Stop Wokeness Before Facts Infect Us All!

anti woke movement? In today's episode, we'll explore how a blend of white grievents and Fearmont Green has led this crusade against progress, and how it's part of a long cynical effort to maintain racial and social hierarchies in America. This story is actually from The Guardian by Michael Harriet and it was published on December twenty first, twenty twenty two.

man is that this was created just another boogeyman. You know that the right needs to keep people excited, keep people afraid, and this is all another boogeyman to scare the kids, you know, against another non excestent threat to their hegemony and attempt to co opt and give a negative narrative to a term used on the describe people who are aware and more not liberal per se, but of the compassionate, empathetic people who are aware of many

flaws in our current system and systematic biases and inequities. That's what woke meant. You're aware of the groups of people who are discriminated against in our society and systemically and for a long time that's what woke means. They've turned it around to mean some sort of a morphous liberal boogeyman that is destroying the country, you know. And I've never been able to get anybody who's told me that, And they do a lot here in Florida to explain

to me exactly how they're doing that. So, yeah, it's not up.

And they're two completely different things, completely different things. Whenever these movements raise their heads in their USA, they are are they often countered, Cynthia? Is there usually some pushback?

peeks right. It actually illustrates how the anti woke movement has become a means to the right to rebrand bigotry and also patriotism and drawing upon historical fears and resentment by promoting legislation like the Stock Woke Act, like Rhonda Santin's actually introduced and others, aim to prevent educational institutions from even discussing topics that might provoke folk discomfort, essentially

whitewash's history and stifling critical conversations about racing inequality. And I also went to point out that the article will contextualized the anti woke movement within a larger historical narrative and actually is a resistance to program. So every significant advancement in civil rights has been met with an equal

and opposite backlash, highlighting a cynical pattern in American history. Ultimately, the war against wokeness is portrayed as an effort to maintain an unjust status quo, where acknowledgment of systemic racism and inequality is framed as an American and this manipulation of language and meeting serves to distract from real issues at hand, reinforcing existence to power dynamics rather than challenging them. We can even point out to a specific time period

in American history. We had a stork election in two thousand and eight, the first black man was actually made president of the United States, and then eight years later

we got what we got. That's what I'm going to say. Oftentimes, that's a prime example of white backlash against particular woke We're using air quotes again, right progress when it comes to who we even will accept as the leader of the country, like the highest land that is actually going to lead us and be the spokesperson for the United States.

And that's always been the case, even if you look historically back to the civil rights movement and you had legislation at the legislation like you had the Civil Rights Act in nineteen sixty four, you had the Fairhousing Act in nineteen sixty eight, you had the Voter Rights Act in nineteen sixty five. Then right after that, who did we get Southern strategy Richard Dixon, and then right after that the War on drugs. Thank you, you damn anti woke people. If I believe in hell, you can go there.

That's all I got to say about that.

Jonathan have done a very good job trying this. So I wanted to talk about something that's been bothering me for roughly three months, mostly because you know, with all the debates on TV, every time you see a right wing figure invited on on a less uh less far right channel TV channel, there's always this shouting match about who is responsible for political violence uh and and each camp accuses the other and and and that pieces me off because that's pretty much like both citing the issue,

which is not not true in this case, because there is a difference between an insult and a characterization, Like an insult is meant to shut down a discussion, to deman a person to you know, it's not an argument, it's not a position. It's just an attack to the person, so that the person is you know, they can answer because they get angry, or it's just to attack their character, or it does nothing to the discussion. Whereas when you say that, especially someone for example, is a fascist, it's

not an insult. It's Fascism has a very specific definition, very specific meaning, and some people fit that meaning, and so when we call them fascist, it's not an insult. It's just like saying that Cynthia has black hair, you know. It's yeah, it's it's just it's like saying that when Trump was president, he lied like twenty one thousand times.

say that he's a fascist. We just qualify his behavior. And so we need to teach the difference to people because this difference is very, very important because it means that on one side you have people who only say insult because they don't know what the position of the other side is, or because they themselves have no position to hold on. And on the other side, you have people who base their opinions on facts, and the two are not on the same equal footing. One has value

and the other doesn't. Until we make that clear every time it happens on TV, they will keep both citing the issues and people will still be on the fence because yeah, I don't know if Tulp is really much worse than the other side, or this person is much better than the other one. Ah, yeah, I'm not really sure, Yeah, they're all insulting each other. No, they're not, they're not. We need to learn the difference.

this person is acting like this, and then it's then being said that we are insulting them because we happen to be of a different mindset. And as you mentioned that, yes, this is just an observation, but I don't necessarily think that oftentimes when people are using the terms like fascism, socialism, marxism, communism, any type of ism, even dictatorships, that they even know

what the hell that means. They really don't. And so if other people are actually in front of them that are presenting themselves in a particular way, they're going to think that because like it's touted that this is the right way to be, that that's supposed to be the right way to be, and if there's going to be like a backlash against it, they're going to be like, oh, well, other people are being violent against us because you're thinking

this particular way and we're being like persecuted. And it even reminds me of the persecuting complex that we often have, Like, you know, different people who happen to be Christian possessed like they feel like a lot of times, especially in the United States, that because there is a person with a difference of opinion or a difference of thought that happens not to be Christian, that you are attacking me because I think a certain way. And it's like, no,

boo boo, I'm not attacking you. What I'm looking at is your particular idea, and I'm taking it apart because this is the issue with it. I'm not saying anything particularly against you as a person, but ideas, thoughts, positions

should be challenged. They should be challenged. And if you are pointing out the fallacy, the inconsistency, or even the hypocrisy in a person's position, they should be challenged and told about that and It's very frustrating that oftentimes we are pushed against when we are pointing out why you, who belong to the anti woke movement has we have

issue with you? And a lot of times, like even if we talked about like in previous segments in this particular you know, this particular week of episodes where you know, people happen to think a certain way or lend themselves a certain way, and then like they're being a talk to about what they're thinking about that all of a sudden,

they're like, you know, putting up the defense system. Like No, if you want to be able to progress any type of society, we have to be able to implore critical thought, and we also have to be able to have nuanced conversations so we can challenge ideas that happen to be harmful. Because like a lot of times, just there's not always just like people who just happen to have issues with

you and they want to be violenced against you. Sometimes you can cause that issue yourself when you are speaking and so certain things and when you are propagating certain ideas that could be harmful.

the entire world is. It's even worse for us because I understand the history and everything that that led to the current situation, but most people don't, and they don't understand how is that possible that the same mechanisms that we saw in Germany in thirty eight, thirty seven, thirty eight thirty nine are happening in front of our eyes and everyone is screaming that this is happening, and it's

still happening. It's weird and it's harrowing, it's unnerving. It's the rest of the world is really not happy about the US right now.

And we have this in history over and over and over again, and unfortunately it has caused an issue, and dare I say, a demise in society, in their society. And I think that one of the things that we have to understand that are here in the United States is that the experiment that has been started over two hundred and fifty years ago is a good experiment. Actually, setting up a representative republic that's based on democracy in order for the people to have a voice in how

they're being governed is a wonderful thing. But unfortunately we have had on more than one occasion, those who happen to bend a certain way come to power to bend our society a certain way, and a lot of times that since the United States is a leader, is an industrial leader and has been for a very long time we are seen even in other countries and other nations

leadership that's bending that way as well. And I agree with Cindy that I don't necessarily think that history will look so kindly on the time that we're in right now. But what I'm hoping for, if I can as an atheist, that there're going to be other people who happen to see the things that they are seeing and not take it and actually rise up and be able to become the leaders of tomorrow, so that anti woke will go to sleep and woke will be the way of.

years ago, that's how it started. But yes, I agree, now we should have Now we should be able to review the results because we had so much time that you know, we have this data in front of us, that we should be able to take our experiment and then come up with some type of results so that

we can come with a theory. And I think that the most pragmatic theory that we can actually come up with when it comes with the representative government is that when we actually are reper we are actually electing people who have the best interests of the people at heart, the country will do well. And it also can be a guiding post for other nations who may not necessarily lean to our way to government. But unfortunately, the reverse can happen as well, right, or the adverse can happen

as well. If you are putting people who happen to be in leadership that have a more authoritarian, more anti woke, more dictatorial narrative, that happens to be what leads them. Unfortunately, it could be a demise of our nations.