The Cult of Wokeness, followup

The previous article was just meant as a quick overview and wake-up call. But I would like to say a few more things on the subject.

I have since read the book Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. I recommend that everyone reads this book, so that they are up-to-speed with the current Woke-mindset. At the very least, I suggest you read a review of the book, to get a rough idea. The review by Simon Jenkins gives a good quick overview of the topics that the book discusses. I will also repeat my recommendation to read some of the articles and background information on the New Discourses site.

I would like to elaborate on two things. Firstly there’s the pseudoscientific nature of it, which is what I am most concerned about, as I said before. Secondly, I also want discuss some forms in which Woke manifested itself in the real world.

Postmodernist philosophy

As you know I’ve done a write-up about the philosophy of science before. At university, this was taught in a number of courses in the first three years. I always took a liking to it. It is important to know what our current methods of science are exactly, and where they came from, how they evolved.

As you may have noticed, I did not cover postmodernism at all. That was not intentional. Postmodernism simply never crossed my path at the time. But now that it has, I went through my old university books and readers again, and indeed, there was no specific coverage of postmodernism at all. It seems that the only postmodernist philosopher that is referenced at all, is Paul Feyerabend.

Feyerabend is actually a somewhat controversial figure, as he wanted a sort of ‘anarchistic’ version of science, and rejected Popper’s falsification, for example. The university material I have, only spends one paragraph on him, merely to state that purely rational science is merely one extreme view, where Feyerabend represents the other extreme. They nuance it by saying that in practice, science operates somewhere in the gray area between these extremes.

And that brings me to the point I want to make. Postmodernism is extremely critical of society in general, and science specifically. There is some value to the ideas that postmodernism brings forward. At the same time, you should not take these ideas to the extreme. Also, the reason why they were not covered in the philosophy of science, is that they did not actually produce new knowledge or useful methods. So they did not add anything ‘tangible’ to science, they merely brought more focus to possible pitfalls of bias, political interest and other ideologies.

There is some merit to their idea of systems that can be ‘rigged’ by having a sort of bias built-in. A bias that you might be able to uncover by looking at the way that people talk about things, the ‘discourses’. That the system and the bias are ‘socially constructed’.

After all, with ‘politically correct’ language we are basically doing exactly that: we choose to use certain words, and avoid certain other words, to shift the perception (bias) of certain issues. So in that sense it is certainly possible to create certain ‘biases’ socially, and language is indeed the tool to do this.

However, they see everything as systems of power and hierarchy, and the goal of the system is always to maintain the position of power at the cost of the lesser groups (basically a very dystopian view, like in the book 1984 by George Orwell). That is not necessarily always the case. For example, science is not a system of social power. Its goal is to obtain (objective and universal) knowledge, not to benefit certain groups at the cost of others. Heck, if anything proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it must be the main topic I normally cover on this blog: hardware and software. Scientists have developed digital circuits, transistors, computer chips, CPUs etc., and developed many tools, algorithms etc. to put this hardware to use. As a result, digital circuits and/or computers are now embedded in tons of devices all around you in everyday life, making life for everyone easier and better. Many people have jobs that exist solely because of these inventions. Everyone benefits in various ways from all this technology.

And I think that’s where the cynicism comes in. Postmodernists try to find problems of power-play and ‘oppression’ in every situation. That is indeed a ‘critical’ and ‘skeptical’ way of looking at things, but it’s not critical and skeptical in the scientific sense.

Where it goes wrong is when you assume that the possible problems you unearth in your close-reading of discourses, is the only possible explanation, and therefore you accept it as the truth. I am not sure if the original postmodern philosophers such as Foucault and Derrida actually meant to take their ‘Theory’ this far. But their successors certainly have.

This is most clear in the Critical Race Theory, which introduces the concept of ‘intersectionality’ (in Kimberlé Crenshaw’s book by the same name). The basic assumption here is that the postmodern ‘Theory’ of a racist system is the actual, real state of the world. Therefore all discourses must be a power-play between races. That assumption is certainly not correct in every situation, and most probably not even in the majority of situations.

The concept of intersectionality itself is another idea that may have some merit, but like the ‘social construct theories’, it does not apply as an absolute truth. As I already said in the previous post, in short intersectionality says that every person is part of any number of groups (such as gender, sex, sexual preference, race, etc). Therefore the prejudice against a person is also a combination of prejudice against these groups. For example, a black woman is both black and a woman. Therefore she may receive prejudice for being black and for being a woman. But crucially, she will also receive prejudice for a black woman. So intersectionality claims that prejudice against people is more than just the sum of the parts of groups that they are part of. At the ‘intersections’ between groups, there are ‘unique’ types of prejudice felt only by people that are part of both groups.

So far, the concept of intersectionality makes sense. People can indeed be ‘categorized’ into various groups, and will be members of a collection of groups at a time. And some combinations of groups may lead to specific kinds of prejudice, discrimination and whatnot.

However, the problem with intersectionality and Critical (Race) Theory arises when you start viewing this intersectionality as the absolute truth, the entire reality, the one and only system. That is an oversimplification of reality. The common way of viewing people was as individuals: they may be part of certain groups, and may share commonalities with others, but they are still unique individuals, who have their own thoughts and make their own decisions. But viewing people through an intersectional lens turns into identity politics: people are essentially reduced to the stereotype of their intersectional position, and are all expected to think and act alike. And that obviously is taking things a step too far.

Another very serious problem is that instead of looking for rationality, objectivity, or fact, these concepts are denounced. The focus is put on the ‘lived experiences’ (anecdotal evidence) of these groups instead. In the intersectional hierarchy, the ‘lived experience’ of an oppressed group always takes precedence over an oppressing group. Therefore, a woman’s word is always to believed over a man’s word, and a black person’s word is always to be believed over a white person’s word. If a woman says she experienced sexism, then it is considered a fact that there was sexism. If a black person says she experienced racism, then it is considered a fact that there was racism. Again, it is obvious how this can lead to false positives or exploitation of the system.

This is also where the system shows some of its obvious flaws and inconsistencies. Namely, these ‘lived experiences’ are subjective by definition, and as such, are viewed through the biased lens of the subject. This is exactly what caused people to develop the scientific method, to try and avoid bias, and reach objective views and rational explanations.

Postmodernism itself is supposed to be highly critical of biased discourses, but apparently bias is suddenly perfectly acceptable, and biased anecdotes are actually considered ‘true’ as long as the biased party is the one that is (subjectively) being ‘oppressed’. You just can’t make sense of this in any way. Intersectionality and Critical Race Theory are built on intellectual quicksand. It doesn’t make sense, and you can’t make sense of it, no matter how hard you try.

A nice example of how this ‘Theory’ can go wrong in practice can be found here, on this chart from New Discourses, under point 3:


As you can see, there are only two possible choices to make, and both can be problematized into a racist situation under Critical Race Theory. While these may be *possible* explanations, they aren’t necessarily correct. There are plenty of alternative, non-racist explanations possible. But not under Critical Race Theory.

And that is a huge problem: CRT sees racism everywhere, so you will run into a number of false positives. That does not seem very scientific. The only scientific value that postmodernism approaches could have, is to search for possible hypotheses. But you would still need to actually scientifically research these, in order to find out if they are correct. Instead, they are ‘reified’: assumed to be true. CRT assumes that “the system” is racist, and white people have all the power, by definition. An assumption, not a proven hypothesis. An assumption, that you are unable to prove scientifically, because the evidence simply is not there.

Woke in practice

First of all, perhaps I should define ‘Woke’ as an extreme form of political correctness. A lot of things are ‘whitewashed’ in the media by either not reporting them at all, or reporting them in a very biased way with ‘coded language’. On the other hand, some things are ‘blackwashed’ (is that even a term?) by grossly overstating things, or downright nefarious framing of things.

Now, one thing that really rubs me the wrong way, to say the least, is the way World War II, Hitler, Nazi’s, fascism etc. are being used in today’s discourse. And it only strengthens the view that we in Europe already had of the US: these people seem to have little or no clue about history or the rest of the world.

And I say “Europe” because that’s how they look at us. As if we’re just one country, like the US, and the actual countries in Europe are more like different ‘states’. In this Woke-era, it’s important to note that Europe is nothing like that. For starters, nearly every country has its own language. So as soon as I cross a border, it immediately becomes difficult to even talk to other people. And there are far more differences. Countries in Europe still have their own unique national identities, ethnicities if you like. And Europe is a very old continent, like Africa. So long before there were ‘countries’ and ‘borders’, there were different tribes, that each had their own unique languages and identities, ethnicities. There’s even a Wikipedia page on the subject (and also for Africa).

Of course, this also leads to people having stereotypes of these different countries, and making fun of them, or there being some kind of rivalry between them. Things that the Woke would probably call ‘racism’. Except, to the Woke, they’re all ‘white’ and ‘European’, or ‘black’ and ‘African’. So apparently there is a complexity to the real world that they just don’t understand. Probably because their country is only a few hundred years old, and only has a single language, and (aside from Native Americans) never had any tribes to speak of. All ethnicities just mostly blended together as they came from Europe and Africa, and settled in America, taking on the new American identity.

Speaking of getting things completely wrong… Apparently Americans refer to white as ‘Caucasian’. The first time I heard that was on some TV show, I suppose a description of a suspect or such: “Middle-aged male, Caucasian…” So I was surprised. What did they mean by ‘Caucasian’? I thought they meant he was probably of Russian descent or such, because it referred to the Caucasus, a mountain region in Russia. But when I looked it up, apparently it was a name used for ALL white people. Which NOBODY else uses.

If you look into the history of the term ‘Caucasian’, things get interesting. Apparently somewhere in the 18th century, anthropologists thought that there were 3 main races: ‘Caucasian’, ‘Mongoloid’ and ‘Negroid’. This theory is long considered outdated, but apparently that didn’t stop Americans from using the term. And in fact, aside from wrongly using the term ‘Caucasian’ to denote ‘white skin colour’, there is some connotation attached to the term as well. Caucasians, or more specifically the ‘Circassian’ subtype of Caucasian people was seen as the ‘most beautiful humans’ in some pseudoscientific racial theory. Well, from that sort of crazy stereotype, it’s only a small step towards ‘white supremacy’ I suppose.

Because, let me get this clear… To me, the only race that exists is the ‘human race’. As someone with a background in science/academia, clearly I support Darwin’s theory of evolution as the most plausible explanation we have (as does a large part of the Western world. The US perhaps being an exception, because it’s still quite religious, and people still believe in creationism, making evolution controversial. It is not even remotely controversial in Western European countries). Combining archaeological findings of human fossils and evolution, the history of human life goes back to Africa, where humans evolved from apes.

Over time, these humans spread across the entire globe, and groups of humans in different parts of the world would continue to evolve independently. This led them to adapt to their local environment, which explains why humans in the north developed lighter skin. In the north, there were different levels of sun, therefore different levels of UV exposure and vitamin D production. This meant that less melanin was required. So evolution in Africa prevented genetic variations with less melanin from being successful. But in different areas in the world, this constraint no longer held. Variation in eye and hair colour can be explained in a similar way, as these are also dependent on genetic variations and melanin levels.

So, this means that we are all descendent from African people. It also means that skin colour variations are purely an adaptation to the environment, which can in no way be linked to any kind of perceived ‘superiority’ in any way, in terms of intelligence, behaviour or anything else. Skin colour is just that: skin colour.

What’s more, as humans developed better ways to travel, different groups that had evolved independently for many years, would interact with eachother again, so these separate evolutionary gene pools were mixed together again. So aside from any kind of ‘race’ based on skin colour being just some arbitrary point in evolution, even if you were to take such an arbitrary point in history, in practice most people would be a blend of these various arbitrary race definitions. For example, although the Neanderthal people are extinct, they have mixed with ‘modern’ humans, so various groups of people, mainly in Europe and Asia today, still carry certain Neanderthal-specific genes. It is believed that a genetic risk of Covid-19 can be led back to these Neanderthal-genes, for example.

The Neanderthals were a more primitive species of humans. It is not even clear whether they were capable of speech at all. Modern man is of the species of Homo Sapiens. And since Neanderthals never lived in Africa, they never mixed with African Homo Sapiens. So African (‘black’) people are genetically the most ‘pure’ modern humans. European (‘white’), Asian and even Native American people carry the more primitive Neanderthal genes. So if you want to make any kind of ‘racial argument’, then based on the gene-pool, ‘white superiority’ is a strange argument to make. After all, white people carry genes from a more primitive, archaic, extinct human species. Being extinct is hardly ‘superior’.

But there’s also a lot more recent mixing of genes. Because what some people call ‘white’ is basically everyone with a light skin colour. But that includes people with all different sorts of eye colours, hair colours, and also hair styles (straight, curly, frizzy etc). Which indicates that various gene pools, presumably from groups of people that evolved individually have been mixed. To give a recent example, take the recently deceased guitar legend Eddie van Halen. People may judge him as ‘white’, based on his appearance. But actually his mother was from Indonesia, so Asian. You see how quickly this whole ‘race’ thing goes bad. If you can’t even tell from the appearance of a ‘white’ person that one of his parents was of a different so-called ‘race’, then imagine how hard it is to tell whether a ‘white’ person had any ancestry of different ‘race’ two or more generations back.

So this whole idea of ‘race’ is just pseudoscience. It’s a social construct. Which is quite ironic, given that currently the Woke ‘antiracists’ are pushing a racial ideology. Which brings me closer to what I wanted to discuss. Because who were the last major group to push a pseudoscientific racial ideology? That’s right, the Nazis. They somehow believed that the “Aryan race” was superior to all others, and the Jews were the worst. Their interpretation of what ‘Aryan’ was, was basically white European people, ideally with blue eyes and blond hair. So in other words, it was basically a form of ‘white supremacy’. The Nazi Germans thought they were the ‘chosen people’, and since they considered themselves superior, obviously they had to take over the world.

Now what the Americans need to understand is that although most of Europe was white, and a large part of the population could pass for their idea of ‘Aryan’, they certainly were not interested in these ideas. The Germans went along because of years of propaganda and indoctrination by the Nazis. And even then many Germans only went along because they were under a totalitarian regime, and they had little choice. It is unclear how many Germans outside the Nazi party itself actually subscribed to the Nazi ideology. Germany also didn’t have a lot of allies in WWII (and even though Italy was also fascist, and was an ally, they were actually reluctant to adopt the racist ideology. Racism was not originally part of fascism. It was Hitler who added the racist element, and pressured Mussolini in adopting it).

Which explains why WWII was a war: Germany actually had to invade most countries, in order to push their Nazi ideology and get on with the Holocaust. Even then, there was an active resistance in many occupied countries, who tried to hide Jews and sabotage the Germans.

My country was one of those, and it still bears the scars of the war. Various cities had parts bombed. My mother lived in a relatively large house, which led to a German soldier being stationed there for a while (presumably to make sure they were not trying to hide Jews in the house). Concentration camps were built here, some of which are still preserved today, lest we forget.

And obviously WWII was not won by the Nazis. The Allies, who were again mostly white Western nations, clearly did not approve of the Nazis and their genocide.

So, given this short European perspective on WWII-related history, hopefully you might understand that terms like ‘Nazi’, ‘fascist’, ‘white supremacy’ and antisemitism resonate deeply with us, in a bad way.

And these days, a lot of people just use these terms gratuitously, mainly to insult people they don’t agree with, and dehumanize them (which is rather ironic, as this is exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews). Hopefully you understand that we take considerable offense at this.

And if you think that’s just extreme, activist people, guess again. It even includes people who should know better, and should be capable of balanced, rational thought. Such as Alec Watson of Technology Connections.

I give you this Twitter discussion:

This was related to the ‘mostly peaceful protests’ in Portland, as you can see. Clearly I did not agree with the quoted tweet, because it presented a false dichotomy: yes, government should be serving the people, but there are certain cases where it may be justified to beat people up on city streets (in order to serve the people). Namely, to stop rioters/domestic terrorists or otherwise violent groups. In Europe we are very familiar with this sort of thing, mostly with the removal of squatters from occupied buildings (who tend to put up quite violent protests) or when groups of fans from different sports teams attack eachother before, during or after a game.

After all, that is the concept of the ‘monopoly on violence‘ that the government has, through organizations such as the police and the army. We have very strict laws on guns and other arms, so we actually NEED the government to protect law-abiding citizens from violent/criminal people. Therefore, beating people up on the streets is perfectly fine, if that is what it takes to stop and arrest these people, in order to protect the rest.

So what I saw happening in Portland was a perfectly obvious situation where the government should stop these riots with force. Nothing wrong with beating up people who were trying to set a police station on fire, and throwing fireworks at the police etc. They were being violent and destroying property.

But debate ensued about that as well. Apparently Alec and other people did not consider destruction of property to be ‘violence’. That is funny, since you can find dictionary definitions that do. Apparently the meaning of words is being redefined here. Postmodernism/Wokeism at play. Aside from that, there are laws that state that the government needs to protect the people AND their property.

They were in denial about the destruction anyway, so I had to link to some Twitter feeds from people who reported on it, such as Andy Ngo and Elijah Schaffer. But as you can see, even then they were reluctant.

The conversation turned to Antifa and how they were fighting ‘fascists’. This is perhaps a good place for the second episode of Western European history. The history of Marxism and communism.

Because as you might know, Marxism was developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in Germany in the 19th century, most notably by publishing The Communist Manifesto and the book Das Kapital. Various communist parties in various European countries were formed, who aimed to introduce communism by means of a revolution. The first successful revolution occurred in 1917 in Russia by the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin. In 1922 they formed the Soviet Union, which expanded communism to other countries gradually, most notably after WWII. Namely, after Germany tried to invade the Soviet Union, Stalin pushed back hard, and eventually moved all the way up to Berlin, causing Hitler to commit suicide and forcing the Nazis to capitulate, before the Allies arrived.

Effectively, Soviet forces now occupied large parts of Eastern Europe, including a large part of Germany itself. Stalin converted these parts to communism and made them into satellite states of the Soviet Union. This also led to Germany being split up into the Western Bundesrepublik Deutschland and the Eastern Deutsche Demokratische Republik (the communist satellite state).

This lasted up to the early 90s. Which means that a considerable amount of European people either lived under communism, or lived near countries under communism. These communist countries were sealed off from the outside world, with the most notable example being the Berlin Wall. They were totalitarian states.

After this short introduction, now to get back to Antifa, which originally started in the 1920s in Germany. Which was around the same time that fascism arose in Europe.

Fascism started in Italy, under Mussolini, and was later adopted by Hitler. They had political parties that had their own mobs/paramilitary groups, like a sort of ‘private army’ to intimidate political opponents, and eventually get into power. Also of note is that they initially identified themselves as leftist/socialist (Nazi is short for NationalSozialismus, the political identity of the NSDAP party, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). They were later classified as far-right, mainly because of their extreme nationalism, but nothing to do with their economic policies.

Communist parties used similar mob/paramilitary tactics, in order to organize their revolution and overthrow the government. Essentially both are domestic terrorists. This more or less made communists and fascists ‘natural enemies’. They also bear remarkable resemblance in many ways. Not only the mob tactics, but also the use of propaganda, and eventually establishing a totalitarian state, without much room for individuals and their opinions. Everything had to be regulated, including the media, arts, music etc.

Cynically one could say that communists and fascists are two sides of the same coin. Their tactics and goals are mostly the same, they only apply a slightly different ideology, either Marxism or Nazism. Both types of regimes caused millions of deaths. Communism even far more than Nazism, because it was more widespread and lasted longer. And not just in Russia either. The same happened in China or Cambodia for example. Dissidents had to be eliminated, which led to genocide.

The original German Antifa was ended in 1933 when the Nazis rose to power. Nazism ended in 1945, when WWII ended. Interestingly enough, the totalitarian regime in the communist states kept the idea alive that fascism was still alive in the Western states. And while the actual goal of the Berlin Wall was to keep people from escaping the dreadful DDR and reach the free BRD, they fed the people propaganda that the wall was put up in order to keep the fascists out (who, as already stated, didn’t exist anymore. But since the state controlled the media, their citizens had no idea about that, and only ‘knew’ what propaganda they were fed by the state).

And that brings me back to the current Antifa, which started in Portland. Ever since Trump started running for president, his opponents tried to frame him as far-right, racist, white supremacist, fascist and whatnot. Technically, he is none of these things. The only thing that is somewhat accurate is that he is clearly a right-wing politician. Both economically, and he also has a nationalist focus. To what extent that is actually ‘far-right’, is debatable.

But everything else just seems to be propaganda and gaslighting. He neither says nor does racist things, no signs of white supremacy either, and clearly he’s not a fascist. Mussolini and Hitler were ‘technically’ chosen democratically, but actually used mobs to intimidate political opponents (and in Hitler’s case, there were also a number of assassinations, in the Night of the Long Knives). Trump did none of these things. He was democratically chosen by the people, without any kind of intimidation, he hasn’t had anyone assassinated in order to get to power, or expand his power, or anything. He merely tries to implement his policies on healthcare, the economy, the environment and such. That is what presidents do.

He may be a lot of things (a populist, narcissistic, rude, anti-scientific etc), but he is not ‘the new Hitler’ or anything. He certainly hasn’t pushed any kind of racist ideology, let alone changed laws to that effect. He also has not made major changes to the law to create a totalitarian regime or anything (if he did, Antifa would have been eliminated quickly. Instead, most rioters are not even arrested at all, and the ones that do, tend to get little or no sentence. Fascism is far more deadly than that, idiots. You wouldn’t live to tell). So in no way does it look anywhere like fascism. What fascists is Antifa fighting? None, they’re gaslighting you.

Getting back to the discussion with Alec… I tried to make the point that Antifa (based on communism and fascism being two sides of the same coin) was acting far more fascist than any other group in the US at this time. They are the ones going out on the streets in large mobs, intimidating people with ‘the wrong opinion’, destroying property, looting, arson etc. Look up what fascists did in Italy and Germany, or what communist revolutionaries did in Russia, China etc. That looks nothing like what the Trump administration is doing, and everything like what Antifa is doing.

You’d have to be really stupid to not be able to look beyond the obvious ploy of calling an organization “Anti-Fascism”. It’s called Anti-Fascism, so it can’t be fascism, right? Wrong. It can, and it is. This is domestic terrorism, by the book. And like many terrorist organizations, they aren’t officially organized, but operate more in individual ‘cells’, making them harder to track.

But apparently Alec was so gaslit that he claimed that fascism didn’t mean what I think it meant (as in: the proper definition found in many history books, encyclopedia etc). Because ‘words can change meaning over time’. There we are, postmodernist/Wokeist word games again. Words have meaning, you can’t just change them. Fascism clearly describes a movement that historically started with Mussolini, and has pretty much ended after WWII. The term ‘fascism’ has since mainly been used politically/strategically, to undermine political opponents. Basically applying a Godwin. ‘Fascist’ has now come to mean “anyone that Antifa disagrees with”, or even “anyone that left-wing oriented people disagree with”.

Nobody has referred to themselves as ‘fascist’ since, and no regime or political movement has officially been labeled ‘fascist’ by anyone. We certainly don’t label the Trump administration a fascist government in Europe (or totalitarian, dictatorial, racist, or whatever else). But such labels are apparently in the US itself by the left (even including prominent Democrats, all the way up to Biden), in order to take down the Trump administration. I think we are in a better position to judge that from the outside, than the people who’ve been under the influence of the propaganda machine for years.

And of course, no actual debate was possible, so when I didn’t fall for the superficial word games, he just blocked me. Possibly because the ideas of Critical Race Theory and intersectionality have become mainstream, it appears that nuance has disappeared from debate. Instead, everything is very polarized. It is all black-and-white, nothing in between. It is all or nothing. Debates rarely go into actual substance and arguments. Messengers are shot and people are labeled as horrible persons for simply having a different opinion.

This exchange is what originally got me to write the previous blog. I wasn’t expecting even people from ‘my neck of the woods’ (techy/nerdy/science-minded people) to buy into this nonsense. In fact, I actually said that at some point during the exchange, that I thought he would be more rational about this, as his videos show a very rational guy. He actually tried to deny that the videos he makes require rationality, as you can see.

At the time I thought that was rather strange, but now I think I may understand why. Critical Race Theory places things such as ‘rationality’, ‘objectivity’, and science in general under ‘whiteness’. So perhaps that’s why he was trying to deny it. He may have actually believed that he would be a ‘white supremacist’ or ‘racist’ or whatever if he were to admit that he is generally a rational person.

And he wasn’t the only one who ‘went Woke’. There’s someone else in ‘my neck of the woods’. I will not say who it is, because it was a private conversation, where the exchange with Alec was public, on Twitter, and is still available to read for everyone. But I can be sure that it is someone that most people who read this blog will be familiar with.

I can only say: you people are on the wrong side of history. This Woke nonsense is destroying our freedom and our communities. The Woke will force their opinions on you, as a totalitarian system, and if you do not comply, they will shut you out. There is no debate possible, your arguments will not be heard, there is no room for any kind of nuance or anything. Not even with people who you’ve known for years, and who should know better than to think you’re anywhere near a racist, fascist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe or whatever other superficial label they use to deflect any other opinions and shut people out. We are ‘dissidents’, and we must be ‘eliminated’.

Communism failed because it was based on an overly simplified view of the world, that mainly saw the world as a struggle between classes. It ignored the fact that humans are individuals, and individuals have their flaws and weaknesses. People aren’t all equal, and you can’t force them to be.

The Woke are making a very similar mistake, where Critical Race Theory/Intersectionality is again a very simplified view of the world, only marginally different from the communist one. This time it is seen as a power struggle between various ‘characteristics’ on the intersectional grid (such as gender, race, sexual preference and whatnot). And they again want to make all people equal, this time by forcing equity between groups. Again, this can only be done by force, and will fail, because the view of people is oversimplified, and the intersectional grid is a flawed view of society and humanity.

And I hope I explained why things like ‘white supremacy’ are completely foreign to us Europeans. And how totalitarian regimes, both fascist and communist, are far closer to home with us. So how things like ‘fascist’, ‘white supremacist’, ‘racist’, ‘Nazi’ etc. are deeply insulting to us. They also are highly disrespectful to the millions of victims of those regimes. In Europe there are still many people who lost a lot of family because of the Nazis or the communists. If you really were empathic, as you claim to be, and really were about respect and tolerance, I wouldn’t even have to tell you, because your common sense would have already made you understand how terrible that kind of behaviour would be. But you aren’t. You’re insensitive, ignorant, intolerant excuses for human beings.

Sargon of Akkad (who is also European) also did a similar video on that by the way:

This entry was posted in Science or pseudoscience?. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Cult of Wokeness, followup

  1. Peter says:

    “who is also European” – I don’t think Brits like to refer to themselves as “Europeans” 😀
    By the way I can’t believe that there are intelligent people out there who buy into Intersectionality. Clearly it is based on blatant generalisation of people by their skin colour which is what racism actually is.

    • Scali says:

      Yup, you could say it is ‘reverse racism’, or ‘racism by proxy’: They come up with all sorts of racial theories, and project them on other groups.
      So they say “YOU are racists/sexists! Because WE claim that YOU think this-and-that”.
      Except none of it is true.
      The only thing we know for sure is that THEY believe these racist ideas, and they apply them in a racist way.
      So again ‘in reverse’, intersectionality does prove that racists and sexists exist. It’s the people who call others racist and sexist, based on their ‘race’ and ‘gender’.

  2. Pingback: The Trumpians love their children too | Scali's OpenBlog™

  3. (Dr.) Mina Hanssen says:

    “After all, white people carry genes from a more primitive, archaic, extinct human species. Being extinct is hardly ‘superior’.”
    Other useful mutations including those associated with intellectual development are completely prevented by Neanderthal genes (elsewhere in the genome)?
    Your conclusion aside, I am embarrassed for you that you think genetics even works this way. Holy wow.

    • Scali says:

      Not sure what kind of racist twist you want to give this, but I never said anything about ‘intellectual development’ or anything about Neanderthal genes specifically preventing anything.
      I think the question is more how you think logic and argumentation works, rather than how I think genetics work.

  4. KERR says:

    I try to avoid politics in general – it’s all opinion, and everyone has an opinion. I only care about facts. I’m open-minded enough to form my own opinions. The documentary The Social Dilemma touches on this silly divisiveness and how these platforms are basically enabling it (twitter is a dumpster fire). I’m a fan of Robert Greene’s books, he has laws like “resist the downward pull of the group” ,”assume formlessness” and “do not commit to anyone”. It’s kinda embarrassing how transparent/simple minded these people can be. The line from 1984 ” The heresy of heresies was common sense.” is absolutely true – online at least.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s