I wonder whether Mr Ritchie actually wrote this, or it was written by the HR department, or some humble civil servant working at police headquarters.
Let's remember that all this stuff is performative. There is no intention to actually do it - it is just the police showing everyone how well aligned they are with what they perceive to be the zeitgeist.
The fact that they are sorely mistaken, and most ordinary people are well fed up with their zeitgeist, will no doubt become apparent to them eventually.
The police blogger 'Nightjack' (Richard Horton) described senior officers like Ritchie as 'Vichy Cops.' I've met many not wildly clever, but deeply ambitious, police officers who buy into this nonsense simply because it's du jour and they crave promotion.
Mr. Ritchie's screed reads like a parody of a 1980s East German political manual.
One sees (at least, I did) exactly the same kind of behaviour in commercial corporations. Asking what a manager "really believes" is futile - at best, provoking a look of utter incomprehension. Like Sir Keir Starmer, they have no "inner life"; the program controls everything they say, do, and think (if they think at all).
I am not sure this is restricted to the police service.
I work in advertising and the seniors (largely white men who wouldn’t urinate on their dear old mum if she was on fire) are full of ‘allyship’ BLM, authentic, they/them performative nonsense.
It’s what is needed to get ahead donchaknow.
It is one of things that makes me feel vaguely sane about the current nonsense: as soon as the wind changes these modern sharp toothed vicars of Bray will reverse ferret extremely quickly. You can see it playing out in the US right now with Trump’s DEI mandates.
It's not just de jour, it's total. My b-i-l failed his sgts exam by getting a DEI-related Q wrong. Not only did he fail, he was subject to disciplinary action!
It certainly sounds like robot-speak. Our local police force brandishes its slogan “Proud to protect” on all police vehicles. Were they asked by the public to explain what or whom they protect, I believe they’d look askance. It’s all just garnish.
Thanks for another superb description and explanation of the derangement that afflicts our rulers. I'll keep in mind from now on the fact that the police that spouts imbecile drivel about everyone being their "authentic selves" is also the one that enabled, promoted, and covered-up the mass rape of our children by the group that has most-favoured status in the eyes of our rulers.
I'm not sure if Scotland is learning from Germany, Germany learning from Scotland or the two places simultaneously coming up with the same nonsense. But I swear you could take this post replace Scotland etc. with Germany etc. make Ritchie Rickhardt etc. and you'd think it was a post by eugyppius
I think there is an element of frightening oneself with words about this piece. And it must be conceded that one might be unduly buoyed up by words. ...The 'state' and its undoubted tendency to become tentacular is also subject to i) overreach and its practical consequence, ii) democratic elections and the (admittedly very infrequent and corruptible) hands-off, anti-deepstate politicians they throw up, iii) civil society (notable for its absence in the years running up to 1933 in Schmittland, but still around in Britain), iv) bloody-mindedness and (despite what Peter Cook said about satire and the nazzis) the fuck-off spirit in its various degrees, which the internet fosters; and we are nothing like China and Iran regarding state interference on-line. I still love Scotland and the hejercayshun it gave me. People still take the piss there. And no matter how much piss there is to be taken, - a lot, I admit, these days - the human capacity is great. At the more self-elevated level of 'history' - about as important to the man in the street as Penny Dreadful's latest piece in the Grauniad - patterns of anti-moralism might be detected in the past; of course, these need not be repeated (one hurriedly says: the modern sin of potential naïfeté). And imo moralism rather than the state is what all the recent tranny 'n' tornadoes stuff has been about. 'No More Moralism' isn't a standard around which any force will gather. But being-fed-up-to-the-back-teeth is.
What is amazing about Scotland is what a great place it is despite its rulers. I put this down to it retaining a strong sense about national community. The Scots care about Scotland and like it. The English don’t care about England and hate it. Explains a lot.
Another superb piece. I have lived in Scotland for 30 years now, and every conversation other than the most basic of pleasantries inevitably leads to what I call a shadow conversation. Each side gives a little morsel to see if the other agrees and fires back a slightly raised stake. Both parties are gauging where the common ground is, and in my experience there is something akin to molten magma laying under the surface.
Sounds like how the Russians spoke in Soviet Times. The book called 'The Whisperers' has first hand accounts of the mental gymnastics and sheer silence people endured.
The question of the metaphysical basis for authority is compelling. You mention the displacement of divine right, David, as though it were a better alternative, but then mention the Aztecs. This begs the question (or draws attention to the underlying assumption that divine right is better), since child sacrifice was religious in nature. No doubt, the present unravelling of morality has everything to do with shallow materialism and ideas of "minority rights" anchored in skin colour, genitalia (and whatever it is one likes to do with those genitalia), and all manner of victim claims. Problem is, to my mind, materialism is a slippery thing and finds its way into matters spiritual and religious quite easily. I've mentioned before that I believe we're witnessing the end of a civilisation, and there's nothing to be done about it. I am nevertheless curious to know if you feel there's an answer here to how best to situate a rationale for authority.
No, I agree - we are seeing the end of secular modernity. It’s as dead as a doornail. The future is re-enchantment of the world and it is already happening.
IMO Scotland was one of the first places where the over reach of the State started, where a fully functioning society (the clans) was displaced by bureaucratic alternative (the Hanoverian state). Effectively the State wishes to usurp the place traditionally occupied by God in a society. There is a very interesting science in Michael Caines Kidnapped which teases this out ‘a sparrow must fall so that a lark may rise!’…..
This is where the over reach of the State leads to, the promise of ‘safety’ and eternal infantilisation of the citizen.
I believe the dynamic is not the government acting 'like' a good shepherd but 'as' a good shepherd.
Most people like the certainty and feeling of safety generated by The Shepherd. We are mostly a collective species after all... and this has been used by the government to lead and direct people. And once Religion (obviously using the Shepherd and Flock analogy in Christianity) surrendered its 'Shepherd' role the State slowly stepped in. But people should remember that The Shepherd only looks after his flock for the good of The Shepherd.
"You hate him. Good. Then the time has come for you to take the last step. You must love Big Brother. [The Shepherd] It is not enough to obey him: you must love him."
~ George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four
And that is why government is so disappointed by people who flout its benevolence. It should be loved, not reviled.
Modernity identifies as secular, but I believe it's really the re-emergence of the god-self, the pre-Christian idea that personal divinity can be discovered through introspection and uncaged from the body. By secular, they mean a rejection of external religious guidance which would impose limits on their beliefs or behaviour, rather than a rejection of religiosity itself.
Some theologians like Elaine Pagels have suggested that this concept was introduced to Europe in the first centuries AD by Buddhist missionaries who inspired the Gnostics. That put them at odds with Hellenic Jewish converts to Christianity who established the theology of the Roman Church under Constantine in 325AD.
Fringe Protestants like the Quakers believe in a Gnostic 'inner light' which is why they don't have priests, and pray to themselves. A lot of 'progressive' organisations have Quaker history or leadership.
So, to answer your question David, in secular society the source of moral authority is the god-self, which only the most self-enlightened among us have access to. I believe that's why people who don't go along with progressive mantras are considered wicked and deserving of banishment.
The progressives of today are not liberals; they are iconoclasts who wish to smash established social conventions.
Forgot to mention the obvious application of the frog/scorpion anecdote to the banking system and its now only rationale of making profit from what the majority of the public continue to believe is money which belongs to them but which has been handed to a bank for safe keeping and convenience but which has become owned by the bank by the simple means of treating the public as a creditor. But the notion that a bank is nothing but an intermediary between the public and the wiser society is blown out of the water by virtue that the banks create the money out of thin air every time they approve an application for a loan.
People still labour over the misapprehension that a central bank under the nominal control of a government retain control of the amount of money (now debt) that circulates in the economy, via a form of regulation of the reserves which banks must lodge with the central bank. That regulation no longer applies. Banks dictate the supply of money/debt, leaving central banks to endeavour to ensure that the reserves held with them do cover the loans/debt on which the economy is now dependent. Cart before the horse writ large !!
So, I continue to maintain that the political system is no longer in control of the economy and, as such, no longer governs!! It continues to gull the electorate that it is pulling the economic strings but has placed itself in the role of negotiating the best possible iteration of the national hire purchase concept under which the nation exists!!
I happen to be reading a very good back about the Safra family, an international banking dynasty who based their operations on what they called the ‘ancient’ approach to banking - not providing credit but taking deposits. They said they did not like to make loans and did it sparingly.
Thanks for this. During my time working for a firm of London solicitors with a long established trustee company based in Geneva, I had occasion to be involved with a number of Swiss banks, one of which was Sarasin Bank. Round about the time of my retirement in 2013, Sarasin was acquired by Safra and I note that the merged bank has recently taken over the Saxo Bank
I have my doubts that Safra continue to avoid the provision of credit !!
If you can find the time, I heartedly recommend reading ‘Where does Money Come From’ co-authored by Prof. Richard Werner. It’s an eye opener on the banking system!!
NB
I’ve just finished reading Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ and currently reading Rousseau’s ‘The Social Contract’, both of which result from devouring your own well read research. So, thanks also for that !!
Now you’ve made me curious about the Safra family !! You’ve probably already noted the family feud which, as a trust/probate person, rouses my interest - see attached FT link
Thanks, as ever, for this restating of the encroaching dangers inherent in governmental creep into xevery aspect of societal existence.
I re-read your excellent article from January last year based loosely of the anecdotal story of the frog/scorpion and it prompted me to write a comment on the manner in which governments have grown impervious to the funding of a lifestyle modelled on the hire purchase system !!
My own childhood was one in which I was warned against being neither a borrower or lender. As such, hire purchase has always been an anathema - other than taking on a mortgage,during which time interest rates touched 12/13% - and so my entire adult life has been spent taking care not to live beyond my means.
So, this comment is slightly ‘off piste’, but relevant to the issue of the manner in which governmental encroachment continually worsens the conflation with the ‘never, never’ approach to societal existence.
This article feels especially well-timed in light of Parliament passing two Acts in one week related to death - decriminalising abortion and the end of life act. Neither, I suspect, will have the outcomes they say. As people have commented, this system rests on being judged by intent not by outcomes or results. The Process is King.
For heaven's sake. My comment clearly concerned the systematic cover-up of so-called Pakistani grooming gangs - anybody who read the dialogue in good faith would have absolutely no difficulty in understanding that. You clearly have an axe to grind - go and grind it elsewhere, please.
You clearly don't have a good faith interest in reading substack posts or comments. The point is that police forces have been unwilling to investigate Pakistani grooming gangs due to fear of being labelled racist. That is in Baroness Casey's report. That is what the original commenter was alluding to, and that is what I was riffing on. To make the joke crushingly, mind-bogglingly clear - Police Scotland are swanning about making the claim that their role is to protect individuals' capacity to be their 'true and authentic selves' while turning a blind eye to particular categories of crime. Hence, it would appear, that if one's 'true and authentic self' is a perpetrator of such a category of crime, that truth and authenticity is protected. The target is not Pakistani men - the target is the police. That I should have to explain this is depressing and a waste of time.
I'll take the bait. Are 88% of rapes carried out by white men, or are 88% of convicted rapists white men? Have you factored in the number of rapes per rapist, or the overall conviction rate? Simple statistics tend to obscure complex problems.
I'll take the bait. Are 88% of rapes carried out by white men, or are 88% of convicted rapists white men? Have you factored in the number of rapes per rapist, or the overall conviction rate? Simple statistics tend to obscure complex problems.
I wonder whether Mr Ritchie actually wrote this, or it was written by the HR department, or some humble civil servant working at police headquarters.
Let's remember that all this stuff is performative. There is no intention to actually do it - it is just the police showing everyone how well aligned they are with what they perceive to be the zeitgeist.
The fact that they are sorely mistaken, and most ordinary people are well fed up with their zeitgeist, will no doubt become apparent to them eventually.
The police blogger 'Nightjack' (Richard Horton) described senior officers like Ritchie as 'Vichy Cops.' I've met many not wildly clever, but deeply ambitious, police officers who buy into this nonsense simply because it's du jour and they crave promotion.
Mr. Ritchie's screed reads like a parody of a 1980s East German political manual.
One sees (at least, I did) exactly the same kind of behaviour in commercial corporations. Asking what a manager "really believes" is futile - at best, provoking a look of utter incomprehension. Like Sir Keir Starmer, they have no "inner life"; the program controls everything they say, do, and think (if they think at all).
I am not sure this is restricted to the police service.
I work in advertising and the seniors (largely white men who wouldn’t urinate on their dear old mum if she was on fire) are full of ‘allyship’ BLM, authentic, they/them performative nonsense.
It’s what is needed to get ahead donchaknow.
It is one of things that makes me feel vaguely sane about the current nonsense: as soon as the wind changes these modern sharp toothed vicars of Bray will reverse ferret extremely quickly. You can see it playing out in the US right now with Trump’s DEI mandates.
I have the same inkling.
It's not just de jour, it's total. My b-i-l failed his sgts exam by getting a DEI-related Q wrong. Not only did he fail, he was subject to disciplinary action!
I expect he asked ChatGPT to write it
Agreed. I don't think HR folk can write. They can fill out forms just fine, but writing, I expect, is beyond their skill set.
It certainly sounds like robot-speak. Our local police force brandishes its slogan “Proud to protect” on all police vehicles. Were they asked by the public to explain what or whom they protect, I believe they’d look askance. It’s all just garnish.
Thanks for another superb description and explanation of the derangement that afflicts our rulers. I'll keep in mind from now on the fact that the police that spouts imbecile drivel about everyone being their "authentic selves" is also the one that enabled, promoted, and covered-up the mass rape of our children by the group that has most-favoured status in the eyes of our rulers.
Yes, if your authentic self is a child rapist and torturer from Kashmir….
I'm not sure if Scotland is learning from Germany, Germany learning from Scotland or the two places simultaneously coming up with the same nonsense. But I swear you could take this post replace Scotland etc. with Germany etc. make Ritchie Rickhardt etc. and you'd think it was a post by eugyppius
or alternatively Scotify some of the names in this - https://www.eugyppius.com/p/why-establishment-political-discourse - and it would be equally believable
Indeed! Scotland, Germany - and Ireland also terrible for this.
I think there is an element of frightening oneself with words about this piece. And it must be conceded that one might be unduly buoyed up by words. ...The 'state' and its undoubted tendency to become tentacular is also subject to i) overreach and its practical consequence, ii) democratic elections and the (admittedly very infrequent and corruptible) hands-off, anti-deepstate politicians they throw up, iii) civil society (notable for its absence in the years running up to 1933 in Schmittland, but still around in Britain), iv) bloody-mindedness and (despite what Peter Cook said about satire and the nazzis) the fuck-off spirit in its various degrees, which the internet fosters; and we are nothing like China and Iran regarding state interference on-line. I still love Scotland and the hejercayshun it gave me. People still take the piss there. And no matter how much piss there is to be taken, - a lot, I admit, these days - the human capacity is great. At the more self-elevated level of 'history' - about as important to the man in the street as Penny Dreadful's latest piece in the Grauniad - patterns of anti-moralism might be detected in the past; of course, these need not be repeated (one hurriedly says: the modern sin of potential naïfeté). And imo moralism rather than the state is what all the recent tranny 'n' tornadoes stuff has been about. 'No More Moralism' isn't a standard around which any force will gather. But being-fed-up-to-the-back-teeth is.
What is amazing about Scotland is what a great place it is despite its rulers. I put this down to it retaining a strong sense about national community. The Scots care about Scotland and like it. The English don’t care about England and hate it. Explains a lot.
Another superb piece. I have lived in Scotland for 30 years now, and every conversation other than the most basic of pleasantries inevitably leads to what I call a shadow conversation. Each side gives a little morsel to see if the other agrees and fires back a slightly raised stake. Both parties are gauging where the common ground is, and in my experience there is something akin to molten magma laying under the surface.
Sounds like how the Russians spoke in Soviet Times. The book called 'The Whisperers' has first hand accounts of the mental gymnastics and sheer silence people endured.
The question of the metaphysical basis for authority is compelling. You mention the displacement of divine right, David, as though it were a better alternative, but then mention the Aztecs. This begs the question (or draws attention to the underlying assumption that divine right is better), since child sacrifice was religious in nature. No doubt, the present unravelling of morality has everything to do with shallow materialism and ideas of "minority rights" anchored in skin colour, genitalia (and whatever it is one likes to do with those genitalia), and all manner of victim claims. Problem is, to my mind, materialism is a slippery thing and finds its way into matters spiritual and religious quite easily. I've mentioned before that I believe we're witnessing the end of a civilisation, and there's nothing to be done about it. I am nevertheless curious to know if you feel there's an answer here to how best to situate a rationale for authority.
No, I agree - we are seeing the end of secular modernity. It’s as dead as a doornail. The future is re-enchantment of the world and it is already happening.
IMO Scotland was one of the first places where the over reach of the State started, where a fully functioning society (the clans) was displaced by bureaucratic alternative (the Hanoverian state). Effectively the State wishes to usurp the place traditionally occupied by God in a society. There is a very interesting science in Michael Caines Kidnapped which teases this out ‘a sparrow must fall so that a lark may rise!’…..
This is where the over reach of the State leads to, the promise of ‘safety’ and eternal infantilisation of the citizen.
Yes, I would say Ireland and the Highlands of Scotland were the crucibles as the first places to experience British technocratic modernisation.
It’s all William Pettys fault….(well maybe not all but he has a very interesting take on Ireland as a cadaver to be dissected)
scene not science. And I wrote an essay about it in my own Substack. The Children of Lir Part Two
I believe the dynamic is not the government acting 'like' a good shepherd but 'as' a good shepherd.
Most people like the certainty and feeling of safety generated by The Shepherd. We are mostly a collective species after all... and this has been used by the government to lead and direct people. And once Religion (obviously using the Shepherd and Flock analogy in Christianity) surrendered its 'Shepherd' role the State slowly stepped in. But people should remember that The Shepherd only looks after his flock for the good of The Shepherd.
"You hate him. Good. Then the time has come for you to take the last step. You must love Big Brother. [The Shepherd] It is not enough to obey him: you must love him."
~ George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four
And that is why government is so disappointed by people who flout its benevolence. It should be loved, not reviled.
THE SHEPHERD IS WATCHING YOU.
This is an old theme visible in the Greek understanding of tyranny. The tyrant desires that the people love, not merely obey, him.
Modernity identifies as secular, but I believe it's really the re-emergence of the god-self, the pre-Christian idea that personal divinity can be discovered through introspection and uncaged from the body. By secular, they mean a rejection of external religious guidance which would impose limits on their beliefs or behaviour, rather than a rejection of religiosity itself.
Some theologians like Elaine Pagels have suggested that this concept was introduced to Europe in the first centuries AD by Buddhist missionaries who inspired the Gnostics. That put them at odds with Hellenic Jewish converts to Christianity who established the theology of the Roman Church under Constantine in 325AD.
Fringe Protestants like the Quakers believe in a Gnostic 'inner light' which is why they don't have priests, and pray to themselves. A lot of 'progressive' organisations have Quaker history or leadership.
So, to answer your question David, in secular society the source of moral authority is the god-self, which only the most self-enlightened among us have access to. I believe that's why people who don't go along with progressive mantras are considered wicked and deserving of banishment.
The progressives of today are not liberals; they are iconoclasts who wish to smash established social conventions.
Great comment - thanks.
You're welcome, I mentioned Pagels in the first part of my series for Genspect on 'gender as religion' here: https://genspect.substack.com/p/is-gender-a-new-religion-or-a-very
Daniel Jupp's latest excellent post plays into this at a deep level
https://jupplandia.substack.com/p/waving-around-the-shrunken-head-when
Forgot to mention the obvious application of the frog/scorpion anecdote to the banking system and its now only rationale of making profit from what the majority of the public continue to believe is money which belongs to them but which has been handed to a bank for safe keeping and convenience but which has become owned by the bank by the simple means of treating the public as a creditor. But the notion that a bank is nothing but an intermediary between the public and the wiser society is blown out of the water by virtue that the banks create the money out of thin air every time they approve an application for a loan.
People still labour over the misapprehension that a central bank under the nominal control of a government retain control of the amount of money (now debt) that circulates in the economy, via a form of regulation of the reserves which banks must lodge with the central bank. That regulation no longer applies. Banks dictate the supply of money/debt, leaving central banks to endeavour to ensure that the reserves held with them do cover the loans/debt on which the economy is now dependent. Cart before the horse writ large !!
So, I continue to maintain that the political system is no longer in control of the economy and, as such, no longer governs!! It continues to gull the electorate that it is pulling the economic strings but has placed itself in the role of negotiating the best possible iteration of the national hire purchase concept under which the nation exists!!
I happen to be reading a very good back about the Safra family, an international banking dynasty who based their operations on what they called the ‘ancient’ approach to banking - not providing credit but taking deposits. They said they did not like to make loans and did it sparingly.
Thanks for this. During my time working for a firm of London solicitors with a long established trustee company based in Geneva, I had occasion to be involved with a number of Swiss banks, one of which was Sarasin Bank. Round about the time of my retirement in 2013, Sarasin was acquired by Safra and I note that the merged bank has recently taken over the Saxo Bank
https://www.home.saxo/en-gb/content/commentaries/pr/press-release/safra-sarasin-group-10032025
I have my doubts that Safra continue to avoid the provision of credit !!
If you can find the time, I heartedly recommend reading ‘Where does Money Come From’ co-authored by Prof. Richard Werner. It’s an eye opener on the banking system!!
NB
I’ve just finished reading Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ and currently reading Rousseau’s ‘The Social Contract’, both of which result from devouring your own well read research. So, thanks also for that !!
Thanks Stephen and glad you’re getting something out of what I write… I am very interested in the history of money so I’ll check out the Werner book!
Now you’ve made me curious about the Safra family !! You’ve probably already noted the family feud which, as a trust/probate person, rouses my interest - see attached FT link
https://www.ft.com/content/290bddfa-a4d5-468f-80d9-623a27c826f3
This is the book I have been reading - fascinating tale: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/283923.Vendetta
Thanks, as ever, for this restating of the encroaching dangers inherent in governmental creep into xevery aspect of societal existence.
I re-read your excellent article from January last year based loosely of the anecdotal story of the frog/scorpion and it prompted me to write a comment on the manner in which governments have grown impervious to the funding of a lifestyle modelled on the hire purchase system !!
My own childhood was one in which I was warned against being neither a borrower or lender. As such, hire purchase has always been an anathema - other than taking on a mortgage,during which time interest rates touched 12/13% - and so my entire adult life has been spent taking care not to live beyond my means.
So, this comment is slightly ‘off piste’, but relevant to the issue of the manner in which governmental encroachment continually worsens the conflation with the ‘never, never’ approach to societal existence.
This article feels especially well-timed in light of Parliament passing two Acts in one week related to death - decriminalising abortion and the end of life act. Neither, I suspect, will have the outcomes they say. As people have commented, this system rests on being judged by intent not by outcomes or results. The Process is King.
For heaven's sake. My comment clearly concerned the systematic cover-up of so-called Pakistani grooming gangs - anybody who read the dialogue in good faith would have absolutely no difficulty in understanding that. You clearly have an axe to grind - go and grind it elsewhere, please.
You clearly don't have a good faith interest in reading substack posts or comments. The point is that police forces have been unwilling to investigate Pakistani grooming gangs due to fear of being labelled racist. That is in Baroness Casey's report. That is what the original commenter was alluding to, and that is what I was riffing on. To make the joke crushingly, mind-bogglingly clear - Police Scotland are swanning about making the claim that their role is to protect individuals' capacity to be their 'true and authentic selves' while turning a blind eye to particular categories of crime. Hence, it would appear, that if one's 'true and authentic self' is a perpetrator of such a category of crime, that truth and authenticity is protected. The target is not Pakistani men - the target is the police. That I should have to explain this is depressing and a waste of time.
I'll take the bait. Are 88% of rapes carried out by white men, or are 88% of convicted rapists white men? Have you factored in the number of rapes per rapist, or the overall conviction rate? Simple statistics tend to obscure complex problems.
I'll take the bait. Are 88% of rapes carried out by white men, or are 88% of convicted rapists white men? Have you factored in the number of rapes per rapist, or the overall conviction rate? Simple statistics tend to obscure complex problems.
No, I spoke perfectly clearly and you’re deliberately misinterpreting it. Get a life or bother somebody else, now, please.
That wasn’t what I said, and you perfectly well know it.