Woke: The 5 Essentials You NEED to Know
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июн 2024
- A guide to understand "Wokeism": top 5 things you need to know!
#woke #wokeness #wokeism
“WOKE IMPERIUM: The Coming Confluence Between Social Justice & Neoconservatism”
peacediplomacy.org/2022/06/27...
interview with Max Blumenthal on The Greyzone:
• The Woke Imperium: the...
EMMA | THE CALLING | GOARMY:
• EMMA | THE CALLING | G...
www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/b...
www.ohne-ruestung-leben.de/na...
www.tagesschau.de/ausland/ukr...
www.theguardian.com/world/202...
www.dw.com/en/will-germany-re...
www.tagesschau.de/inland/baer...
----
Related video:
Wokeism: • Wokeism
Jordan Peterson: The Mirror of Wokeism: • Jordan Peterson: The M...
Reply to Jordan Peterson: Individualism, Wokeism, and Civil Religion:
• Reply to Jordan Peters...
----
Outro Music:
Carsick Cars - You Can Listen You Can Talk:
• Carsick Cars - You Can...
----
Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor at the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department at the University of Macau, and, with Paul D'Ambrosio, author of the recently published You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity".
(If you buy professor's book from the Columbia University Press website and use the promo code CUP20 , you should get a 20% discount.)
The woke army ad reminds me of when I first saw the CIA advertising itself by having some woman refer to herself as a "millenial with anxiety". As Slavoj would say: "*sniff* Pure profilicity."
The parody of the CIA ad made by the grayzone is very good.
Using anti-imperialism as justification for further imperialism. Quite brilliant in a sick and twisted way tbh.
That is the quintessence of the American way.
Russia does the same in their holy crusade against fascism in Ukraine they hide their fascist intentions
In the 19th century the British Empire used the cause of slavery abolition to justify the colonisation of Africa. That's the thing with history: it's not even done yet!
@@realCharAznable
Good call. The US has anti-imperialism in its origin story so it has to pay lipservice to it even as it acts like an empire.
I've always had the theory all ideologies in promulgation are contrived for a unified end. They may be virtually different but in reality the same philosophically under abstract scrutiny
I first came across the term woke when someone applied it to the father character Fierce from the movie Boyz n the Hood. The character was a single father to a teenage son trying to bring him up in a bad neighbourhood. The father wanted his son to become a good man despite their environment being overrun by drugs, violence and poverty. He taught his son the importance of education, and responsibility and raised awareness of systematic oppression and gentrification. The words' meaning originates from the African American communities and up until around 5 years ago was seldom used by white people. It's a word that described community-oriented, black intellectuals and activists from poor inner-city backgrounds. As far as I know, it had very little to do with LGBTQ+ issues, although I could be wrong.
Fast forward 5 odd years and I'm sitting here listening to a German Philosophy Professor telling me how Nancy Pelosi is using "wokeism" to raise diplomatic tensions with China. How did we get here? At what point was this linguistic sleight of hand made by reactionaries where the terms Liberal was swapped with Woke? Because that's exactly what has happened in my opinion. It's something like Liberal zealotry. I think the word has become a linguistic tumour in the English language and serves no purpose. It can easily be interchanged with the word liberal in pretty much any context.
You make a very subtle point. Although I’m sure a nineteenth century liberal like Gladstone would voice just as much contempt at the current usage of “liberal” and its implications. “Woke” seems to be related to a method of critique which pries open a very particular, lone point without ever relating it to a given, structural setting (e.g. political economy, racism, - which an issue might be symptomatic of, or directly stemming from). I think this might be one of the good doctor’s less inspired videos as it doesn’t get across WHERE such “woke” takes are being derived from nor the WHY... I haven’t seen any critic ever bother to engage with where “wokeism” actually comes from, - but instead, just bloated critique (is this not itself another form of virtue signalling?).
Being "woke" has been a thing for decades in rural "white" America. It was meant to signify a certain group of people privy to the malignancies of two party politics and the complacency of city dwellers. I speak in past tense as the term devolved into its own antonym.
woke was just used as a term to signify someone who had a conscious and thinking view of the world around them, "awake" to the world and it's history not sleepwaking questioning nothing, "aliens built the pyramids" could be woke, using herbal remedies or crystals could be woke. It wasn't one thing. Over recent years though popular culture has shifted and the term describes something more than that, something which Moeller is describing. Moeller's wokeness would exist without the term, but it's a term which works in this case.
@@priapulida But that is just incredibly reductive and, if anything, the remains of a very withered and as bonkers McCarthyism at work in conservative circles (the "Red Scare!" Now: "Your kids learning about the gays!").
I might say the 'why' and 'where' questions are a lot more to do with realising that structural critique has become made obsolete (some might blame this on globalisation, or the collapse of the gold-standard relating to how markets and therefore states now have to operate; or, rather cruelly, immigration), - and with this, the great existential terror that we can't actually change anything, and thus the relentless, *irrational* scapegoating... as one finds no system left to deconstruct. And if you've got no system left to deconstruct, - what can you?
But this is where being rational becomes a wet flannel.
Liberalism sans implicit white male supremacy is deeply offensive to guys like Moeller. The boogieman must be given a new name if it is to be properly vilified. The new name must sound sufficiently exotic as to evoke images of the enemy.
Thus "wokeism".
An ebonics slang term which immediately evokes the scary image of an angry young colored revolutionary or their gullible white college hippy ally.
This is the same kind of thing Fox news does when it calls Middle-Eastern religious schools "Madrasas" and then accuses Barack Obama of having attended one.
"Madrasa" literally means "school". Virtually every person on the planet has attended a madrasa.
There is a flip side to this phenomenon, as well as a rather convenient complicity. The flip side is that Russia (not so much China but Russia specifically) represents and presents itself as the ideological opposite of these people - as the champion of Christian conservatism (much like many right wing leaders in the west do), and use it for THEIR foreign policy. Particularly in Africa and Latin America. Meanwhile the convenient complicity is that wokeism isn't allowed to upset the realpolitik parts of US foreign policy too much. Even though woke idealists don't LIKE the US relationship with Saudi Arabia for instance (or even Israel for that matter), it persists despite that. Despite the claimed 'democracy versus dictatorships' narrative that's being spun, the west maintains ties to plenty of autocrats the world over, including some new ones now (such as Azerbaijan, a new source of gas for Europe). The woke idealists may dislike that, but they don't really protest it, just grumble and keep pushing against the enemies they can get the administration to attack (which is exactly how the administration would like it of course).
Well put.
It’s just funny because they have one of the lowest rates of church attendance in Europe but what matters is appearances of religiousness.
Yeah but NOBODY will say it aloud. The professor here consciously avoids even remotely speaking on Russia or China out of very known reasons. He would be castigated for any criticism of Russia or China.
Emperor Constantine allegedly had a vision of a cross and God telling him "In hoc signo vinces". A meme portraying Joe Biden seeing a rainbow in the sky and hearing same words would be pretty accurate here.
Hehe, you made my day! 🤣😂
I said the same thing that Joe biden to me seems very Constantine.
That's such a good idea I'm surprised I haven't seen it yet
Except I don't think Biden is the emperor. He can't even decide in which direction he should leave a stage, let alone make policy decisions!
I think that your way of superimposing the civil religious/christian model onto Wokeism is too formal, leading you to miss some crucial aspects that don't fit the model in a straightforward manner. I would like to highlight that Wokesim, despite the civil religious functions it exposes, in the theoretical and ideological domain it also carries a heavy inheritance from enlightenment Rationalism. An example for this would be the woke fascination with language and the ideal goal of a language rid of all forms of social inequality - the project to make language conform to a universalized form of equality between all people, genders, races, cultures etc. is essentially a form of what Weber called Rationalization. The interessting point is not merely that there are religious aspects to Wokeism, but much rather that these religious aspects persist despite it's purpoted oppositions toward religion. The story should be told more like this: anti-christian enlightenment did not succeed in replacing christian morality, so much so that even such theoretically unchristian inheritors of the enlightenment as Wokeism still operate in what is essentially a christian moral framework.
the interesting part about this video is that function for stop recommending this channel to me doesn't seem to work for some unknown reason...
This is an interesting perspective on "wokeness" that I consider highly valuable. I also see it playing out in my country where US funded NGOs and media mix woke agenda with neoliberal pro-NATO positions. However, I wouldn't say that they are the "essentials" of wokeness. I think your previous videos about wokeness grasp the essence more accurately.
What is wrong with NATO?
@@dodec8449lol are you serious
@@elia8544 yes
equating humanism with wokeism is surely a little heavy handed . also, wouldn’t the us military be capable of appropriate woke without actually embodying woke characteristics?
How would that work? One person may be able to pretend to believe something for personal benefit, but to promote pretending to believe in an ideology on a large scale just doesn't work. People don't work like that, one reason is that it's basically a widespread conspiracy that is hard to maintain (especially since the wokeism has opposite values to what the military does embody and should embody).
Another reason is that if you have an ideology like that in the modern western system, you have competing ideologies, and evolutionarily speaking people who would genuinely believe an ideology would have an advantage in promoting it and in moral signaling over people who would just pretend to believe it. If you actually believe something you will tend to be more zealous, you will be more ardent in your belief, you will care more about spreading the message. So some "pretend to believe in x" ideology would be inherently disadvantage compared to "actually believe in x" ideology, that is why you don't get such ideologies being popular anywhere.
I find this analysis of "wokeism" very insightful but ultimately, I don't think this is the way most people use the term "woke"... I have to wonder if there is a more appropriate term, but maybe using the term "wokeism" in your videos drives more RUclips traffic this way?
I don't think you understood the analysis.
I can see where you seem to be taking your perspective, but it looks like you're somehow brain-rotting with buzzwords and reactionary takes that, then again, come from and are used exclusively in English-speaking countries, especially the US.
The reason why identity politics take center stage in the US political climate (on the surface) is part of the makeup and posturing the US wants to take in geopolitical issues, globally. Your average "woke" person in the US is just a new flavor of a moralist who, in the end, wants to position or see the US as, the "most advanced country" in the subject of human rights. And with that rhetoric in mind and being employed by them (or maybe, you guys, since you might be a US citizen yourself) they believe that it's just normal to "evangelize" the whole world with that rhetoric and social analysis, and apply it to any kind of economic and humanistic issue from every other country, no matter how different our history and social organization may be from one another. Also, the woke perspective doesn't pay respect to the autonomy of other countries and their cultures and follows the Manifest Destiny doctrine that has always characterized US colonialism.
Basically, by posturing as "true humanists" and "social justice warriors" US citizens are supporting US military, political, and economic intervention of all kinds in countries all over the world. Also, the woke evangelism is just another facade supported by the imperialists to justify taking profit from natural resources and cheap labor from said countries when they manage to take the power from their democratically elected leaders.
When you think of woke you might think of campus activists, feminists, black activists, and LGBT activists, but they're just the tip of the iceberg, the mask that covers the globalist agenda that supports them and their very flawed rhetoric and perspective in a global, and national scale.
@@Traigame2cervezas
1. No, I am not from the US
2. If you're going to accuse me of "brainrot", maybe don't follow that with your thoughts on the "globalist agenda"
@@Traigame2cervezas The "globalist agenda" is a bullshit conspiracy theory simplification for those who are economically and politically illiterate. First off, "woke" isn't the product of the military industrial complex. It's a nebulous floating signifier that can be easily appropriated by opportunists. "Campus activists, feminists, black activists, and LGBT activists" aren't a "mask that covers the globalist agenda that supports them". They are human beings who are trying to gain freedom. The opportunists who drape them selves in "woke" symbolism are marketers attempting to advertise a new public relations strategy because their real "agenda" is not "globalist" - it's capitalism! "Woke" is a label that can be slapped on various contradictory things depending on who is using it, but the material politics of, on the one hand, grassroots social movements, and on the other hand, mass public relations marketing by the capitalist State, could not be more different in terms of agenda and actual power, no mater the "woke" label as surface sheen. Universal human/workers rights across the globe is a great thing - global military industrial complex of capitalism is not great. Don't confuse it with "woke".
I think the picture is a bit more complicated. Saying that there used to be Christian imperialism centuries ago and now there is woke imperialism is a bit too schematic. Only 20 years have passed since George W. Bush justified the US-led invasion of Iraq with Christianity. The Afghanistan mission which ended just 1 year ago was publicy justified not by "woke", but by more ancient liberal values such as bringing democracy and fighting religious extremism etc. A closer look at the justifications for the war on terror (the latest global "adventure" of the west) will thus show a broad mix of different justifications with different flavors for those more inclined to the right and those more to the left. The adoption of "woke" rhetoric and symbolism for purposes of recruiting (not just to the military, but also to the secret services) is something that can indeed be observed. We yet have to witness a war justified by "woke" values. However, it is a far stretch to assume that all future imperialism will come in the name of woke values. Heck, half of the country disagrees with those values, it is thus not that good a strategy. Actually, none of these strategies function very well. Thus, I think, we will see a lot more fluctuation. The most important part is that this is indeed an act of appropriation. I can already see the glee on the faces of PatSocs and similar types when they express that everyone who is "woke" is CIA-funded and imperialist, while they will sometimes adhere to Christianity, which was the hottest shit to justify the imperialism of just 2 decades ago (not to speak of the countless atrocities that make up the last two millenia) - without noticing anything strange about their double standards. To summarize, if all justifications are taken together, the US will always justify its abroad "missions" by adhering to religion, civic and liberal values, nowadays sprinkled with a bit of wokeness. Democracy will always be the prime justification. Still, doesn't mean one should be anti-democratic. These are my cents on this topic.
I would agree with this. All of these alternative media people who've built personas as 'the edgy anti-woke leftists who aren't afraid to talk about CLASS (and agree with the right half the time)' have failed to convince me that this woke imperium is coming and I should be worried. The rhetoric over Russia has just proved this to me. Any justifications for war using Russia's treatment of LGBT people or their imprisonment of a Black American woman have been secondary to the older ones about freedom and democracy. If anything, people have been very xenophobic when it comes to anything Russian, which is hardly 'woke'. It's also a stretch to call the people comparing Putin to Hitler woke; perhaps the woke people are a bit liberal in their usage of "Nazi" or "fascist", but this isn't coming from them, it's coming from the same neocons that called Saddam the next Hitler 20 years ago! The US military will always try to appeal to current cultural values in their advertising, but that won't change the fact that making the world safe for liberal capitalism is their greatest goal, not spreading wokeness. On the topic of "PatSocs and similar types" it's hard to take them seriously because they lump so many disparate things under the umbrella of wokeness (among other reasons, they just come off as silly and the few valid points they do make have been made better by far more intelligent people), which seems to be a common issue with critics of it.
(As an example, much of the "we have to save Iraqi/Afghan women" rhetoric, which was still secondary to the other justifications, was far from woke or feminist. Woke people would probably consider it "white saviorism", which is perhaps true to an extent, but the less generous and more likely explanation is that American men really saw these women as the inevitable spoils of war.)
@@yep9462 Fully agreed.
i appreciate this channel for helping me cultivate my coping mechanisms in an ever evolving world into profilicity.
As a long time fan of you both (this channel and the author of the article), this makes me extremely happy to see!
Complete nonsense they are spewing. What they fail to realise is that they apply the same woke logic to the logic of "woke analysis". It's a farce to watch, an infinite loop.
The background in this video creates a great ambience
Gives of Jordan Peterson vibes 😂
how is todays wokism any different than e.g. the analogue "wokeness" movement in the 60s or 70s or any other generation? I hear a lot of criticsm of todays wokeness between the lines here. Yet how is this a phenomenon worth criticising instead of factual ideologies? Why hang on to the wokeism part?
The political right has been abusing this discussion ever since the dawn of generation conflicts.
Simply put: Todays conservatives are yesterdays wokes activists.
Wokeness blames people making $35,000 a year, with no political power for the problems of minority groups. It thus helps the elite more than hurts them.
The good professor offers interesting analysis and critique, but not much in the way of a solution. What is to be done? I can't help but think that, ultimately, the values he holds are completely consistent with wokeism, and that it's only the appropriation of these values by the establishment that chafes him. Are his beliefs consistent with feminism, queer theory, multiculturalism, the "free and open society", etc.? If so, then it's hard to see how wokeism, with its commitment to spread these values to four corners of the Earth, wouldn't be a boon to him. What does he really advocate for if not wokeism?
one thing I know for certain is that violent diplomacy is definitely not the answer. Look at Vietnam War, look at Afghanistan war. They push the Vietcongs and Taliban into pariah and eventually they pushed back.
we do not know how the US and China could work together, but it is better than the US keep pushing the button with human rights rhetoric until an all out nuclear war.
Philosophy is about understanding the world, that's what he's doing here.
Politics is about changing it.
Its in your hands to do something to change the world.
Like a celebrity said - practice without theory is blind, theory without practice is dead
@jesuszacariasperez6550It's neither of those, because it's a theory. No one should not prefer a theory because they don't like their own philosophical conclusions from it. It's childish. That's not why you do theory and it's against scientific spirit.
Also, it wouldn't make much of a difference anyway. Given operational closure, our individual psyches still have an effect on society, just a more or less indirect one.
Without operational closure modern society still is so complex, that not even the most powerful individuals can make changes without not knowing all the consequences and costs. That's fact and even on that I don't have a fatalistic or nihilistic view; I just see society as part of the universe, of nature. And after all of this I still say that we can improve society through some good left wing politics and that's no contradiction. But some ambiguity tolerance is needed.
henlo dr. moeller, could we maybe get a "shelfie" (picture/video of your bookshelf which lets one identify titles). ive already seen a few good recommendations (like the one about megalithic europe) and also enjoyed spotting blame! and dune, but id really like to know what else is in there, especially because i can see a lot of suhrkamp stw titles without being able to properly make them out.
going through used bookstores or people's shelves is the best way to find works youd otherwise never have encountered imo.
hyperreal morality of the new 'aspirational' class
Number 4 is an actual functional concept that allows to explain the whole phenomena in its current developments beyond the component of verbiage and mere parallelisms.
There are a few gross simplifications in the video that are a bit laughable, sorry. The German greens and the Christian anology among them
I find that a reading of Deleuze is oddly useful for shedding light on what the issue here could be. Specifically, if one were to take the notion of the "Imperium", or American influence, maybe even capital, as being a body without organs, it is somewhat evident how all cultural phenomena, as social production - including liberal/leftist ideology - are being hijacked to reproduce that 'imperium'.
In a sense, in engaging with the publicly adopted representation of this ideology, one runs the risk of instead engaging with its simulacrum, i.e. wokeism, and thus inadvertedly becoming a part of that chain of production that reproduces the imperium. It's why the conflict between the american-conservative views and 'liberal' views has, counterintuitively, only further extended the reach of american influence and capital; it closely mirrors the same mechanism that would have squid game be anti-capitalist, yet generate obscene amounts of capital. It is unclear to me at this time how we could move away from this.
There is certainly more to be said in regards to this, but writing long comments on the youtube app is clumsy.
By Somehow hacking the game?
As an example I see the YT channel infrared, the guy proclaims a MAGA communism and tries to break the left-right dichotomy.
ruclips.net/video/kf9ucXmA9gE/видео.html
Actually I think the way , or a way should be leaving theleft-right wars aside and propagate people into a class struggle-based camp or consciousness.
In general I think that how to mediate between the ideals of pacifism, the desire to not be an instrument of US imperialism and the reality of Russia's invasion of Ukraine - which would have happened regardless of NATO's hostility in the balkans first and Ukraine laters, you could argue - is a very difficult subject for a lot of European leftists, old and new.
A lot of anti-war positions end up just siding with the aggressor - because that what Russia is, they're not victims - and some sort of liberal nostalgia for the soviet dream, fueled by anti-americanism.
It is very funny that a lot of anti-war sentiments come from richer western countries (Germany, France, Italy) but hardly come from people living alongside Russia's border.
The Grayzone funnily enough are the biggest offenders of this bizarre trend of anti imperialist leftists becoming borderline cheerleaders for Russia when it comes to Ukraine. And this applies to when they do this with China. Leftists whose anti americanism is so over the top that their default position is to support the enemies of the US.
I have no idea how this topic is difficult for any leftist. It's not complicated to see that this is an imperialist, land grabbing invasion of a sovereign nation with the intent of expanding Russia's borders and influences and eliminating Ukrainian identity (arguably a form of cultural genocide), and that we should support Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Most of Africa, Asia, and Latin America support Russia. You should stop watching Western Main Stream Media that is nothing more than Military Industrial Complex propaganda. You also probably still believe that Saddam had WMD.
And you should ask the Ukrainians who are ethnically Russians, who were bombed for 8 years by the Ukrainian regime what they think of Russia's "soviet dream." Lol
Just over 30 years ago Germany was ruled by the Russians. And west Germany was on the border.
Up until recently Finland was a neutral country. And is very much on the border with Russia.
I dont think what you say is accurate. And looks like a US short hand version of history.
This presumes that the Russian aggression requires a massive response from the US. Or from most European powers for that matter.
The truth is that it doesn't require a massive, aggressive response from any power outside of the two warring nations. Ukraine isn't in NATO, and it has shown itself to be more than capable of defending itself. Why should any western power take a hard stance on the issue?
From an Italian or French or German perspective, there is no threat of Russian invasion. So why even bother?
Little is gained from intervening, aside from feeling better, I guess?
Though, I'd say it would probably be wise for European countries to bulk up their defensive forces, as a precaution. But direct intervention? It would be pointless at best, suicidal at worst.
@@gmodrules123456789 All west European powers expected (and longed for) a sudden Ukrainian defeat and, whatever the outcome and the real plans of Putin (nobody knows actually, now less than ever; it's just senseless destruction and war of attrition to gain exiguous ground), to be the good ol' trade partners they've always been
Any well known examples of 4). Should I look on RUclips or Twitter?
Ah maybe Judith Butler if you read Mott
How does shame fit into this? I get the "guilt pride" idea, but how I see it is that woke ideology simply recognizes that some group of people have been or are oppressed (am I completely off track?). Personally, as a white Canadian, I feel deep shame about what my ancestors did to native americans. I dont feel personaly responsible, so not necessarily "guilty", but I am nonetheless very ashamed of what happened. Is that still wokeism? Am I right in seeing a close dynamic between guilt and shame?
I would say yes. Like what could you even do for stopping you ancestors if even they did bad things. Is not something like Cain and Abel, and the original sin? It is usually said Americas original sin was slavery or the European genocide. Like why I am guilty of something the first humans did. You might be ashamed of the benefits that gives you being white your social and your economic starting point, but then that kind of shame on some idea past in which we can make nothing is paralysing. Stops the dialogue between groups that need the change.
You are reimagining the actions of elites as the actions of common people. This is at the core of guilt pride, guilt pride necessarily reimagines the actions of elites as the actions of common people. This allows for an elite class to put blame and indeed pressure on common people.
The idea from what I gather is that through intense, public guilt admission you can immediately put yourself in a position of power and moral superiority over others, and rip the rug out from under them. It specifically concerns itself with that attempt to gain power over others, not the fact that atrocities certainly did happen in the past.
@@suburbanyobbo9412 ooh, so that's the point! Then to avoid being woke is just as easy as differentiating the actions of the elite versus the actions of the common people... I'm afraid there's a blurring effect with social issues, as those are the product of actions from both sides.
@@VashdaCrash I agree to a large extent with Moeller’s definition of Wokeism. Where he defines Wokeism as a civil religion that combines guilt pride and individualism. He therefore identifies guilt pride as an essential part of Wokeism. Guilt pride necessarily involves imagining the actions of elites as the actions of common people.
This doesn’t mean that avoiding being woke is “As easy as differentiating the actions of the elite versus the actions of common people”.
Being 'in charge' does require force at times. But when? Then the arguing starts and will never end.
Countries don’t have friends. Countries have interests. This will include appropriating whatever is perceived to assist readiness or advance national interests. This can be religion, finance, international position, and yes, morality. The problem here, as I see it, isn’t wokeism, which isn’t well defined. The problem is the power of the military-industrial complex.
I found the video interesting and agree with it broadly, especially the outlining of how let's say defensive, anti-militant endeavours get co-opted and somehow used or at least people attempt to use them to justify the very opposite of what these movements should stand for. Or the conflicts of interest with wanting to help people but also not starve.
I have a problem though, why call it wokeism? From Wikipedia on the word "woke":
"The phrase stay woke had emerged in AAVE by the 1930s, in some contexts referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans. The phrase was uttered in a recording by Lead Belly and later by Erykah Badu. Following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the phrase was popularised by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. After seeing use on Black Twitter, the term woke became an Internet meme and was increasingly used by white people, often to signal their support for BLM, which some commentators have criticised as cultural appropriation. Mainly associated with the millennial generation, the term spread internationally and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.
The terms woke capitalism and woke-washing were coined to describe companies who signal support for progressive causes as a substitute for genuine reform. By 2020, parts of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as overzealous, performative, or insincere. In turn, some commentators came to consider it an offensive term with negative associations to those who promote political ideas involving identity and race. By 2021, woke had become used almost exclusively as a pejorative, with most prominent usages of the word taking place in a disparaging context."
Why not call it woke washing or woke capitalism/imperialism or insincere wokeism given the well meaning origins of the word, because i feel like it's too easy for reactionaries to just call everything they don't like wokeism.
@Harmony Olivier Baker I think that's happening regardless tbh. I already found some guy in the comments claiming that the alt-right doesn't exist.
My guess would be either be because a) That's how it's more or less used today, which I'm not sure i find satisfactory because while true it is kind of surrendering to the twisting of meaningful words into buzzwords by mostly bad actors i would add.
Or more likely b) Because he takes a very Nietzschean approach of it, calls it civil religion, focuses on the politics of resentment/ slave morality, has talked before about his opinion regarding amorality, (not immorality btw that's a different thing). From that lense it makes sense that he calls it wokeism, for him it's synonymous with an intense moralism, but regardless of your opinion on that stuff i still think it's bad and possibly misleading or vulnerable to getting misunderstood lol.
The term has evolved away from its initial, well-intentioned origins to encompass all the different manifestations that you capably point to in your reply. "Woke washing", "woke capitalism", "insincere wokeism" all share aspects of what Moeller points to as "wokeism" in general, as an umbrella term.
I'd like to add, when it comes to word choice and rhetorics, it's true you need to consider how a term one uses will be viewed by the target audience, e.g. talking about "people" vs "folks". However it's not good practice to let a single _potential_ demographic's tastes dictate which words to use and which to steer away from. It's true what you say that there are people who lazily call anything they don't like "wokeism", just as there are people who use "socialism" or "fascist" to gesture towards the same dislike.
I think how you happened to formulate your criticism also goes to show how the video's cautionary tale of the German Green Party comes to pass. Symbol becomes more important than substance, so they lose the potent language that describes and jives with the clarity of vision. Instead of sticking with the *initiative* , of saying "this is what we stand for", they start with *imitative* , "how will we be perceived?". At this point, they're already fighting on foreign soil and let the opponent dictate the terms of engagement. Eventually, we arrive at the current state of substance of the Greens having been usurped and succeeded by its antithesis.
@@GnaeusScipio I guess I'm a bit suspicious of meta-categories like wokeism when it's not really that well defined but great points.
@@kkounal974 Moeller clearly defines Wokeism. Pretending Wokeism is not real or that we simply can’t define it or that it is a “Right wing taking point”, are all either ignorant or dishonest comments to make.
watch his other video called 'wokeism'
It’s so funny how many knots this man will tie himself into so as to avoid saying the word “neoliberalism”.
I think I mean the same when I say that all of that looks just like direct results of neoliberal paradigm. Rising tensions, economies at a state of cold war, wrapped in leftie speak.
His entire project is mainly to criticize religions, institutional or not - which to him is one of the main points of doing philosophy. I think I heard him use the word neoliberal and neoliberalism in past videos, so it's not like he doesn't understand the economic subtext to cultural analysis he's doing.
Thank you for your take.
To be more precise, it is much more interesting to critique what Moeller decides NOT to call “civil religion”. He’s not using “wokeness” as a focal point so he can be clear, precise and informative. He’s doing it because it is statistically more likely to result in algorithmic success on this platform.
Note that he’s never once provided a strict definition of “religion” much less “civil religion”, nor indeed any kind of ethical point for or against these concepts.
I disagree with your understanding of neoliberalism (specifically, that it’s a matter of economics.) It is abundantly clear that neoliberalism of the Reagan/Thatcher stripe has become THE civil religion of the American and American-adjacent societies. If you’d like a full detailing as to why that is so, I’ll do it but it’d be a much longer comment.
Also, I don’t agree that Moeller is any kind of religious polemic whatsoever. He spends a great deal of time here and elsewhere marketing his variant of Daoism, a religion. He calls it a philosophy because it hurts his branding to call it what it actually is to folks who aren’t on RUclips trying to sell anti-profilicity as a concept.
He’s taking a page out of the classic bored-of-academia soapbox playbook, the same one that jokers like Peterson and Harris keep by their bedsides. He’s simply fiddling with the semantics of neologisms as a (Baudrillardian) dissimilation of actual informative discourse.
@@addammadd Dr. Moeller has defined "wokeism" so broadly that it could mean any moral stance you want it to. It's especially telling that he only quotes authors who say the things he likes criticizing wokeism and never lets any putative wokeists speak for themselves by quoting them in their own words.
@@addammadd This is, I feel, a valid critique.
How exactly would you define the terms "woke" and "wokeism"?
Just look at them. There's no definition of this identity.
ruclips.net/video/GnUqrF9mAA8/видео.html he has a 40 minute video on that
He discusses this in another video.
@@BloodHarzard how does one know who "they" are without a working definition?
Marxism but replace class with race and gender and the means of economic production with means of cultural production.
Hopefully we get more of a left wing critique of wokeism going forward. Much better and more edifying than the right wing "racism is great or natural or doesn't exist" type of narrative :D.
There's this left rightwing side pushy kind of RUclips guy))
ruclips.net/video/kf9ucXmA9gE/видео.html
I don't think this has anything to do with people that are woke.
True, it's an analysis of how wokeness is utilised by governments, not individuals. Wokeness is clearly useful for the military industrial complex. CIA, Nike, Starbucks, McDonnalds and every fortune 500 are wokewashing.
If we are likening American imperialism adopting wokeness to Constantines Rome adopting Christianity, then any pre-Constantinian Christian at that time would say "I don't see what this has to do with Christianity". With the version of Christianity shared in the catacombs, for which men were thrown to lions, Probably nothing!
@@markpostgate2551 Wokeness has been ethically problematic since Crenshaw, despite her valuable contributions, centralising intersectional profiling over humanist values.
@@GingerDrums
You're talking about intersectional feminism and critical race theory; the term "woke" goes back to the 1930s. The term becoming attached to critical theory and intersectional feminism is a recent thing.
8:49 When you were talking about this «moral superiority», I actually remembered a description of the Russian «mentality» I once heard. It supposedly originated from Orthodox Christianity, encouraging determined self-sacrifice in hope of consolation in afterlife. Later it also supposedly led to condemnation of earthly pleasures and even generally low opinion on happiness in this life, which was greatly reflected in Russian literature up to the beginning of the 20th century and perhaps beyond. There's also a hypothesis that this mentality transformed after the October Revolution and made Soviet people so determined to build Communism for their descendants.
I mean it's not exactly similar, but there is a shade of moral superiority as well, though with stronger reliance on enduring suffering.
I do kinda wish this channel talked about a wider variety of stuff than wokeism and profilicity. Wokeism is a pain, and profilicity is intriguing, but they aren't the only things in the world. It just gets repetitive after a while. The previous interview about AI was a nice change of topic. Maybe continue the series on various philosophers? Or social scientists! Prof. Moeller has indicated he's a follower of Niklas Luhmann.
But surely therein lies precisely the irony of the situation; Moeller is attempting to simultaneously explain profilicity whilst partaking in the act of profile building. This is a list video! It is designed to partake in the RUclips algorithm. While I also would love to hear more thoughts on diverse issues, Moeller is in a sense here trying to "game the system" whilst describing the system!
I don't think that it is necessary to talk about how you don't like these videos as much. You can just suggest a topic you'd like him to cover. I personally like the detail he gets onto about profilicity and wokism. I feel like the concepts are evolving and changing. I can't think of a better a source for critical thinking on the area so I think that this content is valuable.
@@pocketsand6776 He's pointed that out himself already. He's not trying to 'game the system' so much as is inextricably part of it, and can't not be (save for shutting down the channel and his other social media outlets). It's a Catch-22 that's been pointed out before here, not just for Moeller but for many of his subjects as well. Which, to his credit, he's admitted as much. I don't mind that, I just wish he'd talk about a greater variety of stuff.
@@davidroberts9373 "You can just suggest a topic you'd like him to cover" - I did.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn I just mean that there is no need to talk about it being repetitive. Just don't watch it if you feel you have enough information. Otherwise just proactively suggest. There is no need to make the content seem less valuable. I also would like to hear more about other topics, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the content creator making more of the content he likes.
Great analysis - with a little historical perspective! Question - does anyone self-identify as woke?
I think some do, I've recently heard people saying they are 'pretty woke'. But I suspect they are mostly just pretty left and believe broadly that racism, sexism etc is wrong and we should dos something about underprivileged people etc, and that they haven't truly noticed the downsides of the movement. Or they are willing to adopt what they think is probably a reactionary use of a negative term as a positive (like 'gay' was). I don't think the academics and others pushing these agendas would self describe as woke though. That's my impression for what it's worth.
Woke is a joke.. It's about some whacked out groups that are just actively seeking things to be offended about and trying to push their nutty ideologies on others.. Let them live in a 3rd world country for a year without electricity and running and water and not having decent food to eat then they'd realize they have nothing to complain about living in America and they'd be more than happy to live with the normal traditions and ideas that have always made this country great..
What is the song they always play at the end?!
When I speak to conservatives I find I make a lot of agreement when I bash “woke” and separate it from the issues of say trans living experience of being excepted. I take Wokism as a type of mentality rather than a strict political stance that adopts the victim complex combined with an authoritarian impulse which is to be separated from the actual issue. So when critiquing woke I find a fruitful discussion takes place to solve problems and it’s so difficult to do so because these PC social justice type take any position that has potentiality for victims when there is indeed victims. Sure some will disagree but this has been my living experience when hearing other trans individuals who hate being co-opted by this woke cult. I say it’s a mentality because I can’t pinpoint their political views because there are various radical leftist that don’t like woke as well as liberals yet it is an element of the left.
Just my thoughts, not sure if this resonates with anybody else.
The specific victim-centred mentality is there because it is basically repackaged slave-morality. The weak/malformed are the good, the capable are the bad, etc. etc.
@@priapulida Yes, I did not mean to imply the exclusion of the radical left from wokism. It is difficult to get them to see the irony of being anti-liberal, perhaps I haven't found the best delivery system so they are more respective to being more critical of their positions. I think I've seen your comments before, good to see the name.
@@mouwersor I think through the lens of Nietzsche it is inescapable that wokism is a form of religion. It is a strange combination of meta-ethics and epistemology where what is good is informing every decision and punishing and calling those bad which do not fit the system. Is a transwoman a woman, well depends on what feels good and that will be our guide to truth.
@@tannerhagen774 Paradoxically, I think with his critique of Christianity Nietzsche enabled us to break free from socially constructed gender norms/values (man/woman). In a sense, Nietzsche can be seen as a strong supporter of the LGBT+ community, but of course, woke values seem to be as arbitrary as gender roles. It seems to me that Nietzsche tells us: "make up your own values" and "they are arbitrary anyway," but he doesn't guide us on how this can work in a society where we have to agree on some values. I am rather relieved that old structures are deconstructed such that we can see what they really are. Wokism fuels the effort of deconstruction but strangely constructs a new set of values - I subscribe to many of them - Maybe they are practically useful but one should not oversee that they are not based on natural laws or some divine entity. They are as arbitrary as any other value system thus enforcing them onto others (especially other nations) feels hard to justify.
@@Barklord In the context of this thread my original comment made the separation of “woke” and actual problems that are being dealt with. A critique of woke should therefore not be interpreted as a defense of status quo which introduces more nuance that authoritarian mindset cannot grasp as a slight disagreement you will be labeled in whatever fashion along the lines of bigot (people being fired for something they said online as a child is hardly justice). Woke are the flat earthers of the left and I think Christians should critique them as much as the left should critique their excess and I’d hardly say these people are virtuous but more enchanted by the appearance. I think they use the guise of virtue to bully and that hurts the actual cause of people who care for the issues. To bring it back to the conservatives I speak to, do you think they care more or less when they are censored about all these issues? Doesn’t Nietzsche go into reasons people enjoy punishing related to justice that may not rise out of virtue?
I have the feeling, you forgot the first time
Germany send armed NATO troops into an conflict: When the Jugoslavian war happend, we also had a red-green coalition with a green foreignminister (J. Fischer). It almost brook the green party, but in the end the "realos" won the inner conflict. So i don't thing, the fast shift this time was a suprise.
The militarism of German Greens is not a new thing. One has to remember Joschka Fischer and his role in NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.
The argument for pro military stancevof the Greens back than was not much different than now. It was a humanitarian moralistic argument: to prevent genocide againt Albanians that Milosevic was planning. That was I think the first use of German military outside of Germany since WWII.
And they were right, just as they are now with Ukraine.
Hoy! I am curious on what you think about Carl Jungs ideas of religion as an expression of the subconscious. You have said in a video that religion is not fundamental. I am curious of how you view this phenomenon. Whatever video you make next, I am looking forward to see it 😊
thank you for this free information/education
Brilliant analysis. Thank you for sharing this, will recommend to others.
My thanks to Hans. Wokeism needs criticism, but lacks enough responsible critics.
@gerard dearie No, not come on. Your comment is unhealthy. It’s part of what my channel is designed to disabuse people of. There is nothing in my comment - NOTHING - that implies agreement with Hans’s specific analysis. There is nothing in my comment that implies agreement or respect for Greyzone. And there is nothing in my comment that implies I am interested in being lectured about issues I deeply understand. Here is what my comment does say, and imply: (1) Wokeism is real (2) it’s a big problem (3) it needs serious criticism, with the implication that this shouldn’t be left to the right, or to the culture warring anti woke brigade. (4) Hans avoids 3 in his critique.
Think about it.
i wonder how much relevance these ideologies have when powerful institutions like empires o corporations can easily jump from one to the other and enforce them like absolute truths every time.
Beautiful clear analysis of the current geopolitical realities.
No, it's not beautiful. It's just one point of view. Nothing more nothing less.
@@mabaker A nicely beautifully argued point of view. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it isn't.
Although I'm still adverse to the term "wokism" (it has a very juvenile naming scheme that makes the user sound very fox news-y), I'm continually being convinced of the "priestly class" distinction.
Brilliant! 😊🙏
Soooooo interesting! Thank you for this.
Hello! Thank you for your videos. Could you discuss the institute of marriage. Why one might choose to or not to get married. Many thanks 🙂
The german green party, also in coalition with the SPD, already back in 1999 broke the post war principle of "never again shall german soldiers fight in another country" by actively participating in the NATO bombardment in former Yugoslavia
Right, and back then it was for humanitarian reasons, liberalism, and post-cold-war hybris. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to try to link the current policy to "wokeness", as there seems to be nothing new to me in that supposed policy shift (which I'd say, was just a realist/opportunist and ideologically minor adjustment to the circumstances), except that the stakes are different.
@@domsjuk The point is that "woke" topics and language are used as just another tool now in the arsenal to keep up a narrative that justifies global western imperialist interventionism under the flag of human rights.
And the green party of course represents the mileu in which this kind of identity politics were bred. It may well be "guilt pride" may have played a role in the party after the "march through the institutions" of the former peace hippies turning into devout NATO policy advocates, Claudia Roth also thinks we Germans because we learned so much from the past should now lecture the whole world about antisemitism lol
@@alexanderleuchte5132 I wonder if as expressed in foreign policy it is really that relevant or substantially different to the general post-Cold-War mentality. That inner transformation indeed interests me, i.e. how woke ideology is adopted by power and capital, and how wokeness itself adopts militarism or is inherently is militant and totalitarian and now increasingly in a position to unfold as such. The professor absolutely has a point there. I just don't think the context and example he picked here are suitable to illustrate that, or they might even be particularly bad for that purpose. To say that a wokeness-fueled moral superiority complex is leading the European and Western strategies with regard to Ukraine is nonsense to me, it disregards all the geo-strategy and plain security interests in this picture, with the one exception perhaps being that economic sanctions are not only endorsed as means of military strategy, but that there is a sort of moralized disgust at having to rely on resources from the enemy and being in direct relation to them, and one wants to distance themselves from it, even though economically the consequences to that almost backfire and undermine other goals of sanctions.
This emotional-moral charge is what might be new, but as we see with the example of Serbia you gave is that it makes no difference otherwise. Woke discourse is of course becoming more important generally, and so the conflict is viewed through this lens, in the almost ironic circumstance that Russia stages itself precisely as anti-woke, and employs this caricature image to create some noise to fill the ideological void of its cause. What is truly ironic to me however is the fact, that while I do think that wokeness could manifest to some extent in foreign policy in general (particularly as sanctions against illiberal states - again in the past it didn't take woke ideology to to the same to more or less the same extent, so to me it's just a bit of fresh lacquer on the old liberal values ship), it's motivation here is not to spread wokeness to Russia by being militarily agressive. Rather, the threat that wokeness and to a much greater extent good old liberalism poses to the Kreml is something purely civil, discoursive, cultural and internal - and the military escalation then happens exactly on that side, not on the "woke side". And that's why I think this example is so bad.
@@domsjuk On some psychology that may play a role in "woke" ideology becoming increasingly aggressive i recommend the video "Victimhood Movements Hijacked by Narcissists and Psychopaths" by Prof. Sam Vaknin.
Recent years also have shed more light on the phenomenon of people ideologically drifting from an alternative-ecology-spirituality lifestyle to far right extremism. Hardcore hippies become "völkische Siedler", moderate hippies grow up and become woke neoliberal NATO shills. In every hippy hides a fascist... lol
@@domsjuk The biggest problem i see with the "wokeness intoxication" in the current situation is the loss of reality. All this useless self-sacrificing for the sake of virtue signaling with no understanding of material necessities regular people have on the side of the decision makers and that it has brainwashed large parts of the population into going along with this so far and believing even the most pathetic propaganda as long at it appeals to the feeling of moral superiority that is the fuel of the whole narrative.
I watched some "Wochenschau" from late 1944 recently, it is literally exact same stories. But less whiny and with some dashing marching music lol
Wir sind Vergangenheitsbewältigungsweltmeister!
It seems to me both political parties are mirrors of the other as woke - anti-woke. As you described in a previous video regarding Jordan Peterson. Even though both parties are positioned way up in the upper right-hand quadrant of the political orientation map. As far as Germany and the rest of the EU, it seems they are simply doing whatever the U.S. tells them to most of the time - in the same way Japan and South Korea does. Even if U S. demands destroy their own economies.
well the US wants to maintain its hegemony.
it's why it has quite a headache against China.
@@priapulida It's used for right wing ends, like neoconservative foreign policy, as stated within the first minute of the video.
@@priapulida Oh, I thought you missed the video or something, but you're just the sort to call everything you dislike leftist. My mistake.
@@priapulida Neoliberalism is a political movement that embraces free-market capitalism while (I'd argue generally falsely) claiming to support guarantees of human rights and individual freedom. Neoconservatism is a political movement advocating military intervention in other countries to promote capitalist interests abroad. Fascism is a sort of totalitarian government that is often nationalistic and/or racist. Communism is an ideology which advocates common ownership of the means of production. Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism often go hand in hand as they both serve capitalist interests, which are generally considered at least center-right ideologically.
@@priapulida I'm sorry, if you think neocons and fascists are left wing, you're either willfully stupid or completely deluded. Please refrain from any sort of political engagement until you get that figured out, for all our sakes.
Quote: "... for the purpose of making war against russia...." 🧐 I have questions...
Yes, I liked this channel, but this view of him changed a lot.
This video does not make a lot of sense. A lot of die-hard woke people are actually anti-NATO tankies.
It seems that if a centrist politician speaks a few words about LGBT people towards a foreign nation Müller cries "See? Woke imperialism."
With regards to the universities, i think people need to remember to keep the anti-capitalist cap on when discussing these things. I think a large cause of "wokeism" is corporate culture. The most egregious examples we have of it come from private companies hiring race/gender consultists for their companies. Corporate culture has a tendency towards wanting to be as uncontroversial and dull as possible, which promotes these values. These days, universities are no longer institutions solely dedicated to study, they're largely seen as factories for highly educated workers. Of course the universities then have a higher focus on "woke" values, since it is now their job to train people for the job market. I think the cultural angle of wokeism is pursued far too much, i really think where the phenomenon is the most prevalent is in corporate culture.
"I think a large cause of "wokeism" is corporate culture" - this channel has said as much in previous videos.
Good vid! I assume you have read at least some -Chul Han, who writes about how the recent turn to emotionality is from economic and not ethical sources.
I have my disagreements with the video, but I want to thank everyone who wrote out long well thought out comments with some very interesting arguments. It's nice to know this comment section isn't just an echo chamber
I am still questioning your characterization of Germany's push for more militarization and i wokeism. Wokeism seems to me at least in my light has two different manifestation. One is what I see among some of my friends (I include myself among them) to be aware and make other aware of racial injustice and systemic oppression of marginalize people. And there is a second type of wokeism which is a more performative and used by corporation and politician to mobilize their customer base. As someone who identify as woke I would criticize the latter type of appropriation of woke terminology, in leftist discourse we have name for these types of corporate propaganda( for example: pink washing). But what you are criticizing seem to have exist way before this word wokeism existed. It doesn't really matter what language they use, these phenomena are distinct form wokeism itself. As someone mentioned "The words' meaning originates from the African American communities". So my question is what is the point of using the word wokeism if we are essentially criticizing things we already have name for such as nationalism, neoliberalism? Also I find this kinda weird to just focus on wokeism, it is used currently as a pejorative by right winger to shun any criticisms of their ideology, they had communism before now they have wokeism. So I am curious to hear to hear what prof. would say to these criticisms.
Edit: I also like to add that there is this insider bend to the video like the uses of language such as pariah principle. Instead of explaining what is it, he seems to just gloss over it. Idk why this has been done. It gives a vibe of conspiracy theory instead of analysis.
@@priapulida Buddy wtf are you talking about, you can literally find playlists analysing it here on RUclips, like "The alt-right playbook". Also you are literally doing everything the alt-right whose existence you deny does, crafting weird conspiracies with buzz words and anti-intellectual undertones mixed in.
@@kkounal974 i think its a bot tbh lol.
the main points are:
0:01 Wokeism is Go(o)d for the Imperium
4:40 Wokeism is a (but not the) Civil Religion
6:21 Guilt Pride is at Heart of Wokeism
9:24 Academics are the Priests of Wokeism
10:51 Wokeism is Militant
The Imperium has other much more popular Religions that it promotes, like Christianity; and Academics tend to be conservative. Typical Russo-fascist BS.
Lately I've been noticing some talk about Magnus Hirschfeld and the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in left wing youtube circles. I am very interested in this fenomenon in comparison to sexual emancipation today, especially with wokeism in mind. It seems to share some goals but it also is a product of its time. It somewhat reminds me of anarchists pointing out anarcho synidicalism did exist at one point in Spain (Chomsky for example). These movements might have been brief but should not be neglected, but I wonder how these movements compare to the movements today in the context of authenticity and profilicity.
the woke imperium link is broken
Thank you for sharing. I did not understand the stands of the German Green Party before now.
Are all institutional statements of support for LGBT people necessarily "woke", and therefore insincere, made for ulterior political reasons, and driven by guilt-pride? If I was a leader in an organisation and wanted to be explicitly inclusive of LGBT staff and customers, could I do this without being "woke"? I'm not sure how I would go about achieving this.
I worry that it's the minorities whose interests are championed by "wokeism" that are going to lose out the more people across the political spectrum are recruited to this "anti-woke" cause. Conservatives hate "wokeism" because they don't believe minorities deserve equal rights and they always instigate a backlash whenever these rights are fought for. This is a given. On the other hand, minorities have generally benefited from political support from the left. Eroding that support by branding LGBT acceptance as "woke" seems rather unhelpful.
It's like minorities just can't win.
I think there are three separate backlashes going on. 1. You're absolutely right that racists, sexists, transphobes and homophobes are going to fight like hell against wokeism. Gov. De Santis, in my mind, is the biggest culprit of this. All the critical race theory yahoos as well.
2. The center right people who do not have any outward prejudices that think woke marketing is flamboyant, disingenuous, and manipulative are anti- woke because they are genuinely annoyed by it and feel as though it's getting shoved in their face. Then they see compilations of the most woke side of Twitter and think holy shit, this whole thing is bat shit crazy and I don't want anything to do with it.
3. Members of the center left (reformists) and far left (more revolutionary types) see social justice as a distraction from solving issues of economic justice that would inherently increase equality amongst minorities if solved.
I think authentic expressions of support for minorities do not trigger the same recoil in groups 2 and 3. The best way to go about this is storytelling. For example, share in a company update a personal story about an LGBT person in your life that you felt was highly impactful. You can also make a point to shout out and express gratitude to LGBT, or employees of any disadvantaged group for that matter, publicly and yet subtly. Celebrating them as individuals and expressing gratitude to them gives them fair representation and shows your warmth to these groups as a whole without the performativity that comes with slapping rainbow flags on everything and releasing the same canned statement every company releases about how they stand with XYZ group. I think a lot of the repulsion to those sorts of things is they're so thoughtless, and in being so empty they are inherently dehumanizing to the group they're looking to support.
@@juliekring7574 Storytelling is a great idea for showing support, thank you.
Depends on who you ask. Many people who reject the label of 'woke' still support gay marriage, for instance. Generally speaking the most clear identifier of what would be called 'woke' by most is having a very prescriptive attitude for society i.e. telling other people how to behave. When you move beyond simply granting new freedoms to previously oppressed people to actively normalizing a new standard of social behavior, you're well and truly woke. The war over pronouns is an example of this - it's all well and good for people to have preferred pronouns, but to insist that others must follow them or face social (or even legal) sanction is a clear escalation.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is simple rudeness, and as such it reasonably attracts social consequences. Attempting to defend such egregious rudeness as "taking a stand against wokeism" is a brain-dead argument employed only by the most dishonest and least sophisticated social conservatives. E.g. Ben Shapiro.
Brilliant analysis, Professor Moeller. I am working in the mental health field and occasionally see how woke ideas are also used as an excuse for self-defeating lifestyles by some depressed patients. Your ideas provide some clarity. Thank you.
I am so lucky. My last therapist was a Nigerian immigrant woman who supported my anti-woke views and had no patience for woke victimology. She was a patient and attentive listener and then provided CBT for my issues.
Yes, I’ve noticed this as well. I try to subtly inject the idea that you can’t make the world a better place by making yourself depressed because of your ideology.
I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN A TOXIC DEADLY CULTURE TO PLEASE SOMEONE IN THE MORALLY & INTELLECTUALLY DESTITUTE FIELD OF "MENTAL HEALTH". STOP KILLING MORE THAN STREET DRUGS, STOP LETTING THE DSM BE WRITTEN BY PHIZER, FIX YOUR REPLICATION CRISIS & REMAIN SILENT UNTIL THEN.
PARTICIPANTS IN A SUICIDAL RACE ARE NOT HEALTHY MENTALLY OR OTHERWISE, REGARDLESS OF HOW REGULAR THEIR ACTIONS OR NORMALCY SCORES. GHOULS, ALL OF YOU...
CBT/DBT are invalidating, victim blaming GARBAGE. If you include all the council and patients who drop out, they're the most failed protocols ever. But, as we know, Academia is to Knowledge what Prostitution is to Love... Your obsession with pointless symptoms over causes nauseates me. Cog Sci grad, btw..
@@ribbrascal1065
Could you repeat that please?
The video wont play for me :(
I sympathize with a lot of the woke/social justice political decisions, and I feel that talking about wokism as one ideological entity does a disservice to the discussions around specific policy decisions. In the same vein, I think the criticism of conservativism by the left only makes the political divide deeper. I believe it's more productive to discuss the individual policy points, instead of saying that someone adheres to some ideology and to then criticise that ideology.
I wouldn't speak of a "sudden shift" in Green ideology, it is rather a trend that has been going for maybe 2 decades. I think Özdemir in particular made it obvious that there would ne no Green pacifist movement.
I think the link to Erinnerungskultur is very weak, it was never something that was genuinely popular.
German Military right now is running ads which argue for defense of the fatherland, "doing it for the kidz" and that "this land is worth serving for". Maybe Israeli forces are a better example, but even they pursue a double strategy where they cite their libarelness as a pro but at the same time publicly make fun of "woke snowflakes" on social media
also I'd argue that the wert in wertegeleitete außenpolitik is the same on as in Green Innenpolitik, xenophobia
Although I agree when prof Moeller talks about white people guilt pride (German, American etc), I can't understand what his counter-proposal is. Life is hard enough as it is, people come up with those stories so they can keep going in hard times. Most people need to feel pride, need to feel that their existance is important for some reason no matter the pains and the humiliations they are going through. Indeed those believes can be dangerous but what would be the alternative lets say for Germany after WWII, how can someone relate to an event like the Holocaust without giving in to self-dissolving sorrow?
"I can't understand what his counter-proposal is" - I have felt this not only with this video but with others Prof. Moeller has produced on what he terms as "wokeism" and honestly I don't think he has one.
I also wonder if there is a whiff of professional jealousy about this video, all those jumped up humanities graduates, going viral with their substandard educations.
@@thewub6774 what? Care to elaborate on your second paragraph? Where did he say that? Some of you really are talking about yourselves when writing critiques of others.
Mind your own business.
LOVE hearing a German speak about "guilt pride" and say that auf Deutsch again bitte? PS - you should talk to the Good Ol Boyz again.
And again, we fell in a pretty reinterpretation of the concept of "woke" and the ideology of "wokism"; one thing I'm really becoming sick of is the lack of coherent definitions established when discussing this particular topic by the speakers part.
Everyone seems to have their own vision of the concept; but, here lies the problem: everyone is interpreting the evaluations promoted by other individuals in regard of "wokism", utilizing definitions that those same authors do no take into account in their own analysis.
A definition (in order to be considered clear and rigorous) has to be not only descriptive, but also adherent with the factual object/subject it is connected to.
Every analysis I've come to read or watch about wokism has differences with each others, sometimes even in a contraddictory sense.
If we take for granted the definition that being woke means _"be aware of the [supposed] intrinsic discrimination that is present in all societies and [supposedly] shapes their social structures"_ (this is the same definiton the french political scientist Pierre Valentin used in his essay dedicated to illustrate in details the Wokism ideology - and no, it's not at all a positive or impartial critique of the subject), then simply having people who are "almost stereotipical" representation of the major historically discriminated human categories in a promotional video is not remotely enough to be considered as a wokist work: there must also be a text or subtext regarding the "awareness" of the supposed discrimination their could face (according to the ideology) present inside it.
Like with Luigi Pirandello, a revolutionary author who also was a passionate fascist (by his own admission): he was, but his works were not; there was no trace at all of fascist text or subtext inside all his literary works. So, you can call him a fascist, but his works were not even remotely fascist (even if you try stretching the argument really hard).
When a concept does not have at least a point or two universally accepted inside their consideration, then misundestanding and gaps filling enter in the thought process reaching inevitably a situation of decontextualization; and I'm seeing a lot of that kind of decontextualization, with the concept of "woke" and its ideology.
Someone is risking to dangerously become the same exact thing to which they define themselves to be an opponent of...
I hate the word with a passion. It originated from African American communities but has become a word used almost exclusively by white reactionaries. Its meaning is literally whatever degree of overzealous liberalism you find to be overbearing. It's a linguistic tumour.
The lack of a cohesive and consistent definition of wokeness outside of consistent pejorative association around the word, affirms my suspicions that the term was appropriated out of sheer contempt for black people and black intellectualism. There are so many terms and buzzwords to come out of white liberal/progressive PC buzzfeed spaces over the last decade that could have been made the trademark of all that is wrong in society and IDpol today, but somehow we have landed at word from AAVE (African American Vernacular English) used in the 80s...
Awesome.
I have a hard time following your analysis of the Green Party. Yes, it was founded on anti war any anti nuclear but that was half a century ago. They still play a big role but of course the party has changed over time. Your argument implies that they just made a 180. but the whole thing of being anti war but then going to war has already happened in 99 with Kosovo. To me, that does not contradict having „werte“ but that there is a hierarchy.
Maybe I got it wrong but how is fighting Russia or supporting Ukraine being woke?
I think many of the commenters who have taken issue with this video are missing the fact that it is an analysis of how political power has co-opted the concerns expressed by people who would consider themselves woke. Unlike many of the commenters, Moeller does not address the wokeness from which this co-optation takes place. He has another video where he does this, and I imagine the commenters in question might find more satisfying. It is interesting and instructive, however, how some of the commenters are obvious trolls (maybe even bots) and at least two of these are trolls engaging in a disagreement to effectively derail a thread under an otherwise useful comment.
this is not a video about political power co-opting wokeness, a LOT of people in the comments are making this mistake, in any case is the opposite, that even when wokeness invades political institutions it one, maintains its goals, or two, that it uses the same strategies and behaviors to perpetuate its values, the values change but the structure and vailed compulsions stay the same
@@el_equidistante It is demonstrably from 'go' to end a video about political power co-opting wokeness. It just happens to include how it uses a strong focus on those goals to the exclusion of other things.
@@dvdly go ahead and demonstrate it then, I completely disagree, I can see how people might get confused by how he structured the video, but a careful listen would show that it is not about co-opting
@@el_equidistante Professor Moeller lays the groundwork by citing Christopher Mott, which includes the language: "social justice rhetoric and causes are adopted"; "military industrial complex assimilates social justice advocates' language and repurpose it for their ends"; "utilises and reappropriates wokeism"; and then, indirectly by way of Moeller's observation: "clearly appropriating woke imagery for the purpose of promoting the activities of the US military"; and finally, from Moeller directly: "No matter how one sees this, Nancy Pelosi here clearly and, I think, quite intentionally uses wokeism in order to highlight tensions."
Then, lest you think his view would be otherwise, Professor Moeller says, "In a sense, Mott is right. Wokeism is appropriated for basically US American geo-strategic and European internationalist and militarist purposes." He continues to use Mott's essay and interview throughout the video and cite examples to demonstrate how wokeism has become a new civil religion, only amending this himself to point out how Jordan Peterson's anti-woke rhetoric represents the other side of this religious schism.
This stated co-optation underpins everything in the video. Nowhere in the video, either in citing Mott, or in expressing of his own viewpoint, does Moeller indicate that, as you put it, "wokeness invades political institutions". You'd have to choose to believe that people corrupt power, which you may believe, but throughout history, it has been demonstrated that power and the political institutions they effectively control, co-opts the Zeitgeist from below (whether it's the working class solidarity model of the 30s to 50s, the civil rights era of the 60s, or the equality of gender and race/colour in its current state) to brand itself as being part of the people.
Importantly, as pointed out by Moeller, the reaction against the associated ideological rhetoric, which comes from the same pool of people, is used to mint the other side of the idealogical coin, which is how the current schism takes a pseudo religious form.
Indeed, it could be power engages so skilfully in this manner that even you mistake it for being the other way round. Most importantly, however, is that this co-optation should be seen for what it is irrespective of whether or not you happen to agree with whatever values are stated within that particular view.
That like to dislike ratio on the advertisement😂
I'm not sure if the idea is that america is uniquely evil, I think it's more that attention to america's evil hasn't been given due examination within certain demographics of people who are proud of america.
Isn't it accurate to say that the Green Party is currently in power? In the basics of politics, it's understood that a party in a coalition must make compromises. Your accusation of Nietzschean values simply doesn't apply in modern times. But I think you knew that because of your body language.
I believe the observation on a segment of the population 'over-educated' with humanities degrees is directly responsible for many of the social issues which fuel the woke movement to begin with. Is the proposed issue of a 'rape culture' not the product of taking an invariable human occurence, and using a certain sociological lens to assume that it can be accredited not to individuals, but to a cultural sphere of mannerisms that can be fixed? I feel like the leap into this sort of social analysis can only be from Anglo-American education, which posits this lack of freedom in the subject. The identical happens, whenever an Asian woman is beat up for instance, it becomes both a racial and gender issue as opposed to mere violence. It is a certain philosophical 'episteme' in which we are products of institutions.
This makes me think of Catherine Liu's talks about the Professional Manegerial Class (PMC), which eschews traditional professional values (integrity, hard work, making decisions that aren't always influenced by market demands), in favor of vauge ones of self flagellation.
excellent
The tendency of the 'woke' in many Western countries in favour of military intervention is indeed striking. Even more than the Neo-conservatives before them, they are motivated by non-negotiable values, so that those who happen to disagree with them are not merely wrong but must be bad themselves. What is interesting is that wokeism, which contains elements of relativism and subjectivism (the unquestionable validity of "my lived experience", self-identification of gender, etc.), nevertheless understands itself as a universal value system, which must hold true for the whole world. Pragmatic considerations are therefore frequently pushed to the side, since that would mean to compromise one's values. The recent Taiwan visit of Nancy Pelosi is a case in point. I have observed an increasing unwillingness among many young people to consider viewpoints different from their own, since they are not in line with woke values and therefore morally (and absolutely) damnable.
omg the youtube automatic captions: “vocism”
An interesting of invoking Wokism in the West's Foreign policy. Well explained.
Recently I’ve been researching for my article on wokeism and going back to your original video on this subject. During the research I found one twitter thread about you and your video.
.
I would like to see you response to leftist “breadtube” youtuber named Tom Nicholas.
.
He attacked you in his twitter post (yes, I use this term in full force here because the post is intended as an attack without any intent of genuine, good-faith discussion or any valid criticism)
.
What I what to see is not a response per se, but precisely a critique of these strains of leftist youtuber/breadtuber. I understand that you already did response to Then and Now video, as well as critique of PhilosophyTube, but as I mentioned, it would be beneficial to see you analyze the whole phenomena of leftist popular intellectuals and their tendency of “gatekeeping”.
.
This Tom Nicholas character, specifically, is interesting. Because I found many of his videos useful. But it seems like these people (not sure why but they are all British) have a certain theatrics and pretentiousness that really hurt their (somewhat admirable) cause for public discourse.
he already commented on Tom Nicholas on one of his Q&As
the term "professional managerial class" shouldn't be used as a pariah either, unless you think all HR is bullshit...
I'm very interested in that interaction of wokeism and power politics, but I am not quite convinced by how you (and the interviewee) link the two, and what it actually means for diplomatic and political action. First, it would be more interesting to go deeper into their internal dialectics and potential development. And second, for that same reason, I also don't fully agree with your analysis of the Green policy shift in Germany with regard to weapons. I would argue, it overstates the actual role of values (Werte) and the nature of the occurring shift. On the one hand wokeist rhetoric is just a substitute and new discoursive cover for what used to be freedom and liberal values and of course "markets" (capitalism), i.e. the politics of the Good - I like the term "civil religion" precisely for that reason in that like a proper religion it has a shallowness to it and its tainted by power and material interests. On the other hand, the Green policy shift on weapons is at least as much motivated by a rational perception of the political reality of the conflict* and the political reality of interests and sentiment within Germany and Europe. "Wertebasiertheit" is just a convenient term to give those realists political practices a touch of Green-ness and Green civility. It might be a bit of a commonplace interpretation, but I really think the Green approaches to pacifist Policy just landed at a dead end and had to readjust to stay in touch with reality. One may argue, the case of economic sanctions and embargoes have a more idealist and wokeist touch to them, as some of them are obviously quite naive and ineffective. But I'd argue that may have been caused by wokeism just as much as a general inexperience and naivety. And when you look at who supported which sanctions (many social democrats, liberals, christian-democrats were and are in favour of them), and for what reasons, the Green position there was neither dominant nor unique.
* (war has unraveled beyond a point of no return, Putin doesn't want and doesn't need compromises, recognition etc., unless he can sell that as a proper victory (and what kind of compromise could that be?). The realist logic that the Kreml is a real nuisance and destabilizer is enough fodder for that position, and promoting weapons sales from that perspective are quite a "rational" and non-woke thing to do)
I wanted to make the same point. I think one should untangle the term woke, and not lump together all uses, i.e. it makes more sense to look at the motivation when it is "weaponized" and when it is used to make a "fake stance", and when it is used by the right to attack any left movements.
Oh and featuring max blumenthal content is a new all-time low point of this channel.
@@andreaspokorny3089 Yeah, this video felt almost like a joke. I can't see the relationship between wokeism and the green party anywhere, it's like he's trying to discredit them for some reason.
@@andreaspokorny3089 Thanks, the "lumping together" of all the uses and meanings of woke is also exactly what came to my mind, but I didn't go into it any further as I felt my comment was already quite long.
And I share a skepticism about Blumenthal (don't know the interviewee). I haven't followed his reporting recently, but I could get the impression it didn't change much. I used to appreciate the extraordinary scope and focus of his topics and his critical rigour, to put it nicely, and saw him as a useful corrective force in media, for which one just has to accept the over-the-top and awkward parts. But it also seemed to me his idea of journalism was that of being a brigand in the information and propaganda war, always doing front-line-like reporting and ready to make unholy alliances for his cause to fight against evil powers.... well, that just has to turn out a bit unreflected, lacking nuance and the appreciation of objectivity, I guess. I'd need an extra spoonfull of salt to enjoy that stew anyway.
@@andreaspokorny3089 This wasn't about Max Blumenthal in the first place, but Christopher Mott. It was his article that was being discussed, and his words being quoted. Literally nothing from Max was mentioned. The guy just happened to be interviewed by his show. No need to be so hostile.
6:15 Exactly right. Wokeism & Jordan Peterson represent two different wings of the same Civil Religion. Very well said, Mr. Carefree.
I liked almost everything about the video, but I disagreed with that. As far as I can see, Peterson is not trying to "cancel" i.e. punish people who disagree with him so he can't be equated with the wokes.
@@maiku20 Jordan Peterson is absolutely hysterical, goofy and silly, so he's got that in common with the wokes.
Also, he's most definitely trying to cancel, not individuals, but entire faculties. Or did you miss the talk where he's calling to eliminate departments of ethnic studies, women's studies, half the humanities etc. because they are polluted with "Cultural Marxism"
(you know, what his predecessors used to call "Judeo-Bolshevism")
@@santosd6065 all the departments that you mention are purveyors of wokism and as such have little academic or intellectual value. Opposing their existence is only logical if one is non-woke. Practically, you can't just ignore them: no "live and let live" option is possible with these people. Eventually they will come and start dictating how you should use pronouns and such things, and more. Peterson is not hysterical or goofy or silly. He simply drew a line in the sand. Eventually the woke force all autonomous critically thinking people to draw lines in the sand (even so-called TERFs!). The only question for anyone is at what point do you draw your line in the sand.
@@maiku20
Ok, to begin with, you started off saying JP is not trying to cancel anyone, now you are joining him in wanting to cancel, not individuals, but entire faculties, regardless of the opinions or behavior of the individuals in those departments (not just teachers, but students, staff, administrators, Janitors) because you basically don't like their politics.
Do you realize how unhinged that sounds?
SECOND.
Seriously... goofy blue haired hysterical teens demanding you state your pronouns are funny and ridiculous, at worst annoying, but certainly not a threat to Western civilization, I I truly don't get what JP is wetting his panties over.
The dude should calm down, it's really not that big a deal.
THIRD... Come on. The humanities? You want to eliminate THE HUMANITIES because they are propaganda for "woke culture" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean? You guys are insane. Voltaire? Dickens? James Baldwin? Nope. Gone. A teacher said "racism is bad" so the entire literature department has to go.
Someone here is reacting like Mao's Red Guards, but it's not just the wokes.
Like I said, the wokes and the anti SJW are identical but reverse image mirrors of each other. Both are reacting to the same intolerable social circumstances (I agree that the social structure is in crisis), but they are too narcissistic and silly to figure anything out
oooh.
I don't quite understand. So the German left should keep its old values of non-militarism and environmentalism and not change from these old values as a reaction to the Ukraine situation so easily?
Or is the rhetoric of "values" just meaningless and should be abandoned altogether in favor of realistic self interest?
Values are nothing but a hollow phrase now that the U.S. has not adhered to them itself for decades. (Assange, Snowden, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, all the regime changes *including* Ukraine! etc.). One could argument that Putin's war makes this discussion superfluous, but he himself argued, that the West and its "Values" can't be trusted anymore, _therefore_ he started the war! (Hen and egg send their regards!) In this present scenario it is maybe more honest to openly say that "might is right" is once again the maxime in world politics rather than moralizing with empty phrases whenever others shall be brought under control, but to blatantly disregard them in our own actions.
Congratulations.
Your video is quite upgraded.
your pose is beautifully presented like the transwoman from her philosophy tube.
better cameras and decoupage technique works too.
What? Who's the transwoman now?
@@VashdaCrash he criticized a transwoman youtuber in one of his previous videos.
@@rockugotcha oh, gotta check that out. Thanks
earthlings… hahah, so small
My criticism of this video relates to two things:
1. The video in itself seems moralistic, pointing (or implying) that support for militarism or support for militaristic self defense is something to be frowned upon or something inherently flawed.
2. The tone of the video also felt like a leftist juvenoia : "in the old days, we used to be staunchly pacifistic, not like today's mainstream leftism (which I call wokism)"
Because of these points, this video seems like a departure from the first video on wokism you have done. You seem to have employed at times the rhetorical function for which this term has been created originally: a pejorative and stigmatizing function. In the first video it just seemed like a neutral co-option for a political phenomena which needed a new name, this video seemed at some point to be using it in the "classical" sense for expressing your juvenoia.
I am also a bit disheartened by what I feel like a "stripping of intellectual autonomy" at the beginning: "wokism is good for the M.I.C."; "that wokism is good for the imperium". The juxtaposition implies a difference in autonomy and portrays a wokeist to be much more clueless than an arms manufacturer or a hawkish politician.
@Fundamentally Unorthodox I also find it disappointing that the professor is engaged in the Grayzone circle known for making apologia for any regime that it is not US aligned. It is the equivalent of a referrincing far right publications in my eyes.
Why so many dislikes?
1. The leading forces being forced to appropriate priorly surpressed voices, like those of women, people of colour etc is exactly how these become mainstreamed. It is a "Kampf um Anerkennung/fight for recognition" (Honneth). The leading forces being forced to do so does NOT devalue these new forces. Just because women are now less silenced in the public sphere, does not mean that those who support womens rights are agents of the leading/hegemonial forces. Recognition always is a form of integration, but this does not mean that that which is being recognised is wrong.
2. Your presentation of the development of the Green Party is quite disorienting. I knew Petra Kelly personally and she was the most moralistic person in the world. It is very well known that she and others of the party spekers have been arrested for rallying in Eastern Berlin. So this element was always there.
Seeking a detente with the Soviet Union was motivated by a feeling among many of the student movement as well as the traditional social democratic left that the eastern socialists are sharing common values of internationalism and humanism in spite of Stalinist and Asian deformations. The Soviet Union cannot be confused with current Russia, which is a clearly ethnic, male dominated state based on raw power, whose only value is the fight for existence with many facist characteristics.
When Nicaragua was attacked and there was a liberation movement in El Salvador most Greens supported these struggles, also collecting money for arms. No unconditional pacifism here.
When Adorno and Horkheimer were confronted with a war between German facism and anglo-american capitalist powers who defended a colonial empire or a unipolar world order based on capitalist rules respectively, they did not hesitate to support the war effort of the latter without revoking their critique of late capitalist society.
A similar position is now taken by the green party and this is completely in line with its roots and traditions.
btw I am saddemed by your denunciation of German Erinnerungskultur and I am glad that Erinnerungskultur is now expanded to colonialism misogynism etc.
3. Moralism is moraLISM only if it is the resentment of the powerless. Claiming the right to be heared and considered by people of colour, women, LGBT people and taking a position of power in the public discourse is exactly what needs to be done in order to change the hegemony in the public discourse. Once the position gains power it is not moralistic anymore. I think very few people mistake the dominant forces claiming these values for these values being the reason for their intervention. Nevertheless it is absolutely clear that the neo facist regimes are active practical and theoretical enemies of these values. I for my part am glad that POC cannot be dismissed publicly anymore, that women are not harrassed as default male behaviour etc. This is not the end of capitalism, but for sure progress, if you do not want to denounce this also as a conspiracy by the establishment to confuse the surpressed.
4. A petty Nietzschan deconstruction of the ideological fight of surpressed parts of society as moralistic plays in the hands of those who claim that the only truth is their own power and supports the narrative of the current patron of all anti woke old white men.
Congratulations, well done. A bit too undialectically carefree for my taste.
"Just because women are now less silenced in the public sphere, does not mean that those who support women's rights are agents of the leading/hegemonial forces. " It basically does though, since we never see them support men's rights. To do so would be then to take up an anti-elite politics. SInce the right wing and left wing agree on being against men's rights, and since women's rights organizations disregard the right of women to enjoy communities where men, whom they share households with, have rights, we can conclude that this is because they think men already have rights or don't deserve them and they don't care about non elite women. It follows from that, that the men they think of are elite, upper class men, who make up most of political and business leadership.
When it became too obvious that Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11, I remember the propaganda turned to the Taliban’s treatment of women. It was comical to see how the militaries of the west suddenly became feminists. But that’s the only example I think of where wokism was used by the military industrial complex. Now, I’m not a historian so if there are any other examples that involve actual war I’d be interested. Seems to me if wokism were being used for this, then Russia’s notoriously horrible treatment of their LGBT communities would be front and center in Ukraine war propaganda, but I’m not seeing that really. Then again, I try to avoid propaganda, so if anyone has overwhelming evidence of that I’d be interested. Bottom line is, I’m not sure I’m buying this at all.
Ukraine war propaganda can't accuse Russian Fascists of mistreating their LGBT people, when they themselves are Nazis, it'd be weird.
👍🏻👍🏻
I prefer the term "intersectionalism" or "privilege theory".
Professor, How can i become your student?
This video is woke
YOU are Germany's new Friedrich Nietzsche, Prof Moeller! (albeit living in China)
Although Nietzsche himself spent much of his life in other countries for the sake of his health.
I'd be insulted if I was called that, but I guess we're not the same. 😂
can't believe this guy is saying the same things I perceive. I thought of being a weirdo in western society, then perhaps we both are :S
What is wokeism?