National Interest Vs Capital Interest

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Luke Ford

I’m not a capital supremacist. The national interest is more important (meaning the survival, safety, security and dignity of its citizens is more important than the interests of billionaires). The supremacy of shareholder capitalism allowed Apple to build up America’s greatest rival – China.

Conventional economic models don’t take into consideration the balance of power between states.

The effective state smashes groups that stand in the way of the national interest, be those groups billionaires, environmentalists, or labor.

I admire the ruthlessness of this Trump administration, while simultaneously understanding the dangers.

The national interest is more important than individual rights and classical liberalism.

I stand with Hobbes (we need government to be a leviathan to protect us in a dangerous world) over Locke (the state of nature encourages us to make contracts with each other).

The more negative your view of human nature, the more likely you are to be Hobbesian. The more optimistic your view, the more likely you are to be Lockean.

Grok says:

Your position aligns with Hobbes’ view that a strong, centralized authority is essential to maintain order and security in a world where human nature leans toward conflict. Hobbes argued that without a Leviathan—a powerful government—society would descend into a “war of all against all,” where individual rights and contracts, as Locke emphasized, would be meaningless due to insecurity and distrust. Prioritizing national interest over individual rights reflects this belief that collective stability trumps personal freedoms when survival is at stake.

Locke’s perspective, rooted in classical liberalism, assumes a more optimistic state of nature where individuals can form rational contracts to protect their rights, with government serving as a limited referee. Your stance rejects this, likely seeing it as naive in a dangerous world where threats—internal or external—require a unified, decisive response.

In geopolitics, Hobbes’ philosophy resonates with state-centric approaches prioritizing security and national interest, often at the expense of individual rights or international cooperation. Locke’s ideas, conversely, underpin liberal democratic ideals, emphasizing universal human rights and multilateral agreements.Global Power Competition and Authoritarian Regimes (Hobbesian)Context: The rise of great power competition—particularly between the U.S., China, and Russia—illustrates a Hobbesian world where states act as Leviathans to secure their survival. For example, China’s centralized governance under the Communist Party prioritizes national stability and economic dominance, often suppressing individual freedoms (e.g., censorship, surveillance in Xinjiang). Russia’s actions in Ukraine (2022–present) reflect a Hobbesian pursuit of territorial security and influence, disregarding individual rights in occupied regions.

Hobbesian Relevance: These regimes align with Hobbes’ view that a strong sovereign is necessary to prevent chaos. In a world of competing powers, national interest—defined as territorial integrity, economic strength, or military dominance—takes precedence. Hobbes would argue that without a global Leviathan, states exist in a “state of nature,” where mutual fear drives aggressive policies. The absence of a supranational authority, as noted in the Yale Law Journal, reinforces this, with states relying on “mutual fear” for temporary peace rather than trust-based contracts.

Lockean Counterpoint: Locke’s framework, emphasizing individual rights and consent, struggles here. Liberal democracies advocate for human rights sanctions or interventions (e.g., UN resolutions against Russia), but these often lack enforcement power. Locke’s optimism about rational cooperation falters when authoritarian states reject the premise of universal rights, prioritizing sovereignty over individual liberties.

International Institutions and Human Rights (Lockean)Context: Institutions like the UN or International Criminal Court (ICC) embody Lockean principles, aiming to protect individual rights through consensual agreements among states. The UN Declaration of Human Rights or Geneva Conventions reflect a social contract at the global level, where states agree to limit their sovereignty to uphold universal norms.

Lockean Relevance: These frameworks assume states can rationally agree to protect life, liberty, and property, as Locke envisioned in domestic contracts. For instance, NATO’s collective defense pact is a Lockean contract where member states consent to mutual protection, balancing national interest with individual security.

Hobbesian Critique: Hobbes would view these institutions as weak without a global sovereign to enforce compliance. States like China or Russia often flout ICC rulings or veto UN resolutions, reinforcing Hobbes’ skepticism about contracts in the absence of a higher authority. The “anarchy” of international relations, as realists describe, mirrors Hobbes’ state of nature, where national interest trumps collective agreements.

Case Study: U.S. Foreign Policy Post-9/11

Hobbesian Shift: Post-9/11, the U.S. adopted a Hobbesian approach, prioritizing national security over individual rights. The Patriot Act (2001) expanded surveillance, compromising privacy for collective safety. Drone strikes and Guantanamo Bay detentions prioritized national interest over due process, reflecting a Leviathan-like response to external threats.

Lockean Resistance: Critics, invoking Locke, argue these policies violate consent and natural rights. The ACLU’s lawsuits against surveillance or Guantanamo highlight a Lockean demand for government accountability to protect individual liberties. Yet, ongoing threats (e.g., terrorism, cyberattacks) sustain Hobbesian arguments for strong state power.

Analysis: In geopolitics, Hobbes’ Leviathan better explains the behavior of authoritarian states and security-driven policies in an anarchic world. National interest—security, economic power, sovereignty—often overrides individual rights when states perceive existential threats. Locke’s framework thrives in cooperative frameworks like NATO or the EU but struggles against non-compliant powers. Your Hobbesian stance aligns with the realist view that a strong state is essential in a world where global governance lacks teeth.

Domestic Policy: Security vs. Individual Freedoms

Domestically, the tension between national interest (stability, public safety) and individual rights (privacy, free speech) plays out in debates over surveillance, law enforcement, and public health.

Surveillance and Privacy (Hobbesian)Context: In the U.S., programs like PRISM (revealed by Snowden in 2013) and China’s social credit system exemplify Hobbesian governance, where the state prioritizes security and social order over privacy. The U.S. justifies mass data collection to combat terrorism, while China uses surveillance to enforce compliance, citing national stability.

Hobbesian Relevance: Hobbes would approve of these measures, arguing that a Leviathan must have unchecked power to prevent internal chaos. In his view, individual rights are secondary to the state’s duty to protect citizens from threats, whether crime, terrorism, or dissent. The “constrained” vision of human nature, akin to Hobbes, supports strong legal frameworks to control self-interested behavior.

Lockean Counterpoint: Locke’s emphasis on consent and natural rights fuels resistance. Privacy advocates argue that surveillance violates the social contract by undermining liberty without transparent justification. GDPR in the EU, rooted in Lockean principles, prioritizes individual data rights, requiring state and corporate accountability.

Public Health and Mandates (Hobbesian) Context: COVID-19 (2020–2023) saw governments worldwide impose lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and mask requirements, prioritizing collective health over individual choice. In the U.S., states like New York enforced strict measures, while others (e.g., Florida) resisted, citing personal freedom.

Hobbesian Relevance: Hobbes would support mandates as a Leviathan’s duty to protect citizens from a common threat. National interest—public health and economic stability—justifies overriding individual rights to refuse vaccines or masks, especially when non-compliance risks collective harm.

Lockean Critique: Lockean critics, including libertarian movements, argued that mandates violated consent and natural rights. Protests against lockdowns (e.g., Canada’s Freedom Convoy, 2022) echoed Locke’s view that government overreach, even for public good, requires justification through the consent of the governed.

Law and Order vs. Civil Liberties (Mixed) Context:

Debates over policing in the U.S. (e.g., Black Lives Matter, 2020 protests) highlight the Hobbes-Locke divide. Calls for “law and order” (e.g., Trump’s 2020 campaign) reflect Hobbesian demands for a strong state to curb violence and looting. Conversely, demands for police reform emphasize Lockean rights to life and liberty, arguing that state power must be checked to prevent abuse.

Hobbesian Relevance: Hobbes would prioritize state authority to restore order, viewing civil unrest as a step toward the state of nature. Policies like stop-and-frisk or militarized policing align with his call for a sovereign to enforce stability.

Lockean Relevance: Locke’s influence is evident in reform movements advocating for accountability (e.g., body cameras, defunding police). The U.S. Constitution, rooted in Lockean principles, protects against arbitrary state power, supporting arguments for systemic change.

Analysis: In domestic policy, Hobbes’ Leviathan resonates when governments face crises (pandemics, unrest) requiring swift, centralized action. National interest—public safety, order—often justifies limiting rights, aligning with your view. However, Locke’s legacy in democratic systems ensures pushback, as citizens demand transparency and consent. The balance tilts toward Hobbes in authoritarian states or emergencies but toward Locke in liberal democracies with strong legal protections.

Broader Implications and Synthesis

Hobbes’ Strength in a Dangerous World: Your preference for Hobbes holds in contexts where existential threats—war, terrorism, pandemics—demand decisive state action. Modern geopolitics, with its power rivalries and weak global governance, mirrors Hobbes’ state of nature, where national interest trumps individual rights. Domestically, crises amplify the need for a Leviathan to enforce order, as seen in surveillance or health mandates.

Locke’s Resilience in Democracies: Locke’s ideas thrive in stable democracies where consent and rights are institutionalized. The U.S. Constitution, EU human rights laws, and global institutions reflect his belief in rational cooperation and limited government. However, these frameworks falter when trust erodes or threats escalate, exposing their reliance on mutual agreement.

Contemporary Tensions: The Hobbes-Locke divide frames debates over balancing security and freedom. For example, India’s Constitution, as noted in Sociology Notes, balances Hobbesian state power with Lockean rights, reflecting ongoing tensions between federal control and civil liberties. Globally, the rise of populism and authoritarianism suggests a Hobbesian resurgence, as citizens trade freedoms for perceived stability.

A negative view of human nature—seeing people as selfish, conflict-prone, or chaotic—aligns with Hobbes’ belief that a strong, centralized Leviathan is necessary to prevent a “war of all against all.” Conversely, an optimistic view—seeing humans as rational, cooperative, and capable of self-governance—supports Locke’s emphasis on individual rights, consent, and limited government. Let’s analyze how this spectrum of human nature applies to modern geopolitics and domestic policy, building on the prior discussion, to test its explanatory power.

Human Nature and Geopolitics

Pessimistic View

(Hobbesian)

Context: States like China and Russia operate on a Hobbesian assumption of human (and state) nature as self-interested and prone to conflict. China’s strict social controls, including the social credit system, reflect a belief that individuals, left unchecked, will undermine collective stability. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) assumes a zero-sum world where trust is scarce, and power must be secured through force.

Application: Leaders with a negative view of human nature prioritize national interest—security, sovereignty, economic dominance—over individual rights or international cooperation. For example, China’s censorship assumes citizens will spread dissent without state intervention, mirroring Hobbes’ view that humans in the state of nature are “nasty” and “brutish.” This pessimism justifies a Leviathan-like state to enforce order, as seen in mass surveillance or territorial assertions in the South China Sea.

Evidence: Realist international relations theories, rooted in Hobbesian logic, dominate geopolitical strategy. The absence of a global sovereign, as noted in the Yale Law Journal, creates a “mutual fear” environment where states act as Leviathans to survive, distrusting others’ intentions.

Optimistic View (Lockean)Context: Liberal democracies and international institutions like the EU or UN reflect Locke’s optimism that humans (and states) can cooperate rationally for mutual benefit. The EU’s integration, based on shared economic and human rights principles, assumes states can form consensual contracts to limit sovereignty voluntarily. NATO’s collective defense similarly trusts members to honor commitments.

Application: An optimistic view supports frameworks prioritizing individual rights and multilateralism. For instance, the Paris Climate Agreement (2015) assumes states can trust each other to reduce emissions for collective good, a Lockean contract rooted in rational cooperation. Human rights advocacy, like Amnesty International’s campaigns, reflects belief in universal moral capacity, aligning with Locke’s view of humans as capable of upholding life, liberty, and property.

Limits: Optimism falters when trust breaks down. Russia’s violation of international norms in Ukraine or China’s rejection of UN rulings on the South China Sea expose the fragility of Lockean cooperation in a world where some actors view human nature pessimistically.

Analysis: A negative view of human nature drives Hobbesian policies in geopolitics, as states prioritize survival over trust. Your Hobbesian stance, favoring national interest, aligns with this pessimism, seeing global anarchy as necessitating strong state power. Locke’s optimism underpins liberal frameworks but struggles against actors who reject cooperative assumptions, reinforcing your preference for Hobbes in a dangerous world.

Human Nature and Domestic Policy

Pessimistic View (Hobbesian)Context: Domestic policies like mass surveillance or strict law enforcement reflect a Hobbesian distrust of human nature. In the U.S., the Patriot Act (2001) and NSA’s PRISM program assume individuals might exploit freedoms to harm the collective, justifying state overreach. China’s social credit system takes this further, presuming citizens will act against national interest without constant monitoring.

Application: A negative view supports policies prioritizing national stability over individual rights. During COVID-19, governments imposing lockdowns or vaccine mandates (e.g., Australia’s quarantine camps, 2021) acted on the Hobbesian premise that individuals, left to their own devices, would spread chaos or disease. This aligns with your view that a Leviathan is needed to protect society from itself.

Evidence: The “constrained” vision of human nature, as described in philosophical debates, underpins Hobbesian governance. States assume self-interest drives behavior, requiring a strong sovereign to enforce compliance, as seen in militarized policing during U.S. protests (2020).

Optimistic View

(Lockean)

Context:

Democratic institutions and civil liberties protections reflect Locke’s belief in human rationality and moral capacity. The U.S. Constitution’s checks and balances assume citizens and leaders can govern themselves through consent, not coercion. Movements like Black Lives Matter or privacy advocacy (e.g., GDPR in the EU) trust individuals to demand accountability and uphold rights.

Application: An optimistic view supports policies empowering individuals over the state. For example, decentralized responses to COVID-19 in some U.S. states (e.g., Florida’s resistance to mandates) reflect Lockean faith in personal responsibility. Free speech absolutism, championed by figures like Elon Musk on X, assumes humans can handle open discourse without state intervention.

Limits: Optimism is challenged when individual actions threaten collective good. Anti-vaccine movements during COVID-19, fueled by distrust, led to higher mortality rates, validating Hobbesian arguments for state control. Similarly, unchecked free speech on platforms can amplify misinformation, prompting calls for regulation.

Analysis: Domestically, a pessimistic view of human nature justifies Hobbesian policies in crises, aligning with your prioritization of national interest. Locke’s optimism drives democratic norms but falters when individual freedoms clash with collective needs, reinforcing the need for a Leviathan in unstable times.

Synthesis: Human Nature as a Predictor

Your statement—that a negative view of human nature predicts Hobbesian leanings, while an optimistic view predicts Lockean ones—is strongly supported in contemporary contexts:

Geopolitical Trends: The rise of authoritarianism (e.g., China, Russia) and security-driven policies (e.g., U.S. post-9/11) reflect Hobbesian pessimism, viewing humans as prone to conflict without strong control. Lockean optimism persists in cooperative frameworks but is undermined by non-compliant states.

Domestic Trends: Crises like pandemics or unrest amplify Hobbesian responses, as governments assume humans will act selfishly without enforcement. Lockean optimism shapes democratic resistance but struggles when individual rights threaten collective stability.

Cultural Shifts: Public sentiment, as seen on X, often splits along these lines. Pessimistic voices advocate for strong leadership to curb chaos (e.g., calls for law and order), while optimistic ones defend freedoms (e.g., anti-censorship campaigns). If you’d like, I can search X for specific posts to gauge current attitudes.

Conclusion

A negative view of human nature strongly correlates with Hobbesian policies prioritizing national interest and state power, as seen in authoritarian regimes, surveillance, and crisis responses. An optimistic view supports Lockean emphasis on rights and cooperation, evident in democracies and multilateralism, but it’s less resilient in high-stakes contexts. Your Hobbesian stance, favoring a Leviathan in a dangerous world, aligns with the pessimistic view that humans require strong governance to avoid chaos.

Posted in Apple, China | Comments Off on National Interest Vs Capital Interest

Will The 12-Day War Precipitate Regime Change In Iran, Russia & China?

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Luke Ford

I see no empirical evidence that Israel’s attack on Iran will lead to regime change in Iran, let alone Russia and China.

My spidey sense is that the odds of regime change in these countries is much higher than the evidence suggests.

Few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. It happened and it took the experts by surprise.

Few experts saw Trump getting elected president in 2016.

Grok says:

Your “spidey sense” likely refers to an intuitive feeling or gut instinct that something significant, like regime change in Iran, Russia, or China, might be more likely than current empirical evidence suggests. This phenomenon is often rooted in cognitive and psychological processes rather than hard data. Here’s an explanation of what might be driving your intuition and how it relates to the question of regime change:

What Is the “Spidey Sense”?

The term “spidey sense,” inspired by Spider-Man’s ability to sense danger, describes a subconscious perception of patterns or possibilities that aren’t immediately obvious. It’s your brain picking up on subtle cues, past experiences, or incomplete information and forming a hunch. Psychologically, this can stem from:

Pattern Recognition: Your brain may be connecting historical events (e.g., past regime changes after geopolitical shocks) to the current situation, even if the link isn’t explicit.

Heuristics: Mental shortcuts, like the availability heuristic, might make dramatic outcomes (e.g., regime collapse) feel more likely because they’re vivid or memorable.

Emotional Cues: Anxiety or excitement about global instability could amplify your sense that “something big” is coming.

Incomplete Information: When evidence is sparse, your brain fills in gaps with speculation, often leaning toward high-impact scenarios.

Why Might Your Spidey Sense Suggest Regime Change?

Your intuition that Israel’s attack on Iran could lead to regime change in Iran, Russia, or China, despite limited evidence, might be influenced by several factors:

Geopolitical Ripple Effects:

Israel’s attack on Iran (assuming a significant military strike, like the one referenced in recent discussions about Iran’s nuclear facilities) could destabilize the region. A weakened Iranian regime, facing internal dissent or economic collapse, might face increased pressure from its population or elites.

Iran’s allies, Russia and China, depend on it for strategic influence (e.g., energy, military cooperation). A blow to Iran could strain their resources or expose vulnerabilities, indirectly raising risks for their regimes.

Your spidey sense might be picking up on historical precedents, like how external shocks (e.g., the Soviet Union’s Afghan war) contributed to regime stress.

Iran’s Internal Fragility:

Iran faces domestic challenges: economic sanctions, inflation, and protests (e.g., the 2022 Mahsa Amini unrest). A military setback could embolden opposition or fracture elite loyalty, even if no direct evidence ties the attack to regime collapse.

Your intuition might sense that Iran’s theocratic regime is brittle, despite its resilience, making it seem “ripe” for change.

Russia and China’s Vulnerabilities:Russia’s regime faces strain from the Ukraine war, sanctions, and internal dissent (e.g., Prigozhin’s mutiny in 2023). A disruption in its Iranian partnership could overstretch its resources.

China’s regime, while more stable, grapples with economic slowdown and social control challenges. A global crisis sparked by Iran could test its legitimacy if it disrupts trade or energy supplies.

Your spidey sense might be amplifying the interconnectedness of these authoritarian regimes, where a shock to one (Iran) could cascade.

Media and Narrative Amplification:Discussions on platforms like X or in media might exaggerate the attack’s consequences, planting seeds of “big change” in your mind. For example, posts on X often speculate about dramatic outcomes without evidence, which can shape perceptions.

Your intuition might be influenced by these narratives, even if you consciously recognize their lack of grounding.

Cognitive Bias Toward High-Impact Outcomes:

Humans tend to overestimate the likelihood of rare, high-impact events (e.g., regime change) because they’re more salient than gradual change. This is called the neglect of probability bias.

Your spidey sense might be drawn to the drama of regime collapse over the more likely scenario of incremental pressure or adaptation.

Why the Evidence Doesn’t Support Regime Change (Yet)You’re correct that there’s little empirical evidence linking Israel’s attack to regime change:Iran: The regime has survived decades of sanctions, isolation, and protests. It’s adept at suppressing dissent and rallying nationalism during external threats. A strike might even strengthen hardliners short-term.

Russia: Putin’s grip remains firm despite Ukraine setbacks. Iran’s role in Russia’s strategy (e.g., drone supplies) is secondary, so a strike on Iran is unlikely to directly destabilize Moscow.

China: The CCP’s control is robust, with vast resources to weather global shocks. Iran’s troubles would likely be a minor irritant unless they trigger a broader energy crisis.

The gap between your intuition and the evidence suggests your spidey sense is picking up on potential rather than probability. It’s sensing tail risks—low-probability, high-impact outcomes—that are plausible but not imminent.

How to Refine Your Spidey Sense

To align your intuition with reality, consider:Cross-Check with Data: Look for measurable indicators of regime stress (e.g., protest frequency, economic metrics, elite defections). For Iran, track post-strike economic impacts or military responses.

Monitor X and Web Sources: Real-time posts on X can reveal sentiment shifts or unverified claims about unrest. I can search X for you if you’d like, but as of now, no credible reports suggest regime change is near.

Question the Narrative: Ask whether your hunch is fueled by vivid media or emotional reactions rather than facts.

Historical Analogies: Compare this to past cases (e.g., Iraq 2003, Libya 2011). Regime change often requires internal collapse or external intervention, not just a single strike.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Will The 12-Day War Precipitate Regime Change In Iran, Russia & China?

Elon Musk’s Terrible Political Judgment

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Luke Ford

Elon Musk is a free speech hero and a brilliant entrepreneur, but he’s not wise when it comes to politics.

Most of us have spheres of life where we are excellent and spheres where we’re terrible.

I’m not the type of guy you want checking the engines before the plane takes off. You wouldn’t want to employ me to do accounting all day. On the other hand, when it comes to creating and deconstructing narratives, I’m good. If you lend me something, I’ll return it to you in good condition or I will pay for any loss that occurred.

I enjoy too much saying provocative things which makes me a little mad, bad and dangerous to know, but this same quality sometimes translates into compelling vlogs and blogs.

I have no patience for consigning most people into broad categories of good and bad. It is more effective to place people in their correct genre.

Elon Musk is a tech and business visionary. That’s not a skill that necessarily translates into effective politics.

From Substack:

What Musk did was not just dumb, it had no chance of success. That’s the worst part, I think: The coup attempt had no hope of achieving its purported goals, the most it could have done was derail a productive effort and allow liberals to win. This is not how internal disputes can be allowed to proceed in a political movement. There is nothing but vanity, ego, and stupidity behind these moves.

Certainly, heavy drug use explains Musk’s erratic behavior, but at every turn Musk just seems to be divorced from reality and lashing out blindly. He has no idea what he’s doing. He is out of his depth. In short, his political inexperience has generated all sorts of problems for himself and others.

As quickly as Musk’s attempted rebellion failed, it’s important to remember that it was harmful even in failure. Musk was an asset and now he’s a huge and permanent liability. He provided Democrats and various anti-Trump bad actors on the Right with ammunition to deploy against Trump and undermine the very necessary implementation of Trump’s agenda. Musk set a terrible example for others, who might mistakenly believe that all this is “normal” rather than a counterproductive clown show. Panic and despair and bad behavior are contagious in modern conditions, where they have become so common that there are no real social barriers to their spread anymore. We are not working with the historical American middle class and the norms that propelled it (and the country) to such success.

So, what is to be done? It’s embarrassing to have to deal with Musk because it begs the question as to why such an unstable and moronic person, who apparently is a heavy drug user, was allowed into such a high position to begin with. However, I think harsh treatment is very necessary anyway. Bad actors often try to create these hostage situations: They cause trouble because they know getting rid of them would be trouble in its own right. In these situations, people are better off shooting the hostage rather than allowing bad behavior to go unpunished forever. As I’m sure most of you have noticed, someone who behaves in this way usually only gets worse.

I wrote most of this article a month ago but decided to sit on it because it was a little unfocused (it might still be) and too harsh after Musk disappeared with his tail between his legs when the coup failed. However, it seems that Musk has elected to once again reenter the public stage to try to block the Big Beautiful Bill, an item that I don’t know much about and don’t care much about beyond the historic increase in immigration funding that the bill will provide (more than $100 billion for border security and internal enforcement, along with numerous increases in fees and taxes to discourage immigration).

There doesn’t seem to be any alternative way to secure this funding in whole or in part, and in my opinion immigration is Trump’s most important issue, so one way or another at the end of the day the bill has to pass.

Having embarrassed himself in the way he has, Musk is likely going to try to play the spoiler forever. Every anti-Trump figure follows the same pattern: They get ejected from practical politics (to which Trump provides the only access) for bad behavior and realize that their only potential path back to influence is to engineer some kind of catastrophic collapse that will get Trump and his supporters out of the way, without regard to the consequences that that collapse, which would entail total liberal victory, might have. That’s what Massie and Paul are trying to do in their attempt to block the BBB. They complain that Trump has not achieved X, Y, or Z campaign promise while simultaneously trying to take away the tools that might allow him to do so.

People assume this kind of sabotage is a natural reaction to an internal political split. It’s not. One of the biggest mistakes I think Trump made was his treatment of former Senator and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions was an early Trump supporter and outspoken immigration restrictionist, one of the earliest senior and respected politicians to support Trump during his 2016 primary run. Trump requested Sessions resign over Session’s decision to recuse himself from the Russiagate investigation, which caused Trump all sorts of problems. Even though I think Sessions made a big mistake there, it was motivated by Sessions’ good faith understanding of the situation and the law. Trump continued to treat Sessions harshly after Sessions left the White House, supporting his primary opponent during a 2020 Alabama Senate race.

Despite the harsh treatment he received, Sessions has not staked himself out as some outspoken opponent of Trump. He has not engaged in the kind of self-indulgent counterproductive behavior that typifies people who have fallings out with the Trump camp. He hasn’t cynically changed his views to account for his turn of political fortunes. This is all because Jeff Sessions is actually a patriot who loves his country and wants good things to happen to it, even if he’s not involved, while most conservatives who have elected to be anti-Trump are ultimately just in it for themselves. I hope there’s a reconciliation between Sessions and Trumpworld at some point, because people like Sessions are rare and always have something to offer.

For people like Musk, the only way to get rid of the threat they pose is to get rid of them. I hope that Musk is run out of politics and that the Trump administration pulls every lever they can against him: Piss test him at an inconvenient moment and take away his security clearance. Charge him with assault on a federal official for attacking Bessent and throw him in jail. Sue him for defamation by implication for his tweets about the Epstein list. Support shareholder efforts to get him removed from his companies in light of the huge fluctuations in stock prices that his erratic behavior has caused.

Musk has demonstrated that he’s only going to get worse and not learn anything from his mistakes. He made a lot of real contributions, but he did not buy a license to fuck everything up forever and no one should sell him one. Similar harsh treatment should be extended to anyone who supported Musk or who used Musk’s failed moment as an opportunity to get in cheap shots at the Trump admin. These guys are going to do this forever until they’re stopped. People must learn not to interact with them without hostility.

It’s unlikely that someone as wealthy and prominent as Musk could ever be fully removed from politics. However, he can be brought down a peg or three to permanently reduce his influence. He’s broken the law and should suffer the consequences for it. It’s not like Musk can go back to the Left, they’ll set out to kill him if they ever manage to regain political control. Most importantly, harsh treatment of Musk and his associates would demonstrate that bad behavior on the Right actually has consequences, which it currently doesn’t.

There are basically zero standards on the American Right. It is incredible the kind of characters who are tolerated and excused. Someone can engage in bad behavior for years, even directly advocating for liberals to be given full control, and still be welcomed back into the fold for merely saying the right words. That’s a consequence of how most people treat this stuff, as an idea contest or game rather than a struggle for political power with very real effects on you and everyone you know.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Elon Musk’s Terrible Political Judgment

Palestinianism

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Luke Ford

Much of the hatred of Jews and the Jewish state is hatred of excellence, as George Gilder noted.

Dan Burmawi writes:

Palestinianism is a dumping ground.

A catch-all container for every resentful ideology, every broken theory, every radical cause.

Marxists, postcolonialists, jihadists, queer activists, anarchists, environmentalists, anti-capitalists, and antisemites, they all pour their agendas into it.

It’s the perfect host, just vague enough to absorb anything, just angry enough to justify everything.

Muslims use it to legitimize jihad and martyrdom.

Marxists use it to revive class warfare under the guise of anti-Zionism.

Postcolonial theorists use it to attack the West without touching Islam.

Intersectional activists use it to link Palestine to trans rights and racial justice in a grotesque logic of shared victimhood.

Academics use it to inject critical theory into international politics.

Antisemites use it to camouflage their hatred as humanitarianism.

Palestinianism is where incompatible ideologies suddenly find unity.

What binds them isn’t a coherent vision of justice, but a shared enemy: Israel, the West, the Judeo-Christian world, the structure, the order.

Palestinianism has become the dumping ground where failed ideologies go to be reborn.

Grok says:

The critique presents a provocative argument, framing “Palestinianism” as a nebulous, catch-all ideology that absorbs disparate radical causes. It’s a rhetorically forceful piece, but its strengths and weaknesses deserve scrutiny.

Strengths:

Sharp Rhetorical Style: The piece is concise, punchy, and vivid, using metaphors like “dumping ground” and “catch-all container” to drive its point. This makes it engaging and memorable.

Identifies a Phenomenon: It accurately observes that the Palestinian cause has been co-opted by various ideological groups—Marxists, postcolonialists, intersectional activists, etc.—who often project their agendas onto it. This is a real trend in global activism and academia, where Palestine becomes a symbolic battleground for broader grievances.
Highlights Incongruities: The critique effectively points out the odd alliances within the pro-Palestinian movement, where groups with conflicting values (e.g., jihadists and queer activists) unite under a shared anti-Israel or anti-Western banner. This tension is a valid point of critique.

Weaknesses:Overgeneralization: The term “Palestinianism” is vague and not a widely recognized concept. By framing it as a monolithic ideology, the critique risks oversimplifying a complex issue. The Palestinian cause itself—rooted in real grievances like displacement and occupation—gets conflated with the radical ideologies that latch onto it, which muddies the argument.

Dismissive Tone: The piece dismisses the legitimacy of any underlying Palestinian concerns, reducing the entire movement to a vehicle for “failed ideologies.” This ignores the historical and political realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, alienating readers who might see merit in some aspects of the cause.

Lack of Evidence: The critique makes bold claims (e.g., “Muslims use it to legitimize jihad,” “antisemites camouflage their hatred”) but provides no examples, data, or citations. Without specifics—say, quotes from activists, texts, or events—it feels more like a polemic than a substantiated argument.

Binary Framing: It constructs a simplistic dichotomy: Palestinianism (and its allies) versus “Israel, the West, the Judeo-Christian world.” This ignores nuances, like pro-Palestinian voices who aren’t anti-Western or antisemitic, or Western critics of Israel who don’t fit these ideological molds.

Risk of Alienation: The inflammatory language (e.g., “grotesque logic,” “failed ideologies”) may resonate with those already skeptical of the Palestinian cause but is unlikely to persuade neutral or opposing readers. It preaches to the choir rather than engaging in dialogue.

Suggestions for Improvement:Define “Palestinianism”: Clarify whether this refers to the Palestinian national movement, global solidarity activism, or a specific ideological trend. A clearer scope would strengthen the argument.

Acknowledge Legitimate Grievances: Recognizing the historical context of Palestinian suffering (e.g., 1948 Nakba, occupation) before critiquing the movement’s co-optation would add credibility and balance.

Provide Examples: Cite specific instances—e.g., a Marxist scholar’s writing, a protest chant, or a social media campaign—to ground the claims. This would make the critique more concrete and less speculative.

Engage with Counterarguments: Address why some see Palestinian solidarity as a coherent cause, not a “dumping ground.” This would show intellectual rigor and fairness.
Tone Down Hyperbole: Soften phrases like “grotesque logic” to maintain a critical but less antagonistic tone, inviting broader readership.

Overall: The piece is a compelling rhetorical jab, effective at highlighting the ideological messiness of some pro-Palestinian activism. But its lack of nuance, evidence, and engagement with the conflict’s core issues limits its persuasiveness. It’s more a conversation starter than a definitive critique. Refining its scope and grounding it in specifics could make it more robust.

I ask Grok to critique George Gilder’s book on Israel and apply the book to today:

George Gilder’s The Israel Test: How Israel’s Genius Enriches and Challenges the World (updated edition, 2024) argues that Israel’s remarkable success as a technological and capitalist powerhouse reflects a broader moral and economic challenge for the world. Gilder posits that attitudes toward Israel’s achievements reveal a divide between those who celebrate innovation and those who resent it out of envy, rooted in a zero-sum worldview. He ties Israel’s prosperity to Jewish intellectual and cultural strengths, framing support for Israel as a litmus test for embracing freedom and creativity. Below, I critique the book’s core arguments, strengths, and weaknesses, and apply its ideas to the present context of 2025, drawing on recent reviews and broader trends.

Critique of the Book

Strengths

Bold Thesis on Innovation and Envy

Gilder’s central argument—that hostility toward Israel stems from envy of its disproportionate success—is provocative and compelling in its clarity. He grounds this in data, noting Israel’s outsized contributions to technology (second only to the U.S. in high-tech innovation) despite its small size and constant security threats. For example, he highlights how Israel surpassed Canada in 2007 for foreign companies listed on NASDAQ and how Soviet Jewish immigrants boosted venture capital inflows from $58 million to $3.3 billion between 1991 and 2000. This economic framing resonates in a world where innovation drives global prosperity, and Gilder effectively links Israel’s achievements to universal benefits, challenging narratives of exploitation.

Historical and Cultural Insights

Gilder’s exploration of Jewish intellectual contributions, from Nobel Prize wins (32% of 21st-century awards despite Jews being less than 1% of the global population) to technological breakthroughs, is well-documented and persuasive. His concept of a Jewish “culture of mind,” rooted in Judaism’s emphasis on intellectual curiosity and moral rigor, provides a nuanced explanation for Israel’s success. His historical analysis, such as the economic stagnation under Israel’s socialist policies in the 1960s and 1970s and the subsequent boom under free-market reforms led by figures like Benjamin Netanyahu, adds depth to his case.

Engaging and Accessible Style

Reviewers praise Gilder’s passionate and readable prose, with Norman Podhoretz calling it “thrilling to read.” The book blends philosophy, economics, and history, introducing figures like John von Neumann and Robert Aumann to illustrate Jewish contributions to science and strategy. Gilder’s ability to weave personal anecdotes, like his family’s philosemitic background, with global analysis makes the book engaging for a broad audience.

Weaknesses

Lack of Nuance in Geopolitical Analysis

Gilder’s binary framing—Israel as a beacon of freedom versus its critics as envious anti-capitalists—oversimplifies complex geopolitical realities. Critics note that the book lacks nuance, particularly in its portrayal of Palestinians as uniformly driven by hatred or Marxist ideology. For instance, his assertion that “Arabs flourish in Israel as they do nowhere else” ignores socioeconomic disparities faced by Arab Israelis and the broader Palestinian population. This one-sidedness risks alienating readers who seek a balanced discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Overreliance on Jewish Exceptionalism

While Gilder’s emphasis on Jewish intellectual prowess is grounded in statistics, his claim that “the source of antisemitism is Jewish superiority and excellence” can feel reductive and inflammatory. It sidesteps other historical, political, and cultural drivers of antisemitism, such as religious tensions or colonial legacies. His focus on Jewish genius also risks implying that non-Jewish contributions to Israel’s success, or the achievements of other nations, are secondary, which could undermine his broader argument about universal prosperity.

Polemical Tone and Exaggerated Stakes

Gilder’s rhetoric, such as claiming that Israel’s destruction would lead to the collapse of capitalist Europe and endanger America, is alarmist and speculative. This hyperbolic tone, flagged by reviewers as a “red flag,” may undermine his credibility with skeptical readers. Additionally, his dismissal of movements like “Peace Now” as rewarding bad behavior oversimplifies the pursuit of peace, ignoring legitimate critiques of Israeli policies.

Limited Engagement with Counterargument

Gilder does not adequately address opposing views, such as those questioning Israel’s military actions or settlement policies. His portrayal of critics as driven by envy or antisemitism dismisses valid concerns about human rights or international law. This weakens the book’s persuasive power, as it preaches to the choir rather than engaging doubters.

In 2025, Israel continues to lead in fields like cybersecurity, AI, and materials science (e.g., graphene research). Companies like Intel, which relies heavily on Israeli engineers, underscore Gilder’s point about Israel’s global economic impact. His argument that innovation benefits all holds true, as Israeli tech solutions—from medical devices to agricultural advancements—are exported worldwide, including to Arab states normalizing ties through the Abraham Accords. However, Gilder’s failure to address how tech wealth is distributed within Israel (e.g., disparities between Jewish and Arab citizens) limits his analysis in a time when inclusivity is a global priority.

Polarization and the “Israel Test”

Gilder’s “Israel Test” as a moral litmus test resonates in 2025, with global debates over Israel intensifying post-October 7, 2023. Rising antisemitism, documented by organizations like the ADL, aligns with Gilder’s view that envy of success fuels hatred. Protests on U.S. campuses and European cities often frame Israel as a pariah, supporting Gilder’s claim that anti-Israel sentiment reflects broader anti-capitalist and anti-Western biases. Yet, his dismissal of all critics as envious ignores legitimate grievances, such as concerns over Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, which have grown more visible in 2025. A more nuanced approach would strengthen his case in addressing today’s polarized audiences.

Geopolitical Stakes

Gilder’s call for U.S. support of Israel as vital to Western civilization aligns with ongoing debates about America’s role in the Middle East. In 2025, with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and proxy conflicts (e.g., Hezbollah, Houthis) escalating, Israel remains a key U.S. ally. Gilder’s argument that Israel’s survival is tied to global freedom gains traction as authoritarian regimes challenge democratic values. However, his apocalyptic warnings about the fall of capitalism if Israel falters seem overstated, especially as other tech hubs (e.g., India, Singapore) rise. The U.S.-Israel bond is critical, but global economic resilience is more distributed than Gilder suggests.

Critiques of Socialism and Zero-Sum Thinking

Gilder’s critique of socialist policies stifling innovation is relevant as some Western nations grapple with economic stagnation and populist movements. Israel’s shift from socialism to a free-market economy in the 1980s, which Gilder credits for its boom, serves as a case study for 2025 debates on economic policy. However, his blanket condemnation of socialism ignores successful mixed economies (e.g., Scandinavia) and fails to address how capitalism can exacerbate inequality, a pressing issue in Israel and globally today.

Cultural and Moral Challenges

Gilder’s focus on a Jewish “culture of mind” remains a powerful lens for understanding Israel’s success, but in 2025, cultural narratives are more contested. Movements for diversity and inclusion challenge exceptionalist claims, and Gilder’s emphasis on Jewish superiority could alienate allies who value pluralism. His argument that Israel embodies Western values like tolerance and women’s rights is complicated by criticisms of its policies toward Palestinians, which fuel global backlash. To apply Gilder’s test today, one must grapple with these contradictions, which he largely sidesteps.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Palestinianism

What is abductive reasoning and how does it help us?

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference that seeks the most likely explanation for a set of observations. Unlike deductive reasoning, which derives specific conclusions from general premises with certainty, or inductive reasoning, which generalizes from specific instances, abductive reasoning starts with incomplete or ambiguous data and infers the best possible explanation. It’s often described as “inference to the best explanation.”

For example:
Observation: Your car won’t start, and the dashboard lights are dim.
Possible Explanation: The battery is dead.
Abductive Reasoning: Concluding the battery is likely dead because it’s the simplest and most plausible explanation, even though other issues (e.g., a faulty alternator) could also explain the symptoms.

Abductive reasoning typically follows this structure:Observe a surprising or unexplained phenomenon.
Identify possible hypotheses that could explain it.
Select the hypothesis that best fits the observations, often based on simplicity, coherence, or prior knowledge.

Abductive reasoning is valuable in situations where complete information is unavailable, which is common in everyday life, science, and decision-making. Here’s how it helps:Problem-Solving in Uncertainty:Abductive reasoning allows us to make educated guesses when data is incomplete. For instance, doctors use it in diagnostics, forming hypotheses about a patient’s condition based on symptoms, then testing the most likely one (e.g., prescribing antibiotics for a suspected infection).

Scientific Discovery: Scientists often use abduction to propose hypotheses that explain puzzling observations. For example, when astronomers observed irregularities in Uranus’s orbit, they hypothesized the existence of an unseen planet (Neptune) before confirming it, using abduction to guide their research.

Everyday Decision-Making: In daily life, we use abduction to interpret ambiguous situations. If a friend doesn’t respond to texts, you might infer they’re busy or upset, choosing the explanation that best fits their usual behavior. This helps navigate social interactions or practical choices without full context.

Creativity and Innovation: Abduction fosters creative thinking by encouraging us to imagine plausible explanations. Designers, engineers, and artists use it to hypothesize solutions to problems, like devising a new product feature based on user complaints.

Guiding Further Inquiry: By suggesting the “best” explanation, abduction directs where to look for more evidence. A detective might abductively conclude a suspect is guilty based on initial clues, then seek confirming evidence, streamlining investigations.

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off on What is abductive reasoning and how does it help us?