Is wokeness the remedy to fascism?

ar
It is a totalitarian ideology that blames all the ills of the world on "Whiteness" (so called). Sort of how the Nazis blamed the Jews.

 

The only thing woke us a remedy for is success

 

so you're "woke" to racism against whites?

 

This hatred against Crisis Pregnancy Centers for simply providing an alternative to abortion for pregnant women in a bind is disturbing. As if missing an opportunity, in a small percent of pregnancies, to abort a baby to a pregnancy center birth has any effect on them??? There is none. Why does a woman of her own free will, choosing to give birth instead of aborting her baby enrage them so? Lost dollars to planned parenthood? Some kind of population control goal?

 

For the woke, racism is only by the whites against people of color. Sexism is only male against the females, heterosexual against every other sexuality, cisgendered against the transgendered, the colonizer against the colonized. The oppressor against the oppressed. A power struggle between those with power and those without. Basic marxist trope.

 

Only In backwards land could this question even be entertained...... Wokeness IS fascism. !!!

 

the is the rights definition, the right is wrong

one can be woke to all kinds of racism, racism against whites or blacks

 

Yeeeaaah. Weve seen how "white lives matter" goes over. Excoriated by the "woke"

 

which is wrong too, no one should ever be attacked for saying white lives matter too - I have said that many many times

 

Your ideas are simplistic and leaves out context & nuance. I'll just touch on it because the question is a multi-dimensional & very broad topic, and with so much going on that can be taken into account. So I'll stick to GPA's only on this one.

Other than academic performance, a person's GPA indicates very little about a person. It will not reveal the most important aspect about an individual----their character. Every life is unique and each person's relative contribution to society must be considered on an individual basis.

Those who perform well in school may not necessarily be a benefit to society. Job-wise, it depends on what field of work they're in. Outside of one's job, however, we need to look at hobbies/interests they have on the side, what other activities they're involved in, and generally how they live their life.

Remember, we live in a capitalist society in which most jobs are centered around and serve money & business interests (ie, private interests). Naturally then, a capitalist system is comprised mostly of bullsh!t jobs that serve no benefit to society.

A capitalist system also means white collar crime will predominantly be associated with those who performed better in school than the average person. To a lesser degree, however, this group can also include those who perform poorly in school, yet exhibit a gift for manipulation. The tools they come with are charisma, charm, ability to feign sympathy/empathy, articulateness, ability to 'read' people's vulnerabilities, and ability to quickly disarm damaging questions through distraction, double-talk, evasion, and denial with no emotional reveal. These would be your high-level con men whose ambition, greed & narcissism is so pervasive that they attain high status & wealth simply by manipulating & conning their way through life. They can include politicians, religious leaders (particularly televangelists), corporate executives, agency heads, bank managers, hedge fund managers, developers, and so on. When such con men are also gifted academically, their goals become even more attainable and sustainable due to an aptitude for discreetness & patience.

And how has that worked out for us? Have these high-scoring people who have been placed into positions of power & influence created a paradise on earth? It would appear that paradise has been all but destroyed.

But getting back to test scores:

(1) Working harder doesn't necessarily mean one will achieve high GPAs/test scores. Many very intelligent people simply can't take tests very well----Eg, they have dyslexia or other learning disorder, visual learners, audio learners, have test anxiety, get confused under pressure, are slower thinkers & are hindered by time constraints, etc. Take these same people and allow them into a classroom of their choosing and they could excel if the stress of written exams are removed. And by 'excel', I'm talking about eagerly embracing the educational material offered to them & making the effort to apply it productively. I have a friend who totally sucks at math, but is naturally gifted in computer programming/coding & electronics technology. I can't explain it, but it's true.

(2) Test scores are a better predictor of future academic performance. Most will not argue with that. A valedictorian will likely excel in any college. But what contribution, if any, will that individual provide to the improvement of society?

To predict a person's potential (positive, not negative) contribution to society based on GPA is next to impossible. It would be best to measure a person's qualifications on what the specific goal at hand requires, and to ensure that that goal provides a measured contribution to improving society.

Currently, our education system is utterly boring, mostly pointless, too time-consuming, and wasteful. Both students & teachers are over-worked & over-stressed. It has changed very little because the monetary/capitalist system needs workers more than creative thinkers & visionaries.

 

Your focus is placed excessively on the child's attitude towards education.

Education, as the transference of knowledge, is only a tool and can be performed in a multitude of ways. The child's passions, interests, talents, creative abilities, and character are more important than how well they may do academically. These factors will be the determining factor in gauging the child's future contribution to society and the world itself.

The current paradigm & predominant educational method is focused only on academic performance. The school is not the real world, but is a great place to indoctrinate students. These institutions groom young minds into future drones who can continue to fuel the monetary/capitalist system, where the smartest ones with no independent thought of their own get the biggest payouts.

We should expose every child to multi-spectrum, real-world conditions so that they can better decide what they wish to pursue in life.

You just reinforced the point I made. Thank you. Now perhaps you can see why it's not working for us, and why children, who are free spirits, naturally hate school.

A child that endeavors to become a doctor (for example), would learn the 3 R's and then advance (at their own pace) towards the type of doctor they wish to become. There are many types of doctors, not just allopathic MD's. For those wanting to do medical or dental surgery, become ER doctors, or become vets, the training would be more extensive of course which would include more extensive training in chemistry. For all other types of doctors, a naturopathic avenue towards the huge spectrum of healing arts would be most advisable.

A child will know early on if they have the aptitude for whatever field (or fields) of interest they wish to pursue. Once they know, there's no reason not to allow them to begin exploring & training for it at a very early age. Of course certain jobs, due to their nature, will require the person to have reached adulthood (or at least adult-size) first for the sake of safety & efficiency.

 

Your words remind me of a quote I once ran across about opposition. I had to look it up again to see who wrote it.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." ― Lenin

Perhaps it's a way of saying: To destroy the opposition, you must become the opposition.

 

But we should never stop trying to be perfect. Just being better than everybody else is good, and a reason for pride but it isn't enough. "A man's reach should always exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for? " Browning

 

That's a good observation and a nefarious tactic, but I don't think in reality it is usually intentional like that. I don't think th woke are conservatives posing as liberals, for example, to discredit liberalism.

I think the "woke" are well meaning (most people are) and just so self righteous that they are toxic to the very ideals they claim to fight for. They think they fight against racism, by being racist, etc. They are oblivious to the fact that their pushing everything to be seen through the lens of race and pushing different treatment based on race, they are playing directly into the hands of those on the opoosite side who want to do the same, the white supremacists.

 

???? Nonsense. Performance in prior academic experience reveals more about the likely future academic performance than anything else. INCLUDING those character traits necessary for successful academic performance.

Making it even more pernicious that they instead simply "look" to see what color they are instead.

Yeah, all this racial division critical theory crap is nothing more than the neo marxist's chosen path to the dismantling of capitalism.

 

??????Thats kind of their foundational philosophy and "very ideals" and NOT something they are oblivious to. To quote Kendi

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

In their minds its not racism against whites and asians, its "antiracism" for the benefit of blacks. And it is “The only remedy"

 

Nonsense. CRT is a big part of what is "woke" in the US today. Under CRT theory America was the only nation established and fought for in a revolution to enable whites to enslave blacks. And under CRT "When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism." Full stop, no if and or buts. If students are let in based purely on prior academic performance and entrance exams with Asians being way over represented, whites slightly under represented and blacks way under represented, the disparities are by definition the product of racism against blacks. This assumption forms the foundation of critical race theory.

And even more relevant to being "woke" in the US today is BLM. Even though the cops are killing more white people than blacks, blacks at 13% of the population make up 26% of those killed by the police and CRT starts with the assumption that this racial disparity in deaths is due to racism against blacks by the police. By assumption it has nothing to do with the fact that in Minnesota where Floyd was killed, Blacks are only 10% of the population BUT are 75% of the known murderers, and is instead because the police are racist. Mayhem across the country occurred in response. Critical theory isn't just seen in academia because its method is the production of a critical mass of activist to well up a sufficient portion of the population to protest and riot in the streets.

 

John has that wrong. Capitalism is believed to be the most efficient at producing the goods and services desired by consumers and says nothing about the benefit or detriment of that consumption.

 

Id consider Trump to be filthy rich and he did more to stop the flow of illegal third world immigrants into the US with the full support of the majority of Republican politicians.

 

Industrialization in the north enabled the north to produce the needed weapons and supplies of war and its absence in the south was a hinderance. Rest of that is nonsense in that cotton was picked by hand until the 1930s

 

I agree, most are well-intentioned.

And that's exactly why the anti-wokers have to resort to hyping the minority of irrational wokers (who lack boundaries) as a means of portraying the entire group as crackpots at best, and 'fascists' at worst. Either way, it serves the anti-wokers in their bid to discredit the opposition. FOX news and virtually every other right-wing media source do this constantly because they're unable to directly address the rational policies promoted by the majority of wokers who are rational. If they do address a policy, they'll resort to distortions, exaggerations, spin, straw man ploys, and outright lies. Thus it's not surprising that the majority of right-wing followers represent the most poorly educated, ignorant/unworldly, xenophobic, fundamentalist, fact-hating, fantasy-prone sector of our population. By their very own efforts & attitudes, they unwittingly create their own demise, as well as present themselves as the perfect target for exploitation by the well-organized, well-educated Right.

As far as infiltration & destabilization of the opposition by nefarious groups, I wasn't implying that right-wingers were posing as wokers, but this (infiltration & destabilization) does exist in the form of large, well-organized, corporate-driven sources of funding. The funding is used to spread propaganda throughout all media forms, to establish new media, to fund speeches, to pay legal fees, to groom young minds, to fund campaigns, to bribe politicians & sway policy, to set up 'think tanks', to 'debunk' the opposition & perform 'damage control', and so on. To what extent they are effective? I can't say.

Ultimately it's up to the individual to ensure they do their due diligence in checking facts and in scrutinizing their own emotional triggers.

 

Before 2014, the call to “stay woke” was, for many people, unheard of. The idea behind it was common within Black communities at that point — the notion that staying “woke” and alert to the deceptions of other people was a basic survival tactic. But in 2014, following the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, “stay woke” suddenly became the cautionary watchword of Black Lives Matter activists on the streets, used in a chilling and specific context: keeping watch for police brutality and unjust police tactics.
What is woke: How a Black movement watchword got co-opted in a culture war - Vox

 

Exactly. They think it stops being racism when it's against one particular race. Which in itself is racial discrimination, and therefore racism. Kendi is racist about racism itself, which is quite a mind trick. That takes a special level of delusional thinking. But yes, I do think he thins he actually is anti-racist.

 

And I would be quick to add to the above that just because a larger percentage of black people are known murderers, as you wrote, does NOT mean that there is anything inherent to having black skin or African genetics that makes a person more prone to violence or crime, and being black does not make a person more prone to these, and black individuals should not be held responsible for what other black individuals do, and to do so is racism.

And the same goes for white people and people of any other race, which one the trap woke people frequently fall into. Just because one white man is racist doesn't mean a different white person is. Just because one white man is powerful and privileged doesn't mean a different white person is.

Just because there are some rich white men controlling levers of power doesn't mean there is a patriarchy benefiting poor enslaved white men over free wealthy women.

Woke often runs directly into bigotry rather than away from it. And it needs to be called out, by actual liberals, when it does, especially when the woke pretend to stand for liberal values that they actually work against.

 

This is where the labels create confusion. The Woke who actually ARE about pointing out injustice, racism, sexism, etc in society are indeed too often obscured by the Woke that the likes of Tucker point out. This is why I like to refer to the latter as "the illiberal left". "Regressive left" was also an apt label.

A problem here is that due to the same political polarization that Fox exploits (as you rightly point out) too many liberals (and Woke folks in the positive sense of the word) fail to distinguish themselves from the toxic Wokers and their policies, and fail to recognize that these people DO exert a lot of power and influence today. They are not just a few crazy blue haired college kids anymore and it needs to be recognized.

All of which the liberals enable by failing to distinguish themselves. When the right is alone in recognizing the obvious insanity of "wokeness" (in the negative sense of the word), centrists will see the right as more trustworthy and honest and will be more apt to swallow right wing propaganda without question.

Really, other than Bill Maher and Joe Rogan, what liberal with any platform calls out the likes of even Kendi as obviously racist? It's definitely a tiny minority of liberals. Do they think doing so would cede ground to conservatives like Tucker? I say it would actually go a long way towards debunking them.

People like Maher and Rogan will be much more effective in countering Fox News programming than people like Rachel Maddow.

It is. And sadly too few, on the left or the right, do so. Most people are sheeple.