A thread about a pattern of Woke infiltration, so that it might be spotted and stopped.
Woke Marxists use a suite of techniques that are called "entryism" (the art of entering) to infiltrate institutions and take them over from within. newdiscourses.com/2024/01/how-th…
There are five basic stages in this model of infiltration: 1) Demand access. 2) Demand accommodation. 3) Demand a seat at the table (demand power). 4) Demand to run the table (demand controlling power). 5) Demand to run the room (demand total power).
The first stage is to demand access. You hear this in much of their language. "Equity," even though it means the redistribution of shares, is framed through some linguistic tricks as equalizing access. "Inclusion" is about including Woke Marxists in things.
No organization or institution or group, even under the most liberal of policies, has any obligation to admit troublemakers. Critical consciousness (Woke) is a troublemaker. The Woke therefore have to demand access to be allowed in, usually through bids that are hard to turn down
The general formula of Marxism is to operationalize "bitch moves" that polite society doesn't know how to say no to without looking like a jerk. You see it everywhere. So, if you don't give them access, they accuse you of shutting them out for a nasty reason: racism or something.
If you admit the Woke Marxist access, the trouble will begin at once because they'll factionalize your org from within. Woke Marxists, like all Marxists (and Cluster B personalities) are troublemakers. You need to realize you're under no obligation to let them in on their demand.
Once inside, they'll demand accommodation. You'll have to allow them to be disruptive troublemakers, be asked to change the rules, etc., in the name of "inclusion" and "belonging." There are entire suites of memes and cartoons describing this dynamic.
You let the radicals in, and now you have to bend your organization around making them feel comfortable, welcomed, honored, respected, etc., usually on constantly shifting terms. The demand for accommodation begins a process of renormalization, in other words.
Renormalization occurs when a group reorients itself around a highly intolerant or disagreeable member who won't accommodate in return. A paradigm example is a vegan teenage daughter who forces a whole family to reorient its diet because she simply won't eat anything else.
You can expect at least two things during the demand for accommodation phase: (a) they'll use the same bitch moves against any attempt to refuse (it's "sexist" not to accommodate feminist hags), and (b) they'll use the factionalization they always make to leverage against you.
By the time the demands for accommodation are presented, you'll find that a surprising cohort of your organization is already at least kinda on the Woke Marxists' side. They've been working to spread critical consciousness (Woke) and gain allies from the day they got in.
Imagine a church that lets in an envious associate pastor who goes around the congregation quietly making comments and then relationships against the head pastor in order to do an ouster. Same exact mentality, but Woke Marxism is tailored to do that process deeply and effectively
By the time they're demanding accommodation, in other words, you're already infiltrated. You have to take the hits of the "bitch moves" and remove the people demanding accommodation or, at least, tell them no policies will change and that they can accept them as they are or leave
As their accommodation grows, so will the power of their faction, and they'll begin to leverage that to demand a seat at the table. They don't demand total power; they demand a say. Their faction demands representation in the leadership ranks. You will lose if you let this happen
They will not be content with a little bit of say, a single voice on a committee. They will quickly leverage that position to use "bitch moves" to undermine the authority of the existing power structure and demand more representation while changing as much policy as possible.
The demand for a seat at the table will quickly become a snowballing demand for more seats until they are demanding to run the table. This is the phase in a company or institution where they start building a DEI bureaucracy that develops and enforces the Woke Marxist policy line.
The goal at this stage is to build a full-blown administrative apparatus that manages the entire org. If they're building this, you are pretty much screwed. (Stop hiring college graduates!) Your organization is probably toast, and most normal people will start bleeding off.
If they gain this kind of administrative power, they will demand to run and manage everything. In effect, they already are by the time they're building out the bureaucracy that will do it, but it will become explicit policy. At that point, the original org is a zombie.
They will mismanage the organization to do Woke Marxist goals (mostly, break things, make more Woke Marxists, and infiltrate other orgs) until its base of stolen capital (financial, cultural, social) collapses, at which point they'll blame "racism" and attack neighboring orgs.
You can see this part of the process, the secret Step (6), playing out in the wake of Claudine Gay's disgrace and resignation from Harvard's presidency. They're melting down as Harvard bleeds capital of all kinds and blaming "racism" to attack all legitimate academic work.
This is when the cordyceps fungus blooms, more or less, and spreads its spores because the bug it infected in the first place is completely and totally drained. Woke Marxism is basically the parasitic function of socioeconomic affairs. This pattern plays out repeatedly.
If you want to stop this process, you have to stop it early. Refusing access to troublemakers for being troublemakers and making clear that critical consciousness (Woke) means making trouble is a step you can probably make now but couldn't two years ago. People are waking up!
Refusing accommodation for Woke troublemaking is also something you can do now much more easily than you could a couple years ago, and it's easier for people to swallow as acceptable than limiting access, which can easily be spun as being discriminatory.
Once you start accommodating, you pretty much lose, though. It's really too late once you're on the "belonging" railroad. You can try to keep troublemakers out of power and from gaining power, but they've already arranged internal conditions against you, and it's gonna be ugly.
The most important thing is to set policies that prevent the demand for accommodation, which if held strongly and seriously will mostly solve the access problem automatically. Wokes don't like resistance and will, on their own, look for softer targets. RIP them, I guess.
Having clear policies that normies understand to be "inclusive" or whatever can really help in this effort to refuse additional accommodation. You are ultimately fighting a PR battle against "bitch moves," so seek to have a strong foundation in equality and good work environment
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Like it or not, this is correct. It's not a matter of being tolerant or not. Islam, or at least Islamism if there's any daylight between them, is fundamentally a militant ideology. Free societies cannot tolerate militant ideologies except in small fringes.
Karl Popper laid out the so-called Paradox of Tolerance in 1945 in his not-so-great book The Open Society and Its Enemies, and free societies will live or die based on the practical solution they come up with to this paradox. This paradox is the rub of liberty and freedom.
The Paradox of Tolerance is simply enough stated: must a tolerant society tolerate intolerance that will eventually end its tolerance?
The answer is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the problem is that it's hard to draw a clear line anywhere.
No, Fascism is a progressive ideology, which is inherently idealist (Hitler makes this argument himself about National Socialism in MK vol 2 ch 2). Conservatism is a realist ideology. They're not remotely the same, though both claim to favor the nation and tradition.
Hitler, as indicated: "This is why it is necessary to establish a faith in an idealistic Reich to battle against the reckoning imposed by the present materialistic Republic."
This is not a conservative statement, and it's an anti-realist statement, like Marxism would make.
I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure out what the relationship between Fascism and conservatism is, and it's this: Fascism is what you get when a conservative abandons realism for romanticism and idealism, which are progressive and anti-realist.
Yesterday, I read the very last chapter of Mein Kampf, Volume 2, Chapter 15: "Self-defense as a Right." It's not a particularly enlightening or powerful chapter, but it made me think of Europe today. It makes me think Europe is being forced with immigration back to that place. 🧵
"The enemy's reaction is your real action" is a backbone of Leftist activism, and that sentiment was heavy on me while I read the very last chapter of Mein Kampf. Why? Because the architects of the immigration crisis in Europe would have been familiar with Hitler's motivations.
In fact, the architects of the immigration crisis in Europe would have been fully aware of not just what Hitler was talking about but the effect his arguments had in Germany in the 1920s through 1940s. "Self-defense as a right" is a theme we're hearing everywhere from Reaction.
Authoritarianism is frequently (but not always) explained and measured using a three-factor scale that measures "conventionalism," "authoritarian aggression," and "authoritarian submission." These are worth knowing about, particularly in this day and age. 🧵
Conventionalism is the first of the three typically recognized authoritarian traits. What it refers to is a tendency to follow conventions and to expect (or force) other people to follow the same conventions. These conventions can be defined in a wide variety of ways.
Often, and I think wrongly (following Altemeyer, mostly), the conventions are usually defined in terms of adhering (strictly) to traditional norms and expectations, but this misses a key, crucial generalization that any ideological community can define any conventions it wants.
A huge lure that hooks people into the Woke Right is what we might call "the hope you're not allowed to have." Someone can sell a hope that force or authoritarianism or fascism can stop the apparently unstoppable march of Marxism and radicalize by saying it's unfairly withheld.
Frankly, all totalitarian and authoritarian ideologies use this mechanism. Marcuse talked about it with "liberating tolerance," for example, and the "utopian possibility" of a liberated socialist state. The mechanism (sales pitch) is pretty devious and radicalizes people hard.
In short, the ideologue pitches the idea of a vastly better society freed up from the repressions of the current age but places it just out of reach, thus seeming to damn its targets to living in unnecessary misery if only we were allowed to pursue liberation, but we're not.
Something everyone needs to understand about identity politics and "collective identities" (aka, "collective justice," aka "social justice") is that they are intrinsically scams and will intrinsically end up led by people who screw over the people "of identity" who support them.
Identity politics is not what happened in the Civil Rights Movement. What happened in the Civil Rights Movement was a bid by groups to not have to be treated as groups. The slogan black men carried on signs in Memphis was "I am a man."
The term and concept of identity politics as we understand it now was coined in the late 1970s in the Black Feminist Marxist group called the Combahee River Collective, which laid out the neo-Maoist program of intersectionality from Woke (Left) Identity Marxist perspectives.