Counter Wokecraft: A Field Manual for Combatting the Woke in the University and Beyond

by Charles Pincourt

The Woke ideology is colonizing Western Civilization. This ideology views the world through a Marxist-inspired lens of “systemic power dynamics” that divides us between the “privileged” and the “oppressed.” This colonization has successfully captured many of our noblest and most vital institutions through time-tested strategies and tactics. People from almost every sector of life are concerned about this capture but feel paralyzed and helpless as this ideology activates itself and wields its power. The good news is that Woke tactics are predictable and can be countered. This guide is an invaluable contribution to understanding, recognizing, and ultimately countering “Wokecraft” wherever it appears. While the guide is tailored to the university, its lessons are applicable throughout government, K-12 education, the private sector, churches, and even formal and informal affinity groups. This makes the guide a much-needed contribution as people seek to push back against the destructive Woke ideology.Charles Pincourt is a professor of engineering at a large university. He writes about the Critical Social Justice (CSJ) perspective in universities, how it has become so successful there, and what can be done about it.James Lindsay is the founder and president of New Discourses. He is the author of six books including Cynical Theories, and is a leading expert on the subject of Critical Race Theory.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Education, Sociology, Philosophy, Social Justice, Cultural

Kindle Edition

Published November 10, 2021

Reviews

[Karl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Charles Pincourt, with the help of James Lindsay, offers this very concise field manual to combat what they choose to term Critical Social Justice (CSJ), or sometimes just wokeness or wokeism in the university. While the book does address combatting CSJ in academic departments already captive to CSJ, the emphasis appears to be on preventing the spread of CSJ to the various STEM fields. The pseudonymous Prof. Charles Pincourt does not reveal his identity in this book, but given his writing style, his focus, and his formatting, one strongly suspects that he is engineering faculty.

This short book is divided into three chapters, titled “Understanding Woke,” “Wokecraft,” and “Counter Wokecraft.” Despite having a reasonably good academic understanding of Critical Theory from Horkheimer to Crenshaw, I found that the remedial parts of the book (the first two chapters) were the most helpful for the intended purpose.

The first chapter provides a very simple rubric of the central ideas of Critical Social Justice. While Pincourt point outs that two of the central ideas were presented by Pluckrose and Lindsay in Cynical Theories, that book was dense enough that I had forgotten them, and to this he adds the third. These are:
- The knowledge principle: Knowledge is socially constructed.
- The political principle: Knowledge is constructed by the oppressor group at the expense of the oppressed group.
- The subject principle: Individuals are primarily defined by their group identity.
This, by itself, is an incredibly valuable resource which can be used to explain the epistemology of applied critical theory to the uninitiated without sending them home with a reading assignment. The remainder of the chapter explains foundational concepts such as the continuum of oppression (the progressive stack), the oppressor/oppressed dialectic, and provides a taxonomy of woke participants. The first chapter is 14 small pages, and his language is far less pretentious than mine.

The second chapter offers a description of “wokecraft”, which he claims to be evocative of “spycraft” as perhaps to subtle allusion to the communist subversion described by Yuri Bezmenov and others, but the word comes off suspiciously like “witchcraft” to my ear. This is not quite a description of the praxis of CSJ, only the different techniques used to propagate the ideology in different phases of entrenchment. Here Pincourt is again very useful as a kind of no-frills glossary as he describes concepts such as “situations,” “site of oppression,” “problematization,” and the concept of applying the “least amount of force necessary.” About two days ago, I wound up explaining to my program chair why I objected the use of certain words in an academic department’s mission statement. Unfortunately, I had not read this book and my description of what this book calls “woke cross-over words” was considerably more strained than Pincourt’s. (A list of common cross-over words are helpfully provided in Chapter 3, which for the record are given as ‘critical’, ‘decolonization’, ‘discourse’, ‘diversity’, ‘embed’, ‘empowerment’, ‘equity’, ‘inclusion’, ‘intersection’, ‘justice’, ‘liberation’, ‘knowledge(s)’, ‘narrative’, ‘perspective(s)’, ‘privilege’, ‘race/racism’, and ‘resistance’.) I laughed out loud when I read the heading “The Reverse Motte & Baily Trojan Horse” because it is such a perfect description of the form of argument it describes that I knew what it was before reading the body of the text.

The third chapter of the book, while rightly the point of the book, is probably the least useful. Whereas the other chapters are ridiculously abbreviated simplifications of complex ideas (field manual style), the third chapter expands a few ideas at length which is probably not necessary for this format. It is not incorrect in any part. He is certainly correct that the hardest part of the battle is to recognize CSJ where you find it; the need to form a community to resist CSJ; and the need to reinforce the liberal institutions which can hold fringe ideologies in check. Well and good. At length, Pincourt calls out the lack of secret ballots and good order in the various faculty governance committees, and here I think I have a small disagreement because I have not noticed that failing to strictly adhere to Robert’s Rules has been a primary driver of CSJ’s metastasization (thought it may be at least partly responsible for many other failings).

My complaint, however, is the some of the questions that weren’t addressed. Here is a question I have, for instance. If you are a person familiar enough with continental philosophy to adequately explain the provenance of many of the sorts of buzzwords now found in academic mission statements, how can you craft your argument against it without sounding like a raving conspiracy theorist? The mild-mannered librarian who inserted the phase about “empowered learning” has no idea about Freire and can be genuinely offended at the insinuation that she doesn’t understand ideas that she believes grew from her own thoughts and happen to be shared by all well-intentioned people. Or even in the rare situation that you argue with someone who does understand the origins of these these ideas, how do you avoid appearing like a crackpot as you begin telling the story of some society of German Jews who fled the Nazis to bring Marxism to the Pacific Palisades. The story of Angela Davis is sometimes difficult to believe; Eldridge Cleaver’s biography is stranger than fiction. It all matters, and the person who talks about these things can seem like any other crank who might as well be raving about the Bilderbergers or the Trilateral Commission. I can predict the answer, and it is to be strategic in the formulation of arguments and to grant the parts of the argument that clearly do not matter. My hesitation is that I generally believe you should be transparent in your beliefs and reasoning, and these are the sorts of manipulations that I would complain about in others. (Maybe expanding these sections is something to consider for the second edition, Dr. Pincourt.)

Overall, this book takes about as much time and costs less than the last bad movie you saw. Very much to my surprise, I think its lists and highly condensed discussions make it useful for its advertised purpose as a field manual against CSJ ideas. I would welcome an expanded (though not more verbose) edition in the future.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good, tactical advice to combat the woke mindset from taking over in your institution or company. It’s written with academia in mind, because that’s where the outbreak is currently the worst, but it’s usable in all kinds of group situations.

[شمس · Rating 5 out of 5]

Western Civilisation is being ideologically colonised. In fact, it nearly has been ideologically colonised, and only now, at this late stage in the process are people waking up to the fact. (Foreward)
__________
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, (3.6.1)
__________
The Christmas before the publication of this manual, I read Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. It showed me that while I attributed the origins of the movement to the early 1990s, he had seen the same movement in the 1996s, and indeed that that movement had its own precursors the generation before. Trying to make sense of all these streams and torrents and fissures and roots, I can't help but think that our times are most directly the outcome Gramsci's blueprint for the disruption and co-opting of our institutions.

It's for this reason that I believe we need to recognize that the state of our universities is not the result of 2020 (Black Lives Matter) or Political Correctness (1990) or Berkeley (1960s), but most consistently Gramsci and his Prison Notebooks (19305).

I bring this up to emphasize that this movement has a head start on us. We who want to bring universities back towards a liberal, universal, Enlightenment mission have witnessed a long-term effort to hijack the university and make it the handmaiden of an anti-liberal, anti-science moral activism. As a result, we mustn't imagine that righting the ship of the modern university will be done quickly. At the same time, it can be done, although it will have to be done as part of a concerted long term effort. I hope this manual, by explaining the worldview that has become so influential in our universities, the tactics used to gain control over them, and most importantly how those tactics can be demasked, defused and overturned will serve as part of the long march to bring universities back to their mission of knowledge and truth. (Conclusion)

__________
This implies that people are oppressors or oppressed according to what group/groups they are identified with. Similarly, it implies that how people behave is primarily a function of group identity, and (taken together with the political principle) that their behaviour supports and helps perpetuate the oppressive systems around them subconsciously. (1.2)

There are a few important elements to the knowledge principle. The first is that while reality itself is not denied or questioned, it is considered impossible for us to know its true nature. The reason it's impossible for us to know about reality's true nature is that any knowledge we think we have is actually only "socially constructed;" defined (through language) by the culture in which we live. (1.2)

A corollary of this principle is that since individual behavior is defined by one's identity, individuals are responsible or accountable for actions associated with any identity to which they are associated. As such, the oppressive acts of one member of a group is the oppressive act of all members of that group. Finally, this accountability is valid across time. The oppressive act of a member of a group at one time can be attributed to a group identity (and its members) at another time.
Taken together we can infer that according to the Woke worldview, reality, well . . . sucks. (1.2)

There are three reasons why professors from these disciplines are likely to be Woke proximate. First, for the most part, they are well-intentioned. They support “social justice” and don’t see or understand the difference between traditional social justice and Critical Social Justice. (1.6.2)

I use the word dissident because of a characteristic of the Critical Social Justice perspective itself, and our culture that is increasingly swayed by its norms and rules; that people are not allowed to question or disagree with it. (1.6.4)

Microaggressions are acts that people perform typically without even being conscious of them that marginalise, exclude, oppress, or insult. If a white person were to ask, for example, where someone who appears to be of Asian descent comes from, this could be problematised and considered a microaggression. (2.1.3)

Third, crossover words often (although not always) sound “nice”. If there are two words that describe the same concept, the nicer sounding word will be used. That is why we often see “inclusion”, but nor normally “exclusion” used as a crossover word. This is useful because it makes it difficult to question their meaning. (2.3.2)

Traditional liberal rules and norms of engagement in discussion, argumentation, and decision-making are considered to be optional and secondary to the goal of advancing the Critical Social Justice agenda. That claim requires a definition of what traditional liberal rules and norms of engagement are. (2.4.1)

According to Critical Social Justice, being binary (having only two alternatives or categories) is problematic because categorisation itself is considered to be a form of oppression. (2.4.1)

This tactic (Emphasising Emotion and Experience) is justified by at least two reasons from the Critical Social Justice perspective.
First, since according to the Critical Social Justice perspective all knowledge is socially constructed, inherently oppressive, and an inaccurate representation of reality, experience is seen as the only way (accurate) knowledge of reality can be obtained. Second, since argumentation, logic, and the presentation of empirical evidence are considered to help perpetuate and reproduce systems of oppression, it is legitimate to ignore them and concentrate on experience and emotion. Advancing experience and emotion as evidence in a liberal context is considered anecdotal and myopic, and of limited value in group decision-making. (2.4.1)

A common Woke technique is to abandon any pretence of charity of interpretation, which often is done by problematising what people say independent of what they intend to say. (2.4.1)

While charity is not extended to interlocutors, Woke participants will insist on it for themselves and their own arguments. If their arguments are interpreted in a. Negative light, or in unflattering implications of their arguments our logic are evoked, they will maintain that their argument was not treated charitably. They may claim that they “just” meant some other uncontroversial or innocuous point. They may also go on the offensive maintaining that the unflattering interpretation or evocation is a function of a position of privilege, of wanting to perpetuate existing structures of power or of being racist of bigoted. (2.4.1)

In a situation, and during discussions, an important QWoke tactic is to make things awkward. Situations are rendered awkward by Woke participants hectoring, insisting too much upon something, and “not letting things go.” Woke professors will commonly insist on their perspective to a point that makes everyone uncomfortable. The intention is that the non-Woke participants, to avoid awkwardness, will give in to the Woke demands or at leat five up any resistance to them. This tactic exploits the liberal expectation to be respectful of other’s opinions, as well as the tactic general tendency to find a concencus. In a sense, this tactic tries to force a consensus around aposition that is possibly held by only one person. As such, it is a form of bullying. (2.4.2)

The Reverse Motte & Bailey Trojan horse strategy involves three elements. First, unlike the Motte & Bailey, a motte (uncontroversial) position is proposed by one of multiple Woke participants. Second, the motte is usually inserted through the use of a Woke crossover word. This, once the Woke crossover word has been accepted and integrated into the situation (this can take a long time), it is then maintained by the Woke participant(s) that the correct interpretation of the crossover word is the extreme Critical Social Justice meaning. As such, the Trojan horse is the Woke crossover word, which goes unnoticed until the overt advance is made. (2.4.3)

And example of telegraphing, projecting, and inverting is a typical skirmish relating to proposed policy of preferential hiring for people of colour. Aq non-Woke professor may oppose such a hiring practice on the grounds that it is racist (because it involves distributing resources on the basis of race). In such a context, a Woke participant may then say that making this claim could be seen as an attempt to perpetuate c current structures of oppression and thereby legitimising racism (telegraphing). Moreover they may very well say that the claim is being made from a position of privilege and that perhaps unknowingly it was made with that aim in mind (projecting). Finally, the Woke participant may further claim that in this context, supporting the policy actually challenges the existing structures of oppression and as a result is in fact not racist, but anti-racist (inversion). (2.4.4)

The word critical itself is a crossover word that doesn’t mean critical in the sense of critical thinking, but rather holds the radical Critical Social Justice meaning. (2.6.1)

It is not, however, only the uninitiated who fail to take the Critical Social Justice perspective seriously. Woke dissidents can be dismissive, scornful, and contemptuous of Critical Social Justice. 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 it. As a result, they can conclude that it represents little threat to them or their discipline. This, of course, has not been proven at best naive and at worst simply false. (3.1.1)

Here is a list of the most common Woke crossover words:
* critical
* decolonisation
* discouse
* diversity
* embed
* empowerment
* equity
* inclusion
* Intersection
* justicce
* liberation
* knowlege(s)
* narrative
* perspective(s)
* privilege
* race/racism
* resistance (3.1.4)

Other woke words and expressions:
* 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 unintuitive 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, colurism, deadname, episteme, cisgender, heteronormativity, minorities.
* Words that are spelled differently than they normally are: They often use strange letters, particularly “x”. Examples include Latinx, mathematic, womon, wimmin, xdisciplinary.
* Words that describe western society, but which re used in a decidedly negative sense: common words in this category are the West, liberalism, capitalism, modern, modernity.
* 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 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, colonisation with decolonisation, exclusion with inclusion, segregation with desegregation, etc. (3.1.4)

Naturally, distribution of resources according to identity is by definition discriminatory. If it is done on the basis of skin colour, or “race” it is itself racist. It is for this reason that Critical Social Justice is increasingly referred to as "Neo-racist”. If it is done on the basis of sex, it is itself sexist, etc (3.6.4)

While inclusion is a nice sounding word, the reality is that “inclusion” that result sinn the distribution of resource 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. (3.6.5)

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. (3.6.9)

[Jared E. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very insightful into the thoughts and acts of a particular group. I believe the "Woke" would agree with this author's description of their ideology. Written by a professor, largely for other university staff but applicable to many people and groups. I learned a lot, or how to put into words things I vaguely understood to be true.

[Leonard Janke · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am reviewing this book as a worker for a very woke American company which, after about a year and a half reprieve, seems poised to make a big renewed push into woke politics. As a corporate worker bee, I am not qualified to comment how well the strategies and tactics discussed in this book work in academia beyond saying they sound highly plausible. I did find a good deal of information in this book, however, which I feel will be helpful to me in preparing for what is about to unfold at the company I work for.

One of the book's strengths is that it is very short: It can probably be read by most in two or three sitting tops. Some might even push through the entire book in one sitting. Obviously economy of words was a major objective. Nevertheless the grand strategy of wokeism is outlined along with the most important tactics used. The book discusses how to identify the stages of woke entrenchment, how the changes are at first so subtle so as not to seem worth worrying about, but how once certain harmless sounding "crossover" language is adopted (the "trojan horse"), the stage is set for things to snowball quickly. There is also a description of how woke advocates prefer the principle of using the least amount of "force" initially but how that changes as their numbers grow and the growth spurs increases in their self-assurance. A point emphasized is that the situation must be taken seriously and dealt with early on.

Pincourt discusses probabilistic ways to identify how strong someone's opposition to, support of or indifference to wokeness is likely to be. A point emphasized is few are actually strong advocates, initially, and the growing entrenchment is a result of the desire of the less committed to just get along and take woke advocates at their word when they retreat from a bailey position back to their motte and say "they just want X" where "X" is some innocuous sounding thing. Pincourt emphasizes the long term goal is never "just X".

Pincourt discusses good guidelines to identify potential supporters and what to do once they have been identified. He emphasizes that in some fields, such as humanities, it will be hard to find anyone who is not woke at this point but in other fields there is still hope. The individual's field of study is a big indicator of probable wokeness. Receptiveness to quantitative reasoning is another big probabilistic, but not absolute, negatively correlated indicator.

Pincourt provides some good references to material to get familiar with the main theoretical underpinnings of wokeness: namely post-modernism. He also hints as to whom the important neo-Marxists who have influenced the movement are: e.g. Antonio Gramsci. One thing he does warn is that if someone is well armed with theory they must be careful of how they proceed in initially presenting their opposition. "Disarming statements" are important to proactively fight strawmen: a favorite woke tactic. Also unleashing too much theory early on can lead those not familiar with what wokeism really is to assume that it is innocuous and, indeed, just the motte part of the motte and bailey tactics used. As a consequence, woke dissidents who use overly aggressive statements heard by those who do not yet have the theoretical and historical background can make the audience dismiss them as just conspiracy theorists or white supremacists.

The book's greatest strength is that it is concise, logical and well organized. There is hardly an unneeded word. It seems very likely that the author is either a mathematician or someone in a hard physical science. Besides the good, brief introduction to what post-modernism is, the psychological motivations of it advocates are discussed along with why it is such a threat.

As for the book's weaknesses, it can sometimes be hard to see how the strategies would apply outside of academia. A big emphasize of the book is on how to run committees and meetings (it should be done very formally) and how important secret ballot voting is. In the corporate world, of course, very few things are decided by any kind of a vote and proposing that they be seems unlikely to lead anywhere. For example, even in hiring there is generally a hiring manager with near final word: especially in close situations. Hopefully a field manual for combatting the woke in the corporate world will emerge. Vivek Ramaswamy's excellent book Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam combined with ideas from this book might form a good basis for that.

One thing I do know is that many pushing wokeism in the corporate world are just not that well versed in the underlying theory. Hardly any knowledge of it at all, in fact, beyond its motte claims. I imagine knowledge is less so than in the academic world. If you are in the corporate world and have listened to the New Discourses podcast recommended in this book it is very likely you will know more about the underlying critical social justice theory than anyone pushing it at work. Conversely, I suspect that in the corporate world laying bare the post-modernist, anti-science implications of it all will be a bit too theoretical for worker bees as a first step. I wonder if an appeal to an economist like Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman might be a better first step to be quickly followed up by laying bare the post-modernist foundations if that is well received?

Finally, I found a couple of problem with the authoritativeness of the book. For example, the book cites Ibram X Kendi as a "Critical Race Theorist". This simply is not accurate. CRT is the study of law with regard to the racial context of the day throughout American history. Kendi is a history professor, not a legal scholar: not even to the extent of being a scholar of legal history. He has some ideas regarding legal changes he would like to see (what citizen doesn't these days?) but they are quite amateurish. He certainly does not publish in the legal field. The other thing that makes me suspicious is that one of the references is to Hicks's Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. I was tempted to buy Hicks's book in the past, but perusing the reviews show they are not that great and it sounds like it is likely a biased source. Checking the endorsements Explaining Postmodernism is lacking in any from big names, also leading me to be suspicious of its authoritativeness.

[Laurel Purdy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short manual describes the fundamental principles of Critical Social Justice with clarity. I greatly appreciate the way Pincourt breaks down the basics of CSJ and the various techniques employed by woke adherents.
It sometimes reads like the pamphlet that one nerd in your high school wrote and gave to everyone on how to survive the zombie apocalypse. The ubiquitous cross-references to other sections in the book and constant road-mapping (e.g. “last section was about X and this section is about Y”) are a tad sophomoric for something produced by an academic. However, in retrospect, I see that these very attributes make this manual especially usable. It is, after all, not pop science, but a manual.

Areas that I hope will be developed more fully in subsequent editions:
1 - applications and strategies specific to sites of woke incursion and counter wokecraft outside of the university system, e.g. businesses, social clubs, public schools, and churches
2 - analysis of the historical roots of Critical Social Justice - the author hints that its history can be traced back through Marx and Nietzsche and the Enlightenment to even ancient Greek thought and it would be useful to have this in such a manual
3 - in-depth analysis of typical woke arguments, focusing on the error in sound reasoning or explanations of logical fallacies
4 - more lists of possible phrases and arguments that can be used to counter specific woke assertions and incursions - a user’s manual like this should arm people with enough words for all possible occasions

[Carolyn Kost · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are among those concerned by the current threats to democracy, limited government, universal human rights, legal equality for all, freedom of expression, respect for viewpoint diversity, honest debate, evidence and reason, separation of church and state and freedom of religion and want to do something about it, this is the manual for you. It's brief, pithy, and a usable tool in this fight to preserve these foundational tenets of our political philosophy.

This follows in the tradition of Rules for Radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals, Saul Alinsky's 1971 manual for revolution that inspired Obama and Clinton, answered in 2012 by Michael Charles' Rules for Conservatives: A response to Rules for Radicals, a manual for conservatives and Tea Party folks. This is the manual we need for the 2020s. It's the necessary epilogue or companion volume to Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody.

The first chapter describes the principal tenets of Woke and the typology of adherents.
First, the knowledge principle: objective truth is impossible to obtain because culture determines what is known.
Second, the political principle: the power structure has created the tools that construct knowledge: science, empirical facts, reason, and logic, so all these tools are necessarily considered oppressive and evil, which is why personal anecdotes, fictitious stories and narratives are perceived not simply as equivalent to but more valid than logic, statistics, the scientific collection of data, etc.
Third, the subject principle: "individuals are primarily defined by their group identity" (sex, race, sexuality, etc.) which determines their status as oppressor or oppressed.

Chapter 2 (pp. 15-45) is important to identifying the Woke's tactics, especially the specific meanings of innocuous words, technical jargon that I forget most people aren't familiar with, like cis-normativity, discursive aggression, hermeneutic, epistemic oppression, etc., which "intimidate and suppress any dissent" (40). There are many tactics described well here. Readers of this book are likely to have experienced at least a few of these. Just naming a few: "insistence on the informal," "enmity toward secret ballot voting," "emphasizing emotion and experience," [as in "Speaking as a _______," "ad hominem attacks," "assume guilt," "intentional misinterpretation," "using consensus as coercion," "piling on," "canceling and de-platforming," and "the motte & bailey rhetorical technique." That last one is important, but I've never seen it so well explained as it is here.

" The Motte & Bailey strategy involves a proponent who wants to advocate a difficult-to-defend, extreme position (the bailey) [the hard to defend courtyard below the tower on the mound]. When (or if) the extreme position is challenged, the proponent retreats to an easily defendable and easily acceptable position (the motte)['the well reinforced tower on a mound that is easy to defend']. The key to the strategy is a hidden false equivalency of the extreme and easily acceptable positions" (35)

For examples, see any number of memes in your search engine of choice.

The second half of the book, pages 49-91, is the manual about how to fight the Woke. That's the pith. Pay attention. Take the fight seriously. Coordinate, sow doubt, formalize meetings, record and circulate meetings, and above all, demand secret ballot voting.

I'm not overstating that this is a war. If you aren't already seeing this in your company, school, university, or organization, you will. Be prepared by using this manual.

[Rory Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

An informative and thoughtful contribution to the issues presented by Woke(ism), but I thought that the book was overly focused on behaviours, and so it did not get to grip with the intellectual issues underlying woke thought.

The book tells us that the woke agenda is constructed around three main principles. Firstly all knowledge is socially constructed, so knowledge (and rationality) lacks any kind of objective validity. Secondly the current thought patterns of society are enforced by the privileged who use them to oppress others, so there is a moral imperative to overthrow societal structures and knowledge claims; and to compensate those who have suffered because of them. Thirdly, people’s identity’s are conferred by group identities, so individuals are victims or oppressors in virtue of their group status (like race), rather than because of any individual actions.

Having explained these issues, the majority of the book is then focused on behaviours and strategies for dealing with woke behaviour in university environments.

What was missing was an explanation of why people are woke. The book implied that woke people are mad or bad. We hear of their ‘zealotry’ and ‘viciousness.’ Their behaviour is ‘insidious’ and full of ‘priggishness’ and ‘hubris,’ and ‘lacking in good faith.’ But why would people be like that? And why are more and more people becoming woke, as the author believes that woke is increasing, and thus threatening more universities?

The book does not explore or explain that issue. That is particularly disappointing because a clear understanding of why people are adopting woke viewpoints would help others argue against it.

There are occasional descriptions of how woke views affect other views, like scientific theories (72%), but there is not a systematic engagement and critique of the thought patterns which lead to people to embrace the woke ‘faith.’

For example, cited examples of woke behaviour include demanding reparations for oppressed races, and accusing opponents of complicity with racism if they do not adopt a woke agenda. Yes those can be problematic positions, but they also draw from principles which are generally recognised as reasonable and rational. Stolen property and ill gotten gains must be returned, no matter how long it takes to recover. No one would dispute that. And defending someone who has stolen or profited from wrongdoing does indeed generate a complicity in the initial wrongdoing.

So woke demands for reparations and accusations of complicity cannot be dismissed as completely mad (or bad). If there is something wrong with woke conclusions, then there must be erroneous arguments. But what are those arguments, and what is the best way to query them?

Overall the book is accessible to readers from all backgrounds, but its focusing upon woke behaviours in university environments means that it will probably appeal more to those from Higher Education backgrounds.

[Michael’ · Rating 1 out of 5]

Yet another conspiracy theorist book equating Marxism with Wokeism. The Wokes launched a campaign systematically branding Marx a racist and claiming his philosophy of dialectical materialism includes a racial hierarchy. The Conservatives launched a systematic campaign to say Marx was actually Woke two centuries before it was cool. Wokeism emerged from right-wing conservative and free-market advocacy when people, like George Soros, most infamously, decided to promote identity politics as a way to combat Marxism and globalise liberal ideology. Ilhan Omar cited Margaret Thatcher as a role-model, how much more obvious can it get? Of course the traditional right responded with infighting and labeled Soros a secret Marxist and socialist conspirator. Pincourt laboured under the impression that Wokeism emerged from Marxism and even calls the anti-woke right “dissidents”. What about the “scumbag left”, the anti-woke, generally anti-abortion, generally pro-family values, generally anti-trans, extremely pro-gun Marxists? Are these dissidents? Should they read ‘Counter Wokecraft’? When you write a book on a genuine problem but you immediately start spewing poorly thought through conspiracy theories you’ll lose me.
It is beneficial to individual people, politicians and businesses to cancel competitors. It’s beneficial to the police to have protest against a few racists, rather than for comprehensive police reform that undermines the complacent bureaucracy. There’s very little risk in persecuting someone over supposed racism or sexism. As long as it is beneficial to the people who do it and there’s no risk, people will do it. Wokes are everywhere and any attempt to change that is bound to fail.

[Paula · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read Cynical Theories, and found it quite interesting. I got my degree in English Literature when Postmodernism was beginning to wane and Social Justice was beginning to rise. The English department still had high praise for Said, Derrida, Foucault, and so forth, but the enthusiasm for them was no longer there. So, much of what Pincourt discusses here was all too familiar to me. I expected that, and was fine with it. It hadn't stopped my enjoyment of Cynical Theories after all. It was just walking over familiar ground. There is even some comfort in knowing that others looked askance at the landscape as I always had. What I had hoped to get from this "Field Manual" was a few statements that I could use when confronted by the zombie cult of Social Justice Warriors. Something not terribly provocative, yet enough to make them think for a moment while I made my escape. However, this book is very specifically for professors and bureaucrats in an academic environment. It is rather worthless for the rest of us. It was a waste of my time and money.

[Stephen Gilman · Rating 4 out of 5]

The greatest weakness of this book is that the author provides very few examples of how his suggested strategies and tactics have been implemented successfully in real life. His descriptions of what he sees as "the problem" are robust enough, but his prescriptions for how dissidents should take action don't seem to be based on very much evidence or experience.

It also seems a little out-of-date at this point, in that he seems to describe a world in which so-called "Wokeness" had yet to dominate every aspect of public life and could still potentially be nipped in the bud by conscientious objectors. That seems much less likely today in 2023, but I think I would have felt the same way even in 2021 when the book was first published.

[Mi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting idea and concept. Book that really highlights the tribal aspect of positioning oneself in one camp or the other while pushing down the ideologies of others in order to virtue signal how good you are. Ideology fits my values. However, I find the book much more appropriate for someone wishing to crusade against wokism in an academic context, which doesn't fit my situation. So overall, I would have preferred to read a book that was more instructive than practical. *Personal opinion applicable to my personal situation.*

[Luna · Rating 1 out of 5]

What poorly written horseshit, it probably could have benefited from an editor, and someone to point out all the reductio ad absurdum (so many examples like x can also be used to do this scary y I just manufactured) and incidents of begging his conclusions based on statements of simply being obvious or apparent to any reader. If he isn't intentionally misleading his audience, I suspect the author shouldn't be teaching anywhere as he doesn't seem capable of researching the ideologies being railed against or supporting his claims.

[Barry Day · Rating 5 out of 5]

Results of being unaware

It appears that Wokeism has been quite successful because the general population has been unaware. Probably our lack of interest in politics after many disappointments has allowed this insidious doctrine to get past the barriers
This excellent book has now made me fully aware of Wokeism and its threats to humanity. I think political correctness is bad enough but Wokeism is even more dangerous if it succeeds.

[Roberts Lanka · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is what it promises to be - a manual to combat the woke in university. Hence, it is written in an academic language, which at times doesn’t provide the greatest readability. It also focuses more on faculty and what they can do to combat the Critical Social Justice movement in their universities, but does provide strategies for others as well. Overall a short and comprehensive read, but it did leave me wanting.

[Barbara Kay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reader-friendly primer on Wokeism and how to be an effective dissident. Short, clear and educational. Good for university students and employees of woke institutions.

Much of it only applies to university faculty. But first half is very engaging for anyone who wants a capsule portrait of the woke mindset.

[David & Pamela Belmont · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fighting the good fight!

A breath of clean air for a change. This is a well detailed laid bare the dangers yet ways to safety in this country today. It's a little refreshing handbook for the anti woke caught off guard citizens and professors/ teachers out there.i think it's awesome that someone cares besides me that things are upside-down.

[Jwsokol · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pincourt has written a very practical guide to countering woke ideology within the academic disciplines. Despite the academic focus, the lessons shared can easily be translated to most, if not all, settings.

The book is easy to be read and can be finished in 2-3 sittings.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, practical go-to book for dealing with CSJ's neo-Marxist "Woke" movement. Its aimed at people involved at the university/college level, but has practical and insightful information for almost any situation.

[James Pond]

Charles Pincourt makes a highly digestible manifesto for understanding the elite and what 'woke' is in our current society. He offers some clear definitions and ways of engaging with people in discourse. Great primer for much of what James Lindsey covers in his New Discourse series.

[Douglas R. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Informative

A book absolutely filled with tips, terminology, techniques, and recommended countermeasures. "Woke" ideology is a cancer. Eradication of this destructive, inferior mindset is a worthy pursuit.

[Tony Wang · Rating 3 out of 5]

Falls Prey to Some of the Things it Points Out

If you're tired of "progressives" asking you to define woke, you'll get the perfect retort in the first chapter. And while the actions proposed can be useful they seem as simplistic as some of the rhetoric coming from the woke crowd.

[Christine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Topic was enlightening. Style was difficult to get through. I expect this will be most valuable for anyone feeling “stuck in the middle” to understand the forces at work to make things so divisive.

[Jamie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book makes good points, but it is like reading an academic thesis and is quite dry and not engaging though its points are worth careful analysis and consideration.

[Darren Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very practical and helpful guide for navigating the woke workplace.