Until fairly recently, “Woke” was a term that resonated with anti-Marxist liberals, nationalists, and conservatives alike. It created a common language for those opposing the rise of toxic neo-Marxist ideology since 2015. The term played a crucial role in uniting a diverse coalition, enabling them to stand against this cultural tide.
This unity, encapsulated in a single word, represented a significant political victory.
However, a small group of liberals has now chosen to twist this term, undermining the very coalition that initiated this resistance.
Some of these liberals are broad-brushing nationalism, while others—perhaps more naively—limit it to what some label “alt-right” or “white nationalist.”
I see it clearly. Those liberals who espouse the term “awakening” seem to operate with ulterior motives. And others, who are more earnest, might be grappling with complicated political philosophies.
The cries of the protests, which were once focused on battling neo-Marxism, now render “Woke Up” a tainted concept. This isn’t happenstance—it’s a calculated agenda.
Yet it doesn’t matter whether someone is a cynical manipulator or a misguided thinker. All these liberals pushing the “Woke Right” narrative are, well, misguided. For years, they’ve taken a term that once united anti-Marxists, conservatives, and nationalists, and used it to undermine them. They’ve effectively robbed it of its power.
Yes, “waking up” originally signified one clear idea: a response to radical leftism, something that reasonable liberals, conservatives, and nationalists united to fight against. By rebranding it as an insult within this coalition, they’ve turned it into something that leaves a bitter taste in our mouths. They’ve stripped away its shared meaning, turning allies into divisions.
Undermining Alliances
This situation sheds light on the feelings of surprise and betrayal experienced by nationalists and certain anti-Marxist liberals who initially championed the term “awakening.” It also explains their disillusionment with those liberals who unwittingly walked into this trap.
This isn’t merely about a redefinition of terminology; it feels like a betrayal. And if this sticks, it could tear apart the anti-Marxist coalition that, for a fleeting moment, seemed poised to succeed.
Of course, the right has always been defined by its factions—there’s a distinction between what Richard Spencer calls the “alt-right” and more mainstream nationalist conservatives, with others occupying even narrower “white nationalist” fringes. “Rebel rights” have existed across a broader spectrum. Then there’s “Natkon,” referring to mainstream nationalist conservatives. These categories made sense. For those less concerned with precision, liberal media has historically provided labels like “alt-right” or “Christian nationalist,” which have placed everyone on the right under a broad, alarmist umbrella.
In short, there was already a vocabulary for critiquing the right. The definitions were established.
Tarnishing Terminologies
So, why create something new? Why did this small faction of self-proclaimed intellectuals within the anti-Marxist liberal camp feel the need to devise a new term? Why disturb the shared language that had helped construct a fragile alliance?
Here’s a thought: some anti-Marxist liberals saw an opportunity in the “Woke Right” that wasn’t present in more precise descriptors like “far-right” or “white nationalist.” Let’s assess the potential benefits that these ambitious reformers might aim to derive from this new terminology.
- “Awakened” serves to belittle. This term aims at individuals who have dedicated years, often at great personal and professional cost, to fight this ideology. It communicates a message: you’re no better than the Maoist militants you opposed. The sting is worse when this comes from liberals who once stood alongside them.
- “Woke Right” demonstrates virtue. By turning against the coalition they helped build, these liberals can showcase the purity of their ideology. With “Woke Right,” they are saying they’re different from “the others.” It’s about sidelining nationalists and conservatives permanently.
- “Woke Right” incites anger. Unlike more cumbersome phrases like “alt-right” and “Christian nationalism,” this one strikes a nerve that people can’t ignore. For some liberal provocateurs, that outrage is the goal.
- “Woke Right” erodes the term “Woke” as a unifier. The cries that once unified a community against neo-Marxism have now turned “waking up” into a poisoned concept. No one can use it anymore without hesitation. This isn’t simply a coincidence; it’s intentional.
- “Woke Right” fosters hostility. The term injects elements of humiliation, divisiveness, and betrayal into what was once a delicate alliance. This isn’t mere linguistic play; it’s a calculated strategy to ensure that anti-Marxist liberals and nationalist conservatives will tear each other down and never collaborate again.
Thus, while some anti-Marxist liberals may prefer “Woke Right” over previously established terms, they only do so if their intention is to drive a wedge between liberal and nationalist factions, stoke mutual distrust and resentment, and cripple any chance for cooperation.
That’s why I describe all anti-Marxist liberals in this context as misguided. Because by intentionally obstructing the coalition against Marxism—risking a victory—you display a political ignorance about the damage being wrought and a blindness to those manipulating you.
In any case, political labels have their uses. Misguided.
The Perilous Agenda
Much about working with liberals frustrates me. Yet, there’s nothing quite as ironic as seeing well-known liberals devise new ways to express their disdain for the very nationalists and conservatives who aided in their shared goals.
Some might not recall the Cold War’s conclusion, so let me give a brief recap. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, a faction of liberal ideologues not only celebrated this as a victory over communism but saw it as a chance to erase nationalists and true conservatives from the public sphere. When they discussed a “unipolar” world, they weren’t envisioning robust American leadership; they were advocating for a system in which influential figures couldn’t diverge from liberal orthodoxy. The infamous vision presented by Francis Fukuyama, which sought to marginalize those deviating from this political narrative, summed up this ambition perfectly.
Today, we’re witnessing incremental attempts to re-enact that liberal fantasy. Some figures, perhaps a bit overconfident, have fallen into a trap. They believe they’ve won a war against dissent and are now eager to expel nationalists and conservative allies from the fight against the left. They seem to yearn for another “end of history” where liberalism reigns unchallenged and all others vanish.
I’ll acknowledge this: for now, this campaign appears somewhat desperate. Only a minority among anti-Marxist liberals seem truly invested in this narrative. But the speed at which they deceive others into imperiling their own coalition should raise alarm bells.
Donald Trump and J.D. Vance recognized the importance of integrating anti-Marxist liberals into their movement. Their success hinges on forming a wider coalition, one that, if enacted, could lead to actual change.
But if this coalition insists on perpetuating the false notion that Nationalist Conservatives pose the same threat as the radical left, then it won’t last long—at least not as a coalition. That’s not pragmatic politics; that’s self-sabotage. If this trend persists, those advocating this narrative won’t just fracture alliances; they’ll ensure their ultimate collapse.
