Underlying all of this is the collapse of professional ethics in legacy media. When the NYT and NPR became blatant propagandists, they inadvertently bolstered the appeal and supposed credibility of all of the types that you mention.
You forget the Centrist Dads, who simultaneous believe it's possible to bring back the Fukuyama era, there was nothing wrong with neoliberalism for the West, and Trump/Brexit was caused by new media ecosystems/Russian disinformation.
Trump was a symptom of a neoclassical economic system which fundamentally failed to understand labour dynamics and the importance of tight labour markets to social stability and the economy.
In simple terms, for every 10% added through immigration, wages for the blue collar class drop 5-10%, and the effect is twice is big on the living costs side of the equation, because lower wage migration causes demand for housing without the corresponding credit/mortgage capacity to increase supply. Overview data doesn't even really detect the problem. One has to look at blue collar in high-to-medium cost employment hubs.
Plus, they're trapped. Regardless of the method employed, retraining and education only works in 8% of cases when the demographic in question is blue collar.
Finally, they never really realised that the knowledge economy hit peak saturation back in the 2000s. Once one excludes health/education and focus only on high value $100K+ in America/£60+ in the UK, then one quickly sees that growth has been pretty incremental since the 2000s.
The neoliberals never really admitted that 'blank slate' thinking was wrong. Education can only do so much. Talent and ability, especially in relation to value add, are pretty inelastic as far as the knowledge economy goes. Besides both the US and the UK are likely to experience high levels of job losses in the high value knowledge sector. Finance and insurance will be the hardest hit. Some estimates are too conservative. In this specific area between 20-30% are likely to lose their jobs by 2030.
Interesting analysis, thanks. I tend to think that the crossover of economic neoliberalism on one side and cultural hyperliberalism on the other has created a strange and potent mix. Between the market’s obsession with efficiency and the left’s fixation on identity, we’ve managed to erode both meaning and solidarity, leaving millions feeling politically homeless.
I definitely agree. I used to be a lib dem voter here in the UK, but I've been politically homeless since 2018. For a long-term the Left-leaning side of the heterodox critique of the identitarian status quo have been arguing that there was a real possibility that race-centred Leftism would stir up a very worrying counter-problem on the Right. With Reform, it's less of a problem- with less than 10% of all Reform voters holding what one might term BNP legacy views.
But there are hugely worrying signs amongst the young. Prominent groyper Nick Fuentes now has 5 million followers worldwide. Checking this the 5 million count is an exaggeration. It's 1 million, with about 1% engagement. Core groypers probably consist of a group between 50K-200K.
That's a massive jump which indicates a sub-culture which goes out of its way to flout the social enforcement which worked with previous generations. We can't be sure how much of it is trolling and how much of it is actual racism, but then again that's exactly the problem- the loss of the definitional value of labels through semantic inflation. The overuse of accusations has destroyed the boundaries of civilised behaviour.
"the loss of the definitional value of labels through semantic inflation". Great point. Yes, all these things you mention here make me increasingly anxious.
A most enjoyable read again Frederick - thank you.
Zero self awareness and massive hypocrisy are a powerful combination. A real bugbear of mine.
That's why I loved this paragraph for no. 3. The revolutionary brand manager.
"The routine is fairly consistent. First, rail against corporations from a hipster cafe in Kensington using a MacBook Air. That’s breakfast. Later, appear on Sky News to rail against corporate media."
It reminds me of some acquaintances of mine who lament the capitalist system as they organize their weekly home delivered Waitrose shop, nudge up the rent on their couple of BTL properties and profess virtue at following Guardian columnists' advice to follow the boycott, divert and sanctions (BDS) movement against Jews.
Thanks, David! I got a bit carried away with this one – a touch long for most readers, so I’m glad you made it through. The revolutionary brand manager (I wish I'd got 'Waitrose' in there!) is almost too easy to satirise at this point, though it’s become a little less funny since so many of them turned out to be nursing a nasty streak of antisemitism, as you suggest.
You're right, actually – especially on the 'poor' part. They're often upper-middle-class, even aristocrats. I'll tweak that part. Thanks for pointing it out.
OK, well said. The cause of all this is a general loss of trust in authority, which is entirely justified. So the only solution is to slog on as best we can, and for the reasonable people to be as loud as they can.
"Peak engagement length," "engagement farming," the algorithmically optimum amount of posts per day on X and Substack Notes, etc., etc. Well, bollocks to it. Too many books still to be read, and posts will be as long as they must. There are profiles on here with thousands of subs just from posting Notes—some writing platform. Preposterous.
I agree there’s too much of that, and I’d also prefer people just read the work without having to go through the hoops. I’m guessing you came here via my Note – were you suggesting that it looked like ‘engagement farming’, or were you speaking more generally about the Notes culture?
Just articulating my general malaise with the short-form status quo, Frederick. Not a comment on your long-form piece, which I obviously don't regard as engagement farming. It seemed somewhat relevant, though forgive me my curmudgeonly tone—I can relate to much of what you said.
Ah, I see – I asked because the Note promoting this piece is arguably guilty of the same short-form habits we’re all slightly allergic to. But if it nudges a few people toward the long-form essays, I can live with the trade-off. Otherwise, the work just sits in cyber obscurity. Anyway, appreciate your reading it.
If my disagreeing with someone made them a grifter, the list would be a lot longer. I disagree with your reading of the article, but that doesn’t mean I think you’re a grifter.
The piece is about people who undermine their own claims the moment scrutiny appears – because the performance is the point, not the argument. I literally start by saying there are some brilliant, important voices out there. I also concede that sometimes the “just asking questions” guy asks exactly the right questions.
We can instantly think of people who fulfil these archetypes - they are essentially niche entrepreneurs of a larger market. Following Tocqueville, the press were never conceived to be objective despite some claiming to be. Those biases gave fuel to 'citizen journalism', much maligned by fans of legacy media, just as populism is by those still living in 90's politics. And these grifters (I'm still uncomfortable with the word) have cover until someone exposes their methodology. Lets have more of that!
Underlying all of this is the collapse of professional ethics in legacy media. When the NYT and NPR became blatant propagandists, they inadvertently bolstered the appeal and supposed credibility of all of the types that you mention.
Very true.
You forget the Centrist Dads, who simultaneous believe it's possible to bring back the Fukuyama era, there was nothing wrong with neoliberalism for the West, and Trump/Brexit was caused by new media ecosystems/Russian disinformation.
Trump was a symptom of a neoclassical economic system which fundamentally failed to understand labour dynamics and the importance of tight labour markets to social stability and the economy.
In simple terms, for every 10% added through immigration, wages for the blue collar class drop 5-10%, and the effect is twice is big on the living costs side of the equation, because lower wage migration causes demand for housing without the corresponding credit/mortgage capacity to increase supply. Overview data doesn't even really detect the problem. One has to look at blue collar in high-to-medium cost employment hubs.
Plus, they're trapped. Regardless of the method employed, retraining and education only works in 8% of cases when the demographic in question is blue collar.
Finally, they never really realised that the knowledge economy hit peak saturation back in the 2000s. Once one excludes health/education and focus only on high value $100K+ in America/£60+ in the UK, then one quickly sees that growth has been pretty incremental since the 2000s.
The neoliberals never really admitted that 'blank slate' thinking was wrong. Education can only do so much. Talent and ability, especially in relation to value add, are pretty inelastic as far as the knowledge economy goes. Besides both the US and the UK are likely to experience high levels of job losses in the high value knowledge sector. Finance and insurance will be the hardest hit. Some estimates are too conservative. In this specific area between 20-30% are likely to lose their jobs by 2030.
Interesting analysis, thanks. I tend to think that the crossover of economic neoliberalism on one side and cultural hyperliberalism on the other has created a strange and potent mix. Between the market’s obsession with efficiency and the left’s fixation on identity, we’ve managed to erode both meaning and solidarity, leaving millions feeling politically homeless.
I definitely agree. I used to be a lib dem voter here in the UK, but I've been politically homeless since 2018. For a long-term the Left-leaning side of the heterodox critique of the identitarian status quo have been arguing that there was a real possibility that race-centred Leftism would stir up a very worrying counter-problem on the Right. With Reform, it's less of a problem- with less than 10% of all Reform voters holding what one might term BNP legacy views.
But there are hugely worrying signs amongst the young. Prominent groyper Nick Fuentes now has 5 million followers worldwide. Checking this the 5 million count is an exaggeration. It's 1 million, with about 1% engagement. Core groypers probably consist of a group between 50K-200K.
That's a massive jump which indicates a sub-culture which goes out of its way to flout the social enforcement which worked with previous generations. We can't be sure how much of it is trolling and how much of it is actual racism, but then again that's exactly the problem- the loss of the definitional value of labels through semantic inflation. The overuse of accusations has destroyed the boundaries of civilised behaviour.
Then again, perhaps I'm just getting old.
"the loss of the definitional value of labels through semantic inflation". Great point. Yes, all these things you mention here make me increasingly anxious.
A most enjoyable read again Frederick - thank you.
Zero self awareness and massive hypocrisy are a powerful combination. A real bugbear of mine.
That's why I loved this paragraph for no. 3. The revolutionary brand manager.
"The routine is fairly consistent. First, rail against corporations from a hipster cafe in Kensington using a MacBook Air. That’s breakfast. Later, appear on Sky News to rail against corporate media."
It reminds me of some acquaintances of mine who lament the capitalist system as they organize their weekly home delivered Waitrose shop, nudge up the rent on their couple of BTL properties and profess virtue at following Guardian columnists' advice to follow the boycott, divert and sanctions (BDS) movement against Jews.
Thanks, David! I got a bit carried away with this one – a touch long for most readers, so I’m glad you made it through. The revolutionary brand manager (I wish I'd got 'Waitrose' in there!) is almost too easy to satirise at this point, though it’s become a little less funny since so many of them turned out to be nursing a nasty streak of antisemitism, as you suggest.
There is something about David Smith that is not right. His most important feat is to win the argument, no matter the subject.
Real revolutionaries tend to be poor, marginalised, and often imprisoned.
I disagree. The real revolutionaries who started the French , Bolshevik and American Revolution were members of the educated classes.
You're right, actually – especially on the 'poor' part. They're often upper-middle-class, even aristocrats. I'll tweak that part. Thanks for pointing it out.
"grown in a lab from the least impressive part..." Well done Sir.
OK, well said. The cause of all this is a general loss of trust in authority, which is entirely justified. So the only solution is to slog on as best we can, and for the reasonable people to be as loud as they can.
These are the defenses of the rigid minds of the left whose goal is to topple civilization.
"Peak engagement length," "engagement farming," the algorithmically optimum amount of posts per day on X and Substack Notes, etc., etc. Well, bollocks to it. Too many books still to be read, and posts will be as long as they must. There are profiles on here with thousands of subs just from posting Notes—some writing platform. Preposterous.
I agree there’s too much of that, and I’d also prefer people just read the work without having to go through the hoops. I’m guessing you came here via my Note – were you suggesting that it looked like ‘engagement farming’, or were you speaking more generally about the Notes culture?
Just articulating my general malaise with the short-form status quo, Frederick. Not a comment on your long-form piece, which I obviously don't regard as engagement farming. It seemed somewhat relevant, though forgive me my curmudgeonly tone—I can relate to much of what you said.
Ah, I see – I asked because the Note promoting this piece is arguably guilty of the same short-form habits we’re all slightly allergic to. But if it nudges a few people toward the long-form essays, I can live with the trade-off. Otherwise, the work just sits in cyber obscurity. Anyway, appreciate your reading it.
This article can basically be summed up as you saying “Anyone I don’t like or disagree with is a grifter!”
Which makes you no better than the people you’re supposedly calling out.
If my disagreeing with someone made them a grifter, the list would be a lot longer. I disagree with your reading of the article, but that doesn’t mean I think you’re a grifter.
The piece is about people who undermine their own claims the moment scrutiny appears – because the performance is the point, not the argument. I literally start by saying there are some brilliant, important voices out there. I also concede that sometimes the “just asking questions” guy asks exactly the right questions.
Thanks for reading.
We can instantly think of people who fulfil these archetypes - they are essentially niche entrepreneurs of a larger market. Following Tocqueville, the press were never conceived to be objective despite some claiming to be. Those biases gave fuel to 'citizen journalism', much maligned by fans of legacy media, just as populism is by those still living in 90's politics. And these grifters (I'm still uncomfortable with the word) have cover until someone exposes their methodology. Lets have more of that!