Glenn West is a German musician and co-founder of the indie rock band The N… Read Full Bio ↴Glenn West is a German musician and co-founder of the indie rock band The Nucleons. Since 2005 he is a guitarist, songwriter and singer for his band. As a solo artist, Glenn West has produced his debut album Discover First along with the EP Click Jack, Kick Junk by himself in 2011.
Since June 2012, West has been working on a new EP entitled "The Explanations We Demand" with Hanover producer Hajtek. The release is scheduled for December 2012. In July, the title track of the EP was released on the Internet.

http://www.glennwest.net

TRACKS

No Related Genres

No Artists Found

More Artists Load All

No Albums Found

More Albums Load All

No Tracks Found

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Female Trap
Glenn West Lyrics

No lyrics text found for this track.

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

Most interesting comments from YouTube:

@lupin4444

23w↑6

James Lindsay responding (9/26) to Mounk's twitter thread about his new book: .

This long thread is a decent summary of ideas Helen Pluckrose and I published in Cynical Theories years ago, but unfortunately Yascha is simply wrong that this isn't Cultural Marxism (as were we at the time). This is Regime-oriented distraction from what's really happening.
Well over two years ago, I published a mea culpa on Cynical Theories and its failure to engage the Critical (and Cultural/Western) Marxism at the heart of the Woke movement. Even the thinkers presented here by Yascha are ultimately Marxist in disposition.
The First Worthy Criticism of Cynical Theories
There is a fair amount of criticism of my recent book Cynical Theories (written with Helen Pluckrose) out there now, mostly from philosophers who aren't up to the task.
Regarding Marxism, the biggest lie academia believes about it is that it's an economic theory. It isn't. It's a theology that now has many denominations. The second biggest lie is that a later dialectical criticism of Marxism isn't Marxism because it criticizes Marxism. It is.
The influence of Marxists like Gramsci, Lukacs, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Mao, and Freire on Woke is not only undeniable, it's so profoundly important that it almost renders the Postmodernist aspects a footnote, despite the fact that those ideas are integral to what's happening now.
Postmodernism is just a Marxist theory of meaning-making and political authority, especially in knowing. It's deconstructive rather than aiming to seize the means of production. It's also influential, as we wrote years ago, but it's not the whole ball of wax, not even close.
Critical Race Theory, Postcolonial Theory, and Intersectionality are extremely relevant because Western Marxism couldn't get anywhere without developing a Maoist-style identity politics suitable to the Western Alliance's specific weaknesses, which are racial, etc, not economic.
Postmodernism is necessary to move some of that ball, especially in deconstructing objective, universalist knowing and authority, but it's mostly a vehicle for a fragmented Völkish identity domain that Marxist envy and Maoist conflict can be mapped onto. That's Woke.
I don't know if Yascha is simply ignorant of this and other currents, like that Foucault is best thought of as the father of Queer Theory in addition to these other points, or if he's doing a trick to define and gatekeep the Overton Window on the subject, but he misses badly here
There are way more interesting questions than whether this is Postmodernism or Cultural Marxism, like how Marxists used and synthesized these currents to abandon the working class (Marcuse) and go corporate (Deng Xiaoping). His thread is distracting, not definitive.
It's all Sociological Gnosticism, and in that it's a Gnostic cult, it doesn't particularly care what it picks up to achieve its ends so long as the dialectic means are maintained. That said, the Cultural/Western Marxist roots and American Maoist application are the main show.

@newidealism3894

23w↑2

Does Mounk say race is not a scientific reality? One of the comments suggested that. I wonder if anyone can help me understand the criticisms being thrown at Mounk in these comments.

Honestly, I was not familiar with him until this episode and now I'm instantly a fan of his work. So now I'm learning about his ideas and trying to see where he suggests race has no scientific reality.

This episode was my first impression of him, and I loved the way his analysis draws from postmodernism, post-colonialism, and CRT.

I was intrigued by his argument against using the term 'cultural marxism' on the grounds that marxism is all about money and power, etc.. and at first, I don't find that convincing. Marxism is about power, and power takes different forms.

Also, I found a lot of insight in the observation that some anti-essentialists use "strategic essentialism." I need to give that sme more thought...

He's opposing CRT, and CRT says race is a social construct used by white people to maintain their advantage. So I would guess that Mounk is not trying to deny the scientific reality of race. I kind of don't even know in what sense you're saying race has scientific reality, either.

I'm not trying to challenge the people who dislike Mounk's ideas; I don't know enough yet. if anybody has time, please point me toward the stuff Mounk says that is awful. The comments here about him being awful seem to lack substance or refer to unspecified stuff that I don't know about.

@explrr22

23w↑3

My Take on opposition:

There's a view/understanding of the current ideological trend as a power struggle and threat akin to Marxist revolutions of last century and that it needs to be confronted with an intense and perhaps uncompromising spirit of opposition to the enemy. Yascha is quite far from that, and if anything is trying to show some sympathies, admirations, distinctions, nuance. That could weaken opposition, and provide cover for the threats. So works like Yascha's are themselves threatening, when there's this negative influence that's already approaching dominance.

There's also, what I see, as a rather questionable debate over whether we attach the label "Marxism".
-- One side points out that there's a lineage of thinker's, ideas, and sentiments to original ideas of Marx and school of thought he originated.
-- Another side objects that, several and perhaps most, of the core or foundational concepts are absent or even opposed in current concepts. Also that the original form still exists among people who largely reject the association.
-- Both points appear to me to have some accuracy. In a far from perfect analogy, you could argue that Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and others are clearly all forms of Judaism. Or are very different things and should be so considered.
My suspicion about the "Marxism" label debate: It's a debate driven more by sentiments attached to the label than the objective of understanding.

@explrr22

23w

@@newidealism3894
Some strong, well argued and ongoing criticism of the new identitarianism has come from the Socialist and Marxist Left.
Of course the boundaries of all such labels are contested.

The upside of attaching the Marxism label might be making some people see the thing as a serious threat.
The downside might be dividing opposition to the threat, or missing useful well reasoned arguments coming from the Left.
( I'm thinking of people like Susan Nieman, Freddy DeBore, Keenan Malik, etc. )
The practice of analytical thinking regarding society and economics has many more highly developed practitioners on Left. Therefore, even in a hostile environment, a significant amount of quality criticism can be found coming from the intellectual Left.
Obviously these are not dominant establishment voices, but they often get respect where accusations of cultural Marxism would likely immediately get dismissed. They argue from some traditional values and perspectives of Left, that are pretty deeply and broadly shared.
Might work...

All comments from YouTube:

@user-nx9dx8qm5y

23w↑14

Best episode in quite a while. Professor Mounk is not just a grenade thrower at wokism (as so many superficial pundits are) but has really dug deep into the intellectual origins of it. Since most of us will never read Foucault, Said, Bell, Crenshaw, et alia for ourselves, it's great to have an informed yet critical guide to their work.

@TheWhitehiker

22w

No, he's a standard Marxist theorists--hopelessly out of date, of course.

@billnorris8457

23w↑11

We want John to get well quickly. Truly.

@RavensbladeDX

23w

Hear Hear!

@lisadixon6617

23w↑20

I wish I was educated and interested enough to understand this conversation. But I still gave it a go putting away a of couple loads of laundry! Thanks for all you do Glen!

@victorbrown3570

23w↑4

I send a Loury video now and then ot my sister and she complains that they are too intellectual for her. I am far from an intellectual. However, I love language in general and I love listening to and reading about how people communicate what they want. Sure a lot of this is over my head, a 2nd or 3rd hearing would probably be beneficial though that is not likely to happen for this video. Basically, concerning things that I feel are over my head, sometimes I got nothing, a little or a lot. I do like to give things a shot though, and such intellectual discussions often give me some understanding for other such discussions / debates.

@lisadixon6617

23w↑2

Absolutely! I agree with everything you said. I quit school in 8th grade to become an adult and I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned about our world from people like Glenn on YouTube. How did we ever live without platforms like this 🤪

@msqway11

23w↑2

@@victorbrown3570 i appreciate the sentiment of your comment. all id say is: try to keep in mind that, often times, academic jargon just makes things SEEM much more complicated than they actually are.

ill watch the video and then maybe come back to see if i can give some examples of things that probably SOUND totally impenetrable to a layperson, but that arent actually that complicated when theyre restated without all the technical vocabulary. maybe. then again, maybe it really is all very complicated and i wont get it either 😅 guess i'll find out

@victorbrown3570

23w

Thanks for the feedback. I totally agree with you and your method. @@msqway11

@kmaidotia

23w

This was a complex convo, I might listen again

3 More Replies...

@newidealism3894

23w↑18

Prof Loury, very cool that you included images to help us follow this. Some of the comments makes me think people struggle to appreciate prof Mounk's work because of the way it requires familiarity with these often-misunderstood ideas like essentialism, postmodernist relativism, Bell's "interest convergence," universalism..

People like stuff they understand. Mounk's great contribution is going to go largely unnoticed.

@paigemccormick6519

23w

Not the first time images have been introduced for reference 🙂

@BS-vx8dg

23w↑4

I love John McWhorter, but wow, I was very excited to learn that Yascha Mounk would be his substitute today. I am now at 7:23, and am just now realizing that Glenn is not all that familiar with Yascha, and look forward to hopefully seeing Glenn develop a good relationship with someone with whom he can stand on many of the issues of our day.

@user-mm3bj8jj3s

23w↑2

You and John are so pleasant to listen to. You two never speak over each other. You two show so much respect for each other, as you probably would to other people. I am a clone of Glenn with a slightly different skin color. We think very much alike, John on the other hand being younger and less experienced injects a slightly different perspective. When John speaks, I listen and analyze what he has to say. He usually speaks the truth with much detail than most people can understand. Thanks guys.

@janinemartens2908

23w↑3

Thank you Glenn. You always deliver. Love from an Austin Grandmother.

@snowbirdsurfer2474

23w↑8

To your guest, see Chris Ruffo’s excellent and bestselling “America’s Cultural Revolution” for a detailed exploration of the intellectual history of todays zeitgeist.

@daveg5857

20w↑2

Excellent interview. He's very interesting. I'm contemplating reading his book now.

@lupin4444

23w↑6

@Doutsoldome

22w↑1

Thanks for posting this. I completely agree with Lindsay on the point about cultural Marxism.

@lupin4444

22w↑1

Agreed. Could be a departure point for Mounk. Lindsay was ahead of him in mapping the territory.
@@Doutsoldome

@LMarkWeeks

23w↑1

Brilliant discussion. I replayed several sections to make sure I was understanding the gist of the Mounk’s presentation.

@pwnyboy1878

23w↑9

I've found you recently sir. And I have to say this was my favorite video. I went to law school in 1998, and so I've had a unique view of these developments, and I remember arguing then that calling an idea or policy racist based solely on whether with intention or not it negatively impacted people of color slightly more was ridiculous. But according to the dictionary definition of racism right now that is true. It's interesting to see that since then there were entire disciplines that sprang up around that lack of certainty. Anyway, thanks for doing what you are doing. I suspect there are a lot of cowardly white folks who can't understand how to express their consternation at moving backward in these ways who you are quite therapeutic for. Myself included.

@cestmoi4532

18w

Thanks for this video!

@explrr22

23w↑3

Related FYI: I found Kenan Malik's perspective (book: Not So Black and White)
...useful beyond what I've picked up from recent US examinations of identity and race.
Broadening the lense in time and geography and viewing from outside US seemed useful and worthwhile.
Though Kenan published his most recent book this year, he's been critiquing identitarian trends for decades more than many recent authors. Its not great if any of these people are your sole source of understanding, but for me Kenan was both easy to read informative, and provoked some new paths of examination.

Yascha's book also seems worthwhile. I found it easy to read and relevant to current moment in political thinking contest.

@dbiedler

22w

Thank you.

@garyweglarz

23w↑11

As a kid in the early 1960's my social conscience was influenced deeply as I watched civil rights protestors trying to end Jim Crow beaten with night sticks, fire hosed, attacked by police dogs, spit on, called ever name in the book and even murdered by the Klan. What do today's college students complain about (as perhaps the most privileged in-group in human history) - "micro-aggressions," "mis-gendering," seeing the "N-word" written in a classic anti-racism novel? Yascha is spot on. It takes a profound lack of historical knowledge and understanding to conflate a nightstick with a "perceived micro-aggression."

@karimalameddine5092

23w

Thanks for this episode
🤲🙏🌷

@paigemccormick6519

23w↑9

"Critical Theory" covers the specific grievance specialties meant to tear down enlightened civilization.

@rachelforshee6014

21w

That's a bit broad and vague. Critical theory is just another tool for analysis. It's true it separates concepts into binaries, but you'd really have to get specific about which analytical mode you're talking about to make the claim "takes down the Enlightenment".

@paigemccormick6519

21w

Ask James Linsday. @@rachelforshee6014

@andrewwood7303

22w↑3

My first thought was, “James Lindsay.” James goes into excruciating detail to describe the transition from economic Marxism to cultural Marxism. Having said that, Yascha’s book is excellent in the sense that it has more of a social psychology bent.

@andrewwood7303

22w↑2

I’d love to hear James and Yascha argue the differences between their approaches.

@Doutsoldome

22w↑1

Yeah. I find Mounk's dismissiveness of cultural Marxism very frustrating.

@rachelforshee6014

21w

@@Doutsoldome I think I'd need to read both Lindsay and Mounk, but I actually agree with Mounk here. I've found most of the 'cultural' Marxism arguments to be kind of stupid. But I've also listened to Lindsay in interviews make the case for 'cultural' Marxism. He sounds like he has found a logical through line. It definitely sounds more convincing when he explains it than, say Jordan Peterson, who I don't think even understands either what 'cultural Marxism' means (either popularly or as defined by Lindsay) OR even the O.G. Marxism. I'm not even including the Fox News personalities who repeat it ad-infinitum and DEFINITELY don't understand it

@Doutsoldome

21w

@@rachelforshee6014 Ryan Chapman has a good video about this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JX4bsrj178

@warrenpeace5150

20w

Yascha seems to deliberately not acknowledge Lindsay in a pointed way.

@s.a.vanvleck45

23w↑16

Could you bring James Lindsay to your show? After an hour of Mr. Mounk I don't think I've heard much....

@readwritemike

23w↑4

He did a couple years ago.

@newidealism3894

23w↑5

Now you have to articulate your analysis and critique of prof Mounk's argument. Otherwise people might think you heard plenty and just didn't understand. :-)

@s.a.vanvleck45

23w↑2

@@readwritemike A lot has happened since then!

@curiaregis9479

23w↑2

Mounk is awful. Also, race is real. We need to accept the scientific reality of race or these discussions will never progress properly.

@karimalameddine5092

23w

@@curiaregis9479May you please elaborate? 🙂

@nathanngumi8467

21w

Very enlightening!

@ladymsthing6056

22w

Very informative interview, thank you. I also love the intelligence people in the comments section, smart audience.

@ekaterinaponizovskayadevin2812

20w

I absolutely agree with Yascha Mounk! I had exactly the same thoughts.

@777jones

17w

Talking about identity is easier than, say, completing an engineering problem set. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.

@cablenewsfanatic5634

22w

Good insights.

@explrr22

23w↑4

Yascha's book does simplify and overessentialize somewhat... I can charitably attribute that as an entry point for a general audience who might before reading be disposed to be unquestionably sympathetic to this aspect of modern political trends. The book is generally more nuanced than his book talks, and in some more challenging interviews he's more nuanced than what you find in the book. But he somtimes gets defensive and more assertive about his narrative.

@cvrart

18w

Personally, I feel like there's also a covert struggle underway between the competing inclinations towards either individualism, on one hand, and collectivism, on the other hand.

It seems like those on the "identity politics" side are veering towards setting class / identity as being the most important defining quality of a person (so, essentially segregating people again, but now in an abstract sense rather than a physical sense), On the other hand, those intellectuals who find "identity politics" most distasteful seem to be more inclined to want to break down barriers of class / identity, to break free of constraints they feel may be placed on them by being bucketed or pigeonholed based on a characteristic they may see as not being the most important defining characteristic of themselves.

If we are, according to Neal Howe's framework of thinking about generational cycles and human history, in a so-called "fourth turning", then perhaps a trend towards collectivist thinking is to be expected, along with parallel "separatist" trends like geopolitical balkanization, de-globalization, extreme nationalism, and so on. In this sense, identity politics is just one more manifestation of this tendency away from integration and a kind of "circling the wagons" in a time of crisis and a sense of existential threat - one phase of a larger pendulum swing.

@occisoft8082

23w↑1

Identity matters

@cvrart

18w

I agree that advancing policies to support people based upon a lack of access to opportunity resulting from poverty could find more universal appeal and support across the political spectrum. And it should also have the effect of helping to create a more equitable society, since we know that much poverty today disproportionately afflicts racial minorities and that the cause of these resource and opportunity disparities have significant historical roots.

Of course, there are also many poor white communities throughout America, particularly in the so-called "rust belt states" impacted over recent decades by globalization and America's de-industrialization, and such communities would benefit from any fiscal spending programs aimed at addressing poverty and lack of access to opportunities for social and economic advancement. To the extent, though, that certain racial groups have been disparately kept from economic advancement because of historical racism, those groups should disparately be the largest beneficiaries of any upliftment programs that are framed purely around poverty and lack of access to higher education or other opportunities for economic advancement.

@haydenwalton2766

23w↑3

the united states of america does definitely discriminate against one group in particular - people without capital

@bobstevens8296

17w

Mandatory military service was one of the great vehicles for accomplishing cultural and racial integration in America. In spite of all its faults the military taught the value of teamwork and tolerance like no other institution in our Republic.

@JohnDoe-et8th

22w↑1

It's frustrating that what this man says is both correct and so self-evident. The U.S. has a long, long history of modelling that "middle ground"--with immigrant groups; pride in the culture you came from, recognizing the power struggles and abuses it takes for a group to become part of the mainstream, and a basic respect on all sides for the common culture which has nevertheless permitted more multiculturalism than any other large society. Just STOP with the bad-faith, self-contradicting racism that says "race is a non-natural, constructed category" and "we should all cling to the competitive, victim-signalling race categories that now exist so we can grab our share of zero-sum power."

@entropyvortex2484

23w

It feels like he is trying to reinvent the wheel.

@paulheydarian1281

22w↑1

28:32 Seems like Glenn Loury missed Yascha's joke about the Identity wallahs at American Universities?
His lack of International travel exposure is showing. 😅

@BostonsRaddest

23w

❤

@newidealism3894

23w↑2

@BS-vx8dg

23w

I am here just to say that I think Yascha Mounk is one of the most honest intellectuals that the Left has produced in the 21st century. I admire his work greatly.

@explrr22

23w↑3

@newidealism3894

23w↑1

@@explrr22 Wow, if you're correct about him being vilified for being too moderate in his criticism of identity politics, that's startlingly similar to what the wackadoodle left is doing to moderate liberals.

Thanks for helping me catch up on the criticism of Mounk. Now that I put it all together, I see where I disagree with him about whether to call it 'cultural marxism'.

It seems best to reserve "marxism" for anything that has potential to lead to a violent rebellion of outraged victimhood warriors. Everyone from chomsky to peterson points out the way postmodernism can provide justification for violence, so.. I think the term "cultural marxism" might have some usefulness in reference to modern identity politics.

@explrr22

23w

@therichardgravesgroup4747

19w

If Bell is later positing that Brown v board of education and the idea of allowing African American students access to schools which had been separate and unequal was somehow wrong because it didn't affect the individuals who were in school at the time the people were fighting for this Equality had graduated when it came? Especially we see in hindsight measurable Evidence that access to such schools allow for a large group of African Americans to later enter the middle class.

@Andersonable

23w↑1

BU audit found no issues with his management of the center.

@kg356

23w↑1

They did but honestly what institution would want to deal with fallout of accusing a black activist of mismanaging funds?

I get that this position seems unfair to Kendi as it makes it impossible for him clear his name but that's the game he's playing. He's already come out and accused everyone who doubted him as playing into the racist trope of blacks mismanaging money. I guess we'll see what kind of work his foundation can do.

@noone8418

23w↑6

Busy but I will watch later. On the title, WE did not get obsessed with identity. Identity, like many things in the Marxist/Postmodernist vocabulary means exactly the opposite. In reality, only individuals have identity but in collectivism you are insignificant before the group. Part of how collectivism works is “fading into the crowd”. If an individual complains about their life you can probably find the sources of their problems. If you complain as a group, your individual flaws are over looked.

@user-sz8lp2tj5x

23w

I do not think that you know what this word means.

@noone8418

23w

@@user-sz8lp2tj5xWhich word? Identity? It’s your name.

@markcoveryourassets

23w

Thank you for that angle on identity. I appreciate the irony. I also see identity as a shortcut - either convenient or lazy. Sellers need to break down the tastes and perspectives of potential buyers to know what to sell to whom and how to make an appealing message to buy. Academics need to break down the population into groups about whom they can draw conclusions and publish. Politics uses both. We ALL use these shortcuts because we have limited time and limited cognitive abilities. But identity is a generality that misses or mistakes a lot of individuals. Starting in 2015, I became so interested in understanding the highly publicized incidents of black men shot by police that Twitter and Facebook concluded I was a black man. I'm white.

@kg356

23w↑1

@@noone8418This hyper individualistic notion of identity is a relatively new phenomenon. People have always identified with their tribe (be it national, religious, ethnic, or locality). Do you not 'identify' as an American or whatever your nationality is?

@noone8418

23w

@@kg356No. These are aspects, yes but no individual aspect is my identity. Or anyone else’s.

@Mark-hc8ek

23w

😢

@patrickbarnes9874

22w↑2

So this guy decided in 2023 that it was important to trace where wokism came from and how it developed. As if it wasn't already done years ago by James Lindsay, Dave Rubin, Eric & Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Chris Rufo, Peter Boghossian, and the list goes on.

Okay, well maybe this guy thought they were wrong and he's developing a new idea. But nope, turns out he's just saying the same thing today that James Lindsay said 3 years ago.

Not that I have anything against Yascha Mounk. I am happy for every sane intellectual we've got. I just find it puzzling how anybody could be interested in these issues and yet completely miss out on so many influential people.

@mlovmo

23w↑2

I wonder if Yascha has heard of James Lindsay?
And... Of course Yascha's prescription is just more government. How is that surprising?

@stevecaldwell8740

22w↑1

Stephen Hicks and James Lindsey trace a good lineage of “woke”.

@Vargen-1

23w↑3

Oof. That opening ... there are plenty of people working in academia who know the history of these ideas all too well... but few people in the public care, and some of us want to keep our jobs rather than try to make them care about the history of ideas when they don't. We didn't need an outsider to come in to "make sense" of anything. This is like listening to Bill Nye the Science guy rather than David Z Albert on quantum mechanics. The arrogance of some people.

@kg356

23w↑1

Did he say many people in academia aren't familiar with the ideas? I thought he was saying those who come from the academy aren't doing much work on this, for whatever reason. You seem to be agreeing with that.

@flutebasket4294

23w↑2

Academia is a toilet

@hex5106

23w↑7

we (the left) got obsessed with identity because we ran out of ideas to actually address our social issues....

@garyjohnson8327

21w

The problem is people lump Native Americans in to this argument. Natives are a political group, entity under the law, not a racial one

@FreeYourMindTR

23w↑2

As "identity" is assigned from the outside, some people become "obsessed" with it because of how it infringes on who and how any of us actually are and to try to counter the effects of the dehumanizing lens that assigned identities carry.

@lahaza6515

19w

All it took was enough pandering to kids and appealing to the coziness of victimhood to get future voters & billions for the pharmaceutical companies.
A perfect blend of positives for both, and a detriment the future of the country.

@f.b.4871

17w

He is partly wrong about the origin of CLS/Crit by wilfully ignoring its (Neo-)Marxist roots.

@Kombo-Chapfika

23w↑1

Foucault was a pedeau. ✌

@imnotanalien7839

23w

Teach a 6 yr. old to think of themselves as racial beings… is an interesting concept. Then the teachers would hand out a card with identifiers listed, that each child memorizes and must act accordingly.
Program the brain, all blacks would then think the same way. That sounds WOKE. What god decides on the ‘characteristics of blacks’.
Good luck!

@yolandaforster6461

23w↑1

This is political activism in the classroom and though I'm not American I believe there are laws in the US that bans teachers from bringing their politics into the classroom. Parents need to attend school board meetings and push back. Take back control of your children's education.

@loonadeux

23w↑2

Sorry, I can’t forgive Yascha totally ripping off James Lindsay and completely throwing Bret Weinstein under the bus in a self-serving and cynical attempt to become the palatable “anti-woke” lite option. Not cool, Yascha. Not going to forgive and forget. Not that you care.

@Doutsoldome

22w

Agreed.

@Sneaky-Sneaky

22w

The first time I saw the beginnings of what we see today was in 1975….when women’s studies programs were just getting started in higher education in California ….. go figure!

@Doutsoldome

22w↑2

6:50 I already disagree. Mounk seems unable to see the connection between classical, economical Marxism and intellectual descendants of it, like the works of Gramsci and of the people associated with the Frankfurt School, like Horkheimer and Marcuse. To say that there is no cultural Marxism is myopic, not to say idiotic.

Of course the ideas of cultural Marxism are not identical to classical Marxism and veer away from economics - that's why it is cultural Marxism! It is so frustrating when people get stuck in the argument that if it doesn't concern primarily with economics, then it is not Marxism. It is a DIFFERENT kind of Marxism, that shares with the classical theory many important characteristics, BUT NOT ALL! Whales and elephants are not the same species, but are both mammals (adapting an analogy from James Lindsay)!

Marcuse is as important for understanding the woke ideology as Foucault. The woke ideology fuses different things together and it is irrelevant if the original, not mixed theories of each branch disagrees with the other. It doesn't matter if the true adherents of the Frankfurt School style of cultural Marxism and the true adherents of postmodernism are completely at odds on some fundamental views. What matters is that both were used as sources for the mixed product that became the woke ideology - which is different from the inaltered forms of both parent ideologies. And, yes, Marx is a source for a lot of the underlying ideas.

To be honest, when Mounk says that those linking the woke ideology to a cultural Marxism he doesn't believe exists "are not trained in the intellectual history," I can't resist thinking that he should either buy a mirror or be less dismissive of people who disagree with his views.

@ladymsthing6056

22w↑1

Thank you for breaking that down. I wasn’t sure why he was downplaying cultural Marxism.

@stud6414

22w

Yascha is a hack and such a waste as a "intellectual" to accurately confront the issue.

@georgekleinfelter7041

23w↑6

The comments here are as depressing as this conversation was enlightening and insightful.

@kennybrhouston

22w

I read Yascha's opening chapters of his new book, where he ascribes blame for identity politics to 'postmodernism'. I'm afraid it's profoundly unconvincing. It's just wrong. There is a whole swathe of normative scholarship out there that is missing from his analysis, which is more culpable for identity politics that PM.

@JonLeeSpradlin

23w↑1

“How are we going to build solidarity if…?” You might want solidarity M, but these people you are criticizing couldn’t care less about solidarity with people like me (traditional straight white male). If people like you and Glen Loury are unable to stop them, then people like me will be left with no recourse but to engage with them on their terms.

The first thing you need to do, if you are serious about your struggle and are doing more than just selling books, is go back to the drawing board on your branding. “Identity Synthesis” is a joke. You appear to be smarter than that, which makes me question the entire project.

@readwritemike

23w↑46

Sorry, Yascha, but not mentioning James Lindsay by name is a cop out. Also, he’s right and your analysis is limited.

@explrr22

23w↑10

Reflecting....
I'm going to guess there are many others who have publicly shared an analysis and opined and
...he's also not mentioning...
I can think of at least half a dozen off the top of my head.

Not sure any of them are "right". All humans are going to have biases and make mistakes. As I see it, it's up to us to react. I'm trying to make my best quality assessment, without too much personal attachment! 🤔

@newidealism3894

23w↑20

How are going to say someone's analysis is limited in this low effort, two sentence comment with no elaboration! I'm halfway through and already benefiting a lot from this discussion. Come back and engage with it more meaningfully when you have time.

@YigalWeinstein

23w↑12

I profoundly agree that Yascha makes a massive disservice to the existing body of work in this area by not validating Lindsay's work.

@oraz.

23w↑1

James Lindsay is overrated and his conspiratorial focus on an academic mind virus. This guy does do a similar thing though. It's kind of a blank slate theory where ideas themselves are the first cause, not social dynamics like a gender shift in leadership or overproduction of elites.