
“Eurocentric modernist” thinking is exploding - gpvos
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/kanth-a-400-year-program-of-modernist-thinking-is-exploding
======
padobson
There's some interesting ideas here. The suggestion that the Enlightenment may
have erased several millenia of human wisdom is interesting - it's reminiscent
of coming across a piece of legacy code, erasing it, and starting over. After
you work out all the edge cases, your "clean" code starts to have a lot of the
same stuff as the code you erased.

I also found the criticisms of economics interesting. Other than micro-
economics laws like supply, demand, division of labor and others, I've never
read an economic theory that didn't have some hand-wavy aspect to it. The
suggestion that the entire field has served more to dehumanize us than add to
our general understanding of scarce resource distribution is a valid point to
raise. Though I felt like Adam Smith was the wrong person to place the blame
on, if blame need be placed. If they're suggesting that the field hasn't
advanced our understanding much past the basics, then why blame the person who
best crystalized the basics?

There's clearly some controversial stuff in here that's meant to be
controversial, but if you can look past that, there's some unique ideas.

~~~
naravara
>There's some interesting ideas here. The suggestion that the Enlightenment
may have erased several millenia of human wisdom is interesting

As a counterpoint, you could argue that the Church (and the general chaos
after the fall of Rome) did the erasure and the Enlightenment was the result
of rediscovering bits and pieces of it, both from historically Western sources
preserved by the Arabs and Byzantines as well as trade and contact with the
East.

A lot of liberal Christians view the Church as a sort of progressive force in
human life, shepherding humanity towards redemption from its inherently sinful
nature. If you set aside the questions of theology and just group people
together based on their valuing a world that is comprehensible, ordered, and
stable vs. one that is cryptic, fuzzy, and unpredictable you'd probably find
similar numbers of religious and secular thinkers on both sides. The Church is
a bureaucratic institution at the end of the day, and bureaucrats do love
their comprehensible, orderly systems. They're both trying to 'improve'
humanity, it's just a question of what they believe that 'improvement'
entails.

It shouldn't be surprising, as most of the Enlightenment thinkers were,
themselves, educated by clergy so of course the ones who excel will be the
ones who did well under that type of approach to the world.

------
liberte82
I think what we're experiencing in the world today is a major disillusionment
with neoliberal and capitalist solutions. We have a major cultural shift
coming as those ideologies are no longer able to help solve our problems.

Sort of by default, we're looking backward at "noble savage" type societies
for answers. I think we'll find that those societies didn't have the answers
either, but it's kind of a first place to look as we're trying to come up with
new answers and new models to live by in a modern world.

The problem with these more fascist ideologies that rely on "feelings" and our
inherent human tendencies, is that our inherent human tendencies are not the
natural wellsprings of wisdom that proponents of these ideologies believe them
to be. We are evolved creatures with many biases and flaws, and following our
biological instincts will not bring us back to some sort of natural harmony
with the world as some believe. We're not getting in touch with our true
selves when we listen to the prejudice in our hearts, we're just tuning into
and amplifying the fear that we're biologically adapted to feel in certain
situations of conceived elevated risk. It's not Capital T Truth.

The other major risk with what is happening is that as people become
disillusioned with their systems, those with more malevolent agendas who have
no problem with manipulating people are more easily able to exploit those
doubts and gain power. I've little doubt that this is what is occurring with
Trump and I only hope there is enough sanity left to see through his utter
corruption that his way is not the answer we're looking for either.

~~~
naravara
There's an old G.K. Chesterton (I think?) quote that goes something like "The
trouble with progressives is that when human nature works against their
progressive dogma, they prefer to keep the dogma and discard the humans."
(paraphrasing)

Even though my political views put me on the more progressive end of the
spectrum, I always come back to that quote (that I can't even seem to remember
anymore) as a way of checking myself. The purpose of social organization is to
foster and nurture human beings (and nature), after all, and if we keep
finding ourselves running up against that we probably haven't thought through
the problem deeply enough.

That lesson is as true for life as it is for writing good software it turns
out. . .

~~~
liberte82
Yeah. Human nature can't and shouldn't be ignored. It also shouldn't be
worshipped as some sort of source of universal truth, because it's not.

------
OliverJones
Well, OK. I have several "but" remarks.

1) the time period in question has experienced a vast decline in human-on-
human violence. Check out Steven Pinker's book
[http://www.worldcat.org/title/better-angels-of-our-nature-
wh...](http://www.worldcat.org/title/better-angels-of-our-nature-why-violence-
has-declined/oclc/707969125)

2) the emerging field of behavioral economics has given some nuance to the
idea that human life is nothing but meat chasing paper. For example, see
[http://www.worldcat.org/title/misbehaving-the-making-of-
beha...](http://www.worldcat.org/title/misbehaving-the-making-of-behavioral-
economics/oclc/912044926)

3) the author's ideas about how religion has affected the western "meat
chasing paper" weltanschauung are, well, weak. Max Weber's work on this still
towers over the usual "hierarchy sucks" argument. Hierarchy does suck. But it
doesn't affect our behavior in the ways we think it does.
[http://www.worldcat.org/title/the-protestant-ethic-and-
the-s...](http://www.worldcat.org/title/the-protestant-ethic-and-the-spirit-
of-capitalism/oclc/959733751)

------
whatshisface
_Abstract rights like liberty and equality turn out to be rather cold
comfort._

That's a funny thing to say when the 'explosion' (implosion?) of Western
values (in the he Western world) could best be characterized by the steady
retreat of liberty and the rapidly forming divide between rich and poor.

If you weren't on the rich side, I can honestly see how you would want to go
back to when everybody was modernist and things were great. You know, to make
things great again.

~~~
kabdib

        "Who's that then?"
        "I dunno. Must be a king."
        "Why?"
        "He hasn't got shit all over him."
    

Indeed. Pining for the days when most people were serfs seems misguided at
best.

~~~
jstewartmobile
When have most people not been serfs?

------
szemet
Similar propaganda was in my country: the capitalist/imperialist West is
falling apart.

Actualy they became rich, and the eastern block falled. 28 years later I still
earn one fifth as a western european.

(guess I should be as happy as a Bushman - until those filthy selfish
scientist materialist people send modern medicine to my people - and be
greatful to _God_! ;)

------
wfo
I hadn't seen the phrase "Eurocentric Modernism" before, but reading through
the article it seems to me it's just a more complicated way of saying
"neoliberalism".

But I wouldn't necessarily take e.g. Trump to be a harbinger of the neoliberal
apocalypse; things like TPP, the cruelty of denying people health care and
letting them die miserable because "well, that's just the way the market
crumbles", yes. An abusive, hateful, nasty demagogue in a position of power?
Not necessarily, you will see this as well in the pre-enlightenment 'noble
savage' civilizations Kanth idolizes. There are power structures there as
well, even if the society is a "compact" based on "nurturing" and "feelings",
and just like in neoliberal societies the nastiest people are the ones who
seek out power.

~~~
edblarney
\+ I think the author would put socialism square in his view of 'Eurocentric
Modernism' as well.

\+ Trump is the farthest thing from a neoliberal. He's a
nationalist/protectionist, anti free trade.

I reject a lot of the author's claims about Adam Smith and 'narrow self
interest'. Generally, people are concerned about their own well-being more
than others, that's just a fact, it doesn't make us greedy. Knowing this, we
can model human behaviour and markets etc. with some degree of rationality.

Adam Smith believed the #1 attribute of a CEO was 'benevolence' for gosh sakes
:).

So much hardcore capitalist stuff is attributed to Smith, when really he was
not. He was explaining how things work, not an ideologue.

~~~
jstewartmobile
The _Smith Rule_ : If you bring WoN into your argument, you probably never
read it.

Gatto, Chomsky, and perhaps Taleb are the only three talkers I've come across
who talk about Smith as though they actually read him.

------
fwn
> But what exactly is the force that seems to be pushing us towards
> Armageddon?

Inflating panic might be very trendy right now but it is a bad opener for an
intended(?) think piece.

The awful things he lists are: increased migration and an US president the
author doesn't seem to like. That is bearable I guess.

------
jstewartmobile
Jacques Ellul beat him to the punch by 50+ years with _The Technological
Society_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul)

------
DarkKomunalec
I'm confused - how did the European Enlightenment period advocate for a purely
market and economics based society, which seems like what he's railing
against? How are "rights like liberty and equality" opposed to what he's
advocating? None of this is really explained. And while I agree as a society
we've veered off course, our desire to build a base on Mars is about the last
thing I'd point out as a fault.

~~~
Pica_soO
Im Elon Musk, and im here to ask you a question: Is a machine not entitled to
the sweat of his brows?

No says the man in california. It should be redistributed as basic Income!

No says the man in washington. It belongs as a big pile into the bubble!

No say the wretched of the earth. It should be wherever i go to!

I rejected those answers. Instead i chose something diffrent. I choose the
impossible. I chose Mars.

~~~
cholantesh
So tell me, friend, who was it that sent you? The FSB wolf or the NSA jackal?
Here's the news: Mars isn't dead in space, ready for you to plunder, and Elon
Musk isn't a giddy socialite who can be slapped around by government muscle.
And with that, farewell, or dasvidaniya, whichever you prefer.

~~~
Pica_soO
Would you kindly relinquish this escapist stance?

What is it with nomads, that makes them travel? The hope to outrace the
problems? The discomfort, of the group- the biggest beast waiting at the camp
fires at the known horizon?

No plasmid can tame it, no weapon keep its holy instincts in checks and
balances, no social construct withstand what happens once the last mammoth has
been eaten.

A man choses to believe its instincts to be rational choices, a slave obeys. A
man choses..

------
afpx
As a person who strongly identifies with the post-enlightenment ideals of
individuality, liberty (original definition) and rights, and agrees with the
strategy of empiricism as a means to understand and bend the world, I can't
help but bite on this.

Perhaps I hung out with an abnormal crowd, but it seems that 90% of Kanth's
ideas (at least as described by this article) are what typical Freshmen
undergraduates consider as they begin to first reflect on their liberal
education. That is, these ideas are not new. And, that's not to disparage the
economist. Instead, it's meant to point at something perhaps more unstable
about Human society: that no one has the time or resources to read and
understand all thoughts (and criticisms) that came before them. We're a very
limited species. And, this unfortunately causes the 'history repeats itself'
loops.

I think Kanth's reaction is a normal one, though. Enlightenment doesn't 'feel
right' at first. It's something that must be learned, understood, and
accepted. And, unless one is raised within a family and culture that already
embraces it, it's not obvious. If it was obvious and easy, Humans would have
stumbled on it many thousands of years ago.

But, to throw it away just because it doesn't immediately make sense seems
foolish and maybe even arrogant. Rationalism is a tool, just like written
words. But, just because it may take years to learn to write, should we
abandon writing, as well?

People have hungered for the primitive life for hundreds of years. And, it's a
natural desire because our biology isn't completely adapted to this world.
And, as progress continues to accelerate, we feel strange within it. I'm
certainly unsettled by it sometimes, too. I sometimes feel like I'm being
pushed toward a dark horizon. (And, this feeling is so common that it's been
recorded in many, many works of literature, at least since the Greeks)

But, when I hunger for the primitive, I quickly remind myself of all that I
have that would not have been possible, otherwise. What if these 'western'
ideas had been abandoned 100 years ago or even 50 years ago? I certainly
wouldn't like to live in that world. I'm happy to have medicines to cure me,
be able to travel quickly across the globe, be able to talk to friends and
family at any time of day, to have limitless knowledge readily available, and
to even have fresh strawberries across the street (in the middle of winter)!

What I worry about the most is that these ideals are fading, people are
reacting rather than appreciating, and that the forces are strong enough to
put us into a dark age. I don't know exact numbers, but I'm guessing that only
10-15% of the world are keeping Human progress alive, and that it's slowly
being erased.

------
pixie_
While I don't agree with everything in this article, I have come to the
realization recently that our society has has a real lack of compassion almost
ingrained in it.

I can only really speak for America, but the pervasive feeling I get is almost
'every man for himself' or 'I've got mine jack'

Any sort of hand out is looked down on, getting anything for free is wrong.
These are ideas that are just ingrained in our society it seems for better or
worse

We spend a pitiful amount of money on basically every social service and it's
easy to get a feeling for how low we value them.

I'm sure everyone feels the health care system does not really care about
helping people. Insurance is tough to come by, people go broke paying medical
bills. Health care workers are poorly paid. Even R&D investing is super risky
and almost guaranteed not to pay off unless your investing in some new hair
loss treatment or erection pill.

Education, also a place we entrust to teach our young to be the best is
invested in the least. Being a teacher is not a successful or prestigious
position. The support you get from the administration and parents is almost
non-existent. Burn out rates are high. We value public education so low, we
just don't care that anyone is educated except ourselves and our own children.

We see taxes as wasteful. No one really sees them as helping the common good.
Or the more we pay the more we help our own society. We just see the potential
waste, or if a single dollar is not spent the right way then all taxes are
wrong.

This almost black and white thinking of right and wrong is the same attitude
we instill on our law enforcement and judicial system. The compassion there is
almost non-existent. Prison is not about rehabilitation it is about
punishment. We don't care about criminals and they deserve to basically live
in hell for their crimes.

Ok.. one more point. I've just had this feeling for a while and want to write
it all down... Homelessness... In LA there are tent cities in downtown. It
just follows the same line of reasoning as my previous points - as a society
we just don't care about the 'collective' everyone else as long as we are
good. Doing anything to help or comfort another human being that is not our
direct friend or relative is not in our best interest.

The lack of compassion we have turned into a virtue - it makes us stronger,
tougher, more resistant, but does it? At least that is the line of thinking. I
am so ingrained in this society that when I see any sort of hand out I
automatically think that is bad, that people should work for what they have,
and anything else for any other reason is just wrong...

It is such an asshole attitude that we are basically a country of assholes.
Some more that others of course. And it has now personified itself to the
point where we 'a group of assholes' have elected an asshole as president.
What is wrong with us?

~~~
liberte82
It's the natural result of the glorification of greed and selfishness. I
recommend checking out Chomsky's "Requiem for an American Dream" documentary,
it expands on some of the ideas you've touched on here.

------
rmk2
The review makes it sound as if nobody else pointed out the interwovenness of
"the" Enlightenment, capitalism and increasingly isolated, individualist
modern societies. Yet, while they might fall under the category of "Utopia"
which are supposedly not needed, these points have been investigated
extensively (and rather famously) by people like Adorno & Horkheimer in their
"Dialektik der Aufklärung" (Dialect of Enlightenment) and their individual
works, in various essays within Marcuse's "Kultur & Gesellschaft", in
Deleuze/Guattari's L'anti-Œdipe (Anti-Oedipus) as well as many similar
scholars that can be described perhaps most broadly as successors to the
"Left-Hegelians", among whom especially Feuerbach and Marx also stand out in
their respective appraisals of a capitalist, utilitarian society and the
heritage of christianity, respectively.

When it comes to "huddling", Heidegger's "Sein & Zeit" (Being & Time) at the
very latest emphasised the importance of being-in-the-world and being-with-
others, rendering being entirely social (and this is despite the fact that the
book remained, in essence, a fragment). Similarly, Wittgenstein's
"Philosophischen Untersuchungen" (Philosophical Investigations) also
highlights the shared nature of language games and the importance of society
when he ponders the overall possibility whether private language(s) can exist.
In doing so, both remain thoroughly wed to the modern world and do not harken
back to a "simple society" or some such.

However, this list seems to suggest a different bias by describing the Western
World chiefly as one designed by Smith & Hobbes, leaning on a relatively
narrowly defined notion of anglophone philosophy to define the status quo as a
direct consequence of the Enlightenment. It also betrays a fairly narrow focus
on the US, since, as one comment on the site itself rightfully asks, this
fails to account for developments such as the modern welfare state in various
places outside the US, which would have to be impossible for a strictly
isolated and/or egoistic society that forgot the importance of living
together. And while the review off-handendly discounts both capitalism and
communism, it fails to account for any of the real-world examples of societies
located somewhere between these two polar opposites, as these social contracts
seem to fulfil exactly the kind of "moral economy" that seems to be at play.
That said,because these countries, in turn, face their own turmoil and
challenges, this would seemingly get us back to where we started, except that
we would already have gotten rid of an overly simplistic dichotomy that seems
to have Smith and Lenin as their respective strawmen-come-cornerstone. In that
case, however, we're faced with an interesting conundrum: If neither
capitalism nor communism is the right answer, and if seemingly moderated in-
between states face similar challenges, what exactly does the book advocate
that is not yet another utopia that somehow safeguards the individual's
freedom while also including it in a network of social interaction,
responsibility and mutual assistance without being like any of the discounted
examples or extremes?

~~~
clydethefrog
Fantastic comment - thanks for summarizing the same thoughts I had reading
this review.

In the interesting times we are currently living in, it seems many Anglo-Saxon
political philosophers and other analytic academics are creating a theory
Continental philosophy already figured out during the second half of the 20th
century. (I see something similar with the current developments AI and
Heidegger - Dreyfus phenomenology, but that's a bit off topic since this
focuses on politics) Why? Is the difference in language the two schools use to
communicate ideas too big? Did so many dismiss the esoteric writing as
nonsense without even reading it, or worse, believe the Cultural Marxism
conspiracy theory? The result is now an identity crisis of people disaffected
by the machinations they used to defend. The actualization of ideas only
modern and post-modern critics used to lament. The things the Frankfurt
School[0], Foucault, Derrida and Lacan used to write about in ridiculed
corners of academia are now actually affecting these people and they have no
idea what is happening.

[0] For anyone wanting to know more, the New York Review of Books just
published in their latest edition a great article that summarizes their ideas.
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/23/frankfurt-
school-...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/23/frankfurt-school-
headquarters-neo-marxism/)

~~~
rmk2
There definitely seems to be a language barrier, even if they all are easily
available in translation. I think one of the more interesting distinctions
there is Marcuse, who I see separated sometimes into the "German" Marcuse
(including his early-ish exile writings) and the "American" Marcuse as part of
the New Left. Meanwhile, on the continent, traditionally, studying philosophy
meant knowing Greek, potentially Latin (since that came as part of a Humanist
education either way), German and French, which is why you see a lot of
reception flowing either way (Derrida reading Kafka etc., Adorno/Horkheimer
reading de Sade, everybody reading Marx & Engels). Some of the English
translations are also (still!) in a worse state, such as Bourdieu's core text
"Outline of a Theory of Practice" which in English exists mainly as the 1977
CUP translation, while there exists a much more recent (post-2000) revised and
extended translation based on a later version by Bourdieu, who made some quite
substantial changes.

This might very well be the slightly awkward clash between a generally
anglophone audience and their regular focus on the US and, to a lesser degree,
England, combined with the spectre of "evil" Marxism.

------
quonn
I'm sorry to say, but this reads in parts like a stoner philosophy. But
perhaps the article does not do the book justice.

------
mcguire
" _He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in
India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of
the discipline, the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany:
the whole thing was “cockeyed from start to finish.” To his amazement, his
best teachers agreed. “Then why are we studying economics?” demanded the
pupil. “To protect ourselves from the lies of economists,” replied the great
economist Joan Robinson._ "

Well, the first part is kinda true and the second is reasonable.

" _Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith’s homo
economicus, a narrowly self-interested agent trucking and bartering through
life._ "

"Narrowly self-interested agent" is a pretty good model. A problem is the
prescient, hyper-intelligent part.

" _For every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each
other._ "

Because prior to the Enlightenment, everything was rainbows, butterflies, and
puppies?

" _He notes that when we replace the vital ties of kinship and community with
abstract contractual relations [...] we become alienated and depressed in
spirit._ "

Or perhaps we realize that someone who isn't related to us might not be the
enemy.

" _Kanth points out that the Bushmen do not have a Mars rocket, but they do
have a two-and-a-half-day workweek — something that most modern humans can
only dream of._ "

Speaking as someone who would be dead in a hunter-gatherer society, I'm not
sure about that. Further:

" _Although Sahlins ' theory [...] has become a staple of popular anthropology
and among alternative medicine aficionados, it has been challenged by a number
of scholars in the field of anthropology and archaeology who have found that
most hunter-gatherer societies were not in fact "affluent" but suffered from
extremely high infant mortality, frequent disease, and perennial warfare. This
appears to be true not only of historical foraging cultures, but also
prehistoric and primeval ones._"[1][8][9][10]

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society)

[8] Keeley, Lawrence. War Before Civilization

[9]
[http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/aging_evolu...](http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/aging_evolution/hill_2007_hiwi_mortality.html)

[10] [https://condensedscience.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/life-
expec...](https://condensedscience.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/life-expectancy-
in-hunter-gatherers-and-other-groups/)

------
enord
I was almost intrigued, until i got to

>Women, he emphasizes, have retained the instinct to nurture because the human
child is especially vulnerable compared to the young of many animal species.
They have to create peaceful, nurturing conditions or the human race can’t
survive.

>“There is no other fount of social morality itself,” says Kanth. He faults
Eurocentric modernists for centering on male aggression and taking it to
represent everybody, which is unfair.

No, nope, sorry. Take your armchair anthropology to the Rudolf Steiner
Appreciation Society, but spare _me_. Maybe the piece picks up again after
this, but I could not read on.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
I'm sorry his viewpoint opposes your worldview, but there are both physical
and psychological differences between men and women across the
world([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology)).
Those differences don't stem from nothing: The act of giving birth and
nurturing a child for years means it's biologically very expensive for women
to breed. This leads to a sexual strategy that requires the mother to be much
more selective than men. You see it in the gender norms across the world,
where men tend to be more aggressive, assertive, and womanizing while women
tend to be less competitive, more nurturing, and more selective towards their
mates. You can recognize the general differences between the sexes and still
fight for equality.

~~~
enord
Thank you for your charitable interpretation of my knowledge about the
difference between men and women, you must be fun at parties.

Since you have already committed to disagreeing with me i'll make the
deductive leap that the article is comensurable with your worldview and assume
that you personally believe that morality can only come from the nurturing
mother (as stated in my quotation). From this i'll take the liberty to
conclude that your opinion on the matter is... freudean at best, and disregard
it completely. What a fruitful discussion we're having.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
I'm sorry, but look at your last post:

> No, nope, sorry... spare _me_... I could not read on.

You dismiss his entire argument simply because he has a different viewpoint.
That's too dismissive, in my opinion. People are very good at seeing things as
black-or-white and creating an us-vs-them mentality. From this post and the
post before it, it seems like you have that binary mentality against people
with different views on gender and sexuality. It's fine that your opinions
differ from mine and the author's, but please don't dismiss and belittle us
because of that. _Argue_ with us, use your logic, and teach us otherwise.
There are many people who will have deaf ears, but if you open yourself up,
you may teach some people stuff & you may gain a different perspective on
things yourself.

~~~
enord
I dismiss it because its not well founded and socially regressive.
"Eurocentric modernity" is basically the only context in history where women
are even considered as first order citizens and not just as caregivers and
housekeepers etc. This is because the female monopoly on birth has been
expressly ignored (at least to some extent) while fleshing out the details of
social morality and responsibility. This has been deliberate and difficult
(see: feminism) precisely because the temptation to refer to "the natural
order of things" is so great.

I consider myself open to other world-views (you may not, that's fine), but a
criticism of my world view (me being a modern european and all) that starts
the conversation in 18th century terms (from a european modernist perspective)
is a non-starter. There is to much ground to cover between then and now, and
if that ground is covered in the book, then that's certainly not reflected in
the article.

------
cnnsucks
_Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other
equivalent catastrophe, like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful
and seismic economic and political disruptions._

"many" "some" "like/or" "may" "soon"

That's about the safest prediction I've ever seen; whatever discontinuity the
future brings Kanth and his "many" are right!

And no, the Western world is not a failure because Trump got elected. Calm
yourself. A little push back on the Progressive Project (tm) isn't the end of
the world. The truth is that if you could find some way to tolerate not
overwhelming your precariat with foreigners you could have your way for the
foreseeable future, unchallenged. But what good is power if you can't inflict
"our values" on the plebs, right?

