Two views of the fifteen minute city

This policy is a good idea in the hands of me and my fellow travellers, and a disastrous one in the hands of my opponents.

Every so often, an idea comes along that captures the ever-fleeting attention of Twitterers and politicos, and roots itself among the disparate corners of the online right, converging all paths into a singular point. Three words have dominated internet discourse over the past few weeks; the ‘fifteen minute city’.

In principle, it is the simple belief that one's urban environment should contain every amenity required; and that these casual luxuries should be within a radius equivalent to a fifteen minute walk. Simple, right?

No.

Two interpretations seem to have emerged from the proposition, as councils across Great Britain - including my own - volunteer themselves for pilot schemes. The first is that this is a means of totalitarian control; the motte for a fascistic bailey. The other is that it is not.

Call me a fence-sitter, awaiting splinters while the war rages on, but both positions are correct. You see, like any ambitious strategy for the reorganisation of our lived environments, it is all dependent on who is in charge; and right now, we are not in charge.

I will begin with the side more favourable of the policy. One point that seems to be in the ascendant is a disgusted response to the conspiratorial. This, while occasionally doing the regime’s job for it, is not without merit. The rabbit hole can prove a greater distraction than the fabled bread and circuses; drawing attention into the obscure and esoteric, rather than the empirical reality of mass immigration, liberal monoculture and demographic change. Holding a vision of the world that is driven purely by Orwell and Huxley leaves little room for the symptoms of our decline that are grounded purely in observable reality.

It is my honest position, without a flicker of irony, that this policy is a good idea in the hands of me and my fellow travellers, and a disastrous one in the hands of my opponents. Any reorganisation strategy left in the hands of the progressive regime will naturally yield to the whims of progressive regimism; the apocalyptic bio-nihilism of net zero, the ugliness of progressive aesthetics, the preference for American multinationals, and the inherent ethnic masochism that disadvantages the native population.

However, the underlying principle is good. The city centre should be walkable, gently dense, and convenient. Amenities should be within fifteen minutes, one should live, work, and socialise in the same locale. Daily commutes should not dominate one's life. The city should be pedestrianised. The air should be clean, and the water crisp. These things are good for the human spirit.

Yet, the delivery of this proposition is held, firmly, in the hands of those who despise the human spirit. It cannot be forgotten that these are the same people who saturate our environments with ugliness and depravity, who loathe God and innocence, who celebrate degradation, decimation and replacement with the inferior. Trust these entities at your own peril.

If the fifteen minute city is real, then so too is the need for the right to seize power wherever it may be seized. To this end, local politics may be key.

The cultural and political right would do well to adopt a strategy of healthy urbanism if the Western city is to be reclaimed.