Does the "Woke Right" Exist? - Dedicated Containment Thread

[Rekieta’s Broken Penis]

Define the term bro

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

You mean fiscal conservatives? They're the worst of both worlds, they're the well-to-do penny pincher who wants to shred the moral fabric of society.

 

[Meriasek]

What is "woke" in the first place? The word and its origin implies a person who woke up to previously unseen factors, originally systemic racism and sexism, and basically starts to connect everything to these factors the person woke up to.
In effect this leads to that person being hypersensitive to certain issues and more often than not a puritan as well as bigoted attitude.
A "woke right" would then be either "woke" to modern degeneracy and adopting a similarly puritan attitude towards depictions of sex and race (but for different reasons), or alternatively going a step further and getting "woke" to a root cause common to all modern ailments. I.e. most likely "Jews did it".
Both groups exist, with maybe some overlap, but not complete.
There's a growing group of young people that identify the libertine attitude of modern society towards sex and drugs and so on as detrimental to physical and mental health and see it as a root cause for societal problems. They instead turn towards a more pious lifestyle, actively rejecting pornography and dating culture and such. Partially going for the "TradCath" thing, or otherwise embracing religion in some form or another.
In effect it's basically how a section of each new generation becomes countercultural and rejects the values of society to a certain degree. It's a back and forth between the dominant directions, left and right, and obviously there's also significant overlap within adjacent generations.
So yeah, I'd say a woke right exists, and it is growing to some degree, albeit not quite at the size of the woke left yet. I think it's all part of a somewhat natural cycle of generations rejecting previous values, exaggerated now by the ubiquity of the Internet, social media, and social trends being magnified by them.

 

[Maurice Maine]

Most people who consider themselves right wing/conservative are not. They're just where a lot of leftists were at 20+ years ago. They still default to live and let live, keep it in the bedroom, etc. Which isn't really a position or value judgement of anything anyone has ever done or will do ever. It's basically just the enlightened position of "go ahead, I'm not going to stop you" which isn't wrong in some contexts but is basically a big nothing burger when it comes to politics, ideology, or what you think the best direction for society to pull in is. I think a lot of people get confused because there are some people that have traditionally more right/conservative ideas about economics but not about social issues but since the left is so rigid about what their party line is, anyone slightly out gets dumped into the realm of being "right wing" by default and because if they want to be a grifter then there are only two teams to play that with. No one cares what independents or whatever other made up party thinks and they probably never will.

Times changed. No one wants to be a stuck up curmudgeon with moral codes from the 30s. Things were going pretty well until negroes, kikes and fags decided to go all 1984. Extremism leads to ruin, and we shall see the logical extreme of ideology in the coming decades

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

There's been some discussion lately about an alleged "Woke Right" that is just as bad, if not worse than the Woke Left.
Conversation about a supposed "Woke Right" erupted after James Lindsay posted 'A Communist Manifesto for Christian Nationalists: Testing the Woke Right' (archive) where he described how he published an article titled 'The Liberal Consensus and the New Christian Right' (archive), based on the communist manifesto that swapped out the term Bourgeois with Liberal and proletariat with Christian.

That's a lot of words to say nothing.
If I want to talk about the woke left I can easily pull stuff AOC or any other loud and proud left wing politician has said and show case what the left "woke" wants.
Apparently the only way the woke right exists is as a thought exercise by the most milk toast man on earth. If the woke right existed you could easily pull examples of people and what they say.
Also the term Christian right feels astro turfed. Or at least ivory tower brained. Few nations have "Christian" parties. And those are part of the establishment. And also any Christian that is devout is more likely to associated with their denomination first. White Anglo Saxon Protestants, The Evangelical Lobby things like that.

 

[LurkTrawl]

People who slavishly and mindlessly suck off kikes as a racial group rather than niggers do exist, yes.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Take the actual Nazis and Fascists as examples, or even the Bonapartistes of revolutionary France and the Caesarians of the late Roman Republic

It's a bit a sweeping generalization to group all those things together as if they are related when they really aren't. Nazis and Fascists rose to power largely as a reaction to the Communist International spreading violent revolution in their host countries, and Caesar rose to power primarily because he was a good political opportunist (like Stalin) , and he was from an aristocrat family himself. France is the funny example because a conservative reaction to Jacobins led to the restoration of the monarchy, Napoleon, and the reverse of that revolution. And most of the victims of the French Revolution were the poor and middle class.

But even then - this misses the point. The woke right are people like Nick Fuentes who live with their parents, hate Jews, and love Stalin. Their disdain for the "elite" is nothing but envy because they can't survive on their own. It's really not that deep.

Also, lots of Nazis and Fascists were former Marxists or associated with them. Hitler was a member of the Bavarian Soviet, as were many prominent nazis, and Mussolini was a socialist who was great friends with Bordiga, Gramsci, plenty of Italian anarchists, and his father was an anarchist associated with Bakunin (who probably hated even Jews more than Nazis). And the revolutionary Jacobins were considered essentially proto-communists by the Bolsheviks.

 

[Passing Through Town]

Define the term bro

Essentially James Lindsay believes someone is "woke" if they identify themselves as part of a group. If he were here he'd probably say that he only means people who can only identify as part of a group and not as an individual, but if you're part of any group that he doesn't like he'll accuse you of being unable to "stand alone" anyway. It's really just a repackaging of all the old arguments you used to hear all the time against "identity politics". If Jordan Peterson would call it a Nazi, then James Lindsay would call it woke. If you want to hear him explain what he means himself, you can watch this video. Be warned, he's not very good at getting his ideas across at all. Or maybe his ideas are just too retarded.

 

[Lord Xenu]

Be warned, he's not very good at getting his ideas across at all.

I've watched 3 different videos where Lindsay explains the "woke right", and I don't get it. I agree with the definition that someone on Auron Macintyre's show gave; "the woke right is whoever is trolling Lindsay on twitter at the moment" with a caveat that he seems focused on anti-zionists, who mock him, in particular.

That being said, I have noticed that there is a segment of the online right who have subsumed the language and arguments of the race marxists, such as the oppressed/oppressor framework, which they probably picked up through being propagandized in school. I don't know if that is a large segment of who James is referring to, and I'm not making any judgement call on these peoples position. They do sometimes sound like Robin D'Angelo, though.

There are a couple podcasts that are popular with the online/dissident right that I enjoy, but sometimes when I am watching them break down the messaging in a movie or series, I realize they are making similar arguments to "critical theory". It's like a mirror image of "Tropes in Gaming". Again, I'm not making any judgement towards the substance of those arguments, I'm pointing out that the arguments are superficially similar in construction.

 

[Ah ha']

In the earliest days of the phrasing to be “woke” was associated with “waking up” which meant knowing the truth and seeing the world for what it really is.

Then sometime around 2014 the term started to be used to describe the marxist leftists, i believe it was their attempt to co-op the term of “being the perceivers of truth”. That they should be the ones who really knew “what was up” while being against everything “conspiracy theorists” knew. I believe this to have been a deliberate and calculated plan to knock down as many people as possible, to destroy credibility, and to punish them.

Now we see it happening again with anti-zionist sentiment, which is now neatly attributed to loony leftists, that are woke. While many of the policies that are wanted by people on the right were originally leftist positions decades earlier.

The names change, the polarity changes, but those who’re “awoken” will always be in an adversarial relationship with those who are “woke” and their masters.

 

[Ser Prize]

I've watched 3 different videos where Lindsay explains the "woke right", and I don't get it. I agree with the definition that someone on Auron Macintyre's show gave; "the woke right is whoever is trolling Lindsay on twitter at the moment" with a caveat that he seems focused on anti-zionists, who mock him, in particular.

That being said, I have noticed that there is a segment of the online right who have subsumed the language and arguments of the race marxists, such as the oppressed/oppressor framework, which they probably picked up through being propagandized in school. I don't know if that is a large segment of who James is referring to, and I'm not making any judgement call on these peoples position. They do sometimes sound like Robin D'Angelo, though.

There are a couple podcasts that are popular with the online/dissident right that I enjoy, but sometimes when I am watching them break down the messaging in a movie or series, I realize they are making similar arguments to "critical theory". It's like a mirror image of "Tropes in Gaming". Again, I'm not making any judgement towards the substance of those arguments, I'm pointing out that the arguments are superficially similar in construction.

Sadly the oppressor/oppressed marxist paradigm has so thoroughly influenced culture that it's downright ubiquitous.

 

[Rekieta’s Broken Penis]

Sadly the oppressor/oppressed marxist paradigm has so thoroughly influenced culture that it's downright ubiquitous.

The veneration of the victim above their persecutor is a fundamentally Christian paradigm. The ubiquity of this paradigm is part of Christ’s victory over Satan, which is a fait accompli.

Satan himself influenced the Marxist and post-Marxist perversion of this paradigm, which involves fabricating victims and oppressors from whole cloth. The fundamental problem with these perversions is that they create victims from the successful or materially wealthy. To acknowledge these perversions as wrong is to venerate the victim (i.e. the unjustly persecuted rich)

We should therefore guard against the philosophy that victims and oppressors do not exist at all - this is another Satanic ruse. Somebody like Brian Thompson oppressed the poor. What he did as CEO of that UnitedHealthcare was evil and you aren’t a Marxist for acknowledging that. Any conservative should be screaming it from the rooftops. The problem with “the right” is that it’s an alliance between economic liberalism and social conservatism. The only people who could ever deny that Brian Thompson was an oppressor of the poor, and will probably go to hell, are Godless economic liberals. These people have huge sway over “the right” and actually trick many Christians on “the right” out of practicing Christianity.

 

[Ser Prize]

The veneration of the victim above their persecutor is a fundamentally Christian paradigm. The ubiquity of this paradigm is part of Christ’s victory over Satan, which is a fait accompli.

Satan himself influenced the Marxist and post-Marxist perversion of this paradigm, which involves fabricating victims and oppressors from whole cloth. The fundamental problem with these perversions is that they create victims from the successful or materially wealthy. To acknowledge these perversions as wrong is to venerate the victim (i.e. the unjustly persecuted rich)

We should therefore guard against the philosophy that victims and oppressors do not exist at all - this is another Satanic ruse. Somebody like Brian Thompson oppressed the poor. What he did as CEO of that UnitedHealthcare was evil and you aren’t a Marxist for acknowledging that. Any conservative should be screaming it from the rooftops. The problem with “the right” is that it’s an alliance between economic liberalism and social conservatism. The only people who could ever deny that Brian Thompson was an oppressor of the poor, and will probably go to hell, are Godless economic liberals. These people have huge sway over “the right” and actually trick many Christians on “the right” out of practicing Christianity.

I think you can acknowledge that victims and persecutors can exist while not breaking down every societial interaction into marxist oppressors vs oppressed narratives.

 

[Rekieta’s Broken Penis]

I think you can acknowledge that victims and persecutors can exist while not breaking down every societial interaction into marxist oppressors vs oppressed narratives.

Yes, this is what the vast majority of people do and what is ubiquitous. Vanishingly few people are looking at normal interactions into post-Marxist lens. I’ve certainly never seen anybody on the right doing it.

 

[Ser Prize]

Yes, this is what the vast majority of people do and what is ubiquitous. Vanishingly few people are looking at normal interactions into post-Marxist lens. I’ve certainly never seen anybody on the right doing it.

I disagree. I think the difference is that all societal conflicts are now viewed in an oppressor/oppressed lens, which is marxist. The Christian one is just that victim and victimizer can exist, not that the default state of everyone falls into those boxes.

 

[Passing Through Town]

I think the difference is that all societal conflicts are now viewed in an oppressor/oppressed lens, which is marxist

Yeah, we live in a fundamentally Marxist culture. It's not just the oppressor/oppressed dynamic, though. Materialism is the dominant metaphysic, and the Marxist dialectic is actually taught as the way the world works in schools. It's not explicit, of course, but I can't remember a single history lesson growing up that didn't involve viewing everything through some kind of class dynamic. I can't remember if it was Hitler or Mosley or maybe even Wyndham Lewis in his book on Hitler, but whoever it was did a great job of describing one of the biggest issues with Marxism. The trouble is that when you strictly adhere to the Marxist system you end up with a near infinite number of classes. Firstly you're put into a class based on economic status. Then it can be something like race, or sex. Age, sexuality, disability, etc. You can contrive virtually any kind of conflict between groups this way. After all, one group will always have more power than another, even if it's marginal. No two groups can ever really be equal. And I think that's what causes this sort of schizophrenic behavior in modern liberals. On one hand they believe in the idea that all men are created equal, but on the other they are constantly seeking out ways to make all men more equal. That's the real trouble with "woke" culture; It's quite basically a mental illness, which I believe is deliberately induced at a young age.

Bringing it back to Lindsay, here you have someone who just isn't any good at understanding Marxism. He's stuck in this 2015 "classical liberal" kind of mindset where he thinks of everything as individual vs collective. His idea of liberalism is all about individual rights, personal freedoms, and all that jazz. For some reason in his mind this means that working as a collective, or even identifying as one runs counter to the liberal school of thought. It very obviously doesn't. Lindsay calls himself pro-American. Not only is the USA a collective of "Americans", but it's actually a collective of fifty different collectives of "Americans". The idea of an "American", by the way, is something created by a liberal collective of British colonists in an effort to be free from their oppressors. Wouldn't that be Marxist by his definition?

I could go on, and originally I had several paragraphs of autism after this, but I'll just leave it at this. Lindsay, and liberals in general, are just not intellectually equipped to fight Marxism.

 

[Turquoise]

The term 'woke right' is just a last ditch attempt to keep increasingly racially conscious whites from seeing themselves as white. It's a repackaging of the same nonsensical crap that the great centrist, Carl Benjamin, used to push a few years ago. "Right wing SJWs", "Horse shoe theory" etc. Also Jordan Peterson: "Identity politics are evil... except for Jews."

 

[Bogdandoff]

"woke right" means you don't submit to the ZOG paradigm

 

[Pentex]

Conversation about a supposed "Woke Right" erupted after James Lindsay posted 'A Communist Manifesto for Christian Nationalists: Testing the Woke Right' (archive) where he described how he published an article titled 'The Liberal Consensus and the New Christian Right' (archive), based on the communist manifesto that swapped out the term Bourgeois with Liberal and proletariat with Christian.

Lazy Trojan horse tactics (profaning the sacred). Wouldn't expect any more or less from the new atheist massage therapist who wants to party like its 2005 forever.

The reason Lindsay is having this mental spasm is that loud people on the internet are noticing that liberals have, for the last 60 years in America, almost uniformly bent the knee to the New Left and their ideological descendants because most liberals are, by design, spineless. Nothing terrifies a liberal more than being accused of having bad manners or worse, being a hypocrite by someone who claims that their own particular brand of insanity must be suffered or subsidized because of 'liberty', 'justice', 'freedom' or any of the other shibboleths that 'post-war liberal consensus' types like Lindsay reflexively roll over and show their bellies for.

Lindsay is terrified that conservatives are rejecting the universal solvent of liberalism. If the 'oppressed' are exempt from liberal criticism, of what value is liberal criticism? The old faiths that the liberals tried to bury (family, tribe, race, nation) are returning because the James Lindsays of the world refused to defend the primacy of the liberal world against the onslaught of progressivism, globalism, and identity politics.

 

[The Ugly One]

No. The issue is that liberals, like James Lindsay, lack the basic intellectual framework to understand political discourse on anything other than an individualist/collectivist axis. "Woke" is to them extreme collectivism, and since the Actual Right is somewhat collectivist, talking about "nation" and "family," and tends to be extremist in rhetoric, to a liberal, if you squint, we look "woke."

One problem is the "woke" aren't actually anti-individual. The core of "woke" is the belief that all traditional rules and norms, along with bigoted attitudes, prevent the individual from fully actualizing their true, authentic self. The norms must be torn down and the attitudes cured so that everyone may be their fullest selves (your fullest self probably involves cross-dressing or shitting in public).

There's no such belief on the Actual Right, or any "horseshoe theory" image of it. If anything, we tend to argue that survival is paramount, and that the immediate desires of the individual must often be sublimated so that the society may survive. If being our true selves means mass infertility, children cutting their genitals off, and being overrun by foreigners, then I guess being our true selves is just not that important.

So what Lindsay is missing are the other axes that define us politically. Survival/Extinction is critical, with the Right taking a hard line on Survival and the woke openly glorifying Extinction as atonement, and strangely, the liberals not even addressing it. Another is Order/Chaos. The left is fully devoted to chaos, while liberals tend to favor order. Thus liberals often find themselves with the right, though they eventually find us bothersome, since they see order as necessary for individualism to thrive, while we see it as necessary for our survival. So liberals aren't particularly bothered if women sterilize themselves into extinction, just so long as it's done in an orderly way and made them happy, and the masses of immigrants brought to replace the dying race learn the proper rules. They don't understand why the right is upset by this and think we must be closet leftists.