It comes from critical theory and critical theory comes from strands of Marxist philosophy and postmodernism woven together. Look up “New Left” and “Herbert Marcuse”.
I think Eric is correct here. The simpler explanation comes from Nathan Cofnas. Millennials were taught that people are all equal. When this generation came of age they leaned heavily on left/liberal justificationa for why inequities still exist after decades of integration along race/sex lines. In a liberal society people are socially restricted people from 'right of liberal' points of view.
@@yamiyugi2894 TH-cam has creepy and unpredictable censorship algorithms for certain words and word combinations. The rationale is often that it's 'anti-semitic'.
@@nickkraw1 Almost all of the postmodern deconstructionalists were anti marxist leftist, postmodernism were the artificial compatible left within boundaries of capitalism with its root in middle class rather than working class. And also class analysis and dialectical materialism are also absent in post modernism so, no they are not the same in fact postmodernists are very anti marxists.
I think it has roots in Marxism, but surely it doesn't come from Marxism only; but they are both manifestations of egalitarian entropic tendencies which exist in any society
It's true that wokeness from about 2013 on has been more of a liberal phenomenon, but that's more of an answer to the question, "why did our liberal elites accede so easily and quickly to it?" IOW, it's down several levels of Chinese Whispers from its origins. IOW in origin and theory it does come from some forms of Marxist revisionism (the line from Gramsci through the Frankfurt School to intersectionality, etc.), it's intended as a way of destroying "primary ties" etc. and therefore destroying Western society; but it dovetailed with liberalism (qua Godless fag-end of Christian morality), because it had hooks that liberals could latch on to, via the shared egalitarianism. But that could just as easily be understood as an aspect of the "modify the standards of the in-group" project that started after the end of WW2. Follow the money.
This is the same pattern we saw in the '80s. A pre-existing radical left pushing a mixture of Marxism, postmodernism, critical theory, radical feminism and some others began to feel their oats on campuses. Liberals (" ") split between those who embraced the leftier option, and those intimidated into silence. I think part of this is motivated by the "No enemies to the left" principle. Many liberals only see the right as an enemy, and either can't see or can't say that the left is possible of error, too. (Many on the left won't criticize the leftier left except to say things like "I fear this radicalism will help the right" and "I agree with their ends but not their means).
Beautiful follow up to an antisemetic conspiracy you got there, cause that is what those accusation against the Frankfurt school and specifically Adorno and horkheimer were.
@@RuneDrageon that's a non sequitur I didn't see any mention of Js And then that is a genetic fallacy of sorts, basically because some bad people also didn't like these Philosophies therefore if you don't you are bad too. Don't be ridiculous. There are lots of reasons to reject the work of the Frankfurt School, not least because they actively tried to make revolution and they were open about it, not least because it is divisive exploitation of identity politics, and especially because Adorno wrote endless tripe trying to sound smarter than the other philosophers in some verbal dick waving competition.
*The 5 worst tyrants known to humanity, all were on the Left (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao & Kim Jung-Ill).* Not saying the Right is perfect, but you just don't see the monsters that you see on the Left.
Doesn't come more from postmodernism or at least a perversion of it. Generally it's an academic loophole to true intellectualism. It rigs arguments by creating a dynamic that says, if you're part of the oppressor/colonizer class, you can't have an opinion. In comes the demographic purity test and subsequent invalidation of any dissenting argument based on identity.
It comes from the middle class. So is ultimately soft conservatism. People with more, wanting even more and being hostile to suggestions from the working class that they already have too much and should have less.
Almost all of the postmodern deconstructionalists were anti marxist leftist, postmodernism were the artificial compatible left within the boundaries of capitalism with its root in middle class rather than working class. And also class analysis and dialectical materialism are also absent in post modernism so, no they are not the same in fact postmodernists are very anti marxists.
Title's correct, but the rambling thin sliced answer isn't. Wokeness is basically a function of female participation and leadership and that makes the most coherent causal sense, consistent with what we see. It's becoming apparent this is the real third rail that every dissident social science type can't consider, and it's the most politically invariant bias. Still it's weird to see everybody come up with these strained vague explanations as if every subconscious assumption they have is steering them away into culture story mush. It's one bias that even dissidents reliably can't see through. To be clear it's not women simply causing it, but how institutions assimilate to their influence outlook and preferences.
I agree that there is currently too.much female energy at play, meaning over emphasis upon emotions and chaos as opposed to reason and order. The sad thing is-- no one ever wants to call it out. Female energy will always secretly begging for male energy (logic) to take over and create order and security. Tucker Carlson is right- weak men make angry women. And the angrier and more chaotic the female energy gets, the greater the need to truth, logic and order. Yes, I'm talking about mass deportations.
To me its pretty simple. I comes from feminism and black revanchism (what became black lives matter). As things became more equal, the ones invested in the fight need to feel like victims and that drives wokeness. But I agree, it have nothing to do with the left or right apart from USA being polarized making issues tending to fall in either camp. A good counter example is the UK having a woke right wing party in power.
Reiterating these modern historical observations adds some useful context, although if the general idea is sort of: the left is often more susceptible to accidentally incorporating communist bad ideas, much like the right might be susceptible to incorporating fascist bad ideas, I'm like...um, everyone already knows that dude. Sure, it's potentially useful for establishing context to revisit relatively recent history, but don't we already basically know how the civil rights era affected race relations? This is not even a criticism exactly, but my impression is that some of the hats Kaufmann and Hanania often wear are "social scientist" and "social theorist," while it seems clear to me that they pretty much would be excellent journalists instead. (They're always compiling relatively interesting information that I mostly already have, and making it sound like a new idea, imo they should dig up some interesting new information instead, lol I'm sure they'd do a Taibbi-level great job).
It is called Cultural Marxism. Wokeness is another term for Cultural Marxism. It did grow from classical Marxism.
Agreed.
Indeed.
Wikipedia says that cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory though, and wikipedia is the most diverse platform so that makes it the most true
@@Stevie-J Sure, Jan…😂😂😂🤪😜🤪
Still classical Marxism contradicts intersectionality and "cultural marxism" isn't identity politics on its own
It comes from critical theory and critical theory comes from strands of Marxist philosophy and postmodernism woven together. Look up “New Left” and “Herbert Marcuse”.
James Lindsay would strongly disagree....
I think Eric is correct here. The simpler explanation comes from Nathan Cofnas. Millennials were taught that people are all equal. When this generation came of age they leaned heavily on left/liberal justificationa for why inequities still exist after decades of integration along race/sex lines. In a liberal society people are socially restricted people from 'right of liberal' points of view.
You're not restricted at all, people will just think you're an asshole.
@@waltonsmith7210 What do you imagine "socially restricting" means?
Marksism is wokeness. It doesn't comes from, it literally is
You can't even spell it
@@yamiyugi2894 TH-cam has creepy and unpredictable censorship algorithms for certain words and word combinations. The rationale is often that it's 'anti-semitic'.
Wokeness comes from postmodern deconstructionism.
This is correct, and frankly that comes from Marxism, atheism, materialism, and liberalism - and all of those ultimately come from nominalism.
@@nickkraw1
And nominalism ultimately comes from philosophy, so fuck Socrates and Thales!
@@nickkraw1
Almost all of the postmodern deconstructionalists were anti marxist leftist, postmodernism were the artificial compatible left within boundaries of capitalism with its root in middle class rather than working class. And also class analysis and dialectical materialism are also absent in post modernism so, no they are not the same in fact postmodernists are very anti marxists.
@@nickkraw1 religious ideas
Yes it does. There's a direct continuum from vulgar to intersectional.
I think it has roots in Marxism, but surely it doesn't come from Marxism only;
but they are both manifestations of egalitarian entropic tendencies which exist in any society
Six and one half minutes of saying nothing.
Kauffman. Just another subverter
It's true that wokeness from about 2013 on has been more of a liberal phenomenon, but that's more of an answer to the question, "why did our liberal elites accede so easily and quickly to it?" IOW, it's down several levels of Chinese Whispers from its origins.
IOW in origin and theory it does come from some forms of Marxist revisionism (the line from Gramsci through the Frankfurt School to intersectionality, etc.), it's intended as a way of destroying "primary ties" etc. and therefore destroying Western society; but it dovetailed with liberalism (qua Godless fag-end of Christian morality), because it had hooks that liberals could latch on to, via the shared egalitarianism.
But that could just as easily be understood as an aspect of the "modify the standards of the in-group" project that started after the end of WW2. Follow the money.
This is the same pattern we saw in the '80s. A pre-existing radical left pushing a mixture of Marxism, postmodernism, critical theory, radical feminism and some others began to feel their oats on campuses. Liberals (" ") split between those who embraced the leftier option, and those intimidated into silence. I think part of this is motivated by the "No enemies to the left" principle. Many liberals only see the right as an enemy, and either can't see or can't say that the left is possible of error, too. (Many on the left won't criticize the leftier left except to say things like "I fear this radicalism will help the right" and "I agree with their ends but not their means).
Yep, the Ideological Subversion of the Frankfurt School in Chicago aided by the CIA to destroy notions of Nationalism
Beautiful follow up to an antisemetic conspiracy you got there, cause that is what those accusation against the Frankfurt school and specifically Adorno and horkheimer were.
@@RuneDrageon that's a non sequitur
I didn't see any mention of Js
And then that is a genetic fallacy of sorts, basically because some bad people also didn't like these Philosophies therefore if you don't you are bad too.
Don't be ridiculous.
There are lots of reasons to reject the work of the Frankfurt School, not least because they actively tried to make revolution and they were open about it, not least because it is divisive exploitation of identity politics, and especially because Adorno wrote endless tripe trying to sound smarter than the other philosophers in some verbal dick waving competition.
@@RuneDrageon Never mind whether it's a conspiracy or "anti-semitic" - is it true?
Like all bad ideas, woke comes from the left.
*The 5 worst tyrants known to humanity, all were on the Left (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao & Kim Jung-Ill).*
Not saying the Right is perfect, but you just don't see the monsters that you see on the Left.
Doesn't come more from postmodernism or at least a perversion of it. Generally it's an academic loophole to true intellectualism. It rigs arguments by creating a dynamic that says, if you're part of the oppressor/colonizer class, you can't have an opinion. In comes the demographic purity test and subsequent invalidation of any dissenting argument based on identity.
It's Marxism and Postmodernism blended through Hegelian Dialectics, that these two things are totally contradictory isn't a problem for Marxism.
You hit the nail on the head
Wokeness doesn't come from Marxism but both of them come from dysgenics and mutational load, and they are situated on the same spectrum.
What do you mean by mutational load and dysgenics?
Spiteful mutants
@@Brian_Friesen
th-cam.com/users/livewWwDB04-qH8?si=ubI-mPBFE-i8BIiz
It comes from the middle class. So is ultimately soft conservatism. People with more, wanting even more and being hostile to suggestions from the working class that they already have too much and should have less.
Almost all of the postmodern deconstructionalists were anti marxist leftist, postmodernism were the artificial compatible left within the boundaries of capitalism with its root in middle class rather than working class. And also class analysis and dialectical materialism are also absent in post modernism so, no they are not the same in fact postmodernists are very anti marxists.
Then what does it come from?
We're not allowed to say, here on TH-cam. Only X and Rumbl3 are having honest discussions.
Title's correct, but the rambling thin sliced answer isn't. Wokeness is basically a function of female participation and leadership and that makes the most coherent causal sense, consistent with what we see. It's becoming apparent this is the real third rail that every dissident social science type can't consider, and it's the most politically invariant bias. Still it's weird to see everybody come up with these strained vague explanations as if every subconscious assumption they have is steering them away into culture story mush. It's one bias that even dissidents reliably can't see through. To be clear it's not women simply causing it, but how institutions assimilate to their influence outlook and preferences.
I liked his answer, but you made good points. There are a lot of facets.
I agree that there is currently too.much female energy at play, meaning over emphasis upon emotions and chaos as opposed to reason and order. The sad thing is-- no one ever wants to call it out.
Female energy will always secretly begging for male energy (logic) to take over and create order and security. Tucker Carlson is right- weak men make angry women. And the angrier and more chaotic the female energy gets, the greater the need to truth, logic and order.
Yes, I'm talking about mass deportations.
To me its pretty simple. I comes from feminism and black revanchism (what became black lives matter).
As things became more equal, the ones invested in the fight need to feel like victims and that drives wokeness.
But I agree, it have nothing to do with the left or right apart from USA being polarized making issues tending to fall in either camp.
A good counter example is the UK having a woke right wing party in power.
Feminism came from Marxism
Reiterating these modern historical observations adds some useful context, although if the general idea is sort of: the left is often more susceptible to accidentally incorporating communist bad ideas, much like the right might be susceptible to incorporating fascist bad ideas, I'm like...um, everyone already knows that dude.
Sure, it's potentially useful for establishing context to revisit relatively recent history, but don't we already basically know how the civil rights era affected race relations?
This is not even a criticism exactly, but my impression is that some of the hats Kaufmann and Hanania often wear are "social scientist" and "social theorist," while it seems clear to me that they pretty much would be excellent journalists instead.
(They're always compiling relatively interesting information that I mostly already have, and making it sound like a new idea, imo they should dig up some interesting new information instead, lol I'm sure they'd do a Taibbi-level great job).
Liberalism!
I think he's on point.
Feminism. It came from feminism.
Of COURSE it comes from Marxism.
Just as Marxism comes from the same t r i b e as Kaufmann - they admit it in their own writings.
This is the only honest comment here.
@@c3bhm 👍
No, it comes from gnosticism which is anti-Jewish
IMHO, wokery/genderqueer and islamism are two sides of the same coin;
but pple are at a loss to know exactly what's going on