fbpx

Our Great Awokening and France’s Great Terror

As efforts intensify to purge anyone and anything from Western culture that offends the illiberal left’s sensitivities, the fanaticism which drives the Great Awokening has become abundantly evident. To question the 1619 project’s factual veracity, for example, is seen as evidence of implicit racism. Any confidence that the American Founding has something to teach the world is considered an instance of what Marxists call “false consciousness.” References to reason, evidence, rule of law, or the West’s Jewish and Christian heritages are viewed as the language of someone hopelessly in thrall to “Eurocentric” outlooks.

What impresses me, however, is less the historically-illiterate justifications offered for the decapitation of statutes of Christopher Columbus, than the righteous fury visible in the eyes of those shouting slogans like “Rhodes Must Fall!” Prudence, circumspection, and subtly are out. Raw emotion and ideological purity are in. You are either with us or against us. And if you don’t endorse everything that we—the woke—think, say and do, be prepared to face the consequences.

The problem is that once that particular tiger gets out of its cage, putting it back in is extremely difficult. There are always plenty on the left willing to be more radical than thou, and who will interpret any reticence to affirm wholeheartedly their positions as prima facie evidence of backsliding or outright treachery. That’s a dynamic which we’re seen before with people like Che Guevara and Lenin. But the standard-setter for such behavior was the French Revolution’s most violent stage, commonly known as la Terreur.

From Hope and Anticipation, to Fear and Trembling

Few events have been more thoroughly parsed, praised, and castigated as the French Revolution. That owes something to the sense that the Revolution was one of those rare occasions that represented a decisive break with the past. Contemporary witnesses describe the millenarian-like hopes that permeated French society in the immediate aftermath of 1789. But fascination with the French Revolution also has much to do with another factor: the penchant for frenzied violence which raised its head right from the beginning.

Every Revolution has its casualties. Loyalists were among those of the American Revolution. Many of them were subject to anti-Tory laws which ranged from being disenfranchised to large fines. Compared, however, to other revolutions, the Loyalists got off lightly. The Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917 was followed by the targeting of anyone officially designated by the new regime as “former people.” Arbitrary imprisonment, confiscation of property, and terror were used ruthlessly against groups like the nobility, but gradually extended to categories who had hardly been friends of the Czarist regime: classical liberals, constitutionalists, businessmen, etc.

It was, however, the French Revolution which established the modern benchmark for systematic violence against anyone insufficiently in sync with the political views of whoever is in charge at any given moment. Many of the Revolution’s early leaders—people like the American Revolutionary hero, the Marquis de Lafayette—quickly became persona non grata as the revolutionary tumult escalated through successive thresholds of rage. Those revolutionaries who managed to transition through each stage were few in number. Many eventually found themselves strapped to a guillotine. Others eked out miserable existences in exile alongside the royalists who preceded them.

Over the past two centuries, many explanations have been offered for the frantic character of the Revolution’s violence. They include pent-up resentment against the old regime, fears of fifth columnists who might help invading foreign armies, concerns about counter-revolutionary plots, and the outbreak of full-scale popular uprisings in 1793 against the Paris government in provinces ranging from the Vendée to Brittany and cities like Marseille and Lyon. Virtually all historians of the Revolution underscore the widespread paranoia that occupied the minds of Revolutionary leaders but also many ordinary citizens, particularly those living in cities and for whom politics had become the be-all and end-all of life.

There was, however, something else at work which became apparent after Louis XVI’s execution on January 21, 1793, and the subsequent acceleration of tensions between the two groups which then dominated Revolutionary politics: the Girondins and the Jacobins. While the former were considered more moderate than the latter, both groups were firmly on the left of the revolutionary scale. That, however, didn’t save the Girondins from being destroyed by the logic that came to direct French political life and which resulted in thousands being executed before the Terror ended with the guillotining of the man most associated with it on July 28, 1794.

One Single Will

Given his public reputation as the Terror’s chief architect, many are surprised to learn that Maximilian Robespierre wasn’t the most extreme Jacobin. As a group, those associated with the Jacobin Club were divided into factions constantly at odds with each other. Some like Jacques Hébert, leader of the Hébertistes and editor of the radical newspaper Le Père Duchesne, were far to Robespierre’s left. Neither the Hébertistes’ inclination to militant atheism nor their desire for direct state control of much of the economy were to Robespierre’s taste. Others, such as Georges Danton, eventually gravitated to Robespierre’s right. Danton had played a major role in the Monarchy’s overthrow in August 1792 and did nothing to stop the September Massacres which followed. By late-1793, however, Danton had become convinced of the folly of persecuting the Church and was calling for an end to extreme revolutionary violence.

In a way, however, the details of these policy differences were unimportant to Robespierre and close allies like Louis Antoine de Saint-Just. What really mattered to Robespierre was that there could be no differences. According to Robespierre, France needed what he famously called une volonté une (one single will). In this ideal, he believed, was to be found the Revolution’s ultimate security and salvation from its enemies, foreign and domestic.

As a scholarship boy at one of France’s most prestigious schools, the Lycée Louis-le-Grand, Robespierre had been influenced by two sets of writings which featured significantly during the late-French Enlightenment. The first were classical texts which extolled the virtues of the Roman Republic and its leaders. The second were the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, especially his 1762 book Du contrat social (The Social Contract), and his popularization of what was called la volonté générale.

Words like “compromise,” “tolerance,” and “moderation” do not form part of the lexicon of wokery. 

For Rousseau, the “general will” didn’t necessarily mean what an actual majority of people in a given political society wanted. Rather, it was the basis for the legitimacy of any government that acted for the well-being of all the people rather than sectional interests. Robespierre took this concept of the general will, but conflated the government and the people at the expense of the latter. “The Government,” he once proclaimed, “has to defend itself against all the factions which attack it; the punishment of the people’s enemies is death.” To criticize the government was thus to be against the people. Ergo, the government could claim that any strike which it launched against its opponents was a strike against “the people’s enemies.”

As Robespierre saw it, Revolutionary France was riddled with factions (including those which split the Jacobins) and threatened by those who wished to overthrow the government. Consequently, it was the responsibility of the virtuous to strike ruthlessly, in a manner akin to Marcus Junius Brutus’ slaying of Gaius Julius Caesar, against those who stood in the way of the “one single will.” For Robespierre, such enemies of the Republic included those Girondins who had compromised their revolutionary credentials by working with Louis XVI before August 1792, promotors of faction like Danton and Hébert, and those simply incapable of attaining republican virtue (nobles, old regime officials, clergy loyal to Rome, etc.). Expelling these disparate groups from the body politic was how you ensured the general will prevailed and finally realized a united, indivisible and virtuous Republic—that is, one single will.

Naturally, there was a raw power-play dimension to all this. Robespierre saw people like Hébert and Danton as threating his dominance of the government. But it is impossible to underestimate the effects of the depth of Robespierre’s commitment to his ideology: one which led to the inexorable conclusion that being a virtuous citizen of the Republic (like Brutus) meant being willing to use extreme violence (like Brutus) against its foes. Robespierre spelt this out in a speech in February 1794 when the Terror was at its height:

If virtue be the spring of a popular government in times of peace, the spring of that government during a revolution is virtue combined with terror: virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country.

Such thinking is what resulted in about 17,000 people being officially “kissed by Madame Guillotine,” as the saying went, in the name of virtue.

Beware the Coming of the Reign of Wokedom

Two things eventually brought Robespierre undone. The first was the economic crisis which engulfed France in the form of food-shortages and rampant inflation throughout 1794. Given his preeminence in the revolutionary regime, Robespierre become increasingly unpopular among Paris’s hyper-politicized population.

More importantly, enough Revolutionary leaders recognized that the logical conclusion of Robespierre’s outlook was the destruction of anyone who did not fully adopt his positions, and therefore a series of continuous purges with no apparent endpoint. On July 26, 1794, Robespierre effectively confirmed such trepidations when he gave a speech to the National Convention and then to the Jacobin Club arguing that the time had come to “Punish the traitors, purge the bureau of the Committee of General Security, purge the Committee itself, and subordinate it to the Committee of Public Safety, purge the Committee of Public Safety itself and create a unified government under the supreme authority of the Convention!”

This call for the elimination of anyone not 100 percent behind Robespierre led enough Convention members to summon up the courage to purge the master-purger himself. After a short and violent political struggle, Robespierre and 21 of his supporters were guillotined on July 28 at the Place de la Révolution. The Terror was over. But it seared France’s political culture for decades afterward.

The parallels between the France of 1793-1794 and our present Great Awokening are not exact. The historical circumstances are very different. We are not living in the shadow of an old regime. The woke have not seized the levers of political power in the way that Robespierre and his followers did.

The primary similarity between revolutionaries like Robespierre and twenty-first century wokedom is a yearning for ever-increasing ideological purity, something which lends itself to identifying more and more categories of people and ideas as unacceptable. That generates chronic instability as people can never quite know if they and their ideas remain among the elect. Indeed, cancel culture cannot help but actively seek out opponents whose existence is seen as obstructing the creation of a new world purified of error. For without new enemies, it loses its raison d’être.

In this light, those contemporary Girondins who dominate larger municipal governments throughout America and who rule the universities throughout Western countries, would be foolish to imagine that the illiberal left can somehow be placated by letting them riot, loot small businesses, and destroy public monuments. Words like “compromise,” “tolerance,” and “moderation” do not form part of the lexicon of wokery. After all, once “one single will” has been established, such habits become superfluous.

Perhaps at some point, the woke will turn on themselves as they try to outdo each other in showing whose consciousness has been raised the most. Unless or until that happens, however, anyone who sits on the vast spectrum from the liberal-minded left through to conservative traditionalists should have no illusions that the woke—like Robespierre—will be satisfied with anything less than complete submission. And that would represent the end of liberty in any meaningful sense as well as the civilization which gave rise to it. 

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on June 25, 2020 at 09:41:57 am

The woke have not seized the levers of political power in the way that Robespierre and his followers did.

Not sure this is right. In the French Revolution, as in the Bolshevik Revolution, power is seized gradually, then suddenly (1789 - 1793). In our case, we have seen revealed since 2016 the infiltration of the federal bureaucracy by persons sympathetic (an understatement) to the woke-progressive political agenda; actually it was apparent long before that. This is why keeping HRC out of the WH was so essential; all restraints on the depredations of that apparatus would have simply evaporated. Now we see state and municipal governments fully on board with said agenda. The question is always, who is using whom? Officials always believe they can keep the mob from hounding them out of office and public life by getting ahead of the mob's political demands, always failing to understand that this cannot save them because the issue is not what but who: only by evicting whatever officials there now are, no matter how they might grovel before it, can the mob feel its exercise of power. Only too late do officials understand their error. (And yes, the woke will turn against one another in an orgy of violence (as one figure in the Chinese Cultural revolution said at one point in the proceedings: "This revolution is a revolution against the ones who carried out the revolution."))

As for Robespierre's theory of terror, today's wokeists haven't the intellectual horsepower nor learning to think in such terms. No, for them, the basis for their self-understanding is the much simpler and clearer formulation of Madame Mao: "When bad people get beaten by good people, they deserve it."

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on July 01, 2020 at 11:17:27 am

The modern Robespierre types have gained power in Democratic-controlled states and cities--and their
goal is the federal government via their zombie
candidate for president.

read full comment
Image of John Braeman
John Braeman
on June 25, 2020 at 10:01:53 am

Bravo! Here are my thoughts on this issue:
There is much package dealing that is regrettably involved in the legitimate attempts to raise awareness of folks to racial injustice, but I will not focus on that. Further, it is not the tearing down or defacing of statues per se that is the central problem. Rather, it is the lack of discernment to the nuances of life and the failure to appreciate the context in which people lived that disturbs me. But even more disturbing, it is the attempt to erase a culture, which for all its faults has made liberty its touchstone. It is this culture that provides the basis for how we understand our symbols. Indeed, it seems that this culture is to be replaced by a new one that does not see liberty as the paramount value for the political/legal order. Certainly, it is not the province of the state to try to establish a given culture, but if we are to have a society that not only defends but also understands liberty, then we need to work to have a culture that understands the importance and value of its symbols. Here our educational institutions have generally failed us. Finally, we may need to add more symbols and/or put certain symbols in a museum rather than in places of honor, but we must remember what liberty is and make it central to our culture.

read full comment
Image of Douglas B. Rasmussen
Douglas B. Rasmussen
on June 25, 2020 at 16:41:17 pm

“… we must remember what liberty is and make it central to our culture.” For me the road to liberty (R2L) requires that we face Reality and accept Responsibility for what we find. Liberty is not license (but if anyone can clarify for me the distinction between the words liberty and freedom, if any, I would welcome that feedback).

The reality is that the progressive leftist Gramscian march through the institutions has been altogether too successful while we conservative liberty lovers let it happen on our (OK Boomer) watch; and we now have the responsibility to reverse it if at all possible (L&L being one thread in the fabric to do that). Other realities include a national debt that cannot be repaid and will require a responsible form of defaulting; the science on global warming and/or energy policy is not settled but any discussion of these topics that does not mention nuclear energy is irresponsible; and a dozen other economic and geopolitical items probably better discussed in some other forum. But in relation to today’s essay: can we recognize and avoid the tipping point leading to the killing fields of CW 2.0? The “woke” are not the only ones who need to “be awake”.

read full comment
Image of R2L
R2L
on June 25, 2020 at 10:25:43 am

I wrote this over the weekend... Looks like it is being addressed this week.

Reflections on the Revolution in Woke-istan
The soliloquies that transpired from the George Floyd tragedy are highlighting a weakness in the arguments made by Conservatives and Classical Liberals. The Right of center philosophies may need to reconsider how they respond to the wave of extreme Progressivism that appears to be sweeping across the nation. The issue is the ideological core of modern Progressivism and a possible misunderstanding from the Right. The Progressive theme of concern can be found in Trevor Noah’s The Daily Show monologue, Kimberly Latrice Jones’ profanity laced viral video, or in an article at the American Spectator, all concerning a social contract.
Most counter-arguments against Progressivism involve a refutation of Marxism. Doing a search for “Marxism” on Conservative and other Right of center websites will reveal hundreds of articles. The scope of these articles argues the historical tally of deaths caused by the caustic ideology of Marxism, economic data showing the Marxist misrepresentations of tradeoffs, and general warnings about Marxist Collectivism creating harmful societal division. The Right has perfected the counter-arguments to Marxism since the beginning of the Cold War. However, no matter how fact based these arguments are, there seems to be a rising tide in Progressivism with its Marxist solutions. The argument to consider is, Marxism may be ancillary to the root premise of modern Progressivism and the rising Leftist tide is being unchecked and ignored due to a reliance on the Right’s anti-Marxist argument.
The “social contract” speak may be the key to winning the argument. Woke rants about how the contract has been broken and the justification for violent forms of protest runs deeper than Marxism and is found in Rousseau and Robespierre. Rousseau’s Social Contract involved his concept of the General Will and pure democracy enforcing the General Will of the people on society. Robespierre, the head of the Comité de salut public in Revolutionary France was a devout disciple of Rousseau and legitimized the use of terrorism to invoke the General Will. In his speech “Justification on the Use in Terror”, Robespierre stated, “Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty's despotism against tyranny.” This violent and democratic extremism is manifesting itself today. However, the 21st Century version of this dangerous Rousseau inspired woke fervor of Robespierre has replaced the guillotine with doxxing, vandalism, and violent forms of protest. The ends justify the means when bringing us all into conformity of the Progressive General Will.
Instead of countering Marx, Classical Liberals and Conservatives may need to brush up on their Locke and Burke so that they can debate the Rousseau premise of the Progressive argument. Bringing these two forefathers of Conservatism into the 21st Century is sorely needed and will serve to counter the premise that modern Progressivism relies. In his “Reflections on the Revolution in France”, Burke wrote that the laws and government were passed down through each generation. Each generation is able to make modifications of the law. However, if man is allowed to destroy what was given to him by his ancestors, two wrongs are committed. The first is that it erases the generations of wisdom put into the maintenance of the laws, government, and society as a whole. The second is that this destruction is then taught to and left as an example for future generations to emulate. The end result is that man loses his sense of history and connection with his ancestors, and that “men would become little better than the flies of a summer”. The remedy to fix mistakes is not destruction, but a slow pulse guided by prudence and pragmatism. Furthermore, Burke comments that the confiscation of Church property in France destroys the institution that provided French society with the basis of right and wrong, and that the decay caused by their Rousseau inspired ideology is creating a mutinous military that will support the revolutionaries. Burke’s work then goes on to predict the Reign of Terror and the tyranny that consumes France for decades, 10 years before it happens. The parallels to today are uncanny.
In Locke, the argument is that representative forms of government (as opposed to the pure democracy of Rousseau) create just laws. In his “Second Treasties on Government”, Locke writes that the first act of a society to establish the rules of the legislative body. In doing so, laws are developed through the "consent and appointment of the people". Locke then contrasts this with the illegitimacy of a man or group of men making laws outside of this structure. It is these laws, the laws of the unelected mob, which our contract allows us not to obey.
One can see the wisdom and benefits of a Lockean contract theory of a representative government that incorporates the Burkean prudence and pragmatism as its guide, allowing it to evolve with society. Careful deliberation and consecutive governing coalitions are the key to a stable government (which creates conditions for long-term economic prosperity), minority protections, and liberty. This stands in stark contrast to Rousseau, Robespierre, and Marx, who claim to offer liberty and equality but deliver the opposite.
It is dangerous to dismiss the vocal Progressives as petulant children or precocious adolescents enamored with fantasies of revolution and thinking they are clever when quoting Marx or Nietzsche. Their ideological leaders are false prophets spreading Rousseau inspired contract theory. Just like their hijacking and rewriting of history and word meaning, the Progressive movement is ensuring that there is only one acceptable societal contract. Perhaps it is a strategic mistake for the Right to focus on anti-Marxist counterarguments. It is time to for Conservatives and Classical Liberals to brush up on their Locke and Burke, engage in the language of contract theory, and bring the truth of these Conservative philosophers into the 21st Century.

read full comment
Image of Nate Durika
Nate Durika
on June 25, 2020 at 11:01:29 am

Law & Liberty can publish my article if they like.

read full comment
Image of Nate Durika
Nate Durika
on June 25, 2020 at 15:51:19 pm

If conservatives need further education they would also benefit from reading (or re-reading)
1. Thomas Sowell’s The Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (2007); The Vision of the Anointed: Self Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995); and Black Rednecks and White Liberals (2005). He presents the two dramatically different views of human nature at the foundation of our political dichotomy.
2. Further insight into the nature of the social contract is summarized by Richard Reinsch’s essay Loyalty and Liberal Constitutionalism (L&L 9/23/16 https://lawliberty.org/loyalty-and-liberal-constitutionalism/ ). [H/T to Michael Bond providing this citation on 6/23/20; I have scanned this essay but need to re-read it in detail again.]

read full comment
Image of R2L
R2L
on June 25, 2020 at 10:57:25 am

What books could Dr. Gregg recommend to learn more about the French Revolution, its causes and its impact?

read full comment
Image of Interested in Learning
Interested in Learning
on June 25, 2020 at 11:02:56 am

You can read Reflections on the Revolution in France By Burke and Robespierre’s speech on the justification in the use of terror.

read full comment
Image of Nate Durika
Nate Durika
on June 25, 2020 at 12:45:11 pm

Perhaps Dr. Gregg would agree that ''The World of the French Revolution" by R.R. Palmer, first published in French in 1968 as part of the French series "Great Waves of Revolution," is a fine starting point. The book considers why in 1789 for the first time revolution was thought a political solution, discusses the history of the French Revolution and then evaluates the waves of revolution it generated and its profound impact on European society.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on June 25, 2020 at 17:18:25 pm

Readers will be familiar with English author Hilary Mantel's terrific novel, "Wolf Hall," about Henry VIII and Thomas More (made into a wonderful TV mini-series.) Ms. Mantel's first historical fiction was "A Place of Greater Safety" written in 1992, which is about the French Revolution and covers from childhood to violent death the careers of Danton, Desmoulins and Robespierre.

Wonderful, if too long.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on June 25, 2020 at 13:26:12 pm

This is a litany strawmen and hysterical ad hominem. This piece offers no explanation or personification of the position it argues against and reads like unmoored raving about some phantom bugaboo. The tone of moral panic around anti-racism is fascinating to behold.

read full comment
Image of Will Wilkinson
Will Wilkinson
on June 25, 2020 at 16:07:52 pm

Anti-racism is basically racism in reverse and thus deserves to be feared and quashed. If the strategic goal is to focus on character rather than skin color, then the tactical objective must be non-racism. In this vein the Marxist led BLM organization should be investigated for possible criminal or treasonous activity; the Congressional Black Caucus should be disbanded; and the legitimate protesters concerned about race based police actions should be supporting Senator Tim Scott in achieving the legislation he has currently abandoned due to Democrat led recalcitrance, and/or prepare their own draft legislation or manifestos to present to their local and state legislative bodies.

read full comment
Image of R2L
R2L
on June 26, 2020 at 10:27:31 am

Antifa rioters in north Portland are throwing things into their street fire to make it grow bigger. @PortlandPolice stand back and watch from a distance. Rioters have a huge banner that reads, “Every city, every town, burn the precinct to the ground.”

Yeah, it's a real mystery. Those strawmen sure know how to light fires.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on June 25, 2020 at 17:09:59 pm

This is a thoughtful essay providing both a useful historical summary of and, for Americans in June 2020, an apt political analogy to the French Revolution.

I share QET's doubt that today's "woke have not seized the levers of political power."

Although they have not done so "in the way that Robespierre and his followers did," if one accounts for the vast differences in political power, population and geographical size between the 21st century U.S. and France of 1793-94 (when Robespierre became primus inter pares) it is arguable that the revolutionary Democrat Party's power and control far exceeds that of "Robespierre and his followers." The revolutionary Democrat Party ("RDP") controls the politics and economies of the Big Blue States, including New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Washington, Virginia and Massachusetts and of the Big Blue Cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Boston and St. Louis. The RDP controls Big Tech, Big Banks, Global Manufacturing, Silicon Valley and Wall Street; it controls the politics, economics and academic content of K-12 public education and all of the nation's major universities, faculties and student bodies. The RDP controls all but a miniscule portion of TV, internet and print information outlets, entertainment and sports media; it controls the federal judiciary and the House of Representatives; it has neutered the U.S. Senate and has fought President Trump relentlessly for 4 years so that the RDP has greatly weakened and undermined his presidency and seriously damaged his chances for reelection. The RDP has redrafted the U.S. Constitution so that it is a shadow of its original self, federalism is dead and a centralized government rules the nation. Today, the RDP has rendered the Congress and the Court nearly lost causes, converted media and journalism into fake news co-conspirators of the RDP, so co-opted the military that its most senior active and retired officers now sound like Burt Reynolds in Seven Days in May; corrupted the institutions of federal intelligence-gathering, criminal investigation and criminal prosecution; and weakened to a point approaching collapse or gravely undermined local law enforcement, police protection and penal detention. The RDP and its media and educational co-conspirators now control what our children learn and what our young men and women believe. It totally dominates America's cultural and historical narratives. The RDP has revolutionized America's self image and all-but-destroyed her self-confidence.

The last man standing between us and the RDP's Committee on Public Safety is President Trump, who, through a pandemic, must fight his way to victory in November if we are to survive.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on June 26, 2020 at 01:04:32 am

I think you mean Burt Lancaster, not Burt Reynolds. As to federalism, even if it still existed, it wouldn't matter much, since, even in nominally Republican states, the forces supporting what you call the RDP control the state bureaucracies, education, the professional associations (particularly the legal profession), the major corporations and banks (which oppose the Democrats only on issues particularly impacting their business), and nearly all large cities. As a result, everywhere in the country, the left runs circles around usually clueless Republican governors and legislators.

I read within the last few years that Justice Ginsburg spoke at the law school of U of Arkansas - Arkansas! - and received a thunderous standing ovation. If the Left has captured the lawyers even in Arkansas, the game is over.

Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

read full comment
Image of djf
djf
on June 28, 2020 at 00:42:37 am

Burt Lancaster, not Burt Reynolds, played the villainous general in Seven Days in May.

read full comment
Image of djf
djf
Trackbacks
on July 04, 2020 at 07:45:37 am

[…] illiberal left” and “cancel culture” to Robespierre, the libertarian author Samuel Gregg predicted that the United States is about to fall into an intolerant Great Terror of “wokeness.” In […]

on July 04, 2020 at 07:46:13 am

[…] intolerant left” and “cancel tradition” to Robespierre, the libertarian creator Samuel Gregg predicted that the USA is about to fall into an illiberal Nice Terror of “wokeness.” In pictures that […]

on July 04, 2020 at 07:54:55 am

[…] left” and “cancel culture” to Robespierre, the libertarian author Samuel Gregg predicted that the United States is about to fall into an intolerant Great Terror of “wokeness.” […]

on July 04, 2020 at 08:00:41 am

[…] illiberal left” and “cancel culture” to Robespierre, the libertarian author Samuel Gregg predicted that the United States is about to fall into an intolerant Great Terror of “wokeness.” In […]

on July 04, 2020 at 08:07:28 am

[…] illiberal left” and “cancel culture” to Robespierre, the libertarian author Samuel Gregg predicted that the United States is about to fall into an intolerant Great Terror of “wokeness.” In […]

on July 04, 2020 at 10:08:23 am

[…] illiberal left” and “cancel culture” to Robespierre, the libertarian author Samuel Gregg predicted that the United States is about to fall into an intolerant Great Terror of “wokeness.” In […]

on July 04, 2020 at 10:58:25 am

[…] left” and “cancel culture” to Robespierre, the libertarian author Samuel Gregg predicted that the United States is about to fall into an intolerant Great Terror of “wokeness.” […]

on July 04, 2020 at 23:22:57 pm

[…] left” and “cancel culture” to Robespierre, the libertarian author Samuel Gregg predicted that the United States is about to fall into an intolerant Great Terror of “wokeness.” […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

Related