Thank you. 🎵 I've looked at life from both sides now, from give and take, and still somehow, it's life's illusions I recall; I really don't know life at all. I do know I worked for Joe and Abe Weingarten for 25 years, and never met anyone then or now that I admired more.
For what little it's worth, new terminologies like Woke Right, offered within an increasingly broken/redundant Right/Left paradigm, just feel like a kind of 'sophist pivot', with the intention of creating distance between observed peculiarities in a nebulous group, and the observer. This distance might be used to avoid responsibility (as this piece suggests), or it might be to simply claim that the observer is free from the characteristics which he observes...either way it's an annoying term, not a helpful one!
Yeah, not sure Tucker Carlson is a Jew-hater. He doesn't seem keen on us Brits but I haven't noticed any anti-semitism. There's a difference between hating Jewish people and disliking the behaviour of Israel isn't there? I'm not sure there has been a rise in anti-semitism by sensible people - there has been an unveiling of very strong hatred towards Jews by Muslims in the West, supported by idiot students and trendies who have no understanding of what they are chanting.
As for Left and Right as labels, isn't it more like Mark Changizi said? To paraphrase, he said it's more Up and Down, authoritarian versus libertarian. People who want to have decisions made for them and rules imposed on them and people who refuse to comply.
It was the fulsome praise of Cooper that did it for me with Tucker. Cooper is an outright Nazi apologist. With Tucker that’s not the only part of it. Strongly being against Israel, belittling Churchill, believing ‘Mossad was responsible’ versions of Oct 7th. He does seem to have both a Brit problem and a Jew problem em be wise I can’t see any other connecting threads unless it a criminal level of gullibility.
It’s possible to criticise Israel or an Israeli government without being a Jew hater, but for me as well justice following Oct 7th is so obviously on the Israeli side that it’s really difficult to side with the Palestinians without that being Jew hatred. It’s pretty obvious that Jew hatred is a Palestinian motivation, to the point of actual genocide desires and actions and not the sick distortion of calling fighting a war against terrorists you didn’t initiate ‘genocide’.
Re Left and Right, yes the authoritarian libertarian split is in many ways more important, but I’d say leftism inclines automatically towards State authoritarianism while rightism does not. The left who will let people have freedom have always been a minority of the Left overall (Orwell style leftist decency is possible, but actually quite difficult).
I like Tucker but I do think he might not be as smart as I once thought he was! Whether it's a journalist thing to play dumb and innocent or whether he actually is dumb about things outside America, I don't know. Many Americans appear to have little understanding about the outside world but I'm not sure journalists should be that ignorant! I stopped watching the interview with Cooper because he was so obviously a nasty ignorant and arrogant ignoramus. Presumably he is a Holocaust denier? I wonder whether Tucker interviews these sorts of people simply because other media outlets won't/don't? He interviewed the very boring Andrew Tate (which I also gave up on - how is such an idiot meant to be brainwashing boys?). As for the Israel/Jewish issue - I have never understood the problem people have with Jewishness. I understand the historical excuses but they have always been excuses. In my head, I separate Israel from Jewishness. The state of Israel is a country and should be judged like other countries are judged. This current post-7/10 situation is appalling - just like many other situations in relation to Israel and Palestine have been appalling - and I don't know what the solution is. Give the Palestinians passports and tell them they are all Israelis? Give them an independent country? What are the alternatives?
Every war ever fought has been the result of politicians using humans to get what they want. Stopping hitler was kind of a no brainer, but otherwise, all wars were fought because men will fight. In the USA Today, we have a president that is finally going to bring our guys home, and let the rest of you figure it out. We have over 800 military installations across the globe. For muh democracy? Bullshit. I see trump closing hundreds of them.
The Left is using Woke Right to take over the word Woke and dilute its use by everyone else until it reaches the point of meaninglessness. At that point, the word stops being used to describe the Left any longer…
Calling out Jew hatred is good and important but it can also boomerang. I haven't listened to Owens for a long time as she disappeared from the usual feeds. But I do question the notion that Tucker is an anti-Semite. I haven't seen any evidence of that, although some of his positions cause me to rethink my admiration of him as a puncturer of the media mindset. I caught one of his Cooper interviews and thought Cooper was a twit with little understanding of history. Churchill was the greatest man of the 20th Century if not the Second Millennium, so Cooper trying to malign him was nothing but a desperate cry for attention by a lilliputian mind. As far as Smith, I understand that he is Jewish - or, at least of Jewish descent. I only saw him on Rogan, thought he was an idiot, and grew quickly bored with his act. But his criticism of Israel, although shrill and blind, didn't strike me as anti-Semitic. So I'd push back on your tenets, at least preliminarily.
Candace backed Kanye, who said loads of mad Jew hating stuff, so that case is very clear.
Tucker I liked a lot, to be fair I liked Candace a lot too at one stage. But Tucker is a bit thick, I think. He believes anything put in front of him that isn’t mainstream. Very like Rogan. They were both extremely accurate on a few things, and will also lend credence to some total con artists and evil shitheads.
For me Tucker did that with Cooper. Cooper says the Nazis never intended the Holocaust and were forced into it by war conditions. That’s historical bullshit, loads of evidence to the contrary. But it’s also excusing the Nazis. It seems to me if you excuse the people who murdered 6 million Jews while talking about that murder, you hate Jews. Tucker called this guy the greatest living historian. Tucker and the others all back hatred of Churchill and a total contempt for Israel. Again, these things seem aligned with Jew hatred.
Smith is Jewish, but has a rabid anti Israel line. Hugely pro Palestinian too. He’s excused Hamas multiple times. Hamas constantly call for Jewish genocide (not ‘just’ against Israel, but worldwide). If you hate the only Jewish State and back people who want Jews exterminated worldwide, again to me this seems pretty strong evidence you hate Jews. It’s possible to be in that position as a Jewish person just as we have whites who hate ‘whiteness’.
Maybe but it's also a very slippery slope and accusations of Jew hatred should be made with more than circumstantial evidence. Given that I straddle both the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds (first wife and two daughters are Jewish) believe me, I am not ignorant of truly appalling views of Jews that some people hold (and moronically appear happy to share). But adhering to - or listening to - an idiotic view of history does not necessarily make one an anti-Semite. Although it would certainly make a claim that someone such as Cooper is our "greatest living historian" comical in the extreme. So I will continue to believe that Tucker is not an anti-Semite until I am presented with more than circumstantial evidence. Although I am prepared to change my view if he continues t flack those who view the Nazis as simply victims of misunderstanding - or worse.
I understand the caution because leftism has used false accusations of antisemitism but for me Cooper is an outright Nazi apologist and Tucker’s fulsome praise was more than idiotic, it was evil. I hope you are right, though.
What of the possible outcomes in the Jewish/Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of the British people?
You only have to look at a map of the West Bank to see that a 2-state solution hasn't been possible for decades, if it ever was.
A single secular state between the Jordan and the Med with a right to return for the Palestinian diaspora? That state would have a significant Muslim majority: they already, as far as I can see, slightly outnumber the Jews "between the river and the sea". And it wouldn't be secular for very long. The Jews won't go for that.
Things carrying on as they are? Difficult to see that persisting in the longer term, so really the options are victory for the Jews or victory for the Palestinians.
Victory for the Jews would surely involve the expulsion of the Palestinian populatiions of Gaza and the West Bank.. Where would they go? There has to be a very high likelihood that anti-indigenous governments in Western Europe would offer to take most. It's not difficult to see 500k to 750k , and possibly even more, being admitted to the UK.
Victory for the Palestinians would see the expulsion of the Jews. Around 10% have citizenship of other states. The obvious destinations for the rest are the USA, especially Noo Joysey, or Ukraine, much of the western part of which used to be in the Polish-Lithuanian Commomwealth, the ancestral homeland of the Ashkenazis. How many might settle in the increasingly pro-Muslim UK? Surely no more than a few tens of thousands.
So which would be worse for the British people, 50-75k Jews, or 500-750k Muslims?
Brilliant! Yes the “woke right” perfectly them sums up! People who I admired, such as Candace Owen, i didn’t know what was the right term for such as her. I used to admire her but her view on Jews has completely put me off her. Shes also supposed to be a committed Christian too, so she’s denounced her beliefs by those views.
But now I know the correct term for these disappointments! Woke right. Thanks Daniel. You’re a star as always. X
Thanks Syl, but I’m actually saying I don’t like the term Woke Right. Those people are Jew haters. They share that with the Woke. But Wokeness is totally a creation of the Left.
Agree that most political labels (right, left, including Republican, Democrat, and even socialist and Marxist) are ill defined for most people. I find pro-Constitution and anti-Constituion useful because the Constitution provides a pretty well defined baseline.
Today we're seeing lots of hyperventilating from people who appear to have never read the Constitution including congressmen and judges.
"and of course we see essentially Holocaust denial and pure Nazism from people such as Darryl Cooper."
You are a lying retard. This never happened. You can show zero evidence for this. You completely discredit yourself [not that neocon leftist filth needs to be more discredited].
Hahaha. I’m not a neocon and I’m not a leftist. Pretty much everything I have ever written criticises both, you pathetic sack of shit. There are people on the Right, people who have opposed leftism their whole lives, people who never apply the word Nazi incorrectly and even recognise that Nazism is of the Left, who unlike you have actuslly listened to and understood what Cooper is saying and how what he says makes him a real Nazi.
You can’t say the Nazis never intended the Holocaust and somehow accidentally stumbled into mass murder because of having too many prisoners without being a Nazi apologist because it’s historically retarded horseshit easily disputed by even the most cursory knowledge of events. Since I don’t think Cooper is extremely stupid, it must be deliberate Nazism. As for you, I’m still prepared to accept it might just be extreme stupidity.
I once enjoyed tucker carlson, his interview style and while on Fox his willingness to invite interesting and unusual guests with whom he would disagree. His long form podcast is quite different. Can't recall any long form interviews with guests with whom he disagreed. What creeped into his interviews, and which became somewhat annoying if not insufferable at times, was the way with arms crossed and feigned sincerity he would, in a "Just asking the question" manner, open up his platforms to guests like Cooper, Carrol, Sachs, and steer them towards questions always intended to paint Israel and Jews in a poor light. Always. For example, when interviewing the actor Jonathan Roumie, who portrays Jesus in Chosen, he inquired why Jesus had such a problem with the Pharisees. An honest question, asked and answered. But seemingly not happy with Roumie's response, carlson stated Jesus "seemed to have no problem with the Romans," but did have a problem with the Pharisees. Why is that? Why the Pharisees? Why repeat the question tucker? Considering Israel at the time was controlled and dominated by Rome, Jesus was tried and convicted under Roman law and sentenced to the unique form of Roman torture/execution, by crucifixion, a form of execution never mentioned in the Old Testament and used by Rome to execcute thousands of Jews, this notion by carlson was outrageous. Nor did he bring up the fact a mere 40 years after Jesus's death, Rome would obliterate Israel and sack Jerusalem, burn the Temple in 70 A.D. A more recent example is carlson's interview with Matt Walsh, where he attempted to steer Walsh towards criticism of The Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro, a strong Jewish voice for America and for Israel. When Walsh stated that the United States should not support any nation incapable of supporting itself, Carlson smiled and immediately mentioned Israel, thinking Walsh was referring to Israel. Walsh read carlson well, saw where carlson wanted him to go, and responded he was NOT referring to Israel, and that Israel would do well without American support. A student of history would know this was true, as during Israel's first 20 years of independence, while it fought 3 wars against Arab armies, it received no weapons and no financial support from the United States. As for Churchill, carlson's irrational distain for Churchill comes forth through his choice of guests and whom he chooses to platform.
I disagree with the label Woke Right because I consider it inaccurate. But I also disagree with you labeling liberalism as 'father of Wokeness', it's equally nonsensical, sorry. Wokeism is as illiberal as it can get with literally every regard, it denies all values of classical liberalism more than completely, starting from freedom itself. Wokeness had hijacked classic liberalism, it's not its continuation.
I think you're being a bit vindictive now. You are rightly upset at some liberals and centrists (please note that not all but some liberals, mainly James Lindsay who coined term Woke Right, so don't smear all classic liberals and centrists too like Woke Right might smear all right) and now decided to hit back at them accusing liberalism of creation of Wokeism which is also inaccurate.
I believe we need first to stay United and not allow the actual enemy to divide us, and second to stay both calm and factual.
It’s not nonsensical at all, you can father the opposite of yourself. Classical liberalism had much that was good in it, and wokeness is entirely evil, but classical liberalism set the conditions for the emergence of wokeness and classical liberal virtues taken to extremes define many woke attitudes. It’s like the distortion of Christianity too-there are lessons in compassion in Christianity that are transformed into woke suicidal empathy.
I’m not saying classical liberalism is evil or the same as wokeness. I’m saying those virtues taken to extremes and then backed by State and corporate power become evil. And that’s what wokeness is.
I’m also saying that classical liberals and centrists do need to take some responsibility and see where wokeness has used them and used the conditions and assumptions they set to create a new form of tyranny, the tyranny of minorities.
I still see classical liberals who condemn wokeness as valuable allies, provided that they are honest and don’t pretend the Right created this mess.
Well, with this logic you could blame literally anything for Wokeness because you know, empathy is a universal human trait, and the Woke took it to the extremes.
I still won't say classic liberalism created Wokeness, I'd say it has no defenses against it (same as Christianity in some ways) because as you said Wokeness operates in the same framework but it's because it hijacked it, not because this framework had born it. Wokeness is rather a warm gnawing at liberal apple, not the natural rot of this apple if you get my analogy.
Also, I don't think James Lindsay blames the right for Wokeness, I think you misunderstood (though I don't blame you for it, his explanations and the term itself are very complex and loaded). But the gist of the Woke Right isn't shifting responsibility for the Woke on the right and not even Jew haters, but Lindsay observation that SOME on the right began to use the same Woke framework but in opposite way in response to Wone assault.
Example: the Woke demonized white straight Christian males beyond possible. As a response to that, some on the right began to victimize straight white Christian males beyond possible, up to the point of complete denial of say domestic violence against women or homophobic violence against gay men. Lindsay criticized that approach which he called a reflection of the Woke in right, and I think he has a point here actually. We should not adopt Woke slang and framework and should not allow group identities and membership - whether minority or majority - to define us more than our individual personality.
For example I am an individual concerned of Western decline with my unique views and personality first of all and ONLY after I'm a white man, gay, Russian, etc. Same goes to you, you're above all a human with your set of values and only then you're white straight man, Brit, etc.
Those whom Lindsay called the Woke Right try to put our group memberships above our individual personality just like the Woke Left do. But I would rather call it a reflection of the Woke in right rather than Woke right, it's more accurate IMO.
Omg, I’m trying to enjoy a little holiday time in Bali but you’re fucking it up, Dan, with one brilliant, imaginative and thought-provoking at least, essay after another on the things that worry, intrigue and perplex me. Your take on the Canadian election was incredible and I’d share it far and wide but I’m not inclined to sneak, copy and paste my way past your paywall and only some, not most, of my friends will pay for another subscription no matter how much I or any herald it.
But what’s my wife, Laurie’s excuse? Oh right. We’re traveling and come on, Jim, fuck off already, will you? I’m trying to enjoy myself here which means taking this place in deeply, passionately and photographing the hell out it. (At a restaurant a few weeks ago, before we left, I got talking with a waitress - a female server - about pictures and was blown away that she had over 23,000 pics on her phone. Then we checked Laur’s and she had more than 129,000. And that was before we left).
So right. Yes. I now have to read through not only your article but this interesting and important exchange with Alex, find my bearings.
I love James but the woke right thing has always bugged me. Saddened me more than anything. No really? Can’t Owens and Tucker just be latent antisemites redecorating their offices with Jew-hatred Rorsach tests? How does any of their indifference to us Jews, God bless their superficial know-nothing disappointing hearts, really have anything to do with the crazy postmodern juggernaut of wokeness?
All of which is just a long, long way to say I hVent yet but will read this all thoroughly. Tomorrow.
Lindsay is finally coming to my hometown, Victoria, this week and I’d have met him for sure but I’m away so I’ll read this all instead.
And yes, I’ve been drinking. I don’t usually but hey ….
Thanks very much Jim. Exactly right-Candace and co are just Jew haters and can be condemned on that basis without inventing a bullshit Woke Right category. Enjoy the holiday and drinks, and thanks for the kind words too. 😀
There’s definutely a mirroring process, which is the second part of your comment and I can agree with. The alternative figure ps are mirroring woke tactics and ideology and for some others when identity politics singles your group out for demonisation, some of those people are going to be pushed into genuine evil responses that share the characteristics of what is being done to them.
So far so good. But sorry, classical liberalism created this woke monster, not the Right. That’s a really fundamental point. It’s a fundamental point the same way understanding that Nazism is much more of the Left than of the Right is. Total State control in any form except monarchical absolutism comes from the Left. If we were dealing with the divine right of kings being the basis on which Hitler’s alleged nationalism came to power, it would be different, but we aren’t.
But not to be distracted by the Nazism element, everything in identity politics was created by the Left as a denial of the most natural elements of Right wing thinking. A denial of loyalty to a specific people, place, majority identity, culture, religion, tradition, family, borders, nations, everything.
And what allowed them to do this was the fact that the centre and the classical liberal agenda was already weighted in that direction. Sometimes it was weighted in that direction justly, as can be said of gay or female equality or much of the Civil Rights Movement. But it was concerned primarily with the PREVIOUS unjustly treated and didn’t factor in at all what would happen when that concern started unjustly mistreating the majority.
Thus legislation for instance was framed ONLY to protect minority groups, and without any thought to the protection of the majority should the same injustices be applied to them. It’s this kind of gap that fathered wokeness, together with the use of classical liberal or Christian positive messaging as the disguise for what wokeness was doing.
Centrists and classical liberals just have to own the degree to which they made this, like a well meaning but weak parent has to own that they let their kid become an arsehole.
Again, you didn't fully get my point. I didn't say the Right created Wokeism and neither James Lindsay said it. I think he meant exactly this mirroring process by the Woke Right, not 'shifting the blame', this is where you get him wrong. When did Lindsay ever blamed the right for creation of Wokeism, do quote please?
In the contrary, it's you who blame liberalism for the Wokeism which I believe is wrong, and yeah I do deny any 'responsibility' here because again with your logic human empathy itself could be blamed for Wokeism too, and should we blame our empathy - arguably the best human part - for it's Woke abuse?
Wokeism is creature of the Left, of Marxism albeit twisted one, and postmodernism. In NO WAY it's creation of liberalism, I'm sorry, it's ridiculous and nonsensical.
So why exactly did you take this defensive attitude when you weren't even attacked because as I said Lindsay didn't blame the right for the Woke, it was your interpretation, he meant the mirroring process. You deliberately blame liberalism for Wokeism, and falsely so.
How far would you go with it? Would you blame MLK for BLM? Gay rights activism for trans insanity? Hippies and eco activists for climate scam? Rosa Luxemburg for MeToo?
Pointing fingers and far-fetched nonsensical accusations of your allies aren't really the best way to combat Wokeism and globalism and Islamism, you know.
I think you are taking this personally and that distorts your approach. As I’ve said I value classical liberal allies against wokeness. I’ve also said plenty of times as well that classical liberalism accurately addressed some injustices and that the Civil Rights movement had a point.
So we can take all that as agreement.
Where you are wrong is in this: the term Woke Right automatically implies the Right created wokeness or is universally tainted by it, just as Toxic Masculinity automatically implies masculinity creates toxicity or is universally tainted with it.
Radical feminism was created by the Left. That’s Woke. State control of everything is a Leftist desire. That’s Woke. Radical social change attitudes on sex, gender, family are all Woke and all derive from the Left.
So a small number of grifters and arseholes who hate Jews commercialised being anti woke and turn out to be just grifters and Jew haters. Condemn them as that and I’m 100% with you. Pretend the Right is as complicit with wokeness and that’s factually inaccurate.
Lindsay may mean just mirroring, but the term implies origin or ownership of the problem of wokeness. That’s fundamentally inaccurate and unjust and I don’t think it’s me just reading it as that, it’s as unavoidable as feminist attacks on men applying to all men instead of just jerks and arseholes.
As for your point about empathy, no, my tracing of woke suicidal empathy to classical liberalism isn’t that broad. Because it was never general empathy anyway. Even in classical liberalism it was specific empathy for specific groups (blacks, gays, ‘marginalised groups’). That’s the responsibility classical liberalism bears, thinking only about how you stop those groups being mistreated and never thinking that there are instances where the rights of the majority JUSTLY outweigh the rights of a minority (democratic vote tallies, citizenship rights, protection of borders, protection of existing citizens from dangerous incomers etc etc) or that this entire cultural classical liberal construct survives much better in more homogenous and unified settings and certainly can’t survive prioritising specific groups above majority groups.
Nope, term Woke Right - albeit it's a wrong term, I could call it Woke Mirror on the Right, more poetic also - still does not say anything about Woke origins same as Toxic Masculinity doesn't automatically imply ALL masculinity. Yeah, it was USED to smear all masculinity but it doesn't mean the original meaning intended it and indeed it didn't, read the original definition. It was designed to use specific negative traits of masculinity most prominent in my homeland Russia like male alcoholism, sexism, homophobia, and unmotivated aggression resulted in million cases of domestic violence against women and kids and street violence against other men. It's a sweeping problem in Russia yet no one is willing to address it exactly because of 'toxic masculinity' of Russian State and society.
Again, you can't blame the original meaning of the word for how it was used later especially if the Woke corrupted the language and twisted and 'redefined' everything, 'Threat to democracy', 'conspiracy theory' and 'misinformation' being the most prominent examples.
As for blaming game, still no. You can blame anything and anyone with that logic. It's possible to blame the right for Wokeism too because if the right weren't such douchebags to gays and women in the past, radical feminism and Alphabet Mafia would never have risen to begin with. Or are you telling me that imprisoning gay men for whom they love and using women as a chattel without allowing them to work and choose their own destiny was 'great and perfect and moral' approach?
So please, let us restrain from pointing fingers and blame games and instead fight a common enemy.
Thank you. 🎵 I've looked at life from both sides now, from give and take, and still somehow, it's life's illusions I recall; I really don't know life at all. I do know I worked for Joe and Abe Weingarten for 25 years, and never met anyone then or now that I admired more.
For what little it's worth, new terminologies like Woke Right, offered within an increasingly broken/redundant Right/Left paradigm, just feel like a kind of 'sophist pivot', with the intention of creating distance between observed peculiarities in a nebulous group, and the observer. This distance might be used to avoid responsibility (as this piece suggests), or it might be to simply claim that the observer is free from the characteristics which he observes...either way it's an annoying term, not a helpful one!
Yes that creation of distance is also there.
It’s an oxymoron
Yeah, not sure Tucker Carlson is a Jew-hater. He doesn't seem keen on us Brits but I haven't noticed any anti-semitism. There's a difference between hating Jewish people and disliking the behaviour of Israel isn't there? I'm not sure there has been a rise in anti-semitism by sensible people - there has been an unveiling of very strong hatred towards Jews by Muslims in the West, supported by idiot students and trendies who have no understanding of what they are chanting.
As for Left and Right as labels, isn't it more like Mark Changizi said? To paraphrase, he said it's more Up and Down, authoritarian versus libertarian. People who want to have decisions made for them and rules imposed on them and people who refuse to comply.
It was the fulsome praise of Cooper that did it for me with Tucker. Cooper is an outright Nazi apologist. With Tucker that’s not the only part of it. Strongly being against Israel, belittling Churchill, believing ‘Mossad was responsible’ versions of Oct 7th. He does seem to have both a Brit problem and a Jew problem em be wise I can’t see any other connecting threads unless it a criminal level of gullibility.
It’s possible to criticise Israel or an Israeli government without being a Jew hater, but for me as well justice following Oct 7th is so obviously on the Israeli side that it’s really difficult to side with the Palestinians without that being Jew hatred. It’s pretty obvious that Jew hatred is a Palestinian motivation, to the point of actual genocide desires and actions and not the sick distortion of calling fighting a war against terrorists you didn’t initiate ‘genocide’.
Re Left and Right, yes the authoritarian libertarian split is in many ways more important, but I’d say leftism inclines automatically towards State authoritarianism while rightism does not. The left who will let people have freedom have always been a minority of the Left overall (Orwell style leftist decency is possible, but actually quite difficult).
I like Tucker but I do think he might not be as smart as I once thought he was! Whether it's a journalist thing to play dumb and innocent or whether he actually is dumb about things outside America, I don't know. Many Americans appear to have little understanding about the outside world but I'm not sure journalists should be that ignorant! I stopped watching the interview with Cooper because he was so obviously a nasty ignorant and arrogant ignoramus. Presumably he is a Holocaust denier? I wonder whether Tucker interviews these sorts of people simply because other media outlets won't/don't? He interviewed the very boring Andrew Tate (which I also gave up on - how is such an idiot meant to be brainwashing boys?). As for the Israel/Jewish issue - I have never understood the problem people have with Jewishness. I understand the historical excuses but they have always been excuses. In my head, I separate Israel from Jewishness. The state of Israel is a country and should be judged like other countries are judged. This current post-7/10 situation is appalling - just like many other situations in relation to Israel and Palestine have been appalling - and I don't know what the solution is. Give the Palestinians passports and tell them they are all Israelis? Give them an independent country? What are the alternatives?
Every war ever fought has been the result of politicians using humans to get what they want. Stopping hitler was kind of a no brainer, but otherwise, all wars were fought because men will fight. In the USA Today, we have a president that is finally going to bring our guys home, and let the rest of you figure it out. We have over 800 military installations across the globe. For muh democracy? Bullshit. I see trump closing hundreds of them.
The Left is using Woke Right to take over the word Woke and dilute its use by everyone else until it reaches the point of meaninglessness. At that point, the word stops being used to describe the Left any longer…
This is sooo confusing. Can't we have common sense back?
Calling out Jew hatred is good and important but it can also boomerang. I haven't listened to Owens for a long time as she disappeared from the usual feeds. But I do question the notion that Tucker is an anti-Semite. I haven't seen any evidence of that, although some of his positions cause me to rethink my admiration of him as a puncturer of the media mindset. I caught one of his Cooper interviews and thought Cooper was a twit with little understanding of history. Churchill was the greatest man of the 20th Century if not the Second Millennium, so Cooper trying to malign him was nothing but a desperate cry for attention by a lilliputian mind. As far as Smith, I understand that he is Jewish - or, at least of Jewish descent. I only saw him on Rogan, thought he was an idiot, and grew quickly bored with his act. But his criticism of Israel, although shrill and blind, didn't strike me as anti-Semitic. So I'd push back on your tenets, at least preliminarily.
Candace backed Kanye, who said loads of mad Jew hating stuff, so that case is very clear.
Tucker I liked a lot, to be fair I liked Candace a lot too at one stage. But Tucker is a bit thick, I think. He believes anything put in front of him that isn’t mainstream. Very like Rogan. They were both extremely accurate on a few things, and will also lend credence to some total con artists and evil shitheads.
For me Tucker did that with Cooper. Cooper says the Nazis never intended the Holocaust and were forced into it by war conditions. That’s historical bullshit, loads of evidence to the contrary. But it’s also excusing the Nazis. It seems to me if you excuse the people who murdered 6 million Jews while talking about that murder, you hate Jews. Tucker called this guy the greatest living historian. Tucker and the others all back hatred of Churchill and a total contempt for Israel. Again, these things seem aligned with Jew hatred.
Smith is Jewish, but has a rabid anti Israel line. Hugely pro Palestinian too. He’s excused Hamas multiple times. Hamas constantly call for Jewish genocide (not ‘just’ against Israel, but worldwide). If you hate the only Jewish State and back people who want Jews exterminated worldwide, again to me this seems pretty strong evidence you hate Jews. It’s possible to be in that position as a Jewish person just as we have whites who hate ‘whiteness’.
Maybe but it's also a very slippery slope and accusations of Jew hatred should be made with more than circumstantial evidence. Given that I straddle both the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds (first wife and two daughters are Jewish) believe me, I am not ignorant of truly appalling views of Jews that some people hold (and moronically appear happy to share). But adhering to - or listening to - an idiotic view of history does not necessarily make one an anti-Semite. Although it would certainly make a claim that someone such as Cooper is our "greatest living historian" comical in the extreme. So I will continue to believe that Tucker is not an anti-Semite until I am presented with more than circumstantial evidence. Although I am prepared to change my view if he continues t flack those who view the Nazis as simply victims of misunderstanding - or worse.
I understand the caution because leftism has used false accusations of antisemitism but for me Cooper is an outright Nazi apologist and Tucker’s fulsome praise was more than idiotic, it was evil. I hope you are right, though.
What of the possible outcomes in the Jewish/Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of the British people?
You only have to look at a map of the West Bank to see that a 2-state solution hasn't been possible for decades, if it ever was.
A single secular state between the Jordan and the Med with a right to return for the Palestinian diaspora? That state would have a significant Muslim majority: they already, as far as I can see, slightly outnumber the Jews "between the river and the sea". And it wouldn't be secular for very long. The Jews won't go for that.
Things carrying on as they are? Difficult to see that persisting in the longer term, so really the options are victory for the Jews or victory for the Palestinians.
Victory for the Jews would surely involve the expulsion of the Palestinian populatiions of Gaza and the West Bank.. Where would they go? There has to be a very high likelihood that anti-indigenous governments in Western Europe would offer to take most. It's not difficult to see 500k to 750k , and possibly even more, being admitted to the UK.
Victory for the Palestinians would see the expulsion of the Jews. Around 10% have citizenship of other states. The obvious destinations for the rest are the USA, especially Noo Joysey, or Ukraine, much of the western part of which used to be in the Polish-Lithuanian Commomwealth, the ancestral homeland of the Ashkenazis. How many might settle in the increasingly pro-Muslim UK? Surely no more than a few tens of thousands.
So which would be worse for the British people, 50-75k Jews, or 500-750k Muslims?
A Jewish victory is clearly not desirable.
Brilliant! Yes the “woke right” perfectly them sums up! People who I admired, such as Candace Owen, i didn’t know what was the right term for such as her. I used to admire her but her view on Jews has completely put me off her. Shes also supposed to be a committed Christian too, so she’s denounced her beliefs by those views.
But now I know the correct term for these disappointments! Woke right. Thanks Daniel. You’re a star as always. X
Thanks Syl, but I’m actually saying I don’t like the term Woke Right. Those people are Jew haters. They share that with the Woke. But Wokeness is totally a creation of the Left.
Yes I’m thinking in my haste i worded it wrongly. 🤦🏼♀️
I get what you mean. X
Cheers Syl. Glad you understand, and lad too of the support.😀😀
Agree that most political labels (right, left, including Republican, Democrat, and even socialist and Marxist) are ill defined for most people. I find pro-Constitution and anti-Constituion useful because the Constitution provides a pretty well defined baseline.
Today we're seeing lots of hyperventilating from people who appear to have never read the Constitution including congressmen and judges.
It's very telling.
It's a Republic, if we can keep it.
"and of course we see essentially Holocaust denial and pure Nazism from people such as Darryl Cooper."
You are a lying retard. This never happened. You can show zero evidence for this. You completely discredit yourself [not that neocon leftist filth needs to be more discredited].
Hahaha. I’m not a neocon and I’m not a leftist. Pretty much everything I have ever written criticises both, you pathetic sack of shit. There are people on the Right, people who have opposed leftism their whole lives, people who never apply the word Nazi incorrectly and even recognise that Nazism is of the Left, who unlike you have actuslly listened to and understood what Cooper is saying and how what he says makes him a real Nazi.
You can’t say the Nazis never intended the Holocaust and somehow accidentally stumbled into mass murder because of having too many prisoners without being a Nazi apologist because it’s historically retarded horseshit easily disputed by even the most cursory knowledge of events. Since I don’t think Cooper is extremely stupid, it must be deliberate Nazism. As for you, I’m still prepared to accept it might just be extreme stupidity.
Most of the woke right are ex-progressives who found themselves through under the bus by their fellow progressives.
I once enjoyed tucker carlson, his interview style and while on Fox his willingness to invite interesting and unusual guests with whom he would disagree. His long form podcast is quite different. Can't recall any long form interviews with guests with whom he disagreed. What creeped into his interviews, and which became somewhat annoying if not insufferable at times, was the way with arms crossed and feigned sincerity he would, in a "Just asking the question" manner, open up his platforms to guests like Cooper, Carrol, Sachs, and steer them towards questions always intended to paint Israel and Jews in a poor light. Always. For example, when interviewing the actor Jonathan Roumie, who portrays Jesus in Chosen, he inquired why Jesus had such a problem with the Pharisees. An honest question, asked and answered. But seemingly not happy with Roumie's response, carlson stated Jesus "seemed to have no problem with the Romans," but did have a problem with the Pharisees. Why is that? Why the Pharisees? Why repeat the question tucker? Considering Israel at the time was controlled and dominated by Rome, Jesus was tried and convicted under Roman law and sentenced to the unique form of Roman torture/execution, by crucifixion, a form of execution never mentioned in the Old Testament and used by Rome to execcute thousands of Jews, this notion by carlson was outrageous. Nor did he bring up the fact a mere 40 years after Jesus's death, Rome would obliterate Israel and sack Jerusalem, burn the Temple in 70 A.D. A more recent example is carlson's interview with Matt Walsh, where he attempted to steer Walsh towards criticism of The Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro, a strong Jewish voice for America and for Israel. When Walsh stated that the United States should not support any nation incapable of supporting itself, Carlson smiled and immediately mentioned Israel, thinking Walsh was referring to Israel. Walsh read carlson well, saw where carlson wanted him to go, and responded he was NOT referring to Israel, and that Israel would do well without American support. A student of history would know this was true, as during Israel's first 20 years of independence, while it fought 3 wars against Arab armies, it received no weapons and no financial support from the United States. As for Churchill, carlson's irrational distain for Churchill comes forth through his choice of guests and whom he chooses to platform.
I disagree with the label Woke Right because I consider it inaccurate. But I also disagree with you labeling liberalism as 'father of Wokeness', it's equally nonsensical, sorry. Wokeism is as illiberal as it can get with literally every regard, it denies all values of classical liberalism more than completely, starting from freedom itself. Wokeness had hijacked classic liberalism, it's not its continuation.
I think you're being a bit vindictive now. You are rightly upset at some liberals and centrists (please note that not all but some liberals, mainly James Lindsay who coined term Woke Right, so don't smear all classic liberals and centrists too like Woke Right might smear all right) and now decided to hit back at them accusing liberalism of creation of Wokeism which is also inaccurate.
I believe we need first to stay United and not allow the actual enemy to divide us, and second to stay both calm and factual.
It’s not nonsensical at all, you can father the opposite of yourself. Classical liberalism had much that was good in it, and wokeness is entirely evil, but classical liberalism set the conditions for the emergence of wokeness and classical liberal virtues taken to extremes define many woke attitudes. It’s like the distortion of Christianity too-there are lessons in compassion in Christianity that are transformed into woke suicidal empathy.
I’m not saying classical liberalism is evil or the same as wokeness. I’m saying those virtues taken to extremes and then backed by State and corporate power become evil. And that’s what wokeness is.
I’m also saying that classical liberals and centrists do need to take some responsibility and see where wokeness has used them and used the conditions and assumptions they set to create a new form of tyranny, the tyranny of minorities.
I still see classical liberals who condemn wokeness as valuable allies, provided that they are honest and don’t pretend the Right created this mess.
Well, with this logic you could blame literally anything for Wokeness because you know, empathy is a universal human trait, and the Woke took it to the extremes.
I still won't say classic liberalism created Wokeness, I'd say it has no defenses against it (same as Christianity in some ways) because as you said Wokeness operates in the same framework but it's because it hijacked it, not because this framework had born it. Wokeness is rather a warm gnawing at liberal apple, not the natural rot of this apple if you get my analogy.
Also, I don't think James Lindsay blames the right for Wokeness, I think you misunderstood (though I don't blame you for it, his explanations and the term itself are very complex and loaded). But the gist of the Woke Right isn't shifting responsibility for the Woke on the right and not even Jew haters, but Lindsay observation that SOME on the right began to use the same Woke framework but in opposite way in response to Wone assault.
Example: the Woke demonized white straight Christian males beyond possible. As a response to that, some on the right began to victimize straight white Christian males beyond possible, up to the point of complete denial of say domestic violence against women or homophobic violence against gay men. Lindsay criticized that approach which he called a reflection of the Woke in right, and I think he has a point here actually. We should not adopt Woke slang and framework and should not allow group identities and membership - whether minority or majority - to define us more than our individual personality.
For example I am an individual concerned of Western decline with my unique views and personality first of all and ONLY after I'm a white man, gay, Russian, etc. Same goes to you, you're above all a human with your set of values and only then you're white straight man, Brit, etc.
Those whom Lindsay called the Woke Right try to put our group memberships above our individual personality just like the Woke Left do. But I would rather call it a reflection of the Woke in right rather than Woke right, it's more accurate IMO.
Omg, I’m trying to enjoy a little holiday time in Bali but you’re fucking it up, Dan, with one brilliant, imaginative and thought-provoking at least, essay after another on the things that worry, intrigue and perplex me. Your take on the Canadian election was incredible and I’d share it far and wide but I’m not inclined to sneak, copy and paste my way past your paywall and only some, not most, of my friends will pay for another subscription no matter how much I or any herald it.
But what’s my wife, Laurie’s excuse? Oh right. We’re traveling and come on, Jim, fuck off already, will you? I’m trying to enjoy myself here which means taking this place in deeply, passionately and photographing the hell out it. (At a restaurant a few weeks ago, before we left, I got talking with a waitress - a female server - about pictures and was blown away that she had over 23,000 pics on her phone. Then we checked Laur’s and she had more than 129,000. And that was before we left).
So right. Yes. I now have to read through not only your article but this interesting and important exchange with Alex, find my bearings.
I love James but the woke right thing has always bugged me. Saddened me more than anything. No really? Can’t Owens and Tucker just be latent antisemites redecorating their offices with Jew-hatred Rorsach tests? How does any of their indifference to us Jews, God bless their superficial know-nothing disappointing hearts, really have anything to do with the crazy postmodern juggernaut of wokeness?
All of which is just a long, long way to say I hVent yet but will read this all thoroughly. Tomorrow.
Lindsay is finally coming to my hometown, Victoria, this week and I’d have met him for sure but I’m away so I’ll read this all instead.
And yes, I’ve been drinking. I don’t usually but hey ….
Thanks very much Jim. Exactly right-Candace and co are just Jew haters and can be condemned on that basis without inventing a bullshit Woke Right category. Enjoy the holiday and drinks, and thanks for the kind words too. 😀
There’s definutely a mirroring process, which is the second part of your comment and I can agree with. The alternative figure ps are mirroring woke tactics and ideology and for some others when identity politics singles your group out for demonisation, some of those people are going to be pushed into genuine evil responses that share the characteristics of what is being done to them.
So far so good. But sorry, classical liberalism created this woke monster, not the Right. That’s a really fundamental point. It’s a fundamental point the same way understanding that Nazism is much more of the Left than of the Right is. Total State control in any form except monarchical absolutism comes from the Left. If we were dealing with the divine right of kings being the basis on which Hitler’s alleged nationalism came to power, it would be different, but we aren’t.
But not to be distracted by the Nazism element, everything in identity politics was created by the Left as a denial of the most natural elements of Right wing thinking. A denial of loyalty to a specific people, place, majority identity, culture, religion, tradition, family, borders, nations, everything.
And what allowed them to do this was the fact that the centre and the classical liberal agenda was already weighted in that direction. Sometimes it was weighted in that direction justly, as can be said of gay or female equality or much of the Civil Rights Movement. But it was concerned primarily with the PREVIOUS unjustly treated and didn’t factor in at all what would happen when that concern started unjustly mistreating the majority.
Thus legislation for instance was framed ONLY to protect minority groups, and without any thought to the protection of the majority should the same injustices be applied to them. It’s this kind of gap that fathered wokeness, together with the use of classical liberal or Christian positive messaging as the disguise for what wokeness was doing.
Centrists and classical liberals just have to own the degree to which they made this, like a well meaning but weak parent has to own that they let their kid become an arsehole.
Again, you didn't fully get my point. I didn't say the Right created Wokeism and neither James Lindsay said it. I think he meant exactly this mirroring process by the Woke Right, not 'shifting the blame', this is where you get him wrong. When did Lindsay ever blamed the right for creation of Wokeism, do quote please?
In the contrary, it's you who blame liberalism for the Wokeism which I believe is wrong, and yeah I do deny any 'responsibility' here because again with your logic human empathy itself could be blamed for Wokeism too, and should we blame our empathy - arguably the best human part - for it's Woke abuse?
Wokeism is creature of the Left, of Marxism albeit twisted one, and postmodernism. In NO WAY it's creation of liberalism, I'm sorry, it's ridiculous and nonsensical.
So why exactly did you take this defensive attitude when you weren't even attacked because as I said Lindsay didn't blame the right for the Woke, it was your interpretation, he meant the mirroring process. You deliberately blame liberalism for Wokeism, and falsely so.
How far would you go with it? Would you blame MLK for BLM? Gay rights activism for trans insanity? Hippies and eco activists for climate scam? Rosa Luxemburg for MeToo?
Pointing fingers and far-fetched nonsensical accusations of your allies aren't really the best way to combat Wokeism and globalism and Islamism, you know.
I think you are taking this personally and that distorts your approach. As I’ve said I value classical liberal allies against wokeness. I’ve also said plenty of times as well that classical liberalism accurately addressed some injustices and that the Civil Rights movement had a point.
So we can take all that as agreement.
Where you are wrong is in this: the term Woke Right automatically implies the Right created wokeness or is universally tainted by it, just as Toxic Masculinity automatically implies masculinity creates toxicity or is universally tainted with it.
Radical feminism was created by the Left. That’s Woke. State control of everything is a Leftist desire. That’s Woke. Radical social change attitudes on sex, gender, family are all Woke and all derive from the Left.
So a small number of grifters and arseholes who hate Jews commercialised being anti woke and turn out to be just grifters and Jew haters. Condemn them as that and I’m 100% with you. Pretend the Right is as complicit with wokeness and that’s factually inaccurate.
Lindsay may mean just mirroring, but the term implies origin or ownership of the problem of wokeness. That’s fundamentally inaccurate and unjust and I don’t think it’s me just reading it as that, it’s as unavoidable as feminist attacks on men applying to all men instead of just jerks and arseholes.
As for your point about empathy, no, my tracing of woke suicidal empathy to classical liberalism isn’t that broad. Because it was never general empathy anyway. Even in classical liberalism it was specific empathy for specific groups (blacks, gays, ‘marginalised groups’). That’s the responsibility classical liberalism bears, thinking only about how you stop those groups being mistreated and never thinking that there are instances where the rights of the majority JUSTLY outweigh the rights of a minority (democratic vote tallies, citizenship rights, protection of borders, protection of existing citizens from dangerous incomers etc etc) or that this entire cultural classical liberal construct survives much better in more homogenous and unified settings and certainly can’t survive prioritising specific groups above majority groups.
Nope, term Woke Right - albeit it's a wrong term, I could call it Woke Mirror on the Right, more poetic also - still does not say anything about Woke origins same as Toxic Masculinity doesn't automatically imply ALL masculinity. Yeah, it was USED to smear all masculinity but it doesn't mean the original meaning intended it and indeed it didn't, read the original definition. It was designed to use specific negative traits of masculinity most prominent in my homeland Russia like male alcoholism, sexism, homophobia, and unmotivated aggression resulted in million cases of domestic violence against women and kids and street violence against other men. It's a sweeping problem in Russia yet no one is willing to address it exactly because of 'toxic masculinity' of Russian State and society.
Again, you can't blame the original meaning of the word for how it was used later especially if the Woke corrupted the language and twisted and 'redefined' everything, 'Threat to democracy', 'conspiracy theory' and 'misinformation' being the most prominent examples.
As for blaming game, still no. You can blame anything and anyone with that logic. It's possible to blame the right for Wokeism too because if the right weren't such douchebags to gays and women in the past, radical feminism and Alphabet Mafia would never have risen to begin with. Or are you telling me that imprisoning gay men for whom they love and using women as a chattel without allowing them to work and choose their own destiny was 'great and perfect and moral' approach?
So please, let us restrain from pointing fingers and blame games and instead fight a common enemy.