Just One Man

The Rise of Self

Just One Man — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:13:11 GMT

No one is better nor worse than anyone else. Yet, we are different and unique. Genetically and consciously. However, we do not exist in isolation - nor in a vacuum. We certainly may wish we did - at times at least. Perhaps the classic “hermit” withdrawal from society, or the more subtly anonymisation offered by cityscapes, or a virtual presentation online.

But all of us operate within a rich level of dependency and reliance. Not only on other humans, but clearly on nature too.

But we are seeing a phenomenon where the individual is being placed higher than everything else. The rise of self. Team players more concerned about their own success rather than the team that pays them. Political leaders forgetting they are public servants. The “brandification” confusion that exists in the follower -v- anonymisation conflict.

The radio newsreader with an effected way of pronouncing their name
The TV weather presenter with a repeated and characteristic “goodbye”
Footballers with image rights and compensation clauses when not playing
Political leaders with an overuse of “I” in public speaking
“Quitting” and victimisation during a disagreement

Why? Perhaps continual competition is a forcing factor that increases this brand-competition. But brand of and for what? Clearly social media as a concept in general amplifies “followers not friends” as a metric. Media presenters - and that ranges from pundits to more mundane news and weather presenters - can make a direct association between being “known” to pay, contracts and in turn job security. The assumption being that followers make a brand, a brand can influence, and in turn other brands, powers and voices want to influence the “influencer”.

But has this in turn spread like an epidemic to the guy on the street? Everyone wants attention. Yet simultaneously privacy and anonymity. Everyone gets offended. Unique protection of “being” is essentially the anti-pattern of losing “ego” in the Buddhist sense.

Be tough on “the problem, not the person” is often forgotten, with disagreement and analysis rapidly running down to personality and insult.

This in turn is bad for the individual as an evolutionary twist. If we simulate this through, you would surely end up with hyper-competition for everything, in every interaction and position in a societal structure. Any commonality factors would dissolve, with groupings of any sort diminishing - be they political, military, cultural or artistic. An almost nano-civil war.

An ironic twist of fate, would be that if everyone is different, perhaps no one is different?

Why The Greens and Reform Are Cousins

Just One Man — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 11:35:12 GMT

The Green Party and Reform are cousins. Perhaps even closer. Different sides on the same coin.

The “rise of self” amplified within the political spotlight.

There is a core structural parallel between the two: both are “disruptor” brands that rely on a personality-led “I” narrative to mask the lack of a traditional, robust party machine.

Listen to both Zack Polanksi and Nigel Farage speak. They overly rely on the use of an “I narrative”. “I think, believe, know” - as a personal translation much removed from the underling party mechanics they represent.

This creates a specific “authenticity gap” between speaker and party and often between speaker and audience.

1. The “I” as a Strategic Shortcut

In both the Green Party under Polanski and Reform UK under Farage, the leader becomes the singular avatar for their respective movement.

The Narrative: “I am the one telling you the truth that the ‘establishment’ won’t.”
The Consequence: This creates a competence bottleneck. Because the strategy is so leader-centric, the party’s success depends on the leader’s “performance” rather than the depth of their cabinet or the feasibility of their governance model.

2. Anti-Establishment vs. Alternative Structure

Both parties are highly effective at critique but are vague on the alternative political structure.

The Green Strategy: Focuses on “System Change,” but often struggles to explain how a de-centralised, committee-led party (their official structure) functions when led by a highly centralised, “manic” communicator using NLP techniques. He’s a former hypnotherapist apparently with a BA degree in drama. Useful I imagine.
The Reform Strategy: Focuses on “Breaking the Model,” yet remains a “limited company” structure rather than a traditional democratic party.
The Result: A lack of trust. Voters sense that the “alternative” is just a different flavour of top-down control, re-branded as “insurgency.”

3. The Discrepancy in Authenticity

This leads to the authenticity paradox:

Zack Polanski: Uses professional drama and hypnotherapy training to simulate a connection with the “common man.” Watch him with the volume turned off.
Nigel Farage: Uses a carefully curated “pint-and-fag” persona to simulate a connection with the working class. (By the way, who today as the working class?)
The Friction: When a voter sees the “mask” slip—whether it’s Polanski’s “manic” intensity or Farage’s elite background—it reinforces the idea that the party is self-serving and more interested in the theatre of power than the un-glamorous work of constituent service.

4. Tactical Convergence

The 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election proved they are two sides of the same coin. Both used “negative partisanship”—campaigning more on why Labour (and lesser extent the Tories) are “broken” than on how they would actually manage a treasury or a local council. This populist framework allows them to bypass the “academic reasoning” in favour of high-energy, emotive storytelling.

Ultimately, both parties operate as marketing engines for a specific worldview, led by individuals whose primary qualification is communication management rather than systemic design.

Two sides of the complaining-coin, offering nothing remotely close to establishing a political strategy alternative to what is currently not working.

Search Lights

Just One Man — Wed, 13 Aug 2025 09:08:32 GMT