Thread by @JeanDReinhardt

At the risk of sounding self-important, I think the following thread is fairly important, especially for those concerned about or dealing with the Wokeness movement (social justice, intersectionality, etc). I speak particularly to those in the Church (Protestant & Reformed), but>

the info and opinions are applicable to any seeking to better understand their goals and objectives. Of course, Wokeness within the Church will always be slightly different than the secular version, diverging or moderating esp. on issues concerning "sexual minorities".
First off>

and to one of the main points of this thread, many (most) are naive about the objectives, motivations, and tactics of the Wokeness movement (hereafter: WM). This includes folks inside, outside, and straddling the lines of the movement. So, when an "SJW" argues that he's not >

arguing for X and doesn't know anyone who is, when it is pointed out that many prominent allies within WM are explicitly advocating X, he may be telling the truth. He might not. But, the odds are extremely high that he will, in time, be advocating the same X position. Not only>

that, but he will be calling out allies that don't advocate for X (or not strongly enough), and eventually calling those who hold the same position he holds today bigots, racists, or X-phobes.
Many have noticed already that the term "color blind" (more precisely post-racialism>

or racial agnostic) has, first gone out of vogue, and now has become synonymous with denialism of "systemic and historical oppression" and is even seen as racist itself by many. When MLK Jr is pull-quoted from his "I Have A Dream" Speech, the quoting party is said to be>

misrepresenting the man and his vision (which may well be true, but these quotes are certainly indicative of the image cultivated and put forth to mainstream white America in the mid-60s). Even the definition of the word "racism" is in a state of flux, slowly and intentionally.>

The idea that racism can only be attributed to members of certain groups based on "power dynamics" and historical narrative of oppression, makes (A) a number of WM advocates immune to the charge (B) the issue of racism no longer an individual moral one, thereby making solutions>

no longer individual moral ones, but rather society wide, institutional, and needful of mass redistribution of power (often meaning material wealth). and (C) so intrinsic to the God-given membership of one to an ethnic/national/racial group, that those unfortunates belonging to>

a group deemed by the intellectual class to be "oppressors, colonizers, or privileged" have no hope of escaping the charge. The best that can be done is to embark upon a lifelong journey of atonement which includes becoming an ally (i.e. never questioning the narrative), working>

diligently to tear down "white supremacists" institutions (which are nearly all institutions) to rebuild as equitable ones, advocating for material reparations enforced by the federal government, etc.
These changes to popular Wokeness (newer terminology, but an old and varied >

movement which has a long record some of quite good, others quite bad) has left many Boomers and Gen X'ers, brought up on a steady diet of racial antagonism, tablula rasa as gospel, MLK Jr veneration, and visions of an inevitable post-racialism Utopia scratching their heads.>

Many of them have witness legal and societal changes which transformed the US in powerful ways. Their promised Utopia seemed to be off to a rocky but solid start. Somewhere along the last couple of decades, the narrative shifted under their feet. What they don't get is that the>

WM'ers and sincere Civil Rights and Liberal equality under the law advocates were not the same people only joined for a particular time and movement. With Civil Rights laws passed, racism seen as the mark of a pariah, and equal protection supported almost unanimously, there's>

only so much for the latter 2 groups to do. Some intermittent sweep ups and rear guard action was needed, but not a movement. The WMers, however want revolution. Not a revolution, but perpetual revolution. There's was just a battle in a war. Equality, insofar as it hampered >

equity and enforced redistribution of material supplies and power, was not good but bad.
Boomers and GenXers were sold on Wokeness 2.0 and are currently being punished for not upgrading software to Wokeness 3.0 (eventually to be replaced by version 4.0 and so forth). >

Within the Church (Protestant Evangelical and Confessional particularly), the divides we see are often between 2.0 and 3.0. some advocating the latter would never (they believe) subscribe to version 4.0. Even as many chastise and call to repentance those only running on a set of>

presumptions they themselves held to a few short years ago, they are having a case made ready against them when 4.0 reached the "tipping point". Certainly, there are some prominent Church leaders who already ascribe to the newer, upgraded dogma, but most of them keep it hidden >

for now. It's not time. Academia, activist and authors are laying the groundwork.
So, as much as I have beaten the software trope into the ground, I should give my introduction to what I think Wokeness 4.0 is and will be.
Again, secular vs Church Wokeness will be distinct.>

Race, ethnicity, National origin, and the fight against ableism will get priority to their intersectionality partners: sexual minorities, feminism (only slightly behind the secular), and others.
But, the new features which will challenge the Woke 3.0 as they seek to upgrade>

will be unthinkable to the Luddite Woke 2.0 (which is why they need to be thoroughly discredited, defeated, and in silence, relegated to the furthest outskirts of the Church prior to the release. I'm not claiming a vast cabal of conspirators. Academia sets the agenda here, not>

obscure to the world Christian authors and conference speakers. The tide and winds move the boats and the minimally astute and ambitious minister or seminarian knows what he must do to earn a living or a book deal.
So, what are the agenda items sure to give pause to the honest>

WMer?

I'm linking to an article because it hits a lot of the points, but this isn't fringe or radical among the TW (Truly Woke). A quick search searching will turn up many putting forth the same ideas, usually based on university campuses, advocacy groups, and think-tanks.>

Link: modelviewculture.com/pieces/how-to-…

1. Diversity and Inclusion are actually really bad (if it doesn't do harm to whites).
Yup, "diversity" is soon to be as out or f style as condemning tribalism is now (despite the fact that it was all the rage a few short years ago).

2. Segregation is actually really good and necessary (as long as it isn't utilized by whites and maybe Asians (dunno, jury's still out).

3.Violence, rioting, and theft are actually really good and necessary for the Revolution.
To say otherwise ignores the long history of such tactics and proves one a Liberal non-Ally. Revolutions don't ask, they take. By any means necessary, militant or not.

4. Love and unity are often bad, actually. Tell an "oppressed person" wether Handicapped, Trans, Asian, Gay, Black, Asexual, Hispanic, Muslim, Animist or basically anyone not a cis-hetero-white male that these are bad things and you are a dreaded "Liberal".

5. Individual rights and equality are secondary to material redistribution and group power dynamics.
Sometimes eggs have to be broken. Liberals wouldn't get it.

6. Hierarchies are actually good.
To obtain real equality of the type that values things like power, institutional ownership, enforced wealth equality, and rectification of of oppression by the folks who practically invented oppression requires inequality in the Liberal sense.>

A system which awards points (literally) which stand in for human worth and value based on group membership and that group(s) history of oppression, difficulty, poverty etc. Must be the new heirarchy. Brisk businesses ahead for DAN kits if implemented. Oppressing the former >

oppressors is a necessary evil. But it's actually good. Didn't Christ say something about first being last and last being first? How else can that be achieved?

There's more that can be said, but I tend to over-write.
If some of these ideas look like features of Communism,>

Black Nationalism (and a number of other ethno-nationalist movements), and general Left-wing radical revolutionism, it should. Not all Woke, or SJWs are Commies, racist ethno-nationalists, or radically violent revolutionaries, but the movement is heavily influenced by,>

draw inspiration from, and share a lot of common lineage with these groups.

If you've read this whole thing, I'm impressed, I probably wouldn't have.
If you think I'm just trying to impugn the movement, or scare monger, you are mistaken. I believe many good folks are naive>

and will take others at face value, even though they know humans lie constantly, as is human nature. Many assume that the message a person or group puts forward to the public is the same one they believe and share among themselves or among the vanguard.
If it seems far-fetched>

that self described anti-racists would eventually advocate for racial prejudice and oppose "diversity" and "inclusion" as a trick of the crafty white Liberal, I'd invite you to read what they write in college textbooks, periodicals and forums dedicated to woke social justice >

and intersectionality or critical race theory. If you think it's fringe novelty ask a young moderate or conservative (good luck hunting unicorns) professor without tenure if he would write an editorial critical of intersectionality or CRT for his school's newspaper. It might as>

well be his resignation letter. What today is prevailing academic theory, is tomorrow's mainstream orthodoxy, "settled science", and grade-school curriculum addition. Of you don't think segregation (selectively enforced) is the future of Woke thought, check out how often it is >

being employed on university campuses, advocacy groups, and even in some churches and parachurch organizations. The term "safe space", which seemingly came out of the ether and funny-guy conservative comedians posing as intellectuals like to laugh at is actually a purposeful>

rhetorical flourish meant to lay the foundation and act as a seed in the public psyche. What Republicans meme about today will be their official platform in a decade or so.

This is just my preview of what I see coming. Maybe I'm wrong. Things change in surprising ways. But, I>

have seen how progressives do "progress". It's effective and not easily replicated by their opponents. Maybe the Church will never allow these proposals into her circles, but I'm not inspired to confidence by what I see from its gatekeepers. And, if the Church pursues a >

position of being a subset of broader Wokeness, just incomplete and not on the cutting edge, why bother with membership when a few blogs or course audits would suffice?