What are the weapons of choice employed by Culture War activists? Emotions and accusations certainly, but also, more subtly perhaps, they use a number of newly crafted virtues.

In her short monograph, 21st Century virtues: how they are failing our democracy, Lucinda Holdforth drew an interesting inventory: authenticity, empathy, humility, self-care, and vulnerability. Arguably the list is not complete without the inclusion of outrage, fear, guilt, envy, and love.

Some of these virtues – empathy, humility, and love – would seem to fall into the categories of commonly recognised virtues, but here they either carry a new meaning or are simply hypocritical. Others present in the movement – self-care, fear, guilt, and envy – appear to be out of place among traditional moral values.

The reason for this is because the Woke movement is radically different from anything else that has preceded it and the words it uses do not have the same definitions we have traditionally ascribed to them.

The Woke movement is immersed in emotions. Most of the words carry emotional connotations as Woke philosophy has re-invented a new emotional language. Our non-elected elites are increasingly resorting to the use of emotions to impose a type of oppressive ideology on our culture.

Let us start with love.

Until recently, most people would have best defined love as C.S. Lewis did, that is to say in four categories comprising some or all of the following features: empathy (storge), friendship (philia); romance/sexual love (Eros), and unconditional love (agape).

Unfortunately, the Woke culture’s definition of love does not fit into these traditionally recognised categories.

Woke love fails on empathy because a prerequisite for empathy is support for human dignity.

Wokeism claims to support human dignity by upholding diversity but its actions are demeaning and humiliating.

Those who subscribe to the ideology often demonstrate a serious lack of emotional intelligence, which is a prerequisite to any claim of empathy.

Take, for instance, the issue of euthanasia.

Proponents of euthanasia seek to justify their position by saying they wish to preserve human dignity.

They show great emotional turmoil at the thought that some might die in great pain and ask what dignity there is in allowing people to die in these circumstances when we would not allow a dog to live. Yet, they also lack the emotional intelligence to ask the follow-up question: What dignity is there in death? Particularly if death is the end of everything and there is nothing beyond the tomb or the ashes, apart from some romantic idea of the spirit of the departed watching over us…

They seem to lack the emotional intelligence to ask why we allow euthanasia to take place in cases of chronic pain for the terminally ill with less than six months to live. Why not kill everyone in chronic pain whether terminally ill or not? Why six months? Why only allow those who can express their wishes clearly to show the exit option? What about the mentally deficient, the young child etc?

If you Google ‘emotional intelligence’ you may read that emotional intelligence features the following attributes: self-management, self-awareness, social awareness, and relationship management.

Woke philosophy is deficient on each of these counts.

It fails on self-management as it cannot control impulsive feelings and behaviours which categorise people on the basis of the colour of their skin. White is bad, black is good. Black lives matter, white lives matter less, if at all.

It fails on self-awareness as it does not realise that the outrage it expresses in condemning all aspects of Western thought and civilisation is actually an expression of the racist nature this same Woke philosophy claims to oppose.

It fails on social awareness as it fails to have compassion towards those who fall outside the particular identities approved by the Woke elites.

It fails on relationship management as it perpetuates the very class conflict it claims to oppose.

The Woke definition of love also fails with regard to upholding friendship.

Indeed, whilst the Woke elites are adept at pretending that they will befriend the so-called vulnerable, they are only interested in imposing their own set of ‘values’; they are not interested in entering into a friendly dialogue with anyone who happens to hold a different opinion than theirs. The Woke friendship is a friendship that is based on your accepting their opinions, their values, but not on a reciprocal basis. It is a one-way street friendship, in other words, not friendship at all.

Does the Woke love then correspond to a traditional definition of romantic love? Not, if you understand ‘Eros’ as being more than self-centred sexual intercourse. Properly understood, romantic love is not self-centred; it is highly emotional and highly centred on the object of one’s affections. The 19th Century romantic poetry focused on the need to be in the presence of the person loved. Romantic love includes passion that results in a deep intimacy that is not merely confined to sexual intercourse but also to a deep interest in the other person. Romantic lovers have long conversations with each other, they share their joys, victories, failures, doubts, and sufferings.

There is nothing romantic about Wokeism: it is self-centred. It is only interested in its own opinions, in its ideology, it does not listen, it only engages in monologue, and refuses any dialogue that does not mirror its own views.

Having failed on empathy, friendship, romance, and unconditional love, how can the Woke movement then claim to be a philosophy of love?

Only because of its insistence that it is the very antithesis of ‘hatred’.

The Woke movement majors on describing all of its opponents as hateful beings.

If you do not agree with me, it means you hate me. Love is unconditional acceptance on your part of all of my opinions, not just at the intellectual assent level but also at a celebratory level where you demonstrate by your actions that you are really one of us.

You do not just vote ‘yes’ to a new definition of marriage, you have to celebrate it, attend the annual ‘gay’ parades, participate actively in them, and not just cast a blind eye to them.

There is no room for indifference, you have to endorse all I stand for and live it to the full. In other words, you can never be Woke unless you worship everything that is Woke.

The Woke movement is not love, it is idolatry.

What about humility?

According to the Cambridge dictionary, humility is: ‘The feeling or attitude that you have no special importance than makes you better than others; lack of pride.’

Humility is a key virtue in the Woke movement because of its core belief that people of colonial descent, those that are loosely defined as white, have introduced privilege, supremacy, and complicity.

In other words: racism.

The Woke elites feel obligated to preach their own version of a gospel of humility because they believe that everyone but they has failed to pass the test of humility.

In their eyes, if we are white, we cannot be humble which then makes it difficult to comprehend how they, mostly white themselves, can claim to be what they preach.

There is also a further problem: although humility is incompatible with pride, the Woke movement promotes pride. The most obvious example is the annual ‘Pride’ parades in our capital cities and the increasing attendance of our ‘elites’ to each of these events.

Furthermore, the Woke business community also displays a complete lack of humility. These corporate leaders think they know best for they have now ‘progressed’ beyond working for the benefit of their customers and shareholders; they are now more enlightened and understand the importance of promoting an environmental, social, and corporate governance agenda (shortened to ‘ESG’) at all annual general meetings, board meetings, and various summits.

What about self-care?

The reader might be surprised to see ‘self-care’ listed as a virtue, next to humility. After all, is not humility displayed in the renouncing of the self?

It would seem at least that the Apostle Paul believed so when he wrote these words to the Church of Philippi:

‘Have this mind among yourselves which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.’

However, logic and consistency are no hurdles for the Woke elites and it is not difficult to list self-care as one of the new 21st Century virtues since the so-called ethos of Wokeism is thoroughly self-referential.

What do then the elites mean by self-care?

This is a very challenging question to answer. Whilst the Woke ideology will preach the importance of self-denial in order to atone for the ‘abuse’ perpetrated against the Other (aka the black, the LGBTQ+ etc), it also stresses the importance of individual rights for those that it considers oppressed.

Self-denial and individual rights thus become some sort of strange bedfellows in Wokeism.

In Wokeism, self-care essentially involves the imposition of perceived rights, irrespective of the consequences on others For example, in the case of transgender biological males competing in female sports, no thought is given to the fact that this is unfair and that it makes a mockery of any pretence of equal opportunity.

For this reason, it is not surprising that the Woke brand of self-care supports what it considers to be justifiable aggression. The Woke elites believe that to care for oneself, payback must take place.

As to vulnerability, the Woke preach the importance of coming to terms with one’s vulnerability; in other words, do not be shy to declare it to the whole world:

‘I am white therefore I am vulnerable to being an oppressor. I am a Christian therefore I am vulnerable to being narrow minded. I am male, therefore I am vulnerable to being abusive. I am vulnerable to acting in accordance with this oppressive, aggressive, imperialistic nature of mine. I declare that I am therefore vulnerable, tempted by my vulnerability and this is my act of public repentance.’

Coming to terms with one’s vulnerability is also highly recommended to the oppressed; in that case, of course, not as a public act of repentance but as a proud declaration of one’s authenticity. This is the coming out of the closet, asserting one’s authenticity at the risk of being vilified, maligned and abused by the Other (aka, the middle-aged white Christian politically conservative heterosexual).

Then, comes fear.

To the extent that morality defines good and immorality bad, fear is now part of the new morality because it is considered good to be fearful.

Fear is good because by expressing it, you point out that you are on the side of the oppressed.

Fear has become part of the weaponry of anti-democratic politics; for instance, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Greta Thunberg warned the global leaders:

‘I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house was on fire.’

With the demise of intellectual thought and the rise of emotional thinking, fear has indeed become a power tool to manipulate the hearts and minds of many Australians.

What about outrage?

We are told that it is good to experience outrage because the emotion proves that we are not indifferent to evil.

Viewed from that angle, few would have a problem with outrage. Did not, in fact, Jesus himself displayed outrage when he turned down the tables of the money changers in the temple in Jerusalem?

The problem nowadays is that what we consider to be outrageous is often what previous generations considered to be good. For instance, nowadays many would think it outrageous that some people can still be religious.

Outrage is also directed against other ways of life, practices, and beliefs.

The Woke movement will tell us that it is good to express strong outrage towards those we do not endorse the Net Zero emissions diktat.

Outrage is so prevalent that it is starting to be normalised.

Expressions of outrage can be found in our newspapers, particularly those on the left-of-centre, among lobby groups, and on current affairs programs particularly those on the ABC funded by taxpayers.

Social media is the most accessible forum to read or write outrage. Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are vehicles of choice to vent one’s anger, resentment, and hatred.

Outrage is influential. It might well be that the Woke movement considers it to be a virtue but it creates guilt, resentment and, once perpetrated on a large-scale, it results in a breakdown of peace and order. It is at the root of revolutionary movements.

What about envy?

This is an interesting one because the Woke movement both condemns and encourages it.

Envy is what drives Marxist philosophy. The old economic Marxism, pitting the proletariat against the ‘domination’ of the capitalists, was already fuelled by envy.

Since Wokeism is a cultural form of Marxism, it is not surprising that envy features at the core of the movement. The ‘oppressed’ believe they do not have the same privileges as the so-called oppressors and are envious of what they perceive (often incorrectly) they do not have .

Yet, at the same time, they aspire to a level playing field with no advantages accruing to anyone, nobody has more than anyone else and therefore there is no need to be envious any longer.

Woke philosophy is full of contradictions!

As to guilt, it is also at the core of the Woke movement.

How can guilt be a virtue?

In Woke philosophy, guilt is elevated to a virtue because it is considered as a mandatory step towards the ultimate objective: self-shaming.

Self-shaming is the end objective of all Woke ideology..

The more guilty we can make you feel, the more shame we can pour out on you.

Self-shaming is where the Woke want to keep us. We are oppressors and we cannot change so there is no point being repentant, there is no God that can forgive, no atonement, and no expiation possible even through a third party.

Self-shaming therefore is the end of the road. It is the final destination for Western people; if we have reached it, we have succeeded, strangely, perversely, we then have won. According to Woke ‘theology’, self-shaming is the complete and just fulfillment of our destiny as oppressors.

---

French-born Philippe Jaquenod is a father of three adult children who made Australia home over fifty years ago when he arrived in Sydney as a young adult. Now, living in Western Australian, Philippe has a rich background in social activism, business, finance and political research. He holds a Bachelor of Arts from Macquarie University and is an Australian-accredited translator in the French and English languages. His first bookf ‘Silent, Fragile and Isolated’, (Linellen Press, 2022) is available for order from Amazon and other leading publishers.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in