How the Woke manipulate the Center-Left
As effectively as any intelligence service.
In my previous article in this series, I argued that while many thinkers on the Center-Left wish the Democratic party would eliminate Woke issue stands, they refuse to acknowledge the key role that the Center-Left played in creating the Woke in the first place. But that is only half the story. The other part is the amazing ability of Critical Theory and the Woke to manipulate the white male Center-Leftists who dominate the middle and upper ranks of most American institutions.
That is what we will discuss in this article.
A key theme of this Substack column and my From Poverty to Progress book series is opposing public policies that undermine the foundations of material progress. The moral legitimacy of those policies comes from ideologies that refuse to make promoting material progress a foundation of their belief system.
One of the biggest problems in wealthy Western societies is that:
A very large percentage of the upper and middle ranks of our institutions have a worldview dominated by Post-Modernist Left-of-Center ideologies that conflict with material reality. This has led to them undermining the foundations of material progress and undermining upward mobility for the working class and poor.
A small minority of Leftist activists (at most 5-10%) have learned how to manipulate the Center-Left, particularly the Center-Left white males who run those institutions, to adopt Woke and Climate activist policies and propaganda.
Both of the above trends mean that a small minority of the people control the discourse, terminology, and argumentation within institutions on key issues that are sensitive to the Left. It is important to note that these two groups do not dominate every institution. Their influence is particularly important in the following institutions:
Universities
K-12 education
Media
Hollywood and the entertainment industry
Digital technology industry
Democratic party
Federal bureaucracy and state/local bureaucracies in Blue states.
Together, however, these institutions have a massive influence on American society.
In a previous article, I claimed that the American upper class has undergone a transformation change over the last 60 years. In summary, the old male WASP upper class who dominated American institutions for 200 years and believed in Mainline Protestant Christianity, patriotism, and material progress has been replaced by a far larger college-educated professional class who believe in secularism, cosmopolitanism, a post-modern skepticism of or even opposition to material progress, and varying degrees of Left-of-Center ideology.
The transformation of the American upper class
Make someone’s day: Gift a subscription to your friends and family!
This transformation of the American upper class has had a powerful impact on the policies and practices of our institutions, particularly the public policies that the government has adopted. In particular, so many of our institutions have adopted a Left-of-Center group-think mentality around the issues of race, gender, sexuality, climate, energy, immigration, and many other issues. This group-think mentality is making our institutions dysfunctional and undermining their legitimacy.
How did this happen? How does such a small group of people manipulate so many educated, intelligent, and influential people?
This article is part of an extended series of articles on the Origins of the Woke. Here is a list of those that I have published so far:
You might also be interested in reading my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
An Intelligence Op
Intelligence organizations often manipulate people into doing their bidding by identifying a secret that the targeted person does not want anyone else to know. It may be an extramarital affair, gambling debt, or homosexuality. Typically, public knowledge of this secret will lead to prison, unemployment, divorce, or social shame for the target.
The intelligence operative offers a deal with the target: work for us or we will publicly reveal your secret. This tactic can be extraordinarily successful at manipulating otherwise powerful people to do things that the target would otherwise never do. Of course, the target can avoid the manipulation if they are willing to accept the consequences of their own wrongdoing, but many people are not willing to do that. They would rather do terrible things than allow their secret to be made public.
Critical Theorists know that the Center-Left has a secret:
The Center-Left claim to believe in Equality, but:
Center-Left policies have no hope of creating that Equality in the real world.
The Center-Left is desperate to avoid anyone noticing that failure because their moral identity and social status are wrapped up in their public moral stance against Inequality. In other words, from the perspective of Critical Theory, the Center Left is made up of self-interested moral poseurs.
I explain this in more detail in my article on the Central Moral Dilemma of the Left.
The Central Moral Dilemma of the Left
Make someone’s day: Gift a subscription to your friends and family!
This gap between Egalitarian stated intentions and Inegalitarian results leaves them ripe for manipulation and ideological blackmail. Critical Theorists saw the opportunity and crafted a set of terminologies and methods of argumentation specifically designed to take advantage of this opportunity.
What is Critical Theory?
I already went into detail on the beliefs of Critical Theory in a previous article, but since it is key to understanding this article and many people do not have an understanding of the topic, I will briefly outline them here. Critical Theorists believe that:
Human history has been dominated by a zero-sum group struggle between the Oppressors and the Oppressed.
All inequalities and bad behaviors today can be explained by the total victory of the Oppressors over the Oppressed. This victory explains why Equality does not exist despite being a moral imperative.
Every intellectual construct in society, including progress, science, logic, reason, family, merit, religion, democracy, markets, and individual rights are socially constructed tools of oppression cynically created by the Oppressor group to blind us to our oppression.
It is the moral obligation of all people to take a stand against the Oppressors and in favor of the Oppressed. Since all members of the Oppressor group benefit from their oppression of others, they bear that moral obligation regardless of their individual views and actions.
We all must take a stand against the Oppressors by subjecting all members of the Oppressor class to relentless criticism and shaming until their moral legitimacy collapses. Only then will the Oppression end and Equality emerge. Exactly how it will happen is left very unclear.
So from the perspective of Critical Theorists, both conservatives and the Center-left have constructed verbal tools of oppression. The cowardice of the Center-Left preserves the present tools of oppression.
Critical Theory is a universal acid of idea systems because it completely rejects:
science
logic
reason, and
the existence of one material reality (because everything is a social construct created by Oppressors to blind us to our oppression). This includes all the ideals that the Center-Left holds dear.
Critical Theory rests on the moral claim that we must all assist the Oppressed in their fight against Oppressors. It is impossible to reason against the Woke (at least while staying with the boundaries of acceptable Center-Left discourse), and it is extraordinarily persuasive to young people without many life experiences.
This is a key reason why the ideology gained ground so fast in the United States once Left-of-Center ideologies came to dominate the middle and upper ranks of most American institutions after 2010.
So the origins of the Woke came in two very different stages:
Long-slow (late 1960s-2010):
The long gradual increase of Left-of-Center ideologies within American institutions along with:
Critical Theorists gradually crafting the terminology and methods of argumentation to convince Center-Leftists to push their moral stand against Inequality to its maximum extent (often against their own better judgement).
Fast after 2010: The explosion of Woke politics into mainstream political discourse once those Left-of-Center ideologies achieved dominance of the middle and upper ranks of American institutions.
Center Left taboos
Absolutely essential to the ability of Critical Theorists to manipulate the Center-Left are social taboos that the Center-Left created over the last 60 years. These taboos make an honest discussion of the causes of Inequality and the ability of government policies to remove or reduce them virtually impossible. And this was intentional. It was a method for winning arguments in the political arena against conservatives.
One of the principal objections that many people have against the Woke is that they refuse to discuss potential causes of Inequality other than oppression or discrimination. The reality is that this is well within the tradition of the Center-Left over the last 60 years.
The Center-Left believes that:
Existing inequality is largely because somebody or something did something bad to those who have less (whether in the present or past). It might be discrimination, bad parenting, poor education, poor nutrition, child abuse, economic transitions, or some other factor.
Once the government erases that bad thing (via some blend of social programs, education, regulations, counseling, or education) those inequalities will either end or very substantially reduce.
To forward their agenda in the political arena against conservatives, the Center-Left created taboos about discussing potential causes of Inequality, particularly those that are difficult or impossible for the government to remove. In particular, the Center-Left has deliberately made it socially unacceptable to publicly address the basic biological inequality between individuals, whether it is:
Biological differences between races that account for differences in abilities, preferences, and outcomes (even raising the possibility is “racist”)
Biological differences between genders (even raising the possibility is “sexist”)
Biological differences between ethnicities (even raising the possibility is “bigotry”),
Biological differences between classes,
Biological differences between individuals within those groups (likely the biggest cause if inequality).
And other biological differences.
In addition to a refusal to even accept the possibility of genetic differences accounting for differing outcomes, many if not most Center-Leftists refuse to accept the validity of other potential explanations:
Culture
Geography
Family structure
Individual preferences
Individual Life Choices
Different levels of work effort
The reason for this is simple: all of these potential causal factors are very difficult for governments to change so it makes all the Center-Left policy stands largely irrelevant. If the goal is to win elections and political arguments against conservatives, this is a smart tactic. The tactic worked very well for decades. Even when Republicans won the Presidency and Congress, they were unwilling to violate the social norms established by their Center-Left opponents.
But these very same social taboos made the Center-Left extremely vulnerable to Critical Theorists. The Center-Left has used social taboos to eliminate every possible explanation for existing Inequality from the political discourse against the Center-Left. The only remaining explanation was Systemic Oppression, Systemic Racism, Systemic Mysogyny, etc.
All Critical Theorists had to do was force the Center-Left to make a choice.
Tactics of Critical Theory
So how do Critical Theorists manipulate the Center-Left who dominate so many American institutions? They did so by playing relentlessly on the contradictions between the:
Egalitarian ideals of the Center-Left and the
Inegalitarian outcome of Center-Left policies.
Their refusal to discuss the actual causes of Inequality due to their own social taboos.
Critical Theorists were experts at manipulating people who start with the assumption of Equality as the prime moral goal but were unwilling to have an honest conversation of the actual causes of Inequality due to social taboos. Critical Theorists were overwhelmingly very intelligent academics with supreme argumentation ability who worked within the world of Center-Left academics. Critical Theorists understood that the Center-Left could never accomplish the Equality that the Center-Left claimed to believe in.
Critical Theorists have nothing but disdain for those who are not willing to carry their egalitarian ideals to its logical extreme. They see nothing but hypocrisy and moral cowardice in the Center-Left.
But since Critical Theorists were outnumbered by Center-Left academics, they needed to create a set of terminologies and assumptions that forced Center-Leftists to abandon their timidity and embrace the only means to actually achieve Equality.
The Choice
Over time Critical Theorists evolved the following rhetorical tactics to manipulate anyone who starts with the ideal of Equality into a binary choice that forced them to choose between Leftism and Rightism. Since Center-Leftists regarded the Right as uninformed, unintelligent, corrupt, or immoral, Critical Theorists knew that the vast majority of Center-Leftists would choose the former. Being branded a “Rightist” in public (or “racist” or “misogynist”) was just too painful for the typical Center-Leftist. They had invested too much of their identity in taking a moral stand against Inequality.
Within this forced binary choice imposed on them by Critical theorists, there was no intellectual space for Center-Left’s gradual reformism towards Equality. So here is a list of tactics that Critical Theorists use to manipulate the Center-left:
Start with certain assumptions that seem plausible but inevitably lead people towards an extreme position. A key assumption is that human societies should have Equality in all respects and any deviation from the desired state of Equality is evidence of something wrong (typically discrimination or oppression).
Focus your argumentation exclusively on groups. Avoid discussion of individual variation within those groups.
View the world as zero-sum, where someone can get something only at the expense of other people getting less of it. Never focus on positive-sum interactions where all benefit, and never focus on how material progress expands over time of the benefit of the masses.
Assume the government and those with power are the only persons with agency. Above all, do not assign personal agency to individual members of Oppressed groups.
Assign moral blame to all members of that group for all immoral actions made by any member of that group in the past or present. This is the doctrine of “collective guilt.”
Ignore modern progress by focusing on oppression in the past. Because of the enormous progress of the last few centuries, there are plenty of opportunities to find oppression in the past that would be considered unacceptable today. Ironically, this turns the existence of progress into a menu of examples of oppression in the past.
Call the above assumptions the only possible starting point for a moral person.
Shame anyone who disagrees with those assumptions until they gradually give way to Woke assumptions.
Use certain terminologies that seem innocent but have hidden second meanings. Those terminologies have hidden assumptions that are not obvious to most people. These terms sound nice, so it is hard to object to their use. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are the key terminologies in the Woke lexicon.
Relentlessly criticize others who use different terminology as being immoral until the targets gradually give way to Woke terminology. Once you have done so, the other people have accepted your worldview without realizing it.
Shore up any intellectual weak points in your reasoning by making certain topics of discussion or methods of argumentation socially unacceptable. This is particularly true for reasonable arguments that can explain why Inequality exists that deviates from the “correct” explanation (genetics, individual choice, geography, culture, or family structure).
React to anyone who focuses on those intellectual weak points with a tirade of name-calling and aggressive attacks. Rely on the other person’s desire to not upset others to eventually force them to back down and accept that their intellectual weak points should not be discussed. This creates the perception of agreement even when agreement does not exist.
When in discussion with someone who does not back down, constantly evade by changing the subject. Particularly, focus on topics that you know will cause a negative emotional reaction so that your adversary will voluntarily change the topic to more favorable topics. Eventually, the other person will get exhausted and end the conversation in total confusion.
Rely on people to not have the courage to speak up against the crowd. Once certain terminologies become the norm within a group, then everyone will go along to fit in with the group. This is what psychologists call “Preference Falsification.”
Critical theories invented (or more accurately perfected) all the above argumentation to manipulate their Center-Leftist colleagues into silence, acceptance, and then pretending to agree. Those same tactics became extraordinarily useful outside the academy once a critical mass of Left-of-Center supporters reached the middle and upper ranks of American institutions. But their effectiveness did not become obvious until after 2010.
Understanding Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Over the last 15 years, the use of the following terms has exploded in media, social media, and other institutions in the wealthy Western world. While the term “Diversity” was often used in the 1990s, and 2000s, the terms “Equity” and “Inclusion” were rarely used (at least not in the same way).
The victims of manipulation
So who did Critical theorists target with their manipulations?
The vast majority of the initial targets in the 1970s and 1980s were white male Center-Left academics and intellectuals. Because so many of them were white male heterosexuals who fervently believed in racial and gender Equality but worked in institutions dominated by white males, it was not hard to persuade them that traditional Center-Left policies were not delivering the necessary levels of Equality.
The combination of the failure of government policies implemented by the Democratic policy and the relentless argumentation of Critical Theorists convinced white male Center-Left academics of the need to take a stronger stand. These Center Leftist academics and intellectuals began to make racial, gender, and gay Inequality a central part of their curriculum.
In practice, it is not at all clear how many of these Center-Left academics actually believed what they were saying and how many of them were practicing what psychologists call “preference falsification.” That is a big word for lying, but it is a very specific type of lying.
Preference falsification is deliberately lying about your own beliefs to conform to the group. It is important to realize that preference falsification is not lying to conform to the actual opinions of the group. It is lying to conform with the person’s perception of the opinion of the group.
Most likely, the earliest converts were mainly Center-Leftists who really cared about race and gender inequality. They just shifted the focus onto those issues and their social taboos made it impossible to discuss race and gender inequality as being caused by anything other than white racism and male misogyny.
But as the proportion of those Center-Leftists who really cared about race and gender inequality increased within each department, discipline, and university, the incentives to practice preference falsification increased with every year. So as the proportion of Center-Leftists increased, the greater the percentage of people who were willing to lie to protect their careers, moral identity, and social status.
More important in the long run were college students in the humanities. Typically raised in fairly affluent households that took prosperity for granted, many of these students were raised in households with a Center-Left worldview that put the moral imperative of Equality at the forefront. Female students, who tend to be much more naive and trusting, were particularly easy to manipulate.
As Critical theory became influential within Education departments, an entirely new demographic group was available for psychological manipulation: K-12 teachers and students. Because state governments typically require Education degrees for hiring and advanced training for promotion, the capture of Education departments within universities offered huge opportunities for persuading others.
Critical pedagogy, an off-shoot of Critical Theory, became established within the curriculum of Education departments. Paulo Freire's The Pedagogy of the Oppressed became a keystone book in most Education departments. According the Google Scholar, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed is the third most cited book in social science and by far the most cited Education book.
Paulo Freire was a Brazilian Marxist who believed that the entire education curriculum should be shaped around:
exposing the Oppressor-Oppressed dichotomy and
the need to revolt against the Oppressor groups.
He believed that the act of teaching was an inherently political act that must serve a political agenda to free the Oppressed. The only alternative to Critical Pedagogy was a politicized education in favor of the Oppressor, which was unthinkable.
As bizarre as it might sound to most Americans, an obscure Brazilian Marxist captured university Education departments and (indirectly) American K-12 education. And all without the knowledge of parents.
Freire’s long-term impact on the 21st Century education is hard to exaggerate. Similar captures took place in Journalism departments, where Advocacy Journalism gradually replaced previous beliefs of Journalistic objectivity as the standard of professional journalism.
By 2010, Critical Theory and Center-Left thinkers who were sympathetic to its underlying argumentation had captured:
Most Humanities departments in public and private universities
Most Education departments within universities, whose graduates fed into:
K-12 teachers
K-12 administrators
Teacher’s unions
University administrators (which grew radically in numbers during this period)
Most Journalism departments within universities, whose graduates fed into newspaper, radio, and television journalists.
A sizable percentage of public and private school teachers.
None of this would have been possible without:
the radical expansion of Left-of-Center ideologies within the middle and upper ranks of these institutions, and
the ability of Critical theorists to hone a set of terminologies and argumentations to take advantage of this dilemma.
The coming of age of the first generation born into a world dominated by the norms of the Center-Left: the Millenial generation.
Is this just a conspiracy theory?
No, this is not a conspiracy theory as the efforts were not centrally coordinated. It was rather a decentralized ideological movement within academia that was trying to argue its case just like all other ideological movements do. But this ideological movement relies heavily on:
Psychological manipulations
Its position with higher education, which put them in contact with relatively naive young people who had few life experiences but a fervent support for Equality and Fairness.
To a certain extent, all ideological movements rely on psychological manipulations to convince others to join their cause. What is extraordinary about Critical Theory is that it:
Was a radical ideology that convinced the middle and upper levels of powerful institutions that are typically dominated by conservatives. I cannot think of a single example in history where leaders of established institutions voluntarily adopted radical ideologies outside of a Totalitarian regime.
Has been spread widely with virtually no public leadership or public events. The leaders of Critical Theory are almost exclusively very private academics who have not even tried to move beyond public appearances beyond academic conferences.
Was so dependent on people with a very different ideology, the Center-Left, to do the hard work of spreading their views. In many ways, those who spread the tenets of Critical Theory through institutions were conventional Center-Leftists who should have immediately spotted the logical errors and conflicts with reality. But they could not do so without violating their own social norms.
Zombie-ant fungus
The latter is particularly troubling to me personally. I personally know many family, friends, and co-workers who have been conventional Center-Leftists for decades. We could always have interesting and stimulating political conversations like rational people.
But since 2010, so many of them have transformed into committed Woke activists. In most ways, they are still the same people, but when the topic approaches “hot-button issues”, such as race, gender, sexuality, climate, or immigration, it is like a switch is flipped in their brains, and they transform into completely different people.
None of them even know the basics of Critical Theory, but they use the terminology and argumentation techniques that I describe above. It is almost as if there is a tiny crazy person inside their brain that has suddenly gained control of their brain. In many cases, they passionately object to views that they themselves believed just a few years before.
Then when the topic changes (and not soon enough), then they revert back to the person that I remembered. These are the personality types who spread Critical Theory without really having a clue what Critical Theory is.
The closest analogy that I can think of is Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, commonly known as “zombie-ant fungus.” The fungus infects ants in tropical rainforests. Infection totally transforms the behavior of the host ant. The ant leaves into typically canopy and moves to the ground where the parasitic fungus can grow. The ant then attaches itself to a leaf until it dies and releases fungus spores.
Obviously, this is not an exact analogy as Center-Leftists do not die and their behavioral change is not permanent. Others have used the analogy of a brain worm or a mind virus.
Regardless of how you describe it, it is clear that Center-Leftist moral taboos related to the causes of Equality make them very vulnerable to those who are willing to take an uncompromising stand against Inequality.
So we can see how the Center-Left gradually grew in representation in American institutions from the late 1960s to around 2010. But this still does not explain the eruption of the Great Awokening after 2010. What caused that?
That is for another article…
See also my other articles and podcasts on Ideology:
Why Ideologies Threaten Progress (Part 1 of 3-part podcast series)
Why ideologies fail (podcast)
Descent into a man-made Hell: Understanding modern Totalitarianism
You might also be interested in reading my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
Preference Falsification
A key psychological phenomenon that Critical Theorists and the Woke use to manipulate the Center Left is “preference falsification.” That is a big word for lying, but it is very specific type of lying.
Preference falsification is deliberately lying about your own beliefs to conform to the group. It is important to realize that preference falsification is not lying to conform to the actual opinions of the group. It is lying to conform with the person’s perception of the opinion of the group.
In this case, those who lying and say they support DEI and other Woke policies are doing so because they mistakenly believe the majority of their group supports the practice. What they do not realize is that most of those people are also lying because they mistakenly believe the majority of their group supports the practice.
What is so destructive about preference falsification is that the behavior enables a small group of very vocal and aggressive people to create the illusion of group consensus by relentlessly attacking those who disagree with them publicly. To avoid internal group conflict, less aggressive members keep silent about their disagreement and then actually lie to support the continuation of group consensus. They effectively choose the illusion of group consensus over internal discord and being the object of attack.
As Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Łobaczewski has pointed out, preference falsification is fundamental to the consolidation and maintenance of Totalitarian regimes in the 20th Century. Łobaczewski is known for his theory of “Political Ponerology.” Łobaczewski adopted the term "ponerology" which is the branch of theology that studies evil. If you are interested in the concept, I would suggest reading Harrison Koehli’s Substack Political Ponerology.
Łobaczewski was a dissident under the Polish Communist regime who believed three things:
Totalitarian regimes are “pathocracies” where those with dangerous mental disorders dominate society. The upper and middle rungs of the regimes adopt an ideological mask to legitimize predatory behavior. Without the ideological mask, everyone would realize that the ruling elite were simply dangerous social predators.
Those social predators are kept in power by creating the illusion of group consensus through fear. When everyone is afraid, they will falsify their own preferences to keep from being a target of the regime. This social pressure is every bit as powerful as the threat of execution, torture or imprisonment.
The combination of targeted attacks on open dissidents, a strong ideological system that promotes morality, and preference falsification by the majority enables a small minority of dangerous social predators to control a much larger group of people who disagree with them.
Anyone within the new upper class who is openly opposed to DEI policies and practices is immediately branded a “racist,” “misogynist,” “far right,” or a “MAGA supporter.” This public scorn will then carry serious consequences for one’s social acceptance within the class. This then has the potential to seriously affect one’s career trajectory, income, and ability to support your family.
I believe that the actual percentage of members of the upper class who actually believe in Woke policies is very low: maybe 10-20%. But I believe the percentage who do the following is much higher (likely the majority):
Pretend to accept the practice while maintaining secret doubts as to its efficacy and/or morality.
Actively argue against people in public who they secretly agree with.
(when they realize the logic of their argument is untenable) Fall back on “What’s the big deal?’ argumentation.
What is the alternative?
I believe that rival ideologies have fallen so fast before the assault of Woke Critical Theory on our institutions because they are not based on the concept of material progress. In general, the Left has its own moral claims, but they have all folded to one extent or another in the onslaught of Woke Critical Theory.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have stood firm in opposition to Woke Critical Theory. But since Conservatives are comparatively weak in most American institutions other than the Republican party, they have thus far done little more than complain. Conservatives are excellent at explaining why a certain novel policy or practice should not be tried. Virtually all acknowledge that some reform is needed, but they have no way within their own value system of determining which.
I believe that only a Progress-based perspective can beat Woke Critical Theory because it is only based on one moral claim: Human material progress is a good thing that must be protected and promoted. Because humans are biological animals that require food, energy, and material goods to survive and reproduce, we are rooted firmly in the material world. Because of genetic inequalities, we are incapable of creating Equality and efforts to do so will make society far worse.
What we can do is:
Promote long-term economic growth instead of Equality.
Create a prosperous working class.
Promote a clear pathway that enables youths from low-income families to enter the prosperous working class.
Focus relentlessly on results; experiment in a controlled way; do more of what works; do less of what does not work.
See also my other articles and podcasts on Ideology:
Why Ideologies Threaten Progress (Part 1 of 3-part podcast series)
Why ideologies fail (podcast)
Descent into a man-made Hell: Understanding modern Totalitarianism
You might also be interested in reading my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
You have outdone yourself again. This should be spread to everyone with an open mind and a spark of intelligence.
Postmodernism is the daughter of Darwin and Rousseau.
Darwin: "man is just a smart ape." This eliminates the grounding of natural rights. No Creator? Who gave you those rights? Smart apes don't have natural rights.
Rousseau: "man is a blank slate." Make a better human by making a better environment. (Of course, defining "better" sans a Creator is also is a little hard, but details...) And since man has no natural rights, we may mold and shape him as we see fit.
The postmodernists and the communists despised each other in the 60's, but it's amazing how both seem to have ended up in the same place.