Pardon me while I give Moldbug a good beating here, but I’ve had enough. He is dangerous, because he somehow gets people to take his flatulent amateurish bloviations seriously.
On the thousand-to-one chance that Moldbug reads this: I’m sorry, man, but I believe this is for the Greater Good.
To skip directly to the main example of this post, do a search for the word “finance” (search is CTRL+F in most browsers).
The gentlest thing I can say about Moldbug’s fanboys is that they mistake style for substance. References to obscure historical episodes… florid vocabulary… a deliberately “iconoclastic” way of looking at things… These are not intelligence; they are the superficial symbolism of intelligence. It is as if Moldbug were to write a 10-page “proof” that 3 is not a prime number, complete with… ACTUAL FOOTNOTES!!! And people take him seriously because of this. The presence of ACTUAL FOOTNOTES!!! does not change the fact that what he’s saying is that 3 is not a prime number. Ignore the style, goddammit.
PAY ATTENTION TO THE SUBSTANCE, NOT THE FUCKING STYLE.
As a prolegomenon (Note fancy vocabulary! I’m awesome!) I can think of things that Moldbug gets right, but they’re obvious. One, in his oft-cited writings like http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/moldbugs-open-letter/ and https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2016/04/coda/, Moldbug takes thousands of words to assert that democracy doesn’t work in reality the way it does in textbooks. No shit. Everyone already knows this. Better writers could illustrate it in two words, e.g., “corporate welfare” or “unnecessary wars.” Granted, belaboring the obvious has value– the obvious needs all the belaboring it can get these days– but let us not confuse the necessary work of obviousness-belaboring with profound and brilliant insight.
(In this blog I sometimes belabor the obvious, with occasional original (I hope) insights. As far as I know, the obviousness-belaboring has not yet prompted anyone to assess me as an Einstein-level Galaxy Brain.)
Two, as I noted here, Moldbug correctly observes that leftism does not lose steam when it exacts concessions. Trying to deny it steam by partially giving in to it has never worked. But again, he is hardly the only person to have noted this.
Now to fisk two specimens of stupid Moldbug notions; they could be multiplied vastly.
First, Moldy denies that the Nazis and fascists– the real ones, from Europe in the first half of the 20th century– were left-wing; he claims they were “right-wingers” and “reactionary.” This statement is wrong, regarding the Nazis. That Moldbug asserts it is… puzzling, because his various references reveal that he understands these things well enough to know better. He knows the salient facts about the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.
About Italy’s Fascists, Moldbug’s own attempt to establish their non-leftist nature is tragically inept. He cites many facts all proving that they were leftists, but quotes one Nitti, a contemporary of Mussolini, who characterizes Mussolini as “white,” i.e. reactionary in the political color coding of that time and place. Funny. There’s a blast of facts that show Mussolini as, first a Communist, and later, apparently still a Communist but in a non-Communist costume. Then we get one person calling him an anti-Communist. Maybe some of the evidence that led to Nitti’s assessment? None that’s at all persuasive. Moldbug quotes Nitti bewailing that under Mussolini, “All form of liberty has been suppressed; press liberty, association liberty…” Does that sound left or right? And this is presumably Moldbug’s best stab at proving Mussolini was a “reactionary.” If he has more evidence, why hide it? Well, if the best you can do still paints him as a Commie, I think we’re done here.
I realize there are those who think that Moldbug uses an incredibly subtle rhetorical technique of saying things other than, perhaps the opposite of, what he means. There are two problems with this notion. One, there are places in which he plainly says what he means, e.g. when he points out that democracy in practice bears little resemblance to democracy in theory. This puts his readers in the awkward position of having to judge whether any given claim is advanced seriously or impishly.
Two, this technique cannot be used on the people who need it most. Consider the notion that Mussolini was really right-wing, argued so ineptly that it convinces you that he wasn’t right-wing. That technique would never work on the leftists whom Moldbug wants to convince. Never in a million years are they going to read that closely. They “know” that Hitler and Mussolini were right-wing, and when they see an argument to that effect they are going to accept it at face value. They are not going to carefully interrogate it to detect any flaws and then be convinced of the opposite. Sheesh.
I was in several bands when I was younger. One thing I noticed with amusement is that no matter what your band name or your song lyrics, people often interpreted them as being about sex or drugs. If the name of your band was “the Screaming Eagles” people would find a way to interpret that as being about sex or drugs. I think Moldbug’s fanbois do that: They want a clever dissection of the modern political consensus, so they “find” it. Moldbug is a Rorschach test, whatever else he is.
Now for a long-form ass-kicking. Thanks to SimplyConnected for providing me (a couple of years ago) this Moldbug link on finance. If you are still a Moldbug fanboi after reading this, I can’t help you, tovarisch.
(NOTE! Use of Russian for no particular purpose or reason! I must be “clever”! And therefore my political views must be right!)
First, he wants total “commanding heights” socialism:
Step one: Nationalize all market-priced financial assets at the present market price, exchanging them for new dollars. USG buys all publicly-traded American securities, and foreign securities held by Americans. It thus becomes the sole owner and operator of all public[ly traded] companies, and in doing so it also acquires all the banks (for the price of their common stock, which is not much these days). By acquiring all the banks, it acquires all their dodgy mortgages and other “bad” securities. Obviously, after this process, all debts USG owes to itself are cancelled.
Hedge funds, private equity, and other exotic assets held by individuals may require some appraisal…
Stop. Hedge funds and private equity are not “assets.” They are investment organizations that manage assets. Hedge funds are basically mutual funds that wear tight black leather pants and 4-inch spike heels and carry a knife. Private equity firms buy controlling interests in companies’ stock and hope to manage the company better than the current management, often with the intention of selling their stock after it has (they hope) appreciated. HFs and PE hold assets, but they are not assets. Is this a nit-pick? No, because most of the assets they hold – thinking mainly of hedge funds here – are already included in the “market-priced financial assets” that Moldbug mentioned in his previous paragraph. That he doesn’t grasp this should by itself make his fanbois question his guru status.
Hedge funds, private equity, and other exotic assets held by individuals may require some appraisal. But these are held by rich people, who are patriotic [snort, I suspect this is an example of Moldy saying the opposite of what he thinks] and don’t mind taking a bit of a haircut [LOL, ditto]. Also requiring appraisal are homes; if you are a homeowner, USG calculates your home equity (perhaps using an automated appraisal, such as Zillow’s), and buys it from you. You are now a renter; USG is your landlord. Your new rent is calculated as a percentage of your home appraisal.
The result of step one is that USG owns all financial assets, major corporations, and real estate.
The government owns the bulk of assets. What could possibly go wrong?! Historically, that has always worked out well! I imagine his fans saying, “That doesn’t matter, because if you keep reading you’ll see that his plan involves the government selling all that stuff back to us.” Yeah, about that…
Moldbug continues by telling us that he wants to basically triple a major measure of the money supply:
In return, each USG citizen has one number: how many dollars they have. Perhaps the most straightforward way to implement this is to give every American a direct account at the Federal Reserve (a privilege now held only by banks). Thus, all your portfolios are automatically sold at the current market price, and your statement is mailed from the Eccles Building. [There is no reason to mention the Eccles Building, tovarisch.] The little number at the bottom, however, is the number you care about. This number has not changed. If your portfolio was worth $250,000, you now have $250,000.
Step two: Triple each of these dollars. If your portfolio was worth $250,000, you now have $750,000.
Oh my, he’s going to (basically) triple electronic bank deposits. Sooner or later that will result in serious inflation.
Then a debt Jubilee:
Thanks to our cleanup, these debts are now held by USG itself (which acquired them from the old financial institutions). There is no reason for USG, which can print dollars, to be squeezing them out of the hides of the poor. Forgive them all. Call it a Jubilee.
I don’t know what its direct effects would be– and neither does Moldbug or anyone else– but there are serious long-run implications of baking expectations of future Jubilees into people’s beliefs.
What’s that you say? You’re a Moldbug fanboy and you can’t see a problem with setting a precedent for debt amnesties? Well, can you see any long-run problems with setting a precedent for immigration amnesties?
Please tell me that just made you go, “Um, wait a minute…”
Moldbug apparently is also afraid that tripling everyone’s money won’t cause enough inflation, so he says,
Step three: Calculate the expected shortfall in future entitlements (Medicare and Social Security), and print new dollars to fill the gap. (About 50 trillion of them, to be exact.) For extra credit, print unripe dollars (bonds) and issue them directly to the actual entitlement recipients, as per the actuarial value of their policies.
On top of all the other money printing, an additional fifty trillion dollars.
He then says,
We are going to break this printing press. But before we break it, we have to use it…
No, you’re not going to break the government’s ownership of the money printing press. If we can’t even force the current government to respect the Constitution, how are we going to force future governments to forswear the printing press? Retarded.
Step four: Auction all the financial assets previously nationalized—corporations, real estate, etc. There is certainly plenty of cash around to buy them with. Destroy the dollars received in the auction.
Why are we selling the assets we just bought? We bought them to close out a broken financial system, in which the relationship between asset prices and dollars was unstable and unhealthy. We are selling them to establish their free-market price in a stable, healthy financial system. We do not know what the right relationship between the number of dollars in the world and the net price of its financial assets should be. So we ask the market, and the market tells us.
Absurd. First of all, the market prices when the money supply is X are going to be very different from the prices after the money supply is like one-half X, or whatever it is after the government “Destroy[s] the dollars received in the auction.”
(Note: There are lots of kinds of “money” in a sophisticated financial system like the US’s, but I think I can make the important points without dwelling on that. Much.)
You see what he thinks he’s doing (and he’s explicit about it in passages I haven’t quoted): He’s trying to take all the asset values that are pyramided on a certain amount of base money and actually turn them into base money. Then sell the assets back to the private sector, destroy the money they paid for those assets, then lock in the remaining amount of base money forever.
He thinks this will “close out a broken financial system, in which the relationship between asset prices and dollars was unstable and unhealthy” and create a “stable, healthy financial system.”
This is unhinged. A simple illustration of why:
Suppose the government has printed 6 dollars (multiply this by $10 trillion if you like) and has decreed that for all time, the supply of dollars shall not be increased. (Let’s ignore the facts that (1) there’s no way for the current government to enforce this constraint on the future government, and (2) this is not how most money works– the vast majority of payments are not made in base money, which is what the government “controls,” but in other kinds of money that are supported by base money.) Now suppose that you honestly believe that the value of your house is three dollars and the value of your stock portfolio is four dollars. Someone says, “But dude, that’s a total of seven dollars, and there are only six dollars in circulation!” You shrug and say, “I’m not planning on selling all my stocks and my house today. I believe that if I did sell my house, I could get three dollars for it, and if I were to sell all my stocks, I could get four dollars for them. I understand that there are only six dollars in the economy, but since I’m not going to try to sell seven dollars worth of stuff, I don’t anticipate a problem.” And indeed, most of the time the economy is in exactly this position, and it does not, in fact, lead to any problems.
Occasionally there’s a sudden decrease in confidence about asset values and we have a market crash (in real estate, stocks, or whatever). What’s the solution?
There is none.
None that I can see, anyway. This, I believe, is just something we have to live with in a market economy. And if there is a solution, it sure as shit isn’t Moldbug’s.
He thinks, for some reason, that the total value of all assets in the economy should never exceed the amount of base money in circulation. He thinks that current asset values can exceed current base money only because everyone expects the US government to print more money in the future. He doesn’t get the private sector’s rational anticipations that most of the time, most of these assets won’t all be liquidated at once. And they’re never ALL liquidated at once. That has never happened and never will. Not to mention irrational exuberance that can send asset values into orbit for no particular reason.
(Analogy: It’s like insisting that the total supply of tacos should be enough to satisfy demand if everyone had a sudden craving for tacos at the same time. That rarely (with tacos actually never) happens, and insisting that Taco Bell maintain a large enough supply of tacos to meet such a theoretical demand is obviously absurd.)
Moldbug doesn’t get that there is no way to force the financial system to impose the aggregate constraint that (value of all assets) is less than or equal to (total amount of base money in circulation). There’s no way to even know that first quantity, the “correct” value of all assets! How are individual bond traders, or stock traders, or real estate speculators, going to price the assets they buy and sell to guarantee that the inequality always holds!? Take stocks. In order to guarantee that the total market value of all stocks plus the total market value of all other assets in the economy is no greater than 2 trillion dollars (a number Moldbug throws around several times), every individual stock portfolio manager would have to know the current asset value of literally every other asset in the economy! Then they could (in theory) refuse to buy or sell stocks for prices that would put (stock values + other assets’ values) greater than $2 trillion. It’s impossible for them to have such knowledge, of course.
And even if they had such knowledge, they’d have no reason to enforce the equality. And how could they? If the total amount of money in circulation is 2 trillion dollars, and if (value of all assets) is greater than (total amount of base money in circulation), who should take the hit? Are you going to deliberately sell your house for less than a buyer is willing to pay for it, just to help satisfy some abstract macroeconomic inequality? Or should some other home seller do so? This blatantly goes against people’s self-interest. Seriously, try to envision this: A buyer offers a house seller $200,000 for the house. The house seller says, “No, I think it’s only worth $150,000 and I won’t accept any more than that.” You see? This plan is not merely impractical; it’s completely unmoored from reality.
And what about honest differences of opinion? Back to that $6 vs. $7 example: What if I think houses are overvalued and stocks are correctly valued, and you think stocks are overvalued and houses are correctly valued? Which one of us gets to force the other to lower the price for which they’re willing to buy or sell an asset?
This is insane.
It’s insanity dreamed up by a hopeless dilettante. Moldbug should stick to something that he’s good at, if there is any such thing (writing software or whatever) and stay far, far away from areas outside his area of expertise. And unless and until he does that, people should stop giving any credence to him.
Something I wrote on January 9 but am just getting around to posting. I don’t think much has changed since then.
Weirdly, happily, I’m not in despair about the current situation.
Maybe I’m insane or maybe I’m still numb. Or maybe stoic masculine serenity somehow snuck up on me. Though my reaction when I’m stuck behind someone driving 45 mph in a 55 mph zone suggests otherwise. Maybe it’s just that I’m old enough to realize that nothing lasts forever, that “this too shall pass.” Indeed, that was my first post on this blog, which was simply a one-sentence quote of Bertolt Brecht: “Because things are the way they are, they cannot stay the way they are.” And this is especially true of things that set themselves against Gnon, which is the basic nature of the left.
Or maybe it’s that illusions are stripped away. After Trump’s surrender, we have learned that we cannot put too much trust in any one person. We learned this lesson at enormous cost. But those are the lessons you don’t forget. Indeed, when he was still sane, back in the GamerGate days, Vox Day repeatedly admonished people on the right not to have identifiable leaders, because that’s an easy attack point for the left. We must be decentralized and robust. And while being able to coordinate is very important, obviously, decentralization and robustness are too. (I wish I could say “I told you so” about this, but while I’ve thought this a lot in the last couple of months, I don’t think I ever said it on the record.)
It’s worth dwelling on this very important point. Especially since we now have no choice anyway. Any emergent leader who supports real democracy and freedom, from now on, is going to be very quickly neutralized by the left. He’ll get the Trump treatment, but faster. The left is now in power in the government, the media, the educational system, the Internet, and the culture in general. Obviously they are not going to simply allow someone like Trump (or what we thought Trump was) to rise to lead us again. We are going to have to fight the fight without a single leader, at least for the time being.
The black pill faction accepts this and whines, “Wah, we have to give up because we don’t have a leader.” If you are part of this faction: Bitch, please. Snap out of it and act like a man. Are you a right-wing man with a decent level of testosterone, or are you a whiny bitch-boy? Look, we all have pessimistic moments. I have them too. But you can’t take those moments and turn them into policy in your mind. You have to get past them. I’ve had moments since the night of November 3 when I was freaking out. I didn’t post at those times so I wouldn’t risk dragging others’ morale down.
It’s OK to have down moments. It’s normal. But you have to let them happen and get past them. Whether it’s fear or other negative emotions, the Litany Against Fear from Dune is apt on these kinds of topics:
“I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.”
Sometimes you have to let yourself experience a negative emotion so you can get past it.
“I can’t tell whether Trump is going to do anything outside the system, even though it’s obviously too late to work within the system… If he concedes, don’t react emotionally. (I admit I’m going to have a hard time following my own advice here, but it’s OK to freak out for a couple of days. After that, time to think about how to proceed.)
Remember, if that happens it will just take us back to the scenario that most of the right has been expecting for decades.”
Remember that we never had any reason to realistically expect someone like what we thought Trump was to get into the White House. That was our crazy holy-shit-I-can-hardly-believe-it best-case scenario. Indeed, that it was so unbelievable is the whole reason he was able to win in 2016: The left couldn’t believe it either, so they didn’t do enough electoral fraud.
Don’t slit your freakin’ wrists, OK? If you want to keep your head down for the foreseeable future, that’s reasonable; it’s what I’m planning on doing.
And remember: The basic nature of the left is spitting in the face of Gnon. You can’t do that and get away with it. This a group of people whose moderate wing has the official position that men and women are equivalent! Their middle-of-the-road faction says that it’s good for women to act masculine and for men to act feminine (WTF?), and their extreme wing denies that men and women even exist! Nothing about this level of insanity is remotely sustainable. The left is always, even in their best-case scenario, in the position of a cartoon character who has walked over the edge of the cliff and hasn’t looked down yet. There is no such thing as a leftist regime that isn’t living on borrowed time. They know this too. You can see it in their eyes, even when they win. Have you ever known a leftist who was genuinely relaxed? I haven’t. At best, some of them act relaxed for show. (They do understand the value of propaganda… they have to, since they deny the value of reality.) The question is never whether they’ll fail; it’s only what the particular failure mode will be.
UPDATE: A couple of minutes after posting this I saw this concession video, which renders the speculations below moot. Among other things, he uses the phrase “new administration,” which is pretty goddamn unambiguous. Also, that’s not enough; he also has to throw his supporters who stormed the capitol over the side. What a contemptible end. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/01/so-thats-weird.html
I’m trying to figure out what’s going on. It doesn’t look good. I see three possibilities, with some arguments for and against them:
Trump cucked, exactly as he seemed to.
Trump didn’t cuck, but was outmanuevered by the left, who have arrested him.
Trump is playing 8-dimensional chess and some awesome kinetic stuff is going to happen soon. Ugh, I feel like kind of a whore even writing that, it’s such a stretch.
1. Trump cucked, exactly as he seemed to.
Supporting this view: He issued a deflated video telling everyone to go home. It’s not his words in that clip as much as his body language and tone of voice. He seems… done. Later he issued a tweet that finished, “Remember this day forever!” Those don’t sound like the words of a man whose message is, “We’re done for today boys; see you at the next battle!” They sound like the final words of a man before he rides off into the sunset.
He apparently issued a tweet though his social media director conceding the election, saying “there will be an orderly transition on January 20th.” People who are saying he didn’t really concede seem to be hung up on the fact that he didn’t use any form of the verb “concede.” Jesus, people.
By the way, if he did cuck, he is going to be Epsteined/Romanoved in short order, almost certainly before the end of this year. His tombstone should say,
Donald J. Trump, 1946 – 2021 Killed by normalcy bias
Against this view: Why didn’t he make an unambiguous statement like, “there will be an orderly transition to a Biden Administration on January 20th”?
Why was the statement from Trump’s social media guy Dan Scavino instead of Trump himself? Why not make an announcement on video or on TV? It’s not like the leftist media wouldn’t cover a concession by Trump! Why no official White House announcement? Instead we get an announcement that can be read as ambiguous by someone who wants to find ambiguity, and is issued by a source other than Trump. It’s all quite weird.
2. Trump didn’t cuck, but was outmaneuvered by the left, who have arrested him.
Supporting this view: Trump hasn’t been seen anywhere in person since yesterday, January 6. (If he has, and there is video with a reliable claim about the date and time, do let me know in the comments.)
“Chairman Milley and I just spoke separately with the Vice President and with Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer and Representative Hoyer about the situation at the U.S. Capitol. We have fully activated the D.C. National Guard to assist federal and local law enforcement as they work to peacefully address the situation. We are prepared to provide additional support as necessary and appropriate as requested by local authorities. Our people are sworn to defend the constitution and our democratic form of government and they will act accordingly.”
Note there’s nothing about Trump in that announcement. His absence is glaringly, pointedly, conspicuous. It’s so conspicuous it almost has to be intentional.
And his banning from Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram quells any questions about why he’s not posting. Because he was banned, you see! The real reason being that he’s under forced sedation in a windowless basement cell somewhere.
This is another case in which he is going to be Romanoved soon, though at least he’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that he tried.
Against this view: For this to have been pulled off, there would have to be an almost unbelievable amount of treason in the Secret Service: More than half of Secret Service agents would have to be traitors in on the plot. Or, only a select few, but someone was in a position to schedule their hours on duty to put them all on at the same time. That’s less implausible because it would only require one person for scheduling.
Also, in this case they have to hold him incommunicado for at least the next two weeks, until after Biden’s swearing-in ceremony. What’s their believable story for that?
3. Trump is playing 8-dimensional chess and some awesome kinetic stuff is going to happen soon.
Meh. But OK:
Supporting this view: He hasn’t said anything because it’s crucial to avoid any evidence that the Deep State could use to figure out where he is. Any communication could potentially be traced back.
He knows what happened to Epstein and there’s no way he’s stupid enough to miss that the left has the same plan lined up for him. He knows he has nothing to lose by fighting and he has been planning for this since at least Epstein’s murder.
Against this view: There is such a thing as normalcy bias; that’s why the phrase “normalcy bias” exists. And Trump, who was born in 1946, possibly cannot conceive of the idea of the United States of America actually falling to the hard left. It simply isn’t something that his brain can process.
If you had to bet your life, what would you bet? I’d bet on Occam’s Razor, that the whole thing is exactly what it seems to be: Trumped had a failure of brains and balls. He can’t see that we are in the process of a communist takeover, and he can’t allow himself to see that the only way to stop that now involves a lot of bodies dropping. It’s all just too scary and outside the world he knows for him to see it, to allow himself to see it.
The book cataloging site LibraryThing has a standing community project called Name That Book where people ask for help identifying books they’ve read but the titles of which they’ve forgotten. The Romance requests are revealing from the content of the requests, and often just from the titles of the requests. E.g. …
Request details: I have been looking for the title of this book for MONTHS. I read this over a decade ago, so some of the details are fuzzy. What I remember is the heroine has inherited her land from her father and she doesn’t want to get married because she doesn’t want to give up her independence, but this guy swoops in and pretty much forces her to.
Thread title: Romance: inheritance, western. “…He’s pretty rough, and mean. At one point they get stuck in the snow together out in a cabin, have a snowball fight, he spanks her. They end up together, of course…”
“Historical romance fiction. Identical twin sisters sent to live with unknown (twin) aunt of their dad after he dies from New York to out West. One sister disguises her beauty (bottle glasses which cause her to be accident prone and frumpy clothes) because of her twin, the “beautiful” twin would steal the other twin’s beaus. Also, father favored the beautiful sister over the other. Find out later that he did this with his other sibling. Get left in their stagecoach in a small town because the beautiful twin is too demanding. Aunt sends a cowboy to find them. Cowboy thinks he falls in love with the beautiful sister, but in reality it is the one in disguise. He gets confused with how the beautiful sister acts towards him after sharing a kiss and he blames her horrible behavior on the circumstances. The ugly sister keeps it a secret, but the beautiful sister figures it out and sleeps with him. Aunt realizes the ugly twin’s disguise and learns that she is waiting for her sister to get married before she sheds her disguise, she is even willing to allow the cowboy to marry her sister. Sister runs off with cowboys rivalry who owns the bar/gambling house. Aunt causes a shot gun wedding for beautiful sister and the guy who owns the bar/gambling house. Cowboy figures out what happened. They all go to New York and the former ugly twin believes she has seen her father. Turns out their father actually fakes his own death because he got his mistress pregnant [Yawn. I always fake my own death after I get my mistress pregnant.] and the beautiful twin was just too expensive and the mistress gave him a boy and wanted the son to be his heir. I think one of the twins name may be Amanda.”
By the same author: Tender is the Storm. Yes, seriously. But the title is only the half of it. Check out the cover: He’s actually tit-fucking her!
“I read a book… about a 19th century Englishwoman shipwrecked along the Arab coast, captured by Tuareg Berbers [whoever the fuck they were] and sold to an Oxford-educated handsome sheik.”
This request is funny for the way it starts: “I am looking for an historical romance I read some time in the last 1-2 years. I don’t remember the title, author or characters names.” LOL. How disposable is this stuff if you can’t remember anything about it after 1 or 2 years? I suspect women buy these, have a wank or two over them, then toss them. Why oh why can’t women be more ecologically responsible?
In 2002, the sociologist James Davison Hunter gave an extraordinary talk to Church leaders. Most Christians, he said, think of culture as the values in individual hearts and minds, and imagine therefore that changing culture is the task of evangelising individual hearts and minds. Hunter called this view of culture “pervasive” and completely wrong. “If one is serious about changing the world,” he said, “the first step is to discard this view of culture and how cultures change, for every strategy based upon it will fail – not most strategies, but all strategies.”
Culture, instead, is a form of capital, a kind of power. But what sort of power? “It starts as credibility, an authority one possesses which puts one in a position to be taken seriously,” Hunter said. “It ends as the power to define reality itself. It is the power to name things.”
A culture war is a struggle over who has the power to name what is real.
Is a man in a dress a woman or is he a man in a dress?
Is blatant electoral fraud in which the result radically changes immediately after election observers are kicked out blatant electoral fraud, or is it the legitimate outcome of the election?
And so on.
That last line again:
A culture war is a struggle over who has the power to name what is real.