the
security and stability of our planet? perhaps you _like_
the idea that one country can have all the absolute power
deep breath, after all that :)
that's some quite complex background - quite a lot
perfectly logical, reasoned and reasonable "what ifs" - and
i'd like to reassure the person who contacted me that i have
ALREADY been working for quite some time, with no backing,
no "permission" from anyone, no help and no funding
whatsoever of any kind from any other party, organisation or
individual, to offer Sovereign States the means to achieve
secrecy of communications, in order that they can regain
their absolute inviolate right to National Sovereignty.
thus, indirectly, you have your answer: by re-
Sovereignty between Nations through invoilate secrecy of
communications, stability is achieved far more effectively
than nuclear weapons ever could, themselves. one final
thing to emphasise: i hope i've made it clear that i believe
that by using and developing our intelligence and our
strength of spirit, we as a planet "rise above" our
animalistic base instincts, and have the good sense to focus
on exactly the issues that you raised in your letter to me:
spending money on local infrastructure instead of insane
gesturing - but it is necessary for _all_ nations to be
elevated, not just the "elite few".
simply put: by voting for me, you will be placing me
much stronger position to be able to complete the goal that
i, personally, have set out to achieve. issues which don't
necessarily _directly_ relate to the role of "South West
Surrey MP" but are at least a step in the right direction :)
this has been quite a long response: i'll leave the
Genetic Modified foods as weapons of mass destruction, which
i believe that they are, and thus should also be banned
under the Geneva Convention, for another time.