Recommend me books about Neoliberalism

[Anonymous No.16165048]

Everyone's always talking about it but I rarely hear a succinct description of Neoliberal literature. I get that Marxists go on about it a lot but I want to hear from earnest pro-Neoliberal authors.

I'd define Neoliberalism as:
> economically right-wing / socially left-wing
> globalist
> pro-scientism, rationalization, technology, etc
> 'progressive'
> Zionist
> promoting transhumanism, transgenderism, the general mutation of human nature, etc
> bourgeois metropolitan that hates the rural peasants

What's some LITERATURE of these people. What are the BOOKS Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell would read?

[Anonymous No.16165053]

The first (living) authors who come to mind for me would be:
> Steven Pinker
> Francis Fukuyama
> Deirdre McCloskey
> Donna Haraway

[Anonymous No.16165064]

I would say the roots of Neoliberalism are in the Mont Perlerin Society founded by:
> Karl Popper, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

I'd say Isaiah Berlin, Hannah Aremdt are also good. As well as H. Morganthau, Michael Walzer and Michael Sandel

[Anonymous No.16165072]

>>16165048
The hell of good intentions by Stephen W Walt would be a good one for neoliberal American interventionism

[Anonymous No.16165080]

first the dichotomy left-right is inherently humanistic, since it is what the judeo crhistian bourgeois created in the Parliament of their republics. They put the monarchists on the right and the secular humanists on the left

you see thus that being right wing in a the republic jsut means monarchist, but now that the huamnists killed any political power of the theists, the right is still socialist but dubbed ''right'' and the left is still socialism but dubbed ''left''

There is no difference between left and right in a humanistic republic.The only which changes is the symbols tied to each group.
THe underlying basis does not change.
THe underlyinsg basis of the republic is the consitution about the HUman rights. These rights are the jewel of the judeo chrisitans.


Now the subtlte poitn is that leftists and rightists are okay with that. All what matters for the judeo christian bourgeois is that theists do not take power again. And this happens exactly by giving the illusion to the midwits like you that left and right are separate doctrinally.
So the plebs can vote one time for the left, then they see that the bourgeois rulling class does XYZ, then the plebs whine that the ruling class is not doing what they promised during the compaign, then the next election the plebs swing to the rightists, which is exactly the same people.

Thus is no ''capitalism'' or anticapitalism.
What there is the Humanist Republic, the dogma of their Human Rights .
This is what capitalism is in its entirety.

Second capitalism cannot be destroyed without destroying the republic and its dogmas. This is what liberals hate to hear.

Third capitalism cannot be destroyed because by the dogma of the Human Rights, any doctrine is turned into a bulk of opinions, which are always shit on if the humanists see it as anti Human rights.
The doctrines which are the most appealing to those people are commodified and capitalism remains unaltered.

[Anonymous No.16165081]

>>16165048
>promoting transhumanism
maybe only in the most shallow material sense.

[Anonymous No.16165086]

here you go OP

[Anonymous No.16165089]

This is why btw all the motto and slogans in the humanist elections are always about ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''change'''''''''''''''''''''''''''
the only thing that does not change is exactly the fake symbols made up by the bourgeois about their political dichotomy.

The most important thing for the bourgeois is that the plebs really believe that the rulling class will stop being bourgeois after any election.
T'his is part of the fantasy of the humanist of the '''''''''''''''''perpetual revolution''''''''''''. T'hose people live on their laurels of doing revolution over and over, because killing theist Christians is the only thing they did in their entire history and they only live for this.
but now that theists are destroyed, they have nothing left to do and get bored, so they try to find new topics to ''''''''''''revolutionized''''''''''''''

[Anonymous No.16165092]

>>16165048
The actual foundations for Neoliberalism are pretty basic once you look into it. Hayek, Friedman, Fukuyama etc explain it very well. The End of History and the Last Man is a summation of the Neoliberal worldview. The thing with Neoliberalism is that it’s the most antifragile system created in the last century and absolutely fucking devours everything to be liquidated into capital. The liberalism aspect is a philosophical and social justification of why capital is allowed to consume everyone and everything to turn us into interchangeable androgynous products. The entire thing is one obfuscation after another, and I doubt people like Hayek could have imagined it would devolve into 13 year old transgenders and 30 year old unmarried liberal activists populating urban centers of America

[Anonymous No.16165135]

>>16165072
Danke, I'll check it out
>>16165080
> it's humanist and Judeo-christian
Aight I can see that, Steven Pinker is probs most accurate for that. Idk about humanist philosophers tho
>>16165081
You're telling me Epstein wasn't seriously into Transhumanism?'..

[Anonymous No.16165153]

>>16165086
Thanks looks dope
>>16165089
Yeah I like allusion to Trotsky's permanent revolution
>>16165092
Yeah pretty accurate, tho I think there's an exoteric and esoteric side to it. Popper, Hayek, etc are the outer side but imo there's a deeper religious side too, more insidious side. I'm thinking Aleister Crowley, Kalergi, etc

[Anonymous No.16165181]

I would say OP is missing pedophilia in his description here. The Neoliberals definitely promote the sexualization of children is entertainment and media constantly. All the LGBT stuff is aimed at children too.

This guy Hakim Bey (Peter Lamborn Wilson) is a pretty influential anarchist philosopher who promoted pedophilia. It's interesting his core idea was of Temporary Autonomous Zones which he would refer to as T.A.Z., eerily similar to C.H.A.Z which was behind promoted by the media. His TAZ system would be a decentralized zone where human liberty would be maximized, particularly in its promotion of pedophilia and man-child sexual relations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lamborn_Wilson

[Anonymous No.16165187]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16165188]

You surely couldn't have looked very hard if you're unable to find a description of neoliberalism online, or at least grok it from Marxist discussion. Anyway, Hayek and Friedman I suppose, although I don't think it's the most productive use of your time if you want to follow Marxist debate concerning it. There's a fundamental difference between an efficient economy and whether that economy is fair, or even desirable (or has the capacity to be so). In 'Capitalism and Freedom' (1962), for instance, Friedman asserts that his brand of economics produces the best long-term effects on the economy. That was over 50 years ago, so has it?

[Anonymous No.16165195]

>>16165064
I'm curious why you include Arendt?

[Anonymous No.16165214]

>>16165048
ask kantbot

[Anonymous No.16165218]

>>16165188
The problem with just reading Marxist analysis is that they're obviously biased and they're obviously going to mostly analyze it from the materialist and economic position. This is overly simplistic.

Neoliberalism has transmitted itself into being a cultural project too. The extreme deregulation and deconstruction of community, identity and nature is clearly a socio-political system now - Marxists mostly only analyze from an economic pov.

Also MOST IMPORTANTLY, I said I want to read their actual writings themselves. I want to read what Epstein and Maxwell, or Soros and Janet Jellen and Paul Singer are actually reading philosophy wise.

I don't want to just have my analysis, material and views just handed to me on a plate like a passive Marxist consoomer as you do.

[Anonymous No.16165256]

>>16165048
only a minor nitpick but this isn't epstein's body of politics. he was notably racist, and his only interested in transhumanism or eugenics was in born out of a desire to cum more.

[Anonymous No.16165260]

>I'm too lazy to cherry pick books that validate my worldview, kindly feed them to me.

[Anonymous No.16165287]

>>16165218
>just handed to me on a plate

What? You're almost certainly familiar with essential neoliberal teachings via osmosis, like the importance of free markets, competition, deregulation and privitisation. My point is that we've had 40-50 years of neoliberal orthodoxy in the Western world and you're missing a trick reading it's theory when there's decades of actual outcomes to examine. Is that theory actually delivering what it said it would, and is the world it's created even desirable?

>Marxists only analyse neoliberalism from an economic pov

Not even remotely true, look up critical theory and the Frankfurt School.

>I want to read what Epstein and Maxwell are reading

How old are you

[Anonymous No.16165293]

>>16165195
Yeah Arendt is a more complex one I'll admit.

Obviously her relationship with Heidegger (which even post-war was romantic) calls into question how glued to the regime she was. Plus I've heard her Eichman in Jerusalem book is actually sympathetic to young Nazis.

However, all that being said, Arendt did codify the origins of totalitarianism. Which for the elite totalitarianism just means opposition to Liberal Hegemony. So Arendt was able to single out state, paternalism, nationalism and anti-Semitism - whether on the left or right - is a red flag for totalitarianism.

She focused a ton on the refugee and immigrant in her analysis of citizenship which is pretty unique. For the first time in political philosophy the minority was put to the forefront of the political analysis as opposed to the majority or the society.

She's a mixed bag but that definitely influenced Neoliberalism. She was also a Zionist Liberal. Feel free to point me out as wrong wherever.

[Anonymous No.16165308]

>>16165260
> literally asking for books written by Neoliberals for Neoliberals
> literally asking for the opposite of my worldview because I want to understand their perspective
> "hurrrr durrr you just want to get spoonfed strawmen, hurrrr durrr I'm retarded'
Are you developmentally challenged? I literally asked for the opposite of your post you retard. Shut up and leave this board.

[Anonymous No.16165312]

>>16165308
You posted what you were looking for in the OP, you wanted your views of neoliberalism confirmed, so you posted the traits you were looking for in a list, you goon.

[Anonymous No.16165322]

>i've picked this ideology as the one for me
>no, i don't know anything about it, but it's important i can at least justify why i say i like it
>as i'm incapable of doing the most cursory research into the dominant ideology of the time, please handfeed me a reading list

literally the worst kind of person

[Anonymous No.16165325]

>>16165256
> norably racist
Lol ye and yet he and Maxwell and his buddies continue to support Neoliberals like Bill Clinton and progressive causes ain't that weird. It's like how the ADL complains about racism against blacks. They do that to stop any formation of white identity and to terrorize white people, it's not out of a genuine multiracialism.

Epstein of course was a racial realist, as all the elite is. But he and others would and will continue to promote the worldview of Tabula Rasa Individualism and multiculturalism.

[Anonymous No.16165332]

>>16165312
I posted those traits because that's how I would define Neoliberalism / the pervading elite and governing philosophy of mainstream politics right now. If you have more accurate or better traits then provide them, otherwise get your head out of your ass.
>>16165322
Stop samefagging.

[Anonymous No.16165350]

>>16165086
>just include everything
The redditor who made this chart is either being far too extensive (ie. including what they perceive as preliminary/genealogical texts or doesn't know what neoliberalism is. I mean:
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Cicero
>Hobbes
>Thucydides
>Sun Tzu
>Machiavelli
>Clausewitz
>Gellner
>Mearsheimer
>Waltz
>Gilpin
>Fucking Polanyi
>a bunch of intro to political philosophy texts (???)
>Sidgwick
What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.16165353]

>>16165064
Morganthau was a realist not a liberal

[Anonymous No.16165357]

>>16165287
> is that theory actually delivering what it said it could
Well the theory promoted individualism, globalization, break down of traditional values, supremacy of science and technology, etc. I think it delivered on most of them.

> Not even remotely true, look up critical theory and the Frankfurt School.
They're hardly Marxists for one, and two they were literally working for the CIA, as was Susan Sontag. Franz Neumann was literally a federal agent and then Herbert Marcuse worked for the OCC, the original CIA. Copies of Eros and Civilization we're promoted and produced by the CIA. Is that real Marxist? Some of his analysis is interesting but he was clearly a gay op

> how old are you
How old are you you pedophile

[Anonymous No.16165359]

>>16165353
In the same sense that Hillary Clinton's Zionist foreign policy is. You can have realist foreign policy with Neoliberal regimes, in fact that's the norm.

[Anonymous No.16165363]

>>16165350
Yeah true nine of those are Neoliberal

[Anonymous No.16165370]

>>16165363
None*

[Anonymous No.16165371]

>>16165325
so, wait, why would a group of elite race realists want to terrorize white people? what would that suggest?

[Anonymous No.16165373]

>>16165048
That's a fine rundown of it anon.

[Anonymous No.16165383]

>>16165371
It would suggest that they're Jewish Zionists. As Elite Jews hate White people and want the eradication of Europeans off the planet.

[Anonymous No.16165385]

>>16165357
>"they're hardly marxists for one", he says about a school based upon marxist philosophy
>some cia consipiracy twaddle
>worldview informed by epstein and pizzagate

Yeah ok I tried, have fun

[Anonymous No.16165389]

>>16165373
Thank you fella

[Anonymous No.16165404]

>>16165385
> some cia conspiracy twaddle
"Between 1943 and 1950, Marcuse worked in US government service for the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency) "
Literally straight from the Wikipedia, are you genuinely disabled? I didn't know I'd meet a real life retard today.

[Anonymous No.16165446]

>>16165383
you're a race realist, yes? what's the issue with that? sounds like natural selection at work

[Anonymous No.16165571]

>>16165048

>wants Epsteins redpilled reading list
>muh zionism
>thead filled willed with nods to crackpot conspiracy shit
>m-marxists are just economists! Not worth my time!!

OP is a teenage edgelord and should consider deleting this fucking embarrassing thread

[Anonymous No.16165604]

>>16165048
The Babylonian Talmud

[Anonymous No.16165696]

>>16165571
You think what Epstein would read counted as redpilled? It would be the conscription of degeneracy and plutocratic top-down abuse in its purest form.

What do you think the CIA is exactly? People who protect you from weapons of mass destruction?

The absolute state.

[Anonymous No.16165783]

>>16165446
you're a disabled retard. you realize you can acknowledge race as an empirically / scientifically valid category while not affirming the morality of might is right or natural selection?

It's like this:
> do you accept evolution as valid?
> you probably do
> does that mean you'll make a normative claim that might is right and about natural selection?
> probably not

.tldr (cause you're too retarded): you can make a DESCRIPTIVE claim while not making a NORMATIVE claim.

Therefore; I can say race exists, while being ambivalent toward whether that matters. I can acknowledge Koreans are more intelligent than the Irish WHILE I prefer Irish people and have a closer link to them.

Jews rule the world. I oppose that as I oppose Israel. I oppose that while acknowledging the existence of race. Where's the fucking contradiction you retard?

[Anonymous No.16165788]

>>16165783
you realize you can acknowledge race as an empirically / scientifically valid category while not affirming the morality of might is right or natural selection?
based

[Anonymous No.16165796]

>>16165783
>you realize you can acknowledge race as an empirically / scientifically valid category while not affirming the morality of might is right or natural selection?
based

[Anonymous No.16165803]

>>16165796
>>16165788
you got it on the second attempt lol (don't delete your original message to keep the replies / bumps up here)

[Anonymous No.16165812]

>>16165803
too late lol

[Anonymous No.16165816]

>>16165803
sorry? a minute mistake friend I am not him samefagging if that's what you're thinking.

[Anonymous No.16165823]

>>16165816
nah i wasn't saying you're samefagging pal i was just saying i saw you first reply was without the greentext by accident