The Dan Crenshaw coined term “woke right” became the prominent talking point of liberal atheist James Lindsay to attack those who do not support 2015 liberalism. But Lindsay’s obvious disdain for Christianity and rightwing politics exposed the term as untenable, as other liberals retreat from the term. However, this has not stopped subversive influencers in the church from using the term.
Christian Post curates many columns from across the internet, and normie or neoconservative talking points are a good way to get noticed. Mikale Olson is an astroturfed character who has spawned into the fight in Woke Wars II on the side of the woke. A handful of articles in Federalist, a small YouTube channel of less than 300 subs, and some writing for Not The Bee is the extent of this new liberal activist being heavily promoted by James Lindsay’s disciples in Christian circles. the debut article for what may or may not even be a paid writing gig at Christian Post is, The woke right: Critical theory for white guys.
It’s tempting to dismiss the woke right as just another political fringe — an online spectacle of memes and bombastic rhetoric. But its rise represents something more insidious. Its worldview, though cloaked in Christian language, operates more like the radical left than anything remotely resembling traditional conservatism. It reduces morality to pragmatism; power to identity; and justice to vengeance, draped in 17th-18th century nationalist language. And the result is a movement that betrays what they so adamantly claim to represent.
Olson links the liberal Blake Callen’s anti-Christian Nationalist website to make these claims. Despite claiming that Christian Nationalists operate in a radical leftist paradigm, Alsinski’s Rules For Radicals is being followed here. Rule 1, “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have” is obeyed through the use of embellished writing credentials and the astroturfing efforts of Blake Callens and Janet Mefferd.
Some openly call for a “new founding” to replace the Constitution, which it claims has enabled everything from communism to secularism. It praises authoritarian fascistic regimes of the past as models of what an American Christian state should look like. The irony is rich: a movement that claims to defend America wants to discard its most defining principles, from individual rights to the equitable rule of law, in favor of a centralized authority that mirrors the very Marxism it claims to oppose.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because the woke right is merely flipping the script on leftist identity politics. It’s Critical Theory for white guys. Like the left, it prioritizes collective grievances over individual responsibility and treat dissent as treason. The difference lies in who it villainizes. For the woke right, anyone who opposes its authoritarian vision — including fellow conservatives — is an enemy to be crushed, mirroring the political philosophy of Nazi Carl Schmitt.
Appealing to Janet Mefferd’s woefully inept criticism of Christian Nationalism, Mikale Olson’s political instincts are at a 2004 Republican level which does not recognize the zero sum game that is American politics. While C Jay Engel is content to examine the views of Carl Schmitt, Olson views this as an example of wokeness.
The woke right’s moral compromise was on full display recently when Eric Conn, a self-proclaimed “Christian Nationalist” pastor, praised Francisco Franco, the infamous fascistic Spanish dictator (1936-1975). When one user on social media revealed that Franco’s regime had murdered several members of his family without trial (commonplace in Franco’s Spain), Conn’s response was flippant: “Don’t be a socialist.”
Think about that for a moment. A pastor — a supposed shepherd of Christ’s flock — brushed off the murder of innocents because their politics didn’t align with his. This isn’t just tone-deaf; it’s an affront to biblical justice. Scripture repeatedly warns against partiality in judgment. “You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality … Justice, and only justice, you shall follow” (Deuteronomy 16:19-20). Conn’s comment reveals a worldview that prioritizes political expediency over God’s standards, where morality is conditional on whether someone is friend or foe.
It’s worth remembering that Franco’s atrocities didn’t spare Protestants. Under his regime, churches were shuttered, Protestant schools were closed, Bibles confiscated, public dissenters murdered (including pastors), and believers were driven underground. Conn’s embrace of Franco (the Catholic Integralist ) not only betrays historical ignorance but also highlights the woke right’s selective memory. To it, justice is less about fairness and more about crushing perceived enemies — a tactic ripped straight from the pages of Marxist revolutionaries.
Olson goes on a communist diatribe against Eric Conn and other Christian Nationalists who celebrate the accomplishments of Francisco Franco in Spain who successfully defeated communism. Eric Conn showed indifference towards the unfounded claims that Francisco Franco had his own family members killed by suggesting that they were communists and therefore not innocent. The liberals raged at his indifference towards a manufactured injustice. Olson then resorts to appealing to Protestantism to suggest that Franco’s Papist crackdown on Protestantism is supposed be separate from his crackdown on communists. However, given how European Protestantism in the 20th century was rife with liberalism, it does not garner sympathy.
Authoritarianism is at worst anti-Christian – at best unwise – because it ignores humanity’s sinful nature. Power, when unchecked, inevitably corrupts. In Genesis 11, humanity sought to centralize authority by building a tower “to make a name for themselves,” defying God. God dispersed them, fracturing their power, not just as judgment but as a safeguard against tyranny, which ran rampant pre-dispersion.
This principle underpins the need for checks and balances in governance. As John Adams observed, “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak.” Recognizing this danger, the founders designed a system to limit power, reflecting biblical wisdom about human fallenness.
Olson mounts a position that democracy is the biblical government. He appealed to John Adams who was an 18th-century nationalist. Calling it unbiblical, Olson would condemn Moses, Joshua, David, and God the Father who were all authoritarian.
C.S. Lewis echoed this sentiment in his defense of democracy:
“I am a democrat because I believe in the Fall of Man. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”
Lewis understood that systems like monarchism and neo-integralism ignore the dangers of sin and elevate rulers to positions of unchecked authority, often leading to oppression. The Christian response to sin is not to centralize power but to disperse it, ensuring accountability and protecting against tyranny. God’s act at Babel reminds us that decentralization isn’t weakness — it’s wisdom.
Tolkien famously disagreed with Lewis in that he rightly opposed the communists in Spain. There is another Lewis quote to consider:
“Where men are forbidden to honor a king, they honor millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead; even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”
In any case, democracy is not supported in Scripture. The book of Numbers provides a rare example of Democracy in the Bible which resulted in a plague. But appealing to CS Lewis instead of Scripture is an asinine case to make for the virtues of democracy which has proven to be tyrannical in comparison to monarchy.
The woke right’s rise should serve as a wake-up call for Christians. It’s easy to point out the sins of the left, but we must also confront the rot within our own ranks. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). This means rejecting the woke right’s moral relativism, authoritarian nostalgia, and identity politics, no matter how tempting they may seem in the face of cultural decline.
Mikale Olson has painted an affinity for strongman politics as a sinful notion, despite Donald Trump is an obvious embodiment of strongman politics in the United States. He has failed to demonstrate how the government persecuting communists is wrong or why authoritarian governments are immoral compared to democratic governments.
The article ends with an appeal to neoconservative ideals and framing the Christian Nationalists as a mirror image of the liberals, despite his tacit defense of Spanish communism.
2 Responses
They want to make ‘woke right’ a new label, but let’s be honest its the same accusations every time a Republican wins, oh its going to be authoratarian, a theocracy, blah blah. They’ve learned nothing, and people are wise to their ways.
The term “woke right” is intentionally designed to deceive, manipulate, and gaslight conservative Christians into rejecting White racial unity.
The intent of (((those))) who created the term “woke right” is that Christians will say to themselves: “well, I oppose the woke leftwing liberals, and Doug Wilson is saying that White unity is woke. Since I don’t want to be woke, I guess I’d better oppose White racial unity.”
The above is precisely how the (((manipulators))) are hoping that Christians will be gaslighted by the term “woke right.”
The manipulators know that conservatives believe woke = bad, so the manipulators hope that by smearing White racial unity with the epithet “woke”, they can gaslight conservatives into opposing White racial unity.
Of course, the truth is that White racial unity is the opposite of “woke.”
The manipulators are lying traitors.
This type of manipulative gaslighting can be easily refuted and defeated, by showing that you don’t care what names the traitors call you.
Whenever any manipulator tries these gaslighting tactics on me and calls me a “woke liberal” or a “Democrat” or a “socialist” or whatever, I simply respond:
“You don’t get to define what it means to be a conservative, especially since you are twisting and corrupting the definition of conservatism to serve jewish interests. Modern “conservatism” isn’t actually conservative. Modern “conservatism” is neoliberal. Anyway, I’m not interested in playing your manipulative word games. I don’t care what names you call me. My political views are simple: If something benefits the White race, I support it. If something harms the White race, I oppose it. If modern fake “conservatism” is against White racial loyalty, then I’m not a modern “conservative”.”
You can use the same response when manipulative so-called “Christian” traitors try to claim ownership of Christianity and accuse anyone who has racial loyalty of “not being a Christian.”
Just respond: “You don’t get to define Christianity or what it means to be a Christian. Jesus Christ says that the only thing necessary to be a Christian is to believe in Him as Savior. So quit adding your own cultural marxist antichrist requirements to Christianity. You’re a lying false teacher, telling lies about Christ and Christianity in order to manipulate and gaslight Christians into embracing cultural marxism. You’re a lying traitor who is corrupting and perverting and twisting Christianity, to serve jewish interests. You are betraying Christ and the Christian flock, in exchange for earthly rewards. You’re a lying manipulative traitor hoping to curry favor with the (((enemies))) of Christ.”