#blaisepascal — Public Fediverse posts

#santoral #frasedeldia #blaisePascal #pascal #13deagosto #historia #filosofia #reflexiones

#santoral #frasedeldia #blaisePascal #pascal #13deagosto #historia #filosofia #reflexiones

#santoral #frasedeldia #blaisePascal #pascal #13deagosto #historia #filosofia #reflexiones

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:

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:

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:

Why You

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/06/28/why-you/

Why You

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/06/28/why-you/

Why You

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/06/28/why-you/

Why You

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/06/28/why-you/

Why You

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/06/28/why-you/

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

#UnofficialDiaryDates #BlaisePascal

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

#UnofficialDiaryDates #BlaisePascal

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

#UnofficialDiaryDates #BlaisePascal

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.

https://topicaltens.blogspot.com/2026/06/19-june-blaise-pascal.html

#BirthAnniversary #BlaisePascal

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.

https://topicaltens.blogspot.com/2026/06/19-june-blaise-pascal.html

#BirthAnniversary #BlaisePascal

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.

https://topicaltens.blogspot.com/2026/06/19-june-blaise-pascal.html

#BirthAnniversary #BlaisePascal

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.

https://topicaltens.blogspot.com/2026/06/19-june-blaise-pascal.html

#BirthAnniversary #BlaisePascal

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.

https://topicaltens.blogspot.com/2026/06/19-june-blaise-pascal.html

#BirthAnniversary #BlaisePascal

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

— Blaise Pascal

#Stoic #Stoicism #BlaisePascal

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

— Blaise Pascal

#Stoic #Stoicism #BlaisePascal

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

— Blaise Pascal

#Stoic #Stoicism #BlaisePascal

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

— Blaise Pascal

#Stoic #Stoicism #BlaisePascal

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

— Blaise Pascal

#Stoic #Stoicism #BlaisePascal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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

@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

Why You

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/02/11/why-you/

Why You

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/02/11/why-you/

Why You

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/02/11/why-you/

Why You

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/02/11/why-you/

Why You

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/02/11/why-you/

Blaise Pascal on the Intuitive vs. the Logical Mind and How We Come to Know Truth

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/02/11/blaise-pascal-intuition-intellect-pensees/

Blaise Pascal on the Intuitive vs. the Logical Mind and How We Come to Know Truth

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/02/11/blaise-pascal-intuition-intellect-pensees/

Blaise Pascal on the Intuitive vs. the Logical Mind and How We Come to Know Truth

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/02/11/blaise-pascal-intuition-intellect-pensees/

Blaise Pascal on the Intuitive vs. the Logical Mind and How We Come to Know Truth

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/02/11/blaise-pascal-intuition-intellect-pensees/

Blaise Pascal on the Intuitive vs. the Logical Mind and How We Come to Know Truth

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.themarginalian.org/2026/02/11/blaise-pascal-intuition-intellect-pensees/

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

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

“Stercus accidit”*…

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

“Stercus accidit”*…

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

“Stercus accidit”*…

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

“Stercus accidit”*…

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

“Stercus accidit”*…

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 unfettering 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

Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.
-- Blaise Pascal

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Infinity #Nothingness

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Panopainting #NewMexico

Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.
-- Blaise Pascal

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #BlaisePascal #Infinity #Nothingness

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Panopainting #NewMexico