The Revolt Against the Evil Woke Cult

How ‘Woke’ May Be Leading Us To Civil War
Authored by Roger Simon via The Epoch Times

Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-woke-may-be-leading-us-civil-war

The other day, I wrote that “woke” was the new conformism.

It is, of course, but I undersold it. It’s much more than that and more dangerous.

As Tal Bachman notes at Steynonline, it’s now our state religion, a state religion in a country that – constitutionally and for good reason – isn’t supposed to have one.

But “Wokism” is yet more than that, too. It’s a mass psychosis similar to many that have arisen throughout history when the masses followed leaders who, in their zeal or self-interest, took them to disastrous ends.

A good example was when the Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola – in a 1497 version of “cancel culture” – swept up everything secular in Florence from some of the most extraordinary paintings and sculpture of all time to the works of Boccaccio and burned them in the so-called Bonfire of the Vanities.

Being Jewish, I am also reminded of the bizarre tale of Sabbatai Zevi, the 17th-century Sephardic rabbi who proclaimed himself the long-awaited true messiah of the Jews, garnered thousands of followers, and then ended up leaving them completely in the lurch when he converted to Islam. (Interestingly, Bachman writes that “wokism” resembles Islam structurally.)

Closer to our time, the great Italian director Federico Fellini, in his film “La Dolce Vita” (1960), shows us what seems like hundreds of people rushing about, tears streaming, trampling each other, believing reports that the Madonna has been sighted. As the scene progresses, the crowd grows, with more and more people convinced of the sighting.

Of course, what Fellini documents is more or less harmless—not so “woke.” This psychosis has a political dimension and the capability of changing a society, which it has already done.

Face Excommunication
“Woke” gains adherents much in the manner of “est”—the cult-like Erhard Seminars Training—that I attended in the 1970s at the behest of a movie producer interested in making a film about it. (It never happened.)

If you’re too in, you’re out.

For instance, several hundred people sat in a large conference room listening to the “training” for hours under instructions not to get up, even to go to the bathroom, until they raised their hands signaling they “got it” (i.e., effectively joined the cult). Nature’s calling being what it is, most eventually did.

Although operationally similar, “woke” is exponentially more perilous than the now-defunct est training. Our position in society, our livelihoods, and our children’s educations and futures are being held over our heads, not our mere use of a restroom.

An iron-fisted, ideologically extreme minority has our country under its thumb—play along or face ex-communication. This is stronger than anything in our history and almost identical to what we see and have seen in totalitarian countries.

Stop tolerating the intolerant!

It’s a psychosis approaching mass hallucination.

In Franco’s Spain, they shouted, “Viva la muerte!” (“Long live death!”) Here we are asked to proclaim just as loudly “Black Lives Matter,” to display signs saying as much on our lawns, although we never thought otherwise and always thought (naively, we are told) that all lives mattered.

All key aspects, most parts of them anyway, of our society “get it” as they did in est (i.e., now believe in ”woke”) or, yet more ominously, cynically say they do—the media, the corporations (“Better woke than broke!”), the government bureaucracy, the Democratic Party, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the military (yikes!), entertainment, the university system, the K–12 system, the medical community, the scientific community (incredibly), the religious community (sadly), and on and on.

All, to one extent or another, believe in “woke” except—the people.

Most of the people anyway.

Most of what used to be called the common men (or women) in the street roll their eyes at “woke”—including even some silent, but browbeaten, Democrats—and do their best to move on, although many realize that “woke” and its sister “social justice” are in essence euphemisms for an ideology far more totalitarian than any ever in control of this country, communism.

Rebellion Brewing
How long can this gaping dichotomy continue?

How long before they stop rolling their eyes?

A rebellion against “woke” is brewing, particularly in red states, some of which are banning or have already banned critical race theory in their schools, among other pushbacks. (Kudos to Rep. Mark Green, Republican of Tennessee and Iraq War veteran, for introducing legislation to block critical race theory training at U.S. military academies.)

But will that be enough against a federal government that lives and breathes this evil ideology and that is essentially governed by a homegrown politburo—the thought that Biden acts by himself is ludicrous—determined to impose it?

As this imposition increases, the “contradictions,” as the Marxists would say, are heightened.

What the extremist ideology of “woke” actually provokes is talk of—and not just talk—secession and even civil war.

Few of us have heard anything like that in our lifetimes. But now it’s real. We have been driven apart as never before. We have been awakened indeed.

Anything can happen and some of us, who would never have considered anything like secession and civil war, suddenly do—highly disturbing to us as those thoughts may be.

So why do we even tolerate “woke”?

Bachman gives us a quotation from Austrian philosopher Karl Popper that is remarkably apposite for our times:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

From Antifa to BLM (whose leader apparently identifies with the mass murderer Chairman Mao) to the willfully blind talking heads of left-wing cable TV, no one is as intolerant as the ”woke” folks. They break all domestic records in that regard.

Time to stop tolerating them.

Cultural Marxism in the News Media (Or, The Emperor Has No Clothes!)

Having been a regular viewer of PBS NewsHour for many years now, it is time to inform PBS NewsHour I will no longer view the programme. That is because news is about and only about ethics, integrity, robust questioning, authenticity and presenting objective reality.

However, when news and reporting become nothing more than a presentation of self-serving sycophantic ideology, and highly embarrassing groveling and propaganda (which would make any totalitarian regime proud); there is no point in viewing this type of news. That is because this ‘type of news’ is no longer news. It is what a healthy genuine democracy (referring to a totalitarian regime) would describe this sort of journalistic toadying as being nothing more than an ‘obsequious upholding of the ideological propaganda political party line of the totalitarian regime.’

Added to this, is the fact that if any objective critical questioning and analysis is presented to this form of self-serving sycophantic and ideological groveling; what happens is that this robust and objective questioning is immediately met with a declaration of immense and severe outrage by these news organisations in question.

Blame and criticism of others (who are not members of the sycophantic self-serving party line’ collective) is what is taking place in America now. The mainstream American media now is one which, rather than being ethical, objective and self-reflective. And having the intellectual capacity, and moral scholarly insight, to deeply, honestly, factually, authentically and intellectually examine (at the highest cognitive and analytical level), circumstances as to what is actually taking place, and to then reporting objectively. What the American mainstream media is doing instead, as noted is blaming, criticising and viciously attacking those reporters and news commentators who have the integrity to ask important objective questions.

This is taking place despite of the sociological, journalism and organisational research universally and irrefutably informs how important integrity, openness, transparency and accountability is for a healthy organisation (especially a news organisation) to not only successfully operate and exist but to also know and understand that personal morality and organisational ethical, open, transparent and accountable process is what advances the profound and important cognitive and intellectual skills and capabilities of critical thinking and associated high-order erudite thinking and writing. Profoundly and axiomatically, it is all of these skills, knowledge and capabilities that then combine to help develop and advance a highly complex, social, ethical and politically sophisticated news organisation and a healthy universally understood and axiomatically democratic society as well.

To this effect one only needs to read the American Declaration of Independence to see this in action. In preparation for the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the American Congress, in June of 1776, appointed a committee of five men. They were: Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and John Adams to write the Declaration of Independence. Even though no Minutes were kept, what is immutably certain is that the committee engaged in robust discussion, which included the general outline of what should be considered, written and presented in this Declaration document.

The Committee eventually decided that Thomas Jefferson would be the person who would write the first draft. It is profoundly important to note that in terms of robust discussion, that neither the 1776 Declaration of Independence, nor the writing and signing of the 1787 American Constitution, would ever have taken place, if the current 2021 self-serving unhealthy political climate and the associated obsequious nature and reporting in the mainstream news organisations, had been in place at that time of the founding of America’s democracy. As a result of this academic and highly sophisticated intellectual thinking by the Founding Fathers, America was at one time at the forefront of the world in terms of research, writing, journalism, objective reporting and media commentary, book publishing, manufacturing and so much more. However, and tragically, this is no longer the case for America.

In less than 240 years the nation of America is in what could only be described as being in catastrophic decline. Along with this decline, which includes the military, manufacturing, research, objective education principles and practices, and the American media itself. All of this has become a self-evident joke which the world can see. However, this self-inflicted joke is one which America refuses to see and acknowledge. Here is but one example: When riots, looting and arson were taking place throughout America, these riots, the looting and the arson were being reported in newspapers and presented on mainstream American media as being peaceful riots, arson and looting. All of this could best be described (in the current non-banned book by Hans Christian Andersen) titled: “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

However, and importantly, as noted there are those in the World who see and know what the truth is. All of these empirical knowers are sniggering and openly laughing at America in relation to what is taking place. The external enemies of America are especially delighted and are gleefully, with immense joy, loudly laughing at how America is self-destructing in its own hypocrisy, and drowning itself in its self-made quagmire of subjective feelings-based nonsense of postmodern relativism.

America’s current self-evident ideologically Socialist political system, and with the support of its embarrassing fawning mainstream media would (to pursue its ideological goals), rather see itself socially implode (which is not taking place), than to engage in the pursuit of universal objective truths that matter, and which objectively advances a nation.

America has in its anthem the words “the land of the free, and the home of the brave.” However (which all the world knows and can see for itself) America is now, self-evidently, not the land of the free but is the land that is ruled by fear. It is no longer the home of the brave, but the home of the afraid; and those who are also constantly cowering and obsequiously apologising.

If America was the land of the free and the home of the brave, the brave would have freely, and many times by now, announced that the emperor has no clothes. And the reason this has not, and is not taking place, is because of fear.

The existential American reality is that “the land of the free, and the home of the brave” no longer exists. What American has become instead, as noted, is the land that is now ruled by fear; and it is the home of where everyone is afraid. And this decline into the never ending apologising abyss of self-destruction, is all of its own making.

“Hey mum, hey dad, look, there is a wonderful peaceful riot, with looting, book burning and firebombing of buildings taking place.” “Yes, isn’t that simply wonderful. We certainly don’t have to grovel and apologise for any of these types of peaceful riots. That is because all of these peaceful riots, peaceful book burnings and peaceful fire bombings is why we can now all proudly call this type of peaceful rioting action as being true American patriotism, and true American freedom of expression at its very best.”

“Hey mum, hey dad, the police have been peacefully attacked, and the police station has been firebombed, burned and destroyed.” “We don’t use the word attacked anymore. Attacked is a dreadful prejudiced word that has been rightly cancelled. You won’t understand how important this type of peaceful firebombing patriotism of police stations actually is; until you are at least fifteen. This is all about what we Americans call peaceful patriotic spiritual American freedom, with the inalienable Constitutional freedom and America’s Democratic right to oppress the people, for the people, and by the people.”

“Hey mum, hey dad, look, there’s the President. He’s walking onto Air Force One. and look, he’s not wearing any clothes.” “Quiet, of course he is. If he wasn’t wearing any clothes the media would have told us so. We’re not stupid, and neither is our Democratic media. That is why we always only watch the Democratic inspired American media of authentic elected Democratic truth.

“It is our true Democratic American media that will always tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Which is the only truth we really need to hear. And as you now firmly know, we are making sure that you will have this exact same and immovable and important self-righteous patriotic love and understanding of this our now and all-important spiritual sycophantic American freedom of expression that we now all truly and proudly have.”

“What does sycophantic mean?” “It means that we are always right, and you are always right and that you will always agree with us and support this new and wonderful Democratic fawning American patriotism.” “You mean fawning is like a baby deer.” “Yes, fawning is like a baby deer.” “Great, I love fawning. Thanks mum, thanks, dad, I will always agree with you and I already love this new fawning Democratic American patriotism. You’re the best. I love you both. Just like I love our new sycophantic Democratic America.”

Written by D.R.Know.

Immutable Universal Truths Found in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Submitted on behalf of Dr Purje by a friend.

ALL LIVES MATTER IS AN IMMUTABLE UNIVERSAL TRUTH

By Dr Ragnar Purje PhD

A universal truth is an actuality that is applicable to everything and everyone, and it is immutable to everything and everyone. When a universal truth is applied to morals and ethics, this means that a universal truth refers to that which is equal and is applied as an absolute for all of humanity. This means that a universal truth is not, and can never be racist. This universal truth – that all lives matter – is affirmed by the following United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

1.      “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

2.     Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

3.     Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

4.     All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

5.     All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

6.     Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,

7.     Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

8.     In the exercise of his[her] rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

9.     Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

Immutable universal self-evident truth

What that self-evidently means is that the statement: All lives matter, is an immutable universal truth.The life of every human is equal in every aspect of life, living and existence. As such the statement All lives matter is a universal truth; and what this means is that the statement: All lives matter is a Universal Human Right which adheres to United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Self-respect

Robin Dillon writes that “self-respect is a complex of multilayered and interpenetrating phenomena,” which involves affect, cognition, motivation, valuation, expectations, reactions, behaviours and actions. All of these interpenetrating phenomena “compose a mode of” thinking and “being ‘in the world’ which is considered as being “at the heart of” the self.

Mutual self-respect

It is these interrelating and interpenetrating constructs that provide the intrinsic means by which the individual is able to intellectually appreciate “oneself as having morally significant worth.” What this means is that each-and-every person (and each-and-every-observer of the other) must see, know, acknowledge, accept, and have a universal understanding, that each-and-every-person is to be universally respected; which helps to advance personal self-respect and social self-respect. For the self, this means: “I respect myself.” For one the who is observing the other, this means: “That I (the observer) respect you (the one I am observing). This powerfully indicates that mutual self-respect is taking place.

Attunement of identity

Further to this Robin Dillon points out that self-respect also has “to do with the structure and attunement of an individual’s identity.” This is about the phenomena of self-respect, as it is lived, and “reverberates throughout the self,” under the overarching intrinsic and social umbrella of the moral self. This intrinsic moral-centred reverberation then acts to influence the very formation and foundation of a person’s values, emotions, commitments, dispositions, thoughts, actions, desires, and encompasses the very identity of the living self. 

Intrinsic moral process

As such, self-respect can be thought of as being an intrinsic moral process of cognitions, and affects that influences the thoughts, desires, behaviours and choice of actions by the self; which then develops and forms the sentient identity of the presenting self. It is this recognition of the sentient self, which then provides the conscious means of free will. Free will allows for choice. These choices can be ethical or moral, or not.

Ethics

Ethics and morals have similarities, in that both constructs relate to choices, behaviours or actions that are either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ or bad.’ However, even though both of these constructs are often used synonymously and interchangeably; the research indicates that these constructs have differences. Cydney Grannan, writing in Encyclopædia Britannica, notes that “ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in [organisations] or principles in religions.

Morals

Morals refer to an individual’s own personal point of view regarding of what is right or wrong, good or bad. However, even with these differences, the research indicates there is agreement, in that both ethical behaviour and moral behaviour are about actions that are good, just or right; with the overarching immutable universal principle being: do no harm. This inevitably means an individual’s self-respect and associated moral self-worth can only prevail, if the choices the individual presents meet the universal standard of being ethical and moral.

Self-respect and moral self-worth

The profound importance of having self-respect and also living a life that has moral self-worth, is further emphasised by Robin Dillon, who refers to Immanuel Kant. An individual’s moral self-worth and their self-respect (which are ontologically fused – as a singularity – in the living essence of the self), can only be lived and expressed in accordance with the categorical imperative.

The categorical imperative

The categorical imperative is considered by Kant as being the universal “supreme principle of morality.” The categorical imperative universally informs that it is the “humanity in [all] persons, strictly speaking, that has dignity; that it is in virtue of the humanity in them that [all] humans are and so ought to be treated as ends in themselves,” and never as a means to an end. This aligns with the universal principle of personhood as expressed by Arthur Danto.

Personhood

If personhood is to take place, each-and-every person must be treated with respect. According to Danto, “[p]ersons … must not be used merely as a means to someone’s end; they are in Kant’s famous phrase “ends-in-themselves” and sources of value in their own right.” Robert Downie and Elizabeth Telfer offer a similar view. They write: 

‘Persons ought to be respected’ is not merely to say ‘What is valuable ought to be respected,’ but rather ‘humans ought to be respected for what is valuable in them’ … this is not a trivial claim, for it asserts that there is something worthy of respect about a human being.

Crucial axiomatic point of view

Andreas van Melsen extends the importance of this crucial axiomatic point of view pertaining to the categorical imperative, personhood, and the ontologically fused constructs of self-worth and self-respect even further. Van Melsen asserts that “each individual human is not just an instance of mankind in the same way in which a piece of copper is an instance of copper. Each individual is an original centre of being in action. His [or her] actions are [his or her] own.” And as such, must only be treated as an end-in-themselves. Anything less is an action that is unethical and immoral, and does not meet the social standard of how an individual can be identified as having, living and is presenting the essence of what self-respect is, and what moral self-worth means. And in terms of the universal human condition, and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; this means that all lives matter.