DiscoverNew Discourses
New Discourses
Claim Ownership

New Discourses

Author: New Discourses

Subscribed: 796Played: 16,689
Share

Description

Pursuing the light of objective truth in subjective darkness.
40 Episodes
Reverse
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 34 Society depends upon the people in it being able to rely upon expectations about how it and the other people in it will function. This requires a sense of what is and isn't reasonable. Some of this is, as the Woke contend, socially constructed, perhaps even partially arbitrary and up for debate. Much of it isn't. Wokeness doesn't agree, however. By having adopted a strict adherence to Critical Theory and the social constructivism of postmodernism, Wokeness rejects the entire idea that there is any such thing as a reasonable person or standard. In place of a sense of what is and isn't reasonable, the Woke ideology sees only one thing, its sole obsession: power. This is a catastrophe for society and the laws upon which a functioning society depends. Join James Lindsay in this episode of the New Discourses podcast to learn about the long history of unreason in Wokeness and even its all-out rejection of the notion that anyone or any position at all can be reasonable in any meaningful sense. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: https://newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 33 Following in the footsteps of The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, he University of Texas, Austin, has initiated a campus-wide plan to force diversity, equity, and inclusivity into the administrative operation of the university, particularly in hiring, promotions, recognition, and awards. This is a bold step by the university administration in making the university functionally religious and, more importantly, unmaking the university as an educational institution. Of course, this isn't to pick on UT Austin. Most universities are doing the same thing to themselves now, much to our detriment as a society. So are most companies, schools, churches, and everything else. The ideas are shallow and functionally identical, so even if UT Austin isn't interesting to you, these kinds of plans are likely to be infecting something closer to your life. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay takes this jargon-heavy plan (http://bit.ly/UTAustinDEI) and reads through it, breaking it down so that people outside of the inner circle of UT Austin's diversicracy can make sense of what these plans entail. The short answer is an ideological reworking of the institution to make it into something it never should have been: a seminary to a new totalizing ideology that is taking over our society and poisoning our minds. Join Dr. Lindsay as he reads through this document and breaks down exactly why the requirements it entails amount to creating de facto discrimination, quotas in employment and advancement, and wholesale corruption that is to be enabled by a raft of expensive new equity commissars who add nothing of value to the institution. If UT Austin is something close to your life, this might be especially alarming and informative to you, as it is setting itself on the same path that destroyed The Evergreen State College in 2017. If not, you'll still find much value in the discussion of this document because something approaching a facsimile is likely to be in place or in the works wherever you learn, work, or worship. James's goal in this episode of the podcast is to inform you about what these documents really entail wherever they arise. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: https://newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 32 Wokeness exists in a crisis of authenticity. This is no surprise since both of its main philosophical predecessors, neo-Marxist Critical Theory and postmodernism, are both their own forms of reaction to a perceived crisis of authenticity in the world. For the postmodernists, the real is remote, inaccessible, and simulated. Meaning is infinitely deferred. Authenticity, which is to say being who you are when you're not attempting to be anyone, is passe and embarrassing, even as we crave it so much that the world itself needs to be done away with and replaced with raw experience. In Critical Theory, nothing is authentic because a consumerist society has already commodified, marketed, and sold it to us as a good life that doesn't exist and controls us. Wokeness inherits all of this cynical legacy and generates inauthentic identities doing inauthentic scholarship to achieve inauthentic political goals. In this sense, authenticity is a form of kryptonite against Wokeness because Wokeness can't abide or manipulate the authentic. Its deconstruction has no power over the truly and comfortably real. But what is authenticity and how can you be more authentic? In this episode of the New Discourses podcast, join James Lindsay for a detailed discussion of the crisis of authenticity at the heart of the Woke project and its predecessors as well as a discussion of what it means to approach authenticity for yourself. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: https://newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
Communism Doesn't Know How

Communism Doesn't Know How

2021-04-2301:24:543

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 31 At the heart of communist and communistic thought is faith in a kind of historical trajectory toward utopia that's driven by social alchemy. There are many reasons why this fails in practice, but the simplest thing to say is that communism fails because communism doesn't know how communism will succeed. The fundamental belief driving communists is that once enough people become true believers that the communist utopia lies on the other side of certain social changes, a perfect society will manifest. How? Because they will. The details aren't meant to be known or told; they're meant to be figured out. This is in exact alignment with the historicism in Marx's dialectical materialism: once we get capitalism out of the way, we'll enter a worker-managed system (socialism) that can start figuring out how to make the state redundant to its purposes, at which point a stateless improvement of the same will emerge and the communist utopia (and end of History) will emerge. On this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay gives an example of how a contemporary police abolitionist activist has made almost exactly this same argument perfectly explicitly and walks you through how you can spot it for what it is. Join Lindsay for one of his more important discussions. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: https://newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 30 What is the end-game of the Woke ideology? It's a hard question to answer, mostly because it's hard to tell where it will stop, but a proximate answer to that question is easy and needs to be understood. The immediate goal of the Woke agenda is to turn everything into a Woke organ. That's it. This is more alarming than it may sound, however. You may be Catholic or Protestant, a scientist or a doctor, a rockclimber or a musician, but if the Woke agenda proceeds far enough, you will in time find yourself being a Woke person professing Wokeness in Catholic or Protestant language, or through science and medicine, or in rockclimbing and music. That is, the Woke agenda is to flatten all the variety out of life and make every aspect of life do one thing and one thing only: serve Theory. This means that Wokeness is a totalizing ideology and will lead to totalitarian outcomes unless we reject it and put a stop to its relentless takeover of our society and every aspect of our lives. Join James Lindsay on this latest episode of the New Discourses Podcast to dive more deeply into this alarming truth about Wokeness. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: https://newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 29 If we are fortunate enough to leave Wokeness and Critical Theory behind us, we need a map. We need to know what a post-Woke world would look like and, more importantly, which values will get us there. In a recent essay (https://newdiscourses.com/2021/03/values-post-woke-world/), James Lindsay presented four values he thinks are core to the establishment of a post-Woke world, which can repel Wokeness anywhere they are adopted. These are truth, beauty, liberty (thus responsibility), and merit. Join James in this episode of the New Discourses podcast, wherein he discusses why these are the right values as well as why we should hold the narrow way against other competitors in the space that will not produce results as good, including both the Very Smart "respectability" (blue pill) approach and the relatively hopeless "post-liberal" or "neoreactionary" approach (black pill, mostly). Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: https://newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 28 The agriculturalist Trofim Lysenko should be a household name throughout the world in roughly the same way that Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao Zedong are or should be. That is, Lysenko shouldn't be known for his successes, which are none of his legacy, but for his catastrophic failure. He was the agriculturalist of the Soviet Union, first under Stalin, and his ideological biology (Lysenkoism) led directly to the deaths of tens of millions, first in the Soviet Union and then in Maoist China. Lysenkoism implied famine and mass death, and disputing Lysenkoism, despite its catastrophe, meant a trip to the gulag or a bullet in your head. We should be aware of Lysenko because it is crucially important to understand how the ideological perversion of science, especially the biological sciences, can lead to catastrophes. In fact, if we were more aware of Trofim Lysenko and his legacy of death, we might be more cognizant of the threat we're currently stumbling our way into under the banners of "antiracist medicine" and "health equity." These are the dawn of Medical Lysenkoism, which is a tragedy in the making, potentially on a grand scale, and this is already well underway. The threat of Medical Lysenkoism is rapidly growing around us already, and we have to take it seriously and demand it be put to a halt. In this case, Critical Race Theory and its perverse doctrines of "antiracism" and "equity" are being leveraged to transform healthcare away from a science- and patient-oriented endeavor to an activist opportunity to "level the playing field." Further, under the banner of "health equity" and Covid-19, our society's concerning lurch toward medical dictatorship (governed by this new "equitable" Medical Lysenkoism) is becoming the standard throughout our medical schools, hospitals, and research universities. This is a preventable catastrophe in the making. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, join James Lindsay as he reads through a recent essay (https://bostonreview.net/science-nature-race/bram-wispelwey-michelle-morse-antiracist-agenda-medicine) published in Boston Review outlining an advance in the "health equity" agenda wherein even racially preferential care is described as already being implemented and reparations are demanded at a major Boston-area teaching hospital affiliated with Harvard University. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 27 There is a fair amount of criticism of my recent book Cynical Theories (https://amzn.to/3sEJF5X) (written with Helen Pluckrose) out there now, mostly from philosophers who aren't up to the task. It is both fair and correct to say that the book isn't perfect. Given their inability to criticize the book adequately, however, I decided to take matters into my own hands and am discussing the issue at length in this episode of the New Discourses Podcast. Join me to hear what I think of these philosophers' criticisms (not much!) and what a proper criticism of the work would look like (and why the book "falls short" in this way). -James Lindsay Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 26 As most New Discourses fans will know, back in October 2018, James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose burst onto the scene with a scandalous expose of Critical Social Justice scholarship within academia. This effort to show the world what was going on in the humanities and (to lesser extent) social sciences research literature was billed the "Grievance Studies Affair" (https://newdiscourses.com/2020/01/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/), and the trio told their story in detail when the Wall Street Journal ended up breaking the story. The expose involved (https://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/project-summary-and-fact-sheet.pdf) their having written 20 academic papers in about 10 months and seeing 7 of those accepted, 4 published, and 1 (about dog sex) having received recognition for excellence in scholarship. A further 7 papers were still under consideration or revision, and it has been assessed that at least 4 of these would probably also have been accepted (and eventually published). Among these papers, one very controversial example rewrote a chapter of Adolf Hitler's infamous book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) and was accepted for publication by the feminist social work journal Affilia (title: "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism," available in full here, https://drive.google.com/file/d/18DoO44m2G5tvJcQaMdau6d8CSrdKDRBf/view). This paper has predictably garnered a great deal of attention and has been the center of much controversy, including recently in an article by the progressive Israeli magazine Haaretz, where Swedish "Hitler expert" Mikael Nilsson recently brought (https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-hitler-hoax-academic-wokeness-culture-war-1.9629759) the issue back up (dated March 21, 2021) two and a half years later. His objective was to discredit the entire Grievance Studies Affair by showing the infamous "Feminist Mein Kampf" paper to have been a fraud (and darling of "right-wing" nonsense). He even makes the argument that the paper rewrites the least bad part of Mein Kampf, which is easily revealed to be horrifically misguided and believable only by removing the relevant context of the chapter. On this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay, who helped to write the paper and perpetrate the Grievance Studies Affair, talks about the project and the creation of this particular paper at unprecedented length and in unprecedented detail, revealing Nilssen not to know what he's talking about. If you have ever wondered about the backstory of the creation of the "Feminist Mein Kampf" paper really was, including why its authors did it, you won't want to miss this long-form discussion and rare response to yet another underinformed critic of Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose's work. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 25 In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay continues his abridged reading of Kimberlé Crenshaw's famous (or infamous) paper, "Mapping the Margins," which appeared in the Stanford Law Review in 1991. While not the birthplace of intersectionality, this paper is the first full-throated appeal for its application, not just in the world but also in the movements from which it was born: radical feminism and black liberationism. In part 1 of this series, James read the introduction to the paper, wherein he claims the Woke One Ring was forged to form one model of systemic oppression to rule them all: intersectionality, by which all the radical and civil rights movements were ensnared and brought under the dominion of postmodern neo-Marxist thought. Here, in part 2, James reads through the conclusion of "Mapping the Margins" and illustrates exactly how Crenshaw's ideas will achieve the complete subordination and redirection of all leftist, left-wing, and civil-rights thought. This episode of the New Discourses podcast is the second part of a two-part series reading an abridged version of Crenshaw's "Mapping the Margins." You can find Part 1 here: https://newdiscourses.com/2021/03/forging-woke-one-ring-kimberle-crenshaws-mapping-margins/ Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: https://newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 24 "Mapping the Margins," by Kimberlé Crenshaw, is an academic law paper that changed the world (abridged pdf here). It was published in the Stanford Law Review in 1991 and makes the case for putting intersectionality into all cultural analysis. It is also more or less unambiguously the birthplace of Wokeness, as in this paper, Crenshaw indicates explicitly that, to her, intersectionality is "a provisional concept linking contemporary politics with postmodern theory," that is, as Jordan Peterson has it, postmodern neo-Marxism. Crenshaw is no minor figure, by the way. She is the creator of intersectionality as well as the co-creator (with her mentor Derrick Bell) and namer of Critical Race Theory. This paper is, in all likelihood, by far her most influential. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay reads through the introduction to "Mapping the Margins" and offers his commentary on the paper and its role as the birthplace (though not gestation) of the Woke movement and, as he and Helen Pluckrose named it in Cynical Theories, applied postmodernism. It is in this paper that intersectionality became the Woke One Ring, which would bring all of the other aspects of identity politics and Critical Theory under the dominion of one mode of analysis from which they cannot deviate. Join him as he reads through the text of the paper and explains what Crenshaw means, where she is coming from, and where she intends for this idea to go. This episode of the New Discourses podcast is the first part of a two-part series reading an abridged version of Crenshaw's "Mapping the Margins." Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: https://newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
Aufheben der Dr. Seuss

Aufheben der Dr. Seuss

2021-03-0301:42:241

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 23 Aufheben is a German word that, in Critical Theory, means to "abolish" or to "negate" in the way that Critical Theorists do. It's a somewhat complicated term in that it means both to abolish and to keep or to keep safe, and the Critical Theory use taps into the so-called dialectical process to attempt to use aufheben to tear apart and, as the Marxists translated it, "sublate" whatever cultural artifact they are targeting onto a "higher" level of understanding, namely the one that empowers Critical Theorists and induces misery in everyone else. This process was widely pushed by the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School under a doctrine of Aufheben der Kultur, abolishment of culture, and it continues in the Woke movement today. One of the latest big targets of Aufheben der Kultur is Dr. Seuss and his wide body of popular children's literature. Why? Because of its success. Seuss becomes a cultural anchor point for hundreds of millions of children and adults, and by tainting Seuss, his legacy, and your own memories of him with accusations of racism and "harm," they can abolish that shared cultural anchor and make more room to advance their own agenda, in which every text is "decolonized" and geared to indoctrinate you and your children into Critical Theory, especially Critical Race Theory. Join James Lindsay in this episode of the New Discourses Podcast to dig into the Critical Dr Seuss academic literature to see where this Aufheben der Dr Seuss comes from and how it works. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 22 Critical Race Theorists like to claim that they have inherited and continue the noble legacy and justice work of the Civil Rights Movement, but this is an abject lie. In this episode of James Lindsay OnlySubs, my subscribers-only podcast, I take about half an hour to make the case definitively that, while they are content to portray this illusion, it is a grotesque distortion of reality, using their own words. By exploring the book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (https://amzn.to/3rzYANN), by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic (Delgado is something of a founder of Critical Race Theory) and the paper "Mapping the Margins" (https://sites.oxy.edu/ron/csp19/readings/mappingmargins-crenshawwilliams.pdf) by Kimberlé Crenshaw, who is regarded as one of the true founders of CRT and the founder of intersectionality, the case against the Woke claim on the Civil Rights Movement is easily and definitively made. Join me to hear the details and the argument! -James Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 21 In 1945, even as the Nazis fell from power, Karl Popper told us how to find the line where free, liberal societies are in imminent danger in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, most simply summarizing a crucial part of the argument in a short footnote about "The Paradox of Tolerance." There, Popper lays out a short summary of when a free society should and must not tolerate intolerant movements if it is to survive. It is not only when they espouse and preach intolerance but when they also cease to be amenable to reason and rational debate, forbid their followers from listening to reason and rational debate, cannot be held in check by public opinion, and encourage their followers to respond to arguments with "fists or pistols," i.e., violence of some form or another. I contend that the Woke, uniquely, have crossed this line in this episode of the New Discourses Podcast. They are absolutely intolerant, will not debate or listen to alternative perspectives, and, unlike all other hate movements that fail those two criteria, have grown to be completely unchecked and uncheckable by public opinion. This places them outside of the range to which tolerance should be extended in free, open societies, and it identifies them uniquely as a threat to their continuance. Join me to hear my argument for how Karl Popper warned us in 1945 so that we might see this situation when it arose. Infographic: http://bit.ly/ParadoxToleranceInfographic For more on the idea of tolerance, check out the entry on "tolerance" (https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-tolerance/) in my Critical Social Justice Encyclopedia and check out the four-part series on Herbert Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" on the New Discourses podcast, part 1 here: https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/how-not-to-resolve-the-paradox-of-tolerance/ -James Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 20 Repressive Tolerance Series, Part 4 of 4 In this fourth and final part of his four-part lecture series about "Repressive Tolerance," James Lindsay takes the reader from the darkest point of the essay, which was the exciting climax of Part 3, through the end of Marcuse's argument. In this part, Marcuse dedicates the rest of the original 1965 essay to explaining why it is him and people like him (that is, Critical Theorists) who get to decide what constitutes good violence and bad violence, truth and falsity, liberating tolerance from the kind that must not be tolerated and must be suppressed. In our own time, it is the Woke and the high-powered elites in government, media, education, and law who have taken up this mantle of being able to decide, in the spirit of Herbert Marcuse, what must be tolerated, no matter how bad it is, and what must be suppressed, no matter how legitimate it is. The parallels to our own time are undeniable, and, as Lindsay has claimed throughout, the unavoidable conclusion is that we live in the asymmetric and totalitarian logic of "Repressive Tolerance" today. The second half of this episode leaves the essay itself and dives into a postscript to the original essay that Marcuse added three years later, in 1968, after the logic of his essay had already caused innumerable riots and episodes of civil unrest at the end of that tumultuous and transformational decade. In exploring this postscript, we see Marcuse sticking to his guns, but we also see just how blatantly obvious it is that his repressive tolerance has become the monster it sought to slay, which sheds considerable light upon what some people are now calling "the Great Realignment" in our societies, cultures, and politics. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 19 Repressive Tolerance Series, Part 3 of 4 In this third part of James Lindsay's lecture series on Herbert Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance," we see how the essay takes a particularly dark turn. Having set up the framing of the essay in the first part and explaining the condition of the "administered society" in the second, Marcuse now turns to answering the question of what a Repressive Tolerance should look like, including what it must suppress and what it must tolerate, including the sorts of violence and extralegal behaviors it must tolerate. The statement, which we arrive at near the end of this part, is simple, in Marcuse's own words: "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left." In this part of the lecture series, Lindsay walks the listener through the darker part of Marcuse's argument to show how he arrives at this blatantly biased and ridiculous conclusion that has set the stage for the totalitarianism we see today in Wokeness and from Big Tech. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses pinterest.com/newdiscourses/ linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 18 Repressive Tolerance Series, Part 2 of 4 In this second part of his annotated reading of Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance," James Lindsay reads and explains the portion of the essay where Marcuse defines the "administered society" that he claims we live in. The listener will find striking parallels to today's world, which certainly qualifies as the type of "administered society" far more accurately than the world that Marcuse inhabited in the 1960s when he wrote the essay, but paradoxically, or ironically, because it adopts the logic of this very essay as justification for its administration! This part of the series, then, raises particularly interesting questions about whether or not Marcuse would support the fruits of his own work and thus sheds interesting light on the problem we currently find ourselves in. It sets the stage for answering at the end of the series how we might go about solving this problem while avoiding the mistake Marcuse plainly made. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses pinterest.com/newdiscourses/ linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 17 Repressive Tolerance Series, Part 1 of 4 We live in a crazy world today that seems to have gone off the rails. That's because it is being driven by a broken logic, and, for all the flaws on the right, that broken logic is centered in the no-longer-tolerant left. The logic of the left today is overwhelmingly rooted in a single essay published in 1965 by the neo-Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse. That essay is "Repressive Tolerance." The thesis statement of this essay can be boiled down to "movements from the left must be extended tolerance, even when they are violent, while movements from the right must not be tolerated, including suppressing them by violence." This asymmetric ethic has been the heart and soul of left politics in the West since the 1960s, and we're living in the fruit of that catastrophe now. To help people understand this vitally important and intrinsically totalitarian essay and its relevance to our present moment, James Lindsay walks the listener through Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" in a four-part lecture series. In this series, he reads the essay in full and attempts to make clear how it is the logic underlying the present moment. The goal is to explain the essay as Marcuse would have understood it, in his own context, and to show how his own logic has become dominant and the monster that he believed he was fighting. In the first part, Lindsay begins by framing the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory to give background on Marcuse. He also explains that Marcuse seems to be attempting to give a solution to Karl Popper's famous "Paradox of Tolerance," which was provided as an aside in his 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies, which analyzed how fascism can arise and overtake liberal societies. Marcuse's answer to this conundrum is that a "discriminating tolerance," a "liberating tolerance," must be practiced that offers favoritism to the left and actively suppresses the right, as he defines them (from a perspective of Critical Theory). Join Lindsay as he contextualizes and then brings the first portion of this essay to life, and stay tuned for Parts 2, 3, and 4 to come! Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses pinterest.com/newdiscourses/ linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 16 If you want to understand the present moment, especially how similar Wokeness seems to Mao's Cultural Revolution, you have to understand the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci wrote a series of essays and books while imprisoned by the Italian fascists in the 1920s and 1930s that are referred to as his Prison Notebooks. These are the birthplace of Cultural Marxism, which James Lindsay argues has evolved into "Identity Marxism" since. Once you understand Gramsci, you can easily understand what is going on with our society at present and understand more clearly than ever why it must be resisted. Though he didn't coin the term, the idea fellow communist Rudi Dutschke would name "the long march through the institutions" in 1967 is ultimately Gramsci's roadmap to getting communism to take hold in the West. Gramsci identifies that the "cultural hegemony" of Western cultures prevented communism from having any chance of taking root, so he recommended a strategy that seeks to tear apart and capture major cultural institutions, including religion, family, education, media, and law. Mao understood this clearly and used it to devastating effect. The same thing is happening throughout the West today. Join James Lindsay as he explains the thought and relevance of Antonio Gramsci in today's Woke movement, which he aptly brands "Leninism 4.0." Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses pinterest.com/newdiscourses/ linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 http://bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 15 We are witnessing the birth of a new national mythology in America, and it is not good news. Imperfect as it was, the old one was better, warts and all, and it needs to be fought for. This new mythology turns the story of America on its head, positioning it not as having been born in the pursuit of freedom and liberty in 1776 but in slavery and evil in 1619. It has mainstreamed itself since the 1960s but especially over the last five years as it used Trump's presidency as a foil to legitimize its pseudo-real description of America for millions, and now it has gained the beginnings of cultural hegemony (which it is already abusing). This magic narrative has been and remains the key to their power. This new mythology is using its own narrative about Trump's presidency and, especially, the events that took place at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as a pivotal moment in its story arc, where it finally gained the upper hand on more than 400 years of evil and could usher in a new world order based on equity, guaranteed by the "perfected" state apparatus and its corporate partners (especially in tech). The thing is, while the real American story genuinely is the story of freedom, this new alternative, of "liberation," is based not in truth but in alchemy, and like all such regimes, it will therefore end in catastrophe. Lead, as it sees our history, cannot be changed into gold, as it views our future through its manic utopian lenses, and drinking potions of cinnabar will not make people live forever but will slowly poison them into madness. Join James Lindsay as he tries to make sense of the events we have been watching unfold over the last few days and years, relying in an unexpected way, if you'll believe it, on the postmodern philosophers who in some ways saw this danger first. Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses pinterest.com/newdiscourses/ linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#…nzwvdjjpd6gg3cmuy open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.
loading
Comments (21)

F G

the first tweet of that thread is exactly what my ex church/cult told us. "even if you don't understand, just believe the leader". Communism is #NotAReligionTho and #NotACult

Apr 24th
Reply

Moshe Wise

Arbeiter means worker

Apr 2nd
Reply

Bup Sahn

Trump?

Mar 4th
Reply

Bup Sahn

Is the swearing really necessary?

Mar 4th
Reply

ID17714573

So who sits around deciding what is and what is not racist?

Mar 4th
Reply (1)

Bup Sahn

Nailed it!

Mar 4th
Reply

Gina Michalak

Anything you have to dupe, program, force, etc. people into will always lead to the most awful human conditions. This ideology is clearly evil.

Feb 9th
Reply

J Barnard

This is an awesome series. Everything makes so much sense now.

Feb 2nd
Reply

Michael McGrath

Woke Derangement Syndrome. Disappointing.

Nov 15th
Reply

Jh

Awesome episode!!! Thanks for standing up and sharing this information.

Oct 23rd
Reply

F G

working now! thanks

Oct 21st
Reply (1)

Gerard

yup, it's defo broekn

Oct 21st
Reply (1)

E J

Good job, James 👍👍

Sep 26th
Reply

Alex English

This episode is a tour de force. Lindsay is a great thinker.

Jul 21st
Reply

Anti-SocJus Samizdat

Despite their being atheist and generally to the left of me politically, I love Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose for what they're doing in trying to peel back the mask of SocJus "theory" (purposefully put in quotation marks as the adherents' pronouncements on these topics only qualify as circularly defined and circularly sourced assertions, much less "hypotheses," and even less "theories") to reveal the ugly face of almost slobbering lust and demand for power by otherwise banal, unremarkable, and generally incompetent people.

Jun 26th
Reply

E J

Listen

Jun 22nd
Reply

E J

GREAT PODCAST

Jun 22nd
Reply (1)
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store