Fourteen Observations about Post-Leftism

a.k.a. “Wokism”


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 Â», est une infection parasitaire qui est en train de dĂ©truire la gauche politique, si ce n’est dĂ©jĂ  fait.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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-CĂŽtĂ©.
  4. …criticism of the post-left comes from across the entire political spectrum, from the left, including Marxists, from the centre and from the right.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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…

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

  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. …they tend to see each minority as monolithic, failing to consider the great variations which may occur within each group.

  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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-QuĂ©bĂ©cois Racist to Combat so-called ‘Islamophobia’

The “Woke” are Not the Political Left

A movement which abandons Enlightenment values is no longer progressive.

Correction 2021-07-18

The “woke”—that is, the regressive pseudo-left—are not part of the political left. They left the left when they abandoned Enlightenment values.

“Wokism” at its worst can be considered to be a modern parareligion, that is, an ideology which is not a religion in the strict sense of the word because there is no obvious supernatural element, but which nevertheless behaves somewhat like one because it displays some of the characteristics which are typical of religion. It is, among other traits, extremely dogmatic, Manichean and moralistic. Wokism displays an obsession for personal identities and minorities, and is racialist. It claims to be anti-racist, but in the final analysis generates more racism than it curbs. As it fails to respect the essential distinction between religious affiliation and racial identity, wokism completely dismisses freedom of conscience and thus becomes antisecular.

The woke have betrayed the left. They have abandoned universalism, objectivity, secularism and freedom of expression. Wokism is a disaster for the left. The task now before us is to rebuild the left on universalist, Enlightenment values.

Sommaire en français Une version française précédente est disponible. Une version française quelque peu modifiée paraïtra sous peu dans un volume sous la direction de Normand Baillargeon et Rachad Antonius.

The term “woke” is an Afro-American slang expression meaning politically awake, politically aware, especially about social justice issues. However, the word has come to acquire a much wider meaning and now refers to the dominant current of thought in ostensibly left-wing politics in the USA, Canada and several other countries. And yet, this school of thought is in reality not on the political left because it has abandoned Enlightenment values.

Those Enlightenment ideals include reason, tolerance, freedom, progress, universalism, human rights and secularism. Taken collectively, they are often referred to as modernism. The Enlightenment has given us much of what we take for granted today. Its products are many and include: the concept of human rights, the abolition of slavery, liberalism, Marxism, modern science and technology, the U.S. Constitution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) and secularism law (1905), the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and much more.

The Origin of the Political Left and Right

As many readers will recall, the terms “left” and “right” when used in the political sense originated from the seating arrangements in the National Constituent Assembly (AssemblĂ©e nationale constituante) during the French Revolution starting in 1789. Those seated on the left side of the chamber were generally supportive of the revolution, republicanism and secularism whereas those seated on the right remained loyal to the monarchy, the clergy and traditional institutions of the Ancien rĂ©gime. These two poles corresponded roughly to support for or opposition to the values of the Enlightenment, an intellectual and philosophical movement which had been spreading throughout Europe for about a century. Indeed, the French Revolution was itself a product of the Enlightenment, as were the American, Haitian and Russian Revolutions.

Thus, the political left referred to those who supported such Enlightenment values whereas the political right encompassed those who opposed them. The same general pattern applies today. The political left and right are defined by support for and opposition to Enlightenment ideals. If a left-wing current abandons them, then it is no longer on the political left. This is the situation with “wokism,” if I may call it that, which is also known by several other monikers such as the “regressive (pseudo)left” or the “anti-Enlightenment pseudoleft.” The woke are left mostly in name only. Their mentality has become dominant among those who claim to be leftists and even centrists. There is (almost) no (real) left left.

Political & Philosophical Roots of the Woke

The woke mentality is based on a number of political and philosophical sources:

  • Intersectionality, an obsession with personal identities, especially minority identities, which amounts to a simplistic point-system for determining who is lucky enough to have the most oppression points.[1]
  • Multiculturalism, or cultural relativism, an anti-universalist political ideology which attaches greater importance to ethnic or religious affiliation than it does to either universal rights or to citizenship.
  • Postmodernism, a philosophy associated with cultural relativism and inspired by a scepticism about modernist ideas of objectivity, rationalism and knowledge.
  • Post-Marxist defeatism, a degeneration of Marxism, resulting from Marxism’s failure to deliver on its promise of a brighter future based on Enlightenment ideals. This has led to blaming the Enlightenment itself. Also known as neo-Marxism, or cultural Marxism, or cultural post-Marxism
  • Islamoleftism, an extension of the previous point, a further degeneration of post-Marxism, in which the priority traditionally accorded to class and economics is now replaced by the defence of minorities, especially Muslims, including Islamists.[2]

Thus the woke mentality is derived, partially at least, from left-wing thought, but it is a perversion and degeneration of it. In particular, wokism is not Marxist. Marxism has a lot of negative and dubious things to answer for, but one cannot blame Marxism for the insanity of the woke movement. To put it succinctly, the woke mentality is a form of “post-leftism” which is approximately a combination of post-Marxism and postmodernism.

James Lindsay, who has studied these issues extensively, sums up the situation thus:

Marxism is an economics-based social theory, and Critical Social Justice actually usurps economic analysis and obscures it to use it as a proxy for its peculiar approach to identity politics. To be more specific on that, for example, it’s overwhelmingly obvious that economic causes are the sources of many of the phenomena Critical Race Theorists name as “systemic racism,” but they use the fact that there are statistical economic differences by race to claim that racism (not capitalistic exploitation) are the ultimate causes of those differences. Thus, they make class a proxy for the site of oppression that they’re actually obsessively focused upon, race, and thereby obliterate any possibility for liberal, rational, or even materialist or Marxist analysis of the underlying issues.[3]

The woke movement is an especially American phenomenon, although its various components originate in several countries and its influence is strongly felt throughout the English-speaking world as well as in France and elsewhere. As for the French origins of postmodern philosophy—a major ingredient in this soup of philosophism—the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner sums up the situation with spirited wit:

Deconstructionism [
] was indeed a product of French intellectuals of the 1970s who exported it to campuses on the other side of the Atlantic. We provided them with the virus, and they rewarded us by sending back the fully developed disease.[4]


Wokism at its worst is a modern parareligion. I define a parareligion as an ideology which is not a religion in the strict sense of the word because there is no obvious supernatural element, but which nevertheless behaves somewhat like one because it displays some of the following characteristics which are typical of religion:

  • Dogmatism, a rejection of reason.
  • A penchant for non-falsifiable assertions, i.e. hypotheses which can never be disproven and are thus meaningless. Example: “God” is responsible for everything: if good things happen, then praise “God” — however if bad things happen, “God” works in mysterious ways.
  • Manichaeism, a worldview divided into absolute good and evil, denying moral nuances and ambiguities.
  • Moralism, an obsession with personal morality, again neglecting moral complexities.
  • Privileges for the faithful, thus opposing universalism.
  • Cult of personality, i.e. worship of gods or goddesses, or deification of human leaders.

One example of a parareligion is authoritarian communism of the Stalinist, Maoist or North Korean variety, where dogmatism and the cult of personality are particularly obvious. Various pseudosciences (homeopathy, astrology, etc.) and some conspiracy theories can also be viewed as parareligions.

The Woke Parareligion

The woke parareligion displays most of the above characteristics (although not the cult of personality). It is extremely dogmatic, Manichaean and moralistic, and while it pretends to value “diversity” it is zealously opposed to intellectual debate and diversity. This is manifested by so-called cancel culture, basically social censorship of anyone who disagrees with the woke mentality or who is judged (summarily, without due process) to be morally dubious. The woke are obsessively hostile to those whom they consider to be privileged (whites, men, etc.) and the woke program is to privilege the other pole. Thus, racial and other minorities, even religious ones such as Muslims, are given special consideration, just as Judaism considered the Hebrews to be the chosen people. This implies the abandonment of universalism which values equality for all, regardless of race, sex, etc.

The Woke Antiracist Movement is Anti-Universalist and Racist

The woke are obsessed with minorities and with personal identity, to the detriment of our common humanity. Intersectionality combined with multiculturalism and the other ingredients of the woke mentality create a toxic mixture which leads to an overemphasis on minorities and contempt for majorities and the universal. Some minorities are favoured obsessively, granting them near impunity, while the corresponding majorities are denigrated. Thus, the current antiracist movement has itself become racist. Furthermore, in true parareligious fashion, the most extreme so-called antiracists make the non-falsifiable claim that racism is literally ubiquitous. Instead of asking if racism is present in a given situation, they ask “Where is the racism here?” and assume that it is never absent. The result is a politics of guilt and paranoia. This approach is nonsensical, for if racism is always present, then the word loses all objective meaning.

According to Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility[5], whites are necessarily racist because it is impossible for them not to be racist. Furthermore, DiAngelo claims that any attempt by a white person to deny his or her racism constitutes proof of racism. We recognize in this vicious circle an ideology which renders itself impervious to criticism by being unfalsifiable.

Ibram X. Kendi, author de How to Be an Antiracist[6], displays a similar attitude. He alleges that it is impossible to avoid being racist unless one campaigns actively and constantly against racism. A white person is thus condemned to be racist unless one dedicates one’s life, body and soul, to the struggle against racism, in particular one’s own racism. To be simply non-racist is not an option. These two authors are currently the darlings of the American “antiracist” movement and promote the concept of systemic racism which, according to DiAngelo and Kendi, is ubiquitous and unavoidable.

A half-century or more ago, during the civil rights movement which was so important in the fight against anti-black racism in the U.S.A., especially in the southern states, right-wing opponents would sometimes accuse civil rights activists of “reverse racism” against non-blacks. Similarly, in the heyday of second-wave feminism, those who opposed sexual equality would sometimes accuse feminists of hating men. These were both obvious attempts to denigrate the civil rights and feminist movements. No one was fooled by such self-evident deception. Both movements were universalist, promoting equal rights for blacks and women without attacking non-blacks and men in general.

However, the situation today is much different. Given the obsession with identity and the lionization of certain minority groups which are hallmarks of the woke mentality, denigration of whites, men and other non-minority groups has become the norm. Current “antiracists” sometimes go so far as to devalue certain virtues such as objectivity, rationality, self-discipline, planning, etc., rejecting them as so many “white” standards, thus strangely echoing the discourse of white supremacists.

The Woke Oppose Privilege Rather Than Fight Discrimination

One of the maxims of the woke mentality is the concept of “white privilege” which is a backwards approach to antiracism. If so-called white people have the advantage of not being discriminated against, that is not a privilege; rather it is a right, a basic human right. If blacks are discriminated against, that is not a lack of privilege, rather it is a denial of rights. The proper approach to antiracism is to promote equal rights for all, universally, regardless of racial group, and to oppose discrimination against any group. To emphasize white privilege leads to a politics of guilt and resentment, indirectly strengthening the political right.

Instead of equality, i.e. equality of opportunity, the woke promote equity which implies equality of outcomes. Furthermore, if equality of outcomes is not achieved, and it practically never is, then the woke generally assume that the situation is caused by some kind of prejudice such as racism or sexism. Thus, if a profession does not display the same demographic diversity as the general population, then prejudice is assumed to be the cause. This is irrational because, as James Lindsay observes:

this is literally impossible without large-scale social engineering including forced quotas. (Random stochasticity, that is, noise in the system, should make perfect alignment with prevailing demographic percentages extremely improbable, after all, even if the system were perfectly free of difference and discrimination of every sort.) That means that “Equity” implies using identity-based quotas and vigorous social engineering to achieve them.[7]

This is what got James Damore fired by his employer Google, because he wrote a rather innocuous document[8] in which he suggested that the lower numbers of women in software jobs might be partially explained by women’s preferences. In other words, sexism may not be the only reason. But such ideas are blasphemous for the woke, so he was dismissed.

The Woke Oppose Secularism

The woke abandonment of Enlightenment values and its rejection of left-wing values are most blatant in woke opposition to secularism. Their obsession with minorities extends to even religious minorities. The woke tend to conflate race and religion, which amounts to jettisoning freedom of conscience and condemning individuals to the religion into which they had the bad luck to be born. This racialisation of religious affiliation[9] plays right into the hands of fundamentalists, especially Islamists.

With Islamoleftism added into the wokeness mixture, Muslims are given special priority and impunity, especially the most pious and even fundamentalist. This leads to extreme complacency with respect to Islam and Islamism. So-called “Islamophobia” is condemned. The whole process is rendered even more toxic by the non-recognition of some minorities. For example, secular Muslims are ignored, as they do not fit the Muslim stereotype which the woke insist upon, where women are veiled and men are groomed stereotypically, etc. Ex-Muslims are denigrated even further.

Can Secularism Curb Parareligion? False Hope.

Helen Pluckrose is a British author who, along with her American colleague James Lindsay, studies and criticizes the various manifestations of the woke phenomenon in its struggle for “Critical Social Justice” (CSJ)—where the capitalization distinguishes it from the more liberal concept of social justice—founded on what they call “applied postmodernism.” Pluckrose has observed that racism, as conceived by DiAngelo, including the principles of whiteness, white privilege and white fragility, represent “a complex and internally consistent belief system”[10] which bears a curious resemblance to a religion by virtue of several of its characteristics such as the concept of original sin (i.e. whiteness). Although she does not use the term “parareligion,” Pluckrose thus arrives at a conclusion similar to mine.

But Pluckrose goes one step further: she proposes a solution, a familiar solution to a familiar problem. Setting aside the question of whether a given belief system, such as a religion, is true or false, secularism defends the individual’s freedom of conscience and the right not to endorse a system which some may try to force upon others. Thus, the solution to wokism would be secularism. Having suggested this solution, Pluckrose affirms her optimism, declaring that “We currently live in societies that do a pretty good job of applying this rule to religion…”

If only this were so! Unfortunately, Pluckrose’s optimism is eminently debatable, especially in the Anglo-American world where secularism is a much weaker notion than the republican secularism (laĂŻcitĂ©) which prevails in the French-speaking world. Religions continue to enjoy enormous influence in the United States despite the secular pretensions of that country. Even in France, secularism is threatened.

Furthermore, Pluckrose’s proposal must confront another major obstacle: how can secularism be used as protection against the excesses of wokism when we know full well that the woke have no respect for freedom of conscience and fiercely oppose secularism? Indeed, the obsession with identities, the deliberate conflation of race with religion and the essentialization of religious affiliation, which are the rule among the woke, result in freedom of conscience—which includes both freedom of and freedom from religion—being categorically spurned and denied by the woke.

Pluckrose overestimates secularism. It is insufficient to protect us, whether against religion or against parareligions such as CSJ.

WWLD: What Would the Left Do?

A truly left-wing approach to religion would be to defend freedom of conscience, while criticizing any and all religions (and parareligions) frankly and unabashedly. This means, for example, that the three Abrahamic monotheisms—Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to name them in historical order—should be regular targets of left-wing criticism because, taken together, they represent the most important religious block on the planet. The very idea that Islam should enjoy some sort of immunity from criticism, or that Christianity should be targeted far more often, are utterly incompatible with secularism which is a core value of the Enlightenment. And yet, that is precisely the woke approach: give Islam a free ride because it is considered to be the religion of the oppressed. The spread of the tendentious term “Islamophobia”—functionally synonymous with blasphemy against Islam—is a prime manifestation of the privileges which the woke grant to Islam.

A Marriage Made in Hell

The woke love affair with Islam is not the only illustration of how the woke are not leftists, but it is a particularly shameless one. The woke facilitate and support fundamentalist Islam, an extreme right-wing politico-religious ideology which is to the right of Naziism, and they so do at least indirectly and sometimes even directly.

The antisecularism of the woke is particularly evident in the fanatical opposition to Quebec Bill 21 which the woke vilify without even attempting to understand the relevant issue[11]. Support for secularism in the English-speaking world has always been weak, but now, with the advent of the woke mentality which conflates race and religion, the situation is even worse. Some antisecularists even go so far as to denounce secularism as “racist.” In Canada outside Quebec, several ostensibly secular organizations have fallen victim to this scam and have abandoned secularism.

The Woke Strengthen the Political Right

The Manichean worldview of the woke, seeing everything as either good or evil, lead them to slander anyone who disagrees with them as “xenophobic” or “racist” or “fascist.” This is a very infantile attitude. Accusations of being far-right have begun to lose all credibility. Reasonable people who see what is happening may be cowed into silence, but they recognize that many of those who currently call themselves leftist are destructive and foolish. This leads some people with normally leftist sympathies to consider the political centre or right. This is one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected in 2016.

The political right will often conflate the woke with the political left. This is not surprising, as it is in their interest to do so. As the woke, or at least those who are the most woke, are clearly irrational fanatics, labelling them as leftists discredits the left and makes the political right look better in comparison.

Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Karl Marx would undoubtedly be outraged by the irrationality and fanaticism of the woke.

The Woke Have Betrayed the Left

The woke mentality is reactionary and retrograde, a degeneration of left-wing politics into a cult which is sometimes more akin to the political right, sometimes allied with the religious far-right, and generally just lost in some ill-defined neverneverland. The woke have betrayed the left. They have abandoned universalism, objectivity, secularism and free speech. While claiming to promote diversity and inclusion, in reality the woke are puritanical, dogmatic, closed-minded and extremely intolerant, constantly witch-hunting. They have largely abandoned economic and class issues. Having replaced economic issues with an obsessive racialization of everything, they see racism everywhere, but only those forms of racism which they recognize from the USA, seeing everything through an American lens. The woke respond to almost any disagreement with ridiculous accusations. They tolerate no dissent. Intellectual diversity is foreign to them. Their obsession with minorities and their anti-universalism lead to inevitable fragmentation and division.

Wokism is a disaster for the left, leading to its near destruction. The task now before us is to rebuild the left on universalist, Enlightenment values.

Wokism ≈ Post-leftism ≈ Post-Marxism + Postmodernism

  1. Collins, Patricia Hill; Bilge, Sirma; Intersectionality, Polity Books, 2016.
  2. Harman, Chris; The Prophet and the Proletariat, International Socialism Journal 2:64, Autumn 1994.
  3. Lindsay, James; The Complex Relationship Between Marxism and Wokeness
  4. BastiĂ©, EugĂ©nie; Pascal Bruckner: « La seule identitĂ© encore autorisĂ©e pour les blancs est l’identitĂ© de contrition Â» (“The Only Remaining Legitimate Identity for Whites is one of Contrition”)
  5. DiAngelo, Robin; White Fragility, Penguin Random House, 2018.
  6. Kendi, Ibram X.; How to Be an Antiracist, Penguin Random House, 2019.
  7. Lindsay, James; The Diversity Delusion
  8. Damore, James; Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber
  9. Rand, David; The Battle Raging Between Racialism and Secularism
  10. Pluckrose, Helen; White Fragility Training and Freedom of Belief
  11. Rand, David; Why We Support Bill 21

Next blog: The Incompetence of Shachi Kurl

Les « Woke Â» ne sont pas de gauche

2021-02-21 : Corrections mineures

La soi-disant « gauche Â» rĂ©gressive, connue couramment comme les « woke Â», ne fait pas partie de la gauche politique. Elle a quittĂ© la gauche au moment oĂč elle a renoncĂ© aux valeurs des LumiĂšres.

English This blog is available in English: The “Woke” are Not the Political Left.

L’expression « woke Â» relĂšve de l’argot des Afro-AmĂ©ricains et veut dire politiquement Ă©veillĂ©, politiquement conscient, surtout en matiĂšre de justice sociale. Mais, depuis un certain temps, ce terme a acquis une signification bien plus large et fait dĂ©sormais rĂ©fĂ©rence au courant de pensĂ©e qui prĂ©domine dans la politique ostensiblement de gauche aux États-Unis, au Canada et dans plusieurs autres pays. (En français, quand on parle de la « gauche bien-pensante Â», « diversitaire Â» ou « intersectionnelle Â», il s’agit de ce mouvement qui s’appellerait « woke Â» en anglais.) Pourtant, cette Ă©cole de pensĂ©e n’est en rĂ©alitĂ© pas de la gauche politique car elle a abandonnĂ© les valeurs des LumiĂšres.

Ces idĂ©aux des LumiĂšres comprennent la raison, la tolĂ©rance, la libertĂ©, le progrĂšs, l’universalisme, les droits humains et la laĂŻcitĂ©. Pris collectivement, on les appelle couramment le modernisme. Les LumiĂšres nous ont donnĂ© une grande partie de ce que nous tenons pour acquis aujourd’hui. Ses produits sont nombreux et comprennent le concept des droits de la personne, l’abolition de l’esclavage, le libĂ©ralisme, le marxisme, la science et la technologie modernes, la Constitution amĂ©ricaine, la DĂ©claration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen (France, 1789) et la loi sur la laĂŻcitĂ© (France, 1905), la DĂ©claration universelle des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies et bien plus encore.

Les origines de la gauche et de la droite politiques

Rappelons que les termes « gauche Â» et « droite Â» au sens politique trouvent leur origine dans la disposition des siĂšges Ă  l’AssemblĂ©e nationale constituante pendant la RĂ©volution française Ă  partir de 1789. Les dĂ©putĂ©s assis du cĂŽtĂ© gauche de la chambre Ă©taient en gĂ©nĂ©ral des sympathisants de la rĂ©volution, du rĂ©publicanisme et de la laĂŻcitĂ©, tandis que ceux du cĂŽtĂ© droit restaient plutĂŽt fidĂšles Ă  la monarchie, au clergĂ© et aux institutions traditionnelles de l’Ancien rĂ©gime. Ces deux pĂŽles correspondent grosso modo soit Ă  un appui aux valeurs des LumiĂšres, soit Ă  une opposition Ă  celles-ci, les LumiĂšres Ă©tant un mouvement intellectuel et philosophique qui s’était rĂ©pandu dans toute l’Europe durant environ un siĂšcle. En effet, la RĂ©volution française Ă©tait elle-mĂȘme un produit de ce mouvement, tout comme les rĂ©volutions amĂ©ricaine, haĂŻtienne et russe.

Ainsi, la gauche politique fait rĂ©fĂ©rence Ă  ceux qui appuyaient les valeurs des LumiĂšres tandis que la droite politique englobait ceux qui s’y opposaient. Le mĂȘme schĂ©ma gĂ©nĂ©ral s’applique aujourd’hui. La gauche et la droite politiques sont dĂ©finies respectivement par le soutien et l’opposition aux idĂ©aux des LumiĂšres. Si un courant de gauche abandonne ces idĂ©aux, alors il n’est plus de gauche. Telle est la situation du wokisme, si je peux l’appeler ainsi, Ă©galement connu par plusieurs autres surnoms tels que « la (pseudo)gauche rĂ©gressive Â» et, mon terme prĂ©fĂ©rĂ©, la « pseudogauche anti-LumiĂšres Â». Il ne reste plus grand-chose de gauche chez les woke sauf leur prĂ©tention. Leur mentalitĂ© est devenue dominante parmi ceux qui se disent de la gauche et mĂȘme du centre. Il ne reste (presque) plus de (rĂ©elle) gauche.

Les racines politiques et philosophiques du wokisme

La mentalitĂ© woke s’appuie sur un certain nombre de sources politiques et philosophiques :

  • L’IntersectionnalitĂ©, une obsession pour les identitĂ©s personnelles, en particulier les identitĂ©s minoritaires, et qui revient Ă  un systĂšme de points simpliste pour dĂ©terminer qui a la chance d’avoir le plus de points d’oppression.
  • Le Multiculturalisme, ou le relativisme culturel, une idĂ©ologie politique anti-universaliste qui accorde davantage d’importance Ă  l’appartenance ethnique ou religieuse de l’individu qu’à ses droits universels ou sa citoyennetĂ©.
  • Le Postmodernisme, une philosophie associĂ©e au relativisme culturel et inspirĂ©e par un scepticisme Ă  l’égard des idĂ©es modernistes d’objectivitĂ©, de rationalisme et de savoir.
  • Le DĂ©faitisme post-marxiste, une dĂ©gĂ©nĂ©rescence du marxisme, rĂ©sultant de l’incapacitĂ© du marxisme Ă  tenir sa promesse d’un avenir plus lumineux basĂ© sur les idĂ©aux des LumiĂšres. Cela a conduit Ă  blĂąmer et Ă  rejeter les LumiĂšres elles-mĂȘmes. Aussi connu sous le nom de nĂ©o-marxisme, de marxisme culturel ou de post-marxisme culturel.
  • L’Islamogauchisme, une extension du point prĂ©cĂ©dent, une dĂ©gĂ©nĂ©rescence supplĂ©mentaire du post-marxisme, dans laquelle la prioritĂ© traditionnellement accordĂ©e Ă  la classe et Ă  l’économie est dĂ©sormais remplacĂ©e par la dĂ©fense des minoritĂ©s, en particulier des musulmans.

Ainsi, la mentalitĂ© woke dĂ©rive, en partie du moins, de la pensĂ©e gauchiste, mais elle en est une perversion et une dĂ©gĂ©nĂ©rescence. En particulier, le wokisme n’est pas marxiste. Le bilan du marxisme regorge de consĂ©quences nĂ©gatives et douteuses, mais vous ne pouvez pas tenir le marxisme responsable des folies des woke. Pour le dire succinctement, la mentalitĂ© woke est une sorte de « post-gauchisme Â» qui se rĂ©sume approximativement Ă  un mĂ©lange de post-marxisme et de postmodernisme.

L’auteur amĂ©ricain James Lindsay, qui a Ă©tudiĂ© en profondeur ces questions, rĂ©sume ainsi la situation :

Le marxisme est une thĂ©orie sociale basĂ©e sur l’économie, et la thĂ©orie de la « Critical Social Justice Â» usurpe en fait l’analyse Ă©conomique et l’obscurcit pour l’utiliser au service de son approche particuliĂšre de la politique identitaire. Pour ĂȘtre plus prĂ©cis Ă  ce sujet, par exemple, il est extrĂȘmement Ă©vident que les causes Ă©conomiques sont Ă  l’origine de nombreux phĂ©nomĂšnes que les thĂ©oriciens critiques de la race appellent le « racisme systĂ©mique Â», mais ils utilisent le fait qu’il existe des diffĂ©rences statistiques Ă©conomiques selon la race pour affirmer que le racisme (et non l’exploitation capitaliste) seraient les causes ultimes de ces diffĂ©rences. Ainsi, ils instrumentalisent la classe pour y substituer le site d’oppression sur lequel ils sont en fait obsessionnellement focalisĂ©s, c’est-Ă -dire la race, et effacent ainsi toute possibilitĂ© d’analyse libĂ©rale, rationnelle, voire matĂ©rialiste ou marxiste des problĂšmes sous-jacents. (Trad. D.R.)

The Complex Relationship Between Marxism and Wokeness (La relation complexe entre marxisme et wokisme)


Le wokisme Ă  son pire peut ĂȘtre qualifiĂ© de parareligion moderne. Selon ma dĂ©finition, une parareligion est une idĂ©ologie qui n’est pas une religion au strict sens du terme, car l’aspect surnaturel y est absent, mais qui nĂ©anmoins se comporte quelque peu comme une religion en manifestant quelques-unes des caractĂ©ristiques suivantes, typiques des religions :

  • Le dogmatisme, un rejet de la raison.
  • Une tendance Ă  faire des assertions non falsifiables, c’est-Ă -dire des hypothĂšses qui ne peuvent jamais ĂȘtre rĂ©futĂ©es et sont donc dĂ©nuĂ©es de sens. Exemple : « Dieu Â» est responsable de tout : si de bonnes choses arrivent, alors remercions « Dieu Â» — cependant dans le cas d’un Ă©vĂ©nement malheureux, on dit que les voies du « Seigneur Â» sont mystĂ©rieuses.
  • Le manichĂ©isme, une vision du monde divisĂ©e en bien et mal absolus, niant les nuances morales et les ambiguĂŻtĂ©s.
  • Le moralisme ou la moraline, une obsession pour la moralitĂ© personnelle, niant encore une fois les complexitĂ©s morales.
  • Des privilĂšges accordĂ©s aux adhĂ©rents, s’opposant ainsi Ă  l’universalisme.
  • Le culte de la personnalitĂ©, soit le culte des dieux ou des dĂ©esses, soit la dĂ©ification des dirigeants humains.
  • Etc.

Voici un exemple de parareligion : le communisme autoritaire du genre stalinien, maoĂŻste ou nord-corĂ©en, oĂč le dogmatisme et le culte de la personnalitĂ© sont particuliĂšrement en Ă©vidence. Diverses pseudosciences comme l’homĂ©opathie, l’astrologie, etc. et plusieurs thĂ©ories complotistes peuvent aussi ĂȘtre qualifiĂ©es de parareligions.

La Parareligion des woke

La parareligion des woke affiche la plupart des caractĂ©ristiques Ă©numĂ©rĂ©es ci-dessus (mais sans le culte de la personnalitĂ©). Elle est extrĂȘmement dogmatique, manichĂ©enne et moraliste. Bien qu’elle prĂ©tende valoriser la « diversitĂ© Â», elle s’oppose fanatiquement Ă  toute diversitĂ© intellectuelle et tout dĂ©bat d’idĂ©es. Ce fanatisme se manifeste dans la soi-disant « cancel culture Â» qui se rĂ©sume Ă  la censure sociale de toute personne qui ne soit pas d’accord avec les dogmes woke ou dont le comportement aurait Ă©tĂ© jugĂ© moralement douteux (sommairement, sans traitement Ă©quitable). Les woke affichent une hostilitĂ© obsessionnelle aux gens qu’ils considĂšrent privilĂ©giĂ©s (les Blancs, les hommes, etc.) et ont comme programme de privilĂ©gier en revanche l’autre pĂŽle. Ainsi, ils accordent aux minoritĂ©s raciales et autres, voire aux minoritĂ©s religieuses comme les musulmans, des prĂ©venances particuliĂšres, tout comme le judaĂŻsme prenait les HĂ©breux pour peuple Ă©lu de dieu. Cette manie implique l’abandon de l’universalisme qui prĂŽne l’égalitĂ© de tous et de toutes, sans Ă©gard Ă  la race, le sexe, etc.

Le mouvement « antiraciste Â» woke est anti-universaliste et raciste

Les woke ont une obsession pour les minoritĂ©s et pour l’identitĂ© personnelle, au dĂ©triment de notre humanitĂ© commune. L’intersectionnalitĂ© combinĂ©e au multiculturalisme et aux autres ingrĂ©dients de la mentalitĂ© woke crĂ©ent un mĂ©lange toxique qui accorde une trop grande importance aux minoritĂ©s et amĂšne au mĂ©pris des majoritĂ©s et de l’universel. Certaines minoritĂ©s sont favorisĂ©es obsessivement et jouissent d’une quasi impunitĂ©, tandis que les majoritĂ©s correspondantes sont dĂ©nigrĂ©es. Ainsi, le mouvement antiraciste actuel est lui-mĂȘme devenu raciste. En outre, de maniĂšre vĂ©ritablement parareligieuse, les soi-disant antiracistes les plus extrĂȘmes prĂŽnent l’hypothĂšse non-falsifiable que le racisme serait littĂ©ralement omniprĂ©sent. Au lieu de se demander si le racisme serait prĂ©sent dans une situation donnĂ©e, ils demandent plutĂŽt « OĂč est le racisme ici ? Â» en supposant qu’il n’est jamais absent. Le rĂ©sultat est une politique de culpabilitĂ© et de paranoĂŻa. Cette approche est absurde, car si le racisme est toujours prĂ©sent, alors ce mot perd tout sens objectif.

Remontons un demi-siĂšcle ou plus dans le temps, Ă  l’époque du mouvement des droits civils, si essentiel pour la lutte contre le racisme anti-Noirs aux États-Unis, en particulier dans les États du sud. Les opposants de droite accusaient parfois les militants antiracistes de « racisme inversĂ© Â» contre les non-Noirs. De mĂȘme, Ă  l’apogĂ©e du fĂ©minisme de deuxiĂšme vague, ceux qui s’opposaient Ă  l’égalitĂ© des sexes accusaient parfois les fĂ©ministes de haĂŻr les hommes. Dans les deux cas, il s’agissait de tentatives Ă©videntes de dĂ©nigrer la lutte antiraciste et le fĂ©minisme. Personne n’a Ă©tĂ© dupe d’une telle tromperie Ă©vidente. Les deux mouvements Ă©taient universalistes, promouvant l’égalitĂ© des droits pour les Noirs et pour les femmes sans s’attaquer aux non-Noirs ou aux hommes. Cependant, la situation est aujourd’hui bien diffĂ©rente. Compte tenu de l’obsession identitaire, en particulier de l’identitĂ© minoritaire qui caractĂ©rise la mentalitĂ© woke, le dĂ©nigrement des Blancs, des hommes et des autres groupes non minoritaires est devenu la norme.

Les woke s’attaquent aux privilùges au lieu de lutter contre la discrimination

L’une des maximes de la mentalitĂ© woke est le concept de « privilĂšge blanc Â». C’est comme faire de l’antiracisme Ă  reculons. Si les soi-disant Blancs ont l’avantage de ne pas ĂȘtre cibles de discrimination, ce n’est pas un privilĂšge ; c’est plutĂŽt un droit, un droit humain fondamental. Si les Noirs sont discriminĂ©s, ce n’est pas un manque de privilĂšge, mais plutĂŽt un dĂ©ni de droits. L’approche correcte Ă  l’antiracisme est de promouvoir l’égalitĂ© des droits pour tous, universellement, quel que soit le groupe racial, et de s’opposer Ă  la discrimination contre tout groupe. Mettre l’accent sur le privilĂšge blanc mĂšne Ă  une politique de culpabilitĂ© et de ressentiment, renforçant indirectement la droite politique.

Au lieu de l’égalitĂ©, c’est-Ă -dire l’égalitĂ© des chances, les woke prĂŽnent l’équitĂ©, ce qui implique l’égalitĂ© des rĂ©sultats. De plus, si l’égalitĂ© des rĂ©sultats n’est pas atteinte, et ce n’est pratiquement jamais le cas, les woke supposent gĂ©nĂ©ralement que la cause de cette situation doit forcĂ©ment ĂȘtre un prĂ©jugĂ© comme le racisme ou le sexisme. Ainsi, si une profession ne prĂ©sente pas la mĂȘme diversitĂ© dĂ©mographique que la population gĂ©nĂ©rale, on suppose que les prĂ©jugĂ©s en sont la cause. C’est irrationnel car, comme l’explique James Lindsay :

cela est littĂ©ralement impossible sans une ingĂ©nierie sociale Ă  grande Ă©chelle comprenant des quotas forcĂ©s. (La variation stochastique, c’est-Ă -dire le bruit alĂ©atoire dans le systĂšme, devrait rendre un alignement parfait avec les pourcentages dĂ©mographiques dominants extrĂȘmement improbable, aprĂšs tout, mĂȘme si le systĂšme Ă©tait parfaitement exempt de diffĂ©rence et de discrimination de toutes sortes.) Cela signifie que « l’équitĂ© Â» implique l’utilisation des quotas fondĂ©s sur l’identitĂ© et une ingĂ©nierie sociale vigoureuse pour les atteindre. (Trad. D.R.)

The Diversity Delusion (L’illusion de la diversitĂ©)

C’est Ă  cause de cette imposture que James Damore a Ă©tĂ© renvoyĂ© par Google. Il a rĂ©digĂ© un document plutĂŽt inoffensif dans lequel il suggĂ©rait qu’une partie de l’explication du faible nombre de femmes dans les postes de dĂ©veloppement de logiciels pourrait ĂȘtre les prĂ©fĂ©rences des femmes. En d’autres termes, le sexisme n’est peut-ĂȘtre pas la seule explication. Mais de telles idĂ©es sont un blasphĂšme pour les woke, alors Damore a Ă©tĂ© congĂ©diĂ©.

Les woke s’opposent Ă  la laĂŻcitĂ©

Cet abandon des idĂ©aux des LumiĂšres et ce rejet des valeurs de gauche par les woke arrivent Ă  leur apogĂ©e avec l’opposition des woke Ă  la laĂŻcitĂ©. Leur obsession pour les minoritĂ©s s’étend mĂȘme aux minoritĂ©s religieuses. Les woke ont tendance Ă  confondre race et religion, ce qui revient Ă  jeter par-dessus bord la libertĂ© de conscience et Ă  condamner chaque individu Ă  la religion dans laquelle il a eu la malchance de naĂźtre. Cette racialisation de l’appartenance religieuse fait le jeu des fondamentalistes, en particulier des islamistes.

Avec l’ajout de l’islamogauchisme au mĂ©lange woke, les musulmans, surtout les plus pieux et mĂȘme les fondamentalistes, se voient accorder une prioritĂ© spĂ©ciale et une impunitĂ©. Cela conduit Ă  une complaisance extrĂȘme Ă  l’égard de l’islam et de l’islamisme. La soi-disant « islamophobie Â» est condamnĂ©e. L’ensemble du processus est rendu encore plus toxique par la non-reconnaissance de certaines minoritĂ©s. Par exemple, les musulmans laĂŻques sont ignorĂ©s, car ils ne correspondent pas au stĂ©rĂ©otype musulman vĂ©hiculĂ© par les woke, oĂč les femmes sont toutes voilĂ©es et oĂč les hommes prĂ©sentent aussi une allure stĂ©rĂ©otypĂ©e, etc. Les ex-musulmans sont encore plus dĂ©nigrĂ©s.

Que ferait une vĂ©ritable gauche ?

Une approche vĂ©ritablement de gauche en matiĂšre de religion consisterait Ă  dĂ©fendre la libertĂ© de conscience, qui comprend Ă  la fois la libertĂ© de religion et la libertĂ© de s’affranchir de la religion, tout en critiquant toute religion, franchement et rĂ©solument. Cela signifie, par exemple, que les trois monothĂ©ismes abrahamiques — le judaĂŻsme, le christianisme et l’islam, pour les nommer par ordre historique — devraient ĂȘtre rĂ©guliĂšrement la cible de critiques de gauche car, pris ensemble, ils reprĂ©sentent le bloc religieux le plus important sur le planĂšte. L’idĂ©e mĂȘme que l’islam devrait jouir d’une sorte d’immunitĂ© contre la critique, ou que le christianisme devrait ĂȘtre ciblĂ© beaucoup plus souvent, est totalement incompatible avec la laĂŻcitĂ© qui est une valeur fondamentale issue des LumiĂšres. Et pourtant, c’est prĂ©cisĂ©ment l’approche woke : soustraire l’islam Ă  la critique parce qu’il est considĂ©rĂ© comme la religion des opprimĂ©s. La diffusion du terme absurde « islamophobie Â» est une manifestation flagrante des privilĂšges que les woke accordent Ă  l’islam.

Un mariage de déraison

L’histoire d’amour entre les woke et l’islam n’est pas la seule illustration de l’abandon de la gauche par les woke, mais c’est une comĂ©die particuliĂšrement flagrante et Ă©hontĂ©e. Les woke facilitent et soutiennent l’islam fondamentaliste, une idĂ©ologie politico-religieuse d’extrĂȘme droite qui se trouve politiquement Ă  la droite du nazisme, et ils le font au moins indirectement et parfois mĂȘme directement. Un exemple de ceci est l’acceptation de Linda Sarsour en tant que leader de la « gauche Â» anti-Trump.

L’antilaĂŻcitĂ© des woke est particuliĂšrement Ă©vidente dans leur opposition fanatique Ă  la Loi 21 au QuĂ©bec, une lĂ©gislation que les woke vilipendent sans mĂȘme essayer d’en comprendre les enjeux pertinents. Les soutiens Ă  la laĂŻcitĂ© dans le monde anglophone ont toujours Ă©tĂ© faibles, mais maintenant, avec l’avĂšnement de la mentalitĂ© woke qui confond race et religion, la situation est encore pire. Certains antisĂ©cularistes vont mĂȘme jusqu’à accuser la laĂŻcitĂ© d’ĂȘtre « raciste Â». Au Canada hors QuĂ©bec, plusieurs organisations prĂ©tendument laĂŻques sont victimes de cette arnaque et ont abandonnĂ© la laĂŻcitĂ©.

Les woke font le jeu de la droite politique

La vision du monde manichĂ©enne des woke, oĂč tout se divise entre le bien et le mal absolus, les conduit Ă  calomnier quiconque serait en dĂ©saccord avec eux, les accusant d’ĂȘtre « xĂ©nophobes Â», « racistes Â» ou « fascistes Â». C’est une attitude trĂšs infantile. Leurs accusations contre leurs critiques perdent toute crĂ©dibilitĂ©. Les gens raisonnables qui voient bien ce qui se passe peuvent ĂȘtre intimidĂ©s, au point de se taire, mais ils se rendent tout de mĂȘme compte que beaucoup de ceux qui se disent actuellement de gauche sont destructeurs et insensĂ©s. Cela conduit beaucoup qui seraient normalement des sympathisants de gauche Ă  considĂ©rer le centre politique ou la droite. C’est l’une des raisons qui expliquent l’élection de Donald Trump en 2016.

La droite politique confond souvent les woke et la gauche politique. Il n’y a rien de surprenant en cela, car cette confusion sert leurs intĂ©rĂȘts. Étant donnĂ© que les woke, ou du moins les plus pieux des woke, sont Ă©videmment des fanatiques irrationnels, leur coller une Ă©tiquette « gauchiste Â» discrĂ©dite la gauche et fait mieux paraĂźtre la droite politique en comparaison.

Je suis convaincu que Martin Luther King Jr. et Karl Marx seraient tous les deux outrĂ©s par l’irrationalitĂ© de le fanatisme des woke.

Les woke ont trahi la gauche

La mentalitĂ© « woke Â» est rĂ©actionnaire et rĂ©trograde, une dĂ©gĂ©nĂ©rescence de la gauche politique en un culte qui s’apparente parfois davantage Ă  la droite politique, parfois alliĂ© Ă  l’extrĂȘme droite religieuse, et gĂ©nĂ©ralement perdu dans un territoire bizarre et mal cartographiĂ©. Les woke ont trahi la gauche. Ils ont abandonnĂ© l’universalisme, l’objectivitĂ©, la laĂŻcitĂ© et la libertĂ© d’expression. Tout en prĂ©tendant promouvoir la diversitĂ© et l’inclusion, en rĂ©alitĂ© les woke sont puritains, dogmatiques, fermĂ©s d’esprit et extrĂȘmement intolĂ©rants, constamment chasseurs de sorciĂšres. Ils ont en grande partie laissĂ© tomber les questions d’économie et de classe. Ayant remplacĂ© les problĂšmes Ă©conomiques par une racialisation obsessionnelle de tout, ils voient du racisme partout, mais seulement les formes de racisme qu’ils reconnaissent dans l’histoire des États-Unis, car ils sont trĂšs bornĂ©s, voyant tout Ă  travers une lentille amĂ©ricaine. Les woke rĂ©pondent Ă  presque tout dĂ©saccord par des accusations ridicules. Ils ne tolĂšrent aucune dissidence. La diversitĂ© intellectuelle leur est Ă©trangĂšre. Leur obsession pour les minoritĂ©s et leur anti-universalisme conduisent inĂ©vitablement Ă  la fragmentation et Ă  la division.

Le « wokisme Â» est un dĂ©sastre pour la gauche, conduisant Ă  sa quasi destruction. Nous avons maintenant devant nous la tĂąche de reconstruire la gauche sur les valeurs universalistes des LumiĂšres.

Wokisme ≈ Post-gauchisme ≈ Post-Marxisme + Postmodernisme

Prochain billet de blogue : Le prosĂ©lytisme passif