Philosophy Now Forum

Fred Flintstone spent years harvesting rocks in a quarry

Mr. Slate could have used them to build pyramids...

people simply got distracted with Pebbles and Bam Bam

-Imp

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 3:04 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:55 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:15 pm To cut to the point using Egypt as an examlple

We cannot construct the pyramids.
They could not construct a car.

Superiority and inferiority? Relative.

If the Egyptians had made a car, you would say they couldn't make a car because there is no video of them making it in a Honda factory in Japan?

Silliness of course. All that is required for the ancients to make a car is an ancient internal combustion engine, an ancient steering wheel and so on.

All that is required for a new pyramid is rocks cut and shaped into appropriate form and placed on top of each other in the similar arrangement to the old pyramids. Which is not a technological problem in the least.

All I am asking is where is the video of us making an exact replica of the pyramids of Giza?

There isn't one. Nobody has any reason to actually build such a thing.

Obviously you aren't going to claim this helps prove that we cannot build pyramids, that would invite endless speculation about other things there are no videos of and which therefore are not possible.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 1:53 am Not exactly comprehensive but decent stuff that shouldn't really be that problematic. It generally amounts to a repudiation of populist nonsense such as the entire MAGA thing, all of the Fuentes jew-worrying stuff that Jacobi is always promoting, and all the culture wars moral panic that constantly infests this space.

You may have noticed (?) that no matter how freaky and hysterical you present yourself as that I always stick to a level tone and response. Because you erroneously decided that I am your (beloved-detested) “Nazi” you cannot really understand what I am up to in my reading of the radical and dissident Right.

The “neoliberalism” that you outlined in the Reddit is actually and factually a part of the reason that the reactive postures have appeared. So — it is problematic. While neoliberals designed their perfect world , resentment and opposition developed. I gather (?) that you have little comprehension why this is, and that you categorize all opposition (to these leveling programs) as the stuff of Nazism. Must I point out why that is a mistake? It seems so obvious to me.

The origins of this “populism” you hold in such contempt needs to be understood — but with far less hysterical judgmentalism. Eduardo Galeano used a story to illustrate a point: the cook explained to the duck, the hen and the turkey just how he planned to cook and serve them. It was a glorious menu. But the fowl retorted “While we appreciate your artistry, we have decided that we do not want to participate in your cookery! We prefer carry on as ourselves and as whole, self-determining agents”.

Similarly, and for just one example from one faction in our polity, the Fuentes crowd has got it into their head that they don’t wish to be cooked up in (your ideal) neoliberal stew. They are filled with themselves, and filled with a sense of 1) their power to oppose and 2) their power to counter-define.

all of the Fuentes jew-worrying stuff that Jacobi is always promoting, and all the culture wars moral panic that constantly infests this space

Obviously, and for “philosophers”, the calm discussion of all of this should be our objective. The problem is the degree to which denizens get stuck in the promotion of their “cherished positions” and as a result perform epic battles of self-righteous signaling. It never is productive (and is usually tendentiously neurotic in the best of cases).

The core of Fuentes opposition to the Zionist power over US policy is in the knotty issue of “dual loyalty”. His critique is completely valid as I see it. And it was all mapped out in the first half of the 20th century (by Jews and Gentiles) that the establishment of the Jewish state would place Jewry in an uncomfortable and also indefensible position of just that dual loyalty. And to anyone with eyes that (among a set of issues) is what animates Fuentes.

The issue? That you (people like you) define him as an antisemite when in fact he is not. He takes a radical posture and says “If you are such a Zionist and so committed to Israel, then leave the US and go reside in Israel”. It is the dual loyalty issue which bites American Zionists in the ass. It is impossible for them to hear such a direct (forbidden) statement and not to react by accusing the speaker of engaging in judenhass.

Just like you, they play it up to the max. And this has to do with the fact that they do not want to lose their foothold within this influential Zionist-US government matrix of collusion.

You see? So easy to discuss things calmly and fairly when and if — in your case certainly — you calm down your overheated projection-animated mind.

The conversation about how things got to the difficult and fractured state in American society is possible. But sadly (in ny view) there is no persons on this forum who 1) desires to have a fair and balanced conversation and 2) actually studies the issue.

But there is Alexis Jacobi who towers over the chicken-brained “philosophers” (no offense Flash!) and guides them to the hen-house of truth, out of reach of the Designing Foxes of distortion and confusion.

Hysteria is not required for the matter of fact observation that Fuentes is a notorious anti-semite and Jacobi is a nazi. You ought to reduce your silliness.

This illustrates perfectly my main points: no matter what anyone says, or how carefully they use nuance to talk about the issues, people like you, with severely over-heated minds, will refuse to modify their stance. You are “just one more” among those who double-down into neurotic tendentiousness.

It's not nuance, you are just carefully skirting the truth to avoid getting banned.

Oh? For what would I be banned?

Saying the quiet part out loud.

Let’s be more explicit, it is a useful task. First, the country that you live in prohibits free speech and as a result concomitant free thought. That is if all the reports I receive are accurate. And I assume (?) this is how you like it. You definitely come across as an intolerant, controlling sort.

And as one accustomed to the US granted rights I have much wider parameters. I am aware that even if those who manage this forum would wish otherwise, there are many topics that cannot be broached, and there has to be vigilance to be sure lines are not crossed. I respect that. So any such perilous topics are best left out of conversation. It is an issue of respect for the managers or owners.

Nevertheless, and even in the US, there is such a thing as ‘being cancelled’ and there have been many many instances of people being de-platformed, fired and de-banked. So “free speech” and free thought are in fact under assault everywhere. In fact this happened to your bestie Nick.

You are obviously not a person who respects free speech nor free thought. I do not think that you can think freely. Your “philosophy”, whatever the heck it is, constrains free thinking. You are a curiosity in this sense. I assume that in your ideal neoliberal state that you would certainly limit speech and thought by police intervention. And you would do so as a reflection of the same intolerance of ideas, contrary to your cherished positions, that you label “Nazi”. That’s Flash for you.

I think it would please you mightily if all those whose ideas or values you don’t like were banned, shunned, excluded, de-banked and de-platformed. That is a salient feature of your position.

What would get one banned in England (or fined, or jailed) is what I assume cannot be talked about here.

But even in such an environment, at least as I am aware, nothing I say crosses even those restrictive lines.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 2:51 pm Hysteria is not required for the matter of fact observation that Fuentes is a notorious anti-semite and Jacobi is a nazi. You ought to reduce your silliness.

Lucky for AJ then that the word now has absolutely no meaning.

There certainly is such a thing as antisemitism. It is a form of dislike that verges on an irrational hatred and contempt, usually mixed up with envy (of a sort) and much ignorance (many of today’s antisemites cannot even define what a Jew is). I would say that Stew Peters (if anyone here is aware of who he is) works the (literal) antisemitic angle.

Concern about antisemitism is completely legitimate. However, the entire issue of Jewish history is ultra-complex and dislike of Jews and Judaism is not necessarily antisemitic (i.e. Judenhass). It is a distinction that requires real clarity (and honesty).

Numerous others — Nick Fuentes is one — are not classic antisemites animated by irrational contempt and hatred. They dislike Zionists certainly, and they do not like or appreciate what they perceive as the over-powerful influence of notable Zionists on American policy. They seek a way to interpret 20-30 years of Middle East wars and the depletion of the wealth of their own nation, and the fact of their sense of displacement by millions and millions of recent immigrants. Not to mention the destruction of America’s manufacturing base.

Nick Fuentes’ position rubs up against classic antisemitism however. And he certainly attracts those types as evidenced in the comment sections. But it would not come up if Israel’s misdeeds were not so evident and topical.

As I have already stated the majority of the present rise of anger about Jewish influence centers around Israel’s policies and actions. And Israel has and shows a very aggressive and arrogant posture which aggravates everyone. The problem is simple: the invasion and occupation and displacement of an Arab ethnicity by European Jews through conquest of an entirely Arab region. It smacks absolutely of colonialism. Because that is what it is.

But that attitude — extreme nationalism and defense of a state that is founded on ethnic identity (Judaism is best understood as an ethnicity and a race-identity, which makes it very problematic in the present) — though criminal in notable aspects, is not incomprehensible given the Jewish European experience. I don’t think that many people understand this factor.

The word certainly has meaning if it used correctly.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 05, 2025 8:27 pm Let’s be more explicit, it is a useful task. First, the country that you live in prohibits free speech and as a result concomitant free thought. That is if all the reports I receive are accurate. And I assume (?) this is how you like it. You definitely come across as an intolerant, controlling sort.

Unless you go so far as to advocate for a new and improved holocaust starting tomorrow and you are able to name your first victims, holocaust denial and nazism in general is not illegal in this country.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 05, 2025 8:27 pm And as one accustomed to the US granted rights I have much wider parameters. I am aware that even if those who manage this forum would wish otherwise, there are many topics that cannot be broached, and there has to be vigilance to be sure lines are not crossed. I respect that. So any such perilous topics are best left out of conversation. It is an issue of respect for the managers or owners.

Nevertheless, and even in the US, there is such a thing as ‘being cancelled’ and there have been many many instances of people being de-platformed, fired and de-banked. So “free speech” and free thought are in fact under assault everywhere. In fact this happened to your bestie Nick.

You are obviously not a person who respects free speech nor free thought. I do not think that you can think freely. Your “philosophy”, whatever the heck it is, constrains free thinking. You are a curiosity in this sense. I assume that in your ideal neoliberal state that you would certainly limit speech and thought by police intervention. And you would do so as a reflection of the same intolerance of ideas, contrary to your cherished positions, that you label “Nazi”. That’s Flash for you.

I think it would please you mightily if all those whose ideas or values you don’t like were banned, shunned, excluded, de-banked and de-platformed. That is a salient feature of your position.

What would get one banned in England (or fined, or jailed) is what I assume cannot be talked about here.

But even in such an environment, at least as I am aware, nothing I say crosses even those restrictive lines.

You are a sad, whiny little man aren't you?

What you mean to say Flash — I have a very fine and a very rare translator device — is that I am really darned wonderful, very thoughtful, and I run circles around you. You are like a old blind dog nipping ineffectively at the air.

I can help you to advance further. I will cure you! I cured Atla, Gary, and have you noticed how Age is coming along!? I am responsible for all of this. And more is planned.

The man in notably dangerous pantaloons wrote:Unless you go so far as to advocate for a new and improved holocaust starting tomorrow and you are able to name your first victims, holocaust denial and nazism in general is not illegal in this country.

Except I was not talking about that. I was referring more to the so said 12,000 people (they say 33 a day) arrested or cited for various speech infractions.

Still, if the following is correct (a Googlish search) …

In the UK, pro-Nazi and pro-National Socialist speech is not allowed if it's likely to incite hatred or violence. The UK has laws against hate speech, including the Public Order Act 1986, which prohibits incitement to racial hatred. Sharing Nazi symbols or promoting National Socialist ideology can be considered a crime if it's intended to stir up hatred.

However, the UK also protects free speech, and not all pro-Nazi or National Socialist speech is automatically a crime. The context and intent behind the speech are considered when determining whether it's a crime.

People convicted of hate speech can face imprisonment, fines, or both. The UK has a complex balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm.

… it is far more likely that any speech that promotes Nazism, or the exchange of Nazi or NS views or symbols, will result in police actions.

Is it possible that you are misrepresenting the facts? Or are you ignorant of actual occurrances?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 05, 2025 11:55 pm What you mean to say Flash — I have a very fine and a very rare translator device — is that I am really darned wonderful, very thoughtful, and I run circles around you. You are like a old blind dog nipping ineffectively at the air.

I can help you to advance further. I will cure you! I cured Atla, Gary, and have you noticed how Age is coming along!? I am responsible for all of this. And more is planned.

The man in notably dangerous pantaloons wrote:Unless you go so far as to advocate for a new and improved holocaust starting tomorrow and you are able to name your first victims, holocaust denial and nazism in general is not illegal in this country.

Except I was not talking about that. I was referring more to the so said 12,000 people (they say 33 a day) arrested or cited for various speech infractions.

Still, if the following is correct (a Googlish search) …

In the UK, pro-Nazi and pro-National Socialist speech is not allowed if it's likely to incite hatred or violence. The UK has laws against hate speech, including the Public Order Act 1986, which prohibits incitement to racial hatred. Sharing Nazi symbols or promoting National Socialist ideology can be considered a crime if it's intended to stir up hatred.

However, the UK also protects free speech, and not all pro-Nazi or National Socialist speech is automatically a crime. The context and intent behind the speech are considered when determining whether it's a crime.

People convicted of hate speech can face imprisonment, fines, or both. The UK has a complex balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm.

… it is far more likely that any speech that promotes Nazism, or the exchange of Nazi or NS views or symbols, will result in police actions.

Is it possible that you are misrepresenting the facts? Or are you ignorant of actual occurrances?

If you are in the realm where that isn't all just distinction without difference, there is nothing whatsoever for me to retract. So what is your fucking point you fatuous nazi clown?

You can't have both 'hate speech' laws and free speech. The two are diametrically opposed.