Thread by @ConceptualJames

Another little something you're not ready to hear.

What is the Woke Right?

There's a growing movement that is reaching breakout velocity on the "Right" that is ostensibly ultra-conservative ("far right") but that shares much more in common with the Woke Left than conservatives.

To explain the Woke Right, we have to start by explaining Woke, which is still poorly understood and does not, in fact, mean "Leftist."

Woke Leftists believe they have woken up to a particular view of reality constructed by power so that it is hidden from view (occult) by power.

More specifically, they believe that entrenched structural power dynamics contour our experience and explanations of reality, preventing us from learning the hidden truth about reality that would liberate us from oppression by the ruling powers, which alienate us from ourselves.

Even more specifically, the Woke Left is "woke" in the sense that it has awoken to a critical consciousness that understands that our experience and interpretation of reality is constructed by dominant power in order to maintain oppression, and that must be made visible.

The theory of knowledge of the Woke Left is therefore critical constructivist epistemology, which essentially maintains that we can know more of the truth by uncovering what the prevailing power dynamics hide from us, using Critical Theory to expose the oppressive structures.

Put far more plainly, the Woke Left's theory of knowledge holds that that which is most likely to be true is that which "they" have prevented people from knowing such that it maintains their oppressive power. Being "Woke" means having "woken up" to this systemic conspiracy theory

The Woke Right can therefore be defined as a movement of people holding to various elements of conservatism, particularly traditionalism and nativism, perhaps only in pastiche (postmodern simulation), who operate from a critical constructivist epistemology with some changes.

As it turns out, this not only describes a fairly rapidly growing contingent of the self-identifying Right, particularly composed of men under 40, but it also describes a fairly wide range of views that are not concurrent with each other on the self-identifying Right.

On the nearest end to sanity, so far as I can tell, we have people like Tucker Carlson promoting a fairly consistent theory of knowledge that whatever the intelligence community and media have wanted to keep hidden from us is most likely to be true, which isn't wholly wrong.

Tucker Carlson's presentation is amazing in its consistency in blaming the United States, Britain, and, by extension, Israel for most of the ills of the modern era, which reveals another feature of the Woke Right: Critical America Theory, and/or anti Classical Liberalism.

The "post-liberal" (anti Classical Liberalism) Right is the next least insane faction of the Woke Right phenomenon. They generally believe on a spectrum bounded by "Classical Liberalism was ok but failed" to "Classical Liberalism caused Communism." Their arguments are muddled.

Because people will lose it if I don't explain here how the post-liberal beliefs are muddled, even though that would take hours, allow me a little space to digress. (Who am I kidding? They're going to lose it anyway. Like all Wokes, their natural habitat is being mad.)

The argument that Classical Liberalism failed is somewhat harder to take apart because it's pretty clear something has gone sideways. It would be more accurate to say we failed to defend our republics and they've been infiltrated, however.

It would also be right to say that Classical Liberalism hasn't been robustly developed since the beginning of the Progressive Era, if not earlier, and technology has changed the playing field rather considerably since, necessitating work that hasn't happened but could.

These two points should require a couple hours of development in podcast, or about a chapter in a book, each, to make clear, which we're not doing today or on this app. I talked about the relevance of the Paradox of Tolerance last night some, though. That's one point.

That Classical Liberalism gave way to Communism is just silly, but the "deeper" argument given by the post-liberals is where it's muddled. Systems predicated off securing individual rights from the government do not lead to totalitarian governments without subversion.

That subversion, as it is plainly seen in churches all around the world and throughout the last century of history, is readily apparent in Christian circles as well, even where no Classical Liberalism has ever existed, like South American countries and the USSR.

Communism is a parasitical (Gnostic) ideology (see definition of "Woke"), and it can attach itself to Classical Liberal systems through something like Progressivism and Managerial Capture just or to religious apparatuses, e.g., Liberation Theology and the Social Gospel movement.

That's not why those arguments are muddled, though. The muddling is a genuine muddling, drawing back to the roots of Classical Liberalism to get everything wrong along the way. The post-liberal Woke Right conflates various "Enlightenments" as if they're the same thing.

The Classical Liberalism of the United States, Classical American Liberalism, is based off the philosophical program called Scottish Common Sense Realism. It is not Romantic like the French Enlightenment (French Revolution) or Idealist like the German one (Marxism and Fascism).

You can tell that by their names: one school of thought is Realist, as in reality exists objectively and can be known in limited fashion by us, rather than Idealist, wherein reality is inaccessible to us and is a mere and poor reflection of Ideals we can contemplate or imagine.

The Woke Right is not Realist, but Idealist and Romantic, imagining a Romanticized past and an idealized civic realm connected to correct rule ("Right," as in Rechts), largely based on authority and tradition. Perhaps this is why it muddles these things. I don't know.

As we continue our march away from sanity, there is a movement that is deeply interested in the critique of Liberalism given by Carl Schmitt (Crown Jurist of the Third Reich), which is subtle but, to me, inadequate, as I've discussed in the past.

Strictly speaking, these people are post-liberals, but they're actually more anti-Liberal than post-. The post-liberals are primarily (Leo) Straussian; the Schmittians are actively against (American) liberalism and the Constitution as a failed project for deep reasons.

The Schmittian Woke Right primarily believes in friend/enemy politics (zero sum war between factions), "No Enemies to the Right {NETTR)" (so no one can criticize them except Leftists, who we ignore), and the concept of an "unbound executive," sometimes a "Red Caesar."

Most importantly about these Woke Rights are that they believe the sovereign should not be bound by law to do what he has to do to restore order, in fact believing he is not a sovereign at all if he cannot. Classical American Liberalism restrains the executive as human, not God.

Somewhere crossing over with this crowd, we have a "Deus Vult" contingent of hardline disaffected Catholics ready for a new Inquisition bleeding over into the Groypers, which is probably a fed-op extremist version of the same thing. Some support Fascist philosopher Julius Evola.

Also mixed into this morass of anti-Americanism is a particularly love for the semi-Fascist dictator of Spain, Francisco Franco, and they often laud his efforts and rule and call for an American or Protestant (not always, some are Catholic) Franco for America.

What do those on the whole Woke Right spectrum have in common that justifies calling them "Woke Right"?

An "awakened" critical-oriented theory of knowledge that treats power-suppressed ideas as the most likely to be true.

Leading with a sense of victimhood.

Ends justify means.

All three of these characteristics are significant in the Woke Right. Their critical epistemology has already been touched upon. They lead from a position of believing themselves oppressed by the existing power. They believe to some degree that their noble ends justify the means.

Of course, other than ends justifying means ("desperate times call for desperate measures"; "social media changed the rules of the game"), there's a strong element of truth to both of the other characteristics, although it's truth married to lie, like usual.

As a matter of fact, in a situation where important truths are being actively censored and suppressed, what "they" suppress deserves careful consideration and may well be true. That's an okay heuristic for knowledge, but it's a poor theory of knowledge.

To elaborate, true things can be suppressed from officials because they are true, and false things can be promoted because they are false, but false things can also be "suppressed" because they are false. You shouldn't believe 2+2=5 just because your math teacher said it's wrong.

Also as a matter of fact, people generally on their side (broadest possible strokes) are being oppressed by the illegitimate but current ruling regime, sometimes the players themselves, directly. That's absolutely true and absolutely wrong, and it is genuine victimization.

Where that goes sideways is in believing this victimization confers a better grasp on the situation, and where it goes really sideways is where the Woke Right tends to go with it: corporate or group oppression, thus corporate or group consciousness, just like the Woke Left.

You will hear this tendency, for example, when people insist that the defining feature of Critical Race Theory is anti-white racism. It is not, but certainly CRT traffics in and encourages that behavior (while pretending not to). CRT is Race Marxism and Soviet racial agitprop.

The Woke Right doesn't want to discuss the real underpinnings or mechanics of CRT and actively tries to take people away from them, insisting instead that it is just or primarily anti-white racism, which is completely wrong but suits a sense of white victimhood.

That Critical Race Theory is designed to create exactly this reaction is either uninteresting to the Woke Right or part of their whole game. They actively suppress (ironically!) people learning about dialectical movements and tactics and then lead them into dialectical losses.

This breeds a not-universal but very common Woke Right identity politics in mirror image to the Woke Left's. Like with Christian rock music not making Christianity any better but only making rock-and-roll worse, "right-wing" identity politics is just cringe and destructive.

In general, though, what the Woke Right is doing is operating from a framework of Sociognosticism, that is, Gnostic belief located in social phenomena, exactly like the Woke Left. That's why they're "woke" up: they Woke up to Sociognostic Election through social victimhood.

The state of Sociognostic Election carries with it the entitlement to believe they alone know the true nature of social reality, have a right to rule from that occult (hidden) knowledge, can liberate us from oppression using it, and that their "noble" ends justify their means.

It's for these reasons that I think "Woke Right" is the correct term for these various loosely banded, generally post- or anti-liberal people. I'm not being glib with it. It is also undeniably clear that this phenomenon exists, is growing, and poses a threat to America.

But why should you care, other than the whole "might lose your country" part? Specifically, who cares about this small fringe?

Well, it's not that small anymore and is rapidly growing. I hear from churches and pastors and grassroots orgs every day that it's a problem they face.

I do not believe the Woke Right movement is meant to win or succeed or take power. I believe it is meant to mislead enough conservatives into bad beliefs and bad actions that the whole conservative or anti-Communist effort fails with it, but either way, it's not a good thing.

I see no possibility that this movement "wins" long term, none. Don't embarrass yourself by saying I do. I think it might (slim chance) win for a short time, during which all moral authority is handed over to the Left for 50 years, more than long enough to install whatever evil.

I see it more likely in one of two situations, which we could use an aviation metaphor to explain: takeoff or crash on the runway. Crashing on the runway does major damage to the conservative and anti-Communist effort when it happens, perhaps enough for the Left to take it all.

Taking off would mean a Woke Right/Left dialectic dominates our political sphere, boxes out all other positions even if normalcy remains in wide majority, and starts a dialectical war that will spin out of control and fracture, break, or destroy the nation.

To extend the aviation metaphor, I believe the Woke Right movement is already on the runway at full takeoff throttle, but it has not yet hit V1 (the speed at which it cannot stop and must take off or crash). It's getting close, and the throttle is fully open, though.

You can feel free to continue ignoring or downplaying this problem, but Woke Right V1 is probably coming within three months, maybe six (doubt). I do not recommend that. You can do what you usually do and attack me as the messenger too, but that won't help you and does help them.

PS: This thread is not exhaustive. It's already very long, and other characteristics and factions can be discussed. Consider this a first gloss from me on the issue in detail.

I recommend this as additional reading.
gummibear737.com/p/deep-dive-th…

PPS: I did not discuss their rampant lying, postmodernist approach (which is mostly a postmodernist traditionalism and political kayfabe), propensity to swarm people they're against, use of cancel culture (purges) against conservatives who aren't in line, etc.

PPPS: This is not only an online phenomenon, as I mentioned. I have already worked with multiple churches in a few states that are aware of these problems and actively trying to do something about them. Congregations are already splitting, and public offices are in play. Etc.