The woke think of themselves — and want everyone else to think of them — as deeply moral. If they have a flaw, it’s that they just care too much. They’re too idealistic, too empathetic, too eager to make the world a better place.
That’s bulls–t (pardon my French, Pepé!). If you look at what they do, rather than what they say about themselves, it quickly becomes obvious that the woke are horrible, awful people, and they should be treated as such and reminded of this whenever they raise their head.
Historically, it’s not the good guys who are out burning books and censoring speech. It isn’t the caring, empathetic people who try to destroy lives based on something someone said years ago, often while young, often taken out of context. It isn’t the good guys who take undisguised glee at the ruining of lives, families and careers.
You know who does these things? Horrible, awful people. Selfish people. People with serious mental and emotional problems who seek some sort of vindication for their deficient characters by taking power trips while imposing suffering on others.
Treat these tyrants as what they are: awful people who shouldn’t be listened to and who need to work hard on joining the better half of the human race. And remind them of it, over and over. Because it’s true. Deep down, they know it, too.
The real problem with a lot of these people, the ones who call themselves “woke”, is that they are not living in the real world, at all. They live in a self-created false reality, one that actually exists only in their own minds.
They’re self-certain in their delusions, because everything about the world today reinforces their ideas. They never encounter contrary realities, and when they do, they go into deep denial.
It’s very hard for them to recognize that their worldview is mistaken; they cannot admit to error. Mostly because of how much of their innate sense of selfhood has been invested in this false reality.
Case study in this would be this incident:
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/oakland-woman-unlikely-to-recover-after-violent-robbery-friends-say/
In that incident, one of the woke experienced reality. It killed her. Her friends and family demonstrate their unfitness for life in their insistence that her ideas are applied to her killers, who are more than likely to be found (if they’re ever caught) to be beneficiaries of this sort of fuzzy thinking. So, our “victim” here is actually complicit in her own death, along with her like-minded self-destructive fellow travelers. They don’t like law and order, or for bad people to suffer the consequences of their evil behavior, so they do nothing effective to put an end to these things. Their worldview is a false one, demonstrably so, and they cannot pragmatically evaluate their life experience to note that it actually is false; they keep applying the fantasy, expecting different results.
There really aren’t that many of these people. The current problem is that they infest society’s control and feedback systems, rendering them ineffective and useless. The delusional will eventually manage the feat of discrediting the entire charade, and the result won’t be anarchy in the streets, it will more likely be vigilantism and a level of appropriately delivered violence that will quite take your breath away.
All these delusionals fail to comprehend that as flawed as our current systems are in society, they’re still better than the average conditions in the future they’re building for everyone. The woke won’t be thanked, when it all denoues its ment upon us all. Likely, they’ll be some of the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
@Kirk – That URL has a geographic censorship block on it (aka 451 Refusal…since it’s not an error).
Web Archive copy shown below:
Oakland bakery owner dies after violent robbery
Given the increasing frequency of this form of censorship on US media websites, I’m beginning to wonder if they are trying to stop the news getting out about how violent and crime ridden their cities are nowadays?
Can’t see any other reason for such geographic blocks on purely news sites.
This is completely correct. They should be outed as the awful people they are at every opportunity. If in their gleeful pursuit of an enemy they have transgressed the law, they should be prosecuted, or sued for damages.
John Galt:it’s so they don’t have to comply with the EU’s ridiculous cookie legislation. The cost:benefit of setting up more popups and pissing off your core audience:getting a few more clicks from Europe is very much on the cost side.
@TomJ – Ah. Yes. That would make sense as well I guess. This EU cookie stuff is getting ridiculous.
Yes we shouldn’t assume these people (the woke) are mistaken in good faith. They certainly don’t give that courtesy to their opponents, so why should we give them that?
Kirk – the “Woke” claim that objective reality does not exist, indeed they think the very concept of objective truth is “racist” “sexist” and so on. The leading corporations, and the Pentagon (yes the Department of Defence – the people in charge of nuclear weapons), denounce Objectivity as a sign of the dreaded “whiteness”.
I continue to believe that whilst the the ordinary “Woke” activists may believe in this non-sense (literal – non – sense) the people who created these doctrines did not believe in them. For example, it is impossible to believe that Herbert Marcuse (a highly intelligent, and deeply worldly, man) did not know that “Repressive Tolerance” (basically his doctrine that freedom was slavery and slavery was freedom) was nonsense – utterly absurd rubbish.
But it does not actually matter.
It does matter, for example, if a group of people really do think they have to eat your face off (use their teeth to bite off your face and eat it) because they sincerely believe this will produce a better world – or whether a group of people are trying to eat your face because they are just kinky that way.
Either way people have to defend themselves, and others, against the “Woke”.
However, there is sometimes self interest hidden in these “Woke” attacks – for example not everyone attacking Mark Steyn (endless complaints to “Ofcom” – an unelected “Quango” that acts as prosecutor, judge and jury in the United Kingdom) was really a “Woke” activist.
A lot of these attacks were really generated by the drug companies (Pfizer and co) concerned that Mr Steyn was a threat to their profits. And this money goes to the regulators as well – that started in the 1990s in the United States.
“We have got to protect the people from this vile Fascist” was sometimes (sometimes) “this man is a threat to the money we make by pushing poison – we have got to get rid of him”.
Political embarrassment is also a potent force – no one likes to admit that “Diversity and Inclusion” sometimes means, in practice, the endless rape of underage girls, much better to denounce the whistle blower as a “Fascist, Far Right, Racist, Islamophobe” so no one asks “why did you not stop these thousands of girls being raped and abused?” after all that is an embarrassing question for a police officer, or for a council leader.
So down with the “Fascist, Far Right, Racist, Islamophobe” it is.
And if the whistle blower is themselves Muslim and also has non “white” skin? Just scream “racist” and “Islamophobe” even lounder – if you scream loud enough you will drown out the ability to think.
It really does work – imagine a Woke mob (whether they really are Woke or not) screaming at the tops of their voices into your face – you will not be able to think, and even if you can think no one will hear your reply. No one will hear “but I am Muslim” or “I am not white”.
And then LBC (a commercial radio station) will sack you from your job and the police will “have a word with you”.
You want Social Justice, you get Social Justice. It’s a double dose these days: “social” applied to anything poisons it, as does “justice”.
Pathological and self serving hero complexes?
A variant of Munchausen’s by proxy, piggybacking on the grief, suffering, and loss of others for attention?
John Galt asked:
Why would they want to? Every body in the street is one more reason we need unilateral civilian disarmament (aka gun control) and need it now.
Besides, they peddle violence and death. If it bleeds, it leads. Covering up murders is counterproductive to their bottom line, and if it’s a really sensational murder of whites at the hands of blacks (like the Christian/Newsom murders) they will run that sucker into the ground on all the big national networks and news channels. The bloodier, the better.
I’m sorry … what are you talking about? So far as I know, none of the major networks (save Fox) has ever so much as mentioned the Christian/Newsom murders on the national level, except as a story about right-wing racists using a local story to promote their white supremacy. It’s still a running truism that if the race of the perpetrator of some gruesome crime is not mentioned on the national news, it was a black person. If a white person commits such a crime their race is quite often literally the first word of the headline.
Here, see for yourself: CNN search for Channon Christian
Your search for Channon Christian did not match any results.
I know it was on some of the true crime shows including Nancy Grace and other talking head shows, especially after the judge got busted. They didn’t shy away from the details then.
Kirk:
We all live in a false reality. For instance, i act as thought the chair that i am sitting on, is a solid object; while in reality it is mostly empty space, and it is repulsion of electron shells that prevents me from falling to the center of the Earth.
That is what people mean when they say: do not confuse the map with the territory.
The real problem with the woke is that, in spite of claiming that there is no objective reality (but only when it is convenient to them), they are the most fanatical and dogmatic political movement after the demise of the Khmer Rouges. They are completely oblivious to the internal contradictions in the map, not to mention the frequent occasions when their map is falsified by observation of the territory.
— However, remember Perry’s Principle: It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that the brain falls out.
If you keep too open a mind, you might start believing in woke BS.
Curious: Is the Error 451 block occurring at the source (“We won’t send our stuff to you”) or at the receiving end (“you can’t send that stuff here”)?
@Bobby B – The former, since it’s an on page refusal.
Agreed with this. I think the denial of objective reality thing some of them do isn’t that genuine, because the vehemence they hold their beliefs and intolerance of anything outside them suggests more of a rigid certainty in what they believe to be truth than any relativism.
Pretty sure the only meaningful truth progressives need hold is “that other tribe is evil.”
You can justify most any belief or action in service to such a truth. You don’t need to care whether your expressed beliefs are rational. You are serving the good. If you have to break a few moral eggs to make that goodness omelette – if you have to break most of them – well, BAMN. By Any Means Necessary.
Incidentally, this:
would be wrong, very wrong — if one were to substitute “The woke” with “The continental European ‘left’ “. At least in the xx century.
Karl Popper, in one of the countless footnotes to The Open Society, remarked that leftists think of themselves as amoral or immoral. He obviously had not yet met many English-speaking “leftists”.
I myself have met many self-proclaimed Marxists in high school in Italy (including our Philosophy teacher, who went on to become a Commie Senator), and got the impression that Popper was right: for continental “leftists”, morality is bourgeois. What counts are “the objective laws of history”.
At least in Italy, the bleeding hearts were the Christian Democrats; and even the fascists were more likely than the commies to appeal to sentiments — though not necessarily to tender sentiments.
PS: Didn’t Lenin sneer at “the saccharine-sweet sentimentalism of the intelligentsia”?
Or was it “…of the bourgeoisie”?
‘We love everyone’, the woke scream, ‘but we hate the right!’
The fact they can never see the obvious contradictions in their (many) stances means I am unlikely to be joining their numbers anytime soon.
@Snorri –
Snorri and John Galt – yes.
It is often assumed that “Lenin” retreated from the full Collectivism of “War Communism” because it was always intended to be a temporary policy (not true – the full Collectivism as not meant to be temporary – other than that it was supposed to lead to the end state of full Communism, the supposedly perfect society) or because he was horrified by the millions of people starving to death – in a way the second argument is true, but not in the way people think it is true.
“Lenin” was not upset by millions of people starving to death – not as-such. What upset him was the danger this posed to the Marxist regime – he knew well that (irony of ironies) it was only the international appeal to feed the starving organised by a young Herbert Hoover which had (unintentionally) saved the Marxist regime from collapse.
A temporary move back (the New Economic Policy) was, therefore, necessary – not to save lives as-such (although it would have that effect) – but to save the Marxist regime, and the dream of creating perfect “Communism” in the future.
It is also often pointed out that Lenin disapproved of the sadism of the Hungarian Marxist Bela Kun – and that is true, but not because Lenin was a sentimentalist who cared about human lives (he was not and he did not).
What Lenin objected to was the sadism of Bela Kun – the fact that Bela Kun (who had arrived in the emerging Soviet Union and was working under Lenin) killed and abused people because he enjoyed doing so, not as a rationally thought out plan of campaign.
Lenin understood that this was a weakness – indeed that it was a threat to the regime.
…and still New Soviet Man refused to evolve from the ashes.
I wish the “Useful Idiots” of Antifi, between burning up buildings from Seattle to the midWest would recognise that not only will there battle for Communism never work, but that they themselves will be shot up against the wall before its conclusion.
I guess that’s why they’re known as “Useful Idiots”.
“If, to create Communism, we had to sacrifice nine tenths of the population, we should not recoil from such sacrifices”.
A terrible position – but note that it is limited “!f, to create Communism” NOT – “let us kill off nine tenths of the population because it would be funny to watch them die”.
The latter was never the position of Lenin – or of Stalin. And if was only one tenth that “had to” go (not nine tenths) that was obviously a gain, which they would welcome.
“Eyes on the prize” as it were – the perfect society that was the end state.
I suspect that the leaders of the Collectivists know longer really believe in that perfect society – the perfect end-state.
But I fully accept that my suspicion might be too radical a position to accept.
To hold that the leaders of the enemy are destroying society NOT because they want to put a better society in its place (as Lenin, Stalin and so on, wanted to do), but just because they like destroying things (and destorying people) is a radical position indeed.