Isn't that obvious? China will be ecstatic. — Banno

It just means the US won't be standing in their way. Their plans have already been made.

Chinese wisdom has it that one does not start a war until one has already won.

It is about to win.

Chinese wisdom has it that one does not start a war until one has already won.

It is about to win. — Banno

The US and China are not at war.

That's what I said.

That's what I said. — Banno

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the US military starts reducing it's presence in the Pacific.

That's not what I was referring to. Not military power, soft power.

That's not what I was referring to. Not military power, soft power. — Banno

The US doesn't want soft power.

This article outlines all of Musk's government contracts.

Hold on, I'll post a picture of one of his children with a snark attached, just give me a second...

Ok.

Then China will win.

Then China will win. — Banno

Win what?

I give up.

There are concerns the US has left a chasm that could be filled by China." — frank

I give up. — Banno

Ok. Welcome to 2025. :razz:

There are concerns the US has left a chasm that could be filled by China." — frank

China is growing into a super power.

China is growing into a super power. — frank

You think?

You think? — Banno

Yea.

This article touches on the connection between Musk and Vought.

Do we need to do a deep dive on what Project 2025 is? Yes, I think we do.

You see, you keep thinking this is a joke. I'm going to show you why it's not.

I already said

You sound remarkably sanguine about it. — Wayfarer

Why is my reaction important to you?

I think we'll start with a discussion of what's known as Dark Enlightenment. This is the philosophical portion of what's happening in the world right now.

This will take a while.

It turns out that Nick Land's essay, Dark Enlightenment, isn't available online, as far as I can tell. So we'll just start with an overview of Enlightenment ideals, why some people, like the Vice President of the USA, believe those ideals have been disastrous, and then move on to examining quotes from Land's essay.

That will be a good start.

Well, Ur-Trumper Steve Bannon has already had his ire raised and proclaimed that Musk should be "deported back to Africa." — Count Timothy von Icarus

With USAID the Trump supporters can be enthusiastic. I can fully relate that in Finland too: one certain crowd would be very happy if ALL developmental aid for Third World countries would be ditched by my country. And when Elon and his happy wrecking crew comes close to things that actually some Americans like and need, then it's going to be quite different.

The next thing will be if the department of education is axed. This is a very popular topic in libertarian and Republican circles, even before Trump. To abolish the department has been actually tried many times, but Congressional approval for that might be tricky. Elon being this crazy billionaire with an ax might simply cut off funding or severely limited it. Yet here's the issue: if it's the Federal government wanting to limit it's role and off-loading things to the states, that's just basically an internal role change. But as Elon's issue is to "cut waste", then just what will be cut will have effects in the US, not in Africa as with the case of USAID. And here the transfer of such authority to the states will likely not get at all any thought from the demolishing team that DOGE is. As if they would listen to the "Deep State", the enemy, in this issue. The effects can be a disaster, which some Trump voters with children might notice later.

“The promise to dismantle the Department of Education has gotten the most headlines, but other promises are more likely to happen – and happen more quickly and be more impactful,” Welner says.

“Scrapping the Department of Education would be chaotic, complicated, and it would surely result in damage to the smooth running of important programs for K-12 students and those at colleges and universities. But moving people and programs from the Department of Education to other departments doesn’t in itself change what the federal government does. It’s those other proposals that change what the government does that are likely to be more impactful.”

Mike J. Sosulski, president of Washington College in Maryland, says the Education Department demonstrated a lack of communication and responsiveness under the previous Trump administration, which he worries could resume.

“It seems that the Trump administration's approach last time, under Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, was to simply not fill many of the posts in the agency,” he says. “So the result of that was when members of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities would attempt to contact people in the DOE, oftentimes there really wasn't anyone to speak to the way there used to be under the Obama administration. And all administrations prior to that, actually, since the inception of the agency.”

See What Happens if the Education Department Is Dissolved?

So one can ask for starters, are there things like a need to have any coordination between the states on educational programs? If not, absolutely not, then it might not be so bad. I still think there are indeed things to be coordinated at the federal level, like that the education given in one state for lets say college level is similar with another state and it's colleges. I think that was the whole reason for the department to exist in the first place, not for poor regions to have far worse educational systems than more prosperous areas.

There goes the goodwill that people feel for the US and are thankful for. And seems like both Jordan and Egypt have said no to Trump's insane "Mar-a-Gaza" ethnic cleansing plan.

So we're looking at the ideological setting for Musk's endeavors. This is the far right, so it's part of Trump's base.

First were going to think about Rousseau, who believed that all evil comes from human association. If we could just go back to when humans rarely even saw one another, things would be great. But Rousseau realizes we can't go back. We've evolved into creatures who are dependent on what will eventually be called a "class state."

But there remains a way to remedy the disaster: government of the people, by the people, for the people. According to some, Rousseau was wrong.

According to some, Rousseau was wrong. — frank

Two people, specifically: John Locke, and some conservative thinker whose name I can't remember.

Anyway, the conservative, unlike Rousseau, believes that humans are evil by nature, and as such, they need to be kept in line. This is why we have checks and balances, this is why we have a prison system, etc.

According to John Lock, unlike Rousseau, and unlike the conservative, human nature is neither good nor evil.

I find Locke's ideas to be the correct ones, here. Rousseau was wrong, human nature is not good. But the conservative is wrong, I believe, when he claims that human nature is evil. Human nature is neither good nor evil. It just is.

That's not to reject moral realism. I believe that good and evil exist, but only in a moral sense, not a natural sense. The question is actually about universality, not existence. Are good and evil universal moral notions, shared by all cultures? Or are they relative to each culture? I say that they are universal. The notions of good and evil are common to all cultures. It does not follow from there, though, that good and evil are the only moral values. For there is such a thing as moral neutrality, which is neither good nor evil. It's the "mirror image", if you will, of Locke's ideas on the human nature: it's a third possibility, beyond natural good and natural evil: it's natural neutrality. Moral neutrality, on the other hand, is artificial neutrality, "cultural" neutrality, if you will.

Why does Rousseau believe democracy is the cure for human evil?

↪Arcane Sandwich

Why does Rousseau believe democracy is the cure for human evil? — frank

Because he believes that Democracy is the system that is closest to human nature. Human nature, according to him, is naturally good. Democracy corrupts human nature, according to him, but it's the least corrupting option, in his view.

Obviously I don't agree with any of this. I already told you, I'm on Locke's side here.

Because he believes that Democracy is the system that is closest to human nature. Human nature, according to him, is naturally good. Democracy corrupts human nature, according to him, but it's the least corrupting option, in his view. — Arcane Sandwich

This is incorrect.

Because he believes that Democracy is the system that is closest to human nature. Human nature, according to him, is naturally good. Democracy corrupts human nature, according to him, but it's the least corrupting option, in his view. — Arcane Sandwich


This is incorrect. — frank

No, it isn't, because there's no such thing as being incorrect without further ado. If it's incorrect, then it's incorrect for a reason. A sufficient reason, to be more precise, as demanded by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. If you cannot grant such a reason, then you are in the wrong here, not me.

No, it isn't, because there's no such thing as being incorrect without further ado. If it's incorrect, then it's incorrect for a reason. A sufficient reason, to be more precise, as demanded by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. If you cannot grant such a reason, then you are in the wrong here, not me. — Arcane Sandwich

This is poor post quality.

No, it isn't, because there's no such thing as being incorrect without further ado. If it's incorrect, then it's incorrect for a reason. A sufficient reason, to be more precise, as demanded by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. If you cannot grant such a reason, then you are in the wrong here, not me. — Arcane Sandwich


This is poor post quality. — frank

No, it isn't, because there's no such thing as poor post quality out of context. The quality of a post is determined by the context of the Thread in which the post is made. My post is an above-average response to your average, baseline, lowest-common-denominator style of posting. Therefore, in comparison to your own posts, my posts have an above-average quality.

You might find that it’s actually quite difficult to incite people to do anything, let alone something illegal.

That’s because the whole theory of incitement is magical thinking top-to-bottom. It is physically impossible to animate someone with your words and to suggest that one can is tantamount to sorcery. — NOS4A2

Impossible? So, according to you it is impossible to incite people to do something illegal? Well, there are many examples of this magical sorcery (according to you) in history, as @Count Timothy von Icarus already mentioned.

During the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, observers emphasized the role of media propaganda in inciting Rwandan Hutus to attack the Tutsi minority group, with one claiming that the primary tools of genocide were “the radio and the machete.” As a steady stream of commentators referred to “radio genocide” and “death by radio” and “the soundtrack to genocide,” a widespread consensus emerged that key responsibility for the genocide lay with the Rwandan media. Mathias Ruzindana, prosecution expert witness at the ICTR, supports this notion, writing, “In the case of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the effect of language was lethal . . . hate media . . . played a key role in the instigation of genocide.” Legal precedents from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) solidified this view as doctrine, finding that certain public statements by Hutu political leaders and RTLM radio broadcasts constituted direct and public incitement to commit genocide against ethnic Tutsis.