A persistent trend consistently tracked here and elsewhere, is the rise of illiberalism among the self-styled liberal acolytes of democracy. As we’ve previously documented, the leftist elite have shed their liberal skin, revealing the far more malicious progressive underbelly.

Among the latest contributions to the effort, is a piece appearing in the New York Times entitled, “The Constitution is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” by Jennifer Szalai. In her opening salvo, Szalai dispenses with any awareness of irony, and castigates former President Donald Trump for his remarks in the wake of the Twitter files release, where he made a half-cocked plea to suspend certain constitutional precepts in order to relitigate the 2020 election, given the mountains of evidence that it was interfered with. Szalai labels Trump’s emotionally reactive - and in hindsight, unserious - call to ignore parts of the Constitution as being evidence of his “authoritarian inclinations”, before deigning to educate us on exactly how the whole of the Constitution should be completely annulled.

From this point forward, the entirety of the piece wrestles with schizophrenic inconsistency, given the writer’s simultaneous disdain for our founding document; and her enthusiasm to berate any of her political opposition for undermining it.

In such a disputatiously anti-constitutional polemic as this, one is sure to find many pull quotes to seize upon and pore over, perhaps none as mind-boggling as this:

“Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional.”

Subscribe now

The entirety of this article could devote itself to this passage alone, given the unintentional manner in which it enlightens us as to the underpinnings of the psyche that wrote it. Calling the paramount document of western democracy “essentially antidemocratic” cannot go unnoticed, and had it been a more intellectually worthy scribe that penned it, would deserve itself a voluminous retort. But even more startling, is calling the Constitution “increasingly dysfunctional”. Let’s examine this more closely. How can a document that by its very design is static and immutable, save for a necessarily protracted process by which to alter it - be “increasingly” anything? The last constitutional amendment, the 27th, which basically disallowed a current Congress to vote pay increases for itself, was passed in 1992. This amendment was actually proposed a whopping 202 years earlier, in 1789. Prior to its passage, the previous amendment was passed in 1971, which lowered the voting age to 18.

The only manner in which the Constitution is “increasingly dysfunctional”, is if the demands set upon it are increasingly unconstitutional. And given the nature of today’s secular progressive left and their escalating brazenness in calling for the forced cessation of speech that they deem problematic, this isn’t hard to imagine.

The list of alleged constitutional failures cited by the author include Trump winning the presidency, Trump appointing three justices to the Supreme Court, and that court sending Roe v. Wade back to the individual states to decide their own abortion laws. So in other words, the Constitution functioning exactly as it was designed to do, is an obstacle of the highest magnitude, since these issues were products arising from the wrong political party. Szalai objects to the Roe v. Wade decision specifically, on the grounds that the justices were not subject to the will of the majority in their determinations. One may remind her that the very purpose of the lifetime appointment process for SCOTUS is to fashion a court that would in theory not be manipulated by political machinations and the ever changing will of the majority. It is because of this design - not in spite of it - that the United States has been able to preserve the rule of law for generations.

As we further venture through this unhinged treatise, Szalai then flirts with the idea of secession, whereby the left coast would be parted away into its own sovereign arrangement, and the conservative states would do the same, splitting the country apart. It’s always fascinating how whenever the left suffers some defeat, they are not inclined to roll up their sleeves and win back hearts and minds - but to try and burn the whole thing down to the ground. One should note the mountains of praise heaped upon any leftist who forges a diatribe against the evils of the Southern Confederacy, which attempted to secede from the Union in order to pursue its shared ideals; and yet the same progressive would support the exact same prescription in order to achieve a Marxist “utopia”. The truth is that both scenarios are ill-advised, as the Union remaining intact is imperative to its survival.

Subscribe now

Szalai then forces us to endure her fear of a “tyranny of the minority”, which is where the word ‘insanity’ begins to no longer be hyperbolic as a descriptor for her screed. The tyrannical rule of the majority over the minority is why all pure democracies have failed. The old saw that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner applies here. Indeed how could the United States have achieved the lofty advances in minority rights, suffrage for women, and even gay rights, if pure democratic rule determined the country’s path forward? The secular progressive leftist of today has fully disassociated himself from the former liberal idealist that fought for such societal advancements. This is not liberalism run amok; this is a new breed altogether - deeply illiberal and fully authoritarian.

After taking us through a progressive retelling of the history of the Constitution, Szalai then actually champions the Constitution for providing a way for historical wrongs to be righted - outlawing slavery, granting all men the right to vote, and then allowing women to vote. However, this accidental moment of clarity is short-lived, as she then focuses her ire on originalism as being the cause of all of her sorrow. After loosely referencing landmark decisions that prohibited segregation and bans on interracial marriage, she then alludes to “conservative legal scholars” that argued against such decisions by citing the original intention of the framers. Szalai conspicuously fails to name these scholars or the years in which any such dissent took place.

One may remind Szalai that it was indeed the Democrat party that fought to keep their slaves; that formed the KKK as a paramilitary force to keep former slaves and their offspring “in line”; and that enacted Jim Crow laws in the south that made life miserable for black Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was preceded by the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, and 1960 which were all prevented by Democrats from having any real teeth in the fight for racial equality; something the Republican party had stood for since its founding by Abraham Lincoln.

Szalai then betrays another key attribute evident in progressives of her ilk. This is the idea that political friction in Congress is corrosive and unhealthy for the country. While a fractious Congress can be frustrating, this is an important feature, and not a flaw. Building coalitions and then going to the mat to win over the American people is the perfectly imperfect method by which business gets done in Washington. And the Constitution provides the framework - it doesn’t dictate the outcome. Szalai and her cohorts would rather wield the levers of power unencumbered by inconveniences such as having to make a case to the American people that their ideas are superior. This is because plainly, all secular progressives know that no sane citizen would choose for themselves the chains of tyranny prescribed by a neo-Marxist society; and this is precisely why therefore neo-Marxists cannot be bothered with anything other than authoritarian power with which to enact their agenda.

Subscribe now

In another piece published by The Guardian, the diminutive Clintonite Robert Reich prescribes a world in which Elon Musk is arrested and/or sanctioned for using his considerable wealth and social media empire X to advance wrongspeak.

Musk’s unforgivable transgression, according to Reich, is his support for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

Reich describes Musk as wielding “unaccountable political power”, which is actually chilling considering that Musk is a private American citizen, and therefore enjoys the protections of the first amendment. It is not as if the left doesn’t have their share of billionaires such as Bill Gates, George Soros, and others who likewise hold “unaccountable political power”. The difference being that nobody with any substantial platform is calling for their prosecution simply for nothing other than their political views.

After detailing Musk’s “crimes”; which include sharing memes online, supporting conservative causes, and chatting with Trump about a possible coalignment in his administration should he be successful in his 2024 bid for the White House, Reich chastises Musk for supporting UK citizens who are outraged about the rise of violent crime committed by immigrants against children in that country. While violent protests have erupted across Britain, Musk’s support has specifically been in favor of those who have been arrested for the crime of speaking out against the country’s immigration policies online. British police have all but ignored the violence committed against British citizens by Muslim immigrants, but move with lightning fast reflexes to descend upon anyone who dares speak out on social media, including a 55 year-old woman for posting “unchecked information”.

In the mind of Robert Reich, and the countless other secular progressive globalist elitists that agree with him, the UK’s approach to forcefully curbing wrongthink is government done right. After all, lowly peasants believing they have any ideas about how society should be ordered is an affront of the highest order to the superior central planning committee consisted of leftist politicos and academics. Orwell, with his unique ability to cut across epochs and prevailing fashion, warns:

"Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain." ~ George Orwell

Reich’s coup de grâce, is his sixfold directive that he closes his essay with. His first two pronouncements call for boycotts, which is his and any other free citizen’s right to decide who they want to engage or not with. However, it doesn’t take long for Reich’s authoritarian instincts to appear. For the alleged “crime” of “spreading lies and hate” on X, Reich calls for “regulators around the world” to threaten Musk with arrest. He then pines for a similar outcome for Musk as that which befell Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, when he was recently arrested by French authorities for allowing free speech on his platform, and not caving to pressure by the global speech gestapo to police and persecute the thoughts of users.

Subscribe now

If Robert Reich was anything other than a figurative gnome in the garden of totalitarian despotism, and we were at risk of anyone in any real position of power taking his decretum seriously, this idea would absolutely terrify anyone reading it. Musk, as an American citizen enjoying the freedom and liberty afforded any free citizen of the United States, is in no way subject to any other nation’s laws or regulations concerning his speech online. That we are witnessing an era where this needs to be stated aloud in America, is horrifying.

As if he feels the need to declare to us that he isn’t finished demonstrating how completely unhinged he is, Reich then hits us with this gem: “Musk’s free-speech rights under the first amendment don’t take precedence over the public interest.” In the words of Tommy Williams in The Shawshank Redemption, “The hell you say!” Nowhere in this writer’s reading of the first amendment is found any sort of proviso limiting allowed speech to only that which doesn’t infringe upon the “public interest”. In Reich’s mind, this is a perfectly sound argument, and he should be empowered to determine exactly what is best for the public interest, and to therefore prescribe the punishment for those who impede his definition of it with their words or ideas. Reich’s ideas for cultural purification are so illiberal, they’d make Mao blush.

The progressive media has jettisoned all pretense of liberalism, as we’ve detailed. Writers such as those featured here are quick to warn their readers of the creeping rise of authoritarianism among their political opposition - by pointing to nothing more than populist ideas they disagree with as being the evidence of this. With surgical precision they master the art of projectionism by recommending actual tyrannical solutions such as revoking the first amendment rights of those they dislike, attempting to gaslight their audience by trying to convince them that shredding their neighbor’s constitutional rights is in the pursuit of the public good. For those paying attention, these tactics are nothing more than a retread of the Marxist revolutionary ideas that were responsible for so much death and destruction in the 20th century.

As citizens of conscience, everyone of us - regardless of social rank or influence, needs to take a uncompromising stand and engage right now in the defense of our foundational American liberties, or else we will lose them forever. Mouthpieces for the secular progressive globalist cabal like Szalai and Reich are not in and of themselves a threat. But the fact that they are comfortable dictating totalitarian dogma in the mainstream press is a profound indication that the faceless bureaucratic army and their authoritarian overlords are getting way too cozy in their quest to infringe upon our essential God-given rights. Resistance is mandatory.

Subscribe now

Follow Faded Radio on X

Subscribe to NightWatch

Share FADED RADIO

Recently I had the opportunity to appear on John B. Wells’ show Caravan to Midnight as a guest, and had great time discussing current events, biblical eschatology, and the future of Israel on God’s prophetic time clock with John. If you didn’t get a chance to tune in, click here to download the show and listen.

As promised on John’s show, we have launched NightWatch, a new podcast and substack, where we will discuss current events through a biblical lens, explore biblical eschatology, dig into the world of the paranormal and supernatural - and have a lot of fun doing it! As a Faded Radio subscriber, you are exclusively invited to join us!

So please head on over to NightWatch, and sign up for updates so you can get the latest articles and podcasts delivered straight to your inbox. We have a lot of awesome content planned ahead, and you will not be disappointed! We are looking to build an engaged community, and look forward to your input and feedback - and you could even be a guest on the show! Sign up to stay tuned!

Please be sure to follow us on X as well:

Faded Radio on X

NightWatch on X

Thanks and God bless!

Subscribe now

As we’ve explored before, today’s progressivism is manifested in a completely inverted manner from what it stood for originally - yet the method in which it is deployed upon society remains strangely the same.

The progenitors of the prohibition in early 20th century America were concerned with the moral and social decay that seemed to flourish where alcohol was present. They aligned themselves with the puritans and the zealots of temperance in their mission; and they were deeply progressive.

Their ranks included notable figures such as William Jennings Bryan, Wayne Wheeler, Andrew Volstead, and others. These fathers of the post gilded age progressive movement believed that the liquor trade corrupted the moral growth of the individual and impeded the social progress necessary for a robust societal civic structure.

The aggressive task of “bettering the individual with or without his consent” through wielding social and political power levers is one of the hallmarks of progressivism - whether it be evidenced in the overly puritanical exercise of early 20th century alcohol prohibition; or in the more lurid forms of social enlightenment one finds being advocated for today, even within mainstream circles.

The obvious difference, is that in today’s post-modern society, the ever-present quest for progress has brought us to a place where the threat of moral decay is no longer a concern, but has literally become the mission itself. How and when did this transformation take place?

You may recall in late 2023, a young male staffer for Maryland Senator Ben Cardin filmed himself having sex with another man in the judiciary conference room within the US Senate Hart building. In response to the social media backlash, the staffer posted a commentary online in which he painted himself as the victim, since he is gay. To not understand the outraged response to proudly recording and distributing graphic sexual acts being done inside the hallowed halls of Congress, is an example of the level of degradation we’ve achieved in our society due to modern progressivism.

More recently, many within the X-sphere are still talking about the opening ceremony to this year’s Olympic games in Paris. Featuring a theme approximate to “We’re gay artists who are also artsy and gay” with a Parisian flair, the weirdly hyper-sexualized performance had less to do with athletics, or even French culture than it did with serving as an all-encompassing tribute to all things woke.

However, the event’s ‘coup de grâce’ was a flamboyant restructuring of da Vinci’s classic painting, The Last Supper with an androgynous all drag cast serving as the 12 disciples. In place of Jesus, a “they/them” or “xhe/xer/xim/xir” or other such assault on linguistic tradition wearing a crown of seven stars on “xis” head. In place of the “supper” itself, a painted blue figure singing about being naked, while the other performers sway in a trance-like state. Clearly this mockery of Christianity was an intentional statement meant to inflame Christians around the world, and certainly did, which was the same predictable outcome that has entertained the godless in the modern age ever since Serrano’s 1987 exhibition, Piss Christ. To Christian cynics, in which this writer consider himself a charter member, the pageant induced little more than an halfhearted eyeroll. We’ve been here before, and we’ll absolutely be here again. It’s nothing new or truly provocative. Just another self-absorbed testament to hedonistic revelry.

Open mainstream displays of gay culture have become humdrum exercises of weaponized banality. No longer are they courageous or shocking or in any way revolutionary. Society has come full circle to the point to which one would have to organize a public demonstration of an all white, Christian nuclear family featuring stand-ins for June and Ward Cleaver and their perfect 2.3 children all participating in traditional family things to ruffle the rainbow-colored feathers of today’s pearl clutchers.

However, even the jaded believer, such as yours truly, finds himself provoked to anger when children are inserted into these displays and used as props - or God forbid, sexualized objects. The difference is, this outrage isn’t borne from a place of taking offense. This is primal. A burning rage invoked by watching the desecration of the most innocent. And right there, live on television in front of tens of millions watching around the world, a young girl was prominently featured amidst the chaotic bacchanalia and grinding orgy fest happening all around her during the Last Supper parody.

As we’ve discussed before, the acronymic metamorphosis of the LGB community to include the T+++ components has brought with it a declaration that literally “anything goes”. And in this age of enlightenment, in a culture that has traditionally prized individual liberty above all else - why not? However, children should be universally considered off limits by all. But this certainly isn’t the case. In fact, efforts are being waged more and more blatantly to normalize those with pedophilic inclinations as just another alphabet group struggling for validation. In fact, the term “pedophile” is considered damaged goods. The progressive effort to adopt the more palatable “minor-attracted persons” (MAPs) moniker has been underway for sometime now.

Efforts within the scientific research arena seem to be more concerned with protecting the emotional well-being and the destigmatization of pedophiles more than anything else. Little more than a nod towards actually protecting children is offered within this scope of research. The nonprofit group Exodus Cry documents the chilling extents to which the normalization campaign has endeavored by a group known as Prostasia:

But this organization’s [Prostasia] true colors are revealed by what they actually support: the use and sale of sex dolls that look like children, porn that simulates sex with a minor, and funding research into “fantasy sexual outlets” for pedophiles. (SOURCE)

Groups such as Gays Against Groomers (GAG) are disturbed with the trend toward using the LGBT+ community as an incubator for proclivities that target children specifically. Their description reads: “A nonprofit of gays, lesbians and others in the community against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of "LGBTQIA+"“. These efforts are critical in ensuring children are protected and that their abusers find no safe harbor in the alphabet community, especially since the targeting of children hasn’t only been at the hands of pedophiles and their allies - but also within the scope of the gender war being waged across the West presently.

For their efforts, GAG is treated as a pariah by the left and their media mouthpieces. Wikipedia describes GAG as “an American far-right and anti-LGBT organization”. The Anti-Defamation League defamed GAG as a “notable amplifier of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric”. The Southern Poverty Law Center says that GAG “perpetuates anti-LGBTQ+ stereotypes”. So how is it that this organization, which is comprised of gays and lesbians, can simultaneously be so unbelievably anti-gay? The short answer is that they aren’t. GAG fights sexualization and gender experimentation concerning children. And for that, they’re branded as tools of the far right. What this plainly tells us, is that the left is fully invested at the very least, in using children as props; and at worst, targeting children in more nefarious aspects. Nothing on GAG’s website promotes any sort of conservative or far right agenda. How is it that protecting children is considered far right?

If progressives today had a human composite representing what they stand for, encourage, and advocate for, it would certainly be a transgender person, among other things. The idea that a 25-year-old Manhattanite, armed with a college degree in feminist dance studies, would decide to undergo surgery and hormone therapy in an attempt to adopt the opposite gender, hardly raises any eyebrows. The real battle is being waged on the inclusion of children in this practice.

Progressives en masse have agreed to pursue an agenda that would enable parents to subject their prepubescent children to surgeries and therapies designed to inhibit puberty and encourage developmental aspects opposite of their biological gender. In some cases, parents need not even be involved, as progressives want to empower government agents within public schools to be able to foster and pursue gender-swapping activities with the children entrusted to their care.

Social media star Chloe Cole (X @ChoooCole), is well known for “detransing”, after going through transition treatment as an adolescent, when doctors then asked her parents what has become a rallying cry for the movement: “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?” As a result of the medical communities’ insistence, Cole began puberty blockers and hormone therapy at 13, and a double mastectomy at 15. By 16, she realized she was perfect the way God made her, and wanted nothing else to do with becoming a trans boy. So progressives everywhere rallied around her, celebrating her right to choose her own path, right? Not exactly.

Progressives, their media allies, and leftwing culture have fashioned a new religion out of transgender politics. With dogmatic fervor, they advocate for unrestrained access to surgical and hormonal intervention for children who may at times show behaviors or characteristics that resemble those of their opposite biological gender. Anyone with cultural clout - like Cole - who has the audacity to invade their sacred territory is met with a harsh reception. Just recently the LA Times issued a fatwa on Cole, with a piece titled, “How California teen Chloe Cole emerged as a leader of the 'detransition' movement — and a right-wing icon”. From the article, “Most of Cole's critics don't deny her personal story in the same way that she discredits the experiences of hundreds of thousands of transgender youths.” The implication is that by telling her story, and warning of the dangers of excessive eagerness to permanently mutilate children who may only be experiencing the awkward fumblings of youth, Cole is somehow “erasing” the trans community’s existence.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ running mate, progressive Minnesota governor Tim Walz, is completely committed to the practice of gender experimentation on kids. Walz championed a radical bill that would empower agents of the state to revoke parental rights and seize the children of parents who refuse to subject their kids to “gender affirming care”, a favorite buzzword of the left with a far more malevolent utility than its name suggests, when it comes to minor children. The governor also passed a bill in Minnesota requiring all bathrooms, including boys bathrooms - in public schools to feature tampon dispensers. Walz, who represents the farthest leftwing faction in mainstream American politics, being added to the Harris presidential bid ticket, signals an even further slide to the left for the Democrat party. His views, which would be considered fringe merely several years ago, are now par for the political course.

The American progressive left has determined that going all in on transgender politics is the winning formula. Just recently in this year’s Olympic women’s boxing competition, Imane Khelif, an intersex Algerian boxer with XY chromosomes, fell under scrutiny from conservatives when Khelif injured Italian boxer Angela Carini after only 46 seconds, when Carini had to forfeit the match. After the bout, Carini said, “I’ve never been hit that hard in my life”. It is hard not to imagine that under domestic circumstances, had Khelif fought Carini in this manner, Khelif would have been charged with a number of crimes for domestic abuse. However, to the American left, all’s fair in love and sports - and the ultimate crowning achievement for 50+ years of feminism, is men dominating women’s sports and literally sending women to the emergency room.

None of this seems to bother the Biden-Harris administration however, as the effort to radically overhaul Title IX is underway, despite legal challenges in several states, which would force schools at all levels to include biological males in girls’ sports. The fact that the president, sitting in the highest office in the land, feels politically comfortable enough to overhaul 50-year-old law to accommodate boys who “feel” like girls, and empower them to compete against, and dominate girls’ sports - signals just how far the Democrat party has shifted to the left in only a short span of time. The irony of Title IX; put into place originally to bring parity to women’s sports - and now being used to completely subjugate and cancel women in athletics, cannot be overstated.

So what’s all this about? Why have progressives hitched their wagon to everything sex and gender? On a cultural level, it’s an effort to dissolve all traditional constraints in order to seek a globalized society coalesced under one banner of secular humanism. On a spiritual level, it’s an assault on God. The traditions as they are historically understood in western predominantly Christian societies, are an affront to the proudly secular progressive global citizen. Religion and its moral imperatives are stumbling blocks for a humanist, godless, socialist global community that prizes hedonism over the individualist religious pursuits of faith and piety.

Furthermore, progressives widely embrace virtually unconstrained abortion, the dissolution of national borders, packing the Supreme Court, the expansion of state control over the economy, and the gutting of the 2nd Amendment. It irks this writer that the terms “liberal” and “progressive” are often used interchangeably to describe the American left. Today’s leftwing, and its home base within the Democrat party, have long ago jettisoned the ideals of liberalism. Progressivism is at its very core, necessarily illiberal.

As stated earlier, the hallmark of progressivism is “the bettering of the individual with or without his consent”. In contrast, the liberal permits the individual to choose the manner, method, and mode of his bettering. It isn’t prescribed for him by an all-powerful state. Turn-of-the-century progressives forced temperance upon society - which may have had noble ambitions, but was an illiberal exercise. Today’s progressives relish the same spirit of illiberalism - but have designs on more pernicious pursuits.

If one could peel back the false emotional facade on our composite Progressive, one would find that the Progressive is someone deeply distrusting of his fellow man’s ability to chart his own course. The Progressive believes that when left to his own devices, and saddled with the inconveniences of self-determination and liberty, the individual will choose for himself a path of self-sufficiency and personal fulfillment. This path, saith the Progressive, is devoid of the omniscient guidance of the all-powerful state and its ministers, and will therefore inevitably lead to the individual’s ruin.

Additionally, the Progressive is deeply collectivist. To permit the individual to freely seek his own way, is to ignore his responsibility to his fellow global citizens, according to the Progressive. Should the individual commit himself to his labors and find monetary success, this would be the most tragic of outcomes, given that his wealth isn’t being redistributed to those of lesser means. To the Progressive, forcing the forfeiture of a large portion of the individual’s property for the welfare of his global brethren is the individual’s most sacred duty. And when executed properly, it is the Progressive who should be recognized as the generous benefactor of society for the act of seizing one’s wealth and doling it out to the less fortunate.

The progressive movement has long ago abandoned its original ideals of fighting for equality in the face of obvious injustice - such as abolishing slavery, women’s suffrage, and passing the Civil Rights Act. Today, their primary goal is the assault on the family, traditional values, and the time-honored institutions of faith and God-given liberty. More atrociously, progressives have a particular interest in children. If a child survives the progressives’ virtually unconstrained opinions on abortion and is born, then she is soon met with their gender agenda, which includes hormonal and even surgical intervention should the child ever display characteristics found in the opposite sex. If the child is a female athlete, soon she will be competing against bigger and stronger boys, until she is completely dominated in a progressive utopia. The endgame is a progressive globalist system devoid of borders; populated by a feeble, androgynous, and completely subjugated citizenry too divided and confused to resist. It is incumbent upon anyone concerned with protecting children and the foundations of liberty and self-determination to fight this malevolence at every level.

Follow Faded Radio on X

“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”
― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

As the culture wars rage on, it’s all starting to feel like that there is an emergent plan amidst the chaos - a roadmap to… somewhere. And that final destination is becoming more and more clear.

The Technological Pacifier

It is only in looking behind us into recent history where the trajectory becomes more obvious. Over the last 30-40 years, we see a steady decline in self-determination and independence evident in the denizens of western society. Technological advances have become so commonplace in modern life, we can hardly conceive of how we managed our affairs without them a mere couple of decades ago. Perhaps a natural byproduct of their adoption into daily life, is the unwitting jettisoning of some of our autonomy and sovereignty, as we vie for convenience over total self-sufficience. But a darker picture is beginning to emerge.

Perhaps Marx’s famous saw, “religion is the opiate of the masses”, should necessarily be updated to “iPhone is the opiate of the masses” to better reflect the current age. The response to Apple issuing a new phone that basically looks and functions exactly as the old one did, is a fanatical exercise. Dogmatic devotees rearrange their lives and responsibilities to camp out in front of the nearest Apple store, just for the chance to take their place in line as one of the faceless cogs eagerly awaiting the chance to shell out any amount required to secure their new sparkly gadget that looks just like everyone else’s. And this same ritual is repeated ad nauseum for basically any new and shiny techy gizmo that they come out with.

It is through our endless yearning for convenience, that our sociocultural overlords exhibit control over us all.

As we become more dependent on devices and machines, we begin to be sort of assimilated into them. We slowly begin to abandon our self-reliance, and in turn, our independence. As these are being stripped away, our intelligence begins to decline as well. No longer do we need to do long form math on a scrap of paper; or spend an afternoon immersed in the local library researching a certain topic; or even writing a heartfelt letter to an old friend on special stationary reserved only for the most important correspondence. All of these and more are accomplished in mere seconds, without any real thought, with a piece of plastic we all carry in our pockets. Is convenience really the greatest prize and the highest honor a society can reach for?

The Cultural Component

In tandem to the technological tsunami that we’re all impacted by on a daily basis, are the cultural metamorphoses that have transformed literally all aspects of life in the west. As we often discuss here, the four pillars of culture are academia, political, media, and entertainment. These four drive the cultural zeitgeist and determine the basic direction of a society. Through advances in technology, they are able to more seamlessly issue their dictates and be more monolithic and imperial in their pronouncements. It is in this manner in which concepts such as DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), CRT (Critical Race Theory), and other theoretical academic constructs have seeped into the public consciousness and become a driving force in the way society operates.

In the mind of the secular progressive, antiquated notions such as hard work, self-reliance, and dedication to one’s labors are not only outdated, they are literally despised. And shame is prescribed to those who still cling to such archaic views. These are even commonly branded as “racist” ideas - despite however ludicrous and irrational such a charge is. As is common with progressives, this type of gaslighting is projectionism - as it is they themselves who promote the bigoted opinion that people of color are incapable of achievement through hard work. Out here in the real world however, these ideas are incompatible with our daily life.

We little people here on the ground in our towns and cities across America interact with hard working people from all walks of life on a daily basis; get along with them; and proudly consider them our friends and neighbors. The stuffy, pretentious, pompous leftist academic and political managers who decide which groups are the oppressors and which are the oppressed, have theories that are completely incongruent with the real world. It is only through the sheer might of their voice through traditional media, social media, and entertainment that these destructive ideas become so ubiquitous and adopted en masse.

The four cultural pillars have coalesced into one gigantic creature with a common voice and purpose; while simultaneously working to divide the people of society into disparate groups and identity tribes, constantly at war with each other and vying for a few precious scraps of relevance offered by our social planners. Within this economy of warring factions, victimhood is the most prized commodity, and the groups able to secure the most of this precious resource are held aloft by the cultural managerial deities on high. This allows the cultural demigods to position themselves as merciful and compassionate towards those that they have determined to be the the victims of society, and to shun the rest as the bastard oppressors responsible for their plight. This exercise in virtue signaling is the ultimate prize for the cultural elite, because it serves as a modern form of bread and circuses that keep the people in line as they retreat to their respective identitarian corners, always divided, always in conflict, and never contented.

Through these social Hunger Games being promulgated by the cultural administrators, unwritten rules are adopted and put into place in which the masses agree to whether explicitly or not. One of these rules is that the higher the victimhood/oppression ratio that one group enjoys, the more discomfort the less victimized groups must endure in service to the oppressed. For instance, consider this recent post on social media:

To be spat upon is an assault of the most dehumanizing type. Yet even though it is happening rather often to this woman and to others she associates with, she is careful to protect the ethnic identity of the spitters and not to cast too much dispersion upon them, because being spit upon and degraded in such a manner is preferable to be labeled a racist. This is the direct result of a society that has acquiesced to the most asinine demands that go as far as to cast speaking the truth as being an act of hatred and bigotry.

The Pharmaceutical Surge

Concurrent with all of this, is the rise in the power and influence of the pharmaceutical industry. As a Gen X’er, I can recall watching television as a kid and never seeing a commercial for a prescription drug at any point. However today, almost every commercial advises you to “ask your doctor” about some new wonder drug. Whatever happened to going to see your family medical practitioner, and they inform you about which treatment is best? How is it that it has become acceptable for people with no medical training or knowledge to go and tell their doctor which medicines they want? This is the result of a pharmaceutical industry that has invested more in lobbying governments and medical establishments than they do actual research and development of drugs. And because of these efforts, western society is more doped up and medicated than ever before - and unironically, sicker than ever before.

By combining this societal cocktail of unrelenting wokeism, technological opium, and over medication of the masses, the sociocultural managers have exhibited their power over us all. We are weaker, sicker, more divided, less self-reliant, more dependent, confused, and more miserable than we’ve ever been. And this is exactly how they want us to be. An unbroken people cannot be easily conquered.

A War Against the Social Fabric

It is for this reason that an all-out assault on traditional mores has been forcefully waged. A society with strong family, religious, and community ties is an independent and unconquerable society; and one that features a contented and satisfied people. But for our social planners on high, this simply will not serve their ends. Consider the following headline:

It’s easy to dismiss this as absurd - which it certainly is. But this is just a drop in the ocean of similar messages being delivered from on high every minute and every day through all forms of media. The goal is to disparage the ideas of traditional structures such as marriage, which serve as the backbone of a strong society; and replace them with a system that keeps people single, miserable, not having children, and not participating in traditional gender roles. This is the outcome that the global elitists salivate over.

Transgender ideology is another issue that the globalists utilize in their efforts to weaken social structures, and further assault the traditional family. Only a mere handful of years ago it would have been completely beyond the pale to have serious discussions about the virtues of permanently mutilating children. Yet today, among the secular progressive globalist left, carving up innocent children and permanently disfiguring their reproductive organs is a sacrament, and one that they are religiously devoted to.

When Dr. Eithan Haim tried to blow the whistle on the Texas Children’s Hospital’s illegal child sex change program, the Biden DOJ threw the book at him. He is now being prosecuted on federal charges over alleged HIPAA violations. This is clearly being orchestrated from the top to send a message to anyone that would dare try and get in the way of the progressive’s transgender agenda as it pertains to children.

The common thread in all of these issues, is the destruction of family. Surgically transitioning young children is not about ‘helping them to discover their true identity’, or some other such nonsense being peddled constantly by the blathering idiot class. The purpose of these operations are in order to ensure that these young boys and girls can never reproduce later in life. They will grow into their older years confused, androgynous, hooked on medication, and completely dependent on the system - which is the entire recipe for secular progressive globalism’s success.

Perhaps even more of a sacred ritual to the progressive elite, is that of abortion. As with other controversial matters that they wrap in false platitudes, this issue is propagandized as ‘women’s healthcare’. Who could be against women having access to healthcare? Only the most barbaric, backward, misogynistic neanderthals would fight such a thing they claim. The argument is framed in this manner, because if the elitists openly admitted that their desire to commit genocide against entire generations of mainly minority children, it wouldn’t market as well to the masses. Aborting children in the womb before their born is the most efficient way to ensure that they are unable to reproduce and create families of their own. And because of this, abortion is probably the most cherished sacrament within their dark orthodoxy.

The Endgame

All of this is leading to the inevitable decline of western civilization and the destruction of American sovereignty. Even though the world has benefitted from the generosity and selflessness of the American people for centuries, the globalists have cast us as the ultimate unjust colonialist oppressors of the rest of the world. This is because the United States is the last great barrier to their ultimate goal of world domination. Emotionally driven, low information, progressive voters are the only ones who actually believe the US is to blame, and work in an effort of self-sabotage around the clock to try and shed their ever-present sense of self-loathing, and earn the adoration of their globalist overlords.

The war for globalism is being waged on so many fronts, it’s hard to keep track - even for those who keep tabs on such things. The globalist manipulators such as Klaus Schwab and the WEF, Bill Gates, the elitists at Davos, the Bilderberg Group, and many others are all pushing the same agenda: that the world is overpopulated; that humans are bad for the environment; that resources are too scarce to sustain humanity; and that individual autonomy and independent countries’ sovereignty is bad for the future of humanity. In order to rectify these problems, citizens must eschew their borders, language, and culture; and come together under one common understanding on a global level. Resource distribution must be planned and executed from the top down, and a unified world government must be enacted to ensure the continued survival of the people.

Every single one of the firebrand issues that animates political and cultural debate and discussion every day - from climate change, to wars being waged around the world, to energy policy, and all of the social issues discussed here are being guided from the highest echelons of the globalist elite. We must resist the urge to engage at merely an emotional level, permitting ourselves to be manipulated as pawns; and instead hold on ever more diligently to the traditional mores that have anchored us and granted us the freedoms and the sovereignty that we take for granted every day. Only through reconnecting to our faith, family, and traditional western values; and being willing to fight for and defend these precious ideals to whatever end is necessary, can we continue to prosper and resist the evil globalist threat that seeks to enslave us all.

In the film adaptation of Orwell’s dystopian classic, 1984, O’Brien asks Winston, “What are your true feelings towards Big Brother?” Winston replies, “I hate him”, to which O’Brien replies, “You must love him. It’s not enough to obey him. You must love him.” The allegiance demanded of Winston paints a grim picture of a society that has completely lost all individual autonomy and has succumbed to tyrannical central rule. This piece will examine how modern progressivism seeks similar homogenous devotion in its current conception in American society, as well as the world at large.

The 20th Century: The End of American Idealism?

Throughout the 20th century, the great American ideal remained preserved despite the national challenges we faced. The postwar idealistic optimism of the 1950s fueled a new sense of national pride and economic prosperity. The Cold War brought Americans together as “the last best hope of man on earth” in the words of Ronald Reagan, as we together steadfastly faced an enemy that threatened us with nuclear annihilation. As America fumbled its way through the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights era, and the economic turmoil of the 1970s, stodgy conservatives clashed with liberal counter-culturalists on the direction of America and what our collective focus should be. Conservative patriarch William F. Buckley and the razor-witted liberal intellectual Gore Vidal would famously debate the issues on television in 1968. America was growing, changing, and finding its way into the modern era. One thing remained steadfast however - the basic desires of both sides of the political spectrum were fundamentally the same. A strong America, a brighter tomorrow, a prosperous homeland, limited government intrusion into citizens’ lives, and a brighter future for our children were common wishes on both sides. Even across party lines, Americans were united in the common cause of preserving the foundations of liberty and individual freedom that the United States was founded upon.

A Modern History of Progressivism: Then & Now

Progressivism is not a new concept, but rather one that takes on different forms in various epochs. Around the turn of the 20th century, in the wake of the excesses of the Gilded Age, in which extremely wealthy captains of industry enjoyed monopolistic control over commodity markets; lack of business regulation offered few barriers to production and enterprise, and a new progressive movement was born. These progressives sought to address the inequalities, waste, and corruption that was inherent with early modernization, and serve as a balancing force against it. The new progressive movement crossed party lines, and notable progressives hailed from various corners of the political spectrum. They included Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, Democrat William Jennings Bryan, as well as some socialists and populists. Their primary focus was on improving labor conditions, antitrust laws, securing elections, fighting government and corporate corruption, environmental concerns, and improving the democratic process. One of the major issues championed by the progressives was the passage of the 18th Amendment in 1919, which ushered in the Prohibition by outlawing alcohol in the US - until its repeal by Congress in 1933. Typically, the progressive movement was marked by elements of pragmatic conservatism, and sought to implement morally sound reforms that resulted in a more empowered citizen. While some of the platform could be called into question (looking at you, progressive eugenicists of the 1920s), on a broad scale these were positive changes in a rapidly evolving socioeconomic landscape.

However, progressivism today has taken on a much more virulent form. The term enjoyed a resurgence in the wake of Barack Obama’s presidential victory in 2008 as a way for leftists to self-identify as outside, or beyond the Democrat party establishment. In practical terms, these were people who viewed themselves as further left than the party, while eschewing its establishment ties. A similar - albeit politically opposite - transformation took place amidst the Republican party, in the form of the Tea Party around 2010 or so. By the time Donald Trump’s presidential victory in 2016 rolled around, political factions were deeply divided, and the days of polite sociopolitical discourse had already been long over.

Classical Liberalism

So what happened to the classic liberal? That pro-individualist ever reverent of the Bill of Rights protecting personal autonomy, and ever wary of government overreach? It is precisely these post-enlightenment ideals built on the foundation of liberty that separated western society from the more dogmatically rigid eastern philosophies that didn’t recognize the individual any more than a faceless cog in the collective machinery of social order. In this strict environment, no value is placed on individual liberty, and the state reigns supreme over the affairs of its subjects. To dare speak out against the system or its organizers and oligarchs is to be consigned to death or imprisonment without recourse.

The classic liberal would eschew any litmus test determining the legitimacy of one’s speech - and instead be completely concerned with defending and protecting his right to say it in the first place, even if the liberal would personally reject the ideas put forth. It is in this climate where disfavored opinions are freely advanced, but often drowned out and replaced with more tolerable ones in the free market of ideas. This is foundational to western thought, versus certain concepts that threaten the central power structure being deemed “evil” and subjectively filtered out and abolished by state-appointed czars of truth. In modern parlance, these ideas are branded as misinformation or disinformation. And frequently, their accuracy isn’t even in dispute, since they are levied within the realm of conjecture; but rather they are branded “dangerous” due to their dislike by those in power.

Examples of such “wrongthink” may include doubting that climate change is manmade; that abortion ends the life of a human being; that January 6th was an unarmed political demonstration, not an insurrection; or that funding virtually all of Ukraine’s defense budget out of the fruits of the pockets of American taxpayers is immoral and not in America’s best interest. These opinions, and many others, are frequently not permitted the same attention or audience as those ideas more in step with those expressed and promulgated by the bastions of culture. To police thought in this manner is an authoritarian and deeply illiberal practice. Yet the same political party that was once populated by the free thinking liberals of yesterday has succumbed to the dogmatically driven progressives of today.

Progressivism Versus Classical Liberalism

It is here that a semantical distinction is in order. The terms “liberal” and “progressive” are often used interchangeably, and one could proffer useful arguments both for and against this amalgamation. For an understanding of the terminology utilized here, a concise definition for “progressive” could be that of “hyper-liberal”. In his book Why Liberalism Failed, author Patrick J. Deneen describes the ancient concept of liberty as individual freedom counterbalanced with an understanding and respect for traditional morality, ethics, and accepted cultural norms. Liberalism is achieved when the individual is freed from all mental and psychological constraints, and the prior balances offered by traditionalism are jettisoned as devices for social order. The new opposing force which must be applied in order to throttle liberalism’s excesses is that of law and order, often referred to as the rule of law. Deneen makes the intriguing argument that liberalism is self-defeating in that encouraging more and more individual autonomy requires more law as an order-keeper, which necessarily results in the growth of the state, bureaucracy, and government power overall. The classical liberal is ever concerned with this paradox, and seeks to find the golden recipe that preserves the freedom of individual pursuit, and yet salvages only the necessary amount of state authority required to safeguard it.

The progressive, on the other hand, relishes state control of the individual. Since he does not possess the wisdom or aptitude required to fashion himself into a better individual, such bettering must be done either with or without his consent. Personal autonomy is a barrier to personal betterment in the mind of the progressive, and therefore force becomes a required and favored component of the progressive’s toolkit. However, solely relying on state-sponsored coercion is problematic because it too blatantly echoes the authoritarian trappings that spoiled communism’s promise of a classless utopia by force. The clever and conniving antidote to this challenge, is to therefore inject progressive propaganda into the veins of the cultural body politic. With this program in place, the unwitting citizenry will happily lap up the poison elixir, and then beg for seconds.

The Four Pillars of Culture

American culture is cultivated and supported by four primary pillars - media, entertainment, academia, and the Washington political class. These establishments have always tended toward the left, and have primarily defended liberal ideals historically. However, being ideologically similar, they tend to function in concert and be monolithic in their determinations. For example, when President Trump declared the mainstream media to be the “enemy of the people”, the pillars of culture circled the wagons and defended its ally intensely. This (among other things) forever branded Trump as an enemy of culture itself. Celebrities and other public figures would publicly announce their allegiance to the cultural zeitgeist by declaring their disgust and abhorrence of Trump and the MAGA movement in general. To be affiliated in any substantial way with any of the four pillars, and yet be a supporter of Trump, was a cultural death sentence. The formerly liberal cultural arenas had become illiberal and completely unwavering in their demand for ideological uniformity. This transformation had already taken place prior to the advent of MAGA populism, but it was the opposing force of the MAGA movement that shattered any remaining pretense of culture’s adherence to classical liberal values, exposing the face of secular progressivism hidden beneath.

When President Barack Obama declared his intention to “fundamentally transform America” in 2008, many took his promise with an optimistic grain of salt, figuring this to be nothing more than another politician’s catchphrase attempting to brand his campaign as forward-thinking and hopeful. In hindsight however, it is clear that Obama, unlike other politicians, made a campaign promise that he intended to carry out to the letter in every way imaginable. Obama’s inauguration as America’s first black president brought with it the hope of finally turning the page on much of the racial divide that still existed across the American landscape. Surely if a black man can achieve the highest office in the land, and secure the role of most powerful leader in the entire world, this would signal once and for all that black Americans can accomplish anything and everything that their white counterparts could, and we could all finally embrace each other as American brothers and sisters no longer mentally segregated by something so unimportant as race. Unfortunately, the opposite happened, as the flames of division of all kinds were fanned, and social unrest festered in communities all over the US. This sociopolitical upheaval resulted in unprecedented political polarization, which provided the ideal climate for modern secular progressivism to flourish.

The Illusion of Democracy

Contrary to what some believe, the opposing force against progressivism is not conservatism. Conservatism seeks to retain the constraints and values offered by morality and tradition, and is therefore the opposition to liberalism. The polarizing force against progressivism is populism. Populism seeks to retain liberalism’s original promise of individual autonomy, while being extremely opposed to unfettered government overreach and state control. A favorite refrain of progressives is that they are the arbiters and protectors of “democracy”, and that democracy’s arch enemies are proponents of populism. However, this is smoke and mirrors deception. It is indeed populism that seeks to inject more democratic control over state power by elevating and empowering the citizen to defend and protect his rights by active involvement in the democratic process. The progressive is primarily concerned with securing as much power and control for its elite managerial organizers as can be achieved. Democracy serves as a barrier to this goal, because populations surely wouldn’t choose for themselves a lesser voice in societal affairs, and more power to a faceless, unelected elite class of bureaucrats. So it becomes necessary for progressives to thinly veil their intentions under the noble guise of “defending democracy”; when what they truly intend to do is dismantle it.

Since progressives today have deceptively intimated that their combined efforts are in pursuit of the defense of democracy, anything that challenges their goals is a direct attack on democracy itself and must therefore be obliterated. In this chaotic climate, even those ideas that seek to purify the democratic process, such as requiring voter ID, or favoring in-person voting are branded threats to democracy itself.

In his incredibly insightful piece “Poland and the Demon in Democracy”, N.S. Lyons points out that when Donald Tusk secured victory as the far left prime minister of Poland, he declared that “democracy has won”. Among his initial acts as PM in pursuit of “democracy”, Tusk ordered the arrest of his political opposition in direct violation of the Polish constitution. Tusk was just getting warmed up. He continued arresting other political leaders, even those in which he had nothing more than personal disputes with. He then initiated a plan to exert his political influence over the courts - in the continued pursuit of “democracy” of course.

The courts themselves are Tusk’s top target. He campaigned on “restoring the rule of law” to Poland. By this he meant unlocking more than $100 billion in EU funds meant for Poland that the bloc has frozen on the grounds that PiS “politicized” the courts. These sanctions were imposed in response to PiS reforms to allow more judges to be appointed by elected officials – and therefore face at least some measure of democratic accountability, as in most Western countries – rather than be appointed by each other. This incestuous practice had led to Poland’s allegedly-former communist judges universally appointing new progressive allegedly-not-communists in an unbroken cycle of hegemonic left-wing institutional control. According to the EU, however, legally breaking this oligarchy was a form of “democratic backsliding.”

Lyons reports that, in the wake of Tusk’s victory, the EU began to unfreeze a portion of the $100 billion to signal a “job well done” to the people of Poland for electing him. Tusk’s faction then got to work removing and replacing judicial appointments and other legal officers that had been put in place with at least some form of democratic oversight, and replacing them with partisans who were installed as puppets of the Tusk administration sans the previous democratic controls in place. These acts, and others conducted by Tusk, were hailed by EU leadership in Brussels as being positive reforms in the name of “democracy”.

In a scathing rebuke of Tusk’s ruthless purging of all opposition forces in Poland, former Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said, “I was very much surprised with what the current government is doing. You can fight politically on many different fronts, but being so brutal and aggressive as putting Members of Parliament who are fighting with corruption, to jail is something unprecedented in Poland.”

Morawiecki also warned that Tusk is attempting to create a “monopoly of voices” in the Polish media that unquestionably support the Tusk regime.

Mr Tusk's government sacked the management of the national broadcasters and has in effect liquidated part of the media.

Mr Morawiecki said: "Right now, all diligent observers of what is happening on our media scene, would realise that there is a very similar voice coming from all the three major TV channels in Poland, this is not democracy.

"Democracy requires not only civil liberties but also freedom of speech and a free media and pluralistic media.

What’s becoming alarmingly clear in leftist politics today, is that the more impassioned the appeal to democracy, the more they’re willing to forego the actual features inherent in a functional democracy - until paradoxically, democracy itself is a grave threat to democracy.

Lyons expertly lays out the framework that connects liberalism to communism, and cites Ryszard Legutko’s account in his groundbreaking book, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies, which states that communism and liberalism share many similarities.

It is possessed by the same progressive conception of history, the same belief that history moves rationally and inevitably in only one direction: forward toward, in the liberal case, greater and greater freedom and equality for all. Like communism, liberalism believes in constant social improvement and the unravelling of historic injustices and inequities. And at the end of this arc of history lies the same utopian ideal of a perfected world. Just as the communists believed the utopia of a classless society and universal social justice was possible to achieve through worldly struggle, liberals believe that a completely equal, just, and peaceful world can ultimately be constructed by human managerial technique.

What Lyons refers to as liberalism, this author calls progressivism - but this is only a semantical difference. Their insidious traits describe the same faction. When the term classic liberalism or classical liberal is employed, one is referring to what is most closely aligned with today as libertarianism. This distinction may seem insignificant - but the difference in their functional meaning is colossal. This is critical because Lyons’ liberal in effect is a devoutly and ironically illiberal creature.

Another key component shared by liberals/progressives and communists, is their mutual disgust for organized religion. Any connection to tradition or past enlightenment ideals is frowned upon, because struggle and forward progress forge the path ahead toward utopia according to the leftists. Faith and traditional mores are anchors that need to be emancipated either freely or by force to loosen society from its traditional bonds in order to pursue the goal of a perfected civilization. Furthermore, religion and faith offer a superior and more idealized vision of the future, as well as offer man a far greater power than the state with which to serve and worship - and therefore must be destroyed by the progressives. This exercise hearkens back to Mao’s cultural revolution which sought to free China from such institutions, resulting in the murder of tens of millions in the pursuit of the Maoist “Great Leap Forward” agenda.

Whereas the statist organizers of the progressive society promise a freedom untethered where ideas are openly expressed and pursued, nothing could be further from the truth in practice. Progressivism (liberalism to Lyons) sets up an us or them dichotomy. If you are not actively in favor of, and do not exhibit enthusiastic fervor for the progressive reforms, then you are by definition the enemy, and must be neutralized.

Lyons explains:

Liberalism is in reality an ideology of friend and enemy. Either one is for the utopian liberal project, or against it. No other categories can be seriously considered or permitted. And as the liberal project continually fails – as it must – to produce utopia, liberalism finds itself more and more desperately hunting for the shadowy ranks of non-liberal saboteurs that must be undermining the progress of the revolution. Legutko reflects on how both communists and liberals have displayed the same peculiar tendency: to somehow hold simultaneously to the idea that their ideals are invincible and will inevitably triumph at the end of history, and that they are a small, vulnerable, victimized, and desperately embattled minority.

This idea is played out over and over again as “more and more spheres of life are relentlessly politicized by liberalism’s partisan passions”, as stated by Lyons. One needn’t look far nor wide to see the progressive influence exerted over even the most trivial cultural minutiae. As previously described, the four pillars of culture are universal and monolithic in their pursuit of the progressive agenda, and will aggressively pursue virtually any end to instill progressive dogma in all of its paraphernalia in preparation for mass public consumption. Accepting and promoting these expressions is hailed as noble and virtuous; and oftentimes even considered brave and heroic despite being the absolute safest position imaginable, and simultaneously as the prevailing view of the central organizers behind the media, entertainment, academic, and political establishments.

Progressivism’s Grand Scheme

The unspoken, yet thinly veiled truth of the grand progressive project’s overarching theme is the relentless pursuit of power and control over society and its denizens on a global scale. It is in the recognition of this reality that we endeavor to discover the answer to the initial question concerning how progressivism cannibalized liberalism. Liberalism offered the fertile ground for progressive ideas to be incubated, and within liberalism’s unconstrained arena, progressivism flourished. Progressivism was a creature born from and nurtured by liberalism, which grew strong and with a ravenous appetite, eventually turning on liberalism and consuming it entirely.

Communism was damaged goods. The blood-soaked fields littered with the corpses of millions of unfortunate souls that unwittingly prevented communism’s promise of achieving paradise through their inconvenient existence; and therefore necessarily had to be eliminated - stood as a grotesque monument to its ultimate failure. Progressivism’s shiny exterior inspired change, was forward-thinking, optimistic, and of course engendered progress itself. This was the new machine by which the elite managerial class would finally exact their plans to organize society effectively and drive us toward the path to global nirvana; a Phoenix arising out of communism’s ashes.

It is within this rigid progressive orthodoxy that even liberalism itself is considered out of fashion and passé. Liberalism doesn’t possess the teeth with which to defend itself from annihilation, because it necessarily defends the free exercise of ideas - even those that call for its destruction. The new flavor of leftism is indeed secular progressivism, and to be considered a leftist in good standing according to the cultural behemoths that prescribe it, one must adhere to its dogma. The Democrat party has gleefully agreed to be its political vehicle, and they are carrying out its precepts to the letter. Their methods unironically echo that of Tusk in Poland as they execute their agenda always in the name of “defending democracy”. Using lawfare tactics against Donald Trump by attempting to keep him defending himself in every courtroom in America so he cannot mount a solid campaign against Joe Biden’s reelection bid is of course an effort waged to protect “democracy”. Labeling his speech on January 6, 2021 that called for nonviolence an act of insurrection, and then citing the 14th amendment state by state to force him off of the ballot thereby denying the people their right to choose their leaders, is of course a noble act of “democracy”. Imprisoning people who were simply at the Capitol on January 6, yet broke no laws (some weren’t even on Capitol grounds) for political crimes, is exercising sacred “democracy”. And most recently, the Biden administration allowing unchecked illegal immigration for three years, and then demanding the Republican House pass a Ukraine slush fund bill that mentions the border in passing, by gaslighting them as not being serious about border security if they reject it, is a virtuous act of “democracy”.

Progressivism’s ultimate goal is domination on a global scale. It has powerful allies positioned as both its diplomats and its central planners from wealthy globalists such as Bill Gates, George Soros, and several others; to ubiquitous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the World Economic Forum (WEF). These entities all claim to be merchants of democracy, while simultaneously working tirelessly funding and manipulating its very destruction through acquiring central global control in world financial markets, healthcare sectors, and government bodies. However, populist movements across the globe have gained steam in recent years as a stalwart resistance to a growing progressive globalist architecture. Across Europe, South America, Oceania, and the US a natural populist immunity against the progressive plague has begin to sprout up and take action to educate and inform the masses about the true endgame of progressive initiatives. However, friendly cultural allies have proven to be powerful and persuasive accomplices in progressivism’s cause. And it is here that the demand for Party allegiance and uniformity described in Orwell’s 1984 becomes in reality more pertinent and less hyperbolic. And we would be well served to heed its warning and be ever mindful of the truth behind progressivism’s deception.

Follow Faded Radio on X (formerly Twitter)

Today I’m announcing a brand new addition to my Substack publication: the Faded Radio subscriber chat.

This is a conversation space in the Substack app that I set up exclusively for my subscribers — kind of like a group chat or live hangout. I’ll post short prompts, thoughts, and updates that come my way, and you can jump into the discussion.

To join our chat, you’ll need to download the Substack app, now available for both iOS and Android. Chats are sent via the app, not email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversation as it happens.

How to get started

1. Download the app by clicking this link or the button below. Substack Chat is now available on both iOS and Android.

Get app

2. Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar, and you’ll see a row for my chat inside.

3. That’s it! Jump into my thread to say hi, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.

Join chat

Somewhere in the Twittersphere (X-sphere?) lurking beneath the everyday banality of the ever-present western political volleyball match, one finds a character named Dr. Aleksandr Dugin (@Agdchan). Considered by some to be “Putin’s philosopher”, the Russian intellectual and author potentially offers unique insight into the mind of the Russian leader, his desires, and his thoughts about global affairs. Dugin deeply believes in the reunification of the Soviet empire (though he wouldn’t phrase it in such a way), as a national imperative in the preservation of the motherland. But besides his loyalty to his leader and his personal patriotic convictions, things get really interesting when we investigate his views on global issues and their impact on the Putin regime.

When making a depressing trek through the “leftverse”, one needn’t venture very far before encountering the ubiquitous “MAGA Republicans are Putin apologists” trope. Many on the left simply repeat this mindlessly due to the incessant nature in which this rhetoric is dutifully employed ad nauseam by propaganda merchants in the media. The war in Ukraine, in which the Biden administration has made funding its chief concern above all others, has been a litmus test for the left since the Russian invasion began. The once antiwar American left, now exhibiting a hawkishness that makes Dick Cheney look like a peacenik in comparison, has rallied behind the war, and supports an endless stream of American tax dollars and materiel to be given to Ukraine. Conservatives, and Trump supporters in particular, generally do not view the war effort to be a national priority, or to carry with it any American advantage. In this zero sum atmosphere, to not support the war effort in Ukraine is tantamount to supporting Putin’s desires for conquest.

In a recent tweet, Dugin gives us his predictions for 2024, which shed a unique light into the Putin regime’s wishes for the new year - written in Chinese interestingly enough:

- Russia in Ukraine against the liberal collective of the democratic world and postmodernity in general;

- China vs Taiwan (the latter is underpinned by the exact same Satanist neoliberal world order);

- Middle East resistance against Israel and the United States (again the latter has Western support);

Dugin’s use of the phrase “liberal collective of the democratic world” is a recurring theme in his writings. Dugin offers a deeper reason for Russia’s involvement in Ukraine as a war against “postmodernity in general”, which is of course fostered by the democratic western world. This is also what he refers to as the “Satanist neoliberal world order”. Concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict, Dugin appears to sympathize with the Palestinians, due to his animus towards the west, which of course supports Israel.

Things get much more interesting as he continues:

- Western democracies = enemies. BRICS = allies and friends. Both possess nuclear weapons. The F-16s provided by the United States to Ukraine could trigger a Russian nuclear strike against the United States at any time (Lavrov has announced that we cannot be sure whether the F-16 flights over Ukraine will carry weapons of mass destruction - so if it crosses the line, we will at any time launch the first blow).

Perhaps 2024 will be the last year in human history, and the use of nuclear weapons means the complete end of the material dimension. After that we will return to eternity and the Great Judgment will take place. Could this be the last year of humanity—you never know.

In an almost megalomaniacal tone, Dugin nonchalantly - if not gleefully - calls for a nuclear strike against the US if we “cross the line”. He even acknowledges the American retaliation in response, recognizing that the reality of such an act would mean the “complete end of the material dimension”. Can one assume, due to his proximity, that these are the positions of Vladimir Putin as well? It is important to note that Dugin holds no official position within the Kremlin or the Putin regime; and his sway over the Russian leader has been described as being anywhere from minimal to very influential.

At this point, it’s a good idea to delve into the geopolitical philosophy of this character, so we know fully what we’re dealing with here. Dugin offers us another tweet, this time quoting from his book, Liberal Totalitarianism:

The Special Military Operation (SMO) changed a lot, as the beginning of military actions in Ukraine finally contradicted the liberal dogma: ‘Democracies do not fight against each other.’ And if they do, one of them is not a democracy. And the West easily identified who. Of course, Russia. And specifically, Putin. Thus, the liberal West finally refused to consider us ‘liberals’.

But it seems we still want to prove at any cost: ‘No, we are the real liberals; you are not liberals. You have deviated from liberal democracy, supporting the Nazi regime in Kiev. We remain true to liberal dogmas. After all, they include anti-fascism, and that’s what we are fighting against — Ukrainian fascism — as required by liberal ideology.’

Obviously, there’s a lot to unpack there. Interestingly, it is noteworthy that Dugin sometimes despises liberal democracy, and other times embraces it as a self-imposed description of his own country’s government. This apparent conflict is another recurring theme in his writings. Dugin sees it as an imperative of Russia to fight fascism as a self-described liberal society. Evidently, he ignores the fascist tendencies of his own leader to ruthlessly silence any and all dissent of his regime, the most well known example being in regard to Putin opposition leader Alexey Navalny.

As a side note, I found the comments of Russian President Putin after a conference in Geneva with President Biden concerning the imprisonment of Navalny to be quite intriguing. Biden made it clear that he was concerned with the treatment of Navalny being that his imprisonment was due to his opposition to Putin. Putin brought a sense of rational clarity to the issue by immediately comparing the persecution of January 6th protestors to that of Navalny. Putin stated that the protestors were charged with crimes for their political demands, and that their prosecution infringed upon their 1st amendment rights. Setting aside for a moment the few specific cases where protestors did indeed commit violent acts or otherwise break laws with no political component, I find myself in agreement with Putin - considering some are doing lengthy prison sentences and were not even present at the Capitol that day. Even though the specific circumstances differ, Putin’s point is how can we criticize his treatment of his political opposition, when we are similarly punishing political opposition for an unarmed demonstration that was a far cry from an act of insurrection?

Dugin then goes on to lament the preservation of western liberal norms and customs within the fabric of Russian society, an effort he has termed “liberal totalitarianism”:

We still deal with ‘sovereign liberalism’, i.e., the (contradictory and hopeless) attempt to combine the political sovereignty of the Russian Federation with global Western norms, i.e., with liberal totalitarianism and the omnipotence of the liberal Western elites who seized power in the country in the 1990s.

And the plan of Russian liberals is, even during the SMO, to retain their power over society, culture, science, economy, and education, so that — when all this ends — they can again try to present Russia as a ‘civilised and developed Western state’, where liberal democracy, i.e., the totalitarian dominance of liberals, was preserved even in the most challenging times.

Dugin instead favors a new ethnocentric ultra-nationalist Russian empire, founded on traditionalist principles that exclude western liberalism:

It seems Putin signed Decree 809 on traditional values (directly opposed to liberal ideology), added provisions about the normal family to the Constitution, mentioned God as the immutable foundation of Russian history, banned LGBT movements as extremist, constantly expanded the list of foreign agents, and declared the Russian people a subject of history and Russia a state-civilisation... However, the liberal hegemony in Russia still remains. It has penetrated so deeply into our society that it continues to reproduce itself in new generations of managers, officials, scientists, and educators. And this is not surprising — for over thirty years in Russia, a group of totalitarian liberals has been in power, having established a method of self-reproduction at the head of the state. And this is despite President Putin’s sovereign course.

This dynamic is absolutely fascinating. And it is here where we finally get perhaps some insight into why the American left is so quick to paint those to the right of themselves as admirers of Putin. These efforts to ingrain traditional values into Russian society may at first seem to mirror aspects of what rightwing conservatives tend to favor, but with a glaring difference. Second only to God and family, conservatives value the Bill of Rights, which fundamentally enshrines western liberalism into the fabric of American society - an act that Dugin, and presumably Putin, no doubt find abhorrent. In using the state to outlaw and punish movements that are found to be anathema to the regime, Putin is in direct conflict with western conservative values which uphold the freedom of speech, expression, and association as fundamental to a free society.

Dugin treads dangerously close to Maoist cultural revolution tendencies as he elucidates his disgust with the guardians of what he calls “liberal hegemony” - which includes “managers, officials, scientists, and educators” who protect and keep alive the spirit of western liberalism through the arts and sciences. Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong had similar proclivities, as his Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was marked by the “purging of political enemies, the destruction of cultural symbols, the banning of western influences, and the cult of personality around Mao” (SOURCE).

Another tweet in which Dugin quotes his book Liberal Totalitarianism, offers his perspective on globalism:

…liberal dogma denies sovereignty altogether and advocates for national states to be abolished and integrated into a supranational world government structure.

Is this true? In our study of classical western liberalism, no globalist tendencies are found. Liberalism in the classic sense refers to the basic idea that above all else, government should concern itself with the preservation of individual liberty and freedom. These freedoms are not endowed by government, but rather our Creator. Globalism chiefly concerns itself with global homogeneity and collectivism; denying individual autonomy and instead favoring allegiance to the central globalist government. A world order in this regard would necessitate the dissolution of national borders, national identity, national language, and national culture - all of which are alien concepts to the idea of classical western liberalism.

Rather than liberalism, these concepts much more fit the model of progressivism - which seems to rule American culture at the moment. Instead of God in the classic sense, progressives worship secular humanism and its hedonistic tendencies. The sexualization of children through drag performances in schools, the war on natural gender roles, and the demand that society accept these things without question are all testaments to this new progressive dogma. It is true that so many of those at the forefront of the progressive movement were formerly liberals in the American sense. The “fundamental change” of America as promised and delivered by the Obama administration fostered the rapid transformation of liberals into progressives, among ushering in many other undesirable metamorphoses that took place across the American sociopolitical landscape at that time, and up to present.

Perhaps I am in possession of a uniquely American sense of western liberalism, overly idealized in the minds and pens of those who cherish American liberty as we have enjoyed it since our comparatively recent inception on the world stage. Western liberalism does indeed favor globalization - as world free trade and opening up communication and education across the globe does aid in economic opportunity and freedom of the world’s denizens. But though semantically similar, globalization is a far cry from globalism in practice.

The American political arena is very dichotomous in nature, given that we are a two party system. People on both the left and right tend to see issues almost entirely through one lens or the other. But in studying the geopolitical views of Dugin, and and possibly the Putin regime by extension, one is wise to apply some nuance to the discussion. On the one hand, Dugin tends to favor the conservative values evident in Putin’s Decree 809 honoring God and the traditional nuclear family in Russian society. On the other hand, he tends to favor far left - if not communist - sentiments regarding the abatement of western culture, ethnocentricity, and the sovereignty of the Russian leader. These elements echo the likes of Stalin or Mao in their utility as organizing principles of society. So one concludes that shoehorning Dugin, et al. into either an American leftwing or rightwing container is shortsighted, and frankly, erroneous. One thing remains clear however, Dugin is no fan of western culture or even modernity in general. His political views are a patchwork of components borrowed from philosophies of both the left and right (i.e. communist and fascist) - the common thread being the elimination of western influence.

I want to address one more important thought before concluding. I see no evidence in the writings of Dr. Dugin or elsewhere that would encourage one to believe that the Putin regime has any designs on world conquest, and therefore needs to be contained militarily in order to prevent some sort of broad scale European invasion. Furthermore, I am personally inclined to believe that the Biden administration has placed so much focus on Ukraine due to personal reasons rather than over national security concerns. I say this fully realizing that such an opinion may be unpopular or even inflammatory. Nevertheless, I am without compelling evidence to the contrary. At any rate, despite finding few areas of agreement with the philosophy of Dr. Aleksandr Dugin, as a student of world affairs and geopolitical dynamics, I find his positions to be interesting, and I welcome his freely sharing and disseminating his views - as any western liberal worth his salt would.

Some 2,400 years ago, the ancient father of philosophy Socrates was placed on trial in what is probably the most well known tribunal where ideas that threatened the prevailing power structure were held to account. Most recall the method of execution - forced drinking of (most likely) hemlock poison - that Socrates suffered; but the arguments and charges brought are fascinating in their own right, and offer valuable lessons for us in modern western society today.

The specific charges brought against Socrates stemmed from the accusation of impiety, or desecrating the gods and pertinent religious structure recognized by Athens at the time. The most serious of charges that Socrates was accused of were “corrupting the youth” and “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges”. The latter charge carried the death penalty upon conviction, since atheism was in no way permitted in ancient Athens. Socrates was additionally charged with less serious offenses known as the “old accusations”, but for brevity’s sake we will only deal with the more severe ones previously mentioned here.

Contrary to what some may think, Athenian society at the time viewed the search for wisdom and philosophical pursuits to be a waste of time. Socrates knew that his dialogues in the streets and marketplaces made him an unpopular figure among the Athenian elite, and that the deck was stacked against him upon entering his trial. Additionally, being a well-known figure for years had brought with it the misfortune of having playwrights and other social critics of the time help to shape the views of the judges since their youth. His detractors would often paint Socrates as a subversive atheist in such works, a charge that Socrates himself vehemently denied in his defense, calling them a product of malicious slander.

The final verdict from the 501 jurors resulted in 280 for guilty, and 221 not guilty. It is said that Socrates actually appeared shocked that the verdict was so close, fully expecting to be roundly condemned by the biased tribunal. Sticking with tradition, Socrates was allowed to suggest what his own punishment should be. It was even offered that Socrates could pay a fine and agree to desist in his actions that brought him to trial, which would allow him to escape capital punishment for his supposed crimes. In response to this however, Socrates uttered the famous words, “An unexamined life is not worth living”; meaning that frankly he would prefer death over the prospect of living a life devoid of philosophical pursuits. True to his conviction, Socrates drank from the infamous poison cup, and the rest is history.

So what does all of this have to do with the present? One of the prizes of Athenian culture at that time was the right to free speech. Athenian society viewed itself as the bastion of intellectual exploration and philosophical inquiry. And yet, when this climate of freedom produced the ultimate product of these ideals in Socrates, they executed him for it.

Socrates unspoken crime was having the audacity to question the status quo. His manner wasn’t one of a flowery orator bellowing on for hours about the erudite topics considered to be revered among the Athenian upper crust. Socrates would simply employ what has become known eponymously as the socratic method, as he would ask his subjects questions, inspire them to question themselves, and question those things taken for granted at the time. This of course included questioning the power dynamic and religious structures that dictated Athenian life. He wasn’t a revolutionary in the sense of attempting to cultivate sedition among the masses; but his way of inspiring one to consider the reasons why society was ordered in the way it was, instead of obediently accepting it as an inevitable part of life started to threaten the power structure, and struck fear in the hearts of those wielding power within Athenian society.

We in the modern west have long ago abandoned a religiously organized society, whether pantheistic or monotheistic, and have instead borrowed from the ancient Greeks in employing a structure based on individual freedom, liberalism, and a republican form of government that utilizes basic principles of democracy. In doing so we have enshrined self-governance as the superior form of governance that prizes individuality and self-determination. However, in recent decades, a slow and creeping diabolical form of illiberalism has taken root in the four pillars of culture - academic, media, entertainment, and political. As of late, it seems that this cancer is spreading more and more rapidly and with more audacity than ever before.

A foundational principle built into American society has been the idea that all men are created equal and are equal in the eyes of law. This idea has allowed America to flourish as it creates a level playing field that holds everyone accountable to the same standard of law and order regardless of class, status, or individual immutable characteristics. The feudal structures of the past and its baked in protections for those of nobility and the elite are rendered void according to the founding principles of the United States. Speaking truth to power, and the right to worship or not worship as one pleases, without government persecution as enshrined in the first amendment to the US Constitution, was a revolutionary ideal that has made American life the envy of the world for so many systematically oppressed by their governments.

While the ancient Greeks prized free speech, they also considered their religious pantheon sacrosanct, and would abandon their liberalism in order to defend the religious order and punish those attempting to undermine it. In today’s western society, a new order has become the modern dogma by which all are expected to revere and hold sacred. Instead of a religious orthodoxy, the new doctrine is purely secular and humanist in nature. There is an effort to abandon the idea of equality under the law and instead embrace an egalitarian view that some are more equal than others, and that sociopolitical power centers must utilize their respective cudgels in order to rectify the inequalities and enforce the new order.

This “new order” has become a guiding doctrine within progressive circles, and is presented as enlightenment among leftists. The same political factions once known as liberal for embracing free speech and expression that challenged the status quo, have shifted to a radically illiberal view that is rigid and inflexible in its pronouncements.

As a specific example of this phenomenon, one can examine the evolution of the LGB movement into the LGBTQIA+++ movement. In the latter 1970s and into the 1980s, gay Americans were starting to come “out of the closet” as it were, and demanded to be viewed as equals and no longer as repulsive second class citizens. And in a purely free society that held all men equal regardless of various factors, they had a valid point. Over the next decade, progress was made in this area, and gays and lesbians were able to successfully integrate into society without having to pretend to be something else. They became doctors, lawyers, firemen, sales clerks, and cab drivers - just like everyone else; while being able to be who they were without persecution. It seemed for a while that everyone was happy, as straight and gay people lived in harmony as neighbors, with neither one demanding too much of the other outside of the normal expectations of a civil society. In short, gay Americans wanted nothing more than tolerance from their fellow Americans, which allowed them to flourish.

Sometime into the 21st century, the LGB acronym started to slowly acquire more letters, as widespread tolerance encouraged more people to be open with their alternative lifestyles. Parallel with this occurrence, the politics of grievance started to take root within the various cultural channels. Certain groups claimed they were oppressed by other groups, and that the latter owed the former. As this mindset became more widespread, social victim status became the prize. The further away one’s identity group was from what was considered traditional, the more social victimhood one had claim to. Transgender people had still been living somewhat on the fringes of society, and transgenderism wasn’t a well-known or widely understood lifestyle in the early 2000s. However, as they began to find a home within the LGB community, they became more widely recognized. That recognition coupled with their social victim status, imbued them with power as a social group. As the progressive left began to coddle them as poor victims of injustice, they were no longer satisfied with the quest for tolerance as gay and lesbian Americans had been years earlier. Their demand for tolerance transformed into a demand for acceptance; and acceptance evolved into validation; and validation eventually into advocacy; and now advocacy into endorsement. Currently, one who does not openly endorse with all sincerity the burgeoning transgender movement - which has now found itself flourishing even in elementary schools - is considered backward and bigoted by the prevailing progressive social power dynamic.

It has been suggested by some that the LGB movement divest itself from the more radical elements that have attached themselves, since their goals are not generally aligned. One could argue that the noxious berating that emanates from the radical transgender activist set has done much more damage to the original LGB movement than any outside force ever could. An uptick in gay Americans finding themselves more comfortable within more conservative circles reflects this dynamic. Americans have always prided themselves on being able to freely support and reject that which their conscience dictates. However, the growing illiberal dogma being cultivated within modern culture has more and more demanded homogenous adherence without question to the progressive woke orthodoxy. Much like it was in Socrates’ day, today’s religious fervor centers around the hedonistic pursuits of the individual and society’s advocacy and untempered support of it. To question that new structure, or inspire a resistance to it, is to “fail to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges”. To call out ideas such as forced sterilization and hormone blockers for prepubescent children as ludicrous is to “corrupt the minds of the youth” in the eyes of the woke faithful and progressive acolytes religiously devoted to far left secular ideals.

This current trend is starting to spin out of control as progressives become more and more dogmatic, and demand the validation of ideas that compromise the basic tenets of individual liberty, such as parental rights. A child still in their parent’s care is too young to be totally self-deterministic, and so common sense dictates that such a responsibility is to be housed within the child’s parents. However, many progressive factions are advocating for the state to be able to force policies upon children without parental consent, some even claiming that parents have no right to have a say in their child’s education.

This new progressive orthodoxy is being hailed as enlightenment, when in fact, it is deeply illiberal and regressive to its core. While one shouldn’t expect literal trials and executions for rejecting woke precepts anytime soon as Socrates did for bucking the religious structures of his day, denouncing the fervent leftist dogma for what it is will incur social penalties for those who dare speak out.

The number of children claiming to be transgender and seeking what is unironically called “gender affirming care” has reached a fever pitch, as numbers have almost tripled between 2017 and 2021. To offer any other view other than these children are truly suffering a legitimate psychological medical condition and are victims of circumstance is viewed as sacrilege. Children have always been subject to social pressures within their peer groups, and social media has made these interactions instantaneous and worldwide. It is viewed as a badge of honor among the youth of today to claim to suffer from some form of gender crisis, and to seek medical relief from it. Progressive parents are all too willing in many cases to offer their children as a sacrifice upon the altars of secular leftism and subject them to treatments for diseases they may not even suffer from. In a growing number of cases, these children grow out of their gender questioning phase, and regret any treatments they may have received, electing to start the de-transitioning process. Chloe Cole is one such teen, and has made it her mission to warn others of a corrupt system and social climate that rewards gender dysphoria - even if such a diagnosis is false. One need look no further than the response to one of Ms. Cole’s presentations by the radical left who obviously feel that she is another example of one committing the same crime charged of Socrates, “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges”.

If we are to continue to thrive as the free culture we have always known, we must be willing to confront this malicious and malignant illiberalism that has a chokehold on our culture. It is paramount that we defend the right of all citizens to be self-determinant, while protecting the rights of the vulnerable. The current woke “enlightenment” is indeed a prison, unwavering, unforgiving, and collectivist in its ideals. It does not offer a path to freedom and liberty, but a brutal dungeon that permits no intransigence. Those truly suffering from legitimate gender dysphoria should have the same rights as anyone else seeking medical care, but shouldn’t be hailed as cultural icons or heroes simply for seeking relief from a psychological condition. Likewise, those cautioning against finding a transgender tempest in every teapot shouldn’t be castigated or reviled for suggesting balance or restraint. A society that punishes the exploration of ideas, even if those ideas are held with religious conviction, isn’t worth living in - as Socrates himself ultimately agreed with.

As I’m reading a recent piece by Alex Perez for The Free Press, I am pleased with the rebellion and subsequent awakenings experienced by talented young writers such as he; and their reluctance to mindlessly hop on the express train to mainstream literary veneration, an honor which is imposed upon one for the paltry sum of his very soul. This crown is adorned after passing through the necessary halls of ideological purification, in order to screen out undesirable characteristics such as possessing a penchant for questioning modern progressive orthodoxy.

Perez documents the modernist sociopolitical climate that animates the waxy world of Manhattan publishing:

For years, there has been a growing politicization inside the industry, which editors describe as a slowly percolating illiberalism that makes it difficult to publish books by authors who don’t adhere to the new dogma... books should advance the narrative that people of color are victims of white supremacy; and nonblack and non-Latino authors should avoid characters who are black and Latino—even if their characters toe the officially approved narrative.

In an incredibly entertaining interview with Hobart back in September of 2022, Perez unleashes upon a very deserving literary world manned with wealthy, white, and predominantly female gatekeepers hellbent on defending and promoting the “Narrative”:

My take is the only take and the one everyone knows to be true but only admits in private: the literary world only accepts work that aligns with the progressive/woke point of view of rich coastal liberals. This is a mindset that views “whiteness” and America as inherently problematic, if not evil, and this sensibility animates every decision made by publishers/editors/agents. White people bad. Brown people good. America bad. Men bad. White women, I think, bad…unless they don a pussy hat. This explains why nearly every book is about some rich fuck from Brooklyn confronting his white guilt or some poor black girl who’s been fighting “whiteness” and “patriarchy” all her life. All this stuff is ideologically-driven horseshit propagated by some of the most artless people on the planet.

As one could imagine, the “ideologically-driven” and “artless” were overcome with the vapors in response, which was documented in Literary Hub; and which unironically vindicated Perez’s claims, by literally acting them out in their outrage. A rebel in their midst, especially one who features such immutable characteristics as having Cuban blood, and yet having the gall to not express gratitude to his white overlords for their benevolence - cannot be tolerated.

The byline at the end of the Free Press piece labels Perez a “cultural critic”. I became rather envious of this title. I’ve always been somewhat of a critic of culture myself, but to actually be officially recognized with such a mantle? This got me thinking about what requirements one must possess in order to attain the rank of cultural critic proper in today’s context. In days gone by, a white male heterosexual cultural critic wasn’t hard to come by as evidenced by the likes of such stalwarts as H.L. Mencken; Irving Babbitt, Richard M. Weaver, and countless others. However, in today’s climate, and with few notable exceptions, one must present the credentials of one historically victimized by men with such demographic descriptions in order to be accepted as a serious cultural critic. Otherwise, it is widely viewed, one possesses no standing to criticize the culture which afforded him the ubiquitous “white privilege” that he consequently enjoys regardless of his acknowledgement of it, or the tangible lack of its fruits, in his personal life.

So the question becomes, do I over emphasize the personal impact of my maternal grandfather’s part Cherokee bloodline in order to achieve the necessary clout needed today to earn the distinction of legitimate cultural critic? Or perhaps my Irish heritage inherited through my father? Of course the latter still curses me with that infernal whiteness - great-grandson of immigrants be damned.

There’s a paradox here that the sardonic poet within me cannot ignore. Social victimhood is today a prized currency sought by many, particularly advocated for within the hallowed halls of progressive academia. The further one is distanced from the accursed whiteness on the two-dimensional lateral spectrum apparently ranging from whiteness to non-whiteness, the more one enjoys in the social currency of that precious victimhood. Inexplicably, possessing characteristics having nothing to do with race, such as being non-heterosexual or female, scores on the graph - even if those individuals happen to actually be adorned with white skin. As C.E. Matias pointed out in his paper, Feeling White: Whiteness, emotionality, and education (2016), whiteness is “a state of being which extends beyond racial identity”. So it is evident, according to scholars, that the whiteness can be featured on those who aren’t white; and absent on whites displaying absolving traits that seem to counteract its effects.

It is currently unknown where “part Cherokee” falls on the scale - but it didn’t work for Senator Elizabeth Warren, who inconveniently forgot that she, being a progressive woman, already enjoyed a status removed from the repulsive whiteness - despite being quite wealthy, a wielder of significant power, and whiter than most. It is because of these latter traits that a sense of guilt afflicted her, which set her upon the quest to claim a lineage to which she did not belong, but wasn’t potent enough to entice her to divest of those characteristics which were non-immutable.

And herein lies the aforementioned paradox. Historically, those victimized by power structures prevalent in any society kept them distanced from attaining power within that system. Within the confines of modern western society however, the further away from the whiteness and into the realm of victimhood one progresses, the more social and cultural power one is imbued with. This dynamic, in turn, removes the power from the ones afflicted with the whiteness, who are indeed still cast as the oppressors - sans the power to oppress. Meanwhile, those most heralded as progressive visionaries are granted a permanent deferment from even participating in the whiteness model, even though they themselves tend to be white, well-heeled, powerful, and live in homogenous communities exclusive to carbon copies of themselves.

Since whiteness is a social condition that can be applied, modified, and removed arbitrarily, those who most reflect its properties can be completely exonerated from it - if they belong to the proper sociopolitical factions, and enthusiastically adhere to its dogma. Today’s Democrat party, far removed from its once liberal roots, and instead firmly planted in the illiberal soil of progressivism, is a safe haven for those that meet these requirements. As an aside, it’s now universally and conveniently ignored that the Democrat party is responsible for the American southern slave trade, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and the filibustering of the Civil Rights Act for at least a decade, finally relenting in 1964, instead of the mid 50s.

Those incommodious bastards that still hold to the ancient unfashionable ideals of faith, family, and country, are permanently branded with the whiteness, regardless of how destitute financially or decimated by the opioid epidemic they may be. They tend to exalt the Bible and revere the US Constitution - an irrefutable ticket to whiteness - and especially appeal to the first two amendments, which is entirely revolting to the white, elite, power brokers so far removed from the scourge of whiteness.

As nothing more than a white fellow, with little to offer in the form of social currency - save a dubious claim to some distant native American ancestry - my hopes of earning that coveted badge of accredited cultural critic may be unattainable. Furthermore, as a liberty-loving individual that rejects the current progressive Bolshevik style social power structure, I am certainly plagued with the whiteness, and permanently disfigured by its grotesque manifestations. To be clear, I am not lamenting my current situation, but rather taking aim at the absurdity of modern leftist intellect. Evidently, the further a society is removed from the knowledge of true suffering and oppression, the greater the urgency to attempt to invent it at every turn.

Whether or not my personal contributions in the effort of critiquing culture are met with acceptance remains to be seen. Regardless, I am comforted by the knowledge that Mr. Perez is making an impact as the type of cultural critic we are severely lacking, but desperately need at this time. And I, for one, tip my hat to him.