Waiting on a friend at an outside café I shared a table with a stranger and we engaged in conversation. It started with the devastation in the high street. Most shops were closed or boarded up save for the odd phone repair centre, nail bar, vape shop and this café. Without asking, the reason he gave was Lockdown. So quickly we were on to Covid and all the theories of how we got to where we are.  “How can you tell” I asked, “what is a conspiracy theory and what is knowing the truth? What is the difference?”. “The difference” he said “was about 9 months” I guess it may take longer but the switching has already begun. In fact, it began some time ago, when people who saw that the truth would out, slipped over to the other side. Rishi Sunak’s confession, now forgotten, being a very public example of this. The truth is out there and it is not hard to find, provided you see past the first tranche of links which the search engines offers you and you recognise the not-too-subtle messages in the main stream media.

Now, there are a number of writers, thinkers, commentators, theologians and even journalists who have helped me make sense of our current situation, helped me sift through the competing stories and the especially the past two extraordinary years. I am thinking of a disparate gang of personalities: Peter Hitchins, John Waters, Luara Perrins, Cathy Gyngell, Dave Rubin, Mark Steyn, William Phillip, James Delingpole, Neil Oliver, Paul Joseph Watson, Konstantin Kissin and others, most of whom seldom appear in the main stream media, or if they do, only to have their work deposited in the conspiracy theory, covid denier, anti-vaxxer bin.  It goes without saying that I do not agree with all or even most of what these individuals say, their style of presenting them or the principles they live by, but all have touched on something that has been hard for me to ignore and has given clarity to my own understanding and made me believe that I was maybe not totally mad after all.

Others have had the time and presence of mind to write books:  Peter and Ginger Breggan with their carefully and dogged research in “Covid-19 and the global predators”, Mark Woolhouse “The year the world went mad”  with his assertion in that “lockdown was a monumental mistake on a truly global scale…..with its unintended but predictable consequences of trying to control a novel coronavirus by shutting down society” Ian Miller in his meticulously investigation into the use of face coverings “Unmasked” and Laura Dodsworth in her shocking revelation of how the government weaponised fear “A state of fear”. More recently Naomi Wolf has published her own response in “The bodies of others”.

If you are a someone who fully respects and believes the prevailing narrative in relation to Covid-19, posited by most governments of the world and relayed effectively through the main media platforms, if you see those who make the decisions as basically honourable and trustworthy, who have our best interests at heart and who are not corrupted by the influence of Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Data or Big Business and who listen to all the arguments carefully before making a judgement, then this book is not for you. You would only find it unsettling, annoying, even make you angry and I would want to spare you that.

Now, Naoim Wolf is not someone who I would be naturally drawn to or would have taken any great interest in the subjects she has chosen to focus on, but like so many others, prophets come from strange camps. And the truth is buried in surprising places. For me it was an easy read, comprehensive but concise, universal yet personal, simply compiled yet fully and carefully referenced.  Above all it was a personal story and remarkably similar to others who have come from a solid background in the classical liberal post-war world to a sense that things are not what they appear to be and that the ideology which gave us succour for so long was fundamentally flawed. Most importantly, for me, is her admission, which comes late in the book, that she had come to recognise, perhaps for the first time, the true reality and horror of evil and that there was a spiritual being behind the forces of darkness. This drew her finally and logically to an acceptance of the reality of God. 

“I asked a renowned medical-freedom activist how he stayed strong in his mission as his name was besmirched and he faced career attacks and social ostracism. He replied with Ephesians 6:12 “ For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of the world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”

After many years of thinking that my spiritual life was not that important, I started to pray again.. I was now willing to speak about God publicly. Why? Because I had looked at what had descended on us from every angle, using my normal critical training yet found that it was so elaborate in its construction and so cruel, with an almost super human, flamboyant, baroque imagination made from the essence of cruelty itself, that I could not conceive that it had been accomplished by mere humans working on the bumbling human level in the dumb political space.”

“In the magnitude of evil around us; in its awe-inspiring level of darkness and inhumanity; in the policies aimed at killing children’s joy, restricting their breath, speech and laughter; at killing ties between families and extended families; at killing churches and synagogues and mosques; and, from the highest levels, from the president’s own bully pulpit, demanding people to collude in excluding, rejecting, dismissing, shunning, hating their neighbours and loved ones and friends all of this the presence of such rampant, elemental evil, I felt a darkness beyond anything human. I don’t think humans are smart or powerful enough to have come up with this horror alone.”

“Grounded postmodern intellectuals are not supposed to talk of believe in spiritual matters…we are to be shy about referencing God himself… we Jews, though, do have a history and literature that lets us talk about spiritual battle between the forces of God and negative forces that debase, that profane, that seek to ensnare our soul. We have seen this drama before, and not that long ago.”

So, I am left with the conundrum which I face almost every day, with friends and family who find it unbelievable that I should be so contrary and perverse to swallow the “conspiracy theory” narrative. We seem to be miles apart. It is a great divide and a hard one to get across. I know that the gracious and loving thing to do would be to tell the truth as I firmly believe it to be so, but the fear of causing upset, trouble, or even anger, trumps it, and to my shame I keep quiet most of the time.

But the in the end, as one of the thinkers above suggested, we shouldn’t get tied up in knots over conspiracy theories. The reality is there is a genuine conspiracy, the one Naomi Wolfe’s friend alluded to and the one that the writer exposes in the second Psalm. It is the ridiculous and even comical picture of the great kings of earth plotting against God the creator who simply laughs at them. He holds them in derision and the writer warns the rulers of the earth to serve the Lord with fear, to celebrate his rule with trembling and to kiss the Son, or they will be destroyed. For this conspiracy will fail, of that there can be no doubt. It is something that the rulers of the nations and the supranational bodies, the UN, EU, WEF, WWF, WHO, WFP, IMF and the World Bank should pay careful attention to.

This is not, however, a charter for laziness, for lying back or coping out, we have to be vigilant, as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. We have to be salt and light and when we can, we have to speak out, stand up and resist evil wherever it comes from.


It’s hard not to have sympathy for Liz Truss. Forces stronger than her had decided that her policies, which diverted from the path dictated by the big players, could not be allowed.  It was not going to happen. The markets, real or imagined, were in turmoil, the pound on the run and she panicked like her predecessor had done over Covid. The pile-on of pressure from the multinational potencies was just too much and with the first U-turn you know it was the end for her. It reminded me of Jeremy Corbin, who despite being the legitimate leader of his party couldn’t somehow get his policies through. He had gone to far, buckled over Brexit and more surprisingly, when he had absolutely nothing to lose, fell in line over Covid. He should have listened to his brother.  It reminded me, too, of Michel Gorbachev when away at his dacha on the black sea, his enemies ceased the moment, declared a state of emergency and an effective coup. He had gone too far and he had to be stopped. The coup failed because Yeltsin took charge, stormed the white house, jumped on a tank and defied the conservative cabal so that the legitimate leader Gorbachev was able to return to Moscow alive though dishevelled and missing a tie. Truss had no Yeltsin.

What would it have taken for Liz Truss to hold her ground and her nerve?  I don’t know and I am not sure if I would have acted any differently. It wasn’t tanks on the street, but the heavy emotional blackmail that was incessantly poured over her which made Lizz crumble. Her Trussonomics are now held up to ridicule and contempt. Perhaps they were flawed, but whether or not, she did have the mandate to see them through. She should have been given the chance to do that, even if they failed. The fact that she couldn’t, speaks volumes and says so much about who is actually in charge and who holds the reins of power.  The intervention of the IMF (who elects them?) and the US president (Maybe he is not as dopey as he seems) effectively interfering in our domestic economic policy, with their lackeys Hunt and Shapps, demonstrates so clearly that there are some things you cannot do. You cannot upset markets and you cannot deviate from the supranational agencies plan of how things should go. The alternative is to push your nation into the wilderness with the prospects of decades of isolation and decline.

When I was supportive of independence for Scotland (I dithered several times on that one), I felt the financial considerations were irrelevant. If you believed in it, you would say “yes, I do” and for richer or poorer. Let’s get our sovereignty and we can work it out from there.  I felt the same about Brexit. But now it seems that there are forces stronger than our little nation who will decide what we can and cannot do. Unless, of course, we have someone who will put their political life on the line, live by the strength of their convictions and get up onto that tank. I don’t have anyone in mind.

The Planet Groans

More by accident than anything we watched the BBC’s Frozen Planet II on Sunday evening, watching the intimate lives of creatures and how they survived or succumbed to the merciless cold on the mountains in some of the most extreme environments on the planet. The astonishing photography made possible by fast moving drones, the subtle incidental music, and the up-close encounters with wild animals, unaware of humans watching their every mood, even in the dark, made for stunning viewing. We were following avalanches racing down the mountains crushing all in their path, eagles seizing chamois in their claws and dropping them over high cliffs and a lone puma trying unsuccessfully to pick off a guanaco in the Andes. It was spectacular. It was also savage and brutal. The young flamingos left by their elders to die in the frozen waist or struggling to fly weighed down with heavy lumps of ice. The predator and the prey.

Inevitably there was the barely concealed sermon on the evils of global warming and climate change. The extremely complex issue of the environment was reduced, once again, to a very simple narrative. It didn’t need an exposition; it was there in the words and the things unsaid. We all know what it means.  The almost certain cataclysm, that is soon to come, is a direct result of selfish human activity and wrapped up in, what many describe, with good reason, as a religion. The belief is that a reckoning is coming, (a final judgement) it has been caused by us (humanity) it is a result of who we are and what we are born with (original sin) and the only way that the coming catastrophe can be averted is by a singular sacrifice (redemption). The little sacrifices we might make, like turning the heating down or eating less meat are not enough to appease this god, it has to be something big, momentous and for all time. What that might be is not clear, but the abandoning of nation states with one central world government, the abolition of capitalism and consumerism and the culling of humanity has been muted.

As is so often the case, the prophets of this religion are clearly on to something. There is certainly some truth in it and the bible seems to confirm it, pointing to the state of the natural world suffering, and humanity with it, as a direct result of the human sin. Paul’s says something like that in his letter to the Romans (Romans 8:18-25). But there is a fatal flaw in this false religion. It misses out the creator (God) and it rejects the saviour (Jesus Christ). We have to be our own saviours. All we have is ourselves.  It is only by acting together that we can save the planet.

Now none of this was actually said or spelled out in the programme, but it didn’t need to be. Simply to mention the vague terms “Global warming” or “Climate change” the message gets through and there was, and there is, no room for any other alternative explanation of why things happen.

Later in the week we slipped into watching that national treasure Michael Palin on his trip through Iraq. It was fascinating, but sure enough Global warming had to get a mention. The struggles of the Iraqis in one region was not as a result of the brutal inhumanity of Saddam Hussein or the terrible devastation visited upon the nation by the West, no, it was because the climate was changing.

Both programmes were followed by a long advert for the BBC, that is currently running. It explaining how we must trust the organisation because it is rigorously searching for the truth.

It isn’t just the planet that groans.


What was astonishing about the funeral services was that in form and content they were thoroughly Christian, in a way that was strange and surprising.  Afterall, we live in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-coloured society with many religions and a rich variety of allegiances. Why should prominence, on a national occasion such as this, be given to one? Why should the Christian religion have pre-eminence?  Was this archaic pomp and pageantry not something that we thought we had left behind and progressed beyond, an aberration, an anachronism? Where were the creative minds who could design something more appropriate and apposite to the spirit of our age?

We can only surmise that this was deliberate. In all the services, as far as I was aware, there was no nod or reference to other faiths or no-faiths or supra-faiths, the kind of thing we have grown to expect.   I suspect that this was not down to the clergy who sometimes seem to be mildly apologetic about what they were saying or reading. You can never be sure when someone is reading from a script and hardly glancing above the lectern if they actually believe what they are saying.  This is another conundrum, given this single and unique opportunity to declare the radical gospel of Jesus Christ, to possibly the biggest audience ever, something Billy Graham could never dream of, the, established church declared its allegiance, not to Christ, but to the establishment. As someone has said “The established church never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity”.

From what we understand, the tone and content and even detail of the service may well have been a specific request by the late Queen. It was maybe exactly what she wanted. Being relatively shy and modest about her faith in life she wanted to say, in death, what she truly believed. 

What made it thoroughly Christian was not the homilies and tributes but the words, the scripture, the hymns and the psalms transported on the melodies and harmonies of some of our greatest composers from the lyrical singing of the Gaelic psalm to James Macmillan’s magnificent “Who shall separate us”. There was nothing faintly apologetic or reticent about them. In the hymns we had “All my hope on God is founded” exposing the vanity of human pride and the futility of earthly glory “Sword and crown betray his trust”. In the setting there was a lot of swords, as we were to see, and crowns too. There was the challenge to all people “that on earth do dwell” to “sing to the Lord with cheerful voice” and to everyone “Christ calls one and all to follow”. There was the prayer for the kindling of the desire to “work and speak and think for thee”  and there was the assurance that nothing can separate us from the love of God death nor life…and that “Goodness and mercy all my life, shall surely follow me/and in Gods house forevermore my dwelling place shall be”

There was a strange irony in all of this with the serried ranks of scarlet soldiers white hatted sailors, feathers and plumes, the world leaders in sombre black and the baubles looking very much trinkets but carrying the weighty symbolism of power and authority in the stupendous setting of the fan vaulted abbey. I wonder if the irony was lost on the congregation of the “Great and the Good” if the significance of the orb with its declaration that Christ is King of kings and Lord of Lords was understood or if they listened to themselves sing “Tower and temple fall to dust”

Now I don’t know, but I suspect there was nothing contradictory or conflicting in the Queens own mind as she accepted the passing of her own life, and in the final verse of the final hymn “Till in heaven we take our place/till we lay our crowns before you/lost in wonder, love and praise.” For her it all made sense she was simply a servant, and a subject of her lord. there was no contradiction in that. And there was nothing conflicting in showing the deepest respect love, kindness and genuine care for all of her subjects, whatever god they may worship, welcoming them wholeheartedly, while, at the same time, declaring without embarrassment or compromise what she believed was the true faith, the faith she had vowed to defend.


I was never sure if I was a royalist or a republican, a unionist, a nationalist or an internationalist and not even sure if it really mattered. Maybe I have been all of them at some point.  But there have been moments in time when a dormant emotion breaks through and feelings come to the surface, feelings I never knew were there. It was one such occasion late afternoon yesterday.  I never thought much about our late Queen, yet when I heard of her passing, which you can hardly say was unexpected, I was pulling back the tears and was at a loss to know why.  

What was it that triggered something deep within me? It was not the loss of someone, for I never knew her. It was not giving way to the power of collective grief or the possible impact that it might have on my individual insignificant life. It was something else. It was the beauty, the beauty of a life, a flawed life, that pointed to, and aspired to, a greater beauty, to the virtues of dignity, honesty, truthfulness, faithfulness, loyalty, justice, integrity, humility and compassion.

And if it was indeed loss that moved me, it was an awareness that we had already lost so much of these virtues in our national life and the symbol that seemed still to retain them was now gone.   

It’s beauty that makes me want to cry.


Many people have pointed out the absurdity of outlawing a human emotion – Hate. Apart from the fact that, like the opposite emotion -love, it is a word which is lost without its object. You have to define what is to hated and what is to be loved for it to be rooted in any meaningful reality. Of course, we know that the people who drafted the law were clearly not thinking about hatred of bad things like war or violence or cruelty or slavery or child abuse etc. it was hatred of people with certain innate characteristics. These categories could be defined but could also be enlarged and broadened to include many other groupings, who could be victims. The idea could also be expanded to include other undesirable human emotions such as greed, lust, anger, rage or vengeance.  But it is absurd, because who can tell what is in a person’s heart. Who can decide what it is I am thinking? Yet that is the direction that this move is taking.

The policeman who interviewed Harry Miller, a suspect in a “non-crime hate incident” reportedly said “I need to check your thinking”. He had clearly overstretched his arm as the courts later found in Millers’ favour, but the officer was simply following the logic of the thing. It’s easy to mock this of course, but it’s not difficult to see where it comes from and that those moving and creating the legislation are clearly on to something. For the reality is that actions follow words, which in turn follow the thoughts in our head. So, if you really want to get to the root of criminal behaviour, it has to start with thinking. Racist violence is often preceded by racist language and from racist thinking. Domestic abuse from misogyny, Adultery from lust, Murder from hatred of someone.  Evil comes not from outside but from inside the person. Jesus said that.  You don’t just steal something from the supermarket shelf or cheat on someone, if you hadn’t already cherished and embraced the desire in your heart. Then when we get the opportunity, we think we can get away with it and no one will know, we take it. It is only when we are found out, when we are exposed, that we come out with our regrets and remorse, with fake repentance and the disingenuous plea “I don’t know what came over me” “I don’t know how it happened” “It was an aberration totally out of character”. And many will believe it. But, if we examine our own hearts, we know the truth, that it was not an aberration, it was totally in character. This is what we are like. It’s called sin.

So, it is perfectly understandable that a government should make laws to root out bigotry and racism and all the evils of society by addressing what is in our heads. But there is a deep flaw in this. And there are two reasons why it is not in any human agency’s  gift to examine and direct what is in our minds. Human institutions have neither the qualifications nor the authority to do so. They are not qualified because no one knows what is in a person heart. Only God does. And they don’t have the authority, because they are under a higher authority and there’s is a limited one;  limited to their responsibility to govern, to protect against bullies from outside and within, to uphold justice, to punish evil actions and to defend the poor and the innocent. They are neither qualified nor have the authority to tamper with what the creator has ordered and any attempt to try is futile and will sooner or later end in failure. The Bolsheviks tried to abolish marriage and the family and to re-order the week into ten days, but that didn’t last long. In our day it is the re-defining of marriage, male and female, the beginning and the end of life and for some that two plus two could equal five. We know it will end in tears and the tragedy is that, while focusing on things out with our control and authority, we fail in the very things we are able to do. Witness the Scottish Government’s flirting with these things and their abysmal failure in just about everything else they touch.

But the ideology of progressivism is deep rooted and strong. It is also perfectly logical and reasonable because, If there is no God then we have to somehow take on his role. God is dead, long live humanity.

The same can be said of critical race theory with its dogma of whiteness – white privilege, white supremacy, white complicity, white equilibrium, white fragility and white denial.  Because if you seek to justify yourself, you are in denial. Despite your personal circumstances and background, despite how desperate or disadvantaged or poor you are, if you don’t see it, it is because you are blind to its reality. You are guilty, it seems by virtue of being born into a particular race. It almost sounds as if the principle has been borrowed from the traditional doctrine of original sin-  tainted and suffering under the sin of Adam. The difference with critical race theory is that it only applies to the sin of whiteness and there is no redemption, no salvation, only perpetual penance, continual sacrifices and reparations that will never be enough. 

So like progressivism, critical race theory and the canon of climate change, for that matter, there are truths that cannot be denied. Bad thoughts lead to bad actions, privileged is real and the abuse of creation will bring about terrible results, but all expose the stark reality that we cannot save ourselves. No amount of legislation, no amount of self-flagellation, no amount of personal sacrifice will do the trick. We need a saviour.


Under the cover of the Government’s unveiling its long-awaited announcement on the date, the wording and the process for a second referendum, on the next step to independence for Scotland, something far more significant and sinister was being slipped through, on the same day, almost unnoticed by the media or the public. It was the passing of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill, which makes some of the temporary powers, granted to the government during the past two years, now permanent.

When eyes were focused elsewhere, the parliament by a small majority handed the executive permanent powers to introduce lock-downs close schools and other places of assembly in the event of a future health emergency. It will require parliamentary scrutiny, of course, but we have learned the hard way that the opposition don’t do scrutiny. Despite the fact that there were almost 4000 responses to the government’s public consultation on the bill, of which 90% were opposed, it was passed all the same. That’s what you call democracy. A consultation has now been redefined to mean: asking the public for their opinion with no intention of listening. I used to respond to consultations. Not anymore. It is a complete waste of time.

Despite all the arguments about decisions being grounded in evidence, public health declarations, safeguards and the curious reference to Henry VIII, the clear thrust of the thing is to open up the potential for minsters to make regulations free from normal checks and balances. This can be done in the interest of public health resilience, the need to be swift and effective in dealing with something uncertain that might be coming down the line.

It all sound reasonable and fair and even sensible and a voice inside me says stop being so cynical and obtuse. “Trust them, they know what they are doing”.  Trouble is I don’t actually trust them and pretty sure they don’t know what they are doing. The powers they have given themselves were powers they solemnly promised they would return as soon as possible. They didn’t. They changed their minds on that and there is no reason to believe that these powers will not be abused.  This is compounded by the fact that nowhere is there any admission or recognition that the abuse of these powers has brought untold suffering and misery on the people. Nowhere is there an acknowledgment that the forced lock-down, social distancing and masking up measures, which they now want to keep up their sleeve, have devastated our society, from the elderly compelled to spend their last days in isolation, the grieving families at funerals, the stymying of social interactions, the aggravation of mental health, the damage to education and child development, the enflaming of fear and suspicion, the segregation of society and the destruction of our economy, the economy that our children will end up having to pay for in years to come. And all for a pandemic that never was.


It is time to declare a war on silliness.

I am not thinking about of fun, frivolity or childish capers or, for the matter, temporary lapses in sensible behaviour, but the occasions when we find ourselves caught up in a game that has no purpose, no tangible outcome and makes absolutely no sense at all.  Some rule is to be kept some box is to be ticked, some guidance is to be followed, some protocol has to be adhered to.  Everyone knows it is absolutely pointless and quite ridiculous, but we go along with it all the same. We comply with a shrug of our shoulders and a roll of the eyes.

These games are not new, of course, they have been around for some time and we have become used to them and accepted them as just one of these things.

I recall 40 years ago submitting drawings to the council for building warrants. These were always checked by the officers who would always find something to query or insist on some refence to a standard we had to comply with. In those days you took your drawings to the office, waited to be seen and had the drawings laid out on a large desk to be poured out by the nippy official with a red marker. It was an act of ritual humiliation and I never understood why we put up with it. But we did, and that was what happened. One of things that always came up was the issue of high alumina cement. It was the cause of the collapse of a roof in a school swimming pool in Stepney. Mercifully no one was in the building at the time, but the use of this material was thereafter banned. Itwas, however, never used in Scotland and even if the proposal on the drawings involved no concrete at all, still we had to add a note to the effect that “No HAC will be used in this contract”.  It was, of course a minor irritant and no big deal. You simply had the note pre -printed on every drawing and that was that 

But the trouble is, when you accept this role, you are playing a game of silliness and the worry is that having acquiesced over something small it makes it harder to resist over something more serious and more sinister. Tyranny has thrived in the world when people go along with things, they know are false, but accept as no big deal. Why make a fuss if instead of “Good morning” we say “Hiel Hitler”? It’s just words after all. I am I being overdramatic. I don’t think so.

I have one more recent example from my own discipline that galvanised my thoughts on this.  I was involved with the design of alterations to a domestic building. Against my advice the clients opted to oversee the construction side of the project themselves. (programmes like grand designs have a lot to answer for here) . When it came to getting a certificate for the completed building, however, the officer noted a minor alteration to the plans – a glass screen in a structural opening was omitted. The officer requested an amendment to the warrant as they are at liberty to do and this of course incurs a fee. I knew it was foolish, but in order to be helpful I offered to submit a new application. I was then told that we also needed a structural engineer’s certificate to cover the variation. I protested. The alterations had no structural significance at all. I knew that, the officer knew that and my 9yr old grandson would know that too. Still, he insisted, and when I asked why, he simply said it was protocol. (“Protocol” is the brick wall you meet in this game. It stops any further progress, defies argument and is what the officials can conveniently hide behind.) The stark facts were: If we didn’t get the necessary certificate, the application would be refused, my client would not get a completion certificate and she may not be able to sell the house further down the line.  Something clicked in me. I had had enough. We all knew this was silly and all we were doing was wasting other people’s time and money following a rule that had come adrift from its original purpose. I told the council and the client I wasn’t doing it and walked away*.

That little defiance has encouraged me to keep my eyes and ears open and watch for the approach of silliness and, while it will not necessarily change anything, I am sure, at least I will be able to recognise it and say  “Go on then, play your little game and do what you want to do, no matter how stupid it is, but don’t expect to get any help from me.”


Huge as the tower which builders vain/Presumptuous piled on Shinar’s plain.

It was the second petition in what we call the lord’s prayer, that model and pattern that Jesus gave his listeners instructing how we should speak to God; “Your Kingdom come” he said. And something struck me.

The thing is we have moved on from kings and queens. When Elizabeth goes the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be on pretty shaky ground. Now it is as shaky as the monarch’s own health and who can guess what will happen when she departs?  She who took a solemn vow 70 years ago and one, that she unfashionably has kept. It is probably unlikely that the monarchy will survive for very long after. In any case we are doing away with monarchs and tribes and races.  We are giving up on republics and dictatorships and having doubts about democracy. We have outgrown nations and borders. The future is internationalist. We are progressing into a new world order, a great reset where people from all over can come together, find consensus, collaborate unite and plan for the common good in equality and equity.  The existential threats of war, food security, overpopulation, disease and climate chaos can be now be faced straight on and with our collective will, can be defeated. We can, we will, it is all possible, if we come together. To deny that would be treason and a counsel of despair. The future is one of peace, prosperity, security, harmony and fruitfulness for all.

It all sounds very much like the Kingdom of God… Sounds like it.  Except that God seems not to be mentioned. Which, when you think about it is strange. In fact, great pains are being taken to make sure he is not even namechecked. In the small-scale union of European nations, the idea that one nation can unashamedly declare its Christian heritage creates an enormous problem. We cannot have the suggestion that God has any part in what we are doing. The pretext is offense but the subtext is defiance. There is no god so we are gods and master of our own destiny. There is no King of kings so we are kings. There is no Lord of all we are our own lords. If you stand back and think about it for a moment it is almost comical and it would be, were it not so tragic.

Someone has suggested that we should be wary of any organising that has “world” in it’s title. The amassing of power seems inevitably to lead to an amassing of corruption and so often ends up with the organisation eating itself, destroying its original purpose of being. That may be so, but we certainly should be sceptical about large institutions that are able to accumulate power, albeit with fine motives for world peace or food or health or the environment or the eradication of poverty. So, you end up with the quite unbelievable situation where Venezuela, Sudan, Somalia, Qatar, Libya, Eritrea, Russia and China are all members of the UN Human Rights Council. If that is not an organisation eating itself, I don’t know what is. All nations are equally subject to the UN charter on human rights but some are more equal than others.

It’s only a small step from an intergovernmental agency becoming a supranational one and it is all done by stealth. Witness the recent attempt by the World Health Organisation, flushed with its success in getting almost the whole world to bend to its self-proclaimed authority to purloin even more power in its proposed pandemic treaty. All of the western enlightened nations rolled over and it was only blocked by plucky Africa. Once again it is people from the poorest countries, ones that have suffered from years of oppression and slavery, who have the vision to see what is actually going on. They see it as yet another attempt at colonisation. In the world context, that defiance is one genuine sign of hope.

These supranational bodies, amassing power and wealth and unchecked authority, inevitably become towers of Babel. The biblical story always sounded strange to me and I didn’t see what was particularly wrong with what they were doing. Afterall it was not violence or debauchery or cruelty or any other sin, but simply a public-spirited project in the interests of the common good. What was wrong with making bricks and mortar? Why did God deliberately disrupt what they were doing by causing confusion over language? It seems grossly unfair to intervene in this worthwhile project.  That is what it seems like, but if we read the story carefully, we see that it was out of love and concern that God intervened and halted the work. While the motive behind building the city and the tower was pride “so that we can have a name for ourselves, not God”, and fear, the fear of dispersal, God’s motive in intervening is mercy and love. He intervenes to prevent them from doing much worse and so they end up being dispersed.

Time will come, I am sure, when the big world-wide institutions will fall into their own state of confusion, will be unable to hold the centre, will disintegrate, split apart and we will find ourselves retreating to our small nation states with borders, our own  language and customs, having to grow our own food and look after our own families. It seems to me very likely and, I think, despite the pain it will cause, it will be a good thing. I would see it as a sign of mercy and a sign that God still loves the world that he created and is not giving up on us just yet, but providing us with one more opportunity to come to our senses and recognise the creator and the one who gives us our life, the king of kings, the name above all names.


There can be no doubt that the present financial crisis we are all facing which, will inevitably harm the poorest most of all, as it always does, will almost certainly eclipse that of 2008. There can be no doubt, that this has been caused directly by the Westminster Government’s profligate and reckless folly in their response to Covid-19, together with the rolling over to environmental pressure groups and virtual signalling on climate change with the sustained push towards green energy at the expense of oil and gas. The fuel increases are most likely caused by investors being frightened away from fossil fuels, crippling future developments and inevitable allowing prices to spiral out of control. A lot of people cheer and say that must be a good thing if we can save the planet. If you take that kind of moral stance, you need to accept the inevitable acceleration of worldwide poverty, which has been in decline now for quite a long time, and the famine and deaths that will surely follow. This, unlike climate catastrophe itself, is an existential risk. You have to accept that in order to make an omelette you need to break eggs. You need, as a government, to make that assessment, make a judgement on the decisions you take, basically have a think before you act to decide whether it will result in a worse situation than the one you are trying to alleviate. Something that the UK government did not do when faced with Covid-19

The facts we now know about the eye watering sums of public money that were squandered with hardly any accounting, during the crisis, are beyond scary. You don’t need to be an economist to understand that. According to the National Audit Office, £370billion was spent by the government on Covid issues by September 2021: £154B on business support, £84B on health and social care, £67B on emergency response and other public services, £60B made directly to individuals – self-employed schemes and the like and £5B elsewhere, wherever elsewhere is. It is hard to grasp what £370billion looks like to us plain folks, but it was suggested1 that that sum could provide every family in the UK three full meals a day for 3 years, abolish income tax totally for 20 months, or fund the armed forces for 8 years. So, a lot of money.

I wrote to my Westminster MP asking what action he or his party took to oppose this irresponsible profligatory and the potential destruction of our economy. Why did they fail to hold the government to account? This, of course, is the principal reason for him being there in the first place. I think I know the answer. It will be the like the one I got from my MSP, simply ignoring the question but telling me how good the Scottish Government was in spending money on lots of really nice things. I like all the nice things like free prescription, free bus travel, child payments increased benefits and free tuition, but now and then I wonder where the money is coming from and who is paying. Now we know, it will be our children and the poor, which is a nice legacy to leave.

Her majesty’s opposition in parliament, throughout this crisis, has been hopelessly ineffective and worse than useless. Their unwillingness to even challenge the basic assumptions of lock-downs and all the other cruel measures is staggering but that aside you would have thought they would confront the cavalier expenditure of massive sums of public money. That is surely what they are supposed to do. Money is usually what they care about, but no, “just spend more” was there mantra. The main stream media were similarly ineffective and pathetically supine on this. But now the chickens have come home to roost.

So, like parties and cakes, appalling indiscretions, hypocrisies and deceit it looks like they will get away with it. Because there is no serious voice up for a challenge.  After all, there is a war on “don’t you know?” It is unlikely that the much-published public enquiry will actually expose the root cause of the disaster. But the public might. We might just realise that we have been had, were taken for complete fools, strung along with words of false authority and corrupted science, frightened into acting like lemmings. It could be hard but we might just realise that they have abused our trust, overcome our inbuilt trust and respect for authority. We might think to ask questions, we might challenge our acceptance of the given narrative and glimpse something of the reality of what has been done in our name. Things would then change, but I am not holding my breath. Everything points to us taking the line of least resistance, avoiding conflict and going along with whatever the authorities dictate, for the sake of peace and a comfortable life. After all we may say “it is no big deal” Well this time it is a big deal.

Back in 1976 on a programme broadcast by the BBC, Alexandra Solzhenitsyn spoke about the riddle and contradictions in human nature.

“One of these riddles is: how is it that people who have been crushed by the sheer weight of slavery and cast to the bottom of the pit can nevertheless find the strength to rise up and free themselves, first in spirit and then in body; while those who soar unhampered over the peaks of freedom suddenly lose the taste for freedom, lose the will to defend it, and, hopelessly confused and lost, almost begin to crave slavery”2

  1. Ewan Stewart (economist)
  2. Alexandra Solzhenitsyn “warning to the west”