The problem is that you cannot really put your chips on fence sitting atheistic classical liberalism because it’s the exact morally indifferent ethos that opens the door to amoral progressive/regressive movements that diametrically oppose it. James famously says “Communism doesn’t know how (to solve its problems)” I contend that classical liberalism does not know (when to defend itself).
@@verfed Yeah, I heard that story in high school too. Except it was bullshit. We did the bidding of the Bolsheviks in Germany, then we lost the Cold War because we never took the ideological threat of Communism seriously, and now it’s ruined us.
Well, do you yourself want the Overton window open on the right to people who do openly call for racial extermination? From what I see, the reactionary right also does not believe in free speech any more than the woke left does. Do you yourself believe in free speech? Or just as a means to get your new "reich" into power which will then instantly slam the Overton window shut on anyone that you don't like.
Fighting on two front's is better than a knife in the back. And it's hard to be kind to people who have more knowledge, and still want to leave behind the good, (and I believe divinely inspired) parts of modernity. If we cannot rally around the principles of the US constitution, I don't know if I want to rally at all. Especially since rallying around, whatever the hell the "right wing" authoritarians want us to rally around, in the way they want us to, will likely just end in more power for the bad guys. The right wing authoritarians are giving more ammunition to our enemies, and freaking out when we "punch right" while accusing us of "pandering left". If there is some truth to the pandering accusation, it is more, walking on eggshells around people who break down when they get within a few miles of the truth. I guess if the right wing authoritarians throw enough hissy fit's, we will stop trying to convince them, like many of us have stopped trying to convince the left. Then they can have their own echo chamber, and we will peace out. If those who care about the principles of the US constitution, are a minority, then we may as well just preserve the light in our own echo chamber, and take what few chances we get, to be humble teachers, to the rare, receptive, audience. Individual liberty, religious liberty, truth, family. (I am a bit hesitant to put family in there, as I don't want government involved, but, we need to roll back power grabs that have already happened, by the state, against parental authority)
@@alanjackson1568 I think this is an intelligent and admirable defense of liberalism. One I largely agree with. The new right authoritarians want to throw the baby out with the bath water and pretend that liberalism never gave us anything good. It’s laughable honestly. And any time you ask them if racism, traditionally defined, is acceptable, they call you a leftist lol. However, I also think liberalism is dead, however much we may not like it. I think there’s much evidence of this It may be wise to promulgate a liberalism 2.0 to fight the oncoming surge from both sides.
@@alanjackson1568The Constitution as originally intended? Or as reconstructed over the centuries to include non-whites, women, the propertyless, and no higher house? (Direct election of Senators) The actual constitution, or 2008 neoliberalism?
Woke Right isn't a good name, and its confusing. That movement is eclectic, diverse. Common denominator - they are reactionary. "Woke" indicates deep, shared worldview (shared ideology), goals. "Woke Right" doesn't have that - they share strong reaction against "Woke".
If I may, James' use of the word "Woke" (and he admits from the top it may not be the best word) for this part of the "right" (I personally disagree and dislike that this stuff is considered rightest at all) is just a plain recognition that the following trends emerge from that group: 1. The narratives of victimization, 2. A special visibility (gnostic) into hidden power structures, and 3. A need for us all to reorganize from a "Failed System" or "Failed Documents". With this in mind, I gotta say, the term "Woke" for this "rightist" bunch fits quite succinctly.
@@tomchidwick At best its to early to call them Woke (they probably need several decades to evolve - like leftists needed). Using the same word/term to name different things (phenomena) is confusing, its better to avoid that. Maybe they share more than just "reactionism", or maybe they cant be named accurately now.
@@tomchidwick Your item 2 (gnosticism) is what makes them qualify as "woke" - their disposition having awoken or "become" after learning X truth. That element of becoming instead of IS is what makes it woke. The operating system is Leftist to be sure, but it's used with various signifiers of past right or trad culture (e.g. homesteading, hunting, wife at home with kids) to become right-aligned in a hyper-real cultural sense. Part of the problem is that there has been very few and small amounts of cultural and philosophical production from a "truly" right wing, as the right keeps having to redefine itself, at least culturally, in terms of the Left.
@@nacetroyIt's not new hidden wisdom, like "A man can actually be a woman because everything is socially constructed". It's acknowledging the basic realities of the world that everyone agreed on from 100 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Like "men and women have different social roles because they're different" and "that foreign tribe is not like us."
@@nacetroy Interesting observations; I appreciate the candid nature of your comments. I've always assumed the moniker "Conservative" to mean we wish to conserve our form of government, as specifically called out in our founding documents. Indeed, we find our adversaries are always going after those things in the end; that is very telling if you think about it. The more cultural aspects that you mentioned I believe are relevant (I share them, plus I would add free-enterprise, and free-association), and co-incident (the same folks who practice those things are the often the same ones who are defenders of American Liberty), but are ultimately NOT the things we are conserving. Ours is an appeal to proper allocation of State power, based on the Consent of the Governed. Self-evident, God-given Rights (which proper government must secure and protect), Enumerated powers, Separation of powers, States rights, Checks and Balances, Republicanism (i.e. representative, as opposed to straight Democracy), etc. THESE are the hallmarks of proper Conservativism, imho. The other domestic issues, co-incident and extremely valuable though they maybe, are not really what we should be identifying as the conservative pillars, since our ability to live-out those wonderful things for ourselves is truly predicated on whether or not the State is properly restrained. I say let's Conserve bedrock Constitutional values, at both the Federal and the State, and the rest will come to our local lives properly, naturally, and organically, unfettered by government overreach. Peace. (Sorry that was so long 🙂)
Calling a section of right 'woke' is desperate. Left has terms like 'racist', 'sexist', 'extremist', 'far right' etc. Term 'woke' is the only one that right has over the left and using this as a salami tactic against right... punching right basically with it is desperate and pathetic.
I don't object to punching "right", I heavily object to his irrational word games. He stared into the abyss too long. He also has become mentally unhinged. Maybe he should take a step back and just do something he enjoys for a month
@@napoleonfeanor it’s an actual phenomenon. The post-liberal shit is absolutely nut to butt with actual (Giovanni Gentile style) fascism. It is not our friend.
@@napoleonfeanor I don't think he is too unhinged. He is a standard gatekeeper like vast majority of 'conservative' politicians, writers like Jordan B Peterson, activists like Tommy in UK etc. Punching right by using the word 'far right' or 'nazis' lost it's power.
@@DaveM86 Not a very good rebuttal at all. All three are wealthy people that ultimately aim to just support the Democrat Party, which is a neoliberal global party aimed at mass migration and subversive state policies.
I don't think any of what you described really falls under "wole" though. Everyone knows that certain powerful people and groups have disproportionate influence and aren't always on the level. Woke is more than that.
The terms are “alt right” or “red pilled” depending on who you are and everyone knows it. Lindsay is just trying to isolate the most extreme parts of the right and get people to think of them as “the right wing version of woke.” This kind of thing falls in line with Scott Adam’s approach to influencing the zeitgeist. He’s trying to use a Magick word and cast a spell. Unfortunately, it’s so clumsy and hamhanded that the red pilled world has pushed his shit in and now he’s trying to double down. The exact term he’s describing is “red pilled” but he also wants the ability to alienate the extreme right, and that’s all this “woke right” nonsense is really about.
@@utvara1 Frankly, I'd say calling people NAZIs and so on is more divisive since they aren't exactly that and neither are they exactly fascists. As I see it they are essentially people who are using materialist and system orientated thinking like the woke do but are swapping out the woke left's words capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, whiteness, normalcy and so on for their own words. The woke left was correct, in the past, but now the woke right is more correct. Is patriarchy a problem the way the leftists frame it, no, but is systematic feminism a problem now, yes. I've literally heard the word intersectionality used in meetings at work. CRT is a problem and we living at a time when critical race theory isn't fringe but is used as the basis for trainings and indoctrinations in private and public organizations across the nation. The problem with the woke right, like the woke left, is that they are creating systems and dividing the world into identity groups just the inverse of the left's. The other problem is that the woke right, as I see it, are more correct at the moment so it's harder to counter. Are males disadvantaged in the school system and courts and so on, yes; is it because we live in an over arching system, some kind of inverse of patriarchy, no. Just my two cents.
@@jamesbeach7405 woke came from becoming awoken to various marginal topics. Right is about asserting the needs of the many above needs of the few. Woke is about asserting the needs of the few.
@@utvara1 While, yes, I agree with you regarding that origin of 'woke', I disagree that the right is about the needs of the many and the left the needs of the few. I agree more with Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson and others in their finding that traditionally the right favors existing structures and institutions where the left serves to challenge or play editor to those institutions. Another way to look at this is that the right would tell a village to stay in the valley where the left would say let's explore beyond the valley and potentially move there. The risk is that without the traditional left there's no change and with out the right there's no structure and everything unmoored. Regarding few and many... It wasn't that long ago that blue collar workers (which are numerous) voted exclusively for left wing politicians and the managers and owners and professional classes (being less numerous) voted for right wing politicians. The laboring class benefited from the left's tendency to want to revise society in favor of fairness and the professional managerial class benefited from the right preserving institutional power. Though since around 1968/69 we see that the democrat party (the nominally left party) seeks to changed its focus away from working class people, which was often perceived of as white male Catholics, to racial minorities, women and college kids. This has now translated into historically marginalized groups and the university educated / professional managerial class and white collar workers (so even lower tier office staff). The current Republican coalition is reliably made up of religious folks, disaffected liberals, rural voters, blue collar voters and libertarians. Another split as I see it is, regardless of living location, the dems and left favor a cosmopolitan or internationalist world view where the republicans favor a more local or national worldview (perhaps better wording needed). No side favors the few or many as I see it. There's honor is supporting either the few or the many.
The historical Nazis would be the canonical example of “woke right” - while it is usually associated with a program of racialized national socialism, and the totalitarian, militaristic government required to implement it, that was only meant to fulfill the first stage, of eliminating “racial impurities” from the national body of the Reich, while extending its bounds to encompass the entire world, integrating the “superior races”, and exterminating or enslaving the rest. The next stage , would have been the “withering away” of the state, as it would be unnecessary to govern a society of superior Aryans, who conduct themselves according to mutual respect for honor and natural hierarchy, under which the struggle for survival could intensify so as to bring about the evolution of humanity into a racially pure _Übermensch_
I think we are seeing the inevitable semantic spiraling that occurs whenever an academic attrmpts to create endless categories for what really just boils down the simple distinction between those who fear God, and those who do not.
Fuentes is an ethnic Socialist, not a right winger. Example, in his words I witness on his podcast (watched it to educate myself about the clown), he said, paraphrasing, "Yes, we we should nationalize big Companies in the US just like Putin did in Russia".... This is Socialism 101, just like Adolf was a a socialist, I call him an ethnic socialism, where less desirable race services the "dominant, perfect" race as slaves.
I’ve never heard of this Fuentes guy, but just recently commented how my country (Argentina) has been trapped for almost a century between the faux-right and the left; i.e. conservative socialism vs progressive socialism. If what you say is right, these “ethnic socialists” need too be fought ideologically with the same vigour than the woke left to prevent the ensuing false dichotomy
Completely agree. Nazi Ethno-Socialism is directly aligned with the mechanisms of the Bolshevik Revolution, only the Bolsheviks attacked class, rather than race. The fundamental ideology, both economically and socially was Socialist in both systems. Only the target was different.
Clinging to bourgeois morality and Enlightment ethics in a chaotic post modern world is cultural and possibly ethnic suicide. I'm ok, with saying this country was founded by a majority white, majority protestant, and majority English speaking population and I want that to continue. I'm not saying other races, cultures and religions aren't welcome but they are welcomed guests in our culture, especially spicy latinas. 80% of net global migration is to the US, the society most people want to come to was built on very specific cultural values, with specific ethics. Others are welcome to bring the best of their culture, but you can't make ours completely unrecognizable. Honestly, by all the laws of nature a people have the right to resist the obvious and willful destruction of their culture and race. Also Cato, please stop wrapping yourself in the scacred robes of representative government, the Republic has been dead for a long time, atleast since 11-22-63, we need Ceasar, give us our American Ceasar
@@defaultytuser Bravo!. Here is the helpful tip for you. Marx was a Class Struggle Socialist/Communist as the end of his dubious dream. Mussolini was a student of Marx ideology, only to evolve into Race Based Communism, ethnic. And then Hitler, who adored Mussolini, adopted the same concept of Socialism, Race Based. Why? Because Jews were his issue, and so, he implemented ethnic based Socialism because Marx was Jewish, unfortunately, because I am one, and these clowns like Marx put bad mark on our people, true that. Obviously. Hitler had to go for the race, rather than class struggle. All while being friends with Stalin who was half n/ half ethnic socialist as well. The whole thing is simple - Hitler was a Leftist, Stalin was a Leftist, Mao was a Leftist, and the rest of them dictatorships are Left wing fascists. Fascism was born on the Left, the cult of death, stupidity, mafia-like cult
5:18 The US Constitution is not a classical liberal document. I wouldn't really know how to classify the US Constitution politically, but even referring to it as classically liberal would be inaccurate. The US Constitution, per John Adams and George Washington, was both acknowledged to only function in a certain framework, and was designed to exist in that framework, that framework being a "moral, religious people." Washington went further and explicitly identified that people as a Christian people. Classical liberalism in general basically comes from John Stuart Mill, which is where we get his famous argument of what you can and can't do to try to stop someone from self-game-end. Mill appealed to utility to argue for liberty, and said there could be no other appeal. Jefferson, in the copy of the Legal Commonplace book he owned, in response to a claim about the value of weapon ownership being a value of utility, argued in his notes response that the appeal to utility for liberty was a false one. I wouldn't call _anyone_ who rejects the US Constitution, or is even skeptical of it, _any_ flavor of 'right-wing,' 'woke' or otherwise. I think that just muddies the waters. 6:54 And there he is. Yeah, I don't think continental liberalism of any kind is at all compatible with the beliefs of the founding fathers as expressed in the US Constitution, and I think that is why Jefferson responded to Cesare the way he did. 7:31 Nick Fuentes isn't right-wing. He's definitely not conservative. He likes to bang twinks who cosplay as cat-boys. Dude's an anti-family freak. On the other hand, the 'groypers' (still don't know the origin behind that name), have a point about the way we deal with Israel, and who that benefits. Yes, I do think we should be backing Israel to a certain extent, but whatever support we give anyone should be done first with the question in mind, "how does this help _us_ ?" 8:06 That's another good point. There's even a Wikipedia article titled "The Jewish Left," and it is maintained by Jewish people, and it is an article all about how Jewish people have made critical, integral contributions to leftism, and leftism could not exist without said contributions. Let me ask you something; if I call out the existence and problems of _La Raza_ , does that make me racist against Hispanics? Now, the groypers might indeed be racist against Jewish people, but, does what they're talking about, exist? Are we looking at a Motte and Bailey here? 10:48 I'm not a fascist and I think that's a fantastic idea. I've been saying 'give helicopter rides to commies' for years now, and by years, I mean since 2016. I do not believe the state should be looked upon as an ethical agent, or a moral being, as in its own separate entity with the power to make distinctions on moral grounds, rather I would say everything outside of and above the state. Not that the state shouldn't exist, but almost the complete inversion of what the fascists want. Julius Evola was a weirdo and, surprise surprise, another occultist who believed in melding occultism with collectivism.
Literally everything in the US Constitution is dripping with Classical Liberalism, even more so than Woke drips with Marxism. It doesn’t matter what John Adams said because Adams is only one of the founding fathers, Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Maddison who wrote the Constitution were deeply Liberal, and neither text says absolutely anything about Christianity(if it was so important, it would’ve). The words, the beliefs, the philosophy, classical liberalism is present everywhere in it, and is arguably the only significant philosophy present It is at the root and heart of this country whether people like it or not
@@Beezard1977 Washington and Adams both subscribed to arguments that were specifically counter-Enlightenment, as I demonstrated in the initial comment.
@@VisibleTrouble The point of bringing up Mill, was to demonstrate that Jefferson would have specifically disagreed with him (and, for that matter, so would every single one of our other founding fathers).
What do you mean only Jews? You think blacks, hispanics, Asians, Indigenous Americans etc. are not standing up for their ethnic interests? And white American can and are too. White Americans are suing insititutions for racial discrimination. Eveyone is standing up for their own interests.
@verfed think of how "BIPOC only" events are now perfectly ok, but try advertising an Anglo only event, and watch the fireworks of hypocrisy light up.
_"Freedom is hard so I'm just going to become a bootlicker."_ I can only assume opponents of liberalism are either idiots or masochists. What's your alternative? Fascism? Monarchism? Feudalism? What? Also, there are options out there for people who don't want to live in a liberal society. There's no shortage of more strictly ordered societies in the world. Go live in China or Russia or Iran and you'll never have to think for yourself ever again.
22:46 At best 10-15% of population believes in indiscriminate accumulation and dissemination of knowledge. Most don't in their heart of hearts really care if their mental model doesn't perfectly correspond to objective reality. Sure you don't want bad knowledge that does you immediate disservice upon application or spreading, but _"bad knowledge"_ in this context means deleterious to *YOU.* If it allows you to maltreat someone, appropriate their belongings, and gain their favourable position while being sure never to suffer any ill consequences, was the knowledge "bad"? And what of "forbidden knowledge"? Say you are a educated man in 1500s, would knowledge of heliocentric model be of any use to you? Likely not, but professing it or spreading it around (as a challenge to existing order of the world) would likely have deleterious consequences. So wouldn't that knowledge be "bad"? Taking Schmidt' friend-enemy distinction framing for liberals: _I disagree with what you say, but will die for your right to say it._ How's that going? How's protecting any of rights endowed to you by creator going? Let's not blame "woke right" for observing our utter societal failure. And we better have a better response than throwing them in same bucket as woke left.
I still think using the label "woke" for "woke right" is an unnecessary overloading of the term, making it obfuscating due to its polysemantic nature and the proclivity of linguistic warfare of the woke left (redundant). Beyond that, I see the threat you are pointing to.
I’ve heard the term for a few weeks now and listened to this hoping to hear what he actually means, thinking it was like a “national socialism is left wing because of socialism,” kinda thing. Turns out he just never really thought about what “getting red pilled” actually meant
It's a perfect term, actually, as it describes its own author(s) to a T. After all, Kisin, Lindsay, Peterson, Shapiro, etc are employing all the classic tactics of the "woke left" to demonize critics of a certain bronze age brand of ethnocentric identitarianism. They are the Woke Right.
It's an attempt by Marxist Lindsay to confuse the right, turn the right against itself so the Marxists can seize power. We are being played by Marxist Lindsay. As someone who is wellread in Marxism and Hegel, Lindsay is himself marxist and not in opposition to it. He is dismantling the right. When Marxists realised they couldn't seize power the normal way they began to call themselves liberals and progressives. When that stopped working they began to call themselves the right and to infiltrate the right.
Behind the scenes, James Lindsay was looking for a right winger to debate, hoping for an easy time. Offered a debate for my co-host Evelyn and then chickened out. I offered myself for a debate, but apparently, he does not want to have an honest conversation about these topics, opting instead to bloviate like a living fedora. I suppose Lindsay simply lacks the intellectual rigor to consider genuinely right wing ideas. Sad. Many such cases.
James, you need to go watch the clip Glenn Greenwald just dropped on this. You've got it 180 degrees wrong and are falling for some defensive move from the people who are offended with being called "Woke Right" (because of course they are truly being victimized - the irony completely lost).
Woke right is a bad name. The more extremist right isnt scary to me at the moment. Carl Benjamins traditionalism as an antidote to ideology thing speaks to me and gives me language for why american traditional framing is good and doesnt need to be justified beyond just saying we do it this way because its what americans are. Asserting it unabashedly seems good but the theocratic right seems to borrow some of the same ideas but doesnt have the "real america" angle to go off of in any legitimate sense so thats why i dont know whos woke right and whos just trying to move fwd in our current paradigm
Bash it all you care to as the "theocratic right," friend, but it was Christian thinkers and Biblical principles that formed our nation. Christians have no deficit concerning "real America."
The Democrats of relevance keep sneaking in this term, Catholic Extremists. They are talking about Nick Fuentes and that's a pretty accurate descriptor. He is NOT alt right. That's literally an entirely different ideology that is both atheist and gay and they want some weird arbitrary "white" ethno state to secede the US. Totally different stuff. Fuentes wants a Catholic King to be in charge. Tucker is not even related... he is a connected CIA stooge in the media... and otherwise a generic talking head that is mostly pro-establishment as long as it is right-wing. I see him as little more than a controlled outlet for whatever certain interests want talked about. What I don't understand is why someone who doesn't know any of this is miscorrecting James in the comment section with wrong info?
You're not really being fair to Tucker Carlson here. The man is, first and foremost, an entertainer. How much of his rather gullible persona is real is therefore highly suspect. And even if it is 100% his real persona, then he's just gullible. But he also comes back around on issues after a while if they don't pan out - like the aliens thing.
@@corystarkiller james is about a million times less popular than tucker. so cope harder a grifter who just flat out made up that he copypasted the com manifesto and fooled conservatives into thinking it was a pro-conservative message... then it turns out he edited 90% of it... will never be popular to anyone remotely serious or honest
@@wjdeoliveira3809 furthremore, why would he come around about saying positive things about H? you are aware H was a big friend of animals... so i presume your position is from now on ggoing to have to be that animals are actually evil? ADDITIONALLY, he did not EVEN say positive things about H... you people are just living in an asylum
Evolas coming along years later and trying to rectify Mussolini with Hitler. The real fascist philosopher is Gentile. And he’s just another Hegelian psychobabbler.
A bit oversimplied considering the variety of the groups involved, but yeah, basically. This is James attacking the anti-Israel right with lies and smears.
If you’re making the argument that the US shouldn’t get involved in Israel’s wars, ok. That’s one thing. I’m curious what “right wing” argument exists that Israel itself shouldn’t react militarily to 10/7.
@@Beezard1977 Why? That's an entirely pointless hypothetical. Israel is supplied and funded and supported with an overwhelming force of aircraft carriers to keep the WHOLE middle east from ganging up on them and they use our weapons and the aid we give them to blow up civilians along with identified enemies and to mass destroy civilian infrastructure. It's certainly controversial morally to say the least, especially with the numbers of women and children ending up killed. They are repeatedly aggressing against Iran and have escalated to the point where now where they are DIRECTLY firing on Iran and daring Iran to fire back. So we are funding a war of aggression now not just on the close by enemy that hit them on October 7 th, which couild at least be argued was defensive, but we are funding their escalation efforts as they continue to try to get Iran to fire on them so they can play victim and tap in the American forces. Meanwhile, our Congress is paralyzed by AIPAC preventing them from doing ANYTHING AT ALL to stop it under threat of having their AIPAC bribes redirected to the war chests of their next heavily sponsored primary opponents. Yeah, it literally works like that. Nobody cares about Israel defending themselves.... within reason. We can argue about what's reasonable. The issue is the scenario unfolding and the dynamic where all of the decisions about America's involvement in Israel's wars are being made by Israelis. That's not okay.
There are people in this very comment section blaming the Jews for all of the world's ills. This is not just about being pro or anti-Israel, it's about hating Jews or not.
Now that I understand what you mean by "woke right", I am worried that you will lump in people who are tired of the Republican leadership/representatives that go along with the Democrats to keep the border open and keep printing/spending too much money on things that don't directly address the problems we have in this country. I am also aware that those people who feel that frustration may, unfortunately, gravitate to the "woke right".
@@chromadental3586 opposing foreign aid to corrupt countries like Ukraine and Israel isn't "neo-nazi," but the "flat-earth Christian fundamentalism part was funny. Nazi scientists put America in space and on the moon. Catering to brown resentment and the gutting of educational institutions in favor of Crony capitalism and slave labor immigration makes you a liberal at best and a morally bankrupt Marxist at worst.
“Nobody in a position of educational power wants anyone to know wrong information” is the fulcrum of much of this discussion. In fact, much of academia wants their students to know “their version of the truth” rather than THE TRUTH. Acknowledging that Winston Churchill, for example, made horrific errors in the lead up to WW2 is not “alternative history.” Those are facts. Many, many people in positions of educational power have been purposely misinforming their students on this point for 80+ years now. Just one example for the sake of brevity.
Woke right is not a good name, everyone sees woke as a leftist terms. You hinted out what the right label should be. We call them woke because that was the label the woke left adopted for themselves we took their own label & made it a negative because of the behavior of those who were woke. Instead of "woke right" we do the same with "groyper" It's a name that they call themselves & they all exhibit the behavior you're calling out. And even if someone isn't explicitly a groyper the label can be used negatively for those who exhibit similar behavior like calling everyone who disagrees with them "jewish". People you describe as woke right would also all consider themselves anti-woke so trying to say they're woke now is just extremely confusing.
I dislike the term 'Woke Right" largely because they have nothing like the academic, political and activist pedigree that stretches back over a century that the Marxists have. I preferred the former 'Postmodern Right' as it stuck to defining their tactics. I know James is trolling them to a degree but I think it's giving them too much credit and attention. The Woke Left deserve a modicum of respect for maintaining patient self- discipline over the years. The so-called woke Right are largely the same memesters that fueled the trajectory of the Alt Right, there not much substance there..
I'll wait until you address Norm Finklestein's criticisms of Israel and the H* industry, as well as Mersheimer and Walt's Israel Lobby book, as well as the role of AIPAC's influence in the US government (people like Col. Douglas McGregor and Rep. Thomas Massie mentioned this), and then how the ADL work hand in hand with AIPAC, and other NGOs that undermine the US and the west in general. I'm sorry James, but on this issue, you're uninformed and out of your depth.
Certain truths should be exposed and James should recognize that, by not talking about it, he looks misinformed or like he's carrying water for those who will keep things the same, Trump or no Trump.
Norm Finklestein? He justified Oct. 7th. He's a disgraced self-hating Jew that's completely ostracized from his people. And you know how hamstringed Israel has been in this war by the US? I wish the Jews and Israel had more influence over the US than they do. This war could have been over months ago. Instead it festers and the suffering continues. War is coming. China will try to take Taiwan. They see the weakness in the US, the lack of resolve to support Ukraine & Israel. Get ready, instead of attacking allies whle trying in vain to appease Hamas and Iran.
james started off with good intentions but like anyone else who began with a premise and worked their way through the reasoning, he is sidestepping all inconvenient truths to ensure he arrives at the desired conclusion
@@latinhero1818 the holocaust industry has some good bits about grifters trying to get money and power from The Holocaust. But it doesn’t deny the essential reality of the Nazi holocaust like many of the people Lindsay is criticizing. As far as addressing Finklestein as if he’s some expert on foreign policy, history or anything else, you may as well be talking about Howard Zinn. He’s a commie activist clown.
@@latinhero1818 the H* industry has some good bits about grifters trying to get money and power from The H*. But it doesn’t deny the essential reality of what happened like many of the people Lindsay is criticizing do. As far as addressing Finklestein as if he’s some expert on foreign policy, history or anything else, you may as well be talking about Howard Zinn. He’s a commie activist clown.
I have noticed the rising energy on the right that you are calling the "woke right." However, aside from your definition of why we use woke, I don't see Tucker Carlson really displaying any of that energy. I do see it from Benny Johnson and his followers though. One hallmark of the the "woke" is to have unwavering adherence to the words of someone that has taken on a "Preacher" role. Benny is that, Tucker doesn't seem to want that. Time will tell if what I'm sensing is correct or not. I still think a lot of Tucker's "revealed reality" is him finally breaking free from the media system recently. It takes a bit of time to get reoriented.
You'll know the woke Right by going into their comment sections and seeing comments alluding to Jews in terms of fear of censorship like 'oy vey' or 'the people with the tiny hats'. They also have an interest in Hitler's AI speeches when they've been deciphered for decades, but pretend to be stumbling upon "forbidden wisdom". This attack on the economy just feels like one big white nationalist recruitment seminar.
You don’t think Tucker has kind of a cultish following though? He’s massively popular and many people look to him for commentary, never acknowledging his double standards or inconsistencies, like the times he has expressed significant distaste for Trump behind closed doors. I think he is that kind of a figure.
Not all, you might want to brush up on church history. The pockets of true Christianity were hunted and persecuted by the RCC long before the protestant reformation ever emerged. I am such a Christian.
@ what historical group is that? Some churches that Were set up by the Apostle still exists but the apostolic secession has been lost at early stages . What group should I read up on ?
James, please provide a compelling explanation as to why skepticism of Israel is not warranted. Specifically, the unprecedented amount of influence that Israel has in our political system. The inability and particularly the unwillingness of the "non-woke" (liberal and especially Right-leaning) to sufficiently address questions about Israel is precisely the avenue that ethnic socialists like Fuentes use to recruit the curious and disenfranchised into the "woke right." Likewise, I don't think you are going to be able to mount much of a defense against arguments from figures like Fuente until you either: (a) clearly articulate a compelling justification for Zionism, from an American petal perspective; or (b) distance yourself and your position from the Israel lobby.
I think this is both an oversimiplification and an undersimplification (at different points of observation) of what most simply should be understood as the Postmodern Right. First, it must be understood as surprisingly organic. The thing about organic/emergent modes of experiential politics is that there must be an anticipated intensity of mutational load, with all sorts of good, bad, and worse than useless ideas all entering the various spheres and undergoing very inconsistent memetic selective processes. The causal roots are twofold: 1. The Right is sick and tired of defining itself in contrast to a Left Wing that monopolizes having goals and interests. The Right is unable to identify with the Conservative headspace in terms of preserving a status quo. In lieu of that, the Right is attempting to manifest a new unifying generative myth, and there is a considerable effort on the part of the Christians to avoid a model of history structured around Historic Materialism or Dialectical Materialism, and that would be driven by all sorts of incentives. 2. The Postmodern element of the emergent operational frame is not as nearly contained as someone might think. All theories of conspiracy are postmodern in structure, whether it's a theory of Patriarchy or a theory of international Banksters, they are in essence the same theory driven by the same epistemics. A result of engaging in postmodern reformulations of how they experience government and community and even the individual, the Postmodern Right is essentially going through the motions of trying to create a new social contract that can actually account for modern conditions that would be literally unthinkable by the frame of reference afforded by historic figures. The Postmodern Right is then a bunch of people from diverging spheres that only really agree that the unspoken social standards and legal system of yesterday has been utterly disintegrated, and they're trying to replace it in lieu of letting the Marxists do it first, and they refuse to let the Marxists define the thresholds of what is right wing, and theyre trying to establish real qualifiers that can be gatekept. There's a lot more to it, but I think this is sufficient to give a good intro analysis of what is happening at the individual and macro level.
I'm working on my own reply to the video itself but I must say think what you said was pretty solid. It does remind me of a conversation between Lindsay and Wokal Distance. Essentially the relevant comment was that there are elements on the right which are directly using or inadvertently using Lyotard's hyper-realism. Their approach is basically to say that while we never experienced the real thing we can simulate the real thing. In a sense it's we didn't experience the 50s mom, dad, and 2.5 kids life; but we can simulate it. We don't live in a time of Christianity as the nearly unchallenged norm; we can create that. The problem I see is that much of the idealized world that that woke right hold up is a fiction. Further the Christianity we are seeing in some areas is so aggressive that it attacks allied individuals like James Lindsay insisting all knees will bend or whatever. Vivek Ramaswamy was challenged by some because he's Hindu and thus not fit to lead the United States. Did the world these folks want to create really ever exist... no. To borrow from the James Lindsay / Wokal Distance discussion they are making the Strawberry Jolly Rancher flavored ICEE version of the past they admire; like a main street Disneyland version of culture.
They are not postmodern at all except MAYBE the so-called Alt-Right which is atheist and gay. Woke Right is actually what the far-right calls James and other "classical liberals" and some "conservatives" for being too atheist and gay and to remind people on the right that they are not voting with conservatives on much other than the president and some Congressional seats right now. 1. It's actually a myth that the right-wing is lacking goals and purpose. This myth emerged from the far-right groups as a criticism of right wing politicians that couldn't answer simple challenges on their own ideological stances by the Woke. Trump repeated it. It grew wings. 2. No to all of that. You are completely factually wrong. You COULD claim they are driven by the same epistemics, but that alone is a massive claim to back up that you really can't because you are just guessing and wrongly. And it doesn't even make sense to compare The Patriarchy, the Big Bad myth central to the religion of Feminism, with banking cartels in the first place. Banking cartels exist. They are tangible. What you are calling "conspiracy theories" are bragged about by the culprits themselves in their own books. Patriarchy has no such substantiation. It's not even a reasonable interpretation of the world. This absurd comparison and false equivalence that you've drawn here are embarrassing. Ouch. I think your biggest problem is you didn't try to substantiate the Patriarchy and the banking cartels, because pointing out a REAL enemy that is REALLY causing harm is not the same as manipulating people by lying about those same factors happening... and the fact that these are epistemologically similar actions means nothing at all. "The Postmodern Right is then a bunch of people from diverging spheres that only really agree that the unspoken social standards and legal system of yesterday has been utterly disintegrated, and they're trying to replace it in lieu of letting the Marxists do it first, and they refuse to let the Marxists define the thresholds of what is right wing, and theyre trying to establish real qualifiers that can be gatekept." Now that there is definitely truth to (though I reiterate my objection to the Postmodern reference). What they really are, are different brands of reactionaries. Some Catholic, some atheist and gay, some Asatru, some Druidic or Wiccan, etc. All identitarian to some regard WITH REASON, I would add. Each of these brands, you will note represents a successful culture and religion (or non-religion) that has endured despite falling in the past. Ethnic gatekeeping is how cultures like those survived as long as they did. Ethnic gatekeeping is how they will survive now... or they will be absorbed by bigger cults. Nobody is really even pushing typical nationalism since Israeli interests have dominated that sphere shattering confidence that there is any point in trying and the power vacuum really lies with disenfranchised youths who are looking for culture, for groups to be a part of, for purpose.... and some of these groups fulfill those needs. So you are also MOSTLY dealing with younger people in these groups. They are "like the Woke" in that respect, I suppose.
I believe it turns off people from listening by calling it woke right. I had a viseral reaction to it until i stopped and asked myself why i was feeling this way. Woke terrifies me. The whole thing terrifies me. I just want America to be normal America. The America i remember from my childhood that believed that America was good, that loving God is crucial. Being traditional isn't a bad thing.
Woke Right seems to be sticking, but Woke Volk or Volk Right are alternatives, especially with the heavy anti-Semitism of many posting as Woke Right people, bots, feds, etc.
The problem with calling them alt-right (and is also the problem with woke right) is that these people are not right wing. Same way, Mussolini and Hitler was not right wing.
Nope. Has to do with metaphysic/ontology of existence going back to ancient cults - Classical Liberalism = IS, Real World. Woke = BECOMING, World created by man. James is correct about this, you're being ignorant. But James may be accusing too many who appropriate some of the cultural reaction against the woke commies, yet who are not down with the authoritarian/totalitarian means (except in meme appreciation).
It is very simple why the woke right is so similar to the woke left. Not because they are like modern progressives or commies. Or because they are necessarily woke (like communists who also aren’t woke necessarily) but it is because their foundation in epistemology and to a certain degree metaphysics is postmodernist and dialectical (hegelian even). And they have alot of the same philosophical sources and praxis sources outside of that (vanguardism, gramsci etc). Although people like Tucker Carlson may not be cucked to those philosophies they still have a constructivist streak and share many of the attributes and the ideas of the rest of the woke right. But all that leads to more similarities in ethics and especially politics.
Deranged is pretty close to deceived in form and function. It's no different than Proverbs 24:6 replacing "wise counsel" for the original word, depcetion, as in "by way of deception".
Even though most of what Nick Fuentes says is correct, some of his views are a bit extreme when you look at the big picture and how to solve this destruction of the West problem we are dealing with. Especially his views on gays, marriage and religion.
@@thekombatrealm6082 I agree with you for the most part. Nick is clearly correct about almost everything he consistently speaks about. He’s just excessively abrasive at times. Who are some other people who align with most of what Nick says but speak on these topics more tactfully?
LOL. As usual, leading from the rear and desperately trying to retain relevance. Your time is over. Let people who understand the world fight this war.
You probably should've started from the explanation in the last last third of the video. In fact, you could cut it down to a 3 minute clip starting from around 20:00 to deliver skeptical people a simple and concise explanation of what you're talking about. I expect many will dislike and stop watching somewhere within the first 5 minutes, never knowing what you're even referring to.
And the sadest thing is that woke "right" and woke "left" complement each other very well. Namely in their shared hatred towards free speech and traditional liberties in general, thus eroding moderate politics from both sides.
That's because wokeness is just ethnic nationalism repackaged for American wine moms who hate themselves. There's no new "woke right", just the same ethnic nationalism as people have been complaining about for decades
@@intboom ethnic nationalism is a flavor of woke right but what all of them have in common is the attack on liberty. They have the "liberalism showed us that people make the wrong choices, so the only way to ensure that they don't is removing their abillity to choose". They are all utopians with some plan to enforce it.
Well done. Thanks, James. I will keep my eyes open. 1. I don't think "Woke right" is a good name because A. They are NOT a mirror image of the Woke. B. The differences matter at least as much as the similarities. C. With so many difference in power, in history, calling them that appears to be an attempt to EQUALIZE for manipulative/control reasons-political reasons, rather than truth/scholarly/objective reasons. D. Using that word simplifies or reduces complexities and short-circuits or minimizes direct observation of the actual phenomenon, AND minimizes the rich memories of the specific phenomena we have seen/learned/experienced directly in the Woke -& are yet to see as it changes. E. These things are emerging. A strict definition of Woke covering both may not suffice to keep us on our toes properly. A working definition, OK. But these are "moving" movements (& individuals as well) so call one thing one thing, and call another thing something else; they will change. I myself cannot call them that until I do see this as more than "the right" using some ideas, methods, attitudes, or even assumptions-assumptions perhaps just passively adopted say in the academy or from the media or wherever. They are trying to be something in relation to Woke but that does not make them the same thing but on the other side. Nor are they Woke simply because the Left is trying to trigger them. 2. The main reason: We all are breathing and speaking Woke to some extent because it has won the culture & institutions and cannot be completely avoided w its many dominating assumptions. Woke lies, dissembles, or goes along with delusional assumptions & beliefs. WE ALL can & often DO slip into the Woke spirit/attitude postmodernism, relativism, whatever, numerous times in, say, a week. Woke through projection out onto other GROUPS (or loose made-up groups), can avoid dealing with its own unacceptable qualities. Many in the SYSTEM, academic or work or church... can ESCAPE into criticisms of the Right to avoid courageously confronting power. Hence the "Woke Right" becomes a group we are encouraged to FEAR, to HATE freely, self-righteously, obsessively-without awareness of how self-serving that is to our own situation. The Left no doubt loves us to do that. We easily are following their Marcuse-fed beliefs about "Repressive Tolerance." And we then are distracted from the original, the source Woke. Both may be serious, but they each should be treated seriously exactly for who they are, no more, no less. AND without-as is the common habit-letting others TELL US who to fear & disassociate from (cancel culture). We must demand specific examples and/or experience directly what it is exactly that is so bad & why. And make up our own minds. Yes life and INDIVIDUALS actual are that complex. OTHERWISE we are NOT practicing Classical Liberal assumptions & commitments-but practicing instead Marcuse COLLECTIVE Wokery ourselves. Finally we must not think of ourselves as SITTING DUCKS in the middle waiting for the Woke, left or right, to act. The "woke right" is at least coming up with ideas, however mad or inadequate, testing their ideas on each other and in culture, networking...Classical Liberals and Libertarians or Scientific Atheists, who may be too much resting pretty as the same old school thing, don't seem to have a pro-active plan. Am I right or wrong? They can judge & belittle the actors because they are not willing to admit all of us have contributed to this problem-and must commit to developing a solution. The blame is always put on others-groups-by individualists. I am one myself.
@@jankragt7789 well said. Classical liberalism has no plan to defeat the woke because ideologically, they have no moral framework to reject degeneracy. Without a supreme moral law giver even a virtuous King, or Ironclad legal framework will eventually succumb to generational moral relativism.
21:45 James isn't saying that Tucker Carlson hates the US Constitution, he's just smearing him by association (with people with whom Tucker doesn't even associate)
Israel is a foreign state. Its national interests are NOT the same as American interests. Therefore, skepticism of Jewish Nationalism is a healthy thing for Americans all along the political spectrum.
There's a valid argument in we shouldn't be paying for them, but too often that gets conflated with people who believe in some Yewish domination conspiracy. It's the same kind of distinction as between woke left and people who just acknowledge there was racism throughout history and that it was bad; or people with TDS vs. people who just think Trump's obnoxious.
The language both sides use is also cult-like. "Having woken up to special knowledge no one else knows... " That's every cult under the sun. Thanks for the heads up, James!
This is so long and boring. I just wanted to know what this new term is supposed to mean. It's called bullet and you don't even bullet point anything wtf
Honestly it just sounds like you're describing the alt right, where some of the members grew up and matured, while others like Nick still haven't yet lol
James, this started out well enough, but then got kind of messy toward the end. I read Yarvin when his blog was somewhat fresh and he still used Moldbug. Later got into your work and M. Malice, around the same time (close to when either of you did your first JRE), also right (Mises Caucus), anti-war Libertarianism, then started coming back to populism and Founding Father Classical Liberalism. I know you're right about some of this but also probably casting too large a net for some of this as well. There are elements of AnCaps, Populists, right Libertarians and even those who'd call themselves "Classical Liberals" who also share the deep state, Pinochet or other cynical memes PRIMARILY as a REACTION to the encroaching woke/communist npcs and REGIME. A lot of people who don't want to go the way of authoritarianism, and who ultimately found Yarvin to be lame or who will earnestly vote this election (despite thinking it might be of no use) take on some of these positions of "Woke Right" due to that feeling that they're being existentially threatened. There are many blurred lines here. I defended Darryl Cooper as I saw him being a rare voice telling some truth about the Israel-Palestine conflict, upon learning more about what you and your circle are calling the Woke Right, I suspect you're probably right that Cooper is of the Woke Right and is being a bit sneaky, but I can't say for sure. So, I think there is a spectrum, M. Malice and his fans use helicopter ride memes all the time, but they're against totalitarianism. Populist right/MAGA, say Jack Poso, even appropriate some of the Alty memes and views. So distinctions should be made. K. Woods, Auron, Lotus Poofs are one thing - Fuentes (a Fed), Quinones and Thomas777 are more extreme, and toward that extremity there's more chance they're controlled oppo. It does look like a corralling of a reactionary/pissed off right (not to mention tech bro transhumanists) funneled into support for Trump. However, you're not really making such a good case for these disparate influencers all having the same metaphysics/ontology or if all their followers really believe that kind of ontology. I's ask for more on that. Also, check Michael Millerman, is it not possible to use some of these ideas of the "bad boy" thinkers, Schmitt, Strauss, Heidegger, Nietzsche without going all the way?
Awakened souls compared to the wokie ideology. Those are really different things James. We have been lied to about most things, we have been naive sheep. You need to keep an open mind and grasp the amount of lies we are told. Look into geoengineering for a start.
"Woke" Right is just strategically insufficient. it's such a nice umbrella term for people we kind of all feel the same about, but can't all name properly. so it shouldn't be worn out.
I think that it’s not a bad term. When you look at extremists on both sides of the spectrum, you find that they agree on a lot of things - for example, both extremes are very anti-Semitic, though perhaps for different reasons. Both are extremely tribal and wary of “outsiders.” As you indicated, “woke” might not be the best term for now, but until a better one comes along, “woke” will do.
I think one factor you might be missing James, is that there's an actual canon for conservatism. It's impossible to be woke right without betraying it. Your best weapon in this fight is to read that canon and aim it at those who attempt to ignore its content. That's a very different lineage of thought than you are familiar with. You won't be able to take the word of continental philosophers. You'll have to wade into the Carolingian Revolution. The Formation of the Catholic Church, the church fathers, the great Roman, Greek and Jewish thinkers. There is a world of thought hidden to modernists by the taboo of faith. Tocqueville is one modern manifestation of it. But also Pope Pius the X. Others as well but those are a good starting point.
James blocked me for saying he was silly when he started referencing secret conversations he had conducted in the past with people with special knowledge of China's intentions and methods.
I don't actually see anything wrong with this take... Seems to boil down to "Remember, people are liars." EDIT: But yea man, we gotta call it something else.
"Right who doesn't love Israel enough" would have suffice. That's what you really have a problem with , you wouldn't be having this podcast if there were large movements of all of that minus anti-zionist...
James, I believe Schmidt claims decisionism and the friend enemy distinction are "ises" rather that "oughts". I'm not sure how you get away from the question of who interprets and who decides, meaning that decisionism is very much a thing, but I see the friend/enemy distinction as low fidelity at best. In my experience, such simple things breakdown when we go from the fox to the lion.
But doesn't the Nietzschean/dialectical view saying that it is THE state of nature for conflict and competing views to continuously fight, position that STRUGGLE as more of an "IS" - I think it does.
This seems to me an exercise to invent new terms which could be used negatively against non-liberals in the future. This guy is probably a professor at a US university.
My criticism here is your defining woke right way too broadly by trying to envelope conservatives who are paleo, Burke, Straussian or pretty much any conservative that not also onboard with classical liberalism as woke right you alienate to many people who aren't woke in the sense of "agree with us 100% or get kicked out and vilified". I know that's not exactly what your saying but just like your concern with a label having too many syllables the same is true with your analysis having too many caveats or to much nuance. People who are paleocon or Burkian conservative will get defensive about being called "woke" and who but the actual woke will be there to welxome them with open arms at least for awhile until they discover they don't agree. I was going to write about the label woke right itself but I'll make another post for that.
25:20 The "woke right" are "divisive" which isn't DARVO this time even though my (James') explicit goal here is to divide the right into "woke" (illiberal) and non-woke (liberal) segements
Basically, certain people who, for whatever their reasons may be, over-react against woke ideology & woke activists, but then they try to over-correct the problem, by going to one extreme or another. However, "Woke Right" is a confusing & possibly misleading term for such people. They are more like "reactionary opportunists," some of whom can be needlessly rash & vulgar in their approach.
Thank you for the definition. I think I instinctively knew it, but I've been hearing words I didn't understand and couldn't pinpoint what this was and where it came from.
I can give a little bit of context into this. Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad/Lotus Eaters) and Lindsay have been beefing on Twitter for a while (I wish they'd just sit down and f*cking debate already). They've had contentions like the origins of Marxism, what is to be done about it, Universalism, etc.. I'll say this in Benjamin's defense (and I've been coming to this conclusion for a number of years at this point): He's a dupe. He was NOT like this before going off to a "conservative" college in Britain and getting his philosophy degree (IIRC, he has a Masters at this point). I've been watching/listening to him since '14/'15, I think he would outright lose a debate to his younger self. And then dismiss the loss. Lindsay, for his part, seems to have the socialization of an academic. It's started more fights than this one.
@@leandersearle5094 There are some basic facts of reality everyone has known for 10,000 years, that everyone is basically pretending they forgot, out of moralizing and cowardice. Like, "women and men have different social roles because women and men are different." Or, "there are fundamental differences between us and people who come from different continents." These things are blindingly obvious, but you can't accept them because you think that'd make you a bad person. If you were born 20 years later, you'd be an absolutist towards the belief that a man who cuts his cock off is entirely indistinguishable from a woman. You wouldn't even be able to question it because it would be settled as the "right" thing to believe.
@@leandersearle5094 What I mean by Bug-People, is people socialized around too high a population density. You can't think for yourself unless/until you can defend and provide for yourself. It's a survival mechanism. Breaking core moral tenants of the mob is bad for your survival, and that includes believing things that are considered immoral to believe. You can never hope to defend yourself from a mob of thousands, or provide for yourself in an advanced interconnected economy, so you can never hope to think for yourself within a mob of thousands. You'll always just accept what's considered the "right" thing to believe, because it's necessary to survival and that overrides any attempt, no matter how earnest, to be rational and believe things because they're true. It's like trying to convince an abused woman with nowhere to go that the man providing her shelter isn't a good man. She can't do it until she has some way to survive without him. Until then, she'll justify the abuse, no matter how insane it is to do so, because she has to in order to maintain her access to shelter. You're incapable of believing something if you'd lose your job for saying it aloud.
"They believe that there are mysterious powers controlling knowledge...and I believe they have more than likely been infiltrated my mysterious woke powers that are controlling their knowledge." Your fence sitting religion needs a little more tweaking, my guy. You're loopiness is showing.
Is the meaning for the term "woke" not intrinsically tied, both historically and ideologically, to the left-wing ideologies that essentially first posited this idea? Since it seems to be tied also to the idea of social justice and a need to be awoken to the truths about social injustices being enacted upon peoples within a society. To me the term that more so encapsulates what I think James is getting at here is the term "based". Given that as I understand it, it started in right wing circles online and effectively meant "based in reality". Which seems to have a very similar meaning to that of woke in the context of being aware of some esoteric reality or truth(s). Given that this term has spread into common usage as a term that people tend to use when someone expresses their agreement with an action or belief that someone else holds, it may have gone through some semantic change. However, I do believe this term may also be applied to this phenomenon that James is pointing out here. Such as, the notion of "based right" although it sounds less negative than I guess "woke right". Either way it would be interesting to see what other people think about this phenomenon and its potential connection to the "term" based. This was some nice food for thought. Thank you!
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The problem is that you cannot really put your chips on fence sitting atheistic classical liberalism because it’s the exact morally indifferent ethos that opens the door to amoral progressive/regressive movements that diametrically oppose it.
James famously says “Communism doesn’t know how (to solve its problems)”
I contend that classical liberalism does not know (when to defend itself).
Very eloquently put, took the words out of my mouth
We've been defending ourselves for centuries. Did you miss World War II and the Cold War.
@@verfed Yeah, I heard that story in high school too.
Except it was bullshit.
We did the bidding of the Bolsheviks in Germany, then we lost the Cold War because we never took the ideological threat of Communism seriously, and now it’s ruined us.
The moral choices are always the hardest. The evil choices are always enticing and simple
@@verfed low information comment - ww2 was never about liberalism
This just seems like an extended exercise in closing the Overton Window.
Antisemitism and fascism are already allowed to be discussed. We just don’t want them to be embraced.
Well, do you yourself want the Overton window open on the right to people who do openly call for racial extermination?
From what I see, the reactionary right also does not believe in free speech any more than the woke left does. Do you yourself believe in free speech? Or just as a means to get your new "reich" into power which will then instantly slam the Overton window shut on anyone that you don't like.
I asked James if he thought “Woke right” was an effective term a couple weeks ago and I think I started a civil war 😢
He suffers from
Reading comments
Fighting on two front's is better than a knife in the back. And it's hard to be kind to people who have more knowledge, and still want to leave behind the good, (and I believe divinely inspired) parts of modernity. If we cannot rally around the principles of the US constitution, I don't know if I want to rally at all. Especially since rallying around, whatever the hell the "right wing" authoritarians want us to rally around, in the way they want us to, will likely just end in more power for the bad guys.
The right wing authoritarians are giving more ammunition to our enemies, and freaking out when we "punch right" while accusing us of "pandering left". If there is some truth to the pandering accusation, it is more, walking on eggshells around people who break down when they get within a few miles of the truth. I guess if the right wing authoritarians throw enough hissy fit's, we will stop trying to convince them, like many of us have stopped trying to convince the left. Then they can have their own echo chamber, and we will peace out. If those who care about the principles of the US constitution, are a minority, then we may as well just preserve the light in our own echo chamber, and take what few chances we get, to be humble teachers, to the rare, receptive, audience.
Individual liberty, religious liberty, truth, family.
(I am a bit hesitant to put family in there, as I don't want government involved, but, we need to roll back power grabs that have already happened, by the state, against parental authority)
@@alanjackson1568 I think this is an intelligent and admirable defense of liberalism. One I largely agree with. The new right authoritarians want to throw the baby out with the bath water and pretend that liberalism never gave us anything good. It’s laughable honestly. And any time you ask them if racism, traditionally defined, is acceptable, they call you a leftist lol.
However, I also think liberalism is dead, however much we may not like it. I think there’s much evidence of this It may be wise to promulgate a liberalism 2.0 to fight the oncoming surge from both sides.
I call it burlesque right.
Semantics is not the problem. The problem is denying it’s existance.
@@alanjackson1568The Constitution as originally intended? Or as reconstructed over the centuries to include non-whites, women, the propertyless, and no higher house? (Direct election of Senators)
The actual constitution, or 2008 neoliberalism?
Woke Right isn't a good name, and its confusing. That movement is eclectic, diverse. Common denominator - they are reactionary. "Woke" indicates deep, shared worldview (shared ideology), goals. "Woke Right" doesn't have that - they share strong reaction against "Woke".
If I may, James' use of the word "Woke" (and he admits from the top it may not be the best word) for this part of the "right" (I personally disagree and dislike that this stuff is considered rightest at all) is just a plain recognition that the following trends emerge from that group:
1. The narratives of victimization,
2. A special visibility (gnostic) into hidden power structures, and
3. A need for us all to reorganize from a "Failed System" or "Failed Documents".
With this in mind, I gotta say, the term "Woke" for this "rightist" bunch fits quite succinctly.
@@tomchidwick At best its to early to call them Woke (they probably need several decades to evolve - like leftists needed). Using the same word/term to name different things (phenomena) is confusing, its better to avoid that. Maybe they share more than just "reactionism", or maybe they cant be named accurately now.
@@tomchidwick Your item 2 (gnosticism) is what makes them qualify as "woke" - their disposition having awoken or "become" after learning X truth. That element of becoming instead of IS is what makes it woke.
The operating system is Leftist to be sure, but it's used with various signifiers of past right or trad culture (e.g. homesteading, hunting, wife at home with kids) to become right-aligned in a hyper-real cultural sense. Part of the problem is that there has been very few and small amounts of cultural and philosophical production from a "truly" right wing, as the right keeps having to redefine itself, at least culturally, in terms of the Left.
@@nacetroyIt's not new hidden wisdom, like "A man can actually be a woman because everything is socially constructed". It's acknowledging the basic realities of the world that everyone agreed on from 100 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Like "men and women have different social roles because they're different" and "that foreign tribe is not like us."
@@nacetroy Interesting observations; I appreciate the candid nature of your comments.
I've always assumed the moniker "Conservative" to mean we wish to conserve our form of government, as specifically called out in our founding documents.
Indeed, we find our adversaries are always going after those things in the end; that is very telling if you think about it.
The more cultural aspects that you mentioned I believe are relevant (I share them, plus I would add free-enterprise, and free-association), and co-incident (the same folks who practice those things are the often the same ones who are defenders of American Liberty), but are ultimately NOT the things we are conserving.
Ours is an appeal to proper allocation of State power, based on the Consent of the Governed.
Self-evident, God-given Rights (which proper government must secure and protect), Enumerated powers, Separation of powers, States rights, Checks and Balances, Republicanism (i.e. representative, as opposed to straight Democracy), etc.
THESE are the hallmarks of proper Conservativism, imho.
The other domestic issues, co-incident and extremely valuable though they maybe, are not really what we should be identifying as the conservative pillars, since our ability to live-out those wonderful things for ourselves is truly predicated on whether or not the State is properly restrained.
I say let's Conserve bedrock Constitutional values, at both the Federal and the State, and the rest will come to our local lives properly, naturally, and organically, unfettered by government overreach.
Peace.
(Sorry that was so long 🙂)
Calling a section of right 'woke' is desperate. Left has terms like 'racist', 'sexist', 'extremist', 'far right' etc. Term 'woke' is the only one that right has over the left and using this as a salami tactic against right... punching right basically with it is desperate and pathetic.
Tell me you didn't listen to what was said in this video without telling me you didn't listen to what was said in this video..
I don't object to punching "right", I heavily object to his irrational word games. He stared into the abyss too long. He also has become mentally unhinged. Maybe he should take a step back and just do something he enjoys for a month
@@napoleonfeanor it’s an actual phenomenon. The post-liberal shit is absolutely nut to butt with actual (Giovanni Gentile style) fascism. It is not our friend.
@@napoleonfeanor I don't think he is too unhinged. He is a standard gatekeeper like vast majority of 'conservative' politicians, writers like Jordan B Peterson, activists like Tommy in UK etc. Punching right by using the word 'far right' or 'nazis' lost it's power.
@@utvara1 Did you see him flipping out about the archangel Michael?
I'm surprised you didn't say gnostic a single time.
At least he didn't rant about St Michael
Plz explain, I rarely see his videos
Which absolutely is applicable, considering woke = awake to hidden knowledge.
@@nicolasbascunan4013 it's Lindsay's obsession that wokes are some sort of modern day gnostics
lumping Tucker, Nick Fuentes and now Mike Cernovich all together as woke right simply makes no sense. It's a shit term that needs to be re-thought.
As if Bernie Sanders, Mark Cuban, and Taylor Swift aren't radically different people with a big overlapping Venn diagram.
@@DaveM86 Not a very good rebuttal at all. All three are wealthy people that ultimately aim to just support the Democrat Party, which is a neoliberal global party aimed at mass migration and subversive state policies.
@@felix-ve8jk ok, pick any three other radically different leftists 🙄
Candace Owens? Alex Jones? Andrew Tate supporters?
I don't think any of what you described really falls under "wole" though. Everyone knows that certain powerful people and groups have disproportionate influence and aren't always on the level. Woke is more than that.
The terms are “alt right” or “red pilled” depending on who you are and everyone knows it. Lindsay is just trying to isolate the most extreme parts of the right and get people to think of them as “the right wing version of woke.” This kind of thing falls in line with Scott Adam’s approach to influencing the zeitgeist. He’s trying to use a Magick word and cast a spell. Unfortunately, it’s so clumsy and hamhanded that the red pilled world has pushed his shit in and now he’s trying to double down. The exact term he’s describing is “red pilled” but he also wants the ability to alienate the extreme right, and that’s all this “woke right” nonsense is really about.
"Woke Right" is a containment term. Conceptual polysomy as one who loves to write about word magic might say.
He can use far right, nazis, fascists, racists etc but he wants to be edgy and divide.
@@utvara1 Frankly, I'd say calling people NAZIs and so on is more divisive since they aren't exactly that and neither are they exactly fascists. As I see it they are essentially people who are using materialist and system orientated thinking like the woke do but are swapping out the woke left's words capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, whiteness, normalcy and so on for their own words. The woke left was correct, in the past, but now the woke right is more correct. Is patriarchy a problem the way the leftists frame it, no, but is systematic feminism a problem now, yes. I've literally heard the word intersectionality used in meetings at work. CRT is a problem and we living at a time when critical race theory isn't fringe but is used as the basis for trainings and indoctrinations in private and public organizations across the nation. The problem with the woke right, like the woke left, is that they are creating systems and dividing the world into identity groups just the inverse of the left's. The other problem is that the woke right, as I see it, are more correct at the moment so it's harder to counter. Are males disadvantaged in the school system and courts and so on, yes; is it because we live in an over arching system, some kind of inverse of patriarchy, no. Just my two cents.
@@jamesbeach7405 woke came from becoming awoken to various marginal topics. Right is about asserting the needs of the many above needs of the few. Woke is about asserting the needs of the few.
@@utvara1 While, yes, I agree with you regarding that origin of 'woke', I disagree that the right is about the needs of the many and the left the needs of the few.
I agree more with Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson and others in their finding that traditionally the right favors existing structures and institutions where the left serves to challenge or play editor to those institutions. Another way to look at this is that the right would tell a village to stay in the valley where the left would say let's explore beyond the valley and potentially move there. The risk is that without the traditional left there's no change and with out the right there's no structure and everything unmoored.
Regarding few and many... It wasn't that long ago that blue collar workers (which are numerous) voted exclusively for left wing politicians and the managers and owners and professional classes (being less numerous) voted for right wing politicians. The laboring class benefited from the left's tendency to want to revise society in favor of fairness and the professional managerial class benefited from the right preserving institutional power. Though since around 1968/69 we see that the democrat party (the nominally left party) seeks to changed its focus away from working class people, which was often perceived of as white male Catholics, to racial minorities, women and college kids. This has now translated into historically marginalized groups and the university educated / professional managerial class and white collar workers (so even lower tier office staff). The current Republican coalition is reliably made up of religious folks, disaffected liberals, rural voters, blue collar voters and libertarians. Another split as I see it is, regardless of living location, the dems and left favor a cosmopolitan or internationalist world view where the republicans favor a more local or national worldview (perhaps better wording needed). No side favors the few or many as I see it. There's honor is supporting either the few or the many.
The historical Nazis would be the canonical example of “woke right” - while it is usually associated with a program of racialized national socialism, and the totalitarian, militaristic government required to implement it, that was only meant to fulfill the first stage, of eliminating “racial impurities” from the national body of the Reich, while extending its bounds to encompass the entire world, integrating the “superior races”, and exterminating or enslaving the rest. The next stage , would have been the “withering away” of the state, as it would be unnecessary to govern a society of superior Aryans, who conduct themselves according to mutual respect for honor and natural hierarchy, under which the struggle for survival could intensify so as to bring about the evolution of humanity into a racially pure _Übermensch_
I think we are seeing the inevitable semantic spiraling that occurs whenever an academic attrmpts to create endless categories for what really just boils down the simple distinction between those who fear God, and those who do not.
Fuentes is an ethnic Socialist, not a right winger. Example, in his words I witness on his podcast (watched it to educate myself about the clown), he said, paraphrasing, "Yes, we we should nationalize big Companies in the US just like Putin did in Russia".... This is Socialism 101, just like Adolf was a a socialist, I call him an ethnic socialism, where less desirable race services the "dominant, perfect" race as slaves.
I’ve never heard of this Fuentes guy, but just recently commented how my country (Argentina) has been trapped for almost a century between the faux-right and the left; i.e. conservative socialism vs progressive socialism. If what you say is right, these “ethnic socialists” need too be fought ideologically with the same vigour than the woke left to prevent the ensuing false dichotomy
Completely agree. Nazi Ethno-Socialism is directly aligned with the mechanisms of the Bolshevik Revolution, only the Bolsheviks attacked class, rather than race.
The fundamental ideology, both economically and socially was Socialist in both systems. Only the target was different.
@@samchaleau Exactly!
Clinging to bourgeois morality and Enlightment ethics in a chaotic post modern world is cultural and possibly ethnic suicide. I'm ok, with saying this country was founded by a majority white, majority protestant, and majority English speaking population and I want that to continue. I'm not saying other races, cultures and religions aren't welcome but they are welcomed guests in our culture, especially spicy latinas. 80% of net global migration is to the US, the society most people want to come to was built on very specific cultural values, with specific ethics. Others are welcome to bring the best of their culture, but you can't make ours completely unrecognizable. Honestly, by all the laws of nature a people have the right to resist the obvious and willful destruction of their culture and race.
Also Cato, please stop wrapping yourself in the scacred robes of representative government, the Republic has been dead for a long time, atleast since 11-22-63, we need Ceasar, give us our American Ceasar
@@defaultytuser Bravo!. Here is the helpful tip for you. Marx was a Class Struggle Socialist/Communist as the end of his dubious dream. Mussolini was a student of Marx ideology, only to evolve into Race Based Communism, ethnic. And then Hitler, who adored Mussolini, adopted the same concept of Socialism, Race Based. Why? Because Jews were his issue, and so, he implemented ethnic based Socialism because Marx was Jewish, unfortunately, because I am one, and these clowns like Marx put bad mark on our people, true that. Obviously. Hitler had to go for the race, rather than class struggle. All while being friends with Stalin who was half n/ half ethnic socialist as well. The whole thing is simple - Hitler was a Leftist, Stalin was a Leftist, Mao was a Leftist, and the rest of them dictatorships are Left wing fascists. Fascism was born on the Left, the cult of death, stupidity, mafia-like cult
5:18 The US Constitution is not a classical liberal document. I wouldn't really know how to classify the US Constitution politically, but even referring to it as classically liberal would be inaccurate. The US Constitution, per John Adams and George Washington, was both acknowledged to only function in a certain framework, and was designed to exist in that framework, that framework being a "moral, religious people." Washington went further and explicitly identified that people as a Christian people. Classical liberalism in general basically comes from John Stuart Mill, which is where we get his famous argument of what you can and can't do to try to stop someone from self-game-end. Mill appealed to utility to argue for liberty, and said there could be no other appeal. Jefferson, in the copy of the Legal Commonplace book he owned, in response to a claim about the value of weapon ownership being a value of utility, argued in his notes response that the appeal to utility for liberty was a false one.
I wouldn't call _anyone_ who rejects the US Constitution, or is even skeptical of it, _any_ flavor of 'right-wing,' 'woke' or otherwise. I think that just muddies the waters.
6:54 And there he is. Yeah, I don't think continental liberalism of any kind is at all compatible with the beliefs of the founding fathers as expressed in the US Constitution, and I think that is why Jefferson responded to Cesare the way he did.
7:31 Nick Fuentes isn't right-wing. He's definitely not conservative. He likes to bang twinks who cosplay as cat-boys. Dude's an anti-family freak. On the other hand, the 'groypers' (still don't know the origin behind that name), have a point about the way we deal with Israel, and who that benefits. Yes, I do think we should be backing Israel to a certain extent, but whatever support we give anyone should be done first with the question in mind, "how does this help _us_ ?"
8:06 That's another good point. There's even a Wikipedia article titled "The Jewish Left," and it is maintained by Jewish people, and it is an article all about how Jewish people have made critical, integral contributions to leftism, and leftism could not exist without said contributions. Let me ask you something; if I call out the existence and problems of _La Raza_ , does that make me racist against Hispanics? Now, the groypers might indeed be racist against Jewish people, but, does what they're talking about, exist? Are we looking at a Motte and Bailey here?
10:48 I'm not a fascist and I think that's a fantastic idea. I've been saying 'give helicopter rides to commies' for years now, and by years, I mean since 2016. I do not believe the state should be looked upon as an ethical agent, or a moral being, as in its own separate entity with the power to make distinctions on moral grounds, rather I would say everything outside of and above the state. Not that the state shouldn't exist, but almost the complete inversion of what the fascists want. Julius Evola was a weirdo and, surprise surprise, another occultist who believed in melding occultism with collectivism.
Mill is WAY downstream.
Washington and Adams were classical liberals. The enlightenment he speaks of is the English/Scottish. It is well within that category.
Literally everything in the US Constitution is dripping with Classical Liberalism, even more so than Woke drips with Marxism.
It doesn’t matter what John Adams said because Adams is only one of the founding fathers, Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Maddison who wrote the Constitution were deeply Liberal, and neither text says absolutely anything about Christianity(if it was so important, it would’ve). The words, the beliefs, the philosophy, classical liberalism is present everywhere in it, and is arguably the only significant philosophy present
It is at the root and heart of this country whether people like it or not
@@Beezard1977 Washington and Adams both subscribed to arguments that were specifically counter-Enlightenment, as I demonstrated in the initial comment.
@@VisibleTrouble The point of bringing up Mill, was to demonstrate that Jefferson would have specifically disagreed with him (and, for that matter, so would every single one of our other founding fathers).
It's those right who think that not only Jews should have a right to stand for its ethnic interests.
Holy shit
What do you mean only Jews? You think blacks, hispanics, Asians, Indigenous Americans etc. are not standing up for their ethnic interests? And white American can and are too. White Americans are suing insititutions for racial discrimination. Eveyone is standing up for their own interests.
@verfed think of how "BIPOC only" events are now perfectly ok, but try advertising an Anglo only event, and watch the fireworks of hypocrisy light up.
It's people who write dumb comments like this one
@wjdeoliveira3809 awww...baby doesn't like opposing points of view! Waaaahh... so sad.
So...if I get it right: woke right is the same as alt-right? Or Deep right as Curtis branded? Woke-right is really a bad name.
_"Real secular liberalism has never been tried"_
🙄
There's no end-goal with secular liberalism, so what do you mean by that. It's been tried with various measures, and in general, the more the better.
@@0bzen22I've always heard his. "Hey guys you know that thing that got us in this mess in the first place? Well we need more of it."
_"Freedom is hard so I'm just going to become a bootlicker."_
I can only assume opponents of liberalism are either idiots or masochists. What's your alternative? Fascism? Monarchism? Feudalism? What?
Also, there are options out there for people who don't want to live in a liberal society. There's no shortage of more strictly ordered societies in the world. Go live in China or Russia or Iran and you'll never have to think for yourself ever again.
@@evannlorman7926 You mean like the 1000+ years of Christianity that still allowed communism and fascism? See, anyone can play the dumb games.
well said :)
22:46 At best 10-15% of population believes in indiscriminate accumulation and dissemination of knowledge.
Most don't in their heart of hearts really care if their mental model doesn't perfectly correspond to objective reality.
Sure you don't want bad knowledge that does you immediate disservice upon application or spreading, but _"bad knowledge"_ in this context means deleterious to *YOU.*
If it allows you to maltreat someone, appropriate their belongings, and gain their favourable position while being sure never to suffer any ill consequences, was the knowledge "bad"?
And what of "forbidden knowledge"? Say you are a educated man in 1500s, would knowledge of heliocentric model be of any use to you? Likely not, but professing it or spreading it around (as a challenge to existing order of the world) would likely have deleterious consequences. So wouldn't that knowledge be "bad"?
Taking Schmidt' friend-enemy distinction framing for liberals: _I disagree with what you say, but will die for your right to say it._ How's that going? How's protecting any of rights endowed to you by creator going?
Let's not blame "woke right" for observing our utter societal failure. And we better have a better response than throwing them in same bucket as woke left.
I still think using the label "woke" for "woke right" is an unnecessary overloading of the term, making it obfuscating due to its polysemantic nature and the proclivity of linguistic warfare of the woke left (redundant).
Beyond that, I see the threat you are pointing to.
I’ve heard the term for a few weeks now and listened to this hoping to hear what he actually means, thinking it was like a “national socialism is left wing because of socialism,” kinda thing. Turns out he just never really thought about what “getting red pilled” actually meant
It's a perfect term, actually, as it describes its own author(s) to a T.
After all, Kisin, Lindsay, Peterson, Shapiro, etc are employing all the classic tactics of the "woke left" to demonize critics of a certain bronze age brand of ethnocentric identitarianism.
They are the Woke Right.
It's an attempt by Marxist Lindsay to confuse the right, turn the right against itself so the Marxists can seize power. We are being played by Marxist Lindsay. As someone who is wellread in Marxism and Hegel, Lindsay is himself marxist and not in opposition to it. He is dismantling the right.
When Marxists realised they couldn't seize power the normal way they began to call themselves liberals and progressives. When that stopped working they began to call themselves the right and to infiltrate the right.
Behind the scenes, James Lindsay was looking for a right winger to debate, hoping for an easy time. Offered a debate for my co-host Evelyn and then chickened out. I offered myself for a debate, but apparently, he does not want to have an honest conversation about these topics, opting instead to bloviate like a living fedora.
I suppose Lindsay simply lacks the intellectual rigor to consider genuinely right wing ideas.
Sad. Many such cases.
Fancy seeing you here fren!
Hahaha haha! All he left you was a comment space on HIS UA-cam channel!
@@scrumpmonkey Surely James should at least have to respond to this
James, you need to go watch the clip Glenn Greenwald just dropped on this. You've got it 180 degrees wrong and are falling for some defensive move from the people who are offended with being called "Woke Right" (because of course they are truly being victimized - the irony completely lost).
THIS. Glenn nails it. Sick of Z-ists with their victim complexes.
Woke right is a bad name. The more extremist right isnt scary to me at the moment. Carl Benjamins traditionalism as an antidote to ideology thing speaks to me and gives me language for why american traditional framing is good and doesnt need to be justified beyond just saying we do it this way because its what americans are.
Asserting it unabashedly seems good but the theocratic right seems to borrow some of the same ideas but doesnt have the "real america" angle to go off of in any legitimate sense so thats why i dont know whos woke right and whos just trying to move fwd in our current paradigm
Bash it all you care to as the "theocratic right," friend, but it was Christian thinkers and Biblical principles that formed our nation. Christians have no deficit concerning "real America."
It's already named the alt right and Tucker Carlson is not that.
Nick Fuentes is alt right.
Tucker is red pilled.
The Democrats of relevance keep sneaking in this term, Catholic Extremists. They are talking about Nick Fuentes and that's a pretty accurate descriptor. He is NOT alt right. That's literally an entirely different ideology that is both atheist and gay and they want some weird arbitrary "white" ethno state to secede the US. Totally different stuff. Fuentes wants a Catholic King to be in charge. Tucker is not even related... he is a connected CIA stooge in the media... and otherwise a generic talking head that is mostly pro-establishment as long as it is right-wing. I see him as little more than a controlled outlet for whatever certain interests want talked about.
What I don't understand is why someone who doesn't know any of this is miscorrecting James in the comment section with wrong info?
He has gone irrational
Tucker is "Schmidt pilled" in reference to Karl Schmidt. Yes, he is woke right
the biggest problem with tucker is that he trusts crazy people and random propagandists from other parts of the world too much
@@belstar1128 They're just mad because he interviews anti-establishment personalities. He let's them talk, what an interviewer should do.
You're not really being fair to Tucker Carlson here. The man is, first and foremost, an entertainer. How much of his rather gullible persona is real is therefore highly suspect. And even if it is 100% his real persona, then he's just gullible. But he also comes back around on issues after a while if they don't pan out - like the aliens thing.
If he's an entertainer, then he's doing a disservice. As his following agrees.
Will he come back around on the hitler apologist "historian" thing?
@@corystarkiller james is about a million times less popular than tucker. so cope harder
a grifter who just flat out made up that he copypasted the com manifesto and fooled conservatives into thinking it was a pro-conservative message... then it turns out he edited 90% of it... will never be popular to anyone remotely serious or honest
@@wjdeoliveira3809 will james come around on the whole claim he" copypasted the com manifesto" when in actuality he edited 90% of it?
@@wjdeoliveira3809 furthremore, why would he come around about saying positive things about H? you are aware H was a big friend of animals... so i presume your position is from now on ggoing to have to be that animals are actually evil?
ADDITIONALLY, he did not EVEN say positive things about H... you people are just living in an asylum
Evola was not a fascist. He was a Superfascist.
My teacher said..
I am glad somebody said it.
He also was heavily reactionary
@@napoleonfeanor what do you mean by this?
Evolas coming along years later and trying to rectify Mussolini with Hitler. The real fascist philosopher is Gentile. And he’s just another Hegelian psychobabbler.
"Anyone on the right that isnt zionist is woke". There i summed it up no need to waste time on a 30 minute speech
This is a dumb distinction to make. Everyone seeing it just sees pro- Israel right and anti Israel right.
A bit oversimplied considering the variety of the groups involved, but yeah, basically. This is James attacking the anti-Israel right with lies and smears.
If you’re making the argument that the US shouldn’t get involved in Israel’s wars, ok. That’s one thing.
I’m curious what “right wing” argument exists that Israel itself shouldn’t react militarily to 10/7.
Wow!!!
@@Beezard1977 Why? That's an entirely pointless hypothetical. Israel is supplied and funded and supported with an overwhelming force of aircraft carriers to keep the WHOLE middle east from ganging up on them and they use our weapons and the aid we give them to blow up civilians along with identified enemies and to mass destroy civilian infrastructure. It's certainly controversial morally to say the least, especially with the numbers of women and children ending up killed. They are repeatedly aggressing against Iran and have escalated to the point where now where they are DIRECTLY firing on Iran and daring Iran to fire back. So we are funding a war of aggression now not just on the close by enemy that hit them on October 7 th, which couild at least be argued was defensive, but we are funding their escalation efforts as they continue to try to get Iran to fire on them so they can play victim and tap in the American forces.
Meanwhile, our Congress is paralyzed by AIPAC preventing them from doing ANYTHING AT ALL to stop it under threat of having their AIPAC bribes redirected to the war chests of their next heavily sponsored primary opponents. Yeah, it literally works like that.
Nobody cares about Israel defending themselves.... within reason. We can argue about what's reasonable. The issue is the scenario unfolding and the dynamic where all of the decisions about America's involvement in Israel's wars are being made by Israelis. That's not okay.
There are people in this very comment section blaming the Jews for all of the world's ills. This is not just about being pro or anti-Israel, it's about hating Jews or not.
Now that I understand what you mean by "woke right", I am worried that you will lump in people who are tired of the Republican leadership/representatives that go along with the Democrats to keep the border open and keep printing/spending too much money on things that don't directly address the problems we have in this country. I am also aware that those people who feel that frustration may, unfortunately, gravitate to the "woke right".
James: we need to stop the communists
Right wingers: okay [stops communism]
James: you're woke
No, he is not against stopping communists, he is just against replacing it with a mix of neo-nazism and flat-earth Christian fundamentalism.
@@chromadental3586 opposing foreign aid to corrupt countries like Ukraine and Israel isn't "neo-nazi," but the "flat-earth Christian fundamentalism part was funny. Nazi scientists put America in space and on the moon. Catering to brown resentment and the gutting of educational institutions in favor of Crony capitalism and slave labor immigration makes you a liberal at best and a morally bankrupt Marxist at worst.
@@chromadental3586put more words together until it makes sense, I guess?
@@chromadental3586 which is only happening in his feverish mind
James, big fan here. You’ve lost the plot though buddy. This hypothesis doesn’t make any sense and is never going to catch on.
“Nobody in a position of educational power wants anyone to know wrong information” is the fulcrum of much of this discussion. In fact, much of academia wants their students to know “their version of the truth” rather than THE TRUTH. Acknowledging that Winston Churchill, for example, made horrific errors in the lead up to WW2 is not “alternative history.” Those are facts. Many, many people in positions of educational power have been purposely misinforming their students on this point for 80+ years now. Just one example for the sake of brevity.
James, classical liberalism failed. Get over it.
Woke right is not a good name, everyone sees woke as a leftist terms. You hinted out what the right label should be. We call them woke because that was the label the woke left adopted for themselves we took their own label & made it a negative because of the behavior of those who were woke. Instead of "woke right" we do the same with "groyper" It's a name that they call themselves & they all exhibit the behavior you're calling out. And even if someone isn't explicitly a groyper the label can be used negatively for those who exhibit similar behavior like calling everyone who disagrees with them "jewish".
People you describe as woke right would also all consider themselves anti-woke so trying to say they're woke now is just extremely confusing.
Find another term, maybe whatever they call themselves.
They’re liars, though. They call themselves “based” when the shit they’re into is just a different version of Hegelian gobbledygook.
@Beezard1977 Yes, but this type of sloppy, snarky labeling is the same. We are all spreading that cult through repetition AND reaction.
Dissident right. Call us dissident right.
@@Beezard1977fat
I dislike the term 'Woke Right" largely because they have nothing like the academic, political and activist pedigree that stretches back over a century that the Marxists have. I preferred the former 'Postmodern Right' as it stuck to defining their tactics.
I know James is trolling them to a degree but I think it's giving them too much credit and attention. The Woke Left deserve a modicum of respect for maintaining patient self- discipline over the years. The so-called woke Right are largely the same memesters that fueled the trajectory of the Alt Right, there not much substance there..
I'll wait until you address Norm Finklestein's criticisms of Israel and the H* industry, as well as Mersheimer and Walt's Israel Lobby book, as well as the role of AIPAC's influence in the US government (people like Col. Douglas McGregor and Rep. Thomas Massie mentioned this), and then how the ADL work hand in hand with AIPAC, and other NGOs that undermine the US and the west in general. I'm sorry James, but on this issue, you're uninformed and out of your depth.
Certain truths should be exposed and James should recognize that, by not talking about it, he looks misinformed or like he's carrying water for those who will keep things the same, Trump or no Trump.
Norm Finklestein? He justified Oct. 7th. He's a disgraced self-hating Jew that's completely ostracized from his people. And you know how hamstringed Israel has been in this war by the US? I wish the Jews and Israel had more influence over the US than they do. This war could have been over months ago. Instead it festers and the suffering continues.
War is coming. China will try to take Taiwan. They see the weakness in the US, the lack of resolve to support Ukraine & Israel. Get ready, instead of attacking allies whle trying in vain to appease Hamas and Iran.
james started off with good intentions but like anyone else who began with a premise and worked their way through the reasoning, he is sidestepping all inconvenient truths to ensure he arrives at the desired conclusion
@@latinhero1818 the holocaust industry has some good bits about grifters trying to get money and power from The Holocaust. But it doesn’t deny the essential reality of the Nazi holocaust like many of the people Lindsay is criticizing.
As far as addressing Finklestein as if he’s some expert on foreign policy, history or anything else, you may as well be talking about Howard Zinn. He’s a commie activist clown.
@@latinhero1818 the H* industry has some good bits about grifters trying to get money and power from The H*. But it doesn’t deny the essential reality of what happened like many of the people Lindsay is criticizing do.
As far as addressing Finklestein as if he’s some expert on foreign policy, history or anything else, you may as well be talking about Howard Zinn. He’s a commie activist clown.
I have noticed the rising energy on the right that you are calling the "woke right." However, aside from your definition of why we use woke, I don't see Tucker Carlson really displaying any of that energy. I do see it from Benny Johnson and his followers though. One hallmark of the the "woke" is to have unwavering adherence to the words of someone that has taken on a "Preacher" role. Benny is that, Tucker doesn't seem to want that.
Time will tell if what I'm sensing is correct or not. I still think a lot of Tucker's "revealed reality" is him finally breaking free from the media system recently. It takes a bit of time to get reoriented.
You'll know the woke Right by going into their comment sections and seeing comments alluding to Jews in terms of fear of censorship like 'oy vey' or 'the people with the tiny hats'. They also have an interest in Hitler's AI speeches when they've been deciphered for decades, but pretend to be stumbling upon "forbidden wisdom".
This attack on the economy just feels like one big white nationalist recruitment seminar.
Carlson- red kab ba lah bracelet
You don’t think Tucker has kind of a cultish following though? He’s massively popular and many people look to him for commentary, never acknowledging his double standards or inconsistencies, like the times he has expressed significant distaste for Trump behind closed doors. I think he is that kind of a figure.
Tucker has displayed it in a few guests he's interviewed, most notably Darryl Cooper who said Churchill was the real villain of WW2.
Agreed, but I separate him from his guests. Something that the woke won't do!
In my case I feel very much spiritually awakened and this awakening coincided with a shift towards being much more conservative..
All you had to do is say "the part of the right that doesn't worship Israel."
Q :What did you call a Radical Latin Mass traditionalist 500 years ago? A Christian 😃 We were all Catholics before the protestant revolution.
Not all, you might want to brush up on church history. The pockets of true Christianity were hunted and persecuted by the RCC long before the protestant reformation ever emerged. I am such a Christian.
What about Armenians, Syriacs, Greek Orthodox etc?
@ what historical group is that? Some churches that Were set up by the Apostle still exists but the apostolic secession has been lost at early stages . What group should I read up on ?
Waldensians for starters.
@@joemendiuk there has always been heretics that broke away from the church and do not have apostolic traditions.
James, please provide a compelling explanation as to why skepticism of Israel is not warranted. Specifically, the unprecedented amount of influence that Israel has in our political system.
The inability and particularly the unwillingness of the "non-woke" (liberal and especially Right-leaning) to sufficiently address questions about Israel is precisely the avenue that ethnic socialists like Fuentes use to recruit the curious and disenfranchised into the "woke right." Likewise, I don't think you are going to be able to mount much of a defense against arguments from figures like Fuente until you either: (a) clearly articulate a compelling justification for Zionism, from an American petal perspective; or (b) distance yourself and your position from the Israel lobby.
I think this is both an oversimiplification and an undersimplification (at different points of observation) of what most simply should be understood as the Postmodern Right.
First, it must be understood as surprisingly organic. The thing about organic/emergent modes of experiential politics is that there must be an anticipated intensity of mutational load, with all sorts of good, bad, and worse than useless ideas all entering the various spheres and undergoing very inconsistent memetic selective processes.
The causal roots are twofold:
1. The Right is sick and tired of defining itself in contrast to a Left Wing that monopolizes having goals and interests. The Right is unable to identify with the Conservative headspace in terms of preserving a status quo. In lieu of that, the Right is attempting to manifest a new unifying generative myth, and there is a considerable effort on the part of the Christians to avoid a model of history structured around Historic Materialism or Dialectical Materialism, and that would be driven by all sorts of incentives.
2. The Postmodern element of the emergent operational frame is not as nearly contained as someone might think. All theories of conspiracy are postmodern in structure, whether it's a theory of Patriarchy or a theory of international Banksters, they are in essence the same theory driven by the same epistemics. A result of engaging in postmodern reformulations of how they experience government and community and even the individual, the Postmodern Right is essentially going through the motions of trying to create a new social contract that can actually account for modern conditions that would be literally unthinkable by the frame of reference afforded by historic figures.
The Postmodern Right is then a bunch of people from diverging spheres that only really agree that the unspoken social standards and legal system of yesterday has been utterly disintegrated, and they're trying to replace it in lieu of letting the Marxists do it first, and they refuse to let the Marxists define the thresholds of what is right wing, and theyre trying to establish real qualifiers that can be gatekept.
There's a lot more to it, but I think this is sufficient to give a good intro analysis of what is happening at the individual and macro level.
I'm working on my own reply to the video itself but I must say think what you said was pretty solid. It does remind me of a conversation between Lindsay and Wokal Distance. Essentially the relevant comment was that there are elements on the right which are directly using or inadvertently using Lyotard's hyper-realism. Their approach is basically to say that while we never experienced the real thing we can simulate the real thing. In a sense it's we didn't experience the 50s mom, dad, and 2.5 kids life; but we can simulate it. We don't live in a time of Christianity as the nearly unchallenged norm; we can create that. The problem I see is that much of the idealized world that that woke right hold up is a fiction. Further the Christianity we are seeing in some areas is so aggressive that it attacks allied individuals like James Lindsay insisting all knees will bend or whatever. Vivek Ramaswamy was challenged by some because he's Hindu and thus not fit to lead the United States.
Did the world these folks want to create really ever exist... no. To borrow from the James Lindsay / Wokal Distance discussion they are making the Strawberry Jolly Rancher flavored ICEE version of the past they admire; like a main street Disneyland version of culture.
They are not postmodern at all except MAYBE the so-called Alt-Right which is atheist and gay.
Woke Right is actually what the far-right calls James and other "classical liberals" and some "conservatives" for being too atheist and gay and to remind people on the right that they are not voting with conservatives on much other than the president and some Congressional seats right now.
1. It's actually a myth that the right-wing is lacking goals and purpose. This myth emerged from the far-right groups as a criticism of right wing politicians that couldn't answer simple challenges on their own ideological stances by the Woke. Trump repeated it. It grew wings.
2. No to all of that. You are completely factually wrong. You COULD claim they are driven by the same epistemics, but that alone is a massive claim to back up that you really can't because you are just guessing and wrongly. And it doesn't even make sense to compare The Patriarchy, the Big Bad myth central to the religion of Feminism, with banking cartels in the first place. Banking cartels exist. They are tangible. What you are calling "conspiracy theories" are bragged about by the culprits themselves in their own books. Patriarchy has no such substantiation. It's not even a reasonable interpretation of the world. This absurd comparison and false equivalence that you've drawn here are embarrassing. Ouch. I think your biggest problem is you didn't try to substantiate the Patriarchy and the banking cartels, because pointing out a REAL enemy that is REALLY causing harm is not the same as manipulating people by lying about those same factors happening... and the fact that these are epistemologically similar actions means nothing at all.
"The Postmodern Right is then a bunch of people from diverging spheres that only really agree that the unspoken social standards and legal system of yesterday has been utterly disintegrated, and they're trying to replace it in lieu of letting the Marxists do it first, and they refuse to let the Marxists define the thresholds of what is right wing, and theyre trying to establish real qualifiers that can be gatekept."
Now that there is definitely truth to (though I reiterate my objection to the Postmodern reference). What they really are, are different brands of reactionaries. Some Catholic, some atheist and gay, some Asatru, some Druidic or Wiccan, etc. All identitarian to some regard WITH REASON, I would add. Each of these brands, you will note represents a successful culture and religion (or non-religion) that has endured despite falling in the past. Ethnic gatekeeping is how cultures like those survived as long as they did. Ethnic gatekeeping is how they will survive now... or they will be absorbed by bigger cults. Nobody is really even pushing typical nationalism since Israeli interests have dominated that sphere shattering confidence that there is any point in trying and the power vacuum really lies with disenfranchised youths who are looking for culture, for groups to be a part of, for purpose.... and some of these groups fulfill those needs. So you are also MOSTLY dealing with younger people in these groups. They are "like the Woke" in that respect, I suppose.
I believe it turns off people from listening by calling it woke right. I had a viseral reaction to it until i stopped and asked myself why i was feeling this way. Woke terrifies me. The whole thing terrifies me. I just want America to be normal America. The America i remember from my childhood that believed that America was good, that loving God is crucial. Being traditional isn't a bad thing.
These 'woke right', are they in the room with us right now?
Woke Right seems to be sticking, but Woke Volk or Volk Right are alternatives, especially with the heavy anti-Semitism of many posting as Woke Right people, bots, feds, etc.
I would love to see a lengthy discussion of Liberalism between James Lindsey & Patrick Deneen
Woke Right is you going against your own definitions to come up with a new name for the alt right. Completely pointless and moronic.
The problem with calling them alt-right (and is also the problem with woke right)
is that these people are not right wing.
Same way, Mussolini and Hitler was not right wing.
His term woke right just means nationalist rather than pro- israel
Nope. Has to do with metaphysic/ontology of existence going back to ancient cults - Classical Liberalism = IS, Real World. Woke = BECOMING, World created by man. James is correct about this, you're being ignorant. But James may be accusing too many who appropriate some of the cultural reaction against the woke commies, yet who are not down with the authoritarian/totalitarian means (except in meme appreciation).
@@mickj1590I'm both
The word "woke" is totally inappropriate in this circumstance
Hey James, have you made any progress on uncovering more Baptist members of the secret Catholic angel-summoning cult?
It is very simple why the woke right is so similar to the woke left. Not because they are like modern progressives or commies. Or because they are necessarily woke (like communists who also aren’t woke necessarily) but it is because their foundation in epistemology and to a certain degree metaphysics is postmodernist and dialectical (hegelian even). And they have alot of the same philosophical sources and praxis sources outside of that (vanguardism, gramsci etc). Although people like Tucker Carlson may not be cucked to those philosophies they still have a constructivist streak and share many of the attributes and the ideas of the rest of the woke right. But all that leads to more similarities in ethics and especially politics.
please more on the Scottish Common Sense Realism
James has become deranged. Very sad to see him fall like this. We can only hope he wakes up.
Wakes up to what - one totalitarian ideology balancing off the other? To hell with both their evil houses.
"He's not doing what we need him to do. He needs to go to sleep soon so we can use him for our needs." - user-hn9qw7ou8d
Deranged is pretty close to deceived in form and function. It's no different than Proverbs 24:6 replacing "wise counsel" for the original word, depcetion, as in "by way of deception".
Even though most of what Nick Fuentes says is correct, some of his views are a bit extreme when you look at the big picture and how to solve this destruction of the West problem we are dealing with. Especially his views on gays, marriage and religion.
@@thekombatrealm6082 I agree with you for the most part. Nick is clearly correct about almost everything he consistently speaks about. He’s just excessively abrasive at times. Who are some other people who align with most of what Nick says but speak on these topics more tactfully?
LOL. As usual, leading from the rear and desperately trying to retain relevance. Your time is over. Let people who understand the world fight this war.
How did the Southport riots turn out?
Lol indeed coming from an Australian who had their guns taken away and a lockdown enforced with alacrity all while Islam roams your streets unabated
@@Beezard1977The way it was planned. Manufactured photo op.
@@Beezard1977 terrible. the left looks like the psychopaths they are
You probably should've started from the explanation in the last last third of the video. In fact, you could cut it down to a 3 minute clip starting from around 20:00 to deliver skeptical people a simple and concise explanation of what you're talking about. I expect many will dislike and stop watching somewhere within the first 5 minutes, never knowing what you're even referring to.
And the sadest thing is that woke "right" and woke "left" complement each other very well. Namely in their shared hatred towards free speech and traditional liberties in general, thus eroding moderate politics from both sides.
That's because wokeness is just ethnic nationalism repackaged for American wine moms who hate themselves. There's no new "woke right", just the same ethnic nationalism as people have been complaining about for decades
@@intboom ethnic nationalism is a flavor of woke right but what all of them have in common is the attack on liberty. They have the "liberalism showed us that people make the wrong choices, so the only way to ensure that they don't is removing their abillity to choose". They are all utopians with some plan to enforce it.
Tucker Carlson hates free speech and liberty?
Being able to see the hole from which the snake came into your house is not hatred of holes, houses or even snakes.
@venga3 houses need ventilation and censorship allways protects those who are in Power.
Secular Liberalism got us Woke-ism.
Well done. Thanks, James. I will keep my eyes open.
1. I don't think "Woke right" is a good name because
A. They are NOT a mirror image of the Woke.
B. The differences matter at least as much as the similarities.
C. With so many difference in power, in history, calling them that appears to be an attempt to EQUALIZE for manipulative/control reasons-political reasons, rather than truth/scholarly/objective reasons.
D. Using that word simplifies or reduces complexities and short-circuits or minimizes direct observation of the actual phenomenon, AND minimizes the rich memories of the specific phenomena we have seen/learned/experienced directly in the Woke
-& are yet to see as it changes.
E. These things are emerging. A strict definition of Woke covering both may not suffice to keep us on our toes properly. A working definition, OK. But these are "moving" movements (& individuals as well) so call one thing one thing, and call another thing something else; they will change.
I myself cannot call them that until I do see this as more than "the right" using some ideas, methods, attitudes, or even assumptions-assumptions perhaps just passively adopted say in the academy or from the media or wherever. They are trying to be something in relation to Woke but that does not make them the same thing but on the other side. Nor are they Woke simply because the Left is trying to trigger them.
2. The main reason: We all are breathing and speaking Woke to some extent because it has won the culture & institutions and cannot be completely avoided w its many dominating assumptions.
Woke lies, dissembles, or goes along with delusional assumptions & beliefs. WE ALL can & often DO slip into the Woke spirit/attitude postmodernism, relativism, whatever, numerous times in, say, a week. Woke through projection out onto other GROUPS (or loose made-up groups), can avoid dealing with its own unacceptable qualities.
Many in the SYSTEM, academic or work or church... can ESCAPE into criticisms of the Right to avoid courageously confronting power. Hence the "Woke Right" becomes a group we are encouraged to FEAR, to HATE freely, self-righteously, obsessively-without awareness of how self-serving that is to our own situation.
The Left no doubt loves us to do that. We easily are following their Marcuse-fed beliefs about "Repressive Tolerance." And we then are distracted from the original, the source Woke. Both may be serious, but they each should be treated seriously exactly for who they are, no more, no less. AND without-as is the common habit-letting others TELL US who to fear & disassociate from (cancel culture).
We must demand specific examples and/or experience directly what it is exactly that is so bad & why. And make up our own minds. Yes life and INDIVIDUALS actual are that complex. OTHERWISE we are NOT practicing Classical Liberal assumptions & commitments-but practicing instead Marcuse COLLECTIVE Wokery ourselves.
Finally we must not think of ourselves as SITTING DUCKS in the middle waiting for the Woke, left or right, to act. The "woke right" is at least coming up with ideas, however mad or inadequate, testing their ideas on each other and in culture, networking...Classical Liberals and Libertarians or Scientific Atheists, who may be too much resting pretty as the same old school thing, don't seem to have a pro-active plan. Am I right or wrong? They can judge & belittle the actors because they are not willing to admit all of us have contributed to this problem-and must commit to developing a solution. The blame is always put on others-groups-by individualists. I am one myself.
@@jankragt7789 well said. Classical liberalism has no plan to defeat the woke because ideologically, they have no moral framework to reject degeneracy.
Without a supreme moral law giver even a virtuous King, or Ironclad legal framework will eventually succumb to generational moral relativism.
21:45 James isn't saying that Tucker Carlson hates the US Constitution, he's just smearing him by association (with people with whom Tucker doesn't even associate)
He specifically said he was NOT calling Tucker an anti-Constitutionalist! You need to LISTEN before you TALK.
@@warnerchandler9826 Listen to the timestamp, friend
That’s your interpretation and it’s very bad faith as Lindsay went out of his way to state that he didn’t think Tucker was against the constitution.
Israel is a foreign state. Its national interests are NOT the same as American interests. Therefore, skepticism of Jewish Nationalism is a healthy thing for Americans all along the political spectrum.
There's a valid argument in we shouldn't be paying for them, but too often that gets conflated with people who believe in some Yewish domination conspiracy. It's the same kind of distinction as between woke left and people who just acknowledge there was racism throughout history and that it was bad; or people with TDS vs. people who just think Trump's obnoxious.
@@browngreen933 especially if the individual is a dual citizen
When you noticed this problem on college campuses in 2014, were you still supporting Barack Obama?
The language both sides use is also cult-like. "Having woken up to special knowledge no one else knows... " That's every cult under the sun.
Thanks for the heads up, James!
This is so long and boring. I just wanted to know what this new term is supposed to mean.
It's called bullet and you don't even bullet point anything wtf
Remember folks, Christ wins in the end.
Honestly it just sounds like you're describing the alt right, where some of the members grew up and matured, while others like Nick still haven't yet lol
James, this started out well enough, but then got kind of messy toward the end. I read Yarvin when his blog was somewhat fresh and he still used Moldbug. Later got into your work and M. Malice, around the same time (close to when either of you did your first JRE), also right (Mises Caucus), anti-war Libertarianism, then started coming back to populism and Founding Father Classical Liberalism. I know you're right about some of this but also probably casting too large a net for some of this as well. There are elements of AnCaps, Populists, right Libertarians and even those who'd call themselves "Classical Liberals" who also share the deep state, Pinochet or other cynical memes PRIMARILY as a REACTION to the encroaching woke/communist npcs and REGIME. A lot of people who don't want to go the way of authoritarianism, and who ultimately found Yarvin to be lame or who will earnestly vote this election (despite thinking it might be of no use) take on some of these positions of "Woke Right" due to that feeling that they're being existentially threatened. There are many blurred lines here. I defended Darryl Cooper as I saw him being a rare voice telling some truth about the Israel-Palestine conflict, upon learning more about what you and your circle are calling the Woke Right, I suspect you're probably right that Cooper is of the Woke Right and is being a bit sneaky, but I can't say for sure. So, I think there is a spectrum, M. Malice and his fans use helicopter ride memes all the time, but they're against totalitarianism. Populist right/MAGA, say Jack Poso, even appropriate some of the Alty memes and views. So distinctions should be made. K. Woods, Auron, Lotus Poofs are one thing - Fuentes (a Fed), Quinones and Thomas777 are more extreme, and toward that extremity there's more chance they're controlled oppo. It does look like a corralling of a reactionary/pissed off right (not to mention tech bro transhumanists) funneled into support for Trump. However, you're not really making such a good case for these disparate influencers all having the same metaphysics/ontology or if all their followers really believe that kind of ontology. I's ask for more on that. Also, check Michael Millerman, is it not possible to use some of these ideas of the "bad boy" thinkers, Schmitt, Strauss, Heidegger, Nietzsche without going all the way?
Awakened souls compared to the wokie ideology. Those are really different things James. We have been lied to about most things, we have been naive sheep. You need to keep an open mind and grasp the amount of lies we are told. Look into geoengineering for a start.
"Woke" Right is just strategically insufficient. it's such a nice umbrella term for people we kind of all feel the same about, but can't all name properly. so it shouldn't be worn out.
Go and talk to them, James.
Julius Evola was more obscure (and worse) than Fascism. TIKHistory has argued that Evola is not a fascist philosopher. His ideas are too different.
Another containment term to undermine and curtail the right.
No. It's to save the right from looking as dumb as the left. These people need to be fenced in.
Don't kid yourself: you are not the right.
@@warnerchandler9826 Third. Positionists.
@@warnerchandler9826 dont kid yourself, james is not the right
This podcast could come out after the election.
I think that it’s not a bad term. When you look at extremists on both sides of the spectrum, you find that they agree on a lot of things - for example, both extremes are very anti-Semitic, though perhaps for different reasons. Both are extremely tribal and wary of “outsiders.” As you indicated, “woke” might not be the best term for now, but until a better one comes along, “woke” will do.
Tucker Carlson is serious? Can you explain why he cackles like Kamala when he describes atrocities?
I think one factor you might be missing James, is that there's an actual canon for conservatism. It's impossible to be woke right without betraying it.
Your best weapon in this fight is to read that canon and aim it at those who attempt to ignore its content.
That's a very different lineage of thought than you are familiar with. You won't be able to take the word of continental philosophers.
You'll have to wade into the Carolingian Revolution. The Formation of the Catholic Church, the church fathers, the great Roman, Greek and Jewish thinkers.
There is a world of thought hidden to modernists by the taboo of faith.
Tocqueville is one modern manifestation of it. But also Pope Pius the X. Others as well but those are a good starting point.
James blocked me for saying he was silly when he started referencing secret conversations he had conducted in the past with people with special knowledge of China's intentions and methods.
LMAO. He is a fragile one. I don't remember what it was that he blocked me for but it was something absurd like that.
unfortunately, the brilliance of inspired genius often shines from the cloud-darkened minds of madmen.
@@zimzob Inspired genius? Really. No wonder the idiot is so full of himself with NPCs like you fillet-she-8ing him all day. Good grief.
Seeing patterns is a good skill to have but it can be taken way too far.
I don't actually see anything wrong with this take... Seems to boil down to "Remember, people are liars."
EDIT: But yea man, we gotta call it something else.
"Right who doesn't love Israel enough" would have suffice. That's what you really have a problem with , you wouldn't be having this podcast if there were large movements of all of that minus anti-zionist...
You are talking about the Redpilled Right
'The thing that made me cease listening to you.'
James, I believe Schmidt claims decisionism and the friend enemy distinction are "ises" rather that "oughts". I'm not sure how you get away from the question of who interprets and who decides, meaning that decisionism is very much a thing, but I see the friend/enemy distinction as low fidelity at best. In my experience, such simple things breakdown when we go from the fox to the lion.
But doesn't the Nietzschean/dialectical view saying that it is THE state of nature for conflict and competing views to continuously fight, position that STRUGGLE as more of an "IS" - I think it does.
This seems to me an exercise to invent new terms which could be used negatively against non-liberals in the future. This guy is probably a professor at a US university.
My criticism here is your defining woke right way too broadly by trying to envelope conservatives who are paleo, Burke, Straussian or pretty much any conservative that not also onboard with classical liberalism as woke right you alienate to many people who aren't woke in the sense of "agree with us 100% or get kicked out and vilified". I know that's not exactly what your saying but just like your concern with a label having too many syllables the same is true with your analysis having too many caveats or to much nuance. People who are paleocon or Burkian conservative will get defensive about being called "woke" and who but the actual woke will be there to welxome them with open arms at least for awhile until they discover they don't agree. I was going to write about the label woke right itself but I'll make another post for that.
25:20 The "woke right" are "divisive" which isn't DARVO this time even though my (James') explicit goal here is to divide the right into "woke" (illiberal) and non-woke (liberal) segements
Sebastian Gorka’s radio show is called America First, hope he isn’t in your woke right category.
I still don't understand what it is
If you believe wealthy Christian men deserve billions and not for Brazilians, you're real, true and honest with yourself.
Basically, certain people who, for whatever their reasons may be, over-react against woke ideology & woke activists, but then they try to over-correct the problem, by going to one extreme or another. However, "Woke Right" is a confusing & possibly misleading term for such people. They are more like "reactionary opportunists," some of whom can be needlessly rash & vulgar in their approach.
The pendulum swings further and further with each pass
I've been calling it Redpilled Woke because it takes various ring wing ideas and throws it in a blender with critical theory.
Wtf you going after tucker Carlson for, he's the best bro
Bill of Rights as universal principle is in the middle and anti-authoritarian no matter which brand of authoritarianism someone is.
Where does Milo Yiannopoulos fall into this?
Thank you for the definition. I think I instinctively knew it, but I've been hearing words I didn't understand and couldn't pinpoint what this was and where it came from.
“Fighting over the term woke? years ago?“ Incorrect. That term was organic and inevitable.
I can give a little bit of context into this. Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad/Lotus Eaters) and Lindsay have been beefing on Twitter for a while (I wish they'd just sit down and f*cking debate already). They've had contentions like the origins of Marxism, what is to be done about it, Universalism, etc..
I'll say this in Benjamin's defense (and I've been coming to this conclusion for a number of years at this point): He's a dupe. He was NOT like this before going off to a "conservative" college in Britain and getting his philosophy degree (IIRC, he has a Masters at this point). I've been watching/listening to him since '14/'15, I think he would outright lose a debate to his younger self. And then dismiss the loss.
Lindsay, for his part, seems to have the socialization of an academic. It's started more fights than this one.
They did. Lindsey lost, and retreated to Twitter, where he blocked Carl because he lost on Twitter too.
Carl is an actual conservative. You're bug-people pining over the fantasy the TV gave you about what the 90s were like.
@@Trent-m6j An interesting response.
@@leandersearle5094 There are some basic facts of reality everyone has known for 10,000 years, that everyone is basically pretending they forgot, out of moralizing and cowardice. Like, "women and men have different social roles because women and men are different." Or, "there are fundamental differences between us and people who come from different continents."
These things are blindingly obvious, but you can't accept them because you think that'd make you a bad person.
If you were born 20 years later, you'd be an absolutist towards the belief that a man who cuts his cock off is entirely indistinguishable from a woman. You wouldn't even be able to question it because it would be settled as the "right" thing to believe.
@@leandersearle5094 What I mean by Bug-People, is people socialized around too high a population density.
You can't think for yourself unless/until you can defend and provide for yourself.
It's a survival mechanism. Breaking core moral tenants of the mob is bad for your survival, and that includes believing things that are considered immoral to believe.
You can never hope to defend yourself from a mob of thousands, or provide for yourself in an advanced interconnected economy, so you can never hope to think for yourself within a mob of thousands. You'll always just accept what's considered the "right" thing to believe, because it's necessary to survival and that overrides any attempt, no matter how earnest, to be rational and believe things because they're true.
It's like trying to convince an abused woman with nowhere to go that the man providing her shelter isn't a good man. She can't do it until she has some way to survive without him. Until then, she'll justify the abuse, no matter how insane it is to do so, because she has to in order to maintain her access to shelter.
You're incapable of believing something if you'd lose your job for saying it aloud.
"They believe that there are mysterious powers controlling knowledge...and I believe they have more than likely been infiltrated my mysterious woke powers that are controlling their knowledge."
Your fence sitting religion needs a little more tweaking, my guy. You're loopiness is showing.
A swing and a miss, though you just keep swinging... and missing on this one.
Is the meaning for the term "woke" not intrinsically tied, both historically and ideologically, to the left-wing ideologies that essentially first posited this idea? Since it seems to be tied also to the idea of social justice and a need to be awoken to the truths about social injustices being enacted upon peoples within a society.
To me the term that more so encapsulates what I think James is getting at here is the term "based". Given that as I understand it, it started in right wing circles online and effectively meant "based in reality". Which seems to have a very similar meaning to that of woke in the context of being aware of some esoteric reality or truth(s). Given that this term has spread into common usage as a term that people tend to use when someone expresses their agreement with an action or belief that someone else holds, it may have gone through some semantic change. However, I do believe this term may also be applied to this phenomenon that James is pointing out here. Such as, the notion of "based right" although it sounds less negative than I guess "woke right".
Either way it would be interesting to see what other people think about this phenomenon and its potential connection to the "term" based.
This was some nice food for thought. Thank you!
Woke is woke.
Watch the comments explode under this video once Fuentes's 12 year old army gets home from school.
There is always an arbitrage between the truth and public opinion.