ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧

8.9K posts

ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 banner
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧

ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧

@ithacarising

Veni, Vedi, Velcro - I came, I saw, I stuck around. Ex-academic historian. Ex-policy advisor/speech writer. Ex-hausted father. Marginalia on history & culture.

🇫🇷 🇬🇧🇦🇪 Katılım Şubat 2023
1.7K Takip Edilen1.5K Takipçiler
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
Of course we have to approach these counterfactuals with a certain caution, because history rarely hinges on just one turning point - whether that’s the Seven Years' War, the Napoleonic convulsions, or the Franco-Prussian debacle of 1870. Suppose France had won that great mid-18th century struggle and kept her hold on North America and India. The Bourbon monarchy might well have survived longer; its finances would have been far less battered by defeat and debt, perhaps staving off the fiscal crisis that precipitated 1789. But the deeper social pressures, Enlightenment ideas, and absolutist rigidities were already at work. A French Revolution of some sort seems hard to avoid entirely, though it might have been less radical, less bloody, and more contained within a constitutional framework. A surviving Bourbon monarchy, or even a gentler revolutionary outcome, would have changed the stage entirely for a figure like Napoleon. Without the chaos of the 1790s and those exhausting Revolutionary Wars, there might have been no Corsican saviour at all, or at least no opening for his particular style of authoritarian brilliance and imperial ambition. France could instead have grown into a more prosperous, less centralised power, her colonial empire intact and her navy a genuine match for Britain's. Even if we imagine Napoleon III triumphing in 1870 and preserving his empire, those earlier fault-lines would still have mattered. I suspect a "Pax Gallica" would have brought much the same rivalries - industrial, colonial, ideological - only dressed with greater Parisian elegance and even more rigid bureaucratic neatness. I doubt that a Bismarckian Germany would have emerged in anything like the form we know. Had France prevailed in 1870 - let alone if she had avoided the earlier humiliations and retained her 18th century empire - the whole momentum toward Prussian-led unification would have been checked or redirected. Without the galvanising effect of victory over Napoleon III, the smaller German states would likely have remained fragmented under Austrian or loose confederation influence, their liberal and nationalist energies absorbed into different channels. A "Germany" of sorts might still have coalesced in time through economic integration and cultural affinity, but it would have been a looser, less militarised entity - hardly the Second Reich forged in the Prussian smithy. The continental balance would have tilted toward Paris, and the great drama of late-19th century power politics would have played out with rather different actors and scripts. Britain, I suspect, would still have mattered a great deal, though in a more modest key. Even had France retained her 18th-century empire and naval parity, the Industrial Revolution was already taking root in these islands, driven by coal, capital, and constitutional stability that Paris would have struggled to match. We might imagine a prosperous but less globe-spanning Britain - perhaps more focused on European trade and the Americas - yet still a formidable maritime and commercial power, tempering French ambitions without the burden of ruling a quarter of the planet. The "special relationship" with the wider English-speaking world might have evolved earlier and more naturally, sparing us some of the later imperial overstretch. I rather doubt a French empire would have glided serenely into the 20th century only to be shattered by two world wars in the familiar way. With her old North American and Indian possessions perhaps still in hand, and a less militarised Germany on the continent, France might well have enjoyed a longer imperial twilight. Perhaps more prosperous, more culturally dominant, and less prone to the revanchist obsessions that scarred our own history. I still wager though that the deeper forces of industrial rivalry, nationalist passions, and colonial overstretch would almost certainly have found other outlets. It's not unreasonable to assume that any "Pax Gallica" would still have faced its own exhausting conflicts, whether against a rising America, a restless Britain, or awakening peoples within the empire itself. History's contingencies multiply, but empires rarely fade gracefully. A French version might have lingered longer, yet it too would likely have been undone by the same 2Oth century storms - only under different flags and with rather more elegant dispatches from Paris. In any case, as we all should know by now, history has a way of confounding our neat what-ifs.
Civixplorer@Civixplorer

"Pax Gallica" — What if France (rather than the UK) had become the dominant world power in the late 19th century?

English
0
0
1
93
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
As always @malcolmguite has put his finger on the very nerve of our present distress. Postmodernism, in its zeal to deconstruct every inherited tale, mistook scepticism for wisdom and left us storyless in a world that demands narrative to make sense of itself. Even then the old stories endured for centuries not through inertia but because they alone knit the scattered facts of life into meaning. Without them, we drift - young men especially - into that peculiar modern malady the ancients would have called acedia. To suppose one can live without a great overarching story is not sophistication, it is simply another chapter in the long comedy of human self-deception.
Paul Anleitner@PaulAnleitner

You need to listen to what Malcolm Guite says here about the “meaning crisis.” Postmodernism taught us to distrust and deconstruct the “old stories.” But culture held on to these stories for centuries for a reason. No one can live “story-less.”

English
0
0
3
97
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
@JamesWHankins1 Epicurean Naturalists? The name acknowledges the ancient precedent without sounding conspiratorial, while gently reminding people that this worldview existed long before Marx.
English
1
0
2
78
eburke
eburke@JamesWHankins1·
I've been asking myself that question, since I think the tendency among conservatives to blame all our troubles on 'Marxism' is too simple-minded. Maybe we should just call the cast of mind 'scientific materialism' or 'naturalism' (in the sense used by philosophers like Thomas Nagel), but then that wouldn't communicate much to most people. The fundamental defect I think is the denial of the transcendental and the quasi-Epicurean/ Darwinian belief that Nature's order can emerge from randomness. But that doesn't quite work either since Stoics and their modern versions (Spinozists) have preexistant order that is immanent rather than transcendant. Hence the moral poverty of a humanism that recognizes no principle 'above' man and intrinsically binding on him. Any suggestions?
Professor Eric Rasmusen@erasmuse

@JamesWHankins1 What is the right name for this? It surely is not original with Marx.

English
16
2
18
3.2K
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
What, I asked, do you propose to put in the place of this 'bourgeoisie' whom you so despise, and to whom you owe the freedom and prosperity that enable you to play on your toy barricades? What vision of France and its culture compels you? And are you prepared to die for your beliefs, or merely to put others at risk in order to display them? I was obnoxiously pompous: but for the first time in my life I had felt a surge of political anger, finding myself on the other side of the barricades from all the people I knew. - Roger Scruton Roger Scruton was in Paris as a 24-year-old visiting student during the May 1968 riots. These riots profoundly shaped him, turning him toward conservatism as he witnessed what he saw as destructive, self-indulgent radicalism. And he wasn't wrong. Cafés like Le Capoulade and Le Mahieu, just steps from the Sorbonne, were smoky nerve centres where revolutionaries argued, planned, and dodged tear gas between rounds of cheap wine and existential debate. Today the same corners are occupied by a Burger King and, across the street, a McDonald's. Where once hung the fog of Gauloises and revolutionary pamphlets, the décor has been thoroughly Americanised and corporatised - a quiet victory for the bourgeois consumer culture the soixante-huitards once swore to destroy.
hiddenliburua@hiddenliburua

Mai 68, à l'angle du boulevard Saint Michel et de la rue Soufflot, devant le café Capoulade, devenu Wimpy Capoulade, Paris. Aujourd'hui, je crois qu'il y a un Burger King.

English
0
0
1
122
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
Nabokov was pretty picky about his fellow writers who were still around and working in his lifetime. He really liked a handful. He called both John Updike and J.D. Salinger as one of the finest artists in recent years. He especially liked Salinger's short stories. He got a real kick out of Alain Robbe-Grillet’s clever, poetic puzzles. Nabokov thought Borges had infinite talent spinning through those big intellectual labyrinths, and gave Samuel Beckett high marks for the prose novellas while rolling his eyes at the plays. Pretty much everyone else he brushed off. Faulkner was ridiculous to him, Hemingway was for boys who liked bulls and bells, and big names like Camus, Brecht, or Pasternak often got dismissed as nonentities or just plain embarrassing. In the end, Nabokov's approval list was tiny and very much his own.
Dead Wrong History@deadwronghist

Nabokov in 1965: The pleasures of writing, in order: finding the lost sentence, reading it to your wife, imagining the right reader. I don't care about the general public.

English
6
0
3
494
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
No. This is a bad idea. In the Fleming canon, James Bond has always been less a fully drafted character than a perfectly cut silhouette against which the rest of us cast our more reckless shadows. The scant bones of a history – orphaned, naval officer, widowed by tragedy – root him just firmly enough in a credible past without ever weighing him down with the tedious luggage of motivation. To bolt on some fresh, screenwriterly backstory now is to mistake enigma for a gap in the market. It turns the ultimate cipher for our fantasies of chilled invincibility into just another case study in male damage. Leave the blanks alone. Bond works precisely because we are free to imagine the rest – and because the rest, thank heaven, remains none of our business.
MI6 HQ@jamesbondlive

Screenwriter Steven Knight may be creating a new Bond backstory mi6-hq.com/sections/artic…

English
6
1
51
11.1K
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
Au contraire! Wine is far more dangerous than beauty. Beauty clouds the soul for a lustful moment. A Bordeaux Pomerol like a Pétrus clouds your judgment, your wallet, your dignity...especially your ability to pronounce "dignity" the next day. 🍷
Culture Explorer@CultureExploreX

Beauty can be more dangerous than wine. Wine clouds the senses for an evening; beauty can cloud the soul until power mistakes desire for destiny. David saw Bathsheba from his rooftop and reached for what was never his.

English
1
0
2
190
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
@sturgios West Ham, like the Cooler King, forgot the old saying, "Football is a simple game. Twenty-two men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans always win." Scheiße.
English
1
0
1
98
john sturgis
john sturgis@sturgios·
And so West Ham crash their motorcycle into barbed wire just yards from freedom and are recaptured by the Germans and executed
john sturgis tweet media
English
7
9
106
5.8K
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
Pakistan was born not as a republic, but as a Dominion of the British Crown. In the blood-drenched chaos of Partition, the new state inherited the same constitutional corset as India: the King in London remained head of state, his powers exercised on the ground by a Governor-General. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, with characteristic steel, seized that very office for himself - not out of deference to empire, but to grip the levers of power tightly in a country that had almost none. He died in 1948, leaving behind a fragile dominion still reeling from refugee storms, murdered officials, and squabbling politicians. It took eight more years of argument and crisis before Pakistan finally cast off the monarchy. On 23 March 1956, the first constitution was adopted and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan came into being. By then, a young Queen Elizabeth II had reigned - technically - as Queen of Pakistan for just over four turbulent years.
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 tweet mediaithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 tweet mediaithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 tweet mediaithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 tweet media
Nicholas O'Shaughnessy@NicholasOShaug1

She was actually Queen of Pakistan in the first months of her reign? Jinnah had refused to make Pakistan a republic.

English
0
0
2
104
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
Finally it seems empirical research has caught up with anecdotal observation in the lecture hall. Laptop students became high-speed scribes by transcribing nearly every word. They captured more content, but processed almost none of it. Their minds skimmed the surface, recording without reflecting. Handwriting students faced a built-in limit. Unable to write fast enough, they had to choose - what mattered, what connected, what to condense. That forced selection turned raw information into understanding. They comprehended as they went. It's a parable for the digital age: when technology removes the natural frictions that demand attention and judgment, we gain volume but lose depth. The laptop students hoarded data. The longhand students built knowledge. One flatters the illusion of productivity, the other demands real thinking.
Ihtesham Ali@ihtesham2005

A Norwegian neuroscientist spent 20 years proving that the act of writing by hand changes the human brain in ways typing physically cannot, and almost nobody outside her field has read the paper. Her name is Audrey van der Meer. She runs a brain research lab in Trondheim, and the paper that closed the argument was published in 2024 in a journal called Frontiers in Psychology. The finding is brutal enough that it should have changed every classroom on Earth. The experiment was simple. She recruited 36 university students and put each one in a cap with 256 sensors pressed against their scalp to record brain activity. Words flashed on a screen one at a time. Sometimes the students wrote the word by hand on a touchscreen using a digital pen, and sometimes they typed the same word on a keyboard. Every neural response was recorded for the full five seconds the word stayed on screen. Then her team looked at the part of the data most researchers had ignored for years, which is how different parts of the brain were communicating with each other during the task. When the students wrote by hand, the brain lit up everywhere at once. The regions responsible for memory, sensory integration, and the encoding of new information were all firing together in a coordinated pattern that spread across the entire cortex. The whole network was awake and connected. When the same students typed the same word, that pattern collapsed almost completely. Most of the brain went quiet, and the connections between regions that had been alive seconds earlier were nowhere to be found on the EEG. Same word, same brain, same person, and two completely different neurological events. The reason turned out to be something nobody had really paid attention to before her work. Writing by hand is not one motion but a sequence of thousands of tiny micro-movements coordinated with your eyes in real time, where each letter is a different shape that requires the brain to solve a slightly different spatial problem. Your fingers, wrist, vision, and the parts of your brain that track position in space are all working together to produce one letter, then the next, then the next. Typing throws all of that away. Every key on a keyboard requires the exact same finger motion regardless of which letter you are pressing, which means the brain has almost nothing to integrate and almost no problem to solve. Van der Meer said it plainly in her interviews. Pressing the same key with the same finger over and over does not stimulate the brain in any meaningful way, and she pointed out something that should scare every parent who handed their kid an iPad. Children who learn to read and write on tablets often cannot tell letters like b and d apart, because they have never physically felt with their bodies what it takes to actually produce those letters on a page. A decade before her, two researchers at Princeton ran the same fight using a completely different method and ended up at the same answer. Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer tested 327 students across three experiments, where half took notes on laptops with the internet disabled and half took notes by hand, before testing everyone on what they actually understood from the lectures they had watched. The handwriting group won by a wide margin on every question that required real understanding rather than surface recall. The reason was hiding in the transcripts of what the two groups had actually written down. The laptop students typed almost word for word, capturing more total content but processing almost none of it as they went, while the handwriting students physically could not write fast enough to transcribe a lecture in real time, which forced them to listen carefully, decide what actually mattered, and put it in their own words on the page. That single act of choosing what to keep was the learning itself, and the keyboard had quietly skipped the choosing and skipped the learning along with it. Two studies. Two countries. Same answer. Handwriting makes the brain work. Typing lets it coast. Every note you have ever typed instead of written went into your brain through a thinner pipe. Every meeting, every book highlight, every idea you captured on your phone instead of on paper was processed at half depth. You did not forget those things because your memory is bad. You forgot them because typing never woke the part of the brain that would have made them stick. The fix is the thing your grandmother already knew. Pick up a pen. Write the thing down. The slower road is the faster one.

English
1
1
6
512
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
C.S. Lewis would grin and say, "Ah, classic Materialist Magician at work - just as Screwtape taught." We're expected to cheer Scooby-Doo gang for ripping the mask off every "ghost," yet it never notices the trick: the show debunks real supernatural intrusion while happily relying on its own cartoon miracles. A talking dog? That's not naturalism, that’s a breach of ordinary Nature, the very wonder the Materialist Magician hates. In Narnia, Aslan lifts beasts into speech and reason as a sign of higher reality. Scooby reduces it to harmless slapstick so nothing truly transcendent ever slips through. It's all rigged theatre - act sceptical until the clue appears, then smugly declare the case closed and the universe safe. Lewis would call it Screwtape's quiet victory: a funny little bedtime story that trains us to sneer at anything that might actually haunt the materialist’s closed shop. Zoinks indeed.
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 tweet media
English
0
0
2
53
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧
The West Wing is pure political fantasy - Aaron Sorkin's shiny, fast-talking liberal daydream in which impossibly smart, idealistic White House staffers always win the day with wit, moral clarity, and a perfectly timed monologue. And for a while, it was essential, addictive viewing. I worked as a congressional staffer for both a Democrat and a Republican back when partisanship hadn't yet reached today's fever pitch under 24-hour news cycles. Even then, I knew the show was never meant to be realistic. Its warm, optimistic vision of (mostly Democratic) politics was always more wish-fulfillment than documentary. As pure entertainment, it has aged remarkably well - the stellar cast, sparkling dialogue, and feel-good energy still hold up. But its core premise now feels dated and, frankly, a little misleading. Real politics, regardless of who's in power, is messier, more cynical, bogged down by gridlock, money, and tribal instincts. Rare is the problem solved by one stirring speech. The show never portrayed politics as all sides actually experience it; it offered one flattering fantasy - and that fantasy can leave people genuinely disillusioned when the real thing refuses to cooperate. Bottom line: The West Wing remains fantastic television, but it's terrible political science.
Rich Luchette@richluchette

The thing about watching the West Wing today isn’t that it’s aged poorly (it hasn’t). It’s that it takes you back to a time when many still believed that public service could be a noble calling. An entire generation has now grown up without that feeling.

English
1
0
2
254
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 retweetledi
Will Tanner
Will Tanner@Will_Tanner_1·
My favorite Ian Fleming story is that he named the infamous Bond villain "Goldfinger" because at the time he was writing the books, Marxist, modernist architect Erno Goldfinger was ruining London with his horrifically ugly buildings Particularly, he put a modernist house in Fleming's sometime-home of Hampstead, London, and Fleming allegedly hated it So he risked lawsuits to get in a jab at such architectural horrors
ADONIS@adonispara

Fleming wrote Casino Royale at 44. before that he was a spy, a journalist, a banker, a stockbroker. he spent his career quietly collecting experiences he knew he'd one day write about. then he moved to Jamaica, bought a typewriter, and poured all of it into one character.

English
55
290
3.5K
338.4K
ithaca rising 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 retweetledi
Great House
Great House@xspotsdamark·
In 1541, John Calvin, a Swiss Protestant Reformer banned all jewelry as frivolous & sinful displays of vanity. This left Swiss jewelers, goldsmith’s & craftsmen jobless, so they all shifted their skills to making watches, which were exempted from the ban because they were considered time-keeping devices , & not jewelry. And that is how the Swiss became the best watchmakers in the world
Today in History@TodayinHistory

What is your favorite historical fact?

English
70
1.9K
15.5K
518.7K