People like James Lindsay, Jordan Peterson, and Winston Marshall, despite their outspoken nature against the shortfalls of contemporary politics, in fact represent the political status quo known as the liberal consensus. I will not delve into the details of this here, but what the reader needs to keep in mind is that Right wing politics, since the end of WWII, particularly in the English-speaking world, has been dominated by an essentially non-confrontational, non-ideological and logically non-identitarian core.

One that saw itself as content dealing solely with economics, governance and foreign policy issues. Matters which were seen solely through a non-cultural, non-historical, and non-ethnocentric perspective, critically in relation to (i.e. the negation of) its European (White + Christian) populace.

This position naturally meant the sidelining of demographics that did not fit this supposedly non-ideological, non-confrontational (inclusive) framework. Worse, in practice, this meant the progressive, and in time, systematic social, cultural, and political marginalization of native (European + Christian) populations, with the most significant target group in its cross hairs: masculine, heterosexual (white) men.

Progressive initiatives, frequently presented under the guise of “fighting racism,” “promoting gender equality,” or “compassion for immigrants,” aimed to undermine the status of supposedly “privileged” groups. Ironically, these were the same “privileged” groups who constructed the civilization now inhabited or sought after by those who label it as oppressive.

It is worth reiterating that the liberal establishment, which curiously includes both the mainstream Left and the Right, over the years has worked to elevate the concerns of ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals and (illegal) immigrants, whilst packaging these initiatives as beneficial to Western society as a whole. Including the very groups (White, heterosexual, Western men) that these programs work to marginalize.

A notable figure in the development of the post-War Right or “conservatism” is William Buckley, who founded the neo-conservative National Review, and is often held as a champion of the Right in standing up to liberal overreach, the appeal of communism, etc. However, a deeper reading reveals that the changes he engendered within the Right make him one of the true villains. The operative who helped engineer the dominant (anti-Western) status quo within the Right.

William Buckley’s “fusionism”, a supposed synthesis of various elements of traditionalism, libertarianism, and anti-communism, became the intellectual basis of modern conservatism. One that lacked ideological purity of a culturally faithful Right, and instead converged on a pragmatic coalition to counter the overreach of liberalism, whilst ironically embodying many of its core characteristics.

Further, the various elements of the Right that were incorporated into this diluted conservatism were in a pathetically weakened form, robbed of their cultural roots and political potency. Particularly in the case of traditionalism and cultural nationalism that venerated rooted communities and the role of historical institutions, communal solidarity over materialistic individualism and an emergent globalist framework.

This “inclusive” framework advanced by the likes of Buckley and was ascendant in the post-World War II era, and was the precursor to the neoliberal wave that pushed for interconnected global markets, supranational institutions like the United Nations, and a universalist ideology of democratic capitalism, prioritizing international economic integration and geopolitical interventionism over local sovereignty and safeguarding cultural distinctiveness.

At the same time, pro-capitalist stance increasingly appeared to be a rhetorical trick adopted by quasi-liberal conservatives in opposition to the appeal of communism, which was already a waning force at the time. That eventually culminated in the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Thus, the main aim of anti-communist, pro-capitalist and supposedly pro-Western thinkers was to recenter the discourse on the Right towards fighting what are essentially imaginary enemies. Drawing attention away from more pressing concerns that are internal and inherently more pressing to the health of Western polities. Specifically, those that concern nation states that have a spiritually Christian and ethnically European heritage. 

Further, William Buckley’s uncritical embrace of the new entrants into the conservative movement (neoconservatives), many of whom were former liberals disillusioned with the Left’s post-Vietnam anti-Americanism, is a major red flag. Aligning with people like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, who brought with them the ideological baggage from their liberal pasts, including a comfort with using government power for an aggressive foreign policy (e.g. nation-building in the Middle East), mainly on behalf of a foreign nation. 

What Buckley and the (liberal) conservatives have done in the period since is to weaken, marginalize and repackage non-confrontational elements that characterize authentic Right-Wing politics. Then to cloak what is essentially a defanged liberalism light under anti-communist, anti-Islamic and in recent times anti-woke rhetoric without getting to the core of the problem within Right: the inability, or unwillingness of the elected representatives towards representing the beliefs, concerns and aspirations of White, Christian, Western citizens who claim the heritage of Athens and Rome. 

The whole debate surrounding the “woke right” led by people like James Lindsay and Konstantin Kisin today mirrors the ideological gatekeeping carried out by William Buckley and his comrades in decades past. The people who sought to and mostly succeeded in making conservatism palatable to secular, liberal elites, rather than their core constituents. This liberal light conservatism at a policy level ultimately works to sustain the very same liberal consensus that defines the politics of secular, post-nationalist, technocratic societies and their vision for globalist utopias.

People like “anti-communist” James Lindsay are the 21st-century versions of William Buckley. For these kinds of people, there is no place for cultural nationalism as a viable organizing principle. Similarly, Konstantin Kisin and Jordan Peterson are liberals whose worldview is rooted in individual rights and so-called Enlightenment (secular) principles that necessarily clash with the ethno-culturally unifying, counter-identity driven identity politics, the “woke right” champions.

Windbag James Lindsay’s rejection of group sovereignty in favor of individual freedom and Peterson’s warnings about tribalism together contribute to the sociological atomization and political alienation of individuals who are Christian spiritually, European ethnologically, and are masculine and heteronormative sexually.

These anti-woke critics on “the Right” are uncomfortable with the emergence of a Right that prioritizes Christian, European, and nationalist identity over so-called universal principles. But the trouble is the only group of people who are being pushed, coaxed and bamboozled into adopting such “universal” principles are those who are Western, Christian and European!

The demonization of legitimate identitarian concerns among White, Christian, heterosexual men as “woke” by figures like James Lindsay is precisely the behavior one would expect from snakes aiming to covertly undermine the concerns and aspirations of Western men. These individuals are subtly attempting to redefine authentic conservative values and national identity in a way that ultimately disempowers and alienates the very demographic they claim to represent.

Speaking of men, it is worth noting that these “woke right” promoters have a very low view of the plight and concerns of men in the modern world. The “woke right” agitators routinely downplay or dismiss the genuine struggles and valid grievances of Western men. This kind of contempt is arguably the ugliest flaw in “woke right” smear, and it is a dead giveaway of their true loyalty, not to men’s (hence society’s) survival, but to a rootless cosmopolitanism that exists to gut and erode their identity.