Tag: postmodernism

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. (Ce blogue est disponible en français : Quatorze observations à propos de la post-gauche.)

  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-Côté.

    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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.

    6. 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…

  6. 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.

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

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

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

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

    11. 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.

  11. 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.

    12. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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:

Other Links

  • Le wokisme, ce recul déguisé en progrès (“Wokism, this regress disguised as progress”), Marc Simard, Libre Média, 2022-10-08.
    “In fact, interbreeding is a threat to wokism, whose worldview is deeply rooted in racial affiliation. Racial mixing is the nemesis of the woke.”
  • The Cancer of Wokeism, Kareem Muhssin, Alliance of Former Muslims (Ireland), 2021-01-02.
    “If we want to defeat racism, then we must get over our obsession with race. We must stop seeing each other as victims or oppressors, and recognise that we are individuals with agency. We must stop looking for racism where it doesn’t exist, and start focusing on issues of substance.”

Next blog: Pauline Marois : Prix international de la laïcité 2022

The CRTC, Pierre Vallières and Postmodernism

The recent CRTC decision, reprimanding Radio-Canada, is unjust and foolish.

2022-07-03 (Link added 2022-07-04)

Instead of puritanical censorship of mere words, we need to be able to discuss freely racism in general and, in particular, the issues raised by Pierre Vallières’ famous 1968 book, in which he drew parallels between anti-Black racism in the USA and anti-Francophone prejudice in Canada.

Sommaire en français Au lieu d’une censure puritaine des mots, nous devons pouvoir discuter librement du racisme en général et, en particulier, des questions soulevées par le livre célèbre de Pierre Vallières de 1968, dans lequel il établit un parallèle entre le racisme anti-Noirs aux États-Unis et le préjugé anti-francophones au Canada.

Recently (2022-06-29) the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) reprimanded Radio-Canada for using the word « nègre » during a radio show without sufficient warning to listeners, calling on the broadcaster to make a formal apology. The word was used in the title of a book being discussed. Fortunately, two members of the Commission disagree with the majority decision and reject the complaint against R-C.

Unfortunately, the controversy over a mere word has obscured the real issue: the ideas in the book whose title contained the word. The Radio-Canada radio broadcast (2020-08-17) discussed those ideas, but the recent CRTC reprimand contains only condemnation of use of the word, without discussion of context. So we need to recall that context.

In 1966, Pierre Vallières, writer, journalist and FLQ activist (Front de Libération du Québec), took refuge in the USA with the help of the Black Panthers. He was arrested for participating in a demonstration before UN headquarters in New York City and was imprisoned for several months. During that period in prison, he wrote the now famous book Nègres blancs d’Amérique, published in 1968, in which he drew certain parallels between the situation of French-speaking Québécois in Canada and Blacks in the USA and expressed solidarity between the two liberation movements.

The word « nègre » in French is roughly equivalent to the English word “negro” which was considered correct at the time. If you put « sale » (dirty) in front of it, then the French word becomes racist, but of course you could put « sale » in front of « blanc » or any other colour and the result could be a racist insult. But taken alone, « nègre » does not have the extreme racist connotations and enormous emotional charge of that other English word, six letters beginning with “n” and ending with “r” and which I cannot even mention here without risking serious repercussions. However, when Vallières’ book was published in English translation, it was precisely that very strong n-word which the publisher chose to use in the title. I assume they did so because they wanted the title to be hard-hitting and highly charged. I think they succeeded.

Francophone men in Quebec were in a slightly worse position (compared to Anglophones) than Afro-American men in the USA (relative to whites).

Vallières’ parallel between the Québécois and Afro-Americans was not spurious. It is important to recall the economic situation of Francophones in Quebec at the time. In the 1960s, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, known also as the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, was set up by the federal government to study the relative situations of the English and French languages and cultures in Canada. Among its findings were that, in 1960, in Quebec, the average employment income of unilingual French-speaking men was 51% of that of unilingual men of British descent. At the same time, in the United States, the average employment income of black men was 56% of that of white men. In other words, Francophone men in Quebec were in a slightly worse position (compared to Anglophones) than Afro-American men in the USA (relative to whites).

This was not to suggest that the two situations were identical. The history of slavery in the USA and the racist propaganda which was used to legitimize the enslavement of Blacks are specific to that country. Vallières’ intent was to express solidarity among oppressed peoples, not to ignore the variety of different forms of oppression.

The CRTC’s dreadful decision to censure Radio-Canada for merely quoting a book title is not the first time that antiracist intentions have degenerated into puritanical censorship. Remember the dismissal of Wendy Mesley in 2020 for quoting Vallières’ title. (And I understand this occurred during a preparatory meeting, not even on the air!) Let us hope that Radio-Canada management does not capitulate and respond with the same abject cowardice which the CBC displayed in the Mesley case.

We should also not forget that this Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was the seed from which the Canadian Multiculturalism Act eventually developed. But that development was a corruption of the original intent. Biculturalism began as a consideration of Canada’s two founding European peoples, the British and French. But over time, that concept faded, to be replaced by multiculturalism which reduced the French to just one minority culture among many, thus assuring the dominance of English language and culture in Canada.

Antisecularism and Postmodernism

Although the situation has evolved considerably since Vallières’ time, anti-Québécois prejudice is nevertheless still present today. It has been recycled and weaponized by antisecularists in order to denigrate Quebec’s secular legislation, Bill 21. In fact, obscuring the content of Vallières’ analysis by censoring its title, as the CRTC is attempting to do, plays right into the hands of those antisecularists. Some particularly dishonest opponents of Bill 21 even accuse that law (and by implication, Quebecers who strongly support it) of “racism.” Their hypocrisy is blatant, for it is they who are using a racist prejudice to oppose the law.

…the obsession with “offensive” words is a particular preoccupation of the anti-Enlightenment pseudo-left…

In general, the obsession with “offensive” words is a particular preoccupation of the anti-Enlightenment pseudo-left (a.k.a. the “woke”). It is based on the postmodernist idea of the power of language. As Pluckrose and Lindsay explain in Cynical Theories (page 60),

“The power and danger of language are foregrounded in all the new applied postmodern Theories. […] the idea that words are powerful and dangerous has now become widespread and underlies much scholarship and activism around discursive (or verbal) violence, safe spaces, microaggressions, and trigger warnings.”

Put succinctly, the “woke” choose to conflate words with physical violence.

In this particular case, pseudo-leftists refuse to recognize the existence of the anti-Québécois prejudice which Vallières denounced in his title because most Québécois have the wrong skin colour. Furthermore, pseudo-leftists tend to be resolutely antisecular by virtue of their racialization of religious affiliation. Objecting to an “offensive” word in the title is a convenient distraction from the issues which Vallières raised.

Relevant Links

Next blog: Stillbirth, The Failure of Secularism in the English-Speaking World

The “Woke” are Not the Political Left

A movement which abandons Enlightenment values is no longer progressive.

2021-05-14
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 (Assemblée 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 régime. 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]

Parareligion

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 (laïcité) 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. Bastié, Eugénie; Pascal Bruckner: « La seule identité encore autorisée pour les blancs est l’identité de contrition » (“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
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_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 » ne sont pas de gauche

2020-09-18
2021-02-21 : Corrections mineures
2023-05-22 : Correction mineure

La soi-disant « gauche » régressive, connue couramment comme les « woke », ne fait pas partie de la gauche politique. Elle a quitté la gauche au moment où elle a renoncé aux valeurs des Lumières.

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

L’expression « woke » relève de l’argot des Afro-Américains et veut dire politiquement éveillé, politiquement conscient, surtout en matière de justice sociale. Mais, depuis un certain temps, ce terme a acquis une signification bien plus large et fait désormais référence au courant de pensée qui prédomine 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 », « diversitaire » ou « intersectionnelle », il s’agit de ce mouvement qui s’appellerait « woke » en anglais.) Pourtant, cette école de pensée n’est en réalité pas de la gauche politique car elle a abandonné les valeurs des Lumières.

Ces idéaux des Lumières comprennent la raison, la tolérance, la liberté, le progrès, l’universalisme, les droits humains et la laïcité. Pris collectivement, on les appelle couramment le modernisme. Les Lumières nous ont donné 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 libéralisme, le marxisme, la science et la technologie modernes, la Constitution américaine, la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen (France, 1789) et la loi sur la laïcité (France, 1905), la Déclaration 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 » et « droite » au sens politique trouvent leur origine dans la disposition des sièges à l’Assemblée nationale constituante pendant la Révolution française à partir de 1789. Les députés assis du côté gauche de la chambre étaient en général des sympathisants de la révolution, du républicanisme et de la laïcité, tandis que ceux du côté droit restaient plutôt fidèles à la monarchie, au clergé et aux institutions traditionnelles de l’Ancien régime. Ces deux pôles correspondent grosso modo soit à un appui aux valeurs des Lumières, soit à une opposition à celles-ci, les Lumières étant un mouvement intellectuel et philosophique qui s’était répandu dans toute l’Europe durant environ un siècle. En effet, la Révolution française était elle-même un produit de ce mouvement, tout comme les révolutions américaine, haïtienne et russe.

Ainsi, la gauche politique fait référence à ceux qui appuyaient les valeurs des Lumières tandis que la droite politique englobait ceux qui s’y opposaient. Le même schéma général s’applique aujourd’hui. La gauche et la droite politiques sont définies respectivement par le soutien et l’opposition aux idéaux des Lumières. Si un courant de gauche abandonne ces idéaux, alors il n’est plus de gauche. Telle est la situation du wokisme, si je peux l’appeler ainsi, également connu par plusieurs autres surnoms tels que « la (pseudo)gauche régressive » et, mon terme préféré, la « pseudogauche anti-Lumières ». Il ne reste plus grand-chose de gauche chez les woke sauf leur prétention. Leur mentalité est devenue dominante parmi ceux qui se disent de la gauche et même du centre. Il ne reste (presque) plus de (réelle) gauche.

Les racines politiques et philosophiques du wokisme

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

  • L’Intersectionnalité, une obsession pour les identités personnelles, en particulier les identités minoritaires, et qui revient à un système de points simpliste pour déterminer qui a la chance d’avoir le plus de points d’oppression.
  • Le Multiculturalisme, ou le relativisme culturel, une idéologie politique anti-universaliste qui accorde davantage d’importance à l’appartenance ethnique ou religieuse de l’individu qu’à ses droits universels ou sa citoyenneté.
  • Le Postmodernisme, une philosophie associée au relativisme culturel et inspirée par un scepticisme à l’égard des idées modernistes d’objectivité, de rationalisme et de savoir.
  • Le Défaitisme post-marxiste, une dégénérescence du marxisme, résultant de l’incapacité du marxisme à tenir sa promesse d’un avenir plus lumineux basé sur les idéaux des Lumières. Cela a conduit à blâmer et à rejeter les Lumières elles-mêmes. Aussi connu sous le nom de néo-marxisme, de marxisme culturel ou de post-marxisme culturel.
  • L’Islamogauchisme, une extension du point précédent, une dégénérescence supplémentaire du post-marxisme, dans laquelle la priorité traditionnellement accordée à la classe et à l’économie est désormais remplacée par la défense des minorités, en particulier des musulmans.

Ainsi, la mentalité woke dérive, en partie du moins, de la pensée gauchiste, mais elle en est une perversion et une dégénérescence. En particulier, le wokisme n’est pas marxiste. Le bilan du marxisme regorge de conséquences négatives et douteuses, mais vous ne pouvez pas tenir le marxisme responsable des folies des woke. Pour le dire succinctement, la mentalité woke est une sorte de « post-gauchisme » qui se résume approximativement à un mélange de post-marxisme et de postmodernisme.

L’auteur américain James Lindsay, qui a étudié en profondeur ces questions, résume ainsi la situation :

Le marxisme est une théorie sociale basée sur l’économie, et la théorie de la « Critical Social Justice » usurpe en fait l’analyse économique et l’obscurcit pour l’utiliser au service de son approche particulière de la politique identitaire. Pour être plus précis à ce sujet, par exemple, il est extrêmement évident que les causes économiques sont à l’origine de nombreux phénomènes que les théoriciens critiques de la race appellent le « racisme systémique », mais ils utilisent le fait qu’il existe des différences statistiques économiques selon la race pour affirmer que le racisme (et non l’exploitation capitaliste) seraient les causes ultimes de ces différences. Ainsi, ils instrumentalisent la classe pour y substituer le site d’oppression sur lequel ils sont en fait obsessionnellement focalisés, c’est-à-dire la race, et effacent ainsi toute possibilité d’analyse libérale, rationnelle, voire matérialiste ou marxiste des problèmes sous-jacents. (Trad. D.R.)

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

Parareligion

Le wokisme à son pire peut être qualifié de parareligion moderne. Selon ma définition, une parareligion est une idéologie qui n’est pas une religion au strict sens du terme, car l’aspect surnaturel y est absent, mais qui néanmoins se comporte quelque peu comme une religion en manifestant quelques-unes des caractéristiques suivantes, typiques des religions :

  • Le dogmatisme, un rejet de la raison.
  • Une tendance à faire des assertions non falsifiables, c’est-à-dire des hypothèses qui ne peuvent jamais être réfutées et sont donc dénuées de sens. Exemple : « Dieu » est responsable de tout : si de bonnes choses arrivent, alors remercions « Dieu » — cependant dans le cas d’un événement malheureux, on dit que les voies du « Seigneur » sont mystérieuses.
  • Le manichéisme, une vision du monde divisée en bien et mal absolus, niant les nuances morales et les ambiguïtés.
  • Le moralisme ou la moraline, une obsession pour la moralité personnelle, niant encore une fois les complexités morales.
  • Des privilèges accordés aux adhérents, s’opposant ainsi à l’universalisme.
  • Le culte de la personnalité, soit le culte des dieux ou des déesses, soit la déification des dirigeants humains.
  • Etc.

Voici un exemple de parareligion : le communisme autoritaire du genre stalinien, maoïste ou nord-coréen, où le dogmatisme et le culte de la personnalité sont particulièrement en évidence. Diverses pseudosciences comme l’homéopathie, l’astrologie, etc. et plusieurs théories complotistes peuvent aussi être qualifiées de parareligions.

La Parareligion des woke

La parareligion des woke affiche la plupart des caractéristiques énumérées ci-dessus (mais sans le culte de la personnalité). Elle est extrêmement dogmatique, manichéenne et moraliste. Bien qu’elle prétende valoriser la « diversité », elle s’oppose fanatiquement à toute diversité intellectuelle et tout débat d’idées. Ce fanatisme se manifeste dans la soi-disant « cancel culture » qui se résume à la censure sociale de toute personne qui ne soit pas d’accord avec les dogmes woke ou dont le comportement aurait été jugé moralement douteux (sommairement, sans traitement équitable). Les woke affichent une hostilité obsessionnelle aux gens qu’ils considèrent privilégiés (les Blancs, les hommes, etc.) et ont comme programme de privilégier en revanche l’autre pôle. Ainsi, ils accordent aux minorités raciales et autres, voire aux minorités religieuses comme les musulmans, des prévenances particulières, tout comme le judaïsme prenait les Hébreux pour peuple élu de dieu. Cette manie implique l’abandon de l’universalisme qui prône l’égalité de tous et de toutes, sans égard à la race, le sexe, etc.

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

Les woke ont une obsession pour les minorités et pour l’identité personnelle, au détriment de notre humanité commune. L’intersectionnalité combinée au multiculturalisme et aux autres ingrédients de la mentalité woke créent un mélange toxique qui accorde une trop grande importance aux minorités et amène au mépris des majorités et de l’universel. Certaines minorités sont favorisées obsessivement et jouissent d’une quasi impunité, tandis que les majorités correspondantes sont dénigrées. Ainsi, le mouvement antiraciste actuel est lui-même devenu raciste. En outre, de manière véritablement parareligieuse, les soi-disant antiracistes les plus extrêmes prônent l’hypothèse non-falsifiable que le racisme serait littéralement omniprésent. Au lieu de se demander si le racisme serait présent dans une situation donnée, ils demandent plutôt « Où est le racisme ici ? » en supposant qu’il n’est jamais absent. Le résultat est une politique de culpabilité et de paranoïa. Cette approche est absurde, car si le racisme est toujours présent, alors ce mot perd tout sens objectif.

Remontons un demi-siècle ou plus dans le temps, à 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 inversé » contre les non-Noirs. De même, à l’apogée du féminisme de deuxième vague, ceux qui s’opposaient à l’égalité des sexes accusaient parfois les féministes de haïr les hommes. Dans les deux cas, il s’agissait de tentatives évidentes de dénigrer la lutte antiraciste et le féminisme. Personne n’a été dupe d’une telle tromperie évidente. Les deux mouvements étaient universalistes, promouvant l’égalité 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 différente. Compte tenu de l’obsession identitaire, en particulier de l’identité minoritaire qui caractérise la mentalité woke, le dénigrement des Blancs, des hommes et des autres groupes non minoritaires est devenu la norme.

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

L’une des maximes de la mentalité woke est le concept de « privilège blanc ». C’est comme faire de l’antiracisme à reculons. Si les soi-disant Blancs ont l’avantage de ne pas être cibles de discrimination, ce n’est pas un privilège ; c’est plutôt un droit, un droit humain fondamental. Si les Noirs sont discriminés, ce n’est pas un manque de privilège, mais plutôt un déni de droits. L’approche correcte à l’antiracisme est de promouvoir l’égalité des droits pour tous, universellement, quel que soit le groupe racial, et de s’opposer à la discrimination contre tout groupe. Mettre l’accent sur le privilège blanc mène à une politique de culpabilité et de ressentiment, renforçant indirectement la droite politique.

Au lieu de l’égalité, c’est-à-dire l’égalité des chances, les woke prônent l’équité, ce qui implique l’égalité des résultats. De plus, si l’égalité des résultats n’est pas atteinte, et ce n’est pratiquement jamais le cas, les woke supposent généralement que la cause de cette situation doit forcément être un préjugé comme le racisme ou le sexisme. Ainsi, si une profession ne présente pas la même diversité démographique que la population générale, on suppose que les préjugés en sont la cause. C’est irrationnel car, comme l’explique James Lindsay :

cela est littéralement impossible sans une ingénierie sociale à grande échelle comprenant des quotas forcés. (La variation stochastique, c’est-à-dire le bruit aléatoire dans le système, devrait rendre un alignement parfait avec les pourcentages démographiques dominants extrêmement improbable, après tout, même si le système était parfaitement exempt de différence et de discrimination de toutes sortes.) Cela signifie que « l’équité » implique l’utilisation des quotas fondés sur l’identité et une ingénierie sociale vigoureuse pour les atteindre. (Trad. D.R.)

The Diversity Delusion (L’illusion de la diversité)

C’est à cause de cette imposture que James Damore a été renvoyé par Google. Il a rédigé un document plutôt inoffensif dans lequel il suggérait qu’une partie de l’explication du faible nombre de femmes dans les postes de développement de logiciels pourrait être les préférences des femmes. En d’autres termes, le sexisme n’est peut-être pas la seule explication. Mais de telles idées sont un blasphème pour les woke, alors Damore a été congédié.

Les woke s’opposent à la laïcité

Cet abandon des idéaux des Lumières et ce rejet des valeurs de gauche par les woke arrivent à leur apogée avec l’opposition des woke à la laïcité. Leur obsession pour les minorités s’étend même aux minorités religieuses. Les woke ont tendance à confondre race et religion, ce qui revient à jeter par-dessus bord la liberté de conscience et à condamner chaque individu à la religion dans laquelle il a eu la malchance de naître. Cette racialisation de l’appartenance religieuse fait le jeu des fondamentalistes, en particulier des islamistes.

Avec l’ajout de l’islamogauchisme au mélange woke, les musulmans, surtout les plus pieux et même les fondamentalistes, se voient accorder une priorité spéciale et une impunité. Cela conduit à une complaisance extrême à l’égard de l’islam et de l’islamisme. La soi-disant « islamophobie » est condamnée. L’ensemble du processus est rendu encore plus toxique par la non-reconnaissance de certaines minorités. Par exemple, les musulmans laïques sont ignorés, car ils ne correspondent pas au stéréotype musulman véhiculé par les woke, où les femmes sont toutes voilées et où les hommes présentent aussi une allure stéréotypée, etc. Les ex-musulmans sont encore plus dénigrés.

Que ferait une véritable gauche ?

Une approche véritablement de gauche en matière de religion consisterait à défendre la liberté de conscience, qui comprend à la fois la liberté de religion et la liberté de s’affranchir de la religion, tout en critiquant toute religion, franchement et résolument. Cela signifie, par exemple, que les trois monothéismes abrahamiques — le judaïsme, le christianisme et l’islam, pour les nommer par ordre historique — devraient être régulièrement la cible de critiques de gauche car, pris ensemble, ils représentent le bloc religieux le plus important sur le planète. L’idée même que l’islam devrait jouir d’une sorte d’immunité contre la critique, ou que le christianisme devrait être ciblé beaucoup plus souvent, est totalement incompatible avec la laïcité qui est une valeur fondamentale issue des Lumières. Et pourtant, c’est précisément l’approche woke : soustraire l’islam à la critique parce qu’il est considéré comme la religion des opprimés. La diffusion du terme absurde « islamophobie » est une manifestation flagrante des privilèges que les woke accordent à 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 comédie particulièrement flagrante et éhontée. Les woke facilitent et soutiennent l’islam fondamentaliste, une idéologie politico-religieuse d’extrême droite qui se trouve politiquement à la droite du nazisme, et ils le font au moins indirectement et parfois même directement. Un exemple de ceci est l’acceptation de Linda Sarsour en tant que leader de la « gauche » anti-Trump.

L’antilaïcité des woke est particulièrement évidente dans leur opposition fanatique à la Loi 21 au Québec, une législation que les woke vilipendent sans même essayer d’en comprendre les enjeux pertinents. Les soutiens à la laïcité dans le monde anglophone ont toujours été faibles, mais maintenant, avec l’avènement de la mentalité woke qui confond race et religion, la situation est encore pire. Certains antisécularistes vont même jusqu’à accuser la laïcité d’être « raciste ». Au Canada hors Québec, plusieurs organisations prétendument laïques sont victimes de cette arnaque et ont abandonné la laïcité.

Les woke font le jeu de la droite politique

La vision du monde manichéenne des woke, où tout se divise entre le bien et le mal absolus, les conduit à calomnier quiconque serait en désaccord avec eux, les accusant d’être « xénophobes », « racistes » ou « fascistes ». C’est une attitude très infantile. Leurs accusations contre leurs critiques perdent toute crédibilité. Les gens raisonnables qui voient bien ce qui se passe peuvent être intimidés, au point de se taire, mais ils se rendent tout de même compte que beaucoup de ceux qui se disent actuellement de gauche sont destructeurs et insensés. Cela conduit beaucoup qui seraient normalement des sympathisants de gauche à considérer 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 intérêts. Étant donné que les woke, ou du moins les plus pieux des woke, sont évidemment des fanatiques irrationnels, leur coller une étiquette « gauchiste » discrédite la gauche et fait mieux paraître la droite politique en comparaison.

Je suis convaincu que Martin Luther King Jr. et Karl Marx seraient tous les deux outrés par l’irrationalité et le fanatisme des woke.

Les woke ont trahi la gauche

La mentalité « woke » est réactionnaire et rétrograde, une dégénérescence de la gauche politique en un culte qui s’apparente parfois davantage à la droite politique, parfois allié à l’extrême droite religieuse, et généralement perdu dans un territoire bizarre et mal cartographié. Les woke ont trahi la gauche. Ils ont abandonné l’universalisme, l’objectivité, la laïcité et la liberté d’expression. Tout en prétendant promouvoir la diversité et l’inclusion, en réalité les woke sont puritains, dogmatiques, fermés d’esprit et extrêmement intolérants, constamment chasseurs de sorcières. Ils ont en grande partie laissé tomber les questions d’économie et de classe. Ayant remplacé les problèmes économiques 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 très bornés, voyant tout à travers une lentille américaine. Les woke répondent à presque tout désaccord par des accusations ridicules. Ils ne tolèrent aucune dissidence. La diversité intellectuelle leur est étrangère. Leur obsession pour les minorités et leur anti-universalisme conduisent inévitablement à la fragmentation et à la division.

Le « wokisme » est un désastre pour la gauche, conduisant à sa quasi destruction. Nous avons maintenant devant nous la tâche de reconstruire la gauche sur les valeurs universalistes des Lumières.

Wokisme ≈ Post-gauchisme ≈ Post-Marxisme + Postmodernisme

Prochain billet de blogue : Le prosélytisme passif

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 19th 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:

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