When I was young, my parents immigrated with me to the United States from China. I was told, and I really thought, that America, with its Constitution and Bill of Rights, was more "free" than Communist China. Yet when I went to college for the first time, all I found was censorship and struggle sessions. I can confirm that what Dr. Maroj…
When I was young, my parents immigrated with me to the United States from China. I was told, and I really thought, that America, with its Constitution and Bill of Rights, was more "free" than Communist China. Yet when I went to college for the first time, all I found was censorship and struggle sessions. I can confirm that what Dr. Maroja is saying here is absolutely happening in campuses all across America.
I thought college was for free discussion of beliefs, but all I found was a panopticon-style environment where students told on each other over their beliefs. I don't know if America really is the "land of the free" anymore.
This is appearing even in STEM research. Many grant proposals now require a DEI statement. This might have some value but these DEI impact statements are evaluated, at least partly, from critical studies perspectives. Thus, they need to be written as if one fully embraces the PC DEI view of groups > individuals, etc.
In Canada it is now at the point that unless you pass the DEI review stage your project won't be funded or even reviewed on its technical merrit. POC with decades of experience and a track record of succes at graduating POC scientists have had projects rejected because they said or implied that each new student be treated as an individuals first and member of some groups second.
Hark! And I think you approach the root cause and point towards the solution.
When I entered Engineering school in college (in 1970) there were some “flunk out” classes in math and chemistry. If a student couldn’t pass them, they either got help or changed majors. That was for their own good, as they would’ve been headed for bigger failures downstream - they were simply in the wrong field or just not ready.
What wouldn’t happen is to demand that the professor change the class or that the administration force professor to do so. The student would get a very kind feedback about not signing up for failure down the road that wasted big bucks (or worse yet, introduce physical risk to people).
And later as a manager in industry (nuclear power in my case but apply the same thing in almost any other field) I wouldn’t keep someone in a job they weren’t capable of doing. But I did spend time finding those who’d work a job better suited to their skills / knowledge.
I see the failure here as largely stacked on the “leaders”. Would you let a toxic product come out of your factory so as not to hurt some ill-equipped employee’s feelings? Or would you let someone who can’t spell publish news stories ? OOPS, bad example there, but you get my point.
This reminds me of a perturbing experience almost 20 years ago. Our geophysics lab was mostly Japanese researchers and post-docs, with one Turk, and two white Americans including me. My other white colleague, a grad student, was unable to do the math required, and we had to carry him.
It was extremely vexing to have him excuse himself as impaired by ADD, since I have diagnosed ADD, whatever that is, and I had no difficulty whatsoever scoring in the 99.9% in math. He was given extended time on his tests due to his "disability." His scores did not accurately reflect his inability, but it became apparent when he was called on to do real work. I'm sure he was brighter than average. More than that is required in geophysics.
Labeling of the natural range of intellectual ability as a disability by schools, when one is lower than one would like, is one underpinning of the current entitled attitude.
Absolutely true. Personal experience in the U.S. I know successful scientists who have had to do these performances, who are afraid to challenge them because they genuinely fear for their income. Big problem.
We have a Supreme Court Justice that was so afraid to answer “what a woman is” she deferred to the “experts” instead of being brave enough to answer what she already knows.
The only way to stop this is a new President and Congress, to root out this crap and end it, before all the good people have been driven out of the sciences and academia and medicine.
D.I.E. Never has value once you understand what it means.
We know there are somewhere near 100,000,000 humans killed by the very governments sworn to protect them in the name of Equity in the past 100 years. “D” and “I” are equally sinister.
Perfectly put. To bad none of our academics remember what PolPot did in the name of equity and social justice:
“We each have our own woke tipping point—the moment you realize that social justice is no longer what we thought it was, but has instead morphed into an ugly authoritarianism.”
The author doesn’t realize “social justice” has ALWAYS been evil.
Social justice is dehumanizing injustice. It says, "you are a collective, not an individual, bad responsible for your collective." Social justice is tribalism.
Far worse. After Mao, Deng offered a new deal: become rich, and shut up. Tell me what is different in Beijing's capture of Hong Kong than what occurs in China. Xi doesn't (yet) order fenestration.
I just read this and it buttresses what I have been saying all along. The Republicans are not predicting the demise of democracy. It's prominent democrats that have been saying this, including the ever senile Joe, that if the Republicans win the midterms, it will be the end of our democracy.
Read this and tell me who is more liable to destroy our democracy. They openly dismiss and discount the average person. I will go as far as they hate the average American. When Hillary lost to Trump, she called us rabble.
The old term limousine liberal was used decades ago to describe the odious, power hunger elite and it applies today. Read this and see if I am wrong:
This is my last comment for the day, so I'll take a shot at You, LP, and then run fer the hills. ;-)
I read the article but didn't pay attention to it much. Here's how I looked at it: It was original from the Washington Examiner, which I like. They're what I would call "soft-Right." They're always right, but IIRC, they're not beholden to Trump. They *may* under Trump's sway. I'm not *swearing* on it. But that's my recollection. And they seem fairly accurate.
This here article is just propaganda. The reason I say that is that the things I look for in articles is direct quotes, and links to articles besides the ones they write themselves. I look at Twitter links, but that's about all I do with them. Secondary sources and quotes. This article had none-a that. IOW, I would-a liked to see what Biden actually said, and then make up my own mind.
Here it is in a nutshell: These guys are either preaching to the choir or telling You what Your supposed to think.
Please NOTE: I'm not saying what they said was WRONG. Mebbe it was. I'm sure at least some-a it was right. But it wasn't something to convince me, one way or the other. That's just me.
TY for post, LP. Day done. Enjoy... (Mebbe tomorrow. Mebbe not. ;-)
The challenge is to effectively communicate with these young people. We need to attend to the importance of this.
It is emotionally gratifying to vent, and safe enough to do so in this column of like-minded thinkers.
Yet contempt will close that door. It blinds the speaker with its intoxicating self-congratulation; I struggle always to rise above my own worst impulses.
It is hard enough, as young people often dismiss any possible wisdom or experience from their elders. (I dimly recall a similar skepticism, outgrown now.) Immigrants may have more credibility, with personal stories to tell.
But let us not merely complain. Let us not only resist. Let us consider how to genuinely reach our newest generations, with care and sympathy. Can we win only by battle, by validating the assertion that domination is primary? Is there a way to open hearts and minds, cooperatively?
If you want to "effectively communicate with these young people" you must start by gathering a million or so followers on some social media platform, preferably TikTok. You should also be able to communicate in short burst that incorporate some words, but also dance, and constant changes of imagery. You need to be able to say "like" a lot, and to have, like a lot of, like, social currency, like oppression, and intersectionality. And to always come from a position of liberation, so it's not "pizza is bad for you, and kale is good, but pizza is oppressive and kale is liberating.
On a serious note, they truly speak a different language and live in a different reality.
Humor aside, this is a useful suggestion! The humor was pretty good, too! You are so right about keeping it positive.
I have a mere 83 Twitter followers because I have been pretty inactive. I admit to liking the dancing on TikTok, and have a weakness for Z's poking gentle fun at Millenials. I can do 3-D and animation and movies. Hmm.
You have got me thinking. Really good proposal! Taking it seriously. Thanks!
I agree. jt doesn't. What else can you call all of these woke students and faculty, who burst into class demanding people explain their whit privilege and demand the curriculum be change to express their far left BS. Sounds like Red Guard to me.
I keep thinking more and better education on economics and history would do a lot to divest young people of a lot of their misconceptions. Why isn't that happening?
I went to college in the early 90s and I felt incredibly free. We were encouraged to explore weird ideas and make connections. It was a blast, and I learned a lot, including how to be a critical thinker. When I hear how restricted campuses are now it makes me really sad.
I went to school in the 1980's, for years I believed that the intent of university wasn't to teach me certain facts, formulas, etc. The intent (at that time) was to teach independent thinking, and problem solving.
I went to University in the late 70's, early 80's and I can tell you that the professors expected you to regurgitate their leftist viewpoints. (Granted I was in the Humanities.) A diversity of viewpoint usually ended in a bad grade. Back then, I figured I just wasn't smart enough to argue the counter position and maybe so, but the professors wouldn't even engage in a discussion on other points of view. The only thing that seems to have changed from my experience (which was at the Univ of California) is that people didn't get canceled back then for having the wrong thoughts - maybe ignored, maybe laughed at, but not canceled.
You make a good point. It is my impression that current ideologies hardened in humanities departments, and are only recently penetrating STEM.
My degree was in a hard science. We focussed on empirical evidence, the importance of testable hypotheses with differentiating outcomes, the distinction between hypothesis and supported theory. We were humbled by what we did not know, how often accepted wisdom has been found to be either dramatically false or subtly incomplete.
STEM hubris lay in the practical success of science-based technology. Science faculty gave up a hand on the reins to indulge that passion for discovery. Surely no one would propose killing the golden goose?
Perhaps STEM will be an academic area where effective resistance coalesces!
"Perhaps STEM will be an academic area where effective resistance coalesces!"
Not been paying attention have you? They have pretty much all fallen. Have you seen the Bollocks "Nature" has been putting about lately? Last hopes were pinned on Chicago for some reason. Didn't work out; pronounced dead a year or so ago.
Alice, I hope so. My degree was in engineering. I'm afraid that the "math is racist" types are infecting there too. Eventually, nature will whack them upside the head, but I'm afraid they are going to get some people killed in the meantime.
When the bridges begin to collapse and the planes start falling from the skies we will say how ridiculous this whole thing was. I really hope it doesn't come to that but you never know.
It's already happened. Point your search engine at "Miami bridge collapse 2018". This was a bridge designed by Florida International University students.
might be the difference. My major was mechanical engineering, not much gray area to argue about. Other difference is the school I attended was in Texas, possibly we were slow adapters down here.
I have been calling the Dem Party the Communist Party for over a year and people treat me like I am not in touch with reality. I think they are the ones not in touch with what is happening. They are in denial.
The hard left on this BBS can't refute what the author of today's subject has said but they sure will belittle if and call people who defend her article names. It is the best they can do.
You actually hurt the cause You would fight for. You're spreading, essentially, the lie that the Woke Religion is the same thing as the Dems.
You're the one in denial. The Bari and the author are likely to be a Dems themselves. What crime did *they* commit? Who is helped if they are accused of being Dems?
The worst of it Your blindness is that Dems have some good ideas. You'll *never* entertain the notion, which is an obvious FACT. You think You guys/gals here are the ones with *all* the answers? I got some bad news for You guys/gals.
That's enough for me. Mebbe too much. But these are serious questions I ask.
Agree, JT. Recent hysteria about Penn State protest of Proud Boy speaker (got canceled, etc.). “Hundreds” of students protested (news reports). The campus has 40,000 students. I believe the same data set can be used for the Democratic Party. The “woke” crowd (still working on a definition) if party affiliated are more likely Democrats than Republicans. But, not all Democrats are “woke.” On the other side I would guess that most Proud Boys. III’percenters, etc. are Republicans, if registered to a party, it does not make all Republicans white national racist militants (if that is what you believe these groups are). And while I cannot criticize what Ms. Ping experienced at Sarah Lawrence, by way of example, she extends her experience there to reach the conclusion that this is happening at all campuses nationwide. Maybe it is, maybe its not, but experience at one college is not adequate data for over 4,000 colleges in the US.
I agree with all-a that. There aren't gonna be any statistics on how many places are Woke. But anecdotes indicate more are going Woke than retreating from that view.
I am sure, OK also un-researched, that there are elements of “woke” on every college campus, as there are BLM supporters, gay rights supporters, pro-life supporters, gun supporters, etc. My beef on the college campuses is when the administrations/powers that be cave in to any group, ideology, etc. I am a fan of hearing what people have to say, especially on college campuses. If you don’t want to hear what they have to say, don’t go. If you want to protest, do so outside, peacefully (I hate pop-up protesting in the auditorium). Other students may be interested in attending (who planned to attend the Proud Boy speaker event) and were denied that opportunity. What’s more frustrating at times is when these incidents go through the ringer in conversations like these threads as absolutely exemplifying all students on all college campuses, or the population as a whole.
No, it's not all. Unfortunately, the Woke Religion holds the power in just about all the institutions, AFAIK. And they're not gonna turn over a new leaf, and give up that power.
JT, I come at this differently. As I taught my kids a long time ago, you start any analysis by following the money. Colleges, especially private high-tuition colleges (like the author’s Williams College), are a business. And, like any other business, they want to attract customers -- students for 4 years, and donations from alumni for years to come. For example, Williams College, has about 2,000 students, and a tuition that runs $60,000 or so. Alumni kick in around $13 million or so each year in donations. There's a lot of money at stake. This Forbes article https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/09/06/new-survey-how-2022s-high-school-seniors-approached-college-applications/?sh=73c9c8555fb7 summarizes a Forbes survey of 2022 high school seniors (21,000 responses). If you scroll down, you will find this: “Diversity was the most important campus community factor to students, with 84% saying that a diverse student body was appealing, and 46% of those saying that it was a “must-have.” Diversity among faculty and staff was also important, with 81% wanting it and 40% of those saying it was a must-have feature. Matters of diversity were important to students from underrepresented groups (89%) as well as those who were not from underrepresented groups (79%).”
Not surprised, then, that likely any college will have a diversity, equity and inclusion goal/statement/department/staff (diversity of students, faculty, and thought – the latter questionable in this space). Further, the college’s administration would not want anything to jeopardize the school’s reputation along these lines which in effect can jeopardize their bottom line (and their jobs). I don’t disagree that “woke” issues hold power, because as I already pointed out in the Penn State protest, even very few students (100 on a campus of 40,000) can raise hell enough to give the campus a very public black eye easily seen by potential future customers or alumni donors. My guess then is not that most college administrators themselves are woke, or members of the Woke Religion, or really believe some of this stuff, but they are protecting their brand, the expectations of their present, past and future customers, and their jobs.
I'm not disagreeing with Your analysis at all. If I implied anything along those lines I didn't write it right.
But as far as this being *strictly* a money problem? *Sure,* You wanna follow the money. And, *sure,* one-a the biggest problems in college education came about when they decided they were a business instead-a an institution to teach.
But let's get real. As a *practical* matter, does it matter one iota whether the college administrators are going along with the Woke acolytes because they really believe, or because their jobs depend on it?
The result is the same. They're like the French collaborators, during the Nazi occupation. Yeah, some-a them might *claim* they were just doing their job.
Well if it's not the Dems who support woke, who does? It sure as hell it's not the right that supports woke. The Dems support BLM, ANTIFA and I believe woke.
When was the last time you heard a Dem official speak out against woke? Just give me one example. That is all I ask.
Yeah, all the Woke are Dems. No argument. But NO WAY JOSE are all Dems Woke. It's mathematically impossible, because most people are just living their lives day-to-day. They don't have a lotta time or attention to spend on sites like this one. They may have some vague ideas about Woke, but it doesn't even have a proper name recognized by everybody!
I don't believe all Democrats are woke but the ones in power are. Name one Dem senator or representative that has criticized the woke movement or on that has criticized BLM or Antifa.
Like I "said" above, the problem is that the President and the people than run the party and the kids that get involved are Woke to the core. A lotta these the ones who Biden wants to pay off their student debt for.
But the Senators? ICBW, but I very *seriously* doubt they could tell Ya what Woke *IS.* Unless it starts costing them elections, I just don't believe it's on most-a those guys radar. When You talk about the Leftists, they're thinkin AOC and that lot. I doubt they've actually read the High Priests of the Woke Religion. Because if they *had,* they'd likely bow down and be talking UP how great BLM is.
(None-a them are gonna praise Antifa, of course. They just say Antifa doesn't even *exist.* Same way a lotta You guys/gals say the election was stolen.)
So, yeah, most-a the ones in power are Woke. And, yeah, it was created by the Leftists in the Universities, starting with CRT (Critical Race Theory) in the 1980s. Both my Sisters are Ds. I doubt they know much about the Woke Religion, other than the little bit I sprinkle in on the very *rare* occasion to Younger-Sister.
I will agree with you that not all Dems are woke but the leadership of the party has been captured by this and that is what matters. If the heads of the party pushed back against this it might end but they aren't. The current administration fights daily against the idea of not giving kids puberty blockers, the idea that all the evils of the world come from white people and white supremacist's is daily on the lefts talk shows. Try and watch the view and watch the clapping seals in their audience. It doesn't need to be all of them just the most influential among them.
Right, JT. Insert my standard statement about liberalism and leftism being very different things. However, it is true that a lot of the party leadership -- the people who have the ability to influence the direction of the party -- are woke.
Yeah, Sir Slamma. The people who *run* the D party and the kids who do a lotta legwork are members of the Woke Religion, and they're driving Biden in that direction. It's a shame. If I ever cried, I'd say it's a cryin shame.
The problem is the wokes dictate dem policy. What part of the modern democrat platform is not woke? And what is that platform? Unlimited abortion? Woke. Defunding police/bail reform? Woke. Diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives? Woke. Climate alarmism? Woke. ESG initiatives? Woke. Hate speech is not free speech and anything we don't like his hate speech? Woke. These ideologies and policies have captured the democrat party, big business, and government and it is frightening.
I'll answer You, M William, and M Rick Coat at the same time.
Sorry, but neither of You is telling me anything I don't know. I'm saying the current administration doesn't represent the rank and file very well. Biden ran as a centrist. He turned out to be anything but. Like You both "said" more-or-less correctly.
But Biden had one advantage going for him. He wasn't Trump. There were a crap-pot full-a Ds that weren't all that much in favor of Biden, but were sure gonna vote *against* Trump. Rank and file of the Ds, a lotta them.
What do the rank and file democrat want? What is a modern day democrat? The policies put forth above - including the anti-science gender dysphoria- are insane.
I guess Biden ran as a centrist, I couldn't really tell you what he ran on - other than not being Trump - b/c he hardly campaigned. I do remember him telling illegal migrants to come in droves b/c he was going to open the border and that he was going to end the oil industry. Are those consider centrist positions to rank and file democrats?
I have a fairly good idea what the republican platform is: school choice, less government regulation, energy independence, tough on crime, etc.
What is the democrat platform? Sex changes for kids, end charter schools, soft on crime, no limit abortions, rapid end of fossil fuels, proxy wars, tax hikes, build back better via massive printing of money and overall greater and greater government control and societal dependence?
You're right I haven't, can only go off campaign ads that I've seen and I forgot to mention gun control. But I'm honestly asking, what is the centrist dem platform? What separates a centrist dem from a republican? I feel like I could sum up the rights platform in sentence or two, what is the equivalent for a rank and file democrat voter?
The Democrat leadership (Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, etal) most likely made a decision to sell out and cave to the left when they chose Obama-Mr. “we’re going to fundamentally transform America”-which they probably did because they cared more about winning the presidency than about the health and stability of our country. What’s curious to me is how traditional Dem voters couldn’t see who he was then, and still can’t see what’s happened to the party as a result. And alot of that is due to the complicity of the press, which has been prosecuting an undeclared war against anyone who dares challenge the Democrat party’s candidates, officeholders, and platform. It’s all very disconcerting.
Still, what I observed and experienced on a pre-pandemic visit to China makes me encourage you to stay here and not return to China.
Remember those two Canadians who were detained as hostages in exchange for the Huawei CFO? Could have been me. Right before their arrest, I was detained at the China border as I was leaving for Hong Kong. I got released with no apology. The government was looking for bigger fish apparently.
Stay in the US and protest academic totalitarianism here!
I always tell people on the left who curse the U.S. if they hate the oppression in the U.S. so much go to the workers' paradise like China and North Korea. I have yet to see any of these nincompoops do that.
They came for the unionist & I did nothing. Then they came for the Communists & I did nothing. Then they came for the Jews & I did nothing. Then they came for the Catholics & I did nothing. Then they came for me! Too many Americans are followers led perhaps by the insane.
I might have agreed with this statement except you included the the Communists in there. I think there are a good number of them in today's woke culture. Most of this crap comes from Marxists ideas.
Third hand, once removed. It is a direct descendant, but then Marxism itself is just Xtianity without the God bits. These daft ideas are forever but continually morph on from failure.
There is already a system in America that is essentially a social credit score. It’s called cancel culture. Any accusation of going against established doctrine will lead to a mob of people spreading malicious rumors about you, effectively destroying your reputation. The woke mob spares no one.
Sort of related...Saturday Night Live has been so left I gave up on watching it. Today I read that they are having Dave Chappel host in November. Wonders never cease. Maybe they are learning that being such a one sided buzz kill is good for ratings?
Due process issues arising from non discrimination and non harassment policies, typically enacted pursuant to DEI initiatives, are an important point. If an academic is formally accused of discrimination and/or harassment, many institutions protect the complainant by not allowing the accused to read the written complaint. The accused is hamstrung and unable to adequately prepare a defense without knowing the precise nature of the complaints. Educational institutions wrote these policies to correct the power imbalance between the complainant and the accused, but they arguably go too far and create due process issues. Moreover, if the complaint is not substantiated, there are instances where accused does not receive written findings which clear his/her name from the institution which investigated the complaint. Cancel culture seems to protect the complainant at the expense of the accused from defamation and being able to adequately defend oneself. These cases are winding up in court.
Oh, make no mistake. The purpose of those procedures is to shift blame for the institution's social and cultural problems onto the scapegoat class, whoever it is. That way, the university itself does not have to address them. That's one reason why the number of men on campus has declined so drastically.
Are the due process issues intentional? Or are they result of administrators not thinking through the ramifications of anti discrimination and anti harassment policies? Sometimes I wonder if administrators follow procedures designed to fulfill DEI initiatives without considering the possibility of some complaints being filed in bad faith.
With at least some of them, they're intentional. Yes, some of the people implementing them are do-gooders, and some are apparatchiks. But back around 1995, I had the opportunity to ask David Horowitz a question on a radio show. (The David Horowitz I'm talking about was a radical leader in California in the 1960s, who edited the far-left Ramparts magazine, among other things.) I asked him about civil rights and the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, and asked him, "What happened?" His reply was rather chilling: "We only wanted our rights so we could use them to take away everyone else's rights." I've never looked at the Left the same way since. I later found Tom Hayden's quote about what percentage of the American population would have to be Final Solution-ed in order to bring about the utopian society. He estimated about 20%.
As an older American who witnessed from afar evidence from the Chinese Cultural Revolution, collapse of the USSR and more, it has been extremely surprising to see Marxist and totalitarian ideas re-emerge in the U.S. I am impressed by how effectively these ideologies pathologically enlist the spirits of envy and grievance latent in all people.
Government and institutions have always faced the problem of how to engender enough popular support to remain in power. Reason, evidence, free thought require more from the general population than confident diktat and repression do.
We have two problems. Historical ignorance has been fostered by a weak k-12 education system. At the university level and now reaching to k-12, malignant, self-serving propaganda is salted with a small grain of truth and social justice, rendering the poison savory.
I support Common Sense, Musk's intended transformation of Twitter, and other resistance to liberalism's takeover by authoritarianism. Peng's concern is warranted. History shows that it often takes death, destruction, truly dire outcomes, to eventually reinstate a period of liberal values. I so hope these values will not be defeated.
Good for you. The American version of the Red Guard is upon us. Same as the old Guard. I have heard Chinese scholars in private and far from China say to each other in private"Thank heaven the US exists.
NK, I disagree. A famous liberal of the 1960s (MLK) stated "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." He was right then, and still is.
And he would be considered a radical right winger by today's "liberals".
Perhaps part of the problem in discourse is lumping together today's left, which is very illiberal, with yesterday's left which was somewhat liberal - at least philosophically. (Politically, there were - and still are - authoritarian. They only "fought the power" because the power wasn't them.)
Imagine a politician today saying "Ask now what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
JFK was a traditional Democrat of the FDR/post-FDR period. That meant that the core of his constituency was private sector trade unions (AFL/CIO). On social issues, he would be considered 'far right' by the woke. However, on economic issues he was left-of-center. The fall of the Iron Curtain (and the rise of China) was the de-facto end of conventional class-based Marxism. For better or worse (mostly worse), the left has adopted Gramscian Marxism as a replacement.
I actually don't think Gramsci was all that influential in the US and other English speaking countries. I think the 'failure' of 60s liberalism was far more important. I put 'failure' in quotes because I am not so convinced 60s style liberalism was a failure (or completely a failure). Let me use blind auditions for orchestras as an example.
Blind auditions did lead to a noteworthy rise in the number of successful female and Asian musical performers. The number of successful black and Hispanic performers did not change significantly. So were blind auditions a success or a failure? I will point out that blind auditions are now being attacked by the NYT (‘To Make Orchestras More Diverse, End Blind Auditions’). Below you will find my comments on the current situation. I wrote these notes some time ago.
I don't disagree with your analysis. I too tend toward the view that 'woke' is a clever way for the beneficiaries of globalization to deflect class resentment (which might otherwise arise). The problem with this theory is that the ‘woke’ don’t agree. Indeed, they vehemently disagree. Try convincing Hannah Jones that she is an agent of the economic elite.
I would offer that following analysis
Cultural Marxism goes back to at least the 1920s. Of course, CM has (vastly) proliferated of late. At least four reasons come to mind.
1. The rise of Cultural Marxism is too some degree, a consequence of the fall of conventional Marxism. Conventional Marxism was (slowly) dying by the 1950s. The Soviet invasion of Hungary and later Czechoslovakia alienated (or worse) a vast number of people who might have otherwise supported the Communist system. The economic failure of Eastern Europe combined with the great success of the “Little China’s” (Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan) and South Korea was a great blow to the credibility of conventional Marxism. The Cambodian genocide must be mentioned in this context as well. Of course, the fall of the USSR and China’s switch to Capitalism (and subsequent success) were the final nails in the coffin.
My sense of it is that failure of the Soviet system (and Eastern Europe) was a bigger deal than China’s switch to capitalism. The numbers make the converse case. However, I still think the failure of Soviet system (and Eastern Europe) was/is more important. I don’t agree, but that doesn’t matter.
Of course, these were monumental blows to the traditional Left. However, the Left wasn’t about to fold its tent and disappear. For better or worse, a huge section of society will never embrace bourgeois values and will be (highly) motivated to reject them. Since conventional Marxism was “the god that failed”, the Left embraced Cultural Marxism as a substitute. Of course, Cultural Marxism is just as crazy as conventional Marxism (perhaps considerably crazier). However, we don’t have easy country comparisons to show how nuts it is (i.e. no North Korea vs. South Korea).
Blank Slate ideology is arguably nuttier than old-style Marxism. However, we don’t (yet) have a Stalin or Mao to attack as the leader of it (Cultural Marxism).
2. As long at the Left was committed to traditional Socialism/Marxism, the right would move heaven and earth to oppose it. Big corporations, rich people, religious people, some union people, etc. all had powerful incentives to oppose traditional Socialism/Marxism. That meant that anti-communist movements, ideas, intellectuals, etc. were assuredly substantial support as long the enemy was “Real Socialism”.
By contrast, CM provokes no comparable opposition (from big corporations, rich people, religious people, etc.). Actually the reverse is true. Party-line adherence to CM is notoriously profitable for some companies. For example, most Tech firms (Apple is a bad example) would be crucified by Democrats/Liberals/Leftists/etc. for their exploitation of the tax system. In real life, the level of criticism is near nil. By declaring their commitment to CM, they gain de facto immunity from criticism from the Left (the Right wouldn’t criticize them anyway).
At least the indulgences sold by church cost real money. Now you just need to pay lip service to CM.
3. There is also (predictably) a class element to this. Old-style Marxism was inherently (too some degree) a blue-collar worldview. Of course, that was never entirely true. Marx was an intellectual. The cliché that “Marxism is the Opiate of the Intellectuals” existed for a reason. However, conventional Marxism was never going to appeal to white, upper-middle class (UMC), liberals for all sorts of reasons, of which class was definitely an issue.
However, Cultural Marxism has no such problem. White, UMC, liberals can espouse and advocate Cultural Marxism without any contradictions (as they see them) and without restraint. Indeed, they do. Studies (Yascha Mounk) have shown that “woke” progressives are one of the least diverse (in many senses of the word) groups out there. Cultural Marxism gives UMC liberals free reign to denounce “deplorables” to their hearts content. Conventional Marxism would have been much more circumspect. Of course, upscale folks have always wanted to attack (rhetorically and otherwise) the working class. However, conventional Marxism constrained the left (but not the right) from doing so.
Cultural Marxism imposes no such limitations.
4. In my opinion, the failure of liberalism was/is a substantial factor in the rise of CM. In the 1960s (and earlier decades and later decades) it was widely believed that liberalism would work. In other words, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society would produce a (much) better American where poverty and race would not be intertwined and poverty itself would more or less disappear. That didn’t happen of course. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was roughly as successful as his war in Vietnam.
At this point it is obvious that liberalism has failed (in attaining the goals of the 1960s). Some folks have responded to this failure by basically giving up. However, the most motivated have moved to the left (far left). Note that we here far more about “systematic racism” now (when it doesn’t exist) than we did when Jim Crow was a daily reality.
“1. The rise of Cultural Marxism is too some degree, a consequence of the fall of conventional Marxism.”
IMO the USSR’s failure and subsequent disappearance removed the real life illustration of how bad Marxism Leninism actually is.
Those of us 50 and older remember. I took part in the pen pal initiative that started with Gorbachev and the item that sticks with me to this day was my Soviet pen pal’s astonishment that I--a lower class American at the time--could walk into any grocery store and buy oranges, tomatoes, beef and other items without obtaining permission or paying bribes.
What I took for granted was for him an unthinkable luxury.
Without the USSR’s real life example of Marxism in practice, the “travails” of Americans--oh no someone misgendered me, I’m damaged for life!--are much easier to distort into serious problems.
Venezuala is still a thing, so is Cuba. Don't like them apples? Okay, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Don't like the comparisons at all? The USA has been Upper Volta with Rockets for a long time now. What is being peddled now is two or three generations removed from Marxism and only a cousin to Marx-Leninism.
Congatulations though, the USA is now the example of Stupidism in practice for a lot more of us Brits. It is about time it was seen for what it is.
Can't say that I'm familiar with the term "Gramscian"...
Nice analysis in rebuttal. Look at the "far right" today. Their growing constituency is the working class and minorities. His left-of-center economic policies of the 60's would not be considered nearly far left enough by todays' left. I also think his economic policies had the objective of creating self-supporting people, not people dependent on the government.
And, as we've seen by the 2022 campaigning, social issues are the only issues that matter to those who are driving the left. Can you imagine how JFK would respond to the suggestion that the government knows better how to raise your children than do the parents, that parents should not have a say in their children's education, that abortion should be legal up to the point of birth, that color of your skin is more important than your character ... ? I sure can't.
The swiftness of the leftward move of the democrat party is matched only by its lunacy. But maybe you can't separate the two.
Sorry, Neil. World War II. I'm sure you remember the story..
Roosevelt, so much a liberal he would be called a communist sympathizer today, and Winston Churchill, a liberal (though called racist by today's iteration of the far left wing), defeated Hitler by espousing freedom in the face of very real authoritarianism.
Call what you want of the far left today, but be careful to throw everything 'liberal' in the same socialist bread basket. You'll do history a disservice..
LM, As you point out, you can't judge the past by today's standards (at least you shouldn't). JFK provides a case in point. In economic terms, he would be considered to be a liberal (if not a leftist) today. However, in social terms he was far too the right of today's political center. The reality is that he would find no home in today's Democratic party or today's Republican party. The world has changed (and not always for the better).
Alice, I would go further - in the sense that our wretched and weak educational system (from k through university actually) openly supports historical ignorance, by which I mean judging (and not actually learning) the events and trends of periods in the past through the lens of today, and not through the prism of the era in which the history studied occurred. It's far easier that way, simpler to understand, since everything black and white (good vs evil) is so quickly framed when there's no messy grey in the way. Thus the toppling of statues and the whitewashing of subjects to be studied, cancelling speeches to be heard, and removing books to be read.. and students passing no matter their grades. It's censorship by and from the ignorant, aided and abetted by elders because they're so afraid of the public square pyre.
"Good now should have been good then - their grievance then is our grievance now." CRT came from this seed, gestating over decades in academia, and now this stain of discontent has leaped over into other disciplines as the supposedly marginal take center stage, and institutional authorities cave to their incessant demands, even to the point where the advancement of knowledge is compromised - as amply described in the essay.
And that is where the line must be drawn. At the university faculty level. Death and destruction isn't necessary. Professors must be allowed to fight back and defend themselves against their students (sorry to say it that way). And universities must defend their right to do so and basically tell their microaggressed sanctimonious student body that if they don't like what they hear in class - they can leave. And take their parents' money with them.
And perhaps that's where the real cause here lies - universities are too wedded to the greenback, and not to the concept of free speech and unfettered and dynamic learning. They know better, but refuse to act..
Abetted by the fact that academics no longer govern themselves of their institution.
Academic faculty are outnumbered in an explosion of andministrators, who are themselves capable of rabble rousing students and using them to bully and shame their teachers. These enemies within are by a wide margin created by government bodies, funded by those same masters. "It's good to be King."
It’s not about ignorance from K-12 or the university. It’s about playing pretend and attacking and hurting those who refuse to play the game. Germans in the 30s were far from uneducated. The pretended that their problems were caused by Jews, gypsies, gays, etc. If you didn’t agree to play by their rules, well, you know what happened.
No, it’s about there being a highly developed, malignant delusional system, and consequences of not buying into it. Much has been written about the problems associated with being sane in insane environments. Eventually people, even delusional ones, have to confront reality. The only question is how much damage they’ll do--to themselves and others--before that happens. 
Luana stated, “The censors and gatekeepers simply assume—without evidence—that human population research is malign and must be shut down.” However, I would agree with Joe. They know the research will not support their fairy tale so they attack anyone who won’t pretend with them.
That’s a truism. But you can’t use logic to treat mental illness. This is dangerously severe psychopathology. If it isn’t strongly and consistently resisted, it will turn into the American version of the third reich. It’s been trying to go that way for some time now.
I don’t see people like AOC, Biden, hopefully not Fetterman tomorrow, etc. as the main problems here. I see the people who elected them as the main things that need to scare the cookies out us.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that historical ignorance is a large part of the problem. As have others, I've pointed out that much of the argument about the dangers of cross sex hormones has been known for half a century (through their use in athletics). Yet, it seems that many have remained conveniently ignorant of the debacle.
China recovered from the insanity of the 'Cultural Revolution'. I have read the books written by Cixin Liu ('The Three-Body Problem'). He supports the CPC and the CPC supports him. The books are bitterly critical of the 'Cultural Revolution' (actually, that is an understatement). I have also read the works of Jung Chang ('Wild Swans'). She is not a supporter of the CPC. She is also bitterly critical of the 'Cultural Revolution'.
America is now the country going through its own Cultural Revolution. I’ll write about this phenomenon on my blog sometime soon. Basically, the way American academia operates is just like how the CCP operated back in the 60s.
However, Not sure if China has completely recovered from the Cultural Revolution. There were book burnings, and the ancient culture was completely destroyed.
How will America, and indeed the West, fare? Time will tell.
I was reflecting on this parallel earlier today but without knowing a lot about the Cultural Revolution, so didn't fully trust my observations. Please do write about it! Americans absolutely need to hear from people with first-hand understanding of the Cultural Revolution who are alarmed at the parallels and the accelerating loss of freedoms in the US. Most seem blind to it, or if somewhat aware seem to be looking in the wrong directions for the causes and potential solutions.
"I support Common Sense, Musk's intended transformation of Twitter"
We are indeed devolving back into the Dark Ages. Ignorance is the elixir which allows Marxists to thrive. Mankind’s (yea, I used a sexist, patriarchal term) possible saving grace is that there are still those among us who have benefited from an enlightened education. Luana Maoja has sounded a clarion call to those so blessed to reaffirm and nurture it. Bless you for answering.
A lady by the name of Yeonmi Park, has stated that 'Columbia is crazier than North Korea'. She is almost certainly right. There are already examples, of western scientists going to China because there is more academic freedom in China than in their countries.
I can see why Ms. Park would say that. North Korea at least doesn’t hide its authoritarian nature. While elite colleges in America act like they’re bastions of independent thought while actively censoring opinions. Bari Weiss herself went to Columbia and came under fire for her views on Israel.
Jew-hate is strong in the bastions of academe and the left; "Views on Israel" is their bailey. It is sometimes an effort to get there, but you nearly always find it is straight up anti-semitism at root
And if struggle and sacrifice are occurring -- and the simple, small act of courage who just made by posting what you wrote is an example-- the bad guys won't win.
Freedom is something that pops in and out of the American experience, from decade to decade. It is not handed to us on a silver platter, but must be fought for and earned in every generation. We are seeing the dark clouds of totalitarianism closing in on us right now, and it is our duty and obligation -- just as it is for the people of China -- to fight back and clear the skies once again.
This comment is as ignorant as the people we’re horrified by reading about but typical for the readership of this forum. Most people who became leftists became that because they can’t stand authoritarianism and suppression of dissent. The ones who have THAT written on their banner are the people who invited Victor Orban to be their keynote speaker and have an actual plan for turning the country into an autocracy, rather than touting deranged ideas about what social justice is and canceling science. Not that that isn’t horrifying enough. It’s just that the actual end of democracy won’t come from that direction.
Uwe, the modern left is utterly intolerant of free speech / dissent / etc. Have you ever heard of cancel culture. Let me clue you in. The practitioners of cancel culture are on the left, not the right. You can rant and rave about Victor Orban all you want, but the reality is left-wing censorship, not right-wing censorship. Go read the Harper's letter if you doubt this. Let me quote from the Harper's letter.
"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. "
You're absolutely right about the cancel culture but I would say it's not about being intolerant to free speech, and this applies to both sides, it's denial of an view point other than their own. The left cancels it and the right calls it lies. There's no end until we bring decency back at the national level and respect the other side and agree to disagree in a civil way.
Peter, I left the school where I taught graduate students when the woke took over 20 years ago because I knew I'd get cancelled sooner or later. I know more about this disaster than most people do. What I don't understand is how the same people can abhor this and not be more worried about the criminal psychopaths who staged a bloody coup, lie for sport, and won't rest until Trump gets his Putin-Style kleptocracy established in this country. On a forum that I thought would be read by centrist people with common sense. There is no limit to the tribalism and the madness of crowds here.
Do crazy people exist across the political spectrum? Sure they do. Do crazy people exist on the right? Sure they do. Do crazy people exist on the left? Sure they do. However, there is a deep difference. The crazy people on the left control the ‘commanding heights on society. The crazy people on the right control nothing.
Don’t mistake riots for coups. Real coups require police/military support. Did Trump have any police/military support? No, he did not. Did he try to get any police/military support? No, he did not. Let me quote from General M. Milley (hardly a Trump supporter).
“You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns.”
Uwe - those alleged criminal are in jail and being held without due process. There was no coup and the only deaths were to protestors. If you want to talk about kleptocracy, you seem to be ignoring the corruption of the Clinton and Biden crime syndicates. If you have to rely on a disorganized, short lived protest on the People's House to buttress your position, perhaps you should look closely at your position.
You seem to be clinging to the view of a handful of protestors and ignoring the trainloads of abuse that really matter. And I'm using that metaphor intentionally. If the left gets their way, they will establish "re-education" centers for "wrong-thinkers" and if millions of them die during the process, oh well.
Your tribe is no different than my tribe. Your madness matches my madness. So let's have at it.
For a not-at-all-deranged analysis of what 'social justice' is and its effects on the West, 'The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World' by Andrew Doyle.
Without reading it I can predict that's not about what social justice IS but about making it a religion and perverting it into its partial opposite. It's one of the achievements of the enlightenment but that concept is Old Hat now on the left and it was always the enemy of the right. And the center that cares is of no further interest to anyone...
You are incorrect. Leftists became leftists because they hate authoritarianism that is not controlled by them.
The end of democracy in the US, if it happens, will come from the left. It has started and the only question is will it be stopped before it takes complete control.
Uwe, you won't like this but the people who shouted 'Hang Mike Pence' are at the bottom of society. The people enforcing radical PC are at the top. They run the media, Hollywood, K-12 education, academia, the CIA/FBI, the military, Tech, SV, Wall Street, corporate America, etc. Perhaps you can see the difference.
And the people who invited Orban to speak at CPAC are the leaders of the Republican Party. They are at the top of society, not the bottom, and therefore pose as much danger to our culture as the repressiion-obsessed left.
It is high time for American voters to throw out our harebrained extremists, end the culture wars, and demand a return to such governmental "radicalism" as filling potholes, ensuring public safety, fixing water pipes, and the million and one other parts of public service we've abandoned in favor of memes, Tweets, clicks, likes, and Rageahol.
CPAC is at the fringes of American society. MSNBC and CNN hardly are. The reality is that the left (far-left) dominates the institutions of American society (American culture would be more accurate).
CPAC may be at the fringes of American society, but it's the heart and soul of the MAGA-drenched Republican Party. The Democratic Party is not owned by the hard left as the GOP is owned by the hard right.
The far left dominates higher education, certainly. What other institutions does it dominate, in your view? The way I see it, media skew liberal but not hard left; for every MSNBC there is FOX. Military is right. Courts are right. Congress is left and right with little sensible middle. Local politics are mixed, as are local education. Business is right but not hard right.
'What other institutions does it dominate, in your view?' Just a few including K-12 education, NGOs, Hollywood, Tech, SV, Wall Street, the FBI/CIA, the military, the media (most of it), corporate America, etc.
You can argue that MSNBC is somehow balanced by Fox. However, CNN is as biased as MSNBC. See "The AllSides Media Bias Chart™" for some information.
These days corporate America is not right, but generally far-left. Do I need to mention Disney in this context? However, there is a video of Jamie Dimon 'taking a knee'. Beyond that who actually pays for the like of Robin DiAngelo? Who pays for Ibram Kendi? These folks don't come cheap.
Simply put yet profound, caused me to pause and really see the danger of the woke. It may be short timed though. The whole woke culture is powered by the young, and facilitated by social media, who think of it as being on the "right side", a revolution if you will. I doubt they look past the surface on any issue at that age. When they grow up and have bills to pay and send kids to school there will probably be a new in thing.
When I was young, my parents immigrated with me to the United States from China. I was told, and I really thought, that America, with its Constitution and Bill of Rights, was more "free" than Communist China. Yet when I went to college for the first time, all I found was censorship and struggle sessions. I can confirm that what Dr. Maroja is saying here is absolutely happening in campuses all across America.
I thought college was for free discussion of beliefs, but all I found was a panopticon-style environment where students told on each other over their beliefs. I don't know if America really is the "land of the free" anymore.
College was for free discussion less than a generation ago. It's unbelievable how fast the rot has spread.
College should be a hotbed of diverse ideas. Ideas should flow freely not be controlled a fascists tyrants.
This is appearing even in STEM research. Many grant proposals now require a DEI statement. This might have some value but these DEI impact statements are evaluated, at least partly, from critical studies perspectives. Thus, they need to be written as if one fully embraces the PC DEI view of groups > individuals, etc.
In Canada it is now at the point that unless you pass the DEI review stage your project won't be funded or even reviewed on its technical merrit. POC with decades of experience and a track record of succes at graduating POC scientists have had projects rejected because they said or implied that each new student be treated as an individuals first and member of some groups second.
Hark! And I think you approach the root cause and point towards the solution.
When I entered Engineering school in college (in 1970) there were some “flunk out” classes in math and chemistry. If a student couldn’t pass them, they either got help or changed majors. That was for their own good, as they would’ve been headed for bigger failures downstream - they were simply in the wrong field or just not ready.
What wouldn’t happen is to demand that the professor change the class or that the administration force professor to do so. The student would get a very kind feedback about not signing up for failure down the road that wasted big bucks (or worse yet, introduce physical risk to people).
And later as a manager in industry (nuclear power in my case but apply the same thing in almost any other field) I wouldn’t keep someone in a job they weren’t capable of doing. But I did spend time finding those who’d work a job better suited to their skills / knowledge.
I see the failure here as largely stacked on the “leaders”. Would you let a toxic product come out of your factory so as not to hurt some ill-equipped employee’s feelings? Or would you let someone who can’t spell publish news stories ? OOPS, bad example there, but you get my point.
Bad examples? Pfizer comes to mind. It seems to be pharma's whole schtick.
This reminds me of a perturbing experience almost 20 years ago. Our geophysics lab was mostly Japanese researchers and post-docs, with one Turk, and two white Americans including me. My other white colleague, a grad student, was unable to do the math required, and we had to carry him.
It was extremely vexing to have him excuse himself as impaired by ADD, since I have diagnosed ADD, whatever that is, and I had no difficulty whatsoever scoring in the 99.9% in math. He was given extended time on his tests due to his "disability." His scores did not accurately reflect his inability, but it became apparent when he was called on to do real work. I'm sure he was brighter than average. More than that is required in geophysics.
Labeling of the natural range of intellectual ability as a disability by schools, when one is lower than one would like, is one underpinning of the current entitled attitude.
Absolutely true. Personal experience in the U.S. I know successful scientists who have had to do these performances, who are afraid to challenge them because they genuinely fear for their income. Big problem.
The sad thing is 80% of their colleagues agree.
We have a Supreme Court Justice that was so afraid to answer “what a woman is” she deferred to the “experts” instead of being brave enough to answer what she already knows.
The only way to stop this is a new President and Congress, to root out this crap and end it, before all the good people have been driven out of the sciences and academia and medicine.
D.I.E. Never has value once you understand what it means.
We know there are somewhere near 100,000,000 humans killed by the very governments sworn to protect them in the name of Equity in the past 100 years. “D” and “I” are equally sinister.
Perfectly put. To bad none of our academics remember what PolPot did in the name of equity and social justice:
“We each have our own woke tipping point—the moment you realize that social justice is no longer what we thought it was, but has instead morphed into an ugly authoritarianism.”
The author doesn’t realize “social justice” has ALWAYS been evil.
Social justice is dehumanizing injustice. It says, "you are a collective, not an individual, bad responsible for your collective." Social justice is tribalism.
It can be, if more people like you speak out against this censorship.
"It can be"....so, there's just as much censorhip in China as in America?
Would we have this message board in China or would that not be allowed?
Naw, man... I can't say for *certain,* but I seriously *doubt* there's as much censorship in America as there is in China.
That doesn't mean America is free, as it is.
Is it better or worse than China?
Far worse. After Mao, Deng offered a new deal: become rich, and shut up. Tell me what is different in Beijing's capture of Hong Kong than what occurs in China. Xi doesn't (yet) order fenestration.
x
The woke little imbeciles are latter day Red Guards and Young Pioneers.
Nothing more.
I just read this and it buttresses what I have been saying all along. The Republicans are not predicting the demise of democracy. It's prominent democrats that have been saying this, including the ever senile Joe, that if the Republicans win the midterms, it will be the end of our democracy.
Read this and tell me who is more liable to destroy our democracy. They openly dismiss and discount the average person. I will go as far as they hate the average American. When Hillary lost to Trump, she called us rabble.
The old term limousine liberal was used decades ago to describe the odious, power hunger elite and it applies today. Read this and see if I am wrong:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-biden-s-bizarre-closing-argument-shut-up-moocher/ar-AA13S0L2?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1cb1df92478541829c05add81502fe43
This is my last comment for the day, so I'll take a shot at You, LP, and then run fer the hills. ;-)
I read the article but didn't pay attention to it much. Here's how I looked at it: It was original from the Washington Examiner, which I like. They're what I would call "soft-Right." They're always right, but IIRC, they're not beholden to Trump. They *may* under Trump's sway. I'm not *swearing* on it. But that's my recollection. And they seem fairly accurate.
This here article is just propaganda. The reason I say that is that the things I look for in articles is direct quotes, and links to articles besides the ones they write themselves. I look at Twitter links, but that's about all I do with them. Secondary sources and quotes. This article had none-a that. IOW, I would-a liked to see what Biden actually said, and then make up my own mind.
Here it is in a nutshell: These guys are either preaching to the choir or telling You what Your supposed to think.
Please NOTE: I'm not saying what they said was WRONG. Mebbe it was. I'm sure at least some-a it was right. But it wasn't something to convince me, one way or the other. That's just me.
TY for post, LP. Day done. Enjoy... (Mebbe tomorrow. Mebbe not. ;-)
The challenge is to effectively communicate with these young people. We need to attend to the importance of this.
It is emotionally gratifying to vent, and safe enough to do so in this column of like-minded thinkers.
Yet contempt will close that door. It blinds the speaker with its intoxicating self-congratulation; I struggle always to rise above my own worst impulses.
It is hard enough, as young people often dismiss any possible wisdom or experience from their elders. (I dimly recall a similar skepticism, outgrown now.) Immigrants may have more credibility, with personal stories to tell.
But let us not merely complain. Let us not only resist. Let us consider how to genuinely reach our newest generations, with care and sympathy. Can we win only by battle, by validating the assertion that domination is primary? Is there a way to open hearts and minds, cooperatively?
If you want to "effectively communicate with these young people" you must start by gathering a million or so followers on some social media platform, preferably TikTok. You should also be able to communicate in short burst that incorporate some words, but also dance, and constant changes of imagery. You need to be able to say "like" a lot, and to have, like a lot of, like, social currency, like oppression, and intersectionality. And to always come from a position of liberation, so it's not "pizza is bad for you, and kale is good, but pizza is oppressive and kale is liberating.
On a serious note, they truly speak a different language and live in a different reality.
Humor aside, this is a useful suggestion! The humor was pretty good, too! You are so right about keeping it positive.
I have a mere 83 Twitter followers because I have been pretty inactive. I admit to liking the dancing on TikTok, and have a weakness for Z's poking gentle fun at Millenials. I can do 3-D and animation and movies. Hmm.
You have got me thinking. Really good proposal! Taking it seriously. Thanks!
No, let's put fear into their little authoritarian hearts.
A much better motivator..
As "Old Nick" taught to wanna' be princes: Better to be hated than to loved.
I agree. jt doesn't. What else can you call all of these woke students and faculty, who burst into class demanding people explain their whit privilege and demand the curriculum be change to express their far left BS. Sounds like Red Guard to me.
Sorry, but I was way ahead of You "liking" this one.
I've *said* same about the Red Guards, and take it on faith they're like the Young Pioneers.
I'd appreciate it, LP, if You wouldn't invent opinions for me that I do NOT hold.
I apologize.
Apology NOT accepted! (because none needed ;-) Nice a Ya, tho.
Ignoramoose. "Young Pioneers?" If You have time/interest, Sir Bruce.
Sadly, you may need to add some historical context so the snowflakes out there can appreciate your point.
I keep thinking more and better education on economics and history would do a lot to divest young people of a lot of their misconceptions. Why isn't that happening?
You're right, but some-a the non-snowflakes as well. ;-)
The First Amendment is under constant threat from the left and the Dems not only love it, they support it and cheer these woke assholes on.
I went to college in the early 90s and I felt incredibly free. We were encouraged to explore weird ideas and make connections. It was a blast, and I learned a lot, including how to be a critical thinker. When I hear how restricted campuses are now it makes me really sad.
I went to school in the 1980's, for years I believed that the intent of university wasn't to teach me certain facts, formulas, etc. The intent (at that time) was to teach independent thinking, and problem solving.
I was evidently wrong
I went to University in the late 70's, early 80's and I can tell you that the professors expected you to regurgitate their leftist viewpoints. (Granted I was in the Humanities.) A diversity of viewpoint usually ended in a bad grade. Back then, I figured I just wasn't smart enough to argue the counter position and maybe so, but the professors wouldn't even engage in a discussion on other points of view. The only thing that seems to have changed from my experience (which was at the Univ of California) is that people didn't get canceled back then for having the wrong thoughts - maybe ignored, maybe laughed at, but not canceled.
I had a few profs like that in the ‘90s.
I always used two blue books per exam. In one, the regurgitated pablum.
I’m the other, what I actually thought based upon the evidence provided.
I dared them to fail me. I had no qualms at all about going to the academic board and laying it all out.
Those profs hated me and the feeling was mutual but in the end they graded me fairly.
I like your approach very much!
My experience also...
You make a good point. It is my impression that current ideologies hardened in humanities departments, and are only recently penetrating STEM.
My degree was in a hard science. We focussed on empirical evidence, the importance of testable hypotheses with differentiating outcomes, the distinction between hypothesis and supported theory. We were humbled by what we did not know, how often accepted wisdom has been found to be either dramatically false or subtly incomplete.
STEM hubris lay in the practical success of science-based technology. Science faculty gave up a hand on the reins to indulge that passion for discovery. Surely no one would propose killing the golden goose?
Perhaps STEM will be an academic area where effective resistance coalesces!
"Perhaps STEM will be an academic area where effective resistance coalesces!"
Not been paying attention have you? They have pretty much all fallen. Have you seen the Bollocks "Nature" has been putting about lately? Last hopes were pinned on Chicago for some reason. Didn't work out; pronounced dead a year or so ago.
Alice, I hope so. My degree was in engineering. I'm afraid that the "math is racist" types are infecting there too. Eventually, nature will whack them upside the head, but I'm afraid they are going to get some people killed in the meantime.
When the bridges begin to collapse and the planes start falling from the skies we will say how ridiculous this whole thing was. I really hope it doesn't come to that but you never know.
It's already happened. Point your search engine at "Miami bridge collapse 2018". This was a bridge designed by Florida International University students.
might be the difference. My major was mechanical engineering, not much gray area to argue about. Other difference is the school I attended was in Texas, possibly we were slow adapters down here.
Welcome to the new United States, post revolution. These are the Socialist States of America. This was the "radical change" my generation demanded.
Now they accuse me of being an extremist for resisting it.
the Sixties "radicals" were idiots.
They are alive and well today.
I have been calling the Dem Party the Communist Party for over a year and people treat me like I am not in touch with reality. I think they are the ones not in touch with what is happening. They are in denial.
The hard left on this BBS can't refute what the author of today's subject has said but they sure will belittle if and call people who defend her article names. It is the best they can do.
This continues our previous discussion.
You actually hurt the cause You would fight for. You're spreading, essentially, the lie that the Woke Religion is the same thing as the Dems.
You're the one in denial. The Bari and the author are likely to be a Dems themselves. What crime did *they* commit? Who is helped if they are accused of being Dems?
The worst of it Your blindness is that Dems have some good ideas. You'll *never* entertain the notion, which is an obvious FACT. You think You guys/gals here are the ones with *all* the answers? I got some bad news for You guys/gals.
That's enough for me. Mebbe too much. But these are serious questions I ask.
Agree, JT. Recent hysteria about Penn State protest of Proud Boy speaker (got canceled, etc.). “Hundreds” of students protested (news reports). The campus has 40,000 students. I believe the same data set can be used for the Democratic Party. The “woke” crowd (still working on a definition) if party affiliated are more likely Democrats than Republicans. But, not all Democrats are “woke.” On the other side I would guess that most Proud Boys. III’percenters, etc. are Republicans, if registered to a party, it does not make all Republicans white national racist militants (if that is what you believe these groups are). And while I cannot criticize what Ms. Ping experienced at Sarah Lawrence, by way of example, she extends her experience there to reach the conclusion that this is happening at all campuses nationwide. Maybe it is, maybe its not, but experience at one college is not adequate data for over 4,000 colleges in the US.
I agree with all-a that. There aren't gonna be any statistics on how many places are Woke. But anecdotes indicate more are going Woke than retreating from that view.
I am sure, OK also un-researched, that there are elements of “woke” on every college campus, as there are BLM supporters, gay rights supporters, pro-life supporters, gun supporters, etc. My beef on the college campuses is when the administrations/powers that be cave in to any group, ideology, etc. I am a fan of hearing what people have to say, especially on college campuses. If you don’t want to hear what they have to say, don’t go. If you want to protest, do so outside, peacefully (I hate pop-up protesting in the auditorium). Other students may be interested in attending (who planned to attend the Proud Boy speaker event) and were denied that opportunity. What’s more frustrating at times is when these incidents go through the ringer in conversations like these threads as absolutely exemplifying all students on all college campuses, or the population as a whole.
I see what You're "saying," M. Toretto.
No, it's not all. Unfortunately, the Woke Religion holds the power in just about all the institutions, AFAIK. And they're not gonna turn over a new leaf, and give up that power.
JT, I come at this differently. As I taught my kids a long time ago, you start any analysis by following the money. Colleges, especially private high-tuition colleges (like the author’s Williams College), are a business. And, like any other business, they want to attract customers -- students for 4 years, and donations from alumni for years to come. For example, Williams College, has about 2,000 students, and a tuition that runs $60,000 or so. Alumni kick in around $13 million or so each year in donations. There's a lot of money at stake. This Forbes article https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/09/06/new-survey-how-2022s-high-school-seniors-approached-college-applications/?sh=73c9c8555fb7 summarizes a Forbes survey of 2022 high school seniors (21,000 responses). If you scroll down, you will find this: “Diversity was the most important campus community factor to students, with 84% saying that a diverse student body was appealing, and 46% of those saying that it was a “must-have.” Diversity among faculty and staff was also important, with 81% wanting it and 40% of those saying it was a must-have feature. Matters of diversity were important to students from underrepresented groups (89%) as well as those who were not from underrepresented groups (79%).”
Not surprised, then, that likely any college will have a diversity, equity and inclusion goal/statement/department/staff (diversity of students, faculty, and thought – the latter questionable in this space). Further, the college’s administration would not want anything to jeopardize the school’s reputation along these lines which in effect can jeopardize their bottom line (and their jobs). I don’t disagree that “woke” issues hold power, because as I already pointed out in the Penn State protest, even very few students (100 on a campus of 40,000) can raise hell enough to give the campus a very public black eye easily seen by potential future customers or alumni donors. My guess then is not that most college administrators themselves are woke, or members of the Woke Religion, or really believe some of this stuff, but they are protecting their brand, the expectations of their present, past and future customers, and their jobs.
I'm not disagreeing with Your analysis at all. If I implied anything along those lines I didn't write it right.
But as far as this being *strictly* a money problem? *Sure,* You wanna follow the money. And, *sure,* one-a the biggest problems in college education came about when they decided they were a business instead-a an institution to teach.
But let's get real. As a *practical* matter, does it matter one iota whether the college administrators are going along with the Woke acolytes because they really believe, or because their jobs depend on it?
The result is the same. They're like the French collaborators, during the Nazi occupation. Yeah, some-a them might *claim* they were just doing their job.
Well if it's not the Dems who support woke, who does? It sure as hell it's not the right that supports woke. The Dems support BLM, ANTIFA and I believe woke.
When was the last time you heard a Dem official speak out against woke? Just give me one example. That is all I ask.
C'mon man! You were a coder, right? Programmer?
Yeah, all the Woke are Dems. No argument. But NO WAY JOSE are all Dems Woke. It's mathematically impossible, because most people are just living their lives day-to-day. They don't have a lotta time or attention to spend on sites like this one. They may have some vague ideas about Woke, but it doesn't even have a proper name recognized by everybody!
https://tarahenley.substack.com/p/the-trouble-with-woke
The Woke are a cloudform that's hard to even see, let alone describe.
I don't believe all Democrats are woke but the ones in power are. Name one Dem senator or representative that has criticized the woke movement or on that has criticized BLM or Antifa.
Also, the woke movement was created by the left.
You're half-way there, LP!
Like I "said" above, the problem is that the President and the people than run the party and the kids that get involved are Woke to the core. A lotta these the ones who Biden wants to pay off their student debt for.
But the Senators? ICBW, but I very *seriously* doubt they could tell Ya what Woke *IS.* Unless it starts costing them elections, I just don't believe it's on most-a those guys radar. When You talk about the Leftists, they're thinkin AOC and that lot. I doubt they've actually read the High Priests of the Woke Religion. Because if they *had,* they'd likely bow down and be talking UP how great BLM is.
(None-a them are gonna praise Antifa, of course. They just say Antifa doesn't even *exist.* Same way a lotta You guys/gals say the election was stolen.)
So, yeah, most-a the ones in power are Woke. And, yeah, it was created by the Leftists in the Universities, starting with CRT (Critical Race Theory) in the 1980s. Both my Sisters are Ds. I doubt they know much about the Woke Religion, other than the little bit I sprinkle in on the very *rare* occasion to Younger-Sister.
I will agree with you that not all Dems are woke but the leadership of the party has been captured by this and that is what matters. If the heads of the party pushed back against this it might end but they aren't. The current administration fights daily against the idea of not giving kids puberty blockers, the idea that all the evils of the world come from white people and white supremacist's is daily on the lefts talk shows. Try and watch the view and watch the clapping seals in their audience. It doesn't need to be all of them just the most influential among them.
Right, JT. Insert my standard statement about liberalism and leftism being very different things. However, it is true that a lot of the party leadership -- the people who have the ability to influence the direction of the party -- are woke.
Yeah, Sir Slamma. The people who *run* the D party and the kids who do a lotta legwork are members of the Woke Religion, and they're driving Biden in that direction. It's a shame. If I ever cried, I'd say it's a cryin shame.
The problem is the wokes dictate dem policy. What part of the modern democrat platform is not woke? And what is that platform? Unlimited abortion? Woke. Defunding police/bail reform? Woke. Diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives? Woke. Climate alarmism? Woke. ESG initiatives? Woke. Hate speech is not free speech and anything we don't like his hate speech? Woke. These ideologies and policies have captured the democrat party, big business, and government and it is frightening.
I'll answer You, M William, and M Rick Coat at the same time.
Sorry, but neither of You is telling me anything I don't know. I'm saying the current administration doesn't represent the rank and file very well. Biden ran as a centrist. He turned out to be anything but. Like You both "said" more-or-less correctly.
But Biden had one advantage going for him. He wasn't Trump. There were a crap-pot full-a Ds that weren't all that much in favor of Biden, but were sure gonna vote *against* Trump. Rank and file of the Ds, a lotta them.
What do the rank and file democrat want? What is a modern day democrat? The policies put forth above - including the anti-science gender dysphoria- are insane.
I guess Biden ran as a centrist, I couldn't really tell you what he ran on - other than not being Trump - b/c he hardly campaigned. I do remember him telling illegal migrants to come in droves b/c he was going to open the border and that he was going to end the oil industry. Are those consider centrist positions to rank and file democrats?
I have a fairly good idea what the republican platform is: school choice, less government regulation, energy independence, tough on crime, etc.
What is the democrat platform? Sex changes for kids, end charter schools, soft on crime, no limit abortions, rapid end of fossil fuels, proxy wars, tax hikes, build back better via massive printing of money and overall greater and greater government control and societal dependence?
Yeah, the Woke Religion is insane.
The rest? You haven't studied the platforms as much You think, from what I can see.
You're right I haven't, can only go off campaign ads that I've seen and I forgot to mention gun control. But I'm honestly asking, what is the centrist dem platform? What separates a centrist dem from a republican? I feel like I could sum up the rights platform in sentence or two, what is the equivalent for a rank and file democrat voter?
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Well done!
The Democrat leadership (Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, etal) most likely made a decision to sell out and cave to the left when they chose Obama-Mr. “we’re going to fundamentally transform America”-which they probably did because they cared more about winning the presidency than about the health and stability of our country. What’s curious to me is how traditional Dem voters couldn’t see who he was then, and still can’t see what’s happened to the party as a result. And alot of that is due to the complicity of the press, which has been prosecuting an undeclared war against anyone who dares challenge the Democrat party’s candidates, officeholders, and platform. It’s all very disconcerting.
What Luana describes is horrifying.
Still, what I observed and experienced on a pre-pandemic visit to China makes me encourage you to stay here and not return to China.
Remember those two Canadians who were detained as hostages in exchange for the Huawei CFO? Could have been me. Right before their arrest, I was detained at the China border as I was leaving for Hong Kong. I got released with no apology. The government was looking for bigger fish apparently.
Stay in the US and protest academic totalitarianism here!
I always tell people on the left who curse the U.S. if they hate the oppression in the U.S. so much go to the workers' paradise like China and North Korea. I have yet to see any of these nincompoops do that.
Hell, I'd buy their one way plane ticket.
I've proposed this before, but non-seriously. Your idea, which is a good one in theory, is my answer about what reparations are needed.
You won't be arrested for saying that. You don't yet have a social credit score. But many people are working hard to change that.
Be afraid, but don't give up hope. Most Americans are not insane, and if we band together, we may just be able to reverse all of this over time.
They came for the unionist & I did nothing. Then they came for the Communists & I did nothing. Then they came for the Jews & I did nothing. Then they came for the Catholics & I did nothing. Then they came for me! Too many Americans are followers led perhaps by the insane.
I might have agreed with this statement except you included the the Communists in there. I think there are a good number of them in today's woke culture. Most of this crap comes from Marxists ideas.
Third hand, once removed. It is a direct descendant, but then Marxism itself is just Xtianity without the God bits. These daft ideas are forever but continually morph on from failure.
Yes! Resist the "Digital ID" at all costs.
At all costs in fact whatever faith pray hard very hard!
There is already a system in America that is essentially a social credit score. It’s called cancel culture. Any accusation of going against established doctrine will lead to a mob of people spreading malicious rumors about you, effectively destroying your reputation. The woke mob spares no one.
Don't forget the ESG scores for businesses.
True, but it is vastly less far along on the continuum, and I really think it is starting to backfire.
Sort of related...Saturday Night Live has been so left I gave up on watching it. Today I read that they are having Dave Chappel host in November. Wonders never cease. Maybe they are learning that being such a one sided buzz kill is good for ratings?
If you want som, edgy laughs with a conservative bent you should check out Gutfeld! He's crushing late night. You can also catch him on YouTube
Not only do I watch every episode I have tickets to his show in NYC. Quite excited!
Gutfield is good, but still not a good enough reason to visit NYC. ;-)
Its a forced trip for work so I figured I may as well do this.
Have a great time!
Late night "news comedy" shows like John Oliver and Trevor Noah have taken SNL's place in the viewing tastes of college-educated liberals.
They both not funny anymore Trevor Noah I find at times absolutely disgusting.
"There is already a system in America that is essentially a social credit score. It’s called cancel culture."
That's a good point. And it is already being embraced by the federal government throughout federal agencies.
It's inescapable these days. On social media, in academia, in the workplace...
Progressives used to fight for due process. Now they don't want the accused to be allowed to defend themselves.
Due process issues arising from non discrimination and non harassment policies, typically enacted pursuant to DEI initiatives, are an important point. If an academic is formally accused of discrimination and/or harassment, many institutions protect the complainant by not allowing the accused to read the written complaint. The accused is hamstrung and unable to adequately prepare a defense without knowing the precise nature of the complaints. Educational institutions wrote these policies to correct the power imbalance between the complainant and the accused, but they arguably go too far and create due process issues. Moreover, if the complaint is not substantiated, there are instances where accused does not receive written findings which clear his/her name from the institution which investigated the complaint. Cancel culture seems to protect the complainant at the expense of the accused from defamation and being able to adequately defend oneself. These cases are winding up in court.
Oh, make no mistake. The purpose of those procedures is to shift blame for the institution's social and cultural problems onto the scapegoat class, whoever it is. That way, the university itself does not have to address them. That's one reason why the number of men on campus has declined so drastically.
Are the due process issues intentional? Or are they result of administrators not thinking through the ramifications of anti discrimination and anti harassment policies? Sometimes I wonder if administrators follow procedures designed to fulfill DEI initiatives without considering the possibility of some complaints being filed in bad faith.
With at least some of them, they're intentional. Yes, some of the people implementing them are do-gooders, and some are apparatchiks. But back around 1995, I had the opportunity to ask David Horowitz a question on a radio show. (The David Horowitz I'm talking about was a radical leader in California in the 1960s, who edited the far-left Ramparts magazine, among other things.) I asked him about civil rights and the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, and asked him, "What happened?" His reply was rather chilling: "We only wanted our rights so we could use them to take away everyone else's rights." I've never looked at the Left the same way since. I later found Tom Hayden's quote about what percentage of the American population would have to be Final Solution-ed in order to bring about the utopian society. He estimated about 20%.
"Resistance is futile" is their goal.
As an older American who witnessed from afar evidence from the Chinese Cultural Revolution, collapse of the USSR and more, it has been extremely surprising to see Marxist and totalitarian ideas re-emerge in the U.S. I am impressed by how effectively these ideologies pathologically enlist the spirits of envy and grievance latent in all people.
Government and institutions have always faced the problem of how to engender enough popular support to remain in power. Reason, evidence, free thought require more from the general population than confident diktat and repression do.
We have two problems. Historical ignorance has been fostered by a weak k-12 education system. At the university level and now reaching to k-12, malignant, self-serving propaganda is salted with a small grain of truth and social justice, rendering the poison savory.
I support Common Sense, Musk's intended transformation of Twitter, and other resistance to liberalism's takeover by authoritarianism. Peng's concern is warranted. History shows that it often takes death, destruction, truly dire outcomes, to eventually reinstate a period of liberal values. I so hope these values will not be defeated.
Good for you. The American version of the Red Guard is upon us. Same as the old Guard. I have heard Chinese scholars in private and far from China say to each other in private"Thank heaven the US exists.
"Liberalism" hasn't taken over authoritarianism; it is authoritarianism. It always has been and always will be.
NK, I disagree. A famous liberal of the 1960s (MLK) stated "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." He was right then, and still is.
And he would be considered a radical right winger by today's "liberals".
Perhaps part of the problem in discourse is lumping together today's left, which is very illiberal, with yesterday's left which was somewhat liberal - at least philosophically. (Politically, there were - and still are - authoritarian. They only "fought the power" because the power wasn't them.)
Imagine a politician today saying "Ask now what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
There is good evidence JFK stole his election or had it stolen for him. In his personal life he was the dregs of humanity. Don't sanctify arse-whipes.
JFK was a traditional Democrat of the FDR/post-FDR period. That meant that the core of his constituency was private sector trade unions (AFL/CIO). On social issues, he would be considered 'far right' by the woke. However, on economic issues he was left-of-center. The fall of the Iron Curtain (and the rise of China) was the de-facto end of conventional class-based Marxism. For better or worse (mostly worse), the left has adopted Gramscian Marxism as a replacement.
Ok...just looked up Gramscian...agreed...
Never thought there would be a philosophical underpinning to their madness. I just thought it was madness.
I actually don't think Gramsci was all that influential in the US and other English speaking countries. I think the 'failure' of 60s liberalism was far more important. I put 'failure' in quotes because I am not so convinced 60s style liberalism was a failure (or completely a failure). Let me use blind auditions for orchestras as an example.
Blind auditions did lead to a noteworthy rise in the number of successful female and Asian musical performers. The number of successful black and Hispanic performers did not change significantly. So were blind auditions a success or a failure? I will point out that blind auditions are now being attacked by the NYT (‘To Make Orchestras More Diverse, End Blind Auditions’). Below you will find my comments on the current situation. I wrote these notes some time ago.
I don't disagree with your analysis. I too tend toward the view that 'woke' is a clever way for the beneficiaries of globalization to deflect class resentment (which might otherwise arise). The problem with this theory is that the ‘woke’ don’t agree. Indeed, they vehemently disagree. Try convincing Hannah Jones that she is an agent of the economic elite.
I would offer that following analysis
Cultural Marxism goes back to at least the 1920s. Of course, CM has (vastly) proliferated of late. At least four reasons come to mind.
1. The rise of Cultural Marxism is too some degree, a consequence of the fall of conventional Marxism. Conventional Marxism was (slowly) dying by the 1950s. The Soviet invasion of Hungary and later Czechoslovakia alienated (or worse) a vast number of people who might have otherwise supported the Communist system. The economic failure of Eastern Europe combined with the great success of the “Little China’s” (Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan) and South Korea was a great blow to the credibility of conventional Marxism. The Cambodian genocide must be mentioned in this context as well. Of course, the fall of the USSR and China’s switch to Capitalism (and subsequent success) were the final nails in the coffin.
My sense of it is that failure of the Soviet system (and Eastern Europe) was a bigger deal than China’s switch to capitalism. The numbers make the converse case. However, I still think the failure of Soviet system (and Eastern Europe) was/is more important. I don’t agree, but that doesn’t matter.
Of course, these were monumental blows to the traditional Left. However, the Left wasn’t about to fold its tent and disappear. For better or worse, a huge section of society will never embrace bourgeois values and will be (highly) motivated to reject them. Since conventional Marxism was “the god that failed”, the Left embraced Cultural Marxism as a substitute. Of course, Cultural Marxism is just as crazy as conventional Marxism (perhaps considerably crazier). However, we don’t have easy country comparisons to show how nuts it is (i.e. no North Korea vs. South Korea).
Blank Slate ideology is arguably nuttier than old-style Marxism. However, we don’t (yet) have a Stalin or Mao to attack as the leader of it (Cultural Marxism).
2. As long at the Left was committed to traditional Socialism/Marxism, the right would move heaven and earth to oppose it. Big corporations, rich people, religious people, some union people, etc. all had powerful incentives to oppose traditional Socialism/Marxism. That meant that anti-communist movements, ideas, intellectuals, etc. were assuredly substantial support as long the enemy was “Real Socialism”.
By contrast, CM provokes no comparable opposition (from big corporations, rich people, religious people, etc.). Actually the reverse is true. Party-line adherence to CM is notoriously profitable for some companies. For example, most Tech firms (Apple is a bad example) would be crucified by Democrats/Liberals/Leftists/etc. for their exploitation of the tax system. In real life, the level of criticism is near nil. By declaring their commitment to CM, they gain de facto immunity from criticism from the Left (the Right wouldn’t criticize them anyway).
At least the indulgences sold by church cost real money. Now you just need to pay lip service to CM.
3. There is also (predictably) a class element to this. Old-style Marxism was inherently (too some degree) a blue-collar worldview. Of course, that was never entirely true. Marx was an intellectual. The cliché that “Marxism is the Opiate of the Intellectuals” existed for a reason. However, conventional Marxism was never going to appeal to white, upper-middle class (UMC), liberals for all sorts of reasons, of which class was definitely an issue.
However, Cultural Marxism has no such problem. White, UMC, liberals can espouse and advocate Cultural Marxism without any contradictions (as they see them) and without restraint. Indeed, they do. Studies (Yascha Mounk) have shown that “woke” progressives are one of the least diverse (in many senses of the word) groups out there. Cultural Marxism gives UMC liberals free reign to denounce “deplorables” to their hearts content. Conventional Marxism would have been much more circumspect. Of course, upscale folks have always wanted to attack (rhetorically and otherwise) the working class. However, conventional Marxism constrained the left (but not the right) from doing so.
Cultural Marxism imposes no such limitations.
4. In my opinion, the failure of liberalism was/is a substantial factor in the rise of CM. In the 1960s (and earlier decades and later decades) it was widely believed that liberalism would work. In other words, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society would produce a (much) better American where poverty and race would not be intertwined and poverty itself would more or less disappear. That didn’t happen of course. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was roughly as successful as his war in Vietnam.
At this point it is obvious that liberalism has failed (in attaining the goals of the 1960s). Some folks have responded to this failure by basically giving up. However, the most motivated have moved to the left (far left). Note that we here far more about “systematic racism” now (when it doesn’t exist) than we did when Jim Crow was a daily reality.
“1. The rise of Cultural Marxism is too some degree, a consequence of the fall of conventional Marxism.”
IMO the USSR’s failure and subsequent disappearance removed the real life illustration of how bad Marxism Leninism actually is.
Those of us 50 and older remember. I took part in the pen pal initiative that started with Gorbachev and the item that sticks with me to this day was my Soviet pen pal’s astonishment that I--a lower class American at the time--could walk into any grocery store and buy oranges, tomatoes, beef and other items without obtaining permission or paying bribes.
What I took for granted was for him an unthinkable luxury.
Without the USSR’s real life example of Marxism in practice, the “travails” of Americans--oh no someone misgendered me, I’m damaged for life!--are much easier to distort into serious problems.
Venezuala is still a thing, so is Cuba. Don't like them apples? Okay, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Don't like the comparisons at all? The USA has been Upper Volta with Rockets for a long time now. What is being peddled now is two or three generations removed from Marxism and only a cousin to Marx-Leninism.
Congatulations though, the USA is now the example of Stupidism in practice for a lot more of us Brits. It is about time it was seen for what it is.
Can't say that I'm familiar with the term "Gramscian"...
Nice analysis in rebuttal. Look at the "far right" today. Their growing constituency is the working class and minorities. His left-of-center economic policies of the 60's would not be considered nearly far left enough by todays' left. I also think his economic policies had the objective of creating self-supporting people, not people dependent on the government.
And, as we've seen by the 2022 campaigning, social issues are the only issues that matter to those who are driving the left. Can you imagine how JFK would respond to the suggestion that the government knows better how to raise your children than do the parents, that parents should not have a say in their children's education, that abortion should be legal up to the point of birth, that color of your skin is more important than your character ... ? I sure can't.
The swiftness of the leftward move of the democrat party is matched only by its lunacy. But maybe you can't separate the two.
Sorry, Neil. World War II. I'm sure you remember the story..
Roosevelt, so much a liberal he would be called a communist sympathizer today, and Winston Churchill, a liberal (though called racist by today's iteration of the far left wing), defeated Hitler by espousing freedom in the face of very real authoritarianism.
Call what you want of the far left today, but be careful to throw everything 'liberal' in the same socialist bread basket. You'll do history a disservice..
LM, As you point out, you can't judge the past by today's standards (at least you shouldn't). JFK provides a case in point. In economic terms, he would be considered to be a liberal (if not a leftist) today. However, in social terms he was far too the right of today's political center. The reality is that he would find no home in today's Democratic party or today's Republican party. The world has changed (and not always for the better).
Alice, I would go further - in the sense that our wretched and weak educational system (from k through university actually) openly supports historical ignorance, by which I mean judging (and not actually learning) the events and trends of periods in the past through the lens of today, and not through the prism of the era in which the history studied occurred. It's far easier that way, simpler to understand, since everything black and white (good vs evil) is so quickly framed when there's no messy grey in the way. Thus the toppling of statues and the whitewashing of subjects to be studied, cancelling speeches to be heard, and removing books to be read.. and students passing no matter their grades. It's censorship by and from the ignorant, aided and abetted by elders because they're so afraid of the public square pyre.
"Good now should have been good then - their grievance then is our grievance now." CRT came from this seed, gestating over decades in academia, and now this stain of discontent has leaped over into other disciplines as the supposedly marginal take center stage, and institutional authorities cave to their incessant demands, even to the point where the advancement of knowledge is compromised - as amply described in the essay.
And that is where the line must be drawn. At the university faculty level. Death and destruction isn't necessary. Professors must be allowed to fight back and defend themselves against their students (sorry to say it that way). And universities must defend their right to do so and basically tell their microaggressed sanctimonious student body that if they don't like what they hear in class - they can leave. And take their parents' money with them.
And perhaps that's where the real cause here lies - universities are too wedded to the greenback, and not to the concept of free speech and unfettered and dynamic learning. They know better, but refuse to act..
Abetted by the fact that academics no longer govern themselves of their institution.
Academic faculty are outnumbered in an explosion of andministrators, who are themselves capable of rabble rousing students and using them to bully and shame their teachers. These enemies within are by a wide margin created by government bodies, funded by those same masters. "It's good to be King."
It’s not about ignorance from K-12 or the university. It’s about playing pretend and attacking and hurting those who refuse to play the game. Germans in the 30s were far from uneducated. The pretended that their problems were caused by Jews, gypsies, gays, etc. If you didn’t agree to play by their rules, well, you know what happened.
No, it’s about there being a highly developed, malignant delusional system, and consequences of not buying into it. Much has been written about the problems associated with being sane in insane environments. Eventually people, even delusional ones, have to confront reality. The only question is how much damage they’ll do--to themselves and others--before that happens. 
Luana stated, “The censors and gatekeepers simply assume—without evidence—that human population research is malign and must be shut down.” However, I would agree with Joe. They know the research will not support their fairy tale so they attack anyone who won’t pretend with them.
That’s a truism. But you can’t use logic to treat mental illness. This is dangerously severe psychopathology. If it isn’t strongly and consistently resisted, it will turn into the American version of the third reich. It’s been trying to go that way for some time now.
I don’t see people like AOC, Biden, hopefully not Fetterman tomorrow, etc. as the main problems here. I see the people who elected them as the main things that need to scare the cookies out us.
It isn't a brain-hurt; it is subversion and treason. The only lesson the CCP has for the West is such folk pay for their own bullet.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that historical ignorance is a large part of the problem. As have others, I've pointed out that much of the argument about the dangers of cross sex hormones has been known for half a century (through their use in athletics). Yet, it seems that many have remained conveniently ignorant of the debacle.
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/steroids-gender-and-fair-play
... a "poison savory", indeed.
Thank you for the link
China recovered from the insanity of the 'Cultural Revolution'. I have read the books written by Cixin Liu ('The Three-Body Problem'). He supports the CPC and the CPC supports him. The books are bitterly critical of the 'Cultural Revolution' (actually, that is an understatement). I have also read the works of Jung Chang ('Wild Swans'). She is not a supporter of the CPC. She is also bitterly critical of the 'Cultural Revolution'.
America is now the country going through its own Cultural Revolution. I’ll write about this phenomenon on my blog sometime soon. Basically, the way American academia operates is just like how the CCP operated back in the 60s.
Indeed! Exactly.
However, Not sure if China has completely recovered from the Cultural Revolution. There were book burnings, and the ancient culture was completely destroyed.
How will America, and indeed the West, fare? Time will tell.
I was reflecting on this parallel earlier today but without knowing a lot about the Cultural Revolution, so didn't fully trust my observations. Please do write about it! Americans absolutely need to hear from people with first-hand understanding of the Cultural Revolution who are alarmed at the parallels and the accelerating loss of freedoms in the US. Most seem blind to it, or if somewhat aware seem to be looking in the wrong directions for the causes and potential solutions.
I'll make a note of your blog, thanks.
I love Cixin Liu's writing. It is challenging reading, that rewards patience, attention and persistence with a unique vision.
I love it that people will help me out by telling me I can ignore them.
"I support Common Sense, Musk's intended transformation of Twitter"
We are indeed devolving back into the Dark Ages. Ignorance is the elixir which allows Marxists to thrive. Mankind’s (yea, I used a sexist, patriarchal term) possible saving grace is that there are still those among us who have benefited from an enlightened education. Luana Maoja has sounded a clarion call to those so blessed to reaffirm and nurture it. Bless you for answering.
A lady by the name of Yeonmi Park, has stated that 'Columbia is crazier than North Korea'. She is almost certainly right. There are already examples, of western scientists going to China because there is more academic freedom in China than in their countries.
I can see why Ms. Park would say that. North Korea at least doesn’t hide its authoritarian nature. While elite colleges in America act like they’re bastions of independent thought while actively censoring opinions. Bari Weiss herself went to Columbia and came under fire for her views on Israel.
Jew-hate is strong in the bastions of academe and the left; "Views on Israel" is their bailey. It is sometimes an effort to get there, but you nearly always find it is straight up anti-semitism at root
Struggle and sacrifice never end.
Unless the bad guys win.
And if struggle and sacrifice are occurring -- and the simple, small act of courage who just made by posting what you wrote is an example-- the bad guys won't win.
Freedom is something that pops in and out of the American experience, from decade to decade. It is not handed to us on a silver platter, but must be fought for and earned in every generation. We are seeing the dark clouds of totalitarianism closing in on us right now, and it is our duty and obligation -- just as it is for the people of China -- to fight back and clear the skies once again.
And the people of Iran, Brazil, Venezuela. North Korea too but they need food first.
Leftists are global, sadly, and they use the same playbook: authoritarianism, suppression of dissent, ideological orthodoxy, etc.
This comment is as ignorant as the people we’re horrified by reading about but typical for the readership of this forum. Most people who became leftists became that because they can’t stand authoritarianism and suppression of dissent. The ones who have THAT written on their banner are the people who invited Victor Orban to be their keynote speaker and have an actual plan for turning the country into an autocracy, rather than touting deranged ideas about what social justice is and canceling science. Not that that isn’t horrifying enough. It’s just that the actual end of democracy won’t come from that direction.
Uwe, the modern left is utterly intolerant of free speech / dissent / etc. Have you ever heard of cancel culture. Let me clue you in. The practitioners of cancel culture are on the left, not the right. You can rant and rave about Victor Orban all you want, but the reality is left-wing censorship, not right-wing censorship. Go read the Harper's letter if you doubt this. Let me quote from the Harper's letter.
"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. "
You're absolutely right about the cancel culture but I would say it's not about being intolerant to free speech, and this applies to both sides, it's denial of an view point other than their own. The left cancels it and the right calls it lies. There's no end until we bring decency back at the national level and respect the other side and agree to disagree in a civil way.
Peter, I left the school where I taught graduate students when the woke took over 20 years ago because I knew I'd get cancelled sooner or later. I know more about this disaster than most people do. What I don't understand is how the same people can abhor this and not be more worried about the criminal psychopaths who staged a bloody coup, lie for sport, and won't rest until Trump gets his Putin-Style kleptocracy established in this country. On a forum that I thought would be read by centrist people with common sense. There is no limit to the tribalism and the madness of crowds here.
Do crazy people exist across the political spectrum? Sure they do. Do crazy people exist on the right? Sure they do. Do crazy people exist on the left? Sure they do. However, there is a deep difference. The crazy people on the left control the ‘commanding heights on society. The crazy people on the right control nothing.
Don’t mistake riots for coups. Real coups require police/military support. Did Trump have any police/military support? No, he did not. Did he try to get any police/military support? No, he did not. Let me quote from General M. Milley (hardly a Trump supporter).
“You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns.”
Uwe said, "There is no limit to the tribalism and the madness of crowds here."
I think your diatribe proves your point.
PS always remember there are two sides to every coin.
That is true but his coin is silver paint on lead.
Uwe - those alleged criminal are in jail and being held without due process. There was no coup and the only deaths were to protestors. If you want to talk about kleptocracy, you seem to be ignoring the corruption of the Clinton and Biden crime syndicates. If you have to rely on a disorganized, short lived protest on the People's House to buttress your position, perhaps you should look closely at your position.
You seem to be clinging to the view of a handful of protestors and ignoring the trainloads of abuse that really matter. And I'm using that metaphor intentionally. If the left gets their way, they will establish "re-education" centers for "wrong-thinkers" and if millions of them die during the process, oh well.
Your tribe is no different than my tribe. Your madness matches my madness. So let's have at it.
For a not-at-all-deranged analysis of what 'social justice' is and its effects on the West, 'The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World' by Andrew Doyle.
Without reading it I can predict that's not about what social justice IS but about making it a religion and perverting it into its partial opposite. It's one of the achievements of the enlightenment but that concept is Old Hat now on the left and it was always the enemy of the right. And the center that cares is of no further interest to anyone...
You are incorrect. Leftists became leftists because they hate authoritarianism that is not controlled by them.
The end of democracy in the US, if it happens, will come from the left. It has started and the only question is will it be stopped before it takes complete control.
No worries, the people who shouted Hang Mike Pence are going to stop it. It's all good.
Uwe, you won't like this but the people who shouted 'Hang Mike Pence' are at the bottom of society. The people enforcing radical PC are at the top. They run the media, Hollywood, K-12 education, academia, the CIA/FBI, the military, Tech, SV, Wall Street, corporate America, etc. Perhaps you can see the difference.
And the people who invited Orban to speak at CPAC are the leaders of the Republican Party. They are at the top of society, not the bottom, and therefore pose as much danger to our culture as the repressiion-obsessed left.
It is high time for American voters to throw out our harebrained extremists, end the culture wars, and demand a return to such governmental "radicalism" as filling potholes, ensuring public safety, fixing water pipes, and the million and one other parts of public service we've abandoned in favor of memes, Tweets, clicks, likes, and Rageahol.
CPAC is at the fringes of American society. MSNBC and CNN hardly are. The reality is that the left (far-left) dominates the institutions of American society (American culture would be more accurate).
CPAC may be at the fringes of American society, but it's the heart and soul of the MAGA-drenched Republican Party. The Democratic Party is not owned by the hard left as the GOP is owned by the hard right.
The far left dominates higher education, certainly. What other institutions does it dominate, in your view? The way I see it, media skew liberal but not hard left; for every MSNBC there is FOX. Military is right. Courts are right. Congress is left and right with little sensible middle. Local politics are mixed, as are local education. Business is right but not hard right.
'What other institutions does it dominate, in your view?' Just a few including K-12 education, NGOs, Hollywood, Tech, SV, Wall Street, the FBI/CIA, the military, the media (most of it), corporate America, etc.
You can argue that MSNBC is somehow balanced by Fox. However, CNN is as biased as MSNBC. See "The AllSides Media Bias Chart™" for some information.
These days corporate America is not right, but generally far-left. Do I need to mention Disney in this context? However, there is a video of Jamie Dimon 'taking a knee'. Beyond that who actually pays for the like of Robin DiAngelo? Who pays for Ibram Kendi? These folks don't come cheap.
Simply put yet profound, caused me to pause and really see the danger of the woke. It may be short timed though. The whole woke culture is powered by the young, and facilitated by social media, who think of it as being on the "right side", a revolution if you will. I doubt they look past the surface on any issue at that age. When they grow up and have bills to pay and send kids to school there will probably be a new in thing.