Letter XXI: The Quiet Transfer of Authority

Laptop screen stamped “Consent Assumed” symbolising administrative control replacing individual autonomy

How Power Learned to Hide in Plain Sight

By Martyn Walker
Published in Letters from a Nation in Decline

Nations do not collapse in spectacles of ruin. They decline administratively. The erosion of liberty rarely arrives with banners or barricades. It appears instead as guidance, optimisation, and protection, introduced through processes so mundane that resistance feels faintly unreasonable. The modern citizen is not ordered to surrender autonomy. He is persuaded to misplace it.

The evidence is seldom dramatic. It begins in trivial irritations: a device, purchased outright, quietly reconfigured by its manufacturer in the name of preservation. A setting deliberately chosen by the owner reappears in its default state following an update issued without consultation. The justification is rational, even defensible. The owner, it is implied, cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of his own property. The device must be protected from the individual who paid for it.

Such incidents would once have been regarded as impertinent. Today they are routine. Ownership has been replaced by conditional authorship. The citizen is permitted to configure his environment, provided he accepts that it will be periodically corrected by those who know better.

This transformation was not unforeseen. Early scholars of digital governance warned that authority would migrate most effectively when it ceased to rely upon legislation and embedded itself instead within technical architecture. Laws could be challenged, debated, and repealed. Systems, once operational, simply persisted. These thinkers argued that code would not merely enforce regulation but would become regulation — invisible, automatic, and resistant to democratic revision. They were regarded as imaginative theorists. Experience has quietly promoted their warnings into operational reality.

The same migration of authority is visible across British institutional life. The Post Office Horizon scandal demonstrated with exceptional clarity how technological infallibility, once declared, can displace both justice and reason. Hundreds of sub-postmasters were prosecuted, bankrupted, and socially destroyed because an institution found it easier to criminalise human testimony than to question the reliability of its own system. The tragedy was not simply technological failure. It was administrative certainty. The machine could not be wrong because the institution could not afford for it to be wrong. Authority defended software and prosecuted citizens.

The lesson was received with remarkable efficiency, though not in the manner one might have hoped. Banking, once an archetype of reciprocal commercial trust, has undergone a similar evolution. Open banking and strong customer authentication were introduced under the language of empowerment and security. In practice, they have entrenched a regime in which access to one’s own finances requires continuous verification, behavioural monitoring, and tolerance of persistent inconvenience. Banks contact customers urgently when information is required, typically through messages that cannot be answered. When customers require assistance, they encounter automated barriers, rationed human contact, and communication channels designed less for dialogue than for containment.

The commercial asymmetry would be remarkable if it were not now so familiar. Customers deposit capital, entrust personal data, and assume institutional risk, yet must compete for access to services they themselves finance. Increasing numbers have responded with understated pragmatism by withdrawing funds and transferring them to organisations still willing to communicate through email, telephone, or direct messaging. Traditional banks appear increasingly content to retreat from service provision and reconstitute themselves as regulated custodians of trust, extracting revenue from payment infrastructure while ceding innovation to more agile intermediaries.

Energy policy provides an equally instructive example. The smart meter rollout was presented as an instrument of transparency, enabling consumers to monitor consumption and reduce costs. In reality, it created a technological platform capable not merely of measurement but of behavioural enforcement. Pricing, usage, and consumption patterns increasingly fall within the administrative discretion of infrastructure operators rather than household decision-makers. The consumer is encouraged to regard this transfer of authority as environmental virtue. Choice remains available, but only within parameters determined by those insulated from the consequences of their decisions.

Speech, once regarded as the cornerstone of democratic legitimacy, has been subjected to similar administrative refinement. The Online Safety Act establishes a regulatory framework in which lawful expression may nonetheless be suppressed through platform enforcement incentives. Companies are encouraged to remove content pre-emptively, not because the law demands such caution explicitly, but because regulatory penalties reward over-compliance and punish hesitation. Authority is exercised indirectly, through incentive structures that render dissent economically hazardous rather than legally prohibited.

What unites these developments is not ideology but method. Authority has ceased to argue and begun to embed. Political choices are recast as technical necessities. Opposition is reframed as misunderstanding. Compliance becomes the default condition of participation in modern society.

British legal tradition once contained formidable defences against such encroachments. The common law principle that a man’s home is his castle expressed more than property rights; it embodied a presumption of personal sovereignty. The doctrine of administrative reasonableness required state decisions to withstand rational scrutiny. These traditions assumed that authority required justification and that power, to remain legitimate, must remain visible. Contemporary governance increasingly operates through mechanisms that evade these safeguards by translating decisions into technical processes and automated compliance frameworks. Authority is no longer asserted. It is compiled.

The genius of this transformation lies in its civility. No one is dragged from his home for criticising a regulatory regime. Instead, his account is restricted. His transactions are delayed. His content is deprioritised. His choices narrow quietly until dissent becomes administratively exhausting. Coercion is replaced by friction. Consent is replaced by fatigue.

The modern bank exemplifies this evolution. Once sustained by personal relationships and local accountability, it now survives primarily as a certified intermediary between the citizen and financial infrastructure. Trust, formerly cultivated through accessibility and service, is increasingly reduced to regulatory compliance and institutional branding. Payments, lending, and savings services are steadily migrating to technologically agile platforms. The bank’s remaining utility lies in its authority to validate identity and satisfy regulatory expectation. It becomes less a merchant and more a notary.

The small acts of resistance that persist — closing accounts, disabling unwanted functions, declining digital credentials — acquire symbolic significance precisely because their practical impact is limited. They represent attempts to preserve authorship within systems designed to reduce the citizen to a user. They recall an older constitutional settlement in which instructions, once given, remained in force until deliberately changed.

But symbolism cannot substitute for structure. A society that relies upon individual vigilance to preserve autonomy has already conceded the principle of autonomy. Freedom that survives only through constant technical alertness is freedom in retreat.

The transformation of authority into architecture carries one further and rarely acknowledged consequence. When power embeds itself within systems, it becomes insulated not only from public debate but from moral responsibility. Decisions appear as outcomes rather than choices. Accountability dissolves into process. The citizen is left negotiating with interfaces rather than institutions.

It may yet be that none of this is malicious. Indeed, it is far more unsettling if it is not. A society that relinquishes autonomy not through oppression but through administrative convenience demonstrates a subtler and more permanent form of decline. When citizens grow accustomed to being managed rather than represented, corrected rather than persuaded, and optimised rather than trusted, they cease to notice the distinction between governance and supervision. By the time they do, if they do, they will discover that the mechanisms designed to protect them from inconvenience have succeeded only in protecting power from accountability. Nations rarely lose their freedoms in a moment of catastrophe. They misplace them gradually, misfiled among compliance procedures, customer journeys, and software updates that nobody remembers requesting.


Afterword

By Laurence J. Peter (Posthumously, and With Considerable Relief That He Cannot Be Blamed for Any of This)

The study of bureaucratic expansion demonstrates that institutions rise to meet the limits of their competence and then continue rising with admirable indifference to gravity. In previous centuries, this phenomenon expressed itself through memoranda, filing cabinets, and committees convened to explain why earlier committees had failed to produce sufficient memoranda. Modern technology has improved the efficiency of this process while preserving its essential spirit.

One should never underestimate the capacity of a system to protect itself from the inconvenience of the public. The moment a service becomes essential, its providers begin the delicate transition from assistance to administration. This transformation is achieved not through declaration but through refinement. Procedures multiply. Access narrows. Compliance acquires moral overtones.

Several governing principles may be observed. Institutions invariably mistake longevity for legitimacy. Any organisation that describes itself as customer-focused has already redirected its focus elsewhere. The more a system promises frictionless interaction, the more elaborate its hidden mechanisms of friction become. Technology does not eliminate bureaucracy; it digitises it, accelerates it, and renders it permanently accessible.

When an institution assures the public that it acts for their safety, the prudent observer determines whose safety is under discussion. Access that can be granted can be withdrawn with admirable administrative efficiency. Trust transferred from personal relationship to institutional certification becomes indistinguishable from compliance. Citizens repeatedly required to confirm their identity eventually begin to doubt its permanence.

Processes described as streamlined have typically removed the element that permitted dissent. Efficiency, pursued as a moral objective rather than a practical one, produces systems that function flawlessly for everyone except their users. Incompetence rarely destroys institutions. It reorganises them. Failure, sufficiently systematised, becomes policy. Policy, sufficiently complex, becomes immune to reform. Reform, sufficiently delayed, becomes heritage.

The citizen confronting this landscape is advised to cultivate a modest but persistent scepticism toward any authority that offers convenience in exchange for discretion. He should distrust the large promises, read the small print, and retain, wherever possible, the habit of asking why. This will not prevent decline, but it may delay its paperwork.

References

• Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, Final and Interim Reports, UK Statutory Public Inquiry chaired by Sir Wyn Williams, 2020–present

• House of Commons Business and Trade Committee, Post Office and Horizon IT Inquiry Evidence Sessions and Reports, 2022–2024

• European Union Revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2), Directive (EU) 2015/2366 on payment services in the internal market

• UK Open Banking Implementation Entity, Open Banking Standards and Framework Documentation, mandated by the Competition and Markets Authority following the Retail Banking Market Investigation Order 2017

• Competition and Markets Authority, Retail Banking Market Investigation Final Report, 2016

• Financial Conduct Authority, Strong Customer Authentication and Secure Communication under PSD2, Regulatory Technical Standards and FCA Guidance, 2019 onwards

• National Audit Office, Rolling Out Smart Meters, HC 12 Session 2018–2019

• Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Smart Meter Implementation Programme Annual Reports, various years

• UK Parliament, Online Safety Act 2023, c. 50

• Ofcom, Online Safety Regulation Framework and Risk Assessment Guidance, 2023–2025

• Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, establishing the Wednesbury principle of administrative reasonableness

• Semayne’s Case (1604) 5 Co Rep 91a, foundational common law authority for the doctrine that a person’s home is their castle

• Dicey, A. V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, first published 1885, for classical articulation of rule of law and limits on administrative authority

• House of Lords Constitution Committee, The Legislative Process: The Delegation of Powers, HL Paper 225, 2017–2018

• National Cyber Security Centre, Guidance on Secure Customer Authentication and Fraud Prevention, supporting regulatory approaches to digital identity and verification

• UK Government, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, UK Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework, updated editions 2022–2024

• House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, Smart Meter Rollout Progress Reports, various sessions 2018–2024

• Bank of England and HM Treasury, The Digital Pound Consultation Paper, 2023, discussing centralisation of payment infrastructures and identity verification implications

• Zuboff, Shoshana, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 2019, widely cited academic work on behavioural data control and digital governance trends

• Lessig, Lawrence, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, 1999 (and Version 2.0, 2006), foundational theory on technological architecture as regulatory authority

Lessons from an RAF Pilot: Patience and Precision in Conflict

RAF pilot Ronald Walker crouching to greet a local Egyptian child during his service posting in the early 1950s

I was twenty-four when Egypt first settled into my bones. Not the Egypt of postcards and pyramids, but the Egypt of hot concrete runways shimmering under a white sun, the smell of aviation fuel drifting lazily across the dispersal pans, and voices floating up from the town markets beyond the wire where life continued with a rhythm entirely indifferent to war or empire.

My name is Ronald Walker, Pilot Officer in the Royal Air Force, and in 1954 I was stationed at RAF El Adem, just south of Tobruk. Officially, we were there to maintain stability and British interests across the region. Unofficially, we were young men flying fast aeroplanes, half-believing ourselves immortal.

I flew the de Havilland Mosquito — the “Wooden Wonder,” though by then she was becoming something of an elder stateswoman among aircraft. She lacked the brute modernity of the jets beginning to appear in other squadrons, but she possessed grace, reach, and a peculiar liveliness that made her feel less like a machine and more like a partner that rewarded care and punished arrogance.

I adored her.

Most pilots spoke of aircraft in practical terms: speed, climb rate, armament, handling at altitude. I spoke of her balance in a banking turn, the almost musical note of the engines when the propellers bit cleanly into dense desert air, and the way she seemed to sense hesitation through the controls. She flew best when one flew with conviction.

El Adem itself was a curious posting. The base was British, of course — orderly, precise, regulated by paperwork and tea — but Egypt and Libya seeped through the edges of daily life. Local contractors worked on the ground crews. Traders supplied fruit and coffee that tasted like smoke and earth. Children waved at our vehicles with wide, fearless grins. We were strangers, yet not entirely unwelcome.

I took to it immediately. I enjoyed the people, their patience, their humour, their endless capacity to negotiate everything from carpet prices to philosophical disagreements with equal enthusiasm. I found the country beautiful in a severe way — the desert stretching to horizons that made a man aware of his smallness, while the towns bustled with stubborn human colour.

And I developed a reputation within the squadron for two things: flying well and playing squash even better.

The squash courts sat behind the officers’ mess, constructed from pale stone that trapped the day’s heat and released it slowly through the evening matches. Squash was an obsession for me. I had played at school, dominated the station tournaments, and, being young, I carried my success with an enthusiasm that bordered on performance.

“Walker will be insufferable if he wins again,” one of the ground crew said once within earshot.

I smiled at the time. I took it as confirmation of my superiority rather than warning of my youth.

One afternoon, after dispatching another unfortunate flight lieutenant in straight sets, I was approached by a corporal who worked liaison duties with local staff.

“There’s an Egyptian gentleman who would like a game,” he said.

“Is he service?” I asked, towelling my neck.

“No, sir. Civilian contractor. Maintenance supply, I believe.”

I shrugged. “Bring him along.”

The man who entered the court was slight, silver-haired, and easily past sixty. He wore loose cotton trousers and carried a battered racket that looked older than most of the squadron.

He bowed his head slightly.

“Mr Walker,” he said in careful English, “I am Hassan.”

I offered him a hand and the casual confidence of youth. “Ronald, please. We play best of three?”

He smiled politely. “As you wish.”

I remember the match with uncomfortable clarity. At first, I played as I always did — aggressive, fast, driving the ball deep into corners, forcing my opponent to chase. Hassan moved slowly, almost lazily, returning each shot with gentle placement rather than force.

Within minutes, I realised I was chasing him.

He placed the ball into spaces that required me to cover the entire court, while he moved with minimal effort. He changed pace unpredictably. He let me tire myself. Each rally became longer. Each return more humiliatingly precise.

I lost the first game badly.

The second was worse.

He never struck the ball harder than necessary. He never appeared hurried. When I attempted to rush him, he simply angled the ball past me. When I attempted power, he absorbed it. When I attempted cunning, he anticipated it.

He defeated me without once raising his voice or breaking into anything resembling exertion.

At the end, he bowed again and placed his racket under his arm.

“You play with great strength,” he said. “Strength is very useful when one also knows patience.”

I laughed — partly from exhaustion, partly from embarrassment.

“Where did you learn?” I asked.

He gestured vaguely toward the town. “I have played since before your father was born, I think.”

He left me with a handshake and a lesson I would carry long after I forgot individual matches. Skill was not merely power or speed. Skill was observation, restraint, timing, and the quiet confidence of experience.

From that day, I trained differently. I watched my opponents more closely. I listened. I learned to wait.

It was a lesson I never expected to require in the air.

RAF pilot Ronald Walker standing beside a traditional reed boat in Egyptian wetlands during the early 1950s
Ronald Walker during RAF service in Egypt in the early 1950s, photographed beside a traditional reed fishing or transport vessel in a wetland area. Off-duty travel allowed him to experience local culture and landscapes that shaped his lifelong affection for Egypt.

The political climate deteriorated gradually, then suddenly. Tensions between Britain and Egypt thickened into open hostility. Communications grew formal. Familiar faces at local markets disappeared. Patrol flights increased. Briefings adopted tones that replaced speculation with operational clarity.

War, when it comes, rarely announces itself with drama. It arrives disguised as administrative procedure.

I remember the morning it became real.

The desert air was unusually cool. I had just landed from a routine patrol when I climbed from the Mosquito and removed my helmet. The control tower — squat, glass-lined, permanently dust-coated — stood against the bright horizon like an observation post over an empty sea.

Inside that tower worked Arthur Bellamy, our senior air traffic controller. He was a meticulous man, fond of terrible jokes and immaculate handwriting. Two nights earlier, over whisky, I had asked him to be my best man when I returned home to marry Patricia.

He had accepted with theatrical solemnity.

I was still smiling about it when the siren began.

Not the drill siren. Not the routine alert. The full, continuous wail that stripped humour from the airfield in seconds.

Ground crews sprinted. Vehicles scattered. The tannoy crackled with overlapping instructions. A runner approached, breathless.

“Hostile aircraft inbound from the west. Multiple contacts. Scramble orders issued.”

I did not think of strategy. I thought of the tower.

I ran.

My navigator, Flight Sergeant Peter Langford — calm, methodical, infinitely reliable — was already climbing aboard. He handed me my helmet without speaking. We had flown together long enough to communicate through economy.

Engines fired. The Merlin engines coughed, roared, and settled into that deep, confident thunder that vibrated through the entire airframe. The scent of oil and hot metal filled the cockpit. I taxied with urgency restrained only by procedure drilled into muscle memory.

The radio burst with voices: scrambled instructions, altitude reports, requests for confirmation. Through the canopy, I saw anti-aircraft crews swinging their guns toward the horizon.

“Tower reports fast movers approaching at medium altitude,” Langford said quietly behind me. “Numbers uncertain.”

I acknowledged and opened the throttles.

The Mosquito surged forward, tail lifting, runway racing beneath us until gravity surrendered. We climbed steeply into the bright morning sky, banking toward the approaching threat.

For a moment, there was only blue and sun glare. Then shapes resolved against the haze.

Two aircraft. Single-engine fighters. Sleeker, faster silhouettes than ours.

Langford confirmed what my eyes already suspected. Egyptian Air Force.

I felt no shock. Only a narrowing of focus.

Below us, the airfield spread like a vulnerable map — hangars, fuel depots, the tower where Arthur would be coordinating defence, perhaps watching our climb with his usual unflappable calm.

The fighters descended toward the base with clear intent.

“Ronald,” Langford said, voice measured, “they’re lining for the tower and dispersal.”

I adjusted course, climbing to intercept. The Mosquito was not designed to out-dogfight modern single-engine fighters in sustained turning combat. But she retained advantages — heavy armament, high speed in a dive, and exceptional stability as a gun platform.

The lesson from Hassan surfaced unexpectedly. Do not rush. Observe. Let the opponent reveal his rhythm.

The Egyptian pilots split, one climbing, one diving toward the airfield. A coordinated attack.

I chose the higher aircraft first. The diving fighter would require time to re-climb after its run. The climbing pilot posed the immediate aerial threat.

I banked sharply, pushing the Mosquito into a climbing intercept. The Merlin engines protested slightly but held steady. The Egyptian pilot spotted us quickly and rolled into a tight turn, attempting to force us into overshoot.

He was skilled. His aircraft turned inside ours easily.

I resisted the instinct to follow directly. Instead, I widened the turn, preserving speed. The Mosquito shuddered slightly as we pushed her beyond comfortable limits, but she responded faithfully.

The Egyptian tightened his circle, expecting pursuit. I climbed slightly above his arc, then rolled down across his flight path, using gravity to increase closure speed.

“Guns ready,” Langford said.

The moment aligned — not by force, but by patience. The fighter crossed our sights. I fired.

The Mosquito’s nose-mounted cannons erupted, the recoil vibrating through the controls. Tracer lines stitched across the Egyptian aircraft’s wing root. Smoke burst from the engine cowling.

He attempted to break away, rolling sharply. For a second, our aircraft flew parallel, close enough that I glimpsed the pilot’s helmet turning toward us.

Then flame erupted along his fuselage. The fighter pitched downward, trailing black smoke as it spiralled toward the desert beyond the airfield.

There was no triumph in the moment. Only clarity. The engagement remained incomplete.

“Second aircraft commencing attack run,” Langford warned.

I rolled and dived toward the base. The second Egyptian fighter screamed across the runway line, guns firing. Dust and debris erupted near the tower. Anti-aircraft tracers clawed upward around him.

Rage did not guide me. Nor fear. Only a cold determination anchored by a singular thought: Arthur was in that tower.

The fighter pulled up steeply after his firing pass, climbing directly into our path. He saw us late. He attempted a defensive roll combined with a dive, using superior manoeuvrability.

This pilot was bold — perhaps younger, more aggressive. He executed sharp, unpredictable direction changes, attempting to exploit our heavier airframe.

I remembered Hassan again — the patient placement, the refusal to match energy with energy blindly.

Instead of chasing each turn, I anticipated the pattern. The fighter alternated high-G turns with brief straight accelerations to regain speed. I held slightly above his flight path, waiting for the straight segment.

It came after his fourth turn. He levelled momentarily, perhaps to assess our position or prepare another dive.

I dropped behind him and fired a controlled burst.

The rounds struck his tail assembly. The aircraft jolted violently, then entered an uncontrolled spin. He fought the controls desperately, levelling briefly before the aircraft rolled inverted and plunged downward.

I followed his descent only long enough to confirm impact beyond the perimeter. Then I pulled away, scanning for further threats.

The sky cleared. The radio settled into structured reports. Base defence confirmed no additional attackers.

I circled once, breathing slowly, allowing adrenaline to subside. The airfield below remained intact. The tower still stood.

“Tower reports minor damage,” Langford relayed after a pause. “No casualties confirmed.”

I closed my eyes briefly and exhaled.

The landing felt strangely ordinary. Wheels touched concrete. Engines wound down. Ground crew approached cautiously, faces searching for damage, then relief.

Arthur met me at the base of the ladder. His shirt sleeves were rolled, tie missing, hair dusted with debris.

“You’re still expecting me to stand as best man?” he said.

I laughed, though my hands trembled slightly as I removed my helmet.

“More than ever.”

He clasped my shoulder firmly.

The formal debrief occurred later. Reports were written. Engagement details recorded. Aircraft identifications speculated upon. Numbers, bearings, ammunition counts — the bureaucracy of survival.

Yet that night, sitting alone outside the mess, I found my thoughts returning not to victory, but to Hassan.

War had drawn lines across friendships, across markets and courts and conversations. Men who might have shared coffee or sport now flew toward each other with lethal intent. I felt no regret — only a heavy awareness of how swiftly roles change when governments redraw loyalties.

I thought of the Egyptian pilots’ skill. Their discipline. The courage required to fly directly into defended airspace. They had not been faceless enemies. They had been professionals, perhaps fathers, perhaps mentors to younger airmen as Arthur had been to us.

The desert night wrapped the base in quiet. Somewhere beyond the perimeter lights, life continued in villages and towns untouched by the morning’s violence.

Langford joined me eventually, offering two glasses of whisky without speaking. We drank in companionable silence.

“Good flying today,” he said at last.

“Good patience,” I replied.

Years later, when younger pilots asked me about that engagement, they expected tales of heroism or tactical brilliance. I told them instead about a squash court and an elderly Egyptian who taught me that strength without patience exhausts itself, while patience transforms strength into precision.

Flying, like sport, demanded reading an opponent’s rhythm. War demanded it with consequences no match could ever replicate.

RAF aircraft being serviced at El Adem airfield in North Africa during mid-20th century Royal Air Force operations
RAF aircraft undergoing servicing at El Adem airfield in North Africa during mid-20th century Royal Air Force operations. The base served as a key staging and operational location for British aircrews stationed in the region.
Credit: Public Domain RAF Official Photograph – Crown Copyright expired.

I carried that lesson through every flight afterward. It shaped how I approached conflict, negotiation, and eventually life beyond the cockpit.

Egypt remained dear to me despite everything. The people, the landscapes, the laughter, even the scorching wind across El Adem’s runways — all of it formed part of my youth and my understanding of the world’s complicated loyalties.

I never spoke lightly of that morning again. Not from sorrow, nor from pride, but from respect for the fragile line between friend and foe, and for the strange ways life teaches its most important lessons.

And whenever I stepped onto a squash court for the rest of my life, I looked first for patience before strength, hearing Hassan’s gentle voice reminding me that victory often belongs to those who wait long enough to understand the game.


Author’s Note

Some names have been changed. Ronald Walker (known to many as Johnnie Walker) died in December 2016 at the age of 87. Like many pilots with long careers, he shared countless stories with his family—this one among them. Although I have recreated and embellished elements of the narrative, the two central incidents at RAF El Adem—Ronald being comprehensively beaten at squash by a man nearly three times his age, and his shooting down of two enemy aircraft attacking the ATC—are events he himself described.

I Am Antonio Guttttteeeerrrrres!

Antonio Guterres speaking angrily at UN podium about unpaid United Nations dues

I am the Secretary-General.
This time the collapse is financial.
Not moral —
those have been rolling since the flag was stitched.

We are owed money.
A record sum.
We like records.
Most meetings per outcome.
Most languages per problem solved.
Most observers per massacre.

In 1994
eight hundred thousand people were killed in Rwanda.
We were present.
Presence is important.
We watched carefully.
We took notes.
Then we left.
Leaving is called restraint
when you have name badges.

In 1995
we declared Srebrenica safe.
The word safe survived.
Eight thousand people did not.
We reviewed our processes.
The processes survived.

Our peacekeepers went to Haiti
to help.
Ten thousand people died of cholera.
From the help.
We apologised.
Apologies do not require logistics.

We are neutral.
That is why the strong and the weak
get one vote each.
The United States pays a fifth
and speaks once.
Tuvalu speaks once.
Population eleven thousand.
Equality is very tidy on paper.

China pays.
China votes.
China sits on the Human Rights Council.
So do Eritrea and Sudan.
We put “human rights” in the title
to keep them nearby.

We condemn things.
Strongly.
Sometimes strongly-er.
The things continue.
But now they are condemned.
This is progress you cannot see.

We investigated Oil-for-Food.
Found billions missing.
Named thousands.
Prosecuted none.
Published a report
long enough to stop a door.

We have rules.
The rules say unused money
must be returned
to states that did not pay.
This is sustainability
as understood by people
who quote Kafka
instead of fixing things.

Our peacekeepers have guidelines.
The guidelines say
do not abuse the people
you are meant to protect.
The abuse continues.
But now it is against the guidelines.
This is accountability.

We may run out of cash by July.
This will affect operations.
Operations such as
watching
and expressing concern.

Please send money.
We promise to give some of it back
to those who didn’t send any.
That is the system.
We designed it.

Changing it would require a resolution.
The resolution would be optional.
Optional means ignorable.

I am not good at arithmetic.
Or prevention.
Or stopping things.

I run the United Nations.


Dedicated to Kenule Beeson Saro-Wiwa — Ken —
who spoke when silence was safer,
who wrote when truth was unwelcome,
and who stood for the land, the people, and the dignity of voice against power that mistook brutality for order.
May remembrance outlive repression, and may words continue where courage once paid the ultimate price.

The Thin Wall Between Lies

Surreal machine made of IOUs glowing warmly in a dark room

Peter keeps the ledger.
Neat columns. Dates aligned.
“Paid,” he writes, in pencil,
because ink would be a lie.

The money is always coming.
Next week. After clearance.
Once accounts reconcile
with a future that never arrives.

Paul waits on the other side
of the same thin wall.
Different excuse. Same echo.
Funds delayed. Circumstances. Process.

Peter was told Paul had the cash.
Paul was told Peter spent it.
Between them, a corridor of promises
swept nightly, never furnished.

They do not argue anymore.
There is nothing left to dispute.
Only the quiet competence
of being unpaid in turns.

Somewhere, the system hums—
healthy, audited, congratulated—
while Peter balances nothing,
and Paul remains, impeccably, broke.

How to Keep a Snail Alive

Garden snail moving slowly across stone, a quiet reminder of patience and gentle care

I keep a garden snail
not in a box
not in a jar
but in an agreement.

The agreement is simple.
I do not rush.
He does not explain.

Each morning I leave
a damp leaf
as if it were a letter
saying I remembered you.

He answers
by remaining alive.

The snail requires very little:
shade that means it,
water that arrives quietly,
and a world that does not suddenly decide
to be important.

When I forget myself
and think speed is truth,
he retracts.
When I calm down,
he resumes the future.

He has no ambition
beyond crossing a stone
by Tuesday
and surviving the birds’ opinions.

And yet
if I can keep this creature content—
with no plans,
no praise,
no comprehension of my efforts—
then perhaps living is not mastery.

Perhaps it is maintenance.

If I can keep a snail happy,
fed,
unpanicked,
unharmed by my cleverness,
then I can live anything.

Even me.


The story behind this story.

Thanks to my very great friend Alicia, my reading and writing life has been enriched with her curiosity and her vast knowledge of the book world. From authors long forgotten to those still weaving every story from mystery to culture to comedy to the most unusual authors I would never have considered without her most welcome interference.

Imagine my surprise when she sent me a photo of a snail and said “Meet my new pet”. So out of character, but then my knowledge of Alicia tells me there is something deep and profound in this peculiar statement, I just need to find it.

The result is the above poem which, as you have probably gathered, isn’t really about a snail. The snail is simply a quiet way into something more human.

At its heart, the poem explores what it feels like to care for something that cannot be hurried, impressed, or persuaded. A garden snail doesn’t respond to effort or intention in the way people do. It doesn’t reward anxiety or ambition. It simply reacts to calm, consistency, and gentleness. That makes the relationship oddly honest.

Many of us live with a constant sense of pressure — to do more, be quicker, justify ourselves, explain our choices, and keep up with an ever-moving world. The snail exists outside all of that. It has no interest in explanations or outcomes. When the poem says, “I do not rush. He does not explain,” it captures a rare peace: a space where nothing needs defending or proving.

The small daily acts in the poem — leaving a damp leaf, choosing shade, moving quietly — reflect a form of care that modern life often overlooks. This isn’t dramatic or self-sacrificing love. It’s ordinary attention. And that ordinariness is what makes it powerful. The snail’s only response is that it continues to live. Somehow, that feels like enough.

The poem also gently reverses the usual idea of control. When the person becomes stressed or hurried, the snail retreats. When calm returns, so does the snail. In this way, the animal mirrors something very familiar: how our own inner world tightens under pressure and opens when treated kindly.

The final lines offer the poem’s quiet insight. If we can keep something small, slow, and vulnerable safe and content — without needing recognition or success — then living isn’t about achievement at all. It’s about learning not to harm what is fragile, including ourselves.

I hope people like this poem not because it is clever, but because it feels like permission. Permission to slow down. Permission to care without justification. Permission to believe that gentleness, consistency, and patience are not weaknesses, but ways of staying alive.

In that sense, the snail becomes a reminder: living well doesn’t always mean doing more. Sometimes it simply means being careful enough to let life continue.

Living Off the Grid: The Journey of ‘Lucky the Lacky’

I met him because someone thought I ought to. That was the reason given, anyway. I was visiting Yosemite about twenty years ago, staying long enough to fall into conversation with a park employee who, after a day or two of small talk, said, almost casually, “You should meet a friend of mine.” He paused, gauging whether I was the sort of person who might laugh. “He lives off the grid. Completely.”

We drove for a while after leaving the park boundary. That mattered, I was told. Inside Yosemite, the rules were absolute, and rightly so. Preservation there was not a slogan but a discipline. You could admire nature, walk through it, photograph it, but you could not negotiate with it. My host’s friend had no quarrel with that. He simply knew the difference between stewardship and suffocation.

His land lay on the side of a mountain, far enough from the road that the last stretch was done slowly, deliberately, as if the place resisted being arrived at too quickly. He was a hunter, a fisherman, a farmer, but not in the romanticised way of catalogues and television. He knew where bears crossed and gave them room. He knew which rocks warmed snakes in the afternoon and left them alone. The wild boar were another matter—hybrids, aggressive, clever—and he spoke of them with the wary respect you reserve for something that can beat you if it chooses. Wolves, he said, were fewer every year. Farmers still poisoned and trapped them, not out of cruelty so much as habit. That observation came without anger, only with the calm note-taking of a man who preferred facts to outrage.

He kept a horse and goats, grazing them on land that had been measured and remeasured, not by surveyors this time but by weather, yield, and patience. Everything he needed was there, and almost nothing he didn’t.

His name was Patrick Murphy, though no one called him that. He had been christened “Lucky the Lacky” on an oil rig in his youth, a name that had clung because it was earned. Fresh out of college, qualifications in hand, his father had sent him offshore with a blunt instruction: to become an engineer, he had to start where engineering was least glamorous. That meant a year living and working with men who took pride in muscle, routine, and relentless teasing. They called him Lacky at first, and the name was not kind. He carried tools, cleaned messes, learned the rhythms of machinery and people. The teasing persisted, but so did the respect. Friendship grew where condescension was expected.

The day the name changed, a pressure system failed. A safety valve did its job too well. Shrapnel tore through the air, punched through a hut, and vanished into the sea beyond. Patrick had just sat down inside. Had he still been standing, he would not have walked away. The men who saw it happen decided that Lacky no longer fit. From then on he was Lucky, though “Lucky the Lacky” remained his formal title whenever ceremony demanded it.

He went on to live what most people would call a successful life. Marriage, children, good money, a future inheritance. Then came the divorce. It did not ruin him, but it rearranged him. He began to notice how much of his life was spent maintaining things he did not particularly want, under rules that assumed he could not be trusted to manage himself. The problem, as he saw it, was not rules in themselves. He had lived with them on rigs and respected them there. The problem was excess—regulation without purpose, oversight without understanding.

So he bought a mountain.

By forty, he had stripped his life back to what he considered essential. He obeyed the laws that mattered—licenses, taxes, insurance—and did so meticulously. A former engineer with an almost pathological respect for tolerances, he designed everything to exceed requirements. If an inspector came, they left reassured, if slightly puzzled. Beyond that, he kept authority at arm’s length.

Power came first from the sun. Solar panels fed an array of ten forty-eight-volt lead-acid batteries, the best available at the time. That power pumped water into a tower-mounted tank, gravity doing the rest. When he opened a tap, the descending water turned a small generator, reclaiming a fraction of the energy used to lift it. “It’s not much,” he said, almost apologetically, “but it offends me to waste effort.”

A river ran through his property. On it he built a water wheel, properly licensed, inspected, and documented. It produced about thirty amps at one hundred and fifteen volts, day and night. That, he said, was the only part of his life that required anyone else’s permission, and he accepted that without complaint. Left unregulated, rivers were abused. Some rules, he believed, existed because people had earned them.

He was not, despite appearances, cut off. He had internet access. He wrote, studied, made videos. An address existed where parcels could find him. He used these connections sparingly, but effectively. People sent him tools and gadgets to review. He obliged, not as an influencer but as an engineer who enjoyed explaining why something worked—or didn’t.

I visited him in winter, the year after he finished building his reservoir. It was fully permitted, fully documented, and entirely his own work. We walked down to it together. The lake had frozen nearly a foot thick. Near the centre, he had created an island.

He explained it with the quiet pride of someone who knew the explanation would land eventually. He had anchored a rope at the centre, drawn a perfect circle, and cut it by hand with a massive steel saw. Sixty feet across. In the middle sat an ice-fishing hut he had built himself. Double-glazed windows. A lamp. An electric cooker. Power came through a cable beneath the ice, fitted with a mechanism that allowed endless rotation without twisting. The island turned slowly during the day, driven by a small solar motor at its edge.

“Of course,” he said, watching it move, “it doesn’t run at night, or when the weather’s foul. But who wants to be out here then?”

Standing there, in the cold, watching an island turn because someone had thought carefully enough and been left alone long enough to make it happen, I felt something unexpected. Not awe at nature—I had plenty of that—but recognition. A sense that civilisation was not concrete and paperwork, not forms and permissions, but competence applied with restraint. Rules that protect, not smother. Freedom that assumes responsibility, not its absence.

When I left his mountain, I drove back towards towns and signs and instructions. I remember thinking, quite seriously, that I had just visited civilisation for the first time.

Letter XX – The Municipal Mirage

A once-civic institution, now hollowed by bureaucracy and central control.

By Martyn Walker
Published in Letters from a Nation in Decline

Once upon a time—within living memory, though now spoken of as though it were some sepia-toned idyll—the local council was exactly that: local. A modest civic body, often dull, occasionally officious, but recognisably part of the community whose money it spent. One imagines the town clerk of 1958, sleeves rolled, spectacles perched, frowning over the drainage budget with the stoicism of a man who knows he will meet the ratepayers in the butcher’s queue tomorrow morning. He was not a visionary, a strategist, a consultant, or a “stakeholder partner.” He merely fixed the roads, emptied the bins, and ensured the library opened on time. He did so because the town needed these things, and because the town paid for them.

Compare that modest creature with today’s municipal apparatus, a body swollen to the point of deformity, draped in managerial jargon and trembling under a hundred mutually contradictory regulations. Instead of the honest if plodding civil servant, we have entire platoons of officers whose professional identity is built not on service but on compliance. They do not shape the town; they interpret guidance. They do not defend local interests; they “engage” with frameworks. Their task is not to steward a place but to satisfy a central state that increasingly views local government as one more branch office—an outpost of Whitehall’s neurotic empire.

The transfiguration began when successive governments, each convinced of its own modernising brilliance, decided that the real problem with councils was that they were too responsive to their residents. Better, they thought, to strip away those old provincial arrangements and replace them with uniform “administrative units,” reorganised, rationalised and sanitised to within an inch of their lives. The result was the 1970s map: fewer councils, larger councils, and officials less likely to know the names of the streets they regulated. Efficiency, we were told. Progress, we were told. It has been downhill ever since.

A once-civic institution, now hollowed by bureaucracy and central control.
A once-civic institution, now hollowed by bureaucracy and central control.

Then came the centralisers. Rate-capping, council tax limits, mandatory duties without matching funds: every lever was pulled to ensure that no local authority could so much as adjust a streetlight without permission from the capital. A Section 114 notice—local government’s version of sticking a “CLOSED FOR LACK OF MONEY” sign in the window—now hangs over dozens of authorities. The modern councillor governs nothing; he monitors a collapse, anxiously hoping that the Treasury might, in its mercy, approve a little more debt to keep the lights on.

And so to the regulations. If the older council was a steward, the modern council is a defendant—permanently awaiting judgement from a tribunal of auditors, inspectors, commissioners, ombudsmen, regulators and activist lawyers. Procurement law alone could cripple a lesser civilisation: tomes of directives dictating the precise choreography by which a council may purchase so much as a mop. The process is so paralysing that only the largest and most expensive corporations can complete it, creating a tidy cartel of outsourcers who speak the language of “KPIs” and “transformation pathways” while delivering services that are, at best, adequate and, at worst, catastrophic.

The tragedy is not merely the cost, though the cost is obscene. It is the culture. Preventive services, those quiet institutions that make a town bearable—youth centres, libraries, local works, the unobtrusive odd-jobbing that keeps a place civilised—have been amputated so that councils can funnel their remaining budget into statutory duties that grow more demanding every year. Social care now consumes the lion’s share of municipal budgets, not because councils have suddenly discovered humanitarian zeal, but because the law compels it and the courts enforce it.

Thus we inhabit the paradox of the British state: councils more elaborate than ever, producing worse public spaces than at any time since rationing. Potholes gape like geological features. Parks resemble the aftermath of a sullen strike. Planning departments take years to produce decisions that amount to artful apologies for not producing any decisions at all. What the average citizen sees is decay. What the average council produces is paperwork.

If the England of the post-war decades possessed a municipal ethic, it has been replaced by a municipal mirage: a swollen bureaucracy masquerading as governance, a system designed chiefly to protect itself from blame. It consumes money without delivering value, enforces rules without delivering order, and utters slogans about “communities” while retreating from the very notion of civic duty.

The state tells us this is progress: professionalism, standardisation, compliance, equality. But a town that cannot fix its own pavements is not progressing. A council that answers to Whitehall more readily than to its residents is not local. And a nation in which the simplest act of governance costs three times what it did half a century ago—and delivers a third of the quality—is not declining by accident.

It is declining by design. The design, as usual, belongs to people who do not have to live with the consequences.


When the state expands its procedures faster than its competence, decline arrives not as a crisis but as a schedule—issued quarterly, audited annually, and noticed by the public only when the bins stop being emptied.

Letter XIX: The Mark of Progress

Black-and-white woodcut-style illustration of a man refused bread at a market stall because he lacks a glowing mark, while a towering bureaucratic figure with a paper face and rubber stamp looms overhead, with “666” in the clouds.

By Martyn Walker
Published in Letters from a Nation in Decline

When the state makes life itself conditional on its seal, the mark of the beast is already upon us.

It is a curious thing that whenever governments extend their reach into private life, they never describe it as such. They speak instead of convenience, safety, modernisation. Sir Keir Starmer’s championing of digital identity sounds like a minor administrative adjustment, the bureaucratic equivalent of changing the colour of the tax return form. Yet the reality is rather less trivial.

Digital identity, once imposed, is not a marginal innovation but a centralising revolution. Every man, woman, and child becomes a data entry in a state-authorised ledger, their existence vouched for only so long as the system continues to recognise them. Enter a shop, book a train ticket, apply for a job, or access a bank account — all remain possible only if the digital credential functions. The promise is efficiency; the reality is conditional existence.

The most arresting commentary on such systems does not come from libertarian pamphlets or academic studies, though both have their place. It comes from an ancient text often dismissed as melodrama: the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Revelation. There, the writer describes a society in which “all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond” must carry a mark, without which “no man might buy or sell.” Scholars debate whether this was first-century allegory, coded critique of Rome, or apocalyptic vision. The detail is precise: the universal credential is the universal chain.

Black-and-white etching of a man receiving a glowing stamp on his hand under a sign reading “RECEIVE THE MARK,” while a faceless bureaucrat with a paper document for a head looms above, and others queue in line.
The state’s seal presented as progress, the moment of ownership disguised as efficiency.

No theological commitment is required to see the parallel. The mark on the hand or forehead is today’s biometric key. The exclusion from buying or selling is today’s digital wallet frozen by an unseen hand. The beastly system, whether religious or secular, rests not on spectacular cruelty but on the quiet, routine denial of access. Prison walls are unnecessary if the till refuses the card.

Sir Keir presents himself as a moderniser. His case for digital ID is couched in terms of security, fraud prevention, and border control. He would bristle at any comparison with scripture. Yet it is precisely his mildness that makes the matter more sinister. Tyranny that announces itself can be resisted. Tyranny that drapes itself in the language of efficiency is harder to unpick. One does not wake one morning to discover the mark branded on the hand; one drifts into a world where participation in daily life depends on presenting the correct token at every doorway.

Defenders of such schemes protest that the British state is not tyrannical, that it will never abuse such power. This is a charming thought. It is also historically illiterate. Every government abuses the powers it acquires, and powers are never surrendered. The veto inherent in a digital ID scheme — the ability to prevent a man from buying or selling — may sit dormant, but it will never be dismantled. It rests there, like a coiled spring in Whitehall, ready to be activated at the moment of political convenience.

Nor should the economic logic be ignored. The Bank of England has spoken openly about programmable currency, which requires, by definition, a universal identifier. To know what money is being spent on, or to restrict its use to particular purposes, the state must know who is doing the spending. The marriage of digital ID and programmable money creates precisely the world Revelation describes: life conditional on permission.

That the Labour leadership fails to see this is damning enough. That it understands and proceeds regardless is worse. The old Labour Party liked to talk about liberty and dignity. The new one is content to speak of databases and compliance. Sir Keir’s tone is calm, legalistic, mildly reassuring. The punchline is that he offers Britain not security but servitude by spreadsheet.

What makes this especially grotesque is Britain’s history. This was the nation that prided itself on habeas corpus, on common law, on the principle that the citizen was free unless explicitly restrained. The imposition of a universal ID, tethered to one’s ability to transact, inverts that principle. It assumes restraint, lifted only when the system gives its blessing. The state does not prove its case against the citizen; the citizen must prove his case to the state.

Some will accuse this argument of melodrama, of importing biblical language to dignify a mundane administrative reform. In truth the melodrama belongs to Starmer, who dresses coercion in the robes of progress. Revelation, for all its imagery, is coolly accurate. It identified, nearly two millennia ago, the core of what makes such systems intolerable. They do not merely control trade. They redefine freedom itself.

The polite suggestion is that Sir Keir has not reflected on the full implications. The impolite truth is that he has. Either way the effect is identical: a government that sees its citizens not as free men and women, but as registered users, liable to be suspended. And the suspension is not noisy, with trumpets and banners. It is silent, invisible: the card declined, the ticket refused, the door that no longer opens.

Sir Keir will be remembered. He will be remembered as the man who sought to baptise bureaucracy with the language of progress. Britain can weather his speeches; what it may not weather is the architecture he is so keen to build. The peril is not a number burned into the flesh. It is a system so ordinary, so seamless, that the nation scarcely notices it already carries the mark.

The writer of Revelation recognised the pattern. The mark of the beast was never about the hand or the forehead. It was about ownership — about the moment a man’s life ceased to be his own, and became conditional on another’s approval. That is what digital ID represents today. A mark not of safety, but of possession. And the question, as always, is whether the British people are still spirited enough to refuse it.

Grandfather’s Farewell to England

Cartoon of a young boy in a red England football shirt sitting by a ferry window, gazing sadly at the White Cliffs of Dover across calm blue waters.

By Martyn Walker
Published in Letters from a Nation in Decline

Come, sit with me a while.
There’s something I need to say—before we go.

You see that hill? I played there once,
Chased kites and kicked a ball until the light gave out.
Down that lane was your great-grandmother’s cottage,
With roses round the door and jam jars cooling on the sill.
It was a good life, not rich, but honest.
We belonged here, then.

But now…
Now the country I gave my youth to,
The one we sang for in school halls and stood for at Remembrance—
She’s gone and signed herself away.
Again. Quietly. Like a servant handing over keys.

They’ll call it progress. Integration.
But I know surrender when I see it.
We’ve lost something, lad. Something we may never get back.

So we’re leaving. All of us.
Not because we stopped loving England—
But because she stopped being England.

I’ll not come back. Not even for the spring bluebells in the woods,
Or the sound of the choir practising on a Thursday evening.
Even the things I love most would hurt to see again.
Because they’ll still look the same…
But they won’t be the same.

And one day, when you’re older,
You might ask why I speak of her the way I do—like an old friend lost.
And I’ll tell you:
She was kind. She was proud. She was ours.
And we let her slip through our fingers.

So goodbye, my England.
You were the last of something gentle in a world growing hard.
I leave with nothing but my memories,
And a tear I never thought I’d shed.

Letter XVIII: The Poverty Mirage

Children in a dusty village play in front of a crumbling mural depicting a futuristic Western skyline across water.

When Help Makes Things Worse

By Martyn Walker
Published in Letters from a Nation in Decline

Dear Reader,

There is a cruel illusion that stalks Western policymaking—an illusion we not only believe, but wrap in moral grandeur. It is the idea that if we lift a handful of people out of poverty, we have changed the world. A hundred million rescued, a headline for the BBC, a documentary narrated by Bono. Job done.

But what if this is the ultimate vanity project of the West? What if our relentless urge to “help” is a gilded form of sabotage?

Someone recently wrote online, with uncharacteristic clarity, that you could take 100 million people living in third-world poverty, move them to the United States, and still—still—billions would remain in that same poverty. The implication is hard to miss: the problem isn’t where the poor live. The problem is why poverty remains the dominant condition of those countries in the first place. And importing the poor to richer nations doesn’t solve the problem—it just relocates it and inflames a host of new ones.

We are encouraged to pity the migrants, not question the migration. Yet every one of those 100 million would cost billions to house, educate, subsidise, and absorb—while their departure does nothing to change the systems, cultures, or kleptocracies that bred their misery. Meanwhile, those left behind—numbering in the billions—are quietly erased from the ledger of Western concern.

And there is the sting: by rescuing the few, we abandon the many.


The road to this absurdity is paved with theological potholes and moral landmines. I recall the story of Pope John Paul II—beloved in the West for standing up to Soviet tyranny—visiting India during a time of desperate national struggle. The Indian government had, with considerable difficulty, built a network of family planning services, attempting to slow a spiralling birth rate in areas already plagued by malnutrition and drought. Charities worked hand in hand with officials to promote responsible contraception. It was not about ideology. It was about rice, water, and survival.

Then came the Pope.

With a few papal words, he condemned birth control in a country battling to feed its children. In an instant, years of careful groundwork were torched. His holiness departed in a plume of incense and rhetoric, leaving the consequences behind. He had the luxury of eternal principles. The people of India did not. The famine doesn’t care about doctrine.

This is what the West does best: it interferes. With speeches. With dogma. With chequebooks and conditions. And always, it leaves the bill with the locals.


Woodcut-style illustration of a Western aid billboard in a crumbling village, with locals ignoring the sign and walking past with broken tools and containers.
A billboard proclaims “Western Solutions Available Here!”—offering solar panels, checklists, gender policy, and injections—while villagers walk past with broken carts and weary expressions.

Let us speak plainly. The developing world does not suffer from a lack of Western help—it suffers from an excess of it. Help that creates dependency. Help that erodes initiative. Help that demands ideological obedience in return. We tie aid to carbon compliance, to gender theory, to imported bureaucracy. The IMF does not give loans—it issues control. The charities do not build capacity—they replace it.

We have reached a point where the so-called “help” from the West has become more dangerous than its absence. We call it development, but it resembles colonisation wearing a rainbow lanyard.

And when the help fails, we blame the locals for “corruption” as if the World Bank is a convent of saints. Or we propose the unthinkable: that a coalition of successful nations should once again assume managerial control of the “failing” ones. We are back to empire, except this time it’s run by NGOs and ESG consultants.

And if not that, we shrug—and let nature take its course.


So what, then? Do we retreat?

Yes, actually.

But not with malice. Not with neglect. With discipline. With humility. With the honest admission that teaching a man to fish is no good if we’ve already leased his lake to China, banned his nets under EU regulation, and filled the water with World Economic Forum pamphlets.

We must learn to get out of the way. Not walk away from the world, but stop trying to run it.

Give tools, not rules. Invest without conditions. Respect local agency. Stop importing problems into Western cities just to feel temporarily virtuous. And never again should we let theology—of any kind—override common sense in a starving country.


Let us finally admit it: we have become too proud of our pity, too in love with the mirror image of our benevolence. The poor do not need our rescue. They need their freedom—from us.

Faithfully yours,
M.W.
Letters from a Nation in Decline