Why Britain is Collapsing - Part 4: Overcrowding
(A couple of people sent me nice DMs in the last month or so that promptly auto-deleted before I got a chance to reply, because apparently they now self-destruct in 5 days instead of 30. So if that was you, please send it again if you want. Sorry, I'm not ignoring you.)
Before we go onto our main topic, some news updates:
The SNP's mafia state in Scotland is starting to fall apart. A month ago, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon resigned for seemingly no reason at all. What followed was a bitter leadership contest that showed the party was split down the middle on, you guessed it, trans issues. Sturgeon had forced through a Gender Recognition Act, in the face of fierce resistance from many of its own members, that would allow self-id from the age of 16 with no medical dysphoria diagnosis. Several of her senior ministers resigned in protest, and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak used, for the first time, the national legislation that allows the British government to throw out Scottish legislation to block it having royal assent, on the rather reasonable grounds that it would mean that some people would legally be one gender in Scotland and another in the rest of the UK, causing inevitable chaos. Sturgeon's successor, Humza Yousaf (who, as Sturgeon's Health Minister, was responsible for the most draconia Covid lockdown anywhere in Europe) has decided to take legal action to try to force it into law anyway.
An opinion poll revealed that even amongst the very left-leaning Scottish people, he had the support of 18% of people in doing this, as opposed to 44% who wanted him to scrap the whole thing. But if you think anyone in power cares about that sort of thing, you've not been paying attention.
The BBC of course covered this story with their usual neutrality
Besides, it's not like Yousef doesn't have more pressing problems. During the leadership contest, the Chairman of the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon's husband, Peter Murrell (who is widely rumoured to be in a "lavender marriage" with Sturgeon, who apparently prefers dining at the Y) resigned, after it emerged he had lied to the SNP's auditors about how many members the party had. It turned out that wasn't all he had done, as the other week he was
arrested by Police investigating campaign finance fraud. The SNP had been in a perilous financial state (apparently a lot of members left over the trans thing) and he had started lending his and his wife's money to the party to prop it up (which is all kinds of illegal), and it seemed that just over £600,000 (the best part of a million dollars) had ... gone missing in the process, and may have been used to buy the couple a luxury RV. For comparison, imagine if Jill Biden was the chair of the DNC and was also lending the party money and lying about how many party members it had. The party's treasurer was also arrested, and rumour has it that Sturgeon is next. Bear in mind that this is a woman who conspired to
trump up false rape charges against her predecessor to try to disrupt his faction of the party, and pushed through an extension to the statute of limitations for sex crimes in Scotland to do it. And given that Yousaf was elected* as the "continuity candidate" with the enthusiastic public backing of Sturgeon and Murrell, his position doesn't look all too good either. The party's auditors have resigned as has half the party's finance committee, who were apparently prevented from seeing the party's accounts.
*Yousaf objected to the results of the 2014 independence referendum, which voted against independence by a margin of 55% to 45%, as a "travesty" because he didn't believe the result was conclusive enough and unsuccessfully campaigned to have it run again. He has been notably quieter about this after he was elected leader of the SNP by a margin of 52% to 48%.
You'd think this would be good news for the Labour party, the SNP's only real rival for Scottish seats in the national parliament amongst the largely left-leaning Scottish electorate, especially with the Tory party's imposion over the last two years. But, true to form, they are doing their best to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, missing open goal after open goal that the Tories present them with. Their leader, Keir Starmer, was asked whether women could have penises, and came up with the confusing non-answer of "
99.9% of women do not have penises", before backtracking and saying that no women, in fact, have penises. This vacillation shows that the Labour party is still, as ever, at war with itself, with Starmer's moderates struggling to reform their policy agenda and public image against the Communists who invaded the party after Ed Miliband resigned and have blocked the necessary reforms to the party's membership rules that would get rid of them.
Things got even more embarrassing for Starmer, when a Labour MP, apparently without any authorisation from the leadership, started tweeting out a series of bizarre attack ads trying to position the party as one that would be tougher than the Tories on crime, despite Labour MPs constantly whining to the press and in parliament that the Tories are too meeeaaann to the poor widdle cwiminals and voting against harsher sentences several times since the last election. The biggest own-goal was this one:
Whoever put this one out didn't do their research very well to put it mildly. The data this was based on is from changes in sentencing guidelines in 2010, a time when Rishi Sunak wasn't even an MP. Besides, the Prime Minister doesn't set sentencing guidelines, those are set by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the government's chief criminal prosecution lawyer. And the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2010 was ... hang on a sec, just need to look it up ...
Keir Starmer. Oopsie-doodles.
Meanwhile the Chairman of the BBC, was
forced to resign after it turned out he lent £800,000 ($1.1m) to Boris Johnson and didn't tell anyone. Boris, by sheer coincidence and entirely on merit, appointed him Chairman of the BBC shortly afterwards. (For those who don't remember, the BBC
had a meltdown on Twitter when Musk suggested it might be influenced by the British State in some way). Apparently Boris was hard up for cash because the 2 free houses, free travel and £150,000 ($200,000) salary wasn't enough to "support his family" (perhaps due to Boris' large number of illegitimate children with various married women) and needed a top-up before he could enrich himself properly after leaving office (public office in the UK is a bit like a WoW guild raid, you don't get your loot until you exit the instance). Of further relevance is the fact that Boris' predecessor, Theresa May, wanted to abolish the notorious BBC licence fee, but Boris, on receipt of £800,000 from a man who he subsequently appointed to be in charge of it, never mentioned it again. Funny, that.
Anyway,
4. Overcrowding
Anyway, you may recall that in my earlier post about immigration I said that the last available census data was from 2011, and that the results of the 2021 census have been delayed because of the coof. Well, Britain's indefatigable Civil Service, when they're not conspiring to
have government ministers fired for "bullying" when they tried to make them do some actual work, have finally got around to compiling the 2021 data. Unhelpfully the Scottish government were too busy embezzling money, arguing about trannies and framing each other for sex crimes to get their census done in 2021, finally getting around to it the following year, so all but the headline data is for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
From 2011 to 2021 the population of the UK rose from 63.2 million to 67.33 million people, an increase of 4.1 million people in 10 years. For reference, that's equivalent to more than the entire population of Los Angeles. What's worse, by far the biggest increase in population (both in total and as a percentage) was in England, already one of the most crowded nations on Earth, where the population rose from 56 million in 2011 to 59.6 million in 2021. That gives England a population density of 457.5 people per square kilometer, putting it above Burundi as the 29th most densely-populated country or dependency on Earth. But many of those above it are micro-states like the Vatican, tiny Pacific island states, or dependencies like Macao. If you narrow the list down to sovereign countries with a population of 1 million or more, that leaves only Rwanda, South Korea, the Netherlands, Lebanon, Taiwan, Mauritius, Bangladesh, Bahrain and Singapore with higher densities, meaning that England would be 10th on that list if it were independent. Notably, despite England's increase in population, the Netherlands has actually leapfrogged past it in the same period to a mind-bending density of 520 people per square kilometer (their WEF-enthralled government responded to this by deliberately trying to shut down their agriculture). Now take that number and bear in mind that much of the northern third of England looks like this:
So next, time to look at immigration and ethnicity. Now it's hard to tell some of the finer details because, as I noted in the post on immigration, the census has some rather fudged categories and one snapshot every 10 years isn't all that informative. As an example, Romanians and Bulgarians gained full right to reside in the UK in 2014, and hundreds of thousands arrived, but they then lost that right with Brexit in 2019 and many left, this entire episode falling between two census dates and therefore the numbers involved are not accurately recorded anywhere.
But we do know the following (for England and Wales because the Scots are incompetent and Northern Ireland doesn't actually have a government right now):
- The percentage of "white" people (including immigrants) fell from 86% to 81.7%. The percentage identifying themselves on the census as "white British" fell from 80.5% to 74.4%.
- The total number of "white" people rose slightly, from 48.2 million to 48.7 million. The number calling themselves "white British" actually fell from 45.1 million to 44.4 million.
- The second-largest ethnic group is "Asian", rising from 2.5 million (4.4%) in 2011 to 3.7 million (6.2%) in 2021.
- Third-biggest is "Black", up from 1 million (1.8%) to 1.5 million (2.5%).
- The biggest percentage increase was "white other", up from 2.5 million (4.4%) to 3.7 million (6.2%).
What does this mean? Well it means:
- The number of white British people in the country is falling. Partly this is due to mixed marriages producing non-white children, partly due to a lower birth rate, partly due to emigration, but the census isn't detailed enough to work out which of these forms what proportion of the fall. But the number of mixed-ethnicity households rose from 2 million to 2.5 million in that time to give you a rough idea (bear in mind we don't know how many of those involved two non-white ethnicities or mixed between different white ethnicities).
- Almost a million white people net immigrated to the UK in that time, largely from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Eastern Europe, making one of the biggest groups for population growth and accounting for just under a quarter of the population increase.
- Without immigration the country's population would have fallen, with the native population falling by 600,000 over 10 years.
- It isn't possible to directly tell from the data what percentage of the massive increase in non-white (particularly Asian) people is due to immigration or from increased birthrates amongst immigrant groups.
Bear in mind that for this entire period the country was run by either Conservative or Conservative-led coalition governments who marketed themselves as anti-immigration during election campaigns.
And the immigrant groups certainly out-breed the natives. Most of them come from cultures where having large numbers of children is not only normal, but essential. Places like Pakistan, Nigeria and Trinidad have little, if any, provision for the elderly, so the only way to survive old age is to have plenty of children who can spare some of their own meager incomes to provide for you - not to mention high levels of child mortality requiring extra children as an insurance policy against the near-certainly that you will lose some of them. But as I said in the post on immigration, the problem arises when immigrant groups wholsale import their cultures and attitudes to places where economic reality is very different. Our social security safety net was designed to help those who fell on hard times, not to subsidise people to deliberately have more children than they can afford to feed. Whereas your typical native Brit (or a wealthier immigrant) has to consider the economic consequences of having children very carefully. I read somewhere that having a child in the UK will cost you about £150,000 ($200,000) over your lifetime, and I read that at least a decade ago, it's probably much more now. As a consequence, the middle class has pretty much stopped breeding altogether because they can't afford it. And the taxes they pay are used to feed, house and educate the poor, who can have as many children as they like at the expense of those who can no longer afford to feed, house or educate their own. In the decades ahead, there simply won't be enough middle class people to economically support the ever-growing underclass, and what happens then is anyone's guess, because the usual strategy of calling them racist isn't going to magically create new taxpayers out of nowhere.
So, did we build enough houses, schools, hospitals, roads, railways and other infrastructure to support over 4 million extra people? Did we fuck. Here's why:
The Planning System
Britain's utterly dysfunctional planning system is one of the country's biggest yet least talked-about problems, and essentially makes it impossible, or at least ludicrously expensive, to build anything. In order to build or substantially modify anything in the country (yes, on your own land), you need Planning Permission from your local Council. These planning decisions are made by committees of local Councillors, elected by the people of the area in question.
Do you see why this might present an issue?
Local Councillors are some of the very worst people I've ever had the misfortune of coming across. Almost nobody votes for local Councillors except very old people with nothing better to do. And old British people are, by and large, miserable, joyless old farts who hate change and love to spy on their neighbours for a chance to squeal on them. As being a local Councillor doesn't pay a full-time wage, the majority of them tend to be the same kinds of senile old pantaloons who form their electorate, sublimating the rage and bitterness they feel at their impending mortality into making the most of what little power their positions give them to make everyone else around them as miserable as they are. They take much joy in destroying their fellow citizens' hopes and dreams, especially if they personally dislike the people in question (which they always do).
If you've seen the second series of the Amazon show "Clarkson's Farm", you will see Jeremy Clarkson become the victim of one of these petty vendettas, as his local Council's Planning Committee takes obvious glee in trying to deliberately ruin his life as bureaucratically as possible. And don't think that you might get your project approved by such amateur methods as "following all the regulations correctly", they'll reject it anyway and your only option is to appeal to the Secretary of State, which will run you up a bill well into six figures that you won't get refunded even if you win. And if they can't attack you through the planning system, they'll find another way. A friend of mine has made an enemy inside her local Council, and for the last year she has put up with a campaign of false planning complaints, false child protection referrals, false animal welfare referrals, false mental health referrals and false Police complaints as her enemies (whose anonymity is protected by law) try to drive her out of her home from inside her local authority. Another recent trend is for people to move in next door to live venues and nightclubs then start making formal noise complaints about establishments that had been there for decades, sometimes resulting in
popular local venues getting shut down entirely .
The lower you go down the governmental ladder, the more petty and corrupt the planning process becomes. Big Councils in big cities are under too much scrutiny to get away with that sort of thing, but little Parish Councils in the deep countryside are basically feudal fiefdoms where NIMBYism is the order of the day. So the only developments that get approved are in the middle of already overcrowded cities, increasing urban density over and over while the petty little Hitlers at places like the Campaign to Protect
us from smelly poor people Rural England hold sway everywhere else. Preventing development outside urban hellholes causes the prices of what already exists in the countryside to surge, benefitting the same people and giving them a direct financial incentive to sabotage any new housing near their country piles.
If small projects are difficult to get approved, big projects fare even worse. The British Government, in its various guises, has been trying to build a desperately-needed third runway at London's Heathrow Airport since the late 1980s. Heathrow Airport's Terminal 5 already holds the record for the longest and most expensive planning process in history, lasting nearly two years and costing £80m ($105m). But the third runway will dwarf that, assuming it ever happens. The current effort started in 2012 and such has been the campaign of obstruction from assorted vested interests and activist groups that construction still hasn't even started. Planning costs and delays have also been in large part behind the ludicrous delays and gigantic overspend on High Speed 2, Britain's idiotic white elephant of a high-speed rail line (it was supposed to be a network, but now it's just one line) which has cost £80bn ($105bn) to not quite successfully build a line from London to Birmingham, barely more than 100 miles away. Those models of efficiency, hard work and responsibility the Spanish managed to build an entire high-speed network in less time and for less money than it took us to not quite build one line. Planning delays resulted in our biggest nuclear power project, Hinkley Point C, starting construction so late that the reactor it was supposed to replace, Hinkley Point B, shut down last year because it was too old to run safely, cutting the country's clean power generation capacity just as the price of gas surged. We didn't have any blackouts in the end, but only because nobody could afford to use the power we generated, and
old ladies froze to death in their own homes because they couldn't afford to turn on their heating.
Good. Stupid old people destroying the planet. How dare you!
No major political party has run on a platform of reforming the Planning system for as long as I've been alive. The main beneficiaries of the planning system, i.e. people who already have houses and miserable old farts, are also the people who vote the most. That's the same reason that reform of the State Pension (Social Security for burgerlanders) is never up for debate either, despite it costing over £100bn a year (the NHS costs £180bn, for reference), even though it's one of the biggest drains on the public purse and why the British Government is sinking into unsustainable levels of debt, such that Lizz Truss' proposed £30bn of tax cuts would have bankrupted the government and crashed the entire economy if they had been allowed to stand.
Property Prices
So immigration-driven population increases have surged demand for housing, but the near-impossibility of getting new houses built has meant that supply has not even come close to demand. For the ten year between censuses, when 4 million extra people needed housing, less than half that supply was built. The natural result has been a surge in property prices, both in cities and in the countryside, both for purchases and rents. For most young people, the only chance they have of owning a house is inheriting one, everyone else has to rent, and that means rents have become even more ludicrous than they were before. Most big townhouses in London have been split into shared houses. When I lived in London I briefly stayed in a place that had one bathroom shared between 13 people, and I paid £120 ($150) a week for the privilege - and that was over a decade ago, apparently it's nearly double that now. To rent a one-bedroom flat right on the edge of London, with a 60-minute commute each way on the Tube to the centre, will cost you between £1500 and £2000 (between $1800 and $2400) a month, and the all-zones Tube ticket you will need is £2000 a year as well. And inflation is running at 10%. You'd need to be earning about the equivalent of $100,000 to do that, much more if you have children. Otherwise, you have higher-rate taxpayers (earning more than about $50,000 a year) sharing houses that are nowhere near the centre of the city and run by shady Pakistani landlords who deal with the aforementioned planning problems by ignoring them and skipping the country when the Filth come knocking.
In Scotland, they tried that old chestnut, rent controls, to try to fix the problem - only for the same thing that happens every time to happen, a plunge in the number of properties available to rent because landlords couldn't increase the rent fast enough to keep up with inflation's effects on their mortgage payments, and sold up instead, leading to a surge in homelessness. In England, most small landlords who invested in property during the by-to-let boom of the 1990s are cashing out and selling up as they retire, with
140,000 people doing this last year alone, and others, faced with the near-inevitability of a Communist-infiltrated Labour government at the 2024 election, are getting out while they still can, strangling supply yet further. And, especially in London, the properties are being bought up by foreign property speculators (mostly Russian, Arab and Chinese
criminals entirely legitimate businessmen) who re-fit them as luxury apartments for the global super-rich and rent them out to their friends and family in a way that doesn't *quite* trigger money laundering laws.
The Skills Drain
The problem with the surging population is not just one of quantity but one of quality. Time was that we would attract the best and brightest from around the world and they would work here, particularly in medicine, where the NHS has long been propped up by foreign staff. But of late that has dried up. Brexit makes it too difficult and bureaucratic for EU doctors to work here, and we have long since drained India of its best castes - and their children see their parents burn out from overwork as the NHS has started to fall to pieces, and opt to go into other industries, or different countries. The same goes for places like South Africa and Australia, who would send their brightest sons and daughters here to be educated (our medical schools are amongst the best in the world), whereupon they would join the NHS, but now they just go back home because they don't want to work 120 hour weeks for half the salary of a London Underground tube driver. Brexit has also meant that our small army of Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian nurses, hospital porters and care home staff have left and not been replaced. The migrants who have arrived, largely from Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa, have no interest in working in the NHS, or in many cases working at all.
This ad is shown to anyone looking at medical content on Instagram
All this has meant that we have fewer and fewer doctors, nurses and care home workers for more and more people, especially our increasing elderly population. Key positions in many hospitals, including those responsible for patient safety, go unfilled for years. There is a shortage of 160,000 care home workers and 100,000 nurses and hospital porters. People are dying, particularly in maternity care. Remember back in my post about the health system and when I said that low standards in maternity and midwifery were the country's biggest hidden scandal? Well it's not so hidden now. Barely a week goes by without a new horror story of babies, mothers or both dying unnecessarily because of incompetent care. Here's the latest one - two mothers died within a month at the same hospital as an obstetrician
infected them both with herpes during caesarians, giving them sepsis that wasn't picked up on in time to save them despite them both showing clear symptoms. The hospital long denied there was any link between the deaths and lied to and obstructed both families. This is now absolutely rampant -
here's a list of all stories tagged with "Childbirth" on the BBC website - I see nine cases of formal enquiries finding NHS hospitals were at fault for the deaths of mothers and babies this year alone, and those cases are the tip of the iceberg. There's an ongoing enquiry into the quality of provision in just one hospital in Nottingham that involves over
1000 families. The woman who is chairing the enquiry just completed an investigation into a different hospital where over 200 babies died. Seriously, if you're a pregnant in the UK, go abroad to give birth if you can possibly afford it. But yet again, nobody will see the wood for the trees - there's lots of enquiries into individual incidents, but never into the country's provision overall. It's clearly just thousands of entirely isolated cases.
This bizarre demographic restructuring, whereby the skilled and the talented leave by the hundreds of thousands and the dependent and needy arrive by the million, has created a situation where we simultaneously have sky-high unemployment AND millions of unfilled vacancies. The unemployed underclass, composed not only of immigrants with no qualifications or skills and who frequently can't speak English, but also the UK's innumerable Council estate Untermenschen, are not qualified to do the jobs that we desperately need someone to do, but they do understand that life on benefits is better than that in poorly-paid blue-collar jobs. Benefits are increasing in line with inflation, but wages are not.
When I lived in that 13-to-a-bathroom shared house in London, the other 12 inhabitants were almost all Eastern-European immigrants who worked back-breaking jobs - delivery drivers, waitresses, retail. The wages they got were barely enough for a tiny room, most of which were smaller than the legal minimum for a Police cell. But next door was a 3 bedroom Council-owned house, occupied by 4 people who never worked. Their income was solely from benefits, apart from one guy who sold drugs, probably giving him more disposable income than all the luckless fuckers next door combined. For most people, not working is better than working. The tax and benefits system has been broken for a very long time, the disincentive to work because of the worse quality of life and worse levels of disposable income is known as the "poverty trap", and has been known about for decades. In 1997 Tony Blair appointed a very smart man called Frank Field to "think the unthinkable" about the benefits system. When Field did as he was asked, and proposed radical changes to the benefits system, including a German-style social insurance scheme and for more benefits to be paid to people in work to incentivise them to get a job, Blair sacked him instead, short-sightedly deciding that the proposals were too expensive even though they would kickstart people onto the employment ladder. A similar effort in 2010 by a Conservative minister, Iain Duncan Smith, ended in similar ignominy when he was told his proposed reforms would require new laws that would not gain the support of all of the coalition government of the time. Since then, all major parties just seem to have given up, especially as we are now past the time when politicians would try to do good for the country and its people, choosing instead to use their political careers to form the connections that would enrich them after they joined the companies they once regulated.
Conclusion
I'm glad you guys have enjoyed the thread. I won't be able to make more posts for the same reason this one was so delayed - I'm busy with projects that pay actual money and I simply don't have the time to sit down for several hours and do these things. What I'll probably do from this point forward is post about entertaining/depressing news articles and events when they come up. That way I can keep making content without it eating too much into my time.
And what am I going to do about living in this shithole? The answer is simple, I'm leaving. I have a destination lined up, it's just a matter of securing the funds and going through the bureaucracy. It's likely to take a few years (for a start I need an elderly relative to croak, partly for the inheritance, partly so that I'm not tied down here helping to look after them) but I'm done. It helps the ol' mental health to see the state of the country as more of an outsider, a visitor to this shitheap place who is glad to be going back home soon but can laugh at the absurdities in the knowledge they won't assail me forever. I won't be able to say exactly where I'm going or when, that would be power-levelling, but it's somewhere warmer with a government that is actively scared of its electorate, as all governments should be, and the British government isn't.
The future of the UK looks very bleak. In the next few decades we will hit a demographic crunch that will drive the British state into a state of effective bankruptcy. There simply will not be enough money available in taxation for the government to be able to repay its gigantic debts, resulting in the credit rating of government bonds slipping and their value dropping sharply. Almost everyone in the UK has their savings, and in particular their pensions, invested in these bonds, and millions will become destitute. This will be an economic disaster on the scale of the Great Depression.
In 2011 there were widespread riots throughout the country. These started with protests over the death of a man shot by the police (he was on his way to rob a bank and was carrying a gun, but Americans in particular will know that those sorts of facts don't matter) but when the Police failed to quell the initial disturbance, violence broke out in almost every city in the country - and the Police were nowhere to be seen. Most of the perpetrators weren't interested in the shooting anyway, they just saw an opportunity to smash things and steal from undefended shops. The rioting and looting continued for days until the government got a grip and sent in riot Police to deal with rioting that had pretty much ended anyway - everyone concerned had got themselves nice new trainers and a widescreen TV, so they went home.
The Police were too busy dealing with more serious crime, like misgendering and not paying the licence fee
What this demonstrates is that for all their bluster and arresting people for memes, the British Police are cowards. They're happy beating and arresting unarmed and peaceful women's rights protesters, but when outnumbered or at risk of injury themselves, they hide in their Police stations. There are not enough Filth to deal with a proper mass civil disturbance and they don't have the will to fight a real battle. Our army is also tiny, badly paid and morale is low. If they are sent in to deal with rioters protesting at the loss of their pensions, they will know that their own army pensions are invested in the same government bonds. Would they open fire on fellow citizens going through the same things they are? I suspect many of them won't. What happens then is anyone's guess. Even a revolution or military coup won't solve the country's core problems. To be honest I don't know what would. Remember the Arab Spring? Most of the countries that toppled their dictators (or attempted to do so) are now even worse places to live on every level. Syria is still in a state of civil war 12 years later. I have no hope that a change of regime would help very much at all.
I'd say I feel sorry for the people who will have to go through that, but to be honest most of them are complete cunts. I'll be on the beach a long way away. I don't think I'll even be sad. The UK may be where I've lived for most of my life, but it hasn't felt like home for a very long time. Why should I show loyalty to a country that has shown no loyalty to me? America is a very unusual country in that it is a country built on an idea, not a group of people or a geographical area. The UK is not like that at all. We have very little sense of identity. We're four countries jammed together, invaded over and over by different ethnicities, then importing millions from other cultures and not integrating them. There's no sense of patriotism. As I type this, King Charles III is being crowned. As part of the ceremony,
the public are being asked to swear an oath of allegiance to him at home, in front of the TV. I'm not making that up. Almost nobody will take them up on the offer. The response to this has been a mixture of incredulity, laughter, and of course taking offence. Nobody wants to be loyal to the British State, as it abuses them and takes them for granted. There's no foundation here for any sort of coherent future. We all just muddle through from one day to the next, each one with a new crisis and a new disaster looming, while the establishment asks us to be loyal to them. Good luck with that. The establishment can kiss my 3-cheeked arse, I'm leaving.
