Russians

[Menger 101]

A further clarification may be in order: the term “woke” reportedly originated on the left. However, it is now predominantly used (largely as a pejorative) by everyone except the left.  That is the use I am seeking to explain. 
 

From the perspective of the left, “woke” is a nothing burger, devoid of meaning, mere “political correctness”, or perhaps universal truth. Like fish in water might be unaware of water. 

[TomGoodheart 447]

To me "woke" is just a dismissive term for things some people don't like. It's become so much a catch all it's almost meaningless beyond a rallying cry.

Were philanthropists such as Lever 'woke'? They'd have possibly said they were spreading the ideals of Christian brotherhood. Similarly those who opened university education to women or advanced suffrage. All things that I suggest, were they proposed today, might get shot down by some.

Leftists (I include myself) just feel there could be more compassion and recognition of the difficulties faced by 'under-dogs' in society, whether they are poor, an ethnic or religious minority, or differ from the majority in some other way. However it feels as if almost any attempt to provide opportunities for them to achieve their potential, or to recognise that they do struggle because of the attitudes within society, is often labelled as woke.

Of course, to question how a number of so called Christian conservatives drifted so far from the message of Christ and now actively focus on issues such as gender, abortion, sexuality, to further divide society and ridicule those that disagree with them, is peak woke. That they play a part in punitive laws against, homosexuality and womens rights being introduced in parts of Africa, Russia or Hungary is not something often discussed in our media. Perhaps because they are busy targeting refugees. How woke of me to suggest it.

[Menger 101]

  On 9/3/2023 at 12:13 PM, TomGoodheart said:

 Were philanthropists such as Lever 'woke'?

Was their philanthropy based on racial, sexual or gender criteria? 

[TomGoodheart 447]

  On 9/3/2023 at 12:21 PM, Menger said:

Was their philanthropy based on racial, sexual or gender criteria? 

Well, they were generally supportive of womens suffrage and wider access to society. And likely anti-slavery. As for gender, that's a more modern issue as science and society have progressed, though there were people living as another gender as far back as the 19th century .. I expect they would have been labelled 'liberal' and criticised for interfering with a free market and 'tradition' ..

Ultimately I see this through the lens of those detective stories where one has to ask 'who benefits/gains from this?' 

If you are a weak and not particularly popular leader, what better way to dilute your opposition than to get the general population angry about minor issues over the important ones? A 'war' with Ukraine distracts from problems in Russia. Abortion, gender and 'the swamp' distract from poor social support and increasing division of wealth in the US. A focus on homosexuality or religion/race distracts from questions about freedom of assembly, excessive prison terms, killings of opposition supporters elsewhere.

Woke is now just a pejorative, like 'anti-fa' or BLM for what a long time ago would probably have been thought of as part of being 'socially conscious'.

[Menger 101]

  On 9/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, TomGoodheart said:

Well, they were generally supportive of womens suffrage and wider access to society. And likely anti-slavery. As for gender, that's a more modern issue as science and society have progressed, though there were people living as another gender as far back as the 19th century .. I expect they would have been labelled 'liberal' and criticised for interfering with a free market and 'tradition' ..

Agree. Sounds like classical liberalism (individual rights irrespective or race, sex or gender ; not group rights based on race, sex, or gender). So more John Steward Mill or Martin Luther King than Foucault or Derrida.  In other words, the antithesis of woke. 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Menger

[TomGoodheart 447]

But doesn't that ignore the connections between personal experience and larger social and political structures? Which is perhaps the purpose of weaponising such terms as woke. To get people arguing about the details, while their rights are gradually taken away.

Rights aren't like cake. Someone else getting better access to society doesn't mean everyone else gets less. We all gain when society is fairer and it's not unreasonable to judge a society by how it treats it's least members. Unfortunately the focus at the moment seems to be on those that have most and just want more. Not that that's a new thing.

[Menger 101]

  On 9/3/2023 at 1:12 PM, TomGoodheart said:

But doesn't that ignore the connections between personal experience and larger social and political structures?

Not sure. Sounds like post-modern gobbledegook.  “Power relations” and wot not. Perhaps a good basis for a gnostic cult, but I think individual rights (irrespective of race, gender, sex or religion) have proved a better basis for western society. 

[TomGoodheart 447]

  On 9/3/2023 at 1:20 PM, Menger said:

Not sure. Sounds like post-modern gobbledegook.  “Power relations” and wot not. Perhaps a good basis for a gnostic cult, but I think individual rights (irrespective of race, gender, sex or religion) have proved a better basis for western society. 

The personal is political

[Menger 101]

  On 9/3/2023 at 1:27 PM, TomGoodheart said:

The personal is political

Yes indeed. This is why I am skeptical that woke (the shift of the left away from class activism to activism based on race, gender, sex or other myriad immutable characteristics) is mere “political correctness”. Any facet of a person can be converted into a group identity. The personal becomes political; and the political becomes total. No division between public and private. Precisely what the classical liberals abhorred in the total state - totalitarianism. 

Let’s hope it is a mere millennial fad. 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Menger

[Rob 3,257]

And back to the original topic.

Today marks the 3rd anniversary of Svitlana landing at Manchester after fleeing Kherson. Time has passed very quickly and I will say it's been a pleasure, with not a single argument arising from her staying with us. Good mannered, clean, we all muck in and I don't think it could have gone better. 

A few things have happened which were unwelcome, such as her father dying last year, but was unable to get back for the funeral. And this year her mother has finally had enough of the drones and bombing of her village (Bilozirka) not too far from Kherson and gone to live with Svitlana's sister. 3 years on and nothing has changed. The Russians are still lobbing 3 or 4 dozen shells a day into Kherson and drone dropping on anything that moves. They don't want peace. It's Russia.

Please Europe, wake up now that Trump has shown his true colours and support Ukraine to the necessary level. We can afford it and Ukraine would make a more reliable friend than the US in the current political climate. Ignoring Trump would not have much of a cost, given his lack of support for the cause, and we can all hope that once he has gone, some sanity will return to US politics, with support for democratic policies and countries. As an astute businessman, he should be embracing Ukraine's offer to purchase a couple of Patriot systems, but his loyalty to Putin and all he stands for has scuppered that one.

Edited Monday at 11:29 PM by Rob

[Coinery 1,267]

That picture…what a gift! Well done for seeing it through, Rob!

[Rob 3,257]

  On 4/29/2025 at 6:56 AM, Coinery said:

That picture…what a gift! Well done for seeing it through, Rob!

Thanks Stuart. It wasn't difficult. We would have taken someone in, government help or not, just as we would have done had the Chinese forced out a lot of people from Hong Kong with nowhere to go.

All that's required is a moral compass opposed to dictatorships and repression and a willingness to put your money where your mouth is. Any country such as Russia or China who naturally migrate towards the genocide of cultural and ethnic diverse groups have to be opposed as a matter of principle if you value life. Ukraine are doing the heavy lifting on behalf of Europe willingly because they know Russia and have no desire to revisit the past. Now it's time to properly reciprocate and give them the support they need.

[Menger 101]

Hopefully peace soon. The one thing as bad as a war of imperialism is a war of ideology.  

Edited Tuesday at 08:50 AM by Menger

[Rob 3,257]

  On 4/29/2025 at 8:48 AM, Menger said:

Hopefully peace soon. The one thing as bad  as a war of imperialism is a war of ideology.  

Yes and no. Whilst the world has generally come to accept that imperialism is a bad thing, when the war of ideologies is between fighting for the right to make your own decisions free of 3rd party political interference on one side and a mindset that hates anything not like you or subservient to you, and is intent on your destruction, then I know which side I'm on.

People of all countries should have the right to elect a government that reflects their desires, but when that decision is manipulated by outside forces to get the outcome they want, a line has to be drawn. Citizens of the US for example might now be waking up to this point and reflecting. Democracy is a very fragile thing.

[Menger 101]

For sure in the West the war is portrayed as ideological. For many of its supporters I dare it is. I suspect at a geopolitical level it also has a more cynical imperial impetus (there was little ideological handwringing by western powers when the democratically elected Yanukovych was illegally deposed).  And in the Ukraine it is a nationalist defensive war - for national sovereignty.  I support that. Russia is a historical empire and quite possibly it initiated an imperial war - but again it could be nationalist.  I distrust imperialism and ideology equally - neither is conducive to peace. 

[Rob 3,257]

You can add religion to that in many cases

[Menger 101]

  On 4/29/2025 at 9:49 AM, Rob said:

You can add religion to that in many cases

Yup. Ideology is the modern religion. 

[blakeyboy 1,833]

  On 4/29/2025 at 10:01 AM, Menger said:

Yup. Ideology is the modern religion. 

Yes, but does it have invisible friends?

[Menger 101]

  On 4/29/2025 at 4:33 PM, blakeyboy said:

Yes, but does it have invisible friends?

Indeed it does. Ideology has phantom friends and enemies, heros and villains, good and evil. Like religion, it satisfies the human need for meaning in life by providing identity and status in an eternal battle between the two. The Treaty of Westphalia put an end to the 30 Years War and with it the totalizing battles of religion - but the risk of ideological war (“liberty, equality, fraternity”) prevails. Like imperialism and like religion (but unlike the notion of the nation state that grew out of Westphalia), ideology (progressive or regressive) has little constraint in geography or reality; just phantoms and eternal battles.  The opiate of the masses. Easily dispensed over the internet. Beware. 

Edited Tuesday at 10:43 PM by Menger