I bought my first flat in 2001 and it had gone up 50% since 97. At the time I thought that I was unlucky (which compared to people buying in 97 I was).
If someone had told me that in 24 years my purchase would look like a bargain I would have thought that they were mad. It would have seemed like dystopian sci-fi.
….and yet I paid 440 in 2004 for a flat I can’t sell today for 520. In 2015 I was offered 800. Nothing wrong with it, Fulham rd, underground parking, concierge. I’ve actually lost money when inflation, running costs cgt taken into account. Explain that. Is the economy ie the national ponzi scheme about to be exposed? Whatever, it’s way beyond the means of most people and although the price will drop further people are poorer.
"it’s hardly surprising that those at the end of the scheme feel that they have been cheated"
It has been apparent for quite some time that "the scheme" would end. I have not given a lot of thought to what the end would look like. All the possibilities are quite bad.
I think people don't appreciate how quickly the tide can turn politically, when a previously deprecated view passes a certain threshold in popularity.
Many millenials and zoomers may be nominally "left-wing", but I think above all they are ideologically conformist, shaped by the intense social conformism they experienced in school. So they will back whoever is the "strong horse".
I have a prediction: among the future backers of the ascendent radical right, quite a few of the most vocal will be those who were the most vocally "woke" previously. Because they always need to signal their support for whatever is in fashion.
I have despised wokeness for a long time, but now it is clear that we are swinging hard to the right I like Ed am concerned. Societies don't do well with nuance -- we may well go from anti-white racism and anti-male sexism to something like the direct opposite. In a sense, the left may have succeeded in resurrecting the demon it claimed to be fighting.
This was called the March People phenomenon in Algeria. The worst brutality against the French and pied noir was carried out by people who had been apolitical and neutral until March 1961, when it became clear the nationalists were winning.
This from Eric Kaufmann (via X and which I am sure you’ve seen) supports your observation about ‘progressive activists’ dominating in certain workplaces and organisations.
Great piece. Encapsulates so much of our current predicament. The Fukuyama quote is very apt, and a point I wish more of our policy makers would take on board. They might have been less blindsided by the Brexit vote, if they had.
I too have sensed an accelaration and a hardening of sentiment among the radical and dissident wing of conservatism.
Old Friends of mine who are still involved in protest and direct-action, so to speak, tell me that the King is quite rapidly losing the Commons of England. That the loyalty proclaimed on the street is now hardening into an ethnic one, where once it was an institutional one. That is a vry serious thing indeed.
My own opinion is that American notions of Liberty - transactional, contractual, conditional - have now confused our inherited notions of ordered and subordinated Loyalty. And this, combined with the various woes, self inflicted and accidental, which have effectively and practically invalidated the Kings Peace, are bringing the land closer and closer to conflagration.
The British political psyche is still defined by the Two Treatises -the Id of Filmer's Patriarchia and the Ego of Locke's Civil Government. The Realm as an indissoluble family or the State as a Marriage of Convenience. Abdiel and Satan, Whig and Tory, Baron and King. The longing of the English nation, from Wat Tyler to Nigel Farage, has simply been to be 'Godly and quietly governed'. But that has its limits -
"You mustn't sell, delay, deny,
A freeman's right or liberty.
It wakes the stubborn Englishry,
The 'lissom reeds of Runnymede' can only bend so far.
So, Godly and quietly governed is the opposite of the cabal in charge, here is a funny summation courtesy of John Carter:
“The goal of the Davos men is retaining social cohesion, with themselves remaining at the top of the pile. Their Church of Woke is the secular faith of progress in the name of social justice conceptualized as liberation from all unchosen bonds of birth and biology, all watched over by the purity spiralling judgement of the eschatological Eye at the End of Time. Pride parades are its festivals; the succession of Days of Remembrance and Days of Celebration its liturgical calendar; the prismatic pennant of pederasty its sacred banner; transsexuals, its monastic flagellants; bottom surgery, its mortification of the flesh; the Climate, its Earth Mother; the enslavement of Africans, its Original Sin; Civil Rights, its Exodus; the Holocaust, its Passion; the Austrian painter, its devil; The Science, its scripture.
Will the famously riotous English act? I doubt it.
If King Charles wants the Loyalty of the Commons, he must be Loyal to them.
This Loyalty isn't demonstrated by holding Islamic meetings at Windsor, or by being eagerly multi-faith and multi-culture.
King Charles, who is a muddled man "living in sin" with a common-law wife (since it is her previous marriage that is the valid one in Christian belief) doubtless holds these muddled views genuinely.
Though it does smack of a business betraying its existing customer base for a new, fast-growing one.
And losing its existing customers without gaining the new ones.
You want a sovereign with no contract or contractual obligations, i.e a monarch masquerading as God.
And his subjects slaves, bound to honour and obey him, even if he betrays them.
How monstrously absurd. The similarity to dictators is telling.
We know exactly what King Charles thinks on religion and on many political issues, amigo, because - being a rather opinionated man - he has been at pains to tell us.
Unless you're saying, of course, that he is a keen servant of the Father of Lies.
If I have given the impression I am in favour of an absolute dictatorship and universal slavery I must have misspoken, for which I apologise.
May I meekly suggest that there is a middle ground between the transactional, service-provider model of monarchy as and monarchy as a universal despotism?
Loyalty as you say, is ultimately a reciprocal arrangement, but it is not a form of contract, it is a form of love and love, Caritas, does ‘sufferereth long and is kind’ it ‘Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.’
That is the relationship I try to bear towards my Sovereign.
Try it friend, you may find it liberating, in a deeper sense of the word.
I cannot judge your motives, but I must say that loving the British Monarchy is a wilful waste of one's capacity for love and one's energy (for there are worthier people and things to love), a strained attempt to follow a pseudo-religion and an attempt to live in a vanished world.
It’s worth noting, Americans who visited or lived in the UK in 1970s and 1980s (be they working-class rock bands on tour like the Ramones or the most privileged Rhodes students studying at Oxford after Bill Clinton) were uniform in their shock at just how dreary and incredibly limited (food, options for young people or anyone who wasn’t rich, simple goods in the shops, hope) the UK was.
There was little to do, things didn’t work, at best the natives were sullen and amusing about the shittiness of it all. It was truly incredible to Americans.
A Gen-Z Brit who time travelled back to 1978 Leeds or even London would share in the amazement the Yanks visiting had: they knew it’d be dreary, but not this dreary.
The UK botched immigration horribly and no one asked for the colossal demographic shift, a social change whose significance and recklessness can’t be overstated. But the idea that a Brit born in 1964 lived in a halcyon age is just silly. No matter how cheap housing was.
In May 81 I went to a concert at Manchester Poly: King Crimson supported by The Lounge Lizards. After the concert, and after we got chucked out of the Poly bar at 23:10, we met the guitarist from the Lounge Lizards, who demanded to know why nothing was open!
But things changed hugely by the end of that decade Even in 86 my Finnish girlfriend - long story involving the Noise Department at Rolls Royce - thought England was huge fun compared to her homeland, where nobody had apparently heard of cunnilingus. Someone born in 64 would have enjoyed both cheap housing and , by the time they reached their mid twenties, a very different England.
Have fun pretending 1970s Britain was a prosperous, cheerful, efficient society with great promise and the Thatcher 1980s were marked by social cohesion and good cheer from the South to the North.
Though, upon further reflection, I can see how a visitor to Britain could reach those conclusions, because there is no service culture among the Brits and there hasn’t been since 1941 or so. A visitor is dependent on people whose job it is ostensibly to help them, like people in railway stations, cafes and hotels. Indigenous folk don’t need those people so don’t encounter the surly unhelpfulness except in exceptional circumstances (it got better when Poles and others came to London, but go 50 miles outside the capital and it is still like the 1980s never happened, in terms of standards of service). With the US, the thing that struck me is the fake bonhomie and then in the next outlet a slow surly laziness, and the fact that everyone wants a tip just for doing their job!
I went skiing in Vermont some years ago, and was surprised by how unpleasant the resort staff were, and it was just the start of the season. Hopeless girl who made a mess of giving out and taking back skis that had been hired, grandpas doing a non-job of supervising getting onto the ski-lift, a rat faced manager who had to be told how to solve a simple problem (by me), bars where you had to be middle-aged and have a beard to buy a beer without ID, also a weird border guard at Boston who looked like he was itching to carry out a full cavity search on me ☝️🤷🏾♂️
There were big problems for the State in the 1970s, true enough, but it was offset by unbelievable prosperity for about 70% of the population. Well-made affordable cool cars (if you bought a Ford), affordable white goods for the kitchen, various Japanese gadgets, such as cameras, which were out of most people’s league until then. Holidays in the Med, not Devon. Then you had the music, which was head and shoulders above everywhere else. Student grants, virtually abandoned Georgian houses in run down slums like…Islington, great telly…and that oh so quaint thing, a sense of community.
What rubbish! And what a terrible choice of observers: Rhodes scholars and Barry Manilow! Was Oxford dreary? Wow, Leeds, an industrial city as Britain in the era you mention ran down its heavy industry wasn’t full of dancing chimney sweeps thanking you for your help during WWII. What a disappointment for you! Is Detroit as much fun as it’s cracked up to be, or Baltimore, or Pittsburgh? For a young person, the 1970s were great.
It is interesting how the young far left subconsciously and perhaps consciously feel they shouldn't engage with people who disagree with them and are frankly scared of memes or statistics the far right might communicate, while the far right are happy to spend hours debating and arguing. The far left sees themselves as brittle.
1. left generally tend to be more credal. You need to follow these core beliefs to be a part. the right is more heterodox therefore.
2. left is much more dominant in cultural spaces, so you can be in lots of social milleus and be entirely surrounded by other leftists (or people who keep quiet). if you're a rightist you're like a religious minority, far more aware of the majority religion and what they believe.
3. Young women tend to be muc less pro-free speech and to see the political as personal.
I think you are being a bit generous to the left, there are statistics they refuse to engage with, they know their worldview will fall apart if faced with them, so they refuse to talk to people who might discuss them. At some level the far left know their ideological framework is fragile and that is assymetric. Maybe it reflects the left being higher in human capital so they know that faced with certain facts they would need to concede things.
And are. The left are also more afraid, fearing that if their beliefs aren't obeyed (and kept to fairly rigidly), the Ultra-Dark Ages will arrive swiftly.
The blood and soil part. The part about the Jews being problematic. The women must subordinate themselves to their men part. Those parts. All mediocrity middle way speak leads to these points.
Surely, the widening cleavage between young men and women, coupled with the fetishization of political viewpoints bodes for even more catastrophic birth rates in the developed world (east and west). If young men and women are likely to be increasingly ideologically incompatible, what hope relationships, marriages, babies?
Bearing in mind what the West and most of its people are now like, please replace "catastrophic" with "a lucky escape."
That the Future should Belong to altogether selfish, abortionista women (hardly to their broken, porn-crazed male counterparts) would be too terrible a prospect.
Good piece, good tone too, somewhat unsettling, like film noir. Yes, young European men are clearly now all too aware how downtrodden they are. With the economics though, is it so hard to get on? If I were 40 years younger, I would learn a skill but not go to university (might do if essential for my trade, like some healthcare roles) and chose one that I could use away from London, either in the public sector or online. Much of Britain is great to live in away from the crowded SE, and housing is very affordable. York, Manchester, Glasgow, Newcastle, and maybe Belfast for examples of fun cities that aren’t London.
I used to help my colleagues' sons and daughters with their homework 20 years ago and I remember thinking that this generation will spit on and despise mine when they grow up, just by what they were taught in school, and things weren't nearly half as crazy as they're now. Well, here we are.
Gen Xers, batten down the hatches, as we'll be the ones that will dearly pay for the boomers' sins. Sandwiched between the boomers and the millenials, we'll have no political power, no demography, no pension, and loads of accumulated rage against us.
We'll be looted and killed at the hands of the zoomers while we watch the boomers ride into the horizon.
It's generally the young who go to war. If the Zoomers go to battle, it will mainly be against each other, not against older folk who will sit it out. Some of us will even find ways to profit-- if the nukes sleep in their silos still. If not, then everyone and everything everywhere pays the butchers' bill.
If they’ve got the patience, gen z could make life for us gen x’ers deeply unpleasant in our twilight years. That’s before you consider the racial resentment that is bubbling over. I don’t want to grow old in a damp version of Zimbabwe or South Africa.
Obviously, I don't like the idea that Christianity is better than Islam/Judaism, and I don't like the idea that White people are superiot to the rest of humanity!
’John’ informed me that there are a lot of subscribers in Dubai!
Well, I forgot the famous Arab proverb about the greatest joy in life, which makes the case that welcoming a stranger in your home is akin to receiving a prophet of God.
Those are two entirely different beliefs. Why bracket them together?
The only white people who still believe in white racial superiority, are embittered young men and pitiful people from the underclass.
The West is the child of Christianity on the one hand, and Graeco-Roman tradition (brilliant Greeks + Roman builders and soldiers) on the other.
A formidable combination ! But it died in the 1960's. And Christianity is again the religion it was in its first three hundred years, powerless except for the holiness of its adherents, when they are sincere.
Persecuted too - large numbers of Christians are being persecuted, whether by extremist Muslims or the Chinese Communist Party.
Yes, I do understand your point, Fuentes does say extreme things, but this might be ‘expected’, considering that the Anglo-sphere West is in a state of ‘cultural liquidity’!
Hosting you here, will be a genuine pleasure and a sacred honor!
I bought my first flat in 2001 and it had gone up 50% since 97. At the time I thought that I was unlucky (which compared to people buying in 97 I was).
If someone had told me that in 24 years my purchase would look like a bargain I would have thought that they were mad. It would have seemed like dystopian sci-fi.
….and yet I paid 440 in 2004 for a flat I can’t sell today for 520. In 2015 I was offered 800. Nothing wrong with it, Fulham rd, underground parking, concierge. I’ve actually lost money when inflation, running costs cgt taken into account. Explain that. Is the economy ie the national ponzi scheme about to be exposed? Whatever, it’s way beyond the means of most people and although the price will drop further people are poorer.
That surprises me because a flat near my old flat sold for a massive gain in 2024 (south London) on 2005 prices.
Maybe the long awaiting price crash is going to start or maybe you will sell soon or you are just unlucky.
I assume there are no problems with cladding or likewise.
"it’s hardly surprising that those at the end of the scheme feel that they have been cheated"
It has been apparent for quite some time that "the scheme" would end. I have not given a lot of thought to what the end would look like. All the possibilities are quite bad.
I think people don't appreciate how quickly the tide can turn politically, when a previously deprecated view passes a certain threshold in popularity.
Many millenials and zoomers may be nominally "left-wing", but I think above all they are ideologically conformist, shaped by the intense social conformism they experienced in school. So they will back whoever is the "strong horse".
I have a prediction: among the future backers of the ascendent radical right, quite a few of the most vocal will be those who were the most vocally "woke" previously. Because they always need to signal their support for whatever is in fashion.
I have despised wokeness for a long time, but now it is clear that we are swinging hard to the right I like Ed am concerned. Societies don't do well with nuance -- we may well go from anti-white racism and anti-male sexism to something like the direct opposite. In a sense, the left may have succeeded in resurrecting the demon it claimed to be fighting.
This was called the March People phenomenon in Algeria. The worst brutality against the French and pied noir was carried out by people who had been apolitical and neutral until March 1961, when it became clear the nationalists were winning.
Sun God, I share your sentiment, a very hard swing to the right is coming and the woke will join.
“Perhaps we are simply caught in an implacable historical process, and the only way out is through.”
John Carter, Post Cards from Barsoom Substack, excellent, all free, take a look. 👀
https://x.com/epkaufm/status/1988285497182146578?s=20
This from Eric Kaufmann (via X and which I am sure you’ve seen) supports your observation about ‘progressive activists’ dominating in certain workplaces and organisations.
Holy fuck
Great piece. Encapsulates so much of our current predicament. The Fukuyama quote is very apt, and a point I wish more of our policy makers would take on board. They might have been less blindsided by the Brexit vote, if they had.
thank you!
I too have sensed an accelaration and a hardening of sentiment among the radical and dissident wing of conservatism.
Old Friends of mine who are still involved in protest and direct-action, so to speak, tell me that the King is quite rapidly losing the Commons of England. That the loyalty proclaimed on the street is now hardening into an ethnic one, where once it was an institutional one. That is a vry serious thing indeed.
My own opinion is that American notions of Liberty - transactional, contractual, conditional - have now confused our inherited notions of ordered and subordinated Loyalty. And this, combined with the various woes, self inflicted and accidental, which have effectively and practically invalidated the Kings Peace, are bringing the land closer and closer to conflagration.
The British political psyche is still defined by the Two Treatises -the Id of Filmer's Patriarchia and the Ego of Locke's Civil Government. The Realm as an indissoluble family or the State as a Marriage of Convenience. Abdiel and Satan, Whig and Tory, Baron and King. The longing of the English nation, from Wat Tyler to Nigel Farage, has simply been to be 'Godly and quietly governed'. But that has its limits -
"You mustn't sell, delay, deny,
A freeman's right or liberty.
It wakes the stubborn Englishry,
The 'lissom reeds of Runnymede' can only bend so far.
Bill Amos has a good education, bravo.
So, Godly and quietly governed is the opposite of the cabal in charge, here is a funny summation courtesy of John Carter:
“The goal of the Davos men is retaining social cohesion, with themselves remaining at the top of the pile. Their Church of Woke is the secular faith of progress in the name of social justice conceptualized as liberation from all unchosen bonds of birth and biology, all watched over by the purity spiralling judgement of the eschatological Eye at the End of Time. Pride parades are its festivals; the succession of Days of Remembrance and Days of Celebration its liturgical calendar; the prismatic pennant of pederasty its sacred banner; transsexuals, its monastic flagellants; bottom surgery, its mortification of the flesh; the Climate, its Earth Mother; the enslavement of Africans, its Original Sin; Civil Rights, its Exodus; the Holocaust, its Passion; the Austrian painter, its devil; The Science, its scripture.
Will the famously riotous English act? I doubt it.
If King Charles wants the Loyalty of the Commons, he must be Loyal to them.
This Loyalty isn't demonstrated by holding Islamic meetings at Windsor, or by being eagerly multi-faith and multi-culture.
King Charles, who is a muddled man "living in sin" with a common-law wife (since it is her previous marriage that is the valid one in Christian belief) doubtless holds these muddled views genuinely.
Though it does smack of a business betraying its existing customer base for a new, fast-growing one.
And losing its existing customers without gaining the new ones.
Yes, that is precisely the contractual, transactional understanding of Loyalty I mean.
The comparison with a commercial relationship is telling.
We have no idea what the King thinks, friend.
You want a sovereign with no contract or contractual obligations, i.e a monarch masquerading as God.
And his subjects slaves, bound to honour and obey him, even if he betrays them.
How monstrously absurd. The similarity to dictators is telling.
We know exactly what King Charles thinks on religion and on many political issues, amigo, because - being a rather opinionated man - he has been at pains to tell us.
Unless you're saying, of course, that he is a keen servant of the Father of Lies.
If I have given the impression I am in favour of an absolute dictatorship and universal slavery I must have misspoken, for which I apologise.
May I meekly suggest that there is a middle ground between the transactional, service-provider model of monarchy as and monarchy as a universal despotism?
Loyalty as you say, is ultimately a reciprocal arrangement, but it is not a form of contract, it is a form of love and love, Caritas, does ‘sufferereth long and is kind’ it ‘Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.’
That is the relationship I try to bear towards my Sovereign.
Try it friend, you may find it liberating, in a deeper sense of the word.
I cannot judge your motives, but I must say that loving the British Monarchy is a wilful waste of one's capacity for love and one's energy (for there are worthier people and things to love), a strained attempt to follow a pseudo-religion and an attempt to live in a vanished world.
It’s worth noting, Americans who visited or lived in the UK in 1970s and 1980s (be they working-class rock bands on tour like the Ramones or the most privileged Rhodes students studying at Oxford after Bill Clinton) were uniform in their shock at just how dreary and incredibly limited (food, options for young people or anyone who wasn’t rich, simple goods in the shops, hope) the UK was.
There was little to do, things didn’t work, at best the natives were sullen and amusing about the shittiness of it all. It was truly incredible to Americans.
A Gen-Z Brit who time travelled back to 1978 Leeds or even London would share in the amazement the Yanks visiting had: they knew it’d be dreary, but not this dreary.
The UK botched immigration horribly and no one asked for the colossal demographic shift, a social change whose significance and recklessness can’t be overstated. But the idea that a Brit born in 1964 lived in a halcyon age is just silly. No matter how cheap housing was.
In May 81 I went to a concert at Manchester Poly: King Crimson supported by The Lounge Lizards. After the concert, and after we got chucked out of the Poly bar at 23:10, we met the guitarist from the Lounge Lizards, who demanded to know why nothing was open!
But things changed hugely by the end of that decade Even in 86 my Finnish girlfriend - long story involving the Noise Department at Rolls Royce - thought England was huge fun compared to her homeland, where nobody had apparently heard of cunnilingus. Someone born in 64 would have enjoyed both cheap housing and , by the time they reached their mid twenties, a very different England.
And would have, by your account. also enjoyed cunnilingus and the STI's that accompany it, which include HPV cancer.
How appallingly shallow what you say is !
Do reliable employment and affordable housing count for nothing ?
And what have we got in return for the Change you applaud ?
Nothing of even the tiniest value. More late-evening and night venues, yes; and much more sexual harassment and assault along with them.
You make the Britain of yesteryear sound like the old Eastern Bloc ! What ludicrous distortion and hyperbole on your part.
Have fun pretending 1970s Britain was a prosperous, cheerful, efficient society with great promise and the Thatcher 1980s were marked by social cohesion and good cheer from the South to the North.
Though, upon further reflection, I can see how a visitor to Britain could reach those conclusions, because there is no service culture among the Brits and there hasn’t been since 1941 or so. A visitor is dependent on people whose job it is ostensibly to help them, like people in railway stations, cafes and hotels. Indigenous folk don’t need those people so don’t encounter the surly unhelpfulness except in exceptional circumstances (it got better when Poles and others came to London, but go 50 miles outside the capital and it is still like the 1980s never happened, in terms of standards of service). With the US, the thing that struck me is the fake bonhomie and then in the next outlet a slow surly laziness, and the fact that everyone wants a tip just for doing their job!
I went skiing in Vermont some years ago, and was surprised by how unpleasant the resort staff were, and it was just the start of the season. Hopeless girl who made a mess of giving out and taking back skis that had been hired, grandpas doing a non-job of supervising getting onto the ski-lift, a rat faced manager who had to be told how to solve a simple problem (by me), bars where you had to be middle-aged and have a beard to buy a beer without ID, also a weird border guard at Boston who looked like he was itching to carry out a full cavity search on me ☝️🤷🏾♂️
There were big problems for the State in the 1970s, true enough, but it was offset by unbelievable prosperity for about 70% of the population. Well-made affordable cool cars (if you bought a Ford), affordable white goods for the kitchen, various Japanese gadgets, such as cameras, which were out of most people’s league until then. Holidays in the Med, not Devon. Then you had the music, which was head and shoulders above everywhere else. Student grants, virtually abandoned Georgian houses in run down slums like…Islington, great telly…and that oh so quaint thing, a sense of community.
What rubbish! And what a terrible choice of observers: Rhodes scholars and Barry Manilow! Was Oxford dreary? Wow, Leeds, an industrial city as Britain in the era you mention ran down its heavy industry wasn’t full of dancing chimney sweeps thanking you for your help during WWII. What a disappointment for you! Is Detroit as much fun as it’s cracked up to be, or Baltimore, or Pittsburgh? For a young person, the 1970s were great.
It is interesting how the young far left subconsciously and perhaps consciously feel they shouldn't engage with people who disagree with them and are frankly scared of memes or statistics the far right might communicate, while the far right are happy to spend hours debating and arguing. The far left sees themselves as brittle.
I think it's
1. left generally tend to be more credal. You need to follow these core beliefs to be a part. the right is more heterodox therefore.
2. left is much more dominant in cultural spaces, so you can be in lots of social milleus and be entirely surrounded by other leftists (or people who keep quiet). if you're a rightist you're like a religious minority, far more aware of the majority religion and what they believe.
3. Young women tend to be muc less pro-free speech and to see the political as personal.
I think you are being a bit generous to the left, there are statistics they refuse to engage with, they know their worldview will fall apart if faced with them, so they refuse to talk to people who might discuss them. At some level the far left know their ideological framework is fragile and that is assymetric. Maybe it reflects the left being higher in human capital so they know that faced with certain facts they would need to concede things.
Ideology vs realism
A lot of the far left (and right) are bad with numeracy. Can’t deal with data that disagrees with their creed.
The far right have lots of data they dislike but aren't offended or walk away if you present it.
And are. The left are also more afraid, fearing that if their beliefs aren't obeyed (and kept to fairly rigidly), the Ultra-Dark Ages will arrive swiftly.
I just watched Nick Fuentes's interview with Tucker Carlson; my understanding is that he’s a white American nationalist;
1. Who’s protective of his tribe, its tradition, civilizational heritage, and assumed superiority over other cultures and races!
2. He’s brave enough, reckless enough, to question the capture—enjoyed by a certain foreign government—over US domestic political arrangements!
3. He is basically the conduit where the grievances of white people are being broadcasted in public!
4. Whats wrong with this?!
The blood and soil part. The part about the Jews being problematic. The women must subordinate themselves to their men part. Those parts. All mediocrity middle way speak leads to these points.
Surely, the widening cleavage between young men and women, coupled with the fetishization of political viewpoints bodes for even more catastrophic birth rates in the developed world (east and west). If young men and women are likely to be increasingly ideologically incompatible, what hope relationships, marriages, babies?
yes, it's pretty catastrophic
Bearing in mind what the West and most of its people are now like, please replace "catastrophic" with "a lucky escape."
That the Future should Belong to altogether selfish, abortionista women (hardly to their broken, porn-crazed male counterparts) would be too terrible a prospect.
Good piece, good tone too, somewhat unsettling, like film noir. Yes, young European men are clearly now all too aware how downtrodden they are. With the economics though, is it so hard to get on? If I were 40 years younger, I would learn a skill but not go to university (might do if essential for my trade, like some healthcare roles) and chose one that I could use away from London, either in the public sector or online. Much of Britain is great to live in away from the crowded SE, and housing is very affordable. York, Manchester, Glasgow, Newcastle, and maybe Belfast for examples of fun cities that aren’t London.
Ed West at his best. Really good stuff.
thank you!
I used to help my colleagues' sons and daughters with their homework 20 years ago and I remember thinking that this generation will spit on and despise mine when they grow up, just by what they were taught in school, and things weren't nearly half as crazy as they're now. Well, here we are.
Gen Xers, batten down the hatches, as we'll be the ones that will dearly pay for the boomers' sins. Sandwiched between the boomers and the millenials, we'll have no political power, no demography, no pension, and loads of accumulated rage against us.
We'll be looted and killed at the hands of the zoomers while we watch the boomers ride into the horizon.
Your bone-dry, unvarnished realism appeals to my Caledonian pessimism. You are definitely a man/woman of these parts.
Then you'll have to buy guns.
And WHAT Boomer sins ?
The West has been going down ever since it began rejecting Christianity, secretly in the Renaissance till the 17th century, mockingly from the 18th.
The Boomers have simply been the inheritors of a long, self-destructive Western tradition.
It's generally the young who go to war. If the Zoomers go to battle, it will mainly be against each other, not against older folk who will sit it out. Some of us will even find ways to profit-- if the nukes sleep in their silos still. If not, then everyone and everything everywhere pays the butchers' bill.
Well said about Farage.
The centre and left have no idea how grateful they should be for him.
If they’ve got the patience, gen z could make life for us gen x’ers deeply unpleasant in our twilight years. That’s before you consider the racial resentment that is bubbling over. I don’t want to grow old in a damp version of Zimbabwe or South Africa.
It's going to be deeply unpleasant anyway, once the Economy and NHS have gone phutt.
Obviously, I don't like the idea that Christianity is better than Islam/Judaism, and I don't like the idea that White people are superiot to the rest of humanity!
’John’ informed me that there are a lot of subscribers in Dubai!
Well, I forgot the famous Arab proverb about the greatest joy in life, which makes the case that welcoming a stranger in your home is akin to receiving a prophet of God.
But, here we are!
Those are two entirely different beliefs. Why bracket them together?
The only white people who still believe in white racial superiority, are embittered young men and pitiful people from the underclass.
The West is the child of Christianity on the one hand, and Graeco-Roman tradition (brilliant Greeks + Roman builders and soldiers) on the other.
A formidable combination ! But it died in the 1960's. And Christianity is again the religion it was in its first three hundred years, powerless except for the holiness of its adherents, when they are sincere.
Persecuted too - large numbers of Christians are being persecuted, whether by extremist Muslims or the Chinese Communist Party.
Dear Ed, the weather in the UAE is super cosy and velvety! When are we to see you/host you here?
I think Fuentes views are pretty extreme, or at least he says extreme things.
And yes I'd love to visit the UAE, just got back from America though so not sure I'll be allowed to travel a while!
Yes, I do understand your point, Fuentes does say extreme things, but this might be ‘expected’, considering that the Anglo-sphere West is in a state of ‘cultural liquidity’!
Hosting you here, will be a genuine pleasure and a sacred honor!
Well I'd love to. there's another Dubai-based subsciber here I think? Two is enough for a 'meet-up'
I'm Abu Dhabi.
Older than you, Ed (Gen X) and a big fan of Nick Fuentes, btw. He's both hilarious and brave enough to say what NEEDS to be said.