Iker Jiménez on woke culture: neither names nor defines it

Iker Jiménez’s discourse on proge culture: applause and criticism

Iker Jiménez dedicated one of his monologues to a topic that, according to the reasoning attributed to him in the debate, should not be named. His thesis, as collected in the thread: the so-called proge world has bent to the interests of a few, much of the population is indifferent to that universe, and social media do not represent general opinion. From this he draws a practical consequence: public life cannot be regulated by what is written on the internet. He never once put a specific label on the phenomenon.

The video divided its audience. On one side, those who celebrate it as one of the few critical speeches against political correctness surviving on mainstream television. On the other, those who reproach lukewarmness, ambiguity, and a diagnosis without a prescription.

What exactly did Iker Jiménez say about proge culture?

As summarized in the thread, he said that this world has bent to the interests of a few and that many people care very little about the issue. He added that political parties have been dragged along by this current and that many executives have yielded to pressure from networks, which do not equate to what people think on the street. One of the most repeated phrases in the debate summarizes the method, although it comes from a participant in the same discussion and not from the presenter himself: to maintain a discussion on certain topics, the smartest thing is not to call them by their name.

The approach immediately drags a formal problem: if the issue is not named, it cannot be discussed either. Part of the responses stay right there, on the wrapper. Another jumps to the substance —networks, executives, parties— and considers that it has put on the table something that until now only circulated in small circles.

The prudence of not naming: strategy or cowardice

Here starts the interesting disagreement. There are those who defend that a message launched in doses is more effective than a frontal speech: the first can be denied and disappears; the second is inoculated and stays. Those who hold that reading believe the goal is not to convince anyone at once, but to leave the door open for the viewer to complete the work on their own.

The objection is equally simple. A speech without names, figures, or proposals remains fleeting and is forgotten. And to this is added a reproach of method: criticizing those who speak on behalf of others while constantly citing third parties —a columnist, a military officer, a collaborator— to avoid assuming authorship of what is said on set.

Both things can be true at the same time. Prudence protects the message and, incidentally, dilutes it.

BlackRock, Vanguard, and the indexed investor paradox

The most uncomfortable stretch is economic. According to the narrative circulating around the video —based on an interview with a former executive of a large company— those who truly finance the proge apparatus are the big fund managers, led by BlackRock and Vanguard. And to these giants arrives money from millions of savers who have no intention of financing any cause: they contribute to a pension plan or an index fund and their capital ends up voting in shareholder meetings.

The paradox stands alone: the same people who complain about corporate discourse are indirect owners of the companies that apply it. How far the mechanism goes is another story. No one provides details of the votes or the real weight of those votes in company decisions; it remains in the starting assertion.

The scarecrow and other unsupported theses

Another current takes the analysis into conspiratorial territory. It maintains that proge culture was not designed to please or last, but to generate rejection, fulfill its function, and then be destroyed by a fed-up majority. From there to the forecast of a hard-handed conservative totalitarianism is a step some take without blinking.

Those readings lack evidence. They are closed hypotheses upon themselves: any data contradicting them is explained as part of the plan. The starting point —an imposed label generates resistance— is defensible; from there to attributing coordinated intentions to asset managers, media, and parties is a considerable distance.

The pandemic debt

Not all discontent relates to this monologue. Part of the audience has long demanded his stance during the health crisis, considering it too accommodating to official measures back then. In that stretch also appear claims about therapies administered, without scientific backing, which should be treated as what they are: unverified opinions. Any health doubt should be resolved with a healthcare professional.

The reproach remains open.

Where everything gets stuck: whether this type of discourse changes anything. Some believe it sows seeds; others, that it only entertains those who already thought alike. No subsequent reply from him is recorded. And the detail that got the most applause was not a phrase, but the music: Shine On You Crazy Diamond, by Pink Floyd, playing in the background.