Reframing the Concept of “Awakening”

Not long ago, the term “awakening” was a common point of reference for anti-Marxist liberals, conservatives, and nationalists. It served as a unifying term in the fight against the prevailing neo-Marxist sentiments that emerged around 2015. In a way, this term helped foster a coalition that appeared capable of countering a significant ideological threat.

It’s remarkable how something so simple became a cornerstone for such a robust alliance.

However, recently, a small faction of anti-liberal activists has sought to turn this once-unifying term into a means to attack those on the right.

Some liberal voices misuse “right” to paint all nationalists with the same brush, while others, perhaps less insidiously, attempt to restrict the term “awakening” to what they label as “right” or “white nationalists.”

I get it. Some of these liberals seem disingenuous, while others may be genuinely confused about how to navigate their political landscape.

But regardless of their intentions—whether duplicitous or naively earnest—any liberal using “woke right” seems to be engaged in a misleading campaign.

What exactly are they aiming to achieve? Essentially, they’re taking a term that has effectively encapsulated a decade of resistance to the neo-Marxist ideology and, in a rather dramatic turn, they’re stomping on it to render it useless for those who need it.

Historically, “awakening” was a term that emphasized the necessity for unity among liberals, conservatives, nationalists, Christians, and Jews against a common adversary. Now, renegotiating its meaning as a weapon against this coalition weakens our collective voice. It’s disheartening to witness such a transformation of a shared discourse.

Fracturing Alliances

This shift has left many nationalist figures baffled by the perceived betrayal from certain anti-Marxist liberals, who once championed the “awakening” concept.

Redefining “awakening” in this context is not merely a semantic issue; it’s a betrayal. If allowed to persist, it risks undermining unity built over months or even years.

Of course, there have always been divergent views on the right, including “white nationalists” who distinguish themselves from others in the broader conservative movement. Various terms exist—like “alt-right” or “Natcons”—to describe these factions accurately. Not to mention the often-used pejoratives like “Christian nationalists” that some liberal commentators resort to when discussing those outside their ideology.

There has been ample language for anti-Marxist liberals to critique the different factions on the right—everyone has understood what was being referred to.

Reason for the Shift?

So, why not stick to established terminology? Some in the anti-Marxist liberal camp seem to think that they need to promote this new designator “woke right” as if it significantly impacts the conversation.

This likely stems from a belief that terms like “right,” “alt-right,” or “white nationalist” don’t carry the same weight for their agenda. Let’s dive into why they might prefer “woke right.”

1. “Woke Right” as a Humiliation Tool: The intent behind “woke” seems to be aimed at diminishing the efforts of those who’ve fought against the neo-Marxist sentiments. It’s disheartening when former allies adopt such disparaging language.

2. Signaling Virtue: Using “woke right” serves as a badge of ideological purity for those who still wish to distance themselves from those on the right. It essentially marks a line in the sand.

3. Effective Provocation: The term “woke” seems to successfully irk many nationalist conservatives, stirring confusion and unrest among them.

4. Undermining Coalitions: This newer term strips the broader anti-Marxist coalition of its meaning and power, making collaboration increasingly difficult.

5. Dismantling Mutual Respect: The implications of “woke right” suggest intentional division, making it harder for liberals and nationalists to find common ground.

In summation, there’s a myriad of reasons why some anti-Marxist liberals lean towards “woke right.” Yet, the underlying motivation appears to be a desire to create a rift, stoke distrust, and hinder the two sides from uniting for a common cause.

I firmly believe that those who utilize the term are, in a sense, misguided. They risk sabotaging a hard-won coalition and may not fully grasp the implications of their words, possibly even being led by those who understand the damage they’re inflicting.

Ultimately, the established political terminology is being compromised, and thus, they seem, quite frankly, counterproductive.

Threats to Collaborative Efforts

It can be quite disheartening to work alongside liberals on shared goals. Perhaps the worst feeling is perceiving their disdain for nationalist allies and conservatives, even when they are ostensibly on the same side.

For some younger readers who may not have lived through the end of the Cold War, it’s worth noting that those events had significant implications. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was an attempt by a small cadre of liberal leaders to marginalize their conservative allies.

After that period of triumph over communism, some liberals thought it was their moment to assert their ideology as the dominant force globally.

Now, while this current liberal fixation seems smaller in scale, it feels eerily reminiscent of past attempts. A few fervent liberal advocates appear eager to ridicule conservative partners under the assumption that the ideological battle has been won.

I admit that their efforts seem, at this stage, rather feeble. The truth is, those truly invested in these ideas are still a minority. Yet, seeing their willingness to provoke conflict within their coalition partners is certainly troubling.

Donald Trump and J.D. Vance recognized the importance of including anti-Marxist liberals within their broader coalition. Their success depended on that inclusiveness—a strategy that still holds potential relevance going forward.

However, if extreme liberal voices continue to propagate false narratives depicting nationalist conservatives as a significant threat, the future of collaboration looks bleak.