Where Did “Woke” Originate? — 30 Comments

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

  2. 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!

  3. 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.

  4. They sum it all up nicely if you ask me.

    It’s derived from Marxism, Marxism was deemed a failure 60 years ago so they made a couple of tweaks and we have what you see today.

    This will fail too since they didn’t get rid of the problem with Marxism, the part about equity.

    There is no such thing, even if you set up a system that seems equal, well someone is at the top controlling things, that doesn’t sound very equal to me.

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

    I *LOVE* when Cindy and I agree!

  6. Nefarious….but you don’t support your claim with facts, logic, or reasoning.

    What SPECIFIC argument can you present – lucidly and citing examples – that make you feel that way about one of the smartest men and most effective social scientists the world has ever known?

    Please, I am truly interested in a rational argument by Cindy or Nefarious. (or are you both the same)?

  7. 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. ^

  8. CLM? I do not associate with ANY group. Do not try to put me in any hole you think I might fit. You will be wrong every time!

  9. Cindy, you haven’t presented an argument.

    Correcting you are bloviating.

  10. A recent radio talk show interviewed a book author named A.J. Rice about his recent book on “woke”, titled, “The Woking Dead”.

    The following from regarding the book:

    “The Woking Dead: How Society’s Vogue Virus Destroys Our Culture – July 26, 2022
    by A.J. Rice (Author) Hardcover $28.00”

    “The Woking Dead are everywhere. An army of undead ghouls turning millions into mindless, ravenous devourers of all things good and American.”

    “Donald J. Trump was the vaccine America needed. He fought for America against the Deep State and the woke maniacs relentlessly destroying everything Americans love. They’re attacking George Washington. They’re attacking Dave Chappelle and Abraham Lincoln. They have taken over the New York Times and the NBA. Trump understood this, and he stood, seemingly alone at times, against the cancel culture hordes clawing to take down the United States from within.”

    “In The Woking Dead, Rice reveals it all. This bracing, hilarious, biting, hard-hitting collection takes you deep into the fight to make America great again. Rice, a contributor to many popular publications and the CEO of Publius PR in Washington, DC, seeks to save America from Joe Biden and his woke zombie battalions in government, entertainment, academia, sports, and media. The Woking Dead will wake you up to what’s happening in your culture and help you gird your loins for the crazy years ahead.”

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


    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.

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


    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.

  13. If you people cannot recognize cointelpro and continue to tout them as your savior there is nothing I can do to help you. You are so entrenched in being deceived, NOTHING can save you from yourselves.

  14. 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.

  15. 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….

  16. “far too verbose” Seeing as you can’t read well, I made sure to come back and post smaller comments (which you still take umbrage at).

    What do you mean “may have”? I proved definitively that identity based politics existed before the 1970’s. There is zero speculation. If you doubted me you would research and have a real rebuttal instead of just saying I “may” not be right. lol

    Yes, we know Peterson is not a philosopher. That’s the problem here. I used to believe Peterson’s narrative until I learned a little bit more about what he was talking about and found out he grossly oversimplifies these topics and is occasionally flat out wrong. He ought to stick to myths about lobsters and dragons to explain the human psyche. He clearly doesn’t know much about philosophy. There’s a reason why most people who even so much as take a few courses in philosophy find Peterson to be a dunce while someone who just found him from Fox News believes he’s profound.

    “so what?” You asked Cindy why she doesn’t like Peterson. I pointed out he made inaccurate statements. NO, it is not a huge deal but if you are trying to locate the origin of something, to pinpoint it as the cause for something else, which is what he is doing, and you tag the wrong thing, you don’t see how that’s a problem? Especially when you are regarded as a scholar and intellectual? If I told you the reason for the American Revolution was because the French had a longstanding beef with the British, would you just shrug it off because “the important point here is that we had a revolution”???

    Hey, weren’t you just defending Cindy? lol Now she’s bad?? Just give it a rest, CLM. Enjoy your Sunday afternoon.

  17. 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.

  18. Anyway, Cal, the talking points you hear today did not start with postmodern philosophers and professors in the 1970’s.

    Its roots are older than that.

    What I said is easily verifiable.

    Here are a few links.

    You gotta listen to LeopardMan and me, not CLM.'s_influence

    And identity politics is not exclusive to people who consider themselves postmodernists or Marxists.

    Here are some flyers from the 1800’s put out by the Democratic Party.

    What the heck are you doing anyway, Cal?

    Watching DA BEARS?

    Having a cocktail with NefariousSnake???

    Snake can not be trusted!!!

  19. 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.

  20. Can you be specific, Cindy?

    I know it’s tough, but to make accusations, you need facts, data, examples to prove your point.
    Hoodwinked, lost in the weeds, brainwashed, fodder for the real villains – these are not specific nor helpful.

    They are just ad hominem attacks.

    You are entitled to that opinion, I’m just asking you to back your criticism up.

    Take a breath, stop with the metaphors and hyperboles, and precisely state about which issue I have been factually incorrect or on what specific intellectual argument Jordan Peterson is incorrect.

    Ok, last chance to be SPECIFIC and PRECISE: Go…

  21. You are using the term “ad hominem” wrongly. I was VERY clear and concise. What part of cointelpro do you NOT understand? You are entrenched in the weeds!

  22. 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.

  23. Lol

    You should know this by now, CLM.

    Your mistake was assuming you’d get a satisfactory response from Cindy in the first place that didn’t involve just calling you a brainwashed fool or something about being hoodwinked by EVIL people. (Yes, that could be considered an ad hominem.)

    How does that apply to Peterson? … umm well if you can’t see it then that itself is the proof of how “entrenched in” the propaganda you are according to Cindy.

    Peterson is a net positive doing more to get people **out** of the conditioning the mainstream media and culture is pushing, but Cindy is a contrarian of sorts. She thinks serial killers are fake. Whether she has any specific criticisms of Peterson will probably never be known.

    My comments were more of nitpicks. Overall Peterson is alright.

    We should remember that he opposed vaccine mandates.

    That alone is huge and something you would think Cindy would appreciate.

    Here’s a guy with a large platform opposing vaccine mandates.

    Isn’t that good?

    I think so.

  24. 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.

  25. You are fools to believe you understand the English language. ad hominem means only to appeal to personal prejudices, feelings, etc. rather than to the intellect. So, you see your accusation is once again, false.

    You are All falling for the fakeness of shysters. Then when I try to explain that to you, you turn on me for being some kind of pariah. It shows your complete ignorance of being able to grasp the concept of being lied to. Pat each other on the back for confronting absolute truth with smoke and mirrors once again. You have learned much from your indoctrination. Keep following your demons.

    It’s an act! You cannot tell that this person you are quoting is an act? It’s all to keep you busy and you are neck-deep in it. Ignorance is not knowing. Stupidity is when you CHOOSE to be foolish. Choosing to follow controlled opposition is a fatal mistake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.