Most of the Founders published under pseudonyms, even after the Revolution. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Franklin - all had pseudonyms for their political writings. The Federalist papers were signed "Publius". What Franklin did was in no way unusual for that group.
In the US, anonymous speech is considered a core part of free expression, and is treated as a First Amendment right. That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, and UK rights are weaker still. China has no right to anonymous speech at all.
> That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker,
It's interesting that on one hand you're right, in the US, anonymous speech receives near-absolute protection. In the EU, it's more of a "qualified right" than so absolute. But, on the other hand, in our modern age, EU seems better at defending against mandating backdoors or weakening end-to-end encryption violates the right to privacy (2024 Podchasov v. Russia), while the US is seemingly going the other way of adding more backdoors and weakening E2E encryption.
So yes, on paper it seems like the US likes anonymous speech more than the EU, but in practice, it seems like the US is doing less to actually protect anonymous speech than the EU.
The US seems to generally take the approach that everything must be absolutely protected from the government, while European countries are fine with delegating things to the government and regulating things, and putting all the protections on the government itself, instead. It hasn't always worked well and may turn out to be naïve, but so has the US way.
It's a bit like spreading your eggs between many ordinary baskets, or putting them all in one basket but making that basket as strong as you can. Neither one is obviously a better approach.
Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption? I'll give you the almost-certain weakening of proposed crypto standards, and Clinton-era export controls, but I don't think I've seen any movement in that direction recently. The most successful attempts statutorily seem to be in the UK and the US.
Also: the European Court of Human Rights, as a non-EU institution, doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, so I'm not sure it's a good example to give in defending against such proposals. For instance, Russia declined to respect that decision, and I don't think it's had much effect on the UK's backdoor regime.
> Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption?
Do you really need examples of this? There are countless of them, some programs you cannot have missed are PRISM, STATEROOM and BULLRUN but there are more of them too.
> PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
I feel like we're talking about different things here. I understand "free speech does not mean free of consequence", so if your employer doesn't like your opinions, you can get fired, that's all fine and dandy.
But why you add that someone could be arrested for free speech? The whole point of free speech, at least for me, is that the government cannot arrest you for that, even if all the people around you see you as despicable or whatever. What is "free speech" for you actually?
Indeed, that's why people sometimes say the US doesn't have free speech. But when people say that, they often get attacked, because duh, it says right there in the first amendment that it does! That's why they would instead say things like "the US has exceptions to free speech" or "the US doesn't have unqualified free speech" even though the truth is "the US doesn't have free speech"
Anybody who feels that their communications are secure on their mobile devices is deluded. There are countless access methods at many levels, even in the US.
There are laws in every country (including the US) to ensure that communications can be monitored when such monitoring is "authorized."
In the UK you do have certain 'moral rights' with respect to a piece of writing you've made, and one of them is essentially a right to anonymity/pseudonymity for that work. Somewhat notably JK Rowling won a case about it when the books she released under a pen name were revealed to be hers.
From the UK are bill of rights from 1689 has a clause called free speech in it. When you actually look at it's free speech... for parliament and parliamentarians from the king, Citizens get no such right. We have a clause that is the right to bear arms, when you look at it predicated on being the a protestant and parliament allowing you. No one actually reads these things or the history surrounding it here because when you do you quickly realize how pathetic are 'glorious revolution' is how weak the the brave people petitioning a foreign king to come over to overthrow a king they did not like because he was a catholic and wanted more tolerance for Catholics.
Not the biggest fan of where America is at the moment but American founding fathers are some of the most impressive people and the American revolution is incredible, where as are revolution is one of the saddest affairs in human history and it's continuation is a disaster in my opinion.
Of course that is not my point. Yes we have the humans rights act Etc that provides rights, but much much later and contested. My primary point is that the bill of rights is one of the important parts of are constitution where as human rights or any other documents is not constitutional.
I also think are revolution is not particularly rousing and that freedom of speech and such is still very tenuous.
It's more complicated then that it has written portion making up many documents going back to magna carta (in actual fact basically only 4 clauses barely survive) and the Glorious revolution is the real written document that actually supports the sovereignty of parliament, and a lot of flimflam that makes up supposed ancient rights given to parliament starting with magna carta.
The basis of the UK system is that parliament has infinite rights. It's allowed to pass a bill saying all police officers must try to murder the king, and then they must. It won't pass that because politicians won't agree to pass it, because they're scared of the extra-parliamentary consequences, but nothing in the law stops them.
The sole check against these infinite rights is not electing morons. Doesn't seem to work very well.
Yes I would disagree with your framing of you hypothetical not least because parliament did kill the king (Charles I), then once the lord protectorate was over and the restoration conspired successfully with a foreign king to over throw the current king and then wrote a document deciding who can and can not be king which has applied to all king and queens so far. Parliament wants the king as a figure head so they can hide behind something, formally it's not Parliaments government by it's self but the monarchs, though the monarch may not raise an army or really have any power outside parliament but still the monarchs government and should things go badly they may simply blame the figure head. Once you see the pattern you will see it lots of time's in are history maybe other histories ;) .
An interesting new biography on Benjamin Franklin just came out:
"He Did Not Conquer: Benjamin Franklin’s Failure to Annex Canada" by Madelaine Drohan[1].
There is no shortage of American biographies of Franklin that sometimes border on hagiography. This one, which is well-timed thanks to current events, is from a Canadian historian and perspective. Drohan makes the case that this perspective has been lacking until now. Victors usually write the history, but Franklin was no victor when it came to his many failed attempts to incorporate Canada into the U.S.. Franklin spent a rather large portion of his life in this endeavour and failed continually. He deserves to be portrayed a bit more honestly by the side that won by remaining free of U.S. control.
Throughout his newspaper career Franklin railed against the evils of papist Canada, whipping up fear and aggression whenever it was convenient or beneficial to himself, despite having no problems living with a Catholic landlady when he was in Britain. This biography goes into considerable detail about Franklin's early career as a newspaper man and how he parlayed this into influence into political power, with the help of good ol' anti-Canadian outrage now and then! He led the occupation of Montreal during the American revolution, but failed to secure the supplies or money his forces needed and resorted to thievery, which got him promptly kicked out. As an elder statesman he tried to negotiate a peace with Britain and France that would have left Canada in the U.S.'s hands, but again, failed.
While he was a talented polymath, Franklin's most exceptional talent was self-promotion. He is admired by Americans, in large part, because of his own portrayal of himself. Yet, Canada remains independent.
Mexico is an independent country because the US elite belatedly realised that adding millions of brown citizens would be a bad idea. Canada is an independent country because it had the British empire backing them.
What most biographies forget to mention is that Franklin was also member of the Hellfire club, which is described as [1],
> Members would drink vast quantities of alcohol and gorge themselves on food. Drunkenness was a prerequisite of The Hellfire Club. They’d dabble in most of the seven deadly sins to be honest – with gluttony, greed and lust being regular activities. Add in a smattering of gambling, fornicating and blasphemy, and you get the idea of a night at the Hellfire Club.
And,
> When we say ‘poking fun’, they were all about dressing as monks, performing parodies of religious ceremonies and making mock sacrifices to Bacchus and Venus. Along with that there was huge amounts of boozing, feasting, entertaining prostitutes and sharing pornographic materials.
Franklin corresponded from time to time with Sir Francis Dashwood, the founder of the Order of the Friars of St Francis of Wycombe, the most infamous of the hellfire clubs. There is no evidence that Franklin actually was a member of the club or partook of its activities.
Fascinating. TIL. One wonders what we common folk would think of such activities. Would we treat Benjamin Franklin as some kind of modern Thiel-adjacent debauch who thinks himself far too smart?
Or would canceling old Benjy actually have created a better world? Perhaps a man moderated by a society more observant and inclined to police might have been even more influential? I suppose we will never know but it is entertaining to consider the counterfactual.
If you've never been to a party like that, I dare to say you've missed out. These days they'd be open to the public but not well advertised. They also wouldn't do all of those things at the same party.
I feel like everything I have seen of Thiel is not as well thought out as people claim, I feel he came to lots of his positions from a sort of contrarian attitude and simply the limited things he has been exposed to (that of course is true of everyone but to me it seems striking how little the things actually fit together are are sort of all just mushed together), Take for example The Straussian Moment, though quotes Strauss not actually very Straussian does not really use ancient wisdom and I think he adopted it because of the connection that the left made (incorrectly I think) to the neo-cons and Leo Strauss.
His use of Girard does not actually fit at all and his whole Anti-christ prophesy thing is a kind of inversion of Girard and actually identifies the anti-christ with the katechon the opposite to tertuilian, Girard himself (I think) and Schmitt.
I don't think his views are all that meaningful or held with real conviction other then they are views that allow him to behave how he wants for now. If his views came into conflict with his desired behavior he would adopt new ideas no doubt.
I agree that Thiels ideas are on weak foundations. The idea of "the antichrist" is especially silly when you go back to historical sources. Scholars have said it's not a person, but a category. "The antichrist" is just people against Christ. At some point it got misinterpreted into some kind of reverse-Jesus.
Talking about historical sources, this verse from the King James Version from 1611 agrees with you.
1 John 2:18, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”
The antichrist is often correctly or incorrectly made synonymous with the son of perdition, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4,
“ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
Those that tend to hold to ideas of singular anti-christ and as you pointed out identify anti-christ with the son of perdition and also the false prophet and sometimes little horn in Daniel, often still maintain the plural the plural quality of the word to mean those who follow heresy while still maintaining there is one false prophet who will exalt him or someone or something above god or sometimes simply deny god or gods true nature (basically any heresy). I think Tertullian has in mind Arianism or Marcionism or some other major heresy. My point was that Schmit is reading Tertullian and closely and holds very different positions to Thiel who holds very different things and the identification of the Katchon as a negative force seems unique and I have not seen before and goes competely against Tertullian and Schmit (who is making the consept corrupt but in a much smarter way then Thiel does In my opinion).
I do however think the views of the Fathers can not simply be dismissed and hold them in high esteem and as partially authoritative even outside counsels.
I am not sure what your point is, I hold the fathers as at least partially authoritative, I do not hold the fathers above God, nor do I hold any theology or translation above God, God is the source of truth. If you feel you can simply disregard the fathers and the apostolic fathers, I would like to hear it. As though it seems we hold different theology how can you simply cast aside and not hold these sources with authority?
> That's from the Book of Revelations, which is probably talking about Nero Caesar anyway.
It’s “Book of Revelation”. Singular. Probably because it talks about Jesus being revealed to the whole world. He will be revealed once and for all, so singular.
Regarding Revelation being behind us. It will be as clear as thunder visible from the east to the west and many cities will be destroyed etc what didn’t happen yet I’m sure. Bible warned that people will try to convince us that it has passed already. Quoting KJV from 1611 because I like the used language and find it a clear text.
2 Thess 2, “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”
I am someone who is unsure of per-millenial post-millennial debate and would roughly consider myself a recapitulationist of some kind. I do not think you can use it in that way to argue against post-millennial for one the post-millennial would simply say that Pual is writing to the Thessalonians is still in the pre-millennial phase.
I feel are theology is different but I do not see the passage you gave as a good counter to identification of with the 70 AD. One can also hold that 70 AD was part of part of revelation but it's still to be fulfilled and completed. 70 AD seems to be something christ does predict and in astonishing fashion and a deeply important apocalyptic event.
I understand your theory regarding 70 AD and find it not completely implausible, but I don’t see much evidence for most of the events from Revelation 13 and 16 having occurred already. Especially Revelation 13:15 and 13:17 would be possible only with modern technology it seems to me.
First of all this is not my theory, I did not put it forward other then to illustrate the argument. the Argument for those parts would roughly be that taking the whole chapter is talking of Nero's persecution of the early church, also in particular martyrs and saints following in Christs sacrifice, One can argue that 13:17 is bowing down and accepting the pagan imperial roman cult and Nero's claim to be emperor (which requires him to call himself a god as per the roman tradition) and they are must bare the mark of the emperor (coinage or simply allegiance you decide) and 13:15 can be understood few fold first that the injury of the beast is the Judaea end of Judea (the temple falling but more importantly the weakening of the roman jewish kings (Herodian line ending before the fall of the temple) and the persecution of Christians now happening to in Rome (outside of Judaea/Palestine) in the image of Herod. Over all this lines up some fairly well. Finally 16 can be interrupted as the Plague of Rome or any wrath of god that one could interpreting as falling on Rome. For me however I would give the importance here (weather this is in the future or past) to the experience and something that greatly accords with gods wrath and judgement generalized into the apocalypse that we all face are death, Should we curse God for are suffering we shell be hated and put to hell righteously and are sufferings show the greatness of God and glorify god the blasphemy becoming the blade to torment the blasphemer and the to aid the vengeful angels in their ordering of the universe to reveal gods glory.
Finally A point I feel you might disagree with but would be something I hold given we are talking about this period Constantine is ordained by god and it's Constantine that redeems Rome and finally gives us the counsel of Nicaea and Catholic Church (One may hold Catholic as per the Nicean creed not the necessarily modern day Roman Catholic Church, indeed most Churches hold they are Catholic in that sense.).
Again I am unsure as to the interpretation of the Revelation and do in that their is no dogma or authoritative interpretation and sources that I hold authoritative conflict I am unsure, but I find it an amazing book that is important to me.
One possibility that does accord very well with the events, but no fixed interpretation and no church dogma on positions of antichrist(s), man of sin, whore of Babylon.
One should read the Apocalypse of John/revelation and be amazed by the imagery and strangeness that is conjured up, as well as it's highly vengeful nature. Another great way to read it is with a word in mind hupopodion/ὑποπόδιον, and to think of this as god putting the world under his feed and conquering the world and look at it's accordance in Hebrews.
Their was no consensus amongst the Fathers of the church or later Christians and little dogma on the subject. Tertullian did hold that the their is a figure of anti-christ, a singular figure teaching some kind of heresy and ruling, actually a looking a lot like premillennial low church Christianity today (not that I like these groups but there is some president though Tertullian would find plenty to disagree with elsewhere in particular the restraint on the antichrist is Rome and prays for the continuation of imperial rome) eschatology is highly contested and it's difficult to give one set answer and the actual positions of the Fathers varies so much and the reformers complicate this again.(Connecting to my other other post on my country, By law when the 'humble divines' settled this in parliament (because parliament under the protectorate had the authority to settle such things would you believe) set forward the Westminster confession one of the precepts is that you proclaim that the bishop of Rome the pope is the anti-christ.)
Biographies forget to mention it since there’s no evidence of him belonging to any such club. Also those clubs reputation is probably highly exaggerated. Your main source is some London tourist guide -site, so doesn’t seem you did exactly stellar research here.
If you are interested in rich elites of the time doing strange and sordid festivitoes, I recommend studying the life of Peter the Great of Russia, who really was not very great at all as a person, but his drinking parties were literally insane and deadly. Empire and Rest is Hostory has great podcasts on him and there’s several good biographies available in English.
If you want to rebuke me, then come with arguments. Just questioning the source is no counter argument. “Bad” sources can provide accurate information and “good” sources can provide inaccurate information. We need to go beyond mere categorization by source and use logic instead (which computer scientists know) to find what is true and what is not.
Also that some other person was possibly wicked doesn’t counter my point either. Both can be wicked at the same time according to basic logic since the one doesn’t exclude the other.
What logic supports that Franklin was a member of Hellfire Club? From what premises can we deduct that it is unquestionably true? Or perhaps we inductively come into that conclusion based on the fact that he knew the founder, and some site on the internet - with plenty of reason to exaggerate - says so? If any source is equally valid, I can just quickly write an html-file that says Franklin was an alien from other planet, and then it is up to you to prove it wrong. Where’s the logic in that?
When discussing a historic figure, we usually base our claim on primary sources (such as Franklin or other people at the time either directly saying he was member of the club, or there being a member register or other such clear evidence) or at least on primary sources that we can trust to base their research on primary sources and strong evidence. Otherwise we could just say anything about anything. Maybe Abraham Lincoln was part of Hell’s Angels.
And my example of Peter The Not-So-Great’s debauchery of course is not rebuke, rather it is an example that real history gives far more interesting examples of behaviour you describe and is a million times crazier that anything anyone can fantasise. Therefore we don’t need to make up stories.
> What logic supports that Franklin was a member of Hellfire Club?
According to the book The Hellfire Clubs by Evelyn Lord (2010),
"A key figure and someone who could have been a link between
British hell-fire clubs and colonial America was Benjamin Franklin.
Franklin was intimate with Sir Francis Dashwood and other
Medmenham Friars in England, and an attack on Cotton Mather
in 1721 by Benjamin’s brother James in his newspaper the New
England Courant had resulted in Mather calling the Franklins and
their friends a ‘Hell-Fire Club’.[59]
The date is significant, as this is the year that the Duke of
Wharton’s alleged Hell-Fire Club was in operation. We know that
the Franklin was aware of this club as on 6 May 1721 the New
England Courant had published an account of the London club taken
from Applebee’s Journal, which, being sensational news of blasphemy
and supposed sexual orgies, boosted the circulation of Franklin’s
paper considerably. News of the Hell-Fire Club and the King’s
proclamation against scandalous clubs was also published in Boston.
Tavern rumour suggested that Boston had its own Hell-Fire Club,
of which James Franklin was alleged to be a prominent member.[60]"
Also one of the Hellfire Caves was named in honor of Benjamin Franklin, namely Franklin's Cave.
Also Francis Dashwood was the founder of the Hellfire Club and he and Franklin were good friends.
So all in all, there seems to be no conclusive evidence proving that Benjamin Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club, but it is also hard to make the argument that he for certain was not a member or never visited a gathering. Given that he was friends with the founder, who also named one of the caves after him, it is likely that he at least visited one event.
[59]: C.A. Lopez and E.W. Herbert, The Private Franklin, 1975, 12.
[60]: J.A.L. Leman, The Life of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. I: 1706–1730, 2005,
110–11, 133
But not all members of society are treated like a symbol whose behavior and manners we ought to revere and draw inspiration from. In such scenarios, pointing out that they were flawed is to humanize them.
It's clear that there was something that compelled you to write "yeah, so what?" as a rebuttal. But I can't tell if that came from a need to protect Franklin's public image, and to what end.
Throughout human history, there has been sparse evidence of historical figures which we draw (correctly) inspiration and admiration. I'll never forget reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations where he was writing down in his journal how he was struggling to keep his sexual attraction to young boys at bay, who were also probably slaves. And he's still considered one of the five good emperors of Rome.
I'm not writing this to say whether any of them deserve it. I'm just pointing out that abuse of power isn't something new, and its expression isn't always known. For those people, the difference wasn't in their desires but that they had the power to act on them with no one batting an eye, and if they noticed they'd just walked it off.
Benajamin Franklin is a rather fascinating fellow.
Most of us know him from the image that appears on biographies and in textbooks: Franklin with bald pate, round spectacles, and a grandfatherly expression on his face, dispensing homespun wisdom like "early to bed, early to rise", etc, etc.
I.e., he is known as basically the ideal early American pioneer; humble, hard-working, virtuous, and a fount of practical worldly wisdom; working late in his printing shop, setting up volunteer organisations for his fellow citizens, and otherwise being an all-round good guy.
When Franklin was sent to Paris to act as Ambassador for the new United States, many Americans became concerned at what France was doing to him. France was vastly more wealthy and populous than the US at that time, and Paris was notorious as the home of a decadent, libertine elite.
Stories gradually dripped out that Franklin had become quite a party hound, shmoozing with aristocrats and becoming sucked into French high society. He had replaced his modest colonial attire with the height of French aristocratic fashion and powdered wigs. He became a regular in Paris salons and frequently hosted lavish parties in his own residences.
(Indeed, he was already well-known in European intellectual circles for his work on electricity -- Kant called him the "modern Prometheus" -- and so quickly found himself invited to the most exclusive social events, meeting everyone from artists and writers to courtesans and the mistresses of powerful aristocrats.)
Thomas Jefferson -- himself a strong advocate of plain American virtue over decadent European corruption -- was seriously concerned that Franklin was losing his moral compass across the Atlantic. His concerns were only somewhat allayed by the fact that Franklin was securing multiple diplomatic coups, cementing the support of the French monarchy against the British.
(The French Empire was a vital ally of the early US; from the French POV, they were engaged in a titanic struggle for the New World against Britain and Spain, and an independent America was a useful tool in that struggle. But not much prevented France or Spain from carving out chunks of the newly independent US, and Franklin knew America was in a highly vulnerable position between the three imperial powers.)
At any rate, a few years later Franklin returned to Philadelphia and soon reverted to his humble colonial ways, dressing modestly, living simply and acting as a pillar of local society. After his return most dismissed the stories from France as either rumours, greatly exaggerated, or even outright fabrications. The stories didn't fit the Franklin they knew, and besides, the man had evidently secured great advantages for his home country, so why scrutinise his behaviour?
Hindsight tells a different story. As a young man living in London Franklin had learned the hard way the importance of learning to deal with people and the difficulty of adapting to local cultures. (For example, as a young apprentice in a London printing shop, he unknowingly earned the ire of his work colleagues by refusing to contribute to their daily beer budget.)
By his later years he had become a master of social adaptation and of dealing with people from all kinds of backgrounds. In America he acted as a humble, dedicated citizen, devoted to his public duties. In Britain before the revolution he dressed and acted as an ideal English gentleman. When posted in France, he quickly realised the plain-living ways that were encouraged in America would only alienate the French aristocracy, so he adapted his style once again.
It's quite an unusual episode that reveals a more complex, unconventional side to a rather fascinating man.
When Benjamin Franklin launched Poor Richard’s Almanack in 1733 under the fake identity of “Richard Saunders,” he needed a way to get attention in Philadelphia’s crowded almanac market. So he decided to kill off one of his established competitors.
Franklin announced that Titan Leeds would soon die: “He dies, by my Calculation... on Oct. 17. 1733. 3 ho. 29 m. P.M.”
Leeds, inconveniently, did not die.
Instead, he published another almanac and attacked Poor Richard as a “false Predicter,” an “Ignorant,” a “conceited Scribler,” a “Fool, and a Lyar.”
Franklin responded that there was “the strongest Probability that my dear Friend is no more,” because the real Leeds was far too well bred to say such awful things about his friend Richard Saunders. Therefore somebody must simply be publishing an almanac under the dead man’s name.
The next year Franklin stopped even pretending there was much doubt. He complained about receiving abuse from “the Ghost of Titan Leeds, who pretends to be still living.”
And then he actually tried to prove Leeds was dead from Leeds’ own words, concluding: “he is dead now, to all Intents and Purposes, any thing he may say to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This went on for years.
Then, in 1738, Titan Leeds actually died.
At this point Franklin could have admitted that perhaps predicting a man’s death five years early represented a minor error in his astrological calculations.
Instead, Franklin escalated.
In the 1740 Poor Richard’s Almanack he claimed that Leeds’ ghost had appeared and left him a letter. The now genuinely dead Leeds supposedly wrote: “I did actually die at that time,” explaining that Poor Richard’s original prediction had been off by only “5 min. 53 sec.”
In the US, anonymous speech is considered a core part of free expression, and is treated as a First Amendment right. That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, and UK rights are weaker still. China has no right to anonymous speech at all.
reply