#james lindsay

[wherelibertydwells]

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

What is the Woke Right? - James Lindsay

Konstantin Kisin: James, you mentioned the term "woke right." It's a term you and I have both used, but it'd be interesting to talk about it for a number of reasons. But first of all, what do you mean by that term? Because a lot of people are very confused about it.

James Lindsay: It's not necessarily the best term. It's more accurate to-- I don't use the word "woke" to-- I use it a little too casually still, generally speaking. But I've tried to be very specific when it comes to it, to use the phrase "Woke Marxism," as in that it's a species of Marxist thought, yada, yada, yada.

So, we can very easily place that on the Marxist left, right. Well, "woke right," another term that might work for that is "Woke Fascism." And just like "Woke Marxism" is technically "Woke Neo-Marxism," this could be called "Woke Neo-Fascism."

Kisin: Why is it woke?

Lindsay: Well, that's what I wanted to get to. So, there are kind of two ways to look at why it's woke. And one is kind of philosophical and one is practical.

Practical side is, look at how they behave. They behave exactly like the woke. There's the targeted influence campaigns, there's the manufacturing of-- what the postmodernists called Legitimation by Paralogy or whatever. They create the illusion that there's massive support for this and massive distaste for that, using social media manipulations like we just talked about. They are highly invested in identity politics, the answer for them to leftist Identity politics is a reaction identity politics, or reactionary identity politics, equal and opposite, or in biblical terms, answering evil with evil, which the Bible says not to do, by the way, very specifically. And so, there's this, you know, grievance identity, everything's bad for white Christian men, straight white Christian men, we're the oppressed minority under this.

There's an ideology, and this kind of bleeds into the philosophical idea, but we'll get more specific with that in a second. There's this kind of belief that there's this ruling class that's erected an ideology to marginalize people like them that sounds very much like woke. Except, instead of saying that it's like the white people-- the white ruling class created white supremacy to marginalize people of color, especially black and Indigenous and their ways of knowing from getting inside, the woke right or the Woke Fascist side says instead that following World War II, on the back of Hitler and the idea of "Never Again," there was erected a post-war liberal consensus, starting in the 1940s immediately-- starting in 1945, the creation of the United Nations was part of this, the signing on to the United Nations was part of this, they assigned William Buckley to-- Bill Buckley to having done a rout to drive the true conservatives to the margins so that a false post-war liberal consensus conservative movement could rise up, the Neocons, and hold them out, so the Neocons become this kind of hegemonic force within the conservative faction that edges out so-called "true conservatism," and these more dangerous, so to speak, ideas like fascist ideas, like Carl Schmidt's ideas about Unbound Executives and Friend-Enemy politics and so on, that these ideas all had to be pushed to the side on the pretext that World War II or a Adolf Hitler can never rise again.

And so, therefore, the true conservatives who represented conservative politics and kept at bay the beast of the left, which they say is that the right's true function is to keep at bay the left, in other words, to have a war, right versus left, with everybody in the middle, I guess, taking fire, in the crossfire. But they believe that this postwar liberal consensus in the Neoconservative movement literally was designed to marginalize their perspectives and to keep these other more radical right-wing ideas out of out of play.

So this is a very woke way of thinking about the world, that there was a structural-- construction of the social and political and cultural environment designed to exclude people like them, in order to be able to achieve certain political agendas. And now they believe that they've woken up to these ideas. Woke. They've found them again. They've read the forbidden philosophers, Carl Schmidt, Julius Evola, James Burnham, and so on. They've read these things and they're bringing back a true conservatism that was excluded from politics roughly since the end of World War II on the bogus pretence of preventing the rise of another fascist like Hitler or Franco or Pinochet.

And so, there's a very practical explanation for why they're woke, but especially their behavior. Lots of lying, lots of character attacks, lots of saying no enemies to the right, but they don't actually even attack the left that's their enemy, so to speak, at all, they only attack other conservatives. Lots of power plays, lots of manipulative speech.

And then there's the philosophical deeper aspect. Why woke? What does woke mean? Woke up to a structural politics that marginalizes people like me, and we need to band together in solidarity -- no enemies to the right -- in order to be able to create a powerful enough oppressed coalition to flip over the power structure by putting ourselves at the center and claiming power for ourselves. This is explicitly woke. Having a Critical Consciousness about the way the world is organized. Tucker Carlson, for example, if you listen to Tucker, a lot of people really like Tucker. Tucker is pretty critical of America. He's not doing a Howard Zinn critical America Theory. Howard Zinn being the one who wrote The People's History, so the Marxist history of the United States-- propaganda. He's writing a different critical history of the United States. Well, the Constitution was not really adequate to prevent all of this. There is a post-World War II liberal consensus or world order that we're all being made subject to. Well, look at how America was involved in all of these things. America bad. America bad. America bad. Also, the UK was pretty bad too. And America bad, America bad.

There's this kind of constant critical negativity. Tou see some of these characters, I mentioned Tucker Carlson but you see some of these characters like Steven Wolf, who wrote the book "The Case for Christian Nationalism," has put multiple times on social media-- and I don't know what he said in public talks, I've only heard one of his public talks-- but you see him on social media saying more than once that he has adopted Critical Theory specifically for his own purposes and to his own ends. He has adopted-- he was recently saying on social media-- somebody sent it to me, so I have to, I guess confirm this-- but he was saying that in fact the Critical Theory he uses is not the perverted version of Critical Theory that the left has used. It's its own more correct version of critique that goes back before the left, yada, yada.

And so how do you not call the attempt to awaken a Critical Consciousness of the power structure that you believe has delegitimized your movement, how do you not call that woke, when woke means having awoken to a Critical Consciousness that there's a structural force that has delegitimized people in your political positionality. It's the exact same thing unfortunately, it's just pushing a "people in place" kind of driven fascism as opposed to a "we're going to end all oppression by becoming the oppressors" Communism.

Kisin: It's very well explained, and that's kind of why I have been calling, even though I'm not sure it is the best term, but the behavior is the same, right. It's quite obviously the same. Victimhood, cancel culture, lying about history all of this.

Lindsay: Yeah, rewriting history, lying about people, digging up people's pasts to cancel them. It's unbelievable.

Kisin: The one complaint that people have made about that I do think is valid is that they're not comparable in terms of influence and power. The woke left control-- for a period of time controlled-- what felt like everything. The woke right isn't anywhere near that level of influence at all. And frankly, you know, I wonder whether, having talked about it as much as you and I have, we've maybe drawn too much attention to a very small fringe. Because when we-- like I said, when we went to the Trump rally, I didn't see-- I didn't-- I talked to a lot of people there, I listened to all the people on stage I didn't hear in either of the statements or the response to what people were saying, the type of conversation that you see online. So, it seems to me like it's a tiny fringe that's being amplified by bot-farms and foreign meddling and whatever. I think increasingly-- I don't think of it as real, even though as you say, there are one or two people who are very influential in American politics who have flirted with some of these ideas.

==

Just fricking great. We finally start to get the woke freaks on the left under control and up pop woke freaks on the right.

Can't the normies in the middle -- the centrists, the "leans-left" moderates and the "leans-right" moderates -- get five damn minutes without more of this crap?

[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.

[thearbourist]

We're Dealing With A Cult - James Lindsay

[tsuchiman]

How to Remain Inoculated with James Lindsay

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[ronnydeschepper]

De leestips van Nonkel Fons (309)

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

[1lovemysch00l]

James gamble is my new obsession, I checked out all his facebook stuff

[no-mr-powers]