And, it's obvious that the trend is unsustainable.
If you appreciate articles like this, sign up for our daily email newsletter and support us with a donation.
A friend of mine from Ireland told me a story of how, even on that small island, housing prices have skyrocketed. "You can't live in a one-bedroom apartment in Ireland for less than $2,000 a month," she said. "There is no hope of my children ever owning a home here. In 2018, my friend was renting a four-bedroom historical home on a waterfront for the price it now costs to have a one-bedroom apartment."
This is a story many across the West may find eerily familiar. People in the UK, Holland, Australia, Germany, Canada, and even the United States have been echoing the same concerns, but the issue seems to only be getting worse. Something is up, simultaneously, in every one of these nations — and it smells to high heaven.
Across Canada, prices have risen so drastically that there is not a single city or even a single small town in which housing is affordable to the average person. A bedroom in a stranger's home will cost you about $1,500 per month. A one-bedroom apartment is $2,000; a two-bedroom is $2,500; and anything larger is a minimum of $3,500 and upward. Meanwhile, the average household income after taxes has declined to $61,000 per year (approximately $44,500 in USD.) If we do some quick math, we find the average family with children will be paying 69% of their household income on rent alone. While exorbitant housing costs are more normal in large cities, for the first time, people are feeling that pain in every part of the nation.
It's obvious that this trend is unsustainable. But what is so bizarre is that this is not just happening in one town, state, or nation, but across the entire Western world. In the past, big cities were always a little more pricey as the demand from the larger populations drove pricing higher than in smaller towns. But now, even those smaller towns and less desirable cities are seeing the increase as if a huge population has been thrust upon the nations of the West without any real plan for their sustenance, much less that of the local populations.
Although the cost of living and affordability of housing is one of the biggest concerns for voters, little has been done to address this issue outside of lip service. In Canada and Ireland, the two nations with similarly dramatic increases in housing costs, house production has actually declined.
Ireland built half as many homes in the first quarter of 2024 as it did in the year prior; meanwhile demand for those same homes increased, as tens of thousands of illegals entered the nation via EU programs and to escape deportation efforts by the government of the nearby UK. Canada also built fewer homes than in years prior, while its population increased by over 10% in just three years (with almost 5 million foreign arrivals.)
What is fascinating is this same influx of people and failure to meet demand can be observed in all the nations mentioned previously.
The United States, for example, now has the largest foreign-born population in its history — nearly 16%, or 52 million people — with many having arrived illegally over previous decades. Since March 2022 the foreign-born population has increased by 5.1 million, the largest two-year increase in American history. Meanwhile, as is the pattern, US home building was at its lowest since July 2020.
Similar "trends" have been implemented across the entire Western world in the past, in ways that could not possibly arise organically, but show a definite system of supranational governance in place. This unelected apparatus of global governance seems to act almost as an executive branch of an organization would, creating policies for our elected national and local governments to apply to their people. This apparatus has been in place since the Second World War.
We saw this system of global governance in action during the COVID response, where a centralized unelected authority dictated policy for nations around the world while local and even national governments followed along unquestioningly, enforcing rules on their populations like middle management. But the same organized legislative enforcement can also be seen in the Agenda 2030 outlines, the World Economic Forum's eerie prediction that "you will own nothing and you will be happy," and can even be seen in the 1965-70 immigration acts that threw open the borders of all Western nations almost in unison, forever changing their ethnic, cultural, and religious makeup.
These same global governing bodies such as the WEF, World Bank, and UN Organization for Migration are just a few such unelected global organizations that wield tremendous influence over national governments. Meanwhile, large global asset management corporations and private firms are buying large numbers of available homes.
While this doesn't directly answer the reasons why home building is in decline, the direct connection between big funds like Blackstone, and their partners in organizations like the WEF and World Bank, certainly raises questions about market manipulation. After all, if one can drive the demand for an asset (mass migration incentives) while simultaneously buying up the commodities in demand (housing stock), they will benefit tremendously.
What many are only now beginning to realize is that there is a cause for each effect in the markets of a nation and food, housing, and jobs are all "markets" at the end of the day. While there are certainly effects that are caused accidentally, or as the consequence of failing to think through a policy decision, there are many others that are directly manipulated to bring about the desired effect.
It is naive to believe that the very people who give generously to party politicians don't also expect some benefit from their donations. It is even more so to believe that people like George Soros, who made fortunes on mayhem and economic distress (he was complicit in causing a currency crisis that "broke the Bank of England" in 1992), would have any qualms about manipulating migration and experimenting in demographic engineering to continue those fortunes.
One rule of thumb that has served me well when it comes to politics is that wherever you find taboos or censorship over "political controversy," you will find huge amounts of money behind preserving that particular status quo. Abortion, for example, while a great political tool to herd leftist voters, was only made so because of the tremendously lucrative market for fetal tissue, medical research, and abortions themselves. Climate Change is a similarly lucrative market. Even though almost every "solution" for "green energy" has been proven to be wasted money, and even toxic to the environment, the shareholders in those corporations (almost always big global funds) tend to always come out ahead.
The trick in all of these instances is that large multinational corporations have found it is more profitable to lobby governments than to act directly within markets. After all, why compete if you can corner the market?
Their influence via "global governance" helps set the agenda (climate as a crisis, mass immigration as a necessity, etc.), then their influence in government ensures the tax dollars earmarked to address these "pressing issues" are directed to their organizations or companies backed in part by their funds. This is Klaus Schwab and Blackrock's famous idea of a "public-private partnership," the foundations of the ESG movement post-COVID.
Yet, in the midst of all of this, it is the public — particularly those in lower economic strata — who suffer most. The billionaire tech mogul is highly unlikely to fear his children being attacked by grooming gangs due to his immigration push, yet hundreds of poorer British families suffered this exact consequence. Similarly, asset management firms and their friends in government and the global governance apparatus are unlikely to feel the crunch of housing prices, yet millions of young people across the Western world are increasingly concerned over their ability to afford a place to live, much less the ability to get married and have a family.
This is a problem that arises with the move toward a unified global order, where unrestricted and unaccountable organizations can set policies for entire nations, while the people of those nations seemingly have no say and must struggle immensely to oppose them.
The Irish turned to rioting in the hopes that it would stop their government from forcibly settling migrants in small Irish towns. Many of them have had the same families for nearly a thousand years. More than half of Canadians want immigration to their nation slowed or stopped altogether. Americans also see immigration as the number one issue facing the nation.
The common denominator in all of these actions is that the people had no real say. Global think tanks came up with the ideas, their lobbies pushed through the legislation, and the people who were meant to be the voice of the people, their elected representatives, advanced them through. The people themselves were never asked, but it is the people who pay the price.
Arthur is a former editor and consultant. Born in India to missionary parents, he spent his early career working in development for NGOs in Asia, Central America, and Africa.
Arthur has an educational background in history and psychology, with certifications from the University of Oxford and Leiden in the economics, politics, and ethics of mass migration and comparative theories in terrorism and counterterrorism. He is currently launching CivWest, a company focused on building capital to fund restorative projects and create resilient systems across the Western world.
To support articles like this, please consider a donation to Souls and Liberty.