17 February 2026
WHEN THE WORLD CHANGES AND WE DO NOT
1. This Poster And The Feeling Behind It
That story carries emotional force, particularly in later life when there is more time to observe change rather than simply adapt to it. Streets look different. Accents sound unfamiliar. Shop fronts change. It can genuinely feel as though the country once known, has shifted beyond recognition. There is truth in the perception of change.
Furthermore it is not just change itself, it is the rate of change which appears to have accelerated beyond the ability of ordinary people to successfully adapt.
The grievance can be restated as a perception or feeling of betrayal. As Neil Howe explains, identity and values are largely formed from events experienced in our youth. Is it realistic to expect older generations to adapt to and reinterpret their nation through such a radically different cultural frame later in life?
In addition, what did older generations get in exchange for this added disruption? Globalisation has accelerated economic and demographic change. Those changes were promoted by political and financial elites. Ordinary citizens bore the disruption, but the gains accrued disproportionately to capital, not labour.
It may be a fact of life that younger generations adapt more easily to rapid change simply because their starting point is nearer their baseline, while older generations - further away - experience the same change as loss rather than evolution. Ok, but what are the policy implications of this? Is, for example, the triple lock pension designed to keep older people quiet?
When you listen to the arguments on both sides those pro immigration and those for controlling it, don't they come across as emotional to the point of hysterical, rather than objectively grounded and promoting worked-out and achievable policies? We all have an idea of who we are and what our identity consists of. Aren't the two sides defending different identies, values and in reality different memories of the country that shaped them?
Populist - or if you prefer revolutionary - movements have historically been the result of economic deprivation but is it more than that today? Is it that there are large cohorts within the population who have been "culturally displaced"? We are talking about social fragmentation, and not just generational but regional and class-based as well, and isn't it the emotional response to this that is the cause of instability and may conceivably push us to Civil War?
The governors should be able to buy off objections. Although there is considerable inequality between those with assets and those without, the problem is more than economic. Can the governors preserve core trans-generational civic symbols that reassure continuity, and also at the same time integrate immigrants within those symbols rather than allow immigrants to replace them?
This is what the Great Replacement Theory, beloved of Eric Zemmour and others, is all about. The British are a declining nation, facing even "civilisational erasure", as JD Vance called it.
So here Vance is talking about our cultural confidence, about "demographic continuity", about the nations of Europe each defending their national sovereignty and institutions, and keeping a "moral coherence". He argues that a nation unable to regulate entry cannot preserve its "civic identity" and that once immigrants are legally admitted they must be assimilated into the national culture - he says that multiculturalism simply doesn't work. He also argues that Western societies are ageing and shrinking, and demographic collapse weakens long-term stability and so family-centric policies must be developed.
The starting point is the social contract. To reduce the gap between governing and governed, corporate influence - that is influence from donor classes, big tech and so on - should be a limited. The financialisation of assets needs to stop and production together with fair wages needs to be restarted. And ways must be found to encourage and prioritise domestic labour in place of global capital mobility ie rebalance the system towards national workers rather than transnational capital.
History
Immigration into the UK today sits within a much longer imperial and economic arc. After the war, Britain invited Commonwealth labour, including the Windrush generation, to rebuild the country and staff institutions such as the newly created Health Service. Later, Britain accepted Ugandan Asians under legal and moral obligations. In the late twentieth century, labour mobility deepened under globalisation, particularly after EU expansion and the growth of finance, universities and health care recruitment.
High inflows are therefore not an isolated accident but a feature of an economy integrated for decades into global capital and labour markets. History shows that empires under fiscal strain and global entanglement often struggle to control population flows. Immigration in such circumstances becomes a symptom of structural forces rather than a tap that can simply be turned off. To attempt to do so abruptly would mean shrinking the economy and retreating from a global system Britain itself helped to build.
At the same time, while most migrant communities over time have integrated into the wider legal and cultural framework while retaining elements of their heritage, there are concerns that a minority within more recent, strongly ideologically motivated movements have been more resistant to integration, maintaining parallel norms and advocating forms of religious law that sit in tension with the supremacy of British civil law. This raises legitimate questions about cohesion and the principle that one sovereign legal system must apply equally to all.
Before accepting a narrative of civilisational collapse or erasure however, it is worth considering whether some of the discomfort arises not only from external change but also from an internal struggle to adjust to it.
2. Building A Life Versus Living Inside It
Most of adult life is spent building - career, family, identity and routine. That phase is active and outward looking. Retirement alters the rhythm. There is more space for personal reflection and comparison between past and present.
If identity has been tightly bound to a particular era or cultural atmosphere, then demographic change can feel like personal erasure. If identity rests on deeper foundations than a single historical period, change can be approached as something to understand rather than something to fight.
Global trade, decolonisation, capital flows and labour mobility cannot be reversed any more than ageing itself can be reversed. The economic dynamics associated with late stage empire are structural. Daily resentment won't alter them.
The underlying choice in later life is whether to expend energy resisting historical currents or to cultivate steadiness within them.
3. The Hidden Side Of Anger
When individuals confront forces far larger than themselves, anger can provide a sense of clarity and strength. It simplifies complexity and assigns responsibility. Yet sustained anger often conceals deeper anxieties - fear of decline, fear of irrelevance, fear that the world is moving forward without one’s participation.
Demographic change can become a symbol of those fears. New languages, new customs and new generations serve as reminders that time moves on. Facing that reality calmly requires a different kind of strength from blaming visible outsiders. The latter may feel momentarily satisfying, but it rarely produces peace.
4. Meaning Beyond The Headlines
Retirement can narrow perspective or enlarge it. Time once consumed by work can be used to rehearse grievances or to mentor, read more widely, engage with history in greater depth, converse across differences, keep a reflective journal or even write a biography that integrates a lifetime of experience.
A country shaped by empire and global trade was never destined to remain static. Movement and exchange have long been part of its fabric. Recognising this does not require endorsement of every policy choice; it simply removes the temptation to interpret structural change as a personal attack.
With that shift, energy becomes available for adaptation rather than defence. Identity ceases to be a fragile relic and becomes something capable of evolution.
5. The Choice In Later Life
Later life presents a quiet but profound decision. One path hardens around what once was. The other integrates what now is.
Hardening can initially feel strong and principled, yet over time it often produces isolation and bitterness. Integration may feel unsettling at first, but it tends to lead towards calm, proportion and perspective.
Memories and affections for earlier decades need not be abandoned. They can remain valued chapters within a longer narrative. Historians divide the past into periods for a reason; each era forms a section of a larger story. The Britain of the Swinging Sixties was not the Britain of the Victorian age, and the present is not the 1960s.
History moves. Economies evolve. Populations shift. These currents cannot be stopped by indignation alone. What can be chosen is the stance taken towards them.
Retirement need not become a daily referendum on what has been lost. It can instead become a stage of clarity, proportion and even quiet enjoyment, once the assumption is released that the world must remain as it was for life to retain meaning.
Peace often arrives not through winning the argument, but through stepping beyond it.
REFERENCES
http://www.livingintheair.org/2026/01/the-economics-of-late-stage-empire.html
http://www.livingintheair.org/2025/12/nothing-can-be-done-about-immigration.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUmscnUliBs&list=WL&index=1&pp=iAQBsAgC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TdC9Xd76UM&list=WL&index=2&pp=iAQBsAgC









