Is the "Omnicause" real?

[TooBigForMyBoots]

I've noticed an increase of this term across Mnet recently.

Am I the only one who thinks it's a form of "forced teaming"? A nonsense buzzword used by internet culture warriors to sow division? A bogeyman like the Illuminati in the 2010s?

Or is it a real thing?

What is the difference between ‘the omnicause’ and ‘woke’.

They both seem to be based on the oppressed/oppressor school of thought.

As usually used today, no difference.

But "woke" previously meant being aware of everyday structural biases built into our culture and institutions, and more specifically racism. I think that was a useful and valuable meaning and it's a real shame it got lost.

I prefer omnicause because it better describes the way several different concerns have become a single "right thinking" monolith which in certain political tribes one is expected to take on wholesale.

The truly interesting thing about people who think "Omnicause" is real, is that many also refuse to ever study Psychology as a "real science" and would always insist that therapy is rubbish and not worth the money.

It's like watching a toddler try to do his shoelaces because they don't understand the basics of their term don't fit with human behaviour.

Wow. Honestly, that's telling me more about your prejudices than anything else.

You certainly aren't describing me!

I'm a tory voting white male who would actually like all the immigration to stop - I tend to keep my opinions firmly to myself at all times.

As attractive as you're making it sound, I'll pass.🤣🤣🤣

I've never been a member of any political party. I don't think it would suit me or them.🤣🤣🤣

I didn't mention pro-life or pro- choice in my OP.

Woke now includes Nick Fuentes!🤯🤯🤯

It’s a word invented by people on right and center who don’t want their right-wing positions to be criticised. The left oppose the anti-rights movement, so any one who opposes the rights of say Palestinians or transgender people but supports the rights of others will suggest these issues are somehow unrelated.

There are some outliers - Ukraine, for example. Real tankies support or at least excuse Russia, whereas others on the left support Ukraine.

It’s entirely coherent to oppose genocide, the destruction of the environment and support trans rights. Most people who aren’t deeply involved in politics have a pick-and-mix version of policies they like. They will get scolded by people on the left, which is off-putting for your average voter.

Perfect description, except I think you meant "pro choice".

I think it's a bit less common on the right. There tends to be more pragmatism about coalitions, for example.

The purity spiral does spin up so easily.

It seems to be that left have no nuance. They are all far left and nowhere but the far left. Then there are lots and lots of centrists, then centre right, a bit further right and then far right. So a far smaller number of right wingers are "agree with me or die in a grease fire" whereas pretty much everyone who identifies as left wing, both here and elsewhere, will start right in with the insults, slurs and threats if you even ask a question. There just doesn't seem to be any nuance or discussion at all with the left, if you're not absolutely onboard with everything on the omnicause you're to be burned at the stake.

You get that on the farthest right hand side of the spectrum, but yes right wing comes in all sahdes and conservative/centrist and right wing people tend to be huge believers in free speech, freedom of movement, and not being under state control or handing over their children's or their own rights to the state or to the omnicause.

I don’t like the phrase. It sounds like another lazy way to dismiss a whole group of people - see ‘woke’, ‘snowflake’ etc. - which isn’t helpful.

As a leftie who holds some views that don’t fit with the popular left wing narrative, I do recognise the issues ‘omnicause’ is trying to encapsulate. I have felt quite at odds with left politics over the last few years because although I’m a ‘good leftie’ on some things, e.g.

I’m further left than centre - I believe in proper socialism and don’t think Labour go far enough on many issues.

I’m not up in arms about immigration and think the whole issue has been completely blown out of proportion and hyped up by the right as THE pressing issue affecting our society, which is absolute bollocks and detracting from the real issues.

I’m pro-choice.

I supported BLM and still do.

I think Reform are a bunch of hateful, racist wankers…

I am also a ‘bad leftie’ because:

I’m gender-critical and on the radical end of the feminist spectrum, not the lib fem #bekind end (which apparently makes me ‘transphobic’)

I think the identity stuff has gone too far. I think Queer Theory is bollocks. I’d rather cut off my right arm than ‘bring my whole self to work’. I think pronouns and all the new, made-up sexualities are nonsense. (which probably makes me a racist / homophobic/transphobic/ privileged bitch?).

I’m disgusted with Netanyahu and the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza, but I support the existence of the state of Israel and am deeply concerned by the rise of antisemitism in the UK (which makes me an evil ‘Zionist’)

I think the Green Party are a bunch of loons and Polanski is an egotistical little prick, no better than Farage.

Still - who’s actually using the term ‘omnicause’? It sounds like something far right dickheads on social media started and GB News will jump on. Just not a helpful way of analysing and responding to the issue it tries to describe.

I'm only encountering it on this thread but it seems like another made up term by the right to attack the views they don't like. Just like they made up antifa.

@LeanBackAgain
You sound almost exactly like me 5 years ago when the term woke started being used in a similar way. I was probably less of dickhead then.

@gullgal
Making up terms to attack views you don't like seems a valid reason to make up a term to me. All terms are made up by someone.
And lots of people on the thread, left and right recognise the phenomenon it describes, just as I expect they understand what is meant by antifa.

I'm pretty sure Antifa called themselves that back in the day.

And thank you to PP for "anti rights", which I think might be the term I was struggling to find that is the left's equivalent to Omnicause to label a bundle of right wing views, though still a more an accusation of moral failing than gentle mocking.

The right absolutely love useful idiots on the left - in particular the reactionary anti-rights gender critical movement and the DSA’s support for the removal of USAID. This is why you have right wing grifters and even the black shirts using gender critical slogans. Left wing people are much less willing to form coalitions with those who are anti-rights for specific causes. The right don’t care - they will use anyone to further their cause.

@Mouldemort ,

‘It’s entirely coherent to oppose genocide, the destruction of the environment and support trans rights. Most people who aren’t deeply involved in politics have a pick-and-mix version of policies they like. They will get scolded by people on the left, which is off-putting for your average voter.’

Is anyone pro genocide or climate change? And trans rights are complicated, because in many areas they conflict with women’s rights.

I think that what is wrong with the thesis is that it rolls a whole lot of complex issues into one and tells people what they should think.

I mean Israel/Palestine is actually horribly complex. It can’t be ‘analysed’ using a simple analogy or solved easily. If it could have, it would have. Ditto climate change, it is a very serious problem, but very few people (especially the wealthy educated left wingers) will accept any real restrictions to their own lives (foreign holidays, warm homes, bigger houses than they need etc etc).

That is the problem with modern politics. People want to feel good about themselves and expect to be able to justify their views with 60 second sound bites. Politics is complex and a good politician spends time engaging with the opposite viewpoint and modifying their own opinions.

So we get caricatures-‘woke’, ‘alt right’, ‘omnicause’ etc

The right absolutely love useful idiots on the left
That's inaccurate, I don't think you're useful Mouldy.

I can only agree - i might be an idiot but I’m not useful to the right.

Israel / Palestine is horribly complex, but opposing the vast civilian casualties caused by the war crimes of the IDF is absolutely a coherent left-wing position.

The gender critical position of “won’t anyone think about the women and children,” has been used by bigots who oppose every minority. They highlight every member of the group they dislike who has done wrong, disparage their identities as criminal, pathological or perverse and then undermine their rights in law. This has been the case for gay people, black people, Muslims and now trans people. This is why you get make athletes who couldn’t give a toss about women’s sports wearing “adult human male” shirts and pretending to be trans.

SM, especially short sound bites such as TikTok, YouTube shorts and Reels have a lot to answer for in the political discourse.

Both woke and the term Omni cause aren't meant to be entirely serious. I think maybe that's what the OP fails to get.

The absolutely describe something real, but are pointing out a kind of failure in the group who think and behave that way.

Woke if course used to be a serious term. It is now applied ironically to I'd politics people who are convinced they are "alive to injustice" but are in fact completely oblivious to nuance and usually their own racism.

That's why it's a compelling label, they are in fact the opposite of aware.

Omni cause is similar. It's people who ruin a knitting forum because they are so wrapped up in purity spirals. Lesbian bars that get piled on on social media because they remove masking rules in 2026, or people who think you can't be concerned about pollution without being pro-Palestine.

It's characterised by purity spirals, cancel culture, and complete inability to think through issues.

Those things only make you a 'bad leftie' if you've decided to surrender your own understanding of what it means to be left wing to the new definition thrust upon us by a combination of a vocal minority on the left, and the amplification as a stereotype by the right to discredit us.
GI, for example, is contrary to a number of 'good left' principles. The greatest good to the greatest number, the sacrifice of personal desires to the collective good, equal distribution of resources in accordance with need, the recognition of sex based differences and the need to protect sex based rights etc.
Pressure to expend disproportionate resources on a tiny minority, half the population expected to compromise for less than 1%, individual rights and feelings of the advantaged group (males) prioritised over the less advantaged group (females) is actually more akin to extreme liberalism rather than anything rooted in the left wing ideology. Which is presumably why the BCP never adopted it.