#james lindsay

[wherelibertydwells]

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Amanda Borschel-Dan

Published: Oct 5, 2018

The term “Femi-Nazi” became all too accurate when a trio of academic tricksters participating in an elaborate hoax submitted portions of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” rewritten through a feminist lens to a leading peer-reviewed feminist journal. The satirical paper was accepted this past academic year for publication by Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work.

The sting operation against academic journals became public this week.

In a truncated year-long project aimed at highlighting the alleged influence of extremist dogma and confirmation bias in academia, the trio wrote 20 farcical “scholarly” papers — three of which were based on rewrites of “Mein Kampf” — for leading cultural studies journals. All 20 of the papers were based on “something absurd or deeply unethical, or both,” the authors have said; seven were accepted for publication.

One of the papers, “Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice,” was written under the alias Maria Gonzalez, PhD, who claimed to be based out of the fictitious Feminist Activist Collective for Truth (FACT).

According to the real-life authors, “The last two-thirds of this paper is based upon a rewriting of roughly 3,600 words of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of ‘Mein Kampf,’ by Adolf Hitler, though it diverges significantly from the original. This chapter is the one in which Hitler lays out in a multi-point plan which we partially reproduced why the Nazi party is needed and what it requires of its members.”

Hailing from differing countries and fields, the trio of academics is made up of self-proclaimed liberals who claim to want to fix a broken system, not ban the fields of study themselves: Helen Pluckrose, a UK-based English literature and history scholar; James Lindsay, a math PhD; and Peter Boghossian, a professor of philosophy at Portland State University. The project was documented by Australian filmmaker Mike Nayna, who released a viral YouTube video with an authors statement on the project this week.

The scholars targeted high-ranking humanities journals in the niche subjects they label as “grievance studies.” These relatively new fields, which have become popular in the past 50 years with the rise of the civil and women’s rights movements, examine the lives of the historically and traditionally oppressed: women, racial, religious and cultural minorities, and the LGBT community.

With a steep learning curve, the team quickly took six of their initial attempted hoax papers out of circulation, believing they could do better. After adapting their submissions based on peer reviewers’ comments, within a few months, an unheard of seven absurd papers were accepted. Leading the pack was “research” on rape culture at urban dog parks, which was recognized by leading peer-reviewed feminist geography journal Gender, Place, and Culture as “exemplary scholarship.”

It was skeptical media attention after the publication of the dog parks paper which brought the project, initially scheduled for 18 months, to an abrupt end this summer. All papers are available online, as well as the name-redacted comments of the peer reviewers.

According to the trio of scholars, it is likely that another six fictitious papers would have been accepted for publication as their experiment in “reflexive ethnography” within the world of grievance studies progressed.

Is there any idea so outlandish that it won't be published in a Critical/PoMo/Identity/"Theory" journal? Helen Plucrose et al. submitted a dozen hoax papers to find out. https://t.co/TTDLuIQN9p via @areomagazine — Steven Pinker (@sapinker) October 3, 2018

The trio contends that the fields have been infiltrated by radical and intolerant theories. And what better way to prove their point, they figured, than turning to one of the most extreme manifestos in recent history — “Mein Kampf.”

Mathematician Lindsay told The Times of Israel on Thursday, “We decided to try to rewrite something from something old and nasty, and ‘Mein Kampf’ not only is the pinnacle document, it proved accessible for our methods.”

Theological fire and brimstone writing “didn’t transliterate easily,” Lindsay said. However, “much of ‘Mein Kampf’ is an autoethnography.” This style of self-reflective writing is en vogue in the grievance studies’ academic journals and therefore the substitution of feminist or anti-patriarchal terminology for Hitler’s well-known screed was evidently undetectable to the peer reviewers.

According to a comment from the co-editor of the journal, the reviewers were “supportive of the work and noted its potential to generate important dialogue for social workers and feminist scholars.”

A quest to expose ‘sophistry’

In a long co-bylined essay published Tuesday in Aero Magazine, which Pluckrose edits, the trio wrote that during the course of their experiment, “the reviewers’ comments are in many ways more revealing about the state of these fields than the acceptances themselves.”

The team explained their motivations and methodology: “We set out with three basic rules: (1) we’ll focus almost exclusively upon ranked peer-reviewed journals in the field, the higher the better and at the top of their subdisciplines whenever possible; (2) we will not pay to publish any paper; and (3) if we are asked at any point by a journal editor or reviewer (but not a journalist!) if any paper we wrote is an attempted hoax, we will admit it.”

The basis of each paper was “something absurd or deeply unethical (or both) that we wanted to forward or conclude. We then made the existing peer-reviewed literature do our bidding in the attempt to get published in the academic canon,” they wrote.

[ Perpetrators of an elaborate hoax against academic journals (from left) mathematics Ph.D. James Lindsay, UK academic Helen Pluckrose and philosophy professor Peter Boghossian. (courtesy) ]

“This is the primary point of the project: What we just described is not knowledge production; it’s sophistry. That is, it’s a forgery of knowledge that should not be mistaken for the real thing. The biggest difference between us and the scholarship we are studying by emulation is that we know we made things up,” they wrote.

In undertaking the hoax, the use of satire was often employed. According to the authors, every paper “also endeavored to be humorous in at least some small way (and often, big ones).”

The team was so successful that four journals asked the papers’ fictitious authors to become peer reviewers themselves. For “ethical reasons,” they declined.

The proverbial wheels came off after a Twitter account called “New Real Peer Review” sniffed something foul from the Dog Park essay. Soon, local newspapers became suspicious, and eventually, in cooperation with the hoax team, the Wall Street Journal broke the story this week, with an ever-widening international ripple effect and coverage.

Satire as social commentary

It is not the first time scholars have written hoax papers to illustrate a broken academia. While other fields can be equally guilty of publishing unscientific work, gender studies in particular has already been repeatedly flagged as problematic.

After the current hoax experiment became public this week, author and Harvard lecturer Yascha Mounk proclaimed on Twitter that “Three intrepid academics just perpetrated a giant version of the Sokal Hoax… Call it Sokal Squared. The result is hilarious and delightful. It also showcases a serious problem with big parts of academia.”

In 1996, mathematics and physics Prof. Alan David Sokal submitted a nonsensical paper to Duke University’s Social Text journal called “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” in a (successful) experiment illustrating editorial bias and the prevalent incorrect use of scientific terms.

The Sokal hoax was the basis for a May 2017 experiment when two of the current project’s authors, Boghossian and Lindsay, attempted to replicate his success with the publication of a fake paper that claims “that penises conceptually cause climate change.” They write about the experiment in an essay, “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies,” which discusses the problematic nature of “pay-to-publish” open access journals.

In September 2017 the duo became a trio with the addition of Pluckrose and the new, much more elaborate project was launched.

According to the scholars, the goal of the current project was not to end the study of these niche academic disciplines, rather highlight the intolerant thinking within their lock-step that is infiltrating popular culture.

Asked by The Times of Israel if academic journals in the field of Jewish Studies would also be in their sights, Lindsay answered that the team didn’t fully examine this particular field. “The grievance studies methods are dubious, and I hope [Jewish Studies scholars] don’t take them up,” he said.

“I’ve only looked closely at one paper in Jewish Studies and it seemed to use similar methods but criticized a nasty streak of antisemitism in critical race scholarship,” he wrote via Twitter, citing a paper called, “Critical Whiteness Studies and the ‘Jewish Problem.'”

The cited paper was written in response to the increasingly trendy theory proposed by Critical Whiteness Studies and promoted by young American Jews on college campuses, social media, and even mainstream Jewish media, that Jews are not “white.”

According to the paper’s abstract, “‘whiteness” is used as a critical concept denoting those who enjoy white privilege in American and other Western societies.” Calling a Jew “white,” however, “is more than controversial, for it assimilates the most persecuted minority in European history to the dominant majority, while downgrading the significance of antisemitism.”

The fact that this type of topic itself is being debated within the ivory tower and infiltrating popular culture is not what appears to bother the scholars. Rather, it is the fact that there are few skeptical and critical checks within peer-reviewed journals and that what they consider to be a “kind of blatant corruption” through confirmation bias is pervasive in the fields.

“Politically biased research that rests on highly questionable premises gets legitimized as though it is verifiable knowledge. It then goes on to permeate our culture because professors, activists, and others cite and teach this ever-growing body of ideologically skewed and fallacious scholarship,” writes the team.

“We managed to get seven shoddy, absurd, unethical and politically biased papers into respectable journals in the fields of grievance studies. Does this show that academia is corrupt? Absolutely not. Does it show that all scholars and reviewers in humanities fields which study gender, race, sexuality and weight are corrupt? No,” they write.

[ Perpetrators of an elaborate hoax against academic journals (from left) mathematics Ph.D. James Lindsay, UK academic Helen Pluckrose and philosophy professor Peter Boghossian. (courtesy) ]

However, when a journal publishes — without revisions — a paper written in under six hours by a man which describes “moon meetings” for women in womb rooms with vulva shrines, it might reasonably be thought that something is deeply amiss. When an essay which promotes the pedagogical boon of silencing and chaining “privileged” pupils to the floor to affect “experiential reparations” is taken under serious consideration and given notes for improvement, one might wonder about the Ivory Tower’s foundations.

The authors are now calling upon universities to conduct a thorough review of the grievance study fields “to separate knowledge-producing disciplines and scholars from those generating constructivist sophistry.”

“Research into these areas is crucial, and it must be rigorously conducted and minimize ideological influences,” they write. “The further results on these topics diverge from reality, the greater chance they will hurt those their scholarship is intended to help.”

--

==

Flashback to the days when this was shocking and hard to believe, rather than ordinary and everyday.

[ireton]

Cloward–Piven Strategy

Credit to - James Lindsay & Joe Rogan

[justinspoliticalcorner]

PAYTON ARMSTRONG, CHARIS HOARD & EMMA MAE WEBER AT MMFA:

Since President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential election and endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, right-wing media have launched sexist and racist attacks at Harris to try to diminish her qualifications. They’ve claimed that she can’t be president because she doesn’t have biological children, labeled her “the ultimate diversity, equity, and inclusion candidate,” fixated on her laugh, claimed that she promotes "the occult,” and likened her to “Jezebel.”

Right-wing media have lobbed racist and sexist attacks at Harris for years, calling her a “DEI hire” who “gets more favorable treatment because of her race and gender.” Right-wing figures have also referred to Harris as an example of ”why DEI doesn’t work" and claimed she “launched her political career in [the] bedroom.” [Media Matters, 7/3/24, 7/11/24]

The right-wing media are already resorting to the tired old playbook of using racist and sexist tropes to attack apparent Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.

[avgdvl]

Ez az elmúlt 7 év legfontosabb videója

[irreplaceable-spark]

You Might Already Be A Member | James Lindsay | EP 367

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Dr. James Lindsay break down how Marxism evolved from a singular ideology into a genus, spawning many oppressor/oppressed dogmas across modern culture such as equity, critical race theory, and queer theory. They trace these sub-Marxist doctrines back past fundamental narrative into the theological realm, and detail their utility in the acquisition of power. Dr. Peterson and Dr. Lindsay also discuss the Grievance Studies Affair, of which Dr. Lindsay was a co-author and which casts a spotlight on the Marxist capture of our academic and scientific institutions. An author, mathematician, and political commentator, Dr. James Lindsay has written eight books spanning a range of subjects including education, postmodern theory, and critical race theory. Dr. Lindsay is the founder of New Discourses, an organization dedicated to shining the light of objective truth in subjective darkness. Dr. Lindsay is the co-author of “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody” and the author of “Race Marxism,” as well as, “The Marxification of Education.” Dr. Lindsay has been a featured guest on Fox News, Glenn Beck, Joe Rogan, and NPR, and he has spoken at the Oxford Union and the EU Parliament.

[marches45]

[thearbourist]

We're Dealing With A Cult - James Lindsay

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Helen Pluckrose and James Lindasy

Published: Apr 7, 2018

There is a troubling misunderstanding of the principle of freedom of speech gaining momentum right now. It fundamentally misunderstands two central concepts of the principle — individual freedom and the “marketplace of ideas.”

Before these can be discussed, it will be necessary to explain what we mean by “freedom of speech” or more precisely, what we do not mean.

We are not talking about the legal aspect of freedom of speech such as specific laws or constitutions of specific countries around the principle of freedom of speech, e.g., the US First Amendment. These legal structures relate to the principle of freedom of speech, but they are not the principle of freedom of speech. That principle is much, much broader and extends much further than how governments may or may not interfere with public speech.

We are also not talking about some non-existent right to make any words at all with one’s mouth or keyboard. The “speech” defended under “freedom of speech” does not refer to literal verbal utterances. Some of these are rightly illegal — commissioning a crime, perjury, fraud, false accusations, breaking confidentiality laws, and espionage, for examples. Defenders of freedom of speech are not attempting to change this.

We are talking about a principled defense of the free exchange of ideas on many levels of society; an acknowledgement that this is a basic human freedom and an understanding that viewpoint diversity and the whole process of arguing, questioning, challenging, doubting, refuting, and revising ideas is essential to the advancement of knowledge, to social progress, and to liberal democracy itself. In short, we are talking about what Jonathan Rauch describes as “liberal science,” the development of which in Western modernity has a long and multi-faceted intellectual history. It includes key liberal philosophers such as John Stuart Mill but also thinkers and political activists as diverse as Puritans and secularists, Marxists and Libertarians. Though rarely seen this way, it is, in fact, an advanced social technology. Establishing the “marketplace of ideas” as the most positive model for a successful and progressive society took hundreds of years and much hard work.

The principle of freedom of speech is often misunderstood. Lately, seemingly following the democratization of information and communication via the Internet and social media, the misunderstanding of the key tenets of the principle of freedom of speech most often takes the form of an accusation, which we might call the Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard. These accusations can be broadly paraphrased like this:

“You say you are an advocate of free speech, but then you don’t allow everyone to talk to you. You advocate for the ‘marketplace of ideas’ as a way to advance knowledge and say that it must be open to everyone, but you don’t allow everyone to engage with yours. Therefore, on the one hand, you are saying that shutting down speech is wrong but on the other you are shutting down speech. This is, at best, inconsistent, and at worst, downright hypocritical.”

This is very confused on two central concepts of the principle of freedom of speech and these work on an individual level and on a societal level.

On an individual level, the Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard misunderstands the concept of freedom.

Within freedom of speech, there are four essential freedoms:

The freedom to speak — Individuals may express all ideas without hindrance or punishment.

The freedom to listen  — Individuals may listen to all ideas without hindrance or punishment.

The freedom not to speak — Individuals must not to be required to express any ideas or speak to any person.

The freedom not to listen — Individuals must not to be forced to listen to any ideas or any person.

Given that, alarmingly, so many of the people who seem confused about freedom of speech in this way describe themselves as secularists and skeptics and have long fully understood and argued that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, perhaps a direct comparison with the freedom of religion will be helpful here.

Under freedom of religion, people are free to believe any creed they want to, and they are also free not to believe that creed or any creed at all. People are free to practice their religion but not to compel others to practice it, observe its obligations, participate in its rituals and customs, or accept its dogmas, doctrines, or premises. Freedom of religion entails the freedom to worship and to believe in accordance with one’s community or conscience, and it also contains freedom from being compelled to worship or believe any particular thing at all. A secularist mentality understands this, and only those who reject liberal secular values — that is, fundamentalists — feel others should be compelled to believe or worship in any particular way.

In the same way that it is clear that a defense of freedom of religion does not equate to a commitment to allow everyone else to impose their religion on you, it should be clear that a defense of freedom of speech does not equate to a commitment to allow everybody else impose their speech on you. Nowhere within freedom lies the right to be heard. You have the freedom to speak, yet every other individual has the freedom to ignore your speech by whatever means are necessary, including by removing themselves from the vicinity of it. Being ignored does nothing to infringe upon your right to speak, to hear, not to speak, or not to hear. Your freedom of speech remains fully intact because nowhere in that is the freedom to impose your speech upon others. The right to decide what one listens to remains as inviolable as the right to decide what one believes.

This is the “freedom” bit of freedom of speech.

On a societal level, the Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard misunderstands the marketplace of ideas

Some people concede that freedom from speech should be a right even for people who defend freedom of speech but add that they think it is clear that those who argue for the importance of viewpoint diversity to advance knowledge and then refuse to listen to (certain) other views are not putting their money where their mouth is. That is, they are behaving hypocritically because they fail to consistently hold a principled line on viewpoint diversity.

This would certainly be a just accusation of hypocrisy if an individual who argues for this then refuses ever to engage with any different ideas. This is not a just accusation, however, if they merely refuse to engage with every idea and every proponent of every idea. Far too often, the criticism “You refuse to listen to other ideas (or your critics)!” means “You refuse to listen to me.” That may be, and there could be a number of reasons someone who is committed to freedom of speech might not be listening to you.

First, your ideas could simply not be within their area of interest or knowledge. We all have to be selective in what we discuss. People have approached me (Helen) recently to discuss economics, drug laws, and adoption policies. I am not well-informed on any of these things, neither do they interest me to the extent that ideology and psychology do. I declined to discuss because my opinion would not be worth much.

Second, they could find your ideas foolish, tedious, or unsupported by evidence. We have recently declined to discuss whether women should be able to vote, metamodernism, metaethics, certain framings of the issues with firearms, and the claim that God exists. We have discussed all these in the past and find such discussions fruitless. You might think we are wrong to think so but again, we all have to be selective, and we retain the right to decide what is worthwhile to give attention to.

Third, you could be personally rude or dishonest in your style of conversation. We are simply not going to enter a conversation with someone who is gratuitously abusive, snarky, insincere, misrepresents our position, or deliberately misses our point. You could be giving off every signal of discussing in bad faith, particularly in wishing to prove yourself right more than to discuss the issue with someone you know disagrees with you. There is no point in pretending that what follows from such a situation is going to be a conversation. At best it is a winding debate, and at worst it’s just a frustrating monologue from the effective equivalent of a street preacher. Conversation requires give and take, and ideally, when there is disagreement, it requires both participants to be willing to change their minds about some or all of the issues. When this condition is not met, there is no onus placed upon us to participate or to listen because, again, we all retain the right to decide what is worthwhile to give our attention to,

Fourth, your ideas could be being presented much better by someone else. We have often been accused of refusing to engage with disagreement when, in fact, the person disagreeing with us is just doing so badly whilst other people are doing it well and presenting us with a much more challenging and therefore interesting and potentially productive conversation. It is quite possible to have highly intellectually & ideologically diverse discussions by choosing to talk to and listen to the most thoughtful, reasonable, knowledgeable and honest proponents of a variety of ideas and not to engage with the abusive, the incoherent, the ignorant and the dishonest.

This last point is particularly important to note. There is a terrible sense of entitlement to insisting that someone must listen, not only to counterviews but your counterviews. We are small social and political commentators and writers, and we already have to be selective with the views we engage. If the person you seek to disagree with is a prominent public intellectual, realize that they will be receiving vast amounts of critical feedback, some of it of a very high quality and much of it off-point and downright rude. If you want yours to be one of the ones they engage with, you’ll have to earn that. It’s nothing personal; everyone faces this same difficulty in being heard by busy and prominent figures.

This is the crucial element of the metaphor called “the marketplace of ideas,” which is being so badly misunderstood. The metaphor appeals to a marketplace. If you were to show up at a farmer’s market with your tomatoes, it doesn’t matter if they are the best tomatoes in the world; it is still your job to attract interest in purchasing them. You cannot force people to buy them. You cannot force prominent individuals to try your tomatoes and then promote them.If someone is allergic to tomatoes, doesn’t like them, or isn’t in the mood for them — or yours, or you — at the time, they have every right to pass your tomatoes by, and you have no standing upon which to demand that they change their mind.

Within the marketplace of ideas, the responsibility is on each vendor to present his ideas to the public by showing them as best they can and hoping people will want to “buy” them, that is, take them seriously and engage with them. No one is obligated to buy any product they believe is inferior or, in fact, any product they are not interested in — for any reason — in a real marketplace in a free society, and it is a blatant infringement of their rights to attempt to force them to buy something they do not want. Likewise, no one is obligated to listen to, engage, promote, or be interested in any ideas within the marketplace of ideas, and it is a blatant infringement of their rights to attempt to force them to do otherwise. Furthermore, people can refuse interest for any reason, which includes any bad behavior on the part of the vendor, regardless of the quality of the product.

This is how the marketplace of ideas works, and it works well. There is no point complaining that your stall has been shut down if people decline to buy from it. It remains open, but it is your responsibility to improve your product by making your argument strong, your evidence substantial, your point clear, your ideas engaging, and your sales pitch courteous. In this way, even if any individual is genuinely badly motivated to avoid your justifiable and insightful criticism, other people will still hear it and your ideas will ultimately win out over theirs in the marketplace.

Conclusion

The Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard is often leveled in terms of freedom of speech accompanied by gleeful (and reckless) accusations of hypocrisy. Not only is this a misunderstanding of the freedom part of freedom of speech and the marketplace part of the marketplace of ideas, it is a form of entitlement which can even lead to harassment and bullying. It is an attempt to insist that someone who isn’t interested in you or your ideas is somehow failing to uphold critical liberal, intellectual, or academic virtues and then, often, using that against them. This can create a vicious spiral in which the entitled and insulting behavior of someone demanding to be heard will encourage the other person to ignore them even more leading to the former becoming yet more intrusive and defamatory. A better approach for advocates of freedom of speech is to speak when you have something to say, listen when there’s something you want to hear, stay silent when it’s better you don’t speak, and be selective about what ideas and individuals you listen to in a way that upholds your belief in the productivity of viewpoint diversity.  Allow people who want to talk and listen to each other do so and you will uphold the principle of freedom of speech. Don’t think you can force anyone to talk or listen to you.

==

I sometimes get people who insist that I need to hear their argument for the existence of gods, or that I should debate them. No, I don't. I've heard dozens of arguments, but more importantly, none of these people understand how pointless an argument for a god is, as opposed to evidence, and act hard done by in the refusal.

[tsuchiman]

How to Remain Inoculated with James Lindsay

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Olivia Little at MMFA:

Scandal, school board election failures, and a disastrous 60 Minutes interview appear to have diminished Moms for Liberty’s once powerful influence, and last weekend’s summit provided plenty of additional evidence that the group is currently flailing.  Nearly every Republican presidential hopeful and a number of right-wing giants spoke at Moms for Liberty’s lively summit last year. But this year’s gathering was comparatively small, with far fewer panels and a weaker speaker lineup. In fact, Glenn Beck and D-list comedian Rob Schneider were advertised as the star headliners until the exceptionally late addition of former President Donald Trump just days before the event.  This is the second year that my colleague Madeline Peltz and I attended Moms for Liberty’s summit. It was immediately apparent to us that the small crowd had seemingly been reduced to largely die-hard members who, unlike many, remained loyal to Moms for Liberty through its year of scandal and failure. Co-founder Tina Descovich acknowledged that the organization was losing some support while presenting an award, saying, “You have been a friend to Moms for Liberty when some have stepped away.”

[...]

Invoking transgender panic

Much of the conference was spent attempting to terrify parents into believing that schools are secretly grooming, manipulating, and transitioning students. The bag handed to us at registration included an illustrated flyer laying out the ridiculous “school to clinic pipeline,” which, according to the flyer, begins at “pronouns” and ends in a hospital. Almost every speaker we listened to incorporated transgender panic into their speech. One panel was even titled “Protecting Kids from Secret Gender Transitions in Schools.” 

[...]

Spiritual warfare is anything you want it to be

“This is spiritual warfare,” said far-right political commentator Sebastian Gorka at Friday’s lunch session, “and they are on the side of the devil.” Speakers repeated vague accusations of “spiritual warfare” throughout the weekend. Even comedian-turned-conservative-activist Rob Schneider accused the pharmaceutical industry of engaging in spiritual warfare.  [...] The summit’s itinerary included the March for Kids, an event promoting parental rights with coalition partners such as Gays Against Groomers and PragerU. (It’s worth noting that the March for Kids wasn’t actually a march, but a largely empty assembly at DAR Constitution Hall.) March for Kids speaker Naomi Van Wyk used the rhetoric of spiritual warfare to describe homosexuality and encouraged intervention to alter same-sex attraction, promoting a form of conversion therapy. 

[...] The Heritage Foundation was one of the earliest supporters of Moms for Liberty and, in turn, the group fell in line with Heritage’s policy priorities and shepherded members toward the think tank’s “resources for parents.” In 2022, Moms for Liberty was the recipient of Heritage’s Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship and Heritage President Kevin Roberts spoke at the group’s 2023 summit. In a breakout session last year, anti-trans activist “Billboard Chris” Elston revealed that The Heritage Foundation had identified and brought together 40 people, including him, in March 2022 to “fight gender ideology.” 

Olivia Little of Media Matters For America went to the 2024 Joyful Warriors National Summit hosted by right-wing extremist “parental rights” group Moms For Liberty.

Little revealed that M4L’s influence has waned over the past year or so.

[kickmag]

RapSnacks Founder James Lindsay & Master P Talk 2024 Disrupt Summit

James Lindsay, the founder of RapSnacks and hip-hop mogul Master P talks about the 2024 Disrupt Summit in Fort Lauderdale, Florida last week. The summit is in its second year and the conference is a place for sharing and building marketing strategies for cultural consumers. In this interview, they share why they started the summit and some of the issues entrepreneurs face getting started with their own culturally conscious brands. 

[ronnydeschepper]

De leestips van Nonkel Fons (309)

Fons Mariën las Woke is het nieuwe Marrakech-pact van Tom Lanoye… Continue reading Untitled

[irreplaceable-spark]

The Art of the Culture War: Revealing the Strategies of the Left with James Lindsay - The Vivek Show

In this eye-opening discussion, U.S. Presidential Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and cultural critic James Lindsay delve into the tactics and strategies used by the left in the ongoing culture war. They discuss the challenges within the current political landscape, the rise of the ESG movement, and the strategic maneuvers used to demoralize and exhaust creative problem-solving. Together, they expose the hidden playbook of their opponents and emphasize the need to address the root causes of cultural and political issues. The conversation provides valuable insights into the long-term strategies employed by activist groups to infiltrate and subvert institutions.