home.social

#blaise-pascal — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #blaise-pascal, aggregated by home.social.

fetched live
  1. “The lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State”*…

    Beachgoers rest on the beach of Moutchic on the shore of Lake Lacanau in Lacanau, southwestern France on July 24, 2026, as clouds of smoke rise into the sky from the Gironde wildfire

    A bracing essay from Adam McKay (director of Don’t Look Up, Vice, and The Big Short, among many other films), arguing that our acceptance of assurances that we have time left to address climate change, or that “Net Zero by 2050” will save us, is driving us toward full social collapse in ways that become more obvious with every new broken temperature record…

    Lies are a lot like gourds. They come in hundreds of different varieties, sizes, and bulbous, twisty shapes. Some are off-puttingly spiked and prickly, while others remind us of fall childhood memories.

    Some lies, if prepared correctly like squash or pumpkin, can appear delicious and irresistible, concealing a dark reality: “I can’t believe you’re not a model! For five thousand dollars I can photograph you so you have a portfolio.” The central aim of most lies is to avoid consequences. When an untruth is especially desperate and self-serving, it can be unintentionally hilarious: “Yes I tried marijuana… but I did not inhale.” 

    Embezzling money or murdering someone for the insurance pay-out are part of a phylum of lies that cross into serious criminality. These deceptions’ sphere of influence often stays fairly localized. But sometimes covering up the initial lie can spawn lots of other lies that spread and spread, like with Watergate or Bernie Madoff. What started as a little decorative Thanksgiving-gourd-sized lie suddenly becomes larger and quite ugly. This family of lies strives to not only avoid consequences, but to gain status and resources, another common end game of many deceptions.

    And then there are the large society-wide lies: hulking distortions and misrepresentations watered and tended to by leaders, mass media, culture, and industry.

    This particular sub-genus of grifts, half-truths and strategic omissions have led throughout modern history to wars, mass death, societal collapse, and the theft of humanity’s great treasures. “Manifest Destiny.” “Aryan superiority.” “The divine right of kings.” “The domino theory.” “Israel has a right to defend itself.” “Oxycontin isn’t addictive because it’s time-released.” These county-fair, blue ribbon-winning prevarications tend to be driven by a myriad of short-term incentives, irrational manipulated fears, unexamined assumptions, convenient blind spots, and of course… the desire to avoid consequences and expand status and resources.

    “People always pay their mortgages” became the half-true rallying cry used by Wall Street, news media, and politicians to collapse the world economy in 2007. Turns out when you change lending rules to feed an unregulated derivatives market by giving mortgages to people who can’t pay them… they don’t. “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction” (along with the subvariations on the central lie—“We want to bring democracy,” “If you don’t support the troops, you support the terrorists,” “Saddam orchestrated 9/11,” etc) killed a million people, devastated the entire nation of Iraq, and in many ways also gutted the United States, all while enriching oil companies, weapons manufacturers, big banks, juicing TV ratings, and expanding the power of the Bush/Cheney presidency.

    However, there is one type of rare, gargantuan, towering lie that makes all the other mass lies throughout human history seem like frightened, scurrying, little adorable fibs.

    It is a lie told worldwide by hundreds of thousands of institutions, elected officials, many universities, legacy news, some large non-profits and eventually—as the deception entered mainstream culture—even by ourselves, to ourselves, every single moment of every day. It is a constantly growing gourd that even as a baby back in the 1970s was the size of three aircraft carriers. These days it is so massive it is almost easier to refer to what isn’t part of it (Disneyland, a BLT, that green croc by the side of the highway) than what is.

    This massive lie can best be summed up as “when it comes to climate change… we have more time.”

    To be clear, we are not talking about the kind of total climate denial one would find on the extremist, lunatic fringe inhabited by the likes of Alex Jones or the current U.S. President. And we’re not referring to cartoonish hucksters and “climate skeptics” like Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson.

    Polling shows only 14.8 percent of Americans deny the basic sixth grade science behind global warming. To put that in perspective, as much as 10 percent of the population still believes the Earth is flat.

    No, the monstrous, misshapen garden colossus lie we’re referring to is subscribed to by most of the U.S., has stopped and slowed climate action far more than outright denial, and keeps growing and growing. Every day this deception whispers seductively in the ears of mankind: “global warming is real but not urgent… Keep doing what you’re doing.”

    Less embarrassing than “climate change is a Chinese hoax,” but every bit as unscientific and ridiculous, it is the preferred lie of the ruling class, mainstream news media, and corporations.

    Sir David King—former science advisor to the United Kingdom, professor at Oxford and then Cambridge, winner of too many awards to list and as establishment as they come—was quoted as saying that what we do over the next three to four years will determine the fate of humankind.

    He said this… in 2021…

    [McKay unpacks a chilling variety of examples of “the lie” in action, contrasting government/media/corporate messages with the reality to which the )ostensibly) refer…]

    … Still have doubts? If you do, I don’t blame you. We live in a consumer culture hammering us daily with triggering political proclamations, sales pitches, and clickbait designed to spike engagement responses in the brain. “Immigrants are coming for your way of life!” “This new SUV is the best ever!” “Great White Shark Eats Porn Star!” Most of it is misleading, in one way or another, so there’s a natural tendency to assume that “Planet about to boil!” might be too.

    But Big Oil and its PR agencies know this, and they’ve weaponized the healthy skepticism we’ve developed as a survival mechanism against those voices speaking the truth about the urgent state of the climate.

    After all, who are you going to believe? The New York Times, an outlet famous for downplaying climate urgency, or some weird scientist saying crazy things? Even when a profession famous for dead-eyed, bottom-line risk assessment like insurance actuaries releases a statement about how serious the situation is, corporate news media turns it into what people used to call a “below the fold story,” framing it as just another minor environmental item—not headline news.

    In service of the Great Lie, the government of the United Kingdom even tried to bury a climate report from its own intelligence agency before it was leaked. To my knowledge there aren’t many spies being called tree huggers, unless they’re undercover of course. But the MI5 and MI6 are clear-eyed about the danger that’s coming. The report warned that “global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity.”

    No one wants to eat a raw pumpkin. It looks like a Dr. Seuss character’s brain, is full of seeds, and has no real taste. But like with any good lie, when the right sugar, spices, a buttery crust, and time in the oven is added, pumpkin pie becomes a cherished classic.

    The same thing happens with the climate lie. The financial markets, massive oil companies, the banks that finance them, the travel industry, car companies, your career and job security, the people you’re having dinner with who don’t want to be bummed out, all of these incentives and forces don’t want you to know you are eating a big, weird gourd.

    And as long as we go with their mendacious flow, hundreds of millions, and then billions will die well before “Net Zero by 2050” or “our great grandkids’ future” arrive. Because we are out of time. And we need to get to work immediately. There are a million things to do…

    As Pope John Paul II said, “An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.”

    Eminently worth reading in full: “The Gargantuan Lie That is Collapsing The World’s Climate,” from @ghostpanther.bsky.social in @currentaffairs.bsky.social.

    Oh, and meantime: “U.S. Declared An Energy Emergency, Then Paid $4 Billion For Less Energy.”

    * Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    ###

    As we face up, we might spare a thought for Blaise Pascal; he died on this date in 1662.  A French mathematician, physicist, theologian, and inventor (e.g., the first digital calculator, the barometer, the hydraulic press, and the syringe), his commitment to empiricism (“experiments are the true teachers which one must follow in physics”) pitted him against his contemporary René “cogito, ergo sum” Descartes– and was foundational in the acceleration of the scientific/rationalist commitment to measurement (and the conclusions/actions they dictated).

    Relevantly to McKay’s piece, Pascal also advanced the philosphical argument we know as “Pascal’s Wager.” While he posed the exercise as a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God, we can easily transpose it to apply to climate change action:

    Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and should strive to believe in God. The reasoning for this stance involves the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the believer incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries; if God does exist, the believer stands to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell. –source

    If the threat of climate change is, as “the lies” suggest, real but distant, then immediate action only costs us some short-term sacrifice. But if that threat is imminent, immediate action could preserve our way of life and the prospect of an improving future for us and our children and their children… while inaction is likely to end in utter disaster.

    source

    #AdamMcKay #BlaisePascal #climateChange #culture #history #Pascal #PascalsWager #philosophy #politics #Science
  2. “The lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State”*…

    Beachgoers rest on the beach of Moutchic on the shore of Lake Lacanau in Lacanau, southwestern France on July 24, 2026, as clouds of smoke rise into the sky from the Gironde wildfire

    A bracing essay from Adam McKay (director of Don’t Look Up, Vice, and The Big Short, among many other films), arguing that our acceptance of assurances that we have time left to address climate change, or that “Net Zero by 2050” will save us, is driving us toward full social collapse in ways that become more obvious with every new broken temperature record…

    Lies are a lot like gourds. They come in hundreds of different varieties, sizes, and bulbous, twisty shapes. Some are off-puttingly spiked and prickly, while others remind us of fall childhood memories.

    Some lies, if prepared correctly like squash or pumpkin, can appear delicious and irresistible, concealing a dark reality: “I can’t believe you’re not a model! For five thousand dollars I can photograph you so you have a portfolio.” The central aim of most lies is to avoid consequences. When an untruth is especially desperate and self-serving, it can be unintentionally hilarious: “Yes I tried marijuana… but I did not inhale.” 

    Embezzling money or murdering someone for the insurance pay-out are part of a phylum of lies that cross into serious criminality. These deceptions’ sphere of influence often stays fairly localized. But sometimes covering up the initial lie can spawn lots of other lies that spread and spread, like with Watergate or Bernie Madoff. What started as a little decorative Thanksgiving-gourd-sized lie suddenly becomes larger and quite ugly. This family of lies strives to not only avoid consequences, but to gain status and resources, another common end game of many deceptions.

    And then there are the large society-wide lies: hulking distortions and misrepresentations watered and tended to by leaders, mass media, culture, and industry.

    This particular sub-genus of grifts, half-truths and strategic omissions have led throughout modern history to wars, mass death, societal collapse, and the theft of humanity’s great treasures. “Manifest Destiny.” “Aryan superiority.” “The divine right of kings.” “The domino theory.” “Israel has a right to defend itself.” “Oxycontin isn’t addictive because it’s time-released.” These county-fair, blue ribbon-winning prevarications tend to be driven by a myriad of short-term incentives, irrational manipulated fears, unexamined assumptions, convenient blind spots, and of course… the desire to avoid consequences and expand status and resources.

    “People always pay their mortgages” became the half-true rallying cry used by Wall Street, news media, and politicians to collapse the world economy in 2007. Turns out when you change lending rules to feed an unregulated derivatives market by giving mortgages to people who can’t pay them… they don’t. “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction” (along with the subvariations on the central lie—“We want to bring democracy,” “If you don’t support the troops, you support the terrorists,” “Saddam orchestrated 9/11,” etc) killed a million people, devastated the entire nation of Iraq, and in many ways also gutted the United States, all while enriching oil companies, weapons manufacturers, big banks, juicing TV ratings, and expanding the power of the Bush/Cheney presidency.

    However, there is one type of rare, gargantuan, towering lie that makes all the other mass lies throughout human history seem like frightened, scurrying, little adorable fibs.

    It is a lie told worldwide by hundreds of thousands of institutions, elected officials, many universities, legacy news, some large non-profits and eventually—as the deception entered mainstream culture—even by ourselves, to ourselves, every single moment of every day. It is a constantly growing gourd that even as a baby back in the 1970s was the size of three aircraft carriers. These days it is so massive it is almost easier to refer to what isn’t part of it (Disneyland, a BLT, that green croc by the side of the highway) than what is.

    This massive lie can best be summed up as “when it comes to climate change… we have more time.”

    To be clear, we are not talking about the kind of total climate denial one would find on the extremist, lunatic fringe inhabited by the likes of Alex Jones or the current U.S. President. And we’re not referring to cartoonish hucksters and “climate skeptics” like Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson.

    Polling shows only 14.8 percent of Americans deny the basic sixth grade science behind global warming. To put that in perspective, as much as 10 percent of the population still believes the Earth is flat.

    No, the monstrous, misshapen garden colossus lie we’re referring to is subscribed to by most of the U.S., has stopped and slowed climate action far more than outright denial, and keeps growing and growing. Every day this deception whispers seductively in the ears of mankind: “global warming is real but not urgent… Keep doing what you’re doing.”

    Less embarrassing than “climate change is a Chinese hoax,” but every bit as unscientific and ridiculous, it is the preferred lie of the ruling class, mainstream news media, and corporations.

    Sir David King—former science advisor to the United Kingdom, professor at Oxford and then Cambridge, winner of too many awards to list and as establishment as they come—was quoted as saying that what we do over the next three to four years will determine the fate of humankind.

    He said this… in 2021…

    [McKay unpacks a chilling variety of examples of “the lie” in action, contrasting government/media/corporate messages with the reality to which the )ostensibly) refer…]

    … Still have doubts? If you do, I don’t blame you. We live in a consumer culture hammering us daily with triggering political proclamations, sales pitches, and clickbait designed to spike engagement responses in the brain. “Immigrants are coming for your way of life!” “This new SUV is the best ever!” “Great White Shark Eats Porn Star!” Most of it is misleading, in one way or another, so there’s a natural tendency to assume that “Planet about to boil!” might be too.

    But Big Oil and its PR agencies know this, and they’ve weaponized the healthy skepticism we’ve developed as a survival mechanism against those voices speaking the truth about the urgent state of the climate.

    After all, who are you going to believe? The New York Times, an outlet famous for downplaying climate urgency, or some weird scientist saying crazy things? Even when a profession famous for dead-eyed, bottom-line risk assessment like insurance actuaries releases a statement about how serious the situation is, corporate news media turns it into what people used to call a “below the fold story,” framing it as just another minor environmental item—not headline news.

    In service of the Great Lie, the government of the United Kingdom even tried to bury a climate report from its own intelligence agency before it was leaked. To my knowledge there aren’t many spies being called tree huggers, unless they’re undercover of course. But the MI5 and MI6 are clear-eyed about the danger that’s coming. The report warned that “global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity.”

    No one wants to eat a raw pumpkin. It looks like a Dr. Seuss character’s brain, is full of seeds, and has no real taste. But like with any good lie, when the right sugar, spices, a buttery crust, and time in the oven is added, pumpkin pie becomes a cherished classic.

    The same thing happens with the climate lie. The financial markets, massive oil companies, the banks that finance them, the travel industry, car companies, your career and job security, the people you’re having dinner with who don’t want to be bummed out, all of these incentives and forces don’t want you to know you are eating a big, weird gourd.

    And as long as we go with their mendacious flow, hundreds of millions, and then billions will die well before “Net Zero by 2050” or “our great grandkids’ future” arrive. Because we are out of time. And we need to get to work immediately. There are a million things to do…

    As Pope John Paul II said, “An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.”

    Eminently worth reading in full: “The Gargantuan Lie That is Collapsing The World’s Climate,” from @ghostpanther.bsky.social in @currentaffairs.bsky.social.

    Oh, and meantime: “U.S. Declared An Energy Emergency, Then Paid $4 Billion For Less Energy.”

    * Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    ###

    As we face up, we might spare a thought for Blaise Pascal; he died on this date in 1662.  A French mathematician, physicist, theologian, and inventor (e.g., the first digital calculator, the barometer, the hydraulic press, and the syringe), his commitment to empiricism (“experiments are the true teachers which one must follow in physics”) pitted him against his contemporary René “cogito, ergo sum” Descartes– and was foundational in the acceleration of the scientific/rationalist commitment to measurement (and the conclusions/actions they dictated).

    Relevantly to McKay’s piece, Pascal also advanced the philosphical argument we know as “Pascal’s Wager.” While he posed the exercise as a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God, we can easily transpose it to apply to climate change action:

    Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and should strive to believe in God. The reasoning for this stance involves the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the believer incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries; if God does exist, the believer stands to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell. –source

    If the threat of climate change is, as “the lies” suggest, real but distant, then immediate action only costs us some short-term sacrifice. But if that threat is imminent, immediate action could preserve our way of life and the prospect of an improving future for us and our children and their children… while inaction is likely to end in utter disaster.

    source

    #AdamMcKay #BlaisePascal #climateChange #culture #history #Pascal #PascalsWager #philosophy #politics #Science
  3. “The lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State”*…

    Beachgoers rest on the beach of Moutchic on the shore of Lake Lacanau in Lacanau, southwestern France on July 24, 2026, as clouds of smoke rise into the sky from the Gironde wildfire

    A bracing essay from Adam McKay (director of Don’t Look Up, Vice, and The Big Short, among many other films), arguing that our acceptance of assurances that we have time left to address climate change, or that “Net Zero by 2050” will save us, is driving us toward full social collapse in ways that become more obvious with every new broken temperature record…

    Lies are a lot like gourds. They come in hundreds of different varieties, sizes, and bulbous, twisty shapes. Some are off-puttingly spiked and prickly, while others remind us of fall childhood memories.

    Some lies, if prepared correctly like squash or pumpkin, can appear delicious and irresistible, concealing a dark reality: “I can’t believe you’re not a model! For five thousand dollars I can photograph you so you have a portfolio.” The central aim of most lies is to avoid consequences. When an untruth is especially desperate and self-serving, it can be unintentionally hilarious: “Yes I tried marijuana… but I did not inhale.” 

    Embezzling money or murdering someone for the insurance pay-out are part of a phylum of lies that cross into serious criminality. These deceptions’ sphere of influence often stays fairly localized. But sometimes covering up the initial lie can spawn lots of other lies that spread and spread, like with Watergate or Bernie Madoff. What started as a little decorative Thanksgiving-gourd-sized lie suddenly becomes larger and quite ugly. This family of lies strives to not only avoid consequences, but to gain status and resources, another common end game of many deceptions.

    And then there are the large society-wide lies: hulking distortions and misrepresentations watered and tended to by leaders, mass media, culture, and industry.

    This particular sub-genus of grifts, half-truths and strategic omissions have led throughout modern history to wars, mass death, societal collapse, and the theft of humanity’s great treasures. “Manifest Destiny.” “Aryan superiority.” “The divine right of kings.” “The domino theory.” “Israel has a right to defend itself.” “Oxycontin isn’t addictive because it’s time-released.” These county-fair, blue ribbon-winning prevarications tend to be driven by a myriad of short-term incentives, irrational manipulated fears, unexamined assumptions, convenient blind spots, and of course… the desire to avoid consequences and expand status and resources.

    “People always pay their mortgages” became the half-true rallying cry used by Wall Street, news media, and politicians to collapse the world economy in 2007. Turns out when you change lending rules to feed an unregulated derivatives market by giving mortgages to people who can’t pay them… they don’t. “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction” (along with the subvariations on the central lie—“We want to bring democracy,” “If you don’t support the troops, you support the terrorists,” “Saddam orchestrated 9/11,” etc) killed a million people, devastated the entire nation of Iraq, and in many ways also gutted the United States, all while enriching oil companies, weapons manufacturers, big banks, juicing TV ratings, and expanding the power of the Bush/Cheney presidency.

    However, there is one type of rare, gargantuan, towering lie that makes all the other mass lies throughout human history seem like frightened, scurrying, little adorable fibs.

    It is a lie told worldwide by hundreds of thousands of institutions, elected officials, many universities, legacy news, some large non-profits and eventually—as the deception entered mainstream culture—even by ourselves, to ourselves, every single moment of every day. It is a constantly growing gourd that even as a baby back in the 1970s was the size of three aircraft carriers. These days it is so massive it is almost easier to refer to what isn’t part of it (Disneyland, a BLT, that green croc by the side of the highway) than what is.

    This massive lie can best be summed up as “when it comes to climate change… we have more time.”

    To be clear, we are not talking about the kind of total climate denial one would find on the extremist, lunatic fringe inhabited by the likes of Alex Jones or the current U.S. President. And we’re not referring to cartoonish hucksters and “climate skeptics” like Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson.

    Polling shows only 14.8 percent of Americans deny the basic sixth grade science behind global warming. To put that in perspective, as much as 10 percent of the population still believes the Earth is flat.

    No, the monstrous, misshapen garden colossus lie we’re referring to is subscribed to by most of the U.S., has stopped and slowed climate action far more than outright denial, and keeps growing and growing. Every day this deception whispers seductively in the ears of mankind: “global warming is real but not urgent… Keep doing what you’re doing.”

    Less embarrassing than “climate change is a Chinese hoax,” but every bit as unscientific and ridiculous, it is the preferred lie of the ruling class, mainstream news media, and corporations.

    Sir David King—former science advisor to the United Kingdom, professor at Oxford and then Cambridge, winner of too many awards to list and as establishment as they come—was quoted as saying that what we do over the next three to four years will determine the fate of humankind.

    He said this… in 2021…

    [McKay unpacks a chilling variety of examples of “the lie” in action, contrasting government/media/corporate messages with the reality to which the )ostensibly) refer…]

    … Still have doubts? If you do, I don’t blame you. We live in a consumer culture hammering us daily with triggering political proclamations, sales pitches, and clickbait designed to spike engagement responses in the brain. “Immigrants are coming for your way of life!” “This new SUV is the best ever!” “Great White Shark Eats Porn Star!” Most of it is misleading, in one way or another, so there’s a natural tendency to assume that “Planet about to boil!” might be too.

    But Big Oil and its PR agencies know this, and they’ve weaponized the healthy skepticism we’ve developed as a survival mechanism against those voices speaking the truth about the urgent state of the climate.

    After all, who are you going to believe? The New York Times, an outlet famous for downplaying climate urgency, or some weird scientist saying crazy things? Even when a profession famous for dead-eyed, bottom-line risk assessment like insurance actuaries releases a statement about how serious the situation is, corporate news media turns it into what people used to call a “below the fold story,” framing it as just another minor environmental item—not headline news.

    In service of the Great Lie, the government of the United Kingdom even tried to bury a climate report from its own intelligence agency before it was leaked. To my knowledge there aren’t many spies being called tree huggers, unless they’re undercover of course. But the MI5 and MI6 are clear-eyed about the danger that’s coming. The report warned that “global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity.”

    No one wants to eat a raw pumpkin. It looks like a Dr. Seuss character’s brain, is full of seeds, and has no real taste. But like with any good lie, when the right sugar, spices, a buttery crust, and time in the oven is added, pumpkin pie becomes a cherished classic.

    The same thing happens with the climate lie. The financial markets, massive oil companies, the banks that finance them, the travel industry, car companies, your career and job security, the people you’re having dinner with who don’t want to be bummed out, all of these incentives and forces don’t want you to know you are eating a big, weird gourd.

    And as long as we go with their mendacious flow, hundreds of millions, and then billions will die well before “Net Zero by 2050” or “our great grandkids’ future” arrive. Because we are out of time. And we need to get to work immediately. There are a million things to do…

    As Pope John Paul II said, “An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.”

    Eminently worth reading in full: “The Gargantuan Lie That is Collapsing The World’s Climate,” from @ghostpanther.bsky.social in @currentaffairs.bsky.social.

    Oh, and meantime: “U.S. Declared An Energy Emergency, Then Paid $4 Billion For Less Energy.”

    * Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    ###

    As we face up, we might spare a thought for Blaise Pascal; he died on this date in 1662.  A French mathematician, physicist, theologian, and inventor (e.g., the first digital calculator, the barometer, the hydraulic press, and the syringe), his commitment to empiricism (“experiments are the true teachers which one must follow in physics”) pitted him against his contemporary René “cogito, ergo sum” Descartes– and was foundational in the acceleration of the scientific/rationalist commitment to measurement (and the conclusions/actions they dictated).

    Relevantly to McKay’s piece, Pascal also advanced the philosphical argument we know as “Pascal’s Wager.” While he posed the exercise as a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God, we can easily transpose it to apply to climate change action:

    Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and should strive to believe in God. The reasoning for this stance involves the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the believer incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries; if God does exist, the believer stands to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell. –source

    If the threat of climate change is, as “the lies” suggest, real but distant, then immediate action only costs us some short-term sacrifice. But if that threat is imminent, immediate action could preserve our way of life and the prospect of an improving future for us and our children and their children… while inaction is likely to end in utter disaster.

    source

    #AdamMcKay #BlaisePascal #climateChange #culture #history #Pascal #PascalsWager #philosophy #politics #Science
  4. Thank you for your service

    It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

    Voltaire

    The U.S. has been involved in military conflicts of one type or another for about 229 years of its 250-year history. That means that its population has experienced only about 20 years of total peace.

    During wartime, a significant number of Americans must surely feel convinced that they’re justified in their bellicose attitude, or how else can one explain such a continuous history of aggression? The U.S.’s prosperity and dominance certainly seem to support the idea that war is a dominant factor in its economic success on the world stage.

    I have little doubt that there is no stronger inducement in matters of war than the invoking religion doctrine, and Jesus, particularly, to sway the masses in favour of military action. It has been done for thousands of years and very successfully.

    While American sentiment is generally anti-war (there was a brief period in the 60s when they really demonstrated their resentment), there can be no doubt that there is an appetite for it if the right buttons are pushed. The “thank you for your service” culture is pervasive and goes beyond mere patriotism, found among liberals and conservatives alike.

    Has anyone questioned what exactly you are thanking them for? I sometimes question how many patriots are genuinely troubled that the service includes killing a stupendous number of innocent men, women and children on a regular basis. Or whether they even know.

    The U.S. may rank only third among the world’s armed forces in active-duty personnel, behind India and China, but its military budget outstrips that of the next six countries combined, including Russia and the two previously mentioned. That astounding level of spending spawned what is now commonly referred to as the Military Industrial Complex, which has a whole separate level of derangement and depravity associated with it.

    It is therefore not surprising that there has been insignificant resistance to the Trump Administration’s renaming of the Department of Defence to the Department of War. It is ironically one of the most honest things any administration has done. Why fuck around? Just call it what it is, right?

    If the renaming wasn’t enough to validate America’s ambition to be the premier imperialist empire, then the retention of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of War, despite his conspicuous unsuitability to command a military force, must leave no doubt. Hegseth’s giant Deus Vult tattoo, meticulously sculpted hairline, fake TV-host charm, and fanatical evangelical bigotry are otherwise perfect credentials for steering the charge to mass murder.

    Hegseth almost always invokes nationalist rhetoric and biblical language and scripture to justify military engagements. He conducts Christian worship and prayer services at the Pentagon and has made no effort to conceal his thirst for blood and violence. His other accomplishments include marginalising non-Christian and minority personnel in the armed forces, because I guess it’s much harder to motivate those who don’t share your religious worldview.

    Let’s not forget the narcissistic man-child currently heading the evil empire. No person has obliterated the same nuclear stockpile and weaponry of another country more times than Donald Trump. Laugh you may, but it gets better!

    Nobody has won the same war more times than him, and nobody has negotiated the same ceasefire more times either. It is truly an accomplishment that will never be repeated, ever. It’s no wonder he’s immortalised in such memes as the one below:

    I am frequently bewildered by why ordinary Christians cannot recognise how and when their faith is being perverted, and not only seem helpless to do anything about it, but are frequently willing to look past the transgressions. The 17th-century French mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal, who identified with the Jansenism movement within Catholicism, famously observed how religion is so often misappropriated by immoral men:

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.

    I recently discovered the music of David Rovics, an independent singer/songwriter who releases his music for free so that his anti-war and social justice messages are widely distributed. Together with Jordan Smart, another activist and folk-music singer/songwriter, they have both been asking a very important question that the followers of Christ need to take more seriously.

    Who would Jesus bomb?

    I will leave the YouTube videos together with the lyrics below. Same rhetorical question, different approach in asking, same outcome. Enjoy!

    https://youtu.be/RXXt5q3OwPg?si=1rAjxMBXEwymXS_F

    I’ve seen you in the markets
    I’ve seen you in the streets
    And at your political convention
    Talking of your crusade
    Talking of your nation
    And other things too terrible to mention
    And you proclaim your Christianity
    You proclaim your love of God
    You talk of apple pie and mom
    Well I’ve just got one question
    And I want an answer
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

    Maybe Jesus would bomb the Syrians
    Cause they’re not Jews like him
    Maybe Jesus would bomb the Afghans
    On some kind of vengeful whim
    Maybe Jesus would drive an M1 tank
    And he would shoot Saddam
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

    I’ve seen you on the TV
    And on the battleships
    I’ve seen you in the house upon the hill
    And I’ve heard you talking
    About making the world safer
    And about all the men you have to kill
    And you speak so glibly
    About your civilization
    And how you have the moral higher ground
    While halfway around the world
    Your explosives smash the buildings
    Ah, if you could only hear the sound

    But maybe Jesus would sell land mines
    And turn on his electric chair
    Maybe Jesus would show no compassion
    For his enemies in the lands way over there
    Maybe Jesus would have flown the planes
    That killed the kids in Viet Nam
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb

    Yes I hear you shout with confidence
    As you praise the lord
    And you talk about this God you know so well
    And you talk of Armageddon
    And your final victory
    When all the evil forces go to hell
    Well you’d best hope you’ve chosen wisely
    On the right side of the lord
    And when you die your conscience it is clear
    You’d best hope that your atom bombs
    Are better than the sword
    At the time when your reckoning is here

    Cause I don’t think Jesus would send gunships into Bethlehem
    Or jets to raze the towns of Timorese
    I don’t think Jesus would lend money to dictators
    Or drive those SUV’s
    And I don’t think Jesus would ever have dropped
    A single ounce of napalm
    So tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

    https://youtu.be/hE-yXDsmaKQ?si=L8PsyZ07hK6zwkwK

    If Jesus Christ came back today, like you threaten he will
    Which poor group of people do you think that he would kill?
    Who would Jesus choose to starve if you gave him the chance
    And if there was a genocide, would he take a neutral stance?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Would he say, “it’s complicated, there’s sinners on all sides”
    Or would he say that some people, they just deserve to die
    If Christ the Savior rose again, then on a sidewalk slept
    Would you extend a hand to him, or just watch where you stepped?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus Bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Would Jesus hate the Gay folks, or the Queer folks or the Trans
    Would he suggest they end their lives according to God’s plans?
    Would Jesus tell the homeless man to get a fucking job
    Or turn his back on the poor, would Jesus be a snob?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “Well, what would Jesus do?”

    Would Jesus Vote Republican, or would it be Democrat?
    Would he be chanting four more years, or wear a MAGA hat?
    Would Jesus run for president, or dictator, or worse?
    Would Jesus be the pastor of his own mega church?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Would Jesus build a border wall? Would Jesus drive a tank?
    Would Jesus own an arsenal? Would Jesus run a bank?
    Would Jesus feel safe in his skin if he came to your town?
    Would you still believe in Jesus if you found out he was brown?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Rate this:

    #BlaisePascal #Catholicism #China #Christian #DavidRovics #DepartmentOfWar #DeusVult #DonaldTrump #India #Jansenism #JesusChrist #JordanSmart #militaryIndustrialComplex #patriotism #Pentagon #PeteHegseth #Russia #SecretaryOfWar #Voltaire #WhoWouldJesusBomb
  5. Thank you for your service

    It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

    Voltaire

    The U.S. has been involved in military conflicts of one type or another for about 229 years of its 250-year history. That means that its population has experienced only about 20 years of total peace.

    During wartime, a significant number of Americans must surely feel convinced that they’re justified in their bellicose attitude, or how else can one explain such a continuous history of aggression? The U.S.’s prosperity and dominance certainly seem to support the idea that war is a dominant factor in its economic success on the world stage.

    I have little doubt that there is no stronger inducement in matters of war than the invoking religion doctrine, and Jesus, particularly, to sway the masses in favour of military action. It has been done for thousands of years and very successfully.

    While American sentiment is generally anti-war (there was a brief period in the 60s when they really demonstrated their resentment), there can be no doubt that there is an appetite for it if the right buttons are pushed. The “thank you for your service” culture is pervasive and goes beyond mere patriotism, found among liberals and conservatives alike.

    Has anyone questioned what exactly you are thanking them for? I sometimes question how many patriots are genuinely troubled that the service includes killing a stupendous number of innocent men, women and children on a regular basis. Or whether they even know.

    The U.S. may rank only third among the world’s armed forces in active-duty personnel, behind India and China, but its military budget outstrips that of the next six countries combined, including Russia and the two previously mentioned. That astounding level of spending spawned what is now commonly referred to as the Military Industrial Complex, which has a whole separate level of derangement and depravity associated with it.

    It is therefore not surprising that there has been insignificant resistance to the Trump Administration’s renaming of the Department of Defence to the Department of War. It is ironically one of the most honest things any administration has done. Why fuck around? Just call it what it is, right?

    If the renaming wasn’t enough to validate America’s ambition to be the premier imperialist empire, then the retention of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of War, despite his conspicuous unsuitability to command a military force, must leave no doubt. Hegseth’s giant Deus Vult tattoo, meticulously sculpted hairline, fake TV-host charm, and fanatical evangelical bigotry are otherwise perfect credentials for steering the charge to mass murder.

    Hegseth almost always invokes nationalist rhetoric and biblical language and scripture to justify military engagements. He conducts Christian worship and prayer services at the Pentagon and has made no effort to conceal his thirst for blood and violence. His other accomplishments include marginalising non-Christian and minority personnel in the armed forces, because I guess it’s much harder to motivate those who don’t share your religious worldview.

    Let’s not forget the narcissistic man-child currently heading the evil empire. No person has obliterated the same nuclear stockpile and weaponry of another country more times than Donald Trump. Laugh you may, but it gets better!

    Nobody has won the same war more times than him, and nobody has negotiated the same ceasefire more times either. It is truly an accomplishment that will never be repeated, ever. It’s no wonder he’s immortalised in such memes as the one below:

    I am frequently bewildered by why ordinary Christians cannot recognise how and when their faith is being perverted, and not only seem helpless to do anything about it, but are frequently willing to look past the transgressions. The 17th-century French mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal, who identified with the Jansenism movement within Catholicism, famously observed how religion is so often misappropriated by immoral men:

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.

    I recently discovered the music of David Rovics, an independent singer/songwriter who releases his music for free so that his anti-war and social justice messages are widely distributed. Together with Jordan Smart, another activist and folk-music singer/songwriter, they have both been asking a very important question that the followers of Christ need to take more seriously.

    Who would Jesus bomb?

    I will leave the YouTube videos together with the lyrics below. Same rhetorical question, different approach in asking, same outcome. Enjoy!

    https://youtu.be/RXXt5q3OwPg?si=1rAjxMBXEwymXS_F

    I’ve seen you in the markets
    I’ve seen you in the streets
    And at your political convention
    Talking of your crusade
    Talking of your nation
    And other things too terrible to mention
    And you proclaim your Christianity
    You proclaim your love of God
    You talk of apple pie and mom
    Well I’ve just got one question
    And I want an answer
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

    Maybe Jesus would bomb the Syrians
    Cause they’re not Jews like him
    Maybe Jesus would bomb the Afghans
    On some kind of vengeful whim
    Maybe Jesus would drive an M1 tank
    And he would shoot Saddam
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

    I’ve seen you on the TV
    And on the battleships
    I’ve seen you in the house upon the hill
    And I’ve heard you talking
    About making the world safer
    And about all the men you have to kill
    And you speak so glibly
    About your civilization
    And how you have the moral higher ground
    While halfway around the world
    Your explosives smash the buildings
    Ah, if you could only hear the sound

    But maybe Jesus would sell land mines
    And turn on his electric chair
    Maybe Jesus would show no compassion
    For his enemies in the lands way over there
    Maybe Jesus would have flown the planes
    That killed the kids in Viet Nam
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb

    Yes I hear you shout with confidence
    As you praise the lord
    And you talk about this God you know so well
    And you talk of Armageddon
    And your final victory
    When all the evil forces go to hell
    Well you’d best hope you’ve chosen wisely
    On the right side of the lord
    And when you die your conscience it is clear
    You’d best hope that your atom bombs
    Are better than the sword
    At the time when your reckoning is here

    Cause I don’t think Jesus would send gunships into Bethlehem
    Or jets to raze the towns of Timorese
    I don’t think Jesus would lend money to dictators
    Or drive those SUV’s
    And I don’t think Jesus would ever have dropped
    A single ounce of napalm
    So tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

    https://youtu.be/hE-yXDsmaKQ?si=L8PsyZ07hK6zwkwK

    If Jesus Christ came back today, like you threaten he will
    Which poor group of people do you think that he would kill?
    Who would Jesus choose to starve if you gave him the chance
    And if there was a genocide, would he take a neutral stance?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Would he say, “it’s complicated, there’s sinners on all sides”
    Or would he say that some people, they just deserve to die
    If Christ the Savior rose again, then on a sidewalk slept
    Would you extend a hand to him, or just watch where you stepped?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus Bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Would Jesus hate the Gay folks, or the Queer folks or the Trans
    Would he suggest they end their lives according to God’s plans?
    Would Jesus tell the homeless man to get a fucking job
    Or turn his back on the poor, would Jesus be a snob?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “Well, what would Jesus do?”

    Would Jesus Vote Republican, or would it be Democrat?
    Would he be chanting four more years, or wear a MAGA hat?
    Would Jesus run for president, or dictator, or worse?
    Would Jesus be the pastor of his own mega church?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Would Jesus build a border wall? Would Jesus drive a tank?
    Would Jesus own an arsenal? Would Jesus run a bank?
    Would Jesus feel safe in his skin if he came to your town?
    Would you still believe in Jesus if you found out he was brown?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Rate this:

    #BlaisePascal #Catholicism #China #Christian #DavidRovics #DepartmentOfWar #DeusVult #DonaldTrump #India #Jansenism #JesusChrist #JordanSmart #militaryIndustrialComplex #patriotism #Pentagon #PeteHegseth #Russia #SecretaryOfWar #Voltaire #WhoWouldJesusBomb
  6. Thank you for your service

    It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

    Voltaire

    The U.S. has been involved in military conflicts of one type or another for about 229 years of its 250-year history. That means that its population has experienced only about 20 years of total peace.

    During wartime, a significant number of Americans must surely feel convinced that they’re justified in their bellicose attitude, or how else can one explain such a continuous history of aggression? The U.S.’s prosperity and dominance certainly seem to support the idea that war is a dominant factor in its economic success on the world stage.

    I have little doubt that there is no stronger inducement in matters of war than the invoking religion doctrine, and Jesus, particularly, to sway the masses in favour of military action. It has been done for thousands of years and very successfully.

    While American sentiment is generally anti-war (there was a brief period in the 60s when they really demonstrated their resentment), there can be no doubt that there is an appetite for it if the right buttons are pushed. The “thank you for your service” culture is pervasive and goes beyond mere patriotism, found among liberals and conservatives alike.

    Has anyone questioned what exactly you are thanking them for? I sometimes question how many patriots are genuinely troubled that the service includes killing a stupendous number of innocent men, women and children on a regular basis. Or whether they even know.

    The U.S. may rank only third among the world’s armed forces in active-duty personnel, behind India and China, but its military budget outstrips that of the next six countries combined, including Russia and the two previously mentioned. That astounding level of spending spawned what is now commonly referred to as the Military Industrial Complex, which has a whole separate level of derangement and depravity associated with it.

    It is therefore not surprising that there has been insignificant resistance to the Trump Administration’s renaming of the Department of Defence to the Department of War. It is ironically one of the most honest things any administration has done. Why fuck around? Just call it what it is, right?

    If the renaming wasn’t enough to validate America’s ambition to be the premier imperialist empire, then the retention of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of War, despite his conspicuous unsuitability to command a military force, must leave no doubt. Hegseth’s giant Deus Vult tattoo, meticulously sculpted hairline, fake TV-host charm, and fanatical evangelical bigotry are otherwise perfect credentials for steering the charge to mass murder.

    Hegseth almost always invokes nationalist rhetoric and biblical language and scripture to justify military engagements. He conducts Christian worship and prayer services at the Pentagon and has made no effort to conceal his thirst for blood and violence. His other accomplishments include marginalising non-Christian and minority personnel in the armed forces, because I guess it’s much harder to motivate those who don’t share your religious worldview.

    Let’s not forget the narcissistic man-child currently heading the evil empire. No person has obliterated the same nuclear stockpile and weaponry of another country more times than Donald Trump. Laugh you may, but it gets better!

    Nobody has won the same war more times than him, and nobody has negotiated the same ceasefire more times either. It is truly an accomplishment that will never be repeated, ever. It’s no wonder he’s immortalised in such memes as the one below:

    I am frequently bewildered by why ordinary Christians cannot recognise how and when their faith is being perverted, and not only seem helpless to do anything about it, but are frequently willing to look past the transgressions. The 17th-century French mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal, who identified with the Jansenism movement within Catholicism, famously observed how religion is so often misappropriated by immoral men:

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.

    I recently discovered the music of David Rovics, an independent singer/songwriter who releases his music for free so that his anti-war and social justice messages are widely distributed. Together with Jordan Smart, another activist and folk-music singer/songwriter, they have both been asking a very important question that the followers of Christ need to take more seriously.

    Who would Jesus bomb?

    I will leave the YouTube videos together with the lyrics below. Same rhetorical question, different approach in asking, same outcome. Enjoy!

    https://youtu.be/RXXt5q3OwPg?si=1rAjxMBXEwymXS_F

    I’ve seen you in the markets
    I’ve seen you in the streets
    And at your political convention
    Talking of your crusade
    Talking of your nation
    And other things too terrible to mention
    And you proclaim your Christianity
    You proclaim your love of God
    You talk of apple pie and mom
    Well I’ve just got one question
    And I want an answer
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

    Maybe Jesus would bomb the Syrians
    Cause they’re not Jews like him
    Maybe Jesus would bomb the Afghans
    On some kind of vengeful whim
    Maybe Jesus would drive an M1 tank
    And he would shoot Saddam
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

    I’ve seen you on the TV
    And on the battleships
    I’ve seen you in the house upon the hill
    And I’ve heard you talking
    About making the world safer
    And about all the men you have to kill
    And you speak so glibly
    About your civilization
    And how you have the moral higher ground
    While halfway around the world
    Your explosives smash the buildings
    Ah, if you could only hear the sound

    But maybe Jesus would sell land mines
    And turn on his electric chair
    Maybe Jesus would show no compassion
    For his enemies in the lands way over there
    Maybe Jesus would have flown the planes
    That killed the kids in Viet Nam
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb

    Yes I hear you shout with confidence
    As you praise the lord
    And you talk about this God you know so well
    And you talk of Armageddon
    And your final victory
    When all the evil forces go to hell
    Well you’d best hope you’ve chosen wisely
    On the right side of the lord
    And when you die your conscience it is clear
    You’d best hope that your atom bombs
    Are better than the sword
    At the time when your reckoning is here

    Cause I don’t think Jesus would send gunships into Bethlehem
    Or jets to raze the towns of Timorese
    I don’t think Jesus would lend money to dictators
    Or drive those SUV’s
    And I don’t think Jesus would ever have dropped
    A single ounce of napalm
    So tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

    https://youtu.be/hE-yXDsmaKQ?si=L8PsyZ07hK6zwkwK

    If Jesus Christ came back today, like you threaten he will
    Which poor group of people do you think that he would kill?
    Who would Jesus choose to starve if you gave him the chance
    And if there was a genocide, would he take a neutral stance?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Would he say, “it’s complicated, there’s sinners on all sides”
    Or would he say that some people, they just deserve to die
    If Christ the Savior rose again, then on a sidewalk slept
    Would you extend a hand to him, or just watch where you stepped?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus Bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Would Jesus hate the Gay folks, or the Queer folks or the Trans
    Would he suggest they end their lives according to God’s plans?
    Would Jesus tell the homeless man to get a fucking job
    Or turn his back on the poor, would Jesus be a snob?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “Well, what would Jesus do?”

    Would Jesus Vote Republican, or would it be Democrat?
    Would he be chanting four more years, or wear a MAGA hat?
    Would Jesus run for president, or dictator, or worse?
    Would Jesus be the pastor of his own mega church?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Would Jesus build a border wall? Would Jesus drive a tank?
    Would Jesus own an arsenal? Would Jesus run a bank?
    Would Jesus feel safe in his skin if he came to your town?
    Would you still believe in Jesus if you found out he was brown?

    Who would Jesus bomb?
    Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
    Would it be kids in Palestine, or how ’bout Vietnam?
    Would Jesus bomb the Atheists, the Muslims or the Jews?
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”
    I want you to ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

    Rate this:

    #BlaisePascal #Catholicism #China #Christian #DavidRovics #DepartmentOfWar #DeusVult #DonaldTrump #India #Jansenism #JesusChrist #JordanSmart #militaryIndustrialComplex #patriotism #Pentagon #PeteHegseth #Russia #SecretaryOfWar #Voltaire #WhoWouldJesusBomb
  7. Happy birthday, Blaise Pascal (b. 6/19/1623), who invented the PASCAL programming language using nothing but yarn & drawing pins.

    #UnofficialDiaryDates #BlaisePascal

  8. Happy birthday, Blaise Pascal (b. 6/19/1623), who invented the PASCAL programming language using nothing but yarn & drawing pins.

    #UnofficialDiaryDates #BlaisePascal

  9. Happy birthday, Blaise Pascal (b. 6/19/1623), who invented the PASCAL programming language using nothing but yarn & drawing pins.

    #UnofficialDiaryDates #BlaisePascal

  10. Today's birth annivrsary: ten facts about Blaise Pascal. Home schooled by his father, a tax collector, Pascal showed an aptitude for mathematics early and at the age of 12 had worked out Euclid’s first thirty-two geometric propositions all by himself.

    topicaltens.blogspot.com/2026/

    #BirthAnniversary #BlaisePascal

  11. Today's birth annivrsary: ten facts about Blaise Pascal. Home schooled by his father, a tax collector, Pascal showed an aptitude for mathematics early and at the age of 12 had worked out Euclid’s first thirty-two geometric propositions all by himself.

    topicaltens.blogspot.com/2026/

    #BirthAnniversary #BlaisePascal

  12. Today's birth annivrsary: ten facts about Blaise Pascal. Home schooled by his father, a tax collector, Pascal showed an aptitude for mathematics early and at the age of 12 had worked out Euclid’s first thirty-two geometric propositions all by himself.

    topicaltens.blogspot.com/2026/

    #BirthAnniversary #BlaisePascal

  13. Today's birth annivrsary: ten facts about Blaise Pascal. Home schooled by his father, a tax collector, Pascal showed an aptitude for mathematics early and at the age of 12 had worked out Euclid’s first thirty-two geometric propositions all by himself.

    topicaltens.blogspot.com/2026/

    #BirthAnniversary #BlaisePascal

  14. Today's birth annivrsary: ten facts about Blaise Pascal. Home schooled by his father, a tax collector, Pascal showed an aptitude for mathematics early and at the age of 12 had worked out Euclid’s first thirty-two geometric propositions all by himself.

    topicaltens.blogspot.com/2026/

    #BirthAnniversary #BlaisePascal

  15. Do you wish people to think well of you? Don’t speak well of yourself.

    — Blaise Pascal

    #Stoic #Stoicism #BlaisePascal

  16. Do you wish people to think well of you? Don’t speak well of yourself.

    — Blaise Pascal

    #Stoic #Stoicism #BlaisePascal

  17. Do you wish people to think well of you? Don’t speak well of yourself.

    — Blaise Pascal

    #Stoic #Stoicism #BlaisePascal

  18. Do you wish people to think well of you? Don’t speak well of yourself.

    — Blaise Pascal

  19. Do you wish people to think well of you? Don’t speak well of yourself.

    — Blaise Pascal

    #Stoic #Stoicism #BlaisePascal

  20. QOTD 💬

    Each chapter of 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘈𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴 by #RobHart opens with a quote from someone famous, the kind of line that sets the mood before the scene even starts.

    Prologue: “𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘢𝘯’𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦.” - #BlaisePascal

    Read them all at our 🔗 link in the comments
    #assassinsanonymous #qotd #bookstodon

  21. QOTD 💬

    Each chapter of 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘈𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴 by #RobHart opens with a quote from someone famous, the kind of line that sets the mood before the scene even starts.

    Prologue: “𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘢𝘯’𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦.” - #BlaisePascal

    Read them all at our 🔗 link in the comments
    #assassinsanonymous #qotd #bookstodon

  22. QOTD 💬

    Each chapter of 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘈𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴 by #RobHart opens with a quote from someone famous, the kind of line that sets the mood before the scene even starts.

    Prologue: “𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘢𝘯’𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦.” - #BlaisePascal

    Read them all at our 🔗 link in the comments
    #assassinsanonymous #qotd #bookstodon

  23. QOTD 💬

    Each chapter of 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘈𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴 by #RobHart opens with a quote from someone famous, the kind of line that sets the mood before the scene even starts.

    Prologue: “𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘢𝘯’𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦.” - #BlaisePascal

    Read them all at our 🔗 link in the comments
    #assassinsanonymous #qotd #bookstodon

  24. QOTD 💬

    Each chapter of 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘈𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴 by #RobHart opens with a quote from someone famous, the kind of line that sets the mood before the scene even starts.

    Prologue: “𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘢𝘯’𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦.” - #BlaisePascal

    Read them all at our 🔗 link in the comments
    #assassinsanonymous #qotd #bookstodon

  25. We are generally the better persuaded by the reasons we discover ourselves than by those given to us by others.
    -- Blaise Pascal

    #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Persuasion

    #Photography #Panorama #Panopainting #Driftwood #Florida

  26. We are generally the better persuaded by the reasons we discover ourselves than by those given to us by others.
    -- Blaise Pascal

    #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Persuasion

    #Photography #Panorama #Panopainting #Driftwood #Florida

  27. We are generally the better persuaded by the reasons we discover ourselves than by those given to us by others.
    -- Blaise Pascal

    #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Persuasion

    #Photography #Panorama #Panopainting #Driftwood #Florida

  28. We are generally the better persuaded by the reasons we discover ourselves than by those given to us by others.
    -- Blaise Pascal

    #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Persuasion

    #Photography #Panorama #Panopainting #Driftwood #Florida

  29. We are generally the better persuaded by the reasons we discover ourselves than by those given to us by others.
    -- Blaise Pascal

    #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Persuasion

    #Photography #Panorama #Panopainting #Driftwood #Florida

  30. Since we cannot be universal and know all that is to be known of everything, we ought to know a little about everything.
    -- Blaise Pascal

    #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Knowledge

    #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Sunset #NewMexico

  31. Since we cannot be universal and know all that is to be known of everything, we ought to know a little about everything.
    -- Blaise Pascal

    #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Knowledge

    #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Sunset #NewMexico

  32. Since we cannot be universal and know all that is to be known of everything, we ought to know a little about everything.
    -- Blaise Pascal

    #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Knowledge

    #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Sunset #NewMexico

  33. Since we cannot be universal and know all that is to be known of everything, we ought to know a little about everything.
    -- Blaise Pascal

    #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Knowledge

    #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Sunset #NewMexico

  34. Since we cannot be universal and know all that is to be known of everything, we ought to know a little about everything.
    -- Blaise Pascal

    #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Knowledge

    #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Sunset #NewMexico

  35. @isra_author creo que los oligarcas se ríen de todo esto, sobre actúan como parte del espectáculo social.

    Es querer poner puertas al campo. Mientras que no se tomen medidas educativas serias, y no se fomente la adicción a las pantallas, que son fetiches, lo de las redes es hacer que se hace algo.

    Como cuando se ha prohibido la prostitución, ha aumentado y siempre se ha ejercido. Es un problema de mentalidad y de formación humanista.

    Lo de la prohibición del tabaco, fue una cuestión aparente, porque ¿qué es lo que hace que se fue hasta en la sopa? Al final ha aumentado el alcoholismo y la drogadicción blanda. Estas dependencias ni se crean ni se destruyen, se transforman.

    No estoy ni a favor ni en contra, simplemente no vales para nada, sino para distraer. Como dice Pascal "Las tonterías nos consuelan porque nos distraen"

    #pascal #BlaisePascal

  36. @isra_author creo que los oligarcas se ríen de todo esto, sobre actúan como parte del espectáculo social.

    Es querer poner puertas al campo. Mientras que no se tomen medidas educativas serias, y no se fomente la adicción a las pantallas, que son fetiches, lo de las redes es hacer que se hace algo.

    Como cuando se ha prohibido la prostitución, ha aumentado y siempre se ha ejercido. Es un problema de mentalidad y de formación humanista.

    Lo de la prohibición del tabaco, fue una cuestión aparente, porque ¿qué es lo que hace que se fue hasta en la sopa? Al final ha aumentado el alcoholismo y la drogadicción blanda. Estas dependencias ni se crean ni se destruyen, se transforman.

    No estoy ni a favor ni en contra, simplemente no vales para nada, sino para distraer. Como dice Pascal "Las tonterías nos consuelan porque nos distraen"

    #pascal #BlaisePascal

  37. "People almost invariably arrive at their #beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." - #BlaisePascal

  38. "People almost invariably arrive at their #beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." - #BlaisePascal

  39. “Stercus accidit”*…

    The Wealth of the Nation (1942) by Seymour Fogel. Fine Arts Collection, United States General Services Administration

    As we try to understand the rifts afflicting our nation and world, many turn to Marx and his framework of class. But in a provocative essay, Catherine Nichols suggests that it was David Hume (in an 1752 essay that identified the unfethering of wealth from land) who identified the origin of our political divisions…

    Describing the political map in terms of Left and Right is an accepted convention all over the world, almost to the point of cliché. Yet it is surprisingly complicated to explain whose interests lie on each side of this spectrum. For example, if the Left supports the interests of workers over the interests of employers, why are Left-leaning regions of the United States and elsewhere in the world among the richest? When Japan and South Korea sought to become economic powerhouses in the later 20th century, they adopted Leftist policies such as strong public education, universal healthcare and increased gender equality – if countries seeking to compete in capitalist arenas adopt broadly Leftist policies, then how do we explain why Leftists are always talking about overthrowing capitalism? And if the Left is somehow both the party of workers’ rights and the party of material wealth, then whose interests are supported by the Right? Given such contradictions, how did these terms become so central to modern politics?

    The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ come from the seating arrangements in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, where the combatants used the medieval estate groupings to define their battle lines. According to their writings, land-owning aristocrats (the Second Estate) were the party of the Right, while the interests of nearly everyone else (the Third Estate) belonged to the Left. This Third Estate included peasants working for the landowners but also every other kind of business owner and worker. Decades later, Karl Marx offered a different analysis of capitalism: he put owners of both land and businesses together on one side (the bourgeoisie), while grouping workers from fields and factories on the other side (the proletariat) in a single, world-wide class struggle. The trouble with both these ways of parsing Left and Right is that voting patterns never seem to line up with class. Both historic analyses leave us with questions about the contemporary world – and not just the paradox of why so many Left-leaning places are so rich. Why, for example, do working-class conservatives appear to vote against their material interests, year in and year out, across generations?

    The 18th-century philosopher and political theorist David Hume had answers to these questions, though he was writing decades before the French Revolution. While his essay ‘Of Public Credit’ (1752) was a warning about the dangers of Britain’s increasing reliance on debt financing, his apocalyptic vision of the future turned out to describe some features of our current political map surprisingly well. Hume was writing because he believed that debt financing had the power to upend Europe’s traditional power structure and culture by creating a new source of money divorced from tradition or responsibility: stocks and bonds. Unlike land, anyone with some cash could buy war bonds and get an immediate passive income in the form of interest. This was the thin end of the wedge caused by the debt financing that Hume believed was destroying every part of society. The governments of antiquity, Hume argued, saved money to use in battle and then waged wars in self-defence, or else to expand their territory. But the British had invented a new form of warfare that Hume saw no precedent for, even in the merchant states of Nicollò Machiavelli’s Italy: war for trade, funded with money borrowed from private stockholders…

    [Nichols unpacks Hume’s observations (centrally, that three groups with stakes in the status quo, heretability, and the sanctity of “family and family hierarchy”tradition”– landowners, aging parents, and want to preserve old power structures, including the family– and traces their relevance, from Hume’s time to ours…]

    … There are many reasons for people aligning Right or Left, which is why analyses of class and material interests fall short of describing the realities of people’s politics. Hume foresaw that these specific groups would resent the economic sea-change of the 18th century – and he was correct. Many people would rather have land and power than money and liberty.

    Still, the power of the Right hasn’t doomed the Left – no more than the Spanish Inquisition doomed the rise of the Left in 18th-century England and France. As long as governments want to keep the value of their currencies from falling, someone in their ranks will be using the methods of the Left and inventiveness that brought us everything from our banking system to gay marriage. We don’t need to resurrect communism or focus narrowly on class, following Marx. The experiments are far from over, and we should remember that the Left is generally where money comes from in modern times. We give away too much power when we forget it…

    Rethinking Right and Left: “Landholder vs stockholder,” from @catherinenichols.bsky.social in @aeon.co.

    As for how it’s going at the moment (and further to Hume and the quote in this post’s title), see: “MAGA’s Betrayal of Small Business,” from @pkrugman.bsky.social.

    * “shit happens”– often attributed to David Hume, reflecting his skeptical view that human understanding, particularly of cause-and-effect, is limited to habitual belief from experience, implying that unforeseen, messy outcomes (“shit”) inevitably occur in life despite our reasoning.

    ###

    As we sort the Whigs from the Tories, we might recall that it was on this date 1656 that Blaise Pascal (writing under the pseudonym Louis de Montalte) published the first of his Provential Letters (Lettres provinciales), a series of eighteen polemical letters using humor to attack Jesuits for their use of  casuistry and their moral laxity. Though the Letters were a popular success, they had little immediate effect on politics or the clergy. But they influenced later French writers like Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and ultimately persuaded Pope Alexander to condemn “laxity” in the church and order a revision of casuistic texts.

    source

    #BlaisePascal #culture #DavidHume #economics #history #JeanJacquesRousseau #Jesuits #KarlMarx #philosophy #politicalDivision #politics #ProventialLetters #religion #society #sociology #Voltaire
  40. “Stercus accidit”*…

    The Wealth of the Nation (1942) by Seymour Fogel. Fine Arts Collection, United States General Services Administration

    As we try to understand the rifts afflicting our nation and world, many turn to Marx and his framework of class. But in a provocative essay, Catherine Nichols suggests that it was David Hume (in an 1752 essay that identified the unfethering of wealth from land) who identified the origin of our political divisions…

    Describing the political map in terms of Left and Right is an accepted convention all over the world, almost to the point of cliché. Yet it is surprisingly complicated to explain whose interests lie on each side of this spectrum. For example, if the Left supports the interests of workers over the interests of employers, why are Left-leaning regions of the United States and elsewhere in the world among the richest? When Japan and South Korea sought to become economic powerhouses in the later 20th century, they adopted Leftist policies such as strong public education, universal healthcare and increased gender equality – if countries seeking to compete in capitalist arenas adopt broadly Leftist policies, then how do we explain why Leftists are always talking about overthrowing capitalism? And if the Left is somehow both the party of workers’ rights and the party of material wealth, then whose interests are supported by the Right? Given such contradictions, how did these terms become so central to modern politics?

    The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ come from the seating arrangements in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, where the combatants used the medieval estate groupings to define their battle lines. According to their writings, land-owning aristocrats (the Second Estate) were the party of the Right, while the interests of nearly everyone else (the Third Estate) belonged to the Left. This Third Estate included peasants working for the landowners but also every other kind of business owner and worker. Decades later, Karl Marx offered a different analysis of capitalism: he put owners of both land and businesses together on one side (the bourgeoisie), while grouping workers from fields and factories on the other side (the proletariat) in a single, world-wide class struggle. The trouble with both these ways of parsing Left and Right is that voting patterns never seem to line up with class. Both historic analyses leave us with questions about the contemporary world – and not just the paradox of why so many Left-leaning places are so rich. Why, for example, do working-class conservatives appear to vote against their material interests, year in and year out, across generations?

    The 18th-century philosopher and political theorist David Hume had answers to these questions, though he was writing decades before the French Revolution. While his essay ‘Of Public Credit’ (1752) was a warning about the dangers of Britain’s increasing reliance on debt financing, his apocalyptic vision of the future turned out to describe some features of our current political map surprisingly well. Hume was writing because he believed that debt financing had the power to upend Europe’s traditional power structure and culture by creating a new source of money divorced from tradition or responsibility: stocks and bonds. Unlike land, anyone with some cash could buy war bonds and get an immediate passive income in the form of interest. This was the thin end of the wedge caused by the debt financing that Hume believed was destroying every part of society. The governments of antiquity, Hume argued, saved money to use in battle and then waged wars in self-defence, or else to expand their territory. But the British had invented a new form of warfare that Hume saw no precedent for, even in the merchant states of Nicollò Machiavelli’s Italy: war for trade, funded with money borrowed from private stockholders…

    [Nichols unpacks Hume’s observations (centrally, that three groups with stakes in the status quo, heretability, and the sanctity of “family and family hierarchy”tradition”– landowners, aging parents, and want to preserve old power structures, including the family– and traces their relevance, from Hume’s time to ours…]

    … There are many reasons for people aligning Right or Left, which is why analyses of class and material interests fall short of describing the realities of people’s politics. Hume foresaw that these specific groups would resent the economic sea-change of the 18th century – and he was correct. Many people would rather have land and power than money and liberty.

    Still, the power of the Right hasn’t doomed the Left – no more than the Spanish Inquisition doomed the rise of the Left in 18th-century England and France. As long as governments want to keep the value of their currencies from falling, someone in their ranks will be using the methods of the Left and inventiveness that brought us everything from our banking system to gay marriage. We don’t need to resurrect communism or focus narrowly on class, following Marx. The experiments are far from over, and we should remember that the Left is generally where money comes from in modern times. We give away too much power when we forget it…

    Rethinking Right and Left: “Landholder vs stockholder,” from @catherinenichols.bsky.social in @aeon.co.

    As for how it’s going at the moment (and further to Hume and the quote in this post’s title), see: “MAGA’s Betrayal of Small Business,” from @pkrugman.bsky.social.

    * “shit happens”– often attributed to David Hume, reflecting his skeptical view that human understanding, particularly of cause-and-effect, is limited to habitual belief from experience, implying that unforeseen, messy outcomes (“shit”) inevitably occur in life despite our reasoning.

    ###

    As we sort the Whigs from the Tories, we might recall that it was on this date 1656 that Blaise Pascal (writing under the pseudonym Louis de Montalte) published the first of his Provential Letters (Lettres provinciales), a series of eighteen polemical letters using humor to attack Jesuits for their use of  casuistry and their moral laxity. Though the Letters were a popular success, they had little immediate effect on politics or the clergy. But they influenced later French writers like Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and ultimately persuaded Pope Alexander to condemn “laxity” in the church and order a revision of casuistic texts.

    source

    #BlaisePascal #culture #DavidHume #economics #history #JeanJacquesRousseau #Jesuits #KarlMarx #philosophy #politicalDivision #politics #ProventialLetters #religion #society #sociology #Voltaire
  41. “Stercus accidit”*…

    The Wealth of the Nation (1942) by Seymour Fogel. Fine Arts Collection, United States General Services Administration

    As we try to understand the rifts afflicting our nation and world, many turn to Marx and his framework of class. But in a provocative essay, Catherine Nichols suggests that it was David Hume (in an 1752 essay that identified the unfethering of wealth from land) who identified the origin of our political divisions…

    Describing the political map in terms of Left and Right is an accepted convention all over the world, almost to the point of cliché. Yet it is surprisingly complicated to explain whose interests lie on each side of this spectrum. For example, if the Left supports the interests of workers over the interests of employers, why are Left-leaning regions of the United States and elsewhere in the world among the richest? When Japan and South Korea sought to become economic powerhouses in the later 20th century, they adopted Leftist policies such as strong public education, universal healthcare and increased gender equality – if countries seeking to compete in capitalist arenas adopt broadly Leftist policies, then how do we explain why Leftists are always talking about overthrowing capitalism? And if the Left is somehow both the party of workers’ rights and the party of material wealth, then whose interests are supported by the Right? Given such contradictions, how did these terms become so central to modern politics?

    The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ come from the seating arrangements in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, where the combatants used the medieval estate groupings to define their battle lines. According to their writings, land-owning aristocrats (the Second Estate) were the party of the Right, while the interests of nearly everyone else (the Third Estate) belonged to the Left. This Third Estate included peasants working for the landowners but also every other kind of business owner and worker. Decades later, Karl Marx offered a different analysis of capitalism: he put owners of both land and businesses together on one side (the bourgeoisie), while grouping workers from fields and factories on the other side (the proletariat) in a single, world-wide class struggle. The trouble with both these ways of parsing Left and Right is that voting patterns never seem to line up with class. Both historic analyses leave us with questions about the contemporary world – and not just the paradox of why so many Left-leaning places are so rich. Why, for example, do working-class conservatives appear to vote against their material interests, year in and year out, across generations?

    The 18th-century philosopher and political theorist David Hume had answers to these questions, though he was writing decades before the French Revolution. While his essay ‘Of Public Credit’ (1752) was a warning about the dangers of Britain’s increasing reliance on debt financing, his apocalyptic vision of the future turned out to describe some features of our current political map surprisingly well. Hume was writing because he believed that debt financing had the power to upend Europe’s traditional power structure and culture by creating a new source of money divorced from tradition or responsibility: stocks and bonds. Unlike land, anyone with some cash could buy war bonds and get an immediate passive income in the form of interest. This was the thin end of the wedge caused by the debt financing that Hume believed was destroying every part of society. The governments of antiquity, Hume argued, saved money to use in battle and then waged wars in self-defence, or else to expand their territory. But the British had invented a new form of warfare that Hume saw no precedent for, even in the merchant states of Nicollò Machiavelli’s Italy: war for trade, funded with money borrowed from private stockholders…

    [Nichols unpacks Hume’s observations (centrally, that three groups with stakes in the status quo, heretability, and the sanctity of “family and family hierarchy”tradition”– landowners, aging parents, and want to preserve old power structures, including the family– and traces their relevance, from Hume’s time to ours…]

    … There are many reasons for people aligning Right or Left, which is why analyses of class and material interests fall short of describing the realities of people’s politics. Hume foresaw that these specific groups would resent the economic sea-change of the 18th century – and he was correct. Many people would rather have land and power than money and liberty.

    Still, the power of the Right hasn’t doomed the Left – no more than the Spanish Inquisition doomed the rise of the Left in 18th-century England and France. As long as governments want to keep the value of their currencies from falling, someone in their ranks will be using the methods of the Left and inventiveness that brought us everything from our banking system to gay marriage. We don’t need to resurrect communism or focus narrowly on class, following Marx. The experiments are far from over, and we should remember that the Left is generally where money comes from in modern times. We give away too much power when we forget it…

    Rethinking Right and Left: “Landholder vs stockholder,” from @catherinenichols.bsky.social in @aeon.co.

    As for how it’s going at the moment (and further to Hume and the quote in this post’s title), see: “MAGA’s Betrayal of Small Business,” from @pkrugman.bsky.social.

    * “shit happens”– often attributed to David Hume, reflecting his skeptical view that human understanding, particularly of cause-and-effect, is limited to habitual belief from experience, implying that unforeseen, messy outcomes (“shit”) inevitably occur in life despite our reasoning.

    ###

    As we sort the Whigs from the Tories, we might recall that it was on this date 1656 that Blaise Pascal (writing under the pseudonym Louis de Montalte) published the first of his Provential Letters (Lettres provinciales), a series of eighteen polemical letters using humor to attack Jesuits for their use of  casuistry and their moral laxity. Though the Letters were a popular success, they had little immediate effect on politics or the clergy. But they influenced later French writers like Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and ultimately persuaded Pope Alexander to condemn “laxity” in the church and order a revision of casuistic texts.

    source

    #BlaisePascal #culture #DavidHume #economics #history #JeanJacquesRousseau #Jesuits #KarlMarx #philosophy #politicalDivision #politics #ProventialLetters #religion #society #sociology #Voltaire
  42. “Stercus accidit”*…

    The Wealth of the Nation (1942) by Seymour Fogel. Fine Arts Collection, United States General Services Administration

    As we try to understand the rifts afflicting our nation and world, many turn to Marx and his framework of class. But in a provocative essay, Catherine Nichols suggests that it was David Hume (in an 1752 essay that identified the unfethering of wealth from land) who identified the origin of our political divisions…

    Describing the political map in terms of Left and Right is an accepted convention all over the world, almost to the point of cliché. Yet it is surprisingly complicated to explain whose interests lie on each side of this spectrum. For example, if the Left supports the interests of workers over the interests of employers, why are Left-leaning regions of the United States and elsewhere in the world among the richest? When Japan and South Korea sought to become economic powerhouses in the later 20th century, they adopted Leftist policies such as strong public education, universal healthcare and increased gender equality – if countries seeking to compete in capitalist arenas adopt broadly Leftist policies, then how do we explain why Leftists are always talking about overthrowing capitalism? And if the Left is somehow both the party of workers’ rights and the party of material wealth, then whose interests are supported by the Right? Given such contradictions, how did these terms become so central to modern politics?

    The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ come from the seating arrangements in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, where the combatants used the medieval estate groupings to define their battle lines. According to their writings, land-owning aristocrats (the Second Estate) were the party of the Right, while the interests of nearly everyone else (the Third Estate) belonged to the Left. This Third Estate included peasants working for the landowners but also every other kind of business owner and worker. Decades later, Karl Marx offered a different analysis of capitalism: he put owners of both land and businesses together on one side (the bourgeoisie), while grouping workers from fields and factories on the other side (the proletariat) in a single, world-wide class struggle. The trouble with both these ways of parsing Left and Right is that voting patterns never seem to line up with class. Both historic analyses leave us with questions about the contemporary world – and not just the paradox of why so many Left-leaning places are so rich. Why, for example, do working-class conservatives appear to vote against their material interests, year in and year out, across generations?

    The 18th-century philosopher and political theorist David Hume had answers to these questions, though he was writing decades before the French Revolution. While his essay ‘Of Public Credit’ (1752) was a warning about the dangers of Britain’s increasing reliance on debt financing, his apocalyptic vision of the future turned out to describe some features of our current political map surprisingly well. Hume was writing because he believed that debt financing had the power to upend Europe’s traditional power structure and culture by creating a new source of money divorced from tradition or responsibility: stocks and bonds. Unlike land, anyone with some cash could buy war bonds and get an immediate passive income in the form of interest. This was the thin end of the wedge caused by the debt financing that Hume believed was destroying every part of society. The governments of antiquity, Hume argued, saved money to use in battle and then waged wars in self-defence, or else to expand their territory. But the British had invented a new form of warfare that Hume saw no precedent for, even in the merchant states of Nicollò Machiavelli’s Italy: war for trade, funded with money borrowed from private stockholders…

    [Nichols unpacks Hume’s observations (centrally, that three groups with stakes in the status quo, heretability, and the sanctity of “family and family hierarchy”tradition”– landowners, aging parents, and want to preserve old power structures, including the family– and traces their relevance, from Hume’s time to ours…]

    … There are many reasons for people aligning Right or Left, which is why analyses of class and material interests fall short of describing the realities of people’s politics. Hume foresaw that these specific groups would resent the economic sea-change of the 18th century – and he was correct. Many people would rather have land and power than money and liberty.

    Still, the power of the Right hasn’t doomed the Left – no more than the Spanish Inquisition doomed the rise of the Left in 18th-century England and France. As long as governments want to keep the value of their currencies from falling, someone in their ranks will be using the methods of the Left and inventiveness that brought us everything from our banking system to gay marriage. We don’t need to resurrect communism or focus narrowly on class, following Marx. The experiments are far from over, and we should remember that the Left is generally where money comes from in modern times. We give away too much power when we forget it…

    Rethinking Right and Left: “Landholder vs stockholder,” from @catherinenichols.bsky.social in @aeon.co.

    As for how it’s going at the moment (and further to Hume and the quote in this post’s title), see: “MAGA’s Betrayal of Small Business,” from @pkrugman.bsky.social.

    * “shit happens”– often attributed to David Hume, reflecting his skeptical view that human understanding, particularly of cause-and-effect, is limited to habitual belief from experience, implying that unforeseen, messy outcomes (“shit”) inevitably occur in life despite our reasoning.

    ###

    As we sort the Whigs from the Tories, we might recall that it was on this date 1656 that Blaise Pascal (writing under the pseudonym Louis de Montalte) published the first of his Provential Letters (Lettres provinciales), a series of eighteen polemical letters using humor to attack Jesuits for their use of  casuistry and their moral laxity. Though the Letters were a popular success, they had little immediate effect on politics or the clergy. But they influenced later French writers like Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and ultimately persuaded Pope Alexander to condemn “laxity” in the church and order a revision of casuistic texts.

    source

    #BlaisePascal #culture #DavidHume #economics #history #JeanJacquesRousseau #Jesuits #KarlMarx #philosophy #politicalDivision #politics #ProventialLetters #religion #society #sociology #Voltaire