What I Believe - Wokeness

My thoughts on the existential enemy.

Progress Pride flag, which represents all of Wokeism.

I thought I needed to write this article series (which was originally intended as a single article before I realised it was way too long) as people are still accusing me of changing my views in an ‘ideological schizophrenic’ way.

In truth, my views have not changed that much since I started writing this blog, and the perception that they have is due to changing my mind on issues that some of my readers think are questions of major importance, whereas to me they are relatively minor, as I have acquired more knowledge.

Based on

Keith Woods

essay by the same name, though considerably longer, I’m going to try and lay out the core components of my political beliefs throughout this series, and what I think makes me unique compared to other writers in this space.

The Definition of Wokeness

I feel compelled to state the definition of Wokeism again, as the vagueness of the term has started to once again become used as a stick to beat us with. For instance, terms like ‘Woke Right’ are being used by containment ‘classical liberals’ to stigmatise Sensible Centrists who seek to gain a deeper understanding for why anti-Wokeism has so consistently failed.

Wokeism is an ideology that:

• Sees traditional Western culture as systemically and intersectionally (affecting different groups and combinations of personal identities in different ways and to different degrees) oppressive to all who are not ‘correctly functioning’ (healthy, non-trans, heterosexual) White men.

• This oppression supposedly manifests itself in all aspects of Western society and culture, and it must be overcome through deconstruction, activism, and social levelling to dismantle these (non-class) hierarchies and establish ‘equity’ for ‘historically marginalised groups’, aka anybody who isn’t a ‘correctly functioning’ White man.

• The ideological tools utilised for these purposes are critical theory, postmodernism, intersectionality, and the post-war order of civil and human rights, which the former three are merely a fulfillment of the promise of.

To shorten it: Wokeism is opposed to the interests of correctly functioning White males, the group of people overwhelmingly responsible for Western civilisation and its achievements.

The ‘constituent movements’ in the Woke ‘intersectional coalition’ include a:

• Racial Element: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and postcolonialism, which both have roots in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the near universal acceptance of the ‘Civil Rights Mythology’. It is also the logical conclusion of what

  Nathan Cofnas
  calls the ‘equality thesis’.

• Feminist Element: Fourth-wave feminism and intersectional feminism, though TERFs are in the Schmittian ‘friend’ camp so long as they direct their fire towards transgenderism and not correctly functioning White men.

• LGBT Element: Basically all of it, with the possible exception of not wanting homosexuality to be a crime. Any notion that transgenderism is legitimate, or that homosexuality is ‘equal’ to heterosexuality and that ‘gay marriage’ is a ‘civil rights issue’, is Woke.

• Other Elements: Generally pro-dysgenic side movements, not as prominent as the other three, like ‘fat pride’ and ‘disability pride’.

The ‘progress pride’ flag represents Woke ideology. It also comes under the name ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI), and increasingly, just ‘human rights’ or ‘civil rights’.

Primacy of Anti-Woke

For many commentators, anti-Wokeness is seen as a distraction, even ‘containment’. They think it is cool to ‘counter-signal’ and dismiss it, wanting to change the focus to anything but Wokeism.

This could take the form of economics, of which Sohrab Ahmari and Richard Hanania are on opposite ends of the spectrum between socially conservative social democracy vs free-market fundamentalism, but are both united in subordinating culture to economics. It could also be a central focus on Christianity, it could be racial nationalism, or it could be just pure ‘elite theory’ like Academic Agent (Neema Parvini).

I know in the article ‘Why I’ve Abandoned Vitalism’, I stressed the importance of a ‘positive vision’ that people were prepared to ‘die for’. However, that was more of a tactical consideration as to what a ‘mass movement’ would need to look like in order to win and displace Wokeism in society at-large.

For me, anti-Wokeism is still the underlying grievance. Where one stands on it is the great red line, the political friend/enemy distinction as Carl Schmitt described. All other issues are subordinate to this. It is why I started this Substack and have poured so much of my effort into it.

I can join a political coalition involving anti-Woke Marxists and anti-Woke anarcho-capitalists, anti-Woke Catholics and anti-Woke atheists, and people of all ethnic backgrounds, so long as the shared objective is to eradicate Woke influence from politics, society, and culture.

My loathing of Wokeism comes partly from self-interest, I am a heterosexual White male.

But it's also the dysgenic, ugly, demoralising features of it. This manifests most vividly in transgenderism butchering young women and making them deformed freaks, as seen by the horrific stories of Chloe Cole and Ellen Page, as well as the seizure-inducing pride flags, the celebration of dysgenic sickness, and hatred of all beauty, masculinity, and tradition.

I will discuss the ‘three main constituent movements’ of Wokeism: race, gender, and LGBT, and how I interpret each.

Race

1911 German racial poster.

Civil Rights Law vs Free Association

Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I oppose civil rights law. I believe that free association should be restored, which would involve repealing Title II, Title VII, and all subsequent legislative and judicial expansions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the United States, and all legislation that was combined into the 2010 Equality Act in Britain.

Private businesses and civil society associations should be able to discriminate on the basis of what are now ‘protected characteristics’. This includes race, though I personally would not discriminate on this basis, even though I probably have a healthy ‘unconscious bias’ towards my own group.

However, as an intermediate step, civil rights law should temporarily be retained to be used to investigate, prosecute, and issue crippling fines to employers that discriminate against straight White men. This would involve all of the existing bureaucracies being liquidated and replaced with ones favourable to straight White men.

Once around a decade of issuing these lawsuits and fines has fundamentally modified people’s and businesses’ behaviour, a reversal of the original intention of anti-discrimination law to empower women and minorities, civil rights law will then be abolished.

HBD/Race Realism

Aporia logo.

I believe in HBD and Race Realism as an explanation for unequal group outcomes between groups, as the antidote to the credibility of anti-White ‘Critical Race Theory’ which is the logical conclusion of the Civil Rights Movement and the ‘equality thesis’.

I do not believe this needs to be shouted from the rooftops, or be a justification for discrimination against the ‘individual person’. But if various ethnic groups use underrepresentation as a way to stir up grievance politics, HBD and the scientific fact of IQ differing between different groups of human beings should be used to defend straight White male interests.

However, as Keith Woods says, whilst this may persuade intelligent, high IQ Whites, minorities will likely just call the tests racist/prejudiced/biased, which is arguably what happened in America in the 1960s.

This is why it is best to keep ethnic minority populations at a minimum, in particular communities and in a nation at large, sharply reducing immigration and deporting or encouraging the remigration (depending on citizenship status and circumstance) of ethnic minorities.

Immigration

I only support immigration that is overwhelmingly White. Particularly for Britain, I think we should have a 95% White country, that is at least 85% Anglo-Celtic, with immigration and remigration policy designed for that effect, making it very easy for the Anglo diaspora to immigrate back to the homeland. The details of this will be explained in a future article outside of this series.

Race and Nationality

Map made by me, on the basis of what the demographic majorities were in the year 1950. Rhodesia’s White population was always too small, and South Africa is ‘borderline’ because of its ethnic diversity, meaning White South Africans are White but Black South Africans are not.

I am not a racial nationalist however, because I do not mind having a small (less than 5%) population of productive, clean, law abiding, and patriotic non-Whites, though any non-Whites that commit crimes, or disrespect Whites (in Britain at least where they are a recent addition), need to return home.

I also don’t mind racial intermixing, seen as the ‘ultimate crime’ by hardcore racial nationalists. I instead have more of an

Eric Kaufmann

‘Whiteshift’ view, where non-White minorities are incorporated into the body politic through multigenerational ‘bleaching’. In an American context, I support

Walt Bismarck

’s concept of ‘Castizo Futurism’. If an individual looks ‘no less White than a Southern Italian’ and identifies as White, they should be classed as White. I am completely opposed to the ‘one-drop rule’.

I do not think in a purely ‘racially conscious way’. My concerns about White displacement are in large part due to my concerns about Wokeness, that large quantities of non-White voting citizens will vote against White interests, and will always side with ‘intersectional’ leftists, who whip up these communities’ ethnic grievances to incorporate them into the ‘intersectional coalition’, to ultimately pursue their own interests of anti-straight White male interests and LGBT extremism.

This is even if the minorities aren’t personally in favour of this, because the ethnic interest ranks higher in their priority of issues: for instance Muslims and the question of Palestine, with the ‘Gaza Independents’ you see here in Britain.

However, the higher crime rates amongst many immigrant groups, and the very act of the homeland of my ancestors being replaced by foreigners, are also major concerns along with ethnic agitation potential, with these three concerns (Woke ethnic agitation, crime and urban decay, replacement itself) being about equal in priority.

There is also a sense that I do not consider Woke White people to be allies or deserving of any kind of brotherhood, White people who mutilate so-called ‘trans’ children I want punished just as much as if they were brown. As Zora Neale Hurston put it, ‘not all skinfolk are kinfolk’.

I would rather live in a country with a majority of anti-Woke non-Whites who were nevertheless pro-White, and that was clean and safe, than an ethno-state where Whites were just as self-loathing, and allowed the feminism and LGBT elements of Wokeism to fester unchecked. Of course, I would still prefer an overwhelmingly White country that was anti-Woke, but if I could only have one or the other, I would choose the former so long as the immigrants did not have higher crime rates and did not engage in unsanitary behaviour.

However, supposedly ‘based’ minorities, like Kemi Badenoch, have ended up being containment and disguised ethnic agitators, so one must be cautious about trusting ‘anti-Woke minorities’ even if they initially appear to be pro-White. All groups aside from Whites are motivated by racial self-interest, whereas Whites have become uniquely cucked and brainwashed since the post-WWII ‘Boomer Truth Regime’, something non-Whites relentlessly manipulate and exploit with the single ‘magic word’ of ‘racist’.

But on principle, if somehow the particular non-White individual in question was working with anti-Woke straight White males to improve the status of their group, I do not mind working with ethnic minorities against Woke Whites. I count Suella Braverman (one of the few remaining genuinely good Tory MPs) as more of an ally than Owen Jones.

Jews

On the Jewish Question, I support the existence of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. I think it’s good that the Jews have a nation of their own, of which they can belong to and defend, instead of being permanent minorities everywhere and being attracted to counter-majoritarian movements. We should not interfere in Israeli internal affairs (Israel/Palestine dispute).

Unfortunately, even though Israel was created, a certain subset of Jews in the West, particularly in the United States, continued subverting White Christian culture for counter-majoritarian reasons, with figures like Franz Boas, Ashley Montagu, the Frankfurt School, as well as the American Jewish Committee, being prominent examples.

It was this subset of Jews who truly started the ‘intersectionality’ concept even though they didn’t use that word (which was termed by Kimberle Crenshaw), with the American Jewish Congress in 1945 declaring an alliance with other minorities to create, in their words, a ‘better America’. The fact that the United States and Britain had fought against the Nazis didn’t matter to liberal and left-wing Jews, they still sought to ‘deconstruct’ Anglo culture.

It is this subset of Jews that are primarily behind the ‘Boomer Truth Regime’, that paint Hitler as the ultimate evil and the pinnacle of morality being the opposite of Hitler, which created the impulse amongst Anglo elites that led to Wokeism.

You see this particularly in the cultural sphere, with Jewish directors like Steven Speilberg, (who is a great director but represents the archetypical ‘boomer liberal’ Jew that is constantly chasing the ghost of Hitler), instilling those values into non-Jewish audiences.

Nor was this limited to the political left. On the so-called ‘right-wing’, Jews from these same sorts of secular, middle-class backgrounds as their left-wing counterparts were behind the Neoconservative movement, which preached the idea of the ‘propositional nation’, explicitly designed to bury the Anglo-Celtic and particularist founding of the United States, whilst hypocritically orienting US foreign policy towards defending Israel as an ethnically Jewish state.

However, I acknowledge that there are Jews that don’t feel this way, and are loyal to Western civilisation and straight White male interests, for instance Paul Gottfried, Nathan Cofnas, Eric Kaufmann,

Steve Sailer

, and

Curtis Yarvin

.

Most Jews are also not political commentators or public figures and so do not deserve blame.

I am not a racial antisemite, if Jews want to convert to Christianity they can become fully Anglo (though not in order to secretly further Jewish interests, Vatican II was disproportionately engineered by Jewish converts still with dual loyalty.)

I do not deny the Holocaust, though I question its uniqueness and consider the German Expulsions to also be a genocide.

I also know that the October 7th attacks in Israel and the left’s cheering of them created a great alienation amongst Jews. It became clear to many Jews they had dug their own grave by spearheading ‘intersectionality’, as their own Frankenstein monster had come for them.

If they genuinely want to support the anti-Woke side, then they may join, but the previously Woke Jews cannot have ‘Wokeism but Jews are oppressed as well’. They must be like Paul Gottfried and support Anglo-Celtic, Christian culture.

Like other anti-White minorities should return home, ‘Woke except for Israel’ Jews should return to their home (Israel). It is entirely Israel’s problem what they do with these populations, I would recommend denying them voting rights.

As Jewish communities have resided in the Anglosphere for many centuries, they should not be forced to leave, but if they are Woke, we must expose them as Jews, make it clear we do not consider themselves part of this nation, and advocate for them to go to their designated home, of which much US and British aid has been given to support and defend.

Feminism

Necessity of Female Consideration

Made by me using Bing Image Creator.

Feminism in many ways is the ‘odd one out’ of the Woke causes. This is because unlike the race and LGBT cases, when it is built on a sacralisation of minorities, what Eric Kaufmann calls the ‘minorities good, majorities bad’ impulse, women constitute half the human, and the White, population.

Women are indispensable, and of course can only ever be equal to men, as the human race could not exist without them. Men and women constitute two halves of the human whole.

This also however, makes feminism the most challenging to deal with. Since the passage of universal suffrage, women have had to be appealed to and will not vote for any rollback of policies that benefit them. Women not only have political power, but also immense social power, arguably more so than men as they are the ‘gatekeepers of sex’.

I do believe that women should retain the right to vote on the same terms as men, though, as I will discuss in future entries, I oppose universal suffrage for men or women, and I believe tax payment, property ownership, military service (which might include working as a nurse for women), or parenthood, should be required for both sexes in order to vote.

With women being an equal percentage of the population and indispensable to human existence means that being ‘pro-straight White man’ cannot be ‘anti-straight White woman’. For other groups in the ‘Woke coalition’, we are free to pursue our interests even when at those other group’s expense. But with women, which currently in the Anglosphere make up the voting machine of Woke politicians, the pursuit of our interests cannot be at their expense. A successful anti-Woke movement will attract women and appeal to their interests, or it will go nowhere.

Female Interests

By Konstantin Razumov.

It is for this reason that I am allied with the TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism, or non-pejoratively known as ‘Gender Critical’ Feminism) movement. I acknowledge that TERF ideology is Woke on every issue apart from transgenderism, however, it is often the ‘first questioning’ of Woke orthodoxy that disproportionately Woke women have.

If they go against this, they are often brutally shunned by their peers, as

Connie Shaw

experienced. The venom shown to Connie shows that women are, on average, conformist even when it goes against their own interests, which makes them particularly susceptible to demagoguery that can ‘play the status game’.

Despite the valiant and heroic efforts of the TERFs, these are unfortunately predominantly middle-aged women, and with young women being predominantly brainwashed, the female sex needs male assistance against the transgender menace, in most young women’s case to save them from voting against their own interests.

In all circumstances, it is women who are most at risk, either being preyed upon by autogynephiles, or groomed into a cult to undergo mutilation procedures which renders them infertile, deformed freaks.

And this is not limited to transgenderism. Women disproportionately support parties in favour of mass immigration and multiculturalism, when immigrants commit sexual violence at far higher rates, as was horrifically shown in the Muslim Rape Gangs in Britain as well as consistent statistics in Sweden and Denmark. Whilst somewhat of a Neocon-talking point, Islam does in fact oppress women to a greater degree than they were ever oppressed in the West.

Feminism is a tool by the Woke to make White women turn against their fathers, brothers, and husbands, and see themselves as a separate group part of the ‘intersectional coalition’ rather than interdependent on White males. This ‘divide and rule’ tactic has been very effective, as it means ‘Whites’ cannot speak as one group, and as women have disproportionate power to socially shame men, can serve to marginalise anti-Woke White men.

It is important that the anti-Woke movement tries to get more women, particularly young women, to support it, by appealing to their interests. But a crisis of masculinity and male leadership to promote values of biological reality and national survival, letting hostile actors take over institutions and culture, has done a great disservice to young women, most of whom are now brainwashed against their interests. Male leadership must return to advocate for women against transgenderism, mass immigration, and Islam.

Male and Female Difference

Men and women are, on average, suited for different roles. Whilst the average woman is smarter than the average man, there is a greater range of ability (variability) within men, which is why men are disproportionately represented amongst leaders and geniuses, ‘There is no female Einstein because there is no female Jack the Ripper’ as the saying goes (though there have been female geniuses and female serial killers, but nowhere near as many of either).

This isn’t to say there can’t be masculine women and feminine men, and I find women with more masculine personality traits very attractive on a personal level, but complaints about the ‘gender pay gap’, i.e., average income per hour, is due to most men and most women choosing different life paths. Women with masculine personalities are the exception, not the rule. Most women are naturally inclined to want to be mothers and care for their children.

Feminism was imposed on women against their nature, who held women choosing traditional roles in contempt, and Simone de Beauvoir said that ‘women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.’

Women are not happier due to feminism, they have replaced working for a husband that (usually) loves them with a boss that couldn’t give a damn about them.

This is partially why we have a fertility crisis, feminism being imposed on women. The venom shown towards ‘tradwives’ shows how feminism was never about choice, but was always about reducing White birth rates (Betty Friedan popularised second-wave feminism in America, and was Jewish.) I will talk more about the demographic crisis in another part of this article series.

Nowadays, after 50+ years of feminist indoctrination, most women ‘think’ they are feminists, but in fact when it comes to their dating preferences, they are not at all, they want a traditionally masculine man who is above them in social status and earns more than them. This leads to the phenomenon of ‘Schrodinger's Feminism’, women being simultaneously victims and empowered, choosing whichever benefits them at any given moment. This means that progression towards ‘equal pay’ just prices ever more men out of the dating market in a toxic hypergamy one sees with dating apps.

The ‘feminisation of institutions’ that has happened for the past 50 years has not made society more masculine, but rather more feminine. The majority of women are more emotional, more conformist, and more oriented around ‘safety’, as numerous studies show, and the feminisation of traditionally masculine domains like the university has greatly contributed to the Woke pathology.

Male Interests

AI Generated Image.

Men are discriminated against in today’s society, often due to the boomer political class voting for affirmative action policies that would screw over their grandsons. ‘Gender quotas’ are open discrimination against men, as well as an attempt at social engineering, and must be banned everywhere, at least for a period of time before all civil rights laws are abolished. In the US, Title IX regulations give no due process to men accused of sexual assault on university campuses, of which the definition always becomes broader.

Men are also treated very badly in divorce. Divorce is seven times out of ten initiated by women, often for no reason other than ‘I was bored’. But yet women are almost always able to receive half of the married couples’ net worth even if she earned far less than the man. Women want their boyfriends/husbands to earn more than them, but still have the ability to ‘divorce-rape’ them, another example of ‘Schrodinger's Feminism’. No-fault divorce needs to be abolished, or at least reformed to prevent abuses like this.

That being said, a ‘moderate’ amount of feminism can improve relations between the sexes. I was very impressed by Pimlico Journal’s article ‘Against Oriental Anti-Feminism’, which explains how East Asian societies where women are shut out of the ‘public sphere’ and are more traditional, the ‘private sphere’ is an absolute Longhouse tyranny.

The traditional single-earner model doesn’t suit everybody, and in some circumstances more independence for women, and a more equal partnership in marriage, can be better for men than having their wives just nagging them at home, which the article talks about.

But it’s clear that the ideal of feminism has not lived up to any of its promises either, and has led to marriage rates, and sex rates, to plummet. A new covenant of some kind is needed to mediate the interests between men and women, just like in collective bargaining the interests of employers and employees must be mediated between the sexes.

Mary Harrington

provides a roadmap for that.

Reactionary Feminism

Medieval artwork of peasant women.

I think that Mary Harrington is one of those rare female geniuses, who’s book ‘Feminism Against Progress’ gave a fantastic overview, and solution, to the ‘Woman Question’.

As a self-described ‘reactionary feminist’, Harrington’s narrative is that women lived better in medieval Europe than most other places at that time, and that women would often work with their husbands on farms with a relative degree of equality and mutual interdependence. It was industrialisation which caused immense disruption to this balance. The feminist movement took off in the 1950s because women were increasingly isolated as their husbands worked away from home, suburbanisation destroyed community life, and technology reduced the burden of housework, increasing boredom.

Harrington calls for a ‘new covenant’ between the sexes. Having come from a TERF background, she emphasises the importance of single-sex spaces, but as a ‘post-TERF’ also supports male single sex spaces as well, which were the first to disappear and something she admits feminists unfairly demonised. She believes the military should remain gender segregated, as sex differences means that militaries are weakened when they are co-sex rather than just men, and she envisions a return to ‘home industry’, when married couples own their own businesses together the medieval sense of ‘interdependence’ is revived. She calls it a ‘return to the 1450s’ rather than the 1950s.

I think this is what we need. Women should not be barred from most jobs, and the minority of women who succeed at masculine roles should have such roles open to them, (though they should learn to be respectful of these masculine spaces and not morally shame men and try to change these traditionally masculine workplaces to be more ‘representative’, and some jobs should be men only).

But this should not prevent us recognising that the majority of women prefer traditional femininity. It should once again be possible for a man to be a single-earner and for a woman to stay at home with her children, IF that is what she chooses to do.

I will talk more about birthrates and porn/prostitution in a separate article. Either way, from my interactions on Substack, I think my stances on women’s issues are comparatively moderate in this space, though I will of course be described as a ‘misogynistic incel bigot’ by the Woke mainstream.

LGBT

The flag of LGBT, the ‘Progress Pride’ flag, is also the flag of all of Wokeism.

I’ve often been told that it is on this subset of issues where my views are particularly extreme.

To me, something I will discuss in the coming parts, that just shows how far Woke ideologues have controlled and manipulated the Overton Window to make what was seen as common sense even by liberals as late as the 1990s, seem ‘far-right’ even by conservatives today. It is more an indictment of modern Anglo society’s extremism, than my own.

But yes, the amount of cuckery of mainstream conservatives on LGBT issues, particularly not being able to see how LGB led to T despite the movement shouting from the rooftops that they are inseparable, is shocking, and a textbook example of how conservatives always grovel and surrender to the cultural left time and time again.

The surrender on gay marriage is an ‘echo’ of how they surrendered on the Civil Rights Regime in the 1970s and 1980s, though with arguably far more evil consequences in that it led to the mutilation of children.

With this ‘double-surrender’, the cultural left feels invincible, always certain that, even if there is ‘one step back’ after they have moved ‘three steps forward’, the direction of travel in aggregate is always in their court.

Most people in this space agree that transgenderism is bad. Beyond the fact it is biologically impossible, the Orwellian control they have successfully imposed on scientific establishments, even though the cult-like nature of the ideology is such that it can never be permitted to be empirically falsified, as well as academia, the mainstream media, politics, law, and education through infiltration and accreditation manipulation, is utterly chilling.

They force people to go along with their delusional notions, including the nonsense concept of ‘non-binary’ gender.

They force women to share spaces with male perverts and sexual predators infiltrating their prisons, toilets, changing rooms, and sports.

And most hideous of all, they mutilate people, destroying their reproductive and sexual stimulation organs, with a false, pseudoscientific belief that they can ever be another gender (including, most abominably, children).

There is a tiny minority of severely mentally ill-gender dysphoria sufferers who, like schizophrenics and those who feel their arm is an ‘alien entity’, should not have their delusions affirmed, but should be placed inside institutions to be cured of them through an evidence-based mixture pharmaceutical and psychotherapeutic means (though the infiltration of the psychology profession by transgender activists will require a full scale ‘de-Wokeification’)

Most people who identify as ‘trans’ however, are either groomed young women who have had their lives often irreversibly ruined by this cult, or autogynephile sexual predator men. Drag queens and trans-identifying men who ‘perform’ for children are committing sex offenses even if they do not rape the children (which has happened numerous times), as the idea of it arouses them.

Transgenderism should have no recognition whatsoever, there should be no means to legally change your gender as such a thing is impossible, and gender should be seen as synonymous with biological sex.

Those who perform these mutilation and castration surgeries on children, and those who promote such procedures, should be sentenced to death. The permanent destruction of their sexual functioning, often ability to ever orgasm, and in the case of women, ever being able to have children, makes them morally worse than pedophiles.

Pedophiles only have sex with children, and many children subjected to pedophilia can still go on to live normal, happy lives as adults. Nevertheless, majorities of people in the Anglosphere believe they deserve death. So if pedophiles deserve death, the far greater crime of transgender mutilation should definitely be subject to it as well.

Luckily, these views are not presently uncommon in these spaces. But most people won’t question where it all comes from. They will not draw the necessary link and realise that transgenderism is deeply tied to the gay rights movement, which they have surrendered to, and the disgraceful means by which they got ‘gay marriage’, turbocharged their infiltration of our society.

Virtually all of the main NGOs pushing transgenderism today were pushing homosexuality yesterday. The vast majority of LGB people, separating the tiny minority of containment homosexuals that pose as ‘conservative’, side with the ‘T’. They have made their choice, to all stand together. They should therefore be treated as such.

To me, it is patently obvious that both homosexuality and transgenderism are not ‘normal’, just like a human with six fingers is not ‘normal’ or without arms is not ‘normal’. The collapse in a notion of ‘normal vs abnormal’ and ‘correctly functioning vs deviancy’ is partially attributable to the philosophy of nominalism, which without Christianity as a stabiliser, robs society of any notion of normality.

But nominalism did not remove humanity’s ability to tell normality from abnormality overnight. Up until the 1970s, scientific communities still held to these common sense notions. However, deconstructing normality as ‘heteronormativity’, scientific establishments were intimidated into doing the bidding of gay rights activists, starting with the 1973 American Psychological Association (APA) conference. At this event, activists stormed the building and intimidated the participants to take homosexuality off the list of DSM-II, and they capitulated. The activists ostracised anybody who didn’t endorse their worldview, and carried out decades-long infiltration and subversion campaigns, fully revealed in the Marshall Kirk and Hunter Masden book ‘After the Ball’.

Of course, if homosexuality is not a choice, it can only be a mental disorder. It makes reproducing vastly more difficult, the most elementary task for a biological organism. As

Person Online

said, homosexuality can be compared to alcoholism. Part of it is a choice, but part of it is an inbuilt predisposition, and actually, given their cultural influence over the past decades, alcoholism is the lesser evil.

Currently, there is no cure for homosexual instincts. They say it is ‘impossible’. But the truth is that the current ‘gay hegemony’, with its ‘enforced non-conformity’, would prevent one from being developed even if it were possible, classing it as ‘hate’, such is the society we live in when abnormality is celebrated.

Gay ‘marriage’ should not exist. Marriage as an institution exists for the purposes of procreation, and whilst not all opposite couples will reproduce, same-sex couples, by virtue of their very nature, can NEVER reproduce. No amount of deconstructions, endless responses, and psychological demoralisations will change that fact.

In addition to the issue itself being Woke nonsense, gay marriage was, in the case of the United States, imposed by corrupt judicial activists against the will of 32 state referendums. There was no backlash, they had manufactured consent already, the court ruling simply serving as a final demoralisation and humiliation for all who had pushed so hard for each ballot initiative, who were forced into a broken silence.

The gay rights movement from the start held popular democracy in contempt. This conniving, machiavellian means of social engineering and control that the gay rights movement undertook, convincing people to ignore all of their natural instincts, and to accept the overturning of the people’s democratic will, is why they felt so emboldened and invincible to push transgenderism.

Likewise, the idea of two men and two women having ‘children’ by taking a child away from their natural mother, is a diabolical evil and a crime against nature.

It shows the soulless, pathetic, capitulating nature of the ‘conservative’ movement that Dave Rubin and his ‘husband’, after they trafficked their ‘children’, are able to consider themselves a part of, as well as Scott Bessent being appointed as Trump’s treasury secretary, another child trafficker. The ‘gay conservative’ is the final badge of humiliation, the ultimate symbol of total culturally left-wing hegemony and the ever continuing ‘Neocon Cycle’ where conservatives’ on cultural issues are leftists from 10 years ago.

Unfortunately however, ‘conservatives’, by giving up on an issue they for so long considered sacred, have confirmed the homosexual activists ‘right side of history’ narrative by refusing to overturn gay marriage and calling it a ‘settled issue’. In this, they set an example for the transgender activists that their opponents will also fold eventually. The first time they surrendered on cultural issues, with civil rights, it was plausible that this could be a one issue thing, but now, the cultural left know that social conservatives will never stand up for what they believe in.

I strongly believe that, not only transgenderism, but also gay marriage, gay surrogacy, and gay adoption (it is not healthy for children to be raised in these environments, when, despite decades of repression of this information, couples of gay men are far more likely to sexually abuse children) need to be overturned.

This makes me, by today’s standards, particularly radical and more so than MAGA. But this shows how radical this society is, that I am considered radical for spouting common sense.

It is simply unacceptable to let this symbol of Woke domination, let alone the fact it was brought by judicial fiat, go unavenged. ‘Heteronormativity’ must once again become hegemonic, and sexual deviants must be forced to the margins of society, where they will be grateful for us not making what they do a crime, and letting them have their gay bars in secluded areas.

The fact homosexuality was for centuries in the Anglosphere a criminal offense, and the moment it was legalised, this disgusting, deviant movement emerged, is a textbook example of ‘Chesteron’s Fence’.

I do not care about popular support for gay marriage; its proponents didn’t care when the public was against them, they imposed it anyway and manufactured consent for it through manipulative means of narrative control. Therefore, I do not care now, and want to do exactly the same thing; ‘reverse-indoctrinate’ society back towards its natural, unrepressed instincts.

I am prepared to go down the ‘privatisation of marriage’ root as a ‘crypto-repeal’, before we ‘reverse-indoctrinate’ society to regain their natural instincts in opposing it. But such a thing is entirely based on the eventual goal of wanting it abolished. All nations that have not passed constitutional bans on gay marriage and transgenderism are running against time, as an immensely well-funded global network of NGOs push LGBT ideology to every corner of the globe.

Part of why I admire Russia so much is that they have not given an inch to this inhuman, unnatural, diabolical ideology, of which their flag represents the entirety of Wokeness.

Causes of Wokeness

The causes of Wokeness are multifaceted. There are long-term and short-term causes, direct and indirect causes.

The ‘short-term’ causes were why it exploded in the 2010s. The long-term causes are the underlying trends that took place at least since WWII, and even earlier.

Direct causes are laws that were passed and actions that were taken both short-term and long-term. Indirect causes are a set of cultural attitudes that informed the decision making of those elite actors behind the direct causes.

I previously had an article listing all of the causes of Wokeness, but I removed it as I did in fact change my mind on various key parts of it. Here is a much abridged version.

Short-Term Causes (2008 - Present)

Direct

• The election of Barack Obama in 2008, and his appointment of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

• The achievement by the gay rights movement of gay marriage due to the above appointments, which, given the outrageous way it was introduced yet was accepted, gave cultural leftists the confidence that there was no issue that they wouldn’t ultimately win. It is why I have referred to gay marriage as the ‘tipping point’ of Wokeism.

• Big Tech censorship in response to the election of Donald Trump in 2016, and the crushing of the alt-right and anti-SJW movements which had begun to make intellectual headway.

• The rise of ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) scorecards from asset management firms like Blackrock, which were largely hijacked by Woke activists for their own purposes.

Indirect

• Rise of social media and the ability for ordinary people to have much wider reach, allowing ‘callout culture’ and ‘accountability culture’ to be whipped up online to a much greater degree, as Scott Greer talks about.

• Social media also making Millennials and Zoomers increasingly isolated and absorbed in online communities and concepts, for Woke women particularly Tumblr, as Jonathan Haidt examines. However, this was double edged with the rise of the anti-SJW and alt-right movements prior to the Big Tech censorship, which mainstreamed the culturally left-wing online movements.

• The cultural triumph of New Atheism driving Christianity out of the public space, broke down the ‘last line of resistance’ to the Woke agenda. New Atheism was implicitly on the side of homosexuals for the entirety of its existence, focusing on low hanging fruit like creationism and repression of heterosexuality to attract people, when in actual fact it was a vehicle for the gay rights movement.

• Online pornography mainstreaming transgenderism.

• Backlash to the election of Donald Trump in 2016, who in his first term was mostly, apart from his Supreme Court picks, ‘all bark and no bite’, allowing maximum liberal backlash but no real policy change (luckily, so far his second term seems to be different).

Long-Term Causes (1945 - Present)

Direct

• 1948 Declaration of Human Rights and all instruments to promote them. This created a universalistic set of principles that, with the backing of American power, were decreed to be above the level of the nation state.

• UNESCO statement on race in 1950, which was drafted by followers of Franz Boas, namely Ashley Montagu, both of whom were Jewish and saw themselves as ‘social critics’.

• Dwight D. Eisenhower’s appointment of Earl Warren and William J. Brennan Jr. to the Supreme Court, and the establishment of the Warren Court.

• Civil Rights legislation, starting with Title II and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and being expanded with the 1968 Civil Rights Act, the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act, 1972 Educational Amendments (Title IX), Civil Rights Restoration Act (1987), and Civil Rights Act of 1991.

• Executive Orders 11246 and 11478, which were not repealed until 2025 by Donald Trump.

• The Warren and Burger Court rulings, particularly Griggs vs Duke Power Company (1971), Rogers vs EEOC (1971), Regents of California University vs Bakke (1978), and Christenberg Garments Co. vs EEOC (1978), which only started being meaningfully overturned with the ‘Trump Court’ (post-2020 Roberts Court).

• The vagueness of civil rights law and its ‘guidelines’ for ‘fair hiring practices’ makes businesses far more paranoid and obsessed with ‘representation’, than they ironically would have been if explicit racial quotas had been mandated, as Richard Hanania explains in ‘The Origins of Woke’.

• Creation of large HR departments to comply with civil rights laws.

• The ‘Long March Through the Institutions’ by critical theory advocates, outlined by

  Christopher F. Rufo
  .

Indirect

• The ‘Boomer Truth Regime’, as described by Neema Parvini and the same concept invoked by R.R. Reno in ‘Return of the Strong Gods’, positioned Hitler as the ultimate evil and the opposite of Hitler as the ultimate good. This was disproportionately pushed by Jews who were still ‘chasing Hitler’s shadow’.

• The paranoia regarding the Nazis causing the entire elite culture to adopt a ‘minorities good, majorities bad’ posturing and cultural consensus, as described by Eric Kaufmann in ‘Taboo’, though he neglects this aspect.

• Nazism discrediting hereditarianism and biological explanations for group differences, and pushing academics to adopt the Franz Boas view of environmentalism and blank slatism, what Nathan Cofnas refers to as the ‘equality thesis’.

• The liberal United States and the Marxist Soviet Union being fundamentally sister ideologies that fundamentally agreed on the fundamentals of egalitarianism, universalism, and anti-traditionalism. The superpowers competed for who could best fulfill the Enlightenment ideals, meaning that Marxism and liberalism increasingly synthesised, with Rawlsian liberalism on the US side and Eurocommunism/Gorbachev-ism on the communist side, united by a common belief in ‘human rights’, which became Wokeism.

• Competition with communism, and desire to win favour with the newly independent countries, pushed American elites towards a similar set of anti-traditionalist and anti-racist values.

• The fact that, with the ‘equality thesis’ well established, civil rights law, without explicit racial quotas, failed to produce equal group outcomes in the period from 1970 to 2010.

• ‘Feminisation of institutions’ as more women entered the workforce, creating a more conformist, safety-oriented, and emotional atmosphere in places like universities.

• ‘Higher Education for All’ policies, which increased the percentage of the population exposed to critical theory ideas on university campuses, and monopolised the universities as the predominant form of accreditation.

• The collapse of blue collar manufacturing and associated trade unions due to both offshoring and technological change robbed the political left of its original base, increasingly emphasising cultural issues that appealed to the university-educated, white-collar middle class who had been indoctrinated into certain values.

Pre-1945 Causes

Looking before 1945, the causes are increasingly remote and it is hard to trace a clear connection. Various tendencies in Western thought which after 1945 manifested in Wokeism could, if events had happened differently, been applied in different ways.

I will work backwards, deductively concluding that, yes, it really was WWII that changed everything, though the ‘ingredients’ that made up the post-war consensus were present prior.

The New Deal and FDR Court Appointments: Created the modern American managerial state, and Franklin Roosevelt appointed William O. Douglas to the court. However, the degree that the New Deal violated the constitution as compared to other eras is debatable; with Lochner v New York (1905) probably just as egregious a violation. Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter were quite liberal, but probably wouldn’t have departed from precedent in the 1950s to the extent they did without Douglas, Brennan Jr, and Warren. Most of the original judges of the New Deal period had a philosophy of extreme judicial restraint and deference to the elected branches, in reaction to Lochner.

Establishment of the Soviet Union: Whilst this did increase the popularity of Marxism in the West, Marxism is not Wokeism, being ultra-majoritarian rather than minoritarian. There are similarities between Marxism and Wokeism, its dialectical method, anti-traditionalism, and anti-nationalism, however Wokeism has just as many similarities with post-WWII liberalism, and communist countries were not Woke as we would understand the term today, even if they were bad in other ways.

First World War: Killed Europe’s confidence in itself, led to the collapse of the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian monarchies which had provided an alternative form of modernity, particularly in the German case, and led directly to the Bolshevik Revolution.

Before this point, Germany was one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world, but which in Prussian honour culture and monarchism, directly repudiated the values of the French Revolution and in doing so, created an ‘alt-modernity’ to challenge left-wing narratives.

However, the fact that the rise of Hitler happened after WWI means that the results of WWI did not, of themselves, create Wokeism, but rather polarisation between liberalism, Marxism, and fascism. The two former more closely related to each other than either was to the latter, and which Wokeism borrowed from each, though due to its accommodation with capitalism more so from liberalism.

Progressive Era: It’s true that the ‘elitist’ wing of progressivism (different from the populist wing) did look favourably on the idea of social engineering and shaping values through education, with figures like John Dewey, Walter Lippmann, and Herbert Croly pushing this in their respective domains. What is not clear is that this HAD to lead to Wokeism. Managerial states in places like Belarus and Japan do not lead to Wokeism (though Japan is in grave danger due to American influence), with social engineering also being a tool for nationalist ideology, as fascism showed.

Universal Suffrage: Whilst it was based on an appeal to egalitarian notions, such notions could have been predicated on a ‘national’ belonging rather than universal human equality. Such roots of egalitarian thinking only mutated into what they are now when the ‘national’ and particularist elements were removed, again after WWII. In the case of female suffrage, whilst the civil disobedience tactics of groups like the suffragettes were later replicated by other Woke movements, women were on average more socially conservative than men until the 1980s.

The Social Gospel: The Social Gospel did neglect theology for social activism, and it's true that many mainline denominations, having already absorbed the social gospel, were largely powerless to resist Woke infiltration after WWII. However, the likes of William Jennings Bryan, the archetypical ‘social gospel’ figure, was very far from waving pride flags, and in fact is mostly remembered today for being a ‘religious bigot who denied evolution’. Social gospel advocates largely advocated for social change in line with Biblical values. There was not this counter-majoritarian, purposely deconstructivist angle that you would see after WWII.

Marxism: Was only one form of solution to the ‘working class question’ at this time, and there were many other forms of socialism that were competing with it. It was arguably only the establishment of the Soviet Union which ensured it would triumph over less internationalist and more traditionalist forms of socialism. Again, communist countries were not Woke, and Marxism was never pro-LGBT.

American Civil War: Yes, the roots of the judicial activist regime in the United States today go back to the Civil War. However, it was not obvious that America would become the world superpower before the end of WWI, with Britain retaining its crown, or Germany becoming the No.1 player, both equally likely possibilities.

The French Revolution: Was defeated in the Napoleonic Wars, and the values of the rest of the 19th century, virtually everywhere except France itself and the United States, moved in the exact opposite direction. Universal suffrage might be the one exception, but this was almost always justified on the basis of nationalism, not universal human equality like the French Revolution.

By 1900, whilst the ‘Third Republic’ may have been the almost century-long delayed fulfilment of French Revolution ideals, France had been defeated in 1871 by Prussia, a nation which was in many ways the antithesis of French Revolution ideals, and lagged behind Germany by every metric up until 1914.

The American Revolution: Was mostly fought to defend the historic rights of Englishmen under the Magna Carta. Whilst the rhetorical flair of the ‘we hold these truths…’ part of the Declaration of Independence has been the inspiration behind many corrosive movements, again, it was only one tradition, and it was largely post-hoc revived in the 1950s and early 1960s with the Neoconservative movement and Harry V. Jaffa, and was not some organic thread.

John C. Calhoun explicitly rejected it, the Confederate states when seceding explicitly rejected it, and after Reconstruction the nation, reconciling with the South, endorsed White supremacy as the cornerstone of American identity.

Again, we are looking for the causes of Wokeism, and if there isn’t a direct line from something to where we are today, if there was a possibility that other traditions could have prevailed instead, I rule it out.

Social Contract Theory: It was only really John Rawls that brought this back into Western political thought. The notion had been rejected by basically all sides in the 19th century, with utilitarianism and the idea of a ‘national community’ being far more prominent.

Nominalism: It arguably is this which has the most clear line to Wokeism out of all pre-1945 events.

Nominalism is the denial of Aristotelian universals. Aristotle, in his work ‘Categories’, a part of his ‘Organon’, explains the difference between primary substances, a ‘particular’, and secondary substances, a ‘universal’. The ‘universal’, Aristotle’s version of the Platonic ‘form’, is the ‘ideal version of a particular substance’, a blueprint of such, the version which is ‘functioning correctly’. For instance, if one man (a particular) is born with only one leg, something obviously went wrong, because men are supposed to have two legs. Aristotle, unlike Plato, did not believe in a ‘spirit realm’ which is what Plato’s ‘forms’ exist in, so Aristotle’s version is known as ‘hylomorphism’, i.e, the forms/universals exist only as a concept, but one that is demonstrated by reason.

‘Nominalism’ rejected this notion, started with William of Ockham (of whom the famous ‘Ockham’s Razor’ is incorrectly named after, as he did not invent the ‘Principle of Parsimony’), suggesting that universals did not really exist and were just social constructs.

In some ways, early modern thinkers departing from strict Aristotelian ontology allowed for scientific innovations and discoveries that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise, as Aristotle, and by extension the Catholic Church, had no means of explaining certain phenomenon, like why the planets and sun didn’t move around the earth. This is particularly the case with metaphysics, with Francis Bacon’s scientific method allowing the dogmatic focus on ‘final causes’ to be jettisoned.

However, with the rejection of universals, society became entirely reliant on Christianity to determine what was normal and what was abnormal. It meant that science and religion became alien languages to one another, as opposed to the careful methodology and dialectical reasoning that had characterised the Catholic arguments for the existence of God.

It would have been theoretically possible for science to continue to develop with a continued belief in universals, but instead the philosophy was neglected.

Even though the strong philosophical reasoning was neglected, universals were still seen as ‘common sense’. But in philosophical debate, the only thing that could defend the idea that heterosexuality was ‘normal’, i.e, the way human beings are supposed to function, was to appeal to scripture, and as the rejection of Aristotelian ontology around Christianity and its replacement with Biblical literalism had made science and religion seen as competitors, particularly with the advent of the discovery of Darwinian Evolution directly contradicting Genesis, this was seen as ‘backward’, ‘superstitious’, and ‘low class’.

And as the West secularised, a society that was ignorant of universals was defenseless against the deconstructivists and postmodernists, most notably in the realm of ‘Queer Theory’. Science had not been ‘anchored’ in the universals, so it was easy for LGBT activists to infiltrate institutions and weaponise accreditation. An ‘endless conversation’ would happen when reality was broken down.

And what started with the absurdity of ‘gay marriage’, then inevitably led to transgenderism, with the exact same reasoning. The objection to opponents to gay marriage of ‘what about married couples that don’t have children?’ was used again to deconstruct the more fundamental categories of man and woman with ‘only women have a vagina’ being responded to with ‘what about women born without a vagina, are they not women?’ turning the way humans respond to reality, so called ‘common sense’, into sludge, allowing them to become drones to the totalitarian LGBT ideologues.

This probably wasn’t the ‘only’ path Western civilisation could have taken. If hereditarianism and Social Darwinism had remained the dominant way of understanding the human race, the ‘biological dead end’ that homosexuality and transgenderism represents would make it obviously abnormal. But the post-war conditions allowed nominalism to be used as a tool by postmodernists to deconstruct society.

In order to ‘reconstruct’ common sense, it will be necessary to denounce nominalism and anchor science in the forms. This does not mean we have to return to medieval physics. The contributions of Francis Bacon, David Hume, Charles Sanders Pierce, Karl Popper, and Imre Lakatos also are immensely valuable in telling science from pseudoscience. But at a more fundamental level, scientific discoveries must be rooted in the universals, and a telling of the difference between normality and abnormality.

The Protestant Reformation: It’s understandable why Catholics would see the two as related, as Protestantism, through relying on ‘salvation through faith alone’, allows everybody to have their own interpretation of Christianity, which they then adjust to fit their own self-interests.

However, the Protestant Reformation can also be seen as the precursor to the rise of the nation state, which was very opposed to Woke sentiments in its own way.

Whilst such an analysis would make sense if just looking at Britain, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, who’s Protestantism always evolved into liberalism, it is undermined by the fact that Prussia was also a Protestant nation, and yet had a deeply militaristic and honour-based culture, antithetical to Woke sentiments.

Again, we have the bias of hindsight because with the collapse of the German Empire, and Prussia being wiped out post-WWII, we don’t have any examples of a Protestant collectivism. But in another timeline, Germany under the Kaiserreich could have become a superpower equal to, or even exceeding, the United States. The fact that didn’t happen is due to the first, and then the second in a zombified form, world wars.

Christianity: Too far back to be relevant, and again ignores that medieval Christendom was the furthest thing from Woke you can imagine. It was a civilisation based on deeply hierarchical principles. You should not look at Christian rhetoric when they were consolidating power against Paganism, but rather the civilisation they built once it consolidated, which lasted for many centuries. I concede I have changed my mind on this issue, which I outlined in ‘Why I’ve Abandoned Vitalism’.

Even though I must feel some sympathy for the Roman Pagans that saw the rise of Christianity, which in many ways parallels the rise of Woke, the civilisation we live in today IS the civilisation of Christianity. Prior to Christianity, there was no conception of ‘Englishmen’ or ‘Frenchmen’ as the ‘ethnogenesis’ of these nations had not yet taken place. The entire history of England is as a Christian nation.

Denouncing Christianity, like many ‘Vitalists’ and Pagans do, means rejecting the achievements of Western civilisation, the magnificent cathedrals, the emphasis on learning and scholarship which eventually developed modern science and enabled the development of space travel, and the Western conquest of the entire globe, remaking it in our image. These are all achievements of a Christian people, though the USSR certainly was not without its successes in science and technology, its birthrates were already below replacement and it was simply improving innovations made by Christian nations.

Policies to Fight Wokeness

By Beach Boy 007.

As for policies I would implement against Wokeism (general, not country specific):

Legislative Changes

• Medium to long term, repeal all anti-discrimination laws, restoring free association, and the ability of people to discriminate on ‘protected identities’, that would no longer be protected.

• Implement anti-immigration and pro non-White remigration policies, which will be explained in detail, specifically for Britain, in another article.

• Repeal any and all hate speech laws, and pardon and compensate all convicted.

• Make Big Tech censorship and debanking illegal, and subject businesses that engage in them to severe penalties.

• Making doxing a criminal offense, though this will be selectively enforced against ‘anti-fascists’.

• End all recognition of transgenderism in law, and define what is today Orwellianly described as ‘gender affirming care’ as ‘transgender mutilation procedures’, with anybody performing it or advocating for it given the death penalty.

• Reclassify transgenderism as a mental illness by law, and have people with gender dysphoria or victims of ‘transgender grooming’ put in institutions to be cured of their delusions.

• Legally mandate opposite sex toilets and single sex spaces everywhere.

• Ban transgender participation in women’s sports.

• Legally legislate for justice and compensation for detransitioners.

• Repeal gay marriage, or ‘crypto-repeal’ through marriage privatisation.

• Ban surrogacy for the purposes of homosexuals wanting to replicate themselves having ‘children’ when such a thing is impossible and they are in fact simply stealing a child from their mother.

• Ban homosexual adoption of children.

Attacking Woke Economic and Bureaucratic Power

• To ‘correct’ for years of anti-White discrimination, the civil rights laws will temporarily remain in place and be weaponized to issue large fines to corporations that adopted DEI and anti-White male discrimination. In order to do this effectively, entire bureaucracies tasked with regulating discrimination claims would need to be wholesale liquidated and a new, highly politicised agency, stacked with people friendly to straight White male interests, created to press the lawsuits and fines.

• All Woke public sector workers fired, in which ‘rainbow lanyards’ and ‘pronoun badges’ will be seen as proof. Classify workers into ‘serious offenders’, ‘offenders’, ‘collaborators’, ‘bystanders’, and ‘resisters’ in regards to Wokeism in a ‘dewokeification’ process, similar to the denazification process in West Germant. The ‘resisters’ would be handsomely rewarded and given leadership positions. The ‘serious offenders’ would be imprisoned and in some cases (Richard Levine) executed, ‘offenders’ blacklisted, ‘collaborators’ having to undergo extensive ‘re-education’ and limited in the seniority of their positions, and ‘bystanders forced’ to attend ‘anti-Woke classes’ as a ‘direct mirror’ and ‘retribution’ to DEI training.

• Carry out a thorough purge of police, prosecution, and judicial functions of the state, to ensure nobody in a position of influence is Woke.

• All government contractors must have no DEI or affirmative action policies.

• Defund all Woke NGOs, and apply a ‘windfall tax’ for any tax money they may have received in the past, with the intent to bankrupt them.

• Use a variety of methods to force Woke NGOs to be liquidated.

• Pass tax changes to make ‘asset management’ (aka, Blackrock) an unprofitable venture. Desire to bankrupt them, and ensure social engineering like ‘ESG’ (particularly the ‘SG’ letters) is impossible.

• If necessary, expropriate Woke businesses without compensation, and give them to political allies.

• Penalise companies in the tax code for having large HR departments, which are the primary force promoting Wokeism in the corporate sector.

Educational and Cultural Reform

• Put all universities and teacher training colleges under direct government control for a limited period of time to ‘cleanse’ them of Wokeism through mass firings/re-organisation in all academic disciplines, and then give them to political allies to manage, constituting a new ‘anti-Woke Cathedral’.

• Ban on all LGBT propaganda exposed to young people, in schools, public libraries, and in general. Also implement ‘reverse-indoctrination’ in schools to guard them against these corrosive ideologies.

• Have the state invest heavily in the arts to promote its values. In Britain, this would be organisations like the BBC, which would be liquidated and rebuilt from scratch to be an arm of anti-Woke propaganda, like it is Woke propaganda today.

• Promote a network of NGOs pushing Race Realism and HBD to reshape elite public opinion to be against the ‘equality thesis’, and to have an alternate answer to unequal group outcomes which can be robustly defended. Replace university sociology and anthropology departments with HBD-dominated teaching and research.

• Ground all scientific disciplines in Aristotelian universals, and re-establish the line between correct functioning and abnormal functioning. ‘Nominalism’ must be rejected.

• Implement a thorough campaign of ‘reverse indoctrination’ through all levels of education and across public life to get people to abandon the false, siren song of Wokeism and return to their ‘natural inclinations’. This would involve ending ‘Holocaust education’ and changing the way WWII is studied, as well as revised curriculum on issues like the civil rights movement. Social attitude surveys must show declining support for Wokeism of all types.

• Create an anonymous means of age verification for online pornography, whilst loosening ID requirements for ‘real world’ adult activity, to revive civic life.

• Ban smartphones for under 16s.

I’ve been happy with Trump’s recent executive orders as of the 26 January 2025. I hope he can keep it up.

But we should be cautious not to declare premature victory, as the typical pattern of Woke advance is ‘three steps forward, one step back’, and Trump’s hiring of sodomite child trafficker Scott Bessent somewhat confirming it.

But so far, so good, the task will be institutionalising these victories to either keep the Democrats permanently out of power, or completely renounce Wokeism both on the campaign trail and in power.

This article was longer than I expected, and it is still only the first part in a long series, but I hope you enjoyed hearing me clarify my thoughts, and stay tuned for the next entry.

Appendix: Individuals who have inspired my thought on these issues

• Christopher Caldwell

• Noah Carl

• Nathan Cofnas

• Rod Dreher

• Paul Gottfried

• Richard Hanania (pre-September 2023)

• Mary Harrington

• Eric Kaufmann

• Auron MacIntyre

• Neema Parvini

• Darel E. Paul

• Christopher F. Rufo

• Bo Winegard

• Keith Woods

• Curtis Yarvin