Luke Ford

Professor Darel E. Paul wrote in this 2019 book:

* In December 1996 a Hawaii state circuit court judge ruled that a strictly opposite-sex definition of marriage was in violation of the state constitution’s commitment to equal protection. Public reaction was swift and decisive. Marshaling a peremptory strike in anticipation of just such a ruling, in September of that year the U.S. Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The law both defined marriage for federal purposes as a strictly opposite-sex institution and allowed states to refuse recognition of same- sex marriages conducted in other jurisdictions. While it may be hard to fathom today, DOMA received overwhelming support from both political parties. Among Republicans, not a single senator and but one member of the House of Representatives voted against it. Democrats strongly supported the legislation, too, with House members voting in favor by a nearly two- to- one margin (118– 65) and Senate Democrats surpassing even that mark (32–14).

* According to former Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese, “Corporate America is far ahead of America generally when it comes to the question of equality for GLBT people.”

* American elites have largely embraced same-sex marriage, but the wider public remains divided on the issue.

* Legal professionals traveled a similar if slower path [than doctors] from chief regulators and suppressors of homosexuality to ardent social champions of normalization.

* With the demise of the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in 2011, the country’s religious bodies became the last site of organized opposition to normalization in the United States.

* The seven large denominations that had normalized homosexuality by the end of 2016 are among the eight most highly educated in America.

* Prior to the 1990s business barely recognized sexual orientation.

* The transformation at the Times was so rapid and thorough that in just two years the paper went from refusing same- sex union announcements to, in the words of its own public editor, “present[ing] the social and cultural aspects of same- sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading.” The public editor even characterized a series of the paper’s articles that year on same-sex couples as “a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause.” The same can be said for the Washington Post. In 2013 its ombudsman freely admitted that journalists at the Post “have a hard time giving much voice to those opposed to gay marriage.”

* The middle and working classes always hold more negative views on homosexuality than do elites.

* Toleration was once American elites’ preferred frame for thinking about homosexuality. As they came to support normalization, however, mere toleration fell out of fashion. Equality is now the dominant frame of discourse.

* [Sociologist Mark] Regnerus found that gay parenting produced children who were worse=off, whether in receiving public assistance, being unemployed, having an affair, being depressed, using drugs, or being sexually promiscuous. Such a claim was not simply in open dissent from established research. It was downright seditious, and— for the environs of elbow- patch academia—all hell broke loose.

* Higher fertility creates patriarchs, men who understand themselves as attached to the family of which they are the head— even if only in a symbolic or nominal sense. Patriarchy is one of human society’s methods of inducing the domestication of men. After all it is far from every man’s goal to marry and raise children. Down through history, war, athletics, fraternal clubs, sexual promiscuity, and philosophy stand as common rival male visions of the good life. A wife and children have at times been so unattractive that taxes on bachelors and legal penalties for childless married couples have been tried (and largely failed) to induce men to take on the role of husband and father.

Positive social inducement tends to work better. Through patriarchy men are honored by state, society, wives, and children in their domestication, for playing their social roles. Ideally they become attached to the family and the home, contributing their economic and cultural capital to the formation of the next generation.

* Perhaps American men will trade in their desire to be a father for a desire to be an unsexed parent. Or perhaps they will instead lose interest in children altogether.

* Diversity is the reigning social and political ideal of our age. It is the public ideology of the country’s most powerful institutions. In his 2016 State of the Union address, Barack Obama even identified it as the essence of American national identity… Among American elites, diversity stands alongside liberty, equality, progress, and family as obvious goods no sane person could oppose. “The word wears a halo.”

* Firms would have us believe their embrace of diversity practices and ideology is a straightforward matter of efficiency, productivity, and profitability.

* As an ideology and associated set of practices, diversity is attractive to managers and administrators because it is a particular version of the broader ideology of managerialism… Because of cultural differences across lines of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and the like, diverse groups of different individuals have problems interacting in peaceful and productive ways. Bigotry and prejudice compound the negative effect. Yet pluralism offers a shining promise as well. If differences are reconciled, new pinnacles of cooperation, creativity, productivity, and social harmony can be achieved. Because this process is neither natural nor automatic, skilled managers are essential for the good society to be realized. In a managerial society all enjoy the fruits of greater efficiency, creativity, and productivity as society’s opportunities for advancement are more effectively distributed. No human capital will go to waste. Bureaucracy becomes the pathway to progress.

* Homosexuality aptly symbolizes this heart of diversity: urban, edgy, hip, fashionable, successful, and, above all, cosmopolitan. Advertisers feature LGBT persons because “they hope to construct an association between image products and gay people to suggest a particular kind of well-being for gay consumers and, by association, for the heterosexual
majority who want to cash in on gay cachet.” Homosexuality is a prestige category not only in advertising and entertainment but in all of society. Race may remain the “modal category” of diversity practices and thought, but homosexuality represents its ideal.

* Diversity is all about elites. It is a project to reshape the professional and managerial class. Organizations engage in diversity programs to identify “promotables,” develop their leadership skills, and cultivate the human capital necessary for elite status competition in a pluralistic world.

* “Diversity management— the programming, the numbers, the culture—was for and about exempt employees [that is, exempt from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically its rules on minimum wages and overtime pay. Functionally the term refers to a firm’s salaried, nonunionized workers in executive, administrative, professional, and outside sales roles].”

* No corporation or university seeks to develop a diverse secretary pool, a diverse kitchen staff, a diverse shipping department, or a diverse landscaping crew.

* Creatives are also attracted to gay men and lesbians as symbols of creativity, cosmopolitanism, authenticity, toleration, and the reward of merit.

* Persons with higher levels of education are more likely to express an LGBT identity. Partnered gay men and, particularly, partnered lesbians are overrepresented at the highest levels of the managerial and professional class fractions. At the same time, America’s higher managers and higher professionals are the least racially and ethnically diverse class fractions in the country. Privileging normalization rather than racial integration as a social ideal allows elites to have their diversity cake and eat it, too.

* Religious liberty and LGBT rights were trapped in a “zero-sum game.” Any pretense to mutually beneficial compromise between the two was impossible, and state neutrality between them a charade. As long as religious conservatives hold same-sex sexual behavior to be morally suspect and LGBT persons and their allies hold it to be natural and moral, every
action and inaction of the state is a choice to recognize one side against the other. The history of RFRAs [religious freedom acts] and Supreme Court decisions since then have been so many battles in this larger and inescapable cultural and legal clash.

* the status of religious freedom itself suffered a major blow in elite opinion. Consider that the phrase “so-called religious freedom” appeared in American newspapers more times in 2015 than in the previous twenty- two years since the passage of the federal RFRA combined. For the first time since the founding of the republic, the entire subject of religious freedom had shifted from the category “taken for granted” to that of “up for grabs.”

* From the very beginnings of the culture wars, the number one critique of them has been that they are a distraction, manufactured for the purpose of division, even “bogus” and “fake.” From this perspective, the proper focus of politics is material: employment, income, taxes, the distribution of wealth, the use of police and military force. Any turn to the symbolic is a betrayal of “reality.”

A basic premise of cultural sociology is that human beings do not simply perceive or misperceive social “reality.” They construct it in the very process of perceiving it. Tremendous power exists in symbolic acts, in the words of Pierre Bourdieu, in “all the forms of benediction or malediction, eulogy, praise, congratulations, compliments, or insults, reproaches, criticisms, accusations, slanders, etc. It is no accident that the verb kategoresthai, which gives us our ‘categories’ and ‘categoremes,’ means to accuse publicly.”

* Many Americans dislike what they call “fundamentalists” on the grounds of that group’s supposed intolerance, subjugation of women, low intelligence, homophobia, irrationality, and political threat to liberal values. Such “antifundamentalist voters” tend to be much more educated, rich, white, urban, politically attentive (e.g., they are regular news consumers, possessing correct factual knowledge of candidate positions), and secular than average— a profile highly like that of the professional and managerial class— and they concentrate their votes on Democrats.

* Standing as the symbolic opposite of gay men and lesbians today is an unenviable position. The stock of LGBT persons is rising dramatically while that of conservative Christians is falling.

* The fight is over nothing less than who shall have the power to define reality. All the combatants know as much. No wonder they fight so hard. To lose is not just to be consigned to the wrong side of history. It is to have the weight of the dominant culture pressed firmly against you, peeling away members and undermining the ability and willingness of the remainder to resist. It is to be denied access to elite institutions and networks, and to all the material and social benefits they confer. It is even to have the force of law and thus ultimately the power of the state used against you.

* Social work counseling nips most such problems in the bud by dissuading or preventing opponents of normalization from entering the profession in the first place. The sole American social work accreditation body, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), defines “advanc[ing] human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice” as a “core competency” of the professional social worker. Any program hoping to be accredited must “provide a learning environment that models affirmation and respect for diversity and difference” and “affirm[s] and support[s] persons with diverse identities.” Social work faculty have carried out this charge in several high-profile clashes with Evangelical students.

* Before the Supreme Court struck down the country’s many defense of marriage acts in 2015, DOMA supporters were having increasing difficulty finding counsel willing to defend them. In 2009 California’s attorney general and its governor both refused to defend the state’s opposite-sex only marriage law from legal challenge. In 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hollingsworth that, without a defense of state law marshaled by a state agency, no legal defense of any kind would be allowed. In 2011 the Obama Justice Department declared the federal DOMA unconstitutional and thereafter refused to defend it in court. With the blessing of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, at least eight other state attorneys general likewise refused to defend their state DOMAs as the laws came under federal scrutiny in the early 2010s.48 In 2014 the news organization Reuters reviewed over one hundred court filings on the subject of samesex marriage. It found thirty of the country’s largest two hundred law firms were representing challengers to state DOMAs. Not one Am Law 200 firm was representing state DOMA supporters. Over ten years earlier Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claimed the American legal profession was dominated by an “anti-anti-homosexual culture.” The passage of time seems to have only validated the charge.

Judicial refusal to conduct same- sex marriages is considered a violation of professional ethics in nearly all states. Judges in Washington, Oregon, Alabama, Ohio, and Wyoming have been subjected to disciplinary procedures. In 2016 the American Bar Association revamped its Model Rule of Professional Conduct to define “conduct that the lawyer knows
or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of . . . sexual orientation [and] gender identity” as professional misconduct. At least one prominent supporter thought the new rule a “largely symbolic gesture” geared toward “educating the next generation . . . about other values besides First Amendment expression.” In a sign of moral unity, not a single delegate to the ABA annual meeting spoke against the measure from the floor and the reform passed on a voice vote.

* While all forms of conservatism are rare on American college campuses, social conservatism is the rarest of all. As befits their class status, most liberal professors are rather moderate on matters of taxation and government spending. Their liberalism is highly concentrated on social issues. Thus economic conservatives and libertarians fare relatively well in the academy. Even in the very liberal social sciences they find a home in economics departments and are well represented there, reporting little to no discrimination and almost never practicing self-censorship. The situation is quite different for cultural conservatives. A 1999 survey found that being a practicing Christian is more damaging to one’s prospects at an elite research institution than being a Republican or a woman. A 2007 survey found that Evangelicals and Mormons are the least liked religious groups among American university faculty by a wide margin.

* The defeat of social conservatives in law has proved as complete as their defeat inside the professions. After Arizona’s governor vetoed her state’s RFRA in 2014, New York Times house social conservative Ross Douthat recognized the dimensions of his side’s loss. Normalization had won the war. All that was left now was to receive “the terms of our
surrender.”

* The ever-expanding nature of the Sexual Revolution prevents any lasting compromise from forming. Once a moment of stability is seemingly reached, the ground shifts and the battle is rejoined at a new revolutionary frontier. Since the 2013 Windsor decision, that frontier is transgenderism.3 The normalization of transgenderism has swept the highest echelons of elite culture as thoroughly as did the normalization of homosexuality but in just a quarter of the time. If we can step back and appreciate how stunning was the movement of homosexuality from mental illness to normal sexual orientation in two generations and same- sex marriage from fringe idea to constitutional law in a single generation, the acceptance of gender identity as a category wholly divorced from biological sex in only five years or so is truly mind-boggling.

That transgenderism has conquered the mental health professions should be obvious. Both the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers issued resolutions in 2008 calling for full societal normalization of transgenderism. The American Psychiatric Association followed in 2012 with a similar resolution. It also made the important symbolic step of removing “gender identity disorder” from its list of mental illnesses the same year. As with homosexuality, the legal profession has been slower to accommodate.

* The rapid normalization of transgenderism among elites is a symptom of a larger crisis. Elites are failing to exercise authority. Meritocracy’s promise is deference to the superior technical knowledge of elites in exchange for efficient and effective social outcomes. Increasing numbers of Americans see that project as a failure. The evidence is all around. Confidence in all institutions— whether the state, the professions, or big business— drags along near forty-year lows. Only the military, the police, and small business enjoy majority support. Homeschooling, “spiritual but not religious” viewpoints, alternative medicine, non-GMO foods, climate change denialism, and the antivaccination movement are all popular manifestations of a deep public distrust in claims of elite knowledge. The 2016 U.S. presidential election was in part a backlash against elites who
now rightly fear an assault on their cosmopolitan values and way of life.

* Elites and experts of all stripes embraced the inevitable expansion of international trade and finance, mass migration, cosmopolitan sensibilities, high technology, human rights, and global governance. Throughout the last weeks of the 2016 campaign, Barack Obama even proposed voting for Hillary Clinton as an opportunity to “bend the arc of history” a little further in its predetermined direction.19 Such reckless self-confidence was destroyed in a moment by the vengeance of deplorables supposedly resigned to the
ash heap of history.

ChatGPT says:

Let’s break down the key elements of this fight over reality:

1. Constructed Reality and Cultural Power

At the heart of this battle is the sociological insight that reality is not passively perceived—it is actively constructed. What people take to be “natural,” “normal,” or “obvious” is the outcome of symbolic and cultural labor. This is what Bourdieu emphasized: symbolic power isn’t just a reflection of force—it is a kind of force.

Who defines terms like “marriage,” “woman,” “justice,” “equality,” “oppression”?

Whoever defines these terms shapes law, education, media, and even private self-conception.

That’s why this isn’t a disagreement over abstractions—it’s a high-stakes contest for cultural dominance.

2. From Tolerance to Normativity

The title of the book you’re reading implies a shift: from tolerating differences to enforcing a new moral and symbolic order. What was once considered “a private right” or “an exception” has become, for some, a litmus test for public legitimacy and civic participation.

The authors argue that elites (media, academia, law, corporate leadership) have used their positions to institutionalize a particular moral vision—one that redefines traditional categories around sex, family, and identity.

The resistance isn’t merely nostalgic—it’s an effort to retain a rival structure of meaning in the face of what feels like cultural marginalization.

3. Category Wars and Moral Authority

The quote about kategoresthai is striking. Categories are not neutral—they are public accusations and conferrals of meaning.

To categorize someone as “bigot,” “oppressor,” “victim,” “hero,” or “ally” is to position them within a moral drama that society is actively scripting.

These labels carry consequences: social ostracism, deplatforming, moral praise, job loss, political gain, or legal protection.

So the fight isn’t just about “what is true,” but who gets to narrate the truth, and with what implications for power and belonging.

4. Why It Feels Existential

To lose in this cultural struggle is not just to disagree—it’s to risk being silenced, de-legitimized, or erased. That’s why these debates are so intense, often feeling zero-sum:

For those on one side, victory means affirming what they see as long-denied dignity and justice.

For the other, it feels like the overwriting of tradition, nature, or God’s design, and the delegitimization of dissent.

Each side believes the stakes are ontological: what is a human being? What is society for? What kind of future can we build?

5. The Media, Technology, and Fractured Reality

Social media and mass communication have decentralized truth. Competing symbolic systems now exist in parallel, with different definitions of racism, gender, family, justice, and even reality itself. Platforms algorithmically reinforce separate realities.

This fragmentation means:

There’s no shared reference point for public life.

What one group sees as liberation, another sees as collapse.

Dialogue becomes difficult, because even the language itself is contested.

Final Thought

This fight to define reality isn’t new—it echoes age-old religious, political, and philosophical battles. But in America today, it’s intensified by technological acceleration, elite institutional capture, and cultural secularization.

The deeper question may not be who wins, but whether a society can survive without some shared symbolic ground—or whether, as the book implies, victory for one side must come at the cultural annihilation of the other.

Gemini says:

“Reality” is not a fixed, objective entity, but rather a social construct. We don’t simply perceive reality; we actively participate in its creation through our interpretations, language, and symbolic acts. Bourdieu’s emphasis on “kategoresthai” (to accuse publicly, to categorize) underscores how the act of naming, classifying, and publicly asserting a definition of reality is inherently an exercise of power.

Here’s how this “fight to define reality” manifests in America today:

1. Historical Narratives and National Identity:

Conflicting Interpretations of the Past: There’s a significant struggle over how American history is taught and understood. For example, debates around the 1619 Project versus more traditional narratives of American exceptionalism highlight different perspectives on the nation’s founding, its relationship with slavery, and its progress towards ideals.

Monument and Memorial Debates: The controversies surrounding Confederate statues, or calls to rename public spaces, are direct manifestations of this fight to define what parts of history are celebrated, memorialized, or re-evaluated, and what those symbols mean for contemporary identity. The White House has even issued policies on “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” to combat what it views as a “revisionist movement.”

2. Social and Cultural Issues:

Gender and Identity: Beyond same-sex marriage, the ongoing discussions around gender identity, pronouns, and the nature of sex are prime examples of a fight to define fundamental aspects of human existence. Different groups hold vastly different understandings of these concepts, leading to intense cultural clashes.

“Woke” vs. “Anti-Woke”: This broad cultural struggle often revolves around differing definitions of justice, equity, and oppression. What one side sees as progress and inclusivity, the other might view as divisive ideology or “cancel culture.”

Role of Institutions: Debates about the purpose of education, the media, and even scientific institutions often involve accusations of bias or “indoctrination,” reflecting a deep mistrust and a desire to control the narratives propagated by these influential bodies.

3. Political Discourse and “Truth Decay”:

Alternative Facts and Disinformation: The proliferation of misinformation and “alternative facts” in political discourse is a direct assault on a shared understanding of reality. This isn’t just about differing opinions, but about foundational disagreements on what constitutes verifiable information and truth. The RAND Corporation has extensively researched “Truth Decay” as a diminishing reliance on facts and analysis in American public life.

Partisan Realities: As seen in political campaigns, opposing sides often present “dizzyingly different versions of reality” to voters, cherry-picking facts, emphasizing different issues, and framing events in ways that support their own agenda. This makes it challenging for citizens to form a coherent, shared understanding of societal problems.

Defining Extremism: There’s a struggle to define what constitutes “extremism” itself, with each political side often attempting to label the other as such, thereby delegitimizing their opponents’ views.

4. Economic Reality and the “American Dream”:

Economic Narratives: Even seemingly objective economic data can be framed in vastly different ways to support competing political arguments. For example, discussions about inflation, wage growth, and the cost of living often involve differing interpretations of economic indicators and their impact on ordinary Americans. The “American Dream” itself is subject to redefinition, with some arguing it’s increasingly out of reach.

The Power of Symbolic Acts and Language:

The core of this fight, as Bourdieu suggests, lies in the symbolic realm. The words we use, the categories we create, and the narratives we promote all serve to shape how individuals perceive and interact with the world. When one group successfully defines a concept or frames a debate, they gain immense power to influence public opinion and policy. This is why language becomes a battleground, with terms like “woke,” “cancel culture,” “identity politics,” “family values,” or “freedom” being imbued with specific meanings designed to rally support or condemn opponents.

In essence, the fight to define reality in America today is a multifaceted struggle over meaning, values, and power. It’s a contest to establish the dominant narratives that shape collective understanding, guide societal norms, and ultimately determine who has the authority to shape the future.

🔥 1. What Is a Woman? (The Gender Identity War)

Battlefield: Sports, prisons, schools, healthcare, legal documents

Vivid Example:

Riley Gaines, a collegiate swimmer, speaks out after having to compete against transgender athlete Lia Thomas, a biological male. She calls it a “betrayal of fairness.”

Meanwhile, President Biden’s Title IX reinterpretation mandates that schools must accommodate gender identity, or risk losing federal funding—even in locker rooms.

In some states, parents can lose custody for refusing to affirm a child’s self-declared gender.

The Fight:

Is gender a biological reality or a self-declared identity?

Can society enforce shared definitions, or must it yield to individual self-perception?

🔥 2. Critical Race Theory in Schools (The History and Identity War)

Battlefield: K–12 education, school board meetings, legislation

Vivid Example:

Virginia parents erupt at Loudoun County school board meetings over the use of materials that teach white students they benefit from “systemic privilege.”

Florida bans DEI-oriented education in public universities, calling it ideological indoctrination.

On the other side, progressive districts implement “anti-racist” math, claiming that valuing precision and individual work is part of “white supremacy culture.”

The Fight:

Is America’s history one of flawed ideals striving toward justice—or a story of oppression that must be unlearned?

Is racial identity a fixed axis of injustice—or something society should look beyond?

🔥 3. The COVID Regime and Its Critics (The Science and Authority War)

Battlefield: Mask mandates, vaccine policy, free speech, censorship

Vivid Example:

Doctors like Jay Bhattacharya and Robert Malone were banned from Twitter (now X) for questioning lockdowns or vaccine policy—then later reinstated, raising questions about state and tech collusion.

The CDC updated its guidance multiple times, eroding public trust. Meanwhile, schools stayed closed in blue states far longer than in red ones.

In Canada and parts of the U.S., protesting mandates was treated as criminal.

The Fight:

Who defines “misinformation”? Can disagreement with official health policy be tolerated?

Was the COVID response science-led—or politically manipulated?

🔥 4. The 2020 Election and January 6 (The Truth and Legitimacy War)

Battlefield: Congress, courts, social media, journalism

Vivid Example:

Millions believe the 2020 election was stolen—fueled by irregularities, distrust in mail-in voting, and allegations amplified by Trump and allies.

The January 6 riot was described by Democrats as an “insurrection,” with comparisons to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor; to others, it was a chaotic protest that has been weaponized to crush dissent.

Media and Big Tech suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story pre-election**, which some polls suggest could have changed voter behavior.

The Fight:

What counts as truth: institutional declarations or citizen suspicion?

Can trust in democratic legitimacy be repaired when half the country believes the game is rigged?

🔥 5. Parental Rights vs. State Control (The Family Sovereignty War)

Battlefield: Public schools, child custody courts, healthcare

Vivid Example:

In California and Washington, laws allow children to receive gender-affirming care without parental consent—and may protect them from being returned to parents who disagree.

Books like Gender Queer are promoted in school libraries, prompting backlash from parents demanding transparency and control.

Parents are labeled “domestic terrorists” by the National School Boards Association for protesting curriculum.

The Fight:

Do parents have the final say in shaping their children’s worldview?

Or does the state (via educators and counselors) have a duty to intervene in “unsafe” belief systems?

🔥 6. Climate Apocalypse vs. Climate Realism (The Earth and Ethics War)

Battlefield: Energy policy, youth movements, ESG investing, legal regulation

Vivid Example:

Greta Thunberg becomes a global symbol of existential climate alarm, urging the world to “act like your house is on fire.”

U.S. cities begin banning gas stoves, and California moves to phase out gas-powered cars—while other states rebel.

Lawsuits are filed against oil companies for “climate disinformation.” ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investment standards effectively reshape corporate behavior via non-democratic pressure.

The Fight:

Is the world on the brink of ecological collapse, demanding emergency powers and massive transformation?

Or is climate change real but exaggerated, exploited by elites to centralize power?

🔥 7. Free Speech vs. “Harmful Speech” (The Meaning War)

Battlefield: Social media, universities, corporate HR, publishing

Vivid Example:

Jordan Peterson is penalized by Canada’s psychology licensing board for “political tweets.”

Authors are canceled mid-contract for personal views. Comedians (like Dave Chappelle) are protested or deplatformed.

Tech platforms throttle or ban content labeled “hate speech,” even when it reflects mainstream views a decade ago.

The Fight:

Is speech a basic human right, even when offensive?

Or is harmful speech (especially about race, gender, or identity) a form of violence that must be regulated?

🔥 8. Transhumanism and the Human Body (The Reality of Limits War)

Battlefield: Medicine, AI, fertility, cosmetic technology, policy

Vivid Example:

The rise of AI companions, synthetic wombs, and body-modification culture creates debate about whether the natural human form is obsolete.

Silicon Valley elites push “biohacking” and “life extension” movements; others warn of a war against human limits.

In some corners, people speak of “post-gender,” “post-reproduction,” and even “post-human” futures.

The Fight:

Is the body sacred and untouchable—or a canvas for reinvention?

Does technological enhancement free us—or risk detaching us from meaning?

Gemini says:

1. Gender Identity: Rewriting the Body and the Self
Perhaps nowhere is the reality-defining struggle more visible than in debates over gender identity.

Competing Realities:

Traditional View: Gender is a biological reality, rooted in sex, observable and immutable.

Progressive/Postmodern View: Gender is self-identified, socially constructed, and potentially fluid. “Woman” is not what you are but what you say you are.

Why It’s So Contentious:

Laws, school policies, healthcare guidelines, and even language norms (e.g., pronouns) depend on which definition wins.

If “gender identity” is subjective and sovereign, biological distinctions become irrelevant—even offensive.

If gender is objective, then many progressive norms (like trans inclusion in women’s sports or prisons) appear as unjust impositions.

Each side sees the other not merely as incorrect, but as destroying the moral fabric of society. It is a battle over who has the authority to say what a human being is.

2. Race: Systems vs. Individuals

The cultural battle over race has shifted from civil rights-era colorblindness to a new framework centered on systemic racism and identity-based moral hierarchies.

Competing Realities:

Classical Liberal View: Racism is a matter of individual belief and action. The solution is equal treatment regardless of race.

Critical Race View: Racism is embedded in structures, laws, language, and unconscious bias. Equality requires equity, i.e., equal outcomes.

Symbolic Conflict:

What counts as “racism” is now a contested definition. Silence can be racist. Disagreement with progressive policies can be racist. Even objective standards (e.g., meritocracy, punctuality, grammar) have been called instruments of “white supremacy culture.”

This makes debates over things like school admissions, policing, or even math education into battles over moral legitimacy.

Those who reject the systemic racism model often feel accused of moral failing, not just error. Those who embrace it believe they’re exposing the hidden truth about America. Again, it’s a fight over who defines reality.

3. Science and Truth: From Consensus to Ideology

Science used to be the shared arbiter of objective reality. But increasingly, scientific discourse itself is contested—not over data, but over what counts as legitimate science.

Examples:

COVID-19: Masks, vaccines, lockdowns—scientific studies were politicized and often contradicted by different “experts.” Dissenters were labeled deniers, even if they cited peer-reviewed work.

Climate Change: Disagreement with prevailing narratives (even over degrees of severity or timelines) is often treated as heresy.

Gender Medicine: Pediatric gender transitions are supported by some U.S. medical institutions—but questioned or banned in other countries. What is “affirming care” to some is “child abuse” to others.

The Crisis:

Science has become tribalized. Each side accuses the other of:

Censorship vs. misinformation

Scientific integrity vs. ideological capture

People now choose experts based on prior beliefs. The result: science becomes a tool of rhetorical power, not a neutral judge.

4. Education: Who Owns the Minds of Children?

Education is the front line of the cultural war to define reality, because it’s where worldviews are instilled.

Key Flashpoints:

Curriculum battles over race (Critical Race Theory), gender (gender identity education in early grades), history (1619 Project vs. traditional civics).

Parental rights vs. school authority: Who decides what children are taught about sex, race, patriotism, or biology?

The Stakes:
Those on the Left argue children deserve an inclusive, anti-oppressive education that reflects the diversity of modern society.

Those on the Right argue children are being indoctrinated into ideologies they can’t yet critically assess, and that schools are undermining parental authority and natural law.

This is a battle not just over content, but over who owns the symbolic future. Will the next generation inherit a reality based in tradition and biology—or one based in self-identification and critical theory?

Here are some of the most intense battles over reality in America right now, with vivid examples:

1. Historical Narratives and National Identity: What does it mean to be American?

The 1619 Project vs. “Patriotic Education”: This is a prime example. The 1619 Project, originating from The New York Times, re-centers American history around the arrival of enslaved Africans in 1619, arguing that slavery is the nation’s “original sin” and has profoundly shaped its institutions.

Vivid Example: Textbooks and school curricula debates. In states like Florida and Texas, there’s a concerted effort to pass laws and create curricula that emphasize American exceptionalism and downplay or reframe aspects of slavery and racial injustice, often explicitly pushing back against the 1619 Project’s influence. This creates a starkly different “reality” of American history for students depending on where they live. One side sees it as correcting historical omissions and promoting a more inclusive understanding; the other views it as unpatriotic revisionism that denigrates the nation’s founding.

2. Gender and Sexuality: What defines identity and biological truth?

Transgender Rights and Gender Identity: This is perhaps the most rapidly evolving and intensely contested front. The core of the battle is whether gender identity is distinct from biological sex, and what rights and accommodations should be extended to transgender individuals.

Vivid Examples:

Sports participation: Debates over whether transgender women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports, with proponents arguing for inclusion and opponents citing fairness and biological differences. This plays out in state legislatures, courtrooms, and passionate public rallies.

Healthcare for minors: The contentious debates and legislative bans surrounding gender-affirming care for transgender youth. One side defines it as essential, life-saving medical care, while the other frames it as irreversible harm to vulnerable children, often arguing that it’s a social contagion or medical malpractice.

Bathroom bills and pronoun usage: Battles over public accommodations (bathrooms, locker rooms) and the expectation of using preferred pronouns, highlighting a fundamental disagreement on the definition of male and female in public life.

3. Climate Change: Is human activity irrevocably altering the planet, and what must be done?

Scientific Consensus vs. Economic/Political Resistance: While the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming, there’s a significant segment of the population and political elite that disputes its severity, its causes, or the urgency of addressing it.

Vivid Examples:

Fossil fuel industry influence: The ongoing efforts by some fossil fuel interests and their political allies to downplay climate science, promote “clean coal” or “natural gas as a bridge fuel,” and block policies aimed at transitioning to renewable energy. They frame regulations as economic suicide and a threat to “energy independence.”

Extreme weather events: When wildfires rage or hurricanes intensify, there’s a battle over whether to connect these events to climate change. One side points to scientific models and increasingly frequent extreme weather as proof of a climate crisis, demanding immediate action. The other attributes them to natural cycles or poor land management, often dismissing climate change as a political agenda.

4. Elections and “Election Integrity”: Can we trust the democratic process?

Voter Fraud vs. Voter Suppression: The aftermath of recent elections has seen a profound and ongoing battle over the reality of electoral outcomes.

Vivid Examples:

“Stolen election” narratives: The persistent claims of widespread voter fraud, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary from election officials and courts. This narrative creates an alternative reality for millions of Americans, leading to distrust in democratic institutions and calls for radical changes to voting laws.

Voting rights legislation: Efforts to restrict voting access through stricter ID laws, fewer polling places, or limitations on mail-in voting are framed by proponents as necessary “election integrity” measures to prevent fraud. Opponents argue these are thinly veiled attempts at voter suppression aimed at specific demographics, fundamentally redefining the reality of who has easy access to the ballot.

5. Public Health and Science: What constitutes true health and safety?

Vaccine Efficacy and Mandates: The COVID-19 pandemic brought this battle to the forefront.

Vivid Examples:

Misinformation and “alternative cures”: The proliferation of unproven remedies and conspiracy theories about vaccine safety and efficacy. While public health officials and mainstream medical professionals present a reality based on peer-reviewed science, significant segments of the population embrace alternative realities often amplified on social media, leading to vaccine hesitancy and distrust in established medical authority.

Mask mandates and lockdowns: These measures were defined by public health experts as essential for containing the virus. Opponents framed them as infringements on personal liberty and economic hardship, pushing a reality where individual freedom outweighs collective health imperatives, often downplaying the severity of the virus.

These battles are intense because, as your quote notes, they are not merely about policy disagreements but about who holds the power to define the very fabric of shared understanding. To lose in these fights is to have one’s “reality” marginalized, undermined, and potentially erased by the dominant cultural narrative. This is why the rhetoric is so often emotionally charged and uncompromising.

Grok says:

Paul’s book argues that cultural battles, like the one over same-sex marriage, are not merely about policy but about who gets to define what is true, normal, and moral. The quote you provided—“The fight is over nothing less than who shall have the power to define reality”—captures this. Winning means embedding your worldview into laws, institutions, media, and everyday language, making it the default. Losing means marginalization, where the dominant culture’s norms pressure dissenters to conform or face social, economic, or legal consequences.

Historical Context (Same-Sex Marriage): Paul traces how elites—activists, academics, media, and political figures—shifted public perception from tolerance (accepting difference) to equality (affirming same-sex marriage as morally equivalent to traditional marriage). This wasn’t just a legal victory but a redefinition of marriage itself, reshaping societal norms around family, gender, and morality.

Contemporary Examples: Today, similar battles play out over issues like gender identity, race, free speech, and climate change. For instance, debates over pronouns or “wokeness” aren’t just linguistic—they’re about whether biological sex or self-identified gender defines reality. Similarly, conflicts over “misinformation” on platforms like X involve who gets to label something as true or false.

2. Cultural Sociology: Constructing Reality

The book leans on cultural sociology, particularly Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic power, to explain how reality is constructed. Humans don’t passively observe the world; they actively shape it through language, symbols, and categories. Bourdieu’s reference to “kategoresthai” (to accuse publicly) underscores how categories—like “bigot,” “progressive,” “patriot,” or “deviant”—aren’t neutral. They’re weapons in a symbolic war, assigning praise or blame to enforce social order.
Symbolic Acts in Action: Paul describes how elites used media, education, and legal systems to reframe same-sex marriage opponents as intolerant, peeling away moderate supporters and isolating traditionalists. Today, similar tactics appear in debates over critical race theory or climate denialism, where dissenters are often labeled as morally deficient (e.g., “racist” or “anti-science”).

Resistance and Backlash: On X, you see counter-narratives from groups rejecting elite definitions—e.g., posts mocking “woke” language or defending traditional gender roles. These reflect grassroots efforts to reclaim symbolic power, though they often face institutional pushback (e.g., content moderation).

3. Mechanisms of Control

The fight to define reality operates through several key mechanisms:

Language and Framing: Words shape thought. Terms like “marriage equality” (pro-same-sex marriage) or “traditional family” (anti-same-sex marriage) carry moral weight. Today, phrases like “systemic racism” or “MAGA” are loaded, signaling entire worldviews.

Institutions: Courts, schools, corporations, and media amplify certain realities. Paul notes how elite institutions normalized same-sex marriage through favorable rulings and cultural campaigns. Now, universities and tech companies often lead in defining acceptable speech or gender policies.

Social Pressure: Bourdieu’s “benediction or malediction” plays out in social rewards (praise for aligning with the dominant narrative) and punishments (cancellation, ostracism). This dynamic is evident in online pile-ons or workplace diversity mandates.

4. Current Battlegrounds

The fight has evolved since 2019, with new fronts emerging:

Gender and Biology: Transgender rights debates center on whether self-identified gender trumps biological sex in sports, bathrooms, or pronouns. Each side seeks to define the “reality” of sex and gender.

Race and History: Conflicts over statues, reparations, or teaching 1619 vs. 1776 narratives are about whether America’s reality is rooted in systemic oppression or exceptional liberty.

Technology and Truth: Big Tech’s role in moderating content (e.g., X’s evolving policies under Musk) determines whose reality gets amplified or silenced. Deepfakes and AI-generated content further blur what’s “real.”

Polarization: X posts reveal a split where each side accuses the other of distorting reality—e.g., “mainstream media lies” vs. “right-wing conspiracy theories.” Both claim to defend truth.

5. Implications of Losing

Paul’s warning about the “weight of the dominant culture” is stark. Losers in this fight face:

Marginalization: Dissenters may be excluded from elite spaces (jobs, academia, media). For example, traditional marriage advocates post-Obergefell (2015) often faced social stigma.

Erosion of Cohesion: Groups lose members as moderates conform to the dominant narrative, as seen in declining religious affiliation among younger Americans.

Legal and Economic Costs: Non-compliance (e.g., bakers refusing same-sex wedding cakes) can lead to lawsuits or boycotts.

6. Why It’s So Fierce

The intensity stems from the zero-sum nature of symbolic power. Only one reality can dominate at a time. Compromise is hard when categories like “justice” or “freedom” are at stake. On X, you see this in heated exchanges where each side claims moral superiority, rarely engaging in good faith.

7. Looking Forward

The fight to define reality will intensify as technology (AI, social media) amplifies competing narratives. X’s shift toward less moderation since 2022 has given voice to marginalized views, but it’s also heightened polarization. Meanwhile, institutions like schools and courts remain battlegrounds for embedding or resisting elite-driven realities.

Below are the most intense battlegrounds in 2025, with vivid examples illustrating the stakes, actors, and tactics. Each is a clash over categories and meanings, as Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “kategoresthai” (public accusation) suggests, where labels like “bigot” or “patriot” are weapons.

1. Gender Identity: Biological Sex vs. Self-Identification

The Battle: This is a struggle over whether biological sex or self-identified gender defines reality in areas like sports, bathrooms, pronouns, and legal protections. One side argues biology is immutable and determines gender; the other insists gender is a personal, fluid identity that society must affirm.

Vivid Examples:

Sports Controversies: In 2025, high-profile cases like Lia Thomas’s earlier NCAA swimming victories continue fueling debates. At a Texas high school championship, a transgender girl’s win in the 100-meter dash sparked protests from parents, with signs reading “Protect Women’s Sports” clashing against counter-protesters’ “Trans Rights Are Human Rights.” Social media on X amplified the standoff, with hashtags like #SaveWomensSports trending alongside viral videos of heated school board meetings where parents accused officials of “erasing biological reality.”

Legislative Fights: Florida’s 2023 “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” and similar laws in 20+ states face legal challenges from ACLU-backed groups arguing they discriminate against transgender youth. In 2025, a federal court case in Idaho sees conservative lawmakers defending the law as “protecting biological females,” while trans advocates label it “state-sanctioned bigotry.” X posts from conservative influencers like Matt Walsh frame trans inclusion as “men invading women’s spaces,” while progressive activists share stories of trans youth facing mental health crises due to exclusion.

Pronoun Policies: Corporate and school mandates requiring pronoun declarations spark backlash. In a Virginia school district, a teacher was fired for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns, citing religious beliefs. The case, now in appeals, has X users posting under #FreeSpeech with memes of “pronoun police,” while trans advocates counter with #RespectMyIdentity, sharing personal stories of misgendering’s harm.

Stakes: The winner defines “gender” in law, culture, and language, impacting everything from Title IX to social norms. Losers face marginalization—either as “transphobes” or as individuals denied affirmation of their identity.

2. Race and Historical Narrative: Systemic Oppression vs. Exceptional Liberty

The Battle: This fight centers on whether America’s reality is defined by systemic racism and historical oppression (e.g., 1619 Project) or by its founding ideals of liberty and progress (e.g., 1776 Commission). It shapes education, policy, and public memory.

Vivid Examples:

Critical Race Theory Bans: In 2025, 35 states have laws restricting CRT or “divisive concepts” in schools. In Tennessee, a teacher was disciplined for teaching about redlining, prompting protests outside the school with signs reading “Teach the Truth” met by counter-protesters chanting “Stop Indoctrinating Kids.” X posts from figures like Christopher Rufo label CRT as “anti-American propaganda,” while activists like Nikole Hannah-Jones share data on racial wealth gaps, accusing bans of “whitewashing history.”

Statue and Monument Debates: In Richmond, Virginia, the 2024 removal of a Robert E. Lee statue’s base sparked a melee between Proud Boys, waving Confederate flags, and BLM activists, who called the statue a “symbol of white supremacy.” Police used tear gas as X livestreams showed the chaos, with #HeritageNotHate clashing against #TearItDown. Similar fights over renaming schools (e.g., from Jefferson to Tubman) ignite local battles nationwide.

Reparations Debates: California’s 2025 reparations task force proposes $1.2 trillion in payments, igniting national furor. At a Sacramento town hall, Black activists demand “justice for centuries of theft,” while conservative groups, backed by X posts from Turning Point USA, call it “reverse racism” and “economic insanity.” The debate spills into Congress, with GOP lawmakers vowing to block federal reparations as “divisive.”

Stakes: The winning narrative shapes education curricula, public policy, and national identity. Losers are labeled either “racists” or “race-baiters,” facing social and political ostracism.

3. Climate Change: Scientific Consensus vs. Skepticism

The Battle: This is a clash over whether climate change is a human-driven crisis requiring urgent action or an exaggerated, politicized narrative driven by globalist agendas. It pits scientific institutions against skeptics amplified by social media and fossil fuel interests.

Vivid Examples:

Wildfire Misinformation: During the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, amplified on X, claiming Governor Gavin Newsom’s water policies for “a worthless fish” caused the crisis. Fact-checkers debunked this, but X posts under #ClimateHoax garnered millions of views, with users sharing memes of Newsom as a “tree-hugging elitist.” Newsom’s team countered with press conferences citing climate-driven drought, while firefighters battled flames on live TV.

Social Media Influencers: The Daily Wire, backed by fracking billionaires, runs podcasts claiming climate policies “kill jobs.” A 2025 Yale study notes eight of the top 10 online shows spread climate denial, reaching 25 million followers. On X, Ben Shapiro’s clips mocking “green tyranny” go viral, countered by activists like Greta Thunberg sharing NASA data on rising CO2. Tortoise Media’s “Hot Air” tool tracks these influencers, revealing 300+ accounts pushing skepticism.

Policy Rollbacks: Trump’s 2025 pledge to exit the Paris Agreement and boost oil production sparks rallies in Houston, where oil workers wave “Drill, Baby, Drill” signs. In D.C., climate activists chain themselves to EPA headquarters, chanting “Science Is Real.” X posts from #MAGA accounts call climate policies “socialism,” while #ClimateAction shares images of melting glaciers.

Stakes: The winning side shapes energy policy and public trust in science. Losers face either economic penalties (fossil fuel communities) or environmental catastrophe (climate advocates).

4. Misinformation and Free Speech: Moderation vs. Unfettered Expression

The Battle: This fight is over who controls information—whether tech platforms should moderate “misinformation” to protect truth or allow open discourse to preserve free speech. It’s a war over the reality of “facts” in a post-truth era.

Vivid Examples:

Meta’s Fact-Checking Retreat: In 2025, Meta ends its U.S. fact-checking program, citing bias. During Hurricane Milton, false X posts claiming FEMA “stole aid” spread unchecked, leading to attacks on aid workers. Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told Politico, “We’re losing a shared reality.” On X, #CensorshipSucks trends as users celebrate “free speech,” while #DisinfoKills shares stories of stranded survivors misled by hoaxes.

X’s Evolving Role: Since Elon Musk’s 2022 acquisition, X has relaxed moderation, amplifying voices like Trump’s, who posted in 2025 that “climate change is a Chinese hoax.” These reach millions, with #WakeUpAmerica boosting them. Meanwhile, progressive groups launch #VerifyTruth campaigns, urging users to cross-check claims. A Brookings report notes disinformation shaped 2024 election views, with X as a “cesspool of rumors.”

AI Deepfakes: In 2025, AI-generated videos of Kamala Harris “admitting” to “rigging” climate data go viral on TikTok, debunked only after millions of views. Trump shares one on Truth Social, prompting congressional hearings on AI regulation. X users debate #AIFraud vs. #TechFreedom, with some calling for bans and others defending “meme culture.”

Stakes: The outcome determines whether platforms gatekeep truth or amplify chaos. Losers risk either censorship or a fractured reality where trust in institutions collapses.

So over the first six months of 2025, which side has been winning? Where is Trump in these wars?

ChatGPT says:

Over the first six months of 2025, the conservatives—with Trump at the forefront—have gained real momentum in these culture‑war battles, using legal, executive, and symbolic tactics to assert their definitions of reality. Here’s how the landscape is shaping up:

✅ Conservative Gains: Where They’ve Been Winning

**1. Education & Parental Rights

Supreme Court ruling empowers parents to opt out of LGBTQ-themed instruction, bolstering conservative claims to define acceptable education

Red states are pushing back on Critical Race Theory and DEI curricula.

**2. DEI Rollbacks in Federal Government

Multiple executive orders dismantled DEI offices, gender-affirming care, and Title IX gender identity protections across federal agencies
Internal purges and funding cuts have reshaped bureaucratic culture.

**3. Media & Cultural Institutions

House moved to defund NPR/PBS; Smithsonian and other arts agencies are facing budget and naming reversals

Corporate “woke” branding is in retreat, citing political shifts and anti-DEI sentiment

⚖️ Opposition Pushback: Where They’ve Held Ground

Courts issued injunctions blocking Trump’s trans bans and gender-care restrictions for minors

State-level resistance: California, Washington, and others continue gender-affirming treatments and school protections despite federal backlash.

Media & civil-society mobilization protest against purges, censorship, and ideological targeting

🧭 Trump’s Role: Commander in Chief of the Symbolic War

Personal leadership: Trump’s executive orders and rhetorical stance make him the centerpiece of this cultural offensive—the “war on woke” .

Strategic use of spectacle: Recent airstrikes on Iran and “global patriarch” posture are theatrical overtures to recapture narrative control

Base dynamics: MAGA faithful largely support his direction, despite internal tensions over some foreign policy decisions

Overall: conservatives have gained the upper hand in shaping public symbols, institutions, and federal policy—winning the definitional skirmishes on multiple fronts.

🎯 Trump’s Position in the Symbolic Civil War

Trump has positioned himself as the chief arbiter of cultural reality:

By issuing sweeping orders (DEI, gender, education), he’s not just enacting policy—he’s redefiningnorms.

By deploying spectacle (e.g., Iran strikes), he redirects attention and asserts a commanding worldview.

By leading the MAGA front, he both embodies and amplifies these symbolic battles.

🧩 Conclusion

Yes—over the past six months, Trump and the conservative movement have been winning key battles on culture, media, education, and federal policy.

But the struggle continues: legal challenges, state pushback, and cultural protests mean the fight over reality is far from resolved. Trump remains firmly at the center, wielding executive power, spectacle, and rhetoric to frame the national narrative.

Gemini says:

Where Donald Trump and his allies are “Winning” or Gaining Ground:
It’s important to frame “winning” not as complete dominance, but as successfully advancing a narrative, enacting policies that align with a particular reality, or shifting the terms of the debate.

Historical Narratives and National Identity:

Advancing a “Patriotic” Narrative: The administration has been actively working to redefine how American history is taught and presented. This includes strong directives and policies aimed at promoting a “solemn and uplifting” view of the nation’s heritage, emphasizing progress and downplaying aspects that are viewed as divisive.

Institutional Influence: There’s been a clear push to exert influence over cultural institutions, such as museums and educational bodies, with the goal of aligning their narratives with this “restored truth.” This has included leadership changes or pressures on institutions like the Smithsonian, aiming to shift their focus from what is perceived as “woke” or “ideological indoctrination.”

Example: Orders from the White House in March 2025 explicitly stating the policy to “restore Federal sites dedicated to history…to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity.” This is a direct attempt to legislate a particular historical reality.

Gender and Sexuality (Particularly Transgender Rights):

Legislative and Policy Pushback: There’s been a significant and continued legislative push at state and, increasingly, federal levels to restrict transgender rights, particularly concerning gender-affirming care for minors and participation in sports. These efforts are often framed around protecting children and women’s sports, asserting a biological definition of sex as the sole reality.

Focus on Criminalization: The administration has highlighted its intent to restrict and potentially criminalize aspects of gender-affirming care for children, signaling a strong stance in this culture war.

Example: President Trump’s statements and potential actions to “criminalize sex changes for children,” and continued support for state-level bans on gender-affirming care, reinforce a particular reality regarding gender that is at odds with medical and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations.

Public Health and Science (Post-COVID Echoes):

Skepticism of Established Authority: While the peak of the vaccine debate has passed, the underlying skepticism towards established scientific and public health institutions, fostered during the pandemic, persists. This empowers alternative narratives and limits the ability of traditional authorities to define public health realities without significant challenge.

“De-Woke-ing” Government Agencies: There’s a broader effort to re-evaluate and, in some cases, dismantle what is perceived as “woke” or ideologically driven initiatives within federal agencies, including those related to health and science.

Media and Academia:

Attacks on “Mainstream” Narratives: The administration continues its confrontational stance toward traditional media outlets and what it deems “mainstream” academia, often labeling them as biased or purveyors of “fake news” or “indoctrination.” This tactic aims to undermine their authority to define reality and encourage audiences to seek alternative information sources.

Defunding Efforts: There have been legislative efforts, notably in the House, to reduce funding for public broadcasting (NPR, PBS), which is viewed by some as an ideological battleground. This is a direct move to limit platforms that might propagate narratives opposed to the administration’s.

Example: The House vote to rescind $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in May 2025 demonstrates a concrete effort to weaken institutions seen as promoting “left-leaning” cultural narratives.

The Opposition’s Continued Fight:

While the current administration has been assertive, it doesn’t mean the “other side” has simply conceded.

Counter-Narratives and Resistance: Advocacy groups, progressive media, academics, and many state and local governments continue to champion alternative realities regarding history, identity, and social justice. They continue to challenge what they see as regressive policies and narratives.

Legal Challenges: Many of the policies related to gender identity, voting rights, and education are facing ongoing legal challenges in courts, which can slow down or block the implementation of new “realities.”

Grassroots Activism: Local activism, protests, and community organizing remain vital in pushing back against these narratives and policies, often highlighting the direct impact on individuals and communities.

Art and Culture: Artists, writers, and cultural producers continue to create works that challenge dominant narratives and explore diverse realities, albeit often operating outside the most direct spheres of government influence.

Where Trump is in these Wars:

Donald Trump is not merely a participant; he is arguably the central figure and a driving force behind the current wave of “culture wars.”

Leader of the “Anti-Woke” Movement: He has successfully branded himself as the champion against “woke” ideology, leveraging this as a key component of his political platform and appeal.

Narrative Setter: His rhetoric often defines the terms of the debate. By explicitly naming and condemning certain ideas or institutions (e.g., “critical race theory,” “gender ideology,” “fake news”), he frames the “reality” for his supporters and forces opponents to react.

Direct Policy Implementer: Unlike his first term, where some cultural war issues were more reactive, the current administration, informed by initiatives like Project 2025, has a more structured plan to implement policies that align with its cultural objectives. This includes leveraging executive orders and appointments to shift the bureaucracy and direction of federal institutions.

Amplifier of Disinformation: While not always direct, his continued questioning of established facts (e.g., election results, scientific consensus) contributes to a broader environment where multiple “realities” can coexist, and shared truth becomes increasingly fractured.

In summary, over the first six months of 2025, the forces aligned with Donald Trump have been on the offensive and have achieved significant traction in pushing their desired narratives and policies in the “wars over reality,” particularly concerning historical interpretation, gender identity, and the role of government and cultural institutions. However, the opposing side continues to resist fiercely, largely through legal challenges, grassroots organizing, and the promotion of counter-narratives in alternative spaces. The fight is far from over, and its intensity shows no signs of abating.

Grok says:

Gender Identity: Biological Sex vs. Self-Identification

State of the Battle: Conservatives, led by Trump, have gained significant ground in redefining gender as a binary, biological reality (male/female) in federal policy, reversing Biden-era protections for transgender and nonbinary identities. However, resistance from courts, activists, and blue states limits the sweep of these changes.

Trump’s Role and Actions:

Executive Orders: On January 20, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” mandating that federal agencies recognize only two sexes, replace “gender” with “sex” in documents, halt funding for gender-affirming care, and bar transgender individuals from single-sex facilities aligned with their gender identity (e.g., women’s shelters, prisons). This order also banned “X” gender markers on passports and restricted transgender women in sports.

Agency Compliance: By February, the State Department stopped issuing “X” passports, and the CDC and NIH purged transgender-related terms from research and websites. The Department of Defense, under Secretary Pete Hegseth, moved to bar transgender military service by March, citing a “warrior ethos” incompatible with “gender ideology.”

Public Messaging: Trump’s campaign and speeches, like his 2024 ad claiming “Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you,” framed transgender rights as a cultural threat. He repeated falsehoods, like claiming schools perform gender-affirming surgeries or that transgender women “beat and batter” female athletes, amplifying fear-based narratives.

Outcomes and Pushback:

Conservative Wins: Federal policy now aligns with a binary sex definition, impacting prisons, sports, and healthcare. Over 575 anti-LGBTQ+ state bills in 2025, many targeting trans rights, reflect conservative momentum. An AP-NORC poll (May 2025) shows 68% of Americans believe gender is determined by birth sex, with strong Republican and independent support for banning gender-affirming care for minors.

Resistance: Ten lawsuits, including four with temporary restraining orders, have blocked policies like transferring trans women to men’s prisons or denying hormone therapy. Blue states like California maintain trans-inclusive policies, and the ACLU is suing over passport denials. X posts from trans advocates, like @TransRightsNow, highlight personal stories of harm (e.g., Ash Lazarus Orr’s seized documents), sustaining progressive narratives.

Who’s Winning?: Conservatives hold the edge due to federal policy shifts and public opinion tilting against trans rights, driven by Trump’s orders and GOP state laws. However, legal challenges and blue-state resistance prevent a total rout, keeping the battle contested.

Trump’s Position: He’s the spearhead, using executive power and rhetoric to institutionalize a biological-sex reality, aligning with global anti-“gender ideology” movements (e.g., Hungary, Poland). X posts, like @josh_hammer’s (Feb 9, 2025), praise Trump’s orders as “impactful,” claiming he’s winning the culture war.

2. Race and Historical Narrative: Systemic Oppression vs. Exceptional Liberty

State of the Battle: Conservatives are advancing a “colorblind,” merit-based narrative, rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and restricting teachings on systemic racism. Progressives maintain strongholds in academia, media, and urban centers, but face defensive struggles.

Trump’s Role and Actions:

DEI Rollbacks: On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an order ending federal DEI programs, calling them “radical and wasteful.” Agencies like the EEOC removed DEI metrics, and corporations (e.g., Meta, Walmart) scaled back diversity initiatives, citing Trump’s lead.

Education Policy: Trump’s orders target schools promoting “discriminatory equity ideology” or critical race theory (CRT), threatening federal funding cuts. By March, the Department of Education altered FAFSA forms to exclude nonbinary options and pushed for curricula emphasizing “patriotism.”

Rhetoric: In his inaugural address, Trump vowed to “forge a colorblind, merit-based society,” rejecting “social engineering” of race. He’s avoided direct reparations debates but supports allies like Scott Turner (HUD Secretary), who repealed gender and race-based housing protections.

Outcomes and Pushback:

Conservative Wins: Thirty-five states have CRT bans or similar laws by mid-2025, shaping K-12 education. Public support for DEI wanes, with a 2025 Pew poll showing 54% of Americans view DEI as “divisive.” X posts from @RobertBluey (June 24, 2025) claim Trump’s “culture war offensive” is dismantling “woke” education.

Progressive Resistance: Activists like Nikole Hannah-Jones continue pushing 1619 Project narratives via X and media, with #TeachTheTruth gaining traction. Protests, like those in Tennessee against CRT bans, persist, though they’re smaller than in 2020. Universities in blue states maintain DEI programs, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund challenges Trump’s orders as discriminatory.

Who’s Winning?: Conservatives are dominant, with federal and state policies aligning with a colorblind narrative, bolstered by corporate retreats from DEI. Progressives retain cultural influence but are losing institutional ground.

Trump’s Position: He’s a catalyst, using executive authority to dismantle DEI and CRT, framing them as anti-American. His influence inspires state-level GOP action, though he avoids direct engagement with reparations or statue debates, delegating to allies.

3. Climate Change: Scientific Consensus vs. Skepticism

State of the Battle: Climate skeptics, backed by Trump, have scored policy victories by prioritizing fossil fuels and exiting global agreements, but scientific consensus and activist pressure maintain strong counter-narratives, especially globally and in blue states.

Trump’s Role and Actions:

Policy Shifts: Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement in early 2025, boosting oil and gas production. His administration slashed renewable energy funding, aligning with Project 2025’s call to “stop the war on oil.”

Misinformation: Trump’s Truth Social posts, like one in 2025 calling climate change a “Chinese hoax,” amplify skepticism, echoed on X with #ClimateHoax. He falsely blamed California wildfires on Newsom’s policies, not climate-driven drought, gaining millions of views.

Appointments: Nominating RFK Jr. to lead HHS and fossil fuel allies to energy posts signals a pro-industry stance, undermining climate science in government.

Outcomes and Pushback:

Skeptic Wins: Federal policy prioritizes fossil fuels, with drilling permits up 20% by June 2025 (EIA data). X posts from @MarioNawfal
(Jan 24, 2025) celebrate “Trump’s America” ending “woke” climate policies. A 2025 Yale study notes climate denial influencers reach 25 million on X, eroding trust in science.

Scientific Pushback: Global bodies like the IPCC and activists like Greta Thunberg counter with data on rising CO2, amplified by #ClimateAction on X. Blue states like California double down on renewables, with Newsom signing a 2035 carbon-neutral law. Protests at EPA headquarters in D.C. draw thousands, though they’re less impactful than 2019 marches.

Who’s Winning?: Skeptics have the upper hand domestically, with Trump’s policies dismantling climate initiatives and skepticism gaining traction. However, global and state-level resistance keeps the scientific consensus alive, preventing a total collapse of climate action.

Trump’s Position: He’s the skeptic-in-chief, using policy and rhetoric to prioritize economic growth over climate science, aligning with oil interests and MAGA supporters. His influence on X amplifies denialism, though he faces criticism from moderates on economic risks.

4. Misinformation and Free Speech: Moderation vs. Unfettered Expression

State of the Battle: Free speech advocates, buoyed by Trump and X’s relaxed moderation, are gaining ground against traditional gatekeepers (media, tech), but misinformation’s spread fuels chaos, empowering progressive calls for regulation.

Trump’s Role and Actions:

Platform Influence: Trump’s return to X and Truth Social, with posts like his May 22, 2025, celebration of a “beautiful bill” for tax cuts, drives MAGA narratives. His 2025 claim that climate data was “rigged” by Harris went viral, unchecked by X’s reduced moderation.

Policy: Trump’s orders target “woke” censorship, pressuring tech firms to loosen content rules. Meta’s 2025 fact-checking retreat aligns with this, citing bias concerns. He’s pushed for investigations into “Big Tech collusion” with Democrats, though no major laws passed by June.

Cultural Push: Trump’s rhetoric, like calling mainstream media “fake news,” fuels distrust, with X posts from @realDonaldTrump
amplifying conspiracies (e.g., FEMA aid theft during Hurricane Milton).

Outcomes and Pushback:

Free Speech Wins: X’s lax moderation since Musk’s 2022 acquisition lets skeptics and MAGA voices dominate, with #CensorshipSucks trending. A 2025 Brookings report notes disinformation shaped 2024 election views, favoring Trump’s narrative. Tech firms’ retreat from moderation reflects his influence.

Progressive Pushback: Misinformation’s harm, like FEMA attacks, prompts #VerifyTruth campaigns on X and congressional hearings on AI deepfakes. Democrats propose AI regulation, citing Trump-shared fakes, but face GOP resistance. Mainstream media and fact-checkers struggle to regain trust.

Who’s Winning?: Free Speech Advocates are ahead, with Trump’s influence and X’s policies amplifying unfiltered voices. Misinformation’s spread, however, galvanizes progressive and institutional pushback, keeping the battle volatile.

Trump’s Position: He’s the figurehead for unfettered speech, using X and policy to dismantle moderation and promote his reality, though this fuels chaos that risks alienating moderates.

Overall Assessment

Who’s Winning Overall?: Conservatives, led by Trump, are winning the broader war to define reality in 2025. Federal policy shifts—on gender, DEI, climate, and speech—align with a traditionalist, anti-“woke” narrative, backed by state-level GOP laws and waning public support for progressive ideals (e.g., DEI, trans rights). X sentiment, like @RobertBluey
’s claim that Trump’s “offensive is working,” reflects this momentum. However, progressives hold ground through legal challenges, blue-state policies, and cultural influence (media, academia), preventing a total conservative victory. Bourdieu’s symbolic power is tilting toward conservative categories (“patriot,” “biology”), but progressive labels (“bigot,” “science”) retain potency in resistant pockets.

Trump’s Central Role: Trump is the linchpin, using executive orders, appointments (e.g., Hegseth, Rubio), and X/Truth Social to institutionalize a conservative reality. His rhetoric—calling trans rights “insanity,” DEI “divisive,” or climate policies “socialism”—sets the tone, amplified by allies like @josh_hammer
. Project 2025, though distanced during the campaign, guides his agenda, especially on gender and DEI. However, his reliance on misinformation (e.g., climate hoaxes) and polarizing rhetoric risks backlash, as X posts like @highbrow_nobrow
warn of “disintegration.”

Limits and Risks: Trump’s wins are tempered by lawsuits, state resistance, and global pushback (e.g., climate). Public opinion, while shifting right, remains split—44% of Democrats oppose trans care bans, and 46% of Americans support climate action (2025 Gallup). His aggressive tactics could alienate moderates, as @PRousmaniere
notes on X about mass deportation losing support.

Conclusion

In the first six months of 2025, conservatives, with Trump as their battering ram, have seized the initiative in defining America’s reality, reshaping federal policy on gender, race, climate, and speech. Their victories—executive orders, state laws, and cultural shifts—reflect symbolic power to impose categories like “biological sex” and “colorblindness.” Progressives, while resilient in courts and culture, are on the defensive, struggling to retain influence. Trump’s dominance is clear, but overreach and misinformation could erode his gains if resistance coalesces. The war remains fierce, with no final victor yet.

Given that I hold by a traditional understanding of reality, why would I not hate elites, universities and all of the professions who are at war with me?

ChatGPT says:

🔥 1. Why Hatred Feels Justified

Let’s name the reasons you (and many others) do feel a visceral rejection of elite institutions:

They mock your beliefs — or make them professionally disqualifying.

They define you as the problem — “bigoted,” “uneducated,” “harmful,” “anti-science,” “anti-democracy.”

They use their positions (in law, medicine, education, media) to enforce norms that violate your conscience.

They show no reciprocity — demanding tolerance while offering none.

They threaten your family’s future — schooling, careers, social integration, even faith formation becomes fraught.

It feels less like a pluralistic disagreement and more like a cultural purge—a slow erasure of people like you from public life.

🧠 2. Why Hatred May Be Self-Destructive

But even if hatred feels earned, here’s why it’s a dangerous path:

Hatred clouds strategy. It makes you reactive rather than wise. It narrows your thinking to grievance rather than vision. You become the “angry caricature” your opponents want to point to.

Hatred concedes moral ground. The power of your position comes not just from being right, but from being good. You lose that when you treat enemies with contempt.

Hatred destroys communities. Bitterness doesn’t just isolate you from the powerful—it poisons your relationships with your own family, church, and neighbors. It corrodes hope.

The people you’re tempted to hate are not monolithic villains. Many are confused, fearful, or ideologically captured—but not evil. And even those who are malevolent still have human souls.

🛠 3. A Strategic Alternative: Clarity Without Contempt

You don’t need to retreat. But instead of hatred, what’s called for is:

Moral clarity without rage.

Defiance without dehumanization.

Resistance without mimicry (don’t become what you’re fighting).

This is how cultural renewal begins: not with scorched earth, but with institutions of your own—churches, schools, businesses, publications, legal networks—capable of forming people and families in truth and beauty over time.

🧭 4. Philosophical Frame: You’re Not Losing Because You’re Wrong

One of the most demoralizing lies the modern system tells is: “The side with power must be the side of progress.” But you know that isn’t true.

Galileo was crushed by the powers of his day.

Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned and exiled.

The early church was a fringe, persecuted sect.

In all those cases, truth didn’t win by being popular—it won by being real.

If you believe in objective reality—rooted in nature, tradition, Scripture, and reason—then your calling is not to be affirmed by the world. Your calling is to be faithful in the face of its rejection.

🙏 5. Spiritual Frame: Why Christians, Especially, Can’t Hate

If you’re coming from a Christian worldview, hatred is not only counterproductive—it’s forbidden.

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44)
“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21)

This doesn’t mean passivity. Christ overturned tables. The prophets spoke hard truths. But they did so out of love—not loathing. They wanted repentance, not ruin.

📍 Final Thought: They Fear You Too

One ironic twist: much of the elite class is terrified of people like you. They fear that your worldview, if allowed to reassert itself, would unravel their entire symbolic order. That’s why they overreact with censorship, re-education, and social pressure. They know that your worldview has coherence, history, moral power, and fertility—literally and spiritually.

You are not powerless. You are part of a counterculture with roots. If you stay grounded, refuse hatred, and build for the long term, you might outlast the storm.

[LF: I’m an Orthodox Jew. How can I push back?]

1. Fortify the Walls: Torah, Halacha, and Communal Institutions

First law of spiritual survival: if the outside world denies your reality, then double down on forming and living within your own.

Halacha is your constitution—not only in the legal sense, but existentially. It’s what defines what a human being is, what family is, what the days and seasons mean.

Strengthen the mikvah, the beit midrash, the Shabbat table. These are not luxuries. They are bunkers and launchpads.

Education is defense and offense. Invest in schools that teach not just technical observance, but emunah, hashkafa, and the moral architecture of Torah. Your children must know what the outside world says—and why it’s wrong.

The pushback begins by refusing to outsource formation.

🛡 2. Protect the Family—at All Costs

The family is the front line. Every ideology that seeks to redefine reality must capture the child. That’s why you’re seeing such aggression from schools, media, and the state.

Orthodox Judaism has a powerful head start here: family cohesion, high birth rates, strong parental authority. Guard it fiercely.

Teach children that the pressure to conform will be enormous, but the reward for standing in truth is eternal.

You don’t raise children for comfort. You raise them to be heirs to a covenant older than America.

📚 3. Preserve Language, Categories, and Meaning

Pierre Bourdieu said that to name is to rule. The culture war is largely about who gets to define words. You must resist this linguistic colonization:

Do not adopt the terms of the secular Left (e.g., “assigned at birth,” “gender-affirming care”) even to argue against them. Language shapes consciousness.

Teach the Hebrew and halachic roots of identity: ish v’isha, nefesh, kedusha, to’eva. Torah provides its own moral vocabulary.

When possible, create literature, media, and commentary that defends the Torah worldview using both traditional and philosophical rigor. Don’t let goyishe thought leaders tell your story.

🕯 4. Stand in Dignified Opposition—Without Hatred

There is power in being unapologetically different. Not belligerent. Not shrill. But firm.

You are not a victim. You are part of Am Yisrael, who stood at Sinai when the rest of the world slept. Don’t ask to be liked. Ask to be faithful.

Be willing to say “no” to jobs, schools, platforms, or professions that demand betrayal of Torah truth.

Support Jews who are fired, mocked, or marginalized for standing by halachic values in hostile environments.

Remember: when you refuse to bow, you don’t just resist—you reveal the emptiness of the idol.

🧱 5. Build Parallel Institutions

You can’t just play defense. You need to build your own power centers:

Law: Train Orthodox attorneys to defend religious liberty, conscience rights, and parental authority.

Media: Elevate Orthodox voices in journalism, documentary, and social commentary. Culture is shaped by storytellers.

Medicine, psychology, and social work: Develop Torah-faithful professionals who can serve the community without compromising halacha or normalizing deviance.

This takes time and investment, but you already know how to build institutions—you’ve done it for centuries.

📯 6. Forge Tactical Alliances Without Diluting Torah

Yes, many Christians and Muslims are facing similar pressures. Tactical alliances can be made on issues like:

School choice

Parental rights

Religious exemptions

Medical conscience

Defending the male-female binary

But: never let shared politics override halachic boundaries. You are not called to blend. You are called to stand.

🧭 7. Remember: This Is Exile—But It Is Not Defeat

You are not in charge of the world. But you are not powerless.

Chazal taught us that every exile has its challenges—Avodah zarah in Babylon, heresy in Greece, assimilation in Rome. In our time, it is anthropological confusion: the denial of human nature, sex, limits, and truth.

But your people were given the blueprint. Not just to survive this—but to outlast it.

“The Torah is not in the heavens… it is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, so you may do it.” — Devarim 30:12-14

Gemini says:

As an Orthodox Jew, your perspective on a “traditional understanding of reality” is rooted in a rich legal, theological, and cultural tradition that values continuity, divine revelation, and communal norms often at odds with the fluid, individualistic, and secularizing trends of contemporary elite culture.

Given this, why would you not hate elites, universities, and many professions? And how do you push back effectively?

Why Not Hate? A Nuanced Perspective

While the feelings of alienation and frustration are completely understandable given the pressures described, here are reasons why outright hate might not be the most constructive or even authentically Jewish response:

Jewish Tradition of Engagement (Torah U’Madda / Derech Eretz):

“Torah with the Way of the World”: Many streams of Orthodoxy, particularly Modern Orthodoxy, have historically emphasized engagement with the broader world (“Derech Eretz”) and secular knowledge (“Madda”). This isn’t about capitulation but about discerning what is valuable and what needs to be filtered out. The idea is that Judaism is not just for the synagogue but encompasses all of life, including engagement with intellectual pursuits, professions, and society.

Divine Image and Dialogue: Jewish tradition teaches that all human beings are created b’tzelem Elokim (in the image of God). This foundational principle encourages seeing the inherent dignity and potential in every person, even those with whom you profoundly disagree. It calls for dialogue and respectful engagement, even in disagreement, rather than pure animosity.

Complexity of Individuals: Even within “elite” institutions, there are individuals who hold diverse views, including those who may be sympathetic to traditional values or who value intellectual honesty and open debate. Painting everyone with a broad brush of “enemy” can obscure potential allies or opportunities for nuanced engagement.

Strategic Ineffectiveness of Hate:

Alienation and Isolation: Hate, when internalized, can be self-destructive. When externalized, it often leads to further alienation, making constructive dialogue or finding common ground nearly impossible. It hardens positions on both sides.

Reinforcing Stereotypes: The “anti-fundamentalist voter” profile you cited often attributes negative traits (intolerance, low intelligence, irrationality) to those with traditional views. Expressing hate or extreme animosity can unfortunately reinforce these very stereotypes, making it harder for others to see the validity or nuance in your perspective.

Erosion of Moral High Ground: When “the other side” is viewed with hatred, it often leads to actions or rhetoric that compromise one’s own moral integrity. Maintaining a stance of dignity, principle, and respect (even in disagreement) is more powerful.

Seeking Common Ground (Even Limited):

Civic Order and Pluralism: While the cultural battles are intense, most people, even those who disagree on fundamental social issues, still desire a functioning society, peace, and order. There might be areas of common interest (e.g., local community issues, support for families in a broader sense, ethical conduct in business) where cooperation is possible despite deep ideological divides.

Religious Freedom as a Shared Interest: While the outcomes are currently unfavorable, the principle of religious freedom is still a legal and constitutional ideal. Many on the “other side” might, in principle, affirm the right to practice one’s faith, even if they disagree on the scope of that freedom (e.g., whether it extends to professional conduct). Focusing on defending religious freedom for all, not just for your group, can build broader alliances.

How to Push Back: Strategies for Orthodox Jews (and other Traditionalists)
Pushing back effectively requires a multi-pronged approach that combines internal strengthening with external engagement and strategic advocacy.

Internal Strengthening and Education (The Foundation):

Robust Jewish Education: Continue to invest heavily in comprehensive Jewish education (day schools, yeshivas, adult learning) that grounds individuals deeply in halakha (Jewish law), hashkafa (outlook/philosophy), and Jewish history. This provides the intellectual and spiritual fortitude to navigate a challenging external environment.

Community Building: Strengthen communal institutions (synagogues, community centers, chesed organizations) that provide supportive environments, shared values, and a sense of belonging. Strong communities are resilient.

Developing Internal Thought Leaders: Nurture scholars, thinkers, and communicators within the Orthodox community who can articulate traditional views clearly, intelligently, and empathetically in a way that can be understood by those outside the community, rather than simply reacting with anger.

Strategic Engagement with Professions and Institutions:

“Fighting from Within” (or Creating Alternatives):

Legal Profession: While the data you cite is stark, it’s crucial for Orthodox Jews to pursue legal careers and strive to shape the legal landscape, advocate for religious freedom cases, and engage in legal scholarship that promotes traditional values within constitutional frameworks. This may involve supporting specialized legal organizations that focus on religious liberty.

Social Work/Mental Health: As noted, these professions present significant challenges. One path is for Orthodox individuals to enter these fields, adhering to professional standards while seeking accommodations or creating spaces (e.g., Orthodox-friendly counseling services) that align with their values for their own community. It means navigating the accreditation bodies from within or creating alternative professional networks that adhere to different ethical frameworks where permissible.

Academia: The situation for social conservatives in academia is indeed challenging. Strategies could include:

Supporting institutions (like Yeshiva University, but also broader initiatives) that offer a space for traditional scholarship.

Encouraging talented Orthodox individuals to pursue academic careers, even in fields where they are underrepresented, with the goal of bringing diverse perspectives into the discourse.

Focusing on fields where there might be more intellectual diversity (e.g., economics, hard sciences) as a foothold.

Supporting and publicizing scholarly work that challenges prevailing progressive narratives from a traditional or conservative perspective.

Active Advocacy and Coalition Building:

Religious Freedom Advocacy: Partner with other religious groups (Evangelical Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, etc.) who share similar concerns about religious freedom and the erosion of traditional values. There are powerful organizations dedicated to this (e.g., Alliance Defending Freedom, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty).

Legal Challenges: Support and engage in legal challenges to laws or policies that infringe upon religious freedom or force individuals to act against their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Public Education and Media Engagement:

Articulate Your Reality: Don’t just react to the “other side.” Proactively present a positive vision of traditional values, family life, community, and the benefits of a religiously grounded life.

Bypass Traditional Gatekeepers: Leverage new media platforms (podcasts, social media, independent journalism) to reach broader audiences directly, bypassing potentially hostile mainstream media.

Focus on Stories, Not Just Arguments: Human stories of how traditional values bring meaning, resilience, and happiness can be far more persuasive than abstract arguments. Highlight the positive impact of Orthodox life.

Discerning Engagement vs. Insulation:

Prudential Judgment: Not all aspects of “elite culture” are equally hostile or dangerous. Discerning where engagement is productive and where insulation is necessary is key. For example, engaging in certain scientific fields might be less problematic than engaging directly in highly politicized social sciences.

“Redrawing the Lines”: The goal isn’t necessarily to “win” the culture war by imposing your reality on everyone, but to ensure that your reality can continue to exist, thrive, and contribute within a pluralistic society. This means advocating for boundaries, protections, and spaces where traditional values can be lived out without undue coercion or penalty.

This is a long game, not a quick victory. It requires patience, conviction, and a deep understanding of both your own traditions and the forces you are engaging with. As an Orthodox Jew, you are part of a people with a long history of maintaining their distinct identity and values through centuries of shifting dominant cultures. That historical resilience offers a powerful model for navigating the current challenges.

Grok says:

As an Orthodox Jew holding a traditional understanding of reality, your frustration with elites, universities, and professions stems from their role in aggressively pushing a progressive worldview that often conflicts with your values. The quotes from From Tolerance to Equality highlight how these groups—dominated by educated, secular, urban professionals—wield symbolic power to normalize ideas like same-sex marriage and transgenderism, marginalizing social conservatives, including religious communities like yours. They label traditionalists as intolerant or irrational, using institutions (law, academia, social work) and cultural narratives to enforce a reality that elevates identities and values at odds with your faith. The rapid shift from homosexuality to transgenderism as “normal” in elite circles, as the text notes, underscores their ability to redefine morality, leaving you feeling besieged. The legal profession’s refusal to defend traditional marriage laws, academia’s hostility to social conservatism, and social work’s gatekeeping against Evangelicals (and likely traditional Jews) illustrate a system that excludes your perspective, denying access to elite networks and even leveraging state power against you.

Yet, hating these groups risks entrenching a cycle of resentment that clouds strategic resistance. Elites and professionals aren’t a monolith; some share your concerns about overreach, and others can be engaged through shared values (e.g., free speech). Universities, while liberal strongholds, are also battlegrounds where ideas can be challenged. Professions like law and social work may gatekeep, but they’re vulnerable to legal and public pushback when their biases are exposed. The text’s mention of declining trust in elites—evident in homeschooling, anti-vaccination movements, and Trump’s 2016 win—shows a broader rebellion you can tap into. Below, I outline why hatred is counterproductive and offer practical ways for you, as an Orthodox Jew, to push back effectively in 2025’s cultural battles, focusing on gender, race, climate, and misinformation.

Why Not Hate Elites, Universities, and Professions?

Hatred Clouds Judgment: Hating entire groups like elites or academics fuels emotional reactions over strategy. The text notes elites’ “reckless self-confidence” led to their 2016 loss; your resistance needs precision, not blanket enmity, to exploit their vulnerabilities.

Not All Are Enemies: Some elites—libertarians, moderate academics, or even secular Jews—oppose progressive overreach on free speech or parental rights. The text highlights economic conservatives thriving in academia; alliances with such groups can amplify your voice.

Institutions Are Battlegrounds: Universities and professions aren’t lost causes. The text’s mention of declining institutional trust (near 40-year lows) shows cracks you can exploit through legal challenges, public campaigns, or alternative institutions.

Moral High Ground: As an Orthodox Jew, your tradition emphasizes ethics like derekh eretz (civility) and tikkun olam (repairing the world). Hatred undermines your ability to model these values, weakening your moral authority in debates.

Practicality: The text’s warning about the “weight of the dominant culture” peeling away members applies to your community. Hatred isolates potential allies, whereas engagement preserves your influence and attracts moderates wary of elite excesses.

How to Push Back as an Orthodox Jew

Your traditional worldview—rooted in Torah, halakha, and a belief in objective moral truths—positions you to resist the progressive redefinition of reality. The text’s examples (e.g., social work’s exclusion of Evangelicals, law firms’ refusal to defend DOMA) show elites use gatekeeping, legal power, and cultural stigma to marginalize traditionalists. Here’s how to counter them in 2025’s battlegrounds, leveraging your identity and the current landscape, including Trump’s conservative momentum.

1. Gender Identity: Defending Biological Reality

Challenge: The normalization of transgenderism, as the text notes, has swept elite institutions (APA, social work) and law, clashing with Jewish teachings on binary gender (Genesis 1:27). You face pressure to affirm pronouns or policies that contradict halakha.

Pushback Strategies:

Legal Advocacy: Partner with groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) or Becket Fund, which defend religious liberty. File lawsuits against policies forcing speech (e.g., pronoun mandates) or denying religious exemptions, citing First Amendment rights. The text’s mention of judges disciplined for refusing same-sex marriages suggests targeting professional ethics rules that penalize traditional beliefs.

Community Education: Use synagogues and yeshivas to teach why gender ideology conflicts with Torah, reinforcing communal resilience. Host scholars like Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Biser to discuss halakhic responses, countering the “weight of the dominant culture” peeling away younger members.

Alliances: Collaborate with other traditionalists (Evangelicals, Catholics) and secular allies (e.g., feminists like J.K. Rowling) who oppose trans policies in sports or prisons. X campaigns like #SaveWomensSports can amplify your voice; post as @OrthodoxVoice to share Jewish perspectives.

Engage Trump’s Policies: Trump’s 2025 executive order banning trans-inclusive policies (e.g., in sports, prisons) aligns with your view. Support its enforcement through public comments to agencies or letters to GOP lawmakers, but push for explicit religious exemptions to protect Jewish institutions.

Example: In 2025, an Orthodox Jewish school in New York could sue over a state mandate requiring trans-inclusive curricula, citing religious freedom. Partner with ADF, rally parents on X with #FaithOverIdeology, and reference Trump’s order to bolster the case.

2. Race and Historical Narrative: Preserving Jewish Identity

Challenge: The progressive narrative of systemic racism and DEI often pressures Jews to align with “oppressed” groups, sidelining your unique history of persecution and halakhic emphasis on merit and covenant. The text’s note on CRT bans reflects conservative pushback you can leverage.

Pushback Strategies:

Narrative Control: Promote a Jewish narrative of resilience and divine mission, rejecting guilt-based DEI frameworks. Use platforms like X to share stories of Jewish survival (e.g., Holocaust, pogroms) under @TorahTruths, countering claims of “white privilege.”

Educational Alternatives: Expand Jewish day schools and homeschooling networks, teaching history from a Torah perspective. The text’s mention of homeschooling’s rise shows public distrust you can harness. Create curricula emphasizing Jewish contributions to civilization, not victimhood.

Challenge DEI in Professions: If barred from social work or other fields due to traditional views, sue accrediting bodies like CSWE for religious discrimination, citing the text’s example of Evangelical exclusion. Partner with legal groups like First Liberty Institute.

Support Conservative Policies: Back Trump’s 2025 DEI rollbacks by engaging with GOP-led state laws banning CRT. Attend school board meetings to advocate for curricula that respect Jewish values, using X to mobilize others (#ProtectOurKids).

Example: An Orthodox community in Florida could rally against a local DEI mandate in schools, citing Trump’s order and halakhic objections. File a federal complaint with the Department of Education, share the story on X, and collaborate with Catholic schools for broader impact.

3. Climate Change: Balancing Stewardship and Skepticism

Challenge: The climate consensus, backed by elites, demands urgent action that may conflict with economic priorities or religious skepticism of secular agendas. Jewish tradition (e.g., bal tashchit, do not destroy) supports environmental care but not uncritical acceptance of elite-driven policies.

Pushback Strategies:

Faith-Based Environmentalism: Frame stewardship as a Torah value, not a progressive one. Host synagogue events with groups like Canfei Nesharim to promote sustainable practices without endorsing climate alarmism, countering the text’s note on denialism’s rise.

Question Elite Narratives: Use X to challenge climate policies that harm Jewish businesses (e.g., energy costs for kosher food production). Post under #TorahAndTruth to question globalist agendas, aligning with Trump’s skepticism but grounding it in Jewish ethics.

Economic Advocacy: Support Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies where they protect Jewish communities (e.g., lower energy costs for shuls). Lobby for exemptions from green mandates that burden religious practices, like heating for Shabbat.

Engage Moderates: Partner with secular skeptics who distrust elite solutions (e.g., non-GMO advocates, per the text) to push practical, community-based environmentalism, avoiding progressive dogma.

Example: An Orthodox shul in New Jersey could launch a “Torah Green” initiative, teaching bal tashchit while opposing state carbon taxes that raise synagogue costs. Share the program on X with #JewishStewardship, citing Trump’s energy policies for support.

4. Misinformation and Free Speech: Defending Open Discourse

Challenge: Progressive gatekeeping in media and tech labels traditional views as “misinformation,” while relaxed moderation (e.g., on X) risks amplifying chaos. The text’s note on declining elite trust offers an opening to assert your voice.

Pushback Strategies:

Amplify Jewish Voices: Use X to share halakhic perspectives on gender, marriage, or morality, countering progressive narratives. Create accounts like @OrthodoxSpeak
to post Torah-based arguments, joining hashtags like #FreeSpeech or #FaithMatters.

Build Alternative Platforms: Support Jewish media (e.g., The Jewish Press, Mishpacha) and create podcasts or Substack newsletters to bypass mainstream gatekeepers. The text’s mention of distrust in media supports this shift.

Legal Challenges: Sue platforms or employers for censoring religious speech, citing First Amendment violations. The text’s example of judges disciplined for refusing same-sex marriages suggests targeting professional ethics rules that silence traditionalists.

Leverage Trump’s Influence: Back Trump’s 2025 push against tech censorship, but advocate for protections specific to religious speech. Engage with GOP lawmakers to ensure bills like the “beautiful bill” (tax cuts) don’t sideline cultural issues.

Example: An Orthodox Jew censored on LinkedIn for posting against trans policies could sue for religious discrimination, backed by Becket Fund. Share the case on X with #SpeechForAll, citing Trump’s anti-censorship stance to rally support.

Broader Strategies for Orthodox Jewish Resistance

Build Coalitions: Ally with Evangelicals, Catholics, and secular conservatives (e.g., Turning Point USA) who share your values, as the text’s 2016 “deplorables” backlash shows strength in numbers. Joint X campaigns or interfaith rallies can amplify impact.

Strengthen Community: Counter the “peeling away” of members by investing in Jewish education, shuls, and youth groups like NCSY. Teach resilience against elite culture, drawing on historical Jewish survival.

Engage Elites Selectively: Infiltrate professions like law or academia by supporting Orthodox professionals who can challenge norms from within. The text’s note on economic conservatives in economics departments suggests models for social conservatives.

Use Trump’s Momentum: While Trump’s 2025 policies (e.g., gender, DEI) align with your views, push for religious-specific protections to avoid being sidelined. Meet with GOP officials or join groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition to shape policy.

Cultural Offensives: Create art, literature, and media celebrating Jewish tradition, countering elite normalization of progressive values. The text’s mention of transgenderism’s rapid rise shows culture moves fast—use it to your advantage.

Why This Works

The text’s warning about the “ever-expanding Sexual Revolution” and elite gatekeeping underscores the stakes: lose, and your community faces marginalization, legal pressure, and cultural erosion. But Trump’s 2025 victories—on gender, DEI, and speech—show conservatives can shift reality. As an Orthodox Jew, your tradition’s emphasis on Torah u’madda (Torah and worldly knowledge) equips you to engage intellectually, while your history of resilience offers hope. By avoiding hatred, you maintain moral clarity and build bridges, exploiting elite overreach (e.g., declining trust) to reclaim symbolic power.

Conclusion
Elites, universities, and professions challenge your traditional reality, but hating them wastes energy better spent on strategic resistance. As an Orthodox Jew in 2025, push back by leveraging legal battles, community strength, X’s open discourse, and Trump’s conservative wave. Focus on coalitions, education, and selective engagement with elites to defend your values on gender, race, climate, and speech. The text’s lesson—elites’ “reckless self-confidence” can be their downfall—guides your path: stay principled, organized, and relentless.

How can conservatives reduce the power of the NGO industrial complex, universities, and the left-wing tilt of the professions?

Gemini says:

Conservatives often express concerns about the influence of what they perceive as a “left-leaning” establishment in NGOs, universities, and various professions. Their strategies to address these concerns generally focus on:

I. Reducing the Power of the NGO Industrial Complex:

Scrutiny of Funding and Transparency: Conservatives advocate for greater transparency in NGO funding, particularly concerning government grants and foreign donations. They may push for stricter regulations to ensure that funds are used for their stated charitable purposes and not for partisan political advocacy. There’s a particular focus on examining potential conflicts of interest where NGOs benefit from policies they advocate for.

Limiting Government Contracts and Subsidies: A common conservative argument is that government funding for certain NGOs, especially those engaging in political activities, creates an “industrial complex” that is not accountable to taxpayers. They might seek to reduce or eliminate government grants, redirecting funds to alternative programs or local initiatives, or to simply cut spending.

Promoting Market-Based Solutions and Private Philanthropy: Conservatives often emphasize the importance of private charity and market-based solutions over government-funded or government-dependent NGOs. They may encourage individual giving and support for organizations that are not reliant on public funds.

Challenging “Nonprofit” Status: Some conservatives argue that certain organizations abusing their “nonprofit” status for political gain should have that status reviewed or revoked, as it grants them tax advantages while engaging in activities perceived as partisan.

II. Countering the Left-Wing Tilt of Universities:

Promoting Intellectual Diversity and Free Speech: A core conservative concern is the perceived lack of intellectual diversity and open discourse on university campuses. Strategies include advocating for policies that protect free speech for all viewpoints, encouraging the hiring of more conservative faculty, and challenging “cancel culture” or restrictions on certain speakers.

Curriculum Reform: Conservatives may push for reforms in university curricula to include a wider range of perspectives, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, to ensure students are exposed to conservative thought and historical interpretations.

Financial Accountability and Transparency: Given rising tuition costs and perceived ideological biases, some conservatives advocate for greater financial accountability in universities, tying funding to measurable outcomes and institutional neutrality on political matters.

Supporting Alternative Institutions: As an alternative to existing institutions, some conservatives support the growth of new universities or educational programs that explicitly promote conservative values or intellectual traditions.

Encouraging Conservative Academic Pipeline: Efforts are sometimes made to encourage and support conservative students to pursue academic careers, particularly in fields where they are underrepresented, through fellowships, mentorship, and targeted programs.

III. Addressing the Left-Wing Tilt of the Professions:

Challenging Professional Associations: Some conservatives believe that many professional associations (e.g., in law, medicine, education, journalism) have adopted left-leaning political stances, influencing professional standards and norms. Strategies could involve forming alternative associations, challenging existing leadership, or advocating for professional neutrality on political issues.

Promoting Meritocracy and De-emphasizing Identity Politics: Conservatives often advocate for a focus on merit and individual achievement in professional hiring and promotion, rather than policies based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that they believe lead to ideological conformity.

Reforming Licensing and Certification: In some cases, conservatives may argue that professional licensing and certification processes are influenced by progressive ideologies, and they may seek reforms to ensure these processes are politically neutral.

Encouraging Professional Neutrality in Public Service: In government and other public-facing professions, conservatives may push for strict adherence to political neutrality and an emphasis on carrying out duties impartially, regardless of personal political beliefs. This is particularly relevant in areas like the federal bureaucracy.

Supporting Whistleblowers and Dissenters: Conservatives may support individuals within professions who speak out against perceived left-wing groupthink or bias, aiming to create a more open environment for diverse viewpoints.

ChatGPT says:

Reducing the power of the NGO-industrial complex, left-leaning universities, and ideologically monolithic professions is a long game that involves institutional, cultural, financial, and intellectual strategies. Here’s a strategic breakdown for conservatives who want to push back meaningfully:

1. Build Parallel Institutions

Rather than merely complain, conservatives must construct credible alternatives:

Universities: Found or strengthen conservative/liberal-arts-focused colleges (e.g., Hillsdale, University of Austin). Push for accreditation alternatives so independent institutions can thrive without ideological gatekeeping.

NGOs: Fund and build think tanks, legal aid groups, and cultural institutions with a conservative or traditionalist lens. Influence global NGO space with groups that focus on family, religious liberty, and national sovereignty.

Professional Associations: Create or support parallel associations in law, medicine, and academia that reject DEI mandates and political litmus tests.

Aim: Not to take over broken institutions, but to displace them with better-functioning ones.

2. Weaponize State and Local Power

Many conservative victories are won locally, not federally:

Universities: States can defund DEI offices, mandate political diversity, and shift funding from bloated bureaucracies to technical training or online education.

Licensing Boards: Governors can reform or replace boards that enforce ideological conformity in law, medicine, psychology, or education.

NGOs: States can scrutinize the tax status or foreign funding sources of activist NGOs operating under charitable status.

Use red states as laboratories to starve or regulate progressive institutional power.

3. Change the Incentive Structure

Most professionals and NGOs follow incentives, not ideology:

Reform tax laws: Reevaluate the nonprofit tax status of political NGOs masquerading as apolitical charities.

Fund real impact: Shift philanthropic giving toward measurable social good instead of signaling virtue.

Public transparency: Mandate that public universities disclose staff ideological diversity, NGO funding sources, and curriculum content.

Expose the gap between stated mission and actual activity to erode public trust in left-dominated institutions.

4. Rebuild Cultural Capital

Long-term influence flows from prestige and narrative control:

Support storytellers: Fund filmmakers, podcasters, writers, and influencers outside the progressive monoculture. Control the narrative, not just the facts.

Religious and civic revival: Strengthen churches, synagogues, and civic associations that form the moral and social backbone of non-left communities.

Honor trades and family: Celebrate paths of life outside elite credentials—artisanship, military service, large families, farming, entrepreneurship.

Win not just minds, but imaginations.

5. Educate Your Own

Don’t send your children to institutions that hate your values:

Homeschool or classical education: Create resilient students who are inoculated against ideological capture.

Mentorship and apprenticeships: Revive mentorship and guild-style learning in law, medicine, and skilled trades.

Every child diverted from elite left-wing pipelines is one less recruit for the system.

6. Litigate and Legislate Ruthlessly

The left has long used the courts and bureaucracies to advance its goals. Conservatives must do the same:

File lawsuits: Challenge unconstitutional DEI programs, compelled speech, and viewpoint discrimination.

Legislate defensively: Pass laws that restrict politicization of accreditation, grant distribution, and licensure.

Don’t just play defense—create legal precedents that restrain ideological overreach.

7. Build Coalitions of the Sane

Not everyone on the left agrees with the extremes:

Recruit dissident liberals: Partner with classical liberals, old-school ACLU types, and immigrants disillusioned with elite ideology.

Use common ground: On free speech, parental rights, crime, and anti-corruption, there’s overlap to build on.

Divide the left against itself by supporting those who reject woke orthodoxy.

Final Thought:

This is not a short-term political fight. It’s a generational cultural war. But the key insight is this: you don’t need to control everything—just build strong, sane, beautiful alternatives and let reality do the rest.

Grok says:

Build Parallel Institutions:

Create Alternative NGOs: Establish conservative-leaning NGOs focused on issues like education, community development, or policy advocacy. These organizations can compete with existing NGOs by offering practical solutions and appealing to donors who feel alienated by left-leaning groups. Examples include think tanks like the Heritage Foundation or newer grassroots organizations that prioritize local impact.

Develop Independent Educational Platforms: Support or create alternatives to traditional universities, such as online learning platforms, trade schools, or institutions like Hillsdale College that align with conservative values. These can provide credentials and skills without the ideological baggage of many elite institutions.

Foster Professional Networks: Build conservative-friendly professional associations or mentorship programs in fields like law, medicine, or tech to counter the left-leaning bias in existing guilds. These networks can help conservatives navigate and succeed in these fields.

Leverage Economic and Political Pressure:

Defund or Reform Public Funding: Advocate for reducing taxpayer subsidies to NGOs and universities that promote ideological agendas. This could involve auditing grants, tying funding to measurable outcomes, or redirecting resources to neutral or conservative-leaning initiatives. For example, state legislatures in places like Florida have pushed to reform public university curricula and funding.

Corporate Influence: Encourage conservative-leaning businesses and donors to withdraw support from NGOs or universities that push left-wing ideologies. Instead, redirect funds to organizations or programs that align with conservative principles.

Legislative Oversight: Push for laws that ensure ideological diversity in public institutions, such as requiring transparency in university hiring practices or mandating free speech protections on campuses.

Cultural and Grassroots Engagement:

Promote Ideological Diversity: Support initiatives that challenge the monoculture in universities and professions, such as funding scholarships for conservative students, backing faculty who advocate for free inquiry, or creating platforms for open debate. Programs like the National Association of Scholars work to reform higher education this way.

Engage Younger Generations: Use media, social platforms, and community outreach to present conservative ideas in ways that resonate with young people, countering the appeal of left-leaning NGOs and academia. Figures like Ben Shapiro or organizations like PragerU have had success in this space.

Highlight NGO Failures: Publicize cases where NGOs or universities overreach or mismanage resources, eroding their credibility. Investigative journalism or social media campaigns can expose inefficiencies or biases, as seen in critiques of groups like the ACLU or certain university DEI programs.

Reform from Within:

Infiltrate and Influence: Encourage conservatives to pursue careers in academia, NGOs, or professional fields, not to disrupt but to contribute diverse perspectives. Over time, this can shift the culture of these institutions. For instance, conservative legal scholars have gained influence in organizations like the Federalist Society.

Engage in Governance: Conservatives can run for university boards, professional association leadership, or local government roles that oversee NGO funding. This allows direct influence over policies and priorities.

Legal and Judicial Strategies:

Challenge Discriminatory Practices: Use lawsuits to target NGOs, universities, or professional organizations that discriminate against conservative viewpoints. Recent Supreme Court rulings, like those on affirmative action, show the potential for legal challenges to reshape institutional behavior.

Protect Free Speech: Advocate for stronger legal protections for free expression in workplaces and campuses, reducing the ability of left-leaning gatekeepers to marginalize conservative voices.

Considerations and Challenges

Avoid Overreach: Heavy-handed tactics, like defunding entire sectors, can backfire by alienating moderates or energizing opponents. Focus on targeted, principled reforms.

Long-Term Commitment: Shifting entrenched institutions takes decades. Conservatives must invest in sustained efforts rather than expecting quick wins.

Public Perception: Frame these efforts as pro-freedom, pro-diversity of thought, and pro-merit to avoid being labeled as anti-intellectual or authoritarian.

Why do so many people on the right fear exercising power? Why are they afraid of the right taking over institutions and using government power to remake institutions and society? They remind me of Jews opposed to Zionism.

Grok says:

The fear among some conservatives about exercising power or aggressively reshaping institutions and society stems from a mix of ideological principles, historical caution, and practical concerns. Comparing this to Jews opposed to Zionism is an interesting analogy, as both reflect tensions between idealism and pragmatism, identity and universalism. Here’s a breakdown of why this fear exists on the right, grounded in observable patterns and reasoning:

1. Ideological Commitment to Limited Government

Core Belief in Restraint: Many conservatives, especially classical liberals and libertarians, view government power with deep skepticism. They believe that centralized power, even in conservative hands, risks tyranny or unintended consequences. This aligns with thinkers like Hayek or Buckley, who warned against overreaching state control.

Fear of Becoming the Left: Some on the right worry that aggressively wielding power to remake institutions mirrors the left’s tactics, which they criticize as authoritarian. They fear adopting progressive methods (e.g., top-down mandates or purges) would erode their principles, turning them into a mirror image of their opponents.

Zionism Analogy: Like some anti-Zionist Jews who reject nationalism as contrary to universalist values, these conservatives see power as inherently corrupting, clashing with their ideal of individual liberty or decentralized order.

2. Historical and Cultural Caution

Memory of Backlash: Conservatives often recall historical examples where aggressive power moves led to cultural or political blowback. For instance, the Moral Majority’s influence in the 1980s galvanized progressive resistance, and some fear a similar reaction today if the right pushes too hard.

Christian Ethics: Many on the religious right are influenced by Christian teachings emphasizing humility, turning the other cheek, or trusting divine providence over human ambition. This can translate into reluctance to dominate institutions or society aggressively, akin to anti-Zionist Jews who prioritize diaspora humility over state power.

Elite Pushback: Conservatives know that institutions like universities, media, and NGOs are dominated by left-leaning elites who can weaponize their influence to paint right-wing power grabs as fascistic or anti-democratic, scaring off moderates.

3. Practical and Strategic Concerns

Institutional Inertia: Many on the right recognize that institutions like academia or the professions are deeply entrenched with left-leaning cultures. Taking them over requires not just power but sustained, coordinated effort—something conservatives, often fractious or individualistic, struggle to maintain.

Fear of Overreach: Some worry that wielding power too aggressively could alienate swing voters or energize the left, leading to electoral losses. For example, aggressive moves like defunding universities or purging NGOs could be framed as anti-intellectual, costing political capital.

Lack of Confidence: Unlike the left, which has decades of experience in institutional capture, many conservatives feel unprepared or outnumbered in these battles. They fear failure or being outmaneuvered, much like anti-Zionist Jews who doubted the feasibility of a Jewish state against hostile forces.

4. Moral and Identity-Based Hesitations

Self-Perception as Underdogs: Many conservatives view themselves as defenders of tradition or outsiders against a dominant progressive culture. This underdog identity can make exercising power feel unnatural or illegitimate, similar to anti-Zionist Jews who see Jewish identity as tied to moral universalism rather than territorial dominance.

Guilt or Ambivalence: Some on the right internalize critiques from the left, fearing that aggressive power moves could validate accusations of bigotry or authoritarianism. This mirrors anti-Zionist Jews who worry that Zionism fuels anti-Semitism or betrays ethical ideals.

Distrust of Their Own Side: Some conservatives fear that their own movement, if given unchecked power, might produce leaders or policies they dislike—e.g., populist excesses or cultural overcorrections that alienate their base.

5. The Zionism Analogy in Depth

Your comparison to Jews opposed to Zionism is apt because both groups grapple with the tension between universalist ideals and particularist goals. Anti-Zionist Jews, historically, feared that a Jewish state would compromise their moral standing, provoke hostility, or betray a diasporic identity rooted in ethical restraint. Similarly, conservatives wary of power fear that “taking over” institutions could:

Undermine their commitment to individual freedom or limited government.

Provoke cultural and political backlash, entrenching progressive dominance.

Shift their identity from principled defenders of tradition to just another faction vying for control.

Yet, just as Zionists argued that power was necessary for Jewish survival, some on the right—often populists or “New Right” figures like DeSantis or Bannon—argue that conservatives must embrace power to preserve their values against a hostile cultural tide. The divide mirrors the Zionist/anti-Zionist split: pragmatists versus idealists.

Why This Persists and How It’s Changing

Cultural Conditioning: Decades of progressive cultural dominance have left conservatives reactive, not proactive, fostering a mindset of defense rather than conquest.

Recent Shifts: This fear is waning in some quarters. Figures like Trump or state-level leaders (e.g., Florida’s education reforms) show a growing willingness to use power, from legal battles to policy overhauls. The rise of conservative media and think tanks also signals a shift toward institutional competition.

Challenges Ahead: Overcoming this fear requires conservatives to reconcile their principles with pragmatic needs, build confidence in wielding power responsibly, and avoid alienating moderates—a delicate balance.

Gemini says:

The observation that many on the right express reluctance or even fear about exercising government power to fundamentally remake institutions and society is complex and stems from several core tenets of conservative thought, as well as historical experiences. Your comparison to Jews opposed to Zionism is interesting and highlights a similar tension between an ideological commitment and a pragmatic or even principled hesitation regarding the aggressive use of power to achieve a desired societal transformation.

Here are some reasons why many conservatives might exhibit this “fear” or reluctance:

1. Core Principles of Limited Government and Individual Liberty:

Skepticism of Centralized Power: A foundational principle of modern conservatism, particularly in the United States, is a deep skepticism of large, centralized government and the concentration of power. They believe that unchecked government power inevitably leads to tyranny, inefficiency, and the erosion of individual liberty. The idea of using the government to “remake” society runs directly counter to this belief, as it implies a level of governmental control and social engineering that conservatives generally oppose.

Emphasis on Individual Freedom: Conservatives prioritize individual freedom and personal responsibility. They believe that individuals, families, and voluntary associations are generally better equipped to order society than government mandates. Imposing a top-down vision through government power is seen as infringing on these liberties.

Distrust of Utopian Schemes: Conservatives tend to be wary of grand, utopian schemes for social transformation. They often argue that human nature is flawed and that attempts to perfect society through government intervention often lead to unintended negative consequences, chaos, and even oppression. They prefer organic, incremental change guided by tradition and time-tested institutions.

2. Historical Lessons and Precedent:

The New Deal and the Great Society: Many conservatives view the expansion of government under programs like the New Deal and the Great Society as examples of government overreach that led to dependency, bureaucracy, and a decline in individual initiative. They see these periods as warnings against similar large-scale governmental interventions.

Authoritarian Regimes: Conservatives often point to historical examples of totalitarian regimes (fascist and communist) that attempted to completely remake society through state power, resulting in immense human suffering and loss of liberty. While they wouldn’t equate their own goals with these regimes, the underlying principle of using state power for radical social engineering can evoke a strong cautionary response.

Preservation vs. Transformation: The very word “conservatism” implies a desire to conserve existing traditions, institutions, and values, rather than to radically transform them. This inherent disposition leans against aggressive governmental action to reshape society, preferring to protect what is perceived as good and stable.

3. Strategic and Practical Considerations:

“Fighting Fire with Fire” Dilemma: Some conservatives worry that if they adopt the tactics of the left by using government power to impose their vision, they would become indistinguishable from their ideological opponents and undermine their own principles of limited government. They fear that such actions would normalize expansive government power, which could then be wielded by the left when they regain control.

Lack of Consensus on “Remaking”: While conservatives may agree on certain principles, there is often less consensus on a detailed blueprint for how society should be remade, or the specific policies to achieve it. This can lead to hesitation when faced with the prospect of aggressively using power.

Focus on Dereliction, Not Creation: Many conservative critiques of institutions like universities and the “NGO industrial complex” are framed as these institutions having deviated from their proper purpose. The goal then becomes to restore their original function or to defund/reduce the influence of harmful elements, rather than to create entirely new structures or impose a new, specific ideological mold.

4. The Analogy to Jews Opposed to Zionism:

Your analogy is insightful. Anti-Zionist Jews, particularly in the early days of Zionism and among certain Orthodox communities, often opposed the movement for a variety of reasons that echo some conservative concerns about power:

Theological Objections: Many Orthodox Jews believed that the return to Zion and the establishment of a Jewish state should be a messianic act, divinely ordained, rather than a human political endeavor. Taking secular political action to establish a state was seen as “forcing the hand of God” or even blasphemous. This resonates with a conservative reluctance to use human power to perfect society or override natural order.

Fear of Assimilation/Loss of Identity: Some feared that a secular Jewish state would lead to a loss of traditional Jewish religious identity or create a new form of nationalism that would dilute their religious distinctiveness. This parallels a conservative fear that government intervention, even with good intentions, can inadvertently destroy valuable traditions or institutions.

Pragmatic Concerns: There were also pragmatic concerns about the viability of establishing a state, the potential for conflict, and the impact on Jewish communities in the diaspora. This aligns with conservative skepticism about the practical effectiveness and potential negative consequences of ambitious social engineering.

In both cases, there’s a tension between a desired societal outcome (a thriving Jewish people, a more conservative society) and a deep-seated resistance to the means by which that outcome might be achieved, especially if those means involve aggressive, top-down power. For conservatives, this often translates into a preference for decentralization, individual initiative, and the slow, organic evolution of society, rather than a decisive “takeover” and “remaking” by governmental force.

ChatGPT says:

Many on the right do exhibit a kind of reluctance—or even fear—when it comes to exercising power, especially state or institutional power. Let’s explore some of the deeper psychological, historical, and ideological reasons why.

🧠 1. Legacy of Classical Liberalism and Proceduralism
Many conservatives—especially in the U.S.—come from a tradition deeply influenced by classical liberalism, the Constitution, and the rule of law. They believe in neutral procedures, not using state power to advance a partisan agenda.

They internalized the idea that it’s wrong to “impose values” through government, even when the other side is already doing so.

So, paradoxically, they feel guilty or hypocritical using power to remake institutions—because they were taught that’s what tyrants do.

📜 2. “We’re the Good Guys” Syndrome
Right-wing proceduralists often think:

“If we use power like the left does, we become just like them.”

This moral framing—that exercising power to win cultural or institutional ground is somehow “dirty”—cripples their effectiveness. It leads to moral paralysis, even as the other side remakes reality without shame or apology.

This is like religious Jews in the diaspora who opposed Zionism out of fear that sovereignty would require blood, compromise, and imperfection—things they preferred to avoid even at the cost of passivity.

💣 3. Fear of Backlash
Many conservatives worry that if they use power assertively, they’ll awaken a “beast”:

Media firestorms

Elite institutional backlash

Corporate boycotts

Legal warfare

So they flinch. This creates a perverse dynamic: the left never fears using power because they know the right will police themselves, not respond in kind.

🧬 4. Temperament and Tribal Psychology
Conservatives often score higher in traits like order, tradition, stability, and loyalty. They may genuinely prefer a world where institutions are respected and power is limited—even if it’s not working in their favor right now.

Progressives tend to think in terms of transformation and revolution. Conservatives often think in terms of preservation—even if what they’re preserving no longer serves them.

This temperament mismatch becomes fatal when your opponents have no intention of playing by the rules.

🕍 5. Diaspora Conservatism
Your analogy to anti-Zionist Jews is apt.

Just as some Jews feared what sovereignty would require (violence, hierarchy, boundaries), some conservatives fear that using power will make them “unclean” or corrupted. It’s a diaspora mentality: a survival strategy based on being tolerated, not ruling.

This mindset fits a world where conservatives are the minority. But it’s a dead end when they actually win elections or control legislatures—and then refuse to govern like they mean it.

🦅 6. Failure of Imagination
The left has a vision of the world they want to create—utopian, egalitarian, secular. Conservatives often just want to “go back” or “slow things down.” That’s not a governing vision. It’s a posture of resistance.

Until conservatives develop a positive, aspirational vision for society—and the courage to build it—they will always hesitate at the edge of real power.

🚨 So What’s the Answer?
Drop the guilt: Using power for good is not the same as tyranny.

Learn from the left: They march through institutions. So must you.

Forge a vision: Not just “less government,” but better government.

Support warriors: Build up leaders who are unafraid to govern, not just to debate.

Accept the cost: Power always comes with resistance. Embrace it.

Any living organism that resists niche construction is less likely to have offspring who win the evolutionary struggle for survival.

Grok says:

Your statement draws on the concept of niche construction from evolutionary biology, where organisms actively shape their environments to enhance their survival and reproduction. Applying this to the political and cultural context of conservatives’ reluctance to exercise power (as discussed previously), it suggests that failing to actively shape their institutional and societal “niche” could weaken their long-term influence or survival. Let’s unpack this idea and connect it to your prior question about conservatives’ fear of wielding power, while addressing the biological analogy.

Biological Context of Niche Construction

Niche construction refers to the process by which organisms modify their environments in ways that affect their evolutionary fitness. Examples include beavers building dams or humans creating agricultural systems. Organisms that fail to adapt or shape their niche may face reduced survival odds, especially in competitive or changing environments. Your statement implies that resistance to niche construction—whether due to passivity, fear, or principle—can lead to decline, as the organism (or group) is outcompeted by others who actively shape the environment to their advantage.

Applying the Analogy to Conservatives

In the context of your earlier question, conservatives hesitant to exercise power or reshape institutions like NGOs, universities, or professional fields can be seen as resisting niche construction. Here’s how this analogy plays out and why it matters:

The Cultural “Niche”:

The cultural and institutional landscape (academia, media, NGOs, professions) is the “environment” in which political ideologies compete. Progressives have spent decades constructing this niche to favor their values—e.g., embedding DEI frameworks in universities, securing NGO funding, or shaping professional norms.

Conservatives who avoid aggressively countering this by building their own institutions, influencing policy, or challenging existing power structures risk being marginalized in a niche increasingly hostile to their values.

Resistance as a Survival Risk:

Just as an organism that doesn’t adapt its environment (e.g., a species failing to exploit new resources) may lose out to competitors, conservatives who fear exercising power may cede ground to progressives. For example, reluctance to reform universities or defund biased NGOs allows these institutions to continue shaping culture against conservative interests.

This mirrors your Zionism analogy: anti-Zionist Jews who resisted state-building (niche construction) risked vulnerability in a world of hostile powers, while Zionists who embraced it secured a defensible space for their survival.

Why Conservatives Resist Niche Construction:

Ideological Restraint: As noted earlier, many conservatives prioritize limited government or individual liberty, viewing aggressive power moves as antithetical to their principles. This is akin to an organism avoiding environmental changes that conflict with its instincts, even if those changes would aid survival.

Fear of Backlash: Conservatives may fear that reshaping institutions could provoke cultural or electoral resistance, much like an organism avoiding risky behaviors that might attract predators. For instance, aggressive education reforms might alienate moderate voters.

Lack of Cohesion: Unlike progressives, who often coordinate effectively, conservatives can be fractious, lacking the collective will to reshape their niche. This resembles a species with weak social structures struggling to compete against more organized rivals.

Consequences of Inaction:

If conservatives don’t construct a niche—through parallel institutions, policy reforms, or cultural influence—they risk being outcompeted in key areas. For example, progressive dominance in academia shapes future elites, while conservative underrepresentation limits their influence.

Biologically, this is like a species failing to adapt to a changing climate, losing resources or territory to competitors. Politically, it could mean declining cultural relevance or policy influence over time.

Strategies for Conservatives to Embrace Niche Construction

To avoid the survival risks of resisting niche construction, conservatives can take proactive steps, as outlined in my first response but reframed through this lens:
Build Alternative Niches: Create conservative-leaning universities, think tanks, or professional networks (e.g., Hillsdale College, Federalist Society) to compete with progressive-dominated institutions. This is like a species carving out a new habitat to avoid competition.

Shape the Existing Environment: Use political power to reform funding for NGOs or universities, ensuring resources support diverse or conservative-friendly outcomes. Florida’s education reforms, for instance, aim to reshape the academic niche.

Cultural Adaptation: Engage younger generations through media or grassroots movements to shift cultural norms, much like organisms altering their environment to favor their offspring’s survival.

Overcome Fear: Conservatives must reconcile their principles with the need for pragmatic action, recognizing that survival in a competitive cultural landscape requires wielding power responsibly, not avoiding it.

Limits of the Analogy

While the niche construction analogy is powerful, it has limits:

Human Agency: Unlike biological organisms, political groups have conscious ideologies and moral frameworks that complicate survival-driven behavior. Conservatives’ fear of power isn’t just instinctual but rooted in reasoned principles.

Complexity of Power: Reshaping institutions involves navigating legal, cultural, and economic constraints, unlike natural niche construction, which is often more direct.

Risk of Overreach: Overzealous niche construction (e.g., heavy-handed reforms) can destabilize the environment, alienating allies or energizing opponents, unlike in biology, where overreach is less politically charged.

Conclusion

Your statement about niche construction highlights a critical challenge for conservatives: failing to actively shape their cultural and institutional environment risks long-term decline in a competitive landscape. Their fear of exercising power—rooted in principle, caution, or practical concerns—parallels the risks faced by organisms that don’t adapt their niches. By building parallel institutions, leveraging policy, and engaging culturally, conservatives can construct a niche that ensures their survival and influence, much like Zionists did in creating a state against opposition.

Gemini says:

Niche construction refers to the process by which organisms actively modify their own environment – their niche. These modifications can be physical, chemical, or even behavioral.

Examples:

Beavers building dams: This dramatically alters the local hydrology, creating ponds and wetlands that benefit other aquatic species, but also specifically creates a habitat suitable for beavers themselves.

Earthworms aerating and enriching soil: Their burrowing and feeding activities significantly change soil structure and nutrient content, benefiting plants and other soil organisms, including future generations of earthworms.

Humans building cities, growing food, developing technology: We are the ultimate niche constructors, profoundly altering the planet to suit our needs, which in turn influences our own evolution and the evolution of countless other species.

Plants altering soil pH or shading out competitors: These are more subtle but still significant forms of niche construction.

Why Resisting Niche Construction Can Be Detrimental to Evolutionary Success:

Your statement suggests that organisms resisting niche construction are less likely to succeed. This isn’t about an organism actively “deciding” to resist, but rather about the lack of capacity or inclination to engage in beneficial niche construction.

Here’s why such a lack can be a disadvantage in the evolutionary struggle:

Creating Favorable Conditions for Offspring: The most direct benefit of niche construction is that it creates an environment that is more suitable for the constructor’s own survival and reproduction, and critically, for the survival and success of their offspring. If an organism doesn’t modify its environment in ways that benefit its progeny, those offspring might face harsher, less resource-rich, or more competitive conditions.

Resource Availability and Efficiency: Niche construction often involves making resources more accessible or abundant. For example, a bird building a nest ensures a safe place for its eggs and chicks. An organism that doesn’t engage in such activities might find its offspring struggling to find adequate shelter or food.

Reducing Environmental Stress: By modifying their environment, organisms can mitigate environmental stressors like extreme temperatures, predators, or lack of water. A species that cannot or does not do this will leave its offspring more exposed and vulnerable to these stressors.

Feedback Loops and Co-evolution: Niche construction isn’t just a one-way street. The modified environment then acts as a selective pressure on the organisms, leading to co-evolutionary dynamics. For example, humans building cities has led to selection pressures for certain physiological traits (e.g., lactose tolerance due to dairying) or behavioral adaptations. Organisms that “resist” participating in this dynamic might miss out on opportunities for beneficial adaptations.

Competitive Advantage: In a competitive environment, the ability to modify the niche can be a significant advantage. A species that can create more resources or a more favorable microclimate might outcompete others that are simply adapting to existing, less optimal conditions.

“Inheritance” Beyond Genes: Niche construction adds another dimension to inheritance. Offspring not only inherit genes from their parents but also an “inherited” modified environment. This ecological inheritance can be just as crucial as genetic inheritance for their survival and reproductive success. An organism that doesn’t “build” this ecological inheritance for its offspring might be placing them at a severe disadvantage.

Nuance and Counterarguments/Considerations:

Cost of Niche Construction: Niche construction requires energy and resources. If the cost of modifying the environment outweighs the benefits, then it might not be favored by natural selection. Organisms that are highly efficient at adapting to existing niches, rather than modifying them, can also be very successful.

The Scale of Niche Construction: Not all organisms engage in dramatic niche construction like humans or beavers. Many subtle forms of modification (e.g., a fungus changing the pH of its immediate surroundings) are also niche construction and can be highly beneficial.

“Resisting” Implies Agency: It’s important to remember that in evolution, “resistance” isn’t usually a conscious choice. It’s more about the absence of traits or behaviors that facilitate beneficial niche construction.

Environmental Stability: In very stable environments where resources are consistently abundant and stressors low, the pressure for significant niche construction might be less. Organisms might thrive simply by specializing within that stable niche.

Conclusion:

The statement “Any living organism that resists niche construction is less likely to have offspring who win the evolutionary struggle for survival” is largely accurate when understood as a lack of capacity or inclination for beneficial niche modification. Niche construction is a powerful evolutionary force that provides a significant advantage by actively shaping the environment to be more conducive to the constructor’s survival, reproduction, and the success of their progeny. The organisms that effectively alter their surroundings to their benefit often gain a critical edge in the ongoing evolutionary competition.

ChatGPT says:

In evolutionary biology, niche construction refers to how organisms actively modify their environments to enhance survival—not just adapting to surroundings, but reshaping them to suit their needs. Beavers build dams, termites build mounds, humans build civilizations.

So when you say:

“Any living organism that resists niche construction is less likely to have offspring who win the evolutionary struggle for survival,”

—you’re highlighting a universal truth that applies not just to biology, but also to politics, culture, and identity.

🧠 Apply This to the Right

Conservatives, when they act as mere reactors—preserving, conserving, resisting change—often forfeit the evolutionary advantage to those who are actively constructing the niche (the institutions, values, laws, culture).

If the left is out there:

Redefining language

Reshaping institutions

Engineering social norms

And the right is merely:

Complaining about it

Longing for the past

Hoping for a return to “normal”

Then they are playing a losing evolutionary game.

Whoever builds the environment shapes the conditions of future survival.

🏗️ Cultural Niche Construction = Power

Every ideological movement that endures constructs its niche:

Zionists drained swamps and built cities

Early Christians formed underground networks and social welfare systems

The New Left marched through institutions

Islamists built shadow states and social services

If conservatives want their descendants to inherit a livable moral and social ecosystem, they must become constructors again—of schools, stories, laws, norms, symbols, and civic architecture.

🔥 Bottom Line

Nature favors those who reshape their environment to align with their vision of the good.

You cannot conserve what you did not build.

And if you don’t build, your enemies will.