You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Ideology’ tag.
This post is inspired by the writing of James Lindsay on X.
The Mechanics of Woke Sociognosticism: A Persuasive Analysis
Contemporary “woke” ideology—focused on systemic injustice, identity-based power dynamics, and cultural transformation—has morphed into a quasi-religious framework that claims exclusive access to sociological truth. Its adherents, wielding an implacable certainty, cast dissent as ignorance or complicity, undermining the pluralism essential to liberal societies. This essay argues that woke ideology operates as sociognosticism: a fusion of critical social theory with gnostic epistemology, where salvation lies in “awakening” to hidden structures of oppression. While its moral aim to address inequities is undeniable, its totalizing worldview risks authoritarianism, stifling dialogue and fracturing society.
I. Defining Sociognosticism
Sociognosticism marries sociological critique with a gnostic belief in hidden, redemptive knowledge. Historically, gnosticism posits that gnosis—secret knowledge—unlocks salvation by revealing a dualistic reality of light versus darkness (Voegelin, 1952). Political theorist Eric Voegelin applied this to ideologies like Marxism, which claim to expose a veiled truth behind social structures. In woke sociognosticism, society is a prison crafted by hegemonic groups (e.g., white, male, capitalist), who maintain power through a “false consciousness” internalized by the masses (Gramsci, 1971). Activists position themselves as enlightened guides, dismantling this illusion. Yet, their framework is often presented not as one perspective but as the sole legitimate lens, dismissing alternative views as inherently flawed.
II. The Elect and the Awakened: Epistemic Elitism
Woke ideology fosters an “elect” class—those “awakened” to systemic oppression—who view their insight as both morally and intellectually unassailable (Lindsay, 2025). This mirrors Herbert Marcuse’s argument in Repressive Tolerance, where dissenting views are deemed intolerable if they perpetuate systemic harm (Marcuse, 1965). Disagreement is recast as evidence of false consciousness, as seen in online campaigns on platforms like X, where critics of woke orthodoxy face accusations of racism or transphobia (e.g., high-profile cancellations of public figures for questioning prevailing narratives, X, 2024–2025). Such epistemic elitism conditions dialogue on ideological conformity, punishing dissent with social ostracism or demands for public “self-education,” effectively silencing pluralistic debate.
III. Struggle, Awakening, and the Maoist Echo
Woke sociognosticism employs rituals of struggle and awakening, echoing Maoist techniques of “self-criticism” and “struggle sessions” (Mao, 1967). Originating during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, these were public rituals of ideological repentance in which individuals were forced to confess alleged wrongthink to reinforce social conformity. Contemporary analogues include institutional diversity training programs that require participants to acknowledge privilege or complicity in systemic bias. For example, several corporate and university DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives between 2023 and 2025 have included exercises in which employees or students must complete “privilege checklists” or write statements of commitment to anti-racism. Refusal to comply is often interpreted as regression or resistance to enlightenment.
The concept of “allyship” reinforces this structure, demanding continuous affirmation of anti-oppression principles, with failure interpreted as betrayal. This creates a narrative of inevitability: crises—social, economic, or personal—are seen as catalysts for “waking up” to the truth. While rooted in a desire to address inequities, these tactics prioritize conformity over dialectic, substituting performative repentance for genuine inquiry.
IV. A Closed Epistemology
The woke worldview is self-sealing, absorbing contradictions into its narrative. Karl Popper’s critique of unfalsifiable theories applies here: counter-evidence is reinterpreted as proof of the system’s pervasive influence (Popper, 1963). For instance, when a woman denies experiencing gender-based oppression, she may be accused of internalized misogyny; when a Black individual critiques critical race theory, they are often labeled as “anti-Black” or as supporting white supremacy. Notably, prominent Black academics who voice heterodox views—such as critiques of DEI bureaucracy—have been targeted with denunciations on platforms like X (2025), reinforcing the idea that dissent is heresy. This totalizing simplicity reduces complex realities to a binary of oppressors versus oppressed, rendering the ideology immune to challenge and hostile to nuance, even when confronting legitimate inequities.
V. The Political Danger
While woke ideology seeks justice—a noble aim—its sociognostic structure threatens pluralism. Hannah Arendt warned that ideologies reducing reality to a single explanatory framework erode judgment and shared political life (Arendt, 1951). Woke influence in institutions like academia and media, where speech codes and DEI policies increasingly frame dissent as harm, raises concerns about encroaching authoritarianism. For example, university speech guidelines updated in 2024 at several U.S. campuses have redefined “harmful speech” to include disagreement with concepts such as gender self-identification or systemic racism, chilling open discourse.
If silence, speech, or disagreement can be deemed oppressive, liberal norms—due process, open debate, individual conscience—are subordinated to a dogmatic moral code. Acknowledging the validity of addressing systemic inequities does not negate the danger: a worldview that pathologizes dissent risks fracturing the very society it aims to redeem.
Conclusion
Woke sociognosticism, while driven by a moral impulse to rectify injustice, operates as a closed belief system that stifles dissent and undermines pluralism. Its adherents’ certainty—rooted in a gnostic claim to hidden truth—casts disagreement as ignorance or sin, fostering division over dialogue. For a liberal society reliant on free inquiry and epistemic humility, this poses a profound challenge. Justice is essential, but it must not sacrifice the principles—open debate, mutual respect—that make justice possible.
References
Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Lindsay, J. (2025). X Post, July 5, 2025. Retrieved from https://x.com/ConceptualJames/status/1941564050707501548
Mao, Z. (1967). Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung. Peking: Foreign Languages Press.
Marcuse, H. (1965). Repressive Tolerance. In R. P. Wolff, B. Moore Jr., & H. Marcuse, A Critique of Pure Tolerance (pp. 81–123). Boston: Beacon Press.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Voegelin, E. (1952). The New Science of Politics: An Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
While reading Richer Morrison’s essay called Self-Defeating Environmental Activism this particular paragraph caught my eye ( I recommend reading the entire essay).
“I call this unconstrained in part as a reference to the distinction the economist Thomas Sowell advanced, of a constrained vs. unconstrained view of society and government. The constrained view—broadly consistent with the ideas of our Founding Fathers—suggests that human beings are by nature given to abusing and fighting over political power, and thus governing structures have to be limited and divided. The constrained view also acknowledges that our most important societal problems are not amenable to permanent solutions but are simply a matter of competing interests and values and thus can only be balanced toward a least bad resolution. The unconstrained vision—more amenable to Progressive theorists—holds that governments should be empowered to require good outcomes and eradicate bad outcomes, and obviously then assign behaviors to one of those categories.”
The constrained and unconstrained views of society are important theoretical and ideological origins for understanding how our views are shaped and reinforced. With the recent seismic changes to the body politic on the Left(the move toward a totalizing activist identitatarian ideology) I’ve had to reevaluate many of the positions I’ve taken in the past and come up with new ones, or at least different stances on the issues.
I’d like to say the process is finished, but much work remains in order to rationalize and reorder the priorities of one’s world view. Adopting a more constrained view of government’s role in society is part of the ideological framework that I am adapting toward.
I think the distinction Morrison mentions (quoting Sowell) is fertile ground for the recasting the theoretical lens of how society is viewed.
I’m tired of being lied to by the Left and the Right.
It’s been a rough couple of years for me as I’ve been riding a bit of a roller-coaster when it comes to demarcating my political position and adopting a cognitive frame in which to reasonably process the world.
Talk about unintended veracity.
I come from a academic traditional left background. My blog started in 2009 and I published a paper (self-published) which I wrote for one of my sociology classes (sociology of the family). Here is my preface and conclusion from my paper.
“One of the dominant themes of the course was the gendered assumptions our society is based on. Like the Matrix, until you are shown what it is, you really do not understand it. One of the conditions of the paper was that I had to use a pop culture piece to illustrate how heteronormativity works in our culture. I chose the cartoon ‘Family Guy’ because it is a very offensive show and I was sure I would find heteronormative gold when I analyzed a couple of episodes. Sadly, I was correct…
—–
“If “Family Guy” were truly edgy, the so-called deviant vignettes and their radical take on society would be the norm instead of the cutaway gags, but then the show would be unmarketable. Heteronormative assumptions, like media functions of Chomsky’s model, serve the dominant patriarchal interests. Therefore, the authors of the show would either bend to the wishes of the institutional will, or they would be out of a job as producers of a cartoon. In reality “Family Guy” is a safe cartoon from the patriarchal point of view as it amplifies the correct heteronormative assumptions (albeit very crudely) and intensifies the ‘othering’ of competing non-patriarchal based narratives. Similarly, news that is outside of the dominant acceptable paradigm or boundaries of debate is marginalized or simply ignored by the mass media. In both cases, the interests of the powerful institutions are served and alternative views are either marginalized or ignored. Therefore, “Family Guy” as a cartoon may poke fun at heteronormative values, but by its very nature must endorse and propagate an ‘acceptable’ version of the dominant patriarchal norms to continue to be successful in the mass media.”
Oh sweet jebus. Just look at the conflict theory in action – over a popular cartoon no less. I received top grade for this paper – I worked hard on ii – but ‘wow wow wow’ the frame I was using was problematic. Before we get to comparisons, let’s get a few more data points.
Circa 2015 abortion was one of the big topics here at DWR. This from a post titled The Indomitable Nature of Woman’s Courage.
“The war on women and their rights continues to chug along, it can get depressing having to digest all the misogyny that leaks from the anti-choice, anti-woman side.”
—–
“Trust women.
Oh and a big heart-felt fuck you to so called ‘crisis pregnancy centres’ that are always filled to the brim with toxic bullshit. We need you like we need smallpox in the world.”
Did I take the time to really understand the rational behind what Crisis Pregnancy Centres were doing. Absolutely not. They were part of the religious right, and the religious right in my cognitive frame were an irredeemable source of EVIL (and patriarchy, we mustn’t forget patriarchy).
The other big topic was Radial Feminism and it was a well worn path through 2014 – 2018. For instance, my primer on Sex Based Oppression –
[Quoted Material] “As Friedrich Engels made clear, even before feminism’s First Wave, women were historically controlled because we are “a means of production”—without women, there are no heirs, and without heirs, no inherited property and wealth. Women’s reproductive capacity is why we were colonized as property, just as animals, countries, weapons and land was colonized. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have been important at all; any thing we could do (cooking, cleaning, sewing clothes) could have been done as well by men (and in the military, it was). The reason women were oppressed was to control our REPRODUCTIVE ABILITIES. This does not mean all women had these abilities, but women were assumed to have them until proven otherwise. (In many religious traditions, a woman’s “barren” status was the only acceptable reason for divorce.)
There can be no other logical, rational basis for women’s oppression; unless you think men were just being “mean” or something. No, it was for a very real, profit-centered reason. Men without families and heirs could not build empires (or even working farms) and without this centralized, religiously-sanctioned consolidation of the family, the state could not have evolved. The state then effectively empowered men to be women’s keepers until very very recently in human history.
THIS is the origin of women’s oppression.”
Yep. The feminist streak here at DWR runs deep and wide – but then a funny little bit of legislation happened in Canada – Bill C-16. And then the wide feminist river began to narrow into a direct defense of females as a distinct political and social class in society as Bill C-16 codified the unfalsifiable notion of Gender Identity into our Charter of Rights.
“So here we be – enshrining more patriarchal norms into our laws – big surprise right? This legislation potentially represents a large step backwards for women.
“As unpopular as this fact has become, a man or boy who wishes to identify as a woman or girl, perhaps taking on stereotypically feminine body language, hairstyles, and clothing, is still male. He still has male sex organs, which means girls and women will continue to see him as a threat and feel uncomfortable with his presence in, say, change rooms. Is it now the responsibility of women and girls to leave their own spaces if they feel unsafe? Are teenage girls obligated to overcome material reality lest they be accused of bigotry? Is the onus on women to suddenly forget everything they know and have experienced with regard to sexual violence, sexual harassment, and the male gaze simply because one individual wishes to have access to the female change room? Because one boy claims he “feels like a girl on the inside?” And what does that mean, anyway?”
So which is more important male gender feelings or female safety? I would like to advocate here for gender neutral washrooms/changing area as the beginning of a compromise in this area. We still live in a patriarchy and sex segregated facilities are still necessary for the protection and safety of females in our society. The choice whether to co-mingle with men in washrooms or change rooms should be up to all those involved.”
It was a watershed moment for me. Gender-magic suddenly, was made a part of our Charter of Rights and the resulting bullshit was quite beyond the pale as female rights, boundaries, and safety continue to be curtailed and rolled back up here in Canada. It is 2023 now, and push-back against the tide of regressive gender ideology has a reasonable start, but we still have a long way to go as most of our government institutions are thoroughly captured by this insidious ideology.
I’m sorta fed up with the transgender bullshit. As early as 2021 – this from the post Transgender Ideology Obscures & Enables Male Violence – CTV (Newspeak) News:
“Forget about ‘just wanting to pee’ wedge issue bullshit – this is what we are in for in Canadian society; this is the upside-down, nothing has any meaning, timeline that trans ideology has in store for us.
Do not believe your eyes, but rather what some individual says about who they are. This is where belief in gender-magic takes us, where male violent crime is somehow called ‘female’ violent crime because the violent male has fucking delusions of gender and we need to respect that.
No. The word must get out of what is happening here and the bald-faced misogyny that is transgender ideology must be stopped.”Yeah, the gloves have come off and up till the present it has been a journey that has seen my reject my ideological left leaning beginnings. The argument can be made that since 2015 the Left has hit the crazy button and, in many cases, simply left former supporters and adherents politically homeless. The rise of Radical Activist Leftism (queer theory based gender ideology, the misogyny that is Transactivism, BLM, the so called anti-fascists et al.) has left me so cold toward my former home on the left. So I went looking and much to my chagrin the “Right” isn’t much better. So started to lean into some of the bugbears the Right chases. For example, identity politics –
“Identity politics sow division and strife within society. We need to revisit the idea that we are all Canadians first and foremost. We come in all different shapes, beliefs, and abilities. Those differences and the acceptance of our actual diversity is what makes Canada a wonderful place to live and prosper.
Josh Denaas writes at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute about the change in activism over the years and how it has become less about gaining acceptance in society more about demanding to be accommodated regardless of the validity of the claim.
“I’m pleased that in 2023 LGBT people can be themselves in public, and that there is zero tolerance for bullying in schools and workplaces. That said, I’m starting to worry that some LGBT people are becoming the new bullies.”
“People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear” – signed *EVERYONE* on twitter. It was late 2018 that I started to lean harder into twitter as a social media outlet., and to be honest, it has had negative effect on my writing here on DWR. Sparing with others, getting the dopamine hit from winning a successful snipe argument, the format of the short tweet all sap the intentionality and nuance of writing and thinking in complete descriptive thought. I was necessary though folks; January 2018 was when my marriage went pear-shaped and what I thought was a partnership for life turned out to be a much more temporary experience. Amiable and all that, but my mental resources available at the time were MUCH more suited to Twitter than the long form essay. Twitter also has a way to weave a quasi-net of acceptance and understanding to your particular points of view and preferred ideologies, it is rather alluring to be perfectly honest.
The silos present there at first confirmed my left bias, but then led by the likes of James Lindsay and his podcasts from The New Discourses I embarked on a journey to the right, or at least centre-right.
Lindsay, one of the authors of the Grievance Studies Affair, has taken it upon himself to combat the what he describes as the encroachment and capture of our cultural institutions by Cultural Marxist ideologues. Lindsay has topics ranging from grooming in schools to DEI training to the Sustainable Development Goals. The picture he assiduously paints is one of a long subtle Communist march through the Western institutions with the goal of overthrowing Western values and unfurling the new collectivist revolution. He unpacks concepts the Left is based on – and it is an impressive intellectual shortcut, but ultimately a shortcut it is. The picture you take away from him, despite his charitable efforts (sometimes) is fairly negative view of the evolution of Marxist and how it affects society now. There is no shortcut around grappling with the texts and thoughts of thinkers (on the right and the left) that have shaped and are shaping our reality.
You listen to him – he’s at his most persuasive when he’s reading a primary source from the other side – whether it be the record of the Combahee River Collective or the works of Paulo Friere or Herbert Marcuse – the work he’s amassed and digested into a reasonable format is impressive. Impressive enough to build a hollow cognitive frame around… one could say.
On reflection, I think I’ve learned a fair amount about the topics that I had little or vague knowledge about. What I haven’t done is yet is to formulate a coherent cognitive frame that makes sense of my dual experience of being on the Left (and then having being discarded by the current bullshit activist left) and embracing some of the ideas and notions that are ascribed to the Right.
I need answers.
I’ve read Noam Chomsky’s keystone works on media and media production – Manufacturing Consent. The well spring of evidence points to a distinct conservative take in the news media. Yet, the Herbert Marcuse’s thesis of Repressive Tolerance is an artifact in society in which I have witnessed happening. Did you see all the articles in the media about how they are putting males into female prisons and how dangerous that is for the female prisoners? No?
Me either.
Not a fucking peep.
Make it all make sense!
You would think that such a infringement on female rights and safety would have our Left media up in arms… But not a peep. CBC, The Toronto Star, Counterpunch nothing. NOTHING. The bullshit they do run though is the ideological drivel that is being vomited into society by the Activist Left – because somehow male gender feelings outweigh female rights, boundaries, and safety in society (in the name of tolerance, diversity,and inclusion no less).
Where do you find the stories of women fight back and reclaiming their rights, spaces, and sports? News organizations on the RIGHT. Stories about Riley Gaines (who was forced to compete against the male Lia Thomas in swimming) appear on Fox News. The toxicity of gender ideology or really just discussing it has only appeared in the rightward National Post and never in the Left Globe and Mail. What the actual hell is going on – why is the media I was taught to distrust and malign suddenly become the only avenue of reasonable argument and debate that is allowed in mass communications? The whole media situation really cooks my noodle :/.
This post is already too long, stay tuned for part two where I go into how I think I should build my new cognitive frame from the current giggly-piggley state of being.
You cannot fight against what you do not know and understand. A helpful primer on what how the radical revolutionary left has come to power and influence in our society.
I’m not buying into the idea that there is some sort of perfect way of living one’s life – some ways are better than others, and those various ways appeal to different people…and so on and so forth. We’re not here talking about *your* choices and and preferences, but rather mine.
I’m getting old. Not super old yet, like JZ [:)], but old enough to start seeing a few patterns and beginning to see how choices fit together. One motif that crops up frequently is the notion of standards (being cut from the Teacher cloth and what not). Standards are fucking important in my line of work, I need to set them high and demonstrate them on a daily basis so students can see why they are important.
There is a life lesson right there – Show, Do, Demonstrate, as your ‘go to’ plan – talking about issues and concepts is important, but doing the thing is so much more important that pontificating about it. Is critical thinking important in your classroom? Then show how it is done every day with your students (and friends outside of school an academia) so often that the people around you have to learn, if by nothing else, osmosis. (The world is filled with dull people, help them, please.)
The osmosis strategy works for music as well, and the related life-concept of perfect practice makes perfect. Can you make those four boring quarter notes into a phrase? Demonstrate it, practice doing it, everyday. Make it a thing that just becomes automatic. The practice list is long, and ever increasing, of the musical qualities and practices that need to become second nature, and not requiring conscious thought (looking at you vocal resonance *grrr*) to enact.
I think the wisdom that can sometimes come with age kicks in when you realize the standards you hold dear informs your perceptions and how you take on life. It is very easy to become your chosen ‘standards’ and stop thinking about how to interact with the turbulent flow of life around you. Sticking to your version of what is correct is necessary to certain extent, as being the leaf in the wind isn’t exactly my idea of an ideal life state. But life, as much as we try to manage it, will gleefully toss monkey poop filled situations at you that will force you to make decisions that call into question the frameworks you’ve built for dealing with the world.
The problem with monkey poop (and most poop really) is that its sticky and tends to foul up the most carefully constructed frameworks and ideas you have about the world. Borrowing a phrase from Gordan Ramsey, you often find yourself to be ‘in the shit’ – so what do you do? For a good portion of my existence, the answer has been to soldier on, head down, pushing back against the shit and working it and reworking it with the tools at hand until the situation has become tolerable (a nice loamy compost, after all is said and done). Confidence in my structures has been unfailing.
But what if my structures and methods are wrong? Yeah, its thoughts like these that gets the monkeys (of the anxiety and doubt kind) agitated and a-chattering. When do you step back from the ramparts and reconsider the stand(s) you’ve taken and reexamine the thought process that brought you to your current state?
It is said that it takes courage to stand by your convictions – I’m calling bullshit on that – standing tall on the fortifications of your beliefs is easy-peasy, made in shade, level of challenge. Taking a step back, reevaluating your convictions and realizing that they aren’t serving you as they once did, and then changing them – that friends, takes courage. Because with change comes vulnerability and instability, the rebuilding your convictions – what makes you -“you”.
Relax, I haven’t found jebus, or allah or drank the libertarian kool-aid, I’m still the pinko-lefty rad fem ally you all know and love. Rather, I’m just in a slightly different theoretical spot having taken a small reflective step back and have begun looking at my structures and ideology and how they shape my perception of life.
Good, if somewhat unsettling, times. :)
Well let’s take a look at the issue of sexual orientation and sexual preferences when it meets with some of the gender ideology that is popular today. It would seem, at least according to Ms.Berns, that it just homophobia dressed up to look and sound like its progressive and inclusive.
Highlights gleaned from ‘never-obey‘.
Riley: If you met someone who was extremely attractive, had a great personality, but didn’t have the genitals that you wanted, you might be surprised to find that it isn’t a deal breaker.
Magdalen: Yeah I’d be surprised! BECAUSE IT IS A DEAL BREAKER. […]
Riley: Gay conversion therapy has been proven not to work, but you can unlearn your own prejudices. It just takes time and conscious effort.[…] The more you work at unlearning your own prejudices, the more you’ll be able to see people from these groups as people rather than as tired stereotypes.
These people are positioning not having sex with males as an act of discrimination against a marginalized group. Point blank. We need to be vigilant about calling this out as we see it for what it is.
Every generation men come up with yet another cockamamie scheme to try to convince women that they must not ever say no to being fucked by men.
Spotted this conversation illustrating the oft heard charge (and wonderful riposte) that radical feminists are all about the biological essentialism. As demonstrated below, being aware of scientific fact and material reality is quite reasonable. The nerve of these radical feminists not bowing and scraping to gender ideology that fundamentally ignores reality. :)
Radical Feminst: Why are women “people” and “vagina owners” and men are just “men”?
Genderist: “Bc there aren’t a bunch of cis men constantly trying to invalidate trans men and push them out of spaces, fam,,, anyways not all women have vaginas so?
Terfs just love to cry that they are reduced to their genitals and are more than just baby carriers but they then go around and say that trans women aren’t “real women” because of their genitals.
Way to be hypocrites, you dirty fucks”
Radical Feminist: Having a vagina is what makes me a woman. I am not /only/ a vagina. Does that make sense? I have female genitals and a female body, that’s why I am female. I am a female because of those things. I am not only a “vagina owner” or a “uterus bearer”, I am a woman.
Women have vaginas, we also have uteruses, a clitorus, XX chromosomes, we produce large gamates, we store fat a different way, our centre of balance is higher than males (due to the fact that if pregnant it prevents us from falling the fuck over) our skeletons are different to males, our breast tissue is different.
We don’t “reduce ourselves to our genitals” (we already have plenty of assholes doing that) but nor do we IGNORE that female genitals are different to males. They are PART of who we are, not ALL that we are.
I think you might be wasting your time talking to people, prolly men, who see no difference between having a vagina and being a vagina.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…