#economics 2011

[archives-of-genevieve]

InStyle Magazine | March 2011

Pages 402 - 413

[reality-detective]

ALL roads lead to Obummer 👇

Barack Obama commanding The CIA to overthrow governments. A video called "Zeitgeist" referred to them as economic hitmen.

If they do it overseas, they do it here...

Tucker Carlson interview with Jeffrey Sachs “Obama signed an order called Operation Timber Sycamore — you can't find it in the mainstream media because it's not discussed but it was a so called presidential finding that the CIA should work with Turkey, with Saudi Arabia, with others to overthrow the government of Syria. So that was the plan.”

“When we come back to Obama, he started the war with Syria in 2011. I can remember vividly the call that Assad must go” 🤔

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Life Domains

There are a great number of divisions and domains in life (Rojas, 2006; Cummins, 2003; Headey & Wearing, 1992; Veenhoven, 1996), encompassing anywhere from a small range to the infinite possibilities of human activities and areas of being (Rojas, 2006).

Vanderweele (2017) generally suggests that there are 5 domains of human life that should be focused on to promote human flourishing:

Spirituality. This area of life should be prioritized but is often neglected (Moberg & Brusek, 1978). Although the words religion and spirituality are often used interchangeably, a person does not have to practice a faith to be spiritual (Mercadante, 2014). Spirituality enables a purpose in life and dictates how someone may think, feel, and behave to allow them to gain fulfillment (Mercadante, 2014). Spirituality is based on an individual’s principles and focuses on creating a good life for themselves (Dierendonck, 2011). When a person’s actions are not in line with their spiritual beliefs, this can cause an imbalance within this life domain.

Family. An essential but influential domain. Family does not have to be biological. More importantly, it relates to people with whom you have a meaningful relationship (Robins & Tomanec, 1962). The family domain is an area of life that can become imbalanced when a person’s roles and responsibilities are not being fulfilled. This may be because another domain is receiving more attention, such as work (Rao & Indla, 2010). It may be that the beliefs, values, and behaviors of the person are not in line with other family members. When this domain is imbalanced, it results in fractured relationships, estrangement, and separations (Olah, Kotowska, & Richter, 2018).

Work. Plays a fundamental part in the life of most adults throughout all societies. It has an economic and instrumental role because it provides a livelihood (Scoones, 2009). Work provides a will to learn, develop, and accomplish goals. Work also has a psychosocial aspect. It gives meaning to an individual’s life and satisfies their need to be part of society (Sharabi & Harpaz, 2007). It is important that people enjoy what they are doing, where they are working, and who they are working with. If an individual is investing too much time in this domain to the detriment of other domains, it may cause an imbalance.

Health. This domain concerns physical, emotional, and mental health and wellbeing. Individuals can learn how to develop a healthy lifestyle from an early age through education (Cutler & Lleras-Muney, 2014). Physical health can deteriorate from work stress and financial demands. Poor health can affect independent living and the ability to work and engage with family members and the community. This can be detrimental to positive emotional and mental health and wellbeing (Wong, Chan, & Ngan, 2019). It is essential to adopt a healthy lifestyle and promote healthy living. Understanding how to exercise, eat healthily, relax, and connect spiritually helps to promote overall health.

Community. Relationships outside the family are essential (Darling, Hamilton, & Shaver, 2003). These can be with friends or specific communities, such as the neighborhood community, faith or sports-based interests, or hobbies that allow a person to develop a sense of belonging with others (Darling et al., 2003). Community allows people to be united and, like family, allows a sense of safety and security (Bowe et al., 2020). It provides a sense of achievement and fulfillment, especially when an individual is working toward a shared community goal, such as raising money for a good cause or helping others within the community (Bowe et al., 2020). Nevertheless, spending too much time with the community and neglecting other domains, such as family, can cause an imbalance.

This is a simple and easy-to-understand model that illustrates the main life domains recognized by most people. Vanderweele's interpretation is widely recognized and will help you understand how life domains interact with each other and how you can find balance between them.

The following are strategies or techniques that can be used to balance life domains.

Compensation is a technique that increases positive life domains to counteract negative life domains. Decreasing the not-so-good parts of negative life domains reduces the unhappy influence from these domains on overall life satisfaction (Lee & Sirgy, 2018).

Accept and acknowledge that not everything can be done in every domain all the time. There will always be limitations to getting everything done due to constraints on time, energy, and money. The ability to accept ourselves is a crucial factor in improving our overall feelings of emotional wellbeing (MacInnes, 2006).

Breitman and Hatch (2000) wrote a book on a straightforward idea to balance life domains. Their book concerns the art of saying ‘no’ without feeling guilty. The use of this two-letter word can help us rid ourselves of all the things that are preventing us from living positively in all domains.

Planning time and organizing activities that are the main priority can help to minimize stress. Poor organization and time management may cause life domains to feel stretched and overloaded. 

Ensure time is scheduled for relaxation. Many studies have found this is important in reducing stress, anxiety, and low mood (Manzoni, Pagnini, Castelnuovo, & Molinari, 2008).

Flourishing - a condition denoting good mental and physical health: the state of being free from illness and distress but, more important, of being filled with vitality and functioning well in one’s personal and social life.

Languishing - the condition of absence of mental health, characterized by ennui, apathy, listlessness, and loss of interest in life.

Sources: 1 2 ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[disease]

"UNTITLED" // 2007 YOSHITOMO NARA 奈良 美智 [coloured pencil on coloured paper | 16 ½ x 11 5/8"]

With her short cropped hair, dark green dress and rebellious energy, the girl in Untitled (2007) emits the youthful defiance that has come to typify works by Yoshitomo Nara. [...]

"He is widely celebrated for his paintings and coloured pencil drawings of juvenile, cartoonish characters with large gazing eyes and endearing personalities. They inhabit imagined and insouciant paper worlds, brandish absurd objects and props—knives, sprouts, cigarettes, and electric guitars—and express a wide range of capricious, childlike emotion. Stern and somewhat sulky, our subject hovers in indeterminate space. She stands upon a Japanese flag with her small feet positioned perfectly over its crimson sun. Emblazoned around her miniature figure are the words ‘Up Yours!’, and, ‘All the Nations!’. As an advocate of peace, questions of nationhood, conflict and world politics weave through Nara’s art in such pithy phrases and symbols. Exhibited at the Centro de Arte Contemporáneo de Málaga—the first show of the artist’s work in Spain in 2007-2008—the present work was one of twenty coloured pencil drawings hung along the final wall of the gallery.

Born in 1959 in Japan’s rural Aomori Prefecture, Nara’s youth was marked by his country’s rapid post-war economic development and an influx of Western pop-culture, from Disney animation to punk and rock and roll. The artist expresses heartfelt nostalgia for the retro media—record-sleeves and comic books—that offered escapism from an otherwise solitary childhood. ‘Of course if you think back to the ’70s,’ he says, ‘information moved very differently. There was no Internet obviously and even the release date of albums in Japan could be delayed as much as six months … I would just sit there, listen to the music, look at the art on the cover and I think I really developed my imagination through that’ (N. Hegert, ‘Interview with Yoshitomo Nara,’ Artslant, 18 September 2010). This sensitivity to the worn, tactile quality of objects is triumphant in his art today and distinguishes him from the likes of Takashi Murakami and his Superflat movement. Untitled bears the enlivening traces of artist’s hand, present in the rough ‘outside-the-line’ scribbles that imply the girl’s messy hair. Bracketed with Nara’s unfiltered, handwritten text, the image feels distinctly personal, like a secret note exchanged between friends.

As early as his time at Aichi Prefectural University of Fine Arts in the 1980s, Nara began to draw onto envelopes, cardboard, and scraps of found paper. He continued these explorations at the prestigious Kunstakademie Düsseldorf where, under the tutorship of German Neo-Expressionist painter A. R. Penck, he was encouraged to work fluidly between painting and drawing. ‘I [loved] to draw every day and the scrawled sketches, never shown to anybody, started piling up’, Nara has said. ‘Like journal entries reflecting the events of each day, they sometimes intersected [with] memories from the past. My little everyday world became a trigger for the imagination, and I learned to develop and capture the imagery that arose’ (Y. Nara, ‘Nobody’s Fool’, in N. Miyamura and S. Suzuki (eds.), Yoshitomo Nara: The Complete Works, Volume 1: Paintings, Sculptures, Editions, Photographs 1984-2010, San Francisco 2011, p. 43). Mischievous, cute, and quietly ferocious, the present work attests to the enduring appeal of Nara’s little rebels." — via Christie's

[starseedpatriot]

🇱🇾 USAID & NGOs were the Hidden Hand Behind Libya’s Destruction

For over four decades, Libya thrived under Gaddafi, but in 2011, the U.S., NATO, and Western-backed NGOs engineered an uprising, leading to his overthrow and Libya’s descent into chaos. USAID and its affiliated organizations played a critical role in financing, legitimizing, and facilitating the regime change operation.

How USAID & NGOs Helped Topple Gaddafi

USAID:

• 2011-2012, USAID funneled $75 million into “civil society” groups, opposition media, and transitional government structures.

• Funded the National Transitional Council (NTC), the de facto government after Gaddafi’s fall.

• Assisted in setting up opposition-run election commissions to ensure Libya remained under Western control post-regime change.

NED:

• Funded exile-run opposition media like Barada TV, which broadcast anti-Gaddafi propaganda from Washington, D.C.

• Provided grants to “civil society” groups that later funneled support to jihadists, including Free Syrian Army (FSA) members who later fought in Libya.

• Trained and promoted exiled opposition leaders who were later installed in Libya’s post-Gaddafi government.

OSF: Soros’s Role in Libya

• Pushed Western narratives on Libya, reinforcing media campaigns to justify NATO intervention.

• Funded opposition movements that aligned with U.S. geopolitical interests.

• Lobbied for mass migration policies in Europe, using Libya’s collapse to drive refugee influxes.

What did Libye lose?

Before 2011:

• Debt-free economy with $150 billion in foreign reserves.

• Free healthcare, education, and subsidized housing.

• One of Africa’s highest literacy rates at 87%.

• The Great Man-Made River Project provided sustainable water to the entire country.

• Oil wealth was distributed among the population.

After NATO & USAID Intervention:

• Libya became a failed state with rival militias battling for control.

• Open-air slave markets appeared, with migrants sold openly.

• Oil production collapsed, foreign corporations took over key sectors.

• ISIS and jihadist groups flourished.

• The country became a hub for weapons trafficking and human smuggling.

Gaddafi's Final Warning Before NATO Bombing in 2011?

“If Libya falls, chaos will take over North Africa, the Mediterranean will burn, and waves of migrants will flood Europe.”

Gaddafi knew what was coming. He was right.

The U.S. and its NGO network didn’t remove Gaddafi for “human rights.” They targeted him because he threatened Western financial dominance and refused to comply.

USAID used Libya as a practice round to hone their skills to be used in future campaigns:

Ukraine (2014): Funded Euromaidan protests → Led to civil war & U.S. economic control.

Syria (2011-2024): USAID financed the opposition → Led to over a decade of war.

Venezuela (2002-Present): Funded opposition coup attempts → Economic collapse under U.S. sanctions.

Georgia (2003/2023): Engineered “color revolutions” → Destabilized the country.

Libya, once Africa’s most prosperous nation, is now a shattered warzone. A direct result of U.S.-backed regime change funded directly by USAID.

🔴 @DDGeopolitics | Socials | Donate | Advertising

[she-is-ovarit]

I'm over the term "gender equality", and the way in which it is being used and advocated for by the mainstream, status-quo left.

"Men and women are equal" operates under the bias that men are the default standard of equality, which women are then sometimes required or expected to meet. Usually statements like "women are just as strong as men", "women are just as capable as men in sports" act as support.

It intentionally is meant to be cheered on as liberating, but the reality is it's a derivative of "I don't see race I just see people", "no race but the human race", "not disabled just differently-abled", etc. It's a form of sexism that ignores sexism. It's "I am going to ignore biological differences based on sex" when the reality is being of the female sex shapes both my material and lived reality in extremely complex ways and can have dangerous consequences when ignored.

The average woman is not is strong as a man and it often takes a deliberate amount of persistence, training, and/or testosterone injections for us to come close to or meet the male default. "The muscle strength of women indeed, is typically reported in the range of 40 to 75% of that of men". The average man could easily kill and overpower me, and if I were an athlete a man who trained equally to me would defeat me in competition.

Women are 47% more likely than men to be injured in a car accident. Cars were designed for male drivers. In 2011 was when "female" crash dummies were introduced into measuring car safety in the US, however sometimes organizations in the US and UK just used "scaled down male dummies" to test car safety for women. As this article explains, we are not scaled-down men. We have different muscle mass distribution. We have lower bone density. There are differences in vertebrae spacing. Even our body sway is different. And these differences are all crucial when it comes to injury rates in car crashes. And what about pregnant women?

We have different needs and different experiences than males and the world around is us designed with males in mind - from housing to automobiles, to entire economic systems. 85% of women will eventually be mothers. When women take maternal leave to care for a newborn while the man continues to work (or returns shortly later), he effectively advances his career and over time earns more promotions and pay. His schedule is to focus on his career growth and then come home for a few hours in the evening to play with their child (or play videogames). Mothers pay a significant wage penalty for having children from being months out of the labor market.

This list could really go on.

"Gender equality" is utilized by men to distract women from focusing on only women's rights and needs to men's rights and needs. It's used to shoehorn in arguments of "men too" and sympathizing with men on "men's mental health" (while neglecting the fact that men are overwhelmingly and in shocking numbers responsible for violence done to both sexes - and are additionally unlikely to want to work on themselves mentally).

Reframing and enfolding "violence against women", "women's rights", "male violence", "female liberation", and "women's oppression" into the vague language of "gender equality" is a deliberate act of obfuscating the power dynamics between the sexes - in which men globally exploit and oppress women on the axis of sex.

And as vague language, carves a place for people to have the opportunity to shift the responsibility and blame onto women and girls for the suffering that men wield onto their own sex.

Women and girls do have advantages and strengths over men and boys due to our biological differences - yet this, too, goes ignored under the vague concept of "gender equality" and the cultural belief system it evokes, which treats man as the mold that women should fit.

[onscreenkisses]

K I S S O G R A P H Y : ↳ Eddie Cibrian

SUNSET BEACH (1997-1999) / Lesley-Anne Down BUT I'M A CHEERLEADER (1999) / Clea DuVall THIRD WATCH, 2x05 (2000) / Kim Raver SAY IT ISN'T SO (2001) / Heather Graham TILT, 1x06 (2005) / Amelia Cooke INVASION, 1x09 (2005) / Lisa Sheridan DIRTY SEXY MONEY, 1x06 (2007) / Natalie Zea SAMANTHA WHO?, 1x09 (2007) / Christina Applegate UGLY BETTY, 3x04 (2008) / Ana Ortiz NORTHERN LIGHTS (2009) / LeAnn Rimes HEALING HANDS (2010) / Lisa Sheridan THE PLAYBOY CLUB, 1x02 (2011) / Laura Benanti THE BEST MAN HOLIDAY (2013) / Nia Long BABY DADDY, 4x15 (2015) / Chelsea Kane TAKE TWO, 1x12 (2018) / Rachel Bilson HOME ECONOMICS, 3x12 (2023) / Topher Grace

requested by anon

[fatehbaz]

when the Empire's researchers realized that the cause of the ecological devastation was the Empire:

much to consider.

on the motives and origins of some forms of imperial "environmentalism".

---

Since the material resources of colonies were vital to the metropolitan centers of empire, some of the earliest conservation practices were established outside of Europe [but established for the purpose of protecting the natural resources desired by metropolitan Europe]. [...] [T]ropical island colonies were crucial laboratories of empire, as garden incubators for the transplantation of peoples [slaves, laborers] and plants [cash crops] and for generating the European revival of Edenic discourse. Eighteenth-century environmentalism derived from colonial island contexts in which limited space and an ideological model of utopia contributed to new models of conservation [...]. [T]ropical island colonies were at the vanguard of establishing forest reserves and environmental legislation [...]. These forest reserves, like those established in New England and South Africa, did not necessarily represent "an atavistic interest in preserving the 'natural' [...]" but rather a "more manipulative and power-conscious interest in constructing a new landscape by planting trees [in monoculture or otherwise modified plantations] [...]."

Text by: Elizabeth DeLoughrey and George B. Handley. "Introduction: Toward an Aesthetics of the Earth". Postcolonial Ecologies: Literatures of the Environment, edited by DeLoughrey and Handley. 2011. [Text within brackets added by me for clarity and context.]

---

British colonial forestry was arguably one of the most extensive imperial frameworks of scientific natural resource management anywhere [...]. [T]he roots of conservation [...] lay in the role played by scientific communities in the colonial periphery [...]. In India, [...] in 1805 [...] the court of directors of the East India Company sent a dispatch enquiring [...] [about] the Royal Navy [and its potential use of wood from Malabar's forests] [...]. This enquiry led to the appointment of a forest committee which reported that extensive deforestation had taken place and recommended the protection of the Malabar forests on grounds that they were valuable property. [...] [T]o step up the extraction of teak to augment the strength of the Royal Navy [...] [b]etween 1806 and 1823, the forests of Malabar were protected by means of this monopoly [...]. The history of British colonial forestry, however, took a decisive turn in the post-1860 period [...]. Following the revolt of 1857, the government of India sought to pursue active interventionist policies [...]. Experts were deployed as 'scientific soldiers' and new agencies established. [...] The paradigm [...] was articulated explicitly in the first conference [Empire Forestry Conference] by R.S. Troup, a former Indian forest service officer and then the professor of forestry at Oxford. Troup began by sketching a linear model of the development of human relationship with forests, arguing that the human-forest interaction in civilized societies usually went through three distinct phases - destruction, conservation, and economic management. Conservation was a ‘wise and necessary measure’ but it was ‘only a stage towards the problem of how best to utilise the forest resources of the empire’. The ultimate ideal was economic management, [...] to exploit 'to the full [...]' and provide regular supplies [...] to industry.

Text by: Ravi Rajan. "Modernizing Nature: Tropical Forestry and the Contested Legacy of British Colonial Eco-Development, 1800-2000". Oxford Historical Monographs series, Oxford University Press. January 2006.

---

It is no accident that the earliest writers to comment specifically on rapid environmental change in the context of empires were scientists who were themselves often actors in the process of colonially stimulated environmental change. [...] [N]atural philosophers [...] in Bermuda, [...] in Barbados and [...] on St Helena [all British colonies] were all already well aware of characteristically high rates of soil erosion and deforestation in the colonial tropics [...]. On St Helena and Bermuda this early conservationism led, by 1715, to the gazetting of the first colonial forest reserves and forest protection laws. On French colonial Mauritius [...], Poivre and Philibert Commerson framed pioneering forest conservation [...] in the 1760s. In India William Roxburgh [and] Edward Balfour [...] ([...] Scottish medical scientists) wrote alarmist narratives relating [to] deforestation [...]. East India Company scientists [...] [including] Roxburgh [...] went on to further observe the incidence of global drought events [...]. The writings of Edward Balfour and Hugh Cleghorn in the late 1840s in particular illustrate the extent of the permeation of a global environmental consciousness [...]. [T]he 1860s [were] a period [...] which embodies a convergence of thinking about ecological change on a world scale [...]. It was in the particular circumstances of environmental change at the colonial periphery that what we would now term "environmentalism" first made itself felt [...]. Victorian texts such as [...] Ribbentrop's Forestry in the British Empire, Brown's Hydrology of South Africa, Cleghorn's Forests and Gardens of South India [...] were [...] vital to the onset of environmentalism [...]. This fear grew steadily in the wake of colonial expansion [...] particularly [...] after the great Indian famines of 1876 [...].

Text by: Richard Grove and Vinita Damodaran. "Imperialism, Intellectual Networks, and Environmental Change: Origins and Evolution of Global Environmental History, 1676-2000: Part I". Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 41, No. 41. 14 October 2006

---

The “planetary consciousness” produced by this systemizing of nature [in eighteenth-century European science] […] increased the mobility of paradise discourse [...]. As European colonial expansion accelerated, the homogenizing transformation of people, economy and nature which it catalyzed also gave rise to a myth of lost paradise, which served as a register […] for obliterated cultures, peoples, and environments [devastated by that same European colonization], and as a measure of the rapid ecological changes, frequently deforestation and desiccation, generated by colonizing capital. On one hand, this myth served to suppress dissent by submerging it in melancholy, but on the other, it promoted the emergence of an imperialist environmental critique which would motivate the later establishment of colonial botanical gardens, potential Edens in which nature could be re-made. However, the subversive potential of the “green” critique voiced through the myth of endangered paradise was defused by the extent to which growing environmental sensibilities enabled imperialism to function more efficiently by appropriating botanical knowledge and indigenous conservation methods, thus continuing to serve the purposes of European capital.

Text by: Sharae Deckard. Paradise Discourse, Imperialism, and Globalization: Exploiting Eden. 2010.

[exercise-of-trust]

seemingly cool fiber arts person i followed a little bit ago just put radfem shit on the dash, anyway the blanket statement that the only contributions of men to textile production are capitalist/exploitative and the only contributions of women are household-centric/victimized is patently untrue. while less of a documented presence, women in medieval europe [1] absolutely participated in weaver's guilds and commercial cloth production [2], and men have been participating in household knitting in all parts of europe for as long as knitting has been a thing there [3]. like i'm not trying to say women haven't been deeply excluded from economic opportunities in the textile trade for centuries but you cannot be making sweeping statements like that about everyone in every part of the world through all of history and expect them to be true. do, like, a basic level of research and have a basic understanding of nuance, i beg of you [4]

footnotes/sources/etc under the cut, sources are a bit basic because i just grabbed whatever was nearest to hand but they should suffice to prove my point:

[1] i'm only referring to western europe here because that's the only region i feel comfortable talking about in any detail without embarrassing myself. systems of medieval cloth production in european guilds are not gonna look anything like the systems of hundreds of servants employed to do textile production for a household in china. don't make categorical statements about everyone everywhere all at once, you will end up with egg on your face.

[2] quotes from "when did weaving become a male profession," ingvild øye, danish journal of archaeology, p.45 in particular.

england: "in norwich, a certain elizabeth baret was enrolled as freeman of the city in 1445/6 because she was a worsted weaver, and in 1511, a riot occurred when the weavers here complained that women were taking over their work" + "another ordinance from bristol [in 1461] forbade master weavers to engage wives, daughters, and maids who wove on their own looms as weavers but made an exception for wives already active before this act" germany: "in bremen, several professional male weavers are recorded in the early fourteenth century, but evidently alongside female weavers, who are documented even later, in 1440" -> the whole "even later" thing is because the original article is disputing the idea that men as weavers/clothiers in medieval europe entirely replaced women over time. also: "in 1432-36, a female weaver, mette weuersk, is referred to as a member of the gertrud's guild in flensburg, presently germany" scandanavia: "the guild of weavers that was established in copenhagen in 1500 also accepted female weavers as independent members and the rules were recorded in the guild's statutes"

[3] quotes from folk socks: the history and techniques of handknitted footwear by nancy bush, interweave press, 2011, don't roast me it was literally within arm's reach and i didn't feel like looking up more stuff

uk/yorkshire dales: "...handknitting had been a daily employment for three centuries [leading up to 1900]. practiced by women, children, and men, the craft added much to the economy of the dales people." (p.21) uk/wales: re the knitting night (noson weu/noswaith weu) as a social custom practiced in the 18th/19th c.: "all the ladies would work on their knitting; some of the men would knit garters" (p.22) uk/channel islands: "by the early seventeenth century, so many of the islands' men, women, and children had taken up the trade of knitting that laws were necessary to keep them from knitting during harvest" (p.24) -> this one is deeply funny to me, in addition to proving my point uk/aberdeen: "the knitters, known as shankers, were usually women, but sometimes included old men and boys" (p.26) denmark: "with iron and brass needles, they made stockings called stunthoser, stomper, or stockings without feet, as well as stockings with feet. the men knit the legs and the women and girls made the heels" (p.32) iceland & faroe islands: "people of all ages and both sexes knit at home not only for their own use but for exportation of their goods as well" (p.35)

[4] actually? no. i'm not begging for shit from radfems. fuck all'a'y'all.

[eelhound]

"The best response to anyone who wants to take seriously Nietzsche's fantasies about savage hunters chopping pieces off each other's bodies for failure to remit are the words of an actual hunter-gatherer — an Inuit from Greenland made famous in the Danish writer Peter Freuchen's Book of the Eskimo. Freuchen tells how one day, after coming home hungry from an unsuccessful walrus-hunting expedition, he found one of the successful hunters dropping off several hundred pounds of meat. He thanked him profusely. The man objected indignantly:

'Up in our country we are human!' said the hunter. 'And since we are human we help each other. We don't like to hear anybody say thanks for that. What I get today you may get tomorrow. Up here we say that by gifts one makes slaves and by whips one makes dogs.'

The last line is something of an anthropological classic, and similar statements about the refusal to calculate credits and debits can be found through the anthropological literature on egalitarian hunting societies. Rather than seeing himself as human because he could make economic calculations, the hunter insisted that being truly human meant refusing to make such calculations, refusing to measure or remember who had given what to whom, for the precise reason that doing so would inevitably create a world where we began 'comparing power with power, measuring, calculating' and reducing each other to slaves or dogs through debt.

It's not that he, like untold millions of similar egalitarian spirits throughout history, was unaware that humans have a propensity to calculate. If he wasn't aware of it, he could not have said what he did. Of course we have a propensity to calculate. We have all sorts of propensities. In any real-life situation, we have propensities that drive us in several different contradictory directions simultaneously. No one is more real than any other. The real question is which we take as the foundation of our humanity, and therefore, make the basis of our civilization. If Nietzsche's analysis of debt is helpful to us, then, it is because it reveals that when we start from the assumption that human thought is essentially a matter of commercial calculation, that buying and selling are the basis of human society — then, yes, once we begin to think about our relationship with the cosmos, we will necessarily conceive of it in terms of debt."

- David Graeber, from Debt: The First 5,000 Years, 2011.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Incomplete vs. overshoot

I'm on tour with my new novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT in Seattle (Feb 26) with Neal Stephenson, then Portland, Phoenix and more!

You know the "horseshoe theory," right? "The far-left and the far-right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear continuum of the political spectrum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

It's a theory that only makes sense if you don't know much about the right and the left and what each side wants out of politics.

Take women's suffrage. The early suffragists ("suffragettes" in the UK) were mostly interested in votes for affluent, white women – not women as a body. Today's left criticizes the suffrage movement on the basis that they didn't go far enough:

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134849480/the-root-how-racism-tainted-womens-suffrage

Contrast that with Christian Dominionists – the cranks who think that embryos are people (though presumably not for the purpose of calculating a state's electoral college vote? Though it would be cool if presidential elections turned on which side of a state line a fertility clinic's chest-freezer rested on):

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-alabama-ivf-ruling-was-influenced-christian-nationalism-on-the-media?tab=summary

These people are part of a far-right coalition that wants to abolish votes for women. As billionaire far-right bagman Peter Thiel wrote that he thought it was a mistake to let women vote at all:

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/

Superficially, there's some horseshoe theory action going on here. The left thinks the suffragists were wrong. The right thinks they were wrong, too. Therefore, the left and the right agree!

Well, they agree that the suffragists were wrong, but for opposite reasons – and far, far more importantly, they totally disagree about what they want. The right wants a world where no women can vote. The left wants a world where all women can vote. The idea that the right and the left agree on women's suffrage is, as the physicists say, "not even wrong."

It's the kind of wrong that can only be captured by citing scripture, specifically, A Fish Called Wanda, 6E, 79: "The central message of Buddhism is not 'Every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."

Or take the New Deal. While the New Deal set its sites on liberating workers from precarity, abuse and corruption, the Dealers – like the suffragists – had huge gaps in their program, omitting people of color, indigenous people, women, queer people, etc. There are lots of leftists who criticize the New Deal on this basis: it didn't go far enough:

https://livingnewdeal.org/new-deal-and-race/

But for the past 40 years, America has seen a sustained, vicious assault on New Deal programs, from Social Security to Medicare to food stamps to labor rights to national parks, funded by billionaires who want to bring back the Gilded Age and turn us all into forelock-tugging plebs:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/06/the-end-of-the-road-to-serfdom/

If you only view politics as a game of elementary school cliques, you might say that the left and the right are meeting again. The left says Roosevelt got it wrong with the New Deal (because he left out so many people). The right says FDR was wrong for doing the New Deal in the first place. Therefore, the left and the right agree, right?

Obviously wrong. Obviously. Again, the important thing is why the left and the right think the New Deal deserves criticism. The important thing is what the left and the right want. The left wants universal liberation. The right wants us all in economic chains. They do not agree.

It's not always just politics, either. Take the old, good internet. That was an internet defined by technological self-determination, a wild and wooly internet where there were few gatekeepers, where disfavored groups could find each other and make common cause, where users who were threatened by the greed of the shareholders behind big services could install blockers, mods, alternative clients and other "adversarial interoperability" tools that seized the means of computation.

Today's enshitternet – "five giant websites, filled with screenshots of the other four" (h/t Tom Eastman) – is orders of magnitude more populous than that old, good internet. The enshitternet has billions of users, and they are legally – and technologically – prevented from taking any self-help measures when the owners of services change them to shift value from users to themselves:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

The anti-enshittification movement rightly criticizes the old, good internet because it wasn't inclusive enough. It was a system almost exclusively hospitable to affluent, privileged people – the people who least needed the liberatory power of technology.

Likewise pro-enshittification monopolists – billionaires and their useful idiots – deplore the old, good internet because it gave its users too much power. For them, ad-blocking, alternative clients, mods, reverse-engineering and so on were all bugs, not features. For them, the enshitternet is great because businesses can literally criminalize taking action to protect yourself from their predatory impulses:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/20/benevolent-dictators/#felony-contempt-of-business-model

Superficially, it seems like the pro- and anti-enshittification forces agree – they both agree that the old, good internet was a mistake. But the difference that matters here is that the pro-enshittification side wants everyone mired in the enshitternet forever, living with what Jay Freeman calls "Felony contempt of business-model." By contrast, the disenshittification side wants a new, good internet that gives every user – not just a handful of techies – the power to decide how the digital systems they work use, and to be able to alter or reconfigure them to suit their own needs.

The horsehoe theory only makes sense if you don't take into account the beliefs and goals of each side. Politics aren't just a matter of who you agree with on a given issue – the real issue is what you're trying to accomplish.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/26/horsehoe-crab/#substantive-disagreement

[reality-detective]

You thought Democrats were going to dump Biden for Gavin Newsom, but they're not. They're backing Nikki Haley instead.

Who is Nikki Haley? 👇

She is a Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum Young Global Leader. 🤔

[olderthannetfic]

No.

As always, you should be more cautious when making mainstream art (if you get to be a Hollywood director, for example) than when making niche stuff.

As for which fiction inspires people to do what, the evidence is pretty murky. I'm sure FINR's Dreamwidth will have some links somewhere that someone who is not me can find. Let's not waste our time on freaking out about Japan. There are some well-publicized problems, but it's also a favorite subject of melodramatic reporting in English.

--

Also...

When someone does cite sources, that doesn't automatically mean the sources say what they claim or that the sources are any good. I waded through the twitter thread you sent, and the first source cited is:

Sluzhevsky, Megan, "The Costs of Lolicon: Japan’s Pedophilia Trade" (2022). Senior Theses. 96.

This is an undergrad thesis, so basically worthless. Sorry, not sorry. (I wrote an undergrad thesis myself. It was also worthless.)

The abstract is:

This thesis investigates Japan’s normalization of pedophilia via the proliferation of popular culture and media. This analysis will begin by looking at historical examples of pedophilia, specifically focusing on chigo in Medieval Japanese Buddhism, wakashu in Edo Period pleasure quarters, and the spread of soft power diplomacy after World War II. This phenomenon will also be viewed in the modern context by discussing lolicon in Japanese media and advertising, idol culture in the Japanese music industry, the JK business, and “real” child pornography. The ways that Japan benefits from this culture economically and politically will also be investigated. Finally, this thesis will take into consideration the opinions of those who do not see these media forms as morally reprehensible, and consider the ways this phenomenon may or may not endanger children in real life.

Chigo?! Wakashu? Fucking really?!

It might be a good paper. You can read it if you really want to. But the abstract is not inspiring a lot of confidence. Wakashu, for example, were often young, but it's a social category that has no modern equivalent, and it's not strictly bound by age. To roll this role for young men into hand-wringing about modern lolicon, not even shotacon? What?

The second citation is by a law student. It's a 2011/2012 article. It doesn't seem like it was peer reviewed, but I'm not sure.

[mariacallous]

There are few circumstances under which inflation can be comforting. But in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the U.S. presidential election, one of them appears to be when it serves as an alibi for an electorate’s sharp turn toward meanness, selfishness, and a hard-edged type of identity-centered nationalism.

Many Americans have used inflation to explain away the country’s embrace of radical political change. Yet this ignores basic facts about the U.S. economy. Before the election, I wrote a column highlighting some of these remarkable statistics, noting that the country has recently far outpaced its G-7 peers in economic growth and brought unemployment down to nearly historic lows; that inflation, after briefly surpassing 9 percent in 2022, has plunged to 2.6 percent; and that gasoline prices, one of the most important pocketbook issues for Americans, are relatively low.

Even George F. Will, a dean of conservative columnists in Washington, indirectly laid bare the ridiculousness of this explanation. As he wrote this week, Trump “ran promising to increase living costs” due to the large tariffs he has vowed to impose on imports.

But to fully understand why the inflation explanation doesn’t add up, one must examine the broader nature of Trump’s program—specifically, its retrograde racial politics. After all, Trump was explicit about his policy priorities during the campaign, and the president-elect’s staffing moves and statements since Nov. 5 have reaffirmed his intentions.

Trump has quickly announced a prospective team of hard-liners to execute his priorities on the border and immigration. This includes Stephen Miller as his deputy chief of staff for policy; Tom Homan as his so-called border czar, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem as the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. By all indications, Trump will rely on this team to carry out a sweeping expulsion of millions of undocumented migrants.

Pulling off such a feat would disrupt the economy and everyday life on a scale with few comparisons in U.S. history. Trump’s zealous associates have pledged to carry out workplace raids and suggested deporting whole families to meet their goals. Given the small size of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, accomplishing deportations on this scale would probably require using the National Guard—including by dispatching units from Republican-led states to Democratic-governed ones, a move of dubious legality.

Trump has long devoted himself to laying the groundwork for this. Since his first presidential campaign, he has denounced Mexicans as “rapists,” alleged that countries such as Venezuela have emptied their prisons to inundate the United States with “criminals,” and amplified vile and baseless claims that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are preying on the community’s pets.

More overtones of white nationalism and nativism can be found in Trump’s infamous 2018 disparagement of what he called “shithole countries,” which in his definition are home to Black and brown people. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, a top Trump ally and now formal advisor to the president-elect, has called for women to have more babies—calls that conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, another prominent Trump backer, has echoed while also casting the issue in explicitly racial terms.

Hinting at a much broader anti-immigration agenda, Trump and his surrogates have also repeatedly inveighed against birthright citizenship, a provision of the U.S. Constitution. Trump’s efforts to call into question who “real” Americans are date back to 2011, when he started saying that he had “real doubts” about Barack Obama’s citizenship and demanded that the then-president produce his birth certificate. Couple this with Trump’s other comments suggesting a preference for immigrants from Nordic countries, and a sense of racial purpose running through many of his fondest projects begins to emerge.

This racial agenda also lurks in the Trump movement’s designs on remaking the country’s education system. In Florida and other states, Trump allies have launched a wholesale attack on books that are frank about the country’s history of slavery and its aftereffects as well as those that discuss gender and sexuality in anything but heteronormative ways.

Meanwhile, Trump couches his hostility toward diversity and inclusion initiatives in higher education as a way to protect the country’s white population from discrimination. In July, for instance, he said, “I will direct the Department of Justice to pursue federal civil rights cases against schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination. And schools that persist in explicit unlawful discrimination under the guise of equity will not only have their endowments taxed, but through budget reconciliation, I will advance a measure to have them fined up to the entire amount of their endowment. A portion of the seized funds will then be used as restitution for victims of these illegal and unjust policies—policies that hurt our country so badly.”

Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth as his secretary of defense appears to have been made in a similar spirit. Hegseth, a veteran Fox News host with no policy background, has made a name for himself attacking diversity efforts in the military, saying that Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be fired for his support of “woke” programs. Trump’s transition team is reportedly considering creating a “warrior board” of retired military officials that, some analysts fear, would be able to purge military officers who are not loyal to Trump. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Hegseth could be essential to carrying out that board’s recommendations.

All of this fits with a pattern of stoking culture wars based largely on white resentment in the interest of sustaining political support. As historian David W. Blight wrote in an astute New York Times column, “Trump exploited our social fissures to make them deeper, uglier, ever more bitter and therefore useful. We were reminded that culture wars are won by fueling them, not by seeking harmony. Unity coalitions and kindness and joy don’t win elections in a bitterly divided society where neighbors and family members are not on the same team.”

As perceptive as Blight’s assessment is, it misses the important global dimensions of Trump’s strategy and appeal. By pledging to abandon international climate agreements at a time of dangerous levels of warming (which even the head of Exxon Mobil says is a mistake), by opposing wind power and vowing to “drill baby, drill,” by threatening to impose unilateral tariffs on other countries as a core economic strategy, by pretending that the United States can prevail through tough guy optics and bluster, Trump is engaging in an elaborate fantasy that is both pedigreed and dangerous.

It is an approach to politics that is based on nostalgia for a time when, as the historian Greg Grandin has written, the world seemed for many Americans to be an open frontier—that period in the 19th and 20th centuries when it was permissible to pretend that “America” essentially meant “white,” and that with sufficient will, Washington could bend the rest of the globe to its whims.

There were elements of this ethos in past administrations—notably, in the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush—but even those leaders knew that going it alone and humiliating allies was not smart, and that appeals to racial identity carried political dangers. Trump, however, fully taps into chagrin over the loss of that unquestioned privilege.

What is more, Trump’s brand of voluntarism—his vision of a United States that can say no to whatever displeases it—arrives at a time of relative decline in Washington’s standing in the world compared with its principal rival, China, and even with a larger set of rising middle powers. The United States is about to learn that in order to succeed, it will need strong cooperation with others and more internal harmony of its own. Four years on the path that Trump is setting could be an expensive learning process for the entire nation.