What comes after wokism? - Optimist thread

[quackrock]

Wokism is all astro-turfed to shit and only remains alive because of people's charity, soon as times get tough they get ripped to shreds.

And replaced with what?

Let's try to answer this question.

Americans need a shared moral framework to co-exist in peace and resolve disagreements without violence. For most of our history that was protestant Christianity. Today, wokism (a.k.a. critical theory, intersectionality, or successor ideology) appears to be the favored successor. Wokism in practice promotes envy, self-hatred, racial enmity, learned helplessness, and the violent postmodern disregard for opponents' civil rights. For these and other reasons it is destructive and unsustainable.

What is the alternative? A Christian religious revival? Unlikely. Another all-encompassing ideology, like some twist on fascism or communism? Revamped 90s lowercase-L liberalism, with an acknowledgement of heritable racial differences and their impact on policy?

I prefer the latter. We tried going woke and it didn't work. Let's rewind to the last known-good version of America. Putting criminals in prison worked. Holding blacks and whites to equal standards worked. Tolerance for nonviolent communists, cults, and Nazis alike worked for nigh on 60 years. Per surveys collected by the New York Times and others, race relations as perceived by black Americans steadily improved to high point around the late 90s or early 2000s, and then started to decline.

What didn't work in the 90s? Offshoring factories, foreign wars, the unchecked growth of corporate power, political correctness that spiraled into feels over reals. There is broad agreement on these points among normies. This gives me hope for the future.

The Bill of Rights works when it's actually enforced. This includes enforcement against antifa, campus hecklers, and large corporations. It also includes protections against coerced speech, such as "bake the cake" or forced pronouns. These are reasonable boundaries to set in a society where major disagreement still exist and will remain on issues like sex, religion and race.

The tension between wokism and historical + scientific truth is the root of its self-destructive nature. This is why scientific truth and discovery, even when politically uncomfortable, must be protected. The blank-slate view of human development which lies at the root of Kendi-ism has been thoroughly and utterly repudiated by science. This is hard to say in public. Many think acknowledging racial differences leads straight back to state-enforced segregation or worse. Deconstructing that assumption might be a good place to start.

Another place to start might be relaxing around the n-word. I say 'nigger' on this site with some frequency. I don't use it to describe all black people everywhere. It's just shorter than saying 'blacks acting on their worst impulses due to family and societal failings, driven as well in some cases by heritable factors.' Back in the early 2010s it was common to see 'nigger' online. If not for aggressive censorship by Reddit, Twitter, and XBox Live moderators, I think exposure therapy would've lessened its negative impact on good people. Allowing this process to take its natural course would diminish the power of 'nigger' as a tool for black racial narcissists, anti-black bigots, and censors who protect its stigma to preserve their own power.

The alternative to a 90s-ish system of protected civil rights and positive American mythology is either an aimless disunited society that hangs together out of convenience, or the coercive enforcement of a single fundamental worldview. Neither of these sounds particularly stable or appealing.

In the long run we'll all still be neighbors. We have to work out how to live with each other. It's not enough to see America as a flag, lines on a map, or a commerce union. Without a common sense of purpose, shared sense of history, and reliable nonviolent means of resolving disputes, the whole thing falls apart sooner or later.

Thoughts?

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

Whatever comes first.
WW3 or a resurgence of conservative posture.

 

[New Bromantics]

There's nothing to be optimistic about. Whatever comes after the wokeshit, if anything comes after it and it's not the impetus for the decline of western civilization, will be some form of new-democracy that serves the global masters of the planet and no one else and all the sheeple will be thankful for their new shiny chains that feel so much lighter than the yoke of wokensim felt.
They'll say:

"Hey, do you remember when we couldn't say whatever we wanted? I know racism and homophobia are still illegal but at least I can say what I want in government approved outlets without my social credit score taking a hit. It's so liberating to know that my diverse community can celebrate their diversity without having to antagonize each other over their differences!"

That is what we're already seeing with these new wave of anti-woke youtube channels. What they don't seem to appreciate (or likely do appreciate but their handlers don't pay them to care) is that reverting the race, gender, sexuality, etc to pre-BLM, pre-stanktaint, pre-pro-pedo wokist bullshit does nothing in the long run, it's like the social currency version of boomer economics. We might live comfortable lives while the beast goes into remission only to reemerge a few generations from now to inflict itself in some new terrifying form on our great grandchildren.

So.. there's nothing to be optimistic about. Unless there's a concerted, unilateral effort to completely expunge these elements from even the history books and unless there is a holocaust level event but this time we win and these freaks are too afraid to ever show their faces here on earth again, it doesn't really matter what comes next. It's just going to be another part of the neo-feudal "liberal" democratic plan to globalize resources under a single world government.

 

[Molag Bal]

I thought that was obvious since 2015. It's Based-ism.
>But Apex, 'based' has been a meme for years
The demographics-oriented ideas summarized under "wokism" have been out there for almost a century, in some cases more than a century. Yet here we are in the age of woke-ism in the early 21st century.

First off to address one glaring issue OP's post
>Holding blacks and whites to equal standards worked.
No it didn't. Whites doing that in their own countries is how we've ended up with what we have today: Whites being demonized and discriminated against at every turn, by trusted authorities both in government and private sector. And in general them being treated like an enemy of the state, by the governments of their own home countries. That's because the entire idea, whether under a right-wing christian banner or a left-wing pesudo-religious woke banner is intrinsically fallacious. The universe itself already takes care of the 'equal standards' part, other races understand - and they are correct in that - that the only true rule to apply in life is 'might makes right'. Any power or clout you have, leverage it towards improving your situation or the situation of your family or the situation of your tribe/race. Any formal rules, laws or standards spelled out in public are merely another means to the end of various participants in a society living by might makes right.

Don't believe me? Why do you think Black and Jewish activists pushed for desegregation in the States and hammered this idea that excluding people from places based on their race is immoral, but once the Jewish banking cartel consolidated power in the states for good, Black-only clubs, companies with "Whites need not apply" job offers and even university and school events where Whites are banned wholesale became normal and accepted? Because they never believed in the idea or anything attached to it. They opposed segregation way back then because at the time segregation was set up in a way that benefitted Whites. They are in favor of it now, because now it can be set up in a way that is to the detriment of Whites. The only constant is "If it is good for Whites, it is bad, if it is bad for Whites, it is good" or more simply "White = enemy" and that's all it ever was about.

In short, it has always been a game of "might makes right" and you simply lost because you refused to play it. You will always continue to lose until you understand how this works.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

Lots of people are going to have to die before we can start thinking about this.

Do you honestly believe compromise and amicable discussion is going to happen without it? You think Librarian Linda and Redneck Ronnie are just going to meet half-way somehow? Do you think we live in a Disney movie?

Reality isn't so nice. There HAS to be a winner, here. A dominant worldview. That, or we balkanize, and the problem takes care of itself.

 

[quackrock]

Do you honestly believe compromise and amicable discussion is going to happen without it?

I think setting the conditions under which that can happen is a good thing. This does require attaining and exercising power, yes. I'd like to set aside the political 'how' for now and focus on the 'what' and 'why'.

Reality isn't so nice. There HAS to be a winner, here. A dominant worldview. That, or we balkanize, and the problem takes care of itself.

I agree. The question is whether there's a good-enough worldview that avoids wokism's faults and allows for harmonious American coexistence. Laissez faire small-L liberalism that actually defends itself against wokism, as 90s liberalism failed to do, is one such worldview.

 

[Poppavalyim Andropoff]

Full circle & we‘re back to ‘zero fucks given’ again

 

[WelfareNiggerQueen]

Total tranny genocide that the trannies desperately want for some reason or further delving into the pits of degeneracy, niggers are probably going to start filming themselves using fetus stemcell goop as anal lube or some shit

 

[quackrock]

We might live comfortable lives while the beast goes into remission only to reemerge a few generations from now to inflict itself in some new terrifying form on our great grandchildren.

You could say the same about communism, monarchy, ultra-nationalism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or really any other all-encompassing worldview. They each have catastrophic failure modes that rear their ugly heads sooner or later. Small groups of committed sociopaths can take down any institution from the inside. The question in my mind is just how prone to failure each moral framework is, and how bad failure gets for the average citizen.

 

[Dyn]

For most of our history that was protestant Christianity.

I don't agree with that at all. The soul of vintage, golden years America was always that it was the land of freedom and opportunity, where a factory worker could own his own house and comfortably raise three kids, or a Pakistani migrant could just show up and get a job driving a cab and work his way up to living the American dream, or a communist defector could start a new life and control their own destiny without the government dictating it to them.

That's gone. There's no upward mobility anymore. Jobs at Walmart and Amazon aren't a bootstrap people can pull themselves up by, they're a perfectly running poverty trap that very, very few people will ever escape from, and the government is bought and paid for by the corporations that set them up. Nobody actually wants to come to America anymore, not if Canada or Sweden or Australia are on the table, and there's a good reason for that.

Wokeshit is just the distraction of the day, and it will be replaced by whatever ideology of tomorrow is most cost-effective at distracting people from the fact that their shit lives will always be shit in America.

 

[quackrock]

The soul of vintage, golden years America was always that it was the land of freedom and opportunity, where a factory worker could own his own house and comfortably raise three kids, or a Pakistani migrant could just show up and get a job driving a cab and work his way up to living the American dream, or a communist defector could start a new life and control their own destiny without the government dictating it to them.

They're tightly interconnected, but for the sake of this thread I'd like to distinguish between economic and moral frameworks. I know I already confused them a bit in the OP, but it's the notion of a common belief system that I'm specifically interested in exploring. The virtues a civilization elevates are ultimately what determine its economic and political customs IMO. "How do we allocate power and resources?" derives from "Who deserves power and resources, anyway?"

I agree that under much worse material conditions, all bets are off.

 

[$80 Nude Haircut]

Gradually decaying quality of life for the average person. Wokeism may not have been created by (((those in power))) but it's obviously been signal-boosted because of how oppressive it is. The average person must be terrorized, they must live in perpetual fear & paranoia, they must understand that anything they work for may be torn away by tyrannie de la majorité for any reason at any moment. Concerns about the latest loss of life or liberty (cost of food, gas, never owning a home) must be squashed by the fallacy of "but what about FAG RIGHTS?" The argument will be nonsensical, illogical & niggerized but it won't matter because the public, media, police & judicial system will nod their heads & pretend it all makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't it? They haven't thought about any of this beyond the surface level notion of "acceptance good" so anyone who has problems with this must be a subversive nazi. This will be easier to enforce as the country becomes less white as non-whites have significantly lower average IQs (while the one race who doesn't are spineless bug people.)

 

[Dyn]

it's the notion of a common belief system that I'm specifically interested in exploring.

Yes, and I don't think that's Protestant Christianity, or even Christianity in general. From the very start, Liberalism and Enlightenment ideals always played a far, far greater role in America's shared culture and moral values than race, religion or heritage.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

I agree. The question is whether there's a good-enough worldview that avoids wokism's faults and allows for harmonious American coexistence. Laissez faire small-L liberalism that actually defends itself against wokism, as 90s liberalism failed to do, is one such worldview.

I think the answer is no. As long as someone offers a free lunch, there will always be a sucker that takes the bait. You'd have to have a completely resource-abundant utopia that is completely free of need, starvation, and poverty, in order to avoid the communist mind-virus, which is functionally impossible, and ironically enough, pretty goddamn close to what they want, anyway. Communism would never get them there, of course, but nothing likely will.

That's only three-quarters of the problem, though. The desire for a (relatively) balanced distribution of resources, isn't everything, just most of it. The last important bit, is that wokies have a pathological need to assert/impose themselves and their world-views onto other people and their lives. I think this is some kind of heritable trait, but it is the viral part of the Communist Mind Virus.

The "discussion" of socialist values on the ground level, seldom leaves the realm of the material needs. The important bit is always left out, the psychological needs. It's always a specific type of person who falls into the woke trap, and it's the egotist/drama whore. I think that these pansies have an actual psychological need, almost like a chemical dependence, to try and grab for more power than they deserve, Since socialists and communists are almost always poor, if they can't have material wealth (power), then maybe they can lick the right boots or suck the right dick to have power over individuals, in the form of shame, public ridicule, or, if you're in a higher echelon than the grassroots, indirect institutional power. Never forget that these people want to dominate you in every way that they can, because there are so very many ways in which they can't. That's the motivation, the deadly sin of Envy. It isn't typical envy, in the way that you might covet the car in your neighbor's driveway. They think that if they can't beat you in, or, shame you for having, material wealth, that they can find a different way of power to hold over your head,
Think about it like the kind of person who would be active in a Homeowner's Association Committe.

There's one other matter, and it has everything to do with population and demography. We have too many people on the planet, and there are too many incompatible demographics in the United States, now. These subgroups are ALWAYS going to be fighting, and there's never going to be this big paradigm shift where they will suddenly all eat at the same table as brothers or whatever. I'm not saying it can't happen in a microcosm, in fact, it totally does, but as a matter of national policy? In a country as geographically sparse as this one is? With this many people? Not likely.

As the population increases, the specialness of individual human life is diminished. This is a statement of anthropological fact. Wokeism, Communism, Socialism, whatever you want to call it, is all the same thing, and is something that can only work in small, high-trust communities. "Real Communism" is Anarcho-Primitivism, basically. You can't expand that out to the entire nation, because there's no factoring in for the human condition, and that different people in different places have massively different values. This can't be, and shouldn't be, avoided.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Sadly for me, total retard death.

 

[quackrock]

Yes, and I don't think that's Protestant Christianity, or even Christianity in general. From the very start, Liberalism and Enlightenment ideals always played a far, far greater role in America's shared culture and moral values than race, religion or heritage.

I'd say it was both, and the former (Protestantism specifically, which weakened the power of central religious authority) led into the latter. Basing this off my remembrance of de Tocqueville's Democracy in America:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America#The_Puritan_founding

 

[Tren Shapiro]

Holding blacks and whites to equal standards worked.

That never happened. All of society was immediately forced to change to accommodate blacks who are clearly incompatible with western civilization.

Tolerance for nonviolent communists, cults, and Nazis alike worked for nigh on 60 years.

Tolerating communists is how we got into this mess.

 

[quackrock]

That never happened. All of society was immediately forced to change to accommodate blacks who are clearly incompatible with western civilization.

Jailing "superpredators," crack dealers, and other violent criminals brought down crime across the board in black communities and surrounding areas. This is a fact. Soros DAs and judges have sadly reversed this trend.

Tolerating communists is how we got into this mess.

You're right, and I should have been more specific. Tolerance for people who hate freedom in positions of actual power is retarded. Electing people who want to take away your rights is ridiculous.

OTOH, I think it's fine if small pockets of nutjobs live in peace on their own little compounds. They function as collection points and containment zones for people with similar wacky inclinations. You don't need to go full Waco on every Mormon cult or socialist summer camp. Just hold them to the same legal code as everyone else, and resist their attempts to erode others' civil liberties.

 

[Dyn]

I'd say it was both, and the former (Protestantism specifically, which weakened the power of central religious authority) led into the latter. Basing this off my remembrance of de Tocqueville's Democracy in America:

That's partially true, but I think the Puritans get a lot more credit in this than they deserve. The ideology America was founded on was heavily, heavily drawn from the later French philosophers and the English model, and the only distinctly Puritan value that stayed was the emphasis on religious freedom and nonconformity.

I wouldn't call that a "Protestant" ethos in general, though. Protestants in the 1600's and 1700's weren't too big on freedom of religion when they weren't the oppressed minority.

 

[The Last Stand]

The alternative to a 90s-ish system of protected civil rights and positive American mythology is either an aimless disunited society that hangs together out of convenience, or the coercive enforcement of a single fundamental worldview. Neither of these sounds particularly stable or appealing.

Nobody wants to be equal or held accountable anymore. Not to say that the 90s were perfect, but racial equity was becoming to be phased into social indifference in a macro sense around the 00s. I see "wokism" ending with declining sales and counter legislation. Who would want to be the first to just be "intolerant?"