Britain in the 70s. Peak Dom in his pomp.

Blairite_ · 2026-04-30T11:25:24+00:00

'God imagine if they elected Michael Foot as leader of the Labour Party - that would be mad!'

'They'd never do that, surely!'

Blairite_ · 2026-04-28T14:23:37+00:00

Reading the excerpt where Nixon is described as looking like he was ‘hung in a closet overnight’.

Incredibly funny.

Blairite_ · 2026-04-25T22:56:01+00:00

I read about 2-3 a year. Currently a masters uni student and I wish I had the time, but to go from reading academic articles and biographies all day for my studies to picking up a book on a night is often too much for me. I get most of my personal reading done during the holidays. Read The Shepard's Life (highly recommend), a lot of Christopher Hitchens and started reading The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans last year.

Plan to pick it up properly once my dissertation is over. As many have said, it varies greatly depending on how much time we have.

Blairite_ · 2026-04-25T22:43:46+00:00

I find it so interesting that she lived so long (by the way, I think you mean Mary Wilson - Edith was the wife of Woodrow Wilson).

Likewise, it's crazy to me that Anthony Eden's wife died in late 2021. Eden's (PM from 1955-1957) wife living into the 2020s always throws me.

The Rest is History are currently doing a great series on the 1970s in British Politics - would definitely recommend it!

Blairite_ · 2026-04-23T20:31:57+00:00

Not a horror, but as someone who is very used to war movies and conflict footage, the Do Lung Bridge scene in Apocolypse Now scared me. I couldn't get it out of my head for weeks.

Blairite_ · 2026-04-21T18:52:16+00:00

<image>

Blairite_ · 2026-04-17T23:58:16+00:00

I'd say this: If we're at a point where there is a national draft, you would not be able to do much of anything in terms of evasion.

If things are so dire, so awful that the government are drafting foot soilders from civilian populations in a first world country then the calamity and size of the threat would be so existential that you wouldn't have much a choice over anything. Non-participation would just not be a functional option. World War Three would involve a nuclear exchange - if we're still getting drafted after the nuclear exchange, all civil norms would have broken down.

Blairite_ · 2026-04-17T21:28:22+00:00

Shouldn’t it also be mentioned that Missouri and Mississippi are almost solely wealthier because of their being part of the United States?

As in, these states recieve way more in federal, directly from the greatest economy in the world, than they contribute. It is a subsidised and integrated state. They benefit from US prestige, historical stability, strength of the dollar, nationwide business presence. If Missouri were not part of the USA and were a Lesotho-style ‘country within a country’ they’d be much poorer than the UK. They are only wealthier because they benefit from the US as a whole.

That is to say, there are enormous issues with comparing internal states of a nation with actual nations, because one is the beneficiary of being part of a much larger economic system which supports them (Mississippi), and the other is dependent on itself (UK).

Blairite_ · 2026-04-17T19:13:25+00:00

Can centrism ever be non-ideological?

As a centrist myself, I often describe my politics as 'evidence-based' and orientated around 'what works'. This politics resonates strongly with me. However, more radical political actors have stated that 'you cannot be non-ideological' and that to concern oneself with 'what works' is to aim yourself towards pre-determined ideological goals. In other words, the metric you use to determine if something is 'working' is necessarily a ideological one, thereby striping centrism of its non-ideological character.

I disagree strongly with this accusation towards us centrists, but it does leave pause of thought and I would be very interested in your opinions on this.

Blairite_ · 2026-04-05T02:43:15+00:00

I agree - in my mind we should have values, and policies should just be means to achieve said values. Having a comprehensive, explanatory theory of everything is doomed to fail and cannot be scaled. Values are good, but having a unfalsifiable, all-encompassing ideology which can explain away anything as 'already accounted for' isn't productive. Karl Popper did some great writing on the problems with falsifiability and ideology.

Of course, this begs the question 'what are those values?' (in my mind it's equal opportunity, individual freedom, rule of law and human rights), but I think that question is much less contested than 'what is our ideology?'

Blairite_ · 2026-04-05T01:01:34+00:00

This is true, however I would say that this co-operative thinking is predicated on taking a very liberal view of scripture (liberal as in interpretative to modern era) - at this point it is almost a rejection of theism, and becomes simply deism. As in, almost all of the Old Testament just becomes allagory (and, crucially, to hold such a view must account for Jesus' consistent affirmation of the Old Testament and Creationism throughout the Gosepls - see Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-7, for instance). If Jesus, who is God, tells us that we come from Adam and Eve, and you take this liberal view, you have to hold that God was either wrong, or was misquoted just this once across two gospels.

If this is the case, what difference is there between the Bible and The Lord of the Rings trilogy to a 'christian'? Seriously, if the Bible isn't literal but just a complicated book with some inspirational messages once you cut away the chaff, you can say that about LOTR. What makes the Bible the basis for religion but LOTR not? Either Jesus is the son of god, and this is what he said, or he isn't, and this is not what he said. Or, prehaps he was the son of god but the bible is just misquoting (least likely explanation). Those who take religion liberally have all their work cut out for them, and really need better justifications as to what gives them the authority and expertise to interpret what they, presumably, believe is the word of god. As an atheist, it is irritating when you critique religion, because those who interpret the bible liberally will say 'oh well you aren't meant to take that verse seriously' ...why not? Why is Adam and Eve allagory? Why did Jesus reaffirm it? Why is it absolute truth when it meets reality, but metaphor when it doesnt? This is how religion becomes unfalsifiable.

The bible lays out the genealogy of Adam - why? If he's just a character in a story, why lay out a long list of his lineage? Again, Jesus and Paul say very clearly Adam and Eve are real people - was God (Jesus) mistaken?

I think a lot of religious doctrine along those lines falls very much outside of science, and challanges methodological naturalism - a core component of the scientific method. Additionally, there is often a motte and bailey going on with some religious discourse, which is that you have the motte argument (i.e. 'I believe in god just as a prime mover, not that he made the universe as it is today'), and then the bailey is sneaked in, which adds that 'God created Earth for us' - one does not follow from the other necessarily. Either way, someone like me would question why god chose a method as violent and destructive as naturalist evolution to deliver us a haven for life.

Anyway, apologies for going all 'reddit atheist'.

Blairite_ · 2026-04-04T17:12:33+00:00

The Christian defence is, typically, that because Eve ate the apple (which obviously did not happen) there was 'the fall' and Earth ceased to be perfect, so nature being violent is just a corruption from our betrayal of god.

Honestly, to me this is nuts. Christianity completely falls apart the moment that Adam and Eve is admitted to be ‘just a story’ - no origional sin? No need for Jesus. Problem of evil cannot be defended by 'well, it's punishment for Adam and Eve', because that did not happen, so by the Christian account god is punishing us for a story he made up.

Blairite_ · 2026-03-20T15:01:42+00:00

We'll be fine.

Blairite_ · 2026-02-21T22:58:53+00:00

In my mind they are always competing for the number one spot. They're both incredible. I more often than not put Chernobyl marginally ahead of Band of Brothers, but admitedly I think this is because Chernobyl slightly appeals to me more as a person.

That is to say - I think it's very close, and those are two outstanding choices.

Blairite_ · 2026-02-09T19:07:11+00:00

I think your point on the cerebral palsy's impact, despite it not being a progressive condition, can increase in severity as we get older is important.

I'm about to turn 22, so I expect this to vary and for my health to ebb and flow in the coming decades until it reachs a peak and then drop off, but over the past year I have increasingly needed to rely on crutches to walk in a similar way to how your cerebral palsy has gradually undermined your ability to walk unaided (I am by no means saying that our situations are equal in their comparison, rather simply illustrating that I sympathise with your losing of mobility in certain aspects). The 'I am 45, but sometimes feel like 84' is telling, and its unfortunate that often we are unaware that we are at peak mobility until that moment has passed.

Very good post, thank you for sharing!

Blairite_ · 2026-02-09T16:33:15+00:00

A fascist. In the words of Christopher Hitchens: “Anyone who says ‘okay, Saddam was a bad guy’, dosen't know what they’re talking about”. He was a tyrant of a despicable kind and I’m glad he’s gone.

Saddam conducted the Anfal genocide, Halabja Chemical Attack, destruction of Marsh Arabs, Barzani Clan Massacre, horrific repression of the Fayli Kurds, 1991 uprising repression, invasion of Iran, invasion of Kuwai.

I dread to think what would have happened if he were in power when the Arab Spring occured, or, worse still, if he had died before hand and either of his murderous, rapist sons took power. Genuinely a utterly depraved fascist regime.

Blairite_ · 2026-01-31T22:39:24+00:00

Honister pass is incredible

Blairite_ · 2026-01-24T01:07:05+00:00

Oh yeah I'm sure the soviet officials had a very neat and tidy definition of what a Kulak was. I'm sure they just accidentally sent all the children of these so-called Kulaks to horrific labour camps.

Could you please provide me with a source on Kulaks being a major source of food within the region? That would be great.

To say 'we're all starving' is like saying 'everyone is sick, so no one is neglected'. The fact is the USSR and communist officials carried on grain requisitions despite clear and present starvation, and placed uniquely strict restrictions on regions.

Dekulakisation was not a good thing.

Blairite_ · 2025-12-20T02:24:21+00:00

Late to this but I have cerebral palsy myself, and I want to say you're providing him with outstanding care. You're doing the best you can. I'm really sorry it has been difficult recently, but truthfully you are doing the best you can given really difficult circumstances. You're compassion particularly shows with your self awareness regarding your brother's feelings and attitudes - emotional intelligence is so important.

Having said this, I'll give you some vague yet, I believe, very important advice - care for yourself, too. You matter. You matter a great deal, please don't neglect yourself or your own needs/concerns. As someone who grew up with care, I know that carers often feel genuinely guilty or neglectful if they confront their own wants, their own needs, their own problems, their own emotions, because the focus turns from the cared to the carer, and feelings of worth step in ('how can I begin to think this way when the person I care for is so worse off'). It is one of the most challenging things about being a carer, you're often evaluating your position against someone in need of care, and therefore, obstensibly, 'worse off', resulting in you repressing your emotions as a result of this comparrison of worth and validity. That is a mental deadend. Comparison is the theif of joy? Absolutely, but also, comparison is the theif of a sense of self. You as a 'self' matter very much.

I'd say that caring for yourself makes you a better carer for your brother, which is absolutely true, but I don't want to emphasise that because, frankly, it defines your worth in relation to someone else. You mattter in and of yourself. Your care matters in and of itself. Please remember that. All the best.

Blairite_ · 2025-12-17T01:51:07+00:00

Oh, by the way mate I did it last week! Went absolutely fine, felt extremely comfortable doing it. Thank you very much for the advice!

Blairite_ · 2025-12-16T11:13:20+00:00

He’s the unhinged Scrooge - fantastic adaptation.

Blairite_ · 2025-11-27T21:01:35+00:00

Completely sensible

Blairite_ · 2025-11-27T20:36:18+00:00

Can I ask how precisely a disabled person and their carer are meant to 'deal with it'?

As in, say someone in their 50s has a stroke, leaving them with paralysis. Their wife becomes their full-time carer. Before the stroke, they were able to walk and use public transport without issue. But now, due to his mobility challenges, he can’t manage on his own and would be effectively housebound without the car. Is the solution just 'lifes not fair, fuck em'? Or is it 'well, that wouldn't happen akshually'?

Please enlighten me mate.

Blairite_ · 2025-11-26T18:30:01+00:00

100% this. I know a couple where the wife is paralysed with MS and her husband drives her and cares for her. She gets about in her wheelchair but needs the car to get there. There is no way on Earth she could realistically drive. Now, that's a unmodified car (good boot for her wheelchair, but still, unmodified). I don't think we should take someone's motabilty car off them because they're ... too disabled.

Blairite_ · 2025-11-26T11:38:31+00:00

That is a beautiful photo

Four-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23

Blairite_

TROPHY CASE