DREAM SEQUENCE PRELUDE
Imagine a world where none of us need to think about this. Where we can go about our lives like normal people, blissfully unaware of the machinations of party politics, unconcerned, because we know that those in charge have our best interests at heart . . . and we know this due to the fruits of their rule, imperfect though it may be.
But “imperfect” does not mean “bad.” It means “human,” for true perfection is the domain of the divine. “Imperfect” and “evil” are not synonymous. Results may differ from intention, but do results sometimes indicate intention? Pray for the discernment to tell. Until we have it, we can only judge a tree by its fruits, and all of our fruits seem to be coming up rotten.
All this civilization. All this wealth. All this technology, and this is the best we can do with it?
Hold up. Isn’t that the insane American legal doctrine of disparate impact we’re dreaming about here, where discriminatory outcome is said to legally equate to discriminatory intent? Not enough black women are firefighters? Your qualifications are obviously intended to be racist and sexist. But isn’t this just “Ye shall know them by their fruits” put into practice? Another example of Christianity having a leftward bias?
But dig the full quote, friends, the context:
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
- Matthew 7:15-20
Very different than a single line taken in isolation, no?
Discernment. Pray for a spirit of discernment. You can tell if the outcome equals intent by the context of both. You can’t take any part in isolation. If you do, you’re doing the evil ones’ work for them.
Also, dig the word spells. “Discriminate” has become a de facto, and maybe even de jure, evil in all contexts. Forget Google’s politically charged definition—let’s get the skinny from Merriam-Webster:
1 a: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of
Depth perception may be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension . . .
- H. G. Armstrongdiscriminate hundreds of colors
2: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences : to recognize or identify as separate and distinct
discriminate right from wrong
especially: to distinguish from another like object
discriminate the individual voices in the choir
1 a: to make a distinction
discriminate among historical sources
discriminates between literary fiction and popular fiction
b: to use good judgment
2: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit
discriminate in favor of your friends
discriminate against a certain nationality
Even the people currently running Merriam-Webster felt compelled to note that “[a]lthough many methods or motives for discriminating are unfair and undesirable (or even illegal), the verb itself has a neutral history.” (emphasis added)
All discriminate means is to be able to make differences. In other words, to discern.
So how do you discern, truly discriminate, between good and evil? Can you really boil things down to as simple a formula as outcome equals intent?
Of course not. Such blanket statements are attractive to moderns because they do not require any true judgment, morality, discernment. They become intellectual shorthand for “being a good person” despite that such intellectual, or maybe more accurately, legal shorthand, is making people miserable and crazy.
Miserable and crazy . . . that sounds like the domain of progressivism, doesn’t it?
As we said in our earlier dream sequence, would that none of us had to pay attention to any of this! But it is not a perfect world, and we do.
We do.
How did we get here? Oh, where to begin. Maybe we can start with everybody’s justifiably favorite whipping boy and, increasingly, girl, lawyers.1
None of this began here, of course. This is an older problem than the 20th century. But like so many bad ideas, the 20th century is when they got put into place and shifted into overdrive.
If you ever needed another reason to hate lawyers, here you go—the people responsible for devising critical race theory (CRT) and enshrining it as a core American value in academia, government, the corporate world, the arts, and education were all members of the legal profession. This, and more, I learned from Christopher F. Rufo's book America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything.
“Rufo, huh,” I can hear you saying (I have really good hearing). “Isn’t he a radical right-wing racist/fascist Nazi?” Or maybe you’re thinking (I can hear thoughts): “Isn’t he a squishy former leftist cuckservative race-traitor married to an Asian?” To both, I reply “Shut up. What Rufo is is one of the few rightist activists who actually gets anything done. He also wrote a really good history of how the radical left captured America’s prestige institutions that is remarkably light on editorializing and heavy on using the key players’ own words to describe exactly what happened and how.”
I'm going to address you, the reader, directly here now. I do, believe it or not, strive to avoid political talk on this website, particularly on the micro level; on the macro level, I'm for more comfortable. This is for a few reasons:
Selfishness. I’m going to level with you: I’m aiming for as wide a readership as possible, I want to sell books, and I don’t want to alienate anyone over politics.
Interest. I don’t find the micro partisan stuff all that interesting to follow or write about, whereas the macro stuff piques my curiosity far more.
This book straddles the line between both the macro and the micro, discussing the key players in the takeover of America’s institutions along with the broader philosophical underpinnings of the movement. And yes, it does ultimately take a side. So do I. Consider this your warning.
What America’s Cultural Revolution does exceptionally well is present a history of this phenomenon, letting those who led, and lead, the revolution speak. From Herbert Marcuse and Angela Davis to Derek Bell, Paulo Friere, and Kimberlé Crenshaw, Rufo does not present a caricature or cartoonish version of those involved and their various philosophies, but a highly detailed and well-sourced history in the truest sense of the term. In other words, the guy’s got some writing chops.
One area of particular interest is Rufo’s discussion of the original, violence-filled Black Liberation Movement of the 1970s. This remains a criminally forgotten chapter in American history, these “Days of Rage.”2 We think we live in a violent, racially charged epoch here in the 21st century—and we do—but I daresay that the 1970s were worse. And it wasn't just blacks: other radical organizations, notably the Weathermen (later the more gender-inclusive Weather Underground3) who when they weren’t propagandizing their Marxist and Marcusian theories, they were committing acts of violent terrorism. Like the black activists, the Weathermen were lionized and later rewarded by the system with cushy positions at prestigious universities and endless tributes from celebrities prestige publications.4 There in lay Rufo’s key lesson: These radicals succeeded despite the unpopularity of their arms because they moved their revolution from the streets to the faculty lounges. They stopped trying to bomb their way to power and instead attained power in legitimate institutions where they could not only hire more of their ideological fellow travelers, but more importantly, where they could indoctrinate your children.
Maybe you don’t think this is a big deal. Maybe you think people like Rufo are overdoing it. What;s so bad about just being nice to everyone? What’s so bad about DEI? If you oppose those things, aren’t you just a racist and a fascist and probably a literal Nazi?
Questions like these, hypothetical though they may be, underscore the effectiveness of this cultural revolution and its proponents’ skills at hiding the revolution’s true aims.
The average person, indeed, one who might think they are particularly well-informed, probably believes the bumper-sticker level messaging which is akin to “Just be nice and don’t be racist.” Rufo’s great service is providing the inquisitive reader with the radicals’ objectives straight from their own mouths, and what they have to say isn’t pretty. To boil these aims down:
Marxian wealth distribution along racial lines, with some consideration given to other identity factors.
A race-based victim/oppressor framework replacing Marx’s class-based framework, with white men being the chief oppressor, and therefore the most in need of having his stuff confiscated and rights curtailed, and black women as the most oppressed, and therefore the most deserving of the spoils.
An end to the police as we know it—sound familiar?—and a complete overhaul of the legal system, due to it, prisons, and its enforcement arms being viewed nothing but tools of so-called “white supremacy.”
The creation of DEI/”anti-racist” bureaucracies and laws in order to codify these philosophies as a replacement for America’s constitutional order and ensure that Federal, State, local, and private organizations are towing the radical line and that disparate impact is properly penalized as being illegally discriminatory.
There’s that word again!
Yes, it really is as simple as “We hate white people and want their stuff.” Any problem in America, any particular group’s struggles, any unequal outcome or “disparate impact” is reduced to a single causal variable: white people being racist. This is no exaggeration—read the book! Or look up the writings of these individuals yourself! If you're the kind of pedant who responds to contrary information with “SOURCE?!” then this is the book for you . . . but given that most people who say “SOURCE?!” in response to contrary information never actually check out the source provided, you’re probably too short for this ride anyway.
Ah, white privilege. White fragility. All of that stuff. You’ve seen this feedback loop before: One of these radicals says something really bigoted against white people, white people understandably react, and white people’s reaction is cited as irrefutable proof of white supremacy and white fragility. It’s a catch-22. I told you: this stuff makes people crazy.
You see it in action in practical terms all the time: the “white privilege” discussion ignores the plight of poor whites, especially in rural areas, and indeed celebrates this group’s struggles and deaths. All of this group’s problems are self-inflicted, purely internal, with only itself and its culture and habits to blame. Contrast that with the plight of poor blacks, the eternal victim class, whose problems are all due to external factors, with the main external factor being white people. Leave aside the fact that very little has gotten better for black Americans as a result of these philosophies put into action. All the bombings, jailbreaks, emptying of prisons, CRT education, lessening of policing, and the promised utopia is even farther away than it was when old, boring methods were used like legal challenges, rapprochement, and a willingness to accept race-neutral systems.
This is one of Rufo’s strongest points, and one I wish he hammered a bit harder: these radicals’ and their ideas’ long, bloody record of abject failure for everybody involved. He does highlight the country of Guinea-Bissau as an example of Friere’s failures, but more of a discussion of how actual flesh-and-blood Americans are suffering would’ve gone a long way.5 Still, this is a minor quibble in an otherwise well-constructed history.
So what? What’s the point of Rico’s exercise in history? What concrete, actionable steps does he propose? How do we turn this ship around?
You might be disappointed to hear that Ruto does not offer a step-by-step action plan, or any action plan, really. He saves his prescriptions for the book’s short conclusion. Essentially, these are:
Call out the bullshit when you see it, and
Build parallel institutions.
Both points feed into Rufo’s rather nebulous conclusion that a revolution can only be defeated by a counter-revolution. Which means, I guess, infiltrate the institutions and cause disruptions where you can. Rufo has been doing this, helping take over a college in Florida and gettint some prominent radicals, like Claudine Gay of Harvard, fired.
“Big deal,” you might respond. “What good did that do? She still works there, and they just put another radical in charge.”
A fair criticism. But Rufo’s actions prove something important: Leviathan can bleed.
Us non-radicals have lives, and too many of us tend to think that one decisive battle will settle it all so we can go back to our private lives. This is not, it has never been, nor will it ever be, the way things are. It is a constant struggle. Rufo gets that, and I do think he should be commended and supported for his work against forces that harm everyone, even their intended beneficiaries, and at the very least not counter-signaled.
You must understand that America’s Cultural Revolution never set out answer what must be done. It is about the what and the how, with only a little of the why—the least important question—thrown in.6 And with a careful reading if the book, one can gleam some answers to the question of what actions can be taken:
Recognize the signs of infiltration.
Recognize what to ruthlessly gate keep against.
Recognize how to acquire influence and staff organizations with those sharing your beliefs.
Above all, recognize that this is a long game and adjust your mindset accordingly.
Normies know. This stuff is not popular, and when exposed, elicits a strong counter- reaction. The radicals are nowhere near as smart and omnipotent as the doomsayers would have you believe, and anyone telling you otherwise is an impotent Quisling and should be treated accordingly. Don't make me post the meme again!7
There’s a lesson for the arts as well, because this takeover obviously occurred in the culture. If things like music, moves,sports novels, TTRPGs, animation, video games, TV, and comic books didn’t matter, why the sustained effort to control these things?8
Because culture is just another vector of control. I don’t know if it’s the most important one, but it is important. All institutions are.9 The cultural landscape, like the political, also requires parallel institution-building and gatekeeping. No matter where tou are, no matter what you do, be on the lookout for red flags like “white supremacy,” “institutional racism,” and “decolonization,” and keep these people out of your space.
If anyone refers to human beings as “bodies”? Out.
If any one decries your group as being too “heteronormative”? Out.
If anyone demands that you include more representation of group X or your a Nazi? Out.
“But Alex! This flies in the face of all your talk of unity!” It sure does. See, if disagreements were about how to achieve a common goal, achievement of which would benefit society as a whole, that would be one thing. We can differ about policy and still coexist.
People who have goals directly antithetical to your way of life, and indeed went you and your children impoverished, marginalized, or dead based on your race or political orientation, are a separate matter. Read, for example, BLM’s 13 core principles and tell me how you can coexist with people who want to “disrupt[] the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, and especially ‘our’ [ed. that is, black] children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.” How does this even help black people?
We can have unity among the like minded in order to defeat the radicals who are ruining everything for everybody. And after the radicals have been relegated to the dustbin of history along with Naziism and POGs, we can argue over small differences.
It is regrettable that there is no quarter with people who want to end you. You don’t have to be violent with them, but you are allowed to be uncompromising until they lay down their arms and stop trying to destroy you.
So discernment. Back to the question at hand. How can you tell if something is evil?
The purpose of a system is what it does, (POSIWID) right?10 But POSIWID sounds an awful lot like the disparate impact standard. And can we simply just say “If I like the outcome, the intent was good, and if I don’t like the outcome, the intent was evil”?
I don’t think so, because that elevates judgment to the level of the subjective, the personal. I think we need some objective, immutable standards.
We’ll know something by its fruits. If the fruits produced by a thing harm people, cause people misery and pain no matter how much the system is tweaked, then I think it is safe to say that the outcome reveals its intent (evil). Because harming people is never good.
If a system or a thing has objective standards of performance or competence based on verifiable fact to produce individuals who are able to perform the activity for which they are seeking licensure for, I think it’s save to say that the outcome reveals its intent (good). Because producing competent people and making sure only competent people can ply a give trade does far more good than harm.
These are just two examples.
It’s really not as hard to discern as we’re led to believe, but you still should pray for the ability to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, positive and negative, and act accordingly. All the high-minded rhetoric of the people Rufo highlights in his book is the opposite of what actually happens when their ideas are put into practice.
- Alexander
Thank you for sticking with me through another pretty intense post. Your readership means so much and I always appreciate the comments and the discussion. If you’d like to support my writing, you can check out my books on Amazon or toss a few drachmas into the tip jar over at Buy Me A Coffee. Thank you and God Bless.
For more of my thoughts on the legal profession, see my posts “The Final Verdict on the Legal Profession” and “Poor Life Choices Gang.”
For more, see Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence.
No, I’m not making that up.
Both John Lennon and The Rolling Stones wrote songs praising Angela Davis. Note that The Stones, even while writing a tribute, couldn’t resist using the n-word.
I will say, however, that his discussion of the CHAZ in Seattle during the 2020 Summer of Love was quite effective in describing how these revolutions always eat themselves.
They why is really just resentment, plain and simple.
Yes, they’ve done the same to far too many Christian churches as well.
Left has never been anything positive. Things are "righrlt, or wrong (left)
Jesus wasn't resurrected to sit to the left of God.
> Ah, white privilege. White fragility. All of that stuff. You’ve seen this feedback loop before: One of these radicals says something really bigoted against white people, white people understandably react, and white people’s reaction is cited as irrefutable proof of white supremacy and white fragility. It’s a catch-22. I told you: this stuff makes people crazy.
What Eric Raymond labeled a kafkatrap.