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.

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

Woke 2.0 is coming. It's starting already.

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

Do you think this right-wing influencer is Woke Right?

This is a thread of new polls revisiting the same questions and same personalities from last August, so scroll down and RT the top post.

1) Tucker Carlson 2) Ben Shapiro

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.

All radical movements find themselves in a pinch: they can only really advance when people don't know their true intentions, but they can only really advance by going public with what they're doing. It's an intrinsic dilemma that only rare figures in rare circumstances can win. Mamdani is a good example of a rare figure (extremely good at presenting himself disingenuously while looking real) in rare circumstances (terrible primary opponent, then running against a terrible combination of Cuomo/Sliwa, then still not winning by huge margins).

The United Nations is a lot weirder than you think. A short thread of podcasts about it.
newdiscourses.com/2024/04/occult… Like, it's really weird.
newdiscourses.com/2024/06/the-gl…

Fun fact: If you had a time machine and could go back in time to this day in 2019 but couldn't take any physical evidence with you, you could not convince almost anyone to take the Woke Left threat seriously and would get mocked and yelled at for trying, even by friends. Your left-leaning friends (if you have any) would make fun of you for not getting it. Your right-leaning friends would laugh at you for making a mountain out of a molehill. No one really understood there was a serious problem with the Woke Left until after summer 2020.

Introducing to you two of the "intellectual" Woke Right's favorite contemporary thinkers: Patrick Deneen (left) and R.R. Reno. Here, they demonstrate their inability to see what is plainly in front of them—a Marxist insurgency through Leftist elitist capture—because of their preference for theories of cultural rot and decay.

These kinds of theories about why we are where we are aren't just dangerous misdiagnosed; they're also self-flattering humblebrags, saying in effect, "things got bad because everyone went to shit except people like us who are better than that." Typical Woke virtue signaling except in "modest" conservative form. Yes, they are popular with Woke Right propagandists.

It's Saturday, and the world is a mess. Perhaps it's a good time for a little humor with a point. To that end, allow me to reintroduce the "Grievance Studies Affair" to the world. This will be a longer thread (20+ posts) introducing every single paper of the Grievance Studies Affair individually in a new, never-seen-before way.

The Grievance Studies Affair (or, "Sokal Squared") was an academic hoax project done seven years ago by @peterboghossian, @HPluckrose, and I with the help of @MikeNayna, who also produced a documentary (The Reformers, 2023) about what we affectionately named "the project" as we did it.

It involved writing 20+ academic hoax articles and sending them to peer-reviewed journals in the "theoretical humanities," things like gender studies and sexuality studies, to reveal a kind of ideological academic rabies we now refer to as "Woke (Leftism)". In the end 7 of these papers were accepted, 4 were actually published, 1 received recognition for excellence in scholarship in the field of "feminist geography," and 7 more were still under peer review on October 2, 2018, when the Wall Street Journal blew our cover.

What we learned from the project is ultimately that peer review is only as good as the peers. If the peers are corrupted in some way, that corruption will be validated as "knowledge" and passed into the intellectual foundations of society through the existing system. The implications are vast. Of course, while we revealed a form of ideological corruption in academia, there are other forms as well: political, economic, corporate, etc., all of which matter in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons.

While the Grievance Studies Affair itself is now over six and a half years old and thus an article of history, I don't think it has ever been more relevant. To this day, it still has not been reckoned with in the slightest. Our knowledge-producing institutions have ideological rabies and corporatist cancers that will be our undoing. Until we see complete reform or replacement of much of our research, higher-education, and primary and secondary education institutions and apparatuses, we are at risk of complete societal collapse. It really is that serious, and absolutely none of it has been stopped yet.

This thread isn't just a reminder of the Grievance Studies Affair, however. It's also an introduction to a Grievance Studies Portal I have published on @NewDiscourses through much effort of my team. In this thread, each of the 20+ papers will be introduced individually with direct links to their new home on New Discourses so that you can read them and laugh (or cry, or be horrified) and share them with ease. I hope you appreciate them and all the hard work that went into them and their publication here.

For my part, it has been a great opportunity to take a day to reflect and reminisce about one of the most challenging and most fun times of my entire life. I don't think I will ever be blessed with the opportunity to work so hard while laughing my head off ever again, nor will I ever regain the innocence I had going into this project. I thought it was funny when I started. By the middle, I realized it wasn't just serious but a legitimate threat to civilization. I changed my entire life as a result, and not a lot of that has been so funny.

I hope you enjoy this thread. Below, you will find the release video Mike Nayna produced that we put out on October 2, 2018, minutes after the Wall Street Journal outed us. It has been seen millions upon millions of times now and legitimately has changed the world, just not enough. It will serve as your reminder and introduction to the absolute insanity you'll find in the posts below.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Like I said from the start, mostly I hope you'll find this at least as hilarious as it is terrifying, and maybe you'll share it with your friends.

The Grievance Studies Affair has never been more relevant. The New Discourses Grievance Studies Affair portal is located at the link below. In it, you'll find information about each of us, our motivations, our original write-ups and analysis about the project, as well as every single paper and its peer-reviewed commentary, as available (not all papers made it to peer review).

I hope you will find it a useful and sharable resource about the plague of ideological rabies that has taken over our institutions.
newdiscourses.com/grievance-stud…

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.