The Science vs. Woke Manifesto
Higher Education at a Crossroads
We are in the midst of a battle for the soul of higher education—and, by extension, for the future of Western civilization. This is not merely a debate over differing opinions or competing values, but rather an irreconcilable clash of foundational mindsets over the very purpose of human inquiry— placing the ethos of science in direct conflict with ideological dogma.
While society is shaped by both formalizable knowledge and embedded knowledge—rooted in identity, habits, belief systems, and social structures—this manifesto focuses on the former. We do not claim that science alone constitutes the entirety of society, but rather that it forms a critical pillar of its functioning, particularly in institutions dedicated to education, research, and truth-seeking.
If dogma threatens science, science in turn threatens dogma. That is why the focused engagement of those committed to clarity, reason, and open inquiry is essential at this precarious moment. But engagement means more than asserting these values—it requires understanding the essence of what threatens them, and the strategies through which that threat advances.
As institutions adopt a mindset and policies aligned with dogma rather than serving their founding purpose, we move beyond the realm of intellectual debate into one that carries very real consequences.
🎧 Prefer to listen instead?
Here’s a 14-minute podcast explainer of the key ideas behind the manifesto:
The Pillars of Woke Ideology
In everyday usage, “woke” often refers to a heightened awareness of social injustice or marginalization—frequently followed by a slippery slope into dogmatic antagonism toward existing social structures. Here, however, we use “woke” in a deeper sense: as the ideological framework behind the deliberate construction of that slope, with its endpoint envisioned from the outset. In this sense, the antagonism is not dogmatic but strategic—serving to deconstruct society in the name of building a more equitable one.
“Woke,” in this deeper sense, belongs to a lineage of ideas that may change names over time but follow a consistent internal logic—one in which the centralization of power is seen as essential. The fundamental critique of centralized power is this: while power can be centralized, local knowledge—and with it, individual will and uniqueness—cannot. Suppressing local knowledge undermines material prosperity; suppressing individual agency crushes the human spirit.
This centralized power is justified through an idealized notion of collectivism, yet in practice it advances a dangerous claim—one that can be paraphrased as: “I embody the will of the collective; therefore, my enemies are enemies of the collective.” The term oppressed is often used interchangeably with the collective, depending on which framing is more strategically effective in a given context.
This manifesto seeks to further distill the essence of woke ideology and examine its genealogy and epistemological foundations. It does so by breaking it down into three core pillars:
Projected Ethos – The “Noble Lie” of Moral Authority: The claim to moral legitimacy based on a self-appointed and exclusive role as the representative of the oppressed.
Goal – Institutionalizing the Noble Lie: The elevation of this projected moral authority into totalizing power—through the subversion of institutions, the weaponization of language, and the instrumentalizing of identity to serve ideological control.
Epistemology – The Metaphysical License Behind the Noble Lie: The belief in a unique, quasi-sacred right to wield transformative power over society, grounded in an ideology that places itself above reason and immune to contradiction.
Though precise in theory, woke ideology is often presented to the public in diluted form—blended with valid criticisms—to appear as merely one voice in a pluralistic dialogue. In reality, it constitutes a framework fundamentally incompatible with the traditions and moral foundations of Western civilization and with the foundational principles of science itself.
Projected Ethos: The "Noble Lie" of Moral Authority
In an era saturated with belief in the divine, kings naturally justified their power through claims of divine right. Likewise, in an age dominated by narratives of resistance to oppression, a new niche for legitimizing power has emerged—rooted in a self-appointed status as the representative of the oppressed.
This claim of representing the oppressed is crafted to imbue the act of “criticism” with intellectual and moral authority. Yet woke ideology demands a monopoly on critique—replacing open inquiry with strategic antagonism. The result is the uncriticizable critic: one who questions everything, yet may not be questioned.
This projected ethos of critique functions as a Noble Lie—a moral facade that grants immunity from scrutiny while concealing a deeper power play. The term “Noble Lie,” first introduced by Plato in The Republic, refers to a founding myth deliberately constructed by rulers to justify and preserve social hierarchy. In this context, the uncriticizable critic plays a role analogous to Plato’s “philosopher king.”
The woke Noble Lie is a double lie: it claims to dismantle phantom hierarchies, while covertly installing its own—an inflexible moral and epistemic hierarchy where the uncriticizable critic reigns beyond all accountability.
Both the architects of the Noble Lie and those who sincerely believe it operate in de facto harmony—until the spell is broken.
Goal: Institutionalizing the Noble Lie
This moral status becomes the fixed point from which immense leverage is exerted—much like a lever in mechanics, where a small force, applied at the right point, can move great weight. As Archimedes said, “Give me a place to stand, and I will move the world.” In this case, that place is the unassailable moral position of victimhood. Given this initial lever, the uncriticizable critic gains the power to subvert institutions, weaponize language, and reconstruct identity—each domain reinforcing the others in a self-perpetuating cycle of ideological transformation.
The strategies involving institutions, language, and identity are by no means secret. In the realm of institutions, we have what is called the “long march through the institutions”—a phrase first articulated by Rudi Dutschke and inspired by Antonio Gramsci. This strategy embeds woke ideology into the cultural and bureaucratic organs of society—education, media, law, and beyond—transforming them from within. These institutions are gradually hollowed out and repurposed as instruments of ideological enforcement—no longer committed to their original missions, but to consolidating power through the manufacture of conformity. In academia—ground zero of this subversion—truth-seeking is no longer the guiding principle.
The woke mindset has since expanded far beyond the university, now exerting influence across corporate, governmental, philanthropic, and global institutions—including the United Nations. Its spread is further accelerated by digital platforms, where ideological silos reinforce dogma through interactions increasingly detached from lived reality—enabling the movement to grow far beyond its academic origins.
Epistemology: The Metaphysical License Behind the Noble Lie
The genealogy of woke ideology lies in the Hegelian dialectic. While Hegel was explicitly anti-rational, Marx concealed this orientation beneath a veneer of scientistic economic theory. The neo-Marxists, however, stripped away that superficial rationalist shell in foundational works such as The Dialectic of Enlightenment.
The Hegelian dialectic is not a worldview that respects the distinct realms of faith and science—it is a totalizing framework. It does not merely reject reason; it claims to possess a superior epistemology—one that is more foundational than rational inquiry itself.
As Glenn Alexander Magee demonstrates in Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition, Hegel’s thought is deeply infused with esoteric and alchemical motifs. Magee writes, “Hegel is not a philosopher... he believes he has found [wisdom].” This metaphysical certainty empowers his intellectual heirs to act as social alchemists—claiming a quasi-spiritual mandate to dissolve inherited structures and reshape society according to an imagined ideal, untethered by reason or any coherent moral order.
Therefore, the uncriticizable critic is, in essence, a social alchemist. Like the alchemists who sought to transmute lead into gold, the social alchemist believes he can extract utopia from a flawed society—if only the right contradictions are intensified. Contradiction becomes his incantation—a pliable concept, interpreted however he wishes, forming the foundation of the narratives he weaves to manipulate—or, as he would say, guide—society. Yet because this form of social alchemy disregards reality, rejects established moral frameworks, and rests on false premises, the result is not gold—but rubble.
Science vs. Woke Ideology: A Clash of Ethos, Goals, and Epistemology
Once freed from the de facto monopoly on criticism held by the uncriticizable critic—and by adopting an inter-epistemological approach capable of modeling the zero-sum dynamic between science and woke ideology—the task of dismantling the pillars of woke ideology becomes straightforward. The claim to represent the oppressed is not supported by evidence; in fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary, both in theory and in practice. The strategy of subverting institutions is likewise well-documented—not only through observable outcomes, but also within foundational ideological texts. The critical examination of its epistemological backbone, as noted, has been pioneered by authors such as Glenn Alexander Magee. A paradigm shift is long overdue in addressing this challenge to the scientific ethos—and such a shift becomes entirely possible when awareness of the problem and the courage to confront it finally coincide.
We can now summarize how science and woke ideology diverge across three foundational dimensions: ethos, goals, and epistemology. These are not surface-level differences, but deep structural incompatibilities—rooted in fundamentally different views of truth, progress, and authority.
Ethos
Science: Rooted in curiosity and fallibility; open to revision; no claim is beyond question.
Woke Ideology: Grounded in the infallibility of the uncriticizable critic—an authority legitimized by a self-appointed role as the representative of the oppressed and used to advance the “Noble Lie” of moral supremacy.
Goals
Science: Seeks understanding, not control; supports individual and societal flourishing.
Woke Ideology: Converts the “Noble Lie” into institutional power—through the subversion of institutions, the weaponization of language, and the reconstruction of identity.
Epistemology
Science: Based on evidence, logic, and falsifiability; contradictions spur refinement and dialogue.
Woke Ideology: Treats “contradiction” as a sacred force—raw material for weaving infallible narratives that must guide society, according to the interpretation of the social alchemist.
We, the undersigned, stand in support of the ethos, goals, and epistemology of science.
We believe science must be reinvigorated—not merely as a method, but as a cultural foundation. Its essential tools—conceptual clarity, intellectual humility, and evidence-based reasoning—must be applied without compromise to expose and resist any ideology that treats science as a threat to its vision of “progress.” These values must become pillars not only of higher education, but of education more broadly—and must be actively instilled in the next generation.
While this manifesto focuses on formalizable knowledge—particularly as it pertains to science and higher education—it is worth reiterating that no society rests on reason alone. Embedded knowledge—shaped by experience, tradition, and social practice—plays a vital role in the cohesion and meaning-making of human life. But when the foundational pillar of formal knowledge is weakened or subverted, the entire structure of society is placed at risk.
If the uncriticizable critic gains illegitimate power by monopolizing critique, then the task is to break that monopoly. We need tools to examine critical theory from outside its own epistemology. We must bring to light its internal logic, strategic function, and role in manufacturing phantom hierarchies for ideological leverage. Only by disrupting its grip on “power analysis” can we restore a culture where no framework—not even one claiming moral infallibility—is above scrutiny. This demands not just courage, but sustained research and institutional support to critique the “uncriticizable.”
To advance these goals, we call for:
The establishment and funding of academic centers dedicated to studying ideological capture and restoring scientific norms.
Targeted research initiatives to map the epistemology and institutional strategy of critical theory from outside its framework.
Curriculum reform at all levels of education to reinstate the ethos of falsifiability, open debate, and conceptual clarity.
Alliances among scholars, public intellectuals, and institutions committed to defending reason against ideological monopolies.
We invite scholars, educators, and institutional leaders to join in this effort to renew the culture of truth-seeking on which all free societies depend.
This is not just about academic integrity—it is about preserving the intellectual immune system of a civilization grounded in reason, open inquiry, and the pursuit of truth.