Rousseau and Revolution

Excellent point, Don. And quite consistent with my observations that the writers of this particular wiki article neither know French, nor understand French philosophy particularly well. Possibly, they simply don't WANT to understand French philosophy particularly well! French philosophy and culture have a realism and cynicism that are both foreign and distasteful to Anglo-Saxon optimism and romanticism. So, Rousseau's disgust with conventional society really isn't very palatable to the conventional Anglo-Saxon mind. I think this wiki article is very much attempting to whitewash Rousseau's actual views, which were, actually, rather more in accord with the "myth" of the noble savage, than opposed to it. It's just the opposite of the Robinson Crusoe myth, of the perfection and superiority of European Culture during the "Enlightenment", the eighteenth century, more or less. If you've ever really read the whole of Robinson Crusoe, it's really a myth of the all powerful capitalist entrepreneur -- Crusoe actually sets up massive business enterprises from his island, greatly improving everything as he goes! Now, this is far from what really happened to Alexander Selkirk, the model for Robinson Crusoe. Actually, he was able to survive for several years, in modest comfort, but, that's about it. Impressive in a way, but, hardly the model for European Capitalist Imperialism created by Daniel Defoe. Now, what Rousseau is doing is simply observing that modern society as frequently destroys and corrupts, as it creates and nurtures. And, therefore, putting aside the conventions of modern society may, indeed, be the only way to achieve true progress, at least at times. He recommends trusting to "natural instinct" and "natural intuition", as opposed to following social convention. He is a supreme non-conformist, in other words. Out with the old, in with the new! Change, in itself, is a good thing. And, these ideas helped to form the basis and wellsprings for the American, French and Russian Revolutions. Indeed, the very reason Rousseau does NOT use the term "Noble Savage" tends to confirm his very belief in it! You see, the French are simply too realistic a people to associate being of the upper, noble, aristocratic, ruling classes with ethical behavior, virtue or goodness. They know better! Those at the top of society who control it are often the most vicious members of society. And, the French are well aware of this, while the English, in their implicit conservatism and social conformity, always associate nobility, being a nobleman, being of the upper or ruling classes, with virtue itself. So, in French, the term "Noble Savage" -- "sauvage noble" -- is, effectively, meaningless.

WI: Lee Harvey Oswald had been a right-wing racist

Jackie Kennedy expressed considerable irritation with the fact that her husband had been assassinated by a "silly little communist", because the Kennedys considered themselves to be supportive of the left, in general, and to get along comparatively well with the communists, all things considered. Is this, by any chance, the origin of the whole Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory business? Is it all simply a psychological artifact of the fact that President Kennedy was considered a President of the Left, hence his assassin should not have been himself a failed defector to the Soviet Union? So, if Oswald had been a racist red-neck cracker, instead of a loony left-winger, would everyone have been content that he had been the lone assassin? The reason I'm suggesting this possibility, at this time, are the rather bizarre conspiracy theories emanating from the recent shooting rampage in Las Vegas. Now, to a "liberal" like myself, it seems comparatively obvious that Stephen Paddock was the lone shooter, plagued throughout his life by the death of his father in prison, and hostile to the very capitalist system in which he was so successful, because of its dog eat dog nature. So, now that he was becoming an old man, he thought he could both get his own back, and get his father payback at the same time, by doing unto "Sin City" what it does to so many others -- really screwing it over. And Mr. Paddock certainly had the skills, intelligence and the resources -- as demonstrated by his highly successful career -- to do this quite effectively, entirely on his own. Indeed, we notice that President Trump has not attempted to call Mr. Paddock a "loser", as he has called the Muslim European terrorists. He's a "winner", hence, he's much, much better at killing! But, the police are now babbling about multiple shooters, conspiracies and unspecified support networks, with no evidence at all apparently. Indeed, the Sheriff has actually accused the people of Las Vegas, as whole, of being responsible for the attacks, for not reporting and preventing Mr. Paddock's suspicious activities! Is it simply that the police cannot accept that a rich, white male like themselves and their supporters could have turned on their own? It does look a bit that way. They are talking a lot like Kennedy Conspiracy theorists, in dealing with the Las Vegas Massacre.