Woke

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
61

No dude, politicians do not get killed very frequently.
Centuries went by here without any such killings. Only since immigration became a bit of a problem here (first because it drove down wages, which was the reason for it, then because it stifled free speech and artistic expressions) did violence against politicians resurface.
Your trying to normalize it speaks volumes. Do you also look at the murders of JFK and RFK as just ‘meh, part of the game’ or are you willing to recognize that it steered the country in a completely new direction?
Just two people, shouldn’t count in your statistics game, but it inflicted terror and despair on a population and made it possible for the country to evolve in the direction of fascism.

Whatever particular case I bring up it just doesn’t count for you. You hide behind your graphs. But humanity isn’t made out of graphs, it is made out of particulars, and reacts to them.

2 Likes
62

That is the philosophical and scientific model Ive been writing about here from 2011 to 2021. You hadn’t ever noticed that?

When I first had my realization I realized it would cost me a thousand years to fully explicate it. It doesn’t work well with what we have for language at this point. After my poisoning Ive been too dead inside to continue the work. It will die with me.

Too bad, it explains things like that moon-earth-sun ratio and a lot of other, otherwise inexplicable things at the heart of our world, things with which our scientific so called understanding doesn’t compute.

1 Like
63

There are plenty of historical and modern examples that refute the claim that politicians are rarely killed. Here are a few key examples:

Assassinations in the Last Two Centuries

  1. United States
  • Abraham Lincoln (1865) – Assassinated by John Wilkes Booth.
  • James A. Garfield (1881) – Shot by Charles Guiteau, died from infection.
  • William McKinley (1901) – Shot by an anarchist, Leon Czolgosz.
  • John F. Kennedy (1963) – Shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.
  • Robert F. Kennedy (1968) – Assassinated during his presidential campaign.
  1. Europe
  • Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (1914) – His assassination triggered World War I.
  • Ramsay MacDonald (1937) – British Prime Minister allegedly poisoned, though debated.
  • Olof Palme (1986) – Swedish Prime Minister shot while walking home.
  • Jo Cox (2016) – British MP murdered by a right-wing extremist.
  1. Asia
  • Mahatma Gandhi (1948) – Assassinated by Nathuram Godse in India.
  • Benazir Bhutto (2007) – Pakistani Prime Minister killed in a bombing and shooting attack.
  • Shinzo Abe (2022) – Former Japanese Prime Minister shot in public.
  1. Latin America & Africa
  • Jorge Eliécer Gaitán (1948, Colombia) – His assassination triggered a violent period known as “La Violencia.”
  • Salvador Allende (1973, Chile) – Died during a coup, officially ruled suicide, but debated.
  • Thomas Sankara (1987, Burkina Faso) – Revolutionary leader assassinated in a coup.

More Recent Events

  • Jovenel Moïse (2021) – Haitian President assassinated in his home.
  • Fernando Villavicencio (2023) – Ecuadorian presidential candidate shot dead.

Conclusion

While there may be long periods without high-profile political assassinations in some countries, history consistently shows that politicians are frequent targets, especially in times of political instability. The claim that “centuries went by” without such events is demonstrably false in most places around the world.

64

16th Century (1500s)

  • Henry IV of France (1610) – Stabbed to death by François Ravaillac, a Catholic fanatic.
  • William the Silent (1584, Netherlands) – Shot by Balthasar Gérard, marking one of the first recorded assassinations of a head of state by firearm.

17th Century (1600s)

  • Jean-Paul Marat (1793, France) – Revolutionary leader assassinated in his bath by Charlotte Corday.
  • Maximilian Robespierre (1794, France) – Executed, but he was effectively assassinated in a coup.

18th Century (1700s)

  • Gustav III of Sweden (1792) – Shot at a masquerade ball by conspirators and died later from wounds.
  • Paul I of Russia (1801) – Strangled to death in a palace coup.

19th Century (1800s)

  • Spencer Perceval (1812, UK) – The only British Prime Minister assassinated, shot by John Bellingham.
  • Alexander II of Russia (1881) – Killed by a bomb thrown by anarchists.
  • Antonio Cánovas del Castillo (1897, Spain) – Spanish Prime Minister shot by an anarchist.
65

VO won’t die with you. Never worry about that.

66

@Bob Really? You think 3-5 per continent per century, is many? Thats obviously extremely few.

1 Like
67

I said HERE.

68

Well there are layers, I haven’t ever begun truly explicating it… I fear people wont understand how god and evolution combine through absolute (VO substance) or such things, I cant formulate it now… I would have revitalized Christianity, broken open science, rebirthed western ethics, but thats all off the table.

Sorry for the crappy formulation. And I know you went deep in understanding it, and that you understand the beauty thing. But it was my task to really make it logical, to find the terms to open up science to ‘God’ beyond mathematics, to explode logic into life…

I cant write anymore. It feels worse than you can imagine to lose that power.

See how despite it not affecting statistics, killing one man can change the course of history and determine the fate (or steal the destiny) of a civilization. What if Newton would have been killed in his teens?

69

The Danger of the Woke Right
Roger Berkowitz
arendt@bard.edu

“Fear that other words could run afoul of the new edicts led anxious agency officials to come up with lists of potentially problematic words on their own,” wrote Shawn McCreesh in The New York Times. These included: “Equity. Gender. Transgender. Nonbinary. Pregnant people. Assigned male at birth. Antiracist. Trauma. Hate speech. Intersectional. Multicultural. Oppression. Such words were scrubbed from federal websites.”

Just out of curiosity, for those here who support Trump, which additional words ought to be included. Dasein for sure, right?

But that’s often how censorship works, isn’t it? Just to be on the safe side, many will begin to censor themselves.

Perhaps asking themselves, “what would Trump think, say and do?” Just as, historically, countless others asked, “what would Hitler think, say and do?” or “what would Stalin think, say and do.”?

Then this part…

And that’s the crucial distinction some suggest. Reconfiguring democracy and the rule of law into one or another rendition of right makes might. God or No God.

Again, just try to imagine the reaction of MAGA had Biden created a similar list of words that liberals take issue with. Banned them from all federal government communications. It’s the hypocrisy that is often on display from those at both ends of the political spectrum. Then the part where both Democrats and Republicans embody the Deep State in regard to political economy and foreign policy. When has that ever not been the case?

And, as often as not, this is a reflection of moral and political objectivism. The sacrosanct ends rationalizing and then justifying any and all means. Still, for those who own and operate Wall Street and K Street, it’s always the bottom line. They keep their cronies in Washington well supplied with campaign cash, and, by and large, money here doesn’t talk, it screams.

And that’s what it is, of course: hypocrisy. But the hypocrisy revolves almost entirely around political economy. Whereas in regard to any number of value voter issues, liberals and conservatives often do have moral convictions considerably more sacrosanct.

70

Ok Iamb I have known you for nearly two decades. I should know by now that for you words are just things to play around with to sound clever to yourself. Ive never seen you honestly address another persons post, never seen you not try to use a person for your postmodernistic masturbation. Well once, in a film thread, a post about apocalypse now. But that was ages ago. It was nice though. Film seemed to humanize you, force you into an actual perspective, a character.

Of course, make it all about me. Make me the issue. On the other hand, going back over the years, what’s one more Stooge, eh? :wink:

Who in particular? Are they themselves liberal or left-wing objectivists? Because, again, those on the left are often no less willing to divide up the world between “one of them” vs. “one of us”.

Whereas from my frame of mind, democracy and the rule of law – moderation, negotiation and compromise – reflect what may well actually be the best of all possible worlds.

As for Sanders, same thing. To the extent he insists conflicting goods ought to be resolved only to his own ideological satisfaction…?

As for the Clintons, they are the very embodiment of the Bilderberg Group. Though, again, this pertains largely to political economy and foreign policy. Whereas in regard to “social issues” like abortion or capital punishment or gender roles, they are often considerably more…“principled”?

71

Well, that apparently worked, to call you out personally, because this is a rare case where you aren’t being glib and evasive in your response to me, but direct and to the point.

So, who? Just some woke radicals on twitter. I think I posted a video. I don’t know anything about them except what they said. They exemplify the attitude Ive often seen on the left the past decade, an attitude so untenable that it got Trump reelected. I think Maga would be fringe if it weren’t for radical wokeness. A movement that considers the word ‘mother’ an offense and wants to censor it asks for a radical reaction. There are other factors but rage at radical wokeness is a crucial one.

I agree with the bit about moderation and compromise. It was the explicit theme in my own country for centuries, it worked to everyones benefit. It began to get corrupted ironically when the Communist party was disbanded and a new modern ‘green left’ party was created.

1 Like
72

Jacob:

Well, that apparently worked, to call you out personally, because this is a rare case where you aren’t being glib and evasive in your response to me, but direct and to the point.[/quote]

How about this…

You note an issue that is of particular importance to you. Then we explore each other’s moral philosophy regarding it. You and VO, me and moral nihilism.

Also, you can note for us how “for all practical purposes” astrology factors into your own chosen behaviors.

Jacob:

Here, admittedly, I find myself particularly “fractured and fragmented”. Or, as James Carville once suggested, the three dumbest words in the English language may well be “defund the police”. Or the part where the left defends uni-bathrooms or those born male competing in sports with those born female.

But who is really to say when government policies [left or right] go too far? Which is all the more reason to embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Jacob

A movement that considers the word ‘mother’ an offense and wants to censor it asks for a radical reaction. There are other factors but rage at radical wokeness is a crucial one.

Right. But only the rage directed at policies you reject…count?

73

“Here, admittedly, I find myself particularly “fractured and fragmented”. Or, as James Carville once suggested, the three dumbest words in the English language may well be “defund the police”. Or the part where the left defends uni-bathrooms or those born male competing in sports with those born female.”

Well, exactly. So you see where the rightist rage comes from.

“Right. But only the rage directed at policies you reject…count?”

I happen to reject current Trumpism as well. I can understand the (moderate) leftist rage and even respect it. I was just pointing to what I think is a major cause of Trumps (re)election.

Democratic media and talkshows and podcasts are now in the zone and upbeat because they feel they have the moral highground, are supported across the globe. That wasn’t the case as much in Trumps first term. But could they ever admit to themselves that there are ills in their own camp as well? If not a compromise isnt likely to be reached.

On the other side, there already is some republican dissent as a reaction to the signal chat about Yemen. Thats not much in terms of reaching compromise but the republican front is beginning to show cracks. Hegseths unhinged behavior is an important failure.

“Does it concern me? Hell yes!” - a republican politician
Whereas Trump insists its not a big deal.

74

"How about this…

You note an issue that is of particular importance to you. Then we explore each other’s moral philosophy regarding it. You and VO, me and moral nihilism.

Also, you can note for us how “for all practical purposes” astrology factors into your own chosen behaviors."

Thats a nice offer - but due to some things that happened to me I find myself in a very bad situation in terms of my spirit, will - I no longer have the drive/power to practice my philosophy, or astrology for that matter.

The most I can do these days is respond to political issues.

75

Your comments earlier on this led me to go back and re-read some of the earlier writings from BTL when VO was first being created, more than a decade ago. Specifically about the nature of isometries.

Take a look at this, thinking about things like eclipses:

" It would appear we can ground the isometries of the soul in a values-ontological platform. Set therein we see these isometrical configurations as the still too silent guardians of our valuations, configurations which enable values and the valuings which produce them, isometrical as allows for the possible communication and transmission of these and their conditions from one level to another as well as from one individual to another. We might therefore make even the boldest claim and leap yet: that of isometry being the form-as-such of valuation, its most sufficient (self-)actualization. Does this make sense? Concerns here seem placated when we understand how self-valuing interact, how these valuings must co-occur to be said to have occurred at all."

1 Like
76

The Danger of the Woke Right
Roger Berkowitz
arendt@bard.edu

The pervasive and nitpicky control of language is a crucial, but far from the sole, component of the woke-right movement. Like its antithesis on the left, the woke right places identity grievance, ethnic consciousness, and tribal striving at the center of its behavior and thought.

Thus, those here like AJ who seek to divide up the world between all Anglo-Saxon, Northern European straight men and…all the rest of us? The part where intellectually they are the Übermensch here and now and the rest of us are…the sheep? Some fit perhaps for another “final solution”?

Of course, here the potential for autocracy is linked directly to attempts to connect the dots historically between evangelical Christianity, capitalism, prosperity gospel, populism and racism. As for these folks and the Jews in Israel, sure, they back Zionism here and now because “in their heads” it’s all linked to the Second Coming of Christ, to Armagedón and the Book of Revelations.

On the other hand, if these Jews don’t come around to accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior on Judgment Day?

I wonder if, perhaps, Donald Trump has run that past Benjamin Netanyahu…?

The millions upon millions of Archie Bunkers out there struggling to survive from paycheck to paycheck while the fat-cat billionaires on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley just get richer and more powerful.

Back to all of the various renditions of this: https://youtu.be/8X0UmfBwA_U?si=5EBAC_dspmdxrxYy

Tell that to those in the Deep State who specialize above all in dividing and conquering the pawns…one EO at a time.

77

Jacob:

Sure. Few of us want to be told what to think, feel, say and do by those who seem to frame everything in terms of “us” [the good guys] vs. “them” [the bad guys]. Instead, It’s the part where only liberals and left-wingers are said to be “woke”, the part where the value judgments of conservatives and right-wingers are, instead, deemed to be…“principled”?

Jacob:

Of course, my point reflects less what each of us as individuals have come to believe about Trump and his policies, and more the manner in which such moral and political beliefs themselves are rooted existentially in dasein. After all, any number of “my way or the highway” objectivists among us seem truly convinced that only the way they think about all this actually counts. For example, for all practical purposes…when [politically and legally] rewards and punishments are being crafted by those who own and operate the political economy.

Jacob:

Right, and the folks at Talk Radio and on Fox News never, ever mimic exactly the same mentality in regard to those of the left.

Me, I’m basically an advocate of moderation, negotiation and compromise. In other words, democracy and the rule of law as – perhaps? – “the best of all possible worlds”.

Well, given the assumption that there is no God and that things like astrology exist more to allow some to convince themselves there really is something “out there” we can all accept as a font for our identity and our value judgments. The One True Path mentality.

Jacob:

Again, given my own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices, this is fundamentally about the Deep State grappling to figure out what to do in a world where increasingly state capitalism and political autocrats are calling the shots. And with markets and cheap labor and natural resources on the line as never before Wall Street apparently wants autocracy to be one possible option.

78

Why do you make a point of misspelling my name? Is it part of your Spiel of ‘free interpretation’?

You pretend to not understand that ‘woke’ is a political term with a specific history relating to emancipation of minorities. I’m positive you do actually understand it. But you pretend that it is about having a bias, in general.

No one here ever claimed the Republicans aren’t biased. All life is biased. That doesn’t make all life ‘woke’.

Who told you astrology is about ‘one true path’? What is that path? I thought it is just a tool. It certainly doesn’t require God… just fractals. The same patterns occur on different levels. Same principle applies to all divination. Recurrence of patterns. It’s not out there. No God is needed. Just fractals.

Homosexuality, what are its causes?
Homosexuality, what are its causes?
79

“Again, given my own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices, this is fundamentally about the Deep State grappling to figure out what to do in a world where increasingly state capitalism and political autocrats are calling the shots. And with markets and cheap labor and natural resources on the line as never before Wall Street apparently wants autocracy to be one possible option.”

So are you saying the deep state struggles with autocracy and Wall Street seeks it out? That they aren’t aligned?

80

GOP attacks on woke America are ‘hypocrisy of the highest order’
by Brad Bannon
at The Hill

The Republican attacks on LGBTQ+ Americans are a sad reminder that Republicans campaign on hating diversity in any shape or form.

Clearly, all of us draw the line here in different places. For example, those who would like to see America return to the 1950s, as opposed to those who yearn instead for a return to the 1960s.

How diverse in other words.

Me? The Sixties. Only I have no illusions here. This merely reflects my own political prejudices derived existentially given the life I have lived. In other words, in my view, there does not appear to be a way [philosophically or otherwise] to “think this through” in order to determine which decade actually does reflect the most rational – virtuous? – assessment of human interactions.

Of course, with those like Pence, it’s all about moral commandments derived from the Christian Bible.

And, surely, woke doesn’t get much more consequential than this. Hell, for example.

Still, to the extent that he genuinely believes what he does, who is to say that he is wrong? After all, with religion all you have to do is to believe what you do.

See, I told you. Woke basically revolves existentially – historically, culturally – around dasein. Whereas for objectivists, it revolves instead around God or ideology or deontology or biological imperatives. In other words, one or another rendition of the One True Path.