Talk:James A. Lindsay

Contentious topic
I've added notices. If we need to add revert or consensus required restrictions to this page, we can, but honestly I still can't figure out why none of you has taken this to NPOVN or BLPN. Valereee (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @, I agree that we need a formal method to resolve this dispute, and I am considering following ’s advice to utilize the RfC format. But first, we need to do something about and their disregard for the basic BRD cycle. Their first attempt to insert SPLC cite has been reverted here. Right afterwards, they re-inserted it in a different place but under identical context. When that was reverted, they reinserted it again with an incorrect summary claiming their original cite had in-line atrib. I have discussed SPLC extensively in the Talk and suggested particular quotes to use, yet Pokerplayer has not posted a single comment in Talk. To make the matter worse, they have reinserted disputed edits from other editors, against a clear BLUNDEL warning to seek consensus first. This is why before any formal dispute resolution process, we need this BLP placed under a "consensus required" page restriction. In addition, Pokerplayer513 should be asked to self-revert the two vio edits or face sanctions. XMcan (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @ apologies. I assumed the SPLC was more neutral/moderate than Jacobin or Current Affairs and since it was saying something similar to the current citations then it would be ok. That's why I made my first edit. When you removed it I was confused as to why, but I figured it was because it was in the lede so I moved it to the conspiracy theory section. I didn't include an attribution because Jacobin and Current Affairs didn't and again, I thought it was more moderate/centrist/neutral than the other two so I didn't think it was necessary.
 * "When that was reverted, they reinserted it again with an incorrect summary claiming their original cite had in-line atrib." - XMcan
 * It did have a in-line attribution, but you deleted it on the previous edit. I suppose I could have done a full revert, but I figured just adding back the citation would be a compromise since I wasn't sure why you deleted the text in the first place considering the other sources do not "attempt to reframe and redefine CMCT" and the Weigel source does "explicitly say Lindsay promotes CMCT" and I said in my original edit. Weigel explicitly says "Most of his rhetoric focuses on the specter of cultural Marxism...". Further the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page says "Conspiracy theories claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society" which is almost the exact same as the text you deleted from @ which said "...the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which alleges a concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to undermine Western civilization using Marxism." Those mean basically the same thing in this case.


 * That being said, even though the CMCT article mentions antisemitism throughout, I can see why it isn't necessary to mention here. I'll make the appropriate changes.


 * If there's something I misunderstood then please clarify for me. How is CMCT being redefined on Lindsay's page since it's the same as on the CMCT page and how does Weigel's article not say Lindsay promotes CMCT? Also, I haven't posted to the talk page because I put my justification in the edit summary. It seemed like you hadn't read the citation before deleting it so I thought a simple edit summary would suffice. I await your reply. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit represents a relative improvement over the previous version, but I still believe we should refrain from appending to the original sentence while we continue to debate whether sources support the FSCT link.
 * That being said, let me highlight areas where we seem to agree. If CMCT were defined as the notion of a "concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to undermine Western civilization using Marxism," then I would concur with you, and I would have no issue with the statement that L promotes CMCT. However, that is not how Wikipedia defines it. According to Wikipedia, CMCT is synonymous with the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, which is described as a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness." Do you see the distinction? can correct me if I am misinterpreting his views, but both he and I are asserting that the latter characterization is a misrepresentation of L's views, and there is no support in reliable sources that L promotes FSCT or anything antisemitic. (Even Lindsay's SPLC profile does not mention anything about antisemitism or the Frankfurt School.) This is why I suggest that instead of linking him to FSCT/CMCT, we follow the approach of the LA Times and simply atrib and quote from SPLC that L promotes "conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world." Can we agree on that?
 * Another factor to consider is that the term "cultural Marxism" has different connotations depending on whom you ask. To some, it refers to FSCT, while according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which presumably reflects common usage, it denotes something different. I don’t want to debate who is right and who is wrong; I’m simply pointing out that different people attribute different meanings to the term. XMcan (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "If CMCT were defined as... then I would concur with you, and I would have no issue with the statement that L promotes CMCT. However, that is not how Wikipedia defines it. According to Wikipedia, CMCT is..." -
 * It seems like the main issue you have XMcan is over the definition of Cultural Marxism which isn't something that should be decided on Lindsay's page. I see the distinction you are making and I think the CMCT page goes into depth on those distinctions in a way that Lindsay's page can't and shouldn't. I think removing references to antisemitism from Lindsay's page makes sense if it's contentious and if it isn't a very notable part of Lindsay's public persona (but maybe it is, I don't know), I don't think the LA Times/SPLC quote would be an improvement either as it doesn't give it a broader context. Also, Cultural Marxism does vary in meaning and I think the CMCT page goes into those variations as well. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * and, what would you say are the two highest quality sources for “Lindsay has promoted the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory”? If Weigel is considered the top one, which would you regard as the second best in your estimations? XMcan (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @: Both Aquillion and MrOllie seem to have chosen not to respond to the previous question, likely due to their ongoing contributions elsewhere. The ANI hasn't facilitated a resolution; instead, it has stirred up further controversy. It appears that you (and perhaps ) are the only sysops willing to mediate this content dispute. Therefore, I propose to you the following path forward:
 * I will write an RfC for the Weigel source. After about two weeks or so, it would be preferable if Valereee could write the closing summary. You're already somewhat familiar with the issues, and you haven't taken a side, neither here nor in the CMCT Talk. (I don't consider my p-block from CMCT Talk as you taking a side; my final acts there were made in frustration, and that wasn't cool).
 * Before initiating the Weigel RfC, it's crucial to establish a consensus-required restriction on this article, at least for sources. Since I raised concerns about the quality of BLPSOURCES weeks ago, questionable cites have been (re)added without a clear consensus, violating BLPUNDEL and arguably in an effort to substitute quality with the quantity of OVERCITE.
 * In accordance with BLUNDEL, the CMCT sentence needs to be reset to its state before the disputed citations and text were added. The Weigel RfC and potential follow-up RfCs will determine whether the disputed material is reinstated.
 * Does this proposed plan sound reasonable to you, and are you willing to monitor its implementation? XMcan (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think maybe a consensus-required restriction for sources would be helpful here, but I'd like to hear from @Aquillion and @MrOllie on that, too. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be very concerned about the potential for folks to claim 'no consensus' and force RFCs for every added source as a means to stonewall. In my view we are already seeing indications that that would happen on this talk page, between the repeated argument that sources labeled as 'marxist' in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor are inherently unreliable, or the WP:CRYBLP-style statements that obviously well-cited content must be removed because a minority disagrees. We should not create a situation where obviously on-topic, peer-reviewed sources are subjected to an arbitrary 30 day hold (the standard RFC running time) while RFCs are run because one or two people object to normal editing. I am also concerned by the suggestion that a closer for an RFC would be pre-selected by the person opening that RFC, a principle that would seem to be game-able for obvious reasons. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If anybody is SQS stalling here, it is MrOllie. First with the ANI, then not responding to a simple question above, and now by attempting to derail the RfC plan that would lead to a clear outcome.
 * If anybody has concerns about V’s impartiality, let them speak plainly. V has been moderating our dispute from the start, and there is no reason to change this – unless V doesn’t want to be involved with all our drama anymore, for which I wouldn’t blame them. XMcan (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we can settle this with an RFC, I will happily start one. I would phrase it something like "Should the article state that Lindsay is known for promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory?"
 * But I do not agree to any special conditions for such an RFC. No preconditions about special restrictions. No unusual runtimes. No selecting a closer in advance. No removing things while the RFC runs - we stick with the status quo as it is now.
 * What say you? MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought my 3-step plan above was a reasonable compromise. Should I have insisted that both CMCT links be deleted from the BLP first, so that you and Aquillion can start a 30-day RfC about re-including them? Because that is my reading of BLPUNDEL and BLPRS regarding contentious material that is poorly sourced.
 * Given that Weigle alone is 21 pages long, your plan to have editors consider five, or however many, OVERCITE sources at once would certainly waste their time and might discourage many from participating. I have offered to write an RfC focused on what you have repeatedly identified as the best source. If Weigle passes muster, I don’t intend to waste my time or yours by RfCing lesser sources. XMcan (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wasting the community's time would be holding redundant RFCs. If you think the statement needs to be removed, we can hold a single RFC on the statement. But a plan that would involve us holding RFC after RFC for months is not going to work. MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's any reasonable way to interpret an attempt to remove the Weigel source entirely as being reasonable; it's the best source available and is obviously superior to the ones already in the article. As I said above, I feel that if you disagree with the way it's being summarized, the best alternative would be to propose an alternative summary yourself. If you think that it is somehow entirely unreliable, you could take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you've really made that argument. From my perspective, though, this discussion is essentially over at this point - you wanted better sources; I found one and added it; and there was a general consensus backing both that use of the source and the general version, even if you refuse to accept it. At that point WP:SATISFY applies, especially given that you've repeatedly failed to articulate any alternative summaries of the source in question or provide any other sources that might point to other formulations. To exclude a source entirely, you need a rationale that it's unusable, not just your personal disagreement with how it is summarized. And, in case it needs to be said, I obviously wouldn't support removing it for the full course of an RFC; it has clear consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wasting the community's time would be holding redundant RFCs. If you think the statement needs to be removed, we can hold a single RFC on the statement. But a plan that would involve us holding RFC after RFC for months is not going to work. MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's any reasonable way to interpret an attempt to remove the Weigel source entirely as being reasonable; it's the best source available and is obviously superior to the ones already in the article. As I said above, I feel that if you disagree with the way it's being summarized, the best alternative would be to propose an alternative summary yourself. If you think that it is somehow entirely unreliable, you could take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you've really made that argument. From my perspective, though, this discussion is essentially over at this point - you wanted better sources; I found one and added it; and there was a general consensus backing both that use of the source and the general version, even if you refuse to accept it. At that point WP:SATISFY applies, especially given that you've repeatedly failed to articulate any alternative summaries of the source in question or provide any other sources that might point to other formulations. To exclude a source entirely, you need a rationale that it's unusable, not just your personal disagreement with how it is summarized. And, in case it needs to be said, I obviously wouldn't support removing it for the full course of an RFC; it has clear consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
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)

JRE #4
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)

Conspiracy theory projection and distorted language.
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)
 * 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)


 * Please excuse me for butting into this conversation but the assertion that Lindsay somehow promotes christianity and is followed by christians feels ridiculous to me. Every comment Lindsay has made about christianity has been explicitly negative. He repeatedly referred to christians as "the SJWs of the right" (lol), christian fundamentalists call him "woke lite" (double lol), and his stance against christianity is one of the reasons for his falling out with fellow far right conspiracy theorist Carl Benjamin. Any query you will conduct on his twitter activity will prove this. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s just 100% false. Maybe try reading the article: "Lindsay is the founder of the website New Discourses, which is owned by Christian nationalist commentator Michael O'Fallon". Christians on Twitter have been retweeting him for the last two years.  I haven’t seen a single negative thing from him about Christianity since 2021.  Those links show him working with the Southern Baptists to attack CRT.  Notice the date is 2021.  This is not a coincidence.  This was when there was a coordinated push by the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research to go after CRT.  Lindsay was part of this effort. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because they've been working towards similar goals, not unlike how leftists regularly find themselves having to work together with neoliberals withing the democratic party to defeat the republicans.
 * The alt right has internal divisions. I counted at least five if not more, and I've been keeping my hand on their pulse ever since they were first established. Lindsay is IDW. Christian nationalists are either NRX or Groypers. Nominally they're allies, but amongst themselves they're enemies, accusing each other of being a liability. Granted, their differences are irrelevant to me personally because ultimately, they're all the same stock, but this is an encyclopedia - so there's an expectation that we put everything in the correct box.
 * Wikipedia's own article on the Heritage Foundation doesn't even describe them as far right or alt right (even the word "christian" only appears once on the entire page). Calling Lindsay a christian nationalist because he worked with them once three years ago is simply ridiculous. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lindsay’s main website is owned and run by Christian nationalists and he just retweeted his explicit defense of Christian nationalism 12 hours ago today with this link from his feed: Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I spent almost an hour picking through his tweets trying to find any reference to christian nationalism that isn't some variation on "christian nationalism is a globalist psy-op" (admittedly, very different from his anti-christian ramblings from three months ago, but still nothing like what you're talking about). I'm not going to waste another hour digging through abject nonsense to find what you believe is an "explicit defense" of christian nationalism. If you want to convince me, just copy the exact sentence where he explicitly defends christian nationalism. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When Lindsay says "Christian nationalism is a globalist psy-op", or variations on that theme, he's denying the heaps of evidence for it as a movement, which serves as an indirect defense of it. By claiming Christian nationalism doesn't exist, he's letting it slide by without criticism, and supporting it.  If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the nature of denialism; this is how it works.  I don't want to reinvent the wheel for you, but when I have more time, I will watch Lindsay's video on the subject and lay out the argument for you.  I've seen this thing hundreds of times before, so it follows a pattern. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That... is nothing but wild speculation made up on the spot in response to my previous comment. And it's contradicted by his earlier tweets which were explicitly anti-christian, which you ignored, because you can't bend them to match your confirmation bias.
 * What is obviously going on is what I said earlier: the grifters who act as public faces of the alt right are split into multiple factions, some identifying as christian nationalists, some as white supremacists, others still calling themselves "classical liberals", and most importantly, each one tries to frame the rest as controlled opposition. It's pretty obvious that Lindsay's tweets about christian nationalism, which are adressed towards his followers, and not a wider public, are meant to tell people to drop the christian nationalists and buy his grift instead - because they're competing for attention in the same niche market.
 * You are absolutely correct that behind the scenes, the far right is much more complicated, and christian nationalists have a lot of power and influence, but alt right influencers like Lindsay are just a front. At most, they are useful idiots who dance to the tune of their christian nationalist owners without knowing. But remember, this article is about Lindsay himself and his beliefs. If you want to claim that he himself is a christian nationalist, then you will need hard proof that goes beyond original research. Let alone the unfounded speculations above. You will need to show Lindsay explicitly defending christian nationalism, and more importantly, you will need reliable secondary sources explicitly calling hims a christian nationalist. Otherwise, you're wasting everybody's time here. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're a funny person. It took me three seconds to find multiple videos of Lindsay arguing that religion, in this case Christianity, is the ultimate bulwark against communism (or totalitarianism).  You know he says this.  You know Lindsay defends religion and Christianity, it's part of his entire persona.  And you know he's funded and supported by Christian nationalists; they host his website.  Yet you persist.  Here's a single random quote (out of dozens) from Linsdsay back in March 15, 2024. Joe Rogan tells Lindsay, "Atheists don't have a religion, so they find a social religion..."  Lindsay: "That's exactly right, they find it in their social circumstances, politics, economics, and it always goes demonic when they do that.  I've been spending a lot of time, thanks to Charlie primarily, Charlie Kirk, I've been spending a lot of time paying attention to the tenets of Christianity, studying it, and it's got a lot of good advice in there."  You guys aren't fooling anyone.  Atheists don't have a social religion.  They aren't "demonic".  And there's no atheist on the planet that takes marching orders from Christian nationalist activist Charlie Kirk.  Enough with the theatrics and denial. This is one of the oldest shill gambits in the book.  "Hey everyone, here's an atheist who defends and upholds religion, and look, he's even paid and funded to say good things about it!"  Are you freaking kidding me? Viriditas (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, John McWhorter is also an atheist and he's also described much of contemporary leftist politics (i.e. the "woke") as a sort of secular secular religion; see Woke Racism. And I don't believe McWhorter has anything to do with Charlie Kirk or Michael O'Fallon or anyone like that. As I tried to explain above, Lindsay is an atheist who's decided to make alliances with Christian conservatives because he believe he shares with them a common enemy, much the like the United States aligned in the past with Soviet Union and then with Muslim fundamentalists when it felt such alliances served the fight against what it perceived as a greater threat from a common enemy. Such alliances did not not make the US communist nor fundamentally Islamic. Finish the analogy for Lindsay. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, not a valid comparison or analogy. McWhorter is a conservative who works for the arch conservative Manhattan Institute, which has been on the wrong side of every issue known to humanity. McWhorter casually referred to himself as an atheist on Twitter, so highlighting him as an atheist seems like another fallacy. To be clear, what Lindsay and McWhorter have in common is not atheism, but rather similar origin stories; they are both held as examples of liberals who have gone over to the other side and now identify with conservative values and philosophy.  This is not new or interesting, and has nothing to do with atheism. Viriditas (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, it's once again proving to be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you on political subjects. The sourcing on McWhorter being an atheist is weak in the article for him here on Wikipedia, but he is indeed an atheist. Being an atheist is an internal belief, and ultimately the fact that an anyone is an atheist relies up a self-declaration that is then repeated by others. It's also not fair to simply call McWhorter a conservative. While he has worked for Manhattan Institute, he's also had long relationships with The Atlantic and the NY Times. He's a Democrat and identifies as a liberal. And his political views haven't changed racially during the time that's he's been a public figure, since circa 2000. He has roughly the same political constitution he had 25 years ago. What's happened in the interim is that the mainstream American left has been pulled significantly leftward by the "progressive left" and their ideologies, particularly on matters concerning race. This is a reality that you've denied in conversation with me in the past. I've engaged with you here again, mostly as a courtesy to try and help steer you in the right direction, but that's seeming futile. And the arguments you've made here certainly aren't serving to improve this article or Wikipedia in general. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's not possible to have a reasonable conversation when one party says unreasonable things. A lack of belief is not a belief.  Your assertion that atheism is a "belief" is unreasonable.  I don't believe in gods or unicorns.  Does that mean I have a belief in a lack of unicorns? And yes, I disagree with your assessment about the American left becoming more left; it's untenable and unreasonable.  By all accounts, there is no American left of any kind of significance, and political scientists are in agreement that legislative decisions by politicians are made due to their donors.  You're trying to promote extremely radical, right wing views of "the left" and race and other topics that are not considered reasonable by anyone outside of the self-contained, hermetically sealed conservative bubble.  That's one of the reasons there's a continuing disagreement here. Most of us consider these things conspiracy theories spread by the radical right, while others like yourself, consider them settled facts, chapter and verse.  We're not going to agree.  The more interesting topic is how these ideas came about and were spread, and how America became so polarized.  The convergence of Russian propaganda and GOP talking points in this regard is quite alarming.  What Lindsay and others are saying about the importance of religion in defending capitalism is oddly similar to what right-wing oligarchs are saying about Christianity and the defense of Russian culture.  That's not a coincidence, I'm afraid.  The Russians, with the help of the GOP, stoked partisanship and divisiveness for years in the US.  And now, the talking points of both, American and Russian oligarchs, are virtually identical. The attacks on an invisible "left" that are undermining Christianity (Lindsay calls atheists "demonic") is the essence of both the right wing in the US and the right wing in Russia.  They are one and the same now. The undermining of democratic elections and fervent hope for an American dictator who isn't beholden to elections is now the top of the agenda pushed by Christian nationalists in the US.  How is it that you do not see any of this?  I'm going to let you in on a little secret, and I think you may find it difficult to believe: the vast majority of liberals and Democrats want a healthy and vibrant conservative party on the right.  Do you know why this is?  It's because in the US, liberals and Democrats are politically centrist, not left.  I know, this is difficult for you to believe.  To reiterate, there is no viable left wing party in the US in 2024.  It doesn't exist.  Yes, I know, you will be more than happy to point me to nine Democratic Party members out of a total of 435 representatives.  Do you think that's a reasonable defense of your proposition?  Nine progressive people on the left versus 426 in the center to center-right?  Please reevaluate your entire argument, it lacks good evidence. Viriditas (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a point in this discussion when it stopped being about improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas Literally everyone here agrees with everything you just said, but that doesn't change the fact that calling someone a christian nationalist without proper sourcing is a BLP violation. I should know. I've gotten into trouble at last twice over something similar. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article, but it doesn't claim he's a Christian nationalist directly. Even Mr. Weiss up above is willing to admit that Lindsay has joined with a coalition of Christian nationalists to support their goals for America. And to be clear, if you have nine Christian nationalists sitting at a table and Lindsay sits down with them, well, most people would say you now have ten Christian nationalists at the table. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "You guys aren't fooling anyone..."
 * This borders on a personal attack. And it's especially hilarious because being vocally left wing and anti-christian just happens to be what I'm primarily known for on this site.
 * But personal attacks and wild speculations won't work when it comes to BLP subjects. Either provide reliable secondary sources explicitly describing Lindsay as a Christian Nationalist, or WP:DROPTHESTICK.
 * Also, there are half a dozen articles on wikipedia that push a pro christian POV, and your dedication could be much better put to use fixing those. Do that, instead of wasting everybody else's time splitting hairs arguing over a lone alt-right grifter. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think my point about "you guys aren't fooling anyone" is supported by the facts. In the US, we currently have 46 congressional Republicans calling for the disbanding of NATO, which is Russia's favorite position.  On the other hand, we have 9 congressional Democrats who believe in protecting the environment, affordable health care for all, free education, and fair wages.  But according to the editors above, the left wing in America pose the greatest danger?  Please. As for Christian nationalism, the facts are already in the article.  This discussion began with Lindsay supporters claiming that conspiracy theories are not conspiracy theories.  I'm sorry, but I will continue to push back against this nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I addressed a personal attack you leveled against me in which you insinuated that I am a republican/ far right/ christian nationalist by using the term "you guys". Your response is going further off topic.
 * As I said above, you need reliable secondary sources EXPLICITLY calling Lindsay a "Christian Nationalist" before he can be describes as such. Doing otherwise is a WP:BLP violation, and WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well.
 * You have also received multiple warnings that the talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM, that you keep ignoring. Your behavior is edging close to being disruptive, which is especially bad BEACUSE you're technically correct about most things. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2024 (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&#39;s Back (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Wokeness" in quotes and "Cultural Marxism"
I have twice reverted this edit which takes "wokeness" out of quotations and refers to "Cultural Marxism" as if it is real. I think that both of these changes are misguided. "Wokeness" needs to be in quotes because the "wokeness" being invoked here is not actual wokeness (an AAVE term) but the far-right's straw man version of it. If we really don't like using quote marks (and I'm not sure why) then there might be some other way to do it but surely that would be more complicated for no additional benefit. Replacing "conspiracy theories" with "concepts" seems to soft pedal what is being said. In particular it has the effect of hiding the nature of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory behind the redirect, although the redirect itself is not new. Now, I'm not saying that that was the intention. Probably this is all just misguided rather than intentionally misleading. I do see the argument about repetition but we need to find a wording that is explicit that both the things listed are conspiracy theories. We either need to keep it as it is or we need to use the the full name of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article to make it explicit what it is. In both cases these are fairly longstanding elements of the article text and hence form a status quo position that should not be changed without good reason. So, are there any good reasons to change it and, if so, how can we change it in a way that avoids these problems? DanielRigal (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support edits by User:DanielRigal based on the above explanation. Editors are re-litigating the same argument, over and over again on this page (look above).  We need to take a roll call, demonstrate a consensus and implement a stable version to prevent this from being a daily occurrence.  Otherwise, we need page protection. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly don’t know why this is a topic for the talk page at all.
 * Wokeness is an established term and long-standing concept, hence it has an Wikipedia article. There is simply no need to put it in quotation marks as if it were a made-up term.
 * My intention with removing conspiracy theory was simply that it appears twice in one sentence. There might be other ways to phrase this better though.
 * Both changes change absolutely nothing as far as content is concerned. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The quotes around "wokeness" are understandable because the source cited consistently puts quotes around "woke". It's common practice to put quotes around a neologism when introducing it. However, I take exception with DanielRigal's reasoning above about the word. The AAVE usage is no more legitimate than the pejorative usage applied to criticize the political left. It's not a straw-man, nor is it used only by the far-right. While it surely gets used sloppily by many on the right, the term is used by mainstream conservatives, centrists/moderates, liberals, and even some leftists to target aspects of leftist political ideology that are truly regressive and illiberal, like the idea that all white people are intrinsically and uniquely racist, or the notion that it's impossible to be racist against a white person. The article would be better served by not relying on loaded neologisms like "woke", but rather substantively detailing Lindsay's criticism of the political left, mostly prominently in books like Cynical Theories and Race Marxism.


 * DasallmächtigeJ brings up a good point about the repetition of the word "conspiracy" in the final sentence of the lead. However, this point of style is subordinate to a greater problem here, one that I've raised more than once before, that the article is relying on opinion pieces from leftist (in same cases overtly Marxist) sources and the SPLC (which has a recent history of defaming figures similar to Lindsay, like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) to label Lindsay a conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think SPLC has any such history, but I am curious about who at the organization made the decision to accuse Nawaz of being an "anti-Muslim extremist". That was a very costly decision for them.  As for Ali, they retracted that accusation as well.  Organizations are not perfect and make mistakes.  I've noticed in conservative cultural circles, admitting a mistake is looked down upon as a sign of weakness, but in liberal circles it's considered a sign of strength. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the Nawaz and Ali defamations did happen; that's the history that been settled legally. I don't think this is the only instance such misconduct by the SPLC. I think they're doing the same sort of thing with Lindsay. And there other examples. I personally consider admitting mistakes to be a virtue, but it's usually more virtuous when you so before the weight of a multi-million dollar lawsuit is thrust upon you. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ali didn't sue and they removed the page. The SPLC has been accused of "defaming figures" for a long time.  99% of the allegations are baseless.  Nawaz and Ali were only the two most recent incidents, and it didn't help that Nawaz and Ali were both taking right-wing positions in various areas (Nawaz was even leaning towards defending Trump in several areas).  This possibly contributed to the confusion, I don't know, but the confusion is even greater lately, with Ali coming out as a new Christian and turning her back on atheism.  This sounds remarkably familiar. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When merely taking a right-wing position or being a Christian gets you confused with Neo-Nazis and similar extremists, we have a problem. The SPLC seems have that sort of problem at its core. I find Ali's adoption of Christianity lame and pathetic from an intellectual leadership standpoint (I saw her discuss this in person with Richard Dawkins in May), but it doesn't make her an extremist. It just makes her about a weak as the average person. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with Ali becoming a Christian or being religious. I have a problem with her stated reason for doing so because the reason makes zero sense and indicates that she philosophically backslides into her previous beliefs, using them to make the same justifications she originally protested against.  In other words, Islamism and Christian Nationalism are essentially identical. I see this kind of thing a lot with people who swing from one extreme to another, so it always makes me sad.  Pretty much the same thing could be said for Nawaz, who went from one extreme to the next.  I don't know how or why SPLC thought any of this was "anti-muslim", so that's just a mistake on their part.  I do agree that over many centuries, Christianity has undergone reform and secularization, which, depending on how you look at it, has either integrated into democratic society or helped encourage some aspects of pluralism.  Most atheists disagree with this position, but I think there are some minor aspects to it that are true.  But it also needs to be said that there has been a lot of push-back and opposition to modernity by Christianity, so this argument tends to fall apart when you look at how much effort has been undertaken by Christians to backslide into pre-enlightenment territory.  That's not to say there aren't various aspects of liberal and progressive Christianity that take democratic and secular forms, but this has been overtaken by conservative Christianity in recent years.  Lindsay, in fact, argues that liberal values are destroying conservative Christianity. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The SPLC's defamation of Ali and Nawaz happed long before the ideological shifts you reference occurred with either of them. It happened because they both were critical of Islam and violent acts motivated by Islamic belief. The SPLC has made similar, although less prominently-placed, libel against Sam Harris for the same reason: https://www.splcenter.org/20180419/mcinnes-molyneux-and-4chan-investigating-pathways-alt-right#race-realism. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Harris has gotten himself into some hot water with the things he has said. He's also, like Nawaz and Ali, swung from one extreme to the other, becoming more of what people are calling a "religious personality" these days.  While this shift started with Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality without Religion, he and his wife have clearly gone much deeper, and his mentors, like Joseph Goldstein, who I respect and admire, has been very squirrely on the topic of religious beliefs like "rebirth" and other religious ideas. Same thing happened to Michael Shermer, who went from atheist to skeptic, to climate denier, and now is flirting with the alt right, and whose interviews with fringe figures and conspiracy theorists has gone into Joe Rogan territory.  This also saddens me, as I like many of Shermer's ideas.  So there's clearly a pattern here, of swings from one extreme to the next, instead of a pattern of moderation and staying in the center.  I don't think you're going to like this answer, but it's what is happening, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That summation of Sam Harris is detached from reality. It’s also totally orthogonal to the reliability of the SPLC, which is the topic germane to this article’s integrity. But I suppose I should not be surprised to hear this sort of alternate reality opinion. At any rate, we (really you) are straying out bounds here (again). Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was quoting conservative rabbi David Wolpe who told Lex Fridman that Harris was "in some deep way, a religious personality." Is he wrong? Where is the "detached from reality" bit? Hint: there is none.  It sounds like you aren't familiar with this argument.  It's extremely old, and it was first popularized to a larger audience by Stanford professor Frederic Spiegelberg (1897–1994) in 1948, but if I understand the history, he had been talking about it for some time in the 1930s, particularly with his young friend Alan Watts, who would much later spread Spiegelberg's idea in the late 1960s. Jeffrey Kripal summarizes the idea in Spiegelberg's bio.  If you read it closely, it sounds like he's describing Sam Harris.  This is not an alternative reality, this is an established idea.  If you think "religion" or being "religious" comes down to which church, synagogue, or mosque one belongs to, then you're not paying attention.  Given your deep and abiding interest in football, this might interest you: it is said that the holiest religious holiday in the United States is Super Bowl Sunday.  This idea was popularized by religious professor Joseph L. Price. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)