I’ve decided it’s time for me to make an ultimate list of the various causes of Wokeism, and a concrete, step-by-step plan of how each one could be dismantled.
Of course, it won’t be 100% accurate, and I am just second guessing here. I do approach things in a very formulaic, autistic way and it’s good to acknowledge the limitations of that way of thinking.
However, I love pieces of work that provide mechanical, step-by-step guides to achieve a positive vision, which I see as a refreshing antidote to the endless black-pill so common in this space. I really enjoyed Richard Hanania’s ‘The Origins of Woke’ for this reason
Numerous people like to focus on one main cause of Wokeism, but I think it’s clear that it was a multitude of mutually reinforcing factors, something Paul Gottfried also believes.
We need to break the reinforcing loop if we are to stop the ever-greater move of our society towards extreme cultural leftism. I will give a stab at how it might be done.
I will work backwards, from the most recent ‘tipping point’ to the deep structural and ideological root causes. I will also focus more on the US than Britain, simply because Britain is always downstream from what happens in the United States and has been since the end of World War II, if not earlier (the Jazz Age hit Britain, which was a good thing.)
1. Allowing Gay Marriage to Happen
I have talked about this extensively in previous articles. The imposition of gay marriage was most notably seen by Obergefell vs Hodges, however, by that point the gay marriage movement had so much momentum behind it, with various state referendums having already been invalidated (Hollingsworth vs Perry), that it would have happened sooner or later.
The best chance to have nipped it in the bud was the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Passed when many politicians were already being spooked by the 1994 court decision in Hawaii (a bad omen of what was to come), the act was so overwhelmingly supported by supermajorities in both parties that it could easily, easily, have been a constitutional amendment had they thought it necessary, which they would’ve done had they had a crystal ball into the future.
Tragically, this was not thought necessary. Despite this federal law, and 32 state referendums being held and each time gay marriage losing, the shameless LGBT activists managed to emotionally manipulate the Supreme Court into imposing gay marriage nationwide, manufacturing consent for it later.
This unlikely, unthinkable feat, achieved against such overwhelming odds, made the LGBT movement feel invincible. There was no level of radicalism that would create sustained backlash, people would always capitulate in the end.
1996 is the key point here. If DOMA had been a constitutional amendment, the movement for gay marriage would have been nipped in the bud. The ‘LGBT’ aspect of Wokeism would never have come to prominence.
However, for the other Woke movements, the origins predate this.
How to Overturn:
Despite being the most recent cause of Woke turbocharge, this will be one of the most difficult to repeal, something that the LGBT activists rely on when imposing it undemocratically. A constitutional amendment at this point will never happen, the last opportunity would have been in the 2000s and if done then major concessions would have to have been made (civil unions). 1996 was the best chance.
However, this doesn’t mean we should give up. As I have explained previously, the best chance is a ‘privatisation of marriage’, aka, get the government out of marriage and let people define it however they please.
This would be framed as ‘not favouring marriage over other social arrangements’, which might appeal to those on the left (the Irish constitutional amendment which lost had exactly this in mind). However, in actual fact it would be an ‘accelerationist’ means of creating ‘category overload’. Because polygamy and people marrying their pets will be allowed, in time, the traditional definition of marriage would reassert itself.
This would mean that there wouldn’t be the legal chaos of gay marriages being ‘invalidated’. If that happened, gay couples would still think of themselves as ‘married’ despite what a piece of paper says, so the overturn wouldn’t last very long and would almost certainly strengthen the hand of the LGBT activists.
But the legal framework around ‘marriage’ will be replaced with something like ‘opposite sex couples with biological children’. Gradually, the traditional definition would re-assert itself in the midst of the legal and cultural chaos.
This would be an imperfect solution, but the only feasible one. A gradual dismantling and war for cultural hegemony may mean that 20 years after marriage’s ‘privatisation’, a new, heterosexual-only civil marriage can be reinstituted, but this will require a massive amount of work on the cultural front, that only I seem to have the appetite towards.
Of course transgenderism needs to be the first target. Such notions of ‘gender identity’ need to be seen as a dangerous pseudoscience across all scientific institutions, detransitioners need to extensively sue and press criminal charges against their mutilators, all recognition of legal sex change needs to be revoked, and laws akin to those of Hungary should be instituted on the topic of child exposure to LGBT ideology.
But the trans activists will always have the precedent of the right’s humiliating self-debasement and surrender on gay marriage for as long as it stays on the books. Whilst good, completely ending trans recognition would be a Reagan redux of ‘three steps forward, one step back’ for the cultural left.
‘Religious Freedom’ needs to be instituted to the maximum possible extent. Religious organisations should have absolute freedom to exclude LGBT activists. Even for the non-religious, this will benefit society as a whole, creating a strong counterweight to LGBT hegemony.
2. Feminisation of Institutions
Over the past 50 years, there has been a major shift in the workforce as women have gone on to occupy various high status and elite positions traditionally represented by men.
However, this has not led to women adopting more masculine characteristics, despite the superficial ‘Girlboss’ persona. The truth is actually far worse, the entry of women into the workforce has led to the ‘feminisation’ of public life.
On average, women are more group-oriented, emotional, conformist, and safety-focused compared to men. The IQ distribution of women is more concentrated towards the middle of the range, whereas male IQ is more variable. This is why, without gender quotas, affirmative action, and anti-male discrimination, men naturally come out on top of women in the most high status and elite positions. However, this is by no means ALL men; men also are much more likely to be in prison. The higher levels of aggression is a double edged sword, which can lead to great innovation and drive, but also great violence and destruction.
With more and more professions coming under female influence, these institutions have become ‘Longhoused’. A culture which shuns innovation and deviation from community norms, prioritises health and safety and ‘emotional wellbeing’, and engages in passive-aggressive social signalling. The HR Department is a highly feminised institution that has turbocharged in recent decades to comply with civil rights law, as Richard Hanania mentions in ‘The Origins of Woke’.
Women are often seen as the ‘gentler sex’, but this is not true. Many women are over-devouring, ruthlessly competitive, and enjoy double standards and implicit, hidden forms of control and authority.
Women have been in large part responsible for the normalisation of pathologies like homosexuality and transgenderism. The mother who trans her kids wants to limit their autonomy: wants to kill masculinity in her son, and mutilate her daughter so she will never become more beautiful than her.
The trans ideology, whilst of course not only being driven by women, has progressed to its truly horrific conclusions due to the ‘devouring mother’ and the LGBT appeals to the emotional rather than the logical and rational, which women are uniquely susceptible to. The men who opposed women’s suffrage because ‘women are too emotional’ turn out to have been right.
There are of course exceptions to these rules, I have been lucky to befriend many intelligent and rational women in this space, who should should check out (
, , to name a few), and have defended female figures from unabashed women-haters. Also, contrary to the bitter incels and religious puritans, the problem with women in today’s society has very little to do with their number of sexual partners and promiscuity.However, there are genuine issues in the mindset of the average woman that, whilst good in moderation, can become toxic if not held in check.
How to Overturn:
If women are able to conform to masculine standards, they should not be denied entry to positions on account of their sex. But they should be expected to conform to these standards, and institutions should not be changed for their benefit.
Women should not be able to demand that institutions are changed to be more in tune with their temperament of safety-ism, nor seek to violate of the autonomy, independence, and innovative spirit of men.
A complete return of women to the domestic sphere is highly unlikely and probably not desirable, for as
has talked about, ‘Oriental Anti-Feminism’ can be just as Longhousing as Western feminism. Women have not been made masculine, as many anti-feminists feared, instead, society has been made more feminine. Our goal should be to make women, and therefore society, more masculine in temperament.Here are some policy suggestions which will make an impact:
Ensure greater gender balance at universities, with policies that seem fair on paper but actually benefit men. For instance, following
’s idea, access to university should be limited to a top percentage of men and a top percentage of women (that I will discuss in the next section). What this will mean in practice however is that more men than women attend university.Make this desire for gender balance university-wide rather than subject specific. The sciences should return to being majority male, with female-dominated subjects having their funding vastly reduced.
End all gender quotas and affirmative action policies in all public institutions and organisations and companies contracted by the government. Over time, the distortions created by the modern Woke regime will correct themselves.
Implicitly have universities be more hostile to female temperament. Allow greater proliferation of laddish hooliganism, indulge female claims of sexual assault much less, and expect women to either tolerate the masculine norms of engagement, or leave. ‘Female tears’ should be called out when they serve manipulative, passive-aggressive purposes.
Aggressively promote in children’s education and programming the superiority of traditional gender roles.
Once again make feminists the object of mockery and ridicule.
Create a tax policy that, whilst keeping things simple, create a reduced tax for businesses that confirm to certain structures. One of those will be sectoral bargaining, but the other will be minimal amount of HR departments.
End all ‘workplace harassment policies’ and allow office romances.
If some exceptional, atypical women with more masculine traits jump through these hoops, that is great. Society benefits from having atypical women being able to make use of their talents and not being excluded simply because of their sex. The best men are very attracted to women with these personality traits.
But the goal should be that, on average, there are less women in taste-setting institutions and positions of influence, so that ‘toxic femininity’ cannot cause society to make terrible judgements based on a manipulative emotional appeals. The ‘devouring mother’ archetype will never again be able to ruthlessly and jealously destroy her children through indulging in their emotional distress and mental illness for her own vindictive benefit.
3. Expansion of University Education
Peter Turchin’s notion of ‘Elite Overproduction’ is absolutely correct. Wokeness turbocharged in the early 2010s because that was the point where there were too many graduates and not enough graduate jobs due to the 2008 Great Recession. This created enormous resentment amongst Millennials, as to why they didn’t have the same degree of economic and job security as their parents, despite having equal or better levels of qualifications and being saddled with large amounts of student loan debt.
The Occupy Wall Street movement was made up disproportionately of these dispossessed college graduates, who also channelled into their grievances identity politics concerns that were more acceptable to corporate elites.
The roots of this problem lay with the 1965 Higher Education Act and its subsequent expansions, which provided state-funded loans to all young people to get a college education in the United States. In Britain, the creation of free university education, in combination with the abolition of the grammar school system, created an ever greater rise of graduates, from under 10% in the 1960s, to almost 50% by the 2010s (even when free tuition was abolished, the student loan system did nothing to stem numbers, and indeed that was not what it was intended to do.)
In these universities, left-wing radicals were able to secure tenure and teach students radical ideas whilst on the taxpayer payroll. This was a process that Chris Rufo has described as the ‘Long March Through the Institutions’, where campus radicals of the 1960s became professors, and departments and disciplines like ‘Gender Studies’, ‘Women’s Studies’, ‘Critical Race Theory’, and ‘Postcolonial Studies’ proliferated. This was first to infect the humanities, but by the 2010s had also infected the sciences.
How to Overturn:
To reverse both ideological capture and end the problem of elite overproduction, less than 10% of people should go to a university unrelated to employment, which should be funded by the taxpayer and therefore the state should have the right to control what gets taught. The rest should go to a vocational college directly linked to employment.
Many ‘alternative to university’ plans forget that a huge part of why young people go to university is for the social life, and telling them to ‘do an apprenticeship’ and go straight into work with a ‘Workforce Training Grant’ is not going to be as attractive as being in student dorms, making friends, and partying, something Freddie DeBoer has talked about.
The goal needs to be to promote an alternative to university that is more linked to employment, less likely to be captured by Woke activists, but still allows students to indulge in hedonism.
Here are some policies which could help:
In connection with the previous section, mandate that only the ‘top 10% of men’ and the ‘top 10% of women’ are eligible to go to university, defined as an institution that awards bachelors degrees.
For these academically gifted individuals, tuition would be free. However, the university system would be entirely controlled by the state (at least until it looks like an opposition party might win, then we remove political control in a way that is very hard to re-establish.)
All Woke areas of study, like Gender Studies, Critical Race Theory, Women’s Studies, and generally everything with the word ‘Human Rights’ in its name, must be completely defunded.
Universities must admit students on a strictly meritocratic basis, on the basis of top 10% of each sex. Personal statements should be removed, and only test results would be taken into consideration as personal statements are rife with bias. There should be no affirmative action in admissions of any kind, including class, which is a ‘gateway’ to other more destructive forms of ‘diversity promotion’.
All and every DEI programme inside the university system should be shut down, including any programme or institution that continues the same thing under a different name.
‘Zero-tolerance’ approach to student activists who counter-protest or try to ‘no-platform’ speakers, with the ‘Paradox of Tolerance’ invoked to why these actors cannot be tolerated. These students should be immediately expelled, without any qualifications, and should have to pay back the full cost of their studies.
Require that Student Unions purely concern themselves with being a social club for students, and are forbidden from ‘taking a stand’ on any issues not directly concerned with the university administration.
End tenure for professions and fire all who promote a ‘Woke worldview’, which may be for as something as little as ‘wearing a rainbow lanyard’. A good thing about the rainbow lanyard is that it has made ‘enemies’ easily identifiable.
Ban the display of the pride flag on any university property if they are to keep their taxpayer funding and their status as a chartered university able to issue out degrees.
Ban degree requirements in all public sector jobs, or private jobs where the company is contracted by the public sector.
Convert most colleges into purely vocational institutes, and ‘privatise’ them.
Give all young people who do not go to university (the exclusive system distinct from the vocational colleges) a lump sum of money to spend on whatever they choose, either starting a business or getting vocational training of some kind. This will help people understand what is good value for money. It will also mean that those who want to take the academic route consider if they might prefer a cash payment instead.
For students that are unable to pay for vocational tuition, have these institutions take on the risk of loaning them the money. The state will not subsidise this, which will mean the vocational institutions must be laser-focused on providing employment.
Tax vocational colleges for graduate unemployment.
Charge universities and colleges for student bankruptcy.
Following Patrick Deneen’s proposals, require all attending university to do a period of manual labour to create ‘class harmony’.
For K-12 institutions:
Create universal school voucher systems to dismantle the power of the public school bureaucracy and teachers unions, that have become infested with Wokeism.
4. Removal of Homosexuality as a Mental Illness
Gay marriage was the tipping point that turbocharged the normalisation of sexual deviance in society, but the roots of it go further back, to the 1970s.
Do you ever wonder why psychological and medical establishments so overwhelmingly parrot out the dogma of the trans activists? It’s because they were already compromised by homosexual activists, who used a variety of intimidating means to get them to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders.
Homosexuality, when it is not a choice, stops people from living a normal, functional life, and so therefore is objectively a mental illness. It is not in the same degree as transgenderism, which when genuine (rarely), is a schizophrenic-style neurological illness, but the reason why homosexuality was removed from the DSM-II was because of political factors.
In 1972, gay activists stormed the building of the American Psychological Association and threatened them with violence unless they removed homosexuality from the DSM-II, of which they quickly complied, abandoning an empirical and essentialist worldview in favour of postmodernism
They also went out to destroy the life of any person with establishment credentials who contradicted them, namely Paul Cameron (Wikipedia page is slander), and later Mark Regnerus. It became taboo to say ‘homosexuality is a mental illness’ before it became taboo to say ‘homosexuality contradicts my religious faith.’ This is important, because the former is a much more plausible argument to non-religious people, indeed it is common sense to people that something that would greatly limit the ability for a normal family life and to reproduce would be an affliction of some kind.
How to Overturn
Surprisingly, this might be easier to do than repeal gay marriage. Numerous gay marriages have happened, however there is an instinctive feeling that homosexuality is ‘abnormal’ amongst most people, which they simply don’t say due to politeness.
Transgenderism of course should absolutely be classed as a mental illness, no doubt about it. But it is in homosexual activism that we see the important precursor in the agenda to normalise perversion; with transgenderism simply an extension of homosexual activism, as proven that most gays overwhelmingly support transgender extremism.
Unfortunately, the scientific institutions have been completely subverted and captured by LGBT, the psychology profession hit first. In order to rebuild them, it will be necessary to more-a-less start them from scratch.
Also important is that Wikipedia is taken over, and its bias towards Wokeism is ended in favour of a ‘bias towards empirical reality’.
The scientific institutions that we promote, grounded in Platonic and Aristotelian Essentialist ideals and using the scientific method to build off of that core philosophical bedrock, will become the ‘authority’ that is cited on Wikipedia. Likewise, universities receiving taxpayer funding will be forbidden from citing ‘low quality’ and ‘pseudoscientific’ sources, aka, those that indulge LGBT ideology.
The medical profession will continuously be reminded of the ‘damning’ influence of LGBT ideology that it allowed to infiltrate itself, and like fears of ‘White supremacy’ today, will be forced to do everything it can to scrub itself clean of such influence.
5. Civil Rights Law
Here comes one of the main legislative cancers that underpins most other things. Richard Hanania and Christopher Caldwell have already done a great job at explaining its utterly corrosive effects, but I will reiterate here.
Whilst ending legal segregation in the South was justified, Title II and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ended free association and was the legal root that started the Woke takeover of public life. Title VII was particularly corrosive because it created the ‘Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’ that would continuously expand its jurisdiction to become an absolute leviathan.
This started because of a fear of ‘hidden racism’. Because of this fear, the EEOC would see underrepresentation of minority groups in certain professions, and unequal group outcomes in terms of income or educational attainment, as proof of discrimination.
Cold War Liberals adopted this logic. Lyndon B. Johnson passed EO 11246 in 1965 which mandated racial quotas in federal procurement, and Richard Nixon expanded it in 1969 with EO 11478 to the entire federal public sector workforce.
Legislation was expanded in the coming decades. The 1968 Civil Rights Act extended the Civil Rights Act to housing, the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act made smaller businesses liable to civil rights lawsuits by the EEOC, the 1972 Educational Amendments established Title IX to ensure ‘gender equity’ in universities, which gradually ended up creating draconian sexual harassment regulations, the 1987 Civil Rights Restoration Act mandated that all employers contracted by the federal government needed to be committed to ‘civil rights’ in all of their activities, not just in the economic activities that they were contracted to provide, and the 1991 Civil Rights Act allowed the party launching the lawsuit to define what constituted ‘discrimination’, allowing them to claim damages of $200,000 if they won, but the company or organisation not being compensated if they won, turbocharging an ever greater drive to comply with the ever more draconian regulations.
In Britain, there was the 1976 Race Relations Act which did a similar thing to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the US. But it’s fullest manifestation was under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown with the 1998 Human Rights Act, 2006 Equality Act, and 2010 Equality Act.
Britain also has the chilling ‘hate speech laws’ which don’t exist in America, which urgently need to be repealed, particularly the 2003 Communications Act.
How to Overturn:
The easiest things to repeal would be Executive Order 11246 and 11478. All racial quotas and DEI programmes within the federal government will be axed, and private contractors will be forbidden from having any of these quotas and programmes, or from discriminating against straight White men.
Due to a factor I will explain later, to repeal the various acts of legislation would be very difficult due to the ‘mythology’ around them, without some ‘compensation’. Even if the entire GOP was behind repealing these various laws, which could happen if Trump aggressively promoted such a policy, it would not pass the 3/5 filibuster-proof Senate majority.
This is where
’s Reparations Proposal may be a feasible plan to make some of these measures politically palatable. Reparations for slave descendants should be dependent on each person receiving reparations signing a ‘Declaration of Absolution’ and all Civil Rights Laws being abolished.Ultimately, every single piece of Civil Rights Law passed after 1965 should be repealed. Due to the mythological significance of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it may be, at least temporarily, politically expedient, to leave that law untouched, but have only the ‘1964 Civil Rights Act AS WRITTEN’, and every subsequent expansion axed, something Richard Hanania recommended.
The actual staffing of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be made absolutely toothless, or alternatively, should utilise all of its power to launch investigations and crippling lawsuits into organisations and corporations that discriminate against straight White men, something which may be the more feasible option initially and indeed is something that Project 2025 and Agenda 47 has planned. However, after it has been turned against our enemies to the maximum possible extent, it must be made toothless, and then abolished.
In regards to Britain, due to the nature of our uncodified constitution, if a party is united behind a repeal of these acts, it could do so without much difficulty. We have an enviable position that we do not use.
But executive orders and legislation do not form the majority of the reason for why the Civil Rights Regime has become such a leviathan in the United States.
6. Warren and Burger Court Precedent and Judicial Activism
That is the precedents of the Warren Court, the Supreme Court led by Earl Warren, which engaged in utterly shameless judicial activism and abuse of the power of judicial review, abusing constitutional loopholes that make the power of the Supreme Court de-facto unlimited.
It was the Warren Court, and later the Berger Court, that created the majority of the Civil Rights Regime by interpreting the laws in the most Woke way.
All of the rulings I’m about to mention were actually rulings of the Berger Court, but they were continuations of Warren Court philosophy and precedent.
The rulings in question:
Griggs vs Duke Power Company (1971) - Affirmed theory of ‘Disparate Impact’ in the application of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Disparate Impact is the idea that any unequal group outcomes is proof of discrimination.
Rogers vs EEOC (1971) - Started the precedent of anything the plaintiff called discriminatory being taken as fact.
Regents of University of California vs Bakke (1978) - Allowed affirmative action in university admissions.
Christiansburg Garments Co. vs EEOC (1978) - Plaintiffs are compensated if they win Civil Rights cases, defendants are not compensated if they win. This was formalised in the 1991 Civil Rights Act.
How to Overturn:
On these court rulings, there is more immediate hope of repeal since the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. Bakke was partially overturned by Students for Fair Admissions vs Harvard (2023). The current conservative court majority, for all its faults, has shown appetite for rolling back cases regarding Civil Rights Law. Richard Hanania in ‘The Origins of Woke’ recommends that lawsuits are launched to challenge Griggs, which have a high chance of succeeding due to the current court majority.
But why did fairly establishment figures, like Earl Warren, William O’Douglas, and William J. Brennan Jr, side so overwhelmingly side with every demand of the Civil Rights Movement? As Eric Kaufmann says, the judges COULD have decided to interpret the Civil Rights Acts differently.
7. Civil Rights Mythology
The reason why it would be so hard to repeal Civil Rights Law is because a whole mythology has developed around the Civil Rights Movement, so much so that it is seen as a ‘Second Founding’. Martin Luther King, an anti-White Marxist, has a public approval rating higher than that of the Founding Fathers, and has an official holiday named in his honour.
How to Overturn:
If we are to defeat Wokeism, we need to completely dismantle the entire mythology of the Civil Rights Movement, like the Woke have done with the memory of the Confederacy and the memory of the Founding Fathers
Luckily, the Woke have helped us do this. The Civil Rights Regime was most effective when they let people believe the mythological version of Martin Luther King, of the ‘Real Uncle Tom’ archetype from Harriet Beecher Stowe’s ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’. But now that they have deconstructed that myth and revealed that he supported affirmative action, reparations, etcetera, it gives us more ability to attack him.
We should expose him as a fraud, a plagiariser, and a sexual abuser. We need to re-establish the narrative of the Civil Rights Movement being a terrible thing, and the White Southerners who criticised it like George Wallace having been vindicated by history, and who’s memory is honoured.
Schools need to be teaching how the Civil Rights Regime led to young women mutilating themselves and White people being forced to bow down for their White privilege. We need to as closely as possible associate the George Floyd Riots with Martin Luther King and the entire cultural paradigm he brought, and indeed the riots that happened during his lifetime but have been wiped from the historical memory.
This will be a long road, but it looks like things are starting to happen. Who would have thought even 2 years ago that Charlie Kirk would denounce Martin Luther King? It has become more and more commonplace to talk about dismantling Civil Rights Law, not just ‘restoring the spirit of MLK’ that the IDW did, which we all now know was a complete fiction, because the true ‘Spirit of MLK’ is Critical Race Theory.
We also need to remove the idea that racism is the ultimate sin. Rather, selling out one’s race is the ultimate sin. We need to make it normal for Whites to say ‘so what?’ when being called ‘racist’. It is absolutely essential that word loses its power, and ‘anti-racism’ from Whites, i.e., selling out your own race, is seen as more of a sin.
8. Taboo Around Genetic Racial Differences
Nathan Cofnas’ famous article that I cite in most essays, ‘We Need to Talk About the Right’s Stupidity Problem’ makes this case extremely well.
To reiterate what he said, if one takes racial egalitarianism and the idea that there are no racial differences between human beings as a given, the only logical conclusion to consistent unequal group outcomes is ‘systemic racism’. Whilst very intelligent people sometimes have the intellectual independence to question these assumptions, for those of ‘above average intelligence’, who don’t want to think something they know will lead to their total exclusion from public life, the other explanations like ‘culture’ and ‘bigotry of low expectations’ can be seen through.
So long as Human Biodiversity (HBD) and Race Realism remains taboo, as it has been since 1945, anti-Woke people will continuously be presented with evidence of unequal group outcomes, and those not firmly in either camp will be persuaded by the Woke side. The IDW ‘Heterodox Academy’ was doomed from the start because it would not allow discussions about links between race and average IQ. But if that isn’t discussed, it has no explanation for unequal group outcomes, allowing the Woke to claim the narrative.
How to Overturn:
This is very hard. Jared Taylor dedicated his life, what might otherwise have been a very stable and comfortable career, to trying to get these ideas mainstreamed. Yet he continues to be banned from X, even when Nick Fuentes is let back on.
Counter-Currents makes the argument against Nathan Cofnas’ article that people tried this for decades, only to be completely excluded from public life, so it is bordering on disrespectful for Cofnas to talk about these things as if it is easy.
But as Walt Bismarck has said in ‘How the Alt-Right Won’, it HAS become more acceptable to talk about HBD analysis. If anything, despite his repulsive opinions on other issues, Richard Hanania does help mainstreaming HBD ideas.
What’s important is that those on the Right stand up for the rights of people who advocate for HBD and do not join in the left’s attempts to cancel them. They should not give into the moral scolding of gatekeepers like Rod Dreher and Sohrab Ahmari on this issue.
In the university reforms I mentioned above, a huge part of reshaping taxpayer-funded institutions would be appointing HBD scholars to sociology and anthropology departments to transform the discipline. A bottom-up takeover of HBD ideas is impossible due to the Woke having ‘kicked down the ladder’, but if assisted by legal changes and sympathetic people being elected into office, not revealing the full extent of their views until in a position of power to change it, these ideas really could grain traction and influence.
It’s impossible to build a ‘right-wing social science establishment’ without HBD, it is the glue that holds it all together. As we have seen, when academia shuns these ideas, as they did for the entirety of the Post-War period, it can do nothing to stop the rise of Wokeism.
But why is Race Realism so taboo?
9. Lack of White Identity
A reason why Whites could never fight back at the endless discrimination thrown at them was because they lost their group identity. As Jared Taylor said, every other group in America can advocate for their ethnic self-interests, but not Whites.
However, its mostly the fault of Whites that this is the case. Other ethnic groups didn’t have much trouble asserting themselves despite much smaller numbers. So why was it that Whites never tried to stand up for themselves, and in fact passed laws to discriminate against themselves?
Believe it or not, there were once organisations that did this, like the Citizens Councils in the South. In a more contemporary example, American Renaissance did try to be exactly this; you could not get a more respectable figure than Jared Taylor leading your organisation. Yet he still remains banned from X despite Nick Fuentes being reinstated.
How to Overturn:
A huge barrier to this is the amount of social media censorship and ‘hate speech laws’ (in Britain at least), a legacy of traitorous older generations of White men who sold out their own people and stopped their sons and grandsons from starting movements.
Here is what to do:
Abolish all ‘hate speech’ laws (in Britain).
Make doxing a criminal offense.
Make ‘anti-White racism’ a common talking point of right-wing politicians, and make them
Establish total freedom of association (enforced to apply mostly to Whites and social conservatives).
Litmus test politicians on being ‘friendly to White interests’.
Class all social media platforms as ‘common carriers’ and prohibit ‘viewpoint discrimination’. Have ‘our people’ make up the personnel of the organisation tasked with enforcing this, so it is right-wing, pro-White opinions that are most protected by the law.
Launch crippling lawsuits into anti-White organisations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League.
Shame and ostracise Whites who buy into Critical Race Theory as ‘White Uncle Toms’ and ‘Race Traitors’. Being ‘racist’ should be far less taboo than being a ‘race traitor’.
But why are Whites so reluctant to do this? Why has ‘White Guilt’ become so widespread?
10. Nazism and Holocaust as ‘Ultimate Evil’
Wokeness is a reaction to Nazism. It’s basically ‘whatever Hitler thought or did, do the opposite’, as Tom Holland has said.
This process has been going on since 1945. Not to be a Groyper, but a large part of it was pushed by Jews, motivated by the slogan of ‘Never Again’. You can see a confession on the part of liberal Jews in the Atlantic article ‘The Golden Age of American Jews is Ending’, and Paul Gottfried, himself Jewish, talks about the influence of the ‘American Jewish Committee’ in enshrining the Holocaust as the ultimate crime in Western historical memory, which it of course was for the Jews, though not for Anglo-Saxons.
Temporarily, the anti-Nazi morality was tempered by a focus on Cold War anti-communism. But due to the fact that liberalism and Marxism were ‘sister ideologies’, fundamentally agreeing with the egalitarian, universalistic, and emancipatory assumptions of the Enlightenment, only disagreeing about who best fulfilled them, they had a common enemy in Nazism. Indeed, each one accused each other of being Nazi-adjacent.
It’s why Boomer conservatives will constantly emphasise the similarities between communism and Nazism, and how Hitler was a ‘National Socialist’. The fact that the Neoconservative movement was dominated by Jews also enshrined this moral paradigm. This is known as the ‘Boomer Truth Regime’.
I’m not somebody who blames the Jews for all of Wokeness, but particularly this mythology around World War II and the Holocaust being at the centre of it all is a work of Jewish influence. This has not led all to Woke conclusions, the ethos around the State of Israel is very much not Woke, but the way that the Anglosphere adopted it allowed ‘Nazi’ and ‘Fascist’ to become such charged terms.
How to Overturn:
The emphasis on World War II needs to end, and we need to adopt the Ernst Nolte interpretation of history. The Holocaust should be seen as simply one genocide amongst many in history, and we should classify the German Expulsions likewise as a genocide.
We should also talk about the overrepresentation of Jews in Bolshevism in Russia, and the crimes of communism. Whilst never excusing or justifying the Holocaust, we should create moral equivalence between communism and Nazism, eroding the clear cut ‘good vs evil’ narrative that we still subscribe to today.
The pro-Palestine movement can be weaponised to relativise the Holocaust. Whilst I sympathise more with Israel than I do with Palestine, the pro-Palestine movement gives an opportunity to dismantle a large part of the moral and narrative underpinning around Wokeism.
Some concrete policies would include:
Stopping the mandatory teaching the Holocaust in schools. Instead, Nazism should always be seen as only morally equivalent to communism.
There should be greater awareness of communist atrocities, particularly during WW2 and under Stalin, taught in schools. We should make denial of these as taboo as denial of the Holocaust.
The narrative of the Holocaust should be replaced with one that sees Wokeism as the ultimate evil, it’s final conclusion in the transgender mutilation of children, of which we shall show psych-op before and after pictures in schools to sear into children’s minds that this movement is evil.
The pride flag should be seen as more offensive as the swastika, and children should be taught about it as the ultimate symbol of evil, and the opposite of all that is moral.
Make it a key policy objective to make ‘the next generation more socially conservative than the last’.
11. ‘Human Rights’ and ‘International Law’
This doesn’t so much affect America, that is instead the enforcer of these ‘human rights‘ standards across its empire whilst not following them itself, for instance, America still having capital punishment and Guantanamo Bay.
But particularly for Britain, the notion of ‘international law’ and ‘human rights’ has deeply impeded on the right of sovereign counties to govern their own internal affairs. When the European Convention on Human Rights was established in 1950, it seemed only there to protect against a repeat of the Holocaust. However, due to the ‘Living Instrument Doctrine’ by the European Court of Human Rights, it has usurped more and more authority away from nations, coming to a head in the overturning of Swiss laws around carbon emissions. It has become a globalist bureaucracy intent on imposing Woke values on the globe.
The 1951 Refugee Convention has also been relentlessly abused. What was originally designed to give people fleeing genuine persecution, akin to the Jews in Nazi Germany, a right to claim asylum in the ‘first safe country’, has become a means by which national borders can be completely circumvented by economic migrants.
‘Human rights’ are an extension of ‘natural rights’. They are a millenarian, neo-Christian moral paradigm that Western countries use to exert their power over the globe, making them conform to their personal standards, for instance, on constructed causes like ‘LGBT Rights.’
How to Overturn:
Countries need to be much more bold in challenging the basic premises of ‘human rights. Britain should leave the European Court of Human Rights and repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act.
An American President needs to eloquently articulate a reason for why ‘human rights’ are a sham, and are always hypocritical.
‘Rights’ should be presented as part of a unique national tradition, not universal or ‘innate’ in any way, and a product of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples when fused with the influence of Christianity. Other societies may have adopted the framework of the Anglo-Saxon and Christian ‘rights’, but this does not make them ‘human’, it simply means that, like the Romans introduced the Latin alphabet, it is a legacy of Anglo-Saxon influence.
To make this point clear, the US should recognise the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, without any ‘commitment to human rights’ being shown first. The Taliban won the war, America lost the war, and recognising and establishing relations with a country does not mean moral endorsement of their internal affairs.
All ‘human rights promotion’ abroad should be defunded. We now know that ‘human rights’ has become a code-word for Wokeism and the promotion of the rainbow plague across the world.
12. Federal Managerial State
However, whilst World War II was the accelerant, it would also not be accurate to say that it was the absolute cause.
The difference was that before WWII there were some competing ideologies that were not completely discredited, like Race Realism and Southern Agrarianism.
But the legacy of various interwar trends, most notably that of the New Deal, is personified in the Woke capture of the bureaucracy, and will need to be thoroughly dismantled due to how sickeningly infected it is.
How to Overturn:
Project 2025 is already drawing up huge lists of personnel to create ‘Schedule F’ jobs to replace 50,000 career Civil Servants. However, this still doesn’t even scratch the service, and because of 50 years of Woke educational capture, it would simply be impossible to staff the entire managerial state entirely of non-Woke people, at least at it’s current size.
So the solution is radical downsizing of the federal government, and maximal replacement of ‘non-partisan’ government workers with political appointees. Vivek Ramaswamy’s proposal of cutting the number of federal government workers by 75% seems like a good amount.
Those wearing rainbow lanyards will be the first to get axed, in fact every single person wearing one can be identified as an ‘enemy’. The mass layoffs should disproportionately affect women and LGBTs.
In Britain, the Civil Service needs to be replaced with a system of largely political appointees, vetted so that they are not Woke. Also, those with ‘'pronouns on bio’ and rainbow lanyards should be sacked on the spot.
Subsidiarity needs to be the foundation of policymaking. Everything that can be done by non-state actors like civil society should be, anything that can be done by local government should be, and only areas which absolutely must be done nationally should be.
By delegating power to lower levels, we reduce the power of the managerial state
13. Universal Suffrage
The idea of universal suffrage is based on a false idea of ‘natural rights’, and a ‘Social Contract’. This is the idea that the ‘consent’ of each individual person is necessary for government legitimacy, and that voting is a ‘right’ they automatically have.
Universal suffrage is a consequence of the lie that ‘all men are created equal.’ Whilst one can support majority adult suffrage for utilitarian reasons of elite accountability, as I do, unless the rationale is explicitly herrenvolk and based on an ethno-nationalist conception of nationhood, it can lead down the path of believing that all are deserving of complete equality in all aspects of life.
It was good that property requirements were abolished, as the working-class are an important constituency to represent, but the removal of any requirements like tax-payment or military service eroded the sense of one’s civic duties and only made people aware of their ‘rights’, as I have mentioned in my Starship Troopers article.
The expansion of the right to vote to women did have negative consequences, but this was only an extension of the vote being given to all men, and the idea of suffrage as a ‘right’.
How to Overturn:
This will also be hard as it has become commonly accepted as a ‘right’.
However, the left will once again help us. Keir Starmer’s expansion of votes to 16 year olds is so obviously shameless electioneering, it will open up the discussion of ‘who deserves to vote in the first place?’
It’s clear that a ‘voting age’ is incompatible with the egalitarian principles universal suffrage claims to uphold. If it purely about ‘knowledge about politics’, why should a 15 year old genius be denied to vote but a mentally incompetent 16 year old get to vote?
Democracy is not the best system if one judges it on ‘knowledge about politics’. Democracy is a system which holds elites accountable based on the ‘lived experience’ and ‘stake’ of each voter.
You should need to have a ‘stake’ in society to be able to vote, and also be classed as basically competent enough.
Expanding the power of the electorate through citizens initiatives and referendums will also make it more justified to restrict the suffrage on the basis of knowledge. If people are sent arguments for and against certain initiatives, surely they should be able to read (or have braille/audio if blind but still competent)?
It will depend on the country for what is politically feasible. In the United States, the abolition of poll taxes and the voting age being 18 is constitutionally enshrined, something that there is not much demand to change.
However, literacy tests, if administered fairly (unlike in the Jim Crow South) could be justified. It would make liberals look like idiots to argue that basic literacy tests are too hard, and therefore they must conclude that the literacy tests are not unreasonable.
Requiring ex-felons to pay back any unpaid debts, like in Florida, would also go some way to separating suffrage from being a ‘right’, and instead it being seen as a ‘privilege for citizens of good character who obey the law’.
Instituting ‘civic duty voting’ (compulsory voting) may also erode the egalitarian, ‘natural rights’ focus of voting, and will stop the acceleration towards Woke conclusions, as mass suffrage would not purely seen as a ‘right’ but also as a duty.
In Britain, the uncodified constitution gives us more flexibility. The voting age being reduced from 21 to 18 across the West was based on the ‘old enough to fight, old enough to vote’ basis. But with people staying in education for longer, there is less argument for 18-year olds voting now than there was 16-year olds voting back in the 1960s, when most left school and went into work, and therefore paid taxes, at 16.
Keir Starmer is going to reduce the voting age to 16. We should say ‘16-21 year olds can vote IF they pay taxes, are parents, or have done a period of national service.’ Unfortunately, having a pure Starship Troopers-style system would not be feasible, as it will mean withdrawing the right to vote from most people. But though not quite a ‘formalist’ system, mass firearm ownership and cultural recognition of a link between voting and force would make it somewhat closer, even if non-veterans can still vote.
In Britain all voters in national elections should be sole British citizens (dual citizens should be excluded as they have dual loyalties), be over 21-years old (with the listed exceptions of tax-payment, military service, or parenthood), not be serving time for a criminal offense or have unpaid charges relating to their sentence, must pass a fairly administered literacy test (or an alternative for those who are blind to still test competency), and show a national ID at polling stations. All postal-voting should be banned for security reasons, and all voting should be done via pen and paper.
Tax-paying requirements will be difficult to justify on the national level, as it would disenfranchise retirees, the unemployed, and the disabled. But if local authorities continue to only have power over taxes and by-laws, it could be possible to go back to the late 19th century - early 20th century system of ‘all ratepayers’, so long as the majority of adults pay local taxes and can therefore vote.
We also need to kill the ‘myth of the suffragettes’, which creates a ‘right side of history’ justification for Woke expansion of ‘rights’. Whilst not removing the right to vote from all women, we should attack both the methods of the suffragettes, and also the idea that people automatically have a ‘right’ to vote.
14. Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments
American political philosophy was defective from the start. The anti-Federalists were absolutely correct that the constitution did not guard against the growth of federal power.
The Bill of Rights was created to protect against an ever encroaching federal government. The 10th Amendment does that very well, it could not be clearer that all powers of the federal government not explicitly delegated by the constitution belong to the states.
But yet, despite being completely unconstitutional, the federal managerial state, the handmaiden of Wokeism, was able to grow unchecked. Why was that?
It was due to the power that the constitution gave the Supreme Court, and the tools to justify its ever-greater encroachment on the autonomy and traditions of the states.
The first mistake here was the 9th Amendment. Added in by Federalists who feared giving too many concessions to the anti-Federalists, it is the view that people have ‘rights’ not explicitly stated by the constitution.
Whilst on its own, interpreted to mean ‘the states can determine that people have more rights’, this wouldn’t have been that destructive, and indeed prior to 1860, it wasn’t. But when combined with the uncontrollable power of the Supreme Court, it could be used to justify the court imposition of anything.
However, whilst the 9th Amendment might have laid the seeds for the cancer, in its current form it was enabled by the ultra-vague 14th Amendment.
One would think that the 14th Amendment would mean that Blacks and Whites had to be treated legally the same in a court of law, something that was de-facto not the case for a century after it’s passing.
But the ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection’ clauses was used to justify anything the federal government did, and allowed the Supreme Court to make up the constitution as it went along. This was not initially the work of the left; Plessy vs Ferguson arguably didn’t apply an Originalist analysis, and Lochner vs New York certainly didn’t.
It was with FDR that the Supreme Court lost all concept of the 10th Amendment and started legislating from the bench, imposing through judicial fiat liberal policy objectives through the 14th Amendment.
How to Overturn:
Auron MacIntyre has said that a constitutional convention wouldn’t work. However, I disagree, as to me MacIntyre is too close to the doomerist tendencies of the DR, despite being better on this front than people like Curtis Yarvin and Academic Agent.
I do think there are some constitutional changes that could be made which make the role of the states, the federal government, and the courts clearer. The ‘Convention of States’ PAC has gotten quite far, if Trump was to aggressively promote it, it could at least get amendments proposed to be ratified by the states.
Sure, liberals would dispute its legitimacy, but if a militia was created to defend it, there would be nothing they could do to stop it proceeding.
The Supreme Court should have staggered terms, allowing President’s to have an equal number of nominations, and be term-limited. An amendment should also require that the Supreme Court interpret the constitution by the original intent and original meaning of those who wrote each section. It should also clarify that it cannot mandate the federal government to include provisions in the law, only strike it down, and overturning state-level laws require unanimity.
Whilst removing the 9th Amendment entirely would be politically unfeasible, it would help to ‘clarify it’, saying that ‘people may have other rights, in accordance with civic duties, which shall be determined by social consensus and the democratic process, and shall not be court imposed.‘
The 14th Amendment should be amended by saying that it only applies to legal due process, and the right to have fair treatment in a court of law and have laws that are legally colorblind, emphasising its original meaning being to preserve Reconstruction.
15. ‘All Men Are Created Equal’
The left’s favourite phrase in American history is ‘all men are created equal’. Whilst it importantly does not include women, somehow that single phrase has been the rallying cry for every single Woke movement under the sun, Harvey Milk and his pro-paedophile movement included.
Indeed, the phrase is the personification of what the Left is; this false idea of egalitarianism.
A large part of the reason why the ‘Neocon Cycle’ happens again and again was because it was conservatives that took this fundamentally false idea to heart. Leo Strauss and Harry V. Jaffa presented ‘equality’ as a ‘conservative value’. But of course, the true Right is the opposite of egalitarian, believing in a justified and natural hierarchy, that is superior to the ad-hoc and therefore more tyrannical, hierarchy that comes from those who preach equality. With the Neocons, the historically accurate interpretation of America as an extension of Anglo-Saxon civilisation was abandoned, in favour of the idea of the ‘propositional nation’ based on ‘natural rights’, and with those concepts, the road to Wokeism was paved.
Every single ‘civil rights’ movement’, the abolitionist movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights Movement, and even the movement for rights for sexual degenerates and perverts to claim ‘equality’ with the normal and healthy, used these wretched words that the American right is always bound to defer to.
One admires the Confederacy who proudly and unapologetically states that ‘all men are NOT created equal’. The South tried to rationalise it away, saying it only meant Anglo-Saxon men, or only meant the states… but yet the ancestors of the Woke kept taking it literally, and expanding it further and further. So when they seceded, they explicitly rejected such a false premise.
It should be very clear that all men are NOT created equal, something that an increasingly sophisticated understanding of HBD has proven beyond any doubt. Some are born beautiful, healthy, rich, and intelligent, others born ugly, sick, poor, and stupid. The idea that they all have ‘equal worth’ comes from Christianity, and without belief in Christianity, there is no reason to believe it at all.
I believe on utilitarian grounds that there should be equality before the law, and suffrage should be available to most people. But the language of ‘equality’ is so utterly toxic that any such moves must be justified with language other than that of ‘equal rights’.
How to Overturn:
To overturn this, we must get more and more right-wingers to denounce the ‘all men are created equal’ part of the Declaration of Independence. Point out its obvious absurdity, that it is something that is self-evidently NOT true.
The Orthodox Neocon Claremonters who take such a message to heart are in fact only ‘liberal at the speed limit’. We should welcome the Critical Race Theory interpretation, that America was a nation built for the White man, but reverse our value judgements, unapologetically celebrating it.
American right-wingers need to stop being sympathetic to cries of ‘holding themselves up to the American ideals’. They need to fully and completely denounce the ideal of equality, say that it was a massive mistake to write the ‘we hold these truths….’ part of the Declaration of Independence, and that what they should have said was that the American colonists were entitled to the historic rights of ENGLISHMEN under the Magna Carta.
An American President needs to make a historic speech denouncing the ‘all men are created equal’ as a blatant lie based on naïve sentimentalism, and that it had allowed anti-Whites to morally shame Whites into destroying the proud civilisation that they built. This needs to become the official line of the Republican Party, that takes anti-Wokeness to its most consistent and logical conclusion.
One does not need to support bringing back slavery or Jim Crow to recognise that ‘all men are NOT created equal’, but it will reduce the influence of the Woke. They will not be able to appeal to egalitarianism, because their opponents will be able to unapologetically say ‘who said we believed in equality?’
Until the egalitarian interpretation of American history is written out of the narrative, the Woke will keep winning, because they will keep on shaming the establishment into ‘living up to the principles of the founding’.
Again, the CRT academics have helped us here, and the Claremont Institute would be taking a step backwards. The idea that America was a nation built on White supremacy is the better interpretation.
But what was the context around the toxic parts of the Declaration of Independence?
16. Social Contract Theory
Society has never functioned as a ‘contract’ between individuals. Human beings have always lived in groups with obligations to other members of their group.
The idea of Anglo-Saxon liberty far predates John Locke. The Magna Carta was a reaffirmation of the privileges that Anglo-Saxons had enjoyed prior to the Norman Conquest. The Peasants Revolt of 1381, which effectively ended serfdom, showed that Englishmen even back in medieval times understood that their rulers were supposed to serve the general welfare. Other civilisations had their own concept of this; such as the Chinese with the ‘Mandate of Heaven’, which similarly held a principle that the rulers should serve the nation.
The ‘Social Contract’ was a new idea that emerged in 17th century England. Whilst Thomas Hobbes created the philosophical construct of the ‘State of Nature’, the expansive idea of ‘natural rights’ and the idea that one should continuously ‘consent’ to one’s government in an individual way, was the work of John Locke in his ‘Two Treatsies on Government’, who became much more influential in later centuries than he had been during his lifetime. Algernon Sidney, a Classical Republican writer, was more influential at the time of writing with his ‘Discourses Concerning Government’, and I believe his conception of liberty to be far more based on reality.
The core problem with the idea of the Social Contract is its predication on ‘natural rights’, divorced from one’s community or nation, and not also talking about the duties one has to their community as well as what they wish to take from it. All societies that are not tyrannies have a ‘covenant’ between the rulers and the ruled, that the rulers agree to try to serve in the interests of those they rule, and the ruled in turn must obey the law. But ‘contract’ obscures the societal compromise element, and places the emphasis on the individual ‘consenting’ to government, which of course is not how any government operates, but leads to socially corrosive effects.
‘Contract’ didn’t mean the exact same thing when John Locke was writing than it came to mean today, meaning something more akin to a ‘covenant across generations’ but Locke’s usage of words led to a very fundamentalist view of ‘natural rights’ emerging in the United States and France, where ‘contract’ was taken to literally mean an individual contract that an individual could opt-out of if they disagreed with the majority. People like Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Lysander Spooner take the idea of the ‘Social Contract’, to their logical conclusions, and their philosophy inspired… the Civil Rights Movement.
Bear in mind, this isn’t the same as ‘collective consent’ of the governed; it’s obvious that if a leader is tyrannical, he should be accountable to those he rules. But an individual should not be able to opt-out of a ‘social contract’, even if it goes against the majority will, because he believes his ‘natural rights’ are being infringed upon. The concept of the social contract allows more and more ‘natural rights’ to be created to impede on majority rule within a polity.
Which is why you see protests against Proposition 8, with entitled minorities saying ‘my rights are not up for debate’.
The Social Contract simultaneously gives the justification for universal suffrage ‘in order to obey the law, I have the right to vote’, AND the right to protest if they disagree with said vote. It is a snowball effect towards ever greater social disintegration.
People like Patrick Deneen, Adrian Pabst, and Danny Kruger have already made these arguments very well, even though I’m not a Postliberal.
How to Overturn:
Believe it or not, the idea of the ‘Social Contract’ was so absurd that it was going out of fashion in the 19th century, replaced with ideas like utilitarianism which are much more philosophically defensible. Jeremy Bentham was correct when he called the notion of ‘natural rights’ ‘nonsense on stilts’.
However, the emphasis on the Social Contract was revived with… the Civil Rights Movement, and people like John Rawls re-popularising it into the discourse to present a post-hoc justification of the anti-majoritarianism that had informed the arrogant decisions of the Warren Court and the entire ethos of the Civil Rights Movement.
The way to dismantle this is that the Right needs to stop this religiously-flavoured, Harry V. Jaffa nonsense and take a moral and cultural relativist view of morality. They should show liberals the unquestionable anthropological evidence that human beings have always lived in groups (even before they were fully humans, look at chimpanzees), and that a belief in ‘natural rights’ or ‘human rights’ is just as absurd as believing Jesus rose from the dead. It is in fact more absurd if you don’t have an underlying reason for why it’s true, aka, Jesus Christ.
My alternative to the ‘Social Contract’ is the ‘Territorial Covenant of Citizens’, expanding on the ‘covenant’ term from Danny Kruger’s book ‘Covenant’.
This clarifies the ambiguity to ensure there can be no ‘runaway effect’ of more and more natural rights being claimed.
‘Territorial’ means it is binding on all who reside in the territory, people may only ‘opt-out’ of this arrangement by leaving.
‘Covenant’ means a binding, obligatory agreement between the citizen rulers and the majority of citizens themselves, with rulers holding themselves up for accountability and being forbidden from infringing on certain ‘enshrined’ rights, and citizens having the duty to obey the law, with their rights forfeited if they break this covenant.
‘Citizens’ clarifies that this arrangement applies to citizens only; non-citizens have a duty to obey the law but are not afforded the same degree of rights. ‘Rights’ are not natural or inherent to one being human, they are a traditional privilege of citizenship, dependent on the fulfilment of duties, above all, obedience to the state.
If a citizen believes the current institutional framework does not allow sufficient accountability, and they believe the only way of holding them accountable is by violent overthrow, they are welcome to try, but they better not miss. This is the Confucian ‘Mandate of Heaven’ principle, and Lee Kuan Yew articulated it very well: ‘if you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try’.
17. Protestant Reformation
Woke fanaticism, of purity-spiralling and having a ‘holier than thou’ attitude, was pioneered in its modern form by the Protestant Reformation, which was a return to the fundamentalism of the early Church.
I am pretty anti-Catholic, however Medieval Christendom had been fairly good at ‘moderating’ Christianity and tempering its most destructive impulses. Catholic monks and friars genuinely appreciated higher learning and pre-Christian texts like Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius, and did a great amount to build the modern scientific method. The Church was an ‘institution’, more based on practice than personal belief.
But the Protestant Reformation disrupted that. Whilst it was a necessary stage to break from the power of the Pope and establish the modern European nation state, the word ‘puritan’ does gets its name from radical protestant sects that were utterly uncompromising and fanatical, wanting rigid conformity and ‘purity’. Catholicism became what it is today due to the ‘Counter-Reformation’, which made it more similar to Protestantism in being less practice based.
Protestant countries secularised faster than Catholic countries, with traditionally Protestant countries having watered down their Christianity into a bland, humanistic deism, like the Church of England has. This is a result of having a religion that is entirely individually-focused and based on one’s personal relationship with God, people will read into the Bible what demands the least of them.
The modern Woke movement’s predecessor arguably was not liberalism, but the idea of the ‘Social Gospel’. The temperance movement in the Progressive Era was all about moral chastisement and ‘virtue signalling’. The Social Gospel was the logical conclusion of Protestantism when belief in God became harder to justify rationally due to advancements in science, and this process was faster in Protestantism than in Catholicism because of the ‘personal relationship with God’, less focus on ritual and more focus on introspection, which allowed people to use the Bible, particularly the Gospels, for their own ressentiment-serving ends.
How to Overturn:
We’re not dealing with Protestantism itself, though some ‘Woke Churches’ continue to debase themselves despite no reversal of their falling congregation numbers. Christianity in Protestant countries is in terminal, probably irreversible decline. It was a religion which had its day, but failed to adapt to changing circumstances.
What we are dealing with is the ‘residues’ of Protestant puritanical moralism. The Woke lionise the Abolitionists, but they were Christian fundamentalists who took religion very seriously. Despite the Woke being mostly hostile to Christianity, it’s true that they echo the Abolitionist spirit, taking a secularised version of its ethics.
The solution here just needs to be to remind people of the origins of their worldview, and remind them that the same animating moral absolutism drives the Religious Right they despise; it is literally two-sides of the same coin.
18. Christianity
And finally, we get to the absolute root of the problem: Christianity.
Uberboyo has a masterful video about the parallels between Wokeism and Christianity. It’s tragic imagining what it must have been like to be a Roman Pagan, seeing this corrosive, anti-civilisational force seeming to have unstoppable momentum, and there being nothing you could do to stop it, even despite the initial hope of Emperor Julian. And we can know with the benefit of hindsight: the pendulum never swung, the backlash never came; the Pagans never got their revenge on the smug moralists who perverted the essence of their proud civilisation, and with that comes the chilling, dreadful contemplation that we could share their fate, with the Woke playing the role of Christians.
And of course Uberboyo is a Nietzschean, and his critiques are also Nietzsche’s critiques. Christianity, at its core, fetishizes the weak. The idea of Jesus dying on the cross was a vindictive show of weakness; for if he was the son of God, he could easily have showed Pontius Pilate his miracles to stop himself being crucified, but he didn’t, because he wanted to make a point about him being a victim.
Christianity is all about moral scolding and feminine, indirect, manipulative power to create an unstoppable wave that allowed the weak to emotionally blackmail and disable the strong. And every single Woke movement has followed the kind of ressentiment and life-denying force that Christianity engineered.
Modern Trad Christians lack masculine vigour. The code of chivalry and Knighthood was a Germanic, Pagan tradition that was incorporated into Christianity, and hence why Medieval Catholicism temporarily provided a stable balance as it synthesised a moral grounding of Christianity with the vitality of a warrior caste. But that is all gone, the Trad Christians these days seem to be playing an elaborate kink-game (Isabella Moody), either that or they’re the most boring people imaginable, like Ned Flanders.
Christianity brought us to this. All of the Woke movements were able to manipulate Christians emotionally, beating them at their own game. Every single Christian denomination, to a lesser or greater extent, capitulated to Wokeism. The LGBT movement literally followed the exact same framework against Christians that they themselves used against the Romans. A case of a moral revolution devouring its own children. The fact Christians pathetically surrendered in the face of Woke, due to the Woke mastering and needling the same vindictive, passive-aggressive display of victimhood and pleas for mercy, show that it is unsuitable to effectively kill Wokeism at its root; it is built on the same moral paradigm.
How to Overturn:
With this one, we don’t need to do very much, the West is de-Christianising at a rapid pace, having been utterly pathetic at standing up for itself, and self-debasement like Vatican II. The idea that Vatican II was supposed to ‘save the Catholic Church’ is laughable, it led to the complete destruction of their influence.
What we should do instead is complete what the New Atheists started. They denounced the Christian God, but still believed in the fundamental moral precepts of Christianity like ‘human rights’, which allowed ‘Atheism Plus’ and the SJWs. We must go one step further: we need to overcome the residues of Christian morality, like virtue-signalling and ‘weak makes right’.
The Christian DR people want to restrict sexual freedom and think this is a prerequisite of Wokeness being destroyed. But they get it the wrong way around. All of the Woke ‘no debate’ and ‘we’re on the right side of history’, and endless policing of sex, are as a result of them being bound by the same paradigm they brought.
Human rights, natural rights… all of these can be dismantled far more effectively if we destroy the problem at its root.
Of course, the West will always be shaped by Christianity, and that isn’t a bad thing. We should cherish our cathedrals and our Christian heritage. Our Christian inheritance will always be with us whether we like it or not. Christian architecture is beautiful, especially that which is more focused on European folk tradition and medievalist aesthetics. Christian aesthetics are the best when they are symbols of European identity and Whiteness, and worst when they focus on making the figure of Jesus relatable to modern audiences.
But without belief in God, instead of the crucifixion and resurrection being about one particular man who was the son of God, it becomes an allegory for virtue-signalling and the weak claiming moral authority over the strong.
It is time to create a moral paradigm which will better preserve what the West was for most of its history, before Christian morality was taken to its logical conclusion, at least without belief in God, that is Wokeness. We do not need ‘Cultural Christianity’, like Tom Holland, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Jordan Peterson say we do, for that is watery, IDW-liberalism that will always lead to Wokeism. We need ‘Aesthetic Christianity’ that harkens back to the proud past of European peoples in their ‘Age of Heroes’, like the paintings of Edmund Blair Leighton.
Conclusion
Of course, dismantling such a vast ideological underpinning of Wokeness is not something that will happen overnight. It will take many decades of counter-elite formation to ensure we are not obstructed when in power, and another amount of decades to make that counter-elite the main elite through government policy. Government policies will have some effect but they will not work immediately; a new generation will have to be inoculated against Wokeism with these new values.
We also need to go for the low-hanging fruit first, like transgenderism, affirmative action, disparate impact, and the European Court of Human Rights. A government that gets into power with an intention to do these things, both American and British, should hide the full extent of their views until they get into power, and gradually shift the Overton Window through enactment of policies and educational reforms.
But we will be greatly assisted by a clear understanding of the roots of what we are fighting against. Having a tightly knit group with a clear idea of where we want to go, and prepared to do the long, hard work of entering into right-wing parties and winning other people to their side, is essential.
As I mentioned in my previous articles, both Italian and Turkish right-wingers were able to change the culture of their countries, and American organisations like the Heritage Foundation have also made a huge impact.
What we need is a consistent vision. The various sections of the Rightosphere should be able to unite around anti-Wokeism as a core policy objective. Identification with what one is against rather than what one is ‘for’ has its disadvantages, but with an ‘anti’ ideology can come a positive vision in and of itself.
It’s similar to what motivated the ‘First New Right’, a shared opposition to communism, which allowed ideological disputes to be papered over and various traditions and schools of thought synthesised. It also motivated the various dissidents in communist countries, that shared a wide divergence in views, visions, and tactics, but who’s common hatred of the communist regimes they lived under created an effective movement.
People like Sohrab Ahmari, in the pocket of George Soros, try to demoralise us by saying that DeSantis ‘proved that anti-Wokeism isn’t the uniting force anti-communism was’, but he’s utterly wrong, DeSantis failed because he wasn’t aggressively anti-Woke enough and sold out his base to appeal to normie Republicans and the ‘suburban moms’.
The entire purpose of the online right-wing space is to oppose Wokeism, and we need to know exactly what the enemy we’re fighting is, it’s absolute roots, and a positive roadmap, as an alternative to doomerism, to what we can do to overthrow it.
I was more or less in agreement with you until the sections about Christianity. I acknowledge that there are surface parallels between wokeism and Christianity but I think when you dig into the finer detail, the differences becomes more stark.
I would identify two key events as the basis of the modern woke movement: the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement. Both of these, I would argue, should be viewed not as an extension of Christianity and more as a rejection of it.
In the case of the sexual revolution, this is easy to see. The sexual morality being rejected was indisputably Christian sexual morality, which overturned the Greco-Roman view that a male head of household could do as he pleased with any member of his household. The sexual revolution was not a reintroduction of the Greco-Roman position, but the introduction of a new approach, empowered by a new technology (modern contraception), which severed the link between sex and reproduction.
In the case of the civil rights movement, it was mostly led by theologically heterodox thinkers (especially Luther King himself) and was a product of liberal Christianity, which flourished during the 19th century. This was a rejection of historic, classical Christianity and the introduction of modernism into the church. The Catholic church was certainly later to the game, not embracing modernism until Vatican II, but it got there too eventually.
What both of these movements have in common with Christianity is elevation of the victim. However, in Christianity the ultimate victim is elevated on account of giving himself for a greater cause, of refusing to give into his own desires and do what is necessary for the ultimate good. This is opposite to the logic of the sexual revolution, which is all about individual self-fulfilment and rejects any notion of "greater purpose" (such as reproduction) towards which sex should be oriented. This is true to a lesser extent for the civil rights movement as well, which also based itself on a universalistic and heretical understanding of Christianity which favoured individual rights and individual self-fulfilment over sacrifice for the greater good (look no further than the absolute debauchery of MLK for a living example of this).
Your conclusion that Christianity is dying out anyway is also incorrect. See Eric Kaufmann's book "Shall the Religious inherit the earth?" (which I'll go on to summarise here). He argues convincingly that conservative religiosity is on the rise across the globe, even in the West, and its rise is mostly due to elevated fertility. Ironically the sexual revolution itself is the cause. Ever since reproduction became a choice (because of contraception), religiosity has arisen as one of the most significant drivers of fertility.
The reason why this effect is obscured in the West is because of one key factor: Religious liberalism. The liberal religious are somewhere in-between religious conservatives and the non-religious in terms of fertility. However, since the sexual revolution and the growth of individualism, church has ceased to provide the social benefits it used to. On that basis, most of the children of religious liberals abandon the faith of their parents and become largely non-religious in adulthood. This creates the effect of outward religious decline and churches (especially mainline churches with a prominent position in the culture) closing.
Alongside this though is a vibrant and growing religious conservatism, especially seen in places like London. Over time, as the religious liberals decline and fade away, this form of religiousity will become the dominant one. Kaufmann predicts a political realignment in the future: a conservative 'religious party' and a liberal 'secular party'.
Regardless of how things play out: one thing is clear - everyone is vulnerable to the woke. And atheism is (if anything) more vulnerable, since it lacks a strong tradition which it can appeal to in opposing wokeism. For all of the sanity of a Dawkins compared to his woke critics, he still falls back on the same old humanist nonsense in many of his criticisms of religion (boo hoo your god is a meanie). Instead of jettisoning religion altogether then, I would propose this - draw on the parts of it which align with your vision. Trying to rebuild the West without its core foundation is not going to succeed.
Provocative. Like others, I agreed with most of the analysis until you got to Protestantism/Christianity. I don’t expect you to be an expert, but I don’t think you know the source material enough on this subject and it shows. For example, the Protestant Reformation was heavily influenced by Renaissance Humanism and had an appreciation for earlier pagan and Greek/Roman authors. Peter Martyr Vermigli, one of the preeminent Protestant theologians and scholars of the 16th century, wrote a large commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. There are plenty of other examples of Protestants extolling the use of pagan philosophy, albeit in its proper place as the handmaiden to theology. Also, you are actually criticizing the Anabaptists rather than the Magisterial Protestants. The Anabaptists were the proto-woke and responsible for the “me and my Bible” individualistic Christianity that is pervasive today. They were egalitarians, praised social weakness, pacifists, and easily refutable from Scripture. The Magisterial Reformers merely wanted to cleanse the Roman church of the erroneous practices that had built up over the centuries and they kept a large number of traditions (as can be seen in a traditional Anglican service) and habits from the Roman church.
I see many atheists of a Nietzchean persuasion argue that wokeness=Christianity and Christianity is inherently a weak, slave morality religion. It’s such a stupid caricature that I have to chuckle at it. Even in the New Testament, Christ was telling his disciples to buy swords and he never condemned Roman centurions converts for being soldiers. Yes, Christianity may look different when it is under an oppressive government (today in the West or initially under the Roman Empire), but it is quite muscular when in power (the Crusades, colonial imperialism, etc). Even Augustine in the 300s was developing the Western “just war theory” which goes to show the comfort early Christian’s had with legitimate violence. Many Nietzscheans would be surprised about how “based” the Magisterial Reformers were. Example: "It is inborn to the more powerful and prudent to dominate and rule weaker men, just as it is also considered inborn for inferiors to submit." Johannes Althusius (one of the best Protestant political philosophers in the first generation after the Reformation). Atheism has no solid standing to push back against the woke. If there is no God, then who cares if some 12 year old girl wants to chop her tits off? It doesn’t matter if we are all just blobs of matter floating around the universe. Like I’ve told you before, I support your project to the extent it helps further the revitalization of Christianity in the West. You need Christian allies, to a point, to get this project rolling and successful.