"Mainstreaming, and the Mind of the Man-Child" - FGP #35 

One of the best talks I’ve seen you give. Well said 👍🏻

James Lindsay does one very useful thing though; He reads through the weird-ass papers like Genderqueer, Crip Discourses, Pedagogy of the Oppressed and other utterly batshit stuff which is influential on the left.

I was once in exactly James Lindsay's position. I even still have an intuitive feeling that the arc of progress "went wrong" in 2012 or whatever. Of course I understand on an intellectual level this is hogwash, but because of my upbringing it feels right. I was lucky enough to have someone I respect point out the flaws in my position, so I wasn't trapped their long. What got me over the hump was two things: 1. Understanding that the 00s or the 90s or whatever is a totally arbitrary point to stop the arc of progress. Logically if you are against 2016 you cannot fence sit on 2006, because 2006 inevitably leads to 2016. This was tough for me because of all the propaganda I was exposed to --- I really needed to separate myself from my inculcation into progressive society. 2. Understanding, for example, the Christian position on marriage. This made it obvious that something like gay "marriage" is not a libertarian policy, but an imposition on a cultural norm believed by the majority, and beyond that absolute non-sense, the same way the latest woke stuff is.

This is a more left wing take in regards to boycotts, but companies should not be forgiven even if they revert back to being politically amoral. No one should ever buy from budlight again, and once they fall completely, we should switch to a new corporation to boycott.

I struggle with this. What is my people? I know who my family is, but my land has suffered such levels of inmigration that the original people who would have been the sole inhabitants a century ago make up about 30% of the stock and decreasing, and I have good relationships with people from all places. I don't like the path the church is taking either, for the most part.

On the topic of someone stumbling upon Aquinas and discovering their faith, believe it or not, thats exactly what happened with Edward Faser. A philosophy professor who had to cover Aquinas and the scholastics on one of his classes, was looking for a way to make it more engaging than the course he himself took back when he was a student. Upon looking deeper into the primary sources, he realized the way its covered at university didnt do it justice. At first he thought it was merely underrated. Then he thought it was a pretty solid proof, and finally he realized that it was correct and yet to be refuted on its terms; it had merely been dismissed, by underhanded academic tactics. Like bastardizing the premise, thus making the proof invalid. Hes done amazing work in making Aquinas more compatible with modern language, and his lecture on the immateriality of the mind is one of the best Ive seen.

I have to disagree with you that nobody ever comes to a faith in God or Christianity through arguments and evidence. Just consider for a moment, does anyone ever leave Christianity because of arguments or evidence? Would you deny that many people who have engaged with atheists and found themselves without any good responses, have left the faith unwillingly? If so, why would the case not be the same with Christianity? Did not C.S. Lewis come to faith in Christ due to arguments and evidence? What about Antony Flew, who though not becoming a Christian, did admit that there had to be a God, after all the years of being an atheist? I do not believe that apologetics and arguments for God are irrelevant to belief in many people. However, I do accept that most people, even if they are confronted with good evidence for faith, will not accept them. What I am suggesting is that arguments and evidence does play a role and that they are not unrelated to belief.

The least talked about signal of status is the cleanliness/orderliness of your house. Lawns are out, but high status individuals always keep a cohesive design theme and tidy home.

Dave your livestreams are a positive and refreshing experience in the fake digital world. I hope you can keep it up despite all other responsibilities.

23:27 reminds me of the Nick Land quote: “It goes without saying that no substantial residue of Marxian historicism remains in the 'communist' version ofthis posture. In fact, with economics and history comprehensively abandoned, all that survlves ot Marx is a psychological bundle of resentments and disgruntlements, reducible to the word 'capitalism' in its vague and negative employment: as the name for everything that hurts, taunts and disappoints.”

The only value I found out of the conversation with Matt is how a clearly intelligent and thoughtful man can be so easily captured by ideological mind virus's, and how interesting it was that in such a long conversation he didn't say anything even moderately heterodox. And there was a few moments where I thought he was right. I am definitely glad the conversation didn't guy turn into a theological fight, but his position on the Nicean Creed was indicative of everything, how he couldn't actually bind himself to an dogma, and instead devolved to newspeak. I didn't mind listening to the conversation though. I wouldn't mind another conversation with him in a year, but with matt's comfort in newspeak, I'm really not sure how to get any value out of it. I would try to pin him down on this particular aspect if possible, but that does seem like the type of conversation that's could be personal enough to ought to be private.

Lindsay has shades of Thought Slime on his face.

Completely agree on the Boycotts. Seriously so many local, microbreweries it's ridiculous that we keep drinking queer beer. Support your local independent brewers and build your new civilization. The time to convince megacorps to change and just focus on selling a product is over...it was never going to happen. Stop buying global and start buying local. Hate globalism? Why are you funding it?

You're an intellectual masochist, Dave. Just admit it, bro. There's literally no other explanation why you constantly engage with these.. people. None. Admitting it will be the first step to curing this illness. You CAN get better Dave! I wish you the best of luck & God Bless! Thanks for the stream, as always.

I think Your streams are much better unscripted, as it seems a lack of opportunity to over-prepare forces people to be concise, to find and present their point with simple words, and not too many, nor too few. I don't share Your vision of power struggle between a WEF-king and regional princes. I think we are in the second act now, and things can spiral out of control REALLY fast, for good or bad. We'll see how things go with the banks, CBDC, 2024 and the Third World War. Being Polish, I hope Your deep state won't manage to "false flag" my deep state into the Ukrainian War.

How do you just talk off the cuff like this so well? You spit wisdom from every little analogy 10 a minute

The issue with street epistemology is that it's supposedly influenced by the Socratic method and Socratic dialogues, but is usually administered as interrogation. In Platonic dialogues, Socrates will invite his interlocutor to question his thought as well and give their thoughts, which is why they're dialogues. Street epistemologists aren't interested in that. I've literally been told by street epistemologists that I "wouldn't be a good candidate" for street epistemology since my demand that Socratic dialogues are actual dialogues (not interrogations) makes me a "bad faith" conversation partner, even though the street epistemologists are coming to the convo in bad faith to begin with. Pretty sure Boghossian coined the term and Lindsey was heavily involved with it as well. I have no respect for that movement.

Don’t think I can answer the “who are my people?” question outside of my friends and family. That’s a big part of what drove my conversion to the right wing. The sad realization that my answer to that question was robbed from me by the rot of this age.

Dense and insightful, as usual.

Talking to that guy was a total waste of time. I don't see how one sharpens their skills smacking their head against brick wall.

Delightful stream. Everything from minute 50:00 to the 1:20:00 mark was an absolute banger. “You are communing with a living breathing intelligence from the other side to of history” is such a important message for the concept of tradition in itself. The problem with the likes of James Lindsay,Sam Harris, and the psa sitch types is fundamentally that their “faith” never came true. Much like the seventh day adventists or other apocalyptic oriented faiths they had a prophecy of neo liberal enlightenment and “the end of history” a end that never came for them

I just realized I was getting Benjamin Boyce mixed up with Ben Burgis. I was shocked by what I was hearing because Boyce seems to be a decent dude. Makes sense now 😅

Phenomenal. Your talks always blow me away.

James Lindsay has done a lot of good. I particularly like his conversations with Benjamin Boyce and Wokal Distance. And the hoax papers he did with Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose were hysterical and helped many people understand the depths of insanity in the academy. Yes, Lindsay has been spurging out lately, and his criticisms must be addressed. But let's give him some credit for all the good he's done.

50:00 James Lindsay

I think the look on Lindsey's face that you try to describe somewhere in this video would be the expression of imposter syndrome, but in his case, he's not an imposter. He definitely doesn't belong at the level he's found himself.

The Godfather always delivers. Thanks Dave, God Bless!

1:18:55 "Nobody is formalizing Hegel" The mathematician William Lawvere has an abstract mathematical formalization of Hegel that is even more incomprehensible than Hegel himself.

Lindsay and Boghossian worked together on the social justice Sokal stuff. They knew they were copying Sokal, at least they claimed so when they revealed what they've been doing. Lindsay has a shitpost mindset so you can't always take what he posts on twitter at face value. He seems to enjoy getting people rilled up at him. I only pay attention to him now when he has conversations with Benjamin Boyce.

Dave, If you're ever short for content, you can always cut up some of your rants for a short video on a specific topic. Your rant about DEI statements would be a great standalone video

Don't know if it contributes to answer the question of Lindsay's appeal. My route to you went: Scott Horton, Tom Woods where I found James Lindsay did give me a clear sense of CSJ (the disability genocide idea was revealing), so I followed him to Haidt (because the same people would interview Haidt), and Boyce. Boyce gave me MacIntyre & The Distributist. Yup, i did get the sense there was a problem accepting ex leftists so graciously, but my exposure to anything better was limited and they (say, Lindsay, Haidt,... antiwokes) filled some need. Weird experience was noticing how antiwokes would use 'content of their character' or 'separate can't be equal.' They were bitterly flinging those at the woke like they were violating the basic morality; 'Civil Rights' '60s protestor morality. That's where I'm finding a lot in common with The Distributist. That's what those mostly are -- anti-woke woke progressives threatened by the newish iterations.

The vivacious ocean of human experience and consciousness beyond dwarfs the eroding artificial islands of logic that the last man of the modern world cling too. Completely agreed. The ones who survive this will navigate this turmoil with mental vessels designed to ride the great waves of history.

Man-Child is the perfect way to describe Lindsay. Bugman applies as well.

To keep initatives going JudeoChristianLiberalDemocracy grooms each graduating class of academia- I've been watching it play out here in DC for 20+ years and can assure you there will never be a shortage of this permanent Washington zeitgeist

James "real liberalism has never been tried!" Lindsay.

Man, thank you so much for the help with finding a publisher. I have needed that help so much. Your username is very accurate to your role haha!

Good point about people not wanting to admit their axioms. The main feature of a good interview is making people accidentally admit their axioms. But your part about JL is a bit too much rambling. His main gig of logically dismantling woke ideas (coincidentally exposing their axioms from their literature) is pretty interesting. An "intuitive understanding of Plato" is nice for you, but not really useful for others. No one can follow. And the problem with "who are your people?" is that things are not that black and white. It is one angle of analysis, but decisions are more complex. And people will mostly clothe their axioms in universal values because saying "I do it for me" will not appeal well to an audience. It's been that way at least since Cicero. You need some universal/shared values to keep small disagreements from always devolving into full-on power struggles. I get the thought that there were problems before woke that would still be there. But if it was gone, they could be criticized properly. There is room for a counter-Dan-Savage with actual evidence-based counseling.

1:13:00 yeah Dave, James is an Enteral Centrist

I find James Lindsey's videos and talks on the belief structures of leftism/wokeism quite useful. I care not for the paper of the page or the ink of the words, or even the author who wrote them. Just the ideas held within in them.

Totaal linsday death

Re: why lindsay has the status among the right that he does. Lindsay has some of, if not the most digestible and comprehensive breakdowns of modern leftist political religion I've come across in my years discussing and understanding politics. As Dave points out, people are often embarrassed about their core moral beliefs and thus conversations about politics, particularly with the left, leave you with this feeling that the person you're talking to is completely out of their mind, is a total hypocrite, or a compelte current thing sheep, or all three. After listening to a Lindsay lecture like "Hegel and the dialectical faith of Marxism," you can see the entire arc of left wing politics with almost perfect clarity. You come away with an understanding that these people are not in fact lunatic moron hypocrites, but they are extremely intelligent and strategic, and they are obfuscating their real core intuitive beliefs in the same way a mid century Austrian painter might do so. He also does an excellent job of pointing out that this is not a problem of the last 30 or even 100 years, but that the gnostic religion of the left has been on earth for thousands of years, and is predicated on the fundamental belief that the all and the one are the same, or more particularly, that the human and the divine are the same, and therefore the fundamental purpose of our time on this planet is reunion with the divine, to "remember" that we are God, and to awaken this "memory" in all humankind so that we might bring about the eschaton, or "the end of history" or "utopia." So these fundamental truths about our ideological opponents that 1. They arent just silly pomo lit majors who are off their prozac, they are rational and strategic actors working within a framework that has is own internal logic and 2. This is a spiritual battle that has been ongoing for thousands of years bring a sort of "a ha" moment for many online "anti woke" people and they feel a certain affinity to Lindsay because of it. That being said, his usefulness as a thinker ends about there, for all the reasons that were expertly outlined in this episode. On the one hand Lindsay understands that this is a millennia old struggle against the luciferian cult to become God, yet is solution is to roll back society to about 15 years ago as if that proverbial boulder wouldn't resume tumbling down the hill the minute it was released. Ultimately id be embarrassed as a right wing public intellectual that it took this liberal manchild to actually bite the bullet and read all the psychotic gobbledygook that came out of academia in the last 100 years so that we can actually understand why they do the things they do, and can actually attack it at the level of core and intuitive belief and not constantly arguing about inane abstractions which act as a sort of philosophical briar patch, or as Lindsay puts it, the "motte and bailey" At the end of the day you should take from Lindsays work that, the left truly believes that the self is God, and that because they know that they are God, they have special secret knowledge that means they should have God-like authority over all society so they can, just as God did, speak their creation into existence, but thats about it.

I have to say I always really liked that you called this a broadcast and not a "podcast". Something about that just felt right, aesthetically. "Podcast" as a neologism reeks of Silicon Valley bugman-ism to me, as though Apple came up with the idea of sending out a radio-style program for people to listen to.

Dense and insightful as usual I see

Great stream. This has been highly stimulating. I bookmark very few videos to go back and review, and this is definitely one. You hit several things I'll need to unpack. Good job, thanks, and God bless. I live close to where you all will be meeting in June but I doubt I can make it, hopefully we can watch or listen in.

James Lindsay is interesting and deep thinker, but you are deeper. Thank you! 👍💯

Dave, do you have a working theory as to why people like the Grim Dark genre, in particular 40K?

There is a lot here but your convo with McManus seems to be a keystone to understanding contemporary problems. You should condense this exchange and what you’ve come away with into a Substack or video essay.

I wonder what you think about the showing of """Rainbow Capitalism""" now that """Pride Month""" is in swing. 5 days in and we have the lowest participation in rainbow logos in a very long time. I'm not seeing any coherent backlash against the Right, nor any closing of ranks around this civic religion right now.

Hi Dave, Thank your for your thoughtfulness expressed here, I found a lot of similarities in my own journey interacting with the "exvangelical" movement of evangelicals transitioning into "Progressive Christians". Its definitely a similar "can't look away" thing like it is for you and Breadtube. I wanted to chime in because the governing axioms that you expressed are codified into a system within Reformed Protestant thought: the apologetic form known as Pressuppositionalism. Despite what we would disagree on regarding Mother Kirk and the Catholic/Protestant divide, I do think you find a helpful articulation of those points in the writings of Cornelius Van Till and Dr. Greg Bahnsen- they would definitely be worth your time!

This was your finest work. A true genealogy of this type

I don't think McManus understands libertarianism. Most on the left just don't like mean people, which of course is a rather superficial understanding of morality. The best way to convince people is just to discuss your own experiences (not online experiences).

I can get the general feeling against James Lindsay and Peter Berghossian but I think you analysis is slightly off James and Peter are clearly clinging to a failing classical liberalism but they're also clearly against progressivism in the academy You can see this in their split from the 3rd member of the "Sokal squared" papers Helen Pluckrose who is still progressive but trying to argue against woke and doesn't see the contradiction

Never liked Lindsay. I hope he goes away so he can play with his toy swords.

By far the best take on the boycots I have heard so far!

The more I think about it, the more the view from nowhere is really the problem. It’s like these people try out ideologies as a skin suit but don’t actually commit to anything. They are willing to say why Christianity is wrong but don’t actually have a defense for their ideologies when challenged on metaphysics.

This will probably disappear in the comments, but I just thought I'd leave my five cents about what you talk about at 1:36:57, why the future is right-wing. I completely agree with the sentiment, but from a completely secular/atheist point of view. Specifically rooted the concept of fitness-coefficients for living beings (and in this case for culture and religion because of its symbiosis with our biological survival). Humans are not evolved for accepting purely rational arguments, but seem to have a built-in tribalism and affinity for religion, spiritualism and such in some form. - In short, culture and religion represents a part of the decision-making system of human groups, and some of these "operating systems" are obviously better than others in terms of long-term survival. Others seem to have a stronger ability to out-compete others short-term by burning through the capability to support itself long-term; the obvious example is making people reproduce less by making women part of the workforce and part of the political activism-apparatus. A lot more energy is available short-term, but it reduces long-term sustainability of this cultural variant. So it is geared towards spreading itself to other groups instead of replenishing themselves in a self-contained way. Personally, I find myself incapable of holding religious beliefs (they do not resonate with me at all, despite how many of them I try to expose myself to). But I recognize that humans are spiritual creatures, and all my reading of history only support this. Particularly the book Yarvin mentioned once, The Ancient City, which was about the laws of ancient greece, rome and old Indian religions. The way that the mere concept of non-religions laws could not exist until the enlightenment-era, and how alien it is from a historical perspective. Anyways, I come to the conclusion that the future will be religions because I concede that these groups have a larger fitness-coefficient than modern, secular societies that burn through its future population growth by parasitizing other cultural groups. It will burn itself out and the cultures that are not self-sterilizing will prevail. I also come to the conclusion that my lack of religious affinity is probably representative of a cognitive phenotype that may be an evolutionary dead-end across time.

There's simply no way as a right winger to justify the statement, "...IQ, and the minor differences, in the grand scheme of things they are minor..." This is simply cushioning the harsh reality that major IQ gaps in populations renders a peaceful cohabitation between two groups impossible without slavery or domination by the more intelligent group, in most cases anyway. 2:14:15

Do you have Spotify? I recently found your channel and it's a gold mine. I want to listen while doing some other things.

This is a brilliant video. I’ve searched for years to find the center or root moral taxonomy of the left, but couldn’t find a consistent basis. Your explanation of Matt McManus’s core belief as radical optionality makes too much sense. If you believe that you can choose what is right and what is wrong or that morality can change over time then you’ve rejected basic concepts like good and evil altogether. I really hope that I’m wrong, either in my interpretation or that Matt has core beliefs he won’t disclose.

There is no way of ending then Russian war on Ukraine by peace negotiations with Putin (or some like minded person after him), because that would just mean more time for Russia to prepare the its next invasion. Ukraine is just not the real goal of Putin; his goal is the West. He has said it himself. He believes that if he can use the weaknesses of the west at the right time he can crumble the western world. And he is not totally wrong, by the way.

I don't know how to word this exactly but does anyone else get the feeling that people are almost splitting into different species based a lot on the quality of the food they eat a lot of plus the medications (vs not taking any medications) they're taking? In terms of how people feel and behave day-to-day. I increasingly believe at least the main staple foods like bread need to be eaten organic the more I read about health and food

idk if thats relevant but Mcmanus is the name of a character from the movie "The Usual Suspects" 😀 beside that i sometimes believe that all moral leftis and social justice warriors are on the quest to right the wrong that was done by what marx called the "original accumulation" which started the whole capitalism project with an unprecedented process of expropriation...its like the orignal sin...so when the monster that is capitalism has a starting point then we also can end it in a final redistribution and then enter paradise...marxism has that build-in messianic perspective and arc from the getgo

HBD has always been more than mere IQ measures & it is why I have always pushed back on your saying it is ultimately unimportant.

Great talk. I can forgive your IPA Hipster phase. Many of us have been there.

Mauritian struggle came came to believe based on reason. He's a rare case, but it happens.

James and Pete worked together on the Grievance Studies. Two heads of the same beast.

I thought Lindsay would be better than this since his PhD is in a subject that requires a decent IQ. This reveals just how important character is.

Lindsay is the man.

Lev is working to destroy almost everything you stand for.

I'm sorry but that is unfair. The Bogosian paper thing was a conscious copy of Sokal. Whether it was effective or not it was a deliberate Sokal style hoax.

Dave, you talk about fakeness and wanting to avoid it, but nothing sounds more fake to me than when somebody talks about "humanity" as if it's something they're meant to care about over their particular relations to race, tribe, religion, family etc. For example I don't care about the birth rates of the Congo, where i do care greatly for that of my own civilization's - to pretend otherwise is as fake as it gets. Humanity is a far removed abstraction from the personal loyalties that actually feel real.

If I recall correctly james lindsey was part of that studies scandal of a few years ago. Peter was the old guy adding in some "credibility".

Yooo Tombstone reference! Let's gooooo!!

Also dave I just wanted to say that despite that discussion being hard to watch I still thought it was valuable just as a psychological profile of the adversary

the austrian painter 🤮 is that supposed to be cute

The problem with Dave’s argument here with respect to morality (value) not being a function of logic but “intuition and experience” is that even intuition and experience must be articulated in language...and language is conceptual. Without conceptual consistency-or logic (I prefer the term “reason” when speaking philosophically)-one cannot possess an articulable morality. Morality then becomes entirely impractical, pointless, and cannot really be shared. One must be “enlightened” to it…which is rank mysticism, which is cultism, which is death. But in fairness to Dave, he has admitted to being a mystic so…not surprised he divorces his ethics from reason. That’s mysticism 101.

Yeah, a link to the article would be good.

Really liked your rant about debate and values at 55:30 - consider clipping this maybe or recycling the content for broader audience. BTW, I think the idea of street epistemology can work for some arguments, where social stigma is minimal as a kind of catalyst for the individual to introspect with more honesty. Anthony Magnabosco has an interesting channel here on yt dedicated to the concept.

I see Dave. I like. Simple as

I’m new to this channel. I was wondering where you went to school. You sound awfully like a Hillsdale grad (my alma mater). A lot of interesting ideas here (although I am an atheist libertarian).

Damn James Lindsey having a melt down is so weird hasn't he been like the anti woke guy and he also did a good presentation on gnosticism what a weird scenario

1:27:00 the beer market has also been flat so there some logic in angling for new markets, but this was still a very dumb way

Have you every considered trying to debate Vaush? He's a real piece of work, and you won't have to pretend to be nice. Seeing him get destroyed would be great.

The germans weren't shy about admitting to their feeling of the superiority of the german people.

I often go into these streams hoping for insightful thoughts and I'm met with complaints about these weirdos and rants about internet culture. In the case of Lindsay, I've learned more by bingeing his streams for a couple of weeks than from this side of the debate in at least a year. Simply complaining that he's not anti-liberal or anti-porn enough and making fun of his appearance doesn't change that, in fact a lot of us have been having to reckon with an illiberal world might well look like soon.

Leave Lindsay alone. *cries

I’m going to try to engage with the content of this video on your terms, since you seem more receptive to it. “Who are your people” is an interesting question, in a sense it is the starting point for all political analysis (in the Aristotelian sense, of course). What I don’t think follows is the assertion that an honest answer leads to right-wing conclusions. My people are, on one side of my family, Ashkenazi Jews, and French Acadians on the other. Both of these populations have experienced persecution and ethnic cleansing at various points in history, at the hands of dominant forces wielding the powers of empire and capital. Liberation is central to Jewish cultural consciousness in particular, since at all points in history we have been a minority religion that nobody wanted within the borders of their territory. I believe my people are important. I don’t, however, believe my people are the best. I believe all people, and all peoples, are important. The harm principle does have utility towards this end, because sometimes wars are not wars of belief. Sometimes wars are born of reflexive disgust (the wars that killed my Jewish family), and sometimes wars are born of power and greed (the Seven Years War that killed my Acadian family). The people who can’t answer the question of who are my people don’t sincerely believe in liberation because they don’t need to answer the question in the first place. They’re the ones waging war. What you call “the left” in America is a contingent of managerial elites who believe in liberalism and meritocracy above all else, which is not a meaningfully leftist political program. Most leftists, even online, are deeply opposed to liberalism because it concentrates power in the hands of property owners. When you take off the institutional veneer, it quickly descends back into empire and fascism. I think you have a blind spot about the answers a lot of people have to the question, because you don’t see why liberatory politics might be a good thing for some peoples. We don’t live in the best version of all worlds where everyone is on a more or less level playing field. Some of our experienced realities in our families and communities are primarily of discrimination, oppression, and historical trauma. If you think the best way to benefit your people is to keep things the way they are, or go backwards, it’s because that injustice hasn’t touched you yet.

Whoah, whoah, woah, BogusAsian is a boomer.

First 😌

Thought you said diet-lectics at the begining of the video Would be a fun concept

I so want Anheuser Busch to go bankrupt.

Ever think about having BAP on?

How was Carl a lightweight early on? He would regularly stream with 6oodfella, who is about as hardcore as a good person can get.

01:22:28 amen

Seriously 😒 making fun of how James Lindsay looks

1:36:58 "The future is reactionary" . If you truly understand what you are saying, then that means the future is Russia, with maybe one or three Eastern European countries. If you think that's not the case, I don't understand what planet you are living on. South Africa is now 8 hours a day without electricity, this forecasted to stretch on for years if not decades, with people already paying for workarounds, and not the slightest sign of collapse in sight... Is that what you call a "reactionary future"?

I only trust peer-pressure reviewed studies

I think we sort of think too much

Is Auron MacIntyre aware of the sexual degeneracy going on at the Blaze the last 2 years?

Regarding Lindsay: I noticed an oddly coordinated attack on him by the "NRx" about stealing memes. Then Auron Macintyre sort of randomly called him a bugman. This pissed James off. Then another coordinated attack about what an idiot he is (Which you are continuing here.) I was actually pretty happy to see him appropriating right wing memes as his actual influence is much broader than anything you all were doing. I guess that all gets overridden by the grifty impulse of "HEY THAT'S MINE!!"