The Woke Right
Responding to a trick
In the mid 2010s, the Skeptic community on YouTube mocked the Alt-Right by calling them “right-wing SJWs”. That is, a right-wing mirror of the far-left social justice warriors. Fundamentally, this was because we in the Alt-Right recognised groups and believed them significant, while the Classical Liberal-minded Skeptics sought to see only individuals because they believed groups irrelevant, or even imaginary.
This was especially true of racial groups. The Skeptics saw race as a sort of superstition to which people less rational than them were susceptible. In this belief they were aided by the absurd insistence at the time (and still now) of mainstream academics that race is an invalid system of classification. But more broadly, they saw all group identity as a subsumption of the individual into a collective, without his consent, a destruction of individual sovereignty in favour of a group which doesn’t even exist.
More recently, the concept of “right-wing SJWs” has been revived as “woke right” in order to undermine the Alt-Right’s successor, the Dissident Right. This has been done by the likes of James Lindsay, Konstantin Kisin, Andrew Gold, Dan Crenshaw, Eric Weinstein, Bari Weiss, Andrew Doyle, Richard Hanania, Babylon Bee writers Seth Dillon and Joel Berry, and the Marxist traitors at Spiked Magazine. Let us first note the irony of ardent Zionists mocking the idea of group identity, especially at the very time that Zionists are conducting ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
The Skeptics of ten years ago were not in the pay of larger powers - they were just ignorant fools arguing “clever” semantics - but they came up with a tool which more monied people today see as useful, and have revived, with much more force than the Skeptics could ever have mustered.
And yet, the “woke right” concept doesn’t seem to be gaining traction. We will get into that later. First, I want to examine the concept itself.
In my mind, “woke right” is, like horseshoe theory, a concept that has some truth to it but fundamentally misses the point and so mainly serves a diversionary purpose, not a truth-seeking one. Indeed, the intent of those who invoke it is to obscure the truth. This is obvious because, while they disparage ethnic solidarity among White people as “woke right”, they celebrate it among Jewish people. There is a deep contradiction in their shtick, which rubbishes the entire thing and was brought to the fore in Douglas Murray’s recent disastrous appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience. It is a case of “collectivism for me, individualism for thee”, or rather, “righteous when I do it, woke right when you do it”.
Let us leave all of that aside and examine the concept on its own terms.
This Venn diagram, shared by James Lindsay, shows the overlap between the worldviews of SJWs and the Dissident Right, thus likening the two by showing that they have certain common ways of thinking:
I will take each of these commonalities in turn.
“obsessed with racial identity”
It is true that the Dissident Right is concerned with racial identity. Lindsay believes this is stupid, because at any time prior to 1945 it would indeed have been absurd for a White person in any Western country to be concerned with the survival of his race. The trouble for Lindsay is that we are eighty years after 1945, and things have changed radically. The comfort and smugness a White person might have felt while “not caring about race” or even “not seeing race” is now suicidal naivety. This is why increasing numbers of White people now care about race: they see that their race is heading for extinction, and as it approaches the exit door of history, they suddenly realise it is valuable.
If you don’t think the White race is valuable, then you do not understand what made the West and what made the West work. If you believe other races can do it, you are simply deluded. There is no evidence whatsoever for that belief, which therefore is irrational.
“believes power matters more than truth”
Many have concluded that power is more important in worldly affairs than objective truth, because they have noticed that power can operate to a great extent in ignorance of and even in opposition to the truth. It is even conceivable that one’s power level can be measured by the extent to which one can ignore the truth without experiencing failure or injury. Those with less power have to accede either to those with more, or to the objective truth, which in any case might get overridden by those with power. The idea that objective truth alone will save us, in any situation, is naive.
Epstein obviously didn’t kill himself, but it benefits certain powerful forces to pretend that he did. Russia obviously didn’t bomb its own pipeline, but it benefits certain powerful forces to pretend that it did. These forces can assert lies over the obvious truth and get away with it, because they are powerful enough to insist on the lie, sustain it, promulgate it, and withstand the blowback. The objective truth is the god of those without power because they cannot withstand its vengeance. For the powerful, it is but an instrument, or an amusement.
“wants more government power”
Anyone who is in a bad situation but doesn’t want more power is an imbecile. Certain White people have recognised that their group exists, and that it is in danger, and therefore they sanely want more power in order to resolve the situation. They also recognise that, in this world, power is channelled at least partly (and officially) through the government, so of course they want to dominate the government, just as anyone did who ever wanted to enact change. There is nothing irrational or unreasonable about wanting to have more power in one’s government.
If he means that we want the government itself to have more power, that is a different matter and less clear. The Dissident Right want the government to be powerful enough to solve the very real problems our societies now face, not because they like the idea of government being powerful but because they want those problems to be solved. Anyone who says “I want the government to solve this problem, but not for it to have enough power to do so” is, again, an imbecile.
“goes after people’s family members (struggle sessions)”
I have no idea what is being referred to here.
“thinks the US constitution is dead”
This belief is not confined to any sector but is found across the political spectrum, so I don’t think it is fair to call it a tell-tale sign of anything. Plenty of people believe that, as the US devolves, the principles of the Founding Fathers are losing hold and relevance.
“perpetual victims”
This plays on the individualist streak within White people, who tend to believe that “playing victim” is immoral, unhealthy and self-debilitating. Therefore, it is an emotional blackmail: “if you think you’re a victim, you’re woke!” This is completely unreasonable. If a person has been victimised, they have been victimised, regardless of their feelings about it or how they respond. It is a matter of objective truth. Now, how they handle the fact is a separate matter. Maybe they milk it unreasonably, or fail to take action to resolve it, etc. But to lambast them simply for recognising that they are victims is unreasonable. And White people absolutely are victims of a process which is going to drive them to extinction, against their will and their repeatedly voiced wishes.
As for perpetual victims… well, the predicament of White people in every Western country has not yet been resolved, so we remain victims, so why would we let go of this?
“collectivists”
White people once had the luxury of conceiving of themselves purely as individuals, but this was only possible in a situation of either total racial homogeneity (Europe prior to 1945) or White predominance with clear boundaries keeping the races separate (North America prior to 1945). In such a situation, each White person has only to deal with other White people so there is no need for him to worry about the survival of his race, and therefore there is no need for him even to value his race - it is impervious, invincible, infallible, and does not need his support or even his consideration.
That is emphatically not the situation we find ourselves in now. The Great Replacement is endangering the survival of the White race, so of course White people suddenly start to question whether its survival is important or not, and of course the more brave and honest among them conclude that it is extremely important, because everything they value will be lost. We can see this by surveying both non-white countries and those parts of our own countries that are now dominated by non-whites: the culture is not ours, it is alien to us, and we do not find it agreeable. Over and above the culture is a simple biological imperative: gene-pools want to persist, and they compete against each other in order to do so.
These facts are unpleasant, but that does not mean they are untrue. We can only convince ourselves they are untrue by harking back to the thinking of (some of) our ancestors, but they were living in a radically different situation from our own.
“hates Jews”
I don’t know many people who actually hate Jews, but it is clear that many of the positions in the hydra that is oppressing White people are occupied by Jewish people. Even Churchill, a renowned philo-Semite, recognised their tendency towards such crusading, especially among the irreligious ones:
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century
Let us hear it from Jews in their own words: Barbara Lerner-Spectre, Ervin Kohn, Al Goldstein, Joel Stein, Susan Sontag, Noel Ignatiev, Ben Shapiro. Looking at prominent feminists, it seems the only one who was not Jewish was Germaine Greer. Look at who runs every industry, every NGO, every lobby group that is undermining White people and advancing the Great Replacement, and it is difficult not to see an incredible preponderance of one particular ethnicity (Ashkenazi).
Now, does this mean “every Jew is in on it” or “Jews in general are evil”? Of course not. But nobody was ever making those claims.
Let us now repeat the exercise with another infographic posted recently on Twitter.
There is no question that, in every Western country, the once-dominant culture is now being oppressed. I do not see all of history as a struggle between oppressed and oppressor; I just think this is obviously what is happening in today’s West.
Are we besieged by conspiratorial elites? I believe so, because I cannot see how something like the Great Replacement could happen by accident, especially after its initial negative effects became apparent.
Moral absolutism is an allegation I reject outright. Anyone, in any debate, in order to win must adopt a defensive/aggressive attitude in which those who disagree are to be defeated. This is the whole purpose of debate, and it is done even by those people who invoke the term “woke right”. That does not mean a shrill, absolutist stance on worldly affairs in general. It simply means that one is defending a position and attempting to defeat a rival position. To make this a special accusation against someone defending any particular position is disingenuous.
Radical overhaul and dismantling liberal principles is not desirable or pleasant, but is necessary in times of crisis and has always been done in times of crisis. It was anomalous for the US to inter Japanese people on the basis of their race during World War II, but it was done anyway because the situation called for it. The allegation of “a singular vision of moral order” is absurd; everyone has a singular vision and attempts to implement it.
“Distrust of neutral evidence; facts are often filtered through [a certain lens]” is another allegation I would reject outright. If you can survey your Western country today, you must conclude that there are far more non-white people than a generation ago, and that the numbers of White people are dwindling both relatively and absolutely, and that every cultural force is pushing to advance these two phenomena. It is simply obvious. To believe this is not to reject “neutral evidence”, but to see it.
Use of a powerful state and coerced compliance… again, it is absurd to ascribe this to any particular group. Everyone believes in this, for their own aims. Moreover, the state today is authoritarian and coercive in pursuing its policies and protecting its interests.
“Employs smears or demonisation to marginalise moderates and skeptics within the conservative sphere”… The very term “woke right” is a smear intended to marginalise. Overlooking that… we in the Dissident Right have noticed that conservatives have failed to conserve anything whatsoever over the last 100 years and we have concluded that the milquetoast methods and weak spirit of conservatism are inadequate for saving the West, or indeed for achieving anything at all when facing an ideological opponent.
“Seeks cataclysmic renewal”… It is not that we desire it but that we understand it to be both unavoidable and necessary, given the advanced state of disarray and dysfunction all around the West. I believe things can still be saved relatively peacefully, but only with a government that is forthright. If that doesn’t happen, cataclysm is coming anyway as a result of the diversity. We Westerners have known comfort for so long, many people struggle to imagine that it could ever go away. But pumping our countries full of diverse foreign peoples - often violent, often low IQ, often religiously fundamentalist, but always foreign - will eventually bring about cataclysm. Who would have guessed? Remigration will cause upheaval, but it will avert much greater upheaval.
If I have affirmed the allegations of “wokery” in the Dissident Right, I hope I have also shown that it is fatuous to make such allegations in the first place. One might as well accuse a person of wickedness for breathing oxygen like a wicked person does. Additionally, I hope I have illustrated that the beliefs of the Dissident Right are not irrational, superstitious or paranoid, but perfectly reasonable. It is the Classical Liberal who is the odd one out and deserving of mockery, for not seeing what everyone else can see.
It is also worth pointing out that Classical Liberalism, in its original and pure form, existed within the context of White homogeneity. Its luminaries never envisaged a multicultural England and would have been horrified by the prospect. They were as “racist” as any “woke right” person today.
Now we should consider why, despite the massive resources ploughed into pushing the concept of “woke right”, it is failing to take hold.
I think it is because the West of 2025 is not the West of 2015. Whether you live in North America or Europe, your country has visibly transformed and you no longer feel any certainty about its future. Its culture has split into shards, each belonging to a community that is alien and inscrutable to you, except your culture. But your culture is systematically attacked, and so is your racial group, but you don’t complain because you see yourself as an individual who should, in theory, have no attachment to such things - and the penalty for demonstrating any such attachment would be ruinous for you. You would literally destroy your life by defending your people and culture (yet you are meant to believe that groups are illusory and are not imposing this penalty on you so you are not a victim).
Things which people never had to think about before, they suddenly do. Whether their child will be an alien at his school, whether their daughter will be sucked into the clutches of a grooming gang, whether they will be pushed out of their job by nepotistic Indians, whether the police will help or punish them for reporting a non-white harming them, whether their son will even get an interview at that company where the HR manager favours his own kind…
Of course, the well-meaning White individualist will hope that “the rules” will rescue the situation, that authority will come shining down from above and punish the nepotism of these other groups and force them to behave “properly”… but those other groups will defend themselves with solidarity and accuse him and the system itself of racism, and he will watch as the system caves pathetically and sells him out in order to save itself. These other groups cannot be seduced by talk of “principles” because they don’t care about such things; they care about the betterment of their group, and they recognise that this comes through the betterment of each individual within it, regardless of his qualities and his crimes.
In this new cut-throat environment, to continue ignoring groups is to blind oneself to reality. It is to set up oneself, and those one loves, for disaster. You cannot be a Classical Liberal any more. That time is over, because the conditions which enabled it have been erased.
Classical Liberalism is revealed, not as the “default” worldview or one that works in any situation or with a uniquely infallible grasp of human nature, but as a worldview fitted only to a very specific situation, a period in history that is already long over. The worldview is now fossilised. People holding onto it today are simply not capable of understanding the situation around them, still less of fashioning a viable response to it.
This was brought to the fore by the grooming gang phenomenon when it was highlighted at the start of 2025. Faced with a tight-knit and organised group that practises in-group preference and ethnic solidarity, White English people stand no chance whatsoever if they act only as individuals, conceive of themselves only as individuals and treat each other only as individuals. Unless they recognise their group identity, they cannot defeat a group which is abusing them and behaving as a group, since their attempts, failing to grasp the nature and gravity of the situation, will always fall far short.
The universalist might be correct, yet he cannot argue with the subjectivist. The individualist might be correct, yet he cannot argue with the collectivist. Speaking more practically: the individual might have right on his side, but a collective is stronger than him and will crush him. His rationally-reached truth might well be the truth, yet it is of no interest to the collective, and thus of little help to him when he tries to negotiate with them.
In conclusion, I would ask you to consider, not whether I am “woke”, but why you do not share my beliefs. It might well be because you are opposed to left-wing wokery and as a rightist want to avoid being tarred with that lefty brush. And that is exactly the intent behind the “woke right” slur. It is not meant to clarify, but to befuddle. You are not meant to notice that:
the White race exists
the White race matters
the White race is on course for (avoidable) extinction
many prominent and influential Jews proudly practise collectivism, ethnocentrism, identity politics and in-group preference, and are very concerned about their group’s survival - exactly the things they hold against the “woke right”
The “woke right” concept is intended to prevent you noticing (or rather, daring to notice) these things. In every way - emotional, intellectual, social - it is a form of blackmail. Cave to it if you must, but don’t scold the rest for us for having more integrity.
To demonstrate the incredible overlap between people who use the “woke right” slur and people who are Zionists, supporters of Israel, or supporters of Jewish ethnocentrism, I made this Venn diagram:
When this diagram went viral recently, the only defence that could be mustered against it was that it contains a list of names, and apparently “woke” people tend to make lists of their political enemies, therefore I have proven that I am “woke right”. Pathetic. This non-argument was repeated ad nauseum by people who consider themselves clever and “free thinkers”.
It amused me to see people who smugly condemn the “woke” for mindless group behaviour mindlessly engaging in this group behaviour. But then their objection is not really to group behaviour, is it? After all, every one of them is perfectly happy to support Jewish group behaviour. For some of them, it’s about sabotaging the White race. For others, it’s about disgustingly doing what their funders want.
“Woke right” is an anti-white rhetorical weapon. But you only have to see through it to the hypocrisy, dishonesty and spinelessness that lies behind, festering and quivering, waiting to be found out.
Well said. 'Woke Right' is just a rebranding of 'racist' necessary because 'racist' is - thankfully - losing its power among Whites. (See 'Shiloh Hendrix').
A lot of them really believe they're still going to be in privileged positions after things get worse. "No, I won't be living with crime, loss of income and status. Just those BadWhites".