I have to agree with Belgraviadave. I tried recently to find some UK Substacks that reflected truly conservative/traditional somewheres perspectives along the lines of the many that exist in the US..... and it was thin pickings indeed. All the big name ones (I shan't name names) are in a kind of journalistic have-your-cake-and-eat-it political territory. On the one hand they want to show that they can articulate a rightist critique of 21st c. civilisation-threatening hyper-liberalism but then when some politician like Suella Braverman says the unsayable parts out loud, they run back to their 'social justice-lite' safe haven. The only real exception in my experience is Melanie Phillips
As I said in Revolt of the Somewhere's Pt 1: Something that is not widely appreciated amongst other Western conservatives is just how much of a special case the UK is in terms of the progressive/conservative 'culture war'. It is a special case (an especially dismal one) for various reasons but one of the biggest is the decades-long unusually monolithic nature of its BBC-dominated television news media. Other countries' media has had a far less uniformly progressive stranglehold; particularly the US. Last election in the US about 40% (was it?) voted for a non-liberal-establishment candidate. In Britain, thanks to decades of BBC -type taming, they would get maybe 5% max. In the last 30 years the UK has made itself virtually conservatism-free.
Yes true. But what I was mainly picking up on from your comment is the virtual absence, in the UK, of the kind of straightforward conservative journalism that abounds in the US. (Apart from mine of course!)
Oct 17, 2023·edited Oct 17, 2023Liked by Lorenzo Warby
The days when the nominally 'conservative' print media had any great power to influence the middle classes are long gone when compared to television. The BBC has had astronomical power over high brow political conversation in the UK for more than half a century. (So much so that ITN and C4 are virtual clones of it.) Yes GB News has lately brought a little tabloid -type competition but it would take years for it to alter the above. I don't know if you are UK based and I don't know if you are philosophically conservative but if you are it is a little surprising that you would even need to have all this pointed out.
Yes of course it does and Thank Heavens for it. Perhaps I should have used a different phrase from 'virtual absence'. But we could go on 'whatabouting forever - the real point is this: was my original comment about the difference between the UK and USA (and actually mostly focussed on Substacks) broadly a valid one or not?
You do realize that European countries (including the UK) are essentially banned from re-introducing the death penalty by supranational institutions (chiefly the Council of Europe)?
I am not British so I admit to having limited knowledge and a limited perspective, but I was really shocked at how amazingly unprincipled Boris Johson is/was.
I realize that expecting politicians to have principles is foolish (and I don't), but I really can't recall another political figure whose words and actions were so wildly apart.
There was not a position he didn't reverse or undermine, everything the man said was contradicted by his deeds and I was totally boggled by his motivations. I assume someone who was in it for the power would be somewhat more fearless and Machiavellian, but did he really become PM just for the attention?
I get that, and when speaking of political narcissists (as an American) immediately people like Clinton and Obama come to mind, but at least they have some guiding principles or at least policy goals that they were aiming toward.
But Boris Johnson was like appointing the world's most dishonest 12-yr-old boy to be PM, he had ZERO goals and ZERO plans and seemed only interested in looking into the nearest camera and saying whatever the nearest person would approve of.
I guess for me all roads lead to the same conclusion: all Western leaders are branch managers of the global corporate state who serve at the pleasure of global capital whose enforcement mechanisms are the media, lawfare, NGOs and intense social/cultural pressure.
If you agree to be obedient (like Trudeau, Ardern, Newsom etc) all doors will open for you and all mistakes will be covered up or denied; but if you disobey or are any kind of threat to their power, they will destroy you.
And I guess Johnson auditioned for the role of chief puppet, gave a terrible performance and it was more fun to stomp him out than to watch his clown show continue.
Which brings us back to the BBC-Guardian axis. The BBC is a public sector organisation that has been allowed to develop its own fantasy world. It used to be controlled by fairly strong Charters that used Broadcasting Councils to monitor bias but Blair removed the controls and handed control to Ofcom which largely deals with Internet contracts.
The current political division is Internationalist vs Nationalist, not Conservative versus Labour. Keir Starmer was a member of the Trilateral Commission, Rishi Sunak is ex-Goldman Sachs. The Internationalists have captured the main political parties and the media.
The BBC should have been our main hope for resisting this overwhelming Internationalist tide but Blair (International Director, JP Morgan) destroyed it.
In the USA quite a few people have woken up to the danger but unfortunately membership of the EU skewed us towards globalism before the threat from the Internationalists was fully understood.
"Trump’s 'stop the steal' is a classic literally-false-but-metaphorically-true myth. No, the 2020 Presidential election was not stolen."
I understand your point, but I believe you overlook the fact that electoral outcomes can be--and have been--corrupted and suborned under color of law.
This is in fact the very argument that is made by those who oppose voter ID laws on the basis that they "suppress the vote." While a substantial part of that argument is mere bloody-shirtism, what is really in play is the ability to manipulate the outcome by blurring who is actually eligible to vote. This was also at the core of the arguments about mail-in and drop-box ballots during the Late Unpleasantness.
You are certainly correct that the "stop-the-steal" argument lacks nuance...though of course, such nuance as is a part of the argument is flattened out by the media's selective reporting. But it is a fact that there have been several presidential elections in our checkered history that have been marred by what I'll call irregularities, all of which were fully and entirely legal and within the four corners of the Constitution: 1824, 1876, and 1960 come to mind. And of course we have spent nearly a quarter-century listening to certain people re-litigate the outcome of the 2000 election as well.
I realize this issue is not central to your larger point, with which I completely agree. I merely wish to respectfully point out that it is neither a new issue nor one that is limited to demagoguery.
True. And there were enough oddities to generate suspicion. Which States did not finish counting on the night, for instance. (Ignore California, they are always slow.) The GOP taking the House was, however, evidence for the oddities not adding up to what was claimed.
I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. The GOP didn't take the House in 2020--although they did far better overall down-ticket than one might have expected given the result at the top. And in 2022, the GOP took the House by the skin of their teeth, the outcome remaining in doubt for several days after the elections...in the context of multiple well-respected polls suggesting a "Red Wave."
So--respectfully--I'm not sure what you're trying to say actually correlates with the actual outcomes.
But my larger point is not about "irregularities." It's about the stuff that took place in broad daylight, under the aegis of litigation by the Democrats and their hangers-on, and of course, the "Zuck Bucks" business.
I should point out that there's a 6000-word article--"The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election"-- by Molly Ball in the February 15th 2021 issue of Time Magazine, in which they take their victory lap in plain sight. I suggest you read it yourself if you find any of this hard to believe.
You’re right, I conflated the two elections. I meant the GOP gained seats in the House. And that article was not reassuring.
The narrowness of the 2022 result was clearly due to abortion. My position has always been Roe v Wade was bad law, should be overturned, and that would be bad for the GOP.
The article was Triumphant LW. It wasn't meant to be reassuring, except to the smug yet nervous types and their Shadow Campaign to save the election LMAO it's in the TITLE.
The election wasn't stolen, you can't say that !
And you can't say that OJ Simpson is a murderer either !
He was acquitted.
The other day someone posted a link to Social Pyschology article positing that stereotypes are the most replicable results in Social Pyschology.
That D rigs elections is rather an old stereotype over here...
Not altogether convinced on your take though. I agree that we'll have to do some adjusting now that the battle is back in the states where it belongs, but we did poorly in a way that doesn't really line up with pro-abort/anti-abort--look at the results in my state of Florida, De Santis did extremely well even in areas that aren't exactly pro-life, ya know? :-) And we gained four seats in the House of Representatives, which ain't nothin', along with some very much unpredicted gains in the state legislature.
So I don't know what the answer is but I don't think that's it. Plus I'm always skeptical of the single-factor explanation, far too facile for my taste. Of course I've been studying elections for almost half a century so that may just be my professional deformation talking! :-)
And all those polls--I realize they're getting hopelessly unreliable, but they're what we've got, right? Of course it's not the first time either side has been lulled into a false sense of complacency by polls--look at the 2016 Presidential election.
Lorenzo: The GOP mostly holding the House but the President GOP losing by 20 million votes [LMAO] is the actual oddity. Extremely odd indeed.
Not to mention the voting count stopped in 5 swing states Trump was winning at 22:30, and when the voting count restarted at 0330 suddenly the results were completely reversed. Even CNN couldn't speak when they saw that at 0330 AM. Stunned.
Lorenzo, you may have to say this, don't believe it.
Saying this in America is would be like uttering the vaccination boosters yet again must be done, or masks save lives, etc. The ensuing silence doesn't mean assent.
Lorenzo; we have as I believe you know an Electoral college vote system that was set up as part of a Federal system to prevent voters in a few large cities and states from deciding for the entire rather large nation.
The vote counting in 5 key swing states was stopped at 2230 local when Trump was ahead. At 0300 local suddenly counting resumed and Biden was now ahead!
A complete reversal of fortune!
All you have to do is stop counting until.... the vote is correct!
Not to mention hundreds of sworn affidavits swearing under penalty of perjury (unlike fact checkers) that they saw fraud.
Links available on request.
The courts you will be told did not rule there was no fraud, that’s because they refused to hear the case. They didn’t look at the evidence, so in the eyes of the court there was no irregularities.
Then there’s that Dominion Voter machine, I have read the manual LW. The good stuff starts in chapter 4, the best stuff chapter 9. 🇺🇸We have Venezuela under sanctions for Election Fraud using exactly Dominion , LW.
Worse- the point of Dominion is to automate elections, not manually scan ballots from under the desk- that’s actually manualizing an automated process. 🤪🤣. That’s like filching millions from a bank electronically Cybercrime, but then sending your autistic minions to make ATM withdrawals then depositing back in the bank as $1 bills.
American election are political contests with the rules determined by political actors. The illegalities of the 2020 Presidential election are justified by the rule makers - the Anywheres - as politics. Observe that the Anywheres dismiss every fact that reveals the illegalities of the 2020 election. Even when courts have ruled the law was broken the Anywheres deny anything illegal happened.
Not only did the 2020 election kick Trump to the curb but it empowered the Anywheres to craft Presidential elections as pure scripted theater where the outcome is planned and is a confirmation of everything the Anywheres say should happen. The dogmatic refusal by Anywheres to acknowledge election irregularities and their crushing of "election deniers" with lawfare is meant to enforce the script.
Americans are having their country and government stolen from them by the Anywheres. The remedy is the rule of law where the law is equally and fairly applied to all. The Anywheres, as the rule makers, desire a law that serves their ends. This corruption of law is leading to a fracturing of social trust and if not corrected it will lead to the collapse of American government.
Compulsory voting in America would be adding to our lists of Humiliation Rituals which are already too long. Like Masks - Humiliation to no effect.
To begin the politicians have little power compared to the bureaucracy and that is by law.
Further the Chicago style elections that have are now automated and 'fortified' nationally, but OF COURSE NOT STOLEN ! DISGRACEFUL MYTH! ..... er, no. No compulsory voting.
Not in America.
You see we kept our arms, and it's just unwise to compel us further for meaningless and utterly discredited rituals.
In America the borders are open to increase headcount for the bureaucracy; the Real Patron in Patron/Client. The cities are emptying out of office workers, industry left with the Automobile.
So When Texas sends NYC it's migrants, Texas helps NYC ....IF the Dems get the Federal aid.
this has nothing to do with voting.
Really voting in America has little to do with our actual Politics at all, if you accept that Politics is Power.
BTW, in the UK we are now experiencing the effects of importing high value migrants - these billionaires start to think they own the country and have the resources to do so.
I have revisited this piece multiple times and even listened to it via the app. One of the primary reasons for my repeated engagement with this content is that I find myself in strong disagreement with the Anywhere cognitive elite on numerous socio-political issues, despite hailing from a Third World somewhere background. The discomfort I experience, as a somewhere individual in a world dominated by Anywheres (particularly within my work environment in universities where over-credentialization is prevalent), has led me to experience a sense of social ostracization, which ironically resembles the very cycle I had hoped to escape from in my previous somewhere world. I wholeheartedly concur with the statement: "Once you see the Anywheres/Somewheres division, it becomes hard to un-see; forms of it reach deep into history." Thank you for sharing your insights in this article!
Something to remember is that many of the Anywheres grow out of it. They either decide to go home, or they were always looking for a home, and finally find one. This leads me to believe that when we take our next look at immigration, and how to rerform it, we need a different sort of work visa, for the people who mostly want to see the world, experience the broadening effect of travel, maybe teach others a bit about their home culture, etc.
Fascinating paper, ta.
Quite.
The UK does have Matt Goodwin.
https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/rise-of-the-luxury-belief-class
I have to agree with Belgraviadave. I tried recently to find some UK Substacks that reflected truly conservative/traditional somewheres perspectives along the lines of the many that exist in the US..... and it was thin pickings indeed. All the big name ones (I shan't name names) are in a kind of journalistic have-your-cake-and-eat-it political territory. On the one hand they want to show that they can articulate a rightist critique of 21st c. civilisation-threatening hyper-liberalism but then when some politician like Suella Braverman says the unsayable parts out loud, they run back to their 'social justice-lite' safe haven. The only real exception in my experience is Melanie Phillips
As I said in Revolt of the Somewhere's Pt 1: Something that is not widely appreciated amongst other Western conservatives is just how much of a special case the UK is in terms of the progressive/conservative 'culture war'. It is a special case (an especially dismal one) for various reasons but one of the biggest is the decades-long unusually monolithic nature of its BBC-dominated television news media. Other countries' media has had a far less uniformly progressive stranglehold; particularly the US. Last election in the US about 40% (was it?) voted for a non-liberal-establishment candidate. In Britain, thanks to decades of BBC -type taming, they would get maybe 5% max. In the last 30 years the UK has made itself virtually conservatism-free.
Yes true. But what I was mainly picking up on from your comment is the virtual absence, in the UK, of the kind of straightforward conservative journalism that abounds in the US. (Apart from mine of course!)
Isn't the UK print media still dominated by conservatives? Plus even in the TV sphere we now have GB News...
The days when the nominally 'conservative' print media had any great power to influence the middle classes are long gone when compared to television. The BBC has had astronomical power over high brow political conversation in the UK for more than half a century. (So much so that ITN and C4 are virtual clones of it.) Yes GB News has lately brought a little tabloid -type competition but it would take years for it to alter the above. I don't know if you are UK based and I don't know if you are philosophically conservative but if you are it is a little surprising that you would even need to have all this pointed out.
The Spectator https://www.spectator.co.uk/ doesn't count?
Yes of course it does and Thank Heavens for it. Perhaps I should have used a different phrase from 'virtual absence'. But we could go on 'whatabouting forever - the real point is this: was my original comment about the difference between the UK and USA (and actually mostly focussed on Substacks) broadly a valid one or not?
You do realize that European countries (including the UK) are essentially banned from re-introducing the death penalty by supranational institutions (chiefly the Council of Europe)?
There's no point in politicians campaigning for a policy that international agreements prevent them from actually carrying out, surely?
I am not British so I admit to having limited knowledge and a limited perspective, but I was really shocked at how amazingly unprincipled Boris Johson is/was.
I realize that expecting politicians to have principles is foolish (and I don't), but I really can't recall another political figure whose words and actions were so wildly apart.
There was not a position he didn't reverse or undermine, everything the man said was contradicted by his deeds and I was totally boggled by his motivations. I assume someone who was in it for the power would be somewhat more fearless and Machiavellian, but did he really become PM just for the attention?
I get that, and when speaking of political narcissists (as an American) immediately people like Clinton and Obama come to mind, but at least they have some guiding principles or at least policy goals that they were aiming toward.
But Boris Johnson was like appointing the world's most dishonest 12-yr-old boy to be PM, he had ZERO goals and ZERO plans and seemed only interested in looking into the nearest camera and saying whatever the nearest person would approve of.
But pls correct me if I'm wrong!
thanks appreciate the clarity...
I guess for me all roads lead to the same conclusion: all Western leaders are branch managers of the global corporate state who serve at the pleasure of global capital whose enforcement mechanisms are the media, lawfare, NGOs and intense social/cultural pressure.
If you agree to be obedient (like Trudeau, Ardern, Newsom etc) all doors will open for you and all mistakes will be covered up or denied; but if you disobey or are any kind of threat to their power, they will destroy you.
And I guess Johnson auditioned for the role of chief puppet, gave a terrible performance and it was more fun to stomp him out than to watch his clown show continue.
He was just playing 'lets be prime minister' and thinking 'oow that'll be Fun '.
Nigel Farage and the Reform Party, GB News..
The problem is that they are slandered and no-platformed by MSM.
Which brings us back to the BBC-Guardian axis. The BBC is a public sector organisation that has been allowed to develop its own fantasy world. It used to be controlled by fairly strong Charters that used Broadcasting Councils to monitor bias but Blair removed the controls and handed control to Ofcom which largely deals with Internet contracts.
See https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/after-100-years-the-bbc-must-change
The Guardian is part of global Corporatism
See https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/internationalism-and-global-government
The current political division is Internationalist vs Nationalist, not Conservative versus Labour. Keir Starmer was a member of the Trilateral Commission, Rishi Sunak is ex-Goldman Sachs. The Internationalists have captured the main political parties and the media.
The BBC should have been our main hope for resisting this overwhelming Internationalist tide but Blair (International Director, JP Morgan) destroyed it.
See https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/the-globalist-threat
In the USA quite a few people have woken up to the danger but unfortunately membership of the EU skewed us towards globalism before the threat from the Internationalists was fully understood.
"Trump’s 'stop the steal' is a classic literally-false-but-metaphorically-true myth. No, the 2020 Presidential election was not stolen."
I understand your point, but I believe you overlook the fact that electoral outcomes can be--and have been--corrupted and suborned under color of law.
This is in fact the very argument that is made by those who oppose voter ID laws on the basis that they "suppress the vote." While a substantial part of that argument is mere bloody-shirtism, what is really in play is the ability to manipulate the outcome by blurring who is actually eligible to vote. This was also at the core of the arguments about mail-in and drop-box ballots during the Late Unpleasantness.
You are certainly correct that the "stop-the-steal" argument lacks nuance...though of course, such nuance as is a part of the argument is flattened out by the media's selective reporting. But it is a fact that there have been several presidential elections in our checkered history that have been marred by what I'll call irregularities, all of which were fully and entirely legal and within the four corners of the Constitution: 1824, 1876, and 1960 come to mind. And of course we have spent nearly a quarter-century listening to certain people re-litigate the outcome of the 2000 election as well.
I realize this issue is not central to your larger point, with which I completely agree. I merely wish to respectfully point out that it is neither a new issue nor one that is limited to demagoguery.
True. And there were enough oddities to generate suspicion. Which States did not finish counting on the night, for instance. (Ignore California, they are always slow.) The GOP taking the House was, however, evidence for the oddities not adding up to what was claimed.
I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. The GOP didn't take the House in 2020--although they did far better overall down-ticket than one might have expected given the result at the top. And in 2022, the GOP took the House by the skin of their teeth, the outcome remaining in doubt for several days after the elections...in the context of multiple well-respected polls suggesting a "Red Wave."
So--respectfully--I'm not sure what you're trying to say actually correlates with the actual outcomes.
But my larger point is not about "irregularities." It's about the stuff that took place in broad daylight, under the aegis of litigation by the Democrats and their hangers-on, and of course, the "Zuck Bucks" business.
I should point out that there's a 6000-word article--"The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election"-- by Molly Ball in the February 15th 2021 issue of Time Magazine, in which they take their victory lap in plain sight. I suggest you read it yourself if you find any of this hard to believe.
You’re right, I conflated the two elections. I meant the GOP gained seats in the House. And that article was not reassuring.
The narrowness of the 2022 result was clearly due to abortion. My position has always been Roe v Wade was bad law, should be overturned, and that would be bad for the GOP.
The article was Triumphant LW. It wasn't meant to be reassuring, except to the smug yet nervous types and their Shadow Campaign to save the election LMAO it's in the TITLE.
The election wasn't stolen, you can't say that !
And you can't say that OJ Simpson is a murderer either !
He was acquitted.
The other day someone posted a link to Social Pyschology article positing that stereotypes are the most replicable results in Social Pyschology.
That D rigs elections is rather an old stereotype over here...
Eh, happens to the best of us :-)
Not altogether convinced on your take though. I agree that we'll have to do some adjusting now that the battle is back in the states where it belongs, but we did poorly in a way that doesn't really line up with pro-abort/anti-abort--look at the results in my state of Florida, De Santis did extremely well even in areas that aren't exactly pro-life, ya know? :-) And we gained four seats in the House of Representatives, which ain't nothin', along with some very much unpredicted gains in the state legislature.
So I don't know what the answer is but I don't think that's it. Plus I'm always skeptical of the single-factor explanation, far too facile for my taste. Of course I've been studying elections for almost half a century so that may just be my professional deformation talking! :-)
And all those polls--I realize they're getting hopelessly unreliable, but they're what we've got, right? Of course it's not the first time either side has been lulled into a false sense of complacency by polls--look at the 2016 Presidential election.
Lorenzo: The GOP mostly holding the House but the President GOP losing by 20 million votes [LMAO] is the actual oddity. Extremely odd indeed.
Not to mention the voting count stopped in 5 swing states Trump was winning at 22:30, and when the voting count restarted at 0330 suddenly the results were completely reversed. Even CNN couldn't speak when they saw that at 0330 AM. Stunned.
Lorenzo, you may have to say this, don't believe it.
Saying this in America is would be like uttering the vaccination boosters yet again must be done, or masks save lives, etc. The ensuing silence doesn't mean assent.
Actually, he lost by just under 7 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
Lorenzo; we have as I believe you know an Electoral college vote system that was set up as part of a Federal system to prevent voters in a few large cities and states from deciding for the entire rather large nation.
The vote counting in 5 key swing states was stopped at 2230 local when Trump was ahead. At 0300 local suddenly counting resumed and Biden was now ahead!
A complete reversal of fortune!
All you have to do is stop counting until.... the vote is correct!
Not to mention hundreds of sworn affidavits swearing under penalty of perjury (unlike fact checkers) that they saw fraud.
Links available on request.
The courts you will be told did not rule there was no fraud, that’s because they refused to hear the case. They didn’t look at the evidence, so in the eyes of the court there was no irregularities.
Then there’s that Dominion Voter machine, I have read the manual LW. The good stuff starts in chapter 4, the best stuff chapter 9. 🇺🇸We have Venezuela under sanctions for Election Fraud using exactly Dominion , LW.
Worse- the point of Dominion is to automate elections, not manually scan ballots from under the desk- that’s actually manualizing an automated process. 🤪🤣. That’s like filching millions from a bank electronically Cybercrime, but then sending your autistic minions to make ATM withdrawals then depositing back in the bank as $1 bills.
only in America, as we say.
LW here’s the Dominion user manual. Jan 15, 2020.
If you study hard enough, you could be POTUS !!
We won’t care, go right ahead.
https://votingsystems.cdn.sos.ca.gov/vendors/dominion/ds510-use-proc-jan.pdf
He lost the popular vote in the previous one by just under 3m. A shift of 4m is not so large.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
That’s 💩
American election are political contests with the rules determined by political actors. The illegalities of the 2020 Presidential election are justified by the rule makers - the Anywheres - as politics. Observe that the Anywheres dismiss every fact that reveals the illegalities of the 2020 election. Even when courts have ruled the law was broken the Anywheres deny anything illegal happened.
Not only did the 2020 election kick Trump to the curb but it empowered the Anywheres to craft Presidential elections as pure scripted theater where the outcome is planned and is a confirmation of everything the Anywheres say should happen. The dogmatic refusal by Anywheres to acknowledge election irregularities and their crushing of "election deniers" with lawfare is meant to enforce the script.
Americans are having their country and government stolen from them by the Anywheres. The remedy is the rule of law where the law is equally and fairly applied to all. The Anywheres, as the rule makers, desire a law that serves their ends. This corruption of law is leading to a fracturing of social trust and if not corrected it will lead to the collapse of American government.
"No, the 2020 Presidential election was not stolen."
Oh. What was it.... ?
Fortified perhaps?
Compulsory voting in America would be adding to our lists of Humiliation Rituals which are already too long. Like Masks - Humiliation to no effect.
To begin the politicians have little power compared to the bureaucracy and that is by law.
Further the Chicago style elections that have are now automated and 'fortified' nationally, but OF COURSE NOT STOLEN ! DISGRACEFUL MYTH! ..... er, no. No compulsory voting.
Not in America.
You see we kept our arms, and it's just unwise to compel us further for meaningless and utterly discredited rituals.
In America the borders are open to increase headcount for the bureaucracy; the Real Patron in Patron/Client. The cities are emptying out of office workers, industry left with the Automobile.
So When Texas sends NYC it's migrants, Texas helps NYC ....IF the Dems get the Federal aid.
this has nothing to do with voting.
Really voting in America has little to do with our actual Politics at all, if you accept that Politics is Power.
https://compactmag.com/article/the-sanctuary-city-ponzi-scheme
Great stuff.
Your piece could be straight out of: Practical Idealism by Coudenhove-Kalergi: https://pol-check.blogspot.com/2015/06/practical-idealism-by-richard-nicolaus.html Kalergi was an ardent supporter of the Anywheres and was pivotal to the foundation of the EU.
BTW, in the UK we are now experiencing the effects of importing high value migrants - these billionaires start to think they own the country and have the resources to do so.
I have revisited this piece multiple times and even listened to it via the app. One of the primary reasons for my repeated engagement with this content is that I find myself in strong disagreement with the Anywhere cognitive elite on numerous socio-political issues, despite hailing from a Third World somewhere background. The discomfort I experience, as a somewhere individual in a world dominated by Anywheres (particularly within my work environment in universities where over-credentialization is prevalent), has led me to experience a sense of social ostracization, which ironically resembles the very cycle I had hoped to escape from in my previous somewhere world. I wholeheartedly concur with the statement: "Once you see the Anywheres/Somewheres division, it becomes hard to un-see; forms of it reach deep into history." Thank you for sharing your insights in this article!
Something to remember is that many of the Anywheres grow out of it. They either decide to go home, or they were always looking for a home, and finally find one. This leads me to believe that when we take our next look at immigration, and how to rerform it, we need a different sort of work visa, for the people who mostly want to see the world, experience the broadening effect of travel, maybe teach others a bit about their home culture, etc.