What does it mean to be woke?
This was the simple inquiry presented by Briahna Joy Gray to anti-woke commentator Bethany Mandel.
Mandel, the supposed author of a book which purports to be a critique of wokeness, was stumped by the straight-forward question in a viral moment that has every social leftist in America cackling.
Mandel is one of several intellectuals in the conservative “anti-woke” movement that has been promoted in the media in the last year or two. The majority of this movement’s academics and journalists are Jews: Eric Kaufmann, Batya Ungar-Sargon, Bari Weiss, Zach Goldberg, Matthew Yglesias, Abigail Shrier, Dave Rubin, Bret and Eric Weinstein, et al. Many of them identified as left-liberals until very recently, some still do.
These figures specialize in flooding disinformation and confusion on what exactly wokeness is. This is a deliberate categorical obfuscation that trickles down to the Republican party rank-and-file, and its intention is as a place holder for popular discontent that prevents a proper Hegelian pro-white antithesis to the anti-white thesis from forming.
In its essence, what people refer to as “woke” is the “Open Society” — radical minoritarian liberalism used as a tool of control by a collectivist and racialist Jewish plutocracy. The Bolsheviks implemented a prototype of this in their campaign against “Great Russian Chauvinism,” but the ideology was perfected by the post-war Judeo-American and Atlanticist establishment through college-educated and affluent Baby Boomers — the first Western generation properly instructed in this worldview — as they came of age in the 1960s.
The ideology exists in a continuum. The speed of its “progress” ebbs and flows depending on circumstance, but ultimately its corrosion advances. The pauses that follow a transformative moment in American history (Civil Rights viz-a-viz Nixon, rising “LGBT” cultural power and the Defense of Marriage Act/Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Obama identity politics to Trumpism) are brief interludes, but in the end meaningless and ephemeral. Its driving force is: 1) Western nations, cultures and people are illegitimate due to the collective sin of the Holocaust (as summarized by Theodor Adorno’s quote “No poetry after Auschwitz”) and other supposed historical atrocities related to collectivism and the exclusion of the “Other” and 2) An exception to this rule for those who are minorities of race and paraphilic sexual practices, who must be morally and socio-politically empowered to rule over majorities as a prerequisite to liberal Democracy.
Naturally, no majority, regardless of race, enjoys being treated like second-class citizens in their own country. The solution to this, developed by Jews closely connected with the US power structure in works such as Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies and Karl Loewenstein’s Militant Democracy is to utilize soft (in education, think “Critical Race Theory,” and in the work place, “cancel culture”) and hard power (criminally prosecuting “hate”) to stifle and suppress the vitalism of a targeted majority as well as their political will.
In other words, the crisis of representative democracy in America and the rest of the West — where the will of the people is thwarted by judiciaries or populist frauds who appear out of nowhere waste supporter’s time and money — is a product of malicious intent.
But traditional forms of repression can’t always intercept a reaction when anti-majoritarian forces become excessive. The Weimar Republic broke its own rules to jail and censor the NSDAP, while turning a blind eye when members were murdered by communists, yet this did not halt Adolf Hitler’s rise. In Spain, the Republican regime refused to reign in anarchist maniacs raping nuns, blowing up churches and terrorizing peasants, leading to the angry population throwing its support behind the Falangist revolutionaries.
This is where the dialectical distortion of the Jews currently taking the reigns of the permitted opposition to the “woke” comes into play. The atmosphere in today’s America is one of stewing resentment following the institutional deployment of anti-fascist emergency powers that have culminated in the ossification of anti-white policies and day-to-day violence after the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the Charlottesville protest in 2017, and the George Floyd riots of 2020. This necessitates a steam valve, one that contains the potential for blowback on the real architects of these troubles and thus avoids any meaningful change.
There is a bottomless well of examples featuring anti-wokes warping our national discussion. In Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage, which was heavily promoted in conservative circles, Shrier argues that gender ideology must be opposed not from the perspective of the family or common sense, but from the point of view of homosexuals. According to Shrier’s book, the real problem with transgenderism among young women is that it could reduce her pool of sexual partners due to the potential of “lesbian extinction.”
Zach Goldberg, a “Wokeness Studies Scholar” at the Zionist-funded Manhattan Institute, utilizes cherry picked data to lay the blame for policies such as defunding the police at the feet of self-hating white Gentile liberals imposing a system non-whites do not want.
His theory is being refuted in real time by elections pitting law and order candidates against “woke” ones in deeply blue cities across the country, where the white liberals are voting for more police while some minorities (primarily blacks and some black and Indian Spanish speakers) are voting overwhelmingly for less.
Big city white liberal politicians are currently overruling minority controlled city councils and identitarian special interest groups to start clearing out homeless encampments, block criminal justice reform bills, and are even trying to bring back Trumpian immigration policies, all which further stress Goldberg’s wokeness thesis.
The role of Jewish interlopers such as George Soros unilaterally rigging elections to put these pro-crime candidates in charge is overlooked in Goldberg’s work, as is the reality that whites seeking any kind of advancement in US society are afraid to give their real opinions due to the prospect of being targeted for personal destruction. Goldberg’s scholarship, which works backwards from the conclusion that the evils of “wokeness” are an expression of irrational non-Jewish white self-hatred, is just Critical Race Theory with a slightly different veneer.
Jews are the greatest beneficiaries of “wokeness” in the broader sense, their role in the anti-woke movement is primarily motivated by the need to oversee a controlled demolition of the inevitable white backlash. There are also side interests such as upholding the absurd hypocrisy of pretending to be colorblind liberals who support the violent racial supremacist state of Israel and reducing violent crime in Jewish hubs like New York and Los Angeles. The ultimate end, if they are successful, will be that they temper the moral fanaticism of Millennials and Gen Zs eager to apply what their Jewish professors taught them at their university, while simultaneously liberalizing some of the core beliefs of the generic Trump voter unhappy with it all.
As meaningful opposition, however, the anti-woke counter-revolution can’t even describe what wokeness is. Admitting that the “wokes” who vandalized the moronic Arnold Schwarzenegger statue, despite his very vocal support for Black Lives Matter, were just enraged by the image of a white man in the public square demonstrates that their intent is not political, just pure racial hatred.
Both conservatives and liberals understand this on an intuitive level, as seen by the recent Scott Adams controversy, yet the leading anti-wokes were the first to cancel Adams for suggesting whites should move away from people who hate and want to hurt whites just for existing.
Liberals of all races at least acknowledge that race exists, even if what they extrapolate from this is wrong. Anti-woke conservatives pretend that it isn’t even happening because their interests are not the dignity and well-being of whites. This is tantamount to bringing a pool noodle to a gunfight.
An example of this is a recent piece by Matthew Yglesias bemoaning that liberals are no longer interested in closing academic gaps between the races and instead prefer to just promote members of what they perceive as marginalized groups to important positions regardless of whether they are qualified.
Consciously or subconsciously, left-liberals and increasingly conservatives prioritize “equity” and representation over equality and meritocracy due to 60 or 70 years of throwing the kitchen sink at reducing gaps between the races in aptitude testing and failing. The conclusion arrived at by left-liberal social engineers is that aptitude testing, education and merit must be fundamentally racist because it replicates the same racial differences between groups, and so it must be eliminated altogether. This position can be critiqued, but it is at least internally coherent.
The anti-woke response concedes to the left-liberals that all groups have the same natural abilities, but that America is simultaneously not a racist country. This is an inherent contradiction, as it fails to answer why demonstrable and sometimes drastic differences between groups persist.
For this reason, the arguments made by these anti-wokes are laughed out of the room by left-liberals. No true-believing “Woke” activist is convinced by novel theories that center Trans Exclusionary Feminists (TERFs) or the racial positions expressed by Barack Obama in 2011, but that is not their intention.
The real purpose of the Jewish anti-woke movement is to consolidate the woke’s cultural advances through a tactical retreat that meets them half-way.
If this political trajectory does not radically change, one day sooner than later the wokes will be proposing putting all rural and working class white men in internment camps to stop “domestic terrorism” while the anti-wokes avoid any response that describes what is going due to sharing the left’s opposition to any type of white collectivism.