The Hijacked Revolution: How the Left’s Moral Drift Rewrote Justice, Education, and the West

A Strategic Treatise on Cultural and Educational Capture

Published by TRACE Initiative | November 2025

This treatise examines the century-long ideological drift that reshaped Western institutions from within and redefined the meaning of justice, equality, and education. It traces how moral language was re-engineered, how radical frameworks captured cultural power, and how the West’s foundational principles were gradually inverted. Its purpose is both diagnostic and corrective: to reveal the structure beneath the chaos and to outline the path back to a coherent moral compass.

Introduction: The Hijacked Revolution

The First Compass: Covenant and Conscience

Between the Flood and the Factory: The Moral Architecture of the West

When Utopia Picks Up a Gun: Marx and the Structural Revolution

The Revolutions of the Twentieth Century: From Theory to Terror

From Class to Culture: The Long March Through Institutions

Edward Said and the Moral Reordering of the West

Israel: The Model That Had to Be Erased

The Death of Socratic Thought: How Ideology Captured the Classroom

The Moral Inversion: From Responsibility to Resentment

Conclusion: Replanting the Moral Architecture

“Whoever defines the words defines the world.”

Introduction: The Hijacked Revolution

An overview of the central claim: the West’s moral vocabulary of justice, compassion, freedom, and truth has been stripped of its covenantal roots and rebuilt into an ideological instrument of control.

The West still speaks the language of justice, compassion, freedom, and truth, but the meanings of those words have shifted beneath our feet. What once drew strength from covenant, responsibility, and moral restraint has been hollowed out and rebuilt into an ideological framework that treats identity as destiny, grievance as virtue, and power as the final judge of moral life. This did not happen overnight. It is the endpoint of a long drift, a slow unraveling of the moral architecture that once anchored the West.

The story begins in Genesis, where the first lessons of accountability and human dignity are laid down. Those ideas became the backbone of Western civilization, shaping Jewish law, Christian anthropology, medieval natural law, Enlightenment political theory, and the civic structures that followed. For centuries, the belief that freedom requires restraint and justice requires truth guided institutions and gave meaning to the moral vocabulary we still use today.

Somewhere between the factory floors of the nineteenth century and the cultural revolutions of the twentieth, that inheritance was severed. Marx recast morality as class struggle. Revolutionary regimes rewrote virtue as obedience. Critical theorists replaced conscience with ideology. Post-colonial theorists recast knowledge as domination. Finally, the classroom, once the guardian of inquiry, became the tool through which this new worldview would reproduce itself.

This work follows that arc. It traces how the old moral order was uprooted and replaced with a system in which innocence and guilt are assigned by category rather than conduct. It shows how justice has been redefined as redistribution rather than fairness and how education now teaches political posture rather than intellectual discipline. A civilization that once understood moral responsibility as the foundation of freedom now risks collapsing into a culture where identity replaces character, grievance replaces truth, and ideology replaces conscience.

The revolution did not fail. It changed shape. The result is a moral landscape in which the very ideas that once protected the vulnerable are used to control them.

This is the story of how that happened.

Methods Note

This work synthesizes historical texts, primary documents, political theory, and contemporary educational materials to trace a continuous intellectual arc from early moral traditions to present-day pedagogical practices. Its purpose is interpretive rather than exhaustive: to map ideas, show how they migrated across institutions, and demonstrate their influence on modern educational frameworks. Sources include canonical works by Marx, Engels, Gramsci, Freire, Said, and the Frankfurt School; historical accounts of twentieth-century revolutions; current teacher-training standards; and state-approved curriculum materials. This is not an academic monograph, and it does not footnote every claim. It is a strategic exposition, grounded in publicly verifiable material, aimed at clarifying how a century of ideological drift reshaped the moral vocabulary of the West.

The First Compass: Covenant and Conscience

Genesis establishes the idea that freedom requires responsibility and justice requires truth. Cain and Noah illustrate what happens when individual and collective morality collapse.

The moral story of the West does not begin in a parliament or in a philosopher’s study. It begins in Genesis, in the first family, where the first human being tries to separate freedom from responsibility. When Cain kills his brother Abel out of jealousy, the crime is horrific, but the deeper collapse comes afterward. God asks where Abel is, and Cain answers with the coldest sentence in scripture: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9).

In Jewish tradition, this is the moment morality fractures. Cain does not deny spilling his brother’s blood. He denies that he ever owed him anything. It is the birth of moral escape. The birth of the idea that freedom can exist without obligation. The birth of a worldview where the self stands alone and the other does not matter.

For this reason, the Torah treats Cain not as a simple murderer but as a warning. His punishment is not death. It is exile. Moral exile made literal. A human being who insists he owes nothing to anyone cannot live among people. He cannot build a community. He cannot sustain a world. He walks alone because he chose to live as if he were alone. Cain becomes the template for what happens when individual morality collapses. Freedom without responsibility. Autonomy without conscience. Selfhood without obligation.

If Cain is the story of one man’s fall, Noah is the story of an entire world collapsing under the weight of its own corruption. Genesis describes a society filled with violence, and rabbinic commentary makes clear that this meant the destruction of trust as much as the destruction of bodies. It meant exploitation, deception, boundary-breaking, and the slow erosion of every rule that made life livable. The generation of the Flood is not destroyed for incorrect belief. They are destroyed for injustice, for turning every desire into entitlement, for treating other human beings as expendable.

In Jewish thought, the flood is not God losing His temper. It is the natural consequence of a society that has consumed its moral reserves. When justice disappears and obligation dies, a civilization does not slowly drift into decay. It drowns. Not because God imposes chaos from above, but because people unleash chaos from below.

“A world without responsibility eventually collapses under its own weight.”

The Covenant and the Architecture of Moral Order

When the waters recede, the Torah introduces something entirely new. God makes a covenant with Noah and with all humanity. It is the first moral constitution. It teaches that human beings are bound together not by power, tribe, or territory, but by shared responsibility before God and each other. The Noahide covenant declares that human life is sacred, that violence is an assault on the divine image, that justice must be enforced, and that no society can survive without courts, accountability, and impartial judgment. It teaches that freedom is not instinct. It is discipline. Desire is not a guide. Restraint is part of what makes a person human.

Cain shows what happens when one person rejects responsibility. The Flood shows what happens when an entire society does. The covenant shows how to rebuild. Through truth. Through obligation. Through a moral discipline that does not depend on mood or convenience.

These early chapters of Genesis are not primitive tales. They are blueprints. They form the architecture that becomes the spine of Western civilization. Over time, this covenantal logic shaped everything. Justice was anchored to truth. Compassion was paired with obligation. Freedom grew only where discipline held it upright. This logic produced courts, laws, rights, duties, and the expectation that human beings were accountable to something higher than appetite or power.

Even modern secular philosophies carry this imprint. They inherited the language of justice and dignity, but also the structure beneath it: responsibility before privilege, duty before desire, humility before certainty. Cain teaches what happens when one person forgets this. Noah teaches what happens when everyone does. The covenant teaches how civilizations endure. They build moral boundaries strong enough to restrain the human appetite, and a moral vision clear enough to guide human freedom.

This is the foundation the modern world has misplaced. And without it, justice becomes impossible to recognize.

“Responsibility, not power, was the foundation of moral order.”

Between the Flood and the Factory: The Moral Architecture of the West

Jewish law, Christian moral anthropology, medieval natural law, and Enlightenment political theory shaped a civilization grounded in ordered liberty and moral restraint.

The moral world of Genesis did not fade into myth once the ark rested on dry ground. Its architecture, and the idea that freedom requires restraint, that justice must answer to truth, and that human life carries inherent dignity, echoed through the centuries. Long before the Industrial Revolution disrupted the old order, the West was shaped by this slow inheritance. A moral grammar passed from scripture into law, from law into philosophy, and from philosophy into the civic life of nations.

What emerged first was a radical idea for the ancient world: moral law stands above human power. Kings were not gods. Rulers were not absolute. Even the strongest were accountable to a standard they did not create. This principle, familiar now, was revolutionary then. It set boundaries on authority and insisted that justice could not simply be whatever the powerful declared it to be.

The Modern “No Kings” Movement and the New Inversion

In a strange historical reversal, the modern West now leans toward the opposite impulse. On campuses and inside identity-driven movements, a new “no kings” ethos has taken shape. It claims that all hierarchy is oppression, all authority is suspect, and all boundaries are instruments of domination. What began as the noble belief that no individual is above the law has mutated into the belief that no structure deserves legitimacy at all. Not tradition. Not institutions. Not inherited norms. Not even the idea of a shared moral order.

This modern movement did not grow out of biblical humility or constitutional restraint. It emerged from a political activist network that defined itself as a resistance to one man, then universalized that resistance into a moral doctrine. Its most influential partners include the Democratic Socialists of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, MoveOn.org, the Working Families Party, and the Tides Foundation. This network champions the same ideological worldview that fuels critical pedagogy, identity-based morality, and the oppressor-versus-oppressed framework now embedded in schools.

The “No Kings” rhetoric is not a return to the ancient insight that rulers must answer to moral law. It is the cultural expression of an ideology that recognizes no authority other than its own convictions.

Once a society tears down every source of authority except ideology, ideology becomes the new king. The ancient belief that power must answer to something higher has been inverted into the modern conviction that power is righteous only when claimed by those who identify themselves as oppressed. This shift away from truth and responsibility toward identity and grievance is the thread running through the chapters that follow. It explains how revolutions that promised liberation became engines of coercion, how moral language was hollowed out and refilled with resentment, and why today’s classrooms have become the quiet frontier where the next generation is taught not how to think, but what to think.

How the West Built a Moral Civilization

Over centuries, the Jewish legal tradition carried the Genesis blueprint forward. Law became a discipline of conscience. Community became a school for responsibility. Ritual and ethics fused into daily life. The covenant was not abstract. It structured the ordinary rhythms of a people who believed that mercy required order and that rights required duties.

As Christianity spread across Europe, it carried this moral vocabulary with it. Not only theology, but an anthropology rooted in human dignity, humility, and obligation. In monasteries, parishes, and early universities, the language of conscience shaped the habits of entire societies. These were not yet political doctrines. They were the everyday assumptions that taught people what a good life required.

Over time, these assumptions took civic form. Communities expected leaders to answer to something higher than personal power. Justice was no longer whatever a ruler decided. It became a standard that applied to everyone. Ordinary people understood that freedom could survive only when paired with responsibility. Long before political theorists wrote it down, the idea that rights existed naturally and authority had limits had already entered the cultural bloodstream.

When the modern age arrived, these inherited ideas were translated into public structures. Courts, charters, and constitutions grew from the belief that societies need boundaries, that truth must restrain power, and that liberty depends on shared duty. The political revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries did not reject the older moral order. They formalized it. They transformed a moral instinct into a civic system.

For centuries, this architecture held. It shaped laws, institutions, and the moral imagination of nations. It allowed the West to honor individuality without losing cohesion and to pursue progress without dissolving into chaos.

Then the world changed faster than the architecture could adapt.

The Industrial Revolution uprooted families, shattered traditional rhythms, detached labor from meaning, and weakened the structures that once disciplined human appetite. A civilization built on covenantal restraint suddenly faced speed, scale, and dislocation. Into that disorientation stepped a new ideology that offered not to mend the moral order, but to replace it entirely.

That is where the next chapter begins.

“Civilizations don’t collapse when they lose power. They collapse when they lose moral architecture.”

The Industrial Break and the Rise of Karl Marx

Marx replaced inner moral struggle with class conflict and turned guilt and innocence into structural categories. A new ideology took root: justice without conscience.

The Industrial Revolution did more than transform economies; it ruptured the social and moral rhythms that had guided human life for centuries. Fields became factories. Villages emptied into swelling cities. Families that had once worked, rested, and worshipped together were scattered into mines, mills, and tenements. Children labored in the dark. The measure of a man, once tied to character, community, and craft, was replaced by a single metric: output.

To anyone with a conscience, it felt like a second flood, not of water, but of chaos, greed, and despair. The traditional covenant between work, worth, and responsibility had broken apart. Humanity had stepped into a new world without carrying forward the moral architecture that made the old one livable.

It was into this vacuum that a new kind of prophet emerged.

Karl Marx was born in 1818 in Trier, a small German city still shaped by the aftershocks of Enlightenment politics and the decline of feudal Europe. Raised in a Jewish family that converted to Lutheranism for civic survival, educated in philosophy at Bonn and Berlin, Marx came of age in a world where industrialization was rewriting the human condition faster than any tradition could absorb. He was restless, brilliant, combative, and influenced by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a German philosopher whose sweeping, dialectical theory of history described human progress as a struggle of ideas unfolding toward freedom. Marx was convinced that the old order had collapsed and that a new one was waiting to be discovered, if someone could decode the laws guiding history.

Marx called his doctrine “scientific socialism,” but its power came not from science. It came from the moral story it smuggled beneath the surface. In Marx’s telling, the worker became the suffering innocent. The capitalist became Pharaoh. Revolution became Exodus. Utopia became the Promised Land. The cadence of religious hope, liberation, redemption, and history bending toward justice, was preserved. But the inner work of morality was discarded. Sin, humility, and human limitation were stripped away. What the biblical tradition had planted in the soul, Marx uprooted and replanted in the structure. Where scripture called people to master themselves, Marx called them to master the system. Where faith demanded repentance, he offered revolution.

In Marx’s framework, the central drama of history was no longer the struggle between good and evil within the human heart, but the struggle between classes locked in material conflict. The righteous and the wicked were replaced by the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Moral categories became economic categories. In this new schema, the worker was inherently virtuous because he was oppressed; the owner was inherently guilty because he possessed capital. Character, conduct, and responsibility stopped mattering. Exploitation ceased to be a moral failure; it became the inevitable byproduct of ownership. Morality itself was recast as ideology, a veneer that concealed the interests of whatever class happened to hold power.

This move from inner moral struggle to external class struggle created a new template for interpreting human life. It allowed guilt and innocence to be assigned by category rather than conduct, by one’s place in the economic structure rather than by one’s choices. Over time, this structural conflict would be simplified into a universal moral binary: oppressor and oppressed. What began in economics would migrate into culture, race, identity, and eventually education. It was an inversion of the moral tradition that preceded it, compassion without accountability, virtue without restraint, righteousness defined not by responsibility but by role.

It would take the brutal experiments of the twentieth century to reveal how dangerous that seed could become in the hands of people convinced they were merely carrying out history’s verdict.

“He moralized economics and mechanized morality.”

How Utopia Became an Inquisition

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao turned Marxist theory into political religion. Ideology replaced morality, and human beings became material for utopian experiments.

Marx died with his revolution still on paper. Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and their heirs would drag it into the real world. Where Marx wrote theories, they built regimes. In 1917, amid the collapse of the Russian monarchy and the chaos of World War I, a radical Marxist faction led by Vladimir Lenin seized the moment. They called themselves the Bolsheviks. “Bolshevik” literally comes from the Russian word bolshinstvo, which means “majority,” though they were anything but. They believed they were the pure interpreters of Marx’s worldview, the chosen custodians of historical truth. Their goal was not reform but revolutionary rupture: the total seizure of political, economic, and cultural power.

To millions of starving Russians, their promises sounded like moral salvation. An end to exploitation. An end to hierarchy. A new society “with neither rich nor poor, neither oppressors nor oppressed.” But the Bolsheviks were never simply a political party. They were a self-anointed priesthood of “scientific morality.” They believed they alone understood the direction of history, and that belief gave them permission to override every competing loyalty to family, faith, community, and even conscience.

Once in power, the revolution’s promises hardened into dogma. What began as a revolt against tyranny quickly became a monopoly on virtue. Anyone who questioned the party’s vision was branded an enemy of the people. Dissent wasn’t disagreement; it was moral treason. And in the name of building a classless society, the Bolsheviks constructed a system in which a tiny elite claimed the exclusive right to define justice, assign guilt, and determine who deserved to exist.

This was the logical endpoint of Marx’s original inversion: compassion without accountability, virtue without restraint, righteousness defined by role rather than responsibility. It would take the brutal experiments of the twentieth century, in the form of gulags, purges, forced famines, and secret police, to reveal just how dangerous that seed could become once planted in the hands of people convinced they were merely executing history’s verdict.

But the Bolshevik revolution was only the beginning. Once the template was established, a small ideological elite claimed to speak for “the oppressed,” ruling through moral certainty rather than moral restraint. The pattern repeated across the century with deadly precision. Lenin’s successors inherited not just the machinery of the state, but the moral logic behind it: if history had a predetermined destination, then anything done in its name became justified.

Stalin carried Marx’s logic to its most ruthless conclusion. Under his rule, class struggle became a permanent inquisition. Entire populations were branded “enemies” not for anything they had done, but for what they were imagined to represent, whether that was the wrong ancestry, the wrong profession, or the wrong whisper of disloyalty. Millions were imprisoned, starved, or executed in the name of “purifying” society. The revolution no longer pretended to free humanity; it sought to tear out the human being by the roots and cultivate a new one in its place.

Mao drove the model even further. In China, the Cultural Revolution transformed Marxist theory into a kind of national psychosis. Children denounced their parents. Students dragged their teachers into public humiliation rituals. Ancient traditions were smashed as symbols of oppression. Violence was not a deviation from the system; it was the system’s preferred method of renewal. Beneath the different banners and continents, the same moral inversion defined both regimes. Virtue was no longer measured by character but by ideological obedience. Innocence was assigned to the poor by definition, guilt to the powerful by identity. Dissent became treason, doubt became sin, and obedience was celebrated as moral enlightenment.

By mid-century, the cost was counted in tens of millions of lives. Yet in Western universities, many intellectuals continued to romanticize these revolutions as noble failures, as good intentions gone tragically awry. They were not. They were the predictable result of replacing conscience with ideology, responsibility with resentment, and moral struggle with a political binary that divided humanity into permanent victims and permanent villains.

The revolutions burned themselves out, but the ideas did not. When the twentieth century ended, the world buried the bodies but kept the vocabulary. The regimes collapsed, but the intellectual architecture that justified them, oppression as destiny, ideology as morality, innocence as identity, drifted westward, stripped of its uniforms but not its logic. It was in the comfort of Western democracies that the ideology mutated into something more refined and far more durable.

“The century began with the dream of a perfect society. It ended with the memory of what happens when men try to play God.”

From Class to Culture: The Long March Through Institutions

Gramsci reframed revolution as cultural capture. The Frankfurt School moralized repression. Orwell and Camus warned of the consequences. Freire transformed education into activism.

When the great socialist experiments collapsed under their own weight, the ideology did not vanish. It migrated. What could no longer be justified through economics began to reappear through culture, education, and identity. Ideas that had failed in factories found new life in universities, journalism, and the shaping of public imagination. The revolution did not die; it changed its route.

Antonio Gramsci: The First Blueprint for Cultural Capture

Gramsci, writing from a fascist prison cell in the 1930s, diagnosed why revolutions fail in free societies: people still believe in things larger than the state, such as God, family, nation, and inherited morality. You cannot ignite class war in a culture whose moral foundations are intact. So Gramsci proposed a different kind of revolution. Not the storming of palaces, but the slow capture of the institutions that shape imagination - schools, universities, newspapers, art, and churches. He called it a “war of position,” the long march through the institutions. You did not need to control the government if you controlled the culture. You did not need to burn the church if you could rewrite its catechism. You did not need to ban books if you could reinterpret them.

“Seize the culture, and everything else follows.”

Herbert Marcuse and The Frankfurt School: Making Resentment Intellectual

Two decades later, Gramsci’s prophecy arrived in America. A circle of Marxist theorists fleeing Nazi Germany, later known as the Frankfurt School, embedded themselves in American universities and turned Gramsci’s blueprint into a cultural project. With the economic revolution dead, they recast oppression in aesthetic and psychological terms: not workers vs. owners, but “dominant values” vs. “liberation.” Not material exploitation, but cultural hegemony.

Marcuse became the movement’s lightning rod. He argued that Western culture itself, not just capitalism, was a system of repression. In his essay “Repressive Tolerance,” he claimed that genuine freedom required suppressing “intolerant” ideas. Censorship, once the mark of tyranny, was reframed as protection. Silencing others could now be an act of virtue. This was the first open argument that moral authority belonged to those who controlled the boundaries of discourse.

“Tolerance becomes repressive when it protects only the favored.”

George Orwell and Albert Camus: The Writers Who Saw the Future

Orwell and Camus saw where all of this was headed long before the academy did. Both began as idealists, drawn to the promise of justice and equality, and both risked their lives for those ideals. Orwell volunteered in the Spanish Civil War believing he was fighting fascism; instead, he watched socialist factions turn their guns on one another, fabricating accusations and purging their own allies in the name of ideological purity. That experience shattered him. The patterns he witnessed of suspicion, “incorrect” loyalties, rewriting of events, and the erasure of truth in favor of dogma, became the backbone of Animal Farm and 1984.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Camus lived a parallel story. A French-Algerian raised in poverty, he joined the resistance against Nazi occupation and emerged convinced that any movement claiming moral perfection would eventually demand human sacrifice. His break with the French Communist Party was not theoretical but moral. He had seen how the rhetoric of justice could be twisted to justify cruelty. When he warned that “the welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants,” he was speaking from experience, not abstraction.

“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.”

That fracture inside the old Left has reappeared in modern form. The DSA claim Marx and the socialist tradition as their heritage, but their worldview follows the opposite trajectory: identity over universality, resentment over responsibility, and ideological purity over human dignity. Where Orwell and Camus warned that the pursuit of utopia can become a machinery of cruelty, today’s activist movements often recast cruelty as righteousness so long as it is directed at the “oppressor class.” Where the Communist League treated antisemitism as a reactionary poison, the modern identity-based Left elevates anti-Zionism into a moral badge. The fractures are not new; they are the same fault lines Orwell and Camus tried to expose in their own time.

Neither Orwell nor Camus was conservative or reactionary. They were men who believed in justice, and who watched the pursuit of purity turn justice into a weapon. They understood that once ideology replaces conscience, truth becomes negotiable and the individual becomes expendable. But the academy did not listen. Marcuse’s ideas flourished precisely because they made moral certainty effortless.

Freire: Turning Education into Activism

By the 1960s, the revolution finally found the tool it had been missing: a way to turn education itself into a political mechanism. It arrived through Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator whose Pedagogy of the Oppressed quietly became one of the most influential books in modern schooling.

Freire argued that education was never neutral. It was always an instrument of power. Teachers were not transmitters of knowledge but agents of liberation, and students were not learners but the oppressed, waiting to be awakened to their political condition. Under this vision, the classroom stopped being a place where children encountered the world. It became a staging ground for contesting it. Knowledge became activism. Reflection became agitation. Learning became political struggle.

Freire rejected the idea that a teacher could ever stand outside ideology. Every lesson either reinforced oppression or dismantled it, and every curriculum choice was a moral act. By redefining teaching as resistance, he cast the teacher as a revolutionary and the student as an emerging combatant in a struggle they could not yet name.

Over the next fifty years, Freire’s framework seeped into colleges of education across the Americas. He became the quiet patron saint of teacher training programs, often cited and rarely read, invoked as a moral authority whose conclusions required no evidence. His ideas hardened into what became known as critical pedagogy, which then slid naturally into the language of equity-centered instruction. The vocabulary of learning gave way to the rhetoric of systems, power, and oppression.

The groundwork had been laid. Ideology no longer needed to persuade. It could be embedded. Curriculum could be designed not around truth, but around political identity. Yet even with Freire’s enormous influence, one thing was still missing: a unifying global narrative powerful enough to bind Western students emotionally to the cause. That narrative arrived in 1978.

“There is no such thing as neutral education.”

Edward Said: The Bridge That Brought the Ideology Home

Said fused Marx, post-colonial theory, and identity politics into a cultural lens that viewed knowledge as domination. Scholarship blurred into activism, and a new binary reshaped public life.

Edward Said’s Orientalism was the tipping point. It marked the moment when the long march through the institutions left the realm of academic theory and began reshaping the moral imagination of the West. Before Said, the revolutionary project was still largely intellectual: Marxist in its origins, refined by Antonio Gramsci, sharpened by the Frankfurt School, and moralized through Paulo Freire’s pedagogy. After Said, it bloomed outward. It became a cultural instinct, a moral reflex, a lens through which entire generations would come to interpret power, identity, and civilization itself.

Said’s life positioned him uniquely for this role. Born in Jerusalem in 1935 to Palestinian Christian parents, raised between Cairo and a sequence of British colonial schools, and educated at Princeton and Harvard, he moved constantly between worlds. His father’s American citizenship made him legally American, even as exile shaped his emotional landscape. By the time he joined Columbia University in the 1960s, he embodied the very duality that would define his work: Western-trained yet skeptical of the West, fluent in its literature yet convinced that its cultural gaze concealed something corrosive.

Orientalism was, in many ways, an autobiography hidden inside a theory. Said argued that Western scholarship about the Middle East was not knowledge but domination, a cultural invention created to justify European power. In his telling, the West had not studied the East; it had constructed it. Every novel, painting, travelogue, and academic monograph became propaganda. Every geographical or linguistic boundary drawn by Western scholars became an act of oppression. Every cultural difference became a hierarchy. Civilization itself was rewritten as a moral crime scene, with the West permanently cast as the perpetrator.

It was moral alchemy. It transformed scholarship into sin and interpretation into accusation. And it resonated instantly. A generation already primed by Herbert Marcuse to view “dominant values” as repression, and by Freire to treat education as political awakening, found in Said the grand unifying theory they had been waiting for. His influence spread easily because he was not a political agitator but an English professor. His critique arrived wrapped in literary prestige rather than party rhetoric. It did not shout; it insinuated. It told Western students that their curiosity was suspect, that their knowledge carried hidden violence, and that their moral duty was not to understand the world but to indict it.

Inventing the Global Victim

Said’s most transformative move was giving the ideology a global victim. He supplied a cause capable of absorbing every grievance the new moral narrative required. In the American academic imagination, that cause became the Palestinians. Not as a complex people with competing factions and histories, but as a distilled symbol of pure oppression. Israel, in turn, became the meta-oppressor: the embodiment of colonialism, whiteness, capitalism, and Western sin. Through this single interpretive shift, Said tethered America’s domestic guilt to a foreign conflict and turned geopolitics into personal identity.

His influence did not end with Middle Eastern studies. Said demonstrated that a discipline did not need to be political to become political, and that literature itself could serve as geopolitical evidence. That insight cracked open the door for an academic revolution. Departments restructured themselves around the assumption that interpretation is accusation and that every cultural artifact encodes the logic of oppressor and oppressed. Foreign-policy debates were moralized. Journalism schools trained students to read the world through a colonizer-versus-colonized binary. Even introductory humanities courses began presenting literature not as art or inquiry, but as political indictment.

From Universities to Teacher Training

Once planted inside universities, the seed took root quickly and spread downward. Schools of education absorbed post-colonial and critical-theory frameworks as the bedrock of teacher preparation. Courses in English, literacy, social studies, and even STEM reshaped themselves around themes of identity, equity, and structural harm. Entire pedagogical philosophies emerged from Said’s premise that justice requires reinterpretation and that reinterpretation requires ideological guidance. What began as a critique of Western scholarship became a way of reading everything.

By the end of the twentieth century, a new moral vocabulary had emerged. It kept the biblical words but severed them from their biblical meanings. Justice shifted from fairness to redistribution. Liberation shifted from moral freedom to structural disruption. The oppressed became a metaphysical identity. The oppressor became a permanent category. Truth gave way to narrative. Morality dissolved into ideology.

The revolutions of the twentieth century had failed to seize the world by force. Their descendants discovered something far more effective. If you seize the culture, you seize the conscience. And once that conquest of culture was underway, the final frontier became obvious. The ultimate prize, the place where meaning is shaped before children can even name it, would be the classroom.

“You don’t need to destroy the church if you can rewrite the catechism.”

Israel: The Socialist Experiment That Refused to Obey the Script

Israel embodied a functioning, ethical socialism rooted in obligation rather than ideology. Its success contradicted revolutionary myths, so it was recast as the villain of Western discourse.

Israel’s story sits at the uncomfortable intersection of all the trends this inquiry has traced. Born in 1948, the Jewish state was not primarily a capitalist project, nor was it an outpost of Western empire. It was, in many respects, the last serious attempt at a humane, functioning socialist system, a society built by refugees, sustained by shared obligation, and shaped by a moral tradition older than any modern ideology.

Long before university departments preached about “collective liberation,” Jews were living it. Labor Zionism, the ideological engine behind Israel’s founding, fused biblical ethics with socialist practice. The kibbutzim were not theoretical exercises but lived necessity: collective farms, shared property, communal child-rearing, universal education, and a culture where dignity flowed from contribution, not consumption. Doctors milked cows. Engineers mucked barns. Teenagers alternated between harvests and guard duty. No political party dictated this way of life; it arose naturally from a people who understood survival as a communal responsibility.

This was socialism without the authoritarian impulse. No purges. No secret police. No revolutionary tribunals. No cult of the party. What the early kibbutzniks built was something Marx only theorized about, and Lenin could never imagine: equality rooted in responsibility, not resentment. It was a system held together not by coercion, but by covenant. The Jewish conviction that freedom is inseparable from duty.

For a brief moment, the global Left understood this. In 1947, the Soviet Union stunned the world by supporting partition and recognizing Israel’s independence before the United States did. Early Czech arms shipments, ordered by Moscow, helped Israel survive its first war. To many observers, the fledgling state looked like the socialist dream: anti-fascist, egalitarian, collectivist, and born from the ashes of genocide.

But Israel’s socialism came with limits. It was tempered by democratic practice, open dissent, and a refusal to dissolve Jewish identity into some universal revolutionary mold. It prized equality, but not at the expense of peoplehood. It blended collectivism with a fierce commitment to self-determination. It offered solidarity without ideology, community without coercion, and moral seriousness without dogma. In other words, it succeeded where every doctrinaire socialist regime failed.

That made it a problem.

The Soviet Reversal: When the Revolution Devoured Its Own

As the Cold War hardened, the Soviet Union turned against Israel. The reason was not theoretical; it was political and ethnic. Israel refused to become a Soviet socialist satellite. Its Jewish citizens inspired Soviet Jews to imagine a life beyond oppression. And the Arab world, hungry for Soviet arms, offered Moscow a far more useful partner. Overnight, anti-Zionism became the convenient bridge between Marxist rhetoric and nationalist resentment.

The Soviet break with Israel did more than reshape foreign alliances. It exposed a deeper truth about revolutionary ideology: sooner or later, it turns on the very people who made it viable. Soviet Jews had been disproportionately present in the intellectual, scientific, artistic, and revolutionary strata that helped build the early Soviet state. They staffed laboratories, edited newspapers, founded theaters, composed music, wrote political theory, advanced mathematics, and filled the ranks of the intelligentsia. They did not pour themselves into Soviet life because they had shed their Jewish identity, but because the promise of universal emancipation spoke to a people who had spent centuries without it.

Yet the moment Israel refused to become a compliant socialist satellite, the Soviet state flipped the script. “Anti-Zionism” became the acceptable mask for old hatreds. Universities purged Jewish faculty. Jewish students were barred from advanced programs. Prominent Jews were surveilled, interrogated, demoted, or smeared in state media. Zionism was treated as treason. Antisemitism, once condemned as a relic of the czarist past, reemerged under the banner of ideological vigilance.

And the effect was explosive.

Rather than extinguish Jewish identity, the repression intensified it. Instead of crushing the idea of Israel, it inflamed the longing for it. Soviet Jews, many of whom had once believed in the socialist project, suddenly saw the truth that had been hiding inside the ideology all along: when a system defines virtue by obedience, identity by category, and justice by ideological utility, the individual becomes expendable.

For many, Israel became not only a homeland but a moral mirror. It revealed the gap between Soviet promises and Soviet reality. It showed that Jewish dignity did not require dissolution into universalist abstractions. And it made clear that a society built on coercion would always fear a community built on solidarity.

The more the USSR condemned Zionism, the more Soviet Jews imagined a life beyond repression. Out of that tension came the Refusenik movement. Writers, mathematicians, engineers, musicians, parents, and students demanded the right to leave. The Soviet Union imprisoned them, humiliated them, threatened them, and tried to break them. But the movement grew. Behind apartment doors and in whispered conversations, Soviet Jews rediscovered something the regime could not uproot: agency, conscience, and a sense of peoplehood stronger than ideology.

By the time the gates finally cracked open, more than a million Soviet Jews poured out in a mass migration that revealed the ultimate irony. The socialist state that claimed to liberate the oppressed had become the oppressor. The revolutionary project that promised to erase hierarchy had manufactured a new one. And the people who had helped build the Soviet Union became the clearest evidence of its moral collapse.

The Socialist Success the West Couldn’t Forgive

Western intellectuals followed suit. What they could not tolerate was the fact that Israel, a messy, pluralistic, democratic society, had achieved what their revolutions had destroyed everywhere else: a functional socialism built on moral foundations rather than force. Israel’s existence refuted the ideological claim that equality requires totalitarianism or that collectivism must be enforced through violence. While socialist states from the USSR to China to Cuba slid into repression and collapse, Israel remained the lone example of a society where shared obligation, universal service, and deep social solidarity persisted without sacrificing individual rights.

That success demanded erasure.

In Western universities, as post-colonial theory rose to dominance, Edward Said’s framework provided the script. Israel was reinterpreted not by its history, its refugee origins, its labor movement, or its internal diversity, but by its power. Facts receded and roles replaced them. In the new moral drama, Israel was cast as a “white,” “Western,” “settler-colonial” oppressor, while Palestinians were framed as “brown,” “indigenous,” and eternally innocent. Jewish exile, centuries of persecution, the Holocaust, Arab rejectionism, and repeated wars of annihilation were flattened into a single accusatory hierarchy.

The irony was almost too sharp to bear. A nation built by Holocaust survivors and Jews expelled from Arab lands was now treated as the avatar of Western sin. A society that combined socialism, democracy, universal literacy, immigrant integration, and religious pluralism more effectively than any “liberatory” project of the 20th century was condemned by the very ideological currents that had failed everywhere else.

Modern Israel remains, in many ways, the only functioning socialist country in the world, not in the Marxist sense of state ownership and revolutionary purity, but in the lived sense of collective responsibility. Mandatory national service, universal healthcare, robust public education, cooperative economics, powerful unions, communal defense, and a culture where social solidarity is not theoretical but instinctive are not remnants of a historical experiment. They are the everyday mechanics of Israeli society.

And because Israel’s model succeeded without adopting the resentful posture of ideological utopianism, it had to be rhetorically exiled. It stands as a quiet rebuke to the worldview that insists justice requires revolution, that equality requires perpetual grievance, that moral purpose cannot coexist with particular identity.

Israel’s existence exposes the lie. It shows that communities can be equal without erasing themselves, that solidarity can be voluntary, that sacrifice can be noble, and that a people rooted in ancient memory can build a modern society without abandoning responsibility. For that reason, it was not enough for the ideological Left to critique Israel. It had to recast it. It had to invert it. And ultimately, it had to condemn it, because Israel demonstrates that a functioning, humane collectivism comes from shared responsibility, not revolutionary dogma, and that success is the ultimate refutation of their entire project.

“The survivor was recast as the oppressor; the refugee as the invader.”

The Classroom Revolution: Ideology Goes K12

How activist ideology moved from graduate seminars into K–12 teaching, turning classrooms into engines of political conditioning rather than places of inquiry.

By the end of the twentieth century, the revolution had found its most effective delivery system: the classroom. Universities had already absorbed the full spectrum of critical theory, post-colonial narratives, and identity-based morality. The next step was almost inevitable. If you wanted to reshape society, you did not start with laws or elections. You started by teaching the teachers. Colleges of education became the transmission belts between academic ideology and K–12 practice, translating theory into pedagogy and pedagogy into policy.

The shift did not arrive with manifestos or raised fists. It arrived wrapped in the soft vocabulary of modern education. “Culturally responsive teaching” sounded thoughtful. “Anti-bias training” sounded humane. “Anti-racist pedagogy,” “social-emotional learning,” and “decolonizing the curriculum” sounded like the natural evolution of a caring school system. But beneath the gentle phrasing lay the same intellectual architecture that had animated the theorists for decades: society as an endless contest between oppressor and oppressed, knowledge as a function of power, and morality as redress rather than responsibility.

Freire’s fingerprints are unmistakable. California’s state-approved Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum cites his concept of “critical consciousness” as a guiding instructional goal. Illinois’s teacher certification standards require educators to “interrogate systems of oppression,” a Freirean formulation lifted nearly word for word from Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New teachers encounter his ideas in preparation programs at UCLA, Columbia Teachers College, Michigan, and dozens of others, where they are taught that teaching is never neutral and that the classroom is inherently political.

Said’s influence moves in parallel. “Decolonizing the curriculum” units in California, Seattle, and New York City instruct students to examine how “dominant cultures construct narratives” about the Middle East and Asia, echoing his argument that Western knowledge is a form of domination. AP World History and AP Human Geography teacher guides urge instructors to frame Western depictions of the Middle East through “colonial power dynamics,” a direct translation of Said’s thesis. University teacher-training programs reinforce the same habits, teaching future educators to read literature and world history “against Orientalist narratives” before they ever enter a classroom.

These ideas migrated downward until they shaped instruction for the youngest students. Equality of opportunity gradually gave way to “equity,” the engineered equalization of outcomes. Objective truth was displaced by “lived experience,” treated as the highest form of knowledge. Disagreement with the framework itself was reclassified as harmful, unsafe, or bigoted. Claims that once lived quietly inside graduate seminars became activating assumptions inside elementary schools.

The results were swift. Third graders were asked to map their privileges before they could reliably locate the equator on a globe. Middle schoolers were taught to interrogate “power structures” long before they had mastered basic civics. High schoolers learned to see “whiteness,” “heteronormativity,” or “Zionism” not as ideas or identities, but as systems of harm. In many districts, the lessons did not even originate inside the schools. Outside advocacy groups and NGOs wrote the materials, trained the staff, and measured the ideological compliance they labeled “progress.”

What emerged was not simply new content, but an entirely new moral algorithm. Identity plus a claim of oppression produced truth. Children absorbed the lesson long before they had the maturity to question it: their standing in the moral universe depended less on who they were than on the category they inhabited.

This was no longer education as the cultivation of reason, curiosity, and civic virtue. It was the repurposing of school as a site of moral conditioning, where the vocabulary of justice was used to steer conscience toward a predetermined ideological end. The classroom had become the place where the next generation learned not how to think, but what to think, and which identities carried virtue before a single idea had been examined.

“The old utopians seized the means of production. Their heirs seized the means of instruction.”

The End of Inquiry: How Schools Abandoned Thinking for Ideology

Schools absorbed critical pedagogy and identity-based morality. Inquiry gave way to emotional sorting, and civic education lost its anchoring purpose.

For more than two thousand years, the Western tradition treated the classroom as a place where questions mattered more than slogans. Socrates built his entire method on the belief that truth emerges through disciplined inquiry and that a free mind begins with the courage to ask, “Why?” Education was meant to train the intellect, refine judgment, and cultivate the habits of civic responsibility. It assumed that the young were capable of reason and that reason required challenge.

That assumption has eroded. Inquiry no longer sits at the center of the classroom. In many schools, questioning the approved framework is treated as defiance, disagreement is labeled harm, and skepticism is reinterpreted as a form of privilege. The teacher is no longer a guide who helps students examine ideas. The teacher is increasingly cast as a moral interpreter who identifies which identities carry virtue and which carry blame.

Socratic thought did not die with a single decree. It faded through a series of small shifts, each wrapped in the language of compassion and equity. The curriculum began to prioritize feelings over facts. Discussion moved from argument to affirmation. Students learned to rehearse conclusions rather than investigate them. Education drifted away from the search for truth and toward the performance of justice, a justice defined in advance by ideological gatekeepers.

In this new environment, ideas are no longer tested. They are assigned. The student’s task is not to examine the world but to adopt the correct posture toward it. What once required careful reasoning now requires moral alignment. What once invited dialogue now demands compliance.

The result is the quiet death of a tradition that helped build Western civilization. Socratic thought depended on the belief that even the smallest, most inconvenient question could illuminate truth. Its disappearance leaves students fluent in the language of grievance but unprepared for the responsibilities of freedom. When a society abandons the discipline of questioning, it abandons the very tool that protects it from the next wave of ideological certainty.

“I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think.”

The Moral Inversion: When Justice Becomes Control

The new moral order replaces responsibility with identity, forgiveness with permanent blame, and conscience with political script. A fragmented culture takes hold.

The DSA and the movements surrounding them did not create the ideological drift reshaping the West, but they make its endpoint unmistakable. Their educational platforms openly celebrate Freire’s critical pedagogy as the map for liberating students from what they describe as “white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.” The factory floor has given way to the classroom. Class has given way to category. The worker has been replaced by the victim.

This is not an evolution of socialist strategy. It is the inversion of the socialist tradition itself.

The earliest socialist movements, beginning with the Communist League in the 1840s, spoke in an entirely different moral vocabulary. Founded in 1847 as the first organized expression of modern socialism, the League was international, explicitly anti-racist, and unequivocal on antisemitism. It regarded Jew-hatred as a reactionary poison used by monarchists and tyrants to divide the powerless. Its newspapers and resolutions condemned antisemitic riots, exposed the demagogues behind them, and insisted that Jewish emancipation was inseparable from the emancipation of all workers.

That legacy did not disappear. The League’s modern successors still exist as a small but global current of socialism that defends Israel’s right to exist, identifies antisemitism as a reactionary weapon, and rejects racial and religious scapegoating. In other words, the only surviving remnant of the original socialist tradition now stands almost entirely opposed to the worldview championed by the DSA.

To see how far the modern movement has drifted, the origins must be faced honestly. Karl Marx wrote passages about Jews that today read as crude and clearly antisemitic. In On the Jewish Question he used “Judaism” as a metaphor for capitalism and repeated stereotypes common in nineteenth-century Europe.

But Marx’s contradictions did not define the tradition that followed. Friedrich Engels, his collaborator and the steadier moral compass, denounced antisemitic agitation repeatedly. He saw it as a weapon used to pit workers against one another and to divert anger away from the systems actually exploiting them. A movement willing to scapegoat Jews, he warned, was a movement already betraying the working class it claimed to defend.

Across Europe, early socialist parties echoed this view. In Germany, France, and Russia, they campaigned for full Jewish civil rights and treated antisemitism as the domain of monarchists, clericals, and proto-fascists. Jewish organizers and intellectuals entered socialist ranks not by abandoning their identity, but because socialism promised universal dignity and equality under law. Some factions even viewed Zionism as aligned with their own ideals: a persecuted minority seeking to build a cooperative, egalitarian society on ancestral land.

This history exposes the scale of the modern rupture. The ideas driving today’s identity-based Left, including the DSA, are not the heirs of early socialist ethics. They are the inversion. Where the Communist League saw antisemitism as a toxin, the activist Left deploys it repackaged as anti-Zionism. Where Engels treated Jews as a vulnerable minority deserving solidarity, modern organizers cast Jews, and especially Israel, as structural oppressors. Where early socialists sought to unify workers across ethnic lines, today’s movements fracture society into permanent moral castes.

This is the heart of the inversion. Justice is redefined as the redistribution of status and power. Compassion becomes less a moral discipline than a demand that some groups remain beyond critique while others remain perpetually suspect. Inclusion no longer means welcoming all voices. It becomes the exclusion of views labeled harmful, a category wide enough to swallow ordinary disagreement.

The new moralism is intense, theatrical, and hollow. It borrows the emotional vocabulary of Jewish and Christian ethics, the language of the poor, the stranger, the oppressed, while discarding the disciplines that made those traditions livable: responsibility, repentance, forgiveness, humility. What remains is a moral aesthetic without moral substance. Anger becomes a sacrament. Public shaming becomes purification. Boycotts and cancellations become ritual excommunications. To question the framework is to reveal guilt. To ask for evidence is to commit harm.

Civilizations can survive corruption and hypocrisy. They can even survive seasons of confusion. What they cannot survive is the uprooting of forgiveness and the planting of permanent blame in its place. When justice becomes punishment and compassion becomes suspicion, society stops binding together and begins to split apart. Solidarity withers. Distrust spreads like weeds. And in that fragmentation, the very people the old Left fought to protect are recast as oppressors while the engines of resentment march forward under the banner of liberation.

“The revolutions of the past built prisons of stone. This one builds prisons of language.”

Conclusion: Replanting the Moral Ground: Responsibility, Memory, and the Work Ahead

Civilizations cannot survive on borrowed ethics. The West must recover the moral roots that once restrained power and nurtured freedom and rebuild education as the guardian of conscience.

The crisis described in this brief is not political at its core. It is moral and educational. The West still speaks the language of justice, compassion, and freedom, but it has quietly stripped those words of the structures that once gave them meaning. What remains is performative morality, virtue as branding, justice as spectacle, education as a vehicle for ideological formation. We have not lost our values; we have hollowed them out.

Reversing that drift does not require the invention of new ideals, only the recovery of old ones. The moral traditions that shaped Western civilization insisted on responsibility before righteousness: the idea that moral claims must be matched by personal conduct. They demanded humility before certainty, recognizing that no movement, institution, or ideology holds a monopoly on virtue or truth. They taught duty before desire, and the understanding that rights are sustainable only when bound to obligations, not when treated as instruments of leverage.

Applied to education, this requires a return to clarity. The purpose of schooling must be restored from political formation back to intellectual and moral formation, to teaching students how to think, not instructing them in what to feel about contested issues. Curricular transparency must become a civic norm once again, so parents and communities can see who is writing materials, what frameworks guide them, and how outside organizations shape instruction. Viewpoint diversity must be defended as an educational good rather than a threat. Disagreement is not harm; it is the engine of free societies and the antidote to dogma.

A renewal of civic and moral education must draw on sources that predate the ideological capture of the last half-century, such as classical texts, foundational religious and philosophical traditions, and the real historical record that anchors justice in truth rather than in grievance. Institutions that use schools as pipelines for activism, mainly unions, NGOs, consultancies, and political networks, must be held publicly accountable when they repurpose the classroom for ideological ends rather than shared civic life.

TRACE exists because the struggle over education is, at its core, a struggle over conscience. If the next generation is taught that truth is oppressive, that identity is destiny, and that justice is merely vengeance renamed, the West will not just lose a cultural argument. It will see its moral architecture destroyed at the roots. A civilization without those roots cannot bear the weight of peaceful disagreement; it splinters. What was once a living moral tradition becomes a hollow trunk, and the society built upon it begins to wither from the inside out.

The way forward is not to abandon the language of justice, compassion, and solidarity, but to reclaim it and to insist that these words once required something of us: honesty, discipline, courage, restraint. The question that opened the moral story of the West, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” still stands. What must change is our answer. A society that sees itself only through the lens of victimhood or revenge cannot keep anyone. A civilization that remembers its moral foundation can.

“Civilizations do not fall when they lose power. They fall when they lose memory.”

Sources and References

Primary Texts and Foundational Works

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.
Aristotle and Plato. Apology, Republic, Meno. Translated by G. M. A. Grube and C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1992.
The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). Jewish Publication Society translation.
The Talmud. Babylonian Talmud, various tractates. Standard editions.
Rashi. Commentary on the Torah. Translated by Rabbi A. Y. Rosenberg. New York: Judaica Press.
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat. The Spirit of the Laws. Translated by Anne M. Cohler, Basia C. Miller, and Harold S. Stone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Marxist, Critical, and Revolutionary Thought

Engels, Friedrich. The Condition of the Working Class in England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers, 1971.
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria. “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” American Educational Research Journal 32, no. 3 (1995): 465–491.
Marcuse, Herbert. “Repressive Tolerance.” In A Critique of Pure Tolerance, edited by Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington Moore Jr., and Herbert Marcuse, 81–118. Boston: Beacon Press, 1965.
Marx, Karl. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977.
Marx, Karl. “On the Jewish Question.” In Early Writings, translated by Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton. London: Penguin Classics, 1992.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. London: Verso, 2012.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Continuum, 1970.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.

Historical and Political Studies

Applebaum, Anne. Gulag: A History. New York: Doubleday, 2003.
Beckerman, Gal. When They Come for Us, We’ll Be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010.
Camus, Albert. The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. Translated by Anthony Bower. New York: Vintage International, 1991.
Camus, Albert. Resistance, Rebellion, and Death: Essays. Translated by Justin O’Brien. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror: A Reassessment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Dikötter, Frank. The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962–1976. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2016.
Morris, Benny. 1948: A History of the First Arab–Israeli War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
Orwell, George. Homage to Catalonia. London: Secker & Warburg, 1938.
Orwell, George. Animal Farm: A Fairy Story. London: Secker & Warburg, 1945.
Orwell, George. 1984. London: Secker & Warburg, 1949.
Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 1991.
Ro’i, Yaacov. Soviet Decision-Making in Practice: The USSR and Israel, 1947–1954. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1980.
Shapira, Anita. Israel: A History. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2012.
Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism. New York: Schocken Books, 2003.
Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage Books, 1966.