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.
(In other parts of Europe, rightist polities do still exist..... and are growing.)
The great exception in UK recent history - and the template, however unlikely for a future Somewheres revolt - was Margaret Thatcher's leadership. "What made her electable - despite a personality and set of values anathema to the grain of her time (and ours) - was her unlikely visceral appeal to lower middle class and skilled working class voters (the C1s & C2s) many of whom were not even quite sure why they were switching their vote to her. They could sense that - unlike the normal type of ‘higher-ups’ of both Left and Right - she was (although she would never dream of using the term herself) not full of s***." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/mrs-thatcher-and-the-good-life
It’s an oversimplification to attribute the “driving up rents and house prices by using zoning to restrict housing supply” in the US to the Anywheres. Somewheres consistently support restrictive housing policies because they are trying to protect their communities--and their control over their communities’ political and civil institutions--from the onslaught of in-migration, both by lower income immigrants with alien cultural backgrounds, and by higher income Anywheres. If the Anywheres are responsible for those policies, it’s because they have created, and continue to support, an economy that pushes innovation through destruction of existing communities and economies.
1. We need to stop conflating “educated” and “degreed.” If one sees the purpose of education to be a free, prosperous and fertile society under law, then no such thing as a “highly-educated” Progressive exists.
2. A footnote quoting Hirsi Ali on the reduction of women’s rights seems at-odds with the expressed thought on the current devolution of society via its feminization, no? The fact of the matter is that all current social pathologies are downstream from suffrage and feminism: “oh that poor...” illegal alien, incarcerated thug, socially-promoted student, fatherless child, etc., are driving empathy votes destroying safety, borders, laws, education, families.
3. Is everyone noticing the increasing prevalence of this argument? It wasn’t heard a decade ago but is difficult to miss today.
It’s increasing accuracy is testified to by the increasing commentary.
Whence does it go from here?
FTA: Feminisation of the academy, professions, and institutions, which undermines free speech norms and increases moralised aggression (often mean-girl mobbing). This is coupled with demands to trade in other folk’s freedoms and careers to protect highly educated women’s feelings.
Pointless attempt to promote the sub-system "democracy" as if having scoundrels and fraudster from the "working class" in the DEMOcracy cirCUS means anything beneficial to the herds of modern moron slaves!
You all have just earned a paid sub for this post (as well as the consistent quality and the Zoom idea - that is an excellent value add).
Loved the article - one thing I would add though, that you hinted at with the comments around EU failure but didn’t quite go full blast.
The fact is that a lot of ethnonationalist appeal (particularly in Europe but some in the US) is because the State Apparatus and the ‘new’ populations are directly and openly hostile the local population.
Additionally, as the Anywhere Elites become more and more diverse, the cognitive dissonance of a local Somewhere being ruled by a “How Did They Get Here?” so to speak is unnerving for many.
A great example of this is the family tree of say, a Rishi Sunak - a lineage who has not stayed in a single country for more than a generation in over 100 years I believe, and a man who is married to a person who seemingly prefers to live somewhere else, in addition to his own heavy US residency ties.
And this man is the most powerful Anywhere Elite in the UK, metaphorically speaking.
But great article and looking forward to your Zoom calls!
I collected my thoughts and comments as I read through this essay, but rather than dump them all into one large comment, I will present them as mostly individual ones. This may make replying easier?
And some are questions for Lorenzo.
A couple of minor editorial items?
"Parliamentary/representative politics have a long history, dating back to the late C12th. The industrial revolution’s factory and office employment not only separated production from households." This phrasing represents quite a jump in thinking and in history. Perhaps some transitional language is merited in the book version?
"It created tough, committed (through generally small) armies." [ through, or though?]
"The identification of nationalism as the central problem of European history is false. The real problem of European history is unaccountable power. Yes, nationalism can be—and has been—mobilised by power without accountability." Great observation!!!
"Early medieval Latin Christendom’s sanctification of the Roman synthesis: law-is-human (i.e., not based on revelation)..." So the adage that the Holy Roman Empire was not holy, Roman, or an empire is wrong: they at least were "Romanized"? :-)
"The selection processes of history—operating among intensely competitive states—had far more variety to work with than in any other civilisation." A plug for social and political evolutionary adaptiveness, and another good argument against a one world government. Selecting good memes will be most successful when there are a variety of options among which to choose.
Multiculturalism is flawed mush. Extract the best from each culture as you learn about it/them.
"The upward spiral of bargaining politics is why various forms of national identity developed unusually strong resonance in Europe." So, coupled with the decline in kin/tribal oriented social structures and the move away from shame-honor culture (to shame-guilt culture? via Christianity?) prevalent in so many other (non "western") nations/ societies, this is part of why they have failed to master the liberty- prosperity calculus we tend to enjoy?
We in the US have a history of distancing ourselves from the European "experts" and views, so perhaps we also have overlooked the cultural contributions from Europe that have enhanced our lives as well. One area: the "self evident truth" of our DOI is really only self-evident from within a Judeo-Christian civilization. No one else would ever have generated such a phrasing.
"So, we have a Europhile elite that tends to undermine accountability, ...[etc.] This is not a solution to the problems of nationalism. It is an invitation—and provides a set of incentives—to reinvigorate the politics of nationalism." A great statement, and appears to be true of the US as well. Are you sure you never visited or stayed in the US for any extended period? Besides accessing our media? :-) You seem to know us so well!!
And I just thought to ask: what do you think of NATO as a somewhat parallel, multi-nation institution? My perception is that the member nations still retain their localized influences and agendas, somewhat outside of the EU "political union" approach.
"The salience of non-profits in the US political system...." Do you see these NGO's as being more publicly visible within the last few years compared to a more restrained agenda in the not so distant past? In other words, "why am I only learning about (or appreciating) their corruptive role now?" NGO's were supposed to be (mostly) "non-profit good guys", not Marist apparats in disguise.
The Prisoner is sentenced to be passed from Navy Ship to Navy Ship without seeing land or hearing or seeing the words “The United States” ever again, this is his punishment for uttering at his treason trial “God Damn The United States! I wish to never hear of the United States again.”
His wish is granted.
Perhaps we could update this for globalists who can’t accept it’s over ... they can be transferred from plane to plane at foreign airports, never leaving the airplane or perhaps even windowless airports, never seeing the Sun shine on their native soil they so despise...
.... why we can even automate it, they can be waited on by Droids.
By the way, to the extent 🇺🇸 had a hand in Globalization, 🇺🇸 is killing it off. The 🇺🇸 Anywhere’s are funding and leading a industrial reshoring that is now being called a Manufacturing SuperCycle.
This is because the 🇺🇸 Anywheres fear the 🇺🇸 Somewheres -
- also we’re (sorry*) consolidating the 🇺🇸 Empire around CONUS core while smashing the Atlantic and Pacific borders into submission (in the case of Germany poverty). Which is why Australia must buy American subs, mustn’t buy French ones, and the good news for us all is we’re breaking with China. Well, I hope it’s good news for Australia too.
Amid the elegant and compelling arguments here, one stands out in particular, for this reader. That 'overdoing' any project designed to eradicate 'wrong noticing' serves only to drive interest in the wrong noticings.
I this way it reminds me of the kinds of feedback loops that cause bureaucracies to grow. In other words, it's possibly more of a feature than a bug. I may have expressed this inadequately. An example is how trying to eradicate Trump may lead to another Trump term. Under which the 'correct thinking' apparatus will only grow.
There's psychology in play, too, in which opposition to ever closer union in the EU serves only to fuel the determination of its promoters, who are afraid that such scepticism more or less guarantees a return to nationalist wars.
Revolt of the Somewheres......a UK focus:
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.
(In other parts of Europe, rightist polities do still exist..... and are growing.)
The great exception in UK recent history - and the template, however unlikely for a future Somewheres revolt - was Margaret Thatcher's leadership. "What made her electable - despite a personality and set of values anathema to the grain of her time (and ours) - was her unlikely visceral appeal to lower middle class and skilled working class voters (the C1s & C2s) many of whom were not even quite sure why they were switching their vote to her. They could sense that - unlike the normal type of ‘higher-ups’ of both Left and Right - she was (although she would never dream of using the term herself) not full of s***." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/mrs-thatcher-and-the-good-life
It’s an oversimplification to attribute the “driving up rents and house prices by using zoning to restrict housing supply” in the US to the Anywheres. Somewheres consistently support restrictive housing policies because they are trying to protect their communities--and their control over their communities’ political and civil institutions--from the onslaught of in-migration, both by lower income immigrants with alien cultural backgrounds, and by higher income Anywheres. If the Anywheres are responsible for those policies, it’s because they have created, and continue to support, an economy that pushes innovation through destruction of existing communities and economies.
A few comments.
1. We need to stop conflating “educated” and “degreed.” If one sees the purpose of education to be a free, prosperous and fertile society under law, then no such thing as a “highly-educated” Progressive exists.
2. A footnote quoting Hirsi Ali on the reduction of women’s rights seems at-odds with the expressed thought on the current devolution of society via its feminization, no? The fact of the matter is that all current social pathologies are downstream from suffrage and feminism: “oh that poor...” illegal alien, incarcerated thug, socially-promoted student, fatherless child, etc., are driving empathy votes destroying safety, borders, laws, education, families.
3. Is everyone noticing the increasing prevalence of this argument? It wasn’t heard a decade ago but is difficult to miss today.
It’s increasing accuracy is testified to by the increasing commentary.
Whence does it go from here?
FTA: Feminisation of the academy, professions, and institutions, which undermines free speech norms and increases moralised aggression (often mean-girl mobbing). This is coupled with demands to trade in other folk’s freedoms and careers to protect highly educated women’s feelings.
I'm not sure to be hurt or proud when looking at that table of MPs' Occupations 1979-2015.
Zero engineers.
As in, professional degree-qualified engineers.
Are we counted among the "Manual Workers"? Do we just not count?
Or are professional degree-qualified engineers too sane to get involved in politics?
Pointless attempt to promote the sub-system "democracy" as if having scoundrels and fraudster from the "working class" in the DEMOcracy cirCUS means anything beneficial to the herds of modern moron slaves!
You all have just earned a paid sub for this post (as well as the consistent quality and the Zoom idea - that is an excellent value add).
Loved the article - one thing I would add though, that you hinted at with the comments around EU failure but didn’t quite go full blast.
The fact is that a lot of ethnonationalist appeal (particularly in Europe but some in the US) is because the State Apparatus and the ‘new’ populations are directly and openly hostile the local population.
Additionally, as the Anywhere Elites become more and more diverse, the cognitive dissonance of a local Somewhere being ruled by a “How Did They Get Here?” so to speak is unnerving for many.
A great example of this is the family tree of say, a Rishi Sunak - a lineage who has not stayed in a single country for more than a generation in over 100 years I believe, and a man who is married to a person who seemingly prefers to live somewhere else, in addition to his own heavy US residency ties.
And this man is the most powerful Anywhere Elite in the UK, metaphorically speaking.
But great article and looking forward to your Zoom calls!
I collected my thoughts and comments as I read through this essay, but rather than dump them all into one large comment, I will present them as mostly individual ones. This may make replying easier?
And some are questions for Lorenzo.
A couple of minor editorial items?
"Parliamentary/representative politics have a long history, dating back to the late C12th. The industrial revolution’s factory and office employment not only separated production from households." This phrasing represents quite a jump in thinking and in history. Perhaps some transitional language is merited in the book version?
"It created tough, committed (through generally small) armies." [ through, or though?]
"The identification of nationalism as the central problem of European history is false. The real problem of European history is unaccountable power. Yes, nationalism can be—and has been—mobilised by power without accountability." Great observation!!!
"Early medieval Latin Christendom’s sanctification of the Roman synthesis: law-is-human (i.e., not based on revelation)..." So the adage that the Holy Roman Empire was not holy, Roman, or an empire is wrong: they at least were "Romanized"? :-)
"The selection processes of history—operating among intensely competitive states—had far more variety to work with than in any other civilisation." A plug for social and political evolutionary adaptiveness, and another good argument against a one world government. Selecting good memes will be most successful when there are a variety of options among which to choose.
Multiculturalism is flawed mush. Extract the best from each culture as you learn about it/them.
"The upward spiral of bargaining politics is why various forms of national identity developed unusually strong resonance in Europe." So, coupled with the decline in kin/tribal oriented social structures and the move away from shame-honor culture (to shame-guilt culture? via Christianity?) prevalent in so many other (non "western") nations/ societies, this is part of why they have failed to master the liberty- prosperity calculus we tend to enjoy?
We in the US have a history of distancing ourselves from the European "experts" and views, so perhaps we also have overlooked the cultural contributions from Europe that have enhanced our lives as well. One area: the "self evident truth" of our DOI is really only self-evident from within a Judeo-Christian civilization. No one else would ever have generated such a phrasing.
"So, we have a Europhile elite that tends to undermine accountability, ...[etc.] This is not a solution to the problems of nationalism. It is an invitation—and provides a set of incentives—to reinvigorate the politics of nationalism." A great statement, and appears to be true of the US as well. Are you sure you never visited or stayed in the US for any extended period? Besides accessing our media? :-) You seem to know us so well!!
And I just thought to ask: what do you think of NATO as a somewhat parallel, multi-nation institution? My perception is that the member nations still retain their localized influences and agendas, somewhat outside of the EU "political union" approach.
"The salience of non-profits in the US political system...." Do you see these NGO's as being more publicly visible within the last few years compared to a more restrained agenda in the not so distant past? In other words, "why am I only learning about (or appreciating) their corruptive role now?" NGO's were supposed to be (mostly) "non-profit good guys", not Marist apparats in disguise.
From the link “ (Marx) has also encouraged them to discount the difficulties in ensuring a state apparat operates as the agent of wider society.”
WE NOTICE 😈
Let’s consider Somewheres vs Nowheres.
When I was in school this story, “The Man Without a Country” was required.
https://archive.org/details/TheManWithoutACountry_Hale
The Prisoner is sentenced to be passed from Navy Ship to Navy Ship without seeing land or hearing or seeing the words “The United States” ever again, this is his punishment for uttering at his treason trial “God Damn The United States! I wish to never hear of the United States again.”
His wish is granted.
Perhaps we could update this for globalists who can’t accept it’s over ... they can be transferred from plane to plane at foreign airports, never leaving the airplane or perhaps even windowless airports, never seeing the Sun shine on their native soil they so despise...
.... why we can even automate it, they can be waited on by Droids.
By the way, to the extent 🇺🇸 had a hand in Globalization, 🇺🇸 is killing it off. The 🇺🇸 Anywhere’s are funding and leading a industrial reshoring that is now being called a Manufacturing SuperCycle.
https://wlea.net/reshoring-triggers-manufacturing-supercycle/?amp=1
This is because the 🇺🇸 Anywheres fear the 🇺🇸 Somewheres -
- also we’re (sorry*) consolidating the 🇺🇸 Empire around CONUS core while smashing the Atlantic and Pacific borders into submission (in the case of Germany poverty). Which is why Australia must buy American subs, mustn’t buy French ones, and the good news for us all is we’re breaking with China. Well, I hope it’s good news for Australia too.
*I deplore all this, but I’m just a Deplorable.
Amid the elegant and compelling arguments here, one stands out in particular, for this reader. That 'overdoing' any project designed to eradicate 'wrong noticing' serves only to drive interest in the wrong noticings.
I this way it reminds me of the kinds of feedback loops that cause bureaucracies to grow. In other words, it's possibly more of a feature than a bug. I may have expressed this inadequately. An example is how trying to eradicate Trump may lead to another Trump term. Under which the 'correct thinking' apparatus will only grow.
There's psychology in play, too, in which opposition to ever closer union in the EU serves only to fuel the determination of its promoters, who are afraid that such scepticism more or less guarantees a return to nationalist wars.
Pleased to join your subscriber list.