Author: Alexandra Strapko

After our last discussion of white culture and white supremacy culture, I found that there is much to unfold here. For example, as we brought up in class, many of the primary pieces that are available on the Bucknell Anti-racism page never define the terms “culture” or “white supremacy” and what that means in the context in which they are speaking. Nor do these writers attempt to define these terms or provide any evidence for their argument. They provided many characteristics of all cultures and of defining entities of culture itself, such as deciding what is normal, deciding what is proper behavior and what is not. As this was discussed in class, it became clear to me that the idea of preconceived notions plays a role here. Some gathered that it would be beneficial to switch out certain words to fit the narrative in which they thought the author was attempting to portray. Yet switching the words would not change the general argument that the writer was making. Instead of “white culture” change the phraseology to “white American culture” or “white American society”. I think this could run us down a slippery slope in marginalizing a group of people that simply exist in society. Those who claim that white Americans marginalize and discriminate against minority groups are doing that very thing to whites. This in itself is racist against white people. Allow me to define the term racism here for reference. According to Merriam Webster dictionary, the term racism is defined as “a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. The same criticism of white Americans could be turned onto any other racial group who believes that ALL white Americans are responsible for the marginalization and discrimination of a particular race. As we stated in class, it is extremely complex and obviously there are exceptions but generalizations are what lead us to the era of wokeist agendas being propagated.

Another important point I found interesting is that it is mostly white people bringing up this idea of white privilege and supremacy. I found this especially virtuous and almost martyrdom like in the podcast “Betray White Fathers” where they give actions that need to be taken of white people ASAP. They write “If things get confrontational with the police, you are there to de-arrest people and put your body between Black people and the police.” Why is it a white person’s responsibility to put his or herself in harm’s way to protect black people that may very well be committing a crime? Almost as though it’s a martyrdom for their “faith” or as reparations for those black people.

To finish this blog post I’d like to say what I took away from this course. After taking this class, it is clear that the quasi-religion aspect of the wokeist agenda is the basis for why much of this rhetoric is spread so successfully. These ideas are highly geared toward young impressionable students who are looking for something to believe in and act for. As a young student, one of the most important things I took away was to ask questions about things and to not be afraid to ask questions. Do not simply allow others to tell you what the truth is but go out and seek it for yourself.

After yesterday’s discussion on the wokeist agenda of many of Bucknell’s anti-racist resources, it became evidently clear that everything that a university should be promoting is being silenced in the classrooms and on campus in general. We spoke a fair amount about the nature of the language we use today to discuss any sort of controversial topic or difficult topic that requires some debate or analysis. With regards to the Arbery case and Kendi’s article describing the case, he certainly is instilling a sense of predisposed faith-based language into his argument as if all people should already believe that all white people see all black people the same way: in a bad way. As we stated in class, it is almost like he is daring his audience to come back and say “no, that is not the case for me personally”. As soon as someone admits that, they are put on the wrong side of the moral binary and even their contrary thoughts could be harmful to society and people in the black community.

Like Kendi’s article, the Amy Cooper in Central Park piece was extremely similar, in that the writer fears for her life to go bird watching in the woods because she will be racially targeted and threatened. She too, because she had one experience of having the cops called on her believes she knows a) what is going on inside that woman’s mind and the reason she called the police in the first place and b) what is going on in all other white people’s minds when they call the police on others. I am in no way denying that there are racist people in this world that racially profile people and threaten them due to their own preconceived beliefs. However, when speaking of racism and racial stereotyping it can go both ways assuming all white people are the same and think all black people are criminals. Intellectuals should be able to recognize that that is extremely difficult to prove with data, hence the faith-based language that is used to describe it.

I think much of the wokeist agenda is to evoke emotions, especially regarding racism and the treatment of African Americans by police officers and the justice system in general. As we mentioned in class, the George Floyd case and the one body-cam clip that nearly all Americans saw of the officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck. From that one clip riots and protests were started in the streets of the United States stating that police brutality against black Americans is systemic and racism still roams free in our society unchecked. Yet as we talked about in class, many people did not watch or research what had transpired prior to those last few minutes of Floyd’s life. There was no discussion of the struggle between the officer and Floyd in getting him to show him his hands to make sure he was unarmed and Floyd’s unwillingness to cooperate. Not to mention the fact that Floyd was under the influence of pharmaceuticals that may have also impaired his ability to breathe even prior to the incident. The lack of context also plays into an earlier topic we discussed of misleading the public and pushing a narrative that fits their agenda.

After our discussion with Peter Wood on his book, 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, I was really able to see the parallels between that of the 1619 Project and the Communist Revolution and the Cultural Revolution of the 60’s. As we discussed in class, the main parallel goal between these movements is the fact that their followers believe there is something inherently wrong with our society and world and it needs to be altered in some way. Marx’s point that the lower class in a society is being oppressed by the upper class is being altered in a way to fit the narrative of the 1619 Project. They claim that our whole society and the polity of the United States was built on the basis of slavery. That the two boats that arrived in Virginia carrying ~30 slaves is the base starting point of America making our society incredibly racist and ridden with white supremacist language and ideas. However, Wood attempts to clarify and disprove much of the already false arguments that Nikole Hannah-Jones makes in her statement.

We touched on two topics that I thought were especially crucial to the argument and salience of the 1619 Project. One being the idea of post-modernism and its ability to spread false truths to the public. Post-modernism in itself is when facts are constructed by people to fit their own narrative. They often provide provisional answers to questions but are made up. The idea of post-modernism allows not just intellectuals but all people to be able to interpret “fact” and “truth” in whatever way they see fit. People that ascribe to this type of interpretation deny the existence of over-arching or undeniable truth in the universe. This can be quite detrimental to the way society functions. One person’s truth could be the ultimate truth to them but could be a complete falsehood to another and vice versa. How can there be trust of information or integrity within an intellectual community if all ideas are relative? Who does one believe in such a situation?

Another crucial topic discussed was the idea of dehumanization of slaves. Peter Wood began by stating that slaves were not dehumanized. Yes, slavery is immoral we can all agree but dehumanizing is something of a different nature. He writes that slaveowners knew their slaves were humans and they never pretended they were not. That they did awful things to them such as overworking and abusing them, I will not discount is unethical and wrong. However, Wood gave an example of the Soviet’s working their workers in the labor camps to near death and starving them as a similar phenomenon. The Soviet’s did understand they were humans and they never pretended they were not. There is a misuse of language here. One may think that in order to do such depraved things to other human beings they must acknowledge they are not human first, because how could they possibly do such evil things to another human being? Being property also does not preclude you from being human, it too is another depraved idea but is not dehumanizing. I thought these ideas were especially important for our discussion especially as it relates to intellectuals.

After our discussion with Professor Saad, I found that many of the arguments he brought up and later Professor Riley solidified were extremely interesting. The idea of non-falsifiability and false consciousness were an interesting take on the arguments which Professor Saad described.

Non-falsifiability is one of the main issues in the idea of the parasitic mind. It prevents any idea from being held to scrutiny of truth, anything could be true under this pretense. There were several examples that Professor Saad and Professor Riley gave of this, one of which was especially concerning. The example he gave of the Israeli soldiers who were accused of gang raping Palestinian women by the droves and when it was actually studied, there was not a single occurrence of such acts. The woman who performed the research twisted the meaning of this data into the fact that they were reviled by these women and did not find these women worthy of such acts. I think this very clearly goes back to that idea we learned regarding gnosticism, in that this world is inherently corrupt and needs to be changed in all aspects in order for true utopia to arise. This also stems back to the idea that intellectuals believe they have the truth therefore anything they study or do must be true and data can be skewed or interpreted in such a way to fit that narrative of undeniably “true” thoughts.

Another example was one Professor Riley brought up about the role the patriarchy plays on female and male innate gender differences. The feminist writer he quoted stated that women were incapable of consenting to sexual encounters because of our patriarchal society where the men rule over all and any woman who believes otherwise is simply not aware of the fact that they are being manipulated by the male population. This is exactly the same argument the intellectual class had for the people in the proletariat that were content with their lives at that moment. They simply were not smart enough or aware enough to clearly see that connection and need to forcibly be reminded that that control exists. Here that idea of false consciousness presents itself. Women simply do not have the mental capacity to understand that they are being manipulated and they need to be shown the truth by those who can see past that oppression. This clarifies much of the reason why the Left feels so strongly about this. It is like a religious belief and many of these statements are faith-based arguments, not unlike arguments and beliefs held by Christians, Muslims or Jewish people.

What I find hard to understand is why they have such contempt toward those that have differing views and express that opposition? Why are they immediately labeled as sexist or racist for those views? I have never personally met a Christian or someone of any other faith who feels so strongly to tear down others for their opposing religious or worldly views. Yet in political frameworks, based on which side of the spectrum you lie on, one is immediately labeled with hateful and resentful terminology.

After reading the Feuer chapter on “The New Student Left of the Sixties” it became so clear as to the amount of overlap between different socialist and communist movements. As we discussed in our last class at the very end, the reason Leninist intellectuals took power was that they felt that they needed to push the working class peasants in the direction of revolt. The working class simply does not have the means of education or knowledge to even comprehend such a thing or to know they could be the root of change in a society, therefore they need assistance from the intellectuals in order to reach their fullest potential. This is exactly the case of the New Student Left movement. Specifically when Feuer discusses the student movement taking interest in the black movement for civil rights, especially black students. Feuer quotes black Americans as being “lowliest of Americans”, similar to the way Lenin describes the proletariat in the Soviet system. The white intellectual students, disgruntled with their current life status and American society in general, are looking to turn their efforts in order to help those who are “lesser” rise up to their fullest potential.

What I think is interesting that Feuer points out is that the Black community in America was not looking for support from the white intellectual students. They were content with the way American society was being run and were ultimately conservative in their political views (Feuer pg. 396). The Black Student Movement was simply aiming to declare equal rights and to overcome the stereotypes plaguing their community at the time. I can imagine this is exactly the case in Soviet Russia; the intellectuals were looking for an oppressed group to grab onto to push their own agenda vicariously through.

In this chapter by Raymond Aron, from his book The Opium of the Intellectuals, he seeks to answer an age-old question of whether a Godless doctrine deserves to be called a religion? He states it is based upon one’s definition of the words involved but the doctrine of the Communists provides a global interpretation of the universe, while fixing the hierarchy of values and creating norms of good behavior. It fulfills almost all things that a traditional religion would satisfy. However, he asks “what is the meaning of a secular religion in the West, in an environment impregnated with Christianity?”

In the first section, Aron seeks to differentiate between the economic and religious attraction of Communism. He begins by stating that Communism arose as a result of a decline in the spirituality of people as well as the authority of the Church. Therefore, people twisted their passion for religion into passion for political action. The proletariat must see the Party as their vanguard and their dedication to the Party must be “total and unreserved”. This in turn forces society to deny known facts in order to take the place of real conflicts of human nature and their premise for existence in society. They hope to rewrite history and create their own philosophy in which the Party is never wrong and knows everything. They are then able to solve any aspect of human difference of opinion with a doctrine that can be twisted in every and any direction. Overall, the only way to achieve this is through total domination and violence in order to keep people in check.

He then goes into speak about the militants and the sympathizers. There are distinctions between the socialists that follow along the Communist trajectory militantly and those who sympathize for the cause but do not agree with the extent of violence and destruction it creates in society. Aron goes further to defend the socialist ideology in being open to the idea of communism and shifting between trust and despair caused by the ambiguous nature of secular religion and the hardening of opinions. He then defines the three stages of Communism in transforming from an ideology to a religion. It begins with the proletariat understanding their role and their symbol within the Communist Party. The second stage is the interpretation of facts and history to satisfy the dogma of Communism. Lastly, the third stage is one that true Christians could never fully ascribe to which is the idea that humanity will become perfect and organized under Communism. This essentially means that humanity is not defined by Christ’s crucifixion but is now a creature of Marx’s prophecies.

In the next section, Aron seeks to define the evolution of Civil Religion into Stalinism. He defines Bolshevism as being inspired by the idea of godlessness and it established its own path of truth through science. He then describes much of the progression of Communism and how it became such a prominent ideology. Mankind craves fulfillment in their hearts and without God they require something to fill that void. Aron states that intellectuals are the only ones that are capable of inventing such a an idea and is one of the main reasons intellectuals are especially vulnerable to the teachings of Communism. It is their own work that created such an ideology of truth, how could they deny that.

To finish, Aron writes that the final step in evolving an ideology to a religion is when the curators no long submit to history but write it and are all-knowing of the future and are in charge of it as if they are God. In essence it ruins relationship building and seeks to end hope and truth as they were traditionally intended to be in a God-fearing society because their entire life is based on their earthly existence.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why is it that Christianity itself is targeted as needing to be eradicated in the eyes of the Communists and not other such religions?
2. How can intellectuals justify Communism when their premise is based on subjective interpretation of truth?
3. Why does Christianity or faith in God persist even when intellectuals, who are held to such a high esteem, say it is falsehood? Or vice versa, why is Communism not all over the world if such a teaching is considered the new dogma?

After our class discussion this week (9/14) one thing that kept coming up in my head was the definition of good and evil. How would progressives and utopians define the word’s “good” and “evil” if not in the eyes of God or through His teachings? The whole progressive, communist and socialist ideology is based upon the idea that mankind will one day reach the pinnacle point of “goodness” where utopia will arise. Yet in any of the readings there are no definitions for what “goodness” really is or what “evils” need to be corrected in order for humans to transcend normalcy.

This may be more theological than sociological but the terms “good”, “evil” and “love” were all coined in religious context first as in a believers love for God. How then do you secularize those terms? What makes a person “good” in the eyes of progressive’s? Perhaps it is someone that thinks totally internally to progress society to the ultimate organization it can be. He who is good is looking out for the progression of mankind and the God-like nature of mankind. We gave several examples during class of people lying, stealing from and starving others for the “progression” of society. Was this considered “good” in the eyes of progressives? If those populations had never experienced those tribulations they would not be able to reach transcendence? There is quite a fine line between “good” and “evil” or right and wrong. Furthermore, without God, everyone’s definition of “good” and “evil” would be different. How would they account for that? Considering each individual is like their own God they could coin their own definition for good and evil and it could be completely different from that of another person.

In all this is a critical aspect of their argument and it contains some clear holes from my understanding.

After reading the Molnar pieces assigned for this week, I really resonated with the Secularized Religion and Man-God chapters. I found these chapters especially eye opening as it refers to the religiosity of our society and how we view the world today. Molnar talks a lot about the idea of pantheism in that everything and everyone becomes raised to the highest standard of existence. In more simpler terms it is that God is replaced and made into a secular idea that suits the goal of the individual. God in the original religious sense was held to the highest existence because of His all-knowing, perfect essence that encompasses Him. He forced man to acknowledge his inferiority in the universe and that his time on Earth is limited with the hope of achieving salvation and to allow his soul to prosper and live on for eternity in heaven. However, the progressive and utopian seek to take God out of the picture and replace him with man. When one replaces themselves with God there is no higher being; man is the highest being and he becomes the center of the universe with all-knowing and perfect power.

This is where society has been led astray. There is no differentiation between good and evil without God. Molnar cited Bishop Robinson in this chapter as saying “nothing can be intrinsically bad”. This also explains much of our current turn of events in the world in that people like to play God or genuinely think they are above the laws of God and nature. The utopian and the progressive believe science will fill the void of God in our society and that science has all the answers. Some food for thought, how could science fulfill the same role as God when science is a man-made entity?