We need to talk about the "elite theory" at the center of Woke thinking, particularly Woke Right thinking. Here's the bottom line: All you grassroots conservatives and MAGA who have fought like hell for this country are NOT ELITES and NEVER WILL BE to the Woke Right. They hate you. They want to rule over you. Just like the Woke Left. To the degree that they're nice, kind, or helpful to you, THEY ARE USING YOU to gain power for themselves, and YOU WILL BE DISCARDED.
The Woke Right is overwhelmingly invested in the idea of "Elite Theory," which they always try to present like it's some high-minded idea that's just a simple fact of political and social life, like it's the background we all just have to accept. Elite Theory, they'll insist, "just" means "society is always run by elites."
The "just" there is doing all the work in that description. It does not just mean that except in the strict and boring philosophical technical sense. Elite Theory does not stop with the banal observation that the people who are in positions of status and power are elites so the elites are the ones who run things. It goes on to suggest other things as a consequence.
For those of you who know the language, Elite Theory just meaning elites run things is the MOTTE position. The BAILEY position is that the elites should run things, and the Woke Right subscribes to this theory too, just like the Woke Left does, though differently and with fewer lies involved.
The idea that the elites (not the grassroots) should run things is sometimes called elitism. The Woke Right (and Woke Left) are elitist in this way, not merely "descriptivist" Elite Theorists. They believe elites have some right to rule that we plebs do not. They believe people want and/or need to be ruled, and they say so frequently.
Wokes subscribe to an even deeper, more self-serving elitism than just that, though, too. They believe that THEY THEMSELVES are the rightful elites (either in power or in infuriated exile) and that the real problem with society is that we have the WRONG ELITES in charge. That is, they go on to grant themselves not just right to rule (over YOU) but also right to depose the existing elite in some kind of coup or revolution. Their whole social theory is built around this.
The Woke Right bases a great deal of its thought on the "counter-revolutionary" (reactionary, proto-Fascist) thinker Joseph de Maistre. They do not try to hide this. de Maistre wasn't just elitist in this way; he literally believed that the sovereign executive (not you, the sovereign, self-governing individual in a free state) rules with the worldly authority of God and that he is therefore the representative of God on Earth. They do not hide their heavy reliance on de Maistre or this specific belief of his.
Woke Right propagandist "Auron MacIntyre" references de Maistre's ideas in detail (as solutions to our current problem) a dozen times in his short book The Total State. He's a fan.
The Woke Right also bases a great deal of its thought on the "crown jurist of the Third Reich" Carl Schmitt, who outlined the legal basis for the "total state" in Nazi Germany. They are openly proud of this. Schmitt, in his book Political Theology, imports this belief of de Maistre and claims that the sovereign executive (not YOU) performs secular "miracles" by making executive decisions, which he alone is rightfully given to be able to do. Virtually every character on the Woke Right is a Schmittian (though they downplay his Nazi era, lol).
Woke Right propagandist "Auron MacIntyre" affirmingly mentions Schmitt and his political philosophy twenty-five times in that same short book. He's a huge fan, and is relatively famously identified as a "based Schmittian."
Among the ideas from Elite Theory presented on the Woke Right regularly, we have the idea of the so-called "circulation of elites," which comes from the Italian Elite theorist and statistician Vilfredo Pareto (yes, the 80-20 rule guy), another darling of Woke Right thought. The circulation of elites describes a theory of REGIME CHANGE (see: Woke Right philosopher Patrick Deneen's most recent book, titled Regime Change).
The idea behind the circulation of elites is that any given set of elites in power can become sclerotic, incestuous, corrupt, or just weak, or maybe it already is that without having to "become" it, and "regime change" occurs by a "new elite" arising from below and replacing them. As the "new elite" gains standing, the "old elite" loses it in a rather zero-sum fashion, and eventually people decide to be led/ruled by the "new elite" rather than the crappy "old elite," and so the elites circulate like the water in a jacuzzi tub.
For all their flapping appeals to "populism," the Woke Right isn't populist at all. It's elitist, and in this worst, self-serving, entitled, bratty, bitchy, WOKE way. They see themselves as the "new elite" that is growing its status (especially with young MAGA) that will displace the current "managerial elite" that's running things. Because they like state power and tyranny, they'll not break the back of the evil statism crushing us but co-opt it to their own purposes. Many Woke Right figures (as well as the current Vice President) have articulated their intentions to claim and weaponize big state power and its EXECUTIVE administrative apparatuses rather than getting them out of the way (so, no Milei-style afuera, just new rulers).
So, my dear grassroots friends and real American patriots, YOU ARE BEING USED.
You must understand where that model leaves you. You are NOT elite; they are elite. They understand all the specialist theories, and you don't. They want to be philosopher kings, and you just want to live your lives with no desire to be philosophers at all. You want or need to be ruled, and they want to rule. But they need your energy, your work, your insights, your efforts, your blood, your sweat, your tears, your cancellations, your bodies, your sacrifice, and YOUR CHILDREN to make this coup ("circulation of elites") work.
You are disposable. Your children are disposable. They're your new masters, and you're supposed to love them because they hate your enemies and claim to love you. They don't.
They don't even hate your enemies. They ENVY them. They want their elite power and status, but it's not actual dislike for the evils they represent. They don't want to defeat them. They want to BE them. And they need YOU and YOUR CHILDREN to accomplish it.
One of their idiot philosophers of the current day (again, one JD Vance likes and upon whom many lean, including Peter Thiel in many ways) is Curtis Yarvin, code name "Mencius Moldbug" (the guy who called the Vertically Integrated Institutional Apparatus on the Left "the Cathedral," which you might have heard of). How does he characterize this situation? You, grassroots, are HOBBITS. The world is run by ELVES. The current elites are the awful, turned bad HIGH ELVES. The Woke Right are the renegade DARK ELVES who want to rule in their place. These "dark elves" require the manpower of you "hobbits" to take over, but they have absolutely no interest in letting you "hobbits" lead or even to have seats at the table. Elves rule, not hobbits. Leave it to them. He literally says that.
Yarvin: "The goal of the dark elves is to win the culture war—but not with hobbit power. In fact, the less a dark elf smells like a hobbit, the better. Just let us take care of it."
Another contemporary Woke Right "thinker" and activist, Aaron Renn, co-founder and senior fellow at the hoaxed-and-disgraced American Reformer, explains what he thinks of you everyday American patriots in similar terms.
Renn: "Today’s populists tend to come from subaltern backgrounds and do not have a track record of running large organizations or high level leadership in elite domains. This cripples their ability to make changes or even run the office they were elected to effectively. The result is often a circus."
That means YOU, grassroots. He's saying that when normal patriotic Americans take power, "the result is often a circus." You can't lead effectively. He writes this in an attempt to get conservatives to "reclaim FDR," whom he praises for his ability to execute specifically because he's an ELITE, not a PLEB like us.
Renn: "This ability to execute grew from his [FDR's] upper class background. He had lots of training and experience in leadership, and a vast network of high capability people to draw on in carrying out his work."
Renn is not criticizing FDR for this, as you might think. he's listing it as a central reason why FDR was actually much greater (from a "conservative" perspective) than we usually appreciate.
Why would he do that? Because he is a Woke Right elitist! Why would Yarvin call himself a "dark elf" and you a hobbit who he doesn't even want to smell like? Because he's a Woke Right elitist.
My grassroots and patriotic friends: the Woke Right hates you. They hate even the aroma of you. They less of you and your stink they have on them, the better, they insist. Do you think they're going to let you lead when they take power (if they take power)? Hell no, they won't. But they need your work, your sacrifices, and your children so they can take power to RULE OVER YOU.
They are elitists. They have slightly different expressions of them, but they have exactly the same values as the tyrants on the Woke Left and in the global tyrannical machine. Those values are power, right to rule, entitlement, envy of all who are above them, and disgusted resentment of all who they believe are beneath them. Which is us.
Like them all you want, I suppose. It's a free country (for the time being). You should like them knowing what they really represent, though, and it's UGLY.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Seems like a good day not just to talk about the DSA platform, which is (a) Communist af, (b) retarded, (c) unrealistic as hell, (d) childishly presented, and (e) extraordinarily radical -- calling for a new Constitution even -- but to do a thread showing its stupid points. 🧵
It starts off with an imaginative exercise, illustrated with silly cartoons: imagine you have a day off in a future without capitalism. Apparently you will work because you like to (a Marxist delusion) and you won't have any bills (another Marxist delusion).
The idea that you will work because you like to comes directly from Karl Marx's own vision of a Communist circumstance, where the worker has been transformed back to his original/completed "social (i.e., human)" nature. This vision includes the idea that people will see work, not for themselves but for the community, as their main desired life activity.
Communism posits that you and everyone else (who can) will work on behalf of everyone else but never yourself because you have been re-educated (re-socialized, Mao: ideologically remolded) to believe in working for the commune.
Everything you have will therefore be provided to you by the organizing force of the society, which is left vague. Everyone knows it will be the state, which is what calling them "common goods and utilities" refers to, but Communists, including the DSA a few more lines down, believes that in the realized Communist world that never arrives, there won't be a state.
In the meantime, it will be the state, which is organized entirely to resocialize and remold you into a socialist (that is, human being, says Marx) who accepts this ridiculous notion.
So it starts off by asserting that things other people have to work to provide for you are to be free because they're human rights and that everyone (including you) will have to work to provide these things for everyone else (but not yourself) because you've been psychologically transformed to believe in working for the sake of upholding the magical community, including all its loafers, free riders, cheats, scoundrels, etc.
Socialists would object here by saying that being such a thing would be outlawed (by the state that isn't supposed to exist) and punished (again, by the state that doesn't exist), and in practice, every socialist/Communist state has actually done this. The problem is that the socialists and Communists in charge get to decide who the criminals and loafers are, and it's funny how most of their political enemies end up on that list regardless of anything else.
Oh, and what you really don't have isn't bills. It's recourse when your rights get violated. If the Communists in charge (state or not) decide you're a problem, you don't have any individual rights. Those are bourgeois, selfish, and against the will and needs of "the people," who you have been remolded to always support.
Mao instructed that the purpose of this ideological remolding, by the way, is to learn to see from "the people's standpoint," which means as the Communists want you to see it, as the right theoretical representatives of "the people," who are, in Mao's definition as well, those who support the building of socialism. Everyone else is "the enemies of the people," and the purpose of the people's democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, say both Mao and Lenin, is to crush the enemies of the people.
If you are listed as enemies of "the people," you will not be enfranchised (voting) because that's not real people's or proletarian democracy. You will not have free speech because you misinform people away from the people's standpoint and cause agitation and division, plus it's an expression of your bourgeois values because not everyone has equal access to speak. You have no rights to due process because the Communist leadership knows what is best and knows all, including all your (imaginary) crimes. You have no right to your property because that's the primary thing Communism is abolishing.
Good luck, Wokies! It's only worked like this every time!
After spending one whole short paragraph talking about how you'll live in a magical world with no bills, the DSA goes on with its fantasy and cartoons to imagine your day off. Yes, your day off. Your one day off.
In China today, which operates under CCP control, allegedly not even fully Communist or something, the workers or laboring class (who the title of the document says "deserve more") called "ku li" (bitter work) work 12-hour days, 28 days in a row, with the 29th day off. They're paid in a combination of RMB and rice and live in hovels, usually with a few bunks to a room and no indoor bathroom. They wash in a basin on the sidewalk outside of their hovel, if they wash.
That's what happens when you live under Communism for a while, though. They wouldn't tell you that up front!
But what they actually wrote in this little fantasy is interesting. In the morning you might do some basic things (like stand silently in a bread line). In the afternoon, you might do some hobbies. In the evening, you can recreate. This is an allusion, though. The framing they present is actually borrowed from... Karl Marx!
This is how Karl Marx envisioned the daily life of a realized Communist in a world without capitalism, from The German Ideology:
“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
In practice, Mao Zedong used this idea to make sure that every Communist worker was also fully well-rounded in all the jobs: student, teacher, farmer, steelworker, army, etc. He turned the working population into a de facto military corps and sent people, who never became those things, like Marx said, from one job to the next in cycles. The result was everything that was actually done was done by people mostly incompetent to do them. Guess how it worked out! Famines! Disasters! Catastrophes! Failures!
The punishment for those things was gulag, hard labor, thought-reform prison, withholding of food at the canteen (often a death sentence), or death. Worked great!
But this isn't the paragraph about your work. They don't talk about that much here. This is your one coveted day off. You could do all kinds of things without ever having to become good at anything!
PS: Unless you're in the Party, you're not taking any trips, so don't bother planning them. LOL joke's on you. Don't count on that doctor being there or worth going to either. The movie will be mandatory, and it will be brainwashing propaganda.
Canada seems to be trying to set some kind of record for being a completely self-unaware Woke retard country, and this official parliamentary report on combating antifeminism is a great unintentionally hilarious but terrifying new example.
You can tell from the summary that this is going to be grade-A retardation where the feminists and masculinity scholars (lol) who wrote it cannot begin to fathom that what they're on about is 100% predictable backlash to their own feminist abuses of men, boys, society, and women.
I'm not going to go through it all here, but these recommendations are so stereotypically Woke that it's funny except that they're actually going to implement it and aim to criminalize totally normal things because they can't figure out that people hate being abused by them.
Some more ramblings of Russian anti-West, anti-American, weirdo Aleksandr Dugin, darling of the Woke Right, sounding surprisingly like JD Vance's economic policy (which Grok will confirm if asked):
"The true "third way" in economics found its classic embodiment in the works of Friedrich List, who formulated the principles of "economic autarchy of large spaces."
"This theory proceeds from the fact that the economic development of capitalist societies is uneven and from the logical consequence of economic colonization by the "richer" countries of the poorer ones; moreover, for the "rich" in such conditions "free trade" is beneficial, and for the "poor" on the contrary.
"From this, List concluded that at certain stages of the economic development of society, it is necessary to resort to protectionism, dirigism and customs restrictions, i.e. to limit the principle of "freedom of trade" at the international level, in order to achieve the level of national and state independence and strategic power.
["Dirigism" refers to an economic system in opposition to laissez-faire in which the state takes an active and directive role in shaping and guiding the economy, rather than limiting itself to a purely regulatory or hands-off approach within a market economy.]
"In other words, it was obvious to List that the economy should be subordinated to national interests, and that any appeal to the "autonomous logic of the market" is only a cover for the economic (and subsequently political) expansion of rich states to the detriment of the poorer, and the subsequent enslavement of the latter.
"This approach immediately sets clear boundaries in which the "market" principle should operate, and in which the "socialist" one.
"It is interesting that Rathenau, the author of the German "economic miracle," and Witte, Lenin, and even Keynes formulated their economic principles on the basis of the doctrine of Friedrich List, although they used a language that was closer to or purely capitalist, or communist vocabulary, that the economy should be subordinated to national interests, and that any appeal to the "autonomous logic of the market" is only a cover for the economic (and subsequently political) expansion of rich states to the detriment of the poorer, and the subsequent enslavement of the latter."
CC: @PhilWMagness
After describing the theory a little, our behated weirdo continues, ominously given the context:
"It is very interesting that it was the Friedrich List model that was used by historically developed capitalist countries in times of crisis. Thus, even the United States, the radical defenders of the principle of "free trade", periodically resorted to protectionist measures and state subsidies to the industrial sector when periods of "economic depression" began.
"It was precisely such a period that was the stage of implementation of the New Deal, when the Americans almost literally reproduced the principles of List, although they submitted them in a relaxed version of Keynes, the author of the theory of "economic insulation", which, in general, is nothing but a new name for the theory of "economic autarky of large spaces ".
"By the way, List himself lived in the United States for a long time and observed the process of capitalist construction in the early phases. Based on these observations, he formulated the basic principles of his theory in relation to Germany. But, of course, the most ambitious results were given by the implementation of List's doctrine in National Socialist Germany, when his ideas were implemented totally and without any liberal or Marxist amendments."
Sounds very Woke Right overall, including the idea of a new New Deal, the favortism of FDR who implemented it, and all the rest. The Woke Right's rejection of Keynes here and a certain revisionist tendency that shows up in that last sentence in Dugin is blatantly concerning.
For further context, Dugin began this discussion (in The Foundations of Geopolitics) by criticizing the application of Hayek to the Russian context in the post-USSR period (which is what he's technically writing about here). All our favorite Woke Right weirdos also criticize Hayek rather strangely and specifically, claiming he is the falsely "conservative" wing of the same liberal (or neoliberal) project that gives us Woke and Communism.
Very interesting, indeed.
CC: @PhilWMagness
It gets a little worse. Remember, this is Dugin writing in 1997 for the Russian context, but our question is why is this the American post-liberal vision today in these United States of America:
"It is this version of the "third way" economy that is the only alternative in today's Russia, which is opposed at the same time to rampant liberalism and restorationist projects of neo-communists who do not want to seriously correct outdated and proved ineffective dogmas. If it were not for the instantly emerging associations with the Hitler regime, one could call this project "socialism of the national type.""
Rather than foregrounding identity politics, it will push:
1) Affordability (Marxist materialism); 2) Anti-corruption (ironic but an excuse to go after Trump); 3) Anti-Israel (pro-Palestine).
It will be warm to political violence.
The identity politics won't go away, but it won't be foregrounded any longer. It will definitely play supporting roles. They won't lead with it, though.
They'll find much superficial alignment with the Woke Right and Woke-ish "Libertarians" on their three key issues and violence
The agreement will only be superficial and occasionally strategic to block actual patriots. Like with every issue upon which they align, Woke Left (2.0) and Woke Right will come at the issues from different angles, e.g. pro-Palestine vs anti-Israel. Applies to all issues.
From my Woke Encyclopedia, an explanation of the "friend-enemy distinction" of Carl Schmitt, which is the Woke political logic. Link at the end!🧵
(1/13) The friend-enemy distinction refers to the cornerstone object of the political and judicial philosophy of a German theorist named Carl Schmitt, who wrote a number of works of right-wing political philosophy and thought before becoming such an enthusiastic Nazi in 1933, just after Adolf Hitler took power, that he earned the informal title “the Crown Jurist of the Third Reich.”
Though most of his significant political thinking was done both before and after he was a Nazi, during the years when he was a part of Hitler’s National Socialist movement and Party, he contributed strongly to the legal theory that justified the Nazi “total state,” including writing the 1933 piece that gets rendered in English as “The Legal Basis for the Total State,” which is significantly based upon the friend-enemy distinction.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(2/13) Schmitt’s thought is primarily of interest on the Woke Right, where he is a favored thinker and model political mind. He is vigorously forwarded for a handful of his political concepts, perhaps most visibly his “friend-enemy distinction” as the essential criterion of what makes politics political. This idea is first presented and developed in full detail in his 1927/32 book The Concept of the Political.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(3/13) For Schmitt, what makes the politics political is the distinction between (public) friend and (public) enemy, where enemies are defined as those who are interested in destroying one’s way of life and friends are defined as those who are willing to band together in its defense.
Schmitt specifically compares the essential nature of this distinction in politics to the distinction between good and evil in morality, beautiful and ugly in aesthetics, and profitable versus non-profitable in economics.
That is, politics is only political to the degree that it recognizes the possibility of factions that exist in mutual enmity underwritten by the potentially existential threat of violence. Of course, that means that Schmitt believes the essential criterion of politics is war, which he reveals also in part by making his point by completing the identity contained in von Clausewitz’s famous remark that “war is politics by other means.”