The Evil That Politicians Do

The question has been raised, and a reasonable question, too, whether it is legitimate to call elected politicians “evil”. In particular, Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London.

This, of course, raises other questions:

· What counts as an evil act?

· Is a man committing evil acts himself evil?

· Does a politician who has been elected get a free pass on all that he does, evil-wise?

· Does calling out evil acts and men demean the political conversation, already so demeaned in these days of (true and false) hate speech?

· Is calling “nasty” politicians a category error?

· Have we not lost all sense of evil in the postmodern world?

· Is there not a moral obligation to call out evil, and so remind people that it still exists?

All tough questions, even in a Philosophy 101 class. Here is one answer. The thrice elected Mayor of London is a good place to start.

First is the question of his elections. It is pretty straightforward, I would think, to demonstrated that being elected doesn’t preclude evil acts and evil men. Think of Adolf Hitler in 1933. His poll numbers were still in the nineties just before World War Two. Or the African dictators with their astonishing 90 per cent plus votes in “elections”. I believe Qatar governments are “elected”. There was the 2020 Biden steal. There was Kennedy in 1960, Chicago, and all that. There were hanging chads in 2000. There is electoral fraud, in many countries. This is routine, and widely acknowledged.

Of course, there are elections and elections. Do modern elections convey legitimacy, or even mandates? I think not, as I have argued here on many occasions. What about a government that introduces a voice to parliament after a resounding rejection of the idea by a majority of voters just a year or so earlier. No, governments lie, cover up, break promises, do things for which they have no mandate, do things patently abhorred by voters. They even trash basic human rights for no reason, as in Covid. They conduct unjust and/or illegal wars. They steal money from taxpayers. Every day.

Sadiq Khan has been called many things. Some say he is “tearing London apart”. Brendan O’Neill has called him a “tinpot tyrant”.

This was in the context of Covid. Khan was an enthusiast for all the destructions of freedom contained therein. Not the only one, of course. But he had, and has, an instinct for tyranny. For fearmongering. For mission creep by the state.

Are tyrants evil? Many would think so. I do. Khan has been accused of “destroying London”. A narcissistic disgrace. Napoleon complex. Stalin complex. Pol Pot comparisons. London is now “completely unsafe” on his watch. His London police harassed innocent people during Covid. Policies with which he concurred caused many “unnecessary deaths”.

Khan is vice president of the Fabian Society. From the Webbs all the way down to Tony Blair, the war criminal, members of the Fabians believe in the fundamental transformation of society, and anyone who gets in the way of that won’t be spared the transformation. And the destruction of individual rights that accompanies it. Blair was elected several times as well. Being elected didn’t stop him lying about Iraq and so causing the deaths of many British young men and women. Andrew Bridgen says:

The Fabian Society has malicious intent, they are currently running the country and we can all see how it is going.

Source: Andrew Bridgen’s Telegram channel, 1 September 2025.

The Fabian Society is pushing the evil digital ID. Bridgen again, quoting Jordan Peterson:

I cannot emphasis enough the threat to your freedom and the freedom of future generations yet unborn that Digital ID poses.

Blair and Starmer are pushing this policy, they are both Fabians - The symbol of the Fabian society is a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing - Digital ID - “it will bring in a totalitarian tyranny so complete that it will make George Orwell’s 1984 look like a picnic.”

Source: Andrew Bridgen’s Telegram channel, 22 September 2025.

The Fabians have been eugenicists:

Several early prominent members of the Fabian Society were proponents of eugenics and population reduction policies.Beatrice Webb regarded eugenics as “the most important question’ of all”, while her husband Sydney Webb declared that “no eugenicist can be a laissez faire individualist… he must interfere, interfere, interfere!

Source: Robin Monotti’s Telegram channel, 28 November 2024.

Then there was Covid, arguably the most evil act of global bastardry ever thought up by the state. Khan is of the “too little too late” view of Covid lockdowns. He wanted harder. Even more brutal. Vaccines? He was a pro-vaxxer extraordinaire. He has maintained the rage against anti vaxxers, in the face of all the evidence that he and all of his cohort guilty of industrial scale manslaughter were the bad guys. Here he is in 2023, responding to protests over his net zero mayhem:

Amid heckles from some audience members inside Ealing Town Hall in west London, Mr Khan said: “What I find unacceptable is some of those who’ve got legitimate objections [about ULEZ] joining hands with some of those outside, who are part of a far-right group.”

He added: “Let’s be frank, let’s call a spade a spade. Some of those outside are part of the far right. Some are Covid deniers, some are vaccine deniers and some are Tories.”

As the mayor said this, an audience member called out: “We are not the far right, normal people are not the far right.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-64833639

These are the ravings of a tinpot tyrant. The Covid state was evil. Sadiq Khan was in the front line of that evil regime.

The puppet mayor likes to insult opponents in his quest for global tyranny. Here he is on climate change and the fifteen minute city:

Sadiq Khan says anyone who objects to the restrictions that will turn London into a 15-minute city is a ‘far-right covid-denier and anti-vaxxer’.

Source: Real-Time Daily News Telegram channel, 5 March 2023

Really? And this:

London Mayor Sadiq Khan Flew a 14,000-Mile Round Trip to the C40 Summit in Buenos Aires to Lecture People on Climate Change.

Look, I think there are basically three groups of people, and it’s linked with COVID. Those who were COVID deniers, conspiracy theorists, and a lot of them are climate change deniers.

There are a lot of people in the middle who aren’t sure, so they need persuading. And what we need to do as politicians is to almost be like teachers. Work with the experts to explain, just like with the pandemic, which led to many lives being saved, including in Argentina with the great rollout of the vaccines in Buenos Aires.”

Source: Real-Time Daily News Telegram channel, 3 November 2022.

He may or may not be objectively evil, but he is an arrogant, prize fuckwit prone to empty, ad hominem attacks on anyone not on board with his agenda. Dissent is to be ridiculed. The vile Covid state was very, very good at that. Lie, exaggerate, promote fear, silence dissent. There has been no remorse. And no justice.

So much for Covid.

Of course, Khan is a practising Muslim, as well as the progressive leftist from central casting. I assume that Islam has its equivalent of “Sunday Christians” and “cafeteria Catholics”, those who don’t necessarily accept the whole thing. I have no idea of Khan’s faith. But as a believing Muslim, one might conclude that he accepts the global intifada, “from the river to the sea”, the transformation of Britain into a Muslim enclave, freed of white people, the killing of the infidel, and the brutal punishment of those who give up the Muslim faith. Read it all in the Koran. Like Mein Kampf, it is all there in black and white, moderate Muslims and “innocent” 1930s Germans notwithstanding.

As Gillian Dymond has said at TCW, “the problem with Islam is the violence at its heart”.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/britons-shun-the-koran-because-it-prescribes-violence/

Is violence evil? Pretty much.

Khan on grooming gangs in London?

Nothing to see here then. Diversity is our strength, perhaps. Grooming gangs in London are at “catastrophic” levels. Another take:

What of Khan’s London more generally? Many, like John Cleese, say that his city of yore is now unrecognisable. Anyone referring to Khan’s democratic election might do well to remember the nature of the London electorate, and Khan’s role in shaping that electorate through his support for mass immigration and his advocacy of replacement theory. Two thirds of Londoners were born overseas. Should some of these even have the vote? London is filling with people who hate Britons. Who want Sharia law. Who believe that Jews should be exterminated. Khan believes that London “needs more migrants”. Perhaps to ensure fourth and fifth terms in office.

Then we come to Blue Stevens, stabbed to death on the streets of London a few months back for his Rolex watch. Let Dan Wootton tell this story.

And this:

Is Khan to blame for this? No and yes. Disgusting scumbag?

He banned taxi drivers from flying the St George flag. His ULEZ initiatives contribute to an evil regime of net zero that will kill many and impoverish many more. In 2023 Khan posted the claim on social media, under a photo of a young white family, that “they do not represent true Londoners”. In other words, he supports the invasion.

Source: Gary Scarrabelotti’s Telegram channel, 15 March 2025.

The legendary Tommy Robinson, who led the recent (Unite the Kingdom) London march by a million or so fearful, disenfranchised and fed-up Britons – a march inevitably condemned by Khan – has had enough of the Mayor.

The Mayor of London stands idly by while his city is being destroyed by actions and decisions with which he is complicit. And, of course, he turns on the protesters. Divisive racists! GB News covered this, and the thousands of comments – 3,482 to be exact, at the time of writing – provide ample evidence of the extent to which Londoners have turned on the Mayor, and the depth of their resentment. They do not hold back. Calling this little man evil seems to be highly in tune with the folks who are suffering daily from his vile regime.

When you are metaphorically spat on from a great height, well, you would. Many believe, with good reason, that Khan himself is racist. By definition, evil, then, according to the standards of the ruling elites who obsess about these things.

Donald Trump calls Khan merely “nasty”. The number of people who call Trump evil, of course, is too numerous to mention. Others call Churchill evil, as I have recently been reminded. Still, there is a strong case to be made about Khan. A reasoned and reasonable case.

Some think that all politicians are evil. What does Bryan Caplan, a professor of economics at George Mason University, say?

I think politicians are, by and large, evil people. When I shared my verdict with a journalist friend, he strongly objected. He rightly pointed out that he’s had ample personal interaction with politicians. In his experience, politicians of both parties generally want to do the right thing. Whatever their intellectual errors, their virtue is intact. My mental image of villainous politicians is at odds with the facts.

I’m happy to grant that my journalist friend’s first-hand experience with politicians far exceeds my own. But I’m confident that if I saw what he saw, my doleful verdict would stay the same. Why? Because my standards of moral conduct are much higher than his, in two main ways.

First, virtuous people can’t just conform to the expectations of their society. Everyone has at least a modest moral obligation to perform “due diligence” – to investigate whether their society’s expectations are immoral. And whenever their society fails to measure up, virtuous people spurn social expectations and do the morally right thing.

Second, anyone in a position of political power has a greatly elevated moral obligation to perform this due diligence. Yes, with great power comes great responsibility. If you’re in a position to pass or enforce laws, lives and freedom are in your hands. Common decency requires you to act with extreme moral trepidation at all times, ever mindful of the possibility that you’re trampling the rights of the morally innocent.

Note: Neither of these principles claims that politicians have to share my libertarian philosophy in order to be decent human beings. They’re procedural. They require every human being to seek out and seriously consider the main moral critiques of the status quo. And they enjoin politicians to make this intellectual hygiene their top priority. Until they calmly recuse themselves from their society and energetically weigh a wide range of moral arguments, they have no business lifting a political finger.

At this point, the iniquity of practicing politicians should be clear. How much time and mental energy does the average politician pour into moral due diligence? A few hours of year seems like a high estimate. They don’t just fall a tad short of their moral obligations. They’re too busy passing laws and giving orders to face the possibility that they’re wielding power illegitimately.

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/12/how_evil_are_po.html

And that includes the good ones! I doubt that Sadiq Khan is anywhere near the right end of the continuum. Quora says:

Politicians are human beings, having all the same virtues and vices as everyone else. Its (sic) just that politics creates some very evil incentives. You win elections by promising everyone all sorts of benefits that you cannot actually give them without some pretty evil methods. Basically, theft. So politics tends to attract the most corrupt people and corrupts them even more.

https://www.quora.com/Are-politicians-by-nature-evil-people

True enough. Our current generation of pricks at the helm make that point ever more, by the day. Power corrupts, and all that. There is no retreat to Hanlon’s Razor here.

What about calling out political evil?

Broadly, it has been said that those who stand by and witness evil being done, but do not act, are as guilty as those perpetrating the evil. It was actually Einstein:

The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8144295-the-world-will-not-be-destroyed-by-those-who-do

Another famous Jew, the Prophet Isaiah, spoke of the same deal a couple of thousand years earlier:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. (Isaiah 5:20).

Then there is John the Evangelist:

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:19-21)

Politicians doing wicked things hate the light too. Cover-ups, anyone?

So, yes, there is a case to be made for calling out evil. This goes for politicians – like Khan in the case of grooming gangs, mainly perpetrated by members of his own race – who would prefer to ignore evil on their watch, done as a direct result of their policies. And it goes for those observing and writing about politics. Indeed, there a duty to call out evil, even if that might offend niceness of discourse and democratic sensibilities. Being nice in political discourse these days might be a luxury, as all around us our elected leaders, their puppeteers and their non-elected foot soldiers wreak havoc on our lives and do their best to destroy the polity we once recognised to be liberal, but no longer should.

Paul Collits

3 December 2025