I would like to try to tie a few things together. Let me start here with this essential viewing:
Some trenchant takeaways:
- "Woke is Maoism with American characteristics, if I might borrow from Mao himself who said that his philosophy was Marxism-Leninism with Chinese characteristics, which means woke is Marxism."
- "[Marxism] worked in feudal societies. ... It wouldn't work in actual capitalist societies because Marx was wrong. [Wrong] about one thing, capitalism does not immiserate the worker. It allows him to build a better life."
- "[Max Horkeimer explained] I developed the critical theory [scil., Critical Marxism] because it is not possible to articulate the vision of a good society on the terms of the existing society."
- "Critical Marxism criticizes the entirety of the existing society. Everything is somehow needing to be subjected to Marxist conflict analysis."
- "When you endure Marxist provocation, Marxist strategy is always of the same type. It's called middle level violence."
- "If you want to see what your future will look like if we don't stop the woke, look at China. ... If you want to know the future of Europe and America and the Five Eyes...it's China. That's the model."
(Ahem.
Dr. Lindsay gives an instructive comprehensive half-hour talk,
well worth your time, detailing the larger NWO project, which is the aggregator of all the disparate woke projects. Marxism is the ersatz religion that underpins and coheres wokèdness, which insight explains the
bizarre zealotry and violent mentality that pervades woke partisans and their projects because Marxism, whatever it purports to be in theory, is in practice psychopathic. Whatever the particular flavor of Marxism, the social benefit goals are always circumstantially mutable and expendable, soft-edged and swimmy, and off in a near-future that never arrives. However the ultimate unwavering goal of all flavors of Marxism is absolute control. Again, Dr. Lindsay:
"Critical race theory is calling everything you want to control racist until you control it. But couldn't we say the same about Marxism? It's calling everything you want to control bourgeois until you control it."
Or homophobic. Or transphobic. Or TERF.
So the Marxism project, whether AGW or BLM or LGBT+++ or NAMBLA or whatever, churns the existing society's culture until it is remade in the image of that Marxist project. To be clear, Marxism achieves absolute control through the absolute destruction of the established norms of the existing society. To be clear, to that end, Marxism has a big stake in perverting sexual norms, because sexual norms are a defining component of society-building. The preceding is usually followed by an explicit and hasty assurance that we have queer family and queer friends, we don't want them persecuted, everyone is free to live as they choose, etc. The usual defensive pieties. But such seeming pieties are indicative of our confused 'cake and eat it too' thinking about sex and societal norms. Liberal society, though expansive, is not unbounded. There are limits, limits that keep society safe, stable, and whole. Marxism pushes hard against those limits.
To be clear, queer projects like grooming children, normalizing pedophilia, celebrating sexual dysphoria, transitioning children, fantasy 'gender' biology, carve-outs for 'declared' gender identities, and applauding
queer hate groups –
none of these are righteous projects. They are
ex facie evil. Below is another
essential viewing for some clear thinking on and pushback against the institutional fringe creep of queer Marxism:
The above is a cleanly
reasoned ten-minute argument for
what the Anglican Church is, a congregation bounded by originating doctrine and practice – not a parade ground for progressive voguing. Again,
well worth your time. (If you are not familiar with
Deacon Calvin Robinson, he can be found at
GBNews.) How many Christians would attempt Deacon Robinson's doctrinal argument to a progressive? How many to a 'progressive' fellow Christian? Not many for fear of being denounced bigots. At the predicant and leadership levels mainline churches are doctrinally corrupted. Such shepherds go on to collaterally corrupt their flocks.
Marxism to advance its goal of absolute control
cannot allow the existing society to stand. Marxism is that new thing come to overthrow the established order. If you missed my earlier link to the 'progressive decades-long project to dismantle the family as social bedrock',
here is the meat of it:
Mallory Millett [sister of Kate Millett (1934-2017), author of seminal Sexual Politics] has been telling the story of the 12 women Kate brought together in New York City in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. These are the women who laid the groundwork for second-wave feminism, which gave way to the world of woke. ... “At a consciousness-raising...twelve women gathered at a large table. They opened with a type of Litany from the Catholic Church...but, this time it was Marxism, the church of the Left.”
“Why are we here today?” the chairwoman asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American patriarch?” she probed.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion, and homosexuality!” they resounded.
Phyllis Chesler confirmed much of Mallory’s account in her 2018 book, Politically Incorrect Feminist: Creating a Movement with Bitches, Lunatics, Dykes, Prodigies, Warriors, and Wonder Women. Chesler, while trying to tell the honest truth of the good, bad, and ugly of the feminist movement, reveals much of the story that has been jealously guarded by feminists for decades: that most of the women in the movement were incredibly broken by mental illness and drug abuse. Chesler calls them “the lost girls.”
Sow. Reap.
We find that one part of the female happiness paradox is very robust: when answering questions about negative affect, women are always and everywhere more unhappy than men. This is true across time, country, and across different metrics of negative affect. This is perhaps best illustrated by anxiety: women are consistently more anxious than men, both pre- and post-COVID, and across months of the year and across years. But it is also true with respect to other measures on negative affect such as being depressed, downhearted, tense, lonely, frustrated, stressed, sad, and having restless sleep and other measures.
... The evidence suggests women's domain happiness and satisfaction is below that of men. The evidence of declining happiness in the United States is confirmed with evidence of rising deaths of despair, from drug overdoses, suicide, and alcohol poisoning (Case and Deaton, 2019) along with increases in pain in the United States (Blanchflower and Bryson, 2022b), and in distress.
Unhappiness explains why feminism remains mired in Marxist praxes. Because the unhappiness of the now sells the bliss of Marxist tomorrow-morrow-land.
Once Marxism is in place, limits are replaced by a singularity, the one and only thing, the hivemind state. The very moment Marxist Critical Theory is completely realized, all the woke projects will fall away or be exterminated. Marxism has no allies. Marxism has no rainbow identities. Marxism has only Marxism, a sort of ultimate narcissism. Every citizen gazing in the mirror sees only the state fully realized staring back.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother. (pp. 173-174)
The great irony of course is that today's woke are not preparing a great celebration of self-affirmation but of self abnegation. Wokèdness is the prelude to the individual being zeroed out – he/her, she/him, they/them, abc/xyz, zip/zilch – ground as one into the homogenous paste of the Marxist state. Nobody survives the state. Only nothing survives the state.
Duncan Hill replies to this "Excellent exposé of the modern/post-modern, gangrenous, marxist mind" that
Only tangentially related is this conversation between Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia. Paglia has a wonderful description of the true 60's radical vs the pretenders of today. It goes on from there. Worth watching if you have time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM
Duncan Hill adds:
