Woke Right Lie of the Day

"Marxism is not Woke; Woke is not Marxist."

This is a pretty hilarious Woke Right lie that I've already partially addressed (linked in next post threaded below), but I want to get under the hood of it a little more because it's important (and funny).

First of all, yes it is. Marxism is an opportunistic parasitic ideology* that has only one agenda: to seize the means of production of man and society by any means necessary. It literally defines both truth and ethics in terms of this agenda.

Marxism is an operating system; a worldview; a way of viewing the world and behaving in it (theory and praxis). It is not a set of conclusions, a specific analysis, a set of analytic tools, a set of tactics, or really even just an ideology (see * above). It's a totalizing worldview based intrinsically on the conflict of contending classes as a means of reaching ultimate social, economic, cultural, and political synthesis and "return of man to himself as a social, i.e., human, being" bringing with him the benefits of "all the previous stages of development."

Woke is a manifestation of that parasitic worldview trying to make the leap to infect a new "species" of society, namely free, liberal societies running with individual liberties and free enterprise. Marxism was only successful before Woke at installing itself by force or by subverting feudal systems, not "capitalistic" liberal ones.

Think of it like a real virus like bird flu. Bird flu infects birds. It does not infect humans under normal conditions. It is evolved to attack weaknesses in bird biology and to exploit receptors on bird cells, but these don't readily cross over to other species. Sometimes, there's a trans-species leap from birds to people, and we end up with avian flu or bird flus that can infect humans, and they're usually pretty nasty. In fact, all flus originate from this species-jumping phenomenon, which designates them specifically as a kind of plague (a disease for non-human animals that evolves to infect humans). Plagues are usually really nasty and bad and can be far deadlier than typical human-borne diseases (like common colds).

Marxism is a plague ideology in this specific sense overall, but we're focusing on Woke. Though Marx didn't realize it as he outlined it, thinking he was talking about specific classes in capitalism (workers versus "bourgeois" management), his ideological virus was really only suited to infect feudal societies at scale, which Lenin ultimately discovered and/or proved. It couldn't infect capitalist, liberal, or free societies, to the great consternation of the Marxists.

(Incidentally, a side-effect of partial forced infection by Marxism in such societies was a rampant and psychotically deranged nationalism called Fascism, which was like a deformed hybrid of corporatist capitalism that adopted lots of Marxist RNA, in a sense.)

Marxism had to make a variety of evolutionary leaps to find receptors in free, liberal, capitalistic societies in order to infect it. Cultural Marxists like Antonio Gramsci indicated that infiltrating the cultural institutions and rotting them from within would soften a society up to going Marxist. The Neo-Marxists identified a need to abandon the working class specifically to focus on other more "vital" centers of revolutionary energy, like Marcuse's sexual and racial minorities. It's a lot to explain how Paulo Freire's liberationist ideas influenced things, but they set the stage for any "marginalized" knowing system to be the basis for a mutated Marxist critique, resulting in favoring "other ways of knowing." Postmodernism amplified that.

These developments are like an unsecured ideological biolab in Wuhan with no reasonable safety protections and eventually a lot of Deep State money that shouldn't have been dumped into them. The result was what we called "Woke" (or "Woke Left"). The receptor sites were specifically identity-cultural points that the post-segregation, post-colonial, post-1960s (not post-WWII) generations were particularly soft and susceptible to under a badly twisted and perverted notion of "tolerance" mixed with heavy amounts of deliberately amplified and exploited generational guilt.

"Woke," which is the Intersectional variant of all of this, which is ultimately best characterized as American Maoism, was the result of an evolutionary process by Marxism, for Marxism, to find a way to get its class-conflict-oriented worldview central in the American sociocultural mind. For those playing at home, Mao was a Marxist. Maoism is a set of tactics he developed for mutating the original Marxist virus to be particularly effective on the Chinese people he was trying to force-infect with it.

So yes, Woke is Marxism, and Marxism is Woke. I'm not going over it again. The lie is busted completely.

It raises the important question, though, of why the Woke Right would defend Marxism from accusations of being "Woke" in the first place (in exactly the same way the Marxist and strictly neo-Marxist Left does, by the way).

The reason is because the Woke Right is not interested in stopping Woke. It is interested in stopping the Left, but it is even more interested in destroying classical liberalism. It's happy to use the Left as the cover for its project of destroying classical liberalism, but that's its real project. Why do you think they call themselves the "post-liberal Right"?

Both Woke Right and Woke Left agree that classical liberalism and individual rights (what Marx and Hitler both called "egotism") have to be done away with completely. They disagree over who gets to do it and how society will be organized. The Woke Left is tyrannical in the name of ending oppression. The Woke Right is tyrannical in the name of installing oppression. This is because the "Left" is radically anti-hierarchy while the "Right" is radically pro-hierarchy.

So the real reason the Woke Right tells this lie is to hide what it's really doing. The Woke Right is attacking classical liberalism in the name of "stopping the Left."

(Incidentally, the Woke Left is doing the same thing. It is attacking classical liberalism in the name of "stopping the Right.")

An essential and central argument from the Woke Right that is part of what makes it Woke is that classical liberalism itself necessarily becomes Communism. If they were to admit that Marxism is a parasitic aberration and attack on classical liberalism that finally found a way to exploit its receptor sites (mostly located in views on tolerance), they would have to abandon their central premise and raison d'etre, which is to destroy classical liberalism (a.k.a., America) in the name of posting up against the Left rather than actually fighting the Left.

(Btw, this is also why they want America defined as a "people in a place" (blood and soil): they have to dislocate what America really represents, which is an experiment in genuine classical liberalism, in order to attack it in the name of "saving" it.)

The Woke Left argues, in parallel, that classical liberalism necessarily becomes Fascism. They both say this is the case because of classical liberalism's focus on individualism, which enables the other extreme by negating the group mentality and group-based "rights" that their side believes is an essential and necessary ingredient in society ignored or suppressed by "evil" classical liberalism.

Both are obviously wrong, but what you have when you have two polar opposing views that both fight the same target in the name of fighting each other is a polarized dialectic. Both its Left and Right pole are trying to undermine and destroy classical liberalism, but both claim their real function is to free us from the evil excesses of the other side. The point of the polarized dialectic is to generate both a fake fight and lots of energy to accomplish the shared goal between the poles, which in this case is the destruction of individual liberties. Obviously, being diametrically opposed, they'll fight (forever) over which side gets to hold power and for which vision, but there's no way off the ride once individual liberties are destroyed.
More on part of this lie:

https://x.com/ConceptualJames/status/1930691867139551237

They're going to end up wearing the Woke Right label for one reason and one reason only: it fits, perfectly. Yoram Hazony is probably their most eloquent little Wormtongue, and I invite you to read his thoughts. I might respond. Maybe.
theblaze.com/columns/opinio… It's key that the play now that the term has stuck is to contain it. The Woke Right will now be working overtime not just to get away from the term but to salvage the "Third Way" false moderates who are still anti-Constitution, anti-liberty by distancing from the wild radicals.

Jordan Peterson is absolutely right about the dark tetrad traits and cluster-B personality disorders underlying the Woke phenomena and that they can appear not just in any group but that they'll be particularly attracted like parasites to reservoirs of status, power, and value. My claim for many years (since 2020 concretely and long before vaguely) has been that the ideological frameworks presented by "Woke" phenomena are in some sense psychosocial extensions of these underlying pathologies, which can "infect" (mind virus) or ensnare vulnerable people.

I owe the Woke Right a big thank you now. Over the last week, I've posted a bunch of stuff as a way of sussing out what territory they're willing to break themselves to defend, and now I have a decent list of what some of those things are. Gonna be fun going forward now. Woke Right will go hard to the mat to make sure Gen Z doesn't learn that the 90s were actually really great and a source of stability and optimism, despite not being perfect, for example. They can't have their radicalizable crop understanding there's a better way.

Wtf is going on with the Woke Right and "Christian Nationalism." This particular manifesto is crazy-pants.
newdiscourses.com/2023/08/wtf-is… I don't think people were ready for that podcast in August 2023, but a lot more people are now. It goes through some details of their weird organizational structure, secret society network, and ultimately this very weird "manifesto" from "Maximum Leader."
theworthyhouse.com/2021/06/17/the…

Woke Right is mostly a radical movement against Middle MAGA, who they view as a bourgeois element (so, opposed to their plans) made up of classical liberals, Americanists, and mainline conservatives. It agitates Normie MAGA against the middle just like any Marxist movement would. So what you have is Woke Right waging a power struggle dialectic against Middle MAGA, classical liberalism, America, and mainstream conservatism while also erecting a new Marxian conflict theory of society overall: Managerial Class versus the right-wing populist "people."

Not sure who needs to hear this (apparently a lot of you), but Antonio Gramsci didn't fashion Cultural Marxist weapons. He fashioned tactics dependent upon a worldview. How you think you'll onboard his tactics without at least some of his worldview is a mystery because you won't. Some of you might have seen Doug Wilson's stupid defense of Chris Rufo's adoption of Gramscian tactics for the "New Right," wherein Wilson, exhibiting his typical lack of discipline, calls Gramscian tactics "weapons." That's a complete failure of comprehension.

People struggle to place Fascism as "Left" or "Right" because it's a Left-wing (Progressive) movement using regressive (coded Right-wing) means as the basis for power consolidation so that it can achieve Progress. Similar is true for Communism but in reverse. It's not just because the Communists labeled the Fascists the real "Right," somewhat disingenuously. It's deeper than that. Communists always marry a truth to a lie, and the truth is that Fascists are Progressives by Regressive Means.

Woke Right claiming victory in struggling Elon Musk into this position.

A country is its constitution and its willingness and capacity to defend it, though. Countries are legal entities constituted by their constitutions. It's literally in the word!

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1908560845367361543

There's some space for debate about if we want to consider a "nation" a people instead of using it as a synonym for "country," which is obviously somehow connotative of the land, but these are the same kinds of semantic games the Left plays with "gender" so it can deconstruct sex

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.

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1906702979278717010

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.

Degrowth is a Communist death sentence. Its purpose is to destroy the West while implementing Marxist government power. It is not being used in China or the Developing World, which are being allowed to rise so they can claim global hegemony under PRC rule.

https://twitter.com/thestustustudio/status/1906729363250290740

It's a lot to explain, but this is also why it's significant that Ian Carroll and co. are doing spaces about Thucydides Trap as a part of an inevitable war with China. PRC-associated globalists have been pushing this as *the plan* for decades, and maybe all along.

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.

https://twitter.com/SpikeDiet/status/1906430626342818269

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.

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.

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.

Speaking Biblically, liberty is the ability to be righteous. Taking proper but not undue responsibility for yourself, your relationship with God, your family and property, your neighbors, and your community all fall within the scope of being righteous. This is a God-given choice. In the Old Testament, God gives Israel the Law and commands them to uphold it. He doesn't force them to uphold it, and while he visits reward and punishment upon his covenential people with respect to the Law, he does not force them to follow the Law. They must choose to.

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.

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."

It's exciting to see research you started getting taken further and more definitive. My friend @iamlisalogan has just released a bombshell report (linked below) about the spiritualist, in fact occultist, nature of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), that proves it's dark religious. She calls her long, detailed (and unbelievable) report "The REAL (religious) Origins of Social Emotional Learning," and it's on her admirable Substack. I encourage you to read the whole thing, but I'll do a thread with some highlights here.
lisalogan.substack.com/p/the-real-rel…

Tbh, no they aren't. There's a mighty demon perched on top of their conservatism, and it's getting worse, not better. Maybe if Trump can deliver sufficiently it will temper them, but we're in for a very, very dangerous decade to come.

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1896570097327841419

Almost every young man I talk to in the conservative movement, but far fewer of the young women, is at least open-minded about the idea of being ruled by a dictator, so long as that dictator agrees with their values (or pretends to). Sympathy to fascism is relatively high too.

Communists are completely wrong about the most fundamental aspects of capitalism. They argue that capitalism works off (and creates/maintains) scarcity, but it actually works from and maintains surplus. As usual, it's exactly the opposite, a complete inversion. 🧵 The essence of capitalism is that one (an individual) can accrue and use one's capital as one will, including to increase one's capital. Capitalism intrinsically and practically creates value as a result, and the mechanism by which it does so is not scarcity but surplus.

Jacques Ellul wrote one of the most important and clarifying books ever written on propaganda. In it, he insists a certain kind of person is the most susceptible to propaganda, giving three traits beyond his own ridiculous belief that he's immune to it. Let's take a look. 🧵 Ellul gives three traits that make someone not just susceptible to propaganda but also dependent on it (!). For us, they will be very unsettling. Before talking about those, though, he also explains that we generally misunderstand propaganda as being like tall tales and lies.