How Critical Theory Redefines Good As Evil
Bradley Green's latest book, 'What is Critical Theory,' offers valuable insight into how Marxism threatens to undermine the family and subvert Christian morality.In 2016, I got a call from my editor at Simon & Schuster in New York. The company was putting out a new edition of my first novel, "Girl" (1994), and redoing the cover and interior design, in preparation for its re-release.
A new edition is usually a happy occasion for a writer. If your book is still relevant after 20+ years, that’s an accomplishment.
Books have a moral authority that TV, TikTok and YouTube lack. And we all know how leftists crave moral authority.
On the phone, my editor told me that besides a new cover, the company had some young editors look at the text as well.
At first, I didn’t understand. Why would they review the text after 20 years?
She explained that these editors were recent college graduates who had studied racism, sexism, and the latest critical theory. Their job was to ensure that Simon & Schuster didn’t accidentally publish something inappropriate or hurtful to unrepresented minorities or aggrieved groups.
This definitely sounded unusual to me. But I wasn’t worried. "Girl" had been considered “edgy” in its time, but it had sold well and been made into a movie. It had been translated into several languages.
I assumed whatever controversy it had generated was now deemed to be within the bounds of acceptability.
So I was surprised and alarmed when she told me these new editors had some issues with "Girl."
In this way, I was introduced to the possibility that progressive activists — “sensitivity readers” — could literally edit your book.
Because "Girl" was 20 years old, I was given the option of declining any major changes. Therefore, no real damage was done.
But it was a scary omen for the future. If they were scrutinizing older books in this way, what would they do to books that hadn’t been published yet?
RELATED: My parents ‘arranged my marriage’ at 16; maybe I should have taken them up on it

Recently, I came across a new nonfiction work that addresses this trend in publishing: "That Book Is Dangerous! How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the Culture Wars Are Remaking Publishing."
In this compelling book, young literary scholar Adam Szetela goes into great detail about the arrival of “sensitivity readers" and the other forms of Orwellian madness that descended on the publishing industry shortly after Trump took office.
It is quite entertaining to read and gives countless examples of how ridiculous and convoluted leftist ideology has become in the book business.
During this period, writers, editors, fans, and bloggers accused each other of racism, sexism, white supremacy, homophobia, and every other imaginable transgression. Careers were destroyed, people were fired, first-time authors saw their dreams dissolve before their eyes. And this over things like, “Is a white writer allowed to describe a black character?”
It was the ultimate purity spiral. It was a circular firing squad!
When I first heard about "This Book Is Dangerous," I assumed young Szetela was a conservative. Who else would write such a book?
But no: He has a Ph.D. in English literature from an Ivy League university (Cornell). Which means he’s required to be left of center.
So he’s not writing from the point of view of "look at these crazy cultural Marxists trying to destroy our culture."
No, he’s trying to reel in his leftist peers because he can see how much damage they are doing to their own (and his) cause!
It’s satisfying to read books where leftists tell on themselves, where by some fluke they stumble onto the truth, then are forced to denounce that truth, and then realize they are attacking themselves!
It’s like watching a dog chase its tail. “Hey Fido, that tail you’re biting? That’s you.”
Another thing we learn from "That Book Is Dangerous!" is how much of this cultural warfare was waged inside the young adult and children’s genres.
Surprise, surprise, it turns out that socialist/progressive/DSA types really want to control what young people are exposed to.
And one way they do that is through books. Especially books that get read to them by their parents or recommended by their teachers at school.
Books have a moral authority that TV, TikTok and YouTube lack. And we all know how leftists crave moral authority. Even when they have to denounce each other to get it.
So yeah, I recommend "That Book Is Dangerous!" It’s a good read and a vindicating experience for anyone who has dealt with the now fully politicized publishing industry.
My own relationship with that industry quickly deteriorated in the years that followed this situation. Not that I had any say in the matter. Once Trump was elected, heterosexual white guys were mostly unwelcome in mainstream publishing.
This was the publishing industry’s petty revenge on American men for daring to vote for Trump.
As for myself, I felt lost without my mainstream writing career. But eventually I found new writing opportunities, where I feel much more at home and in sync with my colleagues.
Last year, here in Portland, I went to an author event at my local bookstore. The book was called "On Fire for God: Fear, Shame, Poverty, and the Making of the Christian Right." It was a memoir by Josiah Hesse.
The event description said the memoir was about Hesse’s “bleak and difficult childhood in a small, rural Evangelical community in Iowa.”
My guess is that his literary agent or his editor understood how hungry mainstream publishers are for books that attack and slander the Christian faith.
Apparently, Hesse suffered mental anguish as a child when he was told by church elders that he was going to be tortured in hell for his sins.
Breaking with his church and family while still in his teens, he struck out on his own, eventually becoming a successful writer and journalist. Now he had written a book exposing the Christian right.
Hesse was doing a national book tour. He was traveling the country doing interviews and podcasts. He had just been featured on National Public Radio.
Needless to say, the mainstream media loved this book. A full frontal attack on the Midwestern evangelicals is always welcome in their circles. Especially if the author escaped the oppression of the church and found shelter in the safe spaces of progressive liberalism.
The book event began with Josiah Hesse making a grand entrance into the bookstore’s event area.
I didn’t know what to expect from such an author in terms of appearance, but I was definitely not expecting the rock-star shag haircut, the crisp white shirt, the shimmering black dinner jacket, or the elegant cravat around his neck.
Had this guy come here on his yacht? His face had definitely been moisturized. He looked like he could be in an ABBA tribute band.
Hesse took the stage and began his talk. He described growing up as an evangelical Christian.
As a young man, he was sensitive and imaginative and didn’t fit in. His parents, meanwhile, were loyal evangelicals. His dad believed in the “end times” and the eventual rise of the Antichrist.
In his teen years, Hesse’s feelings of alienation from his family and community got progressively worse. It didn’t help matters that he developed a taste for wearing high heels and trying on his mother’s clothes.
So it turns out that Josiah was gay! Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Eventually, he did what so many young gay people do: When he was old enough, he moved to the nearest big city. In this case, Denver.
There, he scraped by, working odd jobs and picking up writing gigs. Over time, he was able to develop his talent and eventually got a literary agent and published a book called "Runner's High" at a major publishing house.
Watching him talk, he seemed like an upbeat guy. He told funny stories. He didn’t seem traumatized by his Christian upbringing. He was just gay. And now he was a successful writer who was gay.
RELATED: My search for America's last decent public libraries

I also noticed the “breaking with his family” part of the story wasn’t quite as severe as promised. In his talk, he described returning home, hanging out with his dad, meeting up with old friends, reconnecting as best he could.
It was an interesting and relatable story.
So what happened to the evil Christian right? That’s what the book was supposed to be about. Where’s the trauma? Where’s the abuse? Where are the scars?
The Portland audience seemed restless and disappointed. Where was the evil? That’s what they came for. WE WANT OUR CHRISTIAN EVIL!
I haven’t read the book, so I don’t know for sure what’s in it. Hesse did quote some statistics during his talk.
These statistics seemed designed to reassure the anti-Christian audience that he was on their side. Trump is bad. Conservatives are neanderthals. Christians are brainwashed and in some cases predatory.
But I was skeptical. I didn’t believe Hesse was really this simpleminded. He was clearly an intelligent guy. He wasn’t super political. He didn’t hate his family, or his town, or his old friends.
He had moved away from his rural community, as any talented gay person would do. He found his people in Denver. And now he was writing books and living his best life.
My guess is that his literary agent, or his editor, or maybe Hesse himself understood how hungry mainstream publishers are for books that attack and slander the Christian faith.
They especially love books that confirm the stereotype: “small-town Christians = bigots + racists.”
These memoirs are so popular that there’s a formula:
That’s the genre that Josiah Hesse’s "On Fire for God" supposedly belongs to. (See also "Educated" by Tara Westover, another memoir with almost the exact same storyline.)
Did Josiah strictly adhere to that formula? More or less. My main impression of the author: He looked happy. His writing career was going great. He was on a national tour. He was staying in nice hotels. He was wearing a cravat.
And I’m sure his publishers got what they wanted too. Another book that confirms that educated people, good people, moral people are uniformly against the Christian right, which is apparently an ongoing threat to our nation.
The only problem is: Whenever someone writes a book about the “dangerous Christian right,” it turns out he is just describing another small town in Iowa — usually, a town where, if you actually went there, you would find kind, decent people who, when you brought up the “Christian right,” wouldn’t even know what you were talking about.
Politicians and bureaucrats routinely claim that America is experiencing a historic drop in crime and that, in many parts of the country, the streets have never been safer. Yet for everyday citizens who see boarded-up storefronts and brazen daylight robberies, there’s an unsettling sense that the reality on the ground tells an entirely different story.
This is not a matter of misperception. As Anna Giaritelli, a seasoned homeland security reporter for the Washington Examiner, details in her book "Under Assault," the numbers being fed to the public are systematically manipulated.
'You don’t know what you don’t know until you find out the hard way sometimes.'
Giaritelli experienced this firsthand when moving to Washington, D.C. Carefully examining official data was a priority during the neighborhood search. “I looked at the crime stats before I moved to Capitol Hill," she told me, "and selected my home there based on blocks on Capitol Hill that were the safest and showed the least amount of crime incidents."
What she didn’t know was that the Metropolitan Police Department’s public crime map didn’t show the whole picture. It only displayed first-degree and select second-degree felonies. Most felonies and misdemeanors were entirely absent. In other words, the map only flagged major, headline-grabbing crimes like homicides or armed robberies. It completely skipped over everyday break-ins, property theft, and assaults.
"Whether it’s a resident or a business owner, people base their decisions on where to move on that crime map," Giaritelli argues.
"And not to include all crimes shows an inaccurate picture of the state of public safety in D.C. I would not have moved to this block had I known the real extent of crime in the area. I’d argue Washington, D.C., officials are liable for misleading the public, particularly victims like myself who they knowingly deceive."
When local governments sanitize data, families buy homes in dangerous areas and entrepreneurs invest life savings in storefronts that are highly vulnerable. By blinding the public, officials make it impossible to accurately assess risk, leaving citizens exposed.

For individuals living in quiet suburbs or rural towns, spiking urban crime rates can seem like someone else's problem. It is tempting to look at the mayhem in major metropolitan areas and assume it stays within city limits.
However, the manipulation of this data is a widespread issue that ignores municipal borders.
"I think city crime stats matter for everyone, regardless of whether they live in a suburb or rural America," Giaritelli warns. "You don’t know what you don’t know until you find out the hard way sometimes."
The methods used by big-city bureaucrats to improve their public image are easily exported. Whether in a small town or a massive coastal metropolis, police departments and municipal leaders answer to the same political pressures to show downward trends. If they learn they can rewrite reality with the stroke of a pen, they will.
As Giaritelli observes, a resident may not find out a town is doing this "until you become a victim and go looking for your stat, only to find you didn’t meet the threshold to be counted." It remains unknown how deep or widespread this miscounting truly is across America.
RELATED: 'Citizen Vigilante': A cinematic hand grenade lobbed at the cathedral of liberal pieties

This growing awareness has fueled a massive pushback. Giaritelli’s petition demanding absolute crime data transparency has received nearly 20,000 signatures. This groundswell signals a deeper crisis marked by the collapse of public trust in institutional data.
Public safety is one of the rare issues that unites most people across the political aisle. Sure, there is a loud faction of progressives who would gladly replace the local police force with hug-dispensing, gender-fluid therapists, but the vast majority, just like conservatives, want law and order. At the end of the day, everyday citizens simply want safe neighborhoods. But when government statistics become fiction, the entire justice system breaks down.
Giaritelli lays out the structural domino effect:
We can’t properly fund the public safety, the judicial system, and the prisons and jails in our communities if we don’t know how much crime is actually occurring. Covering up crime stats causes problems throughout the system. If we don’t know how much crime there is, we cannot plan and adequately respond to it.
When cities hide numbers, they intentionally starve the system of resources. Giaritelli points out the real-world cost:. In D.C., underfunding led to a severe lack of jail space. A violent offender arrested in her area was released the very next day. He lived blocks from her apartment. He went on to be arrested five more times before going to trial, and each time, the judge released him right back onto the streets due to a lack of space.
If those crimes aren’t counted, she notes, "then we’re not setting an annual budgets for the next year to take into account the need for jail space, the need for victims funding, and the need for more police."
When citizens can no longer trust official government statistics, decision-making becomes distorted. Budgets become less reliable, serious crimes may be undercounted, and law-abiding families ultimately bear the consequences.
Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in "Under Assault" is how Giaritelli discovered this institutional gaslighting.
In April 2020, Giaritelli was walking to the post office just blocks from the U.S. Capitol when she was physically and sexually assaulted on a public sidewalk in broad daylight. Her attacker was eventually caught and sent to federal prison. Later, while working on a routine newsroom assignment evaluating D.C. crime trends, she decided to look up her own incident on the city's official crime map.
There was no mark. No pin. Nothing.
"When I contacted D.C. police to inquire about my specific assault, I was told that it did not meet the threshold to be counted by D.C. police on the crime map."
A citizen was sexually assaulted, the perpetrator was convicted in a federal court and sent to prison, yet according to the city's public-facing ledger, the crime never happened.
To make matters worse, the police department removed individual incident pins entirely. In their place, they covered the city map in vague, shifting shades of color to denote general crime levels. It is a clear case of bureaucratic deception. By erasing distinct markers, they make it completely impossible for a victim to verify whether an assault was ever officially counted. Giaritelli knows this only too well, even as many Americans remain unaware of the highly unethical practice.
When institutions trusted with safety care more about protecting their public image than protecting human lives, the system is actively hostile to the truth. The next time an official stands behind a podium and claims crime is down, it’s worth listening. But it’s also worth verifying it for yourself.
The truth about fossil fuels & why the oil industry has 'to keep quiet,' according to a geology expert