Image 01 Image 03

Is There a “Woke Right”? American Values Versus Wokeism

Is There a “Woke Right”? American Values Versus Wokeism

We should protect and preserve our core values from any and all ideologies that strive to co-opt normal political positions and ultimately annihilate the West.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_040531-N-4518T-010_USS_Constitution_crew_member_Builder_1st_Class_Kevin_Dougherty,_sings_the_National_Anthem_at_Boston%27s_Fenway_Park.jpg

One of the biggest intellectual crimes of anti-Western ideologues is perpetuating the dichotomy between what they label “far” or “extreme” left and “far” or “extreme” right.

This stubborn perception treats communistic and fascistic doctrines as though they were ideological opposites. It inflicts irreparable harm to classical liberalism by associating it with communism, and to conservatism by associating it with fascism, Nazism, and racism.

This false dichotomy presupposes a linear progression whereby classical liberalism gradually devolves into communism on the left end of the spectrum, and conservatism into national socialism, on the right. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Socialism originated as an antithesis to classical liberalism. It disregards innate human rights and freedoms and favors the state and the collective at the expense of the individual. It is inherently racist and discriminatory, as it prefers certain groups and punishes others.

The so-called “far-left” ideologies do not derive from classical liberalism but are its categorical rejection. By resorting to effective language manipulation, progressives and socialists have been labeling themselves “liberals” and misleading actual liberals to endorse their radical policies.

Similarly, national socialism and fascism are by no means a natural progression of conservatism, but in fact they vehemently oppose tradition, Judeo-Christian values, personal responsibility, and the concept of limited government.

Churchill famously wrote in Volume 1 of The Gathering Storm that “Fascism was the shadow or ugly child of Communism.” He further elaborated:

As Fascism sprang from Communism, so Nazism developed from Fascism. Thus were set on foot those kindred movements which were destined soon to plunge the world into even more hideous strife….

A troubling recent occurrence is the so-called “woke right,” whereby people who seemingly identify as “right-wing” express antisemitic and fascist-adjacent views. Such individuals are undoubtedly much fewer than their leftist counterparts, who have embraced both the Islamist and Marxist flavors of anti-Israel propaganda.

Yet, the iron must be struck while hot, and any such instances must be nipped in the bud. It is also conceivable that such occurrences on the so-called “right” are partly due to foreign or leftist subversion, which should be investigated and exposed.

Others who may identify as “right-wing” are misled by the false concept of isolationism. They believe that America should only ever focus on herself. This derives from a deep moral confusion and historical misconception.

It is true that the United States should not wage forever wars, waste taxpayers’ dollars to export wokeness to the rest of the world, or fund unnecessary international projects. However, we cannot, and should not, abandon our strategic allies who share our moral principles, such as Israel, for instance. As Dennis Prager explains, “America First” does not mean “America only”:

I am a strong advocate of America First. Indeed, I believe the citizens of every country should put their country first… Just as people should put their family’s well-being first, they should put their country’s well-being first…

[Yet] America has never been just a country. Nor is America an ethnic group or race. America is an idea: the greatest nation-making idea in world history. America was set up to be a “bright shining light,” and has always seen itself — correctly, I believe — as exceptional. The America Firsters who believe in America Only do not see America as a moral force for good in the world…

As for the argument … that America must first deal with its own problems before helping any other people on Earth, this simply means that America will never help any other people on Earth. There never was and never will be a time when America is free of domestic problems.

The argument that we should concern ourselves with our borders, not those of Israel (or, presumably, Taiwan) is a non-sequitur. That we have made America into a country with open borders has nothing to do with Israel or any other country. It has to do with the left’s desire to undo America (and Western Civilization in general). And it is not an America First argument; it is an America Only argument.

Moreover, supporting our allies often directly benefits American interests and the survival of the West. Ideas and policies that favor national interest are a positive phenomenon when they are based on American values, which recognize that all human beings possess equal innate worth and rights  — a much-needed antidote to the prevailing globalist narratives, which advocate for the elimination of national sovereignty and uncontrolled migration by bearers of anti-Western ideologies.

Nationalism, on the other hand, which is based on discriminatory, socialist, and racist principles, is harmful and un-American. It directly contradicts what America was founded upon and stands for. Totalitarian socialist and related ideologies have no place in the normal political spectrum.

Therefore, it makes much better sense to abandon the left-right linear division, which culminates in communism on the left end of the axis and in fascism and national socialism on the right. Fascism and national socialism, just like communism, abolish individual rights and freedoms. In contrast, liberalism and conservatism uphold them.

To understand the current ideological conflict, we should visualize instead the core American values and adjacent philosophies as part of a normal, healthy body politic. This includes views that may differ, such as classical liberalism and conservatism, but they balance each other and are compatible with basic American ideals.

This normal body politic is constantly attacked by incompatible ideologies — mental viruses that have plagued humanity in one form or another. They include antisemitism, racism, national socialism, communism, progressivism, wokeism, radical feminism, anti-Western environmentalism, globalism, etc. We should not regard them as extensions of normal conservative or liberal views but as diseased and parasitical influences that must be excluded from a healthy political spectrum.

The current division, stated simply, is between those who love and support America and its ideals and those who either openly hate it or want to radically transform it along un-American lines.

More broadly, as Melanie Phillips remarks:

The real divisions are not so much between groups as within groups. The dividing line is not between conservatives and liberals, white-skinned individuals and people of color, heterosexuals and gays. The division now is between those who want Western civilization to continue and those who don’t.

Instead of interpreting the battle of ideas as the “woke left” versus the “woke right,” as though they were natural progressions of normal left and right ideologies, we need to contrast American principles with hostile beliefs that seek to destroy America. We should protect and preserve our core values from any and all ideologies that strive to co-opt normal political positions and ultimately annihilate the West.

Nora D. Clinton is a Research Scholar at the Legal Insurrection Foundation. She was born and raised in Sofia, Bulgaria. She holds a PhD in Classics and has published extensively on ancient documents on stone. In 2020, she authored the popular memoir Quarantine Reflections Across Two Worlds. Nora is a co-founder of two partner charities dedicated to academic cooperation and American values. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and son.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Could we be blunt about the woke right problem?

Tucker Carlson isn’t just watched by legion after legion after legion of people he has very close ties to J.D. Vance who may be the next president, which would mean Tucker’s opinions on Jews, his promoting abuse of women and girls to young men (there is no other way to boost Andrew Tate), his views that America is a shit hole and always has been (there is no other way to have his views on the Atomic Bomb) his Holocaust Denial (there is no other way to promote Holocaust deniers as the “greatest and most honest historian of our time”) along with a host of many other things will be coming in from the cold in the Republican Party.

If you don’t think the Republican Party could look like Tucker Carlson in 20 years just look at the esteem Al Sharpton was once held in and compare it to how mainstreamed Al Sharpton became.

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man, socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” -Alexis de Tocqueville

Hmm

America must be first or everything else fails

destroycommunism | August 10, 2025 at 9:06 pm

like ANYONE who ahs a philosophy there will always be issues/subjects that dont align 1000% with the label

oh you like a classic rock radio station but you dont like a /some songs on the station

so there are so called right wingers who ARE IN FACT RIGHT WINGERS but ( fill in the blanks) believe socialism is/was needed etc b/c of certain market conditions….

“oh I am a capitalist ,,they will brag,,,but we needed to bail out the banks in 2009”

so instead of ONCE AGAIN ALLOWING LEFTY TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE so that Mamadami and socialism can have a “softer” edge as they normalize that…..

tell the lefty to go f themselves and we are pro america and if some on the right hate j ews …that means just that

they are on the right on some things and the jew hatred is STILL A LEFT WING POV

“Therefore, it makes much better sense to abandon the left-right linear division, which culminates in communism on the left end of the axis and in fascism and national socialism on the right.”

Which is why the Libertarians did exactly that in 1969.

Compared to free-market capitalism, socialism and fascism are two straws in the same cup..

    Azathoth in reply to henrybowman. | August 11, 2025 at 1:59 pm

    “Therefore, it makes much better sense to abandon the left-right linear division, which culminates in communism on the left end of the axis and in fascism and national socialism on the right.”

    No.

    The right end of the axis DOES NOT end in fascism and national socialism.

    In fact, if you are on the right –the actual right– there is no possible path towards either because you eschew collectivism wholeheartedly.

    And communism, fascism, and national socialism are ALL collectivist ideologies.

    The abandomentment of the ‘left-right linear division’ is always the abandonment of the right –for the greater good of the whole.

    And THAT is collectivism.

    It is why the libertarian Party has failed.

    Because they’ve abandoned liberty –which is and can only be individual.

    The idea that dascism and nazism are on the right is a left wing idea, promulgated to distance their murderous ideology from it’s murderous siblings.

    Stop helping the left by spreading this.

‘…should not abandon our strategic allies who share our moral principles’. Ok that would then restrict our ‘allies’ to those who share our moral principles and the rest CAN be abandoned. Now we need to decide what constitutes our Nation’s ‘moral principles’. Since our Nation was founded with a heavy reliance on Western Civ and Enlightenment philosophy and however deeply informed by Judeo/Christian religion we are a secular Nation (see 1A, we rejected a National Religion) which respects basic freedoms and individual responsibility wouldn’t that mean our ‘moral principles’ are reflected in the US Constitution?

If so then many our so called allies are falling short of the mark to qualify as ‘sharing our moral principles’. Across Europe freedom of speech and association is being eroded. Britain has speech codes seeking to jail folks for public prayer, Germany is trying to ban populist political parties. Most EU Nations ain’t exactly friendly to ‘keeping and bearing’ firearms. Same for Australia and NZ. Canada is Cray Cray woke totalitarian. Japan is definitely not 2A friendly. Many other examples. Then there’s the issue of ‘allies’ who are only now lifting their unilateral tariff and their substantial non tariff trade barriers which often prohibited entire sectors of US imports. I would submit that ‘allies’ wouldn’t seek to gouge US manufacturing and agriculture and harm our Citizens economic prosperity.

There’s also a very big difference between isolationist policy and the principle of non intervention. The former says never get involved outside the Nation while the latter says don’t seek to meddle in other Nations. Unfortunately the USA has been led by the nose by the neocons and globalists to ‘intervene’ for many decades at the cost of substantial blood and treasure. President Washington was very wise to offer his admonition about entering into ‘entangling alliances’. The British Statesman Lord Palmerston summed it best ‘England has no eternal friend, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual INTERESTS. We should work with whatever Nations are temporary allies of convenience to advance those interests and end entangling alliances.

    Would America be weaker or stronger without Europe and Japan?

    Furthermore is there a way to be in alliance with places in Europe that do share our values like Hungary, Czechia and Lithuania without also aligning with places that do not share our values like France, Britain, and Spain?

      CommoChief in reply to Danny. | August 11, 2025 at 5:24 pm

      Zero points awarded for this attempt to move the goalposts.

      Since you asked…lets imagine that world where NATO was disbanded at the end of the Cold War + a couple years ish…say ’95. That gives three decades without the European Nations becoming increasingly dependent upon the US Military. They’d have been far more clear eyed about their reliance on cheap Russian energy and might have avoided their ‘green energy folly’…at minimum these Nations would make these investments decisions as trade offs without the US security safety net. Then there’s the economic front and by ending entangling military alliances the US would have come down harder earlier on grossly unfair European tariffs and trade barriers. That in turn means far less ‘globalization’ aka off shore of US Industrial and Manufacturing base. Plus more common sense domestic energy using our abundant coal in turn keeping our comparative advantage in low-cost energy and a reinvigorated middle-class. That means less govt welfare and stimulus spending. Which gives us a much lower National Debt and far higher tax revenue.

      All in all …yeah …we’d be far better off if the last three decades had been sans NATO. So would the European Nations and Japan, Australia, NZ, Taiwan b/c they’d have had no US Military to immediately bail them out and without that certainty they’d have made less foolish decisions about their own spending choices and been far more honest about addressing the inherent trade offs.

        Danny in reply to CommoChief. | August 12, 2025 at 9:22 pm

        The American industrial base grew exponentially during the time you say it collapsed.

        The American arms industry wasn’t that different from the Russian one in quality till the 21st century (again a very recent divergence).

        To give just one example of American industrial growth car manufacture in South Carolina and Alabama.

        Unlike America Europe’s manufacturing is in a free fall state of collapse. The UK is not witnessing a migration from York and London to obscure cities but collapse of industry (real collapse).

The biggest intellectual crime is conditioning people to “spot” communism, socialisms, fascism, Nazism or racism without them even being able to define those terms.

Socialism originated as an antithesis to classical liberalism.
Going to disagree if you mean the Marxist socialism. It originated as an antithesis to Christianity.

    GWB in reply to GWB. | August 11, 2025 at 9:13 am

    Oof. I see a problem with this entire thing.
    It is inherently racist and discriminatory, as it prefers certain groups and punishes others.
    No, Socialism is not inherently racist. The simplest definition of socialism doesn’t involve race at all. Even marxist socialism is interested just in class, not race. And that, solely to eliminate class. “Christian socialism,” properly defined, is even less racist. (What a great many call “Christian socialism” is really more Progressive socialism.)

    Socialism is an economic system. A great many other bits of Marxism accrue themselves around socialism because socialism is only part of the Marxist stupidity.

      destroycommunism in reply to GWB. | August 11, 2025 at 10:17 am

      “socialism is not inherently racist”

      but it is inherently evil

        Not inherently, no.
        When imposed by a government, it is, because it has to mash down those who rise.
        When self-imposed within a religious community, allowing anyone to exit the community, it’s not. (Though, human nature eventually comes along in those cases and brings it down.)

          destroycommunism in reply to GWB. | August 11, 2025 at 10:44 am

          the religious community has its own government ..so within those confines ( and they would be the only ones that matter) is remains inherently evil

          you cant say charles mason wasnt evil b/c people could come and go…HE was still evil

          Azathoth in reply to GWB. | August 11, 2025 at 4:03 pm

          Socialists do not believe socialism is evil. Likewise, Hitler thought he was doing good.

          But socialism IS evil. From it’s root to it’s fruit.

          This is why it never works, able to exist only as a parasite on nations who allow economic activity to occur normally.

          Milhouse in reply to GWB. | August 11, 2025 at 9:25 pm

          No, voluntary socialism is not inherently evil. Every family is socialist; what stops it from being tyrannical is that any adult member who doesn’t like it is free to leave and strike out on his own. The kibbutzim were also not evil, because people were free to leave; they eventually collapsed because the founders’ grandchildren discovered real life.

        It is evil because it is all about control, pure and simple. But people have been conditioned to view it as “free stuff.” Socialized medicine is great until you get sick. Go to the Cleveland Clinic on any given day and count the number of Canadian plates on cars. Socialism is about taking 100% and then giving back just enough to keep the masses from rioting. I always find John Lennon interesting, because while he wanted to disassemble the staus quo, he was also fairly adept at calling out to particularly evil examples on the Left. Ironically they were called out for “Back in the USSR,: which was really a play on California Girls, and almost no one raised a fuss over “Working Class Hero” which perfectly forecast the future of the UK and the dehumanization of the workforce in all classes. Jagger and Dylan were the same way in that they continued to call out the system even as they rose through it, as opposed to the current entertainment shills who became entirely different people as soon as they got theirs cough, Springsteen, cough. As I think about “Strangers with Candy,” I have to wonder if Colbert will ever look back and have that moment of clarity where everything went wrong. The irony is that they end up as victims of what they were part of placing on others, and thus end their career remembered mostly as a cautionary tale. In order for socialism to work in one’s head, it has to be constantly confined to an ever decreasing bubble. They don’t want freedom for others because they aren’t allowed to have it for themselves.

    GWB in reply to GWB. | August 11, 2025 at 9:22 am

    the so-called “woke right,” … antisemitic and fascist-adjacent views
    Anti-semitism is not “woke.” It is something unto itself. It is adopted by the left because it pokes their enemies in the eye.

    Therefore, it makes much better sense to abandon the left-right linear division
    Concur. But it has nothing to do with “fascism on the right and communism on the left.” It has everything to do with the issues noted already in regards to definitions and what includes what. If we stopped trying to shove everything into those two boxes, we might actually be able to discuss right and wrong in a meaningful fashion.

      CommoChief in reply to GWB. | August 11, 2025 at 10:57 am

      Left/right distinction is a good rule of thumb when accurately characterized. It should always be noted that Communism, Socialism and of course the ‘National Socialists’ and Fascists were all leftists of different flavors/degrees/points of emphasis… except for the totalitarianism, big govt, govt control of economic priorities and the purge/elimination/reeducation of anyone who dissents…. those were then and remain today as points of agreement/similarity for the leftists.

        Dolce Far Niente in reply to CommoChief. | August 11, 2025 at 12:35 pm

        The left/right dichotomy is a false one.

        The actual spectrum is individual liberty and responsibility on one end vs authoritarianism and state control on the other.

        Socialism, communism, fascism, religious authoritarianism clearly fall on one end of the spectrum, no matter how confusingly their right/left labels are applied or whether they are economic or political systems.

          MajorWood in reply to Dolce Far Niente. | August 11, 2025 at 2:40 pm

          The only pure socialism system that I know of is AA, and it only works because each member is holding a gun (figuratively) to their own head. Creating a problem, either from the top, middle,or bottom, is in effect “signing one’s own death warrant.” Business meetings are errily similar to the muck people scene in the Holy Grail. Anyone trying to gain an upper hand eventually gives up due to sheer frustration. 15,046 ODAAT.

          And I think even that is inadequate. I think the left/right bit hangs on because it’s an easy way to demonize the other side, rather than discussing individual issues. (And it’s even easier when one side embraces a whole slew of bad ideas on a massive subset of issues. Or one really bad solution to every issue.)

          @ MajorWood in reply to Dolce Far Niente. | August 11, 2025 at 2:40 pm

          The other one is a monastic life. And those mostly work well.

          CommoChief in reply to Dolce Far Niente. | August 11, 2025 at 5:37 pm

          The dichotomy is false when we allow the leftists to reframe the National Socialists and Fascism as ‘the right’. Those are both of the left.

          I have zero objection to reframing the distinction as:

          Those who emphasize maximum individual liberty tempered by both individual responsibility/accountability and guided by the basic broad morality of Western Civilization/Enlightenment to produce a colorblind meritocracy with evenhanded judiciary and simple, transparent laws whose worth is measured by effectiveness not intent.

          V

          Those who emphasize group, ethnic, tribal, religious identity over individual merit, where rule of law is replaced by rule of lawyers with justice an afterthought to blind obedience to procedure and bad precedent. Who judge success by good intentions v effective outcomes. Who view every action/inaction through an identity politics lens. That refuses individual responsibility or accountability in favor of group ID and historical grievances not experienced in several generations.

        I think one of our main problems is that “left/right” is thoroughly inadequate.

          Azathoth in reply to GWB. | August 11, 2025 at 4:14 pm

          The left wants us to use something besides ‘left’ and ‘right’ because the pile of corpses that stands behind the term ‘left’ is too big to hide.

      destroycommunism in reply to GWB. | August 11, 2025 at 4:38 pm

      fascism is a left wing trait

      the schools etc tell us that its a right wing

      its lefty alll the way

      communists and fascist BOTH

      want government control over the people

      its that simple

      business
      schools
      media
      weapons
      speech

      us patriots want to be left the f alone

These varying ideologies often invoke a sort of “bait and switch”.
They draw them in preaching one portion of the ideology, then uncover the full breath of the ideology and force it on those who “came for the cake and not the sermon”

In reading Agent Sonja, (I think it’s a Ben Macntire book) – she was largely driven to communism because of the brutal beat downs (riots) of the Brownshirts.

There were only 2 things the shook her
1) When the Soviets made a non-aggression pact with Hitler, which neither party had any intention of honoring.
2) Deep deep deep deep into the purges. But at that point the egg Soviet egg was so rotten her only “out” would have been to disappear.

I don’t buy into the Woke Right language. No one on the right is woke. It’s as absurd as a tranny pretending to be female calling himself a lesbian.

It’s a white pony in Mexico, painted with black stipes to pass as a zebra to those too stupid to know the difference.

When theres stupid name and linquistic tricks at hand… the left is always behind it. Like LatinX… no one should buy it.

    GWB in reply to Andy. | August 11, 2025 at 3:27 pm

    It’s as absurd as a tranny pretending to be female calling himself a lesbian.
    You know, that used to be a joke pickup line. “I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.”
    Taking it seriously…. SMH.

Fascism, since its inception, is collectivist and Marxist. The symbol Mussolini chose for it was the faggots – in its original meaning – a ‘bundle of sticks’. Symbolizing the strength of a collective, as opposed to all individualistic – right wing – political ideologies.

Of the three dozen Parties in Germany in the 20’s and early 30’s, there was only one in the right: Monarchists that wanted the Kaiser’s back, one in the middle: the Catholic Center Party, and all the rest were Marxist.

The only one further Left than the National SOCIALIST Workers Party was the Communists. And, of course, all “workers party’s” have been left wing everywhere. Hitler’s SA were drawn from the trade Unions. After he gained power, he merged all the unions into one and that became the State.

He gave hundreds of speeches during his rise to power, and he was always keen on explaining the difference between his brand of Marxism vs the other 30+ Socialist Parties at the time. He had to, the competition was fierce. And, his innovation was indeed novel and it worked and he was immensely proud of himself for it.

Hitler would assure his audiences that his Party was entirely Marxist, but that he planned on implementing the Marxist agenda without DIRECTLY seizing the means of production. He’d do it by proxy. By endless regulation. The Central Govt would, of course, completely control the economy, but the businesses would remain nominally independent under their original owners.

Once in power, he implemented precisely this and it became what separates Fascism from Communism. He taught Mussolini, Franco and Peron to do the same thing. The Peron’s Marxist Fascist govt ruled Argentina until just a few years ago.

Today, in Venezuela, they tried the exact same thing. Not Communism, but rather the Fascist variant on Marx.