How ironic, if larger housing is the reason they are voting to live under the same system that had multi-generations of families cramped into 2-bedroom apartments in Moscow.
I do see the pattern that you mentioned in your own background (and the logic that your grandfather and his grandchildren would have both been served by letting them move into his house instead of selling it), but I imagine that most of the poor children in New York City have grandparents that are either in a different native country or are living in their own tiny NYC apartments.
There are two kinds of "spaces" that people value: physical space (which makes it enticing to live in a large house) and personal space (where people might prefer to live in a smaller home without the dynamics of dealing with other people).
I currently live on a 2000 m2 plot, in a house well over 300 m2, and am anxiously looking forward to selling it and downsizing. I would prefer my son moving in with me and helping maintain it...but he is happy living in another country almost 6000 miles away.
"PLEASE TYPE A SHORTER COMMENT" - PART THREE of three
And today, after decades of living in cramped quarters, I finally bought a thousand-square-meter plot of park land with 40-metre-high trees, plants and gardens, with all the money I worked for, and on it stands a 250-square-meter house. I have dreamed of this all my life ! - and should now give it up, „because“ of age. SURE !
And guess what all those "critical leftists," those "progressive" In-Circle members, said? "How can you live so far out? I don't want to miss out on the trendy clubs, the latest shops and bars, and all that stuff, but I want to live affordably!"
And "the state" is supposed to "finance" all these things, of course.
All these people are spoiled brats; they don't want to give up anything, they want everything, but they don't want to pay for it.
THAT´s THE (/one) PROBLEM …!
But they can complain about "profit hunters“, that's fine. They don´t even realize that they should then as well complain about themselves.
I'm not saying that all "city dwellers" are like that, but a lot of them are. I know many families who could easily live further out in the city for less money in larger apartments, but insist on living downtown for "little money“. If they have these preferences, they are responsible for it themselves in the first place.
That was one of the main reasons I moved away from the city center: because I couldn't stand all those annoying, demanding, inconsiderate, left-leaning assholes, constantly complaining about everything but themselves, anymore.
I forgo quite a few things that these "progressive" people seem to consider "their right“. I don't own a car; I take the train. Instead, I have a photovoltaic system and live right next to the forest, in clean air, and still in Berlin.
And besides my spouse, there are six cats living there, all of whom I adopted from the animal shelter—some of them sick, no one wanted them—and gave them their freedom.
In my former guesthouse, I rented a five-room apartment to a Vietnamese family with four children in an "award-winning" condominium complex with playgrounds and gardens right in the city center, built by "unscrupulous investors".
I haven't raised the rent in seven years, and they receive child benefit four times "from the state".
With the money I earned, I also financed and rented out a physiotherapy practice in the heart of Berlin to a Ukrainian refugee.
Recently, I bought an apartment that was being sold by the previous owner—not a "big investor," just a "small" property owner—where an 84-year-old woman is renting. She would otherwise have been evicted and would have had to find a new place to live at 84, while I took over the lease, and so on.
All this referring to the "question": "What do YOU do?“
And so I know quite a few "evil rich people," "profit hunters" who try to help others and who do a lot of good with their money.
But this is completely absent from the "public discourse" which is driven by pure ideology, hate and inhumanity.
"The housing problem" could have been solved LONG AGO, or solutions could have been found in many places, if it weren't for all these superficial "envy" "debates" and all this ideology, and if private owners who have worked hard to be able to live in their homes weren't bombarded with questions of "guilt" and "responsibility" and if "left-wing" and "right-wing" ideologues weren't dominating the "discussion" and allowed to construct enemy images, as if they were all greedy, unscrupulous, antisocial monsters.
... If the "left-wing" and "right-wing" Pied Pipers would dismantle their ideological demonization and cooperate with and value "the rich“, then many more solutions could be found.
But not by having the legitimate right to earn money by investing one's own money "criticized" by idiots who have mostly never worked independently or built anything, but have always worked "for the state“, financed, among others, by those they insult and fight against, and by those to whom they supposedly want to provide "affordable housing"—with money from other people they insult.
And then they spout off about "responsible action“.
Many questions are raised here, but no answers are given—and if they are, they appear inadequate and out of touch with reality, like all (quasi-) "socialist" supposed "answers."
We had and still have "socialist paradises" that claimed to create "justice" and "equality"—and the result...? EVERYONE ended up in two-room apartments in concrete monstrosities—except for the glorious "socialist nomenklatura."
Where does Mamdami live with his glittering, "Western-critical" entourage, his parents who speak "Western-critical" rhetoric and are pampered by "Western" universities? With his untalented wife who claims to be an "artist"?
If a free society can only be based, among other things, on fundamental free trade, why shouldn't housing be an "object of speculation"?
Butter is quite expensive, too, even „though" it's „subsidized“...
And what about vegetables, fruit, and other products: shouldn't free trade in them then be banned as well?
Butter is made from milk: for this, countless cows are deprived of their freedom, imprisoned, forcibly inseminated, and then slaughtered when they're no longer "productive"—while their buyers shout off a.o. about "Me Too“.
„What goes around, comes around“.
DECIDE yourself to being a RESPONSIBLE person ! That is SOMETHING ELSE than „free(dom)“. But without freedom, nothing means anything.
And a.o. all this slaughtering of feeling animals so that everything remains as "cheap" as possible and generates high "profits“ is „accepted“ by „free consumers“ as it is „convenient“ to the „customers“.
But here, "consumers" don't ask questions; here, they themselves want „profits“.
„They“ do ALL of this each day what they reproach towards „investors“ : they run around compairing prices of supermarkets. The „cheap“ ones get the prize. No matter at which costs…
A.o. Here can begin an answer to your question: „What do YOU do?"
This last question you posed, points in the only possible direction: what can you do? What MUST you do?
Looking for and "finding" scapegoats for potentially failed results and putting the screws to them is certainly the wrong approach. It´s „socialist“, with no way out.
Unfortunately, much of what you write boils down to this, and no sensible or good solutions will emerge from it.
As indicated, solutions can only emerge when EVERYONE "asks themselves questions“, when questions that could or should be asked play a role, but these questions that should be asked must always include questions about ONESELF...
The problem with what is currently called "democracy" is, unfortunately, that self-criticism and self-examination play no role (or are not allowed to).
Only "majorities" matter. The less „people“ are ASKED - and ask themselves - the more stable „majorities“ get… like concrete...
And almost everything that gets a "majority" is determined by stupid, misguided, "outraged" individuals who, unfortunately, exactly reject personal responsibility and self-criticism.
And they "elect" precisely the people who ask exactly the kind of "questions" you do, questions that omit everything crucial and substantial that is part of a valid decision, as it might point back to themselves—because if those who want to be "elected" were to raise such questions, no one would "elect" them anymore: it resembles the „success“ of „Rendit hunters“…
And from the fact that such questions are not wanted, supposed, or allowed to be asked anywhere, benefit precisely those who profit from it. And that's why you can't and shouldn't just "blame" them.
Instead, you - or anyone - should look in the mirror.
I wonder why you don't apply what you otherwise demand socially, politically, and philosophically—responsible self-determination—to this issue, instead of implicitly or openly asking quasi-"socialist" questions that can only lead to disaster?
Aside from the fact that I know many young people in their thirties and forties who live in large apartments or houses—mostly with children, but also without; for example, Sir Simon Rattle and his Czech wife raised their children in a large house in Berlin, but there are also numerous less prominent examples —: should these two have moved into a four-room apartment out of pity and shame at having so much money?— -
… and, older people, when they die, will pass their large apartments/houses on to younger people.
What should be wrong with that ?
Or, where should that end ? Will they be asked one time why they continue to live at all ? And not make place for younger ones …?
Who am I, who are you, who is anyone to judge on how many square metres one at whatever age should be allowed to live on ?
My sons live in Rome and Switzerland; both have small apartments in large houses, but these are laid out quite differently from almost all larger houses in other (European) countries. They are less like "blocks" and more open, with lots of greenery, generally with a balcony or terrace, and with many features that are usually missing in houses/apartments in Central, Western, Eastern, or Northern Europe. The homeownership rate—the rate of people living in their own houses or apartments—is significantly higher in Italy than in other European countries, even in cities.
The reason why there are generally larger plots of land and larger houses in rural areas than in cities is simply that the economy, jobs, social life, and development are concentrated in cities, and consequently, more people live there.
And public transport is missing and failing everywhere, except in Switzerland where you can live far out and drive to work without a car conveniently.
That's just the way it is; "investors" didn't invent it. And where demand exceeds supply, prices rise...?
That's true everywhere there are free people and a free market.
Hi, this article is not calling for government intervention, rather that the older generation voluntarily swap their large houses with their children's flats as an act of selflessness.
When the comparatively large boomer generation dies off, this phenomenon will begin to reverse itself. A huge amount of wealth will be released back into a market where there will be relatively few buyers choosing from the spoils. We just have to get there. Furthermore, as demographic decline continues to take hold, this situation will become exacerbated in bizarre ways. A world meant for 8-10 billion people will have far fewer numbers around. Much of what is currently unaffordable will wind up being abandoned. Think of the ghost cities of China but on a global scale. The problem is that the postwar generation was enormous. It will not be fixed until the population stabilizes at whatever the new equilibrium turns out to be.
A very interesting point. Housing prices may stabilise. But, in the UK, at least, the government always interferes in the economy so that house prices never fall. It would be political dynamite.
Yes, one always has to factor in government incompetence. Something of a universal anchor that drags on everything. Someone, one of these days, is going to wake up and realize that getting a critical mass of well educated westerners is about to become a sort of hunger games competition. Between the masses of pensioners who will need to be supported and the various industries that need the right brains, there won’t be enough of any of it for everyone. Societies that figure this out will ride out the coming demographic storm. The rest will collapse. Maybe the UK will wake up in time. Maybe
Anti-Zionism and the Homecoming of Critical Theory
Abdul Wahab al-Messiri's Critical Islam and the Encyclopedia of the Jews
Hussein Aboubakr Mansour
Feb 17
Abdul Wahab al-Messiri (1938–2008)
No Arab intellectual advanced the cause of antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and a critical post-Marxist Islam like the Egyptian “Islamic thinker” Abdul Wahab al-Messiri (1938–2008). His prolific career produced what is effectively the most sophisticated, theoretically rich, and densely analytical treatment of Judaism and Zionism in the Arabic language — inspired by an eclectic and thrilling application of Critical Theory, the sociology of knowledge, and a few other methods. For any Islamist or secular young Arab with strong intellectual inclinations, Messiri remains the authoritative intellectual on Jews and Zionism. That such a figure exists — that the most theoretically advanced Arab engagement with Jews and Judaism is simultaneously the most comprehensive antisemitic system ever produced in Arabic — demands an explanation that goes far beyond the man himself.
Of all the intellectual transmissions I like to trace — from Hegelian historicism through its successive deformations in Marxism, nationalism, Islamism and the various crises of secular modernity — in Islamic critical thought, Messiri represents the terminal station: the point at which the entire apparatus of post-war Western critical thought was reassembled, with extraordinary technical mastery, for the prosecution of the oldest hatred.
What follows is an intellectual biography and a diagnostic anatomy. The reader should attend not merely to what Messiri got wrong — which is nearly everything — but to the precision with which he got it wrong. For it is in the precision of the error that the nature of the original instrument is most clearly revealed.
Messiri’s most significant achievement was his eight-volume encyclopedic work, Jews, Judaism, and Zionism, a systematic critical deconstruction of everything Jewish that claimed to reveal its true and essential nature: Adorno’s instrumental reason — the will to dominate — relocated from its original home in Athens to Jerusalem. Where Critical Theory had located the origins of Western civilizational pathology in ancient Greek mythology and rationality, Messiri located it in its other half, in Judaism. Using literary critical methods, he argued that everything in Judaism and Zionism was fictitious, colonialist, imperialist, immanentist, and dehumanizing. After deconstructing and unmasking this inhumane Judaism, he contrasted it with an abstract, romantic, authentic Islam — the true unfolding human essence of freedom, resistance, and spirituality, an Islam identical to abstract and fluid humanism...
Daniel, I share your concern about housing affordability and its effect on family formation and democratic stability. But I wonder whether the "culture trap" you described is not so much generational selfishness as a political and regulatory structure that restricts supply. If scarcity is structurally entrenched, then the housing solution may lie less in redistributing living arrangements and more in reforming the institutions that preserve the status quo.
"PLEASE TYPE A SHORTER COMMENT" - PART TWO of three
"The state" can only counteract this as long as it has money.
But this money can only be generated by "evil rich people“, by those seeking „returns“, „rendits“.
If these people are driven out and only get punished, they will simply look for other options.
And this happens while countless meanwhile „rich“ people continue to live in numerous "social" apartments, their incomes not checked, people who could have long since moved into more expensive apartments, who should at least be paying under-occupancy fees or leaving the social housing altogether.
Such checks are carried out regularly in all German states governed by "conservatives" and/or "liberals"—NOT ANYWHERE where "leftists" are in power...
THAT'S the problem... Mamdami certainly won't change it; it would be „unpopular". It "costs votes“…
„Leftists“ don´t have any insight in RESPONSIBILITY : they only demand it from others ...
A central, real problem I can see here is that new buildings are constructed by "architects" and other highly paid experts according to *their* specifications, and the people who move in, move into finished houses that almost never meet their needs.
No say in the matter, no institutionalized free questioning, doubting, exploring possibilities... and so on.
"Too much effort. Strenuous"
But it's exactly the same in almost all other areas of what calls itself a "free democratic society."
It's pseudo-freedom, pseudo-democracy: REAL freedom, REAL democracy would be "far too much effort“. Or so the "free citizens" believe.
And NO "party" has ANY interest in promoting REAL freedom, REAL, COMPREHENSIVE reflection, critical thinking, or awareness: they ALL just want to impose their "opinion" their "ideology" and get „elected“ : the ones with the simplest „answers“ and the highest „accusations“ on scapegoats get the prize...
And "free citizens" claim they "don't want to be told what to do," yet their behavior perfectly reinforces the anti-freedom, anti-consciousness sentiment that "the politicians" want to maintain, so as not to let any fundamental questions arise.
THAT is the problem. In mansions and two-room apartments.
For almost thirty years after moving out of my parents' house, I had lived in one- or two-room apartments, "even though" I always worked hard, day and night.
And I also raised children.
I simply also wouldn't have had the time to care for a large apartment.
I came to know many people with large apartments, but it never occurred to me to take them away "because" I supposedly "deserved" something bigger.
Such "ideas" have only recently emerged, since envy-driven "parties" ("left" and „right“, „Democrats“ and „MAGA") increasingly dominate the political landscape.
When I moved to Berlin twenty years ago, There was a VAST glut of housing at the time. Landlords, especially in the western part of the city, were desperately trying to rent out apartments, as Berlin was still suffering from the effects of its Cold War isolation.
Back then, no one cared about the concerns of the homeowners or pitied them for not being able to rent out their apartments and invest in them.
They only became "interesting" when their apartments became sought after and more expensive, after Berlin had become German capital again.
Then, all of a sudden, "the state," which had never cared about them before, wanted to "skim off their profits."
Investments, "by the state," were made almost exclusively in the "East" to remedy the consequences of socialist mismanagement...!
Unfortunately, what East Berlin looked like back then has been completely forgotten—it might raise questions about the agenda of "left-wing," "(national) socialist" parties.
And then when I had bought my first larger apartment, I rented it out as a guest apartment.
I met countless people from all over the world, from China to Colombia, Israel to India, Russia, Ukraine, Mexico to Mongolia.
Every year, like now during the Berlinale, celebrities (I'm not allowed to mention names) would appear.
A genuine encounter with other cultures!
Then "left-wing" parties "forbade" it out of : Envy.
Among other things, they "justified" it by saying that "housing is needed for those who live here“.
It's well known that since then, there has been NO "housing shortage" anymore! "The problem has been solved"—just like "leftists" do when it comes to "solving problems." With „bans", the main thing is that reality doesn't matter and is replaced by ideology.
As a „replacement", "leftists" then invented things like "neighbourhood tours" for „expats," paid for with tax money that, among other things, is generated by the evil rich.
As a public speaker, course provider, lecturer, or as DJ, I still get around the world enough; I don't miss anything.
Random thoughts:
How ironic, if larger housing is the reason they are voting to live under the same system that had multi-generations of families cramped into 2-bedroom apartments in Moscow.
I do see the pattern that you mentioned in your own background (and the logic that your grandfather and his grandchildren would have both been served by letting them move into his house instead of selling it), but I imagine that most of the poor children in New York City have grandparents that are either in a different native country or are living in their own tiny NYC apartments.
There are two kinds of "spaces" that people value: physical space (which makes it enticing to live in a large house) and personal space (where people might prefer to live in a smaller home without the dynamics of dealing with other people).
I currently live on a 2000 m2 plot, in a house well over 300 m2, and am anxiously looking forward to selling it and downsizing. I would prefer my son moving in with me and helping maintain it...but he is happy living in another country almost 6000 miles away.
"PLEASE TYPE A SHORTER COMMENT" - PART THREE of three
And today, after decades of living in cramped quarters, I finally bought a thousand-square-meter plot of park land with 40-metre-high trees, plants and gardens, with all the money I worked for, and on it stands a 250-square-meter house. I have dreamed of this all my life ! - and should now give it up, „because“ of age. SURE !
And guess what all those "critical leftists," those "progressive" In-Circle members, said? "How can you live so far out? I don't want to miss out on the trendy clubs, the latest shops and bars, and all that stuff, but I want to live affordably!"
And "the state" is supposed to "finance" all these things, of course.
All these people are spoiled brats; they don't want to give up anything, they want everything, but they don't want to pay for it.
THAT´s THE (/one) PROBLEM …!
But they can complain about "profit hunters“, that's fine. They don´t even realize that they should then as well complain about themselves.
I'm not saying that all "city dwellers" are like that, but a lot of them are. I know many families who could easily live further out in the city for less money in larger apartments, but insist on living downtown for "little money“. If they have these preferences, they are responsible for it themselves in the first place.
That was one of the main reasons I moved away from the city center: because I couldn't stand all those annoying, demanding, inconsiderate, left-leaning assholes, constantly complaining about everything but themselves, anymore.
I forgo quite a few things that these "progressive" people seem to consider "their right“. I don't own a car; I take the train. Instead, I have a photovoltaic system and live right next to the forest, in clean air, and still in Berlin.
And besides my spouse, there are six cats living there, all of whom I adopted from the animal shelter—some of them sick, no one wanted them—and gave them their freedom.
In my former guesthouse, I rented a five-room apartment to a Vietnamese family with four children in an "award-winning" condominium complex with playgrounds and gardens right in the city center, built by "unscrupulous investors".
I haven't raised the rent in seven years, and they receive child benefit four times "from the state".
With the money I earned, I also financed and rented out a physiotherapy practice in the heart of Berlin to a Ukrainian refugee.
Recently, I bought an apartment that was being sold by the previous owner—not a "big investor," just a "small" property owner—where an 84-year-old woman is renting. She would otherwise have been evicted and would have had to find a new place to live at 84, while I took over the lease, and so on.
All this referring to the "question": "What do YOU do?“
And so I know quite a few "evil rich people," "profit hunters" who try to help others and who do a lot of good with their money.
But this is completely absent from the "public discourse" which is driven by pure ideology, hate and inhumanity.
"The housing problem" could have been solved LONG AGO, or solutions could have been found in many places, if it weren't for all these superficial "envy" "debates" and all this ideology, and if private owners who have worked hard to be able to live in their homes weren't bombarded with questions of "guilt" and "responsibility" and if "left-wing" and "right-wing" ideologues weren't dominating the "discussion" and allowed to construct enemy images, as if they were all greedy, unscrupulous, antisocial monsters.
... If the "left-wing" and "right-wing" Pied Pipers would dismantle their ideological demonization and cooperate with and value "the rich“, then many more solutions could be found.
But not by having the legitimate right to earn money by investing one's own money "criticized" by idiots who have mostly never worked independently or built anything, but have always worked "for the state“, financed, among others, by those they insult and fight against, and by those to whom they supposedly want to provide "affordable housing"—with money from other people they insult.
And then they spout off about "responsible action“.
"PLEASE TYPE A SHORTER COMMENT" - PART ONE
Many questions are raised here, but no answers are given—and if they are, they appear inadequate and out of touch with reality, like all (quasi-) "socialist" supposed "answers."
We had and still have "socialist paradises" that claimed to create "justice" and "equality"—and the result...? EVERYONE ended up in two-room apartments in concrete monstrosities—except for the glorious "socialist nomenklatura."
Where does Mamdami live with his glittering, "Western-critical" entourage, his parents who speak "Western-critical" rhetoric and are pampered by "Western" universities? With his untalented wife who claims to be an "artist"?
If a free society can only be based, among other things, on fundamental free trade, why shouldn't housing be an "object of speculation"?
Butter is quite expensive, too, even „though" it's „subsidized“...
And what about vegetables, fruit, and other products: shouldn't free trade in them then be banned as well?
Butter is made from milk: for this, countless cows are deprived of their freedom, imprisoned, forcibly inseminated, and then slaughtered when they're no longer "productive"—while their buyers shout off a.o. about "Me Too“.
„What goes around, comes around“.
DECIDE yourself to being a RESPONSIBLE person ! That is SOMETHING ELSE than „free(dom)“. But without freedom, nothing means anything.
And a.o. all this slaughtering of feeling animals so that everything remains as "cheap" as possible and generates high "profits“ is „accepted“ by „free consumers“ as it is „convenient“ to the „customers“.
But here, "consumers" don't ask questions; here, they themselves want „profits“.
„They“ do ALL of this each day what they reproach towards „investors“ : they run around compairing prices of supermarkets. The „cheap“ ones get the prize. No matter at which costs…
A.o. Here can begin an answer to your question: „What do YOU do?"
This last question you posed, points in the only possible direction: what can you do? What MUST you do?
Looking for and "finding" scapegoats for potentially failed results and putting the screws to them is certainly the wrong approach. It´s „socialist“, with no way out.
Unfortunately, much of what you write boils down to this, and no sensible or good solutions will emerge from it.
As indicated, solutions can only emerge when EVERYONE "asks themselves questions“, when questions that could or should be asked play a role, but these questions that should be asked must always include questions about ONESELF...
The problem with what is currently called "democracy" is, unfortunately, that self-criticism and self-examination play no role (or are not allowed to).
Only "majorities" matter. The less „people“ are ASKED - and ask themselves - the more stable „majorities“ get… like concrete...
And almost everything that gets a "majority" is determined by stupid, misguided, "outraged" individuals who, unfortunately, exactly reject personal responsibility and self-criticism.
And they "elect" precisely the people who ask exactly the kind of "questions" you do, questions that omit everything crucial and substantial that is part of a valid decision, as it might point back to themselves—because if those who want to be "elected" were to raise such questions, no one would "elect" them anymore: it resembles the „success“ of „Rendit hunters“…
And from the fact that such questions are not wanted, supposed, or allowed to be asked anywhere, benefit precisely those who profit from it. And that's why you can't and shouldn't just "blame" them.
Instead, you - or anyone - should look in the mirror.
I wonder why you don't apply what you otherwise demand socially, politically, and philosophically—responsible self-determination—to this issue, instead of implicitly or openly asking quasi-"socialist" questions that can only lead to disaster?
Aside from the fact that I know many young people in their thirties and forties who live in large apartments or houses—mostly with children, but also without; for example, Sir Simon Rattle and his Czech wife raised their children in a large house in Berlin, but there are also numerous less prominent examples —: should these two have moved into a four-room apartment out of pity and shame at having so much money?— -
… and, older people, when they die, will pass their large apartments/houses on to younger people.
What should be wrong with that ?
Or, where should that end ? Will they be asked one time why they continue to live at all ? And not make place for younger ones …?
Who am I, who are you, who is anyone to judge on how many square metres one at whatever age should be allowed to live on ?
My sons live in Rome and Switzerland; both have small apartments in large houses, but these are laid out quite differently from almost all larger houses in other (European) countries. They are less like "blocks" and more open, with lots of greenery, generally with a balcony or terrace, and with many features that are usually missing in houses/apartments in Central, Western, Eastern, or Northern Europe. The homeownership rate—the rate of people living in their own houses or apartments—is significantly higher in Italy than in other European countries, even in cities.
The reason why there are generally larger plots of land and larger houses in rural areas than in cities is simply that the economy, jobs, social life, and development are concentrated in cities, and consequently, more people live there.
And public transport is missing and failing everywhere, except in Switzerland where you can live far out and drive to work without a car conveniently.
That's just the way it is; "investors" didn't invent it. And where demand exceeds supply, prices rise...?
That's true everywhere there are free people and a free market.
It's News to me that you want to change that.
Hi, this article is not calling for government intervention, rather that the older generation voluntarily swap their large houses with their children's flats as an act of selflessness.
You have really read all three parts in two minutes ? I am referring to “selflessness” and many other items in that.
It was posted before the second two were published. Will read!
When the comparatively large boomer generation dies off, this phenomenon will begin to reverse itself. A huge amount of wealth will be released back into a market where there will be relatively few buyers choosing from the spoils. We just have to get there. Furthermore, as demographic decline continues to take hold, this situation will become exacerbated in bizarre ways. A world meant for 8-10 billion people will have far fewer numbers around. Much of what is currently unaffordable will wind up being abandoned. Think of the ghost cities of China but on a global scale. The problem is that the postwar generation was enormous. It will not be fixed until the population stabilizes at whatever the new equilibrium turns out to be.
A very interesting point. Housing prices may stabilise. But, in the UK, at least, the government always interferes in the economy so that house prices never fall. It would be political dynamite.
Yes, one always has to factor in government incompetence. Something of a universal anchor that drags on everything. Someone, one of these days, is going to wake up and realize that getting a critical mass of well educated westerners is about to become a sort of hunger games competition. Between the masses of pensioners who will need to be supported and the various industries that need the right brains, there won’t be enough of any of it for everyone. Societies that figure this out will ride out the coming demographic storm. The rest will collapse. Maybe the UK will wake up in time. Maybe
Daniel, do you know this?
Anti-Zionism and the Homecoming of Critical Theory
Abdul Wahab al-Messiri's Critical Islam and the Encyclopedia of the Jews
Hussein Aboubakr Mansour
Feb 17
Abdul Wahab al-Messiri (1938–2008)
No Arab intellectual advanced the cause of antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and a critical post-Marxist Islam like the Egyptian “Islamic thinker” Abdul Wahab al-Messiri (1938–2008). His prolific career produced what is effectively the most sophisticated, theoretically rich, and densely analytical treatment of Judaism and Zionism in the Arabic language — inspired by an eclectic and thrilling application of Critical Theory, the sociology of knowledge, and a few other methods. For any Islamist or secular young Arab with strong intellectual inclinations, Messiri remains the authoritative intellectual on Jews and Zionism. That such a figure exists — that the most theoretically advanced Arab engagement with Jews and Judaism is simultaneously the most comprehensive antisemitic system ever produced in Arabic — demands an explanation that goes far beyond the man himself.
Of all the intellectual transmissions I like to trace — from Hegelian historicism through its successive deformations in Marxism, nationalism, Islamism and the various crises of secular modernity — in Islamic critical thought, Messiri represents the terminal station: the point at which the entire apparatus of post-war Western critical thought was reassembled, with extraordinary technical mastery, for the prosecution of the oldest hatred.
What follows is an intellectual biography and a diagnostic anatomy. The reader should attend not merely to what Messiri got wrong — which is nearly everything — but to the precision with which he got it wrong. For it is in the precision of the error that the nature of the original instrument is most clearly revealed.
Messiri’s most significant achievement was his eight-volume encyclopedic work, Jews, Judaism, and Zionism, a systematic critical deconstruction of everything Jewish that claimed to reveal its true and essential nature: Adorno’s instrumental reason — the will to dominate — relocated from its original home in Athens to Jerusalem. Where Critical Theory had located the origins of Western civilizational pathology in ancient Greek mythology and rationality, Messiri located it in its other half, in Judaism. Using literary critical methods, he argued that everything in Judaism and Zionism was fictitious, colonialist, imperialist, immanentist, and dehumanizing. After deconstructing and unmasking this inhumane Judaism, he contrasted it with an abstract, romantic, authentic Islam — the true unfolding human essence of freedom, resistance, and spirituality, an Islam identical to abstract and fluid humanism...
Thanks for sharing Donna!
Daniel, I share your concern about housing affordability and its effect on family formation and democratic stability. But I wonder whether the "culture trap" you described is not so much generational selfishness as a political and regulatory structure that restricts supply. If scarcity is structurally entrenched, then the housing solution may lie less in redistributing living arrangements and more in reforming the institutions that preserve the status quo.
"PLEASE TYPE A SHORTER COMMENT" - PART TWO of three
"The state" can only counteract this as long as it has money.
But this money can only be generated by "evil rich people“, by those seeking „returns“, „rendits“.
If these people are driven out and only get punished, they will simply look for other options.
And this happens while countless meanwhile „rich“ people continue to live in numerous "social" apartments, their incomes not checked, people who could have long since moved into more expensive apartments, who should at least be paying under-occupancy fees or leaving the social housing altogether.
Such checks are carried out regularly in all German states governed by "conservatives" and/or "liberals"—NOT ANYWHERE where "leftists" are in power...
THAT'S the problem... Mamdami certainly won't change it; it would be „unpopular". It "costs votes“…
„Leftists“ don´t have any insight in RESPONSIBILITY : they only demand it from others ...
A central, real problem I can see here is that new buildings are constructed by "architects" and other highly paid experts according to *their* specifications, and the people who move in, move into finished houses that almost never meet their needs.
No say in the matter, no institutionalized free questioning, doubting, exploring possibilities... and so on.
"Too much effort. Strenuous"
But it's exactly the same in almost all other areas of what calls itself a "free democratic society."
It's pseudo-freedom, pseudo-democracy: REAL freedom, REAL democracy would be "far too much effort“. Or so the "free citizens" believe.
And NO "party" has ANY interest in promoting REAL freedom, REAL, COMPREHENSIVE reflection, critical thinking, or awareness: they ALL just want to impose their "opinion" their "ideology" and get „elected“ : the ones with the simplest „answers“ and the highest „accusations“ on scapegoats get the prize...
And "free citizens" claim they "don't want to be told what to do," yet their behavior perfectly reinforces the anti-freedom, anti-consciousness sentiment that "the politicians" want to maintain, so as not to let any fundamental questions arise.
THAT is the problem. In mansions and two-room apartments.
For almost thirty years after moving out of my parents' house, I had lived in one- or two-room apartments, "even though" I always worked hard, day and night.
And I also raised children.
I simply also wouldn't have had the time to care for a large apartment.
I came to know many people with large apartments, but it never occurred to me to take them away "because" I supposedly "deserved" something bigger.
Such "ideas" have only recently emerged, since envy-driven "parties" ("left" and „right“, „Democrats“ and „MAGA") increasingly dominate the political landscape.
When I moved to Berlin twenty years ago, There was a VAST glut of housing at the time. Landlords, especially in the western part of the city, were desperately trying to rent out apartments, as Berlin was still suffering from the effects of its Cold War isolation.
Back then, no one cared about the concerns of the homeowners or pitied them for not being able to rent out their apartments and invest in them.
They only became "interesting" when their apartments became sought after and more expensive, after Berlin had become German capital again.
Then, all of a sudden, "the state," which had never cared about them before, wanted to "skim off their profits."
Investments, "by the state," were made almost exclusively in the "East" to remedy the consequences of socialist mismanagement...!
Unfortunately, what East Berlin looked like back then has been completely forgotten—it might raise questions about the agenda of "left-wing," "(national) socialist" parties.
And then when I had bought my first larger apartment, I rented it out as a guest apartment.
I met countless people from all over the world, from China to Colombia, Israel to India, Russia, Ukraine, Mexico to Mongolia.
Every year, like now during the Berlinale, celebrities (I'm not allowed to mention names) would appear.
A genuine encounter with other cultures!
Then "left-wing" parties "forbade" it out of : Envy.
Among other things, they "justified" it by saying that "housing is needed for those who live here“.
It's well known that since then, there has been NO "housing shortage" anymore! "The problem has been solved"—just like "leftists" do when it comes to "solving problems." With „bans", the main thing is that reality doesn't matter and is replaced by ideology.
As a „replacement", "leftists" then invented things like "neighbourhood tours" for „expats," paid for with tax money that, among other things, is generated by the evil rich.
As a public speaker, course provider, lecturer, or as DJ, I still get around the world enough; I don't miss anything.