James Lindsay and The Theosophist Hunters - Minor politcow multiclasses in Schizocow. Reddit Athesist Defender of Catholicism, angel unsummoner, target of CIA psyops.

[Battery Low]

The problem I have with woke-right as a neologism is that I'm unsure what part of "woke", as commonly understood, applies to the group of people that he's attempting to define.

Is it the "wake up sheeple!" types? The "my politics take the place of a religion"? "You will believe as I do or else?" "Identity politics is king" "oppression stack is real, but I order it differently to the left"? Is it centrists or far right? I can guess based on his current obsession, but it's very subjectively manufactured from The World Of James Lindsey so not easy to parse as an outsider.

"Woke" was a word that came from the left, entered popular usage and throws up a clear set of parameters and tropes I can draw upon to understand what is meant. With "woke right" I'm unsure. Is it horseshoe theory? If so why give it a new name barring Jimmy's need to paint himself as a bleeding edge Interlectual leader?

"What shall we call these pesky Christian Nationalists?"
"Erm... Christian Nationalists?"
"No! We neeed a new word! A James Lindsey Original word!"
"That's obtuse and retarded"
"reeeeeeeee"

And now we're back to calling "anyone on the right that I don't agree with" a nazi.

Typical. He's so desperate to be a thought leader, arrogantly spews subjective nonsense from his own internal musings, then gets buthurt when people call it retarded. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[waffle]

Is it the "wake up sheeple!" types? The "my politics take the place of a religion"? "You will believe as I do or else?" "Identity politics is king" "oppression stack is real, but I order it differently to the left"? Is it centrists or far right? I can guess based on his current obsession, but it's very subjectively manufactured from The World Of James Lindsey so not easy to parse as an outsider.

That's a big part of the problem, when he gets ultrapressed he will say it is "oppression stack is real, but I order it differently to the left", but then elaborate to essentially say what he really means is pretty much anyone who puts any salience on race what-so-ever for any purpose - but also religious people who are religious in a way that upsets him.

 

[AeroGavin Rossdale]

Is it the "wake up sheeple!" types? The "my politics take the place of a religion"? "You will believe as I do or else?" "Identity politics is king" "oppression stack is real, but I order it differently to the left"? Is it centrists or far right? I can guess based on his current obsession, but it's very subjectively manufactured from The World Of James Lindsey so not easy to parse as an outsider.

MacIntyre makes this point, that 'woke' is a catch all slang term with no rigorous definition. Even if it worked as planned, his stunt to paint using the same rhetorical tacts as Marx from the right as 'woke' doesn't make sense, because there is no single accepted definition of woke. He keeps trying to make one but his attempts are so broad nearly everyone Marx read becomes 'woke', but still admits Woke Right is a muddy term that doesn't really work, so what's he even mean? Is Adam Smith woke because Marx's theories are based on his economic theories of Capitalism?

Edit: Lindsay is now getting dunked on from the right in a good ol' Sargon of Akkad Stream. Imagine Sargoy, founder of the Liberalists, calling you a Liberal pseud in 2024.

 

[Sammich]

Dave Smith has been poking him off and on for a couple days now too. Might be worth nabbing if anyone gives enough of a shit. https://x.com/ComicDaveSmith dave's twitter.

 

[Bugs_Galore]

Just thought I'd put this here since nobody else has.

Dude is shilling for Israel harder than anyone else I've seen in a while. "If you don't support Israel you're woke" is a hell of a take. I don't know how you can be retarded enough to legitimately still shill the "our greatest ally" meme when you're James Lindsey's age. That's something I expect from my boomer grandfather not a 45 year old.

I seriously wonder if this is like an actual principled stance he has or if he is legit operating off the 70 IQ mindset of "well, people I don't like support Palestine that means I need to support Israel"

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

or if he is legit operating off the 70 IQ mindset of "well, people I don't like support Palestine that means I need to support Israel"

It's this one.

Remember he got his start as a fedora. They think this type of retardation is some kind of elite 4-d chess move.

 

[Bill Evans 45]

AGE OF AQAURIAS

Aquarius?

Keep your baggy yellow Swiss Guards pants on, Papists, this gets it's section

A secret cult of 19th century Occultists and 20th Century Hippy Weirdos secretly run the world and, with the help of the owner of the Detroit Tigers, put Woke in the schools so They can Dialectically force Christians to stand up for themselves so THEY have an excuse to crush them

These bits made me laugh from the soles of my boots. Great start to the thread.

I think it's more that while it's good to think like your enemy, James can't NOT think like his enemy anymore.

He's tied himself up in so many knots that he doesn't know who he is anymore, never mind who his enemies are. I was only vaguely aware of who he was from the grievance studies thing and the Borysenko thread, and it turns out he's a whole dairy of milk.

This arc of lunacy is only just beginning to gather speed and I look forward to the acceleration.

I am a Catholic. He doesn't offend me, his ignorance is something I'm used to dealing with. It's a shame that, despite his abilities and advantages, he's too arrogant or lazy to do any research before opining. I will say a decade for him tonight because this is a man in need of prayer.

E formatting

 

[LovisXVI]

Patrick Casey has posted a denouncement of Lindsay's "woke right" on Chronicle Magazine. This has naturally lead to bitching on the part of Lindsay, phone posting so can't archive.


Link to tweet Link to article

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

Patrick Casey has posted a denouncement of Lindsay's "woke right" on Chronicle Magazine. This has naturally lead to bitching on the part of Lindsay, phone posting so can't archive. View attachment 6740804
View attachment 6740808

Link to tweet Link to article

archive and archive

 

[Rainbow Child]

Yes, insulting Pope St. John Paul the Great, who most Catholics INCLUDING JAMES were alive, and have a great respect, for is gonna win 'em over. Doubly concerning since Lindsay, Anti-Communist, should be aware of JPII's involvement in the collapse of the Eastern bloc. I also like his little sulking about how it would take a lot of work to repair the trust between him and Rome, as if they are under any obligation to book THE James Lindsay to speak.

If you told him that the prayer was written by Pope Leo XIII after a vision about Satan attempting to destroy the Church much like the attempt to destroy Job circa 1885, rather than "after the Pact of the Catacombs and the establishment of Vatican II", he would then spring his Kafka Trap and be like, "see! 1885? That's precisely when the Theosophists were initiating Operation Michael!", as is so transparently clear.

If you followed up and told him that Leo XIII was the guy who was warning the world that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses before Great-Grandpa Lindsay was even in diapers, or that he was invoking St Michael in those days to specifically protect the world from those occult societies that Lindsay learned about in the XXI century on the Internet, he'd no doubt shriek, "ANTI-THESIS! ANTI-THESIS! THIS PROVES MY POINT!"

And after he says those things, if you show him that it was predicted that he would say them, he'll then put his smug cap back on and say, "nice strawman."

I bet he had been writing that Communist Manifesto - Christian Nationalism Remix since Michaelmas, seething the while, imagining how he'll show them, he'll show them all. Poor guy must have been so disappointed when he didn't get the lauds he was looking for then.

 

[CryptoHermit]

writing three books on how Math disproves religion.

How do midwits still fall for this conceit? The original translations in the Septuagint have "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" as LOGOS ie. REASON. The Vacitan has a whole slew of saints who agonizes over this and past Popes had a world tour where they talk about this. APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG (SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]​

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.​

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply asserts being, "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.[8] Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.[9] A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.​

---

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.​

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss".[13] The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.​

 

[LovisXVI]

writing three books on how Math disproves religion

Interesting take considering that one of the most important religious movements of Europe, the Pythagoreans, literally considered Mathematics to be a divine conduit and central to their theology.

 

[Ser Prize]

This was a long time coming.

 

[Éamonn Ceannt]

I think I found my new favorite lolcow. Holy shit this guy is crazy. Great find op. May God smite him for his anti-Catholicism.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

I think I found my new favorite lolcow. Holy shit this guy is crazy. Great find op. May God smite him for his anti-Catholicism.

I fully support anti Catholic teachings but only from a radical Protestant and orthodox perspective every Catholic is first loyalty is to the gangster state of Rome known as Vatican City

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Just thought I'd put this here since nobody else has.

Lindsay's "woke right" label also seems to cover a lot of anti-Israeli types even if they're just isolationists like the Mises people. He went on a whole diatribe about it. One of the weirdest hills to die on.

 

[Super Hans v2]

Lindsay's "woke right" label also seems to cover a lot of anti-Israeli types even if they're just isolationists like the Mises people. He went on a whole diatribe about it. One of the weirdest hills to die on.

It makes perfect sense from a containment perspective, it's just like how other 'former' lefties like Dave Rubin get pushed so hard.

 

[Jhonny Jhon]

Lindsay's "woke right" label also seems to cover a lot of anti-Israeli types even if they're just isolationists like the Mises people. He went on a whole diatribe about it. One of the weirdest hills to die on.

He seems to be trying to rebrand the neocons or create a new branch of it. Get all those people who hate the neocons and loathe the left to become a part of this new movement that is just the same thing as the old, just more focused on the obscure secret lore of the world that is totally true and James Lindsay shall enlighten us and praise be to the Teosophist Hunter or something.

Anyhow, you could take any neocon in senate, add a little bit of schizophrenic ramblings to their posts/videos/interviews/positions, and I'm sure they would be virtually indistinguishable from James Lindsay.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

That's right James rootless cosmopolitan Jews like yourself will be deported from America the National Labor conscience of the United States of America is rising up and they will cast off the shackles of globalist neoliberal capitalism.

The working class is the driving force of all national conscience.

Capitalism is the destruction of all nations the capitalist is the enemy of all nationalists the nation is incompatible with capitalism Joseph Stalin probably

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

View attachment 6796930
That's right James rootless cosmopolitan Jews like yourself will be deported from America the National Labor conscience of the United States of America is rising up and they will cast off the shackles of globalist neoliberal capitalism.

The working class is the driving force of all national conscience.

Capitalism is the destruction of all nations the capitalist is the enemy of all nationalists the nation is incompatible with capitalism Joseph Stalin probably

So he's trying to say, "believing that it matters to be a people with a common history and culture is Stalinism, akshually"?