Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 2:26 am I am not interested in fighting over the definition of this word. Come up with something meaningful.

You mean 'meaningful' like the word 'neoliberal'?

Thatcher and Reagean were so-called 'neoliberals'. You must feel very proud to be in their company. How dare people pollute the word with their money-obsessed, low-income-bashing, eugenicist politics!

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 1:43 am Typical non-response from a moronic American. So it doesn't mean liberal then. Then stop fucking using the word!

I am actually Corsican. But I was raised on the W coast of France (Hossegor). My parents worked in India during the 90s and dragged me and my two sisters along. But when I got sick of India I was sent to a private college in Scotland. Now I live in Colombia and my wife is Romanian.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 2:34 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 1:43 am Typical non-response from a moronic American. So it doesn't mean liberal then. Then stop fucking using the word!

I am actually Corsican. But I was raised on the W coast of France (Hossegor). My parents worked in India during the 90s and dragged me and my two sisters along. But when I got sick of India I was sent to a private college in Scotland. Now I live in Colombia and my wife is Romanian.

I don't care. You might as well be.

contd. Politics that have been a proven failure time after time. So-called 'neo-liberal' govts. ALWAYS end up fucking up countries whenever people are stupid enough to vote them in. Who is still thick enough to buy their 'trickle-down' crap?l If they are so good with money then why do they ALWAYS end their tenures with massive, record-breaking debt??

I would prefer it if you’d refer to me as an ignorant displaced or post-Corsican.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 2:33 am How dare people pollute the word with their money-obsessed, low-income-bashing, eugenicist politics!

C’mon Flash! You cannot let that insult stand. En guard!

He's pretending he doesn't have insomnia...

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 12:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:15 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 7:17 pm

All it would take to build another pyramid of Giza out of the same materials is the materials, which is just stone, plus the cutting and the placing of the stone... no? You got something more magical in mind perhaps?

Good....then show people from the modern age rebuilding them with our tools.

Then show the leavers and man-power that built them.

The simple historical evidence shows the construction methods as lacking within the presented historical texts.

Their building methods are context projection from the modern world. Historically there are no records to the processes.

Laborers? No.
Aliens? No.
Answers? None but a minute number of myths.

Is that word salad supposed to make a point of some sort?

Here's a video about how to assemble the Great Pyramid anew using two cranes:
Could A Modern Mega Crane ACTUALLY Build The Great Pyramid
https://youtu.be/MST6V1IHaTA

This is absurd, if you were sane you would drop the idea that we cannot build the pyramids today, it makes no sense that you insist on doubling down on such crap.

Where is the video of the pyramid of giza being replicated exactly? Proof is the product.

Where is the video of levers and people rolling stones to build it?

Where is the video that shows the hieroglypths explaining the exact process in which it was built?

What I see are assumptions, they are assumptions because there are no exact replicas.

Being real....historical texts give no answers, only second hand myths.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 5:38 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 12:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:15 am

Good....then show people from the modern age rebuilding them with our tools.

Then show the leavers and man-power that built them.

The simple historical evidence shows the construction methods as lacking within the presented historical texts.

Their building methods are context projection from the modern world. Historically there are no records to the processes.

Laborers? No.
Aliens? No.
Answers? None but a minute number of myths.

Is that word salad supposed to make a point of some sort?

Here's a video about how to assemble the Great Pyramid anew using two cranes:
Could A Modern Mega Crane ACTUALLY Build The Great Pyramid
https://youtu.be/MST6V1IHaTA

This is absurd, if you were sane you would drop the idea that we cannot build the pyramids today, it makes no sense that you insist on doubling down on such crap.

Where is the video of the pyramid of giza being replicated exactly? Proof is the product.

Where is the video of levers and people rolling stones to build it?

Where is the video that shows the hieroglypths explaining the exact process in which it was built?

What I see are assumptions, they are assumptions because there are no exact replicas.

Being real....historical texts give no answers, only second hand myths.

A pyramid is an end product made out of blocks of stone placed in a pattern. We have not lost the ability to make them. It's quite insane that you are continuing to double down on this.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 2:46 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 2:33 am How dare people pollute the word with their money-obsessed, low-income-bashing, eugenicist politics!

C’mon Flash! You cannot let that insult stand. En guard!

Meh, what would be the good outcome? Veggie needs to get attention and she will write anything at all i hopes of inspiring the fiery arguments that she confuses with affection in her sad little mania.

It's not like any of you is capable of technocratic neoliberal policy discussion. You are all about Evola and all that anti-liberal fascist shit, which may arm you very nicely for a fascist revolution, but it doesn't really cover the ins and outs of poverty reduction via increased minimum wages, direct cash transfers, or reverse income taxes. Pontificating about the racial status of your navel is more or less your upper limit, and that's no better than hers.

If we asked Immanuel Can for a deep dive into the importance of institutional autonomy such as central bank independence in an age of political interference and the pressure to suborn monetary policy to political objectives, his response would be about as valuable as Veggie's would be, or yours or Walkers. All equally shit.

I am not really concerned that neither you nor veggie has got much idea of what I am talking about, if I want to talk about that stuff, I wouldn't do so here.

So says the self-proclaimed neolib fascist wanker. Do you have a blow-up Thatcher doll to snuggle up to on those cold West End winter nights?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 10:16 am It's not like any of you is capable of technocratic neoliberal policy discussion. You are all about Evola and all that anti-liberal fascist shit, which may arm you very nicely for a fascist revolution, but it doesn't really cover the ins and outs of poverty reduction via increased minimum wages, direct cash transfers, or reverse income taxes. Pontificating about the racial status of your navel is more or less your upper limit, and that's no better than hers.

Neo-liberalism, by and large, seems to be “the way things have been set up”. So I don’t have to technocratically discuss it. Not only do I exist within it but my sustenance comes from it. In other places I have discussed “complicity” and “ownership interest” both objectively and subjectively.

But consideration of and familiarity with the Right-tending theorists is interesting and offers many benefits. Probably the one most have some experience with is Nietzsche. Certainly “a dangerous mind” as Ronald Beiner adamantly pointed out.

Evola specifically, at least as far as my understanding of him goes, is not a political theorist as such and his concern is moreover a spiritual one or one of self-empowerment. He is an acute individualist. I think that people gravitate to him because he allows them to conceive “the modern world” as one where decay is rampant, which view is ‘convenient’ if one is inclined to feel that it dampens spiritual aims and if one desires to define higher objectives. He detests what others have described as “liberal rot” and his exhorting essay directed to “Rightwing youth” encourages maintaining a sort of vigilance in the face of the inane seductions of the Postwar So ultimately, if anything, he encourages a radical stance of taking oneself in hand.

I think that if one is circumspect one notices that nearly all of the larger influencers at the turn of the century (1900) were products of the internalized will that developed from “the death of God”. The outer objectives fell away an inner objectives became more real, necessary. Jung, Evola, Guénon are emblematic of that trend it has seemed to me.

He and other radical Right-tending theorists have all seemed to me — ultimately — to root themselves in spiritual discipline.

What I discovered through my study of that branch of philosophy and radicalism (Evola, Guénon, etc.) is that a religious path of self-discipline, renunciation, focus and self-empowerment is a form of self-imposed fascism. If fascism is taken as service to an ideal and a radical renunciation of personal (or petty) objectives. Even in Mein Kampf (as read and discussed by Lindsay) is an exhortation for the self to surrender and serve a higher purpose (nationalism and a sort of exalted vision of what life can or should be). Hence all the emphasis on “world-concept”.

A religious world-concept — Christianity defines one, as do Vedanta and Buddhism — is what so-called “liberal rot” undermines. And try to conceive of and define the spiritual objectives of the Neo-liberal man. Everything goes flat and horizontal, and the objectives and creations of that man are pretty empty.

So in my own research, and bearing on the tendency to veer toward the radical right, you have to take into consideration man’s (I will say men’s) inclination toward higher purpose. So people, men I think principally, become inspired by challenging paths that make demands on them. Very different from eternal outings with wifey to the Walmart and the horizontal life generally.

Philosophically, Flash, I get the impression that your horizons are pretty limited. You seem to run in ruts. You do not have a wide vision of the full gamut of ideas that exploded onto the scene in the Interwar Period. In my view you have to understand both the genius and the dangers in “desperate idealism” and what results from becoming unmoored from sustaining structures. The first WW decimated certainty and continuity. People veered in strange directions as a result.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 2:07 pm Philosophically, Flash, I get the impression that your horizons are pretty limited.

Philosophically, you have nothing at all. You don't have horizons, you don't have a view, you are a complete zero and your opinion is not important.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 10:16 am I am not really concerned that neither you nor veggie has got much idea of what I am talking about, if I want to talk about that stuff, I wouldn't do so here.

Oh my dear Flash, do not feel forlorn! I fully and I think completely grasp why you see Neo-liberalism as at least “ok”. Sometimes you just have to put idealisms aside and accept things as they are. Far from perfect, but also quite far away from other and far more negative outcomes. An admiration of the Neo-liberal world order could be summed up as the world that was constructed by America in the Postwar. That world-system that Chomsky so often referenced:

Now let’s turn to the other extreme, to the doves. The leading dove was undoubtedly George Kennan, who headed the State Department planning staff until 1950, when he was replaced by Nitze—Kennan’s office, incidentally, was responsible for the Gehlen network. Kennan was one of the most intelligent and lucid of US planners, and a major figure in shaping the postwar world. His writings are an extremely interesting illustration of the dovish position.

One document to look at if you want to understand your country is Policy Planning Study 23, written by Kennan for the State Department planning staff in 1948. Here’s some of what it says:

“We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population....In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity....To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives....We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

PPS 23 was, of course, a top-secret document. To pacify the public, it was necessary to trumpet the “idealistic slogans” (as is still being done constantly), but here planners were talking to one another.