9 ms·

I agree, and I'm concerned about the divide and conquer-type of impact it's having in societal discourse. This effect seems way too convenient (and beneficial)

• bopbeepboop 5y ago
  The conspiracy theory is that modern “Woke” was a PSYOP to dismantle Occupy Wall St, which it was highly effective at.
• colordrops 5y ago
  You've nailed it. Analysis of social movements often doesn't take the intent of the ruling class into account nearly enough, and for good reason - part of their program is to deflect attention away from themselves and make it look organic.
  • parineum 5y ago
    > part of their program Who's they? Name names.
    • rnd0 5y ago
      He already said -the ruling class. The specific names aren't irrelevant since they change regularly...but the dynamic (divide and conquer) doesn't appear to.
      • notahacker 5y ago
        Sure, but as soon as you start naming names, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the people proposing alternative pronouns that don't really catch on or making claims about their workplace are little-known ordinary middle class people without any real power, and some of the people declaring "war on woke" own media empires and sit in parliaments. Which places a different complexion on the "divide and conquer"...
        • angelzen 5y ago
          Occupy Wall Street died when infected with identitarians. Unions, as weak and pathetic as they are, become a whole lot more interested in pronouns, systemic racism and illegal immigration than fighting for a decent wage and decent working conditions for their paying members. Politically, there is no more discourse on behalf of the poor or working classes, only for identitarian version thereof. With the obvious effect that the shunned identities naturally don't support erst left wing policies that exclude them on identity marker basis. Wokeness is a huge win for the ruling class. Divide and conquer at its best.
          • deleted 5y ago
            [deleted]
          • weswpg 5y ago
            Unions have been on the decline for decades going back to the deregulatory and anti-labor policies of Neo liberal governments and that probably has a lot more to do with the problem than pronouns
            • angelzen 5y ago
              You've got cancer and then died of pneumonia. These are both deadly.
          • deleted 5y ago
            [deleted]
        • jpadkins 5y ago
          It doesn't work like that. The people in power find people with an agenda that suits their agenda (woke identity politics that divide any populist movement). Then they elevate those people to places of more power or reach or status. This comes in the forms of grants, promotions, publications, and opening doors (making connections). You don't need to convince or coerce people to fit your agenda. You simply find them and elevate them.
    • orbifold 5y ago
      Goldman Sachs is happy to sponsor floats for the gay pride parade (which incidentally is by now a huge commercial opportunity anyways), they were far less happy about the Occupy Wallstreet movement.
      • ezekiel68 5y ago
        Why would anyone imagine or posit without sources that there is definitely a connection between these two movements? (In other words -- that an entity would be hypocritical for not supporting both)
      • aikinai 5y ago
        Does that really imply any sinister motive? There are plenty of gay people working at Goldman; probably not many anti-capitalists.
        • orbifold 5y ago
          It just illustrates that if your definition of "radical left" is people super concerned with identity politics, pronouns, dead naming, gay rights and so on, then this is a very convenient and non threatening definition to the rich and powerful. In contrast the people that marched on the opening of the new European Central Bank in Frankfurt and had paramilitary skirmishes in the morning are far less amendable to corporate sponsorship and feel good diversity and inclusion messaging, such as modifying your corporate logo to feature the rainbow flag. They literally and figuratively want to burn down / destroy the capitalist system, which is a far more dangerous leftist position than demanding a carbon tax or "breaking the glass ceiling", diversity training etc., which only make sense if you take the capitalist system for granted.
          • aikinai 5y ago
            Ah, I see what you’re saying. That’s an interesting way to look at it. Thanks!
        • im3w1l 5y ago
          Let's take another company then. Say McDonalds. They probably have gay people. They probably have homophobes. They probably have pro-capitalists and anti-capitalists.
    • arminiusreturns 5y ago
      Tavistok Institute, other tax exempt foundations used as cover for agendas by the oligarchs, etc. For a more concrete example of this type of influence, I often refer to the Norman Dodd interview. Norman Dodd was the chief investigator for the 1953 Special Committe on Tax Exempt Foundations (aka the Reece Committee). During his investigation he sent a research assistant Catherine Casey to analyze the minutes of the foundations. Apparently Norman thought she would be good to send because she was not sympathetic to the investigation, and was generally defensive of the tax exempt foundations. After actually spot-reading the minutes though, apparently it shook her so badly that she was never able to return to practicing law, and Carroll Reece had to tuck her away in a job at the FTC, and Norman Dodd says she ultimately lost her mind as a result of what she discovered. (sorry for my poorly done quick transcription) "... finally of course the war is over. At that time their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914 when WW1 broke out. And they arrive at that point, they come to the conclusion that to prevent a reversion we must control education in the United States, and they realize that's a pretty big task. To them it is too big for them alone, so they approach the Rockefeller foundation, with a suggestion that; that portion of education which could be considered domestic, be handled by the Rockefeller foundation and that portion which is international should be handled by the endowment, and they then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American history, so they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of American history in the country, people like Charles and Mary Bird. Their suggestion to them is will they alter the manner in which they present this subject and they get turned down flat. So they then decide it is necessary for them to do as they say, "build our own stable of historians". And then they approach the Gugenheim foundation which specializes in fellowships, and say "when we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American history, and we feel they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so?" and the answer is yes. So under that condition, eventually they assemble 20, and they take this 20 potential teachers of American history, to London, and there they are briefed into what is expected of them, when as and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned. That group of 20 historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association, and towards the end of the 1920's, the endowment grants to the American Historical Assocation, 400,000 for a study of our history in a manner which points to, what can this country look forward to in the future. That culminates in a 7 volume book study, the last volume of which is of course in essence a summary of the contents of the other 6, and the essence of the last volume is "The future of this country belongs to collectivism adminsitered with characteristic American efficiency."..." So what I posit is that "wokeism", more than just a divide and conquer tool, is something that enables the further shifting of the overton window over time towards collectivism. Now understand that the very article itself eminates from a publication with heavy connections to this same kind of subtle influence and control. I find it quite fascinating when viewing sources like the Economist with this sort of scrutiny the kind of insight that can be elucidated simply by trying to understand what they aren't saying and what they are trying to hide, or how they are trying to influence things. https://youtu.be/YUYCBfmIcHM?t=1506 https://youtu.be/YUYCBfmIcHM?t=1506
• 7952 5y ago
  I think people have vastly different work situations and that helps drive the divide. "Woke" ideas are just not that intimidating if you trust your boss and have a sensible employer. Other places it could seem much more of a threat to you personally. This difference in experience is less explicit than in the past when workplaces were more political places. Management can act benevolent whilst subtly gaslighting their people.
• hnbad 5y ago
  It's called recuperation and it doesn't even require nefarious intent. These days anti-capitalism is literally sold as a commodity. Anti-consumerism has become a consumer identity. While this helps deradicalization by diverting the radical energy away from actual causes towards consumption, it also tends to make a good profit. The problem isn't the worldviews. The problem is that you can't fight capitalism through consumption. You can't fight hierarchies by acting within the system of hierarchy, you have to step outside. As an example, the Black Panthers (not the Marvel movie) not only offered social programs and free food in Black communities, they also built coalitions with other racial groups who tried to do the same in their communities. While at a glance acting only within their racial lines (i.e. racial identity politics) they actively worked against racial division through mutual solidarity. Solidarity across divisions is important, but it can only work if you acknowledge the existence of the divisions and the power imbalances these divisions reinforce. As an example in the negative, unions in the early 20th century US often failed because they rejected Black workers who then had no other economical option but to become scabs when white unionized workers went on strike (because they didn't get any of the union benefits and had no union covering their backs if they had joined the strike). There's a widespread misconception these days that "left solidarity" means that all members of "the left" have to be equally "woke". They all have to believe in exactly the one leftist ideology you think is best, they all have to treat all marginalized groups exactly the way you think they must be treated and so on. This is where the leftist memes of the circular firing squad and purity spirals come from. THIS is harmful and divisive. However the answer is not to "not be woke". The answer is to better embrace pragmatic alliances and understand that you can have a shared struggle even if it doesn't perfectly overlap. There's a place for close-nit communities but "the left" is not a clubhouse. As another final example, there's a famous incident in the UK (recently portrayed in the movie "Pride") where gay activists joined striking coal miners because both groups were facing violent opposition from the police. The collaboration helped foster class consciousness in the gay activists and queer acceptance among the coal miners. They didn't become one cohesive ideologically perfect group but their solidarity made them more powerful in their shared struggle than either group would have been on their own.
  • jacquesm 5y ago
    "That anger dollar, that's a big dollar"