Our History

Our History Archive, where history comes to life

The culture wars are a magic trick (and you’re the mark)

The culture wars are a magic trick

You’re being played.

Not by your enemies — by the people who taught you who your enemies are.

There’s a reason a magician asks you to watch his right hand: so you’ll never look at his left. And for about ten years now, we’ve all been watching the right hand. The permanent, exhausting, all-consuming argument about identity — pronouns and statues, flags and borders, who belongs and who’s a guest, what may be said and what must be apologised for.




That argument is real. People are genuinely hurt inside it. But it has also become the most effective distraction machine ever built. And while we fight it out with strangers in the comments, the left hand is quietly reshaping the actual world.

This is about that misdirection. Not to tell you the issues are fake — many aren’t — but to ask a simpler question. Who profits from keeping us looking the wrong way?

First, the honest part

Let me get one thing out of the way, because the lazy version of this argument deserves no airtime.

“It’s all a distraction” is a thought-terminating phrase. It’s smug, and on its own it’s wrong. People’s worries about a country changing fast, about whether their kids are safe, about being talked down to by institutions that seem to hold them in contempt — those feelings aren’t invented by a server farm. They’re real. And if you tell someone who can’t get a GP appointment or save a deposit that his unease is just bigotry, he will, very reasonably, stop listening to you forever.

So the trick was never to invent the anger.




The trick takes a real wound and lies about its cause. It needs no lie about your pain — only a lie about what’s causing it.

You take a genuine injury — wages that haven’t moved in fifteen years, services stripped to the bone, a housing market that locked a whole generation out — and you persuade the wounded that the villain is the asylum seeker in the hotel down the road. Not the policy. Not the people who wrote the policy. The stranger.

A cast of arsonists

You can watch this done in real time, by people who are very good at it.

The summer of 2024: three little girls are murdered in Southport. Within hours, a lie moves faster than the truth — that the killer was a Muslim asylum seeker who’d arrived on a boat. He was neither. He was born in Britain. But by the time the facts caught up, mosques were under siege, and hotels housing asylum seekers were on fire.




Into that moment stepped the richest man on the planet. Elon Musk — who owns the platform where the lie travelled — didn’t condemn the violence. He told his hundreds of millions of followers that “civil war is inevitable.” Researchers later traced how he became a central node turning a grooming-gangs narrative into a racial panic, after personally dismantling the safety systems that once might have slowed it. As I write, in mid-2026, Britain is convulsing again — Belfast, Southampton — and Musk is once more amplifying the loudest voices in the street.

He didn’t invent the technique, though. He industrialised it.

Suella Braverman, as Home Secretary, stood in Parliament and called desperate people crossing the Channel an “invasion” — language a Holocaust survivor told her, to her face, recalled the words used to justify murdering her family. Braverman refused to apologise. She has since left the Conservatives for Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, a party built by harnessing cost-of-living anger and pointing it squarely at immigration. Priti Patel built the scheme to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda. Tommy Robinson — jailed for contempt of court — has been rehabilitated into a folk hero by the same online networks. And across the Atlantic, Donald Trump exports the entire grammar of it: anti-“woke,” anti-migrant, the enemy within. His allies import it straight back.

This isn’t weather. Weather just happens. This is climate, and it’s manufactured.

The part that should unsettle you

A lot of the “people” you’ve been arguing with may not be people at all.

Global Witness investigated X around the last UK election and found networks of bot-like accounts — posting at inhuman volume, recycling content, splitting neatly along party lines — that generated over four billion views of divisive material. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s an entire academic field: computational propaganda, astroturfing, coordinated inauthentic behaviour.

And here’s the chilling bit. Controlled studies show that when real humans are exposed to bots pushing the opposing view, the humans get more polarised. The bots don’t change your mind. They harden it. The newest ones are built to perform identities — the angry pensioner, the aggrieved minority, the patriotic everyman — so they can drop into the exact arguments where you’re most raw.

The psychology is ancient. See a hundred voices saying the same thing, and your brain assumes it’s the majority. That’s the bandwagon effect, and it’s cheap to fake. So you log on, the country looks like it’s at war with itself, you feel the pull to defend your corner — and you’ve just spent your scarcest resource, your attention, arguing with a script on a platform owned by a man with a political project.

What the left hand was doing

So let’s look at the left hand. Because the decade we spent most consumed by culture has been an extraordinary decade for the people making the decisions that actually matter.

At home, the maths of an ordinary life stopped adding up. In 2024, the fertility rate for England and Wales fell to 1.41 children per woman — the lowest in the 90 years records have been kept, the third record low in a row. Scotland’s is 1.25. A country needs about 2.1 to hold steady. Every demographer reading the data points to the same culprits: the cost of housing, the cost of childcare, work too precarious to build a family on. (It isn’t only Britain — the US just hit a record low too, with researchers tying much of the decline to housing costs.)

Sit with the irony: Elon Musk, fanning the migration panic, also loves to warn that a collapsing birth rate is the number one threat to the West. Both halves are on his timeline. The line connecting them never is — because the connection is the unglamorous truth. People aren’t failing to have families because of a culture-war villain. They’re failing because we chose to treat housing as a casino chip for the already-rich instead of the place a human life gets built. That’s the story. It doesn’t trend.

Abroad, the international order cracked — quietly, while we argued. On 3 January 2026, US special forces seized the sitting president of a sovereign nation, Nicolás Maduro, out of Caracas and flew him to New York; Trump announced America would “run the country” until a transition it approved of. Legal scholars openly questioned whether any of it was lawful. People died in the raid.

The world shrugged, because it was busy. In February 2026, the US and Israel opened a new war on Iran. In Gaza, the UN’s own Commission of Inquiry concluded in September 2025 that Israel had committed genocide, finding that four of the five acts defined in the 1948 Convention met. (Israel rejects the finding; several Western governments hide behind the claim that only a court may use the word — while continuing business as usual.) In Sudan, paramilitaries overran El Fasher and slaughtered thousands; UN fact-finders said the killing bore “the hallmarks of genocide,” targeted by ethnicity. In eastern Congo, Rwandan-backed fighters drive one of the largest, least-reported displacement crises on earth — sitting on top of the minerals that make your phone work.

These aren’t abstractions. They’re mass graves. And they’ve had to compete for your attention with a row about a statue, and they lost.

And quietly, our own freedoms thinned. In the name of fighting the very disorder these narratives produce, the power to police speech and protest expanded — and the loudest “free speech” voices fall conspicuously silent when the state comes for a protester they dislike. Rights were eroded across the spectrum, while each side was assured the threat came only from the other.

Who actually benefits?

Ask the oldest question there is. Who profits?

Not you. You get a dopamine hit and a spike in blood pressure.

The beneficiaries are visible if you look. A tiny number of extraordinarily wealthy people own the printing presses, the broadcast towers, and now the social platforms through which most of us understand reality. A story of us versus them is, for them, doubly useful. It sells the attention that is their actual product. And it guarantees the rage of the many is aimed sideways — at each other — instead of upward, at the arrangement of wealth and power a serious, material politics would threaten.

Divide and rule isn’t a metaphor here. It’s a business model and a governing strategy at the same time.

A frightened, furious, divided public is a governable public. It doesn’t combine. It never notices that the person it’s been taught to hate — the migrant, the trans teenager, the “woke” graduate, the flag-waver, the boomer — is locked out of the same housing market, dependent on the same crumbling services, watching the same wealth flow upward and away.

The whole trick is convincing the people at the bottom of a sinking ship to fight each other for the deckchairs, while the people who drilled the hole watch from the lifeboats.

How to spoil the trick

None of this means caring about your country, your culture, or your sense of belonging is foolish. Those are some of the deepest things a person has. The argument was never that you should feel nothing. It’s that you should notice when your feeling is being farmed.

A few small acts of resistance, none of them heroic:

  • When an outrage arrives perfectly designed to make you hate your neighbour, ask who profits before you ask whose side you’re on.
  • Treat any account that posts forty times a day and exists only to enrage as the machine it probably is — and starve it of the one thing it wants.
  • Refuse the frame that says your enemy is the person one rung along. Save some of that fire for the people setting the rungs.
  • Read past the headline to the policy. And notice what isn’t trending, then ask why.

Here’s the thing about the magician’s act: it collapses the instant the audience decides to watch the other hand.

We are the audience. And we are also, it turns out, the only ones who get to decide where to look.

Sources and further reading

You May Also Like…




Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply