This is 💯 percent on the money! pic.twitter.com/8yBgbf7qyA

— John Stubbins (@JohnMStubbins) October 12, 2022

Critical Race Theory is the Marxism of Skin Color

@ConceptualJames 2 minute clip where CRT is shown to be the Marxist grift that it is. pic.twitter.com/zLSZAbyNun

— audiocoffee (@audiocoffee1) February 2, 2022

What is Critical Race theory?

 Let's start with critical legal theory, which is what critical race theory grew out of.

Critical legal theory is the theory that there are no "innocent" rules in law, no "neutral" laws. All rules, all laws, have winners and losers, and are chosen for cynical reasons.

Rules are chosen to favor one group or another -- and the group which is always favored by the law are the wealthy, the powerful.

Because the law is dressed up as something neutral and objective and just and wise and good, and society propagandizes it as such (for society is controlled by the wealthy and the powerful who selects the laws), the people are blind to the fact that rules and laws are in fact chosen to favor one group over another.

Critical legal theory seeks to make what is invisible -- the cynical nature of imposing laws and rules and protecting power and privilege (we'll come back to that in a minute) for those who already have it -- and provides a "toolbox" of "critical lenses" and deconstructive techniques for doing so.

One idea put forth by the critical theorists is that property is, well, theft, and that the very idea of owing property is a conspiracy of the descendants of robbers who stole the land centuries ago against the descendants of virtuous non-robbers who didn't steal land or had land stolen from them.

All of our assumptions about the legal order must be "challenged."

Sound familiar?

And what is critical race theory? Well critical race theory is the same thing except 1, it hypothesizes that rules and laws are not selected to protect the wealthy and powerful but the white (and, per the intersectional branch of critical theory, the male and straight), and 2, it expands the critique into not just law but all "systems" of society, into everything.

The reason I say this is to point this out: Whenever someone says that you have "privilege," that you should "check your privilege," or that you are "oblivious to your privilege," or that you are "punching down," they are employing the language of critical theory, and using the "toolbox" of critical theory, to deconstruct the oppressive systems of society, and to illuminate the "invisible chains" that oppress the oppressed classes.

THAT IS A CONCEPT DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM CRITICAL RACE THEORY. THAT IS CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN ACTION.

Whenever a teacher tells your kid that he is privileged due to his skin color (or sex, or sexual preference, or able-bodiedness) that teacher IS doing Critical Race Theory. He is teaching your child Critical Race Theory. He is indoctrinating your child in Critical Race Theory concepts.

Read the whole thing.

When we tell you critical race theory is not taught in our schools, we're lying.

As an admin for the largest school district in Indiana, here's what we mean when we tell you that we aren't "teaching" Critical Race Theory: pic.twitter.com/f6RLghcw2R

— Tony Kinnett (@TheTonus) November 4, 2021

McAuliffe says resisting Critical Race Theory is Racist

Virginia Democrat Terry McAuliffe suggests parents concerned about Critical Race Theory are racist, then refuses to define CRT. pic.twitter.com/MKnnb5BC4S

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 8, 2021

Woke Racial Activism Bears Fruit: Gallup Survey Shows Positive Views On Race Relations In Free Fall

 

Professor Willaim Jacobson: Views of race relations fell off a cliff in 2013 correlating to the launch of the Black Lives Matter movement, and went into further freefall more recently with the rise of woke Critical Race politics.

Since the inception of this website, I have warned of the destructive impact on our society of racial politics engaged in by Democrats.

On October 15, 2008, just three days after launch, I wrote “Race” As Political Weapon:

The suppression of legitimate political expression through false accusations of racism by the Obama campaign and its supporters is the defining theme of the 2008 campaign. This tactic, while it may be successful, is shameful and has damaged our society in ways we may not understand for years.

It’s been downhill since then, but the politics fine-tuned by the Obama campaign and supporters really hit its stride with the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2012-2013 based on the false racial narrative of the Trayvon Martin case, and the national growth of the movement after the fabricated narrative of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” in the Michael Brown case in 2014.

...

Here is the headline and talking point for the latest Gallup survey, Ratings of Black-White Relations at New Low:

For the second consecutive year, U.S. adults’ positive ratings of relations between Black and White Americans are at their lowest point in more than two decades of measurement. Currently, 42% of Americans say relations between the two groups are “very” or “somewhat” good, while 57% say they are “somewhat” or “very” bad.

..., the reading has eroded nine percentage points over the past two years as the nation has grappled with the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent nationwide protests and calls for racial justice.

If your objective is to create a race war, there's nothing you would do differently.

 

Critical Race Theory in Academia

Critical Race Theory is Cancer

pic.twitter.com/mKuAGvFGrf

— Ben Owen (@hrkbenowen) May 29, 2021

Fight for Schools

Critical Race Theory in a Single Image

 

WSJ Reporters Follow NYT, Tell Publisher To Crack Down On ‘Misinformation’ In Opinion Section

A group of more than 280 WSJ reporters, editors, and other staff sent a letter to Latour on Tuesday calling for more separation between the paper’s news and opinion sections online. The letter also asked for more freedom for reporters to critique opinion articles online and said the opinion staff should be more restrictive in what it chooses to publish, according to WSJ which reported on the letter.

The letter also pointed to a June 2 op-ed by The Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald titled “The Myth of Systemic Police Racism.” Mac Donald argued that the “charge of systemic police bias was wrong during the Obama years and remains so today. … A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.”

While the article has not been updated with a correction, the letter accuses Mac Donald of cherry-picking data and drawing an “erroneous conclusion.”

“Employees of color publicly spoke out about the pain this Opinion piece caused them during company-held discussions surrounding diversity initiatives,” the letter continues, adding if the “company is serious about better supporting its employees of color, at a bare minimum it should raise Opinion’s standards so that misinformation about racism isn’t published.”

Fire them.

Is "true North" Nordo-centrism?"

The direction of "North" is racist on the pages of the NY Times.

Reason is also racist:

I think that what modern philosophers call “pure” reason — the Cartesian ego cogito and Kant’s transcendental consciousness — is a white male Euro-Christian construction.

Meanwhile, Greece voted for pulling the covers over its head and telling reality to go away.   It remains to be seen if the rest of Europe is willing to allow this adolescent country to live in its basement forever.

American University Professor hate tweets Dr. Benjamin Carson

Let's admit it, Conservatives are happy to have a prominent, articulate black man who shares their values.  Do I need to add "courageous" to that list?   Because incredible pressure is exerted on you if you have back skin to toe the Liberal line.

 

Deen Feeelon is one of academia's Liberal enforcers, one of a multitude who punish you  if you stray.

 

 

John Hayward:

Besides being stupid and offensive, people like this are so drearily predictable. What a surprise it would be if they paid due respect to Dr. Carson and offered stimulating moral or intellectual disagreement with what he said. But no, it's just the usual stern order to return to the liberal plantation immediately, or Carson's racial identity will be revoked.

The Radicalism of Michelle Obama

The Blaze examines Michelle Obama's background while at Princeton.  With special emphasis on the Third World Center.

If ever there was an example of the TWC governing board’s obsession with race, an editorial from October 21, 1981 is it. The members took great offense to an op-ed titled “Rebuilding Race Relations,” calling the article “racist, offensive, and inaccurate” for daring to question the group’s true commitment and to present a thesis on race relations counter to its own.

“The word RE-building implies that race relations once existed and, for some mysterious reasons, fell apart … ,” the board wrote in a scathing letter to the editor. “We, on the other hand, believe that race relations have ​never​ been and still are not at a satisfactory level. We are not RE-building. We cannot RE-build something that never existed in the first place.”

“Don’t hide behind excuses such as a lack of effort [to integrate with the Princeton campus] on our part,” the revealing letter added.“The bottom line is that white students on this campus are racist, but they may not realize it.”

Read the whole thing and view the video.

How the Colleges Skew U.S. History

Minding the Campus

What about the situation at a larger--and more nationally renowned--History Department? To find out, I turned to the fall 2012 offerings at UCLA.

The department's webpage excitedly announces three new course clusters in which undergraduates can specialize. Two of the topics raise eyebrows: "Gender, Sexuality, Women" (tailored to those, apparently, for whom the department's more general race/class/gender approach isn't enough) and "History in Practice," which seems to invite politicization. "This cluster," the department indicates, "aims to provide an organizational footing for the Department's commitment to applying history in the service of the larger community." The third new cluster is oral history.

At the class level, this semester the UCLA department website lists 16 courses in U.S. history since 1789. No courses deal with the Early Republic or the early 19th century. The only coverage of the Civil War comes in the form of small portions of thematic courses dealing either with race or gender (Slavery: Narrative, Novel, and Film, History of Women in the U.S., 1860-1980).It offers no classes on U.S. military history or U.S. constitutional history. The only standard survey comes in the class dealing with the New Deal, World War II, and the immediate postwar period.

Look what the department emphasizes. A quarter of the classes deal with race. Another two courses focus on ethnicity--including Asian-American cuisine; another two focus on gender. Fifteen or twenty years ago, students might encounter these courses in an ethnic studies department, not a history department at one of the nation's leading public universities.

Consider, moreover, what students receive from two of the few UCLA courses whose topics, at first glance, appear to be "traditional." One course, on social movements in the 1960s and 1970s, is hopelessly slanted toward the left. We might expect some treatment of significant right-wing social movements, including the grassroots conservative activists profiled in Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm; the conservative women mobilized by Phyllis Schlafly to oppose the ERA; the pro-life activists mobilized by Roe; and perhaps most broadly, the emergence of a powerful grassroots movement of conservative Christians who played a critical role in American society for the next three decades. But these are not covered. Whom does the course profile? African-Americans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans, "At Large Advocates," and "Radical Women and Gay Women."

The Trap of Minority Studies Programs

Minority Studies Programs do not prepare its graduates to become part of the American culture or to make a meaningful contribution to the country’s economic well-being. It does produce people who hate America and what it stands for.   That, and ripping off the system, is what they were designed to do.  It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Minorities who came to America before the Left captured academia were successful because they received a good education and were not sidetracked, their lives ruined by charlatans who wished to exploit them.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, large populations of poor immigrants arrived in the U.S.--Irish, Italians, and Jews from Russia and Poland. Their extreme poverty placed them at the bottom of the social ladder, and they were often treated with contempt. Yet just a few generations later they were assimilated, and their rapid upward social mobility had produced mayors, senators, judges, and even Presidents from among their ranks. None of this could have happened without first-rate public education.

To be sure, they worked hard to get ahead, but they were not obstructed by something that afflicts the have-nots of today: as they walked through the school gates they were not met by people intent on luring them into Irish or Italian Studies programs whose purpose was to keep them in a state of permanent resentment over past wrongs at the hands of either Europeans or establishment America. Instead, they could give their full attention to learning. They took courses that informed them about their new land's folkways and history, which gave them both the ability and the confidence needed to grasp the opportunities it offered them.

When we compare this story with what is happening to minority students today, we see a tragedy. Just as Pinocchio went off to school with high hopes, only to be waylaid by J. Worthington Foulfellow, minority students are met on the way to campus by hard-left radicals who claim to have the interests of the newcomers at heart but in reality prey on them to advance their own selfish interests. Of course, what black students need is the same solid traditional education that had raised Irish, Italians, and Jews to full equality. But that would not serve the campus radicals' purpose. Disaffected radicals wanted to swell the ranks of the disaffected, not the ranks of the cheerfully upward mobile. Genuine progress for minority students would mean their joining and thus strengthening the mainstream of American society--the mainstream that campus radicals loathe.

Faculty radicals worked hard to put the kind of coursework that had served others so well out of the reach of minority students. They stigmatized those courses as Eurocentric, oppressive, and dominant-class oriented, and they worked successfully to remove them from curricular requirements. The very idea of upward mobility was made to appear a capitulation to the corrupt value system of the dominant class.

Exactly.

MSNBC's Touré Has Epic Race-Baiting Meltdown On CNN

Vetting the President and the Media

Michelle Malkin vs. Juan Williams defending the PBS candy coating of Obama.

Peter Wood on Critical Race Theory and Derrick Bell

The re-release of videos showing Barack Obama as a Harvard Law School student in 1991 speaking at a rally in support of professor Derrick Bell has so far occasioned little more than a yawn from academe. The late Professor Bell (1930-2011) is a reasonably well-known figure among those of us who follow racial controversies in higher education, but he is far from a household name. Moreover, there is a triple discount available on this purchase. The precipitating event was (a) long ago; (b) involved intemperate declarations by a student; and (c) requires taking seriously racial bombast by a black professor. These provide a neat package of reasons to put the matter aside as a pseudo-controversy.

That may, however, prove to be a mistaken judgment. Bell could come into sharper focus for the general public in the days ahead, and we don’t know yet how deep or durable his influence on Obama really was. At least at one point, the association worried some Obama supporters. Harvard Law professor Charles Ogletree referring to the footage admits, “I hid this during the 2008 campaign,” but “I don’t care if they find it now.”

Read the whole thing.

Verbally violent in the public square.

Many people have commented that political discourse has become more extreme, more violent. I suppose, compared to the uniformity that prevailed in the 1950s, that’s true. It’s undoubtedly true that the vast increase in the means of communication had a major impact. After all, the NY Times set the agenda for “news” back then.  There were three TV networks.  The TV news heads read the Times to find out what the "news" was and reported it the way the Times reported it.  Walter Cronkite ended his show with the tag-line “and that’s the way it is.” They determined what the “news” was and what it meant. With the exception of pamphleteers like William F. Buckley and his National Review, if there were differing views they had no part in the public conversation because they had no voice. They may have screamed at their black-and-white screens "that’s not the way it is” but nobody heard.

Cable TV, the Internet and computer technology had something to do with increasing the rancor in the public square. But technology by itself doesn’t explain it. After all, if the NY Times view was really the overwhelming view of most Americans, the proliferation of media platforms would simply find more people saying the same thing.

Technology allowed major alternative views break through. It turned out the the Times did not reflect the views of most of the American people.  In fact, it's the NY Times that should be labelled as the alternative, if alternative means a small minority.  Gradually, the people who held the “Times View”™ recognized the fact that it had serious competition as the "voice of the people."  Rush Limbaugh’s success is based on the fact that he validates the beliefs of a very large part of the American public. Of course “talent on loan from God” has something to do with it, but Limbaugh’s secret is no secret at all, he says what a lot of people are thinking and does it in an interesting and entertaining way.

The people of the “Times View”™ realized that they could no longer express their beliefs in soothing, anodyne tones of the 1950s. So they ramped up the volume. They stopped ignoring the people who did not believe as they did, but started calling them names: racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, knuckle dragging Neanderthal, baby killer. And those were just the terms that can be printed in a family newspaper. It got worse, much worse.

Another factor was neatly illustrated by Thomas Sowell’s description of Derrick Bell: a man who was put in an impossible position by the ruling Liberal class.

If you are the recipient of an unearned prize, and you are aware that those around you know you got something you did not deserve, you become very angry at the ones who put you in that position. But if you value the prize more than your honor you lash out at the people who tell you that you have something you did not earn. You recognize very clearly (but you’ll never, ever admit) that the people who gave you something you didn’t earn and the people who resent it both look down on you. And you hate that. Which explains Barack Obama who was awarded a Nobel Prize ... for being black.