Philosophy Now Forum

In Lindsay’s essay (though it could fairly be described as a diatribe and I do not mean that negatively) he referenced Andrew Torba as, to be frank, one of the influential voices of the “new neo-Nazism”. I believe I understand why he thinks this (I don’t think I agree) but it would be relevant to post a bit of Torba’s polemics here:

The Reckoning They Didn’t See Coming

We are done funding our own destruction. The cultural revolution stops here. We will have no more bureaucratic diversity cults weaponized against ordinary Americans and no more ideological grooming of children in classrooms. We will tolerate no more contempt from Hollywood and universities against the very people whose taxes and labor sustain them. We will build and elevate art and media and schools that honor faith and family and courage and sacrifice and beauty. We will not apologize for loving our ancestors and the civilization they built. If an institution despises the people it survives on, it should not be funded by those people.

We are done asking for permission to speak. The public square has moved online and it must be free. We will not live under a digital regime where a handful of companies can erase a man’s voice and business and reputation with one click and no appeal. We will break the monopoly of platforms that pretend to be neutral while acting as political enforcers. Speech is either free or it is managed, and managed speech is merely permission that can be revoked the moment you become inconvenient.

We are done raising our children in chains of shame. American history is not a crime scene. It is a great and bloody and magnificent story of a people wrestling their way toward ordered liberty. We honor the dead not because they were perfect but because they were ours, and because without them we would not be here. We will teach our children to be grateful instead of guilty, to carry forward what is best in our past rather than burning it down at the demand of people who hate it and could never build anything half as great.

This is where we are headed. The energy is there and the will is there. The people are awake, and once a nation truly wakes up, it does not go back to sleep peacefully. This is not a prediction. It is a warning and a promise. The age of managed decline is ending. The era of imposed humiliation is over. What comes next is a reckoning and a rebuilding. The people in the Regime still have a choice to make.

You can stand with the people of this country as they reclaim their birthright and throw in with a movement that says our children deserve a future in a nation that is theirs, not a theme park rented from global managers. Or you can step aside and cling to a dying order that will not protect you when it falls, and it is going to fall. So get on board or get out of the way.

The truth we have normalized is not a platform or a policy brief. It is the recognition that America is not an idea. It is a people. A specific people with a specific history, language, faith, and vision. That recognition is spreading not because of any single leader or organization, but because it is true. Truth, when spoken plainly and without apology, has a gravity that falsehood cannot resist forever. The millions who now see it will not be gaslit back into submission. They can lockdown TikTok and takeover CBS and ramp up the censorship online again all they want. The people will not unsee the betrayal of their leaders or unfeel the pain of watching their communities dissolve. They will not forget who did this to them. And they will not forgive those who stood by and watched it happen.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 6:25 pm So ... who's really the Best Philosopher Ever? I turn the question over to the denizens of PN, the only people with access to all the information needed to answer the question.

I actually listened to some part of the video you posted. The obvious answer is: it impossible to get a productive result to the question when posed in that way.

Could we modify the question to: What philosopher, or philosophy, or school of philosophers, will best serve (for example) the group of tendentious minds that have gravitated to this forum? And what philosopher, or philosophy, or school of philosophers, will best serve the people of our present in making sense of what is going on today in our world which, in my view, seems to be in an accelerating state?

I admit to desire to bend the topic toward my own area of interest — contemporary society.

(As to the pyramids, I continue to receive spiritual visitations from the ancient pharaohs and, if you’d like I’ll ask if they might bring along a chief engineer to at least get a better idea of how, with very limited technology, they pulled off the feat).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 9:56 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 6:25 pm So ... who's really the Best Philosopher Ever? I turn the question over to the denizens of PN, the only people with access to all the information needed to answer the question.

I actually listened to some part of the video you posted. The obvious answer is: it impossible to get a productive result to the question when posed in that way.

Well, it is a silly question really, it shouldn't be asked in seriousness by serious people for some serious purpose.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 9:56 pm Could we modify the question to: What philosopher, or philosophy, or school of philosophers, will best serve (for example) the group of tendentious minds that have gravitated to this forum? And what philosopher, or philosophy, or school of philosophers, will best serve the people of our present in making sense of what is going on today in our world which, in my view, seems to be in an accelerating state?

I admit to desire to bend the topic toward my own area of interest — contemporary society.

There are very few people active on this site who are competent to read philosophy and several of those that are don't actually do it. Choice of philosopher for somebody like Immanuel Can or Vegetable Aquarium might as well happen by random lottery as by their worthless efforts to read and sort the information.

Perversely, unlike them, I suspect you probably do a reasonable job of understanding those pretentious fascist bullshitters you like so much.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 9:56 pm (As to the pyramids, I continue to receive spiritual visitations from the ancient pharaohs and, if you’d like I’ll ask if they might bring along a chief engineer to at least get a better idea of how, with very limited technology, they pulled off the feat).

Go for it, it can't be madder than Handjob7

My god, people. Pyramids? Siriusly? We're on pyramids now?

They found the fuckin' ramp tracks that rolled the stones up the thing. It would be pitched at something like five degrees so you could push a 1000 pound rock around the track. It went around the perimeter of the pyramid, zig zagging upwards at that five degree incline. A slave powered conveyor belt. No prob. No antigravitational alien tech needed.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 12:33 pm Perversely, unlike them, I suspect you probably do a reasonable job of understanding those pretentious fascist bullshitters you like so much.

Flash, I know that you can do far more if the topic really is “What is going on in our present, and why?” And the question about what influences, be they by way of philosophy or political theory, “we” might turn to so that swerves towards reactionary radicalism can be countered and avoided, is not a bad question to consider.

In the course of time where I have been reading your posts I have surely sensed your own “reaction” (your reaction takes the form of shouting “Nazi!” exclusively). But you have never indicated where in fact you stand. Your own country, if the reports (or mediated perspectives) I receive are accurate stands on the verge of the complete elimination of free thought and communication, while also presenting a country fallen from any past grandeur and as a stark example of one overrun by a demographic with no relation to its natural history. Is this so? What do you see? Is this what you want? And why is it that millions of English citizens seem not to want that and express dissatisfaction? Is it possible for you speak about any of this in calm, informative tones? (Or will you go off on “Nazi!” ranting?)

My interest, Flash, spans the political spectrum and allows for the consideration of the contentious political theories that today are presently at (extreme) odds with each other. But to say that you suspect that I “understand” that of the Dissident Right or the (literally) fascist-tending ideologues, is not accurate. The fact of the matter is that I am trying to understand them and that is quite different from representing them or advocating for their (radical) perspectives. I have no political affiliation.

What I can report to you, and to anyone with the capacity to listen and to think, is that very certainly (here Lindsay is correct) the “playbook” of the reactionary factions that have now presented themselves with some force definitely follows, or mirrors, that of the reactionary period of the Interwar (1930s-1930s). Why is this? Simple: the reactionary and the militant Left/Progressive faction went far too far. It provoked the present militant opposition. (I suspect that you are ideologically located on that Left/Progressive, and reactive, side and these are the people who scream “Nazi!” but have little of substance to add. I.e. no remedial recommendation except a rather empty blame- and guilt-slinging that has lost most of its power to suppress.)

To label the capable Dissident Right (I only mean those, say like Nick Fuentes, who are demonstrating influence through successful rhetorical presentation) as “pretentious bull-shitters” is simply bad political opposition. It will do nothing to counter what they are saying, and what their grievances are. You must take grievance seriously, Flash: it is the fuel of discontent, upheaval and also of civil war and revolution (speaking historically).

At least Lindsay is addressing (not very thoroughly) the issue of grievance.

My own own “politics”, such as it is, is largely theoretical in the sense that it occurs outside of any political engagement. I have zero political connections. I do not even live in the US. I simply observe. That perspective provides advantages: non-affiliation is a neutral point. I can read (and I have read) Chomsky’s works while also having gone through Alain de Benoist or those of Jonathan Bowden. These are facets of political spectrums and the only fact is that Chomsky’s views are more or less allowed and encouraged whereas those of a radical Right perspective (Right political theory) have been significantly suppressed. Like it or not the other side of a wide political perspective is re-intruding itself. This is not my creation, it is something happening.

I can say that there is definitely something you could say that I “like” about Nick Fuentes and theorists (and orators) like Jonathan Bowden: they do not hold back from saying things that have strong elements or truth and accuracy. (Here is an example where Fuentes ruthlessly disassembles MTG. He strikes chords that win huge rhetorical points in his audience). This must be very seductive to those “young men” that have now become the topic of concern in our present. But to say that I like or admire this spirit, is not to say that I am seduced.

The object of philosophical training should be to be capable of entertaining ideas while avoiding being captured by them.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 2:03 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 12:33 pm Perversely, unlike them, I suspect you probably do a reasonable job of understanding those pretentious fascist bullshitters you like so much.

Flash, I know that you can do far more if the topic really is “What is going on in our present, and why?” And the question about what influences, be they by way of philosophy or political theory, “we” might turn to so that swerves towards reactionary radicalism can be countered and avoided, is not a bad question to consider.

In the course of time where I have been reading your posts I have surely sensed your own “reaction” (your reaction takes the form of shouting “Nazi!” exclusively). But you have never indicated where in fact you stand. Your own country, if the reports (or mediated perspectives) I receive are accurate stands on the verge of the complete elimination of free thought and communication, while also presenting a country fallen from any past grandeur and as a stark example of one overrun by a demographic with no relation to its natural history. Is this so? What do you see? Is this what you want? And why is it that millions of English citizens seem not to want that and express dissatisfaction? Is it possible for you speak about any of this in calm, informative tones? (Or will you go off on “Nazi!” ranting?)

You whine about that all the time, but you had your opportunity years ago to address those holocaust denial remarks you made then and you spurned that chance so it is done and that book is closed.

I have described my own position on many matters here in a thread titled Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok). That was in 2019, I probably hold broadly similar views today.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 2:03 pm My interest, Flash, spans the political spectrum and allows for the consideration of the contentious political theories that today are presently at (extreme) odds with each other. But to say that you suspect that I “understand” that of the Dissident Right or the (literally) fascist-tending ideologues, is not accurate. The fact of the matter is that I am trying to understand them and that is quite different from representing them or advocating for their (radical) perspectives. I have no political affiliation.

What I can report to you, and to anyone with the capacity to listen and to think, is that very certainly (here Lindsay is correct) the “playbook” of the reactionary factions that have now presented themselves with some force definitely follows, or mirrors, that of the reactionary period of the Interwar (1930s-1930s). Why is this? Simple: the reactionary and the militant Left/Progressive faction went far too far. It provoked the present militant opposition. (I suspect that you are ideologically located on that Left/Progressive, and reactive, side and these are the people who scream “Nazi!” but have little of substance to add. I.e. no remedial recommendation except a rather empty blame- and guilt-slinging that has lost most of its power to suppress.)

To label the capable Dissident Right (I only mean those, say like Nick Fuentes, who are demonstrating influence through successful rhetorical presentation) as “pretentious bull-shitters” is simply bad political opposition. It will do nothing to counter what they are saying, and what their grievances are. You must take grievance seriously, Flash: it is the fuel of discontent, upheaval and also of civil war and revolution (speaking historically).

At least Lindsay is addressing (not very thoroughly) the issue of grievance.

You resort to too much self pity and name calling for me to take your complaints that others are calling you names remotely seriously. I don't care if you improve or not, but you should make the effort for your own sake.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 2:03 pm My own own “politics”, such as it is, is largely theoretical in the sense that it occurs outside of any political engagement. I have zero political connections. I do not even live in the US. I simply observe. That perspective provides advantages: non-affiliation is a neutral point. I can read (and I have read) Chomsky’s works while also having gone through Alain de Benoist or those of Jonathan Bowden. These are facets of political spectrums and the only fact is that Chomsky’s views are more or less allowed and encouraged whereas those of a radical Right perspective (Right political theory) have been significantly suppressed. Like it or not the other side of a wide political perspective is re-intruding itself. This is not my creation, it is something happening.

Sure, you put lots of effort into the affectation that you are a remote impartial being who simply observes. But you give yourself away by consistently promoting Fuentes and other "white preferrers", and that habit you have of linking to videos where the comments section is just a stream of nazis complaining about jews.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 2:03 pm I can say that there is definitely something you could say that I “like” about Nick Fuentes and theorists (and orators) like Jonathan Bowden: they do not hold back from saying things that have strong elements or truth and accuracy. (Here is an example where Fuentes ruthlessly disassembles MTG. He strikes chords that win huge rhetorical points in his audience). This must be very seductive to those “young men” that have now become the topic of concern in our present. But to say that I like or admire this spirit, is not to say that I am seduced.

Uh huh, yep, totally abive it all and impartial, that's our Jacobi.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 2:03 pm The object of philosophical training should be to be capable of entertaining ideas while avoiding being captured by them.

And so fucking pretentious.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 2:58 pm You whine about that all the time, but you had your opportunity years ago to address those holocaust denial remarks you made then and you spurned that chance so it is done and that book is closed.

This stance of yours is a perfect emblem of the deliberate maligning of those you have chosen to perform as your “dire enemies”. This is all “you” but it is all misrepresentation. So I will correct you but note the following: it will make no difference.

What I said was: With some quibbles over (some) details I accept the general historical picture of the Shoah. Only a master like yourself could bend that into Holocaust denial …

For those like you who have unbalanced minds you “hear” what you want to hear and, once heard, what you have heard is made permanent.

In fact right here I would focus on this, just exactly this, that presents you Flash with a philosophical problem. If you cannot hear in this instance, and if you deliberately misconstrue what a person says or writes, how can you be trusted in any area that requires mental and intellectual balance?

Because you have this stance (it is a defect of intellect) you will project onto others, your ‘enemies’, what is not their due, or what is more than their due.

In the larger political sphere this is obviously a problem if only because those who you make into enemies will often have at least some valid points even if it is (often) hopped-up by assertions that are dubious or even false.

In summation: there are certainly literal Holocaust deniers, and this denial is historically false. There was such a thing as “the destruction of the European Jews”.

In reality it is exactly here where you have “your opportunity” to revise your distortion of where I stand on this issue but you will not.

But none of this has much importance in our present except peripherally. Today and as a result of overreach by a smallish Israeli faction all of Israel and certainly American mega-activists of ultra-Zionism have provoked justifiable opposition to 1) Israeli internal policies, 2) general Zionism in the Diaspora, but most relevantly 3) the question and problem of Israeli influence over American policy and “sovereignty”.

The issue is complex and fraught, obviously, but for those opposed to “forever wars” Israeli influence, and American support of (what are seen as) their wars is the trigger of most of the antisemitism.

It requires a balanced mind that is not inclined, as yours seems to be, to over-excitement to discuss all of this fairly. You are not after fairness or balance however, and this is why you willfully misinterpret.

It is obviously bad intellectual practice.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 2:58 pm Sure, you put lots of effort into the affectation that you are a remote impartial being who simply observes. But you give yourself away by consistently promoting Fuentes and other "white preferrers", and that habit you have of linking to videos where the comments section is just a stream of nazis complaining about jews.

Again, this is the projection of interpretation on your part. You cannot hold yourself back. It is a solid part of your internal structures.

I definitely am interested in “impartial stances” and I am sure they are possible to achieve. So at least you recognize (I guess) that impartiality is possible. But do you value it? I don’t think so. Your internal intellectual structure cancels it.

Fuentes is, despite my admiration or condemnation of him, a very relevant figure in American politics. He is part of a process that has been going on for over a decade. He is one of those figures who “arise” in social and psychological currents at important junctures. Whether you or anyone likes or hates him he must be studied. But you have to listen to him not project what you want to hear.

Disentangling his rhetorical performances (he is a performer) can only be done by someone clear-headed.

“White preference” is the logical corollary and outcome of over-extended anti-Whiteness. Understanding this is part of seeing clearly Flash. I know this comes very hard for you but it is not impossible.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 2:58 pm Uh huh, yep, totally above it all and impartial, that's our Jacobi.

Well I am glad that you define being “above it all” as important and possible. And there should be little doubt that in comparison to you I indeed strive to a position above.

But you definitely miss the point of why Fuentes must be studied. And you also are not paying attention to how he develops his rhetorical diatribes.

For you (I guess?) considering his performances is sponsoring and advocating them. It cannot be else, can it? The mere mention of him triggers a reactionary mechanism in your mind.

You are a hothead, and your rehearse hotheadedness on this forum with a dozen other similar but tendentious hotheads. This is the main problem with this forum. It is totally unproductive.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 5:27 pm “White preference” is the logical corollary and outcome of over-extended anti-Whiteness.

Your grasp of basic reasoning is so deficient I could not take you seriously even if there weren't already 9 other reasons why I cannot.

I am not your target audience for all the nazi shit you are into, and I am not interested in relitigating old news. As I told you at the time, when you refused to discuss the matter unless I provided a detailed bibliography of all the books I have ever read, after months of your deliberate evasion on the topic, you have been judged already, there is no further need to investigate whether you are a nazi. Your further efforts are pissing into the wind.

Do I need to leave you alone for another couple of hours so you can finish responding to one post?

• in i

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 5:41 pm As I told you at the time, when you refused to discuss the matter unless I provided a detailed bibliography of all the books I have ever read, after months of your deliberate evasion on the topic, you have been judged already, there is no further need to investigate whether you are a nazi.

Here you continue to do what you are unable not to do. Do you recognize how your defect is so much like the defects of others here like IC, Acellafine and Walker? (To name those who come to mind). No matter how they are opposed and corrected they cannot bend. It is neurosis not conversation.

I am not, certainly not, a Nazi, but you are unable to distinguish that even many of those coming to the fore (socially, politically) are not either Nazis but they are putting forward alternative forms or reactive positions (to those ultra-radical postures of the Left-Progressives). These positions do involve stances of conservatism and reactive dissidence but they are distinct from National Socialism extremism.

Your failure — willful failure — to allow them their fair due will tend to drive them toward more militant postures.

Thus you feed reaction. And you do not give a flying fuck …

Do you see? If you continue to reside in distorted viewpoints you will continually mis- or over-interpret things.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 5:57 pm Your failure — willful failure — to allow them their fair due will tend to drive them toward more militant postures.

If that is all it takes for them to abandon their considered positions they are completely shit philosophers and I have no use for them.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 6:30 pm If that is all it takes for them to abandon their considered positions they are completely shit philosophers and I have no use for them.

This is a continuation of your distortion-activity. Who among the numerous philosophers (of Right-oriented political theory) do you refer to? You know little or nothing of their positions. So what are they to abandon? You do not have much of an idea of what their positions are, and even if you did you could not sift through them philosophically, thoughtfully, and to assess what in them has value, or might and could have value. You are walking talking prejudice.

It is quite odd and dissonant that you desire to present yourself as a philosopher when you come across as a beginning sophist. You have not addressed anything I wrote nor was that ever your attention. Yours is a non-philosophy of refusal.

I would prefer to see you being more useful to your own position but that is impossible because you undermine your credibility and your skill.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 2:58 pm I have described my own position on many matters here in a thread titled Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok). That was in 2019, I probably hold broadly similar views today.

How odd. Given your tendency to hysteria and reactiveness (and shrilly screaming “Nazi!”) I would never have imagined you would advocate for Neo-Liberalism as a political and economic commitment. I must admit that l will have to revise my image of you. (Try to act less freaky, at least for a while, as I get this sorted out).

Neo-liberalism is an economic ideology that emphasizes free market principles, deregulation, and reduction of government intervention in economic matters. It advocates for:

- Privatization of public services
- Free trade
- Globalization
- Reduced social welfare spending
- Increased focus on individual responsibility

Critics argue it can lead to increased inequality and exploitation, while supporters see it as promoting economic growth and efficiency.

How would you describe the reasons that things have gotten so — what is the right phrasing? — out of hand? Myself, I am still trying to understand.

My personal view is there are likely 3 major factors (my reference-point is America not Europe): 1) the destruction of America’s industrial manufacturing base and the immense harm to wide sectors, 2) the “forever wars”, and 3) the undermining of the American (mostly Europe-descended) demographic by far too aggressive and not discriminating enough mass immigration.

The other factor is the excesses of hyper-liberalism on the level of social mores.

Hah! So AJ has just twigged that Flashy is a neo-nazi just like him