How woke are you?

So that we all understand what is being asked, let’s start with a definition. To your understanding, what does ‘Woke’ actually mean? --- [[Well-informed and up to date]] [[Alerted to racial or social discrimination]] [[Strange rules being imposed on us]]

Actually, that was its original meaning in the 2017 issue of the Oxford English Dictionary. But times have changed and ‘woke’ now has a new meaning [[Alerted to racial or social discrimination]]

(t8n: "pulse")["Alerted to racial or social discrimination"] This is how those who consider themselves ‘woke’ would define the term [[Move on ...->Q2]]

Some people would look at ‘woke’ differently. How would they see it? --- [[Blindly following ridiculous rules->Q3]] [[A disruptive force in society->Q3]] [[Politically Correctness gone mad->Q3]]

All three opinions have been expressed at times by those who have a negative view of ‘woke’. It is time now to dig a bit deeper to get to the heart of what we are dealing with. [[First ... a personal question->Q4]]

###HOW WOKE ARE YOU?' [[Click here to start ...->start]]

Do you consider yourself 'woke'? --- In other words ... are you particularly alerted to racial or cultural discrimination and does this inform your actions? [[Yes->wokeyes]] [[No->wokeno]]

Which of the following describes you best? --- [[I am very actively involved in fighting against discrimination in our society->wokeyes1]] [[I do what I can to support anti-discriminatory causes->wokeyes2]] [[I agree with these principles in general but I am not much of an activist->wokeyes3]]

(set:$wokef to 0) There was a story recently of Universities being told by a watchdog to 'decolonise' Maths and Computing courses. The Computing course should address 'how divisions and hierarchies of colonial value are replicated and re-inforced' and the Maths course should 'defer to the student voice' in order to present a 'multicultural and decolonised view'. What do you make of this? --- [[I don't understand. What does 'decolonise' mean? ->text5]] [[I think they just want to be fairer to all sectors of society, though I don't quite see the relevance ->wokenotext1]] [[This is madness. What has Science to do with actions from the past? ->wokenotext2]] [[If there are real injustices to address, surely we need to make non-Europeans comfortable in our universities? ->wokenotext3]]

</style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/silverstar.jpg"></div> (t8n: "pulse")[You are a SILVER STAR woke hero] You can either [[return->begin]] or ... --- [[click here->wokeno]] if you are up to being challenged!

</style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/goldstar.jpg"></div> (t8n: "pulse")[You are a GOLD STAR woke warrior] You can either [[return->begin]] or ... --- [[click here->wokeno]] if you are up to being challenged!

</style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/bronzestar.jpg"></div> (t8n: "pulse")[You are a BRONZE STAR armchair woke soldier] You can either [[return->begin]] or ... --- [[click here->wokeno]] if you are up to being challenged!

To 'decolonise' takes the meaning (in the current context) of: changing a curriculum in a way that considers the cultural beliefs behind it (for example the belief that European writers, artists, or ideas are better and more important than ones from countries that were colonised by Europe) and that gives more importance to these non-European writers, artists, etc. This definition has, of course, been supplied by those who believe in its assumptions regarding the European bias of these courses, at the expense of of non-Western world. [[Return ... ->wokeno]]

(set:$wokef to 2) Although the term 'woke' purports to address inequalities in society, some would say that proponents go too far in digging up past inequalities, in order to readdress them. Yes, much of Science in the past was conducted in a climate of injustice and persecution, but does that mean that this historic situation should be dug up and addressed, when all students want to be taught is Science. A better context for such discussions would be those studying the Social Sciences and the fringe 'woke' courses based around critical theory. So, yes it is not relevant to the Sciences and an unhelpful distraction. This is not to say that inequalities didn't exist when Science was being developed, but a course teaching Science should just .... teach Science. [[Move on ...->q5]]

(set:$wokef to 3) Although the term 'woke' purports to address inequalities in society, some would say that proponents go too far in digging up past inequalities, in order to readdress them. Yes, much of Science in the past was conducted in a climate of injustice and persecution, but does that mean that this historic situation should be dug up and addressed, when all students want to be taught is Science. A better context for such discussions would be those studying the Social Sciences and the fringe 'woke' courses based around critical theory. Yes, we need non-Europeans to feel comfortable in our Universities but it is highly unlikely that a Science curriculum is going to cause them any kind of distress. Studying Science concentrates on the findings and inventions of Scientists, not on the social climate in which they worked. So,we would suggest that it is not relevant to the Sciences and an unhelpful distraction. This is not to say that inequalities didn't exist when Science was being developed, but a course teaching Science should just .... teach Science. [[Move on ...->q5]]

Why do you think that this has become an issue these days? --- [[I don't know ... please tell me more ->q5text3]] [[It is a deliberate attempt by some to sow confusion and disharmony ->q5text2]] [[It is a sincere (and possibly misguided) attempt to bring harmony and understanding ->q5text1]]

(set:$wokef to $wokef + 1) That's what they want you to think. But is it really bringing harmony and understanding? By turning people against each other, all it is bringing is confusion. Although many are sincere, they are no more than 'useful idiots' for those who are really pulling the strings. There's a lot more going on here than people imagine. It is serious, but it is also complicated, which is why most people are ignorant of what is really going on - too much for us to process! The fact is that we are reaping the fruits of a historical process that started in the 1920s, with the aim of wrenching our society away from its traditional Judeo-Christian roots. This possibly sounds like 'conspiracy talk' but the key thing is to engage your brain and ask questions. --- [[What proof do you have for what you are saying?->q6text1]] [[What has this got to do with 'colonialism' and university courses?->q6text2]] [[You're just another 'conspiracy nut'. Why should I listen to you?->q6text3]] [[I've had enough of this. Just tell me how 'woke' I am and let me go!->leave]]

Yes, it does seem so. There's a lot more going on here than people imagine. It is serious, but it is also complicated, which is why most people are ignorant of what is really going on - too much for us to process! The fact is that we are reaping the fruits of a historical process that started in the 1920s, with the aim of wrenching our society away from its traditional Judeo-Christian roots. This possibly sounds like 'conspiracy talk' but the key thing is to engage your brain and ask questions. --- [[What proof do you have for what you are saying?->q6text1]] [[What has this got to do with 'colonialism' and university courses?->q6text2]] [[You're probably just another 'conspiracy nut'. Why should I listen to you?->q6text3]] [[I've had enough of this. Just tell me how 'woke' I am and let me go!->leave]]

There's a lot more going on here than people imagine. It is serious, but it is also complicated, which is why most people are ignorant of what is really going on - too much for us to process! The fact is that we are reaping the fruits of a historical process that started in the 1920s, with the aim of wrenching our society away from its traditional Judeo-Christian roots. This possibly sounds like 'conspiracy talk' but the key thing is to engage your brain and ask questions. --- [[What proof do you have for what you are saying?->q6text1]] [[What has this got to do with 'colonialism' and university courses?->q6text2]] [[You're just another 'conspiracy nut'. Why should I listen to you?->q6text3]] [[I've had enough of this. Just tell me how 'woke' I am and let me go!->leave]]

(set:$route to 1) Here is how it happened. Feel free to click on the links below to go deeper. --- In the 1920s a [[group of Marxists->marxists]] founded the [[Institute of Social Research->institute]] in Frankfurt, Germany, in order to re-evaluate their philosophy in the light of the [[failure of Marxism->marxism]] in the First World War. Their aim seems to have been to [[bring down Western Civilisation->bringdown]] as we know it. With the rise of Nazi Germany, they relocated to New York, centred on Columbia University and there was born the new discipline of [[Cultural Marxism->cm]]. Their [[initial strategy was through academia->academia]] and to pull in the intellectuals they created a methodology called [[Critical Theory->critical]]. At its heart is a rejection of the notion of objectivity in knowledge – a [[rejection of absolute truth->rejection]]. In the 1950s and 1960s they [[wrote books->books]] to propagate their theories and these theories gained ground in the 1960s, with the [[cultural revolutions->cultural]] in that decade regarding [[sexuality->sexuality]], [[protests->protests]] and kicking back against the prevailing culture. Out of this came the campaign for [[political correctness->pc]], the growth of [[victim groups->victim]], the rise of [[fake news->fake]] and the emergence of the [[woke environment->woke]] that now has us in its grip. This is the end of the presentation. For your 'woke score' [[click here->leave1]]

(set:$route to 2 ) To understand this we need to follow the 'back story' to see how we have got to where we are today. Here is the full historical account. Feel free to click on the links below to go deeper. --- In the 1920s a [[group of Marxists->marxists]] founded the [[Institute of Social Research->institute]] in Frankfurt, Germany, in order to re-evaluate their philosophy in the light of the [[failure of Marxism->marxism]] in the First World War. Their aim seems to have been to [[bring down Western Civilisation->bringdown]] as we know it. With the rise of Nazi Germany, they relocated to New York, centred on Columbia University and there was born the new discipline of [[Cultural Marxism->cm]]. Their [[initial strategy was through academia->academia]] and to pull in the intellectuals they created a methodology called [[Critical Theory->critical]]. At its heart is a rejection of the notion of objectivity in knowledge – a [[rejection of absolute truth->rejection]]. In the 1950s and 1960s they [[wrote books->books]] to propagate their theories and these theories gained ground in the 1960s, with the [[cultural revolutions->cultural]] in that decade regarding [[sexuality->sexuality]], [[protests->protests]] and kicking back against the prevailing culture. Out of this came the campaign for [[political correctness->pc]], the growth of [[victim groups->victim]], the rise of [[fake news->fake]] and the emergence of the [[woke environment->woke]] that now has us in its grip. This is the end of the presentation. For your 'woke score' [[click here->leave1]]

(set:$route to 3) No I am not a conspiracy nut and, arguably, it's those who would speak against what I am writing who are the real 'conspiracy nuts'. Rather than throw names around it is encumbant on us to always seek the truth. The following is the truth. Feel free to click on the links below to go deeper. --- In the 1920s a [[group of Marxists->marxists]] founded the [[Institute of Social Research->institute]] in Frankfurt, Germany, in order to re-evaluate their philosophy in the light of the [[failure of Marxism->marxism]] in the First World War. Their aim seems to have been to [[bring down Western Civilisation->bringdown]] as we know it. With the rise of Nazi Germany, they relocated to New York, centred on Columbia University and there was born the new discipline of [[Cultural Marxism->cm]]. Their [[initial strategy was through academia->academia]] and to pull in the intellectuals they created a methodology called [[Critical Theory->critical]]. At its heart is a rejection of the notion of objectivity in knowledge – a [[rejection of absolute truth->rejection]]. In the 1950s and 1960s they [[wrote books->books]] to propagate their theories and these theories gained ground in the 1960s, with the [[cultural revolutions->cultural]] in that decade regarding [[sexuality->sexuality]], [[protests->protests]] and kicking back against the prevailing culture. Out of this came the campaign for [[political correctness->pc]], the growth of [[victim groups->victim]], the rise of [[fake news->fake]] and the emergence of the [[woke environment->woke]] that now has us in its grip. This is the end of the presentation. For your 'woke score' [[click here->leave1]]

Sorry that you are leaving early. You can always come back at another time :-) (t8n: "pulse")[Your 'woke' score is 50%] --- If you want to read more about this subject may we recommend NOISE by Steve Maltz, available at all good bookshops. [[Return ...->begin]]

Here are the main players in our story: Herbert Marcuse </style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/marcuse.jpeg"></div> (from Wikipedia) Herbert Marcuse ; July 19, 1898 – July 29, 1979) was a German-American philosopher, sociologist, and political theorist, associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory. Born in Berlin, Marcuse studied at the Humboldt University of Berlin and then at Freiburg, where he received his PhD. He was a prominent figure in the Frankfurt-based Institute for Social Research – what later became known as the Frankfurt School. He was married to Sophie Wertheim (1924–1951), Inge Neumann (1955–1973), and Erica Sherover (1976–1979). In his written works, he criticized capitalism, modern technology, Soviet Communism and popular culture, arguing that they represent new forms of social control. Between 1943 and 1950, Marcuse worked in US government service for the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency) where he criticized the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the book Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis (1958). In the 1960s and the 1970s he became known as the preeminent theorist of the New Left and the student movements of West Germany, France, and the United States; some consider him "the Father of the New Left". His best-known works are Eros and Civilization (1955) and One-Dimensional Man (1964). His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and 1970s, both in the United States and internationally. Theodore Adorno </style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/adorno.jpg"></div> (from Wikipedia) Theodor W. Adorno: German: born Theodor Ludwig Wiesengrund; 11 September 1903 – 6 August 1969) was a German philosopher, sociologist, psychologist, musicologist, and composer. He was a leading member of the Frankfurt School of critical theory, whose work has come to be associated with thinkers such as Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, for whom the works of Freud, Marx, and Hegel were essential to a critique of modern society. As a critic of both fascism and what he called the culture industry, his writings—such as Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), Minima Moralia (1951) and Negative Dialectics (1966)—strongly influenced the European New Left ... Working for the newly relocated Institute for Social Research, Adorno collaborated on influential studies of authoritarianism, antisemitism and propaganda that would later serve as models for sociological studies the Institute carried out in post-war Germany. Max Horkheimer </style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/max.jpg"></div> (from Wikipedia) Max Horkheimer: German: 14 February 1895 – 7 July 1973) was a German philosopher and sociologist who was famous for his work in critical theory as a member of the Frankfurt School of social research. Horkheimer addressed authoritarianism, militarism, economic disruption, environmental crisis, and the poverty of mass culture using the philosophy of history as a framework. This became the foundation of critical theory. His most important works include Eclipse of Reason (1947), Between Philosophy and Social Science (1930–1938) and, in collaboration with Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947). Through the Frankfurt School, Horkheimer planned, supported and made other significant works possible. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

Frankfurt school </style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/frankfurt.jpg"></div> The Institute of Social Research was founded, in Frankfurt Germany, in 1923. It was more commonly known as the Frankfurt School. Here's how the (supposedly) independent editors at Wikipedia introduce it: //“The Frankfurt School (Frankfurter Schule) is a school of social theory and critical philosophy associated with the Institute for Social Research, at Goethe University Frankfurt. Founded in the Weimar Republic (1918–33), during the European interwar period (1918–39), the Frankfurt School comprised intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents who were ill-fitted to the contemporary socio-economic systems (capitalist, fascist, communist) of that time. The Frankfurt theory proposed that social theory was inadequate for explaining the turbulent factionalism and reactionary politics of capitalist societies in the 20th century. Critical of capitalism and Marxism–Leninism as philosophically inflexible systems, the School's Critical Theory research indicated alternative paths to realising the social development of a nation.”// This conjures up an image of a cosy inwardly-looking academic think-tank, funded as a vanity project by a politically-minded left-leaning philanthropist. Another way of looking at this places the Frankfurt School at the heart of a massive, covert conspiracy, churning out not just theory, but a plan – a long march – for implementation of its objectives, however long this may take, a plan that is finding fulfilment every day in our modern world. This is the 'controversial' view. So, either the Frankfurt School at the heart of a conspiracy to bring down Western Civilisation as we know it or that the real conspiracy is to believe that the Frankfurt School is at the heart of a conspiracy to bring down Western Civilisation as we know it! So either the conspiracy is the actual actions of the Frankfurt school or //believing// in the 'suppose' actions of the Frankfurt school. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

Karl Marx </style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/marx.jpg"></div> We begin our story with a failed global economic theory. This is the fruit of the mind of the German, Karl Marx, in the mid-19th century. His basic teaching, Marxism, was a critique of Western capitalism, seeing it as a struggle between the ruling classes, who own the means of production and the working classes, who own nothing but their own bodies and who, for a standard wage, do the labour that enables the rich to get richer. In Marx’s view, this system was unstable and would result in the working classes, as a result of a growth in self-realisation, rising up against their oppressors and creating a classless communist society, where everyone is ‘equal’. They would do this through revolution, rather than evolution, so it was a philosophy of direct action and violent outcomes. So, did theory ever become fact? Certainly not in his lifetime, though his theories were starting to stir things up in Germany and Russia by the time of his death in 1883. His greatest legacy though, is a bad one, with tens of millions of people dying as a result of various implementations of his theories, beginning with the Russian Revolution of 1917. The First World War was a great disappointment for Communists and Marxists, as they fully expected the working classes to break the shackles of nationalism and refuse to fight for their country. They had grossly miscalculated, not anticipating the hold of patriotism for one’s country above all and the ‘rightness of their cause’ as dictated by their Christian upbringing. For the Marxist theoreticians, the working classes had let themselves down and betrayed their class, the only success being the Bolsheviks in Russia, who followed the script, but consequently consigned their country to decades of totalitarian tyranny. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

The eggheads at the Frankfurt School, by bringing in techniques from other disciplines, such as the psychoanalytical theories of Sigmund Freud, re-invented Marxism, taking it from the realms of economics (the battle of the classes) and into the very fabric of Western society, where the oppressors are not so much the ruling classes but rather the very institutions of Western culture. With the rise of Nazi Germany, they relocated to New York, centred on Columbia University and there was born the new discipline of Cultural Marxism. And there it is, Cultural Marxism. Proof of the divergence of views on this is demonstrated if you look at its entry in Wikipedia – there isn’t one! Even ‘fairies’ has a Wikipedia entry and everyone knows they don’t exist! Instead you are redirected to a section within the ‘Frankfurt School’ wiki page, labelled Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory. So Wikipedia editors have nailed their colours to their mast and, by doing so, have ironically exhibited a key trait of practitioners of Cultural Marxism, censorship without discussion. More of this later as we go deeper into our subject. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

How on earth were these academics going to be able to introduce their views into society? Being centred at a pliable university campus, their initial strategy was through academia. To pull in the intellectuals they formulated Critical Theory, a simple system disguised as a complex one in order to hide its true intentions. Even its Wikipedia page admits that the article may be too technical for most readers to understand. In a nutshell it states that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation. In other words it is saying that our Judeo-Christian heritage and foundations are stopping us from being free! This all sounds very ‘hippyish’ and it may come as no surprise that the alternative culture of the 1960s was birthed by the minds of the Frankfurt School. I did warn you that we are going to venture into some very strange places. Our story begins in 1930, when the school started formulating its controversial strategies under the leadership of its new director, Max Horkheimer. Under this new leadership, the Frankfurt School was to move away from academic concerns to a wider remit, critical social research, which involved an integration of the social sciences, a significant development. Key academics brought in to follow this path were Erich Fromm, the psychoanalyst, Theodor Adorno, the sociologist and Herbert Marcuse, the academic philosopher. Things were now going to get a little tasty. Fromm worked with Horkheimer on finding connections between the theories of Marx and Sigmund Freud. The area of attack here was social change and, in particular, the role of the family in society. These men were arrogantly going to interfere with a system that has worked perfectly well for thousands of years. To further this, Adorno later became involved too, working towards a goal of the reinterpretation of the family unit. At all times, ideas were filtered through Marxist principles, using ‘dialectical mediation’, whatever that may be. In 1935, when being a Communist was not exactly the best career-choice for thriving in Nazi Germany, the School was moved to Columbia University in New York. Two years later Horkheimer published the manifesto of the School, Traditional and Critical Theory. In 1941 Horkheimer moved to Los Angeles, close to the film industry, later followed by Marcuse and Adorno. Five years later he returned to Germany, leaving the other two behind to continue their work in the USA. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

For laymen such as you and me, the best way to try and understand their approach and their motivations, one needs to get some sort of handle on ‘Critical Theory’, the driving force behind all of their ideas. The simplest way of looking at it is that it is a system where everything is there to be criticised and deconstructed. It doesn’t offer solutions to fill in the gap of what they may have destroyed, it is simply a wrecking ball bludgeoning its way through the certainties of Western Civilisation. One basic principle was to reject the notion of objectivity in knowledge. This is highly significant and lays down the roots of the relativism that is one of the key drivers in the Western world today, and, in fact, the whole of postmodernism – the predominant driver of Western society - flows from this one statement. It answers the question, what is truth? with the answer … whatever you want it to be. They qualify this by suggesting that historical and social factors need to be taken into account, including a consideration of the situation itself and who is the one perceiving it. It leads to the situation of politicians and philosophers telling us what to believe. No room here for absolute truth! Although there’s a lot deeper one can go in what is, by its nature a dense philosophical system, it is sufficient for our understanding to consider the millions of words written on this just as commentary, and to hold on to the single defining statement – to reject the notion of objectivity in knowledge – a rejection of absolute truth. Everything else flows from this … and it started to flow in the 1950s. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

One basic principle was to reject the notion of objectivity in knowledge. This is highly significant and lays down the roots of the relativism that is one of the key drivers in the Western world today, and, in fact, the whole of postmodernism – the predominant driver of Western society - flows from this one statement. It answers the question, what is truth? with the answer … whatever you want it to be. They qualify this by suggesting that historical and social factors need to be taken into account, including a consideration of the situation itself and who is the one perceiving it. It leads to the situation of politicians and philosophers telling us what to believe. No room here for absolute truth! Although there’s a lot deeper one can go in what is, by its nature a dense philosophical system, it is sufficient for our understanding to consider the millions of words written on this just as commentary, and to hold on to the single defining statement – to reject the notion of objectivity in knowledge – a rejection of absolute truth. Everything else flows from this … and it started to flow in the 1950s. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

The Authoritarian Personality </style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/auth.jpg"></div> Theodor Adorno kicked off the 1950s with a book, the Authoritarian Personality, a hugely influential book in the subsequent years. Sponsored by the American Jewish Committee’s department of Scientific Research, the book was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Ostensibly written to help quash the re-emergence of Fascism, it downplayed the Marxism that inspired it, to make it palatable for those who believed in democracy. It introduced the F-Scale (F standing for pre-Fascist personality), as a way of determining authoritarian propensities, on the premise that Fascism is the worst kind of authoritarianism and it can be detected early in a child’s development, with sexual repression a factor! The Frankfurt School’s dabbling with Freud can be seen here and Adorno reveals his true intentions by declaring that Fascism can result from religion and conventional middle-class values concerning family, sex and society. According to the book, budding fascists can be those who believe in obedience and respect for authority, or have negative views on homosexuality, or who have a high view of personal honour. What is happening here? You can understand the fear people had that Fascism may rise again and who better to teach the American social scientists than a German Jewish academic? Remembering the goal of the Frankfurt School concerning the family and Western civilisation, we now have the germ of an idea that those who are brought up to have a high view of both … possibly have fascist tendencies! This idea is going to come back and haunt as all, as this story progresses. Eros and Civilisation </style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/Eros.jpg"></div> Moving on to Herbert Marcuse, he agreed with Adorno that Fascism can be traced back to psychological and sexual repression but then he switched things round. He stated that the good guys, the anti-fascists, would be the opposite, people defined by psychological and sexual liberation! He introduced this all in his first influential book, Eros and Civilisation, published in 1955. Here he made proposals that were eventually to ignite an explosion in the following decade. He suggested that that the prevailing technological, capitalist society traps people by limiting their sexual libido, turning sex into a commodity and using religion and morality to suppress these natural instincts, through its promotion of monogamy and aversion to sexual perversion. Let it all hang out! proclaimed Marcuse. Suppressed sexuality is for fascists! It should be no surprise, when the permissive sixties took on these ideas and an aged German Jewish philosopher became a sex guru for a generation, even coining the slogan. Make love not war! Critical Theory, the driving force of Cultural Marxism, is all about tearing down institutions that form the bedrock of our culture, with a particular strategy of re-defining the family. It is purely destructive and is very much tied in with the Marxist ideology of control of the collective and the squashing of the individual. It is ‘1984 personified’, interesting as George Orwell was a socialist writing at a time when the Frankfurt School were beginning to make their sinister inroads. It is interesting that the 1960s birthed the counter-culture and we can now begin to grasp that this was not initiated by a bunch of idealistic hippies, but there were other forces at play here. Herbert Marcuse, sex guru. Through the message of his increasingly read Eros and Civilisation, he was subtly declaring the hidden message, prove you ain’t a potential fascist, get laid! Remember, his philosophy, shared with his co-patriot Theodor Adorno, identified Fascism with sexual morality, family values and a Christian lifestyle. How better can you cleanse yourself from any unsociable right-wing tendencies than to indulge your fleshly appetites! This was aided by the advent of the birth control pill at the beginning of the decade, so significant that it was referred to as just ‘the Pill’, the chemical gateway to guilt-free sex. And, in the case of the odd ‘accident’, convenient abortions were made legally available as the result of the Abortion Act in the UK in 1967. Interestingly, convenience abortions were made legal as early as 1919 in Soviet Russia. One Dimensional Man </style> <img src="https://www.godspodaudio.co.uk/oned.jpg"></div> But Marcuse had a lot more in his locker. He’d only just got started! In 1964 he wrote One Dimensional Man, described by Douglas Kellner as one of the most subversive books of the 20th Century. It was the book that really put Marcuse on the map. Traditional Marxists and capitalists hated it, but the growing band of young political activists loved it. In the book he attacked the American capitalist society for reducing human beings to consumers at the mercy of advertisers, with their freedom curtailed by the ever-manipulated need to carry on consuming. They are reduced, in his view, to being ‘one dimensional’ in their thoughts and attitudes. I see nothing fundamentally wrong in this assessment of the wrongs of consumerism, as it’s really not the best way of ordering our lives. It’s Marcuse’s solution that sets him apart from most of his contemporaries. He offered a new way of looking at the world in his subsequent writings. He was very much for direct action, political propaganda, any means to wake up the people and mobilise them against the forces of capitalism. A later book, An Essay on Liberation, was an outline for liberation, for action, for revolution. It was a handbook taken up by a new species of protester that was birthed out of an existing species. Welcome to the New Left. The ‘Old Left’ were the original political left wing in the West, such as The Labour Party in the UK. They were typified mainly by the blue-collar workers, the working class, who just wanted a fair wage and food on the table. Out of this movement came the Welfare State in the UK after the Second World War. In general terms their politics didn’t travel further than a mutual concern for working people wherever they may be. This is the Labour party of Keir Hardie, Harold Wilson and Denis Healey and others. Safe, comfortable and traditionally British. This was the party my father voted for, people he – an ordinary working man (taxi driver) – felt were a safe pair of hands to look after his interests. In the USA they were the Democrats, typified by Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman, with a sprinkling of Communists beavering away intent on disruption, particularly through the Unions. The New Left were the angry young upstarts. Not so interested in economics, but much more interested in the culture of the day. Reminiscent of the changes in Marxism itself, with Marx and the old guard concentrating on economic theory, but with the new guard at the Frankfurt school re-envisioning it in cultural terms. The New Left had less to say about social class and more to say about the issues of the day such as feminism, racism, civil rights, drugs, the environment and the peace movement. In fact, perhaps they had too much to say? Of course not all ‘revolutionaries’ were drug-fuelled, spiritually confused student dropouts. Those who were into revolution looked overseas and made idols out of Marxist tyrants, whose crimes hadn’t quite caught up with them yet, men such as Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh. Certainly the image of Che the revolutionary was probably the defining image of the times, adorning many a student bedroom or t-shirt, the fierce ‘freedom fighter’ who was, in actuality, a ruthless mass-murderer who ponged a bit (he rarely washed). The New Left was a ‘broad church’, a clearing house for young discontents with fire in their bellies, whether they were left-liberal, socialist, or anarchist, whether they were drawn into one of the many offshoot subcultures, such as gay rights or the pacifists at The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the UK (Jeremy Corbyn was active in this as a schoolboy). They were united simply through the new freedom they felt they had been given to protest against the ‘Old ways’. In the UK the New Left was pioneered by such men as Stuart Hall (who introduced ‘cultural studies’ into British colleges), Edward Thompson (one of the prime movers of CND in the 1950s) and Raymond Williams (a Marxist philosopher). And, at the centre of this all, quietly pulling the strings, either indirectly through his books, or directly through direct action, was Herbert Marcuse, the acknowledged father of the New Left. He had an aggressive distaste for the capitalist American society that had provided him with a comfortable living. The key year was 1968, when theory became action, when the whole world was rocked, the year of the student protests (just a few months after their ‘summer of love’, how fickle the youth are!) (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

Marcuse’s influence on the 1960s was profound. For him, the traditions of the family and of a Christian lifestyle were repressive and worth overthrowing, as was any adherence to objective truth. Everything is up to the individual, breaking free of shackles, a philosophy worryingly but significantly similar to the Satanist creed of Aleister Crowley, do what you wilt shall be the whole of the law. The Children of the 1960s were free to romp around and indulge themselves, but still benefited from the affluence provided for them by their hard-working parents, who had largely triumphed over the post-war austerity measures by providing their children with a safe, secure upbringing. And what was the payback? Rather than rebels without a cause, they were rebels with big cars. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

Herbert Marcuse, sex guru. Through the message of his increasingly read Eros and Civilisation, he was subtly declaring the hidden message, prove you ain’t a potential fascist, get laid! Remember, his philosophy, shared with his co-patriot Theodor Adorno, identified Fascism with sexual morality, family values and a Christian lifestyle. How better can you cleanse yourself from any unsociable right-wing tendencies than to indulge your fleshly appetites! This was aided by the advent of the birth control pill at the beginning of the decade, so significant that it was referred to as just ‘the Pill’, the chemical gateway to guilt-free sex. And, in the case of the odd ‘accident’, convenient abortions were made legally available as the result of the Abortion Act in the UK in 1967. Interestingly, convenience abortions were made legal as early as 1919 in Soviet Russia. Marcuse’s influence on the 1960s was profound. For him, the traditions of the family and of a Christian lifestyle were repressive and worth overthrowing, as was any adherence to objective truth. Everything is up to the individual, breaking free of shackles, a philosophy worryingly but significantly similar to the Satanist creed of Aleister Crowley, do what you wilt shall be the whole of the law. The Children of the 1960s were free to romp around and indulge themselves, but still benefited from the affluence provided for them by their hard-working parents, who had largely triumphed over the post-war austerity measures by providing their children with a safe, secure upbringing. And what was the payback? Rather than rebels without a cause, they were rebels with big cars. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

In May 1968, France was virtually brought to a standstill, with general strikes and occupations of factories and universities. Some politicians actually feared a civil war or revolution and this was said to be a cultural turning point in the country’s history. The waves of protests had swept through West Berlin, Rome, London, Paris and many cities in the USA, as well as other places. What exactly were these people, mainly students, protesting about? It was a general old moan and one old leftie (Chris Harman), looking back to that year declared “suddenly it seemed that the coming together of many different acts of revolt could overturn an exploitative and oppressive society in its totality.” Exploitative? Oppression? We can sense the presence of a certain old German philosopher here, can’t we? During the 1960s and 1970s Herbert Marcuse cheerfully welcomed invitations to speak at many of the centres of protest, the universities. During one particular French student occupation some leaders put on a seminar entitled ‘journee marcusienne’. In Rome placards declared, “Marx, Mao, Marcuse”. But there was an even more sinister development here. He was happy to accept invitations to speak … but insisted that invitations should not be offered to others, those he particularly disagreed with. He said that they can’t be allowed to persist in their misguided and evil ways, giving birth to a slogan that is relevant today, no free speech for fascists. Out of this idea comes one of the central themes of the political correctness that increasingly plagues us today. Let us investigate … Here’s how Marcuse thought this through. He began well by admitting that classical virtues such as tolerance and free speech are desirable. But, he says, our society is divided between the oppressors, who have the power and the ‘disenfranchised’ who have little. So there should be little tolerance extended to the oppressors, but rather it should only be extended to ‘groups that are being discriminated against’. In his own words he was advocating “the systematic withdrawal of tolerance towards regressive and repressive opinions”. And who are the purveyors of these opinions? According to Marcuse they were the groups and movements promoting chauvinism, aggressive policies, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion or which oppose the extension of public services, such as social services and medical care. In his view this just about included anyone who didn’t share his particular Marxist view of society. This also included restrictions on certain teachings in universities and intolerance of any movements from the ‘right-wing’, which led to the already-mentioned chant, no free speech for fascists. This is where it gets very sinister, because who provides the definition of ‘a fascist’? We are reminded of Theodor Adorno’s definition, in the Authoritarian Personality, endorsed by Marcuse, that Fascism can result from religion and conventional middle-class values on family, sex and society. Something has been turned on its head here. Marcuse and his ilk are implying that free speech and tolerance are only to be extended to those who don’t fit their particular definition of Fascism – basically anyone who is not from a traditional, middle-class Christian background! What Marcuse is advocating is to give license to those (loosely) of the New Left to use any tactic they can think of to oppress and repress their opposition, basically those of a Conservative, Judeo-Christian inclination, now renamed ‘fascists’. And this could involve direct action, as anything is justified for the self-proclaimed ‘social warriors on the side of peace and liberation’. So, we now have the ‘set up’, the first seeds of the madness that pervades our Western cultural life. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

There is an aspect of our Western culture that has been creeping relentlessly into the ‘big picture’. It has been the butt of many jokes in past years and considered a harmless oddity, but not any more. It now rules the roost and it has very sinister intentions. It goes by the name of political correctness. It didn’t just pop out of nowhere, as a whim of an over-zealous civil servant. It is the outcome of a ‘long march’ through recent history and is nothing less than a strategy to undermine and destroy the bedrocks of Western civilisation, the Judeo-Christian framework, with particular emphasis on the traditional family unit. It is the legacy of Marcuse, Adorno and others from the Frankfurt School and it has carried the toxic ‘spirit of the 60s’ through to the modern day, modifying itself as it does so. It is very much in the spirit of Cultural Marxism, as it takes its core beliefs and assumptions from the Critical Theory insistence on the rejection of the notion of objectivity in knowledge, a rejection of absolute truth. But this beast has a bite that is fatal. Consider Tim Farron, the political leader of the Liberal Democrats in the UK who was driven out of his job through assumptions about his views on the LGBTIQ+ agenda, or Walt Tutka, a substitute teacher in the USA who was fired for handing a Bible to a student. Political correctness acquired this bite by worming its agenda into government legislation, and if you are wondering how this can happen then we are going to need a history lesson. How did the counter-culture of the 60s become such a driving force in the culture of today? (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

The central thrust of Cultural Marxism is the promotion of a ‘victim culture’, of building a narrative whereby all of the world’s ills are the fault of the prevailing culture, specifically white men working from within a Christian context. Critical Theory began to roll out a series of ‘causes’, centring on those deemed to be ‘victims’, such as black people, women, homosexuals, native Americans etc. There seems to be a worthiness in this until one realises that these causes were just part of the context of Cultural Marxism. Anyone who dared criticise this process is condemned variously as homophobic, misogynists, Islamophobic, racist, sexist and so on. Most of all – in the legacy of Marcuse – they are labelled as ‘fascists’. You may remember the anarchist ‘Rick’, played by Rick Mayall in the 1990s sitcom The Young Ones. When stuck for words, this character - a comedy parody of a young ‘new leftie’ - would scream ‘fascist’ at whoever was annoying him. This was an ironically accurate depiction of the New Left’s reflex response to any criticism of its activities. So let’s reword the gist of that last paragraph, to consolidate its impact. Whereas traditional Marxism set up the ruling class, the capitalists, as the aggressors and the working class as the victims, Cultural Marxism takes the same pattern but tweaks it. In place of the ruling class we have the traditional Western ‘Christian’ society as aggressor and any number of ‘marginalised’ groups as ‘victim’. One key idea here is that the aggressor is never allowed any leeway, any shred of compassion, or any way of redeeming itself. It must be destroyed. Surely we see here the primacy of the ideology rather than a real concern for the ‘victims’ who are being ‘defended’? This may seem a cynical attitude for me to take, but imagine if I am right on this, how cynical it is to perpetrate an ideology that creates conflict for their own ends?! Now here is something important. We may now have some sort of handle on Cultural Marxism, but what about Cultural Marxists, who are they? It is important that we don’t judge those caught up in this mindset, the ‘victims’, as Cultural Marxists, as they are simply actors in the drama. Who, actually, are pulling the strings? Who, actually, are the Cultural Marxists, those who are setting the agenda and promoting it? A difficult one, as we may never actually find out, though there is probably many a university professor or social commentator, who may fit this bill to a certain extent. We may never find the answer to this question. So, for Cultural Marxists, a Christian can never be a victim, even in the case of the persecuted Church in Muslim countries (is there such word as Christianophobia?). Israel and the Jews, ironically (as Cultural Marxism was an ideology mainly birthed by Jews) sadly are not allowed any ‘victim’ status under this New Left thinking (witness the inability of Jeremy Corbyn to acknowledge, let alone deal with, anti-Semitism in the UK Labour Party at the time of writing, 2018). Similarly, a white heterosexual male can also never be a victim. Has anyone heard of men’s rights or male emancipation in an age when a feminine spirit seems to be holding ever-increasing sway? Another key idea, equally important, is that the ‘victim’ is chosen by the Cultural Marxists themselves and held in some sort of hierarchy (with ‘multiculturalism’ or ‘ethnic minorities’ at the top at present). The ‘victims’ don’t get a say in this, unless they themselves are Cultural Marxists, which is unlikely. It is ‘Big Brother’ gone … mad, mad, mad! Out of this, political correctness triumphs and engineers the rise of the ‘nanny state’ with increasing intrusions and restrictions on the grounds of ‘health & safety’ to whittle away at our freedoms. This is what the New Left is all about these days and, with particular hold on the media and the metropolitan elite elements of society (the ‘chattering classes’), Cultural Marxism is beginning to succeed in its goal of a controlled, collectivist society. One tactic is, to put it plainly, to confuse us all and make us begin to query aspects of life that had hitherto been unchanging and accepted. For instance, they want to move us away altogether from binary thinking. So, instead of black and white we have an infinite selection of greys, so that no one colour is dominant enough to prejudice our thinking. ‘Man and woman’ is too binary, we need to look at the whole spectrum of genetical possibilities! You can start to see the impact this thinking has had on the modern world. Let’s turn to two current issues, hopefully now illuminated by what we have learned so far: Feminism: This seeks to liberate women from the roles that Western society has imposed on them. Of particular abhorrence is the role model of wife/nurturer. Gender: ‘Queer’ theory seeks to deconstruct the traditional binary configuration of male/female. The key assumption is the apparent disconnect between biological sex and perceived gender. They reject the physical biology as irrelevant and take the postmodern view that a person’s gender is not absolute, but whatever the person feels it to be. There was a time when this would have been considered, at best, quirky, if not absolutely bizarre! But times have changed now that Cultural Marxism has embedded itself so deeply into our society. Here’s an example of the ‘madness’ taken from the current news. One of the most watched TV shows is I’m a Celebrity get me out of here!, with a clutch of ‘celebrities’ dumped in the Australian jungle for our amusement and entertainment. One such ‘celebrity’ in 2017 was the 22-year-old YouTube ‘personality’ Jack Maynard. After ‘entertaining’ us for three days in the jungle he was dramatically pulled from the programme. Why? Because six years earlier he had used the “N” word (rhymes with ‘trigger’) in a tweet (along with a few other minor misdemeanours). It seems that no-one is beyond the clutches of the ‘thought police’ and anyone can be classed as an ‘oppressor’ these days, simply by having someone sieving through your past history (admittedly this was instigated by The Sun newspaper, purely as a ratings booster). The media is a compliant partner in this toxic atmosphere of blame and consequence which, at the time of writing, is an ever-growing phenomenon. A telling quote of where we are now supposedly comes from the well-known French philosopher, Voltaire: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” It is a brave man (or woman) who dares to test this one out in the current climate. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

Fake News is all the rage, the murkiest constituent of the ‘noise,’ a complete waste of time and distraction from the important things of life and, at worst, an enticer into detours and dangerous paths. It is surely no coincidence that Russia has been openly identified as the chief propagator of this nonsense, as no nation has a greater track record in Marxism-inspired subversion, though they are by no means the only culprit. One method used is through websites created to make visitors believe they are visiting bona fide news sources, such as MSNBC. These exploded into notoriety during the 2016 US presidential elections, as political weapons that served only to confuse the electorate (helped by similar tactics centred on Twitter). Fake News is not a new phenomenon, it also goes by the name of propaganda, especially during times of war. This leads us to realise, firstly, that we are currently being assaulted from all directions by propaganda and, secondly, that we are living in a time of war, of a subtle cultural variety. Thirdly, a question begs to be answered, what is the nature of this war? It is a battle over hearts and minds, fed by the relentless noise that invades us daily. It may be tempting to go with the flow, but a far better way is to be aware of this conflict and then decide how to respond. As we have seen, Cultural Marxism, through Critical Theory, has created an environment where ‘everything goes,’ where truth is pliable and subjective. What is true for you is not necessarily true for me is the mantra for our age. It is only a small step to take to realise that, if there are so many ‘truths’ out there, then we live in a culture that has done away with absolute truth, solid standards of right and wrong, and morality and ethics. If so, then we are the first generation in our society since ancient times that runs on this presumption. No more tablets of stone or inalienable truths. Consequently, if there are so many truths, who is going to notice if a few lies are thrown into the mix? This is how ‘Fake News’ has been able to flourish, it is a natural consequence of postmodernism. With a mindset that is so pliable, we live in an age when many are quite happy to feed on ‘Fake News’ as long as it fits their preferred narrative and feeds their arguments. The ‘truth’ then just becomes a commodity, totally divorced from reality but fitting in with whatever ‘bubble’ you inhabit or support. Is this an arrangement that fills us with hope for the future? Isn’t it an ideal set-up for manipulation and propaganda? Frankly, this is all quite frightening. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

Woke first appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017, originally meaning ‘well-informed and up to date’ but now changed to ‘alerted to racial or social discrimination and injustice’. The connection to the machinations of the Frankfurt School and particularly with Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s is clear and unavoidable. The ‘long march’ continues. If we are comfortable with this, then we must be aware of the objectives of the mindset behind it, namely, to wrench society from traditional Judeo-Christian structures and redefine the way that society functions. It does this through the denial of absolute truth and the establishment of a whole menagerie of truths, from which you pick the one that appeals to you. Those who deny this privilege are going to be, at the least, subject to an emotional barrage of insults and, at worst, fall foul of the authorities, as the laws of the land are modified to protect these ‘new sensibilities’. Yet there is also an element of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because if we deny the basic principles of woke are we not in danger of trivialising the need to be alert to discrimination and injustice in our society? So, we must be careful. If we vilify ‘woke warriors’ there is a danger that we will be labelled as purveyors of discrimination and injustice. And that will not be a good thing! How do we, then, demonstrate our love of justice and hatred of discrimination without resorting to a non-Biblical mindset that sets conditions and limitations to how you go about this? Woke is an emotive term. How we see it in its basic definition is ‘in the eye of the beholder.’ The traditional form is the dictionary definition, ‘alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice,’ which is how ‘woke’ people see themselves. Those who have ‘woken’ to woke, though, see it differently. For them woke is a divisive, limiting, unforgiving concept that restricts most and condemns some. You pay your money; you take your choice! We have to look below the surface to realise what is really going on. What is the purpose of Woke? There is the perceived purpose and the real one. The commonly perceived purpose of woke is that it is an “awakening” for some to the “injustices and discriminations” of society, particularly to those that have historical, inherited origins. It works by identifying ‘victim groups’ (as mentioned in the last Chapter) and righting any wrongs committed against them by identifying individuals who may be persecuting them, even if these individuals are long since dead (such as slave owner Edward Colston in Bristol, who had his statue toppled) or have committed these misdemeanours in their earlier years (such as Prince Andrew and many others). These people are not offered any forgiveness for their “sins” and must accept their punishment, usually in the form of cancelling (sent to the naughty step, but in an extreme way). The motivation behind this may be a sense of ‘doing the right thing’ and many of these ‘cancelled’ people are not exactly whiter than white, but the lack of forgiveness shown is troubling. It is also very selective and often driven by such purposes as jealousy, political sensibilities, vengeance, or simply a clever way to sell more newspapers and get more traffic, a concept we have already observed! It is the real purpose that is troubling and potentially divisive (if you don’t agree with my thesis). It is the practical outworking the Cultural Marxism. It is intended to sow seeds of confusion and division, it tears down but never builds up and encourages an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. Many of its historical targets (who can’t answer back), would have been the white, middle-class men from a Christian background who are the principal targets of Cultural Marxism. It works by identifying a minority (victim) group that may have been historical targets of some form of prejudice and then uses them to create false narratives, involving the use of language and attitudes. What is usually missing from this narrative is the consent of most folk who belong to these ‘victim groups’ who are mature enough just to get on with their lives, living according to their functions and not wanting to be defined by their forms. Although many ‘woke warriors’ are sincere in their motivations, those who determine actions and responses usually have other agendas. (if: $route is 1) [[To return ... ->q6text1]] (if: $route is 2) [[To return ... ->q6text2]] (if: $route is 3) [[To return ... ->q6text3]]

Thank you for visiting. I hope that this has been useful. (t8n: "pulse")[your 'woke score' is : (print: $wokef*10) %] --- If you want to read more about this subject may we recommend NOISE by Steve Maltz, available at all good bookshops. [[Return ...->begin]]

If we are to believe what many in the more ‘right-wing’ media – such as the Daily Mail - are saying then this would fit. It’s really an opinion and may be valid to some extent. What we need to establish, though, is how those who consider themselves ‘woke’ would define the term [[Alerted to racial or social discrimination]]