Keith explains the true origins of wokeism, looking at the emergence of "the equality thesis" in the 20th century and its effect on politics. How much are today's social justice movements the outgrowth of the West's Christian inheritance, how much is...
The perversion of equality from its original meaning is not Christian at all, but comes from the commies. The original concept of political equality in the US Constitution is modeled on the divine rights of man, or mankind as a product of a deity, so equality under God as "one of God's Creations" was a longstanding theme in Christian doctrine, that mankind were united in creation and we're "all sinners".
This was never intended to mean everyone was the same , of course. Or that everyone had the same aptitudes, attributes, and potential ....and thus equally deserving of "things" and outcomes - that's the Marxist part. The social justice warrior claims are not based on any actual philosophy or precepts that could be derived from theology; rather they are just a mimicry, and a hijacking and perversion of language that is used to promote the politics of greed, and enable Redistribution (theft) of private property and wealth.
It's a snowball effect. Things like equality are always going to get "perverted".
As for it being communist. I've gone back and forth on that. It's not really communist but people who where communist did come up with it but they where also liberals. Woke is kind of an intersection between communism and liberalism.
Right. But I'm gonna disagree with you on the origins because Identity Politics is essentially just a selfish rejection of principle, so it *can't* come from liberalism as its in contraposition to Universalism, which underpins liberal theory. While you're correct that the people who have pushed it aligned with the liberal agenda, the actual origins are from the Black Power orgs, which were all Marxist separatist groups.
When you see a slogan that rejects universalist ideals, its a sure sign of a revolutionary (Communist) socialist movement. Whether its "Black Lives Matter (Have you noticed that nothing makes them madder than saying "All Lives Matter"? That will actually get you banned on Nextdoor), or "La Raza" (which is actually, "Por la Raza todo, fuera de la Raza nada" which means "For us, everything, for others, nothing" or "By Any Means Necessary" (meaning whether legal or not, peaceful or violent, etc), these slogans all specifically and blatantly reject universalist doctrine, which explains their hostility to egalitarianism, rules based order, equal treatment under the law, etc; They rage against anything like "color blindness" or "level playing field" or "meritocracy". So they aren't liberal. They're communist, or socialist, or racist, or perhaps even fascist, but they certainly aren't Liberal.
Dinesh D'Souza has written extensively on the phenomena around wokeism which he calls "Identity Socialism" which is apt since it always centers around the grievances of a specific identity claimed by some "group" - and the process of assembling a coalition from the fringes in this manner is called "inter-sectionalism" which is really just a Union for various grievance groups. I recall when this was introduced into the university in the 80s, it was called "deconstructionism" and it quickly took over the academics. Ironically, this didn't start in the PoliSci departments, it started in the Liberal Arts colleges, but very much in Literature and Sociology. Today, this Grievance Lobby has a variety of political wings. At the Party level you have the DNC, the DSA, or even the CPUSA. There's dozens of CMOs, such as AIPAC, the Black Congressional Caucus or the Tri-Caucus (which is the blacks/Asians/gays), but those distinctions are really nothing more than paperwork and separate operational/administrative organizations - the members are all within the same political coalition and sometimes across them. And their network of NGOs are all in service to the same ideology of wokeism and use the same tactics and coordination/cooperation, even if they only attack one facet of societal norms or are purportedly a single-interest organization. Just look at a Democrat candidate's Endorsement list. Even for state and local races, you'll notice the reach. Can't get elected to a statewide CA office unless you collect a signature from the Hispanics, the Asians, the gays, the progressives, the CTA, and that's enforced by the CA Dems, the state uniparty.
Jonah Goldberg has also written quite a bit about this although he misidentifies wokeism as Liberalism - or maybe he wasn't actually confused but rather decided to focus only on ways in which liberals have used communistic or totalitarian strategy to implement their policies. That is the thesis of his book Liberal Fascism. But it essentially corroborates the observation that what the left does isn't truly liberal at all as it all flies directly against universalist ideals and the concept of the supremacy of the individual. Even when it cloaks itself in the banner of individual liberty, they look to State power, exercised in tyrannical or totalitarian fashion, to achieve their policy and ideological objection. They will use suppression of dissent, enforcement of Groupthink, the abuse of language, Cancel Culture, weaponization of the justice system, class warfare via welfare/taxation, etc. This is the major battle on the ballot for this November - they're betting it all on a "Billionaire Tax" which despite the title, is written to allow unlimited taxation and confiscation of all assets from anyone in the state without any voter input. The Reparations bill stalled out, because they realized it would be invalidated for being unconstitutional but with a general tax they can just confiscate all wealth from all remaining whites and redistribute it programmatically without calling it reparations.
These are all hallmarks of totalitarian regimes. But wokeism is really just aimed at the white world, specifically at Western Civ itself. But particularly at white PEOPLE. That's why they're so obsessed with racial identity. White is the target, which is why they assemble such a wide variety of "other" fringes against whites. Its pretty easy to target a group that is truly a small global minority, with less than 7% of the world's population, there is an overwhelming pool of "othered" potential members to align against us. That's why I think people get so turned around when trying to fight this monster, because its like the Hydra, its got a dozen heads and if you cut one off, two more spawn in its place. Sometimes it looks like a class war, sometimes it looks like a race war, sometimes it looks like a political divide. And its a bit like the Blind Man's Elephant in that regard.
This. The Commies, Women & Minorities weaponized equality. Now we have men who have access to women areas, foreigners with access to our nations & even access to voting. All wants access to White Western Christian Patriarchal counties because they think they are entitled to something they can't crease, make, maintain or build.
Agreed. For over a thousand years Christianity lived in harmony with hierarchy. Post enlightenment and the focus on rights and the individual this began to change.
The idea of blank slate equality only came about after WWII. Before then, at least in the US, it was totally acceptable to believe in differences between races and sexes. That's why they accused white men of racism and sexism in the first place, and pushed the civil rights movement in the 60s. It's why Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Treatise on the Rights of Women (1793).
Christianity isn't the originator of what you call human diginity. There's nothing in the Bible about human rights. There is nothing in Greek philosophy about "rights" for that matter. Human Rights is a construct of 18th century intellectuals who were opposed to Christianity.
The sad fact is there is no Bible, Koran or Communist Manifesto for modern liberalism. The rules keep changing. It's modern liberalism's great strength.
I think there can be a bad interpretation of Christianity that can lead to woke. You could argue a branch of the early Quakers where proto woke. Perhaps a branch of the puritans. The abolitionist John Brown for example wanted to murder anyone who supported slavery or helped to maintain it on some way. I think you could argue he could be a kind of proto woke. Many woke people today are obsessed with him and model their violent worldview from him. Punch/kill a fascist comes straight from John Brown. Just cross out pro slavery person for pro fascist person. He was radicalized by a branch of the puritans
True. Christianity must have had a hand in ending widespread ancient European slavery during the final days of the westrern Roman empire. Although ChatGPT says it was more of an economic shift to serfdom.
On the other hand, Jesus never mentioned slavery. He said, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. There were plenty of slaves around during his life. You'd think there would be something about it in the Bible.
From my questions at ChatGPT the early Christians, including Saint Paul, framed slavery as morally tolerable but spiritually irrelevant.
There was a kind of slavery by English Christians called indentured servitude where a poor man would sell his labor to a landowner in the New World for a certain period of time.
ChapGPT says the outstanding characteristic of the Atlantic slave trade was that, unlike early forms, it was race-based and hereditary and religious + secular arguments (human rights, equality).
I'd say it was a combination of both Protestant Christianity and Age of Reason human rights moralising. Still seems relevant in current secular culture.
Absolutely there's nothing about Christianity that is anti slavery. Yes slavery is mentioned in the bible and is not condemned. There was also no rules created that would limit slavery based on race or any other reason. However some people take certain aspects about Christianity and then apply that to the topic of slavery to justify their Christian anti slavery stance. Even though the religion itself never states that anti slavery stance. It's kind of like how people nowadays take all men are created equal so therefore everyone should have the right to vote with no restrictions and everyone should be allowed to become citizens of America. Even though the founding fathers themselves only wanted White people to be citizens of country and they wanted many restrictions on voting. Basically they're putting words in the mouth of the founding fathers that they never said. Just how the abolitionists put words in the mouth of Christianity so to speak, that Christianity never said.
You'll also see people make arguments for Christianity actually being pro LGBT too. Despite the fact that the bible clearly says a man shall not lay with another man.
The moral of the story is you can't just assume someone's position based on their other views. Their idea of a given topic may be from a very different perspective from another person
I'm with Helen Andrew's on this one. Especially Feminism's drive for equality and willingness to break social rules set by men e.g. 'off the record' & the importance of it
The perversion of equality from its original meaning is not Christian at all, but comes from the commies. The original concept of political equality in the US Constitution is modeled on the divine rights of man, or mankind as a product of a deity, so equality under God as "one of God's Creations" was a longstanding theme in Christian doctrine, that mankind were united in creation and we're "all sinners".
This was never intended to mean everyone was the same , of course. Or that everyone had the same aptitudes, attributes, and potential ....and thus equally deserving of "things" and outcomes - that's the Marxist part. The social justice warrior claims are not based on any actual philosophy or precepts that could be derived from theology; rather they are just a mimicry, and a hijacking and perversion of language that is used to promote the politics of greed, and enable Redistribution (theft) of private property and wealth.
It's a snowball effect. Things like equality are always going to get "perverted".
As for it being communist. I've gone back and forth on that. It's not really communist but people who where communist did come up with it but they where also liberals. Woke is kind of an intersection between communism and liberalism.
Right. But I'm gonna disagree with you on the origins because Identity Politics is essentially just a selfish rejection of principle, so it *can't* come from liberalism as its in contraposition to Universalism, which underpins liberal theory. While you're correct that the people who have pushed it aligned with the liberal agenda, the actual origins are from the Black Power orgs, which were all Marxist separatist groups.
When you see a slogan that rejects universalist ideals, its a sure sign of a revolutionary (Communist) socialist movement. Whether its "Black Lives Matter (Have you noticed that nothing makes them madder than saying "All Lives Matter"? That will actually get you banned on Nextdoor), or "La Raza" (which is actually, "Por la Raza todo, fuera de la Raza nada" which means "For us, everything, for others, nothing" or "By Any Means Necessary" (meaning whether legal or not, peaceful or violent, etc), these slogans all specifically and blatantly reject universalist doctrine, which explains their hostility to egalitarianism, rules based order, equal treatment under the law, etc; They rage against anything like "color blindness" or "level playing field" or "meritocracy". So they aren't liberal. They're communist, or socialist, or racist, or perhaps even fascist, but they certainly aren't Liberal.
Dinesh D'Souza has written extensively on the phenomena around wokeism which he calls "Identity Socialism" which is apt since it always centers around the grievances of a specific identity claimed by some "group" - and the process of assembling a coalition from the fringes in this manner is called "inter-sectionalism" which is really just a Union for various grievance groups. I recall when this was introduced into the university in the 80s, it was called "deconstructionism" and it quickly took over the academics. Ironically, this didn't start in the PoliSci departments, it started in the Liberal Arts colleges, but very much in Literature and Sociology. Today, this Grievance Lobby has a variety of political wings. At the Party level you have the DNC, the DSA, or even the CPUSA. There's dozens of CMOs, such as AIPAC, the Black Congressional Caucus or the Tri-Caucus (which is the blacks/Asians/gays), but those distinctions are really nothing more than paperwork and separate operational/administrative organizations - the members are all within the same political coalition and sometimes across them. And their network of NGOs are all in service to the same ideology of wokeism and use the same tactics and coordination/cooperation, even if they only attack one facet of societal norms or are purportedly a single-interest organization. Just look at a Democrat candidate's Endorsement list. Even for state and local races, you'll notice the reach. Can't get elected to a statewide CA office unless you collect a signature from the Hispanics, the Asians, the gays, the progressives, the CTA, and that's enforced by the CA Dems, the state uniparty.
Jonah Goldberg has also written quite a bit about this although he misidentifies wokeism as Liberalism - or maybe he wasn't actually confused but rather decided to focus only on ways in which liberals have used communistic or totalitarian strategy to implement their policies. That is the thesis of his book Liberal Fascism. But it essentially corroborates the observation that what the left does isn't truly liberal at all as it all flies directly against universalist ideals and the concept of the supremacy of the individual. Even when it cloaks itself in the banner of individual liberty, they look to State power, exercised in tyrannical or totalitarian fashion, to achieve their policy and ideological objection. They will use suppression of dissent, enforcement of Groupthink, the abuse of language, Cancel Culture, weaponization of the justice system, class warfare via welfare/taxation, etc. This is the major battle on the ballot for this November - they're betting it all on a "Billionaire Tax" which despite the title, is written to allow unlimited taxation and confiscation of all assets from anyone in the state without any voter input. The Reparations bill stalled out, because they realized it would be invalidated for being unconstitutional but with a general tax they can just confiscate all wealth from all remaining whites and redistribute it programmatically without calling it reparations.
These are all hallmarks of totalitarian regimes. But wokeism is really just aimed at the white world, specifically at Western Civ itself. But particularly at white PEOPLE. That's why they're so obsessed with racial identity. White is the target, which is why they assemble such a wide variety of "other" fringes against whites. Its pretty easy to target a group that is truly a small global minority, with less than 7% of the world's population, there is an overwhelming pool of "othered" potential members to align against us. That's why I think people get so turned around when trying to fight this monster, because its like the Hydra, its got a dozen heads and if you cut one off, two more spawn in its place. Sometimes it looks like a class war, sometimes it looks like a race war, sometimes it looks like a political divide. And its a bit like the Blind Man's Elephant in that regard.
This. The Commies, Women & Minorities weaponized equality. Now we have men who have access to women areas, foreigners with access to our nations & even access to voting. All wants access to White Western Christian Patriarchal counties because they think they are entitled to something they can't crease, make, maintain or build.
Agreed. For over a thousand years Christianity lived in harmony with hierarchy. Post enlightenment and the focus on rights and the individual this began to change.
The idea of blank slate equality only came about after WWII. Before then, at least in the US, it was totally acceptable to believe in differences between races and sexes. That's why they accused white men of racism and sexism in the first place, and pushed the civil rights movement in the 60s. It's why Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Treatise on the Rights of Women (1793).
Christianity isn't the originator of what you call human diginity. There's nothing in the Bible about human rights. There is nothing in Greek philosophy about "rights" for that matter. Human Rights is a construct of 18th century intellectuals who were opposed to Christianity.
The sad fact is there is no Bible, Koran or Communist Manifesto for modern liberalism. The rules keep changing. It's modern liberalism's great strength.
I think there can be a bad interpretation of Christianity that can lead to woke. You could argue a branch of the early Quakers where proto woke. Perhaps a branch of the puritans. The abolitionist John Brown for example wanted to murder anyone who supported slavery or helped to maintain it on some way. I think you could argue he could be a kind of proto woke. Many woke people today are obsessed with him and model their violent worldview from him. Punch/kill a fascist comes straight from John Brown. Just cross out pro slavery person for pro fascist person. He was radicalized by a branch of the puritans
True. Christianity must have had a hand in ending widespread ancient European slavery during the final days of the westrern Roman empire. Although ChatGPT says it was more of an economic shift to serfdom.
On the other hand, Jesus never mentioned slavery. He said, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. There were plenty of slaves around during his life. You'd think there would be something about it in the Bible.
From my questions at ChatGPT the early Christians, including Saint Paul, framed slavery as morally tolerable but spiritually irrelevant.
There was a kind of slavery by English Christians called indentured servitude where a poor man would sell his labor to a landowner in the New World for a certain period of time.
ChapGPT says the outstanding characteristic of the Atlantic slave trade was that, unlike early forms, it was race-based and hereditary and religious + secular arguments (human rights, equality).
I'd say it was a combination of both Protestant Christianity and Age of Reason human rights moralising. Still seems relevant in current secular culture.
Thanks for your comment.
Absolutely there's nothing about Christianity that is anti slavery. Yes slavery is mentioned in the bible and is not condemned. There was also no rules created that would limit slavery based on race or any other reason. However some people take certain aspects about Christianity and then apply that to the topic of slavery to justify their Christian anti slavery stance. Even though the religion itself never states that anti slavery stance. It's kind of like how people nowadays take all men are created equal so therefore everyone should have the right to vote with no restrictions and everyone should be allowed to become citizens of America. Even though the founding fathers themselves only wanted White people to be citizens of country and they wanted many restrictions on voting. Basically they're putting words in the mouth of the founding fathers that they never said. Just how the abolitionists put words in the mouth of Christianity so to speak, that Christianity never said.
You'll also see people make arguments for Christianity actually being pro LGBT too. Despite the fact that the bible clearly says a man shall not lay with another man.
The moral of the story is you can't just assume someone's position based on their other views. Their idea of a given topic may be from a very different perspective from another person
I'm with Helen Andrew's on this one. Especially Feminism's drive for equality and willingness to break social rules set by men e.g. 'off the record' & the importance of it
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2050965072302969245
Women don't break rules set by men they just follow different rules set by men that perhaps you disagree with. Women are followers not leaders.
First class content, as usual
I got a Planned Parenthood ad before the episode 🤨