424. Revolution (IX)
The belief system commonly called “wokeness”, formerly “political correctness”, might also be described as progressive liberalism—or, more specifically, Anglo-American progressive liberalism. It is a belief system from America, the world’s dominant imperial bloc, and it is shared with Britain; and it is shared because America is a limb from Britain’s tree. What do America and Britain have in common, per stereotypes—since stereotypes are accurate? Politeness. The British are known for their politeness and reserve; and the Americans are more polite than the British. Admittedly, American politeness is somewhat phoney—a service-orientated culture, as the jargon has it—and yet it is pleasant. “Have a nice day!” The British bristle at that; far too familiar—almost too forward, too nice; and yet still recognisably an outgrowth from the desire to be polite.
My view is that wokeness parasites upon politeness: Britain and America are the middle-class societies par excellence; and the middle class judges people by their respectability—and that includes politeness. Ruthless anti-social people, especially in a mass democracy, can use politeness to get what they want through its expansion to include prohibitions on speech that is deemed “hateful” (extremely impolite) and through an expansion in courtesy (fairness).
Socialism had a transparent demand in all its iterations, from Marxism to Christian socialism: abolish private property—do that and technology will flourish, wars will cease, and crime will vanish. Middle-class people could easily recognise that this demand was against their interests as property owners and probably motivated by resentment that would create a tyrannous state that controlled everything.
Woke beliefs never make such a direct demand: there is talk about “open and inclusive hierarchies”, new language codes, special bursaries and reserved jobs for various groups, and so on—never is the demand as direct and simple as socialism, although it ultimately terminates in property abolition. It works through femininity. “We don’t wanna play with Sam; he smells.” Mother takes off her apron, “What did you say? He does not smell. Now you come along and include Sam and play together nicely.” Equality, diversity, and inclusion—the watchwords for every nursery. Even Lenin and Stalin with their “elite revolutionary organisation” would be in trouble with the woke: “Bolshevism doesn’t sound very fair or nice; why can’t you play with Nicky without all this roughness?…I spoke to his mother at the shops and she’s a lovely woman, very intelligent.”
Politeness includes deference towards women as a status indicator; the lower orders beat their women—my wife can read, eventually she will go to university; eventually she divorces me, but I am too polite to protest. People laugh at the Victorian statement “not in front of the ladies” and yet our entire political culture is based on the same principle: do not say things that might upset the ladies, whether racial slurs or facts about race and IQ. Politeness venerates femininity and has effectively developed into a decadent form that outlawed male-only spaces and made it high status for men to behave in a feminine way. When every space is a female space more and more topics—not just the notorious chair legs that suggested sex to polite Victorians—become impolite and taboo.
This is even apparent in environmentalism: technology, such as oil rigs, that is dirty, dangerous, and involves a phallic thrust into Mother Earth (rape) is considered bad, whereas “passive” technology, such as wind power, is good—it is not indecent, as with oil. Similarly, as with politeness and femininity, safety is an either or issue; it is not possible that a little radiation, a little Covid-19, or a little carbon could be good for you—no: ban nuclear, zero Covid, net zero carbon. Feminised males push forward these positions to enhance their status as girly men. This is why wokeness is insidious in a way Marxism was not, and also more difficult to combat: it makes no concrete demands, but bends responsible people into irresponsibility by manipulating the status signals they use to demonstrate responsibility.