As many of you know and fewer appreciate, I have been aiming to expose a phenomenon called the “Woke Right” for some time now. This whole matter is an issue of considerable and rather fierce debate.
Is “Woke” the right word for them? Are they really “Right”? Should we call them something else? Is this really even happening? Does it even matter? Is this even important?
Each of these is a worthy enough question and matter for its own debate, but regarding the question of whether “Woke” is the right term for them, I haven’t been fully convinced despite my heavy use of the term. As you’ll see momentarily, I’m now far more convinced.
So far, I have attempted in various X (née Twitter) arenas to explain why I think the term “Woke Right” fits and to identify some examples, and I’ve done a couple of podcasts explaining the phenomenon and making the case more fully. I’ve also done a number of interviews. Still, it remains an open question, are they really Woke, so I decided to do a little experiment. A throwback to an earlier James, if you will. And, as it happens…
We are so back.
To put the conclusion out front before I explain myself, I figured a good way to test the “Woke Right” for Wokeness would be to submit a little hoax essay to what I presume is their flagship publication, American Reformer. To produce this “Woke Right” hoax, I took a couple thousand words straight out of The Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (better known as the Communist Manifesto), and lightly modified it into a “Woke Right” critique of liberalism, which the so-called “Woke Right” hate. They published it: The Liberal Consensus and the New Christian Right (It’s archived here in case they take it down).
I figured there’s nothing more definitively Woke than the Communist Manifesto, so I think we can drop with the inverted commas here and get on with calling them the Woke Right after this. They published Karl Marx’s definitive Communist work, dressed up to resemble their own pompous, self-pitying drivel, when it was submitted from a completely unknown author with no internet footprint whatsoever bearing the name “Marcus Carlson” (get it? Haha).
That question answered raises the deeper second question above—which I will not address here—about if they are really on the “Right,” as they consistently claim they are. For them on this, I’ll only say, I have been using the term “Right Hand of the Left.”
So what did I do, and why did I do it? Before explaining myself, I’ll explain the mechanics of this little prank.
I started by taking the preamble and then just short of six continuous pages of text from the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto. This chapter is titled “Bourgeoisie and Proletarians” and is the part of the manifesto where Marx and Engels make the case that the bourgeoisie (middle class, owners, management, and wealthy) as a class is abusive of the proletariat (workers) as a class in just about every way you could imagine. I then rather crudely swapped out references to the bourgeoisie with something to do with either liberalism, liberals, classical liberalism, or their real and mighty bugbear that they call “the post-war liberal consensus,” which they believe oppresses them. Concurrently, I swapped out references to the proletariat with references to an object they call the “New Christian Right” as a way of referring to themselves. I then massaged some of the specifics for fit, flourish, and flow, cut a bunch and consolidated to fit the word count requirement, attached the document to an email from a made-to-order burner account, and hit “send.” A few days later, they published it on American Reformer with minimal edits.
So far as these terms of art go, meaning “post-war liberal consensus” and “New Christian Right,” I didn’t invent them. I took them from a couple articles published on American Reformer aiming to describe their own movement, what it’s about, and what it believes oppresses them. While these are technically terms to explain in another time and place, what I noticed (when re-reading The Communist Manifesto to prepare a pair of podcasts about it) is that Marx’s complaints about the bourgeoisie and vision of the proletariat match what I had read on American Reformer itself about the Woke Right with regard to the “liberal consensus” and liberalism along with their vision for a New Christian Right. It required shockingly minimal editing to make Karl Marx’s arguments transform into Woke Right arguments about American liberalism. (In fact, I have the original first step document in its raw form, if anyone wants to see it, revealing just how fast the connection is.)
So, that’s what I did. Why did I do it? And why target American Reformer?
I don’t have any particular animus against American Reformer to speak of, but so far as I know, it’s the flagship publication for what I’ve been calling the Woke Right, or at least the Protestant “Christian Nationalist” (or, “Ecumenical Integralist”) wing of the Woke Right. It makes a good target, though, because American Reformer represents not the cringe-inducing (antisemitic) fringe of the Woke Right but its more respectable, mainstream wing. Beyond that, I know rather little about it because, as I’ve said many times, I mostly find the Woke Right to be an enormously irritating distraction that I don’t actually give much time to and try to avoid thinking about entirely. Wandering into Woke Right thinking is far too easy a mistake for us to keep making, I keep telling myself, but we, as a loose coalition, keep making it. Maybe that’s because it has a ton of money behind it and because they use divisive Woke dialectical tactics to divide movements and collect supporters….
What I learned doing the Grievance Studies Affair, however, is that if you can’t tell people about an ideological problem out there in the world, you can show them instead by participating directly, if disingenuously. That is, you can hoax them and get them to publish a blatant caricature of their own beliefs in an embarrassing yet informative way. Rather famously, I, et al., got a feminist social work academic journal to accept a rewrite of a chapter of Hitler’s Mein Kampf as a pathway forward for intersectional feminism as a movement.
Moreover, I learned that if you’re going to target publications for a “hoax-ish” exposé, you should aim at the most significant one you can. That turns out to be American Reformer, which I also featured in one of my podcasts about the Woke Right. (Incidentally, I learned almost all I really needed to know about the Woke Right, their arguments, their mentality, etc., from that one article I read for the podcast, which isn’t surprising because Woke Right “philosophy” is effectively just another Grievance or Woke architecture, and these are all extremely easily produced once you know the names for various pieces and the specific accusations attached to them.)
Why did I do it? That’s a lot simpler. I suspected that the so-called Woke Right really is Woke; many people disagreed; and I wanted to test that hypothesis instead of arguing about it to very little effect. Up to now, when I have pointed it out, argued it, explained it, and discussed it, I’ve been vigorously assured I’m completely wrong and this “New Christian Right” is not Woke at all. In fact, I learned I’m the bad guy here: “attacking Christians,” “punching Right,” “punching down” (amusingly), “gatekeeping,” and “being subversive, divisive, or [insert any of many slurs].”
Well, I’ve been here before, and back then a simple test sufficed. I ran this test once in the Grievance Studies Affair to expose the Left in academia. It was easily replicated against the so-called Woke Right. The result, though limited in scope, is a positive one. The Woke Right is Woke enough to argue against liberalism in exactly the same pompous and conspiratorial way (literally) Karl Marx argued against his own class enemy. So, if by “Woke” we mean running the Woke operating system and sociopolitical architecture, the Woke Right is clearly Woke.
So, circumstances relevant to the Woke Right also compel me to ask, is this me attacking Christians or “dividing the right”? Well, no. You are free for yourself to decide if the “New Christian Right” represents Christians or Christianity, but this was little more than a simple test to see if they’re a Woke duck. They walk like a Woke duck. They talk like a Woke duck. They’re a Woke duck.
They considered a lightly modified excerpt from the Communist Manifesto to be a “powerful article” for who they are and what they think (that we can expect they will not stand behind now that they know what it is, of course). If that aligns with Christianity is something for others to decide. If spotting this worrying Woke trend as it permeates the movement to stop Woke is “dividing the right,” maybe using terms like “right” here isn’t what we need to be doing. Maybe we should just be stopping Woke, however it presents itself.
Does this mean I’m saying the Woke Right are Communists? No, not at all. Historically, Fascism was a reaction to Communism that adopted the Communist operating system but not Communism or its specific agendas. In fact, they adopted the operating system of Communism specifically to be “anti-Marxist” (according to Mussolini)—just like the Woke Right. I do not think the Woke Right are Communists—aside from some infiltrators who must certainly be taking advantage of the Woke Right movements. I think they have taken up the Woke operating system, nothing more, nothing less. I do hope we won’t now repeat obvious historical mistakes, but I’m not accusing them of being Communists. They did not accept a Communist, qua Communism, text but a modified version that flatters their sensibilities.
In fact, it’s rather the opposite, in a way. The Woke Right, or at least the nerd-macho “New Christian Right” at American Reformer, etc., positions itself as the only viable solution to Communism in the West. In fact, their niche is something like being the only outfit, broadly construed, that is capable of equipping the American Church of resisting Communism—and certainly they have positioned themselves vigorously against my work as being productive to that particular cause. Well, as is evident, they haven’t done their homework at all. Clearly, my hoax essay only passed editorial muster because, it is now abundantly clear, these particular fellows are unlikely even to have read the Communist Manifesto. If winning a war requires knowing your enemy, as Sun Tzu said, they don’t even recognize him when he shows up on their own front door.
As a final question, you might be wondering how tight this hoax is. I’ll let you judge for yourself. Here (pdf), you’ll find a document showing the whole story in four appendices: a comparative back-and-forth text, the final submitted text (American Reformer published a very lightly edited version of this), the relevant sections of the Communist Manifesto, and my initial word and concept–swap so you can see my process before the final editing. A small sample of the back-and-forth text, from beginning and end, are offered here as a taste.
Communist Manifesto:
[p. 27, preamble] A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
American Reformer:
A rising spirit is haunting America: the spirit of a true Christian Right. Moreover, all the existing powers of the American Regime since the end of the Second World War have aligned themselves against it and its re-emergence from the shadows of American civic life, politics, and religion—the Marxist Left and its neo-Marxist “Woke” descendant, the liberal establishment, the neoconservatives, and their police and intelligence apparatuses.
There are two consequences of this unholy alliance. First, the Christian Right itself is recognized by all these forces to be a power and thus a threat. Second, it is time for this arranged order to end and for a New Christian Right to emerge and stake its rightful claim on twenty-first century American politics.
The Communist Manifesto:
[pp. 36–37, ch. 1] This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself.
American Reformer:
This organization of the New Christian Right into a movement will continually be upset again by the competition between its various factions, but it is rising. We take no enemies to the Right and always redouble our efforts to our Left. In that way, we ever rise up again, stronger, firmer, mightier for all these contests. For this reason, in the end, we will win back our culture and take back our communities, and the liberals can go ahead and thank themselves.
I’ll close here and open the space for discussion. This is my explanation for this little experiment. My conclusion is that I validated my hypothesis in a significant way that will advance the debate. The Woke Right is Woke. They saw themselves in what can only be called a “Communist Manifesto for Christian Nationalists.”
35 comments
Kept the pathos, switched the logos, and seethed the whole time. You started writing this on Michaelmas, didn’t you?
Fascism/Christian Nationalism is a reaction to Communism. Both are equally dangerous and destructive. I draw no distinction between extremist party agendas. They are two sides of the same coin the masses are subjected to, and not just economically.
” — Both are equally dangerous and destructive. –” Hmm ….. Christian Nationalism is not equal to Fascism either in philosophy, action, or threat to democracy. Maybe this is an exaggeration?
I remember when the adjective woke first started to pop up, when it was used positively by the woke themselves. It described a person whose eyes had “been opened”, who now realized that commonly accepted concepts like gender were “merely constructs”, that racism was an integral part of the current socio-political systems, and that those who were “favored” by this system were therefore inherently racist… that reality itself was subjective, etc., etc. The cultish and intransigent character of woke ideology is only secondary to the ideology itself. Therefore while there is certainly a cultish, dogmatic right, to use the term “woke” to describe it seems absurd to me, and undermines your fundamental point, I think…
“Great idea” Mind-blowing from a logical point of view. You can go far with this. Then through this “Overton window” one can advance the idea that good and evil are also just a social construct. Next, create a sheet with the inscription “WHAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED” in the direction WE need, for example, “love”, “hatred”… These are not deep psychological feelings at all. You are a “tabula rasa”, we are experimenters, we have a lot of resources. Maybe I’m exaggerating, but that’s exactly how it looks. This is how Hollywood and similar “global media, corporations” operate, brainwashing.
As they used to teach me in the university, we have to try to understand the views around the center and draw our own conclusions from those discussions. It’s not easy. Always be aware that you might be in a bubble and pay attention to telltale signs.
Careful James – once you finally realise that no elite level perpetrator of ‘woke left or right’ believes any of it in reality you’ll see these things are just tools. Then you’ll realise that ‘Marx’ compared to a restatement of Marx as a tool isn’t actually Marx.
My comments on your YouTube channel are always deleted. If X was actually free speech, I’d say this there. I want you to know there are those of us that see this problem and agree with you. This is a growing issue that will need to be dealt with. I hope we can defeat the woke right, or at least weaken it as the woke left have been weakened. It’s harder now, the call is coming from inside the house. But you are correct in your concerns, so don’t let them stop you.
No offense, James, but don’t you have more important things to do? To me, the debate over the “woke right” is child’s play. It’s like watching children in a playground saying “you’re woke” and then the other child replying “I know I am but what are you”? Or “my woke can beat up your woke”. This is just silly. I expected more from you, Mr Lindsay.
What shall we do with these infections on the right as they metastatisize? James is even being attacked by Tim Pool now. We’ll need to put a stop to this sooner than later or the movement for freedom will be destroyed by these people.
Clearly, this says as much about woke left, right, middle – woke anywhere. The real axis in politics is up-down, and left-right has been used to hide it for so long. They even wrap up their politics in this left-right discussion. Marx was onto something, when he recognised the part of the struggle is us and them. The other part is recognising the slave owners behind the disguises they wear to pretend they are servants and not masters. The administrative classes are the footsoldiers, they are the enemy of freedom from every point of view, creating their own little empires but producing nothing. But calling everybody who ever built anything “bourgois” and then tearing down their creations is distinctly left. But the right will attack anything vaguely collective and consensual, such as unions, even though the fundamental idea of joining forces to even up the marketplace in labour through increased bargaining power, is not anti-capitalist in its intent. Even the libertarians can be woke in their way, and attack anyone with any political grip whatsoever.
James, any chance you can insert the New Christian Right species into the Marxist Faith genus?
Well done. I didn’t at first believe James about some people he includes in the Woke Right, like Daryl Cooper. Then I listened closely to Cooper’s words, on more than one occasion (check Cooper’s podcasts, say with Noam Dworman, after the fall out of the Tucker interview), where Cooper uses turns of phrase like “. . . flung into this existence” or “. . . all this human material” – he was speaking sympathetically about Uday Hussein.
It’s good that James is exposing this element and people like Tim Pool or Cernovich. If you want some clear examples of Cerno’s woke tendencies, look up the tweets Cernovich put out in the hours or days just after Trump won the 2024 election. Many of the tweets sound like a madman bent on actualizing some very, very deep revenge fantasy, knowing some of Cerno’s background, it could be lingering ressentiment from his early days. I’m not saying Cerno is a fascist, but he was and in some ways still is very interested in the Trump camp punishing anyone who was anti-Trump as well as the Dems.
Yes, James you are winning and have been right. I do wish you’d attack the ideas (Clint Chavarria does this especially well) and goals (to the extent they have them) of the Woke Right rather than doing more personal attacks. Auron or Sargon, as influencers, are one thing, but look into Michael Millerman who has been promoting all of the thinkers that Clint or James point out as those thinkers whose ideas are sourced from the same metaphysics and ontology of the Woke Left: Strauss, Dugin, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Schmitt, Evola, etc. Clint’s mapping of philosophical sources is very close to one made by TIK of TikHistory (youtube channel).
From what I gather, just like the Woke Left, there are many who buy into the insights or criticisms of the Woke Right without realizing the problems of the mystical source philosophical ideas/ontology.
My mistake (I had listened to a lot of pods with Darryl just after the Tucker broadcast and they kind of blurred together). The pod where Cooper uses these phrases about Hussein was the one he did with the The J. Burden Show, Ep. 238: Martyr Made at about 1:02:09. No confusion intended, and the podcasts Darryl does with Noam Dworman are still elucidating.
I truly value the work you’re undertaking. Addressing the distinction between the teachings of Jesus and Christian Nationalism could greatly benefit from your insights. Clarifying this difference might foster a broader understanding and acceptance of your message among a wider audience. Just a thought.
There is a reason Communism is considered a Christian Heresy. It’s close enough to standard Christian philosophy that someone not paying attention can fall right into the trap. That’s *how* a lot of Christians jave ended up on the Left.
Brilliant as always.
I saw this form of woke creeping in from the right side, and woke is the right name for it.
I would read these outlandish comments and think “hey aren’t they doing exactly what they’re accusing the other side of doing?”
I first noticed it with rad fem and mgtow as they share the same beliefs but with the sexes flipped. I’ve seen the occasional antisemitism but it’s the open misogyny I find more prevalent. I’d see one video rightly criticizing an activist, but if the activist was female it was far more vitriolic.
“Women shouldn’t vote.” calls for subjugation etc. Claiming to be against TRAs while being as equally dehumanizing and misogynist as them.
Lumping a few activist women into women as whole; the same way I’ve seen rad fems lump all men as violent rapists.
Why throw in with either lot. They’re both equally terrible and equally blind to the rot from within.
Makes thankful I try to remain centrist, though both demonize that as well.
“You’re either all in with our dogma or you’re a heretic! And I bet you hate trans, Christians etc!”, whatever suits their cause.
They’re so alike it’s sickening…and they don’t even see it.
James, I think that you really need to determine what your goal is in writing, speaking and teaching. You are obviously a very talented intellect and an asset to the conservative movement, when you remain on course. I admit that what you did by slipping in the Communist Manifesto with some new words is a cute trick which I am sure has embarrassed the American Reformer magazine. But what is your overall purpose? Why even bother with this (IMO misguided) focus?
An objective observer needs to ask: which is a greater threat to American society: the radical Woke (as evidenced by Critical Race Theory, BLM, queer ideology and transgenderism being taught to elementary school kids, the various forms of cultural Marxism which you have documented so well in your books, the 100% capture of universities, the DEI industry and its acceptance into academic, corporate and federal government institutions), or so-called Christian Nationalism, which, as far as I can tell, currently has little measurable influence on anything outside of churches and some political thought? I think that it’s obvious that radical Woke ideology is about 100 times more dangerous than the so-called Christian Nationalism or Christian Right. If you divert time, energy and political capital into putting up this bogeyman called Christian Nationalism (or your term “Woke Right”), and present it like it is some sort of future fascism endangering America, then I think that you are barking up the wrong tree. It’s not that there may not be some minor truth in criticizing it, it’s just that the idea of attacking the Christian Right simply seems way out of proportion to the supposed “damage” that it might do to America (let’s go back to the traditional definition of marriage – wow, how terrible!). Indeed I think that anybody who puts the Christian Right on par with the Radical Left should re-examine his priorities and sense of proportionality.
In my opinion the term “Woke Right” is definitely a mislabel. “Woke” has been virtually unilaterally applied to the radical Left and its cultural Marxist roots, and it is identified with the Left by 99% of the public. Just because some thinkers on the Right might fit some academic or pedantic definitions of “Woke” doesn’t mean that the moniker fits. I think that you should think up something else. And not give it too much attention or, but better to stick with criticizing the truly Woke – the Radical Left.
Big applause for this. Not just what you did, but it is so good to see people within a group doing some self-policing. Being aware of the faults of their opposition, and saying, “Let’s not behave like them, because we don’t want to become them.”
AR has changed the author name from Marcus Carlson to James Lindsay. The comments are hilarious.
I think the Christian Right is in many ways irrational, and thus I don’t much like it. But calling it “woke” or “communist” is just an exercise in semantics.
Fascism/Christian Nationalism is a reaction to Communism. Both are equally dangerous and destructive. I draw no distinction between extremist party agendas. They are two sides of the same coin the masses are subjected to, and not just economically.
It’s interesting planting hoax writing essays especially when one has the game all figured out. Thank you, James. ✝️❤️
James really needs to find a new audience. And should probably stop talking at churches. I know James is still a skeptic at heart, he’s not technically on “the right”. If he went on tours with Michael Shermer, Peter Boghossian and Colin Wright with only five people showing up at the speaking events, it would probably be better for his sanity in the long term over all.
Statism is a political philosophy that holds that the government. i.e. the State, has total control over every aspect of a citizen’s life.
Statism denies the legitimate rights of an individual, including the rights to self-ownership; personal liberty; privacy; freedom of speech; the keeping and bearing of any type and quantity of weapons; self-defense; private property rights, and freedom of association/non-association, and freedom of contract.
It controls every sector of the economy. It controls–thus factually owns–the means of production and all of the the products of the means of production.
There are four expressions of Statism: Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Theocracy.
Here, in essence, is what the “left wing” and “right wing” stand for, and are fighting for:
The “left wing” advocates Socialism and Communism. This is the Woke Left.
The “right wing” advocates Fascism and Theocracy. This is the Woke Right.
To be woke is to view human action, all interactions, all institutions through the lens of Statism, which enable one to see “true reality” behind the facades of “systems” that impose and perpetuate “oppression” in all of its forms.
Both wings of Statism wage war against each other to determine which Statism will ultimately stand on top of an enormous pile of smoldering corpses, enslave the survivors–inevitably including their own “comrades” or ‘”godly faithful”–and rule the world.
Yes, Miss Rand 😀
This.
It seems that American Reformer simply changed the name of the author on the article. Congratulations on articulating their position so well, Dr. Lindsay! Even if it was a hoax, you wrote it well enough for them to appreciate and own it. By the way, just because you used the format of a “manifesto” (mirroring Marx) doesn’t inherently make the content especially Marxist or “woke” or whatever.
If being ‘woke’ means championing socially oppressed classes and working to empower them, the New Christian Right (NCR) sees itself as such a class and is in that sense woke. But Marxism is mostly a critique of capitalism, and the NCR is not anti-capitalist but anti-cultural liberalism, especially when it becomes government enforced, so I’m thinking that calling the NCR “woke” may not be durable as a label. When I think “woke” I think Marxism/anticapitalism, and in that sense NCR isn’t woke. Or am I missing something?
It would be interesting to know the stance of their eschatology. It’s a serious contender for living in the “times”.
On another note, (can’t remember who said it) the family unit is a microcosm of communist ideals and becomes more individualistic outside of the unit as we operate in the world. Just a thought…. perhaps the “Christian extended family” applies. From day one, Christians lived communally. Woke Left Christians take this to the next level with their “Hippy Jesus”, Christian Nationalists only love their neighbor if they believe society should run as a theocracy.
I hoped to be more eloquent, but alas….
Hmm, your contemporaries in the anti-woke movement think this is punching down do they? Yeah, I’ve frequently had this thought when you pin all this on the left wing. Yes, there are certain correspondences of reasoning between Woke thought and Marxist thought but never neglect the fact that Woke thought is borne of the success of the civil rights movement, something Karl Marx knew little to nothing of.
I do not hold the woke movement to be particularly left wing, there are points of contact but the woke movement rejects liberalism, as the right wing, at it’s extreme, does and many morally stiff parties do due to the fact that taken to it’s conclusion liberalism justifies and excuses absolutely everything. Therefore everyone is fully aware that liberalism has its limits otherwise that way chaos lies.
The Woke, for their part, think liberalism has been use to justify, disguise and excuse every form of bigotry under the sun and so reject it. The right wing reject it because they tend to be what is called ‘conservative’ meaning they cleave to legalist modes of order where society is maintained by a system of regulations which restrict liberty. This operates in opposition to liberalism. In this regard the woke have always been very right wing. The reason they seem more left wing is that their interest appears to lie in enfranchising the previously disenfranchised while the right wing historically tend towards maintaining their own power and the systems that maintain it which is what the woke tend to criticise.
Nevertheless the left wing historically tend to plan to amend the system so the power flows down empowering the historically weaker parties, the right wing try to run the system wholesale to decide who has the power. In this regard the woke are more right wing as they believe the current system serves the wrong people and should be changed to give the power to the previously powerless. Such as it seems to me anyway.
As it is I see the woke as neither entirely right wing or left left wing but a new branch with operates by inciting division by apparently running a policy of what historically has been called ‘divide and rule. Consequentially I just call them the rift wing.
I find it sufficient to refer to all these people as progressives, understanding progressivism was born from the idea liberalism failed to create the ideal society, yet distinct from progress, which is define exoterically as technological advancement and human flourishing. The only reason I don’t like “woke right” is that they haven’t awoken a new consciousness, they are reacting exactly as they have been provoked to act; however, the question of what each individual is up to remains. Are they controlled opposition (the right hand of the left/woke), or reactionary dupes inadvertently working against their own desires and interests (unwoke)?
Yours may be the most insightful comment of this engaging discussion.
To affirm: “woke” doesn’t originate specifically from liberals and quite specifically not from Marxism — though many woke individuals have ALSO embraced Marxism. Rather, Marx’s concerns were against the powers that controlled public markets.
Meanwhile, the “woke” crowd emerged, as you note, from the Civil Rights crowd, and extended things further. No longer is the goal to simply combat racism by pursuing equal rights. The awakened crowd is pursuing white privilege, white fragility, and the necessity of destabilizing “whiteness” in all forms. White is the new evil.
But this new reverse pigmentation racism is not enough. It has extended further into the newly discovered privilege of being cis-gendered. For one’s gender to be coherent with one’s biology, and to remain static is the new onus to tear down. Particularly if the person is male. So, males and white are now the new opponents of the “woke”.
The latest addition to wokeness is the antipathy against Christianity. As the Bible is the most forceful articulator of a two (discrete) gender reality for individuals and as the basis for civilization; and as Christianity in the US has been dominated by white culture and generally led (until quite recently) almost exclusively by males, it has been roped into the sleepy category that the enlightened must also reject.
So, the unholy trinity of wokeness is established: Whiteness, traditional gender distinctions, and Christianity. These are all embraced by a form of the hard left.
So, there is no truly corresponding “woke right”. Each of the three bases for wokeness is not a bogeyman for the conservative right, nor for the NCR, nor the political alt-right.
It’s a fascinating take. But not persuasive.
You offer the Christian Right to suckle a juicy teat filled with but cognitive dissonance. I imagine this hoax will send shock waves that will help pulverize a poorly thought out (and clearly unbiblical) ideology. I think the biggest hole in Christian Nationalist ideology remains the necessity for force and coercion, not unlike the dominant side of woke today which uses such methodology to push for an earthly utopia.
James, I _always_ appreciate your writing and the fight itself. However, something seems off in this particular effort and I’m trying to put my finger on it. I recognize that you likely risk fallacies on purpose (false equivalence, straw man, reductio ad absurdum, appeal to ridicule) for the sake of exposing other more fallacious arguments. I honestly can’t fault that.
However, I think the thing that bothers me is your choice of section in source text (CM). I think you could have chosen content and rhetoric that is more uniquely identified with the problems of Marxism and it would have served your purpose better.
Using the two sections mentioned here in this article, I can’t find fault in either. That is to say, you simply repeated the same logic (and even rhetorical style). But aren’t these used in other significant “manifestos”? Granted, others aren’t quite as silly, but isn’t it typical to say things like “this movement is gaining ground”, “this movement is being attacked by the powers that be”, “that resistance inherently acknowledges the movement as a formidable power”, “we need to openly declare…”, “we’re making / need to make political progress”, etc.?
My point is that I think that it can be forgivable if “regular folks” don’t recognize the rhetorical patterns in the article as those used by Marx because they are commonly used. The fact that you put them together in the same order as the CM doesn’t necessarily mean the readers (or movements) are equivalent.
Apologies if I haven’t caught your intent and tactic. I’m just distracted by what I perceive as fallacies in the approach and I think they undermine your argument.
It’s always good to find ways to Destroy the Woke crap because NO ONE wants this garbage program