top of page
  • Writer's pictureMarvin the Paranoid Biological Android

Countering the Mental disease called "WokeCraft" - Part II

(Continued from Part One)

This leads to the impression that there is more support than there actually is.

In fact we have examined a few instances of WokeShit shenanigans and have found that they are doing this with approximately 3 to four percent of bad actors in any WokeShit target organization.

Ehud Barak and Yuval Noah Harari themselves admitted as much as to this Marxist MO SOP methodology when questioned on this subject recently, live, on filmed interviews on the subject of making noise to influence things with a tiny minority making it look like it is the popular opinion and sentiment of the people.

These savages are well versed with the whole-scale duping of the public and making it appear that public perception and sentiment is on their side when it is in fact an extreme radical far left fringe minority in action.

They have a whole repertoire of bad shit in their bag of unethical shitty tricks that they pull out to help inflate perception beyond the actual reality by a significant degree.

Meanwhile, late-stage WokeShit entrenchment situations concentrates on quelling dissent, which necessarily requires the use of more forceful tactics as required.

The combination of the latter two categories of WokeShit tactical shenanigans is intended to give the impression that the CSJ/TSI perspective is more accepted than what it actually is.

This impression allows the Woke to "punch way above their weight."

This thereby facilitates WokeShit advances and further entrenches their Asylum kid level mostly imagined loon toon perspective.

The figure below represents the relationship between CSJ/TSI entrenchment, tactical categories and the forcefulness of advances and general WokeShit status at any "project".

WokeShit Bullshit Barometer

Using this WokeShit Barometer, we can place Woke micro-tactics into these three broad tactical categories.

Subterfuge is associated with early-stage entrenchment and WokeShit tactics involving the least amount of force.

Subterfuge involves the use of WokeShit tactics that are difficult to spot and that use heavy emotional blackmail and such sorts of manipulation.

As such, WokeShit qualifying as subterfuge include the use of WokeShit crossover words, WokeShit dog whistles, emphasizing emotion and experience, most tactics subverting liberal decision-making, passive-aggressive opposition, and the motte of the Reverse Motte & Bailey Trojan Equine tactic.

Exaggeration of support is associated with mid-stage entrenchment and the tactics used are more forceful.

WokeShit tactics used to exaggerate support include actively recruiting Woke allies, staking out the moral high ground, the bailey of the Reverse Motte & Bailey Trojan equine, supporting Woke allies, using WokeShit technical jargon in support of Woke allies and the use of dramatic drama queen departure antics.

Finally, the quelling of dissent is done primarily through forceful bullying and thereby includes tactics such as ad hominem attacks, using consensus as coercion, piling on, blackmail, de-platforming, firing and cancelling.

The Woke viral Infection Grand Tactic

The WokeShit tactical antics part we highlighted earlier considered many individual micro-tactics that are used to make WokeShit advances in universities and corporate targets.

These WokeShit micro-tactics can be seen as being in the service of the larger scale "grand" tactic, Woke Viral Infection, inspired by Lindsay - 2020b.

As described in Part 1, the Woke political project is equity (the retributive redistribution of resources according to group identity), with redistribution flowing from Shroom-magined past "oppressor" groups to historically Shroom-magined "oppressed" groups.

This is just a scam of a con job Robin Hood styled effort made to benefit only a select and chosen few.

The achievement of equity is to be done by overthrowing all existing institutions (committees, departments, faculties, universities, disciplines, funding agencies and governments), each of which is considered a site where much Shroom-magined oppression needs to be exposed and overturned.

In practice, such overthrow is ultimately done by gradually replacing non-woke with WokeShroom addled junkie asylum kid WokeWankers.

Since professors are the foot soldiers of university bureaucracies, the knowledge production system, and disciplinary machinery, the overthrow of the entire academic system is done through the recruitment of WokeShit professors.

Piven and Cloward led the way here with this model in the late 1960's they called it the Cloward-Piven strategy which was the foundation template they used for WokeCraft shenanigans as it evolved.

The idea is to throw sand in the gearbox of everything but we too can throw sand in their gearbox very effectively as well.

The advance is done first through departments, and from departments, to the rest of universities, disciplines, funding agencies and governments et al.

When possible, this involves the removal of non-woke professors, but given the constraints posed by tenure, the key initial approach is to overwhelm rather than to purge.

While most successful until now in the fine arts, social sciences and humanities, attempts to overthrow STEM fields are also well underway.

The overthrow is undertaken in much the same way as a virus infects a cell.

The allegory of the virus has been used both by proponents of the Critical Social Justice perspective (e.g. Fahs and Karger (2016)) as well as its detractors (e.g. Lindsay (2020a)).

Viruses attach and then infect cells thanks to receptors on host cells.

Receptors recognize and attach to proteins useful to host cells, but viruses can mimic the proteins and thereby attach to host cells.

Once a virus is attached to a cell, it can enter it and use the cell's own machinery to replicate itself.

Once replicated, copies of the virus can break free from the host cell to infect others and continue its spread (Freudenrich and Kiger; 2020).

Continuing with the analogy of the virus, we can think of sites of oppression as being the equivalent of cells that can be infected by the CSJ/TSI shroom junkie perspective.

Each Shroom-magined site of oppression has different receptors with the most common receptors being the "critical" and "diversity" receptors.

These receptors can and are used to infect sites/cells with the CSJ/TSI virus.

The most common and important sites for the spread of the CSJ/TSI WokeShroom virus are university departments and disciplinary entities since they are the gateways into the machinery and apparatus of the entire knowledge production system.

Traditionally, infection has taken place primarily thanks to the "critical" receptor.

More recently in the corporate world infection has taken place via the "diversity" receptor.

Finally, the most worrisome current battlefront is infection through the "social/society" receptor in the STEM fields.

Critical Receptor Infection

The CSJ/TSI WokeShit, WokeShroom virus infects via the critical receptor in the following way.

First, it takes advantage of an openness of academics to a general spirit of skepticism by appealing to the word "critical."

The word critical itself is a crossover word that doesn't mean critical in the sense of old school university styled critical thinking, but rather holds the radical Critical Social Justice Shroom-magined meaning which you are now well aware of.

Second, it is said that the current Shroom-magined site of oppression is deficient because of a lack of a "critical" perspective.

Third, the identification of this weakness goes hand-in-hand with a proposal to incorporate the critical perspective, most commonly by including additional WokeShroom addled junkie WokeWanker Zombie agitators .

As such, the tactic can be described as: introduce the notion of criticality, denounce the site as not being sufficiently "critical", incorporate new "critical" WokeWanker shroom junkie Zombie agitators.

In a typical departmental context, this three-step process would result in a proposal for hiring a professor that adopts a "critical" stance on whatever the department happens to concentrate on, e.g. "critical" legal studies, "critical" literary analysis, "critical" geographies, "critical" race, etc. until the target is "critically" fucked and well soaked with "Critical Stupidity".

Once this advance is made, the critical "scholars" (sic) will use Woke micro-tactics (WokeShit) to recruit other critically stupid Woke "scholars" (sic) until the department is overwhelmed and the CSJ/TSI perspective is fully entrenched with a legion of WokeShroom addled junkie Zombies.

The virus is also spread as students trained in the department leave to infect other aspects of the university and disciplinary bureaucracy.

It is through this process that most departments and disciplines in the fine arts, social sciences and humanities have come to be dominated by the CSJ/TSI WokeShroom perspective.

Diversity Receptor Infection

Increasingly, infection with the CSJ/TSI perspective is coming through the "diversity" receptor.

The CSJ/TSI virus infects via the diversity receptor in the following way.

As with the word critical, the word diversity is a positive-sounding crossover word with a radical meaning, synonymous with equity.

First, the nice sounding merits of "diversity" are trumpeted by the WokeShroom crazed asylum kids.

Second, the site in question is criticized for being deficient because of insufficient diversity.

Third, proposals to increase diversity are advocated by said WokeShroom Zombie junkies.

Infection through the diversity receptor is a little more subtle.

That is, the goal of a recruitment based on diversity is less diversity and more the recruitment of participants that either adopt, will not resist, or who can be made to comply with, the Critical Social Justice/Total Social Injustice perspective.

In other words the recruitment of a Woke participant shroom junkie Zombie is made using diversity as a cover.

In a typical disciplinary context, such as a scholarly society of some form or another, the process might look like this.

First, the merits of diversity to the discipline will be emphasized.

Second, the discipline will be criticized for its lack of diversity along any number of dimensions such as sex, skin color, sexual orientation, etc.

Third, policies to increase diversity will go hand-in-hand with attempts to recruit new participants bringing a new diverse (and "critically stupid") perspective to the discipline.

Such recruitment typically involves the recruitment of WokeShroom junkies or woke-proximate participants, which is in fact, the central purpose of increasing of diversity.

Stem Social Infection

Finally, it is also through this process that STEM fields are being infected, albeit slightly more subtly.

It is more subtle because it is not yet possible to advocate in favor of "critical" engineering or "critical" physics.

In these fields, the critical perspective is more commonly introduced through sociological expressions such as "social" or "society."

As with "critical" and "diversity" these words seem harmless, positive and unambiguously beneficial.

It is for this reason that one sees attempts to hire professors, or start new departments or sub-disciplines related to sociological or societal aspects of a STEM discipline, such as computing and society or engineering and society.

Such participants, sub-disciplines, institutes or departments are gateways for the Critical Social Justice/Total Social Injustice perspective in STEM fields.

Once participants enter through these gateways, they work to discredit and de-legitimize STEM fields by insisting on the need for "critically stupid" or more "diverse" perspectives in these fields.

Once this is done, these disciplines as well are put in the service of reproducing the CSJ/TSI WokeShroom perspective in departments, faculties, universities and beyond.

Counter WokeCraft

OK then, so everything in Part One and the small overflow in Part 2 above covered the basic WokeCraft operating methodologies, and the various subjects pertaining to how they operate and what makes up most of the WokeShit found in the WokeCraft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) at a high level.

So now you should know what it is and how this evil infestation of Woke savage shroom junkie idle bastard roaches work at a broad strokes conceptual level.

Now we are going to get more involved with aspects of removing said WokeShit WokeShroom Zombie junkie infestations and infections.

Depending on which country you are living in, some things suggested may or may not be legal and we do not advocate the breaking any local laws, rather focus to change the laws to help fine tune said eradication work to aid the permanent departure of the "Woke" is the broader project goal.

Having said that, in a perfect world, all Marxists would be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

Much like the Catholic war against Catharism, conversion to the faith is not the goal here as we have found over the last 2130 years of human history that this sort of cancer always comes back from the dead if it is not wiped out "in toto" as the latin term for that "situation" goes.

Thus, total eradication of Marxism is preferred to the conversion of Marxists to capitalism because as we have seen throughout the most recent 200 years of human history in particular, that such conversions are as common as purple and pink Unicorns.

Now, there is the hard way conversion that does work, but this also involves the eradication of millions of citizens the Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot way and the passing of about 75 years before it dawns on the general population that Marxist Communism is just an excuse to wipe out billions of people to the benefit of a handful of evil Mafioso criminal thugs at the top of the Politburo chain.

As we do not have the time or the stomach for said X millions of graves in the USA, we are foregoing this option.

The legion of Woke are mentally sick savages without frontiers who all belong in secure lunatic asylums, preferably ones for the criminally insane.

When Pat Brown started the snowball rolling in California in the late 1950's to close the asylums down we kinda laid our own bed that was mined full of big stinky turd bombs for what would come as a natural consequence of such daft and idiotic actions.

This has became a global phenomena.

We now have to build tens of thousands of funny farms to accommodate the mentally unwell to deal with this global WokeShit WokeShroom based Gobbledygook Zombie junkie contagion.

The alternative is to Gas them all, which, as I said we have no stomach for at this time so we will go the other route until they make the worst decision possible the only possible solution left to choose from - by their choice through their bad actions.

Sadly, I believe this drastic option is inevitable but it is a process we have to go through to get there from where we now stand.

In the meantime, the impossible may happen and the spoilt-shit WokeShroom generation Zombie legion of junkie morons might actually come to their senses but we have to try all we can to avoid that total eradication scenario regardless before they force us to go there.

So here goes...

Spotting WokeCraft before it is too late

The first task, before being able to counter WokeCraft and associated WokeShit, is knowing how to spot it.

There are a number of strategies that should be used to achieve this end.

Rule number One - Take it very Seriously

Many participants, while conscious of some of the most egregious results of the Critical Social Justice/Total Social Injustice's Shroom-Magined absurdity, do not take it seriously at all because they are using common sense and logic on a bed of family values taught decency.

So they naively think WokeShroomWorld does not and will not affect them.

This is most common among professors in disciplines and departments in which the CSJ/TSI perspective is not yet entrenched.

It can be observed most often in engineering, and sciences without an environmental vocation.

For the most part, these professors know nothing of the CSJ/TSI Shroom-Magined perspective, and are thus uninitiated.

They might sardonically associate "WokeShit" unrest with disciplines exhibiting little gravitas such as those in the fine arts, humanities and most of the social sciences "arts" (sic).

Many of these view BA degrees as standing for Bullshit Artists while they view a BS as a Bachelor of Science (serious stuff for people with working brains).

They might also consider the WokeShit disturbances to reality to border on the comical and be thankful that their disciplines are not affected by this Shroom-Magined absurdity.

It is not, however, only the uninitiated who fail to take the CSJ/TSI WokeShroom perspective seriously.

Woke dissidents can be dismissive, scornful and contemptuous of CSJ/TSI as well.

Since they know something about the perspective, they can lull themselves into believing that the absurdity and obvious contradictions of the perspective mean that serious people can't possibly succumb to such stupid shit.

As a result, they can conclude that it represents little threat to them or their discipline.

This, of course, has now been proven at best to be very naive and at worst simply false.

The truth is that the number of disciplines where the CSJ/TSI perspective is not entrenched and where there is little threat of entrenchment is actually decreasing alarmingly rapidly.

It is now clear that STEM fields are the new front line in the Critical Social Justice struggle (see e.g. Abbot (2017); Domingos (2021); Kay (2020)) towards the domination of universities.

Also, the situation in any discipline, department, university, etc. can change very quickly, often with (seemingly) no warning, and often with no way to turn back.

As a result, the CSJ/TSI perspective absurdity and its ability to expand into any and all disciplines must not be underestimated.

Professors in all disciplines need to be on the lookout for signs of the advance of this movement, and importantly, take WokeShit very, very seriously indeed.

Rule no 2 - Know thy enemy

The better you understand the CSJ/TSI WokeShroom addled junkie Zombie perspective, the more effective you can be at spotting it, and countering its advances.

This is not to say that you should NOT attempt to counter it unless you have read every last article in the journal "Gender, Place & Culture."

While the CSJ/TSI shroom-magined WokeShit Gobbledegook Zombie junkie literature is vast and for the most part inaccessible to uninitiated readers, this does not mean you cannot grasp the basic fundamentals.

This is partly due to the fact that increasingly there are sources that can be understood by non-junkie-specialists.

The best single source to understand the Critical Social Justice perspective available now is Pluckrose & Lindsay's "Cynical Theories".

Allan Bloom (2012) and Stephen Hicks (2011) provide excellent descriptions of the long historical roots and development of the perspective.

The "New Discourses" website is also excellent and includes an "encyclopedia" of CSJ/TSI terminology.

It's also partly because the perspective and its related phenomena can be surprisingly effectively reduced to, and understood clearly by just three principles.

The three principles are the knowledge principle, the political principle and the subject principles alluded to in Part 1.

If you know these principles, just about any CSJ/TSI WokeShroom addled term, sub-discipline, phenomenon and tactic can be easily understood.

As a result, a little time devoted to understanding their evil WokeShit, Shroom-magined perspective can be surprisingly fruitful.

This can help you to understand, spot, explain to others, and counter CSJ/TSI WokeShit advances.

Rule no 3 - Maintain Vigilance

As discussed before, dissident professors need to be aware that the Woke ethos exhorts adherents to always try to make advances for CSJ/TSI WokeShit goals.

They also need to be aware that always trying to make an advance is a key principle of Wokecraft (see Part 1).

As a result, it is necessary for dissidents to continually be on the lookout for signs of WokeShroom mind-fuckery and related WokeShit shenanigans and advances.

In mid-to-late-entrenchment, this is not difficult since Woke advances will be obvious and vocal and the WokeShroom addled Zombies executing WokeShit are not very bright by aggregate in any event.

Before entrenchment, however, or in early-stage entrenchment, advances will tend to be subtle.

It is for this reason that it is particularly important to be vigilant before entrenchment or during early-entrenchment; the CSJ/TSI perspective can gather momentum quickly.

Once it has momentum, it can be very difficult to stop.

Rule no 4 - Woke Word Lookout Watch

The best way to be vigilant is to watch out for Woke words.

There are two types of words to watch for: Woke crossover and overt Woke words and expressions.

As described in Part 1, WokeShit crossover words are simple words with commonplace, well-understood meanings, but which also have radical CSJ/TSI WokeShroomWorld double meanings.

Crossover words are used as dog whistles so that Woke participants can identify and signal to each other.

Woke agitators identify allies to find common cause and to unite so they can exaggerate and bullshit support for Woke wanker advances.

Crossover words are also used to covertly inject CSJ/TSI concepts into all aspects of administrative and intellectual infrastructure; from course outlines to webpages to professor job descriptions for recruitment, to institution-wide policies, etc.

At critical moments, the Woke meaning of previously injected crossover words will be insisted upon to advance CSJ/TSI goals.

This is known as the Reverse Motte & Bailey Trojan Equine shenanigan.

The list of crossover words is not as long as that of overt Woke words, but it is important to be aware of them; partly because of how they are used covertly, and partly because of what a successful tactic the injection of Woke concepts is by using them.

Here is a list of the most common Woke crossover words:

  • critical

  • decolonization

  • discourse

  • diversity

  • embed

  • ​empowerment

  • equity

  • ​inclusion

  • ​intersection

  • ​justice

  • liberation

  • knowledge(s)

  • narrative

  • perspective(s)

  • privilege

  • ​race/racism

  • resistance

If you see or hear any of these words, especially if someone tries to insist on them (e.g. add them to a document, course description, website, etc.), recognize that this is likely a WokeShit Zombie junkie shenanigan and they are attempting to infect you.

Overt Woke words and expressions are easier to spot, but are less likely to be used before entrenchment, or in early-stage entrenchment.

It's worth being aware of them all the same, since they can appear before or in early-stage entrenchment.

They're easy to spot because they stand out.

Below is a list of categories of overt Woke words.

The best source to find such words is the New Discourses Social Justice Encyclopedia.

Words that appear highly technical and that often originate in philosophy: Typical words in this category are words like dialectic, epistemology, hegemony.

Words that appear to combine multiple words that are not normally associated: They often appear un-intuitive as well.

Typical words and expressions in this category are binary privilege, colorstruck, compulsory heterosexuality, epistemic exploitation, cultural competence, meta-narrative, etc.

Words that appear to have been made up: This category includes words like autosexuality, colorism, deadname, episteme, cis-gender, heteronormativity, minoritize.

Words that are spelled differently than they normally are: These often use strange letters, particularly "x."

Examples of these words are latinx, mathematx, womon, wimmin, xdisciplinary.

Words that describe Western society, but which are used in a decidedly negative sense: Common words in this category are the West, liberalism, capitalism, modern, modernity.

Words traditionally with a positive association in common language, but which are used negatively or derogatorily, particularly those relating to the Western philosophical tradition: Examples of these are logic, reason, argument, Enlightenment, freedom, free will, choice, individuality, etc.

Words and expressions that explicitly contain references to group identity, while also seeming invented: This includes words like blackness, whiteness, white privilege, white adjacency, fat shaming, ableism, gender traitor.

Words and expressions that sound decidedly bad or evil: They are often antonyms to positive-sounding crossover words (e.g. exclusion vs. inclusion). Common words like this are: colonialism, conflict, oppression, bias, false consciousness, struggle.

Words that are opposites of crossover words: Crossover words often have complimentary Woke opposite words to which they are juxtaposed.

So, for example racism is often juxtaposed with anti-racism, colonization with decolonization, exclusion with inclusion, segregation with desegregation, etc.

If you hear any of these words or expressions, it is an indicator that the person using them, or advocating their use, adheres to the CSJ/TSI WokeShit Gobbledygook WokeSpoke WokeShroom addled false narrative Zombie junkie perspective.

You should also expect that its use is part of an ongoing and active WokeShit advance.

If you hear any words that you've never heard before, but could fall into these categories, you should look them up in the Social Justice Encyclopedia.

The 1619 Project by the way is the very first Social Justice (sic) encyclopedia entry and is worth a mention here.

These WokeShroom, WokeShit twats started a project by the Commie Marxist New York Times magazine in August of 2019 in a feeble and weak attempt to rewrite American history in Wokeish, WokeShit, Gobbledegook, WokeSpoke, Zombie junkie infected BullShitSpeak.

Anytime you hear the 1619 project mentioned you can instantly be aware that you are dealing with Wokeish WokeShit WokeShroom addled Zombie agitators in the business of farming more BullShit for Mount WokeCrap (The largest Woke Mountain made up of 100% total pure WokeShroom addled horse crap, lies, and deliberate twisting of history to an absurd WokeShit Zombie level of deliberate misunderstanding).

This online encyclopedia is a treasure trove of WokeShroom mental unwellness references.

To fully understand WokeShit WokeCrap by the way you do need to be well stoned on exotic shrooms that take you to WokeShroom world.

WokeShroom world is the virtual reality these low IQ shroom junkies attain when the hallucinogenic chemistry from shroom ingestion invades the tiny brain of a WokeShit agitator stoned on said suitable shrooms.

Your understanding of WokeCraft will be further accelerated if you are a dimwit retard with a Political Science degree and think you are actually the smartest human since Einstein, have been taking shrooms and various meth amphetamine cocktails since middle school and have a brain so badly damaged by these chemicals that when you go to the rest room you don't wipe your arse or flush the toilet once done with your bodily excretion basic functions.

Best of all, these drugs have left you with an addled mind barely above that of the zombie level contagion as depicted in the movie Dawn of the Dead with a matching IQ of around forty dead and very rabid ex ferrets.

This is the ideal Wokeish agitator: Dumb, effectively deaf, practically blind, stupid, stoned, illiterate, uneducated, lazy and generally speaking a total waste of a human corpus.

I refer to such Wokeish specimen as generation Zombie, because they act just like Zombies, only way, way more stupid.

General Counter WokeCraft

Our previous ramblings concentrated on how to spot Woke advances and WokeCraft WokeShit.

This is the first reactive piece on counter WokeCraft and concentrates on general approach reactions to facilitate eradication of the WokeShroom contagion.

If you see WokeShit, Squawk loudly

One of the reasons the Critical Social Justice (CSJ) cancer has progressed so effectively throughout global society is that even when people recognize an advance, they will often say sweet fuck all, naively thinking that if they simply ignore it, it will go away.

This WokeShit WokeShroom contagion ain't going away without being pushed hard over the cliff, however.

This behavior is partly because WokeShit advances so often seem so small and so unobtrusive that saying something about them seems not worth the trouble mixed in with a bad dose of denial this is actually happening in the mind of the sane.

The trouble, of course, is feeling uncomfortable and the sense of not getting along with your colleagues, being "divisive" and not being seen as a team player, imagined worries of social stigmas and general awkwardness fears the Wokeish WokeTwats deliberately make more awkward every opportunity the WokeRoaches get is a big mental psyche issue they deliberately take advantage of.

Get over it, these WokeShroom WokeTwats are playing a game called the end of civilization as we know it.

As such it is important to recognize that these feelings you may be experiencing are all consequences of deliberate WokeShit strategies and deliberate Zombie tactics.

We have previously discussed how it is a key principle of WokeCraft to always try to make an advance.

Always trying to make advances, even when inappropriate, is intended to take advantage of people's good will and generally non-confrontational good naive natures and use it against the sane and rational.

Making advances when they are inappropriate also makes things awkward causing people to be uncomfortable, encouraging them to let the advance pass, and discouraging them from opposing WokeShit.

They are making you feel uncomfortable as a deliberate tactic, you need to make them feel equally uncomfortable with a don't give a fuck attitude that will shake em up pretty bad.

Appeals to "consensus" and using consensus as coercion are also tactics that will be used to force people to "go along to get along" and make people unwilling to oppose Woke advances.

At the same time, dissidents who don't say anything, don't recognize two salient things.

First, they don't appreciate the long term impacts of not saying something.

Small advances can (and are intended to) become big advances in the future.

Second, people don't appreciate how effective simple and even mild opposition can be - particularly in early-stage entrenchment.

We are increasingly told of CSJ/TSI WokeShit advances being disarmed simply by having raised a principled but mild objection.

Just do it sans the usual Wokeish Drama Queen emotion twisting spoilt brat type of antics displayed by the WokeShroom addled WokeShit agitators!

Of course, the consequences of saying something are not always just mild discomfort but you are looking for skirmishes and battles to do your part in the war against WokeShit.

As the CSJ/TSI perspective becomes more entrenched, more extreme bullying tactics (ad hominem attacks, pile-ons and attempts at canceling) are more likely to be used, and they can be much more threatening.

Opposition in this context is certainly not for the faint of heart.

It is for this reason that saying something before, or in early-entrenchment is very worthwhile.

It will represent mild discomfort for long term protection against WokeCraft WokeShit.

It is like effective mosquito repellent and it will at first bite your natural instincts and senses and make you recoil until you get used to engaging in battle against the WokeShit WokeScum.

You are doing everybody a favor by chirping up and chirping loudly and you are also testing these WokeShit war mongers.

Frame the attitude that if they want a war you will give them a fucking war and dig the trenches in your mind for a long battle with these WokeShroom Zombie junkie WokeWankers.

Saying something when you see something helps to counter all three of the main types of WokeShit Zombie tactics by the way.

It will counter subterfuge by exposing their WokeShit advances as soon as they are perceived.

Second, it will reduce the ability of Woke participants to exaggerate support for a given advance, and boy can these Wokeish shroom addled trashishstas Bullshit till the cows come home and then some!

Third, by expressing opposition, it flies in the face of WokeTwats attempts to quell dissent and throws rocks into their gearbox of deliberate destruction.

In addition, opposition will also help other potential dissidents recognize you as an ally and get them to chirp up and pile-on their Wokeish, WokeTwat, Bullshit soaked, WokeShroom addled Woke asses.

Question everything, Suspect the Worst as a SOP

Given the traditional liberal principle of good faith and charity of interpretation, it is natural to give the benefit of the doubt to a WokeTwat participant when they are making an advance.

WokeShit advances often involve the presentation of both motte and bailey positions at the same time.

This has two results.

The first is that the Woke respondent can appeal to the Motte & Bailey tactic.

This involves retreating to an uncontroversial motte position if an (extreme) bailey position being advocated is challenged.

The second, however, is that a well-intentioned interlocutor may provide the WokeShit agitator with the benefit of the doubt by thinking to themselves that while they may not agree with the bailey position, the motte position is reasonable.

Finally, they might think to themselves that the WokeShit agitator advanced the bailey position (perhaps out of passion of belief), but was really "just" trying to advance the motte position.

This might play out in the following way.

Imagine a situation during a departmental meeting with at least one WokeShit participant and a well-intentioned non-woke participant.

A Woke agitator might start with an uncontroversial motte claim (for which there is a great deal of evidence) about a performance gap between black and non-black applicants to a graduate program, and that this is a probable cause for the relatively low representation of blacks in the program.

The Woke agitator may then continue with an extreme bailey position that the performance gap is caused by the systematically racist nature of society, and that any performance gap has more to do with WokeFolk imagined, (care of powerful shrooms) racist indicators that are used to evaluate performance (such as GREs) than any actual performance differences.

Finally, the WokeShit agitator may therefore advocate for the removal of GREs as a way to evaluate applicants to the graduate program on this senseless basis.

The well-intentioned non-woke participant would likely be sympathetic to the concern that the WokeShit agitator has presented (the motte position).

At the same time, they may not agree with the bailey claim about systemic racism and the GREs being Shoom-magined (care of powerful shrooms) inherently racist.

As such, they may be tempted to give their colleague the benefit of the doubt, perhaps by saying to themselves that their WokeShit colleague doesn't really believe their animated claim they're making about systemic racism.

In situations such as these, it is very important to take WokeShit participants at their word and remain attuned to this type of WokeShit argument.

Most importantly, one needs to remain suspicious and skeptical of such arguments, the Woke savages making them and critically not extend them the benefit of the doubt.

This is also a good point to steal the motte and bomb the bailey.

Alternative Diligence

Since the Woke will always try to make an advance, it's necessary to thwart an advance whenever one is observed.

Thwarting an advance involves both opposing it, but also having an alternative to propose instead.

If a Woke agitator tries to recruit a WokeShit ally to a committee, oppose the attempted recruitment and propose a dissident ally.

If a Woke participant proposes a new CSJ/TSI hire, oppose it and propose a non-WokeShit alternative every time.

Woke Words Verboten

Very often, Woke advances are as simple as the addition of a few WokeSpeak words.

The most effective and insidious related tactic is the Reverse Motte & Bailey Trojan equine.

Remember the prior rule that it is important to say something if you see something.

But what exactly are you supposed to say?

In this context you should say that the extra words are not necessary and should not be included.

This has two advantages.

First, it is likely that the words will not be included because you did say something.

Second, it will likely force the Woke agitator to identify themselves as such.

This is advantageous in order for you to properly recognize Woke colleagues, but as importantly, it will do this for other non-Woke colleagues as well.

This is part of the process of shining a light on WokeShit shenanigans.

In order to be successful in this endeavor, you will need to be able to recognize Woke words and especially Woke crossover words.

You'll also need to have a clear idea of your position on the issue in question, and in particularly that a CSJ/TSI interpretation of the issue cannot be allowed.

If someone wants to add the word "critical" to a newly proposed course outline on data analysis, you might respond: "this is intended to be a course on technical aspects of data analysis and is not intended to be a course adopting a Woke Marxist critical perspective.

That perspective is available in other courses in the department."

It probably won't come to this, but it might be useful to be familiar with what the "critical" perspective implies and in particular its three core principles as laid out in Part 1.

Stealing the Motte and bombing the Bailey

Another approach that can be used to add on to the "squawk and chirp if you see something" strategy is "Stealing the Motte and Bombing the Bailey".

As described in Part 1, the Motte & Bailey rhetorical strategy involves advancing a radical and difficult-to-defend position but then retreating to an easily defended position if the radical position is challenged.

Stealing the motte while bombing the bailey involves recognizing the legitimacy of the motte position, but directly challenging the bailey position.

In the section on the Motte & Bailey above, the example of a Woke professor advocating for a lower proportion of white professors on a hiring committee was evoked.

It was explained that such a proposal might be justified based on the extreme (bailey) CSJ absurd claim that white people are inherently, unconsciously and irredeemably racist.

A typical Motte position could be retreated to if challenged, by asking whether the challenger didn't believe that racism existed.

Stealing the motte in this context would involve responding by saying that obviously racism exists (You WokeTwats are prime examples of racists gone hogs wild).

Bombing the bailey on the other hand involves strenuously denying the bailey.

One might say for example that claiming that all white people are inherently and irredeemably racist is itself racist, that there is no evidence for such an absurd claim, and that the argument itself relies on a fallacious (CSJ/TSI) understanding not only of reality, but of what constitutes racism.

This approach is a similar to, but a more assertive and generalizable approach than "never letting them use their words."

It has the same advantages but can be more authoritative and convincing.

Being able to use it effectively requires a stronger mastery of the Critical Social Justice perspective but should be used whenever possible.

Co-Opting WokeShit Advances

It is sometimes possible to co-opt a WokeShit advance for counter wokecraft, although this should be done cautiously.

It amounts to using a Woke advance to introduce ideas or themes that fly in the face of the CSJ/TSI perspective.

I've heard of an example of this where Woke faculty proposed to "decolonize" a curriculum they judged to be too Eurocentric.

A dissident co-opted the situation by agreeing to change the curriculum in exchange for including units on Marxist Utopian experiments in the Soviet Union, China and Southeast Asia.

Such co-opting can be successful if it can subvert Woke messaging or advances, but it does not come without its risks.

The most important is a risk of unintended consequences.

For example, in the short term the dissident curriculum may actually be taught, but the precedent of using WokeSpoke language and concepts as a justification to mold curriculum can easily be used in the future to greater WokeShit advances.

Running High up the Chain

Another consideration in countering WokeCraft WokeShit is where precisely you should counter it.

As suggested from the above, you should try to counter it whenever you come across it.

The reality is though that the higher in an administration you can practice counter WokeCraft, the more influence it will have.

This means that if you have opportunities to have influence at higher levels, you should take them.

For example, it's better to be on a faculty curriculum committee than a departmental curriculum committee, and it's better to be on a university senate than a faculty council.

If you can influence donors, all the better, if you can influence your state government, better still.

While everyone is overwhelmed with their current duties and reluctant to take on more, this does not necessarily mean more work.

In any case, academics are expected to contribute to university administration.

As such, when negotiating your duties, you should privilege those duties that allow you to have influence at the highest level possible.

Do not forget to Vote!

As a participant at a university, you are often asked to vote for different positions within the university hierarchy.

These can be positions for deans, associate deans, union boards, governing boards, etc.

These positions are important for the direction that universities take and usually are decided based on only a few votes.

There are two consequences of this action.

First, it is easy for Woke, Woke-proximate or opportunist participants to get elected to these positions.

This is a problem in and of itself, but becomes more important as more Woke participants are represented on the committees for which they are running.

The more woke participants, the more the Woke perspective will be entrenched, the more forceful the Woke will be and the more radical the advances they will try and most likely succeed with.

Second, as such positions play on so few votes, these are probably the most "efficient" votes you will have in your life.

They're efficient because your vote truly has the potential to change the outcome.

Research thoroughly

Voting is important but it is only useful if you vote for the right person.

If you don't know the candidates, it's important to invest a bit of time to look them over with a microscope.

In this day and age it is pretty easy to do this quickly.

Do a search for them on Google and look at their university website.

Their university website will often have a downloadable CV or a link to their private sites.

It's helpful to see if they have a presence on Twitter and if they do, what they tweet.

You'll want to be mindful of how to spot Woke participants based on their academic backgrounds, their methodological approaches and the use of WokeShit overt or crossover WokeSpoke words.

Plan counters with allies

If you have allies, you can consult and coordinate with them about the candidates for a vote.

Ask them what they know about the candidates. You can let them know what you find out in your research.

You can distribute the background work on candidates between yourselves.

Ideally, you will vote for the same candidates as this will increase the likelihood of a (non-woke) candidate getting elected.

ID Your allies

The last section looked at general counter wokecraft strategies.

This section is the first of a series looking at something critical for successful counter WokeCraft; working collectively with allies.

It is difficult for just one person to counter concerted and sustained Woke advances, especially once the CSJ/TSI perspective becomes entrenched.

The more allies there are on-side, the more people can be counted on to coordinate against Woke advances.

How to ID Woke Agitators

The first step to identifying allies is being able to identify those who are not allies, i.e. Woke participants.

The ease with which Woke participants can be identified has a lot to do with the stage of entrenchment of the CSJ perspective.

The more entrenched the perspective is, the more easily identifiable Woke participants will be.

Here is a series of things to watch out for when identifying Woke participants.

They are organized according to the degree to which they indicate whether a participant is Woke. i.e. the first are less discriminant in the detection of WokeShit adherents and the latter the most.

The use of Woke crossover words: the use of Woke crossover words (and pronouns, such as "they" instead of the 3rd person singular he or she) is common among WokeShit participants.

Especially when the words are used in unusual ways, such as the addition of the word "critical" when it seems superfluous.

Crossover words will be preferred to overt WokeShit words in early stage entrenchment.

In this way, and in these circumstances, they are used partly to signal to other WokeShit participants and partly to lay the groundwork for the first WokeShit advances.

The use of crossover words, while a pretty good Woke identifier, is not an instant tell.

Crossover words are used intentionally because they can blend in and seem innocuous, so they won't necessarily be used with their Woke meaning, or by WokeShit participants.

Skepticism towards progress: An attitude of overt skepticism towards the notion of progress is characteristic of Woke participants.

That things are better now than before is considered to be an Enlightenment notion used to hide the true oppressive nature of reality.

Similar sentiments will be held for notions that environmental conditions are better than before.

Watch also for disparaging and dismissive commentary on technology, electronics, etc.

This is not perfectly discriminant since these attitudes can be shared both by the Woke proximate and the uninitiated.

Disciplinary background: This is the most easily observable characteristic for identifying Woke participants.

Critical Social Justice is now the dominant intellectual perspective in the fine arts, humanities and social sciences.

Economics and some streams of philosophy, psychology and political science currently remain outside of its grip.

That said, if a participant is from fine arts, the humanities or social sciences, there is a good chance they are WokeShit.

Methodological approach: Together with disciplinary background, methodological approach is a good indicator of whether a participant is likely to be WokeShit.

Participants from the fine arts, humanities and social sciences whose work is non-quantitative or non-analytic are even more likely to be Woke than other members of their disciplines.

This is particularly true if such participants come across as being skeptical towards quantitative approaches as well as to positivism more generally (i.e. the hypothetico-deductive method).

If such skepticism is communicated sardonically or flippantly, this is a further indication that the participant is WokeShit.

Public demeanor: Woke participants are, for the most part, vocal and self-assured.

This is related to the fervor of their deluded belief in the Critical Social Justice perspective.

The more vocal and self-assured they are about central CSJ/TSI concerns (e.g. EDI), the more likely they are to be WokeShit.

They will tend to be more vocal and self-assured as the CSJ/TSI perspective becomes more entrenched.

The use of Woke projection: This is a technique where WokeShit participants will at once demonstrate adherence to the CSJ/TSI perspective from their own "position" while at the same time accusing, with an attempt to shame, others inhabiting the same position as them.

A typical example of this would be the following.

First, a white male participant would ostentatiously and publicly "recognize" their own shroom imagined "privilege".

Second, they would performatively make a claim or take an action that demonstrates their fealty to the CSJ/TSI reverse racist perspective.

They might say that because of their privilege they couldn't possibly provide their opinion on a given topic.

The second part of this maneuver is also a projection of culpability onto other "white males" and a way to insinuate that they shouldn't provide their opinion about the issue either.

This technique can also be considered a WokeShit bullying technique de jeur.

Overreaction to opposition: Woke participants are more likely to overreact if they encounter resistance to a WokeShit advance.

This can manifest itself through the display of unusual amounts of aggression towards an opponent, ad hominem attacks, threatening to leave or resign, or possibly even having what appears to be a tantrum if a WokeShit advance is not successful.

The Use of overt WokeShit words: The use of overt Woke words is the most discriminant indicator of a WokeShit participant.

Non-Woke participants will not use such words and likely won't understand them or even know them.

If someone uses them, they're almost certainly WokeWorm.

These words are least likely to be used in early stages of entrenchment, and most likely to be used in later stages.

Their use in early entrenchment is an indicator of the fervently Woke.

The only circumstance in which this is not the case is if a dissident is using such a word when trying to describe, or explain a concept of, the CSJ/TSI perspective.

Ally Characteristics

To be sure, given the current academic environment where any hint of questioning the CSJ/TSI perspective is vilified, potential allies can be difficult to spot.

In many ways identifying potential allies is done in juxtaposition to the identification of WokeShit participants.

While there are no hard and fast rules, here are five things to look out for when trying to identify potential allies.

Clear dissidents: There are some people who are fearless, oblivious, or simply combative Woke dissidents.

They are knowledgeable about the CSJ/TSI perspective and will overtly oppose it.

They are clearly potential allies.

These people are rare.

Disciplinary background: This is the most obvious characteristic for identifying allies.

As mentioned above, there are very few dissidents in the fine arts, humanities or social sciences.

The main exception is economics.

They can be found in psychology and political science too.

There are more dissidents in STEM fields and most reliably (although they may be uninitiated, latent dissidents) in engineering.

Scientific disciplines with an environmental vocation (e.g. climate, environmental science, etc.) will tend to have fewer dissidents and more who are sympathetic to CSJ/TSI, i.e. Woke proximate.

Methodological approach: The type of research matters a lot in identifying allies.

Anyone adopting quantitative methods is more likely to be a potential ally.

Again though, this is not always the case since quantitative scholars can also be Woke proximate.

Public demeanor: Dissidents, holding unpopular opinions are most likely to keep their opinions to themselves.

As a result, people who rarely express themselves, particularly on issues central to the CSJ/TST perspective (e.g. EDI) are potentially hidden allies.

Scholars who seem Woke, but don't use Woke words: This is a relatively small group of participants, but they can be powerful allies.

These are participants in the fine arts, humanities or social sciences but who are not Woke.

They may look WokeShit agitators on the outside (apparel, hairstyle, etc.).

They may even study topics cherished by the CSJ/TSI perspective (e.g. indigenous issues).

They can be identified because they will not use Woke words in general, nor to describe their work, particularly words like "critical", "oppression," etc.

They will self-describe their work in non-hyperbolic terms.

These can be powerful allies because they will normally be very familiar with the CSJ/TSI perspective and understand it very well indeed.

If you're not very familiar with the CSJ/TSI perspective, they can help you to understand it yourself and to understand how to counter such despicable WokeShit antics.

Contacting Allies

Unfortunately, the characteristics mentioned above cannot guarantee that someone is an ally.

To reliably identify an ally, it's necessary to make contact with them peeps.

This should preferably be done eyeball to eyeball in person.

This can be done in various ways, but the best is in person, over a meal or a drink.

The purpose of the meeting can be justified as an attempt to explore potential collaboration or some other plausible pretense.

It can also be done explicitly with the goal to discuss the Critical Social Justice perspective.

The invitation to the meeting is best done in person or by phone, avoiding any electronic record.

At the same time, in the current circumstances (COVID-19) it might be necessary to contact and meet with potential allies electronically.

The main goal of such a meeting is to establish whether or not the person is a potential ally.

The question to be broached is whether the person is familiar with the Critical Social Justice perspective.

If they are, you'll want to ask what they think of it.

The answer to this question will let you know whether they are a potential ally.

If they haven't heard of CSJ/TSI, you'll have to be prepared to describe it to them (see pART 1), ideally as objectively as possible.

During this discussion you'll have to read (perhaps carefully) their responses for whether they are a likely ally or not.

Counter WokeCraft Collaboration

This step is important since it is the only way to truly establish whether someone is a potential ally.

It is also the best way to establish whether there is the potential to work with them to counter WokeCraft WokeShit.

This section is about strategic planning next steps after contact is made and alliances are baked.

Debunking CSJ/TSI

Allies can be divided between those who know about the CSJ/TSI perspective (dissidents) and those who don't (the uninitiated).

If you've been able to identify uninitiated potential allies, you can think of them as latent dissidents.

It will not be necessary to inform dissidents about the CSJ perspective, but it is important to do so for uninitiated latent dissidents.

It is important because latent dissidents will likely be instinctively opposed to CSJ/TSI and in particular its WokeShit prescriptions (e.g. hiring quotas based on identity).

They will find the prescriptions unfair and illogical, but they will not have the analytical tools to understand it, and they won't understand just what a threat the perspective represents; to the university, to science and to society.

It's for these reasons that you'll need to inform them about the CSJ/TSI real perspective.

Providing a lay-of-the-land of the CSJ/TSI perspective succinctly is important, as is emphasizing the implications of the perspective.

Since most latent dissidents will be from STEM fields, it will be important to emphasize the implications of the CSJ perspective for science.

A REAL good place to start in terms of the lay-of-the-land is the three CSJ/TSI principles.

You can also point latent dissidents to links to documentation that you have found useful to understand the CSJ/TSI WokeShit perspective.

In fact, they may explicitly ask for this.

I find Cynical Theories (Pluckrose and Lindsay - 2020) to be the best one-stop-shop for this effort, but there are many other resources available.

The choice of resources to suggest can be delicate since to the uninitiated, resources can seem extreme and strident.

You don't want to scare them off, so you'll have to use your judgement on the best source for a given person.

In terms of the implications of the perspective for science, a few things are particularly important.

Namely, that according to the CSJ/TSI perspective:

  • science cannot access the true nature of reality (i.e. it cannot get at any truth about the world (rich considering how stupid the Woke are ShroomStruck morons who cannot even agree what One is)

  • science has no authority over any way of understanding the world (i.e. it is not any more reliable than religion or superstition)

  • ​science is inherently and irredeemably racist (because you need a working brain to determine what One (1) is)

  • science was designed to perpetuate the oppression of white European males at the expense of everyone else

  • The CSJ/TSI perspective is almost entirely "theoretically" derived via WokeShroom consumption to attain the state of Woke Enlightenment while stoned on suitable shroom based hallucinogens and it is thus based on unfalsifiable assertion (bwaaahahahahaha)

Most scientists will recognize the CSJ/TSI perspective for what it is - an anti-science, anti-scientific, "unfalsifiable" doctrine that was the exact thing science was developed to overcome care of 2000 years of Catholic urban legend anti-heresy practices.

This is likely to sharpen their interest in opposing Woke incursions in universities, if not in science.

It may not be possible to communicate all this in one meeting.

It might indeed take a good few.

For the uninitiated, these ideas are very foreign and can take a while to make sense and sink in to said target's synapses and all.

Collaboration agreement

Once you feel comfortable that someone is an actual ally, the next step is to agree to work together to eradicate the forces of stupidity found in the Woke.

This does not need to be too formal, but it is important that it is agreed to explicitly.

There are many ways in which dissidents can work together but in order for the collaboration to be effective, it requires at least two things:

Agreeing to support each other: This is pretty straightforward but effective. You'll need to agree that if your ally opposes a CSJ advance, you will support the opposition.

This does not need to be very elaborate. Most of the time, it simply means publicly voicing agreement with your ally.

This reduces the ability of WokeShit participants to exaggerate support for a given Woke advance. (One detail here: it's best not to be too overt about your collaboration.

If you're in a meeting, for example, it's best not to sit together.)

Agree to defend each other: This also is pretty straightforward and effective.

You'll need to agree that if someone criticizes your ally or their argument against a Woke advance, you'll defend them.

Most of the time, this simply means publicly speaking out on behalf of your ally in this context.

If your ally faces an ad hominem reproach, you can say that the reproach is unjustified and that your colleague was simply expressing him- or herself.

If the argument is criticized, you can try to rephrase it differently.

This will reduce the ability of WokeShit agitators to quell dissent during WokeShit advances.

Knowing the lay of the land

When considering different sites of intervention it's important to know who the participants are and how they will fall on Woke issues and WokeShit advances, and if they will say anything about it all.

For the most part, participants can be divided between those who will support, or not oppose, Woke advances (the Woke and Woke-proximate) and those more likely to oppose them (dissidents and latent dissidents).

Knowing this is useful to establish the dynamics at the sites of intervention and should be used in prioritizing a plan of action for each site.

Intervention Prioritization

It' is Best Practice (BP) to counter WokeCraft when you come across it.

At the same time, not all situations involve a Woke threat, so that even if you were present, you would probably not come across anything that would need to be countered.

Similarly, there are some sites where interventions have little actual impact.

Finally, the reality is that you probably can't intervene everywhere.

It's important therefore to prioritize (collaboratively if possible) where dissident interventions are likely to be most effective.

Here are some things to keep in mind when prioritizing interventions.

  • Priority #1 - Faculty hiring: Given that professors are around for a long time, and since they show up over their careers all through university administrations, they hold a great deal of power over the long term direction of the university. As a result, being involved at all stages of hiring (position description, hiring committee, etc.) is of the highest priority.

  • Don't get spread yourself too thin: The more allies you have, the more you can coordinate with, and the more situations you can intervene in. The fewer you have, the more judicious you have to be in choosing your interventions. Don't spread yourselves too thin. This is a question of human resources.

  • Prioritize situations with bigger impact: In Part 1 on general counter WokeCraft ARTS, we suggested you should aim as high up the chain as you can. Consistent with this, you should prioritize situations that will have more impact. I.e. at the faculty-level rather than at the department level, the university level rather than the faculty, etc. This needs to be nuanced in some circumstances, since for example, some decisions are less likely to be turned down the further up in the administration something goes. This is the case for proposed new faculty hires. For new faculty hires, the most important site of intervention is the department.

  • Prioritize academic administrative search committees: Since academic administrators have a big impact on the direction universities take, and since the appointment processes commonly invite faculty participation, they are accessible high-impact opportunities.

  • Prioritize situations where you can make a difference: If a given situation has only Woke representation, it may be fruitless to intervene there. You can have the most impact in situations where there is some Woke representation, but where Woke representation is not hegemonic.

Dissident Representation

Identifying sites of intervention means identifying sites where it's useful to have a dissident presence.

As a result, once sites are identified, the aim is to ensure dissident representation.

If it turns out that there is already dissident representation, this might not be necessary.

If there is no dissident representation, or if there is not enough, the aim is to ensure there is.

This can be done in a few ways.

The dissident representation can be you or other dissident allies.

If you want to represent the dissident voice, you can volunteer yourself.

This is usually straightforward and more often than not this will be accepted.

It may require a bit of digging to figure out to whom the request needs to be made.

In other cases, appointment to committees (say for the selection of a dean) can require a formal vote.

If you want to be on such a committee, coordinate with allies so that they vote for you.

Appointment to such positions often relies on only a few votes, even those at the faculty or university-wide level.

If you don't want, or are unable, to be on a given high-priority committee, coordinate with allies to ensure that dissidents are represented from your combined networks of dissidents.

You and your allies can coordinate to suggest dissidents as members of committees.

You can also vote for, and encourage others to vote for dissidents as well.

Limiting the Woke

Ensuring dissident representation will, for the most part, reduce WokeShit representation.

It is also a good idea to work explicitly with the goal of reducing Woke representation.

This can be done by discouraging the inclusion of WokeShit participants in circumstances in which you or your anti-Woke allies can have an influence.

Woke participants will typically try to recruit Woke allies.

If they try, you should argue against the inclusion of such participants, and you should always have an alternative to propose.

Even if they don't try, if new or additional participants are required for any given situation, always have a dissident candidate to propose (see Part 1) and be ready to argue for their inclusion.

Should a Woke participant threaten to make a dramatic departure, this opportunity to limit representation should be taken.

Acceptance of the departure should be made earnestly while expressing gratitude for the departing participant's contribution.

If appropriate, compensation such as severance can be offered.

In the aftermath of the departure, there may be attempts to use it as evidence for the oppressive nature of the environment at the site and to unsettle or disrupt it.

This should be opposed by arguing the departure is nothing more than the frustration of one less than Kosher individual.

Undermining CSJ/TSI

As you and your allies begin to work together, one of the most useful things you can do is sow serious aspersions as to the whole Marxist CSJ/TSI reverse racism absurdity agenda.

The CSJ/TSI movement is characterized by their members with extreme moral confidence; confidence that the perspective is unassailably true, right and just fucking hilarious.

There is little chance of convincing the Woke ShroomStruck otherwise.

This is not the case for latent dissidents, the Woke proximate or the uninitiated more generally, however.

Some of these people will be instinctively skeptical about the CSJ/TSI perspective, but won't know why.

Others will be sympathetic to notions of social justice not realizing it is in fact social injustice and might even use Woke words and terms, despite not really understanding them.

In particular, they might not see or appreciate the retributive, anti-liberal, extreme egalitarianism of the CSJ/TSI perspective at first but later when they realize what it is they they are dealing with, will go thermo-nuclear on the ass of the Marxist construct that "Woke" really is.

If these people can be shown what this evil WokeShit mind-fuckery worldview implies, their willingness to accept the perspective can be compromised and/or their doubts as to the whole nefarious concept of raw unadulterated Marxism suitably amplified.

This is one reason that it's important to chirp and squawk when you see something; it can sow doubt in those who may never otherwise hear criticisms of the CSJ/TSI absurd WokeShroom reverse racist perspective.

While there are different lines of argument that can be used, it's a good idea to first try to disarm any situation in which you are trying to sow the seeds of doubt in.

Disarming WokeShit

It is common when trying to sow doubt among the Woke proximate and uninitiated to launch directly into arguments against the CSJ/TSI Marxist infused WokeShroomWorld perspective.

The problem with this approach is that given the current climate, people will often react badly to any criticism whatsoever of the WokeShroomWorld neo-racist perspective.

Very quickly, people can think, even without understanding why, that any criticism you bring up implies that you are right-wing, a racist, a white supremacist or any other negative epithet that might spring to mind.

As a result, it is important to begin the presentation of any criticism with one or two disarming introductory statements with a disarming tone.

Naturally, you need to believe the statements and you should avoid using Woke words.

It is also helpful to demonstrate sympathy with the particular cause under discussion as well as camaraderie with your interlocutor.

This can be done by starting simply with a statement such as "Like you, I don't think anyone should be discriminated against based on X [e.g. skin color, sex, etc.]. At the same time, what concerns me about Y [the critical social justice perspective, Critical Race Theory, EDI, etc.] is...(it is total racist horse shit)"

This increases the chance that the discussion will get off on the right foot and that you'll be able to successfully sow doubt on the whole evil Marxist "Woke" agenda.

Once you've done this, you can continue with some common lines of argument.

Outcome considerations

One line of argument is to express concern about the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Equality of opportunity is an ultimate goal of traditional liberalism, and one for which the Civil Rights movement was successfully fought.

It means that nobody should be prevented from pursuing what they would like to do in life as a result of sex, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, etc.

In other words, all people should be evaluated based on their merits, not on a whole bunch of made up mind-fuckery WokeShroomWorld ShroomMagined crap.

Rather, that all people should be treated thus is known as "universalism."

This does not mean that everyone will be a doctor, but it means that no one capable should be prevented from being a doctor as a result of their skin color, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

The CSJ/TSI reverse racism perspective on the other hand, advocates for equality of outcome based on identity, i.e. equity.

This is because according to the CSJ/TSI perspective, any difference in outcome observable according to identity is the result of ShroomMagined bigotry.

As such, the perspective advocates for the intentional promotion of some ("historically oppressed") identities over others, as well as advocating for implicit and explicit discrimination against other (historically oppressor) identities.

In the words of the most frequently cited Critical Race Theorist, Ibram X. Kendi "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination"(Kendi; 2019).

This means oppressed and oppressor merely swap roles and is an even more ludicrous than the original transgression of 200 years or more ago.

The types of discrimination typically advocated for are quotas or lowered objective standards of evaluation for target identities.

This is an admission of the failings of the group they now want to be the new oppressors and is frankly uber insulting to all parties concerned.

Such discrimination is also often framed as being justified in order to "redress" historical injustices and implies holding contemporary members of ShroomMagined "oppressor identities" responsible for injustices perpetuated by other people.

There are a number of reasons for which concern can be expressed with this extremely stupid egalitarian ethic.

Equity is way too Simplistic

This WokeShroomWorld notion of equity is extremely simplistic (Even if they are Mega Super-Morons).

Many factors influence outcomes in life.

Assuming that any differences in outcome are the result of bigotry is to attribute far too many factors into one coarse and blunt explanation.

Ultimately this can be thought of as an "equity trick" that amounts to measuring equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

The CSJ Perspective is as Discriminatory as the Original sin

Naturally, distribution of resources according to identity is by definition discriminatory.

If it is done on the basis of skin color, or "race" it is itself totally racist.

Who thinks to fix racism requires reverse racism? Only serious asylum escapees is the answer.

It is for this reason that Critical Social Justice is increasingly referred to as "neo-racist."

If it is done on the base of sex, color or creed it is itself sexist, et al.

Inclusion begets Exclusion

While inclusion is a nice sounding word, the reality is that "inclusion" that results in the distribution of resources according to identity, automatically implies distributing fewer resources to all other identities.

Inclusion therefore implies exclusion.

Inclusion can also serve as justification for removal or purging of identities considered as "oppressors" or over-represented.

It is a facile and circular argument befitting a long deceased ferret with the IQ of a radiated lead brick.

Bad Historical Track Record

It's useful to point out that there are many historical examples of discrimination according to group identity, and that these examples have all been totally disastrous.

The examples are myriad, but the death of hundreds of millions in the Soviet Union and Communist China, not to mention the Jewish Holocaust represent a few horrific examples.

Finally, it can be SaneSplained that such atrocities are typically justified as morally righteous at first and often turn gruesome quickly, if not unexpectedly.

Two Wrongs do not make a Right, Ya WokeShroom Morons!

Such discrimination is advocated for by the WokeShit WokeWankers in order to right historical wrongs.

While this sounds virtuous before you start to process it with a few cerebral synapses, it clearly flies in the face of the most basic notions of justice that we teach even to children.

We teach this to children because we understand the risk of the escalation of conflict and injustice.

Responding to a past injustice with the same injustice against another group does not make things right again, especially when the original perpetrator was from a different space and time in our history.

People who's fucked up brains work like that are primo examples of people who should be incarcerated in deep dark dungeons and chained to a suitable wall with sewer rats for company.

Golden rule antithesis

The Golden Rule is a maxim of most religions and cultures and is the principle that one should treat others as one expects to be treated themselves.

Distributing resources on the basis of identity is clearly antithetical to this rule.

It is also interesting to note that this maxim, according to the CSJ/TSI perspective, could be seen merely as a rule originating from oppressive Western culture whose aim is ultimately to further perpetuate oppressive Western power structures.

The fact that this maxim is found in most religions of the world is clear evidence that such WokeSplaining of WokeShit is totally spurious asylum kid material.

Plunging Standards

Hiring with quotas necessarily reduces the size of applicant pools.

This necessarily reduces the chances of finding the best candidate.

This has nothing to do with the quality of the candidates targeted with the quota.

It is simply statistical; as the applicant pool decreases, the chances of finding the best candidate decrease - a mathematical fact for those of us that can agree what one (1) is.

Perpetuating Discrimination

Hiring by quota, positive discrimination or affirmative action increases the likelihood that people will doubt the qualifications of the people hired.

This will lead to people saying things like "X was hired only because they were Y-identity."

This will have the opposite effect desired and prove highly caustic in a professional setting.

Undermining Diverse Candidates

An unintended consequence of distributing resources according to identity can be to undermine the confidence of candidates selected, based on ability or merit, but who are members of "designated" identities.

Such candidates should worry about the legitimacy of their position and should rightly be affected by impostor syndrome as they suffer tremendous doubt about whether they were selected merely based on their identity- of course if they are already Woke they will know they only reason they got the position was due to WokeShit neo-racist malfeasance.

Other people will immediately dismiss such people as irrelevant and they will be undermined from the outset and this just builds a class of morons nobody takes seriously anyway, kinda like the stapler guy in the basement in the office.

Group Membership Penalties

Penalizing an individual for actions perpetuated by others in another time period from the present time period, who share the same identity is obviously seriously discriminatory, never mind the insanity and absurdity that accompanies such notion.

As important, however, is that it flies in the face of the liberal tradition recognizing individual rights, freedoms and responsibilities; that individuals are accountable for their own actions and not those of others, even those who share the same identity with them.

The idea some white folks did something 450 years ago and as a result all white folks in the present are guilty of the crimes of 450 years ago are the very artifacts for psychiatric incarceration for life in a secure funny farm!

CSJ/TSI is Anti-reality, Anti-science and Anti-scientific

This line of argumentation is most effective with people from the sciences, although it can be useful to others as well.

We covered this earlier in making contact with potential allies, so we will not belabor it here.

Having said that, it is worth communicating to people not familiar with the CSJ/TSI perspective what the perspective itself implies about knowledge and what we can know.

This is most extreme when one considers the WokeShroomFucktruck's perspective implications for science and sanity.

In particular, the CSJ/TSI WokeShroomWorld perspective is skeptical towards the authority of science as a way of knowing about reality.

That is to say that the WokeShroomStruck dumb-asses claim that science cannot know about the nature of reality and that science has no more authority about the nature of reality than religion or superstition.

The WokeShroomStruck contend (because they are stupid) that it is just another "story" among many about reality.

Moreover, because science was developed primarily by white male Europeans (no apologies), it is considered inherently and irredeemably racist by stupid jealous WokeShroomStruck dumb ass Zombie morons.

This is, they claim, because science was designed to advantage its developers to the detriment of those they wanted to subjugate and oppress.

As a result, the CSJ/TSI perspective actively seeks to discredit and overthrow science (see the essay on this in Merion-West (Pincourt; 2021a)).

Finally, the WokeShroom addled posit, all these claims about science are almost entirely theoretical.

They are based they claim on assertion and interpreted as doctrine.

Bear in mind here that these Wokeish WokeTwats cannot even agree what one (1) of anything is and have several cerebral shortcomings even before we attempt to level the playing field (they are spectacularly stupid by aggregate).

The absurdity of their arguments is on the same level as a vengeful two year old jealous of his neighbor's ability to buy his own spawn the toys he himself covets but cannot have.

Sowing Doubt

Doubt can be sown in at least a couple different contexts.

One context is the one described in the above section on identifying allies.

This is probably the best context to sow doubt.

It involves meeting with people one-on-one over a meal or a drink.

Doubt can also be sown during the course of meetings and can be integrated with chirps and squawks when you see something awry on the stage of WokeCraft neo-racist absurdity.

This context is a little bit less controlled, and since other things need to be resolved during a meeting, sowing doubt can be interrupted, less effective and less predictable.

Formal Meetings

A key tactic employed by said WokeWorm agitators for making CSJ/TSI advances in universities in particular is to insist on informality in general, and in decision-making meetings.

This must always be rejected with contrite force as this results in meetings having little structure and informal decision making.

They will do anything to waste time in the hope people will just fuck off and leave them to it.

Informality is exploited by WokeShit agitators in a whole bunch of different ways.

They will take over the agenda once the impatient have departed.

This can be done to surprise people and have things passed with little or insufficient reflection on consequences.

They can add items for discussion to filibuster and prevent other things (which they don't like) from being discussed and delay them endlessly.

Finally, informality can be exploited to bully, intimidate and force through decisions which they favor.

WokeTwat enmity towards secret ballot voting for example and insisting on "consensus" all force people's hands and discourage dissent.

As a result, it is important to short-circuit the possibility of such WokeShit WokeWanker tactics.

Ensuring strict academia based formality in meetings is key to doing this.

There are a number of things that can be done to formalize meetings to protect from WokeCraft WokeShit shenanigans.

Volunteer to chair all meetings

If it is possible, the best way to be able to insist on formality in meetings is to chair them yourself.

Often these will be meetings you will have to attend in any case, so chairing them involves little additional responsibility in any event.

Make sure voting procedures are in Place

There should be formalized rules for decision making and as much as possible, decisions should be made by (secret ballot) vote.

If you are chair, you can put things forward to vote on.

Do not be afraid to do this even if people object, and the Marxist neo-racist WokeShitWankers will object.

If you aren't the chair, you should ask the chair to have appropriate decisions go to a vote and make them fight for every electron in every molecule and that they know that is gonna be the MO.

Make sure every meeting has an agenda

To avoid surprise items, it is crucial to have an agenda for every meeting.

If you are chairing a meeting you can ensure there is one.

If you are not, ask the chair to provide one.

Bake the Agenda before meetings happen

If you are chairing the meeting, draft the agenda yourself.

You should circulate it beforehand and ask for input.

It's good to provide a deadline for adding items to the agenda.

It's also good to have an "Other Business" agenda item.

This is useful in case people try to add items at the last minute.

Any items proposed after the deadline should be covered under "Other Business."

If you are not chairing the meeting, ask for an agenda from the chair as long before the meeting as possible/reasonable.

The important thing is having the agenda beforehand.

Assign times to agenda items

To prevent filibustering, it's important that each item have an assigned amount of time for discussion.

The amount of time for an item should allow sufficient discussion, but the amount of time assigned for an item should not be surpassed.

If time is running out, participants should be reminded of this.

If you are the chair, you can assign strict times to each item.

If you are not, ask the chair to add them.

You can propose times for each item to the chair.

No Agenda Departures

Agenda items and the times associated with them should be strictly adhered to with great formality.

If they are not, the WokeTurd, WokeScum will be able to claim that the time was not adhered to before, and insist that it not be when they desire.

Decisive Meeting Decisions

At the end of the time allotted to an item in said meetings, one of three things should be done.

If it was only an informational item, discussion should be closed.

If the item requires a decision, a decision should be made or the item should be tabled for another meeting.

Decisions should be made by a formal (secret ballot) vote.

Additional discussion points are to be discouraged.

If someone insists on extending discussion, the extension should be considered a motion and always be formally voted on.

Part III of this Epic in the finale section coming up..


bottom of page