fbpx

One Nation, Under Woke

Editor’s Note: This article is part of an ongoing “Liberty and Justice for All” series, which originated with an open letter signed by over 1,000 scholars that was published on RealClearPolitics. This article originally appeared on RealClearPolitics.

Through the sweeping and indiscriminate indictment of oppression that it makes against the American republic, wokeism poses the first serious challenge to our constitutional democracy since communism. Wokeism aims to remake American constitutionalism root and branch, to transform economics, politics, education, and other institutions and practices. The free and equal individual under the rule of law will be replaced with monolithic voices, united by perceived oppression, who demand a mutating law and politics that reward their grievances with punishments against alleged oppressors and redistributed resources for supposed “victims.”

Our thinking and speaking would revolve around an endless loop of testimonies to oppression — either committed against us or by people with whom we share tribal traits.

The first thesis of wokeism is that persons are reducible to their affiliated identity: above all, race or gender. In this view, we understand ourselves solely through these prisms and we apply that understanding to others and to institutions. The second thesis is that no person, no idea, and no historical account can be understood by independent human reason unfiltered by race, gender, and stories of interlocking oppression, or, as the case may be, by the acts of oppression one has shared in as a member of the dominant group. Everything comes to us and is either understood or projected by us through our racial or gender identity. The third thesis is that those who have identities that can be grouped under “persons of color” or LGBTQ possess greater authority to speak — owing to the various oppressions they have experienced and the cosmic redress required for justice and liberation —  than oppressor groups in almost every sphere.

America’s national DNA, according to the New York Times’ 1619 Project — wokeism’s anti-American document par excellence — has been encoded with slavery and anti-black racism. Indeed, America left the British Empire for the purposes of retaining the slavery regime, the project’s lead author Nikole Hannah-Jones proclaims (against historical evidence). White males stand as the grand artificer of this oppression, which has been transmitted throughout American history, informing our constitutional documents, politics, and social structures.

The 1619 Project leaves no space or opportunity for redemption, for forgiveness, or for the statesmanship of someone like Abraham Lincoln. It cannot acknowledge that American constitutionalism is a contested space. The 1619 Project cannot understand the succession of witnesses like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Martin Luther King Jr., who call upon Americans to understand in full the principles of our Constitution and Union. Consider that, while American soldiers were still fighting the Civil War, and much of the Democratic Party was arguing against the abolition of slavery, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was passed by Congress on Jan. 31, 1865, later ratified by the requisite number of states in December 1865. Its central premise stands on the equality language in the Declaration of Independence, the same principles that outlawed slavery in the lands regulated by the Northwest Ordinance of 1788. This is part of our heritage, too.

Our political institutions and our Constitution stand or fall ultimately by their willingness to uphold us as free people pursuing the broad purposes of human existence. Contrast this with the regime that wokeism would build. It would reject any notion of individual integrity or distinctive notion of personhood. Intellectual freedom would be nonexistent. Speech would be filtered through a relentless and constantly evolving set of censors, who would punish or bless our words according to ideological criteria. Consequently, our thinking and speaking would revolve around an endless loop of testimonies to oppression — either committed against us or by people with whom we share tribal traits. In the latter sense, we would confess our shared guilt and accept whatever punishment is deemed necessary.

Steve Nash, the recently named head coach of the Brooklyn Nets, confessed that he had been given the job unfairly because of his white privilege. He wanted to work for “change,” he said. Many will make similar pronouncements under more stringent conditions or risk becoming untouchables. Ibram X. Kendi, author of the best-selling “How to Be an Antiracist,” asserts that the point of being an anti-racist is not to refrain from discrimination but to know whom to discriminate against — largely whites and Asians, if the woke polity is to become a reality.

Under wokeism, the function of political institutions would not be to facilitate individual flourishing but to enforce individual sameness, subsuming us all in an egalitarian stew of grievance, redistribution, and retribution. The traits that define a decent community, such as forgiveness, humility and compromise, will not be possible, and those suggesting them will be accused of racism. Wokeism’s social-justice constitution would fuel a federal government built for one purpose: the evisceration of the freedoms that Americans have always known.

If the progressive notion of a “living Constitution” threw the law in doubt, woke constitutionalism will destroy all fixed or limited notions of law. How could it be otherwise, when the operative principle is the elimination of all forms of oppression, as measured by an endlessly moving set of ideological markers? Man can organize the world without sufficient notions of virtue, justice, and freedom, to say nothing of the biblical God, but as theologian Henri de Lubac noted, when man does this he organizes the world against himself. One Nation Under Woke would make this vision a reality.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on October 06, 2020 at 07:32:24 am

Isn't wokeism primarily disappointed single moms and their estrogen-marinated brats demanding that someone high above provide for them the animated Disney movie or Hallmark Channel happy ending to which they are so obviously entitled?

read full comment
Image of Flowerplough
Flowerplough
on October 06, 2020 at 11:44:03 am

No.
It is primarily the ideological progeny of the Academics who inherited our universities since the 60s. They have infused their depraved beliefs into lower education and captured the teachers and students there, regardless of their family structure. This is not a revolution of the underclass coming from broken homes, but it is led by a vanguard that has captured all the significant institutions of our culture in the last 50 years.

read full comment
Image of Joan
Joan
on October 06, 2020 at 12:47:32 pm

So true, so true.

read full comment
Image of Michael Timmer
Michael Timmer
on October 06, 2020 at 12:10:01 pm

Sadly, they will awake to find that the Glass Slipper is not only ill-fitting but that the attempt to force one's fat foot into it has caused it to shatter into a thousand fragments.

read full comment
Image of Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
on October 06, 2020 at 12:15:41 pm

This is exactly right.

but to enforce individual sameness, subsuming us all in an egalitarian stew of grievance, redistribution, and retribution. Yes, sameness, total equalization of all persons, can only be achieved by force, as it is a wholly unnatural condition of human beings and societies. Making man smaller and more governable is desired as "progress," Nietzsche wrote. The confluence of the woke eruption and the Covid-19 shutdowns has produced the most promising conditions for realization of the progressive project in living memory.

As for retribution, Nietzsche again: “What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge”—thus they speak to each other.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on October 06, 2020 at 13:12:45 pm

QET:

Great quote by Nietzsche, I had forgotten that one BUT it is entirely and immeasurably APT.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 06, 2020 at 12:17:04 pm

At first impression, it strikes me that "wokeism" is simply historicism taken to a finer level of granularity; whereas in the past, the vague force of History conduced to belief systems / policies, we now have *identified* the actual forces and they are the demons of racism, sexism, privilege.
My, Oh My, How we have grown in our understanding and have thus become so much more virtuous. Aren't we just so proud of ourselves?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 06, 2020 at 13:26:36 pm

I was hesitant to add the following comment. However, QET's Nietzsche quote AND the following headline (linked below) have compelled me to do so.

The "revenge" in the quote from Nietzsche “What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge”—thus they speak to each other" seems to me to be generated by angst ridden speculation not entirely dissimilar to a group of high school sophomores sitting around the cafeteria table fantasizing about a "perfect world" and the identification and ultimate eradication of "grievances." In this world, the grievance and its ultimate eradication becomes transmogrified into a "RIGHT" as expressed in the following headline: (reading the headline is sufficient here);

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/06/petition-change-feminine-products-names-trans-men-have-periods-too/

This form of reasoning would be simply laughable, and excusable, were it coming solely from high school sophomores.
Sadly, it comes from tenured University professors and other (mal-)educated wokesters.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 06, 2020 at 15:26:17 pm

I hope no one will be put off by a (lengthy) series of thoughts addressing Mr. Reinsch's essay. To start, I would suggest that Flowerplough, Joan and QET are all correct to some extent. To address this, I will try to begin at the atomic level, to get to the binary code of matters of society, government and human progress.

The inquiry begins with the concept of duty. Duty here refers, most simply, to the notion that a person will do what he says he will do. Locke considered the question of why a person should keep his word in his inquiries into human understanding. It is not necessary to restrict the notion of duty to a Hobbesian idea that duty derives from a sovereign, a theological view that duty is imposed by a Supreme Being, an Aristotelian notion that duty attends virtue, or a Kantian concept of categorical imperative. A more schematic idea of duty, the one that is most basic and relevant, is that, because of the way the world works, an idea of duty is essential to human interaction, shared enterprises and human achievement. A basic concept of duty is necessary to planning, coordinating, and executing projects that an individual is incapable of on his own. The most obvious example of this is warfare, no matter how primitive, in which individuals must have some degree of concerted effort to achieve common goals. It is no coincidence that the concept of duty has had a prominent and consistent place in military thought for thousands of years. A more mundane example would be that a man cannot carry a piano from the street to a fourth floor apartment on his own. He requires the effort of others, even if that effort is hidden in the manufacture of machines and devices that make the task easier. This group effort requires, at some level, confidence among those involved that each will do what he says he will do.

If memory serves, Chesterton, if not the first, flatly stated that the essential characteristic of functional societies of any size, composition, or reason for being is that people will do what they say they will, i.e. recognize some concept of duty. This applies to families, sports teams, armies, clans, bowling leagues, mafia families, cities, etc. The idea of duty is essential to society and a prerequisite to government. R. Richard Schweitzer has argued on this site that justice is "the performance of obligations." Other models of justice likewise refer to some notion of duty or obligation, whatever the source. The idea of duty figures in models of oppression and tyranny, liberty and dignity, rights and privilege, etc.

The idea of duty is the rationale for vows, whether they are marriage vows, official oaths, or private commitments. Duties arise from different sources. Some appear to be instinctive, like a mother's sense of obligation to her children. Others derive from reason, systems of government, "social contracts" and the like, and others are thought to be obligations contained in natural law, discoverable by reason. Functioning societies require, even if only implicitly, recognition of the notion of duty, and societies are undermined by attacks on these notions. Because duties might be thought to have different origins, the word duty is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is a vulnerability. If a person wants to undermine the state, society, system, organization, or whatever, the most effective way of doing so is to weaken the sense of duty among the members.

Wokeness is fundamentally an attack on our accepted and traditional ideas of duty. In order to destabilize a society, one delegitimizes the accepted ideas of duty.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on October 06, 2020 at 15:38:05 pm

There are three fundamental concepts that are asserted to undermine established ideas of duty, and consequently create instability. These concepts are empathy, safety and equity.

Empathy is a very useful emotion for individual human interactions. It does not however scale up to society level, and is nearly impossible to codify in law. The idea that empathy should be a governing principle is an example of the fallacy of composition. Because empathy is beneficial in individual interactions does not mean it should be a consideration in legislation, or enforced by agents of the state. This is because empathy undermines predictability since empathy, being an emotion is circumstance-specific, and is manipulable. Two people who appear to be in similar circumstances evoke different feelings of empathy. As a result, duty becomes dependent on feelings, and there is less confidence that a person will do what he says he will do, because feelings are then considered a legitimate reasons to do otherwise. When duty is subordinated to empathy, justice becomes contingent, and therefore is no longer justice. Virtues are only regarded as such if feelings have not gotten in the way.

The main shortcoming of elevating empathy to a governing principle is that it is paradoxically self-centered. When empathy guides conduct, it is to satisfy the emotional needs of the decision maker, which may or may not inure to the benefit of the object of the empathy. Thus, we see the result of decades of empathetic intervention in inner cities, school districts, and homeless encampments.

When Flowerplough perceives that wokeness seems to be over-represented in what were once considered feminine sensibilities, it is that women tend to be more openly empathetic, which is a good thing in individual relationships. Empathy is essential in mothers. Elevating empathy to a "value" to be imposed on everyone however is not a wise, or even possible, thing.

There is another consequence of elevating emotional considerations to policy imperatives. Consider that the United States once went from commitment to go the moon to actually landing there in less than a decade. That was more than fifty years ago. We could not even come close to replicating the feat today, because considerations of emotion and popular feelings militate against it. Consider that Nixon prepared a statement to be read in case the Apollo astronauts died mid-mission. The thought of such an outcome now is paralyzing. Emotional considerations impel risk-aversion and inaction. Two common sacramentals are now "out of an abundance of caution," and "health and safety is our highest priority." Nixon's statement made sense in a culture of duty. It would be considered outrageous by the woke.

Duty is likewise undermined by safetyism, which is the motivating doctrine of COVID lockdowns. Duty implies the doing of something, safetyism implies foregoing doing things, regardless of prior obligations or promises. Safetyism, which like empathy has its place, becomes destructive when scaled up to a societal imperative.

Safetyism also accommodates another fallacy, and that is that traumatic outcomes are avoidable; that death and injury are not natural consequences of certain high risk decisions and actions (e.g. resisting arrest, taking large quantities of recreational drugs, trying to grab a policeman's gun, etc.), but "failure" to have policies that prioritize avoiding the consequences rather than discouraging the behaviors. Safetyism creates the illusion that undesirable outcomes are due to incorrect responses to behaviors and choices rather than natural consequences that are inherent in them. This distorts the notion of duty. A policeman has a duty to refrain from responding to a situation, the person creating the situation has no duty to avoid causing it.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on October 06, 2020 at 16:28:28 pm

When empathy guides conduct, it is to satisfy the emotional needs of the decision maker, which may or may not inure to the benefit of the object of the empathy.

Just so, and well put. To me this evokes Seneca's complaint in Consolation of Marcia (I believe) on the excessive displays of grief then fashionable in Roman society; the measure of grief had become, he says, not what people felt but what they decided to feel.

I also think you are thinking all this through far more intricately than the persons actually inflicting wokeness and safetyism on us.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on October 06, 2020 at 16:40:18 pm

I also think you are thinking all this through far more intricately than the persons actually inflicting wokeness and safetyism on us.

You are exactly correct. The point is not that the woke reason through their thoughts and actions, but they observe the way people respond to certain appeals. They don't analyze why people are cowed by accusations of racism, or whether such accusations are accurate, fair, ethical or anything else. They observe the response and run with it. One of the remarkable characteristics of wokeness is its shallowness, its lack of embarrassment about pushing false and ridiculous narratives, about the illogic of its emotional responses.

You are correct. I would suggest that one feels his way into wokeness and can only think his way out of it. But right now thinking is not popular.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on October 07, 2020 at 21:00:41 pm

Yes, and see, I would just call it will to power. The formal complaints are merely so many fig leaves doing a bad job at hiding the Ids of the woke legions.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on October 06, 2020 at 15:49:51 pm

The abstract notion of equity also militates against ideas of duty and consequently undermines society. Equity requires acceptance of the idea that duties are owed, even if they may not be capable of being performed, to defined groups. Reciprocal duties are regarded as "oppressive," and the practical consequence of this is that the group ignores and resists those basic duties that are necessary to common achievement. Husbands are excused from obligations to their children and their children's mothers. "Youths" are excused from obligations regarding the rights of others, whether those rights involve property, bodily integrity, freedom to express opinions, etc. "The abstraction of equity is used as an excuse to disdain duty, and as a result, to reject the single most important principle underlying human flourishing. The arguments for equity are essentially that equity is a pre-requisite to duty, rather than the other way around, It is a fallacy that has had, and will continue to have disastrous consequences.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on October 06, 2020 at 16:10:44 pm

To sum up, wokeness undermines society, because it undermines the essential foundation of duty. Such undermining is destructive, and therefore is cheerfully engaged in by people who have no other interest than bringing down the present "system." This is why wokeness seeks to undermine the family, which is held together by natural duties, even though for example, broken homes are a risk factor for enduring poverty.

At this point, two considerations arise. One is that a certain percentage of the woke, as explicitly stated by the Russian revolutionary Sergey Nechayev, are interested only in destroying. They are not concerned with what comes after. Nihilism is its own end. Obliterating duty accomplishes the task of destruction, and requires no further justification. Another group at least pretends to have an idea of what will be built on the ruins, but even they implicitly recognize that building requires the recognition of duty. They simply think they can impose a Hobbesian version of duty that is enforced by a sovereign. The duties that are attendant to human flourishing and human happiness however are not amenable to central planning. We see this in post-revolutionary France, the Soviet Union during the Red Terror and the Holodomor, the Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, etc., etc.

Wokeness is not a phenomenon that arises from aspirations of human flourishing. It is a fallacious phenomenon that arises from immature resentments, wishful thinking, and the idea that there is no inherent dignity in being human. It is a nihilistic doctrine that assumes that people have no inherent curiosity, at least that cannot be controlled by cancel culture and strategic censorship, that perfection consists in being unchallenged, and that everything in the universe is someone's fault.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on October 07, 2020 at 11:22:47 am

Z:

Excellent as always. Just wish I still had your patience to respond reasonably to our "wokesters" - but it fails me.

BTW: R. Richard Schweitzer:
1) Richard is doing well and still intellectually active, although not at this site.
2) Richard (or maybe just I) would amend your citation of his thinking: "Justice is the performance of obligations" to "Justice is the performance of duly imposed obligations."
One should not forget that the "wokesters" themselves are ever (more) desirous of imposing obligations upon the rest of the citizenry. In this sense, obligations are to be interpreted in the pejorative sense, as being unfair, unreasoned and deleterious to social comity and serve to reduce the innate sense of duty present in humans as it may induce one to question the concept of duty itself whenever and wherever "obligations" are imposed from above.

Gotta go, grandkids are in an uproar.kids

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 07, 2020 at 14:04:19 pm

To complete the thought(s):
Obligation just like duty imply, if not necessitate reciprocity.
It is said (again by our friend R. Richard amongst others) that obligations are the other side of the coin of "Rights."
Rights are properly animated and sustained by reciprocity and this mode of reciprocal recognition of the other may be said to be the duty of all citizens. I, personally would deem dutiful behavior as a privilege afforded, and hopefully guaranteed by proper governance.
It is apparent that, as you suggest, that "wokesters" and their faint- hearted unknowing ( and sometimes knowing) accomplices are able or willing to recognize either the duty or reciprocity which should rightfully accompany their incessant calls for more and evermore *rights.*
One then is forced to wonder: "What then is the duty of the unwoke citizenry? What response is appropriate, efficient and effective.?"

It would seem to me that for those who comprehend the dual character of "rights", that it would be their "duty" to confront those who seek to destroy that equilibration of rights and obligations that has both created and sustained this (and other) republics over the centuries. That confrontation should begin with reasoned dialogue, if and whenever possible in a manner not at all unlike your commentary. Though likely to fail, the effort ought to be made. It is a duty to attempt to persuade.
Failing that, YES, I am going to say it, it may become, regrettably a duty to physically confront the mob, to disperse them and to forcefully disabuse them of their fantasies, corrosive ideology and influence. As you so aptly expressed the other day the difference between influence and power, we must NOT permit their presently oversized influence to evolve into actual power.
In any event, grandkid duty calls again.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 07, 2020 at 16:13:02 pm

Gabe,

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. Let me briefly summarize my thoughts:

1. The concept of duty is fundamental to any functioning collection of people, regardless of the formality, reason for being, ambitions, ontology, etc.

2. Elevating empathy concerns to policy concerns undermines duty by implying that a person is excused from duties if performing them makes people feel bad.

3. Safetyism undermines duties by implying that a person is excused from duties if performing them involves risk.

4. Considertions of equity undermines duty by implying that a person is excused from duties if he feels disadvantaged in some way.

I am suspicious of arguments that begin with the premise that a single principle explains everything, but I do notice how often the idea of duty comes up in everyday life, and how necessary it is to a functioning society. An episode of The Simpsons illustrated this very explicitly. A new age guru convinced the people of Springfield that they should do what they wanted, and the resulting disregard of responsibilities and duties led to catastrophe. (I always feel better about my opinions when they have been addressed by the Simpsons, back when the Simpsons was good). A lot of the "originalism" discourse on this site impliedly concerns the duty of judges in Constitutional interpretation. There are issues that come up here regarding duties concerning public safety, obligations to children, including the unborn, duties involving education, healthcare, free expression, and so on. The concept of duty is so fundamental that it lurks in one form or another, in nearly all of the issues addressed on this site.

You are correct that justice involves a particular type of obligation, and I tried to mention this when I said that the idea of duty has become ambiguous and includes duties that inhere in the nature of human interaction, religious "covenants," duties imposed by a sovereign, etc. To be clear I am specifically referring to those duties which, when shirked, cause damage and collapse of social structures.

My motivation for posting my thought was not to provide a polemic for a particular point of view or to advocate for certain norms regarding duties. It was rather to describe the mechanisms by which neglect of duties, and unwise adoption of pleasant sounding exceptions to duties cause damage, not as a matter of political preference but as a fact of human existence.

You are correct in your observation regarding reciprocal duties. Duties are a fact of humans living among each other, and the progressive enterprise is largely a matter of trying to rearrange duties, relieving certain groups of particular duties, and imposing new duties on others. Even the most committed leftist will understand that, come the revolution, when one flips a light switch, the resulting illumination in the room requires someone to observe duties that keep the power plant operating and the distribution infrastructure in working order. Every anarchist expects that when he twists his ankle throwing a Molotov cocktail, someone will be observing the duties necessary to keep the hospital staffed and functioning. the most rabid gun-grabber assumes that police will recognize a duty to subject themselves to the risks that confiscation will entail. And of course the most violent protester will assume that the police should be held to standards of duty that makes chaotic protesting less risky.

The leftist con recognizes that duties are often burdensome, that they are viewed as unpleasant even if necessary. The demagogue asserts that the duties of one group of people will be excused in exchange for conceding to the usurpation of power and authority. The homeless person will have no duties; the incompetent school teacher will be relieved of duties and expectations by pledging fealty to an organization that will argue that such duties are "unfair." Race hustlers will claim that "systemic racism" excuses failure of familial duties, or duties to observe even the most obvious expectations regarding respect for others. The populist grifter proposes relieving select people of those duties that result from the nature of things, such as the duties of fatherhood, and replacing them with duties imposed by a sovereign and effected by force. This will eventually fail, just as it has throughout history.

What has been left unsaid so far is the idea that observance of duties is necessary not only to social groups, but to the individual who observes them. Doing one's duty is fundamental to the pursuit of happiness, and flourishing as a human being with dignity and a purpose in the world.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on October 06, 2020 at 15:51:56 pm

One Nation under woke seems to be serving as a complement to the modernists view of ”wokeness”, which has always been the same old story, with minor changes occurring with the winds of Time, as old modernists evolve into modern modernists, but in essence, the spirit of modernism remains the same.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13human.htm

“281. A journey of peace is possible between religions. Its point of departure must be God’s way of seeing things. “God does not see with his eyes, God sees with his heart. And God’s love is the same for everyone, regardless of religion. Even if they are atheists, his love is the same. When the last day comes, and there is sufficient light to see things as they really are, we are going to find ourselves quite surprised”.[278]” Pope Francis, Fratelli Tutti

Certainly, if we repent, serve our Penance, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, we will be overjoyed by God’s Love, “as it is written that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that Love Him”.

This does not change the fact that anyone who is following Jesus The Christ, knows that “It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, “For It Is Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost” (Filioque), that Holy Mother Church exists.

“No One Can Come To My Father, Except Through Me.” Jesus The Christ, In Christ, “There Is No Lie”.

And thus we can know through both Faith and reason, that to deny The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is to deny The Divinity Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, and exchange The Spirit Of Perfect Complementary Love with a fraternity that is anti Christ.

Woe to us

“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”

For Christ Has Revealed, Through His Life, His Passion, And His Death On The Cross, No Greater Love Is There Than This- To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.

First Principles Matter, When It Comes To Life-affirming And Life-sustaining Salvational Love.

The Sacrifice Of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.

Not

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on October 06, 2020 at 15:59:22 pm

That should read:

One Nation under woke seems to be serving as a complement to the modernists view of ”wokeness”, which has always been the same old story, with minor changes occurring with the winds of Time, as old modernists evolve into modern modernists, but in essence, the spirit of modernism remains the same.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13human.htm
“281. A journey of peace is possible between religions. Its point of departure must be God’s way of seeing things. “God does not see with his eyes, God sees with his heart. And God’s love is the same for everyone, regardless of religion. Even if they are atheists, his love is the same. When the last day comes, and there is sufficient light to see things as they really are, we are going to find ourselves quite surprised”.[278]” Pope Francis, Fratelli Tutti
Certainly, if we repent, serve our Penance, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, we will be overjoyed by God’s Love, “as it is written that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that Love Him”.
This does not change the fact that anyone who is following Jesus The Christ, knows that “It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, “For It Is Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost” (Filioque), that Holy Mother Church exists.
“No One Can Come To My Father, Except Through Me.” Jesus The Christ, In Christ, “There Is No Lie”.
And thus we can know through both Faith and reason, that to deny The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is to deny The Divinity Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, and exchange The Spirit Of Perfect Complementary Love with a fraternity that is anti Christ.
Woe to us
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
For Christ Has Revealed, Through His Life, His Passion, And His Death On The Cross, No Greater Love Is There Than This- To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
First Principles Matter, When It Comes To Life-affirming And Life-sustaining Salvational Love.
The Sacrifice Of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.
Not the fraternity of those who do not believe they need Our Savior, Jesus The Christ.

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on October 06, 2020 at 19:39:24 pm

The woke/prog-left mantra is "Everything before yesterday is wrong." Which means in practice,tomorrow, we can cancel anything from today.

read full comment
Image of Forbes
Forbes
on October 07, 2020 at 11:33:58 am

"The first thesis of wokeism is that persons are reducible to their affiliated identity: above all, race or gender. In this view, we understand ourselves solely through these prisms and we apply that understanding to others and to institutions. The second thesis is that no person, no idea, and no historical account can be understood by independent human reason unfiltered by race, gender, and stories of interlocking oppression, or, as the case may be, by the acts of oppression one has shared in as a member of the dominant group."

Sounds like Marxist class consciousness to me. The enemy has not changed from communism to wokeness; it's the same old wine in a new bottle...

read full comment
Image of OH Anarcho-Capitalist
OH Anarcho-Capitalist
on October 08, 2020 at 12:58:19 pm

Interesting discussion on the "Woke" revolution at this link.
Hat tip to R. Richard Schweitzer.

https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2020/10/06/no-leaders-no-demands/

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 08, 2020 at 17:17:02 pm

Interesting link. I would add the following:

One cannot help but notice that the present turmoil is practically limited to large, Democrat run cities. The responses of the authorities in these cities have been tepid and accommodating. The results of these responses is that the protesters have become emboldened by the lack of consequences for increasingly destructive behavior, and the narrative spreads that the protesters have a point. It must not escape notice that the unrest is located in locations that are perceived as "soft" targets, where serious responses from civil authorities are unlikely, and this lack of seriousness can be portrayed as an admission of guilt.

The protests create the illusion that their ability to continue is evidence that the protesters have a point. But they do not have a point. The tepid response of civic authorities in Democrat run-cities is not due to the inherent righteousness of the protester's cause. It is mostly because 1. the leaders in those cities mistakenly believe that the targets of unrest are more established institutions that those leaders see little use for, and 2. they are cowed by the "optics" of responding to violence. Neither of these requires the protesters to have a legitimate gripe. These phenomena are amplified by social media, and by the use of snap emotional responses to partial, inaccurate, and biased information as substitutes for more thoughtful analysis and judgment of events as they actually happened. News in the modern age is governed by the motto "Give me the narrative and I will find the story."

Just as statisticians are mindful of the risk of overgeneralizing a small sample, and therefore mischaracterizing the larger population, we should be wary of extrapolating the experience of unrest in cities with inept, feckless and duplicitous leadership to draw conclusions about the attitudes of the rest of the country.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
Trackbacks
on October 06, 2020 at 07:01:30 am

[…] Source link […]

on October 07, 2020 at 01:13:07 am

[…] VP Debate: Kamala Harris Has a Weak Spot Mike Pence Could Exploit – Rachel Bucchino at TNI One Nation, Under Woke – Richard M. Reinsch, II, at Law & Liberty Crime & Policing in New York – […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.