I appreciate Lindsay's address, and I think his analysis is good.
Except for one thing: I don’t think that the doom-saying is justified.
The parallels Lindsay draws are excellent, especially as they point up the fundamental aspects of the doctrines being compared. One thing that might be missing, however, is the aspect of leadership. Is there a leader comparable to Mao or Lenin nowadays, one who could have a degree of influence even remotely similar to that which this pair had?
The reason I ask is that Lindsay, for instance, understands the doctrines better than do most of those I’ve met who actually hold these doctrines. At university, for example, I heard mostly woke-leaning slogans from students and professors; but I did not usually hear someone elaborate the tenets of the theories here in question as fully as Lindsay does.
The tenets, of course, are discussed at length in the authors Lindsay cites, but many of the students and professors who agree with these authors and their tenets are not able to explain them properly. Not to mention that many defenders of the theories either disagree among themselves about some fundamental principles or they have no cross-departmental collaboration at all and so stop large-scale practice based on the principles short.
This makes me think that there is more “sentiment” than there is “program” coming from the supporters of these theories. And after all, the authors themselves do not appear to be leaders in the way Mao and Lenin were. Most of them are academics, who are settled rather comfortably in academia. The power and influence they wield there is of course often detrimental. And that influence does spill out, maybe more often these days than ever before.
And yet I don’t think it spills out in a consistent or unified way. And unless there were a leader, or a small group of leaders, to channel these leaks into a steady flow, I don’t see how the doom-saying can be justified just yet.
We no longer live in a time of "leaders" - they're interchangeable, necessarily. Leadership itself is an outdated model (and one reason Trump is so hated). This is purified collectivism instead, and AI is the perfect model because it gives you back your own prejudices but with added authority. The specific content might even vary from moment to moment, because none of it is substantive - it's ALL performative, especially "queerness" . These terms essentially mean nothing as content, which is what Lindsay is saying about "queering" as anti-normative practice, or at least the differences they're extolling (e.g., drag) are entirely superficial. The term "non-binary" is ONLY intended to create a binary division - between the new, better people and the old, disposable, deplorable, dualistic people. Other than that it has no function. Tragically, this to me justifies the doom-saying all the more. (And I write all this as someone involved in gay rights since age 16 in 1979, and as a formerly lifelong left-leaner.) It's made possible by its disguise as "diverse" and "democratic" in an age when ONLY a self-proclaimed "progressive" movement has the social influence to usher in a truly contemporary form of totalitarianism, far more total than any before.
I'm not trying to troll in these comments. I'm not trying get subs, etc.
I hope it's clear instead that I'm trying to understand whether I myself and others have gone too far in our attacks against extreme wokeness. That is, whether I myself have started to sound like those I disagree with.
The theories (even if all someone knows is one slogan out of the little red book or the term anti-racist or anti-colonialist) are justifications used to excuse oneself (and one’s cohort) from indulging in whatever envious cruel power hungry nastiness you have ... it’s way to do, say and delight in terrible things and remain “clean”.
(The Kendis of the world do it for the above reasons and are rewarded with $$$ and privilege.)
The theories are *always* an excuse in this western maoism, just like it was in the Cultural Revolution.
The great leader is just the piece that helps people hone, target and give license to their violence.
I think I know what you mean. I agree that what you say here does happen in some cases, say, those of a careerist professor or some pundit. But I would add that in other cases, say, those of a young graduate student or a well-off woke-leaning urbanite, there is no "intention," which often leads to action, but only something like "ressentiment", which often does not lead to action (other than grumbling).
Last, I'm not sure I understand your final sentence here. Do you mean to answer my question about leadership by saying that it is merely a symbolic thing (or even superfluous) and that revolution can occur even when there is only an uncoordinated effort from the bottom up?
What I mean is that the harm done by the comfortable academics and those who glom onto slogans with little grasp of their underpinnings is real, but nothing like the cultural revolution because there is no dear leader to sanction state violence against the “racist, transphobe, etc”. Although the state does seem to be sanctioning violence by its refusal to enforce law against favored groups right now and that it’s not that big of leap to something worse.
I have sent this to just about every person I know and have been promoting it on other platforms, Robert Malone even main posted it after I linked it in his Sunday sub.
Best speech I have heard from my lifetime, one of the single most important speeches of post WWII era and I am NOT being hyperbolic.
A remarkable virtuoso delivery. If we can turn this woke wave around, this is the shore that sent it back.
This is one of those speeches that will go down in history as being a watershed moment. Knowing and communicating are two different skills, but when both are high in the same person, results can be dramatic. Thank you for having the courage to tell a vital truth.
The caliber of this speech is on par with the best of Jordan Peterson. Let's hope it becomes as popularized as his speeches even now, after the malfeasants have learned more about how to minimize impacts from prescient speakers (such as yourself and Jordan Peterson).
Great work, James. Awesome speech. I am learning so much from you. We need congress to hear you. Then again, they know what's going on, they are the ones causing it all.
I appreciate Lindsay's address, and I think his analysis is good.
Except for one thing: I don’t think that the doom-saying is justified.
The parallels Lindsay draws are excellent, especially as they point up the fundamental aspects of the doctrines being compared. One thing that might be missing, however, is the aspect of leadership. Is there a leader comparable to Mao or Lenin nowadays, one who could have a degree of influence even remotely similar to that which this pair had?
The reason I ask is that Lindsay, for instance, understands the doctrines better than do most of those I’ve met who actually hold these doctrines. At university, for example, I heard mostly woke-leaning slogans from students and professors; but I did not usually hear someone elaborate the tenets of the theories here in question as fully as Lindsay does.
The tenets, of course, are discussed at length in the authors Lindsay cites, but many of the students and professors who agree with these authors and their tenets are not able to explain them properly. Not to mention that many defenders of the theories either disagree among themselves about some fundamental principles or they have no cross-departmental collaboration at all and so stop large-scale practice based on the principles short.
This makes me think that there is more “sentiment” than there is “program” coming from the supporters of these theories. And after all, the authors themselves do not appear to be leaders in the way Mao and Lenin were. Most of them are academics, who are settled rather comfortably in academia. The power and influence they wield there is of course often detrimental. And that influence does spill out, maybe more often these days than ever before.
And yet I don’t think it spills out in a consistent or unified way. And unless there were a leader, or a small group of leaders, to channel these leaks into a steady flow, I don’t see how the doom-saying can be justified just yet.
But I could be missing something. . .
We no longer live in a time of "leaders" - they're interchangeable, necessarily. Leadership itself is an outdated model (and one reason Trump is so hated). This is purified collectivism instead, and AI is the perfect model because it gives you back your own prejudices but with added authority. The specific content might even vary from moment to moment, because none of it is substantive - it's ALL performative, especially "queerness" . These terms essentially mean nothing as content, which is what Lindsay is saying about "queering" as anti-normative practice, or at least the differences they're extolling (e.g., drag) are entirely superficial. The term "non-binary" is ONLY intended to create a binary division - between the new, better people and the old, disposable, deplorable, dualistic people. Other than that it has no function. Tragically, this to me justifies the doom-saying all the more. (And I write all this as someone involved in gay rights since age 16 in 1979, and as a formerly lifelong left-leaner.) It's made possible by its disguise as "diverse" and "democratic" in an age when ONLY a self-proclaimed "progressive" movement has the social influence to usher in a truly contemporary form of totalitarianism, far more total than any before.
People died because of Maoism, many more than in the Holocaust. This is grave and anybody who doubts is foolish.
Easy, tiger.
I'm not trying to troll in these comments. I'm not trying get subs, etc.
I hope it's clear instead that I'm trying to understand whether I myself and others have gone too far in our attacks against extreme wokeness. That is, whether I myself have started to sound like those I disagree with.
So, millions of deaths aren't serious to you?
Dude, are you being deliberately obtuse? How is getting kicked out of Evergreen or Yale, as bad as it is, the same as getting placed in a death-camp?
The theories (even if all someone knows is one slogan out of the little red book or the term anti-racist or anti-colonialist) are justifications used to excuse oneself (and one’s cohort) from indulging in whatever envious cruel power hungry nastiness you have ... it’s way to do, say and delight in terrible things and remain “clean”.
(The Kendis of the world do it for the above reasons and are rewarded with $$$ and privilege.)
The theories are *always* an excuse in this western maoism, just like it was in the Cultural Revolution.
The great leader is just the piece that helps people hone, target and give license to their violence.
Thank you for the reply, Kara.
I think I know what you mean. I agree that what you say here does happen in some cases, say, those of a careerist professor or some pundit. But I would add that in other cases, say, those of a young graduate student or a well-off woke-leaning urbanite, there is no "intention," which often leads to action, but only something like "ressentiment", which often does not lead to action (other than grumbling).
Last, I'm not sure I understand your final sentence here. Do you mean to answer my question about leadership by saying that it is merely a symbolic thing (or even superfluous) and that revolution can occur even when there is only an uncoordinated effort from the bottom up?
Jesse
What I mean is that the harm done by the comfortable academics and those who glom onto slogans with little grasp of their underpinnings is real, but nothing like the cultural revolution because there is no dear leader to sanction state violence against the “racist, transphobe, etc”. Although the state does seem to be sanctioning violence by its refusal to enforce law against favored groups right now and that it’s not that big of leap to something worse.
Thanks again, Kara. I see what you mean, and I definitely need to think on it some more. I appreciate the chat on here.
Phenomenal speech. The west is facing a cultural revolution in the same way China did 60 years ago. My father had a front row seat to both - here is a podcast featuring his stories: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/cultural-revolution-podcast-father#details
I have sent this to just about every person I know and have been promoting it on other platforms, Robert Malone even main posted it after I linked it in his Sunday sub.
Best speech I have heard from my lifetime, one of the single most important speeches of post WWII era and I am NOT being hyperbolic.
A remarkable virtuoso delivery. If we can turn this woke wave around, this is the shore that sent it back.
This is one of those speeches that will go down in history as being a watershed moment. Knowing and communicating are two different skills, but when both are high in the same person, results can be dramatic. Thank you for having the courage to tell a vital truth.
The caliber of this speech is on par with the best of Jordan Peterson. Let's hope it becomes as popularized as his speeches even now, after the malfeasants have learned more about how to minimize impacts from prescient speakers (such as yourself and Jordan Peterson).
Sock it to'em Baby!!!
Truth, POWER- Freedom!
Great work, James. Awesome speech. I am learning so much from you. We need congress to hear you. Then again, they know what's going on, they are the ones causing it all.
Why is this written in the third person?
Great clarity and leadership. Thank you Dr Lindsay!
Excellent talk. A lucid distillation of James's work over the last years.