Summary
âž¡ The text discusses a group of people who believe that the concept of freedom has been misused, leading to societal issues. They argue that too much freedom without responsibility can lead to harmful outcomes, such as the spread of harmful ideologies or misuse of resources. They identify themselves as ‘common good conservatives’, skeptical of liberty and freedom, and believe in limiting certain freedoms for the perceived common good. However, the text also points out that what they consider ‘common good’ may not always align with the actual common good, and their actions could lead to negative consequences.
âž¡ The text discusses how different political factions, such as communists and fascists, often have an ideal vision for society and believe they should control it for the common good. However, this often leads to tyranny and harm. The American founding principle, in contrast, believes in earned and temporary authority, with decisions made through elections and voluntary exchange. The text also warns about the dangers of a corrupted justice system, which can lead to societal unrest, and the manipulation of movements by counterintelligence operations.
âž¡ The text discusses the presence of factions causing unrest within the conservative movement, possibly due to foreign influence or internal strategies. It suggests that these disruptions may not be as spontaneous as they seem, but could be orchestrated by those with vested interests. The text also highlights the polarization of political discourse, where only extreme views are heard, and moderate voices are silenced or pushed to the extremes. This polarization is seen as a form of psychological warfare, enabled by changes in legislation that allow for propaganda to be used on the American public.
âž¡ The text discusses the influence of social media on public opinion, suggesting that a large portion of online interactions are manipulated by powerful entities using bots and agitators. It also touches on the negative psychological impact of these interactions and the difficulty of having meaningful discussions on sensitive topics online. The text further criticizes the algorithms of social media platforms for promoting conflict and suppressing certain voices. Lastly, it introduces a movie that argues that the U.S. is undergoing a communist revolution, and it emphasizes the importance of understanding this issue.
âž¡ The text discusses the evolution of communism, particularly in China, where it has incorporated elements of corporate power and disavowed loyalty to the working class. Deng Xiaoping, Mao’s successor, introduced a model that combined a communist political structure with an economic fascist model, where individuals can run corporations and become wealthy, but the government owns all land, raw materials, and heavy cash capital. This model has influenced Western systems, including the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. The text also discusses how some individuals and groups are working within systems to bring about change, rather than protesting from the outside.
âž¡ The social credit system is a control mechanism that can limit what individuals can buy based on their social behavior. In extreme cases, low scores can lead to social exclusion, with minimal subsistence provided. The speaker encourages people to watch a movie called “Beneath Sheep’s Clothing” to understand the dangers of such systems, believing that awareness can prevent their implementation. The speaker is available on various social media platforms, except Facebook, under the name “Conceptual James”.
Transcript
And I started to understand that the progressive movement itself was a problem. Just a quick break from your programming so I can give you a little information about masterpiece. They are the masters at removing toxins and heavy metals and aluminum and microplastics out of your bloodstream, out of your body. We are being bombarded with this crap from all over the place, and we need to get it out of our bodies that you are more susceptible to every disease imaginable when that’s in your bloodstream. And I like masterpiece. That’s the company I endorse. Why? Because they’re the only company out there that’s actually doing trials to prove to you that their product works.
It removes graphene oxide. It removes aluminum. It removes microplastics and all sorts of toxins. You can try yours today as well by going to Sarah westall.com under shop or with the link below. Welcome to Business Game changers. I’m Sarah Westall. I have James Lindsay coming in the program. We have a really good discussion about the prop, the mass mind control that’s going on and how they are running psyops on the right and what it means to be woke on the right. And we’re just seeing all these psyops going. And he’s going to talk about some of that and how it’s constructed and how it’s meant to just disenfranchise everyone.
Pretty much anybody who has rational thought that wants to have just good conversations, it’s this dialectic where you have to be on one extreme or the other. And anybody that’s just trying to have a basic conversation and talk about it in a smart fashion is pretty much destroyed. I mean, you really bullied. It’s really incredible. And that’s the operation that’s on purpose. And we’re going to talk about what that means. And then he gets into his role on beneath sheep’s clothing. Those of you who’ve been watching my show have seen the trailers. And I’ve been promoting it because it’s important that people understand that there’s a coup in this country and what’s behind it.
And beneath sheep’s clothing is a really good movie for to really help inform people. And I’m going to play the trailer at the very end of this interview. I hope you watch, listen and watch this whole thing. It’s really, I have a really good, I really enjoyed this conversation. I enjoy really smart people that come on and we can talk about a topic. And I think you’re going to learn a lot from this conversation. But anyways, the trailer is going to be at the end, so you can see that and, but if you want to watch beneath sheep clothing, you can go to beneath sheepsclothing movie and you will see the trailer and be able to watch it from there.
I’ll have the link below as well. Okay. Before I get into this, I want to talk to you about this new product that I am selling. I’m really excited about it because I’ve been looking for a patch that will work to really help people with all sorts of issues. And I know people are having a heck of, of a time sleeping. And so they have a sleep patch that you can wear every night and people are having a wonderful, it’s really working well on people. You put a little patch on you. This is, has 30 days in it.
You put it in on your, on you every night and people are really seeing results. It’s a frequency based product where they send the frequencies, over 300 frequencies that they have in their products that’ll help you with different things that you might be suffering from. This is an amazing one. This is about, this is, it’s supposed to supposedly for men and women, which I want to see a little bit more about it for women, but they claim it works for both. But it builds up your testosterone. So men who are losing muscle mass, this will really help you build up your muscle mass and supposedly helps with women.
But I want a little sip before I start increasing my testosterone. I want to see a little bit more on this. But supposing it works for both. So if you’re a female and you start using it, I want you to report back to me on what you think and how you feel. But men especially, this helps build up your muscle mass. As you get older, you just naturally lose muscle mass. So this is another patch that you can use to help your body regain that muscle mass. And then they also have, this has like over, this has, I believe, over 300 different frequencies and it’s a, it puts on you and you just feel so much better as you’re wearing it.
It’s a wellness band. And so it helps with anxiety. It helps with all sorts of stuff. And they have a bunch of different products. And so I am excited to start selling this, especially. What people really need right now is the sleep patch, which will help you with your anxiety and things at night. So go to my website, Sarah westall.com shop, and you will see all of these there and you can learn more about it and take a try it. If you’re having a hard time sleeping, this might work for you. So anyways, sarahwestall.com shop and check it out.
Body of line. Okay, let’s get into my really good conversation with James Lindsey. Hi, James. Welcome to the program. Hey, thanks for having me. Yeah. I’m going to ask you, because you’ve been talking about this a lot lately. What is the woke right? Well, it’s a complicated, it sounds simple. Woke right. So woke activity on the right. But it’s a complicated term because it kind of depends on how we understand what the word woke refers to. There are a lot of people out there who think the word woke means specifically leftists or that it means, you know, transgender people or I’ve heard that actually, you can’t use the word woke.
Right? Woke means transgender. No, it doesn’t. It means something else. Woke actually tells you what it means in its own name, which is woke up to something. And so the woke right are putatively conservatives. They claim conservative values or actually they claim rightism, who have abandoned classical liberalism as an organization, organizational principle for society. In other words, in the United States at least, they’ve abandoned abandoning the Constitution. They frequently see the Constitution as a piece of paper, as a piece of something that has either failed to defend itself or that has authorized the government that we have, which is unfair, but it can get pretty deep.
We can talk very simply about groups like Nick Fuentes Gripers, who are very, they claim to be very pro traditional Catholic. They claim to be very anti jewish, openly anti jewish, many of them, not just in that group, but associated, also flirt with kind of pro nazi propaganda and memes. But there are much softer expressions where it’s not necessarily blame everything on the Jews. My life isn’t going well because of the Jews. There are softer versions that point out that the best way to understand critical race theory is exactly the way critical race theory wants conservatives to understand it, which is an attack on white people.
So it’s got the same woke victim mentality about whites, about straight men, about christians. There’s an article I read recently talking about the so called woke right that was written back in May, published on the American Reformer by a fellow named CJ Engel, who I would identify as being on the woke right. He refers to it as a new christian right that is explicitly not liberal. That explicitly, in his own words, has woke up to the fact that a manufactured, post World War two liberal consensus was forced upon society and that Mister conservative Bill Buckley went around and his job was to edge out the true right, which is now awakening.
So there would be this mainstream but milquetoast conservative movement that was really neocons that had absolutely nothing to do with true conservatism or true rightism, right wing politics, and that they’ve awoken to this and they’ve pierced the veil, in other words, woke up to that. There is a whole new set of politics that we could be looking into that are these deeper conservative politics from bygone eras that were pushed out of the picture that they’re now resurrecting, which include conservatives such as Edmund Burke and Burnham, also, to a degree, GK, Chesterton and Belloc. But then you start getting into kind of some stranger names like Carl Schmitt, who was the crown jurist of the Third Reich, who put forth an idea of an unbound executive.
In other words, that the chief executive should have no boundaries on his execution of power, which is in direct conflict with the us constitutional model that we have in our president. Also, this idea that politics boils down to friend versus enemy. So it’s a conflict driven model. Then you have people that are dipping into further kind of right wing is a way to put it. But almost semi fascist thinkers like Leo Strauss, he’s not too much on the fascist side, but he’s definitely kind of dialectical and hegelian in his construction. But then outright stuff like Francisco Franco and Julius Evola, or Julius Evola, who is an outright fascist philosopher, you see support for Franco, you see support for Mussolini as an answer to communism.
So they fashion themselves as this kind of anti communist broad coalition. It doesn’t have a singular definition. There are christian nationalists who are Protestants. They’re the Deus Volt, as they call themselves, kind of hardcore trad cats. I don’t think that those two groups of people, theologically at least, get along very well. There’s a kind of contingent of orthodox christians, which is still a completely different set. I think there are a lot who are kind of nietzschean atheists. Who bend, hyper conservative, who are pushing in this direction, who, again, don’t theologically square with this. Some of them are openly monarchists, such as the neo reactionary movement and whatever we’re seeing from this group of brits called the lotus eaters.
But what they share in common is that they woke up to the belief that there has been a manufactured false consciousness of humanity following World War Two to edge out true conservatism, which seems to have an awful lot of bleed over with fascism. And that they are going to be the vanguard of bringing that philosophy back to the political square in the west and openly, excitedly pushing to get rid of the classical liberal model enshrined in the US constitution, declaration of independence, and Bill of Rights. Okay. The classical liberalism really was embraced by pretty much all Americans at one point, right? I mean, the constitution and classical liberalism.
And, you know, I always consider myself, I’m starting, I used to say I was a little more of a libertarian. Now I’m like, well, maybe I’m just more of a constitutionalist. And that’s now been put into, like a far, far right category, which I think is ridiculous because it used to be just what Americans believed. But do you find that all these terms and that people like just conservative, for example, has all these different meanings to all these different people, that it almost hurts itself to even call yourself a conservative? Yeah, it can. It’s complicated. I find it very difficult for myself.
Of course, I don’t come from, I didn’t grow up on the right or conservative. I definitely, when I spent 13 years in college, didn’t consider myself conservative and became less and less so as I spent 13 years in the university system. And like a lot of people, I had this kind of gradual awakening through the think ahead of a lot of people, but not as fast as people. You know, a lot of conservatives who listen to Rush Limbaugh, for example, were way ahead of my awakening and people who listened to him anyway, who weren’t conservative to begin with.
And there are a lot of people, Thomas Sowell was way ahead of that curve. But through the woke up to woke, I realized that woke is not liberal in any way whatsoever. I identified myself as pretty classically liberal, probably ultimately constitutionalist, but with a lot of progressive contamination. And I started to understand that the progressive movement itself was a problem. So I have had to try to articulate to groups because I speak to a lot of conservative audiences now. They’re like, what are you? I don’t know. But what I end up saying is that I think I’m very constitutionally conservative.
In other words, let’s conserve the constitution. And it’s. So what you’d say is constitutionalist. I think I’m very strongly that I’m much more fiscally conservative than I was before. I’m maybe moderately, but not significantly more socially conservative than I was before. I’m certainly not a progressive in socialism or in the social sphere, I should say. But it’s a fraught term is what I’m basically getting at. And so I am concerned that it’s such an imprecise term as you’re indicating that it means so many things to so many people that it’s a bit of a problem. What I’m particularly worried about, though, is that these people that you’ve asked me about, the so called woke, right, and like I said, it’s complicated because there’s a lot of factions.
It hasn’t, like with the woke, they kind of, they kind of, you know, did power struggles and bye, 2015, 2020 for sure. There was kind of like one thing that was woke, and it’s this identity politics. It’s very communist. And its organization, all the other factions, the progressives, the softies, all kind of got kicked out. Well, they got called far right, as a matter of fact. And so now you have this faction on the right wing side of politics that is explicitly rightist in the same way that these woke leftists are explicitly leftist, and not all of them even identify as conservative.
You have, for example, the guy who wrote the book called the Case for christian nationalism. His name is Stephen Wolf, and he tweeted at one point that he’s not conservative because he’s looked at critical theory and has decided to adopt many of its methodologies for his own conclusions. So same methods, different approach. So this is why I said it depends on what you mean by woke. If you think woke means awakening to a consciousness, which is what the word literally means, then these people qualify as woke, even though they push traditional conservative ideas in seeming. But if you think of it as a operating system for politics, how you’re going to engage in politics as a general strategy, then they also meet the definition of woke.
At least this Stephen Wolf character does when he says, I’ve adopted the critical methods in order to push my own conclusions. Another philosopher in that field is Patrick Deneen, who I have a pretty positive relationship with, at least personally in the school of thought of Leo Strauss. He’s a philosopher, I think, a professor at Notre Dame, at any rate. And he’s a very nice man. He’s very thoughtful. He is very sincere in his work and his critiques. I don’t agree with his analysis, but it’s academic, so there’s this kind of space for it. But Patrick has said openly also that we can draw from marxist technique and tactic and theory without going to the same conclusions that Marxists make.
And so in some sense, there’s almost this conservatism, or fake conservatism, this right ism is the right word for it, this rightism that’s borrowing from the tactics and techniques of leftism in order to push its own grab for power. And I find that being explicitly anti liberal or post liberal, in other words, against the classical liberal constitutional system, makes me fairly concerned about that movement. Do they? And this is where it gets into they consider themselves, or they call themselves conservatives, and then I don’t know what they are, but do they believe in freedom? They are skeptical of freedom.
In particular, they’re skeptical of the idea that allowing as much freedom as we have allowed provides for a good society. So what they. Their perspective, and again, there’s kind of a multitude of them. But just to summarize, the perspective is that if you give people more freedom than they have responsibility, then what they’ll do is misuse their freedom. If we allow people to talk about whatever they want, then you’re going to end up with communist professors, and the communist professors are going to poison the minds of younger people. If you allow people to agitate for whatever they want or spend money on whatever they want, then they’re going to, some people will, like George Soros, will spend money on a variety of nonprofit organizations and funding an awful lot of people to do things that don’t contribute, in their opinion, to the common good.
So they often brand themselves as common good conservatives as opposed to, as freedom lovers. And they tend to be very skeptical of liberty and freedom. So I wouldn’t say that they hate it. I would just say that they’re skeptical of it. Well, and the problem is, is that their common good ideas may not be really what’s in the common good. Right. I mean, we just went through this whole exercise of locking people down because a whole group of people in power sold to people that doing those lockdowns was for the common good, when in fact it did the exact opposite.
And there’s, the history is littered with people who think they’re in for the common good, and it does the exact opposite. And that’s the, that’s the whole argument, right? Yeah. Right. So I don’t mean this in the sense that it was, it’s famously said, but sick. Semper tyrannis. Thus always with tyrants. Tyrants believe most of the time that they have a vision of the good. I would. I would. I would argue that since what communism itself is looking for is in fact that all private property is abolished and replaced by something that they call communal property or even Commonwealth, that they are also.
Also, they sometimes call it the greater good, but they’re still pushing for a common good in their sight. And I think that this is to get deeply philosophical about it. I think that there is a kind of deep idealism underlying both of these kinds of factions. They have an ideal vision for what society should look like. And of course, somehow they are so elect as to be able to tell everybody else what that society is supposed to look like and how it’s supposed to work. And that, of course, is built up with all this kind of self serving avenues to power.
And it’ll be in the common good, I guess, until it isn’t. And history, like you said, is littered with examples, nominally left wing and right wing both. Again, those are matters of how we conceive of these topics where people thought that they could just order society. Whether we’re talking about the communists, whether we’re talking about the fascists, whether we’re talking about Oliver Cromwell’s Puritans, which was kind of neither of those. Whether we’re talking about the french Jacobins, whether we’re talking about the white terror and the thermidorian reaction after that. Again and again, history is littered with kind of the corpses of the people who are victims of would be tyrants who have decided that they understand the common good well enough to order it for everyone else.
If I was your mother and you had a drug problem, I’d grab you by the ear and make you call and get help. You can be in treatment tomorrow and start to get clean in seven days. Follow mom’s advice and call the detox and treatment helpline. Now write this number down. 802 877891. 802 877891. 802 877891. That’s 802 877891. It sounds like both sides have that. That inkling. They think that they need to control others. It’s that control need. Yeah, I feel like that’s probably right. I used to say, kind of glibly when I was a lot younger, that everybody loves freedom up to the point until somebody else is allowed to use theirs to do something they don’t like.
And I think there’s something to that. There’s also this idea lurking behind all of this, of cultural hegemony, which was first outlined by the Marxist Antonio Gramsci in the 1910s. And that’s the idea that there’s kind of a way that we’re going going to do things in society. We have a cultural view or a broadly, like you said earlier, it’s kind of what all Americans believe. And it seems to me that these people, whether, wherever they are, in their specific politics, communist, fascist, puritan, whatever it happens to be, as some examples we gave, that they see cultural hegemony existing and not under their control, and they don’t like it.
So they wish to control the cultural hegemony of whatever society they find themselves in. And so that impulse to control, or if we’re a little bit more clear eyed and brutal about it, libido dominandi, the lust to dominate, kind of starts to shine through. And, of course, that’s a very nietzschean idea, that it never works out. The american founding principle is the opposite. Every man is actually prone to these kinds of things, but none of us actually has divine insight. Therefore, none of us actually has any special granted authority to rule over others. So in order to hold political or social authority, we have to earn it voluntarily consent to it, and that it will be temporary.
So in politics, we use elections. In economics, we use voluntary exchange. If it’s like, you know, you’re going to submit yourself to your personal trainer, you know, you voluntarily decided that this personal trainer would be able to get your fitness goals for you. So you pay that person money and agree for them to tell you what to do, at which point you’re welcome to walk anytime you don’t like what he’s saying anymore. So we have this completely different system in the kind of classical american liberal approach, which denies that claim to special authority and thus the ability to use it to dominate others.
Well, in classical liberalism, and this is where I think both sides actually get an argument, is that when we don’t have a justice system that operates properly, when somebody is harmed, so freedom is good, but if you harm someone, then, you know, you should have your freedom taken or something. We need to deal with that, right? The fact that our justice system isn’t dealing properly when people are harmed gives freedom a bad name. Yes, absolutely. A compromised or corrupted judicial system is basically, and that’s your canary dying in the coal mine, saying that your society is about to go sideways really badly.
And when you have that, people start to freak out. A lot of people misunderstand the purpose both of the police, which is criminal justice more broadly, but also the courts. And in a classical liberal system, literally, the point of the whole criminal justice enterprise is to prevent mob violence as the answer to getting justice. And so if that system is corrupted and it’s not achieving a mutually agreed upon method of serving imperfect, but at least hopefully, ideally supposed to be impartial justice, then what’s going to happen is stuff is going to start to go off the rails.
People are going to seek justice through other means than the courts or the law enforcement can give it to them. And in countries, it’s to the, to some degree in the United States, we shouldn’t deny it, but it’s far worse right now in the UK, for example, the two tiered policing. And you can see how that’s rapidly heating up the entire. If you think of it kind of like as a. That’s like a fire that’s just boiling the pot of the population of the UK, and it’s only a matter of time until it explodes. And so, of course, you look at somebody like Keir Starmer and you look at his history.
He’s got history with communism, he’s got history with the Fabian society, and you almost have to conclude they understand this and they’re doing it to a purpose. They need the reaction in order to justify further crackdowns by the state. And then you think, well, maybe that’s a play that’s happening more broadly. And now we come to the point of why I’m concerned about a woke right, which obviously doesn’t have its hands on too many significant levers of power, and mostly is a bunch of video game dorks who play on the Internet and say trash talk and put memes until they drive themselves insane and become little Nazis.
That’s right. And we’re seeing really bad behavior on all sides, I got to say. All sides, wherever, you know, I’m really into freedom, but I’m seeing some bad side things and say, okay, you, for example, okay. And I know this is what the. This is a downfall of the right media. They’re supporting the Tate brothers, for example. The Tate brothers have been caught being with the 15 year old girls, and they have all their videos in their own language saying all these things that are really human trafficking, or could be, but they’re still promoting them. So freedom, that’s where people are pushing back and are completely disgusted.
And it’s imploding. I want you to speak to this because it’s important. It’s imploding. The, the pushback against what we’re seeing on the left. Yeah, I actually. I know I can’t speak for the Tate brothers specifically, but I actually. That’s one example. Yeah, yeah, exactly. This phenomenon. So let me say it this way. This phenomenon is clearly happening there. This is a known counterintelligence programming that you place people who are problems within a movement you wish to discredit, and then you let them be problems, and you let that movement uphold them for some bad set of reasons, like, maybe they’re the only people willing to say these truths.
So they say three truths, seven lies, but at least they said the three truths, and they were a huge problem. And then later, you discredit them. These kinds of operations are, you know, textbook counterintelligence operations. And their point is to discredit and undermine the movement, also to sow division within a movement. And so, as we just saw with the so called tenant media scandal with Lauren Chen at its center, the purpose of that, putatively, according to the Department of Justice, so let’s remember that these are allegations, was that the money was being given specifically to conservative programming that was designed to cause division within the conservative movement.
And so this is another counterintelligence bread and butter kind of operation. And I definitely think. I don’t know who. I have suspicions, but I don’t have any hard evidence. The closest to hard evidence that there is would be this allegation by the Justice Department against Lauren Chen and tenant media. But I think that’s enough to put together with some common sense that this is definitely happening. We can see with our own eyes that there are these kinds of factions that are stirring up drama. I’m hearing it from churches. I’m hearing it from republican county commissions or republican regional commissions or state commissions.
I’m also seeing it visibly with my own eyes on social media, like I said. But now we have some evidence that this may have actually been the result of a either foreign influence operation or something that the State Department constructed to look like a foreign influence operation, something like that. And then there’s just communist strategy. I mean, Lenin said the best way to control the opposition is to become the opposition ourselves. And so it’s been communist strategy for 100 years to plant subversives within movements that you wish to discredit and to have fall apart. So I think it’s at this point naive if people think that’s not happening within the broader conservative movement.
If you use just a biblical principle of a judgment by its fruits, the fruits are here we see the fruits. We maybe can’t name the names, but, yeah, it’s a very concerning phenomenon, and I think that it’s less organic than people suspect it is. I think there are people who are probably the same people who paid the left or paying a lot of these people on the right to cause this problem, to get to the singular goal that they want to get to. Well, and the people who maybe are the woke right or the people who are confused are embracing it.
Right and helping to propagate it. And it does make the everything look stupid. I mean, it makes it look bad. And you don’t want to support. Well, I don’t want to support that. Right. And then disenfranchises all these voters that we need to. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I think that the, there’s been very clearly what we might call a woke right operation that, as far as I can tell, started on something like October 8 or 9th or 10th, immediately after October 7 last year, which was the attack by Hamas on Israel. There was immediately this kind of weird shift in right wing players, not just the lunatic left, which went full Gaza, Floyd out in the streets, and they still are to this day.
But we also saw this shift on the right. And just thinking from, again, a counterintelligence kind of playbook. What would be the role of that? Well, it’d be you’re about to have a whole lot of Jews who are horrified by what’s happening on the left, and they’re going to look for somewhere else to go with lots of money and resources. In some cases that might end up in republican coffers. Better stop that. Make sure the Jews are scared to come to the republican side. And all of a sudden you have, you know, whether it’s Christ as king being beaten over the head or blame the Jews for everything or blatant antisemitism or lots of pro nazi memes.
You have this. But I think what’s important with this, whether it’s woke left or woke right, is to remember that the vast majority of the people involved in both cases are not necessarily strictly perpetrators. They are mostly victims. They are victims of a psychological campaign. They are victims of cult indoctrination who are then perpetuating that cycle of abuse. And so, you know, when you talk about it heating up everything, I actually got contacted by the New York Times the other day, and they said, hey, we want to talk to you about your reinstatement on X, which is like two years ago.
So that’s fake. Elon Musk, with a lot of people back on exit, says, did you get to find new audiences. And I’m like, uh, okay. And then the next line is, and a lot of these people that he let back on X are talking about how the government can control the weather and create hurricanes. Could you give any evidence for where Obama’s controlling hurricanes? Cause I made a joke on Twitter that said, um, and I was one of these reinstated accounts where I said it was Obama’s weather machines. It was like, really obviously a joke, but obviously the New York Times reporter didn’t quite get it.
And so what I replied back, and I think this is the point I really want to drive home with this, is that whether it’s woke left or woke right doesn’t matter. The reason that things are going so sideways, so off the rails is because they are propagandizing us. They are doing psychological operations on us. And those have been allowed. Our intelligence communities can do psychops through our media and in other ways on the american people on purpose. We can wage psych war on ourselves as a country, because Obama in 2012 modernized what’s called the Smith Munt act, which was passed in 1948 to prevent propaganda being used by the american government on the american people.
And he modernized the act, which now allows for a variety of ways in which the intelligence communities can, in fact, do propaganda. So it’s like they have, you know, like in Star wars, you got the Death Star and the beams come out and then it blows up a planet. Well, basically, imagine those beams make people crazy instead of blowing up a planet. And that’s the media, and they are concentrating beams of making everybody nuts, and they’re shooting that whether it’s through television, whether it’s through talk radio, whether it’s through podcasts, whether it’s through social media, and it’s, I think, again, we see the fruits.
Everybody’s going crazy. Well, and I think you’re right. You know, I did that. I did a whole ten part series on fifth generation warfare, which is this. And I think there’s a place to talk about what happened, and I don’t want to dwell in it, in this conversation, but there’s a place to talk about Israel in an intellectual, serious way, as an ally. Are they an ally? What are they doing there? We shouldn’t just accept what a state is doing. We should look at it, how it affects us as a country, and whether all these things, we need to have actual conversations about it.
But if you do, you are either put into one camp or the other, and we’re not allowed to act. That’s the propaganda instead of actually having intelligent conversations about what’s going on, we are put into these extremes instead. And you can’t talk about anything thing. That’s right. So that’s actually got a name that’s called affordance trapping. So they only afford you two positions that you’re allowed to hold in only two ways that things are allowed to. Two sets of discourses of ways that things can be talked about, and they huddle everybody into them. So anybody who you either stay out of it completely and silence yourself or anybody who wades even a little bit close to it is subjected to brutal psychological bullying campaigns that push you into one camp or the other.
And you’re only really allowed to articulate the view from one side or the other. You either support Hamas or you support Israel, and it’s 100% all the way and always, all the time. And we could switch the frame if that one’s too sensitive for some people to. To listen to. It could be you either support Russia or you support Ukraine, and you either support China or you support Taiwan. You could just pick anything you want where, like you said, there’s space for intelligent conversations. And at all times, all citizens everywhere should not just be handing a pass out to their government.
You should always be questioning your government. Yes. And that’s. That gets pushed away through this polarizing tool called an affordance trap, where they give you a limited. It’s like when you’re take your little kid to the grocery store and you’re like, they want cereal. And you’re like, you can get cocoa puffs or frosted flakes. Which one? And you only let them choose from the two, even though there’s 500 cereals, just to simplify the process and get them out of the aisle. Right. You can have this or that. That’s allowing them or giving them a small set of affordances.
So an affordance trap affords you a very limited number of ways of interpreting the situation. And if you look at these, they’re extraordinarily polarizing and push all the way out into being represented by the most extreme views, that is. And then it makes it so that we just shut down. And shut down is the norm. The people who want to have discussion and try to work through the issues end up just disengaging because you guys are all crazy. That’s right. That. So that’s like I said, that’s the only other option, is to just get to hell with it.
I can’t do this. You know, this is. I can’t get involved with this. Crap. And so then what you have is all of the moderate and reasonable voices are silenced and only the extremists are allowed to talk. And anybody who tries to break that kind of force field ends up heavily pushed to one side or the other. Other. Well, you’re heavily abused. Right. And you’re not. Right. You’re abused by everybody. So. But that’s what takes down a country, right? I mean, that. I would actually go ahead. Yes, it does, because of the polarization, but you’re. You are kind of abused by everybody.
But what you’re in social media, where the primary abuse comes from, you are primarily abused by big scale actors hiring bot farms and hiring agitators. I would. I would venture that when you touch one of these controversial topics on social media and you end up in kind of a swarm response, one of these struggle sessions that comes across your feed when you touch the wrong live wire, I would argue that probably greater than 90, probably greater than 95% of the bullying and responses that you’re getting are not coming from people that are even genuinely people at all, that you are being subjected to a powerful influence campaign and then that influence campaign.
So what happens is five or six actual people that you know, then jump on on one side or the other and push on you, too. And now, all of a sudden, it’s super psychologically and relationally real to you. But those people, again, are not bad actors. They’re victims of the psychological campaign. And the fact that once you hit the live wire, a snowball started to roll, and they eventually said, well, I’ve got to say something, too. And then they said something. And because of your personal connection, it actually really did damage to you. But I would venture the guess that at least 90%, if not more than 95%, when you’re in that situation is manufactured, artificial attack, more fake than real by a significant, overwhelming proportion.
I think you’re right. But then how do we deal with this? How do we. Because these are the issues that we need to deal with. But if social media is so controlled in that way, how do we break through and have reasonable conversations on topics that are sensitive that we have to talk about? I would love to know. What I found is that when people are getting together regularly in person, that this problem doesn’t happen as much. But you also have virtually no reach. You have the reach of that group and whoever they can go out and talk to individually.
So this is the trade off. I’ve also noticed that when you realize you’re probably being attacked by an influence campaign, that your psychology about the whole thing changes, and it doesn’t mess with you in the same way. It’s not nearly as effective, but it raises some concerns, something that I think about a lot recently. And I’m grateful to Elon Musk for everything that he does virtually. And I’m grateful that I got back on the largest social media network that there is because he bought Twitter and changed it to x. But the fact of the matter is, the algorithm on x, whatever it is right now, and for whatever set of reasons, is, is I’m glad you can tell the truth on X.
I’m glad that there’s pretty close to free speech on X. I am concerned about how free that really is and what gets boosted and deboosted, but I can’t answer to that at all. But I will say, like, I just want to interject. There’s some people like me who still are suffering suppression, but keep going. Yeah, that’s what I’m. That’s what I’m saying. I think that there are way more people suppressed on X than. Than we believe there are. And you definitely get lifted up and pulled down based on when you’re saying things that are what people want you to say.
And I’m concerned about that. But I’m primarily concerned about the algorithm. I find that X now is, in most ways, vastly superior to X or to Twitter before Elon bought it. The censorship, the B’s, the whatever, however, the scroll, to just sit there and scroll through and read, it’s unmanageable psychological. It is the worst. Irritating, agitate. It’s so bad that I’ve almost stopped doing it. I almost never see other people’s tweets unless somebody sends them to me or posts or whatever they’re called now because I can’t scroll, because the algorithm feels designed for conflict, for constant psychological information conflict, and it’s miserable.
So I don’t know who’s doing this. I don’t know if they’re doing it on purpose. I don’t know what the. What the magic sauce is, but I find. I find the user experience of. Of x now to be so poor that I consider. Well, I don’t consider. I just don’t look at it. I don’t look at what other people are doing on there anymore. It’s soul crushing, right? It’s just like, oh, my gosh. So you have been involved in trying to get out a movie called beneath sheep’s clothing. And I think it’s really important. I’ve been promoting it as much as I can, because I think it’s important, too.
And I’ve had Julie beeling on last year when she, you know, after she wrote her book on it, and then you guys did a movie on it, and you were featured prominently in it. Can you talk about this and what message you’re trying to get across with this? Yeah. So the message is simple. It’s, it’s communism isn’t coming. It’s here we are being put through a communist revolution in the United States. That’s why everything is so crazy. That’s why the Democrats are acting the way that they are. It’s why the rhino Republicans are acting the way that they are.
It’s probably why the woke right is acting the way that it’s acting, as either a semi organic or completely contrived reaction in order to fuel that dynamic further. And the reason everything’s so insane is because we’re going through a communist revolution. So the, the elevator pitch, you know, message of the film is communism’s not coming to America. It’s already here, and we still have time to do something about it. So we thought about it. I’ve written a God knows how many thousands, hundreds of thousands of words about communism, and a million, over a million, many millions, maybe words about communism.
I’ve podcasted something. Somebody told me it’s like 500 hours of podcast or 600 hours of podcast about communism. Now, I’ve done workshops, I’ve given hundreds of lectures all around the world in the tiniest of audiences, up to european parliament, japanese parliament, big, big platforms, and nothing moves the needle like a movie. So we decided that the show don’t tell principle is so important that we were going to take Julie’s book, and she started to work on a film. She asked me if I’d get involved, and so I got involved, and we’re going to make a documentary explaining what’s going on.
Then we got an executive producer, got interested in the project, loved what he was seeing, come together through some money behind it, and was like, let’s get the impact up. Let’s get the. Like, when you watch it, like, holy cow. Feeling up. Let’s get the action up. Let’s get the soundtrack real. And so they put together a movie that I actually, because moms for Liberty did a watch party last night and invited me to that virtually. I saw about the last 30 minutes of the film again, and it’s been a couple months since I’ve actually watched it.
And I was like, holy crap, this is moving. I was like, whoa, this is a big deal. So the goal of making the film was let’s get people to be able to see what’s happening. And let’s make not some, you know, shot in your basement, a little talking head doggo. Let’s put some. Let’s. Let’s put something behind it and make it a real hard hitting film that people are going to watch and remember. And that gets the message across. And so that’s what we shot for and that’s what we put out. And every single. Every single person I’ve heard, heard talk about it, who’s seen it has said it was overwhelming.
It was so impactful. It changed my entire view. This is my favorite comment ever was like, this is what made my mom decide this is what’s actually going on and I’ve got to do something about it. Well, that’s excellent. I want to ask you, these are some of the pushback that I get is Sarah Kamala Harris, Tim Walls, all these guys. They’re not real communists. Communists. The real communists are these far left lunatics that are in these conferences and stuff. What would you say to that? So I’ll start by giving you a remark that was made by Herbert Marcuse, who was by all measures, a real communist, although these communists also don’t much like him.
In 1969, he gave a interview with a french man whose name I forgot because I can’t pronounce it, Pierre something. But that doesn’t help you look it up. But at any rate, he gave this interview, and he said at the time, in 1969, of course, and this is a quote from memory, of course, every Marxist who is not a communist, of strict obedience is today a Maoist. And so what he said, in different words, is that communism evolved. And then there’s this select group of people who are communists of strict obedience who didn’t get the message.
And so the people that are like, you know, these kind of hardcore revcom type people who are out there screaming, and it’s always smash capitalism this and down with the patriarchy sometimes that these people do not realize that communism has evolved straight out from under them. And this includes the World Socialist website, which is, you know, a very socialist organization that don’t realize that communism evolved through the latter half of the 20th century, in particular, to a completely different model. And that new model has incorporated corporate power. It has disavowed any loyalty to the worker or to the working class.
It cares about capitalism in a vague sense, but not in a specific sense, because it needs to solve the problem associated with what Lenin called this theory of productive forces. You have to find a way to make communism productive or it can’t work. And actually, Lenin, Stalin, Matt Khrushchev, all of them, were all working on trying to figure out how to unleash productive forces with a communist political theory and structure. The person who came up with the model, or is credited with coming up with the model, and that’s deep and ugly, is Deng Xiaoping, who was Mao’s successor.
When Mao died in China in 76, there was a vacuum of power. One of his longtime sidekicks, Deng Xiaoping, who most Americans haven’t even heard of yet, it’s D e n g, if you want to look him up. Trump came up with a theory that’s called Deng xiaoping theory, which was one country, two systems. And the two systems refer to a communist political structure and theory that runs an economic fascist model. In other words, individuals can run corporations, make as much money as they want to make, they can get as rich as they can possibly get.
But the government owns all the land, the government owns all the raw materials, and the government owns all the heavy cash capital. And so, in other words, the government can kick you out, no matter how big and powerful of a business owner you are. And then you, as a business owner, are therefore tied to the state in exactly the same way that the corporatists under a fascist system were tied to the fascist state. So it’s a fascist economic model tied together with a communist political theory and CCP control in China. And so this, I say it’s ugly because this model, Deng Xiaoping was a pragmatist, much more than Mao Zedong was.
But he didn’t come up with this model out of his head. He came up with this model by collaboration with the United States State Department, in particular, Henry Kissinger. And then Brzezinski was there, David Rockefeller was there, all of the people you would think were there, th Chan, for whom the Harvard School of Public Health was probably there on the chinese side. And they came up with this new model of one country, two systems, which through the eighties and nineties, Deng Xiaoping put into action and his successors took off and ran with it. This, of course, Xi Jinping theory now, which is very steering back toward Maoism and less open than Deng Xiaoping had it.
In fact, Deng Xiaopings motto was open up. He went around all over the country and the world saying, open up. Open up. Open up, meaning open up your economies. But the government still owns everything, technically. So this new model of communism is reflected in the west with ESG and the sustainable development goals from the United nations, theyre exactly the same program, just kind of inverted in terms of how theyre run. The CCP obviously isn’t directly in control of all of that either. There is no supra international state that has much power, so they’re actually running it through the corporations.
But this new model of communism is the communism for the 21st century. And these communists of strict obedience who are still running around like, well, we could call them useful idiots, or we could call them communists with strict obedience, or we could call them what Yuri Beznamov called them, which is political prostitutes. And he said, you pay no attention to them anyway. They are like, they’ve missed the boat. The boat is going without them to a new communism for a new era, which is semi communist and semi fascist. And that’s why when you look at people like Kamala Harris, they can shoot back at you.
Look how much she does for the big corporations. Well, she does this for big corporate conglomerates who actually wield power that’s comparable in many respects to state level power, but tied to no state. And so they become this supernational entity, which is exactly in line, by the way, with what Marx said in capital is something like chapter 32. It’s really far down and near the end of capital. Marx was very clear that that is what’s actually going to be the capitalism that transforms into socialism, because the full socialist production model will already be realized in the corporation with a complete bureaucratic structure.
And then it’s just a matter of replacing who runs it. Capitalists out, socialists in. Well, and that is explains how they get the support of the whole, both systems, both sides and the both extremes. And why it’s disenfranchising the entire middle of the country that is revulsed by both sides. And one of the things that I’ve heard, which I think, which I’ve been talking about, too, because once I started thinking about it, the smart people aren’t going to work like the communists. They don’t have the power. They don’t have the capital. They don’t have. And this is probably why the Chinese moved in that direction.
That’s why Lenin moved in this direction, because if you don’t have the power, you don’t have the capital. You aren’t going to get anything done. You’re just an idealist utopias that can’t do anything. And so they realized they had to, to be smarter. They work within the system to get what they want, and then ultimately all they are is tyrants at the end of the day. Yeah, that’s what Herbert Marcuse said in 1972. So at the end of the sixties, there was an attempted kind of critical theory based marxist revolution in the US. There’s lots of huge riots and so on.
They did not succeed. And so in 72, very pissed off, Herbert Marcuse writes a book called Counter Revolution and Revolt. And he says, we’re not going to fight from the outside anymore. We’re going to go in, we’re going to go into all the institutions. We’re going to go into computer programming. We’re going to go into engineering. We’re going to go into education at all levels, and we’re going to do the job. We’re not going to get in there and be a protester. We’re going to go in there and do the job, and we’re going to bring our ideology, our communist ideology with us and start transforming those things from within.
He explicitly said, we’re going to do the long march through the institutions and we’re going to take the country from the inside. And so they completely switched gears at that point. They also adopted his theory that the working class had been stabilized by a successful capitalist economy and so that the working class wouldn’t be the basis for the revolution. And so what you have to use is the intelligentsia, which it’s now filtering into all the institutions, combined with the what he called ghetto populations. So the racial minority, sexual minorities, feminists and other outsiders, mentally ill criminals.
Those people had to get somehow turned into a coalition that would do kind of the groundwork while everything was being transformed on their behalf from within by a managerial vanguard. And you can just lay out, there’s him writing about this in the sixties and early seventies, saying, all right, we tried a direct revolution. It didn’t work. Let’s do this other thing. And then this is what’s actually happened. He got his ideas, like I already quoted from Mao. And that, of course, therefore, is going to have kind of a crosstalk back and forth with the CCP. And then as this Deng Xiaoping model develops, it didnt just develop in China like in a beaker.
It was being beta tested in China. Meanwhile, elements of it were being incorporated into the western business model until we hit this point of crisis that were in now, I cant imagine theyre the soldiers for this. They truly are the useful idiots and all sides of this thing. But we’re really seeing it in this transgender and this weird, but I can’t imagine as they gain power and they really get a foothold that they want these people around because these people are going to be horrified with the fascism that is inherent to this system. What are they going to do with these people? Gulag, you’ve all, Noah Harari at the World Economic Forum said video games and drugs.
I think it would probably be slightly more brutal than that. But their social credit scores will certainly be very low. They’ll protest against the system because they don’t know how to do anything else. And social credit will be the primary enforcer. If you actually read the document, you can find it on Stanford University’s website, their Digi China program where they translate all these chinese documents. You can go look up the rationale for the social credit system in the first place. And it says its necessary to produce a proper socialism in order to get the level of control over individuals and control over the economy that you actually need.
So its going to be all governed through some kind of a social control mechanism like social credit probably attached to some kind of an income or your money being only able to buy certain things. You can only buy things according to your social credit. They dont have to necessarily use a CBDC to do it, but they can really amplify it with that central bank digital currency. They don’t have that in China so to specifically. But you can’t even use vending machines in some cities if your social credit score is too low. So these people will be put into a social credit gulag basically.
And the ways out of the social credit gulag, if we look at China for inspiration, are to watch propaganda videos, are to do certain service to the state the way the state says. And so they’ll either be reeducated by that or basically locked out of society and given some kind of minimal subsistence that really they have no reason to leave their, their apartment or their house or whatever it is that they have to live in under that circumstance, given some minimal livelihood. And then you’ve all know Harare, like I said, said video games and drugs to keep them busy.
Yeah. And it’s the people, or they might just kill them. Well yeah. And it’s the people we think that are on the forefront of this communist revolution who really are the ones that are going to despise the most at the end of the day. This is an excellent conversation. I really appreciate you coming on and talking about it. It’s really important that people get up to speed and watch this movie. Where can they see it? Well, the place to go is beneath Sheep’s clothing movie, which is really easy to remember. In a lot of letters to type, having had to type it to send it as a link like 4000 times now.
But beneath Sheep’s clothing, movie will get you started. You can order it there, you can watch it there in the movie. I actually say, I said it in a talk actually, and they clipped it and put it in the movie. That every communist revolution has one thing in common besides the communists, and that’s that the people who getting put through it figured out what was going on one day too late. And so the reason that we wanted to make such a hard hitting, eye opening movie was because the, I think they don’t succeed if enough people’s eyes open, open before they try to put the clamp all the way down.
So we, I think, still have this open opportunity to stop their revolution, to derail their plans. And I think that the primary thing that does it is having enough people awake enough to what’s going on to be able to see the manipulations and stay out of the manipulations or say no to the manipulations or the force. And so the, I want people to see the movie so that their eyes get open and to tell other people to see the movie so that more eyes get opened. I think if we get just 15% to 20% of the population with eyes properly open to what’s going on, that there’s no way that they can succeed.
I think so too. Well, thank you so much for joining the program. Where can they follow you? I am all over social media, everywhere except Facebook. At conceptual James, I’m not on Facebook because they threw me off for life. I made a joke about the canadian maid program that was apparently too funny, and they threw me out. Um, I said, in socialist Canada, suicide hotline calls you and no more Facebook. So at conceptual James, everywhere else, uh, on social media, um, my company is called new discourses. The website is new discourses.com. the podcast is everywhere. You might possibly look for podcasts at new discourses.
Um, it’s, you know, YouTube slash newdiscourses. So you can find me, uh, on YouTube there. I don’t have a conceptual James platform on YouTube, just to let you know. And the podcast is all through new discourses.com dot. And you’re on Rumble and you’re on everywhere else. I’m on everywhere but Facebook. In fact, I just got, I had to be, I’m an expert witness in a court case and I got deposed the other day by the other side, as happens when to find out if you’re a qualified expert. And they tried to grill me about the fact that we aggregate my Twitter posts to get Gab, so I’m even there.
Okay, well, good. Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate you joining the program. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. One of the most consequential lies of history is that Karl Marx put forth an economic theory or doctrine. He did not. He put forth a totalitarian religion. This was a rape of the body of Christ. He said the ultimate objective was to destroy Christianity. Those were his words. And Khrushchev bragged about it. We’ll take America without firing a shot. Hi. I’m here to impoverish, enslave, and murder you. They were actual communists. The result, you can see we have to stay.
There are ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing all over the place.
[tr:tra].
Author
