Sign into an existing account

So I've spoken of this a bit. I'm not going to flesh it all out here but questions are welcome. You might say it is a very French idea as the foremost intellectual influences on it are French: the Marquis de Sade and Auguste Comte. A Russian intelligence agent told me in 2022 that without my use of Comte I would not be here. Here being where I had just entered. I.e., talking to him.

It's a glorified camping trip until the pigs make it something else. Basically lots of sex, nudity, squatting and trespassing on federal lands, moving around (no stupid compounds for Waco enthusiasts) and ignoring the law. In practice that means no applications for things like fishing and hunting licenses. I expect lots of fugitives and other outcasts to get in pretty early. My basic demographic is hobos and college sluts. It's family formation. Think of the Manson Family had they moved to more defensible areas than Death Valley. 12-35 people to start, men outnumbering women suggesting a gangbang. Children raised in common. No work. No inequality created by private property. And while I say my plan this comes courtesy of Iranian intelligence - with Don Pendleton's 'Nuclear Storm' serving as a huge influence.

Portugal 1494 to 1580 (From the end of the Italian Wars to Spanish-Portuguese Union). Based on Portugal's dominance in navigation.

Spain 1516 to 1659 (From the accession of Charles I of Spain to the Treaty of the Pyrenees). Based on the Spanish dominance of the European battlefields and the global exploration and colonization of the New World.

The Netherlands 1580 to 1688 (From the 1579 Treaty of Utrecht, which marks the foundation of the Dutch Republic, to the Glorious Revolution, William of Orange's arrival in England). Based on Dutch control of credit and money.

France 1643 to 1763 (From the accession of Louis XIV to the end of the Seven Years' War).

Britain 1688 to 1792 (From the Glorious Revolution to the start of the French Revolutionary Wars). Based on British textiles and command of the high seas.

French Revolution and Napoleonic France (1789 to 1815).

Britain 1815 to 1914 (From the Congress of Vienna to the start of the Great War). Based on British industrial supremacy and railroads.

Yes, the vast majority of historians, including those who are not religious, agree that Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish man who lived in the 1st century AD, existed as a historical figure, and Christianity was later built upon his life and teachings.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Historical Consensus:

The question of Jesus' historicity was generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century, with most scholars now agreeing that he existed.

Distinction between "Jesus of History" and "Christ of Faith":

Scholars make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the figure of Christ as portrayed in religious texts and beliefs.

Evidence for Existence:

Extrabiblical Sources:
Jewish and Roman historians, such as Josephus and Tacitus, mention Jesus, providing evidence beyond the New Testament.

Early Christian Writings:

The letters of Paul, some of the earliest surviving Christian writings, reference Jesus and his followers, including eyewitnesses like Jesus' brother James.

Lack of Debate in Antiquity:

There's no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.

Specific Events:

While there's no consensus on all elements of the biblical story, two events are widely accepted as historical: Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist and his crucifixion by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Guy Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle" argues that modern society is dominated by a "spectacle" – a pervasive system of images and representations that obscure real social relations and lead to alienation and passivity, ultimately serving as a tool of capitalist control.

Here's a more detailed breakdown of Debord's theory:

The Spectacle as a Dominant Force:

Debord argues that the "spectacle" has become the dominant force in modern society, replacing direct lived experience with mediated representations.

Commodity Fetishism and Alienation:

The spectacle is rooted in Marxist concepts of commodity fetishism and alienation, where commodities and their relations take on a life of their own, obscuring the real social relations that underpin them.

Passive Consumption and Conformity:

The spectacle encourages passive consumption and conformity, as individuals become increasingly focused on images and appearances rather than engaging in meaningful social action.

The Decline of Being into Having into Appearing:

Debord argues that the history of social life can be understood as "the decline of being into having, and having into merely appearing".

The Spectacle as a Form of Social Control:

The spectacle serves as a primary mechanism of social control, pacifying the masses and reinforcing the status quo.

Détournement and Culture Jamming:

In response to the power of the spectacle, Debord and the Situationist International advocated for détournement (or culture jamming), a tactic of turning the spectacle's own tools against itself.

Examples of the Spectacle:

Debord identifies various forms of the spectacle, including mass media, advertising, entertainment, and consumer culture.

The Society of the Spectacle as a Revolutionary Critique:

Debord's work is a radical critique of modern capitalism and a call for a revolutionary transformation of society.

The Spectacle as a Social Relation:

Debord emphasizes that the spectacle is not simply a collection of images, but rather a social relation among people, mediated by images.

The Spectacle as a Tool of Domination:

Debord argues that the spectacle is a tool of domination, used by the ruling class to maintain control over the masses.
The Spectacle as a "concrete inversion of life"
Debord argues that the spectacle is a "concrete inversion of life, an autonomous movement of the non living".

Foucault's theory of biopolitics, explored in works like "The History of Sexuality" and "Security, Territory, and Population," examines how modern power operates not through direct repression, but by managing and optimizing life itself, focusing on populations and their health, reproduction, and longevity.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

What is Biopolitics?
Foucault defines biopolitics as a way of governing populations through the management of life processes, moving beyond traditional sovereign power that focused on death and punishment.

Biopower:

Biopolitics is implemented through "biopower," which refers to the ways in which power is exercised over the biological aspects of populations, including health, reproduction, and longevity.

Shifting Focus of Power:

Foucault argues that modern power has shifted from focusing on the individual body to focusing on the population as a whole, with the goal of maximizing and controlling life.

Examples of Biopolitical Practices:

Foucault identifies practices like public health initiatives, population control measures, and even seemingly benevolent actions like promoting healthy lifestyles as examples of biopolitical interventions.

The Role of Knowledge:

Foucault emphasizes that biopolitics relies heavily on knowledge, particularly scientific and statistical knowledge, to understand and manage populations.

Beyond Repression:

Unlike traditional theories of power that focus on repression, Foucault argues that biopower is more about "making live" and "letting die" through the manipulation of life processes.

Governmentality:

Foucault's concept of "governmentality" is closely related to biopolitics, referring to the ways in which populations are governed and the techniques used to guide their behavior.

Critique of Biopolitics:

Some scholars have criticized Foucault's theory of biopolitics, arguing that it can be overly deterministic or that it overlooks the agency of individuals.