fbpx

Wokeness at Noon

Are you Woke? It was not too long ago that such a question would have been greeted with a puzzled disdain for its grammatical barbarism. It is now the question of the moment, no longer limited to college campuses as part of the initiation rites to higher learning. In certain political circles, it has already become the code word for being taken seriously on policy questions.

As Mark Pulliam notes in “Slouching Toward Totalitarianism,” the rise of wokeness as a powerful political force has been extraordinarily rapid, “almost overnight.” In a few short years it moved from something living in assorted university departments to a thing being promoted by the public library in Pulliam’s small town in Tennessee. There are no less than three best-selling, widely discussed books pushing the agenda: Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Between the World and Me, Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, and Ibram X. Kendi’s How to be an Antiracist. Indeed, it is hard to think of any other books on any topic in social policy that have commanded the attention these three books have received in the last few years. How did this happen?

As Rachel Lu notes in “Diagnosing the Woke,” it is not the case that the rise of wokeness is due to sensible, cogent arguments that are persuasive to reasonable people. Lu writes, “Even if one is willing to go a certain distance with the activists in agreeing (say) that historical injustices have a meaningful causal relationship to contemporary inequalities, progressive thinking on these topics still seems bizarrely unbalanced… They actually seem to believe that Americans, or whites, or men, are uniquely and irredeemable guilty, for reasons written into the whole fabric of our society.” The correction is not to go and sin no more, but rather to engage in perpetual obeisance to the gods of wokeness. How did this happen?

The Rise of Wokeness

The puzzling thing about wokeness is not that it is fashionable among a small subset of the Campus Left. One should never be surprised by what is fashionable among college faculty and students. The curious question is how these ideas broke out of the academic asylum and met acquiescence among a large group of people who should have known better. 

The answer is found in a book which should have never fallen off the radar: Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon. First published in 1941, it was—along with 1984—one of the great books about totalitarianism written in the 1940s. Widely praised when it was published, the book was enormously influential in fostering the consensus view of post-war anti-communism. In 1998, Modern Library published a list of the 100 best English novels of the 20th century; Darkness at Noon was ranked eighth, five places above 1984

The plot of the novel itself is fairly simple. The story begins with the imprisonment of Nicholas Rubashov, one of the heroes of the communist revolution in a country which is clearly the Soviet Union. Decades after the revolution, Number 1 (read: Stalin) has assumed power. Rubashov is imprisoned on the absurdly false charges of plotting to kill Number 1. The entire novel takes place in prison, as Rubashov is interrogated and eventually comes to voluntarily confess at a public trial to crimes he did not commit. He is then shot.

The novel explores the philosophical puzzle of why Rubashov would join with what has obviously become a murderous cult run by a totalitarian who is solely interested in amassing enough power to stamp his will upon the whole country. Rubashov, a devoted communist to the end, abandons his principles and bit by bit comes to accede to demands of the new generation who are seeking scapegoats and ritualistic confessions of guilt.

Rubashov’s generation had a vision, but the masses did not accept the vision. The masses proved stubborn, constantly clinging to their traditions and their individuality. 

What is the nature of the new generation? One of the Party officials interrogating Rubashov explains:

There are only two conceptions of human ethics, and they are at opposite poles. One of them is Christian and humane, declares the individual to be sacrosanct, and asserts that the rules of arithmetic are not to be applied to human units. The other starts from the basic principle that a collective aim justifies all means, and not only allows, but demands, that the individual should in every way be subordinated and sacrificed to the community—which may dispose of it as an experimentation rabbit or a sacrificial lamb.

The individual does not matter. The group matters. What is good for the group is by definition good, regardless of whether it is good for the individual. As the interrogators make abundantly clear, no individual has the right to stand in the way of the group. The Party represents the group, and thus no individual has the right to oppose the Party.

Such an approach would have an obvious problem persuading people outside the Party. But, with the perfect purity of knowing they are right, the Party feels no need to explain themselves or their actions. “Experience teaches…that the masses must be given for all difficult and complicated processes a simple, easily grasped explanation.” But, you ask, are the simple explanations actually True? Can good policy really be reduced to a bunch of slogans easily printed in a variety of colors on a lawn sign? In asking this, you display your ignorance about the nature of Truth. As Rubashov’s interrogator explains, “Truth is what is useful to humanity, falsehood is what is harmful.”

Stated so clearly, it would be natural to think that an old political hand like Rubashov would never agree to participate in such a transparently mendacious enterprise, whose sole end would be to give power to people who are not only perfectly convinced they are always right, but who have no compunction about using dishonest means to achieve their ends. Rubashov is faced with a choice. Either try to adapt to the Party’s ever-changing notions of right and wrong, good and evil, or acknowledge himself to be an enemy of the Party he helped to create. 

How does Rubashov reason himself into siding with the Party about his own guilt for a thing he never actually did? And more importantly for us, how does Rubashov’s transformation mirror what has happened in recent times? The woke, with the same sense of moral purity as The Party, with the same set of beliefs about the importance of the group over the individual, were a small faction a few years back. They now command national attention. How did this happen?

Revolutionary Reasoning

For Rubashov, it was a three step process. First, Rubashov came to realize the failure of the project he had set out to accomplish. 

This is a diseased century. We diagnosed the disease and its causes with microscopic exactness, but wherever we applied the healing knife a new sore appeared. Our will was hard and pure, we should have been loved by the people. But they hate us. Why are we so odious and detested?

Rubashov’s generation had a vision, but the masses did not accept the vision. The masses proved stubborn, constantly clinging to their traditions and their individuality. 

This is dispiriting to be sure. Imagine a group of people who, when young, were filled with such excitement and fervor that they really imagined they were leading a popular renaissance, and all things would be made new. Then imagine the shock of realizing that the people did not share that vision. Imagine if the people, the working classes themselves, were to bypass the opportunity to vote for a woman who embodies the dream and instead elect a loathsome man who mercilessly mocks the dream. There is no way for these once-hopeful revolutionaries to avoid the question: “Why are we so odious and detested?”

The biggest question for the next few months is how much power the weak will transfer to the woke. Much depends on the Rubashovs among us.

The second step in Rubashov’s transformation is realizing the logic of his beliefs. For years, he had measured things by their results. History is progressive; history is marching toward the newer world of his dreams. For years, Rubashov had believed he was on the right side of history, but having come to the crushing conclusion that the masses did not follow, he realizes his error: “For us the question of subjective good faith is of no interest. He who is in the wrong must pay; he who is in the right will be absolved. That’s the law of historical credit; it was our law.” After such knowledge, what is left? You either believe in yourself or you don’t. Number 1 still has faith in himself; he is still absolutely convinced of the rightness of his cause. Rubashov? “The fact is: I no longer believe in my infallibility. That is why I am lost.”

Again imagine a group of people who are no longer convinced that the policies and programs they fought to implement for decades are persuading the masses to join them in their cause. Imagine that less than a decade before, a perfect embodiment of all their hopes and dreams was elected President, declaring, “We’re on the right side of history.” Imagine after years of battles, after the election of Barack Obama and the nomination of Hillary Clinton, the masses elect a man who expresses such disdain for all their work. Belief in their infallibility would inevitably collapse. It would not take long to notice, however, that there are others who do not despair. There are others out there who have absolute faith in their own infallibility, absolute certainty that they will win. The woke have the faith of the Party in themselves, a faith that is “tough, slow, sullen and unshakable.”

The third and final step for Rubashov comes when he squarely faces the difference between himself and the new Party, embodied in Gletkin, his interrogator. “Gletkin was a repellent creature, but he represented the new generation; the old had to come to terms with it or be crushed; there was no other alternative.” In one of the most psychologically revealing passages in the book, Rubashov breaks.

How old might this Gletkin be? Thirty-six or seven, at the most; he must have taken part in the Civil War as a youth and seen the outbreak of the Revolution as a mere boy. That was the generation which had started to think after the flood. It had no traditions, and no memories to bind it to the old, vanished world. It was a generation born without [an] umbilical cord….And yet it had right on its side. One must tear that umbilical cord, deny the last tie which bound one to the vain conceptions of honour and the hypocritical decency of the old world. Honour was to serve without vanity, without sparing oneself, and until the last consequence.

After such knowledge, confession and execution are inevitable.

Once again, imagine a generation who has lost belief in their infallibility, faced with a new, younger, and more vigorous generation firmly convinced of their cause. What choice does one have? Come to terms with it or be crushed. Having fought so hard to achieve positions of power and influence, it would take a great deal of courage to stand firm and be crushed. The “vain conceptions of honor and the hypocritical decency of the old world” are tossed aside, and the generation born with no umbilical cord to the past rises.

Here, in a book written in 1941, we have the script of the last four years. As William Voegeli put it in his recent article in the Claremont Review of Books, we now have the “Weak leading the Woke.” The biggest question for the next few months is how much power the weak will transfer to the woke. The Rubashovs among us are the leaders of the Democratic Party, the presidents of the leading universities, the heads of the major media outlets, and the CEOs and upper management of large firms, both in the tech industry and elsewhere. Looking at all those individuals, you find many who used to believe that honor and decency were important. But, in 2016, their own faith that their political and cultural dreams would win, that they were on the right side of history, was shattered. Now, these pillars of society confess their sins in public show trials (“We must do better”) and one by one accede to the demands of the woke, lest they find their careers shot in the back of the head while walking down the halls of power.

Is there hope? Koestler’s book is not an optimistic one. “He who accepts a dictatorship must accept civil war as a means. He [who] recoils from civil war must give up opposition and accept the dictatorship.” Let us hope that Koestler is wrong about that. Hope, however, may not be enough. The challenge of our age is not merely to resist the woke, but for those who recoil from both civil war and dictatorship to find a peaceful, orderly means of resistance. 

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 December 29, 2020 at 09:50:47 am

Both commendable essays today, that of Mr. Wallner and Professor Hartley, suffer the same flaw. Each attempts to squeeze the practical, unavoidable realities of ideological politics into an intellectual framework of theoretical abstraction which is simply unsuited and unsuitable to ideological electioneering. Wallner attributes election losses by the political right wing to its pursuit of ideology and its failure to adhere to the principles of conservatism, as if the modern masses who vote their feelings, their fears and their pocketbooks are inspired by political theory or could ever be swayed by the high, principled rhetoric of Burke. Hartley likens the immoral woke's rapid rise to power to the incremental loss of moral principle by Koestler's communist revolutionary, Rubashov, as if the radical left somehow declined into immoral wokeism because it strayed from the theoretical principles of its founding, empowering the woke to hijack and derail the moral grounding of the communism their revolutionary forefathers espoused.

The frameworks are abstractions inadequate to the political realities. They won't wash, which is not to say that the absence of moral principle is not at the heart of the decline and fall of a morally principled America.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on December 29, 2020 at 21:56:41 pm

Paladin,

I share your sense of disappointment in the state of discourse regarding "wokeness." I wonder though if there might be another facet to this circumstance. There is little doubt of the academic provenance of wokeness, and there is little controversy as well that conservative-leaning, usually measured, sometimes timid, discussion of the topic comes largely from academia.

Academics are inherently specialized and are given to thinking that any topic upon which they opine is necessarily dependent upon their primary area of interest; thus the name-dropping, the quoting of similarly-oriented colleagues, the obscure references. This all takes on a blind-men-and-the-elephant quality as each essayist gropes about the subject and claims to have identified the source, or at least an important source of the mischief. The unspoken assumption is that the list of our contemporary social distempers are due to no more than one or two things, often abstract, frequently arcane, and usually tangential. This is an unavoidable consequence of specialists and experts.

On one hand, we might regard this unsatisfactory collection of observations as an IKEA model of academic inquiry; a jumble of components waiting to be assembled into a usable product. We may, for example regard each of several analyses of the cause of "wokeness" as simply one of the four Aristotelian categories of causation. One associate professor might remark on the goal of such phenomena, another on the conditions that provoke it, yet another on the source. One may argue that wokeness can be analyzed from an ethical perspective, another as pure politics, and still others as psychological or philosophical subjects. Each of these has a degree of validity in their own sphere, but leaves the crucial issue unaddressed. This is not to denigrate Professor Hartley, there are many points in his essay that are well-taken, but which leave off just short of being satisfying.

What is missing from these academic discursions is not what is wrong, or where it came from, but some suggestion as to what is to be done about it. We have discussed previously the annoying tendency among academic essayists here to include progressive-sounding sacramentals in otherwise thoughtful discussions; the assertion of Professor McGinnis that Derek Chauvin "killed" George Floyd being an obvious example, as well as any number of gratuitous shots at President Trump. What I suspect is unsatisfying about these academic musings is that, as mentioned at the beginning of these comments, the mischief largely originates in the academy and we should expect more from academics than merely to treat the issue as an essay question on a mid-term. We should expect to see the essayists here standing unapologetically with Professor Jacobsen, publicly dissenting from the University of Tennessee's conduct toward Mimi Groves, and resolutely criticizing Northwestern's fecklessness regarding Joseph Epstein.

Of course, there is a "there but for the grace of God" aspect to this opinion; i.e. easy for me to say. But since it is easy there is less justification for not saying it: talk is cheap, and the academy is not only an appropriate venue for discussing "wokeness" but for doing something about it. One doubts that Horatius would enjoy his current reputation had he stood up in front of his troops at the moment of crisis and then did nothing more than comment on the aesthetics of the Etruscan's uniforms. The "absence of moral principle" that you refer to cannot be replaced with academic analysis. There is no substitute for doing the right thing whenever and wherever called upon to do so..

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on December 30, 2020 at 15:03:58 pm

Ausgezeichnet, mein freund.

We agree that of our moral, cultural, and political ills we have too much academic perspective nowadays, with analysis that is invariably unoriginal, unduly repetitious and largely useless because it is merely descriptive opinion of what ails us, why it ails us, and reasoning from analogy, what the ailment can be said to resemble in history, religion, literature, political science or philosophy. Of the bounty of books and essays which abound in such stuff we have too many.

But of possible practical answers to what ails us there is also no dearth of knowledge. Indeed, we are chock full with knowing what to do. What is missing is the will to do what we know must be done, which is, using the means we know to be both proper and available, to educate morally, to organize politically, and to institutionalize culturally to defeat those who are the cause of what we know to be sickening us unto death and to eliminate their power to make us sick.
.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on December 30, 2020 at 12:38:43 pm

This is an ambitious and perceptive essay, Lord knows we need deep thinking to account for the madness that we are living through.
And, the three tier descent of Rubashov is as good an opening critique of how the revolution eats its own , as anything I've seen.
And good replies too.
Which tells me that no easy answers exist at this stage, but at least the best fiction and critics are fumbling towards something that hay not be God, but is transcending nonetheless.
So thank you. From England.

read full comment
Image of Alicia Sinclair
Alicia Sinclair
on December 29, 2020 at 12:34:57 pm

There is nothing “woke” about a politics which denies that “With Love, comes responsibility”, or a Nation that is willing to sacrifice all that is Beautiful and Good, and True, and thus serves for the prosperity and posterity of this Nation and The Global World, for the sake of a nonexistent equality of sexual acts and sexual relationships.

Love, which is always rightly ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love, is devoid of every form of lust, because Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive, nor does it serve to manipulate for the sake of self gratification. Every act of authentic Love serves to complement and thus enhance the fullness of Love.

For all those who have been sleeping in Gethsemane, only to awake to a full assault by the atheist materialistic, over population alarmist globalist, who deny The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Our Unalienable Right To Life, To Liberty, And To The Pursuit Of Happiness, “Be Not Afraid”, for the false collegiality, that denies The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus the fact that it is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, is being Illuminated Through That Light That Shines In The Darkness, And The Darkness Cannot Overcome Him.

As “The Veil Is Being Lifted”, this Truth is being Revealed, “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” - Mother Theresa

And so we find ourselves at a Crossroad, between The Divine Law,Of Love, and a secular humanism that denies Divine Law, because the atheist materialist over population alarmist globalists, desire to render onto Caesar or themselves what belongs to God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.

“it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being—of what being human really means—is being called into question. “ Pope Benedict XVI Christmas Address 2012

For it is the atheist materialistic over population alarmist globalist who deny the Ordered Complementary Essence Of Authentic Life -affirming and Life-sustaining Complementary Love, by their denial of the essence of being, in essence, a beloved Son or Daughter, Brother or Sister, Husband or Wife, Father or Mother.

“Men and women in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human is disputed”, and thus, existing in a complementary relationship of authentic Love is denied.

Woe to us, for when Christ returns, He can no longer say, “Father, Forgive them, they do not know what they do”, for The Word Of Life-affirming and Life-sustaining Salvational Love Became Flesh, And Dwelt Among us.

There is nothing “woke” about a politics which denies that “With Love, comes responsibility”, or a Nation that is willing to sacrifice all that is Beautiful and Good, and True, and thus serves for the prosperity and posterity of this Nation and The Global World, for the sake of a nonexistent equality of sexual acts and sexual relationships.

Love, which is always rightly ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love, is devoid of every form of lust, because Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive, nor does it serve to manipulate for the sake of self gratification. Every act of authentic Love serves to complement and thus enhance the fullness of Love.

For all those who have been sleeping in Gethsemane, only to awake to a full assault by the atheist materialistic, over population alarmist globalist, who deny The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Our Unalienable Right To Life, To Liberty, And To The Pursuit Of Happiness, “Be Not Afraid”, for the false collegiality, that denies The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus the fact that it is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, is being Illuminated Through That Light That Shines In The Darkness-The Darkness Cannot Overcome Him.

As “The Veil Is Being Lifted”, this Truth is being Revealed, “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” - Mother Theresa

And so we find ourselves at a Crossroad, between The Divine Law Of Love, and a secular humanism that denies Divine Law, because the atheist materialist over population alarmist globalists, desire to render onto Caesar or themselves what belongs to God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.

“it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being—of what being human really means—is being called into question. “ Pope Benedict XVI Christmas Address 2012

For it is the atheist materialistic over population alarmist globalist who deny the Ordered Complementary Essence Of Authentic Life -affirming and Life-sustaining Complementary Love, by their denial of the essence of being, in essence, a beloved Son or Daughter, Brother or Sister, Husband or Wife, Father or Mother.

“Men and women in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human is disputed”, and thus, existing in a complementary relationship of authentic Love is denied.

Woe to us, for when Christ returns, He can no longer say, “Father, Forgive them, they do not know what they do”, for The Word Of Life-affirming and Life-sustaining Salvational Love Became Flesh, And Dwelt Among us.

read full comment
Image of N.D.
N.D.
on December 30, 2020 at 12:34:44 pm

Z9 ends his reply to Paladin with the following:
"The "absence of moral principle" that you refer to cannot be replaced with academic analysis. There is no substitute for doing the right thing whenever and wherever called upon to do so.."

One must then ask, "Why do we, and certainly not academics do the right thing?"

Some may assert that fear of reprisal / cancellation may cause this cowardice.
Some may assert that ultimately the fear is predicated upon "love" - that is the love of ones' family, the desire to protect them that induces the fear of being cancelled / unemployed.
All possible.
Yet, we often avoid addressing the mechanism that underlies the power of the "woke."
Below in just over two minutes Glen Loury identifies the mechanism stifling open dissent to wokeness. He calls it the "bluffing equilibrium."

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/30/watch-glenn-loury-call-anti-racisms-bluff/

Following this AND some previous comments from Z9 to always challenge idiotic pronouncements from the sciolistic scholars of wokeness can we a) conclude that the woke monopoly on "truth" is rather fragile and b) that all we await is an avalanche of challenging dissent to burst the bubble of wokeness and c) it will and ought to involve each and every nascent Horatius on every street corner, viz. US!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 30, 2020 at 14:39:00 pm

Oops! That should read:

"One must then ask, "Why do we, and certainly not academics NOT do the right thing?"

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 30, 2020 at 15:14:32 pm

Saw a hoot of a CSPAN show on Sunday with Dave Barry ("Dave Barry Slept Here" IS the best book ever written:) and PJ O'Rourke (who wrote most of the other best books ever written:)

O'Rourke said woke can't last long. "It's too silly."
I think that's right.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on December 30, 2020 at 21:10:29 pm

Trouble with using old novels like 1984 to describe our current political circumstances is that they are contrived affairs. No matter how convincing in their dialogs and logic do they really present an argument of based on rational real world substance, of a good and just foundation? They are after all fiction - nice to ponder about, but all conjecture/speculation.

read full comment
Image of Al Morgan
Al Morgan
on January 02, 2021 at 20:42:59 pm

Arthur Koestler lived as a devoted Communist for much of his life, so he knew the subject. And some of us remember the “show trials”. I doubt that ten percent of college profs (much less students) have even a slight knowledge of the Communist era in Russia. And the Comintern.

read full comment
Image of Jim B, JD
Jim B, JD
on January 02, 2021 at 20:47:25 pm

Al, The Bible was for millenia Western Civilization's "good and just foundation". Now you understand why Leftists everywhere are so quick to despise it and to deride all mention of it's truths from the public square.

read full comment
Image of Teresa
Teresa
on December 31, 2020 at 11:09:47 am

On the question "how much power the weak will transfer to the woke?” history suggest the weak will cave completely and quickly.

I’m reading Gordon A. Craig’s “Germany 1886-1945” (1980).

It seems that when the old order has become intellectually and morally exhausted, when the party system has completely failed and when the executive is in the hands of an aging, befuddled and corrupt figurehead the old establishment just collapses and skulks away happy to leave the field to the Nazis, the Bolsheviks, the Stalinists and the Maoists.

In the highly unlikely case that the courts attempt impede the revolution, we already know that the courts will soon be packed with more accommodating judges.

read full comment
Image of EK
EK
on January 07, 2021 at 12:32:30 pm

And then the weak will have to...? Amazing that a people's 400 year struggle to maintain and reassert the humanity which our founding principles promised but choked off in reality, is such a burden for the "weak" to surrender to.

read full comment
Image of Michael J Grey
Michael J Grey
on January 07, 2021 at 12:25:51 pm

Nothing like an college professor using his time and position to lecture us on the damage done by college professors. At least it is a change of pace from the equally common elite lecturing us on the drawbacks of the elites. This piece didn't age very well, did it? Keep searching for the challenge of our age. Maybe you can see it from your ivory tower, which is somehow different from the ones you disdain? I guess maybe those like you who were to busy looking for someone else's dictatorship and someone else's angry mob were too distracted to recoil from their own. Woke isn't a threat. It is a simple term for a simple state of being actually open to seeing the plight of a people as significant and important. It takes nothing away from anyone else.

read full comment
Image of Michael J Grey
Michael J Grey
on January 09, 2021 at 12:07:27 pm

Mark Pulliam's mention of the 3 "woke" books are quite thoroughly discussed on Glenn Loury and John McWhorter's you tube pod casts. They are both black and professors--Loury, at Brown, and McWhorter at Columbia.

read full comment
Image of Carolyn Olson
Carolyn Olson
on January 12, 2021 at 08:18:38 am

The biggest fail of wokeness is their utter ignorance of truth. Hypocrisy and double standards are required when following the woke agenda. Accepting Fraudulent elections and social media lynchings without question are part of the blind leading the blind mentality celebrated by those in the woke club. Unfortunately it's too late when the woke pawns realize, they were duped by the adversary of God.

read full comment
Image of Pat Price
Pat Price
Trackbacks
on January 03, 2021 at 03:01:13 am

[…] James E. Hartley on why Koestler’s 1941 novel should be seen as a prescient guide to modern-day “wokeness”: […]

on January 05, 2021 at 15:37:08 pm

[…] Read the rest at Law and Liberty […]

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