You mean Iran? Or “Palestine”? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Japan? Anyway, Israel pays for our support by agreeing to only buy US weapons with the money we “give” them. Israel is a nuclear power and could easily take care of its enemies without our help. Let’s hope we don’t push them into doing just that.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise, but I also believe that Smith is more of an expert than he claims to be. I think he downplays his knowledge base but he is extremely well read and has a set of facts to support what he believes. Murray by and large refuses to address those facts in the debate which was a great disappointment.
And on this particular issue, I would not call Murray an expert. He certainly possesses a lot of information. He also clearly has a very biased opinion based on his history as Neoconservative. He literally wrote a book called “Neoconservatism: Why We Need It”
So while it’s quaint to agree with him on the anti-woke and parts of the immigration elements, he is a cheerleader for what I would call a death cult that has been the global leader in murder and destruction in the 21st century.
There are plenty of “qualified” roofers out there that I would never hire to replace my roof.
Read Murray’s book “Of Death Cults and Democracy”. It is extremely well researched and filled with background notes on Israel. What books has Dave Smith written on Israel? How much time has he spent researching Israael, other than by watching TikTok videos?
If you could provide a source for the "woke" takeover of education in the 80s & 90s I'd appreciate it. It's one of those foundational points that need evidence for anyone to begin to understand that your concerns aren't fueled by propaganda.
No actually this isn't "evidence". There were specific programs put in place using consultants that were intended to prevent racial discrimination in school hiring that instead slowly put people in key positions that had a specific idelogical background. I forget the name of the program but to my recollection it started in 1992 with President Clinton's agenda.
For every Marcuse there's Jerry Falwell so to simply point to access to power really isn't an argument, it's hysteria.
From what you present here -- just standard WOKE-type demands -- I would say that you are indeed ill-informed. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have not presented any evidence that you know these issues. I have. You just failed to do your homework.
Baseless claims? You expect an unpaid commenter to produce several volumes of explanation for you in every post? Because you were too lazy to read the background material? 😂
I don't agree with you. Jerry Falwell did not have the power of the leftwing totalitarians of Nazism and Marxism. Not anywhere near. And by the early 60s, the Zeitgeist of "progressiveness" was sweeping the land in the new Baby Boom generation of young adults. The leftwing totalitarians tailored their approach to work with "progressiveness". Which is the leftwing emphasis.
By 1992, this was already old stuff. You missed the entire era of the 60s-80s? Seems so.
You appear to be unaware that WOKE is a form of leftwing totalitarianism, which was known by different names earlier in the game. And that infiltrating the educational systems was just another tactic. They aimed to infiltrate ALL institutions. This was not solely an educational issue.
You are too narrowly focused. You must understand the wide context of leftwing totalitarianism in the post-war era, as opposed to just the way in which it hit education. Ultimately, totalitarians always seek to incorporate the new young generation, because indoctrination there helps ensure they own the future.
And prayer in schools isn't similarly indoctrination?
Certain ideas become popular. That's not totalitarianism. In fact, hysteria is a common incitement for a move towards totalitarianism. Such as the COVID panic. Similarly, we had the Satanic Panic.
What ARE you talking about? I think you have lost the plot here. Have you actually read this Substack over time? Your statements bear no resemblance to the ideas being presented here.
I know more about these issues than you will ever learn, I am certain. Just as James Lindsay does. Why don't you just back off these nonsense comments and take the time to study this for several years before you toss out these responses?
Yes, I know a great deal about COVID-mania and The Satanic Panic/False Memory Syndrome. I understand what caused these situations, whereas you seem to know only that they were panic-driven...which is very easy for anyone to see. That is just scraping the surface of these issues.
FYI -- No, prayer in schools is not indoctrination. The United States was founded as Christian country. Prayer in schools is passing on cultural values. Do you think that anything taught in schools equals indoctrination? How do you define learning, then?
You sound like one of the "progressive" radical atheists who never misses an opportunity to push your religion.
I'm pretty sure that James Lindsey's position on Christianity is that he's against all religious indoctrination, and his arguments that an esoteric religion underpins not only Hegel but all of the schools that follow him, including Marx and Marcuse, are pretty central to a lot of what's argued in the New Discourses.
I don't think the project of the Religious Right really is a Christian movement; it often becomes a caricature of everything atheists argue is the reason no one should be religious. In other words, I think every American wants to protect religious freedom, but we're also fair when we don't tolerate racism or theocracy, and the reasons for this are purely practical.
As far as the "Christian country" belief goes: religion was intentionally left out of the Federal Government because each state had a different religious colony, and that included religions that would have been considered progressive for their own time. So no, it's not a "Christian" country, it was meant to be based on rational principles, and the spiritual was meant to be private, not political.
Dave Smith is a self-impressed self-hating moron without any knowledge of what he’s taking about. I know him. It’s the smugness that comes with incuriosity and self-deemed expertise. Doug was so frustrated It’s the first time I’ve seen him off his game.
Roseanne Barr said it best during a blowout about Zelenskyy with Piers Morgan. Another expert who told Roseanne, “ He’s Jewish. He can’t be a Nazi “ when she called out Zelensky’s Azov Nazi flank. Her family was slaughtered by the Ukrainian Nazis during the Holocaust. They didn’t “ go away”. They’re generational and make no effort to hide it. And Ukraine has made no effort to end them. They’re loud and proud and a third of the Ukrainian victims who were not just killed , but brutally tortured , in the perimeter areas of Ukraine and attributed to “ the Russians” were ethnic Russians, deliberately singled out and murdered by the Ukraine Nazis.
When Roseanne reached the boiling point., she blew up.” Just because he’s a Jew doesnt make him a good Jew! Skinfolk don’t make you kinfolk! Next you’ll tell me George Soros is a victim of antisemitism and escaped the Nazis and I’m an antisemitic conspiracy theorist for calling him a Nazi kapo! Piers said ,” you’re peddling the same debunked crap that the Jew haters do. It’s disgusting “. She walked off the set. She was 100% correct.
The most virulent and dangerous antisemites are self hating Jews. Because they add the most validity to the lies and propaganda and there is a shockingly large and growing number of them while the actual Jewish population is dwindling, slaughtered by the Islamists that the sick dumb fucks advocate for.
I think the problem wasn’t simply that Murray said we should trust experts (i.e. him), but rather that he didn’t engage directly with the arguments Smith was making…
I agree with very little that you have written here. You do indeed sound like a radical atheist -- which is an extremist religion in itself. Oh...the irony!
What is now the United States was founded as a British colony. The Brits were Christians. Moreover, the original colonists were Puritans, a sect which was based predominantly on Christian religion. Followed by Quakers and Catholics. Most of the early settlers based their identities on Christianity of one form or another.
You cannot personally re-write history to suit what you wish to believe in 2025.
That being said, you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of organization of life through spectrums. In the sense that if you think of behavioural/belief patterns in a linear fashion, there is a spectrum with two opposing polar ends, a mid-point representing homeostasis/balance, and many possible variations in between. Homeostasis is ideal. A move to the left by several degrees is found in matched behaviour/attitudes in a move to the right by the same several degrees. Therefore, on the ground, you will find leftwing WOKE and radical Islam to be expressing much the same behaviourally and in attitudes, though on opposite sides of the spectrum.
I have always advocated mainstream, balanced Christianity. Whenever I hear Christian criticism these days, the critics seem to think there is only one variant of Christianity,....far-right Evangelicals. I laugh a bit because I have experienced moderate Catholicism much of my life, which is vastly different from more extreme Evangelicalism or Jehovah's Witnesses or Jim Jones/Jonestown.
The degree counts. Very, very much. Past a certain degree on the spectrum, either left or right, you enter the land of totalitarianism.
Therefore be very careful how you define Christianity and Christian practice.
There are indeed far rightwing groups calling themselves Christian which are as extremist as the far leftwing WOKE (with their radical atheists). They have as little in common with mainstream Christians as the WOKE have in common with political centrists. Not the same thing at all.
I repeat -- yes, the United States is a Christian country. You are also probably unaware that the concepts of human rights, anti-slavery, charity, formal education/universities, and far more, came from Christianity. These are all pillars of the West, and this is directly due to our Judeo-Christian foundation (because of course the first chapter of Christianity was Judaicism).
I forced myself to watch the entire JRE episode, as painful and infuriating as it was. Douglas Murray did not actually make any coherent arguments, as far as I could discern. I'd like to know what qualifies him as an expert on this subject, or any other, given how utterly wrong he has been about major foreign policy issues, from the Iraq invasion to the current Russia-Ukraine war.
Smith did not, as you imply, claim that "anyone who has visited the Israeli war zone, or Israel at all, must have been given bad, Potemkin misinformation from the IDF and so understands the situation there less, not more, for having been there". He simply stated that it is not necessary to have visited the site of an event in order to form an informed opinion about it. This is an undeniable fact. Most of us who value informed opinion, form ours by reading widely about a subject and comparing differing accounts for their likely reliability. Personally, I think I'm more likely to reach an informed opinion about the current conflict by studying the accounts of each side, rather than going to the country as a guest of one side in that conflict.
The lowest point in the debate was when Murray became oddly fixated on the name Wolfowitz, as if Smith's mere mentioning of the fact that Wolfowitz, as Bush's deputy secretary of defense, was not only a leading architect of the Iraq war but of the entire US posture toward the Middle East, was antisemitic. Who gives a crap what Wolfowitz's name sounds like? How is that even relevant to the discussion of his role? Murray was so transparently attempting to deflect the discussion from matters of substance onto matters of identity politics, that he completely discredited himself.
"I'd like to know what qualifies him as an expert on this subject"
Whatever else is said here, I have asked for years why Douglas Murray is considered an expert on this subject. He holds only a three-year BA in English, and wanted to become a writer. Therefore he needed content. Of any saleable sort. A writer seeking content does not necessarily believe in what he writes. Or have any expertise. Nor are these always his own values. Think of writers being assigned their tasks by editors, for instance. Has nothing to do with what they personally stand for. Simply a way to earn a buck.
I have written at length previously on the concept of "authority figures" and of the different types of writers. Most people never stop to consider these important issues. Which is why Influencers of the New Media find it so easy to bamboozle millions.
A person might write from a personal vision and convictions, or they might write from the need to have content in order to earn an income. This is NOT the same thing at all.
Good point. I strongly suspect though that Murray has drunk his own Kool-Aid though. He really does seem to believe what he writes. There are plenty of criticisms to be made about the way the British ran their empire, but you can say one thing in their favour: they were good at what they did because they sent high-placed people to live among those they wanted to colonise, or already had colonised but wanted to consolidate power over, so they could come to deeply understand the culture of their subjects (they mostly did this to subvert those cultures, of course, but nonetheless, this embedding led to many Brits falling in love with foreign cultures and 'going native'). Americans have never grasped this lesson, which is why their attempts at establishing an empire have been such a clusterfuck, and Murray is just as terrible on this front. His grasp of complex geopolitical issues is kindergarten level.
Thank you for your reply, Robyn. I have read the James Lindsay site since he began, but the lack of much (or any) reasonable discussion in the comment forums always pushes me on to other Substacks where readers actually converse.
Yes, the British had it down to a fine art, did they not? If you are in want of an empire, that is the way to do it. The downside of course was children of the embedded Brits being shipped back to the mother country to be raised by landladies or boarding schools, and vast numbers of out-of-wedlock unions with the natives in whatever country was involved.
Be that as it may, I do agree with you that a person who is so inclined could learn as much or more through wide and judicious reading. Though it does not produce camera-friendly shots for New Media posts. Where action-man visibility seems to be key.
You've probably read Glubb's 'The Fate of Empires'. I can't escape the conclusion that the very downside you mention (the offspring of the imperial rulers being separated from their parents and raised in boarding schools) was necessary to produce the kinds of men who would be willing to go back out into the wilds of the empire. Glubb writes: "Boys’ schools [during the most 'splendid' phase of empire] are intentionally rough. Frugal eating, hard living, breaking the ice to have a bath and similar customs are aimed at producing a strong, hardy and fearless breed of men. Duty is the word constantly drummed into the heads of young people." In other words, it's an endless cycle of ambition and drive producing abuse (both of the natives and one's own children) and exploitation, which leads to great riches, which leads to more leisure time and art and philosophy, which leads to reconsideration of the ways of life which produced all the wealth, which leads to the production of children who lack the ambition and drive to conquer the new territory but are concerned with cultivating different virtues and qualities, which leads to the erosion of the empire. Rinse and repeat with each new rising power.
I take your point, Robyn. Today's over-coddled youth, encouraged to hide and whimper, are not empire builders. I grew up in Canada with the descendants of many of the builders; I know the breed. I understand and agree with what you lay out here, if indeed empire is what a person is after.
I suspect that the same attitudes and practices were common in the Roman Empire.
However, there comes a time when it crumbles. Perhaps because this is no longer what is called for. Britain today, for instance, is quickly losing its own country and culture and even its work ethic. There are bigger things afoot. The Queen willingly gave Royal Assent to joining the EU back in 1973, which did not speak of a glorious history of empire builders. What went wrong?
The other side of that coin, too, is that it produces children who grow up with Attachment Disorders (see John Bowlby). Which wreak havoc in personal and family lives. And spill over to society in general. The emotional detachment may bring in power and riches, but at what ultimate cost?
Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of empires and the havoc they wreak. The question on my mind is, do we get to have the wonderful features of civilisation - beautiful music, awe-inspiring architecture, timeless literature, wonderful art - without the wealth created by empire? Can we have 'nice things' without the terrible things done by ambitious empire-building men?
I sometimes wonder why this Substack comment forum is so quiet. I hesitate to invest comments here because it's likely there will be little discussion in return.
perhaps being a little less contentious would garner you more likes and a willingness for engagement. wild assumptions, boorish assertions and egotistical claims are a little offputting
I have supported James Lindsay and his Substack since he began. If this is the general ugly attitude here....I am off to greener pastures.
I do not need the insights of James Lindsay. It's the other way around. And if someone is going to reply with a nasty message, perhaps they had better look at the facts of the various backgrounds first. Why is there this silly assumption that every Substack host must be a god, and every commenter must be a forelock-tugger of no insight and no education?
Have a look at who has produced what. James is a relative babe in the woods on these subjects. There were persons across the academic spectrum for several centuries noting and grappling with these concepts. James is a newbie, trained in another field entirely. But he signed-up for a Substack -- gasp! --which apparently makes him omniscient 🤣.
I notice that James himself has not replied, even though I praised his work on many occasions as the best of the newcomers in this field (which is not his own field, btw. Though it is indeed the field of a number of us out here. Which commenters on this forum seem to be clueless about).
Egotistical? Only those who are attempting to claim superiority would use a professional title or post-nominal in their Substack commenter name. Like you. In addition to which, it may be phony.
Just like those professionals I have known who -- oh so casually - slip their business card to the clerk or receptionist along with their demands.
I find your unaware comment hilarious! 😂
You have given me no evidence that you know anything at all. Much less do you know this particular field.
You don’t need a school in order to have expertise in something. You just have to have an exceptional amount of knowledge in that something, be it from practical experience or life (self taught) experience. The first example in the article was ‘roofer’. My son is a roofer- he has expertise in that field. My other son, a mechanic, same thing. My third son went to university to study philosophy, and while he is highly intelligent, all he really has is book smarts…no real world/life experience. Had he spent years going deeper into a particular field, I suppose he would have gained expertise in said field.
My point- “expertise” is not that easy to define. It’s not gained alongside a degree, it’s gained from diving deeply into a particular topic. Although James started off in mathematics, he has since dove deep into other areas; more deeply than most, which by definition would make him an expert.
By the way none of my sons are influencers of any kind, that doesn’t negate their expertise.
Your idea here is very cliched. It is what every person without intellectual abilities and with a chip on their shoulder will tell you. Gets a bit tiresome listening to it.
Actually, the types of expertise I was comparing are all forms of intellectual expertise. Just of different varieties within that realm.
Your third son has intelligence. What is wrong with book smarts? Maybe you are not aware that studying well is hard work. Often very hard work. I think that is a bias you have. As if your two sons with practical skills trump the intelligence of the third. I hope you don't tell your youngest son about this attitude of yours. Besides which, he might think that you simply do not have the ability yourself to understand. I do....whenever I hear someone going on like this.
This kind of idea used to be used to put down students and elevate the hands-on sorts. There is a place for both, actually. If I need a new roof, I would call one of your older two sons. If I want some well-thought advice on abstract issues, I would speak to your younger son.
If you have to have brain surgery, do you want your surgeon to have book smarts? Or just take a hacksaw to your head? If you have to cross a bridge over a body of water, do you hope that the engineer who designed it had book smarts and could make the correct calculations?
It's funny, because this site is about James Lindsay having book smarts. His abilities are very intellectual and theoretical. Which I am fairly certain took him years of hard work to develop. Yet here you are....
"Listen, I’m not an expert. I’m just asking questions, and I find it weird that it feels like I’m not allowed to ask these questions."
"But what about this fact? You never discuss that one. What else are you hiding or perhaps unwilling to notice? You’re supposed to be “the expert”?!"
When you see these Alarm Bells should go off in your head.
"Now he’s facing down a new brand of counter-Wokesperts, and he’s still right."
Something I've noticed (in regards to foreign Policy/Affairs) is they seem to come from the Isolationist wing of The Right.
Spoken like a Geo-political Genius.
Endless Wars in the middle east? What does That Even Mean?
It appears you are assuming (Always A Mistake) That I Am Israeli. I'm Not 100% American.
You mean Iran? Or “Palestine”? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Japan? Anyway, Israel pays for our support by agreeing to only buy US weapons with the money we “give” them. Israel is a nuclear power and could easily take care of its enemies without our help. Let’s hope we don’t push them into doing just that.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise, but I also believe that Smith is more of an expert than he claims to be. I think he downplays his knowledge base but he is extremely well read and has a set of facts to support what he believes. Murray by and large refuses to address those facts in the debate which was a great disappointment.
And on this particular issue, I would not call Murray an expert. He certainly possesses a lot of information. He also clearly has a very biased opinion based on his history as Neoconservative. He literally wrote a book called “Neoconservatism: Why We Need It”
So while it’s quaint to agree with him on the anti-woke and parts of the immigration elements, he is a cheerleader for what I would call a death cult that has been the global leader in murder and destruction in the 21st century.
There are plenty of “qualified” roofers out there that I would never hire to replace my roof.
Read Murray’s book “Of Death Cults and Democracy”. It is extremely well researched and filled with background notes on Israel. What books has Dave Smith written on Israel? How much time has he spent researching Israael, other than by watching TikTok videos?
If you could provide a source for the "woke" takeover of education in the 80s & 90s I'd appreciate it. It's one of those foundational points that need evidence for anyone to begin to understand that your concerns aren't fueled by propaganda.
It began far earlier than that. The totalitarianism of the Nazis and the Marxists never really died after WWII. It crossed the Atlantic.
Herbert Marcuse and his buddies from the Frankfurt School were ensconced within the faculties of various American universities by the 50s.
Vatican II changed Catholic elementary and secondary schools for the worse, falling into the "progressive" rot.
You need to read some good histories of that era
No actually this isn't "evidence". There were specific programs put in place using consultants that were intended to prevent racial discrimination in school hiring that instead slowly put people in key positions that had a specific idelogical background. I forget the name of the program but to my recollection it started in 1992 with President Clinton's agenda.
For every Marcuse there's Jerry Falwell so to simply point to access to power really isn't an argument, it's hysteria.
I am hardly the hysterical type.
You come across as being badly informed in this area, and you want others to fill in the gaps without you having to make the effort.
No can do. Get to work.
I'm not "ill informed", I am asking for evidence. And you made a lot of baseless claims and preach to others that your conclusions can be trusted.
From what you present here -- just standard WOKE-type demands -- I would say that you are indeed ill-informed. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have not presented any evidence that you know these issues. I have. You just failed to do your homework.
Baseless claims? You expect an unpaid commenter to produce several volumes of explanation for you in every post? Because you were too lazy to read the background material? 😂
I don't agree with you. Jerry Falwell did not have the power of the leftwing totalitarians of Nazism and Marxism. Not anywhere near. And by the early 60s, the Zeitgeist of "progressiveness" was sweeping the land in the new Baby Boom generation of young adults. The leftwing totalitarians tailored their approach to work with "progressiveness". Which is the leftwing emphasis.
By 1992, this was already old stuff. You missed the entire era of the 60s-80s? Seems so.
You appear to be unaware that WOKE is a form of leftwing totalitarianism, which was known by different names earlier in the game. And that infiltrating the educational systems was just another tactic. They aimed to infiltrate ALL institutions. This was not solely an educational issue.
You are too narrowly focused. You must understand the wide context of leftwing totalitarianism in the post-war era, as opposed to just the way in which it hit education. Ultimately, totalitarians always seek to incorporate the new young generation, because indoctrination there helps ensure they own the future.
And prayer in schools isn't similarly indoctrination?
Certain ideas become popular. That's not totalitarianism. In fact, hysteria is a common incitement for a move towards totalitarianism. Such as the COVID panic. Similarly, we had the Satanic Panic.
What ARE you talking about? I think you have lost the plot here. Have you actually read this Substack over time? Your statements bear no resemblance to the ideas being presented here.
I know more about these issues than you will ever learn, I am certain. Just as James Lindsay does. Why don't you just back off these nonsense comments and take the time to study this for several years before you toss out these responses?
Yes, I know a great deal about COVID-mania and The Satanic Panic/False Memory Syndrome. I understand what caused these situations, whereas you seem to know only that they were panic-driven...which is very easy for anyone to see. That is just scraping the surface of these issues.
FYI -- No, prayer in schools is not indoctrination. The United States was founded as Christian country. Prayer in schools is passing on cultural values. Do you think that anything taught in schools equals indoctrination? How do you define learning, then?
You sound like one of the "progressive" radical atheists who never misses an opportunity to push your religion.
Good day. Over and out.
I'm pretty sure that James Lindsey's position on Christianity is that he's against all religious indoctrination, and his arguments that an esoteric religion underpins not only Hegel but all of the schools that follow him, including Marx and Marcuse, are pretty central to a lot of what's argued in the New Discourses.
I don't think the project of the Religious Right really is a Christian movement; it often becomes a caricature of everything atheists argue is the reason no one should be religious. In other words, I think every American wants to protect religious freedom, but we're also fair when we don't tolerate racism or theocracy, and the reasons for this are purely practical.
As far as the "Christian country" belief goes: religion was intentionally left out of the Federal Government because each state had a different religious colony, and that included religions that would have been considered progressive for their own time. So no, it's not a "Christian" country, it was meant to be based on rational principles, and the spiritual was meant to be private, not political.
🎯
New Discourses Search Education. Is a good place to start.
Dave Smith is a self-impressed self-hating moron without any knowledge of what he’s taking about. I know him. It’s the smugness that comes with incuriosity and self-deemed expertise. Doug was so frustrated It’s the first time I’ve seen him off his game.
Roseanne Barr said it best during a blowout about Zelenskyy with Piers Morgan. Another expert who told Roseanne, “ He’s Jewish. He can’t be a Nazi “ when she called out Zelensky’s Azov Nazi flank. Her family was slaughtered by the Ukrainian Nazis during the Holocaust. They didn’t “ go away”. They’re generational and make no effort to hide it. And Ukraine has made no effort to end them. They’re loud and proud and a third of the Ukrainian victims who were not just killed , but brutally tortured , in the perimeter areas of Ukraine and attributed to “ the Russians” were ethnic Russians, deliberately singled out and murdered by the Ukraine Nazis.
When Roseanne reached the boiling point., she blew up.” Just because he’s a Jew doesnt make him a good Jew! Skinfolk don’t make you kinfolk! Next you’ll tell me George Soros is a victim of antisemitism and escaped the Nazis and I’m an antisemitic conspiracy theorist for calling him a Nazi kapo! Piers said ,” you’re peddling the same debunked crap that the Jew haters do. It’s disgusting “. She walked off the set. She was 100% correct.
The most virulent and dangerous antisemites are self hating Jews. Because they add the most validity to the lies and propaganda and there is a shockingly large and growing number of them while the actual Jewish population is dwindling, slaughtered by the Islamists that the sick dumb fucks advocate for.
I think the problem wasn’t simply that Murray said we should trust experts (i.e. him), but rather that he didn’t engage directly with the arguments Smith was making…
I agree with very little that you have written here. You do indeed sound like a radical atheist -- which is an extremist religion in itself. Oh...the irony!
What is now the United States was founded as a British colony. The Brits were Christians. Moreover, the original colonists were Puritans, a sect which was based predominantly on Christian religion. Followed by Quakers and Catholics. Most of the early settlers based their identities on Christianity of one form or another.
You cannot personally re-write history to suit what you wish to believe in 2025.
That being said, you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of organization of life through spectrums. In the sense that if you think of behavioural/belief patterns in a linear fashion, there is a spectrum with two opposing polar ends, a mid-point representing homeostasis/balance, and many possible variations in between. Homeostasis is ideal. A move to the left by several degrees is found in matched behaviour/attitudes in a move to the right by the same several degrees. Therefore, on the ground, you will find leftwing WOKE and radical Islam to be expressing much the same behaviourally and in attitudes, though on opposite sides of the spectrum.
I have always advocated mainstream, balanced Christianity. Whenever I hear Christian criticism these days, the critics seem to think there is only one variant of Christianity,....far-right Evangelicals. I laugh a bit because I have experienced moderate Catholicism much of my life, which is vastly different from more extreme Evangelicalism or Jehovah's Witnesses or Jim Jones/Jonestown.
The degree counts. Very, very much. Past a certain degree on the spectrum, either left or right, you enter the land of totalitarianism.
Therefore be very careful how you define Christianity and Christian practice.
There are indeed far rightwing groups calling themselves Christian which are as extremist as the far leftwing WOKE (with their radical atheists). They have as little in common with mainstream Christians as the WOKE have in common with political centrists. Not the same thing at all.
I repeat -- yes, the United States is a Christian country. You are also probably unaware that the concepts of human rights, anti-slavery, charity, formal education/universities, and far more, came from Christianity. These are all pillars of the West, and this is directly due to our Judeo-Christian foundation (because of course the first chapter of Christianity was Judaicism).
I forced myself to watch the entire JRE episode, as painful and infuriating as it was. Douglas Murray did not actually make any coherent arguments, as far as I could discern. I'd like to know what qualifies him as an expert on this subject, or any other, given how utterly wrong he has been about major foreign policy issues, from the Iraq invasion to the current Russia-Ukraine war.
Smith did not, as you imply, claim that "anyone who has visited the Israeli war zone, or Israel at all, must have been given bad, Potemkin misinformation from the IDF and so understands the situation there less, not more, for having been there". He simply stated that it is not necessary to have visited the site of an event in order to form an informed opinion about it. This is an undeniable fact. Most of us who value informed opinion, form ours by reading widely about a subject and comparing differing accounts for their likely reliability. Personally, I think I'm more likely to reach an informed opinion about the current conflict by studying the accounts of each side, rather than going to the country as a guest of one side in that conflict.
The lowest point in the debate was when Murray became oddly fixated on the name Wolfowitz, as if Smith's mere mentioning of the fact that Wolfowitz, as Bush's deputy secretary of defense, was not only a leading architect of the Iraq war but of the entire US posture toward the Middle East, was antisemitic. Who gives a crap what Wolfowitz's name sounds like? How is that even relevant to the discussion of his role? Murray was so transparently attempting to deflect the discussion from matters of substance onto matters of identity politics, that he completely discredited himself.
"I'd like to know what qualifies him as an expert on this subject"
Whatever else is said here, I have asked for years why Douglas Murray is considered an expert on this subject. He holds only a three-year BA in English, and wanted to become a writer. Therefore he needed content. Of any saleable sort. A writer seeking content does not necessarily believe in what he writes. Or have any expertise. Nor are these always his own values. Think of writers being assigned their tasks by editors, for instance. Has nothing to do with what they personally stand for. Simply a way to earn a buck.
I have written at length previously on the concept of "authority figures" and of the different types of writers. Most people never stop to consider these important issues. Which is why Influencers of the New Media find it so easy to bamboozle millions.
A person might write from a personal vision and convictions, or they might write from the need to have content in order to earn an income. This is NOT the same thing at all.
Good point. I strongly suspect though that Murray has drunk his own Kool-Aid though. He really does seem to believe what he writes. There are plenty of criticisms to be made about the way the British ran their empire, but you can say one thing in their favour: they were good at what they did because they sent high-placed people to live among those they wanted to colonise, or already had colonised but wanted to consolidate power over, so they could come to deeply understand the culture of their subjects (they mostly did this to subvert those cultures, of course, but nonetheless, this embedding led to many Brits falling in love with foreign cultures and 'going native'). Americans have never grasped this lesson, which is why their attempts at establishing an empire have been such a clusterfuck, and Murray is just as terrible on this front. His grasp of complex geopolitical issues is kindergarten level.
Thank you for your reply, Robyn. I have read the James Lindsay site since he began, but the lack of much (or any) reasonable discussion in the comment forums always pushes me on to other Substacks where readers actually converse.
Yes, the British had it down to a fine art, did they not? If you are in want of an empire, that is the way to do it. The downside of course was children of the embedded Brits being shipped back to the mother country to be raised by landladies or boarding schools, and vast numbers of out-of-wedlock unions with the natives in whatever country was involved.
Be that as it may, I do agree with you that a person who is so inclined could learn as much or more through wide and judicious reading. Though it does not produce camera-friendly shots for New Media posts. Where action-man visibility seems to be key.
You've probably read Glubb's 'The Fate of Empires'. I can't escape the conclusion that the very downside you mention (the offspring of the imperial rulers being separated from their parents and raised in boarding schools) was necessary to produce the kinds of men who would be willing to go back out into the wilds of the empire. Glubb writes: "Boys’ schools [during the most 'splendid' phase of empire] are intentionally rough. Frugal eating, hard living, breaking the ice to have a bath and similar customs are aimed at producing a strong, hardy and fearless breed of men. Duty is the word constantly drummed into the heads of young people." In other words, it's an endless cycle of ambition and drive producing abuse (both of the natives and one's own children) and exploitation, which leads to great riches, which leads to more leisure time and art and philosophy, which leads to reconsideration of the ways of life which produced all the wealth, which leads to the production of children who lack the ambition and drive to conquer the new territory but are concerned with cultivating different virtues and qualities, which leads to the erosion of the empire. Rinse and repeat with each new rising power.
I take your point, Robyn. Today's over-coddled youth, encouraged to hide and whimper, are not empire builders. I grew up in Canada with the descendants of many of the builders; I know the breed. I understand and agree with what you lay out here, if indeed empire is what a person is after.
I suspect that the same attitudes and practices were common in the Roman Empire.
However, there comes a time when it crumbles. Perhaps because this is no longer what is called for. Britain today, for instance, is quickly losing its own country and culture and even its work ethic. There are bigger things afoot. The Queen willingly gave Royal Assent to joining the EU back in 1973, which did not speak of a glorious history of empire builders. What went wrong?
The other side of that coin, too, is that it produces children who grow up with Attachment Disorders (see John Bowlby). Which wreak havoc in personal and family lives. And spill over to society in general. The emotional detachment may bring in power and riches, but at what ultimate cost?
Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of empires and the havoc they wreak. The question on my mind is, do we get to have the wonderful features of civilisation - beautiful music, awe-inspiring architecture, timeless literature, wonderful art - without the wealth created by empire? Can we have 'nice things' without the terrible things done by ambitious empire-building men?
Dave Smith is a low IQ Jew hater and a failure as a Comedian
I sometimes wonder why this Substack comment forum is so quiet. I hesitate to invest comments here because it's likely there will be little discussion in return.
perhaps being a little less contentious would garner you more likes and a willingness for engagement. wild assumptions, boorish assertions and egotistical claims are a little offputting
I have supported James Lindsay and his Substack since he began. If this is the general ugly attitude here....I am off to greener pastures.
I do not need the insights of James Lindsay. It's the other way around. And if someone is going to reply with a nasty message, perhaps they had better look at the facts of the various backgrounds first. Why is there this silly assumption that every Substack host must be a god, and every commenter must be a forelock-tugger of no insight and no education?
Have a look at who has produced what. James is a relative babe in the woods on these subjects. There were persons across the academic spectrum for several centuries noting and grappling with these concepts. James is a newbie, trained in another field entirely. But he signed-up for a Substack -- gasp! --which apparently makes him omniscient 🤣.
I notice that James himself has not replied, even though I praised his work on many occasions as the best of the newcomers in this field (which is not his own field, btw. Though it is indeed the field of a number of us out here. Which commenters on this forum seem to be clueless about).
I think you are envious, "Dr.".
Egotistical? Only those who are attempting to claim superiority would use a professional title or post-nominal in their Substack commenter name. Like you. In addition to which, it may be phony.
Just like those professionals I have known who -- oh so casually - slip their business card to the clerk or receptionist along with their demands.
I find your unaware comment hilarious! 😂
You have given me no evidence that you know anything at all. Much less do you know this particular field.
Run along now.
You don’t need a school in order to have expertise in something. You just have to have an exceptional amount of knowledge in that something, be it from practical experience or life (self taught) experience. The first example in the article was ‘roofer’. My son is a roofer- he has expertise in that field. My other son, a mechanic, same thing. My third son went to university to study philosophy, and while he is highly intelligent, all he really has is book smarts…no real world/life experience. Had he spent years going deeper into a particular field, I suppose he would have gained expertise in said field.
My point- “expertise” is not that easy to define. It’s not gained alongside a degree, it’s gained from diving deeply into a particular topic. Although James started off in mathematics, he has since dove deep into other areas; more deeply than most, which by definition would make him an expert.
By the way none of my sons are influencers of any kind, that doesn’t negate their expertise.
Your idea here is very cliched. It is what every person without intellectual abilities and with a chip on their shoulder will tell you. Gets a bit tiresome listening to it.
Actually, the types of expertise I was comparing are all forms of intellectual expertise. Just of different varieties within that realm.
Your third son has intelligence. What is wrong with book smarts? Maybe you are not aware that studying well is hard work. Often very hard work. I think that is a bias you have. As if your two sons with practical skills trump the intelligence of the third. I hope you don't tell your youngest son about this attitude of yours. Besides which, he might think that you simply do not have the ability yourself to understand. I do....whenever I hear someone going on like this.
This kind of idea used to be used to put down students and elevate the hands-on sorts. There is a place for both, actually. If I need a new roof, I would call one of your older two sons. If I want some well-thought advice on abstract issues, I would speak to your younger son.
If you have to have brain surgery, do you want your surgeon to have book smarts? Or just take a hacksaw to your head? If you have to cross a bridge over a body of water, do you hope that the engineer who designed it had book smarts and could make the correct calculations?
It's funny, because this site is about James Lindsay having book smarts. His abilities are very intellectual and theoretical. Which I am fairly certain took him years of hard work to develop. Yet here you are....