How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

I have a friend in Europe who informed me matter-of-fact that American corporate explicitly asked them to sport pronouns in their social media profiles. Or else I suppose.

Correct, the majority speak Haitian Creole, though that is a language derived in part from French. I don't want to debate whether Creole-speaking and French-speaking Haitians should be considered Latin, only point out that many people do consider them Latin, since Hispanola is part of Latin America.

French typically uses no suffix for masculine words and a -e suffix for feminine words. I am not a fluent French speaker, nor an expert in French etymology, but it is my understanding that Latino and Latina are words borrowed from Spanish (or arguably from American English), and are not originally French words themselves. Latinoaméricain(e) is also derived from Spanish (latinoamericano).

I'm love learning new things about language, so feel free to teach me something new if I have misunderstood something.

Tavistok Institute, other tax exempt foundations used as cover for agendas by the oligarchs, etc.

For a more concrete example of this type of influence, I often refer to the Norman Dodd interview. Norman Dodd was the chief investigator for the 1953 Special Committe on Tax Exempt Foundations (aka the Reece Committee). During his investigation he sent a research assistant Catherine Casey to analyze the minutes of the foundations. Apparently Norman thought she would be good to send because she was not sympathetic to the investigation, and was generally defensive of the tax exempt foundations. After actually spot-reading the minutes though, apparently it shook her so badly that she was never able to return to practicing law, and Carroll Reece had to tuck her away in a job at the FTC, and Norman Dodd says she ultimately lost her mind as a result of what she discovered. (sorry for my poorly done quick transcription)

"... finally of course the war is over. At that time their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914 when WW1 broke out. And they arrive at that point, they come to the conclusion that to prevent a reversion we must control education in the United States, and they realize that's a pretty big task. To them it is too big for them alone, so they approach the Rockefeller foundation, with a suggestion that; that portion of education which could be considered domestic, be handled by the Rockefeller foundation and that portion which is international should be handled by the endowment, and they then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American history, so they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of American history in the country, people like Charles and Mary Bird. Their suggestion to them is will they alter the manner in which they present this subject and they get turned down flat. So they then decide it is necessary for them to do as they say, "build our own stable of historians". And then they approach the Gugenheim foundation which specializes in fellowships, and say "when we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American history, and we feel they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so?" and the answer is yes. So under that condition, eventually they assemble 20, and they take this 20 potential teachers of American history, to London, and there they are briefed into what is expected of them, when as and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned. That group of 20 historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association, and towards the end of the 1920's, the endowment grants to the American Historical Assocation, 400,000 for a study of our history in a manner which points to, what can this country look forward to in the future. That culminates in a 7 volume book study, the last volume of which is of course in essence a summary of the contents of the other 6, and the essence of the last volume is "The future of this country belongs to collectivism adminsitered with characteristic American efficiency."..."

So what I posit is that "wokeism", more than just a divide and conquer tool, is something that enables the further shifting of the overton window over time towards collectivism.

Now understand that the very article itself eminates from a publication with heavy connections to this same kind of subtle influence and control. I find it quite fascinating when viewing sources like the Economist with this sort of scrutiny the kind of insight that can be elucidated simply by trying to understand what they aren't saying and what they are trying to hide, or how they are trying to influence things.

https://youtu.be/YUYCBfmIcHM?t=1506

> When enough of your peers do it, it feels downright strange to not do it

Really? Plenty of my friends on social media and a few work colleagues state their pronouns, but I've never even remotely felt that I need to.

Is it perhaps that you are quite suggestible?

I recall a researcher who lost his job for publishing research that violence on black lives by police was only covered by the media when the media understood them as sympathetic victims and so a successful strategy is to intentionally play up the helplessness of being violenced upon as opposed to militant resistance and cooperative resistance. I believe the rage about it at the time was more or less how dare this person try to finger waggle how black people can effectively protest. But the study itself was fairly milquetoast.