have your bad cat fingers pried open Eric Hoffer's 'The True Believer' 'thoughts on the nature of mass movements' published in 1951? I only started it this morning and already mind blown. Describes what is happening right now so well.
just as a teaser...
"Chapter 9
The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause."
that's it, the whole chapter.
"Chapter 10
A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind of his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.
This minding of other people's business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling. and also in feverish interest in communal, national and racial affairs. In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbour's shoulder or fly at his throat."
Hoffer's TRUE BELIEVER was the first of ten published Hoffer titles, and I am gratified to see Hoffer's work mentioned in these comments, as it's been absent (my observation) in the discussions during the last few years of the rise of post modernist fanaticism. Hoffer was a unique American philosopher and I remember seeing him interviewed on television more than once...an extraordinary thinker who preferred working with his hands to survive. Matthew Crawford reminds me of this aspect of Hoffer a little. I urge anyone that is trying to make sense about our present state of affairs to pick up Hoffer's first two books ( THE TRUE BELIEVER and THE PASSIONATE STATE OF MIND) and familiarise themself with how Hoffer viewed the causes of fanaticism.
Spot on. Lets shame by calling them religious, cuz we know they hate religion. With all respect, I think your big blind spot is perhaps envisioning a world in which we can all change our stripes and become elite liberal individualists (cats). By elite (in this case), I mean fully self-sufficient, no need for God. By individualists, I mean independent-minded, comfortable standing alone, no need for organized group involvement (collectives). You're spot on in your assessment of wokeness having the characteristics of some all-to-human religious behaviors. It is certainly not "faith", as faith is only possible if coupled with humility. Otherwise it become irrefutable "fact", which is a lie, and lies require some degree of violence or aggression to maintain.
I think the answer lies in promoting a vision of the world that takes into account the needs of those "wired" differently. The greatest threat is atheist/humanist "religious" collectivism that rises to hysteria or chronic anxiety. The "power" in such religion is full compliance. If everyone believes and conforms, that's when the magic happens. It doesn't take too many logical dominoes to fall before they begin to rationalize "eliminating" infidels (individualists). To save the world! Or at least relieve their anxiety.
I found this article by your reference to it in "cheerleading for culture clash". After reading it, I do need to agree with almost all of your assertions.
The 1960s was a direct result of the introduction of Critical Theory, brought here by the Frankfort School in the 1930's (they were all Jewish communists and so, had a double reason to escape the German National Socialist movement) and Woke ideology is the end result - I say end result because Woke is where Critical Theory eats itself, as all evil does.
I, however, am not one to say that a belief system cannot be questioned. I side with Thomas Jefferson when he said "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." I think people fear having their belief systems questioned because they are afraid that they will be proven wrong and that they'll have to rethink everything all over again - it is that fear that makes them angry and irrational. As a programmer of over 25 years who writes code designed to be used once and thrown away, I guess I've become used to the idea of constantly starting over from ground zero.
My best friend was an atheist. He would actively bring up things to me that he thought would challenge my belief. Some of the greatest revelations I ever had regarding my beliefs came from pondering many of the issues he raised. He passed away near his 43rd birthday in 2019 from a massive heart attack and I miss him terribly. I can only imagine the wonderful discussions we would have today - we would have had so much to talk about!
We did, however, have an opportunity to discuss the "gender is a social construct" dogma emerging at that time. During our discussion, I opined: "any society whose members are so blinded that they can't look in their pants and tell what gender they are cannot survive", with which he agreed after some thought. I believe that statement is proving correct today as Critical Theory tears apart the final threads that bind a society together.
Thank you for your wonderful insights - I gain much from reading you.
In my experience very few people have the inner strength to question their own beliefs, i. e., consider the possibility they could be wrong. Fewer still are those who have the courage to seek out and listen to those who disagree, evaluate the differences, and form new conclusions. Rarest are those who can integrate present knowledge with new information and iterate that into an original thought.
Your post hits all those marks.
In my profession (real estate development, which relies heavily on financial modeling), the kiss of death is when you stop questioning the assumptions in the model. I learned early on to always have a skeptic tear my models apart.
Your atheist friend would have been a friend of mine as well. 😉
Questions are the beginnings of knowledge. But people don't want knowledge - they want certainty, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell. And although I disagree with most of his assertions, this particular idea rings true
I can offer an alternative: Woke is the belief that all outcomes should be equal irrespective of abilities, talents, or efforts. Woke takes all people to the lowest common denominator and tries to instill "preset" and always changing "religious" narratives into the masses. Woke is essentially the polar opposite of our Constitution.. in small words, it is socialism and fascism combined and in its worst form the dehumanization of humans. FJB
Belief in/adhesion to whatever ideas are being promoted and financed at the moment by the rich in order to split society and transform vertical tensions (have nots v have yachts) into horizontal tensions (woman against men, black against white, straight against gay...).
Punch, no punch backs is correct. Also explains why when I was arguing against masks and mandates in response to a facebook post back in 2020, I was suddenly called a "racist" and blocked and unfollowed.
"one can argue about whether post modernism is even inherently meaningful, but this debate was not, for the most part, needed as this inherently self-dissolving aspect of post modernist thought caused it to settle into either cynicism “there’s just no knowing anything” or dada and farce “look what a silly game this is, let’s at least make it fun!” it was a parlor game for intellectuals and a lodestone for mopey malcontents. neither threatened to spread into broad currency."
What, I wonder, is the nature of gato's alleged causality here? It's certainly not logical consequence. Neither (obviously) is it any kind of robust psycho-social causality. So what is it? Perhaps merely a convenient narrative device? (Convenient, that is, for propping up the post-post-modern narrative underpinning gato's own ideological (or his own 'religious,' i.e., religious only in gato's thoroughly bastardized sense of the term) position.)
I like James Lindsay's equation of "woke" to the Marxist concept of "critical consciousness" (which is actually where it came from). Though that is not exactly a definition like yours. Paulo Freire defined it as something like "the awareness of one’s social conditions and the systemic inequalities that perpetuate class oppression. It involves recognizing the ways in which power, privilege, and oppression operate within society and understanding one’s role in either perpetuating or challenging these dynamics." Of course, one must replace "class" with "the intersection of race, class, sex, gender, and other marginalizations" and replace "awareness of" with "religious belief that".
have your bad cat fingers pried open Eric Hoffer's 'The True Believer' 'thoughts on the nature of mass movements' published in 1951? I only started it this morning and already mind blown. Describes what is happening right now so well.
just as a teaser...
"Chapter 9
The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause."
that's it, the whole chapter.
"Chapter 10
A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind of his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.
This minding of other people's business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling. and also in feverish interest in communal, national and racial affairs. In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbour's shoulder or fly at his throat."
Hoffer's TRUE BELIEVER was the first of ten published Hoffer titles, and I am gratified to see Hoffer's work mentioned in these comments, as it's been absent (my observation) in the discussions during the last few years of the rise of post modernist fanaticism. Hoffer was a unique American philosopher and I remember seeing him interviewed on television more than once...an extraordinary thinker who preferred working with his hands to survive. Matthew Crawford reminds me of this aspect of Hoffer a little. I urge anyone that is trying to make sense about our present state of affairs to pick up Hoffer's first two books ( THE TRUE BELIEVER and THE PASSIONATE STATE OF MIND) and familiarise themself with how Hoffer viewed the causes of fanaticism.
It looks like we have three different definitions now for 'woke', all of them fertile:
1) (el gato) linguistic interrogation to dissolve and discredit all paradigms but the weaponized payload that must not be interrogated; [tactics]
2) (American Dissident) demand for equality of outcome, regardless of human input; [payload]
3) (Bartolo) a device used by the rich to deflect vertical tension into horizonal division and conflict. [functionality]
Three wise men (?) grabbing hold of one woke elephant. I really love this intellectual circle!
Don't forget James Lindsay's definition https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-woke-wokeness/
James is the zenmaster of Critical Theory and its subunits and their histories.
Spot on. Lets shame by calling them religious, cuz we know they hate religion. With all respect, I think your big blind spot is perhaps envisioning a world in which we can all change our stripes and become elite liberal individualists (cats). By elite (in this case), I mean fully self-sufficient, no need for God. By individualists, I mean independent-minded, comfortable standing alone, no need for organized group involvement (collectives). You're spot on in your assessment of wokeness having the characteristics of some all-to-human religious behaviors. It is certainly not "faith", as faith is only possible if coupled with humility. Otherwise it become irrefutable "fact", which is a lie, and lies require some degree of violence or aggression to maintain.
I think the answer lies in promoting a vision of the world that takes into account the needs of those "wired" differently. The greatest threat is atheist/humanist "religious" collectivism that rises to hysteria or chronic anxiety. The "power" in such religion is full compliance. If everyone believes and conforms, that's when the magic happens. It doesn't take too many logical dominoes to fall before they begin to rationalize "eliminating" infidels (individualists). To save the world! Or at least relieve their anxiety.
I found this article by your reference to it in "cheerleading for culture clash". After reading it, I do need to agree with almost all of your assertions.
The 1960s was a direct result of the introduction of Critical Theory, brought here by the Frankfort School in the 1930's (they were all Jewish communists and so, had a double reason to escape the German National Socialist movement) and Woke ideology is the end result - I say end result because Woke is where Critical Theory eats itself, as all evil does.
I, however, am not one to say that a belief system cannot be questioned. I side with Thomas Jefferson when he said "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." I think people fear having their belief systems questioned because they are afraid that they will be proven wrong and that they'll have to rethink everything all over again - it is that fear that makes them angry and irrational. As a programmer of over 25 years who writes code designed to be used once and thrown away, I guess I've become used to the idea of constantly starting over from ground zero.
My best friend was an atheist. He would actively bring up things to me that he thought would challenge my belief. Some of the greatest revelations I ever had regarding my beliefs came from pondering many of the issues he raised. He passed away near his 43rd birthday in 2019 from a massive heart attack and I miss him terribly. I can only imagine the wonderful discussions we would have today - we would have had so much to talk about!
We did, however, have an opportunity to discuss the "gender is a social construct" dogma emerging at that time. During our discussion, I opined: "any society whose members are so blinded that they can't look in their pants and tell what gender they are cannot survive", with which he agreed after some thought. I believe that statement is proving correct today as Critical Theory tears apart the final threads that bind a society together.
Thank you for your wonderful insights - I gain much from reading you.
In my experience very few people have the inner strength to question their own beliefs, i. e., consider the possibility they could be wrong. Fewer still are those who have the courage to seek out and listen to those who disagree, evaluate the differences, and form new conclusions. Rarest are those who can integrate present knowledge with new information and iterate that into an original thought.
Your post hits all those marks.
In my profession (real estate development, which relies heavily on financial modeling), the kiss of death is when you stop questioning the assumptions in the model. I learned early on to always have a skeptic tear my models apart.
Your atheist friend would have been a friend of mine as well. 😉
Questions are the beginnings of knowledge. But people don't want knowledge - they want certainty, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell. And although I disagree with most of his assertions, this particular idea rings true
Thank you for your very kind words.
I can offer an alternative: Woke is the belief that all outcomes should be equal irrespective of abilities, talents, or efforts. Woke takes all people to the lowest common denominator and tries to instill "preset" and always changing "religious" narratives into the masses. Woke is essentially the polar opposite of our Constitution.. in small words, it is socialism and fascism combined and in its worst form the dehumanization of humans. FJB
Wokism:
Belief in/adhesion to whatever ideas are being promoted and financed at the moment by the rich in order to split society and transform vertical tensions (have nots v have yachts) into horizontal tensions (woman against men, black against white, straight against gay...).
Ok, now do it in 25 words or less.
How big can the words be? I bet he could do it in Pawnee!
Make that eleven people who read it now?
Punch, no punch backs is correct. Also explains why when I was arguing against masks and mandates in response to a facebook post back in 2020, I was suddenly called a "racist" and blocked and unfollowed.
Are you still on Facebook or did you leave with the 2020 diaspora?
National Socialist Democrats do believe in their own religion but the problem with Democrat Socialism is it MAWA or "Makes America Worse Again."
"one can argue about whether post modernism is even inherently meaningful, but this debate was not, for the most part, needed as this inherently self-dissolving aspect of post modernist thought caused it to settle into either cynicism “there’s just no knowing anything” or dada and farce “look what a silly game this is, let’s at least make it fun!” it was a parlor game for intellectuals and a lodestone for mopey malcontents. neither threatened to spread into broad currency."
What, I wonder, is the nature of gato's alleged causality here? It's certainly not logical consequence. Neither (obviously) is it any kind of robust psycho-social causality. So what is it? Perhaps merely a convenient narrative device? (Convenient, that is, for propping up the post-post-modern narrative underpinning gato's own ideological (or his own 'religious,' i.e., religious only in gato's thoroughly bastardized sense of the term) position.)
I like James Lindsay's equation of "woke" to the Marxist concept of "critical consciousness" (which is actually where it came from). Though that is not exactly a definition like yours. Paulo Freire defined it as something like "the awareness of one’s social conditions and the systemic inequalities that perpetuate class oppression. It involves recognizing the ways in which power, privilege, and oppression operate within society and understanding one’s role in either perpetuating or challenging these dynamics." Of course, one must replace "class" with "the intersection of race, class, sex, gender, and other marginalizations" and replace "awareness of" with "religious belief that".