Author: tworuru

  • The Bitter-Pill Truth About Making Your Bed

    The Bitter-Pill Truth About Making Your Bed

    Steel yourselves. I don’t know how one steels themselves – perhaps it is by taking an enormous amount of iron, grabbing a few charcoal bricks, and climbing into a blast furnace – but do what you need to prepare. This one is a big deal.

    Throughout this newsletter, I have championed brevity, mainly in the works of others. This is ironic, because my own posts are often thousands of words long. And yet, I long still for the succinct. I crave it. I want a life-changing piece of advice to be one sentence. A life sentence, if you will.

    Shower thought: a life sentence could be as short as one day. Hmm. Isn’t that profound? Such profundity, in your inbox, for free. I’d subscribe to me.

    But I, as always, digress.

    Here’s the point: I followed one of those pieces of self-help advice that everyone advises and no-one (except me) follows.

    I made my bed, every single day, for one whole year.

    Really.

    And here are the staggering, jaw-dropping, doctors-hate-him results.

    I hope you’re ready for this.

    Every single day that I made my bed, my bed was made.

    Let that sink in. I, single-handedly, or double-handedly if I’m being honest, overcame the forces of Chaos and Entropy and forced my own Order on an uncaring universe. I am the carpenter God of my own tiny world. I am the Maker of Beds.

    I bet you want to know how I did it.

    Method

    Here is the Drummond Protocol for Bed-Making, as articulated on my four-hour daily science podcast, the B-Lab (podcast forthcoming, title TBC, sponsored by Mathletic Greens, the only supplement proven* to support your mathematical skill).

    Step 1: Be alive.

    Step 2: (Optional) Sleep in bed. You don’t actually need to sleep in a bed yourself. You can make someone else’s bed if you like. I suggest visiting a friend, or breaking in to a neighbour’s house. Surprise!

    Step 3: Make the bed.

    If you want to know more specifically how to make a bed, visualisation might be helpful. Perhaps you could do it as part of your daily meditation. Simply picture a bed, a made bed, as you might have seen in movies or catalogues advertising desirable goods and services. Then stop meditating and make the bed.

    You can also manifest a made bed. Start by feeling that the Universe loves you and wants the best for you. (It doesn’t.) Imagine your made bed. Envisage it in rich detail. The satisfyingly smooth covers, the perfectly fluffed pillows. A duvet shook free of dust mites and cat hair. Let the image play in your mind, and then feel the universe make it real. Ideally, as a time-saving measure, you can do all this manifesting at the exact same time you actually make your bed. Isn’t the Universe amazing?

    Results of daily bed-making (amazing)

    What else happened? What superpowers resulted? What other beneficial habits did I take up as a direct result of my sheet-tugging and duvet-smoothening? How did my finances improve? Did my deadlift go up? What about the positive effects on my marriage and general well-being?

    Steel yourself. No, wait, you already did that. Tungsten yourself. Prepare for jaw-dropping. I suggest either a cushion on the floor or a tiny crash helmet you wear on your chin.

    What happened was:

    Nothing.

    In short: I made my bed every day and nothing happened.

    That’s the article, but you can keep reading if you want.


    I hope you enjoyed that. I did. Blowing the sentence “I made my bed for a year and nothing happened” out to 500-ish bloviated words is an enjoyable creative writing exercise; a must-do for any budding self-help author. I suppose it’s unfair to say that nothing happened. I liked having a made bed every day, or rather, every night, when I climbed into it. It’s nice for things to be tidy. And there was the usual mild satisfaction of doing something I hadn’t previously done on any kind of regular basis. But there was no epiphany, no greater purpose, no flow-on effect that I could notice. (Unlike taking cold showers, of which I’m still a daily fan.) And, believe me, with the bed-making I was trying to notice an effect. I didn’t want to be doing something every day for a year for no reason. It was very motivated reasoning! To make sure it was a fairish test, albeit a test with a sample size of one, I made a point of not making the bed for several weeks after my year was up and didn’t notice the slightest difference. I wish I could say that this was the Atomic Habit that I built an entire network of other beneficial habits on but it just… wasn’t. It was fine, I suppose, but it also didn’t matter.

    It might be different for you. Maybe making your bed will set you up for life. Maybe it’ll drag you out of a funk. Maybe it will depress you. Maybe you’ll find a long-lost five dollar note in the sheets. I have no idea. You may as well try it; I definitely don’t think it’ll hurt. As far as risk calculus goes I think making your bed is up there with “going outside” and “drinking water;” it’s not advice that needs to be studded with caveats.

    But there is another story here: a case-study in how the news media launders and makes up the kind of bullshit that’s designed to sell self-help books.

    And, as it turns out, beds.

    Make (Up) Your Bed (Bullshit)

    There is no shortage of self-help stuff that tells you to make your bed. Many people’s minds probably turn to Jordan Peterson, whose book 12 Rules for Life I am, out of a sense of obligation to readers, reading. Aside: this book is hilarious. Here is a real excerpt.

    Chaos, by contrast, is where – or when – something unexpected happens. Chaos emerges, in trival form, when you tell a joke at a party with people you think you know and a silent and embarrassing chill falls over the gathering.

    I swear I didn’t make that up. The whole book is written that way and it’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. Wodehouse and Bryson have nothing on Peterson. Humour aside, Peterson is associated with bed-making, thanks to the chapter in 12 Rules for Life entitled “Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world.”

    We’ll make space for Peterson and this… interesting sentiment in another newsletter, but for now it’ll suffice that he’s sort of associated with making beds, or at least getting your room tidied up. Here’s a video of him expounding on bed-making, set to an inspiring free-music soundtrack, that I promise will not enlighten you at all:

    If you want to save yourself five minutes, the auto-generated transcript gives you all the flavour you’re going to need, as his entire talk on bed-making is essentially one enormous run-on sentence.

    …and so you want to clean up your room well okay how do you do that exactly well a room is a room is a place to sleep and so if you set your room up properly then you figure out how to sleep and when you should sleep and how you should sleep and then you figure out when you should wake up and then you figure out, well, what clothes you should wear because they have to be arranged properly in your dresser and then you have to have some place to put your clothes if you’re going to have some clothes…

    So let’s leave Peterson for a bit. He doesn’t really dwell on bed-making all that much; for him it is just part of the setting-your-house-in-perfect-order continuum. The main Make Your Bed guy is one Admiral William H. McRaven.

    Admiral McRaven is a real person, and is somehow not someone made up by Tom Clancy

    McRaven’s book on bed-making is called, as you might expect, “Make Your Bed.” It spawned a daily journal, also entitled “Make Your Bed,” and God knows how many knockoffs on Amazon and Kindle Unlimited, which are also mostly called “Make Your Bed.” I accidentally downloaded one called Make Your Bed: The Keys to Achieving Anything You Dream by John Dmitry Bordelon: do not make the same mistake. The McRaven original is exactly the the kind of self-help I always look for: distillable down from tens of thousands of words to a single sentence, which – blessedly – negates the need to buy the book. At least it’s shorter than most self-help, which is because it’s based on an even shorter commencement speech McRaven gave at the University of Texas that went viral. The rave music video based on the inspirational speech is shorter still.

    Lots of people did buy the book, though. Make Your Bed is, astonishingly, a number 1 New York Times bestseller. I’ll never not be amazed that the most simplistic, obvious self-help stuff is what sells best.

    I bought it too, of course, because it’s kind of my job.

    And it’s fine, I guess? McRaven seems to be one of the less objectionable officers in the spectrum of those who serve the American Imperium, and his book does exactly what it says on the tin. Sure, it’s problematic in the way much self-help is – it glorifies martial ways of living, as taught by men who make a virtue of acquiring PTSD by blowing up anyone who hampers US access to oil fields – but ultimately it’s really just a lengthy, mostly harmless paraphrase of a Bible verse, Luke 16:10: “If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities.” There is nothing particularly wrong with it, apart from the writing. Look, it’s self-help; if you’re after prose styling you’ll read Proust or something. But there is no excuse for this, apart from comedy:

    For the first few months, we slept on Army cots. Nevertheless, I would wake every morning, roll up my sleeping bag, place the pillow at the head of the cot, and get ready for the day. In December 2003, U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein. He was held in confinement during which time we kept him in a small room. He also slept on an army cot, but with the luxury of sheets and a blanket. Once a day I would visit Saddam to ensure my soldiers were properly caring for him. I noticed, with some sense of amusement, that Saddam did not make his bed. The covers were always crumpled at the foot of his cot and he rarely seemed inclined to straighten them.

    There you have it. Be like McRaven, who always made his bed. Don’t be like Saddam Hussein, who was a military dictator, invaded Kuwait, gassed Kurds, and didn’t make his bed. Perhaps there’s a greater moral that if you are ever in military prison, you should always make your bed to impress your supervising guard, before you are hanged.

    What the book doesn’t do is connect bed-making with any kind of evidence that it helps people. The benefits are, evidently, self-evident. This sent me on a search for something a bit more empirical.

    Much like bed-making itself, I didn’t find anything particularly helpful.

    There was plenty in the media about the benefits of bed-making. “People who spend a couple extra minutes smoothing the comforter back and rearranging pillows actually led more productive lives,” trumpets CNBC, under the clickbait headline “Completing this task first thing in the morning takes seconds—and it can make you more productive all day.”

    Fascinating! What’s the source of this life-changing empirical data?

    “…according to a new survey from Best Mattress Brand.”

    Ah.

    Now, let’s not be too cynical. Best Mattress Brand may not have the impact factor of the more prestigious sociology journals, but that doesn’t mean their methodology was unsound. Let’s have a look at their disclaimer.

    These data are intended to be used for entertainment only. These data rely on self-reporting, and no statistical testing has been performed on the findings.

    Okay, credit to you, Best Mattress Brand, for at least disclosing your methodology, but unfortunately it amounts to “our research is useless.” Or perhaps that’s unfair. I’m sure it’s useful for farming search-engine hits and milking affiliate links, which appear to be the reason Best Mattress Brand exists. What’s not useful is the way it’s muddied the bed-making discourse, with dozens of news sites citing Best Mattress Brand’s spurious research and results.

    What else is out there?

    Patient, a UK-based health advice site that sets itself apart with the claim that “all content is checked by health professionals,” cites a mixed bag of research. A tidy environment can improve or retain brain function – in the elderly. They also reference a study claiming that having a “tidy living space can increase your generosity.” Both these studies bode well for the elderly miser demographic, but the rest of us might be left wanting. Then they assert that “bed-makers have more sex.” Spicy! This seems like a tangible benefit. Let’s see what it links to.

    Oh God damn it.

    Thanks, Patient. Your source for “bed-makers have more sex” is a site called “Mattress Nerd.” It is, of course, another SEO and affiliate link farm, that occasionally does real-ish surveys as an excuse to sell stuff.

    “Best Mattresses for Sex.” I mean who hasn’t Googled that.

    The more I dug, the more garbage I found. An article at the Zanesville Times Recorder – a top Google result – linked to a 2012 article from Psychology Today, which you might think was credible. It’s not. “Make Your Bed, Change Your Life?” wonders the headline, before parading statistics from survey conducted by a website rejoicing in the name Hunch.com, which (inevitably) no longer exists. But wait, there’s always more. “Why Making Your Bed Every Day Isn’t Just Being OCD” says an organisation called Amerisleep, offending OCD sufferers everywhere. Its source, as far as I can tell, is a paper entitled “Save $450 On Any Mattress Plus Free Shipping.”

    I could have kept going forever. I’m not going to. The media endorsement of the benefits of bed-making rests almost entirely on anecdotal evidence from admirable admirals and “for entertainment purposes only”-tier reports from link farms. I’m sure I could pick through Google Scholar for actual papers that link the benefits of bed-making to self-reported energy levels or something, but I suspect that (if they exist) they amount to the same thing: your mileage may vary. If it works for you, great. If it doesn’t, it probably doesn’t matter.

    What to make of it all? Feel free to give bed-making a go, if you don’t do it already. Or, if you already make your bed regularly, you could try stopping! Chances are that neither will hurt, and who knows, it might be the world-changing, Saddam Hussein-beating life hack you’ve always wanted. But nothing I could find backed up the claim that making one’s bed is a necessary first step in becoming a virtuoso of virtue. Claiming a causal connection between bed-making and success seems a long bow drawn much too far. Start making your bed and you’ll still be you, muddling on in a confusing, complicated world – except at the end of the day, your bed will be made.

    *Lies.

  • He’s checking in

    He’s checking in

    Time for a low-pressure check-in newsletter. How are you doing? Good? Don’t worry, I’ll have found a way to make you feel bad by the end of this.

    Yeet Your Phone: The Yeetening

    In phone-yeeting news, I am done with Instagram, and probably social media in general for the foreseeable. It was prompted by the experience of writing my review for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Be Useful. I generally grab the Kindle editions of self-help books because highlighting and switching to the audiobook version is easy, and it means the damn things don’t clog up my bookcase. I’d twice picked up my phone to open the Kindle app because I had to search for quotes and chapter headings, and each time – without meaning to – I ended up on Instagram. The second time it happened, it was as I picked up the phone while saying out loud “OK, gotta focus,” and as I did so my thumb, entirely of its own volition, flicked over to the Instagram app and opened it.

    I deleted it a minute later. I’m sorry, friends who occasionally send or receive memes from me, but this is the sort of behaviour that in previous centuries would have resulted in an exorcism. A friend sent me a similar yarn:

    That was the moment I quit Facebook. I walked up to a traffic light and then I was on Facebook and I went “WTF was that.” Then I put it in my pocket. Said “I won’t do that again.” Crossed the street, walked about 4 m and I was on Facebook.

    Then I took a “2 week break” and never logged in again.

    If I can figure out a social media strategy that has a purpose – actually engaging people in things I make or care about, like this newsletter – I’ll look to get back on it. Until then, fuck it. I’m out. The more I think about it, the more most social media feels like a scam. Even on the Twitter alternative I’m occasionally active on, Bluesky, I find I don’t get any engagement unless I’m kvetching about some kind of shared bête noire, like the catastrophic state of New Zealand politics. On that note, remember how I begged Kiwi politicians to f̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶e̶d̶ permit the pseudoephedrine? It’s finally happening, in a striking case of the below:

    Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point
    Because All Content Deserves To Go Viral.

    The problem with much of social media is that anything that isn’t sufficiently strident doesn’t get picked up, and sometimes – like today – I just want to talk like I would amongst friends. I’ll readily admit that social media has its uses, like in activism, but selfishly I care about how useful social media is for me, my time, and my mental health, and on those measures it’s about as helpful as a daily lobotomy.

    a screenshot of a Facebook post that reads "oh god why, I have a twitter account now. whyyyy"
    This was a mistake, and so was Facebook

    Caveat. Yes, I think it’s important that people know and care about important things that go on locally or in the world, like the genocide in Palestine, but I also think there are good ways to protest such things that aren’t necessarily social-media based. Here is a really good example. Indeed, we might need to work out ways of spreading awareness for important things that deliberately circumvent social media: Meta – not content with merely twisting the many knives it carefully placed in the rapidly expiring body of news media – is actively shadow-banning users and hiding posts that talk about Palestine. It’s another vote in favour of email newsletters. They’re a slower, more deliberate form of content, my stuff goes out to people who actively asked for it, and there are fewer algorithmic filters in the way.

    I was planning to cold-turkey social media for a month for an upcoming edition of this newsletter anyway, but I’m doing it earlier than I’d planned to. Initial results in this experiment are good: instead of the traditional 3.5 hours of scrolling on Saturday, I cleaned most of the house. This has been a long-winded way of saying that, before I switched it off, Louise sent me a self-improvement-tangential funny she found on Instagram (screenshotted from Tumblr) and I thought you’d like it.

    A screenshot of a Tumblr post that reads "yesterdaysprint: Does the average man get enough sleep? What is enough sleep? What is the average man? What is "does"? The San Francisco Examiner, California, February 25, 1935 flaneuriste: Sometimes I think humankind hasn't changed at all. drcrowdpleaser: WHAT IS "DOES"

    I had to know if that snippet was real, so I took out and immediately cancelled a “free” trial subscription to the newspapers.com archive to find out. I’m very happy to report that it is indeed real – and that Robert Benchley, grandfather to the guy who wrote Jaws, was writing some kind of analogue to The Cynic’s Guide To Self-Improvement as far back as 1935.

    Too long for alt text: A screenshot of a newspaper article that begins "Does the average man get enough sleep? What is enough sleep? What is the average man? What is 'does'?"

    Benchley, it turns out, was very famous in his time. He was a writer and actor, with a fascinating, star-studded career. Here’s a telling extract from his lengthy Wikipedia page:

    MGM invited Benchley to write and perform in a short production inspired by a Mellon Institute study on sleep commissioned by the Simmons Mattress Company. The resulting movie, How to Sleep, was filmed in two days, and it featured Benchley as both the narrator and sleeper—the latter a role Benchley claimed was “not much of a strain, as [he] was in bed most of the time.” … The only group not pleased was the Mellon Institute, which did not approve of the studio mocking their study.

    That short film went on to win an Oscar. I’d like to hold out hope that my career trajectory might turn out similarly, but something tells me that not living in a small town in the middle of rural New Zealand might be a prerequisite for that kind of success. Which is probably for the best.

    Up Lifting Tunes

    Hey alright, it’s Kip Casper for Klon radio – L.A.’s infinite repeat! How we feeling out there? How’s your drive time commute? I need a saga. What’s the saga? It’s Songs for the Deaf. You can’t even hear it!

    For me, Songs for the Deaf is one of those albums. I can still remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I first heard No One Knows for the first time. When I say “exactly” I am not exaggerating. I was driving my mum’s Ford Telstar, a lumbering shitbox that could only be started if you parked it on a convenient hill or had someone handy to push (again: not exaggerating) and the song came on the radio when I was precisely here: 123 Discovery Drive, Helensvale, Gold Coast, Queensland.

    Screenshot 2024-03-18 at 8.36.44 AM.png

    This was a while back. A long while back. I am an enjoyer of those horrible memes in which someone points out how old something is now and then does a comparison to how old something else was when the original something appeared. Like this one, which got me real good:

    A screenshot of a Bluesky post that reads: "did you know that OK Computer is as old right now as Let It Be was when OK computer was released"

    Since I’m indulging my enjoyment of QOTSA, let’s do one for Songs for the Deaf. It came out in 2002.

    DID YOU KNOW that Songs for the Deaf is as old right now as the video game Pac-Man was when Songs for the Deaf was released.

    Pac-Man came out in 1980. Feel old yet? Good. Go to the gym and play this. As far as I can tell, the entire album is about how rad it is to take heroin, but it’s also pretty good to bench-press to.

    Making myself feel bad with album release dates made me think of doing the same to Robert Benchley’s sleep article in the San Francisco Examiner. It was written in 1935, which – I am unhappy to report – is closer in time to the first moon landings (34 years) than we are today (55 years and counting.) Oh, and the obscure Simpsons reference in the featured image at the top of the newsletter is from an episode that first aired in 1997, the same year as OK Computer’s release, so the Let It Be rule applies there too. That’s right: we are the same distance now from The Simpsons being culturally relevant as The Simpsons were from the height of the Beatles’ cultural relevance.

    I think that’s enough.

    Share & Enjoy

    I really like the comments and feedback people left on the previous newsletter. For some reason there’s now a great primer on libertarianism and a thought-provoking musing on systemic implications of the butterfly effect in the comment section, as well as this lovely sentiment from reader JP:

    I think that if I had read this article alone, versus the entire self-help genre I had in my teens and twenty I would have avoided my entire poor mental health experience. That is to say, you summed up in one single piece (and tbh a number of your pieces) exactly what’s been so damaging about the self help genre. It’s really brilliant. It was the best balm I could ever read to keep my head above water this week/month/year/life time. Thank you

    On that note, and conscious that I spent a bunch of this newsletter demotivating everyone with memetic reminders of the inevitability of age and loss, I’m keen to put together a playlist of songs people like to lift to, or that gets them going in the morning, or that are in some vague way motivational, ironically or otherwise. Please, sling some links in the comments.

    Current self-improvement reading: Four Thousand Weeks, Be More Pirate. Sadly, they are two different books.

    Currently working on: An article about how I made my bed for an entire year, which I’m sure everyone can’t wait to read.

  • Hey Arnold: a review of Be Useful by Arnold Schwarzenegger

    Hey Arnold: a review of Be Useful by Arnold Schwarzenegger

    There can’t be many people in the world more genuinely impressive than Arnold Schwarzenegger. His life trajectory is the stuff of (living) legend: born into obscurity and relative poverty in Austria, he became the world’s greatest bodybuilder, winning Mr Universe once and Mr Olympia seven times. Then he became a movie star, and then he became Governor of California. Now, in his old age, and with a lengthy Wikipedia entry‘s worth of success and controversy behind him, he’s completed the arc by becoming a self-help guy. His new book – with a title riff on both the venerable, awful Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and the new, awful 12 Rules for Life – is Be Useful: Seven Tools for Life.

    And it’s pretty good!

    Apparently, this article will take between 9 and 12 minutes to read. So here is a song of that approximate length to either enhance or detract from your reading experience.

    It is very easy to dunk on self-improvement books, and I will be dunking on this one, a bit. But the fact is it’s one of the better ones I’ve read, and I think there’s much more good in the book than bad. This is partly because consuming conditions were as close to ideal as it gets: I did most of my “reading” via audiobook, which I listened to while lifting weights at the gym. But it’s also just… pretty good. For one thing, it’s short. Like practically all self-help books, it could be shorter, but (especially on audiobook) you forgive Be Useful this flaw because it’s Arnie. He’s winning, charming, charismatic, and often very funny. Most self-help books indulge anecdote about anonymous Janes and Johns to the point of inducing serious pain, but here all the apocryphal stories are about Arnold Schwarzenegger, and they’re mostly true! He’s famous to the point that probably half the world’s population has built a parasocial relationship with him, and as such a lot of his book comes across as banter with an old friend. It also neatly avoids a lot of the most annoying stuff about plenty of self-improvement books. There’s no one weird trick, no fast path to success. That’s not to say the path Schwarzenegger lays out is any guarantee of success, but more about that later. For now, I think a pretty good précis of the book comes from the chapter headings:

    1. Have a clear vision.
    2. Never think small.
    3. Work your ass off.
    4. Sell, sell, sell.
    5. Shift gears.
    6. Shut your mouth, open your mind.
    7. Break your mirrors.

    Now, let’s get the dunks out of the way. It’s self-help, so there will be no shortage of received wisdom, canards, and false facts, right? Sadly, this is indeed the case. Here’s a point being made about how most things worth doing are worth doing mainly because they’re hard:

    Take something that most of us can relate to: becoming wealthy. It’s pretty remarkable when you realize that some of the least happy people you’ll ever meet are lottery winners and people with old family money. By some estimates, 70 percent of lottery winners go broke within five years.

    This simply isn’t true. As exhaustively detailed in Forbes, the “70 percent” statistic comes from a National Endowment on Financial Education symposium, where a single mention of one statistic got spread about by media. NEFE has since tried to debunk the fake statistic, to no success. “[It] is not backed by research from NEFE, nor can it be confirmed . . . frequent reporting — without validation from the NEFE — has allowed this ‘stat’ to survive online in perpetuity,” they say. The other main source of lottery winner unhappiness is a 1978 study that compared the happiness of lottery winners, a control group, and people who had been recently paralysed in accidents. Not the greatest source of comparative happiness, right? The study also had a very small sample size – less than 100 people were studied – which, as we’ve learned, is a red flag. More recent, reputable studies have looked specifically at the happiness levels of lottery winners, like this one from Germany, and found that lottery winners tend to be – and stay – absolutely stoked. This is congruent with other modern research about money; that having enough of it is extremely helpful to your well-being. It’s enough to consider the myth of the unhappy lottery winner completely debunked. (I do not know about the happiness statistics for generational wealth, and as I only have so much time, I will for now continue to be ignorant on this and many other matters.)

    A picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger from the cover of Arnold Schwarzenegger's book "Be Useful: Seven Tools for Life"
    As a way of both showing my age and wasting what time I have left, I Photoshopped Arnold Schwarzenegger’s head to be the same footballesque proportions as Arnold from the show Hey Arnold. This joke is not worth the time it took to make it, but at least I didn’t use AI.

    Why do I bring this up, especially at such length? After all, the passage is used to illustrate a point that’s almost axiomatic; many accomplishments feel better if you work hard for them. I suppose it’s a sticking point for me because – apart from the basic annoyance of seeing false information repeated endlessly – when a book gets something this basic wrong, it starts you wondering what else is mucked up.

    I don’t have to wait long before finding out. About a page later is this:

    Imagine if Sir Edmund Hillary had been dropped at the summit of Mount Everest by helicopter, instead of trekking to it over two months in the spring of 1953. Do you think the view from the top would have been as beautiful? Do you think he would have given a shit about that other, smaller mountain he saw in the distance when he was up there? Of course not!

    This one is even more of a nit-pick; of course the point of climbing Everest was the climb itself. I agree wholly with the sentiment. It’s the details that are wrong. First, the helicopter. I know full well it’s a metaphor but the fact is no-one managed to land a helicopter on the summit of Everest until 2005, 52 years after Hillary and Tenzing first climbed it. It was done by by French test pilot Didier Delsalle, and no one has ever managed to repeat the feat, because flying helicopters at the altitude of Everest is nuts. It’s mostly done for world record attempts, making – ironically – flying to the summit in a helicopter far more impressive than merely climbing there.

    The next problem is “Do you think he would have given a shit about that other, smaller mountain he saw in the distance when he was up there?” And here again I’m cursed by my knowledge of trivia I picked up from a childhood reading atlases and encyclopaedias: one of the very first things Hillary did on summiting Qomolangma was eye up other mountains, courtesy of the excellent view from Everest, and evaluate possible routes to their summits. Here’s the relevant passage from Hillary’s diary:

    I noticed that the Barun approaches to Makalu looked very difficult if not impossible – a 1,000ft rock cliff. Tenzing and I shook hands and he so far forgot himself as to embrace me. It was quite a moment!

    But even if I hadn’t known that fact from my weird childhood, I’d have learned it from reading a book called Be Useful, by Arnold Schwarzenegger. In Chapter 2, we discover:

    While [Hillary] was up there he saw another mountain in the Himalayan range that he hadn’t climbed yet, and he was already thinking about the route he would take to summit that peak next.

    Those goofs all occur within a few pages of each other. I’m not going to go through the whole book hunting for them, it’d take me a year, but I’m sure they’re there. If they’re anything like the ones I found, they don’t matter that much. It’s not like he’s telling readers to drink bleach; it’s just me being pedantic and easily annoyed by shoddy copy. This which is probably why I am a small-time newsletter writer and Arnold Schwarzenegger is Arnold Schwarzenegger. There are other issues, like things that I’m sure aren’t meant to be taken seriously, but probably will be. Here’s more Chapter 1, where Arnold – sensibly – recommends boxing up some time to work on things you actually care about instead of aimlessly scrolling on your phone or Netflix:

    I can already hear the question coming from a bunch of you: What about time for rest and relaxation? First of all, rest is for babies and relaxation is for retired people. Which one are you?

    Again, I get the point being made, in the form of a slogan that’s practically a joke. But if a reader doesn’t take it as a joke, they’re going to have a bad time. Arnold, who has probably spent more time working out than I have hours in my life, knows this better than I ever will, but it bears repeating: adequate rest is required for many aspects of life, particularly when it comes to the gym. This is why untrained people who suddenly start “working out everyday” without seriously considering what they mean by that almost invariably burn out, often within a week or two. Competitive bodybuilders certainly do go to the gym more often and for much longer than normal mortals, but there are a couple of important caveats; they’ve (literally) built up to it, and they’re training “splits,” where one takes care to work one muscle group while carefully avoiding others that have just been trained to near-exhaustion. And it’s especially annoying to read something like this in Arnold’s book because, just a page prior, he says:

    How many hours per day do you sleep? Let’s say it’s eight hours, because that’s what all the current science says is ideal for peak performance and longevity.

    And while this isn’t really right either, it’s correct enough for the average person, and it’s certainly true for me.

    The rest of Chapter 1 is about creating a bold and ambitious vision for your life.

    “Vision is the most important thing. Vision is purpose and meaning. To have a clear vision is to have a picture of what you want your life to look like and plan for how to get there. The people who feel most lost have neither of those.”

    Look. There’s a lot to unpack here. Suffice it to say that it falls into the classic self-help trap of assuming people have – or can take – much more control over their lives than is actually possible. “No one made them take that dead-end job,” it says on Page 4. Except sometimes someone did make them take the dead-end job! Sometimes it’s literal, and other times circumstances can be compelling to the point of compulsion. Self-help so often misses privilege; that circumstances are often dictated by quirks and flukes – of generation, of location, of gender, of so many other things, and all these are compounded by sheer luck, good or bad. You can have the most potential and greatest vision of anyone in the world and get killed by lightning, and that’s it for you. Likewise, the world’s hardest worker can get felled by, I dunno, long Covid. We can talk about positivity or the ability to choose your response to a given situation forever, but end of the day our choices often limited to the point of being illusory. You might call that cynical. I call it realistic.

    Page 4 continues: “No one made them stay up late every night playing videogames instead of getting eight hours of sleep.”

    Well, fuck. Okay. You got me there, Arnold. Clearly, there’s lots of life where you have no agency at all, but there are definitely some bits where you do. “Turn your TV off,” Arnold says. “Throw your machines out the window. Save your excuses for someone who cares. Get to work.” He’s right. Privilege cuts both ways; self-help often fails to recognise it as a concept, but it is correct to point out that those with privilege often fail to use it effectively, or at all.

    Chapter 2, Never Think Small, seems the logical extension of Have A Clear Vision. It’s inspiring stuff! He suggests taking your current vision and making it ridiculously big. I do this in the pages of my gym notebook, because I am giving this self-improvement thing a serious shake. If you’re reading this: I’m doing it for you.

    Because there’s a lot I’d like to achieve – I don’t have any trouble dreaming big – I break it into sections.

    • Writing vision: finish a book. -> Ridiculous vision: book becomes New York Times bestseller
    • Gym vision: Do a muscle-up -> Ridiculous vision: bench press 150 kilogrammes.
    • Newsletter vision: Post once a week, get 10k subscribers -> Ridiculous vision: get 1 million subscribers

    The cringe just about makes my guts turn inside out. As I write, I wonder what gym-goers will make of a pile of wobbling viscera sitting on the lateral pull-down machine. Partly it’s because it’s embarrassing to publicly write down a vision, ridiculous or not. (Oh no, Josh! What if someone reads this?) It’s also because it’s statistically very unlikely to occur. Not everyone can be a New York Times bestselling author for the same reason that not everyone can win the lottery: what’s more, if everyone who wanted to be one (or just wrote down “New York Times Bestselling Author” on a vision list) achieved their goal, the bestseller list would be meaningless.

    Reading Be Useful, feeling equally inspired, skeptical, and self-conscious, I’m reminded of an RNZ interview with author David Robson, entitled “Great people don’t always give the best advice.” In it, Robson talks about Masterclass, and the founding idea that “you have these stellar people – award-winning authors, actors, billionaire entrepreneurs giving their masterclass on how to achieve what they did. And it just sounds so sensible, doesn’t it? If you want to learn, you want to learn from the best.”

    But, he says, the model is fundamentally flawed. And it’s not because the people who give the classes are grifters – they usually aren’t. There’s something else going on.

    “I’m not saying it’s a problem with any individual who is giving these classes,” Robson says. “It’s more that the psychology of giving advice is much more complicated than we might assume, and one reason for that is the phenomenon known as survivorship bias.”

    Robson cites a well-known example: bomber aircraft that returned from combat in World War Two tended to have suffered damage mainly in the wings and tail. Air Force brass proposed armouring those areas, but mathematician Abraham Wald suggested taking the opposite approach: recognizing that the aircraft that didn’t return had been hit in vital areas like the engines, nose, and fuel tanks, he proposed adding armour to those areas instead.

    A diagram of a bomber aircraft riddled with bullets in the wings and tail, but not in the engines or cockpit, illustrating the concept of survivorship bias.
    A diagram illustrating survivorship bias. File: Wikimedia Commons.

    The people who are most successful, Robson is suggesting, are often doing the lifestyle equivalent of suggesting that you armour up your wings and tail. It’s not so much about the things that have happened to them, or that they’ve done; it’s things that haven’t happened.

    “There could be many, many other people – thousands of other people – for each one of those [successes] who applied exactly the same routines and strategies, who had exactly the same ambitions, but just didn’t achieve success,” Robson says. “But we can’t see those failures because they’re invisible. We need to look at the people who didn’t succeed as well as people who did succeed.”

    That, I think, is the best way of identifying a huge problem with self help as a genre, and Be Useful can’t escape its gravity. Arnold’s remarkable life is both his greatest asset and biggest liability as a self-help author. To his credit, he’s a lot more self-aware than some other self-help authors: he opens a chapter with the admission that he’d have got nowhere without a lot of help from others. “I have a rule. You can call me Schnitzel, you can call me Termie, you can call me Arnie, you can call me Schwarzie, but don’t ever call me a self-made man,” he charges. But even that doesn’t change the fact that he’s an extraordinarily hard worker who has had a lot of help and has also been very, very, very lucky. When you look back over your life and see huge success after huge success, it’s easy to imagine that others can emulate it – and it’s easy for readers to believe it too. As Robson explains, that not the case; it’s mathematically improbable to the point of being nearly impossible.

    But.

    Let’s look back at those ridiculous visions that made me – and possibly you – cringe so hard.

    It might be statistically unlikely to become a New York Times bestselling author, but it’s important to remember that all bestselling authors are subsets of another set: authors. People who manage an impressive bench-press are, almost invariably, people who bench-press. And newsletters with a million subscribers are a (very small) subset of people with 10 subscribers. (Or, in the case of the one you’re reading, 2000. But who’s counting.)

    It’s not so different from saying “a journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step” or, more blithely “Shoot for the moon and you’ll land among the stars.” (Because I’m me, I felt compelled to look up the source of this quote, and imagine my surprise to find it’s probably from Norman Vincent Peale, a Protestant preacher and author of the original toxic positivity bible The Power of Positive Thinking. Some amateur physics research also suggests that a failed moonshot might place you in a slowly decaying orbit around the sun, which means that your frozen corpse will land among a star, eventually. Stuff like this is why it takes me two weeks to write a book review.) Dubious quotations aside, it’s true that if you want to achieve something big, achieving something smaller is a necessary pre-requisite. Even if great success is not important to you, then you can just get stuck straight into the small stuff. “Do you have any idea how powerful an hour a day is? If you want to write a novel, sit down and write for an hour every day, and aim for just one page. At the end of the year, you will have a 365-page manuscript. That’s a book!” Arnold says accurately, making me feel very seen for the many times I’ve tried and failed to write a novelsworth of book at a rate of one page a day.

    Robson’s skeptical thesis seems to be in agreement. “There’s no easy way to just kind of absorb what another person’s done, you actually have to kind of forge your own path through that expertise,” he says.

    With all caveats out of the way, I have to recommend Be Useful. It certainly seems no worse than any other self-help books, and all those books suffer from the additional drawback of not having been written and (in the audiobook version) read by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The book is frequently very funny, much more so than you’d expect, which makes it all the more amusing. Go back and read all the quotes I’ve supplied in Arnold’s voice and get a mental preview. “In my experience, the fitness world, Hollywood, and politics are full of amazing people. They’re also full of douchebags, pricks, and assholes. Navigating the gross parts of these worlds was like trying to move inside a set of Russian nesting dolls full of shit and hair gel.” Now thats what I call a simile, and there’s more where it came from. Arnold begins the audiobook by explaining that he’s recording it in his home studio and apologising for any noises made by his pet donkey and pig. I had a hard time not cracking up in the gym.

    Jokes – and all the the problems of self-help as a genre – aside, the book also wins major points for me for being less about helping yourself and more about helping others. This is the ultimate point of this enjoyable, short book, and it’s a very good one: No matter who’s telling you to do it, Be Useful is good advice.

    💬
    Comments have been a bit quiet since this newsletter moved to Ghost, which is probably inevitable, but I enjoyed the long comment threads too much to let it go! It’s very easy to register an account and leave a comment, and I’m keeping comments free for as long as my readership remains free of libertarians. Go on, have a yarn.
  • The bad news for news

    The bad news for news

    Straight to the point: News media in this country is getting pulped and it’s an absolute goddamn catastrophe. It’s happening so fast, insanely fast, and I worry we’re not even beginning to grasp the sheer loss to society.

    Newshub will soon be gone, disposed of like so much trash by its megacorporate owners Warner Brothers Discovery, who seem to exist for the sole purpose of un-making media. At least Newshub isn’t being killed merely for tax reasons. Meanwhile, the Pantograph Punch is going on a hiatus that looks like it might be permanent, and TVNZ – which, contrary to popular opinion, has frequently been a net funder of Government rather than a recipient of Government funding – is facing enormous cuts, with flagship programs like Fair Go and Sunday set to get the axe.

    Naturally, David Seymour, the future Deputy Prime Minister and shareholding minister in TVNZ, is already dancing on journalism’s grave. It’s absurd. Very few politicians or political parties have manipulated or benefited from media the way David Seymour and ACT have; witness this telling tale from The Spinoff, wherein Seymour utterly ghosts the media that have helped him so much the moment he has no more use for them.

    There is some truth to Seymour’s allegation that political news media can be more concerned with scalps than with substance. One major problem with his take is that he’s been a huge net beneficiary of their optics-first focus, and that the “scalps” tend to belong to people quite unlike Seymour. Too often they’re young, brown women. Just because there’s accuracy to elements of his critique doesn’t mean it’s being offered in good faith; in fact it seems that as a shareholding minister of TVNZ his comments could be breaking the law. Good-faith media criticism has mostly come out of the (doomed) hope that media might be made better, and none of the recent developments will achieve that. Instead, the mainstream looks like it’s being supplanted by something much, much worse.

    News isn’t going to become less popular just because it’s not profitable. People are addicted to it, and there are plenty of pushers. The likes of The Platform and Reality Check Radio are poised to fill the gap left by ad-funded media’s demise; they’re amply bankrolled by dilettante millionaires, mystery money, and easily-fleeced cookers. They can, and will, scale quickly, especially after being lent legitimacy by politicians who prize the need to be seen over good sense. Think tanks and lobby groups like the Taxpayer’s Union, the New Zealand Initiative, and Hobson’s Pledge will happily occupy any niches left – they already partly function as news platforms, doing journalists’ jobs for them, and they have been building up their own audiences via email, podcasts, and the like for years. The loss of mainstream media stands to make the neoliberal grift-tanks and their political actors more powerful, not less.

    The great advantage of having a mainstream media was that it allowed audiences to have a shared reality, and I think this loss is incalculable. Sure, the MSM was monolithic, beholden to advertisers, and got a lot wrong. But even if it only pretended to be non-partisan, or frequently focused on ranking politicians by how good their PR was, it often unearthed truths that the powerful would rather keep hidden. I think, on balance, that it succeeded more than it failed. If that’s true, the people celebrating the mainstream’s demise are fundamentally misguided, no matter their brand of politics. Once you see what’s coming to replace the old MSM – and, in many important ways, already has – you’ll miss the devil you knew more than you ever thought possible.

    Of course, as bad as things are, media Aten’t Dead yet. Stuff and The Spinoff carry on gamely in the unforgiving commercial marketplace; the Herald keeps heralding (subsidised largely by its overtly right-wing propaganda arm, Newstalk ZB); Government-funded RNZ remains; and TVNZ will keep making news for the moment, albeit horribly diminished. I hope they all find a way to continue, and if you have the means to pay for news – especially news that is owned and operated by journalists – now is a good time to start. Ignoring for a moment the brands and the mastheads, it’s journalism that matters, and the relatively few full-time journalists left are harried, threatened, overworked, overwhelmed, and underpaid. I hope that, as a society, we can find a way to change that. Given the new Government’s myriad assaults on democracy, transparency, and our founding treaty, we need journalism now more than ever.

  • Two steps forward, one step back

    Two steps forward, one step back

    As many people do, I had high hopes for the start of the year. I was on top of the yard work, I’d just finished listening to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s audiobook, I had a painting just about finished, and I’d finally been managing to get to the gym regularly for more than one month running. I seemed to have finally achieved some degree of consistency, and the weights were going up.

    Then I got back from a much-anticipated holiday up north with family with a case of strep throat. A course of antibiotics cleared it up, but it left me lifting less than I had in pre-strep gym sessions and feeling like all the effort had been for nothing.

    A few weeks later, I felt like I was on top of the house work and the day job, I’d just finished an excellent book, I’d finally made it to the beach, and I was at last back at the gym with the weights almost back to where they were in the halcyon days of Before Strep and – of course – my son brought a gastro bug home, and gave it to his mum, who gave it to me.

    And then once I was over that I picked up some sort of cold virus and… look, you know how the story goes by now.

    I went back to the gym, expecting to feel defeated and downcast by the fact I wasn’t capable of lifting the weights I was immediately before getting sick, and – in a break with tradition – did not.

    Because I’m still well ahead of where I was when I started.

    Sure, it’s been a step back. But there have been a lot more steps forward. Not only can I still lift more than I could when I started, my form is a lot better than it was. When I’m lifting it feels much less like my spine is about to implode under the pressure of the loaded barbell, which is nice.

    The metaphor carries across to this newsletter, which quietly had its one year anniversary last month. It’s worth looking back on what I achieved over a year of attempting various self-improvement things, and to be honest, a lot of what I did was circle around a given topic while remaining carefully equidistant. That said: I achieved a lot! I got back in the gym and started lifting. I quit doing a bunch of stuff that was getting in the way of doing other stuff. I took a cold shower every day for more than a year and, surprisingly, liked it. I spent my 40th birthday looking at birds. I did more art – despite difficult circumstances – than I’d ever done before, and (painfully) learned how to do photorealistic paintings. Thrillingly, I even made my bed every day, just like the climate change denying transphobe told me to. (I haven’t written about it yet, so stay tuned for this tell-all episode.)

    Did I manage to write with the consistency I set out to achieve? Not even slightly. But the number of posts I did write was also much greater than zero. Perhaps obviously, there were no subscribers starting out; now there are – somehow, for some reason – over 2000 of you. That’s a lot of people! Online subscription metrics are a strange space that’s easy to get lost in; a YouTuber with under a million subs is often seen as just starting out. But 2000 real live people is a huge, ridiculous number. Think about it in terms of real people filling a physical space and the size becomes clear: it’s more than many convention centres can carry. It’s also intimidating. Knowing that I’ve got a couple thousand people counting along with how many pull-ups I can do is kind of freaky.

    (On writing that bit, I wondered: how many pull-ups can I do, in a row? So went to the gym and found out. The answer depends on what you think a good pull up is. I can do eight “strict” pull-ups in a row, where you start from a dead hang and try not to use any momentum to assist you. I can do a couple more if I add in a “kip” which is using your knees to give you a bit more momentum. Crossfitters get taught to do pull-ups with kipping, while other schools of fitness thought seem to think it’s cheating. Either way, it might not be much in the scheme of things, but I don’t care; ten pull-ups of variable quality is nine more than I could do when I started this thing.)

    Fitness and self-improvement stuff aside, I’ve managed to make time for and finish some of the Weird Things that you have, for whatever reason, signed up to know more about. To that end, I:

    A painting of a Bored Ape, surrounded by used art materials.
    I hated painting this Bored Ape, but I like the painting. Go figure.

    Most absurdly, I wrote and published a 10,000+ word Harry Potter fanfic called The Department of Biological Determinism. Given that most of my close friends reacted to this news with (actual quotes) “oh GOD” and “whyyyyy???” I am sure you have questions. They’re probably good ones, like “but why would you write a Harry Potter fanfic when, well, have you seen what the author of Harry Potter has been up to lately?” Unfortunately, this and many other questions are best answered by reading the fanfic. I’ll say this: if you ever liked Harry Potter, or counted yourself a fan of J K Rowling, and have since stopped doing either of these things… you might enjoy it.

    I mention all this because older I get the more I realise that indulging the harmless things that make you weird isn’t really optional, if you want to enjoy life. If that isn’t self-improvement, I don’t know what is.

    Lastly: in the interests of improving this newsletter over last year’s iteration, I’ve mapped out an entire year of posts, starting next week. There’s a bunch of catastrophically bad books I can’t wait to review, a thousand new bizarre self-improvement trends I can turn myself into a guinea pig for, and so much more that I want to write about. So thanks for sticking with me so far. It’s been fun, and if you’ve enjoyed it, I hope you’ll hang around for Season Two of The Cynic’s Guide to Self-Improvement.

    💡
    If you’re keen to join in on this belated year-in-review thing, feel free to let me know what you self-improved on over the last 12 months or so in the comments! And if you’re keen to support whatever this is, a paid subscription is nice (yet entirely unnecessary, as everything I do for this newsletter goes out for free.)
  • Say the quiet part loud, for once

    Say the quiet part loud, for once

    This one is for the journalists who subscribe to The Bad Newsletter.

    There are quite a few of you, which is gratifying! I think it speaks well of the profession – or what’s left of it – that a publication that frequently criticises both media institutions and specific journalists is still subscribed to by those same institutions and people. So today’s newsletter is a helping hand, and a shout-out, disguised as the usual furious missive. Put it this way, journos: I know you read this, and I want to know why you’re not asking a very specific question:

    Mr Luxon, do you want full employment in New Zealand?

    There is a vicious, obvious contradiction at the heart of our economy, indulged by both Labour and National-led governments. It’s been written about many times, by myself and many others, and yet we seldom see it on the news when politicians are interviewed. The contradiction is that we have a government that denigrates the unemployed – while, simultaneously, we have an economic system that deliberately creates unemployment.

    Here are some words I am getting tired of typing: This is not a conspiracy theory. It is mainstream economic and fiscal orthodoxy. You can read about it on the Reserve Bank’s website.

    By influencing the cost of borrowing, we can influence the economy. We call our work to influence interest rates and the amount of money in the economy ‘monetary policy’. 

    The fact that the Reserve Bank hikes interest rates in order to increase unemployment often comes as a surprise to people who don’t closely follow economics or politics. Many assume that the goal is to have full employment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Reserve Bank has essentially just one tool at its disposal: hiking the Official Cash Rate, in the hope that businesses will eventually suffer so much from the resulting interest rate rise that they will sack their employees. Unemployment, and the resulting misery it causes in a society where it is unacceptable to not have a job, is intentional.

    The economic dogma that rationalises this cruelty, very loosely paraphrased, is this: when everyone has a job, businesses hike prices to make more money. Everything gets more expensive. This is called inflation. Inflation is bad. (Mostly because it makes the rich – who hoard money – less rich, but also because it makes the cost of living higher). Therefore, wage increases are bad, because they cause inflation, and therefore, wages should be suppressed, and the best way to suppress wages is to make sure that people are frightened of losing their jobs so they won’t ask for more, and the best way to keep people frightened of losing their jobs is to make sure that there is a permanent pool of desperate miserable unemployed people who’ll take any job for low wages, and the best way to make sure that unemployment is miserable is by deploying deliberate, systemic cruelty.

    Ignoring the many ethical and logical holes in that argument – don’t blame me, blame neoliberal economists who managed to get their cancerous pseudoscience accepted by the world’s governing and financial institutions because it suits the wealthy and powerful – it is still more or less an accurate snapshot of the situation we find ourselves in. Beneficiaries are demonised by government, at the exact same time that financial institutions created by government try to increase unemployment.

    So here’s where we find ourselves. The Prime Minister lambasts unemployed “bottom feeders” and calls for “tough love” while glorying “the dignity of work.” Here are his words:

    There are 70,000 more people on a Jobseeker unemployment benefit today than there were in 2017. That’s like adding every man, woman and child in Napier onto the Jobseeker benefit in just six years

    Simultaneously, that same government removes the Reserve Banks’ mandate to manage inflation whilst maintaining “maximum sustainable employment,” saying – in Finance Minister and New Zealand Initiative alumni Nicola Willis’ exact words:

    “Risking higher inflation in the pursuit of unsustainably high employment, just creates the conditions for a more severe hike in interest rates later on to bring inflation back under control.”

    The increased numbers of unemployed people that Luxon is complaining about is because of monetary policy supported and enacted by his government. He’s attacking the previous Labour Government for creating more unemployed people, when his own policies intentionally do the same thing. It is impossible for Luxon not to know this. What’s more, if sanctions and job seminars worked, it would be a disaster, by neoliberal reckoning – that might create full employment, which as we’ve already discussed, isn’t allowed. And as they do not and cannot work, the only remaining reason for things like sanctions is to create ever more grinding poverty. As is so often the case, the cruelty is the point.

    Governments can’t have it both ways; if unemployment is created intentionally by government policy (and it is) then it’s cruel to demonise beneficiaries. It would only be even slightly ethically acceptable to be mean to beneficiaries if the aim of government was for everyone to have jobs (and it’s not). This is a contradiction. Contradictions create conflict. Conflict, when broadcasted, is spectacle. Conflict and spectacle create emotion, which creates audience interest, which generates clicks. Journalists are being offered a massive ratings win, and yet they’re not taking it. It’s baffling!

    Crazy Pills Will Ferrell GIF - Crazy Pills Will Ferrell Zoolander GIFs

    So, journos, here are some questions you can ask about the ridiculous heart of darkness that lies at the rotten core of our economy:

    Mr Luxon, do you support full employment?

    When he blusters but eventually admits he doesn’t, because supporting full employment would call the economist hellhounds down upon on his shiny head:

    Why not? Your own speeches talk about the dignity of employment. Shouldn’t everyone who needs a job be able to get one?

    More bluster, blah maximum sustainable employment blah, inflation blah:

    But your government removed the requirement for the Reserve Bank to consider the employment rate. You’re creating the unemployment you’re complaining about. If the jobs aren’t there, why should people be punished for failing to get them?

    Bluster bluster, bitter pills, tough love, sanctions, I used to run an airline:

    But it’s not even working, is it? The Reserve Bank has hiked interest rates multiple times and the employment rate is still high. And the unemployment rate remains near historic lows. It’s barely budged. And yet the cost of living keeps getting higher. Shouldn’t we be finding a better way to manage inflation than making huge numbers of people miserable?

    Er um, KPIs, key results, going forward, ambitious for NZ, greatest country in the world, beaches, barbecues, delivering on deliverables, airline:

    So why should unemployed people be sanctioned for failing to get jobs that simply don’t exist, because of your own policies?

    Airline! I used to run a, did you know, did you know? Airline airline airline

    So I ask you, Mr Luxon: if you increase the unemployment rate on purpose, what jobs are these beneficiaries you speak of so dismissively meant to get?

    There you go, journalists! An easy bit of conflict all wrapped up in a neat little package. It should rate through the roof. Here’s a chance to prove you’re more than optics-addled defenders of the status quo, more likely to opine on the oratorial vibes of a politician’s speech than the effectiveness of the policies the speech advocated for. Because the purpose of a system is what the system does, and it sure does look like the purpose of the economic system advanced by our current government is to keep five percent of people poor and desperate and miserable, all in the name of a cruel, flawed neoliberal theory about controlling inflation.

    I want to give the last words to new Green MP Efeso Collins, who died suddenly today. He was just 49. I hope that the message he gave in his maiden speech will live on, because it’s true.

    I want to say to this House with complete surety that the neoliberal experiment of the 1980s has failed. The economics of creating unemployment to manage inflation is farcical when domestic inflation in New Zealand has been driven by big corporates making excessive profits. It’s time to draw a line in the sand, and alongside my colleagues here in Te Pāti Kākāriki, we’ve come as the pallbearers of neoliberalism, to bury these shallow, insufferable ideas once and for all. And this, sir, is our act of love.

    💡
    I’ve turned comments on for paid subscribers only, mainly because a fossil fuel lawyer and ACT party candidate took it upon himself to start making comments along the lines of “well I am wholly ignorant of the Atlas Network so clearly they mean nothing,” which is very funny, yet very tiresome. If people like this want to continue commenting, they’re welcome to do so, but – as decreed by great Free Market and his holy Invisible Hand – they’ll now have to pay me before I delete them. (Comments from paid subscribers people who don’t go out of their way to work for the worst industries on earth will continue to be very welcome, as paid subscriptions really help support the work I do.)
  • “Towering bonfire of human misery” not yet large enough, say economists

    “Towering bonfire of human misery” not yet large enough, say economists

    Sunday, 18 February, 2024 – The nation’s economists have come together in one of their frequent displays of unity, calling on ordinary workers to sacrifice their jobs to fight inflation.

    “To beat inflation, we require some people to lose their jobs. That’s a comms challenge right there,” said Sharon Zhuul-Nâr, economist for a bank that is a three-time winner of the “Most Rapacious” industry award. “We need to communicate just how selfish people with jobs are, and how they should lose them for the Greater Good.”

    “It’s going to be pretty tough to curb the inflation rate without generating some hardship,” enthused economist Erich Clampdown.

    “You’ve got to cause some pain. You’ve got to create some unemployment,” cheered Mark Blister, head of private wealth at Shûb-Nigurrath Investment Partners. “More paaaaain,” he added, which turned into a chant among the assembled delegates.

    The economists were interviewed at their annual gathering, the F̶̖̫̀͜í̸̥̝ǹ̸̟̈́̕͜͜a̷̖̤̼͑͝n̸͈̈́c̸̝̣̰͗͌i̸͇͕͓͑ă̷̝ļ̸̭̊̐ ̷͖̀̕S̸̞̬͂e̴͓̗̙̐̈́̚ŕ̷̞̚v̴̤͎̋̀į̶̏͒c̴̤̘̃̀͗ë̴͓́̍̊s̴̭̥̠̋ ̸̛̳̝̓̿͜C̴͔̬͕̉̋̎ơ̸̙̟̌ǘ̴̋͜ͅñ̵̲̀̾c̷̹̲͠͠i̷̢̛̦̪l̵̞̠͊̓̋ ̶̢͇̈́Ç̶̭̿̓̔o̸̟̬̣͐n̸̰̺̂f̷͚͂͠e̴̱͎͈̔r̸̻̗͇͋e̴̡̍ņ̵͔̜̑͒̅c̸͙͓͕̽ȩ̵͍́ , where festivities traditionally conclude with a call to build the largest possible “Towering Bonfire of Human Misery.”

    The economists said they were thrilled with the government’s progress on the Towering Bonfire to date, but they said the Reserve Bank could be doing much more to create misery, and they scolded the public for their selfish desire to be able to afford homes and buy food.

    Asked if there was a contradiction implied by the Government’s plan to make unemployment benefits harder to access at the exact same time it was trying to increase unemployment, the economists said “of course not, that’s the point.”

    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who spoke to the confabulation of economists, agrees.

    “I won’t apologise for tough love. All Kiwis, of course, have a right to support when times are tough. But with that right also comes responsibility. The responsibility to look for a job,” he said, “which you won’t be able to find, because we have simultaneously decided we will no longer risk higher inflation in the pursuit of unsustainably high employment. So what I’m saying is, not only do we want you to lose your job, but we want to make sure that you’re truly extra-miserable having done so.”

    Perhaps feeling he had been too succinct, the Prime Minister quickly added “Going forward, key deliverables, KPIs, airline.”

    This was cheered by the assembled economists, who chanted “Back On Track” and “The Dismal Science Demands Misery.”

    A growing mob of people who variously described themselves as “normal” and “not into finding sociopathic excuses for cruelty and elite greed,” were assembling outside. Some held gardening implements, and others were on their smartphones, thoughtfully scrolling the results for Google searches like “guillotine materials Bunnings.” Asked for an opinion by this reporter, a spokesperson for the mob said that they didn’t see the need for the Towering Bonfire at all, and that perhaps if the economists did see such a need, they could volunteer to be first atop it.

    The economists declined this suggestion. “Economists need their jobs, because where would the economy be without economists?” said Clampdown. “Why, without economists, there might not be a Towering Bonfire of Human Misery at all.”

    “We accept that economics doesn’t always make mathematical or logical or even common sense,” agreed Zhuul-Nâr, “but the Towering Bonfire awaits, and people must be sacrifices.”

    This reporter asked her if she’d actually meant to say “people must make sacrifices.”

    “No,” Zhuul-Nâr said.

  • Gangs kill 20 people in just one week

    Gangs kill 20 people in just one week

    Sunday, 11 February – Police reported that 20 New Zealanders had lost their lives to gangs in the last week, in a tragedy that’s now all too familiar to exhausted New Zealanders.

    “In the last week alone, 5555 people were harmed by gangs. 222 were hospitalised with gang-related injuries, and an average of 3 people a day were murdered by gangs,” said New Zealand Police spokesperson, Eustace Pidemio-Logist. Most of the victims were over 50, he said. “This brutality is ripping apart families. It’s robbing children of mothers, fathers, grandparents. It has to stop.”

    Police complained that despite the solution to gangs being relatively straightforward, they were being denied the ability to take action.

    However, politicians have refused to help, all but ignoring the violence that has killed 3788 New Zealanders since the gang warfare began in earnest. An early crackdown on gangs was credited with saving tens of thousands of lives, but political effort to stem the carnage has all but vanished in recent years.

    “The fact is, gangs kill people, going forward,” said Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. “At the end of the day this great company – sorry, I mean country – has to learn to live with gangs. That’s our one key metric. NZ Inc is at capacity, but we have to cut to grow.”

    When challenged that it seemed to be less about living with gangs than dying with gangs, given the appalling, ongoing death-toll, the Prime Minister made word-sounds with his mouth.

    “Let’s circle back and reach out to check in on learnings. I used to run an airline,” the Prime Minister said, while walking rapidly backwards.

    Gang skeptics have also weighed in, opining that no-one is ever actually killed by gangs, and that gangs don’t really exist.

    “Everyone is saying that people died of gangs, or died with gangs, or something,” warbled a woman wearing a sarong, Crocs, and blonde dreadlocks, during a video she filmed while driving in heavy traffic. “But everyone knows it’s really Bill Gates that killed them.”

    The video went on to suggest that gang violence was actually a conspiracy created by criminologists, in order to profit from “those sweet, sweet research dollars. Literal tens of research dollars. I’ve had enough of all these experts, with all their several dollars.” The video ended abruptly with the phone seemingly dropped, accompanied by a loud crunching sound. It had over eleven million views on TikTok.

    In contrast, actual gang experts say the ongoing death toll from gangs is unacceptable. What is needed, the say, is for politicians to commit to effective security.

    “Mass gang activity is quite easy to prevent,” said criminologist Susie Smart. “The main thing that needs to be done is install air purifiers in buildings that regularly host large numbers of people, like schools and hospitals. Gang members are typically too large to fit through a HEPA filter.”

    Leaders needed to be willing to take action to prevent gang violence, the criminologist said, but it appeared that politicians preferred to ignore gangs altogether.

    Individuals could not do much to avoid gang warfare, she added.

    “Just make sure your anti-gang patches are up to date, wear a mask anywhere there are large numbers of people – and pray, if you’re so inclined.”

    Ms Smart thanked this journalist for their efforts to rename “Covid-19” to “gangs.”

    “If actual gangs were really killing 20 people a week and disabling tens of thousands every year, something might get done,” she said, with a brave smile. “Gangs kill far fewer Kiwis than Covid, by oh, about an order of magnitude. But for some reason, that doesn’t seem to matter.”

  • ACT leader David Seymour lies about his ties to the Atlas Network

    ACT leader David Seymour lies about his ties to the Atlas Network

    To say “politicians lie” is like saying “fish swim.” It’s such an obvious truism that it’s become a cliche – and yet, the sheer audacity of some political lies can still be breathtaking.

    Such is the scope of David Seymour’s denial of his connection to the Atlas Network.

    To recap, quickly: The Atlas Network is a “think tank that creates think tanks“; a global network of more than 500 right-wing think tanks and lobby groups. New Zealand members of Atlas include the Taxpayers’ Union and the New Zealand Initiative (formed from a merger of two think tanks, one of which was the infamous Business Roundtable.)

    Seymour’s extraordinary denial came during a recording of Mata with Mihingarangi Forbes on RNZ, recorded and released on Waitangi Day, February 6 2024. The relevant parts of the transcript are excerpted below.

    Forbes: And those indigenous Australians are now warning Māori that the same groups are behind this referendum. Are they, do you think?
    Seymour: Well, if you’re about to go into the new Pizzagate of the left conspiracy theory, then I’ll be real disappointed.
    Forbes: What’s that, the Pizzagate?
    Seymour: That’s some crazy conspiracy theory that Trump has had in the US.
    Forbes: The campaign in Australia had links to the Atlas network.
    Seymour: Oh, here we go.
    Forbes: A network of think tanks, which promote individual liberty and free enterprise. And it said that the network pushes opinion pieces in favour of free speech. Do the ACT Party have any links or connections to the Atlas group?
    Seymour, very quietly: No.

    That is a lie. David Seymour and the ACT Party have numerous links to the Atlas Network. Here are some of them.

    After a 10 month stint as an electrical engineer – his sole non-political, non-think tank job – David Seymour worked for a Canadian think tank called the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, from 2007 to 2011. From January 2013 to February 2014, he worked for The Manning Foundation (now called the Canada Strong and Free Network). Both these think tanks were members of the Atlas Network at the time. (They possibly still are: the Atlas Network no longer discloses member organisations on its website.) Just in case there’s any doubt, here is David Seymour in the Atlas Year in Review, 2008. He is pictured composing a song about school choice to celebrate Milton Friedman Legacy Day, which is one of those sentences you never expect to find yourself writing.

    ACT Party Leader David Seymour is pictured at Atlas Network events, in the publication Atlas Year-in-Review, 2008
    Image credit: Atlas Network 2008, resurfaced by Michael Bain on Bluesky.

    There are other overt ACT links to Atlas. According to his LinkedIn profile, Louis Houlbrooke is currently “working at Parliament in support of ACT’s vision of an open and benevolent society in which individual New Zealanders are free to achieve their full potential.” Before this, he worked as Campaigns Manager for the Taxpayers’ Union, an Atlas Network member, for four years, eight months. During this time, Houlbrooke attended multiple Atlas Network events, as documented by the Atlas Network.

    A screenshot of a photo from the Atlas Network website. Louis Houlbrooke is pictured in the back row, fifth from the right. CORRECTION: An earlier version of this screenshot identified the wrong person as Louis Houlbrooke.

    Hilariously, the most comprehensive debunking of David Seymour’s 2024 Waitangi Day lie about the ACT Party’s connection to the Atlas Network comes from David Seymour’s 2021 Waitangi Day “State of the Nation” speech. Helpfully, you can read Seymour’s reference to “my old friends at the Atlas Network” at the ACT Party’s website, and on a video hosted on the ACT party’s Facebook page.

    A screenshot from the ACT Party's website. The text reads: Then the Global Index of Economic Mentality was released in November by my old friends at the Atlas Network. Atlas is an umbrella organisation for free-market think tanks all over the world. It is based in Washington, DC, and chaired by a New Zealander, Debbi Gibbs.
    Image credit: @char_kiwi on Twitter/X

    It’s worth noting that Debbi Gibbs, the Atlas Network chair that Seymour references, is the daughter of Alan Gibbs, who was a long-time member of Atlas Network member organisation, the Business Roundtable (now the New Zealand Initiative). Alan Gibbs is also a founding member of ACT, and he and his wife have often donated large sums of money to the party.

    Also, I feel compelled to mention that before her tenure as chair of a multinational neoliberal lobby network, Debbi Gibbs was the manager of New Zealand rock band Straitjacket Fits, because nothing is weirder than reality.

    The interview continues:

    Forbes: Have you spoken or taken advice from them or any group associated with them about the treaty?
    Seymour, even more quietly: No.

    This is not true, as Forbes quickly demonstrates. Seymour attended a Taxpayers’ Union (which is part of the Atlas Network) function in Wellington where British politician Lord Daniel Hannan – one of the principal architects of Brexit, and founding president of the Initiative for Free Trade (which is, if you haven’t guessed, part of the Atlas Network) – spoke specifically about the Treaty.

    Seymour: I can’t believe you’re doing this. I’ve read about this conspiracy theory and you’re actually running it, but that’s cool.
    Forbes: Well, no, I’m just trying to understand it because we went to Australia and we analysed…
    Seymour (interrupting): We did the conspiracy theory…
    Forbes: We analysed the Yes campaign over there and we spoke with indigenous people about their fears, about what would happen in the referendum. And so when you consider, you know, actually you and I spoke about it. You said that you had met Lord Hannon and then the TPU, the Taxpayer Union, had invited you to come along. And he spoke about this treaty and the possibility of a referendum. So isn’t that in fact, you know, these movements and these groups talking about our referendum?
    Seymour: Well, going along to meet someone who’s a famous figure, in world politics.
    Forbes: What did he come to New Zealand for?
    Seymour: I have no idea, but I was really pleased to…

    (Seymour can find out what Hannan came to New Zealand for by either a.) consulting his memory of the speech he attended, b.) re-watching the speech Hannan gave on YouTube, or c.) by reading the video’s title, which is “Lord Hannan, Daniel speaks about equality, the Treaty and the Taxpayers’ Union in Wellington.” The video is helpfully subtitled throughout.)

    Forbes: Well, you were there.
    Seymour: I was really pleased to have dinner with the guy. I mean, he’s, you know, he’s world famous as a politician. You get to meet him, hear what he has to say.
    Forbes: But you went along to that function to listen to him where he talked about the Magna Carta and the treaties and…
    Seymour: Oh my God, the Magna Carta.
    Forbes: He did. And then…
    Seymour: Scandalous.
    Forbes: Well, I’m not saying that that’s scandalous. I’m just saying this is what he talked about. I listened to it online because it was posted by the TPU. And so he talked about that and he talked about the danger of the misinterpretation of treaties and what they meant. And he’s, you know, and he also says, what you say is that the judiciary is getting too involved or they’re making the interpretation of it as too wide.
    Seymour: You do know that people have had concerns about judicial activism all over the world for all sorts of reasons for hundreds of years, right?
    Forbes: No, I don’t…
    Seymour (laughing): And you’re trying to say that this is somehow some crazy conspiracy theory. I mean, come on.
    Forbes: No, no, I’m just asking the question. I’m asking whether you know if there’s any kind of connection. So you’re answering there is no connection?
    Seymour: I’ve told you that there is no connection.
    Forbes: Ka pai.
    Seymour: I’m just disappointed in you for picking up a known conspiracy theory that several people have sent to me and I never thought I’d get asked about it by you, but hey, you go.

    To be very clear: there is a connection, and it’s a comprehensive one. Seymour’s lie is beyond the pale, even for a public habituated to lying politicians. He must know that he worked for Atlas Network think tanks for years, and that he was a guest at Atlas Network events. He must also know ACT party staff members worked for Atlas Network think tanks for years and attended Atlas Network events. I’ll happily grant that a global network of think tanks dedicated to spreading far-right thought around the world sounds like a conspiracy theory, but that’s not journalists’ fault; that’s the fault of the Atlas Network for giving itself a name that would make a Bond supervillain blush, seeding and partnering with over 500 think tanks worldwide, and making grandiose statements like this on its own website:

    A global network for global impact. Today, Atlas Network partners with over 500 think tanks worldwide to drive change in ideas, culture, and policy…

    The reason for David Seymour’s abject (yet extremely funny) denial seems obvious: now that the links between neoliberal think tanks and far-right politics are becoming clearer and more well-known than ever before, the Atlas Network is becoming a political inconvenience. Too bad. The ACT Party’s association with the Atlas Network is ironclad – and no amount of lying, prevaricating and accusing respected journalists of “conspiracy theories” will make it any less so.

    💩
    The Bad Newsletter is free, but a paid subscription is an incredible boost. And if you find my work helpful but can’t afford to pay, sharing is the best thing: forward the email, share on social media, or remix my work in other media (as in, feel free to make my articles into Tik-Toks 🙂

    Corrections and edits to this article:

    8 Feb 2024: I did some minor spelling, grammar and sense edits, and added some information about Atlas Network chair Debbi Gibbs being the former manager of Straitjacket Fits, because it’s somehow true and I find that very funny.

    9 Feb 2024: Updated several links to point to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, in case the pages are edited.

  • OK, doomer: A review of The Lost Cause by Cory Doctorow

    OK, doomer: A review of The Lost Cause by Cory Doctorow

    Let’s talk about hope.

    Some of the reaction to my reporting on the likes of the Atlas Network seems to be, roughly paraphrased, “We’re doomed.” This is perhaps understandable. Atlas and their ilk are well resourced, and are deeply embedded in cultural and media ecosystems. But it’s important to note that, in New Zealand, most of the policies and programs they espouse remain incredibly unpopular. Despite decades of effort and millions of dollars spent, the Act party struggles to crack 10 percent of votes. There is a growing awareness of the depth, breadth, and tactics of right-wing think-tanks, and it’s time to see what a truthful campaign against their decades of disinformation might look like. It’ll be hard work to de-entrench them, but it can – and must – be done. Doom isn’t good enough. We need to tell a true story, a better story, a story that builds hope. And it’s important to note that hope isn’t mere optimism; it is the motivating force for hard work and collective action.

    On that note, let’s talk about some of the better stories that are already being told.


    The Lost Cause

    Much has been said about Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry for the Future, some of it by me in this review at The Spinoff. It’s an extraordinary book, and I’m always on the lookout for more stories like it. When I saw that Robinson had blurbed Cory Doctorow’s new book The Lost Cause – “This book looks like our future and feels like our present—it’s an unforgettable vision of what could be” – I knew I had to read it.

    I’ve been a fan of Doctorow’s blogging for long time. I’ve had a more varied relationship with his novels. I liked Little Brother, disliked Makers, and loved Walkaway once I realised that he was doing a kind of techno-anarchist inversion of Atlas Shrugged. It’s one of those books where characters will break into long philosophical treatises. (Those who advocate for bad ideas often wind up suitably chastised later in the plot.) Lefty Atlas Shrugged is a big challenge; it could easily have been a complete disaster, but Doctorow makes it both cheeky and effective. It helps that, unlike in Atlas, Doctorow’s characters are likeable and believable and the philosophical debates and treatises don’t usually run for more than a couple of pages.

    The Lost Cause is my favourite work of Doctorow’s yet, because it takes his philosophical and ethical bugbears, mixes them with a notoriously difficult subject (climate change) in a particularly tricky setting (the very near future, as opposed to the distant future) and spikes the whole cocktail with the genuinely thorny question of what the hell are we going to do with all the people who caught brainworms? This isn’t something I’ve seen dealt with in fiction before; the deeply uncomfortable fact that no matter the direction history takes, most of today’s deranged Trump enthusiasts will still be with us in 15 or 20 years, only older and considerably more deranged.

    In the world of The Lost Cause, this situation is tempered because somewhere between now and the near future some good, deeply necessary things happened: a progressive President got elected and actually started doing the needful on climate change. The book portrays this well; it’s mostly really hard (but really satisfying, meaningful) work. Robinson’s Ministry had a solid depiction of the sheer effort needed to address climate change but a lot of it was lofty, high-concept stuff – literally up in the clouds, in the case of the stratospheric aerosol-spraying geoengineering program undertaken by India. I loved all the big-think geekery in Ministry, but appreciated how The Lost Cause brings it down to earth. All of the high-concept cli-fi stuff – like a neo-neoliberal fleet of seasteaders who leech off the creaking remnants of global civilisation while preaching about liberty and freedom, in yet another nod to Atlas Shrugged – are seen through the literally and figuratively grounded eyes of lead character Brooks Palazzo, as in the following passage:

    The Flotilla believed that some of us were born to be wise kings, and that winning in the market was the modern equivalent to pulling a sword out of a stone.

    Brooks is a well-drawn character; a ball of energy bursting with queer joy, contrasted by a lifetime of trauma: first by the deaths of his parents in a vicious pandemic and then by living with his cruel, indifferent grandfather. The entire novel is suffused with the same almost manic energy that Brooks possesses, which is by turns inspiring and exhausting. I always get the feeling that Doctorow books are written fast (probably because they are – the guy wrote five books during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic) and there’s a rawness and polemic fury to them that I deeply appreciate. It’s probably not for everyone, but it’s for me. Two quotes sum up the book well. The first acknowledges the deep-felt agony of not being able to do anything about the awful state of the world:

    There is absolutely nothing worse than the sense that things are going wrong and there’s nothing you can do to fix them

    And the second gives a sense of the antidote to despair.

    I had arrived at a place of circulating abundance amid all of that tragedy and terror. Wherever I was, I could be happy, fed, surrounded by good people and hard work.

    The Lost Cause achieves exactly what it sets out to do: it makes the gargantuan collective effort required to address climate change inspiring, interesting, and exciting. This is remarkable, considering the fact that attending local council meetings is a vital plot point. Another achievement worth noting is the novel’s commitment to non-violence. Robinson’s Ministry included a character who runs a black-ops division to carry out and fund highly effective acts of eco-terrorism, and the book implies that such will be necessary in the fight against climate change. The Lost Cause eschews that sort of thing entirely, and in fact seems to be in dialogue with Ministry and other utopian fictions like those of Iain M. Banks in arguing that violence against other people is counter-productive. While violence is a constant companion and threat in The Lost Cause – the book opens with a frightening would-be terroristic murder that ultimately ends in assassination – and while the characters consider taking up arms, the argument is always won by the proponents of non-violence. Against people, that is; violence against property is practically a given. Readers of How To Blow Up A Pipeline will find a lot to appreciate here.

    Despite – or perhaps because of – its thorny, wide-ranging subject matter, The Lost Cause is excellent. It’s a great riff on utopia, and a cracking yarn. Its largest flaw is shared with Ministry in that the fraught, polluted, world-on-the-brink-ruin portrayed is a best-case scenario. Both books engage the conceit that at some stage, someone in power works to swerve the world away from the brink. From 2024, this seems almost impossible, but it’s never been more necessary. A willingness to do the needful on climate should no longer be a secondary consideration when it comes to choosing leaders; it needs to become the number-one prerequisite. This is ground that I hope a new cli-fi book will cover, but for now, The Lost Cause deserves to sit next to The Ministry for the Future in the emerging greats of the cli-fi canon.

    The Lost Cause is published by Tor, but you can purchase a DRM-free copy direct from Cory’s website.