enlightenment Archives

Fourteen Observations about Post-Leftism

a.k.a. “Wokism”

2023-01-06

The post-left, a.k.a. “wokism”, is a parasitic infection which is destroying the political left, if it has not done so already.

Sommaire en français La post-gauche, alias le « wokisme », est une infection parasitaire qui est en train de détruire la gauche politique, si ce n’est déjà fait.

So-called “wokism” is real. You are allowed to dislike the label, but you are not allowed to deny the existence of the phenomenon. It is not some fiction invented by the political right. Many people who considered themselves to be on the political left self-defined as “woke” long before the right ever heard of the term.
The mix of ideologies which constitute wokism is complex, but the common underlying doctrine can be identified clearly. The “woke”—although they claim to be on the left—have rejected Enlightenment values, values which constitute the very definition of the political left. Thus, they have betrayed the left. I call them the anti-Enlightenment pseudo-left or the post-left.
Enlightenment values, such as reason, tolerance, freedom, progress, universalism, human rights and secularism, have become widely accepted in Western societies—or were until the recent growth of the post-left. Today even moderate right-wingers generally accept such values. Thus, on some issues—such as secularism, objectivity, freedom of expression—the post-left take positions to the right of moderate conservatives such as Jordan Peterson or Mathieu Bock-Côté.

…criticism of the post-left comes from across the entire political spectrum, from the left, including Marxists, from the centre and from the right.

As post-leftists fail to respect values such as objectivity, they often play fast and loose with the truth if lying will advance their agenda. One of their biggest lies is that “wokism” is some moral panic invented by the political right. See (1) above. In fact, criticism of the post-left comes from across the entire political spectrum, from the left, including Marxists, from the centre and from the right.
Although the philosophical origins of the post-left include important contributions from French postmodernists and German post-Marxists, the post-left is principally an American phenomenon. It was in the USA that postmodernism was first applied to political activism. Furthermore, the history of slavery and extreme anti-black racism in that country has resulted in placing the concepts of race and racism at the centre of the post-left’s preoccupations. This prioritization of racism, especially anti-black racism, is understandable and indeed legitimate given the history of the USA. However, the post-left does a very bad job of fighting racism even in the USA. And its effects are even worse when exported to other countries whose history—in particular the history of racism—is very different from that of the USA. Resisting the post-left is necessary in order to oppose the creeping Americanization of everything.

Neoracists point out that MLK himself advocated affirmative action, which is true, but they conveniently forget to mention that he intended it to be a temporary measure…

At the core of post-left activism is, therefore, neoracism, an ideology which claims to be anti-racist but which does more to inflame racism than to fight it. Neoracists reject the colour-blindness goal famously declared by Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) and instead promote colour-consciousness, i.e. positive discrimination. Neoracists point out that MLK himself advocated affirmative action, which is true, but they conveniently forget to mention that he intended it to be a temporary measure—perhaps several decades—whose purpose was to achieve a colour-blind future in which his four children “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” The goal of neoracists, on the contrary, is so-called “equity” which requires equality of outcomes (not just equality of opportunity), meaning that the racial mix in a profession must match the racial mix in the general population. This is practically impossible to achieve, even with the most draconian social engineering. So in practice, neoracists propose no conclusion, just an obsession for racial identity ad æternum.

In abandoning the Enlightenment, the post-left demonizes European civilization and Europeans.

Post-leftists are often accused of being anti-white, even though their ideology is very popular among “whites.” The accusation is certainly valid, but it is important to understand that the real object of neoracist hostility is Europeanness. The Enlightenment was arguably the greatest achievement of European civilization. In abandoning the Enlightenment, the post-left demonizes European civilization and Europeans.
Influenced by postmodernism and cultural relativism, post-leftists reject universalism and see the world as a collection of groups, each with its own interests and “truth,” often irreconcilable with those of other groups. Thus, group interests and feelings (real or presumed) take precedence over objectivity, leading to the over-valuation of emotion and the social censorship of words or images deemed to be “offensive” to a group perceived to be a target of injustice. A recent example is an art history instructor at a Minnesota university who was dismissed without due process for the sin of teaching art history—by using a medieval painting of Muhammad in a lesson. The university president declared that “respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom.” This is a consummate example of social censorship motivated by post-leftist ideology.

…they tend to see each minority as monolithic, failing to consider the great variations which may occur within each group.

The post-left prides itself on defending minorities against injustices, but in reality they do a very poor job of doing that because their real action is to denigrate majorities. Furthermore, they tend to see each minority as monolithic, failing to consider the great variations which may occur within each group.
During the era of European colonialism, Europeans considered themselves to be the centre of the universe, with the duty of civilizing the rest of the world. Today, the post-left continues to place European civilization at the centre of the universe, but now that centre is allegedly rotten, imposing all forms of oppression on everyone else. The latter attitude is just the flipside of the former. Both are Eurocentric. Both are false. Both are harmful extremes. For the post-left, Europeans (i.e. “whites”) are the evil majority which constantly persecutes various minorities. Persecution in the other direction or persecution of one non-white group by another (such as the Arabo-Muslim slave trade) is rarely if ever mentioned by the post-left.

A post-leftist accusation of racism is practically irrefutable—like an unfalsifiable religious belief—because there is no clear post-leftist definition which can be used to determine objectively what is racist and what is not.

Neoracism differs from classic racism in one major way: while classic racists exaggerate biological differences and thus attempt to establish a hierarchy of “races,” some superior to others, neoracists simply ignore and deny biology. Neoracists do not even attempt to define “race” or “racism” in any coherent way. This allows them to make accusations of racism at will, even in the most inappropriate contexts. A post-leftist accusation of racism is practically irrefutable—like an unfalsifiable religious belief—because there is no clear post-leftist definition which can be used to determine objectively what is racist and what is not. This habit is at its worst when post-leftists conflate racial identity with religious affiliation, thus giving themselves carte blanche to throw accusations of “racism” against anyone who criticizes the religion.

Right-wingers often paint the entire political left with the brush of wokism in order to discredit the left in general and make themselves—the right—look better.

Post-leftists tend to consider themselves to be the very incarnation of perfect virtue. But because they do such a shoddy job of defending traditional left-wing causes (such as antiracism, male-female equality, etc.), and because they arrogantly claim to be the left, the only left (as if the universalist left did not exist), they play into the hands of the political right and far-right. The egregious and sometimes insane behaviour of post-leftists brings the left into disrepute and thus comforts and strengthens the political right. Right-wingers often paint the entire political left with the brush of wokism in order to discredit the left in general and make themselves—the right—look better.
The post-left is not a political party or a well-circumscribed group. It is rather a mentality, an ideology, a prejudice whose influence has spread throughout many of the institutions of society—governments, universities, activist groups, media, etc.—in the United States, Canada and several European countries. Different people display various degrees of adherence to this ideology. Many of those who have, to some greater or lesser extent, adopted the post-leftist mentality, perhaps even unconsciously, may be unaware of the origins of that ideology. These issues must be discussed publicly so that people may learn to resist the ideological infection which post-leftism represents. The word “infection” is indeed appropriate here. Post-leftism is a parasitic infection which is destroying the political left, if it has not done so already.
The antidote to post-leftism is universalism, a core Enlightenment value. Indeed, it is the cure for both racism and neoracism.

Next blog: Trudeau Appoints Anti-Québécois Racist to Combat so-called ‘Islamophobia’

“Wokism” is Not a Moral Panic

2022-10-20

No, the “woke” phenomenon is not some moral panic invented by the political right.

Sommaire en français Non, la mouvance « woke » n’est pas une panique morale inventée par la droite. Ce blogue est disponible en français sous le titre Le « wokisme » n’est pas une panique morale.

For several years, terms such as “Social Justice Warrior” (“SJW”) and “woke” were used by many members of that movement themselves, to self-identify. Over time, the word “woke” became mainstream and, as critics of “wokism” began to use it negatively, the word acquired pejorative connotations. (It is important to note that these critics are of all political persuasions, from Marxists to the political centre to people on the right.)

Now some people even claim that “wokism” does not exist, that it is just a right-wing fantasy, a “moral panic” invented by the political right to denigrate the left. That allegation is false and dishonest. The “woke” themselves adopted the word long before anyone else. Not only is “wokism” a real phenomenon but, most importantly, it is ideologically distinct from the classical political left.

So what is “wokism” anyway? It is a social movement that claims to be left-wing and prides itself on fighting for social justice and against various prejudices, especially racism. But the philosophical underpinnings of the “woke” phenomenon are strongly influenced by postmodernism and by the rejection of Enlightenment values, in particular the rejection of universalism. Its rejection of the Enlightenment represents the abandonment of the greatest achievement of European civilization.

Consequently, this movement does a very bad job of defending the minorities with which it is obsessed. The “woke” end up inflaming racism as much as fighting against it. To put it succinctly, the movement is neo-racist. I call it the post-left or the anti-Enlightenment pseudo-left.

The “woke” have the nasty habit of launching accusations of “fascism” against anyone who disagrees with them. This is very ironic—and hypocritical—because the “woke” and the far right have something very significant in common: they both reject Enlightenment values.

The excesses and follies of the “woke” are a real gift for the political right, because the latter uses them to denigrate the entire left, as if the being “woke” were synonymous with being on the political left. But this is false, because the real left is universalist.

For a more detailed presentation of “wokism,” see:

My blog The “Woke” are Not the Political Left, A movement which abandons Enlightenment values is no longer progressive.
Le volume Identité, « race », liberté d’expression (“Identity, ‘Race’ and Freedom of Expression”), collective work available from Presses de l’Université Laval.

The Identitarian Left

2018-08-27

A discussion of several major aspects of the identitarian left, sometimes known as the regressive left, the communitarian left or the postmodernist left.

Sommaire en français Un exposé de plusieurs aspects importants de la gauche identitaire, connue aussi sous les noms de gauche régressive, communautariste ou postmoderniste.

In several previous blogs I have written about the so-called “regressive left”—or more accurately pseudo-left—which is ostensibly on the left end of the political spectrum but in fact betrays traditional left-wing values (i.e. Enlightenment values) in a number of ways, in particular by adopting cultural relativism (usually labelled “multiculturalism”), leading it to be dangerously tolerant of Islamism. I have also discussed my dissatisfaction with the label “regressive left” and suggested a few others in an attempt to arrive at a more accurate name.

After some reading and reflection, I have decided that the label “identitarian left” (or pseudo-left) is probably the best choice, although I consider “communitarian left” a reasonable alternative, i.e. the second-best choice. Whatever you may call it, this retrograde tendency, which has seriously corrupted the left and indirectly strengthened the right, is multifaceted—hence the difficulty in finding an appropriate name.

Below, are a number of aspects of this pseudo-left political tendency. These various aspects are not mutually distinct, as they tend to overlap and converge. (The following list is not necessarily exhaustive.)

The identitarian left is obsessed with identity politics.

National identities are generally considered an anathema. Thus neoliberalism, which seeks to weaken or eliminate national boundaries, is very comfortable with the identitarian left.

Identity politics orients political activism around personal identities, usually the individual’s membership in a group perceived to be either disadvantaged or privileged. These identities are normally based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., while largely ignoring social class which is emphasized by traditional left-wing politics. In identity politics the emphasis is on the differences between the disadvantaged and the privileged; expressions such as “white privilege” and “male privilege” and admonishments such as “check your privilege” are commonly used to promote guilt. But traditional left-wing politics seeks to build alliances, thus transcending personal identities. Furthermore, the identitarian left tends to be rather arbitrary about which identities it considers legitimate and which is considers retrograde (or even fascist!). National identities are generally considered an anathema. Thus neoliberalism, which seeks to weaken or eliminate national boundaries, is very comfortable with the identitarian left. Quebec nationalism in particular is vilified and denounced as “far-right” or worse. On the other hand, I have never heard a identitarian leftist denounce “anglophone privilege.”

The identitarian left is intersectional.

Intersectionality is a theory of systems of social power, first introduced to feminist theory by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989. It began as a current in feminism and has since spread. The basic idea is simple and superficially reasonable: if a person is a member of more than one discriminated group, then their degree of oppression increases with the number of those identities. For example, a black lesbian is triply oppressed because of her race, sexual orientation and gender whereas a white heterosexual woman is oppressed only as a woman. However, this view of oppression leads to a very divisive politics of guilt because in practise it reduces to a sort of point system where a merit point is gained by each oppressed group in which one can claim membership. The result is to see society as a sort of caste system with white heterosexual “cisgendered” men at the top. The goal of the intersectional activist is thus to topple that hierarchy by either leveling it or reversing it.

The identitarian left is communitarian.

Communitarianism means the habit of associating each individual with their community (ethno-religious, sexual, etc.) rather than emphasizing equality among citizens. It thus gives a great deal of authority to any leader who claims (often falsely) to speak for his or her community. This aspect is usually given the much more positive sounding name “multiculturalism” which used to mean cultural diversity but which has since become an ideology of cultural relativism.

The identitarian left is philosophically postmodernist.

Postmodernist philosophy rejects the values of the Enlightenment. In particular, it downplays or even denies the existence of one objective reality to which all have access and which transcends individual perspectives. For the postmodernist leftist, every oppressed or privileged group has their own reality, their own truth. The postmodernist left practices “cultural constructivism” or “blank-slatism” to borrow the words of Helen Pluckrose. Everything is about power dynamics, so the “truth” presented by a dominant group is just a narrative which allows them to preserve and enforce their dominance. It is up to the oppressed to impose their “truth” in return. When taken to an extreme, this approach makes objective knowledge impossible.

The identitarian left is racialist.

Thus, they first eliminate completely the concept of race, allowing them then to reinvent it wherever they want, for example by arbitrarily baptizing religious affiliation as a “race,” so that they can then make accusations of “racism” against anyone who criticizes that religion.

As the identitarian left attaches great importance to personal identities such as race, it generates its own form of racism. In particular, so-called antiracist activists of the identitarian left are often racially divisive, erecting barriers between groups based on old 19^th century concepts of race such as “white,” “black,” etc., sometimes even promoting segregation. White-bashing has become very fashionable. However, this form of racism is somewhat different from more traditional racism which asserts actual biological differences. The racism of the identitarian left is more a question of in-group posturing, a form of virtue signalling or what I would call “cool signalling” and for this reason the term “racialism” has been suggested to label this phenomenon. In fact, identitarian leftists will often deny even the existence of race (and any discussion of scientific research into objective, measurable differences between ethnic groups is utterly taboo, an anathema in fact), while nevertheless talking ad nauseum about “racialized” groups. Thus, they first eliminate completely the concept of race, allowing them then to reinvent it wherever they want, for example by arbitrarily baptizing religious affiliation as a “race,” so that they can then make accusations of “racism” against anyone who criticizes that religion.

The identitarian left is Manichaean.

At its worst, the attitude of identitarian leftists is that anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, or mysognist, or fascist, or Nazi, etc. This is one of the most ethically repugnant aspects of identitarian leftism. Basically, if identitarian leftists do not like someone, they just slander the other, with little attempt to engage in any discussion about disagreements. Thus the world is divided absolutely into good and evil, us and them. Everybody is a fascist except for me and my buddies. You want to punch someone? Just label them a Nazi first, thus giving yourself permission to do so! This has led to many specious accusations. The psychologist and popular conservative speaker Jordan Peterson has been called a fascist (he is not). James Damore, fired by Google, has been called a misogynist (he is not). Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, has been called a racist and a fascist (in my opinion, he is neither). Sam Harris has been called a “gateway to the alt-right” (nonsense) and is vilified by the identitarian left because he is such an effective critic of it.

The identitarian left is Islamophilic or Islamolatric.

Given that Muslims constitute a minority in western countries and may be subject to discrimination, and given the identitarian left’s obsession with identity, it has become fashionable to offer privileged status to Islam, treating that religion with kid gloves and accusing anyone who criticizes it of “Islamophobia” or racism or worse. The conflation of race with religion is a crucial element of this gambit.

The identitarian left is antisecular and proreligious.

The identitarian left’s antisecular and proreligious bias is a consequence of its love affair with Islam, its refusal to distinguish between race and religion, and its rejection of Enlightenment values. The results are disastrous. A major example of this is the identitarian left’s enormous propaganda campaign against the Quebec government’s proposed Charter of Secularism in 2013-2014.

The identitarian left is post-Marxist.

The identitarian left can be seen as a form of degenerate Marxism in which the working class, having failed to rally to the Marxist cause, has been abandoned and replaced by a collection of minorities. Thus the identitarian left is post-Marxist but not Marxist. Here are three critiques of identity politics from a Marxist perspective:

A Marxist Critiques Identity Politics, Kelton Sears.
How identity politics makes the Left lose its collective identity, Tomasz Pierscionek.
Karl Marx, quoted by Stephen Beckner in I Am Not a Racist, And So Are You, explains how emphasizing ethnic differences weakens the working class.

The identitarian left is Orwellian.

… within religious minorities [the identitarian left] favours the most pious and fundamentalist among them, thus excluding the moderately religious and the secular.

Here, I mean Orwellian in the sense of using language which is almost the opposite—and sometimes literally the opposite—of reality. For example, the identitarian left claims to be antiracist but in reality it is obsessed with race and promotes racialism, which is its variant of racism. The identitarian left often claims to support diversity, tolerance and inclusivity, but in reality it rejects diversity of opinion, is extremely intolerant of those who disagree with it, and tends to limit its inclusivity to an incomplete list of minority groups. Not only does it tend to ignore or even denigrate the concerns of the majority, but within religious minorities it favours the most pious and fundamentalist among them, thus excluding the moderately religious and the secular. Furthermore, so-called “Antifa” groups, which are like ad hoc paramilitary branches of the identitarian left, claim to fight fascism but consistently make two huge errors: (1) they misidentify as fascists many who are not; and (2) they employ tactics similar to those of fascist goons. Spokespersons of the identitarian left often accuse their adversaries (in particular those who criticize Islam) of promoting a “politics of fear.” However, they themselves promote an exaggerated fear of the far-right, much (but not all) of which exists only in their imaginations. Basically, the identitarian left opposes fascism everywhere except where fascism is currently strongest and most dangerous: within Islamist movements.

And last, but not least, the identitarian left strengthens the political right.

The identitarian left is disastrous because it discredits the political left in many ways—by abandoning Enlightenment values; by abandoning secularism which is a traditional goal of the left; by its divisive racialism, in particular its anti-white racism and its politics of guilt; etc. The result is that this degenerated pseudo-left constitutes an enormous gift to the political right. In Canada and the USA, popular disgust with the craziness of the left has helped right-wing incompetents like Ford and Trump get elected. Yes, endemic racism and bigotry also contributed significantly to the rise of Ford and Trump, but the intellectual bankruptcy of many on the political centre and left also contribued to their victory. In France, the fact that much of the left has abandoned secularism, an extremely important core value of French culture, has resulted in the political right partially taking over this issue and using it to garner widespread popular support. This is not because the population has moved to the right, but because the left has betrayed its own values. The fault is with the left.

Epilogue: The Identitarian Left in Canada

Although the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) which currently holds power in Canada, under the leadership of Justin Trudeau, is a centrist party, not a leftist one, it has traditionally taken some of its ideas—both good (such as universal health care) and bad—from the left. Furthermore, the centre-left New Democratic Party (NDP) has moved increasingly towards the right (particularly under the leadership of Thomas Mulcair, formerly of the Quebec Liberal Party) so that it is not much different from the LPC. Both parties are pathologically attached to communitarianism.

Trudeau displays many of the worst qualities of the identitarian left

Thus, in the category of bad ideas which the LPC has borrowed from the left, we observe that Trudeau displays many of the worst qualities of the identitarian left: communitarianism, Islamophilia, conflation of race and religion (e.g. motion M-103), Manichaeanism (i.e. if you don’t swallow his “diversity” rhetoric, then you are a racist!). Trudeau is notorious for visiting mosques and Sikh temples in order to garner votes. He has declared that Canada is “the first postnational state” and if you are a Quebec secularist then he vilifies you as a Trump sympathizer. All in all, a person of little or no intellectual integrity.

Next blog: The Greatest of All Vices

Tag: enlightenment