WOKE and proud of it....

[Immanuel Can]

."Cultural" Marxism is a variation of Marxism. You're now speaking of "Classical" or "Economic" Marxism.

Not according to the ever reliable Wikipedia:
"Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

Well, sorry to say, but that's what you get for trusting Wikipedia -- a half truth, combined with a misleading claim.

You see, Will, a "wiki" is an open-source "encyclopedia," where anybody can contribute anything. Often, that works. But sometimes it doesn't. And it may or may not be fact-checked. So what do you get? You get told that the truth is a "conspiracy theory," and apparentlly, nobody fact-checks that.

But the better thing to do is to check. The easiest way might be to read Lindsay's book, Race Marxism, or at least listen to some of his podcasts on it. He reads from the original documents in those, commenting as he goes. And in the book, he doesn't just make unsubstantiated claims like wikis sometimes do...he actually does the documentation for you. And it's all there. You won't be left in doubt.

It's what the Marxists would fain make you believe is a "conspiracy theory." But it's not.

[Harbal]

."Cultural" Marxism is a variation of Marxism. You're now speaking of "Classical" or "Economic" Marxism.

Not according to the ever reliable Wikipedia:
"Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

Well, sorry to say, but that's what you get for trusting Wikipedia

But we are safe to trust you, right?

[Immanuel Can]

Not according to the ever reliable Wikipedia:
"Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

Well, sorry to say, but that's what you get for trusting Wikipedia

But we are safe to trust you, right?

Not at all. Why would I expect that? But you'll notice that I'm the one who's pointing you to the documentation. For some reason, I'm not afraid of the facts...

[Harbal]

Well, sorry to say, but that's what you get for trusting Wikipedia

But we are safe to trust you, right?

Not at all. Why would I expect that? But you'll notice that I'm the one who's pointing you to the documentation. For some reason, I'm not afraid of the facts...

Having encountered your "facts" on numerous occasions, I always think it wise to handle them with extreme caution.

[Immanuel Can]

But we are safe to trust you, right?

Not at all. Why would I expect that? But you'll notice that I'm the one who's pointing you to the documentation. For some reason, I'm not afraid of the facts...

Having encountered your "facts" on numerous occasions, I always think it wise to handle them with extreme caution.

Not "my" facts. Lindsay's evidence. If you're not afraid of evidence, go and read the book. If you're not interested in evidence, then why are you flapping your gums?

[Harbal]

Not at all. Why would I expect that? But you'll notice that I'm the one who's pointing you to the documentation. For some reason, I'm not afraid of the facts...

Having encountered your "facts" on numerous occasions, I always think it wise to handle them with extreme caution.

Not "my" facts. Lindsay's evidence. If you're not afraid of evidence, go and read the book. If you're not interested in evidence, then why are you flapping your gums?

I'm not interested in this particular instance, whatever it is about, I am just making a general comment. I have found that you will say whatever it takes to support your argument, and undermine that of your opponent, and I have never known you let the truth get in your way. It can be very exasperating, but it also has a funny side to it.

[Immanuel Can]

Having encountered your "facts" on numerous occasions, I always think it wise to handle them with extreme caution.

Not "my" facts. Lindsay's evidence. If you're not afraid of evidence, go and read the book. If you're not interested in evidence, then why are you flapping your gums?

I'm not interested in this particular instance...

Then again...why are you even talking?

[Peter Kropotkin]

By the way, this is by far the best ten-minute speech on Wokism that you will ever find. It just rocks...

K: I am old and that speech may be the worst speech I have ever seen...
it only rocks if you are 12 and have never seen a speech before......
it is a polemical speech, with facts that have nothing to do with
being ''WOKE" like the number of starving children in China... but
that even isn't my main problem with it...it does a pretty common
right wing tactic which is it talks about ''evidence'' ''facts''
not in evidence... when he talks about being ''WOKE"" he talks
about things he hasn't introduced before.... he assumes,
certain ideas about ''WOKE"" that hasn't been introduced
earlier in his speech... frankly I am PO at the fact I just
wasted 10 minutes of my life watching this drivel......
10 minutes I won't get back....

Kropotkin

[attofishpi]

K: I am old and that speech may be the worst speech I have ever seen...
it only rocks if you are 12 and have never seen a speech before......
it is a polemical speech, with facts that have nothing to do with
being ''WOKE" like the number of starving children in China... but
that even isn't my main problem with it...it does a pretty common
right wing tactic which is it talks about ''evidence'' ''facts''
not in evidence... when he talks about being ''WOKE"" he talks
about things he hasn't introduced before.... he assumes,
certain ideas about ''WOKE"" that hasn't been introduced
earlier in his speech... frankly I am PO at the fact I just
wasted 10 minutes of my life watching this drivel......
10 minutes I won't get back....

Kropotkin

..well, at least it was 10 minutes where we didn't have to put up with you and your continuous drivel.

[Immanuel Can]

...facts that have nothing to do with
being ''WOKE" like the number of starving children in China...

If you can't make the connection between Wokism and carbon-restriction ideology, and you have trouble seeing any connection between Wokism and Marxism, then you really don't know anything about Woke. It seems you want to know something, but not very much, about Wokeness. You've given yourself a little information, but kept yourself clear of most of it. That's convenient, and a lot of Woke people do it: because it allows Wokies to feel virtuous, but never asks them even to suspect they're being handled and turned into "useful idiots" by the truly informed, the Neo-Marxists who dictate attitudes to the less-informed masses of Wokies. They get to feel good, but they never have to feel manipulated.

I also understand why the comments on China, India and the South in particular rankle. It exposes the fact that climate change Wokies are demanding the deaths of millions of poor people, in the name of "saving" rich people who are not even born yet. And that's very far from virtuous. It's downright wicked, and lower-level Wokies always, always, above all else, want to see themselves as on the side of virtue, justice and light. That's the whole attraction of Wokism: virtue signalling.

However, you're probably one of the middle-level people. You have some information, but clearly not enough to know where your own movement came from, or what it actually believes at the deepest level, or why. You're accepting of its claims to be acting as "just" and "for the oppressed," but oblivious to the construction of "justice" and the "master-slave dialectic" that is borrowed from Marx, who got it from Hegel, and is now the core paradigm of Wokism.

But that's not a good level to be at, Pete. Half-informed is always dangerous. It makes one confident and active, but oblivious to the manipulation.

You're deaf, and can't hear podcasts or videos, you say. Okay. Read the book.

[Peter Kropotkin]

...facts that have nothing to do with
being ''WOKE" like the number of starving children in China...

If you can't make the connection between Wokism and carbon-restriction ideology, and you have trouble seeing any connection between Wokism and Marxism, then you really don't know anything about Woke. It seems you want to know something, but not very much, about Wokeness. You've given yourself a little information, but kept yourself clear of most of it. That's convenient, and a lot of Woke people do it: because it allows Wokies to feel virtuous, but never asks them even to suspect they're being handled and turned into "useful idiots" by the truly informed, the Neo-Marxists who dictate attitudes to the less-informed masses of Wokies. They get to feel good, but they never have to feel manipulated.

I also understand why the comments on China, India and the South in particular rankle. It exposes the fact that climate change Wokies are demanding the deaths of millions of poor people, in the name of "saving" rich people who are not even born yet. And that's very far from virtuous. It's downright wicked, and lower-level Wokies always, always, above all else, want to see themselves as on the side of virtue, justice and light. That's the whole attraction of Wokism: virtue signalling.

However, you're probably one of the middle-level people. You have some information, but clearly not enough to know where your own movement came from, or what it actually believes at the deepest level, or why. You're accepting of its claims to be acting as "just" and "for the oppressed," but oblivious to the construction of "justice" and the "master-slave dialectic" that is borrowed from Marx, who got it from Hegel, and is now the core paradigm of Wokism.

But that's not a good level to be at, Pete. Half-informed is always dangerous. It makes one confident and active, but oblivious to the manipulation.

You're deaf, and can't hear podcasts or videos, you say. Okay. Read the book.

K: I am getting pretty close to being done with this topic... I love the
way you say I am clueless and being manipulated into my thoughts...
and I am ''half informed'' and various other insults...

it has never occurred to you that I might actually know what I am talking about,
nah, and why? because it conflicts with what you believe..... and anyone
who conflicts with your beliefs and values, must automatically be wrong...

Kropotkin

[Harbal]

Not "my" facts. Lindsay's evidence. If you're not afraid of evidence, go and read the book. If you're not interested in evidence, then why are you flapping your gums?

I'm not interested in this particular instance...

Then again...why are you even talking?

It's part of my campaign for more honesty on the forum.

[Immanuel Can]

...facts that have nothing to do with
being ''WOKE" like the number of starving children in China...

If you can't make the connection between Wokism and carbon-restriction ideology, and you have trouble seeing any connection between Wokism and Marxism, then you really don't know anything about Woke. It seems you want to know something, but not very much, about Wokeness. You've given yourself a little information, but kept yourself clear of most of it. That's convenient, and a lot of Woke people do it: because it allows Wokies to feel virtuous, but never asks them even to suspect they're being handled and turned into "useful idiots" by the truly informed, the Neo-Marxists who dictate attitudes to the less-informed masses of Wokies. They get to feel good, but they never have to feel manipulated.

I also understand why the comments on China, India and the South in particular rankle. It exposes the fact that climate change Wokies are demanding the deaths of millions of poor people, in the name of "saving" rich people who are not even born yet. And that's very far from virtuous. It's downright wicked, and lower-level Wokies always, always, above all else, want to see themselves as on the side of virtue, justice and light. That's the whole attraction of Wokism: virtue signalling.

However, you're probably one of the middle-level people. You have some information, but clearly not enough to know where your own movement came from, or what it actually believes at the deepest level, or why. You're accepting of its claims to be acting as "just" and "for the oppressed," but oblivious to the construction of "justice" and the "master-slave dialectic" that is borrowed from Marx, who got it from Hegel, and is now the core paradigm of Wokism.

But that's not a good level to be at, Pete. Half-informed is always dangerous. It makes one confident and active, but oblivious to the manipulation.

You're deaf, and can't hear podcasts or videos, you say. Okay. Read the book.

K: I am getting pretty close to being done with this topic...

Well, it's not comfortable to realize one is "being had."

I love the
way you say I am clueless and being manipulated into my thoughts...
and I am ''half informed'' and various other insults...

Ironically, I'm merely trying to "awaken" you to your position as somebody who's being manipulated by ideologues. The only other alternative is for me to think that maybe you're one of them -- conscious of how evil what you're doing is, and not caring -- but that seems very uncharitable, so I gave you the best reading of the situation that your own claims could afford me to believe.

You're welcome.

it has never occurred to you that I might actually know what I am talking about,

Well, I have to admit, yes. It's occurred to me that it's just possible that you DO know a lot more than you say, and you're lying about what you know, pretending to be an innocent Wokie, rather than an evil theorist. And that maybe you're hoping that the appearance of clueless beneficence will anaesthetize readers to think you mean well, when what you really mean is the destruction of everything stable, healthy, good, successful and hopeful, and the manipulation of the masses toward a massively hubristic and doomed social engineering project for which they would never otherwise sign on...which is what Marxist manipulators really aim at.

So yes, I've considered it: but I sure hope you're not like that, and prefer to assume you're not. Because if you really were, that makes you something awfully nasty and sinister. I prefer to think better of you.

Even being a patsy for Marxists would be somewhat morally better than being an actual Marxist.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not interested in this particular instance...

Then again...why are you even talking?

It's part of my campaign for more honesty on the forum.

Start at home, and maybe you'll manage something.

[Harbal]

Then again...why are you even talking?

It's part of my campaign for more honesty on the forum.

Start at home, and maybe you'll manage something.

I did start at home, quite some time ago.