I forget if I mentioned this here before, but I think the phrase "woke right" is similar to "fundamentalist atheist". Both of those phrases sound intentionally oxymoronic (and sometimes are explicitly meant to be so), and they both imply that one is mirroring the errors of their opponents.
Someone characterized as "fundamentalist atheist" is supposed to be someone who engages in the same kind of sloppy thinking habits that fundamentalists do. Someone described as "woke right" similarly adopts the kind of slipshod reasoning and other related negative attributes seen on the "woke" left.
Yes, and I think that's a problem because then it looks like you're just doing a childish "I know you are but what am I?" thing, but the parallels are there and people cannot miss them and help relating them.
I asked this question in the comments for your original article. It would help me to understand your argument if you answered it:
Can you give me an example of a contemporary thinker who you believe is clearly a member of the Woke Right (i.e. they fulfill all the bullet points in your original article). I don’t mean just random posters on social media, but someone who writes books or long essays.
The only real example that I saw in the linked articles (in your original article) was Pat Buchanan, who ended his political career before Woke ever existed.
Well, it depends where they are socially as to which criteria they fulfil. The woke on either side tend to operate within their own register. DiAngelo hits the social construction bit very strongly but does not engage in social media dogpiles to get people cancelled. Online activists do all the insane nastiness but don't write books. The Woke Right don't tend to write books or long essays but operate mostly online, but here's an analysis of one.
I've also mentioned Chris Rufo's new book several times. He hits the identitarian stuff much less strongly. Karlyn Borysenko's tribe hits the conspiratorial identitarian stuff strongly
For the post-truth phenomenon generally, you should look to the Trump Administration. Trump and Kennedy engage in outsized denial of objective reality. Musk is the consummate narrative builder. Loomer yelling "Woke Marxist Pope" at the new pope was a good example of the "everybody who disagrees with me is evil" mentality.
"Among the responses to the unveiling of the first American pope this month, there was one that really stood out to me. It came from Laura Loomer, a prominent rightwing activist, conspiracy theorist and unofficial adviser to Donald Trump, in the form of a three-word reply to a 10-year-old post on Pope Leo XIV’s now deleted personal X account: “WOKE MARXIST POPE”.
Loomer was far from the only one to immediately denounce Leo — a man who has voted in Republican primaries, who in 2012 described “a homosexual lifestyle” as “at odds with the gospel” and who in 2016 said that “the promotion of gender ideology is confusing because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist” — as too woke to be the pope. Ryan Selkis, former CEO of crypto research company Messari and fellow Trump fanatic, posted a whole thread on the “new woke pope”, digging up old posts and reposts such as one on carbon emissions (“climate alarmist”!) and another that prayed for George Floyd and his family (“suicidal empathy”!).
This is by now a familiar ritual — trawling through someone’s online history the second they become prominent for evidence of wrongthink; conveniently leaving out any counter-evidence of the thing you are shunning them for; using hyperbole and exaggeration for maximum traction; encouraging pile-ons. Cancel culture, we might call it. Identity politics, perhaps. Or maybe . . . woke?"
Marjorie Taylor Greene doing a good combination of the identitarian determination of who is allowed to speak and the DARVO move here particularly strongly.
That is a helpful analysis. I have come to some conclusions similar to yours about the roots of the postmodern right. The pragmatism connection is key as an umbrella epistemology that tends to erode intellectual standards across the board. Specifically, I would point to (see link) its impact on Rothbard, who has been a key theoretical source behind some prominent ethno-nationalists. I also think this whole strand has been fused with figures like RFK Jr, Greenwald, and the Weinsteins who are best understood as Frankfurtian, New Left relics.
No, recognising biological reality is neither red-pilled nor woke. The latter refers to beliefs about hidden systems of power like gynocracy vs patriarchy, not material facts about sex differences.
I'm using evidence-based epistemology and consistently liberal principles. I suppose the latter could be seen as a theory.
Good post, needs more Matt McManus:
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Post-Modern-Conservatism-Neoliberalism-Reactionary/dp/3030246817
I forget if I mentioned this here before, but I think the phrase "woke right" is similar to "fundamentalist atheist". Both of those phrases sound intentionally oxymoronic (and sometimes are explicitly meant to be so), and they both imply that one is mirroring the errors of their opponents.
Someone characterized as "fundamentalist atheist" is supposed to be someone who engages in the same kind of sloppy thinking habits that fundamentalists do. Someone described as "woke right" similarly adopts the kind of slipshod reasoning and other related negative attributes seen on the "woke" left.
Both phrases imply a sort of hypocrisy.
Yes, and I think that's a problem because then it looks like you're just doing a childish "I know you are but what am I?" thing, but the parallels are there and people cannot miss them and help relating them.
Well argued. Thanks for doing the drudgery work drilling down into this. This is a lot of very clear thinking and I bet good coffee was involved.
You had to ruin it at the end there, didn’t you?
Sorry so sorry
-_-
I asked this question in the comments for your original article. It would help me to understand your argument if you answered it:
Can you give me an example of a contemporary thinker who you believe is clearly a member of the Woke Right (i.e. they fulfill all the bullet points in your original article). I don’t mean just random posters on social media, but someone who writes books or long essays.
The only real example that I saw in the linked articles (in your original article) was Pat Buchanan, who ended his political career before Woke ever existed.
Well, it depends where they are socially as to which criteria they fulfil. The woke on either side tend to operate within their own register. DiAngelo hits the social construction bit very strongly but does not engage in social media dogpiles to get people cancelled. Online activists do all the insane nastiness but don't write books. The Woke Right don't tend to write books or long essays but operate mostly online, but here's an analysis of one.
https://shenviapologetics.com/what-is-the-woke-right/
I've also mentioned Chris Rufo's new book several times. He hits the identitarian stuff much less strongly. Karlyn Borysenko's tribe hits the conspiratorial identitarian stuff strongly
For the post-truth phenomenon generally, you should look to the Trump Administration. Trump and Kennedy engage in outsized denial of objective reality. Musk is the consummate narrative builder. Loomer yelling "Woke Marxist Pope" at the new pope was a good example of the "everybody who disagrees with me is evil" mentality.
"Among the responses to the unveiling of the first American pope this month, there was one that really stood out to me. It came from Laura Loomer, a prominent rightwing activist, conspiracy theorist and unofficial adviser to Donald Trump, in the form of a three-word reply to a 10-year-old post on Pope Leo XIV’s now deleted personal X account: “WOKE MARXIST POPE”.
Loomer was far from the only one to immediately denounce Leo — a man who has voted in Republican primaries, who in 2012 described “a homosexual lifestyle” as “at odds with the gospel” and who in 2016 said that “the promotion of gender ideology is confusing because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist” — as too woke to be the pope. Ryan Selkis, former CEO of crypto research company Messari and fellow Trump fanatic, posted a whole thread on the “new woke pope”, digging up old posts and reposts such as one on carbon emissions (“climate alarmist”!) and another that prayed for George Floyd and his family (“suicidal empathy”!).
This is by now a familiar ritual — trawling through someone’s online history the second they become prominent for evidence of wrongthink; conveniently leaving out any counter-evidence of the thing you are shunning them for; using hyperbole and exaggeration for maximum traction; encouraging pile-ons. Cancel culture, we might call it. Identity politics, perhaps. Or maybe . . . woke?"
https://www.ft.com/content/546040d5-91b6-46e9-9479-2ce463d76cb8
Marjorie Taylor Greene doing a good combination of the identitarian determination of who is allowed to speak and the DARVO move here particularly strongly.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/27/politics/video/marjorie-taylor-greene-signal-group-chat-sky-news-reporter-digvid
Libs of TikTok trying to get people fired for making off-colour jokes?
This is a good piece which addresses various of the elements in a US context.
https://ricksint.substack.com/p/its-alive-the-new-right-fusionism
That is a helpful analysis. I have come to some conclusions similar to yours about the roots of the postmodern right. The pragmatism connection is key as an umbrella epistemology that tends to erode intellectual standards across the board. Specifically, I would point to (see link) its impact on Rothbard, who has been a key theoretical source behind some prominent ethno-nationalists. I also think this whole strand has been fused with figures like RFK Jr, Greenwald, and the Weinsteins who are best understood as Frankfurtian, New Left relics.
https://ricksint.substack.com/p/its-alive-the-new-right-fusionism
No, recognising biological reality is neither red-pilled nor woke. The latter refers to beliefs about hidden systems of power like gynocracy vs patriarchy, not material facts about sex differences.
I'm using evidence-based epistemology and consistently liberal principles. I suppose the latter could be seen as a theory.
I have no idea what you are talking about.