The main image for this blog is a screenshot I took from a post I found on Bluesky*. I reposted this post together with the following message about what it means to being woke:
Conservative people, from the mild conservative to the extreem, far-right conservatives seem to in great numbers reject or try to discredit the mindset of being woke and its whole ideology behind it.
You may ask yourself why they do it, why are they so afraid of this ideology? One motive I believe is a driving force for their fear is that fear itself is a power bitch of which conservatives are in deep love with, so much so that either consciously or unconsciously, they willingly submit to it without even questioning the rational.
Another probable motive is given by John Kenneth Galbraith:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”
The concept of socialism scares them because they do not want to share [their income and wealth towards the ones in society who are struggling or even for the common good that they too benefit from, like infrastructure & education].
The concept of social justice scares them because they do not want to share [their ‘standing’ in society and lose the feeling of having people beneath them].
Because let us be clear about something, since the start of when the usage of the word “woke” became popularized, it was used to convey the message of advocating for social justice. It is widely known and recognized that it was Black Americans** who decades ago started embracing this word to plead for their cause of equality and equity in the American society.
Influential shareholders-capitalist and (close?) friend of president Musk, Paul Graham, recently wrote a blog that reads like a complete AI hallucination about the “origins of woke”. If you do not know what woke actually is, then it is probable that you would also have difficulties understanding why someone like him would use lies and deception to paint being woke in a bad light so that his plea to eradicate woke-ism has more chances to manipulate people in believing what he wants to believe: his alternative reality instead of the truth.
I will not link his blog in this blog. Paul only had to do one internet search to know that what he was saying about the origins of woke is wrong, he is neither stupid nor ignorant, so he wrote it intentionally deceptive to manipulate people in believing an alternate reality.
With writing that garbage propaganda blog, with his actions Paul showed the world that he will lie, use deception and try to manipulate public opinion to benefit some people (his cronies) but not all people. They believe they are just being smart businessmen, having the type of mindset that bad publicity is publicity too, they believe that the collective is too dumb or ignorant to care or to be able to do something, and most importantly, they believe that people will just forget and move on while they can keep breaking trust, hurting people as long as it is increasing their wealth and they can hoard even more.
Which is a shame, because business wise he knows his shit, and I would be even open to having him have an advisory role in building Tiiendemanns Group. However, his morals and crony-capitalistic mindset of course makes it impossible for me to agree giving him any executive or spokesperson role within the company. To me he clearly would not be able to defend the values of the company and would certainly not be able to guarantee to act in all instances with integrity on behalf of the company.
So it must not be a total surprise that the power hungry cocky egomaniacal oligarchs and their apologists are fighting tooth and nail to eliminate the mindset of being woke in societies all over the world. For them, the more docile people there is, the more they can profit from among other participating in wage theft, providing abhorrent, unsafe and/or unhealthy working conditions from people with no work-life balance, etc.
At the end of this blog I will give you a summary of Paul’s blog that I will ask ChatGPT to give me, because if you are (really) curious about what’s written in it, I do want to save you time and the trouble of spending a lot of energy reading his manipulative garbage. I will also ask ChatGPT to give me its own version of the origins and history of the word “woke”, so that you have more information to make an informed decision on which version of being woke you will believe in. And I will end this blog with a personal review of Paul’s blog.
One thing about the meaning of the word and the mindset of being woke that I want you to realize is that it is “simply” an awareness and willingness to fight for social justice, that encompasses among other the fight, or at the minimum awareness, for racial, gender, sexuality, class or status, and other injustices happening that are hurting and even killing people all over the world.
Fighting against injustice is not only something found in humans, but the act of social justice can also be found in the rest of the animal kingdom. It was always in us. Granted, more in some than in others, while unfortunately others may even lack this sense completely, with the latter of course mainly found in psychopaths and sociopaths.
Is the word “woke” itself still important to use? Should it maybe be a different word? Or is it just a human thing or to be kind to each other? The answers to these questions is what I am going to be discussing further.
People who truly believe in God or even atheists who have true compassion and empathy for strangers, especially the strangers we as collective can help, can immediately feel and understand this mindset of being woke. The word “woke” can be new and modern and not have been used for thousands of years, but the act of fighting for injustice is as old as humans have been walking around this planet.
Jesus was woke. Jesus of Nazareth, for some on this planet He is Christ, for some he is merely one of the Prophets of God/Allah, for others he was just a wise teacher, while even most atheists do agree that a man named “Jesus” was born more than 2000 years ago and got killed by crucification because of what he was telling/preaching to other people and for the acts he was doing and motivating others to also do. Jesus was woke even when the word woke was not even invented yet.
Now a very known and modern type of “wokeness” is when religious leaders talk about issues in society that affects their congregations, like the Episcopal Bishop named Mariann Edgar Budde, who preached and asked powerful people to show mercy to LGBT people and immigrant communities. Examen now how cowardly and nasty these powerful people in power reacted afterwards against her. She only literally asked what Jesus would have asked and the antichrist, personified in Donald J. Trump, went afterwards on one of his social media propaganda tool to demand an apology from her.
Being woke thus can come with its negative (unintended) consequences, but living in fear, hate and without empathy and compassion for others, especially the ones who are in need of help, is not an option for at least some people. And it is fortunate that at least for these people, not saying or doing anything regarding injustices t they witness towards others carries (cognitively and/or spiritually) much more negative emotions & consequences that it makes one be able to handle the eventual negative consequences without remorse or the feeling of being defeated.
Is everyone who is and/or who identifies with this mindset perfect and does nothing wrong? No, of course not! As with any group of people, large or small, there are always bad apples or at the minimum people who are a negative showcase because of their incompetence, lack of integrity or they radicalize and do extreme things, like the recent murder of a CEO of a healthcare insurance company in the US, or the murder of the leader of a far-right, xenophobic, ultra-nationalistic but super charismatic political leader, something that happened a couple of decades ago here in the Netherlands.
However, unlike conservatives who will find justification for executing people they deem as being bad, people who are truly woke will never condone those actions, will never advocate for copycats and will never give them a medium to spread their ideologies and justification of their actions, up till the point when with time they show remorse and repent for their actions.
So what I said in my post I wholeheartedly believe: over 1000 years people might not call “fighting for social justice” being woke as it is called in present times, but in the future if there is still injustice to be seen and/or felt, people will [eventually] fight for justice.
The mindset of being woke will never die. Does not matter how many times or how loud others try to scream or how many algorithms on social media platforms they rigged to manipulate people in thinking that “the woke mind-virus is death”, fighting for social justice, being woke was always there and will never cease to being inherently human.
Now, for the ones who are interested in knowing what Paul Graham talked about in his blog, next comes a summary and a critical review of his blog made by ChatGPT. Afterwards, I will end this blog with my own personal comments regarding Paul’s blog.
Summary of Paul Graham’s blog: The Origins of Wokeness
Paul Graham’s The Origins of Wokeness attempts to trace the ideological and institutional rise of what he calls “wokeness” arguing that it evolved from 1960s radicalism, postmodern academic theory, and changes in university culture. He claims that early radicals moved away from traditional Marxist class-based activism and instead focused on identity-based issues such as race and gender because these were more socially acceptable and less likely to provoke institutional resistance.
According to Graham, wokeness spread through elite institutions because it did not challenge corporate or state power but rather sought influence within existing systems. He argues that this form of activism functions as a moral hierarchy, rewarding those who adhere to ever-changing social rules while punishing dissenters. He likens wokeness to a secular religion, complete with dogma, excommunications, and a concept of original sin (privilege).
Graham also critiques the way wokeness manifests in education, workplaces, and media, asserting that it has led to the decline of journalistic neutrality and merit-based decision-making in favor of ideological conformity. He suggests that wokeness is driven in part by social media outrage, and he predicts that society may eventually develop “antibodies” against this kind of viral moral policing. While acknowledging that reversing wokeness will not be easy, he argues that institutions should purge those who enforce ideological orthodoxy to restore open discourse.
Critical review of Paul Graham’s blog by ChatGPT:
Paul Graham’s blog The Origins of Wokeness presents a highly selective and misleading account of the term’s history, purpose, and evolution. His essay constructs a version of wokeness that aligns with a right-leaning, reactionary critique, ignoring the term’s actual historical roots in Black activism and its broader role in social justice movements. Here are my main critiques:
1. Fabrication of Origins
Graham asserts that wokeness emerged from a fusion of 1960s radicalism and postmodern academic theory, completely disregarding its actual origins in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and its historical use in Black activism dating back to at least the early 20th century. His attempt to frame it as a movement primarily driven by privileged academics and disconnected from working-class struggles is not supported by historical evidence. The term “stay woke” was already widely used in Black communities long before elite universities supposedly co-opted it.
2. Mischaracterization of Social Movements
Graham paints wokeness as a power-seeking ideology rather than a moral framework focused on social justice. He claims that woke activists demand institutional power in exchange for granting moral legitimacy to corporations and universities, yet he ignores the grassroots origins of movements like Black Lives Matter, which have been driven by real-world injustices, not institutional self-interest. While it’s true that corporations sometimes adopt “woke” branding for PR purposes, that’s not the same as saying wokeness itself was designed as a tool for elite manipulation.
3. Straw Man Arguments and Cultural Panic
Much of Graham’s critique relies on anecdotal cases (like the Oberlin bakery lawsuit) to construct a narrative of wokeness as a runaway force of moral policing and social control. He uses isolated examples of excesses within activism to discredit the broader movement, which is a classic straw man tactic. He also leans heavily on the idea that wokeness is a form of “secular religion”, an argument that is rhetorically powerful but historically shallow. Social justice movements advocating for racial and gender equality are not religious doctrines; they are political and ethical responses to systemic inequalities.
4. Lack of Historical and Sociological Depth
Graham’s essay is fundamentally ahistorical. He presents a surface-level analysis of Marxism and postmodernism without engaging with real scholarship on social justice movements. He also disregards the deep, systemic inequalities that made wokeness necessary in the first place—such as racism, economic disparities, and gender discrimination. His focus is on how wokeness affects institutions, rather than why it exists at all.
Final Assessment
Paul Graham’s essay is less a historical analysis and more an ideological critique designed to fit a pre-existing narrative. He ignores the well-documented origins of wokeness in Black activism, distorts its evolution, and presents a reactionary view that aligns with conservative cultural panic. While some criticisms of performative wokeness and corporate virtue-signaling are valid, his essay is ultimately a misleading account that prioritizes political rhetoric over historical accuracy.
And this is the origin of wokeness according to ChatGPT:
The term “woke” has its roots in African American Vernacular English (AAVE), where it originally referred to being awake or alert. Over time, it evolved to signify an awareness of social and political issues, particularly those affecting Black communities. In the early to mid-20th century, figures like Marcus Garvey used language urging Black individuals to “wake up” to systemic injustices. The phrase “stay woke” was popularized in the 1930s by blues musician Lead Belly, who used it as a caution to remain vigilant against racial injustices.
In the 21st century, “woke” expanded beyond its original context to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities, including those related to race, gender, and sexuality. The term gained mainstream attention through its association with movements like Black Lives Matter, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and challenging systemic oppression.
However, as “woke” entered mainstream discourse, its meaning became more fluid and, at times, contentious. Some critics argue that the term has been overextended or misapplied, leading to debates about its current usage and implications.
In summary, “woke” originated within Black communities as a call to remain aware of systemic injustices. Over time, it has evolved to represent a broader consciousness of various social inequalities, though its usage and interpretation continue to be subjects of discussion and debate.
Lastly, my own comments about the blog of Paul Graham
I waited to write this part after I read what ChatGPT wrote for the summary and its own critical review of the blog, and I’m glad I did because those texts speak for themselves. It is a shame to see such a man stoop so low, but in the end it is what it is. Money and power corrupts many people and it is sad to see brilliant people like Paul Graham sell their soul to the devil for more money and power.
In the blog Paul tried to directly link “priggishness” with “wokeness”. Anyone who has read posts and comments on social media from Paul and Elon knows already that this is just the pot calling the kettle black. It’s pure projection, because it is very hard to find people more priggish than them. Prigs banding together to form an alliance come up with ideas like MAGA.
For the record, for if their true intentions are still not entirely clear for some, the answer is: their war against woke is to gain more power and money by creating even more division in societies. People who only care for their self interest are more easily manipulated to even accept things (for example laws or products) that go against their own (long term) benefits.
In the forest of words Paul wrote he put for example an easter egg that alludes to their true intention of gaining more power and money. In his note #14 he wrote:
“Elon did something else that tilted Twitter rightward though: he gave more visibility to paying users. Paying users lean right on average, because people on the far left dislike Elon and don’t want to give him money. Elon presumably knew this would happen. On the other hand, the people on the far left have only themselves to blame; they could tilt Twitter back to the left tomorrow if they wanted to.”
He is of course lying that the reason Twitter tilted rightward is because paying users get more visibility. The main reason is for their manipulation of the algorithm to insert rightwing users, posts and comments in everyone’s feeds, while shadow banning and censoring left wing users, posts and comments so that fewer people get exposure to left wing views.
Some people actually try to justify Musk’s actions by arguing that the old Twitter team also did this but for the benefit of left wing ideology. This is simply gaslighting because the old Twitter team was not actively crusading to spread left wing ideology. What they did do is moderate more intensely, however, they did this transparently and tried their best to do this in balance. If you were left wing or right wing and broke laws or their TOS the consequences would’ve been the same for everyone. On Twitter now you cannot mention the word “cis” without consequences, but saying the n-word even with the hard-r at the end, or the ableist r-word will be forced fed in more feeds by the algorithm.
More importantly, see what Paul did in his last sentence in note #14; blaming the victims for their own acts of censorship, while also saying that the only way to increase visibility is to pay them. So my only reaction to this is with an advice, an emoticon and an image to remind people about the paradox of tolerance: go vote whenever there is an opportunity to vote for political leaders, always also vote with your wallet and tell them to🖕.
NOTES:
*Bluesky is a decentralized social media platform founded by Jack Dorsey, co-founder and former CEO of Twitter. Unlike traditional centralized platforms, Bluesky operates on the AT Protocol, allowing users to have greater control over their data and content. This decentralized approach enables interoperability between different social media services, offering users the flexibility to switch platforms or servers without losing their accounts, posts, or followers. So for example, when Viisiit.® (the sustainability ecosystem that I am building) also builds its platform on the AT Protocol, you’d only need to connect your Bluesky account to your Viisiit.® account to copy your followers and maybe even your posts (I am not technical enough to say the latter with confidence).
Key Features of Bluesky:
Decentralization: Built on the AT Protocol, Bluesky allows users to have greater control over their data and content.
Customizable Feeds: Users can create custom feeds with personalized algorithms, tailoring their content experience to specific interests.
Enhanced Content Control: Bluesky offers features like muting specific threads, blocking certain keywords, and filtering tags to manage content visibility effectively.
Interoperability: The platforms decentralized nature allows for seamless interaction with other services, promoting a more open and connected social media ecosystem.
User-Centric Design: Bluesky prioritizes user autonomy and transparency, aiming to create a more positive and controlled social media environment.
These features position Bluesky as a compelling alternative to traditional social media platforms, offering users enhanced control, customization, and a more open social media experience. For me personally, knowing that my usage of my social media platforms is not directly contributing to the spread of far-right ideology, fascism and the erosion of democratic principles all over the world, is the best reason to use Bluesky!
**Without actually knowing how actual Black Americans think about this, I feel like it is best to use only Black Americans and never use African Americans, when referring to people of color who for centuries have been abused and treated as lesser people by White Americans. The reason for this is that I think that yes, for most Black Americans their ancestors came directly from Africa, but that’s not the case for everyone. Also, saying African Americans may imply, or at least could be used as reasoning by bad actors, that ‘African Americans’ can be made to go back to “where they came from”. Which of course is a ludicrous idea because same as White Americans, they all are first and foremost US citizens.
Thanks to Giovanni Maisto Ferreira for reading drafts of this.
