An interesting thought about this new managerial class based around moral standards: it is effectively a new manifestation of the priestly class. The power religious authorities had over groups of all sizes was they power to determine what was moral and right and by extension punish/define people and acts as immoral and wrong not just in the abstract but specific member within a group they *managed*. This was the function of church's, chaplains and religious representatives. They would protect the group members from harm by exposing, denouncing and punishing blasphemers (those that were not following the ordained religion or not actively participating in displays of religious faith). The pope although acting like a monarch in and of themselves, would effectively be the head of hr for the monarchs of their time. They could determine which other monarch were moral and immoral or acting in accordance with God based upon whichever arbitrary rules/morality/rituals they had at the time. The woke managers are effectively acting in the same way and the ngos are acting like outside churches/inquisitors called upon when a group is seen as being infected by immorality/blasphemy.
It is, IMHO, a little bit more scary even than that. If the woke BS was only a job creation scheme for the rather dim children of the better class of people…that would be irritating. It is frightening when truly capable, energetic, hard working, high achieving, specialist experts, value adders, leaders, clever people…genuinely buy into this stuff. Why would an IT, physics, maths, STEM type person swallow the woke gunk? Because it is easy. Because their brain power is focussed on important stuff other than sound literature, politics, economics, ethics, history etc etc. The woke stuff is easy, reproducible, out sourceable, convenient.
Just as a follow up to what the video said. The woke industry is effectively a way of dealing with professional and educational incels. Religion was one industry along with war which allowed a society to deal with their traditional incel demographic. (Those that neither had the resources, genes or luck to get married and have a familly) the professional/educational incel demographic are the educated, unemployables. And since all revolutions are started by educated but disenfranchised middle classes not the working or poor like the mythologies tell us. The powers at be need to mitigate this threat.
@@TheJhtlag well it was because of a simplistic view of religions effect and place in society. To be over simplistic: there are three thrones of power in the world, the throne of violence, money and knowledge. The throne of violence gives you a monopoly on and authority over violence and etc for the rest. Removing religions control over society left the throne of knowledge empty. And we all acted as if no-one would try to take the throne again. The free thinking years was actually a civil war of ideas vying to sit in the throne of knowledge and take the place of religion. The throne of knowledge being authority and power over deciding what is moral, ethical, right and wrong, true and false and fact and fiction.
It's horrifying that corporate entities are our new priests. Their God is money and their commandments are whatever maintains their position of authority.
Completely and totally agree with his thesis. Just look at the proliferation of nonprofit organizations "doing good work" in the "community". Non profits don't make money by solving problems, they make money perpetuating need. All so they can maintain elite status and a paycheck to justify their level of education; at the expense of the community at larger, including the subset of that community who they claim to be helping.
Not only that, but they are also used to introduce problems into communities actively. I was trained at the mid-level management level in the Democrat Party on how to destroy local communities. There's a tactic called "Chisme" where charities, nonprofits, or not-for-profits are used to infiltrate and destroy communities by playing on any local schisms or divides. You find who are the most productive and effective community leaders and you use whisper networks to destroy them and replace them with people who will guide the community into a collapsed society that you can control using their desperation to "fix" the problems you introduced in the first place.
Depends. I worked for a non-profit where the whole goal was to give people the life skills they needed to get OFF the system by the time they turned 21. We were successful only if our clients no longer needed government assistance. Helping people is not always a hustle.
@@davidallen8891 The woke want to give people free fish. The conservatives think it is best for poor people to learn how to fish. The answer lies in the middle. We are heading to a dystopic world where excessive charity to the poor leads to nihilism, drug addiction, and homelessness. The more freebies they get the greater the dystopia. Everyday a struggling person in America gives up and decides homelessness may not be a bad career choice. They basically give up on life. Our system of high expectations and excessive freedom leads to this nihilism. Help to the disenfranchised that are motivated to succeed works well. Help to the nihilistic groups does nothing.
The Freestore Foodbank grows larger every year, not because they are helping to solve hunger issues, but because they are a corporate sweetheart "charity" promoting the victimhood of minorities.
He's not really though. This is just the lastest most insane example of how the left eats itself. You cannot mechanically provide equity to the masses, that is really what he is arguing. It's just more "privileged economic bullshit" Narrative.
I'm Canadian and in the last 12 years I went from voting for Jack Layton's NDP to being on side with the conservatives on social issues. Our Prime Minister is the ringleader of performative progressivism and has divided our nation purposefully so that discord cannot be had outside of the boundaries of race and identity.
I'm an American and it's funny to me how polarized my countrymen are with their opinion of Canada. The more naive among them believe im the meme that Canadians are perfectly nice and peaceful and nothing bad ever happens in their country. "Wow! I wish we were like them!" They say, or heavily imply. On the other hand, more conservative people see Canada as an unholy socialist hellscape where no sane man would dare tread.
Same here. I primarily swung between the Liberals and NDP but these past 3 years have really opened my eyes to how these two parties are no longer what they used to be. The Conservatives of today are what the Liberals used to be. I'm also paying more attention to Independents.
@@kimj5037 It is not the first time that happens in the history of Canada : it often turns out that those who participate in politically progressive or subversive activities have the least real concern for ordinary people, while movements claiming of the respect for the established order of things do manifest concerns for the rookies. That was observed by Lord Durham in 1837 : "Patriots" (both of French and Anglo origin) who cried against British imperialism were actually the representatives of big landed interests as well as of the professional classes that served them while the alleged representatives of the imperial or of the high churches were actually envisioning social protection measures for the lower class landless labourers. Later on it repeated several times.
Yes, this articulates with what I felt about 20 years ago when I was working at a private "non profit" university outside Chicago. I felt that the totally unprepared students were in my phrase treated "carcasses with access to government loans." The administration and faculty were basically reaching through the bodies to grab the government money while putting the students in debt for a couple of years distracting D3 sports and a useless degree (if they got that far). Hence the attempts to "forgive" the pointless loans... so the "carcasses" can be lined up again. The same model works for chronic disease health care that doesn't work to keep people healthy. Good for jobs in health administration.
Boom such a good comment halfway they the healthcare system poppped into my mind as a similar model and then you added that right at the end. Thanks for putting it into words so clearly!
Totally agree with this, student loans are really a direct payments to the faculty and staff who in turn support the kind of government who give out student loans. No surprise here that the students have been made fools of and the education is even more of the type of people the government want, problem is they can't even change the oil in there car.
Of course it makes sense. Why would anti racism activists want to eliminate racism? That puts them out of a job. They'd create more racism if possible, to justify their jobs.
There are bigger issues/indoctrination going on, they have learned these "theories" and taught these beliefs in schools. These schools are funded by the less than 1% who have promoted/funded the "scholars" who destroy class based analysis. Women's studies was turned in "gender studies" actual feminists (Mary Daly, Dworkin etc) were fired and silenced. Instead you now have cross dressing men teaching "feminist" classes they are ALL pro "corn", trafficking, child "use" etc. THIS is "post modern" and "queer" theory. It is the teaching of oppression and domination DISGUISED as "progress" when it is just the same old oppression in a new slick package.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 Trickle down Reaganomics doesn't work and contributes to poverty, BTW. Unless you're rich. In which case Reaganomics makes you richer. Not just my opinion. Fact.
I totally agree with this and have experienced it first-hand. The last company I worked with was overrun by well-paid woke consultants who turned the company into a toxic environment.
Camille Paglia called this in 1994; Michael Giles, Jamie Muir and David Cunningham called a similar phenomenon in the liner notes to the _Ghost Dance_ soundtrack even earlier than that. Thomas Frank took American progressives to task 20 years ago for abandoning working class interests in favor of certain social issues. The principle of preventing downward mobility reminds me of Jaron Lanier's idea of levees, which he presents in _Who Owns the Future?_
Vonnegut gave us a peek in Harrison Bergeron, which was written in the late 1950s. This sickness began in academia, going all the way back to the Frankfurt exiles
The great Thomas Sowell talks about a similar topic in one of his books (I can't recall which one) in regards to India. Sowell says that the leaders there recognized that an idle, disaffected, highly-educated class represents the greatest threat to the standing power structure. That's why India created a massive bureaucracy, to keep the educated class employed. And, if you look a the backgrounds of so many of the "revolutionaries" of the 20th century, you certainly see that many of them were products of the intellectual class.
Thomas Sowell also said the same thing about environmental science, saying if they make up an upcoming catastrophe, they can have jobs investigating it.
*The Privilege Class at Stanford is Woke. Unpacking Wokeness at Stanford for the Privileged Class:* Who goes to Stanford? Children of the 1%. That stat is from the video channel whatifalthist 'how the internet will completely change the world': For the top 20 elite American universities like Stanford, 60% of students admitted have parents in the economic top 1% of American income. Most of the rest of the 40% of students come from households in the top 10% well off Americans. Similar data can be found in the Harvard Crimson newspaper, the average Harvard student's parents have an income level 3X the American average. The privileged class have rich Mommies and Daddies. The idea here is to educate them at elite schools, so their children are privileged to access to top jobs, for economic success. So: The elite American University system is an inter-generational wealth transfer system. It advantages children of rich parents. What is the typical life history of rich kids? These kids have very easy lives. Born with a silver spoon in their mouths, like Woke Canadian Prime Minister Justin 'blackface' Trudeau who grew up hobnobbing with the financial elite of the world. Just like Prince Harry, who once wore a German WWII uniform to a party in his youth. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Prince Harry hooked up with Meghan Markle, Queen of Woke. Harry bought into Woke. Why? Harry realizes all his wealth and privilege is unearned. He just popped out of the right Mommy. So for him, when an academic comes up with a theory that ALL whites have privilege based on history, this makes sense to Harry or Justin, based on their own unique uncommon personal histories of extreme unearned wealth and status and privilege. Same with the Stanford students. Megan is a clever, but sinister girl, who manipulates her guilt ridden, not overly bright husband, to believe nonsense which gives his wife social status. Harry will believe any sort of nonsense, out of guilt. Same with elite children at Harvard. These schools are Woke because wealthy children really do have, endless wealth and unearned privilege. They also have very little contact with Bob the Truck driver and the black and white working class, so they don't know what their lives are. So the elite run everything, tell hard working people, to believe in the point of view of a privileged white child of wealth. It's insane. Don't get me wrong, these kids are smart. But: Unearned wealth makes even smart kids willing to believe any sort of nonsense. They have good hearts, they are trying to make the world a better place. Trouble is, it's them that have the privilege they rail about. The rich kids want to avoid responsibility of all their privilege, so they try to make the working class pay for their guilt, by pretending poor white children have unearned privilege. It's a big lie, as you know. Keep calling out their lies. ✅
Wokeness supports depopulation. It is also has no place for men beyond that of a scapegoat. There is no incentive for men to be corporate wage slaves under this system.
This is how people should understand the phenomenon: as an economic and political transaction between members of the upper class. If the warmakers give the neurotic bourgeoisie authoritarian powers, the neurotic bourgeoisie will support war.
Very interesting conversation! The current trend of a certain class of liberals who seem to hate or resent the working class has been confusing, and this would go a long way to explain that phenomenon. I suppose George Orwell and others have long observed the same issue, so perhaps it's nothing new.
In the UK, the party of the working class, Labour has gone from having around 78% of its voters being working class with incomes at or below the average wage, to only 37%. Labour is now the Party of the virtue signalling middle classes. It's fairly simple as to why. If you're a working class family, you don't have time or money to constantly whine about Gender Dysphoria , About Farming practices, Organic food, or race baiting etc.
@@realMaverickBuckley Having grown up in the UK, and moved to the USA, I've observed the same pattern in both countries. With Labour/Democrats becoming the party of affluent liberals and the working class moving Conservative/Republican. Unfortunately though, while the conservative parties in both countries now pander more to the working class than in the past, they don't seem to give much more of a toss on a practical level.'
@@gbonkers666 Agreed, it's very sad. I used to be one of those who fell for it. If you want an in-depth exploration as to how the working class was manipulated in the 20th century (and, obviously, it still continues), go and watch "The Century of the Self" series on JustAdamCurtis' channel. Excellent stuff, though I should say the 4-part series is 4 hours long!
i noticed this years ago in canada, $11 million dollar enquiry into the handling of the investigation of murdered and missing women. not housing for the population of women that they already knew was likely to go missing or be murdered. who takes that money? the middle class educated people.
I lived in Bloomington/Normal, IL for 5 years. I remember reading in their local paper, The Pantagraph, about a situation with this private firm hired to run their ambulance services for the hospitals. They kept these guys on call even during their lunch. So eventually, they sued, because they didn't have any time to eat lunch and, consequently, never got one. The firm fought it to the tune of like 30 million dollars in court costs (I don't remember the exact number but it was in the millions and it was something outrageous). The company lost and ended up paying like 50 million on the whole thing. These guys only have a salary of about 80k, they could have just hired 2 more ppl to work a shift for lunch and given their ppl a decent lunch for 160k/yr. But its no snot off their nose, they're subsidized by the Illinois taxpayers. If that's not evidence of "the useless" making decisions in places where they shouldn't be, I don't know what is.
I think language is very important in discussing these topics, particularly since the NEO "left" has excelled in completely destroying the meaning of words. I cannot understand why anyone refers to the NEO left as "marxists" "radicals" "progressives" or even "leftists"; as they are none of those things. Although I get that is the polarizing labels corporate media uses for this very reason-to silence any real discussion on it. We must start judging (and calling) people by their ACTIONS not what they self ID as (ie BLM calling themselves "Marxists" instead of opportunistic Capitalists) There is nothing about any of their actual economic ACTIONS that indicate they actually believe in the false labels they give themselves; they are regressive to the core. I think the phrase you are looking for is "PROFESSIONAL MANAGERIAL CLASS or PMC " which has been written about (Ehrenrich's take is a favorite) by several authors; but it is ludicrous to suggest that they somehow are controlling the system, they have been allowed to push their insane NON progressive post modern queer theory junk exactly because it destroys real class analysis and obliterates any discussion of actual class politics. That is why the less than 1% has FUNDED and pushed it being taught in all major universities. If you talk to any of the neo left and ask for specifics or to even explain certain aspects of Marxism, they are clueless. They do not even understand the difference between Communism and Socialism, ironically most self identified "Marxists" of this ilk are much more like National Socialists with their beliefs in censorship, their fanatical devotion to rhetoric, and belief in the use of violence and no issues with corporations melding/controlling the government etc.
Marxism has always been a religion for intellectuals and petty elites. Marx was a bum and Engels was a bourgeois twat. The activists you see out in the streets may or may not call themselves marxists, but they have been educated in schools that run on the program of the marxist educator Paolo Freire. They've been taught how to complain constantly about literally everything ("ruthless criticism of all that exists") without understanding what they're complaining about or what they want to replace it with. So I think marxist is a perfectly legitimate term to call these people.
Marxism/communism is mostly a Hegelian end of history religion/cult. I recommend the channel "New Discourses," he reads through the marxist/progressive books/ like paulo freire's books and in a few podcasts he goes through how marxism evolved starting with Hegel to the fanaticism going now. The problem with the majority of the left is that they do not know the full picture. And that problem is mostly because the far-left intellectuals decided the best course of action, since plain communism will never work, is to indoctrinate people and pre-censor opposition (read Freire and Marcuse) because leftist thought doesn't hold up against opposition(Marcuse). And any that do not understand the method of what is going on is of course going to call what they don't understand their equivalent of the devil, capitalism. In the end, essentially its an effort, AT ALL COSTS, to remove "suffering" from human existence.
Since the 1980s, universities have become bloated with administrative posts. We are now simply seeing the same phenomenon carried out in other arenas of society. I really wish that Kyeyune has mentioned the sex of the Uppsala communication outreach coordinators and in what fields they earned their degrees. But I think we already know the answers
At this point, I mostly see universities as something that exists to ensure people of sufficient social class are allowed into certain fields. The only exception is probably the hard STEM fields where your skills are the most important thing about you. Meanwhile, any idiot can work in HR and being in sales boils down to your interpersonal skills. Those in artistic fields can be self taught, and anything that involves working with your hands can be learned in a trade school. Other than that, your ability to get a high paying white collar job comes down to how well you can parrot the correct corporate newspeak talking points. You just need to signal that you're in the correct social class because that's all your potential employer cares about.
Back in the day, we'd call it rent seeking. The idea that there is 'rent' (profit, easy money) to be preyed upon by opportunists rather than put in the effort of real work.
Well, that's a fundamental concept in Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" but I agree with you here, there's a certain amount of rent seeking in getting a college degree, many jobs require one whether or not it is needed to do job tasks, hence you "buy" a degree to guarantee at some level an income stream. I would argue though there is competition among woke persons to see who can be the wokest, winner take all like in sports.
I've had the same thought. All the easy work has already been done in academia, and the continuously lowering standards aren't letting in the brightest students. So to "further their field," they make up nonsense. The academy is a joke these days.
Academia is full of people who are just book smart enough to get the grades, but are dumb enough (and privileged enough) to waste their money on a piece of paper. Smartest people I know are working class folks- builders, farmers, repair men
This is true, especially in the humanities, how many ways can you approach Charles Dickens, or Shakespeare and comeup with new ideas about them and their writings? However, if you throw in these new fangled gender, queer, racial perspectives into the mix. Then an English professor can write up knew gobbledygook for the next 20 years.
@@johnsmithers8913 I am a 37-year veteran of construction trades/property management with little patience for the fluff being generated in the academy. But I was born with at least a silver-plated spoon in my mouth, went to prep school, and then to private college & state University, where I did a bachelor's/English, which I do not regret. Obviously it was a long time ago. I encountered some of the fakery you describe in the humanities. My concentration was English literature and I read some papers in which ideas like the Freudian imperatives of self-empowerment in King Lear's daughters were explored. Utterly fractured mental meanderings. I slogged away at it for about 12 years as a perennial part-timer before wandering off to continue toiling in obscurity . But I very much think Dickens and Shakespeare are a legitimate lens for analyzing the world. They are both brilliant observers and they both offer penetrating insights (consider how much you've heard Orwell cited in the last two years alone). Literature is one of mankind's most beautiful and useful inventions. The University is well and truly f'd and is good for little but idea laundering and self-promotion any more. But it is not only due to the humanities. None of our current predicament would have been possible without a vapid management class and a myopic white-coated mad-scientist class of data engineers and medical tinkerers who were starved of the humanizing influence of the humanities in their formative years. The obsession with STEM at the expense of meaningful liberal arts education was a mistake and we are beginning to see why.
ohhhh...thanks for continuing to do journalism. this a desperately needed, impressively useful frame for wokeness. guess it always comes down to power & influence right? ...cui bono & all
I have a degree in social work from the US. I read a book in grad school called "The Careless Society" basically on this point, where educated elites use government money to work in and surround communities and people in need but don't do anything other than manage, create new job specialties for these educated elites and then the money and resources do not go into the communities and people themselves, but they're well serviced so everyone thinks they're helping.
Where I work, and in the line of work we are in, there are almost no women that are capable and interested in doing that work. Its all men. Over the last 15 years ALL the supervisors hired for this were not promoted to it for excelling in the work, but are women brought in from outside who dont understand the work. Now, offline and malfunctioning systems are the norm, and we have an idle workforce presided over by a form of maternal daycare where if everyone gets along and provides the women with some thing to say to THEIR superiors that gives the appearance they are doing the job, nothing needs to be done. In essence work has ground to a halt and the organization is in ruins, incapable of accomplishing almost anything.
The corporations that find a way to avoid this will make huge profits, but I don't see how, unless they run their businesses in international waters or something.
This makes a ton of sense. I've never understood Marxism because the belief was always that the workers would finally be in control. But it seems obvious that in a redistributionary system, the distributors, or managers, would be in control. Also, wasn't Marxism meant to partially explain how people would rebel against meaningless make-work? So why does it seem to be a feature of socialism?
Marxism and Socialism make sense once you realize they're not telling you the truth about what they are for. They're for consolidating the power into the hands of the State and taking all potential power from everyone else.
@@benjamintherogue2421 That's the thing. That's certainly what socialism historically does. I don't know if that's what most socialists intend. In any system there is consolidation of power. Maybe the biggest issue is that socialists deny that reality
@@samuelwallace2782 It's the very structure of their ideology that makes it inevitable. To follow their plans at all they have to consolidate all power into the State, that they frequently re-label as "The People", so that they can manage all of the "property and means of production" that they plan on seizing. They're just using more pleasing language than "give everything to a centralized government to manage for us" because they know how bad it sounds when spoken plainly. Almost all of their rhetoric is burying the truth with terms that they think they can sell people on.
It's absolutely what they intend. Socialist activists always imagine that they will be the leaders of the post revolutionary utopia. Their real objection to the status quo is not that they object to there being a hierarchy, but that they are not at the top of the hierarchy. Wokeness is an attempt to usurp the existing hierarchy and undermine it from within so that they can topple it and establish a new hierarchy with themselves at the top. None of it is about emancipating humanity from the cruelties of capitalism, it's about overturning the current hierarchy and establishing a new one with them in control.
Basically, it's the proliferation of beaurocracy which fits very well with Socialist/Comminist frameworks. I always balked at the assertion that technology will create mass unemployment - not so, because work exists not simply as a productive activity, but increasingly as an element for social structure. If there are no jobs to do, people will create new ones.
Slandering society is certainly easier than contributing to society. And if they were providing accurate critiques, even without providing solutions, they would be better than non-contributors. The problem is that the woke analysis presumes the most offensive explanation for every societal outcome, positive or negative, and then privileges the perception of offense over any sort of empirically established reality.
This was brilliant. So much to unpack but all good stuff. I have some experience that falls into what was discussed here, so I know it's not a conspiracy theory. However I've been on the receiving end of far too much gaslighting when I've opposed what was being said/done. Having listened to this interview, at least I can rest assured I wasn't crazy after all.
I once heard someone make the case that the Swedish social democracy is an ideal conservative society and that American conservatives aren't conservatives at all
Agreed but it’s also important to note that Scandinavian style social democracies seem to be breaking down as their societies move away from being “high trust/high homogeneity” and both the left and the right are using this to push racial arguments
In some ways, because te people have brains. But Sweden sought to destroy itself through immigration and mothers must work. The idea of a man supporting his family is now unheard of there-- so that is definitely not conservative. I think the men have become too weak there and hence, the women too miserable.
Similar to the BBC’s diversity policy - they put wealthy BAME people in roles yet completely ignore the class struggle - very few working class people in middle and senior roles
An opportunistic and parasitic dogma . Similar in spirit to ambitious nazi underlings or soviet aperachiks . There seems to be and added benefit to the present day phenomenon of woke beyond that of financial , status and privilege gain ( as observed in the two groups previously mentioned). That benefit being self exaltation , hyper-stimulation of self worth and schadenfreude , even if that be through proxy. Further study of this psycho-social facet of woke would be an interesting topic of discussion.
This reminds me a lot of what Adolph Reed Jr says about middle class black Americans having an interest in maintaining a class of black leaders, so they can be employed in those jobs - even though they really represent middle class interests rather than those of poor or working class blacks. I rather wonder if Kyeyune took the idea from Reed, who is also a Marxist.
I think it's very interesting they are pretty much exactly describing what David Graeber's book Bullshit Jobs is all about. I've always hated make work and avoid it with a passion.
Great video, thanks! Here’s my meditation on it: Really worth watching to understand some natural causes of our world trajectory. Technology revolutions lead to social revolutions when tech changes who has how much power over what and the State can not provide a sufficient Why for keeping its current structure. If the structure of society can not accommodate or adapt peacefully, there will be a violent reorganization of it. Why? Because tech changes the cost/benefit analysis of possibilities, especially in regard to costs of necessities, freedom from old limits, and hopes of our new imagination. If the current socio-economic structure limits against those possibilities for an insufficient reason (hence the State’s need for disasters, dictators, distraction and demotivation, ie, fear, ignorance and complacency), then people perceive and react to it as a grave injustice worth fighting against. Wokeism is an other attempt at Why, in an attempt to preserve the current order of power. Freedom and reasonable costs make for peace in our life; serving our aspirational hopes serves our joy, but the third element of human psychological/spiritual need is righteousness. Indeed this element is the most core and powerful, not only because we hate internal guilt, but because it is tribal, a social mechanism for controlling who is acceptable in the tribe/society. And, of course, this can affect survival, not just quality of life, peace and joy. Wokeism parades itself as a new progressive righteousness, but the facts on the ground, if you can still find them, show a foot track pulling the same old line of power of the current elites. And the new righteousness is both unnecessary (at least in terms of human costs ‘required’) and, dare I say, blatantly unrighteous (in parts; it’s a mixed bag, mixing in some poison but only selling the whole bag, allowing them to condemn you for rejecting any part, good or bad). Extreme irrational loyalty to the Tribe, hating all others; or division and constant infighting of all. These are the only choices offered by a corrupt and desperate State. Either one will do, since all movement/activity can only be controlled by force when there is more than one element acting against another; even in physics. Wokeism has infected our institutions, the critical organs of any large society. But remember, they need us too. Only if people would unite en masse do we have any leveraging power-at least until the AI robots come. Simple peaceful non-compliance would now still be enough to change the trajectory. The organs need the body to move-until they don’t… then all bets are off.
28:26 What you are talking about, (people who are educated but not in any useful field causing political unrest because now that they have the degree, where's the cushy job and great pay?), Thomas Sowell observed occurred between the 2 world wars. He described in Conquest and Cultures, how people who came from minority backgrounds and were the first in their family to go to university were not well prepared for the more difficult but more useful degrees, so many acquired various ethnic studies degrees which did not lead to good jobs. The result was that many became angry and politically active in a way that polarized intergroup tensions on ethnic lines.
@@shellyshelly9218 "What's your problem with Marxism?" Over 100 million people have died in the last 100 years due to Marxist polices and Tyrants. (Tiny mustache was a race marxist)
“I’ve got a spade and I’m Digging a trench. How can Wokism help me?” “Well you could try digging yourself in much deeper, to the left.” A good question would be ‘Once I’m In it how easy is it to get out, considering how all embracing it is.’ Is it possible to have an epiphany if you are woke?
It may be said, however, that even if the theoretical book-trained Socialist is not a working man himself, at least he is actuated by a love of the working class. He is endeavouring to shed his bourgeois status and fight on the side of the proletariat - that, obviously, must be his motive. But is it? Sometimes I look at a Socialist - the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation - and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed. The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard. Take the plays of a lifelong Socialist like Shaw. How much understanding or even awareness of working-class life do they display? Shaw himself declares that you can only bring a working man on the stage ‘as an object of compassion’; in practice he doesn’t bring him on even as that, but merely as a sort of W. W. Jacobs figure of fun - the ready-made comic East Ender, like those in Major Barbara and Captain Brassbound’s Conversion. At best his attitude to the working class is the sniggering Punch attitude, in more serious moments (consider, for instance, the young man who symbolizes the dispossessed classes in Misalliance) he finds them merely contemptible and disgusting. Poverty and, what is more, the habits of mind created by poverty, are something to be abolished from above, by violence if necessary; perhaps even preferably by violence. Hence his worship of ‘great’ men and appetite for dictatorships, Fascist or Communist; for to him, apparently (vide his remarks apropos of the Italo-Abyssinian war and the Stalin-Wells conversations), Stalin and Mussolini are almost equivalent persons. You get the same thing in a more mealy-mouthed form in Mrs Sidney Webb’s autobiography, which gives, unconsciously, a most revealing picture of the high-minded Socialist slum-visitor. The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred - a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred - against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs.
Once one knows about the life of Karl Marx, an angry man who never worked a day in his life and mooched off of others- 2 of his own daughters and their husband's dead by suicide-- who on earth could take ANYTHING he wrote seriously?? I give more respect to Scientologists.
Neither Shaw nor the Webbs were socialists and it's clear you know nothing about the Marxian tradition of socialism. If you don't know about something, it is generally a good idea to remain silent. In the meantime, READ.
Maybe it's the result of basic economics. Supply and demand. The supply of soft science graduates began to vastly outstrip the demand, combined with the growing omnipresence of social media. Combine the two and you've got cultural demand (and add a dash of corporate cowardice) binding for the services of unaccomplished, over-accredited "experts".
The amazing thing about this guy is that he calls himself a Marxist, while there is little he said that Milton Friedman would have disagreed with were he still alive.
The complicating factor for the USA is the issue of race. Where as in more homogeneous societies this is manifesting as class conflicts and demonstrations by workers against the managerial state, in the USA it’s manifesting as race riots and ethnic massacres.
In FilthyHellPhia it's called digging up a pothole, filling it in, and billing City Hall. Make-work, featherbedding, but here it's featherbedding for the rich.
Really nice calm interesting debate Thanks..Sometimes other "think outside the box" stuff I follow like "spikedonline" can felt a little bit shouty Still love it though and always have a healthy skepticism about everything...peace love & happiness
This subject has been almost overly discussed by Victor David Hanson for years. This can’t seem a unique thesis. I suggest you try to get him as a guest.
Exactly, the sooner Liberals move on from this and focus on the class struggle, the sooner we can overthrow capitalism and reshape everyone's lives for the better
