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.

I just returned from the ARC conference in London where I had countless conversations with people face-to-face about the "Woke Right." While most by far were moderately to extremely supportive, some were duly challenging. I think it's worth talking about them and their variety.🧵 I will start by reiterating that (a) I had a LOT of conversations about the subject of the "Woke Right," far, far more than I wanted to, so it is definitely being widely recognized and discussed, and (b) that most of these were moderately to extremely supportive of my fight.

In the midst of the USAID scandal flowing to Christianity Today and, apparently, Russell Moore, who tried to gently transform the Southern Baptist Convention to soft Woke up through 2019, I have made a curious discovery: they did some of it with the occultist Fetzer Institute.
As reported in the Baptist Press back in 2019, the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberties Committee (ERLC), headed by Russell Moore and with the collaboration of many notable others, coordinated with the occultist Fetzer Institute to produce a report.
baptistpress.com/resource-libra…