INTRODUCTION
James Lindsay is a character who is allegedly a representative of the sensible Right-wing. Some may view him as an honest and intelligent man with good reasoning for his wild claims. This essay will obliterate that view of him.
When I first heard of James Lindsay, I became interested in what he had to say and so I listened through a few of his podcasts. I rapidly became disinterested when I realized he had no clue what Gnosticism was, and as someone who has studied occultism (with a focus hermeticism and consequently Gnosticism) for fifteen years as of 2025 it was apparent to me that his rhetoric was based on a misunderstanding of what Gnosticism is.
In early 2022 I discussed politics with a friend and James was mentioned, at which point my friend claimed James was "clearly a white supremacist". I didn't think this was the case, and to this day there is nothing to support that conclusion. It wasn't long afterwards that I bought "Counter Wokecraft" by James Lindsay and Charles Pincourt. This book appears to adopt subversive tactics from Marxists who do not practice openly but prefer to obscure their actions.
In this essay I will show how James came to misrepresent Gnosticism, how he has misled the Christian community, and how he fails to actually address arguments. I will also show how James has outright lied about several topics and how his brand of liberalism is not only not Right-wing, but is not liberal whatsoever.
And before James decides to call me "Woke Right," allow me to explain a bit about myself. I am a classical liberal. I believe in the importance of the United States' Constitution. I am also someone who lusts after knowledge above most things. As such, I am a bibliophile. I am absolutely certain none of this will matter to James and he will label me as woke right anyway, and I will devote a section of this essay explaining why.
The Gnostic Claim
James only really uses two sources for his understanding of Gnosticism. And he misrepresents these sources as I will explain in this section. Most of James' claims rest on the notion that Gnosticism is a parasitic ideology that can come in many forms and so if he is wrong about this then his other claims also must be questioned.
The first source is the writings of Joachim of Fiore. Joachim presented the idea of ages of man which were based on his interpretation of the Book of Revelation in the Bible. The first age was the age of the Father, which was before Christ. The second age was the age of the Son, or the age after Christ arrived on Earth. And the third age was the age of the Holy Spirit.
Joachim also describes a seven-stage progression of time but because James never mentions this it is not important for this essay. Instead, we will turn to what Joachim says about the third age and what James has said about this. Joachim states that the third age will bring about a caste of Christian monks who hold most things in common. James claims that Joachim says everyone will be in a state of communal holding of property, or communism. In reality, this "holding in common" actually refers to uniformity of presentation and not communal property.
James appears to have gained his understanding of Joachim from one book which was The New Science of Politics: An Introduction by Eric Voegelin who attempted to relate Joachim's ideas to modern politics. Voegelin wrote his book in 1952 which means the book is rather outdated, as there are more recent books covering Joachim. The book also presents a good deal of speculation which means it is not the best source for obtaining objective facts. However, even Voegelin does not say the same things that James has said which means that James is in fact deliberately misrepresenting both Voegelin as well as Joachim.
The second source is Voegelin's writings themselves. As already mentioned, Voegelin's works are heavily outdated and deal greatly with speculation. Furthermore, his understanding of Gnosticism came from third hand sources which makes Voegelin a fourth-hand source. Everyone knows what happens along a grapevine, and this is no different with academic work. A fourth-hand source is removed from the facts by three magnitudes and therefore is completely unusable. Given that Voegelin was published before most of the gnostic texts were translated, it is apparent that he could not have had a clear view of what Gnosticism was.
Newer books are written after studying multiple translations of each text so as to provide the most precise understanding of what each text actually says. Why would James use such a terrible source? I will explain this in a later section.
The best way to get a good understanding of Gnosticism is to read the gnostic texts themselves. The second-best way is to read secondhand sources which compile the information within the Gnostic texts, preferably written by someone who actually considers themselves a Gnostic (or at least gnostic adjacent, such as a Hermeticist). Academic integrity requires us to read the most up to date sources and the most well researched sources and who better to research the topic than someone who has a genuine interest and belief in it?
For more details about this I recommend checking two videos from the YouTube channel called "veritas et caritas". The first video is titled "TIK History Is Wrong About Nazis & Gnosticism" and the second is titled "TIK Didn't Check His Sources On Gnosticism". Though both are directed towards a historian who is unrelated to James Lindsay, it is made clear that TIK received his entire understanding of these topics from James, and so these videos can be easily thought of as a takedown of James. If a well-read historian can be led astray by James, then just about anyone can, so it is forgivable if any reader fell for his claims.
James Lindsay Is a Tribalist
James is an avowed liberal, specifically a classical liberal. However, his particular brand of classical liberalism is different from mine and is different from the classical liberalism of the founding fathers of the United States. His liberalism rejects collectivism in any form (allegedly; I will show how this is not actually the case) and it also rejects nationalism. His brand of liberalism praises nearly unlimited immigration. And of course, his liberalism includes support for Israel. Let us cover a few of these points to explain why liberalism is not incompatible with the opposite of James' stances.
Collectivism is, depending on how strictly one defines it, the norm for humans as a species. People collectivize at all levels. Liberalism is capable of recognizing this fact while still recognizing individual rights. The liberalism of the founding fathers actually featured collectivism in the form of white solidarity. Non-whites have been mentioned by the founders and are almost always collectivized, most notably in the constitution where Native Americans are labeled "savages". As for liberal philosophy, Locke clearly presented and favored a system which collectivized based on a shared religion, Christianity; James Lindsay would call Locke "Woke Right" based solely on this fact.
Individuals can collectivize based on shared goals, such as a workers' union. In a case such as this, when you are dealing with the representative of the union, the representative being chosen by the collective to best ensure the demands of the union be met, you are speaking both with an individual and with a collective. This is because the individual carries the complaints of the other members of the collective and blends them into one homomorphous delivery. When a wealthy individual under criminal accusation hires a team of legal professionals to handle his case for him the legal team is generally seen and treated as one entity, perhaps with one spokesman. The legal team operates as a collective and is recognized as such. Collectives are formed every day, simply because the individual is the most basic unit of society does not mean collectives do not exist.
Unlimited immigration has always been understood to be incompatible with a functioning nation, at least by every liberal philosopher I am aware of. It is simply that liberals have different views on how immigration should be handled. A Hoppean anarcho-capitalist, which is still a form of liberal, would support the maintenence of borders being strictly controlled by property owners. A libertarian minarchist may support government regulation of the border. Disagreeing on how to organize does not make either illiberal. James was one of the biggest voices in favor of expanding immigration from India during the new year season, expanding an already easily abused system (H1B visas are being issued to people using loopholes instead of actual merit). And he called anyone who disagreed with his stance on immigration "Woke Right".
Liberalism has historically been nationalistic, at least in the civic sense, although often in an ethnocentric manner, as we have already discussed. James has specifically targeted those who support nationalism, labeling such people as "Woke Right". James in doing so is softly admitting he is an internationalist, which means he disagrees with the founding fathers as well as enlightenment liberalism. Internationalism is recognized by almost all right wingers (including liberals) as a cause of many modern problems and James has undoubtedly seen others explaining why.
As nationalism is compatible with liberalism, so is cutting funding to Israel. There are few liberal arguments for why we should be backing Israel, and there are many liberal arguments as to why we should not be doing so. James is an admitted zionist and most of the people he labels "Woke Right" are against zionism (using American tax dollars to fund Israel). Putting our own nation first is entirely a liberal thing to do, in the sense of the tradition of enlightenment philosophy; and economically speaking it leads to better outcomes for the citizenry.
James is not actually an individualist. He demands a collective be formed, comprised of people with identical stances to himself. His actions and accusations show that this is the case. James collectivizes those who disagree with him as "Woke Right" and refuses to engage in honest intellectual discourse with them, which would be treating them as individuals. As such, James is being dishonest when he proclaims individualism is all there actually is.
James Proposes Lysenkoism
There is a sort of trope I've noticed where people will say an institution has been infiltrated and taken over by the enemy, and yet one whole branch of that institution is completely clean and free from subversion. Once I spoke with a man who believed wholeheartedly that evolution was a false idea (despite the fact that it is held as true by almost every scientist) and yet when it came to Covid, this man refused to question the scientists at all.
One of James' main points is that academia has been taken over by wokeness and yet he unquestioningly posits the same Marxist Lysenkoist concepts of race as academia does. Lysenko was a Lamarckian who denied the existence and influence of genes. In doing so, he actually caused several famines and killed millions of people. It is of note that even one of James' friends, with whom he recently did a podcast about the "Woke Right", Jordan Peterson has said many times that genes determine at least 50% of behavior.
James stated recently on X that racial intelligence differences can be solved using nutrition and novelty in childhood. He said specifically that the differences would disappear with a good amount of healthy fats and intellect-nourishing experiences. While I am a believer in nutrition as well as novelty as tools for the intelligent to expand their minds, there is only so much that this can achieve given that at least 50% of our being is controlled by genetics.
A good book explaining racial differences is "Race, Evolution and Behavior" by Phillip Rushton. Rushton provides a meta-analysis of racial data and shows differences between the three primary races (blacks, whites, and east Asians) across sixty criteria. Biological Anthropology is quite literally the study of humans as animals. This field of science provides predictive models of human behavior. According to James' belief there should be no biological differences between the races, and there should be little to no biological drive for human behavior. And yet both of these are abundantly obvious facts of human existence.
From what I understand, the first person to deny race was an anthropologist by the name of Franz Boas. Boas died in 1942 but expressed praise more than once for both the Soviet Union and also Trofim Lysenko. As mentioned before, Lysenko was a Lamarckian who denied genetics. Lysenko came up with a counter-theory which caused famine which in turn caused the deaths of millions of people. Coming from my 2005 cultural anthropology textbook, the argument for race denialism is that there is more variation between individuals than there are between groups. Unfortunately, my textbook does not state what criteria is being judged. There are two problems with this argument.
Firstly, depending on the criteria used we could use this same logic to create a vastly more ridiculous sounding yet still true argument. If they are using genetics as their criteria (which appears to be the most likely case), then we could push this to an even more extreme claim: "species does not exist because there is more variation between individuals than between groups". Many species share over 90% of their genetic makeup with humans and yet there is still plentiful variation across individuals. Using the same logic intended to deny race, we can blur and even erase the barrier between humans and chimpanzees (with 99% of our genetics being identical). Since species obviously exist and are different groups which can be classified as groups, we know that this is not the case. The same holds true for race.
The second problem is that even this argument admits there are groups, it simply claims individualism exists. There simply is no way around this basic fact: groups exist. Individuals exist as well; however, they are influenced by their biology and that means they are influenced by the biological group they are a part of. The problem with liberalism becomes how to deal with racial differences. The argument I am sure most are familiar with is actually free market based; that we should simply be laissez faire and allow everyone to naturally fall into a place which is optimal for them. This would, however, require the absence of policies implemented by different kinds of liberals, namely affirmative action and DEI. James actually happens to support one of these race-based policies, specifically the expansion of H1B visas as we have already discussed.
James' race denialism is rooted in Marxist thought. The ideas put forth by adherents to race denialism have already been disastrously implemented. And even in the modern day, the logic behind race denial is extremely faulty. In order to create a more optimized system, we must recognize our differences and try to figure out how to use our differences to our mutual advantage, as ignoring differences will and has only led to more problems.
James Lindsay's Use Of 'Woke Right'
When James first began using the term "Woke Right" he admitted on camera that he had not properly defined it yet. He has since defined it and there are a few problems with his definition. His definition of woke right involves anyone using identity politics as a right winger. Which means this term actually applies to anyone who is not a classical liberal, as technically speaking anyone who expresses belief in collectivism is engaging in identity politics. James also defines anyone using Marxist tactics or philosophy as "Woke Right". This means also that he believes all Marxists are "Woke" which does not appear to be the case.
Conservatism is a political philosophy based on collectivism and preservation of institutions and traditions. This means that the term "conservative" could be applied to leftists as well as right wingers. Edmund Burke was very far from anything we would call woke and yet he was also a conservative. According to James, one of the founders of conservatism would be "Woke Right". James has been actively involved in attempting to control conservatives by firstly telling them what they are supposed to believe in, and then labeling anyone actually expressing conservative views as "Woke Right". In this way, James is actively using Marxist tactics to attempt to control what others believe. This is subversion and must be called out for what it is.
James has claimed that he is not trying to cancel anyone by labeling them as "Woke Right". He also claims he is not trying to associate anyone with National Socialism by labeling them with this term. Despite this, we can view for ourselves how he uses the term. He very obviously tries to associate normal conservatives with National Socialism, and he refuses to engage with anyone who he labels with the term. Actions speak louder than words and these actions clearly communicate the fact that he is trying to cancel people he disagrees with by giving them the label. He even admitted on Twitter/X that he wants to see the ideologies he disagrees with canceled, which is not a far cry from seeing the people giving voice to those ideologies canceled.
Carl Benjamin is one of the most vocal opponents to James Lindsay. Carl claims to be conservative yet I personally have only ever seen him express liberal stances. He has acknowledged conservative criticism of liberalism as valid, yet still appears to hold liberal views. James has labeled Carl as "Woke Right" simply because Carl recognizes the fact that there are legitimate criticisms of liberalism. Carl is well known for engaging in rational discourse with people he disagrees with, and is also known for changing his mind when proven wrong. Yet, James refuses to engage in discourse with Carl and simply brands him with the label. Here we see how James is actually irrational.
James Lindsay is using demonization tactics straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", which is a Marxist tactical text. He obviously wants to shut down all discussion that is not identical to his particular brand of classical liberalism. He attempts to limit the variety of acceptable discussion by using these tactics. According to his own definition, James Lindsay is "Woke Right". Yet I have the feeling he will label me as such simply for having pointed this out. The reason why James chose such a terrible source for his understanding of gnosticism becomes clear: he seeks to dismiss anyone he disagrees with by describing their beliefs in the least charitable manner so more people will refuse to engage with the ideas presented. This tactic shuts down discussion and actually prevents minds from being changed. We have seen the Woke left use this sort of tactic for over a decade now, and it is one of the most common gripes right wingers have about the Woke left.
James Lindsay Rejects Materialism
James' understanding of idealism is heavily flawed. Idealism is a philosophy based around the idea that we do not have direct access to the world around us, instead we only experience reality through our perceptions (also known as ideas of the world). James appears to believe that idealism is quite literally the belief that reality is comprised of ideas. Which means he very clearly misunderstands those people who propose this philosophy. In Philosophy of Mind, Idealism is comparable to Epiphenomenalism and is in fact a valid and viable theory.
Materialism, as I understand it, is the belief that matter is all that exists. This is the belief as presented by Marx, Stalin and Mao and also is often presented as factual by a great many scientists. James claims to be a materialist yet never defines this clearly except in opposition to idealism so I shall use this definition of materialism. As I have already shown, James denies the material science of genetics. Yet there are other ways in which James denies materialism.
For starters, James obviously believes in moral realism. This is actually incredibly common for liberals (it is almost intrinsic to the human being in fact). While he never outright states he believes in morality or moralism, it is clear through his actions and repeated rabid defense of liberalism that he believes his personally chosen system is the most moral. Again, actions speak louder than words. If James were not a moral realist, he would not be acting as though he had access to the one true moral system; he would not act as if this were a fact which enables him to shut down all other moral systems. Morality is not a material object.
Let us not once again cover the fact that James believes upbringing has an effect on behavior and intelligence. He does not believe in beating or sexually controlling children, which means that he believes socially pressuring children will change their material circumstances. Social pressure is not a material object and so according to materialism should have no effect on the human being. If matter is all that exists, then the only parenting that should be able to change the very being of a child should be physical contact. If social pressure exists and has an impact on matter, then material is not all that exists and therefore materialism is bunk.
James Lindsay would have you believe he is perfectly in line with science, and he would have you believe that science is purely materialistic. Yet even mainstream science is not purely materialistic. Fields are a popular topic among physicists, and are taken to be factual by almost all scientists. Fields are immaterial and infinite. There are many fields and each has their own set of specialists who focus on their particular chosen field to study. The electromagnetic field, the field of spacetime, the Higgs field. Most of modern science and technology would not exist without understanding of these immaterial things. So, we can say that James also does not understand science.
James Lindsay Hates Christianity
James claims to be a friend to Christians and often tries to appear to be a supporter of the Christian faith. In observable reality he despises Christianity. There are three main points I must make here. Firstly, is his obvious actions towards the Christian community. Second is his stepdaughter's own words about his style of upbringing. Third is his own lack of faith.
James' actions towards the Christian community alone show that he despises Christianity. This is made apparent by his consistent blocking of Christian political moves. Every attempt to further Christian end goals in society is labeled as "Woke Right" by James. According to James, all Christians must act in accordance with his own brand of classical liberalism otherwise they are engaging in some kind of alternative religion unrelated to Christianity. According to James Lindsay Europe was not Christian during the medieval period because they were not Classical Liberals (he never said this, but if he believes liberalism and Christianity are inseparable then this is the logical conclusion).
On January 29, 2025, Twitter/X user @britabongwater wrote two posts of note. Keep in mind that this social media account is owned and operated by James Lindsay's stepdaughter. She writes,
"When I was in high school, I told my parents I wanted to be a Christian and my stepdad said he was going to sit with me each night and read the Bible to me to show me why it was a made up and evil book. I listened to him talk every day about how stupid Christians are."
This is testimony from a family member, in case you forgot. She continues in another tweet,
"I am not a Christian and it was just a phase. But I'm shocked to see how many Christians follow him and believe he has their best interest at heart. Unless something has changed and he believes the Bible now."
Given that we have already observed how James currently treats Christians we can assume that his stepdaughter is not making things up and also that James' opinion has not changed. In case anyone was wondering about James' parenting skills, his stepdaughter has an OnlyFans.
James Lindsay, in spite of his alleged support of Christians and Christianity, lacks belief in Christianity and makes no claim to hold any such belief. Why should Christians be governed by the opinion of someone who doesn't believe as they believe? It only makes sense, logically that Christianity should be determined and directed by those who are within the group, and not those who are outside of the group. Yet a sizeable portion of Christians apparently seek exactly the latter. Anyone who dislikes this situation is branded "Woke Right".
I would like to point out that I myself am not a Christian. However, I support the right to self-determination and as such I support Christians' right to decide for themselves how they are to be.
Final Thoughts
The individual is the most basic unit of society. This does not mean that collectives do not exist. In the past, everyone, including liberals, understood that collectivism was inevitable in some form or another. Some fairly recent history of Britain (say, the period between the 1400s and the 1900s) shows us the effectiveness of cultural collectivism (collectivism based on adherence to a particular culture) in optimizing a civilization. Britain had actively destroyed racial animosity at a certain point, and everyone in Britain was part of the same culture.
People (both liberals and conservatives alike) say that immigrants must assimilate to the dominant culture. And yet, there is nothing to assimilate to. There are too many cultures and subcultures within the United States to point to any one thing as the one to assimilate into. This can be shown to be the cause of many problems faced by our society very easily. If everyone adhered to the same moral system, we wouldn't have the type of political violence we see today as everyone would understand we are trying to solve the same problems. Differences of opinion would be recognized as simply alternate solutions, and this understanding would create more respect among individuals.
James Lindsay wants you to believe science and philosophy have advanced to a point where they cannot advance anymore. This belief in positive stagnation is quite literally the belief in the Hegelian "End Of History" which was posited to be liberalism by Francis Fukuyama back in the 90s. According to James, anyone who believes in Hegelian philosophy is a gnostic idealist, which in turn means James is Woke or Woke Right by his own definitions. There isn't actually an end to history, as history is just the record of human action. As long as humans are doing things there will be history to be written.
James wants to limit the depth and variety of acceptable discussion. He wants to control what other people think and do. He is not your friend, he is a megalomaniac. However, he should not be given negative treatment, especially not if he works towards changing his behavior. However, I view this as extremely unlikely. James has become rabid against dissent, and this is often indicative of obsession.
James both agrees with and employs the tactics of Marxists. This does not make him bad, but it does make him inconsistent. Lindsay is obviously a progressive in favor of essentially open borders. As I have shown in this essay, James Lindsay is on all points indistinguishable from a woke Marxist. Which, given his landing on the right side of the political spectrum, makes him Woke Right according to his own definition. James Lindsay is everything he tells you he is against. And every day James says more things that dig himself deeper into this hole.
