Dla tego filmu nie wygenerowano opisu.
What you are about to see is one of the greatest explanations and takedowns of wokeism that you will probably ever see by James Lindsay who is the author of Cynical Theories and the founder of New Discourses. And I know this one is a long video guys but if you watch till the end you will be armed and dangerous. I mean I have been studying this stuff pretty closely for a while now and this video had many different aha moments for me. James ruthlessly dissects this in front of the European Parliament which is full of individuals that are heavily complicit in this movement. And towards the end he highlights the exact historical regime that this is most similar to.
See if you can guess it before he gets there. And he also provides a pretty ominous prognosis but at the same time remedy. So stick around for that and I know James Lindsay does tend to get very intellectual at times and he does tend to get a little bit frantic when he talks so what I am going to do in this video is I am going to aim to punctuate all of the great points that he makes with a little bit more context and explanation. This way hopefully you won't have to watch it 10 times to grasp it like I did. Or maybe that was just me. Anyways let's get into the clips. Hello thank you.
I am glad to be here. I want to address something Tom just said which is in fact that woke is supposed to advance equity in Europe. So here is the definition of equity and see if it sounds like a definition of anything else you have ever heard of. The definition of equity comes from the public administration literature. It was written by a man named George Fredrickson. The definition is an administered political economy in which shares are adjusted so that citizens are made equal. Does that sound like anything you have heard of before? Like socialism. They are going to administer an economy to make shares equal.
The only difference between equity and socialism is the type of property that they redistribute. The type of shares. They are going to redistribute social and cultural capital in addition to economic and material capital. And so this is my thesis when we say what is woke. Woke is Maoism with American characteristics if I might borrow from Mao himself who said that his philosophy was Marxism-Leninism with Chinese characteristics. Which means woke is Marxism. That's a very provocative statement. It's something you will certainly hear it is not. That it is different and the professors and the philosophers will spend a large amount of time explaining to you why no no it's about economics when it's Marxism.
Guys we are just getting started but if you do enjoy this content then make sure to leave me a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel, turn all notification bells on and also leave me a comment. You guys know if you have been watching this channel that I am getting shadow banned like no tomorrow. So that really really helps me and I appreciate it greatly. Back to the video. This is social, this is cultural, this is different. It's not different. I need you to think biologically for one moment and I don't mean about your bodies. We could do that. That's a different topic. I want you to think how we organize plants and animals when we study them.
There are species but above species there are the genus of the animals. So you think like the cats, all the cats which you have tigers, you have lions, you have house cats, you have whatever, leopards, many different kinds of cats. If we think of Marxism as a genus of ideological thought then classical economic Marxism is a species. Radical feminism is a species in the same genus. Critical race theory is a genus, or sorry, a species in this genus. Queer theory is a species in this genus. Post-colonial theory that's plaguing Europe is a species in this genus and they have something that binds them together called intersectionality that makes them treated as if they are all one thing.
But the logic is Marxist and I want to convince you of that. This is brilliant. Such a fantastic and accurate way to frame this. And wokeism is Marxism and often people will laugh at this idea and they'll say the catastrophizing and straw manning but it's just simply the truth. And if you guys want to know more about the history of wokeism and how we got here, James is going to explain it but also I did a pretty detailed video about this so I'm going to leave that as the recommended video at the end and also in the bio in the comments. But to the point, that is extremely accurate.
These ideas are all a part of the same family or the same species if you will. You can't necessarily find it explicitly mentioned in the doctrine of Marxism but if you extrapolate these ideas as James Lindsay is about to do so well, you'll find that the modern day incarnations are certainly descendants of the original ideas. But in the next section, James is about to go into extremely interesting detail about the theory of Marxism and how the original interpretation of this theory isn't everything.
But just to provide a little bit of context, Karl Marx was a 19th century philosopher who wrote the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital and his work obviously inspired the revolutions led by Vladimir Lenin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and more. And we all know how they turned out. So the idea of communism is built upon the idea that the bourgeoisie or the capitalist class are the oppressors and the proletariat or the working class are the oppressed. And in order to remedy this there needs to be an uprising where the proletariat class seize the means of production. They redistribute wealth and they abolish private property because these are institutions that are only designed to benefit the bourgeoisie.
So traditionally, Marxism is thought to be an ideology that's based around economics and economic revolution. And this is why the left will often scoff at the idea of cultural Marxism, which is the idea of that instead of economics, the modern day incarnation of Marxism targets culture. And when I say culture, I mean things like race, sex and religion. So with that in mind, let's listen to the next part of the speech. Because Marx had a very simple proposition, but we get lost. We think that Marx was talking about economics because he often talked about economics. He wrote a book called Capital. It's a very famous book.
We think, well, this is about economic theory, but this isn't true. It's always true on the surface. If we go below the surface, what Marx was talking about was something different. We know what Marx's hypothesis was, was that we must seize the means of production if we're going to bring socialism to the nations, to the world. We have to seize the means of production. So we have to ask, what does he mean? And if we think that it's about capital, then we miss what he means. If you think it's about the means of production in the factory with a hammer and the means of production in the field with a sickle, then you miss what it means.
Because Marx explained what makes human beings special in his earlier writings. What makes human beings special is that man is a being that is incomplete and knows that he is incomplete. He is a man whose true nature has been forgotten to him, which is social being. He is a socialist at heart who doesn't realize it. And the reason he doesn't realize it is because of the economic conditions operating as the means of construction or production, not just of the economy, but of him, but of man, of society, and particularly of history. Marx said that he had the first scientific study of history. How was history produced? By man doing man's activity.
And man's key activity was economic activity, as he saw it. And so economic production doesn't just produce the goods and services of the economy, it produces society itself. And society in terms produces man. He called this the inversion of praxis. And so when he says we must seize the means of production, and he's talking about factories and fields, he's actually talking about how we construct who we are as human beings so that we might complete ourselves, so that we might complete history. And at the end of history, mankind will remember that he is a social being and we will have a socialist society. A perfect communism that transcends private property, is how he put it.
He said in fact that communism is the transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement. That's a quote from the Economic Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. So Marx was interested in controlling, or understanding and controlling, how man produces himself. And he writes about this exclusively in the 1840s, very deeply. How do we do this? And he looks at the economic conditions and he says this is where it is. And that's why we get economic Marxism and that's why we think Marx was an economist. But Marx was never an economist. He was a theologian. He wanted to produce a religion for mankind that would supersede all of the religions of mankind and bring him back to his true social nature.
This is the true fact of Marx. And what the goal was, like I said, is to complete man. So what he said is, well how are we building man currently? All of his economic analysis is about how are we building man at present through what he called material determinism. And he said, well, what we have is a special form of private property in our society. Our society is organized around private property. And so all of our thoughts organize around private property.
In other words, there's a special kind of property that the bourgeois elite class has access to and then they organize society to exclude everybody else from access to that property through exploitation, through alienation, through estrangement, through oppression. And so what Karl Marx was proposing is that economics becomes a vehicle to separate society into a bourgeois class that has access to a special form of property. The people who have access wish to retain that so they oppress people and keep other people out of that special form of property. They erect a system of classism to do that. It's enforced by an ideology called capitalism that believes that this is the right way to engage in the world.
And what we have to do is awaken the underclass, the proletariat, to the real conditions and the fact that they are historical agents of change and bring them to do a revolution and transform society so that we would have equity or socialism, whichever word you want. They have the same definition. Now let's say that we step out. We step back from this species, this economic species, homo economicus, and we step back to the genus and we look at this idea. A special form of property that segregates society into people who have the bourgeois law and the people who do not have, who are in class conflict with an ideology that keeps this in place.
And the underclass must awaken with consciousness to fight back and to seize the means of production of that form of deterministic property. And now we say change out class, put in race, and watch, we get critical race theory falls out of the hat. Just like that. Very simple. In 1993, Cheryl Harris wrote a long article for the Harvard Law Review called whiteness's property. She explained that whiteness or white privilege constitutes a kind of cultural private property. She says it must be abolished in order to have racial justice. Just like Karl Marx said that in the communist manifesto, he wrote, communism can be summarized in a single sentence, the abolition of private property.
Well, this is why critical race theory calls to abolish whiteness, because whiteness is a form of private property. People who have access to this property are whites or white adjacent, or they act white. These are words out of the American lexicon that they've used to describe how people gain access to the private property. People without that are people of color and they are oppressed by systemic racism. Stimulant racism is enforced by an ideology of white supremacy instead of capitalism. If you think of whiteness as a form of cultural capital, white supremacy as they define it is identical to capitalism.
It's the belief, it's not believing that white people are superior, it's believing that white people have access to the control of society and should maintain that. Even if you don't actually believe that, if you merely support that, you have adopted the ideology of white supremacy into your mind. And so you have the exact same system. And the goal is to awaken a racial consciousness in people so that they will band together as a class and seize the means of cultural production so that white cultural production is no longer the dominant mode. It's a big mystery in Europe. I know in the UK, throughout Europe, I hear this question again and again.
Why on earth is this very American phenomenon about slavery and so on that doesn't apply to our country? Why is it popular here? It's because it's not about history at all. It's not about slavery at all. Those are excuses that they use. It's about creating a class consciousness that's against this form of property called whiteness, that's against the dominant culture that may just be of matter of fact, say, if you're in Europe. That's why, because it becomes a site by which people can come together and they can channel resentment and try to claim power. So very interesting there. And just to recap, James suggests that Marxism transcends economics and even transcends social theory.
The theory of Marxism bears a religious like structure that can be extrapolated across all domains of life. And he used the example of private property, which if taken literally means a physical asset. That idea can be extrapolated to the idea of whiteness as private property or whiteness as capital, as was explicitly stated, as he mentioned in Cheryl Harris's 1993 article for the Harvard Law Review. And furthermore, he mentioned seizing the means of production, which in the traditional sense means the oppressed proletariat rising up and taking their share in profits. However, in the cultural sense means seizing the means of white cultural production.
Now James is going to get into some more specific examples of how cultural Marxism manifests in the modern day, namely ideas like critical race theory, queer theory, and post-colonial theory. And the reason why this is so important is because in the modern day, sometimes it's almost impossible to argue against these things if you're not armed and dangerous with this knowledge because these ideas are held up as self-evident truths of progressivism and goodness. The people that promulgate these ideas are protecting the lives and the existences of minorities. And if you dare question it, then you will be hit with all of the isms and all of the phobes. They will pick it out of their buffet breakfast of isms and phobes.
Furthermore, if you try and lift the veil of what this really is, which is cultural Marxism, then you will be laughed at and ridiculed and told that you have no idea what Marxism really is. You don't understand it, but not on James Lindsay's watch. I wrote a book called Race Marxism and I defined critical race theory as it really is in that book on the first page. I said that critical race theory is calling everything you want to control racist until you control it. But couldn't we say the same about Marxism? It's calling everything you want to control bourgeois until you control it. But those mean the same thing. They mean exactly the same thing.
But what about, say, queer theory? How is that Marxist? It's very strange. It's very diverse gender and sex and sexuality. Well, Tom said, what is woke attack? The idea of being normal. Well, the queer theory thinks that there are certain people who get to set the norms of society. They are privileged. They call themselves normal. They say this is normal. It's normal to consider yourself a man and look like a man and act like a man and dress like a man and eat meat like a man. And then there are women that should be feminine and pretty and all these things. And so they get to define what's normal. They're heterosexuals.
So they get to define the heterosexuality as normal and other sexualities are abnormal. And so you have a conflict across this cultural property of who gets to be considered normal and who is a pervert or a freak or some other term that gets used in their literature. But technically, who is a queer, which sounds like a slur, but they adopted it and it's a technical academic term now. It means an identity without an essence, by the way, an identity that is strictly oppositional to the concept of the normal as defined by queer theorist David Halperin in his 1995 book, Saint Foucault, toward a gay hagiography. I didn't make that up. I'm not extrapolating.
So you see queer theory is just another species of the genus of Marxism. What about post-colonial theory, which is plaguing Europe thanks to Franz Fahnen and his biggest European fan, Jean-Paul Sartre? What about this? Well, it's the same. You have the West as the oppressor. They have access to the material and cultural wealth of the world because they've decided their culture is the default and have gone and colonized the world to bring culture to the world, as they say. And so the oppressed, the natives around the world, the people have to band together and their activity is going to be called decolonization. They have to remove every aspect of Western culture.
So when they come to Belgium or they come to France or they come to the United States and they say, we're going to decolonize the curriculum, or they go to the UK and say, we're going to decolonize Shakespeare, this is what they mean. We're going to remove the cultural significance of your cultural artifacts because those cultural artifacts themselves are oppressive to us. This is the same system. It's another species and the exact same genus and that genus is Marxism, which is a way of thinking about the world. And the goal is always to seize the means of control of the production of man and history in society. Marx merely believed it was through economic means.
Now it's through socio-cultural means. Did that just make too much sense to you? It did for me. Cultural race theory is calling everything you want to control racist until you control it. We are seeing this exact thing happen in the West and it is working. Think about it. They do it to people in positions of power, sports leagues, corporations, small businesses, public figures, politicians, and the list goes on. And then when they call them racist, what do they do? Well, they issue groveling public apologies. They take the knee. They bend over. They raise their fists. They put their employees through woke struggle sessions, all to avoid being called racist.
And obviously queer theory is something that's designed to attack Western norms, to attack biological norms, cultural norms, et cetera. And it makes sense when you think about it in the Marxist framework, because these norms are the oppressors and those who deviate from the norms or those who are queer are the oppressed. And in order to remedy this and change the paradigm, then this power structure needs to be overthrown. And then the same can obviously be said about post-colonial theory. And it's important to realize that they don't care about helping people who are historically oppressed or whatever.
This is merely a masquerade that they use to destroy the fundamental institutions of Western culture, because they're from a colonial heritage, you see, which means that they are inextricably linked to this evil past and must be decolonialized. You see why they call it critical theory now, criticize and ultimately destroy everything without ever actually building anything. But that right there is the difference between intellectuals and people who operate in the real world. And now for a little bit more about the history and origins of Marxism and how it's evolved from the traditional Marxism. And there was a real aha moment here for me. And I'll explain that to you after this clip.
The evolution into this sometimes called Western Marxism began in the 1920s. We had a Russian revolution in 1917, and this did not happen in Europe. And the Marxists in Europe were confused. And so Antonio Gramsci sat down and wrote out some things. And George Lukacs sat down and wrote History and Class Consciousness after the failure of the revolution in Hungary. And they wrote what became cultural Marxism, the idea that we have to enter the cultural institutions in order to change them from within because Western culture has something about it that's repelling socialism. So we have to go inside and change the culture to make it socialist. Now you aren't allowed to talk about cultural Marxism now.
They've categorized this as a conspiracy theory. They say that it is anti-Semitic. This is not true. Antonio Gramsci wrote books. George Lukacs wrote books. You can read those books. They have a philosophy. If they don't like the name cultural Marxism, we can use the name that other people at the time used, Western Marxism. So much like, I don't know, a virus adapting to the conditions, it changed to try to infect a new host. It worked in feudal societies. Marxism took over in Russia. It took over later in China. It took over in all of these kind of agriculturally driven feudal societies. But it wouldn't work in actual capitalist nations because Marx was wrong.
Even several Germans from the Frankfurt School started to study this phenomenon in more depth and they evolved the idea further. They evolved the idea into what's called critical Marxism. They developed what's called the critical theory. And Max Horkheimer, who designed the critical theory, explained the critical theory. And what did he say? He said, well, what we came to realize was that Marx was wrong about one thing. Capitalism does not immiserate the worker. It allows him to build a better life. So I developed the critical theory because it is not possible to articulate the vision of a good society on the terms of the existing society. So critical Marxism criticizes the entirety of the existing society.
Everything is somehow needing to be subjected to Marxist conflict analysis. But how is that to be done? They sought an answer through the middle part of the 20th century and World War II breaks out. The Frankfurt School comes to America, which in this metaphor is the Wuhan Institute of Virology because gain of function began to happen on the Marxist virus very quickly in America. And American universities adopted these professors from Germany.
And Herbert Marcuse, writing in the 1960s, said extremely clearly, this writing in 1969, not only did he say capitalism delivers the goods, gives people a good life, makes them wealthy and comfortable and happy, he also said that the working class is no longer going to be the base of the revolution because of these things. In other words, we don't have to be responsible to the working class anymore, which opens up the ability for Marxists who are seeking power to make friends with the corporations. The bosses are no longer the enemy. They're an opportunity because the working class is irrelevant. He said the energy is somewhere else.
He said it's in the racial minorities, the sexual minorities, the feminists, the outsiders. That's who he said have the energy for a Marxist revolution in the West, not the working class. And so Marxism was able to evolve to abandon the working class. And so what did they do? Well, all they had studied for 30 years was what they called the culture industry, an industry that commodifies and packages culture and sells it back to people. So supposedly stripped of what it actually is, empty, abstract now. And so what, of course, did they do? They seized the means of production of the culture industry because that's what they do.
And so they started to transform the culture industry to sell racial, sexual, gender, sexuality based, agitprop as though that were genuine culture. And so we get concepts like cultural appropriation. We get concepts like cultural relevance, cultural this, cultural that, cultural everything. And it's all provided in pastiche. It's all provided as a mockery of what's really going on. And this evolved in America's highly racialized context. And we ended up with woke, a form of identity based Marxism, a constellation of Marxist species that all work with the same operating premise, but locate themselves in different and I'll use the German term here for this folk.
So such a well packed explanation there about how cultural Marxism has come about through critical theory and how that has so many cousins and how that gave rise to all of these other different intersectional strands. Think about it like this. Marxism is the mother. Marxism gives birth to critical theory and then critical theory has a bunch of kids. It creates its own variants, if you will, as James Lindsay so accurately put, and this virus just keeps on breeding and creating more and more variants until they create a vaccine that actually works. But what I really got from that was the sinister nature of these ideas and how far intellectuals will go to win the ideological battle.
Capitalism improves people's lives. And even they had to admit that the evidence is absolutely irrefutable. Free markets lift people out of poverty. They lower infant mortality rate. They raise life expectancy and so much more. But instead of just admitting defeat and that their ideas were wrong, they change the angle of their approach. They move the goalposts. They set their sights on culture as if that will be any less disastrous. And the real aha moment there for me that connected a few dots was that the corporations are now the friends. And this makes so much sense because the left used to be about fighting the billionaires and fighting the man and the corporations and the institutions, man.
But now they're in bed with those very entities. And I always wondered how this happened. And I always thought they were definitely very strange bedfellows. But now it makes sense. This is by design. They barely even disguise it these days. The corporations are their allies and they have absolutely zero regard for the working class. But moreover, it goes to show that this is an ideology that fundamentally preys on the weak and disenfranchised survival. It's designed to look at society and say who are the most downtrodden individuals that we can recruit for the revolution. They do not care about these people. It's always been about the ideas. It's always been about the revolution.
And just as they ditched the working class for the corporations, they will happily ditch the minorities for the next batch of revolutionaries. Now James is about to zero in on the extremely similar historical regime that we in the West basically know nothing about. But you might know something and maybe you guessed that this was who he was going to mention. Leave it in the comments. LGBTQ is a folk. They get folkish identity there and become activists. The black community is a folk. How do I know? That's what W. E. B. Du Bois said it would be when he laid down the foundations that became critical race theory later. They think of themselves as nations.
Don't they all have flags? Don't they put them on your buildings like colonizers? Don't they hang them in your streets? They think of themselves as occupying nations. But they see themselves as bound together just like the various colonized nations around the world and seeking liberation from Western civilization. And so we end up with Western Marxism taking many forms but with one overarching approach. And the approach that they use, I started off by saying is Maoist, not merely Marxist. Now you know the theory is Marx. It's just evolved into different species to attack the West at its weakest points through our tolerance, through our acceptance, through our openness, through our generosity, through our best traits actually.
The things that we should be proud of being, the things that we are proud of being. But Mao Zedong knew how to use identity politics. I don't know how you study in Europe but in America we have very redwashed education as we might say. The communists have stripped out all education about communism entirely. You don't learn about it in America at all. So we don't learn anything about Mao. And maybe you don't know this but I tell this to American audiences and they're shocked. Mao used identity politics. He created 10 identities in China. Five he labeled red for communist, five he labeled black for fascist. And he categorized people into these identity categories.
What they are doesn't really matter. Of course they were communists. They were things like landlord and rich farmer and things like this. Right winger is a bad category in and of itself by the way. Conservatives, all of them bad. Bad influences. That's another one. You could be a bad influence for just thinking the wrong thing or saying the wrong thing at any time or because the government decides it doesn't like you. These are the bad categories and if you have a bad category, very importantly your children have a bad category by default. So they create a social pressure for your children to identify as revolutionaries.
At which point they get a red identity, a communist identity, a good identity. And they get rewarded for it. And the youth led the revolution in China because Mao did this, identity politics through the children in the schools. This should feel very uncomfortable to you. Because here we have, at least in the United States, we tell our children being white is bad. White is oppressive. You automatically hurt people of other races by your very existence. But by the way, if you become queer, we'll celebrate you. And you can create a radical army of people who identify as gender minorities and sexual minorities at seven years old.
You can lead them into paths of puberty blockers and transition, medical transition, which of course big pharma profits off of. At seven years old, behind their parents back. There's a reason for this. It's the same program that Mao Zedong used to radicalize the youth in China. The only thing different is the identity categories have shifted. It's Maoist cultural revolution with American characteristics. And it's being exported to Europe. And just like how critical race theory has come to Europe, even though it doesn't make sense, it will come to Europe, whether it makes sense or not. And you will have a cultural revolution here too. You guys even had a kind of offshoot one in 2020.
George Floyd dies in Minnesota, which has nothing to do with you. And you guys have statues coming down in Europe. Total nonsense. It doesn't matter though. The point is to destroy Western civilization from within using Maoist techniques. One last point about Mao to kind of drive that point home. Mao said in 1942 that his formula to transform China was called unity, criticism, unity. First you try to create the desire for unity. Then you criticize people for not living up to that. Then you bring them into unity under a new standard. Does that feel like what you're being put through? But the words are different. We use words like inclusion and belonging.
We'll have a place where everybody feels like they belong. We just want to have an inclusive space. But unfortunately you have racist ideas and you have to criticize for you. We have to criticize you for those. You need to criticize yourself for those. You need to go study, xuexi, in Mandarin. Exactly like Mao said. And then we can bring you into unity under a new standard, which Mao called socialist discipline, which we in the West would not buy. We call it in the West inclusion. And so we have this new program and within inclusion we have, or above inclusion actually, we have sustainability. We have a sustainable and inclusive future.
I see the agenda 2030 here with an X over it. The sustainable and inclusive future is the new socialist standard that we will have freedom under socialist discipline. And Mao said the way that that will work is through what he called democratic centralism. We call that stakeholder capitalism. And my shot at the World Economic Forum is taken because it's one of the things coordinating this. My shot at the United Nations is taken because it's one of the things that's coordinating this. So woke is Marxism. It's advancing through Maoist cultural revolution. It's using Americanized identity categories. And while some of those will not work in Europe, I guarantee you the colonial aspect will. They will find your weakness.
They will adapt the theory to fit because it's like a virus that will evolve to its host and Europe is at great risk. Exactly right. Why do you think we don't learn about Mao in our education system? You as the viewer might know about him, but the students these days certainly don't. And I put this to the test. I went to a university campus and I showed them photos of Mao and I was testing them to see if they knew who he was or anything about him for that matter. I don't want to get the name wrong. Just butcher it. Butcher it.
And there was only one student who knew who he was and even he didn't really know anything about him. Is it that one of the most ruthless dictators that ever lived with the highest body count of anyone who ever lived is not taught in our education system? You tell me. Maybe it's because they don't want the students to know that Mao used to use students and young people as part of his Red Guard, partly because he wanted to indoctrinate the new generation into his ideology, but also because he knew that young people are the most brutal and malleable.
Their objective was to destroy the customs of old, statues, literature, cultural customs and usher in the customs of new, the religion of Maoism that adhered to the principles laid out by Mao in his little red book, something that they all had a copy of on them at all times. Young people were turned against their parents and the older generation for that matter. And the older generation were sent to re-education camps and sent to struggle sessions and forced to do public humiliation ceremonies if they were even lucky enough to survive. The West is currently undergoing a cultural revolution that has been happening for some time and it's not overly dissimilar to the philosophy of Maoism.
The cult of intersectionality and woke cultural Marxism has successfully penetrated our institutions across the board and has spread like a highly malignant cancer that is eating away at our vital organs. And I'm sorry to be so gloomy and on that ominous note, I'm going to let James Lindsay take it away with another rather ominous prognosis, but also a potential remedy. Now the last thing I'll mention is this risk is twofold. When you endure Marxist provocation, Marxist strategy is always of the same type. It's called middle level violence. They don't come at you with full blown Bolshevik assault very often. It's middle level violence.
They provoke, which means if you give in and you do like Jean Paul Sartre said in his forward to The Wretched of the Earth by Franz Fahnen, the post-colonial book, he said the violence is coming. So Europe's best bet is to give it away so that they don't kill you. They'll murder you and take it or maybe you can give it away, give your culture away, give your countries away and they'll let you live. They're coming for you and this is what Europe needs to learn. That's what he says in the forward of Wretched of the Earth. You can read it for yourself, probably in the original French that I can't read.
And I think that's the path Europe has followed. So you can give away, that's one side because they provoke at the middle or you can react and overreact, which sadly Europe has had a rough history in the last century with overreactions. And if you overreact, what will they do, they will weaponize your overreaction for a century, forever and gain moral authority so that you end up having to give it away later anyway. So you have to stand firm in your principles, but you have to do so cleverly. You have to do so understanding that you're being provoked, which means you don't react as the provocateur wants you to react.
You have to outsmart them, which is not possible unless you know the diagnosis of your problem. It's a Polish proverb, never attempt to cure what you don't understand. Woke is Marxism, evolved to attack the West. If you don't understand that, you will not act correctly. You will not cure it and it will conquer your countries. It will conquer all of Europe and we will have a very, very long, sustainable and inclusive future with absolutely no freedom because the goal is to make us into what they call global citizens. Have you heard this term? This term is nonsense. There's no global sovereign, so there is no global citizenship.
There's no relationship because there's no ruler and we don't want a ruler of the globe. It's a nonsense term, but they tell you if you actually read their literature, what is a global citizen? It's somebody, I kid you not, I make no joke. They say this themselves. It's somebody who supports the 17 sustainable development goals of the United Nations Agenda 2030. That's a global citizen. And they say what are the rights of a global citizen? This is in a book about global citizenship education published two years ago. What are the rights of a global citizen? And the answer, one paragraph later is we're not that interested in rights with global citizenship. It's more about global responsibilities. In other words, slavery.
This is a pivotal moment in the history of the Western world. The model that they are pushing us toward using the means and mechanisms of that place is the model we see in China. If you want to know what your future looks like if we don't stop the woke, look at China. Look at the social credit system. Look at the oppression. Look at people disappearing for having the wrong opinions. One of their greatest billionaires, Jack Ma, said the wrong thing about the government and disappeared. A billionaire. If you want to know what the future of Europe and America and the five eyes or whatever the countries, it's China. That's the model.
So we have to fight back against woke. But to fight back against woke, we have to understand it. And I will close by restating my thesis. Woke is Marxism evolved to take on the West. And it's been very successful so far because we haven't known our enemy. We cannot name our enemy. And I've come here to name our enemy. So thank you for your time and attention in letting me do that. So just a brilliant speech there. And the last part is obviously crucial as well.
Things that we should be hyper aware of and looking at with a very discerning eye whenever they're mentioned include but are not limited to diversity, equity and inclusion, a sustainable future, the World Economic Forum, digital identities, digital currencies, global citizenship, the 17 sustainable development goals of United Nations agenda 2030 and more. And when he says that China is the model that they want to implement, he's not plucking that out of thin air. This has been explicitly stated at the World Economic Forum meetings in Davos. And Klaus Schwab has repeatedly heaped praise upon Xi Jinping and China and the social credit system and how they're running the joint in China.
As if this is something that we should be striving to emulate. But guys, my hope with individuals such as James Lindsay and Majid Duwaz and Jordan Peterson and the likes, we can bring these sinister agendas to people's consciousness and explain them in great detail that's understandable and that gives people a roadmap and a way to push back whether that be big or small. And this pushback happens with grand speeches at the European Parliament, but it also happens with you and I on a personal level, on an individual level. It happens when we live lives of courage and truth and where we create a situation where these virtues are constantly permeating our own orbit. So thanks for watching guys.
And if you made it this far and if you're still tuned in, then well done and thank you and catch me on social medias, Instagram, Twitter, all in the bio there. Check out my other videos. If you guys want to watch those, click right here. And until next time, I'm Jake. This is Redel Snake TV, keeping you armed and dangerous. .