Canary Wharf has always been an alien presence, and this can give some clue to its origins, growth and probable fall.
Canary Wharf rises abruptly out of the brick terraces, and recedes just as quickly back into them. It does not make any concession to the local vernacular, or to the supposed communities that surround it. Its style is High Globalist: sharp lines, veined marble, long escalators and chrome. It is the lost buccaneering Globalism of the airport lounge and of Simon Murray, still observable in places like Hong Kong and Singapore, but long since abolished here – first by New Labour, still more by Lockdown and, finally, by Net Zero. Canary Wharf’s original slate of office buildings are big rectangular hulkers. These buildings are maddeningly self-assured. We do not find in Canary Wharf, as we do in the City, attempts to stylistically apologise for itself as a centre of high finance. We find no ‘Cheese Graters’, ‘Walkie Talkies’ or big pickles – gimmicks proceeding from a spirit of post-1997 British twee. Canary Wharf has the courage to take itself seriously.
Canary Wharf was built for a specific and practical purpose, that is, to house the multinational banks whose old Victorian offices could not accommodate the computers and electrical wires of modern finance. This alone sets Canary Wharf apart from two other closely allied projects. The first is ‘regeneration’, where declining cities are held in place for sentimental reasons, with public sector boondoggles, universities of dubious quality and foreign students of dubious origin. The second is ‘gentrification’, a curious term, whereby white Britons are chided for moving back into areas in which they predominated less than 50 years ago. Canary Wharf remains the only true redevelopment that has ever occurred in London. It did not nibble around the edges of decay as the regenerators or gentrifiers have done. Canary Wharf annihilated. Specifically, it annihilated a row of declining warehouses, no trace of which now remains. What was created in its place is not, as is often alleged, soulless. Canary Wharf is a real place with a real purpose; it is a place to make money, and an arena for people’s ambitions. It thus has more of a claim to soul and ‘Community’ than whatever Salford Quays is.
Did Canary Wharf destroy the historical community of East London? Yes and no. Look at it this way: the wharfs of the old Docklands, long since derelict, were once the busiest in the world. They sat at the centre of a global network of commerce, loading and unloading goods from all seven continents. Which is more in keeping with this spirit – HSBC, or Luftur Rahman?
The purpose of Canary Wharf was to create a new financial centre in East London, which would then, in turn, spawn the houses, apartments, shops, theatres and schools to service a newly-prosperous East End. Canary Wharf was only ever meant to be the start, but it has been an overture with no first act. With Canary Wharf the history of East London reaches a turning point and fails to turn.
For this there are two reasons. The first is style. The initial towers of Canary Wharf have never been aesthetically answered. No other structure has picked up the gauntlet thrown down by One Canada Square, 8 Canada Square, One Churchill Place and Citigroup Centre. The original five were joined only by a handful of meagre pencil towers, and as a result the profile of Canary Wharf in 2023 is little different from that seen in the old Year 9 Geography textbook. Not a new style, then, but a flash in the pan.
The second reason is political. In 1998 the dictatorial Docklands Development Corporation, which had built Canary Wharf through executive fiat, was wound up. This left the fledgling commercial district at the mercy of the retrograde local councils that surround it. What followed was a successful rearguard action against the forces of modernisation. The district’s natural growth was successfully constricted, and has yet to fill out even the modest Isle of Dogs peninsula. The main instrument has been social housing, which makes up over a third of all stock in Tower Hamlets. This figure rises to 45-49% in Poplar, the district to Canary Wharf’s immediate north. This housing cannot be purchased or rented by the productive citizens who work in the offices of Canary Wharf. British social housing – we are reminded – makes no distinction between citizen and non-citizen, and is doled out by local government for political and ideological reasons. Much has been said of the trespasses of Canary Wharf on local communities. We invite local communities to explain their trespasses on Canary Wharf. The councils which dominate East London have chosen to house, not the young professionals of the Docklands, but enormous quantities of unemployed and unemployable migrants in what is some of the most valuable real estate in the world. These communities are not historical but artificial – far more artificial than Canary Wharf ever was. Unlike the Docklands they have no economic logic; absent these controls, the area would speedily transform into something like St John’s Wood.
Unable to grow, Canary Wharf has withered on the vine. It has not spread into a real neighbourhood, or a metropolis; it is a medium-sized office park. Without the ordinary trappings of middle-class life to sustain it, it is unsurprising that Canary Wharf is finding it harder and harder to compete with the City, and has indeed started to haemorrhage tenants.
The decline of Canary Wharf is a cultural event. In it, the East London of Dame Tessa Jowell Boulevard and the Olympics defeats the East London of economic modernity. Indeed, the Olympic redevelopment – Canary Wharf’s latter-day rival – has been the capstone of local government’s project of urban counterrevolution. In place of high finance, we will instead keep around the fossilised remains of a sporting event that ended eleven years ago. Defeated, too, is the social phenomenon of Canary Wharf. During its fairly brief life, the Docklands was an outlet for the talented to London’s east: that is, the products of lingering grammar schools in Kent and Essex. Essex-boy-done-good will disappear with Canary Wharf; he will not trouble London with his presence, and will leave it to Harriet Harman and her various clients. With no stage for his talents, he will stay in Essex and watch Celebrity Gogglebox instead.
Canary Wharf was – consciously or not – a rebuke to the Britain of 2023. It did not answer to the parochial tastes of its governing classes. It showed that so many imagined social questions were, in fact, so many Gordian knots to be cut. It was too dangerous to be kept alive.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I do wish we could stop referring to the experimental, novel gene technology as a “vaccine”. I really do.
I’m a big believer in truth in advertising – how about: clot shot, death jab, depop jab, temporary minimal therapeutic effect jab or simply – the unsafe, ineffective, highly profitable pharma company dream jab.
“lethal injection” would likely go down well with the UK government’s behavioural science team.
Or just “national emergency”, which describes just about anything these days.
“the Trump vaccine” would be another good one, effective with much of the medical profession; something similar was used by the controlled media on both sides of the Atlantic to discredit hydroxychloroquine.
Even if they said ‘experimental’ first as so far they’ve said it will ‘prevent getting and spreading’ and then admitted it won’t, then it would ‘prevent death’, which is a ridiculous statement.
Theres a coronavirus that enters your cells using a specific receptor, say ACE2. This provokes an immune response including antibodies. The antibodies created target the parts of the virus that attach to the ACE2 receptor thus blocking the virus from being able to infect cells. This coronavirus is one that causes the common cold.
The virus is a positive single strand RNA virus, the RNA is read by organelles in the cell and duplicates are made and protein fragments are displayed on HLA to elicit an immune response. +ss RNA acts as it’s own mRNA, if a vaccine was developed that used an attenuated version of the virus then the viral RNA would enter the cell and be duplicated as the real virus. The antibodies would still be against the spike protein of the example coronavirus.
If instead of the attenuated virus only the genes that code for the spike protein were injected into the cell, then it would elicit an immune response with antibodies against the spike protein.
I actually dislike the term mRNA vaccine as it is misleading, mRNA in normal cell operation originates in the nucleus, and the AstraZeneca version uses the nucleus to replicate and is more of an mRNA vaccine than Pfizer. In my view the Pfizer vaccine is a short length +ssRNA vaccine. I suggest reading the book “Immune” by Philipp Detmer.
Thanks for the detailed analysis. However, it’s more complex than that, in that there are quite a few various coronaviruses (to the extent of them having been identified and given different names) that do the same thing – e.g. HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-HKU1. Various sources suggest that they cause roughly a third of “Common Colds”. Not clear why they say that, as it is not common practice to identify them with the general public. Perhaps that’s a good thing, otherwise it would result in a lot of useless expenditure, at least, with diversion of resources in the medical trade.
The other point well made is that ACE2 cells are the entry route – but note where they are, and more to the point, where they are not located, with regard to the crap idea of washing one’s hands to reduce it’s transmission. Might be sensible if you have a habit of sticking your little finger up your nose, perhaps.
IIRC of the coronaviruses that cause the common cold, there’s one that uses the ACE2 receptor. The other coronaviruses that use ACE2 are SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2.
The underlying problem with the CoViD19 vaccines is that they are in the wrong place, they should be in the upper respiratory tract.
Out of interest, what time has elapsed between vaccination and the adverse effects being identified? This could be important.
And after lany decades of trying we don’t have vaccines for these coronavirus.
I wonder if there is a clue there?
Someone on another thread called it a quackcine which I think is highly appropriate.
Proof if anything that the jab has an effect on the uterus so the number of miscarriages being experienced is not a fantasy.
Indeed. They know. They will try to hide this forever if they can. Which is why it is truly mystifying that they are still trying to get people to roll up their sleeves, it is only more evidence for the prosecution that will assuredly follow at some point.
Eventually the “bomb will burst” as they say in Dutch and when this one goes off, it will be nuclear.
An unvaxxed friend told me that 3 of her friends all had significant menstrual disregulation (primarily extremely heaving bleeding for months) but hadn’t twigged until they got together. Another friend in a different country told me last summer that she only realised that the substantial disregulation that had started after she got stabbed and worsened again after the 2nd was due to the vaxx after she heard it on the radio and was surprised I said I had known about it for a few months already.
Yes, I can imagine that vaccines or drugs in general can sometimes have an effect on menstruation, that is nothing new. But the timing, number and severity is. And I certainly have never heard of post-menopausal women getting periods again, that is quite frightening. Hormonal imbalances at that age tend to be connected with various cancers.
No matter how they try to spin this, it is clear there is a hormonal link. Hormones are related to fertility, it is beyond disgraceful at this point that they should still maintain that there is no known risk to male or female fertility. There may be no ‘known’ risk but there is every reason to suspect if not assume that there is indeed a risk and people who still wish to have children need to be properly informed.
I just wonder how many women are carrying the knowledge that their menstrual cycles have been altered but can’t bring themselves to tell anyone. It must be millions, and I suspect that most know it’s because of the vax. Yet another tragic and outrageous dimension of this unspeakable crime. When this dam finally bursts, I simply cannot wrap my head around what will happen; it’ll be unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.
https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/yellow-card-please-help-to-reverse-the-decline-in-reporting-of-suspected-adverse-drug-reactions might be of interest, but there seems to be a general view that there is a lot of under- reporting of injuries caused by various drugs.
I would say it is something to do with hormone disruption by the clot shot. I am many years post menopause, and regretfully I am double jabbed. I suffered hot flushes after having it, and they went on for about a month. I didn’t put two and two together until later, when I belatedly realised what an idiot I had been and how I had been taken in by the government. Hot flushes at my age are no joke!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32892344/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24673464/
Possible relationship between menstruation and cytokines.
Who could possibly have predicted that an experimental, novel medical treatment might have unforeseen effects when given to billions of people without going through the standard safety protocols?
Only nutjob conspiracy theorists and Qanon (who they?) supporters.
Gender-affirming hormones sounds as if it had been directly taken out of Brave New World human engineering department. That’s the mindset behind this. Nature will not let us have what we want. Hence, the citizens of the world of tomorrow we envision have to be engineered properly to enable them to take up the social and political roles which will become their occupation.
And then, there are these suppressor hormones which stop overwhelmingly low-quality people with wombs from getting pregnant all the time. Again, nature is broken, on their own, those ghastly creatures would just keep multiplying. But thankfully, the wonderful chemists of our modern world can fix that, too.
Truly eugenics for the 21st century!
——
The totalitarians of the 20st century are – in Germany at least – usually accused of bowing to an ideology based on Menschenverachtung (contempt for mankind to the degree of treating humans like pests). If the above isn’t also an example of that, I have no idea what is.
Vaccines are the problem, not the cure
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/vaccines-are-the-problem-not-the-cure/
Serena Wylde
Stand for freedom Yellow Boards By The Road
Friday 22nd July 3pm to 4pm
Yellow Boards
Junction Cricket Hill Lane/
B3272 Reading Rd,
Yateley GU46 7AA
*****
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell