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…
> 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 r…
Europeans use American iPhones and Android bc they wouldn’t add a backdoor.
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 n…
// Yet, Canada remains independent
The first step towards Canada being recognizable as its own country happened in 1867 nearly a century after Franklin's death.
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…
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 wh…
I pray there will be a light at the end of the tunnel soon, but I doubt it is possible without major political change.
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 publi…
Credible Source or it didn’t happen .
Just look it up, its a pretty well documented bit of trivia.
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…
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.
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…
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 wh…
Not being rude just trying to understand, but when you say 'are' do you mean 'our'?
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…
> 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.
I must say I find it interesting you say "cannot have missed" as I never heard of stateroom or bullrun before
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…
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.
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.)