What will come first?

I must admit that I have been feeling a bit guilty of late. Twice now, Swiss Bob has appealed for new articles and I have gone through all sorts of internal machinations considering not only what I would write about, but how I would actually physically accomplish the task at hand. On numerous occasions, I’ve started out with good intentions to write something, and then after a few paragraphs, given up for numerous reasons. Sometimes, it is just physical weariness. Other times, it has been intellectual or emotional anguish that has caused me to press the close button on my work processor. Apart from writer’s block, there is no more devilish restraint to creativity than the background thought of your front door being stoved in by a bunch of politically motivated thugs.

A few times in the past, I have dabbled with voice recognition software. Certainly, running on a Linux PC the process is rather painful. It is not just the challenge of trying to get the software to understand my Scottish accent, but having had butchery applied to my mouth by numerous sadistic dentists in the past has not helped my pronunciation or diction. The burden of guilt has now become so heavy, I have decided to give it another try.

Three paragraphs in, I am struggling to resist the urge to throw my tablet against the wall as Google Voice refuses to interpret the word “Period” as a full stop. Naturally, it seems to be more sensitive to the words “Full stop” rather than “Period”, so I suppose I will just have to put up with the complete randomness of AI interpretation. That is my “Mea Culpa” if this article is below par. The only benefit I have found from using my tablet (strangely enough), is predictive text. Normally, something classed as a tool the Devil himself must have created, in this context it is actually quite useful clearing up the mess that Google Voice has made to my thick, Scottish brogue. Your author would never have admitted to such a thing previously, so I suppose we are making progress towards Hell of a sort not devised by our current government.

Onward and upward then. It would be easy just to pick one of the constant refrains from the comments section and repackage it as an article. I would be treading on hallowed ground if I were to do so, as there are contributors here that are far better versed in history and political affairs than I am. I only developed my interest in politics and global affairs late in life, and as such, I consider myself a mere amateur. Sometimes, I feel my water wings are wholly inadequate to keep me afloat in the swamp like ocean that is the political environment. While I attempt to remain as objective as I possibly can, I cannot help from being sucked down to the depths by the very astute observations of others that open my eyes even further to the rot. All I can do is attempt to bring a passionate, yet sane commentary on what I have observed. Traditionally, that would be considered opinion, but as we are all painfully aware, opinions are dangerous and are not to be allowed in our current society unless voiced by a favoured few. In any society, the destruction of the public square where debate and discourse are diminished or destroyed, the long-term results are always extremely painful. The corruption of such democratic institutions such as Speakers Corner, is a case in point. Traditionally, the British approach to democracy was actually extremely clever. Anyone was allowed to voice their opinion, no matter how outrageous or indeed insane the hypothesis. This where we got it right, insofar as we allowed the sane, the dissident and the madman equal access to an audience. It was entirely up to the audience to decide on the merits or otherwise of the argument. When a viewpoint was expounded that was clearly off the wall, the audience response was generally one of two approaches. Either the proponent was ignored, or more likely than not, they were met with either derision or ribald humour. This, cleverly, resulted in one of two outcomes. The protagonist either had to grin and bear it, or they had to modify their approach to gain approval. The audience was the final arbiter on what was acceptable, and this was very effective as any member of the audience could swap roles upon the soapbox at any time. In such a way, everybody was considered equal, be they speaker or listener. Be it denying the protagonist the oxygen of publicity or barracking them with insult maintained a delicate balance between freedom of speech and censorship.

For quite some time now, the public square has been under attack by those who do not wish any opinion but their own to gain supremacy. The turning point seems to have been the post war years, where those skilled in the dark art of propaganda moved from inside the war machine into commerce and politics. The growth of the PR industry has been exponential in our times, and it is staggering when one comes to realise how much effect they have on every aspect of life. The rise of the fact checker is just another manifestation of such sleight of hand. Based on the philosophical appeal to authority, it is just another way of cheating our innate ability to independently assess the evidence. The difficulty of course, being an arbiter of truth, is what ruler are you using to make your measurements with? If I say 100 for instance, am I talking about 100 inches, 100 feet, or 100 millimeters? Nowhere is this official lie more prominent than the whole debate about global warming etc. The argument, at first, appears to be genuine. Based on empirical observation, science, one would have a very difficult time attempting to refute what at first glance seems to be an obvious truth. All of this collapses like a house of cards once one realises that the scientific argument itself is corrupt – those that are pushing a particular line are not objective, rather their very grants are dependent on a particular bias or political line. It is then that we realise that the whole system is corrupt, as there are very few people out there who are willing to speak the truth as the penalty for doing so inevitably means a loss of income or credibility. Time and again, this methodology is applied to any outlier who dares raise their head above the parapet. Be it government, commerce, education, health, social services, judiciary, religion, agriculture, entertainment. The same rules apply, the status quo must be maintained at all costs and you are not allowed to scare the horses. The root of this is a very subtle form of blackmail. Society places people in the position where loss of face or benefits is a major lever that can be pulled to achieve compliance with the narrative. We are quick to condemn our public servants for their gold plated pensions etc, but we fail to realise that exactly the same mechanism is being used throughout our civilization to maintain silence about the many clear misdeeds and wrongdoings that occur on a daily basis. Whistleblowers are few and far between, and it is a very brave man or woman who dares to speak out against the overwhelming weight of their peers. The personal cost is just far too great.

This is why I am so passionate about the rooting out of corruption throughout our institutions. It has come to the point now, even the man on the Clapham omnibus is realising how rotten the whole system is. Ironically, those that entered politics to make a change are those who have been most corrupted by it, as witnessed by the flagrant financial corruption displayed by our present Parliament. Nowhere else but the Left would the phrase “I entered politics to make a difference” be more common, perhaps with the exception of the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. Ironically, the decision to pay MPs a salary was meant to halt the inherent corruption of wealthy landowners and peers. We have now come full circle, and despite all the inherent disadvantages of privilege, the American president has been the first independent politician in many generations to appeal to the masses. Whether this is down to a cynical deployment of populism or is actually what Donald j Trump believes, I will leave the reader to decide. What I will say in his defense, is that we often mistakenly think that our leaders have considerably more power than they actually do have at their disposal.

The destruction of the public square is not the only threat to our freedom, however. Forever pernicious, another peril is the insidious throttling around the vocal cords of group think. Psychologists have known for years that groups behave in a very different way than individuals, and from what I can tell this is all down to one particular dynamic. No matter what group one looks at, there always seems to be somebody who’s appointed group leader. This is the individual who railroads their opinion through, irrespective of the views of others. When the group is first formed, there is often kickback against the domination, but somehow this individual always manages to rise to the top. Sometimes, this is down to professional seniority. Other times, it is just by sheer force of personality. Inevitably though, the group subtly and subconsciously molds themselves to the will of the leader, and in reality we no longer have a discussion forum but rather a dictatorship. This is the height of a symbiotic and parasitical relationship. Both sides need each other, the protagonist requires a group not only to stroke their ego but to demonstrate their power, and the individual member requires the protagonist for advancing their self-worth. In a vain attempt to counteract this, a veneer of respectability and democracy can be added in the form of a public vote. Naturally, this is purely a pointless exercise as any outliers will be quickly identified and punished by the group or the protagonist for stepping out of line. The only way this can be addressed it’s by having a private vote, but as we all know this system is not perfect either as it is not the vote that counts but who counts the votes.

All of this, of course, is not really that important when we have a stable and free society. A certain amount of slop or corruption can be tolerated provided it does not overwhelm the whole system. However, we have reached a point where the amount of inherent corruption is so total that the institutions themselves are starting to fail. Those of you who are familiar with the writings of Morgoth will have understood the profundity of what he wrote recently. While much has been said about this nation teetering on the edge of the civil war, he makes the extremely astute observation that the UK will, in all likelihood, become a failed state before this occurs. If I’m honest, I am rather concerned as to how frequently the topic of civil war has emerged, certainly in the alternative media. Knowing that a totalitarian government would use such an event to bring in even more draconian legislation, I am somewhat suspicious. That is not to say that I don’t believe that such an event is not highly likely, I am just rather puzzled by a possible contradiction. It all depends on how well our Lords and Masters are actually able to control the narrative. If we are to believe that our speech is tightly controlled, then it would make sense to suggest that the civil war narrative is just government propaganda. If not, the powers that be do not have anywhere near as much control over the narrative as we would like to think.

While free speech in this country is clearly on life support, we have a very important decision to make. Are we content with all sorts of disparate groups, individuals, and indeed the government itself dictating what we think, what we say, and what we believe? If we are, the slide into totalitarianism is irreversible. On the other hand, if we believe that individuality is sacrosanct, there is a beacon of hope. For the only way out of this mess, if there actually is one, is for the individual to take personal responsibility.

Sadly though, my life experience has taught me that the majority of people are sheep. They would rather follow, rather than lead, listen to lies, than to speak the truth, turn a blind eye to injustice rather than pay the inevitable personal cost it always takes to address it. It is not necessarily that these people are bad, it is just but they are under the misapprehension others are just as good as they believe they are. Once one has been adequately schooled in the true university of life, one quickly comes to the realisation but there are some very wicked and evil individuals out there and it comes as a tremendous shock to the psyche when one realises but not everybody is reasonable, kind or fair.

The 64 million dollar question is therefore this. Has a critical mass of the population come to the point that they are willing to say “Enough” and halt our descent into hell? Or has the hypnotic effect of bread and circuses been enough to permanently sedate the masses? The answer to that will undoubtedly be revealed over the next few years.
 

© Rookwood 2025