The striking resemblance between woke activists and Călin Georgescu supporters
As can probably be inferred from the title, this article will present the similarities between the woke ideology, which has its origins in the USA, and the spread of Călin Georgescu’s doctrine. How did this absurd man come to be idolized by more than a quarter of the country?
First of all, it is necessary to understand what the "woke" movement is...
Origins of the woke movement
The woke movement is also pejoratively known as "political correctness." The core idea of this movement is the clear distinction between body and consciousness, as well as the denial of the universal character of a humanity divided into different segments framed in different categories. This is the starting point for all the theories promoted by representatives of the woke movement (critical race theory, the patriarchy, gender theory, etc.). Thus, the cornerstone on which woke ideology is based helps formulate the statements of those who belong to this movement, among which is "trans women are women."
According to Prof. Dr. Jordan Peterson, this movement is a fusion between postmodernism (described by Jean-François Lyotard as a "disbelief in metanarratives") and neo-Marxism ("neo" meaning new, Marxism being an ideology formulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848).
This similarity between the woke movement and neo-Marxism can be observed if one looks closely at the oppressive and intolerant character that group members display toward opinions different from their own. Representatives of this movement have even gone so far as to refuse any dialogue between themselves and their opponents. The famous "cancel culture" aims precisely at this: the expulsion from the civilized world of all opponents of the woke movement...
Unproductive conversations
It has happened several times to get into discussions with supporters of CG. At first, the conversation unfolded without any obstacles. When the discussion was steered toward elections, they proudly stated their vote, calling it “the correct one.” However, it was shocking to notice that when questioned about their choice, they suddenly became defensive and their arguments turned incoherent and easy to dismantle. At some point, a substantial portion of them simply stopped the debate altogether, refusing to continue talking about the subject.
Furthermore, most of CG’s supporters display rather incoherent logic and lack critical thinking. On social media, these supporters make “the most noise,” but without substance, failing to present convincing arguments and limiting themselves to repeated insults in order to assert themselves.
Yesterday, a post by a member of the AUR party appeared, containing a video in which this person was “tearing apart” the USR party, saying they still had not decided whether they were little girls or little boys. This member then engaged in behavior worthy of an angry, immature child: shouting these words in Parliament, repeatedly, like some sort of mantra. This kind of conduct should not be encouraged among the parties that represent the country in Parliament. When there is a problem with an argument, the argument should be attacked, not the messenger.
Călin Georgescu and his aura of sainthood
Looking around at people, Călin Georgescu has come to be not only admired, but mythologized. A glance at the comments of some of his avid supporters quickly leads to the conclusion that he has been elevated, in an unmerited way, to the rank of “absolute savior” from evil and corruption. He, the chosen one, is meant to deliver the world from mistakes and impurity. The myth surrounding him does not dissipate even when people come into contact with the ideas he expresses. This phenomenon, however, does have a logical explanation:
In the book When Prophecy Fails, written by Leon Festinger and two colleagues, the authors conducted a study during 1954–1955. This social psychology study followed the trajectory of a sect that announced the end of the world on a specific date. The “prophetess” in question was named Marian Keech, and she claimed that on December 21, 1954, a flood would come upon the Earth and that she, together with her followers, would be taken away by a flying saucer and thus be saved. Festinger and his colleagues therefore decided to infiltrate the group and observe the members’ reactions when they discovered they had been deceived.
Surprisingly, although most of them went through a period of “cognitive dissonance” – that is, moments when all kinds of conflicting thoughts and ideas were unfolding in their minds – they recovered quickly, convinced that their prayers had protected the Earth from disaster. Their message, they thought, had to be spread even further...
Both the supporters of Călin Georgescu and the cult presented above have in common the divine aura attributed to their “prophets”, due mainly to the similarity of their doctrine to a religion. More precisely, for Marian Keech’s doctrine, the simple and “humble” claim that she is the chosen one; and for Călin Georgescu, his association with influential figures and/or established institutions from the Christian religion.
Similarly, in both cases it is a matter of a conscious choice: that of remaining in the “house of cards” of the illusion of stability instead of facing objective facts. This can also be attributed to the instability brought about by changing ideals and, in the case of CG’s supporters, by changing the “prophet”.
Denial of evidence
In conversations with Călin Georgescu’s voters, a frequently recurring trait is the denial or invalidation of any recordings or clips from videos/podcasts featuring him, on the grounds that they are taken out of context.
Clearly, Călin Georgescu was able to “charm” them thanks to the “mysticism” he projects. He adopted the air of an intellectual (although, it must be said, with statements such as “wind energy represents 0.1% of national energy production” and “Mihai Eminescu is the most dangerous man after Jesus Christ”, one can call oneself anything but an intellectual), and some people actually believed him.
Place of emergence
While writing this text, it became clear that a very important similarity between the two messages (that of woke ideology and that of Georgescu) is the place of their emergence. Although this term does not fit perfectly in the case of Călin Georgescu’s supporters, it is possible to speak of the “ideal” or the image displayed to the Western world, respectively to that of Eastern Europe.
Starting from Jean Frano’s book, it can be observed that woke ideology first appeared in universities and colleges, which gave it an almost sacramental aura among ordinary people. Similarly, in Romania, the fact that Georgescu is a pseudo-intellectual makes his words carry great weight in front of the people.
Woke vs CG
Three important and, it is believed, defining aspects are presented here to show the similarities between wokeists and Călin Georgescu’s supporters:
Avoiding dialogue with people who do not “play along” with them, or putting forward unconvincing, incoherent arguments, lacking logic or meaning. It should be mentioned, however, that Călin Georgescu’s supporters are not as radical as woke activists, although there are similarities mainly due to the way both doctrines are formulated (woke vs. CG’s candidacy).
Denial of evidence, since both woke activists and Călin Georgescu’s supporters will try to invalidate the evidence or cast doubt on the materials provided. Here it is worth recalling Jean-François Lyotard’s assertion that an important characteristic of the postmodern movement is “incredulity toward metanarratives”.
Places of appearance coincide. How so? As I explained previously, the speed with which the two doctrines spread – the woke ideology in the West, the rise of candidate Călin Georgescu in Eastern Europe – is due to their mixing with the intellectuals of their time (in the case of Călin Georgescu, the adoption of an intellectual aura). Thus, the ideas iterated by them have greater authority, weight among the population (romanian or American).
From a cognitive point of view, Romanians have an average IQ of 86, while in the USA the average IQ is around 100. Most would conclude, based on the figures above, that Romanians are more prone to manipulation. However, as with most complex issues, the answer is more complicated than that. The distribution of IQ across the globe: It is not known, for example, whether these statistics are not in fact a consequence of the huge population of the United States compared to that of Romania. Otherwise, how could the differences in impact on the population between these two doctrines be explained? Is it because there are fewer people? Is it somehow the result of Romania’s low level of radicalization? It is not known exactly, and so far the differences between the two are not large enough to be clearly identified...
The paradox and the soap bubble
It can be observed, from the way both doctrines manifest themselves, that their supporters, by the simple fact of adhering to an absurd doctrine or an illogical leader, have gaps when it comes to critical thinking.
One of the main characteristics of “Georgism” is its specific differentiation from homosexual people. If, however, its twin, wokeism, is considered, it will be noticed that people belonging to the LGBTQ+ community are protected and privileged. Thus, paradoxically, “Georgism” has largely turned into exactly what it was supposed to fight against: a “religion” preached on hatred and the denigration of those who disagree, with pseudo-intellectualism and illogical arguments.
Călin Georgescu’s followers are not saviors, but executioners, ready to “cut off the head” (metaphorically) of those who do not agree with them. They resemble the proud Pharisee, the one who thanks God that he is not like the other sinners. For them, the importance of their fellow human beings pales in comparison with their need for validation, expected from others...
In this state, the ideology resembles a monstrously large soap bubble. Why a soap bubble? Because, like the doctrine preached by Călin Georgescu, it is fragile. It sounds good, but under closer examination it bursts. In a similar way, the problem that a substantial portion of people have with free debate is precisely the awareness of this fragility and the will to prevent the bubble of false information from bursting at any cost. The noise produced when the bubble bursts is avoided precisely because, in view of reconfiguring the path, the pleasure of the illusion of a sense of superiority is shattered...
Bibliography and sources
1. Braunstein, J.-F. (2018). La philosophie devenue folle: Le genre, l'animal, la mort. Paris: Grasse
2. Aeschylus. (2008). Prometheus Bound (D. Mirea, Trans.). Bucharest: Univers Publishing House. (Original work published ~5th century BC)
3. Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
4. Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). La condition postmoderne: Rapport sur le savoir. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
5. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. London: International Workingmen’s Association.
6. Peterson, J. B. (1999). Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. New York: Routledge.