I have my own experiences with divergence and all these different polities being discussed here directly involve my life as I understand it happening. That goes for my family and all the people I love and have loved.

That love extends to people who believe stuff I do not and enemies who wish me harm. That is what Rousseau meant by compassion. I will hurt you if I have to. But no fist pumps and triumphant trumpets. — Paine

And so you can't be neutral. I understand. Does it hurt if someone seems to be flippant about it?

We're the same in that we're both coming from love.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

@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?

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).

Thanks! :grin: :up:

No problem. :smile:

Awesome, thanks.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

You suck.

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.

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

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 think? — Banno

Yea.

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

China is growing into a super power.

I give up. — Banno

Ok. Welcome to 2025. :razz:

Then China will win. — Banno

Win what?

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...

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

The US doesn't want soft power.

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.

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.

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.

Ok. I like this. You know, we have another twenty or so more years of this ..

"A range of Australian projects have USAid funding. Some organisations receive funds directly, while others work on projects that are jointly funded by the US and other partners and it is unclear what the stop work orders mean for them. There are concerns the US has left a chasm that could be filled by China."

here

I doubt it is as benign or 'business as usual' as you seem to want to paint it Frank — Janus

No, I think the US is headed toward increased authoritarianism with nothing to stop it. But you guys will be fine. :up:

You're right. I was wrong. Let's focus on the fallout. Step by step. :wink:

All of those are just quoting The Sun.

Most Americans are familiar with hiring freezes, layoffs, cost-cutting czars, etc. The Executive Branch has been immune from any kind of austerity, thus most Americans either applaud DOGE or they're like meh.

I think that story is bs, and the only source your provided was The Sun. :meh:

Does The Sun print anything but bs?

Just making the information available for those interested. — Wayfarer

I think you know the information you're posting is headline news. You're just throwing it up there without any sort of intellectual engagement.

Do you accept that the the UK Ministry of Defense has told its employees and/or "top brass" to stop talking in EVs? — Agree-to-Disagree

I doubt this would be public information, so bs.