You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Woke’ tag.
Frantz Fanon’s seminal work, The Wretched of the Earth, provides a framework for understanding decolonization as a radical, often violent, restructuring of society, which some activists in Canada have adopted to challenge the foundations of Western civilization. Fanon argues that decolonization is inherently disruptive, stating, “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder” (Fanon, 1963, p. 36). In the Canadian context, this rhetoric is echoed in calls to dismantle institutions, reject Eurocentric histories, and prioritize Indigenous frameworks over established systems. A recent example is the controversy surrounding the Ontario Grade 9 Math Curriculum, where the inclusion of anti-racism and decolonization language—such as claims that mathematics has been used to “normalize racism”—led to significant backlash and eventual removal of such content (Global News, 2021). While presented as a pursuit of justice, this approach often amplifies societal fractures, pitting Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups against one another. By framing Canada’s history solely as a colonial oppression narrative, activists risk fostering resentment and division, undermining the shared societal cohesion necessary for a functioning democracy. This strategy aligns with Fanon’s vision of upending the status quo but ignores the complexities of Canada’s multicultural fabric, where reconciliation and cooperation have been attempted through dialogue and policy, however imperfectly.
The activist push for decolonization in Canada, inspired by Fanon’s ideas, often employs a rhetoric of moral absolutism that vilifies Western institutions while ignoring their contributions to global stability and progress. Fanon writes, “The colonial world is a Manichaean world” (Fanon, 1963, p. 41), casting the colonizer and colonized in stark, irreconcilable opposition. In Canada, this binary is reflected in demands to erase symbols of Western heritage—such as statues of historical figures or traditional educational curricula—in favor of an exclusively Indigenous narrative. For instance, Ryan McMahon’s 12-step guide to decolonizing Canada proposes radical changes, including the return of land to Indigenous peoples and reallocating 50% of natural resource export revenues to Indigenous nations (CBC Radio, 2017). Such proposals, while framed as reconciliation, can be seen as divisive and impractical by many Canadians, fostering a sense of cultural erasure among non-Indigenous Canadians while creating unrealistic expectations of systemic overhaul. By framing decolonization as a zero-sum conflict, activists inadvertently sow discord, weakening the social contract that binds diverse communities. Instead of fostering unity, this tactic mirrors Fanon’s call for a radical break, which may destabilize the very society it seeks to reform, playing into a broader narrative of internal collapse rather than constructive change.
Ultimately, the application of Fanon’s decolonization framework in Canada serves as a divisive tool that threatens the stability of Western societies by prioritizing ideological purity over pragmatic coexistence. Fanon asserts, “For the colonized, life can only spring up again out of the rotting corpse of the colonizer” (Fanon, 1963, p. 93), a statement that implies destruction as a prerequisite for renewal. In Canada, this translates into activist strategies that reject compromise, demanding sweeping societal transformations without acknowledging the complexities of a nation built on diverse contributions. A historical example is the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, where concerns over Indigenous land rights led to a 10-year moratorium on the project, delaying economic development and highlighting how decolonization efforts can significantly impact community relations and national progress (Berger, 1977). By weaponizing decolonization to vilify Western values, these efforts risk eroding the democratic principles—freedom, rule of law, and pluralism—that have enabled Canada’s relative stability. Rather than unifying society around shared goals, this approach fuels polarization, aligning with a broader agenda to dismantle Western institutions from within under the guise of justice, leaving little room for reconciliation or mutual progress.
Key Citations
- The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon
- Ontario removes anti-racism text from math curriculum preamble
- Ryan McMahon’s 12-step guide to decolonizing Canada
- Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry
- Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Proposals
- Decolonization at BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
- Catholic church north of Edmonton destroyed in fire
- School curriculum in Canada disputes view of math as objective
The violence at The Women Will Speak Rally in Melbourne, Australia, where trans rights activists disrupted a discussion on women’s rights, is a direct consequence of woke ideology, which has morphed from a call for social justice into a dogmatic force eroding female rights, boundaries, and safety. Originally rooted in awareness of marginalization, woke has been hijacked by activists who demand ideological conformity, often at the expense of open dialogue. At the rally, protesters, fueled by this warped woke ethos, resorted to intimidation and physical aggression to silence women raising concerns about gender policies, exposing how the movement’s fixation on equity can breed hostility toward women defending their spaces.
This woke-driven activism undermines female rights by dismissing their boundaries under the banner of inclusivity, threatening women’s safety and autonomy. The Women Will Speak Rally aimed to address critical issues like single-sex spaces and fair sports policies, but protesters, emboldened by woke narratives that brand dissent as bigotry, violently disrupted it. This reflects a wider trend where woke ideology fuels a zero-sum conflict, pitting trans rights against women’s protections. The result is a toxic environment where women face harassment or censorship for asserting their rights, while woke’s veneer of kindness obscures the damage to their safety and agency.
The link is unmistakable: woke ideology, despite its compassionate facade, mobilized the protests that harmed women at the Melbourne rally by suppressing their voices and disregarding their boundaries. Those who view woke as solely about kindness and equity overlook its destructive side—empowering extremism that justifies violence to enforce compliance. The violence at The Women Will Speak Rally was not an outlier but a symptom of woke’s failure to balance empathy with respect for women’s rights. Condemning this requires recognizing how woke activism, when unchecked, sacrifices female safety for ideological purity, betraying its own ideals.
Critical Social Constructivism (CSC) underpins the ideology known as “woke,” as explained by James Lindsay on his New Discourses website. Lindsay (2025) describes CSC, or Critical Constructivism, as a framework where knowledge and reality are entirely socially constructed, devoid of any objective foundation beyond human perception and agreement. Within woke ideology, this perspective views social concepts like race, gender, and justice as products of narratives and power dynamics rather than universal truths. Woke activism uses this foundation to prioritize marginalized groups’ narratives, aiming to reshape societal truths to align with ideological goals. By rejecting objective reality, CSC enables woke activists to redefine reality based on who controls the dominant discourse.
Woke activists often avoid debate due to CSC’s logic, which Lindsay (2025) argues fosters a totalitarian power dynamic. Since CSC denies an objective reality accessible through reason or evidence, truth depends on social consensus shaped by power rather than rational dialogue. For woke activists, debating risks validating opposing views, which conflicts with their belief that truth emerges from enforcing the “correct” narrative. Instead of engaging in discussion, they employ social coercion through tactics like shaming, cancellation, or institutional pressure to silence dissent and ensure conformity. Lindsay emphasizes that this approach stems from viewing power as the ultimate determinant of accepted truth.
This reliance on coercion reflects a core CSC tenet: whoever holds power to enforce a narrative defines what is “true.” Lindsay (2025) notes that CSC’s rejection of objective reality implies truth is not discovered but created, and those controlling institutions, media, or cultural norms shape reality. In woke ideology, this translates to a relentless push to dominate discourse, equating narrative enforcement with truth establishment. By prioritizing power over reason, woke activists favor control over debate, using social force to validate their constructed realities and ensure their version of truth prevails.
Reference
- Lindsay, J. (2025). The Book of Woke: Introducing Critical Constructivism. Retrieved from https://newdiscourses.com/2025/04/the-book-of-woke-introducing-critical-constructivism
Critical Social Constructivism (CSC) emerged from the broader tradition of social constructivism, which posits that knowledge and reality are products of social processes and interactions. Social constructivism has its roots in the works of sociologists like Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, who, in their seminal book The Social Construction of Reality (1966), argued that reality is socially constructed through shared meanings and practices. This perspective was further developed by the strong programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge, with scholars such as David Bloor (1976) asserting that even scientific facts are socially constructed and inseparable from the social contexts in which they are produced. Critical Social Constructivism builds on these foundations by incorporating elements of critical theory, particularly the emphasis on power dynamics and ideologies. Influenced by the Frankfurt School’s critique of society, CSC highlights how dominant social and political forces shape what is accepted as knowledge or reality, thereby questioning the objectivity of knowledge claims.
As an anti-realist philosophy, Critical Social Constructivism rejects the notion of an objective reality that exists independently of human perception and social agreement. By claiming that all aspects of reality—including scientific facts, moral values, and social norms—are constructed through social processes, CSC challenges the realist position that there is a mind-independent world. However, CSC is more than just an ontological stance; it offers a comprehensive worldview that encompasses epistemology, ethics, and politics. Since knowledge is viewed as a social construct, the process of knowing is inherently embedded within social contexts, power relations, and cultural frameworks. This means that truth is not discovered but negotiated, and what is accepted as knowledge reflects the prevailing social and political dynamics rather than any objective standard. Thus, CSC provides a lens through which all human understanding and interaction can be analyzed.
Given that Critical Social Constructivism denies the existence of an objective reality, there is no external arbiter to settle disputes about what is true or real. Consequently, the acceptance of particular knowledge claims becomes a matter of social negotiation and consensus-building. In this context, adherents of CSC recognize that establishing a shared understanding of reality often involves the use of political and social mechanisms to persuade or coerce individuals and groups into adopting specific constructions of knowledge. This can range from rhetorical strategies and institutional support to more overt forms of social or political force, as dominant groups seek to impose their versions of reality onto others. Because there is no reality without human perception and social agreement, the validation of knowledge claims ultimately relies on the ability to garner social acceptance, which can be influenced by power structures and cultural hegemony.
References
- Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books.
- Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Chanel Pfahl, a high school teacher in Ontario, Canada, has become a focal point in the ongoing cultural battle over education, activism, and free expression. On March 8, 2025, Pfahl announced via X that she is facing her fourth investigation by the Ontario College of Teachers for her social media posts and podcast comments criticizing activist policies, such as those promoting critical race theory and gender ideology in schools. This repeated targeting exemplifies the tactics of “woke cancel culture,” where individuals who challenge progressive orthodoxies are subjected to professional scrutiny, public shaming, and potential career destruction. Pfahl’s case highlights a broader trend in Canadian education, where dissent against ideological conformity is met with punitive measures, undermining open dialogue.
The investigations into Pfahl’s tweets and podcast remarks reveal a pattern of selective enforcement and ideological policing. Her posts, which include sharing images of school pride decorations, questioning gender-affirming care policies, and critiquing the imposition of group identities in education, are being scrutinized as “problematic” by the Ontario College of Teachers. Yet, as Pfahl notes, the same schools and educators who originally shared these materials on social media face no consequences. This double standard suggests a deliberate attempt to silence her voice, a hallmark of cancel culture, where individuals are held to inconsistent standards based on their alignment with prevailing ideological norms. The Democracy Fund, representing Pfahl in a related 2022 investigation, has argued that her comments are neither racist nor offensive, yet the investigations persist, illustrating the weaponization of regulatory power.
Pfahl’s situation also demonstrates the use of “repressive tolerance,” a tactic described by critics of critical social justice movements, as noted on the website Stop Woke Activism. While proponents of these ideologies claim to champion inclusion and diversity, their actions often exclude and punish those with opposing views, such as Pfahl. By compiling “pages and pages” of her tweets and podcast quotes, the Ontario College of Teachers is engaging in a form of public shaming, aiming to deter other educators from questioning activist policies in schools. This approach mirrors the “cancelling” tactics outlined in web resources, where dissenters are smeared, investigated, and pressured to conform, undermining fundamental democratic principles like freedom of expression and equality before the law.
The impact of these tactics extends beyond Pfahl, threatening the broader educational landscape in Canada. As highlighted in the National Post’s 2022 article on critical race theory’s influence in Canadian education, large school boards and institutions have adopted these ideologies, often without room for debate. Pfahl’s case underscores the risks for teachers who challenge this orthodoxy, potentially chilling free speech in classrooms and stifling diverse perspectives. Parents, as the primary educators of their children, also have a stake in this issue, as Pfahl’s advocacy aligns with concerns about ideological indoctrination in schools, a point emphasized by critics of critical social justice movements. Her investigations signal a broader cultural shift where dissent is pathologized rather than debated.
Ultimately, Chanel Pfahl’s repeated investigations by the Ontario College of Teachers serve as a stark warning about the dangers of woke cancel culture in Canadian education. By targeting her for expressing views that question activist policies, the regulatory body is enforcing a narrow ideological conformity that suppresses open discourse and individual rights. This case, rooted in Pfahl’s commitment to fostering an inclusive education free from imposed ideologies, reveals the need for a balanced approach that respects diverse opinions while upholding professional standards. Without such balance, the principles of liberal democracy—freedom of expression, equality, and parental rights—risk being eroded in the very institutions tasked with nurturing critical thinking and open-mindedness.
Sometimes you need to start at 101 level. Let’s do that today.
Controversial topics are hard to talk about. What makes the process even more difficult is when one side, for whatever reason, decides that disagreeing with their position is equivalent to you *hating* their position.
The disagreement=hate confab is almost an exclusive feature of attempting to dialogue with someone on the Left of the political spectrum. I hesitate to use the Left/Right distinction though because the terms are not describing the political reality we now inhabit. Perhaps authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian might be a better way to describe positions these days.
Authoritarians whether on the Left or the Right seem to have a built in predisposition to thinking that their choice is the moral choice and that somehow by questioning their assertions you are questioning their morality or ethics.
It really isn’t that, at least not a first. One must grapple with the argument the person makes not the morality or ethics the person in question happens to hold.
An easy example is a person stating the fact that women, exclusively, are adult human females. The simple action of stating a fact can lead to accusations of hatred, discrimination, and even bigotry.
How does that even work? My hypothesis is that when you encounter the disagreement=hate trope the person that you are dealing with isn’t willing to put the thought or effort in to make a reasonable counter-argument. It is much easier to simply dismiss statements and thoughts that do not comport with what you hold to be true than do the work to properly refute them (also the statement in question may be closest to the truth and thus more accurate than your worldview).
Another issue is that your interlocutor may rate highly on the authoritarian scale. Woke ideologies like transgender ideology are totalizing, for them to reach their final stage *everyone* has to believe in the ideology. The utopian magic can’t happen until everyone is ideologically congruent thus wrong-thinkers must be converted or removed from the equation. If you are speaking against gender ideology -for the converted it simply must be “hate” – because the ideologue is convinced that their position is not only factually correct, but morally and ethically correct as well. Thus, the problem lies in you, not them as they have deep insight into the question, that gives them access to the “truth” and speaking against this “truth” must be hateful in nature.
It isn’t.
Being able to interrogate and critique ideas is part of the bedrock of a free society. We need to be able to objectively look at what people say and determine for ourselves the value of their arguments. Doing this now in society can be challenging precisely because questioning the orthodoxy is often misconstrued as “hatred”, thus speech and debate must be kept in check to stop the “hate” if one is to follow the reasoning from those who seek to limit speech in our society.
Limiting speech is such a completely terrible idea and we should really pause and consider the nature of so called progressive movements that advocate for the censure of speech in society.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…