The Golden Cube by Matt Taylor (Debut Novel)

The Golden Cube – Matt Taylor
www.lulu.com/en/gb/shop/matt-taylor/the-golden-cube/paperback/product-18k48mmd.html

FREE DOWNLOAD
Taylor Tales – 20 True Life Stories
www.lulu.com/en/gb/shop/matthew-taylor/taylor-tales/ebook/product-1epkk8ne.html

MattTaylorTV! Comedy Mockery Special#1

MattTaylorTV! Music Hour Number#11.

1. The ones who throw stones

2. The devil wore a halo

3. Everything and nothing

4. Deadly Brighton

5. Vote for love

6. Inversion

7. What’s the bigger picture

8. There can be only one

9. Speculation

10. Some people take themselves far too seriously

11. Say my name wrong

12. Say it to my face

13. Out of context

14. I want 10 years at number 10

15. Life lines

16. I could go live

17. Where are the scars?

18. Should I release the evidence?

19. It's time for a false flag event

20. Bonus Track - I’m right - I’m wrong.

It’s Time for a “False Flag Event”

 

The Internet Cynicism That Never Sleeps

There’s a certain type of conversation that always seems to emerge whenever governments wobble, approval ratings collapse, or political leaders appear cornered.

You’ll hear it in pubs, see it in YouTube comments, read it in anonymous Telegram channels, or watch it unfold in livestream chats filled with armchair intelligence analysts and self-appointed truth seekers:

“Watch. Something big is about to happen.”

A terror incident. A riot. A sudden national emergency. Some huge dramatic event that instantly dominates the news cycle and changes the national conversation overnight.

According to the cynics, this is no coincidence. In their minds, politicians facing disaster somehow always benefit from chaos.

And right now, with growing questions around Keir Starmer and his leadership struggles, the online conspiracy machine is once again humming into life.

The timing, they say, is “too perfect.”

Tomorrow’s rally in London involving Tommy Robinson has become exactly the kind of event that attracts feverish speculation online. Whenever there is political tension, public protest, or a heavily emotional atmosphere, parts of the internet immediately begin predicting “false flag events” before anything has even happened.

And that in itself is fascinating.

The Age of Permanent Suspicion

We now live in an age where millions of people no longer trust institutions, governments, broadcasters, or official narratives.

Some of that distrust has understandable roots:

• politicians caught lying,

• manipulated media coverage,

• corruption scandals,

• intelligence failures,

• broken promises,

• and years of public relations spin masquerading as truth.

The result?

Many people now approach every major event with automatic suspicion.

To them, nothing is organic anymore. Everything is theatre. Everything is narrative management. Everything is psychological manipulation.

Whether it’s a protest, terror attack, international conflict, or civil unrest, there will always be people convinced that powerful interests are somehow orchestrating events behind the scenes.

Sometimes these suspicions drift into wild fantasy. Sometimes they stem from genuine historical examples of governments exploiting crises for political gain. And sometimes it’s simply human beings trying to make sense of chaos by imagining someone must be in control.

The “Strong Leader” Moment

One recurring idea among conspiracy-minded observers is the belief that struggling politicians secretly benefit from national emergencies.

The theory goes like this:

When a country is frightened, angry, or grieving, people stop arguing about taxes, scandals, immigration, leadership contests, or economic decline. Instead, attention shifts toward unity, security, patriotism, and authority.

In moments of crisis, leaders suddenly appear presidential. Serious. Necessary. Important.

The cameras roll. Flags wave. Statements are delivered outside government buildings. News channels loop dramatic footage for 72 hours straight.

And for a brief moment, criticism disappears beneath national shock.

That perception fuels endless speculation online whenever governments appear politically vulnerable.

But Here’s the Important Part

Suspicion is not evidence.

The internet has created a culture where people increasingly confuse:

• intuition with proof,

• coincidence with orchestration,

• and speculation with certainty.

People now write entire narratives in their heads before any facts even emerge.

That’s dangerous too.

History contains genuine examples of propaganda, political manipulation, and governments exploiting crises. But history also contains countless examples of panic, incompetence, random violence, and human tragedy that conspiracy culture later tried to turn into elaborate plots.

The uncomfortable reality is that chaos often happens because societies themselves are chaotic.

Fear Sells

One undeniable truth remains: Fear is politically useful.

Not necessarily because disasters are engineered, but because fear changes public behaviour.

Fear makes people:

• look for authority,

• accept stronger control,

• rally behind leaders,

• and temporarily stop questioning power.

And media organisations know fear keeps people watching. Politicians know fear creates emotional unity. Online influencers know fear generates clicks. Everyone profits from panic in one way or another.

The Endless Loop

So whenever tensions rise politically, the same cycle begins again:

• Rumours spread.

• Predictions appear online.

• “Something big is coming.”

• People become hyper-alert.

• Every event is instantly politicised.

• Every tragedy becomes ideological ammunition.

And if nothing happens?

The prediction quietly disappears into the void until the next political crisis arrives. Because modern politics no longer runs purely on ideology. It runs on emotion, spectacle, outrage, distrust, and attention.

And in that atmosphere, the idea of the “false flag event” has become less of a concrete accusation and more of a permanent expression of public cynicism itself.

A sign that millions no longer believe what they’re told.

Whether justified or not, that loss of trust may be the real story of our age.

Putting Yourself Out There, and Getting Slammed by Those Who Don’t.

There is a strange imbalance in modern life between those who step into the arena and those who remain safely in the crowd. The people who create, perform, speak, campaign, post videos, sing songs, write articles, run businesses, stand for office, or simply dare to express themselves publicly often become magnets for criticism from individuals who risk nothing themselves. It is one of the defining psychological and social realities of the internet age: visibility attracts attack.

To “put yourself out there” is an act of vulnerability. Whether someone uploads a YouTube video, performs music, writes a book, shares an opinion, or attempts to build a public identity, they are exposing themselves to judgment. The moment a person becomes visible, they become open to praise, ridicule, admiration, envy, scrutiny, and resentment. Many people underestimate how psychologically difficult this is. It is easy to sit anonymously behind a keyboard dissecting someone else’s life. It is far harder to create something and attach your own face and name to it.

The critics who contribute nothing themselves often justify their behaviour as honesty, accountability, or commentary. Sometimes criticism is fair and necessary. Public figures should expect disagreement and scrutiny. But there is a difference between criticism and compulsive demolition. Increasingly, online culture rewards spectators for tearing down participants. A person who uploads a video may spend hours writing, filming, editing, and publishing it, only to receive instant insults from someone whose own profile contains nothing but anonymous sneering. The creator risks embarrassment; the critic risks nothing.

This imbalance creates a peculiar moral contradiction. Society celebrates courage in theory but punishes it in practice. People claim to admire authenticity, yet when someone behaves authentically, they often become a target. The individual who says nothing, creates nothing, and risks nothing can preserve the illusion of superiority indefinitely because they are never tested. It is easy to appear flawless when you never enter the contest.

The phenomenon is ancient, though the internet has amplified it dramatically. In Roman arenas, crowds mocked gladiators while never fighting themselves. In politics, spectators condemn leaders while never attempting leadership. In art, audiences dismiss musicians while never writing songs of their own. The crowd enjoys the privilege of judgment without the burden of performance.

Part of the hostility comes from projection and insecurity. When somebody publicly pursues ambition or self-expression, it reminds others of what they themselves never attempted. Seeing another person take risks can provoke discomfort. Some people respond to that discomfort not by creating something themselves, but by trying to diminish the person who did. Mockery becomes a defence mechanism. If the visible person can be reduced to a joke, then the spectator no longer has to confront their own inaction.

There is also an addiction to superiority embedded in online culture. Social media allows ordinary individuals to feel powerful through criticism. A sarcastic comment, a reaction video, or a hostile post can generate attention cheaply and quickly. Creation requires effort; destruction requires almost none. Building an audience takes years. Attempting to humiliate somebody can take seconds.

Yet despite all this, the people who put themselves out there are usually the ones who shape culture and history. Every musician, filmmaker, writer, inventor, comedian, activist, entrepreneur, or broadcaster who ever mattered faced ridicule at some stage. Public exposure inevitably attracts hostility because visibility magnifies imperfections. But imperfect action still has more value than perfect passivity.

The irony is that critics often become dependent on the very people they attack. Entire online communities are built around reacting to creators they claim to despise. Without the visible person producing content, the critics themselves would have nothing to discuss. Their identity becomes parasitic, feeding off the productivity and visibility of others. In some cases, hatred itself becomes a form of obsession.

Meanwhile, those who continue creating despite criticism develop resilience. Public exposure forces people to confront rejection, embarrassment, and attack. Over time, many creators realise something important: criticism is often the price of participation. If nobody notices you, nobody criticises you. Silence is safe, but it is also invisible.

There is therefore a quiet dignity in people who continue putting themselves out there despite the hostility. They may fail publicly. They may be mocked. They may occasionally make fools of themselves. But they are participating in life rather than spectating from the shadows. History rarely remembers the anonymous hecklers in the crowd. It remembers the people who stepped onto the stage.

The Emptiness of False Grandeur.

There is a certain type of person who walks through life convinced they are extraordinary. They believe themselves to be intellectually superior, morally superior, spiritually superior, socially superior. In their own minds, they are the centre of gravity around which everyone else must orbit. Every conversation becomes about them. Every disagreement becomes proof that others are jealous, ignorant, or beneath them. Every room becomes a stage upon which they perform the role of greatness.

Yet behind the performance often lies a startling emptiness.

The tragedy of such people is not merely that they overestimate themselves. Human beings are naturally prone to ego and self-delusion. The real tragedy is that they mistake noise for substance, arrogance for achievement, and self-importance for actual worth.

True greatness rarely needs to announce itself.

A genuinely intelligent person does not need to constantly remind others of their intellect. A genuinely successful person does not spend every waking moment demanding recognition. A genuinely moral person does not parade their virtue like a peacock displaying feathers. Substance speaks quietly because it has no need to shout.

The insecure, however, must constantly advertise themselves.

These individuals often survive on image rather than reality. They cultivate personas carefully designed to impress others while hiding their own mediocrity. Some weaponise sarcasm and criticism, believing that tearing others down elevates them. Others create myths about themselves, exaggerating achievements, inflating importance, or surrounding themselves with sycophants who reinforce the illusion.

In the modern age, social media has become the perfect breeding ground for this phenomenon. Platforms reward confidence over competence and performance over authenticity. A person can manufacture an entire identity built upon filters, slogans, outrage, or carefully curated opinions. They can accumulate followers, likes, and applause while possessing very little wisdom, courage, or character underneath.

The digital world allows some people to feel like emperors while standing naked in an empty room.

What makes this behaviour especially unpleasant is the contempt such people often develop toward ordinary humanity. Because they secretly fear their own insignificance, they compensate by belittling others. They mock weakness, sneer at vulnerability, and dismiss those they perceive as less successful or less intelligent. Their self-worth depends entirely on comparison. They can only feel tall by forcing others to kneel.

Yet the irony is unavoidable: people who truly matter rarely behave this way.

History’s greatest thinkers, artists, inventors, and leaders were often marked by humility. The more they learned, the more aware they became of their limitations. Wisdom tends to produce perspective, while shallowness produces certainty. The fool declares himself a genius. The wise man understands how much he does not know.

This is why false grandeur eventually collapses under its own weight.

A person can maintain an illusion for a while. They can dominate conversations, intimidate weaker personalities, or build temporary influence through manipulation and self-promotion. But time has a way of exposing reality. When achievements fail to materialise, when relationships deteriorate, when audiences drift away, or when hardship arrives, the mask begins to crack.

And beneath the mask there is often very little.

Many of these individuals are deeply unhappy. Their arrogance is not strength but armour. Their superiority complex hides insecurity so profound that they cannot bear honest self-examination. To admit ordinariness would feel like annihilation. So they continue the performance, doubling down on vanity, delusion, and hostility toward anyone who threatens the fantasy.

There is something pitiful about a person desperately trying to convince the world they are everything while quietly fearing they are nothing.

But perhaps the deeper lesson is this: human value does not come from domination, applause, or inflated self-image. A meaningful life is built through character, integrity, kindness, discipline, and genuine contribution to others. Most truly worthwhile people are not obsessed with appearing important. They are too busy building, creating, helping, learning, or loving.

The loudest ego in the room is often the weakest soul.

In the end, greatness is not something a person declares. It is something revealed over time through actions, resilience, and the respect freely given by others rather than demanded through intimidation or vanity.

Those who spend their lives proclaiming themselves kings frequently die as little more than actors who never realised the audience had stopped believing the performance long ago.

Evil Men Pretending to be Good Men.

Throughout history, evil has rarely introduced itself honestly. Tyrants do not arrive wearing signs that say monster. Corrupt men do not announce themselves as corrupt. The truly dangerous individual often understands something fundamental about human nature: people are drawn toward the appearance of goodness. They trust confidence, morality, kindness, righteousness and certainty. And so the mask becomes the weapon.

The most evil men frequently pretend to be the most good men.

This is not merely hypocrisy. It is strategy.

A genuinely good person rarely needs to advertise their virtue. Goodness tends to reveal itself quietly through consistency, humility, sacrifice and compassion. Truly decent people are often flawed, honest about those flaws, and aware of their own limitations. They do not need constant applause or moral superiority because their character is not a performance.

But the manipulator, narcissist, fanatic or tyrant understands the power of moral image. They carefully construct identities around justice, purity, compassion, patriotism, religion, activism, charity or righteousness. The public mask becomes armour. Once society believes a man is “good,” many people stop questioning him altogether.

History provides endless examples.

Some of the cruelest dictators wrapped themselves in the language of national salvation. They presented themselves as protectors of the people while building systems of fear behind the scenes. Religious abusers have preached holiness while committing terrible acts in private. Political figures have spoken endlessly about fairness while enriching themselves through corruption. Even in everyday life, bullies often disguise themselves as moral crusaders, attacking others under the excuse of defending decency.

The danger lies not merely in evil itself, but in evil wearing the face of virtue.

This creates confusion. Victims are doubted because the abuser appears respectable. Whistleblowers are mocked because the accused has cultivated a saintly reputation. Entire communities can become psychologically trapped because admitting the truth would mean confronting the terrifying reality that they were deceived.

The performance of goodness can be extraordinarily convincing.

In many cases, the louder a man proclaims his goodness, the more carefully people should observe him. Excessive virtue-signalling can become camouflage. Some individuals constantly condemn the sins of others because it diverts attention from themselves. They create enemies and moral panics in order to appear heroic by comparison. They need villains because without villains, their own righteousness loses value.

This psychological mechanism is ancient.

The medieval conman sold indulgences while speaking of God. The corrupt televangelist asks for donations in the name of faith. The corporate predator talks endlessly about ethics while exploiting workers. The online moralist publicly humiliates strangers while hiding behind anonymity and secrecy. The methods change with time, but the principle remains the same: evil often survives not by looking evil, but by looking trustworthy.

One of the reasons society struggles to identify dangerous people is because many individuals still imagine evil in simplistic terms. They picture obvious monsters — violent, snarling, openly hateful figures. Reality is often far more sophisticated. Evil can be charming. It can smile warmly. It can speak softly. It can quote scripture, talk about protecting children, defend morality, or champion justice while quietly destroying lives behind closed doors.

Some of the most frightening people are not those who admit darkness, but those who convince themselves they are righteous while committing cruelty. Once a man believes he is morally superior, he can justify almost anything. History shows that atrocities are often committed not by people thinking they are evil, but by people believing they are the heroes.

This is why skepticism matters.

A healthy society does not blindly worship personalities. It examines actions rather than slogans. It understands that goodness is measured over time, especially when nobody is watching. It recognises that real virtue is usually quieter than performance virtue.

The truly good man does not need to endlessly announce that he is good.

He simply is.

And perhaps that is the final irony: the people most desperate to appear morally pure are often hiding the darkest truths, while the genuinely decent people are too busy living honestly to build monuments to their own virtue.