CONTENTS
Preface
Intro
What is 'Woke 2.0'?
- 'Woke 2.0' as an Continuation & Enhancement of Woke
- 'Woke 1.0' vs 'Woke 2.0'
- 'Woke' is to ESG as 'Woke 2.0' is to Transition Investing?
'Woke 2.0' Has Yet to Hit the Summer Streets?
Commentary
UPDATES
Sources
Preface
Chief Trumpster (@ChiefTrumpster) posted the following [archived here] on X.
What grim doom, pray tell, doth this ambisexual oracle utter forth? Verily, what foretells this reader of signs, portents & omens? And indeed forsooth! What is 'woke 2.0'?
Intro
Because the term woke exists, it should be of no surprise that someone would coin the term 'woke 2.0' sooner or later to refer to some updated version of whatever woke is. See our section on woke to know precisely what it is, by the way.
It should also be expected that more than one party would independently get the idea to use the term 'woke 2.0' and, being unaware of the other parties that may have done so earlier than they, they may think they are the first to coin it. We can expect these parties to use the term in differing ways. We will see if that is indeed the case as we look at some earlier uses of the term below.
For example, we will see a professor state that 'woke 2.0'
is a moralizing ideology that sees everything through the lens of oppressed-oppressor dynamics
and some of us might wonder how that would be any different than woke.
At any rate, as we write this on April 6, 2025, the term seems to be taking off. Thus, we will likely be updating this section considerably as things develop.
It will take some time before a generally agreed upon meaning for the term becomes cemented into the public lexicon. Let us see what we can see.
What is 'Woke 2.0'?
Writing as Justin Trouble, the creator and editor of the Culture War Encyclopedia, it seems to me that it would be safe to bet that it is too early to say exactly what 'woke 2.0' will mean in our culture. Hindsight has yet to come.
However, we can look at how the term has thus far been used. We will do this in a roughly chronological order.
'Woke 2.0' as an Continuation & Enhancement of Woke
Tim Pool commented briefly on the video we saw in the preface in that post on X by Chief Trumpster (@ChiefTrumpster) [archived here] in his short video called "Liberals Double Down... Threatening "Woke 2.0"" from April 2, 2025.
Tim Pool says,
White liberal women are a special breed. Are we really supposed to fear woke 2.0? Watch this video.
The woman, who looks like she could be the love child of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann...
...says in her video,
If you thought we were woke before - you done went and woke the beast! Welcome to woke 2.0. All my woke warriors; give me a blue heart and share. Let's spread the love.
Tim then says,
OK, well, I gotta be honest, if woke 2.0 means y'all are gonna be running around, setting fire to Tesla dealerships, torching people's cars and attacking them in the street, I think y'all are crazy. I'm not actually terrified of you, though. I think you guys should be terrified of Pam Bondi, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino. So, how 'bout you just stop?
On some unknown date Generator published, date unknown, "Woke 2.0" by an anonymous author who wrote the following about the "live performance industry",
So you’ve read the books, had the conversations, you consider yourself to be a bit “woke” or at least you’re trying to be. And then it happens, the moment when you can intervene, when you want to hire a d/Deaf performer, you want to be inclusive and you don’t have all the skills or tools you need. Let’s acknowledge that no one person has the answers, but maybe together we can all learn to do better. Let’s move past the knowledge phase into action.
Let’s learn how to be brave together and deepen our practices to become truly inclusive, affirmative and joyful.
Speaking for Generator, he asks you to join them and
other partners as we explore and crowdsource ideas for a better and more inclusive live performance industry, with practical ideas for the indie artist.
He writes of
Past WOKE 2.0 Events
which he describes in turn. However, he only uses the term 'woke 2.0' in the following passage,
Edition #4 - Woke 2.0 – d/Deaf Jam
For this edition of Woke 2.0 we are calling on d/Deaf interpreters and artists, hearing artists, interpreters and producers to take part in an important conversation. We all want to work together, but there are some very real time and financial barriers that prevent us from bridging the gaps between our worlds. How much should theatre companies be paying for ASL interpretation?
'Woke 1.0' vs 'Woke 2.0'
In "Woke 1.0 Versus Woke 2.0 - Personal Perspective: Wokeness could destroy universities. Let's reframe it" published by Psychology Today (publication date unknown, updated February 28, 2024), Gregg Henriques Ph.D. writes that the distinction between woke or, as he renders it, "woke 1.0", is that
Woke 1.0 raises awareness about these issues, but it does not moralize or police language and thought.
and
Woke 2.0 moralizes, polices language and thought, and leads to cancel culture.
We would like to remind the reader that by quoting a source, we are not implying that what we quote is accurate. Again, see our section on woke to see that his version of woke is a misrepresentation. He elaborates, writing that to be woke or "woke 1.0"
is to be aware of (i.e., "woke to") the systematic injustices that marginalized groups have faced and to be concerned about inequality and lack of fairness across many domains of identity and class.
He also writes that woke
means to be aware of the dynamics of marginalization and power by social category.
Additionally, he writes that to be woke is also to be
to be aware of these issues and to be focused on wisdom and progress in achieving justice and getting to a post-racial discrimination age. It is also to be oriented toward a society that fosters gender equality and LGBTQ+ freedoms.
Furthermore, he writes
the Woke 1.0 mindset acknowledges that it is a perspective on socio-political issues, and that there are a diversity of perspectives, and that is fine. Part of Woke 1.0 is to be committed to the liberal ideal of reasoned argument, free speech, and differing of opinion through constructive dialogue.
He also writes
Woke 1.0 is self-conscious that it is trying to make value-based claims and it has awareness that these value-based claims potentially bump up against other value-based claims.
For example, one can make the case that America is a great country despite its history of oppression, that there is much to be said for traditional family values, that we have made much progress toward equality, that we should strive to be colorblind, and we should be primarily emphasizing issues of socioeconomic class or protecting the border rather than be focused excessively on race-related justice issues. The point here is that, from a Woke 1.0 lens, I recognize this value-system is not necessarily the only way to see the world, and it can be criticized as problematic or incomplete or misguided. To make such criticisms, even if you are a cis gendered white man like myself, does not mean you are racist or evil.
It is here that Woke 2.0 rears its head and reveals itself to be a completely different beast. Instead of seeing these issues as a complicated set of problems that can be approached from many different angles, Woke 2.0 has, over the last ten years, become the stuff of religious fanaticism.
At this point in the text, the author cites Henriques, G. (2023). Is diversity, equity, and inclusion a religion? Blog in Theory of Knowledge on Psychology Today. He continues,
It sees oppressor-oppressed dynamics everywhere, and judges virtually everything through that lens. And it takes a moralizing,
Here, he cites Henriques, G. (2021). Engage in ethical reflection rather than moralizing. Blog in Theory of Knowledge on Psychology Today. He continues,
activist stance that splits people into being either good or bad.
The author Henriques openly states that he is a fan of what he calls 'woke 1.0' and a strong critic of what he calls 'woke 2.0'. However, again, he seems to have his own thoughts about what is woke that does not match how others use the term. At any rate, he writes,
Consider how one of the leading voices of Woke 2.0, Ibram X. Kendi, frames anti-racism
Here, he cites Kendi, I. (2023). How to be an anti-racist. One world. He continues,
According to Kendi, you are either an anti-racist or a racist. Full stop. This means that if you start doubting whether all inequities in racial outcomes can be explained by oppressor dynamics, well, then, you are an oppressor, and you quickly fall in the racist class of supporting the status quo.
Also,
For those who operate from a Woke 2.0 mindset, anti-racism and related issues are not just one issue among many. Rather, they represent the issue that we all need to put front and center right now. And, to do so, we need to transform the way we do, well, virtually everything. For example, in higher education, we need to "recognize" the institutions as racist, and we need to change the way we teach math, chemistry, biology, medicine, and we need diversity officers, and grants to support DEI proposals, and on and on. Indeed, as Woke 2.0 spreads down into the core justifications guiding our educational systems, then everything that we value and that we deem worthy of respect needs to be questioned. Why? Because all our values potentially have their heritage in the dominant values of heterosexual, Christian white men. Thus, from this point of view, oppressor-oppressed dynamics are literally everywhere.
Later, he writes,
From the vantage point of Woke 1.0, Woke 2.0 has been a disaster for the universities because it requires an authoritarian mindset that is willing to police language and thought, which has resulted in a powerful cancel culture.
This phenomenon has been well-documented in the excellent book, The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All―But There Is a Solution, by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott. The prominent social psychologist Carol Tavris offers an excellent review of the book, in her essay The Ghost of Joe McCarthy: Why Universities Have Surrendered on Free Speech Again. Although not explicit, the difference between Woke 1.0 versus 2.0 is clear in her summary. She describes the transformation in the left over the past two decades, from being concerned with issues of justice and having liberal attitudes about free speech to now leading the call to ban ideas and speech based on a DEI ideology that claims such actions make marginalized groups psychologically unsafe.
In an other article for Psychology Today (publication date unknown, updated November 10, 2024), Henriques writes,
It turns out that there is, in fact, a “sane” version of being woke, which I call Woke 1.0, and there is an “insane” version, which is Woke 2.0. I resigned from the American Psychological Association because it started to become increasingly infected with a Woke 2.0 mind virus. And, as this podcast makes clear, I have been attacked because I am a white male professor who does not conform to the Woke 2.0 virus.
This is important because it means that being woke can be very dangerous in its extremes, and it is necessary to put constraints on it. And this is something our academic institutions have failed to effectively do. The downstream dangers of Woke 2.0 become obvious in what Vice President Harris said about the government paying for transgender surgeries for inmates as a valid medical intervention that she supported. If we could reduce Harris' loss to a single ad, it was this one.
If Trump’s second election says anything, it says left "wokism" goes too far for the American people. And, as a Woke 1.0 guy, I can say this is an intelligent stance to have, within reason.
Without getting distracted by the details, it seems fair to say that, in essence, Professor Henriques argues that 'woke 2.0' is a more extreme version of woke which he at times calls 'woke 1.0'.
Professor Henriques writes in "Why I have Resigned from the American Psychological Association", August 20, 2024 for Unified Theory of Knowledge / Medium,
What is psychology? Is it a science that attempts to describe and explain animal and human behavior? Is it a profession that is structured to enhance human well-being? According to the latest special issue of the American Psychologist, the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association, the institution of psychology today is part of a colonial expression of White supremacy that has left a legacy of racism and oppression in its wake.*
The footnote for the asterisk (*) reads,
*As anyone who has even a limited understanding of psychology should know, there have, of course, been many racist psychologists in history, and the institution has absolutely contributed historically to biases against people of color. This is not news. And it is true for every discipline that has existed prior to the 1950s because, as is well-known, our society was massively racist and the echoes of that remain. What is at issue here is not the racist past of psychology, but what psychology is currently (e.g., I do not see it as a racist institution in 2024), and what it should be going forward, both as a science and a profession.
He continues,
To help transform the discipline going forward, the lead article in the special issue embraces a “liberation psychology.” This approach affords a “pedagogy of the oppressed, philosophy of liberation, liberation theology, and decoloniality.” Liberation psychology is not only focused on helping the oppressed. According to the lead article, it will also “transform” the oppressor. It will achieve this via “the development of a critical consciousness to recognize social–political contexts, leading to a new perception and understanding of people’s reality.”
He goes on to say that there are 2 forms of racism; explicit racism and systemic racism. He explains that explicit racism can be framed as
beliefs about race that are used to denigrate a group . . . are racist beliefs
at the term systemic racism refers to
systems that are structured to channel the flow of resources based on race.
Then, he writes,
the APA defines racism as “a system of structuring opportunity and assigning value based on phenotypic properties (e.g., skin color and hair texture associated with “race” in the U.S.)” It goes on to explain why only White people can be racist. (Note people of color can be biased or prejudiced, but they cannot be racist, because racism only exists in the colonial system).The APA has decided that the only real racism is systemic; and it has made this true by definition. As is noted in the APA Resolution on Harnessing Psychology to Combat Racism: Adopting a Uniform Definition and Understanding
One of the major claims of the lead article is that the authors are in a privileged place to define what is meant by science. They inform us that what has traditionally been called “good science” is an epistemology developed by White supremacists from a colonizing Europe. No longer. They understand how to bring a multiplicity of epistemologies together so that no one is marginalized (except, perhaps, for the old white positivists). They go on to inform us that from this enlightened perspective of many different voices, we will all be able to see the truth much more clearly.
Another area that this group of psychologists is here to inform us about is the racist literature on the relationship between ethnicity and intelligence. Moral people know that there can’t be any differences in human intelligence other than those imposed by racism. To suggest otherwise is, according to the article, “pseudoscientific.”
Unfortunately, these psychologists left untouched one of the more vexing findings in this area of research. This is the oft-repeated finding individuals from East Asian descent do better, on average, on intelligence tests than people of Caucasian descent. This is a confusing piece of data, given that the real explanation for all ethnic differences, as every good scientist already knows, is that the oppressor dominates the oppressed, and structures reality in a way to ensure almost total control. Thus, it is a bit of a head scratcher that the White supremacists ended up generating a test where White people did worse than people from a minority ethnic group. I was unclear how these scientists made sense of this fact, but they did not mention it.
As I think about it, perhaps I should apologize for even raising this issue. A fact like this might complicate the clear, good, and true antiracist narrative that moral psychologists must be committed to at all times. If we start to consider points like this one, the world starts to become complicated in a problematic way. This means that one might start entertaining ideas that are not antiracist. Of course, this would mean one would start to become a racist.
Although I was an APA Fellow in the past, I have resigned my membership from the American Psychological Association. I cannot align with either its vision of “science” or its vision of antiracist activism, and I especially reject the way the organization ideologically blends the two, as if there was no conflict or tension between them.
Later, he writes,
Woke 2.0 is a moralizing ideology that sees everything through the lens of oppressed-oppressor dynamics.
The most recent special issue of the American Psychologist demonstrates beyond any doubt that the APA has now fully embraced what I call Woke 2.0.
Woke 1.0 refers to the process of becoming awake to systematic injustices and participating in a world in a way to help make up for those injustices and being oriented toward a world where we maximize dignity and well-being for all.
As suggested by the “2.0,” the most recent version of Woke is a twisted variant of an earlier position.
As I describe it in this blog, I became a psychologist because, when I entered the discipline, both the science and profession of psychology largely embraced these values. I happily consider myself as someone who subscribes to Woke 1.0, and I think as a profession and a science, psychology was reasonably well-placed on these issues twenty years ago.
Woke 2.0 is a completely different mindset. It is not about striving for racial justice in the context of a multitude of different values and perspectives. Nor is it about science. It is completely misleading and disingenuous that the authors in the special issue cling to the language of science when it is blatantly obvious that everything is being run through a predetermined ideological, antiracist lens.
Instead of being scientific, Woke 2.0 is a religion, just pay attention to how the entire argument is situated. The authors already know the truth and already know what is just and already know what we should do about it. They have fully embraced a simplistic, antiracist ideology and activist mindset that says you either do everything you can to combat racial inequities because you know they come from systematic injustices, or you are a racist. Full stop.
He has much more to say in this piece, but let us honor his integrity by quoting his closing words here,
In sum, I have resigned from the APA because I cannot be part of an organization that is profoundly confused about its core identity as a science, then proceeds to deny this confusion, and then adopts a blatantly activist stance and justifies it in the name of science.
Again, it seems fair to say that according to Henriques, 'woke 2.0' is a more extreme version of woke.
In the first week of 2025, we have "Welcome to Woke America" by Eric Lee on Medium, published (January 6, 2025) wherein Lee writes of
Woke 2.0 arising over the last ten years
and asks if woke 2.0 is a
new Cultural Revolution for the 21st century?
He writes of a crucial distinction between woke 1.0 and woke 2.0, stating,
- Woke 1.0 raises awareness about these issues, but it does not moralize or police language and thought.
- Woke 2.0 moralizes, polices language and thought, and leads to an ideology-based cancel culture and worldview, i.e. a Maoist-like new Cultural Revolution that conservatives are currently canceling (
US universities are rapidly divesting themselves of DEI elements
Many readers may agree with me that what these professors call 'woke 2.0' is what we have been calling 'woke’ this whole time.
Image from "Welcome to Woke America" by Eric Lee for Medium, January 6, 2025.
The following day, January 7, in "Woke 2.0: When the Cultural Revolution Swaps the Little Red Book for the Blue Twitter (or Perhaps the Black X?)" Professor António Francisco writes for Geopolitical Economist,
First, a quick distinction between Woke 1.0 and 2.0, as necessary as differentiating between “hot coffee” and “very hot coffee.”
Woke 1.0 was about awareness and dialogue — something genuinely worthwhile. Woke 2.0, however, resembles a poorly tested beta program, where public disagreement is tantamount to pressing the “self-destruct” button on your Twitter (X) account.
It’s hard not to laugh at the irony of an ideology that purports to combat oppression but relies on tools of censorship, cancellation, and thought uniformity that would earn Mao Zedong a thumbs-up from the beyond.
In "Woke 2.0", published by Commonweal, February 22, 2025, George Scialabba writes,
An abundance of zeal and a lack of proportion have made woke—or identity politics, a roughly equivalent term—something between a laughingstock and a bugbear among the American public at large.
That is Woke 2.0—sanctimony, which is what pretty much everyone now means by the word. But there is, or was, another “woke,” Woke 1.0, of which the second is a sarcastic derivative, like “hippie” from “hip.” Woke 1.0 was in fact a kind of hipness: a genuine sensitivity to the multifarious ways ethnicity and gender can give rise to irritation or even conflict within groups or institutions. It just meant “smart about the briar patch of identity.”
We see more of this woke 1.0 vs woke 2.0 theme in "Oriental Jews, or Woke 2.0", published by Damage on March 25, 2025, wherein author Michaels, Walter Benn writes,
Woke 1.0’s characteristic modes of enforcement were career disincentives, social media pile-ons, and cancellation; woke 2.0 has upgraded to arrests, deportations, accusations of terrorism and, most powerful of all, defunding. Columbia is already preparing to treat what were at most microaggressions as if they’d been pogroms.
'Woke' is to ESG as 'Woke 2.0' is to Transition Investing?
On July 25, 2024, Just the News published "Woke 2.0: ESG critics say the same movement marches on, only with a new name" by Kevin Killaugh. The term 'woke 2.0' only appears in the headline. However, it clearly is meant to refer to a rebranding of ESG by Blackrock. Killaugh writes,
BlackRock began renaming environmental, social and governance (ESG) earlier this year. It’s now calling it “transition investing.”
What is "transition investing"? In "BlackRock's Shift from ESG Investing to Transition: A Bold Move Towards Sustainable Transformation", published March 4, 2021 by Responsible Asset Owners Global Symposium (no author), we read,
BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, has taken a bold step by transitioning its investment strategy from ESG investing to a broader approach called transition investing. This move has significant implications not only for BlackRock but for the entire financial industry.
Later, they write,
BlackRock is a top target of right-wing interest groups and Republican lawmakers, who have accused the firm — and specifically Fink — of pushing a so-called “woke” investing trend that does not serve investors' interests.
Recently, several states have moved to pull money out of BlackRock funds, alleging the firm boycotts fossil fuels, which the company rebuts again in the new letter by touting its natural gas investments.
About 'transition investing', they write,
The Transition Investing Approach:
Transition investing represents a shift from solely focusing on companies with ESG best practices to engaging with companies that are actively transitioning their business models towards sustainability. Recognizing the urgent need for bold action to combat climate change, BlackRock's new approach aims to invest in companies that are actively decarbonizing their operations and adapting to a rapidly changing world.
Rationale behind BlackRock's Transition:
BlackRock's decision to adopt a transition investing approach stems from the recognition that merely rewarding companies with good ESG scores is insufficient to drive meaningful change. By engaging with companies in transition, BlackRock aims to actively support the transition to a low-carbon economy. This shift reflects the growing realization that the financial sector needs to play a more active role in accelerating sustainability practices
"Accelerating"? Alarming! At least to some. You see, "sustainability" sounds good on the surface and thus it is just the sort of Orwellian name that would be chosen to conceal what it really is (like the Patriot Act, for example). At any rate, they were saying that the financial sector
needs to play a more active role in accelerating sustainability practices and encouraging corporate accountability.
We should not get bogged down overmuch on these matters because this is not very relevant here. It seems as if Killaugh sort of unnaturally worked the term 'woke 2.0' into his article for Just the News headlined "Woke 2.0: ESG critics say the same movement marches on, only with a new name" for algorithmic purposed.
'Woke 2.0' Has Yet to Hit the Summer Streets?
On April 7, 2025, "Wokeness May Be REBRANDING Itself" was published on the
Timcast IRL channel on Bitchute (I could not find it on Rumble or Youtube). In this short video, Winston Marshall, formerly of the musical group Mumford and Sons, says,
I think that we'll see woke come out with a new face. I think this is just the beginning. We only 2 months in.
A semi-regular co-host says,
I mean even at the policy level I don't even necessarily know if you could say that he, he defeated them 'cuz a lot of it is these companies are just shifting definitions, they're making their corporate structure on these types of policies even more opaque and hard to define so it gets re-imagined as BRIDGE rather than DEI; things like that.
But stuff like this is kind of analogous to what's going on in Hollywood which is, uh, Disney is currently under investigation by the FCC because they believe that they're still engaging in these types of racially based DEI policies but at the level of the studios and what they're creating, most of them are still all-in on creating stuff like this.
The only reason some of it was gutted was because a lot of the studies that were at least a little bit smarter understood that the money was not going that way so it just gave them an ex - let Trump be the excuse to get rid of it, but, like, you sss- like, (what) we were talking 'bout before the show went on the air which is that this stuff wasn't happening necessarily, while Biden was in office because people weren't primed the same way they are now that Trump is back in office and all of their existential dread that is kind of re-amplified every day by the news, it's going to get worse, especially as, as the weather gets nice and it's easier for people to go outside.
Commentary
What some are already calling 'woke 2.0' may be called something else next week.
UPDATES
There will be updates here.
Also see…
SOURCES
(no author) - "Woke 2.0" - Generator (no date)
(no author) - "BlackRock's Shift from ESG Investing to Transition: A Bold Move Towards Sustainable Transformation" - Responsible Asset Owners Global Symposium (March 4, 2021)
Francisco, Antonio, Professor - "Woke 2.0: When the Cultural Revolution Swaps the Little Red Book for the Blue Twitter (or Perhaps the Black X?)" - Medium, published in The Geopolitical Economist (January 7, 2025)
Henriques, Gregg, Ph.D. - "It's About Our Identity, Stupid!" - Psychology Today (updated November 10, 2024)
Henriques, Gregg, Ph.D. - "Why I have Resigned from the American Psychological Association" - Unified Theory of Knowledge / Medium (August 20, 2024)
Henriques, Gregg, Ph.D. - "Woke 1.0 Versus Woke 2.0" - Psychology Today (updated February 28, 2024)
Henriques, Gregg, Ph.D. - "It's About Our Identity, Stupid!" - Psychology Today (updated November 10, 2024)
Killaugh, Kevin - "Woke 2.0: ESG critics say the same movement marches on, only with a new name" - Just the News (July 25, 2024)
Lee, Eric - "Welcome to Woke America" - Medium (January 6, 2025)
Michaels, Walter Benn - "Oriental Jews, or Woke 2.0" - Damage (March 25, 2025)
Scialabba, George - "Woke 2.0" - Commonweal (February 22, 2025)
@ChiefTrumpster (Chief Trumpster) - (post) - X.com (November 17, 2024) [archive]
@djdelz (DELZ aka THE SNEAKER ADDICT) - (post) - X.com (November 19, 2024) [archive]
Culture War Encyclopedia ~ Others claim & move on. We prove, curate & archive forever. We welcome corrections and criticisms.
See Culture War Encyclopedia videos on
This is part of the Culture War Encyclopedia.
Thanks,
Justin Trouble
Laughter my Shield ∴ Knowledge my Steed
Wit I may Wield ∴ but Question my Rede
Liberty my Right ∴ Truth my Sword
Love my Life ∴ Honor my Reward