Have Our Public Institutionalists Become Institutionalized? PART II, The Woke Right
Institutions of learning and propagandists of war can't help but to submit to the "experts" in the age of doing your own Research.
James Lindsay has been one of these institutionalized souls. He came to prominence over the Grievance Studies Affair, wherein he was kind of my fucking hero, but after railing against safe spaces, and wokeism, and critical race theory on college campuses, you’d think him to be the last one to criticize someone for platforming people with opinions he doesn’t agree with, but then I see where he’s tweeting at
things like “elevating Nick Fuentes” by letting him appear on her show.
Like what the fuck is this anti-free speech shit right here? Remember that, very recently, there was times when he was denied a platform for exercising his 1st Amendment right. People were criticized for sticking their necks out there and having him on. How quickly we forget.
Karlyn lays out how he’s harassed her and tried to get her deplatformed, and plagiarized her work for months in the following piece:
I hope he’ll practice what he preaches and debate her. He is the one who wrote an entire article called, “No, the Woke Won’t Debate You. Here’s Why.”
We’ll see… It’s real shitty of him but my criticism of him goes a little deeper. See, there’s lots you could say about the new atheists, but no one can really say that they flip-flopped in their disbelief.
Richard Dawkins, however, seems to have taken a flip-floppy position. He seems to want to keep his cake and eat it too. He says he doesn’t believe in Christianity but he’s a cultural Christian—whatever the fuck that means, is that what I am?—but then laments the beliefs of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for being too smart to believe in something so stupid, but he’s, like Sam Harris, is also a believer in the Zionist project which says their claim on Palestine is proven by the bible. It’s so damn contradictory.
In the months after Hitchens became terminally ill he had a debate on Is there an afterlife? Not long before he passed away. He held his position till the bitter end. As far as I’ve heard Dennet didn’t express a change of heart either. In a late podcast with Jordan Peterson he expresses his belief that the history of ethics is a history of secularization and pulling away from unscientific ‘New Testament’ thinking. Maybe they both were secretly saved and baptized near the end, but I doubt it, and there’s no evidence pointing to this, and neither has James Lindsays.
James Lindsay and the New McCarthyism
After starting as an author in the new atheist movement, James Lindsay is now making an entire career off of speaking engagements at churches and counseling pastors and taking on an almost religious obsession against wokeness and communism and queer theory. They’re trying to create another institution with anti-wokeness and anti-communism as the basis to replace religion. Subverting churches and pastors with this fearmongery. Like a New McCarthyism, he’s convincing people there’s communists everywhere! This is the institution he loves, an old relic of the Cold War and the Vietnam War, he’s keeping the institution and fearmongering of Anti-Communism alive and well! He has a new documentary out called Beneath Sheeps Clothing about Kamala Harris being a secret Marxist that’s plan is to institute communism into America. You can save your money, Kamala Harris doesn’t suck because she’s a secret Communist that wants to destroy your institutions, she sucks because she’s a warmongering, milquetoast, Democrat that promises more of the same bullshit that’s failed us our entire lives. And the GOP is no better, who as Clint Russel of Liberty Lockdown said in a brilliant exchange with Vivek Ramaswamy, “The GOP runs around talking like they’re Ron Paul then governing like they’re John McCain”.
Jeez, maybe if there were some communists to give some pushback against these partisan hacks on both sides, they wouldn’t be able to continue with their business-as-usual approach to everything! That’s ok, I’m sure they’ll get it 2-minutes after were too close to a nuclear confrontation to pull back from the brink and we now have 6-minutes to respond and just hours away from the last heartbeat on earth. Because we are close.
By the way, how can you tell someone is a Communist? Wait a minute, they’ll tell you. They love telling you that they’re Communists, they love talking about it, it’s their whole identity (a joke I heard somewhere, I can’t remember where).
I don’t have much else to say about James Lindsay, I used to look forward to his appearances on Joe Rogan, but I couldn’t get through the last one, like, dude you’re still going on about queer theory? WTF are we talking about still, how much more can really be said about this shit, and all of this goes double for Konstantin Kisin.
made a video a week or so after his Woke Right video which he, by the way, plagiarized from us, by us I mean fans of Dave Smith, because he is the Woke Right, he’s their fucking spokesperson. The Free Speech Warriors that are only for free speech that they agree with, as soon as it is against one of their institutions all that is out the window. They're against the redress of grievances, just ask them about protests. You can’t criticize war, be it in Israel or Ukraine, they support Anti-Semitism laws, and hate-speech, all this is the woke doctrine and earn them the title of the Woke Right.Konstant Kisin’s entire video claims to be “Breaking thing down to first principles” like he did at the Dissident Dialogues as the moderator. As the moderator, he couldn’t even pretend to be objective. I’ll link it here but it’s horrific and hard to watch. Jake Klein,
’s debate partner did a follow-up video explaining and disproving all the lies from this debate and it is a masterclass:His first principles, if you break down Kisin’s entire video is War is Moral, so let’s compare which gang has a bigger monopoly on killing children…
Ok, so the entire premise of this video is hilariously disingenuous, the idea that he’s been sitting on the fence this whole time, dude, the debate he moderated, the people he had on his show from both sides, you can very clearly see where his bias is, and that’s ok, I have plenty of biases, war is one of them. I WANT ALL WAR TO STOP RIGHT NOW, DEFUNDED, DENUCLEARIZED, AND BRING THOSE PEOPLE HOME! I want NATO dismantled, and peace between America and Russia, Iran and Israel, China and Taiwan, and America with all, that’s my bias, but throughout this entire video he makes the claim that he’s coming at this from first principles, he actually just says the phrase “first principles” over and over. Dude, just because you have makeup and a funny British accent doesn’t make your words change definitions, no matter who told you otherwise. That’s why this had to be a part 2, because I’m coming at a different argument. Although, his institution that he believes in is the most nefarious of them all, NATO, and the Military-Industrial Complex. To him, they can do no wrong. He literally wrote a piece, on the old George W. Bush propaganda line, why do they hate us? Well, of course, they hate us for our freedom. His piece is based on an article in a magazine called Dabiq, the name of the article is Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You, and they explicitly say that they hate all non-believers of Islam, but their main gripe is us waging war on the caliphate. Now, I am not siding with terrorists here, but if that’s the type of crazy they are, why would we put military bases in their back yard. Fuck them, leave those fucking people alone. Keep them from committing terrorism here by leaving them alone over there, but I digress. Back to Mr. Kisin’s “1st principles.”
First Principles—What are they?
Okay, to come at something from first principles, would mean to reduce it to the point that it can’t be reduced any farther, like simplifying fractions. To break a conflict down to first principles you wouldn’t do this by comparing it to other wars, and deciding “they were okay, so this is okay.” You must define your first principles.
He has since then made a response video to Dave Smith with the claim that he did state the 1st principles that the rest of his argument derived from, that is October 7th was wrong, that’s his first principles. This is such an absurd straw man. No serious person is saying the October 7th attack was right. I’m here to argue that there is no such thing as a moral attack, especially one in which we lose innocent civilians, man, woman, or child. That’s my first principles, that the rest of my arguments derive from, war is evil, full stop. By the way, I must point out that it’s not clear how many people were killed by either side that day because there has been so many fantastical lies that Israeli Press has exposed from that day. One of them being they enacted the Hannibal Directive, The Hannibal Directive, explained below by Al Jazeera, is a way to keep any of Israel’s enemies from having something to gain leverage against the Israelis, leverage to maybe, trade for freedom?
The directive, also known as the Hannibal Procedure or Hannibal Protocol, is an Israeli military policy that stipulates the use of maximum force in the event of a soldier being kidnapped, said Shaul.
“You will open fire without constraints, in order to prevent the abduction,” he said, adding that the use of force is carried out even at the risk of killing a captive soldier.
To me, the most egregious thing about this directive is that it’s a requirement in Israel to serve in the military:
The State of Israel requires every Israeli citizen over the age of 18 who is Jewish, Druze or Circassian to serve in the Israel Defense Forces.
So, these people are forced to serve and then if they get in a tight spot where they might be captured, other soldiers will kill them before they let them get captured!
The order was last executed during the 2014 Gaza War – known in Israel as Operation Protective Edge. During that conflict, more than 2,000 Palestinians and 72 Israelis were killed.
On Friday August 1, 2014, at Rafah in the south of Gaza, the Israeli Army invoked the Hannibal Directive to try to stop Hamas fighters from fleeing with a captured Israeli officer.
The unprecedented ferocity of the action that followed cost the lives of at least 135 civilians – 75 of them children.
That was the last time, because this order was so controversial it was decided to cut it from the playbook in 2016. Let’s see what the Pro-Israeli publication, Haaretz has to say about this…
IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive
'There was crazy hysteria, and decisions started being made without verified information': Documents and testimonies obtained by Haaretz reveal the Hannibal operational order, which directs the use of force to prevent soldiers being taken into captivity, was employed at three army facilities infiltrated by Hamas, potentially endangering civilians as well.
I want to be very clear about this, I am against war from all sides. Every person who died that day was killed by evil on either side. Just pointing out some facts from that day that are now clear.
Back to 1st Principles…
So, October 7th was obviously wrong, from all sides, because 10/7 was blowback for the blockade by Israel since 1967. They’ve had them trapped by land, air, and sea. They won’t even allow them to go out too far on the water to fish. They control how many calories are allowed in, what kind of food, and they frequently round up a few, kill some, take some prisoner every few months, they call it Mowing the Lawn!
The clip above is an excellent explanation of exactly what I’m trying to say from someone who has been there.
This is from an article by Foreign Policy in Focus:
Ever since it withdrew its settlements in 2005, Israel has periodically attacked Gaza. This shelling of locations throughout the narrow strip of land gave rise to the Israeli expression “mowing the lawn.” In other words, Israel was bombing Gaza on a regular basis to “maintain order.”
I must move on…
No More 9/11’s….
If you’re first principles are How many 9/11’s was this? First off, that hasn’t been reduced far enough, it’s still at like 3rd or 4th principles. Secondly, you’ve lost the fucking plot! But, hey, I’ll humor it, let’s take a look-see at it. Mr. Kisin says, according to first principles, Israels 9/11 was about 12 times worse than 9/11. When 9/11 happened it was, 2,977 of 285 million=out to .001044561% of our population, and we launched an extremely unjust war and killed a million Iraqis, 10s of millions across the middle east. On Oct. 7th, the Al Aqsa Flood, the loss was 1200 of about 9 million= out to .013%, and yes by this logic, this equals out to the equivalent to about 12.445 9/11 attacks, that seems really bad, so let’s keep on this line. The current conservative estimate of dead civilians in Gaza is 40K, 60% woman and children, okay, so that’s 40,000 killed of a population of 2 million, right? That equals out to 2% of the population and get this, equals out to be 153 9/11 attacks. That’s a lot of melted iron! By the way, none of this is relevant! Ask a mother of any of the children lost in either of the three attacks who mattered more and she’s gonna say, My fucking kid! Because you don’t talk fucking numbers, with human fucking lives! Are you out of your mind? Or Dave Smith used this comparison, if a family of 4 loses one of their children it’s not less fucked up then a family of 3. Losing someone is losing someone and fucked no matter how many were there and that’s just not a moral argument.
So, let’s go back to the first principle thinking.
If we were going to really break this down to first principles, to decide if this is a just war, you’d have to decide? Firstly, a war is between 2 nations, or 2 states or 2 militaries, and the Palestinians never had a state. This is a fight between the top gang in a prison.
How about we reduce it like this? Is any war moral? What decides that? Well, war is—on a first principles basis—Mass killing as a method of extortion, to extort something either from you personally or the nation such as resources, or land, and it’s almost never what they say it’s for, i.e. Democracy, Nation-Building, Human Rights violations, WMD.
The first principles that I derive the rest of my arguments from is war is evil. Violence is evil. Extortion is a form of violence against a person or property, and if your country is going to take the moral high ground and be the civilized ones then you have a duty not to be more violent than the terrorists. Anyways, when you break down the morality of violence to first principles you get 2 things, property rights and non-aggression. You belong to you, so self-defense falls along those lines. If someone is not violating your property, or aggressing against you, then you have no right to aggress against them! Does extortion fall along these lines? Yes. Does killing fall along these lines? Yes.
This endless support for these wars is an institution in its own. Konstantin is in love with many of these institutions of war. Maybe it’s little-man syndrome, I don’t know, but he’s crazy about NATO and the American war machine, which NATO benefits off of.
Killing is Wrong, Violence is Wrong—How do you Know?
The bottom-line of war, and it can’t really be reduced no farther than this, killing is wrong? Why? Who decides? I believe, before the laws, before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there’s something else inside of us, something instinctual that screams out when confronted with the loss of human life. I’ve felt it, and I’m sure many others have too. It’s an erratic, emotional feeling, that comes over you. I seen it in the EMT’s who were there for my father when he was sick, for they could see things were much more dire than I could see. I remember the fright and desperation when I’d found a loved one hanging himself, and I had to cut him down before it was too late. I felt the same feeling when a girlfriend had overdosed, and I had to figure out CPR real fucking fast, because I had no clue what to do, I started blowing air into her lungs to get oxygen to her. (Disclaimer: They both lived) Of course, these are biased accounts. I loved these people, and maybe I’m just sensitive, but when those first responders got there to give her Narcan, I watched as all three, grown, bearded, burly men cried silently together. Giving her air from a bag I see big tears rolling down all three of their faces. I really couldn’t believe it, but they felt it too. In that moment, they didn’t care who she was, she was a human being that needed their help, and whatever that is inside of us, that instinct to preserve human life at all costs. I don’t know what it is, but whatever that is, it’s real, and it’s there.
When you break down a conflict to first principles, war must be opposed at all costs, and I mean all costs! By the way, if you can’t have peace there, go somewhere else! Maybe 75 years later, it’s time to move on. Fuck Israel, it’s hot and dry, too many cactuses. Life is too damn short, come here, leave those people alone, we have 22,000,000 undocumented immigrants here, we’d love to have some documented Jews, come to Kentucky, I’m pretty sure we’re Jew-free, or maybe I just don’t know any. It’s like walking up a sidewalk, you see someone ahead who obviously looks to be acting erratic, you don’t high-tale it towards him, you cross the street to avoid any bullshit! What I’m saying is cross the street! **I bet that’ll be a controversial statement, hahahahaha!**
Konstantin Kisin is the modern Neoconservative. This is how they start; this is the trajectory. They start out as Liberals, then become moderates, then become free speech warriors who are Classically Liberal—so far this could be me—they continue to pelt you with all the issues you love to support, but if you pay attention, right when you think you have an actual, independent thinker here, they’ll dropped a couple corporate talking points, Israel has a right to defend itself…. we must protect Ukraine from an ‘Unprovoked’ war…. why are y’all being so racist (that was a new one)? I’m gonna leave you with this.
of Anti-War.com, was on is Critical a couple weeks ago, and after 2 hours of laying out how these people who are so good on so many issues flip when it comes to war, Scott explains how people like and andScott Horton: Well, I mean, as far as these very powerful American influencers, you know, this could be my bias, but I think that this is a smart way to look at these people. Bari Weiss and Ben Shapiro as probably the two most prominent.
Trish Wood: Yeah.
SH: You know what they are? They're kittens and donuts. That's what they are. I read this great article one time—
TW: What does that mean—
SH: —about an Israeli foreign ministry influence operation on Facebook. And it was a web page, a Facebook page about kittens and donuts. And that was what they posted. Cute little kittens. You can see them now, can't you? Little kittens and donuts. Oh, everybody loves donuts. Sugar, sweet, yummy and bright colors.
SH: Kittens and donuts, kittens and donuts, kittens and donuts. And then every 175th post, every seven weeks, they would say, we sure love Israel so much and stand with Israel. They protect gay rights, don't you know? Some Israel PR.
SH: And you see now, the entire purpose of that Facebook page was just to flick a little Hasbara in your eye. It was never about the kittens. They were jerking your chain. It was the Israeli foreign ministry, not some sweet lady who just likes kittens. It was an influence op to trick you into thinking that people who like kittens, like I like kittens also like Israel, I guess Israel must like kittens too. And just that to me, like ought to piss you off just in the first place that they can, they treat you with that much contempt. If that is what they are trying to do to influence your mom's opinion, right?
SH: Like how dare they, first of all, but then secondly, Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss. That's what they are. They're kittens and donuts. Ben Shapiro gets up there and says, “no, young lady, you're not really a boy. Give me a break. You can't ask people to stop believing in reality and instead believe in your delusion instead.”
SH: “We're not going to go along with that. That's crazy.” So, people go, “yeah, that sounds right. This guy is rational.”
SH: And then he goes, “oh, we love Israel so much. They're great.” Blah, blah, blah. And you go, “well, wait a minute. What do these things have to do with each other?”
SH: I mean, if anything, you can see them now. They're the wokest of all! You can't say anything about Israel or Shapiro himself. The same guy who made millions, who made his entire career going to campuses and saying, “no, crybaby, you can go to your safe space, but I don't have to respect that.”
SH: “And I don't have to respect your nonsense and all your PC,” you know, “new speak terminology and force everyone to give in to your thing.” “Free speech. You can't stop me.” All of this. And then as soon as all this stuff breaks out in Israel, all of a sudden, who wants speech codes on campus?
SH: Who wants to restrict protests and restrict speech and claim, quite and wholly, and totally disingenuously, that everyone who disagrees with him about Israel, is just a Jew hating anti-Semite. That's their motive. “You know how they are. They hate Jews.” “Hey, look, here's one example of one stupid student said one stupid thing, wah, wah, wah.”
SH: And all of a sudden now who's crying in a safe space and demanding that everyone else see it through those same eyes too. And what does that have to do with Israel? In terms of the overall, like the rest of his message, free markets and anti-wokeism and all these things.
I wish I could find this article online; I looked everywhere. It’s been scrubbed, I’m sure. This describes these people so well. None of them, does it describe better though, than
. You feel like he’s a rational actor when he has on all these guests supporting free speech, and anti-wokism, and the like, he comes at it from the perspective that he’s from a communist country and he knows what this leads to. Then he sprinkles in some war here, a little war over there, by the way, Dave Rubin is one of these guys too. He started his own Free Speech platform, Locals then as soon as someone has something to say about Israel, he’s right back to calling for speech codes. These people are propagandists of the highest level, and they must be seen as such. Dr. Fauci, Peter Hotez, Sam Harris, James Lyndsay, Mr. Kisin, Ben Shapiro, Bari Weiss, and many more. You will know them by their fruit!They’ve become institutionalized. They lived so long depending on these institutions, they will abandon all principles at the drop of a dime if anyone was to threaten them. Be Aware!
Thank you for reading, if you haven’t already, please subscribe below! Catch ya on the next one.
, Editor-in-Chief,