and some conservative thinker whose name I can't remember. — Arcane Sandwich

You are probably thinking of Hobbes. He is the thinker Nick Land sets over against Rousseau in his essay: The Dark Enlightenment. For example,

For the hardcore neo-reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it
approaches an ultimate imperative. The subterranean current that propels such anti-politics is
recognizably Hobbesian, a coherent dark enlightenment, devoid from its beginning of any Rousseauistic
enthusiasm for popular expression. — N Land

This poorly represents Rousseau's beef with Hobbes who claimed war is man's state of nature. The natural man who lived before legislation and reason is said by Rousseau to be:

Thus, setting aside all those scientific books, which teach us only to see men the way they have made themselves, and meditating upon the first and simplest operations of the human soul, I believe I discern there two principles prior to reason: one makes us passionately interested in our well-being and in our own preservation, and the other inspires in us a natural repugnance at seeing any sensitive being perish or suffer, in particular, beings like ourselves. From the cooperation and combination our mind is able to create of these two principles—without it being necessary to bring in the principle of sociability—it seems to me, all the rules of natural right follow, rules which reason is later forced to re-establish on other foundations, when, through its successive developments, it has ended up effectively suffocating nature.

In this way, we are not obliged to make man a philosopher before we make him a man. His obligations towards others are not dictated to him exclusively by later lessons in wisdom, and so long as he does not resist the internal impulse of compassion, he will never do harm to another man, or even to any other sentient being, except in the legitimate case where, since his preservation is at stake, he is obliged to give preference to himself. — Jean Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men, Preface

Did you find the essay online? When I click that link nothing happens.

You are probably thinking of Hobbes. — Paine

No, I think it was either Machiavelli or Robert Nozick. Completely different thinkers, that's why I said "the conservative". I can't remember which one it was, for the life of me. I learned this stuff when I was a student, I think I learned it in both Early Modern Philosophy as well as Political Philosophy,

I got it by using Google Scholar, Try clicking from this search page. The essay is third one down the list.

Awesome, thanks.

@frank I don't want there to be any acrimony between us, so please try to make things a bit easier in that sense. Just a request.

No problem. :smile:

Thanks. I promise that I'll try to make things a bit easier in that sense as well. :up:

Well, Niccolo wrote two centuries before Jacques and Robert wrote 3.5 centuries after. Locke is part of the "natural man" debate in which Rousseau and Hobbes participated.

Hobbes can safely be considered "conservative" in his call for Monarchy as the best kind of government.

Thanks! :grin: :up:

The old site is archived too: https://web.archive.org/web/20130925165535/http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/

I have tried to discuss Land, Yarvin, BAP, etc. here before, but not gotten any takers. Secondary sources (largely from journalists) tend to be absolutely horrendous here. They see the lable of "traditionalist" and just parrot it unquestioningly, missing that the appeal to "tradition" is almost wholly aesthetic, or to the "traditionalists" of the early 20th century (e.g. Evola, Guenon, etc.), the movement itself being essentially a sort of right-wing post-modernism. Deleuze, Foucault, Nietzsche, Hume—these are the waters Land swam in prior to his political leanings leading to a sort of exile, not, as coverage might sometimes suggest, Cicero or Epictetus. But then the primary sources are not always particularly accessible (BAP is, it's just written in annoying memespeak).





They will probably only try to unwind some of DoE's enforcement mandates and side programs. Their main role is acting as a pass through for federal funds that go to local school districts and managing and astoundingly large loan portfolio. The largest, Title I and IDEA, for low income and special ed students, go all over the country, to rural and urban areas alike, in all the states. It would be extremely unpopular to hold these back since most school districts and many local governments run on a June 1st fiscal year and have already begun making their budgets.

I suppose they could just not disperse the funds. It wouldn't be catastrophic. Even in school districts that are like 90+% low income, Title I isn't a huge share of the budget. However, it is a meaningful share, a few %, which would mean a few million dollars in shortfalls for even smaller districts with like 5,000 students. It's actually normally a comparably larger share of total funding in poor rural and Republican led states, because there tends to be lower state and local funding there.

And, while reforms to the student loan process would be welcome, simply revoking access to credit overnight won't work. It would have a massive effect on the university system and leave people part-way through degrees stranded, curtailing the supply of new doctors, engineers, etc. So, I imagine they will have to tread much more carefully here.

Deleuze, Foucault, Nietzsche, Hume—these are the waters Land swam in prior to his political leanings leading to a sort of exile, — Count Timothy von Icarus

And Marx. The political landscape is changing from left vs. right, to moderates vs extremists. Left and right extremists are in the process of merging (I think).

Left and right extremists are in the process of merging (I think). — frank

Well, you're not wrong. And you should be. Why? Because the process of merging left and right is the process by which fascism is synthesized, in a Hegelian way. This is not a thesis that I defend myself, I'm against it. I've dealt with this thesis before. And I don't endorse it.

Hobbes can safely be considered "conservative" in his call for Monarchy as the best kind of government. — Paine

One should remember the context of Hobbes, who lived through the English Civil War and saw how Commonwealth of England performed with it's lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, at it's helm (even if in exile). As a teacher of Charles II, he might have personal experiences and relations (people that he was with) that made him think like this.

They will probably only try to unwind some of DoE's enforcement mandates and side programs. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Anything even close to reeking to DEI or something like that has to naturally go.

And, while reforms to the student loan process would be welcome, simply revoking access to credit overnight won't work. It would have a massive effect on the university system and leave people part-way through degrees stranded, curtailing the supply of new doctors, engineers, etc. So, I imagine they will have to tread much more carefully here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not so sure just how careful they will be. One thing is simply is privatization. Can the services that the Department of Education gives be sold to the private sector? I can vision how this goes: the whole system is "wasteful" as there are so many federal employees working in the system handling these issues. So can everything be then outsourced? Can a company from the private sector do all this? That is the idea and then it's not part of government. Ah, the savings, the cutting down of waste and smaller government!

@NOS4A2

Rousseau says that all human evil starts with interactions. People piss each other off when they're in close association. Jim kills Frain because she took his car. Zee assaults Celia because she laughed at the wrong time, etc.

But there's no way to avoid this because we can't voluntarily go back to living in tiny family groups. We're stuck in societies that have enshrined class distinctions.

So could a society be constructed so that the laws are the general will of the people? If we could, then wouldn't people finally be free?

This is why Rousseau was optimistic about democracy: because it's all about personal buy-in. @NOS4A2, I think you'll agree with me that Rousseau was wrong. But why was he wrong? Why does democracy fail to bring about what he hoped?

Why does democracy fail to bring about what he hoped? — frank

In order to give all people freedom democracy would need to be strictly regulated with a view to stopping personal accumulation of wealth (at least beyond a certain quite limited point) and its economic policies would need to take account of the environment as an integral part of the economy in order to curtail the depletion of resources.

Many would likely consider such measures undemocratic. hence the problem—people will not vote for a party that proposes introducing the kinds of regulation that would be necessary to support the continuation of democracy—and democracy unchecked undermines itself.

Rousseau says that all human evil starts with interactions — frank

Where does Rousseau say that?

As the matter relates to Land's thesis, Land seems to be making the same mistake of Oppenheimer in his The State. The source of evil in Rousseau is the idea of private property.

I argued against Oppenheimer's view of Rousseau here.

I take your point that the thesis is not based upon "classic" sources. So far, the argument seems to be presuming that all consent is manufactured and being surprised at the conclusion that consent is manufactured.

Is there a secret sauce I am failing to experience?

Rousseau says that all human evil starts with interactions
— frank

Where does Rousseau say that? — Paine

Discourse on Inequality. In their most primitive state, humans are supposed to be free, happy, and lacking morality.

As the matter relates to Land's thesis, Land seems to be making the same mistake of Oppenheimer in his The State. The source of evil in Rousseau is the idea of private property. — Paine

I was trying to paint a picture of the Enlightenment before starting Land's essay.

If you want to help, you can explain how Hobbes broke with traditional attitudes about the legitimacy of the monarchy.

Rousseau: 'Man is born free but everywhere is in chains'. But it's basically the 'myth of the noble savage', that the human condition in the natural state is one of spontaneity, freedom and equality. Which anthropology has comprehensively debunked - many tribal and non-industrialised cultures are shown to have high rates of murder and domestic violence. At least the Biblical myth has the Fall, which in my view depicts a real fact about human nature in symbolic form - we're not naturally inclined to being all sweetness and light.

All of which is beside the point of this thread, which was to comment on and document the hostile takeover of the functions of the US Federal Government by Elon Musk, acting as an agent for the current President. Between them they are white-anting the Federal public service - Musk is saying continuously that bureaucrats are a 'threat to democracy' and that 'in order for democracy to survive' they must be whittled down to size (this is Orwellian doublespeak in action). When it's actually Musk and Trump ('Trusk') that are blatant threats to the democratic process - flouting congress, constitution and the rule of law. As the post Banno linked to points out, what is happening in the US is 'state takeover':

the appropriation of state resources by political actors for their own ends: either private or political.

Musk’s aim could be to capture different pieces of the US government and turn the state into a tool for wealth extraction (and bear in mind, his net worth has been increased by hundreds of billions since the election. This is not theoretical.)

State capture is a relatively simple but extremely destructive process. This is how it has played out in countries like Indonesia, Hungary, Nigeria, Russia, Sri Lanka and South Africa (Musk’s birthplace):

First, political and corporate elites gain control of formal institutions, information systems and bureaucratic policy-making processes.

Then, they use this power to apply rules selectively, make biased decisions and allocate resources based on private interests (rather than the public good).

In captured states, strongman leaders often use economic policy and regulatory decisions to reward their political friends. For instance, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Russian President Vladimir Putin and former South African President Jacob Zuma have helped their allies by:

* making government anti-trust decisions
* issuing permits and licenses
* awarding government contracts and concessions
* waiving regulations or tariffs
* conferring tax exempt status.

State capture is fundamentally a predatory process.

Which anthropology has comprehensively debunked - many tribal and non-industrialised cultures are shown to have high rates of murder and domestic violence. — Wayfarer

Can you cite sources for that claim?

I studied it in anthropology. I could google it, but you can do your own research. And besides, this is not a thread about the human condition, but about the hostile takeover of the US Government.

I know you're eager to jump over to Nietzsche on our way to explaining the ideological backdrop here. But we're still doing Rousseau. Could you be patient?

...continued:

What this could mean for the US

As Musk continues his assault on the federal bureaucracy, the American people will suffer the consequences.

The most immediate impact of state capture: worse decisions are made. By purging experienced civil servants, cancelling government contracts and accessing sensitive information systems, Musk’s actions will likely degrade the standard of living at home and endanger American lives abroad.

State capture also means there would be less accountability for the Trump administration’s public policy decisions. With a lack of congressional and independent oversight, key decisions over the distribution of economic benefits could be made informally behind closed doors.

Finally, state capture is inseparable from corruption. Doing business with the US federal government could soon require one to pass a loyalty test rather than a public interest test.

Trump’s enemies will encounter more hurdles, while his allies will have a seat at the table.

Finally, state capture is inseparable from corruption. Doing business with the US federal government could soon require one to pass a loyalty test rather than a public interest test.

Absolutely. That's the idea.

Discourse on Inequality. In their most primitive state, humans are supposed to be free, happy, and lacking morality. — frank

He said they had a 'natural' morality, as depicted in the quote given here

I was trying to paint a picture of the Enlightenment before starting Land's essay. — frank

Then we are going to have to compare what those people actually said.

You responded to the introduction of Rousseau. I think there is considerable anthropological research which tells against your claim. Anyway, I would agree that generally speaking when things get tough, the worst aspects of humanity come to the fore, and the tougher they get the worse the manifesting qualities, and I think that is what we are now witnessing, so it is not unrelated to the subject of the OP.

He said they had a 'natural' morality, as depicted in the quote given here — Paine

What would be cool is if everyone could keep an eye out for the things a Marxist would reject in the Enlightenment views we discuss.

Remember, Land was influenced by Marx when he was younger.

In one moment, you stand outside of Land's thesis, at another you argue from it. Pick a lane.

one moment, you stand outside of Land's thesis, at another you argue from it. Pick a lane — Paine

I'm in an orbiting satellite collecting data on the 21st Century. What is my lane?

I do have a tendency to start talking as the person whose view I'm describing.

Offer a little consideration for the neurodivergent pleeeeeeeeeese.