a defense of being "WOKE"

[Harbal]

That's all just right wing propaganda,

Read the book. Or read one of the others available that do the same job. They're around now.

I wish it were fiction. It's not.

I'm serious, IC, we should all be worried about the dangerous lies that are being peddled and believed on a regular basis now. What sort of world do you imagine we will be living in the people behind them manage to get hold of power?

[Immanuel Can]

K: you make a awful lot of claims but no actual proof or evidence..

Read the book. It's all there.

Or how about just this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgR3vTbexm8

This gives you the whole history in very short form, in 7 minutes or so, along with the chief theorists and how they relate to different "Wokie" movements.

[Immanuel Can]

That's all just right wing propaganda,

Read the book. Or read one of the others available that do the same job. They're around now.

I wish it were fiction. It's not.

I'm serious, IC, we should all be worried about the dangerous lies that are being peddled and believed on a regular basis now.

I could not agree more.

What sort of world do you imagine we will be living in the people behind them manage to get hold of power?

They pretty much have it, right now. That's why the world is in such awful shape, at the moment.

[Harbal]

This gives you the whole history in very short form, in 7 minutes or so, along with the chief theorists and how they relate to different "Wokie" movements.

So you respond to my objection to propaganda by giving me some?

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: you make a awful lot of claims but no actual proof or evidence..

Read the book. It's all there.

K: just like I don't need to read "Mien Kampf" to know it is written,
badly I might add, to know it isn't worth reading, is to know that
a fanatic right wing writer isn't worth reading..

The problem I have is that they don't examine the starting
principles of their beliefs.. they assume that their starting point
is the correct, right one.. and they go from there..
I am sure he starts with CRT is wrong and looks for evidence
that is true...instead of being balanced about CRT.... for I too
have studied CRT........ all it says is prejudice is baked into
into the laws and the constitution of the U.S.. and it is...
have you heard about the compromise of 3/5 of a black person who
equal one white person? that is prejudice baked into the constitution...
and that is all CRT IS.....nothing more, nothing less.....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Read the book. It's all there.

Or how about just this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgR3vTbexm8

This gives you the whole history in very short form, in 7 minutes or so, along with the chief theorists and how they relate to different "Wokie" movements.

K: I actively avoid youtube video's.. I am deaf.. I avoid anything that requires me to
hear something...because I can't...

Kropotkin

[Immanuel Can]

This gives you the whole history in very short form, in 7 minutes or so, along with the chief theorists and how they relate to different "Wokie" movements.

So you respond to my objection to propaganda by giving me some?

Not at all.

I respond to your implication that I might be believing something that lacks foundation with the quickest overview of the foundational movers and shakers that I could locate. I can give you much, much more.

You see, I've read Foucault, and Marcuse, and Freire, and Marx, and the modern wokies like DiAngelo, and Gottesman, as well as Lindsay. In other words, I could show you from the movement's own foundational documents that what is said in that video is the simple truth. Or you could take those names, and look up for yourself what they actually say.

I'm trying to be helpful, not contradictory. But I don't want to wave a couple of vague names at you, in hopes of impressing you, and then move on. I want to make it clear that I know what I'm talking about, without being pedantic or giving you "homework" you don't want to do, and wouldn't find pleasant.

[Immanuel Can]

K: I actively avoid youtube video's.. I am deaf.. I avoid anything that requires me to
hear something...because I can't...

Really? Interesting.

Without going into details, I have some close connections with the hard-of-hearing and "differently abled" myself.

And they're another group the Wokies are working hard to appeal to. They want them pitted against the concept "normalcy." But if you'd noticed, the Wokies don't actually do anything to help the disabled...other than trying to teach them to complain. They don't help them. But you might find that there are a fair number of classical liberal and religious organizations that do.

That should speak loud and clear.

[Immanuel Can]

K: you make a awful lot of claims but no actual proof or evidence..

Read the book. It's all there.

K: just like I don't need to read "Mien Kampf" to know it is written,
badly I might add, to know it isn't worth reading, is to know that
a fanatic right wing writer isn't worth reading..

Curious. I always make a point of reading my opposition, so as to understand what they say, at the very least, and also to refine my own thinking, at best.

You should always understand your adversary's point of view. You don't have to like it: you just have to be sure they're really your adversary, and know why you oppose what they represent.

The problem I have is that they don't examine the starting
principles of their beliefs..

Wow. That's the Wokies to a T.

I am sure he starts with CRT is wrong and looks for evidence
that is true...

Quite wrong. He doesn't.

But as for CRT, I'm totally certain you don't know more about that than I do. Totally. Feel free to try me on that.

have you heard about the compromise of 3/5 of a black person who
equal one white person?

You mean this: https://constitutionus.com/constitution ... ompromise/

You should definitely study that. You should know why it was proposed, who wanted it, and when it stopped, and why.

It was arranged in order to placate the Southern Democrats, who would otherwise have been outvoted by the Republican North. Here is the truth.

By removing congressional seats earned based on the slave population, it’s possible to estimate how different events could have played out with a slightly different vote count.

Notably, southern states would have been outvoted in the House nearly immediately.

In 1793, for example, slave states had 47 of 105 congress seats. Without the three-fifths compromise, this number would have been reduced to 33. In 1812, southern states had a thin majority of 76 out of 143 seats. Again, without the compromise, they’d have been a minority of 59.

The Electoral College ensures that presidential votes are apportioned based on congressional representation.

Historians believe that without the three-fifths compromise, Thomas Jefferson would have lost the 1800 presidential election to John Adams.

The loss of power by the Federalist party was a clear turning point in the early history of the United States. Had Jefferson not defeated Adams, Federalist influence would likely have continued and changed the country’s course.

So the Republicans, in accepting the "compromise" hurt themselves. And they deserved to, as well: it was immoral of them to side with the Southern Democrats. But it was the Democrats who were benefitting from making the 3/5 compromise, not the Republicans.

And it's long defunct. So that temporary corruption of the constitution is long gone. Thank God.

So what troubles you about it now? That it benefitted the Democrats so much? If so, I agree.

[Astro Cat]

I think the whole "woke" thing probably came about because there are a sufficient number of stupid people with polarised, unnuanced views around to have brought it about. It's just yet another case of two sets of extremist minorities buggering up the world for the rest of us.

"Woke" is a grammatical error. It rhymes with "joke," and for pretty good reason. It should be "awakened," but the people who coined it to flatter themselves were too dumb to notice, apparently.

"Woke" as a term originated in the Black community, particularly during the BLM movement. Slang terms are just that; they don't denote that the speaker is "stupid."

Wokies are marked by two things: unbelievable levels of smugness, and total inability to know their own history. Many of them don't even know they're just indoctrinated Neo-Marxists, and imagine they're something like "virtuous people" instead. They're overwhelmingly white, middle-class, spoiled and, it must be noted, either female or feminized. And they feel all kinds of things, but actually never think outside of the petty, silly Marxist frame into which they've been "woked."

They don't know basic facts about their own history. For example, when they complain about "slavery," they don't realize that 100% of the American slave owners were Democrats (i.e. Wokies' best buddies). They also don't know that all the governors who turned the hoses and dogs on the freedom marchers were Democrats. And they don't know that it was the Democrats who created the KKK. And they don't notice that all the cities that have been the stomping grounds of Woke-types and Democrats for decades now, unimpeded by any Republican intruders, are the worst hellholes for minorities that the USA actually has...Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland...Just like they don't know that Marxism is, by far, the most homicidal creed in human history, and ignore Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia, Congo, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Vietnam, Albania, and all the other places that the other Marxism's also turned into absolute economic, social and human rights disaster zones.

Yet every time someone brings up the history of Democrats and slavery, the response is always someone pointing out the Southern Strategy and the way in which the two American parties essentially swapped over various axes. One day racist Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond woke up and decided, "The Republican party is for me," and there was a reason for that, after all. No, people aren't ignorant about this history at all; if anything it's people that point it out thinking they're making some epic point that have stretched expectations

You point to cities with immense populations that endure population densities that would have made the founders of those cities (or of the country) spit out their tea: urban history is full of mostly bipartisan problems from poor planning, industrialization, flight to the suburbs, return to urban centers, gentrification, and so on. Those issues are a lot more complex than "what letter does the mayor have before their name?"

It could of course have some impact, but I just don't think it's that important. For the same reason you won't find me pointing out the worst states in the union are deeply red with deeply red leaderships. Things are more complex than that.

I continue to hold the opinion that calling everything not liked "Marxism" is just a little conspiracy theory-ish. I'm not sure how to respond to this part as I just don't find it relevant.

They don't actually care about minorities; they only care about positioning themselves as "champions of minorities." That's quite a different thing, as we find out. They actually think they're enlightened, special, virtuous, champions of the oppressed, and all that rubbish.

Hey, I'm with you there when it comes to most politicians. For instance when the SCOTUS Dobbs opinion leaked and they had months to start actually doing something, anything about it, then acted like they got caught with their pants down when the opinion officially released, I was angry. It is very typical. I was never fond of Biden or most candidates (maybe any of them?) in the first place, but watching a weak, say-anything, do-nothing person just wring their hands over it, and a party just ask for votes and donations with no concrete, elucidated plan has been demoralizing.

But I do not think most people that get described as "woke" are just actors. I will disagree there. I think people do care about other people. I just don't think they always know the most effective way to do anything about it.

[Harbal]

I respond to your implication that I might be believing something that lacks foundation

I don't think you do believe it, and that makes it worse. I don't know if God is dead, but Honesty seems to be on its last legs.

[Immanuel Can]

"Woke" as a term originated in the Black community, particularly during the BLM movement.

It was around long before BLM reared it's ugly, Neo-Marxist head. It was coined in the 1940s.

By the way, where did all that lovely BLM money end up, anyway? Did we ever find out?

Hey, I'm with you there when it comes to most politicians.

It's hard not to become cynical when you see what we are being offered as "leaders" -- from all sides. And that's true in many countries right now, not just in the US. I'm tempted to say that we're getting the kind of leaders we are deserving, because we ask so little of them morally and personally.

But I do not think most people that get described as "woke" are just actors.

I didn't say they were. A great many are very sincere -- and so much the worse, for them.

Here's how things work, with Marxists. First, they get as many to buy into the "deep doctrine" of Marxism as they can. But that's often not nearly so many as they need. So after that, they come up with various forms of MarxismLite, such as race Marxism, sex Marxism, ability Marxism, queer Marxism, aboriginal Marxism, trans Marxism, fat Marxism, pedagogical Marxism, and so on. It doesn't matter how different these axes are; all that's important is that they generate what NIetzsche called "ressentiment," and we might better call "victim mentality," or "social justice anger." All these causes become Marxism's "useful idiots," because in good faith and with their own agendas in mind, they end up marching in the Revolution...which is all Marxism ultimately cares about. It doesn't matter HOW the status quo is busted...along lines of sex, gender, age, class, race, ability, whatever...so long as the status quo is smashed. Then, their theory goes, Marxism wins. It gets to "pick up the pieces" of the shattered order, and assemble them into universal Socialism.

Marxists align themselves with such sincere-but-unknowing types, and while they definitely need them for their purposes, they have no deep affection toward them or their agendas. They are, to use the salient term, Marxism's "useful idiots."

Of course, they're not all idiots. Not by any means. But the term is a term of art: it means "one who is serviceable to a cause without understanding its deep nature." And this is certainly true of most of Marxism's new allies. I doubt, for example, that most people who supported, or still support BLM either knew or cared that the three women who started the movement pride themselves on being "trained Marxists." https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-fo ... d-marxist/. For sure, most of them would believe that BLM is a new movement, one about race, not a tribute to the disastrous politics of an old, dead white man. But the truth is otherwise.

Now, what happens to all the (what are called) "useful idiot" types (if I may use the salient term without unkindness), after Marxism wins? They have to be eliminated. Because after all, they are the ones who couldn't be fully indoctrinated into pure Marxism. And they're now restless, rebellious and permanently alienated...a rumbling mass of danger that might easily overthrow the new regime, should somebody else come along and gin up their ressentiment again.

So to assure its triumph, Marxism has to begin extinguishing its old allies. And nobody is more surprised than their "useful idiot" set, when the Marxist regime turns on them. They were sure they were in the vanguard. Now they find themselves as the new enemy, and the new object of general social ressentiment. But for them, it's too late. They become the regimes new enemies (because it cannot survive without enemies to vilify, of course; to do so would make it do something positive, and it has no positive program or potential), and they are first into the gulags and re-education camps.

I think people do care about other people.

I agree. They do. And how savage that Marxism makes of them its "useful idiots," and then treats the last of the morally earnest among us with such savage ingratitude.

But that's the way the Marxist cookie crumbles, I'm afraid. It's played out in all their regimes so far.

[Immanuel Can]

I respond to your implication that I might be believing something that lacks foundation

I don't think you do believe it...

I can't help you with that. It's true.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I think the whole "woke" thing probably came about because there are a sufficient number of stupid people with polarised, unnuanced views around to have brought it about. It's just yet another case of two sets of extremist minorities buggering up the world for the rest of us.

"Woke" is a grammatical error. It rhymes with "joke," and for pretty good reason. It should be "awakened," but the people who coined it to flatter themselves were too dumb to notice, apparently.

"Woke" as a term originated in the Black community, particularly during the BLM movement. Slang terms are just that; they don't denote that the speaker is "stupid."

Wokies are marked by two things: unbelievable levels of smugness, and total inability to know their own history. Many of them don't even know they're just indoctrinated Neo-Marxists, and imagine they're something like "virtuous people" instead. They're overwhelmingly white, middle-class, spoiled and, it must be noted, either female or feminized. And they feel all kinds of things, but actually never think outside of the petty, silly Marxist frame into which they've been "woked."

They don't know basic facts about their own history. For example, when they complain about "slavery," they don't realize that 100% of the American slave owners were Democrats (i.e. Wokies' best buddies). They also don't know that all the governors who turned the hoses and dogs on the freedom marchers were Democrats. And they don't know that it was the Democrats who created the KKK. And they don't notice that all the cities that have been the stomping grounds of Woke-types and Democrats for decades now, unimpeded by any Republican intruders, are the worst hellholes for minorities that the USA actually has...Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland...Just like they don't know that Marxism is, by far, the most homicidal creed in human history, and ignore Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia, Congo, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Vietnam, Albania, and all the other places that the other Marxism's also turned into absolute economic, social and human rights disaster zones.

Yet every time someone brings up the history of Democrats and slavery, the response is always someone pointing out the Southern Strategy and the way in which the two American parties essentially swapped over various axes. One day racist Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond woke up and decided, "The Republican party is for me," and there was a reason for that, after all. No, people aren't ignorant about this history at all; if anything it's people that point it out thinking they're making some epic point that have stretched expectations

You point to cities with immense populations that endure population densities that would have made the founders of those cities (or of the country) spit out their tea: urban history is full of mostly bipartisan problems from poor planning, industrialization, flight to the suburbs, return to urban centers, gentrification, and so on. Those issues are a lot more complex than "what letter does the mayor have before their name?"

It could of course have some impact, but I just don't think it's that important. For the same reason you won't find me pointing out the worst states in the union are deeply red with deeply red leaderships. Things are more complex than that.

I continue to hold the opinion that calling everything not liked "Marxism" is just a little conspiracy theory-ish. I'm not sure how to respond to this part as I just don't find it relevant.

They don't actually care about minorities; they only care about positioning themselves as "champions of minorities." That's quite a different thing, as we find out. They actually think they're enlightened, special, virtuous, champions of the oppressed, and all that rubbish.

Hey, I'm with you there when it comes to most politicians. For instance when the SCOTUS Dobbs opinion leaked and they had months to start actually doing something, anything about it, then acted like they got caught with their pants down when the opinion officially released, I was angry. It is very typical. I was never fond of Biden or most candidates (maybe any of them?) in the first place, but watching a weak, say-anything, do-nothing person just wring their hands over it, and a party just ask for votes and donations with no concrete, elucidated plan has been demoralizing.

But I do not think most people that get described as "woke" are just actors. I will disagree there. I think people do care about other people. I just don't think they always know the most effective way to do anything about it.

I'm well aware of where the term originated. Where else but the US, the inventor of bad taste and bad English? How does one country manage to be so offensive?
But I agree about the 'Marxism' thing. I think IC is barking up the wrong tree there. Nothing in the PCwokie manifesto resembles anything Marx said. It's being churned out by mischief-making 'academics' in bullshit uni departments that invariably end in the word 'studies'. The meaningless, incomprehensible crap they have to read and write every day has made them even more insane than they were to begin with. I knew one of these types, a uni lecturer who was clearly on the 'spectrum' of either Aspergers or Autism. She accidentally dropped a list at my place of the lectures she was planning on attending. I kept it because the lecture titles were so bizarre that they deserved preservation.

A couple of doozies: ''Haunting sex: Spectres of commodity capitalism in ''anti-media sexualisation of childhood discourses''.

''Free universites and Radical Reading Groups: Community self education as anti-capitalist culture creation.''

Hmm. Perhaps the Marx reference isn't that far off after all (although it's far too simplistic and 'conspiratorial' for my taste).

[Astro Cat]

A couple of doozies: ''Haunting sex: Spectres of commodity capitalism in ''anti-media sexualisation of childhood discourses''.

''Free universites and Radical Reading Groups: Community self education as anti-capitalist culture creation.''

Hmm. Perhaps the Marx reference isn't that far off after all (although it's far too simplistic and 'conspiratorial' for my taste).

LOL yikes, I am afraid to be curious what the syllabus looks like on those lectures.