Working Out Woke
When all’s lost, make it count while you may… That said, in what’s bound to be my penultimate post, I hope to resolve Wokism.
Ambitious? Maybe, but what do I have to lose?
But first:
I only got the broad strokes, but Vaush…? Can’t say I’m really surprised.
Speaking of worrying, here's a WaPo comment:
The view that Biden is a mentally addled elderly man rings hollow to me. The legislative branch is literally filled with people past retirement age ...
We also have the 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of a President if the Cabinet decides that the President is disabled or too incapacitated to fulfill his duties. I read the Post regularly, and I have never even seen rumors that anyone in the Cabinet has any concerns that the President is heading down that road. ...
As far as I can tell, the President's mental acuity is a media creation.
...
Our options this election season appears to be a contest between an elderly man who loves and tries to do what is good for his country, and an elderly malignant narcissist who tries to what is good for himself. I know who I am going to vote for; what about you?
Otherwise... Navalny? Really?
And instantly holding Putin personally accountable?
Who's holding who accountable for Guantanamo Bay and the countless who die in US jails?
How much of a sap can one be? Everyone seeing him as a hero, that’s the equivalent of Russians and other foreigners calling Richard Spencer, well-known white supremacist and neo-Nazi supporter, a hero.
This shouldn’t be taken as a 1:1 equivalent; Navalny’s ideology isn’t identical to Spencer’s, but the general treatment afforded to Spencer in the US is equivalent to that of Navalny’s in Russia, from what I’ve long gathered.
Navalny actually represents a darker shade of Russian nationalism while also being intensely Islamophobic, referring to such as “cockroaches”, an opinion he’s never renounced but one that many Westerners are all too happy to overlook or justify, this offering another flagrant contradiction when contrasted against what these same groupings unquestionably condemn, demonizing all those who don’t.
All in all, patterns indicate that “consistency” is what’s more likely to get one demonized these days.
Navalny wouldn’t have broken the 3%. And for reasons that far outweigh ones that unjustly landed far too many at Guantanamo Bay, Navalny clearly qualified as a traitor. Be smart, don’t just take the HBO version as truth.
He was in cahoots with Western agencies, these showing no shame in regard to who they’ll romanticize and to what end.
Consistency. Bit of a problem.
If I had to bet—though not money—I’d place it on British involvement; Navalny was assassinated, perhaps, willingly.
The timing, with his wife’s invitation at the Munich Security Conference already planned… uncanny how these things go, always in favour of whatever lunacy is being sold by the West.
And far too many happily froth and spew their anger and hate, convinced of a real menace from a mock monster. Buying into a faux-imperialism through the lies of savage neo-imperialists.
And that’s why $61 billions have to be sent now, now, now! Frontline soldiers are in the trenches, scrolling their smartphones, hoping to see that “You’ve received bullets from usa.gov” notification!
Not shedding a tear for that soldier makes you Hitler.
Ditto if voicing any opposition to bombing Gazan children. Or any civilians.
Consistency. Major problem.
And, so… Woke.
I’d tackled the subject in a previous post that, unfortunately, sits among all those that I haven’t reposted as I came to suspect that I’d have to give up the site sooner than later, so I can’t link to it but you may recall that the post had offered a door-spotting AI example to explain how I had concluded that “Woke”, as it was now widely used, referred to vague notions and nothing of substance, hence, it was being used mostly as a dump-all term to weaponize all that seemed contrary to conservative ideals.
This aspect was then laid bare by hosts asking guests, point blank, to define “Woke” for them, Bad Faith’s Briahna Joy Gray’s babbling reaction from her guest resulting in a viral clip.
Conservatives and their defenders quickly shot back, affirming that “Woke” wasn’t “nothing” and promoting the idea that “Wokism is like porn; you know it when you see it,” this gaining traction.
What I found somewhat funny, but troubling, too, is how the main claim of that post seems to have been interpreted as “Woke is equal to nothing.”
That’s not what my ultimate conclusion was, however, as I had stated that, nonetheless, there’s the manifestation of a certain behaviour that the “Woke” label conjures in the minds of many, albeit the fact that all these individuals would be hard pressed to define what it is they’re identifying beyond some mention of a ‘vulgar’ Left.
What that was as I’d discussed, per what seems reasonable and grounded, was mostly the overswing of fringe groups and movements pushing for their rights, these suddenly seeing the doors open wide, allowing them to assert their identity.
I still hold that same view, though I should probably affirm more clearly my belief that “Woke” is something real, but in no way do I believe it to be a part of some far-reaching leftist ploy, especially not of the radical Commie variety.
That part is a bit too absurd for me.
Now, with events in Gaza, you got James Lindsay taking advantage of the matter to push his latest, the “Wokification of Islamism.” Pure gibberish.
Take an abnormal psychology textbook and read through the description of many of the disorders and you’ll be certain some of those describe you. There’s a similar effect at play here, Lindsay now being worse than all those whose studies he aimed to destroy through his initial “social-studies debunking” activities that had gotten him a fair bit of notoriety.
The theories and philosophies, ideologies, and manifestos that Lindsay claims to be those now setting an evil leftist agenda contain the same type of wide-ranging concepts that can be seen in any period and any society, if one makes it a goal to see these.
There’s no doubt that some aspects of postmodernist thoughts have been adopted by some of today’s activist groups, but how much of a conscious adoption of Mercusian or Adornian philosophy is it really, and not just the unquestioned application of #17 in the activist manual that was handed to them?
Yeah, but the people who created the manual. They’re evil Commies, right?
My experience: Many of these things are written with Copy & Paste as the main motivating factor.
And although Christopher Rufo may have unearthed real instances of genuine concern, it's the way these have been grossly politicized and exploited, with many cases being badly exaggerated, that I criticize him for.
A 2018 report called "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape" placed those who associate with the concept widely identified as "Woke", without explicitly referring to it by that label, at 8%. Until 2021, most of the Left-leaners had heard the word but had no real clue what it meant or that it referred to them. Hence, the modern, current label isn't one that was willingly adopted, it was largely applied, so I'm willing to say that 8% is probably a few percents too high today.
That said, "Woke" appears to be nothing more than the natural behaviour that results out of the dynamics in play within an atmosphere that greatly favoured the expression of all sorts of highly justified grievances.
Liberals are despicably guilty of exploiting these "identity" issues purely for votes, but did so in deeply questionable, moral-lacking ways throughout Trump's turn in office. There's much there that appears to have been part of a coordinated effort, and albeit Antifa was a "thought" not a "group"—much like Hamas—there was, nonetheless, a kernel that spurred the rest that does appear to have been 'politically motivated' through Soros funded groups.
Republicans are despicably guilty for the manner by which they politicize and exploit these issues, seemingly paying no attention to, or being aware of, any person actually being involved, turning them into "enemies of the state" without really trying to understand the issues that affect these individuals.
Bullying and guilt are a big part of it all.
Does it mean giving in to all their demands? No. Far too much leeway due to insanely-tribal politics is why some things have gone too far, BUT this also includes all the GOP plays to degrade public schools and force the private 'charter' system.
There are radicals on both sides; both sides owe it to the other to keep them in check, for the good of their own side.
Play nice. Love one another, for goodness' sake.
And be Americans. Real ones. Like on the posters.
And stop your goddamn wars!
Anyhow, I'm not all that in the mood to write right now. I'll leave it up to you to decipher the rest via this diagram:
Note that not added to the diagram are several conservative “special interest” groups, these pulling GOP efforts in the opposite direction, fossil fuel ones being one example.
I had a write up on this but I seemed to have scraped it, so, I'll skip the preamble and go straight to the meat of the matter, but you can read more here. As part of his campaigning efforts for the upcoming elections, Indian PM Narendra Modi had submitted a white paper boasting his party's economic plan by contrasting the BJP's successes with the those of Congress, during an equivalent period of time in which the opposing party had been in power.
The opposition did the same, offering a 'counter-paper'.
While the opposition's plan is highly "pro-poor", it follows the method that Republicans are renown for despising: all handouts, very little bootstrap pulling.
On the other hand:
The NDA led by PM Modi opted for the strategy of pro-poor and pro-business, preferring empowerment over entitlement. This meant universalizing access to basics – electricity, cooking gas, banking, housing, drinking water, health insurance, and so on – and thereby empowering people and creating a stronger economic fabric to sustain business opportunities. A strategy of teaching people how to fish, rather than giving them fish.
If I'm getting this right, one can see what Modi proposes as some form of Universal Basic Income, in a sense. Makes nothing but great sense. I'd definitely vote for his plan.
And so, too, would most progressive types, I'm sure.
Conservatives greatly misunderstand what it is that most people want; liberals exploit it as a campaign promise they don't really care to deliver on.
Unfortunately, as for Woke, political tribalism distorts simple things, tears people apart, these having no problem finding a common ground in a friendly manner in the majority of instances were corporations, greed, and politicians not involved in political matters.
Sigh.
In closing, here's a header I never got around to using:
.
