James was the first person I ever heard the term "Woke Right" from. And when I hear it from other media sources 80%+ of the time they contribute James as teaching them the concept.
@@MisterDogg it feels very much like a controlled op because of this situation. I would not be surprised to find out James is paid by Mossad or the Israel govt.
I heard it first from myself in 2023. I used it on stream. Not that anybody would know that considering I'm a 1 viewer Andy on Twitch. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting the terms usage goes back as early as 2022 at least. Conclusion: The terms usage is the byproduct of multiple different people coming to same organic conclusions about a group of people and their ideological framework.
Your description of woke right just sounds like a lot of normal conservatives i grew up around in the 80s and 90s. The people at the Blaze are also pretty conservative mainstream. You're basically just describing conservatives. I dont see the point of calling them woke when they arent. It feels like an attack rather than a categorization.
Did you listen to the video? Do you think the normal conservative of the 80's and 90's, is somebody who think they as white people are attacked by the left for being Christian and white? But they are able to see past the individual, and think of the greater good for the collective? Because they have inner knowledge nobody else have? No? So you are just here to type, but did not listen to what he said.
Obviously “right” isn’t problematic but, yeah, “woke” is associated with much that’s offensive to the right. I understand the temptation to use it because it’s catches the attention and parallels may be drawn between left and right, but ultimately the goal of having people consider the arguments put forth might necessitate terminology less repulsive for its previous association. Edit: otherwise many potential consumers of important content may merely refuse, even to their detriment
no, liberalism is not communism, woke and leftist tactics r bad, anti zionism and anti semitism r bad. normie conservatives believe in individual rights and not postmodernism.
So, technically speaking guys like James and the vast majority of others are classical liberals. They've done some excellent work critiquing leftism and communism and whatnot, that's great, but the issue primarily is social liberalism as a problem. It's not even controversial at this point to point out that the American experiment doesn't run or work without a framework of a actually Christian nation to run it on. Classical liberalism is starting to fall apart, not technologically or economically which is what classical liberals are concerned with, but what we're starting to see is demographic decay and societal collapse from the main culprit which is sexual liberation. In that sense, the folks that object to actual traditionalism, actual conservativism, especially around sexual ethics, are actually liberal themselves. So as much as they might be critiquing leftism as going too far, They don't actually disagree with the principles that lead to left-wing totalitarianism as they would describe it. Actual conservatives and traditionalists which is why it's so difficult for classical liberals and leftists in general to understand, do not agree with their project from the ground up. They're framing it as new Christian right, or something like that, but they're going to lump fascism, communism etc all into the same bucket of authoritarianism and will push back against anything that might curtail sexual liberation.
@@Silverhailo21 Why do you guys keep writing this faulty logic? If sexual liberation was the great problem, then the nations with most of it, would collapse to communism, before the ones who don't. Reality is the opposite. It is the strong Christian traditional nation of middle and south America, who keep having communist leadership. Do nobody check with reality any more, to see if their theories are correct?
You have correctly identified that there is a critique of modernity and classical liberalism occurring but to call traditionalists and conservatives who object to classical liberal principles as woke right is not helpful and it's not accurate.
"Woke Right" just reeks of the school-yard "I know you are, but what am I?" retort... I still very much value everything James has taught me. Don't get me wrong. But I think this idea could be more flushed out. Or at least a better -term could be used.
@lloydgush thats fair. I'm not making demands here, just suggestions. Most people on the right will instantly dismiss anyone who uses that term. They will just assume it is like when the left tried turning 'snowflake' around. Or talking about right wing 'safe spaces'. I'm not saying they should dismiss it. Just that most will.
@@Panzerdood No, it is because they are not right wing. At least in my view. They want to create a new system, not based on any right wing view of the past. But a new radical system, made by them. That is not right wing.
@@Panzerdoodhave you ever heard of, “Controlled opposition?” “The truth,” would not hurt if it wasn’t Hegelian dialectical gobbledygook. Your gas lighting tactics are an unwinnable game.
@@SL2797yeah, "woke right" is just a rhetorical trick by liberals more afraid of an hypothetical conservative backlash than an actual hyper-liberal totalitarianism. whereas "alt right" is just shorthand for "an actually conservative alternative to the economic liberalism which sits in conservatism's seat".
From what I (somewhat roughly) understand, Buckley and neocon-ism actually did push out the old right after WW2 for "progressivism going the speed limit" as Malice puts it. The part he gets wrong though is that the old right in the US was the anti-progressive liberal side, not the fascist response to Marxism(which the Prog's were happily married to)
Not exactly, just as today, back in the 50s or 60s there were factions of the RW in America. WF Buckley was CIA, CIA's golden age was born out of the end of WWII, when they started putting more energy into domestic affairs (Operation Mockingbird). Also the FBI. FBI helped whip up the KKK in the South, this was investigated and there's evidence you can look up. So you have the FBI trying to get people to (dialecticaly) get people into racism or react against that (bringing about MLK and the "Civil Rights Movement"). CIA/FBI worked to get more traditional conservatives like the John Birch Society to think there were communists in every home while the CIA and DOD worked with CIA connected law firms (Sullivan and Cromwell) to "fight communist threats" around the globe, which was basically more to destabilize and steal the resources out of third world countries.
well, they havent started pissing on me & telling me its raining. to me, it doesnt make sense to use a term that has been shaped by the actual behavior of leftists, the years of toxic cultural discourse, the power structures they used to enforce ideology. I’d imagine it would be ten years before I could take a “woke right” idea seriously, though I am open to conversation.
We don't have it here yet, but look at the so called Conservatives in UK, Canada, and elsewhere. Many states have devolved intimate leftists and farther leftists.
Woke Right's Nick Fuentes, pissin' all over the place to the extent that he favored Kamala, so you're lying or out of touch. James is not wrong about some of them wanting to get rid of the Constitution, so you're being pissed on there too. Most of them act like there was some harmonious period of "Protestant White America" when this is, at best, a fantasy that doesn't include all of the Catholics who built this country, and then there are (closeted) fruitcakes like Dave "The Distributist" who, as James made clear in this cast, want state/theocratic power to distribute to their vanguard. Listen to some of Dave's podcasts with Benjamin Boyce, holy cow, Dave completely admits to his ressentiment, seemingly without realizing it - how he's so much of an intellectual that he should be getting everyone worshiping him. Completely gross. I was skeptical of James' whole Woke Right accusations at first, but he's more correct than not.
It is also, not what he did. But socialists branding everybody that do not follow their world view, as classical liberalism, when all other people want is individualism, something we have had since at least the Roman times, that is what you do.
@haraldbredsdorff2699 yes it is. You can be conservative but you need to be trying to conserve classical liberal principles. How do you have a cohesive society when everyoncais hyper individualistic. Perhaps religious people could keep a hyper individualistic society together, but no james hates that too.
@@dustinschimmel9152 Oh no, hyper individualism? You mean like the Vikings or ancient Greeks? Europeans have been hyper individualistic, since we started writing down stories. Probably long before. The claim that we used to be collectivist, is 1800 bullshit theory.
@haraldbredsdorff2699 lol i almost spit out my drink. feudalism totally individualistic no national or ethnic cultures anywhere either... colectivism and indivualism have their roles and neither are at the top of the government hierarchy
I think part of the problem is that politics in America tends to flatten ideas out into a left-right binary. I would argue that we've got three axis that we're working with here. Progressivism Conservatism Liberalism Socialism Idealism Pragmatism All of these are sliding scales. And to clarify I'm not talking about economic socialism, but the idea that the political good falls toward social units rather than the individual. 'Collectivism' wouldn't be a terrible term, either. The difference between the 'woke right' and the 'woke left' is largely boiling down to which identity groups are being favored.
As a lifelong conservative, I'm so glad that you're pointing this out. I felt like I was going nuts watching these people. I think the first time that I noticed something like this, a relatively benign one, was way back when Tucker Carlson was on the Ben Shapiro Sunday Special and said that he wanted the government to prevent the development of self-driving car technology in order to protect the jobs of truck drivers and I just thought "Weird. Tucker is not a conservative." And now he's gone way off the deep-end, advocating for a weakening of American influence in the world under the absurd claim that it'll somehow help Americans. His bizarre Russia trip with so its ignorant nonsense really cemented in my mind just how much of a nut he really is.
Protectionism, anti-interventionisn and the journalistic duty to GO TO THE SOURCE and ask questions about what they think and believe are incompatible conservative values, you think? Seriously, go read your history. Firstly, the founders themselves were anti-interventionists. That view led America to being one of two remaining superpowers after two world wars devastated Europe. Look at Britain after a century of global hegemony. A shadow of a shadow of its former self. Seems like a good idea after all to preserve our military might for true crisis rather than deplete it fighting enemies we created in the first place to fight former enemies, all at the coat of American lives, national security and crippling debt. Secondly, most conservative governments that have EVER existed were protectionist before globalization. You can argue that its wrong, not that its not conservative. I might even agree with you about free trade with the OBVIOUS exception of warmongerIng, colonialist, authoritarian and adversarial slave and indentured servitude labor abusing states. Can you think of any we rely on for the manufacturing of critical goods like medicine and defense related technology? 🤔 As for the interview, Kennedy himself even at the height of the Cuban missle crisis had a direct line to Moscow. Why? Dialogue and diplomacy even with totalitarians is infinitely better than war, nuclear or otherwise. Maybe there's another reason the country decided to invade besides Putin going crazy suddenly longing for the reestablishment of the empire. Doesn't justify the war _at all_ but _understanding_ the enemy is the first step to negotiating with them. According to Sun Tzu, its the first step to fighting them effectively, period. Literally no excuse not to listen. Unironically you are subscribing to the idea that its too dangerous to decide what is true and false for yourself. Guess who also thinks that, the people who want you banned from social media for espousing even one conservative view. 🤦 Also friendly reminder that Tucker was legitimately threatened with and was precariously close to being a victim of a carbombing for doing that interview. Who’s more extreme, an interviewer who even after an interview recognizes Putin’s many faults including being an authoritarian dictator or a group of ultra nationalist maniacs who threaten to ”eliminate” interviewers for doing their job?
All I can say about the woke right is Julius Evola. I was a bit skeptical about the woke right until I encountered one on social media trying to convince me that Celtic people and Germanic (Teutonic) people were one and the same as "Aryans". I recognized this as New Age mysticism as coming from Blavatsky's Theosophy, hermeticism and occultism through Julius Evola. Apparently, I can't see this Aryan spiritual and metaphysical connection as I labor under the false consciousness of modernity and liberalism, haven't ridden the tiger or some other spooky-woo necessary to transcend to a higher spiritual plane.
There are 2 factions, Those who think you must do what they say because those people think they're ultimately correct. As well as those who just want to be left alone and live life to its fullest with nobody telling them what they must do because they don't think the other people who are telling them they must are correct. This is trust behavioral sink, Figure out what faction you're in. I'm none authoritarian and I will never let the authoritarian tell me what to do or not do because I'm American.
@@wtice4632 depends, do they follow God, or are they the self hating jew, that support communist sympathetic rhetoric because they seem like they hate life itself.
What the hell happened to you, man? There was a span of time where you seemed to make a lot of sense. I don't know what happened to get you lost so far off in the weeds.
Maybe you don't actually understand what he is saying. The message never changed, he has always been liberal. Now that the word liberal has been dragged through the mud by everyone perhaps is the source of confusion to you.
@@DMZ40lol woke right doesn't exist And Liberalism is the ideology of suicide. It was never meant to be a worldviee. Because it's not a worldview, James knows that, its a system of conflict resolution... emerging between Christians. He's lost because hes bet on a losing horse. It's all cope
Classic liberal beliefs are nice. But they are luxury beliefs that depend on a deeper foundation and, worse, they are ashamed of their foundation. That's why they are easily dismantled by the woke. The woke extend the luxury beliefs to absurdity to attack the foundation. Do not join them in attacking the foundation. To have freedom, we need to be realistic about its preconditions. America, for example, is not just a set of principles. Because if you believe that, you will be taken over by organized minorities who pay lip service to the "principles", but really play their own game.
Hi James, just to chip in from a psychological perspective, certain individuals struggle to internalise self-concepts. There’s a whole theorising around this in object relations theory. But without going into the weeds, most people intuitively understand this as certain types never seem to be able to easily internalise or look inside themselves to determine their place within certain philosophical frameworks about the world. You will find almost without exception. These types are incredibly susceptible to woke left or right ideology. The basic reason being, is that without being able to internalise self-concept, one finds themselves requiring external objects, symbols, frameworks, etc to feel stable in themselves. To give a brief example, can you be an American living in a foreign country and still feel fundamentally American even if you were only American in the village? If you were struggle with this, you would start to look for external symbols (flags, food, dress code, American virtue signalling etc.), and if you really struggle, you would start to antagonise against the foreign residents of that country to further reinforce your mutual differences. I add this because as a Psychologist, I rarely hear anyone talking about the psychology of these philosophies.
@ the individual, at the psychological level, can effectively internalise that concept of what it means to [insert nationality here]. If they struggle with this, which is not a criticism by the way as some people just struggle with it, they find it is disconcerting on a profound level to feel socially included. However they often strike upon the remedies of external symbology or even performative attitudes of what it means to be [insert nationality here]. In clinical psychology when these difficulties become pathological, it will see all sorts of dysphoria around identity and sensitive self. In pre-modern civilisations if you take an individual out of the tribe, they more or less die either literally or psychologically. The modern man, so to speak, in their psychological evolution is able to internalise identity more readily. This means to put a bluntly certain types even within western modernised countries still act at pre-modern psychologies. It’s very easy to look at this in a pejorative way, as if they are children, but in someways this is exactly what extremism represents, whether it be left or right extremism.
@@xanderwinterview3201 a lot of "psychology" is based on stuff from gnostic-hermeticists. How would we suppose new tribes and groupings of people ever came about if those members who were ostracized by or left a tribe "more or less die either literally or psychologically" - b.s. just like in the animal world, outcasts often reform due to over-aggressiveness and then become the aggressive out-group which may or may not overtake the previous group. With humans, even more so - think any disaffected band of high school kids for generations rebelling against what was before or the "square" in-group.
A Critical Social Constructivist, is a Critical Social Constructivist, this comment section not withstanding. It's disheartening how many here are just mad at people who have (or they project will) hurt them, with no willingness to think in terms of root causes. People, if you were constantly attacked by rabid dogs, and you happened upon a cat with a frothing mouth, would you say to yourself "The dogs are trying to kill me but that's a cat." or "Rabies is rabies and it kills."
I agree that's the definition of woke. But I don't agree not liberal is woke. The Right isn't supposed to be liberal. The liberals have fallen and that's the logical outcome to now gay race progressive communism. The Right is to stand for tradition. If your political tradition has transformed they don't need to stand for it. I, a Rightist, stand for family and religion(Christian). Ezpz. Woke right doesn't exist. Anti Liberal(Progressive as it's the logical outcome) Right is not woke. I have no care for oppression or Critical Constructivism Lindsay Debunked. And who counts? Friends. Not enemies. (See Carl Schmitt )
He hasn't been right for a long time smh any halfwit knows woke is a leftist framing of power as supreme via critical constructivism always playing out in oppressed v oppresssor. He swung and missed...again
When you stare too long into the Abyss, it stares right back at you. Correct and evidence based conspiratorial thinking can lead you into seeing conspiracy everywhere you go. Fuentes and his grpup of clowns are just zoomer neo-nazis. They see what works for the woke and copy it. The rest are flavors of christian theocracy and european aristocracy larpers. The fact that he’s laundering the popularity of these niche views with the most milquetoast of milquetoast mainstream conservative pundits, Tucker Carlson, is absurdly silly.
Well, at least you qualified it with "using woke tactics", but some of us hate neocons because they are warmongers; the woke right hates them because they cater to the woke left in service of their agenda (see Liz Cheney).
@@BCPvideo if the woke right hates neocons for being too woke left...pretty sure that just makes them antiwoke....like they claim to be. Why are we reincenting the wheel when everyone has been pretty honest about themselves so far. The leftists called themselves woke, the right called themselves antiwoke.
Here's a random comment I found on a video. "Love life up there! It's like traveling back to the 80's where people are very friendly and crime hardly exists. No woke stuff." Do you think people reading this comment is thinking to themselves, "Gee, I wonder which woke he means? Woke left or woke right?" This is why I will never use the term "woke right". No need to over intellectualize it. Call is something else. I'm done giving it any more time or attention.
_"This is why I will never use the term "woke right". No need to over intellectualize it. Call it something else."_ It already has a name in common use: redpilled. Why he's trying to shift the term redpilled into "woke right" is beyond me, but definitely something he is trying to do purposefully.
CIA father, who was involved in many influencer projects like Voice of America, was a diplomat, and even made a big name by exposing trans men like in the 70s. He is promoting woke right influencers, projects a "trad conservative" view point, yet may be working to herd people toward the woke right, an inversion of William F. Buckley - WFB herded people away from trad conservatism back in the day, while Tuck is trying to herd toward a simulacra of trad conservationism via woke right dialectic. Tuck is a good actor, but he's a mouthpiece and figurehead, not to be trusted, just like Elon should not be trusted. Both have taken on the veneer of "conservatism" for the current time.
Tucker is an issue within himself. Flirting with nasty ideology at times, being totally correct about the bureaucracy at others. He's mostly just for himself. It's the easiest read. I'll never really get over him going to Russia and acting surprised at a grocery store, because they've really got it together! Oh my gosh.
@@nacetroy Elon using the platform for his ends isn't nearly as questionable as Tucker. Elon wants to do things (good, bad, indifferent), Tucker is making a buck for a bucks sake.
So, from his early description, without yet having watched most of the video, I think I understand what he means by "woke right." He means "redpilled." And that makes sense, since "woke" is just black American vernacular literally meaning "awake" (that is, awake to the hidden truths of the world), and "redpilled" is a reference to the film The Matrix, where taking a red pill (as opposed to a blue one) literally "woke you up" from a technologically-induced dream state, letting you see the hidden truths of the world. In this way, woke and redpilled are identical terms: they both mean the individual in question has woken up to previously hidden truths about the world. The reason "woke right" sounds so wonky is because woke as a term is already defined to a large degree by its association with a far-left conception of what the "hidden truth" is, while redpilled is already defined to a large degree by its association with a right wing conception of what the "hidden truth" is. Both terms already exist and are widely used and widely understood, and insisting on replacing the term "redpilled" with the term "woke right" is *absolutely* done on purpose as a form of magical spell (that is, a magical spell in the way that mr Lindsay often refers to them, not real wizard stuff). He has decided that performing this wordplay might somehow steer discussion in a direction that furthers his own political aims and ends. In response, all I can say is that there is no salvation outside of Christ. Rousseau and Hobbes were both wrong, and the world cannot be made into other than what it is. God is sovereign, until the coming of the Kingdom and ever after.
No, redpilled is just aware of the truth. These people also believe they can see the truth, that individualism is evil, and that we need to embrace their version of socialism (government control of the free market). Lindsey did not talk about it, but they all also seem to want monarchy, but not the European monarchy of the past. But rather a monarchy where they are more like CEO's. Making their claims of wanting a monarchy a lie, since we have never had that system and they describe. I guess utopian monarchs.
@@kaihouexercise I think it goes far beyond that - more like believing that a SECRET CABAL of a certain ethnic group controls the world leaders like marionettes. Straight out of the Austrian Painter's memoirs.
Something that you're missing is that rightest/right-wing thought is described also as third positionist. The right, or traditionalists, or true conservatives, however you want to describe them, are interested in first principles and dealing with reality as it is and thus see the dichotomy between classical liberals and leftism as two sides of the same coin. The primary objection from the right is a critique of social liberalism, especially sexual liberalism, which both classical liberalism and leftism /wokism embrace. One of the things that we're starting to see is demographic decay and plummeting birth rates as a consequence of sexual liberation. This is where you start to object. We know what the objections are. Reality is going to assert itself regardless.
This "sounds true" to me in light of much of what I'm noticing, particularly the seeming sudden "popularity ' of all things Roman Catholic... And since it (Vatican ) has been and still is so opposed to us knowing the Scriptures, it makes this one all the more relevant and supportive of what Dr. Lindsay is saying. Joshua 1:7 says "Be strong and very courageous...do not turn to the Left or to the Right that you may be successful wherever you go".
Keep going James, F the haters. You've triggered many snowflakes in the comments, many of whom admit to not even listening to your argument, so are just emotively knee-jerking at your terminology.
The problem with this is that we already know this stuff. This does not reflect where we are, just now. Where we are is not so terrible. Self-awareness has its own terribleness, and that's all this is. Some of us have always been the type to twist around in the theater seat to look at the source from where the projector's light is coming, rather than just looking at the screen. Maybe the New Discourses crowd isn't quite up to speed, I don't know. I've never been good at determining the level of awareness of people around me. My sense, though, as a housepainter and not some intellectual, is that we (individualists) are still winning because there simply is no competing idea. The competition for us was the notion that the new left could make people double down on group identity - racism! - and it was easy to defeat them. Seriously, an astonishing (perhaps unprecedented) amounted of lucre was spent on confusing us and alienating us from our natural positions. Didn't work. Diminishing returns. So trans people and communists aren't really worthy opponents. Recalibrate soon or be forgotten, essentially. There's nothing else holding this thing you have together except fear. And it turns out the fear is unwarranted since it disappears when we rub common sense on the issues. Really, adapt and quickly or this is already old and dead. In other words, don't hold hands with the slowest among us. They will always be slow. Even given a platform, the slow cannot defeat the quick in real time. The quick can rightly quiet the slow in real time. But it's okay. I do not expect you to do it right. Smart people always have trouble calibrating with others. It's hard to know when the slowest among us are up to speed, and for politics' sake, we don't want to leave them behind, amirite? Well, that's how it looks. It very quickly looks like something insulting. You very quickly sour and rankle would-be allies by seeming to talk down to them.
Why so many people are triggered? It is not that everyone on the right is woke, just those with certain characteristics. If you share those beliefs as described and feel personally attacked by the term I think I don't have any sympathy to you.
To me, there's two things intertwined. First are just people without enough bandwidth to process more than two warring factions at once, so they're stuck at woke vs right and everyone who says anything different from "woke bad, right good" is flagged as enemy. Second are the people who have drank the kool aid of "liberalism has failed". They are all on board of the "asking questions" about the "post ww2 liberal consensus" and thought that we (anti wokes) would be okay with using the joos as cathartic outlet and establishing a theocratic monarchy.
I just really hate the term "woke right" for the far right. It's sooooo associated with the blue haired tic toc/Antifa/trans/ etc. people. Way too much energy spent on sorting out the word "woke" in people's minds about the antisemitic/conspiratorial right.
With all due respect (because I appreciate you support James), if, for you, the essence of woke are the superficial characteristics, you missed the substance of James' critique of it. The important thing is the arbitrary "awakening" to a "higher understanding" (critical consciousness) to get us to a utopia, which he refers to as the gnostic impulse.
This is the best comment I've found. As a Rightist...There are anti-Semitic/conspiratorial folks and that less than ideal. What to do? Meh...the greater evil is the actual folks that hate and seek to destroy The West. But that is not Woke, aka" power worldview via critical constructivism that always plays out via oppressed v oppresssor" Ahh when the student passes the teacher. Lindsay taught me so much.. 2 years ago lol
@@matthewparlato5626 are you stupid? Didn't you listen to James? The first thing woke right believes is "liberalism has failed" but we know better just cause. That's the arbitrary awakening, or how about "we know politics is just friend/foe distinction" from the schmidtians. Absolute glue chugger.
@matthewparlato5626 an hour and twenty minutes of reading their own literature says otherwise... What's with the hoards of shallow, pointless, and fact-free criticisms of this lecture?
What James is trying to say is, we’re entering into a post-neoliberal epoch based on Right-Wing extremism extraordinaire’! This is not some Promethean rebirth, no, no, no. It’s the return of odysseus through the Triumph of the Will and the Will to Power as the rightful ruler of the realm and King of the Jews so to say. It’s us vs them buddy. Time to ride the Tiger! He F’ken knows it! Let’s go! \o 😂
I want to defend James a little here. The phenomenon he's describing is clearly something of a dialectical response to Woke progressivism (i.e. a negation that incorporates the premise of its antagonist), and so the stylistic parallels are unsurprising. Fascism was in part a dialectical response to Communism; the new anti-democratic traditionalism is in part the like response to the Woke Left. But ultimately the ideas of the former harken back to debates about and against democracy, ideas that have been suppressed for as long as the democratic liberal consensus has held, ideas present in Plato and characteristic of a branch of mainstream political philosophy through the end of the Second World War. Reviving this tradition is hardly Woke, if Woke is a novel politics of oppression and moral inversion at the margins. Michael Millerman is an interesting one to consult on this. He's translated and written about Dugin, and teaches many of the thinkers mentioned here. The range of those thinkers is extremely broad, encompassing the likes of Plato, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Leo Strauss, Carl Schmidt, Julius Evola, Dugin, Curtis Yarvin, even Nick Land (an anti-human Deleuzian, of all things!). His term is simply right-wing anti-liberalism.
@51:36 to about 52:12 -- Here's a great example of James being as clear as mud when he tries too hard to be accurate and precise, he actually makes his statement/claim much more confusing. James for goodness' sake, PLEASE learn when academic precision and accuracy is needed to present an idea versus when simple and plain words are better to illustrate a point. That is, if you want to have the largest number of people find your content and warnings accessible. You, Clint and Palmer Worm can tweet and retweet each other all day with your double sided wands and diagrams, but just like your image of a upwardly moving coil representing dialectical movement that no one understood for a good year and a half after you first started posting it - stop being so esoteric and academically dorky, and just plainly describe what you mean. FFS. Oh yeah, and it's definite that W.F. Buckley Jr. was CIA.
I understood it. He’s saying that the horseshoe theory isn’t really a thing. The far left/right are their own things with certain commonalities you find at the extreme due to the implementation of authoritarianism. I don’t think that was hard to understand, but I agree maybe it could be a bit more in laymen’s terms.
@@GoatDust No, that's more of a superficial understanding indicating you don't really know what's behind James comments. What James and his crew are saying is that the woke left/Leftists and what's being called "the woke right" share metaphysical/ontological sources (going back to Thales, Heraclitus, the Orphic Cult, etc.) and that the main disposition of the woke left and woke right is gnostic-hermetic in the sense of "becoming."
_"stop being so esoteric and academically dorky, and just plainly describe what you mean. FFS."_ He lives in an environment that promotes and rewards autism and autistic behavior. His behavior will never change unless his environment does.
James. I "identify" with this movement. I dont speak for everyone but I will give you my honest unfiltered opinion. I consider myself to be part of the new Christian right. My journey started back in 2016, started going to church a bit in 2018, baptized in 2023. I was a liberal and not I laugh at liberals like little children on the playground 😂
So, have you bothered check what your movement want? Because, according to themself, they want to abolish the constitution, as it has failed according to them. They want a king of USA but operating as a CEO rather than as the kings of the past. And they want you to convert to catholic of orthodox, depending on who you talk too. They also want to turn the USA economic system into China, and have the Chinese cancel culture. They also ignore most of the words of Jesus. So, is this the "new christian" movement, you think it is?
@zihaofang-kl3yq The right to rule comes from God and is handed down through the Monarchy. The powers of the Monarchy protect and enshrined the rights and liberties of all citizens (whether domestic or foreign). The Monarchy gives power and legitimacy to a federal and state/provincal parliamentary democracy. While the parliament has authority to rule and govern under the Crown, the Crown may step in as an ambassador for the Will of the people and thus may intervene in rare cases of severe parliamentary corruption or dysfunction. The nation would be unapologetically Christian-centric in its culture and education.
Extreme left and extreme right say: Some groups are oppressed. This is not fair. To be fair we must oppressed all groups to create a system that is just…….just for us.
I really appreciate the time you take to explain what we mean when using the term “Woke Right”, and I think you’re on the correct path… we need to always be questioning what they’re actually advocating before buying their right-wing BS.
Saying "right wing bs" might make you come off as a leftist. And I'm pretty sure that there's leftists that dismiss James Lindsay as a right winger, not that he really is, and not that I care at all, just saying.
James, the problem you're having is seeing politics in terms of classical liberalism vs what is perceived to be any form of authoritarianism. Classical liberalism obviously has no ability to preserve itself or its culture or its people. What we're tired of is losing, and The way that this comes across is you're trying to convince us to just lose again, it's not fight for ourselves and our posterity. That's not going to work dude.
Keep reading on this. Woke right is not the correct term. Trying to force traditional perspectives into liberal or leftist thought or frameworks or perspectives or systematics if you prefer isn't going to work. You have correctly identified that there are different metaphysical assumptions, but classical liberalism and leftism dispense with metaphysics entirely. One of the issues with both of those worldviews is that they are materialist in nature and thus both will logically lead to a fatalistic view of man as well as a pseudometaphysics in the form of simulation theory. To be on the right means to be in reality.
The old "left-right" paradigm is convoluted, it puts totalitarian states like the USSR, the PRC and Cuba on the left, and totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy on the right, with some contrived distinction between "international" versus "national" socialism, between the "Revolutionary" and the "Reactionary". The more logical spectrum puts all of those big, interfering statists on the left and, towards the right, minarchist or limited government.
That's why something like the political trichotomy works better (where the respective corners of the triangle are Equality (Leftism/Communism), Tradition (Conservative/Fascism), and Freedom (Libertarian)). It's more accurate.
Libertarianism will never truly be right wing cause it has no social side. without social rules, you get social deviancy Not everything is about capital and wealth, although much is.
@@unknownknowable The woke right impulse to authorize and take over the state through a vanguard who determine those "social rules" is exactly why you guys are woke and Leftists.
Libertarianism only works on a foundation of traditionalism. It's an add-on that you can unlock when you have reached enough social trust to allow fair competition between honest players.
So funny to see rightists who enjoy Jim's criticism of the left but are surprised he criticises the right too, and they whine about it with the low T social shaming and fallacies you'd expect from the left. Totally catty and unable to criticise themselves.
It’s just another expression of the inescapable dialectic, which James also seems to not be able to solve. Because he’s not realizing that he’s attempting an internal critique, but he’s simultaneously falling in to the same dialectic in the same paradigm. All he can do is try and be pro-American without having an actual solution on a paradigm level to dialectics.
@@VisibleTrouble I’m talking about metaphysical dialectics, not engaging in dialogue. Presupposing dialectics is the fundamental starting point of the universe and informs everything else. That disagreements, differences and distinctions is the ultimate state of Being itself.
@@JordanX767 - I don't know what the ultimate state of being is. I think it's far above my paygrade; i'd never suppose that I can define it. I really don't understand what your comment means. If you want to rephrase it, I'll be happy to try again.
@@VisibleTrouble You don’t know basic philosophy? That’s okay, I didn’t either until about a couple years ago. When I said the “Ultimate state of being” I’m referring to ontology. For example, Religious people believe God is a necessary being, the ultimate being that is necessary to account for Laws of Logic, etc. I’m saying that people like Hegel and Marx believe in dialectics, dialectical materialism. They presuppose that the ultimate state of being is one of endless contradictions and flux. It’s the starting point of their worldview. "... Marxists do not debate for the purpose of discovering truth or demonstrating a position with logic and epistemic justification. As suspected, "debate" is merely dialectical conflict which is ultimately power dynamics (for them) and furtherance of praxis. Marxism's dialectic is ultimately a self-negating nihilistic faith in a mystery religion of "matter" in motion and flux. For Marxists, contradictions are not to be avoided, but embraced." - Jay Dyer It’s a paradigm, and the only way to combat it is reject that paradigm. I’m saying James is falling into that paradigm in attempting to respond to it because he has no alternative worldview that can escape dialectics. I would also argue that everyone presupposes a metaphysical being if they claim to believe in truth. You may not understand it, but that includes you and me. We believe the world is a specific way inherently and has consistent ethics we adhere to and that those moral standards are either meaningless and finite or universal.
@@JordanX767 - Graph 1: I do know philosophy. I don't see ontology as "Ultimate State of Being" - I see it as structure, limits, understanding of being - which is the same, just not named. Who named it that? I got dialectics in the metaphysics slot - internal belief & meaning, rather than phenomenal understanding, structure, limits. Marxist ontology (limits, structure, understanding) is, imo, SocioEconomic Structure. The Marxist/Hegelian Belief system is a synthesis of Metaphysics & Ontology. It's fused, dialectically (no limits, becoming). I pretty much agree here. Graph 2: Marxist Dialectic is a weapon. It flipped Hegel regarding the Absolute - Hegel has the Absolute creating the People & Society. Marx flipped this and has a constantly updated, forever becoming Absolute that is a product of the people and society, rather than the boss. I see it as a religion, and I see it promoting nihilism. It pretends that the world is a complicated, ordered domain or it seeks to bring that state of being into fruition. For Marxists, words have purpose, not meaning. They operate on synthetic gnosis (Marxist Historical Science) which is not a fit for the complex domain of the actual world; praxis is required to order the actual world - that's the Utopia. Graph 3: What is the paradigm? How do you sidestep it? I've seen James falling into the dialectic, as I mentioned above, disclosing it and working against it sets up it's own dialectic or hearkens to the Dialectic Process. There is a Dialectic of Being and a Dialectic of Becoming. They're not the same thing, at all. Synthesis is a given - got to get out there into the head and back out again - that's synthesis, but it's the Synthesis of Being, non-hermetic, natural flux, ambiguous, and impossible to fully adjudicate all contradictions. Dialectic of Becoming is instrumental. It's hermetic, forced flux & becoming; unambiguous gnosis that, with instrumental intent that is designed to negate Being itself as well as the current state of the world. The "you may not understand it" presupposes too much and is a bit insulting. You've said not much of anything, IMO, certainly not as smart as you seem to think it was. And not trying to start a fight, or be a dick, but that was a bit too much for me. I've offered some original work here; I think it's fairly compelling. You gave me an overview lecture. Perhaps you can cover those questions and speak to what I offered in response. Happy to answer questions too. I do appreciate the time & effort you put forth and am endeavoring to do the same. You don't have to respond, but I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say. Thanks for the interesting conversation.
hm interesting, but where are these woke right people, because I never met one in my entire life. Where as the woke left are all over, they seem to occupy maybe 70% of the left side of the political spectrum. Is it a US thing? Because here in Europe I never met a woke right person like you describe them.. but I met a never ending stream of woke lefties.
Reacting to the title here because I'm not a subscriber: I've given up on opining on how the term 'Woke Right is crappy, James is stuck on it and therefore we are stuck with it. Given that 'woke' is the attaining of Critical Consciousness (or whatever the Right's version of that is), have they actually moved onto a new foundational understanding of things? - no they haven't, it's pretty much just the substitution of Liberalism for Race in their mythology, apart from that there's not much that's new - there are a few characters capable of taking it further but this is going to take time. Cultural Marxists have had almost a century, this is an Internet phenomenon at present. Hope this video comes out of the sub zone soon, hopefully James has developed these ideas..
If you read the people, they actually think they have a new foundational understanding of things. Is that true? no but non of the woke people have anything new. They just just rebranding Plato's republic.
Perhaps a more accurate term than "Woke", for either side, is "Collectivist". The Collectivist-Left has been dealt a major political setback with the recent election, but now the Collectivist-Right is starting to rear their head again.
Neil Shenvi muddied the waters by promoting the term. He goes to JD Greear’s church, president of SBC who brought in CRT, and continues to cover for him. He pushed back hard against Meghan Basham’s book exposing Christian leaders who were paid to open the door to these ideologies by nit-picking it relentlessly. Most egregiously, he wrote a defense for resolution 9 in the SBC. I know I don’t like the term “woke right” after Neil was being platformed in conservative Christian circles to promote it. I don’t trust him. at all. I think instead of “woke right”, there needs to be a term relating the movement to critical theory, post-modernism or fascism. We need to convince more pastors who fought hard against the woke CRT/I to speak up against both of these collective consciousness Gnostic cults. Individual rights vs collective rights. I think Carl Trueman prepared the environment for this new fascist movement with his book “Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.” He somehow linked transgender ideology to the dangers of modernism and “expressive individualism”, instead of post-modernism and the branching phylogenetic Marxist tree.
The Bible is all about collective rights. Throughout the entire Bible. When Israel is chastised, the whole nation is chastised. When someone does wrong, their entire extended family is affected. Covenants made with a single individual apply to entire ethnic groups. If you want to make this argument about individual vs collective rights you are free to do so, but don't try to involve Christianity. Individualism is a product of secular humanism, not Christianity.
@ only God handed out collective justice, though. We are not God. We are not to administer “collective justice”. This tramples on justice for the individual. The parents are not to be put to death for the sins of their children. The 10 commandments addressed individual rights. “Do not steal” “do not murder” . . .
The radical left are excellent at linguistic play I’ll give them that, although their silver tongues have far less impact than even a few years ago. Woke is one of those few words which really backfired on them and stuck. If a right culture rightists movement really exists we can’t call them far right as the Woke have used that word to death and I don’t think Woke right is going to stick due to its association with the radical left.. we need a new word to describe them in my view… hopefully they’ll be like the Woke and come up with a word describing themselves which really backfires
With all due respect General Lindsay, sir, imma have to disagree before listening to your argument. This is based on my emotional reaction to your language symbols.
This is me asking, because I am honestly wondering. But you want Europe to be divided into city states, controlled by Jews who work as ceo's pretending to be kings, with automatic weapons and AI pointing at the citizens? Because this is what Yarvin wants. Or do you want the west to become under good old USSR like Dugin want? Or, have you actually never read any of these people?
I'll pass. Traditionalism is just Monarchy with extra steps. Yarvin preforming verbal auto-fellatio for hours on end does not make him an intellectual.
Communism is the logical conclusion of French Liberalism, but not of English Liberalism. Also if English Liberalism is to survive it should be way more restrictive on the electoral and academic systems.
Interesting in so far as there's some issues with the dissident elements, but this isn't useful, they're not in control of much of anything, least of which is gameshow host Don, who's simply not ideological at all. This all smacks of "my team, your team", in overly simple, reactionary, child like ways. At best this is all stuff that will need sorted over primaries as that's potentially the only place where this is going to come to the fore and need addressed. Other than that it's just fodder for the other side, mostly. I'd also add a good chunk of the identifiers for this movement should just be the commonly understood takes on the issues, sans the religious conspiracy crap.
Um, no. Rhino was Troskiests, who joined the Republicans, to defeat Stalin, but never gave up on their socialist background. These woke people, are the ones who called themself alt-right a few years back. They do not follow Trosky (or Stalin for that matter), but they do seem to follow Hegel.
Woke Right. Example, Grummz. Advocates for the abolition of censorship. Once he feels he is in control, he then advocates for control of censorship to be ran as 90s Republican style. They do exist.
@@lloydgush Still doesn't change the fact that despite going against the very authoritarian policies, they still try to coop those policies with the same methods the leftists use. Plus that doesn't make sense. 90s Republicans have changed their narrative from video games are violent to video games are too sexual and harm women, while turning a blind eye to Andrew Tate and the massive scam that is OF harming women and children who are often the camgirls. Did I miss something?
Odd choice of someone to single out and accuse-let’s not let it be lost on everyone, by the way, that singling out and accusing people of “woke right” is just about as easy as accusing someone of being rays-ist. The only difference is how the accuser expects their respective m0b to react. Ieftlsts can count on their m0b reacting.. you apparently expect some kind of reaction from singling someone out here, don’t you?
@simgrmehmej8075 He singled himself out on Twitter. So drop the victim narrative. He's not being called out for being a White straight male. He's being called out because he is a grifter and has shown that abolition of leftist subversive policies and a return to neutral institutions is not his goal. And I've noticed several other antiwoke channels who have performed the dialectical approach of making this specifically about White straight men when in reality the concept of Man is being attacked as a whole. Because of them, it has given a false truth that there are minorities in this country who wish to be White, but truly wish to be men.
@simgrmehmej8075 As a matter of fact, as a person who was a part of his stupid FreeStellarBlade movement, I can easily say what James is saying here fits that movement. I dropped out after realizing I played the game six times and collected everything. There was no need for me to be angry because I got my money's worth. But the others, despite having all those costumes, plus the Nier Autooma DLC, were still unsatisfied despite the fact one of the free costumes literally has camel toe on the model itself. But Grummz acted like he accomplished something. It was a performative victory, similar to how the leftists operate.
13:00 - Complete slush bucket terms demanding that you split from your cultural identity to deny them. So manipulative and duplicitous. Sounds pretty woke to me.
I am sorry, what do you mean strawman? He described Evola as a fascist, while Evola himself used the description super fascist. And Dugan is at least a mystic, who reject the biblical story of the world and replace it with the gnostic version from theosophy. In how he describe the west as people from Atlantis. And, according to theosophy, the god of the church is really the devil, so calling Dugan satanic is not a far stretch. Do tell, what was the strawman?
Why not turn it around and say: the Left is just a variation of reactionary conservativism, of rightism. Communism is just a form of fascism, of absolute authoritarianism. It is in fact so reactionary that it seemed progressive. (Because the pure future as an idea is the same as the radical past, it is simple nothingness, primitivity.) Marxism is basically "back to the roots", primitivism, back to the primordial communism. Family, for example, is not too old for the Left but too new, because the ancient commune is supposed to be more natural and therefore older, more primitive. The family is too progressive for Marxism, it has left its tribal roots, is too individualist, too liberal. Like radical Feminism is a return to a supposed primitive matriarchy or transhumanism to a primitive non-gender state. All these movements are regressive, a reaction to the really progressive liberal, enlightened humanity.
Lindsay's definition is ridiculous. Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, David French, Russell Moore, Niall Ferguson, The Lincoln project and many Evangelical pastors are the woke right.
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 People on the right who are warm to woke progressives and social justice issues like quotation by race and gender, BLM, LGBTQ, white guilt, multiculturalism, climate change and more.
@@gulanhem9495 That would not be woke right. Or the people Lindsey are talking about. That is just left wingers who joined the right wing party. They are not woke right, they are left.
That definition of the woke right has much more merit to it. Calling edegelords, sometimes teenage edgelords on the Internet that rant about how they supposedly hate-and want to opress women and ethnic/religious minorities "woke-right" is pretty dumb. Those more out there people are dumb and definitely immoral, but calling them the same, or very similar to the woke is a bit null and void. Especially when there's been "conservatives" like Romney who marched with BLM. Or some "conservatives" buying into the leftist moral framework about how racism (no, not just plain hatred for ones race) and sexism, (no, not hating women) is inherently evil or agreeing with the left of how it supposedly was such a big problem in the past.
37:01 Beliefs and behaviours are largely determined by the people around you. So why would you just judge a person for them and not also the people? Seems kinda of unscientific to me. There is a reason we judge someone who was hanging out with criminals while a crime was committed. I'm not just gonna judge the people who did the crime, I'm also judging the people who just stood by and did nothing about it.
Excellent discussion 56:00 that ought to be your introductory salespoint pitch convert the skeptical moment, I'd struggled with it until now, the concept of the woke right, but I admit James Lindsay is the master teacher of deconstructing the nonsensical bullshit being spewed and bringing truth, objectivity and an admiration for the American ideal to light
Because their vision is going back to the time they grew up in. 80s libs could not defend themselves against woke because their principles are too wishful. What makes you think they wouldn't slide the same way again? For example, USA is NOT just a set of principles. It wouldn't exist without its people. Laws are only worth as much as the people who interpret them.
James was the first person I ever heard the term "Woke Right" from. And when I hear it from other media sources 80%+ of the time they contribute James as teaching them the concept.
Someone may have said the term before, but James is suddenly talking about it all the time.
I heard it first from Konstantin Kisin.
@@MisterDogg it feels very much like a controlled op because of this situation. I would not be surprised to find out James is paid by Mossad or the Israel govt.
I heard it first from myself in 2023. I used it on stream. Not that anybody would know that considering I'm a 1 viewer Andy on Twitch. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting the terms usage goes back as early as 2022 at least. Conclusion: The terms usage is the byproduct of multiple different people coming to same organic conclusions about a group of people and their ideological framework.
He as an advocate of rational modernity and liberalism realized with horror that most of his followers are anti-modernist religious nutjobs
Your description of woke right just sounds like a lot of normal conservatives i grew up around in the 80s and 90s. The people at the Blaze are also pretty conservative mainstream. You're basically just describing conservatives. I dont see the point of calling them woke when they arent. It feels like an attack rather than a categorization.
Did you listen to the video?
Do you think the normal conservative of the 80's and 90's, is somebody who think they as white people are attacked by the left for being Christian and white?
But they are able to see past the individual, and think of the greater good for the collective?
Because they have inner knowledge nobody else have?
No?
So you are just here to type, but did not listen to what he said.
Obviously “right” isn’t problematic but, yeah, “woke” is associated with much that’s offensive to the right. I understand the temptation to use it because it’s catches the attention and parallels may be drawn between left and right, but ultimately the goal of having people consider the arguments put forth might necessitate terminology less repulsive for its previous association.
Edit: otherwise many potential consumers of important content may merely refuse, even to their detriment
no, liberalism is not communism, woke and leftist tactics r bad, anti zionism and anti semitism r bad. normie conservatives believe in individual rights and not postmodernism.
So, technically speaking guys like James and the vast majority of others are classical liberals. They've done some excellent work critiquing leftism and communism and whatnot, that's great, but the issue primarily is social liberalism as a problem.
It's not even controversial at this point to point out that the American experiment doesn't run or work without a framework of a actually Christian nation to run it on.
Classical liberalism is starting to fall apart, not technologically or economically which is what classical liberals are concerned with, but what we're starting to see is demographic decay and societal collapse from the main culprit which is sexual liberation.
In that sense, the folks that object to actual traditionalism, actual conservativism, especially around sexual ethics, are actually liberal themselves. So as much as they might be critiquing leftism as going too far, They don't actually disagree with the principles that lead to left-wing totalitarianism as they would describe it.
Actual conservatives and traditionalists which is why it's so difficult for classical liberals and leftists in general to understand, do not agree with their project from the ground up.
They're framing it as new Christian right, or something like that, but they're going to lump fascism, communism etc all into the same bucket of authoritarianism and will push back against anything that might curtail sexual liberation.
@@Silverhailo21 Why do you guys keep writing this faulty logic?
If sexual liberation was the great problem, then the nations with most of it, would collapse to communism, before the ones who don't.
Reality is the opposite.
It is the strong Christian traditional nation of middle and south America, who keep having communist leadership.
Do nobody check with reality any more, to see if their theories are correct?
You have correctly identified that there is a critique of modernity and classical liberalism occurring but to call traditionalists and conservatives who object to classical liberal principles as woke right is not helpful and it's not accurate.
"Woke Right" just reeks of the school-yard "I know you are, but what am I?" retort...
I still very much value everything James has taught me. Don't get me wrong. But I think this idea could be more flushed out. Or at least a better -term could be used.
"woke" is something relatively easy to understand, adding a qualifier of "right" is as easy to understand. the term is accurate and succinct.
@Panzerdood fake is also an easy term to understand. Fake Right would work just as well.
Hegelian right. But woke-right works.
The best term is the right arm of the radical left.
@@radagast7200fake right is broad.
Way too broad, any grifter could be called fake right, cenk the sad bison very soon will try to be one.
@lloydgush thats fair. I'm not making demands here, just suggestions. Most people on the right will instantly dismiss anyone who uses that term. They will just assume it is like when the left tried turning 'snowflake' around. Or talking about right wing 'safe spaces'.
I'm not saying they should dismiss it. Just that most will.
I don’t like the term woke-right. It’s even worse than alt-right.
is that maybe because "the truth hurts"?
@@Panzerdood No, it is because they are not right wing. At least in my view.
They want to create a new system, not based on any right wing view of the past.
But a new radical system, made by them. That is not right wing.
Alt-right is a more legit term, though.
@@Panzerdoodhave you ever heard of, “Controlled opposition?” “The truth,” would not hurt if it wasn’t Hegelian dialectical gobbledygook. Your gas lighting tactics are an unwinnable game.
@@SL2797yeah, "woke right" is just a rhetorical trick by liberals more afraid of an hypothetical conservative backlash than an actual hyper-liberal totalitarianism. whereas "alt right" is just shorthand for "an actually conservative alternative to the economic liberalism which sits in conservatism's seat".
From what I (somewhat roughly) understand, Buckley and neocon-ism actually did push out the old right after WW2 for "progressivism going the speed limit" as Malice puts it. The part he gets wrong though is that the old right in the US was the anti-progressive liberal side, not the fascist response to Marxism(which the Prog's were happily married to)
Says the left-liberal
Not exactly, just as today, back in the 50s or 60s there were factions of the RW in America. WF Buckley was CIA, CIA's golden age was born out of the end of WWII, when they started putting more energy into domestic affairs (Operation Mockingbird). Also the FBI. FBI helped whip up the KKK in the South, this was investigated and there's evidence you can look up. So you have the FBI trying to get people to (dialecticaly) get people into racism or react against that (bringing about MLK and the "Civil Rights Movement"). CIA/FBI worked to get more traditional conservatives like the John Birch Society to think there were communists in every home while the CIA and DOD worked with CIA connected law firms (Sullivan and Cromwell) to "fight communist threats" around the globe, which was basically more to destabilize and steal the resources out of third world countries.
well, they havent started pissing on me & telling me its raining. to me, it doesnt make sense to use a term that has been shaped by the actual behavior of leftists, the years of toxic cultural discourse, the power structures they used to enforce ideology. I’d imagine it would be ten years before I could take a “woke right” idea seriously, though I am open to conversation.
Oh, they have, quite literally.
We don't have it here yet, but look at the so called Conservatives in UK, Canada, and elsewhere.
Many states have devolved intimate leftists and farther leftists.
Woke Right's Nick Fuentes, pissin' all over the place to the extent that he favored Kamala, so you're lying or out of touch. James is not wrong about some of them wanting to get rid of the Constitution, so you're being pissed on there too. Most of them act like there was some harmonious period of "Protestant White America" when this is, at best, a fantasy that doesn't include all of the Catholics who built this country, and then there are (closeted) fruitcakes like Dave "The Distributist" who, as James made clear in this cast, want state/theocratic power to distribute to their vanguard. Listen to some of Dave's podcasts with Benjamin Boyce, holy cow, Dave completely admits to his ressentiment, seemingly without realizing it - how he's so much of an intellectual that he should be getting everyone worshiping him. Completely gross. I was skeptical of James' whole Woke Right accusations at first, but he's more correct than not.
By literally, you mean figuratively.
@VesnaVK yeap and no.
For me it’s about which side stays up at night thinking of new ways to control people, and which side just wants to be left alone.
“Woke right” aka the Thomas Jefferson
Blasting everyone whos not into classical liberalism as woke will be your downfall
It is also, not what he did.
But socialists branding everybody that do not follow their world view, as classical liberalism,
when all other people want is individualism, something we have had since at least the Roman times,
that is what you do.
@haraldbredsdorff2699 yes it is. You can be conservative but you need to be trying to conserve classical liberal principles. How do you have a cohesive society when everyoncais hyper individualistic. Perhaps religious people could keep a hyper individualistic society together, but no james hates that too.
@@dustinschimmel9152 Oh no, hyper individualism? You mean like the Vikings or ancient Greeks?
Europeans have been hyper individualistic, since we started writing down stories. Probably long before.
The claim that we used to be collectivist, is 1800 bullshit theory.
@haraldbredsdorff2699 lol i almost spit out my drink. feudalism totally individualistic no national or ethnic cultures anywhere either... colectivism and indivualism have their roles and neither are at the top of the government hierarchy
@@dustinschimmel9152 Did I sat feudalism? No, I said Vikings and Greeks.
So, how about you learn history?
Na, that would be expecting to much.
I think part of the problem is that politics in America tends to flatten ideas out into a left-right binary. I would argue that we've got three axis that we're working with here.
Progressivism Conservatism
Liberalism Socialism
Idealism Pragmatism
All of these are sliding scales. And to clarify I'm not talking about economic socialism, but the idea that the political good falls toward social units rather than the individual. 'Collectivism' wouldn't be a terrible term, either. The difference between the 'woke right' and the 'woke left' is largely boiling down to which identity groups are being favored.
Liars lie regardless.
There’s truth, or lies.
Everything in between is obfuscation.
Spoken like a true believer.
This is turning into a "trust me bro" discussion. James is cracked out on woke right. Set down the woke right, James.
As a lifelong conservative, I'm so glad that you're pointing this out. I felt like I was going nuts watching these people.
I think the first time that I noticed something like this, a relatively benign one, was way back when Tucker Carlson was on the Ben Shapiro Sunday Special and said that he wanted the government to prevent the development of self-driving car technology in order to protect the jobs of truck drivers and I just thought "Weird. Tucker is not a conservative." And now he's gone way off the deep-end, advocating for a weakening of American influence in the world under the absurd claim that it'll somehow help Americans. His bizarre Russia trip with so its ignorant nonsense really cemented in my mind just how much of a nut he really is.
Protectionism, anti-interventionisn and the journalistic duty to GO TO THE SOURCE and ask questions about what they think and believe are incompatible conservative values, you think? Seriously, go read your history.
Firstly, the founders themselves were anti-interventionists. That view led America to being one of two remaining superpowers after two world wars devastated Europe. Look at Britain after a century of global hegemony. A shadow of a shadow of its former self. Seems like a good idea after all to preserve our military might for true crisis rather than deplete it fighting enemies we created in the first place to fight former enemies, all at the coat of American lives, national security and crippling debt.
Secondly, most conservative governments that have EVER existed were protectionist before globalization. You can argue that its wrong, not that its not conservative. I might even agree with you about free trade with the OBVIOUS exception of warmongerIng, colonialist, authoritarian and adversarial slave and indentured servitude labor abusing states. Can you think of any we rely on for the manufacturing of critical goods like medicine and defense related technology? 🤔
As for the interview, Kennedy himself even at the height of the Cuban missle crisis had a direct line to Moscow. Why? Dialogue and diplomacy even with totalitarians is infinitely better than war, nuclear or otherwise. Maybe there's another reason the country decided to invade besides Putin going crazy suddenly longing for the reestablishment of the empire. Doesn't justify the war _at all_ but _understanding_ the enemy is the first step to negotiating with them. According to Sun Tzu, its the first step to fighting them effectively, period. Literally no excuse not to listen. Unironically you are subscribing to the idea that its too dangerous to decide what is true and false for yourself. Guess who also thinks that, the people who want you banned from social media for espousing even one conservative view. 🤦
Also friendly reminder that Tucker was legitimately threatened with and was precariously close to being a victim of a carbombing for doing that interview. Who’s more extreme, an interviewer who even after an interview recognizes Putin’s many faults including being an authoritarian dictator or a group of ultra nationalist maniacs who threaten to ”eliminate” interviewers for doing their job?
All I can say about the woke right is Julius Evola. I was a bit skeptical about the woke right until I encountered one on social media trying to convince me that Celtic people and Germanic (Teutonic) people were one and the same as "Aryans". I recognized this as New Age mysticism as coming from Blavatsky's Theosophy, hermeticism and occultism through Julius Evola. Apparently, I can't see this Aryan spiritual and metaphysical connection as I labor under the false consciousness of modernity and liberalism, haven't ridden the tiger or some other spooky-woo necessary to transcend to a higher spiritual plane.
And don't forget Heidegger. Don't you know about your "geworfen sein"?
There are 2 factions,
Those who think you must do what they say because those people think they're ultimately correct.
As well as those who just want to be left alone and live life to its fullest with nobody telling them what they must do because they don't think the other people who are telling them they must are correct.
This is trust behavioral sink, Figure out what faction you're in. I'm none authoritarian and I will never let the authoritarian tell me what to do or not do because I'm American.
The authoritarian is an out of touch godless rudderless person who is lost in self-indulgent vices that center around greed.
@@I_am_that_one_guyso every zionist ever...
@@wtice4632 depends, do they follow God, or are they the self hating jew, that support communist sympathetic rhetoric because they seem like they hate life itself.
@@wtice4632 it doesn't always work out like that, being 50/50 split, but boy, it's about 80%20% for jews fitting into one group or the other.
What the hell happened to you, man? There was a span of time where you seemed to make a lot of sense. I don't know what happened to get you lost so far off in the weeds.
Maybe you don't actually understand what he is saying. The message never changed, he has always been liberal. Now that the word liberal has been dragged through the mud by everyone perhaps is the source of confusion to you.
@@DMZ40lol woke right doesn't exist
And Liberalism is the ideology of suicide.
It was never meant to be a worldviee. Because it's not a worldview, James knows that, its a system of conflict resolution... emerging between Christians. He's lost because hes bet on a losing horse. It's all cope
James is telling the truth!
Classic liberal beliefs are nice.
But they are luxury beliefs that depend on a deeper foundation and, worse, they are ashamed of their foundation.
That's why they are easily dismantled by the woke. The woke extend the luxury beliefs to absurdity to attack the foundation.
Do not join them in attacking the foundation. To have freedom, we need to be realistic about its preconditions.
America, for example, is not just a set of principles.
Because if you believe that, you will be taken over by organized minorities who pay lip service to the "principles", but really play their own game.
@@DMZ40All liberalism sucks, even right wing liberalism
Hi James, just to chip in from a psychological perspective, certain individuals struggle to internalise self-concepts. There’s a whole theorising around this in object relations theory. But without going into the weeds, most people intuitively understand this as certain types never seem to be able to easily internalise or look inside themselves to determine their place within certain philosophical frameworks about the world. You will find almost without exception. These types are incredibly susceptible to woke left or right ideology. The basic reason being, is that without being able to internalise self-concept, one finds themselves requiring external objects, symbols, frameworks, etc to feel stable in themselves. To give a brief example, can you be an American living in a foreign country and still feel fundamentally American even if you were only American in the village? If you were struggle with this, you would start to look for external symbols (flags, food, dress code, American virtue signalling etc.), and if you really struggle, you would start to antagonise against the foreign residents of that country to further reinforce your mutual differences. I add this because as a Psychologist, I rarely hear anyone talking about the psychology of these philosophies.
This idea assumes the individual is the source of American identity, instead of the collective, isn't it so?
@ the individual, at the psychological level, can effectively internalise that concept of what it means to [insert nationality here]. If they struggle with this, which is not a criticism by the way as some people just struggle with it, they find it is disconcerting on a profound level to feel socially included. However they often strike upon the remedies of external symbology or even performative attitudes of what it means to be [insert nationality here]. In clinical psychology when these difficulties become pathological, it will see all sorts of dysphoria around identity and sensitive self. In pre-modern civilisations if you take an individual out of the tribe, they more or less die either literally or psychologically. The modern man, so to speak, in their psychological evolution is able to internalise identity more readily. This means to put a bluntly certain types even within western modernised countries still act at pre-modern psychologies. It’s very easy to look at this in a pejorative way, as if they are children, but in someways this is exactly what extremism represents, whether it be left or right extremism.
@@xanderwinterview3201 a lot of "psychology" is based on stuff from gnostic-hermeticists. How would we suppose new tribes and groupings of people ever came about if those members who were ostracized by or left a tribe "more or less die either literally or psychologically" - b.s. just like in the animal world, outcasts often reform due to over-aggressiveness and then become the aggressive out-group which may or may not overtake the previous group. With humans, even more so - think any disaffected band of high school kids for generations rebelling against what was before or the "square" in-group.
@@waltershumer4211Part of the American Identity is putting the individual first! Thats why being anything but an individualist is so un-American.
@@tylergray4443 we are pack animals to us putting the individual first is like a cancer we are evolved to work together
Have always considered myself to be a Conservative - W.F. Buckley classical liberal. Still do... This was thought provoking content as always.
And as far as I know, the only conservatives he ever "purged" were Pat Buchanan (sort of, in the 1990s) and the John Birch Society (in the 1960s).
A Critical Social Constructivist, is a Critical Social Constructivist, this comment section not withstanding.
It's disheartening how many here are just mad at people who have (or they project will) hurt them, with no willingness to think in terms of root causes.
People, if you were constantly attacked by rabid dogs, and you happened upon a cat with a frothing mouth, would you say to yourself "The dogs are trying to kill me but that's a cat." or "Rabies is rabies and it kills."
Much needed clear headed comment. I thought I was going mad, it's really clear that people didn't get AT ALL what woke is and why it's objectionable.
I agree that's the definition of woke. But I don't agree not liberal is woke. The Right isn't supposed to be liberal. The liberals have fallen and that's the logical outcome to now gay race progressive communism. The Right is to stand for tradition. If your political tradition has transformed they don't need to stand for it. I, a Rightist, stand for family and religion(Christian). Ezpz. Woke right doesn't exist. Anti Liberal(Progressive as it's the logical outcome) Right is not woke. I have no care for oppression or Critical Constructivism
Lindsay Debunked.
And who counts? Friends. Not enemies. (See Carl Schmitt )
this is so off. James are you ok?
He hasn't been right for a long time smh any halfwit knows woke is a leftist framing of power as supreme via critical constructivism always playing out in oppressed v oppresssor.
He swung and missed...again
Looks like he hit a nerve, are you OK?
@Sneakyboson Kafka kultur is the g@yesttt
Go hump more doorknobs plz
When you stare too long into the Abyss, it stares right back at you. Correct and evidence based conspiratorial thinking can lead you into seeing conspiracy everywhere you go. Fuentes and his grpup of clowns are just zoomer neo-nazis. They see what works for the woke and copy it. The rest are flavors of christian theocracy and european aristocracy larpers. The fact that he’s laundering the popularity of these niche views with the most milquetoast of milquetoast mainstream conservative pundits, Tucker Carlson, is absurdly silly.
It's crazy how much damage you've been dealing to your own self for the last years James
Well, at least you qualified it with "using woke tactics", but some of us hate neocons because they are warmongers; the woke right hates them because they cater to the woke left in service of their agenda (see Liz Cheney).
The problem is not being a warmonger, but a naive warmonger. Iraq and Afghanistan should've been made into NATO colonies.
@@HeortirtheWoodwarden Uhhunh, right, cause that would have totally worked.
@@BCPvideo if the woke right hates neocons for being too woke left...pretty sure that just makes them antiwoke....like they claim to be. Why are we reincenting the wheel when everyone has been pretty honest about themselves so far. The leftists called themselves woke, the right called themselves antiwoke.
@@strsocerplaya9 True, which is why I dislike the term woke right. Post modern/post liberal right are terms that have more merit.
@@HeortirtheWoodwarden NATO should be disbanded, and all its non-US members forced to pay the USA reparations for the next thousand years.
Here's a random comment I found on a video.
"Love life up there! It's like traveling back to the 80's where people are very friendly and crime hardly exists. No woke stuff."
Do you think people reading this comment is thinking to themselves, "Gee, I wonder which woke he means? Woke left or woke right?" This is why I will never use the term "woke right". No need to over intellectualize it. Call is something else. I'm done giving it any more time or attention.
_"This is why I will never use the term "woke right". No need to over intellectualize it. Call it something else."_
It already has a name in common use: redpilled. Why he's trying to shift the term redpilled into "woke right" is beyond me, but definitely something he is trying to do purposefully.
I don't understand where tucker fits in to any of this
He's a American as apple pie 🥧
Hear him talk about himself.
Self-declared brain dead. Self declared soc.
CIA father, who was involved in many influencer projects like Voice of America, was a diplomat, and even made a big name by exposing trans men like in the 70s. He is promoting woke right influencers, projects a "trad conservative" view point, yet may be working to herd people toward the woke right, an inversion of William F. Buckley - WFB herded people away from trad conservatism back in the day, while Tuck is trying to herd toward a simulacra of trad conservationism via woke right dialectic. Tuck is a good actor, but he's a mouthpiece and figurehead, not to be trusted, just like Elon should not be trusted. Both have taken on the veneer of "conservatism" for the current time.
Tucker "America is trash, Russia is great, also evolution is a lie an aliens are angels" Carlson?
Tucker is an issue within himself. Flirting with nasty ideology at times, being totally correct about the bureaucracy at others. He's mostly just for himself. It's the easiest read. I'll never really get over him going to Russia and acting surprised at a grocery store, because they've really got it together! Oh my gosh.
@@nacetroy Elon using the platform for his ends isn't nearly as questionable as Tucker. Elon wants to do things (good, bad, indifferent), Tucker is making a buck for a bucks sake.
So, from his early description, without yet having watched most of the video, I think I understand what he means by "woke right." He means "redpilled." And that makes sense, since "woke" is just black American vernacular literally meaning "awake" (that is, awake to the hidden truths of the world), and "redpilled" is a reference to the film The Matrix, where taking a red pill (as opposed to a blue one) literally "woke you up" from a technologically-induced dream state, letting you see the hidden truths of the world. In this way, woke and redpilled are identical terms: they both mean the individual in question has woken up to previously hidden truths about the world.
The reason "woke right" sounds so wonky is because woke as a term is already defined to a large degree by its association with a far-left conception of what the "hidden truth" is, while redpilled is already defined to a large degree by its association with a right wing conception of what the "hidden truth" is. Both terms already exist and are widely used and widely understood, and insisting on replacing the term "redpilled" with the term "woke right" is *absolutely* done on purpose as a form of magical spell (that is, a magical spell in the way that mr Lindsay often refers to them, not real wizard stuff). He has decided that performing this wordplay might somehow steer discussion in a direction that furthers his own political aims and ends.
In response, all I can say is that there is no salvation outside of Christ. Rousseau and Hobbes were both wrong, and the world cannot be made into other than what it is. God is sovereign, until the coming of the Kingdom and ever after.
I'm not sure he means anything other than criticism of Israel. I think that's basically what this talk boils down to
No, redpilled is just aware of the truth.
These people also believe they can see the truth, that individualism is evil, and that we need to embrace their version of socialism (government control of the free market).
Lindsey did not talk about it, but they all also seem to want monarchy, but not the European monarchy of the past.
But rather a monarchy where they are more like CEO's. Making their claims of wanting a monarchy a lie, since we have never had that system and they describe. I guess utopian monarchs.
@@kaihouexercise I think it goes far beyond that - more like believing that a SECRET CABAL of a certain ethnic group controls the world leaders like marionettes. Straight out of the Austrian Painter's memoirs.
Something that you're missing is that rightest/right-wing thought is described also as third positionist.
The right, or traditionalists, or true conservatives, however you want to describe them, are interested in first principles and dealing with reality as it is and thus see the dichotomy between classical liberals and leftism as two sides of the same coin.
The primary objection from the right is a critique of social liberalism, especially sexual liberalism, which both classical liberalism and leftism /wokism embrace.
One of the things that we're starting to see is demographic decay and plummeting birth rates as a consequence of sexual liberation.
This is where you start to object.
We know what the objections are.
Reality is going to assert itself regardless.
This "sounds true" to me in light of much of what I'm noticing, particularly the seeming sudden "popularity ' of all things Roman Catholic... And since it (Vatican ) has been and still is so opposed to us knowing the Scriptures, it makes this one all the more relevant and supportive of what Dr. Lindsay is saying. Joshua 1:7 says "Be strong and very courageous...do not turn to the Left or to the Right that you may be successful wherever you go".
Keep going James, F the haters. You've triggered many snowflakes in the comments, many of whom admit to not even listening to your argument, so are just emotively knee-jerking at your terminology.
twitter is also a shitstorm. I didn't think so many people would refuse to listen.
The problem with this is that we already know this stuff. This does not reflect where we are, just now. Where we are is not so terrible. Self-awareness has its own terribleness, and that's all this is. Some of us have always been the type to twist around in the theater seat to look at the source from where the projector's light is coming, rather than just looking at the screen. Maybe the New Discourses crowd isn't quite up to speed, I don't know. I've never been good at determining the level of awareness of people around me. My sense, though, as a housepainter and not some intellectual, is that we (individualists) are still winning because there simply is no competing idea. The competition for us was the notion that the new left could make people double down on group identity - racism! - and it was easy to defeat them. Seriously, an astonishing (perhaps unprecedented) amounted of lucre was spent on confusing us and alienating us from our natural positions. Didn't work. Diminishing returns. So trans people and communists aren't really worthy opponents. Recalibrate soon or be forgotten, essentially. There's nothing else holding this thing you have together except fear. And it turns out the fear is unwarranted since it disappears when we rub common sense on the issues. Really, adapt and quickly or this is already old and dead. In other words, don't hold hands with the slowest among us. They will always be slow. Even given a platform, the slow cannot defeat the quick in real time. The quick can rightly quiet the slow in real time. But it's okay. I do not expect you to do it right. Smart people always have trouble calibrating with others. It's hard to know when the slowest among us are up to speed, and for politics' sake, we don't want to leave them behind, amirite? Well, that's how it looks. It very quickly looks like something insulting. You very quickly sour and rankle would-be allies by seeming to talk down to them.
Thank you for making this so clear for us.
There is no one on the right arguing against the freedom of conveying ideas. What are you talking about? Fred Phelps? lol
Why so many people are triggered? It is not that everyone on the right is woke, just those with certain characteristics. If you share those beliefs as described and feel personally attacked by the term I think I don't have any sympathy to you.
To me, there's two things intertwined.
First are just people without enough bandwidth to process more than two warring factions at once, so they're stuck at woke vs right and everyone who says anything different from "woke bad, right good" is flagged as enemy.
Second are the people who have drank the kool aid of "liberalism has failed". They are all on board of the "asking questions" about the "post ww2 liberal consensus" and thought that we (anti wokes) would be okay with using the joos as cathartic outlet and establishing a theocratic monarchy.
We open with flamenco now? Okay!
I just really hate the term "woke right" for the far right. It's sooooo associated with the blue haired tic toc/Antifa/trans/ etc. people.
Way too much energy spent on sorting out the word "woke" in people's minds about the antisemitic/conspiratorial right.
With all due respect (because I appreciate you support James), if, for you, the essence of woke are the superficial characteristics, you missed the substance of James' critique of it. The important thing is the arbitrary "awakening" to a "higher understanding" (critical consciousness) to get us to a utopia, which he refers to as the gnostic impulse.
@@alephthetheropod6210no Rightist believes this. I am a Rightist. Not only are wielding loose empty terms, now you're fighting ghosts lol
This is the best comment I've found.
As a Rightist...There are anti-Semitic/conspiratorial folks and that less than ideal. What to do? Meh...the greater evil is the actual folks that hate and seek to destroy The West. But that is not Woke, aka" power worldview via critical constructivism that always plays out via oppressed v oppresssor"
Ahh when the student passes the teacher. Lindsay taught me so much.. 2 years ago lol
@@matthewparlato5626 are you stupid? Didn't you listen to James? The first thing woke right believes is "liberalism has failed" but we know better just cause. That's the arbitrary awakening, or how about "we know politics is just friend/foe distinction" from the schmidtians. Absolute glue chugger.
@matthewparlato5626 an hour and twenty minutes of reading their own literature says otherwise...
What's with the hoards of shallow, pointless, and fact-free criticisms of this lecture?
What James is trying to say is, we’re entering into a post-neoliberal epoch based on Right-Wing extremism extraordinaire’!
This is not some Promethean rebirth, no, no, no. It’s the return of odysseus through the Triumph of the Will and the Will to Power as the rightful ruler of the realm and King of the Jews so to say.
It’s us vs them buddy. Time to ride the Tiger!
He F’ken knows it!
Let’s go!
\o
😂
Note: At least 80 versions of LDS.
I want to defend James a little here. The phenomenon he's describing is clearly something of a dialectical response to Woke progressivism (i.e. a negation that incorporates the premise of its antagonist), and so the stylistic parallels are unsurprising. Fascism was in part a dialectical response to Communism; the new anti-democratic traditionalism is in part the like response to the Woke Left. But ultimately the ideas of the former harken back to debates about and against democracy, ideas that have been suppressed for as long as the democratic liberal consensus has held, ideas present in Plato and characteristic of a branch of mainstream political philosophy through the end of the Second World War. Reviving this tradition is hardly Woke, if Woke is a novel politics of oppression and moral inversion at the margins. Michael Millerman is an interesting one to consult on this. He's translated and written about Dugin, and teaches many of the thinkers mentioned here. The range of those thinkers is extremely broad, encompassing the likes of Plato, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Leo Strauss, Carl Schmidt, Julius Evola, Dugin, Curtis Yarvin, even Nick Land (an anti-human Deleuzian, of all things!). His term is simply right-wing anti-liberalism.
@51:36 to about 52:12 -- Here's a great example of James being as clear as mud when he tries too hard to be accurate and precise, he actually makes his statement/claim much more confusing. James for goodness' sake, PLEASE learn when academic precision and accuracy is needed to present an idea versus when simple and plain words are better to illustrate a point. That is, if you want to have the largest number of people find your content and warnings accessible. You, Clint and Palmer Worm can tweet and retweet each other all day with your double sided wands and diagrams, but just like your image of a upwardly moving coil representing dialectical movement that no one understood for a good year and a half after you first started posting it - stop being so esoteric and academically dorky, and just plainly describe what you mean. FFS. Oh yeah, and it's definite that W.F. Buckley Jr. was CIA.
I understood it. He’s saying that the horseshoe theory isn’t really a thing. The far left/right are their own things with certain commonalities you find at the extreme due to the implementation of authoritarianism. I don’t think that was hard to understand, but I agree maybe it could be a bit more in laymen’s terms.
@@GoatDust No, that's more of a superficial understanding indicating you don't really know what's behind James comments. What James and his crew are saying is that the woke left/Leftists and what's being called "the woke right" share metaphysical/ontological sources (going back to Thales, Heraclitus, the Orphic Cult, etc.) and that the main disposition of the woke left and woke right is gnostic-hermetic in the sense of "becoming."
_"stop being so esoteric and academically dorky, and just plainly describe what you mean. FFS."_
He lives in an environment that promotes and rewards autism and autistic behavior. His behavior will never change unless his environment does.
In a way the attempt to uphold trad lib values fits into both ideas of woke right and left by identity and compliance.
For 5 sec I almost had a heart attack. Tought you were going to pull a rubin and make a gigantic opening.
James. I "identify" with this movement. I dont speak for everyone but I will give you my honest unfiltered opinion. I consider myself to be part of the new Christian right.
My journey started back in 2016, started going to church a bit in 2018, baptized in 2023.
I was a liberal and not I laugh at liberals like little children on the playground 😂
Found out later my family started the Baptist church in my country.
So, have you bothered check what your movement want?
Because, according to themself, they want to abolish the constitution, as it has failed according to them.
They want a king of USA but operating as a CEO rather than as the kings of the past.
And they want you to convert to catholic of orthodox, depending on who you talk too.
They also want to turn the USA economic system into China, and have the Chinese cancel culture.
They also ignore most of the words of Jesus.
So, is this the "new christian" movement, you think it is?
Would you rather live a theocratic authoritarian dictatorship or a secular constitutional democracy?
@zihaofang-kl3yq Christian Constitutional Monarchy
@zihaofang-kl3yq The right to rule comes from God and is handed down through the Monarchy. The powers of the Monarchy protect and enshrined the rights and liberties of all citizens (whether domestic or foreign).
The Monarchy gives power and legitimacy to a federal and state/provincal parliamentary democracy.
While the parliament has authority to rule and govern under the Crown, the Crown may step in as an ambassador for the Will of the people and thus may intervene in rare cases of severe parliamentary corruption or dysfunction.
The nation would be unapologetically Christian-centric in its culture and education.
Extreme left and extreme right say: Some groups are oppressed. This is not fair. To be fair we must oppressed all groups to create a system that is just…….just for us.
I really appreciate the time you take to explain what we mean when using the term “Woke Right”, and I think you’re on the correct path… we need to always be questioning what they’re actually advocating before buying their right-wing BS.
"right-wing BS". That makes You so not woke apparently.
Saying "right wing bs" might make you come off as a leftist. And I'm pretty sure that there's leftists that dismiss James Lindsay as a right winger, not that he really is, and not that I care at all, just saying.
Interesting thoughts James, however I feel you missrepresented Chesterton's Distributism.
James, what we are witnessing is an echo and consequence of Nietzsches's "God is dead".
This is a complete meltdown by James.
James, the problem you're having is seeing politics in terms of classical liberalism vs what is perceived to be any form of authoritarianism.
Classical liberalism obviously has no ability to preserve itself or its culture or its people. What we're tired of is losing, and The way that this comes across is you're trying to convince us to just lose again, it's not fight for ourselves and our posterity.
That's not going to work dude.
James are you talking about me now? I'm flattered. 😅
How can I help someone like this?
Keep reading on this. Woke right is not the correct term. Trying to force traditional perspectives into liberal or leftist thought or frameworks or perspectives or systematics if you prefer isn't going to work.
You have correctly identified that there are different metaphysical assumptions, but classical liberalism and leftism dispense with metaphysics entirely. One of the issues with both of those worldviews is that they are materialist in nature and thus both will logically lead to a fatalistic view of man as well as a pseudometaphysics in the form of simulation theory.
To be on the right means to be in reality.
They come in all flavors 😊
The old "left-right" paradigm is convoluted, it puts totalitarian states like the USSR, the PRC and Cuba on the left, and totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy on the right, with some contrived distinction between "international" versus "national" socialism, between the "Revolutionary" and the "Reactionary".
The more logical spectrum puts all of those big, interfering statists on the left and, towards the right, minarchist or limited government.
That's why something like the political trichotomy works better (where the respective corners of the triangle are Equality (Leftism/Communism), Tradition (Conservative/Fascism), and Freedom (Libertarian)). It's more accurate.
Libertarianism will never truly be right wing cause it has no social side.
without social rules, you get social deviancy
Not everything is about capital and wealth, although much is.
@@unknownknowable The woke right impulse to authorize and take over the state through a vanguard who determine those "social rules" is exactly why you guys are woke and Leftists.
Libertarianism only works on a foundation of traditionalism.
It's an add-on that you can unlock when you have reached enough social trust to allow fair competition between honest players.
Wrong
So funny to see rightists who enjoy Jim's criticism of the left but are surprised he criticises the right too, and they whine about it with the low T social shaming and fallacies you'd expect from the left. Totally catty and unable to criticise themselves.
Not only that; even though James couldn't be clearer, they do not get it. At all. It makes me wonder if english is their first language or not.
Nice ad hominem. Sik bern
@@matthewparlato5626 lmao, like clockwork
It’s just another expression of the inescapable dialectic, which James also seems to not be able to solve. Because he’s not realizing that he’s attempting an internal critique, but he’s simultaneously falling in to the same dialectic in the same paradigm. All he can do is try and be pro-American without having an actual solution on a paradigm level to dialectics.
It is easy to escape the dialectic for yourself, very difficult to speak to others without invoking it.
@@VisibleTrouble I’m talking about metaphysical dialectics, not engaging in dialogue. Presupposing dialectics is the fundamental starting point of the universe and informs everything else. That disagreements, differences and distinctions is the ultimate state of Being itself.
@@JordanX767 - I don't know what the ultimate state of being is. I think it's far above my paygrade; i'd never suppose that I can define it. I really don't understand what your comment means.
If you want to rephrase it, I'll be happy to try again.
@@VisibleTrouble You don’t know basic philosophy? That’s okay, I didn’t either until about a couple years ago. When I said the “Ultimate state of being” I’m referring to ontology. For example, Religious people believe God is a necessary being, the ultimate being that is necessary to account for Laws of Logic, etc. I’m saying that people like Hegel and Marx believe in dialectics, dialectical materialism. They presuppose that the ultimate state of being is one of endless contradictions and flux. It’s the starting point of their worldview.
"... Marxists do not debate for the purpose of discovering truth or demonstrating a position with logic and epistemic justification. As suspected, "debate" is merely dialectical conflict which is ultimately power dynamics (for them) and furtherance of praxis. Marxism's dialectic is ultimately a self-negating nihilistic faith in a mystery religion of "matter" in motion and flux. For Marxists, contradictions are not to be avoided, but embraced." - Jay Dyer
It’s a paradigm, and the only way to combat it is reject that paradigm. I’m saying James is falling into that paradigm in attempting to respond to it because he has no alternative worldview that can escape dialectics.
I would also argue that everyone presupposes a metaphysical being if they claim to believe in truth. You may not understand it, but that includes you and me. We believe the world is a specific way inherently and has consistent ethics we adhere to and that those moral standards are either meaningless and finite or universal.
@@JordanX767 - Graph 1: I do know philosophy. I don't see ontology as "Ultimate State of Being" - I see it as structure, limits, understanding of being - which is the same, just not named. Who named it that?
I got dialectics in the metaphysics slot - internal belief & meaning, rather than phenomenal understanding, structure, limits.
Marxist ontology (limits, structure, understanding) is, imo, SocioEconomic Structure.
The Marxist/Hegelian Belief system is a synthesis of Metaphysics & Ontology. It's fused, dialectically (no limits, becoming).
I pretty much agree here.
Graph 2:
Marxist Dialectic is a weapon. It flipped Hegel regarding the Absolute - Hegel has the Absolute creating the People & Society. Marx flipped this and has a constantly updated, forever becoming Absolute that is a product of the people and society, rather than the boss.
I see it as a religion, and I see it promoting nihilism. It pretends that the world is a complicated, ordered domain or it seeks to bring that state of being into fruition.
For Marxists, words have purpose, not meaning. They operate on synthetic gnosis (Marxist Historical Science) which is not a fit for the complex domain of the actual world; praxis is required to order the actual world - that's the Utopia.
Graph 3: What is the paradigm? How do you sidestep it?
I've seen James falling into the dialectic, as I mentioned above, disclosing it and working against it sets up it's own dialectic or hearkens to the Dialectic Process.
There is a Dialectic of Being and a Dialectic of Becoming. They're not the same thing, at all. Synthesis is a given - got to get out there into the head and back out again - that's synthesis, but it's the Synthesis of Being, non-hermetic, natural flux, ambiguous, and impossible to fully adjudicate all contradictions.
Dialectic of Becoming is instrumental. It's hermetic, forced flux & becoming; unambiguous gnosis that, with instrumental intent that is designed to negate Being itself as well as the current state of the world.
The "you may not understand it" presupposes too much and is a bit insulting. You've said not much of anything, IMO, certainly not as smart as you seem to think it was. And not trying to start a fight, or be a dick, but that was a bit too much for me. I've offered some original work here; I think it's fairly compelling.
You gave me an overview lecture. Perhaps you can cover those questions and speak to what I offered in response. Happy to answer questions too.
I do appreciate the time & effort you put forth and am endeavoring to do the same. You don't have to respond, but I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say.
Thanks for the interesting conversation.
hm interesting, but where are these woke right people, because I never met one in my entire life. Where as the woke left are all over, they seem to occupy maybe 70% of the left side of the political spectrum. Is it a US thing? Because here in Europe I never met a woke right person like you describe them.. but I met a never ending stream of woke lefties.
Reacting to the title here because I'm not a subscriber:
I've given up on opining on how the term 'Woke Right is crappy, James is stuck on it and therefore we are stuck with it. Given that 'woke' is the attaining of Critical Consciousness (or whatever the Right's version of that is), have they actually moved onto a new foundational understanding of things? - no they haven't, it's pretty much just the substitution of Liberalism for Race in their mythology, apart from that there's not much that's new - there are a few characters capable of taking it further but this is going to take time. Cultural Marxists have had almost a century, this is an Internet phenomenon at present.
Hope this video comes out of the sub zone soon, hopefully James has developed these ideas..
If you read the people, they actually think they have a new foundational understanding of things.
Is that true? no but non of the woke people have anything new.
They just just rebranding Plato's republic.
Perhaps a more accurate term than "Woke", for either side, is "Collectivist". The Collectivist-Left has been dealt a major political setback with the recent election, but now the Collectivist-Right is starting to rear their head again.
Neil Shenvi muddied the waters by promoting the term. He goes to JD Greear’s church, president of SBC who brought in CRT, and continues to cover for him. He pushed back hard against Meghan Basham’s book exposing Christian leaders who were paid to open the door to these ideologies by nit-picking it relentlessly. Most egregiously, he wrote a defense for resolution 9 in the SBC. I know I don’t like the term “woke right” after Neil was being platformed in conservative Christian circles to promote it. I don’t trust him. at all.
I think instead of “woke right”, there needs to be a term relating the movement to critical theory, post-modernism or fascism.
We need to convince more pastors who fought hard against the woke CRT/I to speak up against both of these collective consciousness Gnostic cults.
Individual rights vs collective rights.
I think Carl Trueman prepared the environment for this new fascist movement with his book “Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.” He somehow linked transgender ideology to the dangers of modernism and “expressive individualism”, instead of post-modernism and the branching phylogenetic Marxist tree.
The Bible is all about collective rights. Throughout the entire Bible. When Israel is chastised, the whole nation is chastised. When someone does wrong, their entire extended family is affected. Covenants made with a single individual apply to entire ethnic groups.
If you want to make this argument about individual vs collective rights you are free to do so, but don't try to involve Christianity. Individualism is a product of secular humanism, not Christianity.
@ only God handed out collective justice, though. We are not God. We are not to administer “collective justice”. This tramples on justice for the individual. The parents are not to be put to death for the sins of their children. The 10 commandments addressed individual rights. “Do not steal” “do not murder” . . .
@@patrickbarnes9874 Funny. All your examples are old testament.
So, why do you pretend you are Christian, when all your examples are jewish?
The radical left are excellent at linguistic play I’ll give them that, although their silver tongues have far less impact than even a few years ago. Woke is one of those few words which really backfired on them and stuck.
If a right culture rightists movement really exists we can’t call them far right as the Woke have used that word to death and I don’t think Woke right is going to stick due to its association with the radical left.. we need a new word to describe them in my view… hopefully they’ll be like the Woke and come up with a word describing themselves which really backfires
17:35 Dont forget Voegelin
With all due respect General Lindsay, sir, imma have to disagree before listening to your argument. This is based on my emotional reaction to your language symbols.
LOL
Liberalism is dead, yes! Traditionalism. Multipolarity. Turchin. Yarvin. Dugin.
This is me asking, because I am honestly wondering.
But you want Europe to be divided into city states, controlled by Jews who work as ceo's pretending to be kings,
with automatic weapons and AI pointing at the citizens?
Because this is what Yarvin wants.
Or do you want the west to become under good old USSR like Dugin want?
Or, have you actually never read any of these people?
And Steve Turley!
I'll pass. Traditionalism is just Monarchy with extra steps.
Yarvin preforming verbal auto-fellatio for hours on end does not make him an intellectual.
@PeterJordansonn And Vogelin
Collectivism doesn’t work. Individual freedom always triumphs over collectivist tyranny! (See: 1919, 1945, 1991)
Communism is the logical conclusion of French Liberalism, but not of English Liberalism. Also if English Liberalism is to survive it should be way more restrictive on the electoral and academic systems.
I don’t like the term. It doesn’t fit. I think the people you talk about need a term and behave how you describe, but the term doesn’t work.
Collectivist-Right?
@ That’s a good one.
Interesting in so far as there's some issues with the dissident elements, but this isn't useful, they're not in control of much of anything, least of which is gameshow host Don, who's simply not ideological at all. This all smacks of "my team, your team", in overly simple, reactionary, child like ways. At best this is all stuff that will need sorted over primaries as that's potentially the only place where this is going to come to the fore and need addressed. Other than that it's just fodder for the other side, mostly. I'd also add a good chunk of the identifiers for this movement should just be the commonly understood takes on the issues, sans the religious conspiracy crap.
Woke right is just rino or republican in name only.
Um, no.
Rhino was Troskiests, who joined the Republicans, to defeat Stalin, but never gave up on their socialist background.
These woke people, are the ones who called themself alt-right a few years back.
They do not follow Trosky (or Stalin for that matter), but they do seem to follow Hegel.
In a sense, depending on the definition of Republican. But RINOs aren’t all the same.
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 these are all just people that sound like the authoritarian forceful side of behavioral sink.
@@GoatDust this thus is the issue with having labels.
@@I_am_that_one_guy Not sure how you come to that conclusion, from them all following Hegal
All Christians count, even the Atheists 😂
Woke Right. Example, Grummz. Advocates for the abolition of censorship. Once he feels he is in control, he then advocates for control of censorship to be ran as 90s Republican style. They do exist.
Nah, doubt it. The 90's rinos went literally after him.
@@lloydgush Still doesn't change the fact that despite going against the very authoritarian policies, they still try to coop those policies with the same methods the leftists use.
Plus that doesn't make sense. 90s Republicans have changed their narrative from video games are violent to video games are too sexual and harm women, while turning a blind eye to Andrew Tate and the massive scam that is OF harming women and children who are often the camgirls. Did I miss something?
Odd choice of someone to single out and accuse-let’s not let it be lost on everyone, by the way, that singling out and accusing people of “woke right” is just about as easy as accusing someone of being rays-ist. The only difference is how the accuser expects their respective m0b to react. Ieftlsts can count on their m0b reacting.. you apparently expect some kind of reaction from singling someone out here, don’t you?
@simgrmehmej8075 He singled himself out on Twitter. So drop the victim narrative. He's not being called out for being a White straight male. He's being called out because he is a grifter and has shown that abolition of leftist subversive policies and a return to neutral institutions is not his goal.
And I've noticed several other antiwoke channels who have performed the dialectical approach of making this specifically about White straight men when in reality the concept of Man is being attacked as a whole.
Because of them, it has given a false truth that there are minorities in this country who wish to be White, but truly wish to be men.
@simgrmehmej8075 As a matter of fact, as a person who was a part of his stupid FreeStellarBlade movement, I can easily say what James is saying here fits that movement. I dropped out after realizing I played the game six times and collected everything. There was no need for me to be angry because I got my money's worth.
But the others, despite having all those costumes, plus the Nier Autooma DLC, were still unsatisfied despite the fact one of the free costumes literally has camel toe on the model itself. But Grummz acted like he accomplished something.
It was a performative victory, similar to how the leftists operate.
13:00 - Complete slush bucket terms demanding that you split from your cultural identity to deny them. So manipulative and duplicitous. Sounds pretty woke to me.
That was the lamest strawmanning of Duggan and Evola I have ever heard.
I am sorry, what do you mean strawman?
He described Evola as a fascist, while Evola himself used the description super fascist.
And Dugan is at least a mystic, who reject the biblical story of the world and replace it with the gnostic version from theosophy. In how he describe the west as people from Atlantis.
And, according to theosophy, the god of the church is really the devil, so calling Dugan satanic is not a far stretch.
Do tell, what was the strawman?
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 You need to read more.
@@shoa4566you need to present more arguement.
Why not turn it around and say: the Left is just a variation of reactionary conservativism, of rightism. Communism is just a form of fascism, of absolute authoritarianism. It is in fact so reactionary that it seemed progressive. (Because the pure future as an idea is the same as the radical past, it is simple nothingness, primitivity.) Marxism is basically "back to the roots", primitivism, back to the primordial communism. Family, for example, is not too old for the Left but too new, because the ancient commune is supposed to be more natural and therefore older, more primitive. The family is too progressive for Marxism, it has left its tribal roots, is too individualist, too liberal. Like radical Feminism is a return to a supposed primitive matriarchy or transhumanism to a primitive non-gender state. All these movements are regressive, a reaction to the really progressive liberal, enlightened humanity.
🥴
Listen to what James says about the woke right and how much of it applies to James himself.. this is sich a joke.
Lindsay's definition is ridiculous. Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, David French, Russell Moore, Niall Ferguson, The Lincoln project and many Evangelical pastors are the woke right.
What on earth are you on about? Are you just writing name of people you dislike and call them woke?
@@haraldbredsdorff2699
People on the right who are warm to woke progressives and social justice issues like quotation by race and gender, BLM, LGBTQ, white guilt, multiculturalism, climate change and more.
@@gulanhem9495 That would not be woke right. Or the people Lindsey are talking about.
That is just left wingers who joined the right wing party. They are not woke right, they are left.
^^ trying to confuse people by playing dumb.
That definition of the woke right has much more merit to it. Calling edegelords, sometimes teenage edgelords on the Internet that rant about how they supposedly hate-and want to opress women and ethnic/religious minorities "woke-right" is pretty dumb. Those more out there people are dumb and definitely immoral, but calling them the same, or very similar to the woke is a bit null and void. Especially when there's been "conservatives" like Romney who marched with BLM. Or some "conservatives" buying into the leftist moral framework about how racism (no, not just plain hatred for ones race) and sexism, (no, not hating women) is inherently evil or agreeing with the left of how it supposedly was such a big problem in the past.
37:01 Beliefs and behaviours are largely determined by the people around you. So why would you just judge a person for them and not also the people? Seems kinda of unscientific to me.
There is a reason we judge someone who was hanging out with criminals while a crime was committed. I'm not just gonna judge the people who did the crime, I'm also judging the people who just stood by and did nothing about it.
They're spiritually dead
Bro trying to make Fetch happen
I'm am excited for this
You are a wonderful person. ❤
So basically like Nala or Ben Shapiro?
Excellent discussion
56:00 that ought to be your introductory salespoint pitch convert the skeptical moment, I'd struggled with it until now, the concept of the woke right, but I admit James Lindsay is the master teacher of deconstructing the nonsensical bullshit being spewed and bringing truth, objectivity and an admiration for the American ideal to light
Lol this is cringe.
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
-Lenin
James, ignore these haters. I really am on board for this content. I want my views challenged at every turn.
Yes. Without listening yet.
Kisin and lindsay are the woke right
@@wtice4632 because they disagree with you?
Because their vision is going back to the time they grew up in.
80s libs could not defend themselves against woke because their principles are too wishful.
What makes you think they wouldn't slide the same way again?
For example, USA is NOT just a set of principles. It wouldn't exist without its people. Laws are only worth as much as the people who interpret them.
@@wtice4632 You're not even close to getting it.
@@alephthetheropod6210 the woke right is a smear invented by liberals like kk and lindsay to keep the right in line
Algo
"Volk Right"
If only
A much better description than the term "woke right".
Reactionary.
Everything is a reaction to something else
someone can be reactionary without being woke however the reaction implies a dialectical dynamic trapping both.
Reactionary with moral absolutism.
I am a proud reactionary