What you wrote about the conceptualization of the sacredness of childhood in Victorian Britain, concurrent with child labour, made me think of your note about the covariance of the "trauma" and "resilience" ngram trends.
There are several studies that point to the lasting genetic effect that Genghis Khan has left behind him. I'd say that this was one master of the universe who had had the kind of fun you lean to.
Oh yeah Genghis enjoyed himself. Although I do find it funny that he never in his life went into a stone building, besides the great mosque in Bukhara. But he just knew he loved (tents) and what he didn't, and that was that
Isn't coercion, subversion, and flaunting the law and human decency, for some people, the point?
It makes me think of a phenomenon in open relationships. A person hashes out an agreement with their partner for what the relationship entails, what feels right to the people involved, and then that person goes ahead and cheats anyway. That person could have negotiated a relationship that fit them, but cheating itself is the point.
I've always seen an underlying masochism in capitalism. As you say, the people at the top could indulge in anything, and they don't. That's the point. And that often becomes sadism where they enjoy forcing the people beneath them into similar misery.
I'm sure you're right. I think with capitalism, the point is often that you don't need to think about the consequences. Billionaires hung out with Epstein because he did their dirty work--he coerced those women for them. The billionaires got to keep their hands clean. That's the point of capitalism: you don't go out and say "I will pay for you to enslave someone in order to harvest my coffee beans", instead someone else preemptively enslaves someone and sells you the coffee without telling you how it was made. Functionally, the terms of the transaction require slavery, but our system prevents the sin from getting onto you.
But it just seems kind of pathetic! Because with Epstein the illusion was SO thin. Like...when it comes to the billionaire class, they've transcended capitalism: they have enough power and wealth that they're able to wield power directly, without all these illusions. So why don't they? Like...to be that divorced from your own desires just seems quite frightening and empty.
I was reading a book on the history of the index (don't knock it till you try it) and it had this amazing book plate from the Protestant Reformation - essential a Catholic political cartoon from the time - that said something to the effect of, "Protestants will yell 'the gospel! The gospel!' while stabbing a Catholic with a knife." I can't remember the exact wording nor find it online (remember, this was in a book about indices), but I was like, "Oh! So not much has changed then." It was a laugh so you don't cry moment for me.
This is an incredibly important piece of writing. Thank you. I'm going to be sitting with this for a while
I really loved this essay.
What you wrote about the conceptualization of the sacredness of childhood in Victorian Britain, concurrent with child labour, made me think of your note about the covariance of the "trauma" and "resilience" ngram trends.
Very nice piece, thank you!
There are several studies that point to the lasting genetic effect that Genghis Khan has left behind him. I'd say that this was one master of the universe who had had the kind of fun you lean to.
Oh yeah Genghis enjoyed himself. Although I do find it funny that he never in his life went into a stone building, besides the great mosque in Bukhara. But he just knew he loved (tents) and what he didn't, and that was that
The Mongolians also drink tea with salt. I guess to each one their cuppa.
“With the Nazis, you understand what it was all for: there was no ideology, there was no grand vision, they just wanted to enjoy themselves.”
Is this serious? I'd say that the Nazis had a much more concrete grand vision than the Capitalists and Communists that you compare them to.
Yawn
Isn't coercion, subversion, and flaunting the law and human decency, for some people, the point?
It makes me think of a phenomenon in open relationships. A person hashes out an agreement with their partner for what the relationship entails, what feels right to the people involved, and then that person goes ahead and cheats anyway. That person could have negotiated a relationship that fit them, but cheating itself is the point.
I've always seen an underlying masochism in capitalism. As you say, the people at the top could indulge in anything, and they don't. That's the point. And that often becomes sadism where they enjoy forcing the people beneath them into similar misery.
I'm sure you're right. I think with capitalism, the point is often that you don't need to think about the consequences. Billionaires hung out with Epstein because he did their dirty work--he coerced those women for them. The billionaires got to keep their hands clean. That's the point of capitalism: you don't go out and say "I will pay for you to enslave someone in order to harvest my coffee beans", instead someone else preemptively enslaves someone and sells you the coffee without telling you how it was made. Functionally, the terms of the transaction require slavery, but our system prevents the sin from getting onto you.
But it just seems kind of pathetic! Because with Epstein the illusion was SO thin. Like...when it comes to the billionaire class, they've transcended capitalism: they have enough power and wealth that they're able to wield power directly, without all these illusions. So why don't they? Like...to be that divorced from your own desires just seems quite frightening and empty.
“At least the nazis had fun” hehe
Gosh I know, someday that quote is gonna get me in trouble
I was reading a book on the history of the index (don't knock it till you try it) and it had this amazing book plate from the Protestant Reformation - essential a Catholic political cartoon from the time - that said something to the effect of, "Protestants will yell 'the gospel! The gospel!' while stabbing a Catholic with a knife." I can't remember the exact wording nor find it online (remember, this was in a book about indices), but I was like, "Oh! So not much has changed then." It was a laugh so you don't cry moment for me.
What is the book about indexes???
Oh my goodness, I just realized I commented on the wrong post!! It's called Index, a history of:)
My mistake is a great opportunity to say hello - I've been loving your posts!