I’m been waiting for a ‘woke’ black hole to open up and suck in all the wokeness.

It all started with the Frankfort School over a hundred years ago.

And it was all jewish through and through. Just like Marx.

Wake up people. Your country is being taken from you right before your eyes!

Oh, and just wait for the digital currency rolling out soon with a chicom social credit score!

Take a look, if you dare!
https://archive.org/details/frankfurt-school

Cindy, you are a conservative.

Some of your posts are good; some are quite delusional and conspiratorial to the max.

It seems to me, following your posts, were I to describe you generously: you’re just a regular American who is playing by the rules and you have been screwed by our SWAMP like most of us.

Thus your frustration with the politicos and “authorities” that are for the most part running our great nation into the ground.

I sympathize with you on many issues.

However, to call one of the brightest minds on the planet today, Jordan Peterson, a “nitwit and a scammer” is just so absurd and ridiculously delusional that you cannot be serious.

Jordan Peterson is not only brilliant, he is an excellent clinician – unparalleled in my lifetime, and he’s so enormously successful and beneficial to the intellectual and rational world that your inane comment has to be dissected.

Why do you have this delusional opinion of Jordan Peterson?

Can you be SPECIFIC in your criticism of any of his positions or challenges against the woke/liberal/post-modernist/Marxist mob?

Be very specific with you argument.

Just calling him a “nitwit” doesn’t apply as a legitimate substantive critique.

**Jordan Peterson is a nitwit and a scammer.**

I *LOVE* when Cindy and I agree!

I would not describe Peterson as a nitwit or scammer although if you want to get a good understanding of philosophy or politics you shouldn’t expect a lecturer who specializes in psychology to be one of the greatest minds.

Peterson, in my opinion, is good for people who are just starting their journey in politics and he’s good for self-help lectures, but if you want to get into philosophy then you should read or listen to the philosophy itself — not get someone’s opinion about it.

Here are my criticisms:

I agree with Peterson’s negative assessment on the “woke” ideology but he is wrong in his details which has been brought up by LeopardMan.

It does not begin in the 60’s and 70’s.

The Frankfurt School is much older.

I believe the groundwork for “woke” ideology and idpol goes back even before that though — to Italian communists like Gramsci and possibly Bordiga.

So we could say that “Cultural Marxism” comes from Marxists, not from postmodernists.

There are even hints of it in the writing of none other than Marx and Engels themselves!

We could also say that many postmodernists were influenced by Marxism, and that many postmodernists are Marxists, but not all Marxists are postmodernists and not all postmodernists are Marxists.

Postmodernism can easily lead you to being skeptical and nihilistic, so if I am a postmodernist why would I need to accept economic “truths” of Marxism?

Why would I accept the moral “value” of equality, let alone equity?

If I am a postmodernist and reject traditional ways of identifying myself, such as with a racial group, why would I accept identity politics like Peterson is saying?

I would ask Peterson how is it a “postmodern” view to think about identity in terms of race, religion, or nation state? lol

Another thing I think Peterson gets wrong is saying Marxism was widely discredited by the 60’s when in fact there were more radicals in the 60’s and 70’s than there were in the 50’s.

This is true on college campuses but also if you look at the third world and developing world, there were still Marxist-Leninist regimes into the 80’s, like even in Central America.

Maybe it wasn’t a well represented political force in Canada or the U.S. but it was still a specter haunting the world.

It takes different paths in different places.

No two revolutions ever look the same.

Marxism is more than just a political ideology.

Marx’s view of history was that it is of “class struggle” but class can have a broader definition than you might think and things like religion, gender, and race are also intertwined in power relations.

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that they analyze gender or racial differences on the basis of capital if it furthers their argument.

If you’re looking at a homogeneous country, why would idpol even be a thing?

On the other hand, if you’re from a “diverse” country like the U.S., it’s more likely that it will come up if revolutionaries have success organizing along those lines.

Anybody effective at politics is an opportunist.

I used to believe “Cultural Marxism” was a bastard child or mutation from “classical Marxism” which is largely concerned with labor and capital, but as I’ve read a little more from different Marxist authors and seen debates between many people on the Left, I’m no longer sure that’s true.

Am I going to listen to a psychology professor and beanie wearing podcast host who are not experts in the subject and have limited understanding of Marxism to learn about it or should I listen to what Marxists themselves are saying about their beliefs?

What do I need to do mental gymnastics for?

At the end of the day they are still going to want to kill me.

Do you think the peaceniks or humanists in their clubs are going to do anything to *stop* their comrades from being terrorists given their dispositions and when they share similar end goals?

Listen to how they talk about “class reductionists.”

There is no point to convince radicals to move away from “kill at the white man” to “abolish capitalism.”

It’s a waste of time and barely an improvement.

You want to get people to break away from that view entirely, not confirm their view but say they are interpreting it slightly wrong.

That means you have to move out of their framing entirely.

If you want to get an understanding of how “Cultural Marxism” or “identity politics” work, you should look up the essays written on a concept called “Biological Leninism.”

And, it turns out that this “Biological Leninism” goes all the way back to the days of… Lenin (not the 1960’s).

So, this is not a new twist on Marxism.

^ Those are the problems I have with that paragraph that Cal shared, CLM. ^

Cindy, you haven’t presented an argument.

Correcting you are bloviating.

“give me an argument”
“nooooo you are saying too much stuff!”

lol

No wonder Cindy won’t engage with you. You’re a bad faith troll who has no intent on having a discussion and it clearly doesn’t matter if someone does have criticisms of Peterson’s shallow understanding of “postmodernism,” identity politics, and the left, because you’ll instantly disregard them!

You ask what is wrong about something, you are told how, and you don’t want to hear it. Again, see LeopardMan’s comment. Even if we accept the Frankfurt School as “postmodernism,” the Frankfurt School started way before the 1970’s. Hitler expelled them from Germany in the 30’s and they went to Columbia University in New York City in the same decade. Gramsci wrote the groundwork for identity based Marxism in the 1920’s. Lenin wrote about imperialism over a hundred years ago. Mao talked about colonialism way before the 70’s. Mao started the Cultural Revolution before the 70’s.

All the elements of “woke” politics, political correctness, intersectionality, and identity politics were around before the 70’s.

It did not start with “postmodernists” at Yale in the 70’s. smh

The paragraph is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Take the L.

idpol came from “postmodernism” started in the 70’s at Yale according to Peterson.

Really?

What about the Black Panther Party that was formed in 1966 in California?

What about the Mexican American Political Association that formed in 1960, also in Cali?

What about the Nation of Islam which began in 1930?

National Organization for Women: 1966

American Jewish Council: 1906

National Congress of American Indians: 1946

Japanese American Citizens League: 1929

I’m sure identity based groups existed in Canada too.

They can’t even agree on what the language of the country should be: English or French.

And they have a high number of Natives.

Peterson just strings together buzzwords he has no idea what they mean.

Cindy, that’s your intellectual argument.

OK. You’re a real genius.

Correcting, you are far too verbose. Wow.

Your bloviating drivel about Jewish Council, the Frankfurt school of post-modernism, etc – all you do chronical about historical groups that MAY have come up with ideas before Jordan Peterson.

Jordan Peterson isn’t a philosopher; he’s a clinical psychologist USING philosophy to bolster his understanding of mankind and how we implement societal norms into our lives – for the better and for the worse.

You acknowledge that he’s very good at that – but then bloviate about the historical chronicling of boring stuff.

Even if the plethora of material you’ve presented is historically accurate, so what?

You’ve named Cindy your ally.

That says it all.

Cindy, let’s tease out your most recent post.
Specifically, how am I hoodwinked about Jordan Peterson?
What logical argument can you articulate – use facts, specific Jordan Peterson examples, and logic.
You have to refrain from just short personal attacks on me or Jordan Peterson.
Present a reasoned argument: OK, go….

CLM? I don’t argue. I discern. Speaking of bloviating, doesn’t that describe precisely what you do in here? From day one I have endeavored to impart wisdom to the people that they could use to turn their hearts away from the mundane. You seem to be entrenched in it. You have no answers. You just spin your wheels like so many others. Only now we have the morons and nitwits that come to give one-liner baitings that they think are ever so smart. I gave you the answer above. It is your choice (and folly) to ignore it.

CLM? You are hoodwinked by ALL of it. It’s not just your boy Jordan. It’s your whole attitude on what you think you need to stand for. Hoodwinked. Brainwashed. You are fighting a fight that was never a part of any problem. You are lost in the weeds. But don’t feel too bad. 99% of the public is right there with you failing to see the real war we are in. All these little distractions are fodder for the real villains.

I didn’t think you’d respond.

So, your strongest argument is that Jordan Peterson, a Canadian Clinical Psychologist and Professor at the University of Toronto, an me – a Cary native who has never met Jordan Peterson – are both part of a covert FBI organization that ended in the early ’70s.

You’re on to us, Cindy. The “weeds we are entrenched in” is the grassy knoll in Dallas.

We have common ground, Correcting.

The above is a well articulated analysis of Cindy.

She makes me laugh sometimes – and I agree with some of her assessments.

However, it appears that she cannot articulate an argument to support her positions any better than Joe Biden can.