Talk:James A. Lindsay/Archive 3

Maintenance tags themselves need consensus, and it is apparent that the 'Better source needed' does not have it. If anything, it seems that the opinion of most who have commented on these sources is that RSOPINION does not apply - and the fact that a couple of editors disagree is no reason to keep a tag up indefinately. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Possibly true, but I have an altogether different take and interpretation based on my own personal experience. Maintenance tags need discussion. If the use of a maintenance tag has already been discussed and consensus has been found to remove it, then it should not be added back. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Are we really going to keep arguing about this after this latest conspiracy theory JRE upload? Lindsay just went full conspiracy theorist (never go full conspiracy theorist), waxing poetic with Joe about Chinese trans plots to subvert America. Can we please stop pretending Lindsay isn't the number one conspiracy theorist on the right? I don't want to link to it here, but the relevant clip was just posted to r/DecodingTheGurus. Quote from the podcast: "The Chinese are like funding the trans stuff. They're like...pushing it. I just wrote a book...called The Queering of the American Child that talks about how schools have been turned into indoctrination centers. It all goes back, to the not just Marxist, but Maoist strategy to make the world conform, that politics of compliance, to make the world conform to this new ideological vision that they have." Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

We can't do Original Research even when it seems frustratingly obvious what is going on. It is frustrating that News outlets generally don't bother to cover these things events (Just try being British and watching our media completely ignore dangerous extremism when it comes from "respectable" upper middle class authors while performatively wringing their hands over the alleged "extremism" of peaceful protesters!) but we still need Reliable Sources before we can cover anything. We certainly can't use a phrase like "the number one conspiracy theorist", besides that might be seen as a badge of honour and a challenge to other conspiracy theorists to up their game. The only thing I can suggest is to keep an eye out for coverage in Reliable Sources that can be used and then follow those. At least the article is protected now so valid coverage can't be so easily removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this is my first day. Lindsay's quote points to his book, so the sources should mention it. Viriditas (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

In the initial paragraph there is the objectively incorrect statement "He has promoted right-wing conspiracy theories such as Cultural Marxism and LGBT grooming conspiracy theories." THIS is not only incorrect, but a distortion and weaponized use of the term "conspiracy theory". Lindsay has been ACCUSED of perpetuating "conspiracy theories". Whether or not he actually perpetuates "conspiracy theory" is a matter of opinion and based on actual evidence, an inversion of truth. There is no actual evidence these are simply "theories" rather than objective observations of REALITY. This is NOT the equivalent of "flat earth". Labeling "cultural marxism" as a "conspiracy theory" is an obfuscation and subversion of reality and fact. Cultural marxism exists, it is a real phenomenon and it is perpetuated by the "progressive" left. That is a fact. The details of which can be debated. The same goes for "LGBT grooming". This again is an observed phenomenon in the real world. Labeling it a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt to delegitimize a very RATIONAL perspective and position. The goal of this distortion of language is to delegitimize Lindsay and his work. This should at MINIMUM be changed to "He has BEEN ACCUSED OF PROMOTING right-wing conspiracy theories such as Cultural Marxism and LGBT grooming conspiracy theories." BrakeYawSelf (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

BrakeYawSelf, I largely concur with your thoughts here. This article is among the most blatantly biased and defamatory on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Which person, who is neither a fringe figure nor a conspiracy theorist, discusses cultural Marxism in a serious or academic manner? I’ll wait for an answer. I follow Lindsay’s Twitter feed. He’s one of the leading right wing conspiracy theorists. In fact, if someone can show me a popular tweet he’s made that isn’t a conspiracy theory, I would be very surprised. Also, I will repeat yet again that the idea he’s an atheist is one of the most unusual claims I’ve ever seen. He has literally spent the last few years on Twitter promoting Christianity, and the vast majority of his Twitter followers are fundamentalists. Something is very weird here. I believe this might have something to do with the argument advanced by conservatives like Leo Strauss, Roger Scruton, and others, perhaps even going back to Plato, who believe that society must force religion on the common people and oppose the tendency of liberalism to secularize in order to maintain social harmony. Even that crazy idea is a conspiracy theory. I’m having trouble finding anything Lindsay says or does that isn’t based in a kind of conspiracy. Viriditas (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, ironically you are offering up an conspiracy theory about Lindsay right here, that his atheism is some sort of nefarious ploy or trojan horse that he's been plotting for years (including many years before he was well-known or associated with any conservatives) only to smuggle in Christianity at a later date. He's an atheist because he don't believe in any gods. He's written entire books about this. See the "Works" section of this article. It's pretty simple. Just like he's an American because he is a citizen of the U.S. This isn't complicated. Also, citation needed on the claim that "vast majority of his Twitter followers are fundamentalists". How could you know that? As for which person, who is neither a fringe figure nor a conspiracy theorist, discusses cultural Marxism in a serious or academic manner, here are couple examples: Dennis Dworkin (https://www.unr.edu/global-studies/people/dennis-dworkin) and Fredric Jameson here? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The atheism thing is something we have discussed before, so I just brought it up again to note that I’m not done with it. As I said, a so called "atheist" keeps promoting Christianity on Twitter. That doesn’t make any sense. As for how I know his followers are fundies, Twitter allows you to look at the profiles of his followers. I will take another look in about four hours from now. As for Dworkin and Jameson, I don’t believe their use of "cultural Marxism" has anything to do with what we are talking about. Just to make sure, I am downloading their books right now to check. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I know Twitter allows you to look at the profiles of followers of an account. But merely "following" an account isn't necessarily an endorsement of an account or that account's views. Lindsay also has nearly 500,000 followers. Did you do some sort of analysis on an unbiased sample of that rather large population? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t, but that’s a great idea and I would love to know how to run a query on their database. I thought Musk ended all of that by locking it down when he took over. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea about how run queries like that on Twitter, but even if you could, how would you accurately categorize accounts based on what you can scrape from bios and posts while culling out all the bot accounts. Sounds like a very tough project. At any rate, I think it's safe to say you haven't done any sort of meaningful analysis to support the conclusion you offered above. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have and I did, just by eyeing the profiles. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lindsay is apparently funded by Christian Nationalists.. Again, weird for an "atheist". It doesn’t add up. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

When I eye his followers at https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/followers I see lots of accounts that are aren't even moderately religious much less fundamentalist including David Silverman (activist), Yasmine Mohammed, Konstantin Kisin, and Jay Bhattacharya. I mean that's anecdotal. But so is your eyeing. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Per funded by Christian Nationalists...remember when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were allies? Do you remember why? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Or alternatively, remember when the U.S. gave support to Saddam Hussein? And the Mujahideen of Afghanistan (essentially proto-Taliban/al Qaeda)? Remember why? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This article explains who the group is that Lindsay is working with. More needs to be said about this. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It vaguely asserts that Lindsay contends with certain conservatives but does not say who they are, either by name or category. To the later point, Lindsay has essentially critiqued Christian Nationalists (https://newdiscourses.com/2025/07/a-beginners-guide-to-the-woke-right/). Yet he is supposedly supported by Chrisitian Nationalists. It appears that there is a widespread tendency to take such labels at the superficial level, but there is a difference between someone who is sincerely Christian and who sincerely cherishes the heritage of the U.S. including the Constitution versus someone for whom Christian Nationalist might as well be all one word because it is just their nominal identity, even though they have no respect for the moral teachings of the religion and no respect for the Constitution, which they would just as soon replace with a dictatorship. The latter type of New Right is who Lindsay takes pains to criticize. 2601:5CF:4081:1260:F948:47AC:7950:98F3 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Having studied this subject in some depth, I strongly disagree with your argument. Not only are you pushing the usual fallacies (no true Scotsman, etc.) about who is a true Christian, you're ignoring the long and documented scholarship on Christian nationalism. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

If you do that, please go publish it in a reliable source before talking about it here. WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM, you know? This applies to all the rest of the thread too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, yes Viriditas's personal impressions about who follows Lindsay on Twitter and what that means are in WP:NOTFORUM territory. But BrakeYawSelf raised concerns with the content of this article, which is appropriate for discussion here. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

'I think the conspiracy theories are true' is not really a concern with the content of this article. MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie, well, that's a distortion of the concerns raised here, which are that we've elevated the opinions of Lindsay's biased political opponents to the level of facts stated in wiki-voice. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

To quote: The same goes for "LGBT grooming". This again is an observed phenomenon in the real world. Labeling it a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt to delegitimize a very RATIONAL perspective and position.. Please don't encourage this sort of thing. MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. It's a shame how biased Wikipedia articles but right-wing figures are becoming.

Cultural Marxism is not a "conspiracy theory", it is an actual strategy proposed by Antonio Gramci and adopted by the International Comunist historically. It is staggering how this is ignored and how the sources to call it a conspiracy theory are all leftist media articles. 189.6.34.248 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no single example of “cultural Marxism” that you can point to, just as you can’t point to “Antifa” operating in the shadows, a “gay cabal” working to turn people gay, atheists oppressing Christians, doctors promoting covid to round up conservatives, or reptoids working with Jews to takeover the planet. Your entire worldview is John Birch Society-driven, circa 1958, straight out of Dr. Strangelove. Somewhere along the way you forgot what it meant to be human and created a flat earth in your mind, where only straight white Republican Christians run the flatland and everyone else works as slaves on the Trump plantation or is threatened with being thrown off the edge of the world. Your philosophy would be funny if you didn’t actually believe it. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

189.6.34.248, I concur. The treatment of "cultural Marxism" simply as a redirect to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and not as a real phenomenon of neo-Marxist political activism, is one of the most gross distortions that persist on Wikipedia, and it contributes to the problems with this article. Although, you are attacking this problem on Wikipedia in the wrong way. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Not just rational but "very RATIONAL"? Sounds like something a very stable genius would say. If it were a rational argument and not an emotional one it would be based on logic, not feelings. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)