X Close

The true Left is not woke Progressive activists have forgotten their roots

Without universalism there is no argument against racism (KEREM YUCEL/AFP via Getty Images)

Without universalism there is no argument against racism (KEREM YUCEL/AFP via Getty Images)


March 18, 2023   8 mins

It is 85 years since the great bluesman Lead Belly coined the phrase “stay woke” in “Scottsboro Boys”, a song dedicated to nine black teenagers whose execution for rapes they never committed was only prevented by years of international protests and the American Communist Party. Staying alive to injustice — what could be wrong with that? Apparently, quite a lot. In a few short decades, woke was transformed from a term of praise to a term of abuse. Still, the fact that politicians ranging from Ron DeSantis to Rishi Sunak deploy “woke” as a battle cry should not prevent us from examining its assumptions. For not only liberals, but many Leftists and socialists like me are increasingly uneasy with the form it has taken.

The woke discourse today is confusing because it appeals to emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted. Those emotions, however, are derailed by a range of theoretical assumptions — usually expressed as self-evident truths — that ultimately undermine them.

Take a sentence the New York Times printed shortly after Biden’s election: “Despite Vice President Kamala D. Harris’s Indian roots, the Biden administration may prove less forgiving over Modi’s Hindu nationalist agenda.” If you read that quickly, you may miss the theoretical assumption: political views are determined by ethnic backgrounds. If you know nothing about contemporary India, you may miss the fact that the fiercest critics of Modi’s violent nationalism are themselves Indian.

Now, the New York Times is neither unique nor particularly leftist, but it does set standards for progressive discourse in more than one country. What concerns me most here are the ways in which contemporary voices considered to be progressive have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any liberal or Left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress. All these ideas are connected. The Right may be more dangerous, but today’s Left has deprived itself of ideas we need if we hope to resist the lurch to the Right.

This Rightwards lurch is international and organised. The solidarity between them suggests that nationalist beliefs are only marginally based on the idea that Hungarians/Norwegians/Jews/Germans/Anglo-Saxons/Hindus are the best of all possible tribes. What unites them is the principle of tribalism itself: you will only truly connect with those who belong to your tribe, and you need have no deep commitments to anyone else.

 

It’s a bitter piece of irony that today’s Right-wing tribalists today find it easier to make common cause than those on the Left whose commitments traditionally stemmed from universalism, whether they recognise it or not. Woke discourse is confusing because so many of its goals are indeed shared by progressives everywhere. The idea of intersectionality might have emphasised the ways in which all of us have more than one identity. Instead, it led to a focus on those parts of identities which are most marginalised, and multiplied them into a forest of trauma.

Wokeness emphasises the ways in which particular groups have been denied justice, and seeks to rectify and repair the damage. But in the focus on inequalities of power, the concept of justice is often left by the wayside. Wokeness demands that nations and peoples face up to their criminal histories. But in the process, it often concludes that all history is criminal.

The concept of universalism once defined the Left; international solidarity was its watchword. This was just what distinguished it from the Right, which recognised no deep connections, and few real obligations, to anyone outside its own circle. The Left demanded that the circle encompass the globe. This was what standing Left meant: to care about striking coal miners in Wales, or Republican volunteers in Spain, or freedom fighters in South Africa. What united was not blood but conviction — first and foremost the conviction that behind all the differences of time and space which separate us, human beings are deeply connected in a wealth of ways. To say that histories and geographies affect us is trivial. To say they determine us is false.

The opposite of universalism is often called “identitarianism”, but the word is misleading, for it suggests that our identities can be reduced to, at most, two dimensions. In fact, all of us have many. As Kwame Anthony Appiah reminds us: “Until the middle of the 20th century, no one who was asked about a person’s identity would have mentioned race, sex, class, nationality, region or religion.”

The reduction of the multiple identities we all possess to race and gender isn’t about physical appearance. It’s a focus on those dimensions which experienced the most generalisable trauma. This embodies a major shift that began in the mid-20th century: the subject of history was no longer the hero but the victim. The impulse to shift our focus to the victims of history began as an act of justice. History was told by the victors, while the victims’ voices went unheard. To turn the tables and insist that the victims’ stories enter the narrative was just a part of righting old wrongs. The movement to recognise the victims of slaughter and slavery began with the best of intentions. It recognised that might and right often fail to coincide, that very bad things happen to all sorts of people, and that even when we cannot change that we are bound to record it. Yet something went wrong when we rewrote the place of the victim; the impulse that began in generosity turned downright perverse.

The limiting case of this trend is the story of Binjamin Wilkomirski, the Swiss man whose claims to have spent his childhood in a concentration camp turned out to be invented. Wilkomirski was hardly alone. In the two decades since, there has been a rash of contemporaries inventing worse histories than they experienced — a trend which runs counter to some of the heroes of postcolonial thinking, such as Frantz Fanon, whose Black Skin, White Masks proclaims: “I am not the slave of the Slavery that dehumanised my ancestors.”

Identity politics not only contract the multiple components of our identities to one: they essentialise that component over which we have the least control. I prefer the word “tribalism”, an idea which is as old as the Hebrew Bible. Tribalism is a description of the civil breakdown that occurs when people, of whatever kind, see the fundamental human difference as that between our kind and everyone else.

Universalism is now under fire on the Left because it is conflated with fake universalism: the attempt to impose certain cultures on others in the name of an abstract humanity that turns out to reflect just a dominant culture’s time, place, and interests. This happens daily in the name of corporate globalism. But let’s consider what a feat it was to make that original abstraction to humanity. Earlier assumptions were inherently particular, as earlier ideas of law were religious. The idea that one law should apply to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, lords and peasants, simply in virtue of their common humanity is a relatively recent achievement which now shapes our assumptions so thoroughly we fail to recognise it as an achievement at all.

Let’s also consider the opposite: the Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt, who wrote that “whoever says the word ‘humanity’ wants to deceive you”. Instead we might say: “whoever says ‘humanity’ is making a normative claim.” To recognise someone as human is to acknowledge a dignity in them that should be honoured. It also implies that this recognition is an achievement: to see humanity in all the weird and beautiful ways it appears is a feat that demands you go beyond appearances.

Which do you find more essential: the accidents we are born with, or the principles we consider and uphold? Traditionally, it was the Right who focused on the first, and the Left who emphasised the second. This tradition has been inverted. It’s not surprising, then, that theories held by the woke undermine their empathetic emotions and emancipatory intentions. Those theories not only have strong reactionary roots; some of their authors were outright Nazis. Ideas influenced by Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger and their epigones take up plenty of room on the progressive syllabus. The fact that both men not only served the Nazis but defended doing so long after the war is old news. Outrage, today, is reserved for racist passages of 18th-century philosophy.

In fact, many of the theoretical assumptions which support the most admirable impulses of the woke come from the intellectual movement they most despise. The best tenets of woke, such as the insistence on viewing the world from more than one geographical perspective, come straight from the Enlightenment. Contemporary rejections of this period usually go hand in hand with not much knowledge of it. But you can’t hope to make progress by sawing at the branch you don’t know you are sitting on.

It is now an article of faith that universalism, like other Enlightenment ideas, is a sham that was designed to disguise Eurocentric views which supported colonialism. These claims are not simply ungrounded: they turn the Enlightenment upside down. Enlightenment thinkers invented the critique of Eurocentrism and were the first to attack colonialism — on the basis of universalist ideas. When contemporary postcolonial theorists rightly insist that we learn to view the world from the perspective of non-Europeans, they are echoing a tradition that goes back to 18th-century thinkers, who risked their livelihoods, and sometimes their lives, to defend those ideas.

This is not merely a historical matter: we need Enlightenment ideas if we have any hope of moving forward against what are politely called the authoritarian tendencies of the present. But there is no time for politeness when many elected leaders around the world are openly undermining democracy.

My book Left is not Woke sketches the theoretical underpinnings of much woke discourse, and argues for a return to those Enlightenment ideas which are crucial for any progressive standpoint: the commitment to universalism over tribalism, the belief in a principled distinction between justice and power, and the conviction that progress, while never inevitable, is possible. Such ideas are anathema to thinkers such as Michel Foucault, the most-cited philosopher in postcolonial studies, or Carl Schmitt.

Both rejected the idea of universal humanity and the distinction between power and justice, along with a deep scepticism towards any idea of progress. What makes them interesting to progressive thinkers today is their commitment to unmasking liberal hypocrisies. Schmitt was particularly scorching about British imperialism, and American commitment to the Monroe Doctrine; both, he argued, used pieties about humanity and civilisation to disguise naked piracy.

But Land and Sea, his book expanding these views, was published when Germany was at war with Britain and America. It’s an old Nazi trope. Schmitt wasn’t wrong that universalist claims of justice meant to restrain simple assertions of power have been abused for centuries. He concluded that unvarnished power grabs like those of the Nazis were not only legal but legitimate. You may think that’s the best we can do. Or you may go to work to narrow the gap between ideals of justice and realities of power.

As for Michel Foucault, his style was transgressive, but his vision was gloomier than any traditional conservative. You think we make progress towards practices that are kinder, more liberating, more respectful of human dignity — all goals of the Left? Look at the history of an institution or two. What seemed to be steps towards progress turn out to be more sinister forms of repression. All of them are ways in which the state extends its domination over our lives. Once you’ve seen how every step forward becomes a more subtle and powerful step towards total subjection, you’re likely to conclude that progress is illusory.

Woke activists fail to see that both these theories subvert their own goals. Without universalism there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power. Any by the fall of 2020 few voices defending Black Lives Matter, of whom I was initially one, were universalist. If that’s what political history comes to, there is no way to maintain a robust idea of justice, let alone coherently strive for progress.

Enlightenment thinkers, meanwhile, proclaimed that progress is (just barely) possible; their passionate engagement with the evils of their day precludes any belief that progress is assured. Still, they never stopped working towards it. As Kant argued, we cannot act morally without hope. To be clear: hope is not optimism. Hope makes no forecasts at all. Optimism is a refusal to face facts. Hope aims to change them. When the world is really in peril, optimism is obscene. Yet one thing can be predicted with absolute certainty: if we succumb to the seduction of pessimism, the world as we know it is lost.

You need not study philosophical debates about the relations between theory and practice to know at least this: what you think is possible determines the framework in which you act. If you think it’s impossible to distinguish truth from narrative, you won’t bother to try. If you think it’s impossible to act on anything other than self-interest, whether genetic, individual or tribal, you will have no qualms about doing the same.

It is often recalled that the Nazis came to power through democratic elections, but they never won a majority until they had already grasped power. Had the Left-wing parties been willing to form a united front, as thinkers from Einstein to Trotsky urged, the world could have been spared its worst war. The differences dividing the parties were real; blood had even been spilled. But though the Stalinist Communist Party couldn’t see it, those differences paled next to the difference between universal Leftist movements and the tribal visions of fascism.

We cannot afford a similar mistake.


Susan Neiman is an American philosopher and writer. She is the author of many books, including Evil in Modern Thought (2002) and, most recently, Left Is Not Woke (2023).


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

325 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt Hindman
MH
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

Who knew going all in on identity politics, making everything political, and making politics itself a zero sum game might end badly? If I read this article ten years ago, I might have some sympathy. Today I have none. You people loudly declared everyone not already aligned with you were enemies to be destroyed, said you were going to push forward no matter the consequences, and shouted down anyone who tried to warn you. Even now you still seem incapable of truly understanding the Law of Unintended Consequences or the corruption of power. “Authoritarian tendencies?” “Undermining democracy?” That is what you have been doing! Much of the old Classical Liberal Left has already abandoned you. They are called “far-right” now by the modern left even though they were not the ones who decided they love corporate power, political establishments, authoritarianism, hating on the rural and global poor, and international interventionism. For a second there it almost sounded like there would be some real self-reflection.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Albireo Double
AD
Albireo Double
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Perfectly put Matt. Particularly I laughed at this comment in the article about the “liberal Left” – which has become the most tribal political group I know:
“…progressives have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any liberal or Left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism…”
Even to someone as decisively inclined to the political right as I am, the progressive cause was a necessary and sometimes even admirable part of our politics. But now?
Now, progressivism has become more associated with the behaviour of Atilla the Hun. The only way to stop this new fascism, (an accurate description of what it is) is forcefully – just as force historically has always had to be deployed against fascism in all its many forms – both Left and Right.

Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
ER
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

Don’t call it progressive

Albireo Double
AD
Albireo Double
1 year ago

But that is what they are. May I commend to you the excellent article by Lionel Shriver in this issue in which she describes how this horror is rooted in 1960s progressive groupthink.

Progressives everywhere have drunk the woke Kool-Aid and the result is what we see. Progressivism as we knew it is no more. It is now a thoroughly nasty, authoritarian and illiberal ideology better compared with communism.

Anybody who regards themselves as politically progressive now stands for this poisonous rubbish. And unfortunately that includes most of our 600 MPs

Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

You’re both right. Allow me to suggest calling these people “pseudo-progressive”.

Hugh R
HR
Hugh R
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

An excellent observation, a thought I’ve had, and struggled to label.
Yours, like my attempts, is not ‘catchy’ enough….. but could form the spine of a term as derogatory as say, ‘gammon’, or, ‘far right’.
Welcome to the ‘peepees’ – let the jester’s, and hopefully the OED, spread the word

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh R

Thanks Hugh. It’s actually an element of my definition of woke: the authoritarian pseudo-progressive usurpation of liberalism, which as it happens was recently cited by an English-French dictionary as an example of the usage of “liberalism”:-
https://www.lalanguefrancaise.com/dictionnaire/english-french/liberalism-en

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Craven
Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh R

Thanks Hugh. It’s actually an element of my definition of woke: the authoritarian pseudo-progressive usurpation of liberalism, which as it happens was recently cited by an English-French dictionary as an example of the usage of “liberalism”:-
https://www.lalanguefrancaise.com/dictionnaire/english-french/liberalism-en

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Craven
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
ER
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Good suggestion
They always get to label themselves and they always chose words with positive connotations. There is however nothing progressive about them.

Matt Maas
MM
Matt Maas
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

“Fauxgressive?”

Hugh R
HR
Hugh R
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

An excellent observation, a thought I’ve had, and struggled to label.
Yours, like my attempts, is not ‘catchy’ enough….. but could form the spine of a term as derogatory as say, ‘gammon’, or, ‘far right’.
Welcome to the ‘peepees’ – let the jester’s, and hopefully the OED, spread the word

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
ER
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Good suggestion
They always get to label themselves and they always chose words with positive connotations. There is however nothing progressive about them.

Matt Maas
MM
Matt Maas
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

“Fauxgressive?”

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

You’re both right. Allow me to suggest calling these people “pseudo-progressive”.

Michael McElwee
MM
Michael McElwee
1 year ago

What makes progress possible? If Marx was clear about the answer to any question, it was this one: “The midwife of history is violence.” The hero of Chernyshevsky’s story said: “Yes, I will always do what I want. I will never sacrifice anything, not even a whim, for the sake of some thing I do not desire. What I want, with all my heart, is to make people happy.” This hero embodies what in Russia they call “bezdarnost” or giftlessness. “Giftlessness, as Dostoevsky feared, and Novakov knew, became the dominant style in Russia; it eventually seized power, and in the process of ‘making people happy’ destroyed them by the millions, leaving its vast motherland broken and desolate.”

Albireo Double
AD
Albireo Double
1 year ago

But that is what they are. May I commend to you the excellent article by Lionel Shriver in this issue in which she describes how this horror is rooted in 1960s progressive groupthink.

Progressives everywhere have drunk the woke Kool-Aid and the result is what we see. Progressivism as we knew it is no more. It is now a thoroughly nasty, authoritarian and illiberal ideology better compared with communism.

Anybody who regards themselves as politically progressive now stands for this poisonous rubbish. And unfortunately that includes most of our 600 MPs

Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
Michael McElwee
MM
Michael McElwee
1 year ago

What makes progress possible? If Marx was clear about the answer to any question, it was this one: “The midwife of history is violence.” The hero of Chernyshevsky’s story said: “Yes, I will always do what I want. I will never sacrifice anything, not even a whim, for the sake of some thing I do not desire. What I want, with all my heart, is to make people happy.” This hero embodies what in Russia they call “bezdarnost” or giftlessness. “Giftlessness, as Dostoevsky feared, and Novakov knew, became the dominant style in Russia; it eventually seized power, and in the process of ‘making people happy’ destroyed them by the millions, leaving its vast motherland broken and desolate.”

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

“The only way to stop this new fascism, (an accurate description of what it is) is forcefully.”
Absolutely correct.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
ER
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

Don’t call it progressive

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

“The only way to stop this new fascism, (an accurate description of what it is) is forcefully.”
Absolutely correct.

Tony Conrad
TC
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

A very good answer to the isms which can put a label on you and cancel you.

Matt Hindman
MH
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

The way I see it, there are three kinds of Left..
The Marxist Left: “We will spread the glorious revolution and get rid of the Bourgeoisie and Kulaks!”
The elite “Woke” Left: “I love the power to arbitrate who wins the victimhood Olympics. It pays well too!”
The Classical Liberal Left: “You know I really think we should do something about the massive deregulation of financial institutions and ban stock buybacks.”
The problem is anyone who claims to be on the left today but does not belong in the first two is walking on eggshells in order not to be declared “far-right”.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Gregory Prang
OL
Gregory Prang
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Good idea.
I think the “power” aspect, though, is part of the Marxist revolution notion. The elite “Woke” left, imho, is not pragmatic enough to understand power, but is instead highly idealistic. That is why they are suckers for manipulation by the other two. It’s also why they enable the revolution, but do not survive it.

Chris Wheatley
CW
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Why don’t people include The Climate Police in their discussions? Almost like they are in awe of anyone who talks about the climate.

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

I think you must mean the social liberal left. Classical liberalism advocated free trade and capitalism during the 19th century. Liberalism only took its social turn under Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith during the early 20th century.

Gregory Prang
OL
Gregory Prang
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Good idea.
I think the “power” aspect, though, is part of the Marxist revolution notion. The elite “Woke” left, imho, is not pragmatic enough to understand power, but is instead highly idealistic. That is why they are suckers for manipulation by the other two. It’s also why they enable the revolution, but do not survive it.

Chris Wheatley
CW
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Why don’t people include The Climate Police in their discussions? Almost like they are in awe of anyone who talks about the climate.

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

I think you must mean the social liberal left. Classical liberalism advocated free trade and capitalism during the 19th century. Liberalism only took its social turn under Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith during the early 20th century.

Albireo Double
AD
Albireo Double
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

…and which now must be neutralised.

Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
Matt Hindman
MH
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

The way I see it, there are three kinds of Left..
The Marxist Left: “We will spread the glorious revolution and get rid of the Bourgeoisie and Kulaks!”
The elite “Woke” Left: “I love the power to arbitrate who wins the victimhood Olympics. It pays well too!”
The Classical Liberal Left: “You know I really think we should do something about the massive deregulation of financial institutions and ban stock buybacks.”
The problem is anyone who claims to be on the left today but does not belong in the first two is walking on eggshells in order not to be declared “far-right”.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Albireo Double
AD
Albireo Double
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

…and which now must be neutralised.

Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

“You people”?

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Yes, You people.

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Yes, You people.

Peter D
PD
Peter D
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Spot on Matt. The wheels are starting to come off everywhere and this to me smells of the left screaming at the populace, “come to us because we care, we are all the same and should be treated equally!” Yet they have the worst track record. Social Justice is the worst kind of discrimination in the history of the world. They use the word racism like a whip. They crack it at us and think get down white scum.
So many people are sick of this but most of us are still to scared to stick our heads above the parapet. The left is truly viscous, and much worse than the crazies on the far right.

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter D

“They use the word racism like a whip. They crack it at us and think get down white scum.”
Excellently put.

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter D

“They use the word racism like a whip. They crack it at us and think get down white scum.”
Excellently put.

thephysicsholic 002
T0
thephysicsholic 002
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

It’s a classic sermon in regressivist Doublespeak. Using the Nazi Bogeyman is pretty much an SOP. The left is very much globally Tribal. It is by no means universalist. Rishi Sunak is barely right leaning. If anything, he is a centrist. Kamala Harris is a Far Leftist. The Global Right doesn’t exist simply because the local rights have conflicting principles and cannot doublethink unlike the global left. And yes the usual hinduphobia. Modi is neither Hindu Nationalist not violent. The Global Left is very much Marxist Jihadist as witnessed most recently in Iranian Anti-Sharia Protests. While the author has the privilege to deny and erase facts about her comrades, her detractors simply don’t. Imagine denying Non Existent White Supremacy Threat. As for India, It’s a Quasi-Islamic State where Hindus are treated as Sub human by law and worse are encourage to glorify their Self Hate. India is a country where masses think Sharia is Secular.

John Clinch
JC
John Clinch
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Who is ‘you people’? Prof Neiman?
I can only speak for myself. I am (still) on the liberal Left, meaning that I believe in markets but that the State should promote greater economic equality and regulate in the interests of all without trashing the sovereignty of the individual and universal human rights. I have never deviated from this core conviction and there are many, many people in my camp.
Then I noticed that many of my activist fellow-travellers gradually became infected with a mind virus that says it’s not economics, stupid, it’s the countless different forms of identity that are supremely important. But not all identities and some are more important than others and we should pay ever more attention to our differences. It’s not only madness but its deep lack of electoral appeal presents a huge impediment to the possibility for how we would want to improve the world. You may not agree with redistribution, regulation, etc. but you can’t justifiably accuse all on the Left of tolerating this crap. Many of us have always hated it.

Matt Hindman
MH
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clinch

I’m pretty sure I explicitly left people like you out of my tirade. Please reread my comments. By the way, I am an Eisenhower Republican and have actually read Adam Smith so I am also in the camp that Western market mass deregulation has been an economic disaster.

Matt Hindman
MH
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clinch

I’m pretty sure I explicitly left people like you out of my tirade. Please reread my comments. By the way, I am an Eisenhower Republican and have actually read Adam Smith so I am also in the camp that Western market mass deregulation has been an economic disaster.

Francis Bombardier
Francis Bombardier
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

This new push from the radicals to de-align themselves from woke culture is telling in itself. They are trying to vilify the word themselves so they cannot be cast under its political implications which is another example how they really do not stand for anything but self preservation.

Nona Yubiz
NY
Nona Yubiz
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

If I’d read this comment ten years ago, I might have read past “you people”. But I’ve learned that’s what people say just before they’re about to go on some vein-popping, self-righteous rant. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nona Yubiz
Albireo Double
Albireo Double
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Perfectly put Matt. Particularly I laughed at this comment in the article about the “liberal Left” – which has become the most tribal political group I know:
“…progressives have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any liberal or Left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism…”
Even to someone as decisively inclined to the political right as I am, the progressive cause was a necessary and sometimes even admirable part of our politics. But now?
Now, progressivism has become more associated with the behaviour of Atilla the Hun. The only way to stop this new fascism, (an accurate description of what it is) is forcefully – just as force historically has always had to be deployed against fascism in all its many forms – both Left and Right.

Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
Tony Conrad
TC
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

A very good answer to the isms which can put a label on you and cancel you.

Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

“You people”?

Peter D
Peter D
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Spot on Matt. The wheels are starting to come off everywhere and this to me smells of the left screaming at the populace, “come to us because we care, we are all the same and should be treated equally!” Yet they have the worst track record. Social Justice is the worst kind of discrimination in the history of the world. They use the word racism like a whip. They crack it at us and think get down white scum.
So many people are sick of this but most of us are still to scared to stick our heads above the parapet. The left is truly viscous, and much worse than the crazies on the far right.

thephysicsholic 002
thephysicsholic 002
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

It’s a classic sermon in regressivist Doublespeak. Using the Nazi Bogeyman is pretty much an SOP. The left is very much globally Tribal. It is by no means universalist. Rishi Sunak is barely right leaning. If anything, he is a centrist. Kamala Harris is a Far Leftist. The Global Right doesn’t exist simply because the local rights have conflicting principles and cannot doublethink unlike the global left. And yes the usual hinduphobia. Modi is neither Hindu Nationalist not violent. The Global Left is very much Marxist Jihadist as witnessed most recently in Iranian Anti-Sharia Protests. While the author has the privilege to deny and erase facts about her comrades, her detractors simply don’t. Imagine denying Non Existent White Supremacy Threat. As for India, It’s a Quasi-Islamic State where Hindus are treated as Sub human by law and worse are encourage to glorify their Self Hate. India is a country where masses think Sharia is Secular.

John Clinch
JC
John Clinch
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Who is ‘you people’? Prof Neiman?
I can only speak for myself. I am (still) on the liberal Left, meaning that I believe in markets but that the State should promote greater economic equality and regulate in the interests of all without trashing the sovereignty of the individual and universal human rights. I have never deviated from this core conviction and there are many, many people in my camp.
Then I noticed that many of my activist fellow-travellers gradually became infected with a mind virus that says it’s not economics, stupid, it’s the countless different forms of identity that are supremely important. But not all identities and some are more important than others and we should pay ever more attention to our differences. It’s not only madness but its deep lack of electoral appeal presents a huge impediment to the possibility for how we would want to improve the world. You may not agree with redistribution, regulation, etc. but you can’t justifiably accuse all on the Left of tolerating this crap. Many of us have always hated it.

Francis Bombardier
Francis Bombardier
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

This new push from the radicals to de-align themselves from woke culture is telling in itself. They are trying to vilify the word themselves so they cannot be cast under its political implications which is another example how they really do not stand for anything but self preservation.

Nona Yubiz
Nona Yubiz
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

If I’d read this comment ten years ago, I might have read past “you people”. But I’ve learned that’s what people say just before they’re about to go on some vein-popping, self-righteous rant. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nona Yubiz
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

Who knew going all in on identity politics, making everything political, and making politics itself a zero sum game might end badly? If I read this article ten years ago, I might have some sympathy. Today I have none. You people loudly declared everyone not already aligned with you were enemies to be destroyed, said you were going to push forward no matter the consequences, and shouted down anyone who tried to warn you. Even now you still seem incapable of truly understanding the Law of Unintended Consequences or the corruption of power. “Authoritarian tendencies?” “Undermining democracy?” That is what you have been doing! Much of the old Classical Liberal Left has already abandoned you. They are called “far-right” now by the modern left even though they were not the ones who decided they love corporate power, political establishments, authoritarianism, hating on the rural and global poor, and international interventionism. For a second there it almost sounded like there would be some real self-reflection.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
David Baker
DB
David Baker
1 year ago

I suppose I tend not to read many “progressive”oriented articles these days (though really I prefer historically grounded and interesting thinkers like Mary Harrington, rather than a specific political orientation). So I don’t always see the progressive viewpoint of other opinions, but even several years ago I frequently read more progressive sources.

If this article is a good example of a left-wing philosopher’s assumptions on people of other world views, what a sorry state left-wing discourse truly is in. She essentially argues the only reason someone might oppose the Left is because they are a provincial who hates others. Being a public intellectual should mean having to grapple with the opinions of those who disagree, should mean at least trying to think outside your own box on occasion. This is just straw man after straw man.

Then, rather than trying to grapple with the possibility that woke excesses are an outgrowth of the very liberalism she defends, she says the Woke are bad because are just becoming like the Right. So again, her worldview breaks down to this: people who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Baker
Duncan Lockard
Duncan Lockard
1 year ago
Reply to  David Baker

have you seen the analysis of woke ideology at understandwoke.com? really interesting and clearly outlined

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Duncan Lockard

I’ve just had a look at it, and left some comments. Thanks for that.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  Duncan Lockard

I would suggest reading Of Course You Know What “Woke” Means by Freddie deBoer. I’m not the biggest fan of his outright socialist views but he does have principles and he did an amazing breakdown of what “woke” really is.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/108643299

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Duncan Lockard

I’ve just had a look at it, and left some comments. Thanks for that.

Matt Hindman
MH
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  Duncan Lockard

I would suggest reading Of Course You Know What “Woke” Means by Freddie deBoer. I’m not the biggest fan of his outright socialist views but he does have principles and he did an amazing breakdown of what “woke” really is.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/108643299

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  David Baker

In other words, the author embodies Schmitt perfectly. “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy”

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

Yes. I noticed that the author didn’t mention the friend enemy distinction. Very odd.

Christopher Chantrill
CC
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

Yes. I noticed that the author didn’t mention the friend enemy distinction. Very odd.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  David Baker

Exactly David.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  David Baker

“People who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked” seems to sum up “woke”. The word is used by the right as a put down for anything that threatens them and they disagree with in order to invalidate it.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Uh, that’s inverted. The Right didn’t invent the word, the tactic, the meaning. The Left imposes its agenda on everyone via academia, entertainment, technology, media, corporations, and demands we be held to its strictures. If we shrug it all off or, worse, ignore it, we are excoriated, punished, and made to care, whether we want to or not. There is no good faith attempt to discuss, debate, disagree. It’s Maoist Red Guard-ism.

Last edited 1 year ago by Allison Barrows
Richard Parker
RP
Richard Parker
1 year ago

Quite right: it was coined by “progressive” activists, who then blew very hard trying to convince us it doesn’t exist and that the culture wars they kicked off are a bogeyman of “right wing” imagination (inverted commas around right wing, as it’s a relative concept at best and has expanded to occupy all middle ground).
I wonder if some people can even figure out how to lie straight in bed…

Richard Parker
RP
Richard Parker
1 year ago

Quite right: it was coined by “progressive” activists, who then blew very hard trying to convince us it doesn’t exist and that the culture wars they kicked off are a bogeyman of “right wing” imagination (inverted commas around right wing, as it’s a relative concept at best and has expanded to occupy all middle ground).
I wonder if some people can even figure out how to lie straight in bed…

David Yetter
DY
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

So you really think that “the right” (which has never really meant anything other than those opposed to the Left) can’t tell the difference between the threats poses by classical Marxism-Leninism, the various “Communist” movements that have really turned fascist (cf. the CCP), and the Woke, whom I take to be the idiot children of the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida and a host of anti- and post-colonialist Leninists? Only the last with their fixation on identity politics which the author decries, keeping racial greivances alive, rather than fixing them, and bizarre notion that subjectively felt gender should replace biological sex in all matters of social discourse and law are sneered at as “Woke”.

Allison Barrows
AB
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Uh, that’s inverted. The Right didn’t invent the word, the tactic, the meaning. The Left imposes its agenda on everyone via academia, entertainment, technology, media, corporations, and demands we be held to its strictures. If we shrug it all off or, worse, ignore it, we are excoriated, punished, and made to care, whether we want to or not. There is no good faith attempt to discuss, debate, disagree. It’s Maoist Red Guard-ism.

Last edited 1 year ago by Allison Barrows
David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

So you really think that “the right” (which has never really meant anything other than those opposed to the Left) can’t tell the difference between the threats poses by classical Marxism-Leninism, the various “Communist” movements that have really turned fascist (cf. the CCP), and the Woke, whom I take to be the idiot children of the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida and a host of anti- and post-colonialist Leninists? Only the last with their fixation on identity politics which the author decries, keeping racial greivances alive, rather than fixing them, and bizarre notion that subjectively felt gender should replace biological sex in all matters of social discourse and law are sneered at as “Woke”.

Deb Grant
DG
Deb Grant
1 year ago
Reply to  David Baker

She gets so much wrong about the categorisation of right or left, as do many, especially on the left. The only thing she gets right about that is that one”s politics is multi-dimensional and doesn’t fit neatly into old labels. Those labels nowadays don’t apply in the way they once did. By 20th Century standards, Rishi Sunak’s Government would have been considered left wing socialists. Western societies have moved considerably left.

No one nowadays wants anyone, anywhere to be poor, so demonising people who vote for ‘right of centre’ parties misses so many points. One of which is that creating more state dependency has failed to eradicate the tiny percentage of families in Britain staying very poor. Yet to pay for state dependency, the middle classes have less disposable income than ever before and many have themselves become classified as what now is called poor in UK – even though everyone has free education and healthcare, more and better consumer goods and creature comforts than ever before.

The problem is that the reasons there are still poor have been incredibly different to fix, especially the weather and its role in water supply in some parts of the world and varying natural intelligence levels. Since millions of clever people have tried to eradicate poverty over centuries and so far failed doesn’t mean we aren’t making progress – we are. Global poverty is declining as we educate people and empower women. Half the population are female, so empowering them in developing countries will also eventually reduce impoverishing warmongering.

So, I’ll vote for those who enable people to pick the ball up and run with it, rather than those who claim that they can completely level every playing field.

Deb Grant
DG
Deb Grant
1 year ago
Reply to  Deb Grant

Should read “difficult” to fix (global poverty)

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Deb Grant

Weather will always be around.

Deb Grant
Deb Grant
1 year ago
Reply to  Deb Grant

Should read “difficult” to fix (global poverty)

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Deb Grant

Weather will always be around.

Duncan Lockard
DL
Duncan Lockard
1 year ago
Reply to  David Baker

have you seen the analysis of woke ideology at understandwoke.com? really interesting and clearly outlined

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  David Baker

In other words, the author embodies Schmitt perfectly. “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy”

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  David Baker

Exactly David.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  David Baker

“People who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked” seems to sum up “woke”. The word is used by the right as a put down for anything that threatens them and they disagree with in order to invalidate it.

Deb Grant
DG
Deb Grant
1 year ago
Reply to  David Baker

She gets so much wrong about the categorisation of right or left, as do many, especially on the left. The only thing she gets right about that is that one”s politics is multi-dimensional and doesn’t fit neatly into old labels. Those labels nowadays don’t apply in the way they once did. By 20th Century standards, Rishi Sunak’s Government would have been considered left wing socialists. Western societies have moved considerably left.

No one nowadays wants anyone, anywhere to be poor, so demonising people who vote for ‘right of centre’ parties misses so many points. One of which is that creating more state dependency has failed to eradicate the tiny percentage of families in Britain staying very poor. Yet to pay for state dependency, the middle classes have less disposable income than ever before and many have themselves become classified as what now is called poor in UK – even though everyone has free education and healthcare, more and better consumer goods and creature comforts than ever before.

The problem is that the reasons there are still poor have been incredibly different to fix, especially the weather and its role in water supply in some parts of the world and varying natural intelligence levels. Since millions of clever people have tried to eradicate poverty over centuries and so far failed doesn’t mean we aren’t making progress – we are. Global poverty is declining as we educate people and empower women. Half the population are female, so empowering them in developing countries will also eventually reduce impoverishing warmongering.

So, I’ll vote for those who enable people to pick the ball up and run with it, rather than those who claim that they can completely level every playing field.

David Baker
David Baker
1 year ago

I suppose I tend not to read many “progressive”oriented articles these days (though really I prefer historically grounded and interesting thinkers like Mary Harrington, rather than a specific political orientation). So I don’t always see the progressive viewpoint of other opinions, but even several years ago I frequently read more progressive sources.

If this article is a good example of a left-wing philosopher’s assumptions on people of other world views, what a sorry state left-wing discourse truly is in. She essentially argues the only reason someone might oppose the Left is because they are a provincial who hates others. Being a public intellectual should mean having to grapple with the opinions of those who disagree, should mean at least trying to think outside your own box on occasion. This is just straw man after straw man.

Then, rather than trying to grapple with the possibility that woke excesses are an outgrowth of the very liberalism she defends, she says the Woke are bad because are just becoming like the Right. So again, her worldview breaks down to this: people who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Baker
Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago

”In a few short decades, woke was transformed from a term of praise to a term of abuse.”

I always took ‘Left’ to mean either a parasite or a totalitarian. I took ‘Woke’ to mean love of that which is degenerate, and hate of that which is Decent.

’emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalized, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted.”

I have NEVER thought of compassion or empathy being of the Left. Having seen a great deal of the world, Left always means oppression and at the same time destruction of wealth production; so all end up in poverty, it is always and everywhere cruel and causes suffering..

This article is like a Flat-Earther, an argument built floating in the air; taking it for granted the flat-earth laws of physics are real, and we all believe in them, wile patently they are totally false.

But I get the problem, the writer is a Lefty Philosopher…..an oxymoron, so it is merely a faith based article, and faith based on completely fallacious arguments.

Woke is Left. It comes directly from the Frankfurt School and to us via Neo-Marxism and Postmodernism. Both very destructive and cruel belief systems.

Basically ‘Woke is the love of that which is degenerate and contrary to Western Ethics, and is Against that which is decent and part of Western Ethics. It is just a self harming pathology, like Left is. Left is the Mother of Woke.

R Wright
RW
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Woke is Foucault’s love of preying on Algerian boys while preaching about colonialism and injustices. The fact that such a degenerate is the most highly cited writer on the modern left is all one needs to know.

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peanis peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Craven
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Excellent.

N Satori
NS
N Satori
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Oh dear! The Bard of Bristol is off again (“Oim gernta do one o’ me poems”).

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Larp.

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Larp.

Allison Barrows
AB
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Excellent.

N Satori
NS
N Satori
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Oh dear! The Bard of Bristol is off again (“Oim gernta do one o’ me poems”).

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peaniss peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.

Agnes Aurelius
Agnes Aurelius
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Put a sock on on your Glans Peaniss please it’s really boring

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Agnes Aurelius

Up yours.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Oh boys, really!!!!!

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

You people, really!!!!

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

You people, really!!!!

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Oh boys, really!!!!!

Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Agnes Aurelius

Funny.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Agnes Aurelius

Up yours.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Agnes Aurelius

Funny.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

You said that already.

B Emery
BE
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

I think you should get a new hobby.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Ok groomer.

B Emery
BE
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

What have I done to deserve that one Mr Craven?

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

..

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Craven
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Your dislike of my mockery of woke suggests that you are pro-woke, and therefore in favour of the sexualisation, drugging, and mutilation of children. On this basis, I say “ok groomer” to you.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Jesus. Points for just saying it this time instead of editing it back.
Mock away but you will not change woke hearts and minds with insults and mockery Mr Craven.
And I still think your poem is crap.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Ok groomer.

B Emery
BE
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Enlightening. You can do better than that. You quote stuff like you’ve swallowed a library. Up your game.

B Emery
BE
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Enlightening. You can do better than that. You quote stuff like you’ve swallowed a library. Up your game.

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Ok groomer.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Jesus. Points for just saying it this time instead of editing it back.
Mock away but you will not change woke hearts and minds with insults and mockery Mr Craven.
And I still think your poem is crap.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

..

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Craven
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Your dislike of my mockery of woke suggests that you are pro-woke, and therefore in favour of the sexualisation, drugging, and mutilation of children. On this basis, I say “ok groomer” to you.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

What have I done to deserve that one Mr Craven?

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Ok groomer.

N Satori
NS
N Satori
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

With a bit if editing you could condense it to shorter more reader-friendly version. Might I suggest:
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
I hates the Wokies
And so should you

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Or just not bother. I fail to see how any of this is helping.

B Emery
BE
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Or just not bother. I fail to see how any of this is helping.

Agnes Aurelius
Agnes Aurelius
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Put a sock on on your Glans Peaniss please it’s really boring

Tony Conrad
TC
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

You said that already.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

I think you should get a new hobby.

N Satori
NS
N Satori
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

With a bit if editing you could condense it to shorter more reader-friendly version. Might I suggest:
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
I hates the Wokies
And so should you

John Murray
JM
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I’m on the left, I guess, and have never read Foucault, and never intend to. I also don’t share his, and your, fascination with Algerian boys. Pretty weak argument if your aim is to demonise anyone on the left.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

Left always meant to me bring down the leaders who rule and oppress ten times worse with the new left leaders. These militant movements always end badly. Democracy was a series of steps over a period by wise people who thought as they went. A movement to give and not oppress.

John Murray
JM
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Another reply that has me baffled. What militant movements are we talking about? Putting everything into a neat and tidy little basket? In real life, Tony, most things are shades of grey, unless you live in a Daily Mail/GB News Echo Chamber where the mistakes and contradictions in their own positions are always blamed on someone else.

Aidan Trimble
AT
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

If you’re looking to make some point about viewing life in only black and white terms, I’m not sure the right/centre right is the best place to draw inspiration from. We aren’t the ones saying “If you disagree with us, you’re evil” at every opportunity.

Aidan Trimble
AT
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

If you’re looking to make some point about viewing life in only black and white terms, I’m not sure the right/centre right is the best place to draw inspiration from. We aren’t the ones saying “If you disagree with us, you’re evil” at every opportunity.

John Murray
JM
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Another reply that has me baffled. What militant movements are we talking about? Putting everything into a neat and tidy little basket? In real life, Tony, most things are shades of grey, unless you live in a Daily Mail/GB News Echo Chamber where the mistakes and contradictions in their own positions are always blamed on someone else.

Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

Exactly. And what’s with the up arrow, it take likes away, very confusing.

Last edited 1 year ago by Clare Knight
Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Ah it’s because it doesn’t just take into account your vote but those of others that have happened since you last loaded the page.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Ah it’s because it doesn’t just take into account your vote but those of others that have happened since you last loaded the page.

Allison Barrows
AB
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

I’ll explain: R Wright is describing hypocrisy. He is not fascinated with Algerian boys. Michel Foucault was a homosexual pedophile who decried the “evils of colonialism” whilst sexually abusing foreign male children for his own pleasure. It’s called an example. 

John Murray
JM
John Murray
1 year ago

No he’s not. He used an ‘example’ to make an ideological point. Foucault’s sexuality does not negate what he had to say on colonialism or mean that it somehow equates to anyone who has questions about colonialism being either hypocrites themselves or automatically wrong.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

Yes indeed. You have to make this basic point again and again on here. Attacking a person does *not* attack their argument, unless their arument is about them as a person. The discussion, insofar as there was one, was about whether left or right wing people are ‘better?’ So let’s take candidate one, Edmund Burke, often considered the father of conservatism, but oh no look, lots of people saw him as progressive in his own time (e.g. he supported the American Revolution)! Can he even be described as right wing..
Adam Smith (apparent father of capitalism) another classic example, he – like Marx – was very worried about the alienating effects that repetitive labour, such as in his famous pin factory that we see on £20 notes, would have on on workers.

Last edited 1 year ago by Desmond Wolf
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

He was a voracious pedophile. There is no excuse.

John Murray
John Murray
1 year ago

Which entirely misses the point that the argument was whether this negated everything he said, and the pretty absurd assertion that everyone on ‘the left’ read him and therefore it invalidated anything they stood for as well.

Sam Brown
Sam Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

He was perverse in every way and his philosophy was essentially Marxist in that he sought to deconstruct western society by deconstructing all it held dear and declaring it false. The fact that he was a degenerate, disgusting paedophile who buggered small boys on gravestones does give some sense of his values.

John Murray
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Brown

Sigh…to repeat again, I have never read him, couldn’t care less about him but objected to the idea that any criticism of colonialism is invalidated by his comments on it.

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

And yet he is manipulating you now without your knowledge from the grave. Sucker.

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

And yet he is manipulating you now without your knowledge from the grave. Sucker.

John Murray
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Brown

Sigh…to repeat again, I have never read him, couldn’t care less about him but objected to the idea that any criticism of colonialism is invalidated by his comments on it.

Mike Michaels
MM
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

John his whole philosophy was about creating a society in which people with his predilections could operate freely and to their hearts content. So I’d say it has rather a lot to do with his writing.

Sam Brown
SB
Sam Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

He was perverse in every way and his philosophy was essentially Marxist in that he sought to deconstruct western society by deconstructing all it held dear and declaring it false. The fact that he was a degenerate, disgusting paedophile who buggered small boys on gravestones does give some sense of his values.

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

John his whole philosophy was about creating a society in which people with his predilections could operate freely and to their hearts content. So I’d say it has rather a lot to do with his writing.

John Murray
JM
John Murray
1 year ago

Which entirely misses the point that the argument was whether this negated everything he said, and the pretty absurd assertion that everyone on ‘the left’ read him and therefore it invalidated anything they stood for as well.

Desmond Wolf
DW
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

Yes indeed. You have to make this basic point again and again on here. Attacking a person does *not* attack their argument, unless their arument is about them as a person. The discussion, insofar as there was one, was about whether left or right wing people are ‘better?’ So let’s take candidate one, Edmund Burke, often considered the father of conservatism, but oh no look, lots of people saw him as progressive in his own time (e.g. he supported the American Revolution)! Can he even be described as right wing..
Adam Smith (apparent father of capitalism) another classic example, he – like Marx – was very worried about the alienating effects that repetitive labour, such as in his famous pin factory that we see on £20 notes, would have on on workers.

Last edited 1 year ago by Desmond Wolf
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

He was a voracious pedophile. There is no excuse.

John Murray
John Murray
1 year ago

No he’s not. He used an ‘example’ to make an ideological point. Foucault’s sexuality does not negate what he had to say on colonialism or mean that it somehow equates to anyone who has questions about colonialism being either hypocrites themselves or automatically wrong.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

Left always meant to me bring down the leaders who rule and oppress ten times worse with the new left leaders. These militant movements always end badly. Democracy was a series of steps over a period by wise people who thought as they went. A movement to give and not oppress.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

Exactly. And what’s with the up arrow, it take likes away, very confusing.

Last edited 1 year ago by Clare Knight
Allison Barrows
AB
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

I’ll explain: R Wright is describing hypocrisy. He is not fascinated with Algerian boys. Michel Foucault was a homosexual pedophile who decried the “evils of colonialism” whilst sexually abusing foreign male children for his own pleasure. It’s called an example. 

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peanis peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Craven
Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peaniss peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.

John Murray
JM
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I’m on the left, I guess, and have never read Foucault, and never intend to. I also don’t share his, and your, fascination with Algerian boys. Pretty weak argument if your aim is to demonise anyone on the left.

Chris Wheatley
CW
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

“The Left, more left, Lefty….”
Where are the Rights, or is it a dirty word? Are there any Rights? Are Rights automatically fas**st? Do you have to be Left or Right to have an opinion? Advice – don’t get hung up on left, left, left…. Have new ideas, ideas, ideas…
Where do the Greens come in your Left vs Right world? Surely, the Greens are the ultimate Lefties?

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Wheatley
Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Is the word fascist banned?!!

Richard Craven
RC
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

If the cap fits, you people should wear it.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

If the cap fits, you people should wear it.

Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Is the word fascist banned?!!

James Jenkin
JJ
James Jenkin
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

“emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted”
Perhaps Neiman could have said “rhetoric” or “themes” rather than “emotions”. But they certainly are what made me, and many people, join the Left. The Right never mentions them.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

Perhaps because those on the Right are actively finding and implementing solutions, whilst those on the Left are busy virtue signaling from their computers and bullying those with whom they disagree.

Last edited 1 year ago by Allison Barrows
Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago

That is what it seems like.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Au contraire.You’ve just described what republicans do….. criticise what democrats do without offering an alternative plan. They’re against everything but for nothing.

Allison Barrows
AB
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I think I’ve said this to you before, Clare: You obviously don’t know any Republicans. I was very active but left the party and became an Independent in the second GWB term because I was disgusted by the war in Iraq. Whilst the GOP is as stuffed with fossilized corruptocrats as the Democrat party, individual free-market conservatives are the people who solve problems. It’s what they do in all walks of life. Democrats keep the problems going for fun and profit.

John Murray
John Murray
1 year ago

I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the Freedom Caucus is willing or able to solve any problems. It’s difficult to look at any of the committees that have been set up under the likes of Jim Jordan and see anything other than partisan game playing of no use whatsoever to any average US citizen. Who really cares about Hunter Biden’s laptop? I think sweeping statements about Right = Good, Left = Bad (or vice versa) don’t help anyone or make either the UK or the US better countries that work for everyone, however they vote or don’t vote, which we should surely all want?

Allison Barrows
AB
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

You would do well to look at state and town action, not DC. For those of us who have worked at the town level, we’re well aware that we have a great deal of power.

John Murray
JM
John Murray
1 year ago

I don’t doubt it. I’m sure the street lighting committee in some small town in, say, Idaho do a great job. My point was that the Freedom Caucus, as an example, see Congress as a reality show and their 15 minutes of fame (see McCarthy’s election as proof) rather than a serious governing chamber for all of the country.

John Murray
John Murray
1 year ago

I don’t doubt it. I’m sure the street lighting committee in some small town in, say, Idaho do a great job. My point was that the Freedom Caucus, as an example, see Congress as a reality show and their 15 minutes of fame (see McCarthy’s election as proof) rather than a serious governing chamber for all of the country.

Kat L
KL
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

I care about it. I care about whether politicians and their criminal family members are screwing over 1/2 the country. I care that corporate media isn’t going after it with the same voraciousness that they did Trump and his children. We are now living with a two tier justice system and so hale yes I care about it.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

You would do well to look at state and town action, not DC. For those of us who have worked at the town level, we’re well aware that we have a great deal of power.

Kat L
KL
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

I care about it. I care about whether politicians and their criminal family members are screwing over 1/2 the country. I care that corporate media isn’t going after it with the same voraciousness that they did Trump and his children. We are now living with a two tier justice system and so hale yes I care about it.

John Murray
John Murray
1 year ago

I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the Freedom Caucus is willing or able to solve any problems. It’s difficult to look at any of the committees that have been set up under the likes of Jim Jordan and see anything other than partisan game playing of no use whatsoever to any average US citizen. Who really cares about Hunter Biden’s laptop? I think sweeping statements about Right = Good, Left = Bad (or vice versa) don’t help anyone or make either the UK or the US better countries that work for everyone, however they vote or don’t vote, which we should surely all want?

John Murray
JM
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

We’ll said!

Allison Barrows
AB
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I think I’ve said this to you before, Clare: You obviously don’t know any Republicans. I was very active but left the party and became an Independent in the second GWB term because I was disgusted by the war in Iraq. Whilst the GOP is as stuffed with fossilized corruptocrats as the Democrat party, individual free-market conservatives are the people who solve problems. It’s what they do in all walks of life. Democrats keep the problems going for fun and profit.

John Murray
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

We’ll said!

James Jenkin
James Jenkin
1 year ago

I agree with you! But in the midst of all that hard work you have to sell your message

Tony Conrad
TC
Tony Conrad
1 year ago

That is what it seems like.

Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Au contraire.You’ve just described what republicans do….. criticise what democrats do without offering an alternative plan. They’re against everything but for nothing.

James Jenkin
James Jenkin
1 year ago

I agree with you! But in the midst of all that hard work you have to sell your message

Tony Conrad
TC
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

Left to me means people like Karl Marx which led to a century of torture and oppression by the USSR.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Indeed. But there are other excuses for tyranies that torture and oppress their people. The Left refers to the tendency which produces such tyrannies on the plea that they are helping “the downtrodden”, which is why the Woke are definitely a phenomenon of the Left — though their positions are hardly classical Marxism, their intellectual pedigree derives from the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School and anti- and post-colonialist thinkers who embraced Lenin’s provably wrong imperialism theory — and they to purport to be championing the downtrodden, no longer the working class (who are sneered at at “deplorables” on my side of the Pond, or “white van men” on the other), but women, and a grab-bag of ethnic and racial minorities, and folks with peculiar sexual proclivities.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Indeed. But there are other excuses for tyranies that torture and oppress their people. The Left refers to the tendency which produces such tyrannies on the plea that they are helping “the downtrodden”, which is why the Woke are definitely a phenomenon of the Left — though their positions are hardly classical Marxism, their intellectual pedigree derives from the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School and anti- and post-colonialist thinkers who embraced Lenin’s provably wrong imperialism theory — and they to purport to be championing the downtrodden, no longer the working class (who are sneered at at “deplorables” on my side of the Pond, or “white van men” on the other), but women, and a grab-bag of ethnic and racial minorities, and folks with peculiar sexual proclivities.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

I’m so confused right now as to what counts as being left or right. All this constructive discussion is really helping.

James Jenkin
JJ
James Jenkin
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

Really interesting responses. I haven’t been on the left for decades. My position is conservatives do good things rather than talk about them.

I was trying to point out a messaging problem. Yet all these people i probably agree with philosophically are furious. Makes me think even more that conservatives are super bad at winning people over.

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

Naive

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

Perhaps because those on the Right are actively finding and implementing solutions, whilst those on the Left are busy virtue signaling from their computers and bullying those with whom they disagree.

Last edited 1 year ago by Allison Barrows
Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

Left to me means people like Karl Marx which led to a century of torture and oppression by the USSR.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

I’m so confused right now as to what counts as being left or right. All this constructive discussion is really helping.

James Jenkin
JJ
James Jenkin
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

Really interesting responses. I haven’t been on the left for decades. My position is conservatives do good things rather than talk about them.

I was trying to point out a messaging problem. Yet all these people i probably agree with philosophically are furious. Makes me think even more that conservatives are super bad at winning people over.

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

Naive

John Murray
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

I guess I’m on the Left. I believe that refugees and migrants are fellow human beings and should be treated accordingly. I believe giving pay rises to essential workers is more important than maintaining tax breaks for the top percentile. I believe public services vital to our safety and security should be owned by the British people not foreign investors only interested in treating them as a cash cow. I believe in a huge increase in affordable homes. I don’t believe a rich country like ours should tolerate food banks.

I don’t, though, have any interest in identity politics. Anyone who promises one simple solution to a complex problem loses my attention fast.

It seems to me you are a mirror image of the people on the left you are criticising, just as intolerant and one eyed. If we want a better country then folks of both left and right need to stop and think, and stop falling into rabbit holes.

Tony Conrad
TC
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

If you call yourself something other than the left people may listen. The left means to me far worse than it means to you. It lets down every time. So does globalism as it happens. If you travel in Africa and Asia you will find well over a billion people want to come and live in Britain. I wouldn’t trust you to govern which would take wisdom not isms.

John Murray
JM
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That somehow treating refugees and migrants with traditional Christian values means we’ll have a billion Africans marching down Slough High Street before we know it? Do you really think the Clown Car masquerading as our government have ‘wisdom’!?! My point was that isms are bad, WHATEVER your politics and seeing everything through an ideological prism, as you obviously do, is hugely destructive to building a country that works well for everyone.

Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

Well said, John!! And what’s with the damn up arrow!!!

Paul Hendricks
PH
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

What is Christian about siphoning off the best and the brightest, as well as the merely able-bodied, from other lands near and far? What is Christian about what happens to those places?

Take El Salvador: anyone who can, flees. Who is left to protect the people from the criminal gangs? A similar dynamic afflicts American inner cities, whose ordinary residents flee to suburbs if they are able–Trump pointed this out–leaving behind a pathetic underclass who turns to drugs, prostitution and welfare. (An adjacent class is promised protection from this intentional blight and other advantages, in exchange for votes.)

And what is Christian about the term “economic migrants”? By the logic of this poorly-understood phrase, “economic prospects”–namely, working below market rates with no worker protections, or perhaps becoming a prostitute–are more important than family and country. Maybe they are brave for making a risky journey; but real courage would have these men stay at home and work hard to better their people. That’s Christian courage, something worth praying for.

What Christian can claim that a person’s right to consume comes before their responsibilities to those around them? That a life without the latest consumer goods is a life to flee? That a nation is somehow inferior, undesirable, because it isn’t as rich?

Only the most meaningless, sentimental form of Christianity. The kind that leads to such pious banalities as “I believe immigrants are human beings,” and would rather have a Dr. Feel-good making moral prescriptions, than an honest priest making practical advice.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

Well said, John!! And what’s with the damn up arrow!!!

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

What is Christian about siphoning off the best and the brightest, as well as the merely able-bodied, from other lands near and far? What is Christian about what happens to those places?

Take El Salvador: anyone who can, flees. Who is left to protect the people from the criminal gangs? A similar dynamic afflicts American inner cities, whose ordinary residents flee to suburbs if they are able–Trump pointed this out–leaving behind a pathetic underclass who turns to drugs, prostitution and welfare. (An adjacent class is promised protection from this intentional blight and other advantages, in exchange for votes.)

And what is Christian about the term “economic migrants”? By the logic of this poorly-understood phrase, “economic prospects”–namely, working below market rates with no worker protections, or perhaps becoming a prostitute–are more important than family and country. Maybe they are brave for making a risky journey; but real courage would have these men stay at home and work hard to better their people. That’s Christian courage, something worth praying for.

What Christian can claim that a person’s right to consume comes before their responsibilities to those around them? That a life without the latest consumer goods is a life to flee? That a nation is somehow inferior, undesirable, because it isn’t as rich?

Only the most meaningless, sentimental form of Christianity. The kind that leads to such pious banalities as “I believe immigrants are human beings,” and would rather have a Dr. Feel-good making moral prescriptions, than an honest priest making practical advice.

Simon Bonini
SB
Simon Bonini
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Identity politics if ever I saw it “call yourself something other than Left”. John described his viewpoints because labels are so very ambiguous in politics.

John Murray
John Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That somehow treating refugees and migrants with traditional Christian values means we’ll have a billion Africans marching down Slough High Street before we know it? Do you really think the Clown Car masquerading as our government have ‘wisdom’!?! My point was that isms are bad, WHATEVER your politics and seeing everything through an ideological prism, as you obviously do, is hugely destructive to building a country that works well for everyone.

Simon Bonini
SB
Simon Bonini
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Identity politics if ever I saw it “call yourself something other than Left”. John described his viewpoints because labels are so very ambiguous in politics.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

Are you by any remote chance from Scotland?Because that is the sort sentimental wokist piffle one always hears from there.
However your unabashed vanity signalling is noted.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Perfect example of using the word woke as a catch all put down.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CS
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

One must keep up with ‘times’ Ms Knight.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

One must keep up with ‘times’ Ms Knight.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Perfect example of using the word woke as a catch all put down.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CS
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Murray

Thanks to cretins like you ‘Twitter’ Murray the BAME population of these Islands is around 10 million souls, representing 19% of the population!*
You state “I guess I’m on the Left”; NO you are deranged, and need help immediately. Good luck!

(* ONS figures.)

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Your insults say more about you, Charles, than they do about John.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

What’s the problem, are you in love with him?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CS
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

What’s the problem, are you in love with him?

rodney foy
RF
rodney foy
1 year ago

You have not said if you agree that isms are bad

CHARLES STANHOPE
CS
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  rodney foy

Classicism is the only creed I subscribe to.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CS
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  rodney foy

Classicism is the only creed I subscribe to.

Adrian Matthews
AM
Adrian Matthews
1 year ago

Does it make you feel better calling someone trying to discuss something. ‘cretin’? How are you different from all of those angry identitarians which this excellent article takes issue with?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CS
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Not another one from Twitter’ please!

Incidentally have you been following this little digression from the start?
If you have been you will have noticed that I very mildly chastised JM for his somewhat incoherent opening sentence.
He didn’t like that and ‘wet his pants’ as we say over here, and the rest is history.

Anyway the audience seem to have liked it and I garnered 64 ‘thumbs up’ whilst JM trailed rather on 43 ‘thumbs down’.

Perhaps you should try your hand? It’s only words after all.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
CS
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Not another one from Twitter’ please!

Incidentally have you been following this little digression from the start?
If you have been you will have noticed that I very mildly chastised JM for his somewhat incoherent opening sentence.
He didn’t like that and ‘wet his pants’ as we say over here, and the rest is history.

Anyway the audience seem to have liked it and I garnered 64 ‘thumbs up’ whilst JM trailed rather on 43 ‘thumbs down’.

Perhaps you should try your hand? It’s only words after all.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Clare Knight
CK
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Your insults say more about you, Charles, than they do about John.

rodney foy
rodney foy
1 year ago

You have not said if you agree that isms are bad

Adrian Matthews
AM
Adrian Matthews
1 year ago

Does it make you feel better calling someone trying to discuss something. ‘cretin’? How are you different from all of those angry identitarians which this excellent article takes issue with?