I have added a seperate category “woke” to group posts pertaining to this: First off, I got the idea to seperate woke from the state, while listening to this audiobook by Andrew Doyle: The new puritans https://www.audible.com/pd/The-New-Puritans-Audiobook/B09VJ38F6K
H.L. Mencken identified puritanism as:
The aching suspicion that someone, somewhere was having fun.
Of course by that definition, puritanism would have to be banned also, since its practitioners derived pleasure from denying others pleasure.
I don’t remember exactly what arguments underpinned this in this book, so let’s in this post/category list a few arguments to have this enshrined into law.
We have to be careful to not have that blocked by puritans in parliament or by lobbying puritans / puritans holflding referenda. In the Netherlands, the referendum was scrapped. It has been estimated that wokies make up only 13% of the US population. They only achieve their successes by being really loud. And 13% is probably not enough to win a referendum (check your own nation’s laws for this) This would block a lot of ongoing policy, which would make it hard for us to get this legislation passed unnoticed.
I think wokism can be classified/categorized as aggression. It is based on the self-gratifying desire to use the central power of the state against others. Therefore, once that avenue of self-gratification gets blocked, wokism will ptobably fade away.
Use their own weapons against them: the legislature. (lobby among MPs in advance) *Therefore, it depends on the innate conviction that the wokey is superior to others.
(This provokes images of Nuremberg rallies (… ), perhaps we can use that?)
* that makes it a religion, because:
it is a “levensovertuiging” / philosophy of life, look at the Dutch constitution, art. 6 (freedom of religion):$$ https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/id/vlxups19t7xw/artikel_6_vrijheid_van_godsdienst_en
1. Ieder heeft het recht zijn godsdienst of levensovertuiging, individueel of in gemeenschap met anderen, vrij te belijden, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.
2. De wet kan ter zake van de uitoefening van dit recht buiten gebouwen en besloten plaatsen regels stellen ter bescherming van de gezondheid, in het belang van het verkeer en ter bestrijding of voorkoming van wanordelijkheden.
Problem is that once again, art.6 does not exist (“behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet” / “subject to everyone’s responsibility under the law”)
Then we do not build our argument on the legal strength of art.6, but use the definitions in/the laws based on art.6.
Wokism is the conviction that one is allowed to impose one’s will on another, out of some sort of presumed superiority (moral, biological,… ), to others. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0006502/2020-01-01/0
Algemene wet gelijke behandeling
Equal treatment means: any alleged superiority/inferiority may not be used as an excuse to treat others differently (impose one’s will upon others).$#($ This on its own does not help the classification of aggressive superiority as a religion.
Ludwig van El 