WOKE and proud of it....

[Immanuel Can]

Considering that Marx wrote almost nothing specifically advocating for gays, and transgender people (he generally referred to them as part of the "lumpenproletariat" and thought they were generally not useful to the "Revolution"), how is it figured that so called "Woke" culture is "Cultural Marxism". What is Lindsay's argument that ties "Marxism" to the current counter-culture? Does Linsday have an argument, or does he just make an unsubstantiated claim?

Good heavens, Gary...do you listen to nothing?

Marx was a pseudo-economic theorist. He did not use culture as his orientation point. Theology, yes; culture, no. And he knew nothing about transers: they didn't exist in his day. There were only a vanishingly small set of body-dysmorphic males, and none of them had any chemicals or surgeries. I know of nothing he wrote about gays. I don't think he gave them any thought.

It was Marx's followers, the Neo-Marxists, who converted his allegedly-economic theory to use culture instead. Nobody ever said otherwise. And the history bears that out. Go and read Marcuse, Gramsci, Lukacs, Foucault, Freire and that whole bunch, if you want to know about what Marx's admirers did with Marx after his death. It's all there. It's not a secret, or a "conspiracy theory," or even in any doubt: these jokers spelled out exactly what they were going to do with Marxism, and why, and how they were still hoping to get their "revolution."

Or more simply, go and read Lindsay. Or listen to his podcasts, if you prefer that. Then you won't make such obvious mistakes, and won't have to ask me to regurgitate what Lindsay himself has already so cogently argued.

I've read a couple of Marx's works, I've read secondary sources on Marx, I've taken classes that touched upon Marx, and as far as I'm aware Marx was more interested in economic classes.

I mean, do you read anything I've written? Because I just clearly differentiated between Marx's pseudo-economic nonsense and the nonsense of the Cultural Marxists. But they're both Marxist nonsense.

Go back and read again, if you forgot.

[promethean75]

"How marxist is the woke left"

So marxist that if during a discussion about economics and history, u aksed em 'hey do u like marx' they'd be like 'groucho marx or richard marx? And what do these guys have to do with economics, anyway?'

That's how intellectual your everyday wokey leftist is. The ones on the street know nothing about marxism and only hear the word when trump is going on about the 'radical marxists' stuff. Hell even he thinks he knows what marxism is. Can u imagine that?

[Immanuel Can]

...That's how intellectual your everyday wokey leftist is. The ones on the street know nothing about marxism and only hear the word when trump is going on about the 'radical marxists' stuff. Hell even he thinks he knows what marxism is. Can u imagine that?

There are three levels of Wokies: the "useful idiots" you're describing (maybe 85%), the "midwits" (around 13%, maybe) who who have a little theoretical understanding, but only partial, confused and flawed), and the "malevolent ideologue elite" (probably not even as high as 2%), who actually know what the program is, and are directing the rest.

You can be sure that the 2% knows Marx. Their whole concern is to save Marxism by reframing it in terms of culture instead of economics. But the rest of them have either confused or no knowledge of what they're involved in; and that's why you see so many cases of journalists going to interview Wokies and finding that they're clueless. It's not unusual.

But the drivers of the program are thoroughly Marxist. No question. So, for example, Patrice Cullors and her friends are quite explicit, calling themselves "trained Marxists." (https://le.utah.gov/publicweb/BRISCJK/P ... 43194.html, for example.) They're very proud of it. But the average BLM supporter is a complete naif and manipulable idiot.

[attofishpi]

RE: BLM - I was so angry with the amount of clearly racist scum Police in USA ...and was VERY PROUD when every football player in the English Premiere League - took a knee out of a mark of respect that ya, fuck these racist **'

So.

PSALM

PS_ALM

PS: ALL LIVES MATTER.

[Will Bouwman]

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

You're quite right of course; sometimes Wikipedia can be unreliable, and not only when you happen to disagree with it...I must say though, the author seems like a diligent fellow; there are 94 references. Do you know that's nearly a hundred?

Not so shocking. How many of those references provide substantiation that Cultural Marxism is a "conspiracy theory"? I'll warrant you it's probably not even one.

It really depends on what you accept as substantiation. From many points of view, there is overwhelming substantiation that Genesis is a pastiche of earlier works such as the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh. There is overwhelming substantiation that human beings evolved and share common ancestors with other great apes. There is overwhelming substantiation that Jesus Christ is a literary character based on earlier individuals believed to have virgin mothers and divine fathers; Plato, for example.

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.

...by reading lots of things by people who say exactly what you want to hear,

Mistake.

Oh?

This is the problem with assuming.

My interest in this topic began by reading and researching. I came to Lindsay after a lot of other reading, much of it on "the other side," so to speak.

Well, you were confident enough from your own reading that the number of references in the Wikipedia article that would provide substantiation of conspiracy theory is "probably not even one." Given that the words, conspiracy, theory and right wing appear frequently in the titles of the books and papers referenced, the fact that apparently none of the papers you read provide any substantiation strongly suggests that what you read is not very far on what you call "the other side". Perhaps you were staggeringly unlucky, and managed the unlikely feat of randomly choosing however many articles you read, and purely by chance, avoided any which provided any substantiation for the conspiracy theory hypothesis. On the other hand, given what you don't accept substantiation for, it is entirely possible that you simply don't accept any substantiation of ideas you don't care for as substantiation. Which brings us back to the demonstrable fact that exactly the same data is interpreted differently. Your interpretation is just that - your interpretation. If you had the humility to accept you could be wrong, you would understand that.

I had no "exactly what I wanted to hear."

If you are hell bent on interpreting data in a way commensurate with what you wish to be true, you don't need to.

[Immanuel Can]

You're quite right of course; sometimes Wikipedia can be unreliable, and not only when you happen to disagree with it...I must say though, the author seems like a diligent fellow; there are 94 references. Do you know that's nearly a hundred?

Not so shocking. How many of those references provide substantiation that Cultural Marxism is a "conspiracy theory"? I'll warrant you it's probably not even one.

It really depends on what you accept as substantiation.

Yes, I thought so. Not a one. For the very good reason that the term "conspiracy theory" is used by Leftism to discredit their critics without having to mount any sort of rational defense. And I'm quite convinced that anybody who looks into the history of Cultural Marxism for himself will find there's good reason why they can't mount a real defense...there isn't one. They're closet Marxists. And the whole history, from Marx, through the Frankfurt School, Columbia University, the professional colleges, the countercultural movement...it's all explicit in their own writings.

But I understand very much why they want any link between themselves and Marx to look like a "conspiracy theory." Their sales pitch is not, "Look, we're trying to revive ideas that killed 140 million people in the last century, and have crashed every economy they've touched." That's not much of a selling point. Their sales pitch is, "We're for justice, equity and free stuff. We're saving the world for democracy. We're the champion of the oppressed, and we're nothing like the old Socialists."

But they're straight from that rotted root.

This is the problem with assuming.
My interest in this topic began by reading and researching. I came to Lindsay after a lot of other reading, much of it on "the other side," so to speak.

Well, you were confident enough from your own reading that the number of references in the Wikipedia article that would provide substantiation of conspiracy theory is "probably not even one."

Only because that's exactly how they always operate. They're not highly original, you know...most of them aren't even very bright. But they are dishonest, for sure. They believe (and their literature spells this out, too) that all moralizing is really no more than a dialectical power struggle...so they use more approval and condemnation as strategic fronts, but the game is always the same: to get and hold power for the Socialist project.

Read the book, Will...if you really care to know. And if you don't? Well, nobody can fix that.

Here's a taste, though...if you've got a few seconds: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TrsV_p8KiBA

[Immanuel Can]

More interesting stuff.

According to a U of Toronto study (2016), the following four factors were by far the strongest predictors of Wokism:

1. Low verbal intelligence -- the greatest predictor, by far.

2. Being female.

3. Having a female temperament (male gammas, presumably).

4. Having taken even one of the PC courses at university.

The Wokes differed from earlier Left-leaning liberals in having absolutely no compunction about applying various forms of force in order to advance their agenda.

[LuckyR]

More interesting stuff.

According to a U of Toronto study (2016), the following four factors were by far the strongest predictors of Wokism:

1. Low verbal intelligence -- the greatest predictor, by far.

2. Being female.

3. Having a female temperament (male gammas, presumably).

4. Having taken even one of the PC courses at university.

The Wokes differed from earlier Left-leaning liberals in having absolutely no compunction about applying various forms of force in order to advance their agenda.

Ha ha ha. You didn't provide a citation, but if the "study" you're referring to is what I think it is, it's a Masters thesis, it's not peer reviewed and is an anonymous online survey. Talk about garbage in:garbage out...

[phyllo]

Ha

Neither of you is able to provide a link.

[Immanuel Can]

More interesting stuff.

According to a U of Toronto study (2016), the following four factors were by far the strongest predictors of Wokism:

1. Low verbal intelligence -- the greatest predictor, by far.

2. Being female.

3. Having a female temperament (male gammas, presumably).

4. Having taken even one of the PC courses at university.

The Wokes differed from earlier Left-leaning liberals in having absolutely no compunction about applying various forms of force in order to advance their agenda.

Ha ha ha. You didn't provide a citation, but if the "study" you're referring to is what I think it is,...

It was actually a study supervised by one Dr. Jordan Peterson, who quotes it himself. Sorry to disappoint you.

[LuckyR]

More interesting stuff.

According to a U of Toronto study (2016), the following four factors were by far the strongest predictors of Wokism:

1. Low verbal intelligence -- the greatest predictor, by far.

2. Being female.

3. Having a female temperament (male gammas, presumably).

4. Having taken even one of the PC courses at university.

The Wokes differed from earlier Left-leaning liberals in having absolutely no compunction about applying various forms of force in order to advance their agenda.

Ha ha ha. You didn't provide a citation, but if the "study" you're referring to is what I think it is,...

It was actually a study supervised by one Dr. Jordan Peterson, who quotes it himself. Sorry to disappoint you.

Still no citation. Waiting...

[LuckyR]

Ha

Neither of you is able to provide a link.

I can, but that's only helpful as a comparo to the OP (who can't/hasn't).

[Immanuel Can]

Ha ha ha. You didn't provide a citation, but if the "study" you're referring to is what I think it is,...

It was actually a study supervised by one Dr. Jordan Peterson, who quotes it himself. Sorry to disappoint you.

Still no citation. Waiting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grNLfzFwPpg&t=712s

[LuckyR]

It was actually a study supervised by one Dr. Jordan Peterson, who quotes it himself. Sorry to disappoint you.

Still no citation. Waiting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grNLfzFwPpg&t=712s

Sounds like you don't know what a Journal citation is. Hint: it doesn't involve YouTube.

OMG, amateurs...

[LuckyR]

Title, authors, Journal name, year, volume, pages.