It takes a lot to keep a population anaesthetised. Anaesthesia, as medical Puffins will attest, is a very tricky and demanding mistress. A dash too much potion here, or an insufficient soupçon of elixir there, and the pharmacological cocktail becomes ineffective or indeed, lethal. Should the precious fluid that separates the patient from their consciousness become toxic, rather than aiding the preservation of life, this miniscule error has the total opposite effect. Therefore, it is not surprising to discover that anaesthetists are amongst the most skilled and well paid members of a medical team, as they must be ever vigilant to the slightest subtle change in the condition of the patient that may indicate that something is amiss. After all, once filled with this intravenous concoction, our patient is in no position to complain. Their life is both literally and metaphorically in the hands of somebody else. Trust under such circumstances, is imperative. Once there are doubts surrounding the professionalism and capabilities of the anaesthetist, nobody but the desperate will surrender themselves to their care.
This metaphor for the current febrile geopolitical mood will not escape the observant, nor the popular parallel of individuals “Waking up”, as if recovering from a drugged existence that would cause Hunter S Thompson to blush. It is not so much a matter of arguing if the patient is drowsily querying their return to consciousness – that can be taken as read by the sheer level of dissatisfaction and vitriol directed at our current establishment. What is vital to understand is the difference between the qualitative and the quantitive; there may be a lot of noise being made, but as we all are very much aware, a small number of key individuals (more often than not) can be the root cause of such phenomena. The majority may agree or disagree with the vocal melee, it matters not one jot. The fact that they remain silent tells all, and so we are all unwittingly dragged to the position where those committed to “Change” wish us to be, regardless of our personal opinion. By refusing to engage, we have tacitly given our approval. Thus, the vocal minority transforms a minor quantitative stronghold into a major qualitative one. Around this point, the Zeitgeist has a form of mental breakdown, as it slowly realises that rather than awakening in a comfortable side ward, our wicked anaesthetist has enlisted the assistance of a hospital porter or two and relocated us, bound and gagged, to the psych ward. Or worse, the hospital crematorium.
To bastardise a famous 1992 phrase by James Carville “It is the economy, stupid”, it is the demographic, stupid. The quantitative figures really matter, not the qualitative metric of noise generated. This can been seen clearly in the position of the Overton window, which to all intents and purposes is currently a completely pointless measurement. Like a broken clock, it is correct every so often, but in reality it doesn’t reflect the confused and drugged state our patient is in. How can you in reality, discern between “Left” and “Right” when a substantial proportion of the nation agrees with the philosophical position that situation ethics is valid and there is no such thing as objective truth? How can you possibly have an effective legislature or justice system when the law is not applied universally to all, be that peasant, landowner or king? It has come to the point that even the most dedicated supporter of the Labour party is suffering from buyers regret as even traditional values are jettisoned.
Alas, it takes a brave and supremely honest individual to admit that the current mess is not just a “Socialist” problem. Countless governments, from staunch Conservative through Liberal Coalition to the current Left wing lunatics have all been guilty of betrayal of the electorate. To the observant, Brexit was just the gentle tugging of one particularly loose political thread. For decades now, we have been governed not by the sock-puppets in the Houses of Parliament or Lords, but by external Supranationalists. To those unfamiliar with this phrase, Supranationalism is the formal transfer of legal authority and decision‐making power from a member state to an institution or international body. Most would consider this to comprise of cohorts such as the UN, ECHR, NATO, WHO, WEF, BIS etc., and indeed these form a phalanx that is close to impenetrable. However, while it is easy to point fingers at the numerous elephants in the room, it is much more difficult bringing them to heel (if such an act was ever indeed possible). We also have to deal with countless quangos, NGO’s, charities and the Civil Service itself. This, we have discovered to our horror, is the case of Brexit – Brexit In Name Only was the inevitable result, and has been proven beyond all doubt with polyester clad finger gestures of our political “Representatives”. Far from repealing any significant amount of EU legislation, we rubber stamped the whole stinking lot with a vague promise that we would revisit such law as and when necessary. Such betrayal has been quietly pushed aside by all sides of the political and media spectrum, and the first and most obvious clue to this is the complete embargo on the thorny VAT issue. Why are we still penalising our citizens with such a punitive rate, yet continuing to pay a proportion of this to the EU? The silence from our MP’s as well as the Fourth Estate has been completely deafening.
To give them credit, the Pro-EU lobby have always been absolutely right concerning one aspect of Brexit. To suggest that extracting ourselves from EU membership would be a cure for all our national ills, is both simplistic and politically naive. Our complicity was just one thread in the complex tapestry of Supranationalism, with layer upon layer of bureaucratic complexity that serves three very convenient purposes for our masters. Firstly, it provides an impenetrable layer of plausible deniability for our MP’s wishing to pursue difficult and unpopular policies. Secondly, it removes any crumb of accountability from those planning and executing these strategies. Finally, and most corrosively, it allows the continuation of a faux “Democracy” where players, party and policy may seem to change on the surface, but in reality only the fait accompli remains. Hence the drowsy patient complaining about the “Uniparty”, yet having little grasp of the true power behind the throne. Whilst the British public remains focussed on traditional party politics, this sad state of affairs will continue. We will continue to finger point, and drink from the poisoned chalice of polarised and bitter politics. I’m utterly convinced that the difference between “Left” and “Right” is purely superficial; if both sides were scrupulously honest we would admit that “Britain is broken”, the only difference is how we go about fixing it. Some things, like Keynesian economics, Marxist philosophy etc., are areas where we would disagree. While such political baubles quickly shatter under real-world pressure, positions such as Supranationalism are far more robust as they use age-old sophistry in the form of an appeal to authority. Who better to manage government excess and human rights than an “Independent” body outside of government? How can your average political representative understand the core issues unless informed by an “Independent” specialist? What can possibly be wrong with seeking the wisdom of “Experts” who understand both the inside and outside of the argument? Most damnable of all, however, is the belief that even more law piled upon bad law will result in good law. As the good book says, it is a folly to place new wine in old wineskins.
It goes without saying that this political methodology is rooted and is inseparable from Globalism. The two of them go hand in hand, for indeed any resistance to such policies is immediately shouted down as being an affront to “Everyone” and as they are “Humanitarian” and “Equitable”, everyone from the pauper to the king should subscribe to them. This is where the hatred of Sovereignty (be it national, constitutional or personal) springs from. Once must adopt the values of the hive mind, be a part of the confected Zeitgeist, otherwise you are a danger to us all. A crazed individual. Sound familiar? Exactly the same rhetoric was used during Covid, and we all know how well that turned out. Indeed, the results of that particular “Global event” could have been far more serious if it were not for the few brave individuals who dared stick their unvaccinated and tinfoil covered heads above the parapet. This is not lost on the 47th President of the United States, who is not only disrupting the established American order with gusto, but steadfastly refuses to play by the rules on a personal basis. While his recent election campaign was decidedly toned down compared to previous ones, it is abundantly clear that predictability is something he refuses to subscribe to. Naturally though, his enemies class this as being “Narcissistic” and “Immature”, quietly forgetting that “Disruptive Innovation” is commonly used inSilicon Valley and is taught by Harvard Business School as an effective method for change, the theory being developed by the late Clayton Christensen.
Bringing change to moribund organisations is an extremely difficult task, especially when your enemy wants the organisation to die for it to be replaced by their “Off the shelf” solution. We are discovering this now as the rot spreads throughout Local Government, with many not being able to meet both their statutory and financial obligations. This in turn, gives central government considerably more leverage than in less troubling times. Labour is pushing for directly elected Mayors, something already partially place with London and Manchester, along with accelerating the Green agenda. Not known by many, London is a member of C40, a supranational organisation dedicated to Net Zero and Climate policies. Not only that, but we are on the steering committee, along with Montreal, Paris and Milan. No wonder Khan is so arrogant about ULEZ! Expect more local government “Greening” as other cities adopt such draconian policies. Strangely absent though from this cabal is Moscow and Washington. I wonder why. I won’t spoil any further entertainment, but I suggest that Puffins have a look at the founders/partners page. All the usual suspects are there, with a few surprises to boot.
DJT, so far, seems to have the right idea. If a DOGE like initiative was applied to UK funding as it has been with USAID, we could extract ourselves from organisations such as C40 relatively easily. Of course, that would take political will, but for us Limeys, we have even bigger issues to contend with. Unlike the US, we don’t even have sufficient protection for free speech, something painfully obvious going as far back as the Covid scandal. In that respect alone, we have a far greater journey ahead of us. Even if we did manage to foster a political environment where someone of the stature of DJT was to appear on the scene, it is doubtful if they could actually get any traction.
© Rookwood 2025
