#universal solvent

In Arthur Edward Waite's magnum opus, "A New Light of Mysticism: Azoth," readers embark on an enigmatic journey that transcends the boundaries of conventional thought. The book, alternatively known as "The Star in the East," intricately weaves together the profound elements of alchemy, spirituality, and the arcane, inviting readers into the captivating world of mystical exploration.

Waite's narrative prowess shines as he delves into the intricacies of the Magnum Opus, unraveling the mysteries of the first matter and the evolution of Aphrodite-Urania. The author, known for his deep understanding of esoteric subjects, presents a mesmerizing tapestry that explores the supernatural generation of the Son of the Sun and the alchemical transfiguration of humanity.

At the heart of the book is the symbolic Azoth, a universal solvent that represents the transformative power of spiritual enlightenment. Waite's prose is both eloquent and dense, demanding a contemplative reading as readers navigate through layers of symbolism and allegory. The exploration of divine feminine energy through Aphrodite-Urania adds a unique dimension, intertwining mythology with alchemical philosophy.

The strength of Waite's work lies not only in its esoteric depth but also in its ability to provoke introspection. As readers navigate through the pages, they find themselves not just absorbing information but actively engaging in the alchemical processes described. Waite's intricate descriptions and philosophical reflections challenge readers to question, contemplate, and, ultimately, embark on their own metaphysical journey.

"A New Light of Mysticism: Azoth" is a testament to Waite's profound scholarship and his gift for distilling complex esoteric concepts into a cohesive narrative. It is a book that beckons the curious minds and spiritual seekers, promising not just knowledge but an experiential odyssey through the realms of mysticism.

Intriguing, immersive, and intellectually stimulating, Waite's work invites readers to embrace the alchemical transformation it promises, heralding a new dawn in the understanding of mysticism and spirituality.

"A New Light of Mysticism: Azoth," by Arthur Edward Waite is available in Amazon in paperback 18.99$ and hardcover 24.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 431

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

By: Wokal Distance

Published: Oct 28, 2022

One aspect of woke ideology which flies under the radar is that wokeness has no stopping point. That is, there is no norm, value, idea, concept, expectation, standard, moral, or theory that wokeness will not dissolve, dismantle, deconstruct, and get rid of. What this means is that there is no point at which wokeness stops; it is like an acid that is so powerful that dissolves any container that tries to hold it. As such nothing, not math, not biology, not engineering, not religion, will avoid being obliterated once wokeness gets a hold of it.

There are two reasons that wokeness has no brakes and no stopping point.

The first is that there is an ethical imperative in wokeness which requires the subversion, deconstruction, dismantling, and "calling into question" of any and every narrative, paradigm, ideology, worldview, value set, ethical system, or cultural belief that gains cultural prominence. Anything that becomes the "status quo," is widely accepted in society, or becomes the dominant narrative in society must immediately be subverted, dismantled, deconstructed, challenged or "called into question."

The second reason wokeness has no brakes is that the ideas, concepts, philosophies and theories that make up wokeness will dissolve anything that sets itself up as a boundary, limit, or stopping point.

I will explain both of these points in turn.

1. The moral imperative of Critical Theory.

The moral imperative for wokeness to never stop comes to us from the Brazilian Marxist educator and Critical Theorist Paulo Freire. Freire thought that educators (that is, teachers, including teachers in k-12 public schools) "ideally become partners in this self-emancipation process, contributing to what he sees as a struggle toward perpetual revolution and universal liberation."1

Freire wanted a "perpetual revolution," a revolution which never ends. Freire thought that as soon as a revolutionary movement came to power it would immediately become the status quo and the dominant power. In order to avoid this, Freire thinks we must always and forever approach the world with "Critical Consciousness" in order to avoid becoming and oppressive dominant hegemony. For Freire and other critical theorists Critical Consciousness is: "to have taken on a worldview that sees society in terms of systems of power, privilege, dominance, oppression, and marginalization, and that has taken up an intention to become an activist against these problematics. To have developed a critical consciousness is to have become aware, in light of this worldview, that you are either oppressed or an oppressor—or, at least, complicit in oppression as a result of your socialization into an oppressive system."2

The woke theorist is thus morally required to always be looking for oppressive power dynamics and must dedicated to be dismantling, deconstructing, subverting and otherwise challenging anything that becomes the status quo. This means that as soon as some idea, paradigm, convention, ideology, truth claim, or narrative becomes dominant they must immediately begin to interrogate it for anything that might resemble an oppressive power dynamic.

In the woke worldview any form of social, economic, or political inequality is viewed as oppressive, and anything that results in unequal outcomes is necessarily “problematic.” Further, because the woke theorists always think in terms of “systems,” anytime inequality of any kind shows up woke theorists will immediately assert that this inequality is the result of systems of power, privilege, and domination. For this reason they will subvert, dismantle, deconstruct, and challenge any system that allows any inequality of outcome at all.

Because the woke seek absolute social and economic equality of outcome, and because some people will always achieve greater outcomes than other people for a variety of reasons (talent, drive, work ethic, luck, etc) this process of criticism never stops. It goes on indefinitely.

2. The acid of postmodernism.

I very often see people attempt to push back on the claims made by wokeness by attempting to appeal to something that they think is beyond contention, or something they think provides and objective view of the facts in play. They are attempting to put the brakes on wokeness by establishing some objective facts which they think will show that the woke view is wrong. For example, in universities when woke people attempt to say men can give birth people will appeal to biology for a clear definition of what a biological female is. They think that science can settle the issue in an objective way. Another example of this is when woke Christians claim men can become women, non-woke Christians will quote say “we ought to use the Bible to build our ideas about the world” and then quote Genesis 5:2 (“He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created”) in an attempt to establish that Christian doctrine ought to say that men and women are different. So the University professor will attempt to stop the march of wokeness by appealing to scientific facts, and Christians will attempt to stop wokeness by appealing to facts about what the Bible says.

In this example both the Professor and the Christian are attempting to put the brakes on wokeness by using established objective facts (the professor appealing to biological facts, the Christian appealing to facts about what the Bible says) to set a limit on how far wokeness can go. In this way people seek to establish a sort of boundary that wokeness cannot cross.

This won't work, and I'd like to explain why.

The core of woke ideology is thoroughly postmodern, and that means it comes with a set of theories, concepts, and tools which when taken together are capable of dissolving anything.

First off, the postmodern theorist denies the possibility of objectivity. On a postmodern view of the world there is simply no way for anyone to have an objective view of anything. All viewpoints are merely a view from a point. Postmodern thinkers believe is not possible for anyone to get outside of their cultural upbringing and the way they were socialized. As such the biases, interests, and prejudices that everyone must have inevitably make their way into every judgement, decision, appraisal, analysis, observation or evaluation that occurs. This means no one can never arrive at a truly objective account of anything.

On a postmodern view of the world there are no objective interpretations of either language or the world. Everything can be interpreted and understood in a nearly infinite number of ways, and there is no objective way to decide which interpretation is correct. Any statement put forward as a “fact” can be interpreted in any number of different ways. For example most people would view the statement “men are stronger than women” as an objective statement about the average height of men and women. However, the postmodernist could reinterpret that statement and view it as a way of asserting that women are weak with the goal of establishing male dominance. On a postmodern view there is no objective way to decide which interpretation is correct.

Thus, even if we could get a truly objective view of the world (which they believe we cannot) whatever description of the world we provide can be reinterpreted in any number of different ways. It would not be possible to provide an absolute, objective, universal description of anything. Whatever description of the world that we give can be interpreted in many different way and there is no objective way to decide which one of those interpretations ought to be considered “correct.”

The postmodern thinker does not think of truth as “a description of the world which corresponds to reality.” Postmodern thinkers believe that what is true is matter of who gets to decide what is true, and how the get to decide what is true. In other words there are certain people in society who are given the privilege of getting to decide what is true because they have the validity, credibility, legitimacy, social status, and trust that is required to be believed, and thus the things they say are “true” are then accepted as “true” by the society at large. On the postmodern view, a statement becomes “true” because the people in society with the power to decide what is true have said a thing is true. Whether a claim actually matches the world is not what matters. The only way claim X gets to have the status of “true” is when the people in society who have the power to decide what is true have chosen to say that claim X is “true.”

The catch here is that the postmodern person will assert that the people who decide what is true have their own hidden agendas, ulterior motives, cultural biases, and self-interest. As such, the agendas, motives, biases and self interest of those who decide what is true warps their judgement such that when they decide what is true they do so in a way that serves their own interests. Those who dicide what is true only decide that a statement is true when it is in their own interest to do so, or when it aligns with their agenda and motives.

The same goes for knowledge. Knowledge is not a matter of having an awareness of understanding of the way the world really is. For the postmodern thinker knowledge, like truth, is matter of who has the power to decide what counts as knowledge, who is believed, who has credibility, and who has legitimacy. What matters is not what actually corresponds to reality, what matters is who in society gets to decide what counts as knowledge. And, like truth, the people who decide what counts as knowledge do so in a way that benefits themselves and which serves their interests.

To oversimplify the matter for the sake of brevity, the postmodern person thinks that knowledge and power are two features of the same object, and these two features mutually reinforce each other. The people who have power get to decide what counts as knowledge and truth, and the people seen as having knowledge and truth are given additional power. The people who have the power to decide what is true use that position to increase their power, to benefit themselves, to serve their own interests, to maintain their social position, and to increase their social status, social prestige, and clout.

3. Postmodernism and critical theory are one hell of a drug.

The alloy of Critical Theory and postmodernism that we typically call wokeness believes that power dynamics are present in every single situation. There is no social interaction in which power dynamics do not play a role, and there is no social structure, convention, institution, or arrangement which is not permeated by power dynamics. Once the alloy of Critical Theory and Postmodernism comes together it creates a worldview that deconstructs, dismantles, and subverts everything it touches.

Rather than going through all the ways that it does this, I’ll just provide some examples of what it looks like. If you have ever seen woke activists attempt to attack something, you will no doubt recognize the wording and rhetorical moves.

Take for example a couple deciding who should drive to the theater. The average person would see this as a simple matter of trying to figure out which person should drive, and that this can be resolved without one person oppressing the other. The postmodern theorist would say that whoever drives is the one in charge of the vehicle which is a matter of power, that there is a social trope about women being bad drivers that is reinforced when the man drives, and that if the man assumes he ought to pick the woman up that he is assuming that it is his job the lead the date and that is a power move which oppresses the woman by placing her is a subserviant position. Further, postmoderns might say that the patriarchy has created an expectation of male driving in order to reinforce the idea that men should be “in the drives seat” when dating a woman. All of this is, of course, problematic, and must be taken into account when deciding who will be driving.

Here is a another example: When a person claims that a certain person is “beautiful” the woke theorist does not take this as a mere statement of preference. Rather, they would seek to ask: by what standard is the person beautiful, who made the standard, why was the standard made, who benefits from the standard, who gets prestige and clout from being considered beautiful by the standard in question, whose interests are served by the standard of beauty, who is left out of the beauty standard. The question would be asked which groups stand to benefit from being considered beautiful, why are we fixated on beauty, why does beauty matter, what assumptions go into our ideas of what beauty is? The woke activist is going to fixate on the fact that being beautiful increases a persons social status, dating options, prestige, ability to gain clout in social media, ability to gain modeling work, and a host of other advantages.

We could even use a silly example of a truck. You might say you want a new truck. The woke activist will respond with questions and arguments like: why do you want a truck not a car? What is the purpose of the truck? Why do we have individually owned vehicles of transportation and not public transportation. Is the system of private transport a product of capitalism and does privately own transportation reinforce a capitalist ideology?  Trucks are associated with masculinity and the advertisements for the truck contain themes of traditional masculinity while excluding images of gender non-conforming people; thus trucks discourse is transphobic. Is your desire for a truck the product of the advertising agencies which have created a discourse in which trucks are seen as a symbol of strength and power. Does the desire for a truck that is advertised in this way reflect your desire for power? Is the Truck built in a way that is inaccessible to disabled people? Does the truck, with it’s design features for manual labor implicitly privilege manual labor (done by able bodied people) over and above the contributions of the disabled? Does the frequent appearance of pick-up truck in country music mean that the truck is designed for and built for white people while ignoring the needs of Indigenous people and people of color? Trucks are associate with cowboys, and it was cowboys and frontiersman who colonized America at the expense of indigenous people. Thus the truck needs to be decolonized by being redesigned in a way that disassociates it from masculinity, ableism, sexism, transphobia and colonialism.

See how this works?

The Critical Theory and postmodernism work together to create a worldview that cannot in principle be limited. There can’t be any stopping point because on the one hand Critical Theory requires critique to continue endlessly, and on the other hand postmodernism will act as a universal solvent that will dissolve anything that wishes to act as a limit, restriction, check, boundary, cap, or stopping point for wokeness.

4. How do you stop a universal solvent?

So the question is how do we stop the universal solvent from dissolving our entire society and civilization?

The answer to this requires it’s own article, but I will give two brief answers here.

Learn the linguistic, social, and rhetorical tactics of wokeness so that you can spot them and disarm them when you see them. Wokeness does not seek to win on the grounds of logical argumentation, or by providing evidence for its assertions. Rather, woke activists win socially by attacking the legitimacy, moral authority, credibility, social status, and public standing of their opponents. They gain control of the conversation and place themselves in the position of being the person in the conversation or debate who is taken seriously, believed, differed to, listened to, and seen as a good person. If you can learn how to combat these tactics you can neutralize them and steer the conversation back towards facts, reason, evidence, logic, and argumentation.

The second key is to reject the underlying assumptions and premises of postmodernism that they use to dissolve everything. By pointing out the flaws, errors, and mistake in those underlying assumptions you can show that the conclusions of wokeness are not on solid ground. The key is not to attack the woke person’s credibility, but rather to focus on their assumptions, presuppositions, and underlying premises and show that they are deeply flawed and ought to be rejected for intellectual reasons. Refocus the conversation back towards truth.

Wokeness has no stopping point and it cannot be appeased, satiated, or bargained with. Accepting their worldview and trying to set limits will not work. For that reason you must neutralize the rhetorical tactics and then show the underlying worldview is wrong. If you don’t, wokeness will dissolve every aspect of our society and civilization.

Thank you for reading.

Sincerely,

Wokal_distance.

-

1 Popular Culture and the Civic Imagination: Case Studies of Creative Social Change," Ed. Henry Jenkins, Gabriel Peters-Lazaro, and Sangita Shresthova. (New York University Press, 2020) p.117

By: Wokal Distance

Published: Mar 24, 2023

One aspect of woke ideology that flies under the radar is that wokeness has no stopping point. That is, there is no norm, value, idea, concept, expectation, standard, moral, or theory that wokeness will not dissolve, dismantle, deconstruct, and get rid of. What this means is that there is no point at which wokeness stops; it is like an acid that is so powerful that it dissolves any container that tries to hold it. As such, nothing—not math, not biology, not engineering, not religion—will avoid being obliterated once wokeness gets a hold of it.

There are two reasons for this.

The first is that there is an ethical imperative in wokeness that requires the subversion, deconstruction, dismantling, and “calling into question” of any and every narrative, paradigm, ideology, worldview, value set, ethical system, or cultural belief that gains cultural prominence. Anything that becomes the “status quo,” is widely accepted in society, or becomes the dominant narrative in society, must immediately be subverted, dismantled, deconstructed, challenged and questioned.

The second is that the ideas, concepts, philosophies and theories that make up wokeness will dissolve anything that sets itself up as a boundary, limit, or stopping point.

I will explain both of these points in turn.

The moral imperative of Critical Theory

The moral imperative for wokeness to never stop comes to us from the Brazilian Marxist educator and Critical Theorist Paulo Freire. Freire thought that educators (that is, teachers, including teachers in K-12 public schools) should “ideally become partners in this self-emancipation process, contributing to what he sees as a struggle toward perpetual revolution and universal liberation.”1

Freire wanted a “perpetual revolution,” a revolution that never ends. Freire thought that as soon as a revolutionary movement came to power it would immediately become the status quo and the dominant power. To avoid this, Freire advocates for the constant adoption of Critical Consciousness to ensure that we remain vigilant against oppressive dominant hegemonies.

For Freire and other critical theorists, Critical Consciousness is:

[T]o have taken on a worldview that sees society in terms of systems of power, privilege, dominance, oppression, and marginalization, and that has taken up an intention to become an activist against these problematics. To have developed a critical consciousness is to have become aware, in light of this worldview, that you are either oppressed or an oppressor—or, at least, complicit in oppression as a result of your socialization into an oppressive system.2

At the heart of the woke theorist’s moral code lies an unwavering commitment to identifying and confronting oppressive power structures, with the ultimate goal of dismantling, deconstructing, subverting and otherwise challenging anything that becomes the status quo. This means that as soon as some idea, paradigm, convention, ideology, truth claim, or narrative becomes dominant, they must immediately begin interrogating it for anything that might resemble an oppressive power dynamic.

According to this worldview, any form of social, economic, or political inequality is inherently oppressive. The mere presence of unequal outcomes is seen as necessarily “problematic” and a cause for concern. This is because woke theorists think in terms of “systems,” and view inequality as de facto proof that systems of power, privilege, and domination are at play. For this reason they are quick to subvert, dismantle, deconstruct, and challenge any system that perpetuates or allows for any amount of inequality.

This unyielding pursuit of equality of outcome is complicated by the reality that some individuals will inevitably achieve greater success than others, due to a multitude of factors including talent, drive, work ethic, and luck. Because of this, the woke theorist’s work is never done. It goes on indefinitely.

The acid of postmodernism

I often see people trying to push back on the claims made by wokeness by attempting to appeal to something that they believe is beyond debate or provides an objective view of the facts. They want to establish some objective facts to show that the woke view is wrong and put the brakes on its influence.

For instance, in universities, when woke people claim that men can give birth, some will appeal to biology for a clear definition of what a biological female is, believing that science can settle the issue objectively. Similarly, when woke Christians claim that men can become women, non-woke Christians may defer to the Bible for an objective standard on how to view the world. They may reference Genesis 5:2 (“He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created”) to establish that Christian doctrine should acknowledge the difference between men and women. Thus, the academician endeavors to arrest the advance of wokeness by invoking established scientific facts, while the Christian appeals to biblical knowledge to forestall wokeness.

In this case, both the professor and the Christian seek to thwart wokeness by employing established factual frameworks (the professor referencing biological knowledge, and the Christian referencing the Bible) to limit its proliferation. In doing so, they attempt to establish a boundary that wokeness cannot cross.

This approach is futile, and I’ll explain why.

The core of woke ideology is thoroughly postmodern, which means it comes with a set of theories, concepts, and tools which when taken together are capable of dissolving anything.

First off, the postmodern theorist denies the possibility of objectivity. On a postmodern view, no one can have an objective perspective on anything. All viewpoints are just that—a view from a point. Postmodern thinkers don’t believe it’s possible for anyone to get outside of their cultural upbringing and the way they were socialized. As such, the biases, interests, and prejudices of each person inevitably influence any judgment, decision, appraisal, analysis, observation, or evaluation that occurs. This means that no one can arrive at a truly objective account of anything.

On a postmodern view of the world there are no objective interpretations of either language or the world. Everything can be interpreted and understood in a nearly infinite number of ways, and there is no objective way to decide which interpretation is correct. Any statement put forward as a “fact” can be interpreted in any number of different ways. For example most people would view the statement “men are stronger than women” as an objective statement about the average height of men and women. However, the postmodernist could reinterpret it as an attempt to establish male dominance by portraying women as weak. According to the postmodern view, there is no objective way to decide which interpretation is correct.

Therefore, even if we could obtain a truly objective view of the world (which they believe is impossible), whatever description of the world we provide can be reinterpreted in any number of different ways. It would not be possible to provide an absolute, objective, universal description of anything. Whatever description of the world we provide can be interpreted in multiple ways, and there is no objective way to determine which of those interpretations ought to be considered “correct.”

The postmodern thinker does not view truth as a description of the world that corresponds to reality. Instead, they believe that determining what is true is a matter of who has the power to decide what is true and how they decide what is true. In other words, certain individuals in society are given the privilege of determining what is true because they possess the validity, credibility, legitimacy, social status, and trust necessary to be believed, and thus the things they say are true accepted as true by society at large.

In the postmodern view, a statement becomes “true” because the individuals in society with the power to decide what is true have stated that it is true. The statement’s accuracy with respect to the world does not matter. The only way for a claim to be considered “true” is when the individuals in society with the power to decide what is true have decided to say that a claim is “true.”

The catch here is that the postmodernist will assert that the people who decide what is true have their own hidden agendas, ulterior motives, cultural biases, and self-interests. As a result, these biases and self-interests distort their judgment and cause them to make truth claims in a manner that serves their own interests, agendas, and motives.

The same applies to knowledge. Knowledge is not a matter of having an awareness of understanding of the way the world really is. For the postmodern thinker, knowledge, like truth, is matter of who has the power to decide what counts as knowledge, who is believed, who has credibility, and who has legitimacy. What matters is not what actually corresponds to reality, what matters is who in society gets to decide what counts as knowledge. And, like truth, the people who decide what counts as knowledge do so in a way that benefits themselves and which serves their interests.

To oversimplify the matter for the sake of brevity, the postmodern person thinks that knowledge and power are two features of the same object, and these two features mutually reinforce each other. The people who have power get to decide what counts as knowledge and truth, and the people seen as having knowledge and truth are given additional power. The people who have the power to decide what is true use that position to increase their power, to benefit themselves, to serve their own interests, to maintain their social position, and to increase their social status, prestige, and clout.

Postmodernism and critical theory are one hell of a drug

The alloy of Critical Theory and postmodernism that we typically call wokeness posits that power dynamics are at play in every social interaction, and that no social structure, convention, institution, or arrangement is exempt from these dynamics. Once Critical Theory and postmodernism become fused, it creates a worldview that deconstructs, dismantles, and subverts everything it touches.

Rather than going through all the ways that it does this, I’ll just provide some examples of what it looks like. If you have ever witnessed woke activists in action, you will no doubt recognize the phrasing and rhetorical moves.

Take for example a couple deciding who should drive to the theater. The average person would see this as a simple matter of trying to figure out which person should drive, and that this can be resolved without one person oppressing the other. The postmodern theorist, on the other hand, would argue that whoever drives assumes power over the vehicle, which is a power dynamic. Additionally, there is a societal trope that women are bad drivers, which is reinforced when a man drives. If a man assumes that it is his responsibility to pick up the woman, he is also assuming that he should lead the date, which is a power move that oppresses the woman by placing her in a subservient position. Furthermore, postmodernists may argue that the patriarchy has created an expectation of men driving to reinforce the idea that men should be “in the driver’s seat” when dating a woman. All of this is, of course, problematic, and must be taken into account when deciding who will be driving.

Here is another example: when someone declares that a certain person is "beautiful," the woke theorist does not regard this as a simple statement of preference. Rather, they would seek to ask: by what standard is the person deemed beautiful? Who created the standard, and why was it created? Who benefits from this standard, and who is left out? Which groups stand to benefit from being considered beautiful? Why are we fixated on beauty? Why does beauty matter, and what assumptions go into our ideas of what beauty is? The woke activist would focus on the fact that being beautiful provides numerous benefits, such as increased social status, dating options, prestige, social media influence, modeling jobs, and many other advantages.

We could even use a silly example of a truck. You might say you want a new truck. The woke activist will respond with questions and arguments like: Why a truck and not a car? What is the purpose of the truck? Why do we have individually owned vehicles instead of public transportation? Is private transportation a product of capitalism, and does it reinforce capitalist ideology? Trucks are often associated with masculinity, and truck ads typically feature traditional masculine themes while excluding images of gender non-conforming people; thus truck discourse is transphobic. Is your desire for a truck the product of ad agencies, which has created a discourse where trucks are seen as a symbol of strength and power? Does the desire for a truck that is advertised in this way reflect your desire for power? Is the truck built in a way that is inaccessible to disabled people? Does the truck, with its design features for manual labor, implicitly privilege manual labor (done by able bodied people) over and above the contributions of the disabled? Do pickup trucks, which often appear in country music, cater to white people while ignoring the needs of Indigenous people and people of color? Trucks are associated with cowboys, and it was cowboys and frontiersman who colonized America at the expense of Indigenous people. Therefore the truck needs to be decolonized by being redesigned in a way that disassociates it from masculinity, ableism, sexism, transphobia and colonialism.

See how this works?

Critical Theory and postmodernism collaborate to form a worldview that is inherently limitless. This is because Critical Theory necessitates an unending process of critique, while postmodernism serves as a universal agent that dissolves any constraints or barriers that attempt to restrict or contain wokeness. Therefore, there can be no definitive endpoint in this worldview, as it continually strives to expand beyond any imposed limitations.

How do you stop a universal solvent?

How can we prevent the universal solvent from dissolving our society and civilization? While a comprehensive answer would require an article of its own, I can provide two brief suggestions here.

Firstly, familiarize yourself with the linguistic, social, and rhetorical tactics of wokeness so that you can spot and disarm them when you see them. Wokeness does not seek to win through logical argumentation or by providing evidence for its assertions. Rather, wokeness aims to win socially by attacking the legitimacy, moral authority, credibility, social status, and public standing of their opponents. They gain control of the public conversation by placing themselves in the position of being perceived as the person who is to be taken seriously, believed, deferred to, listened to, and seen as a good person. If you can learn how to combat these tactics, you can neutralize them and redirect the conversation towards facts, reason, evidence, logic, and argumentation.

Secondly, reject the underlying assumptions and premises of postmodernism that they use to dissolve everything. By exposing flaws, errors, and mistakes in these underlying assumptions, you can demonstrate that its conclusions is not based on solid ground. Rather than attacking the credibility of woke individuals, focus on their assumptions, presuppositions, and underlying premises, and show that they are deeply flawed and should be rejected for intellectual reasons. Refocusing the conversation back to truth is essential.

Wokeness has no stopping point and it cannot be appeased, satiated, or bargained with. Its unrelenting nature means that we must take action to prevent the dissolution of every aspect of our society and civilization. By arming ourselves with knowledge of its tactics and challenging its premises, we can neutralize its power and redirect the conversation towards facts, reason, evidence, logic, and argumentation. Failure to do so would be catastrophic.

==

We can't rely on this just burning itself out, or reaching a stopping point beyond which it can't proceed.

Wokeness is never done.

As Robin DiAngelo says: "no one is ever done." Its inherent paranoia and authoritarianism mean there is always another microaggression to uncover, another word to ban, another emotional ouchie to punish.

Not just denying but outright rejecting a shared humanity sure is working out super-well for humanity.